Looking to get one used at one point, but just wanted to get some advice on whether the 2.00 DSG (217bhp) noticeably better than the 1.4 TSI (150 bhp). Obviously it will be a bit faster, but will also use more petrol, so just wandering about the performance comparison.

Also, interested to know the driver experience difference between a TSI or a DSG engine.

Edited 27 October, 202527 Oct by Danny30

Best go drive them and see. 70 mph is the same no matter what the BHP, how quick you get there might not be that much different.

The smaller capacity engine might be not that much more fuel efficient, it depends how you drive.

TSI is the engine be it 1.4 or 1.5, or 2.0.

The DSG with the small capacity / power is a DQ200 DSG 7 speed dry clutch.

The 2.0 with be a Wet Clutch DSG of 6 or 7 speed depending on age.

Edited 27 October, 202527 Oct by Evolution13

Hello Danny, welcome to the forum.

With the 2.0 TSI, be aware of possible issues with earlier versions of the EA888 engine - provided you are looking at versions after around 2014, these were (I think) mostly addressed.

The 1.4TSI, manual 6-speed is great - you can expect around 50MPG on a decent run easily - and around 40MPG even with fairly short trips without any hypermiling.

That said, I wouldn't say no to a 245TSI😄

2 minutes ago, Warrior193 said:

Hello Danny, welcome to the forum.

With the 2.0 TSI, be aware of possible issues with earlier versions of the EA888 engine - provided you are looking at versions after around 2014, these were (I think) mostly addressed.

The 1.4TSI, manual 6-speed is great - you can expect around 50MPG on a decent run easily - and around 40MPG even with fairly short trips without any hypermiling.

That said, I wouldn't say no to a 245TSI😄

3 minutes ago, Evolution13 said:

Best go drive them and see. 70 mph is the same no matter what the BHP, how quick you get there might not be that much different.

The smaller capacity engine might be not that much more fuel efficient, it depends how you drive.

TSI is the engine be it 1.4 or 1.5, or 2.0.

The DSG with the small capacity / power is a DQ200 DSG 7 speed dry clutch.

The 2.0 with be a Wet Clutch DSG of 6 or 7 speed depending on age.

Thank you for the quick replies. For clarification, I was looking at a 2017 or newer Superb with an automatic petrol engine.

AFAIK, there would be only very slight differences (if any) in fuel consumption between the Manual and DSG boxes - as the DSG is really an automated manual gearbox.

15 hours ago, Danny30 said:

Looking to get one used at one point, but just wanted to get some advice on whether the 2.00 DSG (217bhp) noticeably better than the 1.4 TSI (150 bhp). Obviously it will be a bit faster, but will also use more petrol, so just wandering about the performance comparison.

Also, interested to know the driver experience difference between a TSI or a DSG engine.

The 1.4 uses a dry clutch DSG and the 2.0 uses a wet clutch DSG. The wet clutch are smoother and nicer to drive.

Not sure on your budget but the 2.0TSi 190 is designed for economy and easily gets 50mpg+ on a run.

The big difference on driving between the 1.4 and the 2.0's is the midrange torque. The 1.4 is limited to 250NM because of the dry clutch DSG. The 2.0 you are looking at has 350NM

2 hours ago, logiclee said:

The 1.4 uses a dry clutch DSG and the 2.0 uses a wet clutch DSG. The wet clutch are smoother and nicer to drive.

Not sure on your budget but the 2.0TSi 190 is designed for economy and easily gets 50mpg+ on a run.

The big difference on driving between the 1.4 and the 2.0's is the midrange torque. The 1.4 is limited to 250NM because of the dry clutch DSG. The 2.0 you are looking at has 350NM

Thanks. Would you recommend the 2.0TSi 190 over the 2.0TSi 220?

1 hour ago, Danny30 said:

Thanks. Would you recommend the 2.0TSi 190 over the 2.0TSi 220?

If Economy is a concern yes. Performance wise they are close (Midrange 320NM vs 350NM) but economy wise the 190 was designed for economy with the earlier Gen3B version running the Budack Cycle and the later Gen4 version higher compression.

18 minutes ago, logiclee said:

If Economy is a concern yes. Performance wise they are close (Midrange 320NM vs 350NM) but economy wise the 190 was designed for economy with the earlier Gen3B version running the Budack Cycle and the later Gen4 version higher compression.

Thank you.

Just searched all the 2.0 L cars on on my searches and all are the 220 bhp version. Looks like the 190 bhp is hard to find but will have to keep an eye out.

18 minutes ago, Danny30 said:

Thank you.

Just searched all the 2.0 L cars on on my searches and all are the 220 bhp version. Looks like the 190 bhp is hard to find but will have to keep an eye out.

It depends on the age of car you are looking at. 190's came in a bit later, there was a period where both were available then later the 220 was dropped.

Not sure on exact years though

23 minutes ago, logiclee said:

It depends on the age of car you are looking at. 190's came in a bit later, there was a period where both were available then later the 220 was dropped.

Not sure on exact years though

Thanks, just googled it and it is from 2019 for the Superb and 2013 - 2020 for the Cctavia.

Quick question, I have been looking for a 1.5l car but have now found a 1.4l car that looks good. Do you think it is worth waiting for a 1.5l or does it not make any practical difference between those 2 engines on the Superb?