1.8 TSI DSG7 or 2.0 TSI DSG6 ?

[Norian]

Hi,

 

I am really considering changing my '13 Superb2 2.0TDI DSG with a new Superb 3.

I am keen on the SportLine, but...in doubt regarding the engine.

I have decided to go for Petrol this time due my low annual mileage (aprox 12,000 miles/year, after 3 years my Superb 2 has only 37,000miles)

 

The question is what to choose between 1.8 TSI DSG7 (180hp) and 2.0 TSI DSG6 (220hp)

 

The price-tag difference between the engines is only 1,300Eur, that's about the value of the Columbus for example, so not a deal breaker.

Am a bit concerned with the DSG7 - dry clutch DSG - fitted to the 1.8 TSI. The engine is limited to only 250NM torque because of the DSG7 limitations and there have been numerous complaints regarding DSG7 failures in the past (personal known case of Octavia 3 1.8TSI DSG7 with mechatronic changed in warranty after 10,000miles)

 

I have drove the above mentioned O3 1.8TSI DSG7 and the 180hp seem plentiful enough, nice revving and power delivery, so the 180hp should also fit nicely the Superb. Of course, the 220hp of the 2.0 TSI are also appealing, but I am wondering if they are not an "overkill", as in daily drive routine you don't get a lot of chances of putting them to work.

 

The 2.0TSI has a nicer 350NM of torque to its advantage.

 

There is no possibility here of a drive test with either of these 2 engines (all test drive Superb3 have diesels :( ), so I would appreciate any advice on this matter.

Any pointers from 1.8TSI DSG or 2.0TSI DSG users on the Superb 3? Thanks in advance.

 

I have only found a pretty interesting comparison from Autogefuhl between the Passat 1.8TSI DSG and Superb 2.0TSI DSG made by a German chap and he was saying that the 1.8TSI is the "all -rounder" choice for this type of car, the 2.0TSI being a little "too much" and rarely usable in full.

 

[IronAda]

Although I'm no modern engineer I would go for the 220 simply for the torque. Although you may not notice it in everyday driving that torque is very useful for a whole bunch of reasons - towing, smoother progress, less gear changes etc. It also removes your worries about the 7 speed DSG. Others may of course disagree...

[ssc]

Have been driving a 1.8 TSI S2 for more than 5 years now and have not had any problems. The car has done just over 76 000 KM. Have decided to go with the 1.8 TSI for our S3.

 

We have always felt we had more than enough power and acceleration in the S2. Fuel economy has also been good. On longer journeys (mixed motorway and other roads) we have averaged under 6 L/100km. City driving around 8 L/100km. We have been more than happy.

[Norian]

@ssc: Thanks. Any inconvenience causedby the DSG7 on the Superb2, or was it without problems?

 

By the way, am looking forward to your thoughts on the new S3 1.8TSI DSG that your about to pick-up. Read your topic, now wait for "on the road" reviews and thoughts.

[Phil-E]

Although on paper the 1.8 probably does make more sense I don't think I personally could live with the worry of a 7 speed DSG.

 

Given all the problems associated with this gearbox of recalls, extended warranties and service campaigns across the world I think I'd prefer to stick with a 6 speed DSG.

 

It will be heavier on fuel than the 7 speed though.

 

If you don't plan on keeping the car past 3 years then just for the 7 speed as it won't really matter in warranty to you.

[thepook]

If you don't plan on keeping the car past 3 years then just for the 7 speed as it won't really matter in warranty to you.

 

Or buy the extended warranty...

[ssc]

@ssc: Thanks. Any inconvenience causedby the DSG7 on the Superb2, or was it without problems?

 

By the way, am looking forward to your thoughts on the new S3 1.8TSI DSG that your about to pick-up. Read your topic, now wait for "on the road" reviews and thoughts.

 

No problems at all. Didn´t even know that the DSG7 had a problem until a few months back following different threads here on Briskoda. It has worked perfectly for us. Quick and responsive and excellent fuel economy for such a big car. We may have been just lucky.

[MartiniB]

had the same dilema, took 2.0TSI 220ps

now i'm "crying" only about didn't select 280ps 4x4, but that were extra 4k Euros :(

[Norian]

had the same dilema, took 2.0TSI 220ps

 

Any thoughts on the 2.0 TSI ? How does it handle in the S3?

[old newbie2]

Although I'm no modern engineer I would go for the 220 simply for the torque. Although you may not notice it in everyday driving that torque is very useful for a whole bunch of reasons - towing, smoother progress, less gear changes etc. It also removes your worries about the 7 speed DSG. Others may of course disagree...

+1  

 

I'm very happy with the 2.0 TSi in my Superb 2, great performance & good economy.  Much better than the 1.8 TSi, 

[MartiniB]

Any thoughts on the 2.0 TSI ? How does it handle in the S3?

great perfomance +1

on wet road two wheels are not enough for 220ps

and yes, second reason is wet DSG6 preferred than dry DSG7

 

with 4x4 2.0 TSI 280ps car additionally will have:

1. bigger brake discs

2. Exhausts like TSI have to have, all other have crap Diesel style :(

_ http://www.briskoda.net/forums/topic/392652-exhausts/

3. starting performance

[Norian]

Thanks.

 

On very wet, dirty roads, even the 2.0TDI has enough torque (350NM) to overspin the wheels in D1 and D2, and in S1, S2, S3 gears on hard acceleration

The TSI will have enough power to spin also in higher revs

 

1. Regarding brake discs, I know for a fact that S3 TDI150 and TDI190 have the same discs :(  Probably the same for 1.8TSI and 2.0TSI 220

 

2. Regarding exhaust, I agree, it's crappy. I didn't see it coming. :(  On the S2 the diesels have 2 visible pipes on the left, while 2.0TSI and 3.6V6 had quad visible pipes (2 left and 2 right). Cost saving all around with the S3 :( Though, I think the lower part of the pack bumper can be retrofitted to the OEM 2.0TSI 280, including the extra visible parts of the tailpipes. Should be less than 250Eur for everything needed. You just need a VIN from a TSI 280 to order the correct lower part of the backbumper

 

3. Yes, but only 1 second faster versus the 2.0TSI220, because you have also aprox 150kg extra weight, due to the 4x4 system, so bigger fuel consumption.

Edited 4 April, 2016 by Norian

[Norian]

second reason is wet DSG6 preferred than dry DSG7

 

with 4x4 2.0 TSI 280ps car additionally will have:

1. bigger brake discs

2. Exhausts like TSI have to have, all other have crap Diesel style :(

_ http://www.briskoda.net/forums/topic/392652-exhausts/

3. starting performance

 

[MartiniB]

1. Regarding brake discs, I know for a fact that S3 TDI150 and TDI190 have the same discs :(

  Probably the same for 1.8TSI and 2.0TSI 220

this was obvious by selector, only 4x4 280ps can't have smaller wheels than 17" and somewhere else i saw confirmation

[DarrellGB]

Personally id go with the tried and tested DSG6 mated to the 2.0tsi, a very strong engine used in a variety of VAG cars inc the 300bhp Golf R, lovely engine

[Norian]

this was obvious by selector, only 4x4 280ps can't have smaller wheels than 17" and somewhere else i saw confirmation

Correct !

 

Anyhow, here the 280PS TSI is 4.5k Eur more than the 220TSI and thus raises the S3 price too high - 35.5K Eur list price.

Add some "necessary goodies" like 19'' Sirius, Sport Suspension (no DCC though) , Alcantara seats, Columbus, Canton, Sunset and there you go:  ~ 40k Eur.  :(

[Tamworthpig]

I'd have thought the 4x4 280ps uses the 7 speed wet clutch used in more powerful cars like the Golf R, I bet it aint  the DQ200 dry clutch one.

 

OP, same issues for me over what transmission I would end up with if I bought a Superb3, I tend to keep my cars a long time, current one = 13 years, and I don't bother with extended warranties or dealer servicing, If I cant have a car with a "longterm" transmission I ain't getting it.

[Phil-E]

I'd have thought the 4x4 280ps uses the 7 speed wet clutch used in more powerful cars like the Golf R, I bet it aint  the DQ200 dry clutch one.

 

No it's a 6 speed gearbox. Skoda always misses out on the newer tech... still no sign of the 2.0 Bi-Tdi in a Skoda!

[Tamworthpig]

Phil-E said "No it's a 6 speed gearbox. Skoda always misses out on the newer tech..." well it seems your correct on this as far as I can find out... well it just goes to show what a tough unit the 6 speed DQ250 must be if it can transmit such force the 280ps engine transmits.

Edited 4 April, 2016 by Tamworthpig

[old newbie2]

I'd have thought the 4x4 280ps uses the 7 speed wet clutch used in more powerful cars like the Golf R, I bet it aint  the DQ200 dry clutch one.

 

OP, same issues for me over what transmission I would end up with if I bought a Superb3, I tend to keep my cars a long time, current one = 13 years, and I don't bother with extended warranties or dealer servicing, If I cant have a car with a "longterm" transmission I ain't getting it.

The golf R uses a 6-speed wet-clutch DSG, not the new 7 speed.

(Have driven, much impressed.)

 

DC

[Phil-E]

Phil-E said "No it's a 6 speed gearbox. Skoda always misses out on the newer tech..." well it seems your correct on this as far as I can find out... well it just goes to show what a tough unit the 6 speed DQ250 must be if it can transmit such force the 280ps engine transmits.

 

True. It does seem a pretty solid transmission and I would say the clutches are probably stronger than a normal manual clutch given that they're oil cooled and lubricated.

 

Just looked up the Superb 280 and the engine has exactly 350nm of torque... I don't think it's a coincidence that the DSG's torque limit is 350nm!

 

Plus there are many many people with remapped cars and DSG boxes running way over the 350nm limit (thinking R32 Turbo with 600+nm although normally with an upgraded clutch pack).

[old newbie2]

True. It does seem a pretty solid transmission and I would say the clutches are probably stronger than a normal manual clutch given that they're oil cooled and lubricated.

 

Just looked up the Superb 280 and the engine has exactly 350nm of torque... I don't think it's a coincidence that the DSG's torque limit is 350nm!

 

Plus there are many many people with remapped cars and DSG boxes running way over the 350nm limit (thinking R32 Turbo with 600+nm although normally with an upgraded clutch pack).

Both my cars are remapped, but I don't have the figures in Nm, only ft/lbs, 266 & 284. 

Similar engines, but remapped at app. 6k & 20k miles respectively. 

So far. no problems with the DSG's, but I don't often push either car too hard, they are quick enough (& more economical!) when driven normally.

 

DC

[Phil-E]

Both those figures are over the limit (350nm is 258 ft/lbs) but it's ok as what happens is if the torque is too high the DSG tells the ECU to reduce the torque and keep it within the limit.

 

So to get full advantage you would need a DSG remap too to raise the torque limit.

 

Phil

[IanJD]

Both those figures are over the limit (350nm is 258 ft/lbs) but it's ok as what happens is if the torque is too high the DSG tells the ECU to reduce the torque and keep it within the limit.

 

So to get full advantage you would need a DSG remap too to raise the torque limit.

 

Phil

The 2.0TDi 190 DSG has 400nm...

[Phil-E]

Actually... I always thought the limit was 350nm but according to Wikipedia it's 400nm for the DQ250 6 speed:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct-shift_gearbox