"new" 2015: Is lack of power due to fix?

I'm close to pulling the trigger on one of these and wondering if the lack of power in the '15 GSW I test drove compared to my '10 TDI JSW is due to the fix or not?

In other words, if i keep my car would i be dealing with the same situation?

Think you have something else going on...
I test drove a "new" leftover 2014, and a 2015 back when I got mine...the 2015 stock has more power and more tq.
Since having the fix, it does not seem to have changed in any noticable way other than a slight change in sound (noticable in a garage if you try) and a ight bump up in mpg. I have the dsg, and the transmission programming seems better.
Perhaps it has not been prepped? Or simply not broken in? My 2015 has about 37,000 miles now and is still seeing a slight + in mpg and drivability as it finishes getting broken in.
Same drivetrain as the 2015 golf/Passat.

http://forums.tdiclub.com/showthread.php?t=476157

More info...
Before and after dyno tests.

ZippyNH said:

http://forums.tdiclub.com/showthread.php?t=476157

More info...
Before and after dyno tests.

Click to expand...

Thanks. I guess it's the individual car then?

I drive my 14 JSW DSG and fixed 15 GSW manual back to back most days. I would say that the GSW has slightly more turbo lag than the JSW, but once it gets going it has a considerable edge in power over the JSW. It's not exactly apples to apples comparison since the DSG neutralises some of the engine's characteristics and the JSW has 180k on it, but I think that the one you test drove was not representative of the fixed 15s.

Shootz. I'm about to buy it. Guess i could drive in S mode. Gonna try that in the 2nd test..

ZippyNH said:

http://forums.tdiclub.com/showthread.php?t=476157

More info...
Before and after dyno tests.

Click to expand...

Very suspicious looking torque/power curve. I wonder how quickly they ran the engine up for each test and whether they used an active or passive dyno or use one for the first test and the other for the second to come up with so much discrepancy between the pre- and post-"fix" curves.

-- Nicole

Suspicious power curves? Kerma was good enough to do the dynos for the benefit of us all- we should be grateful not suspicious. I fail to see what his motive would be for misleading us.

turbobrick240, look at the curves. You don't have to know a man's motive to read that the start of the curves are at different points. Why the discrepancy? Why the discrepancy on the droop end? How was the droop region even measured?? Where are the graph points? Why the curve smoothing?

MY opinion is..

that they now up shift much earlier than my 2013, 2011, 2010, 2008, (others where manual)... and by shift up to a higher gear sooner,, on easy driving, gives the impression of less power.. Its most noticeable on the shift to 6th in easy driving, that the engine seems to almost rattle due to the low rpms its forced to undertake. More spirited driving, its not as bad. I drive in the hyper mile mode mostly.


But I believe this is done to take advantage of the earlier torque curve and is why these models seem to get 3 to 5 mpg higher while new.. At least so far on my experience... Its a bit annoying with the earlier upshifts.. but as the engine breaks in and its power comes up a bit more (after 25,000 miles) I will be curious to see if the early up shifts are still noticeable. ALL of my other td and tdis have got 38 mpg new and gradually worked up to the 42.5 mpg overall life time average... This one seems to be starting out at about 43 mpg on the first tank, and will fuel up on the second tank, next time I drive it. I'm hauling a lot of spray chemicals and hay this week so the trucks are the vehicle of choice.

Miss_Athanatos said:

I wonder how quickly they ran the engine up for each test and whether they used an active or passive dyno or use one for the first test and the other for the second to come up with so much discrepancy between the pre- and post-"fix" curves.

Click to expand...

He says in that thread that it was the same dyno. As to your other questions/concerns, it seems they'd be better addressed there too.

SoTxBill said:

MY opinion is..

that they now up shift much earlier than my 2013, 2011, 2010, 2008, (others where manual)... and by shift up to a higher gear sooner,, on easy driving, gives the impression of less power.. Its most noticeable on the shift to 6th in easy driving, that the engine seems to almost rattle due to the low rpms its forced to undertake. More spirited driving, its not as bad. I drive in the hyper mile mode mostly.


But I believe this is done to take advantage of the earlier torque curve and is why these models seem to get 3 to 5 mpg higher while new.. At least so far on my experience... Its a bit annoying with the earlier upshifts.. but as the engine breaks in and its power comes up a bit more (after 25,000 miles) I will be curious to see if the early up shifts are still noticeable. ALL of my other td and tdis have got 38 mpg new and gradually worked up to the 42.5 mpg overall life time average... This one seems to be starting out at about 43 mpg on the first tank, and will fuel up on the second tank, next time I drive it. I'm hauling a lot of spray chemicals and hay this week so the trucks are the vehicle of choice.

Click to expand...

Okay.. 39.1 on second tank,, which is more normal, as the car has gone through some regens now.... Will continue to see, but mpg is still a bit on the high side... stay tuned for more.

You just have to put your foot into the throttle a little more with the 2015. The power is there you just have to "tip in" a little more. I actually like it for low speed control in parking lots and stop and go traffic. No jerking. It's the best manual I've ever driven.

Ted Hurst said:

You just have to put your foot into the throttle a little more with the 2015. The power is there you just have to "tip in" a little more. I actually like it for low speed control in parking lots and stop and go traffic. No jerking. It's the best manual I've ever driven.

Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure I agree. I originally thought my Passat was down on power compared to my 13, but the more I drive it, the more I learn that he same power is there, it's just further towards the floor.

SoTxBill said:

MY opinion is..

that they now up shift much earlier than my 2013, 2011, 2010, 2008, (others where manual)... and by shift up to a higher gear sooner,, on easy driving, gives the impression of less power.. Its most noticeable on the shift to 6th in easy driving, that the engine seems to almost rattle due to the low rpms its forced to undertake. More spirited driving, its not as bad. I drive in the hyper mile mode mostly.


But I believe this is done to take advantage of the earlier torque curve and is why these models seem to get 3 to 5 mpg higher while new.. At least so far on my experience... Its a bit annoying with the earlier upshifts.. but as the engine breaks in and its power comes up a bit more (after 25,000 miles) I will be curious to see if the early up shifts are still noticeable. ALL of my other td and tdis have got 38 mpg new and gradually worked up to the 42.5 mpg overall life time average... This one seems to be starting out at about 43 mpg on the first tank, and will fuel up on the second tank, next time I drive it. I'm hauling a lot of spray chemicals and hay this week so the trucks are the vehicle of choice.

Click to expand...

After test driving 3 of them i answered my question. It wasn't something with the one car (that i bought!). They all felt under-powered compared to my '10. i think @AMDTDI is right about the turbo lag. If it was just earlier upshifts S mode should have fixed it. right? I tried S mode and still less umph than my '10. I got it anyway. For 4k more than what i'm getting for mine i just had to. And the better milage doesn't suck.

Yawiney said:

After test driving 3 of them i answered my question. It wasn't something with the one car (that i bought!). They all felt under-powered compared to my '10. i think @AMDTDI is right about the turbo lag. If it was just earlier upshifts S mode should have fixed it. right? I tried S mode and still less umph than my '10. I got it anyway. For 4k more than what i'm getting for mine i just had to. And the better milage doesn't suck.

Click to expand...

I haven't driven any '15's, but I'm guessing it's just a perception thing. Though they could have a tank full of old fuel, or compression might not be fully up until it's broken in. Very doubtful that turbo lag has anything to do with it.

Miss_Athanatos said:

Very suspicious looking torque/power curve. I wonder how quickly they ran the engine up for each test and whether they used an active or passive dyno or use one for the first test and the other for the second to come up with so much discrepancy between the pre- and post-"fix" curves.
-- Nicole

Click to expand...

You could ask for an explanation of the data, but why the suspicion, especially the "Very suspicious"? Why would you suggest they may have used two different dyno methods? Because they're incompetent or malicious?!

One thing to consider...
When a car gets a bit if "refinement", Is, better NVH control, they can seem slower.
I'm at think back too my old Honda crx...felt fast, but was not..likewise each generation of the MINI Cooper S AQUIRED lower times, BUT FELT SLOWER.

Tony45 said:

You could ask for an explanation of the data, but why the suspicion, especially the "Very suspicious"? Why would you suggest they may have used two different dyno methods? Because they're incompetent or malicious?!

Click to expand...

I don't want an explanation of the data. I am commenting upon the HP/Torque curve being used as some sort of a "are you going to believe me or your eyes" defense to the new drive experience.

If you look at the curves, you can see they start at different points. That alone is a huge reason for suspicion. I have no idea why they would be started at different points, but one possible explanation is that the "fixed" engine was allowed to run up gradually, whereas the "pre-fixed" engine was made to accelerate up immediately. Like allowing one runner to have a head start over the other on a track. It's not an exact comparison, but it gives the illustration that on a dynamic run everything has to be very closely controlled, otherwise you cannot trust your data.

The fact that there are no data points is another reason to be suspicious. They had to take readings at specific points, so, that significant data should be pictured as points on the chart even if they wanted to superimpose a smoothed curve.

Also, the droop region as charted would be impossible to measure without surging the engine, as with any diesel under 10% droop. The engine surges should have shown up on the dyno chart, but they're not pictured.

-- Nicole

Despite what the charts say, i know there's less pick up in the new ones, after testing 3, compared to my '10, and i think that it is not the individual cars but an across the board thing.
Did it stop me from buying one? No. Hopefully breaking it in some, DSG "learning" my driving habits and me getting used to having less power at the tip of my toe will change that some. If not, after a year, I'll look into getting a tune.

turbobrick240 said:

I haven't driven any '15's, but I'm guessing it's just a perception thing. Though they could have a tank full of old fuel, or compression might not be fully up until it's broken in. Very doubtful that turbo lag has anything to do with it.

Click to expand...

I may not have used the correct terminology. My perception is that the 15 is completely gutless below about 1400 rpm but once you hit those revs it takes off. The old B4 I could drive around without using my right foot; it would pull strong from idle and in stock guise it never really hit you in the back as you floored it. It had the characteristics of a non-turbocharged long stroke engine. The 15 feels like an over-square turbocharged gas engine - absolutely no power until you get the turbo singing but once it goes it flies.

Well, the car only makes 40 hp @ 1400 rpm, so I imagine it is pretty gutless below that. 1400 rpm is by no means the sweet spot for cruising. 1800-2200 is really where you want to be most of the time.

Haven't checked exact rpm but my 1st impression is there is a sweet somewhere. Once it's to a certain rpm, i don't notice the lack of power.

turbobrick240 said:

Well, the car only makes 40 hp @ 1400 rpm, so I imagine it is pretty gutless below that. 1400 rpm is by no means the sweet spot for cruising. 1800-2200 is really where you want to be most of the time.

Click to expand...

Thanks for your enlightened insight - I'll bear it in mind the next time I take to the road or offer my observations to the forum!

turbobrick240 said:

Well, the car only makes 40 hp @ 1400 rpm, so I imagine it is pretty gutless below that. 1400 rpm is by no means the sweet spot for cruising. 1800-2200 is really where you want to be most of the time.

Click to expand...

1800 is 65mph now in the Passat, they dropped the DSG gearing by 2-300rpm compared to our 2012, much more inline with my 6spd manual jetta.

turbobrick240 said:

Well, the car only makes 40 hp @ 1400 rpm, so I imagine it is pretty gutless below that. 1400 rpm is by no means the sweet spot for cruising. 1800-2200 is really where you want to be most of the time.

Click to expand...

Why in the world would you say that?

40 hp is plenty to continue the vehicle running down the road. This is a diesel. You don't have to whip it's tail down the road at 1800-2200 rpms.

With my 6mt, she'd be in lugging territory @ 1400, unless in 1-2-3 gear. And complaining pretty loudly about it too.

Say you drop to 1400 RMP while in 6 gear. Dont expect to be able to accelerate rapidly while staying in that gear - it will take forever, you'd have to downshift to 3 or 4th gear.

Now, in 1st gear, even @ 800 RPM, she'd have enough torque to not only keep moving forward @ ~5mph, but also to get going (with real gentle clutch release ). Even in 2nd gear you could that, but it will be borderline stall territory.


Doing 75MPH, at 2100 RPM in 6th, she has enough torque for crisp and safe passing at 85-90MPH and even toward 100, seemingly effortlessly. Wont win any races, but she's got what it takes.

Low RPMs simply dont supply enough exhaust volume to spool up the turbo and she's air starved. Accelerating out of forced and fixed (via MT) lugging condition is nasty, as they can only squirt more diesel and there's not enough air to burn it all. Guess what traps the un-burned hydrocarbons ?

With autos, they force downshift which gets the RPM up, which produces more exhaust which spools up the turbo which gets the air engine needs for max power.

Miss_Athanatos said:

Why in the world would you say that?

40 hp is plenty to continue the vehicle running down the road. This is a diesel. You don't have to whip it's tail down the road at 1800-2200 rpms.

Click to expand...

1400 rpm might be the sweet spot for your cummins, but it most definitely is not for our small tdi's. 1800-2200 is hardly whipping its tail, that somebody would think that makes me chuckle a bit.

turbobrick240 said:

1400 rpm might be the sweet spot for your cummins, but it most definitely is not for our small tdi's. 1800-2200 is hardly whipping its tail, that somebody would think that makes me chuckle a bit.

Click to expand...

I am not at all finding fault with you or anyone else who drives at higher RPMs: everyone has his own styles and purposes.

I do a fair amount of operation in the 900 - 1500 RPM zone for small town or dirt road driving, or riding the low end governor, even in 6th gear. The car pulls fine, doesn't lug and is a real joy to drive. Yes, this is a small engine, and if immediate acceleration is needed, then I'd have to shift down one or two gears and spin up the turbo. That's just life driving a car with a small engine, though.

If you're on the highway and you want to drive at 1800 - 2200, I get it. If you're trying to make the car do a regen, I get it. The only thing that I don't quite agree with is that there isn't a sweet spot at lower RPMs.

-- Nicole

r11 said:

With my 6mt, she'd be in lugging territory @ 1400, unless in 1-2-3 gear. And complaining pretty loudly about it too.

Say you drop to 1400 RMP while in 6 gear. Dont expect to be able to accelerate rapidly while staying in that gear - it will take forever, you'd have to downshift to 3 or 4th gear.

Now, in 1st gear, even @ 800 RPM, she'd have enough torque to not only keep moving forward @ ~5mph, but also to get going (with real gentle clutch release ). Even in 2nd gear you could that, but it will be borderline stall territory.


Doing 75MPH, at 2100 RPM in 6th, she has enough torque for crisp and safe passing at 85-90MPH and even toward 100, seemingly effortlessly. Wont win any races, but she's got what it takes.

Low RPMs simply dont supply enough exhaust volume to spool up the turbo and she's air starved. Accelerating out of forced and fixed (via MT) lugging condition is nasty, as they can only squirt more diesel and there's not enough air to burn it all. Guess what traps the un-burned hydrocarbons ?

With autos, they force downshift which gets the RPM up, which produces more exhaust which spools up the turbo which gets the air engine needs for max power.

Click to expand...

I drive quite a bit against the low end governor. While this doesn't have enough engine to get it moving from a stop without getting on the accelerator, the low end governor will keep the vehicle going (as long as it's not loaded heavily) and not let the RPMs fall below ~800 if you take your foot completely off the accelerator pedal. Obviously the car doesn't have enough engine to go up hills in this condition, but it can run around practically all day long in this mode of operation as long as you have intelligent planning to get the engine RPMs up for long enough to put the car into regen.

This method of driving produces very little NOx, as the majority of the time the car would be operated the cylinder pressures would be very low. I don't have any trouble with downshifting and spinning up the turbo when the need is there. Of course, with any turbocharged vehicle there is going to be a turbo lag.

I don't believe that most people operate this way, but there's no need to operate it any differently in a rural setting. I get excellent fuel efficiency. I have a car that is a joy to drive.

-- Nicole