I read that as the 1.4 twincharger has had lots of issues... (which it has)...

Anyway, this looks like a nice option using the new generation 3 EA888 1.8tsi is a fantastic move. Really tuneable and a nice unit alround, advancing on from the gen 2 unit in other Skoda's and older VW group cars. And finally a manual box for proper interaction - really interested to see how much they are going to ask for one.

Indeed woulfd expect there to be a 160 hp ACT 1.4 TSI engine like the Golf and call it VRS maybe but possible some other TLA.

 

Would be less than 120 grm/km and still less than 8 seconds to 60 so not bad but not my way forward.

 

We need a new 1.8 TSI with the ACT system on it as that would be awesome.  Still could probably get under the 120 grm/km but be a 7 second car to 60 so just right.

Edited 19 September, 201411 yr by lol-lol

Topics merged.

So it's Audi S1 -230 BHP petrol

 

Then Polo GTI - 190 BHP petrol

 

So will it be  Fabia vRD -150 /184 BHP Diesel?

 

The S1 is not a comparitive car to the Polo GTI and Fabia VRS.  So that scaling down doesn't really work.

It's a higher model with the normal A1 having the same engine/DSG as the GTI/VRS.

 

The Polo GTI and Fabia VRS are more likely to have similar power outputs.

If it ever arrives.

And finally a manual box for proper interaction

 

Yeah I don't really understand when people say this. The DSG is a fantastic gearbox. if it was fully auto with no override or ability to shift gears when you wanted I'd agree with you...

 

I find popping up and down the gears using the paddles just as satisfying. When you build up the skill to use it to your advantage its a ruddy good way of making progress quickly.

 

Cars never used to have anti-lock brakes, so now that all cars are fitted with ABS, does that make the brakes any less interactive to the driving experience?

Yeah I don't really understand when people say this. The DSG is a fantastic gearbox. if it was fully auto with no override or ability to shift gears when you wanted I'd agree with you...

 

I find popping up and down the gears using the paddles just as satisfying. When you build up the skill to use it to your advantage its a ruddy good way of making progress quickly.

 

Cars never used to have anti-lock brakes, so now that all cars are fitted with ABS, does that make the brakes any less interactive to the driving experience?

 

ABS is a safety feature that only activates in emergency situations.

I'm not sure you can compare that to the DSG box which is there working away all the time you are driving and changing your interaction/feel of the car..

 

I undersand some people prefer DSG and it is quicker, but the way I see it DSG removes part of the skill.

Technology is so good now car makers make cars peform better by removing some of the work the driver has to do.

It is easier to drive a DSG car to it's limit than a manual.

Having tracked both I found the DSG cars easier and less fun to drive.

But that is my personal opinion.

ABS is a safety feature that only activates in emergency situations.

 

 

Very good point and I agree,

 

But It could also be down to the skill of the driver to prevent the wheels from locking? Or when they do have the ability to bring the car under control?

 

We also have all manner or stability and traction control systems fitted to modern cars which as soon as we enter a track, all want to turn off. So why not ABS too for a more 'interactive drive'? Much more powerful sports, super, hyper and race cars have semi-auto flappy paddle or stick sequential boxes as we all know. Engineers wouldn't fit them if they didn't aid the performance of the car or what a proficient driver could wring out of it.

 

So maybe the issue is not with semi-auto boxes themselves, but the suitability of them being fitted to warm / hot hatches?

 

 

Who am I kidding, people will never agree and this age old debate will go on forever!

Very good point and I agree,

 

But It could also be down to the skill of the driver to prevent the wheels from locking? Or when they do have the ability to bring the car under control?

 

We also have all manner or stability and traction control systems fitted to modern cars which as soon as we enter a track, all want to turn off. So why not ABS too for a more 'interactive drive'? Much more powerful sports, super, hyper and race cars have semi-auto flappy paddle or stick sequential boxes as we all know. Engineers wouldn't fit them if they didn't aid the performance of the car or what a proficient driver could wring out of it.

 

But ABS is only activated when the driver goes beyond their skill level or is about to have an accident.

I'm not sure how removing it would make the drive more "interactive".

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

DSG type gearboxes are fitted to some very fast cars now, exactly because they make the car able to perform better.

 

Nissan's GT-R is well known to hit 60mph in under 3 seconds and the gearbox flatters the car a lot making it very capable.

If there was a manual option it would be noticably slower.

 

The emphasis is on making the car perform better, not making it the best drivers car.

 

The fact is that most people out there buying these cars do not have the skill level to drive a car of that performance with a manual gearbox.

Buy having the DSG type transmission tied into the car's onboard electronics it has a double benefit.

 

Firstly it does make the car faster and on top models the statistics of what the car can do are very important, it sells cars.

Without it's gearbox the GT-R would not be crushing Supercars.

 

Secondly it makes the car able to be driven by the people that can afford it.  Money does not equal driving skill.

These cars are so fast that without the DSG they would be much more demanding and many more would end up in fields and hedges.

Go back 10 years and cars of this performance didn't exist.  DSG is now required in some cars to obtain the performance and save the driver from themselves.

 

I ran my GT-R (new/DSG) and Skyline GT-R (old/manual) side by side for a while.

With similar bhp per kg the new one was so much quicker and easier to drive, yet the older one was always more fun.

 

It is interesting to see people's desires in a car.

I used to care about speed.  Always upgrading to get more speed.  DSG helps there.

A quicker car must be better right?

Speed = fun so more speed = more fun?

Now I've got over that, I want a car that entertains me.

At the limit the Skyline scares me.  So much more fun than any DSG type car I've ever come across.

Oh, and I've removed the ABS. :p

 

I'm not sure how removing it would make the drive more "interactive".

 

Likewise, I am not sure how removing a manual gear change from certain cars makes the drive less interactive. I guess that's the point I am trying to make, you don't have to be heel and toe braking and yanking a stick around (some people who enjoy late night park up's in secluded area's may disagree) to have fun in a car.

 

You could have an amazing manual gearbox and gear change but dull woolly steering, I guess its just finding the balance!

 

 

It is interesting to see people's desires in a car.

I used to care about speed.  Always upgrading to get more speed.  DSG helps there.

A quicker car must be better right?

Speed = fun so more speed = more fun?

 

Exactly; People desires are different.

 

I like to have a quick car, who doesn't? Is it the be all end all for me? Obviously not for me, I bought a MK2 VRS.... :p

I couldn't agree more with you. Speed does not = Fun.

What I love most about the DSG and why I really rate it is if I feel like making good progress I can and in my opinion have lots of fun doing it with the flappy paddles and pretty instant shifts keeping you on the power.

Likewise when I want a relaxing cruise along and just enjoy traveling, I leave it in auto, pop some good music on and just enjoy the journey.

 

We are lucky that we have the option of manual or good auto's!

Having the DSG just makes it too simple - too easy - there's no challenge and a lack of reward for me as the driver. I had a VRS for five days and was happy to give it back. The following week I had a 1.2tsi 105 manual estate and loved it. Having to work it harder, manual gears included just made it so much more appealing.

What are the changes on the Gen3 EA888 1.8tsi over the 2nd Gen in the Yeti (and I guess my Superb)

Likewise, I am not sure how removing a manual gear change from certain cars makes the drive less interactive. I guess that's the point I am trying to make, you don't have to be heel and toe braking and yanking a stick around (some people who enjoy late night park up's in secluded area's may disagree) to have fun in a car.

 

Interactive surely means interaction between car and driver.

While you don't need to heel and toe and yank that stick around to have fun surely that's a more interactive way of driving than DSG.

Pressing/pulling a button/paddle on the the steering wheel instead may be fine and as satisfying for some.

 

I do understand that some people like DSG, but you can't claim it's as interactive.  Because of what the word "interactive" means.

Interactive surely means interaction between car and driver.

While you don't need to heel and toe and yank that stick around to have fun surely that's a more interactive way of driving than DSG.

Pressing/pulling a button/paddle on the the steering wheel instead may be fine and as satisfying for some.

 

I do understand that some people like DSG, but you can't claim it's as interactive.  Because of what the word "interactive" means.

 

As interactive in the sense of doing something to the car? No I can't say that. Using a clutch and manual stick change is more of a process than pressing a button.

 

But in the sense of interaction between you and the car and the feeling it gives you when driving I don't feel there is less than manual. Granted it's different. But not less in my opinion. I find it satisfying as I am still impressed by the speed of changes and the performance perk it brings. Plus I am a massive geek!

 

Like we have both said, different people have different preferences. But to say it is lesser than a Manual box would be wrong IMO.

 

Now this is a debate / discussion I have enjoyed!!! :-)

 

Yes, Its the new EA888 1.8 as seen in the latest Leon, A3 etc and also makes an appearance in the Octavia L&K afaik. Great engine, moved on nicely from the generation 2 1.8TSi that I run in the Yeti and (just like the EA888 2 litre units) responds really well to tuning. My guess however is that the new Fabia wont be seeing this unit as it seems to be appearing in MQB chassis cars only - not something that the new Fabia 3 will be based on sadly.

 

Not relevant as:

 

- Facelift Polo is not MQB either

- Fabia 3 does have the engines from MQB

Like we have both said, different people have different preferences. But to say it is lesser than a Manual box would be wrong IMO.

Now this is a debate / discussion I have enjoyed!!! :-)

 

I think it depends how you define in what way it's lesser.

 

Clearly, in many ways it's superior.

Less time wasted in gear changes, less time off the power, less skill required when going briskly to rev match, less chance of ballsing something up.

 

The argument against having DSG is typically one of feel.  It's how a manual gearbox makes the driver feel.

The fact is that a manual gearbox simply isn't as good from a technical point of view.

It's only saving grace is that it takes more skill to drive a manual car better than joe public.

 

If you take the time to perfect the skill of driving a manual briskly in terms of heel and toe, rev matching etc... then the manual option can give the driver a better experience if they like that more involved interactive feel.

 

Yes, they will still be working harder and going slower than a similar car with DSG.

 

This brings me back to the GT-R (apologies) in the fact that it was a car I really liked, but it didn't set my soul on fire.

I respected it and was impressed by it for the technical wonder it was.

As you said about DSG, it is truely impressive.

But it remains a way of driving that requires less skill to perform the "process" of changing gear in a highly proficient manner.

 

I think it comes down to wether you consider changing gear a skill or a process.

Maybe that's the answer?

 

I quite often find myself driving my diesel Yeti to and from work rev matching, using a bit of heel and toe on the country lanes etc... just because I like the "process".

The argument against having DSG is typically one of feel.  It's how a manual gearbox makes the driver feel.

The fact is that a manual gearbox simply isn't as good from a technical point of view.

It's only saving grace is that it takes more skill to drive a manual car better than joe public.

 

If you take the time to perfect the skill of driving a manual briskly in terms of heel and tow, rev matching etc... then the manual option can give the driver a better experience if they like that more involved interactive feel.

 

Very good point, and I agree. But the point I am trying to make is that having a DSG box while making life easier in regards of changing gear efficiently does not take away massive amounts of enjoyment from driving a car either quickly or not. If anything, having that support from the box allows you to focus more on the corners and getting them right which in my opinion I get a greater satisfaction from than getting up to speed quickly.

 

 

I think it comes down to wether you consider changing gear a skill or a process.

Maybe that's the answer?

 

I quite often find myself driving my diesel Yeti to and from work rev matching, using a bit of heel and toe on the country lanes etc... just because I like the "process".

 

No doubt in my mind that gear changing when done efficiently and effectively is a skill. And any skill when mastered is hugely satisfying so hands down a manual box beats DSG.

 

 

This brings me back to the GT-R (apologies) in the fact that it was a car I really liked, but it didn't set my soul on fire.

 

Never apologise about bringing up the GTR, I have unrivalled respect for that car and what it can achieve, and like you said, one of the reasons it is a supercar killer is down to its gearbox.

 

So it is a prime example on what we are discussing regarding the manual & auto

Very good point, and I agree. But the point I am trying to make is that having a DSG box while making life easier in regards of changing gear efficiently does not take away massive amounts of enjoyment from driving a car either quickly or not. If anything, having that support from the box allows you to focus more on the corners and getting them right which in my opinion I get a greater satisfaction from than getting up to speed quickly.

 

Yes, I get that.

DSG removes a part of the work that a driver has to do when hammering into a corner, hence giving the driver more chance to concentrate on getting the position, speed and balance of the car right.

I do find it easier to get corners right in a DSG car with high performance when on an unfamiliar track.

 

So... Polo GTI...

There is another argument against DSG type boxes.

 

They are much more complex than a manual box, therefore there is more to go wrong and it's a bl**dy sight more expensive to fix when it does go wrong.

 

There's a lot to be said for the KISS principle.

Not relevant as:

 

- Facelift Polo is not MQB either

- Fabia 3 does have the engines from MQB

I thought the bigger engines only fitted into the MQB - B segment cars - that's what an early MQB press release said - due to the space and commonality the platform allowed in the engine bay area...  but you are indeed correct in respect of the smaller units... So this fl Polo is just that - a fl of the current platform and this gets the EA888 1.8. With Skoda commenting so clearly that there will never be a VRS I just cant see anything more than a 1.4tsi making its way into the Fabia mk3 but time will tell.

 With Skoda commenting so clearly that there will never be a VRS I just cant see anything more than a 1.4tsi making its way into the Fabia mk3 but time will tell.

 

Peugeot were adamant no GTI badeg ever again.  remember the 208 GTi launch.

 

Ford dumped the RS badge after the dissapointment of the RS1800 and RS2000, remember the mk1 focus RS coming back same happens with every RS since

 

VW dumped the GTI model after mk4, remember the Mk5 Gti coming back to massive launch and fanfare.

 

Subaru scrapped the saloon WRX will be hatchback going forward full stop, remember the fanfare recently when they brought the saloon back

 

Honda scrapped the Type R and were adamant it would not be used on a  civic again after the FN2, seen the hype for the new Type R and the 2 year lead up to it launching next year

 

Remember when Mitsubishi said the Evo 8, then The Evo 9 then the Evo 10 would all be diesels and they would never do a petrol,, oh hang on petrols back.

 

remember when Renault said the brilliant Clio 200 was the going to get 4 drs only a 1.6 turbo engine and an auto box, well that never happened did it,...... oh hang on, you can have that one, the day Renault were smoking crack.....lol

 

 

 

Anyway the above is to highlight that a car firm will say something then when they bring it back theres a fanfare and a story and it's PR friendly especially in the UK.  So thats why I'm so confident the VRS will be back in fabia mk3.  Without a VRS the Monte Carlo would never have sold as well,   Look at how many Corsa Limited edition 1.2's were sold using the styling from the low selling Corsa VXR.  

.......and the 1.4 TSi Twin Charge hasnt?

It was the 1.4 twincharger i was refering to

The S1 is not a comparitive car to the Polo GTI and Fabia VRS.  So that scaling down doesn't really work.

It's a higher model with the normal A1 having the same engine/DSG as the GTI/VRS.

 

The Polo GTI and Fabia VRS are more likely to have similar power outputs.

If it ever arrives.

The point I was making, is  that 12 months ago we were looking at the three models at a status quo , by sharing the 1.4 TSI twin charger engine base for their top small "hot hatch" variants.

 

However, now we are apparently looking at a sizeable separation in the model briefs to the market, not just in quality and standard of fit and finish but a marked difference in the performance offerings . 

 

Hence the three possible steps I pointed out. 

 

We also know from the Skoda CEO that there will not be a Fabia vRS, (?) until they wake up and smell the coffee.

The point I was making, is  that 12 months ago we were looking at the three models at a status quo , by sharing the 1.4 TSI twin charger engine base for their top small "hot hatch" variants.

 

But the Audi S1 never had a 1.4tsi twincharger, that was an A1.

The S1 is a new option to sit above the A1 with the GTI/VRS engine.  So the A1/GTI/VRS could still be roughly on a par... if they ever decide to make the VRS.

As to fitting bigger engines in the PQ25 (A05) Platform as currently used in the Seat Ibiza 2013 FL (mk4) ,

Skoda Fabia MK2 2010 FL,  VW Polo 2014 FL (mk5)

& Audi A1 (typ 8X).

 

The S1 (2014) is the same Platform with modifications to take the 2.0 l engine and part  time awd system & Multilink suspension..

But the Audi S1 never had a 1.4tsi twincharger, that was an A1.

The S1 is a new option to sit above the A1 with the GTI/VRS engine.  So the A1/GTI/VRS could still be roughly on a par... if they ever decide to make the VRS.

 

 

S1 is same unit as The forthcoming polo R awd.  i have to say every time i go to germany and see the current Polo R's i wonder why anyone would go Golf Gti when the Polo has the 2.0 in it, shame it never came to uk.