4a-gze's Suck!

[pozman]

nissan did the whole superchaged/turbo thing in the early 90's, in the "march super turbo" prity cool little car, it was one of those larger kei cars

[ancullen]

Mr Hardware - the Golf 2.0 FSI weighs 1290kg, and the Golf GTI weighs 1340kg. The Golf GT will presumably fit in between these two for weight, lets call it 1320kg. The Camry Altise is 1415kg, so there's a 95kg difference. The Camry does 0-100km/h in 9.4sec and 0-400m in 16.5sec. The Golf GT does 0-100km/h in 7.9sec and 0-400m in 15.8sec. So a car with 6.7% less weight does 0-100km/h 15.9% quicker and 0-400m 4.2% quicker. So it's quicker off the line due to less weight, but loses a bit at higher speeds. The Camry gets 8.9L/100km fuel consumption, the Golf GT gets 7.2L/100km, so it's fuel consumption is better by 19.1%. I think you'd find that the 1.4L TSI in a Camry would perform about as well (maybe slightly slower) than the 2.4L 2AZ-FE, but would still have far better fuel consumption. This seems to be the main idea behind the TSI engine, 2.5L performance with less than 2.0L fuel consumption. BTW, if the power isn't enough for you, a tuning company called B&B has two power upgrades available, one takes the 1.4L TSI from 170hp (125kW) to 210hp (156kW) and the other takes it to 240hp (179kW). Try doing that for under $3,000 with a Camry. :jamie:

 

7shades - apparently all Golf GTI's that weren't either Series 1 or Series 5 sucked. Considering VW now use the old Golf GTI motor in the Polo GTI, and the Golf GTI now comes with over 30% more power, you may want to take one for a test drive.

 

MRMOPARMAN - I fail to see your point. Are you trying to say that VW has had more time to develop this engine than Toyota has had? Toyota had the 4A-GE in production for just over twenty years. As for company history, Toyota Motor Company was formed in 1939, but the Automobile Department of Toyoda Automatic Loom Works had been around since 1930. The first VW had it's initial design started in 1931, but the VW concept wasn't introduced by Hitler to Ferdinand Porsche until late 1933. The first KDf was produced in 1938, but only demonstrators and military vehicles were built until 1945, when Major Ivan Hirst of the British Army got the factory back in order and started building what we now know as the Beetle. So if anything, Toyota has had a bit of a head start on engine design. Hell, the first Golf wasn't released until 1974, using a different motor to what's used in the current series (from a different family of motors). The first A-series motor was released just four years later, so Toyota has had every chance to beat VW in the engine development stakes.

 

Jason - I agree, but do take a look at Toyota's current motors. Absolutely nothing compares with the 1.4L TSI, simply because Toyota's a follower, not a creator. However, this has worked very well for the company as they've never really seemed to lose big money on a risky venture, whereas many other companies have (but we've got some great technology as a result). The only area where Toyota's doing fairly well (and is creating new things) is with hybrids. But they're pretty hard to get excited about, aren't they?

 

mattress - the specs of the 1.4L turbo diesel engine are pretty good, so I'd imagine it would be a surprising vehicle to drive. It's got the same power as the higher tune 1.4L petrol motor, but with about twice as much torque. I would think it'd be very smooth.

 

MRMOPARMAN - The 1.4L TSI is a petrol motor. Trev just got confused and didn't read the initial post properly.

 

pozman - I did know about the March Super Turbo. It's a pity that Nissan gave up on the idea and didn't develop it further. The March had an all-alloy motor (unlike the iron block of the VW) with 930cc producing 110hp at 6,400rpm and 135Nm at 4,800rpm. I don't think the engine was as flexible as the VW engine, and it has less torque per litre. However it did beat VW to the punch by about 18 years, so with development it would have been very good. Unfortunately with the next top model March, Nissan used a turbo engine, without a supercharger, so the Super Turbo engine only lasted about four years. In an interesting side note, the reason for the development of the Super Turbo engine (the MA09ERT) was for racing use, as due to it's small capacity, even with forced induction the Super Turbo would still come in under the 1.4L and 1.6L capacity limits (depending on racing class) and was used in the All-Japan Rally Championship. If you were to use this engine in an Improved Production vehicle, you could still race in the under-1600 class, but I think the results would be better with a well developed N/A 1600 engine. The VW 1.4 TSI would have to race in the 2001-3000cc class.

Edited November 25, 2006 by ancullen

[MRMOPARMAN]

my point was at the time toyota only had 1970's/1980's technology to work with, not 2000's technology.

advances in supercharger/turbocharger/ecu/engine development have come a freakin long way since the 4a was thought of..

 

so does that make the gze a dog? hell no. they did the best they could with the comprimises they had to take

 

oh and I'm not saying the TSI is a dog either. i appluad the things they've been able to achieve with this engine. but i wouldnt be shitcanning one engine coz a newer one is released.

[7shades]

Whoa... dude.... easy on the rain-man-esque info spewing your brain will implode or something... :jamie:

 

But in all seriousness... My Golf had its good points... (and yep, it was a series 5) The build quality was excellent, fit and finish were perfect and it was quite pleasant to drive, but not terribly exciting. My major beef with it was it being off the road 1 week out of 8 being repaired under warranty. Two turbos, radiator, LSD, fuel pump, rear suspension, and a plethora of miscellaneous other gremlins. Bearing in mind this was a daily driver/company car which didn't get thrashed at all...

 

A relative of mine has a 3 month old passat which she has taken back to the dealer and demanded a refund as its given her nothing but grief as well.

 

This new engine sounds fantastic in theory but having cruised through a few forums VW are still having reliability and quality control issues (seeing as very few are actually built in germany) and I'd be very worried about forking over bulk cash for an engine so over-technical and perched perilously close to the edge of its performance envelope.

 

Having said that, me and aforementioned passat owner took the the VR6 for a blat... holysnappingduckshit did that little f@$ker fly...

Edited November 25, 2006 by 7shades

[styler]

sounds pretty awesome :)

 

It pumps up to 1.8bar, or 26.5psi through the engine!!! That's right, 26.5psi on a 10.0:1 compression engine!!! Now I'm sure you're all agreeing that this motor simply f@$king rocks! You're still underestimating it! From 3,500rpm onwards, the turbo takes over boosting duties. It is already spooled up thanks to the 3,500rpm onboard, and reaches maximum boost of 2.5bar, or just over 36psi! THAT'S FREAKIN' INSANE!!!

 

you would think it would produce a lot more power though for 36 psi! :jamie:

i mean its 36 PSI!!

 

but on a good note i bet it has an awesome smooth power curve from the twin charge setup, not like some cars that have a huge turbo with no bottom end and then suddenly boost up to 800hp top end.

 

there have been a few successfull attempts at the twincharge setups like the nissan march as said, i like the idea! plumbing is quite complex though lol... and engine management must be pretty advanced to control the whole system.

 

how the hell a 10.0:1 engine takes 36psi is a bloody wonder?!

[Jason]

ahhh it desil thats why the comp so high. sytle read through other posts desils run crazy compression to work the way they do iirc they just basicly ping insted of a spark

[Trev]

how the hell a 10.0:1 engine takes 36psi is a bloody wonder?!

 

I bet they have used the same layout that they did for the diesel.

[ancullen]

my point was at the time toyota only had 1970's/1980's technology to work with, not 2000's technology.

advances in supercharger/turbocharger/ecu/engine development have come a freakin long way since the 4a was thought of..

 

so does that make the gze a dog? hell no. they did the best they could with the comprimises they had to take

 

oh and I'm not saying the TSI is a dog either. i appluad the things they've been able to achieve with this engine. but i wouldnt be shitcanning one engine coz a newer one is released.

 

I'm not really shitcanning the 4A-GZE. I still love my GZE, I just wanted a nice contraversial title for the post to get everyone's attention. It worked. :jamie: It would be cool to see Toyota do the same as Toyota with one of the upcoming ZR-series of four cylinder motors. How about a 1ZR-FZTE? Or a 1ZR-FSZTE? Or the ultimate - a 1ZR-GSZTE? I don't think they'll do it in a hurry though, because they'd never fit all those letters on the cam cover. :)

 

7shades - I'm surprised that you and others have been having issues. All you seem to hear about nowadays in the magazines is the quality of the VW's, but I suppose they don't have them long enough to find the issues. If VW release a Polo 1.4 TSI, I'd still buy it.

 

styler - I'd agree with you about that, but the turbo they're using is presumably very small. I know that with the B&B 240hp tune, they use a bigger turbo, but I don't think it'd be massive as it'd start to affect driveability, even with the blower providing torque from down low.

 

Jason - It's a petrol engine, NOT a diesel.

 

Trev - What do you mean they probably used the same layout as the diesel? From what I've read about this motor, there's not anything that special in the design to make it stronger. It does still use a cast iron block which obviously helps, but there's only 3mm between each cylinder, which is bugger all and will mean that it probably can't be bored out at all. I would presume that it comes standard with forged pistons, but as for anything else, I wouldn't know.

 

And everyone please take note - this is a petrol engine, NOT a diesel.

[Trev]

Trev - What do you mean they probably used the same layout as the diesel? From what I've read about this motor, there's not anything that special in the design to make it stronger. It does still use a cast iron block which obviously helps, but there's only 3mm between each cylinder, which is bugger all and will mean that it probably can't be bored out at all. I would presume that it comes standard with forged pistons, but as for anything else, I wouldn't know.

 

What i meant was i bet they have still used the same bottom end but just decompressed it and put a different head on it.

[tom210]

this engine is petrol!!

 

there that should do it,

[Trev]

this engine is petrol!!

 

there that should do it,

 

Umm yeah maybe if you also read my post a few back (1st in this topic) i have actually said that it was a petrol after i realised it, You think i am that stupid to think that its still a diesel?

 

You also gotta look at the fact that a diesel engine normally has a compression ratio anywhere around 18.0:1 so running it at 10.0:1 is regarded as a decompressed engine, If you were to halve the C/R on a gze I'm pretty sure you could run around the 40psi mark safely (Backyarder runs 30psi reduced from 40psi in his 4AGTE 20v and runs 10's), And i doubt that you would be able to push much more from VW, Have you ever driven a turbo diesel, The new nissan navara has a 100kw diesel yeah it might be heavy but at the end of the day a diesel uses forced induction to aid it through the rpm range, I'm yet to see a full-on performance car based with a diesel.

 

EDIT:

Ha just realised the VW GT is A Petrol :jamie:

[Mr Hardware]

you are never going to get good economy out of something that weighs over 1200+kgs.

 

lets see (city figures)

petrol engine @ 11L/100klms = $12/100klms

diesel engine @ 9L/100klms = $11/100klms

LPG engine @ 15L/100klms = $7.50/100klms

 

YOU CANNOT SAVE MONEY BY STUPID TDI METHODS. THERE IS ONLY ONE WAY TO SAVE MONEY, AND THAT IS TO LOWER THE UNIT PRICE OF THE FUEL YOU FEED IT.

 

At the end of the day, it's the weight you've got to push that makes a car drink, no matter if it has a mammoth motor or a tiny one, diesel or petrol.

 

LPG is the way of the future.

 

My 1600kg Falcon gets $8/100klms around town with the aircon on.

 

Cynic/Extremist/Revolutionary, call me what you will but i looked at it this way.

 

My KE55 would do, at best, 11L/100klms around town. That's about $12/100klms for the second slowest car on the road, this side of a volkswagen beetle.

 

And then there's a Gas Falcon that does $8/100klms and it has power to burn.

 

I liked my corolla. I love my falcon.

 

/rant.

[Mr Hardware]

Alright, on topic time.

 

 

ON PAPER the TSI engine looks like a good idea

 

but just remember - fuel economy is not the only thing to look at

 

 

 

INSURANCE

turbo AND super?? = $$$$$ insurance, negating any savings made by the design.

 

 

 

And anyone will tell you, that force feeding a motor will kill it quicker than a naturally aspirated one.

 

So there's no economy there.

 

I'd like to see a TSI motor at 30 years old with 300,000+ on the clock like a K motor.

 

I don't think so

 

 

So, economy is not L/100km vs kw vs capacity

 

but L/100klms vs longevity

 

 

and yet again, Volkswagen are proving themselves to be German crackpots.

[tom210]

Umm yeah maybe if you also read my post a few back (1st in this topic) i have actually said that it was a petrol after i realised it, You think i am that stupid to think that its still a diesel?

 

it wasnt directed at you personally, just a general statement so others wont get confused..

[ancullen]

You think i am that stupid to think that its still a diesel?

 

Yes. :jamie: