# FSI vs TSI Discussion.



## BAD SNaCKY (Jun 15, 2004)

so i just got the new 2.0T TSI engine.
what's the difference between this and TSI engine besides the timing belt and the release date of the car?
i don't even think APR, GIAC, or REVO have software for it yet.


----------



## mamock116 (Nov 8, 2004)

subscribed


----------



## BAD SNaCKY (Jun 15, 2004)

vortex doesn't even have the TSI forum yet :]


----------



## BAD SNaCKY (Jun 15, 2004)

all i can really gauge is that it's a supercharged AND turbo charged engine.
and that it's more environment friendly and gets better gas mileage than the FSI's.

Look Here


----------



## [email protected] USA (May 17, 2007)

*Re: (ShippensburgGTi)*

It is not the twincharged engine. There are engines in the VW lineup that are, however the one in your vehicle is simply just turbocharged (or single exhaust driven supercharged if you want to get techincal







)
The biggest differences are a chain instead of timing belt.
Balance shafts in the center of the block in either side.
Fuel pump driven off a 4 lobe exhaust cam
new engine management
and a few other things.
It is is a 2L 16V direct injection engine.
VW/Audi have been mixing up the fsi, tfsi and tsi badging lately, you can't simply just go by that any longer.


----------



## rudyr (Nov 29, 2001)

*Re: ([email protected])*

Does this engine still require a fuel pump upgrade for full 'stage 2' power levels, or is that limiting factor ongoing with this engine?


----------



## BAD SNaCKY (Jun 15, 2004)

*Re: ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_It is not the twincharged engine. There are engines in the VW lineup that are, however the one in your vehicle is simply just turbocharged (or single exhaust driven supercharged if you want to get techincal







)
The biggest differences are a chain instead of timing belt.
Balance shafts in the center of the block in either side.
Fuel pump driven off a 4 lobe exhaust cam
new engine management
and a few other things.
It is is a 2L 16V direct injection engine.
VW/Audi have been mixing up the fsi, tfsi and tsi badging lately, you can't simply just go by that any longer.

<3


----------



## BAD SNaCKY (Jun 15, 2004)

so as a result of all that hoopla, is there really a benefit besides not having to worry as much about the timing belt?
one thing i do notice is that this car shifts amazing.
can't even feel it. and it's speed/ride is deceiving; meaning it doesn't feel like you're cruising at 80-85.


----------



## BAD SNaCKY (Jun 15, 2004)

ttt


----------



## mamock116 (Nov 8, 2004)

hey chris is revo coming out with sofware for the TSI soon


----------



## [email protected] USA (May 17, 2007)

*Re: (mamock116)*


_Quote, originally posted by *mamock116* »_hey chris is revo coming out with sofware for the TSI soon

We will be coming out with it of course. At this time however I cannot discuss where we are with the process. I have some info that others here don't but even then they are keeping it limited so we don't accidentally say anything.


----------



## mamock116 (Nov 8, 2004)

cool deal


----------



## Aguilar (Jan 28, 2006)

*Re: ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_
We will be coming out with it of course. At this time however I cannot discuss where we are with the process. I have some info that others here don't but even then they are keeping it limited so we don't accidentally say anything.

The question is, do you still DON'T like this engine?


----------



## [email protected] USA (May 17, 2007)

*Re: (Aguilar)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Aguilar* »_
The question is, do you still DON'T like this engine?

I prefer my BPY.


----------



## BAD SNaCKY (Jun 15, 2004)

is this motor chipped going to be better than the FSI motor chipped?


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

*Re: (ShippensburgGTi)*


_Quote, originally posted by *ShippensburgGTi* »_is this motor chipped going to be better than the FSI motor chipped?

Somehow your question assumes VW makes engines for tuners and not for daily drivers.
Is it written somewhere that a newer engine MUST be more tunable ??


----------



## fastconti (Jul 25, 2007)

*Re: (GolfRS)*


_Quote, originally posted by *GolfRS* »_
Somehow your question assumes VW makes engines for tuners and not for daily drivers.
Is it written somewhere that a newer engine MUST be more tunable ??
















No, it doesn't assume that. He was just asking for information sake. Chill out. It's a perfectly legitimate question, and one that I'm sure a lot of us are wondering.


----------



## ruso (Jul 29, 2004)

*Re: (rudyr)*


_Quote, originally posted by *rudyr* »_Does this engine still require a fuel pump upgrade for full 'stage 2' power levels, or is that limiting factor ongoing with this engine?

From what I have been told from a reliable source, power levels from software may exceed current upgraded fuel pump levels on the new "TSI" engines without upgrading the fuel pump.


----------



## BAD SNaCKY (Jun 15, 2004)

*Re: (fastconti)*


_Quote, originally posted by *fastconti* »_
No, it doesn't assume that. He was just asking for information sake. Chill out. It's a perfectly legitimate question, and one that I'm sure a lot of us are wondering.


----------



## rudyr (Nov 29, 2001)

*Re: (ruso)*


_Quote, originally posted by *ruso* »_
From what I have been told from a reliable source, power levels from software may exceed current upgraded fuel pump levels on the new "TSI" engines without upgrading the fuel pump.

Interesting. The changes to the engine appeal to me (timing chain, not having to much with a fuel pump for basic level mods), if it carries into the MKVI chassis I'll definitely give it a look.


----------



## shortydub (Oct 13, 2004)

*Re: (rudyr)*

this will be the thread topic of the year. i don't know if that is good or bad


----------



## feels_road (Jan 27, 2005)

*Re: (ruso)*


_Quote, originally posted by *ruso* »_From what I have been told from a reliable source, power levels from software may exceed current upgraded fuel pump levels on the new "TSI" engines without upgrading the fuel pump.

While a bit convoluted, if I understand your statement correctly, I agree. Previous shortcomings were not only the total fuel delivery, but also the timing problems due to the cam mismatch. With the new set-up, as far as I understand, the frequency of the pump "spikes" matches the engine fueling requirements, and there are no "holes". http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## feels_road (Jan 27, 2005)

*Re: (rudyr)*


_Quote, originally posted by *rudyr* »_ if it carries into the MKVI chassis I'll definitely give it a look.

Of course the changes will carry over. The only reason the changes don't synchronize with the MkVI release is that that one was delayed by a bit over half a year, as compared to the relatively uninterrupted engine development.


----------



## Lblizzie (May 8, 2008)

The new CCTA/TSI engine is said to be able to handle tuning from just a chip at ~270hp.
Read these threads, theres a bunch of usefull information in them.
http://www.golfmkv.com/forums/...50330
http://www.golfmkv.com/forums/...49803


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

*Re: (LBVdubin)*


_Quote, originally posted by *LBVdubin* »_The new CCTA/TSI engine is said to be able to handle tuning from just a chip at ~270hp.


Said by WHO ?
There isn't even software for it yet.How on earth do you even set a power point for it ??















Hell lets see how this comes back to me...The new motor can make 300 BHP with just an intake !!!
Hows that...


----------



## [email protected] USA (May 17, 2007)

*Re: (LBVdubin)*


_Quote, originally posted by *LBVdubin* »_The new CCTA/TSI engine is said to be able to handle tuning from just a chip at ~270hp.



A link to a quote with no source is not very reliable.


----------



## Lblizzie (May 8, 2008)

Well If you had read through the link you would have found this. This is where I am basing my information from

http://forums.vwvortex.com/zer...19930

_Quote »_
Quote:
Originally Posted by meerbusch 
I'm new in this forum and kind of accidently stumbled over this post. BPY engine vs CCTA engine is a very clear thing: The CCTA engine is a complete new design and improves in many areas where the old engine was a compromise. (Note: I'm german and called up a friend in germany who happened to be an Audi Master mechanic. He forwarded me a pdf document ; this one is actually a public document).
balance shafts: BPY has a add-on solution (expensive) vs build-in in CCTA. 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 build 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 structurell support. But all oil and oil return paths , blow-by paths and chain housing was 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 standart build. In the paper they also talked about the manufacturing process of precision pouring and casting and there they are about a factor of 2x better than on the old engine. Their process window is much much tighter now and more reliable. That bgood for process variation.
So knowing what is in the paper, and neglecting the modding aspect of the older BPY engine for the moment, the CCTA 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.
(Audi will have some mods that VW engines won't get like variable valve lifting)
Hope that helped some people 




_Modified by LBVdubin at 12:43 PM 6-13-2008_


----------



## [email protected] USA (May 17, 2007)

*Re: (LBVdubin)*


_Quote, originally posted by *LBVdubin* »_Well If you had read through the link you would have found this. This is where I am basing my information from


I actually read that entire thread and I only skimmed that post once I got to:


_Quote »_ (Note: I'm german and called up a friend in germany who happened to be an Audi Master mechanic. He forwarded me a pdf document ; this one is actually a public document).

so I didn't realize that was where it was sourced from. But that makes it even less credible since Audi doesn't release information like that. Especially not to a dealer tech since they have no use for it. I am making this statement as a former VW and Audi tech.
A statement like its good for 270hp could simply just mean they plan to use it in a car like the S3 that with a larger turbo, intercooler and 100 other changes could make 270hp. It does not mean the engine sitting in your car its current form is necessarily capable of that.


----------



## Lblizzie (May 8, 2008)

true I was just excited to hear that my engine could put down 270hp whether it was true or not I don't know but I'd like to think it is.


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 14, 2005)

*Re: (ShippensburgGTi)*


_Quote, originally posted by *ShippensburgGTi* »_is this motor chipped going to be better than the FSI motor chipped?

Yes, it appears that the flow capabilities of the new TSI Rail Pump are much higher than the previous FSI pump.
The turbocharger will be able to be maximized by a ECU Upgrade without fear of running short of fuel. This is preliminary and not proven yet but that's what the math says.


----------



## Lblizzie (May 8, 2008)

*Re: ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_
Yes, it appears that the flow capabilities of the new TSI Rail Pump are much higher than the previous FSI pump.
The turbocharger will be able to be maximized by a ECU Upgrade without fear of running short of fuel. This is preliminary and not proven yet but that's what the math says.

See I'm not the only crazy one here saying that it is posssible that the new engine might put down more HP!


----------



## [email protected] USA (May 17, 2007)

*Re: (LBVdubin)*


_Quote, originally posted by *LBVdubin* »_
See I'm not the only crazy one here saying that it is posssible that the new engine might put down more HP!

Peak hp was not limited by the fuel pump on the previous versions in a stock turbo application. Some torque yes, but not peak hp.


----------



## Damoncaravanman (Aug 11, 2008)

*Re: ([email protected])*

OK, I tried to use the launch control today and nothing happened. My Jetta is a 2009 Wolfsburg with the 2.0 T and the DSG tranny. The instructions say to start it, and turn off the ESP and then put into tiptronic mode or sport mode. When I go to turn off the ESP, the light does not stay on, it just flashes. I was told the light is suppose to stay on if the system is turned off to be able to use the launch control. I thought that all of the 2.0 T with DSG had the launch control program???? Any suggestions?


----------



## JaxACR (Dec 6, 2007)

*Re: (Damoncaravanman)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Damoncaravanman* »_I thought that all of the 2.0 T with DSG had the launch control program????

Not exactly. In North America, the only cars that came with LC were the GTI and GLI. The Jetta and Wolfy, Eos, Audi A3 and TT did not come with LC. Even some years of the GTI did not have it, but that has been addressed by a TSB.


----------



## ihasmkv (May 4, 2008)

*Re: (Damoncaravanman)*

Was your transmission fully warmed up? Or from a cold start?


----------



## Damoncaravanman (Aug 11, 2008)

*Re: (ihasmkv)*

It was fully warmed up. My ESC light flashes when you turn it off, it does not stay constantly lit like the one in the GLI.


----------



## A3_yuppie (Jun 5, 2006)

*Re: ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_
Yes, it appears that the flow capabilities of the new TSI Rail Pump are much higher than the previous FSI pump.
The turbocharger will be able to be maximized by a ECU Upgrade without fear of running short of fuel. This is preliminary and not proven yet but that's what the math says.

The next question, of course, is whether the newer CCTA pump and associated hardware can be retrofitted into a previous generation BPY motor at lesser cost than the APR fuel pump.
Also, perhaps I am misreading Arin's graphs...
http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=4004390
But, at least at this early stage of CCTA development, the improvement over BPY does not seem to be significant yet.


_Modified by A3_yuppie at 9:56 AM 9-4-2008_


----------



## Noside (Aug 20, 2008)

*Re: (A3_yuppie)*


_Quote, originally posted by *A3_yuppie* »_
The next question, of course, is whether the newer CCTA pump and associated hardware can be retrofitted into a previous generation BPY motor at lesser cost than the APR fuel pump.
But, at least at this early stage of CCTA development, the improvement over BPY does not seem to be significant yet.



http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif
Companies don't make revisions to improve possible power output on a commuter car. They do it for reliability and in this case cleaner emmisions


----------



## VWLS-4LIF (Jul 19, 2006)

*Re: (Noside)*

Is this right?
New Audi= TFSI (211hp)
New GTI/GLI= TSI (200hp) 
06-07 GTI/GLI= FSI (197hp)


----------



## shipo (Jan 3, 2006)

*Re: (VWLS-4LIF)*


_Quote, originally posted by *VWLS-4LIF* »_Is this right?
New Audi= TFSI (211hp)
New GTI/GLI= TSI (200hp) 
06-07 GTI/GLI= FSI (197hp)
















No, not correct.
2008 and older Audis with longitudinally mounted 2.0T engines: 200HP (old engine)
2009 and newer Audis with longitudinally mounted 2.0T engines: 211HP (new engine with "valve lift")
2008.5 and older Audis with transverse mounted 2.0T engines: 200HP (old engine)
2008.5 and 2009 Audis with transverse mounted 2.0T engines: 200HP (new engine without "valve lift")
2008.5 and older VWs with transverse mounted 2.0T engines: 200HP (old engine with FSI on the engine cover)
2008.5 and 2009 VWs with transverse mounted 2.0T engines: 200HP (new engine without "valve lift" and with TSI on the engine cover)
Clear as mud?








Edit: There are fairly credible rumors that the 2010 VWs and Audis with transverse 2.0T engines will get the Valve Lift engines as well.


_Modified by shipo at 9:34 AM 9-23-2008_


----------



## FuN:TuRBO (Sep 14, 2007)

Can someone explain valve lift please?


----------



## shipo (Jan 3, 2006)

*Re: (FuN:TuRBO)*

It's Audi's name for their new trick valve train that allows them to dynamically adjust the lift and duration of the valves. That type of thing allows an engine to develop more torque when acceleration is called for by the driver's foot, and better mileage when not.


----------



## A3_yuppie (Jun 5, 2006)

*Re: (FuN:TuRBO)*


_Quote, originally posted by *FuN:TuRBO* »_Can someone explain valve lift please?

Like VTEC. [cue Honda bashers jumping in ...]


----------



## theAntiRiced (May 7, 2005)

*FV-QR*

My TSI will be Unitronic chipped as soon as their programming is available. I've actually already paid for it because of the $100 off H2O special. It's expected around mid October.


----------



## VdubVSHonda (May 4, 2008)

*Re: (A3_yuppie)*


_Quote, originally posted by *A3_yuppie* »_
Like VTEC. [cue Honda bashers jumping in ...]

haha I drive a Honda with a vtec engine and the performance ouputs are pretty good... i swapped out my non-vtec engine for a vtec one and the difference is amazing... it's like having a baby turbo in your engine







... but anyways I am still dumb founded by the whole difference of engines from what I understand there is no timing belt, now its a chain, it has a vtec/vvtli compared engine, and it is both supercharged and turbocharged on a 1.4L motor... please correct me if I'm wrong I'm trying to get to the bottom of this before I buy my new GTI... good thing I have til spring







... props to VW for creating a new engine though... keeps us enthusiasts guessing and on our toes 
http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## blackvento36 (Mar 17, 2003)

*Re: (VdubVSHonda)*


_Quote, originally posted by *VdubVSHonda* »_......... it is both supercharged and turbocharged on a 1.4L motor... please correct me if I'm wrong I'm trying to get to the bottom of this before I buy my new GTI... good thing I have til spring







... props to VW for creating a new engine though... keeps us enthusiasts guessing and on our toes 
http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 
Nah, you're getting confused by the name again, this was cleared up in the first post. The 1.4 "twincharged" TSI is not available in the US. The 2.0 TSI/TFSI is similar to 2.0t FSI engine, just a revised design, it's a turbocharged 2.0l 16v engine with direct injection.


----------



## Issam Abed (Feb 12, 2004)

*Re: ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_
Balance shafts in the center of the block in either side.

Not really "balance shafts" per say.More to help with crankcase ventalation more than anything.








The only component I like of the new motor is the cylinder head.Quite possibly the BEST cylinder head that VAG has ever put into production.Valve cover is practically a camshaft girdle.
I will post images soon enough.Everything else is a complete waste of time IMHO.This engine was designed around being maintainence friendly rather than performance friendly.
Water pump can be changed in less than 20 mins by the looks of it and oil filter is an easy 10 min job @ the local jiffy lube.
1 plus is the flanges for both the intake and turbo manifold are the exact same between the previous FSI and this model so long term the transplant specialist *WILL* be very happy.


----------



## VdubVSHonda (May 4, 2008)

*Re: (blackvento36)*

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


----------



## dspl1236 (May 30, 2007)

*Re: (VdubVSHonda)*

i understand now


----------



## dmorrow (Jun 9, 2000)

*Re: (Issam Abed)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Issam Abed* »_
This engine was designed around being maintainence friendly rather than performance friendly.

Please explain, I haven't heard anything that says it isn't as "performance friendly" as the last version. 
If everything is essentially the same for the owner that wants to make simple mods and the maintenance and repair will be lower, I will be happy to move on. I would be happy to not have to worry about cam follower wear, quick and cheap replacement of parts, not having to worry about the timing belt (just paid $1400). And yes you may have to do something with the timing chain eventually but it is normally much farther out in miles than I will keep the car and normally at that point you would be going on your second belt change anyway.
We really don't know what the engine will be like with 100k on it but I haven't read anything that proves it will be worse. Maybe they have even come up with something to minimize the valve deposits.


----------



## Issam Abed (Feb 12, 2004)

*Re: (dmorrow)*


_Quote, originally posted by *dmorrow* »_
Please explain, I haven't heard anything that says it isn't as "performance friendly" as the last version. 

It is a heavier more complex motor.
See my previous thread for further explanations or continue the discussion in that thread.


----------

