I've read a lot up on them and people are bitching about mainly carbon build-up and how they're gutless and slow.

 

I do want one though. On paper they seem pretty good - 30+ mpg on a run, 150bhp. That's more than enough for me. They also come in £2-3k cheaper than a TFSI or TDI with comparable mileage.

 

Does anybody have any experience with them? Most of the stuff I've read state that they're terrible engines that you should buy a TDI. I've heard more horror stories about the 2.0 TDI than any recent VAG petrol engine though. What would be the point in me buying the "better" TDI engine with - at my budget - over 100k miles on the clock and enjoy its incredible MPG, only for it to be negated by cracked cylinder heads, exploding turbos and failing dual mass flywheels?

 

ramble ramble...

Edited 22 November, 201312 yr by voteforpedro

2.0 TDi will go better and be considerably more frugal, VAGs smaller non turbo four cylinder engines have always been quite weak and probably best avoiding, the 1.8 20v was the same, carp as a non turbo and rather good with.

The later PD engined 140hp diesels are quite reliable with stronger cylinder heads, with exception of the Scout and 4x4 do not have a DPF. Also id the flywheel should fail (and it can happen at any age or mileage) tou can get a SMF conversion at reasonable cost and never suffer the problem again.

Failing turbos are a risk on any turbocharged car, again they can be repaired at reasonable cost if you go recon'd over new.

Edited 23 November, 201312 yr by pipsyp

The 2.0FSI is the same as the Vrs 2.0T without the turbo

 

bear in mind to get the best out of the engine it will require you to fill with premium fuel

The 2.0FSI is the same as the Vrs 2.0T without the turbo

bear in mind to get the best out of the engine it will require you to fill with premium fuel

We ran ours just fine on std unleaded. Only recently traded in our 07 elegance hatch because we wanted something with 7 seats, and moved to diesel because of the appalling mpg MPVs have in petrol guise

Ours did have a flat spot 50ish - 65 but was quite nippy above and below that.

Mpg wise, we were getting 32-36 combined urban.

As above it was the same engine as fitted to the early vRS (TFSI) minus the turbo.

People say "same thing as the 2.0TFSI minus the turbo" like it's a small detail, when in fact the turbo probably makes all the difference.

 

The fact that the 2.0 FSI has 150hp doesn't mean it's a strong engine. It all depends on the torque curve. Yes, turbocharging has spoiled me.

150 bhp is not bad and a few years back that would have been in the hot hatch area

People say "same thing as the 2.0TFSI minus the turbo" like it's a small detail, when in fact the turbo probably makes all the difference.

 

The fact that the 2.0 FSI has 150hp doesn't mean it's a strong engine. It all depends on the torque curve. Yes, turbocharging has spoiled me.

 

I may have read it differently, but it seemed like the comments were more to do with reliability and strength rather than power. The comment previously was about the smaller non-turbo engines being weak or questioning its reliability as a non-turbo, but fine with a turbo.

 

I think an engine built to cope with 200+bhp should cope just fine with 150bhp and far less torque, in terms of strength and reliability at least. Whether it's powerful enough is a personal opinion (for me, the answer is no, it isn't...).

It was an early direct injection engine, and some of the VAG ones in particular suffered from horrendous intake valve fouling because there's no fuel spray to wash off the tarry EGR crud (the exhaust valve stays hot enough to burn off pretty much all deposits).  More recent ones have better EGR (or have replaced EGR with clever cam timing) to reduce or eliminate the problem.

 

I would avoid, personally.

Go and try one, that's the best idea. You might fine that it works well for you.

I think the main issue is over performance vs economy. In general use it seems to offer the same MPG as the TFSI in the vRS, in daily use. But with 50bhp less; that's pretty poor in my opinion.

 

That's probably why you're seeing 2-3k cheaper prices; residuals have not held up because people are far more likely to go for the PD140 diesel, or a vRS TDI or TFSI petrol.

I may have read it differently, but it seemed like the comments were more to do with reliability and strength rather than power. The comment previously was about the smaller non-turbo engines being weak or questioning its reliability as a non-turbo, but fine with a turbo.

I think an engine built to cope with 200+bhp should cope just fine with 150bhp and far less torque, in terms of strength and reliability at least. Whether it's powerful enough is a personal opinion (for me, the answer is no, it isn't...).

You'd have to drive it like you stole it to squeeze the full 150bhp out of it though, as presumably it'll have a completely different torque curve to the tfsi, especially as it's in a fairly weighty car.

My manager had a VW Eos with the 2.0 FSI fitted. He said it was crying out for a turbo as it really had to be worked to get the performance out if it and was pretty poor on mpg.

He drove my 2006 vRS TFSI when I bought it and knew he had bought the wrong engine in the EOS... I get 36-38 mpg on a decent motorway run and just shy of 30mpg on short town journeys as long as the engine gets up to temp! He was lucky to see 30mpg on a run in the FSI Eos...