1.4 ecoTSI or Act if I'm thinking of a stage 1 remap?

[dks]

So, I'm thinking of switching my 2012 ibiza fr 2.0 tdi to something newer and ideally a bit quicker. First thought was the Cupra but this has to be a daily and my gf hates loud cars (I know it's not that loud but it's louder) and thinks the ride on the current car is a bit hard as it is so thinking 1.4 and maybe get get a stage 1 remap later which would give it the extra power I want. But which 1.4 engine? I see there are two variants, the ecoTSI around 150bhp and the Act around 140bhp. If I'm thinking of remapping later which is the best to go for? Is it essentially the same engine block and just the factory map that makes the difference in which case I can go for either?

I've seen that it's recommended to get better spark plugs on a remap and as I'm looking at a 2016/17 car I'm thinking that's all it will need on top. Is there anything else I need to factor in for a remap? I'm not looking to go beyond stage 1. Thanks.

 

[SilverPilgrim]

Hi, they are essentially the same engine except one has active cylinder technology which shuts off two cylinders under light engine loads. Think the 150 Eco TSI was introduced to meet new EU emissions standards at the time and it doesn't have active cylinder management.

There is basically no difference in the default power output of the two engines (the 140 ACT has been dyno'd stock at 154bhp and the 150 is very similar). Volkswagen group are known for under-rating the output of their engines from the factory and you will see this across their range if you look at dyno graphs.

With a stage 1 remap you can expect around 170-180bhp, possibly a few more depending on what fuel you use and if you have any other engine mods. You shouldn't need to upgrade the spark plugs for stage 1.

I owned an Ibiza FR 1.4 ACT and had it remapped, the increase in mid-range power was very good and the remap didn't harm the fuel consumption if you drove normally, in fact the extra torque allowed me to use higher gears at lower speeds for slightly better economy. The stop-start and active cylinder was also not affected by the remap.

It was a great car but I can say that the facelifted Cupra with the 1.8 TSI engine is actually more comfortable in every respect than the FR so don't automatically rule it out! The FR felt like a more raw car with its ride and handling, which was noticeably firm. The Cupra on the other hand feels more like a mini GT than a lairy hot hatch in normal driving mode (which suits me perfectly).

 

[dks]

Thank you for replying. Very interesting info, specially about the Cupra. I had assumed it would be more hard core with it's suspension changed. I remember testing a fiesta st a few years back and decided it was too harsh riding for daily use. I like the idea of a mini gt as I'm mostly driving slowly with the gf or sitting on a motorway. It's too rare that I get to throw it down a country road on my own. And I was looking to get a second car just for those days at some point next year.

 

[SilverPilgrim]

No worries mate, happy to give you advice on anything Ibiza-related. The Cupra is a jack of all trades car and I do consider it a small GT, maybe it's not as involving as say a Fiesta ST but it's so easy to live with.

I've just been up and down to Derbyshire in the Cupra (180 miles each way) and it was very refined and comfortable on the trip. Managed 45mpg overall as well which I'm very happy with, there was also a bit of fun spirited driving on some country roads.

If I had done that trip with the FR, I know I would have stepped out with a stiffer back and legs!

The 1.4 FR is still an excellent car and becomes a hot hatch with a remap - other thing to remember is the road tax as the FR ACT/Eco TSI is only £20 a year whereas I'm paying £145 now with the Cupra. Also, you lose some boot space in the Cupra because the battery is in the back with the spare tyre so the load floor is raised to accommodate this.

Both great cars and an FR is always going to be a few grand cheaper than a Cupra with comparable mileage so it will ultimately come down to your preference and weighing up the pros and cons. Let us know which one you do end up choosing!

 

[dks]

I'd consider 45mpg a bad (or very fun) day in my 2.0 tdi. Even when booting it I rarely get below that, if at all. It'll be a shock going back to petrol. Nice point about the boot, I coped fine with the little boot in a mx-5 so it should be ok (I don't think 45mpg was ever possible in that car). I'd like to try a Cupra I think based on that, not many around though. Might be a waiting game.
Am I right in saying the brakes are the same? I remember the Fiesta st brakes were good and mine felt broken after. And does it still have one crappy reversing light that barely helps? (I noticed the rear lights on newer cars are slightly different to mine).

 

[SilverPilgrim]

Yeah I can appreciate the point about fuel economy since you are coming from a diesel. 45mpg is just a bonus though as nobody should buy a Cupra and then worry about the fuel consumption.

By all accounts the 1.4 FR is more economical - in mine I once managed 54mpg on a 90 mile round trip up and down the A3 (this was after the remap). It's about as good as it gets for a petrol engine that gives economy and a nice bit of pace when you want it.

It is true that there aren't many facelifted Cupras about but it's always worth keeping an eye out. There seem to be more pre-facelift Ibiza Cupras around, although the 1.4 twincharged engine in those ones is known to be troublesome and I can't comment on their ride, handling or fuel consumption characteristics.

You'll be fine with the luggage space if you managed with the MX-5, you can also pull the cushions off the back seats then fold them down to create a much larger and relatively flat luggage space if you need it.

The 1.8 Cupra has bigger brakes than any FR model and they work well. Also the electronic differential system in the Cupra also seems to have more bite to it than the FR, it pulls you nicely through every corner at speed. In comparison the FR was prone to understeer, that could have just been an issue with my car though.

There is just the one reversing light still, although they have carried this over into the newest Ibiza so it looks like being the policy with this model for the forseeable future!

 

[dks]

Agreed, I'm not that fussed about mpg/tax etc really. Such things wouldn't put me off a car. If I was getting the Cupra it would definitely be the 1.8, I've also heard too many things about the older 1.4 engine. I'll be keeping my eye out to see if there are any near to test drive. Failing that I might test a 208 gti in the meantime. There's always the polo gti too but why pay 2k more just for a vw badge. If neither the Cupra or 208 suit then I might consider the 1.4 stage 1 again.
Maybe the petrol 1.4 fr is different to mine (which might be heavier at the front) but since changing to a set of Hankook Ventus V12 Evo2 any understeer is virtually gone, I'm surprised at the speed I can put it into a roundabout even in the wet and it still bites.

Thanks again for the info.

 

[john2017]

Hi, I have the 1.4 and the act has been 'switched off' so you shouldn't discount it against the eco tsi.
Don't get confused with the early ea111 engine codes cave/ cthe 2014+ it's a ea211 family code cpta
The exhaust is v restrictive and there aren't any off the shelf solution you need to have a custom one made.
I think APR's claim of 170-175 bhp is a lot more realistic than Revo's 178-200 bhp.
Mine made 170 bhp and 226 lb ft

I love the car

J