Buying a second hand Golf (1.4 TSI)

Unregistered. · 21-01-2012 07:27PM #1

Hi all,

I like golfs. So I will be looking at second hand golfs. I am curious if anyone knows / has experience of what I have to look out for when buying the TSI variant. It will most likely probably be 122BHP engine, but wouldn't rule out the 140.

Is there anything I need to be aware of or check with the engine or gearbox? With regards servicing, is there anything that needs to be replaced after X miles etc? So I know that everything is up to scratch when inquiring.

Thanks in advance.

coylemj · 21-01-2012 07:33PM

Mk V or VI? Petrol or Diesel? Manual or Auto (DSG)? Roughly what year?

Leonard Hofstadter · 21-01-2012 07:41PM

The 140 has a supercharger and a turbocharger, so it's another thing to go wrong (and it does), so I'd be looking for the 122 bhp version, which is turbo only and seems to be reliable thus far.

Personally I don't see what's so special about the Golf (I'd much rather the Focus or the Astra) but each to their own.

Unregistered. · 21-01-2012 08:25PM

coylemj wrote: »

Mk V or VI? Petrol or Diesel? Manual or Auto (DSG)? Roughly what year?

2007 at a minimum. Ideally 2008 for the cheaper road tax. Would be looking at a manual gearbox. I've read that these engines come with a 6-speed.

captainspeed wrote: »

The 140 has a supercharger and a turbocharger, so it's another thing to go wrong (and it does), so I'd be looking for the 122 bhp version, which is turbo only and seems to be reliable thus far.

Personally I don't see what's so special about the Golf (I'd much rather the Focus or the Astra) but each to their own.

I driven both an Astra and a Leon but never a Golf! I am intrigued by the fuel consumption of the TSI engines. I know that Seat also have the same engines, however I'm not mad on the look of the new Leon. Not when compared to the Mk V or VI Golf. I do like the "R" spec body kit on the Leon which I have seen on carzone etc.

veetwin · 21-01-2012 08:50PM

coylemj wrote: »

Mk V or VI? Petrol or Diesel? Manual or Auto (DSG)? Roughly what year?

Never heard of a diesel TSI Golf!

OP I have or rather the other half has a 08 TSI 122bhp (GT Sport). Granted it puts up very little mileage but has been very reliable so far. 35K kms from new.

Personally I think it's a great car and wouldn't change it for anything else. I remember at the time we bought it a mate got a new focus. I sat into it and thought we've bought the right car! Fuel consumption is in the mid to late 30's but thats nearly all short city trips.. Nice car to drive when you get some road without being super fast or anything. Boot is a bit small and probably should have specced a MFSW and bluetooth but no matter.

Unregistered. · 21-01-2012 09:00PM

veetwin wrote: »

Never heard of a diesel TSI Golf!

OP I have or rather the other half has a 08 TSI 122bhp (GT Sport).

GT spec does look nice!

coylemj · 21-01-2012 09:06PM

veetwin wrote: »

Never heard of a diesel TSI Golf!

Conceded, I was thinking of the Golf GT when I read 'TSI'.

OP, I had the 170 bhp 1.4 TSI manual, it delivered seriously good economy when driven easy i.e. if the turbo needle stayed to the left but the power was always there when you needed it.

The 170 bhp (actually 170 ps = 168 bhp) engine gets bad press here on boards for unreliability but I had mine from new for 4 years & 50K kms and never had any problem with it though it's no longer available in the Mk VI.

If you do go for an 07 GT, make sure it's second half 07 and has a 'GT Sport' badge on the radiator grille ('TSI' on the tailgate), it has a better spec as they merged the Sportline spec into the GT in about July 2007. New tax regime came in for second half 2008.

bazz26 · 21-01-2012 09:43PM

captainspeed wrote: »

The 140 has a supercharger and a turbocharger, so it's another thing to go wrong (and it does), so I'd be looking for the 122 bhp version, which is turbo only and seems to be reliable thus far.

Personally I don't see what's so special about the Golf (I'd much rather the Focus or the Astra) but each to their own.

My understanding is that the 140bhp version is a retuned version of the turbo charged 122bhp version and it is the 170bhp version that was turbo and super charged.

Celtic Mech · 21-01-2012 09:52PM

Just to add to this, I have a Jetta 1.4 TSI 140bhp...exact same car with a bigger boot at the end of the day. As previously said above, It gives great economy. I drove roundtrip to Cavan and home and it averages 5.8L/100Km (approx 48 mpg)...Mainly Good roads and motorway. It gives good performance. I think the 168bhp variant is just a bit too much for a 1.4 especially if its driven hard all the time, but if not then its grand.
I have had zero problems with the car and i not just saying that to paint it in a good light. The previous car was a 3 series BMW which gave a good bit of trouble! As for road tax...dont be fooled by thinking the 1.4 140bhp is low emissions...tax is 477per year (last time i paid). Im not too sure about the 122bhp but it wont be in the low bank for sure.
All in all, a nice engine that gives a good balance of power and economy.

Its just my 2 cents....

Celtic Mech · 21-01-2012 10:01PM

bazz26 wrote: »

My understanding is that the 140bhp version is a retuned version of the turbo charged 122bhp version and it is the 170bhp version that was turbo and super charged.

The 140BHP 100% has both a Supercharger and a Turbo. The 170 is a remapped 140.

Leonard Hofstadter · 21-01-2012 10:27PM

coylemj wrote: »

The 170 bhp (actually 170 ps = 168 bhp) engine gets bad press here on boards for unreliability but I had mine from new for 4 years & 50K kms and never had any problem with it though it's no longer available in the Mk VI.

You're going to have to do an awful lot better than that to try and convince me that the 1.4 TSI with both the turbo and supercharger is reliable!

50,000 km (that is only 30,000 miles after all) is nothing on an engine, unless of course modern VWs are so bad that for them to get that far without going wrong is an achievement:)!

I'm sorry but it really annoys me when someone talks about how "reliable" their car is only to say the car has only 50k or 60k or 70k km on the clock!

A car should not develop a fault until it has at least 160,000 km on the clock anyway!

166man · 21-01-2012 10:35PM

captainspeed wrote: »

The 140 has a supercharger and a turbocharger, so it's another thing to go wrong (and it does), so I'd be looking for the 122 bhp version, which is turbo only and seems to be reliable thus far.

Personally I don't see what's so special about the Golf (I'd much rather the Focus or the Astra) but each to their own.

I always thought the 122bhp engine was just turbocharged. Didn't know it had a super as well. You sure about that Captain?;):D

EPM · 21-01-2012 10:35PM

There's also a load of sport plus spec leons with that engine and they are a better spec. There are two variants of that spec which was strange but as long as its got rear electric windows its got other nice extras too.

Either way, that engine is a sweet unit. Feels a lot more powerful than it is and relatively light on juice if driven properly.

coylemj · 21-01-2012 10:49PM

captainspeed wrote: »

You're going to have to do an awful lot better than that to try and convince me that the 1.4 TSI with both the turbo and supercharger is reliable!

Well at least I actually owned and drove one, what is your prejudice opinion based on?

Leonard Hofstadter · 21-01-2012 10:54PM

166man wrote: »

I always thought the 122bhp engine was just turbocharged. Didn't know it had a super as well. You sure about that Captain?;):D

Did you read all of my post? I don't think you did;)!

alexmcred · 21-01-2012 10:58PM

I bought a new 08 TSI 140 and unfortunately it broke my heart with various issues loved the car to bits but a valve in the/or for the turbo failed one night as I was over taking and that along with the other problems some major others not I decided to move it on.

Was a cracking car to drive and I really hope who ever bought it after me had much better luck with it than I did.

Fuel wise as long as you take it easy with it but like any turbo petrol car if your using the turbo a lot it will happily drink away.

Forgot to add as someone else posted they were cheaper to tax prior to June 2008 when emissions kicked in

166man · 22-01-2012 12:57AM

captainspeed wrote: »

Did you read all of my post? I don't think you did;)!

Jaysus you're right apologies don't know what's up with missing that!:o

George Dalton · 22-01-2012 01:36PM

The TSI engine in twincharged form is very complex and things do go wrong with them. Most of the issues they give are relatively cheap to fix though there are some expensive faults as well.

There are various solenoid valves and sensors fitted which control the power delivery and changeover from supercharger to turbocharger and they pretty much all give trouble. I think the high rate of failure is because of the high levels of heat in the engine bay. The good news is that the solenoids/sensors are all pretty cheap and easy to change.

However, there are two more serious and expensive issues that affect this engine as well, these are the water pump and the timing chain. Seeing evidence of either of these two jobs having been done would be a major plus point in any car you are considering buying.

The electromagnetic clutch mechanism that is used to engage/disengage the supercharger is built into the water pump. This mechanism can stop working. The water pump itself can also fail and start to leak. The new pump is expensive and time consuming to change so the whole job ends up costing quite a bit.

The timing chains stretch on them as well. This is turning out to be a pretty big problem with them. You can see some pictures below of the old chain on top and the new chain fitted in the bottom picture. The circled area in each picture shows the tensioner, you can judge how stretched the chain is by how much the tensioner plunger is protruding from the tensioner body. It is clear from the pictures that the old chain had stretched quite a bit. The car in question had only 72,000kms done.

Elessar · 22-01-2012 01:49PM

The TSI engines are really superb.

Have you considered the 1.2 TSI? I bought a Golf last week and was initially mad for the 1.4 TSI but the dealer offered a test drive in the 1.2 and I was amazed. Superb torque for such a small engine and even better fuel economy. It completely swayed my decision. Cracking engine. It would be easier to sell on/trade in aswell. They are superb no matter what you choose.

Unregistered. · 24-01-2012 09:13PM

George Dalton wrote: »

However, there are two more serious and expensive issues that affect this engine as well, these are the water pump and the timing chain. Seeing evidence of either of these two jobs having been done would be a major plus point in any car you are considering buying.

Excellent, this is just the kind of stuff I was looking for.

George Dalton wrote: »

It is clear from the pictures that the old chain had stretched quite a bit. The car in question had only 72,000kms done.

Any idea of how many kilometres it should have lasted for? Would it be not be scheduled as one of the things to be replaced after a few years / X,000 KM?

George Dalton · 24-01-2012 09:58PM

In theory it should last the life of the engine. There is no recommended replacement interval like you would get with a timing belt. VW recommend changing the turbo oil feed line and the oil pump pickup pipe for revised versions as well as the new chain and associated parts. This is supposed to avoid a repeat occurrence.

Unregistered. · 29-01-2012 07:39PM

As an aside, I don't understand why the standard VW 1.4 is only rated at 80BHp. Isn't this very low for a modern petrol engine? Do people think it's low on power to keep reliability up / costs down / make the TSi's look even better ? Any opinions on the matter?

bazz26 · 29-01-2012 11:01PM

Unregistered. wrote: »

As an aside, I don't understand why the standard VW 1.4 is only rated at 80BHp. Isn't this very low for a modern petrol engine? Do people think it's low on power to keep reliability up / costs down / make the TSi's look even better ? Any opinions on the matter?

That 80bhp engine was carried over from the MkIV Golf and it was far from reliable.

George Dalton · 29-01-2012 11:24PM

The standard 80bhp 1.4 shares surprisingly little with the TSI engine.

I reckon 80bhp is about average for a normal 1.4 petrol, the following figures are taken from a browse through Autodata for model year 2008/2009 Golf sized cars:

Peugeot/Citroen 88bhp
Ford 80bhp
Honda 83bhp
Mazda 84bhp

Toyota and Renault are about the only mainstream manufacturer who offers a 1.4 with significantly more power at 96 and 98bhp respectively.

bazz26 · 30-01-2012 12:51AM

George Dalton wrote: »

The standard 80bhp 1.4 shares surprisingly little with the TSI engine.

I reckon 80bhp is about average for a normal 1.4 petrol, the following figures are taken from a browse through Autodata for model year 2008/2009 Golf sized cars:

Peugeot/Citroen 88bhp
Ford 80bhp
Honda 83bhp
Mazda 84bhp

Toyota and Renault are about the only mainstream manufacturer who offers a 1.4 with significantly more power at 96 and 98bhp respectively.

Rover K Series 1.4 had 105bhp back in the early 1990s.

Buying a second hand Golf (1.4 TSI)

Comments