103 TSI engine reliability

[Byron Jetta]

Hello All,

I posted this on the newbies forum without much luck...

I've owned two VAG TDIs, a 2005 Golf and a 2006 Jetta. Both engines have been very reliable and economical. I still have the Jetta which has now done 120,000km.

I'm considering replacing the Jetta with a new VAG car (probably an Octavia) but I'd prefer a manual and manuals are no longer available with TDIs in Australia, so I'm looking at getting a petrol 103 TSI which has near diesel-like torque and economy.

However my brother (a car enthusiast) has warned me against buying a small capacity high-output engine like the 103 TSI because it will "blow up" after a few years. I've trawled the VAG forums both here and overseas, and I can see plenty of problems with the 118 TSI "twincharger" engine, but it is my understanding this is a completely different engine (EA111 based) to the 103 TSI currently sold in Golfs and Octavias (EA211 based).

Is this correct, and should I be concerned about the longevity of a 103 TSI engine? Is it an overly-complex highly tuned engine that will cause me no end of problems?

Thanks.

[Antiplastix]

Let me guess, your "Brother" drives a Commodore or a Falcon ?

[zei20t]

I suggest you have a look at Europe, UK and the US for reviews on that engine.

It's unfortunate the 118TSI and 135TSI had problems, but its related only to that engine.

that's not to say you'll never have an issue, but your brother can certainly not comment on their reliability - unless he knows something we don't?

[cbay]

I wouldn't say that the 103TSI is 'high output'.

We have 2 90TSI (similar 1.4L turbo only) engined cars in our household (2011 octavia, 2010 mk6 golf), both are 36-42,000km so far with no problems yet (touch wood).

[brad]

If it's turbo only then it will be fine - not much different in tech to the diesels when looked at through a telescope.

i have an EA888 based 118tsi / 1.8L octavia. 134,000km inc 84,000km with a remap & relatively trouble free.

A mate of mine has the 77tsi polo & drives like he stole it & the engine is faultless. The DSG is another story.

I do recomend you run on 98ron though.

I'd have no hesitation in buying a 103tsi manual Octavia - esp now the 1.8litre is DQ200 only.

Hope that helps.

[Byron Jetta]

Let me guess, your "Brother" drives a Commodore or a Falcon ?

He really is my brother, no really, and he doesn't drive a Commodore or Falcon, but he does have fondness for six cylinder engines.

[Byron Jetta]

I wouldn't say that the 103TSI is 'high output'.

We have 2 90TSI (similar 1.4L turbo only) engined cars in our household (2011 octavia, 2010 mk6 golf), both are 36-42,000km so far with no problems yet (touch wood).

I'm pretty sure the engines in the 2011 Octavia and 2010 Golf would be EA111 based. The 103 TSI in the new Octavia is EA211 based, a new design that VAG started rolling out in 2012. Correct me if I am wrong.

[Byron Jetta]

A mate of mine has the 77tsi polo & drives like he stole it & the engine is faultless. The DSG is another story.

I'm avoiding DSGs although I've heard they're better now, esp. the six speed. Not sure if 77 TSI is a smaller detuned version of the engine they put in the Octavia.

[Byron Jetta]

So my brother made a pretty blanket statement that applies to all small-capacity high-output engines, and I have to say 103kW and 250Nm from 1.4L is pretty impressive

He says...

For a small petrol engine kW/litre * Reliability = k(cost). As you increase the power output of your engine your reliablity goes to zero.

...and...

What Engineers develop is driven by market demands, not by what constitutes good engineering. These days consumers demand instant gratification, a market driven by facts and figures like CO2 outputs and in the end the original purchaser rarely has any interest in the longevity of the product as they will simply replace it on about a four year cycle.

Are there any mechanics or engineers here who have any thoughts on this?

[readerr0r]

CO2 figures aren't market driven, they're driven by Euro emissions standards. Consumer turbos have been around for a long, long time and there are a bunch of naturally aspirated engines that have had terrible issues, the BMW's E90 320i motor springs to mind.

The 118TSI (1.4 Twincharge, not the 1.8 Turbo in the older Octavia) was much more complicated than a normal turbo engine, but at the same time my friend has the older 125kW version of that engine in a 2007 Golf 5 GT w/ 120K on the clock and it runs like a charm.

I think your brother is carrying some outdated turbo bias, fuelled by once off flakey models (while ignoring problem NA engines).

[brad]

Are there any mechanics or engineers here who have any thoughts on this?

Sure i agree. If engineers were allowed free reign then you'd end up with lots of complicated & over-priced widgets that appeal to an engineer but not many others - just like when Homer Simpson designed a car.

VW could make much better engines than what they do but there'd be a cost (not just $$). Then again, so could Ford, Holden, Honda, Toyota, etc.

I'd suggest you have a good look at the turbo-diesels you own & compare them to diesels of 20 years back. The power, torque & overall powerband are pretty outrageous now compared to the older stuff. Did these "high powered, overstressed" diesels give you any trouble?

Just as comparison, a 103tsi is 74kw/litre ex-factory. My 1.8tsi is 66kw/litre ex-factory & 75kw/L mapped (83kw/L if you believe the tuning company). I fully expect to drive it to 300,000km without issues.
There are plenty of Golf R daily drivers out there running 95kw/L without issues.

I just see the little engine with reasonable power is a potential grenade argument as being a bit of a falacy. to be honest, I doubt I could go back to an N/A engine.

[Byron Jetta]

Thanks Brad.

BTW, I read somewhere that the 90 TSI engine that's in the base model Golf 7 is the exact same engine as the 103 TSI engine in Octavias and higher spec Golfs, but with different software.

Is that true?

Also, that the 103 TSI could easily produce more power and torque (with different software) but the 7 speed DSG can only handle 250Nm.

[PassatB6]

Thanks Brad.

BTW, I read somewhere that the 90 TSI engine that's in the base model Golf 7 is the exact same engine as the 103 TSI engine in Octavias and higher spec Golfs, but with different software.

Is that true?

Also, that the 103 TSI could easily produce more power and torque (with different software) but the 7 speed DSG can only handle 250Nm.

VW doesn't say 250nm is the limit of the DQ250s ability it says its more effective with that size engine output. Also Skoda make most of the 1.4l and 1,2 TSI engines for Audi and VW as well.

Should I be wary of Skoda engines? - Telegraph

[notflyingscot]

Reading that Telegraph link am I correct in thinking that all the current Mk 3 Octavias now have belt drive OHC's petrol engines rather than the chain driven OHC's (at least the 118's are chain drive) in the Mk2 series?

[dArK5HaD0w]

Reading that Telegraph link am I correct in thinking that all the current Mk 3 Octavias now have belt drive OHC's petrol engines rather than the chain driven OHC's (at least the 118's are chain drive) in the Mk2 series?

The facelift mk2 118tsi & 147tsi (rs) engines r both chain driven - ea888.