Octavia 1.2Tsi

machalla

I remember a thread on here a while back about the 1.2tsi engine in the Octavia but I can't seem to find it anymore.

What does anyone think of the 1.2 engine in the latest Octavia? Does it make sense in a car that size? I can only imagine acceleration for overtaking is a nightmare but I really don't know.

I'm interested in your opinions as I might have the chance to get one of these at a good price (completely out of the blue as I've been looking at Fiestas) but engine size with that size car makes me wary.

Thanks.

mike65

104 bhp and 129lb ft @1500-3500rpm which is decent though I'd deffo want a test drive!

bazz26

Light years ahead than the old 1.4 litre with 75bhp that the Irish bought in droves in Octavias, Golfs, etc for years. The 1.2 TSi has a turbo giving it plenty of pep and costs only €156 to tax also. These days small capacity engines are alot more powerful than their larger predecessors.

GTE

1.4 TSI in a Scirocco has some nice umph! Judging by that then overtaking and general performance should be fine in the 1.2.

1.4 would be my preference though before the diesels come into the mix.

machalla

Thanks for the responses. I will hopefully get a closer look at this tommorow. Glad to hear that its not completely nutty to consider one of these with the 1.2tsi. Road tax is class B so its eligible for the scrappage scheme.

Would there be anything you need to watch out for with a turbo engine like this from a maintenance or servicing point of view? Would it be much more expensive to service for instance?

-Corkie-

Octavia diesel would be nicer with 100 euro road tax its a 1.6. I know someone who bought one their a lovley car.

machalla

Theres quite a jump in price from the 1.2tsi to the 1.6tdi (about €3,000) though. This may actually fit my profile which is short car journeys during the week and longer trips at weekend (in comfort).

Matt Simis

bbk wrote: »

1.4 TSI in a Scirocco has some nice umph! Judging by that then overtaking and general performance should be fine in the 1.2.

Im sure compared to walking or cycling it has plenty of oomph alright. I know peoples mothers who test drove the VAG 1.4TSFI and walked away laughing.

Lets not loose the run of ourselves, these are bottom dweller engines no matter how its spun. If you are completely devoid of any driving interest, you will fit well with the target market.

Note I didnt say you have to be some sort of begger, cos you still need to buy a newish model at the cost of thousands to have the privilege of owning a "cheap to run" motor... stepping by the sea of more powerful and cheaper used cars out there.

unkel

Matt Simis wrote: »

these are bottom dweller engines no matter how its spun. If you are completely devoid of any driving interest, you will fit well with the target market.

Nicely describes the typical Octavia buyer

They used to buy dodgy Toyotas or 1.4 75BHP petrol Octavias. Surely the new wee 1.2 turbo is streets ahead in power and torque compared to this forums favourite small family hatch (did I mention the boot is huge?)

GTE

Matt,
Dont be a sarcastic little so and so about it.

This is like the Toyota crap all over again. People look for a car that can tootle about town and go from A to B but then droves of people here start giving out about how they are devoid of driving experience. I doubt the OP is looking for a race car. All you did in that post was give out about an engine which would most likely suit him down to the ground. The only considerations he is concerned about are overtaking and acceleration, probably get me out of here acceleration for when you are in tight spots.

The fact of the matter is the 1.2 should do a decent job at what he wants it for, though if it were me the 1.4 would be the better option. Its not by any means slow in the Scirocco and despite the heavier weight of the Octi it should work great for what the OP wants it for. In a Scirocco though its not the choice I would have made.

Matt Simis

bbk wrote: »

Matt,
Dont be a sarcastic little so and so about it.

This is like the Toyota crap all over again. People look for a car that can tootle about town and go from A to B but then droves of people here start giving out about how they are devoid of driving experience. I doubt the OP is looking for a race car. All you did in that post was give out about an engine which would most likely suit him down to the ground. The only considerations he is concerned about are overtaking and acceleration, probably get me out of here acceleration for when you are in tight spots.

The fact of the matter is the 1.2 should do a decent job at what he wants it for, though if it were me the 1.4 would be the better option. Its not by any means slow in the Scirocco and despite the heavier weight of the Octi it should work great for what the OP wants it for. In a Scirocco though its not the choice I would have made.

Nothing I said was sarcastic, its all true. Im also not "giving out" about his humble needs, but rather your bizarre sugercoating of what is, clearly, a bottom spec engine.
If you considering a 1.4 engine to be "by no means slow" then we clearly have worlds apart definitions of performance.


Let me give you a non-sugercoated review:
The Octavia 1.2TSI is approx. a 1300kg, 12second 0-60 car, likely has fairly crappy overtaking abilities but does the job given a long enough stretch of road. If you poot along from A-B and rarely feel frustrated driving stuck behind Edna on her shoping run at 40mph on a 55mph road and value saving money in tax but look the other way when paying for a new car and loosing it in depreciation anyhow, its a fine automobile in the most basic sense of the word.

Since the OP specifically queried Overtaking, I would suggest he looks at the equally frugal diesel models instead.

Owen

1.2? Is this a paddy specific engine, or will they release it to the rest of the unsuspecting public? It's hard to imagine something the size of a carton of milk pulling something the size of an octavia and managing to do a respectable job.

Anan1

PaintDoctor wrote: »

1.2? Is this a paddy specific engine, or will they release it to the rest of the unsuspecting public? It's hard to imagine something the size of a carton of milk pulling something the size of an octavia and managing to do a respectable job.

You of all people should know better than to think that cc is everything. Or is a 1.6 too small for a MINI?;)

machalla

Matt Simis wrote: »

Since the OP specifically queried Overtaking, I would suggest he looks at the equally frugal diesel models instead.

Funny, I wasn't planning on racing it round mondello. Perhaps you missed where I pointed out that the diesel models are about €3k more expensive..

Anyway apparently its not a boy racer car which sounds like what appeals to you. Grand, not for me. This is stepping up from a battered 96 corsa so just about anything would be a step up at a decent price. Good to have some differing opinions nonetheless.

Owen

Yes and no Anan, the 1.6 at least has a reasonable displacement, and the engine is good for up to 150bhp when normally aspirated, having it up to 215 with supercharging is just a bonus.

Taking a very low displacement engine and then stressing it with forced induction to try and get 100+ Bhp out of it and a big car to pull, is not a good idea.

Anan1

PaintDoctor wrote: »

Taking a very low displacement engine and then stressing it with forced induction to try and get 100+ Bhp out of it and a big car to pull, is not a good idea.

Probably not, if you're planning on using the full 100bhp on a regular basis. But how many Octavia-sized cars are there out there where the owner never demands more than 50-60bhp? I'd say lots. I think we all have a natural tendency to think that because a car wouldn't suit us then it couldn't suit anyone, whereas often nothing could be further from the truth.

Owen

I don't agree. These small displacement high stress engines are not a good idea. We all thought the 1.4 TFSI engine was great, until they started popping and had to have the power dialled down.

For the record, it's the way of the future. Even BMW are going 3 cylinder with turbo soon. But I think that these engines are designed to be recycled, like the cars they're going into, not designed to last.

Anan1

PaintDoctor wrote: »

I don't agree. These small displacement high stress engines are not a good idea. We all thought the 1.4 TFSI engine was great, until they started popping and had to have the power dialled down.

For the record, it's the way of the future. Even BMW are going 3 cylinder with turbo soon. But I think that these engines are designed to be recycled, like the cars they're going into, not designed to last.

I agree with you that reliability can suffer when you put a highly-stressed engine into a car that's going to be ragged, like a 170bhp Golf that was bought as a cheaper alternative to a GTI. But will a 1.2 Octavia be subjected to the same kind of stresses? If I were buying one then yes, and i'd avoid on that basis, but is it an issue for the average Octavia buyer? They don't ever seem to be in much of a hurry to me.

Owen

I don't think it's about going everywhere flat out with the foot down, but there are other concerns. Your average Octavia buyer has bugger all interest in cars, or driving. They want a car which is big, and reliable. I don't think an engine will be in the long term. Even when pootling up to 60 with 4 kids, the engine's going to be working hard, and it'll make for a souless drive.

Remember when BMW made the E90 in a 1.6? The thing couldn't get up hills in second. And that was 115Bhp in a car about the size of an Octavia.

peasant

Has anyone actually driven one yet?

Matt Simis

machalla wrote: »

Funny, I wasn't planning on racing it round mondello. Perhaps you missed where I pointed out that the diesel models are about €3k more expensive..

Anyway apparently its not a boy racer car which sounds like what appeals to you. Grand, not for me. This is stepping up from a battered 96 corsa so just about anything would be a step up at a decent price. Good to have some differing opinions nonetheless.

Only in Ireland could someone discussing a 1.2litre to 1.9l TDI draw a connection to a race track and boyracers. Bless your innocence. :rolleyes:
The diesels being 3k more expensive, right, is that a problem? Either save more or put up with what you seemingly already plan on getting. Also the manufacture year of your Corsa doesnt really help anyone understand the relative performance difference.

peasant wrote: »

Has anyone actually driven one yet?

Ive been a passenger in a small engined new Octavia and making a U turn on a dual carriage way was a hair raising experience. To think people willingly drive underpowered crap.. Ill never understand. Power is control and control is safety.

Anan1

You're probably right that a NA 1.6 would be more reliable right now. On the other hand, engine technology is advancing and I don't see any reason long-term why engines with high specific outputs can't be made even more reliable than today's 'normal' engines. Both reliability and specific output have been increasing since the dawn of the IC engine - granted not always in tandem, but increasing nonetheless.

-Corkie-

machalla wrote: »

Funny, I wasn't planning on racing it round mondello. Perhaps you missed where I pointed out that the diesel models are about €3k more expensive..

Anyway apparently its not a boy racer car which sounds like what appeals to you. Grand, not for me. This is stepping up from a battered 96 corsa so just about anything would be a step up at a decent price. Good to have some differing opinions nonetheless.

God machalla 3 grand is a lot allrite. What price is that bringing in the car at????. Youll have some come up in luxury and comfort so you will. I see the handbags are out again above:D:D

Andrew33

Your average Octavia buyer has bugger all interest in cars, or driving

I take serious offence at that remark, I drive an Octy and size, reliability quality and comfort were on the list but so also was good handling (Octy is a very precise car) and enough poke to worry most other drivers away from the lights. Don't generalise!!!
And its not about the BHP figure on paper, its all about torque and whereabouts in the rev range that occurs.

Anan1

Andrew33 wrote: »

Your average Octavia buyer has bugger all interest in cars, or driving

I take serious offence at that remark, I drive an Octy and size, reliability quality and comfort were on the list but so also was good handling (Octy is a very precise car) and enough poke to worry most other drivers away from the lights. Don't generalise!!!

Would you be more or less offended if I suggested you look up the word 'average', I ask myself...;)

Owen

Andrew33 wrote: »

I take serious offence at that remark, I drive an Octy and size, reliability quality and comfort were on the list but so also was good handling

Without trying to offend you further, an Octavia is an average handling car. It's an average car all around - not a bad car, but an average car. I've driven plenty of them over the years.

And its not about the BHP figure on paper, its all about torque and whereabouts in the rev range that occurs.

Yours might be the case, but we're discussing the 104 Bhp 1.2 here, not the larger capacity diesels or petrols. And as a direct comparison, I used the more powerful, larger capacity, similar size and weight 1.6 litre 316. That's probably the most underpowered car I've driven in a long time, and couldn't get up a hill in second unless you got a good run at it - and was terrifying during an overtake. So throw in a smaller engine, with less overall power, and it's not a good combination IMO.

copacetic

Andrew33 wrote: »

I take serious offence at that remark, I drive an Octy and size, reliability quality and comfort were on the list but so also was good handling (Octy is a very precise car) and enough poke to worry most other drivers away from the lights. Don't generalise!!!
And its not about the BHP figure on paper, its all about torque and whereabouts in the rev range that occurs.

are they worried about the fact that you are in their way and slow to get moving?

machalla

I took one of these for a test drive today.

Perfectly fine in my "innocent" opinion. I took it along a nice long straight road at the speed limit without stressing the car at all. Didn't seem like overtaking would be any sort of issue. Swung it round a couple of roundabouts all grand, very comfortabe to drive. Didn't go up anything very steep just the usual dips in the road as I see there were problems with hills and the like.

Didn't get a chance to do a u-turn on a motorway but you can't have everything. I couldn't see much to fault it in my innocent opinion.

I do wonder if the engine might not be prone to "popping" at some point (as was mentioned) but it didn't seem stressed at all to drive.

For any sane driver it seems like a perfectly reasonable option at around about 14-15k (Ambiente model) with the current scrappage deal. Its the same engine as they have in the Skoda Yeti (petrol version) it seems.

Perhaps the Kia Ceed might be a more proven car with a beter engine and 7 year warranty though but you "experienced" types should know better.

For someone who really doesn't care about cars except that it has 4 wheels and gets you there in some reasonable comfort (like me) it looks like it would be an adequate option.

EPM

I just want to add that I don't think it will be too bad based on experience of a 1.4 tsi. That engine feels like it's more powerful than it is (even in a Passat).

I would try and go for a 1.4 though at a minimum though. Highly stung engines in the long term don't add up for me. Fine in a Polo maybe but not something with a boot that bit (cue drums:pac:)

machalla

EPM wrote: »

I just want to add that I don't think it will be too bad based on experience of a 1.4 tsi. That engine feels like it's more powerful than it is (even in a Passat).

I would try and go for a 1.4 though at a minimum though. Highly stung engines in the long term don't add up for me. Fine in a Polo maybe but not something with a boot that bit (cue drums:pac:)

Thanks EPM, I'll take that on board. I'd be looking at something to drive for 7-10 years really so reliability is key. Its likely the only new car I might ever buy. Taking the risk on a new engine that might be highly stressed as you say may be asking for trouble.

peasant

machalla wrote: »

Thanks EPM, I'll take that on board. I'd be looking at something to drive for 7-10 years really so reliability is key. Its likely the only new car I might ever buy. Taking the risk on a new engine that might be highly stressed as you say may be asking for trouble.

How highly the engine is stressed would very much depend on the driver though.

For what it's worth, my 1.6 ton lump is "powered" by a 70 hp 1.6 diesel of great antiquity. Yet it is perfectly capable of swimming along in modern traffic. If swimming along is all your intent on doing, the 1.2 tsi will in all likelyhood be fine.

Mr.David

Interesting thread.

Lots of debate about the "highly stressed" turbocharged 1.2

At 104bhp, thats 87bhp/litre.

Im sure it wont have to be rebuilt every 500 miles or anything :rolleyes:

What's it redlined at? 18,000 rpm?:P

BrianD3

Re: reliability and this engine being somehow very stressed. Daihatsu used to make a 1.0 litre turbo with roughly the same power. And that was over 20 years ago. Renault had a 1.4 turbo *pushrod* engine with 118 bhp or treble that in rally spec, again years ago. Honda VTECs from the nineties are apparently "bulleproof" and had 160 bhp from a 1.6 non turbo. Rover 1.4 litre K series non turbo, over 100 bhp, great engine apart from one serious reliability flaw which AFAIK had nothing to do with the power output

Technology and manufacturing have improved significantly since the above engines were introduced. I don't think making a 1.2 turbo Octavia as reliable as any other Skoda is going to be a big deal.

Nonoperational

I don't really buy this highly stressed stuff. Why is it different to a turbo diesel?

btkm8unsl0w5r4

[QUOTE=PaintDoctor;64994392And as a direct comparison, I used the more powerful, larger capacity, similar size and weight 1.6 litre 316. That's probably the most underpowered car I've driven in a long time, and couldn't get up a hill in second unless you got a good run at it - and was terrifying during an overtake. So throw in a smaller engine, with less overall power, and it's not a good combination IMO.[/QUOTE]

My wife used to have a e90 316i and cant agree more with you. We got rid of the stupid thing because it was plain dangerous to try overtake anyone and I swore never to by another underpowered car again. Also having a prestige car without a proper engine is like having a replica gun, all show and no guts.

Now some peoples driving style means they never overtake and accelerate in anger but seeing as the OP asked about passing speed and overtaking safety I would suggest that a 1.2 engine in a big octavia will be absolute, unmitigated, terrible, stinking cack. If you are not interested in such frivolities as these I am sure its fine, personally I would prefer a 20d engine BMW, a 1.9d audi or a ford mondeo 1.9, second hand from 2008 onwards, great grunt, economy and Gormley tax.

Matt Simis

gpf101 wrote: »

I don't really buy this highly stressed stuff. Why is it different to a turbo diesel?

How about entirely different. And thats not to even mention that Modern Turbo Diesels are not known for their reliability anyhow, so not really sure what point you were alluding to there.

BrianD3

Adrienne Short Roadblock wrote: »

Now some peoples driving style means they never overtake and accelerate in anger but seeing as the OP asked about passing speed and overtaking safety I would suggest that a 1.2 engine in a big octavia will be absolute, unmitigated, terrible, stinking cack. If you are not interested in such frivolities as these I am sure its fine.

Yet another ridiculous comment in this thread. A 105 bhp Octavia will be adequate for overtaking, assuming the driver knows how to drive of course. Here's a suggestion for those who find they can't overtake safely in lower powered vehicles

GEARS

I spend a few hours each day in a 110 bhp Laguna and i have no difficulty safely overtaking lorries and dawdlers, many of them driving cars a lot faster than mine. But according to some posters, I'd be "completely devoid of any driving interest".

How about everyone cop on and leave out the smug and patronising comments and assumptions about others. For all you lot know, someone who has a 1.2 Octavia for their daily driver could have a Hayabusa or 911 in the garage at home.

Oh and I'd be pretty sure that Skoda engineers have done extensive testing on the reliability of the engine without needing to consult internet nerds for their opinions on it.

BTW 1.2 Octavia has a 119 mph top speed, 0-60 in 10.8 secs.

JJJJNR

Its possible to remap the 1.2 engine to 130bhp, I'd say it would be some "weapon" then..

:cool:

vectra

JJJJNR wrote: »

Its possible to remap the 1.2 engine to 130bhp, I'd say it would be some "weapon" then..

:cool:

Yes indeed.
A "Time Bomb" waiting to explode

btkm8unsl0w5r4

BrianD3 wrote: »

Here's a suggestion for those who find they can't overtake safely in lower powered vehicles

GEARS

Ah yes, so thats what I was missing. :rolleyes:

BrianD3 wrote: »

I spend a few hours each day in a 110 bhp Laguna and i have no difficulty safely overtaking lorries and dawdlers, many of them driving cars a lot faster than mine. But according to some posters, I'd be "completely devoid of any driving interest".

You are a driving god, I walk the dog every day and have no problem overtaking parked cars either and I know some can go faster than I am walking. :rolleyes: The average person considering buying a NEW 1.2 octavia would IMHO be devoid of any driving interest because a car like that does not have any in any way.

BrianD3 wrote: »

How about everyone cop on and leave out the smug and patronising comments and assumptions about others. For all you lot know, someone who has a 1.2 Octavia for their daily driver could have a Hayabusa or 911 in the garage at home.

Ah yes the clandestine 911 driver, however they probably would not be asking about overtaking power on the internet if they did.

BrianD3 wrote: »

Oh and I'd be pretty sure that Skoda engineers have done extensive testing on the reliability of the engine without needing to consult internet nerds for their opinions on it.

But they obviously consulted the fanboys.

BrianD3 wrote: »

BTW 1.2 Octavia has a 119 mph top speed, 0-60 in 10.8 secs.

Is that supposed to be a good or a bad thing? Thats really slow for a modern car.

Look you can post all you want about how you can overtake lambos driving at 60kph when you are traveling at 70kph, and how a 1.7ton car with a 1.2 engine is more than fast enough. The OP asked if a 1.2 engine is acceptable in a car that size and the answer is an emphatic NO that engine is no good in a car that size for acceleration, there are plenty of cars around in a similar boat, I have owned some of them and there still crap.

Here are some reviews of this car:

"Basic 1.4 litre petrol engine is a cynical marketing ploy - too slow for all but the least demanding. 1.6 litre FSI petrol and 2.0 litre TDI diesel are the pick of the range." wonder what they would think of a 1.2?

"Only time will tell if this engine is strong enough to shift a car as big as the Octavia."

"What it does lack is sparkle, as it never really excels at anything other than getting the job done. The 1.4 is willing but it can sound rough at times, and you need to rev it to deliver any meaningful performance (0-62mph arrives in 9.7 seconds)." again what must the 1.2 be like

Zonda999

Adrienne Short Roadblock wrote: »

Is that supposed to be a good or a bad thing? Thats really slow for a modern car.

Practically all of the supermini's sold in this country in 2010 so far would have figures a lot worse than this(i.e 0-60 times in the teens) so they are alll completely inadequate for common driving in this country??

By common driving i mean, from the OP's point of view i gather, is only occasional overtaking, not constant speeding and IMHO, the 1.2TSi would do a fine job of that. Lets get some perspective here FFS, you would consider that the C segment(i.e, the segment the Octavia is in) is the biggest selling segment in this country. Up until very recently, the majority of people buying C segment cars would be the buying the base petrol engine available.

Now, the new 1.2TSi in the Octavia is now the basic petrol engine in the range. With 105bhp, and a 0-100km/h time of 10.8 seconds, it is the quickest of the base petrol model C segment cars. Believe it or not, this should make it perfectly adequate for everyday driving in this country. The majority of vehicles on our roads ARE slower than that based on 0-100km/h times, without doubt, a 0-100km/h time of 10.8 seconds is quite respectable in a base model petrol in that segment. I think you need to reconsider what the general driving public considers to be "crap" acceleration and overtaking ability tbh..

Adrienne Short Roadblock wrote: »

"Basic 1.4 litre petrol engine is a cynical marketing ploy - too slow for all but the least demanding. 1.6 litre FSI petrol and 2.0 litre TDI diesel are the pick of the range." wonder what they would think of a 1.2?

"Only time will tell if this engine is strong enough to shift a car as big as the Octavia."

"What it does lack is sparkle, as it never really excels at anything other than getting the job done. The 1.4 is willing but it can sound rough at times, and you need to rev it to deliver any meaningful performance (0-62mph arrives in 9.7 seconds)." again what must the 1.2 be like

Again, from an irish market perspective, these dont really apply when you consider the buyers

"Basic 1.4 litre petrol engine is a cynical marketing ploy - too slow for all but the least demanding. 1.6 litre FSI petrol and 2.0 litre TDI diesel are the pick of the range." Now here, i'm afraid you dont know the octavia petrol range. When they talk of the 1.4, they mean the ancient 80bhp lump that one still gets in the golf mk6, and was used in the Octavia until not so long ago. So when you say "wonder what they would think of a 1.2?", that 1.2 would have 25 extra bhp over that 1.4, and a turbo thrown in. Whats more they 1.6FSi they mention in that quote has been out of production for over 2 years in the Octavia, it has been replaced with the 125bhp 1.4TSi

"Only time will tell if this engine is strong enough to shift a car as big as the Octavia."

They obviously haven't driven the car

"What it does lack is sparkle, as it never really excels at anything other than getting the job done. The 1.4 is willing but it can sound rough at times, and you need to rev it to deliver any meaningful performance (0-62mph arrives in 9.7 seconds)." Now, what car of that type in modern times would you not have to rev to get the best out of it. Obviously at this stage manufacturers need to engineer and gear their cars to be economical and thus have low emissions, without that, they'd be too dear in many markets. Now considering a 1.4 turbo, if the turbo kicked in mad at low revs, what effect do you reckon that might have on fuel consumption?

Owen

zonda999 wrote:

Lets get some perspective here FFS,

Look, I know everyone's discussing the OP's requirements, but I had a 316 as a demo car for 4 months. It had *more* power than this Octavia, and it was still a terrible car to drive. It wasn't even the 0-60 that bothered me, because not everyone's in a rush to get to 60. What annoyed the hell out of me was having to think about gearing down, and nailing the engine to try and get up hills, and on the odd occassion when I needed to overtake the amount of stress it put on me being on the wrong side of the road for far too long.

If the OP lived in Holland, flat roads everywhere, then fine. But if I thought the powerful 3 series was a shocking and scary car, what can this lower power engine be like in the long term when you have to live with it?

BrianD3

Adrienne Short Roadblock wrote: »

Ah yes, so thats what I was missing. :rolleyes:

Seems to be the case, given the way you describe the Octavia as "absolute, unmitigated, terrible, stinking cack" and then go on to recommend a 1.9 diesel Audi instead which apparently has "great grunt". I guess that must be a "red eye" then :rolleyes:

The average person considering buying a NEW 1.2 octavia would IMHO be devoid of any driving interest because a car like that does not have any in any way.

And a 1.9 diesel Audi or Mondeo does?

Ah yes the clandestine 911 driver, however they probably would not be asking about overtaking power on the internet if they did.

Again with the assumptions.

But they obviously consulted the fanboys.

I'm no Skoda fanboy but when I see individuals making speculative comments about reliability and sneering at owners who don't meet their criteria for a petrol head, I'm going to respond.

Is that supposed to be a good or a bad thing? Thats really slow for a modern car.

Not for one with a new list price of 18k. And a car with those performance figures is still adequate for merging onto a motorway, overtaking at illegal speeds, overtaking multiple cars at once. Try being in the right gear and pressing the pedal on the right.

The OP asked if a 1.2 engine is acceptable in a car that size and the answer is an emphatic NO that engine is no good in a car that size for acceleration, there are plenty of cars around in a similar boat, I have owned some of them and there still crap.

...if you don't know how to drive.

Zonda999

PaintDoctor wrote: »

Look, I know everyone's discussing the OP's requirements, but I had a 316 as a demo car for 4 months. It had *more* power than this Octavia, and it was still a terrible car to drive. It wasn't even the 0-60 that bothered me, because not everyone's in a rush to get to 60. What annoyed the hell out of me was having to think about gearing down, and nailing the engine to try and get up hills, and on the odd occassion when I needed to overtake the amount of stress it put on me being on the wrong side of the road for far too long.

If the OP lived in Holland, flat roads everywhere, then fine. But if I thought the powerful 3 series was a shocking and scary car, what can this lower power engine be like in the long term when you have to live with it?

Point taken, but what can i ask were you used to before that car?

I've never driven an E92 316i so i cant comment on that particular car or its particular characteristics but even on paper, it seems a lot faster than nearly all the A, B and C segment cars sold in Ireland

Owen

Zonda999 wrote: »

Point taken, but what can i ask were you used to before that car?

Lots of stuff. M5's, Starlets, a K10 Micra, lots of MINIs, Polo, bits of everything, large cars, small cars, fast cars, slow cars. That's why I'm trying to bring a bit of balance into this debate.

Zonda999 wrote: »

but even on paper, it seems a lot faster than nearly all the A, B and C segment cars sold in Ireland

See, that's the problem. 'On paper' - we're all quick to use stats and comparissons to make our arguments, but the fact is that this is a low power engine for a car that size. The stats on paper have no bearing on actually driving the car, or a car of similar power and weight. Having driven a car with more power and similar weight and found it lacking, I don't see how something the size of a 1 litre bottle of milk pulling a large car will cut the mustard.

Zonda999

PaintDoctor wrote: »

See, that's the problem. 'On paper' - we're all quick to use stats and comparissons to make our arguments, but the fact is that this is a low power engine for a car that size. The stats on paper have no bearing on actually driving the car, or a car of similar power and weight. Having driven a car with more power and similar weight and found it lacking, I don't see how something the size of a 1 litre bottle of milk pulling a large car will cut the mustard.

But you're making assumptions there again at the end

http://www.autocar.co.uk/CarReviews/FirstDrives/Skoda-Yeti-1.2-TSI-S-2WD/241051/

Heres a road test of the famous engine in question in a car AS HEAVY as the octavia, the skoda yeti.

Don’t be deceived by the engine’s underwhelming on-paper figures. In practice the free-revving TSI motor is a rewarding engine to work around urban roads and even on motorways.
Okay, so you’ll find yourself without much instant acceleration for overtaking at high speed

Now, before i;m bitten at for that piece at the end, i dont think any petrol car around that power will give as they say "instant" overtaking ability at high speeds

btkm8unsl0w5r4

Ok lets just say it out loud, a 1.2 turbo Octavia is not a good car. Its a very average car with little power, a engine build by accountants for the green party. The OP asked about overtaking ability and while I am sure it can overtake slow moving traffic overtaking will not be swift and safe unless you have a long stretch of downhill road.

Its an average car build for average irish users who would rather a 10 reg than a decent car. They will fork out 5k on depreciation in 6 months to save 1k in tax and fuel in a year. I am sure the car is fine as a A-B pooter machine however as a driving machine is terribly average.

If you have one or similar I am sorry if this offends, I am sure you can drive yours like an atomic weapon and its just that I am a crap driver and cant seem to ring the performance out of these buzz boxes.

This is not elitist it just reality. hell my 3 bed house is not the biggest or best house in the world and if somebody asked me if it was good for housing 7 people the answer is no, its possible but wont be comfortable. This is reality not sneering at 3 bed houses.

As Paintdoctor said I owned a 316 and it was appalling and dangerous in my opinion. It had less weight, more power and more torque than the octavia in question.

Owen

The only problem with that review is that when you read between the lines, the engine does have issues. It's mated in the review to a 7 speed DSG box, as opposed to a 5/6 speed manual. The reviewer says the box is forever changing ratios to cope with the engine's lower output to compensate and deliver a smooth drive. So whats a manual driver going to have to do to replicate that? Keep changing gears every few seconds to suit the situation?

Zonda999

PaintDoctor wrote: »

The only problem with that review is that when you read between the lines, the engine does have issues. It's mated in the review to a 7 speed DSG box, as opposed to a 5/6 speed manual. The reviewer says the box is forever changing ratios to cope with the engine's lower output to compensate and deliver a smooth drive. So whats a manual driver going to have to do to replicate that? Keep changing gears every few seconds to suit the situation?

Fair point but i think each one of us would need to drive a 6 speed manual 1.2tsi octavia to get a fair outcome to this argument

Owen

Boardsies meet at a Skoda dealership

BrianD3

Octavia 1.2 TSi
105 bhp @ 5000 rpm
175 Nm @ 1550 rpm
1195 kg

E90 316i
115 bhp @ 6000 rpm
150 Nm @ 4300 rpm
1425 kg (not sure about this figure)

The Octavia is a faster accelerating car than the 316i