[Closed] Skoda Octavia 1.0TSI will it move?

As well as their arse falling out at about 30 k a couple times (big thread over on pistonheads ....same guy has had 2 engines let go at less than 30k.

Wasn't that an issue with coolant pipes cracking leading to catastrophic explodeyness?

Last time I checked the Ford 1.0 ecoboost produces peak torque around 1900rpm and about 90% of the bhp. It does produce max bhp closer to the top of the rev range but this means you have a wider useable power band.

My Fiesta goes faster/hits warp speed when it hits 3k.

IANAcarperson

We had two 1.2TSIs- an older 105bhp one in my Yeti and the newer 110 in my wife's fabia. So similar power but older engine design. In the Yeti, it was fine 90% of the time. Where it struggled a bit was in the 40-60 range where I always stuck the DSG in sport if I needed to move a bit faster!

Brilliant engine tho, smooth, reasonable economical (I ended up just under 40mpg over 45000 miles), reliable and surprisingly sprightly in sport considering it's a small engine in a heavy car.

The Fabia is noticeably better. More refined, feels a lot quicker (but the car is lighter) and nearly 10% better on fuel.

When were looking at a Kodiaq, I drove the 1.5 TSI and 2.0D and I thought the petrol was a far better fit to that big car which surprised me.

No experience of the 1.0 but I agonised about having the 1.2 for ages. As it was contract hire I was stuck with it if I didn't like it. But really it was fine both in town and on the motorway.

I think manufactures will of tested the new breed of engines to high miles, if they all start to let go at ~100k the used car sales won't exist which will in turn hurt new car sales.

Plenty of engines have failed the real world test after manufacturers testing.

I'm not doing long term rental of my car so if it's a bag of bolts I'm stuck with it.

So I'm looking for real world experiences .

Well the wife's fiesta 1.0 economist has 45k-ish miles and doesn't use any oil. It may take us a while to get back to you on 100k+!

My wife has a 1.2TSI in and Ibiza and it’s fine, I will concede it struggles going up hills a bit, not that it can’t do it, but if we’re 4 up (two adults, a 12 year old and a 3 year old) on the motorway and we hit a hill it can lose speed a bit and no amount of throttle will compensate.

As others have said the 1.0 3 pot just seems too small for a car the size of an Octy - but I have to remeber that rather than being a Passat sized car they’re actually more like a Jetta. 0-60 in 10 and 125mph seems more than adequate but those measures have always been a bit pointless because who gets into a drag race or drives over 100 these days.

I’d like to try one, see how it pulls from 30-70 the sort of joining the motorway type stuff and how it works with 4 people and a boot full of holiday stuff or if it can’t crack 40 with a couple of bikes on the roof because my 20th Century mind thinks I’d rather have a VRS instead.

plumslikerocks - Member
That just leaves the lack of overall power for big overtakes....you just need to be honest with yourself as to how often you get to do those in today's traffic conditions?

Numerous times daily 😀

And noticeably fewer times when I'm in our slower, less powerful van.

If you're not bothered about the environmental longevity then just get an older car with a bigger engine.

I've just taken out a rental on an Octy. For the same cost of ownership over two years I could lease a brand new 2L Octavia SE Tech, or buy outright a 7-year old Focus Titanium. Sure, with the lease I've nothing to show for it after two years, but do I really want to be left with a 9yo Focus? Once I'd realised that, it was a no-brainer.

How many miles Cougar?

The hassle free lease does really appeal but I need 20 - 25k miles a year, and all the "cheap" deals get a lot more expensive.

I went for 10k. There's a number of "fixed" deals on the website but they're really just examples, when I went to the dealership they were happy to tailor it to match whatever criteria I wanted. Length of lease, mileage, amount up front etc were all variable.

http://www.simpsonsskoda.co.uk/pch-offers/

This is my local dealer. They have two branches, one in Preston and one in Colne. I live kinda halfway between the two, visited both and the difference between the two was night and day. The sales guy at Colne was a proper old-school Arthur Daley type, all appeals-to-the-heart and wouldn't listen to a word I said. The chap at Preston was brilliant, a pleasure to deal with.

Judging the 'suitability' of an engine by it's capacity is old fashioned, and now irrelevant. Look at the weight of the car, the output (bhp and torque, to use some old fashioned terms) and the performance figures.

See, I'm not so sure. Numbers on paper are just that and nothing more. They don't relay what an engine is like to drive. I'll confess to not liking turbocharged engines of any variety, and I've driven probably dozens of them over the years.
Yeah, sure, if you like a big wallop of torque in the midrange they're fine but generally they're a pig off the line and have throttle response that can be measured with a sundial. Nothing nothing nothing BOOOOOOOOOST!!!!!!
They might well have mor e torque and be faster but I prefer a nice smooth power output from tick over to red line, thanks.
I've not driven one af these tiny new turbo petrols but I can imagine there's a power band and if you're outside it you're screwed.
This is part of the reason I like to buy old cars. Nice big petrol engine, no turbo, nice and simple, civilised, quiet, same response at any revs, doesn't use oil etc. But that's just me. 🙂

I don't recall ever driving a modern turbo diesel that behaved even remotely like you describe. Was the last turbo you drove a Renault 5 GT?

Judging the 'suitability' of an engine by it's capacity is old fashioned, and now irrelevant.

Said no-one with a 5.0 V8, ever. 😆

You've clearly never been to America.

Last time I was there I got a hire car with something like a 4L engine. It didn't have an accelerator, just a volume pedal.

I don't recall ever driving a modern turbo diesel that behaved even remotely like you describe. Was the last turbo you drove a Renault 5 GT?

Agreed, a lot of ‘it’ is what you’re used to.

Diesel driver gets into a n/a petrol, changes up at 2000rpm and wonders why it’s so gutless, 15 mins later remembers you’re meant to rev them and then wonders why it’s so harsh when everyone used to complain about diesels being rough.

Petrol N/A driver gets into a diesel, floors it because, bumps into the rev limiter at 4500rpm which is roughly when their usual car starts shifting, grabs another gear and do all that “it’s got a narrow power band” thing.

The new small turbo petrols actually drive like Turbo Diesels IMho

I've not driven one af these tiny new turbo petrols but I can imagine there's a power band and if you're outside it you're screwed.

Singletrack forum ladies and gents, singletrack forum. 🙄

PeterPoddy - Member

Judging the 'suitability' of an engine by it's capacity is old fashioned, and now irrelevant. Look at the weight of the car, the output (bhp and torque, to use some old fashioned terms) and the performance figures.

See, I'm not so sure. Numbers on paper are just that and nothing more. They don't relay what an engine is like to drive. I'll confess to not liking turbocharged engines of any variety, and I've driven probably dozens of them over the years.

That's pretty much exactly what I am saying (don't dismiss an engine on capacity alone). I agree that looking at numbers on paper is not the way to select a engine. Try it for yourself, obviously. In the same way, a higher engine capacity is no guarantee that it is any good either though.

I've not driven one af these tiny new turbo petrols

Yet you seem to have a strong opinion about them. Why, when you have nothing to back that up?

This is part of the reason I like to buy old cars.

Not just because they are cheap then? 😉

sbob - Member

Judging the 'suitability' of an engine by it's capacity is old fashioned, and now irrelevant.

Said no-one with a 5.0 V8, ever.

Quite. My daily drive is a 3.0 V6, so I'm no lentil-matic eco small turbo engine enthusiast, but having tried a few I know they can be very good. Would you agree that some 5.0 V8 engine are better than others though? That's my point.

P-Jay - Member

The new small turbo petrols actually drive like Turbo Diesels IMho

+1

pictonroad - Member

I've not driven one af these tiny new turbo petrols but I can imagine there's a power band and if you're outside it you're screwed.

Singletrack forum ladies and gents, singletrack forum.

+1

The new small turbo petrols actually drive like Turbo Diesels IMho

Having both I agree

I've not driven one af these tiny new turbo petrols but I can imagine there's a power band and if you're outside it you're screwed.

Nope, the Turbos themselves seem quite small, it’s not like like the old F1 turbo days with a tiny engine connected to a massive blower to produce all the power. There’s no real lag, them seem to start from tick-over but run out of puff at the very high revs. I’m sure there’s a lot of electronic trickery that manages it all but that’s how it feels.

Before we bought them I expected it to be like you describe, nothing, nothing, nothing BOOOOST but they’re not. My wife’s 1.2 TSI drives a like a 1.6 N/a from a few years ago I guess or a TDI but maybe a bit less boosty, but that might be because my wife’s car is 110bhp and mine is 170bhp.

Being as this is turning into a typical OT thread, have you seen what £7.5k gets you lately?

https://www.autotrader.co.uk/classified/advert/201712021755168

tonyg2003 - Member
I do wonder how economical this engine - car combo will be in real world use. Some of these small turbo engines are far less economical than there MPG figures would suggest.

Agreed.

I have a 66 plate 1.2 TSi polo ... its advertised as 60+mpg combined.

It rarely gives better than 45mpg.

Yeah, sure, if you like a big wallop of torque in the midrange they're fine but generally they're a pig off the line and have throttle response that can be measured with a sundial. Nothing nothing nothing BOOOOOOOOOST!!!!!!

Odd, my ‘51 Oct 1.9TDi doesn’t behave like that, but if I’m intending to get away quickly to put myself in front of a large, slower vehicle, then I don’t floor it from tick-over, I get the revs up a bit so the turbo’s actually working.
He who snoozes, loses, to coin a phrase.
Sitting outside at the mo’ is a Mokka X, 1.4 turbo, about 140ps, but with an auto ‘box, and it’s the ‘box that’s the issue, it lags very slightly on shifts, although it’s probably got a manual override which I didn’t have time to explore.
Point is, it’s has really impressive get-up-and-go, the days of turbo-lag died with the old Saab Turbo, so I’d guess you’ve not driven anything more modern since?
I, on the other hand, do, everyday in fact, and I’m consistently impressed by how willing to pull these small capacity turbo petrol engines are, the Citigo, Mii and Up! go like the clappers, I’ve done 200+ mile runs in them up the A30/M5/M4, and their ability to pull up hills without appearing to labour is very impressive, a Fiat 500L with a 1.4 was less impressive though; having to shift down to 3rd up a gentle slope on the M4 left me distinctly unimpressed, the same slope in a Smart fourtwo saw 95 on my satnav... 😀

Being as this is turning into a typical OT thread, have you seen what £7.5k gets you lately?

I guess the £520/yr tax goes some way to explaining the cheapness...

Cougar - Moderator
I went for 10k. There's a number of "fixed" deals on the website but they're really just examples, when I went to the dealership they were happy to tailor it to match whatever criteria I wanted. Length of lease, mileage, amount up front etc were all variable.

http://www.simpsonsskoda.co.uk/pch-offers/

This is my local dealer. They have two branches, one in Preston and one in Colne. I live kinda halfway between the two, visited both and the difference between the two was night and day. The sales guy at Colne was a proper old-school Arthur Daley type, all appeals-to-the-heart and wouldn't listen to a word I said. The chap at Preston was brilliant, a pleasure to deal with.

Simpsons pop up on my Facebook occasionally, probably because I've been searching around for deals at times.

Mileage really is the killer for any decent lease deals.

So far mine has cost about £7.5k (purchase and a few small repairs). I've had it nearly 3 years and even if I throw it away at the end of 3years that's £2.5k/year. If it lasts another year than that's nearer £2k/yr (assuming another few hundred needs spending on it).

An equivalent lease is going to cost £4,250 or more per year. Yes it's a new car, which would be nice but it's a lot more money.

I could get something cheaper and less powerful I know, but I don't want to at the moment.

Seriously looking at electric though for commuting/local duties. That's the future.

mooman - Member

I have a 66 plate 1.2 TSi polo ... its advertised as 60+mpg combined.

It rarely gives better than 45mpg.

That's pretty shit.
My last car was a '95 Micra and that did 50mpg+.

angeldust - Member

Would you agree that some 5.0 V8 engine are better than others though? That's my point.

I'll agree that all the 5.0 V8s I've driven have been awesome. 8)

(Had a 3.0 V6 myself once; I share your pain)

My last car was a '95 Micra and that did 50mpg+.

Yeah but your micra would’ve tipped the scales at ~800kg. A new polo is banging on the door of 1100kg. Also, as a specific output the polo will be leagues more powerful than the micra. Cars are much, much faster than they used to be.

Cars are much, much faster than they used to be.

This is very true - I picked up an Octavia estate with a 1.4 engine earlier in the year and really wasn't sure if the 1.4 would be enough power to make it pleasant to drive when I started looking around for a vehicle.

It is 0.5 seconds slower 0-60 than the Alfa 145 Cloverleaf that I had, with a 2 litre fuel drinking engine.

The Octavia has a massive amount of space, but is very light considering its size. That said the Alfa held the road better and sounded lovely.

The smaller engines are pretty impressive these days.

I've always been a fan of bigger N/A engines but the little 3 cylinder engine in my other half's MINI is bloody brilliant; sounds good, pulls well, is quiet and pretty economical (41mpg around town).

Id want a test drive first, but I see no reason why it wouldn't work.

Cars have got faster and more efficient as well as safer and much better equipped. Weight however has escalated as a result.
My first car was a mark 1 Vw golf , my current car is a mark 7 golf, both petrol. The current car is much larger, weighs 450kg more, has 4 times the power output yet is about 25% more fuel efficient.

We’ve had a 105hp base model Focus 1 litre Ecoboost for just over 2 years.
We looked at the 125hp model but it was only slightly faster & then it was all once revving it hard.
Wife is a district nurse so it’s all stop start town miles, it does mid 30’s.
Whilst it’s not my cup of tea (too cramped), I simply can’t fault its driveability.
It drives more like a diesel to be honest, there’s a definite kick off the line but revving it hard doesn’t seem to invoke anything more than noise. But it honestly doesn’t seem in any way let down by such a small engine. It will happily trundle along at motorway speeds. The only downside seems to be MPG.

As to wether a similar sized engine would work in an Octavia, yes it would. It’s probably only 150-200 kg heavier.
If you drive at normal speeds, & don’t thrash the thing ive no doubt it will perform perfectly well.
Some of the comments on here are laughable.

A quick Google suggests the 1.0 octy has a 9.9s 0-60 and a top speed of 126. The engine is Ok for the car. The only question being he longevity.

A couple of family members have the 125hp Ford 1.0 in a focus and the 1.0 Seat engine in a Leon estate (basically the same as the Octavia). Both are really happy with them. Both engines are a hell of a lot smoother and quieter than my similarly powerful 1.8tdci.

The longevity thing would be a concern for me (purely because most of them haven't been around for long enough to know that they do last for 10years/100k miles) but I'd happily have a relatively new one.

The Japanese have been doing tiny turbo motors for years, have a look at the Kei cars.

The weight of modern cars is a problem. I've got a Jag S-type which has electric seats, mirrors & steering column! Why? What is the point? I bought the car as I needed something comfortable for the missus pure and simple, but that comes from good ride quality not quarter of a ton of extra motors and gadgets. If people didn't feel the need to have so much convenience at hand they could have faster cars using less fuel, win win.

Also, as a specific output the polo will be leagues more powerful than the micra.

You're comparing a turbo engine with a N/A engine.
Considering that we had 100hp/l mainstream N/A engines in the eighties, I'd suggest that the specific output of the Polo is quite poor.

Cars are much, much faster than they used to be.

No they're not!
Top Gear even ran a feature to demonstrate the exact opposite!

This is very true - I picked up an Octavia estate with a 1.4 engine earlier in the year and really wasn't sure if the 1.4 would be enough power to make it pleasant to drive when I started looking around for a vehicle.

It is 0.5 seconds slower 0-60 than the Alfa 145 Cloverleaf that I had, with a 2 litre fuel drinking engine.

Apples and oranges again.
You can't compare turbo with N/A.

A couple of family members have the 125hp Ford 1.0 in a focus and the 1.0 Seat engine in a Leon estate (basically the same as the Octavia). Both are really happy with them. Both engines are a hell of a lot smoother and quieter than my similarly powerful 1.8tdci.

Have I wandered into a grocer's convention? 😆

Mainstream Cars ]are faster than they used to be, e.g cars most people travel in. You only have to look at average motorway speeds compared to when I started driving in the early 80's. In town speeds are a different matter.
When I bought my 1977 Mk1 1.6 Golf, with its whole 75hp it was a rocket ship compared to the other vehicles my mates had, usually minis or Austin allegros or Morris Marinas as it could do 0-60 in about 12 sec rather than 15 plus.
The equivalent Golf 1.0 now has 110 hp and will do 0-60 in less than 10 secs, but will deliver a real world 45-50 mpg rather than the 28-30 mine did.

I had a Civic Vti with a normally aspirated 1.6 with 100bhp/litre- lovely engine but you had to rev it above 6000 to get any real go-sounded awsome but was wearing on a long trip with its 4000rpm at 75mph. The 1.2 Polo only has 91hp/litre but is in everyday driving much more relaxed.

Apples and oranges again.
You can't compare turbo with N/A.

What? Of course you can. I need a new car, I can either buy one with a bigger N/A engine or a smaller turbo one. I'll literally compare the two, ideally by driving them both.

It's not like comparing the cost of a car with the cost of a rail season ticket.

Which of these three would you rather drive: [img] [/img]

Edit:

Have I wandered into a grocer's convention?

What? 😕

bails - Member

What? Of course you can. I need a new car, I can either buy one with a bigger N/A engine or a smaller turbo one. I'll literally compare the two, ideally by driving them both.

You've waded in with the wrong argument there bails. 😳

jimw - Member

when I started driving in the early 80's

I'm probably comparing to a slightly more modern era.
Obviously if you go back far enough in history then transport was slower.

What?

Comparing petrol to diesel.
Apples and oranges.