And what about the 1.3ltr turbo starlet GT thats about 15 years old?? highley stressed? they've only had 15 year's to research lol and the turbo on the VRS is tiny in comparrison to most turbo's

They were only 100bhp/litre standard.

Ford are also procuding a 1.0 (3 cylinder) twin turbo ecoboost 180bhp

Heard that rumoured, although they have said possibly a small Electric superchager would fill in the very bottom end torque then a larger VNT turbo to do the mid and top end rpm.

177bhp from an engine block that would sit inside a sheet of A4 paper.

Cheers

Lee

...and the turbo on the VRS is tiny in comparrison to most turbo's

I thought I read it was the K03S on the TSI?

It's tiny compared those fitted to the 100 litre V20 turbo engines I work on that's for sure. lol

Baaa

turbochargers the size of cars.......

http://en.wikipedia....-Sulzer_RTA96-C

Technical data (as of 2008)

engine configuration turbocharged two-stroke diesel straight engine, 6 to 14 cylinders cylinder bore 960 mm piston stroke 2500 mm engine displacement 1820 litres per cylinder engine speed 22–102 revolutions per minute torque 7,603,850 newton metres (5,608,310 lbf·ft) @ 102 rpm mean effective pressure 1.96 MPa @ full load, 1.37 MPa @ maximum efficiency (85% load) mean piston speed 8.5 metre per second specific fuel consumption 171 g/(kW·h) (126 g/(bhp·h), approx. 3.80 litres per second) @ full load; 163 g/(kW·h) (120 g/(bhp·h)) @ maximum efficiency power up to 5720 kW per cylinder, 34320 to 80080;kW (46 680 to 108 920 bhp) altogether power density 29.6 to 34.8 kW per tonne, 2300 tonnes for the 14 cylinder version amount of fuel injected in a single cycle of single piston ~160 g (about 6.5 ounces) @ full load crankshaft weight 300 tons^[3]

Edited 3 May, 201214 yr by lol

Baaa

turbochargers the size of cars.......

http://en.wikipedia....-Sulzer_RTA96-C

Technical data (as of 2008)

engine configuration turbocharged two-stroke diesel straight engine, 6 to 14 cylinders cylinder bore 960 mm piston stroke 2500 mm engine displacement 1820 litres per cylinder engine speed 22–102 revolutions per minute torque 7,603,850 newton metres (5,608,310 lbf·ft) @ 102 rpm mean effective pressure 1.96 MPa @ full load, 1.37 MPa @ maximum efficiency (85% load) mean piston speed 8.5 metre per second specific fuel consumption 171 g/(kW·h) (126 g/(bhp·h), approx. 3.80 litres per second) @ full load; 163 g/(kW·h) (120 g/(bhp·h)) @ maximum efficiency power up to 5720 kW per cylinder, 34320 to 80080;kW (46 680 to 108 920 bhp) altogether power density 29.6 to 34.8 kW per tonne, 2300 tonnes for the 14 cylinder version amount of fuel injected in a single cycle of single piston ~160 g (about 6.5 ounces) @ full load crankshaft weight 300 tons^[3]

But that's a diesel!!!

But that's a diesel!!!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A proper diesel, two stroke. Diesels are suited where weight does not matter too much, ie few changes of velocity ie ships, trains, static engines.

Edited 4 May, 201214 yr by lol

Sheesh...

In the first 36,000 miles, my Scirocco (1.4 TSI 160) was faultless. For the next 4 or 5000 miles, it would be between 10 and 1000 miles before sitting in the dealers workshop for days or even weeks. Dodgy batch of injectors was one cause, then they blamed the ECU but it was incorrectly spec'd spark plugs by VW that was killing it (wiping out a piston in one instance due to detonation). Since the right plugs got fitted, barely a murmor.

63k now in just over 2 years (20k+ since the last issue) and still works fine. Uses no oil now (most modern engines use oil upto 30/40k) between 19k services, pulls like it did on day one and if it wasn't blowing a right old gale and raining would have pulled the book top speed on the Autobahn last week.

Its a stunning engine in my book - the Ford Ecoboost might be the newest kid on the block (maybe take the engine crown from the TwinAir?) but I think the twincharger lump is a cracker. Thats why I narrowed my latest choice down to anything with a 1.4TSI lump (A1, Ibiza or Fabia - gone for the vRS Estate).

Engine developments now appearing are merely that the development is now coming on at the same pace diesels have had for the last 20 years - in the early 90's, a good 2 litre TD made 100bhp and you got 50mpg - now they make twice the power and another 50% better mpg. Petrol engines are just catching up (direct injection, variable boost technology, etc).

Edited 4 May, 201214 yr by philhoward

Sheesh...

In the first 36,000 miles, my Scirocco (1.4 TSI 160) was faultless. For the next 4 or 5000 miles, it would be between 10 and 1000 miles before sitting in the dealers workshop for days or even weeks. Dodgy batch of injectors was one cause, then they blamed the ECU but it was incorrectly spec'd spark plugs by VW that was killing it (wiping out a piston in one instance due to detonation). Since the right plugs got fitted, barely a murmor.

63k now in just over 2 years (20k+ since the last issue) and still works fine. Uses no oil now (most modern engines use oil upto 30/40k) between 19k services, pulls like it did on day one and if it wasn't blowing a right old gale and raining would have pulled the book top speed on the Autobahn last week.

Its a stunning engine in my book - the Ford Ecoboost might be the newest kid on the block (maybe take the engine crown from the TwinAir?) but I think the twincharger lump is a cracker. Thats why I narrowed my latest choice down to anything with a 1.4TSI lump (A1, Ibiza or Fabia - gone for the vRS Estate).

Engine developments now appearing are merely that the development is now coming on at the same pace diesels have had for the last 20 years - in the early 90's, a good 2 litre TD made 100bhp and you got 50mpg - now they make twice the power and another 50% better mpg. Petrol engines are just catching up (direct injection, variable boost technology, etc).

What were those "right plugs" then ?

The ones specced for every other twincharger engine in the VAG range, rather than the "Scirocco only" ones...I believe they should be part number 101 905 626A

There is also a reported issue that even "out of the box" the plugs come right at the open end of the gap range (don't have the figures to hand) but setting them correctly does make a difference.

Edited 4 May, 201214 yr by philhoward

Why customers are having to do this (rather than a technical bulletin being issued and cars being re-called) is beyond me. :wonder:

Surely Skoda & VW know all about these 'misfire' issues and the subsequent replacement of spark plugs ?

Why issue a recall for incorrectly specced spark plugs which USED to be fitted at service time? The ones fitted at the factory are/were correct. The other issue is a suspect batch of injectors which were "if they play up, replace them" - which mine had first off.

At the time (9 months ago) there were very few cars with the twincharger engine that had enough miles to need a new set of plugs! Mine was only 18 months old, but with 40k on the clock.

They were only 100bhp/litre standard.

What difference does that make? that's still alot considering the 1.6 RS escort was only 35bhp more and was the same age that's alot of performance for a 1.3 considering petrol injection systems were still young.. you would think they would have flatten out any issues in the 15 years since with the tech in engine bay's nowday's

What difference does that make? that's still alot considering the 1.6 RS escort was only 35bhp more and was the same age that's alot of performance for a 1.3 considering petrol injection systems were still young.. you would think they would have flatten out any issues in the 15 years since with the tech in engine bay's nowday's

100bhp/litre was about average for high perfomance petrol turbo's 15 years ago. Cossie's, Scooby's Evo's etc were all around that figure.

But they didn't really give a stuff about bottom end torque or lag, you'd need 3000-3500rpm to start boost building and there'd be a second delay between pressing the accelerator and serious power. Buyers of these cars were enthusiasts only, they understood the limitations and the lack of any fuel economy. And servicing was a small fortune with servicing every 4500miles-6000miles on most models. A 45k mile service on my Series McRae cost £1200 and that was 12 years ago. I had an original big turbo Cossie and a 1995 big turbo Series McRae Scooby (Oh and RS Turbo and Renualt 5 GT).

They were beasts to drive but the market was very small.

15 years have given us 125bhp/litre engines that are common place every day engines with wide torque bands and good economy, on top of that they have to conform with euro5 emmissions which limits CO and other toxic gases and particulates, run catalytic convertors, have very strict control of the injectors, run on low octane fuels and have normal servicing schedules. And they have to be smooth and progressive so your mum can drive them.

For many years most mainstream car manufacturers development budgets concentrated on diesels and common rail development. It's really only the last 5 years that have seen a shift towards small petrol turbo development.

We are still pushing boundaries and technology.

Cheers

Lee

Edited 4 May, 201214 yr by logiclee

When you read the blurb on the twincharger, they wanted to produce an engine with the economy of the 1.6 but the performance of the 2.3 V5 lump (IIRC). Their next "trick" is already in testing, whatever it may be.

As Lee pointed out, 100bhp/litre was top end stuff 15 years ago; now its commonplace. Add in the emission regulations and you see how far things are progressing. OK, things like Greeline/Bluemotion etc are in some cases tricks to get round the CO2 calculators based on the testing conditions (fuel consumption at 60mph isn't affected by the engine stopping at junctions...) but thems the test rules, so the manufacturers play to it.

Put a TSI engined car against the carpark of 15 years ago - you've got something which performs like a Golf VR6 but is economical as a 1.1 Fiesta... Only car i've owned from that era that came close was a Saab 9000 turbo (and they were at the forefront of engine technology - direct ignition and highly accurate turbo control) that was no slouch yet would give over 40mpg on a steady run. It wouldn't have passed EU5 emissions regs though (in fact it was just a pre-cat car!).

Used to have a 9000 with the 2.3 liter 225 bhp engine, with boost earlier then 1.4 TSI or the 2.0 TFSI (full boost : 1800 rpm).

With some software and a downpipe, you where passing over 300 bhp on stock internals (and it was safe to use them up to about 500 if you wanted any reliability left).

The difference today is like phil says : emissions.

It won't pass today cause off many different things.

All engine-internals was beefed up to take a good pounding, they wheren't thinned down for making it more economical in the city like todays engines.

It was a totally different way off building cars back then.

However, I wouldn't call the 1.4TSI a lemon.

Sure, you hear people complaining. But how many do use the engine and DON'T complain?

Those numbers never show .

are you having a bubble?

i would expect a VAG car at 6 years old with 40k miles to be leak free.... Not mind all the problems i've had....

on the other hand my mk1 octy vrs 1.8t is immaculate and faultess with double the miles and 6 months older (superior engine)

Just had a read back from page 1 (sorry but even though i've had my fair share of TSI issues, I'm still prepared to defend this engine as they weren't inherent design issues, just VAG UK at fault) but didn't the 1.8T get a bit of a "rep" for coil pack failure and the same calls of "lemon"? I wasn't driving a VAG product at the time so didn't pay a great deal of attention.

Didnt the TSI engine win best engine award?.......... http://www.ukipme.co...rs_11/1_14.html

Not bad for a lemon?

Edited 5 May, 201214 yr by Kie

I have A VRS180 now at 15k after having new rings at 9K, Still drinking oil and waiting on the factory to decide how to fix it.

I reported the problem at 4k but Skoda would not check until it had been "run In".

At least they are paying me for the oil.

Is it bright yellow?

Does it run out of juice when you push it hard?

If you lick the little drips of liquid that come out the end of it, is it bitter?

If the answer to all those questions is "YES", Then it probably IS a lemon!

^{Ha-Ha-Ha... Just after placing my last, silly post, I returned to the menu board and it had this subject listed as being HOT}

^{Now its a HOT LEMON!...Snif!}