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

Just a quick question:

Why does VW only offer the "smaller" diesel engines with 3 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 too much heat is dissipated through the "cold" cylinder walls.
Best regards,
Günther

Hi,

Martin wrote:

Quote:

I consider the information about the VTG loader as not yet confirmed.

@Bavarian:

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

Best regards,

Jan.

dieselmartin wrote:

Compression ratio 18.5:1, 195Nm 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 phrased things 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 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 that they could label as "BlueMotion," 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 a special feature.

jochen_145 wrote:

According to theory (or at least, according to VW's consumption diagram), the Lupo 3l should consume less than 6 liters per 100km at 160km/h. However, I haven't tested that myself. It couldn't quite reach 170km/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 are a bit of a stretch.

There are 3 reasons. Cost, cost, cost.
The combustion process can be directly adopted from the 1.9L 4-cylinder TDI engine, as can almost all auxiliary components. The 3-cylinder engine is essentially a shortened version of a 4-cylinder. This is an example of a modular design system. See also the 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" model has a VTG (variable torque geometry) while the standard model only has 80 horsepower, 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 a VTG but without an oil cooler in the tank), and it will outperform other engines AND consume less fuel.

I believe the Blue Motion is a standard 3-cylinder TDI engine, and the others (with a wastegate), as the name "waste" suggests, should be scrapped. At the very least, they should stop selling such designs.

m;
who "suffers" from a turbocharger with a wastegate and has already experienced AMF (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 BM at all.
According to the speedometer, it was about a needle's width ahead of 200 km/h, but after the FIS (reset), it showed 194 km/h. 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, showing values from the underbody to the road surface. Both times, I filled up at the same gas station (the distance to the highway entrance is about 800 meters).'

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

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

'Initial test with a very light foot didn't go exactly as expected - the lowest consumption recorded by the onboard computer was 3.9 liters per 100km over about 25km of highway. However, I think with a more aggressive driving style and a flat road, there's definitely room for improvement. Still, even with a 'heavy' foot, you can achieve the stated consumption (at a speed of approximately 95 km/h).'