# 2.5 5 cylinder vs ??



## jaja123 (Jan 17, 2011)

Wish vw would have put more hp in these 2.5's. Direct injection would help. Intake manifold could use some work as well. Car still feels slow at times with no seats, spare, foam, tools, carbonio intake, exhaust mount, premium fuel and 5sp. Anyway ive raced a couple of friends. First time I raced my friends 09 wrx lol I launched it at 4k and he did not launch to be fair. believe it or not I actually was dead even until his turbo kicked in but if he did a launch then he would rape me. Then he starts to pull of course about 1 car length when I shifted into second with a good chirp. By about 85 he has 2.5-3 lengths. Quite surprised how well I went against a wrx with cat back. Now he has a tune and intake and pulls 4 lengths. Another friend has an 97 integra ls manual with i,h,e only raced him from a roll. Pulled 2.5 lengths from him from 50-100. Another friend has a 2000 bmw 323 auto pulled on him hard bout 4 lengths.


----------



## shiva916 (Apr 18, 2011)

I'm kind of  You complain about the car being slow but then you post 2 "races" where you are pulling on cars with similar specs to your golf?
Are you really expecting a golf to hang with or beat a WRX? find a base impreza to run it against and then you'll feel better. You can't expect a golf with 170hp to be competitive with a wrx (you didn't say what year but the 09+ come with 265hp stock) so I'm assuming it's an older 224hp motor. 
While I agree that the base 2.5L is no speed demon it is what it is. I don't think it's a slug either. Compared to other vehicles in it's class it's probably one of the quicker options compared to civic, corolla's etc. While I think that VW has the tech to get the same if not better specs out of a smaller more fuel efficient motor I kind of like the uniqueness of the 5cyl. A lot of people give a funny look when they ask what kind of motor it has.


----------



## rags2riches (Jan 2, 2010)

Well I hope you guys aren't too found of the five pot cause I heard a NA 1.8 FSI is in the works for the MKVII.


----------



## shiva916 (Apr 18, 2011)

I would not be surprised at all if they have a modern 4cyl as the base engine soon. Let's face it. the 2.5 isn't going to attract many people who are looking for EPA gas mileage numbers (although TDI does) and the old 2.slow isn't the wave of the future. All makes seem to be fixated on the 40mpg # lately for a gas engine. 

I'm surprised they didn't raise the output of this engine since they are using it in the passat (not so much trickle down to the jetta/golf because lets face it, if the 2.0T puts out 200, they won't have this engine putting out any more than 170), as they should be able to squeeze out a few more ponies without hurting fuel consumption that much. Although back a few years BMW was getting


----------



## jaja123 (Jan 17, 2011)

no it is a 09 wrx hatch bought brand new in summer 09 I was with him when he got it. 08's have a slight color change in rims and a much smaller spoiler. He is my best friend and we both respect each others cars. I also said he got me by 3 lengths so no I did not say I beat him. 3 lengths is a lot. If we went longer he would have pulled more. If you know the powerband of a wrx you would understand why I would hang with him momentarily and he did NOT launch and I did. Turbo's before they spool actually have less power than the same engine na. That means since he did NOT launch he was out of his powerband and possibly bogged down. Im also 300 pounds less than his car and he had a passenger. Im not completely bone stock either. Ive driven his car it is not quick under 3k infact he says my car is quicker under 3k. This aint a gti turbo that spools quickly. Not until after 3k does it really go. Second of all I shift quicker than he does Ive shifted quick enough to chirp 3rd but only once and it wears synchos faster. And yes the 2.5 feels slow as ive come from a 3.5 v6 altima a large reason why I got a golf was the low price, nice interior and the unique sound the engine gives especially with an exhaust. 

For gti fans
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHNu-InuCAY&feature=related
The turbo spools quicker on a gti thats why he got the jump. and gti's as you all know are underrated power wise closer to 200 whp than 200 crank


----------



## eatrach (May 13, 2004)

shiva916 said:


> BTW, the new 1.8TFSI looks nice
> http://www.volkswagengroupamerica.com/newsroom/2011/08/04_audi_new_1-8_tfsi.htm


This engine is targeted for the A5 family, and I wouldn't want to purchase it. It is a piece of crap motor that produce less horsepower and less torque than the current 2.0T on the current A5. 

VW did a mistake switching to 1.8T on the passat, which made the car sloooowwwww; provided that that motor was a 5 valves/4 cylinder motor. 

I would rather have a bigger displacement that produce more horsepower and torque. 

The only rationing, I can attain, behind this change is fuel economy. I think most car manufacturers trying to improve on their fuel economy, when in fact most Carbon footprints are produced by manufacturing plants and not automobiles.

OP, if you want a race car performance, then get an AUDI TTS or TTRS. I can no longer see the rationing behind "dumping all the money I earn" on a car, when in fact I can save it and get a true sport car; such as TTS, TTRS. 

Do the math, and you'll see I am right


----------



## jaja123 (Jan 17, 2011)

an na 1.8 wouldnt make very much probaly 150 max. The new 1.8 TFSI is turbo making 170 but a nice 236 tq


----------



## TylerO28 (Jul 7, 2008)

You belong on golf mkv.com


----------



## LampyB (Apr 2, 2007)

i think the 2.5l is a very good engine, and it is not meant to be a fast car. it's meant to have the ability to get up and go quickly...a bit of zip for driving around the city. you also have to take into consideration that it's probably the most reliable engine VW has made over the past 10+ years, possibly ever. 

and the fact that you can pull on a WRX below the 3K rpm mark is simply because you have an NA car, and his has turbo lag. my 2.0T GLI is even really bad below the 3K mark, as were the last two 1.8T Audi's. 

what i don't like about the car is the fact that it's so small and still gets horrible city mileage. highway is great if i cruise at about 68 mph, but city i'm at about 21 mpg's overall. i think its nuts that VW created an economical engine with a low price point that ends up being blown away in gas costs by the more expensive turbo's. i get 32-34 mpg's in the 2.0T highway while cruising, and about 28 in the city. the 2.5l can't even compete in this category...


----------



## DannyLo (Aug 2, 2006)

jaja123 said:


> an na 1.8 wouldnt make very much probaly 150 max. The new 1.8 TFSI is turbo making 170 but a nice 236 tq


Unless it flows and revs like Toyota's 2ZZ 1.8 liter N/A motor from the Celica making 100hp/liter, but i'm doubtful.


----------



## thygreyt (Jun 7, 2009)

the 2.5 is a great engine.

once you start modding it, you can discover how quick it can become.

its unique... cause asides from volvo, you dont see many 5 cyl engines out there... also, its a HUGE engine...! 2.5L is sorta big for a commercial-non-performance sedan.

and with me, and proper driving, i squeeze about 26mpg in the city and 28 on hwy (if going fast) or +30 if going slow.


----------



## Jay-Bee (Sep 22, 2007)

shiva916 said:


> I would not be surprised at all if they have a modern 4cyl as the base engine soon.


Modern no, but the 2.0 8 valve is back in the MK6 Jetta for a while now.

2.5 = 4 cyl power, 6 cylinder gas mileage :laugh:


----------



## TylerO28 (Jul 7, 2008)

The 2.5 may not be the most powerful motor nor is it the beloved 2.0t

YET! This is going to be the next vr no doubt...honestly guys, we are going to be the pioneers of the motor that everyone will end up wanting...

Vw designed this motor to have great mid range...and do you know why? They put the plastic intake mani on this car, because as much as the 2.0t guys can't believe it, the rabbit would have made 200 WHEEL horses... that is more than a factory gti all day long...all of the sudden their"performance" hot hatch would have been beaten up on by the"lowly" rabbit...
Power of a n/a 4 cylinder/torque of a 6 cylinder!

There is so much un tapped potential with this little sewing machine...

With little more than a turbo, intake mani and pro.maf this motor is capable of 400hp all day... Atwood told me this. this is just the tip of the iceberg so far!
P.S. You don't want direct injection...its just a mess waiting to happen... Talk to the 2.0t guys they are having tons of oil sludge!


----------



## thygreyt (Jun 7, 2009)

5 cyl? cant be compared.


----------



## vwluger22 (Jan 25, 2005)

I think of it this way compare our 5cyl to the 16 valve where they had to detune it so it wouldn't make as much power as the vr6 when they came out. But with a few mods on the 16v it can make as much power as the vr6. I would also have to agree that the 2.5 will be the new desired vr6.


----------



## tay272 (Aug 22, 2007)

I agree with all the above. Im gonna have a very hard time parting with this car and engine when the time comes (if it ever comes ha).


----------



## jaja123 (Jan 17, 2011)

dam I wish I had your intake manifold they make so much power with a tune. Im sure you take stock gti's and civic si's. I heard it moves the powerband way up though. I probably would not call my car slow if I got that lol.


----------



## tay272 (Aug 22, 2007)

Deffinately pushes the powerband up by alot but thats where Id like it to be. That way you can rev out each gear all the way and know that the engine is still making power. Ive raced an Si once that was modded and he did pull on me but thats because I didnt drop down another gear like I shoulda and I had really bald tires that werent v-rated so I didnt wanna push it too far n blow one. It was on the highway from about 80 on up to 120 but I started in 4th. After that he pulled past me but I wasnt tryin after that. Im sure Ill see him again sometime soon and give him a better race, as for a Gti I can pull on those pretty easily. My bro has one and we raced once and he was havin trouble keepin up with me.


----------



## rags2riches (Jan 2, 2010)

tay272 said:


> Deffinately pushes the powerband up by alot but thats where Id like it to be. That way you can rev out each gear all the way and know that the engine is still making power. Ive raced an Si once that was modded and he did pull on me but thats because I didnt drop down another gear like I shoulda and I had really bald tires that werent v-rated so I didnt wanna push it too far n blow one. It was on the highway from about 80 on up to 120 but I started in 4th. After that he pulled past me but I wasnt tryin after that. Im sure Ill see him again sometime soon and give him a better race, as for a Gti I can pull on those pretty easily. My bro has one and we raced once and he was havin trouble keepin up with me.


Yeah, I'd say you need to find that Si again. If you have no trouble pulling on a GTI than you should have even less pulling on the Si. GTI>Si ergo modded Rabbit>Si.


----------



## tay272 (Aug 22, 2007)

Oh dont worry I plan too haha. I hate being beat by any Honda so Im alittle salty over that loss. He lives around my town somewhere cause Ive seen his car a few times after that so Im sure well cross paths again sometime. This time will be different :laugh:


----------



## MKVrabbit07 (Apr 7, 2011)

opcorn: 
wonder how long till this thread gets locked.


----------



## tay272 (Aug 22, 2007)

Umm...why exactly?


----------



## MKVrabbit07 (Apr 7, 2011)

i saw the mention of street racing.


----------



## TylerO28 (Jul 7, 2008)

Again I said this belongs over at golf mkv forums


----------



## VR6DPLMT. (Mar 1, 2003)

Honda in 1997 with the B18c1 was able to make 170hp in their GSR's. In 2005(or was it 2006)when the MarkV's came out the 2.5 I5 made 150 and then a whopping 170 with ****ty gear ratios. The weight of the car also made it kind of crappy too. The 2.5 I5 like most base VW engines was not made to be fast it was made for economical purposes. Now if VW could do something like Honda used to be able to do(like with the B18c5)and make a 1.8L 16v motor that makes 200hp that would be cool as a base model, but as we all know VW will never do that. Maybe VW could make a 2.0L 16v N/A engine that makes like 210hp I doubt they'd ever do it. The point I'm trying to make is if Honda could make that kind of power in 1997 or 1998(not too sure of the dates)when the B18c5 came out why can't VW make more power with their 2.5 I5 in 2011? You'd think that technology would catch up and even the score a bit. 

The responses of course will be well the 2.5 has more torque. The 2.5L head doesn't flow as well as the B18c5's head. Okay well then why does it take VW a 2.5L 20v I5 to make 170hp when it only took Honda a mere(B18c1)1.8L 16v I4 N/A engine to make 170hp? You'd think that with an extra piston, 4 more valves and .7 liters more displacement the engine could come up with a bit more hp. I know it has more torque of course but you'd think it would have at least 190 or 200hp. 

Today Honda kind of sucks for performance but at least in the past with the B,F,H, and K series engines they have shown that they can make damn good engines with low displacement. Unless the VW has a turbo they don't really make good power at all relative to the size of their engines. So in concluding(as I've jumped around a bit to make examples)your 2.5l I5 is a good engine for practical economic purposes. I would be happy to have a Golf or Jetta that has the 2.5 I5 in it but I wouldn't mod b/c even modded there are still a lot of stock cars out there that can beat it hands down.(unless the 2.5L has been converted to F/I which makes it a whole different ball game). If you want a faster car get a faster car.


----------



## TylerO28 (Jul 7, 2008)

The 2.5 head has little to improve on when it comes to flow...
The cork in the motor is the intake manifold... vw didn't want to out sell the gti by making the base model motor have more power...its not all about power! Companies also factor valve train noise, usable power and emissions into production motors...
In order to use that power honda's have you need to rev them out to high heaven! Its much harder to make that power down below 5 grand than you think


----------



## jaja123 (Jan 17, 2011)

Also the ability to rev very high nets more hp for the honda. But as was said before there is not as much usable power down low and its more linear with a broader torque curve and the 2.5 does have the best flowing head out of vag. Yes the stock manifold is biased for low end power but with a aftermarket intake manifold as you all know push 200+whp with the correct tune but then it runs more like a honda lol as all the power is pushed way up the band. And whats wrong with the gear ratios? they are identical to my friends 2009 wrx and most other 5speeds. I also took my car to a weight scale the weight was 2700lbs with removed rear seats, spare, tools, etc. friends wrx weighed in at 3180. friends 97 integra 2640(scale only in multiples of 20) with all of us out of the car. And yes stock 2.5's with the weight to pull is pretty average. But in my car I pull upper 6's to 60 with an aggressive launch so it goes decently. I can never get enough of the beautiful sound it makes either. and Vw will never make a 2.0 na with 210 that would take a lot of work. Vw's current 2.0 only makes 150 hp.


----------



## LampyB (Apr 2, 2007)

as far as the comment above referencing VW's 'economical' approach to this engine, i think it's total BS that the manuals are 5spd and not 6spd like the automatics. as far as economical, the manual tranny 2.5's certainly lack in this department because our mileage sucks. (can you tell i'm a little bit bitter about this) :screwy:


----------



## tay272 (Aug 22, 2007)

VR6DPLMT. said:


> I would be happy to have a Golf or Jetta that has the 2.5 I5 in it but I wouldn't mod b/c even modded there are still a lot of stock cars out there that can beat it hands down.(unless the 2.5L has been converted to F/I which makes it a whole different ball game). If you want a faster car get a faster car.


 Yes you got some good points and I wish the engine did have the hp numbers that it should of if VW would of uncorked it alittle more. Most of those reasons have already been covered above. Still, I dont need to buy a faster car. I built a faster car and there really isnt that many stock cars out there that can beat it at the moment unless of course they are turbo or a large V6 or V8. I live by the saying "built not bought". I dont think you understand what kinda parts are available for this engine and how much power they can add. My car basically makes almost the same power that it would if it had a turbo on it. I was happy with the car when I got it and even more happy with it now. Its uber reliable and a stout motor with a sound that cant be rivaled by many other motors. Talking about VW motors now, when the 2.8 vr6 came out it was a quick, reliable motor and still is today. They did a pretty good job on beating out mostly all the competition back in the early 90s by making only a 12v 2.8L V6 make 178hp or 190hp for the Euro 2.9 version. Thats alot of power for such a small V6 in my opinion and should be noted. In comparison, the Pontiac Grand Am needed a 3.4 or 3.6 to make around the same power, which is pretty pathetic. Oh an fyi, VW is planning on making a 1.8 FSI motor for the next generation cars that will most likely make 170hp or more and not need to be reved to 8k to make power.


----------



## 2pt5_20v_pwr (Jul 19, 2011)

b18c1 was able to make 170hp because it had 0tq. Anyone can make any motor near 100hp/liter but your going to sacrifice daily drivability.


----------



## VR6DPLMT. (Mar 1, 2003)

Yeah I read about that new 1.8L coming out next year that should be interesting. Is it F/I or N/A? The new 1.8L will be something to keep an eye on. I hope we get a 2.0 16v a few years after the new 1.8L FSI. I hope the new 1.8L FSI is as fun of an engine as the old 1.8L's and 2.0L 16v's. With the FSI I think they are going to be able to get more torque out of it too. I hope it is N/A. 

As for the GSR and lack of torque someone mentioned look at it this way the 8v 2.Slow had less torque than the B18c1 and people still drive those. The gearing on the B18c1 was also a bit shorter in order to get into the power band quicker. Like when I put my 3.94 R&P on my VR6 it felt so much quicker b/c the power came on quicker too.


----------



## tay272 (Aug 22, 2007)

Yeah Im pretty sure its gonna be an NA engine from what Ive read. Should be interesting and a way better 4 cyl NA motor then the 2.0 8v.


----------



## halbwissen (Jul 20, 2001)

_B18C1 with bolt-ons_.. 
Stock B18C1 long block 
Hondata Intake Manifold Gasket 
PerformerX Intake Manifold 
Stock GS-R Throttle Body 
3" Short Ram Intake With K&N Cone Filter 
F1Spec Header (4-2-1 long tube header with 2.5" collector) 
Non-highflow aftermarket cat 
BuddyClub ProSpec Cat Back Exhaust (2.5" mandrel bent) 













_Tay's 2.5l with bolt-ons (check me on the mod list if I got it wrong)_.. 
Cold air intake 
HEP manifold 
UM tune 
Test pipe 
Full exhaust 












I understand we're comparing our higher displacement, additional cylinder engine to Honda's little 4-pot, but the 2.5 still makes close to the same amount of power per liter. 

Comparing these two dyno graphs, the number shake down like this: 

Honda ~86 hp/liter 
Honda ~67 lb-ft/liter 

VW ~77 hp/liter 
VW ~60 lb-ft/liter 

According to C2, they made 205whp on their 2.5l (CAI, SRI, tune, headers, exhaust). The mods on that car would matchup exactly with this B18C1's modifications. 
C2's 2.5l would make ~82hp/liter, even closer to the Honda. 

I choose to compared two modified motors because that's what most of us will be driving. Comparing stock is pointless for us enthusiasts. 

Where the Honda will really start to destroy the 2.5l is with the addition of cams. And actually, it was a little more difficult then I thought finding a B18C1 dyno of a car with bolt-ons sans cams. 

Anyway, by no means am I trying to start a Honda/VW war. There's several Hondas I actually like and I throughly enjoy how the "engine philosophies" differ from the Germans and Japanese. I thought some semi-scientific data needed to be brought to the table to more accurately compare these two engines. 

Bottom line is, the Honda DOES make more horsepower and torque per liter then the VW, but the B18C1 was not Honda's base motor, unlike like the 2.5l for VW. In addition, even though the Honda makes more torque per liter, I think both sides would agree, the VW does perform much better below 5,000rpm. It should too- the VW is heavier, which is a different argument altogether.


----------



## tay272 (Aug 22, 2007)

You were close on the mods. I actually only had my testpipe on, other then the mani and tune. The intake was pretty much a filter bolted straight to the MAF because that was the only way it would fit in the engine bay. Also, my front tires were completely bald, which didnt help get all the power to the wheels. Not an ideal performance situation but still wasnt a bad dyno considering the situation. As of now, I had a custom made CAI, modified EJ catback, BSH motor and trans mount, and an 034 Motorsport Density line solid Dogbone core. Id like to hit up the dyno again now that I have new tires on the car and see what it puts out this time. Im not trying to start a Vw/Honda argument either, Im just biased towards Vws cause I love them and have never really thought much of and Hondas. Just my opinion tho and noone has to agree with that.


----------



## BlackRabbit2point5 (Sep 6, 2007)

TylerO28 said:


> The 2.5 may not be the most powerful motor nor is it the beloved 2.0t
> 
> YET! This is going to be the next vr no doubt...honestly guys, we are going to be the pioneers of the motor that everyone will end up wanting...
> 
> ...


 
this exactly... hey Tyler if you wanna meet up some time I've been in Lynnwood for like 6 months now, still don't have my car back from Texas though. About to tell the shop I used to work for down there that I'm just gonna ship it up and finish it off myself since they've had 5 months to do a lower timing cover and install a meth kit since all the parts came in.


----------



## halbwissen (Jul 20, 2001)

I forgot to address this in my previous post.. 

Some of you are saying the 2.5l will be the next VR. I don't think that will be the case. 

I see VW keeping the 2.5l around, but not as a n/a offering in their base model VWs. A more fuel efficient base engine is needed for VW to make a serious push towards their goals here in the US. 
Rather, I see them putting the 2.5l in an array of Audis. The TT-RS has the turbo 2.5l right now and the upcoming A3 sedan will have the same engine, but making 408 horsepower (oh yeah) while maintaining 25MPG. 

That's just my .02


----------



## BlackRabbit2point5 (Sep 6, 2007)

proof of it being the next VR is in the fact now that its getting really cheap to snag base rabbits and Jettas and recently theres been an explosion of bigger builds than the 2.0T has even seen. VW already brought back the 2.slow so the 2.5 isn't even the base engine anymore


----------



## halbwissen (Jul 20, 2001)

BlackRabbit2point5 said:


> ... VW already brought back the 2.slow so the 2.5 isn't even the base engine anymore


 There is no f'ing way VW will continue to sell the 2.0l as the base engine as part of their mid-to-long term goals. A laughable 115hp and average by today's standards 32MPG highway (auto). No way.
The 2.0l came back from the MkIV because it can be produced inexpensively, which allows for a lower entry price point on the new Jetta; starting under $15,000. It's simply a crutch until a new, low displacement, fuel efficient engine can be launched for the American market. 

Not the mention, the 2.5l still manages 31MPG highway (auto). 1 less mile per gallon highway then the 2.0l with 48% more horsepower. The problem is this- you can't make the 2.5l anymore fuel efficient then it already is without making a compromise somewhere, or adding new technology like direct injection (which also means added cost).

In short, if VW is going to contend in the North American market they need to either, a, convince the people that diesels are what they want and price them to match Asian competitors petrol cars, or b, develop a new petrol engine that manages to produce 2.5l horsepower with Toyota like MPG.

Alternatively, they could keep the 2.0l pot and pair it with their dry clutch, 7-speed DSG. The 7-speed trans is said to improve fuel economy up to 20% when compared to torque converter transmissions. Then at least the 2.0l would hover around 40mpg. The major question here, however, is how will they keep the cost of that transmission down?


----------



## VR6DPLMT. (Mar 1, 2003)

Responding to Drive well lets hope so. The fact VW brought back the 2.slow is kind of disgusting to me.


----------



## halbwissen (Jul 20, 2001)

VR6DPLMT. said:


> Responding to Drive well lets hope so. The fact VW brought back the 2.slow is kind of disgusting to me.


 Absolutely. It (speaking crossflow 2.0l) had its place in the MkIII (loved mine with cam, headwork and SRI), questionable in the MkIV, but then to skip a generation and offer it AGAIN nearly 10 years later with the new Jetta! Come on!


----------



## tay272 (Aug 22, 2007)

Yeah Im right there with you guys on the 2.0. I had a 98 Beelte with an AEG 2.0 and it really gave me a headache most of the time. It wasnt the most reliable engine for me and I had some major repairs done while I had it (132k) I modded it alittle bit but theres just not too much you can do with it, especially in the Beetle. Unless you supercharge or turbo it (which still doesnt up the power near enough) its not a good engine to mod. The ABAs in the Mk3s have more parts available and are lighter weight cars then any of the Mk4s so it kinda makes more sense. I have no idea why VW ever brought that engine back in the game. If anything they shoulda brought back the 2.0 Dohc 16v, even with the same power it was makin back in the day.


----------

