1.0 litre engines replacing the 1.2 engines

[glosrich]

On the Czech Skoda website I noticed to 1.0 litre 3 cylinder 115ps from the Golf has made it to the Octavia, in 6 speed manual and 7 speed dsg formats.

Seems to replace the 1.2 engines.

http://www.skoda-auto.cz/models/nova-octavia/cenik/

[mork23]

I was out with my brother-in-law last weekend in his 1.0 110ps Ibiza.  Granted it's smaller and lighter than an octavia but it was pokey thats for sure.  I was certainly impressed how smooth it was (DSG variant).  It's an ideal match for that car - wonder if it will be as good for the Octavia with the extra 5ps....

[glosrich]

The only thing I don't like about the 3 cylinders, is that thrummy noise. The 4 cylinder doesn't have that.

[wlange]

V8 version of above for me please

[Trublue]

Been driving my mk3 1.2 tsi for a year now. Following two mk 2 Octavia with 1.9tdi and 1.6tdi.it's a lot quieter and I think about the same speed as the 1.6tdi. Wouldn't mind a little more in acceleration though. Ford do a 125bhp in a 1.0l engine. Wish Skoda did.

[Rodge]

Been driving my mk3 1.2 tsi for a year now. Following two mk 2 Octavia with 1.9tdi and 1.6tdi.it's a lot quieter and I think about the same speed as the 1.6tdi. Wouldn't mind a little more in acceleration though. Ford do a 125bhp in a 1.0l engine. Wish Skoda did.

I looked at the Focus before buying my Octavia last year, and while the 125 PS Focus did have better power, torque and economy figures than the 105/110 PS Octavias, the quoted acceleration and top speed were worse. I don't think the difference in mass between the two cars is enough to explain the discrepancy.

I haven't looked recently, but I would expect the 115 PS Octavia to also outperform the 125 PS Focus. I do wonder how nice the three cylinder engines are to drive though (I didn't test the Focus). Although the 1.0 TSI has more torque than the 1.2, it's over a narrower rpm range, so I worry that the performance at low rpm might be even worse than before.

[Alpha2110]

I think in reality the fuel economy is poor for these cars with 1.0 engines we have a fiesta 1.0 100bhp in the family. it's a super little car and makes a fantastic noise, but its worce on fuel than the yaris 1.3 we had. This downsizing engine may work on paper but it comes at a cost. More to go wrong, and dubious economy clams.

[Gerrycan]

I drove around in a manual three pot petrol Focus when I visited the UK last year.

Although I found the car pleasant enough to drive I was disappointed with the economy results considering it was a smaller engine.

Most trips averaged about 45mpg which I thought was about 5mpg down on what I would have got in my 1.4tsi manual.

The Focus was a very nice car to drive but there were some local roadworks on an extended strip of dual/triple carriageway where the speed was restricted to 50 mph.

For some reason I had difficulty finding a suitable throttle point that would maintain that speed and was either slowly accelerating above or dropping below the 50 limit.

It was odd and not something I had really experienced on any other car.

[M12MKD]

I think in reality the fuel economy is poor for these cars with 1.0 engines we have a fiesta 1.0 100bhp in the family. it's a super little car and makes a fantastic noise, but its worce on fuel than the yaris 1.3 we had. This downsizing engine may work on paper but it comes at a cost. More to go wrong, and dubious economy clams.

That's exactly what I found with Fiat's twinair engine. Sounded great but terrible on fuel.

[JPH0091]

The design of these engines has been driven by the NEDC homologation cycle.

The one everybody is now well aware was completely inacurate.

I believe these engines will become obsolete as soon as the new WLTC cycle is put in place.

 

Few months ago, I've made some research based on Spritmonitor data.

 

On the Ford Focus 1.0 125 Ecoboost, the average fuel consumption in real life was 43% higher than the manufacturer figures, based on a population of 184 users.

It was only 18% higher (than the manufacturer figures) for the Octavia 1.2 TSI 105 (79 users), 24% higher for the Octavia 1.4 TSI 140 (113 users) and also 24% higher for the Golf 7 1.2 TSI 85 (123 users).

The actual average consumption was higher for the Ford (6.72l/100km) than for the Octavia 1.4 TSI 140 (6.59l/100km). Manufacturer figures being respectively 4.7 and 5.3.

 

So, if the new 1.0 is a pleasant, less heavy and still as powerful engine, it might have an interest over the 1.2.

But I wouldn't bet one instant on a better fuel economy...

Edited 22 May, 2016 by JPH0091

[Gerrycan]

Can you imagine the negative affect that TMWNA's fuel consumption stats alone would have on the 1.4tsi figure?

Then again he should probably be omitted as a statistical anomaly.

[JPH0091]

 

TMWNA would still be within the statistical shape... at the edge of it, but still within

Edited 22 May, 2016 by JPH0091

[13TSI]

I have the 1.0TSI in my Ibiza. It's a great drive. I had a 1.2 TSI Ibiza before it and the 1.0 is much better than the 1.2 in nearly all respects. It pulls harder (feels like better lower down torque, and more of it), revs more freely and economy is better too.

The only thing that may put some people off is the inherent 3cyl 'thrumming' noise when pushing on a bit! The 1.2 TSI wins in that respect!

I must add that the 1.0 can be used completely silently if needed. At idle it doesn't 'blip' or judder, it's silky smooth. You can also drive pleasantly without hearing the 3cyl thrum. It's only when accelerating with some harshness that you will hear it.

[glosrich]

Its too early to say if these 1.0 will be reliable.

It's pushing the limits again, getting more power out of a smaller engine.

Let's face it VW dont have a good reputation for reliable engines.

[Gerrycan]

Its too early to say if these 1.0 will be reliable.

It's pushing the limits again, getting more power out of a smaller engine.

Let's face it VW dont have a good reputation for reliable engines.

It is true they have had the some problems with the technology they have implemented but the basic engines (crankshaft/piston) are pretty bullet proof as many remaps have shown.

 

I believe Koenigsegg(whatever) are developing a 300kw 1.6L turbo 4 cylinder for a Chinese manufacturer.

[bigjohn]

I do like the tsi technology but I'm not sure I want to own a 3 cylinder version as it will probably end up with balancer shafts to compensate for out of balance nature of a 3 cylinder.

 

A V6 version would be nice 

 

The tsi is proving economical except this week. I'm in France - 4 people in the car 3 between 6ft 4 & 6ft 7 with boot and interior jammed with luggage

[Rodge]

A straight six would be even better. Just stick two of the new three cylinder jobs end to end. :-)

[octavianestate]

1.6 tsi vrs? Sounds a better option to me. Smaller and light engine, can easily produce over 200BHP so why skoda persist with a heavier 2.0 tsi that produces 220BHP when rivals are making this power from 1.6 litre engines.

[Sheldon.Cooper]

Firstly I'll apologise as my post isn't about a Skoda but is related to real life mpg.

 

We (should) all know the test Clarkson did with a Prius and an M3 around their test track, the Prius was flat out, the M3 only had to keep up and the M3 had better economy.

 

Well, I had a Prius for 2 weeks in the states, it keeps track of your consumption on a trip by trip basis and gives a graph of the last 10-15ish journeys.  The fuel computer said that I was averaging 85-100mpg.  When I filled up the real life economy was 41.  To be honest it needed to be capable of going 20mph quicker on pure electric power (30mph as standard), 24 mile further range (6 mile as standard) and about 50lb/ft more torque.  Horrible, horrible car.  My diesel Octy is significantly better and my new (to me) Golf GTI edition 30 that's sat at home waiting for me is better still.

[Sheldon.Cooper]

1.6 tsi vrs? Sounds a better option to me. Smaller and light engine, can easily produce over 200BHP so why skoda persist with a heavier 2.0 tsi that produces 220BHP when rivals are making this power from 1.6 litre engines.

A 2.0 TSI VRS is fine, they just need to use the Golf R engine, I see your 1.6 200Hp and raise you 2.0 296Hp.

[SC03OTT]

I can't think of any rivals - other than Peugeot in the 308 - using a 1.6T over a 2.0T. Currently anyway.

[JPH0091]

Renault just issued a 250hp version from its Clio RS, 1.6 turbo as well.

[RapidPaul]

VW will phase out the 1.4 TSI with the new 1.5 TSI over the next years. So that makes a line up of 1.0, 1.5 and 2.0 litre petrol turbos. I can't see them deviating from that for a while now.