T&T OFFICIAL New Vehicle Prices & Discussion Thread

[Allergic2BunnyEars]

The cool thing with the tsi engines is that they have flat torque curves. You don't have to rev much to get it as max torque is from 1500 rpm so in and around hilly areas n town it's responsive.

That said I don't think I could stand going back to a 1.6 na or be happy with a 1.2 tsi but that's just me.

[dogichi]

This is just me, but I find 1.2 too small....gas will be excellent though, but we may have some power issues especially if the A/C on and we trying to kick down or climb a hill. 1.6 or 1.8 is the sweet spot I think....some power with fuel savings. Must be turbo charged or supercharged though

[Ted_v2]

good point wrt to AC, somewhere i was reading , a compressor takes almost 33% of the engine power.

However on certain cars once the rpm swings up (times when the car needs power ) the AC switches off and comes back on

[drchaos]

This is just me, but I find 1.2 too small....gas will be excellent though, but we may have some power issues especially if the A/C on and we trying to kick down or climb a hill. 1.6 or 1.8 is the sweet spot I think....some power with fuel savings. Must be turbo charged or supercharged though

VW 1.2 tsi are equivalent to the Mazda 3 and toyota corolla 1.6 and 1.5 L engines ... they will also be more efficient as smaller engines have less friction and lose less power. The Dual clutch transmission will end up with less loss from engine to transmission. Lastly the direct injection will give you more efficient power when you need it.

Oh yes and i forgot to mention TSI's are turbocharged, therefore good acceleration once you spool up that turbo around the mid rev range.

Overall I think it would be a better experience even tho in the same class as a corolla .... (Wagon) (which cots around 211,000) (i think).

BIG PROBLEM!!! It will use premium as those charged engines need higher octane fuel.
Hopefully soon they will equalize the gas price .. super supposed to be going up.

[Renaldo25]

good info guys i guess at the end of the days it comes down to preference i know i could settle for the 1.2 or 1.4 tsi even if it taking premium, the smaller displacement plus all the other goodies means i using less fuel anyways so...them jap and korean 1.5-1.8 engines not touching the 1.4 tsi...

[kurpal_v2]

good info guys i guess at the end of the days it comes down to preference i know i could settle for the 1.2 or 1.4 tsi even if it taking premium, the smaller displacement plus all the other goodies means i using less fuel anyways so...them jap and korean 1.5-1.8 engines not touching the 1.4 tsi...

On a highway run and paper maybe, real world I'm not convinced.

[Allergic2BunnyEars]

Depends on how the low displacement tsi is driven. City driving is usually in low boost but your fuel economy goes down if you have a heavy foot. Only way to know for sure is to compare figures with the appropriate 1.6, 1.8, 2.0, 2.5 normally aspirated etc...

[Caesar_T]

good point wrt to AC, somewhere i was reading , a compressor takes almost 33% of the engine power.

5% bro not 33%
unless is a old model kia you talking bout

[gastly369]

good point wrt to AC, somewhere i was reading , a compressor takes almost 33% of the engine power.

5% bro not 33%
unless is a old model kia you talking bout

or ah honda

[dogichi]

I wonder how many people would be interested in 4 to 5 years to buy a 1.2 engine? From trinicarsforsale.com, and seeing the comments there, it not looking to good for those really small engines. Men like they want bigger engines for power....lol

[drchaos]

good info guys i guess at the end of the days it comes down to preference i know i could settle for the 1.2 or 1.4 tsi even if it taking premium, the smaller displacement plus all the other goodies means i using less fuel anyways so...them jap and korean 1.5-1.8 engines not touching the 1.4 tsi...

On a highway run and paper maybe, real world I'm not convinced.

Allu fellars not convinced cause yall don't know what displacement of an engine does ... Displacement is the volume of the cylinders combined. If i take two 2.0 liter bottles, I hold the first open in-front of a fan and the second I hook up to a compressor for 10 seconds. Which bottle will hold more air? The bottle with more air will have more oxygen available for combustion.

This is why my jetta with a little 1.4 liter engine can kick the sheit out of my woman's legacy with a 2.0 liter engine. Cause even tho her engine has more space for air, mine ends up with more air because the turbo and super chargers are compressing air into the engine. The more air ... then the more gas my car can spray into the engine and make more power. SO you can actually ecu tune a 1.4 to drink more gas than 2.0 engine.

Best Auto just tuned their 1.4 jetta (they use for drag and wind events) to over 200 HP, drinks gas and shortens the life of the engine + clutch but it will destroy anything with a 2.0 L natually aspirated engine.

That is why a 1.2 liter engine can more than keep pace with mazda's and toyta's with higher displacement.
5th gear uk drag raced the 1.0 L 3 cylinder turbocharged engine against the 1.6 L naturally aspirated engine. Both same models and equally equiped ford focus, the 1.0T ended up beating the 1.6 by a whole second.

[Renaldo25]

of course but because of fuel prices and the like most automobile manufacturers worldwide making vehicles now coming with smaller displacement engines but artificially boosted so you;re getting the same power but without burning as much fuel and creating as many emissions...men resistant to change is what it is ...BMW, Volkswagen group are all doing that...we just taking long to adapt...

[drchaos]

Strange ... probably culture does influence us alot. People in the UK have no problem driving cars with 80 HP, and a 1.0L engine cause gas cost like 1.3 GBP a liter. If allu tink the price of premium stink, trying living in europe.

[kurpal_v2]

good info guys i guess at the end of the days it comes down to preference i know i could settle for the 1.2 or 1.4 tsi even if it taking premium, the smaller displacement plus all the other goodies means i using less fuel anyways so...them jap and korean 1.5-1.8 engines not touching the 1.4 tsi...

On a highway run and paper maybe, real world I'm not convinced.

Allu fellars not convinced cause yall don't know what displacement of an engine does ... Displacement is the volume of the cylinders combined. If i take two 2.0 liter bottles, I hold the first open in-front of a fan and the second I hook up to a compressor for 10 seconds. Which bottle will hold more air? The bottle with more air will have more oxygen available for combustion.

This is why my jetta with a little 1.4 liter engine can kick the sheit out of my woman's legacy with a 2.0 liter engine. Cause even tho her engine has more space for air, mine ends up with more air because the turbo and super chargers are compressing air into the engine. The more air ... then the more gas my car can spray into the engine and make more power. SO you can actually ecu tune a 1.4 to drink more gas than 2.0 engine.

Best Auto just tuned their 1.4 jetta (they use for drag and wind events) to over 200 HP, drinks gas and shortens the life of the engine + clutch but it will destroy anything with a 2.0 L natually aspirated engine.

That is why a 1.2 liter engine can more than keep pace with mazda's and toyta's with higher displacement.
5th gear uk drag raced the 1.0 L 3 cylinder turbocharged engine against the 1.6 L naturally aspirated engine. Both same models and equally equiped ford focus, the 1.0T ended up beating the 1.6 by a whole second.

That's cool and all but nothing suggested real world fuel savings in your post. Even ecoboost from ford has come under heavy criticism wrt consumption figures irl. In theory the small engine+supercharger combo is perfect but in real life it sucks outside of highway drives

Strange ... probably culture does influence us alot. People in the UK have no problem driving cars with 80 HP, and a 1.0L engine cause gas cost like 1.3 GBP a liter. If allu tink the price of premium stink, trying living in europe.

Simple, they have so many fines associated with owning a vehicle, especially wrt emissions and such that its attractive to buy smaller engine cars eg the success of smart cars and popularity of mopeds/motorbikes etc. plus the price of fuel.

[drchaos]

1.4 tsi highway driving - if I drive like a maniac (which i do enjoying doing with this car) about 30 to 35 mpg. If I driver extremely conservative then i can pull off around 45 to 49 mpg (slow and uninspired driving 60 to 80 kmph)

Non-highway driving, 25 to 35 mpg average about 30 mpg

All MPG quoted are US mpg
Anyone with figures from the japanese 1.5 to 2.0 L engines care to chime in?

[aidan]

1.4 tsi highway driving - if I drive like a maniac (which i do enjoying doing with this car) about 30 to 35 mpg. If I driver extremely conservative then i can pull off around 45 to 49 mpg (slow and uninspired driving 60 to 80 kmph)

Non-highway driving, 25 to 35 mpg average about 30 mpg

All MPG quoted are US mpg
Anyone with figures from the japanese 1.5 to 2.0 L engines care to chime in?

Nicee. I hoping they bring the polo with a 1.2tsi in Nov. That would def be high on my list.

I get 14.4 km/l on my 1.6l SX4 which equates to 33.4 mpg. I drive pretty average, and with AC all the time. If I drive really conservative it goes up to about 16.7 km/l or 39.3 mpg.
My dad has a 1.8 (2ZR-FE) corolla axio, which gives an avg of 38 mpg with mixed driving.

[drchaos]

SX4 has a trip computer? Nice!
Amazing car for value for money!

[kurpal_v2]

1.4 tsi highway driving - if I drive like a maniac (which i do enjoying doing with this car) about 30 to 35 mpg. If I driver extremely conservative then i can pull off around 45 to 49 mpg (slow and uninspired driving 60 to 80 kmph)

Non-highway driving, 25 to 35 mpg average about 30 mpg

All MPG quoted are US mpg
Anyone with figures from the japanese 1.5 to 2.0 L engines care to chime in?

Nicee. I hoping they bring the polo with a 1.2tsi in Nov. That would def be high on my list.

I get 14.4 km/l on my 1.6l SX4 which equates to 33.4 mpg. I drive pretty average, and with AC all the time. If I drive really conservative it goes up to about 16.7 km/l or 39.3 mpg.
My dad has a 1.8 (2ZR-FE) corolla axio, which gives an avg of 38 mpg with mixed driving.

Basically your sx4 and corolla examples are within the tsi range then?

Only benefits of the tsi motor come in when you aren't on the taps calling on the supercharger basically? Which on Trinidad roads is about 80% of the time? I remember even with the blue motion, Richard hammod lamented that he only could achieve the vw's rated numbers by driving below the speed limit.

[Allergic2BunnyEars]

Compare dr. Chaos' figures to a 2.0 or 2.5.

The 1.2tsi is closer to replacing a 1.6/1.8.

[dogichi]

If that is so, a 1.6TSI or 1.8TSI will replace what normally aspirated engine?

[Allergic2BunnyEars]

If that is so, a 1.6TSI or 1.8TSI will replace what normally aspirated engine?

Depends on the power output of the 1.8T. Some roll with 120hp approx. and would replace a 2.0 na. Some roll with 160-180hp and match up better with a 2.5 na.

There isn't any 1.6TSI as far as I know.

[DJ Q]

But why DSG over CVT?
CVT always chooses the best ratio and thus will always optimize fuel consumption.

CVT is also the best thing for any hill.

[kurpal_v2]

Compare dr. Chaos' figures to a 2.0 or 2.5.

The 1.2tsi is closer to replacing a 1.6/1.8.

What? That's purposely putting David vs Goliath (1.2 vs 2.0) instead of David vs David (1.2 vs 1.6/1.. Interestingy however, I'd still bet the real world figure to be close for all

But why DSG over CVT?
CVT always chooses the best ratio and thus will always optimize fuel consumption.

CVT is also the best thing for any hill.

In theory yes, in reality, I've had circumstances where I had to take control of gearing or adjust my driving to "tame" the cvt selection.

[DJ Q]

But why DSG over CVT?
CVT always chooses the best ratio and thus will always optimize fuel consumption.

CVT is also the best thing for any hill.

In theory yes, in reality, I've had circumstances where I had to take control of gearing or adjust my driving to "tame" the cvt selection.

But there are no gears in CVT

[drchaos]

Allergic is right, the 1.4 tsi with dual charger is about equivalent to a 2.5l engine. The hp and torque figures for the tsi are about 160 hp with 177lbs/foot torque. US jetta have a 5 cylinder 2.5 L with 170 hp and just over 180lbs/foot torque.
Therefore u will always be bouncing your head trying to figure out tsi engines and real world performance.

Next thing is taking any member of top gears word on fuel economy makes no sense ... It's like taking advice on construction from a demolition crew...

[Allergic2BunnyEars]

Compare dr. Chaos' figures to a 2.0 or 2.5.

The 1.2tsi is closer to replacing a 1.6/1.8.

What? That's purposely putting David vs Goliath (1.2 vs 2.0) instead of David vs David (1.2 vs 1.6/1.. Interestingy however, I'd still bet the real world figure to be close for all

Dr. Chaos drives a 1.4TSI hence why I say you'd have to compare his figures to a 2.0 or 2.5...

If you do want to compare 1.4 TSI to a 1.6/1.8 note that the fuel economy figures aren't that far off (just like as you suggest already) but the performance is significantly better for the 1.4TSI. I can't stress enough: significantly.

[kurpal_v2]

But why DSG over CVT?
CVT always chooses the best ratio and thus will always optimize fuel consumption.

CVT is also the best thing for any hill.

In theory yes, in reality, I've had circumstances where I had to take control of gearing or adjust my driving to "tame" the cvt selection.

But there are no gears in CVT

Ok let me be more specific, I had to take control of the numbers in the screen via the shiftEr

Next thing is taking any member of top gears word on fuel economy makes no sense ... It's like taking advice on construction from a demolition crew...

Funny but its not all about "POWWAHH" and crashing robin reliants

Compare dr. Chaos' figures to a 2.0 or 2.5.

The 1.2tsi is closer to replacing a 1.6/1.8.

What? That's purposely putting David vs Goliath (1.2 vs 2.0) instead of David vs David (1.2 vs 1.6/1.. Interestingy however, I'd still bet the real world figure to be close for all

Dr. Chaos drives a 1.4TSI hence why I say you'd have to compare his figures to a 2.0 or 2.5...

If you do want to compare 1.4 TSI to a 1.6/1.8 note that the fuel economy figures aren't that far off (just like as you suggest already) but the performance is significantly better for the 1.4TSI. I can't stress enough: significantly.

Still picking a fight with Goliath IMO.

Compared to a hr16 (most popular 1.6 locally IMO) the figures I've seen are about 20hp more and 30nm more tourque for the 1.4 (could be wrong as I see varying figures). Idk but that's not significantly more man.

[Allergic2BunnyEars]

But why DSG over CVT?
CVT always chooses the best ratio and thus will always optimize fuel consumption.

CVT is also the best thing for any hill.

In theory yes, in reality, I've had circumstances where I had to take control of gearing or adjust my driving to "tame" the cvt selection.

But there are no gears in CVT

Ok let me be more specific, I had to take control of the numbers in the screen via the shiftEr

Next thing is taking any member of top gears word on fuel economy makes no sense ... It's like taking advice on construction from a demolition crew...

Funny but its not all about "POWWAHH" and crashing robin reliants

Compare dr. Chaos' figures to a 2.0 or 2.5.

The 1.2tsi is closer to replacing a 1.6/1.8.

What? That's purposely putting David vs Goliath (1.2 vs 2.0) instead of David vs David (1.2 vs 1.6/1.. Interestingy however, I'd still bet the real world figure to be close for all

Dr. Chaos drives a 1.4TSI hence why I say you'd have to compare his figures to a 2.0 or 2.5...

If you do want to compare 1.4 TSI to a 1.6/1.8 note that the fuel economy figures aren't that far off (just like as you suggest already) but the performance is significantly better for the 1.4TSI. I can't stress enough: significantly.

Still picking a fight with Goliath IMO.

Compared to a hr16 (most popular 1.6 locally IMO) the figures I've seen are about 20hp more and 30nm more tourque for the 1.4 (could be wrong as I see varying figures). Idk but that's not significantly more man.

Not sure where you are getting figures from but maybe I should clarify I'm talking about the 1.4 TSI twincharger with 160hp and 240Nm torque. The highest figures I am seeing for the hr16de are 108-116 hp and approximately 150-160Nm. That's a difference of 44-52hp and 80-90Nm in torque.

edit: links for references.

http://blog.carlist.my/2011/01/blog/lat ... est-drive/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nissan_HR_engine

[kurpal_v2]

Ahhh I see my mistake, I just searched 1.4tsi and used the golf variant, not twincharger. My bad there.




Now those specs impressive

[Renaldo25]

Allergic is right, the 1.4 tsi with dual charger is about equivalent to a 2.5l engine. The hp and torque figures for the tsi are about 160 hp with 177lbs/foot torque. US jetta have a 5 cylinder 2.5 L with 170 hp and just over 180lbs/foot torque.
Therefore u will always be bouncing your head trying to figure out tsi engines and real world performance.

Next thing is taking any member of top gears word on fuel economy makes no sense ... It's like taking advice on construction from a demolition crew...

lol