VW Scirocco

StonedPenguin

StonedPenguin

StonedPenguin

Soldato
Joined
22 Apr 2011
Posts
3,849
Location
Nottingham
Has anyone got one? Whats it like?

Would you go with the 1.4 TSI (160) or 2.0 TSI (200) if you wernt doing many miles (~5k)

Is there any reason not to choose a Scirocco for a hot little Hatch (Is it a hatch or coupe? :confused: lol) for around £10-12k.

Cheers!

On paper, The combined MPG for the 2.0 TSI is 37, The same as my 206 1.6 xsi.
Is this due to a more efficient engine or should I bet getting more mpg out of mine?
 
It will be more efficient as it's much more modern, but it also seems rather optimistic

It entirely depends what sort of examples of each you can afford - if you can get a decent 2.0 then i'd much rather have it.

Isnt it a 1.4 TSI (twincharger) or 2.0 TFSI (turbo only)... the latter is likely to be much smoother and have less to go wrong
 
Thanks for the response. Yeah it seems something like that, The 2.0 says TSI GT.

Noob question; Why's the Twinchargers more likly to go wrong than a turbo? (I know pretty much nothing regarding mechanics)

The top end of my budget im looking at something like this.
Are there any alternatives for a similer price? I find the Scirocco's looks hard to beat though :D
 
Ah I didnt know they did a TSI 2.0, I'm not overly familiar with these cars

TSI Did stand for twincharger, which is what the 1.4 has.... but it seems that the 2.0 TSI is just a turbo, according to wikipedia. The 2.0 turbos used to be TFSI...all very confusing

The 1.4 TSI has a turbo and a small supercharger which can be quite lumpy and having a sueprcharger as well as a turbo just means there's more to go wrong.
 
I bought one for my brother a couple of years ago but found I drove it more then him.

I bought the 210 bhp TSI. I simply can not fault the car. Its a a lot of fun to drive, interior is quite nice, seats looks good, nav is excellent.

I dont think you will get 37 MPG
 
StonedPenguin said:
Cheers guys.



Not too fussed about it really, I was just curious as to why a 2.0T was the same on paper as a 1.6xsi for mpg, Now I know :)

Look's like ill be looking for the 2.0 then, Still saving me pennies atm. Roll on Spring :D
Click to expand...

If you plan to keep the car I suggest a revo remap. Worth every penny.
 
Depends how you use it, I've got the older 2.0TFSI which is less economical, it only sees motorway use and sees 37mpg (40 in the Summer).

If you're doing 5k a year it really doesn't matter much though, may aswell enjoy it.
 
iaind said:
TSI Did stand for twincharger, which is what the 1.4 has.... but it seems that the 2.0 TSI is just a turbo, according to wikipedia. The 2.0 turbos used to be TFSI...all very confusing
Click to expand...

FSI = Fuel Stratified Injection
TFSI = Turbo Fuel Stratified Injection
TSI = Turbo Stratified Injection

TSI is essentially just the evolution of TFSI, it never meant twincharging, it was just coincidental that some of the early TSI engines were twincharged.
 
Kenai said:
FSI = Fuel Stratified Injection
TFSI = Turbo Fuel Stratified Injection
TSI = Turbo Stratified Injection

TSI is essentially just the evolution of TFSI, it never meant twincharging, it was just coincidental that some of the early TSI engines were twincharged.
Click to expand...

Ah, I thought the whole point of the T is TSI was the twincharger, especially as it appeared when the golf mk5 TSI came out

Car badges are hard :(
 
VW like to call it a Coupe to distinguish it from the Mk5 Golf which it's based on but it is in reality a 3dr hatchback, as it has a hatch at the back :p
 
Or maybe go for a mk2 Leon cupra and get the better engine?

Out of those two choices you have shown though it would be the 2ltr and a remap for me :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom