1.0 TSI 95 how do you drive it?

[mike sel]

I have very recently driven a loan 95 5 speed manual and min (that I have back now ) is a 115 DSG

The 115 DSG is a different car the 95 even 20hp makes the world of difference especially with the DSG sport mode. I found the 95 manual struggled

[Adam_013]

I have very recently driven a loan 95 5 speed manual and min (that I have back now ) is a 115 DSG

The 115 DSG is a different car the 95 even 20hp makes the world of difference especially with the DSG sport mode. I found the 95 manual struggled

I dare say a 95ps DSG would probably be better too with the help of the extra ratios for setting off and building speed. Plus the 115 has the rear discs which despite not being a necessity is nice to have anyway

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

[monkeyhanger]

You already know you'll be kissing your drivetrain warranty goodbye, with the clutch being at most risk of going very early as a direct result of a remap (additional torque)...but, I'd urge you to wait until the car's a year old. Between 9 VWs and an Audi bought new, i've had 2 turbos fail on me at around 6k miles/6 months old - both for actuator failure. That's a minimum £1300 job if it happens to you, much dearer than having to buy a more resilient clutch.

95 > 120ps will make quite a difference, 95 > 130ps seems irresponsible on the part of the tuner. I would not up the power by 37% on stock turbo and intercooler and expect things to last. Most tuners with a decent reputation wouldn't either: +25% is about the limit most stick to.

[Adam_013]

Oh I'm aware of it, and fully prepared to splash out on a clutch if / when it was to fail...

I don't intend to go screaming around everywhere anyway, it's more of just having a bit to 'go' when needed.

So far it's 9 months old and 9500miles and seems fine.
with this particular option I'm going for, I'm free to adjust and remove the map as and when I feel. If I notice any issues or clutch slippage I'll simply request for it to be turned down. And looking at various sites most are quote the same figures.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

[Leif]

Just wanted to check how other people drive the 1.0 engine - I find myself just changing up and down gear to keep it between 1500 and 3000 rpm where there seems to be most torque and pull from the engine. I have tried extending it from 4000rpm and beyond but it sounds awful like a coffee grinder and is reluctant to rev towards the theoretical 6000rpm red line indicated with no apparent extra power coming on tap. In effect you end up driving it like a diesel keeping it below 4000rpm - is that just the reality? My previous car was a 1.25 Fiesta Zetec - no ball of fire itself and to get it's 82bhp you had to rev it's (Very smooth) engine right up to 5000 rpm - this wasn't ideal and is the opposite of the Polo. I prefer the Polo in comparison as it's more relaxing and doesn't get bogged down due to lack of torque.

By the way - on cold frosty mornings I've noticed there is a rev limiter - you can't rev it beyond 4000 rpm presumably until it warms up to protect the engine.

Wow. I’m not certain but I think mine ticks over at ~1200 rpm on residential streets, and under 2,000 rpm on my commute. I cannot understand why you need to rev its nuts off. The only time mine does higher revs for any duration is when overtaking. I guess mine is a comfy armchair with nice scenery, and pleasant music on the stereo.

[Andy Beats]

You already know you'll be kissing your drivetrain warranty goodbye,

Only if they find out.

[Muldoon]

Thanks for all your comments. The 4k rev limiter thing was when stationary in neutral - just noticed it when trying to defrost and put some heat into the engine. Not noticed anything when driving, I tend to keep the revs below 4k as that is where most torque lies and no real gain in thrashing it beyond this as others have said.

Approaching 10k and the engine seems to be run in and more flexible, will see how it goes. The 115 would be nice to see how the extra power makes a difference to driving - not sure if it would help when setting off from standstill where it feels most sluggish / weak in part due to the high gearing.

[Andy Beats]

not sure if it would help when setting off from standstill where it feels most sluggish / weak in part due to the high gearing.

It would, I'm sure.
In my opinion the problem with the 95bhp when pulling away is that it feels so weedy that, combined with the high gearing, it always feels on the verge of stalling and the driver automatically increases revs to compensate.
This gives the clutch a harder time that it would otherwise, and you're then in a vicious circle of thinking it's going to stall/increasing revs/hammering clutch/getting annoyed.
More low torque would get rid of that weedy feeling, allowing you to pull away at more normal revs etc.
95bhp and 175NM shouldn't feel so weedy, I remember when cars with 95bhp and 175NM were considered fast (my Escort RS2000 only had 110bhp and was considered hot)
But the gearing makes it feel so.
It's like a runner running through sand, a remap would give that runner stronger legs.

[Adam_013]

not sure if it would help when setting off from standstill where it feels most sluggish / weak in part due to the high gearing.

It would, I'm sure.
In my opinion the problem with the 95bhp when pulling away is that it feels so weedy that, combined with the high gearing, it always feels on the verge of stalling and the driver automatically increases revs to compensate.
This gives the clutch a harder time that it would otherwise, and you're then in a vicious circle of thinking it's going to stall/increasing revs/hammering clutch/getting annoyed.
More low torque would get rid of that weedy feeling, allowing you to pull away at more normal revs etc.
95bhp and 175NM shouldn't feel so weedy, I remember when cars with 95bhp and 175NM were considered fast (my Escort RS2000 only had 110bhp and was considered hot) [emoji38]
But the gearing makes it feel so.
It's like a runner running through sand, a remap would give that runner stronger legs.

Definitely agree!

My courtesy car, a very small and weedy 1.0 i10 with 60HP. Is far easier to pull away and can easily pull out and get to 30mph. The same with the previous UP I had.

The gearing makes the polo feel so underpowered until you actually get going and then it has a bit more 'oomph'. But for a 'city' car it should be the other way round really ...

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

[stevereeves]

Just wanted to check how other people drive the 1.0 engine - I find myself just changing up and down gear to keep it between 1500 and 3000 rpm where there seems to be most torque and pull from the engine. I have tried extending it from 4000rpm and beyond but it sounds awful like a coffee grinder and is reluctant to rev towards the theoretical 6000rpm red line indicated with no apparent extra power coming on tap. In effect you end up driving it like a diesel keeping it below 4000rpm - is that just the reality? My previous car was a 1.25 Fiesta Zetec - no ball of fire itself and to get it's 82bhp you had to rev it's (Very smooth) engine right up to 5000 rpm - this wasn't ideal and is the opposite of the Polo. I prefer the Polo in comparison as it's more relaxing and doesn't get bogged down due to lack of torque.

My mum had one of those, peach of a motor IMO. A few more horses and married to a 6-speed box would have been well ideal, and suited to the new Polo. But Ford discontinued it, misake IMO. Anyway this about Polos so..................

[Muldoon]

Just wanted to check how other people drive the 1.0 engine - I find myself just changing up and down gear to keep it between 1500 and 3000 rpm where there seems to be most torque and pull from the engine. I have tried extending it from 4000rpm and beyond but it sounds awful like a coffee grinder and is reluctant to rev towards the theoretical 6000rpm red line indicated with no apparent extra power coming on tap. In effect you end up driving it like a diesel keeping it below 4000rpm - is that just the reality? My previous car was a 1.25 Fiesta Zetec - no ball of fire itself and to get it's 82bhp you had to rev it's (Very smooth) engine right up to 5000 rpm - this wasn't ideal and is the opposite of the Polo. I prefer the Polo in comparison as it's more relaxing and doesn't get bogged down due to lack of torque.

My mum had one of those, peach of a motor IMO. A few more horses and married to a 6-speed box would have been well ideal, and suited to the new Polo. But Ford discontinued it, misake IMO. Anyway this about Polos so..................

Yes the 1.25 Zetec 16v was a peach of an engine - first introduced in 1995 and I think developed by Ford with help from Yamaha, smooth as silk but it got slower over the years as the cars put on weight. Very fast to warm up in winter as well

[Andy Beats]

I remember when the 1.25 Zetec came out.
Posters advertising it as quicker to 60mph than the Golf Gti of its time, which it was.
What a cracking engine.
If Yamaha were involved, no wonder, as their 1.7 engine in the Puma was also legendary.

[Adam_013]

I remember when the 1.25 Zetec came out.
Posters advertising it as quicker to 60mph than the Golf Gti of its time, which it was.
What a cracking engine.
If Yamaha were involved, no wonder, as their 1.7 engine in the Puma was also legendary.

But the V8 in the Volvo's.... Well ok apart from the chocolate auto box

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

[mike sel]

Thanks for all your comments. The 4k rev limiter thing was when stationary in neutral - just noticed it when trying to defrost and put some heat into the engine. Not noticed anything when driving, I tend to keep the revs below 4k as that is where most torque lies and no real gain in thrashing it beyond this as others have said.

Approaching 10k and the engine seems to be run in and more flexible, will see how it goes. The 115 would be nice to see how the extra power makes a difference to driving - not sure if it would help when setting off from standstill where it feels most sluggish / weak in part due to the high gearing.

That is where the DSG kicks in with 7 gears. It never feels sluggish. Keep in mind I have recently driven the 95 manual polo for two weeks (feels heavy pulling away and had to work the endine hard, so found it noisy and was shocked about the clutch seeming to slip once or twice (car was 3k miles and 68 plate) and the 1.5 golf evo DSG for two weeks, (nice easy drive loads of power to overtake but not as economic as the Polo).

The Polo 115 DSG for me is the better combo.

I have said many times I actually think the 1.5 evo in the polo will be the sweet spot for both the engine and the Polo.

[Andy Beats]

I've been paying particular attention to the rev counter since this thread.
It's actually between 2000-4000rpm I rev the engine, it's over 4000RPM that it becomes unpleasant and pointless.
Keeping it below 3000rpm isn't practical for me, I wouldn't get up the hills I need to.
If I lived somewhere flatter, keeping it below 3000RPM would be fine for making progress.