Engine weight 103 TDI

[NovaArtist]

I remember reading somewhere that the 103 TDI engine wasn't hugely heavier than the petrol versions. In some other makes, the diesel is so much heavier that diesels are nowhere near as balanced on the road as the petrol versions (take the Subaru outback for example) - so when looking at the owners manual (I have a 103 TDI) - I noticed that some 103 TDI's have a CBAB code and others (like mine - a CFFB code) - so I'm thinking - why use 2 codes for the same engine - and on page 122 there is a glimmer of an answer. The CFFB 103 TDI 6 speed manual golf weighs 1351 kg, while the exact same common rail 103 TDI with particulate filter CBAB weighs 1374 kg. Where have those 23 kg gone? - Purely for interest sake - does anyone know what they have done to the engine to shed 23 kg? - I' cannot find anything doing a google search.

[prise]

How much does a particulate filter weigh?

[hoi polloi]

Are there any other differences between the two besides engine/particulate filter? Things like brakes, alternator, battery etc. which could account for the extra weight?

I know currently VW quote 50kg difference in kerb weight between the diesel and eqivalent petrol...

Regards,
- Anthony.

[Umai Naa!!]

The CFFB is pretty new to the scene. The CBAB (or kebab, as us techies were calling it at last year's Golf 6 training), has been around since mid '08, from memory. I'm unaware of the differences between the two at this stage.

VW are always trying to shed weight off their engines. It would be hard to pin-point where, as they seem to be fairly thorough.

[NovaArtist]

The weight of the 118 TSI (whole car) is around 1310 kg, so the 103 TDI (in CFFB spec) is about 40 odd kg heavier overall. As for the filter - this is what I'm asking - even though the CBAB diesel engine is exactly the same spec - with supposedly all the same additional filters and common rail system etc - then the question is, what have they done? - I am going to guess that the CBAB engine weighs about 280 to 300 kg - so a 23 kg reduction (given that the rest of the car should be identical) - is about a 7-8% reduction in engine weight. Thus, did they just make it 7-8% thinner? - did they replace cast iron with lighter alloy in large parts of the engine? - did they indeed remove something they considered unimportant from the previous engine? - this is what I am interested to know.
this CFFB spec engine is obviously so new that the owners manual I have, dated November 2009 does not have CO2 emission data for it, nor does it have Fuel consumption values, which suggests the fuel readings currently on vehicles are still based on the CBAB engine. - interestingly here too - it states the CBAB engine with 6 speed manual as 4.9 L/100km combined. Must be something about Australian conditions that bump it up to 5.3?

[Umai Naa!!]

They tend to come up with ways of making the actual engine itself lighter, ie. crank, rods, pistons, block, head.

[Bizi]

So this is a potential, expensive but marginal upgrade for 2.0 TDI 103kW owners, as an engine swap in a few years?

[MW103DSG]

I took a trip to Mudgee in a Golf 103 TDI and noticed that my Garmin GPS measured our speed at a lower value than the MFD measured. The difference varied but the Garmin usually had a value 5km lower than shown on the dash. I presume this would affect the calculated fuel consumption.

My two cents worth

MW103DSG

The weight of the 118 TSI (whole car) is around 1310 kg, so the 103 TDI (in CFFB spec) is about 40 odd kg heavier overall. As for the filter - this is what I'm asking - even though the CBAB diesel engine is exactly the same spec - with supposedly all the same additional filters and common rail system etc - then the question is, what have they done? - I am going to guess that the CBAB engine weighs about 280 to 300 kg - so a 23 kg reduction (given that the rest of the car should be identical) - is about a 7-8% reduction in engine weight. Thus, did they just make it 7-8% thinner? - did they replace cast iron with lighter alloy in large parts of the engine? - did they indeed remove something they considered unimportant from the previous engine? - this is what I am interested to know.
this CFFB spec engine is obviously so new that the owners manual I have, dated November 2009 does not have CO2 emission data for it, nor does it have Fuel consumption values, which suggests the fuel readings currently on vehicles are still based on the CBAB engine. - interestingly here too - it states the CBAB engine with 6 speed manual as 4.9 L/100km combined. Must be something about Australian conditions that bump it up to 5.3?

[Highlander]

I took a trip to Mudgee in a Golf 103 TDI and noticed that my Garmin GPS measured our speed at a lower value than the MFD measured. The difference varied but the Garmin usually had a value 5km lower than shown on the dash. I presume this would affect the calculated fuel consumption.

My two cents worth

MW103DSG

Check your Garmin distance travelled against VW MFD distance travelled and I don't think you will find the same discrepancy as you do with the Garmin/MFD speed values. 110kph GPS is 118 MFD on our MK VI TDI 103. Haven't done the distance comparo on our car and will be interested to see how it measures up.

[Cossor]

I took a trip to Mudgee in a Golf 103 TDI and noticed that my Garmin GPS measured our speed at a lower value than the MFD measured. The difference varied but the Garmin usually had a value 5km lower than shown on the dash. I presume this would affect the calculated fuel consumption.

My two cents worth

MW103DSG

From previous threads, VW speedo exagerates speed by 3~4%
Same in europe. Same with Commodore, Same with most other makes. (Also brings service points closer!)
Apparently Toyota is one of the very few who indicate speed "as it is"