The Renault box is crap.

 

The twincharger isn't but going forward I just can't see the need for the complexity when a single turbo can provide similar figures. 

 

Lee

The Complexity of the Supercharger if there is any is not showing any reliability issues.

 

The Heat & Fueling and inlet manifold heat into cylinders is the problem,

and the durability of the Base 1.4 TSI used from 105 ps - 150-160 ps perfectly fine,

but weak once take to 180-185 ps and above.

 

It will be interesting to see what the Block and Internals, head etc are that the 189ps Polo GTI is getting, If that is what VW make it (considering Standard 1.4 TSI Twinchargers already make that now.)

& if it is a Turbo or Dual Charger that goes in the 2015 GTI.

Bump for jabozuma.

 

 CTHE on Rolling Road.

The Heat & Fueling and inlet manifold heat into cylinders is the problem,

 

Worth noting that when operating sequentially, the efficiency of the super/turbo arrangement is combined (downwards, hence the heat, i.e. 70% x 60% or whatever); a turbo alone would be much more efficient. But obviously the turbo in the twin-charger is way too big and heavy for a 1.4 to drive below about 3,000 rpm. Personally I find the twin-charger technically very interesting though.

The engine when up to 125kw & as were on the Manual Gearboxes.

http://volkspage.net/technik/ssp/ssp/SSP_359.pdf

page 12

Worth noting that when operating sequentially, the efficiency of the super/turbo arrangement is combined (downwards, hence the heat, i.e. 70% x 60% or whatever); a turbo alone would be much more efficient. But obviously the turbo in the twin-charger is way too big and heavy for a 1.4 to drive below about 3,000 rpm. Personally I find the twin-charger technically very interesting though.

 

I think in a newly designed application a 1.4 should be able to produce 200bhp with a turbo able to produce maximum torque from below 2000rpm.

 

We already have on sale 1.6T's with 270bhp and 243lbft @1900rpm and 2.0T's with 355bhp and 332lbft @ 2200rpm

 

VW have the 2.0TSi running at 400PS and 332lbft @2400rpm with 300lbft available @2000rpm and have hinted it will be available soon.

 

All with a single turbo.

 

Lee

To be fair the twin-charged 1.4 is approaching 10 years old. Then again GM are still producing direct derivatives of the small-block V8 first made in 1955...

To be fair,

the Twincharger were doing OK & Still are at 160-170 PS.

 

The Issues arrived when they were mapped to a Minimum 132 kw-136kW.

 2009 on, 1.4 TSI CAVE Twinchargers

*The First Built Mk2 Fabia vRS are now 4 years old,**

The Ibiza Cupras are older, and some of their 180 ps engines were showing Issues before the vRS was released to the public.

 

Then the Engine Internals were revised & the Engine Management late 2012.

Only the Earliest CTHE Engines appeared to have problems.

but that is still less than 2 years ago, so only time will tell.

How did I miss this thread? I did my calculated "rollers" and DashCommand shows 196bhp and MAF based simple calcs show 203bhp. For such an old design 1.4 twincharger mated with DQ250 7-speeder dry dual cluch box is stunning. Supercharged or Turbo'ed modern motors just about catch up. Now, let's imagine this dual charger design refreshed with new tech turbo and supercharger- 300 bhp from 1.4 displacement with good emissions is not far fetched.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

All these cars over reading on dynos makes me question the accuracy of the dyno. The conspiracist in me thinks it's in the tuning companies interest to have a dyno that over reads. They need regular calibration to maintain accuracy.

Take a car for 10 dyno runs in 10 different garages and you will get 10 different readings. Calibration being one thing, environmentals and fan setup another. As far as a pi$$ing contest is concerned nothing better than a graph (even though looking like some nasty mountain range) showing some serious figures  :beer:

Dynos and Rolling Roads are all good and well, a car fastened down in a static position and you know how much power/torque you vehicles/engine might produce.  See what it is possible of when all is running right.

Maybe with a DSG you want to see how it is in a certain Gear and when you drop it 2 gears and boot it.

 

Well once you know that, you might as well drive it.

Because 70 mph is the same in any vehicle. some might feel like they get there easy, and some not so easy.

 

Just drive the car on real roads, in real weather, with head winds, tail winds and cross winds.

 

Time it 0-60. 0-70, 0-100 etc,   30-60,   10-70  ,  50 -100    & does it go well in different gears.

 

Its more relevant probably than Having a Read Out in the Glove Compartment saying you have 204 BHP and th car loaded weighs 1,400 KG.

 

george

All these cars over reading on dynos makes me question the accuracy of the dyno. The conspiracist in me thinks it's in the tuning companies interest to have a dyno that over reads. They need regular calibration to maintain accuracy.

Not if you have before and after runs for example when you remap, you then at least can see the gains

Good point

It seems a no brainer to have the car set up standard with good plugs and fuel in & see where you stand as the possible performance before messing.

Especially with the 'VAG Twincharger' CTHE engine which does put out more power than a CAVE when standard.

 

With some 'VAG Turbo' engines, maybe just bung that Box on & feel it go even better.