Just surprised that VW seem to have ditched the 1.2 engine in a lot of their models (Golf and Polo) in favour of a new 1.0TSI 110 and 115 engine which seems to have a lot more torque but worse MPG and yet seemingly better CO2 emissions. 

 

I'm confused. What gives?

 

Anyway, I ordered via drivethedeal and got a great discount of 13 odd percent. The dealer described the car I ordered as a Christmas tree.. (not sure whether to be insulted or flattered)!

 

The spec is 

 

Candy White 110 SEL

Black Colour Concept with Beam alloys

Third head restraint

Sports seats

Sports suspension

Sports MFSW

Heated seats

Hill hold

Rear electric windows

Amundsen

Smartgate

Spare wheel

Simply clever pack

Towbar

 

I almost added the pano roof but as it doesn't open, I added several more options that I wouldn't have to arrive at the above. Delivery is in September in time for a 65 reg...

 

Any opinions on the new engine? Seems only to have been released in the Golf, Polo and Ibiza ranges...

Edited 26 June, 201510 yr by DougL

From what I can gather the 1 litre engine is noisier and less smooth. Some people like the idea.

.. a bit like growing beards and not washing is suddenly a good thing.

I love the 1.2 TSI engine, my Monte is the 105 TSI and my new estate that I'm getting on Tuesday is the 110 version, having driven the new Polo with the 3 pot 1.0l, I much prefer the 1.2.

It's a lot smoother and seems quieter than the 1.0, it's also Euro6 compliant so still has a lot of life left in it but the 1.0l will be cheaper to produce for VW with having less moving parts and will be a bit torquier so will be better for the larger body cars like the Golf.

Less moving parts as in 1 less cylinder, less friction, less weight, less fuel consumption etc.

 

Is the 1.0 litre really noisier?

Like in a 3 Cylinder 1.4TDI is noisier than a 4 Cylinder 1.6TDI.

 

Some like the 3 Cylinder petrols noise in their Citigos,

what really is needed is the 1.0 TSI but with the power of Ford 1.0 Ecoboosts.

 

It is good there are choices for a few more months of a Skoda if you want a car using up the Euro 5.5 / 6 Engines the Volkswagen have the Production Line for, or the latest full Euro 6.

 

It is a real pity that the VWG are not allowing Skoda CZ to use the 1.4 TSI / TFSI ACT / COD Engines

or even the 1.8 TSI in their latest Small Family Hatch / Estate.

I love the 1.2 TSI engine, my Monte is the 105 TSI and my new estate that I'm getting on Tuesday is the 110 version, having driven the new Polo with the 3 pot 1.0l, I much prefer the 1.2.

It's a lot smoother and seems quieter than the 1.0, it's also Euro6 compliant so still has a lot of life left in it but the 1.0l will be cheaper to produce for VW with having less moving parts and will be a bit torquier so will be better for the larger body cars like the Golf.

 

That's the sort of post I was hoping for. Did you test drive the new turbo 1.0 Polo or was it the normally aspirated one? I certainly don't like the NA 1.0 in the Citigo/Up!

Skoda build the 1.2 TSI for the VW group so that's probably why they are continuing to use it, as for the 1.0l being noisier, it probably is just the noise it makes, in the Citygo it's not nice at all, buzzy and gruff, definitely not as smooth as the 1.2, in the Polo the noise was more muted but still had that buzzy sound especially under acceleration.

It's horses for courses, some will like it some won't, we can argue over both engines but I'm happy to stick with the smoother/quieter, in my opinion, 16v 1.2 TSI lump.

The Polo was the same as the Citygo non turbo, it may be nicer with a turbo bolted on but I'm not a fan of the 3 pot 1.0l, certainly not a fan of the Citygo although plenty of people are.

Edited 27 June, 201510 yr by Gazbull17

Volkswagen obviously want buyers or those leasing the Face Lift Polo to go to the 1.0 TSI by offering it as a 110ps

& the 1.2 TSI with 90ps.

It is just the Volkswagen Group way of not making the Skoda competition to much of a competition really.

 

Only time will tell, like in another 3-5 years time even 7 years plus which engines actually do better over the miles and the passage of time.

Edited 27 June, 201510 yr by goneoffSKi

I'm not sure where the hate for the na 1.0 comes from my MIL has a new polo with this engine in and the Mrs has a polo with the old 1.2htp in it. The 1.0 is quieter, smoother, revs better, gives better mpg and if you wind it up, quicker.

I've not driven the 1.0 tsi yet but must say, I thought the 1.2 I teat drove wasn't very smooth or free revving. Didn't feel quick either was a but disappointed but I think i expected too much.

I have the 110 1.2 SEL and it is excellent. Very smooth, slightly peaky on half throttle but still prefer the extra go over the 90. About to do 2200 miles round some of Europe so full road test to follow!!

I'm not sure where the hate for the na 1.0 comes from my MIL has a new polo with this engine in and the Mrs has a polo with the old 1.2htp in it. The 1.0 is quieter, smoother, revs better, gives better mpg and if you wind it up, quicker.

 

The 1.2 HTP is a totally different engine so you're trying to compare apples to oranges. I'm also very sure  that the NA version of the 1.0 is very different from the TSI. I've just watched some road tests of the VW Golf 1.0 TSI and the drivers seem to like it. I'll bet that the 1.2 is more refined though.

That's the sort of post I was hoping for. Did you test drive the new turbo 1.0 Polo or was it the normally aspirated one? I certainly don't like the NA 1.0 in the Citigo/Up!

Ive driven the 1.0 in the polo.

Didnt think much at all. 1.2htp it replaced is a far better engine. More torque and much better up the hills.

The 1.0 is forever being revved, although it does seem to like it.

Maybe okay in a citigo/up, but the polo is a size bigger car

I think that the 1.0TSI engines are a no brainer for VAG, cheaper to build (in South America) and bottom line is emissions improvements over the 1.2TSI.

 

For me though, as a buyer who will plan to keep the car for about 10 years, I hope that I've made the correct choice in getting in late with an order for 1.2TSI 110PS Polo.

 

Though, I thought that the old 1.4FSI 16V 100PS would be troublesome over the long term, so bought a Polo with the simpler 1.4 16V 75PS engine, reliable yes, but not good to drive unless you treat it to expensive 98 octane fuel to gain some low end torque - which might be okay but cranks up the running costs slightly!

& difficult to find as the UK Super unleaded in the UK from Sainsburrys, Esso & BP is 97 Octane.

but then the Shell V-Power Nitro & Tesco Momentum 99 is 99 Octane.

Luckily the Tesco Momentum is only 5 pence a litre more than the Tesco 95 ron,  so only about £2 extra more for a tank full.

(use a Santander 123 Account and you can get 3 pence in the £1 back, and also Tesco Reward Points if you have a Reward Card.)

Edited 30 June, 201510 yr by goneoffSKi

http://yourfleet.co.uk/car_reviews/volkswagen/road_test.php?report_id_4874

Edited 30 June, 201510 yr by goneoffSKi

Well okay, maybe 99 octane, though Shell pumps are a bit short of exact octane rating!  Now you have drawn me into watching the Polo review - and I thought "why not" so looked at the S4 review, a bit for that though as I've got one - but all good!

You are right, they are short on the Octane rating on the pumps,

but supposedly they went 99 ron minimum when they added 'Nitro' to the name.

But i never darken their forecourts as their 'Secret Additives & Detergents' are not worth their rip off price.

 

99 Ron Minimum and a Spec Sheet from the Momentum produced by Greenergy suits my needs.

( EDIT, Barstewards.  

Tesco has just changed the website on 'Our-Fuels' and taken down the Specification 

& Results pages.)

Edited 30 June, 201510 yr by goneoffSKi

You guys still get a choice of petrols??

Our stations have choice of two pumps.

One petrol (95), one diesel. Dot !

I preferred my Citigo with the 3 pot compared to the 1.2 Tsi Rapid I have now which is the most harsh and seriously uneconomical engine I have ever known. Thank god they're discontinuing it.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I bit early to speak about them being discontinued in Skoda until they announce new engines in the only under 6 months 

on sale All New Skoda Fabia.

 

Skoda can continue for long enough using engines that the 3 more premium brands abandon using.

http://car24news.com/2015-seat-ibiza-facelift-revealed

I preferred my Citigo with the 3 pot compared to the 1.2 Tsi Rapid I have now which is the most harsh and seriously uneconomical engine I have ever known. Thank god they're discontinuing it.

 

 

That actually flies in the face of all the reviews of the 1.2 TSI engine in the Fabia, where it is usually described as being incredibly refined, with decent pep and reasonable real world economy. I reckon that the reason for the 1.2 being dropped for the 1.0 is purely production costs, as they are both Euro 6 engines. The 1.2 now has been in development for a few years now (since Golf 7) and has shown no major flaws. The 1.0 turbo has yet to prove itself.

You are right, they are short on the Octane rating on the pumps,

but supposedly they went 99 ron minimum when they added 'Nitro' to the name.

But i never darken their forecourts as their 'Secret Additives & Detergents' are not worth their rip off price.

99 Ron Minimum and a Spec Sheet from the Momentum produced by Greenergy suits my needs.

( EDIT, Barstewards.

Tesco has just changed the website on 'Our-Fuels' and taken down the Specification

& Results pages.)

True that

I filled up the bike yesterday at a shell garage.

Im sure the stuff was called 'nitro +' or may have judt been 'nitro'. Is that 99ron then?

I treat it to a tank of the good stuff now and again the same as i do the car. Usually esso 95ron.

Was expecting to tell a difference on the bike if it is 99ron?

I couldnt tell though...

Edited 30 June, 201510 yr by fabiamk2SE

I preferred my Citigo with the 3 pot compared to the 1.2 Tsi Rapid I have now which is the most harsh and seriously uneconomical engine I have ever known. Thank god they're discontinuing it.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The 1.2 TSI engine in your Rapid is the 8v unit which was in my Monte whereas the one in my Mk3 Fabia is the Euro 6 16v lump which is a lot smoother and should be more economical.

The 1.2 TSI engine in your Rapid is the 8v unit which was in my Monte whereas the one in my Mk3 Fabia is the Euro 6 16v lump which is a lot smoother and should be more economical.

Didnt know that!!

So the 105 is 8v and the 110 is 16v?

Same with 86bhp and 90bhp?

Yeah, I think so, the newer Euro 6 engine is the same one as in the Golf and Leon and fitted with stop/start.

The engine in my new one although only done 25miles is so smooth and quiet, just needs to loosen up a bit, the stop/start is instant and barely noticeable.

Looking forward to putting some miles on it as the Monte had just done 12500 mls when I traded it in and was nicely loosened up.

Yeah, I think so, the newer Euro 6 engine is the same one as in the Golf and Leon and fitted with stop/start.

The engine in my new one although only done 25miles is so smooth and quiet, just needs to loosen up a bit, the stop/start is instant and barely noticeable.

Looking forward to putting some miles on it as the Monte had just done 12500 mls when I traded it in and was nicely loosened up.

Sounds lovely

Enjoy (:

12500 is nout is it. You gonna try harder this time round? haha.