I have a 2007 Octavia 1.9TDI with 113000 miles on it. I'm looking to replace it with a Mk3 (prob post 2014 age). Initially I assumed i'd go for the 1.6TDI but the reviews of the 1.2TSI have caught my eye. Also with the current anti diesel agenda i'd be reluctant to now buy a diesel unless it met the Euro 6 emissions standards - so that i'm not taxed for driving into cities! 

I like the way the power in the old 1.9TDI is delivered and my question is if I moved to a MK 3 1.2TSI, would it feel lacking in torque and grunt or would it feel surprisingly sprightly! I know the 1.2 TSI does 1-60 a second quicker but that doesn't always translate to real world feel. I normally drive with just me in the car i.e. unladen.

I do 15000 miles a year which I understand is boarder line between diesel / petrol economics.

 

Another question is do people think these small, high powered petrol engines will last over 100,000 miles?

Thanks

2 minutes ago, simonlt01 said:

I have a 2007 Octavia 1.9TDI with 113000 miles on it. I'm looking to replace it with a Mk3 (prob post 2014 age). Initially I assumed i'd go for the 1.6TDI but the reviews of the 1.2TSI have caught my eye. Also with the current anti diesel agenda i'd be reluctant to now buy a diesel unless it met the Euro 6 emissions standards - so that i'm not taxed for driving into cities! 

I like the way the power in the old 1.9TDI is delivered and my question is if I moved to a MK 3 1.2TSI, would it feel lacking in torque and grunt or would it feel surprisingly sprightly! I know the 1.2 TSI does 1-60 a second quicker but that doesn't always translate to real world feel. I normally drive with just me in the car i.e. unladen.

I do 15000 miles a year which I understand is boarder line between diesel / petrol economics.

 

Another question is do people think these small, high powered petrol engines will last over 100,000 miles?

Thanks

FWIW, I'd think that a 1.4 TSi would be reasonably economical, fun to drive & more likely to cope with 100K miles. Today's turbo petrols have flatish power & torque curves & are designed to last.

Personally, I've been happy with the performance / economy of all the 2'0TSi's that we've had, & as for the torque / grunt debate, my Superb starts pulling at 1300 rpm all the way round to 6700..... 

The long-term fuel consumption is 36+ mpg & that's with a 6-speed DSG in a 4.8 metre, 1,555 Kg barge!

 

DC

Going to say 2 things that are highly frowned upon on here.

 

1  ) I went from a Octavia 2  1.9 PD to a Octavia 3 1.4 TSI and find it disappointingly lacking in low down pulling power. It is seriously hard to believe that it is on paper a significantly more powerful and faster car. Hate to think what the 1.2 would be like.

 

2  ) Why did I not stick with Diesel?- Had a brief diversion via Octavia 3 2.0 TDI. Way too much time doing active regens for my taste.

 

So there you go, both the pro petrol and the pro diesel camps noses well out of joint.

 

Everything I have said here is just my personal experience, other folks personal experience may well have been entirely different.

 

 

Edited 13 March, 20179 yr by Octy0GG

I went from driving an Octavia Mk 2FL 3l PD (140hp) manual hatch over 6 years to an Octavia 3 1.4 TSI (150hp) manual Combi last year. My personal experience is that I enjoyed driving them both and the newer car does not lack in low speed pulling power provided the rpm is kept above 1500. The 1.4 lights up the tyres quite easily. The regeneration business and increasing pollution awareness swayed me against buying another diesel- especially as my annual mileage has dropped.

2l rather than 3l. My bad.

Welcome Simon.

 

You have to get out and drive them. You can read all day on here, but it's just opinion.

 

I've had my 1.2 TSi 110 for 18 months and done 8k miles. It's remarkable for it's size, cruises well in 6th and will return mid 50s mpg on a steady cruise.

It's the same engine as the 1.4, just smaller capacity.

 

Unless you drive on open roads a lot, and need to race BMWs away from dual carriageway roundabouts, it's adequate.

 

For my extra urban driving the 1.4 would be wasted.

 

As for longevity who knows.... The oldest ones are only 4 years old.

 

Having driven a Golf mk4 TDi 115, I would say the 1.2 is similar in outright power, just not as much torque, you have to rev it more as it's 16v.

Like quite a few others here I went from a mk2 1.9d to a mk3 1.4tsi (the 1.2tsi is not sold in Australia).

Loved the 1.9d and would probably have bought another diesel in the mk3 but it was not available in manual here, had DPF and was significantly more expensive.

 

I was stunned by the relative high performance of the 1.4tsi on the test drive especially in the first 100 metres when I gave it the welly the 1.9pd needed to merge into heavy fast moving traffic, my wife in the passenger seat actually gave a little squeal and that never happened in the diesel . The mk3 is a more capacious  but a lot lighter (than 1.9pd).

Our average consumption is about 5 to 8 mpg down on what we got with the 1.9pd, but a modern diesel with DPF would be useless with all the short runs the car now does.

 

A 1.2tsi would probably be fine but as Glosrich says you need to try them for yourself. I'll think you will find it interesting as all the engines under discussion are good but with different personalities and it took me a few weeks to get the best out of the petrol engine.

 

 

What i am thinking is ,U really give a try on 1.4tsi, u will not be disappointed.

I am glad I bought a 1.4 Tsi rather than a TDI .

I can now comment on my own post!

Over a month a go my 2007 Octavia 1.9TDI died - wouldn't start - strange electrical issue. Was towed away by the RAC and the garage took 2 weeks to diagnose  a faulty ABS module that would cost more that the car was worth to replace. Shame as mechanically this car should have had plenty of life left in it.

 

So, an enforced replacement quickly needed. With a hire car for a weekend, I didn't have the luxury of shopping around and test driving a variety of cars. Got a 2016 Octavia 1.2 TSI S from a main dealer. 

 

So how does it compare to my old 1.9TDI?

The Mk 3 has more of a premium feel to it but accordingly its not as good value price wise.

Am impressed with what basic the "S" spec offers compared to the old "Classic". Parking sensors being the only useful thing missing.

Size wise, I think Skoda made a mistake increasing the size of the Mk3. The Mk 2 was perfect for British roads - great interior space and boot size with a small enough overall footprint to fit on our small congested roads and tight car parks. The new one feels bigger on the road making it harder to park and judge width on narrow roads. A bit of a pointless to size increase to me as if you wanted a bigger car you could just go for a Superb!

 

Power & performance wise the 1.2 TSI 110 has proved fine. When people comment that its too small an engine for such a large car, I mention that it has similar power & performance stats to say a 1.8 petrol of 10 years ago and few would have complained with that car / engine size combo.

The Mk 3 is noticeably lighter than the Mk2 (esp when moving from the heavy 1.9tdi)

I can cruise up steep A road hills in 6th gear without dropping speed and acceleration is sprightly if you put your food down. Torque is available at surprisingly low revs meaning that in normal driving I can keep the revs and fuel consumption down.

I'm not pretending its a fast car, but more than adequate if you mainly drive for economy but occasionally like a bit extra when mood strikes or for overtaking. 

With the decent torque (for a petrol) it also isn't too bad with 4 adults in. If a lot of my driving was fully laden I prob wouldn't go for this engine, but as most of mine is just me, I don't live with that scenario.

It is taking me a while to adjust my driving style from the 1.9 TDI to this 1.2 TSI. The former had a very forgiving (commercial vehicle like) bite point on the clutch and could be driven mainly on its torque (almost like an automatic) which meant it was easy to drive in heavy traffic. The 1.2 TSI has a much more sensitive bite point requiring more effort to get a smooth takeoff and to drive in heavy traffic. I am slowly getting used to it though.

The 1.2 TSI is nice and easy to drive on the open road though an more fun than the 1.9TDI

 

Mixed driving MPG is around 47 which is pretty much what I was expecting.

 

One thing i would urge potential Mk 3 buyers to do is be conscious of seat comfort when on a test drive. Around shoulder blade high, the side support is far too narrow (and I have a narrow frame!) making it v uncomfortable on longer journeys. I'm still looking for a suitable shaped cushion / back support that will work for me.

 

Overall, i'm happy with the car.

 

 

Pleased to hear you  are happy with it, I'd say your appraisal is pretty well in line with what I'd expect for the 1.2 (I have not driven one) except for the clutch comment.

The clutch on my 1.4 is pretty well perfect for us in terms of the bite point and sensitivity I can pull away on idle as easily as I could with the 1.9pd despite the petrol idling at 200 rpm lower than the diesel.

 

Your clutch does not sound quite right to me as I cannot remember any similar comment from 1.2/1.4tsi owners, see if you can get a comparison drive in another car.

 

The only gripe I have with the petrol is the lack of engine braking available, which I can imagine is a bit of a problem if you live in a hilly area. Of course that also means that you can easily 'coast' in gear for some distance consuming no fuel.

 

 

Edited 11 May, 20179 yr by Gerrycan

I went from a e90 320i which on paper was 147bhp to a 1.4 TSi 140bhp Skoda Octavia. The Skoda utterly wipes the floor with my old 320i. So much torque. The e90 320i N46 engine was actually considered quite torquey for a normally aspirated 2.0 litre 16 valve engine (it had variable valve timing) but it couldn't compete with the 1.4TSi despite having nearly 50% more capacity. "There's no subsititute for cubes..." really?
 

How it would compare with a diesel, I couldn't say but certainly I'm one happy customer.

3 minutes ago, Lingnoi said:

I went from a e90 320i which on paper was 147bhp to a 1.4 TSi 140bhp Skoda Octavia. The Skoda utterly wipes the floor with my old 320i. So much torque. The e90 320i N46 engine was actually considered quite torquey for a normally aspirated 2.0 litre 16 valve engine (it had variable valve timing) but it couldn't compete with the 1.4TSi despite having nearly 50% more capacity. "There's no subsititute for cubes..." really?
 

How it would compare with a diesel, I couldn't say but certainly I'm one happy customer.

Really interesting. BMW are definitely renowned for their engines & engineering prowess. 

 

Still, engine progress is swift & thankfully VAG are up there at the front of the queue. 

1 minute ago, dunc69 said:

Really interesting. BMW are definitely renowned for their engines & engineering prowess. 

 

Still, engine progress is swift & thankfully VAG are up there at the front of the queue. 

 

BMW have gone turbo now too. The latest 320i is a 2.0 litre turbo with 184bhp, which coincidentally matches the diesel 320D, this is probably not a coincidence but deliberate.

 

The 330i is now a 4 cylinder turbo too (~245bhp off the top of my head).

 

So it seems BMW are going the same way.

 

It's all about reducing fuel consumption.

 

I did look for an F30 (latest shape) 320i with the ZF 8 speed auto box (which is superb) but in the end it was too expensive for my budget and besides that I was looking to go back to a hatchback for versatility and rear wheel drive sucked big time in heavy snow or on ice. Aquaplaning on motorways even on spanking new tyres happened far too frequently.

 

I have very few regrets about switching to Skoda.

1 hour ago, Lingnoi said:

I went from a e90 320i which on paper was 147bhp to a 1.4 TSi 140bhp Skoda Octavia. The Skoda utterly wipes the floor with my old 320i. So much torque. The e90 320i N46 engine was actually considered quite torquey for a normally aspirated 2.0 litre 16 valve engine (it had variable valve timing) but it couldn't compete with the 1.4TSi despite having nearly 50% more capacity. "There's no subsititute for cubes..." really?
 

How it would compare with a diesel, I couldn't say but certainly I'm one happy customer.

hmm technically they have similar 0-100 times, but torque of 1.4 is more. Anyway E90 is heavier I assume, but naturally aspirated should be more pleasant to drive sportier. I found 1.4 at higher rev range is weaker. What is your opinion of pros/cons of both engines, beside the fuel consumption..

13 hours ago, TTodorov said:

hmm technically they have similar 0-100 times, but torque of 1.4 is more. Anyway E90 is heavier I assume, but naturally aspirated should be more pleasant to drive sportier. I found 1.4 at higher rev range is weaker. What is your opinion of pros/cons of both engines, beside the fuel consumption..

Yeah you're right, I'm sure the e90 is heavier.

 

The N46 is much smoother and likes to be revved. Many's the time before I got used to having a 6 speed manual gearbox, that I would be happily going along the motorway at 70 mph and would look down at the tachometer and notice that the revs were a bit high and then I'd realise I was in 4th gear not 6th.

 

But the torque of the 1.4TSi is superb and gives it so much get up and go in whatever situation you're in.

 

The cabin of the e90 was extremely quiet and refined. I didn't used to have parking at work so I rarely used the car during the week though still did 15K miles a year travelling to pursue hobbies. I did a lot of motorway and dual carriageway driving. And often I'd be sat at 70mph with the cruise on at 2am in the 320i with the heated seats on and the car just whispered. The 6th was quite tall so the economy in long runs was around 40mpg which was pretty good, though the Skoda is obviously much much better. Round town in traffic I averaged 26mpg and that was driving gently.

8 hours ago, Lingnoi said:

Yeah you're right, I'm sure the e90 is heavier.

 

The N46 is much smoother and likes to be revved. Many's the time before I got used to having a 6 speed manual gearbox, that I would be happily going along the motorway at 70 mph and would look down at the tachometer and notice that the revs were a bit high and then I'd realise I was in 4th gear not 6th.

 

But the torque of the 1.4TSi is superb and gives it so much get up and go in whatever situation you're in.

 

The cabin of the e90 was extremely quiet and refined. I didn't used to have parking at work so I rarely used the car during the week though still did 15K miles a year travelling to pursue hobbies. I did a lot of motorway and dual carriageway driving. And often I'd be sat at 70mph with the cruise on at 2am in the 320i with the heated seats on and the car just whispered. The 6th was quite tall so the economy in long runs was around 40mpg which was pretty good, though the Skoda is obviously much much better. Round town in traffic I averaged 26mpg and that was driving gently.

 

Hi Lingnoi,

 

So the Octavia is noisier inside than the BMW?

 

That's generally the main criticism of the Octavia, the soundproofing seems to be poor, to save money and weight I guess. Also some owners get a booming/noise sensation from the hatch area on rough roads.

 

The torsion beam rear suspension doesnt help the matter also.

 

Interesting to get a comparison against a BMW.

 

Thanks

 

Octy is noisier for sure..Specially E90 is very well sound isolated, which by the way is a criticism in BMW world A friend of mine after E30 was so disappointed how quiet E90 is.Even with performance exhaust old times were far from reach

 

However I find the plastics in E90 cheap, same level as Octy. But suspension wise, balance of a car, wheel, engine feeling for me E90 is better product. Just it's costy and very attractive to stealers here, which makes me live with O3. By the way I'm very happy with it, no matter it's the diesel.

 

A question for Lingnoi - what I'm interested is the overtaking measurements. For me standstill accelerations means...this ... standstill acceleration. Where I need power is overtaking 80-120 or 60-110. Very interested in this 320i vs 1.4TSI as comparison. I've driven 1.4 TSI on test drives, from E90 only 330i, which is not directly comparable. Please advise.

Edited 12 May, 20179 yr by TTodorov

On 11/05/2017 at 17:44, Lingnoi said:

The Skoda utterly wipes the floor with my old 320i. So much torque. The e90 320i N46 engine was actually considered quite torquey for a normally aspirated 2.0 litre 16 valve engine (it had variable valve timing) but it couldn't compete with the 1.4TSi despite having nearly 50% more capacity.

My spidey senses are tingling.........

5 hours ago, TTodorov said:

Octy is noisier for sure..Specially E90 is very well sound isolated, which by the way is a criticism in BMW world A friend of mine after E30 was so disappointed how quiet E90 is.Even with performance exhaust old times were far from reach

 

However I find the plastics in E90 cheap, same level as Octy. But suspension wise, balance of a car, wheel, engine feeling for me E90 is better product. Just it's costy and very attractive to stealers here, which makes me live with O3. By the way I'm very happy with it, no matter it's the diesel.

 

A question for Lingnoi - what I'm interested is the overtaking measurements. For me standstill accelerations means...this ... standstill acceleration. Where I need power is overtaking 80-120 or 60-110. Very interested in this 320i vs 1.4TSI as comparison. I've driven 1.4 TSI on test drives, from E90 only 330i, which is not directly comparable. Please advise.

I had my 320i for more than 7 years and 75K miles (she had 143K miles when I sold her).

 

The in gear acceleration on 320i is pathetic compared to the instant grunt of the turbocharged engine. There's no competition.

 

The N46 is meant to spun up and hard. To make rapid progress you had to use the gears.

 

Re the handling. The Skoda's actually very good though I'm sure that despite new dampers the handling of my 320i had probably gone off. The nice thing with the rear wheel drive Beemer was that when it let go you had plenty of warning and it pretty benign. However in the wet all bets are off and you could easily find yourself going backwards through a hedge if you were too enthusiastic.

 

As regards the interior quality I have to completely disagree. After 143K miles and 11 years the interior was immaculate and everything worked perfectly, including all the toys ie heated seats, electric folding mirrors, automatic wipers, automatic lights, automatic dipping rearview mirror etc etc. Despite the fact that I have an Elegance my old BMW SE spec (with obviously some other options ticked) had more bells and whistles (and it was a 2006 car). No squeaks or rattles or damage. They're very solid cars, the Skoda much as I love mine (seriously I do, it's a great car) has some plastics especially the door trims and the harder plastics round the cabin which wouldn't look out of place on an Airfix kit. Even the boot on the BMW was beautifully lined and soundproofed.

 

But the BMW's back seats which didn't fold were annoying and very impractical. Runflat tyres are very safe but expensive as every puncture means a new tyre.

 

As for noise, I'm not a teenager trying to impress so I prefer a quiet hushed car. I don't need lowered suspension, Coke can exhausts and 19" rims.

 

Each to their own...