View Full Version : Any performance reviews on the 1.4 TSi 122BHP out there
icebun
04-08-2009, 10:07 PM
Can any 1.4 TSI 122 BHP owners comment on the engine performance and MPG?
Acceleration and overtaking capabilities would be appreciated.
Apologies if this has been covered anywhere else.
iallen1@btinter
04-08-2009, 10:12 PM
mine flys, no turbo lag, picks up best in 3rd gear, getting 32mpg around town, 55.1 mpg last week fetching my sis back from airport, cruise control set at 68mph, im more than happy with that 55mpg from a 1.4 petrol
icebun
04-08-2009, 10:46 PM
Hi iallen,
What are your revs when averaging 70MPH?
ross980
05-08-2009, 01:01 PM
Hi iallen,
What are your revs when averaging 70MPH?
According to Auto Express 70mph = 2400rpm
I test drove one back to back with a 1.8 Civic and the Golf felt quicker(although on paper it's not) - probably due to the low down torque. It wasn't 'fast' but had plenty of performance and didn't need thrashing to get it moving (unlike the high revving Civic). I was so impressed I ended up ordering one. I can't give anymore information though as like many people on this forum I'm still waiting for my TSi 122 to be delivered...
sr-performance
05-08-2009, 01:11 PM
Hi If anyone is interested in having there TSI remapped we get 25bhp/60nm torque...:beerchug:
iallen1@btinter
05-08-2009, 04:21 PM
will let you know the revs next time i do 70mph
icebun
05-08-2009, 10:23 PM
Thanks iallen. Can you comment on the overtaking speed.
It's proving virtually impossible to get a test drive on this engine type so any feedback would be great.
By the way are there any official figures for the 50-70 MPH speed out there on this TSI as well as those for the 2.0 TDI 140?
dmw76
05-08-2009, 10:33 PM
Ive had my 122 tsi since march and i cant complain about its performance. Previously i had a clio 197 but due to the arrival of my son i changed to something more family friendly. It feels plenty fast enough especially low down in the revs when the torque feels strong. Aparently they make considerably more than the quoted figures according to revo.
HHGTTG
05-08-2009, 11:14 PM
mine flys, no turbo lag, picks up best in 3rd gear, getting 32mpg around town, 55.1 mpg last week fetching my sis back from airport, cruise control set at 68mph, im more than happy with that 55mpg from a 1.4 petrol
At what mileage are you getting that mpg? I'm somewhat disappointed with my mpg after, admittedly only having done about 300 miles since new.
Am getting an average of 42mpg from a tankful of v-power, which seems less than my Golf MK5 1.6 FSI. Maybe I'm expecting too much too soon?
jonfun21
06-08-2009, 09:52 AM
Done about 6,000 miles in mine, average fuel economy is 47mpg, on a good motorway run I can get 52mpg. My comute to work (cross country 50 - 60 mph) normally yields 45 - 48mpg.
In terms of performance 3rd and 4th gear are great in terms of acceleration, with 5th and 6th good for cruising.
Overall I am really impressed with the engine, best trick is not to tell people the size and when they ask leave them amazed its a 1.4!!
icebun
06-08-2009, 10:02 AM
Jonfun21,
Thanks for the response. What is your take on the overtaking capabilities (between 50-70 mph)?
iallen1@btinter
06-08-2009, 05:37 PM
mine picks up like stink between 50-70, fuel doesnt really bother me, all the cars i have i just fill them when there empty, plus i dont really think the onboard trip is 100% accurate anyway
HHGTTG
06-08-2009, 07:17 PM
mine picks up like stink between 50-70, fuel doesnt really bother me, all the cars i have i just fill them when there empty, plus i dont really think the onboard trip is 100% accurate anyway
At my last fill-up to the brim the other night, my on board computer stated that I'd done 42.14mpg which was almost exactly the same figure as I obtained from my petrol consumption spreadsheet when I entered the amount of petrol required to fill the tank.
jonfun21
07-08-2009, 10:54 AM
Icebun,
50-70 is pretty meaty, when you are accelerating on to the motorway in 3rd or 4th it really moves - I often find myself having to slow down as I am catching up fairly powerful cars in front (e.g. BMW, Audi).
In traffic on the motorway when you fall down to 50mph you may want to slip into 4th when things clear, but even in 5th / 6th it will accelerate.
icebun
07-08-2009, 11:03 AM
Wow Jonfun21,
I am getting the impression that the performance on the 122PS is more powerful than the official stated PS in actual use.
Most of the dealers I have been speaking to are advising the 2.0 TDI 140 PS as the only viable option if I want any level of performance.
But all the comments have been positive and I guess this explains why there is a very long waiting list!
By the way, are there any downsides to this engine in your eyes?
jonfun21
07-08-2009, 04:14 PM
Downsides are 1st and 2nd performance can feel a little bit weak; other than that there aren't many. Took a 1,000 miles for the mpg to pick up, same as any car though.
Bottom line if you want a 'performance' car look at the 160 BHP, whereas if you want a reasonable level of performance and economy it ticks all the boxes in my mind.
Your view will no doubt be dependant upon what you are replacing?
icebun
07-08-2009, 05:03 PM
I currently have a Golf V 1.9 TDI (105 BHP) which does more than 50+ MPG.
However because this is a company car, apart from fuel, it's the Company Car Tax I have to pay which works out lower on the 1.4 TSI 122 PS over the other choice which is the 2.0 TDI 140 PS.
Even if the diesel is 10MPG better, overall I pay less when you total up.
I want a car that is quieter than the 1.9 but will have the same sense of urge as my current car.
Prior the Golf, I had the prevoius generation 1.8 Astra petrol which had 123 BHP. Despite this, my current Golf still "feels" quicker even though the 0-60 is slower.
HHGTTG
07-08-2009, 07:19 PM
Well, this afternoon after a pub lunch, I went for a spin but only did about 30 miles but the fuel consumption for the journey was now 47mpg but I did NOT have the aircon on as it was a cold misty afternoon.
Things are improving and I must remember that my last Golf was delivered to me in December 2004 and I did not have the aircon on all the time as it was winter weather!!
iallen1@btinter
07-08-2009, 11:09 PM
icebun, mine revs at 2400 at 70mph
HHGTTG
08-08-2009, 05:58 PM
icebun, mine revs at 2400 at 70mph
I think the mph/1000 revs are as follows for the 1.4 TSI engined Golfs
4th gear: 20mph/1000
5th gear: 25mph/1000
6th gear: 30mph/1000
HHGTTG
08-08-2009, 06:00 PM
mine picks up like stink between 50-70, fuel doesnt really bother me, all the cars i have i just fill them when there empty, plus i dont really think the onboard trip is 100% accurate anyway
Out of interest, do you pay for your own fuel?
iallen1@btinter
08-08-2009, 06:09 PM
Yes i pay for my own fuel, and its my car not a company one
HHGTTG
08-08-2009, 06:41 PM
Yes i pay for my own fuel, and its my car not a company one
Excellent. No offence intended.
iallen1@btinter
08-08-2009, 08:44 PM
no probs, i didnt think it was meant to be e e e e e e e e e e
Blackthorn
09-08-2009, 05:21 PM
Fuel consumption is essentially the same on the 122PS and the 160PS, only about 1 mpg difference (although I suppose it depends how often you take advantage of that extra performance). The emissions and therefore VED are the same too.
What swung it for me in favour of the 122 was the fact that it's group 7 insurance instead of group 15. That seems too large a jump in my mind and I didn't want to be paying that extra premium year in and year out.
p3asa
09-08-2009, 09:34 PM
What swung it for me in favour of the 122 was the fact that it's group 7 insurance instead of group 15. That seems too large a jump in my mind and I didn't want to be paying that extra premium year in and year out.
Did you try getting quotes on the likes of confused.com?
I put a a few different cars into it and couldn't fathom out how they come up with the quote.
I presently drive a Mazda 6 2.0L, Insurance group 9 and pay £223
For the 2.0 GT Tdi I'm buying it will cost £237
For the GTi I was quoted £242.
Sounds crazy to me.
Steven.
PS could you have fitted any more extras on your ordered Golf ? :beerchug:
psmith98752
09-08-2009, 10:06 PM
I presently drive a Mazda 6 2.0L, Insurance group 9 and pay £223
For the 2.0 GT Tdi I'm buying it will cost £237
For the GTi I was quoted £242.
What a difference age makes, for me, the SE is bearable, going to a GT it shoots up to > £1500 and I'm too young for most insurance companies to even quote for a GTI :mad: Will just wait for two years and then hopefully get a GTI :approve:
p3asa
09-08-2009, 11:50 PM
What a difference age makes, for me, the SE is bearable, going to a GT it shoots up to > £1500 and I'm too young for most insurance companies to even quote for a GTI :mad: Will just wait for two years and then hopefully get a GTI :approve:
You saying I'm old :biglaugh:
I think it is a combination of age, postcode and NCB personally.
I'm 40, live in a G post code and have about 20 years NCB but my last few insurance companies only ever recognised 6 years NCB!!!
Steven.
psmith98752
10-08-2009, 09:32 AM
You saying I'm old :biglaugh:
I think it is a combination of age, postcode and NCB personally.
I'm 40, live in a G post code and have about 20 years NCB but my last few insurance companies only ever recognised 6 years NCB!!!
Steven.
Well thats it then, I'm less than half your age ;)
Blackthorn
10-08-2009, 10:25 AM
Did you try getting quotes on the likes of confused.com?
I put a a few different cars into it and couldn't fathom out how they come up with the quote.
I presently drive a Mazda 6 2.0L, Insurance group 9 and pay £223
For the 2.0 GT Tdi I'm buying it will cost £237
For the GTi I was quoted £242.
Sounds crazy to me.
Steven.
PS could you have fitted any more extras on your ordered Golf ? :beerchug:
I probably could have squeezed a few more in, but you've got to draw the line somewhere! I would have had Xenon's if they were an option, but unfortunately they weren't.
I think the one good thing about getting old is the cheaper insurance. I compared the 122PS and the 160PS and it worked out at about £100 per year extra. Not a massive amount compared to the cost of the car, but I still decided it wasn't worth it.
HHGTTG
10-08-2009, 11:48 AM
I probably could have squeezed a few more in, but you've got to draw the line somewhere! I would have had Xenon's if they were an option, but unfortunately they weren't.
I think the one good thing about getting old is the cheaper insurance. I compared the 122PS and the 160PS and it worked out at about £100 per year extra. Not a massive amount compared to the cost of the car, but I still decided it wasn't worth it.
Ah, but if you get too old, then they started loading your premium although I am not saying that it is happening to me just yet (aged 71).
My premium for a S.London suburb is around £360, with one extra named driver and legal protection etc. etc.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.4 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.