In terms of durability, is the 1.2 TSI 105hp too small for the rapid body? 

I wouldn't think so....the Rapid is very light.

I second what RapidRonnie says. The kg/hp ratio is quite low on the Rapid.

Other than that you can not judge an engine's durability from the weight or type of body. It' s all about the engine's quality built and durability of internals. The 1.2 tsi was known for the timing chain problem, hope this is solved, and many people say that the oil to be used should be vw approved for this engine

Thanks for the replies.

 

I'll context you: today I went to a car parts shop to buy something for my older car. I went with the Rapid. And they asked my which was the engine...and I said and they got very (and badly) impressed...like "1.2 105hp for that kind of body?? " "The car is so big, be carefully you'll have problems in the future" and stuff like that. Well, as I don't understand much about this stuff I didn't argue back. At first they didn't even believe me, but they checked in the VW/Skoda database.

 

But yeah, I feel the car very light, I never felt it struggling, even at an uphill start. 

Six months before I bought my Roomster 105tsi, if you had told me I was going to get a 1.2 petrol engined van with windows, I'd have slapped the back of your head and said "don't be silly". I love it, it's nippy, economical and surprisingly a mile muncher. My other car has a 3.5 V8, it has bags of grunt and it progresses without drama (at between 15 to 18 mpg!), the Roomster is like a Jack Russell terrier on amphetamines.*

 

 

*but no matter how good it is, it cannot match my V8's engine note

niant - I wouldn't invest too much in the opinion of the people in that car parts shop, personally. Traditional logic indicates that too small an engine would have to strain to move a big car (though I think they may be surprised how light the rapid is for such a large car). This might hurt longevity but surely also fuel economy. As people are returning good economy from this engine compared to the previous 1.6 105ps, I would suggest that the engine is far from straining. In my experience, it does not need to be revved hard at all to make good progress - quite the opposite. This is the result of the turbocharger. However, it is a more complex engine and just having a turbocharger, intercooler etc means there are more parts to go wrong or wear out in the end. But how many turbocharged diesels are there on the road? (Loads!)

Six months before I bought my Roomster 105tsi, if you had told me I was going to get a 1.2 petrol engined van with windows, I'd have slapped the back of your head and said "don't be silly". I love it, it's nippy, economical and surprisingly a mile muncher. My other car has a 3.5 V8, it has bags of grunt and it progresses without drama (at between 15 to 18 mpg!), the Roomster is like a Jack Russell terrier on amphetamines.*

 

 

*but no matter how good it is, it cannot match my V8's engine note

 

 

niant - I wouldn't invest too much in the opinion of the people in that car parts shop, personally. Traditional logic indicates that too small an engine would have to strain to move a big car (though I think they may be surprised how light the rapid is for such a large car). This might hurt longevity but surely also fuel economy. As people are returning good economy from this engine compared to the previous 1.6 105ps, I would suggest that the engine is far from straining. In my experience, it does not need to be revved hard at all to make good progress - quite the opposite. This is the result of the turbocharger. However, it is a more complex engine and just having a turbocharger, intercooler etc means there are more parts to go wrong or wear out in the end. But how many turbocharged diesels are there on the road? (Loads!)

 

That what I feel when I drive my Rapid. Of course, it's just their opinion. It's just that some people like to say this thing without knowing, in most of the cases, what they are talking about. They didn't even know the rapid existed. And for what I could gather from the internet, the these small tsi engines tend to very good engines, at all aspects. Let's see then! thank you for the responses!

the Roomster is like a Jack Russell terrier on amphetamines.

Best description I've yet read of the 1.2 TSI :-)

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 4

Well, I just remembered that Ford Focus Eco Boost (more or less the same size has rapid) has an 1.0 with some 120's Hp. So, it's a smaller engine but with even more hp. Isn't this too much pressure? I hope car makers know what they are doing:) lol

My first car was a beat up 1963 Mk1 Cortina (Reg 285 GWU!!) with a 1.2 engine.  I think it produced 45bhp and dragged the car to almost 75mph using a calender rather than a stopwatch to measure the 0-60 time.

 

Some people have failed to move from there and have it in their heads that you need minimum 1.6 engine in a car the size of the Rapid.

 

Later I had a 1972 MkIII Cortina 1.6.  I think that produced around 65bhp.  So much for a 1.6!!!

 

So you see, people need to realise that they need to stop thinking capacity and start looking at engine output.