2009 vrs tsi or tfsi?

[Rab W]

Hey,

Seen alot of parts and remaps with differant engine names. What engines in a FL vrs 2.0T?

Whats the differance?

[JR RS]

the facelift vrs has the "TSI" (CCTA EA888) engine.

- TSI Trans CCZA ROW 2.0 TFSI 147kW (200 PS)

the pre-facelift has the "TFSI" (BWA EA113) engine

- FSI Trans BWA ROW 2.0 TFSI 147kW (200 PS)

they r a number of different components. the most obvious visual difference is the air-intake piping, and the position of the oil dipstick.

2L T FSI...

2L T TSI....

Edited 27 December, 2011 by JR RS

[vRSy]

Different turbos and high pressure fuel pumps as well. TSI is a big improvement. Essentially the tsi ironed out all the flaws of the tfsi

[gord]

Also doesn't the tsi have a chain instead of a timing belt?

[Guest]

Also doesn't the tsi have a chain instead of a timing belt?

Yes

[silver1011]

Also doesn't the tsi have a chain instead of a timing belt?

Yes

Which isn't necessarily a good thing by the way.

[DGW]

http://www.volkspage.net/technik/ssp/ssp/SSP_337.pdf

http://golfmkv.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=78140&d=1314738013

These are worth a read.

[Guest]

Which isn't necessarily a good thing by the way.

why not?

[Stoofa]

Which isn't necessarily a good thing by the way.

Why would this not be a good thing?

A chain and belt perform in the same way.

A chain does not require replacement where as a belt does. This means in theory no "fear" of the chain breaking and causing a major failure in the engine department and no expensive service when the belt requires changing.

I see a chain as having the advantage in every single department. Can you explain why this is not the case?

[Rab W]

Cheers guys answers all my questions!

[juan27]

Which isn't necessarily a good thing by the way.

Do tell? Bit noisier perhaps but what's the downside apart from that?

[Andypandy TFSI]

surely the chain needs changing at some point, I have a mitsubishi Delica and it has a timing chain. Mitsubishi recommend every 60,000 miles.

I know it;'s a different ball park type of car but surely the chains do eventually start showing signs of wear.

[Anddenton]

surely the chain needs changing at some point, I have a mitsubishi Delica and it has a timing chain. Mitsubishi recommend every 60,000 miles.

I know it;'s a different ball park type of car but surely the chains do eventually start showing signs of wear.

Chains will start to rattle over high millage and even eventually jump a tooth, putting the timing out but they very rarely ever snap.

[dainott]

FSI is a good engine, TSI is an outstanding engine

[07 vRS Taxi]

So does anyone know why Audi still use the TFSI and not the new TSI? Audi usually use the best set ups maybe they know something we dont? Maybe the TSI is cheaper to make? Just a theory ;-)

[FIBAMAN]

My old Merc C class had 213,000 miles on when I parted company, no rattles, no issues - absolutely sound. Issues could arise depending on whether the chain is single or duplex.

ps it was still on the original clutch as well.

[silver1011]

why not?

Can you explain why this is not the case?

Do tell? Bit noisier perhaps but what's the downside apart from that?

Please don't take my original post out of context; I did say that a chain isn't necessarily always a better option than a belt. There are advantages and disadvantages of both (this list is not exhaustive)...

Timing chain (advantages): Typically lasts the lifetime of the engine.

Timing chain (disadvantages): Less efficient, noisier and more expensive than a timing belt.

Timing belt (advantages): Less flexing resulting in better camshaft timing/efficiency, reduced friction losses as the belt has more contact area, decreased energy loss through vibration (in effect a belt has vibration dampening).

Timing belt (disadvantages): Needs to be replaced at specified intervals.

[blackspaven]

Why would this not be a good thing?

A chain and belt perform in the same way.

A chain does not require replacement where as a belt does. This means in theory no "fear" of the chain breaking and causing a major failure in the engine department and no expensive service when the belt requires changing.

I see a chain as having the advantage in every single department. Can you explain why this is not the case?

 

I presume you've not seen the sticky at the top of the page about the tensioner breaking and frying the whole engine??

[chr1staylor]

I presume you've not seen the sticky at the top of the page about the tensioner breaking and frying the whole engine??

What, the one that didn't exist until 2 years after he wrote that post?

[Stoofa]

I presume you've not seen the sticky at the top of the page about the tensioner breaking and frying the whole engine??

 

WOW - that's right, you have a go at me based on a post I made over 3yrs ago!!

 

I also stand by my far more up to date stance (IE, something that I've said in the last 6 months) that the MAJORITY of the chain-driven engines have absolutely no issues what so ever.

The sheer number of these engines in existence and the sheer number of failures we hear about would, and I'm making an educated guess here, we're talking about less than 1%.

 

Attempting to make it sound like an "when" rather than an "if" is scare mongering at the highest level.

Edited 8 February, 2015 by Stoofa