Driving a Kodiaq 2.0TSi sibling.

[old newbie2]

Some Kodiaq with just a driver will be about the same weight as your fully loaded Octavia with passengers and luggage.

Add the additional frontal area for the Kodiaq as well as the weight.

 

The real point is that the 2.0 TSi in the Kodaq reaches it's maximum power just under 4K rpm, whereas pmdc's Octy is making app 158 bhp at 4K  but the power curve

continues to climb to 200 / 205 bhp at app 5.8K RPM.

 

(That's based on the before the remap figures on my '07 Octy vRS TFSi. I don't have the graphs for SWMBO'd '11 vRS 2.0 TSi to hand, but from memory it was a little better

than my '07 car. All the Skoda's that we've had remapped have had their "before figures" a little higher than Skoda claimed, they were on a par with the same engine when installed in a V.W. I've no idea why that might be the case............)

 

DC

[Ootohere]

177hp / 132kw 3,900- 6,000 rpm

320Nm 1,400-3,940 rpm is how the figures are with the Kodiaq 2.0 TSI 4x4 DSG.  Driving one will be the proof of the pudding.

 

The figures are minimum figures obviously to allow for Ambient Temperatures & Elevation Above Sea Level & the UK have no extremes of either.

Edited 16 December, 2016 by Offski

[pmdc199]

That is low rpm

Can a remap change that? Why does it peak so low rpm wise? Or am I being a bit dumb.

[Ootohere]

Probably because that is where you want the torque with a 7 speed DSG & a TSI.  'Turbo Charged Petrol Engine'.

If it was a lighter car it would be quite nippy.

 

(saying that a lighter Polo GTI 1.8TSI 192 ps (144 kW) with a manual gets 320Nm

& with a DSG 250Nm  & 192ps are not that much of a Hot Hatch)

Edited 16 December, 2016 by Offski

[vrskeith]

Interesting Group test:

http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/skoda/kodiaq/98051/skoda-kodiaq-vs-land-rover-discovery-sport-vs-kia-sorento

[Ootohere]

For that Kodiaq in the test first registered after 1st April 2017 the VED is £500 the first year & then £140 a year, if it costs under £40,000

The Sorento will be £800 then £140 a year.

Edited 16 December, 2016 by Offski

[old newbie2]

Interesting Group test:

http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/skoda/kodiaq/98051/skoda-kodiaq-vs-land-rover-discovery-sport-vs-kia-sorento

Interesting, especially the (estimated?) depreciation figures.

If you have the time to wait for 3 years, then the Kodiaq seems to be the bargain, but if you want to be an early adopter it's gonna be expensive.......

 

DC

[Culverden]

Read this thread hoping it would help me make a final decision between the 1.4 TSi and the 2.0 TSi. Still not sure which one to go for. The German video review in Majorca suggested that the 1.4 was almost sporty but others on this thread are saying the 2.0TSi is slow. Any further views?

[Mr Grump]

@ Culverden

 

Different people have different perspectives on what is quick.

I am not expecting a hot hatch, just enough oomph for overtakes when required. If you want a "quick" family car look elsewhere.

Nobody posting on this thread (including me) has actually driven a kodiaq yet, so its all conjecture.

 

I look at it this way:

 

Official fuel consumption figures for 1.4 aren't much better than the 2.0. I expect real world the 2.0 will maybe be better than the 1.4 because its not having to work so hard.

Obviously that's comparing 4x4 drivetrains, the FWD 1.4 has larger differences.

 

VED is the same annually (after the OTR charges for the first year).

 

The 2.0 is essentially a detuned version of what's in the vRS, and that's a cracking motor IMO.

There is a good possibility of remaps making reliable big gains if that's the case, should you feel you needed it.

 

Anyway you slice it, the 2.0 will give you more overtaking power than the 1.4 especially in a heavier vehicle like the Kodiak.

 

If your driving is mostly town work and flat lands go for the 1.4, otherwise the 2.0 is the weapon of choice IMO.

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

Edited 2 March, 2017 by Mr Grump
Tidying !

[Skoda Al Coda]

9 hours ago, Culverden said:

Read this thread hoping it would help me make a final decision between the 1.4 TSi and the 2.0 TSi. Still not sure which one to go for. The German video review in Majorca suggested that the 1.4 was almost sporty but others on this thread are saying the 2.0TSi is slow. Any further views?

 

I think power perception will always vary, according to what you're used to.

 

IMHO, both engines are enough - the 2.0 will have a bit in reserve, not have to work so hard, and may be as economical in the real world.

 

Note that this version of the 2.0 has 2 stage valve lift. It is supposed to feel like a 1.4 at low revs/throttle but be ready to take off when you need it. Try watching the Auto Express video for the Audi A4 (better than an M3?). The Audi designer explains it better than I do.

 

P.S: Engine designer speaks from 4:44 if you don't want to watch the whole thing:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MSY-Cq3l58

 

Edited 2 March, 2017 by Skoda Al Coda
Add video details

[Ootohere]

Well posted. That Video is a perfect example of the VW Group & Audi.

Then the Co2 Irregularities / Implausible Co2 investigations started.

Now VW Announce 'The Age of Engine Down sizing is to end',  New 1.5 TSI etc.

The Emissions in the Real world are not as EU Testing results and the MPG's were always fiction as we knew.

http://www.carscoops.com/2017/02/vw-chairman-admits-that-engine.html 

 

 

With a car full of your nearest and dearest and stuff in the boot the 0-62 or the traffic light Grand Prix might not be as important as being able to overtake safely, 

and have some performance in hand. 

Not all SUV's have that, and some might be rather poor at accelerating when fully loaded to revenue weight and needing to get a move on.

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

Edited 2 March, 2017 by Awayoffski

[Culverden]

Thanks for the link to the video. The German engine guy says that the 2.0 in the Audi produces 109g co2. This is way below the 170g quoted for the Skodiaq 2.0. Is it the same engine!

[Mr Grump]

That video was made before the emissions fixing came to light

Edited 2 March, 2017 by Mr Grump

[Ootohere]

Ignoring the Emissions Scandal on Euro 5 TDIs,  after that there was the Co2 Irregularities just later in 2015 which was not very well reported investigation scandal and the Implausible VW, Audi & SEAT test results on a number of vehicles petrol and diesel Euro 6 emissions, and the retests had the Co2 / VED's changed upwards,

were any of the New Euro 6 A4's co2 figures changed?

EDIT.

This.  See Audi Q3 1.4  TFSI (these are COD) & 2.0TFSI and SEAT 1.4TSI's

http://autocar.co.uk/car-news/industry/vw-emissions-scandal-audi-and-seat-deny-co2-cover 

 

Edited 2 March, 2017 by Awayoffski

[Skoda Al Coda]

1 hour ago, Culverden said:

Thanks for the link to the video. The German engine guy says that the 2.0 in the Audi produces 109g co2. This is way below the 170g quoted for the Skodiaq 2.0. Is it the same engine!

Oops!

 

Deepest & sincerest apologies if I've mislead. Watched a video review of the Kodiaq 2.0 TFSI which referred to it has having "the latest Audi engine". Similar horsepower figures led me to believe it was the same - maybe it isn't?

 

I'm alright Jack (pull the ladder up  ) as I always thought the 2-stage valve lift engine was the one I'd always been waiting for (gutted it wasn't on more cars). As it happens, all of the cars that (I thought) have it have been knocked off my list for various reasons (unless I swallow the extra V.E.D. & buy the A4 Avant). Still looking like the Superb 220 is the car for me then. 

 

Audi configurator currently shows A4 S-Line 2.0 TFSI S tronic as 124g/Km. Probably different engine then (Audi is lighter & more aerodynamic but not enough to account for that kind of difference).

 

 

Edited 2 March, 2017 by Skoda Al Coda
Screwed up - compared with Quattro

[Culverden]

No worries, I am struggling to justify the extra costs of the 2.0 in lease terms. I have driven the 1.4tsi is the Seat Leon FR (in 138 bhp guise) and it's a belter of an engine. I suspect that the 150bhp in the Kodiaq would be enough of a balance between power and economy. I'm looking at a 2 yr lease so if it's under powered, I'll just have to deal with it. SWMBO has a 60 bhp Up which is great fun to drive so power isn't everything!

[old newbie2]

18 hours ago, Skoda Al Coda said:

Oops!

 

Deepest & sincerest apologies if I've mislead. Watched a video review of the Kodiaq 2.0 TFSI which referred to it has having "the latest Audi engine". Similar horsepower figures led me to believe it was the same - maybe it isn't?

 

I'm alright Jack (pull the ladder up  ) as I always thought the 2-stage valve lift engine was the one I'd always been waiting for (gutted it wasn't on more cars). As it happens, all of the cars that (I thought) have it have been knocked off my list for various reasons (unless I swallow the extra V.E.D. & buy the A4 Avant). Still looking like the Superb 220 is the car for me then. 

 

Audi configurator currently shows A4 S-Line 2.0 TFSI S tronic as 124g/Km. Probably different engine then (Audi is lighter & more aerodynamic but not enough to account for that kind of difference).

 

 

I've been looking (& driving) at an A4 for the next car & have the current brochure to hand....

 

The current CO2 figures for the newish 190 ps 2.0 TSi vary from 127 in the 17" wheeled saloon to 139 in the 19" wheeled estate, when fitted with the 6-speed manual box,

& 116 (17") to 128 (19") when fitted with the 7-speed S Tronic / DSG auto.

 

So yes, 170 for a TSi 7-speed DSG Tiguan &/or Kodiaq is high, but weight & drag could be part of the reason.

 

I suspect that the 180 & 190 engine are similar, but tuned differently, if only 'cos Audi always has to be "better" than the lesser brands.

Both units share the same flat power curve from 4k rpm onwards, but I'm not sure if any of the tuning shops have any experience in increasing the power outputs. 

 

FWIW, the car I drove was a June '16 Avant Quattro with the 252 ps TS / 7-speed auto & apart from the silly price / & low-rent specification it was quite impressive to drive.

Quick enough, quiet & with a reasonable ride too (18" rims), & averaging app. 27 mpg. An Audi UK supplied used car, on a DF plate, which = a Bentley Management car!

 

TH, DC

 

 

 

Edited 3 March, 2017 by old newbie2
I can't type.............

[Culverden]

Thanks for this. Still seems to be a huge jump in co2 from the Audi to the Kodiaq. 

 

Now thinking it it might be best to go for the 2.0... Ready to place the order so just need to make that final decision.

[vrskeith]

1st drive review of 2. 180 4x4 DSG.

 

http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-review/skoda/kodiaq/first-drives/skoda-kodiaq-20-tsi-180-4x4-dsg-se-l-2017-review

Edited 22 March, 2017 by vrskeith

[Culverden]

Now I've read this I'm thinking that the 1.4 150 TSi might be a better option...

[Mr Grump]

Yes because journalists always know what they are talking about.   

For instance the steering feels heavy in sport ? my vRS steering is always in sport and its not at all heavy.

Same room as a LR Sport ? look again, with 7 seats up it has a lot more usable boot.

Co2 high ? Only 14% more than the 150 diesel and 1.4 petrol. Do they know the VED costs the same ?

Already a 3 month waiting list ? Standard Skoda build timescale, wait until April, then I am sure it will be longer !

Put simply, the 1.4 will have less safe overtaking ability, a chunk less torque, and I am fairly sure not much real world difference in fuel economy given it will need to work harder.

It depends on where and how you intend to use it, only you can decide which one has more benefit for your use.

Edited 23 March, 2017 by Mr Grump

[bigboss]

I've gone for the 1.4 150 TSi engine. I do a lot of city driving, and ACT engine (only in 1.4) shuts off 2 of the 4 cylinders to save fuel. The 2.0 TSi engine only comes with 4X4 spec. I wanted a 2WD as I'm never going to go off road, and for snow etc., winter tyres are adequate. 4X4 option increases weight considerably. The Kodiaq with 1.4 150 TSi engine and 2WD weighs less than 1500kg, so the performance won't be as bad as some predict. As long as you're not lugging heavy caravans, you should be fine with the 1.4. 

Edited 23 March, 2017 by bigboss

[PirateSyrett]

Big boss - welcome to the forum!

 

Sounds like you've ordered the perfect Kodiaq for your needs. Please let us know how it goes when it arrives (if that's not an oxymoron?).

Edited 23 March, 2017 by PirateSyrett

[bigboss]

Thanks!

This is the spec I order earlier in the month: Kodiaq SE L, 1.4 TSI 150 PS DSG, Magnetic Brown metallic, beige leather, 19" Triglav alloy wheels, towbar, Heated windscreen & washer nozzles, Heated leather MFSW, Adaptive cruise control, Front & rear parking sensors. 

[bigboss]

Details about the 1.4 litre TSi engine here:

 

http://www.volkswagen.co.uk/technology/petrol/active-cylinder-technology-act

 

Having a turbo, it equates to a 2 litre naturally aspirated engine.