Daten zum 2.0 16V mit Filter | Posts 48+

This is not about the stressed mechanics of the clutch, etc. - that would be illogical - especially since the smaller model here is subjected to more stress. No, it's simply the huge fear of boost pressure overshoots, and how significant they are in the large 1.9 engines in the standard configuration, which we all (should) know.


I'm sorry, but I don't understand your answer.

It is well known that the Martins TDI engine produces the maximum amount of torque for a standard 4-cylinder engine. So, why is it illogical to relieve the strain on the dual-mass flywheel (DMF) through appropriate modifications, especially considering that it experiences problems at low RPMs and high torque? And why are the clutch, dual-mass flywheel (DMF), etc., more stressed in the smaller model, even though the torque values are significantly lower?
The clutch problem with the 105hp PD engine is a well-known issue.

The issue of whether the load dump over-swing is a design element of the application, and whether OEMs intentionally use it, and whether the turbocharger is protected from overload due to over-swing, especially at low speeds, has been extensively discussed in recent months.

'riessen Angst' is something you wouldn't expect to have, and the OEM likely doesn't have it either, as they may even use it intentionally.

If there was a fear of excessively high LD (light density), the target LD value (LD_Soll) would have been set lower accordingly.
If the target value is not reached, the control system is either critical or defective.
If a system is configured in such a way that the target value is not meant to be reached, then one has probably not paid much attention to control engineering, or does not understand their system. It's probably not something we should assume.

Best regards, Jochen.

Despite the current LD (likely referring to a specific vehicle configuration or issue), I can intentionally make the dual-mass flywheel (ZMS) vibrate, both with the 170 TDI horsepower version and with the "only" 140 TDI horsepower version, if I want to.

It's interesting to observe the LD (Low Drive) situation when you "pre-fill" the loader and the LD track, for example, by driving in full throttle in the third gear uphill.
He seems much more spontaneous (at least, that's what my gut feeling tells me).

The summer log might have also indicated a slightly ascending route.

I'm going to Google Earth that.

m;

@jochen

Okay, let me explain it better. In the lower RPM range, a 1.9-liter engine puts significantly more stress on the dual-mass flywheel (DMF) than a 170 hp TDI. Once it exceeds 2000 RPM, it pulls much harder on the DMF, which is why the turbo boost and power are not kept low in the lower RPM range. Instead, it's done to achieve a cleaner regulation and a much smoother power delivery. These high-revving regimes occur in engine speed ranges where the crankshaft, turbocharger, etc. could already be operating near their limits. The advantage would be that familiar 'kick-in-the-back' feeling from the 1.9-liter engine, but after that, there's nothing – which is not desirable.

Hello Devilseye,

Okay, first of all, your writing is very bad and difficult to understand.

I have read it three times now, and I still don't really know what you were trying to tell me .

What I think I understood:

The 1.9 TDI engine puts more stress on the dual-mass flywheel (ZMS) in the lower RPM range.
However, that's unfortunately not the case. If you look at the torque figures, you'll immediately see that the difference at the peak torque point is 100 Nm. The rate of increase in torque is correspondingly higher in the lower RPM ranges.

Therefore, the charging pressure and power are not kept low in the lower range, but rather adjusted to achieve a verschandeln and consistent regulation.
A well-defined system reaches its predetermined target value, which is clearly not happening here.
This behavior is not desired. Certainly not, in order to reduce performance.
If this were the case, other target values would be present in the LD characteristic map.

These over-revving situations then occur in speed ranges where the crankshaft sensor, the turbocharger, etc., could already be operating near their limits.

The maximum stress points of the crankshaft and the turbocharger are opposite each other within the speed range!

The advantage would be the 1.9 'kick-in-the-back' feeling again - after that, nothing - but that is not desired.

The torque peak at 2000 rpm, observed in both the 1.9 and 2.0 models, indicates that this specific behavior was intentionally designed and programmed.

I'm sorry, but your objections are unfortunately incorrect.

Despite the current LD situation, I can intentionally make the dual-mass flywheel (ZMS) vibrate in the 3C variant, both with the 170 TDI PS engine and with the 'only' 140 TDI PS engine, if I want to.


Does this show it very clearly?

Best regards, Jochen.

The 1.9 TDI engine puts more stress on the dual-mass flywheel (DMF) in the low RPM range.


However, that's unfortunately not the case. If you look at the torque figures, you'll immediately see that the difference at the peak torque point is 100 Nm. The rate of increase in torque is correspondingly higher in the lower RPM ranges.

I don't want to argue with you, I'm talking about facts that are also noticeable to others who are familiar with these engines. And don't tell me that a 170 hp engine performs better below 2000 rpm than a 105 hp 1.9 engine!
Dieselmartin:
BUT:
Why does the 1.9-liter, 105 hp DPF engine then accelerate much more aggressively?
ONLY because he has a different, smaller turbo?

Sure, he also has reduced performance when you push him downwards on a dynamometer with full boost pressure - but is that relevant in practice?

@jochen: Have you actually driven the vehicles we're talking about? Do you only believe the polished data sheets from the VW sales department? Where are the maximum torque values for the more powerful engines during rapid acceleration, approximately 300 RPM higher than the factory-specified values?

The key issue is that the actual load demand (Ist-LD) doesn't follow the target load demand (Soll-LD). At least, not immediately. The target load demand is what remains after "subtracting" all influencing factors, such as torque limitation, smoke limitation, and whatever other factors might be present. That means this is the value that is being regulated.

I also can't imagine that, for example, the LD (local distribution) route is specifically designed with extra damping to prevent overshooting or similar issues. Here, as can be seen in the diagrams, early regulatory intervention "takes the wind out of the sails."

Does this boost pressure control system actually have adaptive parameters?

For the records.

I have relatives who are size 105, 140, and 170.
Speaking from experience - literally, "driving."

Not from datasheets.

m;

I don't want to argue with you - I'm talking about facts - that are also noticeable to others who know these engines - and don't tell me that a 170 hp engine performs better below 2000 rpm than a 105 hp 1.9 engine!

'I'm sorry, but subjective driving impressions are not relevant in this case.'

Subjectively, I agree with you, but that impression is only there because the 105 hp engine has a very extreme torque dip around 1900 rpm. The 170 model increases more linearly here, which makes it seem 'weaker' or less explosive.
Simply compare the amounts listed for the 170 hp and 105 hp engines in the smoke reduction specifications. These are the minimum amounts you can expect. And, as far as I know, these are significantly larger on the 170PS model.

Of course, he also has reduced performance when you push it down on a dynamometer at full boost pressure - but is that relevant in practice?

Nonsense.
It doesn't matter whether I'm pushing the car to its limits on a test track or if that happens on the road. As long as the same software is being used and the mechanics are the same, there's no difference. Otherwise, I wouldn't need or use test benches.

Have you actually driven the vehicles we're talking about?
Yes, the 105 hp model is just around the corner, the Seat with the specifications listed in the signature and 300 tuning Nm is in the company parking lot, and the 170 hp model is in the company car fleet .
Do you only believe the polished data sheets from the VW sales department???
I believe the VAG-Com log and the software that is installed in the MSG (Modular Solid-State Generator).
Here are injection quantities that are very clearly defined.

What are the maximum torque values for the more highly-tuned engines during rapid acceleration, approximately 300 RPM higher than the factory-specified values?
Everything is falling into place, and things are running smoothly right now.
Even the self-adjusting clutch system, which, according to this discussion, should not be intentionally designed to increase load, provides more torque than the 105 horsepower at 2000 rpm and what is described as 'full power.'

Please don't always blur the lines between subjective driving impressions and objective measurement data, and then present it as facts.

Best regards, Jochen.

I want to mediate.
Subjectively, the 105 hp engine performs noticeably better from 1500 rpm onwards, because it doesn't offer any further gains above 3000 rpm.
The higher notes are good in the middle/upper range, which is why the impression of weakness remains in the lower range, especially since the really strong notes come later.
A measurement would confirm one hypothesis or another, and it's possible that at 1700 RPM, both would have the same torque?
Another consideration: Are the ZMS (presumably referring to a specific component) not built with different spring rates to account for the higher torque?

Let me try to explain:

Nice to hear from you .
Emotionally speaking, the 105 hp engine performs noticeably better from 1500 rpm because it doesn't have anything left to gain above 3000 rpm.
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying.

A measurement would confirm one hypothesis or the other, although it's possible that at 1700 RPM, both have the same torque?
It's definitely possible, but above 1700 rpm, the 'big ones' gain significantly, otherwise they wouldn't be able to reach their maximum torque of up to 100 Nm more at 1900 to 2000 rpm.

According to this, only the initial performance is better with the smaller diesel engines, which is exactly what Martin describes.
However, they don't perform any better below 2000 rpm than the larger ones, because the larger ones have significantly more torque in the last 300 rpm range.
The linearly increasing torque will, as far as I know, reduce the tendency of the clutch to oscillate.

Guys...

Create test scenarios (within a realistic scope).

If I can distract my family with enough presents at Christmas, I'm sure I can obtain logs for all three current TDI models.

m;

Hi,

Quote:

If I can distract my family with enough gifts at Christmas, I can certainly provide logs for all three current TDIs.

The saying is really very good! If you didn't live so far away, I would definitely be there for the test!

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

"Micha"