I see it frequently on AutoTrader. Dealers don't seem to double-check and proof read adverts!

 

 

Out of interest, how does economy compare - between the Mk2 1.8TSi and the Mk3 1.4TSi ?

I guess it depends on things like your insurance rating and so on. But mpg, for me anyway, seems a good 10 mpg better on average, Road Tax £30 against about  £185, insurance cost very little more when new than my previous car which was 6 years old by then. 

So far as things like tyre wear and reliability I haven't had it long enough to know - but so far, so good.

... Road Tax £30 ...

 

 

Now that's another story, well covered on here!

 

Depends on the size of the wheels fitted, whether there's an R in the month, which way the wind blows...

Now that's another story, well covered on here!

 

Depends on the size of the wheels fitted, whether there's an R in the month, which way the wind blows...

Quite!

Well mine is manual and bog standard in every respect, 16" wheels etc.   I was misinformed and expecting the £110 bracket so was pleasantly surprised.

As already mentioned in #15, hardly back on course, just repeating what I already said.

I was just addressing the point about the capability of the 1.4, being somewhat exhaggerated.

Sorry which tuned 1.4 have you been in VRSANT ?

I think this thread direction has already moved on , in the absence of factual data.

it does seem the concensus is the 1.4 is far better on economy compared to the other engines ideally for the OP.

Obviously, you haven't seen my fuelly but, yes factual data the kind VAG release is obviously required

Confused - this says nothing about mapping and performance of the 1.4 (thank god we are off that), so presume must be economy.

 

I'm not quite sure what you are saying, that your 1.4 actually isn't anything like the expected economy data ? Seems to be what you are suggesting, if so its surprising.

It's not really rocket science Ant

A tuned 1.4 will generate inexcess of 200 bhp and being a lot lighter than an unmodified 1.8 will out perform it.

However, not surprisingly as they are interdependent, it will burn far more fuel doing so.

I do so hope you are less confused now Ant

Edited 21 September, 20169 yr by themanwithnoaim

I think a tuned engine can be more or less efficient. Ultimately it depends on your right foot, as it did before it was tuned!

 

My attempts at verifying the performance figures for my car are occasional as I usually have the wife and kids in, or I'm trundling up the motorway in traffic that wouldn't allow me to get beyond 70 even if I felt like breaking the law (which, of course, I would never do!).

 

I think we all know that themanwithnoaim makes more frequent checks on his performance figures than I do, hence the fuelly sig

 

A tuned 1.4 will generate in excess of 200 bhp and being a lot lighter than an unmodified 1.8 will out perform it.

 

I wonder what that would do to the insurance premium !! (And the road tax ??)

20-22% on premiums, VED is unaffected at £30 but, would do no good to tell them different.

If you are a C your a C would you say Ed

I must have a test drive of a vRS one of these days. If my little 1.4 can throw me out the back window, a vRS would probably launch me into outer space !!!

I will admit I do have a bit of a soft spot for the 1.4, (the latest EA211, not the old EA111 'twincharger' type) I think it is a cracking engine for what it does and I have always liked it when I have driven one. But do I think it is over-boosted, no, it is just how things have moved on.

 

A few decades ago 100bhp per litre was the holy grail that was BMW M3 territory, now you get it in a family hatch, It is sometimes hard for some of us that remember those times to accept but that is progress. Engines sometimes let go, but they let go back then too.They let go a lot less now.

 

If anyone is concerned about the 1.4 (sort of on topic ) it is an interesting comparison to work out which engines could be considered 'over-boosted', power out of capacity

 

1.0 (115)           115  BHP(PS)/litre

1.2 (110)          91.7  BHP(PS)/litre

1.4 (140)          100  BHP(PS)/litre

1.4 (150)          107  BHP(PS)/litre

1.8 (180)          100  BHP(PS)/litre

vRS 2.0 (220)   110  BHP(PS)/litre

vRS 2.0 (230)   115  BHP(PS)/litre

 

Would I consider a vRS 230 overboosted, no, because there is the likes of this:

 

Golf R 2.0 (300) 150 BHP(PS)/litre   From the same(ish) engine.

 

The new 1.0 is boosted harder than the previous generation 1.2 but things have moved on, materials science is better, internal frictions and stresses reduced etc etc 

 

What you are not going to change to any great degree is how much petrol it takes to get a set lump of car down the road at any given speed. Yes, you will get improvements because smaller boosted engines are lighter (but that just reduces the lump) they are slightly more thermally efficient, but that is just incremental improvement,

 

what you can't change is physics.

It's not really rocket science Ant

A tuned 1.4 will generate inexcess of 200 bhp and being a lot lighter than an unmodified 1.8 will out perform it.

However, not surprisingly as they are interdependent, it will burn far more fuel doing so.

I do so hope you are less confused now Ant

 

Not really. Data ?

 

Also this kind of comparison akin to suggestion of an arm wrestle but with the weaker person on steroids never really makes any sense in terms of an argument, certainly not a balanced argument.

 

The 1.8 is better on performance - as standard - and if both are mapped.

 

The 1.4 will be better on economy.

 

The End.

Edited 22 September, 20169 yr by vRSAnt

what you can't change is physics.

 

No but there is room for something revolutionary. They're shouting about F1 making massive steps in thermal efficiency of internal combustion over the last couple of years, but in F1 they've just about reached 40%. Current road cars are something in the 30's I guess.

 

In electrical power conversion it used to be considered that 70% was OK and 80% was outstanding, but 20 years down the line the sort of thing that powers your server room is probably more like 97% efficient. I would say that petrol engine downsizing efforts in recent years have been impressive whilst being, as you say, incremental in nature, but there's so much more room for improvement.

Not really. Data ?

Data don't stand up in the real world

Diesel gate ring any bells

DSG data shows it slower than manuals but, every Police Authority orders only DSG'S nowdays

Can any of these actual real world points tempt Ant from his ivory tower, doubt it.

Ant, get down to your local Briskoda meet and join the real world just, cos you think it's a bad idea doesn't mean it won't be fun

I will admit I do have a bit of a soft spot for the 1.4, (the latest EA211, not the old EA111 'twincharger' type) I think it is a cracking engine for what it does and I have always liked it when I have driven one. But do I think it is over-boosted, no, it is just how things have moved on.

A few decades ago 100bhp per litre was the holy grail that was BMW M3 territory, now you get it in a family hatch, It is sometimes hard for some of us that remember those times to accept but that is progress. Engines sometimes let go, but they let go back then too.They let go a lot less now.

If anyone is concerned about the 1.4 (sort of on topic ) it is an interesting comparison to work out which engines could be considered 'over-boosted', power out of capacity

1.0 (115) 115 BHP(PS)/litre

1.2 (110) 91.7 BHP(PS)/litre

1.4 (140) 100 BHP(PS)/litre

1.4 (150) 107 BHP(PS)/litre

1.8 (180) 100 BHP(PS)/litre

vRS 2.0 (220) 110 BHP(PS)/litre

vRS 2.0 (230) 115 BHP(PS)/litre

Would I consider a vRS 230 overboosted, no, because there is the likes of this:

Golf R 2.0 (300) 150 BHP(PS)/litre From the same(ish) engine.

The new 1.0 is boosted harder than the previous generation 1.2 but things have moved on, materials science is better, internal frictions and stresses reduced etc etc

What you are not going to change to any great degree is how much petrol it takes to get a set lump of car down the road at any given speed. Yes, you will get improvements because smaller boosted engines are lighter (but that just reduces the lump) they are slightly more thermally efficient, but that is just incremental improvement,

what you can't change is physics.

Getting 100bhp + per litre is easy on a turbocharged engine.

The trick is doing it on a naturally aspirated engine.

Boosting too much just stresses everything and lowers real world reliability.

All the EA211 engines are relatively young, we cant tell how reliable they are yet.

The boost pressure on the 1.4 EA211 is only 0.5bar according to the VAG SSP, which is relatively low (my 1985 Renault 5GT Turbo used to run 1.2bar and was still going strong after 120,000 miles).

Data don't stand up in the real world

Diesel gate ring any bells

DSG data shows it slower than manuals but, every Police Authority orders only DSG'S nowdays

Can any of these actual real world points tempt Ant from his ivory tower, doubt it.

Ant, get down to your local Briskoda meet and join the real world just, cos you think it's a bad idea doesn't mean it won't be fun

 

Yeah the police pursuit team are cancelling the orders for STI's, M3's and Golf R's for 1.4 TSI's I hear.

 

Slowest to fastest -

I own a Fabia 1 vRS BLT

220 TFSI

and also a 10 yr old sportsbikes if you really want to get the pulse racing, 0-60 in 3 ish seconds, tops out about 161mph. (though I'm getting bit tired of biking)

 

1.4 - Its a great engine, balanced for every day use, with practical usable all round engine, and fantastic economy. On that basis I'd definitely buy one.

 

But I'm afraid I'd have to take you for a mug if you were seriously suggesting to consider buying a 1.4 on performance terms,

versus other all round considerations in regard to the car, I'm pretty sure most people don't do that unless they are forced to by budget ?

 

It may be irrelevant in regard to Octavia3 and buying a 1.8 anyway - as mentioned, unless you are buying either the L&K 1.8 - my father has a mk3 one -

or a MKII ( which are still relatively uncommon, I know I was thinking of getting one before the mk3 vRS came up_

to find any other incarnation of them is probably nigh impossible

 

The choices on TFSI front unless you have a wad of money to blow on a top of the range octy 1.8 L&K for mk3 are normally 1.4 or 2.0.

- 2.0 is a no brainer for fun for me mate, if you are SERIOUSLY talking about performance. Does that help you with your crusade to pursuade me the 1.4 is a mustang slayer or something ?

Perhaps part of the argument is not what the performance can be, but what you can actually use generally, where you drive and how you drive.

 

In as much as I can't imagine using any more speed or acceleration than I have available in the 1.4, there would be no point in me going up market.

Even if I won the lottery and bought my favourite 360M Modena coupe, I'd still be driving the same (but it would look nicer !!)

Yeah the police pursuit team are cancelling the orders for STI's, M3's and Golf R's for 1.4 TSI's I hear.

DSG'S what the police are ordering misquoting isn't big or clever.

Yes I would rather maximise one budget vehicle and invest my money property but each to their own I guess.

Having fitted tuning boxes to VRS TSI's I'm more than informed as to their standard and non standard performance but, they don't fit my need.

My point is simple, a tuned the 1.4 TSI is a great sleeper car but, as my average fuelly.com shows (30.1 mpg) it's not economic