1.4 or 2.0 petrol

[Danclarke1096]

Hi All. Looking to buy either a 1.4 or 2.0 petrol. Would prefer the 2.0 but worried about fuel use. Anyone have any experiences or thoughts?, any comments would be helpful

[risingson]

Hi All. Looking to buy either a 1.4 or 2.0 petrol. Would prefer the 2.0 but worried about fuel use. Anyone have any experiences or thoughts?, any comments would be helpful

2.0 unless it's a post 2012 model. (from a 1. 4 owner). You can read up about the earlier 1.4 piston failures on here.

Sent from my SM-G928F using Tapatalk

[Deagol]

If petrol use is your main concern, that will be a combination of your expected annual mileage, the roads you usually drive on and your driving style (or how heavy your right foot is).

Based on pseudo-official MPG and "real MPG" reports, it looks like the 1.4 will do about 40 mpg versus the 2.0 doing 35 mpg. Assume annually 10,000 miles - in a 1.4 that would work out to 250 gallon (1139 litres) versus the 2.0 needing 285 gallon / 1302 litres. Price those extra 163 litres at £1.30 and your 10,000 miles could cost you an extra £212 or £4 per week on average. Obviously, lower annual mileage will reduce this gap, as would different consumption. I don't know what the effect is on the MPG if you drive the 1.4 really hard, opposed to doing the same with the 2.0.

THEN compare that against your own perceptions of how strong the 1.4 engine is versus the 2.0 in terms of both acceleration/torque etc and also reliability, the possible different levels of trim and equipment etc in your target cars. I haven't factored in possible differences in insurance premiums, resale values, servicing costs.

You might decide that on my example, having the 2.0 is worth the extra £4 a week. or I might be talking out of my hat....

Hoping that this helps in some way, but as always, the decision is yours !

D

[risingson]

My 1. 4 happily does 40mpg even with the foot down. It's a very economical engine although I may just have one of the good ones!

Sent from my SM-G928F using Tapatalk

[3t3p]

Which 1.4? My 122 did 36mpg on average without trying and that is booting it to accelerate up to motorway speeds.

Good but limited performance engine. Get 2.0 if you can.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

[risingson]

It's the 160ps.

Sent from my SM-G928F using Tapatalk

[Snikers10]

What did you decide in the end? I'm looking at 1.4 but seeing that 122 is sluggish and 160 has the piston issues. Am I right thinking that the piston issue comes up very early on in car milage >30k or is that bs? Thanks

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[blower]

Piston issue on the CAVD 1.4 TSI Twincharger 160ps, tends to hit around the 60k mark....it can happen earlier or later of course but from what i've seen it's common to happen around 60k.

Unless new pistons have been fitted on a rebuild that occurred in 2012 or later (if VW did the work) then i would only buy a car that has a manufacture date Feb 2012 or later
Only then are the newer, reliable, KS pistons fitted from factory.

On a slightly different note, for those who know me on this forum - my 1.4 TSI twincharger is going to be sold soon....i'm moving on up to a Golf R MK7.5 facelift, factory order to go in shortly once i decide if its black or blue
I'll still be hanging round here on and off tho to help the poor souls with the fabled 1.4 TSI CAVD.

Mine engine wise has been ok - probably because i fitted forged pistons, but that damn 7 speed DSG gearbox is a pile-o-crap™ and I will be glad to see it go. It's the new 7 speed WET clutch for me soon, no more bone shaking judder in 2nd!

[Snikers10]

Thanks for the reply! I'm pulling my hair trying to decide what to do. I've started looking at face lifts and stretching my budget just to find one with lower mileage to be more reliable (hopefully a reliable scirocco is not an oxymoron) . I'll try to test drive the new 1.4 and a 2.0, this weekend but I just know that 122bhp is silly for 15k sporty car i might as well get a polo gti. Where as the 2.0 will screw me on insurance costs.

Do I understand correctly that there are 1.4 160 from 2012 that had the piston issue fixed? I thought they just got rid of the the superchargers.

Thanks in advance!

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[blower]

They carried on using the 160ps superchargers for quite a while on the scirocco - up until sometime in 2014 i think you could get a new scirocco with the 1.4 160ps twincharger.

2013 models onward's were a different base engine - CTHD (as opposed to the CAVD). The CTHD is the same as the CAVD but has all the fixes that the CAVD picked up over the years, along with the better pistons that they started using on the last generation of CAVD's in 2012.
A CTHD is a good engine, very rare are there issues on them - its a shame it took VW 3 years to fix the twincharger, only to abandon it after they did!

[edwheels]

Totally - I have a very late build (2014) 160PS twin charger (with DSG). It is odd VW got all the problems fixed on both the 160PS engine and the 7 Speed DSG only to drop them both with the facelift (from later 2014).... still I am glad they did!

I love this engine - it is extremely quick (feels faster than the VW 0-60 numbers for example) and suits the DSG system perfectly. It sounds characterful and on a gentle run I often exceed 50MPG - my record is 57MPG. (60 mile trip in perfect conditions). I rarely average less than 40MPG on normal days unless it is journey in stop/start city traffic only (where any car would struggle to achieve a good MPG). Oil use is minimal. I hope I haven't jinxed it now !!!!

As a precaution I only use 98 RON Unleaded to help keep it in good order.

[Roy_01]

50-57 MPG is this calculated after refil or BCM figures?

[edwheels]

The figures I get are just those reported on the dashboard / computer so expect some inaccuracy !

The average figure (figure 2) it reports is currently 41.2 MPG. It usually settles around 40-42 MPG between resets.

The time I got 57MPG was an individual 60 Mile journey in perfect conditions (no traffic, steady dual carriageway speeds for 90%+ of the journey, hardly any stopping / roundabouts / junctions)... again reported by the computer (MPG figure 1)....

Cheers.

[Roy_01]

That is still very decent, didn't expect that it would be that fuel economic.