Will these new higher powered 1.4 engines last?

felim

Something I've been wondering for a while now. We see all these new higher powered (supercharged and maybe turbocharged as well) small engines coming out but will they stand the test of time. Reading this morning about a 180 BHP 1.4 in a new Ibiza! 180 brake from a 1.4 seems an awful lot to me. Same with some of the new Golf GT models...small engine high power (well, high for a 1.4).

What do ye think, can those engines really carry that much power or are they doomed to failure? Have they been out long enough to draw any meaningful conclusions? Maybe they're not meant to last for 15 or 20 years, maybe cars are the new "consumer product"?

Owen

Nissan had a supercharged & turbocharged K10 micra way back in the day. They're still running.

I wouldn't really be concerned - the shift in motoring trends is to have cars in the crusher by the time they hit 15 years old, cars aren't really made to last anymore. They're made to be recycled.

kluivert

Can not see these cars passing the test of time.

Its the same reason why modern diesel cars are not living as long as they use too - engine compression is very high in modern diesel engines.

peasant

kluivert wrote: »

Its the same reason why modern diesel cars are not living as long as they use too - engine compression is very high in modern diesel engines.

Engine compression has always been very high (~ 25:1) in diesels from day one, that's the nature of the biest. What has changed to incredulous levels however is the pressure (and precision)in the injection systems.

Johnboy Mac

Initally I don't see any problems with small twin charged 1.4's. I do suspect problems will arise when they are a few years old and purchased used and not serviced/maintenained correctly, especially lack of engine oil changes etc. No doubt there will be turbos & superchargers going bang and I'd also suspect it will be a very expensive bang.

gpjordanf1

felim wrote: »

Something I've been wondering for a while now. We see all these new higher powered (supercharged and maybe turbocharged as well) small engines coming out but will they stand the test of time. Reading this morning about a 180 BHP 1.4 in a new Ibiza! 180 brake from a 1.4 seems an awful lot to me. Same with some of the new Golf GT models...small engine high power (well, high for a 1.4).

What do ye think, can those engines really carry that much power or are they doomed to failure? Have they been out long enough to draw any meaningful conclusions? Maybe they're not meant to last for 15 or 20 years, maybe cars are the new "consumer product"?

Thats hardly high power, back in the day they ran 1.5 turbo charged engines running at 1000 + BHP in F1. So nearly two decades later manufacturers are running 1.4 @ 180BHP seems small to me anyway.

Stevie Dakota

gpjordanf1 wrote: »

Thats hardly high power, back in the day they ran 1.5 turbo charged engines running at 1000 + BHP in F1. So nearly two decades later manufacturers are running 1.4 @ 180BHP seems small to me anyway.

Don't you remember how often those 1000bhp F1 BMW's blew up, and were rebuilt every race. VW couldn't even make a normally aspirated 1.4 that didn't go soft after 50K. I suspect these turbos are going to be big trouble down the line.

peasant

gpjordanf1 wrote: »

Thats hardly high power, back in the day they ran 1.5 turbo charged engines running at 1000 + BHP in F1. .

and if you were really lucky, they lasted the whole race

Johnboy Mac

gpjordanf1 wrote: »

Thats hardly high power, back in the day they ran 1.5 turbo charged engines running at 1000 + BHP in F1. So nearly two decades later manufacturers are running 1.4 @ 180BHP seems small to me anyway.

It seems you maybe compairing apples & oranges. The F1 motors were no doubt stripped & rebuilt after every race (a lot never completed a race), a race was only a few hours long too and all carried out within a similar enviorment (very controlled). Not to mention the use of exotic materials in there manufacture plus special brew fuels etc. It's a different ball game with mass produced engines which are asked to operate in all manner of conditions i.e. temperatures, loads, driving styles etc, etc. Also these engines are designed for 100k mls +, and servicing every 12mts/12-18k mls, meeting strict CO levels.

gpjordanf1

Stevie Dakota wrote: »

Don't you remember how often those 1000bhp F1 BMW's blew up, and were rebuilt every race. VW couldn't even make a normally aspirated 1.4 that didn't go soft after 50K. I suspect these turbos are going to be big trouble down the line.

peasant wrote: »

and if you were really lucky, they lasted the whole race

Your missing the whole point, F1 is the pinnicle of motosport technology and yet were two decades down the road and all we can muster is a pewney 180BHP for a 1.4. I think its backwards were going sometimes.

Roll on the electric engine, blow away any petrol / deisel engine, 100% torque from start. Cant wait!

But I dont think there will be a problem with those 1.4s, I have a 1.8 turbo and she's getting on now the old girl (8 years) and is a s smooth as silk! Hope I haven't jinxed myself!

EPM

Has there not already been problems with the 170 brake turbo and supercharged VW engine, enough to make VW take that particular version off the market?

For longevity I'd be thinking it that sort of power might be a bit much for a 1.4 to be honest

Owen

EPM wrote: »

For longevity I'd be thinking it that sort of power might be a bit much for a 1.4 to be honest

Interesting times ahead though, BMW are getting the Motorrad (Motorbike) division to design engines for 2010. There's going to be a high revving 3 cylinder 1.3 turbo producting 140 Bhp, and a high revving 4 cylinder 1.8 turbo producing approx 240 Bhp.

I can see it now ... I'm driving a 313 ... lol.

Stevie Dakota

I repeat, VW's last 1.4 was a heap of ****e and couldn't handle 55bhp! TBH I am sure the Japanese could deliver a reliable small turbo engine, I just don't trust zee Germans to do it.

EPM

PaintDoctor wrote: »

I can see it now ... I'm driving a 313 ... lol.

Wait til the 513:D

And the return of the 518:D:D

JimmyCrackCorn!

gpjordanf1 wrote: »

Your missing the whole point, F1 is the pinnicle of motosport technology and yet were two decades down the road and all we can muster is a pewney 180BHP for a 1.4. I think its backwards were going sometimes.

Roll on the electric engine, blow away any petrol / deisel engine, 100% torque from start. Cant wait!

But I dont think there will be a problem with those 1.4s, I have a 1.8 turbo and she's getting on now the old girl (8 years) and is a s smooth as silk! Hope I haven't jinxed myself!

Couple of things


The engines ran on Tourmaline which is highly toxic nasty cancer causing stuff. It also allowed the engines to run two throttle bodies(one at turbo intake one in inlet manifold) and no intercooler to avoid massive lag of large turbos.

You could in theory boost a 1.4 allot more than that but the higher you stress a motor the better the materials you need and the more issues you will have with cooling and stress. Go look at some of the modified Renault 5s they could make substantially more power than 180bhp.

There is also a law of diminishing returns the more you lower compression ratio the less efficient the engine will become off boost. While twin charging can compress the engine from a low RPM to hide the drawbacks at a point it just makes sense to increase displacement.


Will these cars last the test of time? Probably there are pros and cons here. Now we dont use less reliable MAF sensors and MAP refuse the chances of fun problems around managing fuelling. The materials are substantially better. Complexity increases so therefore risks of problems increase.

Id buy one if they came in 2.0

Long Onion

i remember in '86 whn McGyver got 378bhp from a hairdryer and an emty tayto bag stuck to a pallet truck with some juicy fruit ... oh them were the days ...

Owen

EPM wrote: »

Wait til the 513:D

And the return of the 518:D:D

You're forgetting the 718i which was sold in Asia :pac:

Henry Ford III

Nismo's 1.4 tsi golf blew a turbo early doors. I have my doubts if 180bhp from a 1.4 will last long term.

kuro_man

It depends on how its driven; if constantly pushed at high revs then its going to wear out faster. Do these cars have a turbo saver?

But why would anyone buy the 1.4L golf when that 2.0L diesel is so good and cheap to tax now?

Owen

Because some people don't like Diesel.

R.O.R

kuro_man wrote: »

But why would anyone buy the 1.4L golf when that 2.0L diesel is so good and cheap to tax now?

Because in Highline trim with a DSG box, the 1.4TFSi 160ps is over €4,000 cheaper and half the cost of the 2.0Tdi 140 to tax!

galwaytt

You don't need to wait - VW have already had a bunch of issues in Germany with the 1.4Tfsi, to such an extent that Wendelin Wendeking got involved, somehow over it.........

But as someone has pointed out, the cars will be scrapped long before longevity becomes an issue.

alexmcred

The 170 was detuned to 160 for emissions reasons and the current TSi engine is an all new engine not the old 80bhp one.

kuro_man

R.O.R wrote: »

Because in Highline trim with a DSG box, the 1.4TFSi 160ps is over €4,000 cheaper and half the cost of the 2.0Tdi 140 to tax!

What a bummer, only 3g difference in the Co2 (139 V 142)) pushes the diesel in the higher bracket. I bet real-world experience, the diesel would have better fuel economany as it wouldn't be constantly trashed. Anyway, €302 p.a is hardly prohibitive for the better car.

€4,000 purchase price difference is a lot; which will have the better resale value?

Stevie Dakota

I was kind of amazed to see VW offering this...

Highline
PASSAT B6 SAL HIGH 1.4TSI 122hp
€24,960

And still some wriggle room with the dealer no doubt, that car was over €30K not long ago.

CJhaughey

Thats not that high a power for a N/A engine, look at motorcycle engines the Hayabusa is pushing 180 from a 1300cc engine and they seem to last just fine.
Maybe the problem is that cars and bikes are treated differently by their owners and the bike companies are much more experienced at building engines that can reliably produce power like that.

Johnboy Mac

kuro_man wrote: »

What a bummer, only 3g difference in the Co2 (139 V 142)) pushes the diesel in the higher bracket. I bet real-world experience, the diesel would have better fuel economany as it wouldn't be constantly trashed. Anyway, €302 p.a is hardly prohibitive for the better car.

€4,000 purchase price difference is a lot; which will have the better resale value?

Possible that the smarter buy new over a 3/5 year period is the 2.0 diesel. I'd see the diesel depreciating less overall and a better demand as used car.

As the yanks correctly stated 'there's no substitute for cubic inches'.

Johnboy Mac

CJhaughey wrote: »

Thats not that high a power for a N/A engine, look at motorcycle engines the Hayabusa is pushing 180 from a 1300cc engine and they seem to last just fine.
Maybe the problem is that cars and bikes are treated differently by their owners and the bike companies are much more experienced at building engines that can reliably produce power like that.

Yeah, but a bike is only pulling say 400kg while a car is possibly 1400kg.

high horse

Fiat are also in on this with their 1.4 T-JET giving 150bhp. Has anybody here driven one?

fabbydabby

I own and drive a 1.4 GT 170PS golf and love it to bits. The little boost pressure gauge makes me feel all warm inside when it flicks up to max boost when I floor it and it eats skangers in Glanzas for breakfast.

This engine hasn't been discontinued as suggested above, it had been slightly detuned for better economy. It's now 160 brake (as in the new TSI scirocco etc). My tax is on the old system cause mine is a year and a half old and is just over €250.. (insurance is dirt cheap as well) but if I was taxed on emmisions it would be over €600 which is the same as a GTi!

It's a little rocket of a yoke but to be honest I really wonder how the 1.4 is going to stand up to such high demands over its lifespan....

HashSlinging

I'm sure the americans are thinking the same thing.! "Will these tiny 2.0 engines last". VAG have spent im sure billions of euros getting this technology right.

1.4 TSi Engine of the year 2009

Johnboy Mac

HashSlinging wrote: »

I'm sure the americans are thinking the same thing.! "Will these tiny 2.0 engines last". VAG have spent im sure billions of euros getting this technology right.

1.4 TSi Engine of the year 2009

In fairness I don't think anybody is dismissing the technology of these impressive small engines. What's in question is reliability and life span compaired to say a 2.0lt.

Stevie Dakota

Engine of the year means nothing in the context of this discussion.

unkel

PaintDoctor wrote: »

You're forgetting the 718i which was sold in Asia :pac:

Now you tell me! I would have loved to get my hands on a 718i badge

alexmcred

high horse wrote: »

Fiat are also in on this with their 1.4 T-JET giving 150bhp. Has anybody here driven one?

Yeah test drove one before I got my 140 TSI golf and was very impressed the only thing that stopped me buying was I'd be stuck with it for a very long time even the dealer admitted this.

galwaytt

Johnboy Mac wrote: »

Yeah, but a bike is only pulling say 400kg while a car is possibly 1400kg.

what's weight got to do with engine bhp/litre ??

......a neighour has a Hayabusa engined special, for Autocross and Sprints............

su_dios

alexmcred wrote: »

The 170 was detuned to 160 for emissions reasons and the current TSi engine is an all new engine not the old 80bhp one.

As Alex has stated, this is why the 170 model was 'discontinued'.

I don't see the turbo being a problem in this car..its the same turbo thats in the Gti which is capable of 250bhp from a simple remap(the Gti that is).

If the engine will give any trouble it will be because its a new engine with new technology, and everything new has their gremlins to be ironed out. Its a great engine and I love it in mine but I have to fault it over the factory map thats put on it. Its a bit rough and jumpy. Hoping to have this remapped soon to 198bhp and 315Nm torque and have the jumpiness fixed also. I've been told by the tuner he has done one to 230bhp and running fine. A few extra changes though than just a map.

One of the main issues with the engine is that the boost valve is known to be a problem and may go. I don't think this is an expensive part though, but from dealing with VW dealers/service agents, most of them don't seem to know much about the engine they're selling!! Like the lack of a coolant temp gauge with a 'fake' boost gauge in its place.

maidhc

New cars are too bloody complicated.


I have a 2.6 Mercedes 190E in storage. When the time comes to move on my crrent overly complex Focus TDCi I am wheeling out that car.

ChowChow

high horse wrote: »

Fiat are also in on this with their 1.4 T-JET giving 150bhp. Has anybody here driven one?

Nope but have driven Peugeots/BMWs answer to the small turbo-charged engine category as used in the 207 GT/GTi and Mini Cooper S. Cracking little engine too and also the recipient of engine of the year award 2008.

Johnboy Mac

galwaytt wrote: »

what's weight got to do with engine bhp/litre ??

......a neighour has a Hayabusa engined special, for Autocross and Sprints............

`

I'm suprised you asked. Torque. Do you know of any mass produced cars where the manufacture fits a high reving Motorbike engine?

And what has one off specials of 400,500,600kg got to do with mass produced cars like the Golf 1.4 (160bhp) twin charged?

The topic as I undersatnd it is 'Will these new higher powered 1.4 engines last'. So that rules out bike engines and you neighours special.

WHITE_P

There are lots of factors that will determine how long an engine lasts, like how it is driven, and how well it is maintained etc.

I had a Renault 5 Gt Turbo (120 BHP from a 1.4 pushrod engine that was designed in the 60's I think) years ago that had 70,000 on it when I bought it and it drove like a new car, it had been very well maintained by the previous owner, he had all the service stamps and receipts to prove it.

I put another 20,000 miles on it, in a year, most of which was hard driving, but I looked after it and had no complaints.

HashSlinging

Just to add to this Renault have a 1.2 Turbo! holy double head cam batman.

Zonda999

VAG have a 1.2 turbo too. Its in the new Skoda Yeti and the new VW polo. Its 105bhp in both cars

JHMEG

160 or 180 bhp from 1.4 shouldn't be any problem, and should last if designed and built properly. Can VW (etc) manage that is the real question?

Otoh, I can't see a turbo or supercharger lasting 200,000 miles.

maidhc

JHMEG wrote: »

Otoh, I can't see a turbo or supercharger lasting 200,000 miles.

Turbos last just fine to be honest if properly looked after (i.e. warmed up before throttle and cooled before shutdown).

JHMEG

maidhc wrote: »

Turbos last just fine to be honest if properly looked after (i.e. warmed up before throttle and cooled before shutdown).

Should be interesting reading:
http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/7104120/description.html

CJhaughey

It is just another gimmick from Caterpillar to try and sell more turbochargers.
What kills turbos is mainly people switching the engine off after just caning it.
High turbo speed and low oil pressure mean bad things happen.
Idle it for 30 seconds to allow oil pressure to stabilise and then shut down and you should have no probs.
Cat engines are not known for longevity BTW.
My Landcruiser turbo is over 236k miles now and still running fine, so you can't say that turbo's don't last.