I'll be fabia owner soon but I need to know something about HP's and cc. I'm a total rookie when it comes to motors and power.

What exactly do I get/lose when I choose 1.2 instead of 1.4 or 1.2 60PS versus 1.2 69?

I need that car for my wife, our baby daughter and myself, to drive in the town and occasionally (2-3x a year) go for a trip. No need for speed ride.

Thanks!

Edited 9 April, 201115 yr by suncokret

For occasional driving the 1.2 will be fine.

I drove the 1.2 HTP Fabia a few weeks ago, fantastic car.

In terms of horsepower, I'm not sure about the figures.

OK in the Fabia range there are two 1.2 HTP engines available, both are three cylinder engines. There is the 60ps 1.2 6valve engine and the 70ps 1.2 12valve engine.ps is a German measurement of horsepower, therfore the 12valve is the more powerful engine.

The engine I would recommend would be the 12valve 70ps engine, the 10 extra horsepower really does come in handy and its gives better economy. Given what you're using the car for there is no need for you to stretch to the 1.4. Plus i've had two Fabias with the 1.2 HTP 12valve engine and I can tell you its a great little motor.

(oh and just if you were wondering the HTP stands for High Torque performance)

Hope I was helpful without being confusing

Edited 9 April, 201115 yr by Red Meat

Wow, thanks everyone! You did help me! I'll go for HTP 1.2 70ks engine! It's called "Active plus" Fabia.

Glad to hear it! If you have any issues don't hesitate to ask, they really are very helpful on here

If the 1.2 TSI 86ps isn't much more.. you should push for that as it's a great engine with a lot of flexibility

Thanks redmeat!

Actually TSI 86ps is 1000 euros more expensive... don't know if that's worth for me?!

Edited 10 April, 201115 yr by suncokret

Thanks redmeat! :)Actually TSI 86ps is 1000 euros more expensive... don't know if that's worth for me?!

The 1.2 HTP 70ps is an OK engine the new TSI is even better, but as you say it costs more and the insurance will probably be higher.

You just need to strike the right balance between power, running cost etc.

The other point to make...the TSI engine may be superb, but is much more complex than the 70ps HTP 1.2 engine. It will need service in terms of spannering much more quickly than the 3cyl 1.2 HTP which has proven itself with little exception to be bullet proof. The TSI has a turbo and these don't go for ever, usually less than 100,000 miles and on petrol engines, often much much less, especially if you don't look after it. Already there are example of the TSI's (mostly in Polo's) that have had to have completely new engines because of turbo trouble. Out of warranty the TSI will be very expensive to spanner in that respect. The HTP on the other hand is, apart from it's 3 cylinder configuration completely normal but with a bit less performance. Good luck with whatever choice you make.

The other point to make...the TSI engine may be superb, but is much more complex than the 70ps HTP 1.2 engine. It will need service in terms of spannering much more quickly than the 3cyl 1.2 HTP which has proven itself with little exception to be bullet proof. The TSI has a turbo and these don't go for ever, usually less than 100,000 miles and on petrol engines, often much much less, especially if you don't look after it. Already there are example of the TSI's (mostly in Polo's) that have had to have completely new engines because of turbo trouble. Out of warranty the TSI will be very expensive to spanner in that respect. The HTP on the other hand is, apart from it's 3 cylinder configuration completely normal but with a bit less performance. Good luck with whatever choice you make.

You need to name some sources to back up a lot of your sweeping statements.

You need to name some sources to back up a lot of your sweeping statements.

What sweeping statements?

Turbos last less than 100,000 miles, usually a lot less on petrol engines etc etc

I'd have the TSi 86 over a HTP any day of the week. Not that the HTP is a bad engine in either form, just that the TSI is much better, providing stronger performance, similar MPG and low CO2 emissions. I cant see how its likely to be any less reliable than a HTP providing its cared for properly.

From experience I've found the HTP engine quite noisy and not particularly refined, the 3 cylinder engine noise whilst quite entertaining initially becomes a bit of a pain, particularly given that you have to listen to it so much as you haev to thrash the hell out of them to make them go.

I have a 75bhp fabia and it needs a right thrashing to even get up hills without losing speed. It is embarrassing. TSI all the way. The TSI/DSG combo really does well in terms of MPG and added 'poke'.

all the same, we are talking about a small cheap town car being used for a run around.

i would save the 1000euros and get the HTP is i was you.

if i was me i would spend the extra 1000euros because i like to go fast and the engines can be mapped and tuned easier than a N/A.

Just go with what you need! not what others here would prefer for themselves

Vulgatrendkill, there are alot of hills in Tunbridge Wells! i know, i work there. maybe he lives in the Netherlands where it's a lot flatter.

i will keep my eye out for a fabia being thrashed about in future and shall give it a loving wave and a smile.

Edited 11 April, 201115 yr by Sonner

I agree, but we are just offering opinions based on experience. In my experience, a car in the region of 70hp will need to be driven quite hard when in hilly areas or on a motorway/bypass and thus make an enormous racket. 86hp is no great shakes but I believe it would be a significantly easier drive.But as has be stated above, its your decision.

Bhp/weight ratio is what you mean i guess, i find my felicia 1.6 8v 75bhp is beautiful up a hill and pulls in 5th gear at 40mph up any hill i encounter on the A21

the Fabia's are heavier and i personally would think 105lb/ft of torque and 90bhp+ would be sufficent to prevent it being thrashy!

i've been driving the 1.4 8v mk1 fabia with 68bhp to work and back for the past week, and although i find it's refined enough to not "sound" thrashy, i know im always dropping down to 4th on some of the hills i know the felicia would take in 5th.

i simply adjust my driving style between the cars, and basically end up accelerating slower in the fabia but with it's better refinement levels i tend to sit at 50mph on the main raids instead of the 45mph i do in the felicia.

Edited 11 April, 201115 yr by Sonner

I havent posted on this thread to date as just been up into Keighley Yorkshire pennines. Now while I know people have their own views I simply do not recognise the criticisms of the 1.2 HTP offered so far. My car is NOT noisy. I have just spent the last 2 hours at an average near 70mph and chatting quite normally to my back seat passenger. No raised voices required. I have had many other cars where this would have been a problem. Hills???what on earth is all that about. With three up and in the pennines it was a breeze. Yes you have to use the gear box, that's what its for, but to say it is embarassing is simply not true. As for Estate mans comments well, obviously there are likely to be less problems with a normally aspirated engine and the extra power of the Tsi does come at some extra spanner cost.By that I mean average service cost. Obviously a turbo can fail or not but the whole point being, the HTP does not have one. Add to that overtaking on the motorway with 3 up is effortless and 80mph is no problem at all plus an average MPG of 48.9 for the journey and I am a happy chappie!! I am not saying the car is as quick of the Tsi, it isn't but and as I haven't driven the Tsi I can't compare. But it would be fair to assume the Tsi is much quicker. However, the HTP is a cracker and fits the bill for such as myself who wants uncomplicated and economical transport.

Agree with Horkin. The maximum torque on the htp is at 3000revs, lower than most if not all other N/A petrols. It's faster than a peg 207 1.4 and grande punto 1.4. With 4 passengers it doesn't struggle. Cruises comfortablly at 70mph.

Turbos last less than 100,000 miles, usually a lot less on petrol engines etc etc

Hi Leeds, yes...I understand this may seem like a sweeping statement to some but actually isn't meant to be. My source for the comments in my earlier post regarding turbo's is my 30 years experience as an engineer and motor technician and a good understanding of the modern motor car. Also my colleagues at VW and Honda dealers keep me up to date with the latest behind the scenes news although there isn't anything secret about motor cars these days. Turbo's generally have improved considerably over the years to the point they can now be fitted to small engined everyday cars like the TSI engined Fabia and work reliably. However, as is always the case at some point, turbo's fail, or they wear out, and sometimes cause other devilment. It's not IF but WHEN! All VERY costly. That is the main point I was making. The HTP engine is free of this encumberment. Turbo's on diesel engines usually get a slightly easier time as they operate at slightly lower temperatures and lower pressures, so they don't usually spin so fast. The bearings and wastgates, vanes and oilways general work well together for a longer time before needing attention. However, on petrol engines the higher exhaust gas temperatures, pressures and rpms, and higher oil temps can reduce life of the turbo charger by quite a bit. I've replaced many turbos very early in many types of cars (mostly not Skoda or VW engined cars) both petrol and diesel. Usually, the engine is needed as well if you are unlucky and many are. My sisters Octavia, not very old and a diesel sucked the broken parts of the turbo into the engine and blew up on the motorway at just 60mph. Total cost was £3,200 plus car hire. Not covered by warranty either as the car was over 3 years old. This is unlucky if it happens, but is not an everyday thing of course. But with cars such as the TSI it will be more common now in the small petrol car segment, it is inevitable. It's like your computer, it's not if it breaks, it's when. It could be after two years or maybe 5 or 7. Run it long enough and it will break just like a car. Is the TSI a bad car, certainly not. I loved it when I drove it. But I've had an HTP for several days at a time on several occassions and I found it to be pure heaven to drive and very fast and comfy. My money would be on the HTP for the OP as this is less to buy and less costly longer term if he is going to keep it for a few years. Cheers bud.

I had problems on my old 1.2 HTP. Valve seats went at 65,000. Skoda payed half for a new head. It then carried on to 100,000 miles when I part exchanged it for my TDI.

I have mixed views on this engine beacuse of this. After much digging I found my fault was rare-ish on early HTP engines due to the head design (Only found this out long after paying for it). The head issue was resolved and that was the head they put back on mine.

Other than this issue I loved the engine. Really nippy round town with good pickup. Happy on the motorway at 80. Always gave near 50mpg. If it werent for the fact I now do 24000 miles a year on long runs I wouldnt hesitate to have another one. I would have this engine over the TSI purely because I like simple. No turbo or cam belt. A simple engine with good economy. Noisy ? No not really unless you compare it to a 4 cylinder.

Reliable ? Well I have to say it is......now. Some early ones like mine werent so great. Missus needs a new car soon as our 1.4 MPI has done over 100,000 miles and is showing its age. If she decides on a Skoda it will be the HTP.

Hi Leeds, yes...I understand this may seem like a sweeping statement to some but actually isn't meant to be. My source for the comments in my earlier post regarding turbo's is my 30 years experience as an engineer and motor technician and a good understanding of the modern motor car. Also my colleagues at VW and Honda dealers keep me up to date with the latest behind the scenes news although there isn't anything secret about motor cars these days. Turbo's generally have improved considerably over the years to the point they can now be fitted to small engined everyday cars like the TSI engined Fabia and work reliably. However, as is always the case at some point, turbo's fail, or they wear out, and sometimes cause other devilment. It's not IF but WHEN! All VERY costly. That is the main point I was making. The HTP engine is free of this encumberment. Turbo's on diesel engines usually get a slightly easier time as they operate at slightly lower temperatures and lower pressures, so they don't usually spin so fast. The bearings and wastgates, vanes and oilways general work well together for a longer time before needing attention. However, on petrol engines the higher exhaust gas temperatures, pressures and rpms, and higher oil temps can reduce life of the turbo charger by quite a bit. I've replaced many turbos very early in many types of cars (mostly not Skoda or VW engined cars) both petrol and diesel. Usually, the engine is needed as well if you are unlucky and many are. My sisters Octavia, not very old and a diesel sucked the broken parts of the turbo into the engine and blew up on the motorway at just 60mph. Total cost was £3,200 plus car hire. Not covered by warranty either as the car was over 3 years old. This is unlucky if it happens, but is not an everyday thing of course. But with cars such as the TSI it will be more common now in the small petrol car segment, it is inevitable. It's like your computer, it's not if it breaks, it's when. It could be after two years or maybe 5 or 7. Run it long enough and it will break just like a car. Is the TSI a bad car, certainly not. I loved it when I drove it. But I've had an HTP for several days at a time on several occassions and I found it to be pure heaven to drive and very fast and comfy. My money would be on the HTP for the OP as this is less to buy and less costly longer term if he is going to keep it for a few years. Cheers bud.

All fair points and sounds like you know a lot more than me. I've had two mk4 golf petrol turbos that both went over 100,000 miles with no turbo trouble but both had been very well looked after.

With the Fabia I'm only keeping it for three years so it will be under warranty so no worries on that front.

I would have this engine over the TSI purely because I like simple. No turbo or cam belt.

The TSI is chain not cambelt.