VW's new TSI engine

maidhc

A quick google brought this up:
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2005/08/vw_introducing_.html

It wont take away too many diesel buyers with practically the same fuel economy as a 2.0 FSI petrol and less torque than the present 1.9 TDi.

I would imagine the developments with petrol engines will be nowhere near as dramatic as they have been with diesels due to the fact the fuel contains less energy.

lomb

i think vrt on 1.4s is only charged at 22.5 % of omsp, whereas 1.6 on are 30 % of omsp, so the 1.4 will make great sense there.
will be interesting to see how smooth the engine is. larger engines tend to run alot smoother.
also reliability of turbo engines is not good. many people on uk-mkivs are complaining about turbo failures on diesels. rebuild costs are more than fuel saved over 2 or 3 years!

HashSlinging

maidhc wrote:

A quick google brought this up:
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2005/08/vw_introducing_.html

It wont take away too many diesel buyers with practically the same fuel economy as a 2.0 FSI petrol and less torque than the present 1.9 TDi.

I would imagine the developments with petrol engines will be nowhere near as dramatic as they have been with diesels due to the fact the fuel contains less energy.

WOW I suppose your right but wernt diesel cars slow only 10 years ago, now look... maybe the same thing can be achived with petrol its called research and development. Besides who said anything about taking diesel buyers, VW have stated that they've really done everything thats possible with diesel, now the emphasis is going to be on petrol and other fuel sources.

maidhc

lomb wrote:

also reliability of turbo engines is not good. many people on uk-mkivs are complaining about turbo failures on diesels. rebuild costs are more than fuel saved over 2 or 3 years!

I would disagree strongly there. A turbocharger will last just as long as the rest of the engine if it isnt messed about though being switched off at speed and so forth. The basic design of a turbocharger is pretty straightforward, and really there isnt much to go wrong.

Turbocharging and supercharging is a very mature technology (weren't WWII spitfires supercharged...), Common rail diesels / FSI is not. I find the notion of a pump that compresses fuel to 1500psi slightly disturbing!

lomb

maidhc wrote:

Turbocharging and supercharging is a very mature technology (weren't WWII spitfires supercharged...), Common rail diesels / FSI is not. I find the notion of a pump that compresses fuel to 1500psi slightly disturbing!

it is but vw are i think putting the boost in earlier, so the turbo spools up more than in the past. all i know is that most of the complaints on uk-mkivs is from turbo diesels. there arent really any complaints from petrol owners. personally i think that the diesels shake the cars more and cause things to rattle and break. there are numerous reports of turbo issues there. i dont know alot about it, as ive never owned a turbocharged car.

Ice_Box

Prices out now from € 25,110

source www.carzone.ie

7. 1.4 TSI DSG GT 3 dr Hatchback Manual € 31,680
8. 1.4 TSI DSG GT 5 dr Hatchback Manual € 32,620
9. 1.4 TSI DSG SPORTLINE 3 dr Hatchback Manual € 27,295
10. 1.4 TSI DSG SPORTLINE 5 dr Hatchback Manual € 28,235
11. 1.4 TSI GT 3 dr Hatchback Manual € 30,275
12. 1.4 TSI GT 5 dr Hatchback Manual € 31,215
13. 1.4 TSI SPORTLINE 3 dr Hatchback Manual € 25,110
14. 1.4 TSI SPORTLINE 5 dr Hatchback Manual € 26,050

Ice_Box

Wait a second these might only be 140bhp

http://www.volkswagen.ie/configurator/index.cfm?fuseaction=vw.Variant&modelID=281&bodyID=4236

maidhc

The 1.4 TSI Sportline 1k cheaper than an equivalent 1.9TDi.

Hard to complain about the price really.


EDIT... Pity VW cant tell the difference between TDI and TSI on their website.

unkel

maidhc wrote:

Pity VW cant tell the difference between TDI and TSI on their website.

Yeah, what are they like? :rolleyes:

So looks like 168BHP has proven a bit too much and it's now deffo 140? Probably can be remapped to 168 if that's the case

fletch

Is it just me but I can't see the 1.4 TSI at all...I can see " 7. New Golf V 1.4 SPORTLINE 3DR TDI DSG 140BHP"
Oh I see it on carzone now...(was only lookin at the vw.ie site)

R.O.R

There were always going to be 2 versions of this engine. The 140ps and the 170ps. Looks like the Sportline is the 140ps version and the GT the 170ps version.

Ice_Box

I read somwehere that Audi have rejected the 1.4 tsi as its not smooth enough for their cars. The Jetta and Passat will have it as will Skodas

btkm8unsl0w5r4

ronoc wrote:

The rx-8 has a 1.3L wankel engine which works out classed as a 2.6L does it not?

Correct....taxed as a 1.7 and insured as a 2.6. It generates 232 BHp and goes like absolute stink and corners like a house fly. Very heavy on fuel averaging 25 MPG however mine runs more like 18 MPG :eek: .

CrowdedHouse

unkel wrote:

I'd say a lot of traditional GTI owners bought one as a style statement and they might not "move down" to a 1.4 GT

I certainly wouldn't anyway

Ice_Box

VW Jetta also has prices on www.carzone.ie
This is just adding to the confusion...

1. 1.4 TSI 170 BHP SPORTLINE 4 dr Saloon Manual € 29,580
2. 1.4 TSI 170BHP DSG SPORTLINE 4 dr Saloon Manual € 30,985
3. 1.4 TSI COMFORTLINE 4 dr Saloon Manual € 27,240
4. 1.4 TSI DSG COMFORTLINE 4 dr Saloon Manual € 29,420
5. 1.4 TSI DSG SPORTLINE 4 dr Saloon Manual € 30,215
6. 1.4 TSI SPORTLINE 4 dr Saloon Manual € 28,035

unkel

R.O.R wrote:

There were always going to be 2 versions of this engine. The 140ps and the 170ps. Looks like the Sportline is the 140ps version and the GT the 170ps version.

Ah, ok

Ice_Box wrote:

VW Jetta also has prices on www.carzone.ie
This is just adding to the confusion...

It is confusing. So the Jetta gets the 170BHP although it isn't called GT and the Golf doesn't get the 170BHP at all or just not yet?

HashSlinging

Ice_Box wrote:

I read somwehere that Audi have rejected the 1.4 tsi as its not smooth enough for their cars.

I'd seriously doubt that, as they've been using 80's technology (1.6 8v engine) in the current A4 - A3 range, but good enough for them i suppose.

endplate

The TSI 1.4 is 168HP as far as I'm aware and the 2l TDI's are available in 140 and 170hp. I think there is some confusion with the web people for carzone on the specs for the cars. I could be wrong but that is what it looks like to me

McSpud

The Golf 1.4 TSI has definitely been given VRT rate of 1.4L car.

Retailing at 26k for 140bhp & 30k for 170bhp.

Anyone know how insurers treating this? I suppose i could be treated as 2.0L?

I am tempted by the 140bhp but could take a while before find dealer with a model to test drive as they love those 80bhp 1.4s... 300 euro road tax for 140bhp is nice deal.

drdre

i test drove the 140 bhp at park motors 2 months ago.its much better than normal 1.4 golf.

McSpud wrote:

The Golf 1.4 TSI has definitely been given VRT rate of 1.4L car.

Retailing at 26k for 140bhp & 30k for 170bhp.

Anyone know how insurers treating this? I suppose i could be treated as 2.0L?

I am tempted by the 140bhp but could take a while before find dealer with a model to test drive as they love those 80bhp 1.4s... 300 euro road tax for 140bhp is nice deal.

maidhc

McSpud wrote:

Retailing at 26k for 140bhp & 30k for 170bhp.

€30k with 1.4 VRT? ffs.

Mike2006

Just got 2 quotes from Hibernian for:


1. Golf 1.4 GT TSI 170bhp - €480
2. Golf 2.0 GTI 200bhp - €935


I am ~30 and 7yrs NCB with 0 penalty points.

Seems to be quite a difference alright.
I still reckon that I would buy the GTI if I was to make the decision today.

Mike.

HashSlinging

The new sirocco (spell check) has the 1.4 tsi with 200bhp.

I think insurance, tax and better MPG would make me pick the GT over the GTI.

drdre

Mike2006 wrote:

Just got 2 quotes from Hibernian for:


1. Golf 1.4 GT TSI 170bhp - €480
2. Golf 2.0 GTI 200bhp - €935


I am ~30 and 7yrs NCB with 0 penalty points.

Seems to be quite a difference alright.
I still reckon that I would buy the GTI if I was to make the decision today.

Mike.

With that cheap insurance i would consider purchasing a R32.:D

TempestSabre

drdre wrote:

With that cheap insurance i would consider purchasing a R32.:D

Students are obviously a lot better off than they used to be...

unkel

Jeremy Clarkson reviewed the Golf 1.4 GT TSI 168bhp last Sunday. He thought it was shite:

Jeremy Clarkson wrote:

the truly woeful engine

:eek:

btkm8unsl0w5r4

http://driving.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,12529-2505907,00.html for clarksons review not too jolly i am afraid but I doubt its as bad as he makes out.

http://archives.tcm.ie/businesspost/2006/04/30/story13779.asp

there was a design flaw so i believe in the older TDi turbos. Not a problem with all turbo engines as I have seen old DTI vectra 97/98 yrs go past 150,000 miles with never a problem with the turbo.

as per the above link the 2litre TDi is also being upped in power.

About the 1.4 supercharger/turbo being taxed at a higher rate than damn the hippies in the tax office if they try!! But a turbo and a supercharger increases working capacity the same way as a turbo or supercharger does in any other vehicle equipped with one. So the Merc Kompressor wit a sueprcharger or a GTI with a turbo or even you DTI vectra - they are taxed by the engine CC.
I cant see them trying it. I think they got away with taxin the mazda because it was a different type of engine. Still its anti progress in my opinion.

Lots can be done to petrols to improve power and economy in the future (but i still prefer diesel - unless they make a petrol that has 150bhp at least and 350nm of torque at least and gets at least 55mpg)
Petrols with turbos can have boost increased (more air leaner burn - using less petrol per cycle) and to prevent detonation you can add a water alcohol injection to keep it cool PLUS it increases torque!
Lots of advances already made (just yet to be mass marketed) and more to come
MERRY XMAS

TempestSabre

unkel wrote:

Jeremy Clarkson reviewed the Golf 1.4 GT TSI 168bhp last Sunday. He thought it was shite:

:eek:

Most of that review didn't even talk about the car, and theres no context with any similar cars. Theres nothing to be learned from reading that drivel.

unkel

TempestSabre wrote:

Most of that review didn't even talk about the car

Really?

Judith Quaint Knickers wrote:

I doubt its as bad as he makes out.

He exaggerates for England. In the review he claimed it was one of the 5 worst cars he had ever driven. Yeah, right...