1.4L 118kw engine GONE

[Flighter]

Well things have changed a bit definitely. Looking at the specs online the torque band is narrower apparently. Max torque from 1500-3500 on the new 1.4 vs 1500-4500 on the twincharger.

This page shows the max torque range for the 118TSI variant lies between from 1750-4500 rpm.

Explore the Golf's 9 variants. < Golf < Models < Volkswagen Australia

The turbo only 90TSI variant has peak torque starting lower still, commencing at 1500 and running through to 4000 rpm.

[Rawcpoppa]

This page shows the max torque range for the 118TSI variant lies between from 1750-4500 rpm.

Explore the Golf's 9 variants. &lt; Golf &lt; Models &lt; Volkswagen Australia

The turbo only 90TSI variant has peak torque starting lower still, commencing at 1500 and running through to 4000 rpm.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/x14avmr724...20charging.pdf

I wonder what's the reason for the variation in specs from the same company.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[265coupe]

I think the reason for the demise of the 1.4 twincharger is obvious.
Although VW intended the engines life to continue througth the Mk7 model run unfortunately the tooling wore out prematurely in making all those warranty replacement crate engines dispatched to Australia.
It's a funny germanic trait, no admission of inferiority.
I remember well that BMW K100 motorcycles of the eighties smoked terribly when on the sidestand (in Australia). BMW's response? It's because the sidestand is on the other side for RHD roads and so the engine leans the wrong way.
The truth was that the pistons had unpinned rings and so eventually all ring gaps aligned leaving a clear path for oil to leak into the combustion chamber.
I heard an unfounded rumour that the same engineer later designed engines for VW.

[pologti18t]

I think the reason for the demise of the 1.4 twincharger is obvious.
Although VW intended the engines life to continue througth the Mk7 model run unfortunately the tooling wore out prematurely in making all those warranty replacement crate engines dispatched to Australia.
It's a funny germanic trait, no admission of inferiority.
I remember well that BMW K100 motorcycles of the eighties smoked terribly when on the sidestand (in Australia). BMW's response? It's because the sidestand is on the other side for RHD roads and so the engine leans the wrong way.

LOL... the sidestand is on the same side for all countries. Good story though.

You forgot to mention that the twincharger 118Tsi and turbo only 90TSI have both been replaced with new engines.

[cktsi]

I think it was cost that lead to the demise. The reliability and quality can always be improved upon iteratively in later generations... Otherwise you could use the same argument for the DQ200 7 speed DSG. Note they have kept this around even though it was released at the same time as the 118version of the twincharger and had worldwide issues with shudder and breakdown (spectacularly so in china).

Having both a supercharger and tubro charger are extra materials, manufacturing and assembly costs. Having just one mode of forced induction is much cheaper on all 3 counts.

VW must be feeling cost pressure from the likes of the new Focus that are starting to become competitive.

Still... 3.5 years on when i sit in the car at the lights, i still smirk that my car has both a frigging supercharger AND turbocharger! WTF??? It is simply a one of a kind engine.

[Ryan_R]

I just love saying I have a little 1.4L hatchback and also humiliating P platers in noisy Commodores

[Rawcpoppa]

I just love saying I have a little 1.4L hatchback and also humiliating P platers in noisy Commodores

I actually WISH there was a 1.4 badge for these cars. I was thinking of buying the one for the polo and putting it to the left of the tsi badge. Pretty much beats up on anything up to 2.5 litres normally aspirated. Car puts a smile on face every time I drive it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[265coupe]

On the face of it VW appears reasonable to explain the dropping of the engine on 'cost and complexity'.
But I can't easily accept that argument.
The engine was released in 2007 (Golf 5 GT).
Fundamentally the same since.
The development costs (always the biggest outlay) have been well amortised over that production run.
Incremental development improvements mean the current version should be perfect. (after all in production for 5 years)
We all know how well they drive, no argument there.
Cost to produce?
Couldn't get much cheaper. Suppliers in place. Tooling done, robots programed, employees trained (at both assembly and for repair)
Pollution targets- met and designed into the future.
No, forget the german hype.
Ultimately the engine is a dog. It is UNRELIABLE. It BREAKS.
All those awards count for nought when you are a private owner and that engine light comes on in traffic on your way to work in your 15000km old Golf. Bought with your hard earned.
VW are cutting and running from that engine.
Now a good engine. GTI 2.0 turbo. Lesson learned. They got it right. Long run. No dramas. Bombed massively and holds together.
Expect the new engine to be a baby of this one. Think amortised costs etc.
I just feel sorry for all those workers in crate engine dispatch who are now redundant.

I just had thought. They can go the crate DSG dispatch. Never enough staff there.
The next big news will be the demise of DSG and a return to a conventional TC auto.

[Ryan_R]

I actually WISH there was a 1.4 badge for these cars. I was thinking of buying the one for the polo and putting it to the left of the tsi badge. Pretty much beats up on anything up to 2.5 litres normally aspirated. Car puts a smile on face every time I drive it.

2.5 litres? I've beaten 3.0L V6's and have even kept up with that Holden R8 Ute thing when leaving the traffic lights (whatever that's running). Of course Stage 1 and weight difference has a lot to do with that.

Aren't some costs of the lower end cars covered by the higher prices of more premium cars (or premium options) anyway? $3000 satnav anyone?

[Rawcpoppa]

On the face of it VW appears reasonable to explain the dropping of the engine on 'cost and complexity'.
But I can't easily accept that argument.
The engine was released in 2007 (Golf 5 GT).
Fundamentally the same since.
The development costs (always the biggest outlay) have been well amortised over that production run.
Incremental development improvements mean the current version should be perfect. (after all in production for 5 years)
We all know how well they drive, no argument there.
Cost to produce?
Couldn't get much cheaper. Suppliers in place. Tooling done, robots programed, employees trained (at both assembly and for repair)
Pollution targets- met and designed into the future.
No, forget the german hype.
Ultimately the engine is a dog. It is UNRELIABLE. It BREAKS.
All those awards count for nought when you are a private owner and that engine light comes on in traffic on your way to work in your 15000km old Golf. Bought with your hard earned.
VW are cutting and running from that engine.
Now a good engine. GTI 2.0 turbo. Lesson learned. They got it right. Long run. No dramas. Bombed massively and holds together.
Expect the new engine to be a baby of this one. Think amortised costs etc.
I just feel sorry for all those workers in crate engine dispatch who are now redundant.

I just had thought. They can go the crate DSG dispatch. Never enough staff there.
The next big news will be the demise of DSG and a return to a conventional TC auto.

You're having a laugh. They won't go backwards and a TC auto would be just that.

I find it hard to believe Vw aren't simply cutting costs. If you can get 90% of performance out of the new 1.4 for significantly cheaper then why not? Lets be honest. Vw only stuck that supercharger there years ago because they couldn't get low end torque out of it.

Now the new 1.4 gets more torque than the old one while delivering a bit less horsepower BUT the car is lighter and is only .1 seconds slower from 0-60. From a capitalism business perspective it makes sense.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk