Team-BHP (https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/)

-   Long-Term Ownership Reviews (https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/long-term-ownership-reviews/)

-   -   An owner's review of the VW 1.2L MPI engine (https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/long-term-ownership-reviews/177221-owners-review-vw-1-2l-mpi-engine-2.html)

Nice review there!

I have driven this engine for about 6 months mainly in the city, And it does the duty well in the city under speeds of 60 - 70 kph, Took it on the highway just once and it was a pain to drive it, Specially while over taking.

The worst experience for me was, When my car's engine was running and i was outside the car chatting with this one new girl (happily) Till she said, "Whats wrong with your car? Why is it making such noises while its on". I decided to sell the car in the next half hour, Also never talked to that girl again who drives an Hyundai. :uncontrol

The 1.2 l petrol from VW is one of the most reliable engines. I've heard no problems from an owner who been using the car for 5 years and has covered 37k kms.

As long as you use the car in the city, the noise is the only irritant. Compared to a Getz, it's a noisy car.

I would still rate the engines in the order:
1. Maruti's 1.2
2. Honda's 1.2
3. Hyundai and Toyota's 1.2
4. VW's 1.2

Much needed review at the right time. Will really help those thinking of the VW Ameo to stay away from the 1.2. The engine just does fine with the Polo but for Ameo, I'm pretty sure it will definitely feel underpowered.

Those who bought this 1.2 when it was initially launched mainly chose it because of the VW brand and due to the sheer quality of the car itself. The stability, quality of materials used and strong solid thud that you get with the doors of it got it a lot of buyers who wanted something more than a swift. Customers have moved on since then and they want more than just quality these days.

I expect VW to come up with GT versions of the Ameo as well which might surely have some takers who cannot get the polo GT twins due to lack of space for long trips.

Actually for those who believe the engine is adequately up to the task (I personally do not), it would not be a huge difference. The thing is the Ameo weighs only about 10 kilos more than the Polo so engine would feel the same in both the cars.

I agree to that. However, those who would be getting the Ameo over the Polo would have chosen Ameo only because of the extra boot. That means, long trips and people to carry. In actual use, Ameo would be put into heavier workload than a Polo. This is when the car would feel underpowered in my opinion along with the additional 10Kgs. This engine is best suited for city driving in a Polo itself but then, why would one get an Ameo just fot city driving?

There is no end to such an argument. That way it could be said that people bought the Polo itself over other cars due to its solid build and high speed stability for highway usage :D but the fact is majority of the people who buy an Ameo will just be doing so to tell everyone and themselves that they own a sedan. Whether or not most of its usage will be on the highways is doubtful. I personally know many folks who own these pseudo sedans along with several other cars but use these only for City usage I also know many who own these pseudo sedans as their only car but are too busy to have ever gone on any road trip with it. The simple fact is that for those that are okay with the performance in the 1.2 mpi Polo, there will not be a difference and they can consider the same motor in the Ameo for city use or whatever they feel like it is adequate for.

Logic says that in turbo engines, be it petrol or diesel, the peak torque is available at much lower RPMs, so one doesnt have to slam the A-pedal to move briskly. So, if you are not slamming the A-pedal, automatically you should get better FE. Also, check the ARAI figures of a turbocharged petrol viz-a-viz their NA siblings like the Abarth Punto viz-a-viz Punto 1.4, the turbo charged Abarth Punto quotes a higher FE. Or even Ecoboost Ecosport viz-a-viz Ecosport 1.5 petrol, even though here there is a big difference in their displacements.

You would like to go through the following link which talks about the major reasons considered for moving towards turbo charged engines.
http://blog.caranddriver.com/the-gri...s-are-winning/

An excerpt from the article:

BMW M’s engine-development chief, Michael Menn, was more specific: “The reason we changed to turbocharging is fuel efficiency, and that’s all. Turbocharging might be more complicated, but the naturally aspirated engines they are replacing in our cars were not exactly uncomplicated engines. At the moment, the main point is consumption and reduction of CO2. If that stays the main point then I am sure the industry stays with turbocharging.”

The statistics on the Abarth Punto are certainly interesting however, do you honestly think that a turbocharger is the only difference here? ;) As with the Ford comparison, you are comparing a 3cyl 1 liter engine to a 1.5 liter 4cyl engine so it really doesn't prove anything.


Very good. I never disagreed. BUT, is BMW turbocharging their V10 motor for their new M5? Or are they turbocharging their V8 motor for the M4? Nope they aren't they are downsizing and adding turbos. Turbos allow for more efficiency because one can get the intended output figures from a smaller motor. BMW is advocating the use of turbos as the solution as it enables them to use smaller motors that are inherently more fuel efficient. Not because they spool earlier. If you read my post fully, you would note that more fuel is used when turbos spool up in order to maintain optimum air-fuel ratio so you actually end up using more fuel at any given rpm after the turbo spins than you otherwise would have. If you take two motors that are exactly identical, and retrofit a turbocharger onto one of them, there is no way you would get better fuel economy out of the turbocharged engine. That I assure you is a plain fact and you can cross reference it with any knowledgeable tuner out there as well or any thread here on turbocharged Civics/Cedias/Swifts etc. That said, there may be a few exceptions with categorically under-powered cars wherein an added turbo would solve the issue in the way you are claiming. :)

I forgot to add the Polo 1.2 (3 cylinder) and Polo TSI (4 cylinder) ARAI figures. The TSI again quotes slightly better FE.

I know that a 1.2/1.4 turbo charged engine can easily compete with a 1.8 NA and the 1.2 inherently delivers better FE, but all I am saying is that one can extract more FE from a turbo charged engine because of its early peak torque delivery. This is a reason that the turbo charged engines have a smaller RPM band to play with.

Again, two completely different motors. One is a three cylinder while the other is a four cylinder with direct injection tech. Please learn to consider the other more obvious (in terms of efficiency) differences out there instead of looking only at the turbo charger and then claiming that is the cause for better efficiency.

As I said, your statement would hold true only for an under-powered car. Sure peak torque delivery is lower, but did you forget the part where I mentioned that it is accompanied by more fuel consumption?

Since we are talking about the Polo 1.2 I would like to know from fellow bhpians: Does Volkswagen quote on wheel bhp figures or at crank bhp figures (like other manufacturers). As 70 odd BHP on wheels doesn't sound bad at all.

I'm pretty sure they quote the crank bhp figures for all their cars just like all other manufacturers.:thumbs up

For those interested in the noise, here's an idea of what it sounds like. Incidentally, the Indian version was tuned slightly differently to get a few more horses.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVrM0eKd8Bs

That's an interesting fact. Certainly the first I am hearing of an Indian version being tuned to deliver higher output.