TSI engine efficiency: myth or reality?
#1
10-09-2011, 09:01 AM
TSI engine efficiency: myth or reality?
Dear Volkswagen Forum members,
I would like to know your thoughts and experiences with the whole "downsizing and forced induction" trend that's been going on for the past couple of years. The reason I'm asking is that as appealing these engines seem to be, I'm not entirely convinced that the fuel consumption figures live up to their promises.
Allow me to explain. I drive an automatic Opel Vectra with a 2.2L 4-cylinder engine producing 150 HP. This is typically the kind of engine the VW 1.4L TSI engine was made to replace (if I remember correctly, VW's press release for the TSI engine stated they were targeting 2.3L 4-cylinder engines producing roughly that amount of power). During that same time I occasionally drove a Golf MkV GT with the 140 HP version of the 1.4L TSI, with a manual transmission. On one particular occasion, I did a 550 KM trip with the Golf, and then the same exact route with the Vectra. Same driver, same driving style, same time of year, same conditions, etc., and exactly the same average fuel consumption: 7.4L/100KM. If anything, I have the impression that the Vectra did relatively better considering it's slightly heavier, less aerodynamic and has an automatic transmission. My suspicion is also confirmed by reviews on other cars with this kind of engine, such as the new Polo 1.2 TSI tested by a Swiss car review reporting an average of 6.7L/100KM after 9'000KM, while Volkswagen claims an average of 5.3L/100KM. Same story from Top Gear who on one episode mentioned driving from their test track to London (country roads, motorway and city driving) with a Fiat 500 TwinAir and a VW Polo TDI BlueMotion, the Fiat averaging an unimpressive 38MPG and the Polo 54MPG. I remember James May joking that the problem with these fuel-saving engines is that they "use quite a lot of fuel"..
So do any of you members out there have any experiences with these engines that could make a case for their efficiency? Any positive or negative stories are welcome, as I would like to get an idea of what they are like in the real world (not only in the world of automotive journalism).
Regards,
Kamen
I would like to know your thoughts and experiences with the whole "downsizing and forced induction" trend that's been going on for the past couple of years. The reason I'm asking is that as appealing these engines seem to be, I'm not entirely convinced that the fuel consumption figures live up to their promises.
Allow me to explain. I drive an automatic Opel Vectra with a 2.2L 4-cylinder engine producing 150 HP. This is typically the kind of engine the VW 1.4L TSI engine was made to replace (if I remember correctly, VW's press release for the TSI engine stated they were targeting 2.3L 4-cylinder engines producing roughly that amount of power). During that same time I occasionally drove a Golf MkV GT with the 140 HP version of the 1.4L TSI, with a manual transmission. On one particular occasion, I did a 550 KM trip with the Golf, and then the same exact route with the Vectra. Same driver, same driving style, same time of year, same conditions, etc., and exactly the same average fuel consumption: 7.4L/100KM. If anything, I have the impression that the Vectra did relatively better considering it's slightly heavier, less aerodynamic and has an automatic transmission. My suspicion is also confirmed by reviews on other cars with this kind of engine, such as the new Polo 1.2 TSI tested by a Swiss car review reporting an average of 6.7L/100KM after 9'000KM, while Volkswagen claims an average of 5.3L/100KM. Same story from Top Gear who on one episode mentioned driving from their test track to London (country roads, motorway and city driving) with a Fiat 500 TwinAir and a VW Polo TDI BlueMotion, the Fiat averaging an unimpressive 38MPG and the Polo 54MPG. I remember James May joking that the problem with these fuel-saving engines is that they "use quite a lot of fuel"..
So do any of you members out there have any experiences with these engines that could make a case for their efficiency? Any positive or negative stories are welcome, as I would like to get an idea of what they are like in the real world (not only in the world of automotive journalism).
Regards,
Kamen
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
