Surprised at performance 1.4 TSi

[hobbie2k]

Just this morning I drove across Adelaide and back and ended with 4.9 l/100 (57.6 mpg UK). I was in track to get 4.7, but a few inopportune red lights killed that. I made sure to tell the cross traffic exactly what I thought of them, their ancestors, and the future of their bloodlines.

[themanwithnoaim]

Just this morning I drove across Adelaide and back and ended with 4.9 l/100 (57.6 mpg UK). I was in track to get 4.7, but a few inopportune red lights killed that. I made sure to tell the cross traffic exactly what I thought of them, their ancestors, and the future of their bloodlines.

Another good reason for NOT having a dashcam. LOL 

[ednmra]

Just this morning I drove across Adelaide and back and ended with 4.9 l/100 (57.6 mpg UK). I was in track to get 4.7, but a few inopportune red lights killed that. I made sure to tell the cross traffic exactly what I thought of them, their ancestors, and the future of their bloodlines.

Traffic is a pain - the roads should be reserved just for us Skodas (and a few Ferraris..........and Ford GT40's...............  )

[MorrisOx]

Two days in with my 1.4 DSG, and I'm managing to get an indicated 49-51mpg (UK) without difficulty. Would love to know how accurate the average readout really is, though.

[ednmra]

Two days in with my 1.4 DSG, and I'm managing to get an indicated 49-51mpg (UK) without difficulty. Would love to know how accurate the average readout really is, though.

It must be pretty good as, even compared with my previous 1.8, I find my local filling station visits seeming to become a rarity.

[Gerrycan]

Just this morning I drove across Adelaide and back and ended with 4.9 l/100 (57.6 mpg UK). I was in track to get 4.7, but a few inopportune red lights killed that. I made sure to tell the cross traffic exactly what I thought of them, their ancestors, and the future of their bloodlines.

That sort of cursing is best done in pirate-speak, and definitely no dashcam.

[fabdavrav]

I have the 140PS 1.4 .......& I run it on Shell Nirto as the ECU & the vari cams (inlet & exhaust) make the most of it!............Also the 140PS & the 150PS ACT are the same engine inc the same turbo, just the ECU program & the ACT mech are different......................

 

I yes I find that the engine now run in is very fast & responsive for the size of car!!.................I would have expected a bigger engine for that power, the figures do not do it justice!

[GTR27]

I have a 1.4 with manual, previous Skoda was a mk2 fl vrs. That has a bluefin on it as well. Obviously it's not as fast as the rs, but it's certainly perky enough for our family. I'm nearly up to 4000k on the odo now and the economy keeps improving. 95% of our driving is city driving, with about 70-80% of those trips short trips. My average speed is 34kph. I'm averaging 7l /100 now, improving 0.1-0.2 l/100 per tank. I can get almost flat 6 l/100 in town driving if it's for a reasonable distance. Mid 6s for peak hour. I reckon long term average will be similar to Gerry can around the 6.7 l/100. Highway is in the 5s.

Compared to a friends Mazda 6, not as much top end pull, but way more torque down low, where you use it every day. I get much better economy also.

The 1.4 is a great all round engine, almost diesel like economy, but a spritely performance.

[lostp]

I've also noticed a discrepancy between my trip computer readout and the Fuelly calculated figure after fill ups. Typically the car is a few MPG too optimistic, but when in Eco mode the car really is in la la land with the amount of fuel it think it is saving!

[Gerrycan]

I tried the instant m.p.g. read out once or twice but it keeps flicking through changes so often it is hard to know what it is saying.

It often even showed 0.00 m.p.g (and, no, i wasn't standing still at the time!)

 

In a way I guess the lifetime average m.p.g figure is more relevant anyway.

If you changed the reading from mpg to litres/100 then the 0.0 reading on overrun is factually accurate.

I guess the system has a problem when set on mpg for showing 'infinity and beyond' (apologies to Buzz Lightyear).

I find the instant readout essential for economic driving. On a flat road you can driving steadily at 60 kph showing 4.5 l/100 and you can ease back to 3.7 l/100 and still maintain speed. Doesn't sound much but that is nearly 20% less. The greater consumption was actually giving you barely discernable and unnecessary acceleration.

Cruise control does a pretty good job on the flat but is less efficient in hilly terrain.

[hobbie2k]

I have a 1.4 with manual, previous Skoda was a mk2 fl vrs. That has a bluefin on it as well. Obviously it's not as fast as the rs, but it's certainly perky enough for our family. I'm nearly up to 4000k on the odo now and the economy keeps improving. 95% of our driving is city driving, with about 70-80% of those trips short trips. My average speed is 34kph. I'm averaging 7l /100 now, improving 0.1-0.2 l/100 per tank. I can get almost flat 6 l/100 in town driving if it's for a reasonable distance. Mid 6s for peak hour. I reckon long term average will be similar to Gerry can around the 6.7 l/100. Highway is in the 5s.

We are seeing very similar results. Currently on 7.1 long term. My wife does most of the driving and doesn't care one bit about driving efficiently.

[GTR27]

We are seeing very similar results. Currently on 7.1 long term. My wife does most of the driving and doesn't care one bit about driving efficiently.

Good to see that a few of us in similar conditions are getting roughly the same. For reference, our 1.3l Honda jazz gets about 7l/100 as well in the same conditions.

Even spanking it in traffic, I haven't seen worse than mid 8s. For the performance offered, the economy is absolutely brilliant

[Gerrycan]

I've also noticed a discrepancy between my trip computer readout and the Fuelly calculated figure after fill ups. Typically the car is a few MPG too optimistic, but when in Eco mode the car really is in la la land with the amount of fuel it think it is saving!

There have been quite a few posts with drivers claiming they achieve better consumption in Normal or Sport mode than Economy, but since the majority of postings are from vRS drivers I am not sure the same would apply to the 1.4tsi.

I drive a manual but apparently the DSG in Economy mode allows 'coasting' which has fantastic economy potential if the roads and traffic allow sufficient event anticipation. You can literally coast for a kilometre with appropriate initial speed/gradient/wind assist with minimal speed loss (at 200+ mpg). Not always possible in traffic so you are probably better off in the other modes that provide some engine braking and zero fuel use.

Having said that the 1.4tsi engine is such a small unit and has so little frictional drag that the engine braking provided is minimal and it took me ages to get used to after my previous diesel.

So unless the average for a tank of fuel is also way out when using Economy mode I would not discount the 'la la land' readouts entirely.

[hobbie2k]

the 1.4tsi engine is such a small unit and has so little frictional drag that the engine braking provided is minimal and it took me ages to get used to after my previous diesel.

I noticed the lack of engine braking, too. Coming down the M1 into Adelaide, not even third will hold the car back without brakes...

[Dempsek]

For me the 1.4 is the hidden gem in the group. It's near VRS TDI performance with diesel like fuel economy and torque. I wonder if the variance in calculated to car MPG is down to the car calculating in l/100km and converting to MPG?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[themanwithnoaim]

 

Having said that the 1.4tsi engine is such a small unit and has so little frictional drag that the engine braking provided is minimal and it took me ages to get used to after my previous diesel.

 

You get more engine braking at higher revs, if I keep the Tiptronic held back in mine it shifts down allowing 6K redline producing way more braking power, noise and FUN.

[JPH0091]

For me the 1.4 is the hidden gem in the group. It's near VRS TDI performance with diesel like fuel economy and torque. I wonder if the variance in calculated to car MPG is down to the car calculating in l/100km and converting to MPG?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The one having the same performances and providing exactly the same torque to the wheels than the RS TDI is the 1.8 TSI.

The 1.4 TSI is way behind.

[Gromle]

The one having the same performances and providing exactly the same torque to the wheels than the RS TDI is the 1.8 TSI.

The 1.4 TSI is way behind.

The 1.8 Tsi produces way less torque than the vRS TDI doesnt it? It the same as the 1.4TSI, the 4x4 getd a bit more torque.

But it is faster.

Edited 4 April, 2015 by Gromle

[fabdavrav]

VAG reduced the internal friction on the new EA211 engines (1.2 & 1.4) as a main priority. They reduced the main bearing down to 42-48mm from 54mm dia, reduced the weight on the crankshaft by 20% & the weight of the conrods by 30% (compared to the previous EA111 engine)

[Gerrycan]

I don't think anyone would dispute that when the going gets tough (hills, towing and high speed) then a diesel will deliver and with better economy.

However within the context of Standard British and Aussie speed limits with standard loads the 1.4tsi offers similar performance to the larger diesel with about 1l/100 penalty.

Of course the diesel produces more torque at the flywheel, but the torque at the wheel depends on the gearing.

My 1.9d produced about 20Nm more than the 1.4 but only 77 kW . The 1.4tsi is about a 100+ lighter and produces 103 kW and so is about 4seconds faster to 100 kph.

Use the performance though and you get TWMNA consumption. He is a bad man.

[MorrisOx]

I guess that how 'remarkable' you find the 1.4TSi depends on what you've come to it from. My last car was a V70 2.5T five-cylinder auto with 200bhp, which was a bit of a bruiser. By comparison, the Octy (mine's a DSG) is quieter, smoother and does the whole 'on' and 'off' thing less markedly partly because there's less mechanical mass flying around.

It almost looks a bit lost in the engine bay, but it really is an impressive engine and the seven-speed DSG seems brilliantly well-suited to it. I'm now on day four and my running average MPG is now an indicated 54 - which I'm guessing muust be high 40s in the real world.

[ednmra]

I'm not sure I even considered fuel consumption when thinking about getting my car.

Obviously I didn't want it drinking gas like a 7 litre V8, but I didn't think it would be either horrendous or magical. But then again I do low annual mileage.

 

I was concerned it would feel dull and slow after the Mk. 2 1.8. And happily it doesn't.

[JPH0091]

The 1.8 Tsi produces way less torque than the vRS TDI doesnt it? It the same as the 1.4TSI, the 4x4 getd a bit more torque.

But it is faster.

You are talking about the engine torque, which is of no use in real life. You need to compute what is made availble to the wheels, based on the transmission ratio and the axle ratio.

Here are two curves:

- the first one compares the max torque available to the wheels between the RS TDI and the 1.8 TSI (you'll see you''ll get exactely the same from the petrol compared to the diesel whatever the car  speed. Obviously not at the same rpm nor at same gear)

 

- the second compares the 1.8 with the 1.4. The problem with the 1.4 is that the max torque to the wheel is made available at a rpm for which the engine torque has already started to fade.

Edited 4 April, 2015 by JPH0091

[fabdavrav]

the second compares the 1.8 with the 1.4. The problem with the 1.4 is that the max torque to the wheel is made available at a rpm for which the engine torque has already started to fade.

 

Which 1.4 TSI engine though?.............as it doesn't state!

 

Also the 1.4lt 140PS & 1.8lt 180PS engine are limited to the same peak torque figure of 250Nm

Edited 4 April, 2015 by fabdavrav

[JPH0091]

Which 1.4 TSI engine though?.............as it doesn't state!

The 1.4 TSI 140ps (103kW) and 250Nm. The only one on the octavia, as far as I know.