Really in two minds what the hell to do. I currently have a Fabia 1.9TDI Elegance, 17'' alloys, 5 door which is 2006 with just 30,000 miles and bugger all wrong with it. But my other half wants a new car..................What ever we get it will be the Fabia elegance estate with rear electric windows, MFSW, heated seats and mudflaps, oh and in manual.

But the engine is another matter, i have read all the info on the CR issues with the poor mileage (on some) and the DPF issues, but how about the 1.2 petrol, what is this like in comparison.

I use a bike to get to work (Honda 1000RR 2010, Repsol !!) So the 6,000 miles a year it will cover will all be done by my wife. Are there any issues with the petrol engine.

Does my current car have a DPF filter ?? If it does no light has ever come on for the '' Regen'', and i am happy with the fuel economy.

** Just for a bit of amusement, my local dealer offered me £3,500 px for my car........ oh deary me, i already had looked on the interweb before i went and found many lower spec'd, higher mileage and older cars for more ! In fact i could not find a car with my miles in my age bracket at all. Do dealers really think the public are idiots ? My car is immaculate, i have owned it from new, it has a full service history, it has never seen a car wash, gets pampered with a lambswool wash mit every week and does not have one mark/scratch/scuff or even swirls from washing anywhere on it. It looks like new.

When i got home i asked my brother if he knew of anybody who may want it.... 5 seconds later he agreed to buy it for £4800. Dealers are so funny.

But what the hell to do about my engine choice ?

Edited 6 March, 201115 yr by Hudson01

The only thing i can offer is that my wife has the 1.2 (86) TSI and it's a nippy little thing. With only 60 miles on it we're still taking it easy, but even now we can tell it's eager to pull. She's come from a 1.6 Focus and is really pleased.

We're getting just under 38 to the gallon at the moment which is based purely on urban driving.

The only thing i can offer is that my wife has the 1.2 (86) TSI and it's a nippy little thing. With only 60 miles on it we're still taking it easy, but even now we can tell it's eager to pull. She's come from a 1.6 Focus and is really pleased.

We're getting just under 38 to the gallon at the moment which is based purely on urban driving.

Thanks for that, that does not sound too bad really, she will be doing mostly urban (to work and back ) driving but is set on a diesel, god knows why given the miles a year she does, but because ours is an oil burner she just things the next should be, we would go for the 105bhp version but just wanted to know if there are any '' issues '' coming out regarding this type of engine.

Thanks for that, that does not sound too bad really, she will be doing mostly urban (to work and back ) driving but is set on a diesel, god knows why given the miles a year she does, but because ours is an oil burner she just things the next should be, we would go for the 105bhp version but just wanted to know if there are any '' issues '' coming out regarding this type of engine.

If you are doing so few miles annually I personally would get the 105ps 1.2 TSi. Sure it wont be quite as economical but it's ever so slightly quicker, more urgent and less noisy. The saving you'll make on the car and the fuel you buy will soften the blow on the economy front. I drove an 85ps 1.2 having just driven a vRS and was expecting it to be a real disappointment. Of course while it was nowhere near as fast the amount of go on tap really impressed (considerably more punchy than the wifes 1.4 80hp Polo) and I can only imagine the 105ps car is even more impressive.

The CR's are a huge advance over the PD's in terms of refinement but the power delivery is very linear and doesnt suit all diesel lovers (particularly those used to a huge slug of low end torque), power tail-off is less marked but still obvious also.

I currently have a MK6 Golf 2.0 TDi 140 GT and its a cracking car but given the choice (its a company car) I would have rather had the 1.4 TSi 160. It's only my opinion but I think the day that VAG diesels better their petrol counterparts is all but over. The only reason i'd get one would be if I was doing lots of miles and could make up the extra outlay in fuel savings.

Thanks for that, sounds very sensible regarding the miles the car will do, i would say 6k a year would be max which is why our current car has such low mileage.

Pipsyp makes some valid points. So, just my two pence worth...but as you will be aware, people often buy diesel or petrol for very different reasons. Both have some advantages. Whatever you go for you won't go wrong I reckon. The 1.2TSI is a cracking little engine and few problems have emerged. However, low mileage in my book is not necessarily the factor for avoiding a diesel. Many love the huge surge of torque diesels give you. In fact the unofficial in gear acceleration figures for the 1.2TSI against the 90bhp 1.6cr are quite a revelation. The diesel wooped the 1.2TSI 105bhp easily. These 'trials' were carried out by some enthusiastic mates of mine and IAM members on a disused runway here in Essex. Nothing too scienticfic but just used GPS and eyesight to watch the results. I expect the 105bhp version will be even better. Don't forget the diesel costs just £20 road tax per year too, and averages an easy 54mpg around town and 65+ on a run. Even topping out more than 70mpg without problems. And that's the biggest difference. With diesel you really don't have to try too much to get good mpg. I struggled to get 40mpg out of the test car 1.2TSI 105bhp when I had one for the day. The 105bhp diesel managed 65mpg without even trying, around 60% more mpg for your money! So in reality any premium you payout to get the diesel (and it will only be small if you negotiate) will easily be recovered fairly quickly with the low tax and much better fuel economy. The people I know with the 1.6cr's have never ever had a problem with DPF's. One of them, a housewife, drives just 6000 miles per year. Her car does however go on weekend jaunts of 30-40 miles which keeps the DPF clear. Only thing, with the petrol engines they do warm up a little quicker than the diesel but there isn't as much difference now as there used to be.

Oh...and just one other thing to bear in mind. When/if you go for a test drive in the 1.6cr diesel, if it hasn't done more than 1500 miles it won't perform anything like it will once it has covered 8-10k. It will be down on power due to being very very tight and some other factors such as ECU learning will still be taking place. All affect the performance as I found out myself.

Have fun choosing and do keep in touch with us all to tell us what you choose and why. Good luck.

Edited 7 March, 201115 yr by Estate Man

Pipsyp makes some valid points. So, just my two pence worth...but as you will be aware, people often buy diesel or petrol for very different reasons. Both have some advantages. Whatever you go for you won't go wrong I reckon. The 1.2TSI is a cracking little engine and few problems have emerged. However, low mileage in my book is not necessarily the factor for avoiding a diesel. Many love the huge surge of torque diesels give you. In fact the unofficial in gear acceleration figures for the 1.2TSI against the 90bhp 1.6cr are quite a revelation. The diesel wooped the 1.2TSI 105bhp easily. These 'trials' were carried out by some enthusiastic mates of mine and IAM members on a disused runway here in Essex. Nothing too scienticfic but just used GPS and eyesight to watch the results. I expect the 105bhp version will be even better. Don't forget the diesel costs just £20 road tax per year too, and averages an easy 54mpg around town and 65+ on a run. Even topping out more than 70mpg without problems. And that's the biggest difference. With diesel you really don't have to try too much to get good mpg. I struggled to get 40mpg out of the test car 1.2TSI 105bhp when I had one for the day. The 105bhp diesel managed 65mpg without even trying, around 60% more mpg for your money! So in reality any premium you payout to get the diesel (and it will only be small if you negotiate) will easily be recovered fairly quickly with the low tax and much better fuel economy. The people I know with the 1.6cr's have never ever had a problem with DPF's. One of them, a housewife, drives just 6000 miles per year. Her car does however go on weekend jaunts of 30-40 miles which keeps the DPF clear. Only thing, with the petrol engines they do warm up a little quicker than the diesel but there isn't as much difference now as there used to be.

Oh...and just one other thing to bear in mind. When/if you go for a test drive in the 1.6cr diesel, if it hasn't done more than 1500 miles it won't perform anything like it will once it has covered 8-10k. It will be down on power due to being very very tight and some other factors such as ECU learning will still be taking place. All affect the performance as I found out myself.

Have fun choosing and do keep in touch with us all to tell us what you choose and why. Good luck.

Estateman you are right. On hindsight the cost differential between the two is negligable and I think it largely will come down to which floats your boat more. Personally I'd always peference a turbocharged petrol car over the equivalent diesel unless I was doing big mileage.

I've been through the era (90's 00's) where turbo diesel tech improvements largely meant that they both drove and performed better than their naturally aspirated petrol counterparts. As an example, I would have always of chosen a 1.9/2.0 TDi PD engine over the equivalent 1.6/2.0 FSi engines as would nearly every VAG group vehicle owner at the time.

Now though, where VAG are now using heavily turbo charged direct-injected small capacity engines to produce the sort of power and torque of a 1.6/1.8 or 2.0 petrol engine, they have all but solved the problem with normally aspirated engines which was peaky power with flat spots and a huge lack of low end torque. Fuel economy gains admittedly arent so impressive but they are on the whole quicker and more refined than their diesel equivalents whilst being cheaper to purchase; the only negative is slightly higher running costs in terms of fuel and road tax.

If you're not doing many miles in my mind they make the most sense. The power delivery on the new CR engines is also very linear, in my opinion almost too petrol like. I can say that the 2.0 TDi 140 suffers from terrible low rev turbo lag and also runs out of steam at higher revs but does not have that thump of power the PD units produced. Other than huge improvements in refinement I think they've taken steps back in most other areas. My 2.0 TDi is also less fuel efficient than a PD MK5 version we had for some months, has also done alot more mileage (nearly 25k). I cannot however speak for the 1.6 but would imagine it exibhits the same characteristics.

I would advise test driving the 105ps CR and 1.2 TSi cars and make your mind up from that. We all have preferences and differing opinions, only way to know for certain will be to drive both back to back and make up your own mind.

Regarding the DPF issue, I do not think you'll experience any problems. I've had a MK5 Golf Bluemotion as well as the MK6, both cars are DPF equipped and I've not once experienced any problems, not even the regen light. I can tell when the car is doing a cycle though, the idle increases and the car is more responsive like when being driven on cold start. Those that have had issues have been unlucky in my book and probably would have experienced issues with their car regardless how they were driven and the mileages racked up.

Edited 7 March, 201115 yr by pipsyp

Hi pipsyp, agree with just about all you say. As you say, it's pretty much what floats your boat. One thing I did notice though when I went for my test drive in the 1.6cr 105bhp was that the motor was very underwellming to drive! No massive torque or sudden surge of power like the PD engines, like you say. Then I realised it had just 200 miles on the clock and was as tight as a ducks ar**! It went really well though but just not as exciting as I thought it would be. However, since then two of my mates have bought them and with several thousand miles on the clock they are a completely different cars. Loads of thump low down and massive torque further up the scale. No shortage of power once they have loosened up. It was so good I'm going to order one later this year. They are both doing really well on fuel too and are very pleased with the cars.

Hope you get things sorted Hudson. Good luck again.

Drive the back to back, we switched from the 80 1.4 TDI to the 1.2 TSI 85.

Definately not as economical but was cheaper to buy than the CR and it does low miles. Have only driven the CR in the Golf but very impressive.

Have you considered a Greenline? Reckon with the rising oil price it will become a very desirable car.

Hi pipsyp, agree with just about all you say. As you say, it's pretty much what floats your boat. One thing I did notice though when I went for my test drive in the 1.6cr 105bhp was that the motor was very underwellming to drive! No massive torque or sudden surge of power like the PD engines, like you say. Then I realised it had just 200 miles on the clock and was as tight as a ducks ar**! It went really well though but just not as exciting as I thought it would be. However, since then two of my mates have bought them and with several thousand miles on the clock they are a completely different cars. Loads of thump low down and massive torque further up the scale. No shortage of power once they have loosened up. It was so good I'm going to order one later this year. They are both doing really well on fuel too and are very pleased with the cars.

Hope you get things sorted Hudson. Good luck again.

Hi Estate Man,

Yes totally agree. I got my 2.0 TDi CR 140 Golf with approx 4700 miles on the clock and it was very tight. It was run by a lady driver before me so suspect it had been treated very gently. Have now covered nearly 25K in it, mostly fairly hard motorway miles too however i'm still not smitten with the power delivery.

I would say its smoother and revs more cleanly now but still suffers from terrible low end lag. I find that I also have to plan overtaking manouvers and sometimes get caught short by a lack of go if not in the right gear; a result of stratosphericly long gearing I think. I think the throttle response it a bit soft and delayed also.

It's not a slow car by any stretch but it is missing that immediate strong, any-gear go that the PD variant had. If it were my own money on the block I would have chosen the 1.4 TSi 160.

pipsyp, VRs...bloody amazing aren't they! (scuse my french)

pipsyp, VRs...bloody amazing aren't they! (scuse my french)

Abolutely superb Estate Man, especially with the VAT deal. Our's is going to be the wifes car primarily, getting the keys regularly is going to prove difficult I can tell you!