# Looking for technical data.



## EdsGTI (Mar 9, 2003)

I would like to know some stuff abot the new 2.5L found in the rabbit
The comp ratio is 9.5:1
What is the crank stroke
What is the rod length? is it the same as early 16v, 8v, 20v.
What is the piston and rod material? cast or forged?
What is the piston wrist pin diameter?

And in the new rabbit, the 5speed manual is a variation of an 02m, or the older style 02j?l


----------



## EdsGTI (Mar 9, 2003)

*Re: Looking for technical data. (EdsGTI20VT)*

ok found some stuff out.
92.8mm stroke,
82.5mm pistons just like i thought...



_Modified by EdsGTI20VT at 1:31 AM 7-17-2006_


----------



## nerdhotrod (Sep 23, 2002)

*Re: Looking for technical data. (EdsGTI20VT)*


_Quote, originally posted by *EdsGTI20VT* »_ok found some stuff out.
92.8mm stroke,
82.5mm pistons just like i thought...

_Modified by EdsGTI20VT at 1:31 AM 7-17-2006_

I have a german PDF at work.....Good tech stuff, but you'll have to translate.
Ill look this week for you.


----------



## Deception (Oct 5, 2000)

*Re: Looking for technical data. (EdsGTI20VT)*

http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=1848202


----------



## WhiteG60 (Aug 20, 2001)

*Re: Looking for technical data. (Deception)*

From what I can gather, its a 2.0 + 1 cylinder. Now, since you could take an audi 10v mani, cut off a runner, and bolt it to a 2.0 8v, in theory you should be able to bolt on a 10v turbo mani and go from there. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## mujjuman (Jul 29, 2004)

*Re: Looking for technical data. (WhiteG60)*

i dont know, i doubt its just a 2.0 + 1 ..... ill need more info on that to believe it. 
[EDIT]
it DOES have the same bore and stroke however.


_Modified by mujjuman at 6:41 AM 7-28-2006_


----------



## EdsGTI (Mar 9, 2003)

*Re: Looking for technical data. (mujjuman)*

Its a 2.0 16v tho, not 8v, it has a 20v head. Id assume itd be very similar to a 2.0 with an added cylinder.


----------



## Deception (Oct 5, 2000)

*Re: Looking for technical data. (EdsGTI20VT)*


_Quote, originally posted by *EdsGTI20VT* »_Its a 2.0 16v tho, not 8v, it has a 20v head. Id assume itd be very similar to a 2.0 with an added cylinder.

The 2.5L BGP is a completely new engine. It's not an amalgamation of an older VW engine.
The block is all-new, and the head is built based on the step-ladder cylinder head (DOHC, 20v) from the Gallardo/Audi S8 V-10.
According to 034 EFI, the 2.5L BGP head flows the most CFMs out of any other VAG head.


_Modified by Deception at 11:27 AM 7-28-2006_


----------



## jeremp (Jun 8, 2006)

*Re: Looking for technical data. (Deception)*

Audi 5000 and the Quantum had 5 cyl engines, are you saying it is not an updated version of those, but in fact, a new breed?


----------



## WhiteG60 (Aug 20, 2001)

*Re: Looking for technical data. (jeremp)*


_Quote, originally posted by *jeremp* »_Audi 5000 and the Quantum had 5 cyl engines, are you saying it is not an updated version of those, but in fact, a new breed?

Yes, its half a lambo gallardo V10 engine, which in and of itself is an Audi V8 with 2 more cylinders. So technically its half an S4 + 1 cylidner.


----------



## mujjuman (Jul 29, 2004)

*Re: Looking for technical data. (jeremp)*


_Quote, originally posted by *jeremp* »_Audi 5000 and the Quantum had 5 cyl engines, are you saying it is not an updated version of those, but in fact, a new breed?

yes it is entirely a new engine... but no, its not half of a Gallardo V10.


----------



## Deception (Oct 5, 2000)

*Re: Looking for technical data. (jeremp)*


_Quote, originally posted by *jeremp* »_Audi 5000 and the Quantum had 5 cyl engines, are you saying it is not an updated version of those, but in fact, a new breed?

Yes, according to the press releases, the 2.5L BGP was an entirely new engine designed specifically for the North American market. It wasn't a mashup of a previous motor.


----------



## Yevi (Dec 7, 2005)

*Re: Looking for technical data. (mujjuman)*

well of course, it's not, duh, 
it was designed by the same guy who designed v-10 gallardo engine.
, and since it doesn;t perform as well at this point, you can't call it gallardo, but you can call it to similar half gallardo, or half gallardo knock off for all i care
Yev


----------



## mujjuman (Jul 29, 2004)

*Re: Looking for technical data. (Yevi)*

my point is, its not half Gallardo anything... other than the head design.


----------



## T62 (Jun 15, 2006)

*Re: Looking for technical data. (mujjuman)*

Sorry guys, but based on the dismal.. Well Every figure for this motor, I'd have to say this shares nothing with anything.

I mean. I seriously doubt this head flows what one bank of a Lambo head flows. Not even close. Not even within 120 CFM. I mean it can't 
I cannot imagine ANY motor with 5 cylinders with 4 valves per head making such terrible numbers.
My mothers 1996 Grand am Se with a4 cyl 2.4 Liter 4 Valve made 150 horse stock. That motor was a detuned version of a motor designed back in 1990....
And we all know GM wasn't known for its effiency prowess.


----------



## WhiteG60 (Aug 20, 2001)

*Re: Looking for technical data. (T62)*


_Quote, originally posted by *T62* »_Sorry guys, but based on the dismal.. Well Every figure for this motor, I'd have to say this shares nothing with anything.

I mean. I seriously doubt this head flows what one bank of a Lambo head flows. Not even close. Not even within 120 CFM. I mean it can't 
I cannot imagine ANY motor with 5 cylinders with 4 valves per head making such terrible numbers.
My mothers 1996 Grand am Se with a4 cyl 2.4 Liter 4 Valve made 150 horse stock. That motor was a detuned version of a motor designed back in 1990....
And we all know GM wasn't known for its effiency prowess.

But did it make 170ftlbs @ 3000rpm? Its a base model motor, and I believe 190-200hp can be squeezed out of it. 2.0 16v's were only 130hp or so, and they've been shown to make 600+ on a stock block.


----------



## Yevi (Dec 7, 2005)

*Re: Looking for technical data. (WhiteG60)*

wow, what did you do, i think you are talking about 2.0T 4 cylinder, not 2.5
Yev


----------



## T62 (Jun 15, 2006)

*Re: Looking for technical data. (Yevi)*

600 on a stock block? I haven't seen any of VW's motors ever do that... Ever. but Im stilla newbie to that.
I'm just not impressed by VWs outputs on any of thier motors... The new DI V6 seems decent though...
Its just that Ive always been a GM guy, and for as crappy as thier Drivetrain are stock, they are in most cases superior for what they are intended for. MPG wise, Output wise...
I have a 2.0T FSI 6 Speed Passat. My Flywheel broke, and everything seemed screwed up (3800 miles) havent been able to drive it in 2 weeks ( still in shop ) and Direct injection 2.0 Liter motor Turbocharged only putting out a little over 200 horsepower is, CRAZY weak.
GM had a 200 Horse NA 2.3 back in 1990... And GM SUCKS!
I mean, many late 80s Japanese 2.0 Turbo motors were making 200 horse stock...
Im just confused I guess, I don't quite understand Germans approaches to using tiny ass turbos that fly off the edge of a compressor map past the Engines intrinsic Volumetric effenicy peak... Meaning if you measured the motor, W/O the turbo the engine tuning would run say 4000 rpm at peak Torque and VE (althogh much lower).
Then They throw turbos on there that like to run the motor out of boost (which means the effencicy is terrible). 

I guess Im just dissapointed with the 2.0 with everything cept the gas mileage but.. Honestly even GMs new Direct injection 2.0T is sopposed to make more with 1 less gear with 60 more horse, more reliability, and MUCH more mod potential stock.


----------



## WhiteG60 (Aug 20, 2001)

*Re: Looking for technical data. (T62)*


_Quote, originally posted by *T62* »_600 on a stock block? I haven't seen any of VW's motors ever do that... Ever. but Im stilla newbie to that.
I'm just not impressed by VWs outputs on any of thier motors... The new DI V6 seems decent though...
Its just that Ive always been a GM guy, and for as crappy as thier Drivetrain are stock, they are in most cases superior for what they are intended for. MPG wise, Output wise...
I have a 2.0T FSI 6 Speed Passat. My Flywheel broke, and everything seemed screwed up (3800 miles) havent been able to drive it in 2 weeks ( still in shop ) and Direct injection 2.0 Liter motor Turbocharged only putting out a little over 200 horsepower is, CRAZY weak.
GM had a 200 Horse NA 2.3 back in 1990... And GM SUCKS!
I mean, many late 80s Japanese 2.0 Turbo motors were making 200 horse stock...
Im just confused I guess, I don't quite understand Germans approaches to using tiny ass turbos that fly off the edge of a compressor map past the Engines intrinsic Volumetric effenicy peak... Meaning if you measured the motor, W/O the turbo the engine tuning would run say 4000 rpm at peak Torque and VE (althogh much lower).
Then They throw turbos on there that like to run the motor out of boost (which means the effencicy is terrible). 

I guess Im just dissapointed with the 2.0 with everything cept the gas mileage but.. Honestly even GMs new Direct injection 2.0T is sopposed to make more with 1 less gear with 60 more horse, more reliability, and MUCH more mod potential stock.

You're comparing apples to oranges. VW uses small turbos because the motors are supposed to feel like an n/a 6. Mid and low range torque, thats it. Thats 100bhp per litre. Look up Killa. I was incorrect, he made 507whp on a stock motor which is more like 575-580bhp. The flywheel broke on your car? Sounds like dumb luck of operator error. I've owned 25 VWs over the last 9 years and never ever had a flywheel break on me. The japanese were making 2.0L turbos in the late 80's/early 90's... ok. I'm not seeing your point? VW had a ****ty supercharged 1.8L 8v making 160hp on 6psi. Yeah, it sucked, those are the numbers nontheless. You have to remember that Europeans use turbos for efficiency, not for power for the most part. Gas prices are insane there and most of their development has been in the area of diesels. How many 2.0L 16v 180hp motors do you know of.... that get 50mpg and make 300ftlbs? Think of it this way... how did GM finally start making a decent 4 cylinder? They bought Saab and started using their head designs... thats how. How did GM start making a decent 2 seater roadster? They bought Opel and rebadged them. How did they make it faster? By using Saab technology. I'm not gonna touch the V8/pushrod stuff cuz thats a totally different world, but remember, VW/Audi are making 420bhp out of a 4.2L V8...


----------



## mujjuman (Jul 29, 2004)

*Re: Looking for technical data. (WhiteG60)*


_Quote, originally posted by *WhiteG60* »_
You're comparing apples to oranges. VW uses small turbos because the motors are supposed to feel like an n/a 6. Mid and low range torque, thats it. Thats 100bhp per litre. Look up Killa. I was incorrect, he made 507whp on a stock motor which is more like 575-580bhp. The flywheel broke on your car? Sounds like dumb luck of operator error. I've owned 25 VWs over the last 9 years and never ever had a flywheel break on me. The japanese were making 2.0L turbos in the late 80's/early 90's... ok. I'm not seeing your point? VW had a ****ty supercharged 1.8L 8v making 160hp on 6psi. Yeah, it sucked, those are the numbers nontheless. You have to remember that Europeans use turbos for efficiency, not for power for the most part. Gas prices are insane there and most of their development has been in the area of diesels. How many 2.0L 16v 180hp motors do you know of.... that get 50mpg and make 300ftlbs? Think of it this way... how did GM finally start making a decent 4 cylinder? They bought Saab and started using their head designs... thats how. How did GM start making a decent 2 seater roadster? They bought Opel and rebadged them. How did they make it faster? By using Saab technology. I'm not gonna touch the V8/pushrod stuff cuz thats a totally different world, but remember, VW/Audi are making 420bhp out of a 4.2L V8... 

im behind you all the way.


----------



## the s is silent (Jul 17, 2004)

*Re: Looking for technical data. (Deception)*

Sure, the 2.5 is a whole new engine design, but it doesn't mean it doesn't share parts with anything. Has anybody checked rod or piston part numbers? I wouldn't be surprised if it shares the same parts with the 2.0. Same bore, same stroke, it only makes sense that the pistons and rods would be the same to reduce the number of different parts that need to be manufactured for a brand new engine that is only being offered in one market.
Is the head just the same design as the gallardo head...or is it an off-the-shelf lamborghini part? I've read both on this site and would like clarificaton.


----------



## T62 (Jun 15, 2006)

*Re: Looking for technical data. (the s is silent)*

White G60... Hrmm. Well they did make a 195 Horse 2.3 Liter back in 91... NA.
Does that count? The 2.3 H.O. Head out flowed the 350 V8 heads.
The engine sucked but that was one potent NA motor.
P.S. I understand the Diesel development, and the want to make the motor feel like an NA v6 ( I think )
But, I DONT believe running a tiny ass turbo off its compressor effiency map as being.. Efficent... Know what I mean?

Fact is, were looking at this 1/2 " Lambo " motor, and honestly, its friggin ghetto.. Im sorry guys. Gms, NA 2.4 liter 4 cyl makes 177 ft lbs torque and horse stock... 
Im just confused guys, with this motor. And with VWs numbers in general. I thought I was behind the curve with my old GMs in terms of power per liter, but these German motors ( not ALL of them ) seem to be hurtin worse.
Do we have any dynoes of a stock 2.5 5cyl?


----------



## WhiteG60 (Aug 20, 2001)

*Re: Looking for technical data. (T62)*


_Quote, originally posted by *T62* »_White G60... Hrmm. Well they did make a 195 Horse 2.3 Liter back in 91... NA.
Does that count? The 2.3 H.O. Head out flowed the 350 V8 heads.
The engine sucked but that was one potent NA motor.
P.S. I understand the Diesel development, and the want to make the motor feel like an NA v6 ( I think )
But, I DONT believe running a tiny ass turbo off its compressor effiency map as being.. Efficent... Know what I mean?

Fact is, were looking at this 1/2 " Lambo " motor, and honestly, its friggin ghetto.. Im sorry guys. Gms, NA 2.4 liter 4 cyl makes 177 ft lbs torque and horse stock... 
Im just confused guys, with this motor. And with VWs numbers in general. I thought I was behind the curve with my old GMs in terms of power per liter, but these German motors ( not ALL of them ) seem to be hurtin worse.
Do we have any dynoes of a stock 2.5 5cyl?

When you run the stock boost out of them, they aren't off the comp map. And whats the BASE model GM 4 cylinder? How does that compare? Cuz thats what the 2.5 is, the base motor.


----------



## VWAudiRally (Feb 3, 2006)

*Re: Looking for technical data. (WhiteG60)*

A few things:
1. The use of turbochargers by European manufacturers is actually for a reason nobody has mentioned. In most countries in Europe, your car taxes are based on the displacement of your engine. The use of turbochargers allows for less displacement with similar power.
2. GM builds garbage. They haven't built a car worth buying since before the '70s fuel crisis, and without fleet sales, they would have ceased to exist long ago. And it's certainly no great feat to produce an engine with decent horsepower per liter if you don't bother with refinement. Quad 4 anyone?
3. I haven't had an opportunity to take an in-depth look at the 2.5, but if my intuition is correct, and history does indeed repeat itself, it's simply a 2.0L AEG with an extra cylinder and a 4-valve head. VAG did this with the 5-cylinder engines in the '80s and 90s Audis(and VW Quantum). The 2.2L JT and KX inline 5-cylinder engines found in the 4000 Quattro and most Coupe GTs was simply a 1.6L 8V I-4 with an extra cylinder. They even used the same rods and pistons.
4. The 82.5mm bore and 92.8mm stroke of the 2.5L goes all the way back to the 3A 2.0L 8V and 9A 16V engines of the late '80s-early '90s. It was used in the ABA engines, and in the AEG engines, and is used in(surprise, surprise), the 2.0T. The Audi V8s, the Lambo V10, and various other engines throughout the VAG range also use the 92.8mm stroke. Suffice it to say that it's not a coincidence that the 2.5L has that particular bore and stroke.


----------



## EdsGTI (Mar 9, 2003)

from what im told its all new (obv the bore and stroke are similar tho) ive drawn the head flange for the exhaust side its getting waterjetted this week, and im waiting on my intake manifold to make short runners from.....The ports on the exhaust gasket are larger then the 20v, even bigger then the 20v gasket port itself.. Im quite excited.


----------



## mujjuman (Jul 29, 2004)

*Re: (EdsGTI20VT)*

its a base engine, people.


----------



## EdsGTI (Mar 9, 2003)

*Re: (mujjuman)*

right and the obd1 2.0 8v engine made something like 70whp stock and with boost on stock block has been up and above 500whp. Very poor point.


----------



## Yevi (Dec 7, 2005)

*Re: (EdsGTI20VT)*

keep up the good work
i will be booked till the end of this month will my Car audio, pc project
view my signature
after that, i can do whatever to be helpful on this
Yev


----------



## mujjuman (Jul 29, 2004)

*Re: (EdsGTI20VT)*


_Quote, originally posted by *EdsGTI20VT* »_right and the obd1 2.0 8v engine made something like 70whp stock and with boost on stock block has been up and above 500whp. Very poor point.

what are you trying to say? that VW should have gave this "base engine" something like 500hp from the factory? 
its a base engine on a base model car... i'd expect it to be less powerful than it already is, stock.


----------



## Deception (Oct 5, 2000)

*Re: (mujjuman)*

Knock it all you want, but the 2.5 BGP is an AWESOME motor for a "base" model VW. I've driven all sorts of cars, and drive a 2004 S4 4.2, and the 2.5 is by no means weak. I commute in the 2.5 every working day with a smile on my face. 
About the CFM's, ask the guys at 034 EFI about how well the BGP head flows. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 
The 2.5 is a base engine, and for the average consumer, it is nothing more than that. But for the enthusiasts, the 2.5 definitely has a lot of potential and for the price of admission it can't be beat. So what if GM's 4-cylinder makes more horsepower? That doesn't mean anything. That's like comparing two people by the size of their member and disregarding everything else.


----------



## EdsGTI (Mar 9, 2003)

*Re: (mujjuman)*


_Quote, originally posted by *mujjuman* »_what are you trying to say? that VW should have gave this "base engine" something like 500hp from the factory? 
its a base engine on a base model car... i'd expect it to be less powerful than it already is, stock. 

what? i guess your not understanding me. It doenst have 500hp stock, but it has more potential in my eyes then the 2.0fsi does. I dont see a reason yet why this motor couldnt be one of the best that VW has produced in a long time. 1.8t was good, 8v's blew, 24v was good, 12v sucked balls, 16v was decent. The gasket ports are bigger then an aeb gaskets ports. You can keep being a hater, but i think this powerplant will be really nice to work with.


----------



## Deception (Oct 5, 2000)

*Re: (mujjuman)*

The 2.5 BGP is a "quasi new" engine that VW developed specifically for the North American market. They neeeded an engine that had "base model" in mind but with some zip -- the BGP was it. VAG had experience with building solid, reliable and torquey 5-cylinders (as proven over time with the five-banger Audis and the RS2), and they had plenty of parts to work with. The BGP was designed to be cheap to produce, made to run on 87 octane to satisfy base model buyers, be torquey for North American driving situations, reliable, and easy to maintain.
Nowhere have I read that the BGP is simply "an old 4-cylinder (AEB) with just an extra cylinder."
The head is not a direct part from the Gallardo, but it shares the same step-ladder, DOHC design and the BGP has variable valve timing on the intake side. The motor is heavily detuned at 150hp (by electronic and mechanical means I am sure), so as to not conflict with the 200hp 2.0T.
I've owned a 180hp AWP 1.8T GTI a few years ago, and I can easily say I prefer the BGP 2.5 over it, stock for stock. The BGP packs a bigger punch and snarls with a mean growl once you get on the throttle. The torque is there, and it's available at low rpm's and that kicks butt for your commute around the city.
Quoting from a C&D article:

_Quote »_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

Source: http://www.caranddriver.com/ro....html


----------



## the s is silent (Jul 17, 2004)

*Re: (Deception)*

The third part you have bolded in the C&D exerpt is what is confusing me in conjunction with your statement about it being a similar design, but not a lambo part. Have you verified that it isn't the same part number? I'm not doubting you know what you are talking about...I just need clarification once and for all about what we've got.
I agree, the BGP rocks, the low end is great.


----------



## VolksRacer2 (Aug 6, 2002)

*Re: (the s is silent)*

As for the "This car makes more power" argument...so what? VW has built massively over-engineered (and under powered) engines for decades for one reason...they'll last forever! You take this 150hp 5cyl. and drive the **** out of it for 200,000 miles and I'll bet it still runs fine (OK...as long as the electronics are kept up...I guess VW should look to Honda for some advice on that). However, you take one of those "other" engines that make SO MUCH MORE POWER...drive the **** out 'em and they won't last 100,000.
This is the biggest reason I've stuck with VW's for the last 20+ years...you just can't kill their engines (without REALLY abusing them anyhow). I'm just willing to put up with the other quircks to avoid having to swap engines every two years.


----------



## mujjuman (Jul 29, 2004)

*Re: (Deception)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Deception* »_*Knock it all you want, but the 2.5 BGP is an AWESOME motor for a "base" model VW.* I've driven all sorts of cars, and drive a 2004 S4 4.2, and the 2*.5 is by no means weak*. I commute in the 2.5 every working day with a smile on my face. 
About the CFM's, ask the guys at 034 EFI about how well the BGP head flows. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 
*The 2.5 is a base engine, and for the average consumer, it is nothing more than that. But for the enthusiasts, the 2.5 definitely has a lot of potential and for the price of admission it can't be beat. So what if GM's 4-cylinder makes more horsepower? That doesn't mean anything. That's like comparing two people by the size of their member and disregarding everything else*.

exactly. 

_Quote, originally posted by *EdsGTI20VT* »_
what? i guess your not understanding me. It doenst have 500hp stock, but it has more potential in my eyes then the 2.0fsi does. I dont see a reason yet why this motor couldnt be one of the best that VW has produced in a long time. 1.8t was good, 8v's blew, 24v was good, 12v sucked balls, 16v was decent. The gasket ports are bigger then an aeb gaskets ports. You can keep being a hater, but i think this powerplant will be really nice to work with.

most of this thread is about people bashing the new 2.5 engine, saying incorrect facts, etc... it might not be all in this thread, it is spread across several threads. they are comparing it to other 2.5liter engines, other 5cyl engines, and other 150hp engines, etc etc. however, they did NOT understand the fact that this is a STOCK, ENTRY level engine for a BASE car..... sure it prob has alot of potential, atleast you and i think so, but people shouldnt expect some crazy numbers etc out of the box. one of my comments stated: "its a base engine, people." then the next reply was yours, and now i am not sure whether it was toward me or not, but the last sentence was "Very poor point." and i automatically thought you meant that the fact that this is an entry level engine was a poor point for its "poor performance" (which i do not think so) blah blah whatever. yes, i did not understand you.
----
also, i have been trying to prove exactly what *Deception *is saying.


----------



## (In)Sanity (Aug 11, 2006)

*Re: (mujjuman)*

It's a base engine with balls. I drive my new 06 Rabbit to work every day and find this engine is a true pleasure. It has plenty of torque on the streets and on the highway it's easy to be doing 100+ without even noticing it. 
For a base engine it rocks. If they ever come out with a turbo for it then it will be just sick.


----------



## mujjuman (Jul 29, 2004)

*Re: ((In)Sanity)*

thats awesome


----------



## Dr. Bob (May 26, 1999)

*Re: (VolksRacer2)*


_Quote, originally posted by *VolksRacer2* »_As for the "This car makes more power" argument...so what? VW has built massively over-engineered (and under powered) engines for decades for one reason...they'll last forever! You take this 150hp 5cyl. and drive the **** out of it for 200,000 miles and I'll bet it still runs fine (OK...as long as the electronics are kept up...I guess VW should look to Honda for some advice on that). However, you take one of those "other" engines that make SO MUCH MORE POWER...drive the **** out 'em and they won't last 100,000.
This is the biggest reason I've stuck with VW's for the last 20+ years...you just can't kill their engines (without REALLY abusing them anyhow). I'm just willing to put up with the other quircks to avoid having to swap engines every two years.

You hit the nail on the head so to speak with this post on the 2.5 and that is exactly what the VW engine is all about, longevity. Here is an example for you all, I still have my 89 Jetta with several hundred thousand miles on the engine. The car is over 17 years old with the all the original components intact except the usual wear and tears items that are replaced over time. The engine still does not use any oil between changes and gets 32 mpg around town and 37 mpg on the highway. It is only 1.8 liter normally aspirated with the old GTI big 2 valve head configuration and puts out only 105 HP. It has a thirst for high test gas (Shell 93 V power runs best) but with this kind of mpg who cares what gas it uses. This is a simple bullet proof engine that you can change the oil in 20 minutes and do a tune up in less than 25 minutes. It is definitely over built and has proved it in lasting all these years. I use Castrol Syntec 50/50 blend on this engine with the stock Mann oil filters if any one should ask. Everything is stock which is why it has lasted all these years.
The car is now in the shop getting a badly needed new shift linkage as the old one just plumb wore out after 17 years of service and new CV boots on both sides since it is up on the lift. It is also time for changing out the timing and accessory belts as well which I will do after this repair on the shift linkage assembly. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## fat biker (Feb 16, 2001)

*Re: Looking for technical data. (T62)*

T62,
You seem to be hung up on numbers.
You could compare two different engines with similar PEAK power numbers and in the real world they would drive very differently.
For most of us, the real measure of how well an engine get's the car down the road is the torque curve. Me, I look for an engine that his similar peak power and peak torque numbers. IMO, that the 2.5/5 makes more torque than power is a good thing.
Stated another way, if you cannot get into trouble with 150 horsepower...
fat biker


----------



## mujjuman (Jul 29, 2004)

*Re: Looking for technical data. (fat biker)*


_Quote, originally posted by *fat biker* »_Stated another way, if you cannot get into trouble with 150 horsepower...


prob just me, but i can get in plently trouble with my 2.5









_Quote, originally posted by *fat biker* »_You could compare two different engines with similar PEAK power numbers and in the real world they would drive very differently.
For most of us, the real measure of how well an engine get's the car down the road is the torque curve. Me, I look for an engine that his similar peak power and peak torque numbers. IMO, that the 2.5/5 makes more torque than power is a good thing.

thats true. i love the torque this engine produces. i just wish it had a tad bit more down low like my VR6.... but it'll do








[EDIT]
PS
not engine related, but i hate my tiptronic's 1st gear... too short and wastes gas to get to speed








[EDITx2]
regarding my 1st gear, its good for spirited driving, but for normal everday driving IMO its too low
_Modified by mujjuman at 4:52 AM 9-15-2006_


_Modified by mujjuman at 3:24 AM 11-8-2006_


----------

