Der Drehmoment-Quatsch | Posts 16+

Hi,

I am absolutely certain. The test is from AMS 1/1997, pages 46 and following. I downloaded it from http://www.auto.t-online.de/ from the test archive.
I also can't explain the difference in weight (8 kg). Maybe the 1.8 version wasn't completely full of fuel, or maybe the scale was inaccurate, or...

Best regards,

Adrian.

Adrian wrote:

Volkswagen Golf 3 TDI, 90 horsepower, 202 Nm of torque at 1900 rpm, 1164 kg. 60-100 km/h im 4. Time: 10.8 seconds. 80-120 km/h im 5. Run time: 16.2 seconds.

... if it's a 1Z engine, then the specification of 202 Nm is nonsense; it actually had 205 Nm (I've driven it for long enough to know). If it's an ALE engine, it even has 210 Nm (if the report is from 1997, that could certainly be the case).

I guess that's what the tests in various newspapers claim...

Hello,

... if it's a 1Z engine, then the specification of 202 Nm is nonsense; it actually had 205 Nm (I've driven it for long enough to know).

Look here:
http://www.hs-elektronik.com/datenblatt-d/vwgolf19tdi90ps.html

Best regards,

Adrian.

Sure, here is the translation of the text from German to English:

'Hi,'

'202 NM is correct; I used to own a Golf 1Z for 7 years.'
On the other hand, those 3 nautical miles don't really make much of a difference...
I once had a scooter with an 80cc engine. Those have around 7 Nm of torque. You can barely get over a curb with one if the front wheel is right in front of it - so much for the 3 Nm difference...
Furthermore, he mentions 'one of the first tests,' so it's likely around 1993.

The 100 horsepower engine in the Golf 3 came quite late and, as far as I remember, was only available in the Golf GT.

Hi Markus,

The TDI test dates back to 1996.

The gasoline test is from 1997.

Best regards,

Adrian.

My experiences with my two cars:

AUDI 100, Type 44, 2.3 liter engine, 136 horsepower, 190 Nm of torque.
2. Volkswagen Golf 3 Estate/Wagon 1Z.

'I've driven the Audi for 4 years and the Golf for 1 year on the highway (driving 200 km twice a week). Since there wasn't much else to do, I made all sorts of comparisons between them.'

The airflow was absolutely identical during the tests on gears 4 and 5 (unfortunately, my device is running low on power, so I can't provide exact numbers, but it was significantly less than what was stated above).

EDIT:
Addition: For both cars, the acceleration times were 9.5 seconds from 60 to 100 km/h and 12 seconds from 80 to 120 km/h.

'In direct (subjective) comparisons with other participants, specifically 1Z Golfs, on the highway (I was in an Audi at the time), the acceleration from 100 km/h to approximately 160-170 km/h was identical; only then could I pull ahead of the Golf thanks to its 'sheer' power. In the AFN models, it was a tie. Only towards the end did I have a slight speed advantage. Furthermore, according to the documents, the Audi had a top speed of 201 km/h. This was also confirmed in direct 'top speed' races with a Vectra (I believe it was the 2.0 16V with 136 hp, which had a top speed of 201 km/h) and a Honda Prelude (also 136 hp and a documented top speed of 201 km/h). It was quite a sight: three cars almost side-by-side on three lanes, driving at their maximum speed of 201 km/h for about 3 minutes.'

A different experience: Two weeks ago in the Harz mountains. I was there with my Variant (with an AFN engine), and my father was driving his 190E 2.3 with 136 horsepower. When trying to accelerate out of hairpin turns in the mountains, we had absolutely no chance.

Regarding the topic of torque, I'm still grateful to my intuition from two years ago for having switched from an Audi (average fuel consumption of 9.3 liters per 100 km) to a TDI (average fuel consumption of 5 liters).

CONCLUSION:

In practice, the performance is virtually identical (except for acceleration from 0 to 100 km/h), and fuel costs are more than halved.

Hi!

"Today's TDIs all have more torque (PD!) than they did 2-3 years ago, while gasoline engines are lagging behind. Diesel engines almost always produce slightly more Nm than stated, whereas gasoline engines typically don't. These comparisons no longer hold true when comparing current models."

Best regards,
Uwe

@adrian

Perhaps HS-Elektronik should be informed that there have been new motors available for some time now .


'Especially, there are several versions of the 90 hp engine, and wastegate turbos have been outdated for a long time. Take a look at the descriptions of all those TDI engines...'

cut and paste in its most ridiculous form...

Sure, here's a translation of the German text:

'A short quote?'

Volkswagen Bora 1.9 TDI / 150 hp - Common Rail.
Inline four-cylinder diesel engine mounted transversely at the front, electronic pump-nozzle direct injection, rapid preheating system, exhaust turbocharger with wastegate and intercooling, controlled exhaust gas recirculation and oxidation catalytic converter .

or

Audi A6 2.5 TDI / 180 hp
Six-cylinder diesel engine in a V configuration, mounted longitudinally at the front, with electronic direct injection, rapid preheating system, turbocharger with wastegate and intercooling, controlled exhaust gas recirculation, and oxidation catalytic converter .


But other tuners aren't necessarily better either...
Only Wendland explicitly and clearly distinguishes the 90 hp TDI variants.

CU Gremlin.

Markus H. wrote:

...202 NM is correct, I had a Golf 1Z for 7 years....

... I also drove the first generation for five years...

There are actually both specifications, 202 and 205 ..., and even in the documentation from Volkswagen...

I give up... 202NM!!

Perhaps it's not accurate to compare naturally aspirated engines with turbocharged diesel engines, but rather to compare the turbocharged versions of each type. The strong torque increase (often described as "buffalo-like") is solely due to the turbocharger. In modern turbocharged engines, there is generally a very high torque output from low RPMs and it remains at a relatively constant level for a long time. Practically speaking, this means that you don't need to downshift when going uphill, and your speed barely decreases. Theoretically, smoother shifting and more relaxed driving are possible.
However, it remains true that gasoline engines with the same displacement offer more power and higher RPMs, while diesel engines provide more torque. Compare the 1.8T engine (1800ccm, maximum 225 horsepower) with the TDI engine (1900ccm, maximum 320 Nm of torque, maximum 150 horsepower).

However, it remains true that gasoline engines offer more power and higher RPMs for the same displacement, while diesel engines provide more torque. Compare the 1.8T engine (1800ccm, maximum 225 horsepower) with the TDI engine (1900ccm, maximum 320 Nm of torque, maximum 150 horsepower).

small hint:

Simply put: power equals torque multiplied by speed.

Therefore, a gasoline engine will always have more power at the same torque output, simply because it can achieve higher RPMs.

Even a tuned 66 kW TDI automatic can make a 1.8T driver (110 kW) break a sweat .

CU Gremlin.

Simply put: power equals torque multiplied by speed.


I think the formula is familiar to everyone.


Therefore, a gasoline engine will always have more power at the same torque output, simply because it can achieve higher RPMs.


What I wanted to point out is primarily the characteristic of turbocharged engines, which, unlike naturally aspirated engines, don't have a "torque dip" but rather a flat plateau in their power delivery.


Even a tuned 66 kW TDI automatic can make a 1.8T driver (110 kW) sweat .


As mentioned in a previous email, this depends on factors such as the driver and the speed range, as well as many other things that have already been described elsewhere.

Hello.

'Buffalo characteristics' of turbomotors? You don't necessarily need a turbo for that. For example, the 2.8-liter gasoline engine in the older A4.
It produces 40% more torque than at its maximum power output.
and this at a speed that is only half as high as the maximum speed.
His torque curve is therefore the same as that of a diesel engine .

VW gasoline engines are often poorly designed for what could be achieved with gasoline power. That's why there's often the impression that the diesel principle (with a turbocharger) offers a performance advantage.

Here's the only real disadvantage of a principle that prioritizes performance over engine speed (i.e., acceleration through gearing):
The moment of inertia of the engine has a greater impact. This could translate to roughly 50-80 kg of additional vehicle mass that the 6500 RPM engine adds compared to a 4500 RPM engine with the same power output and top speed.
Best regards, Ernst.

Ernst S. wrote:

It produces 40% more torque than at its maximum power output. and this at a speed that is only half as high as the maximum speed. His torque curve is therefore similar to that of a diesel (or turbo).

???

Hi!

2.8 liters: approximately 180 Nm at 1,900 rpm, 280 Nm at 3,200 rpm, approximately 225 Nm at 6,000 rpm, and 193 horsepower at 6,000 rpm.

1.9-liter TDI PD engine: 310 Nm of torque at 1,900 rpm, 115 horsepower at 4,000 rpm.

Best regards, Uwe

Hi Uwe!

I have no idea what you're trying to say with these values.

If you take the development path of the 2.8-liter gasoline engine and reduce it to the point where only 115 horsepower remains, and then compare that to your 115 hp TDI in a car of the same weight...
'We'll perform a drag test from 50-100 or 60-100, or 80-120 km/h, using a gear that allows both cars to reach, for example, 130 km/h. In this scenario, the gasoline engine will always win because it has a larger 'bump' in its torque curve. And it doesn't matter how few Nm remain in the gasoline engine; since the power output is equal, it's geared more towards acceleration.'


(Okay, in this case, it's probably a draw because the 115 hp version with 310 Nm of torque has an incredible amount of torque for its relatively low power output.)

And everything else that makes gasoline engines seem slower is simply due to different translations, increased performance in TDI models, or comparisons with gasoline engines that have very weak torque curves.
Best regards,
Ernst.
edit
Oops, you probably wanted to point out the 280/225 Nm = 1.4 ratio, and yes, that's incorrect. In the diagram I have available, 200 Nm is indicated at 6000 RPM. After recalculating, it should be 225 Nm. This changes things to the extent that the 115 HP PD model does indeed have a larger torque curve, but not so much for the 150 HP PD model, for example.
I just wanted to demonstrate that naturally aspirated gasoline engines can also be designed for similar performance characteristics as those found in TDIs.

Modern turbocharged engines are primarily downsized naturally aspirated engines. Therefore, for example, gasoline engines (this doesn't apply to diesel engines, as there are currently no high-performance naturally aspirated diesels, at least in the passenger car sector) should be considered as naturally aspirated engines and compared with a turbocharged engine of similar power output. In this case, I believe that the turbocharged engines perform better because they offer excellent torque from low RPMs and consume less fuel (due to minimized frictional losses).

Here are a couple of examples:
2.4 naturally aspirated engine, 125 kW at 6000 rpm, 230 Nm at 3200 rpm, fuel consumption: approximately 10 liters per 100 km.
1.8 Turbo: 120 kW at 5700 rpm, 225 Nm of torque at 1950-4700 rpm ("flat torque curve"), average fuel consumption of 8.5 l/100km.

3.0 naturally aspirated engine, 162 kW at 6300 rpm, 300 Nm at 3200 rpm, fuel consumption: 11.5 liters per 100 km.
1.8 Turbo: 160 kW at 5900 rpm, 280 Nm of torque at 2200-5500 rpm, average fuel consumption of 9.5 liters per 100 km.

With the TDI engines, it's evident that the variable geometry turbochargers (VTG) can also contribute to increased power and torque (e.g., in the 2.5 TDI and 1.9 TDI-PD models).
The best way to find out what you personally enjoy most (regarding things like torque, responsiveness, power delivery, RPM range, performance, fuel efficiency, cost, etc.) is to test it yourself.

Thomas.