Hi All,

As some of you will know from reading my posts I'm in the market to buy a new car and its likely to be either a vRS estate or a 1.2TSi Elegance estate. Am test driving a vRS and 1.2 TSi this weekend and may make the decision to buy then.

Being impatient, curiosity has gooten the better of me and I've been wondering how the 1.2 TSi drives in comparison to the 1.6 TDi CR. All the stats seem to suggest its a bit faster off the line and top end. As good as I am sure it is I'm against getting the diesel as this car wont be doing many miles and I dont think we'd benefit much financially from having it; also worried about experiencing DPF issues. I have a Golf 2.0 TDi CR with DPF but its a company car and I do alot of miles in it so its never going to become an issue.

Also whilst the vRS is DSG only, I'm also unsure - if the 1.2 TSi becomes the option - whether to tick the DSG box or not. The DSG car does seem really good value it is not a great deal dearer than the manual anyway and you also get ESP thrown in which you have to spec on the manual (a box I would be ticking as I think ESP is essential this day and age). My Dad has the 7 speed DSG in his 1.4 TFSi A3 and I have to say its a great gearbox but without the paddle shifts and no choice to put them on I fear it may be a bit dull to drive.

Would appreciate your views.

Hi All,

As some of you will know from reading my posts I'm in the market to buy a new car and its likely to be either a vRS estate or a 1.2TSi Elegance estate. Am test driving a vRS and 1.2 TSi this weekend and may make the decision to buy then.

Being impatient, curiosity has gooten the better of me and I've been wondering how the 1.2 TSi drives in comparison to the 1.6 TDi CR. All the stats seem to suggest its a bit faster off the line and top end. As good as I am sure it is I'm against getting the diesel as this car wont be doing many miles and I dont think we'd benefit much financially from having it; also worried about experiencing DPF issues. I have a Golf 2.0 TDi CR with DPF but its a company car and I do alot of miles in it so its never going to become an issue.

Also whilst the vRS is DSG only, I'm also unsure - if the 1.2 TSi becomes the option - whether to tick the DSG box or not. The DSG car does seem really good value it is not a great deal dearer than the manual anyway and you also get ESP thrown in which you have to spec on the manual (a box I would be ticking as I think ESP is essential this day and age). My Dad has the 7 speed DSG in his 1.4 TFSi A3 and I have to say its a great gearbox but without the paddle shifts and no choice to put them on I fear it may be a bit dull to drive.

Would appreciate your views.

Get the 1.6cr tdi 105bhp impressed you will beelegance of course with toys

PLEASE SEE 'FURBYTOM'S' POST BELOW!

I do not have either engine in my car. However, the TSI engine you are talking about I believe is the 122ps version of the 1.2. This has just the blower and is not charged. I'm sure you know that. But for the benefit of others I thought I'd mention this fact so as not to scare anyone. I am hearing some reports that this engine may have issues but no one can give me any definitive answers in the trade yet. These issue may concern premature piston ring wear and very high oil consumption in some cars (not necessarily Skoda at the moment), and issues concerning the smooth running of the motor. Many report that it runs rough as hell on some fuel and is mechanically very noisy. With that in mind it could be useful to do some more digging before making a decision. It may be the reported issues are isolated but best be sure. In any event, experience has shown often that the more power you squeeze out of a small petrol unit of this size the more potential issues it will have. It's always been that way and likely always will be.

It is known the 1.6cr diesel engine is a peach in Skoda Fabia's with just a very limited number of people believing they have fuel consumption issues. Most, probably 99.5% of people don't have issues at all, of any kind. And mechanically it is bullet proof. There does not seem to be any DPF issues at all on the Fabia's that have the 1.6cr even with people I know that only do low mileage of less than 7,000 miles per year and bumble about just doing the shopping trips.

I'm currently interested to know of any issues anyone has with the 122ps unit, so please do tell if you get definitive answers about any issues.

Edited 26 January, 201115 yr by Estate Man

However, the TSI engine you are talking about I believe is the 122ps version of the 1.2.

There are only two power outputs available for the 1.2 TSI in the fabia - 85Bhp and 105Bhp (latter available with and without DSG).......

Tom, thank you very much. You are right of course. It's the 1.4TSI I'm referring to. Spent the day in hospital yesterday and didn't sleep much, concentration not what it should be!

Tom, thank you very much. You are right of course. It's the 1.4TSI I'm referring to. Spent the day in hospital yesterday and didn't sleep much, concentration not what it should be!

I know how you feel, I spent 3 hours straight sat in front of a computer monitor answering 200 multiple choice questions for an exam this afternoon -brain now feels fried!

p.s hope your hospital stay was nothing too seroius and you are now well? :yes:

Thanks Estate Man & Furbytom, was indeed talking about the 105bhp version. I've heard nothing but good things about this engine, particularly in Polo, Golf and Yeti road test reports in various car mags. I just like the idea of a tiny petrol engine having 1600cc levels of power with 1800cc levels torque, I suppose i'll find out at the weekend but expect to be blown away by the vRS.

I'm worried that I'm building myself up for a fall and might not like the Fabia at all. The one thing that has concerned me is that I know the Fabia is largely based on the old type 9N Polo platform (and not latest 6R Polo like the Seat Ibiza). I'm sure it wont but if it drives anything like the wifes 9N Polo - which drives like a sack of **** if I have to absolutely frank! Only its general solidarity and reliability (and that I rarely have to drive it!) has saved it from being chopped sooner.

I might be alone here regarding the new VAG CR diesels but I'm not sold on the linear power curve of the new engines, certainly the 2.0 CR. I liked the sudden punch of the 1.9 & 2.0 PD units; found them much easier to drive at a pace without having to work hard and would happily put up with a bit of noise and breathlessness at the top end of the rev range for that kind of power delivery. Yes the CR's are very quiet by comparison but I dont understand why they've made such strides to make them drive more like a petrol and then have left them really breathless at the top end like nearly every other diesel out there including the PD's. They are also extremely laggy from standstill and my car has left me in a couple of embarrasing situations that you wouldnt expect to be in driving a relatively quick and v modern diesel car. Ultimately i feel theyve traded outright punch for refinement which of course suits some and not others. I even thought there was something wrong with it and took it to the dealers but there wasnt and they all apparently drive just like mine. I can't however comment on the 1.6 as I havent driven one, but ive definitely not been overly impressed with the 2.0!

Back to my point of DSG, can anyone comment on how well it suits the 1.2 TSi 105, even without the paddles?

Do not get the lower HP on either engine.

If many Kms get the diesel, if not get the Gas.

DSG. Personally after driving with it for nearly 5000 miles am not massively impressed. This was my first auto and in a lot of ways is excellent, particularly flowing traffic, A roads and in conjunction with cruise control. However in other circumstances it takes away some control, particularly in conjunction with the 'lag' that has been widely discussed on the forum. There are times when it doesn't behave in the same way as you would control a manual. Stop start traffic is good if moving very slowly, but in certain circumstances it can be a bit jerky and if you are driving around side streets the lag affects smooth driving. I also think that as it takes sometime to learn to 'drive around' the issues it makes me feel that it is not an optimally developed product. I'm not too disappointed with it overall as the plusses outweigh the minusses but only just. I'll think twice for my next car. It may be that this engine/gearbox combo is not the best and it may suit more powerful engines like the vRS better.

DSG. Personally after driving with it for nearly 5000 miles am not massively impressed. This was my first auto and in a lot of ways is excellent, particularly flowing traffic, A roads and in conjunction with cruise control. However in other circumstances it takes away some control, particularly in conjunction with the 'lag' that has been widely discussed on the forum. There are times when it doesn't behave in the same way as you would control a manual. Stop start traffic is good if moving very slowly, but in certain circumstances it can be a bit jerky and if you are driving around side streets the lag affects smooth driving. I also think that as it takes sometime to learn to 'drive around' the issues it makes me feel that it is not an optimally developed product. I'm not too disappointed with it overall as the plusses outweigh the minusses but only just. I'll think twice for my next car. It may be that this engine/gearbox combo is not the best and it may suit more powerful engines like the vRS better.

Cheers Fatbloke, I think i'll probably just get the manual and add ESP if we end up going for the 1.2. May use the saving to add a couple more toys. With the vRS as there is no choice i'll just have to put up with it, but I am wondering if it would be even better if it had a decent manual 6 speed in it.

The manual is a great little car, ridiculously long gearing so Its happy in 5th at 35mph. Cruise will hold it at that speed as well. Our Superb has the DSG whilst I think it suits the more powerful engines I dont think it would suit the smaller engines as well.

The Elegance comes WITH more or less all the toys anyway. Most of the extras in the book, I personally wouldnt have them fitted on my car anyway!

The manual is a great little car, ridiculously long gearing so Its happy in 5th at 35mph. Cruise will hold it at that speed as well. Our Superb has the DSG whilst I think it suits the more powerful engines I dont think it would suit the smaller engines as well.

The Elegance comes WITH more or less all the toys anyway. Most of the extras in the book, I personally wouldnt have them fitted on my car anyway!

Thanks Ross, i'm definitely swung towards the manual. Regarding the spec of the Elegance, as standard it is missing a few things I would want to have (ESP, MFSW, dark glass and probably Media IN). Given the substantial price difference between one of these and the vRS, if the wife doesnt want the vRS i'm tempted to put Sat Nav and Bluetooth on it just for the sake of it. I know it will do nothing for its resale value but i've got to be happy with the car for 3 years and i'd still be saving a good £1500 over a fairly standard vRS.

Sorry all, just one other thing. Am I right in assuming the Elegance doesnt come with a spare wheel but the vRS does? I'd want a spare so assume with the Elegance you do have to order one? Does it affect the boot space at all?

Sorry all, just one other thing. Am I right in assuming the Elegance doesnt come with a spare wheel but the vRS does? I'd want a spare so assume with the Elegance you do have to order one? Does it affect the boot space at all?

It doesn't come with the spare wheel, but it is a cheap option.

The spare wheel has no effect on boot space, the car has a spare wheel well built in anyway.

Edited 27 January, 201115 yr by Mike Wrightson

Financially unless you do high miles or expect to keep the car 8 years or more 1.2TSi will be the better deal.

Currently RFL is £20 pa for 1.6TDi 105PS and £90 pa for 1.2TSi but TDi cost around £700 more so if the gap stays the same 10 years to recoup purely on RFL.

With increasing demand for diesel the price gap to petrol is more likely to increase so again reducing financial gain.

On paper 1.2TSi is slightly faster off the line than 1.6TDi 105PS but you really would need a back to back test drive around town and fast open road to compare overall which suits your journeys and driving style best.

I might be alone here regarding the new VAG CR diesels but I'm not sold on the linear power curve of the new engines, certainly the 2.0 CR. I liked the sudden punch of the 1.9 & 2.0 PD units; found them much easier to drive at a pace without having to work hard and would happily put up with a bit of noise and breathlessness at the top end of the rev range for that kind of power delivery. Yes the CR's are very quiet by comparison but I dont understand why they've made such strides to make them drive more like a petrol and then have left them really breathless at the top end like nearly every other diesel out there including the PD's. They are also extremely laggy from standstill and my car has left me in a couple of embarrasing situations that you wouldnt expect to be in driving a relatively quick and v modern diesel car. Ultimately i feel theyve traded outright punch for refinement which of course suits some and not others. I even thought there was something wrong with it and took it to the dealers but there wasnt and they all apparently drive just like mine. I can't however comment on the 1.6 as I havent driven one, but ive definitely not been overly impressed with the 2.0!

Hi there, I understand entirely just what you mean, overall I have been very disappointed with the 1.6CR having come from a 1.9TDI Octavia. I much preferred the 1.9's character to the 1.6, yes it is extremely well refined even at high revs but it really has no character. My sister has the 1.4 PD, when I give that a few revs it really puts a smile on my face, the 1.6 never has done. Also I am suffering from poor MPG, for example a steady trip along the motorway at 60mph only gave me 53mpg, the old 1.9 would have been about 65mpg and in a bigger car. The highest MPG I have had on tank to tank fill-ups is 59.9mpg, Skoda tells me this is very good in comparison - certainly not in comparison to the official figures which the 1.9 had no problem in exceeding. I have had 'problems' with the car shaking when undergoing a regen but never had the light on. I am that unhappy with the car I am looking at changing it for one of the last 1.9PD's.

Hi there, I understand entirely just what you mean, overall I have been very disappointed with the 1.6CR having come from a 1.9TDI Octavia. I much preferred the 1.9's character to the 1.6, yes it is extremely well refined even at high revs but it really has no character. My sister has the 1.4 PD, when I give that a few revs it really puts a smile on my face, the 1.6 never has done. Also I am suffering from poor MPG, for example a steady trip along the motorway at 60mph only gave me 53mpg, the old 1.9 would have been about 65mpg and in a bigger car. The highest MPG I have had on tank to tank fill-ups is 59.9mpg, Skoda tells me this is very good in comparison - certainly not in comparison to the official figures which the 1.9 had no problem in exceeding. I have had 'problems' with the car shaking when undergoing a regen but never had the light on. I am that unhappy with the car I am looking at changing it for one of the last 1.9PD's.

I currently have an Audi A4 with the 1.9TDi PD with 115PS setup so I hope I am not going to be disappointed with the 1.6TDi CR 105PS. It seemed fine to me on the test drive but equally not roads I know and quite busy too.

I chose a new car over used with VAT offer and prefer the lastest restyle to the first Fabia II but also assumed the 1.6 unit would be more refined and economical than the 1.9.

As to economy have you seen this thread?

One point made is that if you keeps the revs low / change up too soon the economy suffers. eg keep in 4th below 50mph.

My Audi is happy in 5th under 40mph and running about 2250rpm at 70mph. One post here says 1.6 TDi CR is about 2000rpm so higher geared.

My daily journey is 11miles each way so 2/3rds done before water/engine temperature gauge stops rising and oil temperature gauge comes off the bottom stop so I will only get best economy on occasional long runs but I will be disappointed if once 5000 miles on the clock the Fabia is not 10% better mpg than the Audi.

Edited 27 January, 201115 yr by delta925

Hi there, I understand entirely just what you mean, overall I have been very disappointed with the 1.6CR having come from a 1.9TDI Octavia. I much preferred the 1.9's character to the 1.6, yes it is extremely well refined even at high revs but it really has no character. My sister has the 1.4 PD, when I give that a few revs it really puts a smile on my face, the 1.6 never has done. Also I am suffering from poor MPG, for example a steady trip along the motorway at 60mph only gave me 53mpg, the old 1.9 would have been about 65mpg and in a bigger car. The highest MPG I have had on tank to tank fill-ups is 59.9mpg, Skoda tells me this is very good in comparison - certainly not in comparison to the official figures which the 1.9 had no problem in exceeding. I have had 'problems' with the car shaking when undergoing a regen but never had the light on. I am that unhappy with the car I am looking at changing it for one of the last 1.9PD's.

Hi FABTPM, glad its not just me then!

I had a Golf GT Sport 2.0 TDi 140 PD for a while and it was a rocketship, same goes for my wifes old Ibiza 130 PD Sport. I'd even go as far to say that my old Mk5 1.9 105bhp Golf Bluemotion wasnt a great deal slower than my Mk6 and at times regret getting rid of it, given at times it would still do 60 to the gallon even when driven hard. I clearly remember a few years ago on the M40 the Ibiza completely outdragged a 1.8T Mk4 Golf GTI to the point where the Golf backed off and didnt bother trying. Really exceptional I thought.

I've heard the hype that the PD engines tend to put out 10-20bhp more than VAG advertised and by the way the cars I had went I'd quite believe it.

Without doubt the refinement of VAG diesels has gone from one extreme to the other, but sadly so has the power delivery. Pump Duse was an extremely noisy fueling system, but it was also extremely efficient. I may get shot down here but i'm pretty certain the Pump Duse fuel system ran at a higher injector pressures than the current common rail system and whilst this along with less precise injectors led to greater engine noise, I think it allowed the PD engines to develop better power in a stronger manner. They in my opinion were also no less breathless at higher revs than the current CR units.

My experience with the CR engine (and that it makes my otherwise lovely Golf a bit dull to drive) has set me dead against getting the 1.6 CR 105 and possibly avoiding all CR engined VW's altogether in future. I was expecting the car to really press my buttons in the way the Mk5 GT Sport did and it never really has. If it were my own car I would Revo it and take my chances with the dealers, I gather a remap completely alters these engines characters and gives much nicer & stronger power delivery. I know its a bit of a gamble to get it remapped but have you considered it? Be nice to have a quiet diesel (have to say i've not been in a quieter diesel car yet) with the punch it deserves.

I currently have an Audi A4 with the 1.9TDi PD with 115PS setup so I hope I am not going to be disappointed with the 1.6TDi CR 105PS. It seemed fine to me on the test drive but equally not roads I know and quite busy too.

I chose a new car over used with VAT offer and prefer the lastest restyle to the first Fabia II but also assumed the 1.6 unit would be more refined and economical than the 1.9.

As to economy have you seen this thread?

One point made is that if you keeps the revs low / change up too soon the economy suffers. eg keep in 4th below 50mph.

My Audi is happy in 5th under 40mph and running about 2250rpm at 70mph. One post here says 1.6 TDi CR is about 2000rpm so higher geared.

My daily journey is 11miles each way so 2/3rds done before water/engine temperature gauge stops rising and oil temperature gauge comes off the bottom stop so I will only get best economy on occasional long runs but I will be disappointed if once 5000 miles on the clock the Fabia is not 10% better mpg than the Audi.

Hi delta925. Sorry if my rant has put you off the 1.6 CR. My personal bugbare is with the 2.0 140hp, but would seem that FABTPM feels the same about his 1.6105hp.

I have to say the CR engines are amazingly refined, the 1.6 probably being sweeter than the 2.0 in those stakes. I just think the power delivery on them from experience is boring and as it stands I wouldnt be keen on having another, certainly if parting with my own funds.

They make perfect sense if you tow or carry heavy loads regularly or do lots of miles, otherwise i'd recommend getting the 1.2TSi petrol. I havent yet driven one but imagine its sweeter still and on paper its quicker than the diesel (certainly off the mark and top speed anyway). I expect its power delivery to be more fun and stronger towards the red line also. I'm testing one at the weekend so will be able to offer a judgement soon.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong but the 2.0 CR comes in 140 and 170 bhp form? Having only driven the 170 which is far from gutless would I be correct in presuming that the only diffrence between the engines is software based rather than a phsical diffrence, could this be the reason for the gutlessness at high rpm as the engines already producing the max allowed power?

Someone correct me if I'm wrong but the 2.0 CR comes in 140 and 170 bhp form? Having only driven the 170 which is far from gutless would I be correct in presuming that the only diffrence between the engines is software based rather than a phsical diffrence, could this be the reason for the gutlessness at high rpm as the engines already producing the max allowed power?

Hi Can, i'm pretty sure the 140 and 170 engines are mechanically different but not 100% sure how (maybe turbo, intercooler or both). I know the 170 can be remapped to a higher BHP than the 140 so would explain a difference.

I'd like a go in a GTD/Octy vRS to see how it differs to my car

Hadn't thought of turbo or such limitations, but does the logic atleast make sence in that the reason the engine is gutless is that it has been engineered down to that Horse power from what it's realy capable of.

I have a technical question considering the 1.2TSI 105 in my Fabia. Is the 1.2 TSI equipped with floating flywheel?

Thanks Ross, i'm definitely swung towards the manual. Regarding the spec of the Elegance, as standard it is missing a few things I would want to have (ESP, MFSW, dark glass and probably Media IN). Given the substantial price difference between one of these and the vRS, if the wife doesnt want the vRS i'm tempted to put Sat Nav and Bluetooth on it just for the sake of it. I know it will do nothing for its resale value but i've got to be happy with the car for 3 years and i'd still be saving a good £1500 over a fairly standard vRS.

Ive put the sat nav and esp plus on mine,sat nav is brill but have'nt tested the esp yet

I currently have an Audi A4 with the 1.9TDi PD with 115PS setup so I hope I am not going to be disappointed with the 1.6TDi CR 105PS. It seemed fine to me on the test drive but equally not roads I know and quite busy too.

I chose a new car over used with VAT offer and prefer the lastest restyle to the first Fabia II but also assumed the 1.6 unit would be more refined and economical than the 1.9.

As to economy have you seen this thread?

One point made is that if you keeps the revs low / change up too soon the economy suffers. eg keep in 4th below 50mph.

My Audi is happy in 5th under 40mph and running about 2250rpm at 70mph. One post here says 1.6 TDi CR is about 2000rpm so higher geared.

My daily journey is 11miles each way so 2/3rds done before water/engine temperature gauge stops rising and oil temperature gauge comes off the bottom stop so I will only get best economy on occasional long runs but I will be disappointed if once 5000 miles on the clock the Fabia is not 10% better mpg than the Audi.

hI I have the 1.6cr tdi 105bhp and doing 60mph its only on 1700-1800 rpm no more than that and on a 70-100 round trip over 60mpg in a car with only 170miles on the clock:thumbup: