But surely in the design of the engine they allow for this? The long service intervals I mean.
My pleasant surprise of the day
- Thread starter nichorob
- Start date
But surely in the design of the engine they allow for this? The long service intervals I mean.
Soldato
Surely comparing a low stress 1.8T to a high stressed 1.2T is chalk and cheese, no?
Soldato
1.2t kicking out 105hp is probably unstressed if anything by todays standards.
hp per ltr, its on par with engines of 20 years ago.
Soldato
Which engines would those be? Out of interest, genuinely curious.
I know the 1.4 DOHC Rover K series of 1988 made 103bhp, which was a lot at the time.
I know the 1.4 DOHC Rover K series of 1988 made 103bhp, which was a lot at the time.
Soldato
I wasnt really refering to small engines with high outputs per say, just for the bhp per litre, the 1.2 was nothing ground breaking.
But you make a good point on the K series, stick a turbo on that and you will probably see a modest 20-30bhp increase(complete and utter guess) on that, comprative to the 1.2t of today thats not bad going!
1.2t kicking out 105hp is probably unstressed if anything by todays standards.
hp per ltr, its on par with engines of 20 years ago.
True.
However the old 1.8t from vag was very reliable.
There have been countless issues with the 1.2/1.4 tsi - a lot of them cured by software upgrades but quite a few timing chain and turbo failures as early as 20-30k miles.
I remember looking at an octavia with that engine and a bit of googling came up with countless horror stories about timing chain failure - enough to make me want a much more dull but bombproof 1.6 NA engine.
Associate
Meh ive seen no end of new VAG TSI cars sat at the side of the road with a AA/RAC in the last 3 years since I debated getting one, glad I didnt.
Also IMO 105 HP and 0-60 10.5 seconds is too slow for a car of that size.
Hawker
Also IMO 105 HP and 0-60 10.5 seconds is too slow for a car of that size.
Hawker
Last edited:
Associate
They aren't fixed 20k... it's variable life service. Which depends on the kind of driving you are doing. I've been over the 20k mark without service warning coming on in my PD 130 engine. But also when I was doing more round town work I dropped back to a fixed service interval.
It definitely doesn't do the engine any favours. The only benefit I can see is for new buyers concerned about running costs. Long life has never done vag engines any favours
As for high stressed 1.2 add low stress 1.8, can you elaborate on that? Fyi mine was remapped about 100k ago too
Surely R5T is not referring to a Renault 5 Turbo with it's prehistoric pushrod engine? If so then any reference to minuscule tolerances is well out of context
How often do you use feeler gauges on a modern engine anyway? Valve clearances and points gap where the main use for these in the past and points are not used in any modern engine and the vast majority have hydraulic adjustment of valve clearances.
105 bhp from a turbocharged 1.2 is not a particularly high specific output, it's rather lower than e.g. the normally aspirated 1.6 engine in a late 80's Honda Civic and only a little above the 1.4 K series or 1.4 TU series used in the AX GTi.
If a high revving normally aspirated engine can happily run for 150k miles or more with only basic maintenance then a low revving 1.2 with a light pressure turbo shouldn't present a challenge in the reliability stakes.
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
No they won't.
I don't doubt that 100k mile 7 year old ecoboostturboco2nutter engines will be a massive pain in everyones backside but it will be for reasons not related to the 20k service intervals.
http://www.machinerylubrication.com/Read/562/oil-change-filter-sensors
Thats a good read. I personally feel the long intervals are economics related, just enough to keep the engine alive through the warranty. With economics the main priority its obviously not the best for the engine
Thats a good read. I personally feel the long intervals are economics related, just enough to keep the engine alive through the warranty. With economics the main priority its obviously not the best for the engine
Soldato
Really? Would you say the same if it had a naturally aspirated 1.6 engine? Because that's the most common engine I'm sure in cars like the older Leon, Focus, Astra etc, and they're not "too slow" unless you're on a race track. Certainly perfectly acceptable for day to day use for the vast majority of the general public. The 1.2TSI also has healthy torque production right where it's useful thanks to its turbo, so I dare say it's better.
A sauce that is obviously tasty enough for manufacturers, whereas your sauce is just a delicacy amongst people on the internet.