Just thougt I would mention this out of interest.
I see VW are starting to sell the Golf with the 1.4 Turbo Supercharged engine (yes 2 chargers - Turbo and Super) with engine outputs of 140 and 170 bhp.
It will be interesting to see how these sell against say a diesel as typical VW they are charging a premium - £16K and £18K respectively for a 1.4 golf - with a lot of power admittedly.
What do people think - will there be any reliability issues - I know Lancia have done this previously.
I remember the old saying that there is no substitute for CC's - or something like that.
I would be interested in peoples views.
|
|
I really like the idea of it, would be interesting to see what the tuning firms can do to it. I can see 250bhp from a 1.4 :-)
|
|
Must be as fragile as anything though.
|
"Must be as fragile as anything though."
Yes that crossed my mind but I am not really knowledgeable enough to know if this is correct ?
Presumably the 1.4 engine will have to work harder (even with it's 2 chargers) to produce the same amount of power as say a 2.4 audi engine - if you know what I mean ?
|
|
Without a doubt! Still, good to see something intruiging like this for a change, rather than just throwing CC's at it, USA style.
|
My 600cc motorbike gave 95bhp and that's without a supercharger or turbocharger, nothing special.
I suppose they're using a fairly big turbocharger to get the peak power up, hence the supercharger is needed to avoid low speed lag.
Looks interesting!
Gareth
|
|
Do you think it'll be as popular as the Micra was? ;)
|
1500cc gave 1000bhp+ from the BMW F1 turbo engine in qualifying in the 80´s.
Obviously it was running on pretty special fuel, but each engine block had been run in to 100,000km before being adapted to its F1 application.
Seriously though, I´d be interested in what Aprilia has to say about these high-output petrol engines in the light of the problems he has come across in the MB common rail diesel engines.
Regards all,
Barchettaman
|
b
the qualifying engines were known as "grenade" engines. I'm sure you can work that one out...
JH
|
|
|
|
My 600cc motorbike gave 95bhp and that's without a supercharger or turbocharger, nothing special. I suppose they're using a fairly big turbocharger to get the peak power up, hence the supercharger is needed to avoid low speed lag. Looks interesting! Gareth
Likewise my Hornet 600, but what your bike and mine lacks is the torque delivery to get a car rolling and accelerating in a meaningful manner. 95bhp and 50lbft torque (or whatever) at a zillion revs is fine when propelling 170kg plus rider, but less so when lugging 1400kg, four passengers, and a boot load of holiday clobber.
As I know from my software tuned V70 a wide-plateau of turbocharged torque (444NM) from 2.4 litres makes a *world* of difference to progress.
|
As I know from my software tuned V70 a wide-plateau of turbocharged torque (444NM) from 2.4 litres makes a *world* of difference to progress.
Sorry to hijack the thread ......but
SJB,
What effect have your modifications had on your fuel consumption?
|
Sorry to hijack the thread ......but SJB, What effect have your modifications had on your fuel consumption?
The last time I posted on this subject was here www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?v=e&t=31...# The actual MPG was 29.1.
Using the extra available power of course drinks more fuel than in standard trim, but most time in any given journey is spent going with the flow on part throttle. It is in such unstressed mode that the economy gains associated with higher boost occur, so with my driving regime overall the car burns less fuel than before.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Must be fragile or something.....
as an example, my 150bhp Diesel BMW Compact engine ripped itself off its mountings after 8000 miles. What would 170bhp be like in a VW Golf?
|
|
I'm sure they've tested it properly etc already, they wouldnt sell it otherwise. sounds good, 38mpg combined for 170bhp :)
|
They must think they can get away with it, and they are VW after all.
Are they relying too heavily on the durability of modern tightly assembled bottom ends?
Actually a 1400cc engine that put out 170BHP (not 140 so much although that might last longer) wd definitely have a lot of appeal. But do these two force-feeding devices bloat the engine with belts, pulleys and red-hot heavyweight iron castings of generally escargot shape? Does it weigh as much as a diesel?
If it doesn't, and lasts say 80,000 miles befire you have to start worrying and watching the dials, what a bargain. Even if it is a boring old People's Car.
|
|
|
|
|
|
What's the difference between a 1.4 producing 140/170bhp and say a 1.8 (VW's own 1.8T) which produces anywhere between 150 to 225+ bhp in it's various guises?
If there are concerns, surely they would be the same?
|
Probably a scheme for maximising tax breaks somewhere. The extra cost of producing a 1.8 or 2-litre engine must be marginal, and totally outweighed by the forced induction bits.
Sounds fun, though!
|
I remember the old saying that there is no substitute for CC's - or something like that.
"No replacement for displacement" is the phrase you're after.
hth
Ian
|
That's the one. Just reading in Practical Classics about the Plymouth Barracuda, sixties US muscle car; one version has a straight 6 of just under 4 litres, has 160bhp, ie LESS than that 1.4!
What times we live in!
A.
--
Dr Alex Mears
MG BGT 1971
If you are in a hole stop digging...unless
you are a miner.
|
Yes apm, but the six wasn't the muscle Barracuda! I had a Plymouth from 1964 with the same engine, smooth and gutless unit, very leisurely, surprisingly economical too at mimser speeds.
Early 50s Ferraris used to get 160BHP from a 1.5litre V12. More than 100BHP per litre was regarded as very high tune in those days.
|
More than 100BHP per litre was regarded as very high tune in those days.
Even today I think 100bhp/litre would be considered "high tune" for a normally aspirated engine.
IIRC it was the Honda 1.6 VTEC engine (in the CRX) from the mid/late '80s that was the first so called mass produced car to achieve this figure.
|
That car was amazing. My mate had a J reg 1.6 and I think it was pushing 190 bhp!
|
|
|
|
If it works, it'll sell well in markets such as Ireland, Denmark and Italy where road tax rises steeply with cc to discourage ownership of larger-engined, supposedly less environmentally-friendly, cars.
No doubt Irish fleets would be full of 1.4 tubro-supercharged Passats instead of the wheezy 1.6 100bhp variants the sales reps of the country lumber about in at present...
|
|
Modern 600cc superbikes (R6 etc) are IRO 130 bhp, over 200bhp/litre, 1000cc R1s etc are IRO 180 bhp and the ZZR1400 Kawasaki is 190 bhp, 200 bhp at speed with ram air. All with no turbo etc though as SJB says a bike engine does not need to produce the same torque at low revs as a car engine.
|
Yes - I have followed this VW development with interest - we now have four "Gti"s to consider
1. 1.4 GT - discussed
2. the new V6 2.3
3. standard 2.0 Gti
4. New diesel on the way with ? 170 bhp
My question - as an engine - which is really better as an economy / performance mix than the "old" 1.8RT 20 v remapped to 200 bhp?
Mine does 38-40 mpg on average, 116000 on the clock and has 247 lb ft - I am sure that the dynamics of the new car are better but are these 4 golf Gti Mk Vs overkill.
With petrol at £5 a gallon (or pretty near)- I wonder if the 1.4 and diesel will sell best...
|
|
|
|
|
|
