EA288 confirmed across the board by year end

FourCircle said:

I am the author of this rumor. I did not read anywhere. By cons, with 190HP, anything is possible. The Quattro system responded well with the 1.8T Gas 180HP of old A4. So why not. Moreover, Audi America announced a year ago that all new generation of Audi will now be offered with a diesel engine in the future.

Why not.

FourCircle

Click to expand...

The quattro awd is a thirsty thirsty unit!! if the 190hp tdi has quattro, it'll be even less mpg. nothanks
I have a audi a4 ultrasport s-line quattro now, beautiful, gorgeous, mean ass car..... but it only get's 22 mpg avg. I am now back in a tdi as of 2.26.12.....

I'd keep the audi forever if it had the 1.9 or 2.0 tdi!

wanna buy my audi!??! lol

http://richmond.craigslist.org/cto/2876409733.html

I'll go on the record as saying this will be the best TDI yet. I'm SO glad that VW jumped to SCR aftertreatment. It's a far superior technology to LNT's. What all the fools who cry about having to refill their urea tank don't understand is that SCR allows for much higher baseline NOx calibration. This directly translates to superior efficiency as NOx is formed above a certain temperature threshold (e.g. at higher cyl pressures which equate to the more efficient areas of engine operation). 190 HP from a STOCK TDI... can't wait.

I guess the biggest thing will be what HPFP does it have?

CP4, almost certainly.

If you look at the Cross Coupe TDI Hybrid I think that you will find many reasons why the new EA288 could get just as high mileage or higher than current 2.0. For one, at least a 7 or 8 speed DSG with closer ratios to keep the revs low. Cylinder deactivation may be available to go to a 1.0 L two cylinder when the extra power in not needed, thereby reducing fuel consumption. Engine stop / start at red lights and drive-thrus to not burn fuel when not necessary. Possibly engine disengagement when coasting to zero out fuel use during those times. Even without a hybrid and large battery, many of the same technologies demonstrated would not cost a lot and could reduce the fuel burned by the new engine. Looking forward to its introduction. I've got a 79' Rabbit diesel in the shop that got 40mpg with a 1.5 L and 4 speed manual and 50HP. I'm still getting 42 to 46 mpg on my 2000 NB TDI with 90HP and a 5 speed manual. I bet you that driven correctly, one could get in that range with the EA288. It's all in the driving style that you use.

Honestly, I'm not worried about the MPG - for that matter, look what 140 hp EA189 common rails are getting with the second generation of the emissions control system. (That is, the 2012 Passat.)

Looking at the European fuel economy ratings of the new A3 with the 2.0 TDI which I think should be utilizing the EA288 2.0 TDI it is rated at 4.1 liters per 100 km with the manual comapred to 4.8 for the Golf 2.0 TDI manual. That is 17% better MPG for the new A3, something the MK7 Golf should achieve as well. On the other hand even the European test gives little advantage to the 1.6 TDI vs. the 2.0 TDI, only a 8% improvement threre which would likely be 0% improvement on the EPA test if not even going backwards.

chewy said:

Looking at the European fuel economy ratings of the new A3 with the 2.0 TDI which I think should be utilizing the EA288 2.0 TDI it is rated at 4.1 liters per 100 km with the manual comapred to 4.8 for the Golf 2.0 TDI manual.

Click to expand...

You are comparing the Golf TDI manual without start/stop to the Audi with standard start/stop. The Golf 2.0 TDI with start/stop is rated at 4.3 l/100km, so we're talking about a 5% advantage for the Audi with the EA888.

German_1er_diesel said:

You are comparing the Golf TDI manual without start/stop to the Audi with standard start/stop. The Golf 2.0 TDI with start/stop is rated at 4.3 l/100km, so we're talking about a 5% advantage for the Audi with the EA888.

Click to expand...

You are right the 2.0 TDI Bluemotion is rated at 4.3 liters. The 1.6 Bluemotion is rated the same as the 1.6 TDI A3.

In either case it looks like 4 liters/ 99 grams of Co2 is the "magic" number for the European test just like 40 mpg is on the EPA test and I bet European automakers go out of their way to achieve those figures in testing with technology that may or may not help much in reality. Breaking the barrier will be tough from the looks of things.

"Bluemotion" is its own trim level though, baed on Trendline, and the 2.0 is not available in Trendline trim, so those are a bit hard to compare directly. ("Bluemotion" is a more comprehensive package of tweaks than "with BlueMotion technology" which mostly means "start/stop")
Volkswagen goes with 5-speed transmissions for many of the ultra-fuel efficiency focused models, because they have advantages in the synthetic tests...

"Bluemotion" (see the different front bumper, lower ride height, 15" wheels...:


The normal "Comfortline" versions with and without "BlueMotion Technologies":

So what was the 2012 Passat 6MT with BlueMotion I drove in Ireland earlier this month? It looked like a 2.0. It had that stop/start feature, and a hold brake(which worked nice). Put 1900km on that car over 7 days. Fuel 1.59l. Ouch.

Seeing all of the diesel models of various manufacturers was stunning. I've never seen so many versions of the Caddy in my life.
We stayed with relatives of a friend here in the states, and one of their vehicles was a Tourag with the 2.5 5cyl, and a manual.

The car that you drove is the refresh of the PQ46 Passat, which is our 2006-2011 (and their 2006-2010, IIRC) Passat, and is still what the CC (which is still sold here) is based on.

It may be a 1.6, instead of a 2.0, but in any case, the engine family is EA189. It's likely the older revision (similar to a CBEA/CJAA), as used in the 2009-2013 Jetta/Golf/A3/Beetle, and not the newer revision (similar to a CKRA), as used in the 2012+ US-spec Passat.

I think they should cut that motor in half, make it a 2 banger, and stuff it in their 1L concept car with a 6 speed manual for the commuting masses, and call it good. Then it would truly be a 1 liter car. Offer the 800 model also, for the uber frugal among us.

Well, the idea is 1 liter per 100 km, so...

And, the 800 is what they're putting into it, along with an electric motor. It accelerates faster than an automatic ALH, and has the dry-clutch 7-speed DSG.

Of course, that reminds me of the (apocryphal) story that, upon seeing the Lupo 3L (which was rated at 2.9 l/100 km, with a 1.2 l engine), Renault engineers thought that VW put a 3.0 l displacement engine into a Lupo, and decided to strike back with the mid-engine RWD Clio V6.

I'm also of the thinking that I do not need more power. I do wonder though.......How are the Europeans breathing with their "relaxed" air standards?

I have to imagine they all must be keeling over dead by now with the high proliferation of diesels.

Having been to Europe not too many years ago, they're breathing just fine.

GoFaster said:

Having been to Europe not too many years ago, they're breathing just fine.

Click to expand...

That's what I figured.

pknopp said:

I'm also of the thinking that I do not need more power. I do wonder though.......How are the Europeans breathing with their "relaxed" air standards?

I have to imagine they all must be keeling over dead by now with the high proliferation of diesels.

Click to expand...

I think you got it wrong here. The European standard is at least as high as ours and getting even more controlled in the next couple of years.

I was born in 1955. I remember no cats and carbs. The air was tan in the summer. Sitting in traffic you could taste the fuel. The air that comes out of cars today is pure.

As far as the emissions that diesels are bad at, Euro 5 is far more lax.

Euro 6 will still allow about twice as much NOx as Tier 2 Bin 5 (current US standards).

That said, Euro 6 (along with the upcoming California standards) will also crack down on microfine particulates, which gassers are particularly bad at - Euro 6 will result in GPFs and possibly NOx traps or urea for DI gassers (the US way of dealing with it is to just not run the lean burn modes that DI enables for gassers, but with CO2 limits in Europe and CAFE in the US, that will change), throwing the balance back to diesel. That, IMO, is a good decision - the microfines are the ones that hang in the air longer (increasing risk of exposure) and go deeper in the lungs (causing far more damage).

If you go back ~ 10 years and then assume that the average car on the road was 10 years old at that time, and compare the emissions from that to the emissions from anything produced in the last 5 years, the emissions nowadays are a fair approximation of zero compared to that of 20 years ago, and it doesn't matter whether you are talking about Euro 4 or 5 or 6 or US EPA Tier 2 bin anything - it's still approximately zero compared to the cars of 20 years ago.

GTIDan said:

I think you got it wrong here. The European standard is at least as high as ours and getting even more controlled in the next couple of years.

Click to expand...

I suppose I might. Makes even more of a headscratcher why it's said that we can't get many of the cars they have because of regulations.

bhtooefr said:

As far as the emissions that diesels are bad at, Euro 5 is far more lax.

Euro 6 will still allow about twice as much NOx as Tier 2 Bin 5 (current US standards).

That said, Euro 6 (along with the upcoming California standards) will also crack down on microfine particulates, which gassers are particularly bad at - Euro 6 will result in GPFs and possibly NOx traps or urea for DI gassers (the US way of dealing with it is to just not run the lean burn modes that DI enables for gassers, but with CO2 limits in Europe and CAFE in the US, that will change), throwing the balance back to diesel. That, IMO, is a good decision - the microfines are the ones that hang in the air longer (increasing risk of exposure) and go deeper in the lungs (causing far more damage).

Click to expand...

Anything that CARB does from here on out (other then being forcibly disbanded) is not 'a good thing' . You see, the real question is whether the further regulatory tightening of emissions continues to decrease the optimal mpg from these engines and if so, the ability to understand that this regulatory waste of fuel actually causes higher emissions (more trips back to the well to get more fuel that would otherwise be unneeded).

I have heard it said that Euro 4 (approximately US EPA Tier 2 bin 10) was probably somewhere near the optimum. Beyond that point, the extra equipment needed to control the emissions probably causes more emissions during its manufacture and disposal (these are not accounted for in the regulatory tests) and the compromised engine calibration causes more CO2 emissions and fuel consumption thus leading to more emissions due to the fuel supply chain.

If it becomes possible to better control NOx and PM in-cylinder without compromising efficiency then that optimum may shift. Mazda's Sky-D may be shifting it if they can meet the North American standards without additional NOx treatment.

IMO, we should revert back to Euro 3 or Euro 4 levels (although possibly allowing for Euro 2 or even older standards for NOx emissions, but with the addition of particulate count standards similar to Euro 6. I'll note that Euro 3 gets you an ALH - the entire point of the ALH was that it was the Euro 3 version of the AGR, in fact, which got some tax breaks in Germany before Euro 3 was mandated.

That way, you don't penalize every way to make an engine efficient, but you do prevent the Really Nasty Stuff(tm) from being emitted.

Gasser particulates are far, far nastier than anything a pre-2007 diesel puts out. (2007 and newer stuff that doesn't use urea puts out even nastier stuff, but they have traps to burn that stuff off.

pknopp said:

I suppose I might. Makes even more of a headscratcher why it's said that we can't get many of the cars they have because of regulations.

Click to expand...

It's not so much regulations but exchange rates and crash testing whice is very expensive unless your sending over a high volume type vehicle.

GTIDan said:

It's not so much regulations but exchange rates and crash testing whice is very expensive unless your sending over a high volume type vehicle.

Click to expand...

Europeans aren't being killed in huge numbers because of crashes are they?

For years manufacturers believed high mileage cars would not sell in the U.S. I believe this misconception still prevails. Toyota showed that the belief was wrong with the Prius.

Other manufacturer's still don't seem to be convinced.

This is a cool thread. I like asking about the effects of technology. How clean should we make auto exhaust? Where is the point of diminishing returns? I searched to see if anyone actually did the math and calculated how many lives will be saved from going from where we are now to the standards for 2020.

http://www.epa.gov/oar/sect812/prospective2.html

So, where we are now saves 160,000 lives per year compared to unregulated exhaust.

In 2020, the standards would save 230,000 lives per year.

It looks like we are nowhere near the line of diminishing returns, and that several more generations of pollution control regulation would be desirable. How will we know when to stop?

The new regulations save 70,000 lives per year, and raise the cost of a car by $1200, all of which comes back in fuel saving. What if it was only 700 lives per year? Would it still be worth it?

However, will those 2020 standards actually save those lives? Is that number of life saving actually indexed to the expected world population, at which point the current standards may ALSO save those lives? Are there parts of those 2020 standards that won't save any lives? Do the standards INCREASE fuel consumption (protip: they do - for both gassers and diesels - the current standards make lean burn gassers impractical, and require diesels to run richer than need be and to dump fuel into the exhaust for aftertreatment)?

Blonde Guy said:

The new regulations save 70,000 lives per year, and raise the cost of a car by $1200, all of which comes back in fuel saving. What if it was only 700 lives per year? Would it still be worth it?

Click to expand...

Well the EPA will be using a value of about $7 million/life (value of statistical life). ...There are about 13 million new vehicles sold a year.

13,000,000 • $1200 = 15.6 billion

15.6 billion / 700 lives = 22 million per life: The EPA would say no, it's not worth it.

The standards may decrease FE a bit but CAFE is taking care of that. Fuel prices and CAFE have really pushed the US fleet in an interesting direction recently; I can say there's a whole lot more cars I like than 5 years ago.