Difference between the old 1.2 TSI 90 and new 1.0 TSI 95

[alltorque]

8 hours ago, vc-10 said:

 

This. Go drive one.

 

It's stupid to write off the 3-pots completely without driving one. I've not driven the current VAG 1.0 TSI, but I've heard nothing but good things about it. I've driven a Fiesta with the 1.0 EcoBoost and that was great. This isn't the old 1.2 3-cyl HTP engine we're talking about...

One man's 'stupid' is another man's personal choice. Thankfully, we're allowed to be different.

[vc-10]

Well, a choice can still be stupid 

 

To refuse to try something new is a fairly backward thing to do. I'm not saying you have to like the 3-pot engines, I'm just saying to write things off without trying them is pointlessly stubborn. 

[alltorque]

On 13 January 2018 at 22:35, vc-10 said:

Well, a choice can still be stupid 

 

To refuse to try something new is a fairly backward thing to do. I'm not saying you have to like the 3-pot engines, I'm just saying to write things off without trying them is pointlessly stubborn. 

Thank you telling me how I should live my life; it's very thoughtful of you.

[Pumatron]

I’ve now owned two 3 cylinder engined cars long term and I’m about to embrace my 3rd.

I have enjoyed offerings from BMW and Skoda and soon to enjoy another Skoda 3 cylinder, this time with a turbo, (2nd turbo one I’ve had).

Over the years of motoring I have driven thousands of cars, and owned over 30. 

What have I noticed? Engines have generally shrunk in size and got more efficient (and more throw away as well!).

The big thirsty V8’s are going and the average 1.6, 1.8, 2.0 Petrol or diesel are disappearing to.

Through improvements, world government legislation and increased efficiencies the engines have got smaller, so 1.2, 1.0, and 0.9 are all becoming the norm.

It probably won’t be that long before the same arguments and hang ups over 4 cylinder & 3 cylinder engines will be changing to battery technology arguments and alike.

Change isn’t always for the best and some of the progress we see isn’t always the best option. Needless to say we either embrace it or find something else we like.

This is the freedom of choice.

I personally like the three cylinder engine thrum and the quirks it brings, and at this point in time I’m happy to live with it.

That’s until the engines shrinks again to perhaps a 2 cylinder 0.6 litre with a supercharger and electric driven turbo charged hybrid engine, or whatever the manufacturers think up next! I will then leave the 3 cylinder engine in the past like I’m doing now with the 4+cylinder engines.

Edited 15 January, 2018 by Pumatron

[kristianRS]

I tested the 1.0 110 hp the other day. Loved the sound! A bit more noisy but more of a sporty sound. And it felt a bit faster than my 1.2 TSI 110hp as well! I had a lot of fun driving it, very impressed.

[skidpan]

Coming up 3 years ago we were changing the wifes car, an almost 8 year old Nissan Micra 1.2 with 82 PS. We needed a bit more space and more performance so the 1.2 TSi was top of our list. I had a 1.4 TSi 140 PS Leon at the time thus I was aware how good theses little engines are. First we tried a Polo (the dealer is only a mile away) which had the 90 PS engine (I think). loevely car but it was so slooooowwwwww even comparing it to the Micra. There was a Polo with 110 PS but it was high specced and stupid money so off to Skoda who did the Fabia with sensible spec and the 110 engine for sensible money. It fell down at the first hurdle, the Mrs who is 5'3" could not reach the boot to close it. Salesman suggested jumping, we told him to take a jump.

 

We bought a Note with the 1.2 supercharged 98 PS triple. Way better than the 90 PS Polo and with all the discounts and contributions and special deals for existing Nissan owners it was stupidly cheap. The 1.2 triple could never be called fast but it goes well enough and the note (no pun intended) it makes is quite characterful. Once on the open road you don't hear it, a really refined cruiser.

 

I bought a Superb last year, 1.4 TSi again and while we were speaking to the salesman I spotted that the Fabia hatch had a rubber strap to close the boot. Wife could reach it easily so asked when they started fitting that. Turned out the one we had been shown had that part missing and the stupid salesman was not aware.

 

So we are now looking again for a car for the wife. Nothing wrong with Note but we have decided to swap every 3 years whilst we can afford it. Fabia now tops the list since she can close the boot and we have a loan car booked while the Superb is serviced next month. Hope its a 110 PS version but who knows, if its not the triple there will be no point even bothering.

 

Will post back after we have tried it. We are certainly not afraid to adopt more modern technology. Horses make you garage smell so bad.

Edited 26 January, 2018 by skidpan

[rum4mo]

Hum, a strap for pulling the hatch down, my wife is just under 5ft so she needs to grab the side of the Polo hatch, seems like it is a bit awkward thing for her to do, now if the Fabia has a strap to pull the hatch down, I'll need to see what that is like and see if I can add that to the Polo!

[AGFalco]

The rubber boot pull strap for a Skoda Fabia will also fit a Fiat Panda without any modifications very well.

One fixing hole about 6 mm at the shorter attaching end. It is 'L' shaped.

Took the old crap/strap of the Panda and refitted the Fabia one using the original bolt and fixing hole.

Would fit other car as well?

I remember paying less than £2.00 including delivery to work via TPS.  Bargain  

 

Thanks AG Falco

Edited 27 January, 2018 by AGFalco
insert photo

[rum4mo]

Thanks AGFalco, I plan to get hold of one of them and see how that goes, I might need to have a look at  a new Fabia to see exactly where it fits.

[m1kemex]

On 11/01/2018 at 07:47, Gerrycan said:

No disagreement with the figures in the original post but his arguments seem a bit contradictory.

At one point he seems to be complaining that the 1.0tsi is possibly overstressed and could prove unreliable, and then in another paragraph is complaining that his marginally larger 1.2tsi was not allowed by VW to develop its true power potential.

He also ignores that the 1.0tsi does offer markedly better economy for similar performance, which is more important for some than the performance aspect. Lets face it these are not really performance car engines, even though I think they are both very good examples of their type.

Modular engine design and parts standardisation across as many different engine types as possible are common car manufacturing procedures, but hardly conspiracy theory material.

 

 

They are not contradictory; it's just that it's difficult to reconcile practical from theoretical concerns.

 

Theoretical:

 

Against 1.0:

 

* A 4 pot will always deliver a smoother output over a 3 pot (by missing one cycle every three, they deliver pulsating output).

* The larger the total displacement, the more power it has before the turbo kicks in (higher output a low rpms).

* The larger total displacement, the more dissipation area.

* The larger the number of subdivisions for a given volume, the larger the dissipation area (it's the same principle as having thin fins on a heatsink).

 

The last two points are über-important, as handling heat is the most important concern for any downsized engine.

 

Against 1.2:

 

* For a given output, the less the number of cylinders, the more torque provided with each stroke (three powerful strokes equate four weaker ones).

 

Practical:

 

1.0 has a variable displacement oil pump (less energy lost in the lubrication circuit).

1.0 has a 250 bar direct injection circuit.

1.0 has sodium filled valves.

 

Therefore, the 1.0 is more refined and likely a bit more efficient in the real world, as you say. But it doesn't win over the 1.2 TSI in all fronts. And, certainly, the 1.2 is a rounder package overall.

 

[rum4mo]

1.0TSI has sodium filled valves, my old 1991 Vauxhall GSI 2000 16V 4X4 (same as Opel Vectra) had sodium filled valves!

 

So what pressure does the 1.2TSI 16V EA211 direct injection fuel rail run at?

[m1kemex]

200 bar.

 

Small displacement engines use atomized fuel as coolant. It wouldn't be wrong to say that the increase of operational pressure of the 1.0 is not really aimed at reducing consumption as much as thermal management.