VAG 268bhp 2.0 Diesel Engine

ION08

So just came across this article on Autocar

http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/industry/volkswagen-reveals-new-268bhp-diesel-engine

This sounds like a great engine at first glance but unfortunately it's not intended to replace the current batch of 2.0 TDI's but the 3.0 V6's instead.

Couple that with a 10 speed DSG box and god knows what sort of emissions reducing equipment they'll bolt on to it to meet stricter EU regulation and you have a recipe for disaster IMO

God I hate this trend of downsizing.

What next, a 1.5 3 cyl turbo BMW 3 series? .. oh.

Mar4ix

ION08 wrote: »

What next, a diesel 1.5 3 cyl TWIN turbo BMW 3 series 286 HP ? .. oh.

FYP :pac:

Drummerboy08

I honestly don't understand why people hate small engines.

Yeah i get the V8/V12 thing as much as the next guy, but in reality they're horrendous to maintain, work on, fuel, etc. They dont work in the real world any more.

Jesus.

I thought I was looking at a 2.0 "TDI" Touareg or something on Youtube the other day, producing that kind of power - stock.

I think there's already a variant of the TDI out there putting out that bhp. Unless I was seeing things

Mar4ix

Drummerboy08 wrote: »

I honestly don't understand why people hate small engines.

Yeah i get the V8/V12 thing as much as the next guy, but in reality they're horrendous to maintain, work on, fuel, etc. They dont work in the real world any more.

well, big engine for everyone is different.
had v8 4.7 grand cheroky , lovely engine, didnt worked on it much , but all what i did, wasnt big issue ... plugs, leads, cooling ..etc.
I think big engine cars not wear so quick as small engine cars.

2.0 tdi or 2.0 turbo petrol is absolutely enough for enjoy to move around.

ION08

OSI wrote: »

I know. I wish we were still using 4.4L supercharged engines with 175bhp like they were in 1927.

All the people making smart comments are the same people that often complain about diesels and DPF's and how they are a false economy and so unreliable and about how staright six beemer petrols are the pinnacle of motoring excellence. :rolleyes:

Your example above is a bit extreme and I realise it is meant to be tongue in cheek, but the sooner people realise that these new engines are being designed with "emissions" in mind as opposed to reliability and drivability the better.

These are being designed to reduce group emissions and "mpg's" on paper and whatever happens after your warranty runs out is your own business.

My point is, making the engines smaller, pumping it with steroids and suffocating it with all sorts of filters and mating it to a 10 DSG box hardly renowned for reliability is a recipe for disaster.

So yes , I would rather the "older" type engines , although not from 1927 :rolleyes:

Jesus. wrote: »

I thought I was looking at a 2.0 "TDI" Touareg or something on Youtube the other day, producing that kind of power - stock.

I think there's already a variant of the TDI out there putting out that bhp. Unless I was seeing things

Yes in the new Passat I think, around 230 bhp.

Interslice

ION08 wrote: »

Yes in the new Passat I think, around 230 bhp.

Alot of the VAG 2.0CR are remappable to 200+hp for a good few years now. It's mad to think only 20 years ago 100hp/litre in NA petrols was a big thing.

ION08

Interslice wrote: »

It's mad to think only 20 years ago 100hp/litre in NA petrols was a big thing.

It still pretty much is!

Gazzmonkey

Interslice wrote: »

Alot of the VAG 2.0CR are remappable to 200+hp for a good few years now. It's mad to think only 20 years ago 100hp/litre in NA petrols was a big thing.

Was it not Honda with their VTEC system that first achieved 100bhp per litre in the domain of NA engines?

Interslice

Gazzmonkey wrote: »

Was it not Honda with their VTEC system that first achieved 100bhp per litre in the domain of NA engines?

Someone told me before it was mivec first. One or the other though I think. I know they introduced mivec to the 1.6 dohc in 93/94. Don't know much about hondas.

Special Circumstances

Apples with apples, the bhp/litre of a NA diesel is still woeful? I was a little confused by the comparison of a turbo diesel to a NA petrol at first, but I suppose to get 270 total you are talking 2x the standard power per litre of an NA petrol but nearly 4x the power per litre of a standard NA diesel. Impressive engineering if it can last beyond the warranty without excruciating repair bills.

Gazzmonkey

Interslice wrote: »

Someone told me before it was mivec first. One or the other though I think. I know they introduced mivec to the 1.6 dohc in 93/94. Don't know much about hondas.

You can get 1.6 DOHC VTEC civics from the late 80's

The 'EF' shape I believe.

Interslice

Gazzmonkey wrote: »

You can get 1.6 DOHC VTEC civics from the late 80's

The 'EF' shape I believe.

Were they more than 100hp/litre then?

BMJD

I think it was the Nissan Pulsar N1 that achieved that, something like 175 bhp from an n/a 1.6

Interslice

BMJD wrote: »

I think it was the Nissan Pulsar N1 that achieved that, something like 175 bhp from an n/a 1.6

What year was that? Just has a look there. Mivec was introduced to the 1.6(175hp) in 1992, according to wikipedia.

ION08

This went nicely off topic.

I think b16a vtec was the first 100/l (in the 80's!)

Whereas the pulsar vvl neo had the nighest bhp for a 1.6 in its time

lomb

In fairness the 1.8 turbo vag petrol 4cyl 20 valve remapped to 250 bhp in my Mk 1 TT is a cracking unit.Ive a 5l v8 in a 500 sec which is like rolling thunder. I love both in their own ways. Every engine has its own character the diesels Ive driven inc 140bhp Vag 2l common rail in a passat isnt memorable in a good way. Im unsure if the 3l v6 diesel vag units are of any use. Diesels are compromised from the get go.Heres a solution to anyone who likes engines- buy a used petrol and spend the depreciation saved on fuel. Youll still save money.

ION08

lomb wrote: »

In fairness the 1.8 turbo vag petrol remapped to 250 bhp in my Mk 1 TT is a cracking unit.Ive a 5l v8 in a 500 sec which is like rolling thunder. Every engine has its own character the diesels Ive driven inc 140bhp Vag 2l common rail in a passat isnt memorable in a good way. Im unsure if the 3l v6 diesel vag units are of any use.

Which modell tt , 180 or 225? .... If its the 180 i would find it hard to believe a simple remap brought it up to 250. If it was 225, then 250 is uninpressive and could easily have gotten more!

I have driven a 3.0 tdi v6 in an audi (remapped to 280~) and it was a stormer!

lomb

ION08 wrote: »

Which modell tt , 180 or 225? .... If its the 180 i would find it hard to believe a simple remap brought it up to 250. If it was 225, then 250 is uninpressive and could easily have gotten more!

I have driven a 3.0 tdi v6 in an audi (remapped to 280~) and it was a stormer!

Ive a 225

ION08

lomb wrote: »

Ive a 225

250 is a very mild remap in that case!

A friend had the s3 with the same engine remapped to 275 standard!

BMJD

Interslice wrote: »

What year was that? Just has a look there. Mivec was introduced to the 1.6(175hp) in 1992, according to wikipedia.

Actually now that I think of it, the Pulsar had the highest bhp/litre at the time, 200 from the 1.6

vectra

ION08 wrote: »

250 is a very mild remap in that case!

A friend had the s3 with the same engine remapped to 275 standard!

Doesnt the S3 have different injectors and intercooler etc?

Jesus.

lomb wrote: »

Diesels are compromised from the get go.Heres a solution to anyone who likes engines- buy a used petrol and spend the depreciation saved on fuel. Youll still save money.

Bollox to that. I prefer the drive in a diesel to a petrol (smallish units, nothing fancy).