Topic: Volkswagen To Drop 2.5L For New 1.8 Turbo

[Autos_Editor]

Reviving the 1.8T base engine will mean the end of the odd-numbered cylinder 2.5L engine at Volkswagen.

Read More...

[OliverD]

A very worthwhile update. Kind of hard to believe that they will continue to sell the Jetta with the naturally aspirated 2.0 as well though.

[mixmanmash]

A very worthwhile update. Kind of hard to believe that they will continue to sell the Jetta with the naturally aspirated 2.0 as well though.

Agreed on the 1.8T.  Also nice to see that IRS will be coming back to the entire Jetta line up.

[redman]

Long overdue. That 2.5L was old tech.

[quadzilla]

I wonder if it will take regular fuel? Personally I wouldn't care but I think a lot of budget minded people get turned off by using premium.

[Fobroader]

Good, VW is so good with turbo motors that the 2.slow and the 2.5 were kinda embarrassingly underpowered. Either the 1.8 or the 2L turbo should make a far better engine.

[OliverD]

I wonder if it will take regular fuel? Personally I wouldn't care but I think a lot of budget minded people get turned off by using premium.

I've read that it will use regular.

[Angry Chicken]

I drove a Passat loaner with the 2.5 5 cylinder engine and thought it made some interesting and altogether nice sounds at WOT. The resonant frequencies are so different from what I'm used to. I suppose a V10 might be like that (such as in the audi R8 ) or even VW's own VR6 narrow-angle 6.

Sent from my Q10 using Tapatalk 2

[blotter]

I wonder if it will take regular fuel? Personally I wouldn't care but I think a lot of budget minded people get turned off by using premium.

agreed.

The Tiguan requires premium i believe, and i don't see any reason why a vehicle like that would.
(aside from the fact it's a turbo)

while thr 2.5L needed "updating"
i don't get this race to turbo everything... 

[tpl]

I wonder if it will take regular fuel? Personally I wouldn't care but I think a lot of budget minded people get turned off by using premium.

agreed.

The Tiguan requires premium i believe, and i don't see any reason why a vehicle like that would.
(aside from the fact it's a turbo)

while thr 2.5L needed "updating"
i don't get this race to turbo everything...

I do. The manufacturers can make a car with a small engine that looks good on CAFE but still produced the performance numbers that we all think we need. ( If you remember a couple of threads where people were complaining that any car that was slower than 7 seconds to 60 was a dog.)  Now these small turbos , as people are finding out, do indeed produce the performance at a cost of worse economy that a bigger naturally aspirated engine and some of them need a higher octane fuel to prevent them destroying themselves under boost.   I have owned turbocharged  4 cycl sub 2 litre cars on and off since 1982 and I accept those thingsbut obviously it is a shock to many that their car becomes a premium fuel gas guzzler at speed.

[quadzilla]

What about the 1.4TSI that is in the Jetta Hybrid. Anybody think they will use it sans batteries on the Golf? Would make a nice trio of engines to choose from.  1.4, 1.8, 2.0....pick the power/economy level you want.

[tpl]

I wonder why that 1.4 TSI is not the base for the new Golf...maybe it is too expensive?  Is the 1.8T a DI engine?

[huota]

I assume that the 1.8 TSI is the same engine that has proven reliable in Europe, unlike the very troublesome (original) 1.4 TSI. There's no way VW would bring the 1.4 to North America, as it would drive them bankrupt. Hence the 1.8 TSI.

There's also the completely new and unproven 1.4 TSI that they won't bring to NA until they've used the Euro trash as guinea pigs for a few years

[blotter]

I do. The manufacturers can make a car with a small engine that looks good on CAFE but still produced the performance numbers that we all think we need. ( If you remember a couple of threads where people were complaining that any car that was slower than 7 seconds to 60 was a dog.)  Now these small turbos , as people are finding out, do indeed produce the performance at a cost of worse economy that a bigger naturally aspirated engine and some of them need a higher octane fuel to prevent them destroying themselves under boost.   I have owned turbocharged  4 cycl sub 2 litre cars on and off since 1982 and I accept those thingsbut obviously it is a shock to many that their car becomes a premium fuel gas guzzler at speed.

ok, I do get the drive to get better CAFE numbers.   But I think consumers are getting the shaft.
I get a funny feeling many of these engines will have medium to long term issues and in 5 years from now (or longer) manufacturers may take a step back.   Someone may have to eat crow... the consumer or manufacturer? 

The main thing is see is that these engines are not trully performing as advertised. 
Yet we're adding cost of premium fuel and more potential for issues with a turbo (vs not having a turbo)

[greengs]

2.5L gets blasted for being old tech and thirsty.  However I had the engine in the Rabbit and my parents have the 2013 Golf 2.5L as one of their cars.  I've driven it a lot.  It is very smooth, much more fuel efficient than I expected and the sounds it makes are really cool.  It it also the most reliable engine VW has ever produced.  I'm sure the 1.8T will be better in every way since it's new but I always liked the big NA inline 5 in the Golf.   

[Solstice2006]

The 2.5? is more reliable than the naturally aspirated 2.0L?  Why continue to offer NA 2.0L?  Isn't that even older and inefficient?

[PJ]

The 2.5? is more reliable than the naturally aspirated 2.0L?  Why continue to offer NA 2.0L?  Isn't that even older and inefficient?

Price point.  VW downgraded the cars to allow a very attractive base price.  It did move a lot of Jettas but I think it will hurt them in the long run.  Owners will remember it as an unremarkable just adequate kind of car long after they forgot about the price they paid.

I think if VW wanted more entry level buyers they should have brought over the Polo or Lupo.

[mmret]

a premium fuel gas guzzler at speed.

IIRC the various 2.0T motors VWAG produced were actually quite economical when cruising at speed in the real world. The gas guzzling tendencies were mostly when you were caning it. 
Then again as a former owner you will know better than I.

[tpl]

a premium fuel gas guzzler at speed.

IIRC the various 2.0T motors VWAG produced were actually quite economical when cruising at speed in the real world. The gas guzzling tendencies were mostly when you were caning it. 
Then again as a former owner you will know better than I.

yes.   I had an Audi with the 1.8T chipped and the 2.0T GTI.    At a constant 120 they would both return about 7.1-6.9 l/100 depending on gradient and wind.  But then I was not driving with a heavy load on in hilly country and both cars ( even the A4) were reasonably light and had manual transmission/DSG.
Nor am I a 0-100km as fast as I can, type driver... but a rapid 70-120km for overtaking would certainly show up on the instantaneous consumption display on the GTI and alter the trip average up quite a bit.

The M-B has an instantaneous display and a bar graph for the last 20 minutes in 1 minute chunks. Because of its high gearing it appears possible to get that car down into the high 5.x although spirited acceleration can get it to show 20 l/100.  But can the performance of that 7 spd dsg be emulated with an 8 speed slushbox...if it can and I tend to think it can the the arguments about small turbos go away, apart from long term reliability.