I've bought a Jan 2000 Passat 1.8 turbo (150bhp petrol) recently. The power seems to start kicking in around 2000rpm but it's really dead lower down the revs. It actually feels much worse than my old 1.8 NA Golf.
Are there any (cheap?) mods which can improve the low down grunt? I don't necessarily need any more power higher up. It's a daily driver so I need to keep decent fuel econ and reliability.
I've seen a product called an adjustable boost-controller on ebay.
formatting link
Would this help or is it more for overall higher boost.
What you're experiencing is probably a general characteristic of turbocharged lumps. The manufacturer lowers the compression ratio a bit to cope with turbocharging so when it's off boost its a bit slower than a higher compression equivelant. The turbo also causes a bit of restriction in the inlet and the exhaust when the car's off boost which adds to the sluggishness. The VAG 1.8Ts I've driven aren't as bad as some older designs for this.
You could probably build your own Nitrous kit from Burgerman's instructions
formatting link
relatively cheaply. There may be other ways but I think if there really was a cheap fix, the manufacturer would have fitted it as standard.
formatting link
I don't know to be honest but personally I probably wouldn't bother. I'd be inclined to just get used to the power delivery characteristics. I wouldn't expect it to be like a normally aspirated 1.8 because it isn't.
This is more because of the power delivery above 2,500 rpm rather than below it.
If you want something that delivers great proper low down torque, get an Endura-E powered Ka. :)
The transmission.
And you bought a 1.8T Passat? :-(
Unfortunately, you're stuffed, since whilst it would be possible to improve the response low down, that version of the VAG has a wonderful flat torque curve *from around 1,800 rpm* and almost all modifications improve matters higher up in the rev range. Tall gearing doesn't help.
Do I take the *And you bought a 1.8T :-( * comment as sarcasm referring to fuel economy or reliability or both? I'm guessing its fuel economy if you're called Dervman but if it's reliability, please tell me more. I'd like to know if there's any common problems with this engine.
I'm getting around 30mpg including town driving which I'm happy enough with given my 10000 or so annual miles I do and the =A32000 price tag. I found the TDis were priced a lot higher.=20
I had one for just under a year - didn't find the economy too bad considering the relatively decent performance and the fact that a Passat is a big barge of a car. Driven with some level of care, I could get mid to high 30s mpg from it. Worst I saw on a long run was 24mpg - but that was cruising at around 95mph for 200 miles.
No real problems with the engines - change the cambelt early - VW reckon every 80k miles, I did mine on 60k miles to be on the safe side, and allow the turbo to cool down on the last mile or so of your journey (keep it off boost, ie. under 2k rpm) so you don't destroy the turbo bearings.
Bought mine with 130k miles on it and sold it with 150k miles on it 9 months later. Nothing went wrong.
Aye, for 10k miles / year, a diesel doesn't make sense.
I've bought a Jan 2000 Passat 1.8 turbo (150bhp petrol) recently. The power seems to start kicking in around 2000rpm but it's really dead lower down the revs. It actually feels much worse than my old 1.8 NA Golf.
Turbo diesel for economy? You should have stuck with the N/A Golf for economy. If you wanted economy and power, a petrol engine is best, or better still, LPG.
Tuubo Diesels are supposed to offer the power of a petrol and the economy of a petrol, my experience is they offer the economy of a petrol with less power. Plus the turbo puts extra load on the engine which wears it out in half the time of the N/A engine.
In the case of the Golf, SDI vs TDI, the later is actually better on fuel than its n/a sibling. If you compare a Pug 306 n/a vs the Turbo the latter again is better on fuel.
And of course he's missed out the fact that the OP isn't talking about an oil burner - not only is it implied in the subject (VW 1.8T), but it's explicitly mentioned in the bit he quoted.
That's the problem with the fuel testing figures - they're driven to target speeds in target times - so by careful manipulation of the accellerator t and gearbox hey can be made to look very efficient especially if the car accellerates quickly but is efficient at cruising speeds. That also why the figures for autos look abysmal compared to manuals but are in fact more representative, and the real world difference is marginal on modern lock-up autos.
Most TD cars cannot reach their urban figures in normal use - I've had 57mpg out of the verso by nannying it deliberately but in normal use I get 37 mpg (wifey gets more...) which is still not bad for a seven seat car.
The combined figure is calculated IIRC from the urban and extra urban tests.
That's turbocharged engines for you. Get used to it, and just develop a different technique. If you don't like it, flog it and get something else.
LPG with a decent sized petrol engine is a good way to go, as long as the conversion's been done properly. For decent economy and power, a *decent* TD *is* the way to go. Decent being the key word. Lots of s**te ones, lots of much better ones. All relative to how many miles you're doing though.
No, the whole point is that the economy's better than a petrol. If you want the economy of a petrol and the power of a petrol, then I'd suggest that a petrol engine's a pretty bloody good way to go.
Absolute and utter bullshit. Things are more strongly engineered to cope, and a well maintained TD engine should easily go on for ages provided oil and coolant changes are properly observed. And obviously cambelt changes. Having said that, most engines, petrol or diesel, turbocharged or not, should last virtually forever if well maintained and not driven with a complete lack of mechanical sympathy. Modern oils help a lot.
Quite so, alas manurfactuer's extended service intervals are doing their best to kill them off prematurely. Even with a top notch synthetic, 20k and / or 2 year intervals are waaay too long. (unless the car is doing 20k+ a year.)
You say that, but then you keep on hearing stories backing up the merits of trusting the manufacturer's recommendations, and their oil monitoring equipment and such like. I think it was Huw that knew someone that had an Audi A6 or Allroad that had nothing but the recommended services as flashed up by the onboard computer (in general every 20k or so) and it was still sweet as a nut at 200k. Obviously that's probably likely to have done more than 20k/year though.
At the end of the day though, a lot of people ignore the recommendation in most handbooks, that recommends halving the service interval if the vehicle is to be regularly used in strenuous conditions (i.e. excessive idling, lots of short journeys, etc).
Also, on the subject of modern turbo diesels - the engines in general, and internal components etc, may often last a very long time, but a lot of the modern paraphanaliea (sp???) attached to them, like high pressure commonrail fuel pumps, MAF sensors, injectors (ok, they're not *that* modern) can be very expensive to replace, and from what I've heard, often need replacing somewhere between 150 and 200k, making high-ish mile modern diesels not neccessarily the super-bargain they once were. Having said that though, there are plenty of examples where you don't hear of them failing. I think regular replacement of the fuel filter is a good preventative measure, particularly concerning the HP fuel pump, as it prevents moisture buildup, which can lead to rust setting in somewhere crucial in the HP pump, meaning expensive replacement/repair. Someone who actually knows what they're on about may shed more light on the matter.
Do I take the *And you bought a 1.8T :-( * comment as sarcasm referring to fuel economy or reliability or both? I'm guessing its fuel economy if you're called Dervman but if it's reliability, please tell me more. I'd like to know if there's any common problems with this engine.
I'm getting around 30mpg including town driving which I'm happy enough with given my 10000 or so annual miles I do and the £2000 price tag. I found the TDis were priced a lot higher.
-+-+-
Both, in short. For 10,000 miles a year, fuel consumption makes little difference to whole of life ownership costs for medium term. As for reliability, that 1.8T is a decent bit of kit... it was the VW bit and the Passat bit I meant.
The TDI will have the same low down problem of the 1.8T, more or less, but most people buying the 1.8T do so for other reasons than fuel consumption. That's what the 1.6 and TDIs are for. :-)
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.