Jump to content

Technical discussion: 1.2 TSI vs 1.0 TSI


Recommended Posts

Hi there. I have a few thoughts on my mind and wanted to share them with you. Not exactly about modding and such, but more about the evolution of the TSI engine and it's practical implementation in VAG cars. It focuses on the small displacement versions.

 

I'll begin by saying that I consider myself fortunate to have the EA211 1.2 TSI in my SEAT Toledo (Rapid clone). It seems to have all the benefits of the first generation (EA111) and none of its weakness. But what a short lived experiment! They discontinued it after just a few years of production... Why did VAG took such decision?

 

On paper, the new 1.0 TSI 3 cylinder engine looks better: more output power, more peak torque, seemingly less fuel consumption. But it's when you begin to check everything with a magnifying glass that you notice things don't add up. First, the new engine produces a higher peak torque (175 NM vs 200 NM)... but in a much narrower band (1400-4000 vs 2000-3500 rpm). Second, the output power is higher (110 vs 115 HP)... but at a higher regime (4600 vs 5500 rpm). What's going on here?

 

Well, my personal theory on the issue is that the new engine (1.0 TSI) is worse in every possible way compared to the previous one (1.2 TSI): lower performance, inherently unstable and less durable (3 pistons doing the work of 4 will increase long term wear), etc. So why is VAG pushing it? The reason is simple: it costs less to build than the old one. Looking at the piston diameter (74.5 mm) this is essentially a 1.4 TSI engine minus one cylinder and some tweakings. They can reuse the pistons, the rings and maybe even some tooling used to finish the bores. So how did they manage to camouflage the loss of displacement? Easy, with a new fuel pump. The 1.0 TSI uses one that produces 250 bar, while the one in the 1.2 produces 200 bar. So here you go: you raise the injection pressure, improve the cooling effect in the combustion chamber (direct injection is an essential element of the downsizing concept; it reverts the overheating caused by replacing actual displacement with a turbo) and you can push the engine a little more to get a bonus: (nearly) 1.2 litter performance at 1.0 cost... Sounds neat... for VAG.

 

You, the customer, get less for your money. And the bottom issue is that the new engine is far more on the edge than the old one ever was. By this I mean that the 1.2 TSI could produce way more power than officially acknowledged; I suspect around 130-140 HP is possible by simply upgrading it with the new fuel pumps (there is a new, 350 bar one in the upcoming 1.5 TSI). So why would VAG rate an engine lower than it's real performance? Well, remember that this is a company. For profit. And most decisions are taken based on business rather than technical reasons. One is to "reduce" emissions and give a "greener" look. Many countries impose road taxes and this is a way to present the consumer a more attractive product.

 

But to really understand it, you have to keep in mind how a car company like VAG is managed. They do not develop a new car from the ground up. They just develop a standard set of parts and select them when they are designing a new model. More specifically, at the time VAG designed this engines, they only had the entry MQ200 manual and DQ200 automatic gearboxes available. The model numbers are supposed to reflect the NM rating, but they are misleading: the DSG is actually rated at 250 NM instead of 200. This explains a lot about the configurations available in the Skoda Rapid and SEAT Toledo (I'm sorry, I'm not familiar with the rest of the Skoda models). For example, while there is a 1.4 TSI model offered; it's only offered with the DSG gearbox.

 

Had they allowed the 1.2 TSI engine to freely develop it's real power with upgrades it would have required them to switch the gearbox to the MQ250. This makes a lot of sense from a technical perspective, but it's a no-no business decision: customers usually don't want to pay more for things they don't see. I mean, car manufacturers religiously follow the concept of "perceived value". If you change the gearbox for a more robust one, you need to spend more money and make the car heavier; but the customer doesn't really notice any difference. Maybe a little extra power output, but that comes from the engine. And it's better to sell them larger displacement one with a heftier price tag when they need more power, right?

 

All this tells us that they artificially capped the output power of the 1.2 TSI to 200 NM in order to maintain the MQ200 gearbox. Just look at the specific curves: why else would be a flat on top?

 

Conclusion: the EA211 1.2 TSI is a better engine in every possible way compared to the 1.0 TSI. However, they probably decided early on to produce it only temporarily while they had the 1.0 TSI ready, which makes more sense from a business perspective. This means that they rated the 1.2 TSI lower in every possible aspect from start just so customers would not notice it's a backwards move when they finally introduced the 1.0 TSI. Had they decided to upgrade the 1.2 TSI with the new fuel pumps and other minor tweaks, it would probably have cannibalized sales from other, more premium (and profitable) segments.

 

So here we are, with the 1.0 TSI for the years to come. We already know you get less for your money; let's only hope it works at least as reliable as the 1.2 TSI.

1.2 TSI 81kW - 110HP Curva.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Welcome.

The VW way, move on dump the ones with looming issues, 3 monkeys, see, say and hear no bad.

VORSPRUNG DURCH TECHNIK....

 

Simples, Euro 5 & Euro 6 1.2 TSI / TFSI and Irregularities / Implausible Co2 g/km.  

Dodgy EU test regimes. Real world emissions nothing like as low as in the Temperature Controlled Test Facilities.

New testing coming in September 2017.

http://skoda.co.uk/pages/fuel-consumption-statement.aspx 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 6 months later...

Hopefully it's alright to dig up this old thread.

 

As a 1.2 TSI Fabia owner I recently noticed the engine had been dropped from the line up. After looking at the increased power output of the 1.0 TSI I was quite disappointed, however like m1kemex the more I researched the more happy I was. Whilst the findings I've made are limited, hopefully you find the extra information useful in reinforcing the points made above.

 

Although both power and torque have increased with the 1.0, according to parkers.co.uk the 0-60 time has actually increased by 0.1 seconds. Presuming quote power figures are correct for both engines I can only presume this is due to the wider power band of the 1.2. Quoted top speeds are identical, however when I did have the chance to legally put this to the test my car had no problem reaching 130mph. If anyone has results on the 1.0 that would be interesting to know.

Source - https://www.parkers.co.uk/skoda/fabia/hatchback-2015/monte-carlo-10-tsi-110ps-5d/specs/ - https://www.parkers.co.uk/skoda/fabia/hatchback-2015/12-tsi-monte-carlo-5d/specs/

 

I also thought I would include the results I got when having my car tested on a dyno as the results differ slightly from the graph shown above. The car was running on Shell V-Power during the test, which according to limited research is the reason for the increased torque at low RPM and higher than quote BHP.

 

To conclude, whilst on the surface VW has made the new engine look more appealing on paper, the 1.2 owners are the real winners. Not only do we have an extra cylinder, we also gain a wider power band, better real world fuel economy and a better noise. I'll take that any day.

dynoresult12tsi.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Same here. 4 cylinders or 3? errrr..... I think I need to borrow a 1.0 for a week to try it as I'm tempted to keep my 1.2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

There are advantages on a small engine for 3 cylinders.

Less reciprocating mass.

Greater bore diameter for better breathing valve sizes.

I've ridden modern Triumph 3 cylinders as well as Honda fours, the Triumph is tuned for more torque, the Honda screams, I like both. I am sure tuning companies like Revo Tec will sort out the 3 cylinders 110 tsi.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Had a 1.2 105 for 3 years, traded it for a 1.0 110 in the same body style.

Disappointed to say the least.

Although I went from a 2.0 TD to the 1.2, I soon got used to making more gearchanges and the 4 pot actually had quite good torque and suited my gentle, economic driving style.

The 1.0 needs more gearchanges again, and until it's run-in you don't have enough revs available to get it properly in the torque band of the next gear up.

A very frustrating drive, and as posted above not even giving better mpg.

I find small turbos tend to miss their EU mpg figures massively in the real world, and the 1.0 is even worse than the 1.2 for this.

 

I wish I still lived in NV. Under $3 a gallon and my truck and car had 365 and 435 bhp respectively and I didn't give a shi7 about mpg.

 

 

 

 

 

 

(F150 averaged about 22mpg and Mustang about 25mpg as it goes - :biggrin:)

Edited by camelspyyder
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 9 months later...
  • 6 months later...
On 22/01/2019 at 23:13, Scrotum said:

My 66 plate Fabia 1.2 110 maxes out in 4th gear at around 5,500 rpm, ie. about 105mph. (Flat road, no wind, 10 deg c ambient). I appreciate that power drops off after 5,600, but surely it should pull to 6,300 max revs in 4th?

 

Late reply but w/e

 

My 15 plate 1.2 90bhp maxes out in 4th about 5600 rpm ish, at about 115mph, (took some time to get there, sits at 113 and 114 for ages).

 

The power drops off a bit after 5600, but most importantly there's also bugger all torque.

I read somewhere that the 110 goes faster (120 ish) in 5th, as it's got that bit more torque to the wheels.

 

The better you can maintain the torque to the wheels, the faster you will reach the topspeed. Going beyond 5600 rpm where torque (and power) really drops off, it's gonna take either an extremely long time to reach its max speed, or never.

If you put it in 5th, you put the engine back into revs that can provide better torque, if that increased torque from the engine combined with the ratio change of 5th vs 4th gives a higher wheel torque, then you will accelerate faster toward the topspeed than in 4th.

 

Try pulling from 75-90mph in 3rd. 5000-6000 rpm, it's loud as hell and takes some time after it hits about 84mph (5600rpm) - those last 6mph take some time (and a lot of noise).

Now try it in 4th, it pulls steadily all the way through, at first a little slower but you'll notice that even after 84mph it'll still truck on just the same through to 90 (and to 100+).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

Old thread but i still find the OP:s arguments a bit lacking. If you look at the torque and power curve of the 1.0TSI from a skoda with 115hp. The torque provided is comparable with the 1.2 all the way, you have similar value at 1500 rpm which is 175Nm all the way to 4500rpm where it is down to 175 again. In between you have 200Nm at 2000-3500. The 1.2 manages 175Nm from 1500 to 4000.  Sure the 1.2 has a wider peak curve section but the 1.0 produces that amount of torque too in that rev range.

Power wise the 1.0 puts out 80kw or more between 4000 and 6300 rpm, which the 1.2 manages between 4000 and 5400 roughly.

My question is how is this an inferior engine?  It matches the 1.2 no problem.

Included is an official skoda engine data graph. 

image.thumb.png.21a9570cdedeaf4d01679ec94ccefee6.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

More to the point, VAG is a business to make money, they're not a charity. To develop products that are optimised for their intended use (and not pre-engineered for a handful of aftermarket tuners) is exactly the right business decision. The fact you can tune so many VAG engines is a coincidental bonus, not a showroom USP.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 9 months later...
On 21/11/2019 at 08:28, Skodaswe78 said:

Old thread but i still find the OP:s arguments a bit lacking. If you look at the torque and power curve of the 1.0TSI from a skoda with 115hp. The torque provided is comparable with the 1.2 all the way, you have similar value at 1500 rpm which is 175Nm all the way to 4500rpm where it is down to 175 again. In between you have 200Nm at 2000-3500. The 1.2 manages 175Nm from 1500 to 4000.  Sure the 1.2 has a wider peak curve section but the 1.0 produces that amount of torque too in that rev range.

Power wise the 1.0 puts out 80kw or more between 4000 and 6300 rpm, which the 1.2 manages between 4000 and 5400 roughly.

My question is how is this an inferior engine?  It matches the 1.2 no problem.

Included is an official skoda engine data graph. 

image.thumb.png.21a9570cdedeaf4d01679ec94ccefee6.png

 

I've had no access to the 1.0 TSI to test first hand, but my car now has 3 years on the clock and I still think the same as when I originally wrote my comment. And it seems I'm not the only one:

 

On 19/02/2019 at 09:27, ettlz said:

 

Depends how you define 'performs better'; the 1.2 is a fraction of a second quicker in the 0-62. The 1.2's output is limited by ECU software. It's peak torque is hard-capped at 175Nm (probably because the manual gearbox is rated to 200Nm) vs the 1.0's 200Nm, but it's over a wider rev-band. (See also the torque claims for the after-market remaps, the 1.2 goes 10-20Nm higher.)

 

I doubt you'd notice the difference on motorway work and ordinary commutes. The main difference between the two is at the lower revs (around the 1500-2000rpm mark) where the 1.0 grumbles and struggles, but the 1.2 picks up happily. So things like roundabouts that you'd take in 2nd gear in the 1.2 need 1st in the 1.0.

 

On 28/02/2019 at 02:07, macamx said:

I currently run a 1.2 Tsi 110 and agonised about changing it for a new 1.0 Tsi as my current car is three years old this year. Tried the 1.0 and concluded that the extra money to change was simply not worth it. More relevant to your question the 1,2 just felt "better" to me, just not as stressed as the 1.0. Now I fully appreciate that the 1.2 with 30,000 miles recorded is probably at its optimum but it was not just a case of it being looser it just felt more comfortable producing the goods. I know this is highly subjective but this is just how I found it.

 

Geoff.

 

There is no mystery to it: the 1.2 TSI has more displacement, plus a smoother operation due the extra cylinder. Anyone who really knows about engines knows that cutting a cylinder on a 4 stroke engine is not a minor change. On a 4 cylinder, 4 stroke engine there is always one piston producing movement (only one of the four strokes -ignition and expansion- produces motion) at any time while, if you reduce the number of cylinders to three, there is an idle cycle every four in which the engine doesn't produce motion and depends on the flywheel to keep operating.

 

Since they've improved manufacturing tolerances considerably lately, it's not the huge concern it was decades ago, but it's still producing uneven or pulsating power. The level of precision required to perform this has become so high, that VAG service manuals explicitly say that shops should not attempt to perform a full disassembly of the newer engines, as they are not equipped to put them back together to the tolerances they require to work properly. This, of course, applies to both 1.2 TSI and 1.0 TSI, but I suppose the average shop would have more luck attempting so with the 1.2 TSI than the 1.0 TSI.

 

So to clarify my original point: yes, the 1.2 TSI and the 1.0 TSI are roughly equivalent to the average user, but that's only because they don't look at it with a critical eye. To the advanced user, it quickly becomes obvious that the 1.2 TSI is a rounder package overall. The 1.0 TSI uses many tricks (besides the improved fuel pump) like a regulated oil pump and sodium filled valves and it still lags behind. As I said, it seems more than obvious that the 1.2 EA211 engine was a stopgap to the 1.0, which was the preferred choice from the start due to manufacturing costs. Had they developed the 1.2 TSI to the same level of sophistication of the 1.0, it'd probably be in the 130-140 HP range.

 

I'm willing to bet on the reliability even. The 1.2 loses a bit of efficiency due to the fixed pressure oil pump, but at the same time this makes it far less prone to fail. Time will prove me right.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no mystery to it: the 1.2 TSI has more displacement, plus a smoother operation due the extra cylinder.

True it has but my concern with what is written about displacement is that somehow a smaller engine is weaker built than a larger. This is simply not the case. Each engine of a certain size is designed to withstand the forces subjected to it over a  lifespan that it is expected to last.

Also more displacement equals more air pumped and often it is easier to extract more power as a consequence. 

 

Anyone who really knows about engines knows that cutting a cylinder on a 4 stroke engine is not a minor change. On a 4 cylinder, 4 stroke engine there is always one piston producing movement (only one of the four strokes -ignition and expansion- produces motion) at any time while, if you reduce the number of cylinders to three, there is an idle cycle every four in which the engine doesn't produce motion and depends on the flywheel to keep operating.

Also true but the 1,0 isnt a 1.2 with a cut cylinder its a new design, with better thermal tolerances built into it, it also has more shared components with the newer 1,5L than the 1,2.

 

Sharing a link to a engine family i worked on https://www.oxe-diesel.com/Products.

this is an outboard engine family which me and my colleagues worked on that is based of car engines re-designed to fit an outboard system.

With all the ECU, cooling, turbocharging and oil systems and what not that proved necessary. 

So im not a engine god in anyway but not an amateur atleast.

 

Since they've improved manufacturing tolerances considerably lately, it's not the huge concern it was decades ago, but it's still producing uneven or pulsating power. The level of precision required to perform this has become so high, that VAG service manuals explicitly say that shops should not attempt to perform a full disassembly of the newer engines, as they are not equipped to put them back together to the tolerances they require to work properly. This, of course, applies to both 1.2 TSI and 1.0 TSI, but I suppose the average shop would have more luck attempting so with the 1.2 TSI than the 1.0 TSI.

Normally major repair work on an engine today is not handled by the smaller VW dealerships, the remove an engine that has experienced a major failure and replace it. The failed unit is then sent to the engine plant for evaluation. Dealerships replace the powerpack and then they are done, atleast in europe they tend to do it this way. It takes too much time and cost to repair at the local dealership. Also the insurrance company dont want to pay for the labour of major repair.

 

So to clarify my original point: yes, the 1.2 TSI and the 1.0 TSI are roughly equivalent to the average user, but that's only because they don't look at it with a critical eye. To the advanced user, it quickly becomes obvious that the 1.2 TSI is a rounder package overall. The 1.0 TSI uses many tricks (not tricks its. evolvement by experience of what works better) (besides the improved fuel pump) like a regulated oil pump (all pumps are regulated within a certain operating range, 1,0 uses a variable displacement pump that alter flow based on lubrication needs) and sodium filled valves (Due too better thermal design, which gives it a better capability to transfer heat away and actually handle more power) and it still lags behind.

As I said, it seems more than obvious that the 1.2 EA211 engine was a stopgap to the 1.0, which was the preferred choice from the start due to manufacturing costs. (Yes it was since the 1,5 was on the way and the 1,0 already in the making the 1,2 was not usefull anymore it offered no real advantage over the 1,0 and could not compete with the 1,5 in efficiency without major design alterations and enourmous costs involved. It had basically engieered itself to death.) Had they developed the 1.2 TSI to the same level of sophistication of the 1.0, it'd probably be in the 130-140 HP range. (true but it was deemed to expensive and you already had the 1,5 with its dual cycle capability (miller and otto)) Also increasing power with almost 35% is not done in a heartbeat, it requires som serious design changes especially in the thermal loads area. Which is what kills alot of engines that is tuned by chip tuning. 

We saw that while tweaking and working on the engines for the outboards, heat killed alot of turbos and heads.

 

I'm willing to bet on the reliability even. The 1.2 loses a bit of efficiency due to the fixed pressure oil pump ( not only that but sodium filled valves), but at the same time this makes it far less prone to fail. ( doubt that there are no evidence that a variable displacement pump is more failure prone) Time will prove me right. (Maybe).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to muddy the water: I did change from the 1.2 TSI 110 to the 1.0 TSI 110, and I have to confess that I prefer the 1.0. It's grown on me over a year, and is quieter and smoother (above 1800rpm) than the 1.2. The noise is nicer. The ECU doesn't play silly mindgames with the clutch pedal. It feels nippier in things like 30-60/70 acceleration (there's a sweet spot starting around 2200rpm in 3rd gear for sheer woosh), and slightly more responsive overall. It turns out that the 1.0's particular torque curve is a bit more useful to me for my type and style of driving, which doesn't include drag-racing -- so the slightly slower overall 0-60 is irrelevant to me.

Edited by ettlz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Community Partner

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to BRISKODA. Please note the following important links Terms of Use. We have a comprehensive Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.