tsi engine

[brunel]

There is an item on the letters page of today's Autocar suggesting that VW will drop the 1.4 tsi engine (the turbo AND supercharged version) in the Golf. Considering the success and awards of this engine does it really seem likely? It is proving to be a bit thirsty compared with the diesel but can't imagine that would be enough of a reason and in view of the demand and long waiting period unlikely IMHO.

[slowhand]

I suppose it is possible, as in the UK more than half of new cars sold are now oil burners. Personnaly I don't like them, and never owned one.

But the 160hp TSI is not that economical if you do anything other than cruise the motorways, they probably think they can do better with a 1.6 turbo, which is where everyone else is going now, plus the 1.6T engine is the new standard for most motor sport from 2012.

[vc-10]

Or even put in the 1.8T that is being used in Skodas. It does 160PS, with only slightly worse consumption (officially). 40.9 vs 44.8, comparing an Octavia estate to a Golf hatch (the 160PS engine isn't available in the estate)

[cs2009]

Or even put in the 1.8T that is being used in Skodas. It does 160PS, with only slightly worse consumption (officially). 40.9 vs 44.8, comparing an Octavia estate to a Golf hatch (the 160PS engine isn't available in the estate)

Yes indeed.

I have never understood why they have persisted with the 1.4 twincharger, with all its associated (potentially unreliable) complexity, when they have the near identically spec'd 1.8T.

The turbo only engine doesn't have the low speed jerkiness due to the supercharger switching in and out, either.

[percymon]

The costs of the TSI are too high, coupled to the complaints about fuel economy and the squeak from the supercharger, and its not been the success story VW really wanted.

The 1.8T is cheaper to make, and in my fathers A3, feels rather more than 160bhp.

[Red 2]

Had two Twinchargers ..in one Mk V Golf GT!:biglaugh: First lasted 48 hrs, then noise of grinding metal, pop, bang....new engine needed.

After 18 months, terrible squeak on acceleration and was just so jerky at slow speed. Fuel used was a tad eye watering and wallet draining. Real shame as the power delivery on demand was exceptional.

Now have the 1.8T (160) in an A4 and the refinement is so much better as is the fuel economy, even for the heavier car.

Having said that, I really like the 'normal' 1.4TSI. Enough for she who must be obeyed to have our 6th Golf on order with one.

[vc-10]

That's interesting what you say about the fuel economy Red 2.

Are the 2.0 twinchargers equally odd?

[slowhand]

That's interesting what you say about the fuel economy Red 2.

Are the 2.0 twinchargers equally odd?

Don't know they do a 2.0 twin charger, but the real life fuel consumption of the 1.4 is nowhere near the quoted, well not if you drive it normally, and to be honest who buys a car with 160hp and doesn't give a go now and then, and when you do push it (and I am not talking red lining or even near) you can easily get down to 30mpg. If you drive like a boy racer I am sure you could achieve 20mpg with no problem.

[Keithuk]

Are the 2.0 twinchargers equally odd?
Well VW do the 1.4 TSI single turbocharger (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fvysuD5MFow) and the 1.4 TSI Twincharger (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqMySTgUPGo). They use a supercharger at low engine speeds and a turbocharger at higher engine speeds, the supercharger disenges. They did this because of excessive turbo lag was more pronounce on the 1.4 engine. They are electronically controlled. I would this is the one they are going to drop because of the cost to produce.

[vc-10]

Isn't the 2.0 engine in the GTI a twincharger?

Fuel economy should really be dependent on power output- there's only so much energy in the fuel. According to my thermodynamics lecturer, the higher the compression ratio the better the efficiency (which is why diesels are so efficient- the diesel cycle is actually less efficient).

I guess that the 'drag' from the supercharger costs more fuel than the increased drain from having the larger engine in the 1.8?

[Keithuk]

No I don't think so.

[Red 2]

Without being heavy of foot ( Mk V twincharger GT also loved eating tyres, partic front nearside!) I was only getting low 30s mpg if I was lucky. 'New' A4 with 1.8T (160) driven in similar fashion can happily get 40mpg. The fuel economy was the real disappointment with the twincharger used in the Golf.

Ordinary 1.4tsi seems a much better compromise between performance and economy.

[ross980]

Isn't the 2.0 engine in the GTI a twincharger?

Fuel economy should really be dependent on power output- there's only so much energy in the fuel. According to my thermodynamics lecturer, the higher the compression ratio the better the efficiency (which is why diesels are so efficient- the diesel cycle is actually less efficient).

I guess that the 'drag' from the supercharger costs more fuel than the increased drain from having the larger engine in the 1.8?

That's true, but the high compression ratio is needed to ensure a sufficiently high temperature for the diesel to ignite, whereas in petrol engines it would cause knocking.

The 2l in the GTI is turbo only.

[brunel]

"Volkswagen’s twincharger petrol engine could be on its way out, according to well placed insiders.
The company’s 1.4-litre engine, which mixes turbocharging and supercharging, is said to be too complex and expensive to produce.
Instead, VW engineers now believe that new turbocharging technology can achieve similar results at a much-reduced cost.
The popular twincharger engine, found in numerous VW Group models, won the coveted Engine of the Year award in 2009 and 2010 and was described as “a masterstroke of downsizing technology and a real engineering showcase".

Extract from Autocar

[Keithuk]

Perhaps they are moving into Bi-Turbocharging?

http://www.golfgtiforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=179929.0

[vc-10]

That's true, but the high compression ratio is needed to ensure a sufficiently high temperature for the diesel to ignite, whereas in petrol engines it would cause knocking.

The 2l in the GTI is turbo only.

You don't need that high a compression ratio to ignite the diesel- the fact that a modern direct-injection diesel engine can put in the fuel at top dead centre rather than earlier (which prevents pre-ignition) allows a much higher compression ratio, and therefore a very good efficiency. Which is why diesels are heavier- try doing it with petrol engine components and you'll break stuff quite quickly.


I'm very impressed by the 2.0l engine if it's just got a single turbo! That's really impressive to have little lag. I'm guessing it's a variable geometry one then?

[Keithuk]

I won't get into the diesel and petrol argument on operation and design but if you want to look at the The 2.0L FSI Turbocharged Engine Design and Function (http://www.vaglinks.com/Docs/VW/Misc/VW.COM_2.0L_FSI_Turbo_SSP_821503.pdf)

[cs2009]

I had a test drive of the A3 1.8T the other day, and it was noticably stronger than my engine, particularly low to mid range torque. It would also happily pull away from rest with the engine at idle, whereas my TSI 160 doesn't like it at all, because the supercharger is switched out until you get to 1500rpm.

Other than that, they are very similar - both very quiet, and both giving about the same fuel consumption.

I was also pleasantly surprised at how good the A3 is, despite being essentially the same as the Golf Mk V underneath. It handled as well as my Golf, but had a better ride even compared to my car set to 'Comfort' mode.

[david25]

Without being heavy of foot ( Mk V twincharger GT also loved eating tyres, partic front nearside!) I was only getting low 30s mpg if I was lucky. 'New' A4 with 1.8T (160) driven in similar fashion can happily get 40mpg. The fuel economy was the real disappointment with the twincharger used in the Golf.

Ordinary 1.4tsi seems a much better compromise between performance and economy.

My experience with the GT160 has been better, a regular 40mpg on mixed roads to work (40 miles).

I also thought tyres wear was OK (for the very soft treadwear 140 Bridgestones).

Given the choice, I would take a 1.8T GT160 because it's a bit smoother. Nothing beats capactity but the 1.4 does come close.

(the 1.4 122PS doesnt suffer from the laggy starts if you want something a cheaper)

[vc-10]

I won't get into the diesel and petrol argument on operation and design but if you want to look at the The 2.0L FSI Turbocharged Engine Design and Function (http://www.vaglinks.com/Docs/VW/Misc/VW.COM_2.0L_FSI_Turbo_SSP_821503.pdf)

Thanks for this link Keith- really interesting! You can tell I'm studying mechanical engineering can't you! ;)

I'm really impressed that it's not even a variable geometry turbo. I love the way the torque curve isn't really very much like a curve- it's flat from 1,800 to 4,700 rpm!

I think it's also explained the noise my Polo makes when you open the door, which I now think is the fuel pump pre-priming the engine to start quicker.

Now to go and learn German...