Random Thoughts... [Automotive Edition]

Evel

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2009
Messages
2,037
Location
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Car(s)
2016 Chevrolet Colorado
:dunno: I blame the car market over there, after all your basic Golf Variant petrol engine still is a silly 2.5l with 170hp, you can't get lovely things such as the more torquey and frugal 1.8TSI over there.
Unfortunately so, and to add insult to injury most of them are pretty poorly built here too :mad:
 

rickhamilton620

has a fetish for terrible cars
Joined
Nov 28, 2009
Messages
16,704
Location
Yoe, PA
Car(s)
2012 Kia Forte EX
I can see the reasoning behind making the 2.5 the "default" engine option for VW's mainstream lineup (-Routan, Toureg, etc.) because it's not only likely less expensive to build, but it's also probably less high maintenance than a turbo engine: There's a reason why the 2.5 replaced the 2.0T in the new American Passat.
 

Spectre

The Deported
Joined
Feb 1, 2007
Messages
36,675
Location
Dallas, Texas
Car(s)
00 4Runner | 02 919 | 87 XJ6 | 86 CB700SC
The new Passat is also demonstrably cheaper and crappier in most other respects, though. More like the 2.5 is cheaper to build.

Unfortunately so, and to add insult to injury most of them are pretty poorly built here too :mad:
He also forgets that most of those engines won't pass US smog anyway, or at least not in anywhere near the same state of tune as they have over there. Or, given VW's past miserable history of thermal failures, perhaps survive long in the heat in the Southern US.
 
Last edited:

narf

Sgt. Maj. Buzzkill
DONOR
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
18,134
Location
Kiel/Wherever, Germany
Car(s)
'19 BMW M240i
I can see the reasoning behind making the 2.5 the "default" engine option for VW's mainstream lineup (-Routan, Toureg, etc.) because it's not only likely less expensive to build, but it's also probably less high maintenance than a turbo engine: There's a reason why the 2.5 replaced the 2.0T in the new American Passat.
Making it default is fine, just offer sensible options. I'll take the Jetta as an example, they offer either a 2.0 or a 2.5 in the normal car or a 2.0TSI in the GLI. Why do you have to go for the GLI to get a sensible engine?
To illustrate what I mean by sensible engine, they list the 2.0 Jetta as 9.9l/100km city and 6.9l/100km highway while they list the 2.0TSI Jetta GLI as 8.8l/100km city and 6.1l/100km highway. Almost twice the power and lots less fuel. Who in the right mind would not go for the TSI if it was available in every trim level? Even more, what if a 1.4TSI or 1.8TSI were available, both are still more powerful than the 2.slow and use even less fuel than the 2.0TSI while not carrying such a large price tag.


He also forgets that most of those engines won't pass US smog anyway, or at least not in anywhere near the same state of tune as they have over there. Or, given VW's past miserable history of thermal failures, perhaps survive long in the heat in the Southern US.
He forgets it's already available in the GLI. If it passes smog and heat in that it will do so in lower trim levels as well.
 
Last edited:

Spectre

The Deported
Joined
Feb 1, 2007
Messages
36,675
Location
Dallas, Texas
Car(s)
00 4Runner | 02 919 | 87 XJ6 | 86 CB700SC
He forgets it's already available in the GLI. If it passes smog and heat in that it will do so in lower trim levels as well.
Narf, I know the 1.8 was available here, I'm talking about the other "lovely things" aka engines you were speaking of. Same reason many of the diesels are not available here.

Edit: Also, VW USA no longer offers the 1.8 in any form in any of the non-GTI Golfs. You have a choice of the 2.5 or the 2.0 TDI in the Golf. The current US 'TSI' is the 2.0 and is only offered in the Jetta.

Edit 2: Actually, it appears that the 1.8T was available here and is what I was remembering. The 1.8*TSI* has evidently never been available in the US Golf, Jetta or Beetle.
 
Last edited:

Spectre

The Deported
Joined
Feb 1, 2007
Messages
36,675
Location
Dallas, Texas
Car(s)
00 4Runner | 02 919 | 87 XJ6 | 86 CB700SC
Luckily I live in Canada, where overheating isn't an issue we encounter too often :canadian:
Sadly, saw entirely too much of that this summer here in Dallas. I wouldn't care except that it usually results in large quantities of coolant being spewed all over the road and that crap is SLICK. Getting unintentionally sideways on a literbike when you thought you were going cruising in a straight line on the freeway = world of suck.
 

narf

Sgt. Maj. Buzzkill
DONOR
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
18,134
Location
Kiel/Wherever, Germany
Car(s)
'19 BMW M240i
The current US 'TSI' is the 2.0 and is only offered in the Jetta.
He forgets about the Golf GTI and the Passat CC and the Beetle Turbo and the Tiguan and the Touareg and the Eos, all those can come with some TSI engine.

Additionally, he forgets about the 3.0TSI that is available in the US.
 
Last edited:

Spectre

The Deported
Joined
Feb 1, 2007
Messages
36,675
Location
Dallas, Texas
Car(s)
00 4Runner | 02 919 | 87 XJ6 | 86 CB700SC
He forgets about the Golf GTI and the Passat CC and the Beetle Turbo and the Tiguan and the Touareg and the Eos, all those can come with some TSI engine.
But not the 1.8TSI, which is what you claimed was available here and wasn't. I did miss the 2.0TSI being available in other models, however, you had originally limited it to the Golf Variant. The Passat CC is not a Golf Variant. The Beetle Turbo is not a Golf Variant. The Touareg is not a Golf Variant. The EOS is not a Golf Variant. The Tiguan is not a Golf Variant.

The 1.8TSI that you claimed was available here is not, was not, and possibly never will be, available in the US as a stock factory offering.

Additionally, he forgets about the 3.0TSI that is available in the US.
The 3.0 is a completely different engine configuration entirely - it's a V6 and not the I4 types you were implying with the "Golf Variant" comment. :p However, the Touraeg is technically classed as a truck and the point still stands - different emissions standards. You'll note that the 3.0 is only offered in the 'truck'.
 
Last edited:

narf

Sgt. Maj. Buzzkill
DONOR
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
18,134
Location
Kiel/Wherever, Germany
Car(s)
'19 BMW M240i
But not the 1.8TSI, which is what you claimed was available here and wasn't.
Read my posts again. I was complaining that the 2.0TSI is available in the Jetta GLI but not in cheaper trim levels. If it can pass smog and heat in the Jetta GLI it can pass in lower trim levels making sensible engines more affordable.

I did miss the 2.0TSI being available in other models, however, you had originally limited it to the Golf Variant. The Passat CC is not a Golf Variant. The Beetle Turbo is not a Golf Variant. The Touareg is not a Golf Variant. The EOS is not a Golf Variant. The Tiguan is not a Golf Variant.
A Jetta is not a Golf Variant either.

The 1.8TSI that you claimed was available here is not, was not, and possibly never will be, available in the US as a stock factory offering.
Read my posts again. When did I claim that?

The 3.0 is a completely different engine configuration entirely - it's a V6 and not the I4 types you were implying with the "Golf Variant" comment.
It's a TSI, I never mentioned or thought of any number or layout of cylinders. In fact, you might have noticed that I also was talking about the I5 2.5l engine, not just I4. You know, read my posts again and all that.
 

katwalk

Forum Addict
Joined
Apr 1, 2008
Messages
10,198
Car(s)
2003 VW Beetle, 2017 Abarth Fiat 500c
To illustrate what I mean by sensible engine, they list the 2.0 Jetta as 9.9l/100km city and 6.9l/100km highway while they list the 2.0TSI Jetta GLI as 8.8l/100km city and 6.1l/100km highway. Almost twice the power and lots less fuel. Who in the right mind would not go for the TSI if it was available in every trim level? Even more, what if a 1.4TSI or 1.8TSI were available, both are still more powerful than the 2.slow and use even less fuel than the 2.0TSI while not carrying such a large price tag.
The 2.0 not TSI you mean is the 115 hp one in my car right? Yes the mpg on that is rather abysmal for the size and power.
HOWEVER, I being a loser have read an unnecessary amount about the um... new new beetle? and it said the 2.0 TSI runs on premium for max performance. I am not exactly an expert but wouldn't running on regular (what the 2.slow and 2.5 take) make it slower AND less fuel efficient?

Every time I go and look at the new new beetle and think I want one, I run down all the costs and what I get for it and this happens

SLOOOOWWWW YOU ARE SLOOOOOOW AND EXPENSIVE FOR YOUR SLOW LOL
 
Last edited:

Lastsoul

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2005
Messages
2,177
Location
Finland
Car(s)
MX5, 406 Coup?, 106 Rallye, Porsche 924, X300 Six
Narf, I know the 1.8 was available here, I'm talking about the other "lovely things" aka engines you were speaking of. Same reason many of the diesels are not available here.
AFAIK the fact that VAG doesn't sell it's whole diesel range has still something to do with fuel quality and probably even more the fact that lovely old crappy diesel engines (probably pretty much everything with indirect injection) were so bad that they destroyed the reputation for diesel engines and despite current diesels being totally different, people will still just think diesels as a smoky, shaking and rattling machines from hell.

It's funny, because modern common rail turbo diesel could work really well in the US: it has lots of torque, instant response and thanks to modern turbo technology even in pretty wide rpms. Just like big V6s found in many family cars, but with much better mpg.
 

rickhamilton620

has a fetish for terrible cars
Joined
Nov 28, 2009
Messages
16,704
Location
Yoe, PA
Car(s)
2012 Kia Forte EX
The 2.0 not TSI you mean is the 115 hp one in my car right? Yes the mpg on that is rather abysmal for the size and power.
HOWEVER, I being a loser have read an unnecessary amount about the um... new new beetle? and it said the 2.0 TSI runs on premium for max performance. I am not exactly an expert but wouldn't running on regular (what the 2.slow and 2.5 take) make it slower AND less fuel efficient?

Every time I go and look at the new new beetle and think I want one, I run down all the costs and what I get for it and this happens

SLOOOOWWWW YOU ARE SLOOOOOOW AND EXPENSIVE FOR YOUR SLOW LOL
lol at picture. mustang vs beetle is totally a difficult choice to make

it would reduce performance, but not enough to be noticable in everyday driving. as for whether efficiency is affected i dont know.
 

narf

Sgt. Maj. Buzzkill
DONOR
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
18,134
Location
Kiel/Wherever, Germany
Car(s)
'19 BMW M240i
AFAIK the fact that VAG doesn't sell it's whole diesel range has still something to do with fuel quality and probably even more the fact that lovely old crappy diesel engines (probably pretty much everything with indirect injection) were so bad that they destroyed the reputation for diesel engines and despite current diesels being totally different, people will still just think diesels as a smoky, shaking and rattling machines from hell.

It's funny, because modern common rail turbo diesel could work really well in the US: it has lots of torque, instant response and thanks to modern turbo technology even in pretty wide rpms. Just like big V6s found in many family cars, but with much better mpg.
I agree, but we were talking about TSI engines running on petrol, not TDI :tease:


The 2.0 not TSI you mean is the 115 hp one in my car right? Yes the mpg on that is rather abysmal for the size and power.
HOWEVER, I being a loser have read an unnecessary amount about the um... new new beetle? and it said the 2.0 TSI runs on premium for max performance. I am not exactly an expert but wouldn't running on regular (what the 2.slow and 2.5 take) make it slower AND less fuel efficient?
Yes, by 2.0 not TSI I mean the naturally aspirated piece of crap that died over here a decade ago. Hell, if you don't want the complications of a TSI you (= VW USA) might at least use the 2.0FSI that made 150hp in the Golf Mk5 and used less fuel than the 2.0 not FSI making 115hp in the Golf Mk 4.

Over here the 2.0TSI runs on 95 research octane fuel, the lowest generally available number since 91 pretty much died out. I'm too lazy to look up what that translates to in your numbers, but my gut feeling is based on octane numbers alone it should run decently on your regular fuel. Other things may ruin that though.
 

katwalk

Forum Addict
Joined
Apr 1, 2008
Messages
10,198
Car(s)
2003 VW Beetle, 2017 Abarth Fiat 500c
I 87 is the lowest here. 91 I think might be premium?
 

public

Has been known to shou emousshiöns
DONOR
Joined
Nov 26, 2007
Messages
11,662
Location
Oysterbottom
Car(s)
MX-5 + others
92 octane was widely available in Denmark, which I found weird.
 

prizrak

Forum Addict
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
20,509
Location
No, sleep, till, BROOKLYN
Car(s)
11 Xterra Pro-4x, 12 'stang GT
The 3.0 is a completely different engine configuration entirely - it's a V6 and not the I4 types you were implying with the "Golf Variant" comment. However, the Touraeg is technically classed as a truck and the point still stands - different emissions standards. You'll note that the 3.0 is only offered in the 'truck'.
I don't see a 3.0TSI motor in the Toureg. I do see a 3.0T in the A6 (and previous S4). Though I don't think its a TSI motor as it doesn't specifically state it as it does for the A4. As far as tune levels the 1.8T in my car is same power/torque figures as the EUDM one only difference is we don't get the 190hp variant with dual SMICs.
It's funny, because modern common rail turbo diesel could work really well in the US: it has lots of torque, instant response and thanks to modern turbo technology even in pretty wide rpms. Just like big V6s found in many family cars, but with much better mpg.
Diesel is more expensive here and harder to find. Also I saw a VW TDI on the road thought it was broken because of the engine sound till I saw the sticker :p
 
Top