# swapping 2.5L for 1.8T in new Vw models



## Matty_Ice (Nov 17, 2012)

So from what ive been hearing is that VW is going to be swapping the 5 cylinder 2.5L and going back to the 1.8T. I'm not sure if I agree with this. The 1.8T are going to have the same horsepower as the 5 cylinder, and very comparable fuel economy. I sell VW's for a living, and I think that bringing back the 1.8T might be a hard selling point for me because of one reason. PREMIUM FUEL COST. Now if they brought back the 1.8T with say 200hp and bumped up the 2.0T to about 230hp or so, then I wouldnt be complaining as much. 

:thumbup: or :thumbdown:


----------



## 2ohgti (Nov 8, 2004)

I am guessing the 1.8T would have better MPG. I had a MkV 2.5 and the MPG isn't as good as my 2.0T. I would rarely average 30 MPG with the 2.5.


----------



## candy11 (May 22, 2011)

So the new TSI 1.8 requires premium fuel and the EA888 2.0 does not?


----------



## Matty_Ice (Nov 17, 2012)

Beetle turbo gas cap


----------



## Matty_Ice (Nov 17, 2012)

Golf 2.5L gas cap


----------



## Matty_Ice (Nov 17, 2012)

Don't get me wrong, my girlfriend has an 02 passat with the 1.8T and the motor is great. But there has not been a single problem with the 2.5, it's bulletproof. Why not just make the R lines of the cars have the 1.8T in them with a little more power?


----------



## candy11 (May 22, 2011)

Yes but the 2.5's get terrible gas mileage for the power it makes in the economy cars they put that motor in. I had a rental beetle for 2 days and it got 28 mpg going easy on it. My EA888 averages 30-32. The new TSI 1.8t has nothing in common with the old 1.8t.


----------



## 87vr6 (Jan 17, 2002)

candy11 said:


> Yes but the 2.5's get terrible gas mileage for the power it makes in the economy cars they put that motor in. I had a rental beetle for 2 days and it got 28 mpg going easy on it. My EA888 averages 30-32. The new TSI 1.8t has nothing in common with the old 1.8t.




Finally, someone who knows what they're talking about. :thumbup:


----------



## Matty_Ice (Nov 17, 2012)

so to get back to the post, is it gonna be a tough selling point you think?


----------



## GTINC (Jan 28, 2005)

candy11 said:


> So the new TSI 1.8 requires premium fuel and the EA888 2.0 does not?


No modern VW engine will _*require*_ premium. The engine may *recommend* it in order to attain the rated power, but can me run with regular with no downsides.

Look up required and recommend in the dictionary. They are not the same thing.


----------



## XM_Rocks (Jan 29, 2005)

They made a change to the 2.5 in 2010... my wife's Golf gets 32-34MPG on the highway in her 6AT 2.5. Thats calculated not MFD.

I had a friend with a 2.5 in his MK5 and he could never break 30MPG.


----------



## 2ohgti (Nov 8, 2004)

XM_Rocks said:


> They made a change to the 2.5 in 2010... my wife's Golf gets 32-34MPG on the highway in her 6AT 2.5. Thats calculated not MFD.
> 
> I had a friend with a 2.5 in his MK5 and he could never break 30MPG.


32-34 mpg seem a little good for an auto 2.5 :sly:

That is what I get my 6SM 2.0 TSI. The 1.8 TSI might do better then that MPG. Almost every car company has moved to smaller turbo engines vs. larger NA mostly for fuel economy. The "idea" behind this is that you have the power when you need it and get decent 4cyl mpg when you don't. I have gotten up to an average 35 mpg on my TSI, but that was one time and all highway roads with little braking and hills. If I step on the throttle that 35 mpg would turn into 12 lol.


----------



## Matty_Ice (Nov 17, 2012)

So do you think the switch is good or bad?


----------



## candy11 (May 22, 2011)

Matty_Ice said:


> So do you think the switch is good or bad?


Of course its good. The TSI 1.8 will have more power where you need it most with better gas mileage. Like the other poster said alot of other maufacterers already went this route. (Ford, Chevy) I think those two car makers are ahead of the curve for once.


----------



## Matty_Ice (Nov 17, 2012)

So I'm assuming the torque will just be higher than the 177 that the 2.5 uses then since I believe the horsepower is gonna be the same at 170


----------



## GTINC (Jan 28, 2005)

Did you folks miss the new EPA CAFE standards the companies have to meet or what?


----------



## candy11 (May 22, 2011)

Matty_Ice said:


> So I'm assuming the torque will just be higher than the 177 that the 2.5 uses then since I believe the horsepower is gonna be the same at 170


I think VW's crank HP and Trq numbers are about the same for both motors. Which doesn't mean much. A EA888 makes about the same power to the wheels(on all types of dynos @93 oct.) as vw says the car should make to the crank. The 2.5 does not make these numbers in relation to vw crank HP numbers.


----------



## 2ohgti (Nov 8, 2004)

Matty_Ice said:


> So do you think the switch is good or bad?


Good for the most part for possibly better mpg and tunability potential. I still love the 2.5 though, because it great engine.


----------



## Matty_Ice (Nov 17, 2012)

2ohgti said:


> Good for the most part for possibly better mpg and tunability potential. I still love the 2.5 though, because it great engine.


 Exactly!


----------



## XM_Rocks (Jan 29, 2005)

My wife wanted to keep her car for 10-15 years and she has a 2 mile commute.

The 2.5 was a no-brainer for us.

No DSG/Failing Water Pumps and we would see no benefit to the TDI. Plus it runs on 87.

So far its been dead on reliable and the highway mileage over 30 MPG has been a plus. :thumbup:


----------



## GTINC (Jan 28, 2005)

XM_Rocks said:


> .....Plus it runs on 87.....


So does the 2.0T if that is what you put in the tank. Premium "recommended" is just that, recommended, not required.


----------



## KurtK (Feb 13, 2012)

I'm guessing it will be a wash when you factor in the improved mileage of the 1.8T and the added cost of the gas. My 03 Passat 1.8T definitely got better mileage than my 07 Jetta 2.5. I would say it was about 2 mpg better on both city and highway. Of course, my 13 Passat TDI blows both of them away. I think the new 1.8T will offer slightly better acceleration (or at least feel like it) due to the turbo.


----------



## 87vr6 (Jan 17, 2002)

XM_Rocks said:


> No DSG/Failing Water Pumps and we would see no benefit to the TDI. Plus it runs on 87.


Those water pumps will fail too.



KurtK said:


> I'm guessing it will be a wash when you factor in the improved mileage of the 1.8T and the added cost of the gas.


You don't have to run anything higher than 87 in an untuned 1.8t. That's why modern cars have MAFs, O2 sensors, knock sensors... They adjust for fuel.

Hell, here in Japan i run 87 in my bone stock Evo IV. Runs just fine.

Such a myth.


----------



## Y2Kevin43 (Jun 2, 2005)

87vr6 said:


> Those water pumps will fail too.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Well my dad's friend borrowed my old 1.8t and he filled up with 87 after using up my 91/100 octane mix I didn't make it out of the cul de sac. After I determined the problem I drove my dads truck to the gas station, got a few gallons of 91 and octane booster, and voila! Running 1.8T!

Obviously the new 1.8T would be a significantly different engine, but still... 87 = Not good for 1.8T


----------



## 2ohgti (Nov 8, 2004)

XM_Rocks said:


> My wife wanted to keep her car for 10-15 years and she has a 2 mile commute.
> 
> The 2.5 was a no-brainer for us.
> 
> ...


I had 60k on the 2.5 2008 rabbit I had and had no issues other then replacing the rear rotors 3 times :banghead: I hated that 5SM on the rabbit. Could never find 3rd  Even when new.
My wife has a 6SM TDI JSW and hasn't had any problems. She has 50k+ on it.
My 6SM GTI has 35k on it and I've only had a intake manifold issue (covered under warrenty).


----------



## blipsman (Nov 20, 2001)

I owned a 2002 Passat with the 1.8T, and a 2002 Jetta with the 1.8T before that... when the new Passat came out, I drove all three engines and I really didn't like the 2.5 at all. It felt slow and rough. I'd have considered the car more seriously if the 1.8 or 2.0 turbo had been available. I ended up with a Tiguan with the 200hp 2.0 turbo. Sure, premium gas is more expensive but we only drive about 5000 mi. a year...


----------



## 87vr6 (Jan 17, 2002)

Y2Kevin43 said:


> Well my dad's friend borrowed my old 1.8t and he filled up with 87 after using up my 91/100 octane mix I didn't make it out of the cul de sac. After I determined the problem I drove my dads truck to the gas station, got a few gallons of 91 and octane booster, and voila! Running 1.8T!
> 
> Obviously the new 1.8T would be a significantly different engine, but still... 87 = Not good for 1.8T


Pure coincidence or bad gas from the station. I ran nothing but 87 in my 2000 Jetta 1.8t until I was chipped. Never had one single problem. There is no reason to run anything else in a STOCK 1.8t... Modern EFI systems can and do adjust for octane variances..


----------

