Jump to content

MY19 2.0 TSI (272) has lost MPI?


Recommended Posts

So, it seems that VAG has decided to delete the MPI (multi point injection) from their MY19 WLTP compatible EA888 gen3 2.0 TSI models (so far confirmed with Golf GTI, Golf R, Audi S3, Ateca Cupra). This, apart from a visual check (no fuel rail or low pressure sensor in the engine bay) can be quickly verified by checking a car's engine code. All high power 2.0 TSIs have so far been part of the "CJX" engine code family with a 4th letter showing the nominal power output on otherwise identical engines in terms of hardware. (CJXG = Golf R 310 pre-WLTP, CJXA = Cupra 280, Superb 280, CJXE = Cupra 265, GTI Clubsport). The new WLTP engines have the "DNU" code, with the full R and S3 codes being: DNUE (300ps)

As some already know, MPI was one very welcome change in the gen 2.0 TSI design as it dealed with carbon deposit on the intake valves, a common problem on older direct injection engines plus (maybe not important for many but still) it allowed (as stock) hitting some big power with bigger turbo's, something not possible in the US cars that never got the MPI in the first place, and which had to go for aftermarket MPI kits to get to the same levels (think 500bhp) as their EU counterparts.

Now, we can't be sure what's the case with the 272 Superb without checking either a 272 car or finding its engine code but it's fair to say that being WLTP compatible and already known to have the GPF and less power, it's 99% sure it will also be deprived of multi point injection.

What this brings is more trouble for owners who a) plan on keeping their cars for long (issues with deposits start to become more apparent after 40-50K miles at worst case (lots of short trips) or double that on high mileage cars) and b) that are after tuning beyond stage 2 levels. For those, a "cold" period of adaptation of current tunes due to the GPF is I assume inevitable, although pretty sure it's going to happen in the end, after all TDIs have been having filters with active regeneration for a while and this hasn't stopped them from being tuned.

For me, having a car on order, even if I decided it was such a drastic change enough to cancel it and lose 3K over it ( I won't), it rather opens up a discussion as to what owners can do to deal with these news. Invest on a catch can from day 1? Not bad but catch cans mostly keep intake guides clean rather that do much about carbon build-up. Valves retain the oil film which, if never washed off by fuel as was the case so far, will eventually fry and build up like cold lava. Install a proper MPI aftermarket kit like the americans have been doing? Not a cheap mod but certainly less hassle than opening the cylinder head every 40K for cleaning... Not panic and just see how it goes? Good option too probably!

Edited by newbie69
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did wonder about whether the dual injection had been removed on this later version because it is a sophisticated and presumably expensive item so if it has been removed it does not surprise me.

However I would not panic too much about the deletion because as you said the fouling problems were associated with the early direct injection versions, certainly the 1.4tsi fitted to the mk2 Octavia suffered.

 

I have got a 1.4tsi on my mk3 Octavia, which was a new family of direct injected turbo engine, offering excellent on (public) road power and economy and while mine has only done 50k km since 2014, there has been no noticeable deterioration in performance or economy in that time.

A feature of this family  (including 1.2tsi and presumably the 3 cylinder 1.0tsi) is the deletion of the EGR valve which was the main source of all the gunk being fed into the intake and fouling.

There are many others who have completed far higher distance than I in this forum but to date I am not aware of anyone who has actually needed to take the head off any, which suggests that fouling is not an issue.

I'd be confident that VW has also eliminate the EGR valve on the new 2.0tsi engine because it has been proven to be effective on the smaller engines.

 

As far as I know the new 2.0tsi is only available in Australia on a recently introduced Audi but as our fuel has relatively high sulphur content it does not have the GPF fitted as in the EU. I was impressed by the official (old NEDC) claimed average consumption of 5.7L/100 which actually matches the claim for my old 1.4tsi so it will be interesting to see what real life consumption turns out to be, because I consider my real-life consumption to be excellent.

 

I take your point that it might not have the tuning potential of the dual injection system but another thread about the new 2.0tsi engine Scout has suggested that 300bhp output is possible with a remap and high octane fuel.

 

Edited by Gerrycan
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dual DI-MPI injection is really not that complicated. Toyota released it in their 3.5v6 more than a decade ago. 

 

The reason for dual injection isn't really to combat carbon buildup anyway. On the Toyota engine, it's used for power and efficiency. Low rev/load, MPI provides good air fuel mixture for combustion. High revs and high load, DI or combined injection provides high power and efficiency due to cooling effect of fuel sprayed in the chamber. 

 

One if the reasons I went for a superb 280 is because of the dual injection. I still don't fully trust a DI engine although there have been lots of improvement. (OK fine, I just like the fact it's a sleeper minicab..)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They are just doing what they need to do until they down size the engines and run hybrids or go full EV.

This was all about keeping ICE production going with WLTP certification for a few more years.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Totally agree with @KeteCantek  on that the MPI was not introduced to prevent carbon build-up, this was just a fortunate side-effect for owners. The reason behind the MPI was clearly to allow VW go through Euro 6. In the US where these regulations don't exist they had to live with Direct Injection anyway (and they did). Removal doesn't have to do with being a complicated system either, but the entire system's cost is far from negligible (think several hundred quid). So by now being forced to add that big GPF, they realized the MPI was an un-necessary and expensive luxury (emissions-wise), the cost of which could actually pay for the GPF (most definitely a cheaper item) and even save them some money in the end, isn't that a win-win?? For VAG of-course.

Now, after my original shock is over, I also agree with @Gerrycan that neither too much panic is needed over this. I am not even sure the issue would affect me given my typical car ownership being - at best - 5 years with low miles and we haven't really had numerous cases of the gen3 EA888 suffering from severe carbon build-up from the other side of the ocean where they've been running MK7's for almost 5 years now. Casual tuning is not affected either, some reports already say that the new cars handle extra boost just as easy if not better, but surely  tuners will need to re-write their maps to be compatible with the new engines and GPF sensors. The problem is if you want to go big, where it was previously a bolt-on process, now it's not that simple any more.

BTW, I'm 99% sure there was never an EGR valve on the TSI engines, only some FSI units AFAIK, so not really the culprit of the infamous DI carbon build-up. Anyway...

Edited by newbie69
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I located the  thread on an Australian Forum and the engine is not an older 1.4tsi but the older 2.0tsi (non dual injection I think)

http://www.vwwatercooled.com.au/forums/f149/skoda-octavia-rs-my11-new-intake-manifold-carbon-clean-diy-walnut-blaster-1of2-123757.html

 

I've taken a snapshot from one of his youtube videos showing how bad fouling can become over time.

 

I must admit I bought my 1.4tsi knowing it had DI but not knowing about historical issues with DI. Upon discovery and initial panic it was a bit of a relief to find out that my engine should be ok as I intended to keep the car for a few years past the warranty.

 

Not sure what the motive was for dual injection but is seems odd they also fitted it to the relatively low performance 1.8tsi (only 250Nm in some models)

 

Valves.JPG

Edited by Gerrycan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Gerrycan it was fitted to reduce particulates. DI combustion produces more particulates because of incomplete combustion at low revs. This is due to the fuel being harder to mix with the air when sprayed directly into the chamber. 

 

Manufacturers have different solutions to mitigate such as using tumble flow intake, shaped pistons, spray patterns. There will be compromises in loss efficiency with some of those.  The Toyota engine mentioned above gets round by only using DI at higher revs when air flow is fast enough to mix the fuel properly. Iirc, it has some sort of tumble flow intake to the chamber to help.

 

Most people who don't keep cars for long or in lease will not have any issues anyway. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Gerrycan

Yep, that is a typical image of DI engines of previous generations with big mileage, but 160K is probably bit over the average owner's total mileage with one car. If I appreciated a car so much as to keep it for that long I wouldn't mind paying for a proper valve cleaning  .

MPI was most certainly introduced for efficiency and emissions in low revs. But with stricter regulations it seems it's not enough to do the job so an extra particulate filter has to be employed. One that could do all the work alone so if you're strict with your budget, - and VAG is currently being stricter than ever in order to compensate for Dieselgate losses - you can simply delete the extra port fueling and save some serious money.

I mean come to think of it, we've seen incomparably worse cost cutting taking place since 2017, like the deletion of the Isofix covers on the MK7.5 Golf, those are dead cheap plastic bits that do not cost more than a few quid to VAG, yet they removed them on the facelift model. And we're wondering whether a several hundred $ that its function has been taken over from the GPF would survive? 

Edited by newbie69
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly. It's something to look out for when buying a higher mileage used car with DI. 

 

There are new oils which claim to reduce the problem and which manufacturers have started to spec with DI engines. Soon enough we'll all be driving some sort of electrified vehicle so enjoy the pure ICE now while it lasts lol. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Egr is achieved in later TSi engines in head using the variable cam adjusters. No need for an external EGR valve. I think its all done at exhaust valve , so no exhaust recirc through the inlet valve. Just PCV to worry about 

 

1.8 Gen 3/2.0 Gen3 / 1.4tsi latest /1.5tsi all have water cooled exhaust manifold integrated into the head. Exhaust gas temperatures are supposedly lowered by as much as 100 deg C.

 

 

 

Edited by xman
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, boydeee said:

To confirm, my 272 SEL is a DNUA engine code. Bit disappointed to be honest. But, in the unlikely event of any issues way down the line, I'll deal with them then :thumbup:

 

Was never going to be any other way, would it? Thanks for confirming and for providing the full engine code! So DNU-E = 300ps (R/S3/Leon/Ateca), DNU-A = 272ps (Superb).

As you say, IF and WHEN this ever becomes an actual issue there are known treatments (although I agree that most owners would have better things to do than removing the cylinder head and cleaning the valves (or even asking someone else to do it...)  Americans have been running their engines for 5 years and this hasn't affected the local market or loyalty at all...


 

Edited by newbie69
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, newbie69 said:

 

Was never going to be any other way, would it? Thanks for confirming and for providing the full engine code! So DNU-E = 300ps (R/S3/Leon/Ateca), DNU-A = 272ps (Superb).

As you say, IF and WHEN this ever becomes an actual issue there are known treatments (although I agree that most owners would have better things to do than removing the cylinder head and cleaning the valves (or even asking someone else to do it...)  Americans have been running their engines for 5 years and this hasn't affected the local market or loyalty at all...


 

Full variant is ACDNUAX11 for additional info.

 

Absolutely. The Americans have to put with up with lower RON fuel too if I'm not mistaken. My previous (non VAG) car was DI and I had zero problems. That was 7 years old but the mileage wasn't that high considering its age; circa 60k miles.

 

It has (and will continue to) not enter my mind!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, boydeee said:

Full variant is ACDNUAX11 for additional info.

 

Absolutely. The Americans have to put with up with lower RON fuel too if I'm not mistaken. My previous (non VAG) car was DI and I had zero problems. That was 7 years old but the mileage wasn't that high considering its age; circa 60k miles.

 

It has (and will continue to) not enter my mind!


They've got the AKI fuel rating. And yes they have an option of 87 AKI which is the lowest rating and equals to 92 RON, but there's also 91 and 93 AKI equaling our own 95 and 98 RON respectively. But the fuel is not really affecting the carbon deposits, that's just the thin oil film at the back of the valves and which gets cooked over thousands of miles forming that black/grey crust...
 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, newbie69 said:


They've got the AKI fuel rating. And yes they have an option of 87 AKI which is the lowest rating and equals to 92 RON, but there's also 91 and 93 AKI equaling our own 95 and 98 RON respectively. But the fuel is not really affecting the carbon deposits, that's just the thin oil film at the back of the valves and which gets cooked over thousands of miles forming that black/grey crust...
 

Ah. I was unaware of their fuel ratings, thank you for that B)

 

Yes, I've watched a few videos on it. Quite shocking really! My mates wife had a Mini Cooper which BMW would clean for them as they knew how bad their engine was for it. It ****ed him off no end as you can imagine!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Skoffski said:

 

 



I would love specs lying about the multi point injection in this case but alas...

Here is an actual photo of a MY19 S3 identical to MY19, DNU engine bays:

20190111_144809.jpg.c6319c9b5e118f591506

Notice all those empty mounting holes for the fueling rack and injectors?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the upside, no more sooty exhaust tips it seems as everything gets burned in that big GPF!  Excellent news for all the OCD detailers out there!

Plus, on the R hatch in particular, VW has also deleted the resonator! That GPF seems to be a proper exhaust's Swiss knife... Saves some people from all the chopping and welding :tongueout:  Although I guess the Superb would probably retain it given its more "wise" character but who knows until we get our cars...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 11 months later...

Apologies for continuing a discussion that started a while back, but I am still a little confused on the matter of port injectors.

 

Do all UK spec Mk 7.0 & 7.5 Golf R's / GTI's have the dual injectors (direct and port injectors) up until WLTP compatible engines released in 2019 ? i.e. EA888 gen3 engines from 2014 - 2018 ? Thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, boxed said:

Apologies for continuing a discussion that started a while back, but I am still a little confused on the matter of port injectors.

 

Do all UK spec Mk 7.0 & 7.5 Golf R's / GTI's have the dual injectors (direct and port injectors) up until WLTP compatible engines released in 2019 ? i.e. EA888 gen3 engines from 2014 - 2018 ? Thanks


Yes, i think it was MY19 where the first Golf R's got the WLTP engine but since the facelift 7.5 came one year before that, the outside looks alone won't tell you which engine it's got. You would need to either check visually (in the engine bay), or by engine code (CJX = MPI, DNU = WLTP) or by the nominal output. I believe the WLTP variants were dropped back to 300ps as opposed to the first facelifts that were 310ps.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, newbie69 said:


Yes, i think it was MY19 where the first Golf R's got the WLTP engine but since the facelift 7.5 came one year before that, the outside looks alone won't tell you which engine it's got. You would need to either check visually (in the engine bay), or by engine code (CJX = MPI, DNU = WLTP) or by the nominal output. I believe the WLTP variants were dropped back to 300ps as opposed to the first facelifts that were 310ps.

 

Thanks for your reply - that's what I thought as well.

How about the pre-facelift Golf R's (Mk7.0) from 2014 - 2017 which had about 300ps. Are you aware if they also had MPI ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, boxed said:

Thanks for your reply - that's what I thought as well.

How about the pre-facelift Golf R's (Mk7.0) from 2014 - 2017 which had about 300ps. Are you aware if they also had MPI ?

 

Pre facelift are all MPI.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Community Partner

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to BRISKODA. Please note the following important links Terms of Use. We have a comprehensive Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.