Again though, you seem to be focusing on image rather than what would be best as a taxi. The passat cc has less space in the rear than the regular passat as well as a smaller rear door aperture, so why choose it?. If you want a passat, surely the regular, or better still, estate is going to be the better choice. Also, as the passat cc is the more stylish and sporty version, like the leon FR, it is likely to have the big alloys with ultra low profile tyres which spoil the ride.

Edited by SLO76 on 14/05/2017 at 22:55

Yes - very few Taxi drivers I know use supermarket diesels. We have all moved to bp ultimate and or shell v power.I know there is alot of debate about the quality and difference. But talking for myself and other drivers that use shell v power none of us have had any bother with the DPF or egr. I'm currently on 120k and never had any dpf troubles. I might just be lucky however

"What would be interesting would be to find taxi-drivers who have changed to petrol (VAG TSIs in particular) to avoid DPF problems with their short urban journeys. Or maybe modern diesels have fewer such problems, given that the engine of a taxi stays warm most of the time?"

I think thats the key SL076 its the repeated short runs with the engine never getting a chance to run at full temperature. The later EURO5 engines regenerate very easily, 5 to 10 minutes at 50 does mine and the only way you know is the fuel consumption takes a hit. The DPF bolted straight on to the cylinderhead helps with this. The problems start if you repeatedly interup the regeneration. I always check the ideling speed befor switching off and try to drive another couple of miles if its high. In fact a light on the dash to tell you would avoid a lot of problems.

If you ask an engine to produce more power through forced induction then you put more pressure on all components. Look at high performance Subaru's and Evos which require forged pistons etc when you lift power beyond a certain level. The reason being they're under higher pressure.

Would not disagree with any of that SLO76 but the piont I am trying to make is that these are not a standard engines that they have bolted a turbo to. They have been designed from the ground up to do this job. To the best of my knowledge all diesels have forged cranks and pistons and many have forged conrods as well. This makes diesel engines expensive. Its perfectly possible that the TSi engines ar built the same, they cost enough. Interestingly the new 1.5 TSI costs more than the 1.6 diesel and only around £600 less than the 2.0 L. Maybe Im just more optamistic than some but it will all come out in the wash eventualy.

Am I missing something here, why are engines like the 1.4 TSi 150ps seen as stressed, I don’t get it.

You are not missing anything, the 1.4 TSi especially in 140 and 150 PS derivatives is a relaxed easy going motor. No need to thrash it to get excellent performance and even when overtaking it rarely needs more than probably 1/2 throttle and 4000 rpm.

I have driven the normally aspirated Mazda 2.0 in both the 3 (120 PS) and the 6 (150 PS) and both required far more revs and throttle to get the same performance which is ultimately more stressful for the engine but far more tiring for the driver. Our neighbour at the old address had a last model 3 sport with the 140 PS petrol fitted, he hated it. Although not really suitable for his use he went back to a turbo diesel

On the motorway the Seat was doing 2500 rpm at a genuine 70 mph, the Superb does a few less. If anyone says that is stressful on the engine they need taking out and rodgering with a blunt stick. Back in the 90's our supposedly 1.8 unstressed unturbo'd petrols were doing 3500 at 70 mph and never wore out.

Fact is regardless of fuel, or induction type any car needs a certain amount of power/torque to happilly cruise along at the legal limit. Its probably less than 30 bhp in a typical family hatch leaving on average about 100 bhp or so surplus, our supposedly unstressed 90's hatches only had about 70 bhp spare.

As for certain cars having forged pistons to allow for the expected stresses those are cars that are expected to be thrashed on a regular basis. Our vet had an Impezza that had been chipped to over 400 bhp, the engine lasted about 6 months.

My Catherham has a 2 litre Zetec out of a Mk 1 Focus. Bought brand new from Fords in a bright yellow crate there have been no changes to any internal components. By fitting a free flowing aftermarket induction and exhaust the power increased from about the 135 PS quoted to near 175 bhp and it gets a good work out on a regular basis like it has for 10 years now, no issues. Many people have fitted cams and had the heads ported at which point the engine should be producing 210 bhp + when correctly mapped and there are very few failures of standard components. What failures there have been have mostly been due to the owners skimping on essential items like a good sump (but that would have caused a standard engine to fail as well).

We have never had it so good so for pitties sake stop moaning. Or perhaps you all want side valve engines to drive behind while you legally use your Nokia 3310. For the record I sent 2 to Dogs trust last year. Like side valve engines good in their day but hardly much use now.

One could ask the question as to why you change cars at around the 3-4yo mark which you love and that are apparently great to drive and very reliable (changing, even at that time, would be vastly more expensive than keeping a reliable car for another few years at least).

I change because I can afford to and experience has shown keeping a car for 6 or 7 years (even reliable VW's) leaves such a big financial gap it makes far more sense to find less money every 3 or 4 years (especially when you get contributions and/or 0% finanace). Obviously it costs a bit more but not that much.

Edited by skidpan on 17/05/2017 at 15:59

These small petrol turbos exist only to allow manufacturers to meet emission and economy regulations. And it's well known that in the real world they are deficient, hence why the trend is away from them over the next few years. I can't speak for the 1.4 tsi but the Ecoboost 1.0 I have driven a lot, it's impressive but the power delivery is non-linear and lacks flexibility compared to N/A petrols. For example, the 1.0 ecoboost is ultimately a lot quicker than Ford's own 1.25 Yamaha unit and the old 1.4 petrol, but both are far easier and more flexible to drive normally. Performance is not everything, Personally, I also enjoy revving a nice smooth petrol engine through its range, part of driving to me and something I miss with my 1.9 PD motor.

The biggest problem with the Ecoboost appears to be thermal stress, all turbo petrol engines produce huge amounts of heat. The smaller ones must be on boost most of the time. Cooling and lubrication needs to be perfect,which in turn means perfect servicing. I would only consider a new one, simply for that reason, as most owners don't even know they've got a turbo let alone how to look after it. Skidpan's ownership model is probably a good one for this type of engine, if not the cheapest, it avoids big bills as those motors age.But I would still prefer a N/A unit overall for durability and flexibility.