# BGP - Specs



## Issam Abed (Feb 12, 2004)

Official engine code of the Inline 5.
*BGP*
















appears to be a *DETUNED* inline 5.This engine has so much potential its crazy.Look @ that Redline....







,Needs bumping about 2K RPM 
http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## Seanathan (May 1, 2002)

*Re: BGP - Specs (Wizard-of-OD)*

i'm actually debating if I want to play with this, or wait for the 2.0t fsi.








This thing turbo charged would be amazing.


----------



## VW97Jetta (Sep 5, 2002)

*Re: BGP - Specs (Seanathan)*

Compression seems a bit low....wonder what they're planning on....


----------



## Geordie (Jun 22, 2001)

*Re: BGP - Specs (VW97Jetta)*

I thought the 5 produced 170hp in Britain as a 2.3? Or is this an entirely different engine? A 1985 2.0 16v GM engine would produce 150hp so this should be making more horsies. It's a shame they tune things down to play the numbers game when given the choice of a 5 or a 4t I'd take the 5 just for the sound. But then I haven't driven the new 5 so I don't know if the sound is still like my old ones. I want three doors because I'm 6'3" and don't like folding myself in through little doors, so I'll end up with a Gti if I get a Golf V.


----------



## Issam Abed (Feb 12, 2004)

*Re: BGP - Specs (Geordie)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Geordie* »_I thought the 5 produced 170hp in Britain as a 2.3? Or is this an entirely different engine? A 1985 2.0 16v GM engine would produce 150hp so this should be making more horsies. It's a shame they tune things down to play the numbers game when given the choice of a 5 or a 4t I'd take the 5 just for the sound. But then I haven't driven the new 5 so I don't know if the sound is still like my old ones. I want three doors because I'm 6'3" and don't like folding myself in through little doors, so I'll end up with a Gti if I get a Golf V.

The 5 you are talking about is a chopped VR6 engine called the VR5.This IS an entirely new engine being an extension of the AEG I-4 Block.The engine IS seriously detuned because if they placed it on the market with 250Bhp (half the lambo's hp) then people would buy econo Jetta's and not FSi Turbo GTi's http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## AAdontworkx3 (Oct 1, 2002)

*Re: BGP - Specs (VW97Jetta)*


_Quote, originally posted by *VW97Jetta* »_Compression seems a bit low....wonder what they're planning on....

good call... perhaps they're leaving room for boost heads to play with... on another note, anyone know the management that engine is using?


----------



## muffinman (Feb 24, 2003)

*Re: BGP - Specs (Wizard-of-OD)*

...no VVT? That is interesting. What a waste - putting 4 valves on a cylinder and then locking them to one setting. i imagine that with VVT on the intake, a in increase in the compression to a modest 10:1 and a remapping of the ECU to use 93 Octane - this engine should be good for 150 lbs/ft of torque at about 6800 which is about 200 HP. 
...but I tell you what, with the low compression and redline, this engine is a prime target for forced induction either supercharged or turbo. If this car was available with the 6 speed and 4-motion in the low $20's - it would be tempting piece of mod bait.


----------



## Issam Abed (Feb 12, 2004)

*Re: BGP - Specs (muffinman)*


_Quote, originally posted by *muffinman* »_...no VVT? That is interesting. What a waste - putting 4 valves on a cylinder and then locking them to one setting.

Since when is everyone so *hyped* up about VVT?







....VVT is something recent and news flash,tuners have been making power without it for years!!The last 16V engines were not VVT and the most powerful stock I-4 on vortex doesnt even have VVT.
RB26DET,SR20DET's,4A-GE's all have there VVT (VVT-i) removed by tuners in order to extract the true potential of the engine.
VVT is not a necessity....never was,never will be.


----------



## jsnVR6 (Feb 5, 2001)

*Re: BGP - Specs (Wizard-of-OD)*

I thought the 5 cyl was only a 10 valve? That spec says it is a 20 valve.


----------



## PhReE (Sep 16, 2004)

*Re: BGP - Specs (JsnVR6Corrado)*

Ther were old Audi ones that were 10v, and 20v later as well. This is indeed 20v tho.


----------



## MK3NORTH (Jul 14, 2004)

Consider this...
maybe VW is downplaying the introduction of the new powerplants for upcoming improvements.
ex. In 2007 they are going to bump the 5 cyl to 200hp, and the 2.oT to 250hp.
Just as the 1.8T was introduced with 150hp.


----------



## VWinA (Oct 20, 1999)

*Re: BGP - Specs (Wizard-of-OD)*

I'm wondering what limits the torque over 3700rpm... 
It could be flow, fuel mapping (ecu tuning)... what else?


----------



## Geoff Rood (Apr 30, 2001)

*Re: BGP - Specs (VWinA)*

Limiting factors would be:
flow in the cylinder head
flow in the exhaust
flow in the intake
ECU programming
camshaft design
Now judging from people running 2.0 16v motors, you can estimate it would be possible to extract 180 hp at the crankshaft. Add another cylinder (180 * 5/4 = 225). I'm also sure with VW's new cylinder head design, i'd imagine a pent roof design of some sort, anything is better than the 2.0 16v heads, you'd probably be able to run something like 250-280 hp range normally aspirated. That's just a personal observation.


----------



## muffinman (Feb 24, 2003)

*Re: BGP - Specs (Wizard-of-OD)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Wizard-of-OD* »_
all have there VVT (VVT-i) removed by tuners in order to extract the true potential of the engine.
VVT is not a necessity....never was,never will be.

True HP or True torque - you can't have both with ONE camshaft setting.


----------



## AAdontworkx3 (Oct 1, 2002)

*Re: BGP - Specs (Wizard-of-OD)*

Lambo using infinite valve timing rather than an on/off switch like Vtec. Sloped cam lobes and lifters. The cam shaft slides horizontally as the engine RPMs increase. I'd say that VVT counts for something.


----------



## AAdontworkx3 (Oct 1, 2002)

*Re: BGP - Specs (Wizard-of-OD)*

True, but that's also 50+ psi on a 1.8t ...just imagine if he _had_ valve control! http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## muffinman (Feb 24, 2003)

*Re: BGP - Specs (Wizard-of-OD)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Wizard-of-OD* »_
Hey whats up?Define "true hp" or "true torque" because 
684whp from this
& 716hp according to this seem like a hell of alot True HP to me:
All from ONE camshaft setting.

for a guy who seems to know engines and mechanics I am surprised i need to spell this out, unless of course your joking. 
1) all the engine that we are discussing are N/A. I am only talking about N/A engines.
2) I can see that you are putting up high torque at high rpm, but at 4000 it looked like 160 lb/ft - 
what were your numbers at 2000 -3000 RPM? Similar to a stock Civic and less drivable?
Let me clarify ...VVT substantially improves low end torque and high end horsepower when integrated on a N/A gasoline engine. The new Porsche 3.6 liter is a perfect example as well the any 2.8 and better 3.2 VR6. 
I don't know why you are arguing this? It is a fact.


----------



## Issam Abed (Feb 12, 2004)

*Re: BGP - Specs (AAdontworkx3)*


_Quote, originally posted by *AAdontworkx3* »_True, but that's also 50+ psi on a 1.8t ...just imagine if he _had_ valve control! http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 

not 50+Psi...what you see there is gauge,not absolute pressure.Valve timing really would not have helped (I assume thats what you mean).Timing each camshaft however may have.

_Quote, originally posted by *muffinman* »_Let me clarify ...VVT substantially improves low end torque and high end horsepower when integrated on a N/A gasoline engine. The new Porsche 3.6 liter is a perfect example as well the any 2.8 and better 3.2 VR6. 

Ok i see your point now.Your saying VVT is the ultimate thing to have if I want a stock engine to behave like a performance one.


----------



## AAdontworkx3 (Oct 1, 2002)

*Re: BGP - Specs (Wizard-of-OD)*

my fault... i thought that was bobqzzi's dyno... almost 4bar of boost. Anyhow, ya i was referring to valve timing... just imagine how effective it would be to control individual valves... like a solenoid per valve setup without cams. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## Issam Abed (Feb 12, 2004)

*Re: BGP - Specs (AAdontworkx3)*


_Quote, originally posted by *AAdontworkx3* »_my fault... i thought that was bobqzzi's dyno... almost 4bar of boost.

It is Bob's dyno,he is running 3.8 Bar which is 2.8 Bar absolute. 

_Quote, originally posted by *AAdontworkx3* »_Anyhow, ya i was referring to valve timing... just imagine how effective it would be to control individual valves... like a solenoid per valve setup without cams. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 

Forgive me for being so narrow minded.I come from Twin Adjustable Camgear 4A-GE's


----------



## AAdontworkx3 (Oct 1, 2002)

*Re: BGP - Specs (Wizard-of-OD)*

ohhh sweet... i didn't read it correctly. Thanks for the heads up


----------



## RobNC (Aug 17, 2005)

*Re: BGP - Specs (Wizard-of-OD)*

"True HP or True torque - you can't have both with ONE camshaft setting."
Isn't HP nothing other than torque * RPMS? I don't understand the concept of true torque and true HP, unless some other meaning is implied (i.e., ~20% loss at the wheels)
Has anyone been able to confirm which of the aforementioned limitations are physically causing the loss in torque above 4k RPMs? That should be something in which the aftermarket sectors should be very interested.


----------



## muffinman (Feb 24, 2003)

*Re: BGP - Specs (RobNC)*


_Quote, originally posted by *RobNC* »_"True HP or True torque - you can't have both with ONE camshaft setting."
Isn't HP nothing other than torque * RPMS? I don't understand the concept of true torque and true HP, unless some other meaning is implied (i.e., ~20% loss at the wheels)
Has anyone been able to confirm which of the aforementioned limitations are physically causing the loss in torque above 4k RPMs? That should be something in which the aftermarket sectors should be very interested.

....did you read the entire post? no vvt. I would guess that Volkswagen tuned the cams for extra torque and mpg at the price of an even torque curve which would of allowed for higher hp #'s. I assume this allows them to skimp on the valve and spring combo seeing that they will not have work anywhere near 7000 rpm under warranty.


----------



## RobNC (Aug 17, 2005)

*Re: BGP - Specs (muffinman)*


_Quote, originally posted by *muffinman* »_....did you read the entire post? no vvt. I would guess that Volkswagen tuned the cams for extra torque and mpg at the price of an even torque curve which would of allowed for higher hp #'s. I assume this allows them to skimp on the valve and spring combo seeing that they will not have work anywhere near 7000 rpm under warranty. 

Gotcha... didn't specifically catch no VVT except from your post (which seemed like a question). I see what you're saying; either high flow cam, which is good for HP but bad for low-end torque, or low-flow which is good for low-end torque and stinking for high-end HP. Not sure about the cam timing; I'm guessing that advancing would be needed for high RPM HPs and relatively retarded for low-end torque.
That also makes me wonder why this thing needs two (there is a secondary?) air pumps. Probably to meet emissions, which means an inefficient combusion burn, right?



_Modified by RobNC at 12:42 PM 9-3-2005_


----------



## muffinman (Feb 24, 2003)

*Re: BGP - Specs (RobNC)*


_Quote, originally posted by *RobNC* »_
That also makes me wonder why this thing needs two (there is a secondary?) air pumps. Probably to meet emissions, which means an inefficient combusion burn, right?
_Modified by RobNC at 12:42 PM 9-3-2005_








. like I said earlier, this thing looks like it was half baked. It will be interesting to see how much power can be tapped from it in a year or so by those with know-how and not much cash.


----------



## sasa1981 (Sep 1, 2003)

*Re: BGP - Specs (muffinman)*

there is some ardicle from Car and driver about 2.5l engine 
Tech Highlights
This larger, heavier fifth-generation Jetta clearly needed more grunt to succeed in America, where the performance wars are fought by even entry-level cars. However, the German giant couldn't spare the euros to build a new engine from scratch just for us. The solution was to once again dig into VW's vast parts bin to cobble a successor to the aged 2.0-liter four.
The result is a 2.5-liter five-cylinder developed by the same man who designed Lamborghini's thrilling V-10. Unfortunately, the 2.5-liter is not the Gallardo's V-10 cut in half. Neither is it simply VW's familiar four-cylinder cast-iron block with an extra cylinder tacked onto the end. In fact, all three engines are part of the same extended family, as indicated by their shared 82.5mm bore and 92.8mm stroke.
The five-cylinder approach was an easy, inexpensive way to provide more displacement for the new VW energizer. Besides, VW's Audi division has plenty of experience making five-cylinder engines smooth and reliable. To minimize the increase in length caused by the additional cylinder, VW engineers moved the drive chain for the overhead cams from the front of the engine to the back. This move also prevents torsional vibrations in the crankshaft from affecting valve timing.
That change also makes it possible for the new engine to use one Lamborghini part—the aluminum-alloy 20-valve cylinder head found on one bank of the Gallardo's V-10. This greatly improves the engine's breathing over the two-valves-per-cylinder head on the previous four-cylinder Jetta. Combined with variable intake-valve timing, the result is peak torque of 168 pound-feet, up 38 percent from the old engine, despite just a 25-percent displacement increase. Peak power is up 30 percent to 148 horsepower, proving the new engine is biased toward torque.
Thanks to a modest 9.5:1 compression ratio and dual knock sensors, the 2.5-liter runs happily on regular fuel. It also promises to be a low-maintenance powerplant. The timing chain and coolant are guaranteed for the lifetime of the car. Spark plugs should go 60,000 miles, and oil changes are at 10,000-mile intervals. —Greg N. Brown


----------



## anonymous coward (Nov 14, 2004)

Any idea why VW continues to build most of their engines undersquare?


_Modified by anonymous coward at 3:22 AM 9-4-2005_


----------



## RobNC (Aug 17, 2005)

Okay I am now thoroughly confused... is the 2.5L VVT or not? Or does it have variable intake valve timing? If so, that may give some great ability to tweak with chipping (especially in my WEAK AT-powered model). The thing takes off like a jackrabbit due to extremely low gearing, but passing above 40MPH is quite a bit of a chore.


----------



## muffinman (Feb 24, 2003)

*Re: BGP - Specs (Yu_Power)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Yu_Power* »_there is some article from Car and driver about 2.5l engine 
Combined with variable intake-valve timing, the result is peak torque of 168 pound-feet, up 38 percent from the old engine, despite just a 25-percent displacement increase. —Greg N. Brown

I think he meant to say variable intake. You can see that part in the pictures, but I can not find any evidence of VVT anywhere, I guess more research is needed. 
I doubt its presence just due to the fact that a 12v VR6 puts out 175 HP and a 24vVR6 puts out 200 with the same displacement. Given that the 2.5 has a 20v design and and extra cylinder then the old 2.0 , it has to make hell of alot more then 150hp with vvt.


----------



## RobNC (Aug 17, 2005)

*Re: BGP - Specs (muffinman)*


_Quote, originally posted by *muffinman* »_I think he meant to say variable intake.
I doubt its presence just due to the fact that a 12v VR6 puts out 175 HP and a 24vVR6 puts out 200 with the same displacement. Given that the 2.5 has a 20v design and and extra cylinder than the old 2.0 , it has to make hell of alot more than 150hp with vvt.

Are all other parameters the same? I.e., ratio to bore to stroke, per what the other guy said about being undersquare.
It seems weird that the intake path is 90 degrees, then another 90, to the air filter, then a 180, then 90 and 180 to the intake manifold. Wonder if it's just a flow problem at high RPMs? Unless it's just my imagination, the intake to the air filter seems smaller than it seems than the throttle body diameter. Shouldn't it always go from larger diameter from outside air to slightly over the size of the throttle body, for mimimum restriction and turbulence? 










_Modified by RobNC at 1:13 PM 9-4-2005_


----------



## Issam Abed (Feb 12, 2004)

*Re: BGP - Specs (RobNC)*

Looks like VW is stuffing this pretty engine into everything including the new Beetle.








Cant wait till one of these gets a turbo _properly_ slapped onto it.
















Also some Inline-5 Audi candy for you guys...

*** *516Whp Dyno Run*
*** *Anti-Lag Demo*
*** *Drive by bullet train*


----------



## Deception (Oct 5, 2000)

*Re: BGP - Specs (Wizard-of-OD)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Wizard-of-OD* »_Looks like VW is stuffing this pretty engine into everything including the new Beetle.








Cant wait till one of these gets a turbo _properly_ slapped onto it.[/url]

You keep teasing us with those Audi turbo-5 videos!








Is 034EFI working on tuning the 2.5L?


----------



## Issam Abed (Feb 12, 2004)

*Re: BGP - Specs (Deception)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Deception* »_Is 034EFI working on tuning the 2.5L?

maybe


----------



## Deception (Oct 5, 2000)

*Re: BGP - Specs (Wizard-of-OD)*

Hurry and lift that 150hp cap that VW put on this big motor.


----------



## PhReE (Sep 16, 2004)

*Re: (anonymous coward)*


_Quote, originally posted by *anonymous coward* »_Any idea why VW continues to build most of their engines undersquare?

_Modified by anonymous coward at 3:22 AM 9-4-2005_

it says it right in your link, more low end torque.


----------



## polov8 (Apr 14, 2004)

*Re: (PhReE)*

Any pics of one of these engines dissassembled yet?


----------



## 6cylVWguy (Jun 14, 2000)

*Re: (polov8)*

I didn't realize the compression ratio was so low on the 2.5L! Wow, that thing's just itching for some FI!


----------

