1.4 TSI 150 BHP reliability questioned

[mitadoc]

Hi there,

 

A newbie is concerned regarding the reliability of this particular 1.4 TSI engine. I have read many threads related with troubles leading to total engine failures. I am thinking of buying a new SE l Hatch with this engine ,but the bad heritage somehow pulls me away and I am not fully convinced that everything will be fine. Well,presumably , there is an option for 100000 miles and 5 years of warranty  which probably will cover all mechanical damages, won`t it?

 

I spoke with a friend of mine, working for AutoBild which is essentially the same like AutoExpress, but in different country ( my country of origin - Bulgaria, so I apologize in advance for any mistakes being made as English is not my mother tongue ) and he told me to ask the dealer if the engine is with cambelt which is preferable. After e-mailing Carrs Skoda Cornwall, I received an answer that the engine is with the belt, not the chain. But,just staying on the safe side, I would be very grateful if you give me your opinion based on real experience.

 

Apart from that, I have driven the same engine with less power on Leon 2011 and I was satisfied enough with dynamics and fuel costs. I did a test drive on Octie Hatch 2.0 TDI 2 weeks ago and I wasn`t impressed with the punch. 

 

Thank you ,mates!

 

Dimitar

 

 

[iriches]

This engine (code name EA211) is *completely* different to the 1.4 TSI twincharger that developed a very bad reputation for oil consumption as well as the standard turbocharged EA111 unit that has seemingly suffered from a few cam chain failures and was most likely the one in the Leon you tried.

 

The only link is that it's a VW unit of 1.4 litre capacity.

 

The unit is too new to draw any reasonable inferences on long-term reliability - the oldest ones out there are probably not three years old yet.  There have been no disaster stories yet that i have heard - and I looked for them before buying my own EA211 1.4 TSI-equipped car!

 

No-one can guarantee a lack of long-term problems, but as far as I know there are no signs of them yet..........

Edited 7 February, 2016 by iriches

[DonjSZ5]

Another + for the additional 2 years on the warranty.

[Bartax87]

Buy yourself 2.0 tfsi instead.

[andyvee]

I did a test drive on Octie Hatch 2.0 TDI 2 weeks ago and I wasn`t impressed with the punch. 

Is the 1.4TSi a 'punchier' engine then?

 

1.4TSi Hatch Manual

0-62mph - 8.1

Max Power - 150PS @ 5-6k rpm

Max Torque - 250Nm @ 1.5-3.5k rpm

 

2.0TDi Hatch Manual

0-62mph - 8.4

Max Power - 150PS @ 3.5-4k rpm

Max Torque - 340Nm @ 1.75-3k rpm

 

To me, 'punchier' means more torque lower down the rev range. From the above, the 2.0TDi is 'punchier' the 1.4Tsi is a 'screamer' - i.e you have to rev it as you would expect from a petrol engine. The turbo gives it a nice torque boost lower down the rev range, but it is 90Nm less than the diesel. Without full torque and power curves it is hard to compare though.

[glosrich]

No VAG engines are perfect. They seem to have a habit of designing an engine, it has lots of problems and then they replace it after 5 years, often leaving us drivers with some big repair bills.

For reliability, especially out of warranty look at Japanese cars, Honda make great engines.

[Redboy]

Is the 1.4TSi a 'punchier' engine then?

 

1.4TSi Hatch Manual

0-62mph - 8.1

Max Power - 150PS @ 5-6k rpm

Max Torque - 250Nm @ 1.5-3.5k rpm

 

2.0TDi Hatch Manual

0-62mph - 8.4

Max Power - 150PS @ 3.5-4k rpm

Max Torque - 340Nm @ 1.75-3k rpm

 

To me, 'punchier' means more torque lower down the rev range. From the above, the 2.0TDi is 'punchier' the 1.4Tsi is a 'screamer' - i.e you have to rev it as you would expect from a petrol engine. The turbo gives it a nice torque boost lower down the rev range, but it is 90Nm less than the diesel. Without full torque and power curves it is hard to compare though.

The poster's interpretation of punch might be that it feels like it accelerates quicker if you hold it in the right gear and hold onto the revs longer than the diesel's narrower power band.

[ednmra]

Mine is the 140 ps 1.4 TSi manual and has used no oil, either before or since its first year service,  nor given any sign of trouble but, though 15 months old, has only done a bit over 6000 miles.

Re "punchiness" it feels practically as good as my Mk. 2 1.8 TSi and that was great. 

[ExSEAT]

Mine is the 140 ps 1.4 TSi manual and has used no oil, either before or since its first year service,  nor given any sign of trouble but, though 15 months old, has only done a bit over 6000 miles.

Re "punchiness" it feels practically as good as my Mk. 2 1.8 TSi and that was great.

I have the 140 in my currebt Leon FR, Ive doubled the mileage on it and its juyst over 12500 of not very gentle miles and a backroad daily commute! Never missed a beat, drank any oil or lost any coolant. Of all thge reasons I could think oif to hate my FR the 1.4tsi is far from veing one

All the best,

Peter

[andyvee]

The poster's interpretation of punch might be that it feels like it accelerates quicker if you hold it in the right gear and hold onto the revs longer than the diesel's narrower power band.

It may well be, but with only 0.3 secs difference on 0-62, if the 2.0TDi didn't feel punchy with all that extra low end torque ...........

 

It is probably more to do with the difference in driving styles needed between petrol and diesel.

[Redboy]

Torque is good to use and as you say driving techniques and gaps in traffic will be different. If the 1.4 is anything like the 2.0 TSI in 3rd gear you can hang on a bit longer to the gear as it keeps pulling right up to the red line.

[JPH0091]

Is the 1.4TSi a 'punchier' engine then?

 

1.4TSi Hatch Manual

0-62mph - 8.1

Max Power - 150PS @ 5-6k rpm

Max Torque - 250Nm @ 1.5-3.5k rpm

 

2.0TDi Hatch Manual

0-62mph - 8.4

Max Power - 150PS @ 3.5-4k rpm

Max Torque - 340Nm @ 1.75-3k rpm

 

To me, 'punchier' means more torque lower down the rev range. From the above, the 2.0TDi is 'punchier' the 1.4Tsi is a 'screamer' - i.e you have to rev it as you would expect from a petrol engine. The turbo gives it a nice torque boost lower down the rev range, but it is 90Nm less than the diesel. Without full torque and power curves it is hard to compare though.

 

Torque and power curves are easy to get. As well as the transmission ratios of the gearboxes.

Probably to sustain a comparable top speed, and reduce fuel consumption on highways, the 2.0 TDI 150 is equipped with very long 5th and 6th gears (meaning short multiplicative ratios).

As a consequence, with its more suitable gearbox, the 1.4 TSI delivers higher torque to the wheels on 5th and 6th gears, and from very lower speed, and without screaming in high revs.

In fact the petrol engine will behave like a diesel, while the 2.0 TDI will often require to shift down in same conditions (e.g. go to 5th below 100kph, or in 4th below 90kph)..

 

 

 

This was the 140 bhp 1.4. I gues the 150 bhp is a bit better.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[andyvee]

So, very little between the engines according to those curves, about 4% difference max. Probably not even noticeable to most people.

 

I don't know many people who were wanting to drive 'quickly' would be in 6th at 100kph though

 

I suppose it all depends on the definition of 'punchier' and how the bum dyno reacts

[mitadoc]

Well,probably I misused the term punchy. Let`s say that I wasn`t impressed by the dynamics that this engine offered to me during the test drive. Maybe the car was little bit stiff because of being under 3000 miles. I had Astra H 1.7 CDTI and the first 10 000 miles were disaster facing the mpg and the dynamics, but after changing the first oil , I found significant difference.

 

Anyway, thinking futurewise, I need a reliable engine for a car that I intend to drive at least 100 000 miles in the next 4-5 years.

[vRSAnt]

One thing you miss is "as standard".

- If you were so inclined the Diesel could probably be mapped to be quite significantly better all round and still be more reliable than the petrol - which I'm pretty sure you wouldn't want to play about with - unless you really aren't too worried about it going "bang".

 

Not sure it its just a software update on the 2.0 TDI or has a bigger turbo on the vRS, but obviously part of its "downtuning" may just be because of the model positioning its branding, hence just pointing out its "potential" is to be a far better car then the smaller petrol.

 

Assuming its worth doing that on cost of running and insurance etc. Just pointing out that you can't compare apples and pears they are 2 totally different propositions.

[mitadoc]

So, you are telling me that overall the diesel engines of VAG are better than the petrol ones? In terms of durability and reliability, I meant. 

If my annual mileage is around 20K miles, is it better to get a diesel engine?And if yes, which one is better - 1.6 or 2.0 (150) or 2.0 (184)?

Cheers

[GoneToBeemer]

If you're doing 20k miles a year, a diesel is definitely the better option.

The 150 (coupled with DSG in my case) is a great engine, really flexible and has decent performance. Not driven the 184 but I imagine it'll be much the same, but quicker!

[themanwithnoaim]

OP the engine isn't really old enough to have any credentials in the reliability stakes.

vRSant are you really saying map a diesel but, don't map a petrol as it'll go bang? You need to be able to document those bangs as I for one I'm calling Bull**** on that statement.

Regards

T

[themanwithnoaim]

If you're doing 20k miles a year, a diesel is definitely the better option.

The 150 (coupled with DSG in my case) is a great engine, really flexible and has decent performance. Not driven the 184 but I imagine it'll be much the same, but quicker!

Hmmmm. I think your talking about current thinking without considering the future environmental backlash that is very shortly coming.

Jumping on the diesel bandwagon right now could be very short sighted.

Regards

T

[vRSAnt]

How about you do it the other way, rather than trying to put the onus on me, how many people talk of mapping the 1.4TSI ?

 

APR do a stage 1, thats 145 ....

Shark only do to 145 but on the MKII only....don't seem to even offer anything at all on the III !

http://www.sharkperformance.co.uk/variant?make=Skoda&v=Skoda+Octavia+III+%285E%29+2013-

AMD?

http://www.amdtuning.com/skoda/octavia

 

- Evidence enough that most tuning companies don't seem to keen, whether you think its bull or not, I don't care !

 

On the environment side, yes the diesel is the dirty man compared to petrol.

But surely petrol fuel is long in the tooth also, isn't buying into such out dated tech similarly! Its funny, when they make a big deal about electric cars then its pointed out cars like Chrysler had this down almost less than a century ago.

 

Plus they continue to try and evolve the diesel engines with improvements to emmisions so its not quite written off yet is it (on the actual efficiency side, diesel wins, but not emissions). There are too many diesel cars out there for them to disappear overnight, me thinks and they haven't even deal with the non DPF models like my Fabia 1 yet !

[vRSAnt]

BTW: "don't map a petrol as it'll go bang"

Not just "any" petrol - The petrol in question here was *only* the 1.4TSI as was discussed so not sure why you are misquoting TBH

 

To be fair, just to add to this, I did see Revo DO offer a MK3 remap for it, from about 178ps+...worth balancing out they offer the same for the TDI going up to 217-236ps and 345/380  lbft - noting its versus max 200ps and 241lbft on the petrol hence offering a lot more overall ability in the diesel.

Edited 7 February, 2016 by vRSAnt

[mitadoc]

I asked Celtic tuning in Cornwall regarding remap of 1.4 TSI and they replied it`s impossible to be remapped - the ECU has been kind of locked for it. Whatever that means.

But,they do remap 2.0 TDI  up to 199 BHP.

Edited 7 February, 2016 by mitadoc

[philhoward]

Map or tuning box can give the 1.4 an uplift to about the same bhp as the 1.8TFSI engine with a bit more torque, I think.

 

As has been said, this 1.4 engine is nothing like the old 1.4 (122/125PS turbo only, or 150-185PS in twincharger guise) and (I believe) was brought out alongside the MQB platform (Octavia III) so the earliest examples aren't even 3 years old yet.  I've taken a jump for the ACT version in a Leon this time and so far, so good but I've only got 8000 miles on it so far.  I do 25-30k a year and for me (a company car driver, and it's a DSG) it works out cheaper than the diesel.  I also prefer petrols if choosing a 4 cylinder engine.  I only really tolerate diesels when they get to 5 and 6 cylinders

 

There is also the mention of torque versus gearbox ratios - not much use having 30% more torque from the engine if the gearing is raised to suit the lower revving nature of the diesel as you lose that "advantage" - ease of driving (to me) is the width of the top section of the torque "curve" - wider the better.

 

There is also the DPF issue - with no motorways in Cornwall, you may struggle to ever get it up to temperature sufficiently for a passive regen which then leads to the engine having to do it's own which wipes out any possible MPG advantage.

[Geek42]

So, very little between the engines according to those curves, about 4% difference max. Probably not even noticeable to most people.

 

Indeed, I test drove both and considered them to be comparable for pace. As such I chose on refinement and went for the petrol and I'm still more than happy with my choice.

[pipsyp]

I suppose its got to be expected that to extract 150ps and 184lb/ft torque from a relatively weany sub 1400cc 4 cyl petrol that some fairly significant (and clever) turbocharging is employed. Undoubtedly the engine is that bit more stressed than the lopping 2.0 TDI.

Says a fair amount about the two motors when you look at remapping....I gather a 150 TDI can be boosted to about 175ps...which means its turbo is already working pretty hard anyway at stock levels....the 2.0 TDI can make 195/200ps and a shedload more torque than stock....evident the diesel is wound down a fair margin for reliability....

As to performance...well its all rather in the eye of the beholder I guess. The petrol is lighter..better geared and has a perhaps more usable power band....the diesel the oposite but the reality is for a fair portion of its usable rev range it outputs 52lb/ft more torque than the petrol which is not insignificant....at speed, in gear on an incline with relative load Id say the diesel is probably the match of the petrol.

One thing that is worth noting....the diesel might cost more, but (even with dieselgate) it will be worth that bit more after 3 years.....one of the reasons I went with it was that despite it being the more expensive car, it was cheaper to PCP than the 1.4.