Small capacity turbo-charged petrol engines.
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Is there some way of findng the best route from a to e together with the distance?
Next: Is there some way of findng the best route from a to e togetherwith the distance?
From: Ret. on 16 Jun 2010 08:11 Adrian wrote: > "Tim Downie" <timdownie2003(a)yahoo.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding > much like they were saying: > >> Don't believe everything that you read about the DSG gearbox. It's >> good, but it's not miraculous. It's heavier than the manual box and >> for my car at least (VW Touran DSG, the quoted fuel consumption >> figures are higher than for the manual version. > > It's also mind-numbingly complex, and there are stories of poor > reliability at older ages and higher mileages. OK. I'm currently on my fourth auto and have not had any problems with the gearbox on any of them (actually, that's not strictly true - my 1.8 Cavalier auto had a trapped wire where the insulation had cut through and when that happened the autobox went into 'limp-home' mode - but that's hardly the fault of the box.). I wouldn't want to switch to a box that is likely to be troublesome, although an auto without the fuel penalty (or with less of a fuel penalty) than a traditional auto is attractive. There is also the MMT gearbox in current Toyotas - but that definitely seems to have a bad press and is not really a true automatic anyway. -- Kev
From: Ret. on 16 Jun 2010 08:07 Tim Downie wrote: > Nick Finnigan wrote: >> Ret. wrote: >>> They seem to be all the rage at the moment and are suggested as an >>> economical alternative to a diesel. Certainly they seem to pull out >>> all the stops: good performance and excellent mpg - but what are >>> they like to drive? >>> >>> My diesel auto 75 is very relaxed on the motorways. At an indicated >>> 80 it is only doing around 2500 rpm. My son's old Passat petrol auto >>> always sounded very stressed and noisy at that sort of speed - >>> revving very much higher. I would prefer a relaxed diesel to a very >>> high revving petrol engine - but does the turbo-charger mean the >>> revs are lower at high speed? >>> >>> VW group 1.4 turbo petrol engined cars with the DSG gearbox (which >>> gives better acceleration and economy than the manual version) are >>> attracting my interest. It would be nice to have the benefits of an >>> auto box without the fuel penalty. >> >> TSI is turbo and super charged and will be about 2500 at an >> indicated 80 in top. Whether the engine is diesel or petrol or lpg is >> irrelevant. > > No, there are two versions of the 1.4 now. See > http://www.autocar.co.uk/CarReviews/FirstDrives/Volkswagen-Golf-1.4-TSI-120-S/225969/ > > The turbo & supercharged version certainly sounds very busy and I > can't imagine it being a relaxing drive. Yes - although the newer engine provides 148 lb ft f torque which is more than the 131 of my 2.0 litre diesel. This suggests that the engine can cope well with higher gearing. I'll certainly investigate this. Thanks for the link. -- Kev
From: Albert T Cone on 16 Jun 2010 09:00 Mortimer wrote: > "Silk" <me(a)privacy.net> wrote in message > news:hv8ktb$9q$1(a)speranza.aioe.org... >> The new VW group CR diesel engines are also excellent and are in a >> completely different league to your aging Rover. > > Do VW's new common rail diesels have the same quirk as their older Pump > Duse (PD) diesels that it is very easy to stall the engine if you don't > apply enough throttle when setting off from rest? When I was looking for > a new car last year I drove a lot of diesels (VW Golf, Peugeot 308, Ford > Focus, Vauxhall Astra, Fiat Bravo, Mazda 6) and the only one I > consistently managed to stall was the Golf. I've read other accounts of > people finding this a problem with VW's PD engine until they get used to > it being more like a petrol in that respect. I *think* that was an issue with the mk V golf, although I have no idea why - my gf used to have one, and it was very easy to stall. I have had both the 115 and the 130 PD tdi engines in a B5 and B5.5 passat and both have had proper tractor mode - almost as difficult to stall as the old skool mechanical injection pump diesels pug used to produce.
From: Adrian on 16 Jun 2010 09:08 boltar2003(a)boltar.world gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >>Yes - although the newer engine provides 148 lb ft f torque which is >>more than the 131 of my 2.0 litre diesel. This suggests that the engine >>can cope > 131 lb/ft from a 2.0 diesel? Thats lousy. It must either be really old > or russian. I think Kev's getting confused between power and torque. The 75 CDTi chucked out about 130bhp and 220lbft. The pikey-spec CDT was ~15bhp and ~30lbft lighter.
From: Ret. on 16 Jun 2010 12:11
Adrian wrote: > boltar2003(a)boltar.world gurgled happily, sounding much like they were > saying: > >>> Yes - although the newer engine provides 148 lb ft f torque which is >>> more than the 131 of my 2.0 litre diesel. This suggests that the >>> engine can cope > >> 131 lb/ft from a 2.0 diesel? Thats lousy. It must either be really >> old or russian. > > I think Kev's getting confused between power and torque. The 75 CDTi > chucked out about 130bhp and 220lbft. The pikey-spec CDT was ~15bhp > and ~30lbft lighter. Guilty.. -- Kev |