From what they say, there will be no 2.0T for the US?
From what they say, there will be no 2.0T for the US?
I think it's a 1.8T because it appears the 2.0T as we know it will be phased out. Likely because it truly lacking in power. I'm surprised the 1.8T is only getting 100hp / L though
The next GTI will have a 2.0T with 260hp (I believe the article read) powering the front wheels...likely a S3 as well...don't be surprised if both the Jetta and Passat get the same in future models along with the CUV/SUV's in the stable.
Last edited by Rudy_S4; 06-14-2012 at 11:49 AM.
Since we're speculating, I think that's a ridiculous claim. A future Golf R - certainly. Should the new GTI see a boost I would expect it to be in the neighborhood of 220hp. Remember, the A3 sedan for the US will be completely specific to our market, so I wouldn't be surprised for us to see a 210-220hp A3 Sedan and a 260-280hp S3, both tuned out of the 2.0T.
The VW/Audi 2.0T motors are comically, rediculously, ludicrously underpowered in today's market.
This is just a haunch, but the Germans are known to underrate their ratings. I wouldn't be surprised if the RS does 350 to 400HP and the S to be in the 300 range. For better or worse, 300HP seems the baseline for performance models nowadays. I'm thinking the RS will be benchmarked against the E90 M3. It will also cost about the same.
German OEM's have got to get it through thier thick heads that the days of european spec car power dominance are over. Back in the malaise era, if you wanted anything that had real power and handled decently, you had few other places to go than the M-B, BMW, or Audi dealer.
As for the 2.0T engine. They are behind the times on that. It is a VW engine that got redesigned by Audi to have variable valve timing, DI, turbo, etc. But it is still an old heavy iron block. Audi wouldn't even move the valvelift onto that engine. All the other goodies from Audi cannot be transferred to the MQB platform, so no 300hp 3.0T, 400hp 4.0T, 500+hp 4.2TT.
Audi's Renn Sport, with its engineering design, still had to make their RS3's 2.5T out of cast iron since they are getting the 2.5 block from VW and they can't just pour aluminum instead of iron into the mold.
At least now, they are taking the 'weight reduction' seriously, with the 1.4T and 1.8T being of lightweight alum design (only crankcase though, not whole block).
With the proliferation of 8 & 9 speed slushbox, every car can have good acceleration numbers now. All they have to do is throw in a ultra low ratio 1st and 2nd gear to get some good torque out of any tiny engine. Not sure if one wants a stick shift with 8-9 speeds though.
VW/Audi will offer a Golf R or S3/RS3 with 260+ horsepower, but for the GTI it's highly unlikely to see anything beyond 220. Volkswagen isn't chasing Mustang or Genesis sales and WRX buyers aren't A3 buyers.
It is speculation, but again I can't think of a single car on the market that has a 2.0L turbo any more and only 200 hp. Besides VW, I think Ford is next with 240hp in North America anyway.
I think the key will obviously be keeping it low boost as they normally do...but with twin scroll technology and direct injection (both adding to the cost of the car of course), it's hard not to speculate how much more VW / Audi can accomplish while not killing efficiencies.
Frig, all I care about is the A3 / S3 or whatever is coming out, I think I am hungry for confirmed specs it's hard to get stuck in the speculation
In the Us where roads are wide and gas is cheap, there's little incentive for gas efficiency other than moral blustering. It's more about selling the image of being "green". Also the stigma is small sedans/hatchback = economy class. It will be hard sell for Audi to expect S3/RS3 to make serious inroads into mainstream driveways.
As for weight reduction, Audi was always emphasizing aluminum frame, and already had aluminum engines. The transverse engine platforms....not so much...heavy iron engines, no thought to weight reduction...since it was a platform more emphasized by VW. The only weight reduction might have been the cheap thin interior of the latest VWs.
Just to be a bit of a $%^& disturber...
My current car had a 2.0T, and 200 hp...the more power I add, the better my MPG gets. I think I am sitting around what a Stage II VW / Audi 2.0T would (intake, intercooler, injectors and tbe, and tune of course).
All highway on the weekend I got 36 mpg...stock it was on the EPA stats of 30 mpg. Especially on the turbo engines, I found over the years more power, often means better gas mileage.
WOT of course is a different story, but you don't calculate EPA based off that.
A good benchmark Audi should be looking at is the new 328i...
Last edited by Rudy_S4; 06-18-2012 at 10:27 AM.
I bring this up because there is a lot of confusion around the relationship between the NA 2.5 and the 2.5T, since they are both 5 cylinder engines that share a displacement and bore spacing. That's about all they share, though, as over 80% of the parts (including the block, as I mentioned above) are unique to the 2.5T.
One thing that it is good to remember when thinking about the 2.5T is that it was originally slated to be much more powerful than the 360HP version we got, but they had to dial things back so that the TT-RS would not outgun the R8 4.2. As it is, it steps on toes a bit, and you can imagine what a 420+ HP TT-RS would have been like...
You're close there. The entire VW/Audi group uses a "shared architecture" approach to engine design, in order to save costs wherever they can. This is the reason that the 2.5T and NA 2.5 share bore spacing, displacement, and a (very) few parts. Likewise with the 4.2 V8 that was in the old S4 and S5 and the "hi-rev" 4.2V8 that's in the R8 - the engines are extremely different from each other in detail, but they share bore spacing, displacement, some elements of block design, and a bunch of other things - why pay to develop something twice when you've got a workable place to start? This extends to things like head and valvetrain design and other aspects as well, and it can get confusing, especially with engines that sound as similar at first glance as the 2.5T and the NA 2.5.I think the TTRS's 2.5 had to have dimension from the orig 2.5, so it can share some things with it, either component, tooling, know-how, or something.