Will there be a huge difference?

Damokc

Currently I drive a 98 1.4 civic hatch but I am thinking of getting a seat Leon MK1 1.4 or 1.6 5door (family addition).
I would love a Cupra but cant afford it. my question is would there be a huge difference in power between the two 1.4s?

I've googled the specs and i found that the civic I have now puts out 90bhp @5000 rpm but the Leon only has 75bhp @ 4,500rpm.

Would these be peak figures or what? Does it mean the Leon starts to lose power again after 4,500rpm?They're both SOHC.

Surely there shouldn't be that much of a difference between engines of the same capacity.
Sorry if I'm missing something obvious here but I wouldn't be well up on workings of engines.

166man

Those 1.4 VAG engines are really poor engines, I would try to get the 1.6 if I could...There is a thread on here about some poster only getting 19mpg from his 1.4 golf, absolutely shocking fuel consumption. They are also quite underpowered. To answer your question yes if you replace the Honda with a SEAT 1.4 you will notice quite a difference imo...

Good luck though!

colm_mcm

The 1.6 Leon would be in the same ballpark. The civic is a bit lighter

CiniO

Damokc wrote: »

I've googled the specs and i found that the civic I have now puts out 90bhp @5000 rpm but the Leon only has 75bhp @ 4,500rpm.

Would these be peak figures or what? Does it mean the Leon starts to lose power again after 4,500rpm?They're both SOHC.

That's exactly what it is. Peak figures. That's the revolutions at which engine has biggest power. Any revolution higher or lower means less power.

But it doesn't really tell you much about acceleration without knowing vehicles weights, gearbox ratios, and the whole chart of power or torque.

Surely there shouldn't be that much of a difference between engines of the same capacity.
Sorry if I'm missing something obvious here but I wouldn't be well up on workings of engines.

There can be really big differences between engines of the same capacity.

CiniO

OP I just looked into figures.

Your civic does acceleration from 0 - 100km/h in 10.8s;
while Leon 1.4 does 0 - 100km/h in 14.3s

That's a huge difference in my opinion.

Leon 1.6 does 0 - 100km/h in 11.2s which is still worse than your civic, and has avg fuel consumption at 7.1 l/100km


According to manufacturers data, average fuel consumption should be the same at 6.5 l/100km for both 1.4

Damokc

thanks for the replys lads. i've always seen people on about the golfs(vag) 1.4s being poor alright,pity but i think they put all their development into their diesels!!lol!

The 1.6 Leon's seem to be kinda scarce but i'll keep my eyes opened.
I see there is a 1.4s but none of them probably made it across the water,they have 85bhp but as you say hp doesn't necessarily mean quickness?

bazz26

If you are looking for a small capacity engine with respectable performance then look at the MG ZR/ZS 1.4 litre. They have 105bhp and are cheap to buy, try and find a well cared for one but they can suffer from head gasket issues if the coolant level is not watched.

Damokc

yeah i've looked into those before and their engines come in for a bit of criticism.plus they are a bit small.they do look very nice though sporty looking too. are there any other 1.4s with decent performance/5doors/big boot?
AND DO NOT SAY OCTY!!:D i dont want a boat!the only octy id think about getting is a vrs and i cant afford to run one so thats out.

lomb

166man wrote: »

Those 1.4 VAG engines are really poor engines, I would try to get the 1.6 if I could...There is a thread on here about some poster only getting 19mpg from his 1.4 golf, absolutely shocking fuel consumption. They are also quite underpowered. To answer your question yes if you replace the Honda with a SEAT 1.4 you will notice quite a difference imo...

Good luck though!

The 1.4s are crap if you dont put good oil in them from new! Mine in my 03 1.4 golf is plenty quick when nailed(and I have a 225bhp Audi too), gives 40mpg nailed or 45-48 on runs, uses very very little oil(maybe .75 liter every 5000 miles) and has 82000 miles on it. Its as sweet as a nut, only run on fully synth 5-40 from new. Im sure it will do another 82000 reliable miles...
In fairness early 1.4s suffered MAF problems due to crankcase breather vapours clogging the intake, Id avoid like the plague anything earlier than probably 01 due to this. Id check the VAG forums to see when they changed designs.(Had a 99 golf with this problem)
The 1.6 engines were worse than the 1.4s due to crappy 8 valve technology, they didnt rev at all and were more like dull diesels. A good 1.4 16v would be better by far than an 8v 1.6. The 1.6s 8 valvers were also poor on fuel.(Drove an A3 with a 1.6 8valveand was terrible)

Damokc

where did VW get there huge reliability name from so if their early cars were very prone to fault?

si_guru

Damokc wrote: »

where did VW get there huge reliability name from so if their early cars were very prone to fault?

VW started in 1936.... their *early* cars were great!

Sadly all 10 year old cars have problems if they are not looked after!

Did you consider an Avensis?

_Conrad_

Damokc wrote: »

where did VW get there huge reliability name from so if their early cars were very prone to fault?

their early cars? well that was...hmmm.... around WWII and they were pretty good. it's only really the 1.4 originating in the late 90s that was bad.

Anyway neither of those two cars is an any way powerful at all. The civic will presumably feel more lively compared to the heavier seat, but at least the seat is a bit more respectable.

Or you could get a tdi leon instead

_Conrad_

si_guru wrote: »

VW started in 1936.... their *early* cars were great!

Sadly all 10 year old cars have problems if they are not looked after!

Did you consider an Avensis?

got in there just a little before me haha, damn freezing computers. Amazing how people think a 1990s engine is from an "early car"

Damokc

_Conrad_ wrote: »

their early cars? well that was...hmmm.... around WWII and they were pretty good. it's only really the 1.4 originating in the late 90s that was bad.

Anyway neither of those two cars is an any way powerful at all. The civic will presumably feel more lively compared to the heavier seat, but at least the seat is a bit more respectable.

Or you could get a tdi leon instead

Awh you know what I meant about early cars. I wouldn't go for an avensis TBH.And I didn't ask anyone to comment on whether a car was respectable or not.thank you.

getting back to the question at hand anyway.
Would a 1.4/1.6 16v make a big difference?

Hiace.

Damokc wrote: »

where did VW get there huge reliability name from so if their early cars were very prone to fault?

They are still living off the reputation of the beetle, and mark I and II golf.
Just like Massey Ferguson and the 135.

After that its been downhill all the way.
VAG still get away with it because they do nice styling and solid/quality feeling interiors.
Apart from that, they are over rated and over priced shyte.

Suprab1

Hiace. wrote: »

They are still living off the reputation of the beetle, and mark I and II golf.
Just like Massey Ferguson and the 135.

After that its been downhill all the way.
VAG still get away with it because they do nice styling and solid/quality feeling interiors.
Apart from that, they are over rated and over priced shyte.

I agree 100%

166man

lomb wrote: »

The 1.4s are crap if you dont put good oil in them from new! Mine in my 03 1.4 golf is plenty quick when nailed(and I have a 225bhp Audi too), gives 40mpg nailed or 45-48 on runs, uses very very little oil(maybe .75 liter every 5000 miles) and has 82000 miles on it. Its as sweet as a nut, only run on fully synth 5-40 from new. Im sure it will do another 82000 reliable miles...
In fairness early 1.4s suffered MAF problems due to crankcase breather vapours clogging the intake, Id avoid like the plague anything earlier than probably 01 due to this. Id check the VAG forums to see when they changed designs.(Had a 99 golf with this problem)
The 1.6 engines were worse than the 1.4s due to crappy 8 valve technology, they didnt rev at all and were more like dull diesels. A good 1.4 16v would be better by far than an 8v 1.6. The 1.6s 8 valvers were also poor on fuel.(Drove an A3 with a 1.6 8valveand was terrible)

My opinion originates having spent many days in a friends 01 1.4 Golf. It was gutless in most of the gears and fuel economy was woeful. It used an entire tank in just 240 miles. Imo 75bhp just is not enough in those cars. This car has a fsh and only 54k on the clock... In fairness I don't know what oil he has been using but still 19mpg is pathetic..

lomb

166man wrote: »

My opinion originates having spent many days in a friends 01 1.4 Golf. It was gutless in most of the gears and fuel economy was woeful. It used an entire tank in just 240 miles. Imo 75bhp just is not enough in those cars. This car has a fsh and only 54k on the clock... In fairness I don't know what oil he has been using but still 19mpg is pathetic..

Your welcome to drive mine if you dont believe me I never get less than 35 and thats in the city(40 to 48 out of town), and I drive it like I stole it which of course you have to with only 75bhp. It is plenty quick as long as the accelerator is pinned to the floor whenever needed. I think to be honest your friend had the previous version which was poor. Not 19mpg poor (must have been something wrong with that one). Mine has EPC light in the dash(electronic throttle), and had the exhaust breather problem factory fixed, its probably a different engine code to your mates. Im unsure what year VW changed them to the better versions but mine is a Feb 03.

si_guru

Damokc wrote: »

I wouldn't go for an avensis TBH.

The reason I mention the Avensis.. and there are probably some other similar cars is 2 fold.

1. 1.6 litre so the road tax is still reasonable yet the performance and ecomony are both respectable enough.

2. There are loads to choose from, giving you a better chance of finding a nice example.

JimmyCrackCorn

166man wrote: »

Those 1.4 VAG engines are really poor engines, I would try to get the 1.6 if I could...There is a thread on here about some poster only getting 19mpg from his 1.4 golf, absolutely shocking fuel consumption. They are also quite underpowered. To answer your question yes if you replace the Honda with a SEAT 1.4 you will notice quite a difference imo...

Good luck though!

lomb wrote: »

The 1.4s are crap if you dont put good oil in them from new! Mine in my 03 1.4 golf is plenty quick when nailed(and I have a 225bhp Audi too), gives 40mpg nailed or 45-48 on runs, uses very very little oil(maybe .75 liter every 5000 miles) and has 82000 miles on it. Its as sweet as a nut, only run on fully synth 5-40 from new. Im sure it will do another 82000 reliable miles...
In fairness early 1.4s suffered MAF problems due to crankcase breather vapours clogging the intake, Id avoid like the plague anything earlier than probably 01 due to this. Id check the VAG forums to see when they changed designs.(Had a 99 golf with this problem)
The 1.6 engines were worse than the 1.4s due to crappy 8 valve technology, they didnt rev at all and were more like dull diesels. A good 1.4 16v would be better by far than an 8v 1.6. The 1.6s 8 valvers were also poor on fuel.(Drove an A3 with a 1.6 8valveand was terrible)

Sadly also owned a vw golf 1.4. 8v The engine began to fail right on 100k miles, high oil consumption......:(

Had a constant problem with the exhaust manifold separating from the head, it would require a new head casting to fix.

Car was serviced on the button.


If you can move to 1.6 I personally would.

EPM

I'd go with the 1.6, on the Mark 1 it was the 16v 1.6 too which is a decent engine.

Watch the gearboxes though - 1.4 and 1.6 VAG's have very soft boxes so check for bearings on the way out.

Damokc

Damokc wrote: »

yeah i've looked into those before and their engines come in for a bit of criticism.plus they are a bit small.they do look very nice though sporty looking too. are there any other 1.4s with decent performance/5doors/big boot?
AND DO NOT SAY OCTY!!:D i dont want a boat!the only octy id think about getting is a vrs and i cant afford to run one so thats out.

A ZS is by no means a small car in comparison to a Leon or a Civic.

si_guru

RoverJames wrote: »

A ZS is by no means a small car in comparison to a Leon or a Civic.

A ZS is a Civic right?

Damokc

ya aren't those Rovers/MGs 5doors based on civics?
the MGZRs look small(especially the boot) the ZS are a fine looking sporty saloon alright though.
Avensis's : i have this thing in my head about them being either farmers cars or garda cars.:o

somebody mentioned diesels but i cant afford a small engine diesel as they really didnt start to be made till around 04 that way which would leave me with 1.9s which would rape me on insurance and tax.