JPH0091

Your are right. But the important point is the range at max engine torque and when it starts. Even if it has always higher torque values, the 320Nm as a narrower range at its max torque, starting at higher RPM. it's max torque value will induce longer gears. At 1250rpm, even if it delivers the same torque than 250Nm version, it will have to cope with smaller transmission ratio, and will deliver less torque and power to the wheels than the 250Nm version. In terms of performances, you don't really care the value of max engine torque as long as you can design the right associated gearbox. The main advantage of a higher torque for the same power is mostly regarding consumption reduction.

No, it's not bad. All the contrary. The torque is limited to 250Nm, yes. But It is availaible quite sooner (1250 rpm) and much longer (5500 rpm) than on the 320Nm version. On the other hand, the development of the gears are shorter. This compensates for the lower engine torque, so that the torque transmitted to the wheels (the actual torque moving the car) is globally the same. At the end, you get the same performances as the 320Nm version, whatever the speed you are. And you have a larger range of use for your engine. We tell more "souplesse", in french. I don't know how it translates properly, maybe flexibility here, as a contributor to the driving pleasure. I've explained this here, if you read french: http://www.forum-auto.com/forum2.php?config=marques.inc&cat=97&post=3086&page=3&sondage=0&owntopic=1&trash=&trash_post=&print=&numreponse=0&quote_only=&new=&nojs=0#t280686 Never try to assess a car on the basis of its max engine torque; you need much more information like the power and torque curves, and mainly, the transmission ratios of the gearbox. If engineers have worked properly, however, the max power remains a good indicator. Some explainations below, where you can see the 2.0 TDI 150 is always less performant in the Octavia than the 1.4 TSI, even 140hp: http://www.forum-auto.com/forum2.php?config=automobile-pratique.inc&cat=12&post=386231&page=1&sondage=0&owntopic=1&trash=&trash_post=&print=&numreponse=0&quote_only=&new=&nojs=0

That's the advantage to learn international english. I've no idea what you mean; nor do I care...

Interesting to find you so self confident, when obviously you have no idea what you're talking about.

I think it is the same. You are the one introducing a doubt that the issue could be caused by the dis/re-assembling done by willovrs.

I didn't mention any removal and reassembling by the users. In the cases I'm refering to, the cause was the bad design of the exhausts.

Many RS TDI owners complained about this issue on french forums. Bumpers were replaced under warranty. That"s a clear and known design issue.

On the 2.0 TDI 150, with the manual gearbox in 6th gear, the max engine torque starts to be available at 100km/h (62mph). This should not be much different with the 6 gears DSG. In the same exercise, the 1.4 TSI 140 would allow shifting in 6th gear from 70km/h (43mph). See the graph(*) below, showing the engine torque on one hand, and the torque transmitted to the wheel (what makes the car accelerate) on the other hand. Comparison done between the O3 2.0 TDI 150 Manual (black curves) and O3 1.4 TSI 140 Manual (blue curves). Your observation is the consequence of the quite narrow usable rev range of the diesel engine, and the longer development of its transmission, needed to cope with its high engine torque. Transmission ratio in 6th gear is designed to bring torque values (thus power) to the wheels close to the one provided by the petrol engine at high speed (>100km/h). The consequence for the diesel is a lack of torque in 6th gear at low speed (below 100km/h and 1750 rpm). For more flexibility, and ability to drive on the torque at low/middle speeds, you should have bought the petrol. (*) (Details: Curves are showing torque values depending on the car speed, not revs. That's the reason why, having different ratios in 6th gears, the engine torque curves are more or less translated to the right. For a selected gear, here the 6th, there is a direct translation between the engine rev and the car speed. This allows, knowing the engine torque curve based on the revs, to build the engine torque curve based on the car speed. The torque transmitted to the wheel is a direct translation (homothetia actually) from the engine torque based on the transmition ratio)

Renault just issued a 250hp version from its Clio RS, 1.6 turbo as well.

TMWNA would still be within the statistical shape... at the edge of it, but still within

I think these are very good results, for this engine.

The design of these engines has been driven by the NEDC homologation cycle. The one everybody is now well aware was completely inacurate. I believe these engines will become obsolete as soon as the new WLTC cycle is put in place. Few months ago, I've made some research based on Spritmonitor data. On the Ford Focus 1.0 125 Ecoboost, the average fuel consumption in real life was 43% higher than the manufacturer figures, based on a population of 184 users. It was only 18% higher (than the manufacturer figures) for the Octavia 1.2 TSI 105 (79 users), 24% higher for the Octavia 1.4 TSI 140 (113 users) and also 24% higher for the Golf 7 1.2 TSI 85 (123 users). The actual average consumption was higher for the Ford (6.72l/100km) than for the Octavia 1.4 TSI 140 (6.59l/100km). Manufacturer figures being respectively 4.7 and 5.3. So, if the new 1.0 is a pleasant, less heavy and still as powerful engine, it might have an interest over the 1.2. But I wouldn't bet one instant on a better fuel economy...

I prefer having it heavier as well. Have put it in Sport in the Drive Mode Selection settings.

With the DSG in Sport mode, the gears wIll be shifted later, the engine going up at higher revs. The acceleration will be improved and the performances slightly better.

This was the previous (mkII) TDi vRS version. It is more at match with the new 1.4 TSi. I'd say this is a bit excessive. The RS diesel is very close in performances. The 1.8 TSi is more flexible, it has more capability to be driven 'on the torque' at low speed than the diesel, and then, it's able to go up 6500 rpm still pushing. But on pure performances, they are nearly at par. The handicaps of the RS are its weight and its narrow (comparatively) usable rev range.