www.tdiclub.com

Economy - Longevity - Performance
The #1 Source of TDI Information on the Web!
Forums Articles Links Meets
Orders TDI Club Cards TDIFest 2016 Gone, but not forgotten VAG-Com List Unit Conversions TDIClub Chat Thank You




Go Back   TDIClub Forums > VW TDI Discussion Areas > TDI News/Tech

TDI News/Tech This Forum is for the posting of TDI news related items.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old February 9th, 2017, 05:01   #16
oilhammer
Certified Volkswagen Nut Vendor
 
oilhammer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: St Louis
Fuel Economy: fantastic
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bhtooefr View Post
Because the 1.4 TSI would be in boost more often (hurting real world fuel economy), as well as not meeting American power demands for that size of car. On a turbo gasser, you only want to be in boost when driving it hard, otherwise your fuel economy will go to crap.
Well Ford seems to think the 1.5L turbo 4 is OK in the Fusion. And I have driven one, and it gets the job done. Not sure how well it will hold up long term, though. I still think I'd opt for the base non-turbo 2.5L in that car if I had to pick. There is a 2.0L turbo available, too.

And Chevrolet also has a 1.5L turbo option in the Malibu. Also a very similar car to the NMS Passat.



Hyundai Sonata also has a 1.6L turbo 4 available.

And I am betting the Camry and Accord will be getting a smaller turbo 4 available soon, as right now they only have the larger non-turbo 4s (or a V6) available.

Of course, one could argue the NMS' current 1.8L turbo 4 is "small enough", and since they do not have a larger non-turbo 4 available maybe VAG decided to just try and cover both possible engine choices with one.
__________________
oilhammer
www.cardocautomotive.com

Last edited by oilhammer; February 9th, 2017 at 05:06.
oilhammer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 9th, 2017, 05:11   #17
bhtooefr
TDIClub Enthusiast
ToofTek Inventor
 
bhtooefr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Newark, OH
TDI(s): None
Default

Toyota's sticking with naturally aspirated engines on the 2018 Camry - they're replacing the 2.5 liter 2AR-FE and 2AR-FXE with a 2.5 liter "Dynamic Force engine" with 40-41% thermal efficiency, and it looks like the 3.5 liter 2GR-FE is getting replaced with the 3.5 liter 2GR-FKS. True, they don't have a suitable turbo engine - the 8NR-FTS (used in the European Auris and C-HR) at 1.2 liters is too small, the 8AR-FTS (used here in the IS and NX 200t) at 2.0 liters is too powerful. But, it seems like they're happy with the performance of NA engines for the Camry, especially seeing as they're doing a new engine family for it.

The Accord's probably getting the 1.5T from the Civic, seeing as the CR-V's gotten it now. And, I'm guessing a 2.0T as the top engine.
__________________

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lug_Nut View Post
The really cool ToofTek made "Emperor's Clothes" injector fork risers only worked until someone pointed out that there wasn't any thing there.
bhtooefr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 9th, 2017, 05:12   #18
dubStrom
Veteran Member
 
dubStrom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Kansas City Missouri
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bhtooefr View Post
Because the 1.4 TSI would be in boost more often (hurting real world fuel economy), as well as not meeting American power demands for that size of car. On a turbo gasser, you only want to be in boost when driving it hard, otherwise your fuel economy will go to crap.
I think it would depend on how aggressively driven. City driving could suffer if forced to defend position in traffic often, but on the highway, it would not need much boost, and at the low end of boost, FE is enhanced, not penalized. It probably needs only 30hp to maintain 70. Linked to a 6MT, it could probably do surprisingly well.

Unfortunately, VW does not equip the Passat with a third pedal, period. Pity.
__________________
Lost my JSW to a reckless MB E350 sedan driver blowing a stoplight:
http://forums.tdiclub.com/showthread.php?t=472255
Working on a replacement project:
http://forums.tdiclub.com/showthread.php?t=472257

Last edited by dubStrom; February 9th, 2017 at 05:17.
dubStrom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 9th, 2017, 08:08   #19
ssamalin
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Southern CA
Default

I've never seen information on the new emissions testing before. VW says "the new American tests have effectively added 40 per cent to the total emissions detected in tests".

This partially confirms what I have been saying about why Mercedes canceled it's 2017 Bluetecs, to catch up with the new testing requirements in 2018.

Last edited by ssamalin; February 9th, 2017 at 08:20.
ssamalin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 9th, 2017, 10:42   #20
BKmetz
Administrator
 
BKmetz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 1997
Location: Illinois
Fuel Economy: 50 MPG
Default

A few years back I rented a Chevy Cruze with the ECO 1.4L turbo and 6-speed auto transmission. As I was in the Phoenix area I had to drive it aggressively just to keep up with traffic. It was a gutless wonder that was shifting all the time. In a large metropolitan area I wouldn't own one. In a rural setting it would be adequate.

By comparison the last time I was in Phoenix I rented a 2016 NMS Passat with the 1.8TSI and 6-speed auto transmission. It was great. When passing on the interstate the torque felt like my TDI. It did not hunt for gears all day like the Cruze had to. In fairness the Passat did return lower fuel mileage, but I had power when I needed it.

__________________
Brian, 2015 Passat SE TDI 6MT, 2014 Passat SE TDI 6MT going back to VW
Wifey, 2014 Passat SE 2.5

If ANYONE receives a PM/email from a TDIClub member shilling anything and they are NOT a registered vendor, please forward the PM/emails to me. To report spam, trolling, or any problem post, click the report post icon. (The icon in the actual problem post, not the one in my sig. The idiots know who they are... )
BKmetz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 9th, 2017, 10:55   #21
oilhammer
Certified Volkswagen Nut Vendor
 
oilhammer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: St Louis
Fuel Economy: fantastic
Default

If you did not like the 1.4L turbo Cruze, you'd REALLY hate the 1.8L non-turbo one. They are even worse. Because THAT engine is torqueless, and the Cruze platform is way overweight for its size. One of my son's nurses has one of those turds, and I get to drive it to and from work now and then for service. I'd rather lather my scrotum in diesel fuel and run through a truck stop naked than drive that car. Shame, because the car itself is not that bad.
__________________
oilhammer
www.cardocautomotive.com
oilhammer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 9th, 2017, 13:43   #22
berks_tom
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Birdsboro, PA
Fuel Economy: avg 42 mpg
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by oilhammer View Post
I'd rather lather my scrotum in diesel fuel and run through a truck stop naked than drive that car.
I think you just won the quote of the day.
__________________
2006 Jetta TDI, DSG, pkg 0, Reflex Silver, 280K miles, RC1+, replaced DMF, EGR cooler, Turbo, new Frank06 cam (Now son's car)
2013 Passat TDI SEL, Night Blue, 123K miles, panzer plate, P3cars gauge, emissions "fixed" by VW (Mine)
"When in danger, when in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout." -R.A.Heinlen
berks_tom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 9th, 2017, 15:00   #23
TDIMeister
Phd of TDIClub Enthusiast
Moderator at Large
 
TDIMeister's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Canada
TDI(s): TDI
Default

I would be totally OK with a somewhat larger displacement engine that uses a Miller/Atkinson cycle, cylinder deactivation and/or throttling via valvelift, i.e. FCA Multiair, BMW Valvetronic.

There's something to be said about Toyota and Mazda favouring larger displacement, naturally aspirated engines with very high compression ratios. With the aforementioned additional measures, engine start-stop and high efficiency transmissions (wide ratio range, tall gearing, close spacings and low losses), fuel economy can be pretty good without the added complexity and failure modes of a turbocharged engine.

500cc/cylinder has been empirically found to give the best efficiency in passenger car-sized engines. Smaller than that, you have higher heat losses due to disadvantageous surface-to-volume ratio; larger than that increases pumping (throttling) and friction losses, particularly at low load.

VAG can very easily simplify its engine range to 1L 2-cylinder, 1.5L 3-cylinder, 2L 4-cylinder, 2.5L 5-cylinder, 3L 6-cylinder, 4L 8-cylinder, 5L 10-cylinder and 6L 12-cylinder engines with common bore, stroke and cylinder pitch, with NA/turbo, gasoline/Diesel/CNG variants for the entire group from the VW Up to Bentley/Lamborghini.
__________________

TDIMeister's German-imported 1998 Audi A4 Avant TDI quattro

Are you receiving unwelcome sales solicitations or inappropriate, harassing messages in your PM? You can report them by pressing the image on the top right of the message in a similar way as reporting inappropriate posts.

Last edited by TDIMeister; February 9th, 2017 at 15:04.
TDIMeister is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 9th, 2017, 16:14   #24
bhtooefr
TDIClub Enthusiast
ToofTek Inventor
 
bhtooefr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Newark, OH
TDI(s): None
Default

It's also worth noting this press release here: http://newsroom.toyota.eu/new-15-l-p...for-the-yaris/

Instead of downsizing and turbocharging, they upsized an already naturally aspirated engine, adding wide authority electric VVT and high compression to get more efficiency and better real world emissions.
__________________

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lug_Nut View Post
The really cool ToofTek made "Emperor's Clothes" injector fork risers only worked until someone pointed out that there wasn't any thing there.
bhtooefr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 9th, 2017, 18:26   #25
donDavide
Veteran Member
 
donDavide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Severna Park, Maryland USA
Fuel Economy: 51/45/40
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jpltdi View Post
I am one of those people who got a 2017 Jetta S 1.4 TSI with my $500 dealer card that was going to expire in November. Just filled it up for the second time today, 577 miles on 13.3 gallons, which I calculate to be 43.4 miles per gallon in mixed driving. I tend to drive it like a diesel and use boost a lot. (Not sure if this is good for longevity, but it just feels good to me.) I'm certainly impressed - I can never get much more than 40 mpg with the 2014 Passat TDI DSG.
Just think if you get a tune also! I was hard pressed to get 40 in my 2012 Passat.
__________________
2003 Jetta GLS TDi TTbushings
2005 Passat GLS TDI Wagon Stone Henge Gray
2007 Jeep Grand Cherokee CRD
donDavide is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 9th, 2017, 18:33   #26
donDavide
Veteran Member
 
donDavide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Severna Park, Maryland USA
Fuel Economy: 51/45/40
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TDIMeister View Post

500cc/cylinder has been empirically found to give the best efficiency in passenger car-sized engines. Smaller than that, you have higher heat losses due to disadvantageous surface-to-volume ratio; larger than that increases pumping (throttling) and friction losses, particularly at low load.
Would that apply to diesel engines too?
__________________
2003 Jetta GLS TDi TTbushings
2005 Passat GLS TDI Wagon Stone Henge Gray
2007 Jeep Grand Cherokee CRD
donDavide is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 10th, 2017, 05:46   #27
NSTDI
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Nova Scotia
Default

I will quote in Canadian MPG, 30 MPG converts to about 10L/100KM. These are average fuel economy numbers for mixed driving, except as noted. I am anal about recording fuel consumption and these numbers are actual.

My 2003 Passat 1.8L driven hard gave about 30-32 MPG with manual.
My Dad's 1982 Olds 98 4 door automatic 5.0L driven at 65MPH on the highway gave better than 30 MPG.
My 98 Beetle manual TDI gave better than 50MPG driven hard.
My 87 Dakota 4WD auto, 18 MPG. 3.9L V6 with a Holley 2 barrel.
2002 Tacoma 4WD 3.4L FI V6 manual, about 21 MPG on a good day.
84 Camry 4 cyl manual, 46 mpg highway (worst car I ever owned).
75 Nova 5.7L auto, 25 MPG highway, city a whole lot less. Bought it new.

Computerized FI is much more efficient than a carb 9 times out of 10. What amazes me is how little the fuel economy has improved over the 75 Nova, 82 Olds, 84 Camry, and 87 Dakota with the new fuel systems, better transmissions, etc.

As to how long a turbo small displacement motor will last, those 1.8L VW's ran forever without major issues. My 2003 was chipped and I drove the crap out of it.

Ford's turbo V6 in trucks is relatively new, it will be interesting to see how it stands up over time. Fuel economy wise they are much better on fuel than a V8, until you get into the boost. When towing, the fuel economy gets cut in half.

I think the next big change possible is a major improvement in batteries will get us into all electric cars. Electric motors are proven technology, lots of torque, last forever, low maintenance, zero emissions, no sensors, no exhaust, no turbo, no transmission. Check out electric car drag racing.

The weak link is the batteries- if a new battery is developed that is half the weight, has a range comparable to a gas car, say 600KM's or 400 miles, and a quick charge or changeout (like say trading your propane BBQ tank).

New gas or diesel small cars will go the way of the dodo. It could be in the next 5-20 years?
__________________
1998 Beetle TDI, 325,000 KM, Upsolute (sold), 2003 Passat 1.8T, 340,000KM Upsolute (sold), 62 Bel Air 409, 4 speed, 1963 Parisienne 409 4 speed
2013 Passat 6MT TDI Comfortline with Sport, Sept 18/12 New. Sep 2016 126,000KM. Replaced turbo, sway bar links front and rear, Adblue heater went.

Last edited by NSTDI; February 10th, 2017 at 05:48.
NSTDI is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 10th, 2017, 14:13   #28
Dannyboy
Veteran Member
 
Dannyboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Winnipeg,MB
Fuel Economy: 2014- 1168km per tank
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GoFaster View Post
My current daily driver is a Fiat 500 with the 1.4 FIRE 16v MultiAir non-turbo engine. No rocketship (not even close!) but it gets the job done. It is overgeared in the interest of mileage. Right now, in winter conditions, it's doing a little better than 6 L/100 km.

In europe the same car had either a 1.2 FIRE 8v or the "TwinAir" 0.9 litre 2 cylinder engine. Apparently the TwinAir was the engine to get (right number of cylinders, historically correct even though it's at the wrong end of the car) but real world fuel consumption isn't any better than with the 1.2 or 1.4 MultiAir.

The FIRE series of engines is in the process of being replaced. The new choices are a 1.0 3 cylinder (replacing the TwinAir and 1.2 FIRE) or a 1.3 4 cylinder (replacing the 1.4 16v FIRE). Interestingly, the new engines only have 2 valves per cylinder and are SOHC with VVT, but no MultiAir, and have a very high compression ratio (13:1) and the cam drive is by chain rather than belt. I think someone's been doing some optimizing to get the same or better power output and economy but with fewer parts and less complexity and less maintenance. I'm totally on board with that.
I had 2 fiat punto 55s as my daily for many years, 1.1 8v fire engine like yours had just bit slower. Could change the cambelt in 20 mins including water pump. No a/c, no power steering, no cruise control, manual windows and 3 doors. Like you said, no rocket ship but being single point injection and wasted spark, diagnosis was simple.

I loved it for simplicity, put fuel in. Changed oil whenever and that was it
Dannyboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 10th, 2017, 15:22   #29
RomanDiesel
Newbie
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Montreal, QC
Fuel Economy: Best: 4.0 L/100 km. Avg 5.7
Default

I totally agree!
RomanDiesel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 10th, 2017, 16:36   #30
TDIMeister
Phd of TDIClub Enthusiast
Moderator at Large
 
TDIMeister's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Canada
TDI(s): TDI
Default

Comparing 70s and 80s cars to those of today don't really do a lot of service. A full-size car back then had about the same weight (~3200-3800 lbs) as a modern mid-compact due to all the safety reinforcements and amenities. Physics is physics, and it takes a certain amount of energy to propel a metal box of a given weight at a given speed, no matter the powertrain technology employed. Not to mention that cars of old spewed about 95X more emissions. No thanks, I have no nostalgia for old cars.
__________________

TDIMeister's German-imported 1998 Audi A4 Avant TDI quattro

Are you receiving unwelcome sales solicitations or inappropriate, harassing messages in your PM? You can report them by pressing the image on the top right of the message in a similar way as reporting inappropriate posts.
TDIMeister is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Race520 7H nozzles.For sale Downsizing. ItAintRodKnock Private TDI Items for Sale/Wanted 3 June 9th, 2013 20:05
Downsizing sislianli TDI Power Enhancements 0 March 28th, 2011 05:10
Power Service is Downsizing its Bottles PDJetta Fuels & Lubricants 60 January 15th, 2010 19:34
Downsizing nozzles Gearhead51 TDI Power Enhancements 12 December 11th, 2009 15:39
Diesel Downsizing in Villa Park, IL. All of Us Mid-west USA 1 June 27th, 2007 07:01


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:18.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright - TDIClub Online LTD - 2017
Contact Us | Privacy Statement | Forum Rules | Disclaimer
TDIClub Online Ltd (TDIClub.com) is not affiliated with the VWoA or VWAG and is supported by contributions from viewers like you.
1996 - 2017, All Rights Reserved
Page generated in 0.22188 seconds with 10 queries
[Output: 143.62 Kb. compressed to 120.89 Kb. by saving 22.73 Kb. (15.82%)]