Scirocco Central

hi Guys,

Who has experience with the 122HP Scirocco?

Most of us will acknowledge the more HP the better, but who is actually currently driving the 122HP and what are your experiences? Is it bad? is it good? I'm sure it will NEVER be good enough ofcourse hehehe
Care to share your experience? Are you disappointed with your choice or do you think it's acceptable?

Optimus

I love my 122. Fairly quick. Nice and refined. Economic. I would love a 210 but too expensive and too thirsty. It's still a quality car regardless of engine. I'd rather have a more expensive car made cheaper than a cheaper car made more expensive. If you see what I mean. I know that some people scoff at the 122 but actually Its rather splendid if you ask me :-)

Test drove one recently, but as a company car driver there was little difference to me in tax terms to the 160, so am considering that further!

However, lovely car... and whilst the performance won't set you on fire, it's still very good. I did find myself wanting a bit more pull out of corners etc.... depends what you want from the car though. Dare i say it, but the Audi A3 which costs similar seemed to suit the 122bhp more, the Scirocco looks like it needs to go faster!!

On a contrasting note, I have the 140 diesel GT for my company car and it is pretty slow. I appreciate diesel and petrol make and deliver the power in different ways but I am pretty sure the 0-60 is very similar and me and a colleague who both have the same car both wish we had somehow managed to kiss enough a$$ to get the 170 lol.

I would try my hardest to get a 160 GT as a minimum if I was you my friend, although I cant obviously comment individually on the 122. Other than that its a great car and it has some nice features such as the RCD head unit, cracking ipod controls, and a useful dimming rear view mirror.

I hope my thoughts help.

Adam

I'm not sure it's under powered or particularly slow. It's just not as fast as the others. :-)

I was worried it was gonna feel lethargic but actually it doesn't at all. Not sure it matters how fast your car goes you always feel you'd like faster... but then realistically when you really gonna exploit it?... trundling about with traffic in town at 30mph? or driving up the busy motorway at 70+... I guess if you really need to race about everywhere pretending you are a good driver then the 122 is not the car for you :-) .... I love my scirocco... but as the man who walked past me the other day commented "it's just a shitty golf with a different body".

juniorbeep wrote:I guess if you really need to race about everywhere pretending you are a good driver then the 122 is not the car for you :-)

Point taken and its a valid one.....but I still feel the 140 is underpowered, so make sure you get a good drive in something before you commit to a purchase. Other than that its a great car.

I've been driving mine for 6 weeks or so, just gone passed 1000 miles and am giving it more juice, revving higher etc (not past 4000).

I have come from a 1.2 litre polo with 3 cylinders, had done 34,000 miles so engine was very nicely beded in and it went well for it.
However my rocco has way more pull to it obviously. I would say it gathers pace nicely if you let the engine rev freely as petrols love to do. I was rather ginger with it in the 'break in' period but am very happy with the power it has now.
It's not a hardcore experience no, your nads do not end up in your digestive tract however for me:

1) I could afford the monthly of £263 vs £350 to get the 160ps
2) insurance being under 25 was/is affordable
3) yeh the mpg is similar to the 160 and is starting to improve noticeably I think, soon I should be able to routinely get 400miles per tank, maybe more.

I think the sweetspot is the 2.0 litre without a doubt (I aspire to own one one day) but the 122 ain't slow, it doesn't move backwards as some might have you believe. It ain't all about tearing it up, there is the ride comfort and aesthetics offered by this car, that's why I went for it and everyone loves looking at or riding in my car:)

I've done about 10 000 miles in my 122 hp BlueMotion Technology Scirocco and I've been quite happy with my choice. I'm averaging about 42 mpg and the engine has enough punch to get me through the day without getting trampled in traffic. However, in motorway speeds or with three passengers onboard, it does feel like it's "just" a 1.4 litre turbo and could use a few more hp. Then again the same can be said for most family sedans with normally aspirated 2-litre engines as well. Overall it's a great engine for everyday stuff, but not one you'd choose if you want trackday thrills.

The reason I chose the 122 hp BMT in the first place was that I couldn't afford all the options I wanted AND 160 hp. Now that I've heard about the reliability issues that at least the older twincharged versions have had, I can't say I'm regretting my choice. The 200 hp (now 210 hp) version was too expensive altogether and isn't available without the damned DSG in Finland, so that wasn't really even on my list.

...and if I ever get bored of having just 122 hp, I can have the engine remapped to give ~160 hp.

RoccoScientist wrote:The reason I chose the 122 hp BMT in the first place was that I couldn't afford all the options I wanted AND 160 hp. Now that I've heard about the reliability issues that at least the older twincharged versions have had, I can't say I'm regretting my choice. The 200 hp (now 210 hp) version was too expensive altogether and isn't available without the damned DSG in Finland, so that wasn't really even on my list.

...and if I ever get bored of having just 122 hp, I can have the engine remapped to give ~160 hp.

It amazes me how similar we both think.
I too couldn't afford the 160 plus all the options that I wanted, so had to settle for the 122. Sometimes I would like it to have more punch, but for now the 122 will do. The so-called lack of reliability in the 160 is another argument to congratulate myself on my choice. Would have liked the 200hp but that was way out of my budget. And as roccoscientist very well said, I can always get a remap to 155-160.
I have had my 122 for almost a year now. It cost me about 1400euros(the 160hp was 1500euros more than the 122)in gas to cover around 17000km, so I think the mpg is great. So for me it is very simple: the 160=122+1 year gas. Very satisfied with the car overall!

just got 400 miles out of a tank, including motorway drive for 148 miles london to Nottingham. Pretty good I think?

put back 49.9 litres BP ultimate, ouch

It's excellent. Best I got was 433miles, but I think there's room for more.

RoccoScientist wrote: The reason I chose the 122 hp BMT in the first place was that I couldn't afford all the options I wanted AND 160 hp. Now that I've heard about the reliability issues that at least the older twincharged versions have had...

What kind of issues are there? Do you have a link or something about this?

kenti wrote:

RoccoScientist wrote: What kind of issues are there? Do you have a link or something about this?

Most problems I've heard of have had to do with the timing chain stretching. I've also heard that the BMY-engines have a design flaw which can lead to a broken turbo. Strangely enough, I couldn't find much talk of these on English forums, but you can just plug this into google translate (and laugh, since the translation is mostly gibberish):

http://www.ultimatevw.com/keskustelu/?c ... 58&sivu=36" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; (translate Finnish -> English)

Edit: If you want a specific message translated in a way that makes sense, just ask.

The problems have mostly been occuring with the 140 hp and 170 hp twincharged engines, which were intoduced when the Golf Mk V was still new. Therefore the 160 hp twincharged engine might be more reliable, but I can't say I haven't lost some faith in the whole idea of twincharging.

So you are actually talking about other engines than the new TSI-engine used in the rocco then. Don't have time to read through all 37 pages in the link you posted right now, but I understand your scepticism if there has been a lot of issues earlier. Maybe it's just you finnish people?

There will always be some issues I guess, just hopes I don't get too many with the TSI 160 I have in order...

There's so much more technology in a newer car, these things will be a nightmare when the cars get a little older and they start playing up more.

As cars get more advanced, reliability seems to go down the pan. Major components such as turbos don't seem anywhere near robust enough to last as long as the rest of the car.

kenti wrote:So you are actually talking about other engines than the new TSI-engine used in the rocco then.

Well, I did say "issues that at least the older twincharged versions have had". The Scirocco 160 hp engine is not BMY but CAVD, but they do share a lot of parts. Whether these are the parts that tend to fail or not, I've no idea. I'd need access to ETKA to make a direct comparison.

There will always be some issues I guess, just hopes I don't get too many with the TSI 160 I have in order...

True, and I'm not saying the 122 hp 1.4 TSI (CAXA) is eternal either. I wouldn't worry too much, since the people with issues with their cars tend to be quite vocal. If no one's complained on these forums, then the issues are most probably very rare. Then again if you do run into problems with the engine, it's good to know the timing chain has caused some problems in the older engine versions.

RoccoScientist wrote: Well, I did say "issues that at least the older twincharged versions have had". The Scirocco 160 hp engine is not BMY but CAVD, but they do share a lot of parts. Whether these are the parts that tend to fail or not, I've no idea. I'd need access to ETKA to make a direct comparison.

Yes, you did. Sorry, I read that line a little too fast obviously. Got so hung up in the "problem"-part of the sentence

RoccoScientist wrote: True, and I'm not saying the 122 hp 1.4 TSI (CAXA) is eternal either. I wouldn't worry too much, since the people with issues with their cars tend to be quite vocal. If no one's complained on these forums, then the issues are most probably very rare. Then again if you do run into problems with the engine, it's good to know the timing chain has caused some problems in the older engine versions.

Yes, that's good to know. Will keep that in mind if something should happen in the future (cross my fingers for not!).

Enough OT then

Did not try the 122 BHP version myself, and didn't even consider the diesel (tractor ) versions. The diesels are probably very good as well from what I read, but I won't be running that many thousand kilometers a year that it should matter much in terms of fuel costs. The 200 BHP TSI cost about £10,000 more than the 160BHP TSI here in Norway, so the 160 was the best compromise for me in terms of power and price. Did go a little crazy on the extras though, so could probably have gotten the 200 BHP for what my ended on. But I really don't think I need that extra powerm, I'm most likely to lose my drivers licence anyway with the 160 BHP engine

juniorbeep wrote:I love my 122. Fairly quick. Nice and refined. Economic. I would love a 210 but too expensive and too thirsty. It's still a quality car regardless of engine. I'd rather have a more expensive car made cheaper than a cheaper car made more expensive. If you see what I mean. I know that some people scoff at the 122 but actually Its rather splendid if you ask me :-)

Hell yeah I know what you mean, that's exactly my whole point of view. "Fairly quick" is good enough for me, in the Netherlands we have lots of speedcamera's and stopping lights on relative short distances. Having a really fast car just wouldn't be profitable in my personal opinion. You'd just hit the gaspedals to arrive at the next stopping lights and waiste your money for 2 secs of fun.
I'm very satisfied about the feedback on this subject, it seems most of you don't feel any negative experience driving the BMT 122HP version at all. Ofcourse, give a kid a candybar and ask him of he want's the bigger one, the answer will allways be yes. But "good enough" to enjoy the whole Scirocco-emotion/feelings is what it is all about to me personally.

MPG on my 122 Scirocco isnt that great ? or isit that ive came from a diesel that im saying this. i came from a 1.7 CDTi 60+ mpg corsa to the scirocco. Just gone past 1600 miles had it about 3 weeks. In my eyes it does drink, the trip computer says i average around 34.9MPG if driving it steady, if revving a little higher say 3000rpm it averages around 32, and on motorway trips it averages 35.4mpg , then onto the live mpg, around 70 80mph its about 38mpg. Shocking when it should be reaching 55 maximum. when driving 60 then you can reach around 48mpg. and for filling up full tank, i actually have filled up 3 - 4 times but never kept my eye on the amount it gives me , this time round i am gonna see , doing more combined trips now. full tank around £63.00 at 128.9. computer says around 345miles.

CandyBoy, give it a chance to run in! you will not see the best mpg straight out of the box & don't expect to get the book figures as they are in conditions that would never ever be seen on the road

S