Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Please note that it is not permitted to have referral links posted in your signature. Keep these links contained in the appropriate forum. Thank you.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2055940817/signature-rules

Is a 1.4 engine too small for a VW Passat

2

Comments

  • #32
    R.O.R
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,735 ✭✭✭✭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


  • #33
    jimgoose
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,201 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #34
    corkgsxr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,404 ✭✭✭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.


  • #35
    corkgsxr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,404 ✭✭✭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.


  • #36
    jimgoose
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,201 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    R.O.R
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,735 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #38
    jca
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,585 ✭✭✭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:


  • #39
    jimgoose
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,201 ✭✭✭✭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? :D


  • #40
    jca
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,585 ✭✭✭jca


    jimgoose wrote: »
    Have to be. Diesel compression is already huge, and getting huger.
    It needs to be huge or it won't run:confused: C.I. basics..


  • #41
    mad muffin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,034 ✭✭✭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?


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    jimgoose
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,201 ✭✭✭✭jimgoose


    jca wrote: »
    It needs to be huge or it won't run:confused: 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?


  • #43
    jca
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,585 ✭✭✭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..


  • #44
    jimgoose
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,201 ✭✭✭✭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!! ;)


  • #45
    Max Power1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,272 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #46
    jca
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,585 ✭✭✭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.


  • #47
    bladespin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,430 ✭✭✭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.
    Untitled Image

    MasteryDarts Ireland - Master your game!



  • #48
    corkgsxr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,404 ✭✭✭corkgsxr


    jca wrote: »
    It needs to be huge or it won't run:confused: 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.


  • #49
    Jesus.
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,794 ✭✭✭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.


  • #50
    ba_barabus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,618 ✭✭✭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


  • #51
    jca
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,585 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    Jesus.
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,794 ✭✭✭Jesus.


    ba_barabus wrote: »
    Ford are putting the 1.0 Ecoboost into the Mondeo

    Indeed they are Barabbas. I commented on that here the other day saying that I can't wait for the "its perfectly adequate" crowd to start banging on when its released!

    Wouldn't mind but the new Mondeo is a big whore of a car. As big as a lot of executive cars out there.


  • #53
    maceocc2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 443 ✭✭maceocc2


    corkgsxr wrote: »
    Cos the turbo is still putting out high boost. Compression is still huge.

    1.6 TDI actually cruises at 120kph at about 1500rpm in 6th and uses minimal boost to do it. 6th on the 1.6 has VERY low gear ratio (0.59:1)

    I've monitored boost and air temperatures, high boost only kicks in past 2200-ish rpm where intake air temp hits ~35C, for the 1.6 this is only ever going to be acceleration scenarios e.g. taking off and overtaking.

    As Matt Simis mentioned the 1.6 was built from the ground up as an FI engine it uses the FI really well in trying to achieve what it was built for....an eco friendly engine with enough pull(debatable maybe?!) for everyday use.


  • #54
    JohnBoy26
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,532 ✭✭✭JohnBoy26


    bladespin wrote: »
    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.
    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.


  • #55
    MuppetCheck
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,865 ✭✭✭✭MuppetCheck


    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.

    Have you had a spin in one? It's thoroughly decent, much more usable performance than a 2 litre petrol Mondeo. You dont have to rag it anywhere as much as you'd think. Plus that engine (in 122bhp guise) has been around for 5 or 6 years at this stage and there hasnt been any horror stories.


  • #56
    mad muffin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,034 ✭✭✭mad muffin


    MuppetCheck wrote: »
    Have you had a spin in one? It's thoroughly decent, much more usable performance than a 2 litre petrol Mondeo. You dont have to rag it anywhere as much as you'd think. Plus that engine (in 122bhp guise) has been around for 5 or 6 years at this stage and there hasnt been any horror stories.

    I don't think anyone here who says the 1.4 tsi is inadequate or over stressed in these cars has ever driven one.


  • #57
    corkgsxr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,404 ✭✭✭corkgsxr


    maceocc2 wrote: »
    1.6 TDI actually cruises at 120kph at about 1500rpm in 6th and uses minimal boost to do it. 6th on the 1.6 has VERY low gear ratio (0.59:1)

    I've monitored boost and air temperatures, high boost only kicks in past 2200-ish rpm where intake air temp hits ~35C, for the 1.6 this is only ever going to be acceleration scenarios e.g. taking off and overtaking.

    As Matt Simis mentioned the 1.6 was built from the ground up as an FI engine it uses the FI really well in trying to achieve what it was built for....an eco friendly engine with enough pull(debatable maybe?!) for everyday use.

    What pressure boost is it under at 120 cruising. Its not that low
    mad muffin wrote: »
    I don't think anyone here who says the 1.4 tsi is inadequate or over stressed in these cars has ever driven one.

    I think turbocharged/supercharged petrols are the way forward. Think they've went a tad too small on diesels


  • #58
    Tea 1000
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,520 ✭✭✭Tea 1000


    maceocc2 wrote: »
    1.6 TDI actually cruises at 120kph at about 1500rpm in 6th and uses minimal boost to do it. 6th on the 1.6 has VERY low gear ratio (0.59:1)

    I've monitored boost and air temperatures, high boost only kicks in past 2200-ish rpm where intake air temp hits ~35C, for the 1.6 this is only ever going to be acceleration scenarios e.g. taking off and overtaking.

    As Matt Simis mentioned the 1.6 was built from the ground up as an FI engine it uses the FI really well in trying to achieve what it was built for....an eco friendly engine with enough pull(debatable maybe?!) for everyday use.
    1500 in 6th? That's well below the 2 litre. That's just labouring the engine.


  • #59
    unkel
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 66,653 ✭✭✭✭unkel


    Had the engine in several rental cars, including a fully loaded VW Touran MPV. By all means an excellent engine and plenty of power once on the move

    That said, there is absolutely no torque at all at very low rpms (before the turbo kicks in), so driving off from standstill is slower than on a pushbike :D

    My ads on adverts.ie:

    https://www.adverts.ie/member/5856/ads



  • #60
    MuppetCheck
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,865 ✭✭✭✭MuppetCheck


    Tea 1000 wrote: »
    1500 in 6th? That's well below the 2 litre. That's just labouring the engine.

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


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 24,713 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    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.

    You will see much better the 6l/100km from a 1.6tdi. My uncle is getting around 4.5l/100km from it in his octavia and my neighbour is seeing even that and better from his 1.6tdi golf.


Advertisement