New Rapid Spaceback 1.0 litre 95bhp.

[MRSP]

Just taken delivery of my new Rapid Spaceback 1.0 litre 95 bhp 3 cylinder petrol.

Oh dear what a disaster !

Couldn't test drive one before ordering as dealer didn't have on.

I had a 1.2 86 bhp Spaceback previously.

Brilliant engine giving great economy with excellent performance and very quiet.

Dealer assured me that I 'would not notice a difference' with the new engine.

Wrong, wrong, wrong ! ! !

It sounds like a diesel and has no top end pulling power.

Previously I could run at 30mph easily in 4th and if on the level in 5th. Able to pull away without having to change down.

Now I have to use 3rd gear to do a steady 30 and it hates doing 40 in fourth and 5th is out of the question. Totally gut less.

No pulling away without changing down.

Total disaster.

I'm trying to get it changed for the 110 bhp but this is just as noisy or a 1.2 demonstrator but they are few and far between.

I want my 1.2 litre back but so far Skoda don't want to know.

Don't buy the 1.0 litre it's seriously bad.

Will keep you up to speed (see what I've done there) on progress.

 

[AGFalco]

Has the 1.0 TSI 95 PS been run in yet?

 

I would agree that the 1.2 TSI 90 PS is a good engine.

Mine got better as the mileage has increased. 

 

Thanks AG Falco.

[camelspyyder]

Agree with some of your points. The 1.0/110 is not really as good as the 1.2/105 either. It's faster but has no low down torque at all. It is very quiet though at cruising speed, if anything quieter than the 1.2 (this is with both engines in SEAT's built at Skoda).

 

Having test driven a 1.0 Spaceback SE Sport before buying a 1.0 Toledo,  it's also clear the engine is a lot noisier in the Skoda which has cost cut the under bonnet sound deadening, and just maybe the plusher trim inside helps too.

 

 

 

 

Edited 27 November, 2017 by camelspyyder

[pinkpanther]

Having owned variants of both engines in question I certainly agree the 1.2 is somewhat more tractable at lower revs. 

 

The 1.0 3 pot is however more keen to rev and actually develops more torque than the older 1.2 4 pot engine (110 BHP 1.0 TSi = 148 lb/ft vs 110 BHP 1.2 TSi = 129 lb/ft).

 

There is a distinctive noise / thrum, which appears to be inherent in all the 3 pot engines I've driven (Citigo and Ecoboost Focus) and this is certainly noticeable over the older 4 pot engines. 

 

My Fuelly returns indicate the newer engine is 10-15% better on fuel.

 

I've certainly had to adapt my driving style to suit the power delivery of the newer 3 pot engine, but actually rate this unit as one of the better features of my current car (SEAT Toledo), right behind the LED headlights!

[Gerrycan]

Out of curiosity, are the gear ratios on the 1.0 longer than the 1.2?

I recently drove a hire Kia ceed with a manual 1.6 diesel engine and that had very high ratios which ran best with 2nd for 20mph, 3rd for 30mph, 4th for 40mph etc , association.

When I accidentally let the engine drop below 1500rpm it took an awful lot of throttle to bring it out of the pit, and was easier to change down and 'rev' it out with a smaller throttle

Edited 29 November, 2017 by Gerrycan

[camelspyyder]

No it seems to be geared just the same but the torque band is narrower and higher up the rev range.

 

Whereas the 1.2 had a surprising amount of low down pull the 1.0 has none.

 

I used to drive a 2 litre diesel on my commute, probably changed gear 5 times in 25 miles. Driving a 1.2 TSi probably put that up to 20 shifts. The 1.0 would need 50!

[Gerrycan]

That makes sense. 

On the flat in my  Octavia 1.4tsi I can pootle around in high gears at low revs/speed and small throttle openings with excellent consumption figures.

A couple of years back in the UK I drove a Ford Focus 1.0tsi and low rev performance was similar to what the OP describes and I could not get good consumption out of it below 50mph.

Similarly a 1.0tsi Octavia owner in Finland (BrettKivi) is reporting excellent economy on his high speed and longer commute but when he tried reducing  speeds to see what sort of economy was possible the results were less impressive.

Having to change gear as frequently as described would be very onerous.