Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Please note that it is not permitted to have referral links posted in your signature. Keep these links contained in the appropriate forum. Thank you.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2055940817/signature-rules

New Passat 1.4Tsi, opinions?

Options
2»

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Golferx
    Closed Accounts Posts: 251 ✭✭Golferx


    E92 wrote: »
    It is not. 1.6 Avensis averages 39.1 mpg.

    .....................

    One of my cars is an Avensis 1.6. It averages closer to 45mpg. Either way, the figure quoted for the Passat is still very close to that of the Avensis.

    E92 wrote: »
    ...........................

    As for whether it will be reliable, it just any old 1.4 with direct injection, only VW stuck a turbo on it. The turbo is providing the power and torque increases, not the engine itself. It should be no more nor no less reliable than the standard VAG 1.4. If what you were saying about turbo engines were true, how come diesels with a turbo are infinately more powerful than non turbo diesels, yet reliability so far as I can tell hasn't suffered one little bit?
    ....................................

    You seem lacking in awareness of how engines work. Turbos add boost by allowing more air and fuel to be injected/burned at any time. This places higher stresses on the engine components. Of course it will reduce the reliability of the engine, if it is just the same as a normally aspirated engine with a turbo bolted on.
    As for the reliability of turbo versus non-turbo engines? I haven''t conducted a survey, have you? Sheer physics will tell you that more mechanical stress = shortened lifetime, and VAG turbo engines, especially, are far from a virtue of reliability. I hope (I haven't looked) the engine is far removed from the 1.4 as fitted to the Mk4 Golf and Bora. It was a disaster and a very poor, unreliable, design.


    E92 wrote: »
    .......................
    See below as to why the 'tractor engine' was kept.



    You weren't wrong at all. The existing 2.0 TDI replaced the higher output 1.9 versions(the 130 and 150 bhp versions). It was only the 100 bhp version that stuck with the 1.9(and got a 5 bhp boost while it was at it).

    And one only has to look at the differences in price betwen the 1.9l and 2.0l versions to see how ridiculous the taxation is. The 1.9l engine should have been scrapped years ago, it's far too rough an unrefined for today's market.


    As I said previously, time will tell how good these engines are and how suited to Passat they are. VAG reliability is as poor as any (with the possible exception of the Fiat group) these days and they need something good to get back up where they once thought they were, alongside Toyota.


  • Options
    #33
    Mailman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,571 ✭✭✭Mailman


    Golferx wrote: »
    You seem lacking in awareness of how engines work. Turbos add boost by allowing more air and fuel to be injected/burned at any time. This places higher stresses on the engine components. Of course it will reduce the reliability of the engine, if it is just the same as a normally aspirated engine with a turbo bolted on.
    This is a relatively low pressure turbo designed to provide power at low RPM not a high pressure turbo for high rpm.
    they also probably messed around with the compression ratio to reduce stresses on the engine.

    As long as the oil is topped up/changed regularly with good quality oil it should last a long time. The people who drive family cars don't red line them often.


  • Options
    #34
    Boggins127
    Closed Accounts Posts: 38 ✭Boggins127


    Mailman wrote: »
    http://www.greencarsite.co.uk/GREENN...tsi-engine.htm
    200nM seems fine to me.

    EMm well as a driver of a 1.6 passat i don't think so as the 1.6 is very sluggish and don't say the 1.4 will have more power...It won't make a difference!!! the models under 1.8 are really too sluggish...Lovely car though i think very imposing..Looking forward to my new 08 1.9 tdi More power..WHIPPY!!! 1 more thing good fuel economy fair enough But is it worth it cars these days will get too boring without power....We need POWER!!
    Regards
    Dave:cool:


  • Options
    #35
    cyborg
    Registered Users Posts: 336 ✭✭cyborg


    Boggins127 wrote: »
    EMm well as a driver of a 1.6 passat i don't think so as the 1.6 is very sluggish and don't say the 1.4 will have more power...It won't make a difference!!! the models under 1.8 are really too sluggish...Lovely car though i think very imposing..Looking forward to my new 08 1.9 tdi More power..WHIPPY!!! 1 more thing good fuel economy fair enough But is it worth it cars these days will get too boring without power....We need POWER!!
    Regards
    Dave:cool:

    I have driven this 1.4 and it does have lots of low down torque and is a very relaxing drive, very quiet too. It does not need high revs live the 1.6,it drives just like a 2.0 petrol.
    Judging by your post many people will be of the prejudiced mindset that it's only a 1.4 so it will be slow.
    Unfortunately for VW this car is being introduced at a time when engine cc no longer matters for vrt and tax. This car emits 157g co2 and therefore will be in the 25% vrt and tax brackets so effectively will have its VRT increased +2.5% and its tax increased form 320 to 430.
    So if you want 1 buy now!


  • Options
    #36
    _Kaiser_
    Registered Users Posts: 28,861 ✭✭✭✭_Kaiser_


    For comparison... What would be the new "modern" equivalent (from a power/torque/performance standpoint) then of my 2002 1.9 TDI (130) Passat?

    In other words, if I was changing it in the morning, what should I be looking for?

    Semi-related: I'm half thinking of a current shape A6 (05-present) in the spring/summer anyway (probably a UK import) - something like the 2006 2.0 TDI (140) version.

    Given the new VRT/Tax implications is this a good move (I searched for the CO2 rating on some of the links posted in the other thread but just got "no information available"). Is 2.0L/140 Bhp enough for a car of that size?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Boggins127
    Closed Accounts Posts: 38 ✭Boggins127


    Ok fair enough i'd say it is a good car and i have to admit i am going to test drive one...But i don't think she'l be any use as 1.4 seems a little small for such a heavy car..And the 1.6 fsi was vw's worst creation when i get into 6th and go about 110-120km/h she rev's too loud..Still im inclinde to go for a diesel next year but have heard the 1.9tdi is not a good car?????i thought it was ok once u stick with the 5 speed box
    Thanks,
    Dave :cool:


  • Options
    #38
    bazz26
    Registered Users Posts: 51,243 ✭✭✭✭bazz26


    Boggins127 wrote: »
    Still im inclinde to go for a diesel next year but have heard the 1.9tdi is not a good car?????i thought it was ok once u stick with the 5 speed box
    Thanks,
    Dave :cool:

    The VAG 1.9 TDi is an old unit and was good in it's day but it is outclassed these days. It is unrefined, noisy, course and not very powerful compared to the vast majority of other diesel engines being made today. VW should drop it from their range imo. The 2.0 TDi is light years ahead of it but costs more. Also VAG have just launched the new common rail 2.0 TDi and this will be available in the Passat soon too but expect it to cost a small fortune.


  • Options
    #39
    cyborg
    Registered Users Posts: 336 ✭✭cyborg


    Boggins127 wrote: »
    Ok fair enough i'd say it is a good car and i have to admit i am going to test drive one...But i don't think she'l be any use as 1.4 seems a little small for such a heavy car..And the 1.6 fsi was vw's worst creation when i get into 6th and go about 110-120km/h she rev's too loud..Still im inclinde to go for a diesel next year but have heard the 1.9tdi is not a good car?????i thought it was ok once u stick with the 5 speed box
    Thanks,
    Dave :cool:

    Again with the 'its only a 1.4' ......200nm is 200nm. Let us know how u think it compares after the testdrive.
    The gearing is quite high in 6th as the low down torque can cope so @ 110kmph the engine is only turning @2500rpm and is very quiet.


  • Options
    #40
    E92
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,147 ✭✭✭E92


    Boggins127 wrote: »
    Ok fair enough i'd say it is a good car and i have to admit i am going to test drive one...But i don't think she'l be any use as 1.4 seems a little small for such a heavy car..And the 1.6 fsi was vw's worst creation when i get into 6th and go about 110-120km/h she rev's too loud..Still im inclinde to go for a diesel next year but have heard the 1.9tdi is not a good car?????i thought it was ok once u stick with the 5 speed box
    Thanks,
    Dave :cool:


    The 1.4 TSI has 122 bhp(7 bhp more) and 153 lb ft(which is 39 more than the 1.6 FSI) at only 1500 rpm(compared to the 1.6's 114 at 4,000 rpm) and that is even more torque than the 2.0 FSI! So it should be a big improvement over the 1.6.


  • Options
    #41
    Boggins127
    Closed Accounts Posts: 38 ✭Boggins127


    E92 wrote: »
    The 1.4 TSI has 122 bhp(7 bhp more) and 153 lb ft(which is 39 more than the 1.6 FSI) at only 1500 rpm(compared to the 1.6's 114 at 4,000 rpm) and that is even more torque than the 2.0 FSI! So it should be a big improvement over the 1.6.
    Yep u have all prsuaded me im going to really consider buying this car if its as good as a 2.0fsi then y not...ill test drive her in da new year.
    thanks,
    Dave :cool:


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    E92
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,147 ✭✭✭E92


    Boggins127 wrote: »
    Yep u have all prsuaded me im going to really consider buying this car if its as good as a 2.0fsi then y not...ill test drive her in da new year.
    thanks,
    Dave :cool:

    Well the 2.0 FSI has 150 bhp and 147 lb ft, so it would still be faster, however it should be discontinued soon as under the new VRT scheme, the 1.8 TSI is meant to be in the 24% category and the 2.0 is supposed to be in the 28% category(though its in the 30% one now).Perhaps someone could confirm this, its hard to remeber every last change! The 2.0 TDI will be in the 20% category, down from the 30% category, and is meant to be a much nicer engine than the 1.9 TDI, so if you're interested in an oil burner, that would be worth a look as the price differential between it and the 1.9 should be much smaller after July 08.


  • Options
    #43
    cyborg
    Registered Users Posts: 336 ✭✭cyborg


    E92 wrote: »
    Well the 2.0 FSI has 150 bhp and 147 lb ft, so it would still be faster, however it should be discontinued soon as under the new VRT scheme, the 1.8 TSI is meant to be in the 24% category and the 2.0 is supposed to be in the 28% category(though its in the 30% one now).Perhaps someone could confirm this, its hard to remeber every last change! The 2.0 TDI will be in the 20% category, down from the 30% category, and is meant to be a much nicer engine than the 1.9 TDI, so if you're interested in an oil burner, that would be worth a look as the price differential between it and the 1.9 should be much smaller after July 08.

    The 1.8 TSI will unfortunately be in the 28% cat so diesel wins out again!


  • Options
    #44
    E92
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,147 ✭✭✭E92


    cyborg wrote: »
    The 1.8 TSI will unfortunately be in the 28% cat so diesel wins out again!

    Thats strange, the Audi A4 with the same engine is in the 24% band(but I haven't checked the Passat so I'm asduming you're right).


  • Options
    #45
    il gatto
    Registered Users Posts: 3,021 ✭✭✭il gatto


    High torque at high revs is all but useless. You need it lower down. Much lower down, as in tickover to 3,000 revs. It would defy physics for such a small engine to produce enough. Big bangs make big torque.


  • Options
    #46
    craichoe
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,706 ✭✭✭craichoe


    I just saw 1.4 and Passat in the title and thought "Wanderly Wagon"


  • Options
    #47
    cyborg
    Registered Users Posts: 336 ✭✭cyborg


    il gatto wrote: »
    High torque at high revs is all but useless. You need it lower down. Much lower down, as in tickover to 3,000 revs. It would defy physics for such a small engine to produce enough. Big bangs make big torque.


    Well defy physics it does!
    This little 1.4 engine produces 200nm of torque form 1500 rpm to 3500rpm,
    80% of max torque (160nm) is available from only 1250 rpm.
    Thats the beauty of a well engineered turbo engine ,no need for high revs.


  • Options
    #48
    E92
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,147 ✭✭✭E92


    cyborg wrote: »
    This little 1.4 engine produces 200nm of torque form 1500 rpm to 3500rpm

    Could we stick to lb ft please:D! But if you insist on using Newton metres then I shall be pedantic and insist that we do Issac Newton some service and capitalise the 'n' in 'Nm' and leave a space between the figure and the SI unit!


  • Options
    #49
    il gatto
    Registered Users Posts: 3,021 ✭✭✭il gatto


    cyborg wrote: »
    Well defy physics it does!
    This little 1.4 engine produces 200nm of torque form 1500 rpm to 3500rpm,
    80% of max torque (160nm) is available from only 1250 rpm.
    Thats the beauty of a well engineered turbo engine ,no need for high revs.

    That's amazing. If it's as good as it sounds, respect to VW. I wonder how reliable it will be. The tolerances must be tight.


  • Options
    #50
    Boggins127
    Closed Accounts Posts: 38 ✭Boggins127


    il gatto wrote: »
    That's amazing. If it's as good as it sounds, respect to VW. I wonder how reliable it will be. The tolerances must be tight.
    Yeah i reckon she'l b a bitch on the services n all dat????
    Thanks,
    Dave
    :cool:


  • Options
    #51
    E92
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,147 ✭✭✭E92


    Well BMW's 335i manages 295 lb ft from only 1,300 rpm all the way up to 4,900 rpm and I haven't heard people questioning that or how reliable it will be.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    Sandwich
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,253 ✭✭✭Sandwich


    Boggins127 wrote: »
    EMm well as a driver of a 1.6 passat i don't think so as the 1.6 is very sluggish and don't say the 1.4 will have more power...It won't make a difference!!! the models under 1.8 are really too sluggish...Lovely car though i think very imposing..Looking forward to my new 08 1.9 tdi More power..WHIPPY!!! 1 more thing good fuel economy fair enough But is it worth it cars these days will get too boring without power....We need POWER!!
    Regards
    Dave:cool:

    Gotta disagree with you there. Much of the motoring market is looking for comfort, reliability, and economy. 'Power' is an interest for people who are interested in their motor per se (an nothing wrong with that either), not just as an A to B tool.
    Had the old model 1.6 Passat (102bhp IIRR). No racing car by any means - but 'sluggish' ? Depends what you want. Got me, passangers and luggage around perfectly well for 40000miles - nothing wrong it for what it was. Assume the 115bhp in the current Passat is similar if not better and that the 1.4 will be better again.
    I find it odd that people complain about the existence of lower power versions of cars - you dont have to buy one. It the majority of them sold is of the lower powered engines, then that is because people see them a s the best compromise of size/function/power/economy. The more powerfull engines are there for you!

    Also had the 1.9tdi - 100bhp. Much of a muchness with the 1.6 to drive except you didnt have to change down to get overtaking acceleration - but when you did, the acceleration seemed much the same.

    UNless there is a new 1.9tdi comming out you will in fact have less power than the 1.4. It might seem like more to you but thats only because you will feel the higher torque at lower revs.


  • Options
    #53
    Boggins127
    Closed Accounts Posts: 38 ✭Boggins127


    :cool:ORDERED MY NEW PASSAT 1.4tsi SHES CLASS TO DRIVE LOVELY CAR


  • Options
    #54
    cyborg
    Registered Users Posts: 336 ✭✭cyborg


    Boggins127 wrote: »
    :cool:ORDERED MY NEW PASSAT 1.4tsi SHES CLASS TO DRIVE LOVELY CAR
    Congrats nice choice, it's a lovely engine!
    What spec did you choose and what kind of deal did you get if you don't mind me asking?


  • Options
    #55
    maidhc
    Registered Users Posts: 7,660 ✭✭✭maidhc


    E92 wrote: »
    Well BMW's 335i manages 295 lb ft from only 1,300 rpm all the way up to 4,900 rpm and I haven't heard people questioning that or how reliable it will be.

    That's because it produces very big bangs indeed and consumes vast quantities of petrol!

    Turbos and superchargers add a new dimension of complexity.


  • Options
    #56
    E92
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,147 ✭✭✭E92


    An EU combined figure of 31.0 mpg isn't what I'd call "consuming vast quantities of petrol"!


  • Options
    #57
    maidhc
    Registered Users Posts: 7,660 ✭✭✭maidhc


    E92 wrote: »
    An EU combined figure of 31.0 mpg isn't what I'd call "consuming vast quantities of petrol"!

    You know and I know if you to get that from a 3.5L car you need to drive, umm, sensibly. Duncan Stewart sensible.


  • Options
    #58
    Biro
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,091 ✭✭✭Biro


    maidhc wrote: »
    You know and I know if you to get that from a 3.5L car you need to drive, umm, sensibly. Duncan Stewart sensible.

    3.0 litre twin turbo isn't it?
    And ya, you'll do very well to get over 30 off the motorway!


  • Options
    #59
    Boggins127
    Closed Accounts Posts: 38 ✭Boggins127


    cyborg wrote: »
    Congrats nice choice, it's a lovely engine!
    What spec did you choose and what kind of deal did you get if you don't mind me asking?
    i bought the comfortline model came in at about 27,000 euros drove to mayo the other week in her she sticks to the road really well plenty of power and they have made the car lighter the gears are lighter steering more responsive and HandBrake or buttonbrake s much improved reacts much better on hills etc. and im pulling big trailers with this car aswell n she pulls well aswell.lol and 1 thing i love is wen ur goin 140-160km its very quite unlike the 1.6.sorry its been so long since i wrote back havin been on in awhile
    Thanks,
    Dave:cool:


  • Options
    #60
    cyborg
    Registered Users Posts: 336 ✭✭cyborg


    Sounds good Dave.
    What's the economy like?
    Boggins127 wrote: »
    i bought the comfortline model came in at about 27,000 euros drove to mayo the other week in her she sticks to the road really well plenty of power and they have made the car lighter the gears are lighter steering more responsive and HandBrake or buttonbrake s much improved reacts much better on hills etc. and im pulling big trailers with this car aswell n she pulls well aswell.lol and 1 thing i love is wen ur goin 140-160km its very quite unlike the 1.6.sorry its been so long since i wrote back havin been on in awhile
    Thanks,
    Dave:cool:


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    Boggins127
    Closed Accounts Posts: 38 ✭Boggins127


    cyborg wrote: »
    Sounds good Dave.
    What's the economy like?
    Ahh grand i filled her up last sunday drove back to dublin n still have a half a tank after driven all this week.....shes sum machine
    Thanks,
    Dave:cool:


Advertisement