Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Please note that it is not permitted to have referral links posted in your signature. Keep these links contained in the appropriate forum. Thank you.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2055940817/signature-rules

1.4 tsi Engine

Options
  • 27-10-2012 5:44pm
    #1
    from_atozinc
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,943 ✭✭✭


    Thinking of buying a VW with a 1.4 tsi engine. Still undecided between golf, passat or jetta

    It would be an automatic

    I know the 1.4 tsi come in 122 BHP, 140 BHP and 170 BHP

    Anyone have any comments on which is the most reliable engine here ?


«134

Comments

  • Options
    #2
    jayc12
    Registered Users Posts: 48 ✭jayc12


    Out of the three the 122 is most reliable the other two can give alot of trouble and be very expensive to fix


  • Options
    #3
    R.O.R
    Registered Users Posts: 12,672 ✭✭✭✭R.O.R


    There is also a 160 bhp version that replaced the 170 model as that kept breaking.


  • Options
    #4
    from_atozinc
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,943 ✭✭✭from_atozinc


    jayc12 wrote: »
    Out of the three the 122 is most reliable the other two can give alot of trouble and be very expensive to fix

    Thanks.

    Has the 122 bhp a turbo ?

    Presume the others have a turbo too


  • Options
    #5
    Mister Jingles
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,190 ✭✭✭Mister Jingles


    It does, hence TSI (Turbo Stratified Injection)


  • Options
    #6
    jayc12
    Registered Users Posts: 48 ✭jayc12


    The 122 have a turbo while the 140 and 170 have a turbo charger and a supercharger


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    TPM
    Registered Users Posts: 871 ✭✭✭TPM


    Was talking to a VW mechanic a few weeks ago he said he would steer well clear of any of the tsi engines, the emissions on them can be high, making them expensive to tax on the new system, and they are troublesome enough.


  • Options
    #8
    from_atozinc
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,943 ✭✭✭from_atozinc


    R.O.R wrote: »
    There is also a 160 bhp version that replaced the 170 model as that kept breaking.

    Do you know if the 160 bhp version is any more reliable than the 170 bhp ?


    Or is it best just to simply steer clear of 140, 160 and 170 bhp versions in the 1.4 tsi ?


  • Options
    #9
    pajo1981
    Registered Users Posts: 1,178 ✭✭✭pajo1981


    TPM wrote: »
    Was talking to a VW mechanic a few weeks ago he said he would steer well clear of any of the tsi engines, the emissions on them can be high, making them expensive to tax on the new system, and they are troublesome enough.

    The 122 TSI in a golf emits 145gCo2/km which in a 122bhp petrol car is hardy high?


  • Options
    #10
    Leonard Hofstadter
    Registered Users Posts: 5,540 ✭✭✭Leonard Hofstadter


    TPM wrote: »
    Was talking to a VW mechanic a few weeks ago he said he would steer well clear of any of the tsi engines, the emissions on them can be high, making them expensive to tax on the new system, and they are troublesome enough.

    Where did you hear that from? As petrols go they're very efficient (and hence low to tax).

    Some TSIs are incredibly unreliable (the ones with both the turbo and the supercharger), but there's nothing unusual about that, it is a VW we're talking about after all not a reliable make like Ford or Toyota.


  • Options
    #11
    Nissan doctor
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,223 ✭✭✭Nissan doctor


    captainspeed wrote: »
    but there's nothing unusual about that, it is a VW we're talking about after all not a reliable make like Ford or Toyota.

    Time to get the popcorn ready!











    I agree BTW.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    George Dalton
    Registered Users Posts: 5,728 ✭✭✭George Dalton


    captainspeed wrote: »
    Some TSIs are incredibly unreliable (the ones with both the turbo and the supercharger), but there's nothing unusual about that, it is a VW we're talking about after all not a reliable make like Ford or Toyota.

    You are comparing apples and oranges there.

    The twincharged TSI engines producing 140-170bhp are troublesome compared to a 1.4 16v Focus producing 75bhp. Should this really be a surprise?

    Time will tell how reliable the Ford 1.0 100ps Ecoboost engine turns out to be. Not as reliable as the old 1.6 100ps engine I would be willing to bet.

    As for Ford being reliable compared to VW in general, I really don't know where this perception comes from. In my experience they are pretty similar in terms of maintenance and repair costs. If anything Fords have more small issues than VWs from what we see on a daily basis.


  • Options
    #13
    el diablo
    Registered Users Posts: 5,745 ✭✭✭el diablo


    122 BHP would definitely be the most reliable of those engines. Decent poke too.

    We're all in this psy-op together.🤨



  • Options
    #14
    from_atozinc
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,943 ✭✭✭from_atozinc


    from_atozinc wrote: »

    Do you know if the 160 bhp version is any more reliable than the 170 bhp ?


    Or is it best just to simply steer clear of 140, 160 and 170 bhp versions in the 1.4 tsi ?



    Anybody on this ?


  • Options
    #15
    Bald? er, dash!
    Registered Users Posts: 139 ✭✭Bald? er, dash!


    I had a 2007 Jetta 1.4TSI (140bhp) from new until earlier this year. I would not recommend that engine based on my experience.

    I had put up only about 80,000km over 5 years, and in that time, I had to put two new turbos into it. The gearbox failed resulting in it struggling to stay in 2nd (this was blamed on my left hand resting on the gear stick - which if true seems a little brittle, but lesson learned nonetheless).

    Otherwise, I found it quite heavy in terms of fuel economy, getting 600kms on a full tank (combined driving mainly); even extra-urban, it was very difficult to get better than 7.5 litres per 100km, which required a very light right foot.

    IMHO stay away, but as ever YMMV!


  • Options
    #16
    George Dalton
    Registered Users Posts: 5,728 ✭✭✭George Dalton


    from_atozinc wrote: »
    Anybody on this ?

    The 160 version is still twin-charged so it is still going to be more troublesome than the simpler 122 version. However it should be more reliable than the 170 as VW have redesigned most of the troublesome components from the earlier engines in an attempt to make them more reliable.


  • Options
    #17
    from_atozinc
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,943 ✭✭✭from_atozinc


    Bald? er, dash! wrote: »
    I had a 2007 Jetta 1.4TSI (140bhp) from new until earlier this year. I would not recommend that engine based on my experience.

    I had put up only about 80,000km over 5 years, and in that time, I had to put two new turbos into it. The gearbox failed resulting in it struggling to stay in 2nd (this was blamed on my left hand resting on the gear stick - which if true seems a little brittle, but lesson learned nonetheless).

    Otherwise, I found it quite heavy in terms of fuel economy, getting 600kms on a full tank (combined driving mainly); even extra-urban, it was very difficult to get better than 7.5 litres per 100km, which required a very light right foot.

    IMHO stay away, but as ever YMMV!


    Thanks for the feedback

    These 140 and 170 engines in the 1.4 tsi seem to have a bad reputation alright. You had some amount of problems for a lad only doing 10,000 miles a year.


  • Options
    #18
    from_atozinc
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,943 ✭✭✭from_atozinc


    So the general concenus is that these 1.4 tsi's are ok in the 122 BHP

    But the ones with a turbo and a supercharger are a bit dodge. ( 140, 170 and also 160 bhp )

    Thanks for the comments.


  • Options
    #19
    Bald? er, dash!
    Registered Users Posts: 139 ✭✭Bald? er, dash!


    Yeah, you could say that! If I had a heavy foot, then I'd take some blame, but for my part, I think they're trying to squeeze a lot from a small lump, and the reliability drops off.

    Good luck with your decision, and better luck with your buy!!!


  • Options
    #20
    from_atozinc
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,943 ✭✭✭from_atozinc


    Bald? er, dash! wrote: »
    Yeah, you could say that! If I had a heavy foot, then I'd take some blame, but for my part, I think they're trying to squeeze a lot from a small lump, and the reliability drops off.

    Good luck with your decision, and better luck with your buy!!!


    What car did you buy to replace the Jetta ?


  • Options
    #21
    Matt Simis
    Registered Users Posts: 8,718 ✭✭✭Matt Simis


    R.O.R wrote: »
    There is also a 160 bhp version that replaced the 170 model as that kept breaking.

    I remember the arguments here when these were announced, there were many that said massively boosting a small CC engine would end in tears yet there were those strangely optimistic about it (modern wondrous design would solve CO2, MPG, Tax all in one).

    So.. I guess the old school mechanical argument won out.. its not a good idea to have a 1.4litre with two types of forced induction pulling a barge'ish VW/Skoda around then?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22
    from_atozinc
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,943 ✭✭✭from_atozinc


    So on another note. What is the reliability of the mark 5 and 6 Golf GTI's like.......... with the DSG GEARBOX

    Any known issues with these ?


  • Options
    #23
    George Dalton
    Registered Users Posts: 5,728 ✭✭✭George Dalton


    from_atozinc wrote: »
    So on another note. What is the reliability of the mark 5 and 6 Golf GTI's like.......... with the DSG GEARBOX

    Any known issues with these ?

    Engine is very good with very few significant or expensive issues.

    The gearboxes are generally strong once they get the correct oil and filter service every 60,000km. They have a reputation for being a bit troublesome but in our experience most that suffer failures do so early in their life and so are replaced under warranty. If a box makes it to 100,000km then that usually means it is a good one :D The problem with them is that if something does go wrong outside warranty it costs a lot to fix.


  • Options
    #24
    Bald? er, dash!
    Registered Users Posts: 139 ✭✭Bald? er, dash!


    from_atozinc wrote: »
    What car did you buy to replace the Jetta ?

    Small oil burner with two Q's :o


  • Options
    #25
    el diablo
    Registered Users Posts: 5,745 ✭✭✭el diablo


    Bald? er, dash! wrote: »
    Small oil burner with two Q's :o

    Quahqai 1.5 DCi.

    We're all in this psy-op together.🤨



  • Options
    #26
    Bald? er, dash!
    Registered Users Posts: 139 ✭✭Bald? er, dash!


    Yeah, FML!


  • Options
    #27
    corklad32
    Registered Users Posts: 446 ✭✭corklad32


    from_atozinc wrote: »
    Do you know if the 160 bhp version is any more reliable than the 170 bhp ?


    Or is it best just to simply steer clear of 140, 160 and 170 bhp versions in the 1.4 tsi ?

    Well as a former owner of a 07 170 tsi and a current owner of a 08 140 tsi i can state they are the biggest heaps of sh*te of cars that i have ever ever had the misfortune to own. I will never ever touch a VW again with a barge pole. For anyone who's wondering how i ended up with a 08 after the 07 it was because the garage had to swap the 07 as it kept breaking down. Steering rack, gearbox, both turbos and a list of other stuff. Happened within the first few days of having it and the car had been serviced religiously ( i checked before i bought). The 08 i currently have had a steering rack and timing chain done. Heaps of sh*te


  • Options
    #28
    Bald? er, dash!
    Registered Users Posts: 139 ✭✭Bald? er, dash!


    Oh yeah, timing chain for me a couple of times too!:rolleyes:


  • Options
    #29
    from_atozinc
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,943 ✭✭✭from_atozinc


    corklad32 wrote: »

    Well as a former owner of a 07 170 tsi and a current owner of a 08 140 tsi i can state they are the biggest heaps of sh*te of cars that i have ever ever had the misfortune to own. I will never ever touch a VW again with a barge pole. For anyone who's wondering how i ended up with a 08 after the 07 it was because the garage had to swap the 07 as it kept breaking down. Steering rack, gearbox, both turbos and a list of other stuff. Happened within the first few days of having it and the car had been serviced religiously ( i checked before i bought). The 08 i currently have had a steering rack and timing chain done. Heaps of sh*te


    Holy jaysus. That's very bad
    Will defo steer clear of the 140, 160 and 170 bhp versions !


  • Options
    #30
    corklad32
    Registered Users Posts: 446 ✭✭corklad32


    Well to be fair the 140 is definitely more reliable than the 170 but that wouldn't be too difficult! I think 07 was the first year for the 170 tsi's in the golf so perhaps it was a learning experience for VW... I would imagine that as the 08 and 09's & 10's came along they changed a lot of the faulty parts for modified parts. I know it was the case with the steering rack and I have a vague recollection of VW service mentioning modified part numbers for the different parts that went tits up.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #31
    Tea 1000
    Registered Users Posts: 4,520 ✭✭✭Tea 1000


    corklad32 wrote: »
    Well to be fair the 140 is definitely more reliable than the 170 but that wouldn't be too difficult! I think 07 was the first year for the 170 tsi's in the golf so perhaps it was a learning experience for VW... I would imagine that as the 08 and 09's & 10's came along they changed a lot of the faulty parts for modified parts. I know it was the case with the steering rack and I have a vague recollection of VW service mentioning modified part numbers for the different parts that went tits up.
    Fiat seemed to learn how to make them reliable from the off. But then Fiat always had fairly decent engines, VW on the other hand hadn't developed a petrol engine since the 80's before those TSI's came along! So they forgot how!


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement