Vibration Dampener 2.0 TDI

Hello everyone,

I'm currently considering retrofitting my 2.0 TDI engine with a second intercooler, which is standard equipment on the 170hp version.

The airflow path runs from the air filter, over the cylinder head, to the driver's side, then down behind the bumper into the intercooler. From there, a metal pipe directs the air back to the passenger side (turbo side), and is attached at the bottom of the crossmember.

On the 140 horsepower models, there is no second intercooler cooler on the passenger side; instead, the low-pressure hose is directly connected to the turbocharger.
At the location where the second lower lingual canine should be, an oval-shaped structure is visible.

After some research, I found out that the part is a pulsation damper with a membrane.
A small branch from the LD hose goes into this pulsation damper.
Otherwise, the component is not connected anywhere.
http://stefan.localh0rst.net/albums/Audi/Pulsationsd_mpfer.sized.jpg

In the version with 170 horsepower, this pulsation damper is not installed. Instead, a second intercooler is located in its place.

Now the question is:
In my opinion, the pulsation damper is used to dampen pressure spikes or overshoots. Am I correct in this understanding?

If that's the case, I wonder why the intercooler isn't necessary for the 170 hp engine. Or does the larger air-to-air cooler itself already provide sufficient dampening?

Best regards,
Stefan

Hello Stefan,

The purpose of a pulsation damper is...

Quote:

- reducing acceleration pressure peaks. - reducing pulsed current surges. - preventing vibrations and damage in the pipeline system

Regarding the second LLK (likely referring to a specific piece of equipment or system), I would advise you to reconsider it. From my perspective, there doesn't seem to be a clear benefit, as the original LLK is already adequately sized.

Just use VCDS to measure the intake air temperature in measurement block 7.

Best regards, Rainer.
P.S.: If the picture is of you, it would be great if you could upload it along with your post, as otherwise, sooner or later, we'll end up with topics that are useless either because they lack images or have broken links.

Ich würde sagen, dass der 2. LLK is currently being suppressed.

Okay, please provide the German text you would like me to translate into English. I will only provide the translation.

Thank you for the clarification. I was already thinking something similar.

Why I want to upgrade the second LLK (likely referring to a specific piece of equipment or system).
I took the tester out for a few test drives in the summer, and the LLTs (Low-Level Transmissions) were already quite high then.
Up to 40 degrees Celsius above the outside temperature.

With the addition of fog lights, the price difference was a few thousand euros less.

During the last inspection, I closed some gaps in the air duct leading to the automatic transmission cooler and cleaned the automatic transmission cooler of dirt and dust, then blew it out with compressed air.
Unfortunately, I don't have a recent measurement, but it wouldn't really be useful given the current outdoor temperatures.

But in principle, a second LLK (likely referring to a specific type of license or permit) can't hurt.

Approximately, the pulsation damper has a similar air volume to the liquid-cooled engine (which would need to be measured precisely).
Therefore, no significant disadvantages should be noticeable in terms of pressure buildup. The lower limit temperature (LLT) will definitely decrease since the cooling surface area is doubled, and that can only be a good thing.

Best regards,
Stefan

I'm still interested in this topic, and it would be great if someone could provide some information about it.

A second low-loss coupling (LLC) that reduces the LLT (low-loss transformer) impedance cannot be detrimental, and the air volume of the pulsation damper and the second LLC shouldn't be drastically different, or am I mistaken?

Best regards,
Stefan

Yes, that can be done, but I doubt there will be a noticeable effect. What about the image?

Best regards, Rainer.