# 5800rpm



## vr6ofpain (Feb 5, 2004)

Apparently the MK5 Jetta (NA spec) has a 5800rpm redline with the 2.5 liter.
First off, why is it so low....is the motor not balanced....because it is a 5?
Also, isn't this motor the same as the "V5" sold in europe before, that was simply a VR6 missing a cylinder, so really a VR5?
If so, I find it strange that car mags called the VR6 motor a "V-6", but are now calling the same layout with one less cylinder an "I-5".


----------



## Vwsport.com (Mar 30, 2001)

*Re: 5800rpm (vr6ofpain)*

The engine is not the VR5, its a real inline 5 cyl engine.
Dan


----------



## Issam Abed (Feb 12, 2004)

*Re: 5800rpm (vr6ofpain)*


_Quote, originally posted by *vr6ofpain* »_
If so, I find it strange that car mags called the VR6 motor a "V-6", but are now calling the same layout with one less cylinder an "I-5".

Because the VR6 is a V6 motor (depends which way you look @ it) and the 5 cylinder found in the new Jetta is an I-5 engine.The 5800 Rev limit are just restrictions placed on the engine.
VW wants there premium engine to be the 2.0 FSi Turbo,not the Inline-5.If they theoretically gave the 2.5 Inline 5 half of the Gallardo power (250hp) then why the hell would you pay more for a 2.0FSi Turbo and have 50 hp less?
Whatever the case expect a turbo kit soon for the 2.5 Inline 5 to open that baby up.


----------



## racingvw92 (Apr 17, 2003)

*Re: 5800rpm (Wizard-of-OD)*

I-5
OOOOO
V5
O..O..O
..O..O
VR6
O..O..O
..O..O..O


----------



## vr6ofpain (Feb 5, 2004)

*Re: 5800rpm (racingvw92)*


_Quote, originally posted by *racingvw92* »_I-5
OOOOO
V5
O..O..O
..O..O
VR6
O..O..O
..O..O..O

Ya I know, I just though people were calling this an I5, but it was actually the VR5.
So apparently that motor got scrapped. The VR6 has had a long life. Apparently it's little brother didn't do so well.


----------



## vr6ofpain (Feb 5, 2004)

I was corrected by an authority. Apparently the stock redline was actually 6800rpm on the 12V VR6. So...


----------



## anonymous coward (Nov 14, 2004)

*Re: 5800rpm (vr6ofpain)*

Many here have said the 2.5 is a very smooth engine and I'm sure it could rev higher. What VW probably did was limit the redline through the engine control unit to keep horsepower down. They don't want this engine competing with the 2.0t.


----------



## VWinA (Oct 20, 1999)

*Re: 5800rpm (racingvw92)*

O.O.O----------V5
.O.O
O.O.O.O.O-----I-5
O.O.O----------VR6
.O.O.O
O.O.O.O.O.O-----I-6
Now that's better







(must show the advantage of the vr design!.)


----------



## Mcstiff (Feb 1, 2002)

*Dont forget*

O.O
.O.O
O.O
.O.O <-----------W8
O.O.O.O
<-------V8
O.O.O.O
O.O.O
.O.O.O
O.O.O
.O.O.O <---------W12
O.O.O.O.O.O
<--V12
O.O.O.O.O.O


----------



## spongebob_squarepants (Jul 4, 2001)

I understand the 2.5 I-5 has a raspy, odd-sounding exhaust note. I think this is true of anything with an odd number of cylinders. I know triple cyclinder motorcycles have a cool raspy sound, and 5 cyl Volvos sound unique as well.


----------



## TwinLiterofFury (Nov 13, 2004)

*Re: (spongebob_squarepants)*

honestly the I-5 runs very smooth and is a very nice motor indeed, a set of cam(s) chip injectors spark plugs + wires and im sure that puppy has some power to unleash


----------



## 84cgtturbo (Apr 3, 2003)

*Re: 5800rpm (anonymous coward)*


_Quote, originally posted by *anonymous coward* »_Many here have said the 2.5 is a very smooth engine and I'm sure it could rev higher. What VW probably did was limit the redline through the engine control unit to keep horsepower down. They don't want this engine competing with the 2.0t.

Very true.








Audi was making 170hp with the old 20V NA I5 almost 20 years ago. The 20VT I5 Audi used to make are known to regularly put down 350+hp with bolt ons. 
I realize the new VW unit shares little in common other than the bore & stroke sizes, but c'mon we know it can make more than 150 hp! 
Fortunately, I read in European car this month that Europsec believes they can free up 15hp with just an intake and exhaust swap. Neuspeed is reported as already working on a supercharger for the new I5 Jetta. That ought to bring up the hp #'s. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif Point being if it's supported by the aftermarket correctly, the I5 should be a very tuneable motor. 
J.


----------



## samcat67 (Feb 27, 2002)

*Re: 5800rpm (84cgtturbo)*

Unfortunately, a lot of the aftermarket HP gains will go towards offsetting the new Mk V's added bulk. According the R&T test of the Jetta 2.5, it gained 350 lbs.
So not only is it ugly, it's fat AND ugly . . . 
At least that's my opinion!
Taken a different way, the Mk V Jetta weighs about as much as an R32, but without the benefit of an AWD driveline and 240 HP from a 3.2l VR6.


----------



## Mcstiff (Feb 1, 2002)

*Re: 5800rpm (samcat67)*

How much did the GTI gain?


----------



## 84cgtturbo (Apr 3, 2003)

*Re: 5800rpm (samcat67)*


_Quote, originally posted by *samcat67* »_Unfortunately, a lot of the aftermarket HP gains will go towards offsetting the new Mk V's added bulk. According the R&T test of the Jetta 2.5, it gained 350 lbs.
So not only is it ugly, it's fat AND ugly . . . 
At least that's my opinion!
Taken a different way, the Mk V Jetta weighs about as much as an R32, but without the benefit of an AWD driveline and 240 HP from a 3.2l VR6.


Stylingwise, the new Jetta is definitely a departure from "classic" VW designs. Not really my favorite either, but I remember not to many years ago people balking about MK3s & MK4s looks too, and look how that worked out. So I'll adopt a wait and see attitude. Perhaps the aftermarket can address VWs styling "flaws", perhaps not. 
As to weight, c'mon. Yes, new cars seem to gain weight every generation. But comparing the Jetta to the R32? The Jetta is a 4 door sedan, the R32 a 2 door hatchback. Seems to me the R32 needs the 240hp it makes to make up for its weight and still be able to call it sporty. Whereas the Jetta is marketed as a pratical, semi-luxurious, people mover - not as the "Ultimate VW Golf in the US ever!". Seems to me like the R32 is kinda heavy if it weighs in as much as the new "larger" sedan. 
Love it / hate it/ somewhere in between - it's here to stay at least for the time being. 
Just my $0.02
J.


----------



## mj6234 (Jan 24, 2002)

*Re: 5800rpm (84cgtturbo)*

Holy poop. This thing is 4v/cylinder? I thought it was 2v. 2.5L 20v that makes 150hp? Seriously detuned.


----------



## DaFabolous2.0 (May 1, 2003)

*Re: 5800rpm (mj6234)*

Detuned due to fuel programming, car is programmed for economy... i can't wait to see what chips will be out there to push some nice power


----------



## GraffixWB (Aug 20, 2004)

these cars are gonna make some krazy power with turbo's!!!!


----------



## mk3jetta17 (May 31, 2004)

*Re: (vr6ofpain)*


_Quote, originally posted by *vr6ofpain* »_I was corrected by an authority. Apparently the stock redline was actually 6800rpm on the 12V VR6. So...

mine bounces at 6400rpms







....I really dont think it help to push it that high anyway


----------



## 4RingsRuleALL (Mar 25, 2004)

umm...i thought the W12 was actully two 15degree VR6's joined at the crank at 72 degrees...but i could be wrong..i jsut read alot...alot on that motor while studying for the sales job im in..so that measn the piston layout should be
o.o.o.o
.o.o.o.o
o.o.o.o
.o.o.o.o


----------



## 4RingsRuleALL (Mar 25, 2004)

oooppss..lol..cut off one row of 4..i have a W16 showing..lol


----------



## vr6ofpain (Feb 5, 2004)

*Re: (mk3jetta17)*


_Quote, originally posted by *mk3jetta17* »_
mine bounces at 6400rpms







....I really dont think it help to push it that high anyway









well according to them the fuel cut off is based on load, rpm, and i think something else, so the actual rpm it which fuel is cut off (or redline) can vary.


----------



## NoNonsense (Dec 10, 2003)

the main reason the red-line is so low is because the engine has a rather long stroke. If it had a shorter stroke, they could get a higher red-line, and more HP, but then the torque numbers will decrease.
It's the same concept with the old Audi I-5 ngines. They were 2.2 and 2.3 liter engines that could be stroked to 2.5, but you'd have to lower the redline...but the torque was fantastic for such a small engine.


----------



## Giancarlo (Aug 10, 2000)

*Re: (NoNonsense)*

So the redline will not be changed much with a chip? the engine will not be able to rev freely to 7000rpm? 
At another post some guys that are tunning are saying that they think the redline can be at 7000rpm's. 
We all know that this engine was supposed to come straight from the factory with 170hp, so it is detuned, we don't know how much though and we don't know if to get the 170hp all you have to do is move the redline.


----------



## NoNonsense (Dec 10, 2003)

*Re: (Giancarlo)*

you are correct, though. I would expect a 7K redline. I've seen a 2.3 stroked to 2.6 engine with softcut at 7400 and hardcut at 7600 RPM.
I think Javad will be able to get this motor up to 7K...afterall, his 2.3L redlines past 8K.
Right now, I'm building up a motor similar to his audi 2.3L, but with a smaller turbo than him.


----------



## Mcstiff (Feb 1, 2002)

*Re: (NoNonsense)*

Javad is working on the Jetta V that is on the Speed TV tuner show. He said the auto tranny forces a shift at ~5400 on the dyno. Thread about it is on motorgeek.com


----------



## Giancarlo (Aug 10, 2000)

*Re: (Mcstiff)*

Javad also stated that they have a manual car that they will be working on this, no time-frame but they will search for the redline of this engine.
So I guess we have to be a little more patient, and of course, the engine has been out a few months, so let's be patient and see what the aftermarket tuners do, the problem is I don't have any more nails to bite.


----------



## Mcstiff (Feb 1, 2002)

*Re: (Giancarlo)*

Something to think about is the Gallardo's 8000rpm redline. I do not know what its stroke is but they are related.


----------

