Which one ? The 125bhp unit or the 140/70bhp unit's.... ?

:confused:

Are we saying the follwoing;

125bhp = 1.4+Turbo

140bhp= 1.4+Turbo+Supercharger

170bhp= 1.4+Turbo+Supercharger

With all the above being badged TSI ??

Sorry, I wasn't very clear, was I.

Yes. I meant that my understanding was that the 125bhp one was turbo only.

While we're on the subject, what's the point of twin turbo engines? Is it one little one that has minimal lag but not as much boost, and then one chuffin' enormous one for the real grunt?

The idea of twin turbo is to have a small turbo that spools up quickly to give low down grunt.

Then a larger turbo that runs at a higher boost to give big power at the top end.

Basically it eliminates turbo lag without losing top end performance as well.

Best of both worlds.

The TFSI (140/170) basically uses a supercharger driven off the engine for low end grunt and then a turbo to make the top end power.

The small supercharger runs direct from engine so the forced induction is available at lower revs than what would be possible with a turbo. Then as soon as the bigger turbo spools up, forced induction is handed over to it to provide the top end power.

EDIT... beaten to it. Remember the twincharger isn't a twin turbo engine.

Aye - I knew the concept of the super/turbo thingy. Ta chaps.

No problem

Has anyone actually driven anything with one of these engines?

I'm interested to know what fuel consumption you would get in everyday driving?

Because the quoted figures are never correct.

Thats the reason for me wanting another diesel realy because driven flat out it still returns respectable economy.

Hope these specs help clear things up a bit...

EA 111

The EA111 series was introduced in the mid 1970s in the Audi 50 and later the VW Polo. It is a series of water cooled three- and four-cylinder gasoline and Diesel engines in a variety of sizes. The overhead cam engine features a crossflow cylinder head design and directly-driven auxiliary units. The exhaust side is in driving direction.

122-170 hp 1.4 TSI

Announced at the 2005 Frankfurt Auto Show to be used in the Golf GT, The 1.4l Twincharger is a TSI engine with a turbocharger and a supercharger in combination. Its downsizing leads to economy, with 14% more power than the 2.0 FSI but consuming 5% less fuel. The mechanical compressor operates at low engine speeds below 2400 rpm to increase low-end power, the turbocharger engages at middle revs, a clutch disengage the supercharger which will then be bypassed once the turbocharger reaches sufficient speed to provide boost above 3500 rpm.

In 2007 Volkswagen announced the 90 kW model which will replace the 1.6 FSI 115 hp (86 kW) engine. This engine differs from the 103 kW and 125 kW models in several ways. It is turbocharger only and has water-cooled intercooler to reduce charge time. The engine has reduced frictional losses, optimized camshafts, new intake port and new high-pressure injector valves. It is also 14 kg lighter than the 125 kW model, all to improve fuel economy and reduce emissions.

Configuration

1390 cm³ straight-4

Head

four-valve, 10:1 compression ratio

Block

grey cast iron, bore * stroke ratio 76.5 * 75.6 mm, 120 bar peak pressures

Fuel

FSI direct petrol injection up to 150 bar, high-pressure injection multiple-hole valve with six fuel outlet elements, injector on the intake side between the intake port and cylinder head seal level

Aspiration

90 kW model

turbocharger with maximum pressure 1.8 bar, water-cooled intercooler integrated into intake manifold

103 kW and 125 kW models

mechanical belt driven Roots compressor operated by a magnetic clutch integrated in a module inside the water pump, internal step-down ratio on the input end of the synchronization gear pair and exhaust turbocharger connected in series, administrated by a control flap, intercooler, 2.5 bar pressure at 1500 rpm.

Output

90 kW (122 PS), 200 Nm over 1500-3500 rpm in the Golf lineup later in 2007

92 kW (125 PS), 200 Nm over 1500-4000 rpm in the Audi A3

103 kW (140 PS), 220 N·m in the Touran from early 2006

125 kW (170 PS) at 6000 rpm, 240 N·m (MEP 21.7 bar) from 1750 to 4500 rpm , 200 N·m from 1250 to 6000 rpm, 7000 rpm max in the Golf GT

Applications VW Golf V, VW Touran, VW Scirocco?, Seat LeonII, Skoda SuperbII, VW Tiguan, VW Eos, Audi A3 II, VW GolfPlus, VW Jetta V/Bora/Vento/Sagitar, VW Passat VI, etc...

P.S. The VW Tiguan uses a 150hp version...

EA888

160 hp (119 kW) - 170 hp (127 kW) 1.8 TFSI I4

Configuration

1798 cc water cooled inline 4, bore 82.5 mm/stroke 84.1 mm

Head

9.6:1 compression ratio, toothed chain driven camshaft, continuous adjusting intake

Block

88 mm cylinder spacing, 33 kg grey cast iron (GJL 250)

Crankcase

two toothed chain driven counter-rotating balancing shafts suppressing second degree free inertial forces and oil-pump

crankshaft

eight counterweights, 58 mm diameter main bearings

Fuel system

Gasoline, Fuel Stratified Injection, up to 150 bar, six-hole injectors, high-pressure pump driven by a fourfold cam on the exhaust camshaft, stainless steel high-pressure lines, dual injection at the admission and compression stroke

Aspiration

Borg Warner K03 watercooled turbocharger, intercooler, charge movement flaps controlling combustion chamber air movement

exhaust

ceramic primary catalytic converter and ceramic close-coupled catalytic converter

Output

118 kW (160 PS) from 5,000 to 6,200 rpm, 250 Nm from 1,500 to 4,200 rpm, 165 Nm at 1,000 rpm

125 kW (170 PS) from 4,800 to 6,200 rpm, 250 Nm from 1,500 to 4,800 rpm, in the Audi A5

application

2006, Audi A3 II, Audi A4 IV, Audi A5 , Seat LeonII,SEAT Altea/XL,Škoda OctaviaII, Skoda SuperbII, Seat ToledoIII, VW Magotan, VW PassatCC etc...

No problem

Has anyone actually driven anything with one of these engines?

I'm interested to know what fuel consumption you would get in everyday driving?

Because the quoted figures are never correct.

Thats the reason for me wanting another diesel realy because driven flat out it still returns respectable economy.

I drove a 1.4 170 when they first put it in the Golf GT. I didn't really rate it as it felt more 1.4 than 170hp if you know what I mean. That said it was a brand new car with less than 50 miles.

Since then, at GTi International, I was given a passenger ride in a DSG equipped one which was quite frantic to say the least. They were using it to sell tyres.

Glad you talked about Gearbox................7 Speed DSG i assume?

Mike

Stick one of the dsg boxes in the new vrs and I'll have a listen.

Hello everyone. Long time lurker so I thought I'd better post something.

Just found the following on Worldcarfans.com:

New Skoda Fabia RS Gets 1.4-litre TSI

So, 1.4 TSi it is then for now.

Shame really as I do like the old PD130 TDi engine and the sudden grunt it gives.

Maybe they'll add one of the new CR TDi's later on - if public driven diesel cars are still within the financial reach of us mere mortals by then. :eek:

That article is sourced from the original Autocar one posted above.

Don't think they go to 170 bhp, more like 150 or 160...............i wonder IF they have a body kit like the S2000 or not?

mike

There's already a 170 bhp 1.4 TSI.

Yes, but Audi or Seat might demand that it only comes with 150 bhp...............vRS Octy was to have 210 BHP, other makes with in VAG got them to turn it down to 180 bhp.

Mike

makes you wonder what makes seat so privileged to put the extra grunt in the cupra? having driven both before i bought the vRS, i wasnt impressed with it

makes you wonder what makes seat so privileged to put the extra grunt in the cupra?

It's VAG's brand strategy. Skoda is generally the more sensible, safe budget brand where Seat is generally the more exciting, sportier budget brand. Although neither are particularly budget these days...

They can't have a sporty Skoda showing up the equivalent Seat.

It's VAG's brand strategy. Skoda is generally the more sensible, safe budget brand where Seat is generally the more exciting, sportier budget brand. Although neither are particularly budget these days...

They can't have a sporty Skoda showing up the equivalent Seat.

Which is a shame as I would never buy a Seat, so there will probably be one less sale for the VAG group, especially if they only do a petrol.:thumbdwn:

Sure I read in one of the motoring mags that Skoda are troubled on the fuel crisis and taxation (such as UK VED) on VRS sales.

VAG may even end up scrapping hot hatches as we know them!

Yes. Jeremy Clarkson said the engine in question was a refined as falling down a flight of stairs or something similar

I think the full quote was

"as smooth as falling downstairs whilst wearing leg calipers" - he was talking about the push-me-pull-you turbo+super Golf 1.4 GT

the Autocar story says:

It takes ever higher mileages to recoup the cost of a diesel model

well, there's an answer to that - don't make the diesel model so much more expensive than the petrol one in the first place. Have the courage to stand up for diesel as a fuel and encourage people to buy cars that use it.

well, there's an answer to that - don't make the diesel model so much more expensive than the petrol one in the first place. Have the courage to stand up for diesel as a fuel and encourage people to buy cars that use it.

It's the gov that load new cars that have derv lumps. Bout £1500 IIRC. Have done for years as the idea was they wouldnt get as much tax from fuel as if you'd bout petrol

If they don't do a Derv, surely they will loose sales and make the next vRS even less profitable??

As I have said, I won't buy a petrol and the tut that Skoda came out with saying about the cost increases is nonsense, I much prefer the feel of a Diesel.

They should have both on offer.

The VED is less on a Derv too, cheaper (even at 10p more) to run than a petrol screamer.

Dark days for Skoda if they don't do both this time?

It's the gov that load new cars that have derv lumps. Bout £1500 IIRC. Have done for years as the idea was they wouldnt get as much tax from fuel as if you'd bout petrol

I thought diesels cost more because the engine is more complicated and hence more expensive. Didn't think it was tax related.

I thought diesels cost more because the engine is more complicated and hence more expensive. Didn't think it was tax related.

So did I??

I thought diesels cost more because the engine is more complicated and hence more expensive. Didn't think it was tax related.

Perhaps I'm recalling things wrongly.

What I can find though, takes 45k to recover the additional costs and make any benefit over petrol:

Diesel cars 'not such a good buy' | This is Money

About Fuel - Why diesel costs more than petrol (even though it is easier to make) - PetrolPrices.com

Why is diesel more expensive than petrol? | This is Money

Cant see why not offering a diesel engine would kill off the VRS? How many average VRS owners will do 45k in their ownership?

I remember when VAG tabled the diesel option, and everyone slated them for killing the spirit of the hot hatch (always petrol until then).