1.4 TSI Passat - wheres the catch?

E92

Well the first catch is that it should really be called the 1.4 TFSI because there is no supercharger.

But this new engine has as much torque as a 2.0(more actually than the 2.0 FSI, which is being replaced by a 1.8 TFSI, don't know when sales start but I do know its on sale in Germany already and has 160 bhp), a fraction less power than a 1.8, so it will go like a 1.8 at worst, is cheaper than a 1.6 to buy and run, so what I'm wondering is is it all as good as it sounds?

Could it be the first repmobile in quite sometime where(funny I should say it about a VW, considering they alway had a reputation for having much better oil burners than petrols) where petrol is the fuel to have in it?

colm_mcm

I wonder how reliable they will be? interesting though.

they're already doing it in the Touran,

JHMEG

At low revs, turbo off, it's a regular 1.4 with the torque and power of a 1.4. I presume that's the catch?

colm_mcm

VW turbos are usually pretty torquey at low revs.

bazz26

Is the 1.4 TSi replacing the 1.6 FSi altogether or is it being sold along side it? As my uncle ordered a 2008 1.6 Comfortline for January the other day (despite all the grief he has had with his 2007). I know there is are trim upgrades for 2008 but just wondering did he actually buy one of the last of the old stock.

Also doesn't the option of a 1.4 TSi Passat kind of make the poor selling Jetta even more pointless now?

colm_mcm

the Jetta also has the option of the 1.4 TSI. (I think!)

bazz26

colm_mcm wrote: »

the Jetta also has the option of the 1.4 TSI. (I think!)

Cheapest one I can see is the 1.4 TSi Comfortline at €27,240. Surely not too far off a 1.4 TSi Passat?

crosstownk

colm_mcm wrote: »

I wonder how reliable they will be?

My first thoughts too.

I wouldn't be in a rush to buy one just yet. New VW products have a tendency to be unreliable in the early days until they iron out all the gremlins. I'd be inclined to wait until the teething problems get sorted. It's bad enough to have a faulty car but add to that the well known ...er.... 'quality' of service throughout most of the VW network..............

bazz26

crosstownk wrote: »

My first thoughts too.

I wouldn't be in a rush to buy one just yet. New VW products have a tendency to be unreliable in the early days until they iron out all the gremlins. I'd be inclined to wait until the teething problems get sorted. It's bad enough to have a faulty car but add to that the well know ...er.... 'quality' of service throughout most of the VW network..............

Try telling my uncle! He is convinced he bought a Monday morning job. :rolleyes:

Henry Ford III

Wait until he tries to sell or trade it. He'll get reamed.

JHMEG

colm_mcm wrote: »

VW turbos are usually pretty torquey at low revs.

How torquey can a 1.4 be tho when the turbo is off?

E92

JHMEG wrote: »

How torquey can a 1.4 be tho when the turbo is off?

Torquey enough to deliver 155 lb ft at only 1500 rpm! And it keeps going all the way to 3500 rpm.

The new engine will see service in the Golf, Eos, Jetta and Touran.

The TSIs already on sale have both a turbo and a supercharger and have either 138 or 168 bhp.

The new 1.4 TSI has no supercharger and 122 bhp, and does 44.8 mpg in the Golf(as opposed to 42.2 in the 1.6 FSI) produces 149 g/km of CO2, anmd will be found on countless other VAGs in the future including the Audi A3 1.4 TFSI.

copacetic

presumably this is the same engine as in the A3?

although they do call it the 1.4TFSI. In the A3:

125bhp @ 5000rpm.
0-100 km/h (62mph) in 9.6 sec
top speed of 203 km/h (126mph).
average fuel consumption is just 6.5-liters per 100 km (36.2 mpg).
maximum torque of 200 Nm is available across an unusually wide speed range of 1,500 to 4,000 rpm with 80 percent of the maximum torque of 200 Nm is available from 1,250 rpm, just above idle speed.

http://www.green-car-guide.com/new-cars/audi-a3-tfsi.htm

E92

bazz26 wrote: »

Cheapest one I can see is the 1.4 TSi Comfortline at €27,240. Surely not too far off a 1.4 TSi Passat?

That would be the one with 140 bhp though, wouldn't it?

As opposed to the TSI Passats 122 bhp. But there will be a TSI Jetta with 122 bhp soon, as per my previous post.

Anan1

copacetic wrote: »

average fuel consumption is just 6.5-liters per 100 km (36.2 mpg)

I think 6.5 is over 40mpg.

copacetic

Anan1 wrote: »

I think 6.5 is over 40mpg.

yeah, it sounds off doesn't it, all those figures are from an audi fan site though.


edit: actually audi uk says it gets 43.5 mpg combined.

Also interesting to note that the 1.4TFSI is £800GBP dearer than the 1.6 A3 in the uk.

Ice_Box

the 1.4 qualifies for lower vrt then the slower 1.6 so it actually ends up a bit cheaper. Ill bet this doesnt happen in many other countries.

colm_mcm

how is it for emissions vs a 1.6 FSI?

corkandproud

I have an 05 COmfortline 1.6 and will be changing in MArch.

I have 30k to spend and was hoping for a 1.6 Highline.

I think the 1.4 will be naf as the 1.6 is already on the limit regarding power

E92

corkandproud wrote: »

I have an 05 COmfortline 1.6 and will be changing in MArch.

I have 30k to spend and was hoping for a 1.6 Highline.

I think the 1.4 will be naf as the 1.6 is already on the limit regarding power

1.4 TSI has 122 bhp, 1.6 FSI has 115 bhp, 1.4 has 155 lb ft of torque from 1500-3500 rpm, the 1.6 has only 114 lb ft at a much higher 4,000 rpm.

The 1.4 will feel like a brisk 1.8 compared to the 1.6, it does have a turbo there for a reason!

It will be cheaper to buy(lower price) and run(better economy and lower tax cause its a 1.4) than the outgoing 1.6 complete with more power and a lot more torque.

Whats not to like? The reason I posted this thread in the first place was to see did people agree with the old adage: if it sounds too good to be true then it always is, and to see was there something I had overlooked about the new engine that could make it worse than the outgoing 1.6.

corkandproud

I'll have the car for 100,000km, aparently the life of the engine will be shortened by the high rev driving.

Anyone have prices, I heard the the Comfortline is staying the same as they are adding alloys and fogs. Diesels went up by €700 start of the month

E92

corkandproud wrote: »

I'll have the car for 100,000km, aparently the life of the engine will be shortened by the high rev driving.

How?

The new engine is faster than the old one, it has a bit more power and a lot more torque and at much lower revs, it won't need to be worked anything like as hard as the 1.6. Which means that the engine will have an easier life, as you won't need to rev it as much as your 1.6 Passat.

The turbo is what provides the power and torque increase, the engine is the same as any old 1.4 with direct injection its just that they stuck a turbo onto it.

The new TSI is really the TSI engine thats been going around since 2005, just they took out the supercharger and it has a water driven intercooler, so any quality issues that may have affected early TSIs should have been wellrectified by now.

WHITE_P

Should be alot better than the current 1.6 petrol, if any of this (see below) is true. Autocar example is for a Touran which is heavier than a 1.6 Passat, and as its taller must have higher drag coefficient also.

VWVortex.com
Volkswagen News
Power/torque characteristic of 1.4 TSI 125 kW

The smooth torque characteristic allows the driver to refrain from gear changes whilst still driving briskly. It goes without saying that the “Twincharger” is much more free revving than a diesel engine. Indeed, the 1.4 TSI has a maximum speed of 7000 rpm. Thanks to this outstanding engine performance, overtaking manoeuvres on country roads are particularly enjoyable and much more rapid than is the case with a naturally aspirated engine. The value for in-gear acceleration from 80 to 120 km/h (50 to 74.5 mph) in fifth gear in 8,0 seconds can only serve as a reference here. Active safety has seldom been improved in this way without having an effect on consumption.

This is because very low consumption values are possible due to the generous torque and the high level of power that allow a correspondingly relaxed driving style. In the Golf GT, the 1.4 TSI gets along with only 7.2 l/100 km (39.2 mpg) of Super Plus petrol. This is about 20 percent less than in a naturally aspirated engine with comparable torque and power and a cubic capacity of approx. 2.3 litres. In interurban transport, indeed, the “Twincharger” veritably sips only 5.9 l/100 km (47.9 mpg).

In combination with the direct shift gearbox available for the “Twincharger” from early 2006 onwards, the power developed by the 1.4 TSI will be appreciated even more due to the gearshifts without any interruption in traction. And what is more, the advantage in terms of consumption, far from being reduced by this innovative automatic, is in fact increased.

It is possible to activate the winter programme using a switch in front of the selector lever in the centre console of the Golf GT to prevent too much torque being sent to the front wheels on a snowy or icy road. This reduces the moving-off torque and therefore prevents the drive wheels from spinning.

The second power variant of the TSI reveals that this innovative engine technology is not only intended for a sporty model variant but will also be used across the board. With 103 kW / 140 PS and a maximum torque of 220 newton metres, this engine variant will also appeal with its smooth and masterly engine performance. This variant of the TSI will be used first in early 2006 in the Touran.

Autocar: What’s it like?
Impressively spritely. With power delivery so smooth and consistently linear throughout the rev range, it's difficult to detect when the supercharger or turbocharger are working. Even when crammed with a taxi load of Autocar staffers, the Touran never felt out of breath. The torquey engine is responsive and provides plenty of in-gear flexibility. It feels refined on motorway cruises too and when the engine is idling, virtually no noise filtrates to the cabin.

E92

The TSI engine in the Passat is not the engine WHITE_P is talking about(nor is the 122 bhp version of the TSI engine in the Golf, Jetta, Touran and Eos either).
The TSI engine in the Passat is less powerful and torquey than the one in the post above. It also has no supercharger and is even more economical than the engine above(it is closely related to the engine WHITE_P is talking about, but it is definately not the same engine).

WHITE_P

E92 wrote: »

The TSI engine in the Passat is not the engine WHITE_P is talking about(nor is the 122 bhp version of the TSI engine in the Golf, Jetta, Touran and Eos either).
The TSI engine in the Passat is less powerful and torquey than the one in the post above. It also has no supercharger and is even more economical than the engine above(it is closely related to the engine WHITE_P is talking about, but it is definately not the same engine).

Accepted, it has not got the Supercharger.

But it has the same CC, and Bore / stroke. Most of the other technical spec. is the same.

See www.volkswagen.ie

cyborg

E92 wrote: »

The TSI engine in the Passat is not the engine WHITE_P is talking about(nor is the 122 bhp version of the TSI engine in the Golf, Jetta, Touran and Eos either).

the 122bhp tsi is also available in the golf,jetta and eos

WHITE_P

Audi are putting it into the A3 now also.

http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/carreviews/firstdrives/214020/audi_a3.html

WHITE_P

Anan1 wrote: »

I think 6.5 is over 40mpg.

Ltrs / 100 Km = MPG
7.0 = 40.35
6.8 = 41.53
6.6 = 42.79
6.4 = 44.13
6.2 = 45.55
6.0 = 47.08
5.8 = 48.70
5.6 = 50.43
5.4 = 52.30
5.2 = 54.32
5.0 = 56.50

NiSmO

This post has been deleted.

Dero

That's a handy table WHITE_P. Google will do conversions for you (just search for 6.5 l/100km in mpg), but the results are in US gallons, so very misleading. I did a bit more Googling and found this site, which does both UK and US gallon conversions.

fletch

Dero wrote: »

That's a handy table WHITE_P. Google will do conversions for you (just search for 6.5 l/100km in mpg), but the results are in US gallons, so very misleading. I did a bit more Googling and found this site, which does both UK and US gallon conversions.

Just divide the l/100km value into 282.5 to give you your mpg.

NiSmO

This post has been deleted.

Dero

Heh, yeah, that's a bit handier alright.

WHITE_P

Dero wrote: »

That's a handy table WHITE_P. Google will do conversions for you (just search for 6.5 l/100km in mpg), but the results are in US gallons, so very misleading. I did a bit more Googling and found this site, which does both UK and US gallon conversions.

That's a good link.