Is that a fact? I thought 1.8TSI and 2.0TSI (in vRS) are still chains though?

There is no substitute for a test drive.

 

I borrowed a VRS from a dealer for a week while they fixed my 1.2 TSI.

 

To my surprise I much prefer my car.   The ride is much better.    It is very nippy.   Also in the mk 2 VRS I found the build quality poor.

 

It was like an expensive car that failed to meet expectations.   As opposed to a cheap car which far exceeds expectations.

 

I have previously owned Audi, BMW, VW, and Jaguar.

Edited 24 July, 201312 yr by jayy7

There is no substitute for a test drive.

 

I borrowed a VRS from a dealer for a week while they fixed my 1.2 TSI.

 

To my surprise I much prefer my car.   The ride is much better.    It is very nippy.   Also in the mk 2 VRS I found the build quality poor.

 

It was like an expensive car that failed to meet expectations.   As opposed to a cheap car which far exceeds expectations.

 

I have previously owned Audi, BMW, VW, and Jaguar.

really? the build quality of mk2 vrs is so poor???

really? the build quality of mk2 vrs is so poor???

For a six month old car there were a lot of rattles and the poor quality leather seats were wearing quite badly.

With a VRS you are in price territory where you can buy an Audi which doesn't rattle.

There is no substitute for a test drive.

 

I borrowed a VRS from a dealer for a week while they fixed my 1.2 TSI.

 

To my surprise I much prefer my car.   The ride is much better.    It is very nippy.   Also in the mk 2 VRS I found the build quality poor.

 

It was like an expensive car that failed to meet expectations.   As opposed to a cheap car which far exceeds expectations.

 

I have previously owned Audi, BMW, VW, and Jaguar.

Lol u prefer a 1.2 to a vrs,funny guy

Lol u prefer a 1.2 to a vrs,funny guy

 

Well yeah I drove both for a week each and ended up preferring the 1.2.     But then I'd also rather have a whippet than a staffordshire bull terrier.

 

see also ... 

 

http://www.totallymotor.co.uk/new-car-reviews/skoda-octavia-vrs-2-0-tfsi-petrol-6-spd-manual-test-drive

 

... where they were as surprised as me how close a call it was.

 

I wonder how many critics of the assumed deficiencies of the 1.2 engine have actually driven it.

It was like an expensive car that failed to meet expectations. As opposed to a cheap car which far exceeds expectations.

That's the key thing I guess. ... it is all about meeting expectations (or failing to) and what you want it for. I've had quite a few very eclectic cars and by just about any measure the best was a new BMW 530d, however my favourite was an old vw camper. They're fulfilling very different niches!

So if the 1.2 is nippy, how's the 2.0? :P

 

Or are you going to tell us is really not that much faster... And you're comparing old to new, I wonder if you'd have the same opinion if you had the new vRS for a week.

Well yeah I drove both for a week each and ended up preferring the 1.2.     But then I'd also rather have a whippet than a staffordshire bull terrier.

 

see also ... 

 

http://www.totallymotor.co.uk/new-car-reviews/skoda-octavia-vrs-2-0-tfsi-petrol-6-spd-manual-test-drive

 

... where they were as surprised as me how close a call it was.

 

I wonder how many critics of the assumed deficiencies of the 1.2 engine have actually driven it.

 

"The 1.2-litre TSI petrol-turbo motor in the Octavia SE can’t match the brute strength of its 2-litre cousin, of course, but for its size and economy (we saw mostly mid-40s on test); the near-105bhp TSI engine really does itself proud in the performance stakes. It’ll hit 62mph in 10.8secs and pull on to 119mph. There’s a sheep needs it jacket back! 

Octavia SE is, as you’d expect, a more softly sprung suspension affair than the lower and firmer vRS, and while there’s no doubt in my mind that the vRS would carry more corner speed on its sports engineered suspension and wide ‘n’ low tyres, the Octavia SE also cuts a decent, if less quick-witted, cornering-rug.

I guess the biggest difference in the daily drive of these two tested Octavias is that the vRS always reminds you of its bad intentions; with sharp looks, firm ride and gusty power. But, with the 1.2 TSI motor in the SE non-sporting-trim, you have to floor it to find the fun buried beneath, once you bury the gas pedal. The little TSI will tickle very efficiently around town all day long, whereas it’s not long before the vRS has you goaded into your old back lane tricks again."

 

 

Im not sure I reading it as though they'd prefer the 1.2tsi over the VRS at all, more like the 1.2tsi is very capable for what its intended for and they say the VRS is better in all the main areas if sporty is your thing. As you'd expect. Then again its all pretty irrelevant as the comparison is of the old Mk2 not the Mk3 that uses an entirely different platform and engines. And yes, Ive driven the 1.2 and VRS extensively and although I rate the 1.2 very highly (when the vehicle isnt fully loaded at least), theres no way Id say it does anything better then the VRS. Different spec aimed at a different market. Both do their job well.  

Yes agreed, horses for courses!

Wicked little engine in something Polo/ Fabia/Rapid size but in the Octavia I think its pushing it. Dont get me wrong its adequate enough but only really in the way the old 1.6 models were,more torque, cleaner and a bit more efficient perhaps but still only adequate.

If you want one with decent go you need a 1.4 TSi 122 or 140 at least.

I've noticed that the new brochure (effective: August 2013) states that the 1.4 TSI manual will accelerate the hatchback from 0 to 62mph in 8.4 seconds. However, the original brochure (effective; March 2013) states this to be 8.1 seconds.

 

(The April brochure also states 8.4 seconds, but I hadn't noticed the difference until now.)

 

 

Were Skoda simply being over-optimistic in the March brochure? (Or have they been spooked because it looked as if the 1.4TSI could accelerate (0-62) as fast as the diesel vRS?)

I've noticed that the new brochure (effective: August 2013) states that the 1.4 TSI manual will accelerate the hatchback from 0 to 62mph in 8.4 seconds. However, the original brochure (effective; March 2013) states this to be 8.1 seconds.

...

 

8.1 is also the acceleration time in this video  so it can be true what you're saying...

1.2Tsi vs 1.4Tsi vs 1.8Tsi

 

new airbag technology?

Edited 30 July, 201312 yr by xman

If I was to say something the 1.4 could be the equivalent of a 2.5L petrol car... but cheap insurance, cheap taxes and eco

Just gone over 1000 mile mark in my 1.2 TSI after having the car for 3 weeks now. I must say I'm really enjoying driving this engine more than I expected to, it took me a few days to get used to the gear ratios but now I have I can get the best out of it. It takes off pretty well in the first and second gears but you do need to be in the correct gear to move off, if you try and move off in third from a slow rolling start you'll find there is nothing there and you have to change down to get it to go no matter how much throttle you give it. It pulls off well between 60 and 70mph, not rapid but enough to get around the caravans without needing to change down from 6th.

Gave the car a good run this weekend, mostly motorway with a 2 mile delay moving very slowly and air con on the whole time, the car gave the below stats;

Miles: 438

Time: 8hr 51min

Avg Speed: 50mph

Avg mpg: 51.6

I took some colleagues out from work for a quick blast last week and they couldn't believe it's a 1.2 petrol, needless to say there were all impressed. The 1.4 TSI must be fantastic but I would recommend if you are thinking of buying a petrol to give the 1.2 TSI a go before making your mind up.

@Has

 

Good to hear you are finding 1.2 TSI engine more than satisfying. Nice figures you got there

 

I definitely will try out both of them if possible and then make a final decision although I'm pretty sure I'll go for the 1.4 at the end anyway   :p

 

Thx for your opinion and info, much appreciated! 

It's got to be the 1.4 any day, I prefer it to my CR vRS. It's so quiet and smooth with lots of pull and I'm now approaching 50 mpg real world brim to brim. I can't see any downsides.

It's got to be the 1.4 any day, I prefer it to my CR vRS. It's so quiet and smooth with lots of pull and I'm now approaching 50 mpg real world brim to brim. I can't see any downsides.

Keep telling urself that stokey so when are u ordering the beast?

Edited 17 August, 201312 yr by Davidsr20

it's always an interesting debate on which is'best' for some the 1.2 will be sufficient, for others it won't and is as much about expectations, driving style, typical journeys and load than about the eengines themselves. Me I'd choose the 1.4 simply because the cost differentials are minimal and you then have the choice whether you use the extra power and flexibility it provides which will make the 1.4 a more pleasent experience especially on longer trips. mpg wise in the real world there will probably be little difference and at greater speeds/higher loadings the 1.4 will probably be better, while on short/low sped trips it'll probably be the other way round. In short after all this waffle there's no right or wrong answer-just choose the one which suits your needs best

The cost difference between the 1.2 and 1.4 in SE trim is £1200, so not exactly minimal plus road tax after year one is £105 on the 1.4 against £30 on the 1.2. The 1.4 will no doubt be a better engine to drive but if budget is a factor in your purchase you won't feel short changed by the 1.2. The 1.4 will hold its value better than the 1.2 but I don't think you'd get all your £1200 back, but I agree it's all down to individual needs.

+1 on the above. coulndn't agree more. well put!

I still can't believe they are fitting such small engines to such

big cars.

I still can't believe they are fitting such small engines to such

big cars.

1.2 is mad in a car that size. It's like putting a heart from a mouse in an elefant!

The 2014 Ford Mondeo will be available with 1.0 EcoBoost engine....small petrols are getting more powerful, don't knock it 'til you've tried it.