I've got an 06 2.0 TFSI allegedly, which according to the manual and the fuel filler flap should be fed with 98 RON. There seems to be a difference between TFSI and TSI engines mentioned on these pages, and a thread about petrol suggesting that some engines are specified for 95 RON and bunging in anything higher rated is probably pointless (from an increased performance perspective anyway)

Well - It's "F" - stands for fuel - which is injected at a high pressure. I would assume TSI perhaps doesn't use a similarly powered injection system? Also, it gets confusing as the 1.4 TSI is "turbo supercharged injection" yet the 1.2 and 1.8 are just turbo?

Well - It's "F" - stands for fuel - which is injected at a high pressure. I would assume TSI perhaps doesn't use a similarly powered injection system? Also, it gets confusing as the 1.4 TSI is "turbo supercharged injection" yet the 1.2 and 1.8 are just turbo?

the Yeti is supplied with just a turbo with its 1.4tsi.......

as said above this isnt the case with the 1.4TSI always being twincharged. On the lower models below 122hp they are just single turbo.

The 2.0TSI has a different intake and a higher capacity Fuel system, both of which were big restrictions on the TFSI. Its also alot more responsive to tuning.

The 2.0TFSI is meant to be used with 98ron fuel, it says so in the manual, and on the fuel filler cap, so why skimp and put lower fuel in. Seems stupid to buy this sort of car in the first place. The difference over a full tank of fuel if for instance VPower is 4p/litre more expensive is only £2.40, hardly bank breaking

Edited 18 April, 201115 yr by janner_Sy

as said above this isnt the case with the 1.4TSI always being twincharged. On the lower models below 122hp they are just single turbo.

The 2.0TSI has a different intake and a higher capacity Fuel system, both of which were big restrictions on the TFSI. Its also alot more responsive to tuning.

The 2.0TFSI is meant to be used with 98ron fuel, it says so in the manual, and on the fuel filler cap, so why skimp and put lower fuel in. Seems stupid to buy this sort of car in the first place. The difference over a full tank of fuel if for instance VPower is 4p/litre more expensive is only £2.40, hardly bank breaking

Agree. I get about 20-30 miles more per tankful so it's actually cheaper. I know FSI stands for Fuel Stratified Injection, so guessing the T if for Turbo. Just wondered what the TSI was. Is this the later (newer) engine?

I googled a bit more, and in VAG speak TSI is twincharger stratified injection. It has a supercharger and a turbocharger so small capacity petrol engines perform like larger capacity engines. Examples are the Golf 1.4 TSI, Alfa Giulietta 1.4 etc all banging out around 170-180 BHP and similar torque in old money. Not sure that the 2.0TSI engine uses this in the Octavia though....

Edited 18 April, 201115 yr by stever750

Agree. I get about 20-30 miles more per tankful so it's actually cheaper. I know FSI stands for Fuel Stratified Injection, so guessing the T if for Turbo. Just wondered what the TSI was. Is this the later (newer) engine?

TSI is just turbo stratified injection. Its got a stronger block, better fuel pump (the old one struggled to make 130bar, hence the upgrades, the new one makes 150bar), the intake is improved (similar to the induction kits on the TFSI) and its a different turbo

beat me to it.

as said above this isnt the case with the 1.4TSI always being twincharged. On the lower models below 122hp they are just single turbo.

The 2.0TSI has a different intake and a higher capacity Fuel system, both of which were big restrictions on the TFSI. Its also alot more responsive to tuning.

The 2.0TFSI is meant to be used with 98ron fuel, it says so in the manual, and on the fuel filler cap, so why skimp and put lower fuel in. Seems stupid to buy this sort of car in the first place. The difference over a full tank of fuel if for instance VPower is 4p/litre more expensive is only £2.40, hardly bank breaking

Mine doesnt say anything about 98ron on the cap or book. i've used both and cant tell any difference personally.

Mine states 98RON (95) on the fuel filler flap. It can run on 95, but at a reduced performance according to the handbook.

TFSI is engine EA113, TSI is engine EA888.

"This latest EA888 family of internal combustion engines is anticipated to be an eventual complete replacement of the EA113 range. It was wholly designed and developed by AUDI AG. The only common feature with its predecessors is the sharing of the same 88 millimetres (3.46 in) cylinder spacing - which keeps the engine length relatively short, meaning it can be installed either transversely or longitudinally. Grey cast iron (GJL 250) remains the choice material for the cylinder block and crankcase, due to its inherent good acoustic dampening properties. This all-new EA888 range is notable for utilising simplex roller chains to drive the two overhead camshafts, instead of the former engines' toothed-rubber timing belt. Like the final developments of the former EA113 engine generation, all EA888s only use the Audi-created Fuel Stratified Injection (FSI) direct injection. Furthermore, EA888 engines are also able utilise the Audi-developed 'valvelift' technology, which complements the existing variable valve timing. This new family of engines is scheduled to be universally available for all markets on five continents, within all marques of the Volkswagen Group. The former EA113 range still remains in production." -Wikipedia

EA113 has its dip stick in the middle in front of the cylinder block, EA888 dip stick is on the left hand side on the driver side of the engine bay. EA888 runs happily on 95 octane, will run on 91 octane. EA888 tends to start producing maximum torque anywhere from 100 rpm lower and max power 500 rpm lower. Slightly lower revs required to produce torque and power make it easier to get better fuel consumption.

EA888 more complex Engine Management unit makes it harder to put on a different mapping but result can be better because of more interpolated mapping points and better fuel system mentioned above.

They are gems of engine. Just a shame we do not get offered the even clever version Audi get with variable valve timing. The torque figures are staggering and this produces even better acceleration and fuel consumption.

Edited 18 April, 201115 yr by lol

because of more interpolated mapping points

Both ECUs have 255 interpolation points between axis and map values, and both share exactly the same 8/16bit axis data.