122 TSI a better engine than 160 TSI?

[dmw76]

I have a 122 TSI and i think its a cracking engine, i have read several threads and replies to threads on here regarding the 160 TSI and many people have been disapointed with the supercharger/ turbo combo. The 122 is torquey and pulls very well from 1500rpm and is known to produce more power and torque than quoted but people have said the 160 lacks torque and are disapointed with its performance. I was wondering if anybody has driven both to compare and maybe think vw would of been better sticking with the 122s setup and just increasing the boost to get rid of the supercharger lag?

[percymon]

I think the issue lies with how people drive as much as anything - the move to smaller capacity engines with turbos might be good for efficiency but if you drive in a lazy fashion at low revs then the small capacity leaves you with very little until the turbo kicks in. The supercharger of the 160bhp engine aims to get over this to a certain extent but its still not like driving a bigger capcity engine. I suppose a similar but lesser effect was seen when 16v engines started to come out as the 'high performance' version of the same 8v engines - you got more power if you used the right revs, but as a result they were less torquey at low revs.

I don't know what the torque figures are like off boost on the 122 but i'd imagine they're little or no better than the basic 1.4 80bhp engine

There's a similar thing with the 1.6TDI - its very smooth and has a broader rev range of power but off boost its a 1.6 diesel, so lacks natural torque of the old 1.9 PD units.

[cs2009]

I think the issue lies with how people drive as much as anything - the move to smaller capacity engines with turbos might be good for efficiency but if you drive in a lazy fashion at low revs then the small capacity leaves you with very little until the turbo kicks in. The supercharger of the 160bhp engine aims to get over this to a certain extent but its still not like driving a bigger capcity engine. I suppose a similar but lesser effect was seen when 16v engines started to come out as the 'high performance' version of the same 8v engines - you got more power if you used the right revs, but as a result they were less torquey at low revs.

I fully agree with that assessment.

The turbo on the 160 is optimised to provide boost only above about 3500rpm, and below that you are reliant on the supercharger, so the overall power delivery can be a bit jerky, I find.

Before I got the Golf, I expected the 160 to behave like a milder version of my previous 2.0T, but in practice you have to keep the revs up a lot more. As percymon says, you can't adopt a more lazy (diesel-like) driving style, which I prefer. It's a pity that VW don't make the Audi 1.8T engine available on the Golf. That has the same paper figures as the 160 TSI, but is turbo-only. If you like revvy engines however, then you might find the 160 is perfect.

[percymon]

Had a quick look at some power charts on superchips earlier - according to them the 122TSi makes about 59bhp at 2000rpm, and about 62 after a rechip. Even though the torque curve reaches pretty much peak at about 2200rpm there's still not much power until you get over 3500rpm or more. http://www.superchips.co.uk/curves/VAG14TFSi.pdf for info.

[Typ 5K]

It's a pity that VW don't make the Audi 1.8T engine available on the Golf. That has the same paper figures as the 160 TSI, but is turbo-only. If you like revvy engines however, then you might find the 160 is perfect.

Actually they did put the 1.8TSI/TFSI engine in the Golf last year as an interim measure, due to the shortage of 1.4TSI engines. It was only available in continental Europe though.

You can get the 1.8TSI engine in an Octavia too.

[slowhand]

I moved form a civic 1.8 vtec and I certainly prfer the low down power of the 160 it is so much more useable the the honda, the honda was great fun on a mad dash through the lanes but with no power below 5ooo rpm it was hard work on a day to day basis. The golf does not have that instant response to the throttle but when just driving normally it has more real useable power for accelerating.

[pompey fan]

Had a quick look at some power charts on superchips earlier - according to them the 122TSi makes about 59bhp at 2000rpm, and about 62 after a rechip. Even though the torque curve reaches pretty much peak at about 2200rpm there's still not much power until you get over 3500rpm or more. http://www.superchips.co.uk/curves/VAG14TFSi.pdf for info.

I'm no expert in this field but that chart is for the FSI not TSI engine, I'm guessing there is a difference there.

[david25]

Number one comment, as mentioned in several other posts, test drive them both if you are considering a purchase!

Without knowing all the technical details, we can never answer why VW didnt do this in the first place e.g does the 160PS engine have a different turbo, pistons & crank?

If we looks at remapping, the 160PS can go further compared to the 122PS, so something is definately different.

In comparison;

1. They each suffer from some lag, note the lag feels 'different'.
2. The 122PS has a more linear delivery, less 'kick in the back'
3. You can notice the SC engaging in the 160PS (depending on throttle position)
4. The 160PS has a stronger mid and top end, especially from 3500rpm
5. Both are quiet (SC can be heard with the windows open)

My view;

1. I find it easy to drive in lazy/economy mode using <2500rpm, torque is adequate for most traffic situations. If you use 3/4 throttle and <2500rpm you actually pull away from traffic 9 times out of 10. Economy is good, around 40mpg.

2. Warm performance is available from 3000rpm, again adequate for most situations.

Its the best compromise engine available, but if you have the money get the 200PS GTI.


Note, there are rumours the MK7 will feature a low power 2.0TFI engine

http://www.carmagazine.co.uk/Secret-...ontent-block=1

[ross980]

I have a 122 TSI and i think its a cracking engine, i have read several threads and replies to threads on here regarding the 160 TSI and many people have been disapointed with the supercharger/ turbo combo. The 122 is torquey and pulls very well from 1500rpm and is known to produce more power and torque than quoted but people have said the 160 lacks torque and are disapointed with its performance. I was wondering if anybody has driven both to compare and maybe think vw would of been better sticking with the 122s setup and just increasing the boost to get rid of the supercharger lag?

I wonder if there's an element of expectations too. People who buy the 160 are probably expecting 'hot hatch' level of performance whereas people who buy the 122 are after an all rounder with decent economy.

[ross980]

I'm no expert in this field but that chart is for the FSI not TSI engine, I'm guessing there is a difference there.

No, it definitely is for the correct engine. It actually says 'VAG 1.4 T FSi' - the 'T' being the key bit.