1.2 TSI vs 1.6 CR 105 - Skoda Fabia - advice to a colleague  
1.2 TSI vs 1.6 CR 105 - Skoda Fabia - advice to a colleague - pork_pie

Good afternoon folks.

A colleague of mine decided to place an order for a new car and decided to go for an Estate SE plus 1.6 diesel 105 with a few extras. What swayed her was the VAT off deal and the lower tax - she currently owns a 53 plate Fiat JTD 115 and makes occasional trips to the south coast each year.

Her annual mileage is 11k a year and the commute to work involves driving through Liverpool, through the Mersey tunnel into The Wirral.

Her best mate told me all this (another colleague) and I said - right car (she has a dog and needs storage for camping and to tow a trailer) but totally the wrong engine.

The colleague in question had a chat to me today and I explained that with her annual mileage and the type of driving (mainly through town with the odd motorway jaunt) haivng a diesel would be totally unsuitable. I stressed I was not discouraging her from what she has picked but I was adamant that this engine is a duffer.

I asked her "How long are you going to keep it?" About 10 years. I immediately told her about the DPF and DMFs and what they do and how much they cost and how long they last. "But the tax is cheap and it does 67 mpg". I further explained that any tax savings would be gobbled up by maintaining the vehicle and one will not get anywhere near 67mpg - the VED system is based on totally inaccurate data"

I asked her why the dealer did not persuade her to go petrol? She said the dealer made no effort to try anything else. is the dealer trying to offload a model with an engine that no one wants? "But how come my Fiat engine is still running after 9 years?". I told her that diesel engines are getting so complex now that they are prone to going wrong more frequently and dont have this ridiculous Diesel Pariculate FIlters. I told her that I have a 61 plate 1.4 TDCi fiesta and i said to her that I will only use it for motorway driving and it will probably be my last diesel ever. If I want to go to town, i will take the bus.

I suggested shelook at the 1.2 TSI 105 which has slightly less torque but I explained that the turbo will provide the necessary poke and that the price difference will make up the slightly higher tax. She is now thinking about trying the 1.2 this week even though she has already placed an order for the diesel (which of course is not from stock due to her option choices).

What do you people think of 1) The 1.6 engine 2) The TSI and 3) Was I unfair in the advice I gave her?

Tags: buying DPF petrol or diesel? new cars diesels

1.2 TSI vs 1.6 CR 105 - Skoda Fabia - advice to a colleague - TeeCee

11k miles a year, a daily commute in traffic accounting for most of it and only the occasional long trip?

I think your advice is sound, given what we know.

Her planned 10 year use is irrelevant. If she's really that worried about fuel consumption and VED, she'll be changing it sooner. Whichever engine she takes will be in the gas-guzzler tax bracket well before that, as technology will have moved on.

If you're trying to save money by picking the most tax-efficient car, you have to remember that you're playing a game against people who have the goalposts on castors.......

1.2 TSI vs 1.6 CR 105 - Skoda Fabia - advice to a colleague - 72 dudes

I'd also say the advice you gave was good.

The 1.2 TSi is a cracking little engine. I tried one in a Golf and it was very smooth with enough torque for every day driving. Bear in mind this was only the 85 BHP version, so the 105 should be even better.

The sort of driving she does means she will get nowhere near the EU combined figure.

I'd estimate 50 MPG from the 1.6 CRd and between 40 and 45 on the 1.2 TSI.

Factor in the higher price of diesel and as you say possible DPF/EGR troubles and there won't be a huge difference in running costs.

1.2 TSI vs 1.6 CR 105 - Skoda Fabia - advice to a colleague - unthrottled

Scaremongering nonsense.

Funny how when diesel engines develop they are derided as "complex", but when petrol engines develop they are seen as "innovative".

All of you have done is create unnecessary doubt. VW generally don't seem to have had too many problems with their DPFs or DMFs.

EGR valves?! Every petrol car made in the last 15 years has got one.

There's a whole load of crap on modern petrols that diesels don't need-

-Expensive throttle bodies with precision stepper motors

-Variable lift/duration/timing valvetrains

-High intensity ignition system that won't arc under high cylinder pressures

-3 way lambda control

It's very premature to decide that that the TFSI engines will be as durable in service as their predecessors.

11,000 miles p.a is borderline diesel territory, but it certainly isn't a bad purchase.

1.2 TSI vs 1.6 CR 105 - Skoda Fabia - advice to a colleague - madf

My experience of petriol engines in town:

they have no chance of achieving official fuel figures #

the cats die early due to fuel contamination

# and that's the summer. 10% worse in the winter.

Edited by madf on 06/08/2012 at 18:55

1.2 TSI vs 1.6 CR 105 - Skoda Fabia - advice to a colleague - Honestjohn

Unthrottled obviously doe not get my mail.

HJ

1.2 TSI vs 1.6 CR 105 - Skoda Fabia - advice to a colleague - Bobbin Threadbare

OP, I think you gave reasonable advice. I won't say ignore VED because obviously it is a cost, but people seem to make choices entirely based on a hundred quid say, rather than factoring in fuel and insurance costs. I know the route your colleague will be doing very well and I would say that a small, nippy petrol car would be the best bet; the traffic is so bitty and stop-start, and the fastest bit is the approach road out of the tunnel which is 50mph max. 11k p.a. is petrol territory for costs. I'd also be looking for something comfortable (decent tyres and comfoy suspension) as the road surfaces in Liverpool are atrocious!

1.2 TSI vs 1.6 CR 105 - Skoda Fabia - advice to a colleague - unthrottled

HJ

No, I don't get your mail. But you can't simply assess long term reliability by weighing the mail bag of diesel related problems.

If you compare the number of VW TDIs on the road compared with the number of VW TFSIs, the diesels outsell the petrols by about 4:1. Moreover, a lot of the TDIs will be ageing by now and have huge mileages. It's hardly surprising that more diesel problems are reported. The TFSIs are simply too new to assess long term reliability.

I think part of Honda's reputation for reliability can be attributed to the fact that not many of them were sold in the first place compared to VAG, PSA or Ford.

Right from the start with Mitsibishi's GDI engine in 1996, Direct injection petrols have had problems. VW have had problems with their earlier FSI engines including intake manifold fouling, poor injector spray patterns, and piston failure (possibly connected). Now they've gone and tossed a turbo on to boot and people think these engines are going to be ok because they've got spark plugs?!

1.2 TSI vs 1.6 CR 105 - Skoda Fabia - advice to a colleague - daveyjp
Based on the mileage petrol is probably the right way to go, but a VAG TFSi may not be the right petrol to choose. As unthrottled says FSI engines have hardly been trouble free.

When I went back to petrol last year all VAG cars with the new small capacity TFSi engines were off the list. For pootling round town 99% of the time I didn't need a turbo.

I can also easily get the urban mpg from the non turbo petrol in my B class.

Just a shame that European manufacturers now seem to think small cc and turbo is the way forward.

Join the discussion

Latest News & Road Tests

Buying Advice

Honest John's Newsletter

Connect with Honest John

Facebook YouTube