|
Does anyone know anymore info about these engines? My understanding is that they are a 'common rail' petrol engine, if true, what this kind of technology has done for diesels, should make for a fantastic engine?
|
|
I was underwelmed with the 1.6FSI fitted to the A2. It didn't feel half as pokey as the 1.8 Focus I was comparing it with and it only had 5 bhp difference. Since then I've read about owners who are less than impressed with the drive and the higher than expected fuel consumption figures.
|
|
|
I once had a A2 1.6FSI for the day and found the engine needed plenty of welly to get it moving off the line.
I have also heard complaints about the fuel consumption not meeting peoples expectations (based on tales from Audi and the dealers).
|
|
Part of the problem is the need for 98 Octane - otherwise the economy and performance suffer. Plus most of the power is well up the rev range, where it uses up more fuel !
|
Lifted from Audi site: FSI - direct fuel injection - is the biggest advance in petrol engine design since fuel injection replaced carburettors.
Conventional petrol injection mixes fuel with air in the inlet manifold, so the fuel-air mix always remains the same at any load. In contrast, FSI injects a precisely-metered jet of fuel direct into the combustion chamber. This gives the best of both worlds - exceptional performance at full throttle, exceptional efficiency at part load. And low emissions at every engine
|
I thought I saw somewhere they had to run on Ultra low sulphur petrol aswell?
Alfa have a similar engine, called JTS (Jet thrust stoichiometric) which has a very similar action, but runs on normal 95 RON unleaded
|
|
Sorry to come in late on this one but thought I should post something on here to clear up a few misconceptions. I'm a freelance journalist, and do a fair share of work at Autocar, What Car?, Autosport etc and worked full-time on Autocar for just over three years so know a little about FSI tech. The engines (used by Audi, VW) will only return the sort of fuel figures the manufacturers are quoting if they are run on sulphur-free petrol - which isn't available in the UK. Go into any VW showroom and ask about this and they'll say you can run their FSI cars on Shell Optimax. They say this because some owners have experienced pinking problems and think that the higher octane rating (and higher price) will sort it. It doesn't. Sulphur is the key here and Optimax (also BP Ultimate) doesn't have any less than regular unleaded fuel. Interestingly, in the new Golf ads in magazines, VW mentions that sulphur-free fuel is coming to the UK during 2004. Alas, it doesn't seem to have told its dealers as they're still saying they don't know when it's due here.
|
Supersub: I'm not sure your facts are correct. From Petro Industry News Autumn 2000:
"Shell was the first fuel company to introduce sulphur-free fuel in Germany this summer. The new Shell Optimax was developed together with Volkswagen and is already available at over 900 fuel stations.
The new fuel has a sulphur content of less than 10 ppm (parts per million) and already goes much further than the limit set for Europe coming into force in 2005, which still permits a sulphur content of 50 ppm. According to Shell, using Shell Optimax reduces total emissions by 15 % and benzene emissions by up to 30 %.
Dr. Dieter Walter, technical specialist for fuels at Ford, congratulated Shell on this product and commented that "Shell has often taken a pioneering role in the progressive development of fuels, so it doesn't surprise me that they are playing an important part in the introduction of sulphur-free fuels.
|
|
|
|
Lifted from Audi site: FSI - direct fuel injection - is the biggest advance in petrol engine design since fuel injection replaced carburettors.
LOL..!
Direct petrol injection has been around since before WWII. The Messerschmidt fighters used direct injection petrol engines. Some of the 'old 'uns' might also remember the horrible Lucas direct injection system used on the Triumph TR-series cars.
There are lots of problems with direct injection, not least of which can be poor atomisation of the fuel. Some companies (e.g. Hitachi) have developed injectors which contain an ultrasonic transducer which aims to atomise the fuel droplets as they leave the injector.
To be honest I can't see why manufacturers pursue this technology. Mitsubishi were there a good few years ago with their GDi engines, and I was never that impressed with the ones I drove.
|
Aprilia
Yes, I remember the Lucas unit - one of my friends actually hand reprofiled the worn injector pump cam on his 2.5 PI, and amazingly it ran well afterwards. As I recall, though, this was 'standard' injection into the inlet manifold, not direct injection to the cylinder. I recall him at one time pulling out injectors one by one on the running engine to identify the worn ones with the duff spray pattern!
Regards
John S
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have the 2.0 FSI engine and tbh it does not have enough power especially when you want to overtake going up a hill and the car in front is doing the same speed as you, let's say 60mph. You just can't trust the car to get you past safely and quickly. That's why I want to trade it in and get the 3.2 Quattro, now that has trust and respect.
Petrol consumption is not too bad with the 2.0 FSI, the only thing that get's on my nerves is the oil level, you need to continually check it before going in a long journey. I thought in this day and age this would have been banished. the dealer says this is normal. Mmmmm. I don't car, I'll get rid soon. Ha ha
|
|
They do have VERY low CO2 emissions for a petrol engine. They will therefore be attractive for company car drivers who don't like diesel engines.
|
|
I've got an A4 Avant 2.0 FSI. 150 bhp allegedly, and it feels OK to me. Drags around quite a big car well enough. Uses no oil, 38 mpg driven thoughtfully (but not slowly). That's on 95 RON fuel.
|
|
|
|
I've got a 3.2 A3 - it loves a drink, it's showing 22.6 on the fuel computer at the moment, car is just over 1000 miles old, had it as high as 28 when running in on a long trip (could still do 107mph though - ahem). The tank range is a better way of looking at it. I'd say 200+ miles a tank in town and 300 on the open road. The tank is quite small though, it only takes £40 of optimax at a push.
I'm toying with getting an M5 or a VX Monaro, if I can live with 22mpg I can live with 18.
|
I found a useful web-site once - must try and find the link again - about how cars can be made to meet forthcoming stricter emissions controls.
In essence, the only way to meet the forthcoming Euro 5 standard, in place later this decade, will be to use direct-injection into the petrol engine, running no-sulphur petrol (something about not having to burn the sulphur out of the cat every so often).
What was also interesting was a discussion on how cars will be able to meet Euro 6 (!). Apparently, the only way for petrol engines will be to dispense with the camshaft, valves etc, and have fuel directly injected into the cylinder using an electronic actuator or something... should make tuning engines a doddle, just plug your laptop into the ECU.....
|
I was told by a development engineer at Ford that the VW FSI engine will only return improved economy in the first few thousand miles of operation.....
My understanding is direct injection petrol engines are supposed to run very lean to give improved economy under low power operation. Unfortunately emission regulations require the engine to run rich occasionally to 'purge' pollutants from the catalyst and also remove sulphur contamination. Sulphur in petrol tends to 'poison' the catalyst and reduce it's efficiency, so after a certain mileage, the frequency of purging increases and the economy advantage over a conventional port injected engine is lost.
Generally the driver for direct injection is fuel economy. The emission problem is worse for DI because three way catalyst do not work with this technology and they can produce more soot particles.
|
|
Direct Injection works if you have no-sulphur petrol, then it doesn't need the 'purge' - but a bit of a problem until no-sulphur petrol arrives, of course. I wonder how many DI Petrol engines are going to have problems in a few years' time ..... ?
|
|
No-sulphur petrol HAS arrived. Ignore the subbing (sobbing?) jounalist above! The Optimax and BP Ultimate petrols are <10ppm of sulphur, max, generally 8ppm. 1% = 10,000ppm. 10ppm= 1/1000%. In a full 55litre tank given some assumptions about density, you'd have 0.55cc of sulphur present, if i've claculated properly. You probably couldn't get it much lower than that! Now I await correction from resident chemists on how 10ppm is going to foul up the catalysts:)
|
|
Bortones, your facts are all wrong. The Optimax sold in Germany is not the same Optimax we get in the UK. The 'Shell expert' on the Optimax UK website admits as much, saying that no-sulphur fuel comes to the UK later this year. In fact, the Optimax in each country it's sold in is refined to suit that particular market. The only thing they have in common is the name. Perhaps you've been sniffing too much of the stuff?
|
|
|
|
|
DI engines do require regenerating when used with fuel containing no sulphur. The main purpose of the 'purge' is to allow the catalyst to reduce pollutant nitrogen oxide to nitrogen by temporarily running the engine 'rich'. The frequency of 'purging' is related to the sulphur content of the fuel, the higher the sulfur content the more frequent is the requirement for purging. From the figures i have, if fuel with les than 10ppm is used the fuel economy reduction should be very small.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have a 2.0l FSI and it drinks oil - 0.5l/1000km@25k miles! Audi advise that "this is to specification" and there is nothing wrong with my car! Last week it burnt out the exhaust valves and now Audi are reviewing my problem!! I'm trying to return the car as it is not fit for service!
|
Each to their own but why does anyone bother with the VW/Audi petrol units when the TDI diesel range is so superior under normal motoring conditions?
Baz
|
They're probably all like me. Or, I should say "like I used to be."
I've had Audi petrol engined cars for around 10 years now and was seriously prejudiced against noisy, rattly, smelly, slow diesels.
Took delivery of my first diesel on 1st Sept. 400 miles so far. What a revelation!
Why did it take me so long to find out about these super diesels? I can't see me going back to petol now.
|
The FSI was the most tax efficient option available at the time! Given the choice again it would be a diesel everytime!!
Audi have fixed my car but cannot confirm that its oil consumption will be any better than 0.5l/1000km!! (this is at 28k miles!!)
When questioned over the cause of the exhaust valve burn out they did not comment!! I think i'll be back again at Audi with burnt out exhaust valves before 50k miles!!
|
|
Had a MK5 Golf 1.6 FSI 6 speed a couple of weeks ago as a hire car, returned 49mpg at a steady 70mph over 500 miles of motorway driving. It did feel a bit gutless unless you thrashed it but then all sub 2l petrols do to me now I'm used to the grunt of turbo diesels.
|
|
OK, so it has been mentioned but not commented on. How does the Alfa JTS engine perform in comparison to the (it appears) below par Audi/VW units?
|
|
After my new cylinder head the car ran fine (zero oil consumption) until 60k miles, then it all started again - Oil consumption shot too 1ltr/600miles. Engine mis-fire, sluggish response etc etc
Audi reported that they could not find any problems (They had the vehicle every week for 5 weeks, each time I had it back it would mis-fire within a day!!)
On my last collection the vehicle lasted sub 100 miles when it developed a massive mis-fire and would not re-start. The Audi dealership that recovered my vehicle has now admitted a Valve Stem Seal issue with this type of engine AND the first cylinder head replacement was TOO EARLY to have the fix. My second head in going this week!!! Also - Audi have stopped production with this type of engine BUT have kept the brand name due to image (So new vehicles maybe ok)!!
IF you have one of these DO NOT ACCEPT high oil consumption as normal!!! It will lead to an overheat of the ignition coils, spark plugs, EGR valve and ultimately the exhaust valves!!!
Second hand - avoid them totally as the cost for all the above AND a contaminated CAT would not be worth the hassle!!!
Good luck - My next car will be a Diesel and NOT an Audi one at that!!
|
|
|
|
|
