New 2010 Facelift Engines Questions

[matti]

The Roomster is available with the following engines:

•1.2 12V 70 bhp

•1.2 TSI 85 bhp

•1.2 TSI 105bhp (manual and DSG)

•1.6 TDI CR DPF 90 bhp

•1.6 TDI CR DPF 105 bhp

I must apologise for my ignorance in these matters as I don't know much about engines apart from the obvious size of the engine (1.2 or 1.6 etc).

I am considering purchasing a new Roomster that is the most economical to run (but can still get up hills without struggle when fully loaded) and have therefore been persuaded that diesel is the way to go. It seems that the new engines that will be released this year will be much more economical? What is the difference in terms 90 bhp and 105 bhp - I assume the 'hp' part stands for horse power but may be wrong?

TDI I assume means diesel but out of interest what is the difference between 12V and TSI? Also, some seem to be suggesting the smaller petrol engine will be as economical as the diesel? Some even say that diesel is dead.

I also would like the car to be clean as possible (the fumes not the interior) and these new models have a DPF. What is the general view of these filters? Some say they may be unreliable/problematic? We live in a ruralish area as I picked up they are not great if you only do city driving.

Finally, what does the 'CR' stand for?

Sorry for so many questions in one hit but I have not bought a new car since my Fabia nine years ago so want to get it right for the next decade!

Many thanks in advance,

Matthew.

[Babs]

hp is horsepower, yes. The difference will be in the mapping of the engine, the 105bhp engine will produce more boost in the turbo.

The 12v is a traditional naturally-aspirated engine, whereas the TSI is the new low-pressure turbocharged engine. Low emissions, good economy, but with the top end power that a diesel lacks, and without the annoying rattle of a diesel engine

DPFs are bad, in general, search is your friend!

CR is common-rail and just describes the "new" VAG diesel engines, in comparison to the previous PD engines.

Also, consider a TSI. They have a good slug of low-down grunt. You may not need a diesel

Edited 25 February, 2010 by Babs

[lemonvrs]

CR is a Fiat invention, the very first car with a CR engine as the Croma of 1986. It was a revolutionary way to inject diesel engines and Fiat sold the rights to it to Bosch. VW thought PD was the way forward when everyone else went to CR but now even VAG have succumbed to the will of Italian innovation

It basically means a smoother running and quieter and more economical diesel is possible. As for he DPFs, yes they can be a pain and not at all suitable unless you regularly drive at higher speeds or drive your car hard. They clog up and you need more frequent oil changes too as a result. Im sure the 1.2 TSI 105hp will be fine for what you want.

[The PM]

DPFs are bad if you do a lot of driving around twon and your mileage is low, if you get out onto decent roads where you can get up some speed then they should be ok, you don't need to drive your car hard all of the time... but if you use your car mainly in an urban environment then buy petrol...

Its worth bearing in mind that turbos in petrol engines run hotter than those in diesels, but both can go wrong and both will be costly to fix... with both types of engines now being complcated as each other it remains to be seen how reliable they will be in the long run!

As regards the "diesel is dead" comment, certain journos have been saying that for years and it still isn't! The reason market share has gone down is mainly to do with the scrappage scheme which has encouraged a lot of people to change from old cars to small new ones, and as most superminis are petrol, so petrols' share of the market has gone up... As I've said elswhere, petrol still has a long way to go to match diesel's economy... though from reports the new TSi engines are giving some of its flexibility.

Go out and test as many as you can and then choose which suits you best!

Edited 25 February, 2010 by The PM

[Fabia00]

I think that the new engine range will be a big boost to the roomster and fabia and make them a lot more competitive.

As far a CR technology goes I thought Fiat only invented it in response to Audi's PD technology which revloutionised diesel engines, as VAG refused to licence it to other companies unlike Fiat. As a result CR has become norm. But in the early days PD was a superior technology in terms of actual pressure think it could inject at 2000bar of pressure v 1600bar of the first cr engines the death of PD has been down to refinment as CR is much better at this and due to its extensive development has matched PD pressure, torque and emissions. It would be good if the two could be combined where the fuel is heated in a rail as in CR but then injected via individual injectors like PD.

I think that the 1.2 TSi would be as good as a diesel if you drive it economically plus its got a larger power band and lower NOx emmisions which diesels have and contribute to breathing problems.

Edited 25 February, 2010 by Fabia00

[matti]

Thank you for your replies. All very useful and interesting but now I am feeling in a quandary as this new petrol engine (1.2 TSI 105bhp) seems to be as economical and cleaner than the diesels and without the concerns of the DPF.

My current 2001 Fabia Classic is a 1.4 (MPI I think?). In Devon last year we had 5 in the car, a full load and a roof box. It has always struggled a little on hills but with this particular hill the car actually stopped. I had to reverse and then pick up speed to make it up the hill.

Will this 1.2 engine have more power than my Fabia? Is it the 'bhp' that one should look at rather than the engine size in terms of litres?

Thanks again,

Matthew.

[bluecar1]

Thank you for your replies. All very useful and interesting but now I am feeling in a quandary as this new petrol engine (1.2 TSI 105bhp) seems to be as economical and cleaner than the diesels and without the concerns of the DPF.

My current 2001 Fabia Classic is a 1.4 (MPI I think?). In Devon last year we had 5 in the car, a full load and a roof box. It has always struggled a little on hills but with this particular hill the car actually stopped. I had to reverse and then pick up speed to make it up the hill.

Will this 1.2 engine have more power than my Fabia? Is it the 'bhp' that one should look at rather than the engine size in terms of litres?

Thanks again,

Matthew.

yep it is the BHP rather than the size of the engine, but also look at the the figure of what engine speed this maximum BHP occurs

petrol cars historically tend to have maximum power higher up the rev range than diesel, which is what makes the diesels better for towing etc

but reading the bits here it seems the TSi engine seems to have removed some of that by having more power lower down than a normal petrol engine

with both petrol and diesels now having complex electronic control systems and petrols having expensive 3 way cats and diesels having DPF's i don't see much difference in reliability other than the old issues of ht leads and spark plugs

i still prefer a diesel, but have to pay a premium for it on purchase of a new car which i accept but as i do very high milage i recover that over the 6 years i tend to have a car, an i would hate to see the state of a petrol engine on my sort of milage (just passed 100k in just over 2 1/2 years)

peter

[RapidRonnie]

Will this 1.2 engine have more power than my Fabia? Is it the 'bhp' that one should look at rather than the engine size in terms of litres?

There are 2 versions of the 1.2TSI in the facelifted Fabia (85 & 105BHP) and both will have a lot more power and torque than your old Fabia (68BHP, 120NM) as well as being much more economical and with far lower C02 emissions.

[The PM]

Regarding mpg and co2 outputs, its possible to compare these two engines in the Polo:

1.2TSi 105

41.5/62.8, ave 53.3mpg

co2 - 124, Band D

1.6 TDi 90

52.3/78.5, ave 65.7

co2 - 112, Band b/c

So the diesel is over 20% more efficient, but little difference on the co2, and diesel has higher NOx and petrol has benzine...

I'd expect the figures to be a bit worse for the Roomie as its bigger and heavier...

If I was you I'd try to test both if you decide to wait, thats certainly what I intend to do!

[curleybar]

My current 2001 Fabia Classic is a 1.4 (MPI I think?). In Devon last year we had 5 in the car, a full load and a roof box. It has always struggled a little on hills but with this particular hill the car actually stopped. I had to reverse and then pick up speed to make it up the hill.

Will this 1.2 engine have more power than my Fabia? Is it the 'bhp' that one should look at rather than the engine size in terms of litres?

Thanks again,

Matthew.

Matt,

I understand your concerns ! I was once the "proud" owner of a Citroen Visa that refused to travel up any sort of a hill while fully loaded.

Choose wisely !

[pondweed]

Yes!.... and Yes!

Its really the torque we should be looking at for the comparison from the post before - the 1.6diesel will be £100 less to tax and I bet it will be much more flexible i.e. less gear changing, less need to rev.

Edited 26 February, 2010 by pondweed

[matti]

Thanks again for all your replies and advice.

Very useful having the Polo figures as they are the same engines I assume.

My mother once has a Citroen Visa and we used to put a boat on top of the car and drive to France...

One thing about the DPF, is it motorway driving that you need to 'clear' it or is 50-60 mph on A/B roads enough?

Cheers,

Matthew.

PS Anyone have any views on VW Bluemotion cars?

[Robjon]

There is a description of the DPF and how it works in the Roomie brochure, although no model of the Roomie has a DPF - yet.

The only reference made to the means of regeneration is: -

"A driving style is required during regeneration, where a constant vehicle speed above 37mph must be maintained".

The brochure does not stipulate for how long 37mph must be maintained. HTH

Rob

[Calomax]

There is a description of the DPF and how it works in the Roomie brochure, although no model of the Roomie has a DPF - yet.

The only reference made to the means of regeneration is: -

"A driving style is required during regeneration, where a constant vehicle speed above 37mph must be maintained".

The brochure does not stipulate for how long 37mph must be maintained. HTH

Rob

I understood that all the diesel Rooomsters except the lower powered 1.4 had a DPF. As for the regeneration, I'm glad I have a petrol in Guernsey with a 35mph speed limit and where it's not easy even to maintain that speed for more than a couple of minutes.

[Babs]

Yes!.... and Yes!

Its really the torque we should be looking at for the comparison from the post before - the 1.6diesel will be £100 less to tax and I bet it will be much more flexible i.e. less gear changing, less need to rev.

Diesel drivers use the word "flexible" when they really mean "I'm a lazy driver"

[The PM]

The brochure does not stipulate for how long 37mph must be maintained. HTH

I don't think that it takes very long after it tells you that it wants done, I'd have thought that for most people a decent stretch of 40 limit would do!

Trouble is that people seem to have blind spots when it comes to dash warning lights these days (fog/full beam, etc) and will then try to blame the DPF for their ignorance...

[Babs]

To be honest, you shouldn't have to drive in a specified way for the car to work!

[The PM]

There are lots of restrictions when driving a car, I'd suggest this is one of the lesser ones...

Mountain out of a molehill...

For those who don't understand them try this from the AA:

http://www.theaa.com/motoring_advice/fuels-and-environment/diesel-particulate-filters.html

Edited 1 March, 2010 by The PM

[Eccles]

For what it's worth I hummed and ha'd over similar problems for the best part of two months before finally going for the 1.6 petrol. Why?:-

1. I have heard far too many expensive stories about DPF's not only with Skoda/VW but virtually every other manufacturer as well! They just haven't got it right yet and unless you regularly do a 20 mile run doing 60 mph or more (which I don't) you will finish up with an expensive bill of some sort eventually.

2. Having done a test drive in a 1.4 petrol, I concluded that I wanted something with a bit more shove as I quite often carry heavy stuff around (main reason for getting a Roomy in the first place). In this connection I took a serious look at the Citroen Blingo and FIAT Blobbo only to discover that their petrol engines are totally gutless and of course they both have DPF's on their diesels.

3. The 1.6 petrol Roomy seems to have that extra shove I was looking for and the fuel economy difference between the 1.4 and the 1.6 is so small as makes no difference unless you are a regular 80 mph merchant which I am not.

Yeah I know, the Road tax is an issue too but is it really (£150) when one is spending at least £1200 per annum on petrol?

[The PM]

I got a lift back with a minicab driver last night in a new Superb with the 2.0TDi with DPF, he said that he didn't even notice it and has had no problems at all, even though much of his driving is around town... I tend to think that the DPF "issue" is something that very few people suffer from, but those that do make a big noise about it out of all proportion to the size of the issue iteself! I certainly wouldn't discount a car because one was fitted, there's far more important things to consider first... such as a lack of diesel auto and getting a Roomie without that stupid centre armrest in the front!

[RapidRonnie]

such as a lack of diesel auto and getting a Roomie without that stupid centre armrest in the front!

Is it compulsory now is it? I had to pay for the one in mine and glad I did, it's useful for mints, ipod lead e.t.c. and on motorway crusing it I use it for it's intended purpose too!

[The PM]

Is it compulsory now is it?

It was on the 3... and I have never come across something which is such a waste of space... yes, on a long motorway trip it does serve a purpose, but its positioned so it interferes with my gear changing and as most of my mileage is non-motorway it spends all of its time folded back!

[Calomax]

It was on the 3... and I have never come across something which is such a waste of space... yes, on a long motorway trip it does serve a purpose, but its positioned so it interferes with my gear changing and as most of my mileage is non-motorway it spends all of its time folded back!

I use mine all the time even though I'm doing short trips. It does interfere with the handbrake but I manage, and I'm someone who applies the hendbrake every time

Where it is a nuisance, is doing up the seatbelts. I can manage but when I have passengers I tend to lift it while they do their belt up. If it didn't lock in the upwards position, I'd lift it for the handbrake but it's easier to work round it than to fiddle with the release button.

I'm please I have it on long drives as I get a painful shoulder without it.

Anyway, as it's an oprional extra, it should be easy to remove if you don't want it.

Edited 8 March, 2010 by Calomax

[The PM]

I can't touch it... its a Motability car and they won't let you alter anything once its bought... I suppose I could take it out and put it back but I can't be bothered it just resides in the "up" position! :yes:

[Eccles]

Quite surprised with this arm rest topic; my brand new SE doesn't have one and I can't even see where one might be secured. Maybe Skoda have recently given up the idea..... Changing subject;- I decided to pay the extra £40 and have a spare wheel. Actually got round to having a look at it yesterday and it appears to be a full-sized tyre albeit mounted mounted on a steel wheel whereas standard wheels on SE's are alloy. I was a bit surprised about this because when I ordered the car, the dealer told me it would be a "temporary" and "small" wheel.