Ever wanted to know the thoughts of car fans?

[honold]

do you think the typical person driving a manual that is looking to step up the hp to something in the jetta range would realize the benefits of the vr6 vs the 1.8t? i'm sure it sounds much better, but i have to wonder w/my limited amount of driving - 90% streets/stoplights - whether or not the torque would even be appreciated.

i have a friend w/a chipped golf that yammers on about how the 1.8t can be chipped to outperform the vr6, but i would have no intention of modifiying a new car with a warranty. maybe after that expired.

 

[Jan Kivar]

i have a friend w/a chipped golf that yammers on about how the 1.8t can be chipped to outperform the vr6, but i would have no intention of modifiying a new car with a warranty. maybe after that expired.

You can chip any car of VAG that has a turbo, but doing so will in most cases (if You really max it) kill the transmission. Not immediately, but in five years or so.

I tend to use motor braking whenever I can. And usually, in a full stop I put the gear in neutral, and put it back right before the lights change.

Cheers,

Jan

 

[NRG = mc²]

i'm sure it sounds much better, but i have to wonder w/my limited amount of driving - 90% streets/stoplights - whether or not the torque would even be appreciated

Having good low down torque is a plus in city traffic. Don't need to mess with the gears that much. Turbo-diesels are good for that

 

[honold]

doesn't the 1.8t do max torque at lower speeds?

 

[NRG = mc²]

I don't know about the States, but there are three different 1.8T engines in Europe with varying amounts of boost pressure.

Power: 180 bhp @ 5500 rpm
Torque: 173 ft-lbs @ 1950-5000 rpm

Power: 150 bhp @ 5700 rpm
Torque: 155 ft-lbs @ 1750-4600 rpm

and the one fitted to the Audi TT, 225hp, a quick google search doesnt bring much data about torque and speeds...

Usually a larger N/A engine has better low down grunt... I don't know about this case.

 

[Howell]

IIRC, no low displacement engine will have lots of torque at low RPMs. The turbo will not have even spun up yet. If you rev the engine to get torque you run the risk of prematurely burning up the clutch.

 

[Howell]

IIRC, no low displacement engine will have lots of torque at low RPMs. The turbo will not have even spun up yet. If you rev the engine to get torque you run the risk of prematurely burning up the clutch.

low rpms being what's normal to take off from a stop light.

 

[e_dawg]

do you think the typical person driving a manual that is looking to step up the hp to something in the jetta range would realize the benefits of the vr6 vs the 1.8t? i'm sure it sounds much better, but i have to wonder w/my limited amount of driving - 90% streets/stoplights - whether or not the torque would even be appreciated.

I agree with NRG and Howell. In your case, the VR6 would undoubtedly provide some benefit because of the superior low end torque (i.e., from 750-1,700 rpm). Whether it is that useful to you or not depends on your shifting habits and what you expect out of your cars. What I mean by that is that you can avoid the "no turbo zone" below 1,500 rpm by downshifting more, slipping the clutch a bit, using 1st more, etc., negating most of the deficiencies of the 1.8T down low.

Like NRG and Howell said, the 1.8T is a small displacement engine -- which, by definition, does not have much torque. It depends largely on the turbo to generate much of its torque/HP. Until the turbo spins up (~1,500 rpm), it won't be generating enough boost to really help out the engine. Granted, the 1.8T has been designed to maximize low-rpm torque and minimize turbo lag, but you can only do so much.

i have a friend w/a chipped golf that yammers on about how the 1.8t can be chipped to outperform the vr6, but i would have no intention of modifiying a new car with a warranty. maybe after that expired.

Yes, 1.8T's can derive significant performance gains from chipping, but sometimes there is no free lunch. You will still not see any benefit below 1,500 rpm, and it can cause problems with your clutch, turbo, and warranty. You can switch to a VR6 clutch, use synthetic oil, and use a turbo timer to negate these effects, but if you have a problem, you can't expect VW to honour your warranty if they suspect chipping-induced problems.

I know what you mean about "yammering on" about chipping the 1.8T, though. Most of the VW owners I know who have a 1.8T have chipped their cars to great satisfaction. They feel great about paying less, having more power, and getting better fuel economy than me and they aren't afraid to let me know. The few guys who have had problems don't say a word, however, due to embarrassment. I just know that there are more problems caused by chipping than some people are willing to let on.

 

[e_dawg]

In any event, honold, my vote is for the GLI with leather all the way. That 24v VR6 is a beautiful engine. As long as you don't mind the higher fuel consumption, I really don't see the point of getting a 1.8T if you can afford the GLI...

 

[honold]

so you know of cases where chipping caused a problem?

 

[e_dawg]

... uh, well myself I have a GIAC chip for my VR6, which works well except it runs a little rich at times. The previous chip I had... the installer didn't re-seal the ECU very well and I got water damage which shorted out the electronics. Obviously, I had to pay for a new ECU. Such problems are rare, but sometimes you are unlucky.

I know that a small percentage of chipped 1.8T's have surging problems, burnt clutches, etc. The burnt clutch thing is likely due to driver abuse, though -- trying to impress friends with his newfound power.

To be honest, *very* few actually report problems, but just like how I tried to keep my little $800 lesson quiet, I suspect others with problems do the same as well.

 

[Jan Kivar]

You can chip any car of VAG that has a turbo, but doing so will in most cases (if You really max it) kill the transmission. Not immediately, but in five years or so.

Yes, also the clutch might burn, but the transmission/gear box fails during the lifespan of the car. Some models have "better" or "more suitable" gear boxes (as VAG only has 6-9 different gear boxes), so by selecting the right model (even the year can make a difference) or not pushing it to the limit one could still chip.

The most expensive solution is to get a better gearbox (You might use the vr6's box with the 1.8t, or even get a box from a different make). I don't know what You do with the wrecked cars out there across the big water, but here in Europe You could find something suitable.

Cheers,

Jan

 

[Howell]

Like NRG and Howell said, the 1.8T is a small displacement engine -- which, by definition, does not have much torque.

Until we start talking about turbo-diesels. Diesels have tons of low end torque and the turbo helps later in the rev range. Diesels sip gas and the latest VW engines have greatly reduced the problems that have been associated with diesels in the past. Diesel gas also tends to fluctuate in price less than more refined fuels. There is even non dino-diesel available if you care about tha kind of thing. I don't really know the drawbacks to diesels though.

One of the downsides is that they tend to cost a fraction more than their gas counterparts.

 

[Jan Kivar]

Diesel engines are somewhat heavier, so the weight load/distribution is different. Diesel engines have great low-rpm torque, but the newer ones with turbos have small rpm-range right after the idle revs where there is low torque. So You'd have to have 1300+ rpm until the "real" torque starts.

Jan

 

[honold]

i've always heard diesel was bad unless you were always doing long trips

 

[.Nut]

I would sometimes just sit in the Mustang and rev the engine and feel the unbalanced engine make the car tilt to one side. It’s times when I think of that, that I wish I had another Mustang.

When we say unbalanced, we are talking about dynamic imlabance of the moving components inside the engine -- the reciprocating masses and firing order causing vibrations in the engine -- not static balance of the entire engine in terms of the engine's overall cg and weight distribution...

The tilt you feel when you rev the engine is the engine twisting in its engine mounts and even twisting the chassis itself (the Mustang has a weak chassis) due to the crank/flywheel torque not having any opposing force from the transmission and wheels (Newton's 2nd law).

The twisting / tilting comes from the engine's torquing of the chassis due to the fact the FLYWHEEL is being accelerated -- nothing else. The engine is well anchored to the adequately stiff chassis of the Mustang with isolated motor mounts. The shock absorbers respond to the torque far more than anything else.

Now, if were are speaking of a drag race, where one of the front wheels is slightly leaving the pavement during the initial get-go, then yes that would be a sign of a weak chassis (i.e. -- twisting of the chassis).

 

[NRG = mc²]

I don't really know the drawbacks to diesels though

They have a narrow power band, so you have to change up quickly compared to a petrol engine, in order to stay in the power band - power drops off suddenly in a diesel. Also, they are unrefined compared to petrol engines especially when cold, but the latest diesels are pretty good in that respect compared to those of some years ago.

Over here, diesel, being a "dirty fuel", is taxed higher than petrol, so its the better fuel economy that pays off, but to start offsetting the higher cost of the diesel version vs. the petrol version you'll have to cover around 50k miles which is quite a lot unless you're a taxi driver or do huge mileages.

Diesels also have very good midrange acceleration, i.e. overtaking. I remember the 1.5 litre common rail turbo diesel Renault Clio I rented some months back, the overtaking was very rapid, even if it was not generally such a fast car, it had just 80hp. When I got home I checked the specs and it turns out from 30 to 70 in just 7.5 seconds!

 

[NRG = mc²]

have to cover around 50k miles which is quite a lot unless you're a taxi driver or do huge mileages.

I didn't write this properly, what I meant was that it would take 3-4 years of average driving to save enough fuel money to offset the increased cost.

BTW... that car I rented did 75mpg @ 50mph. Now thats fuel economy!

 

[e_dawg]

The twisting / tilting comes from the engine's torquing of the chassis due to the fact the FLYWHEEL is being accelerated -- nothing else. The engine is well anchored to the adequately stiff chassis of the Mustang with isolated motor mounts. The shock absorbers respond to the torque far more than anything else.

I can't speak for the Mustang as much because... well, I don't have one or know friends that do, but I have dynoed several VW's and I can tell you that the engine twists its motor mounts tremendously when accelerating in gear, and still noticeably when revving in neutral. The Mustang, with double the torque, I would presume twists similarly unless a much more rigid mounting system is used.

You're right about the chassis not twisting -- the shocks would move before the chassis would twist.

 

[LiamC]

To chime in with Tannin's first post and a later one by e_dawg - my Holden experience.

In '99, traded the Subaru WRX ('95 model) in for an Astra - gasp! Hey, it was the mortgage, kids thing and the Sube's insurance was killing! Besides, it had been borrowed once - NSW highway patrol 0, My Sube 7.

Things that went wrong in the 3-and-a-half years of ownership - none.

Anyway, bought the Astra.

Things that went wrong

Anti-lock brakes don't ( intermittently - still not fixed to this day, though I spoke to the dealership (again) this morning and they may have a handle on it. It has been into the dealership a dozen times over two years, with the fault showing - they still cannot diagnose the problem, even though the electronics are supposed to log a fault code - it doesn't. Can you bring the car into us with the fault showing Mr. Campbell? Sure, I have done. But I mostly drive the car out of working hours funnily enough and the dealer doesn't work out of hours.

Air-con didn't (intermittently). Replaced ignition switch. Failed again. Replaced HVAC controls - fixed.

Rear window wiper (intermittently) fails. Only on cold mornings and it resumes when the interior warms up. Cannot replicate this at the dealer because by then it has warmed up. As the dealer has had the car (at their premises) for more than a month (total) now, I am reluctant to let them have any more time - that's why I have a car, to get around with.

Windscreen wiper - asked the dealer to replace blades at a service. A day later I tried them and the left wiper didn't touch the screen - back to the dealer. I asked them about it. They agreed to replace the wiper arm as they couldn't get it to touch the screen. When they replaced the arm (at the same time as looking at the brakes again), Ia sked them if they checked everything this time. "Assuredly Mr. Campbell." Driving car home and the ALB fail (again). Me not happy. Check the windscreen wipers and only a dribble of water - great me thinks, they checked but didn't bother to fill up tank.

Fills up tank at home and still no joy - :x

Back to dealer for brakes and windscreen.

Me: "You say that your people checked things"

Rep: "Yes Mr. Campbell"

Me: "When replacing the wiper arms, the water hose was disconnected"

Rep: "Yes Mr. Campbell, it was"

Me: "It appears that your people forgot to re-connect the hose".

Rep: "Terribly sorry Mr. Campbell, we will attend to this right away".

Me: "If the hose was disconnected, how did the service people check that the wipers did indeed function?"

Rep: Deafening silence.

Cooling system malfunctioning - car cannot idle/drive properly. Back to the dealer.

Electric Windows. Demonstrated to dealer. All down. Close fronts, close rears. Rears slide home faster, and as soon as they hit home, the fronts stop closing and go open fully again. At end of the day, go to dealer and they say they could not find any fault. Drag rep whome I demonstrated problem too and head mechanic - showed fault again. Have to leave car overnight :x Fixed, but now the drivers side sounds like a cat being hit with a brick - repeatedly

Seat belt pretensioner warning light illuminates intermittently. Have to take back to dealer to have fault code cleared. Again, no error recorded.

Paint protection. Dealer sold it to me. After a year or so, it was looking very patchy. After much aggro, they agreed to re do it. Head b!tch even said car had been through car wash (this without anyone inspecting it) and they were only doing it as courtesy but don't ask us to do it again. They re did it, but after two days I was back taking to them as the person had buffed all the flat parts but did not do any of the crease lines/fiddly bits - needed to be done by hand. They had to reapply the stuff again. One year later, it is looking decidely second hand.

Air con used to make a racket on anything more than half speed. 7000rpm racket. Worse. Cause - the air box full of gum (Eucalyptus tree) leaves. Great R&D there Holden. Solution new plastic mesh filter - which they wanted to charge me for.

Had the end-of-warranty inspection done by a third party. Rear brakes very uneven wear. Likely cause, recommended warranty service was not carried out. Replaced.

And there are others. I've had the service staff tell me to my face that I should take the care back to the place I bought it from if I was unhappy with the service - in a crowded room fuill of customers.

My response: "I am. Check your records" :evil:

The upshot (and the tie in to E_dawg) is that I pick up a Mazda 6 in two days. I hope the experience leans towards Subaru rather than Holden.

P.S. Are "Paint Protection" schemes worth it? Are third parties better at it and honouring warranties than dealers? Does anybody have any advice in this area? Cheers

 

[e_dawg]

i've always heard diesel was bad unless you were always doing long trips

Depends what you're looking for in a car. Diesels are great for fuel economy. They have a lot of torque for their size, but they are horrible anywhere past 3,500 rpm or so. The turbo can only do so much to help it breathe above 3,000 rpm. After 3,500, it's all downhill from there. Of course, quite a few people never make it past 3,500 rpm most of the time. Bottom line: a diesel will never win any races, but will be a good daily driver with the low torque.

Drawbacks include: other than admirable low end torque and driveability, it generally lacks power and provides mediocre acceleration; sulphur smell with the high sulphur diesel in the US; clatter when idling; not a good choice in cold climates (diesel fuel gels below 0F without additives, can be hard to start)

If you were to get a Jetta TDi, I would definitely chip it to get ~115 HP and 170 lbs-ft of torque. The 90 HP and 155 lb-ft of torque that it comes with is just not enough. In Europe, VW sells much more powerful TDi models, but they can't bring it over to N.America because of the high sulphur diesel that we use here.

 

[Jake the Dog]

my god, a nice long thread about cars, fast cars and handling indeed and I've missed it until now? dagnabbit, I've got a lot ot reading to do!

 

[e_dawg]

LiamC,

Paint protection... the kind that I am thinking of, anyways, is useless. The ones offered by some of the dealers here in the late 80's/early 90's was just a high quality polymer sealant. You can buy that stuff yourself for $10-20 a bottle at the store. This is basic car selling 101: upsell the customer with useless sh*t. If it wasn't a big money maker for them (i.e., the actual value of whatever they're using is dirt cheap but they turn around and sell it to you for 10x the price), they wouldn't be pushing it on you like those extended warranty plans at the big box stores.

Wax the car once a season and don't worry about it. You'll have to get it repainted in 8-10 years anyways no matter what you do.

 

[e_dawg]

BTW, Liam, great choice on the Mazda 6. I love that car!

 

[Jake the Dog]

just too much to read atm, so I've skimmed,. sorry if I repeat something that’s already been said.

driving wheels and performance: on solid surfaces RWD is better than FWD, and a few AWD systems are better again. Nissan's ATTESA is a decent implementation, Subaru's AWD not so. for loose surfaces though, FWD has advantages over RWD, however AWD rules here. not all FWD cars are boring drives (but most are!). Honda's Integra Type R is a sweet car to drive in the twisties, and it's FWD. still I’d rather a high-powered RWD everyday. hang on, I do have that every day

don't discount rotaries and being a wanker's engine! feed them the right oil and fuel and their apex seals will last a long time. they can make power too. a friend of mine has a 10sec 1/4m, 500HP RX3 that can drive in day to day traffic. it's a fun ride that's for sure.

coasting in neutral is never a good idea. there's a reason it's an instant-fail offence in driving tests. you should always be in in gear and the right gear too.doing so means you can always move if and when you need to and it doesn't impair your ability to stop.

engine braking adds very little to normal engine wear and uses negligibly more fuel than coasting out of gear to a stop. any clutch wear is negated by the fact that the brakes have to work harder and thus suffer more wear. being in neutral does not at all help you steer either. tyres respond better under load but not when over-loaded of course.

Suby boxer engines sound sweet when worked and run hard but a V8 at work sounds best :mrgrn:

 

[Jake the Dog]

btw, I agree with Tannin in regards to the placement of this thread. I'll move it to the P&B soon and rename it "Ever wanted to know the thoughts of car fans?".

objections?

 

[Clocker]

objections?

NONE! I think about cars and trucks all day! I don't need to read about them in the SF Computers forum!

C :wink:

 

[e_dawg]

no objections here

 

[Howell]

The twisting / tilting comes from the engine's torquing of the chassis due to the fact the FLYWHEEL is being accelerated -- nothing else. The engine is well anchored to the adequately stiff chassis of the Mustang with isolated motor mounts. The shock absorbers respond to the torque far more than anything else.

I can't speak for the Mustang as much because... well, I don't have one or know friends that do, but I have dynoed several VW's and I can tell you that the engine twists its motor mounts tremendously when accelerating in gear, and still noticeably when revving in neutral. The Mustang, with double the torque, I would presume twists similarly unless a much more rigid mounting system is used.

You're right about the chassis not twisting -- the shocks would move before the chassis would twist.

What Gary is saying is that the engine is reacting to the momentum of the flywheel. If the car were not in gear and the flywheel and crank weighed very little then the engine would not stress the motor mounts as much.

That said, why would one want to upgrade (or down-grade I guess) motor mounts.

 

[LiamC]

AWD v RWD v FWD

Canberra winter mornings, rounabouts. It's dark, it's very slippery and there's black ice. Subaru's are popular here...

BTW, it's fun watching Commodores and Falcons going back arseward into the scenery.

Of course, if the standard of driving were to improve, then it would be a whole different matter. When looking for/at cars I wanted the Falcon XR6 Turbo - RWD, 240Kw. My wife will drive it more than me and she wanted something smaller - so she won. This time.

 

[Jake the Dog]

next time make sure you win Liam shame you had to pass on that car.

 

[LiamC]

That was part of the deal - I get to choose next time 2007/8 will be interesting.

Cue maniacal laughter.

 

[e_dawg]

What Gary is saying is that the engine is reacting to the momentum of the flywheel. If the car were not in gear and the flywheel and crank weighed very little then the engine would not stress the motor mounts as much.

That said, why would one want to upgrade (or down-grade I guess) motor mounts.

Yes, I agree that accelerating the flywheel causes the twisting.

As for the motor mounts, you would want them to be more rigid so you don't lose responsiveness and keep your engine better in line with the tranny. It is more difficult to fire off a smooth 1-2 shift when the engine is rocking back and forth and is not always fixed relative to the gearbox.

OTOH, for passenger comfort, you would want the mounts to provide better isolation and dampening to reduce NVH (noise, vibration, harshness).

 

[honold]

"yeah, but that TruCoat..."

 

[mubs]

What's a "common-rail" diesel engine? Seems to be the designers choice these days. Is the fuel sprayed into a "common" inlet manifold area instead of into the cylinder? If so wouldn't that mess up the self-ignition process?

 

[e_dawg]

I believe it is where there is a common high pressure fuel line that all the cylinders get their fuel from directly instead of relying on individual fuel injectors to do the work. This way, instead of fuel injectors misting the diesel into the cylinder at a relatively low pressure (resulting in incomplete combustion), the rail supplies fuel to the cylinders at something like 10,000 psi, resulting in a super fine "atomized" mist that is completely dispersed throughout the cylinder and mixed with air and undergoes complete combustion. This results in higher efficiency and power.

I beleive all modern diesels are direct injection now; the old style of indirect injection into a prechamber is all but gone.

 

[Jake the Dog]

As for the motor mounts, you would want them to be more rigid so you don't lose responsiveness and keep your engine better in line with the tranny. It is more difficult to fire off a smooth 1-2 shift when the engine is rocking back and forth and is not always fixed relative to the gearbox.

huh? transmissions or gearboxes are always held exactly inline with the engine by way of the bellhousing. flexible engine mounts are used to allow an engine some movement without putting too much stress on what would be otherwise solid mounts which in turn would inrtoduce vibration and noise.

 

[e_dawg]

You know, Jake. That makes sense. I never really thought about what makes shifting so difficult with stock motor mounts. Once I replaced the rear engine mount, also called the dogbone / rear engine / transmission mount, the 1-2 shifts were smoother as advertised. I just assumed it was due to the physical displacement of the drivetrain omponents flopping around. There is movement, but like you say, the tranny and engine are doing so fused in unison. After thinking about it, the reason why shifting is more difficult is that it is more difficult to control the reapplication of torque during the clutch re-engagement phase with the engine having to twist in the mount and load it before it can really apply the torque to the tranny. This uneven application of torque causes the problem.

I guess you don't have a FWD, so you probably don't know where I'm coming from with respect to this engine movement.

Here are some links you may wish to check out:

http://www.energysuspension.com/prod3.html

VF Engineering Dogbone mount

http://www.arbourvw.com/au/450ARBOURVW/GTI 337.wmv
(dyno video -- notice the engine twisting in its mounts and rocking while shifting, about 2.8 MB)

 

[Jake the Dog]

well, can I say "sort of" my canine buddy?

the improvements you felt in the 1>2 gear is due to a load reduction on the diff end of the g/box. as you know, your engine and g/box are locked in alignment. with the stock stock engine mounts, your engine and hence your g'box, would twist a certain amount putting a load on the other end of the g'box>dif coupling as the diff does not allows fo twist. the improved engine mounts reduce the amount the engine/g'box twists, thus reducing the torsional load on the g/box at the diff end and the result is easier, smoother gear engagement.

such issues are more prevalent with transverse engine/g'box or trans designs, be it front, mid or rear mount.

 

[NRG = mc²]

If you were to get a Jetta TDi, I would definitely chip it to get ~115 HP and 170 lbs-ft of torque. The 90 HP and 155 lb-ft of torque that it comes with is just not enough. In Europe, VW sells much more powerful TDi models, but they can't bring it over to N.America because of the high sulphur diesel that we use here.

We get a 130hp Golf... 310Nm torque, 6 speed box. Goes pretty well, but its a VW, and in my book, thats not a good thing. Probably because Ferdinand Peich is the car equivalent of Bill Gates

Not long, but lifting the clutch will jerk you back and slow you down a bit unless you either feather the clutch more than you should or do rev matching.

I would take it for granted when changing to a lower gear one wont just dump the clutch without giving it some revs - rev matching goes without saying IMO. I just don't think its enough reason to fail you there and then. Thats normally reserved for "almost hit a tree" incidents. By comparison, "forgot to indicate" is a minor fault! :evil:

coasting in neutral is never a good idea. there's a reason it's an instant-fail offence in driving tests. you should always be in in gear and the right gear too.doing so means you can always move if and when you need to and it doesn't impair your ability to stop.

I'm not talking about neutral - I'm talking about dipping the clutch over 1000rpm. I don't see how being in neutral, or having the clutch depressed would impair ones ability to stop? :-?