[ramki.grandhi]

Originally Posted by AMG Power

Performance Comparison between the 1.2 TSI and the 1.0 TSI

1.2 TSI

0-100 - 11.02
Max speed - 190
20-80 3rd gear - 6.48
40-100 4th gear - 8.10
0-160 kmph - 36.50

1.0 TSI

0-100 - 9.97
Max Speed - 192
20-80 3rd gear - 12.46
40-100 4th gear - 14.73
0-160 - 30.36!!

Where the 1.0 TSI wins:

1. 1.05 seconds faster in the 0-100 kmph times.
2. Top speed higher by 2 kmph
3. A whopping 6 seconds faster in the 0-160 kmph run!

Advanced apologies if im wrong, im not enthusiast, learning to be one. I've few questions:
1) If 1.0 tsi is faster in 0-100 and 0-160 tests significantly, i want to understand in which power band it is outperforming 1.2 tsi?
2) I didnt quite understand why 20-80 or 40-100 tests are important in real world. Say, if we are overtaking a lorry that is travelling 60 kmph, we might be in 5th gear and want to accelerate from 60-90. Why this number is important real world?
Lets say:
Length of container lorry is 15-16 meters
Length of car is 4.3 meters
Total distance car to travel to over take : ~20 meters.
If car already travelling at 90kmph, it would take 2 seconds to overtake.
Total overtake time: 2 seconds + (time to accelerate from 60 to 90) +/- (very minute buffer).
So, for indian conditions i feel 60-90 or 70-100 or 80-110 numbers in 5th gear are more important. I'm not sure how to get it though. am i correct?

My only concern with 1.0 tsi is, AC performance may take a hit in long run?

//As everyone already pointed out DSG advantage, i didnt consider that in my calculation.

[AMG Power]

Originally Posted by Vid6639

Just to clarify, the tests of the 1.2L TSI are with kickdown for 20-80 and 40-100. Which means the gearbox will downshift to 1st or 2nd and then back up. So any automatic transmission will show very low figures since the box was allowed to shift down when accelerating when going from 20-80kph.

Yes, tests of all automatics are done in kickdown mode and that's why I mentioned the DSG as among the reasons for the better performance of the 1.2.

The point here is that the 1.0 is not going to be available with a DSG and with the manual gearbox will be substantially slower than the 1.2 in the real world. Additionally peak torque comes in higher in the rev band and that has increased lag which has also contributed to lower in-gear acceleration figures. It is better prospective owners take this into account while buying the car.

Even with the eventual torque converter that is slated to come with the car things aren't going to improve too much.

[Vid6639]

Originally Posted by AMG Power

Yes, tests of all automatics are done in kickdown mode and that's why I mentioned the DSG as among the reasons for the better performance of the 1.2.

The point here is that the 1.0 is not going to be available with a DSG and with the manual gearbox will be substantially slower than the 1.2 in the real world. Additionally peak torque comes in higher in the rev band and that has increased lag which has also contributed to lower in-gear acceleration figures. It is better prospective owners take this into account while buying the car.

Even with the eventual torque converter that is slated to come with the car things aren't going to improve too much.

Yes but thats not the point. With a manual you can drive how you want and if at 20kph and you want to go to 80kph, you can downshift just like the DSG does and get the acceleration.

While the DSG will be faster due to quicker upshifts, a half decent driver can get the 1.0L TSI manual to be quicker.

The 1.0L TSI with torque converter I don't doubt will be as quick as the DSG. This will be a more practical commuter vs the DSG whereas the enthusiast now has the option of MT.

[AMG Power]

Originally Posted by Vid6639

While the DSG will be faster due to quicker upshifts, a half decent driver can get the 1.0L TSI manual to be quicker.

What you're referring to is outright performance. I have already mentioned that as being better in the first post of mine.

In gear acceleration is more real world driving conditions in which the car effortlessly accelerates rather than making one work for it through the gears as one does for outright performance. This is what most owners will wish for / need / experience - in comparison they would have had a far more faster car with the 1.2.

Additionally, a 6 second difference cannot be made up easily - a DSG may move to 1st from 20 kmph in 3rd, the while the manual will not allow that.

[anb]

Originally Posted by AMG Power

In gear acceleration is more real world driving conditions in which the car effortlessly accelerates rather than making one work for it through the gears as one does for outright performance. This is what most owners will wish for / need / experience - in comparison they would have had a far more faster car with the 1.2.

In real world driving conditions, most gt tsi owners will drive in D mode while the in gear figures given are in S mode. D is definitely slower than S mode.

[Vid6639]

Originally Posted by AMG Power

What you're referring to is outright performance. I have already mentioned that as being better in the first post of mine.

In gear acceleration is more real world driving conditions in which the car effortlessly accelerates rather than making one work for it through the gears as one does for outright performance. This is what most owners will wish for / need / experience - in comparison they would have had a far more faster car with the 1.2.

But you are comparing an automatic which in this case is not accelerating in 3rd gear from 20-80kmph but going through the gears in max acceleration and max boost.

In comparison you are slotting the MT in 3rd gear at 20kmph, lugging it outside the turbo band and then expecting it to reach 80kmph.

This is hardly real world driving scenario and forget 1.0L TSI even a 2.0L engine will not match the 1.2L TSI.

I had discussed this in on another thread which you can see below for the Seltos. The comparison is for the same 1.4L turbo petrol engine but with different gearboxes. You can see how skewed the numbers are even for the same engine.

Now this only means that the DCT is more driveable since it is an automatic and takes care of gear changes vs driving an MT by not changing the gears.

So yes the 1.0L TSI is not as driveable if you don't change the gears at all and try to lug the engine by not using the gearbox vs a DCT which changes gears on it's own.

Now unless in real world a driver refuses to change gears then I can understand the point else this is a moot point since there is no DSG coming anyways and TC isn't launched yet. The TC figures might be closer to DSG since no clutch slippage but we need to wait for that.

Originally Posted by Vid6639

1. DCT kickdown figure is 5.71s for 20-80kmph is so good because this is not really in gear acceleration. The gearbox will kickdown to 2nd or 1st when you mash the throttle which means it is in power band always. It doesn't really remain in 3rd gear.

2. MT is 10.05s for 20-80kmph in 3rd gear cause in 3rd gear at 20kmph it is completely out of the power band and turbo hasn't spooled up yet. By the time the turbo spools and delivers power, the DCT has downshifted and reached 80kmph. The MT is now in power band by 40-50kph in 3rd and then picks up.

[AMG Power]

Originally Posted by Vid6639

In comparison you are slotting the MT in 3rd gear at 20kmph, lugging it outside the turbo band and then expecting it to reach 80kmph.

That is precisely the point - the turbo lag reduces from the driveability and reduces from the feel good factor.

40kmph is certainly a 4th gear speed but the turbo takes long to spool up since the max torque is higher up in the rev band. Also 20 kmph is usually enough for a 3rd gear in most cars - but it is in off boost area for the 1.0 so it takes longer to spool up. All of this leads to far lower in-gear acceleration figures.

Most owners (even enthusiasts) aren't going to keep changing the gears and flooring the throttle all the time and the ability to access power effortlessly certainly has a feel good factor to it.

Yes, the DSG is uses its tricks to get the power down effortlessly and that's what most owners want.

Additionally the 1.2 has got it's max torque lower in the power band and this helps.

[Turbohead]

I guess in order to check driveability, you should check 0-60kmph and 0-100kmph runs while upshifting at 1750 RPM (except the top gear). That's a relatively 'Indian' scenario and would help us to understand and compare the power produced at lower RPMs for different engines. After all that's the range 80% of engines run in the city.

[Waspune]

The in gear acceleration figures mean less to a turbo petrol car. They say '20-80 in 3rd gear' and '40-100 in 4th gear. My question is -> 20 kmph in 3rd gear and 40 kmph is 4th gear means that most of the turbo-petrols would be off-boost. If someone really wants to check performance won't he be driving in the turbo zone?
The only inference that I can make out of cars like Baleno RS who have the best 'so called' in gear acceleration is that they are linearly tuned for efficiency, which is already an irony in itself. You buy a performance car not for better efficiency but for better outright performance, something that the RS lacks, period!

[Sabrish]

Please pardon me If this question doesn't make sense but I was curious to see how does the 1.0 TSI compare to the 1.5 TDCI Ford? Can someone throw some light on it? I'm smitten by the rider but have an Aspire Sports Disel mill which is totally Satisfying but I guess I'm now in need of more space both at the rear and the boot...I have the answers to my space constraints but would this switch become a downgrade or a tad different in terms of performance...I do a few highway runs every couple of months...thanks in advance..

[Vid6639]

Originally Posted by AMG Power

That is precisely the point - the turbo lag reduces from the driveability and reduces from the feel good factor.

The turbo lag reduces in this case cause the gearbox downshifts for the DSG. But in the manual you are purposely making it lag hence this is an unfair assumption that the drive-ability is poorer. While I get your point on what you are saying for ease of driving but we need to understand the fact that automatics by virtue of being automatic don't have any driveability issues in city use since they change gears on their own.

20-80kmph and 40-100kmph are not really real world driving conditions. To see which is more driveable we should have figures for 40-80kmph in 3rd and 20-60kmph in 2nd. This will show real world usage.

40kmph is certainly a 4th gear speed but the turbo takes long to spool up since the max torque is higher up in the rev band. Also 20 kmph is usually enough for a 3rd gear in most cars - but it is in off boost area for the 1.0 so it takes longer to spool up. All of this leads to far lower in-gear acceleration figures.

No 40kmph is not a 4th gear speed in most turbo engines. Neither will my Ecosport or a Superb 1.8L TSI like being in 4th at 40kmph as it will be completely off boost.

Most owners (even enthusiasts) aren't going to keep changing the gears and flooring the throttle all the time and the ability to access power effortlessly certainly has a feel good factor to it.

This is again a gearbox trait and not engine.

Yes, the DSG is uses its tricks to get the power down effortlessly and that's what most owners want.

Additionally the 1.2 has got it's max torque lower in the power band and this helps.

Your basic premise is that an automatic transmission will be more fun to drive cause it's more usable power. This is true only for half the people. For some working the manual box in a small hatch is where the fun is at.

There is no doubt that the DSG will work better for average drivers but nothing comes close to working a manual box through a ghat section.

Secondly you are comparing gearboxes not engines, since the 1.2L TSI was with DSG and the 1.0L TSI is with a manual. And you have to remember that the 1.0L TSI manual is 2lakhs lesser than the price of the Polo GT TSI with DSG.

Another point to remember is that the DSG is a 7 speed vs the 6 speed MT. This means 1st gear is very short and in actual driving conditions, the DSG will be in 2nd more than 1st in slow speed. And in D mode, the DSG will keep upshifting to 4th and 5th and lose performance vs keeping the manual in 3rd even at 70kmph. So with far lesser downshifts, the manual can be driveable vs the DSG that will keep going up and down more.

[Venkatesh]

Skoda Rapid with its competitors
Volkswagen Vento
Maruti Ciaz
Hyundai Verna
Honda City
Toyota Yaris











https://www.autocarindia.com/car-new...parison-417523

[OSH]

I would say that the performance difference is more related to driving in the appropriate gears vs wrong gears.

For the 0-100 & 0-160 tests, the car is in the correct gear at all times with the driver(1.0 TSI) / DSG(1.2 TSI) upshifting only when its necessary. The 1.0 TSI performed better than 1.2 TSI in these tests because the engine's power was used properly just like it should be.

For the 20-80 & 40-100 tests, the gears chosen(3rd & 4th) were all wrong which resulted in the 1.0 TSI loosing out to the 1.2 TSI. During these in gear acceleration tests, the 1.2 TSI was always in the correct gears, maybe even changing gears at times but the 1.0 TSI was always in the wrong gear. Doing the same 20-80 test in 2nd gear and 40-100 test in 3rd gear would have been more fruitful IMO.

I personally never compare a car's acceleration time in a particular gear for the simple reason that a 'gear' is not a standard measure.

[84.monsoon]

Originally Posted by Venkatesh

Skoda Rapid with its competitors

The comparison is missing an important element - i.e. kerb weights. Many manufacturers such as Hyundai do not reveal kerb weights, so the comparison is difficult.

I did want to understand the difference in kerb weights between the Polo and Rapid TSI, to see how much slower he Rapid Rider would be when compared to the Polo Highline TSI. The latter has registered a time of just under 10 seconds in various acceleration tests, but I could not find a test of the Rapid yet on-line. Scanning through the brochures, I notice that the kerb weight of the Rapid Rider is 1112 KG. For the Polo Highline TSI, it is 1072 Kg.

So the difference in kerb weights between the two is only 50 KG. So, the Rapid Rider should be able to come in pretty close to the Polo TSI maybe slower by half a second in the 0-100 run.

[IntoTheStorm]

Originally Posted by shankha007

I tweeted Zac regarding my test drive impressions and shared the link to this page, hoping that he would take a good look at the entire thread and gather customer feedbacks egards

Kudos to your efforts! but at the same time, even if he works on your feedback, dont expect any thing before at least next year! As even basic changes require complex cost analysis(even for small amount!) and also working with supplier and manufacturing teams. And do not forget that it is one of the most affordable offering in this segment hence they will be very careful no to add any additional cost. So lets hope that your feedback is included in next cycle!