Polo 1.4l 59kW TDI DPF Blue Motion - Ist das was? | Posts 32+

Just a quick question:

Why does Volkswagen only offer the smaller diesel engines with three cylinders?
Are there any advantages to that?
Is it better to have 3 large cylinders instead of 4 small ones?

Hello,
With cylinders that are too small, the efficiency suffers because excessive heat is dissipated through the "cold" cylinder walls.
Best regards, Günther.

Hi,

Martin wrote:

Quote:

I consider the information about the VTG loader to be unconfirmed at this time.

@Bavarian:

How about this one? Have you checked if yours has a VTG loader?

Best regards,

Jan.

dieselmartin wrote:

Compression ratio 18.5:1, 195 Nm of torque from 1800-2200 RPM - all the information online is incorrect. Why is it wrong? VW actually says exactly this - even on the internet.

"@Dieselmartin - the "wrong" information referred to the compression ratio. According to the VW website, it's 19.5:1, but the actual value is 18.5:1. I just wanted to reiterate the torque figure because there seemed to be some confusion about that as well. I probably expressed myself poorly."

jochen_145 wrote:

I doubt that it will remain an "Extrawurst," as that would be far too expensive. I expect that this engine will be available in the next generation of the Polo. That makes sense.

@ Jochen_145 - I wouldn't be so sure about that, because first of all, they wouldn't have a Polo anymore to which they could apply the "BlueMotion" label, since 80% of the fuel efficiency comes from the engine. Secondly, it would be too expensive and unprofitable to equip all TDI Polos with a VTG turbocharger - it will remain an optional extra.

jochen_145 wrote:

According to theory (or at least Volkswagen's consumption diagram), the Lupo 3l should consume less than 6 liters per 100km at 160 km/h. However, I haven't tested that myself. It couldn't manage more than about 170 km/h.

@ Jochen_145 - that's exactly why I specifically mentioned the consumption at 170 km/h, because I didn't want to compare it to the 3L Lupo - it's a completely different concept with a different target audience.

Jan6K wrote:

What about this? Have you checked on yours to see if it has a VTG loader?

@ Jan6K - Sonnenbrille abnehmen und meinen vorigen Beitrag lesen. Ja, der BlueMotion hat den hochgesetzten, um 180° gedrehten VTG-ATL von BBGW mit pneu. Control.


zum Thema warum 3-Zyl. TDI:

In my opinion, the claims about efficiency and individual cylinder chambers seem a bit exaggerated.

There are 3 reasons. Cost, cost, cost.
The combustion process can be directly adopted from the 1.9L 4-cylinder TDI engine, as well as almost all auxiliary components. The 3-cylinder engine is essentially a shortened version of a 4-cylinder engine. This is known as a modular system. See also AUDI V6/V8/V12 TDI engines.

Greetings.

The frictional power increases with the number of cylinders.

Hi,

If it's really true that the "BM" version has a VTG (variable torque generator) while the standard one doesn't, then the whole thing is just fat marketing and nothing else.

If I take all the 1.9 and 2.0 TDI engines and either deliberately make them run poorly (for cost reasons) or simply drill a hole in the fuel tank, I can create an "eco-TDI" that is primitively state-of-the-art (with VTG but without an oil cooler in the tank), and it will outperform other engines AND consume less fuel.

I believe the BlueMotion is just a regular three-cylinder TDI engine, and the others (with a wastegate), as their name suggests ("waste"), should be scrapped. At least, they should stop selling such concepts.

m;
who is suffering from a turbocharger with a wastegate issue , and who has already experienced AMF (presumably a related problem) and suffered even more }.

@dieselmartin: Hey, the ALL CAPS are back! *Keep it up!*

Hi,

Quote:

Jan6K - Take off your sunglasses and read my previous post.

Sorry! I had already read that.

Sincerely,

Jan.

Okay, I can't say anything bad about the BMW at all.
According to the speedometer, it was about a needle width ahead of 200 km/h (which translates to roughly 194 km/h after resetting the FIS). Despite driving the car for approximately 400 km mostly above 160 km/h whenever possible, I achieved a fuel consumption of 5.2 liters per 100 kilometers after refueling.

'The first trip averaged 4.8/4.9 liters per 100 kilometers (I usually drove at around 160-170 km/h with the accelerator pedal pressed about three-quarters down). On the return trip, the onboard computer indicated a consumption of 5.4/5.5 liters per 100 kilometers, likely due to driving over rough surfaces. Both times, I filled up at the same gas station (the distance to the highway entrance is approximately 800 meters).'

At least 438 km driven with a fuel consumption of 23.10 liters.

A bit rough around the edges in the lower gears, but overall a very economical car (which becomes quite noisy above 160-170 km/h).

Supplement: The initial test run, conducted with a very light foot, didn't go exactly as expected - the lowest fuel consumption recorded by the onboard computer was 3.9 liters per 100km over approximately 25 kilometers of highway driving. However, I believe that with more aggressive acceleration and a flat road, it should be possible to achieve even better results. Nevertheless, even with a 'heavy' foot, one can still achieve the fuel consumption figure specified by the manufacturer (at a speed of around 95 km/h).