|12-02-2009, 11:36 PM||#1|
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Surrey UK
FSI engines v TSI engines. What changed?
I'd like to understand a bit more about the engine change that happened in 2008 when the 1.6FSI and 2.0FSI petrol engines were replaced with TSI versions.
Were the FSI engines not good enough, or was it just a case of TSI engines being brought in across the whole VW range?
And would I notice a difference going from a 2.0 FSI to a 2.0 TSI? Are the new ones much better?
|12-03-2009, 12:26 AM||#2|
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Kansas USA
Balance shafts: BPY (FSI) has a add-on solution (expensive) vs build-in in CCTA on TSI. The goal is to improve the accoustic behavior as well as the mid- to high-end vibration. This will help wear and tear long term for any attached part as well as internal engine block parts.
engine block: aside from the fact that the engine block is shared with the new 1.8L engine of the same family ( hence "world engine") it has been build for higher average internal pressures up to 25 Bar. That in turn allows for higher specific power output of greater 100kW/L and 175Nm/L. The current BPY engine is by far not built for that.
engine block vs crankshaft: to prevent longterm warping Audi/VW used a metal composition with almost identical expansion coefficients 13.17 and 13.26 um/mK. This has been an issue with the bearings at high power output and high temperature.
thermal profiles: the engine was optimized for higher temp effeciency which means less losses and better gas milage.
Head and block: the head is aluminum and has a different characteristic. To minimize stress between both parts they used highly komplex FEM Modells to optimize the mounting points and a better more evenly distribution of the stress points. That's a major improvement for the gaskets and for the head mounts (bolts). The old engine wasn't optimized that well.
waterpump and thermostat housing was removed from the block because of the lack of structural support. All oil and oil return paths , blow-by paths and chain housing were integrated. The engine is lighter, shorter, better to maintain due to an overall lower component count for the engine. Keep in mind, this engine is also cheaper to manufacture (one of the main goals) as well as being manufacturable all over the world (in the US as well). This engine was actually a co-developent of Audi and a steel plant (sounds funny I know, but they have the knowledge of HOW to make it). This was not driven by VW.
Needless to say that, in the current configuration this engine is good for 270HP in the standard build. (Note: actual HP is well below 270 using standard VW Stage 1 parts and VW Stage 1 ECM.) The manufacturing process of precision pouring and casting is about a factor of 2x better than on the old engine. Their process window is much much tighter now and more reliable.
In conclusion, the CCTA (TSI) engine is a generation better, more reliable and more efficient. The smaller new 1.8L brother is already one of the best choices in germany. Compared to the older 1.8T engine it has 50% more torque (less 10 HP) but is almost as drivable as the 2.0L BPY engine. And that is a statement in one of my german car magazines. So my choice is clear here. Anyone who has the new engine now is lucky to have it, because it's the future.
All that said, the FSI is also a excellent engine when operated at well under its VW design points using the VW Stage 1 Engine Control Module settings when maintained per VW guidelines.
White 2007 Eos 2.0T w DSG, Sport Package, 18" All seasons, De-badged, Add-ons so far: Parrot Bluetooth phone adapter w steering wheel controls, SmartTop control module, 5000K Xenon low beam bulbs, Silverstar Ultra high beam bulbs, Curt Hitch with isolated trailer wiring connector, Peripheral Electronics iSimple Ipod Gateway
All times are GMT. The time now is 10:00 AM.