Increased Taxes coming for Turbocharged Vehicles next Budget!

[drchaos]

Now I understand why you think turbo charged engines are gas guzzlers ... That 1.4 T-jet is poorly tuned/older tech.
Can't compare it to the jetta cause its dual charged.

Golf 1.4 tsi (single turbo) 60.1mpg, 110g/km CO2, 138bhp and maximum torque starts at 1500 rpm
Fiat bravo 1.4 T-jet (single turbo) 39.8mpg, 167g/kg CO2, 150 bhp and max torque is at 3000 rpm (this is why you still think turbo lag still exists).
Both weigh within 15kg of each other

[16 cycles]

transmission as well might play a part^

[Habit7]

Now I understand why you think turbo charged engines are gas guzzlers ... That 1.4 T-jet is poorly tuned/older tech.
Can't compare it to the jetta cause its dual charged.

Golf 1.4 tsi (single turbo) 60.1mpg, 110g/km CO2, 138bhp and maximum torque starts at 1500 rpm
Fiat bravo 1.4 T-jet (single turbo) 39.8mpg, 167g/kg CO2, 150 bhp and max torque is at 3000 rpm (this is why you still think turbo lag still exists).
Both weigh within 15kg of each other

Can you quote a source for your figures? Is the Jetta you referenced turbo loaded driven or RPM driven as you claimed?

[drchaos]

Now I understand why you think turbo charged engines are gas guzzlers ... That 1.4 T-jet is poorly tuned/older tech.
Can't compare it to the jetta cause its dual charged.

Golf 1.4 tsi (single turbo) 60.1mpg, 110g/km CO2, 138bhp and maximum torque starts at 1500 rpm
Fiat bravo 1.4 T-jet (single turbo) 39.8mpg, 167g/kg CO2, 150 bhp and max torque is at 3000 rpm (this is why you still think turbo lag still exists).
Both weigh within 15kg of each other

Can you quote a source for your figures? Is the Jetta you referenced turbo loaded driven or RPM driven as you claimed?

http://www.carmagazine.co.uk/car-review ... 13-review/

http://www.carmagazine.co.uk/car-review ... 07-review/

Define "Turbo loaded driven" vs "RPM driven" not sure what you mean by these terms

[drchaos]

transmission as well might play a part^

Might ... but that 1.4 T-jet should be pared with a dualogic transmission which is either a single clutch or dual clutch config, correct me if I am wrong.

Since it doesn't have a torque converter, it shouldn't affect power transfer that much vs the DSG in the VW since its a direct engine connection.

[Habit7]

Now I understand why you think turbo charged engines are gas guzzlers ... That 1.4 T-jet is poorly tuned/older tech.
Can't compare it to the jetta cause its dual charged.

Golf 1.4 tsi (single turbo) 60.1mpg, 110g/km CO2, 138bhp and maximum torque starts at 1500 rpm
Fiat bravo 1.4 T-jet (single turbo) 39.8mpg, 167g/kg CO2, 150 bhp and max torque is at 3000 rpm (this is why you still think turbo lag still exists).
Both weigh within 15kg of each other

Can you quote a source for your figures? Is the Jetta you referenced turbo loaded driven or RPM driven as you claimed?

http://www.carmagazine.co.uk/car-review ... 13-review/

http://www.carmagazine.co.uk/car-review ... 07-review/

Define "Turbo loaded driven" vs "RPM driven" not sure what you mean by these terms

Firstly I never said that I "think turbo charged engines are gas guzzlers." But then again according to you I am the liar.

Secondly you are comparing the latest VW Golf Mk7 with a 2007 Fiat Bravo. Plus those MPG figures from your source are not official. However if you compare the 2007 Bravo with a Golf Mk5 there is only a 1 point difference in MPG
http://www.parkers.co.uk/cars/reviews/f ... 004/38789/
http://www.parkers.co.uk/cars/reviews/f ... 007/40529/

Thirdly the TSI engine has a supercharger and a turbocharger. The supercharger operates at low rpm until 3500rpm until it cant force any more air than the turbo. But the turbo boost pressure where by more fuel is injected and you get the added HP is determined by the engine load and can lie somewhere between 1500-4000rpm. So at lower revs its supercharger at work, not the turbocharger.

[jhonnieblue]

Honestly don't understand why ull arguing for. It's not affecting manufacturers decision to push turbo engines.
And whatever umberto decides to do..well we all know he is an idiot anyway...so really ..why this to and fro

[Allergic2BunnyEars]

Honestly don't understand why ull arguing for. It's not affecting manufacturers decision to push turbo engines.
And whatever umberto decides to do..well we all know he is an idiot anyway...so really ..why this to and fro

This is tuner. People like to complain/argue even though no one knows the details of the supposed tax in the first place.

[racedriverpro]

I watch movies on tuner.

[drchaos]

Now I understand why you think turbo charged engines are gas guzzlers ... That 1.4 T-jet is poorly tuned/older tech.
Can't compare it to the jetta cause its dual charged.

Golf 1.4 tsi (single turbo) 60.1mpg, 110g/km CO2, 138bhp and maximum torque starts at 1500 rpm
Fiat bravo 1.4 T-jet (single turbo) 39.8mpg, 167g/kg CO2, 150 bhp and max torque is at 3000 rpm (this is why you still think turbo lag still exists).
Both weigh within 15kg of each other

Can you quote a source for your figures? Is the Jetta you referenced turbo loaded driven or RPM driven as you claimed?

http://www.carmagazine.co.uk/car-review ... 13-review/

http://www.carmagazine.co.uk/car-review ... 07-review/

Define "Turbo loaded driven" vs "RPM driven" not sure what you mean by these terms

Firstly I never said that I "think turbo charged engines are gas guzzlers." But then again according to you I am the liar.

Secondly you are comparing the latest VW Golf Mk7 with a 2007 Fiat Bravo. Plus those MPG figures from your source are not official. However if you compare the 2007 Bravo with a Golf Mk5 there is only a 1 point difference in MPG
http://www.parkers.co.uk/cars/reviews/f ... 004/38789/
http://www.parkers.co.uk/cars/reviews/f ... 007/40529/

Thirdly the TSI engine has a supercharger and a turbocharger. The supercharger operates at low rpm until 3500rpm until it cant force any more air than the turbo. But the turbo boost pressure where by more fuel is injected and you get the added HP is determined by the engine load and can lie somewhere between 1500-4000rpm. So at lower revs its supercharger at work, not the turbocharger.

Exactly my son ... That why I said you living in old time days ... The turbo chargers of today in that golf are more efficient than their N.A cousins. You keeping talking from your highly inefficient 1.4 T-Jet. But its 2016 not 2007 when your T-jet was hot off the press.

The 1.4 TSI in the Jetta has a twin charger that's why I excluded it from the comparison.

The 1.4 TSI in the new GOLF which is the car I compared your 10 year old clunker to is a single turbo without a supercharger. With only 1 turbo it is able to get boost and max torque from 1500 rpm. They have eliminated the need for a supercharger with more less the same result and better economy and efficiency.

Lastly Fuel is only dumped into the engine when the engine is running at maximum boost! the rest of the boost range is fine to run a leaner mixture.

[Habit7]

The 1.4 TSI in the new GOLF which is the car I compared your 10 year old clunker to is a single turbo without a supercharger. With only 1 turbo it is able to get boost and max torque from 1500 rpm. They have eliminated the need for a supercharger with more less the same result and better economy and efficiency.

All VW 1.4 TSI are twinchargers not single turbo. The max torque at 1500rpm is best attributed to the supercharger, not the turbo. The 1.4 T-Jet performs just as well as the 1.4 TSI which remains mostly unchanged since 2007 even in the VW Jetta which you are are acting like if it is a brand new Audi A4. Again you are pointing to other technologies that assist the turbo rather than the turbo which is the issue at hand.

This is tiring me.

Honestly don't understand why ull arguing for. It's not affecting manufacturers decision to push turbo engines.
And whatever umberto decides to do..well we all know he is an idiot anyway...so really ..why this to and fro

This is tuner. People like to complain/argue even though no one knows the details of the supposed tax in the first place.

I tried to turn it back to the subject at hand viewtopic.php?p=9140551#p9140551 but ppl just called me a PNM and this debacle continued.

[Allergic2BunnyEars]

Nah habit not all Vw 1.4 tsi are twincharged. There are many variants. Some come twincharged and others come single turbo. More recent ones remove the supercharger and generate up to 150 hp and max torque from 1500 rpm.

[drchaos]

"This is tiring me. "
Yes being wrong can be tiring ...

Listen when people giving you factual information nah, that 1.4 TSI with a single turbo came out around 2013, 5 years worth of advancements in turbo tech over that 1.4 T-jet (which actually seems tuned for more hp rather than economy since the rpm range for boost is so high around 3000rpm)

Since you mention the new A4 that new 2.0 turbo petrol is ridiculously efficient, check these figures.
1.4 TFSI petrol 148bhp, 0-62mph 8.9sec, 131mph, 57.7mpg, 114g/km CO2
2.0 TFSI petrol 187bhp, 0-62mph 7.3sec, 149mph, 58.8mpg, 114g/km CO2
2.0 TFSI petrol 248bhp, 0-62mph 5.8sec, 155mph, 49.6mpg, 129g/km CO2
Three different petrol engine choices ...
The new 2.0 TFSI more efficient than the last gen 1.4 TFSI. It faster, more hp, better gas mileage.
Last one shows how you tune for performance rather than efficiency i.e running larger turbo, more boost and heavier fuel mix in the ratio.

[Advent]

My experience with turbos has Been positive. With the passat I could get 700-900 off a tank of gas if I drive conservative.
Open up the throttle and would easily sink to 400km or less.

Compared to the n/a vehicle I have now which can't get below 10L/100km combined no matter how conservative I drive.

Most manufacturers are moving to turbo charged engines now. Check car advice and their favored vehicles are that are turbo charged for overall efficiency and power balance

wow i avg 240-250 mix driving or 300 straight highway kms. i have a 2ltr NA , that with 100tt a full tank, how much allyuh paying to full allyuh tank?

[novastar1]

My experience with turbos has Been positive. With the passat I could get 700-900 off a tank of gas if I drive conservative.
Open up the throttle and would easily sink to 400km or less.

Compared to the n/a vehicle I have now which can't get below 10L/100km combined no matter how conservative I drive.

Most manufacturers are moving to turbo charged engines now. Check car advice and their favored vehicles are that are turbo charged for overall efficiency and power balance

wow i avg 240-250 mix driving or 300 straight highway kms. i have a 2ltr NA , that with 100tt a full tank, how much allyuh paying to full allyuh tank?

What is that you're driving with a 30L tank?

[kamakazi]

There is a lot more that goes into gas mileage than just the engine... Other main differences are the transmission and engine tuning.

[nervewrecker]

First auto related discussion we have in here since I donno when.

[Habit7]

"This is tiring me. "
Yes being wrong can be tiring ...

Listen when people giving you factual information nah, that 1.4 TSI with a single turbo came out around 2013, 5 years worth of advancements in turbo tech over that 1.4 T-jet (which actually seems tuned for more hp rather than economy since the rpm range for boost is so high around 3000rpm)

Well it is only fair that you compare technologies of equal vintages and the single turbo Fiat Bravo T-Jet matches the twincharged VW Golf.

But if you want to compare recent tech the Alfa Romeo 1.4 MultiAir 147hp does 0-60mph 7.9sec, 51mpg to the VW Jetta 1.4 TSI 147hp 0-60mph 8.3sec, 53mpg which is lighter than the Alfa
http://www.parkers.co.uk/cars/reviews/f ... 010/74469/
http://www.parkers.co.uk/cars/reviews/f ... 011/65974/

So pick your poison, the more force induction, the richer the mix.

[drchaos]

Yuh finally come to realize ... The high end load of a turbo "more force induction" the richer the mix needs to be but run at lower loads with leaner mixes and that where your efficiency lies. That's why modern turbo engines are so efficient vs their N.A cousins

Good job man took a while but we finally got you there!

Also the comparison wasn't meant as a pissing contest between your fiat and other cars ... it was to show how far the tech has come.

[Habit7]

Take win, just so we can rest this.

Btw the 120HP T-Jet torque rating was at 1750rpm, so 1500rpm in the Jetta isn't such a big hurdle as you are making it out to be.

[drchaos]

See ... Same principle the 120HP version tuned to spool up much faster and give lower end boost so you get greater economy. Not much high end spool and no need to dump fuel to prevent knock.
Exactly what we have been trying to show you that you have been referencing engines tuned for power not efficiency.
Still older tech, doubt that 120hp T-jet can match the hp or the fuel econ of the newer turbo engines like 1.4 TSI. But don't worry I am sure Fiat has something new in the works to up the ante.

Finally you seeing how Turbo's increase fuel/thermal efficiency.

[De Dragon]

Take win, just so we can rest this.

Btw the 120HP T-Jet torque rating was at 1750rpm, so 1500rpm in the Jetta isn't such a big hurdle as you are making it out to be.

Jesus H Christ, even when you're conceding you're still trying to have the last word!

[16 cycles]

Proud ah allyuh...ah thread in 'ole talk' about cars!!!!

No sarcasm eh..

[drchaos]

I bored since habbit7 and megadoc1 throw in the towel!

[megadoc1]

I bored since habbit7 and megadoc1 throw in the towel!

well I dont know it all but its better for me to discus these on forums where I can learn more than to stay here going back and fort for nothing.regarding volkswagen, I like to talk about lamfa ,lxrdn,lambts and all those other stuff that always seem to remind me how much I dont know however, I have learned enough to not take anyone seriously who thinks that more hp can be had by forcing more air into a cylinder without adding more fuel. who knows, maybe when I finally understand the fueling strategies for these engine. I may see where you are right

[Allergic2BunnyEars]

I bored since habbit7 and megadoc1 throw in the towel!

well I dont know it all but its better for me to discus these on forums where I can learn more than to stay here going back and fort for nothing.regarding volkswagen, I like to talk about lamfa ,lxrdn,lambts and all those other stuff that always seem to remind me how much I dont know however, I have learned enough to not take anyone seriously who thinks that more hp can be had by forcing more air into a cylinder without adding more fuel. who knows, maybe when I finally understand the fueling strategies for these engine. I may see where you are right

LOL

[drchaos]

Megadoc check out skyactiv engines. They increase the compression, use the same amount of fuel and get more energy out of the same amount/less of fuel.

Yes they do it differently from turbocharging but same principle. Turbos will RAM more air into a cylinder to increase compression. Skyactiv pistons are dome shaped and increase compression by further decreasing effective volume on the compression stroke.

Skyactiv just like turbos get much more energy out of the fuel. Difference is that run turbo engine to the redline and fuel economy will be worse to prevent knocking, but power is amazing. Skyactiv is efficient even at higher rpms but you don't get mega boost at higher loads.

Run both types of engines at lower loads where these engines are designed to work efficiently and you get more power out of the same fuel.

[A172]

all this cyak over a setta deadhorse

[drchaos]

Next Mazda speed 3 will be ridiculously priced here ... They going with a 2.5L skyactiv turbo. So after colm increased taxes on 1999 cc and slap on further taxes for turbo engines won't make sense.

[megadoc1]

Next Mazda speed 3 will be ridiculously priced here ... They going with a 2.5L skyactiv turbo. So after colm increased taxes on 1999 cc and slap on further taxes for turbo engines won't make sense.

what u talking about? the tax is on luxury vehicles over 1999 ,the tax concerning the turbo was being considered for luxury vehicles that have lower displacement but have a turbo that will still make great power. its not a double tax


for example. most 2 liter cars are about 1967cc or so and if you add a turbo to that you can still have a luxury vehicle that u dont pay the tax for but yet it have a turbo that gives it more power than a 2.5 Na