4er Golf TDi... Motor/Kaufberatung ?!? | Posts 16+

joergs wrote:

Why not 190 horses?

I didn't write "impossible," but rather that it can also be lower, because the testing rig often adds a little bit (e.g., through the full height adjustment, although TDIs don't actually need it thanks to the absolutely regulated boost pressure).

Quote:

I know of 130hp engines that actually have a real!!! 200-205 hp. This power is achieved only through chip tuning. Whether that makes sense, is a matter for another discussion!

...and how quickly the remaining lifespan counter for the hardware decreases as the accelerator pedal approaches its lower limit...
But (far too) often, even with extensive modifications, digital drivers are lucky enough to be able to drive tens of thousands of kilometers without any problems .

@ulf

Absolutely agree with everything!

If I were to speak from my own experience: I drive a lot, and I often go above 180 km/h when possible. But to be honest (aside from occasional quick starts at traffic lights against some 'yuppie' drivers ), I actually only need those 130 horsepower when I'm driving with a caravan through the countryside. Those 130 horsepower are perfectly sufficient for me!!!!!

joergs wrote:

The 130 horses are completely enough for me!!!!!

IMO, you generally need as much power as you have - after all, you didn't buy the engine (or the tuning) by accident .

I don't really miss having high performance either.

If I weren't so annoyed by slow-moving vehicles, like trucks or Sunday drivers, that crawl along at 20 km/h below the speed limit (or even slower), I would rarely use the full torque of the engine – mostly, I only use it for overtaking.

But with a box, overtaking maneuvers will also become a little more relaxed, even on shorter stretches (where drivers whose cars are within the range of today's typical performance weights wouldn't even consider it) .

. . . which can, to some extent, be 'made by' a test bench:evil:, because almost any kind of nonsense can be calculated there - especially easily when it comes to torque, if an incorrect gear is assumed:evil:.

Nargh, I'm starting to wonder why I'm a professional thief? If you doubt everything I tell you, it's slowly becoming less fun. I'm not here as an apprentice... }

I mentioned earlier that he uses a different loader, a VTN20; it has a relaxed pressure of 0.8 bar, and the 190 horsepower has now been measured on 3 different dynamometers. Once it was 189 hp, once 191 hp, and once 194 hp, or something similar. Based on that, I assume the stated value is correct. Also, this was a one-time customer project.

Julian wrote:

Nargh, I'm starting to wonder why I'm a professional thief? If you doubt everything (!) I tell you, it's slowly becoming less fun. I'm not an apprentice here...

Hey, hey, calm down.

1. I don't just deliberately doubt everything you write, but I question everything interesting that doesn't seem clear to me, regardless of who it comes from or what level of technical detail it's at.


2.

Quote:

As I mentioned above, he uses a different LOADER, a VTN20;

. . . but above it says:

Quote:

A friend drove it with 190 horsepower and 563 Nm of torque. However, it had a new turbocharger

.
"When I say 'new,' I mean a replacement part, but not any other type – or am I wrong in this interpretation, according to common usage?"


3. He has a relaxed 0.8 bar

Quote:

. 0.8 bar for 190 horsepower from a 1.9 TDI engine - which is less than the AJM series with approximately 1.1 bar (if I remember correctly) - sorry, but that's something I need to ask about! Typo, a smoky mess, or a tuner's secret recipe?

and the 190 horsepower has now been measured on 3 different dynamometers. Once it was 189, once 191, and once 194 horsepower, or something similar. Based on this, I assume that the stated value is correct.

Quote:

While this makes the scenario more likely, there has been no mention of multiple measurements so far... In any case, I was primarily surprised by the 563 Nm figure.

Almost any kind of nonsense can be calculated there -

Quote:

especially easily when an incorrect gear is assumed . I'm sorry that my posts personally offend you - that's certainly not my intention. If you require further clarification, please contact me via private message or email. However, I didn't want to leave your public post without a response from me.

@ulf

Yep, both the AJM and the ATJ engines have a GT17 turbocharger, which is the same turbocharger that the ASZ engine has, if I remember correctly. *g*

Best regards, WarLord.

Yes, but GT 17% is not the same as GT 17.

The turbochargers in the 130 hp TDI engines, in my opinion, can handle about 0.3 bar more boost pressure than those in the...
115 hp. I don't know why. Perhaps the turbochargers used in Audi's ASZ engines (AVF & AWX) have tighter manufacturing tolerances.

And the AJM is one of the very first PD.Engine models, and I can't imagine it being able to withstand as much as the newer generations.

Are there different part numbers for the two GT17s?

Best regards, WarLord.

AJM = AUY = ALH = AHF:
038 253 019 C

ASZ:
038 253 016 F

So...

To address something completely different...

Diesel is great, but if you're looking to save money, it's best to buy a gasoline-powered car and convert it to run on LPG (liquefied petroleum gas).

The cost of the conversion is less than the additional purchase price of the same vehicle as a TDI model.

You can find Audi A6 models with full options, having driven around 100,000 km, as an AVANT with Tiptronic transmission, light leather upholstery, and a QUADRO display, manufactured around 1998-2000, for approximately 12,000 euros online (I saw one from 1999 last week for 12,500 euros with 115,000 km at a dealer in Lörrach).

A 2.5 TDI with the same equipment, production year, and mileage is at least 3000€ more expensive.

The cost of converting to a 2.8L V6 engine is approximately €2000 here.

That would already be at least €1000 less than the purchase price compared to a TDI model.

This vehicle consumes approximately 11 liters of LPG per 100 kilometers. This corresponds to roughly 5-6 euros (depending on the gas station).
A 2.5 TDI engine consumes approximately 8 liters of diesel under similar (spirited) driving conditions, which translates to roughly 7-8 euros (and is trending upwards).

From a tax perspective, the gasoline-powered car offers a slight advantage, and it's also cheaper to insure.

With a reserve tank, you won't experience any charging difficulties, and the conversion to gas is practically invisible (only noticeable by the second fuel filler neck).

The only disadvantage is that in winter, you still need to rely on gasoline for the warm-up phase. In the summer, it can also be started with gas. This means that in winter, with an approximate monthly mileage of 4,000 km, it requires an additional 8 liters of gasoline. In the summer, it's about half that amount.

All the talk about performance losses, in my opinion, is nonsense. Today's LPG systems have a negligible loss of performance. To squeeze out the last 3 km/h of top speed, you can switch to gasoline in full load operation (without any jerks) with these systems. Those who absolutely want to brag about it can then use this to impress others .

Conclusion:

I tend to prefer LPG.

Because it's cheaper, the remaining lifespan of the vehicle increases twofold (due to cleaner combustion), and, in my opinion, it provides more driving enjoyment!!!!!!


Here's a personal homepage from a friend who has been using LPG for many years, and on which everything is explained.

www.gasfahrer.de


Best regards, Jan ...

P.S. I'm new to this forum, and I hope I haven't upset anyone with my post.
I still own a TDI myself, and in that regard, I think that a fuel consumption of 5 liters of diesel per 100 km is still the most economical solution for getting to work. However, the driving experience is zero.

4-Runner wrote:

..... But driving pleasure = 0.

Make sure your mill is actually working before you pass judgment on TDIs.

Another disadvantage, in my opinion, is the operation of vehicles with gasoline/gas engines when towing. With a 100hp TDI, I can easily pull 1300kg around, regardless of the hills. However, with a gasoline engine, I would need at least 150 or 170hp to achieve the same effect. This means that the maintenance costs for these gasoline vehicles are significantly higher than for diesel vehicles. The significantly cheaper operation with gas doesn't compensate for that.
By the way, the claim that diesel cars have a more expensive insurance classification is partly a rumor. The 100 hp Golf4 Variant is one of the cheapest 4-series Golfs in terms of liability insurance, with a damage class of 14.

@Bertil:

Quote:

The 100 horsepower Golf4 Variant has a damage class of 14 in liability insurance, making it one of the cheapest Golf 4 models.

But there are only 3 weeks left. Starting October 1st, he will be on HP 15. But, of course, it's not exactly a world-class product.

Until September 30th:
HP 14, VK 16, TK 32.

Starting October 1st:
HP 15, VK 16, TK 33.

Source: www.typklasse.de

Roger wrote:

... But there are only 3 weeks left. Starting October 1st, he will be on HP 15. But, of course, it's not exactly a world-class product.

"That's correct, but my insurance company claims that only applies to new registrations. My rate increase will only take effect on January 1, 2005, and then it will be 15/15 (Currently, I have 14/15)."
Whatever the reason, not all insurance companies strictly adhere to the defined type classes.
However, I have to consider that my Golf 3 with 90 horsepower was in insurance class 18, which already makes a difference.