In that case it may be worth waiting until early next month after they have been pre-registered? I've been in touch with half a dozen dealers now and they are all quoting the same price +/- £100.
-
Guest, 🚨New Stock alert: Premium CUPRA valve caps now available in the store 👉 Order now from the merchandise store
New Ibiza 1.4 Toca or 1.2 Tsi I-tech
- Thread starter Miller73
- Start date
In that case it may be worth waiting until early next month after they have been pre-registered? I've been in touch with half a dozen dealers now and they are all quoting the same price +/- £100.
Go to autotrader, search SEAT Ibiza + mileage "less than 100"
Amongst the dealers at the very cheap end of the spectrum are Westgate.
Bought a new Toca off them 6 weeks ago cos we couldn't wait for even lower prices.
Some dealers are advertising these cars on 65 Plates - ie 1st Sep - dont know how that sits with Euro 6 rules to be honest.
Funnily enough a workmate is having the same dilemma about the engines so tomorrow he's driving my 1.2 to see how good it is.
Last edited:
Ok after giving it some thought I have set my sights on a 1.2 Tsi in White. Just about every dealer is quoting just under £11k. Think I will give it a month or so if they have to register them by the 1st September and hopefully pick one up for nearer £10k.
If you can live with Emocion Red (like mine here)
the 1.2 TSi can be had for £9400 in Barnet or Grimsby (autotrader)
I prefer Bila White myself though (here's both of them)
the 1.2 TSi can be had for £9400 in Barnet or Grimsby (autotrader)
I prefer Bila White myself though (here's both of them)
Last edited:
Yes I've never been keen on non metallic red, was not overly keen on white either but it seems to suit this Ibiza's wheels the best. Has to be 3dr though, I think 5dr is a lot less sporty looking.
Just out of interest, does the 150PS 1.4 have the same oil usage issues as the 180PS? I've seen a few year old examples going for the £11-12k mark, unbelieveable economy figures consdering the performance of it!
Just out of interest, does the 150PS 1.4 have the same oil usage issues as the 180PS? I've seen a few year old examples going for the £11-12k mark, unbelieveable economy figures consdering the performance of it!
I don't have a big power 1.4. just the cooking 85 bhp version so I don't know about the 1.4/150.
What I can tell you is that VW group economy figures are complete lies mate.
The 1.2 TSI is supposed to do high 50's overall.
It actually does high 30's to mid 40's.
I dont know what they claim for that 1.4 but I'll bet it's utter Bol***ks.
Anyway, back to the colour. the White option is listed at something like £250 not the £1000+ it's seems it may cost you. It was certainly under £300 on my Toledo.
I would have got the Ibiza in White too, but SWMBO didn't want the same colour as mine.
What I can tell you is that VW group economy figures are complete lies mate.
The 1.2 TSI is supposed to do high 50's overall.
It actually does high 30's to mid 40's.
I dont know what they claim for that 1.4 but I'll bet it's utter Bol***ks.
Anyway, back to the colour. the White option is listed at something like £250 not the £1000+ it's seems it may cost you. It was certainly under £300 on my Toledo.
I would have got the Ibiza in White too, but SWMBO didn't want the same colour as mine.
Last edited:
I was thinking of selling my 1.2 FR but looking at some of these new prices I dont stand a chance of shifting it at a decent price!
I agree with the MPG, my Fabia barely gets 40 despite a claimed 51. That said the latest 1 litre turbos used on Fiesta's and Clio's are reportedly getting 20 less than their manufacturers claims.....
Yes it seems the currently fashionable small turbo motors can be made to return amazing numbers in the EU tests - but cant get close in the real world. That ford ecoboost 1.0 petrol is supposed to do mid -60s mpg.
It cant do it in the Fiesta so in the Focus or C-max it must be really terrible.
VW's 1.2 is pretty bad on fuel too (compared with advertised figures) if not driven really gently - I think after driving one for 15000 miles. However in every other way it's an absolute gem
To be fair its not terrible - it's just the disappointment of expectation of better from the EU number, and idiots like Auto Express quoting those figures as Gospel
My last car was a 1.2 Punto with an asthmatic60 bhp that did about 46-50mpg on my current commute
The Toledo 1.2/105 has up to (apparently) 120 bhp and does about 45mpg on the same route.
If SEAT said this car does 45 mpg, and I get 45mpg I'd be happy. It's just that SEAT say it does 56 - and it doesn't.
It cant do it in the Fiesta so in the Focus or C-max it must be really terrible.
VW's 1.2 is pretty bad on fuel too (compared with advertised figures) if not driven really gently - I think after driving one for 15000 miles. However in every other way it's an absolute gem
To be fair its not terrible - it's just the disappointment of expectation of better from the EU number, and idiots like Auto Express quoting those figures as Gospel
My last car was a 1.2 Punto with an asthmatic60 bhp that did about 46-50mpg on my current commute
The Toledo 1.2/105 has up to (apparently) 120 bhp and does about 45mpg on the same route.
If SEAT said this car does 45 mpg, and I get 45mpg I'd be happy. It's just that SEAT say it does 56 - and it doesn't.
Last edited:
I think the best way to look at it is it's the same test applied to all makes and models so a comparison is easy to do. I'm sure if manufacturers could make up the tests and figures themselves it would be even harder to compare cars. From my experience, the quoted mpg is a best case scenario. However these turbos on the smaller engine tend to drop from this mpg figure. Maybe they use more fuel, maybe it's the way they are driven? I know I like to out my foot down more often than not. I did manage a 160mile trip at 51mpg in my 1.4 ACT last week on a run to the airport.
I wish I could be that logical about it, but when the Maker says "it does 56mpg overall" and the motoring press when they review it quote that figure too, the reality is really annoying.
The newer the car the more untruthful the figures are in my last 10 years experience.
2001 Proton Wira TD claimed combined 38 reality 49
2003 FIAT Panda 1.2 claimed combined 47 reality 49
2005 FIAT Multipla JTD claimed combined 44 reality 44
2014 Toledo 1.2 TSI 105 claimed combined 56 reality 45
The newer the car the more untruthful the figures are in my last 10 years experience.
2001 Proton Wira TD claimed combined 38 reality 49
2003 FIAT Panda 1.2 claimed combined 47 reality 49
2005 FIAT Multipla JTD claimed combined 44 reality 44
2014 Toledo 1.2 TSI 105 claimed combined 56 reality 45
I just git the 1.2tsi and its sooo nice, makes , more power that the 1.4.
Sent from my SM-P900 using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-P900 using Tapatalk
Oh Yeah! A lot more. In fact a bit of a rocket ship for a 1.2 if you give it some
Last edited:
Yes the new GDI turbo petrols seem to show a bigger gap between manufacturer's figures and real world figures than the older non-GDI non-turbo ones.
My Ibiza 1.2 TSi claims 55.4 mpg and I get 45 mpg. 81%
My other car is a Mazda MX-5 1.8 non turbo, non-GDI. It claims 39.8 mpg and I get about 37 mpg. 93%. (It is barely run-in yet and hard to drive economically!)
My previous car was a Honda Civic 2002 1.4 non turbo, non-GDI. It claimed 44.1 mpg and I got about 43 mpg. 98%
Be interesting to see how the new Mazda GDI non-turbo engines do.
Similar threads
