1.2 Tsi engine?

[fabandy]

Dear Plumber,

A Czech website has just tested the new Octavia with the new EA211 1.2TSI and claims that is 16v.

The new EA211 engines are supposed to be.

They say it is more responsive and does have better fuel ecomomy.

[BA Baracus]

Whatcar have an article today and are raving about the 1.2.

I am sure that the engine is a peach in the Fabia and Yeti but my reservations are that the Octavia is a family car (appreciate that the new model is lighter than the markII).

While the 1.2 might have enough grunt to haul the car and one motoring journo, most family cars can have up to 5 bodies in at any one time, baby car seats, child boosters, weekly shopping, luggage, prams, dog...

And this is where I think the 1.2 will become gutless and the enjoyment/relaxed nature of driving will be lost.

Try driving a loaded 1.2 Octavia up the A93 to Glenshee and I would suggest it would become dangerous.

[philhoward]

With the 1.2 putting out the same numbers you used to get from a conventional 1.6 petrol engine, does that change your perception? I recall having an engine size conversation with one of the VAG dealers and he was trying to name the engines by their power output, not their size. Problem was some of his customers could only relate to engine sizes...

[BA Baracus]

Good point well made, but for me and my circumstances, my preference is to have an engine bigger than 100bhp.

I had a 100bhp in a Lupo sport years ago and that was fun but don't think fun could be applied to a laden Octavia.

But I am not slagging others for choices they make.

[philhoward]

I thought the 1.4 122PS engine would struggle in the Octavia II but that went quite well when I tested one. Not tried the 1.2 105PS unit as yet.

[Anddenton]

Good point well made, but for me and my circumstances, my preference is to have an engine bigger than 100bhp.

I had a 100bhp in a Lupo sport years ago and that was fun but don't think fun could be applied to a laden Octavia.

But I am not slagging others for choices they make.

Going back a few years I seem to remember my dad having a 1.8 or 2.0 Cavalier as a family car which had less than 100bhp and it never had a problem fully loaded on the hills.

[Dr Zoidberg]

And my dad's 75bhp renault 21 seemed to cope ok too.

[Yeti_Man]

...and IMO its not even the power figure that's relevant. The torque and where it is in the rev range is far more relevant IMO.

[philhoward]

...and IMO its not even the power figure that's relevant. The torque and where it is in the rev range is far more relevant IMO.

Agreed.

Flat torque curve (oxymoron?) is good...which seems to be a (very welcome) feature of the TSi group of engines. They don't drive like a small engine with a big turbo; they drive like a bigger engine which was the design brief, I gather...

[Lynnster]

I have a Mk. 2 1.8TSi linked to a DSG and I am very pleased with the performance and economy. However, at present a petrol engine is not on offer with a DSG on the Mk. 3.

I would be interested in a 1.4 TSi DSG but Skoda cant tell me when, or if, this will be available. I think a 1.2Tsi is too small even if the car is lighter.

Anyone out there have any info on this? Hate manuals and diesels equally so if I cant get a small auto in the Mk. 3 it looks like I will go to another manufacturer.

[marcusthehat]

I may well be flogging a dead Tesco burger, but would seriously recommend you try the 1.2TSI/DSG combination.

It truly is a remarkable wee engine, from what I recall, and that was a much earlier varient of the 1.2TSI.

Bear in mind please i am a diesel-nut throught and through.

So for me to be impressed is some achievement.

And again, as I have repeatedly stated for the humble 1.6CR diesel, the DSG makes a surprising difference with its nano-second changes.

You may be pleasently surprised, though being used to the 1.8TSI, probably not.

Good luck,

Marcus

PS

how can you live in NI an hate diesel

sigh!

[Lynnster]

I may well be flogging a dead Tesco burger, but would seriously recommend you try the 1.2TSI/DSG combination.

It truly is a remarkable wee engine, from what I recall, and that was a much earlier varient of the 1.2TSI.

Bear in mind please i am a diesel-nut throught and through.

So for me to be impressed is some achievement.

And again, as I have repeatedly stated for the humble 1.6CR diesel, the DSG makes a surprising difference with its nano-second changes.

You may be pleasently surprised, though being used to the 1.8TSI, probably not.

Good luck,

Marcus

PS

how can you live in NI an hate diesel

sigh!

[Lynnster]

I may well be flogging a dead Tesco burger, but would seriously recommend you try the 1.2TSI/DSG combination.

It truly is a remarkable wee engine, from what I recall, and that was a much earlier varient of the 1.2TSI.

Bear in mind please i am a diesel-nut throught and through.

So for me to be impressed is some achievement.

And again, as I have repeatedly stated for the humble 1.6CR diesel, the DSG makes a surprising difference with its nano-second changes.

You may be pleasently surprised, though being used to the 1.8TSI, probably not.

Good luck,

Marcus

PS

how can you live in NI an hate diesel

sigh!

marcus

Appreciate your comment but are you telling me that the Mk 3 is available with a 1.2 Tsi linked to a DSG? There is no info on the Skoda website about this. Would prefer a 1.4 DSG as think the 1.2 would be too difer

I may well be flogging a dead Tesco burger, but would seriously recommend you try the 1.2TSI/DSG combination.

It truly is a remarkable wee engine, from what I recall, and that was a much earlier varient of the 1.2TSI.

Bear in mind please i am a diesel-nut throught and through.

So for me to be impressed is some achievement.

And again, as I have repeatedly stated for the humble 1.6CR diesel, the DSG makes a surprising difference with its nano-second changes.

You may be pleasently surprised, though being used to the 1.8TSI, probably not.

Good luck,

Marcus

PS

how can you live in NI an hate diesel

sigh!

Marcus, Hate diesels cos they smoke, even the most expensive motors, and clatter like tractors. I also dont do the miles to justify one. Additionally I get 40 mpg from the 1.8, consistently, with 0-60 of 7.8 secs which is PTG. Thanks for your input but looks like I might well be changing manufacturer.

[tomcatdk]

1.2 TSI in an Octavia is probably just fine.

But remember, to achieve 105BHP and 175Newton meter on a 1.2L is really pushing it. The turbo is probably doing a horsesjob to drag the Octavia around.

I would suspect alot of weir and teir on this little engine in this big car.

I'd go for the 1.4 TSI any day. Probably cheaper in the long run also.

[jonnymick]

The mondeo is /will be available with a 1.0ltr engine. Times are changing,

[tomcatdk]

The same 1.0 Engine in ford focus didn't deliver as promised. It had horrible mileage.

Turbos are for temporary powerboost, not continuous operation.

[marcusthehat]

Erm,

I beg to differ, a turbo is in fact better suited to continious sustained loading.

Easier to match to the constant/steady exhaust gas flow and demand etc.

just a thought

marcus

Edited 31 March, 2013 by dieseldogg

[tomcatdk]

The engine size is the reference or potential for engine power.

The Turbo is the extra "oxygen mask" of the engine, which translates into more power.

A normal gasoline engine is operating at 7000 RPMs at it's peak while the turbo is running at a staggering 100.000 RPM. In other words, turbo's where meant to be auxiliary power.

Running bigger and bigger turbos in ever smaller displacement engines will kill the your engine over time.

So when your buying this new fine ECO engine, your accepting a more and more fragile engine design in your car.

[marcusthehat]

Poppycock,

Regardless of the operating revs, they are, or should be, within the design parameters.

Anyway a turbo should allow an engine to produce more torque from lower revs, thereby negating the need for excessive revs.

I do agree that extracting a quart from a pint pot has implications for engine longivity.

But in general now, with reasonable care and maintenance an engine will easily outlast the rest of the car.

Plus no point spending money making an engine good for 500,000 miles when most cars never see 200,00, and even 100,000 seems to be regarded as high miles.

Plus engineering materials, tolerances and lubrication have advanced tremoundsly.

Cheers

Marcus

[trundlenut]

The engine size is the reference or potential for engine power.

The Turbo is the extra "oxygen mask" of the engine, which translates into more power.

A normal gasoline engine is operating at 7000 RPMs at it's peak while the turbo is running at a staggering 100.000 RPM. In other words, turbo's where meant to be auxiliary power.

Running bigger and bigger turbos in ever smaller displacement engines will kill the your engine over time.

So when your buying this new fine ECO engine, your accepting a more and more fragile engine design in your car.

What about lorries, trains and jet aircraft then?

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2

[Skoda Al Coda]

...and IMO its not even the power figure that's relevant. The torque and where it is in the rev range is far more relevant IMO.

Agreed.

Flat torque curve (oxymoron?) is good...which seems to be a (very welcome) feature of the TSi group of engines. They don't drive like a small engine with a big turbo; they drive like a bigger engine which was the design brief, I gather...

All very true but, every once and a while, those dusty old text books need to go back on the shelf & a little bit of applied logic needs to make an appearance.

With a good old-fashioned 4 speed manual, torque curve is king - add 7 speeds to keep an engine within the meaty part of its power band, then add lightning-quick DSG changes to keep the turbo spinning merrily as you power through the gearbox, and peak BHP figures do suddenly start to count.

[Yeti_Man]

No text book reading here, just lots of driving experience in different cars for me. The drive from cars with good accessible torque are just far more liveable on a day to day basis compared to something that needs thrashing all the time to get it into its powerband.

[Matt Pez]

Probably not exactly the same engine as in the new Octy but I had a 1.2TSi 105ps Seat Leon for a couple of days this week on loan while The Berb had a new turbo fitted (that's another story!). I was amazed how nippy the car was, thought it was the 1.4 at first! My main issue was fuel consumption, over 160 miles with two trips to Notts, the computer was reading 42 mpg which I though was ok as I was pushing it a little, it even rose to 47 mpg on one trip, not far off the official claimed 53mpg. BUT, when I brimmed the tank to take the car back, it came with a full tank by the way, and it took 22.5 litres so thats a rubbish 32 mpg, I'll stick to my 2.0 TDi's thankyou! :think:

[budgiebandolier]

Remember F1 cars were running 1500cc turbo engines with some ridiculous bhp figues..........so 1200cc 30 years later with more technology and 105bhp on tap is more than enough.........I have driven similar size cars with 75/80 bhp over the years which also got to the 70mph limit ok.

I will stick with my 1.8TSI and 160bhp though, as it gets to the 70mph limit very nicely!!

[Ad Lav]

Have the 1.2tsi 105 6 speed in my Rapid, punches well above its weight.

Although the Rapid weighs less than the Fabia vRS I just came from...