VW Vortex - Volkswagen Forum banner

1 - 14 of 14 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
193 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Hey, I'm just wondering what the consensus was on the motor for the Mk5. I've heard from several sources that it's going to be the 3.2, but the latest Motor Trends say's it's going to be a version of the 2.8. In my experience, MT has not always been spot-on with the facts. What are you guys hearing?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
347 Posts
Re: Mk5 GTI, 2.8 or 3.2? (sechsy)

I don't know. But once the Phaeton hits the dealer lots we may have a better idea. Though it is publicised as having a 3.2 V6 in base trim, whether or not that is going to be a VR6 or an Audi based 90 degree V6 is still unconfirmed. If the engine is indeed a VR6, then there is a good chance that the engine will find its way into a MkV, other wise the chances are basically zero.
In will also not surprise me if the MkV gets the carry over 2.8 24v for one or two year then switch to a 3.2. After all the 2.8 was around for about 1.5 years before the US cars siwtched to it. Besides, the 2.8 24v is a very new engine in the US, they may want to keep it for about 4 years just to make its introduction and parts stocking worth while; meaning 2 years in the MkIV and 2 years in the MkV.
Another reason the MkV may keep the 2.8 is that VW is seriouly considering replacing all their Golf/Jetta automatics with Multitronic CVT boxes. If so, the 2.8 may be retained just because the 3.2's torque output exceeds the Multitronic's rating of 227 lb-ft.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,050 Posts
Re: Mk5 GTI, 2.8 or 3.2? (DwightLooi)

The Golf V/Jetta V will have a 3.2l VR6 rated at 230hp and standard with 4motion AWD. Volskwagen is not likely to go the CVT route with the Golf and Jetta but rather a new double clutch sequential transmission that they have applied for patent on. This new trans will be a delayed intro though.
The other standard engine will be a new version of the 2.0l with 4v per cylinder and turbocharging. Base horsepower will be 180hp, but that could go up quite a bit if need be.
-jamie
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
103 Posts
Re: Mk5 GTI, 2.8 or 3.2? (vwvortex1)

quote:[HR][/HR]The Golf V/Jetta V will have a 3.2l VR6 rated at 230hp and standard with 4motion AWD. Volskwagen is not likely to go the CVT route with the Golf and Jetta but rather a new double clutch sequential transmission that they have applied for patent on. This new trans will be a delayed intro though.
The other standard engine will be a new version of the 2.0l with 4v per cylinder, direct injection and turbocharging. Base horsepower will be 180hp, but that could go up quite a bit if need be.
-jamie[HR][/HR]​

Jamie is this going to be for USA consumption???? Or only in Germany?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15 Posts
Re: Mk5 GTI, 2.8 or 3.2? (benares)

Jemie,
I am not sure if you already talked about this but do you know when we will be getting more info on the MK5?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,790 Posts
Re: Mk5 GTI, 2.8 or 3.2? (vwvortex1)

quote:[HR][/HR]No those are the U.S. spec engine plans.[HR][/HR]​
Incredible! That might just keep me in the VW family!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
347 Posts
Re: Mk5 GTI, 2.8 or 3.2? (vwvortex1)

quote:[HR][/HR]No those are the U.S. spec engine plans.[HR][/HR]​
I do not normally like to contradict Vortex staffers, whom by all accounts have proven to be good info suppliers, but here I must make an acception simply based on logical reasoning.
This pertains specifically to the 2.0l direct injection issue which to me sounds very dubious. I say this because it makes very little sense to adopt direct gasoline injection in the US, at least in the near future. The reasons are as follows:-
(1) Direct injection, for most parts, is not any better at producing power at high engine speeds. Its main advantage is its ability to produce a stratified fuel charge at lower and medium engine speeds. For those unclear on the term, a stratified charge is when fuel is not mixed evenly within the cylinder but rather concentrated in a stream with the rest of the cylinder basically devoid of fuel. This is useful for burning very lean mixtures which normally won't ignite. With a stratified charge, while the overall mixture is very lean, the stratified fuel stream is fuel rich and if you can guide this stream to the sparking plug you can light the charge. Direct injection also allows fuel to beinjected during the compression stroke which has the efect of allowing zero fuel spill-over down the exhaust during the valve overlap period and also seems to allow somewhat higher compression ratios (around 12.5:1) by limiting the amount of time and contact the fuel mixture has in the cylinders. The ability to run high compression ratios and burn very lean mixtures under light duty situations means that fuel economy is notably enhanced -- by as much as 15% compared with port injected engines of otherwise similar sophistication.
(2) This all sounds nice and good, but in fact there is a big problem. The problem is that ultra lean combustion produces a crap load of the various oxides of nitrogen. This is natural and unavoidable since the lack of fuel means the lack of carbon and an excess of oxygen molecues during the combustion process. And, when they get hot enough nitrogen and oxygen molecues lacking preferable dates tend to find comfort with each other. NOx'es are very significant polutants and regular catalytic converters does nothing about them. We already have catalytic converters that can redeem the situtation, but these are quite costly, and perhaps more importantly, gets ruined by sulfur in the gasoline very easily and rapidly. Hence, lean burn engines in the US does not make sense until sulfur levels in US gasoline are drastically reduced something that is not likely to happen by 2004 if anytime soon.
(3) If you are not going to allow very lean combustion, then there is very little reason to adopt direct injection!



[Modified by DwightLooi, 11:12 PM 2-13-2002]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
103 Posts
Pfft!! VW makes no sense!! They kill the Golf 1.8T because it doesn't sell well - and now they are putting a 3.2V6 in with 4-motion.
WTF?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,050 Posts
Re: Mk5 GTI, 2.8 or 3.2? (DwightLooi)

Dwight you are correct... that was my mistake as the 2.0l 16v Turbocharged engine doesn't have direct injection. I was getting it confused with a new DI 2.0l.
-jamie
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
233 Posts
Re: Mk5 GTI, 2.8 or 3.2? (vwvortex1)

I just got my April 2002 issue of Eurotuner. Here's what they say about the Mk5:
"All this time we've been waiting for the 24v VR6 to hit the American shores, but now it's here, and it's getting replaced in 2004. The Mk 5 Golk, which is scheduled as a '04 release and will measure two thirds of an inch longer and have a 3.8-inch longer wheelbase, is rumored to not only house the 230hp 3.2L VR6, but also offer fully independent rear suspension. The Golf will be offered in both 3-door and 5-door hatchback configurations, and there may even be a stripped GTI version offereing a manual transmission and few other features in order to get back to VW's GTI roots. Don't be content with the 3.2L, however, as VW is seriously considering dropping in the 271hp W8 if there is comsumer demand.
Well I'm interested in the W8, but I guess my gas bill will be a lil' higher

Anybody else want the W8? we need consumer demand



[Modified by hershey, 7:07 PM 3-7-2002]
 
1 - 14 of 14 Posts
Top