Any experience of 1.0litre automatics

[raybarrow]

Hi Folks,
I've been 'sort of looking' for an automatic, second hand, favourite at the moment is 1.2 TSI VW Polo. I have a friend who has one. They are not easy to come by as I want to buy it through the trade and fairly near to where we live, Birmingham (ideal place for driving an automatic). I could get one way up North no problem.
At 74 this will probaly be my last car.

There's no rush but I need to look more seriously. There are more 1.0litre 3cyl TSI Polos available but I wonder how good they are. I should image urban driving no problem. We have the occassional foray into Wales and Derbyshire with proper hills. In the past I've always had at least 1.6litre 4/6cyls cars. Now there are just the two of us my current car, 1.25 82BHP manual Fiesta is ok but needs to be worked at where any hills are involved. I don't need it to go like a bat out of hell, but it's nice to keep up.

Obviously I can test drive but as there aren't any proper hills locally they are a bit of an unknown quantity.

So, does anyone have such a car, not one with 125, 150BHP, but a fairly standard 95ishBHP? I could be limiting my choice out of ignorance and apprehension.

Cheers,
Ray.

[redsturgeon]

Hi Folks,
I've been 'sort of looking' for an automatic, second hand, favourite at the moment is 1.2 TSI VW Polo. I have a friend who has one. They are not easy to come by as I want to buy it through the trade and fairly near to where we live, Birmingham (ideal place for driving an automatic). I could get one way up North no problem.
At 74 this will probaly be my last car.

There's no rush but I need to look more seriously. There are more 1.0litre 3cyl TSI Polos available but I wonder how good they are. I should image urban driving no problem. We have the occassional foray into Wales and Derbyshire with proper hills. In the past I've always had at least 1.6litre 4/6cyls cars. Now there are just the two of us my current car, 1.25 82BHP manual Fiesta is ok but needs to be worked at where any hills are involved. I don't need it to go like a bat out of hell, but it's nice to keep up.

Obviously I can test drive but as there aren't any proper hills locally they are a bit of an unknown quantity.

So, does anyone have such a car, not one with 125, 150BHP, but a fairly standard 95ishBHP? I could be limiting my choice out of ignorance and apprehension.

Cheers,
Ray.

Have you considered the Honda Jazz?

John

[swill453]

If you're looking at the current model Polo, it only comes in the 1.0 litre engine (plus the outlier 2.0 GTI).

It was the previous revision that came in 1.2, 1.4 etc, that'll be why you're struggling to find one.

(I've got a previous-rev Polo 1.4 turbo DSG (auto) and am very happy with it, but the current model has a good bit more interior space.)

Scott.

[monabri]

My mother had a 2006 1.0 Kia Picanto auto. OK to drive around town, nipping (pootling) to the shops but, having driven it for several weeks, it really was too slow acceleration wise , on entering faster A-roads ( 50mph +). The link below suggests a 0-60 time of 17.9 secs...and I guess that would be pedal to the floor. I'd see cars in the distance so I'd put my foot down and acc..ele...ra.. te with glacial speed only to find that they were catching up with me rather too quickly. It was all too scary! So, if I was looking at a 1.0 auto, I'd definitely check on the 0-60 time.


https://www.auto-abc.eu/Kia-Picanto/v15431-2004

Edit...it was only 65bhp but it felt like 6.5 bhp.

[Padders72]

Hi Folks,
I've been 'sort of looking' for an automatic, second hand, favourite at the moment is 1.2 TSI VW Polo. I have a friend who has one. They are not easy to come by as I want to buy it through the trade and fairly near to where we live, Birmingham (ideal place for driving an automatic). I could get one way up North no problem.
At 74 this will probaly be my last car.

There's no rush but I need to look more seriously. There are more 1.0litre 3cyl TSI Polos available but I wonder how good they are. I should image urban driving no problem. We have the occassional foray into Wales and Derbyshire with proper hills. In the past I've always had at least 1.6litre 4/6cyls cars. Now there are just the two of us my current car, 1.25 82BHP manual Fiesta is ok but needs to be worked at where any hills are involved. I don't need it to go like a bat out of hell, but it's nice to keep up.

Obviously I can test drive but as there aren't any proper hills locally they are a bit of an unknown quantity.

So, does anyone have such a car, not one with 125, 150BHP, but a fairly standard 95ishBHP? I could be limiting my choice out of ignorance and apprehension.

Cheers,
Ray.

I've driven the recent Fiestas with both the non turbo and turbo 3 cylinder 1l Ecotec engine. My experience was with manual boxes but hopefully will be helpful.

The 80hp non turbo was woefully slow, dangerous even since you cant take avoiding action. The turbo with ~100hp and a lot more torque was much much better and perfectly fine around town and on motorways. If you like the Fiesta I would look at that, but whatever you get, if you go much below 1.3l I would definitely get something turbocharged since it really fills out the torque curve vs without. To give an indication, the Ford turbo 3 has more torque than their 4 cylinder 1.6. Not certain which VW engines are turbo and which are not, the TSI is I believe and very like the turbo Ecotec but the same would apply, take the smaller turbo over the larger NA engine would be my advice.

[Imbiber]

I have a Skoda Roomster with the 1.2 TSI engine and 7 speed DSG auto. 0-60 is listed as 10.6 seconds. The gearbox is a delight. Overall it is a great little car.

[Lootman]

May I ask why you particularly want a 1.0 litre engine? Specially since you think your current 1.6 litre car lacks a punch?

I have not regularly driven a manual car in a couple of decades. I became hooked on auto gearboxes when driving a lot in America in the 1990s, where it is often hard to find a "stick shift transmission". If you live and drive in a city, with constant stops and starts, then stirring a pudding stick gets old really quickly.

I have always taken the traditional viewpoint that an auto gearbox requires more power. And historically an auto box was only available on UK cars with larger engines and upscale features anyway.

If as you indicate this will probably be your last car, then why not get something fun, interesting and powerful?

[BigB]

May I ask why you particularly want a 1.0 litre engine? Specially since you think your current 1.6 litre car lacks a punch?

I was also going to ask, given that you said this would be your last car (implying you expect it would last 10+ years satisfactorily), is enough known about the clever T[F]SI engines with only 3 cyclinders regarding wear and longevity - didn't Ford have some issues with their similar Ecotec ones?

[DrFfybes]

Our Carina 1.6 Auto claimed about 98 hp when it was built 30+ years ago, it would quite happily barrel along at an indicated 80-85 for thousands of miles, although these days we tend to stick to 60-65 indicated, where it still returns 45mpg. On hills it is fine.

Power is one thing, but for acceleration you also need torque - in fact torque is more important for when it comes to hills.
A more modern 1L turbo will probably be better than your old 1.25 Zetec in this respect, the larger 1.2 seems to have similar torque and power, but at lower revs.

You can compare specs on https://www.auto-data.net/en/compare?ca ... rId3=23260 but make sure you select the correct engine - VW changed a lot around 2017/18 and they even did a non turbo 1L.

At the end of the day, do you want a town car that will cope with the odd motorway and mountain pass, or something for regular longer trips?

Paul

[9873210]

HP and torque are typically given as the peak values, each at a carefully selected RPM. A lot depends on the shape of the power curve. It is a very different experience driving an EV that give 65HP from 0 to 20,000 RPM than driving an old diesel that gives 130HP from 1390 to 1410 RPM and SFA outside that band.

[Padders72]

HP and torque are typically given as the peak values, each at a carefully selected RPM. A lot depends on the shape of the power curve. It is a very different experience driving an EV that give 65HP from 0 to 20,000 RPM than driving an old diesel that gives 130HP from 1390 to 1410 RPM and SFA outside that band.

That is the reason why this thread covers small capacity turbocharged petrol engines. These typically offer a level boost controlled torque over a wide range of rpm (typically 1500-4000 rpm) with boost that tapers off to limit the peak power at the top end. As I noted above, a modern small cap turbo like the Ford 1.0l or VW 1.2l have higher peak torque than their 1.6l forebears and hold this torque over a wide range, unlike the NA engines that typically have hill shaped torque response and need to be ragged to offer performance. This is part of the reason why they are so much more efficient, you can ride the torque wave in a higher gear in a turbo engine that you would be able to with a peakier NA power plant.

The chart shown below (taken from http://www.automobile-catalog.com) indicates the torque and power curves for the VW 1.0 TSI engine in 110hp tune, note the wide flat orange torque curve and capped peak power. You can't get this without a turbo.

[Lootman]

HP and torque are typically given as the peak values, each at a carefully selected RPM. A lot depends on the shape of the power curve. It is a very different experience driving an EV that give 65HP from 0 to 20,000 RPM than driving an old diesel that gives 130HP from 1390 to 1410 RPM and SFA outside that band.

True but at is a good reason why is why though this thread covers small capacity turbocharged petrol engines. These typically offer a level boost controlled torque over a wide range of rpm (typically 1500-4000 rpm) with boost that tapers off to limit the peak power at the top end. As I noted above, a modern small cap turbo like the Ford 1.0l or VW 1.2l have higher peak torque than their 1.6l forebears and hold this torque over a wide range, unlike the NA engines that typically have hill shaped torque response and need to be ragged to offer performance. This is part of the reason why they are so much more efficient, you can ride the torque wave in a higher gear in a turbo engine that you would be able to with a peakier NA power plant.

My old school analysis is that a highly-tuned high compression small engine still has to be revved a lot to perform well. Which means a lot of gear changing, and ultimately higher maintenance costs because the powertrain is more complex and stressed.

The car with the most torque I ever had was my mid-life crisis Ford Mustang. Nothing fancy there at all - just a big, beefy 6 cylinder lazy low compression lump. Not so great around corners but you could take off from rest in 3rd and pretty much cruise in top gear once you were moving. A manual that drove like an auto.

I assume EVs don't need a gearbox if they apply the same torque and power at all revs?

I accept that car technology has come a long way since then. And people seem obsessed with fuel economy these days. But I still think that size matters.

[Padders72]

HP and torque are typically given as the peak values, each at a carefully selected RPM. A lot depends on the shape of the power curve. It is a very different experience driving an EV that give 65HP from 0 to 20,000 RPM than driving an old diesel that gives 130HP from 1390 to 1410 RPM and SFA outside that band.

True but at is a good reason why is why though this thread covers small capacity turbocharged petrol engines. These typically offer a level boost controlled torque over a wide range of rpm (typically 1500-4000 rpm) with boost that tapers off to limit the peak power at the top end. As I noted above, a modern small cap turbo like the Ford 1.0l or VW 1.2l have higher peak torque than their 1.6l forebears and hold this torque over a wide range, unlike the NA engines that typically have hill shaped torque response and need to be ragged to offer performance. This is part of the reason why they are so much more efficient, you can ride the torque wave in a higher gear in a turbo engine that you would be able to with a peakier NA power plant.

My old school analysis is that a highly-tuned high compression small engine still has to be revved a lot to perform well. Which means a lot of gear changing, and ultimately higher maintenance costs because the powertrain is more complex and stressed.

The car with the most torque I ever had was my mid-life crisis Ford Mustang. Nothing fancy there at all - just a big, beefy 6 cylinder lazy low compression lump. Not so great around corners but you could take off from rest in 3rd and pretty much cruise in top gear once you were moving. A manual that drove like an auto.

I assume EVs don't need a gearbox if they apply the same torque and power at all revs?

I accept that car technology has come a long way since then. And people seem obsessed with fuel economy these days. But I still think that size matters.

I don't think you have grasped what a big difference a modern electronically managed turbo makes to any engine. In essence it offers the equivalent of a big increase in capacity (since you are pushing in more charge than the atmosphere can alone) but only when needed so you aren't burning the extra fuel when you don't. This is why 1l engines are replacing 1.6 and 1.8s, 2l are replacing 3l V6s and 3litre sixes are replacing V8s.

Note your 6 cylinder Mustang (presumably the smallest engine offered at that point) has been superseded by a 2.3l 4 cylinder turbo with over 300hp, probably about 100hp more than yours had with a much wider torque peak too. Personally I'd still have the old school V8 (still offered today) but even the likes of Ferrari now fit turbos to nearly everything so they are hard to avoid.

No car including an EV applies the same power at all revs, since power is a function of torque and engine speed. EVs do offer their full torque from zero revs however which means they have great pickup but since this isnt an EV vs ICE debate I'll leave it at that.

[raybarrow]

Hi Folks,

May I ask why you particularly want a 1.0 litre engine? Specially since you think your current 1.6 litre car lacks a punch?

I said my current car is the 1.25 82BHP Fiesta not a 1.6 car (that was what I used to have as a minimum). But I'm older and slower so realistically don't need a big car anymore.

At the end of the day, do you want a town car that will cope with the odd motorway and mountain pass, or something for regular longer trips?

I think that is the answer really. My heart wants to do regular longer trips up and down the UK. My head says 'get real', go for comfort, ease of driving etc.

I have a Skoda Roomster with the 1.2 TSI engine and 7 speed DSG auto. 0-60 is listed as 10.6 seconds. The gearbox is a delight. Overall it is a great little car.

That will almost certainly be the same set up as in the 1.2TSI Polo also a pleasant experience.
I did look at the Honda Jazz, when Mrs B had mobility problems, now solved thankfully. That was ok as well.

Thanks for all the comments and advice, I need to bite the bullet,
Ray.

[swill453]

That will almost certainly be the same set up as in the 1.2TSI Polo also a pleasant experience.

Note as I said above, the Polo 1.2TSI is only available in the fifth generation which ended in 2018. This may be what you're looking at, but the newer sixth generation (which only comes in 1.0 litres) has a much roomier cabin.

Scott.

[Spet0789]

HP and torque are typically given as the peak values, each at a carefully selected RPM. A lot depends on the shape of the power curve. It is a very different experience driving an EV that give 65HP from 0 to 20,000 RPM than driving an old diesel that gives 130HP from 1390 to 1410 RPM and SFA outside that band.

True but at is a good reason why is why though this thread covers small capacity turbocharged petrol engines. These typically offer a level boost controlled torque over a wide range of rpm (typically 1500-4000 rpm) with boost that tapers off to limit the peak power at the top end. As I noted above, a modern small cap turbo like the Ford 1.0l or VW 1.2l have higher peak torque than their 1.6l forebears and hold this torque over a wide range, unlike the NA engines that typically have hill shaped torque response and need to be ragged to offer performance. This is part of the reason why they are so much more efficient, you can ride the torque wave in a higher gear in a turbo engine that you would be able to with a peakier NA power plant.

My old school analysis is that a highly-tuned high compression small engine still has to be revved a lot to perform well. Which means a lot of gear changing, and ultimately higher maintenance costs because the powertrain is more complex and stressed.

The car with the most torque I ever had was my mid-life crisis Ford Mustang. Nothing fancy there at all - just a big, beefy 6 cylinder lazy low compression lump. Not so great around corners but you could take off from rest in 3rd and pretty much cruise in top gear once you were moving. A manual that drove like an auto.

I assume EVs don't need a gearbox if they apply the same torque and power at all revs?

I accept that car technology has come a long way since then. And people seem obsessed with fuel economy these days. But I still think that size matters.

I don't think you have grasped what a big difference a modern electronically managed turbo makes to any engine. In essence it offers the equivalent of a big increase in capacity (since you are pushing in more charge than the atmosphere can alone) but only when needed so you aren't burning the extra fuel when you don't. This is why 1l engines are replacing 1.6 and 1.8s, 2l are replacing 3l V6s and 3litre sixes are replacing V8s.

Note your 6 cylinder Mustang (presumably the smallest engine offered at that point) has been superseded by a 2.3l 4 cylinder turbo with over 300hp, probably about 100hp more than yours had with a much wider torque peak too. Personally I'd still have the old school V8 (still offered today) but even the likes of Ferrari now fit turbos to nearly everything so they are hard to avoid.

No car including an EV applies the same power at all revs, since power is a function of torque and engine speed. EVs do offer their full torque from zero revs however which means they have great pickup but since this isnt an EV vs ICE debate I'll leave it at that.

A good post, especially the comments on turbocharged engines.

A simple way to think about an engine is as an air pump. A 2.0 litre engine (all else equal) can pump twice as much air as a 1.0l engine. But a turbocharger pushes more air into the engine so it can pump more air. How much more? Look at the boost pressure. For reference, the pressure pushing air into a non-turbo engine is atmospheric pressure of 1.0 bar.

A quick google suggests the Ford eco boost runs at 1.6 bar. So as a simple rule of thumb, a 1.0 litre turbocharged engine at 1.6 bar is equivalent to a 1.6 litre engine with no turbo (and thus at 1.0 bar).

[Alaric]

A quick google suggests the Ford eco boost runs at 1.6 bar. So as a simple rule of thumb, a 1.0 litre turbocharged engine at 1.6 bar is equivalent to a 1.6 litre engine with no turbo (and thus at 1.0 bar).

Makes sense. When I swapped an ageing 1.6 Focus for a 1.0 Turbo Focus, the performance was about the same, if anything slightly better for the Turbo.

I sometimes think of it as just having half an engine with only 3 cylinders. There's the "sport" model which has a full sized 6 cyclinder 2.0 Turbo.

[Midsmartin]

Having simultaneously owned, between us, an older 1.4l Fiesta and a newer 1.0l ecoboost Fiesta, the 1.0l is better in every way.

[swill453]

I sometimes think of it as just having half an engine with only 3 cylinders. There's the "sport" model which has a full sized 6 cyclinder 2.0 Turbo.

A 6 cylinder Focus? Are you sure?

Scott.

[Alaric]

I sometimes think of it as just having half an engine with only 3 cylinders. There's the "sport" model which has a full sized 6 cyclinder 2.0 Turbo.

A 6 cylinder Focus? Are you sure?

Scott.

Seems it's only one more for double the cc and a bit

https://www.evo.co.uk/ford/focus/st/eng ... ical-specs