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

[Skodaph1boy]

Hi I bought a new Skoda at the end of May and at the time they were discontinuing the old 1.2 TSI 90 Is there much difference between that and the 1.0 TSI 95.

 

I got the 1.2 tsi with metallic paint on PCP for £181.83 (10,000 miles per year) with £200 deposit. I'm very happy with the 1.2 just wondering if anyone on here has tried out both? 

[skodaw]

The 1.0 TSi 95 is a new engine - 3 cylinders rather than 4 and very nippy little motor it is too - that said, nothing wrong with the old 1.2 either!

 

Certainly the way the new engine performs makes it "Feel" quicker  - if it is or not isn't really an issue on the road.

[pfaff]

Difficult to compare performance as my Fab is the 110/6 speed and the Ibiza the 95/5speed but generally the three-pot will be a bit louder and generate some more vibrations as the four-pot. Which shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone.

 

[Gerrycan]

I'm interested in the 1.0tsi as well but in the Octavia.

As far as I can tell from other's reports the 1.0tsi is an efficient unit on a run, and can give noticeably better economy (around 5 to 10%?).

The claimed outputs are also slightly better for performance (than the 1.2tsi) but I get the impression that the 3 cylinder is slightly less tractable at lower revs and if you are driving a manual you have to work the gearbox a bit more to stay in the 'sweet' zone, especially around town.

That flexibility advantage for the 1.2tsi is probably less marked if you drive an auto.

 

I also noted the lack of low 'grunt' in a Ford Focus 1.0tsi I borrowed, so it could be a characteristic of the engine type.

 

Most seem to be happy with either engine, so there is no bad choice really.

 

[georgef]

I had a 1.2 tsi 110 and this year changed to a 1.0 tsi 110. Leaving aside the physical differences, the 1.0l has a noticeably different engine noise - I hear similarities in the characteristics of the noise with the 1.4 3 cylinder diesel. The petrol engine is plainly less noisier than the diesel but there is a similar 3 cylinder note. The 3 cylinder engine feels less torquey than the 4 cylinder engine despite the figures. My daughter thinks the 3 cylinder isn't as fast as the 4 cylinder (despite the figures) but that may just be the 3 cylinder engine is not yet run in. I tend to agree with Gerrycan's observations. In truth, the differences between the two engines is, to me, for practical putrposes, very marginal.

[Pullock]

I had a 1L ecoboost focus 5 speed for 6 months and now have the 1.2tsi DSG fabia. I would say that the 4 cylinder in the Fabia feels much quicker (albeit coupled to the DSG which may be amplifying that.)

 

The focus was no slouch and handling was second only to the Fiesta I had beforehand, but the Fabia as above feels much quicker but it does compromise on the handling as there feels to be a fair bit of body roll. 

 

The only real difference I can notice personally between the 3 cyl and 4 cyl is the noise. For actual results you'd need to test them side by side.

[Yetiherts]

My 1.2 DSG SEL estate was in for a gearbox repair recently, they gave me a 1 ltr DSG 110 estate SL as a loan car.  The loan car was almost new and a 3 cylinder jobby.

There seemed very little between them on performance. The loan car seemed to feel it had a little more grunt and felt stronger at the lower speed felt a bit like a diesel engine.

The 1.2 on the motorway seemed more responsive if you put your foot down at 70 to overtake but not much in it.

The thing I missed was the loan cars engine was very quiet pulling away, my 1.2 has what I call a delightful little roar.

Overall bugger all difference in my opinion with nothing that would put me off buying the 3 cylinder one

[pinkpanther]

I can only echo the comments, as above.

 

I've owned 2 105 BHP 1.2 TSi (Rapid's) and recently moved over to a SEAT Toledo, equipped with the 3 cylinder 1.0 (110 BHP) TSi unit.

 

The 3 pot engine produces significantly more torque (200 Nm / 148 lb/ft vs 175 Nm / 129 lb/ft), but certainly lacks the almost "diesel like" low down tractability of the 4 cylinder 1.2 unit, no doubt as a consequence of it's low capacity.

 

In my daily driving the 1.0 engine is proving to be 10-15% more economical than the 4 cylinder 1.2 TSi's I'd previously run.

 

There is more noise with the 3 cylinder engine, but it revs very keenly and cruises quietly at motorway speeds (70 MPH equates to ~2200 RPM in 6th).

 

Overall I'd rate the 1.2 engine as the more refined unit, but appreciate the improved efficiency (and performance) afforded by the newer unit. The 1.0 also warms up very quickly.

[JakeLooker]

You might want to check out this thread for some more information comparing the engines.

 

[Gerrycan]

17 hours ago, JakeLooker said:

You might want to check out this thread for some more information comparing the engines.

 

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.

 

[RickW]

Is the 1.0 a lot more noisy? that's an important factor for me when thinking about trading in for another.

[JakeLooker]

I haven't driven the 1.0 TSI but I did get the NA 1.0 3 cylinder for a day whilst my car was in for service. Please correct me if I'm wrong but I would imagine they are similar.

 

It was noticeably more noisy and less smooth than the 4 cylinder. In the 1.2 I find myself cruising at around 1500 RPM or lower and it stays smooth, the 3 cylinder needs to be revved higher to smooth out. The most noticeable thing was rev hang, I thought my 1.2 had a fair amount but the 3 cylinder must use a very heavy flywheel to counter the vibrations. Trying to shift smoothly was very difficult without releasing the clutch very slowly, especially at higher RPM.

 

I'm aware of my bias towards the 1.2 but even with the extra economy and power I don't think I would buy a car with a 3 cylinder in general, let alone choosing it over the 1.2. However I can understand why people who aren't as interested in spirited driving or refinement may take it for the extra economy.

Edited 11 January, 2018 by JakeLooker

[Gerrycan]

13 hours ago, JakeLooker said:

However I can understand why people who aren't as interested in spirited driving or refinement may take it for the extra economy.

It's true! Similar story for those people who buy diesels

 

[alltorque]

Three cylinders are only half a car engine....three quarters at very best.  Come change time I'll not be going for any 3-cylinder device, so that may be goodbye to VW group.

 

in my experience, the four-pot 1.2TSI/110 is a delightful device and more than happy to spin-up in an almost Italian way, or trundle around town without making it's presence unduly felt, yet ready to take advantage of suitable opportunities to play.

[RickW]

3 hours ago, alltorque said:

Three cylinders are only half a car engine....three quarters at very best.  Come change time I'll not be going for any 3-cylinder device, so that may be goodbye to VW group.

 

in my experience, the four-pot 1.2TSI/110 is a delightful device and more than happy to spin-up in an almost Italian way, or trundle around town without making it's presence unduly felt, yet ready to take advantage of suitable opportunities to play.

 

It's such a pity that I have to consider going elsewhere at the end of my PCP. I just don't fancy 3 cylinders either. I really like my Fabia.

 

Just wondered if you'd any other 4 cylinder cars in mind when you come to swap your Fabia?

[Rooted]

BMW  / MINI have some very nice 3 cylinder engines but then the do them with 500cc per cylinder.

[Dr Zoidberg]

4 minutes ago, AwaoffSki said:

BMW  / MINI have some very nice 3 cylinder engines but then the do them with 500cc per cylinder.

 

Indeed they do - they are moving the vast majority of their engines to a standard 500cc cylinder size, so you'll get 1.5, 2.0 or 3.0 litres in varying states of tune.

The Mini One is going from a 1200cc triple to 1500 as part of the 2018 facelift.

 

I don't mind a triple - the 900cc turbo lump in the Twingo is good fun.

[alltorque]

2 hours ago, RickW said:

 

It's such a pity that I have to consider going elsewhere at the end of my PCP. I just don't fancy 3 cylinders either. I really like my Fabia.

 

Just wondered if you'd any other 4 cylinder cars in mind when you come to swap your Fabia?

My wife has a new Toyota Yaris Hybrid....surprisingly nice car and our dealings with Toyota have been simply first class. Plus 5-year/100k miles warranty as standard. The day we took delivery we asked for a fitted rubber boot mat; dealer didn't have one in stock but, 3 days later the young Salesman delivered it to our home...and fitted it.  All dealer staff treat us lke family, can always pop in for a coffee and a browse/chat, and I can see my Skoda dealer Through the showroom windows.  i'm tempted by an Auris.....maybe even a Hybrid. If madness prevails then I'll look at a Yaris GRMN.....1.8 supercharged 4-pot/212bhp/reworked brakes & suspension/rally seats/0-62 in 6.3secs. A  bit pricey but you can't take it with you, and there won't be many about. Then there is Honda. Her last car was a Jazz. 11 years of faultless driving, brilliant interior for flexibility......you can fold everything away to make a 1 seat van with windows.....but needs more power.  Not looked at the latest iteration. Interestingly, the old Jazz 1.4 was a 3-pot but totally devoid of vibration. 

 

Likeyou, I like my Fabia but price vs materials quality is not the best and I do not want a 3-pot.  Friends have good reports of Hyundai, as well.  Local VW dealer displays incredible arrogance and Volvo,don't have anything in the right size, which is a shame as my old S60 was a gem. Vx and Ford? Not for me. 

 

Sorry for the ramble. Let's share thoughts and findings.

[RickW]

You have the same spec as mine. I agree the materials aren't the best but I've turned a blind eye to this as I really like the style and performance of the car.

 

I think I'm going to test a 3 pot soon to see for myself if there's any noticeable difference.

[vc-10]

13 hours ago, RickW said:

I think I'm going to test a 3 pot soon to see for myself if there's any noticeable difference.

 

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...

[Pullock]

1 minute 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...

 

Couldn't agree more, you have to drive them to understand them, I had a 1.0 3-cyl ecoboost focus for 6 months and that was 100bhp and it still went like the wind. They are great engines with a lovely unique sound, can't speak for the VAG ones but can't see them being bad.

 

Only changed that car due to it being too low but I couldn't fault it even with the least powerful engine, although it was tied to a pathetic 5 speed box, but if get the 125 or 140 with the 6 speed box its almost a match made in heaven, that's my opinion at least having driven both the 5 speed and 6 speed.

[ettlz]

30 minutes ago, vc-10 said:

This isn't the old 1.2 3-cyl HTP engine we're talking about...

 

To be fair the old 12v unit was pretty good in its element (was is the last VAG 3 cylinder petrol with a contra-rotating balance shaft?). Had one for 7 years, nice sound, never any problems. Revvy and responsive with quite a bit of low-end torque, but ran out of puff at speeds which are illegal anyway...

Edited 13 January, 2018 by ettlz

[vc-10]

Well.... I loved my old Polo with that engine! It was my first car. Finally gave up the ghost after 167k miles this Christmas (it moved on to my brother). But smooth and refined were not its strong points, certainly not in comparison to the 1.2 TSI! 

[BarryG]

I've got a 1.2tsi and had a 3 cylinder loan car last week. There's very little in it, the 3 cylinder certainly picks up better at low revs and suffers virtually no turbo lag. I did a comparison in 5th gear at 45mph. Came off throttle then planted my foot to the floor. The 3 cylinder picked up instantly and got to 50mph in three seconds. My 1.2 however took a full second to respond before climbing to 50 four seconds. The 3 was notably better on fuel and quieter. I prefer the sound of the 1.2 which surprises me as I love 3 cylinder engines. I've had a few but this new VW lacks the character of others I've owned, it doesn't have the burbly sound. Overall though, I'd have one. 

[SurreyJohn]

I have a 1.2 tsi and had a 1.0 Fabia as loan car during a service.

 

Very little in it, the new 3 cylinder picks up revs very fast, but this causes a quicker requirement to change gear.  It’s more suited to the DSG box as it’s powerband is different and the autokeeps it in optimum rev range

 

Slightly different noise when idling in the 3 Cylinder if you listen for it, and there is a definite thrum (low frequency vibration) at tickover