Return of the 1.8T for VW

[93JC]

My point was simply that one can polish a turd.

And an unpolished turd is still a turd.

[MX793]

My point was simply that one can polish a turd.

A shiny turd is still poop.

[Galaxy]

And an unpolished turd is still a turd.

A shiny turd is still poop.

The TT RS is not the best vehicle on the track, but I would not call it, and it's 5 banger, a turd/poop.

[MX793]

The TT RS is not the best vehicle on the track, but I would not call it, and it's 5 banger, a turd/poop.

I wouldn't call the basic 5-cylinder in the Jetta/Golf/Passat a turd.  I've never heard that it's unreliable.  Power output is OK for an engine that size.  Worse I can say about it is that it's less fuel efficient than the engines that most of the competitors offer in those segments.  Of course, it's also a much larger engine than the 1.8s and 2.0s used in Corollas, Civics and Focii.  More powerful than those cars as well.  That's not so much a fault with the engine as with VW's strategy of using it for that market segment.

[Madman]

The I5 as used in America might be lackluster, BUT it should be pointed out that it forms the basis for the Audi TT RS.

Yes, the design is based on the 2.5 Jetta engine, but the whole thing has been thoroughly re-engineered.  The TT RS engine blocks are recast in vermicular graphite iron for strength and lightness.  This material was originally used in large capacity diesels but this is the first time it's ever been used in a road-going gasoline engine.  Audi experimented with this material in gasoline racing engines before putting it in production for the TT RS.  Audi then fitted the engine with lightweight aluminium internals.  The RS engine also features direct injection and a big honkin' turbo!  Audi calls it TFSI (Turbocharged Fuel-Stratified Injection) and it's the same technology that powered Audi to multiple wins at LeMans.  All these extensive changes gives the TT RS 335 horsepower and 332 lb.ft. of torque.  At the end of the day, the TT RS engine has about as much in common with the Jetta 2.5 engine as I have in common with a cocker spaniel!

[r0tor]

The TTRS is a rocket on the track... I would take one in a heart beat

[Raza]

I wouldn't call the basic 5-cylinder in the Jetta/Golf/Passat a turd.  I've never heard that it's unreliable.  Power output is OK for an engine that size.  Worse I can say about it is that it's less fuel efficient than the engines that most of the competitors offer in those segments.  Of course, it's also a much larger engine than the 1.8s and 2.0s used in Corollas, Civics and Focii.  More powerful than those cars as well.  That's not so much a fault with the engine as with VW's strategy of using it for that market segment.

The engine itself isn't bad.  I'm considering an early 5MT I5 Jetta or Rabbit as a possible second car.  I've driven the 170bhp version on multiple occasions, and while it is a bit outgunned on the highway, it's fine around town, with all that low end torque. 

[MX793]

The engine itself isn't bad.  I'm considering an early 5MT I5 Jetta or Rabbit as a possible second car.  I've driven the 170bhp version on multiple occasions, and while it is a bit outgunned on the highway, it's fine around town, with all that low end torque. 

I find it hard to believe that the 2.5 Jetta/Golf is outgunned by many, if any, other compact econo-cars on the highway (Corolla, Elantra, Civic, Sentra, etc).  Or even base-engined midsizers (4-banger Accords, Camries, etc).

[12,000 RPM]

VW is going the BMW route:

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2013/09/natural-aspiration-expiration-at-vw-will-go-all-turbo-within-four-years-ford-may-too/

[Raza]

I find it hard to believe that the 2.5 Jetta/Golf is outgunned by many, if any, other compact econo-cars on the highway (Corolla, Elantra, Civic, Sentra, etc).  Or even base-engined midsizers (4-banger Accords, Camries, etc).

Outgunned compared to my 2.0T, should have made that clear.

[12,000 RPM]

I find it hard to believe that the 2.5 Jetta/Golf is outgunned by many, if any, other compact econo-cars on the highway (Corolla, Elantra, Civic, Sentra, etc).  Or even base-engined midsizers (4-banger Accords, Camries, etc).

The midsizers all have a good 20-30HP on the later one and 40-50HP on mine. After getting spanked by that Avalon I trust nothing

[S204STi]

Outgunned compared to my 2.0T, should have made that clear.

The 2.0T makes a lot of things appear smaller in the rear view mirror...

[MX793]

The midsizers all have a good 20-30HP on the later one and 40-50HP on mine. After getting spanked by that Avalon I trust nothing

Most of the midsize segment is within 10 hp of the current VW I5 and only 3 have 20+ hp more.

'13 Camry 2.5L - 178 hp
'13 Fusion 2.5L - 175 hp
'13 Accord 2.4L - 185 hp
'13 Altima 2.5L - 182 hp
'13 Legacy 2.5L - 173 hp
'13 Malibu 2.5L - 197 hp
'13 Avenger/200 2.4L - 173 hp
'13 Optima/Sonata 2.4L - 200 hp
'13 Mazda6 2.L - 170 hp
'12 Galant 2.4L - 160 hp

Now bear in mind that several of those midsizer got full redesigns with updated powertrians in the past year or two.  If we go back 5 years when the 170 hp version of the I5 was introduced...
'08 Camry 2.4L - 158 hp
'08 Fusion 2.3L - 160 hp
'08 Accord 2.4L - 177 hp
'08 Altima 2.5L - 175 hp
'08 Legacy 2.5L - 170 hp
'08 Malibu/G6 2.4L - 169 hp
'08 Avenger/Sebring 2.4L - 173 hp
'08 Optima/Sonata 2.4L - 162 hp
'08 Mazda6 2.3L - 156 hp
'08 Galant 2.4L - 160 hp

Really stacked up pretty well with everything else that was out there at the time and for a couple of years beyond.  It wasn't until 2011 that the midsizers started stepping up their base motors (starting with the '11 Sonata).

[MX793]

Outgunned compared to my 2.0T, should have made that clear.

It doesn't really compete with the 2.0T version of itself...  That's like saying the 2.5L Mazda3 is outgunned on the highway because the Speed3 is way faster.

[Raza]

It doesn't really compete with the 2.0T version of itself...  That's like saying the 2.5L Mazda3 is outgunned on the highway because the Speed3 is way faster.

I guess I need to clarify further.

In comparison, around town, the 2.5 felt about as punchy and torquey as the 2.0T.  If anything, it felt like it had more low down torque.  But on the highway, you could really feel the power difference.

[MX793]

I guess I need to clarify further.

In comparison, around town, the 2.5 felt about as punchy and torquey as the 2.0T.  If anything, it felt like it had more low down torque.  But on the highway, you could really feel the power difference.

At partial throttle, it probably did have more low end.  The 2.0T makes gobs of low end torque at very low RPMs, as does this new 1.8T (more than the 2.5 I5) but only if you're running at WOT.

[AltinD]

There was a 2.3 or a 2.5L V5 (yes, a V5) producing 170 HP that VW used in late -90s, early 2000s on the Golf, Bora and Passat. Was never offered in North America though.

I also found a Passat CC catalogue printed on May 2008. The base engine (available only with 6sp M/T) was a 160 HP TSI, that can't be but the 1.8T





Your move sporty 

[12,000 RPM]

Doesn't mean it's the same motor. I know for a fact older TSIs did not have dual injection, for starters. Might as well be calling the OG 1.8T "the same motor". More importantly though you should be addressing Galaxy, I never said you were wrong about this

[MX793]

The VW V5 is not actually a true V5.  It's a VR6 minus one cylinder (meaning one cylinder bank and one head).

[Soup DeVille]

The VW V5 is not actually a true V5.  It's a VR6 minus one cylinder (meaning one cylinder bank and one head).

Is there even such a thing as a "true V5?"

[3.0L V6]

Is there even such a thing as a "true V5?"

http://www.onedirt.com/news/ever-heard-of-a-v5-diesel-engine-olds-made-one-in-83/

[MX793]

Is there even such a thing as a "true V5?"

Honda made one for their RC211V MotoGP bikes.

[Galaxy]

I also found a Passat CC catalogue printed on May 2008. The base engine (available only with 6sp M/T) was a 160 HP TSI, that can't be but the 1.8T

That is the 1.4 TSI.

[AltinD]

That is the 1.4 TSI.

Even if so, the B6 Passat did indeed have a 1.8T around the same time (slightly later perhaps), that here was batched as TSI

[MX793]

That is the 1.4 TSI.

The 1.4 TSI was 150 hp.  According to Wiki, the Audi 1.8 TSI replaced the older, similarly powerful 2.0 FSI in the B6 in 2008.

[Char]

So will this be an epic piece of shit like the last 1.8T and current motors, or just a piece of shit? Can't wait for people to lose 30% of the HP in months of ownership and buying a new turbo after 60-70K.

[2o6]

STFU

[12,000 RPM]

So will this be an epic piece of shit like the last 1.8T and current motors, or just a piece of shit? Can't wait for people to lose 30% of the HP in months of ownership and buying a new turbo after 60-70K.

VW finally got its act together with the turbo motors. And actually, I know a few people with the old carbon gunked 2.0Ts and they've had no problems. I regret not getting a Passat 2.0T wagon, even with the carbon gunk, over the 2.5 Rabbit. Same gas mileage, 50 more horsepower and much more car overall.

[Char]

VW finally got its act together with the turbo motors. And actually, I know a few people with the old carbon gunked 2.0Ts and they've had no problems. I regret not getting a Passat 2.0T wagon, even with the carbon gunk, over the 2.5 Rabbit. Same gas mileage, 50 more horsepower and much more car overall.

Yeah - no. What did they do to fix the issue?

[12,000 RPM]

Yeah - no. What did they do to fix the issue?

They added port injectors to clean the ports. No more carbon buildup.

Honestly if you budget for a periodic valve cleaning, there's really no other problem with it. I know you have a hard on for slamming VWAG- sometimes it's almost funny- but they have turned things around. GTI is a fun high quality car. B6 Passat is good... much nicer looking and driving than its competitors. I don't like Audis but they don't make bad cars.