Just found an iinteresting link, and thought of sharing it:

 

http://www.fichier-pdf.fr/2014/05/17/ssp-840233-ea288-diesel-engine-family/ssp-840233-ea288-diesel-engine-family.pdf

 

 

Thanks for this, it's actually a really interesting document on the engine!

 

I quite like the description on page 17 on how it measures the oil level, more complex than I thought it would be!

You're welcome.

 

I still didn't manage to find the differences among the several 2.0 TDI variations (150, 184, 190).

 

Oh, and btw, we seem to have "sister" cars (although mine sports less goodies than yours )

Just had a quick look, very interesting.

If I understand it correctly (page 16) the oil pump is driven by a "maintainance free" toothed belt which runs in engine oil itself ? Sounds like trouble !

Edited 26 September, 201411 yr by classic

 

 

I still didn't manage to find the differences among the several 2.0 TDI variations (150, 184, 190).

I would also like to figure this out, as it seems to a difference both in bhp, torque and how much tuning companies boosts the power

I believe the difference between the 150 and 184 is the injectors that are used, I asked about this a while back when looking at the Audi A3:

 

http://www.audi-sport.net/xf/threads/physical-difference-between-150ps-and-184ps.213763/#post-2126237

 

Apparently the base engine is the same, as is the turbo, so just the injectors and ECU are different parts. Probably why both the 184ps and 150ps remap by around 50bhp each as they both use the same fuel rails and turbo, just the 184ps allows more fuel through the injectors / better timings.

 

Not sure about the 190ps, is that the one in the Audi A6 Ultra? Pretty sure that has a lot more going on as it's Euro6 compliant, but that might just be additional changes on the DPF and catalytic converters and a bit of a boost on top of the 184ps map.

Ok,

got it and thanks for sharing.

 

I seem I remember the new Passat should sport the 190ps unit, beside the larger BiTDI (which does have physical differences).

The Euro6 that you are mentioning, I though I read somewhere that VAG uses some liquid which eliminates some of the emission. Anyone who knows?

I still didn't manage to find the differences among the several 2.0 TDI variations (150, 184, 190).

 

For many manufacturers the only difference between different engine power ratings is the calibration inside the ECU.

I wouldn't be suprised if the 150 & 184 engines were identical except for the maxium torque curve.

It means the engine is slightly more expensive when sold in the lower power variants but the economies of scale/reduction in complexity when producing only 1 engine makes up the difference.

 

The Euro6 that you are mentioning, I though I read somewhere that VAG uses some liquid which eliminates some of the emission. Anyone who knows?

 

To achieve Euro6 emissions most manufacturers will add an SCR system to reduce NOx after the DPF (sometimes its possible to elliminate the DPF completely).

Its likely the same systems used for many years on big trucks (as its known technology) so you will have an additional AdBlue tank & injector in the exhaust line.

AdBlue is used on a number of VAG cars already - from what I can see (primarily an Audi Q5 forum as I had an SQ5, thankfully without AdBlue) it's nothing but trouble! The car will actually refuse to start if the AdBlue runs low, which seems a little mad for just a NOx reduction system! To make matters worse, leaks in the system were common!

Hopefully by the time they HAVE to introduce this tech they will have worked the kinks out!

SCR is a much superior system to the alternative (EGR + DPF). Yes, you have the hassle of a second liquid, but the benefits are huge.

 

The two parameters that need to be controlled to meet legislation are NOx and Particulates.

 

More NOx is generated at higher combustion temperatures. EGR limits NOx by using a lower combustion temperature, as well as limiting available oxygen (needed to create NOx) in the cylinder by forcing the engine to eat its own dirty exhaust gas. This lower combustion temperature is not high enough to burn off particulates, hence the need for a DPF. The lower combustion temperture used with EGR is less efficient.

 

SCR uses a higher combustion temperature which makes a much more fuel efficient engine. The particulates are also burned off at this higher temperature. The resulting NOx are handled in the exhaust line by squirting in small amounts of Urea/water (AdBlue, DEF, whatever you want to call it). This liquid reacts with the NOx to results in harmless Nitrogen and water.

 

In the longer term, SCR will overtake EGR as the technology of choice.

AdBlue is used on a number of VAG cars already - from what I can see (primarily an Audi Q5 forum as I had an SQ5, thankfully without AdBlue) it's nothing but trouble! The car will actually refuse to start if the AdBlue runs low, which seems a little mad for just a NOx reduction system! To make matters worse, leaks in the system were common!

Hopefully by the time they HAVE to introduce this tech they will have worked the kinks out!

 

Why is it a "little mad" that your car doesn't run or runs only in "limp home" mode, if the AdBlue runs dry? If the vehicle continued to run as normal, nobody would ever bother adding AdBlue. You might ask why the electricity company cuts off your power if you don't pay the bill. Um 

Why is it a "little mad" that your car doesn't run or runs only in "limp home" mode, if the AdBlue runs dry? If the vehicle continued to run as normal, nobody would ever bother adding AdBlue. You might ask why the electricity company cuts off your power if you don't pay the bill. Um 

 

Because an annoying constant alert on the dash/audible beep would be far better than being stranded somewhere! As you say, even limp mode would be OK, but not to start at all is not on in my book! Add to that the number of people that had leaks so would be fine one day and the next day the car won't start as it ****ed AdBlue all over the floor and it's even more uncalled for!

SCR is a much superior system to the alternative (EGR + DPF). Yes, you have the hassle of a second liquid, but the benefits are huge.

 

The two parameters that need to be controlled to meet legislation are NOx and Particulates.

 

More NOx is generated at higher combustion temperatures. EGR limits NOx by using a lower combustion temperature, as well as limiting available oxygen (needed to create NOx) in the cylinder by forcing the engine to eat its own dirty exhaust gas. This lower combustion temperature is not high enough to burn off particulates, hence the need for a DPF. The lower combustion temperture used with EGR is less efficient.

 

SCR uses a higher combustion temperature which makes a much more fuel efficient engine. The particulates are also burned off at this higher temperature. The resulting NOx are handled in the exhaust line by squirting in small amounts of Urea/water (AdBlue, DEF, whatever you want to call it). This liquid reacts with the NOx to results in harmless Nitrogen and water.

 

In the longer term, SCR will overtake EGR as the technology of choice.

 

Excellent explaination..!

As others have said having something else to keep topped up that does cause running issues if it runs low is a real pain.

They say the Adblue tank should last between services but the garage have only got to forget to top it up and you could v easily find yourself on the hard shoulder if your not carrying a bottle of the stuff around with you.

Also the Adblue filling point is usually in a ridiculously awkward place in the boot (was in the Seat Alhambra we had on hols recently)....unless I also had a funnel and plenty of towel to mop up the mess not sure I'd want to top that up myself.

DPF on the EA288 is completely redesigned compared to the previous gen CR motor. They do regen alot and don't quite drive as well as they do normally whilst they do so but I'd rather that than have all the forced regen and blockage issues of old......though not that the previous CR really suffered with those anyway.

....that said I believe some vehicles have the adblue filler in the fuel filler...that's not so daft :-)

The info in the op's link about this engine explains dpf operation and regens very well.

Excellent explaination..!

 

Thanks Gabbo, very kind of you to say so. I work in the vehicle industry, so have been called on to explain the difference a few times. First time I've replied slightly tipsy though

I'm also interested in finding out which version(s) has/have twin balanced shafts, since the 150HP version is the smallest one (in terms of power) I suppose it does not have them

The 1.6 is the smallest of the EA288 motors. I believe they all benefit from balancer shafts but they're still not exactly what I'd describe as silky smooth/quiet at idle/low speed. Not bad at all for a diesel though.

SCR is a much superior system to the alternative (EGR + DPF). Yes, you have the hassle of a second liquid, but the benefits are huge.

 

The two parameters that need to be controlled to meet legislation are NOx and Particulates.

 

More NOx is generated at higher combustion temperatures. EGR limits NOx by using a lower combustion temperature, as well as limiting available oxygen (needed to create NOx) in the cylinder by forcing the engine to eat its own dirty exhaust gas. This lower combustion temperature is not high enough to burn off particulates, hence the need for a DPF. The lower combustion temperture used with EGR is less efficient.

 

SCR uses a higher combustion temperature which makes a much more fuel efficient engine. The particulates are also burned off at this higher temperature. The resulting NOx are handled in the exhaust line by squirting in small amounts of Urea/water (AdBlue, DEF, whatever you want to call it). This liquid reacts with the NOx to results in harmless Nitrogen and water.

 

In the longer term, SCR will overtake EGR as the technology of choice.

 

This is possibly one of the best and most sensible posts on this whole forum. A very concise and elegant explanation of an important subject. It is clearly very important that NOx emissions are contained given how damaging they are to all of us, and knowing the pros and cons of the different approaches helps greatly to appreciate the value of AdBlue, despite its minor frustrations. The world isn't perfect and sometimes we just have to put up with minor inconveniences because of the benefits that come along with them.

For those who did not read the Sunday Times a couple of weeks ago, they tried 3 or 4 vehicles and measured the NOx emissions in real road driving.  It was noticable that all the vehicles in the test emitted considerably more NOx than they should have according to their EU6 designation.  This was down to proper town and country driving  not sitting on road rollers.  The only vehicle to cope with the test and produce 30% less than the EU6 demands was the Golf 2.0 150ps which as we all know is fitted the Octavia.  All without the adblue nonsense

I believe the difference between the 150 and 184 is the injectors that are used, I asked about this a while back when looking at the Audi A3:

 

http://www.audi-sport.net/xf/threads/physical-difference-between-150ps-and-184ps.213763/#post-2126237

 

Apparently the base engine is the same, as is the turbo, so just the injectors and ECU are different parts. Probably why both the 184ps and 150ps remap by around 50bhp each as they both use the same fuel rails and turbo, just the 184ps allows more fuel through the injectors / better timings.

 

Not sure about the 190ps, is that the one in the Audi A6 Ultra? Pretty sure that has a lot more going on as it's Euro6 compliant, but that might just be additional changes on the DPF and catalytic converters and a bit of a boost on top of the 184ps map.

That surely makes chipping the 150ps very safe indeed.