Difference between 1.2 TSI and 1.4 TSI??

[Adam1200]

Just wondering what the difference is between the 1.2 and 1.4 TSI engines, I’ve got a 2017 1.2 Fabia and my mate has just bought a 2014 1.4 Polo blue GT and obviously the engines look identical, is there a difference in the bore/stroke, or is it turbos and injectors etc?

 

Cheers!

[Ootohere]

There is the 1.4TSI 140ps & then the 1.4 TSI ACT 150ps. 

So Cylinder Deactivation, this means a very different head. Then Turbo, coils, plugs, just really a very different engine.

 

 

Edited 18 November, 2018 by Offski

[krigl]

I do not believe that Polo ever got the 1.4tsi, just the 1.4 16v non turbo petrol variant. 

[Ootohere]

But it did.

There was the 2010-2014 Polo GTI 1.4 TSI, there were other Euro 5 1.4 TSI VW Polo as well.

& then there was the Polo Blue GT that the OP posted about. 

Great car, well liked, not cheap.

(  It was even one of the VW's with Implausible / irregular Co2 g/km when investigated late 2015.)

 

 

 

 

Edited 18 November, 2018 by Offski

[Adam1200]

12 hours ago, Offski said:

There is the 1.4TSI 140ps & then the 1.4 TSI ACT 150ps. 

So Cylinder Deactivation, this means a very different head. Then Turbo, coils, plugs, just really a very different engine.

 

 

Thanks for clearing that up! And am I correct in saying the Polo Gti received the twincharge engine and the blue gt is just a single turbocharged engine?

[Ootohere]

Yes.

[SC03OTT]

On 18/11/2018 at 11:29, Adam1200 said:

Thanks for clearing that up! And am I correct in saying the Polo Gti received the twincharge engine and the blue gt is just a single turbocharged engine?

 

On 18/11/2018 at 11:49, Offski said:

Yes.

 

I thought that version of the GTI got the 1.8T..?  Or was the 1.8T latterly used to replace the 1.4 twin?

[Ootohere]

It did from 2015 when they went to a 1.8TSI 192 PS with 320 Nm with the manual and 250 Nm with the DSG.

But the 1.4 TSI which was being asked about was Euro 5 from 2010-2014 and a Twincharger.

[HopeImRight]

But when is the original question going to be answered ??

[Ootohere]

The bore, stroke, pistons, rings, turbo, injectors are different.

one is 1,390 cc & the other is 1,195 cc and to get the difference from 4 cylinders the cylinders need to be bigger.    

[Eccles]

The cubic capacity of an engine is how much empty space is swept by a complete rotation of the engine. Of course it is not "empty" when the engine is running because that space will then contain a mixture of fuel and air or burned exhaust fumes. So the larger that space is the bigger the bang when the fuel/air mixture is fired by the sparking plug. Thus in theory a 1395cc engine is more powerful than a 1195 cc engine. However, there can be other factors to consider such as "have said engines got turbochargers or not, which force more fuel and air into each cylinder. Thus a 1195cc engine with a turbocharger can be just as powerful or more so than a 1390cc engine which does not have a turbocharger.

[Ootohere]

Pity VW only allow Skoda to get 115ps or so small engines for their cars.

All that Motorsport Heritage, Success in Rallying with Fabia Bodyshells and not even a hot hatch allowed....

1.2 TSI discontinued, 1.0 TSI to replace it and only Fat Skodas get a 1.5 TSI. With ACT.

(they did the Mk3 Fabia Limited Edition R5 / tribute with a 1.4 TSI / DSG with 125ps... Very limited.)

 

 

& the VW engine 1,390 cc with a Super Charger & Turbo could be as quick as and even more powerful than a 5 or 6 cylinder 2.300 or 2.800  VW engine.

(1.4 TSI / tfsi / Turbo,  with 140 or 150PS, with or without ACT  / COD)

 

Pity they just never finished the R&D and sorted out from the start snagging faults in 2009 or 2012.

But Volvo managed OK.   But then VW buying into Suzuki to get the experience was not really enough, they needed to not penny pinch.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited 22 November, 2018 by Offski