Things Most Likely To Go Wrong

[NikpV]

310Nm for TDI 115 and TDI 130, 320Nm for TDI 150 - all at 1900rpm - these are the facts. The maximum engine powers occur at around 4000 rpm.

 

Utter rubbish !

 

Check your facts they are clearly wrong.

 

Therefore if 150 BHP engine has a torque of 310Nm

 

the 110BHP = 227Nm

 

the 115BHP = 238NM

 

the 130BHP = 269 NM

 

I await a more sensible reply ;)

Some dangerous assumptions have been made

 

I queried the torque given for the various diesels in particular the figure of 310Nm for all these engines at 1900 rpm.

 

What is under dispute is the BHP and hence Torque at 1900rpm for the various diesels.

 

Does anyone have any figures for these engines other than the disputed 310Nm one ?

 

and a p.s .....why did I use ratios when the figures were available...it is the figures i was disputing...the fact that I used the figure for the 150BHp is irrelevant as it was only used to show that the other engines have a different torque which was my point.

 

 

I think that answers your question.

 

 

sorry I was trying to work out the basis of the doubt with the figures whether it was based in fact or a case of 'I've driven 3 cars what you say is rubbish' ?

[tim-spam]

As we know that the doubts are certainly not based on fact, you appear to have summed it all up pretty well - spot on!

[NikpV]

I was very interested to see the comments on driving a diesel compared to a petrol car I have only ever driven diesels since learning to drive in a 1.4 polo -petrol is it the consensus then that the highrer torque makes accelerating easier in a diesel see this post from gsmguy and others comments from here (excepting BK and el doggo's dingo's overboosted A4 (ps what does this mean BTW) )

[big_kev]

 

 

 

sorry I was trying to work out the basis of the doubt with the figures whether it was based in fact or a case of 'I've driven 3 cars what you say is rubbish' ?

 

It was based on a doubt of the figures that appear on the brochures

Only one set of figures appears 310Nm torque at 1900rpm for the 115Bhp, 130Bhp and 150Bhp.

This seems to be the only figures available and it seems unlikely to me that these 3 engines would all have exactly the same torque at a particular rpm.

It seems much more likely to me that this was innacurate and the figure for one of the engines ( most likely the 150Bhp ) was being quoted for the other engines.

 

"I've driven 3 cars and what you say is rubbish" is the same statement just condensed into an easy to understand format.

[big_kev]

quote name='Andrew T' date='Dec 14 2006, 20:37:23' post='92093']

I have brochures for the Galaxy, Sharan and Alhambra and all quote 310 NM for 115 and 130 engines. I 'm sure that when the 150BHP Diesel was on Fords website it was 310NM as well.

 

Obviously if its printed then it must be true.

 

Picture attached to confirm this !

 

 

[

[big_kev]

Yet another couple of corkers from big kev...

 

I think there is only one person here disputing the figures, but at the risk of repeating what's already been said, the properly measured figures from the manufacturer (and they have to be properly measured and reported to obtain European Type Approval) are as follows:

They have to be properly measured but do not have to properly advertised.

Example of known VW lies

 

2.8 / V6 cyl. (30-valve) VW advertised was 280Nm their tech guys said 255Nm

2.3 / VR5 cyl. VW advertised was 205Nm their tech guys said 212Nm

2.4 / V6 cyl. (121 kW) VW advertised was 230Nm their tech guys said 216Nm

2.8 / VR6 cyl. (12-valve) VW advertised was 240Nm their tech guys said 225Nm

 

These are from the Passats and similar, the last one may be the Sharan.

Actual measured figures not from brochures but from VW's own measurements

TDI 115 - 85kW at 4000rpm, 310Nm at 1900rpm

TDI 130 - 96kW at 4000rpm, 310Nm at 1900rpm

TDI 150 - 110kW at 4000rpm, 320Nm at 1900rpm

Again just quoting from the sales brochures

There should be no argument about it - these are the facts. In my last post, I explained fully and comprehensively how the above facts are completely consistent with the physical principles involved, so any further dispute about them is totally pointless.

In your last post you explained that the sales brochures said 310Nm you qouted no MEASURED figure.

Not the use of the large letters as some people keep missing this, also for the folks at the back

 

Does anyone have any figures for these engines other than from the sales brochure ?

 

If so let me know please

 

Thanks

 

Kev

 

p.s. Nikpv will you kill that ****ing cat, its doing my head in

[NikpV]

 

 

 

sorry I was trying to work out the basis of the doubt with the figures whether it was based in fact or a case of 'I've driven 3 cars what you say is rubbish' ?

 

It was based on a doubt of the figures that appear on the brochures

Only one set of figures appears 310Nm torque at 1900rpm for the 115Bhp, 130Bhp and 150Bhp.

This seems to be the only figures available and it seems unlikely to me that these 3 engines would all have exactly the same torque at a particular rpm.

It seems much more likely to me that this was innacurate and the figure for one of the engines ( most likely the 150Bhp ) was being quoted for the other engines.

 

"I've driven 3 cars and what you say is rubbish" is the same statement just condensed into an easy to understand format.

 

 

I understood that the 115, 130 and 150 engines were basically all the same design with minor differences - ecu mapping and the like (all pds) and since the max torque & max power are only loosely connected and not measured at the same RPM why shouldn't they be the same, from what I understand shape of the rpm/torque curve will be different - not fall off so much at higher revs for the higher powered engines.

 

Certainly I have a brochure (2001 MK2) which quotes the 310Nm figure for the 115 - at this point in time the 130 and 150 were probably only twinkles in the designers eyes so if your reasoning were correct then its likely that the subsequent torques would have been higher (as tim_spam maintains for the150BHP - 320NM at 1900) I find it less than believable that ford etc would have missed the trick in not advertising a higher torque for the 130 :lol: .

 

One thing does seem a bit odd is that the autobox was not available for the 130 and 150 models because of the higher torque of the engine although this appears not to be the case with the 130 - although the curves would probably have to be looked at.

 

As a slight aside to the above - apart from fuel/air/timing mapping what else is likely to have changed to give the greater power. Whilst I have qualifications in Mechanical engineering design and physics etc I think that engine design appears an arcane art - at least in overview :lol:

[big_kev]

Never mint that ..............

 

What about the cat ?

[NikpV]

Never mint that ..............

 

What about the cat ?

 

 

 

noooooo it just luuuurvs chasing tail :lol: :lol: :lol: :16:

 

 

 

and sooo hypnotic tooooo

 

 

:23: :16:

[big_kev]

Never mint that ..............

 

What about the cat ?

 

 

 

noooooo it just luuuurvs chasing tail :lol: :lol: :lol: :16:

 

 

 

and sooo hypnotic tooooo

 

 

:23: :16:

 

I am not normally one to object to seeing a pussy..........

 

but this really does drive me barmy

[NikpV]

details from elsawin - not a sales brochure

 

 

 

 

130 and 115 listed

 

 

ps the cat stays

[Guest Cepheus]

TDI 115 Power = 85kW (115bhp), Torque = 85000/419 = 203Nm

TDI 130 Power = 96kW (130bhp), Torque = 229Nm

TDI 150 Power = 110kW (150bhp), Torque = 263Nm

 

To be a pedant ....

 

115 has 113bhp = 83kW, Torque = 198Nm

130 has 128bhp = 94 kW, Torque = 224Nm

150 has 147bhp = 108kW, Torque = 257Nm

 

So your figures are wrong :16: :16: :23: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[NikpV]

TDI 115 Power = 85kW (115bhp), Torque = 85000/419 = 203Nm

TDI 130 Power = 96kW (130bhp), Torque = 229Nm

TDI 150 Power = 110kW (150bhp), Torque = 263Nm

 

To be a pedant ....

 

115 has 113bhp = 83kW, Torque = 198Nm

130 has 128bhp = 94 kW, Torque = 224Nm

150 has 147bhp = 108kW, Torque = 257Nm

 

So your figures are wrong :16: :16: :23: :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

 

according to elsawin (see post abosve for the 115 and 130 Tims figures are correct !!!

[Guest Cepheus]

But we all know that motor companies round up their figures to make marketing easier! The 1.9 engine isn't 1900cc, the 2.3 isn't 2300cc and the 2.8 isn't 2800cc but they're all sold as the higher engine capacity figures. Same applies to the power output.

 

The VW figures will match the Ford figures that they market - where do you think Ford get their figures from? (maybe the same place they get their engines from perchance?) If you think that they fine tune the engines to EXACTLY 115, 130, 150 bhp and EXACTLY 310 & 320 Nm at EXACTLY 1900 rpm, then you shouldn't be allowed to drive the car you own! :D :D :D (or teach other people's children :lol: :lol: :lol: - you'll be telling me next that the Earth creates a gravity accelleration constant of EXACTLY 10m/s/s!! :lol: :lol: :P)

[NikpV]

(or teach other people's children :lol: :lol: :lol: - you'll be telling me next that the Earth creates a gravity accelleration constant of EXACTLY 10m/s/s!! :D :D :P)

 

 

Isn't it ?????

 

 

ps if we are being pedantic, its acceleration and its not constant and the earth creates a gravitational field which gives rise to .... damm students they never listen :lol: :lol: :D :D

[Guest Cepheus]

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :P

[big_kev]

details from elsawin - not a sales brochure

 

 

 

 

130 and 115 listed

 

 

ps the cat stays

This must be the innacurate document that the sales brochure got its figure from

 

The figures I have ( these are the real figures ) are shown below

 

1995 66kw=202Nm

1996 81kw=225Nm

2000 66kw=240Nm

2000 85kw=285Nm

2001 96kw=310Nm

2001 110kw=320Nm

2005 103kw 2.0l =320Nm

and a little bogie at the end, which I will put my hand up and say I dont know why this is seprate, please enlighten me.

 

2001 85kw 6 speed =310Nm

 

I think the term nah, nah, ne, nah, nah springs to mind

 

p.s. Still hate the cat

 

Its gone quiet again......

 

Have the jury reached a verict ?

 

or have they sulked of to bed ?

[NikpV]

I think to regain any credibility you would have to disclose the source of the figures since they seem to be quite a mixture with some appearing to be in agreement with the sales/tis and elsawin (those are obviously wrong) cos we can't have that then - so far the jury (cat and I) think you have not proved your case and at the moment are losing ground fast :lol: :lol: :lol:

[big_kev]

I think to regain any credibility you would have to disclose the source of the figures since they seem to be quite a mixture with some appearing to be in agreement with the sales/tis and elsawin (those are obviously wrong) cos we can't have that then - so far the jury (cat and I) think you have not proved your case and at the moment are losing ground fast :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

Source is Arthur Price VW in Loughborough got the speak from one of the mechanics.

They have a big pile of data for these engines, most of which is beyond me.

 

Oy yeh should have pointed out that all these specs are for the Sharan not necessarily the Galaxy, there may be slight differences in the gearbox usage. ditto for the Alhambra.

 

Some do appear to be in agreement with the TIS data however as I mentioned I still believe that VW took one set of data for this and printed it against all the engines.

 

Also as the cat has not contributed to this post I dont think he ( or she, difficult to tell from the pic ) would really count as a bonefid member of the jury ( although IQ wise may be in the top ten ).

 

I think I am proving my case quite conclusively as I am the only one to come up with any other information relating to this othe than the figures from TIS/Sales which I originally disputed.

 

blah de blah de blah.........you know the rest

[NikpV]

I think I am proving my case quite conclusively as I am the only one to come up with any other information relating to this othe than the figures from TIS/Sales which I originally disputed.

 

umm needs more than a pile of paper (some of which disagree with you) and a mechanic to counter, sales brochures, TIS and/or Elsawin :lol: :lol:

 

need better than that - much better

 

can't really see any future in this thread now :lol:

[Guest Cepheus]

But mechanics know everything about the cars they work on ...... :lol:

[Guest gooner52]

to right fords know what there doing :lol:

[Guest Cepheus]

can't really see any future in this thread now :lol:

 

Comedy value???? :lol:

[Guest gooner52]

could be worse go to vw :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

its game for a laugh :lol:

[El Dingo]

I was very interested to see the comments on driving a diesel compared to a petrol car I have only ever driven diesels since learning to drive in a 1.4 polo -petrol is it the consensus then that the highrer torque makes accelerating easier in a diesel see this post from gsmguy and others comments from here (excepting BK and el doggo's dingo's overboosted A4 (ps what does this mean BTW) )

 

Hello again! :ph34r:

 

Hi Nik - When I say overboosted, I mean just that (not 10, but 9.81 :lol: ). The engine in my A4 is basically the same lump as the 1.9 diseasel VAG in many other applications. In the 'Audi A4' version, this engine utilises more turbo boost that I consider comfortable - this engine suffers from pronounced turbo lag, on/off power characteristics and poor fuel consumption and is difficult to drive smoothly. A colleague of mine has the same model, and complains about stalling at junctions, for example.

Turbocharged engines will provide more power and torque than non-turbo engines. Diesels have a narrow rev band and poor acceleration rate change (due to a combination of reasons) compared to petrol engines; At lower revs, a 130BHP turbo diesel Galaxy will accelerate better than a normally aspirated 140BHP petrol. At higher revs the reverse is true. A petrol turbo would provide the best of both worlds, although the torque figures for turbo petrol are generally lower compared with the same size turbo diesel engine . You pays yer money and you takes yer choice.

Surely nobody would argue which uses less fuel. But I have personally found the A4 disappointing, the fuel-only cost being about 11.2p/mile (compared to two similarly sized petrol cars I've also been using recently, that averaged around 12p/mile fuel-only cost). More fool me, I expected better from the diesel.

The long view on this (to which I cheekily alluded) is pollution and carbon emmissions. The pessimistic viewpoint is that petrol and diesel have a limited life and will be taxed to death. The optomistic view is that carbon neutral sources will allow internal combustion engines to continue ad-infinitum, such as Bioethanol and Biodiesel (carbon is locked up the plants that are grown to provide the fuel).

The pollution issue for diesels is certainly not over, and EuroIV has already lost it's tax break for company users. Our goverment already penalises diesel in fuel duty (compared to other EU countries) for exactly that reason. You only have to drive behind a diesel Galaxy under hard acceleration to see why... :ph34r:

 

:lol: :lol:

 

Good grief, this is much too serious. By the way, I do like the cat, teach. ^_^