Interesting new engine coming from VW. A 1.4 TSI engine combinining their FSI technology, a supercharger for lower revs and a turbocharger for higher revs. Turbocharger only at the higher rev range.
Figures look intesting for a "small" engine... 167bhp, 177lb ft torque and 39mpg (then again F1 got 1.5 litre engines with 1500bhp years ago). Meant to have very little lag for boost. And it's destined for the VW Golf GT, sitting below the GTi.
If it were April 1st I'd have thought it might have been a leg pull.
|
It's been done before - the Lancia Delta S4 was both supercharged and turbo'd.
A few weeks ago at a car show i saw a Porsche 911 that started life as a normal 911 turbo and has since had a dustbin sized supercharger added for good measure - it is meant to be VERY quick!
|
>>It's been done before
supercharger I would think is better than turbo.But the way it was mentioned suggested turbo was first.Other way round I would think better though cannot see any advantage--Been a bad week so far so may be wrong?????
--
Steve
|
This weeks Autocar mentions the Lancia doing this before. Was that an everyday roadcar? The article mentions the Lancia Delta S4 as a rally-car. It was also used on WW2 aircraft according to Autocar. Anyway...
The article says supercharger comes in for lower revs and the turbo for the higher revs. In between it appears to be both.
|
The S4 was a group B rally car although a limited number were sold to the public in order to homologate the vehicle. Supercharger pulls from low down with the turbo kicking in above about 3500rpm so there is power right across the rev range
|
Reminds me of the Nissan Micra Super Turbo www.j-garage.com/nissan/march/st.htm
Had a 930 cc turbo+supercharged engine producing 110 bhp.
|
If VW bring this engine to market it looks like it will go mainstream. The Golf GT is likely to sell in higher numbers than the GTI. But surely a supercharged turbocharged engine (regardless of capacity) is more costly than say a 2.0 FSI turbo to make?
|
>>...167bhp, 177lb ft torque and 39mpg.
Am I missing something here - most current diesel engines could better all those figure (might need a bit of tweaking for the BHP number, but the others would be way better)?
|
For a petrol engine, the CO2 emissions are quite low, about 177 g/km or thereabouts I think. My old Golf GTI 1.8T was only 148bhp and 155lb ft torque but had emissions around 192g/km for CO2. So more powerful, lower emissions and better/equal mpg.
I'm still not convinced though... got to be costly.
|
|
>>...167bhp, 177lb ft torque and 39mpg. Am I missing something here - most current diesel engines could better all those figure (might need a bit of tweaking for the BHP number, but the others would be way better)?
120d = 163bhp, 245lb ft torque and 49mpg.
|
"Am I missing something here - most current diesel engines...."
But many people hate diesels for a variety of rational and irrational reasons.
|
Yeah, some diesels will better the mpg, torque figures etc, but for a 1.4 petrol, the figures quoted are good, where the maximum for such a capacity is about 100bhp!
|
|
|