Anyone driving a 1.0 TSI Golf?

DaveyDave

Just wondering if anyone here is driving a 1.0 TSI Golf. Looking at a MK7.5 with it, sounds like a decent engine. It's a 3 cylinder so the start-stop feature apparently isn't as smooth as the 1.4. Not a huge amount of information regarding fuel consumption though. 110bhp, 0-100 in 9.9 seconds, very quiet running and is supposed to be very nice to drive.

I do an even mix of city and dual carriageway/backroads. Official figures are 4.3-5.7L/100km, 4.8 Combined. I know these figures are generally hard to replicate in real driving but I'd be happy with 5.7L/100km.

Wondering if anyone is driving one of these? I think they're fairly new so don't know how many of them are on the roads

Toyotafanboi

The engine only came available in the mk7.5 Golf so it's only out a few weeks at this stage so I wouldn't say there will be too many on here driving them yet.

I had a spin out of one a couple of weeks back and though it was nice, if anything it felt better than the outgoing 1.2 around town. I couldn't comment on fuel economy but I'd be surprised if it couldn't give you 5.7l/100km combined. Stop start del as seamless/ obvious as anything else I'd ever driven.

bazz26

That engine has been in the Octavia since the beginning of this year. Might be worth having a test drive in one of them to give you a good idea of how it feels.

Doltanian

Anyone driving one of these would want their head examined. I almost have more power in my lawnmower, compression ratios are way too high and that small engine is too small for a car like a golf, a Fiat Cinqcuento maybe but not a VW. A receipt for trouble and will break your heart with mechanical trouble later. Do yourself a favour now and buy a 2 litre you'll have power to overtake and the bigger engine won't blow up itself up from stress a few years down the road.

xabi

...but what about the cheap tax

Doltanian

xabi wrote: »

...but what about the cheap tax

The few Euro more in tax and fuel will pale in comparison to big big repair costs later on, but I'm eleven years into a now 20 year old car which I bought when it was 9 years old. If you change the car often then who cares. But your losing in depreciation then.

ba_barabus

Doltanian wrote: »

Anyone driving one of these would want their head examined. I almost have more power in my lawnmower, compression ratios are way too high and that small engine is too small for a car like a golf, a Fiat Cinqcuento maybe but not a VW. A receipt for trouble and will break your heart with mechanical trouble later. Do yourself a favour now and buy a 2 litre you'll have power to overtake and the bigger engine won't blow up itself up from stress a few years down the road.

That sounds similar to all the rubbish posted by those who never drove a 1.2TSI when they came out amd those who said a Duster was the worst thing on 4 wheels and would be worth nowt .

chicorytip

Doltanian wrote:

Anyone driving one of these would want their head examined. I almost have more power in my lawnmower, compression ratios are way too high and that small engine is too small for a car like a golf, a Fiat Cinqcuento maybe but not a VW. A receipt for trouble and will break your heart with mechanical trouble later. Do yourself a favour now and buy a 2 litre you'll have power to overtake and the bigger engine won't blow up itself up from stress a few years down the road.

The power output is 100 b.h.p. which is more than adequate. The much older 1.2 unit in the Polo is the one that is troublesome.

vectra

chicorytip wrote: »

The power output is 100 b.h.p. which is more than adequate. The much older 1.2 unit in the Polo is the one that is troublesome.

I thought it was 110 or 115 bhp ?

colm_mcm

Doltanian wrote: »

Anyone driving one of these would want their head examined. I almost have more power in my lawnmower, compression ratios are way too high and that small engine is too small for a car like a golf, a Fiat Cinqcuento maybe but not a VW. A receipt for trouble and will break your heart with mechanical trouble later. Do yourself a favour now and buy a 2 litre you'll have power to overtake and the bigger engine won't blow up itself up from stress a few years down the road.

There is the €4K extra for the 2.0 to consider too..

j4vier

There is huge misconception about modern 1.0 turbo charged engines, placed in cars which traditionally would have had 1.4 or 1.6 l engines. I don't know about the WV one specifically, but if it's anything like the Opel one in the Astra it's more than adequate. I was sceptical too until I drove one. I find it fast enough, quick enough and more economical than a 1.2 petrol engine which was in a 2008 corsa

shane b

A guy i work with bought an Octavia with the 1.0 engine about 2 wks ago as the wifes car and they are very happy with it. He lives in lucan so does a fair bit short runs and city driving. They had a petrol peuguot 407 before this so hes says fuel economy is great comparedvto the 407. Couldnt quote any figures yet.

SBPhoto

xabi wrote: »

...but what about the cheap tax

Sure all new cars have cheap tax now petrol and deisel,

noelf

From Autocar ..

IrishHomer

I have a 151 Polo 1.0 litre petrol and its brilliant. I also have a 2.0 litre BMW 3 series petrol and the Polo carries 4 adults along hills and motorways perfectly fine.

BorneTobyWilde

Has it a turbo like a fiesta 1.0

BorneTobyWilde

I would imagine a new nice spec Fiesta 1.0 ecoboost turbo would be more fun to drive.

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

ba_barabus

Patww79 wrote: »

In fairness the poster earlier questioned the longevity of pushing a tiny engine to that bhp in a car that size and it's one thing that can't be refuted at this stage, so worth thinking about before lepping down their throat. We don't know at this stage, but they haven't the best track record with smaller engines.

We've been running a 1.2TSI since 13 with no issues

TBi

Patww79 wrote: »

In fairness the poster earlier questioned the longevity of pushing a tiny engine to that bhp in a car that size and it's one thing that can't be refuted at this stage, so worth thinking about before lepping down their throat. We don't know at this stage, but they haven't the best track record with smaller engines.

Diesels tend to run at higher boost/pressure and are fine. So probably these engines will be fine.

DaveyDave

Small turbo engines are definitely coming back and for good reason, they're efficient. I was looking at the 1.2 Polo (90hp DSG) and have no issue with the Golf having a smaller engine. It has a higher power to weight ratio so nothing to worry about there.

I'm driving a 1.6 diesel i30 at the moment. I couldn't care less about the physical size of the engine. The economy is better, it's quicker and it's much quieter. The only thing I have to lose is weight by having a lighter engine

I've heard nothing but good things about the EcoBoost engines from Ford that have been around for 4-5 years now? In terms of reliability, I'll be getting a new car in another 3 years so I don't need to worry about it the turbo blowing up

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

I would imagine a new nice spec Fiesta 1.0 ecoboost turbo would be more fun to drive.

The Fiesta is too small and I'm not a fan of the interiors of Ford's at all. The Golf is much more simplistic.

noelf wrote: »

From Autocar ..

Thanks for posting that

BorneTobyWilde

Fiesta seats 5 like a Golf, not that many people will every seat 5.
Space in both are very much like for like.
The new 2017 Fiesta 1.0 Ecoboost turbo with a nicely specked pack would be cheaper than a golf?
Could get all the bells and whistles on a 5 door Fiesta and it would still be cheaper than the basic 1.0 Golf . Fiesta lighter too/

Toyotafanboi

I'd say a fully loaded Fiesta still has less standard kit than a new basic Golf.

It's comparing apples and oranges anyway, the Fiesta is more of a Polo competitor.

vectra

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Fiesta seats 5 like a Golf, not that many people will every seat 5.
Space in both are very much like for like.
The new 2017 Fiesta 1.0 Ecoboost turbo with a nicely specked pack would be cheaper than a golf?
Could get all the bells and whistles on a 5 door Fiesta and it would still be cheaper than the basic 1.0 Golf . Fiesta lighter too/

Toyotafanboi wrote: »

I'd say a fully loaded Fiesta still has less standard kit than a new basic Golf.

It's comparing apples and oranges anyway, the Fiesta is more of a Polo competitor.

The Focus 1.0 Ecoboost is also available and would compare in size to the Golf.
125bhp
available in 140 bhp in the UK

Toyotafanboi

I agree with that. I meant in terms of standard specification.

The in laws bought a 171 Focus Titanium and it's spartan compared to Mrs TFB's Golf Highline so I'd say a fully loaded Fiesta would be worse again.

chicorytip

vectra wrote:

I thought it was 110 or 115 bhp ?

I read a review where it stated 100, I'm pretty sure. Anyway, more than enough power for everyday driving.

DaveyDave

I don't know much about the current Focus, the brief reviews I've seen say the EcoBoost engine fuel economy isn't great, I've seen people getting high 30/low 40? Apparently the interior is poor quality too? My mam had a 2013 Zetec and it didn't even have electric rear windows and that wasn't even the base model :O

There's no competition as I don't like the interior of the Focus and the Golf has a bigger boot, more rear headroom and easier door access. I prefer the styling of the Golf exterior too. I know it's a "boring" boxy look to some but I like the clean look of it. Saw a white MK7.5 today and the rear LED lights were calling my name

I've been the passenger of a number of VWs including several Golfs and there's just something about then them that's really refined.

I'm sure the Focus is a great car, most reviews say it's the best to drive of them all with the Golf a close second, but the Golf seems to be the best all rounder. The Highline has adaptive cruise control, dual climate, sports seats, sport suspension, tint and the electronic screen for the gauges as standard. Then I'll throw on some extras

Toyotafanboi

Is high 30's to low 40's still not quite impressive for a petrol Focus. Back when Focus' were 1.4 and 1.6 n/a petrol, figures like those were nothing more than fantasy I'd say?

Four Phucs Ache

Toyotafanboi wrote: »

Is high 30's to low 40's still not quite impressive for a petrol Focus. Back when Focus' were 1.4 and 1.6 n/a petrol, figures like those were nothing more than fantasy I'd say?

My 04 focus 1.4 is giving me 44mpg consistently for the past year, very little traffic/ town driving though which helps.


Pulled up beside a one of these golf's about a month ago in a garage.Dark grey and spanking new but no badge.Checked the reg and it said 1.0 tsi so I waited till the owner drove off and it was very quiet on startup and driving away.Very nice to look at.

noelf

And this is the summery from What Car ..

Henry Ford III

I ran 2 Fiesta ST's which had a lot of power. Both averaged 40+mpg with mixed driving and conditions.

A turbo petrol engine can be surprisingly economical if driven largely off boost.

Lantus

Love my 1.2 n my Skoda. Smooth and faster than my old 1.4 golf. Economy is great.

I would consider the 1litre even in an Octavia. It's the future of petrol engines.

Turned off my stop start. Unless your stationary for hours it won't really save anything. It's 0.5l/1hr so 1 litre of fuel for 2 hours of idling. I'd be lucky if I was stationary for an hour a week so my savings are sub 35eu a year.

It's good to see new technology but the fuel economy test is the real reason this was brought in. They build in huge periods of being stationary to average out much better figures overall.

BorneTobyWilde

Look at Formula 1, they used to have big v12 3.5 L engines. Now all formual 1 cars use a little 1.6 that is faster.

Lantus

noelf wrote:

And this is the summery from What Car ..

Makes good points about diesel Vs petrol costs. A diesel might deliver 1 to 2 l/100km better economy over a modern petrol. So if you drive 100km a day your saving say 2.70 a day. Let's say 15 a week. That's about 750 a year. However most diesels cost more to buy so you need to save at least that much to make it worthwhile paying the extra. That's either very high mileage or a very long term ownership curve or combinations of both plus possibly cars where the price gap narrows.

Then it's your own mileage factors and driving. I do drive 100km a day and the figures told me I would be lucky to break even over 3 years. On a pcp deal that made no sense.

RedorDead

The guys in completecar.ie gave it an excellent review. Link here:

https://www.completecar.ie/car-reviews/article/Volkswagen/Golf/Golf_1.0_TSI/1181/7195/2017-Volkswagen-Golf-1.0-TSI-review.html

vectra

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Look at Formula 1, they used to have big v12 3.5 L engines. Now all formual 1 cars use a little 1.6 that is faster.

That wouldnt be a just comparison.

noelf

I had a brief spin in one today in Western Motors Galway nice interior upgrade from my 152 Golf .. rear view camera is crystal clear .. sat nav view is directly in front of you .. had a look under the bonnet lots of space around engine .. fuel read out was showing 21.9 litres per 100 km : / (

DaveyDave

So I ordered my Golf yesterday White, Highline DSG with the technology pack including rear camera, high beam assist and heated seats. I also got park assist and keyless entry. I would have loved the running indicators and electronic driver's seat but they weren't willing to go down on the price any further and I couldn't justify spending €450 for indicators and €500 for seat adjustment, happy with the stock sport seats.

I didn't get metallic paint because I think Volkswagens look great in white. Opted against upgrading the wheels too because they're €1,000 and I'm happy with the stock 17"

I would have liked the flappy paddle steering wheel too but that's pure novelty. I spent two weeks driving a Mustang EcoBoost Premium in Orlando last month and only used the paddles a few times but the push button start, running indicators and electronic seats (which were heated and cooled!) were some of my favourite features. Maybe the next time

Not sure how good their navigation system is but if I don't like it I can always use trusty Google Maps with Android Auto I hear the infotainment system is pretty good to use and I'm looking forward to all the features I can play around with.

Hopefully it will be less than 12 weeks as I know there's more boats from Germany this time of year especially with 172 reg.

Oooh I'm excited

Toyotafanboi

That's exciting!

Are you sure it doesn't have the flappy paddles? They were standard on the last of the pre facelift cars, it may have continued over.

The infotainment system is very handy with app connect etc but the nav is rubbish.

Keep us posted!

vectra

Nav is great inthe VAG cars.
Running indicators may~~~~ MAY be something you could activate viw vcds .
Flappy paddles are option with heated steering wheel I think.
Sounds like a lovely car, And I totally agree with you. White looks great on them.
Well wear.

DaveyDave

So I've had the car a month now and I'm a little bit surprised at the fuel economy. Still having a bit of fun putting the foot down a couple of times but for the most part driving normal.

Official figures are 4.3L-5.8L/100km (49-65MPG), I was hoping to get close to 5.8L with my mix of driving but surprisingly I get 6.3-7L/100km (40-45MPG) taking it easy. Even on the 60kph back roads from work at 1am with no traffic, 48mpg is about what I'm getting when really trying.

A return trip to the airport was about 48MPG, motorway the whole way. I know it's cold so it will lower MPG but it's not super cold, yet, and my usage of AC and heating is minimal.

I work shifts so never drive in rush hour traffic, driving through the city would be at 10pm so very little traffic, mainly just traffic lights and I have start/stop on. I was expecting a bit more between the mostly ideal conditions and my frugal driving!

ba_barabus

It will take a few thousands kms for the engine to loosen up so it may improve with usage.

bazz26

I think some people might forget that this is still a small capacity petrol engine with a turbo attached to it to boost power which will naturally use a bit more fuel to deliver that power. 48 mpg would be good in my view.

ba_barabus

bazz26 wrote: »

I think some people might forget that this is still a small capacity petrol engine with a turbo attached to it to boost power which will naturally use a bit more fuel to deliver that power. 48 mpg would be good in my view.

Our 1.2T Yeti always get about 42mpg. Given the size of the car I'm impressed tbh.

vectra

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Look at Formula 1, they used to have big v12 3.5 L engines. Now all formual 1 cars use a little 1.6 that is faster.

I wouldn't go by that now.
Take away all the Hybrid etc and those 1.6 engines would hardly shift anything.

ba_barabus

vectra wrote: »

I wouldn't go by that now.
Take away all the Hybrid etc and those 1.6 engines would hardly shift anything.

They used pretty powerful 1.5l in the 80s

vectra

ba_barabus wrote: »

They used pretty powerful 1.5l in the 80s

They may very well have.
But i wouldnt make the comparison above.

ba_barabus

vectra wrote: »

They may very well have.
But i wouldnt make the comparison above.

I'm with you on that last point.

Phil.x

DaveyDave wrote: »

So I've had the car a month now and I'm a little bit surprised at the fuel economy. Still having a bit of fun putting the foot down a couple of times but for the most part driving normal.

Official figures are 4.3L-5.8L/100km (49-65MPG), I was hoping to get close to 5.8L with my mix of driving but surprisingly I get 6.3-7L/100km (40-45MPG) taking it easy. Even on the 60kph back roads from work at 1am with no traffic, 48mpg is about what I'm getting when really trying.

A return trip to the airport was about 48MPG, motorway the whole way. I know it's cold so it will lower MPG but it's not super cold, yet, and my usage of AC and heating is minimal.

I work shifts so never drive in rush hour traffic, driving through the city would be at 10pm so very little traffic, mainly just traffic lights and I have start/stop on. I was expecting a bit more between the mostly ideal conditions and my frugal driving!

I get that and sometimes better from my 1.8petrol civic.

CIP4

I bought a Leon FR 1.4tsi last year with the expectation it would do 40mpg which I think was realistic. Initially it did 39-40mpg when the mileage was low and kept improving for the first 10k km as the car loosened up. Now it averages 44mpg on my work commute of 25km back roads each way and tipping around in general. On a long journey taking it easy I would average 48 mpg all these figures are calculated tank averages don’t go by the trip but that normally displays 5.9-6.4l/100km tank average.

For the ops case I think it was unrealistic to buy the car with the expectation it would average over 50mpg. At the same time considering it’s still new with low mileage what your getting sounds good. Op I would say just enjoy the car fair enough keep and eye on consumption but don’t obsess about it as ultimately you didn’t buy a 30k new golf to save money no matter how good it is on fuel the savings won’t come close to covering the depreciation.

DaveyDave

Running errands gets me 38-40 at the moment so I'm surprised there's such little gain by driving easy on the empty back roads so I think I'm going to just drive it normally and not fuss about MPG and hope it improves.