There is a difference between having a 4.7l V8 just to get grocery, then there is 1.4 liter with a super charger AND a turbo. I am saying a reasonable size engine, I didn't say VW needs a V8 or V10 in that little thing. Bigger doesn't mean the biggest.

And then there is something called 1.8l and 2.0l, which VW has a lot to spare.

 

For a very short while I wanted to buy the new VW bug, and I did research. I am glad I did. It seems that their lack of reliability started as early as the 80s, and that's because I didn't search anything older.

So if they can't fix a simple problem for the last 25 years, I would say, before the car even makes it to harbour, it's gonna suck like always.

 

But since this technology allow them to have 120HP/L and 140ft-lb/L, w/ a 2.0L, They'll be getting around 240HP and 280ft-lb of TQ. I'm pretty sure they don't need that kind of performance, so they make the displacement smaller and gain better gas mileage.
I don't really get your argument.

 

i think he's saying that by using both a super charger and a turbo charger at the same time, they may be adding too much complexity. this could be a big problem, as VW has been suffering from lots of quality control problems. removing one of the systems and bumping up the engine size will make the whole thing simpler overall, and theoretically less prone to problems.

maybe they just couldn't get that kind of fuel economy with those kind of power and torque numbers any other way. anway, we'll just have to wait for a few years to see how reliable the thing really is.

 

I agree about the complexity and potential reliability issues. I was just refering to the cool idea/technology itself.

 

There are many places in the world where cars are taxed based on engine displacement. So if you can get more power out of a smaller displacement engine, the customer gets the performance they want without the tax penalty. Hence why VW would be inspired to develop this car.

As for the remark about the car's fuel consumption compared to the new Civic, there's no real way to compare the two with just the information available in this thread. "Average fuel consumption" as stated by the manufacturer in a European press release is not the same as what a car is able to get on the EPA highway test here in the USA. I highly doubt the new Civic will get 40 mpg in combined city/highway driving, but hey, who knows?

 

Yes, I am fully aware of this.


Like what Mayo said. The thing I do not feel this is a good idea is because of the complexity of this thing, super and turbo-ing a 1.4. The last time I check, they haven't fix the constant burning light bolt nor the terror of the right side window. So anything beyond eletric 101 from VW, I'll take with a huge huge tub of salt.

To me it's just like a 10-year old kid taking tons of viagra. Sure it will work, but at what price.

 

But those are electrical problems, not mechanical problems. It's like saying a crippled kid can't compete in a chess tournament because he's crippled. Last I check, it's the Americans that have mechanical problems, not the germans. I'm sure before VTEC, there are some people who would say why add extra complexity when you can just bump up the displacement or add a turbo and acheive the same thing.

It seems like you have a bigger problem w/ VW coming up w/ this first instead of the technology itself. I bet if Honda came out w/ this, you would praise them for coming up w/ a 120HP/L 140ft-lb/L engine.

 

the turbo/super combo is a mechanical masterpeice... it combines the strengths of both leaving the weaknesses behind. you may start to see these smaller engines in more cars as the technology catches on (as variable valve timing and lift mechanisms did once honda made it extremely popular)

 

It's rated at 30/40. The average of that is 35. 35 > 32.7. I'm not impressed.