2009 International Engine of The Year

Messages
39,799
Location
Great Lakes
 Quote:
Volkswagen Group's 1.4-litre TSI Twincharger gasoline engine has been named the grand winner at 2009 International Engine of the Year awards ending BMW's four-year-streak. The four-cylinder unit that is offered in a variety of cars including the VW Golf and Seat Ibiza Cupra, also scooped the Green Engine of the Year award beating both Toyota's and Honda's new electric-hybrid powerplants, while the panel of 65 motoring journalists from 32 countries also named the 1.4 TSI the 1.0- to 1.4-liter Engine of the Year.
 Quote:
The four-cylinder combines a turbocharger and supercharger in one compact unit. The result is power of up to 178bhp, but what’s most impressive is the engine’s specific power that attains 127.1bhp per litre of displacement. And with 240Nm of torque coming good at 1,500rpm, it’s easy to see why the jurors that look for performance and sporty characteristics were impressed. But power is just part of the story for this year’s International Engine of the Year. The TSI derivative mated to VW’s DSG system emits 144g CO2/km, and in a Golf application, fuel consumption is rated at 6.2litres/100km (45.5mpg). With those figures, it’s little wonder that TSI won.
http://www.ukipme.com/engineoftheyear/categories.html http://carscoop.blogspot.com/2009/06/vw-wins-2009-international-engine-of.html
 
Messages
4,998
Location
Milwaukee, WI
I usually don't like this award because it's so slanted to small, forced induction engines and european makes. But this is one impressive powerplant. I wonder the cost and emissions headaches to bring it here?
 

Quattro Pete

Thread starter
Messages
39,799
Location
Great Lakes
Unless we get our gasoline quality up, this engine may prove just as problematic (if not more) as the current 2.0T engines offered here. Either that, or they'll have to significantly detune it, at which point it won't be impressive anymore.
 
Messages
25,045
Location
ON, Canada eh?
 Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Unless we get our gasoline quality up, this engine may prove just as problematic (if not more) as the current 2.0T engines offered here. Either that, or they'll have to significantly detune it, at which point it won't be impressive anymore.
Then I would take a pass at this engine. .. So sad!
 
Messages
888
Location
Ohio
StevieC-- Please explain your comment on intake valve deposits. It has been my impression that intake valve deposits are caused by PORT injection where the back side of the intake valve is constantly sprayed with a timed pulse of fuel (when the valve opens).In a DIRECT injection engine, the fuel is sprayed (at a much higher pressure) directly into the combustion chamber. This would seem to me to be much less inclinded to leave carbon deposits on the intake valve. Thanks in advance for your comments. ____Old Tommy
 

Quattro Pete

Thread starter
Messages
39,799
Location
Great Lakes
 Originally Posted By: benjamming
how easy will it be to work on?
Looks like the oil filter is easily accessible from the top, and it still has a dipstick - a dying breed it seems. :) ..."thinking with your dipstick" must be tough for all those dipstick-less new bmw owners...
 
Messages
43,809
Location
Ontario, Canada
 Originally Posted By: 2oldtommy
StevieC-- Please explain your comment on intake valve deposits. It has been my impression that intake valve deposits are caused by PORT injection where the back side of the intake valve is constantly sprayed with a timed pulse of fuel (when the valve opens).In a DIRECT injection engine, the fuel is sprayed (at a much higher pressure) directly into the combustion chamber. This would seem to me to be much less inclinded to leave carbon deposits on the intake valve. Thanks in advance for your comments. ____Old Tommy
You've missed the thread(s) Tommy. There have been quite a few of them on Direct Injection leaving deposits. They come from oil mist consumed by the PCV system. Since the fuel charge is not "washing" the back of the intake valve(s) clean, they crud up.
 
Messages
25,045
Location
ON, Canada eh?
 Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
 Originally Posted By: 2oldtommy
StevieC-- Please explain your comment on intake valve deposits. It has been my impression that intake valve deposits are caused by PORT injection where the back side of the intake valve is constantly sprayed with a timed pulse of fuel (when the valve opens).In a DIRECT injection engine, the fuel is sprayed (at a much higher pressure) directly into the combustion chamber. This would seem to me to be much less inclinded to leave carbon deposits on the intake valve. Thanks in advance for your comments. ____Old Tommy
You've missed the thread(s) Tommy. There have been quite a few of them on Direct Injection leaving deposits. They come from oil mist consumed by the PCV system. Since the fuel charge is not "washing" the back of the intake valve(s) clean, they crud up.
I was about to reply to his question then I saw your post... That's exactly why. ;\)
 
Messages
4,998
Location
Milwaukee, WI
"StevieC-- Please explain your comment on intake valve deposits. It has been my impression that intake valve deposits are caused by PORT injection where the back side of the intake valve is constantly sprayed with a timed pulse of fuel (when the valve opens).In a DIRECT injection engine, the fuel is sprayed (at a much higher pressure) directly into the combustion chamber. This would seem to me to be much less inclinded to leave carbon deposits on the intake valve. Thanks in advance for your comments. ____Old Tommy " Unfortunately its the other way around. With either type, the PCV system will introduce crankcase vapors to the intake tract. These will form deposits on the intake valves no matter what. Port fuel injection constantly sprays the valves cleaning them of the deposits. With DI, there is nothing to clean these deposits, since only air passes the valves. Except on the Lexus 3.5, where there is DI in each cylinder and one port injector. I'm not sure if it was dumb luck, of if they knew about this issue while designing it. That would be interesting to know.
 

JHZR2

Staff member
Messages
44,848
Location
New Jersey
If we would actually care about gross tonnage instead of NOx, we would be able to have these things. Give us lean stratified charge with some decent (lower sulfur) gasoline, and we could do it, though EPA would likely require a urea cannister on there like on the new diesels. Making NOx the ennemy is a good way of pretending that we are "green", while ensuring that total fuel use doesnt change much. We're green in our PZEV ford excursion... a 50MPG jetta diesel would be a gross polluter. so the gas taxes keep raking in.
 
Top