Yes you can ... this is the ingenious part of this engine. It has an electromagnetic clutch which detaches the supercharger in the lower middle range of the rev band when the turbo comes in. So you get the kick of the turbo hat high range und the punch of the super charger in the lower range without each component draging on the engine.
@@Vladi48mir not the most reliable, gotta take care of it, I took extreme care and the only maintenance issue I had within the 2 years of owning it is changing timing belt, regarding the engine. that's it
the point having a twincharged small displacement engine is, well first of all it is economical, and in Europe that might be more important than in the USA. in Europe gas prices can be as high as $18-$19/gallon. secondly why twincharge? the supercharger is a belt driven component, and because of this it has got fixed air intake/revolution. all this ends up by having a bigger and more instant power output at low rpm. (off the line) in this particular engine the supercharger is turned off by a magnetic clutch system at ~3500rpm. that is when the turbocharger comes to the stage and keeps the boost even higher than the supercharger, all the way to the redline (7000rpm). so why whould i choose this little engine over a big american muscle? well i have no hate for american muscle, in fact one of my favorite cars is a Corvette, but if you calculate the road tax, environment tax, insurance tax per year, where i live it whould climb almost to $8000. and that is a lot of money. over these taxes there are the high gas prices and i whould end up having a car which i cannot afford to drive only to look at it. and now those who are called Billy of Bob will always say that american muscle will eat this for lunch but how many of you have a job and pay your taxes without the help of your parents? i think the number is close to none...have a nice day!
This is an old idea, and thus mostly all the quirks have been worked out already over the years. I wander why it's taken major manufacturers so long to think about adopting it for production applications.
Well super chargers like the one featured are a belt driven screw type they do not use any exaust gas for force. However the turbo's turbine is spun by exaust gas.That is the limitation of a single turbo set up they need RPM's for peak power out put. This supercharger compresses air without RPM lag thus forcing more air through the engine and out the exaust which would spool the turbo faster causing it to spool faster and push the motor to it's peek RPM range faster.
this is an effort to make the engine as efficient as possible... any other brand that tries to produce 170 hp from a 1.4lt engine will have turbo lag but vw shows that common sense and a extra super charger will solve that problem, while trying to be as fuel economic as possible...
my cupra has an air to air intercooler running along at the bottom of the rad. the turbo only 1.4 TSI is the one with the water/air system you describe.
This type of engine was not invented by volkswagen, it was invented by Lancia way back in 1986 with the lancia Delta S4 which was supercharged and turbo charged. The supercharger entered early and the turbo at a certain engine speed cutted the supercharger by means of a value, and after great tune up, the car could be driven like a normal aspirated engine. BTW it developed 650 bhp.
man that was a bad time, maybe i was on a trip or something like that , 2 years ago, so many things have changed ! Im proud of VW engeneer they do their very best for saving our planet . At the moment im Driving Mercedes W124 Station wagon with a 2L diesel , it produces 75Hp and takes about 30MPG or 6,5L /100km. Sorry to all from me, for that digusting comment !
@sausagenmuff Yeah I did. A different set of springs, struts and roll bars with power and brake modifications does not make it a race car. It is just a slightly modified street car. Yes it's better than standard (doesn't take much to improve that in the handling stakes). But there is so much more that can be improved upon. It is still more than comfortable enough for day to day use. You try using a race car to go to the supermarket in.
@epiphonesg007 F1 engines haven't been using the 1,5 litre with turbo since 1988. Also in 1987 they still just saw around 900hp in the races. In 1986 there was still no limit on the boost they could use in qualifying which is why BMW's engine had over 1400hp. Today's 2,4 litre V8's produce around 750hp (without a turbo and a 18,000rpm rev limiter)
@jarrus464 The Mustang has a live rear axle...not leaf springs. The corvette has a single leaf spring that runs across the axle (actually basically works as an anti roll bar) The design is infact quite clever. That's coming from me a British Automotive engineer. It reduces unsprung weight. It also works very well. The live axle on the Mustang, while most people who don't understand how it all works will look negatively on it. Actually very capable. Which is why it beats Porsches on the track.
@sausagenmuff First off that wasn't a turbo mustang it was a 4.6 3v per cylinder model with a roush charger on it. Around 420hp. Topgear test track isn't really real world racing now either. It's also basically a street car. I was talking about the full on race cars which are based on the same chassis. Hence the ON TRACK comment of my post. Which if you look it up they do quite well in the various race series they enter.
Good while lasted. "The engine offers a good balance of performance a fuel economy, but is proving to be too complex and too costly to produce. According to Autocar, VW engineers are switching their focus from the twincharger engine to a more conventional turbocharged setup. With modern engine technologies the turbocharged engine should net similar performance figures but at a much lower production cost."
@maxou5757 Yeah I know, I think you may have missunderstood what I was getting at, I just ment that americans get really poor octane rated petrol like you have said in your post as well and generally in the UK the highest pump petrol i have seen is 102 and thats BP ultimate and only and certain outlets, the best stuff to go for that is readily available is Tesco 99
hmm... so... basically the turbo is driven by the exhaust gasses,... wich in its turn drive the supercharger wich then fuels the engine ??? air->turbo->supercharger->engine??
@iloveextremesports1 yeah I know, my comment is actually an answer to somebody's question. It was before the "new youtube", so the order of comments is messed up.
@weetnietgeen - More like supercharger > forced air > engine > exhaust gases > turbo > forced air...again. This helps increase HP(KW) out of a smaller displacement engine, while not sacrificing MPG (L/100 km) or performance. The "supercharger compensates for the engine's small displacement by forcing air into the cylinders at low revs to bolster torque. As the tachometer climbs, an exhaust-gas-driven turbocharger further boosts the horsepower". Google search for VW TSI or Twincharger
I can only imagine how realiable this would be.... 1,4 Turbo on a 1400 kg car...I give it 250 000 km max. BTW: Is the Turbo still made at Turbomecanica Bucharest ?
If these motors are so good , why did my daughters tiguan have a cracked piston from new and a heap of trouble trying to get the dealer to admit the engine had a problem. So it was taken to another dealer that verified a cracked piston. They replaced the piston, But should have replaced the whole thing. The engine has had ongoing problems up to the point it has just cost her over $3500 for more engine repairs and is still running like a goat , sluggish, over heating under load and at high speed
The pistons are fragile on pre 2012 built cars and petrol with a high sulfuric content (Australia's for example) exacerbates the problem. The original mk6 golf tune was too lean, the injectors can vary wildly in quality and the water pump often fails too. These engines get incredibly hot and should never have been sold in countries that experience extreme heat & humidity.
yeah thats what i like about the VW engines, with the super for mid low range and turbo for high. however just means few more components to break down which the mechanic will sure charge a shit load to fix
i suppose so... and 70defpure... the super doesn't help the turbo spool.. it just picks up the turbo lag cause the turbo needs to spool so the super gives immediate power
@sausagenmuff The problem with this engine is not the general idea, don´t get me wrong. But VW used inferior pistons and other parts to make a few extra bucks of their way overpriced vehicles.
what about ford ecoboost engine 3 (1 litre) cylindre and twin camshaft and turbo-charger guive as from 135 hp to 175 hp just with 3 (1 litre) cylindre ;)
@luimad your calling me stupid and i sit here unable to understand your argument? what does this line mean "volkswagen diesel motors have their trucks with incredible torque and power"? and i speak as someone who owns a compact volkswagen and lives in europe with some albeit small mountains! my point was what works for one place doesn't necessarily mean it will work for another
@idontknow5858 Fair point, well made.... However, you do get what you pay for at the end of the day, I'm assuming that you were comparing the roush mustang and the BMW M3 or at least equivilant, I love American cars but the lack the sophistication of European cars though I'm mostly talking about the technology involved, I mean I do like old school cars but in this day and ages big manufactures like ford shouldn't still be making them,
@yonumpty Like said in a previous comment, I thought the live rear axle was great for take off, not for cornering ability, that's why fully independent McPherson struts were made, having said that though, I would prefer a mustang to a Porsche, and I would prefer a Z06 to most European cars, about the real criticism i have for American cars is that they aren't that well built and I can't buy one in right hand drive
@epiphonesg007 Cause a 3.8 would produce his power in much higher Rpm i know a 7 liter is wrong in the modern world its has much to much fuel consumtion but the sound is more biautiful with more desplacement :)
@epiphonesg007 high rpm sound really good ! but in my erveryday life i would prefer 600 torques a 3.8 natural aspiratet would produce maximum 380 - 400 Torques ... and if you have 500 HP out of 3.8 L you engine wouldnt live long as a 7.0 L with 500 HP cause there is much more consumption in the engine ok i know a turbo could make 800 toques out of a 3.8L but a turbo makes about 100.000 rpm and so on the consumtion is heavy ! and i know it cause we have a turbo GOLF TSI and the turbos
no it only runs when throttle demand is high, and then fully cuts out at 3.5k. If you ease into the throttle it wont even turn on the supercharger as the throttle demand is too low
@unclewilly2 dont have much life expectancy so they will make maximum 100.000 km and then they have to be replaced !! (if you have such high power ouput !!) a Little turbo like that one from the VW T4 5 Cyl. will make 500.000 km without problems because there is not much boost pressure!! like a 500HP 3.8
@plumbicblimp Yesterday I saw a TSI golf pulling from traffic lights. If it didn't say TSI in it's trunk I would have guessed it's a DIESEL, thick gray/black puff from the exhaust for the first 50metres?? Economy, sure! Only some little particles going to your lungs :p At least it was pretty fast..
@fenix144 Ok .. that is a different way of thinking ... i want to have power .. cause i love roaring engines .. and i have the money for it ... i drive a Audi A6 2.8.. 196Bhp.. and i drive it on 9,5 Litre / 100km LPG gas !! and it goes really good .. and it has torque and beautiful sound .. i drove a Polo 1,2 and i hated it ... i would never drive it .. im a technik freak !! and want to have a roaring and lovley sounding engine .. !! and 140 out of 1.4 is as near as riliebly as my 2.8 V6 !!
@idontknow5858 Ok sorry the businesses, but I bet the government has invested in them at some time or another, but anyway..... new 5.0 mustang would be great, and the looks are great but then need to get rid of the leaf spring rear axel, it's things like that.... GM/Chevy did it with the camero and it's a brilliant bit of kit (fully independent suspension) the platform is used in other cars and some of them are available over here, you see they can do but they choose not to do it all the time
@s4m2 yeah and now after one year of service, the engines start breaking down after 10-20k Km, nice reliability. I keep my 5.7 L small block Chevy then....
6.2L/100km for this engine compared to 10.6L/100km of the Volkswagen 2.0L FSI??? so... are they talking city or highway? if it is city... 6.2L/100km? they must be pretty gentle on the pedal so as to not activate the turbo wow... i never knew the 2 L FSI consume the same fuel amount as the crappy GM 3.5L OHV in my G6 in terms of 100km in a city...
The screw type superchargers you're refering to are 'Rootes' type which were originally produced by GMC for their early diesels 4-71 and 6-71. Not all superchargers use a Rootes type compressor, there are some that use centrifiugal compressors like those produced by Paxton. This is a compound boost set up which isn't that new. They were using this sort of thing back 60 years ago for airplane engines.
@idontknow5858 also mean quality finish, I reckon a megane 250 would beat it an SRT4 in the same price range (look it up), Yes you have moved on and the like but we in europe did all that stuff about 10 years ago, it's not like money is a problem for you guys as you are supposed to be the richest most powerful country in the world and you have to copy everyone else instead of make your own stuff we have made engines without throttles that make 3.0 use fuel like a 1.6 I4 which you can't do....
It's isn't that small cars are 'gay', it's just the fact there are some of us who don't want to be in something that will crush like a beer can in an accident.
well that's what i've read! i cant support it... but why would they lie? maybe is cheaper too... though a supercharger is never as reliable has a turbo. for example superchargers G are unreliable, and expensive to mantain so...
@MadPyrotechnicus Thats true .. just the atomic trash :) i think like that .. you and all other green people can spend money on elektric cars and FSI and i will spend my money on Big Engines.. and we both have our Fun :D
this engine suits a nonexistant market. a little power + economy = 4cyl turbo a little low down torque = 6 cyl or decent 4 cyl lots of power = 6 cyl turbo or v8 lots of low down torque = v8 This has less power and less fuel economy then other options, it has no point.
heres the thing! there are no good cars different cars suit different areas! in the us you can be driving through flood zones, up mountains, through desert and usually the're heavy passengers! giving the us a car with a small engine that produces big hp will probably break under normal usage. a bigger engine is harder to break! they have long open straights and a big engine just cruises down them! europe has nippy corners so their never flat out, just want fast acceleration.
.... honestly.. its not that great... you can get 1000BHP out of a twin charged V8.... its not that impressive.. unless your worried about fuel.. then its pretty cool... but id still rather have a V8 with a TT setup
about the highest pump petrol I saw in the 3 times I've been to the states is 93 ron (they call that super ! LMAO) my piss is 93 ron there regular is 87!?!? no wonder american engines produces so little power and use so much fuel
