Most miles on 122bhp tsi engine

[Ordnance]

Trying to get an idea how reliable this engine is in the long run-appreciate that it has not been around that long but has anyone done more than 50k on this engine. Are there any known problems with it-has anyone had problems with the turbo?
Would appreciate any feedback before buying.
Thanks

[Ordnance]

Anyone out there? Does anyone want to share their experience of the TSI engine or have you all got diesels? Any comments would be appreciated-Thanks

[Gerryf]

Hi and welcome to the MK6 Forums Ordnance, unfortunately my input won't make you any the wiser because my year old 122 Tsi only has 4,000 miles under it's belt but a friend of mine has a 122 with over 60,000 covered without issue excepting the issue of tyre wear.

Hopefully others in a position to comment will soon do so :)

[slowhand]

I doubt there are many mk6 golfs out there with much more than 50k on yet.
I am a bit worried about longevity too and my engine has a lot more to go wrong than yours, so I am now looking at a trade in for a mazda mx5, LOL midlife crisis strikes at last

[Ordnance]

Is yours the engine with the supercharger and turbocharger-is that why you say there is more to go wrong?
My last 2 cars have been normally aspirated cars-a Mondeo 2 litre petrol which I sold with 136000 on the clock and my BMW 3 series 318 which I did 153000 trouble free miles on. I guess we need to get used to more complicated cars as there are a lot of new cars coming out with smaller engines and turbo's.

[Rhigour]

I suppose that in an ideal world the owner of a car should invest the money being saved by economy of these latest small turboed high performance engines so that when it does the splits at 90K he has the money for a new mill.
Or even better determine the trade in by mileage

[vince70]

Same here I prefer a larger normally aspirated engine, I noticed my fathers neighbour the other day repairing his A3 and he was putting on a new turbo.
My last car was a 2.5 V6 petrol which had barely run in at 50,000 and I could get over 30 to the gallon, you could drive everywhere in 5th gear just using the torque.
I also had a 800cc turbo charged smart roadster which had to run with the turbo boosting most of the time to keep up with traffic which did around 40 to the gallon, and all the time the turbo was spinning over it wasn't much more economical than the 2.5.
Plus the bigger the engine and the less stress the longer the engine will last.
The little smart engines normally need a rebuild by the time they reach 50.000 so I would rather have a larger standard engine any day over a supercharged and turbocharged engine, there's an awful lot to go wrong under that bonnet.

[david25]

My record is 190,000 miles in a MK4 GTI (1.8 20 valve turbo) no engine problems in 7 years of ownership.

[slowhand]

yep it is all down to the ridiculous EU system for calculating CO2 emissions, small engines with turbos and stop start. Quite stupid, in real world driving they are no better than a good 1.8 or 2.0.
If I drive mine like an angel I can get 52mpg, but if I drive it like I normally do, which is not that agressive, I can easily get that down to 35mpg. driven the same as my old civic 1.8 it is about the same consumption.
But manufacturers are striving to get their calculated co2 therefore road tax as low as possible, even if nobody will ever achieve those figures.
It is time the system changed, I think it will when a dew more cars claim less than 100mg of CO2 and zero road tax.
Even volvo have anounced they will only have 4 cylinder engines in the future, BMW say they will have nothing bigger than a 6 cylinder.
Come on get real people