Why 5 cylinders?

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

to be of interest.

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 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.

There is one.

It's called the TDI.

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

:>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 :

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...

Regal53 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...

:>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...

Maybe it is America that hates clean air. VW can't import cars into the US if the US does not have fuel clean enough for them.

Chicago Paddling-Fishing wrote in news:ed5pgn$5j5$ snipped-for-privacy@e250.ripco.com:

You will! I drive a 2000 focus, and I started a thread about 2 weeks ago about why vw's get relatively poor gas mileage. sure, my focus gets close to 30mpg in mixed driving, and about 26 mixed if I'm more aggressive with the throttle! :) So, I would expect on a day-to-day basis FOR ME the VW to return about the same MPG.

Here's the kicker. VW's use of the 5cylinder and a SIX speed auto leaves you with a car that feels 'punchy'. It has wonderous torque, and when you give it gas is *moves*. The 0-60 times may say the focus and rabbit are close, but the focus is more of a light-weight, rev-it-up to get the power. The rabbit punches you with it.

That, and the rabbit's interior is near-luxury compared to the old ford.

All in all, the rabbit is a seriously impressive car, and I think I talked my wife into letting me buy one. JP

In most of Europe, 3-4 dollars US per gallon would be a very low price.

The Twincharger engine would run just fine on US fuel.

-- Mike Smith

Keep in mind that the Rabbit is also heavier than the Focus, thus offsetting the extra power.

-- Mike Smith

none2u wrote: : VW is a performance car company first and foremost. They also change : direction very slowly. I would imagine we will see smaller engines from VW , : or even another smaller car, in a few to 5 years. Of course that's if gas : stays about 3-4 bucks a gallon. If you want better gas mileage , you know : what to do. I,m not going to bash the Focus. It works for you. But it is a : mediocre car at best, that finally has most of the bugs out of it. The : Escort was a better car all the way around. And there are better cars , : that cost less, are more reliable and get better mileage, then the Focus. : Ford and GM are in a world of hurt because they lack a world class small : car. Really, they only have about 2-3 cars between them that people actually : want.

Did you watch the WRC broadcasts on Speed Channel last year? I was very surprised to see the Focus take 3 of the top 6 places in the series... I didn't see any vw's and sort of enjoyed watching the WRX's burn up...

Like I said, I'll look at the Rabbit, but I'm not sure I'm going to like it all that much (the dealer was real hot to get me to sit in one last year and take it for a drive, thinking it would be so much better than my 86 GTI, but I already have a 2.0 in mine with a new head ( 2 years old ) and it's a much lighter car, so the new ones weren't as peppy... the other thing that got me was the dealer just kept pricing so close to the vest it was frustrating)...

Jon R. Patrick wrote: : Chicago Paddling-Fishing wrote in : news:ed5pgn$5j5$ snipped-for-privacy@e250.ripco.com:

:> Regal53 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... :>

: You will! : I drive a 2000 focus, and I started a thread about 2 weeks ago about why : vw's get relatively poor gas mileage. : sure, my focus gets close to 30mpg in mixed driving, and about 26 mixed : if I'm more aggressive with the throttle! :) : So, I would expect on a day-to-day basis FOR ME the VW to return about : the same MPG.

Depending on the model, the 2000 Focus was 125hp, a little less HP than the current Focus models...

: Here's the kicker. VW's use of the 5cylinder and a SIX speed auto leaves : you with a car that feels 'punchy'. It has wonderous torque, and when : you give it gas is *moves*. The 0-60 times may say the focus and rabbit : are close, but the focus is more of a light-weight, rev-it-up to get the : power. : The rabbit punches you with it.

Automatic? Automatic with a punch?

: That, and the rabbit's interior is near-luxury compared to the old ford.

: All in all, the rabbit is a seriously impressive car, and I think I : talked my wife into letting me buy one. : JP

: -- : --------------------------------------- : Save up to 20% on your Long Distance! : Try my 'best rate calculator' to : see your savings!:: :

............... : Free eBook shows you the exact methods : I used to get out of debt, painlessly: : -------------------------------------- Glad your out of debt... leaves you more to spend on a car I guess...

Close; not "less vibration" with more cylinders, closer to "smoother running" with more cylinders.

On each ignition a "shock" is applied to the crank as the piston is forced down. A four cylinder engine would receive a explosive force every half revolution.

The crank then slows down until the next "bang" that gets it going again (half a revolution later). A twelve cylinder engine on the other hand would get it's "bang" every 1/6th of a revolution. This means that the crank is kept in motion with less of a bang (because it hasn't slowed down as much) than the 4 cylinder engine.

A 4 cylinder slows down and speeds up twice in a single revolution while the 12 cylinder is kept in more-or-less constant motion, therefore it's smoother.