|
I tend to think most cars longevity is going to be determined by how diligently it has been serviced along with how it has been driven.
This is not going to be a problem if you are buying new, but if buying second hand, how would you find out how it has been driven?. Even with the servicing, a lot of modern engines require a specific grade of oil and using anything else can cause problems down the line. So while it would be fair to assume, if the servicing has been done by a main dealer, they will have used the right oil, would a normal garage?. In that case, the service history might look fine, but that doesn't mean the engine will make it past 100k miles.
But looking on Autotrader for high mileage VAG 1.4TSI's, there is a 2014 Golf with 131k miles, a 2017 Passat (hybrid) with 137k, a Skoda Rapid (DSG!) with 131k miles, a 2014 Audi A3 (also DSG, or S Tronic in Audi speak) with 156k miles.
|
|
Depends which 1.4TSi as VAG had to keep redesigning it due to a high number of warranty claims.
|
|
|
But looking on Autotrader for high mileage VAG 1.4TSI's, there is a 2014 Golf with 131k miles, a 2017 Passat (hybrid) with 137k, a Skoda Rapid (DSG!) with 131k miles, a 2014 Audi A3 (also DSG, or S Tronic in Audi speak) with 156k miles.
Yes, but are they just the few lucky survivors? A bit like 85yr old smokers? They made squillions of these engines. Have they had expensive work done at around 90,000 or less? e.g. decarbonising the valves? Having run cars to around and over 200,000 miles I don't regard 130,000 as a particularly high mileage for a modern car. (Our old family Focus is already past 150,000 with no attention to the engine at all apart from regular supplies of the cheapest semi-synthetic I could find.)
|
But looking on Autotrader for high mileage VAG 1.4TSI's, there is a 2014 Golf with 131k miles, a 2017 Passat (hybrid) with 137k, a Skoda Rapid (DSG!) with 131k miles, a 2014 Audi A3 (also DSG, or S Tronic in Audi speak) with 156k miles.
Yes, but are they just the few lucky survivors? A bit like 85yr old smokers? They made squillions of these engines. Have they had expensive work done at around 90,000 or less? e.g. decarbonising the valves? Having run cars to around and over 200,000 miles I don't regard 130,000 as a particularly high mileage for a modern car. (Our old family Focus is already past 150,000 with no attention to the engine at all apart from regular supplies of the cheapest semi-synthetic I could find.)
That was just a cursory look John and by no means comprehensive. I was just curious what was out there and those 4 caught my attention.
It used to be the case on Autotrader that you could select a minimum as well as maximum mileage, which would make it much easier and quicker to get an overview on how many high mileage 1.4TSI's are out there. These days you can only select a maximum, so running through all the VAG brands looking for high mileage cars only would take some time!.
|
|
On Ebay you can select cars with more than 100k miles, so just out of curiosity, I typed in 1.4TSI and did just that. 61 results came up, but that was by no means comprehensive, there were no Audi's for example, and it will only throw up cars which have been advertised as '1.4TSI'.
But highest mileage result was a 2010 Golf with 172k, followed by a 2012 Tiguan with 160k. Both of those (and the Audi on Autotrader) were advertised as 'FSH and one previous owner'.
|
Depends which 1.4TSi as VAG had to keep redesigning it due to a high number of warranty claims.
Was it not just chain drive engines which were problematic?. I thought the belt drive cars were supposed to be fine?.
|
|
No, not all problems were linked to the drive belt/chain. They’re known to consume a lot of oil due to faulty piston rings, they lag/jerk at low speeds or in cold temperature etc.
|
|
Our Golf Mk7 1.4 TSi (belt cam) started to use a lot of oil around 85K miles and the turbo went shortly beforehand. Our local VW Indy said the excess oil consumption was relatively rare but not unknown. We got rid. Shame because it was otherwise the best car we've ever had. We're still running a 1.2 TSi in a Seat Leon in the family and that's been fine so far apart from a recent failed lambda sensor.
|
|
|
No, not all problems were linked to the drive belt/chain. They’re known to consume a lot of oil due to faulty piston rings, they lag/jerk at low speeds or in cold temperature etc.
You are confusing/conflating......
Oil piston ring/consumption problems are EA888 gen 2 issues i.e. 1.8tsi and 2.0tsi of a certain vintage (they are now on gen3b which are now very reliable)
The EA111 1.4tsi/1.2tsi engines (upto around 2014} uses a camchain which has had problems (both manufacturing and design issues) and from experience will need replacing anyway before 100,00 miles as it wears/stretches. Some have very short service life aggravated by a substandard hydraulic chain tensioner along with other things that can aggravate the situation (to do with Oil filter seal arrangement and service blunders) Wait too long and the engine can get trashed when the chain slips off during a start. Other issues are failing turbo actuators, and turbos due to heat damage. Ignition coilpacks and leads on early engines are known to be weak. Only buy those that have regular oil changes no more than 10,000mile/1year and don't have a teltale ratlle when they start from first cold. A new chain/tensioner fitt ed is around £800, a new turbo is £1600+
The EA211 1.4tsi introduced around 2015 is a belt driven cam design (quite clever cambelt drive low wear design) is far more reliable, although I have heard of the odd turbo actuator failure but not turbos). Starting to be regarded as one of VAG best/better engines.
Only 1.4tsi engines known to have oil consumption issues and much more) were the CAVE/CTHE Supercharged/turbo 180bhp engines fitted to the Fabia mk2 vrs and in other VAG hot hatches. Best not to touch those with a barge pole.
The lagging/jerking issues you refer to is specific to the new 1.5tsi, something went wrong in the design/software dept during the WTLP period they were designed. Mostly resolved but still experienced by a few unfortunate owners. The 1.5tsi is regarded by most owners as a backward step from the previous 1.4tsi which was a more pleasant driving experience.
I tend to ignore plaudits from members who change their cars every 3 years never out of warranty or those who do less than 10,000 miles a year. The fact a car can last its warranty period without breaking is not surprising. I do wish they could refrain from posting how good their new car is.
Edited by brum on 02/04/2021 at 13:51
|
|
That wouldn’t be me, then, I sold my last car at 170.000 miles and 9 years of age. Owning a new car doesn’t disqualify me from having an opinion, I’m the type who changes timing belts on diesel engines on his driveway (literally), let’s say I know a thing or teo about cars. You just mentioned several VAG engines with known major problems, but somehow people are being asked to ignore those and just assume VAG is reliable? Yeah, sure...
|
That wouldn’t be me, then, I sold my last car at 170.000 miles and 9 years of age. Owning a new car doesn’t disqualify me from having an opinion, I’m the type who changes timing belts on diesel engines on his driveway (literally), let’s say I know a thing or teo about cars. You just mentioned several VAG engines with known major problems, but somehow people are being asked to ignore those and just assume VAG is reliable? Yeah, sure...
I wasn't referring to you chris, but others that change their cars regularly, on lease or PCP therefore don't get any long term first hand view of reliability.
Good servicing and mechanical sympathy/knowledge can indeed nurse most cars for eternity, I tend to start thinking of getting when my cars bought from new pass 150,00 miles. Its never the engine or gearbox thats an issue but just general state of suspension components.
FYI we have had 5 skodas, 1.2 tsi fabia (required new turbo 100,000 miles, new water pump 110,000 miles,written off in accident 120,000 miles), 1.2tsi octavia (new leads/coil 65,000 miles, camchain/tensioner 80,000 miles, still going at 150,000 miles/ 9 years) 2 x1.2htp 3cylinder, both trouble free 140,000 miles (sold) and 95,000 miles.(still got)
Latest is a 1.4tsi Superb, still running it in......no camchain and water cooled integrated exhaust manifold before the turbo give me more confidence this one will be ok.
We don't need to talk about cars from the 1990's they were much simpler engines and probably much more robust, at least my 1.9tdi Alhambra that did 20 years sterling service and only went because I got bamboozled by the diesel scrappage offer from Skoda
|
|
I have the 1.4 in an Audi A1 dsg. It will take me 10 years to get to 100000k which is average miles It performs reasonably well in such a small car but I would not want it in anything much bigger. It looks lost in the engine bay of the A1 so it must be working its little socks off pulling anything heavier.
|
I have the 1.4 in an Audi A1 dsg. It will take me 10 years to get to 100000k which is average miles It performs reasonably well in such a small car but I would not want it in anything much bigger. It looks lost in the engine bay of the A1 so it must be working its little socks off pulling anything heavier.
Thats strange, my 2018 1.4tsi Superb, theres no room around the engine it takes up pretty much the entire very large engine bay. The Superb is much much larger than an A1 and presumably a lot heavier but the 1.4tsi pulls really well and cruises at 70mph in 2 cylinder mode a lot of the time, which means its developing less than 25% of max torque/power available at approx 2300 rpm. Very relaxed.
0-60 in 8.5secs is the fastest car Ive ever owned btw. That would have been supercar sports car fast in my youth, MGB GT were a fast 14 seconds 0-60.
This is an interesting video, puts the 1.5tsi to shame, a carwow youtube video showing shockingly fast performance in a 1.4tsi Kodiaq SUV
youtu.be/FvsddBB-100
Edited by brum on 02/04/2021 at 16:52
|
|
No idea what Sammy has, surely not the 1.4 if it does not fill the engine bay. Sounds like the 1.0 TSi in our Fabia (same car as the A1).
As for the 1.4 TSi having to work hard that is plain wrong. As Brum says above at 70 mph its turning over at about 2200 rpm (it does in ours at a true 70 mph - 73 on the speedo) with no effort and in our first Superb would react instantly to the throttle with no need to drop a gear, hardly a sign of being stressed. The same engine in the Leon was sharper but it did weigh quite a bit less.
On a trip to Scotland its rare to have to extend the engine over 4000 rpm making a fast overtake on the A9.
The 1.5's we tested before we bought the iV were both fine, no hesitation, very refined but both were saddled by a DSG that did not provide the experience I wanted.
The iV has a power meter and at a 70 mph cruise using the car in engine mode i.e. no battery remaining) on a level motorway it shows 15% power usage. The car has 155 PS from the TSi motor so that is 23.25 PS its using. Plenty left since the meter goes up to 140% (ICE and electric motor together 218 PS).
No idea how the maths works, the electric motor on its own is rated as 115 PS.
|
|
+
The EA211 1.4tsi introduced around 2015 is a belt driven cam design (quite clever cambelt drive low wear design) is far more reliable, although I have heard of the odd turbo actuator failure but not turbos). Starting to be regarded as one of VAG best/better engines.
I can confirm your information is correct on actuators. My OH's 2017 Leon with 13k required just this last June.
The SEAT technician we spoke to said they had lots with the same issue. Lockdown didn't suit it!
Funnily enough, my Superb with the 2.0 petrol developed a similar fault a few weeks later. Only trouble there was that the whole unit had to be replaced as the actuator was not supplied separately. Thankfully both under warranty.
Just to pour oil on the water, I replaced the Skoda with a Mazda last month! :-D
Edited by groaver on 02/04/2021 at 17:43
|
The EA211 1.4tsi introduced around 2015 is a belt driven cam design
The belt drive TSi was introduced late 2012 and went into productio early 2013 in the Mk7 Golf and Mk3 Leon. The Skoda Octavia got it late in 2013, not sure when the A3 got it.
We got our Leon Mk3 in June 2013, it was a February 2013 manufactured car. The Mk 2's used the chain cam engine to the end of production.
|
|
|
This is an interesting video, puts the 1.5tsi to shame, a carwow youtube video showing shockingly fast performance in a 1.4tsi Kodiaq SUV
youtu.be/FvsddBB-10Interesting clip Brum. I have came upon things like this before, and am always baffled by the manufacturer claiming the car accelerates slower than it actually does.
Some time ago, in response to a thread, I was looking up reviews on the Kia Niro hybrid. There was an online article from Autocar Magazine, and their own timed acceleration was some way quicker than Kia claimed. The quoted acceleration was 11.5 seconds to 60mph, but with the timing gear, Autocar recorded a time of 9.7 seconds!.
And just the other day I was reading in Car magazine, who now have a Toyota Yaris GR on their long term fleet. Toyota claim 5.5 seconds 0-62mph, but when a timed run was done by the journalist running it, 4.64 seconds to 60mph.
In our previous car, a Honda Jazz 1.3 CVT, out of curiosity, I did a rudimentary timing of 0-60. I did this because the car always felt quicker and more eager than the figures (not to mention the stereotypical image of the Jazz) would have you believe. Honda claim 12.3 seconds 0-62, but my own figures suggested something around 10.5 seconds to 60. But as said, this was entirely un-scientific, and using the speedometer to mark when 60mph was reached.
|
|
No idea what Sammy has, surely not the 1.4 if it does not fill the engine bay. Sounds like the 1.0 TSi in our Fabia (same car as the A1).
Yes the 1.4 sport. My perception is there is a lot more room in the engine bay than say a 1.5Mini No trouble getting at anything but I don't. go looking under most bonnets. It is 125bhp which is not the 150 in the bigger cars On a power to weight ratio it must compare to the bigger car but I just cannot perceive that it has to work as hard as in the bigger car. I am sure that the 150bhp in the bigger car is adequate but I would feel more comfortable with a 2litre. I understand that you can get a 280bhp in the Superb, that must be a ball of fire.
|
I understand that you can get a 280bhp in the Superb, that must be a ball of fire.
It is. A real Q car in fact.
|
On a power to weight ratio it must compare to the bigger car but I just cannot perceive that it has to work as hard as in the bigger car. I am sure that the 150bhp in the bigger car is adequate but I would feel more comfortable with a 2litre.
Its not just the power, the 150 PS version has a heap more torques. The 125 PS has 148 torques, the 140 and 150 PS versions 184 torques. At 3500 rpm the 125 PS version produces 99 PS, the 140/150 produces 123 PS. only 2 short of the 125 PS version at peak power. Beyond 3500 rpm the 140/150 gains all the way but in truth the torque lower down is so good you simply do not need to go there very often.
The newer 1.0 TSi 110 PS also produces 148 torques just like the lower spec 1.4. Shows how things have moved on in a short time.
I would suggest you drive a big VAG car with the 140/150 PS engine before commenting any more, as many other have said, its all the engine you need.
|
|
I would suggest you drive a big VAG car with the 140/150 PS engine before commenting any more, as many other have said, its all the engine you need.
Have owned the later generation golf gti with the 2.0t so perfectly familiar with a performance engine. Any engine in a modern car is well capable at 70mph even a little Fiat. The 1.4 and now 1.5 engines in all Audi group are adequate and might suite you. So why do the VW group make bigger and more powerful engines for the rest of us and that people want to buy. I bought the A1 for town and parking and is adequate for this.
My VAG engine would be fine in any car but a Skoda! I quite like the VW Arteon but it is BMWs for me
|
I would suggest you drive a big VAG car with the 140/150 PS engine before commenting any more, as many other have said, its all the engine you need.
Have owned the later generation golf gti with the 2.0t so perfectly familiar with a performance engine. Any engine in a modern car is well capable at 70mph even a little Fiat. The 1.4 and now 1.5 engines in all Audi group are adequate and might suite you. So why do the VW group make bigger and more powerful engines for the rest of us and that people want to buy. I bought the A1 for town and parking and is adequate for this.
My VAG engine would be fine in any car but a Skoda! I quite like the VW Arteon but it is BMWs for me
I was considering a Skoda Superb with the 2.0 TSi before buying the iV which actually has more power and torque.
Think its a bit unfair to call the 1.4 and 1.5 engines adequate, they are far more worthy than that.
I also liked the Arteon but the price compared to the Passat estate and Superb hatch was a bit high for my liking since it offered nothing special for that extra cash.
When you say your engine would be fine in any car except a Skoda what on earth do you mean? presume you think its too good.
With regards to the 1.0 TSi I have read many magazine tests that says its perfect in a Skoda Octavia and the VAG SUV's but without driving any I need to be convinced. The 1.9 is perfect in the Fabia, excellent in truth but put that in a much bigger car and I feel it could need a lot of gear stick rowing since its an engine that really enjoys the revs. Perhaps not a match made in heaven.
|
|
My Golf (2018) has the lower powered 1.4 engine and its very good. In day to day driving it is more flexible and eager than the 1.8 Civic it replaced. These are very different engines of course and the Civic needs revs to get the best performance while the Golf needs much less throttle. It’s only done 24k .miles so long term reliability is unproven.
It’s a delight to drive meantime.
|
My Golf (2018) has the lower powered 1.4 engine and its very good. In day to day driving it is more flexible and eager than the 1.8 Civic it replaced. These are very different engines of course and the Civic needs revs to get the best performance while the Golf needs much less throttle. It’s only done 24k .miles so long term reliability is unproven.
It’s a delight to drive meantime.
Its a pleasure to read a post where the owner is delighted. There were many of us on here that were happy but they seem to have been turned off by the constant VAG "hate" posts that many deleted keep posting, the last one was only the other day when an April Fools joke was posted early and the poster suggested it was another defeat device, total deleted.
[edited following a complaint - Xileno, moderator]
Edited by Xileno on 10/04/2021 at 11:17
|
|
Ask some taxi drivers.
Edited by corax on 03/04/2021 at 13:55
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
