Why do all the new vw's have 5 cylinder motors?

In these days of high gas prices, wouldn't a nice, high mileage 4 be better?


I'm disappointed ...

--
John Nelson
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chicago Area Paddling/Fishing Page
http://www.chicagopaddling.org http://www.chicagofishing.org
(A Non-Commercial Web Site: No Sponsors, No Paid Ads and Nothing to Sell)

Chicago Paddling-Fishing wrote:
Well I have not heard that, but no matter. Additional cylinders means
less vibration for the same power. When designing an engine the available
space needs to be considered as well as many other factors. Life is full
or trade offs. I guess this is just one more.

The 4 might have better mileage, but more vibration.

--
Joseph Meehan

Dia duit

In rec.autos.makers.vw.watercooled, Joseph Meehan wrote:

After reading this discussion, I found
http://www.answers.com/topic/straight-5-1 to be of interest.

"Chicago Paddling-Fishing" <jwn (AT) ripco (DOT) com> wrote

well the thought of these are often "the power of a six with the fuel
economy of a four".

it's usually not quite either of those (has a little less power than a six
and not as economical as a four).

and in some cases people like to say it's "the fuel economy of a six with
the power of a four"...heheheh.


I think in the case of the VW 2.5 though, note that it's an engine that is
offered in North America only. Not trying to open a big HP vs. torque
debate, buuuuuutttt...

Supposedly a nice high MPG four...VW doesn't have one that is inexpensive
enough for a non-enthusiast entry level car like the Rabbit and lower-end
Jettas. Many are praising the 1.4 TFSI (?) that VW has overseas (not sure
if I got the letters right but i'm referring to the twincharger 1.4L FSI
that's in the Mk5 Golf GT overseas) for its power and economy. However it
is more expensive to make (I don't know specifics but I did read that
somewhere) than the I-5 that we get.

As "concerned" as we think we are about MPG, we 'Murricans don't like to
give up our power either. And while we (uh-oh...i'm skirting the HP-torque
debate) love our "I got <xxxxx> HP!" claims on paper, what most average
'Murricans "feel" is torque...accelerating from a standstill, merging onto a
freeway, etc...we want that "push" and we want it NOW (low-end). The I-5 is
a torquey engine designed for powerful normal driving, not powerful
high-revving driving. That also makes it a decent fit for our market.

And also we whine about our gas prices, yet the I-5 is rated by VW for
regular unleaded. Not sure of the engines like the 1.4 above, but given
that octane in Europe in petrol is usually higher than US gasoline anyway,
I'll betcha that the 1.4 above won't like our "cheap" fuel. But if you're
going to make an engine designed for our "cheap" fuel, that means lower
compression ratio and less power "unless" you turn around and add a cylinder
and/or make it larger to compensate.

All in all yeah a higher-tech efficient 4-banger would be great, but Rabbits
and Jettas and NBs for NA are aimed at everyday drivers, not enthusiasts,
who don't want to buy premium fuel. That's what makes the 2.5 a decent fit
for our market for these cars.

Honestly the only gripe I have about VW and the 2.5 isn't the engine...it's
that I think it's a mistake to offer the engine with a 5-speed manual.
Should be a 6-speed manual, keep the revs down (it's torquey...should be
able to handle lower revs on the highway w/o having to downshift to 5 to
pass), and that would increase fuel economy more.

Chicago Paddling-Fishing <jwn (AT) ripco (DOT) com> wrote:

There is one.

It's called the TDI.

Dave wrote:
The Twincharger isn't so bad, either. Too bad VW hates Americans.

--
Mike Smith

The number of cylinders of an engine do not necessarily equate miles per
gallon; Audi motto in the 1980's was "four are too few, six are too many" to
market the type 43 audi 5000. So my 1987 5000 quattro CS turbo has a 2.2L
5-cylinder, while my 1984 Porsche 944 had a 2.5L 4-cylinder motor. The audi
gets better mpg with 1 more cylinder. It's about displacement, volumetric
efficiency.
"Chicago Paddling-Fishing" <jwn (AT) ripco (DOT) com> wrote

Tom's VR6 <no (AT) mail (DOT) please> wrote:
: In rec.autos.makers.vw.watercooled, Joseph Meehan wrote:

:>Chicago Paddling-Fishing wrote:
:>> Why do all the new vw's have 5 cylinder motors?
:>>
:>> In these days of high gas prices, wouldn't a nice, high mileage 4 be
:>> better?
:>>
:>>
:>> I'm disappointed ...
:>
:> Well I have not heard that, but no matter. Additional cylinders means
:>less vibration for the same power. When designing an engine the available
:>space needs to be considered as well as many other factors. Life is full
:>or trade offs. I guess this is just one more.
:>
:> The 4 might have better mileage, but more vibration.

: After reading this discussion, I found
: http://www.answers.com/topic/straight-5-1 to be of interest.

There are other ways to deal with vibration. Porsche used balance shafts
in it's large 2.5l, 2.7l and 3.0l 4 cylinder motors...

I'm pondering cars and it's starting to come down to vw or a focus... we
already have one focus and 37mpg is pretty attractive (it really does do
that well on the highway), compared to 30mpg for the new rabbit... the
difference is about 83 miles per tank, or about $9 per tankful... (that is
assuming gas prices stay the same, and I'm assuming over the years I'll own
this next car that the prices will rise a bit...)

My 86 GTI is rated at 31mpg and gets about that, but it's rusting and I think
the time has come to replace it...

--
John Nelson
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chicago Area Paddling/Fishing Page
http://www.chicagopaddling.org http://www.chicagofishing.org
(A Non-Commercial Web Site: No Sponsors, No Paid Ads and Nothing to Sell)

Regal53 <Regal53 (AT) bellsouth (DOT) net> wrote:
: The number of cylinders of an engine do not necessarily equate miles per
: gallon; Audi motto in the 1980's was "four are too few, six are too many" to
: market the type 43 audi 5000. So my 1987 5000 quattro CS turbo has a 2.2L
: 5-cylinder, while my 1984 Porsche 944 had a 2.5L 4-cylinder motor. The audi
: gets better mpg with 1 more cylinder. It's about displacement, volumetric
: efficiency.

Sadly, the vw doesn't get better mileage, unless you consider 22/30 better...
(it's worse than last years models at a time when we really shouldn't be
going that direction)

The Focus has a 2.0l 4 cylinder with 136hp getting 27/37mpg, the Rabbit
has a 2.5l 5 cylinder with 150hp getting 22/30mpg... neither requires
premium... We are just hitting 70k miles on our 2000 Focus and so far, we
have only paid to replaced brakes and rear wheel bearings, not bad for a 6
year old car driven by my teenage daughter... i can't fairly compare it
against my 86 GTI though, as it's been thru some major repairs and is
driven by my teenage son...

I'll have to go drive one, but I'm not expecting to feel much difference
between 136hp and 150hp, but I would feel $10 difference in gas every
fillup pretty quickly...

--
John Nelson
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chicago Area Paddling/Fishing Page
http://www.chicagopaddling.org http://www.chicagofishing.org
(A Non-Commercial Web Site: No Sponsors, No Paid Ads and Nothing to Sell)

Dave <dogs1 (AT) cox (DOT) net> wrote:
: Chicago Paddling-Fishing <jwn (AT) ripco (DOT) com> wrote:

:>Why do all the new vw's have 5 cylinder motors?
:>
:>In these days of high gas prices, wouldn't a nice, high mileage 4 be better?
:>
:>
:>I'm disappointed ...

: There is one.

: It's called the TDI.

I don't see any Rabbit TDI's listed... but i'll admit, even if there was,
I wouldn't be a hot to go diesel...

--
John Nelson
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chicago Area Paddling/Fishing Page
http://www.chicagopaddling.org http://www.chicagofishing.org
(A Non-Commercial Web Site: No Sponsors, No Paid Ads and Nothing to Sell)