Test drove a 1 litre Karoq manual and couldn’t believe what a powerful sweet engine that is. Fair enough we were only two up so may struggle with extra weight but if I’d been told it had a 4 cylinder 2.0 fitted I wouldn’t have questioned them.

I've said previously that I'm glad I chose the 1.0L over the extra cost of the 1.5L. Aircon on does make it a little more sluggish though. 

Picking a 1.0 manual up in a couple of weeks. Can I ask what the real world fuel consumption is like?

1 hour ago, markc1184 said:

Picking a 1.0 manual up in a couple of weeks. Can I ask what the real world fuel consumption is like?

 

Ours is top 30s for very local stop start running around so far.

 

Nipping down to DDs in London on Monday so will take it steady and see what a run does.

13 hours ago, markc1184 said:

Picking a 1.0 manual up in a couple of weeks. Can I ask what the real world fuel consumption is like?

Off topic I know but for comparison our 1.5Tsi manual SEL is averaging just over 44mpg (best of 62mpg) doing 52 miles a day commute, mixture of urban A roads and motorway. Car now covered 5,500 miles since January.

The 1.5 will go faster and burn less fuel. The 1 0 is pleasantly surprising on a test drive, but unpleasantly surprising when you find the real world lack of torque butchers the mpg figure. Maybe the DSG improves it, but the tiny motor is badly effected by headwinds and gradients causing economy to plummet. After a year with one I"d avoid any 1.0TSI manual car.

Edited 21 July, 20187 yr by camelspyyder

^^^ Is that from your experience having done some driving of a Karoq 1.0 TSI Karoq & also 1.5 TSI Karoq or driving other SEAT & Skoda with those engines so your SEAT?

 

115ps compared to 150 ps does tend to give a difference in performance / torque, but then£4,000- £5,000 difference from one model to another when buying new means that people sometimes choose one drivetrain over another, horses for courses and all that.

 

Going at 70 mph in a 1.0 tsi is the same 70 mph as in a 1.5 tsi obviously there is not a fast 70 mph and a slow 70 mph.

Edited 21 July, 20187 yr by Offski

After two Yeti 1.2 DSGs I've not noticed any difference so far with the 1.0 Karoq although we haven't done any long runs yet and my boy racer days are gone anyway.

 

First run is Monday down to the smoke. Looking fwd to it. The Karoq does feel more refined than the Yetis.

2 hours ago, camelspyyder said:

The 1.5 will go faster and burn less fuel. The 1 0 is pleasantly surprising on a test drive, but unpleasantly surprising when you find the real world lack of torque butchers the mpg figure. Maybe the DSG improves it, but the tiny motor is badly effected by headwinds and gradients causing economy to plummet. After a year with one I"d avoid any 1.0TSI manual car.

I’m sure you’re right, maybe in a Fabia it would be ideal but probably a stretch to expect a large un aerodynamic SUV to perform well when loaded up with luggage or building materials.

3 hours ago, Offski said:

^^^ Is that from your experience having done some driving of a Karoq 1.0 TSI Karoq & also 1.5 TSI Karoq or driving other SEAT & Skoda with those engines so your SEAT?

 

115ps compared to 150 ps does tend to give a difference in performance / torque, but then£4,000- £5,000 difference from one model to another when buying new means that people sometimes choose one drivetrain over another, horses for courses and all that.

 

Going at 70 mph in a 1.0 tsi is the same 70 mph as in a 1.5 tsi obviously there is not a fast 70 mph and a slow 70 mph.

 

I drive a 1.0 but chatting to Ibiza Mk6 owners the 1.5 is just so much more performance and economy for the cash.

The most regular complaint from Arona owners is poor 1.0 mpg too.

 

The motor is poor in small cars, I'd hate to drag a larger one around with it.

 

Currently SEAT's price premium for a 150bhp petrol over a 115bhp is only £1700

 

Oh and my SEAT is a SKoda in drag 

 

 

Edited 21 July, 20187 yr by camelspyyder

If you want a Ibiza with DSG it has to be a 1.0TSI currently and it is about £500 more expensive than the 1.5 TSI EVO Manual.

Not much use really for those needing a 2 pedal car but when they do the 1.5 TSI 150 ps with DSG that that will be a different matter, and prices.

 

The SEAT Arona 1.0 TSI DSG is a rather pleasant drive, does what anyone might expect of them for power / torque that you know it will have before buying or leasing one.

 

Interested in getting a decent length of a drive of a Face Lift Mk3 Fabia with 1.0 TSI with GPF & DSG to see just how performance and economy is with them.

 

http://briskoda.net/forums/topic/415528-octavia-10-se-estate/?page=7 

Edited 21 July, 20187 yr by Offski

1 hour ago, Offski said:

If you want a Ibiza with DSG it has to be a 1.0TSI currently and it is about £500 more expensive than the 1.5 TSI EVO Manual.

Not much use really for those needing a 2 pedal car but when they do the 1.5 TSI 150 ps with DSG that that will be a different matter, and prices.

 

The SEAT Arona 1.0 TSI DSG is a rather pleasant drive, does what anyone might expect of them for power / torque that you know it will have before buying or leasing one.

 

Interested in getting a decent length of a drive of a Face Lift Mk3 Fabia with 1.0 TSI with GPF & DSG to see just how performance and economy is with them.

 

http://briskoda.net/forums/topic/415528-octavia-10-se-estate/?page=7 

 

What people don't expect in the Arona 1.0 is an mpg figure in the 30's. It's pathetic. The lowest EU combined figure for an Arona is 56.

 

Edited 21 July, 20187 yr by camelspyyder

EU figures were never outside a building on a road with 5 people in the car, but then neither are WLTP figures.

It is good to see what they do with drivers, and with a DSG it is nice to see how people do do.  Manuals have so many things more affecting than just weather, driving style, speeds etc, 

like can people change gear in an economic way.

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

 

Late 2015 SEAT, VW & Audi were caught with Implausible EU Test Results on petrol and diesel Euro 6 engines and had to modify results, 

discontinue models etc and be giving results that were less 'false or as we know it, cheating the results that were easy to cheat as the testing was done.

There were 1.0 & 1.4 petrols in those Implausible / Irregular results.

VW emissions scandal_ Nine VW vehicles have false CO2 ratings _ Autocar.mhtml

Edited 21 July, 20187 yr by Offski

Must admit that I don't really see the point of these small turbo petrol engines in larger cars and SUVs etc. if they don't give good fuel consumption figures.

 

Will be at least a 1.5 for me which will give a more relaxed drive as well.

Edited 21 July, 20187 yr by VAGCF

7 hours ago, camelspyyder said:

The 1.5 will go faster and burn less fuel. The 1 0 is pleasantly surprising on a test drive, but unpleasantly surprising when you find the real world lack of torque butchers the mpg figure. Maybe the DSG improves it, but the tiny motor is badly effected by headwinds and gradients causing economy to plummet. After a year with one I"d avoid any 1.0TSI manual car.

Tend to agree Wife's previous car  Spaceback 1.2Tsi averaged 46mpg over 28,000 miles whereas current Karoq 1.5Tsi over 5,500 miles (both manuals) has averaged 44mpg despite being larger,heavier,less aero and having nearly 50per cent more power!

The key benefit of larger engines is the way they deliver power. Even at town speeds a bigger engine can be quite, smoother and make the car easier to drive. 

 

If you live somewhere flat and will mainly be one or two occupants in the car pottering below 50mph then the 1.0 TSI will be enough. Frequent motorway travellers and families on hilly B-roads would greatly benefit from the smoother and more powerful delivery of the 1.5 TSI. I drove the engine two days ago and at town speeds its nearly as smooth and quiet as a 6 cylinder engine.

 

Basically a small engine with a big engine personality!

 

My second car is a Fabia 1.2L. It absolutely lovely and I've even driven it 60 miles on the motorway with 4 other occupants. It was absolutely fine but my other car with a 2.0d diesel is just more relaxing to drive above 50mph. As other have also said, bigger engines sometime return better MPG on motorway journeys. 

 

Which ever engine you buy, do an extended test drive and don't forget to accelerate hard so that you know if it has sufficient overtaking power. 

Edited 21 July, 20187 yr by Crassus

13 hours ago, camelspyyder said:

The 1.5 will go faster and burn less fuel. The 1 0 is pleasantly surprising on a test drive, but unpleasantly surprising when you find the real world lack of torque butchers the mpg figure. Maybe the DSG improves it, but the tiny motor is badly effected by headwinds and gradients causing economy to plummet. After a year with one I"d avoid any 1.0TSI manual car.

 

According to this very interesting comparison, this is not correct :

 

http://www.auto.cz/skoda-karoq-1-0-tsi-vs-1-5-tsi-hleda-se-spravna-mira-119888

 

The Karoq was tested with both engines, and in all test cases (driver only or fully loaded, whatever the road type) the 1.0 TSI has a similar or lower consumption...

 

Some details :

 

City consumption [l/100km] : 1.0 TSI / 1.5 TSI
With driver : 6.9 / 7.7
Fully loaded : 8.0 / 9.2

 

Highway consumption (130-140 km/h target) [l/100km] : 1.0 TSI / 1.5 TSI

With driver (low traffic) : 7.7 / 7.7
Fully loaded (more traffic, lower speed) : 7.0 / 7.6

 

Backroads within speed limits [l/100km] : 1.0 TSI / 1.5 TSI
With driver : 6.1 / 6.5
Fully loaded : 6.9 / 7.3

 

27km dynamic drive with heavy foot [l/100km] : 1.0 TSI / 1.5 TSI
With driver : 13.4 / 14.6
Fully loaded : 14.7 / 16.8

Quite why some seem to feel the need to say that their buying choice is *better* than others beats me.

 

We all surely buy what suits our needs best?

4 minutes ago, Michael G said:

Quite why some seem to feel the need to say that their buying choice is *better* than others beats me.

 

We all surely buy what suits our needs best?

 

Ah, but someone else's choice will always be better than your choice, regardless of your view on the matter!

The 1.0 will be best if cost is the primary concern. It is cheaper to purchase, will be slightly cheaper to insure, and will most-likely drink a little less fuel.

 

The 1.5 wins for performance and refinemt.

 

Then you have the dirty diesels which offer even better fuel economy, 1.5TSI-like performance, and a higher purchase cost.

 

VAG offers choice because everyone's perfect car is different. My personal preference is the 1.5 DSG on my drive.

I am a regretful 1.0 driver, simply trying to pre-warn prospective owners of possible disappointment with this poor product.

 

Don't say later on you weren't warned about the awful torque curve and very poor mpg returns.

 

 

 

Edited 21 July, 20187 yr by camelspyyder

 

5 hours ago, Crassus said:

Which ever engine you buy, do an extended test drive and don't forget to accelerate hard so that you know if it has sufficient overtaking power. 

 

...and drive it far enough that you can calculate the mpg.

 

Lots on here saying "I test drove a 1.0 and it was good". What mpg did it do on your test drive? 35? 30? Is that good?

 

 

Edited 21 July, 20187 yr by camelspyyder

55 minutes ago, Orville said:

VAG offers choice because everyone's perfect car is different. My personal preference is the 1.5 DSG on my drive.

 

Everyone's budgets are different too. Some are trading bigger engine for higher trim level or additional options. 

 

Most importantly you can't miss what you have never had. If you only driven the 1.0TSI then you can't mentally reproduce what the 1.5TSI feels like. Similarly, I don't miss not owning a Lamborghini or Bentley because I've never driven either. 

 

24 minutes ago, camelspyyder said:

Lots on here saying "I test drove a 1.0 and it was good". What mpg did it do on your test drive? 35? 30? Is that good?

 

 

Most test drives aren't long enough either. My local Skoda dealer took me a 15min route. It was a mixture of B-roads and 5min spent on the motorway. It was wet too. It wasn't in anyway long enough time or ideal conditions to explore the dynamics of the car and push the boundaries of it and the drivetrain. 

 

Next week I'm going back for a second test drive. Luckily I won't order my Karoq until November/December and have time to order it with a clear head.

 

I bought two of my recent three cars in a rush so this time I'm test driving and evaluating long before I need to pull the trigger. 

Edited 21 July, 20187 yr by Crassus

10 minutes ago, Crassus said:

 

Most test drives aren't long enough either. My local Skoda dealer took me a 15min route.

 

Indeed - I was somewhat underwhelmed the the 1.5 Karoq - I found the engine sort of hesitant and held back compared to the old brigade 1.4tsi in my Superb.  Could have been crap petrol (I always run with higher octane fuel) or the simple fact the car had only done 125 miles. I would have liked to have done a much longer drive.

 

 

 

 

 

 

6 hours ago, Orville said:

 

Then you have the dirty diesels which offer even better fuel economy, 1.5TSI-like performance, and a higher purchase cost.

 

 

 

The idea that the diesels are "dirty" in relation to the current petrol engines is a myth. They have lower CO2 output because of higher efficiency - less fuel used per kW produced. The DPF and AdBlue also reduces the particulate and NOx in relation to the direct injected petrol engines.

 

The current brouhahah about engine testing is really about the particulates and other emissions from Petrol engines - not the diesels.

 

Real time performance is also better in the 150 HP TDI vs. the 150 HP 1.5 TSI - torque is higher much lower down, so in normal driving, much more refined way of power than the petrol engine. 

 

The press and social media have a nasty habit of judging diesel engines based on what they were 10 or 20 years ago, and ignoring the low emissions from the modern ones.