# EOS 3.2 NOT FSI... :(



## 1stVR6 (Mar 27, 2002)

Did anyone else pick up from the First Drive article that the 3.2 Eos has the VR6 and not the FSI 3.2 found in Audi. What a bummer!
So if you get the 2.0T, you don't get Xenon (not to mention a few other cool options). But you get the 3.2, you don't get the latest greatest engine technology.
I want to ask the obvious question... WHO THE F*&$ AT VWoA IS DECIDING ON THESE SPECS!!! (maybe it is jealousy knowing all other markets are getting these as an option doesn't help)
It is a bit shocking that VW would even offer the Eos, or any car now without even the option of Xenon lights. If I was a VW dealer, I would be raising a MAJOR stink about this. If you need a good reason, here is #1... I'm going to the BMW dealer this weekend to checkout the 3-coupe and hence get an idea for the coming convertible.


----------



## WolfsburgerMitFries (Jul 4, 2005)

*Re: EOS 3.2 NOT FSI...  (1stVR6)*

That certianly is an interesting question. Back on 10/12/05 for Eos worldwide debut, the official VW press release reads "250hp 3.2L VR6 FSI"
http://www.vwvortex.com/artman...shtml
I also thought the Audi 3.2FSI was a conventional 90 degree V block 6 cylinder.








The redesigned 2007 Audi TT with the VR6 has the exact same power and torque specs as the 3.2 Eos.
http://www.worldcarfans.com/ne...depth 
Wikipedia also seems to think the (updated in 2005) 3.2L VR6 has FSI.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vr6




_Modified by WolfsburgerMitFries at 10:47 PM 11-17-2006_


----------



## BigFoot-74205 (Jan 26, 2006)

According to volkswagen.de, the V6 engine in the Eos uses MPI instead of FSI. It's what they call "Saugrohr-Einspritzung" or intake manifold injection.


----------



## 1stVR6 (Mar 27, 2002)

*Re: (BigFoot-74205)*









Not FSI... MSI or manifold injection is just a really fancy way of saying "fuel injection", which is all done in the manifold.
FSI has injectors actually tapped into the cylinder. The high pressure injector and the "cooling" affect of the fuel creates better combustion and added fuel economy.
Again, I'm disappointed to not see this in the Eos.
If they are going to do the R32 engine with DSG, the least they can do is make the damn thing 4-motion as well. I could go for that!


----------



## WolfsburgerMitFries (Jul 4, 2005)

*Re: (1stVR6)*

Alright then, silly question. Might it just not be possible to fit direct injectors to the cylinder head of a VR6 because of the limited space? Between 24 valves, spark plug holes, and intake runners running across it, its a tight cylinder head.



_Modified by WolfsburgerMitFries at 6:55 AM 11-18-2006_


----------



## ialonso (Aug 26, 2006)

The engine on the Audi looks big... Maybe it just didn't fit... I recall the reson for all the excitemet around the vr6 was that it could fit in the space were 2.0t was being used. Maybe this is just not the case for the 3.2 FSI ?


----------



## 1stVR6 (Mar 27, 2002)

*Re: (WolfsburgerMitFries)*


_Quote, originally posted by *WolfsburgerMitFries* »_Alright then, silly question. Might it just not be possible to fit direct injectors to the cylinder head of a VR6 because of the limited space? Between 24 valves, spark plug holes, and intake runners running across it, its a tight cylinder head.

Good thought but the Audis are 30V... I think VW just didn't want to develope a new FSI 3.2 narrow angel V6


----------



## 1stVR6 (Mar 27, 2002)

*Re: (ialonso)*


_Quote, originally posted by *ialonso* »_The engine on the Audi looks big... Maybe it just didn't fit... I recall the reson for all the excitemet around the vr6 was that it could fit in the space were 2.0t was being used. Maybe this is just not the case for the 3.2 FSI ?

The Eos is built on a bigger playform than the R32s, where this engine was used last for the US market. Audi V6s are longitude mounted for the Quattro. VW Eos is horizontal mounted for the FWD. Space constraints are different and hence the narrow angle VR6 engines are able to fit into the Eos. Nevertheless, I want to see VW put out a FSI version of the narrow angle V6... In the same respect and for the same reasons, I want to see Audi put out a longitude DSG transmission.
What can't I have everything I want! Why why why!!!


----------



## WolfsburgerMitFries (Jul 4, 2005)

*Re: (1stVR6)*


_Quote, originally posted by *1stVR6* »_
Good thought but the Audis are 30V... I think VW just didn't want to develope a new FSI 3.2 narrow angel V6

That's only 15 valves per head in the Audi V6, where the VR6 has to carry all 24 valves in a very compact space on a single cylinder head. Between the 2 pictures, there just appears to be considerably less real estate available on the VR6. The Mk5 R32 room might be a good spot to repost this issue.


_Modified by WolfsburgerMitFries at 9:33 AM 11-18-2006_


----------



## 1stVR6 (Mar 27, 2002)

*Re: (WolfsburgerMitFries)*


_Quote, originally posted by *WolfsburgerMitFries* »_
That's only 15 valves per head in the Audi V6, where the VR6 has to carry all 24 valves in a very compact space on a single cylinder head. Between the 2 pictures, there just appears to be considerably less real estate available on the VR6. The Mk5 R32 room might be a good spot to repost this issue.

_Modified by WolfsburgerMitFries at 9:33 AM 11-18-2006_

We were both wrong, the 3.2 FSI drops the 5 valve design and has 4 vavles per cylinder.
This does make FSI theoretically possible in the VR6, which has 24 valves right now.


----------



## gizmopop (Feb 6, 2000)

*Re: (1stVR6)*

I believe the Passat's 3.6 VR6 uses FSI ( it's even narrower at 11.6 degrees ) so FSI can be implemented on the VR6


----------



## GoKart_16v (Dec 17, 2004)

*Re: (1stVR6)*


_Quote, originally posted by *1stVR6* »_ 
Not FSI... MSI or manifold injection is just a really fancy way of saying "fuel injection", which is all done in the manifold.
FSI has injectors actually tapped into the cylinder. The high pressure injector and the "cooling" affect of the fuel creates better combustion and added fuel economy.
Again, I'm disappointed to not see this in the Eos.
If they are going to do the R32 engine with DSG, the least they can do is make the damn thing 4-motion as well. I could go for that![/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

Tthe 3.2L MSI is a sweet engine, the exhaust tone alone validates its existence in my book...they can do 3.2L 4 motion...not sure of the price, but if the current price is in the $30k's, then are u willing to pay $40-50K for the setup you're asking for? Will the market want a $40-50K a vw?
The only problem I have with the 3.2L is its weight and its not needed. I would go 2.0T jsut cuz its small and adequate...but a 3.2L Eos is badass! Just wished it was rwd.


----------



## WolfsburgerMitFries (Jul 4, 2005)

*Re: (GoKart_16v)*

Alright well since we are on the VR6 topic, does anybody know about the variable geometry intake that's mentioned on Wikipedia. It reads...
"The 2.9L engine, as destined for the Corrado, was originally designed to benefit from a dual tract variable-length inlet manifold called the VSR (German: "Variables SaugrohR") and made by Pieronberg for VW Motorsport. This gave extra low-down torque but was deleted before production on cost grounds and was instead offered as an aftermarket option. The design was later sold to Schrick who redesigned it and offered it as the Schrick VGI ("Variable Geometry Intake")."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VR6_engine


----------



## WolfsburgerMitFries (Jul 4, 2005)

*Re: (WolfsburgerMitFries)*

And while I'm thinking about it, is it possible to connect a microphone to the auxilary input jack of the stereo, then tape the microphone to the rear bumper just above the exhaust tip so I can listen to the VR6 over the Dynaudio stereo?


----------



## PanEuropean (Nov 3, 2001)

*Re: (1stVR6)*


_Quote, originally posted by *1stVR6* »_Nevertheless, I want to see VW put out a FSI version of the narrow angle V6... 

Do you think it would make economic sense for VW to spend approximately 2.5 million dollars to complete the emissions testing and fuel economy testing that is required to offer that engine in the US market?
That's the main reason that the US market gets so few engine choices (from ANY manufacturer, not just VW) - the cost of going through all the unique testing that is mandated by the US EPA is staggering, and 100% of all this testing has to be completed on every single variation of every single engine - in every different vehicle platform. In other words, you can't just get the engine approved on one platform (e.g. Golf), then put it into an Eos - oh no, you have to do everything all over again in the Eos.
The European community (EC) also has very stringent emissions testing and fuel economy testing, but for some reason (it couldn't possibly be trade protectionism), EC test results are not accepted by the USA.
Michael


----------



## GoKart_16v (Dec 17, 2004)

*Re: (WolfsburgerMitFries)*


_Quote, originally posted by *WolfsburgerMitFries* »_Alright well since we are on the VR6 topic, does anybody know about the variable geometry intake that's mentioned on Wikipedia. It reads...
"The 2.9L engine, as destined for the Corrado, was originally designed to benefit from a dual tract variable-length inlet manifold called the VSR (German: "Variables SaugrohR") and made by Pieronberg for VW Motorsport. This gave extra low-down torque but was deleted before production on cost grounds and was instead offered as an aftermarket option. The design was later sold to Schrick who redesigned it and offered it as the Schrick VGI ("Variable Geometry Intake")."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VR6_engine 



my buddy with a rado vr6 has the vsr...they are $$$


----------



## 1stVR6 (Mar 27, 2002)

*Re: (PanEuropean)*


_Quote, originally posted by *PanEuropean* »_
Do you think it would make economic sense for VW to spend approximately 2.5 million dollars to complete the emissions testing and fuel economy testing that is required to offer that engine in the US market?
Michael

Does most of the things automotive enthusiasts do or want make economic sense?







Nevertheless, thanks for clarifying the cost of engine development and qualification for me. I guess working for OEM auto manufactures my entire life didn't give me enough education on the topic. I must have needed some rhetoric from a forum moderator to educate me on the topic...
BTW, I'll gladly take a 2.0T but can a brotha get Xenons as an option or is that not cost effective for VW either...


_Modified by 1stVR6 at 2:49 PM 11-19-2006_


----------



## darien (Oct 28, 2006)

*Re: (1stVR6)*

Xenons as an option for 2.0T would be perfect!! Hehe.


----------



## Pelican18TQA4 (Dec 13, 2000)

*Re: (WolfsburgerMitFries)*


_Quote, originally posted by *WolfsburgerMitFries* »_Alright well since we are on the VR6 topic, does anybody know about the variable geometry intake that's mentioned on Wikipedia. It reads...
"The 2.9L engine, as destined for the Corrado, was originally designed to benefit from a dual tract variable-length inlet manifold called the VSR (German: "Variables SaugrohR") and made by Pieronberg for VW Motorsport. This gave extra low-down torque but was deleted before production on cost grounds and was instead offered as an aftermarket option. The design was later sold to Schrick who redesigned it and offered it as the Schrick VGI ("Variable Geometry Intake")."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VR6_engine 

The MkIV-and-up VR6s have a variable intake manifold. There's a rotary valve in the intake manifold that selects between long and short intake runners. Long runners for good torque and short runners for more horsepower.


----------



## vweosdriver (Oct 30, 2006)

*Re: (Pelican18TQA4)*

I'm new to VW ownership. Please tell me what MkV refers to. TIA


----------



## Pelican18TQA4 (Dec 13, 2000)

*Re: (vweosdriver)*

MkV refers to the fifth generation of VW's "A" chassis.


----------



## PanEuropean (Nov 3, 2001)

*Re: (1stVR6)*


_Quote, originally posted by *1stVR6* »_ I guess working for OEM auto manufactures my entire life didn't give me enough education on the topic. I must have needed some rhetoric from a forum moderator to educate me on the topic...

Well, then, answer the question, using your own experiential background. Would it make sense for VW to spend $2.5 million to gain approval for an additional engine type on the Eos, in light of the number of those additional engines that would be purchased - or more accurately, in light of the number of additional sales that would be generated by offering the 3.2 FSI instead of the conventional 3.2?
Yes, or no?
Michael


----------



## 1stVR6 (Mar 27, 2002)

*Re: (PanEuropean)*


_Quote, originally posted by *PanEuropean* »_
Well, then, answer the question, using your own experiential background. Would it make sense for VW to spend $2.5 million to gain approval for an additional engine type on the Eos, in light of the number of those additional engines that would be purchased - or more accurately, in light of the number of additional sales that would be generated by offering the 3.2 FSI instead of the conventional 3.2?
Yes, or no?
Michael

Michael - I think you are applying way too much rationale to this subject... Sit back, relax and loosen up. All I'm saying and all I've said thus far is it would be really nice to have a 3.2 FSI in the Eos. It is also apparent that it is technically possible based on valvetrain configuration and Audi’s advancement on the subject. Likewise, it would be nice to have certain features I feel are a must to at least be an option on the 2.0T. If I may remind you, this is a forum for automotive enthusiasts with specific interest for VW and Audi vehicles. Dreaming about the perfect configuration of engine, drivetrains, and options is what we do here… Talking about what is coming up and what would be really nice is also what we do here. To me, that is the purpose of an automotive enthusiast forum. Very rarely, do people apply so much rationale or economics to a topic… especially one involving so much subjectivity.
I also would like to comment that rhetoric and sarcasm is not necessary. You are a moderator and hence someone who should be encouraging the distribution, sharing, and discussion of ideas. You don’t need to come out with a “boy you are an idiot for saying…” kind of statement. We all have our own opinions and perceptions formulated around our particular experiences. Present your ideas and thoughts without criticizing others and you will find the same in return.


----------



## vweosdriver (Oct 30, 2006)

*Re: (1stVR6)*

Okay someone come forward and say "I knew the V6 wasn't FSI and that's why I bought the FSI 2.0T".


----------



## PanEuropean (Nov 3, 2001)

*Re: (1stVR6)*


_Quote, originally posted by *1stVR6* »_All I'm saying and all I've said thus far is it would be really nice to have a 3.2 FSI in the Eos. 

Rick:
If all you had said was "it would be really nice to have a 3.2 FSI in the Eos", I would not have replied with my explanation about the costs of getting approval to market a new engine in the USA. However, you started this thread by saying:

_Quote, originally posted by *1stVR6* »_... WHO THE F*&$ AT VWoA IS DECIDING ON THESE SPECS!!! (maybe it is jealousy knowing all other markets are getting these as an option doesn't help) .... If I was a VW dealer, I would be raising a MAJOR stink about this.

That's why I posted an explanation about certification costs. 
I didn't put any sarcasm at all into this thread - I never poke fun at others unless I know the other person very, very well, and I don't know you at all.
With respect to your final comment "Present your ideas and thoughts without criticizing others..." - please, look at your first post up at the top of this thread and tell me if that is an example of what you mean? That's not sarcasm, that's a serious question.
Michael


----------



## 1stVR6 (Mar 27, 2002)

*Re: (PanEuropean)*


_Quote, originally posted by *PanEuropean* »_
Rick:
If all you had said was "it would be really nice to have a 3.2 FSI in the Eos", I would not have replied with my explanation about the costs of getting approval to market a new engine in the USA. However, you started this thread by saying:
That's why I posted an explanation about certification costs. 
I didn't put any sarcasm at all into this thread - I never poke fun at others unless I know the other person very, very well, and I don't know you at all.
With respect to your final comment "Present your ideas and thoughts without criticizing others..." - please, look at your first post up at the top of this thread and tell me if that is an example of what you mean? That's not sarcasm, that's a serious question.
Michael









No need to burden the others with our squawking... PMing we go.


----------



## cb391 (Mar 12, 2006)

*Re: EOS 3.2 NOT FSI...  (1stVR6)*

Fooundd an article you might be interested in concerning the VR6 and FSI. Try this link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VR6_engine

OOPS. Sorry. Didn't see Wolfburger already Posted this


_Modified by cb391 at 9:54 PM 11-20-2006_


----------



## 1stVR6 (Mar 27, 2002)

*Re: EOS 3.2 NOT FSI...  (cb391)*

Just to clarify my comments... I am complaining about two things:
1. A non FSI 3.2 - to me, FSI is really cool and other OEs, like BMW have inline 6s running FSI. It is the FI method of the future and the added fule efficiency/output benefits are attractive for me.
2. 2.0T should come with the same options as the 3.2, or at the very least make Xenon an OPTION for the 2.0T. An optioned out 2.0T Eos is $35K - $40K. In this price range, not many does not offer the advantages of Xenon lighting. (in all reality, holagen lighting can be just as good now days, especially with an H7 projector lighting system such as the one on the Eos, but it is still cool.)
Also, I'm not just complaining for the sake of it. I'm trying to buy one right now and it's been hard... Do I go with the 2.0T and pass on Xenon, auto-dimming (eventhough it is just the driverside only on the 3.2, yeah what's up with that VWoA), folding mirrors... OR do I get the 3.2 and live without the added benefits and efficiencies of FSI.
I am also concerned about resales value. Anyone who owned a 12V VR6 in a MKIV can atest that once the 24V VR6 came out during the MKIV lifespan, the 12Vs depreciated pretty quickly... Maybe I'm thinking too much... Sometimes, it is better to just not know.


----------



## hulahoops (Aug 27, 2006)

*Re: EOS 3.2 NOT FSI...  (1stVR6)*

My manual refers to the V6 engine as the '184 kW FSI petrol engine'...I don't understand all the jargon, but I know it is a fantastic engine to drive.
Simon


----------



## 1stVR6 (Mar 27, 2002)

*Re: EOS 3.2 NOT FSI...  (hulahoops)*


_Quote, originally posted by *hulahoops* »_My manual refers to the V6 engine as the '184 kW FSI petrol engine'...I don't understand all the jargon, but I know it is a fantastic engine to drive.
Simon

Edit: I pulled the VW Eos spec sheet from VW UK. The 3.2L V6 is "electonic indirect injection". So, eventhough it is called FSI, it is not.
REALLY! Maybe I was wrong. 184KW is the output, like our HP, FSI would be the injection system and what's I'm looking for, Petrol is Gasoline vs. Deisel. This is UK spec?


_Modified by 1stVR6 at 4:11 PM 11-21-2006_


----------



## BigFoot-74205 (Jan 26, 2006)

Well the german VW site clearly states that the 3.2 engine doesn't use FSI.


----------



## PanEuropean (Nov 3, 2001)

*Re: (BigFoot-74205)*

Hey, it gets the gasoline in there somehow or another - who cares how it does it? I mean, really, Jeepers, as long as the thing starts when you turn the key...








(Like I said on another thread, I'm not really an engine and powertrain kind of person. I know where the gas goes, and that's all I want to know).
Michael


----------



## 1stVR6 (Mar 27, 2002)

*Re: (PanEuropean)*


_Quote, originally posted by *PanEuropean* »_Hey, it gets the gasoline in there somehow or another - who cares how it does it? I mean, really, Jeepers, as long as the thing starts when you turn the key...








(Like I said on another thread, I'm not really an engine and powertrain kind of person. I know where the gas goes, and that's all I want to know).
Michael

Yes, as long as it gets there! But... for someone who is very into technology, it makes me cringe thinking I don't have the latest and greates... Besides, there are some real advantages to FSI from a practical and performance aspect. You get better MPGs and more output. If you care about the environment, it is a much cleaner FI system as well because the fuel dispersion is better controled. FSI also has a "cooling" affect in the combustion chamber, therefore allowing higher compression and air/fuel mixture density. All this equals one kick a$$ engine that uses less fuel, produces less pollution, and puts out more power. Who wouldn't want that!








Here is the official Audi verbage:
FSI® direct injection technology increases the torque and power of spark-ignition engines, makes them as much as 15 percent more economical and reduces exhaust emissions. In contrast to conventional intake manifold injection on conventional spark-ignition engines, FSI® engines inject fuel directly into the combustion chambers. This technology dispenses with the throttle plate. That ‘unthrottles’ the engine, reduces heat loss and thus increases output while reducing fuel consumption.
The system uses two charge-air supply modes: stratified charge at partial load and homogeneous operation at full load. In the stratified charge mode, an combustible fuel-air mixture is only produced in a defined zone around the spark plug. The engine management electronics monitor engine load and adjust injection timing, pressure, quantity parameters as well as the air flow inside the cylinder via the air intake channel. At full load, FSI® increases compression as well as engine efficiency and performance.


----------



## wndctyboy (Mar 27, 2006)

I will not accept the idea of paying over $30k on car and does not have as standard feature Xenon headlights.


----------



## bougy (Nov 21, 2006)

*Xenon FSI*

Well, just my contribution to this :
FSI is (exactly explained upwards) a Direct Injection system (Stratified and homogeneous mix folowing the rpm) just like the VW Diesel TDI (Turbo Direct Injection).
Only a few brands does that DI on fuel car (I mean non Diesel) just Mitsubishi I think.
You have to know that for having the best performance/consumption ratio with an FSI, you have to use the higher Octane grade (98 or 99oct).
The 2.0T FSI is not really working in stratified charge, in fact they use the FSI to allow a specific compression ratio usable with a turbo to provide a big flat torque from 1600 to 5100 rpm (the so called SOFT TURBO effect, like some in SAAB or VOLVO).
About the price : just to mention the EOS I ordered last week is more than 58,000 USD : 2.0T DSG xenon, webasto, rcd500 dynaudio, leather electric seats + alcantara (by hand) Le Mans, design paket (chrome grill+cherrish red lights), wood.
So having a 2.0T for 30.000 USD without XENON ....







take a first class plane to wolfsburg to buy OEM VW xenon lights, spent a week to visit the EOS plant in Portugal and you still win money !!!!!!!!
The base 2.0 T in europe : sport seats (not leather not electric) RCD 300 (not dynaudio) 16"inch Alloy wheels no multifunction steering wheel no xenon is 44,000 USD ...
So happy you !!!!!
Here an EOS is considered as mid to upper class CoupeCabriolet (whe called them CC).
Same size cars are :
Lower : cheaper :
Renault Megane CC (2 parts Roof)
Peugeot 307 CC (2 parts roof)
Ford Focus CC (2 parts roof)
Opel Astra Twintop (3 parts roof)
MID to UP :
EOS
UPPER class: more expensive :
Volvo C70 (3 parts roof)
BMW new 3 CC (3 parts roof)


----------



## Pelican18TQA4 (Dec 13, 2000)

*Re: (wndctyboy)*


_Quote, originally posted by *wndctyboy* »_I will not accept the idea of paying over $30k on car and does not have as standard feature Xenon headlights. 

I don't understand this comment. There are a large number of vehicles that are priced over $30k that don't come standard with HID headlights. Some don't even offer the option. I suppose you'll never by BMW, Audi or Mercedes. Heck, even Porsches don't come standard with HID headlights.


----------



## Little_Fox91 (Dec 26, 2005)

*Re: (Pelican18TQA4)*

I've never bought a brand new car from a dealership before so I know nothing but...
If you buy a 2.0T could you have the dealer install features such as the xenon headlights and the folding mirrors that are only offered on the 3.2?


----------



## darien (Oct 28, 2006)

*Re: (Little_Fox91)*

Not for 2.0T in NAR, sorry. I was disappointed that the Technology package was not offered for the 2.0T model, except for 3.2 only. If it was offered as an option for 2.0T, you bet I will opt for that FOR SURE!

_Quote, originally posted by *cars.com* »_Technology Package $1,400/$1,236 
Ultrasonic Park Distance Control System

Activated by shifting into reverse or by pressing a button next to the shift lever. Sensors are located in the rear bumper. PDC is deactivated at approx. 9.3 mph (15km/h), or by pressing the button again. PDC includes a trunk lid assistant function, operating independently as soon as the trunk lid is released to move the CSC roof. The trunk lid assistant monitors a distance of about 20 inches behind the vehicle, to ensure that roof has enough space for opening and closing.

Bi-Xenon Headlights

Adaptive Front Lighting System (AFS)

Includes low beam headlights that swivel horizontally at highway speeds, to improve night time visibility around curves. Maximum rotation angle is 15 degrees. AFS is activated by the steering wheel angle, or by operation of the turn signals. 
 


_Modified by darien at 7:07 AM 11-23-2006_


----------



## bougy (Nov 21, 2006)

*Re: (darien)*

PDC is standard in belgium in the 2.0, 2.0T, 2.0TDI, 3.2.
like Armrest, cruise control, RCD 300, climatronic, alarm (technik pakket, not transponder which comes automatically with the key).


----------



## 1stVR6 (Mar 27, 2002)

*Re: (Little_Fox91)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Little_Fox91* »_I've never bought a brand new car from a dealership before so I know nothing but...
If you buy a 2.0T could you have the dealer install features such as the xenon headlights and the folding mirrors that are only offered on the 3.2?

Nope... I'm sure there's a way to retrofit these later but it will cost more than it is worth.


----------



## 1stVR6 (Mar 27, 2002)

*Re: Xenon FSI (bougy)*


_Quote, originally posted by *bougy* »_Well, just my contribution to this :
FSI is (exactly explained upwards) a Direct Injection system (Stratified and homogeneous mix folowing the rpm) just like the VW Diesel TDI (Turbo Direct Injection).
Only a few brands does that DI on fuel car (I mean non Diesel) just Mitsubishi I think.
You have to know that for having the best performance/consumption ratio with an FSI, you have to use the higher Octane grade (98 or 99oct).
The 2.0T FSI is not really working in stratified charge, in fact they use the FSI to allow a specific compression ratio usable with a turbo to provide a big flat torque from 1600 to 5100 rpm (the so called SOFT TURBO effect, like some in SAAB or VOLVO).
About the price : just to mention the EOS I ordered last week is more than 58,000 USD : 2.0T DSG xenon, webasto, rcd500 dynaudio, leather electric seats + alcantara (by hand) Le Mans, design paket (chrome grill+cherrish red lights), wood.
So having a 2.0T for 30.000 USD without XENON ....







take a first class plane to wolfsburg to buy OEM VW xenon lights, spent a week to visit the EOS plant in Portugal and you still win money !!!!!!!!
The base 2.0 T in europe : sport seats (not leather not electric) RCD 300 (not dynaudio) 16"inch Alloy wheels no multifunction steering wheel no xenon is 44,000 USD ...
So happy you !!!!!
Here an EOS is considered as mid to upper class CoupeCabriolet (whe called them CC).
Same size cars are :
Lower : cheaper :
Renault Megane CC (2 parts Roof)
Peugeot 307 CC (2 parts roof)
Ford Focus CC (2 parts roof)
Opel Astra Twintop (3 parts roof)
MID to UP :
EOS
UPPER class: more expensive :
Volvo C70 (3 parts roof)
BMW new 3 CC (3 parts roof)

















Market positioning in the US is relatively the same. I'm sure if you broke down your pricing, you'll see most of the cost for your market is tariff related...


----------



## bougy (Nov 21, 2006)

*Re: Xenon FSI (1stVR6)*

well, my english is limited here : what do you mean by "tariff related".


----------



## 1stVR6 (Mar 27, 2002)

*Re: Xenon FSI (bougy)*


_Quote, originally posted by *bougy* »_well, my english is limited here : what do you mean by "tariff related".

No worries, your English is much better than my French or my Flemish... Tariff is the tax/duty involved between countries during foreign trade. So when you said your local price for a Eos is $50K USD for example, it is very like the vehicle cost is around the same as US $35K and the rest is a signicant tariff. There is a lot of price transparency between countries right now, especially in Europe. A high price variation in any product will cause a grey market to exist. This can happen with currency fluctuations as well.


----------



## 1stVR6 (Mar 27, 2002)

*Re: Xenon FSI (1stVR6)*

BTW - anyone see the nice HREs I have in my sig... they will fit your Eos!


----------



## chewym (Jun 21, 2006)

The 2.0T with the DSG get 23/31 mpg and 26 mpg EPA average
The V6 gets with the mandatory DSG gets 22/29 and 24 EPA average
The FSI "might" have raised the fuel economy so little that no number change would have occured. The V6 still gets best in class power and fuel economy


----------



## PanEuropean (Nov 3, 2001)

*Re: (Little_Fox91)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Little_Fox91* »_If you buy a 2.0T could you have the dealer install features such as the xenon headlights and the folding mirrors that are only offered on the 3.2?

It could be done, but it would be scary expensive to do it. Retrofit of xenon headlights, using new parts, would probably cost several thousand dollars. I retrofitted OEM xenon headlights (the complete front light assembly, genuine VW parts, not 'fake xenons' or some god-awful bulb kit) to my 2002 Golf, and the parts cost me about $1,200 - that was several years ago. I retrofitted dual xenon headlamps to my Phaeton (the North American Phaetons only have single xenon headlights), and that project only cost me a couple of hundred dollars. That's because I bought the dual xenon headlights used, from Phaetons that had been damaged in rear-end collisions in Europe.







The actual labour involved in retrofitting the headlights is very simple, you can do it yourself - there's more information about the process here: Retrofitting Dual Xenon Headlamps. The Phaeton is a different car, of course, but the information is generic and applies to pretty much all the VWs.
Retrofitting folding mirrors would be much more expensive than you would think, because in addition to needing to purchase the motorized mirror assemblies, you would also need to purchase new window controllers. The folding mirrors are managed by the window controller, and the 'basic' window controller does not have provisions for supporting a folding mirror.
Of the two projects, the OEM xenon retrofit would be by far the simplest.
Michael


----------



## PanEuropean (Nov 3, 2001)

*Re: (Pelican18TQA4)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Pelican18TQA4* »_
I don't understand this comment. There are a large number of vehicles that are priced over $30k that don't come standard with HID headlights. Some don't even offer the option. I suppose you'll never by BMW, Audi or Mercedes. Heck, even Porsches don't come standard with HID headlights.

I was in a VW showroom earlier today, and there was a Bugatti on display that cost over $1 million dollars - and it didn't even have park distance control, or folding mirrors, or even an iPod adapter. Sheesh... money doesn't go very far these days.








*Fancy VW*


----------



## flheat (Sep 29, 2006)

*Re: (PanEuropean)*

Michael,
Here's my picture when I was at that dealership in September, it really shows the awesome paint job the car has:


----------



## PanEuropean (Nov 3, 2001)

*Re: (flheat)*

It looks nice, but hey, no sunroof, no roof rack, no trailer hitch, not much luggage space - I mean, really, you can get an Eos with better equipment for less money.








Michael


----------



## 1stVR6 (Mar 27, 2002)

*Re: (chewym)*


_Quote, originally posted by *chewym* »_The 2.0T with the DSG get 23/31 mpg and 26 mpg EPA average
The V6 gets with the mandatory DSG gets 22/29 and 24 EPA average
The FSI "might" have raised the fuel economy so little that no number change would have occured. The V6 still gets best in class power and fuel economy

I noticed this too... my only thought was the 2.0T achieves the ULEV emission standards and the 3.2 only achieves LEV. So much depends on how you drive too. I had my VR6 and I never had to go over 3K for daily driving. I have a MKIV 2.0 loaner from the dealer and I was alway getting up in the revs trying to merge onto freeways or just to simply enjoy my drive.
Well, the local dealer just got two black 3.2s in, fully loaded just the way I like it. Will have to go drive one. Hope they don't sell before I can free up some time.
Added: I just saw darien saying his wife is getting 30mpgs with the 2.0T... that would be pretty cool.


_Modified by 1stVR6 at 3:59 PM 11-24-2006_


----------



## 1stVR6 (Mar 27, 2002)

*Re: (PanEuropean)*


_Quote, originally posted by *PanEuropean* »_It looks nice, but hey, no sunroof, no roof rack, no trailer hitch, not much luggage space - I mean, really, you can get an Eos with better equipment for less money.








Michael

No kidding... all you get with the Bugatti is all those darn cylinders...


----------



## PanEuropean (Nov 3, 2001)

*Re: (1stVR6)*

Exactly. I mean, who needs 16 of them? I've got a dozen of them in my VW, and all I really need is six. The other six don't do much good, they just burn fuel.
Michael


----------



## cb391 (Mar 12, 2006)

*Re: (PanEuropean)*

Sounds like some cylinder shutdown could be useful


----------



## PanEuropean (Nov 3, 2001)

*Re: (cb391)*

Yeah, like those old Cadillacs from the 1970s with the " 4 - 6 - 8 " engine...







... I kind of remember that GM gave up on that idea pretty quick, when owners discovered it soon became a " 0 - 4 - 6 - 8 " engine.
Michael


----------



## vr6fanatic (Apr 5, 2003)

*Re: (PanEuropean)*

ok I'll throw my .02 in..







The 3.2 VR6 as most of you know is also found in the MKV R32.............and also in the MKIV R32 (which by the way is 250hp)










_Modified by vr6fanatic at 7:21 AM 11-26-2006_


----------



## cb391 (Mar 12, 2006)

*Re: (PanEuropean)*

Chrysler uses it on the 5.7l Hemi engines. So far it appears to work. Don't know whetther Daimler/Benz helped design it or not. Had an associate at my last job had one on these engines and he said it worked well. And Gm is using it on some of their engines and supposedly intend to have it on the new Camaro when it hits the street. Maybe the new generation of cylinder shutdown management will hold up better.


----------



## owr084 (Nov 15, 2004)

*Re: (cb391)*


_Quote, originally posted by *cb391* »_Chrysler uses it on the 5.7l Hemi engines. So far it appears to work. Don't know whetther Daimler/Benz helped design it or not. Had an associate at my last job had one on these engines and he said it worked well. And Gm is using it on some of their engines and supposedly intend to have it on the new Camaro when it hits the street. Maybe the new generation of cylinder shutdown management will hold up better.

Honda uses it in their mini-van...
Richard


----------



## gizmopop (Feb 6, 2000)

*Re: (Little_Fox91)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Little_Fox91* »_I've never bought a brand new car from a dealership before so I know nothing but...
If you buy a 2.0T could you have the dealer install features such as the xenon headlights and the folding mirrors that are only offered on the 3.2?

right now there is only one vendor importing these xenons over to the U.S. and it is cost prohibitive. they are going for $4000+- before labor which means putting them on your 2.0T Eos bumps the price into the Vr6s range...(and the reason they are so expensive is the adaptive steering feature they come with...) I still hold out for a group buy to bring the prices down if VW doesn't fix this in options for the car.


----------



## darien (Oct 28, 2006)

*Re: (gizmopop)*


_Quote, originally posted by *gizmopop* »_
right now there is only one vendor importing these xenons over to the U.S. and it is cost prohibitive. they are going for $4000+- before labor which means putting them on your 2.0T Eos bumps the price into the Vr6s range...(and the reason they are so expensive is the adaptive steering feature they come with...) I still hold out for a group buy to bring the prices down if VW doesn't fix this in options for the car. 

Sounds good to me. I just can't justify paying over $4000 + Labor cost for an option you can upgrade for V6 model for less than couple thousand dollars.


----------



## bougy (Nov 21, 2006)

around 1000 € in europe so 1250 $ ...


----------



## WolfsburgerMitFries (Jul 4, 2005)

*Re: (bougy)*

I accidentialy visited the Volkswagen Russia website, and was surprised to see that the Russians have a better Eos website than we do in the USA. 
I'm telling you, VW needs to issue a special edition series of framed, double matted, gold plated pink slips for the enitre Volkswagen of America marketing department, in honor of the pathetic way they operate their website.
Now on to my point. The V6 eos section there lists the 3.2 as "EOS 3,2 V6 FSI". 
http://eos.volkswagen.ru/models/eos_v6.php
So have we determined weather the newest 3.2L VR6, as found in the Eos has direct injection?...like the 3.6L VR6. I also seem to recall reading somewhere that it was the addition of FSI to the 3.2L VR6 that enabled the MKV R32 to achieve 250 horsepower. Anyone?



_Modified by WolfsburgerMitFries at 10:07 PM 11-27-2006_


----------



## vr6fanatic (Apr 5, 2003)

*Re: (WolfsburgerMitFries)*

No the MKV R32 is not FSI, it has the same exact VR6 motor also found in the MKIV R32 and (MK 1 a4 chassis) Audi TT 3.2....these should shed some light on things ....http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=2804489
http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=2804489


----------



## PanEuropean (Nov 3, 2001)

*Re: (WolfsburgerMitFries)*


_Quote, originally posted by *WolfsburgerMitFries* »_The V6 eos section there _(Russian) _lists the 3.2 as "EOS 3,2 V6 FSI".

I'd take that information with a grain of salt until we get confirmation from a forum member in Russia that the vehicle actually has the FSI engine. It is quite possible that the advertising copywriters who maintain the Russian website simply think that the letters 'FSI' come after every mention of 3.2 liter engines.
It is also possible that the Russians do get a FSI engine, because they don't have any emission control regulations there, but I kind of doubt that. The Russian market is pretty small, and I doubt that VW would go to a whole bunch of re-engineering trouble to put a unique engine in the car just for a few hundred - possibly 1,000, maximum - vehicle sales.
Michael


----------



## 1stVR6 (Mar 27, 2002)

*Re: (PanEuropean)*


_Quote, originally posted by *PanEuropean* »_
I'd take that information with a grain of salt until we get confirmation from a forum member in Russia that the vehicle actually has the FSI engine. It is quite possible that the advertising copywriters who maintain the Russian website simply think that the letters 'FSI' come after every mention of 3.2 liter engines.
It is also possible that the Russians do get a FSI engine, because they don't have any emission control regulations there, but I kind of doubt that. The Russian market is pretty small, and I doubt that VW would go to a whole bunch of re-engineering trouble to put a unique engine in the car just for a few hundred - possibly 1,000, maximum - vehicle sales.
Michael

I pulled the spec sheet earlier... For some reason, Euro markets call it FSI but when you read the specifications, the description for the engine specifically says non-direct injection.
Oh, and that comment on Audi NA marketing, I completely agree. Then again, a lot of Audi's resources are going into Asia right now. For anyone that travels to Asia frequently, specifically China, you know that majority of cars on the road are VW and Audi. The executive car to have right now and the choice of vehicle for all state officials is the A6 right now. For high level Executives, it is the A8 with the W12.


----------



## cb391 (Mar 12, 2006)

*Re: (1stVR6)*

Maybe this is a misprint but it comes from the VW warranty booklet 1.2 for US models of Eos, Touareg, Rabbit, GTI, Passat, and Passat wagon for 2007 under the section covering Emission control warranty in California. They list the following engines---2.0T FSI, 2.5L ULEV, 3.2L V6 FSI, 3.6L V6 FSI, 4.2L V8 FSI. I have found a few spec errors in the manuals but can't verify this one.....


----------



## 1stVR6 (Mar 27, 2002)

*Re: (cb391)*


_Quote, originally posted by *cb391* »_Maybe this is a misprint but it comes from the VW warranty booklet 1.2 for US models of Eos, Touareg, Rabbit, GTI, Passat, and Passat wagon for 2007 under the section covering Emission control warranty in California. They list the following engines---2.0T FSI, 2.5L ULEV, 3.2L V6 FSI, 3.6L V6 FSI, 4.2L V8 FSI. I have found a few spec errors in the manuals but can't verify this one.....

I think the letters FSI are just being used rather loosely. Or, being the dreamer that I am, we'll see VW turn FSI really soon since we'll already determined that it is technically possible to fit the injector into the current head.


----------

