FSI , TSI und TDI | Posts 16+

What do you think he's holding?
Let's say an 18-year-old, typical car enthusiast is driving the car, constantly pushing it to its limits, always demanding those 170 horsepower.
'Do you really think it will last 50,000 km?'

Or 3 hours of constant full throttle on the highway?

I'm curious to see the feedback in a few years.

In my opinion, it's too highly bred for street use.

Maxx1278 wrote:

You actually hear very little about these difficulties with the 170hp TDI engines.

Sure, you hear little - because:

How would one feel if they had to admit that they can't even achieve 170 horsepower with a PD engine, while various CR engines (e.g., the new 2.4 JTD 20V from Alfa with 200 horsepower and 400 Nm!) are readily available!

I think that, ultimately, VAG shot itself in the foot with the PD principle.

fulda wrote:

What would one look like if they had to admit that they can't even achieve 170 horsepower with a PD engine, while various CR engines (e.g., the new 2.4 JTD 20V from Alfa with 200 horsepower and 400 Nm!) are readily available!

Um... The 2.4 JTD has 5 cylinders and - as the name suggests - a 2.4L displacement... "That's 30 horsepower more than a 4-cylinder engine, but 2 liters probably isn't that significant of an increase, right?"

However, because no other mass manufacturer has joined in, PD is indeed a "self-inflicted" cost disadvantage.

pschaefer wrote:

Um... The 2.4 JTD has 5 cylinders, and - as the name suggests - a 2.4L displacement... "That's 30 horsepower more than a 4-cylinder engine, but 2 liters probably isn't that significant of an increase, right?"

I wanted to say that the PD engines are limited to 140 horsepower, while the competition has engines that are significantly more powerful!
Even the more powerful engines from the VAG group (2.7 TDI, 3.0 TDI) are based on common-rail technology...

pschaefer wrote:

PD is, however - since no other mass manufacturer has joined in - indeed a "own goal" in terms of cost.

Well, one shouldn't have relied so heavily on PD technology - especially not at such overpriced prices!

Unfortunately, I didn't have the opportunity to drive a TSI during the exhibition.
They didn't have one. Too bad .

fulda wrote:

I wanted to say that the PD engines end at 140 horsepower, and the competition has engines that are significantly more powerful! Even the more powerful engines from VAG (2.7 TDI, 3.0 TDI) are based on common-rail technology...

You don't know this machine, do you? (By the way, it's a PD-injection system.)
[url][/url]http://www.vw-personal.de/www/de/wissen/entwicklungsnews/phaeton_v10_tdi.html{MARKER}

fulda wrote:

Even the more powerful engines from the VAG group (2.7 TDI, 3.0 TDI) are based on common-rail technology...

What about the V10 TDI?

And what about the 5-cylinder engine in the Multivan?

christians wrote:

fulda wrote: Even the more powerful engines from the VAG group (2.7 TDI, 3.0 TDI) are based on common-rail technology... What about the V10TDI?

It costs as much as three Alfas.

All standard T5 models up to the Highline, with the 2.5-liter engine, still cost less than €70,000... with the V10, things get expensive.

matthiasTDI96 wrote:

All standard T5 models up to the Highline, with the 2.5-liter engine, are still under €70,000... with the V10, things get expensive.

Okay, the T5 is certainly an exception, but visually, it's not a vehicle for everyone.

PS: Aren't the V10 and R5 engines also PD-TDIs? At least, I had read that before several times.

Yes, they are!

To get back to the topic, I think TSI or TFSI, and everything else that will come along with it, is the future. Diesel engines are simply too expensive. In the Golf GT, it costs an extra 2,500 euros. You'll never make up for that difference with a consumption difference of only 1.2 liters.

Autobild (AB) and Autozeitung (AZ) had already tested the Golf GT TSI:

0-80 km/h: Acceleration time 5.4 seconds.
0-100 km/h: Acceleration time with automatic transmission: 8.0 seconds, Acceleration time with manual transmission: 7.6 seconds.
0-120 km/h: AZ 10.9 seconds.
0-140 km/h = AZ 15.2 seconds.
0-160 km/h = AZ 20.8 seconds.
0-180 km/h = AZ 30.8 seconds.
60-100 km/h = Autobahn section 4. Gang 5.8 seconds, and automatic zoom engaged at 4.1 seconds.
80-120 km/h = Autobahn 6. 9.9 seconds for the 100-meter dash, and a reaction time of 5.5 seconds.

Here are the latest data available from Auto Motor und Sport for the Golf GT TDI.

0-80 km/h = 5.7 seconds.
0-100 km/h = 7.9 seconds.
0-120 km/h = 11.3 seconds.
0-140 km/h = 15.1 seconds.
0-160 km/h = 21.6 seconds.

60-100 km/h = 4. Gang 5.5 seconds.
80-120 km/h = 6. Gang 9.9 seconds.

So, why should anyone buy a diesel engine and put up with all the noise and vibrations? I recommend that everyone reads the report at the gas station. I've never read an article that so thoroughly disparages an engine. Apparently, a Golf 2 with a 64 horsepower naturally aspirated diesel engine runs more smoothly and quietly than the new 170 horsepower TDI.

Regards,

Manuel.

Manuel Thomas wrote:

So, why should anyone buy a diesel engine and put up with all the noise and vibrations?

I also see it that way now - moreover, the fuel efficiency advantage of diesel vehicles will soon be eliminated by the particulate filter, and then diesel vehicles will simply not be worth it anymore .

fulda wrote:

Manuel Thomas wrote: So, why should anyone buy a diesel engine and put up with all the noise and vibrations? I also see it that way now - moreover, the fuel efficiency advantage of diesel vehicles will soon be eliminated by the particulate filter, and then diesel vehicles will simply not be worth it anymore

.

Well, that's not the case with a 3.0 TDI common-rail engine.
When comparing it to a 3.2 FSI, I would definitely lean towards the TDI. Even though I can't afford either of them.

Furthermore, the TSI engine delivers maximum torque across a wide range of engine speeds .

[img][/img]http://members.aon.at/hschobe3/tsi.jpg{MARKER}