Is a 1.4 engine too small for a VW Passat

v638sg7k1a92bx

Budget of 11k looking at some Passat's online and noticed the 1.4 versions.

is this considered too small an engine size to put in the Passat, anyone know what the performance levels are like in these cars?

Stallingrad

No. The 1.4Tsi is a super engine and well able for the Passat. I have one and rate it highly.

Matt Simis

Vanessa Greasy Weeknight wrote: »

Budget of 11k looking at some Passat's online and noticed the 1.4 versions.

is this considered too small an engine size to put in the Passat, anyone know what the performance levels are like in these cars?

Compared to normal A to B/low spec cars 10-15years ago, its fine. Compared to what you could have instead, today, its not that fine:
http://www.carfolio.com/specifications/models/car/?car=167123


What would be the advantage? Overly complicated, stressed engine lugging a big chassis around. Is it especially cheap? Otherwise wouldnt the 1.6TDI be a better bet?

NobodyImportant

Yes, its small and overstressed. American's love their big lazy V8's. Underpowered, but never under stress. This is the opposite.

Its also a complex motor and when it gives trouble down the line, its going to be difficult to sort out and diagnose.

IMHO.

George Dalton

NobodyImportant wrote: »

Yes, its small and overstressed. American's love their big lazy V8's. Underpowered, but never under stress. This is the opposite.

Its also a complex motor and when it gives trouble down the line, its going to be difficult to sort out and diagnose.

IMHO.

The 122bhp TSI isn't complex really. The twin-charged versions are quite complex admittedly but not the turbocharged versions.

NobodyImportant

Ah, maybe i am thinking of the twin charged version so.

What would be more complex and stressed though, a 1.4 Turbo in a big car, or a 1.6 TDI?

aman23

I had a 2L petrol Passat B5.5, and I thought it was underpowered. Big lump of a car at 3373 odd lbs.

Toyotafanboi

NobodyImportant wrote: »

Ah, maybe i am thinking of the twin charged version so.

What would be more complex and stressed though, a 1.4 Turbo in a big car, or a 1.6 TDI?

in reality they are both quite small, 4 cyl turocharged engines. although one is petrol and one is diesel, i'd say they are both similarly complex/ uncomplex.

much as i don't like how people blow their load over anything with the 1.9/2.0 TDi engine in it, this might be a situation for it. i detest the irish masses need to buy a car with the smallest engine possible for tax reasons even more.

that was a little rant, very sorry

maceocc2

The 1.6 TDI will pull more with weight in it owing to the higher torque, but to be honest I don't think either engine will labor much if your going to be using it for general A-B driving.

Keep in mind OP that the 1.6 TDI came available in the late 2009 (B6) model I believe, very few of these in Ireland, the 2011 (B7) 1.6 TDI, there are loads of them available, but you may struggle to get one for 11k as they are new-ish cars.

bazz26

aman23 wrote: »

I had a 2L petrol Passat B5.5, and I thought it was underpowered. Big lump of a car at 3373 odd lbs.

Your comparing chalk and cheese there though. Your car had a weedy 115bhp from an ancient normally aspired, indirect injected 2.0 litre 8v engine. The 1.4 TSi is 16v, has direct injection and a turbo producing 122bhp. While the 1.4 will not win any drag races it's no slouch either.

Tea 1000

aman23 wrote: »

I had a 2L petrol Passat B5.5, and I thought it was underpowered. Big lump of a car at 3373 odd lbs.

That was one of the ****tiest engines on sale in the last 20 years though.

Bobo78

I drove one of those 1.4 tsi Passats about a year ago and found it to be nice, quite and smooth drive. It had more than enough power to pull the car plus it has 6 gears so it should be very good on fuel too.
My advice take it for a test drive your self and see what you think.

corkgsxr

Matt Simis wrote: »

Compared to normal A to B/low spec cars 10-15years ago, its fine. Compared to what you could have instead, today, its not that fine:
http://www.carfolio.com/specifications/models/car/?car=167123


What would be the advantage? Overly complicated, stressed engine lugging a big chassis around. Is it especially cheap? Otherwise wouldnt the 1.6TDI be a better bet?

Lol you do realise the 1.6tdi is more stressed and incredibly tight tolerances. Couldn't be more complicated.

In diesel a 1.8/2L is the only job

Matt Simis

corkgsxr wrote: »

Lol you do realise the 1.6tdi is more stressed and incredibly tight tolerances. Couldn't be more complicated.
In diesel a 1.8/2L is the only job

I wouldnt normally advocate one, but in a world where a 1.4 petrol on a non-Urban car is being considered... What are you basing the idea the 1.6TDI is more stressed? I suspect both are in a similar playing field, however the diesels torque at lower RPM is far better suited to pulling heavy loads (ie the car) than the petrols.
The 1.4 is a forced induction, FSI injection engine, its not that dissimilar to modern diesels. I suspect its a fantastic engine in something light and energetic like a Lupo/Fox or maybe a Polo.


For the OP, review here:
http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-review/volkswagen/passat/first-drives/volkswagen-passat-1.4-tsi

High 30s MPG... stessed or not the 1.6TDI delivers similar power and near double MPG.

Stallingrad

Matt Simis wrote: »

High 30s MPG... stessed or not the 1.6TDI delivers similar power and near double MPG.

No way double mpg. I'm getting 7l/100 in my petrol, diesel is in the 1.6 is around 6l/100. I'll pay €1.50 per 100km not to have to endure that diesel racket and have a far smoother engine.

aman23

bazz26 wrote: »

Your comparing chalk and cheese there though. Your car had a weedy 115bhp from an ancient normally aspired, indirect injected 2.0 litre 8v engine. The 1.4 TSi is 16v, has direct injection and a turbo producing 122bhp. While the 1.4 will not win any drag races it's no slouch either.

7bhp more! wow! I'm sorry! it must be like driving a Formula 1 car, compared to my old tractor. Massey ferguson v's McLaren Mercedes or "chalk v's cheese" if you like:P

George Dalton

Stallingrad wrote: »

No way double mpg. I'm getting 7l/100 in my petrol, diesel is in the 1.6 is around 6l/100. I'll pay €1.50 per 100km not to have to endure that diesel racket and have a far smoother engine.

If you can manage 7L/100 in the petrol you would do far better than 6L/100 in the diesel.

corkgsxr

Matt Simis wrote: »

I wouldnt normally advocate one, but in a world where a 1.4 petrol on a non-Urban car is being considered... What are you basing the idea the 1.6TDI is more stressed? I suspect both are in a similar playing field, however the diesels torque at lower RPM is far better suited to pulling heavy loads (ie the car) than the petrols.
The 1.4 is a forced induction, FSI injection engine, its not that dissimilar to modern diesels. I suspect its a fantastic engine in something light and energetic like a Lupo/Fox or maybe a Polo.


For the OP, review here:
http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-review/volkswagen/passat/first-drives/volkswagen-passat-1.4-tsi

High 30s MPG... stessed or not the 1.6TDI delivers similar power and near double MPG.

To be fair im basing it on being a similar engine to the 1.6hdi. Which I think is a horrible unreliable dope of a engine.

Tea 1000

Matt Simis wrote: »

I wouldnt normally advocate one, but in a world where a 1.4 petrol on a non-Urban car is being considered... What are you basing the idea the 1.6TDI is more stressed? I suspect both are in a similar playing field, however the diesels torque at lower RPM is far better suited to pulling heavy loads (ie the car) than the petrols.
The 1.4 is a forced induction, FSI injection engine, its not that dissimilar to modern diesels. I suspect its a fantastic engine in something light and energetic like a Lupo/Fox or maybe a Polo.


For the OP, review here:
http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-review/volkswagen/passat/first-drives/volkswagen-passat-1.4-tsi

High 30s MPG... stessed or not the 1.6TDI delivers similar power and near double MPG.

A N/A petrol 1.4 would be normally capable of reliably producing around 90 bhp. A N/A 1.6 diesel would be putting out around 55bhp. So the diesel is tuned to a higher level than the petrol!
Plus the petrol isn't subjected to all sorts of overly complicated restraining crap to reduce the pollution.
And aren't the 1.6 TDi's becoming famous for crapping injectors? Also there's the price that both would be on the forecourt.
I think there are many things that are in favour of the petrol.

JohnBoy26

Toyotafanboi wrote: »

in reality they are both quite small, 4 cyl turocharged engines. although one is petrol and one is diesel, i'd say they are both similarly complex/ uncomplex.

much as i don't like how people blow their load over anything with the 1.9/2.0 TDi engine in it, this might be a situation for it. i detest the irish masses need to buy a car with the smallest engine possible for tax reasons even more.

that was a little rant, very sorry

Why though? You could hardly blame them given the high cost of motortax in this country. At the end of the day most people want a car just to get from A to B and in most peoples cases a small engined car will do this very job perfectly well and it will still be far more affordable to tax over a big engined car.

maceocc2

Stallingrad wrote: »

No way double mpg. I'm getting 7l/100 in my petrol, diesel is in the 1.6 is around 6l/100. I'll pay €1.50 per 100km not to have to endure that diesel racket and have a far smoother engine.

This is pretty good from your petrol, what is it?

I get about 4.5 from motorway and 5.6 combined from the 1.6.TDI and it actually doesn't sound that bad LOL, no where near the sound of a petrol, but its no tractor either. (Probably more to do with sound proofing though)

maceocc2

Tea 1000 wrote: »

And aren't the 1.6 TDi's becoming famous for crapping injectors?

Don't think injectors are the common problem on these not that I've heard anyway, I've heard Camshaft, which is actually worse.

Matt Simis

Tea 1000 wrote: »

A N/A petrol 1.4 would be normally capable of reliably producing around 90 bhp. A N/A 1.6 diesel would be putting out around 55bhp. So the diesel is tuned to a higher level than the petrol!
Plus the petrol isn't subjected to all sorts of overly complicated restraining crap to reduce the pollution.

Well, thats an interesting way of looking at it with some truth, but today, modern world, there are no real "N/A Diesels". The 1.6TDI was presumably designed from the ground up as a FI engine, so its misleading to compare it to a crippled and unsellable variant without a turbo.

The Petrol no doubt has pre and post Cats, DMF (possibly), secondary air injection system, high pressure stratified/direct fuel injection, multiple Oxygen sensors etc etc which while not quite as complicated as the diesel, isnt miles away.


I think modern small CC petrols really should be grouped with their diesel peers in the reliability stakes, a lot of the same tricks are used on boths (Direct Injection being the obvious).

Stallingrad

Matt Simis wrote: »

The Petrol no doubt has pre and post Cats, DMF (possibly), secondary air injection system, high pressure stratified/direct fuel injection, multiple Oxygen sensors etc etc which while not quite as complicated as the diesel, isnt miles away.

A petrol DMF would have to endure less torque and far less vibration, you rarely hear of them going on petrol engines compared to diesel.

Tea 1000

Matt Simis wrote: »

Well, thats an interesting way of looking at it with some truth, but today, modern world, there are no real "N/A Diesels". The 1.6TDI was presumably designed from the ground up as a FI engine, so its misleading to compare it to a crippled and unsellable variant without a turbo.

The Petrol no doubt has pre and post Cats, DMF (possibly), secondary air injection system, high pressure stratified/direct fuel injection, multiple Oxygen sensors etc etc which while not quite as complicated as the diesel, isnt miles away.


I think modern small CC petrols really should be grouped with their diesel peers in the reliability stakes, a lot of the same tricks are used on boths (Direct Injection being the obvious).

Ya, I did slightly exaggerate my point to try to enforce it, but you're right, the reality is somewhere in the middle really or slightly towards one side.
Although I did base my figures on mid-90s cars where 90bhp was reliably produced from plenty of 1.4 petrols and 1.6 and 1.9 N/A diesels were still plentiful!

bazz26

aman23 wrote: »

7bhp more! wow! I'm sorry! it must be like driving a Formula 1 car, compared to my old tractor. Massey ferguson v's McLaren Mercedes or "chalk v's cheese" if you like:P

The turbo also means it will have superior low end torque making it a lot quicker through the gears than the 7bhp suggests.

jimgoose

bazz26 wrote: »

The turbo also means it will have superior low end torque making it a lot quicker than the 7bhp suggests.

Peak power figures are about as much use as a condom machine in the Vatican at the best of times. The area under the torque curve is the most important and informative thing for day-to-day bimbling, closely followed by the area under the power curve.

I am not a fan of the current trend towards small-displacement turbocharged engines, as I think the efficiency gains will be more than offset by shortened lifespans, repair/servicing costs and, eventually, an increase in depreciation due to high mileage.

mad muffin

I'm far from an expert but I can't see how you guys think the 1.4 tsi is an overly stressed engine?

I own an SEAT Altea XL with that engine and for normal day to day driving its anything but stressed.

You don't need to rev the crap out of it to get the best out of it, it's not a sports car by any means but I never found the engine wanting in day to day driving.

It's peak power of 125 bhp is at 5,000rpm

And more importantly it delivers 80% of it's 200 Nm of torque at 1,250rpm

And 100% of it's torque from 1,500rpm to 4,500rpm odd

I've driven up hills in 6th gear with four adults and a two year old in a car seat with a boot full of crap and the car still accelerating strongly.

Now I'm sure you'll stress the living crap out of it if you're red lining it at every turn, but who drives like that, unless you're some kind of hoon.

corkgsxr

mad muffin wrote: »

I'm far from an expert but I can't see how you guys think the 1.4 tsi is an overly stressed engine?

I own an SEAT Altea XL with that engine and for normal day to day driving its anything but stressed.

You don't need to rev the crap out of it to get the best out of it, it's not a sports car by any means but I never found the engine wanting in day to day driving.

It's peak power of 125 bhp is at 5,000rpm

And more importantly it delivers 80% of it's 200 Nm of torque at 1,250rpm

And 100% of it's torque from 1,500rpm to 4,500rpm odd

I've driven up hills in 6th gear with four adults and a two year old in a car seat with a boot full of crap and the car still accelerating strongly.

Now I'm sure you'll stress the living crap out of it if you're red lining it at every turn, but who drives like that, unless you're some kind of hoon.

were talking about stressed in a way it makes its power not how its driven.

mad muffin

corkgsxr wrote: »

were talking about stressed in a way it makes its power not how its driven.

And how is it stressed in the way it makes its power?

jimgoose

mad muffin wrote: »

And how is it stressed in the way it makes its power?

Specific output of 87BHP per litre, application == dip**** civilian road car. It's too bloody small and doesn't have enough cylinders to do a hundred thousand miles and more without sh!ting itself. We're going back to the 1970s with these things, when the average 1.6l family wagon needed rebuilding every 30,000 miles.

R.O.R

jimgoose wrote: »

Specific output of 87BHP per litre, application == dip**** civilian road car. It's too bloody small and doesn't have enough cylinders to do a hundred thousand miles and more without sh!ting itself. We're going back to the 1970s with these things, when the average 1.6l family wagon needed rebuilding every 30,000 miles.

That 08 Passat 1.4t with 210,000km + that came back last year must just have been a mirage.

Just a mirage

Just a mirage

jimgoose

R.O.R wrote: »

That 08 Passat 1.4t with 210,000km + that came back last year must just have been a mirage...

"Came back last year"?? What are you talking about? And no, I have little faith in piddly engines stressed to buggery in a misguided attempt to pander to the Greenie-Holes and clever little cunnoxes who keep quality machinery out of Ireland.

corkgsxr

mad muffin wrote: »

And how is it stressed in the way it makes its power?

The 1.6 diesels are quite turbocharged in almost the whole range. Fuel pumps give trouble as they run so tight tolerances
Dpf and egrs give trouble as they dont warm up well tipping around the place
Turbos give trouble as they spin so fast with no break.

corkgsxr

jimgoose wrote: »

Specific output of 87BHP per litre, application == dip**** civilian road car. It's too bloody small and doesn't have enough cylinders to do a hundred thousand miles and more without sh!ting itself. We're going back to the 1970s with these things, when the average 1.6l family wagon needed rebuilding every 30,000 miles.

I think the petrols will be far more reliable than the small diesels.

jimgoose

corkgsxr wrote: »

I think the petrols will be far more reliable than the small diesels.

Have to be. Diesel compression is already huge, and getting huger.

R.O.R

jimgoose wrote: »

"Came back last year"??

Was returned from a long term leasing arrangement by a customer, after a 4 year term in which they had completed in excess of two hundred and ten thousand kilometres.

At no point during the period of the contracted hiring period did said vehicle come anywhere near "sh1iting" itself, nor did any of the other motor vehicles powered by the Volkswagen/Audi 1.4t engine, which have covered in excess of one hundred thousand miles (or one hundred and sixty thousand, nine hundred and three kilometres for those working on the metric system).

Am I making sense now? My deepest apologies for the earlier post and how unclear it was to yourself.

jca

Stallingrad wrote: »

No way double mpg. I'm getting 7l/100 in my petrol, diesel is in the 1.6 is around 6l/100. I'll pay €1.50 per 100km not to have to endure that diesel racket and have a far smoother engine.

The 1.6 TDI doesn't produce much of a racket, not much power either:mad: I found it to be a gutless piece of junk. And that was in an Octavia which is a lighter car:rolleyes:

jimgoose

R.O.R wrote: »

Was returned from a long term leasing arrangement by a customer, after a 4 year term in which they had completed in excess of two hundred and ten thousand kilometres.

At no point during the period of the contracted hiring period did said vehicle come anywhere near "sh1iting" itself, nor did any of the other motor vehicles powered by the Volkswagen/Audi 1.4t engine, which have covered in excess of one hundred thousand miles (or one hundred and sixty thousand, nine hundred and three kilometres for those working on the metric system).

Am I making sense now? My deepest apologies for the earlier post and how unclear it was to yourself.

The Lord help me, I'm just not that bright - I do apologise. Shill for the Panzerwagengruppen much?

jca

jimgoose wrote: »

Have to be. Diesel compression is already huge, and getting huger.

It needs to be huge or it won't run C.I. basics..

mad muffin

Cruising along on the motorway at 120kph in 6th doing just over 2,000rpm I don't see how the engine is stressed?

jimgoose

jca wrote: »

It needs to be huge or it won't run C.I. basics..

Correct. And the sooner they all move away from IDI the better. Exercise for the reader: which is more fun - 1970 big-block Dodge, or 2013 Renault Fluence 1.5 turbodiesel?

jca

jimgoose wrote: »

Correct. And the sooner they all move away from IDI the better. Exercise for the reader: which is more fun - 1970 big-block Dodge, or 2013 Renault Fluence 1.5 turbodiesel?

Unfortunately most people don't buy their cars for "fun". Mid teens fuel consumption ain't fun believe me..

jimgoose

jca wrote: »

Unfortunately most people don't buy their cars for "fun". Mid teens fuel consumption ain't fun believe me..

Yes, I know. Fun is for dorty Protestant basturds!!

Max Power1

jca wrote: »

Unfortunately most people don't buy their cars for "fun". Mid teens fuel consumption ain't fun believe me..

It is usually fun tbh

Eco crap cars like the renault flatulence on the other hand are no fun.

jca

Max Power1 wrote: »

It is usually fun tbh

Eco crap cars like the renault flatulence on the other hand are no fun.

Ok for an occasional use fun car, but seriously unpleasant on the school run/work commute/everyday knocking around stuff. Maybe I'm just gone used to my 45 mpg climate controlled modern diesel eurobox. The bad memories of non starting on damp mornings, misted windows, oil drips outside the house, damp carpets from lousy door seals, are still too traumatising. Nah think I'll stick with my modern non-descript car.

bladespin

jca wrote: »

Unfortunately most people don't buy their cars for "fun".

They really should, probably be a whole lot less stress out there (less cars too lol).

1.4 is too small for a small hatch nevermind a reasonable sized car.

corkgsxr

jca wrote: »

It needs to be huge or it won't run C.I. basics..

But its how high you go before you go past reliable strength of engine components. Id say there cutting it quite close.

mad muffin wrote: »

Cruising along on the motorway at 120kph in 6th doing just over 2,000rpm I don't see how the engine is stressed?

Cos the turbo is still putting out high boost. Compression is still huge.


The 1.6 makes slightly more power than the equivalent 2L from only a few years ago despite being 20% smaller. Has to be under significant more stress.

Jesus.

There's absolutely no way on earth a 1.4 is suitable for a car of that size. I don't care how sophisticated or advanced it is. Its entirely up to yourself mate but I wouldn't get one if I had the choice.

ba_barabus

Jesus. wrote: »

There's absolutely no way on earth a 1.4 is suitable for a car of that size. I don't care how sophisticated or advanced it is. Its entirely up to yourself mate but I wouldn't get one if I had the choice.

Ford are putting the 1.0 Ecoboost into the Mondeo

jca

corkgsxr wrote: »

But its how high you go before you go past reliable strength of engine components. Id say there cutting it quite close.



Cos the turbo is still putting out high boost. Compression is still huge.


The 1.6 makes slightly more power than the equivalent 2L from only a few years ago despite being 20% smaller. Has to be under significant more stress.

More efficient rather than more stress I think. Better, more complete fuel combustion. Variable valve timing, better materials. I think engines are far better made than years ago.