^^^ They are so good that VW are fitting the New 1.5TSI to Volkswagen's.

Worth going and trying a 1.4TSI 150ps /DSG in a heavy Alhambra without any passengers and its acceptable, 

put people and luggage other than a driver in one and what a piece of garbage.

 

PS.  Comparison to a 2.0 Naturally Aspirated Engine is about right, 

a Petrol 2.0 Naturally Aspirated compares to a 1.4TSI ACT or 1.4TSFI COD.

Not fit for fitting to a Euro 6 Large SUV in 2017.

Edited 24 March, 20179 yr by Awayoffski

As far as I'm aware, the Seat Alhambra engine isn't the ACT engine found in the Kodiaq.

Strange as it may sound 150ps coming from a 1.4TSI with 4 cylinders working and the turbo is 150ps or there about's.

Nothing fantastic happens with Cylinder De-activation or Cylinder on demand other then when it can the Cylinders shut down, 

to reduce Co2 / Fuel use supposedly.

 

You might think a 150ps from a TDI / dsg and 150ps from a 1.4TSI ACT /dsg could be no different both being 150ps, 

but that is far from the truth when you want torque where it is needed. 

My experience has been different with Seat Ateca with 5 adults and the same engine as the Kodiaq. It had adequate power, hence my reason to go for the engine. I'm never going to attach a caravan.

On 12/2/2016 at 00:21, old newbie2 said:

I thought it would be would be nice to get a test drive in a 2.0 petrol Kodiaq, but that might be difficult for a while.....

 

So, after some thought I've managed to drive a 2.0 TSi Tiguan instead. I appreciate that there will be differences in size, weight etc, but it is the same power-train.

 

We (SWMBO wanted ago too...) quite liked the car, it's very much a tall Golf to drive, so very familiar control layouts & toys, but 180 PS just isn't enough to make it fun to drive. 

 

I decided that we would use the Superb to get to / from the dealer, as the R would have been an fair comparison, but the Tiggy seemed lacklustre even when compared with my humble Skoda.

 

The 7-speed DSG suits the car so no problem there, but to join a motorway & merge with the traffic required a heavy right foot, much more than is usual in any of our current cars.

 

The engine seems to be deliberately de-rated, max power is reached at 4K rpm & stays there. No doubt all to do with emissions &

theoretical economy....

 

I did peek at its fuel consumption, it had managed 27 mpg overall, we got 30 mpg during a 16 mile test, (nice mix of normal roads & dual carriageways), but recorded 37 mpg driving the Skoda back home, which has been it's long-term consumption for the last few months.

 

I suspect that the Kodiaq will have similar performance & economy,  so if we do splash-out on a new Skoda & we want AWD it will have to be a Superb 280 unless we were prepared to remap a brand-new car which might well have some warranty issues..

 

 

HTH, DC

 

 

 

 

 

I do share the same view as this.  I too drove a Tiguan 2.0TSi DSG and found wanting.  I wasn't expecting a GTi don't get me wrong.  My wife has a 1.8TSi 160bhp Octavia 2 FL combi.  This is manual.  Had it 7 years from new and been great.  This engine is rated 160bhp and from tests I have read feels closer to 180bhp.  The Tiguan wouldn't live with it even including the point that the manual is slower changing than a DSG box.  

I really really wanted to like the Tiguan so I could get a feel if I would like the Kodiaq.  For me its just the engine does not have enough poke and I don't want a diesel.  No doubt the 190TDi would be better, indeed the BI turbo 240bhp would be better still but that will never happen.  Diesel days are numbered I feel.  

 

I think VW and Skoda missed a trick not putting a more powerful petrol engine in the car.  The 220TSi out of the Superb would have been a nice power plant in my opinion.

 

It will be enough for most people but when I drive on the continent with 4 people and luggage I need some pulling power.

 

Test drove a Superb 280 L & K.  Loved it and bought one.  

 

This video is interesting:

 

 

This is the 4X4 version, which is about 80kg heavier.

Yes the video features in a thread starter just about it in this section of Briskoda.

Looks like a OK 0-62;  pathetic acceleration for overtaking really, but if you find the 1.4TSI Ateca acceptable then why should the Kodiak not be.

Have fun with it when you get it.

http://briskoda.net/forums/topic/423600-carwows-surprising-0-62-test-result 

*If Josh was sitting there on a road rather than being bored there might be terror on his face as that Kodiaq fails to do an overtake quick enough.*

As a professional reviewer can he not say 62 mph each time if he means that, and not 60mph on occasion and then 62 mph, he does enough videos and articles,

and also show a V-Box timing not just a Speedo to 100kmh which if right is the 62 mph.

?

What is the 0-62 mph with a Skoda Kodiaq 1.4 TSI DSG AWD with 5 adults in if you are are the Traffic Lights and you just put in D or S and floor it, no Launch Control used or TC off or the likes, just getting a shift on?

Edited 27 March, 20179 yr by Awayoffski

Another thing to bear in mind is that the 4WD 2.0 TSi (the engine only comes with a 4WD option) is almost 200kg heavier than a 2WD 1.4 150 TSi, which will impact on performance.

You keep telling yourself that

It's useful information for people deciding between the 2 engines.

The useful information is the 150 ps 1.4TSI ACT 250Nm bit and the kerb weight and max gross weight, 

then seeing what they are like once you have driven one.

(reviews of a left hand drive car not knowing what wheels / tyres are on or fuel in the tank or even the MAP on the ECU is not so helpful.

ie, did the Media / Launch team fill the petrol versions with 100 ron?  Just using the pump fuel available near the location,

Not that that ever ever gets done obviously!)

 

So this is a 125ps and manual and probably the lightest one but might be useful as a review for some.

(then they show a car with 7 seats & a '4X4' badge on the rear.)

 

Edited 30 March, 20179 yr by Awayoffski

Correct.

 

Kerb weight of Kodiaq with 1.4 TSi 150PS is 1514kg 

 

Kerb weight of Kodiaq with 2.0 TSi 180PS 4X4 is 1738kg.

 

So the difference is 224kg.

& what is the kerb weight of the Polo 1.4TSI GT Blue 150ps 250Nm ?

with its 7.8 second 0-62, officially or actually?

(my bad, this is a 140ps /103 kW early model.)

 

Edited 30 March, 20179 yr by Awayoffski

12 minutes ago, bigboss said:

Correct.

 

Kerb weight of Kodiaq with 1.4 TSi 150PS is 1514kg 

 

Kerb weight of Kodiaq with 2.0 TSi 180PS 4X4 is 1738kg.

 

So the difference is 224kg.

 

Not according to the online brochure I downloaded, the weight difference is between 150 - 170kg 

 

2 hours ago, bigboss said:

Another thing to bear in mind is that the 4WD 2.0 TSi (the engine only comes with a 4WD option) is almost 200kg heavier than a 2WD 1.4 150 TSi, which will impact on performance.

 

The fact remains the 180 is still 1.4 seconds quicker from 0 - 62 (8.2 seconds v’s 9.6 seconds) and whilst we are talking about performance having 4WD means it will put the power down better especially in the wet or on corners.

 

The 1.4 mpg is also slightly better than the 1.8... well at least it is until you try to keep up with a 1.8 

 

The whole reason why there are different specs is because people require different things out of a car.

 

I opted for 2WD on my 190 Superb... which with hindsight was a mistake as it can struggle to put the power down on anything but a bone dry road.