FSI , TSI und TDI | Posts 48+

SeatArosa1.7SDI wrote:

Why isn't this potential for savings also being utilized to develop more rational and sensible cars?

Because, with small cars, the price is primarily a deciding factor for purchase, and the TSI engine probably can't be offered as cheaply as a naturally aspirated 1400cc engine.

Furthermore, at such scales, the technology becomes very intricate, requiring expensive, high-strength materials.

Besides, the devil is more likely to furnish hell with plush carpets than a car manufacturer is to equip a small car with modern technology. ^^

rubberduck wrote:

At the top of the food chain in this segment, there is clearly the 2.0 TFSI in the GTI.

In the new S3, there's the 2.0 TFSI engine with 265 horsepower, which is a truly impressive horsepower-per-liter ratio!

Regarding the TSI engine and its potential performance limits:

I personally own the prototype of the TSI from the year 1990.

Yes, exactly 1990. I did NOT misspell that. This is a Volkswagen Golf 2 Syncro G60 turbo!

You can see how long it sometimes takes Volkswagen to turn a prototype from back then into a production model. And considering that my little car, with its 1.8-liter engine and only 8 valves, produces a whopping 286 horsepower, I can only imagine what tuners will be able to get out of the 2.0 TSI engine!

Here's some information about the technology:

The G-60 supercharger handles the air intake from 0-3400 RPM, and then the turbocharger takes over. Both are controlled by the same low-pressure coolant circuit, which is regulated by a normal T-piece (it contains a valve, and the circuit opens where the air pressure is higher). The G-loader is operated like a climate compressor: At 3400 RPM, it is simply switched off via a magnetic coupling.

The cool thing is that you can drive completely without using the 'G' mode; it only activates when you put the car in full power mode, or it can be active all the time.

I think that this technology will eventually be implemented in TDIs as well, because it can really improve the responsiveness at lower engine speeds, as the turbocharger pressure can be built up more quickly.

In the new S3, there's the 2.0 TFSI engine with 265 horsepower, which is a really impressive horsepower-per-liter ratio!

Yep! Furthermore, with a turbocharged gasoline engine, you also don't have any issues regarding particulate matter/DPF/driving bans/fines, etc.

Hello.

I think the TSI engine, like all cars in this performance class, will only find its niche among enthusiasts. Let's think about the G40 and G60 engines. All of them failed to gain a foothold in the market due to their lack of reliability and fuel efficiency. In my opinion, the same thing will always happen with this type of engine.
"Who needs something like that? We already have two engines: a GTI with 200 horsepower and an R32 with 250 horsepower. Do we really need another one in between with 170 horsepower? A small engine with high performance will almost certainly result in very high fuel consumption, especially when driven in a sporty manner. We've been down this road before, and it didn't work out."
For people who have to drive a lot and still don't want to compromise on performance, this is not an alternative. Diesel engines have the advantage in that area. And it's still more fun.
I believe that corporations (and I mean all of them) should focus on developing gasoline engines that are more fuel-efficient. Because we're still stuck in the mindset of the 90s.


Best regards, Charly.

Hello,

I also think it's good when one can create synergies from all known, durable...
Creates technologies. But even a 1.4-liter engine with 170 horsepower wouldn't tempt me to buy it, especially since I haven't even driven one yet.

So far, I have argued the following:

Even if the consumption were to be exactly the same (I don't think it will be, because the energy density of a cheap liter of diesel is still higher than that of a liter of gasoline).
The DPF (Diesel Particulate Filter) technology is not even in its infancy; it's practically still in its early stages. A gasoline engine is quite a toxic piece of machinery; without catalytic converters, which have been established for a longer time, it would be even worse. Let's let the developers work on it; hopefully, the last word hasn't been said about the DPFilter issue.

Okay, I admit that the 'pro-diesel' argument based on torque simply doesn't hold up when looking at performance figures. As we know, normalization due to the transmission needs to be taken into account. 100 horsepower is still 100 horsepower at the end of the day. However, what probably works is the combination of 'initial acceleration' (the derived torque curve), because it's fun, and the fact that the car is fully engaged in the diesel's economically ideal torque range. I'd have to squeeze every last bit of power out of a gasoline engine, which, considering the Jericho-trumpet-like noise, would be a nuisance for the neighbors. And yet, even though the numbers (acceleration, not fuel consumption) might be right, I'd have to give up that subjective thrill. That's the reason why some people inject heroin instead of consuming it orally. The working surface will be the same, but the initial acceleration is what brings the joy. If the initial acceleration is still efficient, because the slow piston speed/RPM works well with diesel combustion, then I'll be in paradise. The reason I've been driving diesel cars (until now).

But now


Now, there really are cars like the BMW *35i, or the 1.4l 'miracle' described in the thread. The 35i is a high-revving concept – 8000 RPM! It already produces 400 Nm of torque at 1300 RPM, which it maintains up to 5000 RPM. If you were to adapt it to a diesel transmission (we'll simplify, and assume 1000 idle RPM in each case), a 306 HP 3-liter diesel (very roughly) would need 800 Nm of torque, which (again, very roughly ) would be available to it just above idle speed and would have to remain at that level at least up to almost 3500 RPM.

I'm going to borrow one or both of the gasoline-powered cars mentioned to get a feel for them.

Recently, my very powerful 110kw 'Muckl' (a nickname for a car) with the rear rollers was in the workshop. They gave me a relatively lightweight (base model) 116 'i' with narrow tires and 85kw. It was a real ordeal. The thing just got louder and faster, but it didn't pull noticeably in any gear or at any RPM. Sure, it could reach 210 km/h, but the perceived reality (which is simply impossible to quantify) gave me a feeling of impotence. I really missed my old AFN in the G3. Can anyone tell me why they make the gears so long in weak gasoline engines? Because otherwise you consume a lot of energy? Or because, when you squeeze it, you need a wider stance to ride efficiently, due to the currently limited, narrow optimal performance range?

Ulf provided these driving scenes that I absolutely loved. How would it look if you put a G5 with a 1.4 gasoline engine on top of a G5 with a 2.0 TDI diesel engine?
'Bzw.' kann je nach Kontext verschiedene Bedeutungen haben. Hier sind einige mögliche Übersetzungen:

* **'Or'**: Wenn es eine Alternative anbietet.
* **'That is' / 'In other words'**: Wenn es eine Erklärung oder Umschreibung liefert.
* **'And/or'**: Wenn es eine Kombination aus zwei oder mehr Optionen anbietet.
* **'Both'**: Wenn es sich auf beide vorher genannten Optionen bezieht.
* **'Including but not limited to'**: Wenn es eine nicht erschöpfende Liste darstellt.
* **'Such as'**: Wenn es Beispiele gibt.
* **'Or equivalent'**: Wenn es eine gleichwertige Option gibt.
* **'Alternatively'**: Wenn es eine andere Möglichkeit bietet.
* **'Either'**: Wenn es eine von zwei Optionen ist.
* **'As well as'**: Wenn es eine zusätzliche Information gibt.
* **'And'**: Wenn es eine Ergänzung ist.
* **'Or both'**: Wenn es sich auf beide Optionen bezieht.
* **'For example'**: Wenn es ein Beispiel ist. BMW 35i versus the new 3.0-liter diesel engine with 286 horsepower.

Did I forget something in my reasoning, or did I make a mistake somewhere? Is the diesel engine being serviced right now?

Please note that, in all these considerations, diesel fuel is soon going to cost as much as gasoline. The current price difference in my area is only 11 cents, compared to what used to be 20 cents (or thereabouts).

We've been through all of this before. And it didn't work out.


VAG will, at least for now, continue with the path of turbocharged engines. A current example: The 2.0 FSI with 150 hp will be discontinued, at least in the Audi A3, and will be replaced by a 1.8 TFSI with 160 hp. Source:

Therefore, there are increasingly more viable alternatives to the TDI .

PS: In addition, a 2.5 TFSI (!) with 365 hp has been announced, but for now, it will only be available in the Audi TT-RS http://www.auto-news.de/auto/news/anzeige.jsp?id=17592.

Diesel or gasoline? This question divides the community like no other. I myself am either a convert or a traitor, depending on your perspective. While my heart used to beat for gasoline engines (that was back when 50 horsepower Golf Is, Mercedes-Benz 8s, and other "heating oil Ferraris" were crawling down the street), I am now completely in favor of diesel engines. It's also a matter of technology. Gasoline engines have been refined for many, many years. Then, about 10-15 years ago, a standstill occurred. More power and innovation could only be achieved through expensive high-tech solutions, while the old diesel engine gained momentum. Consider the short time it took for an old 50 horsepower diesel Golf I to be transformed into a Golf V with 170 horsepower. It didn't just appear out of nowhere. Turbochargers, intercoolers, mechanical variable valve timing, electric variable valve timing, variable geometry turbochargers, particulate filters, or common rail systems – these are all important milestones. These developments were achieved in a relatively short period. Certainly, development concepts, manufacturing processes, and materials science have improved over the past 100 years of automotive engineering, and diesel engines have benefited from this. Ultimately, a peak was also reached here. Electronics have become integrated into all engines, otherwise many technical refinements would not be possible. Back to the technology. The engine development at VW has taken many different paths, depending on how technically inclined the board of directors was. The decision to use PD (direct injection) at the time was correct, as only PD technology could achieve the high pressures required to achieve the necessary atomization, combustion, and exhaust emissions. However, CR (common rail) technology has since caught up and surpassed PD. The pressures can also be achieved with the PD system, but this requires a wider timing belt to handle the forces. This additional driving force would also have to be drawn from the engine. This was also the reason why compressors were phased out years ago. The cost of procuring and maintaining such a belt would become too expensive. This is likely why the decision was made to use a CR system. The TSI (turbocharged stratified injection) is an interesting development. I believe this is what they call "downsizing." "Achieving high performance from small engines through the addition of auxiliary devices. Fuel consumption, power output, and emissions certainly play a crucial role here. These goals can only be achieved or combined with small-displacement engines, but displacement can only be compensated for with even more displacement. Personally, I prefer strong torque at low RPM rather than high RPM. Only (relatively) expensive gasoline engines can deliver a comparable "kick." Nevertheless, I don't believe that VW's diesel development is necessarily the be-all and end-all. I've definitely (almost) driven all of VW's engines, including the 81kW VEP, 85kW PD, 96kW PD, and now an A3 2.0 PD. I've also driven a 320D in between." If I had to rank them, the 320D would be my favorite, followed by the 1.9-liter 96kW PD engine. The A3 with the 2.0-liter PD engine, on the other hand, disappointed me. While the 1.9-liter engine revved happily, the 2.0-liter engine cuts out much sooner. Of course, the torque is higher, but it simply loses power and becomes sluggish at higher RPMs. It really struggles to exceed 200 km/h. In addition, the fuel and oil consumption are too high compared to the 320D. The 320D surprised me; it has 5 gears, revs strongly even in 5th gear up to the redline, with a top speed of 225 km/h; a maximum of 240 km/h (downhill and with a tailwind), and a maximum fuel consumption of 6.5 liters. Oil consumption was never an issue because there was no need to top it up between intervals. VW has a long way to go to match that. The VW 2.0-liter engine is essentially just a bored-out 1.9-liter engine. The webs between the cylinders are extremely thin, which increases the risk of cylinder warping. A 170 horsepower 2.0-liter engine might be fun, but from a technical standpoint, I consider this engine to be problematic. I think the developments from "other" manufacturers are better. Okay, I'm going to take a deep breath now.