Comparison: 1.6 SR/MPI and 1.6 FSI Engines

[Koolaba]

Hi all,

 

There have been much discussions on the superiority of the latest 1.6 FSI engines albeit the need to use RON98 petrol to achieve maximum efficiency. Hopefully the following information will be useful for all.

 

From these information, the 1.6 SR or MPI engine delivers higher power and torque output than the 1.6 FSI engine from 1000 rpm to 4000 rpm. The 1.6 FSI engine delivers higher power and torque output past the 4000 rpm mark.

 

Attachment 1:

The image shows a comparison of torque and power characteristics of the 2 engines, albeit the resolution is a bit poor. I have blocked the regions from 1000 rpm to 4000 rpm, which is the most useable section of everyday driving.

 

From this graph, it is clear that the 1.6 SR/MPI engine consistently delivers higher torque and power output up to 4000 rpm.

 

Attachment 2:

Some figures to go with the graphs shown in first attachment. The values marked in green indicate higher output, red for lower output.

 

Source:

http://www.rototest.com/index.php?DN=33

 

For those who are keen to download the torque and power analysis of the 2 powerplants conducted by an individual firm, please download the .pdf files at:

1.6 FSI

http://www.rri.se/popup/performancegraphs....&Flap=Downloads

 

1.6 SR / MPI

http://www.rri.se/popup/performancegraphs....&Flap=Downloads

Edited July 26, 2006 by Koolaba

[Jack_jack]

Very interesting indeed. Thanks for taking all that trouble, bro.

[Koolaba]

You are welcome.

 

Besides savings in cost, maybe this has been a consideration factor for CA when they decide whether to import the MPI or FSI model to Singapore.

[Moeykf]

Bro, for me, the FSI engines would be a better choice. 8 valves compared to 16 valves, the 8 is noiser. ron95/98 price not much diff but the fsi can save u more. power wise between the both......so little difference only. furthermore, wat abt the 0-100km/h timing? top speed?

 

why they dont wan to bring in the 1.6FSI because i think it will simply kill the MPIs in their warehouse.

[Koolaba]

1.6 MPI

Manual

0-100km/h: 12.3s

Max Speed: 190km/h

 

Auto

0-100km/h: 14.1s

Max Speed: 184km/h

 

1.6 FSI

Manual

0-100km/h: 11.2s

Max Speed: 198km/h

 

Auto

0-100km/h: 12.4s

Max Speed: 194km/h

[Moeykf]

ty for the info

 

the fsi is impressive. my friend bought the audi 2.0TFSI but its too exp for me, he also said tat it will cost him ard 11-12k for chip and turbo upgrade....

 

right now, im waiting for the superb 2.0TFSI hehe...

Edited July 26, 2006 by Moeykf

[Miles]

Interesting analysis. But one thing i dont understand.

Why did you make comparison between Audi A2 1.6FSI vs VW Golf 1.6SR?

 

Why not look at these 2 which are base on Skoda Octavia mkI 1.6SR vs Skoda Octavia mkII 1.6FSI? The figures are a lot more relevant even if its octy1 vs octy2.

 

http://www.rri.se/popup/performancegraphs....&Flap=Downloads

http://www.rri.se/popup/performancegraphs....&Flap=Downloads

 

...and suddenly, it all made sense why 0-100 figures are as per your indication, 1.6FSI is almost 2 seconds quicker than 1.6MPI.

 

 

Also look at this site to compare to engines of VW.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Volks...#115_hp_1.6_FSI

[Koolaba]

The information on the A2 1.6 FSI was the first hit which I could find when using Google to search.

 

Should the 1.6 FSI engine be detuned (as mentioned in one of your posts), I would reckon that there will be a slight sacrifice in terms of power and torque output across the entire rpm band from the FSI powerplant. Hence the performance of the MPI and FSI powerplant could be quite similar.

[Miles]

That i am not sure since no one who drives the 1st batch of golf v in singapore has sent their cars for dyno testing. but i think they are only detuning the stratified mode, which is economical mode... for full throttle mode, it should remain the same hence peak torque and power should remain unchange, but its power band may be different from the original.

 

anyway, i just realize the A2 1.6FSI in your case study is rated only at 81kW (approx 110PS) but the ones on Golf V, Octavia II, A3, etc... are rated at 85kW (115PS). So, it is different.

Of course the 74kW Octavia 1 which i post is based on the pre-facelifted mk4 Golf/Bora/A3/Octavia/Toledo/Leon/Beetle 1.6SR (rated at 101Ps @ 5500rpm and 145Nm @ 3800rpm), which i once owned. The revised engine found on Octavia Tour, facelifted Bora, A3, etc.. is rate at 75kW or 102Ps @ 5500rpm and 148Nm @ 3800rpm.

 

For more accurate comparison, perhaps using Octavia II 1.6FSI 85kW vs Golf 1.6MPI 75kw figures will be closer to real world. But then again, torque/power on wheel varies too from kerb weight of each car, tyres size, etc...

 

Anyway, nothing beats real world test drive of both variant.

[King]

the new tour is 102 bhp mah?

how come the brochure nvr show

[Koolaba]

Agreed

[Koolaba]

Hi bro,

 

This may be a piece of interesting material for you.

http://www.briskoda.net/forums/new-octavia...ghlight=1.6+MPI

 

"a lot of the car magazines here also say the 1.6 FSI is a little noisey", according to the post in Briskoda.

[Moeykf]

bro, i agree with u. i myself tested in person and find it as noisy as the mpi. maybe i shall head for 2.0L and above for my next car. no more 1.6!

[Miles]

i beieve all the FSI engines should be noisy (i mean 1.6 + 2.0,... not sure about 3.2FSI) because they are chain cam... but they should be more robust.

 

MPI are belt cam.

[Firstcall]

  Quote

You are welcome.

 

Besides savings in cost, maybe this has been a consideration factor for CA when they decide whether to import the MPI or FSI model to Singapore.

 

hmm...i dont think so... it does not make any marketing sense to do this.

 

any businessman and marketeer will want to use 'new technology' to woo customers. It would be easier to sell the benefits of new technology thus in this case new engines than to convince people that the old engine is better.

 

and in this business case, it is most likely the economy of price that is the main factor.

the MPI simply cost less to acquire. and if they can sell at the margin they are getting now, it would appear to be a 'better business case'

 

If they want to get the same margin with FSI engine, they will have to raise the price further up, and thus will make the car even more unviable for the market.

 

In any case, I bet they will bring in the FSI model some day as part of the model rejuvenation.

[Fluffy]

would prefer a more fuel economical engine though.

 

based on my current experience with the 1.6 SR (same as 1.6 MPI) engine in the old Octy Tour and New Octy II and in my current Toledo

 

My avg FC clocked after 6,000 KM, with 60% HW, is 12.2L/100 Km ( 8.2 KM/ Litre) on a 4-speed auto (same as Tour)

 

My car is 140,000 km old (going to be 4 yr old soon)

 

i know Zen's who has a Saab 93 2.0T has better mileage than his previous Bora 1.6 SR too.

http://www.mycarforum.com/forum/RollinSwed...ents_P1341878-4

[Germar]

even their current Tours are new stock juz dat C.A ordered the MPIs for both the Tour n Octy 2..those batch of old OCtavia stock fm JTA time ,have found owners liao lah ...

[Mel4fun]

  Quote

Bro, for me, the FSI engines would be a better choice. 8 valves compared to 16 valves, the 8 is noiser. ron95/98 price not much diff but the fsi can save u more. power wise between the both......so little difference only. furthermore, wat abt the 0-100km/h timing? top speed?

 

why they dont wan to bring in the 1.6FSI because i think it will simply kill the MPIs in their warehouse.

 

 

Please note that typically a 8-valve engine has better low end torque but less rpm puff on the high range.

 

So for city driving (esp in SG traffic) the 8 valve design is better suited. Not really true that 8-valve design is consider "lower grade" than the 16-valves.