Hi guys,

 

I'm looking to change my Mk1 Fabia vRS diesel to a 105 TSI Monte Carlo and was wondering about "real life" performance difference.

 

Could someone time a 4th gear 30-60mph test?  I know the 2 cars will drive differently but was wondering what its like.

 

I'd goto a dealer and have a test drive but I'm up in Shetland and the nearest dealer is either 12hr ferry trip or flight to Aberdeen!

 

I've spent ages digging about the internet but can't find any times. Just a rough time would be a great help.

 

Stuart

I'm in the Red corner, so why not a CR TDI?

 

I'd imagine closer to what your Mk1 VRS is (diesel, similar power, probably more torque)...

 

Or is it the DPF scaremongery???

Welcome to the forum.

 

Hopefully someone that had a MK1 vRS and now a 1.2 TSI 105ps can help with an answer.

 

How much is a litre of fuel costing at present up there?

(EDIT, I see its still @ 10 pence a litre or more than in Aberdeen.)

I can understand you looking at petrol engined cars.

 

(EDIT, A nice vRS Demonstrator sitting at the Dealership in Aberdeen, that a bargain might be had on.

& Maybe they need to drop the 62 Plate with under 3,000 miles by £1000)

 

http://scotsman.com/news/transport/shetland-the-home-of-the-nation-s-slowest-cars-1-3051750

 

george

it will simply not have the torque of a PD engine... you need to drive it differently, more revs if you want the acceleration. cracking engine though by all accounts and if you were dissapointed, you could always get a TMC box to up it to circa 130bhp? or buy a vRS and hjave loads more performance than your PD

Now that is journalism at it's best:

 

People in the islands don't buy convertibles as much as in Surrey (yah!!).  Maybe that's to do with the weather...and required pose factor.

 

And the islands are small with fuel costing as much as everywhere else so they want to be frugal to save.  BUT if you're not driving mega miles then you might not need diesel.

 

I'm in the wrong business...

thats why I said "just get the vRS" lol...

 

whats your yearly mileage stuart? cant be that much......

The Journalist only Quoted from Research and surveys (& another Journalist/s) that others published,

and did not say they were correct. 

 

The article is about statistics, it is actually cr4p.

Driving in Shetland is lots of fun.

 

george

I had a Mk1 vRS a few years ago and swopped it for the Superb (same 1.9TDi 130bhp) Auto that I've got now.

 

Looking now to swop my wifes car so went to our local dealer last week and drove the 1.2 petrol Monte Carlo and a 1.6 105bhp diesel back to back. Wasn't exactly like for like as the diesel was base spec without leather wheel/gaiter etc... so it felt different. I thought the petrol picked up quickly through the low gears (and I was initially really surprised by the performance) but seemed to run out of oomph a bit when I was looking to accelerate off around 50mph+. It then felt a bit 'low powered'. Then drove the diesel and thought that picked up far better in that mid/upper range..... like the old vRS. As my 20 mile commute includes 12 miles on the M6 I went for the diesel for better flexibility at speed. It made me smile... just like the first time I drove the old vRS... for its punch in 1st/2nd gear and that mid-range pick up. I liked it.... and bear in mind that arrived at the dealership in a 180bhp supercharged petrol SLK.

 

Hope that might help.....

Thanks for all the replies....

 

Fuel in shetland is EXPENSIVE. Diesel is 148.9 and petrol 141.9, which is quite a big jump even AFTER our 5p/iitre island discount.

 

I do about 6-7,000 miles per year but the main reason I'm not going diesel is the fact I use the car for short runs and I could see DPF regeneration being a problem - there's no dual carriage way or motorways up here, so trying to keep 38+mph for 15-20mins is actually quite difficult      I know of a few people in Shetland, especially on the smaller islands, that have DPF issues.

 

Sorry but I dont like the Fabia II vrs... dont like the DSG box and 180hp in shetland is a bit of an overkill.

 

I realise I'd have to change my driving style and drop it down a gear to get the 105 TSI to pull. As long as its capable of not struggling up our steep hills, semi reasonable on fuel (I dont expect the official figures, more like early 40's) and its a bit of fun then I'd be happy.  From what I'm reading, the Monte Carlo should suit me fine - just learn to stir the gearbox.

 

Where my fabia diesel will do 30-60 in 4th in about 8 secs, I know to come close to it, I'll have to drop the 105 TSI to 3rd, but was just wondering what its like doing 30-60 in 4th.

 

So if anyone is able to do a quick test in a 105 TSI using a stop watch I'd be very greatful.  (a 4th and 3rd gear test would be a bonus)

 

Stuart

George,

 

I dont think the Shetland police would agree with that newspaper article     3 drivers clocked at over 90mph this past week

http://www.shetnews.co.uk/news/7419-three-drivers-clocked-at-over-90mph

 

And past 3 months couple people clocked at 110 and 115mph!

 

If money was no object and I had shares in OPEC, I'd go for an Octavia vRS petrol but the fuel costs would be crippling!

I recently read a review of the Polo 105TSi (R Line trim pack) and it was positive about performance - said it was obviously no warm hatch but had enough go to be fun.

Brian69, yeah I read something similar from autoexpress. Don't need a flying machine but something fun to chuck about the winding roads of shetland.

 

Polo has a 6 speed box which slightly changes things, but as others have said, there's not much ingear numbers. (I found 30-50 3rd gear 4.5secs)

by your description of what you want it sounds perfect, its NOT an underperforming engine, just not as quick as your old vRS

I drove a 1.2 TSI the other week quite a way, currently in a 1.9TDi with 105Bhp. I was very impressed by the performance of the 1.2 TSI, it is quick, faster than the 1.9TDi ironically. 0 - 60 is a claimed 10.1 seconds. MPG wise it did well, if you gave it some welly it went down, though I saw mid 40's for the whole time I had the car. In my 1.9TDi I am getting about 48mpg as it is really hilly where I am. After handing it back I was wondering why I changed to diesel! I do find the TDi better on the hills though as an all rounder, power / fuel economy and torque. Sorry don't have a 30 - 60 time for you.

 

I can see the 1.2TSI may have its issues as it gets older as it has both a turbo charger and super charger.

the 1.2 doesn't have a supercharger

Ah - ok my mistake from what I was reading elsewhere on the Internet! So what does TSI stand for on this model?

1.2 TSI (Turbo/injection.)  '1197 cc 105 ps' 

 

 If its in an VW/Skoda/Seat they use 'TSI', in an Audi 'TFSI',  same difference.

 

If it has a Supercharger & Turbo they still call them TSI or TFSI.  ????

http://www.autoevolution.com/news/volkswagen-tsi-engines-explained-60143.html

Turbo Stratified Injection instead of Twin Stratified Injection?

VW probably just chose it because it sounds good.

Have you thought about the Fiesta 1.0 Ecoboost - comes in either 99 or 123 bhp (or that might be PS - can't mind)? I also drive a Fiesta (although not Ecoboost) and the handling is superb - I'd imagine the Ecoboost would put a smile on your face in the twisties - fairly pricey though!

Now lets be absolutely clear guys 10.1 is the 0-62 mph figure for the 1.2 Tsi, the 0-60 is 9.8 secs.

 

I'm not into clocking my cars performance but it's quick for what it is especially with the DSG used in manual mode. 

 

I do know it flys to around 70 mph but after that you begin to realise it's a 1.2. :(   Great engine for my purposes though.

Brian69,

 

I tried a Fiesta 1.0 ecoboost. It was the 100hp 175nm version (so -5hp and same torque as 1.2TSI) and its handling was good, but the gearing was terrible.

 

30mph, 4th gear, on a flat road and its nearly stalling because its at 1200 rpm. I worked out that it was geared in 5th for 170mph!! lol

30-60 in 4th, according to Ford times is something like 14 secs.  Crazy thing is that a few weeks after I had a courtesy car, 1.2 60hp polo, and the same test was only very slightly slower. 50% less power and torque and nearly the same? Yup gearing.  Ford lengthened the gearing to get it to 99g CO2.

 

I found a video on youtube of a 1.2TSI and being a geek I've managed to work out the rpm's in which gears and the Fabia is "normal" ;-) 

 

My dad lives in Shetland too and he's got a Yeti 1.2 TSI but his DSG gearing is totally different so I cant get any times off his car. It seems to go ok though.

 

Sharkrider - I've looked at autocar's 1.4 TSI 140hp polo GT and its performance is damn close to my Fabia vrs (ingear and 0-60). Could chip the monte carlo to 130 ish if I'm left wanting ;-)

Forget official figures, they show the Polo GTI as llghter and faster (6.9 second) & more economic than the vRS, (7.3 seconds) none of which they actually are. Just as the A1 & Cupra are not also 6.9 Seconds.

 

A Seat Ibiza 1.4 TSI 150PS FR is pretty good, (Official figure 7.6 seconds but it is quicker than that.) only in a DSG though.

the Polo Blue GT 140 PS is not the same as that. (7.9 seconds)

£18,000 for a manual 5 door .

There are plenty of cars that do, 0-62 in 7.9 seconds or even 6.5 seconds.

 

 

george

Yeah 0-60 all depends on the road conditions and how good the driver is etc. The ingear performance of the polo GT matches my Fabia vrs times but I'm not paying 18grand for 140hp!

 

Im pretty sure the Monte will be what I need, and could get a remap if needed. Just need someone with a 105TSI to do a quick test.

 

I think I'd be the only Monte on Shetland

Stuartt.

Tried your little in gear test this morning on my way to work.

30-60 MPH in 3rd gear took just under 8 seconds.

30-60 MPH in 4th gear took just under 13 seconds.

4th gear laboured a bit at 30 MPH but soon picked up as the turbo started spinning and 3rd gear started pulling straight away and felt quite strong from the off.

The 1.2 TSI punches above it's weight for a small engine and is a hoot to drive and I get low 40s mpg all of the time mostly doing urban and town driving.

Hope this helps.

Surely they can not be as slow as that.

 

A standard vRS does 0-80 in 11 seconds.

0-70 in 9 seconds.

0-60 in 6.7

30-50 3.2

50-70 3.5