1.4 160PS vs 2.0 210PS

Talk about general things related to the new VW Scirocco in here.
ZephyR
Posts: 914
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2009 9:59 pm
I drive a: 1.4 TSI 160
In: Candy White
With a: Manual box
Options: 18" Inters, Front fogs, Multi-function steering wheel, Parking sensors & Interior mats
Location: Manchester

Re: 1.4 160PS vs 2.0 210PS

Post by ZephyR »

Just reading your post again Paul, I see you are in central Scotland. I would guess that there are lots of nice open roads round your way - perhaps the type of roads where you could take full advantage of the extra power the 2.0 delivers. Doing mainly town driving the 1.4 makes much more sense for me. You need to judge this one for your own driving needs.
Either way the 1.4 is no slouch. Taking off up the motorway slip road it easily leaves other cars as a dot in the rear view mirror :yes:
SciroccoSteve
Posts: 103
Joined: Sat Dec 12, 2009 5:58 pm
In: Rising Blue
With a: Manual box
Options: vw sills, rear parking sensors

Re: 1.4 160PS vs 2.0 210PS

Post by SciroccoSteve »

Andy-GTI wrote:Buying a 1.4 just says you couldn't afford the 2.0 tbh
Its called being realistic mate. Why did u go for a 2.0T Scirocco, was it because "you couldnt afford" a 911 GT3..... :rolleyes:
User avatar
Deacon
Posts: 1729
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 2:37 pm
Options: Tuned 1.4tsi - gone but not forgotten!
Location: Staffordshire

Re: 1.4 160PS vs 2.0 210PS

Post by Deacon »

There is a simple solution to all this - buy the 1.4 and have it REVO'd = more power than the 2.0 and about £3k left in the bank. Simples. :D

Deacon
playing in my '86
SciroccoSteve
Posts: 103
Joined: Sat Dec 12, 2009 5:58 pm
In: Rising Blue
With a: Manual box
Options: vw sills, rear parking sensors

Re: 1.4 160PS vs 2.0 210PS

Post by SciroccoSteve »

Haha. thats exactly what i plan to do ;)

How you finding the map mate. does it pull a lot more?
User avatar
samwell
Posts: 75
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 3:39 pm
I drive a: GT 2.0 TSI
In: Candy White
With a: Manual box
Options: Black Leather, Dynaudio, DAB, Metal Pedal Caps
Location: Swindon

Re: 1.4 160PS vs 2.0 210PS

Post by samwell »

Deacon wrote:There is a simple solution to all this - buy the 1.4 and have it REVO'd = more power than the 2.0 and about £3k left in the bank. Simples. :D

Deacon
Good idea, I guess you may need the extra money if the engine lets go and VW won't pay out under warranty on a modified car! :D

Get the 2.0 if you think you will be able to use its full potential. As has been said if you won't get out of town much the 1.4 will most probably be more than enough.

Get the 2.0 revo'd though and its a different ball game...! :yummy:
2.0 TSI
User avatar
Deacon
Posts: 1729
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 2:37 pm
Options: Tuned 1.4tsi - gone but not forgotten!
Location: Staffordshire

Re: 1.4 160PS vs 2.0 210PS

Post by Deacon »

samwell wrote:
Deacon wrote:There is a simple solution to all this - buy the 1.4 and have it REVO'd = more power than the 2.0 and about £3k left in the bank. Simples. :D

Deacon
Good idea, I guess you may need the extra money if the engine lets go and VW won't pay out under warranty on a modified car! :D

Get the 2.0 if you think you will be able to use its full potential. As has been said if you won't get out of town much the 1.4 will most probably be more than enough.

Get the 2.0 revo'd though and its a different ball game...! :yummy:

Yep, 'cos it's well documented that remapped 1.4's engines regularly let go.... Oh no, sorry that complete rubbish :nod:

Obviously if someone is after ultimate performance then the 2.0 and remap is the way to go. However if you want better performance than a stock 2.0 and a considerable chunk of change then the 1.4 with a remap is a good option.

Deacon
playing in my '86
User avatar
samwell
Posts: 75
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 3:39 pm
I drive a: GT 2.0 TSI
In: Candy White
With a: Manual box
Options: Black Leather, Dynaudio, DAB, Metal Pedal Caps
Location: Swindon

Re: 1.4 160PS vs 2.0 210PS

Post by samwell »

Deacon wrote:
samwell wrote:
Deacon wrote:There is a simple solution to all this - buy the 1.4 and have it REVO'd = more power than the 2.0 and about £3k left in the bank. Simples. :D

Deacon
Good idea, I guess you may need the extra money if the engine lets go and VW won't pay out under warranty on a modified car! :D

Get the 2.0 if you think you will be able to use its full potential. As has been said if you won't get out of town much the 1.4 will most probably be more than enough.

Get the 2.0 revo'd though and its a different ball game...! :yummy:

Yep, 'cos it's well documented that remapped 1.4's engines regularly let go.... Oh no, sorry that complete rubbish :nod:

Obviously if someone is after ultimate performance then the 2.0 and remap is the way to go. However if you want better performance than a stock 2.0 and a considerable chunk of change then the 1.4 with a remap is a good option.

Deacon
LOL, I was just saying that this could happen mate. Have many Revo'd 1.4s covered lots of miles to assess its longevity? As we both said it completely depends on how the car is going to be used and whether the extra outlay will be worth it.

IF, and I know it is a big if as VW are oh so reliable (or so we all think), something does go wrong, a warranty would be worth its weight in gold.
2.0 TSI
User avatar
Gary_Monkey
Posts: 229
Joined: Mon Jun 22, 2009 10:36 am
I drive a: 1.4 TSI 160
In: Rising Blue
With a: DSG box
Options: 18" Interlagos, 2Zone Climate Control, Multifunction Steering Wheel with Paddle Shift and Highline computer, Front Fog Lights, Mats front and rear.

Car ordered 30 June 2009.
Car built Build Week 43.
Car built and at check point 5 (20/10)
Car now at check point 7 (21/10)
Location: Cheshire

Re: 1.4 160PS vs 2.0 210PS

Post by Gary_Monkey »

SciroccoSteve wrote:
Andy-GTI wrote:Buying a 1.4 just says you couldn't afford the 2.0 tbh
Its called being realistic mate. Why did u go for a 2.0T Scirocco, was it because "you couldnt afford" a 911 GT3..... :rolleyes:
Very well said. I totally agree with your sentiment. :yes: :yes: :yes:
Andy's comment was pretty snobbish.

Paularmour should buy the car that's right for him - not others.

Gary
Car now at docks waiting to board ship. Due to sail Sat 24 Oct! 23/10
Car now at a UK port being checked. 26/10)
Car still at the port of Sheerness until 3 Nov. Grrr 29/10
Car at dealers and being prepped. 3/11
Car Deliverd :-) 10 Nov 2009
User avatar
Deacon
Posts: 1729
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 2:37 pm
Options: Tuned 1.4tsi - gone but not forgotten!
Location: Staffordshire

Re: 1.4 160PS vs 2.0 210PS

Post by Deacon »

samwell wrote:LOL, I was just saying that this could happen mate. Have many Revo'd 1.4s covered lots of miles to assess its longevity? As we both said it completely depends on how the car is going to be used and whether the extra outlay will be worth it.

IF, and I know it is a big if as VW are oh so reliable (or so we all think), something does go wrong, a warranty would be worth its weight in gold.
Plenty of Golfs with the same engine have run for years with no problems. REVO themselves I understand had a 1.4Tsi Golf which was treated to plenty of 'spirited' miles and had no problems what so ever and is now running very nicely for it's current owner who is the husband of someone who works for REVO. Companies like REVO, APR, Superchips,etc would'nt be releasing remaps for the 1.4 if they soon after grenaded the engine.

Since I've had my 'roc REVO'd I have had warrenty work carried out with no problems what so ever. Even if the engine were to develop probelms when turned back to the stock setting VW would have to be pretty seriously suspicious to investigate the ECU enough to find the map and as I understand it that is quite a big job and not something that would be undertaken unless they felt it absolutely necessary. When having my car mapped I did ask at REVO about dealers detecting the map and was told that normal dealers do not have the necessary equipment to detect the car has been remapped.

Deacon
playing in my '86
User avatar
samwell
Posts: 75
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 3:39 pm
I drive a: GT 2.0 TSI
In: Candy White
With a: Manual box
Options: Black Leather, Dynaudio, DAB, Metal Pedal Caps
Location: Swindon

Re: 1.4 160PS vs 2.0 210PS

Post by samwell »

Deacon wrote:
samwell wrote:LOL, I was just saying that this could happen mate. Have many Revo'd 1.4s covered lots of miles to assess its longevity? As we both said it completely depends on how the car is going to be used and whether the extra outlay will be worth it.

IF, and I know it is a big if as VW are oh so reliable (or so we all think), something does go wrong, a warranty would be worth its weight in gold.
Plenty of Golfs with the same engine have run for years with no problems. REVO themselves I understand had a 1.4Tsi Golf which was treated to plenty of 'spirited' miles and had no problems what so ever and is now running very nicely for it's current owner who is the husband of someone who works for REVO. Companies like REVO, APR, Superchips,etc would'nt be releasing remaps for the 1.4 if they soon after grenaded the engine.

Since I've had my 'roc REVO'd I have had warrenty work carried out with no problems what so ever. Even if the engine were to develop probelms when turned back to the stock setting VW would have to be pretty seriously suspicious to investigate the ECU enough to find the map and as I understand it that is quite a big job and not something that would be undertaken unless they felt it absolutely necessary. When having my car mapped I did ask at REVO about dealers detecting the map and was told that normal dealers do not have the necessary equipment to detect the car has been remapped.

Deacon
Ah good, some great information there Deacon and glad to hear VW aren't too bothered about aftermarket modifications. However, technically, putting back to stock and claiming under warranty would be a form of fraud if something were to go wrong. I know your experience is a positive one but I have heard so many horror stories or warranties being void with other marques I am always quite sceptical. For example, someone on another forum with a Corsa VXR had the dreaded piston 4 issue which according to Vauxhall required a whole new engine (approx £6000) but warranty was refused for a couple of reasons: 1) aftermarket brakes were fitted 2) it was dropped off at the dealers on a trailer that had some motorsport wheels on it (for a completely different vehicle) and 3) they had "proof" it had been used on track days. All of which meant the owner was faced with a huge bill!

Anyways, if none of this bothers you go for the 2.0 ;)
2.0 TSI
TimM696
Posts: 26
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 8:35 pm
I drive a: 1.4 TSI 160
In: Deep Black
With a: Manual box
Options: RCD-510 with dynaudio, sports pack, climatronic, interlagos rims, acoustic parking sensors, folding mirrors and rain sensor

Re: 1.4 160PS vs 2.0 210PS

Post by TimM696 »

Install an Abt remap and keep your factory warranty :D
should equal a 2.0 in power and torque (if not better than the 2.0!)
The only downside is the price of the Abt remap but it's still £1500 less than the 2.0( In Belgium :P )
User avatar
Deacon
Posts: 1729
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 2:37 pm
Options: Tuned 1.4tsi - gone but not forgotten!
Location: Staffordshire

Re: 1.4 160PS vs 2.0 210PS

Post by Deacon »

samwell wrote:Ah good, some great information there Deacon and glad to hear VW aren't too bothered about aftermarket modifications. However, technically, putting back to stock and claiming under warranty would be a form of fraud if something were to go wrong. I know your experience is a positive one but I have heard so many horror stories or warranties being void with other marques I am always quite sceptical. For example, someone on another forum with a Corsa VXR had the dreaded piston 4 issue which according to Vauxhall required a whole new engine (approx £6000) but warranty was refused for a couple of reasons: 1) aftermarket brakes were fitted 2) it was dropped off at the dealers on a trailer that had some motorsport wheels on it (for a completely different vehicle) and 3) they had "proof" it had been used on track days. All of which meant the owner was faced with a huge bill!

Anyways, if none of this bothers you go for the 2.0 ;)

Mmm... not convinced by the fraud angle, think we'll have to disagree on that one.

As for the VXR it sounds like the owner was particularly unlucky that they had evidence he had tracked it regularly.

The 2.0 is def. the best option if you want to tune it for maximum performance (although I take it you dont with all your warrenty concerns). However, if you want to save a chunk of money then the 1.4 is a good option.

For me I wanted the 1.4 for the twincharged engine so waited for a few months for one rather than having the 2.0 which was freely available (at least when I was ordering) and have not regreted that choice since. Having it REVO'd just confirms it as a great choice for me.

Deacon
playing in my '86
User avatar
Deacon
Posts: 1729
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 2:37 pm
Options: Tuned 1.4tsi - gone but not forgotten!
Location: Staffordshire

Re: 1.4 160PS vs 2.0 210PS

Post by Deacon »

TimM696 wrote:Install an Abt remap and keep your factory warranty :D
should equal a 2.0 in power and torque (if not better than the 2.0!)
The only downside is the price of the Abt remap but it's still £1500 less than the 2.0( In Belgium :P )

I dont think the ABT map keeps the factory warrenty over here in the UK unfortunately.

Deacon
playing in my '86
rhcp128
Posts: 72
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 12:10 am
I drive a: 1.4 TSI 160
In: Sumatra
With a: Manual box

Re: 1.4 160PS vs 2.0 210PS

Post by rhcp128 »

I got my 1.4 because it has enough power not to feel sluggish and also has good fuel economy. My old car had 2.3 turbo engine (222hp) and it just cost too much in petrol. Honestly, didn't want to take the chance... In the end I wanted a car I could actually afford to drive as much as I like! I know the 2.0 tsi is not that bad with fuel consumption but I don't regret the choice... Oh yeah also I love seeing the look on people's faces when you tell then its a 1.4 and they "ohhhh" and then you tell them its 160hp and they go "no way!" :)

p.s. there is always something more expensive and better :P doesn't mean you can't get something that costs less and still makes you happy
ZephyR
Posts: 914
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2009 9:59 pm
I drive a: 1.4 TSI 160
In: Candy White
With a: Manual box
Options: 18" Inters, Front fogs, Multi-function steering wheel, Parking sensors & Interior mats
Location: Manchester

Re: 1.4 160PS vs 2.0 210PS

Post by ZephyR »

rhcp128 wrote: p.s. there is always something more expensive and better :P doesn't mean you can't get something that costs less and still makes you happy
You've hit the nail on the head there. Its a question of choosing the car that meets your desires / requirements a closely as possbile and yet is still affordable for you.
pishpashposh
Posts: 46
Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2009 3:53 pm
Location: Berkshire

Re: 1.4 160PS vs 2.0 210PS

Post by pishpashposh »

Andy-GTI wrote:Buying a 1.4 just says you couldn't afford the 2.0 tbh
so does buying a scirocco just say you cant afford a TT?
User avatar
Gary_Monkey
Posts: 229
Joined: Mon Jun 22, 2009 10:36 am
I drive a: 1.4 TSI 160
In: Rising Blue
With a: DSG box
Options: 18" Interlagos, 2Zone Climate Control, Multifunction Steering Wheel with Paddle Shift and Highline computer, Front Fog Lights, Mats front and rear.

Car ordered 30 June 2009.
Car built Build Week 43.
Car built and at check point 5 (20/10)
Car now at check point 7 (21/10)
Location: Cheshire

Re: 1.4 160PS vs 2.0 210PS

Post by Gary_Monkey »

pishpashposh wrote:
Andy-GTI wrote:Buying a 1.4 just says you couldn't afford the 2.0 tbh
so does buying a scirocco just say you cant afford a TT?
Touché!
Car now at docks waiting to board ship. Due to sail Sat 24 Oct! 23/10
Car now at a UK port being checked. 26/10)
Car still at the port of Sheerness until 3 Nov. Grrr 29/10
Car at dealers and being prepped. 3/11
Car Deliverd :-) 10 Nov 2009
maisbitt
Posts: 1062
Joined: Thu May 14, 2009 8:42 am
I drive a: GT 2.0 TDI 170/184
In: Rising Blue
With a: Manual box
Options: Parking Sensors, Smokers Pack (for aesthetics), R gearstick, R pedals, Sliding cup holder cover.

Re: 1.4 160PS vs 2.0 210PS

Post by maisbitt »

Quite a snipey thread, this one. As a TDI driver i'm neutral....

I would think that the most offputting aspect of the 1.4 is that it doesn't come in GT trim. Most buyers want the GT stuff, but for some reason, VW want you to spend £1500 to spec the GT stuff that you can get on a TDI for only £1100 more (GT vs Standard TDI140). What is the point of VW not putting out a GT trim 1.4 when there's nothing in the GT trim that is unique and cannot be specced on a non GT car?

Cost is probably the biggest factor between 1.4 and 2.0, both in car and running costs, but fuel economy savings aren't massive between the 2 engines, VWs published MPGs for Petrol are way off what you can expect with real driving, you can get to get very close to the published figures on a TDI.

I think others are right with the warranty issues on a modified car though - if something goes wrong then you're in trouble. More of a risk with the 1.4 - the twin charged technology is new enough to not have been tested for longevity outside VWs own labs. The 2.0TSI is based on proven Golf GTI technology.

Each Scirocco variant has it's own pros and cons - TDI has excellent economy and good midrange, it's also available in GT trim. 1.4 is quicker off the mark, but isn't as good in the midrange and is thirstier, but cheaper to buy. 2.0 is quick with good midrange but will punish you eevry time you fill up. I could've got a white 2.0TSI for the same price as my metallic TDI, but the driving pleasure would have been at the expense of being skint with going through a tank of petrol every week - horses for courses.
2013 - Tornado Red MK7 Golf GTD on order
2011-2013 - Rising Blue 170GT
2009-2011 - Pewter Roc 140GT
2007-2009 - Tornado Red Golf 170TDI GT
2005-2007 - Black Pearl Golf 140TDI GT
2003-2005 - Black Pearl Polo 1.9TDI
trix
Posts: 5979
Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2009 11:43 am
Options: Gone but never forgotten; Sumatra, Cruise, Parking Sensors, Flat Tyre Indicator, boot liner, hatchbag, premium sills, SciroccoCentral stickers & hedgehog!
Ordered 23rd June 09
Build week 41
Handover 17th Oct 09
Off to his new home July 2016 after nearly 7 years & 88800 miles.

Missing RW1
Location: Norfolk

Re: 1.4 160PS vs 2.0 210PS

Post by trix »

maisbitt wrote:I would think that the most offputting aspect of the 1.4 is that it doesn't come in GT trim. Most buyers want the GT stuff, but for some reason, VW want you to spend £1500 to spec the GT stuff that you can get on a TDI for only £1100 more (GT vs Standard TDI140). What is the point of VW not putting out a GT trim 1.4 when there's nothing in the GT trim that is unique and cannot be specced on a non GT car?
I see what you're saying maisbitt, although I looked at the extras that you get on the GT trim & felt I really didn't need them, niceities but not necessities, as well as the 1.4 giving enough power when I consider my day to day driving route

S
User avatar
Nobby
Posts: 221
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2009 6:01 pm
I drive a: 1.4 TSI 160
In: Reflex Silver
With a: DSG box
Options: Carat - Top French Spec with Leather heated electric seats, Electric mirrors, Rain Sensor, Auto headlights, Bi-zone air con, Cruise control, Puddle lights, Alloy pedals etc.
+ Sat Nav & alarm (Pack Techno)
+ DCC
+ Parking Sensors & Tyre pressure indicator (Pack City Light)
Location: Haute Loire France

Re: 1.4 160PS vs 2.0 210PS

Post by Nobby »

Depends where you live too

Specs are different in France to the UK so the trim level is not linked to engine size

I went for the top trim spec with the 1.4 by choice, for several reasons (not 'cos I couldn't afford a 2.0 or a TT :shake: )

The price difference between the 1.4 & the 2.0TSi seems a lot for the small difference in performance
I wanted the 7 speed DSG, which I love
I wanted the twincharger lump 'cos I'm a techno freak

Also in France they are obsessed with diesel engines, a Lamborghini Gallardo TDI 90 would sell here ! :( and they would think it was good :fall:

I personally hate diesels (sorry guys, not a dig - my other car's a diesel but it's a 4X4) so just don't get the concept of a scirocco diesel :shrug:

I just might be able to re-sell a 1.4 petrol here when the time comes but a 2.0 would have been like a second marriage !

Everyones case is different I guess :)
Post Reply