1.0 TSI

[ednmra]

Yesterday I parked next to a motor bike with a bigger engine. Bet it takes off like a spaceship !

[themanwithnoaim]

The 1.0 is a three cylinder and I don't believe real-world economy figures would be massively better than a 1.4TSI.

Hmmmm. Economy......!

Dunno

[Rodge]

I'm surprised they've not put it in this year's Fabia, where I think it would be more suitable, but that's still got the four cylinder 1.2.

[Diango]

I regularly drive the entry-level TSI's (as my vRS spends more time at the shop than it should) and I started to request DSG's on all loaners because I find them a bother to drive otherwise.

Yes, the rated horses are all there, but they live very high up the range (and resemble shetlands rather than thoroughbreds). Torque band is quite small. As a result, you have to shift around a lot (hence the DSG). If I drive the way the DSG wants me to, I'm out-accelerated by just about any car (even grannies driving lunchboxes with hamster propulsion). When I push it halfway to match them, the DSG has issues maintaining the smooth transitions the first scenario gave me. Don't even try to floor it, the engines will start screaming harder, but not necessarily propel you forward any better than scenario 2 gave you. 3-cylinders do not have a very elegant sound to them once they rev up to 6k.

 

What bothers me more though, is that they are quite thirsty. They are marketed as green engines but driving them at the same speeds as my vRS TDI (I won't bother going into acceleration times here) they consume about the same (1liter/14km for a 1.2TSI, my vRS TDI does about 16km/liter, which is logical given the increased energy potential for diesel vs. petrol). Mind you that the 16km/liter is an average for my 2-liter 184BHP diesel over roughly 20.000 kilometers, all of which are driven mostly at 20% over the speed limit, with no regard for fuel efficiency. The TSI was driven, on the other hand, the way the DSG gave me the least issues - slow and smooth.

 

I think that when you get down to it, a certain amount of energy is needed to get any given weight from A to B and engines haven't gotten all that more economical or efficient in the last 20 years. The low-end engines have slightly more potential for energy saving but when used in bigger cars they lose most of that edge. I think the biggest factor in saving fuel through a 'green' engine is that you simply cannot go any faster, so you are less inclined to floor it. Since I'm only saving on purchase price and not on fuel efficiency, I'd rather have those horses on hand should I need them in a pinch (overtaking, towing etc).

Edited 27 June, 2016 by Diango

[Geek42]

Are you sure you're comparing the same 1.0 engine? Maybe it's just unfair to compare it to a vRS?

 

The light-pressure turbo providing low-down torque is a feature of these new downsized petrols, such that I consider my 1.4TSi to be almost a little diesel-like in the driving experience. A long time ago I had an 8v 2.0i Cavalier (115bhp) and more recently a 16v 2.0i Mondeo (~140bhp) and the 1.4TSi is MUCH faster than both of them. In fact, I'd describe the Mondeo as totally gutless (something to do with 25% weight penalty as well, maybe), but the 1.4TSi has loads more torque and delivers it from much lower down the rev range.

 

The 3-cylinder 1.0 is a more extreme version of downsizing than the 1.4, I admit, but these engines are not designed to be used at 6k rpm (in fact, I reckon mine is faster if you don't red line it and keep the revs more in the mid-band).

[Diango]

Are you sure you're comparing the same 1.0 engine? Maybe it's just unfair to compare it to a vRS?

 

The 3-cylinder 1.0 is a more extreme version of downsizing than the 1.4, I admit, but these engines are not designed to be used at 6k rpm (in fact, I reckon mine is faster if you don't red line it and keep the revs more in the mid-band).

 

That might be the case, but it's the DSG that decides to redline it when I floor it, so apparently that's the quickest way to get it moving, instead of keeping it within the lower revs.

 

And of course it's not a direct comparison of engines in itself, I'm merely stating that my vRS is not such so much less economical in moving a certain weight at a certain speed.

Which leads me to conclude that fuel consumption is only marginally affected by the downsizing of engines, and much more by driving style.

[ednmra]

...... these engines are not designed to be used at 6k rpm (in fact, I reckon mine is faster if you don't red line it and keep the revs more in the mid-band).

I agree with that. As mentioned before, I'm not sure I've even ever been up to 4K revs in mine, in any gear,  because it seems so ready to change up at lower revs. 

As for using the top end revs in top gear !!  What is the (1.4 manual)  speed per 1000 rpm in top?

[Geek42]

Which leads me to conclude that fuel consumption is only marginally affected by the downsizing of engines, and much more by driving style.

OK, I can buy that.

I've found the best way to improve fuel economy is to focus more on the brake pedal. The perfect eco-driver doesn't need brakes!

Sent from my GT-I9195 using Tapatalk

[vc-10]

OK, I can buy that.

I've found the best way to improve fuel economy is to focus more on the brake pedal. The perfect eco-driver doesn't need brakes!

Sent from my GT-I9195 using Tapatalk

 

So much this. I hypermiled back from the gym earlier in my Fabia 1.2 TSI 90. The official urban figure is 47.9, on the 10 mile return trip I got 49.2 mpg. I wasn't holding up traffic- spent most of the time at the speed limit, and when I did have to stop, I didn't set off like a granny again. The trick is coasting into stops, and to try and keep a constant speed rather than braking. Some d*ck in a Fiesta spent about a mile coming right up behind me driving back, jamming on the brakes, and then accelerating back up again, while I was sitting dead on 30 with the speed limiter along suburban roads. I bet he used twice as much fuel as I did!

[Gerrycan]

I have not driven on the continent for quite a few years but I'm surprised that @Diango can drive 'everywhere' at 20% over the speed limit without incurring some sort of fine or penalty. This is from the context that in Australia speed fines are an important source of government income and the technology whether manually operated or automatic is readily available.

Having said that, at those sorts of high speeds he would be achieving then diesels are in their element and I would say consume 20 to 40% less fuel than a petrol equivalent and probably more when compared to a small capacity petrol engine operated outside of its comfort zone. Comparisons in urban areas become much more problematic with the intrusion of the DPF cycle for the diesels but lets just say the margin in the diesel's favour is less obvious.

 

The official consumption test is very flawed, widely criticised and the vehicle outcomes meeting those tests are also not necessarily the best where they adversely affect driveability and real world consumption.

 

A few years ago (2009) there was a vehicle economy challenge conducted in Australia on the same Darwin to Adelaide route used by the regular Solar Challenge.

There were quite a few manufacturer sponsored entrants and the winner was the one who beat the individual vehicles' official combined consumption by the greatest amount.

Of course in itself it was very artificial, next to no traffic lights, few bends, relatively flat, average speed requirements of 95kph and the competitors were forced (well chose) to drive in closed vehicles in hot and humid conditions without the air conditioner active.

The winner was a locally produced Holden Commodore sport utility with a dinosaur like 6.2 litre V8 ohv 2 valve per cylinder configuration. From memory its official consumption was 14L/100 and it got something like 7.5L/100.

Most of the other vehicles were either diesel SUV's or more true frugal vehicles like the Mini or Fiesta and while they achieved excellent economy nearly half the consumption of the ute they only bettered their official figures by 20% or less.

 

Rumour has it there was an unidentified non-competitor who shadowed the whole event on a second hand Honda step-through postie bike modified for biofuel.. and I believe he wore a shabby Stig outfit and helmet throughout.

[Diango]

I have not driven on the continent for quite a few years but I'm surprised that @Diango can drive 'everywhere' at 20% over the speed limit without incurring some sort of fine or penalty. This is from the context that in Australia speed fines are an important source of government income and the technology whether manually operated or automatic is readily available.

Having said that, at those sorts of high speeds he would be achieving then diesels are in their element and I would say consume 20 to 40% less fuel than a petrol equivalent and probably more when compared to a small capacity petrol engine operated outside of its comfort zone. Comparisons in urban areas become much more problematic with the intrusion of the DPF cycle for the diesels but lets just say the margin in the diesel's favour is less obvious.

 

The official consumption test is very flawed, widely criticised and the vehicle outcomes meeting those tests are also not necessarily the best where they adversely affect driveability and real world consumption.

 

A few years ago (2009) there was a vehicle economy challenge conducted in Australia on the same Darwin to Adelaide route used by the regular Solar Challenge.

There were quite a few manufacturer sponsored entrants and the winner was the one who beat the individual vehicles' official combined consumption by the greatest amount.

Of course in itself it was very artificial, next to no traffic lights, few bends, relatively flat, average speed requirements of 95kph and the competitors were forced (well chose) to drive in closed vehicles in hot and humid conditions without the air conditioner active.

The winner was a locally produced Holden Commodore sport utility with a dinosaur like 6.2 litre V8 ohv 2 valve per cylinder configuration. From memory its official consumption was 14L/100 and it got something like 7.5L/100.

Most of the other vehicles were either diesel SUV's or more true frugal vehicles like the Mini or Fiesta and while they achieved excellent economy nearly half the consumption of the ute they only bettered their official figures by 20% or less.

 

Rumour has it there was an unidentified non-competitor who shadowed the whole event on a second hand Honda step-through postie bike modified for biofuel.. and I believe he wore a shabby Stig outfit and helmet throughout.

 

I live in the Netherlands, and yes you can get fined for speeding, but it doesn't happen very often. Fixed camera's are easy to spot and we have proper "apps" on our smartphones warning us about them. Also, many of the area's I frequent haven't received any new camera's for over 10 years while old ones keep getting demolished. The government's main source of income in the fines department is mobile speed traps and even these are easy to spot as roughly 40% of the population uses the apps, with which you can flag a trap once spotten with a simple tap on the screen, recording the location in the process, warning all other users nearby and prompting them to push a big red "no" or "yes" to signal whether it's still there. This works a charm.

 

Also, they are quite lenient with the unmarked vehicles. They won't pull you over for doing a few miles over and even at 10 over they will signal you to take it easy rather than making a full traffic stop. They are understaffed enough as it is. I did get pulled over 2 years ago for doing 191 in a 120 area, but they fined me for my average speed and not my top speed, which came down to 151 (31 over). This was because I only did a short sprint ("catching up" on the left lane after people move to the right) - I wasn't speeding the whole time.

 

I agree that the official testing for fuel consumption is severely flawed and needs a reality check. I check my consumption they only reliable way: through my tank stops and driven miles. I do a solid 15/16 kilometers per liter, which is about 45 British MPG's. That's my average over more than 20.000 kilometers of which 90% is spent on our national highways, and some on the German ones, too. Within city limits I tend to drive quite cautiously as the time gain is negligible and the potential for accidents (and the ramifications of one) far greater. Many people that have driven with me find this odd, but I rarely speed because of time constraints (I always leave on time) - it's mostly for the fun of it. That means I can also take it down when the situations clearly does not allow for it and spend more time checking my surroundings, because I feel that the one who does the speeding also needs to take a larger part of the responsibility, communication and safety between drivers. Example: Slowing down for very slow drivers (grannies in the slow lane, cruising motorbikes for instance) because they can get a scare or a wind hit from me passing at too great a speed difference. No trouble for me and I get to floor it again after I pass them.

[ednmra]

I agree with that. As mentioned before, I'm not sure I've even ever been up to 4K revs in mine, in any gear,  because it seems so ready to change up at lower revs. 

As for using the top end revs in top gear !!  What is the (1.4 manual)  speed per 1000 rpm in top?

Right, I just checked and at 30 mph mine seemed to be on 1000 rpm give or take.  So at 70 it is not even doing 2500 rpm. No wonder all the power is low down.

[Diango]

Right, I just checked and at 30 mph mine seemed to be on 1000 rpm give or take.  So at 70 it is not even doing 2500 rpm. No wonder all the power is low down.

 

I can go all the way from 0 tot 70mph without going above 2000rpm. Heck, I think I can even do it without touching the accelerator :p.

[Geek42]

Right, I just checked and at 30 mph mine seemed to be on 1000 rpm give or take.  So at 70 it is not even doing 2500 rpm. No wonder all the power is low down.

 

I guess you've got a manual? I think it's supposed to be something like 27 or 28 mph/1000rpm, but the DSG does more like 32 or 33. I'd like to try a 1.4TSi with the manual gearbox out of the 2.0TDi and a remap to give 300Nm/170PS. Since these cars are supposed to be modular now it may be possible, but I've no intention of messing with a perfectly good gearbox.

 

If it ever breaks though...

[marcusthehat]

Gents, if the DSG transmission in my ould 1.6TDI chooses to rev to 4,000 + before changing up, when in kickdown mode.

6000 in a wee petrol seems perfectly reasonable.

Marcus

[Riolux]

I have driven a 1.2 Octavia the last two years, and I recently test drove a 1.0 (and bought one), both manual.

 

The 1.0 feels quicker than the 1.2. Also, at lower revs, it doesn't vibrate as much (but part of that may come down to vehicle age?). For normal driving, I would say it's more quiet than the 1.2, but one dealer told me that the 2017 Octavias have more soundproofing? You need to rev it quite a bit on for example motorway onramps, but both I and the kids thought it sounded cool, it has a really nice sound. In general, it also feels more fun to drive aggressively than the 1.2 which has a bit more sluggish reaction.

 

However, I can't say anything about consumption or reliability (although the consumption numbers during the test drive didn't show anything  extreme).

[Gerrycan]

Nice, not everyone here wants an vRS so it will be good to hear how you get on with it.

It's unlikely they will being it out to Australia unless it is really economical and the price of fuel goes through the roof.

Engine size means little these days.

[johan183]

Any other experiences with TSI 1.0/115HP engine in Octavia Combi?

[emix]

We have a 1.2 tsi Octavia 3 dsg, it's 1 year old now, and very happy with it. Fuel consumption is great, the engine is not the most powerful but if you drive at normal speeds its adequate. Up until 120-130 km/h it pulls alright, and its a very quiet and refined engine.

[Gerrycan]

Does the lack of response to a request for more owner's opinions of the 3 cylinder 1.0 L turbo in the Octavia suggest a low number of sales, or that the buying demographic are unlikely to frequent this Forum?

Is it actually sold in the UK?

[FlyingGecko]

Does the lack of response to a request for more owner's opinions of the 3 cylinder 1.0 L turbo in the Octavia suggest a low number of sales, or that the buying demographic are unlikely to frequent this Forum?

Is it actually sold in the UK?

 Probably a bit of both.

[Superb170]

I'm also looking for opinions on the 1.0 TSI Octavia and the low number of replies on this thread is very interesting.  Possibly due to what was suggested above??  I haven't actually driven one yet but looks promising.  No, I'm not looking to downgrade from the Superb (!!) - SWMBO is possibly looking to change her rather tired 07 1.9Tdi and as her mileage is below average a diesel isn't required really - plus the road tax is punitive as its based on an old system here in Ireland which is linked to engine cc rather than emissions for cars prior to 2008!  I actually had three different 1.4 (75bhp) Octavias myself years ago so I the 115bhp 1.0tsi should certainly have moved on a lot since then!

Edited 10 November, 2016 by Superb170

[FlyingGecko]

Superb170, the 1.0 TSi Octavia will tick a lot of boxes. Enough power, good economy, roomy. Just spec it up with the right toys. I can remember when those performance figures were hot hatch territory.

[boemher]

I had a loan of a 1.0 tsi Octavia for 8 days while worl was getting done on our Yeti. It was brand new with under 900 miles on it. My heart sank when I saw the 1.0 litre on the paper work.

My other car is a 1.8 tsi Octavia 2 with 160 PS so I had a good comparison point for the 1.0 Octavia 3. My Octavia is a LK vs the 1.0 SE but the sound proofing and most of the interior felt much nicer ik the Octavia SE. The 1.0 runs silent. I was driving at 40 mph in 2nd gear thinking I was in 4th I just couldn't hear it at all under normal acceleration.

It's performance although lesser than my 1.8 TSI, which is on paper around 8 seconds to 60 so similar to the Tdi vrs mentioned earlier in this thread, was really satisfactory. It pulled well in low gears, could be put in 5th gear at 40 and accelerate with no struggle, it cruised silently at 80 mph in 6th.

I was really impressed. I would consider it having previously not even considered test driving the older 1.2 Tsi. It felt much lighter and nimble than either my a octavia or the yeti and it's brakes were excellent.

Biggest gripe was hand brake being situated far left of the centre console between the seats like it's a Euro part they can't bother changing for the UK market.

Overall I thought it was a great engine. I never tested the car fully laden with family and a full boot, it may struggle compared to larger displacement engines in those circumstances but with just me in it it was good fun. Fuel economy was 45mpg ish mixed rush hour driving. Not that great but comfortably in the middle between the Octavia and yeti 2.0 tdi we own.

Give it a test drive.

[brettikivi]

more discussion here: http://www.briskoda.net/forums/topic/415528-octavia-10-se-estate