1.4 tsi Engine

from_atozinc

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 ?

jayc12

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

R.O.R

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

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

Mister Jingles

It does, hence TSI (Turbo Stratified Injection)

jayc12

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

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.

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 ?

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?

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.

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.

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.

el diablo

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

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 ?

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!

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.

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.

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.

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!!!

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 ?

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?

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 ?

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 The problem with them is that if something does go wrong outside warranty it costs a lot to fix.

Bald? er, dash!

from_atozinc wrote: »

What car did you buy to replace the Jetta ?

Small oil burner with two Q's

el diablo

Bald? er, dash! wrote: »

Small oil burner with two Q's

Quahqai 1.5 DCi.

Bald? er, dash!

Yeah, FML!

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

Bald? er, dash!

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

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 !

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.

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!

L-M

Father has a 2010 Scirocco 1.4 TSI with 20,000kms on it. Not a single problem so far but we've serviced it twice. (One main dealer)

He averages 38 mph and that is just driving through town to work and back, pretty much 100% of the time.

I like it to drive, it's a nice little pokey engine and there is good pull in all the gears.

from_atozinc

Limerick man wrote: »

Father has a 2010 Scirocco 1.4 TSI with 20,000kms on it. Not a single problem so far but we've serviced it twice. (One main dealer)

He averages 38 mph and that is just driving through town to work and back, pretty much 100% of the time.

I like it to drive, it's a nice little pokey engine and there is good pull in all the gears.

Ok but which horse power is this car ?

L-M

from_atozinc wrote: »

Ok but which horse power is this car ?

Sorry, the 122 bhp.

Nissan doctor

Cars having reached 17k and 20k without issue is no gauge of reliability whatsoever.

You'd expect any new engine to manage that and more even without servicing.

Leonard Hofstadter

Nissan doctor wrote: »

Cars having reached 17k and 20k without issue is no gauge of reliability whatsoever.

You'd expect any new engine to manage that and more even without servicing.

To be fair, it's a VW we're talking about here, so managing 20k without problems is something to shout about:D!

166man

Nissan doctor wrote: »

Cars having reached 17k and 20k without issue is no gauge of reliability whatsoever.

You'd expect any new engine to manage that and more even without servicing.

Still it's nearly a three year old car to be fair... Those 1.4T's sound like sh1te though...:D

gs300

I have a Seat Leon 08 with the 1.4 tsi (122), only issue I have had on it is a water pump at 68k but nothing else.

It has a good bit of poke, I find it best from 3rd it give the most from the turbo.

All in all I think it's great and would recommend it.

Matt Simis

166man wrote: »

Still it's nearly a three year old car to be fair...

Nearly 3 years old!? 995 days or more accurately about 1200hours actual operation time without engine failure, how could that possibly be an achievement!?
20k miles I guess puts them in the middle of the bathtub now:

166man

Matt Simis wrote: »

Nearly 3 years old!? 995 days or more accurately about 1200hours actual operation time without engine failure, how could that possibly be an achievement!?
20k miles I guess puts them in the middle of the bathtub now:

Jeez chill man... I drive an Alfa, goes about 3 hours without engine failure, cut me some slack...:D

unkel

I've driven several cars with the 1.4 122BHP engine (including a Touran - a big enough MPV). All with manual 5 and 6 speed transmissions

I found the engine very pokey, plenty of power to drive a heavy enough car. Fuel consumption was very good for the types of car I drove too

That said, the amount of torque available at very low rpms was.... about zero....absolutely no go at all from standstill...

amm2

Frend of mine in Norway has Passat 1.4 TSI 122 bhp; 95000 km for approx 3 years; Just 2 bulbs gone, that's it, nothing else

from_atozinc

unkel wrote: »

I've driven several cars with the 1.4 122BHP engine (including a Touran - a big enough MPV). All with manual 5 and 6 speed transmissions

I found the engine very pokey, plenty of power to drive a heavy enough car. Fuel consumption was very good for the types of car I drove too

That said, the amount of torque available at very low rpms was.... about zero....absolutely no go at all from standstill...

Sounds good Unkel.

So the 122 BHP version seems to be fairly reliable for a VW : )

Anyone have any comments on the DSG ?

Stallingrad

I haven't heard any horror stories about the 122bhp version and it has been around for a while. I have it in my car and think it is a cracking motor, very refined at low revs and then fairly goes when the turbo is on song. Also getting 7.2l/100 which is fine by me.

mad muffin

unkel wrote: »

I've driven several cars with the 1.4 122BHP engine (including a Touran - a big enough MPV). All with manual 5 and 6 speed transmissions

I found the engine very pokey, plenty of power to drive a heavy enough car. Fuel consumption was very good for the types of car I drove too

That said, the amount of torque available at very low rpms was.... about zero....absolutely no go at all from standstill...

As an owner of one of those 122 bhp I can't agree with that statement of no torque at low revs.

The engine develops its max torque of around 200nm from about 1500 rpm all the way to around 4500rpm. And 80% of its torque from 1250rpm.

I've driven up an incline with a car full of people in 6th gear from 1500rpm and it accelerated with out a problem.

from_atozinc

Does the mark 6 Golf GTI ( with DSG ) have the same reliability problems as the 140 and 170 BHP 1.4 tsi's ?

rocky

no, it doesn't have a supercharger.

L-M

Nissan doctor wrote: »

Cars having reached 17k and 20k without issue is no gauge of reliability whatsoever.

You'd expect any new engine to manage that and more even without servicing.

You're pointing out the obvious there, hence why I mentioned the mileage in my post. It was just my 2c.

from_atozinc

Thoughts on this car :

http://www.carzone.ie/search/Volkswagen/Golf/COMFORT-/31313468353335180/advert?channel=CARS

Mileage a bit high maybe for a 3 year old Petrol car ?

L-M

from_atozinc wrote: »

Thoughts on this car :

http://www.carzone.ie/search/Volkswagen/Golf/COMFORT-/31313468353335180/advert?channel=CARS

Mileage a bit high maybe for a 3 year old Petrol car ?

It's as good as four years now. Still high, though.

from_atozinc

Limerick man wrote: »

It's as good as four years now. Still high, though.

Anyone else ?