Figure that the 2.slow engine in the Jetta only makes about 120hp if I remember correctly so I would guess the 1.8 would be even less than that.

 

VW offered a NA 1.8 liter in Europe. Not sure if they still do. I think it was rated at about 100 hp. It's probably not identical to a 1.8t sans turbo, but its probably close.

Kenny

 

I think that they no more produce NA 1.8, if I am correct that engine used to have 115 BHP. Now Passat have 2.0L with 115 BHP and 1.6L with 102 BHP

 

Hmm.. So would the fuel consumption of the 1.8t be equal to the 2.0 slow/NA1.8?

Im assuming the turbo doesnt increase fuel consumption that much

 

Well trip when VW produced their 1.8 8v engine it produced 90hp

When they produced the 2.0 crossflow head that produced 115hp
if you do a cam a chip and change the valve spring add an exhaust and maybe a header you could extract about 145 of so

The old cis injection 1.8 16v produces in the area of 123hp and the 2.0 made about 9 or 10 more hp

VW did offer a 1.8 20v in Europe but I think it only made 120hp

A few years ago European car magazine did an article on the guys at Eurosport
when they did a build up of a rabbit with a 1.8 20v engine that they fabricated an intake for the car so that the could use carburators and IIRC the car made about 140hp with the peices they hodge podged for it.

It is only a guess but with the lower compression for the 1.8t the engine would have to make 120hp or less.

I think the most noticable loss would be the loss of the added torque which would make you think the engine has less hp than it is actually making.

 

The Uk (europe) 1.8 Passat normally aspirated model has 125 bhp, which is c##p compared with the same size engines in peugouts and renaults which kick out 150-180bhp.

I would say though that if your turbo has gone then you would lose more bhp due to the restriction that the broken turbo puts on the induction and exhaust gas flows.

 

keep in mind we have a low compression motor so you dont have the same power as a non turbo 1.8 20v.

 

keep in mind we have a low compression motor so you dont have the same power as a non turbo 1.8 20v.

Its not that great a difference :

1.8 NA compression is 10.3
1.8T compression is 9.5

 

I would say though that if your turbo has gone then you would lose more bhp due to the restriction that the broken turbo puts on the induction and exhaust gas flows.

Yea, now that you brought it up, from what I remember of the engine diagram, the air flow would be messed up because it would keep sending air to the turbo (which wouldnt use it if disabled/malfunctioned).

 

I would say though that if your turbo has gone then you would lose more bhp due to the restriction that the broken turbo puts on the induction and exhaust gas flows.

Yea, now that you brought it up, from what I remember of the engine diagram, the air flow would be messed up because it would keep sending air to the turbo (which wouldnt use it if disabled/malfunctioned).

Sorry what i was thinking about was more the obstruction that the 2 compressor wheels would cause if say the turbo compressor wheel shaft was seized, as the air being sucked in by the engine would be restricted by the compressor wheel and the exhaust gases trying to escape would be restricted unless you could open the wastegate to allow it to bypass the turbo.

 

I think it's 115. Regardless, you'll know when your turbo goes. Within the span of 1 day, I drove a B5 that had a blown turbo, a new turbo, and a Neuspeed chipped turbo(.8bar). The step from no turbo to stock turbo is about the same as the step from stock to chipped.

 

Im assuming the turbo doesnt increase fuel consumption that much

While on boost, the turbo engine consumes *much* more fuel than a normally aspirated (N/A) engine. Approx. 5psi absolute pressure for 1.8T N/A vs. approx. 22psi absolute pressure for 1.8T at full boost = about 4 times the fuel consumption in order to maintain the correct fuel:air ratio.

Luckily, the turbo is only providing significant boost during moderate to hard acceleration, or while driving uphill, so most of the time the 1.8T burns fuel like a N/A engine. Power when you need it, economy when you don't.

 

ooh ooh i know!

I had my '02 1.8T dyno'ed at DynoSpot Racing WHILE THE TURBO WAS DEAD.

With Tip, and 17" BBS VZs, I wound up just shy of 100 HP and 100 lb-ft peak. So, that 115 HP figure seems right w/ drivetrain loss.

 

Re: ooh ooh i know!

I had my '02 1.8T dyno'ed at DynoSpot Racing WHILE THE TURBO WAS DEAD.

With Tip, and 17" BBS VZs, I wound up just shy of 100 HP and 100 lb-ft peak. So, that 115 HP figure seems right w/ drivetrain loss.

Ouch, well, good thing you dyno'ed. I guess this can be part of the FAQ?

 

yep, NA sucks...get it, cause you're always in vacuum. It doesn't blow because...alright, that was too lame to complete oke:

 

Skuggah, by running your engine w/ the turbo down, can't that cause engine damage? Least thats what i got from another thread.

 

Skuggah, by running your engine w/ the turbo down, can't that cause engine damage? Least thats what i got from another thread.

Really?! What does it do? The dealership replaced it under warranty, but they didn't say anything about possible engine damage. :nervous:

 

Unsure myself, but here's the thread i was referring to: http://www.clubb5.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=85906&highlight=turbo+engine+damage

 

Offhand I can't imagine an inactive turbo would damage anything. The lower pressure shouldn't create more stress in any of the seals. The MAF and O2 sensor data will dial in the fuel delivery, so there shouldn't be any fouling from over-rich or cat damage from over-lean. If the turbo is not spooling up, that's one major heat source removed, so the cooling system should not have to work any harder.

Perhaps the loss of low-end torque could cause some wear and tear from "lugging" the engine at standing starts. Somehow, I think that's a stretch, however.

I'm making this up as I go along, so someone with a clue, please chime-in at any time... :crazy:

 

interesting thread, lets keep this going. I have seen modified mk2's with 20 valve heads and no turbo, making 300+ hp. I wish I could find the magazine now. Sure it would take alot of modification, but its possible.

 

This is a good thread! :thumbup:

 

Unsure myself, but here's the thread i was referring to: http://www.clubb5.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=85906&highlight=turbo+engine+damage

The two people in that thread who said turbo failure would cause damage didn't provide any specifics.

That thread was specifically about wastegate failure. I can't imagine a wastegate failure directly causing actual engine failure. Conceivably, you might overboost (I'm not sure if they fail open or fail closed), but likely the engine would detect that and shut down.

Even if the intake compressor shattered, the pieces would still have to make it through the intercooler before engine damage would occur. And I don't recall ever seeing a post from someone whose compressor shattered.

In any case, if your turbo had failed, and the car was driven, and the car is running fine now, then you can be pretty confident no engine damage occured.

 

I have seen modified mk2's with 20 valve heads and no turbo, making 300+ hp.

Race cams with crappy low end? And nitrous?

 

To my friend's B5, blown turbo caused waste dammage on cat. Piece of turbine itself went trough down pipe and broke ceramic in cat.

 

Well, I guess I've heard of a shattered turbo now. At least it was on the exhaust side. The exhaust-side pieces won't go into the engine.

Of course, cat's are expensive too.