# 2.5 engine specifications pdf



## c.ogilvy (May 24, 2007)

hello, 
my first post here and would like to direct your attention to this: 
http://www.dubspeedracing.com/misc/891403.pdf
don't know if it's been discussed before but the technical part of the 2.5 is pretty interesting, especially the octane ratings this bulletin recommends!
you can find all kinds of VW pdf's by googling "vwcertification.com"

(sadly, none devoted entirely to the 2.5)
so, should we be using 94 octane to get the 150HP?


----------



## QuiescentPlunge (Aug 9, 2006)

*Re: 2.5 engine specifications pdf (c.ogilvy)*

Pretty cool. Can't wait for a Rabbit one.
This is my favorite part:







http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## the.ronin (Feb 22, 2006)

*Re: 2.5 engine specifications pdf (QuiescentPlunge)*

Nice find. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## magilson (Apr 18, 2005)

The part I like: Forged crank.
The part I don't like: 10:1 compression ratio. Gonna have to size the forced induction applications well for that one.


----------



## ninety9gl (Nov 27, 2005)

*Re: (magilson)*


_Quote, originally posted by *magilson* »_The part I like: Forged crank.
The part I don't like: 10:1 compression ratio. Gonna have to size the forced induction applications well for that one.

Having timing chains and VVT makes it difficult to just pop a headspacer in, too... Not only would you need enough slack (which you might have) you'd need to adjust the timing of the cams to compensate.
You'd be surprised how many VW's have forged cranks.


----------



## magilson (Apr 18, 2005)

*Re: (ninety9gl)*


_Quote, originally posted by *ninety9gl* »_You'd be surprised how many VW's have forged cranks.

No I wouldn't.








But I'm glad to see they've continued. This is a new motor so I've tried to assume nothing. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## scaldedhare (Mar 13, 2007)

*Re: (magilson)*

94 octane?








I thought this engine was built for regular (being of low-ish compression).


----------



## ninety9gl (Nov 27, 2005)

*Re: (scaldedhare)*

That is curious... the document was published in 2004, though.


----------



## magilson (Apr 18, 2005)

*Re: (scaldedhare)*


_Quote, originally posted by *scaldedhare* »_94 octane?








I thought this engine was built for regular (being of low-ish compression). 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octane_rating
"In most countries (including all of Europe and Australia) the "headline" octane that would be shown on the pump is the RON, but in the United States, Canada and some other countries the headline number is the average of the RON and the MON, sometimes called the Anti-Knock Index (AKI), Road Octane Number (RdON), Pump Octane Number (PON), or (R+M)/2. Because of the 8 to 10 point difference noted above, this means that the octane in the United States will be about 4 to 5 points lower than the same fuel elsewhere: 87 octane fuel, the "regular" gasoline in the US and Canada, would be 91-92 in Europe. However most European pumps deliver 95 (RON) as "regular", equivalent to 90-91 US (R+M)/2, and even deliver 98 (RON) or 100 (RON)."
AKA, you're fine.


----------



## whatsyourbeef (Jan 2, 2007)

*Re: 2.5 engine specifications pdf (c.ogilvy)*

Thanks for that info, I thought the exhaust manifold was interesting, there have been a lot of concern that it was highly restrictive, looks more like a header than the typical oem cast exhaust manifolds we're used to...


----------



## flynavyj (Jan 26, 2007)

magilson,
the numbers listed aren't in RON, althogh RON numbers are listed, it's 94 octane or (98 RON) and min of 91 octane (95 RON) ... think my old honda required 91 RON which was 87 octane, but i can't remember. We should get a dyno done w/ the different octane ratings to see if there really is a performance difference. 
Also, here's another PDF for the 6 speed automatic if anyone is interested. It's not the DSG as title suggests. 
http://vw.nate-online.com/techdocs/DSG.pdf


----------



## BuddyWh (Nov 11, 2006)

*Re: (ninety9gl)*


_Quote, originally posted by *ninety9gl* »_That is curious... the document was published in 2004, though.

I also noticed the 2004 publication date... I don't think it is representative of what went into production, certainly doesn't seem to be for 2007 MY.
The 2007 Rabbit Technical specifications list compression as 9.5 and fuel requirement as "regular" fuel, generally 87 octane or less (AKI).
Also very interesting revelation in the 2004 brochure is the "continuously variable geometry" intake cam shaft. I did not know the 2.5L had that feature...


----------



## Slipstream (Feb 8, 2002)

*Re: (BuddyWh)*

Some of this must be old information, as I remember reading in the VW promotional information that the 2.5L that we got was like 8.5:1 compression... Nowhere near 10:1.


----------



## c.ogilvy (May 24, 2007)

2007 specs: 
http://media.vw.com/press_file.....pdf
9.5:1 compression ratio. 
i think this stuff's also in the back of the owner's manual. looks like vw changed the 2.5 a bit before release. i still wonder if the 150hp they publish is with premium gas like the 2004 brochure says.


----------



## magilson (Apr 18, 2005)

*Re: (flynavyj)*


_Quote, originally posted by *flynavyj* »_magilson,
the numbers listed aren't in RON, althogh RON numbers are listed, it's 94 octane or (98 RON) and min of 91 octane (95 RON) ... think my old honda required 91 RON which was 87 octane, but i can't remember. We should get a dyno done w/ the different octane ratings to see if there really is a performance difference. 

I see that now. In any case during logging we saw a decrease in timing pull when going from 87 to 89 octane. From 6 degrees to 2-4. Not too big a deal but it all adds up! No dyno was done to compare the performance differences. Mostly because a dyno isn't going to show the change from 2-3 degrees on a naturally aspirated car (especially with all the other factors that can affect a dyno run).


----------



## FosterLustley (Jun 14, 2006)

*Re: 2.5 engine specifications pdf (c.ogilvy)*

nice find. thanks for sharing http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## flynavyj (Jan 26, 2007)

thanks mag, very interesting note during your logging process. Wonder what timing is used w/ 93+ octane...


----------



## magilson (Apr 18, 2005)

*Re: (flynavyj)*


_Quote, originally posted by *flynavyj* »_thanks mag, very interesting note during your logging process. Wonder what timing is used w/ 93+ octane...

Eh, you can see that 2-4 degree pull even from a little normal engine noise. From the knock sensor voltages I wouldn't call it knock that was triggering it, but the ECU certainly _was_ pulling a little timing. These ECU's are very careful. 
93 octane? probably not worth it until you start doing ECU tune mods. An intake and exhuast should decrease temps all around and at the very least not make the timing pull any worse. I can't see any reason to run better than 91, and even then you may not need it (Vag-Com can help you figure that out.) Like I said, we saw improvement just moving to 89 (the mid grade around here) which was good enough.
note that this is assuming you have an intake that actually doesn't mess with fueling. If it does, which quite a few do, there will be times when you lean out and induce the bad situation. When testing our full 3" intake, we noted that there was a brief time we saw very impressive gains as the car was artificially leaned out. Then as the ECU adapted and added fuel some of those initial gains were lost. (hence the "I just installed my intake and I now make mad powah" impression threads.)
Finding injectors is a must. While I don't have the resources that some companies have, I've not found a turn-key injector yet.


----------



## type17volkswagen (May 2, 2004)

*Re: 2.5 engine specifications pdf (c.ogilvy)*

Great find! Thanks for sharing. But I got to know - does the 2.5 have VVT? I didn't think it did and it isn't listed on the engine specs VW put out on their website. Seems like something they would share if it had it...


----------



## magilson (Apr 18, 2005)

*Re: 2.5 engine specifications pdf (type17volkswagen)*


_Quote, originally posted by *type17volkswagen* »_Great find! Thanks for sharing. But I got to know - does the 2.5 have VVT? I didn't think it did and it isn't listed on the engine specs VW put out on their website. Seems like something they would share if it had it...


currently the intake cam only.


----------



## ZVdub (Dec 10, 2006)

Awesome, the 6speed triptronic is rated upto 229ft-lbs of torque.


_Modified by ZVdub at 1:28 PM 6-2-2007_


----------



## Geoff Rood (Apr 30, 2001)

With that air filter design I wonder how much a free flowing design would benefit the motor. I would say some new cams, and some serious head work as well as some ECU tuning and shifting of the redline would easily net a 200-250hp N/A motor.


----------



## magilson (Apr 18, 2005)

*Re: (Geoff Rood)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Geoff Rood* »_With that air filter design I wonder how much a free flowing design would benefit the motor. I would say some new cams, and some serious head work as well as some ECU tuning and shifting of the redline would easily net a 200-250hp N/A motor.

I've seen 7 hp and 18 ft lbs with a CAI on one we built for my friend! http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif Other companies have reported bigger gains as well!
ECU tuning companies have gained peaks of 20hp at some points, but those are only claims at this point.


----------



## Geoff Rood (Apr 30, 2001)

It's not a far fetched claim if VW can chip tune 20hp out of it so can an ECU company







So basically a 2.5 in the range of 180ish hp as a base engine.


----------



## mattdl4 (Aug 11, 2002)

Does anyone still have this pdf? the link provided is dead...


----------



## thygreyt (Jun 7, 2009)

yeah.. you know its only 4 yrs old


----------

