Jetta uses cylinder head from Lamborgini Gallardo

[raaizin]

I stumbled on this while researching what a cylinder head would cost, but that is another story. This is the 2.5 engine.

"That change also makes it possible for the new engine to use one Lamborghini part—the aluminum-alloy 20-valve cylinder head found on one bank of the Gallardo's V-10. This greatly improves the engine's breathing over the two-valves-per-cylinder head on the previous four-cylinder Jetta."

Here is my source on page 3 of article
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/car/05q2/volkswagen_jetta-road_test/tech_highlights_page_3

 

[benjamming]

Don't you mean the Lambo uses cylinder head from Jetta?

 

[SteveSRT8]

Nope, he's right (if C&D is).

A surprisingly low output motor. I'm really surprised at that.

 

[07Wolfie]

VW was forced to redesign that "lifetime" timing chain two more times after this article was written. But they did bump the power output to 170HP / 180 lb-ft by late 2007. So let's see, that's half of a Gallardo V-10, right? hahahahahaha God, I wish.

 

[07Wolfie]

Last year, Audi took the same mediocre engine and added boost, strengthened the valve train, and put it in the TTRS and the quattro Concept. Much cooler there. Now, if VW could offer a Jetta GLI with the turbo 2.5, you'd have the makings of a real sleeper!

 

[dailydriver]

When was the last time Wolfsburg actually used a 2V per cylinder head???

 

[rationull]

Originally Posted By: dailydriver
When was the last time Wolfsburg actually used a 2V per cylinder head???

The 2.slow which they're selling again as the base engine in the Jetta may be an 8 valve engine (4 cyl).

 

[Klutch9]

I remember seeing this article, and several others like it back when the 2.5 5-cyl came out. All the new 2.5 owners on the Jetta boards acted like they now had half of a Gallardo

In that case, my Neon SRT-4 was also 1/4 of a Bugatti veyron, since they share the exact same bypass/blowoff valve from the factory (integrated somewhat with the compressor housing). Except the Veyron has 4... I only had 1

 

[ARB1977]

Our 97 Jetta was an 8V.

 

[Hokiefyd]

Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Nope, he's right (if C&D is).

A surprisingly low output motor. I'm really surprised at that.


It is, and I'm not quite sure why VW's 2.5L inline-5 makes about as much power and torque as most others' 2.5L inline-4 engines. I guess where I'm going with that is why doesn't VW engineer a 2.5L (or similar) I-4 and get the same power and torque out of a more compact package?

 

[meep]

IDK. That's a very high torque output against the HP for a 4-pot. Most V6's have torque numbers to almost match HP. More torque than HP is in typical V8 territory.

I recall the torquey subaru boxers 2.2L had 127ft/lbs and 135 HP, which was a similar curve to a v6 (just smaller numbers). When the honda civic Si came out with similar numbers from the VVT, it made for an amazing versatile manual shift. So-- seeing those numbers from a 4-5 pot motor seem *very* respectable to me.

mike

 

[artificialist]

The current base model Jetta has a 4 cylinder 8 valve engine.

I think it is the only 4 cylinder 8 valve engine still sold in the USA.

I never see those on the road, anyway. I always see 2.5L or Diesel Jettas.

 

[The Critic]

The current VW 2.5L is a boat anchor that sounds like a vacuum cleaner. Power of a 4-cyl with the fuel economy of a V6.

 

[JHZR2]

Originally Posted By: The Critic
The current VW 2.5L is a boat anchor that sounds like a vacuum cleaner. Power of a 4-cyl with the fuel economy of a V6.


I wouldnt go that far.

The 5 cyl with 177 lb-ft of torque makes a car like our 08 rabbit move along VERY well. The wife drives more or less 100% city and gets 26.5 MPG very consistently, which isnt bad considering the EPA city rating of most 4 cyl cars with MUCH LESS torque and hp.

Where they went wrong is non-inclusion of a 6th gear, which would have dropped highway cruising RPM. The engine has enough torque for it to not be an issue. Because of the gearing, the engine is spinning pretty fast at highway speeds and 31 MPG is what we've seen on highway trips.

So I disagree with your commentary. Would we have preferred a smaller engine? Sure. Maybe/maybe not on the 2.0T, which was EPA rated 32 versus 29 which IIRC is what the 2.5 was rated. But we do pretty well with ours all the same.

If youre basing your findings on a college-age female owner, which IIRC is the case, poor driving skills need to be part of the equation.

 

[The Critic]

Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Originally Posted By: The Critic
The current VW 2.5L is a boat anchor that sounds like a vacuum cleaner. Power of a 4-cyl with the fuel economy of a V6.


I wouldnt go that far.

The 5 cyl with 177 lb-ft of torque makes a car like our 08 rabbit move along VERY well. The wife drives more or less 100% city and gets 26.5 MPG very consistently, which isnt bad considering the EPA city rating of most 4 cyl cars with MUCH LESS torque and hp.

Where they went wrong is non-inclusion of a 6th gear, which would have dropped highway cruising RPM. The engine has enough torque for it to not be an issue. Because of the gearing, the engine is spinning pretty fast at highway speeds and 31 MPG is what we've seen on highway trips.

So I disagree with your commentary. Would we have preferred a smaller engine? Sure. Maybe/maybe not on the 2.0T, which was EPA rated 32 versus 29 which IIRC is what the 2.5 was rated. But we do pretty well with ours all the same.

If youre basing your findings on a college-age female owner, which IIRC is the case, poor driving skills need to be part of the equation.


That still doesn't address my issue with the noise and harmonics of the engine-- it sounds like a vacuum cleaner.

Your wife would probably be doing better fuel economy wise on a 2.0T than on a 2.5, with a lot more power to boot. Generally 2.0T drivers have an easier time achieving good fuel economy, from what I've heard.

The 2.5 doesn't move along any quicker than any of the new 4-cyls on the market, so I fail to see the advantage at all.

 

[Klutch9]

Personally, I think 5 cylinder engines sound awesome. I test drove a Golf 5-cyl one day last year just because I hadn't driven a 5 cylinder before and wanted to hear the motor

However, I do understand the argument that some 4 cylinders make similar power and get better fuel economy. Our Fusion, for example, has the same displacement as the Golf 5-pot (2.5L) but is a 4 cylinder, and makes 175 hp and 175 tq (some sources also say 170hp and 170 tq), and got us 30 mpg on a trip this summer PACKED to the gills and with 4 adults, doing near 80 mph the whole time. Now, if that VW 5 cylinder made something like 200 hp and got better fuel economy, I'd like it a lot more.

 

[JHZR2]

Originally Posted By: The Critic
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Originally Posted By: The Critic
The current VW 2.5L is a boat anchor that sounds like a vacuum cleaner. Power of a 4-cyl with the fuel economy of a V6.


I wouldnt go that far.

The 5 cyl with 177 lb-ft of torque makes a car like our 08 rabbit move along VERY well. The wife drives more or less 100% city and gets 26.5 MPG very consistently, which isnt bad considering the EPA city rating of most 4 cyl cars with MUCH LESS torque and hp.

Where they went wrong is non-inclusion of a 6th gear, which would have dropped highway cruising RPM. The engine has enough torque for it to not be an issue. Because of the gearing, the engine is spinning pretty fast at highway speeds and 31 MPG is what we've seen on highway trips.

So I disagree with your commentary. Would we have preferred a smaller engine? Sure. Maybe/maybe not on the 2.0T, which was EPA rated 32 versus 29 which IIRC is what the 2.5 was rated. But we do pretty well with ours all the same.

If youre basing your findings on a college-age female owner, which IIRC is the case, poor driving skills need to be part of the equation.


That still doesn't address my issue with the noise and harmonics of the engine-- it sounds like a vacuum cleaner.

Your wife would probably be doing better fuel economy wise on a 2.0T than on a 2.5, with a lot more power to boot. Generally 2.0T drivers have an easier time achieving good fuel economy, from what I've heard.

The 2.5 doesn't move along any quicker than any of the new 4-cyls on the market, so I fail to see the advantage at all.


Noise and harmonics??!? The car is pretty darn quiet and comfortable going down the road. What are we trying to compare it to? I see no superiority should she have bought a civic, corolla or any other econobox, and Ive put plenty of miles on those cars all over the country, sometimes for weeks at a time.

C&D seems to agree:

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/comp...rabbit_s_page_9

Let's see:

Quote:
Highs: Just-right driving position, elegant dash dials, strong five-cylinder.

Lows: Loud over textured roads, misshapen buckets, thirsty for gas.

The Verdict: This one is all about driving pleasure, so it wins.


Agree on the highs. On the lows, Ive found that the seats are as comfortable in that car as any other. Are they the BMW sport seats level of bolstering and support that I have in my 135i? No, but they sure do support well and feel comfortable.

C&D mentions nothing of harmonics of the engine, nor do I. I have more than 100k miles of history on diesel and gas 5-cyl engines and can't say that I have a complaint at all. Say what you want about what the engine sounds like outside of the car, Im not in it for an exhaust note. If I cared about that I'd put an exhaust on the 4.3 in my truck or buy a car with a V8. Nothing short of that has an exhaust sound worth much (though my BMW comes close). Why should I care in a commuter car?

C&D does mention road noise in the lows, and I wouldnt really agree. Coming from an integra into the rabbit, it was substantially quieter and smoother. Regularly driving or being a passenger in cars like corollas, civics, matrix, etc., the rabbit is definitely quieter and more refined. If you look at the test sheets for the rabbit versus the corolla, for example, noise is 39 at idle for the rabbit versus 41 or the corolla, 74 for the rabbit versus 78 for the corolla at WOT and 70 vs 69 cruising at 70 MPH. So I dont think anyone can make any substantial claims on any of this in any way.

The 2.5 was tied with a mitsubishi for fastest acceleration. Keep in mind that the rabbit is a heavier car too, which helps for safety and other things. There is a lot to consider.

Nothing wrong with that 2.5 for what it is.

 

[dailydriver]

Originally Posted By: Klutch9
Personally, I think 5 cylinder engines sound awesome.


The old Audi Quattro Sport Turbo 5 pots (20V head) in rally trim sounded pretty cool.

I could ALWAYS tell when one was coming down a stage road back when I worked on Pro Rallies, that is, until the WRX/STI Scoobies became popular.
For some reason their boxer 4 turbos sounded almost identical.

 

[bruno]

Except the 2.0T uses premium and the 2.5 uses regular .

 

[Spazdog]

Volkswagens have been a little bit short on horsepower and torque on paper.

Compare the Mazdaspeed3 to the GTi. The 'speed3 has almost 70 more horsepower and almost 80 more ft-lbs torque. Out of 300ccs.

The earlier 1.8T horsepower numbers were comparable to a naturally aspirated 1.8 B-series Honda. In fact, several Hondas produced more horsepower out of their N/A engines than VW did with a turbocharger and an extra valve per cylinder. Torque? reversal of fortune there in VW's favor.

When you take them off paper and put them on pavement, the distinction blurs. So, Volkswagen is doing something right. Some comparison drivers have actually been quicker in the GTi than the MS3. Outrageous disparity in numbers be [darned].

And before the VW-philes start spouting off about the Golf R, forget it. Wolfsburg has already decided that the United States is too "hot" of a climate for the Golf R so it doesn't count. And after checking www.volkswagen.ca, our very good friends in the Great White North live in a climate that is too hot for the Golf R too.

I still don't get the 5 cyl though. That did not translate well anywhere. I've driven a Mazda3S 5-door and a Rabbit 2.5 and the Mazda is a better car in every aspect. (current model's cartoon styling excepted...it was an older 2.3) Similarly, I preferred the '09 Focus to the same year Jetta. And the Focus' interior had some faults. Mismatched colors and grains on the plastic, no rear headrests...etc... but to me it drove as well as the 2.5 L5 VW for quite a bit less.

So in summary? TDi = good. 2.0 TSi = good 2-point-slow

At least it's cheap.
2.5 L5? Why bother?