UK-POLOS.NET - THE VW Polo Forum

Just wondered if this is normal? I've got a 95TSI and done about 500 miles in it. I appreciate that I had a 1.4 Golf before this but the polo is so slow at low revs. There's a corner on a slight incline on my way to work which I take quite slowly (to allow for the idiot back street boy racers) and the car crawls forward really slowly then hurtles off when the turbo kicks in.
Is this just the price to pay for this size engine? I find myself stopping at mini roundabouts rather than slowing down and going across in 2nd gear if it's clear because the car is so slow by this point that I worry about having an accident.

Not had any such issues with mine. Don’t know if that’s due to the DSG gearbox though so perhaps other manual owners can be of more help.

I think that that is what you will always find that sort of thing under certain conditions if coming from a normally asperated petrol engine that has higher displacement and maybe a bit more very low end torque, to a lower displacement charged petrol engine. You will quickly learn to work round that and enjoy the extra power that exists elsewhere in the rev range.

Initially with my wife's August 2015 Polo 1.2TSI 110PS, I has amazed by its performance, and still am, but, where as in a situation where you take off in 1st, and maybe change into 2nd and maybe 3rd building up speed on a feeder lane, then need to slow down to wait for a slot to merge, then press the throttle, if your speed has dropped too far then your going to be disappointed.


That has only happened to me twice since that early experience, and when it happened these next 2 times, I had filled the car up with Tesco UL for the first time - so I think that that just made things worse, refilled immediately with Costco UL+ to make things good for that tank of fuel and that cleared up that issue, now back using normal filling station UL.

I too have come from a 1.2 TSI Polo to my current 115 TSI and yes there is certainly a difference. The gearing is is taller, doubtless in the interest of consumption, but I do find you need to change down frequently and more importantly keep your revs up as you can find yourself almost totally lacking in power when you need it. Just this morning I was making a right turn and was at crawl speed in 2nd and when a gap came I accelerated expecting to nip through. The car wasn't having it and I was convinced I had stalled but no, stopping and selecting first was required and then off I went. Quite alarming but thankfully only embarrassing not dangerous today but I need to be aware of this so I don't get caught out in a more critical manoeuvre. You will find as others have mentioned that once you have passed the 620 mile mark the engine management software does let the brakes off and the car does feel quite a lot more willing and powerful.

That's the main problem with turbo's, you have to wait for the small engine to spool up before the power comes in, you put your foot down and have to wait, it may be just a fraction of a second, but that's all it takes for you to get into trouble. You can put your foot down and hold it there, then when the turbo kicks in without moving your foot, the car gets it's second wind so to speak. That's where the blower comes into it's own, it's power is right from the start.
Where as the turbo uses the exhaust to power the turbo, the blower system uses power from the engine. It's a bit of six of one half a dozen of the other.
But then again, the turbo has to have a constant feed of oil, and the turbo being driven by the exhaust, the oil can degrade faster as it's being heated up to excessive temperatures that destroy the lighter grade of oil. The blower doesn't have this problem.

I have a 95 and find that there's a sluggish/flat spot just around 1600 to 1800 rpm.

Sadly this is the point where the gear change suggestion to change up to a higher gear comes in. Whilst I understand it asks for the upshift on fuel economy grounds, the 'designer' of this feature has very little mechanical sympathy.

If ignored, I find the car is plenty quick enough to get to whatever speed limit is in force.

jackois wrote: Fri Aug 17, 2018 10:46 pm I have a 95 and find that there's a sluggish/flat spot just around 1600 to 1800 rpm.

Sadly this is the point where the gear change suggestion to change up to a higher gear comes in. Whilst I understand it asks for the upshift on fuel economy grounds, the 'designer' of this feature has very little mechanical sympathy.

If ignored, I find the car is plenty quick enough to get to whatever speed limit is in force.

The gear change indicator on my current and previous VW was also designed by the same person with that lack of mechanical sympathy. I’ve never taken any notice of the gear change indicator as I don’t like driving a car with a labouring engine, and IMO it’s not good for the engine for it to labour.