[feels_road]

It's time to rejuvenate the discussion about VW's TSI engine. Its main benefits are that it is lightweight (288lbs?), torquey, and frugal – with a very wide torque band.
See here for some early VWvortex info.
From my understanding, this dual-charged engine is now available in Europe in 122, 140, 150, and 170hp versions. In particular, the 122hp version shows that usual US premium (vs. Euro super-premium) gas can be used. There is no doubt in my mind VW can make a 140-150hp work on US fuel, as well.
VW sources say: "Der TSI ist auf den Betrieb mit Superbenzin (95 Oktan) ausgelegt. "Der Motorbetrieb mit Super Plus rechnet sich nicht mehr", sagt VWs Motoren-Entwicklungschef Rüdiger Szengel und erteilt damit dem teuren Kraftstoff eine Absage. "Wir sind überzeugt, dass diesen Aggregaten die Zukunft gehört", sagt VW-Sprecher Hans-Georg Kusznir über die TSI-Familie."
Meaning, VW engineers think TSI is the future, and engine development for "standard premium" fuel is the way to go. Which bodes well for the US.
From the real–world experience that I can gather, in Europe many owners get about 28 to 36 mpg with a TSI Golf on average (combined city and highway driving, across the engine range), with a definite benefit towards the lower hp engines. It would be very useful for us in the US to accumulate more resources on actual fuel consumption.
With the US 2.5 engine rated at 25mpg (average --- as also supported by many vortexers), anything close to or above 30 to 35mpg (~20% to 30%+ benefit) seems like a respectable jump. Especially, since it does not come at the huge price hit of TDI engines with modern emissions controls. I see this engine mainly for folks who don't drive the 20,000 miles+ / year at which point the TDI shines, but buyers who may still do respectable city or hill driving where the TDi is OK but does not do all that great, where the 2.5 is at its poorest, and in regions where customers also pay attention to the "greenness" factor.
So, if anyone knows first-hand fuel consumption sources for the TSI engine, please speak up.
http://****************.com/smile/emgift.gif

 

[TREGinginCO]

Re: TSI engine for the US? (feels_road)

I had a conversation with a big shot at VWoA shortly after the TSI engine came out in Europe and there were three major concerns (at the time) about the TSI and the American car buying public.
1: Fuel requirements. The TSI has a minimum 95 octane requirement and we don't have that readily available here in the U.S.
2: Small car, small engine with premium requirements for fuel (small car drivers in the U.S. typically use cheap gas (not my words))
3: Small displacement engines. Americans don't equate small displacement engines with big power output... and the person I talked with says, VW doesn't know if the investment in trying to sell the idea to Americans would be worth it.
With that said... the TSI engine is a fascinating exercise in engine technology! I can see a future for it --- providing long term reliability doesn't become an issue.

 

[unixgolf]

Re: TSI engine for the US? (TREGinginCO)

I'm not too sure this engine would do well here, the problem being the premium fuel it requires. Up here today for instance regular is $1,12 , premium is around $1,25 and diesel is about $1,22 a litre.
Easily premium is always between 10-20% more than regular.
I owned an A4 1.8TQ before and know how it costs to run on premium, not everybody would be happy.
Overall, a more refined 2.5 engine on regular is more welcome.
My 2 cents.

 

[feels_road]

Re: TSI engine for the US? (TREGinginCO)

Quote, originally posted by TREGinginCO »

1: Fuel requirements. The TSI has a minimum 95 octane requirement and we don't have that readily available here in the U.S.

The dual-charged TSI engines (140hp and 170hp) require 98 RON, which corresponds to 93-94 US (R+M)/2. There is no question in my mind that they could be detuned to require 91 to 93, instead, like the GTI, GLI, and the base engines in the Passat, EOS, Tiguan, A3, and A4. Those are all cars people buy despite the premium gas requirement.
The 122hp engine doesn't have the supercharger (just a turbo) and gets by with 95 RON = 90-91 US (R+M)/2. It may be possible to detune that to 87-91, as for the 2.5l engine. For a Polo-sized car, that could make a good base engine.
Interesting that VW decided to call all these engines "TSI", now, regardless of whether they are dual-charged.
http://www.auto-news.de/auto/t...19110

 

[feels_road]

Re: TSI engine for the US? (unixgolf)

Quote, originally posted by unixgolf »

I'm not too sure this engine would do well here, the problem being the premium fuel it requires. Up here today for instance regular is $1,12 , premium is around $1,25 and diesel is about $1,22 a litre. Easily premium is always between 10-20% more than regular. I owned an A4 1.8TQ before and know how it costs to run on premium, not everybody would be happy. Overall, a more refined 2.5 engine on regular is more welcome.

I don't see these engines as competition to or replacement of the 2.5 - they each have their own place. Currently, Volkswagen has absolutely no frugal/green engine to offer. TSI engines could take that place, especially when TDI engines either are not available or too expensive, and for users that do substantial city driving but not the 16K to 20K+ miles for which a TDI makes financial sense.
In the US, premium is typically 15 to 30 cents more expensive than regular, currently on average 20 cents. At gas prices of between $3.00 and $4.00, that is only 5% to 7% more. If a TSI engine can save something like 20% to 30%+ in fuel, the added cost of premium doesn't matter. And you save fully on the limited resource, and on CO_2 emissions. (Diesel, BTW, has the same problem in that it often sells at premium prices or even above).
I see VW's market as predominantly urban and along the costs, where smallish, frugal, and green cars are in fact in demand, and consumers pay a premium for hybrids. In other words, I do see a market for a VW with a TSI engine.

Modified by feels_road at 12:43 AM 12-1-2007

 

[feels_road]

Re: TSI engine for the US? (feels_road)

Still trying to get actual user fuel consumption numbers.
Meanwhile, in AutoBild's test that consisted of a fairly aggressive mix of Autobahn, full-throttle highway, country, and city driving, the 1.4l TSI Golf got ~35mpg average, about 0.5mpg better than the highest-hp (pre-common-rail) Euro 2.0 TDI Golf. It was one of the few engines that got close to advertised consumption ratings. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif

 

[TooMuchFun]

Hello.
Interesting that you talk about this engine-concept in the states.
In germany the opinion is very popular, that in the USA only cars with big engines are driven.
Here the TSI engine ist very popular, get's the engine-of-the-year-award. We have many people with diesel-engines on our autobahns (highways" because they drive 30.000kilometers or more in one year. In germany we pay in this moment 1,44 Euros for one Liter Super+ (98) and 1.30 Euros for one liter of diesel.
The taxes for a diesel car is much higher so a diesel car is just good for persons who drive that much.
The TSI engine seems to chance that completely. It's a strong engine, you don't feel the small engine. Before I bought my GTI Cup Edition I take the Golf GT (1.4l TSI 170PS) for a ride and it was amazing. No turbo-lag or something, same power from start til the red area on the rev... know what I mean.
The diesel boom seems to end now, the 2.0l TDI engine with common-rail is more unattractive when you see the TSI.
Now with the small TSI's with 122 or 140 PS familys or little companys buy this engine in a Golf or a Touran. The smallest engine in a golf in germany is at the moment an 1.4l 80PS engine.
VW said, that this engine goes out of production in near future. Why? The TSI get's 170PS out of an boring 1.4l engine, and everything looks like it's a durably engine.

Now a question from my side:
Which qualitys of petrol is available in the states?
We got 91, 95, 98 and 100 octane.
PS: Sorry for my bad english. Do my best.

 

[feels_road]

Re: (TooMuchFun)

Thanks for your reply. Octane is measured differently in the US and Europe, see my post above or wikipedia. And, it can also be adjusted by the manufacturer.
Please tell us real world mileage figures for these engines, if you happen to know.
-----------------------------------------------------
Was uns wirklich interressiert ist der tatsaechliche Benzinverbrauch fuer diese Motoren, in typischen Wagen (Golf) und unter normalen oder anderen, spezifischen Bedingungen. Das Problem hier wie dort ist dass die from Werk angegebenen Daten manchmal stimmen, aber manchmal arg danebenliegen. Wenn Du von typischen Benutzerangaben weist, lass uns das wissen.
Vielen Dank ---

http://****************.com/smile/emgift.gif

<--- Pilsner Urquell
PS: Die Vereinigten Staaten ist ein grosses Land. Selbst wenn 3/4 der Bewohner grosse Motoren bevorzugen (was nicht stimmt), sind da immer noch genausoviel Fahrer wie in Deutschland die oft kuerzere Strecken in der Stadt und im bergigen Nahverkehr verbringen. Deshalb sind hier auch kleine Wagen (auch "hatchbacks" und "stationwagons") sehr beliebt. Das Problem ist dass mehrere andere Hersteller solche Autos heutzutage, waehrend die Benzinpreise deutlich steigen, mit verbrauchsarmen Motoren vertreiben --- VW aber nicht.
Man kann nicht alle US Verbraucher ueber einen Kamm scheren.


Modified by feels_road at 5:42 AM 12-2-2007

 

[54-46]

If it comes here, it'd be a Phaeton like flop in the market.
It will never fly as an economy engine, because economy engines don't use premium gas. Yes, just like you, I am fully aware of the small price differential. However, you and I are not target markets for these things and most people have a huge hangup about premium gas.
Economy cars can also be marketed as "green" cars. A fuel sipping vehicle that still has reasonable power and features could be marketed as fun and responsible to drive, except, again the premium fuel requirements torpedo any effort towards a "green" halo about the TSI.
Finally, you've got needless complexity. There's lots of turbocharged European cars, and not so many American and Japanese cars with turbos. This is because most Americans fear turbochargers as a source of needless complexity and cost. Then, you're adding a supercharger on top of it, another device not widely regarded for its economy or simplicity.
You're putting both systems onto one engine.
And you expect people to properly maintain them, feed them premium gas, and fulfill whatever stringent requirement for the oil that'll be required?
Yeah, right. Disaster. Just like the last supercharged production VW engine.

 

[feels_road]

Re: (54-46)

Quote, originally posted by 54-46 »

And you expect people to properly maintain them, feed them premium gas, and fulfill whatever stringent requirement for the oil that'll be required? Yeah, right. Disaster. Just like the last supercharged production VW engine.

Which engine would that be? VWoA has never offered such a thing.
VW oil requirements are not special or different between the base engine Eos, Passat, Tiguan, A3, A4 or the "special" turbocharged GTI. I just don't get it. Premium gas is only required for specced hp. The engine management system adjust to retard the timing if a tool does otherwise.

most people have a huge hangup about premium gas
Almost all people I know have some rudimentary, 6th grade math skills. They are perfectly able to calculate any benefits themselves.
The current prime market for VW consist of the two coasts and major urban US areas. Which excludes most of PA and any other math-challenged areas. Sorry to be so blunt.



Modified by feels_road at 5:57 AM 12-2-2007

 

[54-46]

Re: (feels_road)

Quote, originally posted by feels_road »

Which engine would that be? VWoA has never offered such a thing. VW oil requirements are not special or different between the base engine Eos, Passat, Tiguan, A3, A4 or the "special" turbocharged GTI. I just don't get it. Premium gas is only required for specced hp. The engine management system adjust to retard the timing if a tool does otherwise.

The G60, ask a Corrado owner about their feelings on it.
Re: Oil. They're special enough in that they require full synthetic, a luxury many car buyers don't want to spend for. This is especially true when pinned with the "economy" aspect of TSI ownership. Most people who buy new economy cars don't want to hear about $60+ oil changes when Jiffy Lube advertises the $20 special.
Of course, if you really want to hear about oil bitching, go ask a TDI-PD owner the last time he saw 505.01 in the wild, outside a VW parts department.
As for premium fuel, yes, it would be required. Your high-compression, forced induction engine will ping itself to pieces if you don't spring for it.
So, you and I both know that people who buy economy cars don't want to spring for premium fuel and synthetic oil. And, you and I both know that many of them won't. Think of all the many failed engines that will result when people skip these two basic-to-ownership consumables cost. Even if there's no cost to VW to repair these issues (after all, its owner neglect), it'll still be a PR black eye.

 

[54-46]

Re: (feels_road)

Quote, originally posted by feels_road »

Almost all people I know have some rudimentary, 6th grade math skills. They are perfectly able to calculate any benefits themselves. The current prime market for VW consist of the two coasts and major urban US areas. Which excludes most of PA and any other math-challenged areas. Sorry to be so blunt.

Yes, they're perfectly capable of calculating those benefits, but they won't because the word "premium" is there which instantly precludes any deeper thought on the matter.
You can argue that all you want, but therein is the truth.
I'm not going to bother attempting to refute your claims on Pennsylvania's population or its lack of inclusion on being one of the "coast states" with no "urban areas," but I did feel the need to qoute them so when you edited them off your post in shame, your ignorance would be preserved.

 

[feels_road]

Re: (54-46)

Same applies to many of the current VW/Audi offerings (GTI, GLI, EOS, Tiguan, A3. A4, ...).
Most good service places offer synthetic oil changes for $40-$60 or so, depending on engine size. Many online places sell the required oil at discounted/ reasonable prices. All VW places I know accept your own oil when you bring it. I see no problem, here. More, if necessary, can easily be enforced through business practices by VWoA.
The engines adjust for octane rating and automatically change timing. There is not a single case of a recent-memory high-octane engine that "disintegrated" because of lower-octane fuel.
All of this reminds me of the failed arguments against European cars in the 70'. Ill-advised and ill-informed --- US-domestic passionate blurbs being both hopelessly outdated and doomed to backfire because they don't ever address the pressing problems at hand - which now are the real shortage of world-wide resources, economic pressure on the consumer, dependence on foreign sources, and environmental threats.

 

[feels_road]

Re: (54-46)

Quote, originally posted by 54-46 »

Yes, they're perfectly capable of calculating those benefits, but they won't because the word "premium" is there which instantly precludes any deeper thought on the matter. You can argue that all you want, but therein is the truth. I'm not going to bother attempting to refute your claims on Pennsylvania's population or its lack of inclusion on being one of the "coast states" with no "urban areas," but I did feel the need to qoute them so when you edited them off your post in shame, your ignorance would be preserved.

I feel no shame, nor do I edit off anything directed at PA. We are talking about consumer perceptions and acceptance of frugal engines in the appropriate usage-environment, and in the context of where in the US green conscience currently is located; nothing more, nothing less.
It is you who degrades consumers by proclaiming " they're perfectly capable of calculating those benefits, but they won't because the word "premium" is there which instantly precludes any deeper thought on the matter."
Enough said. Have a

 

[TooMuchFun]

@feels_road: The normal daily consumtion of the 170PS TSI is about 7,5l / 100km. It's a mix of autobahn / city. If you put the pedal on the floor, there is the normal turbo-consumption about 8-10l.
Hope that is that, what you meant.
@54-56
The generation with the g-charger (mechanical compressor) was not a good idea from VW. They learned from this disaster.
The actual Turbocharged-FSI-Generation is a system that works.
It needs less fuel like the "old" generation 1.8T (which I have in my polo) but still makes lots of fun. Here many people put 95 octane in there Golf GTI's (VW said the engines are optimized for 98) and they run well!
The 2.0l TFSI works in the Golf GTI (200PS) and the Golf GTI Edition 30 (230PS, smaller version of the Audi S3 engine), the Seat Leon Cupra (240PS), the Audi S3 (265PS) and the Skoda Octavia RS (200PS).
@Oil
We use 5W-30 oil 504 00 / 507 00.
VW want for 1 liter about 26 euros. That is hard.
But when you buy the oil on free market (castrol, mobil 1, shell) with the same norms (504 00 / 507 00) you can buy 1 liter for about 7-9 euros. Even the owner of touaregs, big audis ... buy the oil for themselfes because the price at their dealers for oil is pure unfair.
one more thing: the TSI is just for one reasion so popular in here: the fuel price get's higher and higher. Many years ago, liter 95 octane costs about 1-1,05 euro. Bad time last summer you pay 1,50 euros for one liter 98 at the autobahns.

 

[unixgolf]

Re: (TooMuchFun)

I'm no expert but, if you put reguler gaz in a turbo designed to run on premium, the engine will adjust itself but with a price ... it will consume more fuel. No gain here.
If ever possible, a turbo design that could run effectively on regular (87-89) would sell just right.


Modified by unixgolf at 3:03 PM 12-2-2007

 

[bugglesride]

Re: (unixgolf)

Fact is that 54 is the typical person who seems to harbor a condesention for the potential VW buyer.....are you in the marketing or pr business perhaps?
Perhaps the bottom feeder buyer (kia, hyundai, ect) will not be interested in VWs technology but all potential VW buyers would be.
And agreed that 54 doesn't know much about the wonders of modern ecu controls that can perfectly adapt to varying octane ratings with LITTLE OR NO reduction of economy or performance in an engine like the TSI.

 

[54-46]

No, I harvour a condescending attitude for your average person who views cars as appliances and devices for point A to B travel, and not an extension of himself.
Guess what, the masses are such as those I've described.
Guess what else, VW is a business here to make profits and not make a tiny demographic feel elitist. As such, they only care about one very simple fact: The bottom line.
An overly complex engine that requires premium fuel, synthetic oil, and an eye towards timely maintenance isn't a benefit, its a hindrance. Because it requires premium fuel, it can't be marketed as neither economy nor green, and because of a turbo AND a supercharger, its twice damned from those who view such objects as a costly and problemic contraption.
But, what does logic matter to you? I've read your nonsense across any number of forums and threads, and its always the same and its incredibly out of touch with the American people who are flocking to those "bottom feeder" cars.
I'm finding it incredibly hard to resist ad hominem attacks on you, but I'm afraid you're incapable of rational thought and somehow with enough abuse maybe someone can get through your thick skull.
Isn't there a thread you can be ranting about TDI Polos in somewhere?

 

[bugglesride]

Re: (54-46)

You're quite entertaining 54 because if you and those at VWoA have their way the distributor will be out of the car business in no time flat....
Fact is that VW SHOULD use its best assets to seperate itself from the pack in the USA, trying (and failing miserably) to be a BMW pretender has done the company NO favor whatsoever...VWs best products are smaller, economical vehicles....it is darn interesting that many of those who have sampled the Polo and or old Lupo usually have great things to say of them....Frankly it is INEXCUSIABLE that VW has NO, that is right NO truly economical car in its line up in the USA....If they thinkn they will rival Toyota or even Honda in US marketshare anytime soon it won't be with over priced and troublesome T-regs and Passats...
It will be accomplished with good value, small, economical, good quality, REASONABLY (not cheap) priced Polos and the like from Brazil....

Modified by bugglesride at 9:14 PM 12-2-2007

 

[unixgolf]

Re: (bugglesride)

Absolutely bugglesride,
VW lost it ways, didn't they buy Audi, Bughatti, Lamborghini, Seat and all ... They already have the upscale with these brands, it is time for them to refocus on its core, good small cars that stand out from the crowd !
With Porsche having a lot to say in VW's futures I think the time has come norw.




Modified by unixgolf at 8:47 PM 12-2-2007