Is a 1.4 engine too small for a VW Passat

maceocc2

MuppetCheck wrote: »

That's insanely low for such a small engine, an incline would have it needing a gear change. Doesn't sound right to me.

An steep incline generally does require a gear change biggest issue I found with it is that it actually has 3 overdrive gears.

4th - 0.97:1
5th - 0.72:1
6th - 0.59:1

So trying to overtake "quickly" also means dropping from 6th down to 4th.

corkgsxr wrote: »

What pressure boost is it under at 120 cruising. Its not that low

I think it's ~0.7 bar iirc, I'll be on the motorway later today so can double check, the air intake temp runs ~23C cruising at motorway speeds.

Jesus.

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?

That's very impressive for such a small engine. I have a 1.6 at its dreadful on the motorway. I was doing dead on 60mph yesterday and I looked at the RPM and it was at 3,000 and very thrashy. (And no, I wasn't in fourth gear!)

MuppetCheck

maceocc2 wrote: »

An steep incline generally does require a gear change biggest issue I found with it is that it actually has 3 overdrive gears.

4th - 0.97:1
5th - 0.72:1
6th - 0.59:1

So trying to overtake "quickly" also means dropping from 6th down to 4th.



I think it's ~0.7 bar iirc, I'll be on the motorway later today so can double check, the air intake temp runs ~23C cruising at motorway speeds.

A steep incline while cruising should not be an issue in 6th. If it is then the engine is inadequate.

maceocc2

MuppetCheck wrote: »

A steep incline while cruising should not be an issue in 6th. If it is then the engine is inadequate.

Is it not an indication that the gear ratio's are inadequate rather than the engine?

The point I was making was that 0.59:1 is too low a gear ratio, the engine wouldn't have a problem if it was say 0.72:1 which is the ratio for 6th on other VW gear boxes.

Larbre34

My mechanic doesn't rate TSI engines at all, says he is seeing some early examples with multiple issues arising with lube and cooling problems, wear on the cylinder bore, he suggests they could become uneconomic to repair as soon as 100,000 kms

corkgsxr

Fuel rail pressure is ment to be 1650 bar

Larbre34

Larbre34 wrote: »

My mechanic doesn't rate TSI engines at all, says he is seeing some early examples with multiple issues arising with lube and cooling problems, wear on the cylinder bore, he suggests they could become uneconomic to repair as soon as 100,000 kms

So that 210k km example R.O.R. mentioned earlier must have been incredibly smoky and down power, right? No wonder they returned it.

George Dalton

corkgsxr wrote: »

Fuel rail pressure is ment to be 1650 bar

They only run around 80-100Bar, 120Bar is the max pressure.

corkgsxr

George Dalton wrote: »

They only run around 80-100Bar, 120Bar is the max pressure.

Vw reports it between 24000-26000 psi. Or roughly 1658-1790 bar.

The 1.6hdi is the 1650 bar one

My trafic is about 1100 bar.

Matt Simis

I hope after 5pages, 3 of them about an entirely different engine, the 19 posts to his name Original poster has an answer...

To celebrate, here is a good answer picture:



:pac:

George Dalton

corkgsxr wrote: »

Vw reports it between 24000-26000 psi. Or roughly 1658-1790 bar.

The 1.6hdi is the 1650 bar one

My trafic is about 1100 bar.

Sorry I thought you were talking about the 1.4TSI.

kirving

George Dalton wrote: »

Sorry I thought you were talking about the 1.4TSI.

Is that the pressure of the rail or the injector pressure?

corkgsxr

George Dalton wrote: »

Sorry I thought you were talking about the 1.4TSI.

It ok. Savage pressure though. No wonder the pumps fail.

Imagine a petrol with that. Warning this is a bomb. Ffs

corkgsxr

Kevin Irving wrote: »

Is that the pressure of the rail or the injector pressure?

Rail pressure but id imagine its little difference

bladespin

JohnBoy26 wrote: »

It's not though in most cases. Take a Corolla 1.4 VVTI Hatchback for example, it produces 97bhp which gives it very reasonable performance. A Kia Cee'd/Hyundai I30 is another example of a 1.4 hatchback with more than adequate performance with their engine producing 108 bhp. Both these examples are on par with and actually exceed certain cars with 1.6 engines.

Lol, depends on what you consider 'performance' neither of the two listed would even come close to what I'd consider a fun or powerful hatch, 97-108bhp is pretty weedy, exceeding a 1.6 which is still a small engine is no great feat, a 1.9 GTI should be the benchmark for a performance hatch, wouldn't have to beat it but should be close enough to provoke consideration.

JohnBoy26

bladespin wrote: »

Lol, depends on what you consider 'performance' neither of the two listed would even come close to what I'd consider a fun or powerful hatch, 97-108bhp is pretty weedy, exceeding a 1.6 which is still a small engine is no great feat, a 1.9 GTI should be the benchmark for a performance hatch, wouldn't have to beat it but should be close enough to provoke consideration.

When I was talking about adequate performance, I meant for average every day driving and the two cars I mentioned are perfectly reasonable in these circumstances.

Your post never implied that you were talking about high performance hot hatches. If I'd have know that was the case I wouldn't of even suggested the two cars I mentioned. However to say that a 1.4 is too small for a normal hatch is in most cases simply untrue. It might not win any races but it's perfectly adequate to drive those two cars I mentioned reasonably.

bladespin

JohnBoy26 wrote: »

When I was talking about adequate performance, I meant for average every day driving and the two cars I mentioned are perfectly reasonable in these circumstances.

Your post never implied that you were talking about high performance hot hatches. If I'd have know that was the case I wouldn't of even suggested the two cars I mentioned. However to say that a 1.4 is too small for a normal hatch is in most cases simply untrue. It might not win any races but it's perfectly adequate to drive those two cars I mentioned reasonably.

My original post was about how we should always consider the 'fun' factor when buying cars, not just the boring practicals, a gti isn't high performance, it's mid level, even considering a 1.9 as high performance is a little silly tbh.

Tea 1000

bladespin wrote: »

My original post was about how we should always consider the 'fun' factor when buying cars, not just the boring practicals, a gti isn't high performance, it's mid level, even considering a 1.9 as high performance is a little silly tbh.

A little silly? Completely deluded more like.
Takes more than a little bit of power to make a car fun though.

JohnBoy26

bladespin wrote: »

My original post was about how we should always consider the 'fun' factor when buying cars, not just the boring practicals, a gti isn't high performance, it's mid level, even considering a 1.9 as high performance is a little silly tbh.

I never seen your original post:o Apologies.

bladespin

Tea 1000 wrote: »

A little silly? Completely deluded more like.
Takes more than a little bit of power to make a car fun though.

True but it certainly doesn't hurt to have some to spare.