1.4L 118kw engine GONE

[ziggyboy]

I think this bit of news needs a thread of its own.

VW has dropped the 1.4L 118kw twincharger engine which tells a lot really. I know they will keep denying it so will some fanboys, but agian, to me that tells a lot. More so because it appears to be the ONLY engine that was dropped. LOL!

Good job VW! You may be on your way to reliability!!

[Lima]

Yep, the comments here tell a pretty sorry tale...

http://www.ausmotive.com/2009/02/01/tried-tested-volkswagen-golf-vi-14-tsi.html#comment-block

[MkVIGTI]

This is not really news, it has been confirmed before that VW was dropping the twincharged engine for the MkVII due to the engine being costly to manufacture and also overcomplicated. Reliability doesn't seem to be one of its strong points either.

[ziggyboy]

Yes I read that article before, but AFAIK it was unconfirmed.

It's costly because they keep replacing it. LOL.

[woofy]

Skoda were smart to not use that engine and keep the older version....

[MkVIGTI]

Well it is confirmed now ;)

The new 1.4T engine comes with cynlinder deactivation tech too so that should be a worthy replacement.

[Ryan_R]

Just means the Twincharged Golf 6's that are reliable will become collectable classics ;)

[Sharkie]

VW is now making noises about a version of the 1.8T TSI found in the Skodas and Audis making it to Golf Mk7. Enhanced with cylinder activation and making 134kw to place it between the 1.4TSI and the 168kw GTI. R rumoured to be at 209kw in a brand new engine .....

[ziggyboy]

Just means the Twincharged Golf 6's that are reliable will become collectable classics ;)

Why this is bad for us who own 118TSI's is that future repairs will be costlier than if it were currently in production. I'm definitely getting rid of my car before my 5-year warranty expires :)

[Ryan_R]

Yeah got a extra 2 years warranty lined up and hoping to find a nicely specced/priced Golf R 2nd hand before it runs out

[Greg Roles]

All that said if it wasn't for me seeing a twincharge engine on display at Sydney airport back in 2008, it's unlikely I would have a VW now. Reliable or not, I still adore it as an engineering feat, and remains my basis for future projects!

[Rawcpoppa]

Yep, the comments here tell a pretty sorry tale...

http://www.ausmotive.com/2009/02/01/tried-tested-volkswagen-golf-vi-14-tsi.html#comment-block

Most if not all of those comments are for 2009-2010 engines. The reliability has gone way up since then. I'm more worried about the dq200!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[kaanage]

Check out the 6R Polo section for issues with the GTi which uses a tuned up version of the TwinCharger - compression loss and/or 2-stroke like oil consumption requiring pistons & rings or total engine replacement.:P

VW are ditching this design for good reasons.

[iampivot]

The 1.8L 118TSI in the Passat is a different engine though?

[ziggyboy]

The 1.8L 118TSI in the Passat is a different engine though?

Yes, it's not a twincharger.

[russ83]

I ditched my 118tsi as soon as the first engine was replaced. Paid 36k for it, got 18k back at year later. I'm probably lucky I only lost half it's value...

[pologti18t]

Aren't the 1.4 T engines in the new Golf a major overhaul on the 1.4T (90kw) in the current Golf range? So in effect none of the 1.4L engines of the MK6 made it to the MK7.

There is a new CTHE version of the twincharger engine for the Polo GTI/Fabia VRS coming out in Sept. So it is hardly dead yet.

If you are trying to strip weight from a car you are hardly going to stick the heavy twincharger engine in it for a 15kw benefit (over the 103kw 1.4T).

[kaanage]

Skoda were smart to not use that engine and keep the older version....

See the above post about Skoda's use of the TwinCharger..

[iampivot]

Yes, it's not a twincharger.

I thought TSI stood for twin charger?

[Diesel_vert]

I thought TSI stood for twin charger?

It would appear that the T in TSI can either stand for turbo(charged) or twincharger/twincharged, depending on the configuration.

[Ryan_R]

Turbocharged Supercharged Intercooled is unfortunately not the correct abbreviation (although I sometimes wish it was). Even the Golf GTI is a TSI.

The commonly suggested answer on the Internet is Turbo-Stratified Injection


Perhaps there's also a longer unpronounceable German version as well just as DSG = Direct Shift Gearbox = a type of Doppelkupplungsgetriebe (Dual Clutch Gearbox) :)

[sbowden]

Well it's never pleasant to read that the manufacturer is ditching the engine you have in your car, but I won't be rushing to part with my 118 TSI DSG... in fact, even after reading that MkVI will be sans-118, I invested in the DQ200 upgrade from Guy Harding's joint in Coorparoo. Worth every cent, wish VW had programmed the 'box this way from the outset, the improvement is so noticeable. Love driving the car in city traffic again, and roundabouts no longer cause me to reach for the Xanax...

[LunchboxVRS]

what ever the reasons are for dropping the engine (we could debate it for weeks). some love it, some hate it, but a engine never last for ever. it may get tweeked and changed for years or scraped for a whole new design but eventually it gets killed. even the straight six from the falcon (alltough its origin goes back to the 60's) is a completed different engine to the first one. LS1's burned more oil then fuel. they replaced rings blocks and now it is so far from the first one it should be called somthing else but you can still get brand new crete engines under the LS1 banner when its just de-stroked LS2. its not a totally bad engine. it just has 2 things against it. 1. its not really for our conditions. 2. VGA are in denial and big changes will point out there flaws. So the pasist with ****y token attempts to silences and sweep it under the rug. the dream of great performance and even better economy is not a easy target. the idea was sound but they just missed the mark little.

[darkfriend]

The local rag (The West Australian) reported today that the new engine line-up would include a 1.8L petrol version- didn't say that it would be a turbo though (ie from the Audi). Anyone know for sure? Also didn't say that Australia would get it...

I have had no problems with my 118TSI engine and like driving it still (now 29000kms), but would quite like to upgrade to a mk 7 with that Audi engine.

[cktsi]

After having test driven a few 2 litre turbos throughout this year, I am lamenting the demise of the twincharger. Let's face it, I spend 80% of my time in Sydney suburban stop-start traffic where the speed limits are 50km/h to 70km/h with a few 80 "freeways" (Gore Hill, Centenary Drive).

My thoughts & reviews below only relate to suburban low speed driving, not track day driving nor out on the open roads.

The supercharger gives that urgent kick in the back acceleration in the lower rpms at the lower speeds which the GTI and R don't give. I do stick to the speed limits, so by the time the turbo has spooled up in the GTI and R, I'm already at legal speeds. The twindercharger's torque is more immediate. I must admit I was disappointed with the GTI and R in this regard in terms of low rev responsiveness at low speeds.

Of course, different story on the freeways where the GTI & R will totally eat my 1.4 litre in overtaking... but I'm in suburban streets & stop-start bumper to bumper traffic the far majority of my time.

I test drove the A4 2 litre quattro yesterday and even though the torque kicks in sooner, I still didn't feel that same take off like the twincharger. The twincharger is the only forced induction engine I've driven that feels close to the Falcon's take off from stand still and why I love the engine.

The 328i's dual vanos technology has some lag, but I do feel that take off sensation way sooner than in the GTI or R. It's not as immediate as the twincharger, but close to it. (Having said that, I do feel more low rev urgency in the Sirocco R at low speeds - presumably because it's lighter than the Golf R).

So for around town pottering on congested Sydney suburban roads, I feel there's nothing like the twincharger. Even though they've dropped it from the Golf range, I hope it still lives on in some of the other models. I suspect it will eventually die out though through a phasing in of the 1.8 turbo.

RIP twincharger!

[Ryan_R]

Could always fit an aftermarket supercharger to the Golf R if you've got the $$$$$ :)

ECU software upgrades supposedly help low down torque but you'd have to let someone who's got it tell you about that. I love the 1.4 twin for its noise, power, and fuel economy all wrapped up into a nice inconspicuous hatchback body.

[reco]

RIP twincharger! I thought the twin charger would live a lot longer...

[Rawcpoppa]

Rip twincharger. I will always love you. How on earth has Vw gotten more torque out their new 1.4? Without the supercharger?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[cktsi]

Rip twincharger. I will always love you. How on earth has Vw gotten more torque out their new 1.4? Without the supercharger?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Don't worry, I think in comparison to the twincharger the torque will either kick in higher up the rpm or will be laggy. The supercharger is near instanteous with the rich torque kicking in. Still makes me smile every time I floor it from 1500rpm no matter which gear I've selected.

[Rawcpoppa]

Don't worry, I think in comparison to the twincharger the torque will either kick in higher up the rpm or will be laggy. The supercharger is near instanteous with the rich torque kicking in. Still makes me smile every time I floor it from 1500rpm no matter which gear I've selected.

Well things have changed a bit definitely. Looking at the specs online the torque band is narrower apparently. Max torque from 1500-3500 on the new 1.4 vs 1500-4500 on the twincharger.

It's also down on hp from 160 to 138 so it won't have as high a top end speed as the twincharger. 0-60 times are only off by 0.1 sec due to the golf 7 being lighter.

I will miss the supercharger whine but I am not sure the public at large will realize much of a difference.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Flighter]

Well things have changed a bit definitely. Looking at the specs online the torque band is narrower apparently. Max torque from 1500-3500 on the new 1.4 vs 1500-4500 on the twincharger.


This page shows the max torque range for the 118TSI variant lies between from 1750-4500 rpm.

Explore the Golf's 9 variants. < Golf < Models < Volkswagen Australia (http://www.volkswagen.com.au/en/models/golf/variants.html)

The turbo only 90TSI variant has peak torque starting lower still, commencing at 1500 and running through to 4000 rpm.

[Rawcpoppa]

This page shows the max torque range for the 118TSI variant lies between from 1750-4500 rpm.

Explore the Golf's 9 variants. &lt; Golf &lt; Models &lt; Volkswagen Australia (http://www.volkswagen.com.au/en/models/golf/variants.html)

The turbo only 90TSI variant has peak torque starting lower still, commencing at 1500 and running through to 4000 rpm.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/x14avmr724z52is/1.4%20TSI%20dual%20charging.pdf

I wonder what's the reason for the variation in specs from the same company.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[265coupe]

I think the reason for the demise of the 1.4 twincharger is obvious.
Although VW intended the engines life to continue througth the Mk7 model run unfortunately the tooling wore out prematurely in making all those warranty replacement crate engines dispatched to Australia.
It's a funny germanic trait, no admission of inferiority.
I remember well that BMW K100 motorcycles of the eighties smoked terribly when on the sidestand (in Australia). BMW's response? It's because the sidestand is on the other side for RHD roads and so the engine leans the wrong way.
The truth was that the pistons had unpinned rings and so eventually all ring gaps aligned leaving a clear path for oil to leak into the combustion chamber.
I heard an unfounded rumour that the same engineer later designed engines for VW.

[pologti18t]

I think the reason for the demise of the 1.4 twincharger is obvious.
Although VW intended the engines life to continue througth the Mk7 model run unfortunately the tooling wore out prematurely in making all those warranty replacement crate engines dispatched to Australia.
It's a funny germanic trait, no admission of inferiority.
I remember well that BMW K100 motorcycles of the eighties smoked terribly when on the sidestand (in Australia). BMW's response? It's because the sidestand is on the other side for RHD roads and so the engine leans the wrong way.


LOL... the sidestand is on the same side for all countries. Good story though.

You forgot to mention that the twincharger 118Tsi and turbo only 90TSI have both been replaced with new engines.

[cktsi]

I think it was cost that lead to the demise. The reliability and quality can always be improved upon iteratively in later generations... Otherwise you could use the same argument for the DQ200 7 speed DSG. Note they have kept this around even though it was released at the same time as the 118version of the twincharger and had worldwide issues with shudder and breakdown (spectacularly so in china).

Having both a supercharger and tubro charger are extra materials, manufacturing and assembly costs. Having just one mode of forced induction is much cheaper on all 3 counts.

VW must be feeling cost pressure from the likes of the new Focus that are starting to become competitive.

Still... 3.5 years on when i sit in the car at the lights, i still smirk that my car has both a frigging supercharger AND turbocharger! WTF??? It is simply a one of a kind engine.

[Ryan_R]

I just love saying I have a little 1.4L hatchback and also humiliating P platers in noisy Commodores :)

[Rawcpoppa]

I just love saying I have a little 1.4L hatchback and also humiliating P platers in noisy Commodores :)

I actually WISH there was a 1.4 badge for these cars. I was thinking of buying the one for the polo and putting it to the left of the tsi badge. Pretty much beats up on anything up to 2.5 litres normally aspirated. Car puts a smile on face every time I drive it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[265coupe]

On the face of it VW appears reasonable to explain the dropping of the engine on 'cost and complexity'.
But I can't easily accept that argument.
The engine was released in 2007 (Golf 5 GT).
Fundamentally the same since.
The development costs (always the biggest outlay) have been well amortised over that production run.
Incremental development improvements mean the current version should be perfect. (after all in production for 5 years)
We all know how well they drive, no argument there.
Cost to produce?
Couldn't get much cheaper. Suppliers in place. Tooling done, robots programed, employees trained (at both assembly and for repair)
Pollution targets- met and designed into the future.
No, forget the german hype.
Ultimately the engine is a dog. It is UNRELIABLE. It BREAKS.
All those awards count for nought when you are a private owner and that engine light comes on in traffic on your way to work in your 15000km old Golf. Bought with your hard earned.
VW are cutting and running from that engine.
Now a good engine. GTI 2.0 turbo. Lesson learned. They got it right. Long run. No dramas. Bombed massively and holds together.
Expect the new engine to be a baby of this one. Think amortised costs etc.
I just feel sorry for all those workers in crate engine dispatch who are now redundant.

I just had thought. They can go the crate DSG dispatch. Never enough staff there.
The next big news will be the demise of DSG and a return to a conventional TC auto.

[Ryan_R]

I actually WISH there was a 1.4 badge for these cars. I was thinking of buying the one for the polo and putting it to the left of the tsi badge. Pretty much beats up on anything up to 2.5 litres normally aspirated. Car puts a smile on face every time I drive it.

2.5 litres? I've beaten 3.0L V6's and have even kept up with that Holden R8 Ute thing when leaving the traffic lights (whatever that's running). Of course Stage 1 and weight difference has a lot to do with that.

Aren't some costs of the lower end cars covered by the higher prices of more premium cars (or premium options) anyway? $3000 satnav anyone?

[Rawcpoppa]

On the face of it VW appears reasonable to explain the dropping of the engine on 'cost and complexity'.
But I can't easily accept that argument.
The engine was released in 2007 (Golf 5 GT).
Fundamentally the same since.
The development costs (always the biggest outlay) have been well amortised over that production run.
Incremental development improvements mean the current version should be perfect. (after all in production for 5 years)
We all know how well they drive, no argument there.
Cost to produce?
Couldn't get much cheaper. Suppliers in place. Tooling done, robots programed, employees trained (at both assembly and for repair)
Pollution targets- met and designed into the future.
No, forget the german hype.
Ultimately the engine is a dog. It is UNRELIABLE. It BREAKS.
All those awards count for nought when you are a private owner and that engine light comes on in traffic on your way to work in your 15000km old Golf. Bought with your hard earned.
VW are cutting and running from that engine.
Now a good engine. GTI 2.0 turbo. Lesson learned. They got it right. Long run. No dramas. Bombed massively and holds together.
Expect the new engine to be a baby of this one. Think amortised costs etc.
I just feel sorry for all those workers in crate engine dispatch who are now redundant.

I just had thought. They can go the crate DSG dispatch. Never enough staff there.
The next big news will be the demise of DSG and a return to a conventional TC auto.

You're having a laugh. They won't go backwards and a TC auto would be just that.

I find it hard to believe Vw aren't simply cutting costs. If you can get 90% of performance out of the new 1.4 for significantly cheaper then why not? Lets be honest. Vw only stuck that supercharger there years ago because they couldn't get low end torque out of it.

Now the new 1.4 gets more torque than the old one while delivering a bit less horsepower BUT the car is lighter and is only .1 seconds slower from 0-60. From a capitalism business perspective it makes sense.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Rawcpoppa]

2.5 litres? I've beaten 3.0L V6's and have even kept up with that Holden R8 Ute thing when leaving the traffic lights (whatever that's running). Of course Stage 1 and weight difference has a lot to do with that.

Aren't some costs of the lower end cars covered by the higher prices of more premium cars (or premium options) anyway? $3000 satnav anyone?

Stage 1 makes a big difference for you. 2.5 litre na engines deliver just about or a bit above the performance specs of the 1.4 twincharger. However 2.5 litre engines are heavier and the cars with them tend to be heavier than the golf or jetta with the 1.4.

I'm stock. Looking at the performance specs for 3.0 litres there is no way stock that a 1.4 tsi should be able to outperform a 3.0 unless it's really old or detuned.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[cktsi]

You're having a laugh. They won't go backwards and a TC auto would be just that.

I find it hard to believe Vw aren't simply cutting costs. If you can get 90% of performance out of the new 1.4 for significantly cheaper then why not? Lets be honest. Vw only stuck that supercharger there years ago because they couldn't get low end torque out of it.

Now the new 1.4 gets more torque than the old one while delivering a bit less horsepower BUT the car is lighter and is only .1 seconds slower from 0-60. From a capitalism business perspective it makes sense.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

+1

I also was not talking about sunk setup and tooling costs. I was talking about the incremental variable cost of extra materials for the supercharger parts as well as incremental assembly time which reduces throughput and any labour that goes along with that.

As i said, if you ran the complexity argument, the DQ200 would have been ditched as well along a similar argument.

[wb47]

Hey guys,

So I think I will put in an order for the Mk7 Golf, possibly the model replacing the 118TSI,

However I have a question for it's reliability;

Since in the new model only a turbocharger will be used (as opposed to twin turbo/super) will any problems and complications that was infamously abundant on the outgoing model remain?

Thank You!

[Ryan_R]

Yes, VW will make sure the MK7 replacement has the same problems as the early 118TSI's had.

No, VW will be sure to fix those issues with the new model.




Pick whichever one you like.

[AdamD]

Since in the new model only a turbocharger will be used (as opposed to twin turbo/super) will any problems and complications that was infamously abundant on the outgoing model remain?

The new 1.4L turbocharged 103kw Bluemotion motor (the most powerful petrol Golf engine released in Europe thus far in the MK7) is not particularly similar to either the 90TSI or 118TSI engines available in the Mk6 Golf. VWA haven't yet announced an engine line-up for Australia, so we don't even know which engines we will or won't get (and that includes engines that haven't been released in Europe yet).

As a result, we really can't hypothesise about reliability at this stage. If you're very sensitive to these things, then you may be better off buying another make or model (that has been on the market for longer, and is therefore more of a known quantity), or at least buying a model that uses an engine that's been around for some time. The forthcoming GTI and R will use the existing EA888 engine found in the Mk6 GTI (in a modified state of tune) so these are potentially a safer bet.

[idaho]

... VWA haven't yet announced an engine line-up for Australia, so we don't even know which engines we will or won't get (and that includes engines that haven't been released in Europe yet)...


The RVCS website is showing 90TSI, 103TSI and 110TDI engines.

[Melon Head]

Might also have something to do with the universal MQB chassis platform.
Apparently the 1.4 L engine is a completely new design and the engine block is now cast Aluminium Alloy, in addition to that, all engines used on the MQB platform will be orientated so that the exhaust manifold will face the rear of the car and all engines will be leaned backwards. Not sure if this would effect the ability (space required) to incorporate twin charging or not, but it does seem VW have intelligently gone about designing this platform to reduce manufacturing costs and make it as universal as possible.

[Rawcpoppa]

Melon head where can I find technical info about the MQB platform?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Melon Head]

Melon head where can I find technical info about the MQB platform?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Here is the link
http://www.ausmotive.com/downloads/Volkswagen/MQB-platform-Feb2012.pdf

[Rawcpoppa]

Thank you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[stormshark]

Pardon my ignorance but can anyone tell me whether the Skoda Fabia VRS motor denoted as a 1.4l 132tsi i think with super and turbo charger is bacically the same motor with likely similar problems? I was thinking of maybe looking at buying one?

[Melon Head]

And the same engine that is in the Polo GTI

[Rawcpoppa]

Same cavd engine but only really seems to give trouble in the highly tuned versions like in the polo gti. I'd play it safe and stay away or do more research as Vw has changed the engine code from cavd to cthd denoting a change to the engine. Maybe cthd deals with the oil burning issues in the higher output versions.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Melon Head]

Why this is bad for us who own 118TSI's is that future repairs will be costlier than if it were currently in production. I'm definitely getting rid of my car before my 5-year warranty expires :)
It not only applies to TSI118 owners, but owners of all 1.4L engines, as the new 1.4L is a completely new engine with virtually nothing in common with the old 1.4L except bore spacings

[cktsi]

While i was watching a few mark 7 videos it occured to me that below the GTI, the top performing engine will now be the 2litre TDI, not the 1.4 petrol 4. If i were to buy a sporting non GTI comfy line (assuming no highline yet again) mark 7 it would now be the TDI.