1.6 turbo charged versus a normal 2 litre engine

[Coupecabriolet]

precisely. a small turbo gives u the kick early. the supercharger reduces the turbo lag, although already not very obvious for such a small turbo, and gives more kick than what a single LPT can achieve on its own.

 

you might not need the SC in your case depending on your needs, but most people will welcome it.

 

if im not wrong, the SC in twincharge setup cuts off at 3500rpm. but usually you wouldnt even feel its presence at all. it just makes things more zippy right from the go.

 

in my opinion, the SC in twincharge setup does nothing wrong. its more advantageous than disadvantageous. the only thing is extra cost which some people might not want.

[Joseph22]

his theory is only applicable if we are comparing similar CC of TC and NA.

 

but if we compare base on similar Power output, then its doesnt stand true.

 

Generally speaking, if i have two identical engine blocks and tune it such that

 

A produces fat torque early on (almost constant torque band)

 

B produces torque that kicks in very late (linear torque band)

 

There are two observations

 

B is more free revving but A is more punchy. A consumes more fuel than B.

 

But this is considering a drag race where both A and B are subjected to red line performance. Which engine will make the winning car is the subject of another discussion. In Singapore context, with combined urban cycle in mind, nobody redlines for nothing.

 

In stop go traffic, i don't have to rev alot to get the torque out for A. For B, i need to rev till nearly redline for the torque shove (this is the case for the Honda S2000). We can roughly generalise and say that because the driver has no need to rev A so frequently as compared to B, your conjecture has been refuted.

 

[Coupecabriolet]

then Conti LTC low CC cars are just right for you.

 

same as for me

 

i wonder if DSG shifts in the same manner for reversing? and turbocharger + supercharger? i havent got chased by people in black suits in a carpark like some movie, so havent got the chance to test it out in reverse

[JaydenSTI]

Max torque + early rpm = many thirsty horses & more visits to your friendly petrol station, no?

 

 

no. high torque in early rpm means your engine super efficient, u actually save fuel on this. take a look on diesel.

[Lammy84]

Thus far I have driven a 2l NA with stock cams then with stage 2 cams, a scirrocco 1.4 TSI and a 2.6L Twin turbo and also test driven a 3.8L V6.

 

If given a choice for the best all arounder, I would pick the 2.6L Twin turbo :P

 

There is simply no replacement for displacement.

 

However, this is for the context of my driving style which tends to have a heavy foot at times and sometimes fairly long distance cruising (200km above)

 

If I was tied to just SG context, I think i would take the k20a over the 1.4 TSI. The 1.4 TSi runs out of gears and breath far too quickly, anything above 4k rpm is no mans land with no power coming at all. I would wreck the gearbox in the long run to get to achieve the same powerband as i am used to in the k20a.

 

for the k20a, my gripe is that it can sometimes be too "wild" if you drive it become cams crossover point, it loses out to the 1.4 tsi in terms of response and thrust. So its definately an engine u have to keep near boiling point to be "fun"

 

However, the 2.6 RBdett has a great balance, power is a plenty from 3k onwards all the way to 7500 and even 9000 if you do some light mods like changing the pumps and oil delivery lines. However, the FC sucks so bad its not funny

 

The 3.8L V6 was rubbish at slow speeds but if you use it to carry a dignitry around, its the perfect engine as everything below 150kmh is effortless for the engine.

 

So in essence, every engine has its own pros and cons, it depends on what you want.

 

1.4 TSI scirocco would be perfect for the urban crawl. Great FC, awesome response and powerband where u need it.

 

2L NA, family man driving enthusiast. Good enough power to carry load, good enough for some spirited driving when occasion calls for it

 

2.6L best for the heavy footer maniac driver

 

3.8L V6, best for the VIP treatment, calm and cool deposition.

[Joseph22]

you just loss your credibility.

 

plus, why you use Type R engine to compare with TSI 1.4?? they are not making sports car with TSI engine.

 

Thus far I have driven a 2l NA with stock cams then with stage 2 cams, a scirrocco 1.4 TSI and a 2.6L Twin turbo and also test driven a 3.8L V6.

 

If given a choice for the best all arounder, I would pick the 2.6L Twin turbo :P

 

There is simply no replacement for displacement.

 

However, this is for the context of my driving style which tends to have a heavy foot at times and sometimes fairly long distance cruising (200km above)

 

If I was tied to just SG context, I think i would take the k20a over the 1.4 TSI. The 1.4 TSi runs out of gears and breath far too quickly, anything above 4k rpm is no mans land with no power coming at all. I would wreck the gearbox in the long run to get to achieve the same powerband as i am used to in the k20a.

 

for the k20a, my gripe is that it can sometimes be too "wild" if you drive it become cams crossover point, it loses out to the 1.4 tsi in terms of response and thrust. So its definately an engine u have to keep near boiling point to be "fun"

 

However, the 2.6 RBdett has a great balance, power is a plenty from 3k onwards all the way to 7500 and even 9000 if you do some light mods like changing the pumps and oil delivery lines. However, the FC sucks so bad its not funny

 

The 3.8L V6 was rubbish at slow speeds but if you use it to carry a dignitry around, its the perfect engine as everything below 150kmh is effortless for the engine.

 

So in essence, every engine has its own pros and cons, it depends on what you want.

 

1.4 TSI scirocco would be perfect for the urban crawl. Great FC, awesome response and powerband where u need it.

 

2L NA, family man driving enthusiast. Good enough power to carry load, good enough for some spirited driving when occasion calls for it

 

2.6L best for the heavy footer maniac driver

 

3.8L V6, best for the VIP treatment, calm and cool deposition.

Edited April 5, 2011 by Joseph22

[Happily1986]

precisely. a small turbo gives u the kick early. the supercharger reduces the turbo lag, although already not very obvious for such a small turbo, and gives more kick than what a single LPT can achieve on its own.

 

you might not need the SC in your case depending on your needs, but most people will welcome it.

 

if im not wrong, the SC in twincharge setup cuts off at 3500rpm. but usually you wouldnt even feel its presence at all. it just makes things more zippy right from the go.

 

in my opinion, the SC in twincharge setup does nothing wrong. its more advantageous than disadvantageous. the only thing is extra cost which some people might not want.

 

The logic and principle behind the change of baton is quite easy but as an engineer, i am obliged to say that the mechantronical engineering behind this setup is not too simple. My understanding of reliability engineering also tells me that more working components in a working system generally means a higher rate of failure overall compared to another system with lesser components, same exposure time nonetheless.

 

This is enough to put me off already given that the homologation of such engines have not reach a decade yet. Remember the bathtub failure curve?

 

I dont want to be caught in the initial phase!

[Joseph22]

The logic and principle behind the change of baton is quite easy but as an engineer, i am obliged to say that the mechantronical engineering behind this setup is not too simple. My understanding of reliability engineering also tells me that more working components in a working system generally means a higher rate of failure overall compared to another system with lesser components, same exposure time nonetheless.

 

This is enough to put me off already given that the homologation of such engines have not reach a decade yet. Remember the bathtub failure curve?

 

I dont want to be caught in the initial phase!

 

the concept of Twin charge engine was not new technology. only recently 4 to 5 years then did VW re-visit this technology again.

Edited April 5, 2011 by Joseph22

[Happily1986]

i wonder if DSG shifts in the same manner for reversing? and turbocharger + supercharger? i havent got chased by people in black suits in a carpark like some movie, so havent got the chance to test it out in reverse

 

 

oei oei, you think like NFS, reverse above 50km/h got nitro points huh?

[Happily1986]

the concept of Twin charge engine was not in its initial phase. only recently 4 to 5 years then did VW re-visit this technology again.

 

Agreed, The principles and concepts might be older than you and me. But i never believe that the testing phase nowadays is as rigorous as in the past especially with enormous pressure for short product cycles and high product turnover rates. I therefore believe that the real test of the car/engine is time. Time accumulated by real motorists like you and me, subjecting it to wear and tear and time. Only Time can tell. So like what i mentioned, the twin charged cars in terms of homologation, is still juvenile in age. They have not cleared the initial phase of the bath tub curve yet.

[Joseph22]

Agreed, The principles and concepts might be older than you and me. But i never believe that the testing phase nowadays is as rigorous as in the past especially with enormous pressure for short product cycles and high product turnover rates. I therefore believe that the real test of the car/engine is time. Time accumulated by real motorists like you and me, subjecting it to wear and tear and time. Only Time can tell. So like what i mentioned, the twin charged cars in terms of homologation, is still juvenile in age. They have not cleared the initial phase of the bath tub curve yet.

okay. anyway, i find TSI 122 Bhp for Jetta and golf sufficent enough liao.

[Happily1986]

okay. anyway, i find TSI 122 Bhp for Jetta and golf sufficent enough liao.

 

I wonder whether i am ah pek. I see Jetta 1.4 tSI outside i just go somehow the sight of rear a/c vents makes me very excited.

[Joseph22]

I wonder whether i am ah pek. I see Jetta 1.4 tSI outside i just go somehow the sight of rear a/c vents makes me very excited.

i only 31 nia. also have the same feeling.

[Notsogoodman]

some quick question

 

there are 3 models in my mind - C4 Grand Picasso , Peugeot 5008 & VW Touran .....

 

i'm comparing them with my tucson in terms of carrying say 4 adults and 2 children , my ride seems to struggle with the weight although its an new improved 2 litre engine

 

 

what about those that are 1.6 & 1.4 turbo charged ? can they easily handle it effortlessly even with a lower capacity engine ? ?

 

please comment ..thanks

 

I had a C4GP for a year, 1.6Turbocharged with the old 4-speed auto.... The engine definitely is not an issue, the clueless 4-speed auto is the real issue. good thing they phase it out already

I tried the S-Max ecoboost (2.0Turbocharged) recently with the 6-speed dual clutch.... apart from some slight jerks at lower gears, the power n delivery is amazing

 

the thing abt day-to-day driving is the move-off which are primarily abt weight n torque (not horsepower)... turbocharged engine delivers ample torque at lower rev hence it can pull faster from standstill whilst NA engine tends to have a more linear power delivery (note u need mid-high rev to generate the power)

[GoodCar]

Agreed, The principles and concepts might be older than you and me. But i never believe that the testing phase nowadays is as rigorous as in the past especially with enormous pressure for short product cycles and high product turnover rates. I therefore believe that the real test of the car/engine is time. Time accumulated by real motorists like you and me, subjecting it to wear and tear and time. Only Time can tell. So like what i mentioned, the twin charged cars in terms of homologation, is still juvenile in age. They have not cleared the initial phase of the bath tub curve yet.

 

 

That is why old mind like mine said long time ago that I will only buy these latest LTP and SC thingy a few years down the road.

Even if my right hand brain love the Jetta 1.4TSI engine,

 

But I truefully hope that they are good

Edited April 5, 2011 by GoodCar

[Happily1986]

That is why old mind like mine said long time ago that I will only buy these latest LTP and SC thingy a few years down the road.

Even if my right hand brain love the Jetta 1.4TSI engine,

 

But I truefully hope that they are good

 

so far it seems that it is only their DSG tech that is problematic (can't remember it is the wet or dry clutches) but i share you opinion. If everything goes well, i don't mind getting a second hand jetta some years down the road just to starve off depreciation.

[Joseph22]

so far it seems that it is only their DSG tech that is problematic (can't remember it is the wet or dry clutches) but i share you opinion. If everything goes well, i don't mind getting a second hand jetta some years down the road just to starve off depreciation.

 

base on some of the forumer.

 

its the dry clutch. but apparent this problem had been settle liao.

need another 3 more years to see if any major issue.

[GoodCar]

base on some of the forumer.

 

its the dry clutch. but apparent this problem had been settle liao.

need another 3 more years to see if any major issue.

 

 

I can wait if it is true love .......

I want it to be my Good car