1.4 tsi

[Leon-y-k]

as this will be one of the engines that might be shoved under the new fabias hood..... has anyone driven the golf with this engine in?? it does a good 38mpg for what it is- 170bhp 0-60 under 8 in the golf.....

any reviews on the engine?

[Tom_vRS]

Looks like a smashing little engine, should be really driveable and lag free with its twin chargers.

I doubt it will be hugely tunable though :thumbdwn:

More info available HERE

[Leon-y-k]

wow i want one:cool:

[Fabia156]

Wow if the Fabia gets this one.. its gonna be a real badass

[Tech1e]

As far as I know the TSi isnt out yet even in the Golf.

[Leon-y-k]

As far as I know the TSi isnt out yet even in the Golf.

it will be in may

[SteVRs]

It's all very well giving smaller and smaller engines higher outputs, but you end up chasing the power further and further up the rev range, which detracts from the mpg gains if you're using the power. There's no substitute for cubic inches

I'd be interested to drive one and see how fast it really is - I regularly use a 190 Celica at work and whilst it's quick if you work it, the power's almost unusable in normal driving (2nd gear on the m-way). I understand forced induction should even things out a bit but I'm still sceptical about how usable this little 1400's going to be.

[Tech1e]

Supercharger will keep the power low down.

[chris_newell41]

ive always wondered why they havn't put turbo's in all engines on modern cars. they make the engine far more efficient don't they? therefore greater efficiency would mean lower emsisions and higher mpg.....or have i got it all wrong?

let me know cos it would be great to answer this question i have had for ages now.

[SteVRs]

ive always wondered why they havn't put turbo's in all engines on modern cars. they make the engine far more efficient don't they? therefore greater efficiency would mean lower emsisions and higher mpg.....or have i got it all wrong?

They increase the volumetric efficiency - that is they fill the cylinders more efficiently, resulting in bigger bang and more power. This process does use less fuel per bhp, but because you're producing more bhp across most of the rev range you use more fuel overall. Also, before the turbo is on boost you're less efficient than an equivalent non-turbo'd vehicle. They're also more expensive to make.

So yes they're more efficient and no they're not.

[jtstatic]

Check b&b website, they offer 200bhp chip and 240 with heavier modification - talk about crazy

Dunno how reliable the engine will be though. Sounds a bit of a gimmick to me .. Why not take the safe route and just build 1.6 TFSI engine with twin scroll charger should give equal results and maybe less error prone.. ??

There are rumours about 1.6 TSI though..

btw, those looking for a light weight engine for smaller cars will be disappointed though, the 1.4 TSI is as heavy and takes at least the same space as 2.0 FSI engine (count in the compressor, control devices etc.)..

[ChrisRs]

So yes they're more efficient and no they're not.

Right!! :confused:

[chris_newell41]

Right!! :confused:

Guees you aint clever enough to understand what SteVRs said?

I totally understand now!