Details on the new VW TDI engine at the TDIFest

oilhammer

Certified Volkswagen Nut & Vendor
Joined
Dec 11, 2001
Location
outside St Louis, MO
TDI
There are just too many to list....
What I want to know is why do they fell they need a 140hp diesel as the sole TDI engine option here? Are there that many 100hp PD A5 Jetta owners that "want" more power? I'd say likely not.

I'd like to see the same technology (CR, etc.) put into a 4 cylinder around 1.5 to 1.7L displacement, likely making about the same 100hp as we already have, but with the newer tech and smaller engine maybe improving the fuel economy while keeping the performance similar.

Then an "optional" 2.0L 140hp TDI on maybe a fancier trim level car. But 100hp TDI is plenty for a base level Rabbit/Jetta. The 100hp TDI in the [heavy] Jetta will already easily outperform the 106hp gasser driving the [MUCH lighter] Accent or similar, so is that 140hp beast really needed?
 

compu_85

Gadget Guy
Joined
Sep 29, 2003
Location
La Conner, WA
TDI
... None :S
Well, people's complaints about diesels are: slow, smoky, hard to start, noisy. This engine has to solve all those problems, which it should. The cost to engineer another engine might not be that beneficial with all the work that's gone into the 140. And they keep saying the 140 won't have an economy hit over the 100, so who knows.

-Jason
 

oilhammer

Certified Volkswagen Nut & Vendor
Joined
Dec 11, 2001
Location
outside St Louis, MO
TDI
There are just too many to list....
I think the economy will be the same or better. CR does wonders I think. Not nearly as much parasitic loss from a purely mechanical injection system. And if MB can squeeze 37+ from a 6 cylinder CR E class, getting 45+ from a CR 4 cylinder Jetta should be a breeze.\

Volkswagen already has smaller TDI (and gasser) engines in stuff in Europe. I just think the American consumer, present company excluded of course, is hung on excess power. I think the current A5 Golf comes with a 1.6L FSI gasser or a 1.4L TDI as its standard engines. The "only" engine we get is a 2.5L 5 cylinder, which was first 150hp and now it is 170hp!!! That's NUTS! 170hp for a base model entry level car? Yeah, right. My sister's VR6 Jetta GLX has 172hp, and that was the highest end model car you could buy at the time. Still feels overpowered for most drivers to me.

The standard entry level Rabbit, with black bumpers, should get a 80 to 90hp 16v non-turbo gas 4 cylinder with a proper manual transmission for a base model powerplant. That's all it really needs. And a 75 to 90hp TDI (with the appropriate superior torque) would be plenty for a base diesel engine Rabbit.
 
Last edited:

TornadoRed

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Aug 3, 2003
Location
West Des Moines (formerly St Paul)
TDI
2003 Jetta TDI wagon, silver; 2003 Jetta TDI wagon, indigo blue; 2003 Golf GL 5-spd, red (PARTED); 2003 Golf GLS 5-spd, indigo blue (SOLD); 2003 Jetta TDI wagon, Candy White (SOLD)
oilhammer said:
What I want to know is why do they fell they need a 140hp diesel as the sole TDI engine option here? Are there that many 100hp PD A5 Jetta owners that "want" more power? [/I]
I think the problem evolves from the hassles that a manufacturer has to go through to get an engine EPA-certified. If it was easier, then the auto companies would offer more engine options. Very few companies offer more than one or two 4- or 6-cylinder engines... It is not just VW owners who wish they could get some of the other engines offered in Europe or Japan.

IF VWoA ever offers the Polo or other smaller model with the 1.4-liter TDI, then maybe that engine will be offered in the Rabbit and Jetta as well.

But if VWoA offered two TDI engines in the Rabbit and Jetta, 100hp and 140hp, and they both got exceptional fuel mileage with the 100hp engine only slightly better, then which one do you think would get 90% of the sales?

If it was easier to certify engines, then it wouldn't matter so much if some engines only get a small percentage of the sales. And if there were more models, then that small percentage would be result in a larger number of units.
 

oilhammer

Certified Volkswagen Nut & Vendor
Joined
Dec 11, 2001
Location
outside St Louis, MO
TDI
There are just too many to list....
TornadoRed said:
I think the problem evolves from the hassles that a manufacturer has to go through to get an engine EPA-certified. If it was easier, then the auto companies would offer more engine options. Very few companies offer more than one or two 4- or 6-cylinder engines... It is not just VW owners who wish they could get some of the other engines offered in Europe or Japan.

IF VWoA ever offers the Polo or other smaller model with the 1.4-liter TDI, then maybe that engine will be offered in the Rabbit and Jetta as well.

But if VWoA offered two TDI engines in the Rabbit and Jetta, 100hp and 140hp, and they both got exceptional fuel mileage with the 100hp engine only slightly better, then which one do you think would get 90% of the sales?

If it was easier to certify engines, then it wouldn't matter so much if some engines only get a small percentage of the sales. And if there were more models, then that small percentage would be result in a larger number of units.
Your logic is sound, but there are many glaring examples of the "redundant" engine choices: GM's 4.8L and 5.3L V8s...negligable differences either way. 90% the same engine, just like the 5.0L/5.7L pair before them. One cannot cost more than the other to make over a few pennies. And GM even adds a 6.0L in the mix as well. Ford, same deal: 4.6L and 5.4L V8s, just like the 5.0L/5.8L before them. Chrysler does the same thing: the old LH body cars had a 2.7L, 3.2L, and 3.5L V6s, with not a lot of differences between them from behind the wheel. Now the LX body cars have a 2.7L and 3.5L, and add in the 5.7L. Their minivans for years had a 4 cylinder base engine, but a choice of 3.0L, 3.3L, and 3.8L V6 engines, with the 3.3L and 3.8L being virtually identical.

It goes even further lately...the Ford Freestar minivan has a 3.9L V6 and a 4.2L V6, again both virtually identical.

Now I will be the first to admit that the "Local 3" car companies have not ever done much in recent history that would label them as prudent, but the point remains there are some vehicles that do offer choices here similar to what Volkswagen offers outside the US. I would think a frugal performing smaller TDI in the A5 chassis for a reasonable price would give an option to those really looking for fuel economy above other things. It is in no way any cheaper to buy a $25k 40 MPG Jetta than to buy a $15k 37 MPG Corolla...odds are very good you'd never keep the car the 70 years or whatever it would take for the fuel savings to recoup the cost of the higher purchase price of the car.

Sadly the trend towards ever more powerful, more feature laden, and HEAVIER cars almost negates any big steps forward in economy-improving engine technology. I find it odd that the cheapest $10k Kia Rio, even with a slushbox...a true bottom-of-the-barrel rental turd, can zip anyone to triple digit speeds in less than 30 seconds.....but that same $10k cannot buy you a car that gets 70+ MPG, despite such cars existing elsewhere.:cool:

You're right, though, the idea of offering an A5 with a 90hp, 100hp, 110hp, 130hp, and 150hp engine does seem a little silly. That is why I'd suggest the 90hp and the 150hp, and keep the middle ones out. Seems like that would make a big enough distinction in both performance and fuel economy (and possible price) for people to make a choice and the manufacturer to be able to sell both.
 
Last edited:

frugality

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Sep 19, 2003
Location
Spring Lake, Michigan
TDI
none, 2016 GTI
oilhammer said:
I just think the American consumer, present company excluded of course, is hung on excess power...
...And a 75 to 90hp TDI (with the appropriate superior torque) would be plenty for a base diesel engine Rabbit.
I dunno. I bought my 2000 Golf TDI new with 90hp stock. It was a bit white-knuckling to do passing maneuvers, and hard to get up to 70-75mph traffic speed on Michigan entrance ramps. Smog .205's went a LONG way towards making the car more acceptable in real-world driving. RC2 made it more than acceptable, and fun, too. ;) My 90hp mileage was probably 47-48mpg summer, 43-44mpg winter, and it's now at something like 135hp and I'm getting 45-46mpg summer and 41-42mpg winter. Only a drop of 2-3mpg. And most of us would sacrifice that much mpg for a car with some pep to help when brisk driving in necessary. I think the 140hp version will be a Goldilocks kind of 'this one's just right.'
 

TornadoRed

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Aug 3, 2003
Location
West Des Moines (formerly St Paul)
TDI
2003 Jetta TDI wagon, silver; 2003 Jetta TDI wagon, indigo blue; 2003 Golf GL 5-spd, red (PARTED); 2003 Golf GLS 5-spd, indigo blue (SOLD); 2003 Jetta TDI wagon, Candy White (SOLD)
frugality said:
I think the 140hp version will be a Goldilocks kind of 'this one's just right.'
That is based on two assumptions:
1) There is no decline in long-term reliability, and
2) There is no significant shortening of service intervals.

I think in Europe the PD140 and PD170 may have a shorter timing-belt replacement interval. And based on an admittedly poor monitoring of anecdotal reports from seatcupra.net, the higher-horsepower models might be less reliable.

We can only hope that the 2.0-liter CR engines have an improved cam, as that seems to be one of the weaknesses of the PD engines.
 

oilhammer

Certified Volkswagen Nut & Vendor
Joined
Dec 11, 2001
Location
outside St Louis, MO
TDI
There are just too many to list....
Well, most every day I am driving a car with 52hp! No "white knuckle" driving for me, and I have driven it all over the country... in fact most of the time (like just this morning for instance) I am wishing the ass in front of me would go faster or get out of my way. :rolleyes:

But it really just goes back to what you want vs. what you need. There are quite a few cars out there that have poorer performance than a 90hp TDI, and they still sell them. If I had a choice between a dolled-up $27k 140hp 45 MPG Jetta or a base model $17k 100hp 65 MPG Jetta I'd take the 100hp version home with me. I'm not after winning any races, I just want to get where I am going, use as little fuel as possible, and still have money left in my bank account after the purchase of the car. But my point is we should at least have the choice, so you can decide one way or the other.

Now for my "other" car.... ;)
 

MR42HH

Veteran Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2007
Location
Germany
TDI
BMW 530d
oilhammer said:
Volkswagen already has smaller TDI (and gasser) engines in stuff in Europe. I just think the American consumer, present company excluded of course, is hung on excess power. I think the current A5 Golf comes with a 1.6L FSI gasser or a 1.4L TDI as its standard engines.
The 1.4 TDI doesn't exist in the Golf, base diesel is a 90hp 1.9 TDI. Which will eventually be replaced by a 1.6 CR.
The base gasser however is a 80hp 1.4 4-cylinder. Which is anemic even by European standards. Then there is the non-FSI 1.6 with 105 hp. The 1.6 FSI was just replaced by the 122hp turbocharged 1.4, which is a sweeet engine with outstanding fuel economy for a gasser.
The "only" engine we get is a 2.5L 5 cylinder, which was first 150hp and now it is 170hp!!! That's NUTS!
Exactly my opinion. From what I heard, the 2.5 is grossly inefficient. While the 1.4 Twincharger engine in the European Golf isn't and has the same power and more torque. Go figure.
 

oilhammer

Certified Volkswagen Nut & Vendor
Joined
Dec 11, 2001
Location
outside St Louis, MO
TDI
There are just too many to list....
MR42HH said:
The 1.6 FSI was just replaced by the 122hp turbocharged 1.4, which is a sweeet engine with outstanding fuel economy for a gasser.

From what I heard, the 2.5 is grossly inefficient. While the 1.4 Twincharger engine in the European Golf isn't and has the same power and more torque. Go figure.
My point exactly. You lucky guys get modern technology in a smaller engine with better efficiency and the same output.
 

MR42HH

Veteran Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2007
Location
Germany
TDI
BMW 530d
oilhammer said:
You're right, though, the idea of offering an A5 with a 90hp, 100hp, 110hp, 130hp, and 150hp engine does seem a little silly.
That's why we in Europe get gassers in 80hp, 105hp, 115hp, 122hp, 140hp, 150hp, 170hp, 200hp, 230hp and 250hp and diesels in 75hp (non-turbo 2.0 SDI), 90hp (1.9 TDI), 105hp (1.9 TDI), 140hp (2.0 TDI) and 170hp (2.0 TDI) - we like our engine choices a little silly.
 

MR42HH

Veteran Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2007
Location
Germany
TDI
BMW 530d
oilhammer said:
My point exactly. You lucky guys get modern technology in a smaller engine with better efficiency and the same output.
We pay more for the car though. And 170hp in a Golf is considered "pretty hot", not "base engine".
 

tiguando

Veteran Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2007
Location
Illinois, USA
TDI
Tiguan (Hopefully)
Audi showed off a 2.0L 143hp TDI e concept of the A4 at the Frankfurt motor show which they had mated to a microhybrid system. It gets 4.9 liters per 100km or 48 mpg. They also showed a 1.9L 105hp TDI e concept of the A3 that gets 4.5 liters per 100km or 52 mpg. The full artcle is here if you want to read it. They seem to be doing a lot more with diesels than their VW counterparts though I see the production A4 will be a regular 3.0L clean diesel.
 

chewy

Veteran Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2006
Location
CA
TDI
None
oilhammer said:
If I had a choice between a dolled-up $27k 140hp 45 MPG Jetta or a base model $17k 100hp 65 MPG Jetta I'd take the 100hp version home with me.
The difference between an 105 hp PD A3 and 143 hp CR A4 is only 5 mpg in combined European driving (and keep in mind that the European test is more precise as it usually has a big difference between manual and auto gearboxes. Of course, most importanly the difference between the A3 and the A4 is about 20 inches and 400 pounds.

And the Ford Focus econetic concept that uses fuel saving tech (taller gears, different oil) has a 1.6 109 hp CR unit is rated at 4.3 liters per 100 km vs. 4.5 L for the 105 hp 1.9 PD Audi A3 e (with similar fuel save tech)

Basically there wouldn't be any difference in the Jetta with the 100 or an 140 hp TDI. As the EPA fuel ratings will probably show.
 

oilhammer

Certified Volkswagen Nut & Vendor
Joined
Dec 11, 2001
Location
outside St Louis, MO
TDI
There are just too many to list....
chewy said:
The difference between an 105 hp PD A3 and 143 hp CR A4 is only 5 mpg in combined European driving (and keep in mind that the European test is more precise as it usually has a big difference between manual and auto gearboxes. Of course, most importanly the difference between the A3 and the A4 is about 20 inches and 400 pounds.

And the Ford Focus econetic concept that uses fuel saving tech (taller gears, different oil) has a 1.6 109 hp CR unit is rated at 4.3 liters per 100 km vs. 4.5 L for the 105 hp 1.9 PD Audi A3 e (with similar fuel save tech)

Basically there wouldn't be any difference in the Jetta with the 100 or an 140 hp TDI. As the EPA fuel ratings will probably show.
Read my posts again....I said same tech 100hp-ish vs. 140hp-ish. Comparing a 100hp PD to a 140hp CR is not a valid comparison. The fact that the 140hp CR can get as good as a 100hp PD proves my point. Put that same technology they are using on the 140hp engine (commonrail, etc.) and make a smaller, lighter, less powerful version in the 100hp range and there is no way it could not get better fuel economy.

My point remains: new tech seems to be blown on making more power, nothing else. Yeah, they may be quieter, and cleaner, but the added power seems to be the chart topper. Improved economy seems to take a back seat, despite being the main driving force so many people purchase these cars in the first place.

So the journalists will come out with something like "All new engine with MORE power, fuel economy remains stellar" where I'd like to see "All new engine makes as much power as before but now uses 25% less fuel!"

Just depends on what you want I guess, but I feel 100hp is plenty adequate for a base level A5 chassis, and those who may not think there is enough power may think again when instead of 45 MPG that same car could get 65+ with no sacrifice in acceleration.
 

chewy

Veteran Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2006
Location
CA
TDI
None
Audi A3 2.0 TDI PD: 105 hp and 4.9 liters per 100 km
Ford Focus 1.6 diesel: 109 hp and 4.8

1 mpg difference.
 

nicklockard

Torque Dorque
Joined
Aug 15, 2004
Location
Arizona
TDI
SOLD 2010 Touareg Tdi w/factory Tow PCKG
chewy said:
Audi A3 2.0 TDI PD: 105 hp and 4.9 liters per 100 km
Ford Focus 1.6 diesel: 109 hp and 4.8

1 mpg difference.
Chewy, I'm confused: Now you're comparing cars that have what? 800 lbs difference? I'm just guessing there, but I bet the Audi A3 weighs a lot more than a Focii.

I see your point however: smaller engine, same power, but are they the same technology? I'm just asking. Shouldn't the Focii get much much better fuel economy, being lighter? Fill me in please.
 
Last edited:

chewy

Veteran Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2006
Location
CA
TDI
None
The A3 (3 door sold in Europe) shouldn't be that much heavier than the European Ford Focus. Just shows that a smaller common rail diesel from another manufacturer gets no better fuel economy than the old 1.9 PD TDI. Could a smaller 100 hp TDI with common rail get slightly better fuel economy than the 2.0 140 hp common rail. Probably, but the difference would be quite small, probably a reason why VW has stuck around with 1.9/2.0 TDIs.
 

nicklockard

Torque Dorque
Joined
Aug 15, 2004
Location
Arizona
TDI
SOLD 2010 Touareg Tdi w/factory Tow PCKG
I have to say I am 100% with Mr. Hammer on this. Give me a smaller, lighter car with a small light block employing CR-Tdi technology for a combined fuel economy of 60+ mpg.

You guys have been reading the news of the possible VW Up model? Why not one of those with a diesel?

The Mark IV platform is about as heavy as I want to go. It has a good balance of safety, aerodynamics, weight, cargo capacity, and frontal area. The Mark 3 platform was better in the last 3 categories though without sacrificing too much safety. If only it were fitted with modern ABS brakes and ESP traction control, it would be light, more aerodynamic, nimble, fun, and safe.

I hear VW markets an upscale version of the Mark 3 Jetta platform in China. Would be cool if they'd offer it with a diesel for a "world diesel."
 

vwrobert51

Veteran Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2004
Location
Maui Hawaii
TDI
2004 Jetta Wagon
yeh in china, you can still get a mk 2 mk 3 mk 5 jetta but the new jetta called the SAGATOR :confused:? and the PASSAT you can get early 80s to newest passat, they also get the gol, golf , polo, touran, new beetle, n/b cab , toureg,. all with N/A safety systems and emmisions, of some type, they could easly be built to sell here (MINUS THE LEAD PAINT):D
 

Pettrix

Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2007
Location
Colorado
TDI
None yet...but soon
With the "new" diesel emission standards. Will there be a "secondary injection pulse" like that in the Cummins diesel trucks?

My Dodge truck has the Cummins I-6 (610 LB-FT :)) with the Common Rail injection. There is an additional injector pulse that supposedly helps with emissions but the oil gets BLACK really fast compared to 2nd Gen Cummins engines that did NOT have that.

Not only that, but with that EXTRA "squirt" of fuel, it reduces MPG. I get 17-18MPG in my 8,000LB truck, while 2nd Gen guys get 20-22MPG with that same truck, but with NO extra fuel "squirt".

So, I am wondering if the TDI will suffer the same fate??
 

Lee_Taylor

Veteran Member
Joined
Sep 26, 2004
Location
Kent, England
TDI
Audi A3 1.4 COD
Focus vs A3

chewy said:
Audi A3 2.0 TDI PD: 105 hp and 4.9 liters per 100 km
Ford Focus 1.6 diesel: 109 hp and 4.8

1 mpg difference.
I have driven the Ford Focus with the 1.6l engine and it couldn't pull the skin off a rice pudding. I would be more interested in the torque figures of both engines. We also have Ford Galaxys here which are basically the VW Sharan. I believe it has the 1.9l 115PS powerplant and despite being significantly bigger than the Focus it is a far better performer.
 

oilhammer

Certified Volkswagen Nut & Vendor
Joined
Dec 11, 2001
Location
outside St Louis, MO
TDI
There are just too many to list....
Lee_Taylor said:
I have driven the Ford Focus with the 1.6l engine and it couldn't pull the skin off a rice pudding. I would be more interested in the torque figures of both engines. We also have Ford Galaxys here which are basically the VW Sharan. I believe it has the 1.9l 115PS powerplant and despite being significantly bigger than the Focus it is a far better performer.
Yes, I have little doubt VAG's engine technology is better than Ford's.
 

jollyGreenGiant

Veteran Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2003
Location
MA
TDI
03 Golf TDI GLS ( my 5th TDI ), 03 Eurovan GLS - VR6 :(
VWoA marketing needs to speak to the torque superiority of the TDI amongst other things ( HP this and that needs to be instead approached from a different tourque biased angle. With our V8 past we should understand better than most why torque is important ), I hope now that VWoA has a 50 State compliant product that they can both supply the demand and also market like there's no tomorrow. Throw down a couple charts showing the power "under the curve" and maybe superimpose that with a couple of the high strung gas engines out there that claim high HP numbers. The US market isn't stupid, they just respond well to 30 second spots that get the testosterone going... Give em what they want to see: Stealth's A3 ripping up a solo course, RallyVW's Golf tearing up Pike's Peak, etc. etc. I'm sure the European TDI racing footage is plentiful as well, and of course why isn't Audi hyping the *&3& out of the R10 dominance? That'll be some serious motivation to Mr. and Mrs. America, they want to see these things race on Sunday and drive them to work in incredible efficiency and comfort on Monday.

We've all learned what makes these modern light duty diesels special, we know they'll be the future, it's the other folks that need to learn about them. It's hard to explain that there is such little compromise between performance and efficiency along with all the tremendous positive side-effects of living with modern diesel technology ( reliability, longevity, traffic crawling, etc. ).


Any commuter that racks up over 15K miles/yr would be very hard pressed to turn in a set of TDI keys after using one for a month, it could be called the "TDI Challenge"... Make a game show!
 
Last edited:

dsimpson313

Veteran Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2006
Location
Central Indiana
TDI
2009 Jetta Sportwagen TDI
jollyGreenGiant said:
Any commuter that racks up over 15K miles/yr would be very hard pressed to turn in a set of TDI keys after using one for a month, it could be called the "TDI Challenge"... Make a game show!
"TDI Challenge".......You should e-mail that idea to VWoA. I'm serious, it's a great idea.
 

TheLongshot

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2003
Location
Burke, VA
TDI
Jetta Wagon '03 Reflex Silver
oilhammer said:
My point remains: new tech seems to be blown on making more power, nothing else. Yeah, they may be quieter, and cleaner, but the added power seems to be the chart topper. Improved economy seems to take a back seat, despite being the main driving force so many people purchase these cars in the first place.
As long as car reviewers and customers focus on power, so will the auto companies. Nothing new here.

Jason
 

jollyGreenGiant

Veteran Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2003
Location
MA
TDI
03 Golf TDI GLS ( my 5th TDI ), 03 Eurovan GLS - VR6 :(
dsimpson313 said:
"TDI Challenge".......You should e-mail that idea to VWoA. I'm serious, it's a great idea.
And get the canned "Thank you for contacting VWoA..." programatically created BS, no thanks... I'm willing to bet the folks that actually do respond to requests that make it to a person probably just have a soundboard to click on full of BS, PC and utterly guttless responses...
 

chewy

Veteran Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2006
Location
CA
TDI
None
Yep. Marketing is very important. Some play on percentages with the hp, torque, and fuel economy vs. the competition should work fairly well.
 

dsimpson313

Veteran Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2006
Location
Central Indiana
TDI
2009 Jetta Sportwagen TDI
jollyGreenGiant said:
And get the canned "Thank you for contacting VWoA..." programatically created BS, no thanks... I'm willing to bet the folks that actually do respond to requests that make it to a person probably just have a soundboard to click on full of BS, PC and utterly guttless responses...
For a VW fan, you sure do harbor a lot of animosity.
 
Top