EA288 confirmed across the board by year end

2015 TDIs get new engines...but

http://www.greencarreports.com/news...-passat-jetta-all-get-new-clean-diesel-engine

I like that the new engines will be more efficient, but integrating the intercooler with the intake manifold and the mention of balance shafts makes me pause for concern. Those could potentially be BIG dollar repair items if there are intercooler icing issues or a repeat of the B5.5 Passat BSM tensioner failures.

Anyone else share my concerns?

Volkswagen Unveils its New EA288 TDI Engine

As seen here - looks pretty cool...and complicated!

I wonder if the HPFP will be any better too...

-BB

A closer look at the EA288

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2014/03/20140322-ea288.html#more

DeliveryValve said:

I have to say, owning the 2005 Passat prior to any of it's issue ever came to light has been a real eye opener for me in the new car market. Lesson learned, never buy a new car again, always buy a car that is at least 4 years old or older so you know what you are getting into, and be sure that car has a support system like tdiclub.com.
.

Click to expand...

If I trade my Golf TDI in, and that's not going to happen for a while yet, I'm not sure I'd get another TDI; I agree with OH there's too much to go wrong. I've had almost all the TDI issues on mine: IC icing, HPFP (though that turned out to be an unnecessary repair), exhaust flap (fixed under VW's extended warranty). I really like the way the car drives but it hasn't been exactly a trouble-free experience. Throw in the post-combustion fuel injection and the potential long-term impact on the turbo... one has to question if a TDI can do 500k trouble-free km. Sure maybe the block and its innards might last but the costs might be a question of rapidly diminishing returns.

On the other hand other than the BS issue, fixed proactively with 75% support by VW, the steering rack and a few CV joints and suspension bits, our 2005 Passat has been relatively trouble-free in 267k km.

On paper I really like the Mk VII Golf with the 1.8 TSI engine. But my experience with VW is never, ever buy a VW in the first model year of a new design. While the Mk VII has been available for some time in Europe, the 1.8 TSI is an all-new engine and experience shows that N. American emissions regs and stand-alone engines (like the 2.5 for instance) are different enough that you can't export the European experience to N. America.

So for now my Mk VI which seems to now have must bugs shaken out at 111k km, will soldier on for several more years.

Kinda disappointed with VW

Am I the only one disappointed that the EA288 is only 10hp better than the current CR? Not even a bump in torque. When Mazda's Sky-D (whenever it decides to show up) is 170hp/310trq and Mercedes' 2.1 is 200hp/369trq wouldn't you think VW would build in a significant power increase into their new engine? It doesn't have to be the most powerful, but this seems like a half-hearted effort to me.

The premium for a diesel is already too high. How much more are you willing to pay for more power in a VW?

dieselyeti said:

Am I the only one disappointed that the EA288 is only 10hp better than the current CR? Not even a bump in torque. When Mazda's Sky-D (whenever it decides to show up) is 170hp/310trq and Mercedes' 2.1 is 200hp/369trq wouldn't you think VW would build in a significant power increase into their new engine? It doesn't have to be the most powerful, but this seems like a half-hearted effort to me.

Click to expand...

One is still vaporware and the other is a Mercedes. You'd expect a Mercedes to have more power than a Volkswagen, wouldn't you?

IMO the diesel in the A platform cars should be smaller, not larger. I'd prefer a 1.6L engine like they offer in Europe with 100 HP. It probably would be smoother, too.

And there's no sense comparing VW to Mazda. Mazda's diesel doesn't yet exist in this market, and may never if history is any indicator.

Finally, with all the complaining around here about turbo replacements, I can imagine what people would post if the M-B twin scroll turbo fails. Think of that that costs.

dieselyeti said:

Am I the only one disappointed that the EA288 is only 10hp better than the current CR? Not even a bump in torque. When Mazda's Sky-D (whenever it decides to show up) is 170hp/310trq and Mercedes' 2.1 is 200hp/369trq wouldn't you think VW would build in a significant power increase into their new engine? It doesn't have to be the most powerful, but this seems like a half-hearted effort to me.

Click to expand...

More power -> Less fuel economy. The Skyactiv-D has two power levels in Europe too, the lower is 150hp. The 184hp EA888 is in many Volkswagen products too, just not in the US.

And the (vaporware) SkyActiv-D was delayed because, allegedly, they can't hit that power target and meet US emissions without urea. And that thing has two turbos, too.

IndigoBlueWagon said:

IMO the diesel in the A platform cars should be smaller, not larger. I'd prefer a 1.6L engine like they offer in Europe with 100 HP. It probably would be smoother, too.

And there's no sense comparing VW to Mazda. Mazda's diesel doesn't yet exist in this market, and may never if history is any indicator.

Finally, with all the complaining around here about turbo replacements, I can imagine what people would post if the M-B twin scroll turbo fails. Think of that that costs.

Click to expand...

I suspect that longer term, resale values will take a hit, due to the complex systems.

Damnit, why can't someone build an engine that is 100% reliable with multiple turbos, instant torque (at least 500 lb-ft), high horsepower (at least 250 hp), gets at least 80 MPG combined, passes all emissions requirements including those that haven't been thought of yet, in a car that seats 7, is easy to park, and comes with a bunch of fancy features and options for $25,000 including a 20 year 200,000 mile warranty? *stomps feet*

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Yeah, that is a lot of key bullet points to meet for sure.

Better have AWD.

IndigoBlueWagon said:

IMO the diesel in the A platform cars should be smaller, not larger. I'd prefer a 1.6L engine like they offer in Europe with 100 HP. It probably would be smoother, too.

Click to expand...

I survived driving my 90 hp Beetle for 10 years. I think I could live with a little less power for better economy.

kjclow said:

I survived driving my 90 hp Beetle for 10 years. I think I could live with a little less power for better economy.

Click to expand...

I survived 20 years with my 52hp Jetta. But the amazing thing is, it used just as much fuel as my 136hp Passat (almost spot on exact same MPGs). Only the Passat can do it faster, more comfortably, even with a slushbox, and it weighs in about 800 pounds heavier. I think the VE TDI was the high water mark for fuel efficiency, though. At least, in our showrooms. The CR technology bests it easily, but we don't get any of those here that do. It was spent on making more power and making them "cleaner".

oilhammer said:

I survived 20 years with my 52hp Jetta. But the amazing thing is, it used just as much fuel as my 136hp Passat (almost spot on exact same MPGs). Only the Passat can do it faster, more comfortably, even with a slushbox, and it weighs in about 800 pounds heavier. I think the VE TDI was the high water mark for fuel efficiency, though. At least, in our showrooms. The CR technology bests it easily, but we don't get any of those here that do. It was spent on making more power and making them "cleaner".

Click to expand...

I'd LOVE a 1.6 TDI Blue Motion Golf; 105 hp and 180 or thereabouts lb-ft of torque are more than ample to get the job done.

But I doubt it would be any less complex emissions-wise than the current 2.0 TDI.

PlaneCrazy said:

I'd LOVE a 1.6 TDI Blue Motion Golf; 105 hp and 180 or thereabouts lb-ft of torque are more than ample to get the job done.
But I doubt it would be any less complex emissions-wise than the current 2.0 TDI.

Click to expand...

It wouldn't be less complex, but getting 65+ MPGs would make the complexity worth it to some. Easy to overlook a $400 intake that doesn't live as long as the timing belt if you are getting better than ALHs get hypermiling.

I highly doubt if using a 1.6 instead of a 2.0 in an otherwise-same vehicle will be worth more than a few percent (3 - 4 maybe) in terms of real world fuel consumption.

I figured the lower output engine would spend more time in the sweet spot of the BSFC map, yielding a nice bump in fuel economy (10% maybe?). 3-4% would be pretty insignificant.

Although, the correct strategy for US emissions re: efficiency is probably not the 1.6, it's tuning the 2.0 with the 1.6's fueling map and less boost. Then you stay out of the higher NOx and PM regimes...

truman said:

The premium for a diesel is already too high. How much more are you willing to pay for more power in a VW?

Click to expand...

Not so true. New 1.8 in canada is 20 k. New tdi is 22.5k. One will get the 2500 bucks back in resale given equal mileage while factoring expensive diesel fuel.
I bought a 14 Mazda 3 for 2 years and traded my 11 Golf tdi because I am not willing to be one of VWs early adopters on a new platform built in enchilada land and new engine built there as well. I am waiting and seeing. A few tdi members will step up to plate and pound some serious miles on new NA built engines and platforms and we will see what ensues. Meanwhile I easily hit 40 mpg on RUG on a pretty nice and cheap and proven 2.0 liter power train.

GoFaster said:

I highly doubt if using a 1.6 instead of a 2.0 in an otherwise-same vehicle will be worth more than a few percent (3 - 4 maybe) in terms of real world fuel consumption.

Click to expand...

The "Blue Motion" option though, is much more than just the engine. It includes aerodynamic tweaks like extra underbody cladding, skinny ultra-low-rolling resistance tires, reduced weight, tall-geared 5-sp manual, start-stop, lower ride height, regenerative braking to power various electrics, etc.

... and you could do all that with the 2.0 as well, if one wished to do so ...

bhtooefr said:

And the (vaporware) SkyActiv-D was delayed because, allegedly, they can't hit that power target and meet US emissions without urea. And that thing has two turbos, too.

Click to expand...

Bingo!

GoFaster said:

I highly doubt if using a 1.6 instead of a 2.0 in an otherwise-same vehicle will be worth more than a few percent (3 - 4 maybe) in terms of real world fuel consumption.

Click to expand...

You'll have to tell Volkswagen their 1.6L TDI Bluemotion Golf is a farce then. Listed right on the VW-UK website as 88.3 Imperial MPGs, which is about 70 MPG US.... I very much doubt any 2.0L TDI Golf is going to touch that. That's why I said "65 MPG", because that is still well within reason of what that same car could get under our testing rules, and still well beyond what the 2.0L Golf that we DO get could hope to achieve.

So, 45 vs. 65 MPG... what percentage is that? A lot more than 3 or 4. And again, we are just talking Golfs here. Volkswagen also sells smaller (and thus MORE efficient) cars in Europe. And that Bluemotion 1.6L has more power than any of the 1.9L TDIs ever sold here.

Typically the US EPA highway cycle gets worse than European combined, on diesels. (Although, European combined figures are even less well-matched to US figures, now, because the US city cycle doesn't provide any opportunity for a stop-start system to work, unless it's one of the extreme ones like the original 1-Liter Auto had (which will shut the engine down and disengage the clutch while coasting).)

Historically, EPA highway and European combined have been about the same on non-hybrid gassers with manual transmissions and no stop-start, for what it's worth.

Of course, even European urban for the 110 PS 1.6 BlueMotion is 3.8 l/100 km, or about 62 mpg...

That's what I'm saying, even taking all those factors into account, I'm certain a Bluemotion Golf, in US-market trim, would still be capable of far better MPGs than ANY TDI ever sold here, past or present. And it would be a substantial enough difference that many folks would take notice. The miserable to drive Prius C costs $21k. Can you imagine being able to buy a Golf for close to that price that is able to crush it in real world MPGs? How awesome would that be?

oilhammer said:

You'll have to tell Volkswagen their 1.6L TDI Bluemotion Golf is a farce then. Listed right on the VW-UK website as 88.3 Imperial MPGs, which is about 70 MPG US.... I very much doubt any 2.0L TDI Golf is going to touch that. That's why I said "65 MPG", because that is still well within reason of what that same car could get under our testing rules, and still well beyond what the 2.0L Golf that we DO get could hope to achieve.

So, 45 vs. 65 MPG... what percentage is that? A lot more than 3 or 4. And again, we are just talking Golfs here. Volkswagen also sells smaller (and thus MORE efficient) cars in Europe. And that Bluemotion 1.6L has more power than any of the 1.9L TDIs ever sold here.

Click to expand...

For some reason the EPA, and other public and private groups, assume that the average vehicle is driven about 15,000 miles a year; so that is the number they use when calculating annual fuel costs.

TDIs are typically driven a lot more than that -- 20,000 or even 25,000 miles on average.

But the difference between 45 mpg and 65 mpg over 20,000 miles is about 130 gallons of fuel consumed annually, or about $500 at today's prices for diesel. Not a pittance, but not enough to cause me to switch from a Golf to a Polo or an Up! And not enough to persuade me to pay several thousand dollars more for a Bluemotion Golf instead of a regular Golf TDI without the special technologies. (I certainly won't be buying a fuel-saving Tesla, either.)

It's that fluke of MPG math. Stupid metric. Going from 40 to 50mpg saves more than going from 50 to 65.