Evening all

 

looking to upgrade my current mk1 vrs tdi to the mk3 Monte  and after some input please.

 

Can anybody offer any advice between the 1.2 tsi or the 1l tsi both 110 bhp?

I’m  swaying towards the 1.2 as it’s a 4 cylinder.

 

I did own the mk2 Monte 1.2 tsi which is a different engine to the mk3 but found that very smooth and decent on fuel.
Any input would be greatly appreciated looking around a 2016/2017 plate

 

thanks  

From what I can see from all the posts on here the Mk1 and Mk2s seem more robust generally than my wife's Mk3 at least, if I was you I'd look for a decent Mk2 against a Mk3.

 

You'd want, as with any marque or model, to test drive a few decent (driving not looks) examples of a Mk3 to see how it stacks up, also going from the black world of diesels (my wife's previous car was a diesel) to petrol will also bring differences.

 

With a 1.0 three compared to a four 1.2 I'd always go for the 1.2 four unless I only used the car round town or glorified shopping trolley but hopefully @toot will be by and post all the info.  I've had a few 3-cylinder cars so I'm all for them if they're good but they weren't VW engines and mostly two seaters.

 

With the turbo (and direct injection) its pushing an engine so going from 90 to 110 is an increase and to then drop the capacity is a further push. 

 

I'm not sure of the differences to 2017 cars, again @toot will know the details.

 

Edited 30 March, 20233 yr by nta16
spelling

Best drive the cars and maybe buy by condition, service history etc & what you think once driving them.

 

If the 1.2tsi  or 1.0 TSI has 110ps then that does not mean just a city car IMO.

4 cylinders vs 3 cylinders will be down to what you think when driving them. 

 

The difference with a 1.0 TSI to look for might be is it with or without a GPF and does that matter.

 

Anything over 5 years is due a Cam Belt change according to Skoda / VW UK recommendations / guidelines. 

 

All good advice.

 

40 minutes ago, toot said:

If the 1.2tsi  or 1.0 TSI has 110ps then that does not mean just a city car IMO.

Good point, you'd not be buying the 3-cylinder 110 as just as a town runabout or glorified shopping trolley but it is pushed more and possibly be pushed more depending on the driver and car's use and going from a diesel and VRS.

 

My wife's 1.2, 4-cylinder, 90 has far from the sweetest engine bay noises I've heard and I'm used to 1960s and 1970s British Leyland products, I think I'd be too fragile for a VW 3-cylinder.  Plus modern cars are so heavy in themselves, when I've driven my wife's Fabia with three passengers there's a very noticeable difference to just driver and one passenger but that's with 90 engine and standard (not-so-robust) SE suspension (front at least) on 15" wheels (14" wheels and tyres might have be better).

 

Plenty of threads here about the 1.2 TSI 110 in Mk3s and some on 1.0, 3-cylinder and hopefully others might be along with their input.

 

2023 Ford Puma ST have 170ps now from 3 cylinder 1.0 Eco-boost petrol engines and with 7 speed dual clutch auto's.

 

But they have learned over the years from their failures and acted on them and kept developing and evolving. 

 VW Group can maybe learn more from them now that they are partners.

Big figures always look impressive but how reliable and long-lasting and how much servicing, maintenance and repairs are required.  The Japanese tend to be better at smaller items generally, and often cars, Americans think 2.0 litres is a small engine, 1 litre would be a starter motor. 😄

 

Thanks for the replies I should have possibly said I’m a vehicle tec for an independent ford dealer , so familiar with the differences etc of engines etc.

Not particularly clued up these mk3 fabia engines tho to be honest.

I was more after input of anyone who may of driven both and thoughts on them. Like I said I feel the 1.2 might possibly be better suited but some of these 3 pots drive quite nice.

 

I’ve driven the seat Ibiza on a 20 plate which has the 1l in it and that felt quite smooth and a nice power delivery.

 

The puma which was mentioned that will be the new generation of ecoboost is far improved version of the first generation , a lot smoother and more refined.

I’ve actually just bought a fiesta which needed a new engine ecoboost engine on a 17 plate all though they get a bad rep if there serviced regularly and the correct oil grade and spec used they actually are good engines. The vehicles we sell we’ve seen over 160 k and no issues the ones we have trouble with are missed services etc like the one I just bought.

 

I will try test drive the fabias to see how feel about them .

 

I liked my mk 2 Monte but they’re just silly money for the age and mileage. 
 

cheers 

Edited 30 March, 20233 yr by Damo152003

If you want not to be taking your work home surely you would be looking at getting a Japanese car with a proper Japanese engine, possibly older than 2016 to outlast a 2016 Fabia Mk3 with a lot less hassle.

 

If not as I put other might contribute here or more information in other threads.

 

With just two people in the car my wife's Mk3 1.2 90 engine goes well enough though we do not get the miles-per-gallon others say they get, but it is a petrol engine, so.

 

Good luck and if no one else already has perhaps you could report back on your finding between the 1.0, 3-pot and 1.2 4-pot.

 

I like my Skodas tbh lol.

people on the fabia vrs page think there problematic I’ve never had an issue as I have the advantage of working in a workshop and can regularly check it over easily on a ramp..

 

will defiantly update on what I think once I’ve test driven both 

Just bear in mind a petrol Mk3 Monte Carlo might be quite a bit different to a Mk1 TDI VRS whether 1 or 1.2.  Be interesting to read how the Mk3s compare with the Mk1 (allowing for age/mileage wear/tear/abuse differences.

 

Good luck again.

  

I have had my Fabia III 1.2 TSI 90 4 cylinder from new in June 2016.

Now at 70,000 miles and still good. Due its 8th service soon.

I have posted my service history up on this site.

55 MPG from the last tank, filled up yesterday.

Does better than my 1.0 MPI 3 cylinder Skoda Citigo. 😮

 

I hired a 1.0 TSI 90 3 cylinder in 2019 for 10 days / 1000 miles.

 

Both engines are good, with very little difference between them.

Both produce good low down torque.

Both sweet engines.

Both punch above their weight.

Both similar to the Ford Eco boost engine, especially the 3 cylinder TSI. 

 

 

2 hours ago, Damo152003 said:

I’ve driven the seat Ibiza on a 20 plate which has the 1l in it and that felt quite smooth and a nice power delivery.

Same engine.

 

The 110PS have the 6 speed gearbox.

 

The road tax changed in April 2017.

Before April 2017 they are £20.00 per annum.

After April they are £165.00 per annum.

 

The heaviest Fabia III is lighter than the Heaviest Fabia II.

 

Try first.

 

Thanks. AG Falco

 

 

 

2 hours ago, nta16 said:

Just bear in mind a petrol Mk3 Monte Carlo might be quite a bit different to a Mk1 TDI VRS whether 1 or 1.2.  Be interesting to read how the Mk3s compare with the Mk1 (allowing for age/mileage wear/tear/abuse differences.

 

Good luck again.

  

Yes fully aware of that, you can’t beat the torque of the vrs especially as it’s mapped that’s one thing you always miss🤣 we have a focus estate as the main car it’s only a 1.5 tdci very nice to drive but always catches me out when you want to overtake , you really miss that punch lol

1 hour ago, AGFalco said:

I have had my Fabia III 1.2 TSI 90 4 cylinder from new in June 2016.

Now at 70,000 miles and still good. Due its 8th service soon.

I have posted my service history up on this site.

55 MPG from the last tank, filled up yesterday.

Does better than my 1.0 MPI 3 cylinder Skoda Citigo. 😮

 

I hired a 1.0 TSI 90 3 cylinder in 2019 for 10 days / 1000 miles.

 

Both engines are good, with very little difference between them.

Both produce good low down torque.

Both sweet engines.

Both punch above their weight.

Both similar to the Ford Eco boost engine, especially the 3 cylinder TSI. 

 

 

Same engine.

 

The 110PS have the 6 speed gearbox.

 

The road tax changed in April 2017.

Before April 2017 they are £20.00 per annum.

After April they are £165.00 per annum.

 

The heaviest Fabia III is lighter than the Heaviest Fabia II.

 

Try first.

 

Thanks. AG Falco

 

 

 

That’s brilliant thanks. 
would you say the the 1.2 had more drivability?  
 

id defiantly want the110bhp I had the  mk2 which  was the 85  as nice as it was to slow.

12 hours ago, AGFalco said:

Both sweet engines.

You must have the music up loud, or used to the sound of diesel engines. 😄

 

Get my wife's 1.2 90 on its power band it goes well with one or two in the car but we've never had 55mpg that I know of.

 

20 hours ago, Damo152003 said:

would you say the the 1.2 had more drivability?

Yes, but not by much.

 

Thanks. AG Falco