Volkswagen Diesel engines (Europe)
Juergen
they have 5 interesting Diesel engines..........
1.2l 3 cyl TDI, 45kW (60HP)
1.9l 4 cyl TDI, 50kW (67HP)
1.9l 4 cyl TDI, 81kW (108HP)
1.9l 4 cyl TDI, 85kW (114HP)
2.5l 6 cyl TDI, 110kW (148HP)
The power is quoted in DIN kW which means measured at the rear axle. To
get SAE HP you usually can add 5-10% and if you remove the gear box it
will give you another 5%.
For the 1.2l engine they specify an average Diesel consumption of
3l/100km (Euro-Mix). Converted to US gas-milage this would yield around
80 miles per gallon at a specific speed, brake, acceleration cycle
which is quite comparable to the normal use of a car. It includes even
a good amount of top speed!
Don't know their availability in the US!!!!!!
Juergen
http://www.crosswinds.net/~kjs/index.html (Main)
http://members.xoom.com/KJShover/index.html (Mirror)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Juergen
Forgot to mention: I have send them an email and asked for the engine
weight for a complete engine....
Ole Frederiksen
1.6l 4 cyl TD. (60HP)
1.6l 4 cyl TD. (70HP)
1.6l 4 cyl TD intercooler. (80HP)
They are used ind VW's Golf 2 and Jetta
/Ole Frederiksen, Denmark
Juergen
wo...@arrl.net
Juergen <kjue...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> Just looked up the German VW web-site:
> they have 5 interesting Diesel engines..........
>
> 1.2l 3 cyl TDI, 45kW (60HP)
> 1.9l 4 cyl TDI, 50kW (67HP)
> 1.9l 4 cyl TDI, 81kW (108HP)
> 1.9l 4 cyl TDI, 85kW (114HP)
> 2.5l 6 cyl TDI, 110kW (148HP)
>
> The power is quoted in DIN kW which means measured at the rear axle. To
> get SAE HP you usually can add 5-10% and if you remove the gear box it
> will give you another 5%.
>
Thanks Juergen, very much appreciated!
I had found a new/rebuilt 1.9 TDI on a US website -expensive of course... I
think it was 95 HP, SAE I suppose. So there is several versions of that 1.9l
Turbo; any idea what they did to upgrade them? The top version would be
around 130 "american" horses...
That 1.2 should be a dandy also.
Now: all I have to do is wait a few years for them to begin showing up at
junkyards -at an affordable price!
:-)
Regards.
Christian D
wo...@arrl.net
Juergen
--
For the 1.2l you will wait VERY long!! They don't export this model to
the US. This car only has the size of a Geo Metro (or less)....
Juergen
http://www.crosswinds.net/~kjs/index.html (Main)
http://members.xoom.com/KJShover/index.html (Mirror)
C. Bailey
devoted owners that will never drive anything but.....consequently, prices
are high and will likely remain high. It is not uncommon to hear of the
older VW diesel engines with over 400,000 miles. If you can get one with
150,000 miles, it is just broke in.
Chris
<wo...@arrl.net> wrote in message news:88fsus$cm0$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
RipVanWinkle
new generation engine, these are all electronically controlled direct
injection units. this is the reason they can be modified / produce good
power figures.
I am curious though, why you don't just use a turbo'ed petrol engine, as
these produce MUCH higher outputs for less weight, and fuel pricies for you
guys arn't even an issue.
A modified 2.0l cosworth engine will reliable produce 350ish bhp with a
similar torque figure, no diesel size for size will match that.
<ke...@peesee.at.home> wrote in message
news:slrn8av4p...@peesee.at.home...
> >I had found a new/rebuilt 1.9 TDI on a US website -expensive of course...
I
> >think it was 95 HP, SAE I suppose. So there is several versions of that
1.9l
> >Turbo; any idea what they did to upgrade them? The top version would be
> >around 130 "american" horses...
>
> i don't suppose you could mention what the new/rebuilt price was, could
you?
>
> i'm just curious how much it would be...
SEVTEC
>From: ke...@peesee.at.home ()
>Date: 2/19/2000 11:06 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <slrn8av4v...@peesee.at.home>
>
>On Fri, 18 Feb 2000 00:52:39 GMT, C. Bailey <Ple...@Reply.to.newsgroup>
>wrote:
>>In Canada, we refer to VW's as "cult cars." They have a huge following of
>>devoted owners that will never drive anything but.....consequently, prices
>>are high and will likely remain high. It is not uncommon to hear of the
>>older VW diesel engines with over 400,000 miles. If you can get one with
>>150,000 miles, it is just broke in.
>
>don't
>do that.
>
>i'm not sure how well made the vw diesel is, but it's not uncommon at all to
>se
>a dodge ram with a cummins turbodiesel in it that has 400,000 miles. the
>truck
>is usually missing a few things by then, but many ranchers in my home
>neighborhood consider that truck to be able to go 500,000 miles with minimal
>maintenance.
>
We have to be realistic in selection of power output from an engine.
The vehicle engineer really doesn't care whether the engine has the latest
intercooler or is turbocharged or has three camshafts per cylinder bank,
(except for marketing to the masses). All he wants is horsepower per pound of
engine, lowest fuel consumption per horsepower obtained, realistic
vibration/noise levels, including torque component all done at a reasonable
cost.
Horsepower per cubic inch is not a factor, unless the design is restricted by
some sort of governing body, the tax man, or the racing class. It is odd that
engine design seems to be driven by horsepower per cubic inch displacement.
Some of the lightest engines that could hold up for long periods at full
horsepower were horizontally opposed aircraft engines of the '30's, ( but were
light as the propeller served as the flywheel.) We really haven't learned a
whole lot since, in this area, except for the use of electronics to make
engines run better.
Simply said, all of the latest technology for high output is useless if the
engine has to be torn down after a few hours for a rebuild. A marine engine
must run at high power for extended periods of time, and cannot be compared to
a VW automotive engine that may spend most of its life putting out only 20 to
30hp. (If you do not believe that is the output, just calculate it based on
fuel consumption.)
The VW engine would be a good engine to experiment with. Only the test of time
will tell if the engine will hold up in the marine application a reasonable
amount of time, pulling 70% or so power. For a recreational trailered surface
skimmer, engine life should be not much of a problem even at high output.
Barry Palmer, for <A
HREF="http://members.aol.com/sevtec/sev/skmr.html">Sevtec</A>
Chuck Driver
ke...@peesee.at.home wrote:
>
> i'm not sure how well made the vw diesel is, but it's not uncommon at all to se
> a dodge ram with a cummins turbodiesel in it that has 400,000 miles. the truck
> is usually missing a few things by then, but many ranchers in my home
> neighborhood consider that truck to be able to go 500,000 miles with minimal
> maintenance.
Dont forget that the Cummins is rated a conservative 300 horsepower, in marine
applications. Dodge restricted the pre 94 ones to160 HP. You would only be
working the engine at that level if going up a hill with a load or just briefly
during acceleration. It's no wonder the engine would last forever. I'ts
practically an idle load.
This is what Barry was refering to when he suggested running an engine at less
than its rated HP or even less than 70% for longevity.
Chuck
Juergen
sev...@aol.com (SEVTEC) wrote:
> >Subject: Re: Volkswagen Diesel engines (Europe)
> >From: ke...@peesee.at.home ()
> >Date: 2/19/2000 11:06 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: <slrn8av4v...@peesee.at.home>
> >
> >On Fri, 18 Feb 2000 00:52:39 GMT, C. Bailey
<Ple...@Reply.to.newsgroup>
> >wrote:
> >>In Canada, we refer to VW's as "cult cars." They have a huge
following of
> >>devoted owners that will never drive anything but.....consequently,
prices
> >>are high and will likely remain high. It is not uncommon to hear
of the
> >>older VW diesel engines with over 400,000 miles. If you can get
one with
> >>150,000 miles, it is just broke in.
> >
> >this is what i mean by a 'real' diesel. converted gasoline engines
just
> >don't
> >do that.
> >
at all to
> >se
> >a dodge ram with a cummins turbodiesel in it that has 400,000
miles. the
> >truck
> >is usually missing a few things by then, but many ranchers in my home
> >neighborhood consider that truck to be able to go 500,000 miles with
minimal
> >maintenance.
> >
>
--
Don't forget 2 things in Germany: high fuel cost (about 4 times of the
US) and unlimited speed on the highway. This means these engines are
designed for long time high output without repairs as the warrenty
periode is long and VW doesn't want to waste a lot of money in fixing
them. Especially the Diesels are usually driven by people going long
distances at high speed as Diesels have to pay higher road taxes which
gets compensated by lower cost of the Diesel fuel.
Similar situation in Japan, only less miles/user. Engineers in both
countries have to design reliable small engines as only a small
percentage of people can afford engines above 2l displacement.
Juergen
http://www.crosswinds.net/~kjs/index.html (Main)
http://members.xoom.com/KJShover/index.html (Mirror)
wo...@arrl.net
Someone was asking about the cost of the 1.9 TDI; the only thing I know is on:
Not sure if rebuilt or new. U$ 4200... with injecton system and manifolds,
etc. Not sure about turbo. They call it "turn key"... I'm not even sure now
if it is a turbo version 1.9, or not...
Regards.
Christian D
wo...@arrl.net
Juergen
--
TDI stands for Turbo Direct Injection so the Turbo has to be there. The
price sounds a bit high, my friend from Germany just told me that you
can get factory rebuild engines for approx DEM 5000 which is US$2500.
Juergen
http://www.crosswinds.net/~kjs/index.html (Main)
http://members.xoom.com/KJShover/index.html (Mirror)
ke...@peesee.at.home
>new generation engine, these are all electronically controlled direct
>injection units. this is the reason they can be modified / produce good
>power figures.
ya, they'll probably be expensive though. not sure how serious i am, just very
interested. more so than almost everyone else i've talked to.
>I am curious though, why you don't just use a turbo'ed petrol engine, as
>these produce MUCH higher outputs for less weight, and fuel pricies for you
>guys arn't even an issue.
the real reason i'm interested in a diesel at all is reliability and fuel
economy. a gas engine with a turbo on it tends to be not very reliable at all.
i know somebody's going to get on now and say that their mazda went past 200,000
miles with no turbo problems. that's not what i'm saying. there is always an
exception to the rule.
the engine that appeals to me for a truck (i've already spouted enough about it
on this thread) is commonly expected to go half a million miles without major
work. the truck my dad has is a flatbed with duals, and he's hauled more than
20,000 lbs gross weight at 17mpg. the same basic truck with a similarly powered
gasoline engine and not even close to the same torque will get 3-5 mpg.
at current prices, i figure that's around 8 miles per dollar difference. at the
end of 100,000 miles, that's $12,500 in fuel savings alone. the engine only
costs $$5000 more than the v8 i was referring to.
granted, most people won't be loading it that heavy all the time. gas engines
tend to get pretty good mileage if lightly loaded. diesels tend to get the same
mileage empty as full. my dad's truck stays within about 2mpg of empty load.
that's even hauling enough materials to build an entire house, everything above
the concrete.
if anyone consistently loads their vehicle to close to the maximum payload most
of the time, then a gasoline engine can't hope to compete with the diesel. why
do you think commercial cargo trucks are almost always diesel?
yes, fuel prices DO make a difference. enough that i'd seriously consider
spending three times the money on the diesel.
>A modified 2.0l cosworth engine will reliable produce 350ish bhp with a
>similar torque figure, no diesel size for size will match that.
you can look at numbers all you want. what really counts is the real-world
performance. if you want something to race in, then go get a two-stroke. if
you want to cruise or just get there reliably and efficiently, get a diesel.
my arguments may not hold that much weight when referring to a hovercraft.
using trucks, though, there can be no doubt.
ke...@peesee.at.home
>price sounds a bit high, my friend from Germany just told me that you
>can get factory rebuild engines for approx DEM 5000 which is US$2500.
that's a relief. i think you can get the 5.9l cummins turbodiesel for around
$6k, so i'd hate to spend the quoted price on a 2l one, especially since i have
no direct experience with its reliability and other characteristics.
i'd be tempted to put the cummins in a hovercraft, except that i'd never be able
to trailer something that would justify it and/or carry it. it's quite heavy.
also, quite spendy. i'm talking like i have that much money laying around doing
nothing.
RipVanWinkle
( gas) however truck engines tend to weigh far too much for anything other
than a truck!
Reliabilty wise don't forget that trucks are commercial and are as such
built on a much larger scale, and so comes inherent reliabilty with big
ends/ blocks etc.
Powerdelivery wise its how the engine is to be used, diesels are very
torque'y engines when comparared to a gas engine size for size, the gas
engine however will deliver more bhp at higher revs than the diesel.
>a gas engine with a turbo on it tends to be not very reliable at all.
> i know somebody's going to get on now and say that their mazda went past
200,000
> miles with no turbo problems. that's not what i'm saying. there is
always an
> exception to the rule.
Only true if you bolted on the turbo your self.
If you take a unit that comes ready fitted, from a quality manufacture ie
from say a Saab then these will run for as long as and non turbo'ed unit
compare against commercial though and there is no contest!. They do however
weigh next to nothing against a truck engine. And weight for a hovercraft is
very important.
What do you want this engine for?
<ke...@peesee.at.home> wrote in message
news:slrn8b10l...@peesee.at.home...
ke...@peesee.at.home
>If you take a unit that comes ready fitted, from a quality manufacture ie
>from say a Saab then these will run for as long as and non turbo'ed unit
>compare against commercial though and there is no contest!. They do however
>weigh next to nothing against a truck engine. And weight for a hovercraft is
>very important.
a properly designed gasoline engine, designed from the ground up to run a turbo,
could possibly last as long as an equivalent engine that's designed from the
ground up to run without one. there are very few gas engines i've seen that
fill this bill. diesels tend to last much longer than the equivalent gas
engine.
>What do you want this engine for?
referring to the cummins, i want it to go into the appropriate truck. this
would be a dodge, not the ford.
referring to the volkswagen, someone at the top of this thread mentioned that
the vw diesels had weight to horsepower ratios that i thought were not too far
from the subaru that everyone is so fond of for larger recreational hovercrafts.
this whole thread, i think, has lived this long because there are a few who,
like me, feel that a lightweight turbodiesel would make a good hovercraft engine
for reasons of economy and reliability.
at least, this is why I'M participating.
RipVanWinkle
> referring to the volkswagen, someone at the top of this thread mentioned
that
> the vw diesels had weight to horsepower ratios that i thought were not too
far
> from the subaru that everyone is so fond of for larger recreational
hovercrafts.
>
> this whole thread, i think, has lived this long because there are a few
who,
> like me, feel that a lightweight turbodiesel would make a good hovercraft
engine
> for reasons of economy and reliability.
>
> at least, this is why I'M participating.
>
Chuck Driver
production. One is is by Renault, who has one flying. (which scares me, after
seeing their cars). NASA is sponsering research by Lycoming and Continental.
Their prototpes are due out this summer. There is another v twin diesel
prototype running. It has been displayed at air shows, I don't remember the
name. Dynacam also claims there engine will run on diesel and jet A.
These engines wont be cheap but they are diesel, light, and will be
reliable. Chuck