Topic: Test Drive: 2010 Volkswagen Golf 2.5L

[Jaeger]

Doesn't anybody else find 170hp from 2.5L kind of weak!? I mean my '03 Spec V put out 185 and that car came out in '01 as an '02 model. With an extra cylinder I would have hoped it would at least deliver 200hp.

I agree.  While entirely adequate for the vehicle itself, that's a lot of displacement for not a lot of power.

Jaeger

[johngenx]

I don't mind understressed engines with good torque characteristics.

[Jaeger]

I don't mind understressed engines with good torque characteristics.

I don't either.  But would you mind and extra 20 or so hp?  I wouldn't.  That would hardly be stressing 2.5l spread out over 5 cylinders to the max.  Honda gets that more than that out of 2.0l 4 pot without difficulty.

I'm not saying 170 sucks or is lame for the application.  I'm just saying with a motor that big it could easily offer more and I would welcome it if it did.

Jaeger

[Mitlov]

I don't mind understressed engines with good torque characteristics.

I don't either.  But would you mind and extra 20 or so hp?  I wouldn't.  That would hardly be stressing 2.5l spread out over 5 cylinders to the max.  Honda gets that more than that out of 2.0l 4 pot without difficulty.

I'm not saying 170 sucks or is lame for the application.  I'm just saying with a motor that big it could easily offer more and I would welcome it if it did.

Jaeger

The Honda 2.0L makes 197 horsepower, but you have to rev it to nearly 9000 rpm to get that because it doesn't have any frakking torque!  139 ft-lbs at 6100 rpm, to be exact.  It'd be a TERRIBLE mass-market engine.  There's a reason it's restricted to the Civic Si and not used in other cars. 

The VW 2.5L is a mass-market engine, not a high-performance niche engine.  It's torquey and linear powerband (177 ft-lbs at 4250 rpm) is much more accessible and pleasant to most buyers, even if the specific output is lower than the Civic Si's and even if it's less satisfying to a talented driving enthusiast looking to carve canyons.

The VW 2.5L's specific output is about as good as, or better, than the four-cylinders seen in the Altima, Accord (base), Camry, Fusion, Mazda3s, Corolla XRS, etc.  You say that they could pack more power in without compromise, but nobody (except the 2011 Sonata and the Accord EX) does in the industry does when you're talking about 2.4L-2.5L four-cylinders in mass-market applications. 

[Jaeger]

The Honda 2.0L makes 197 horsepower, but you have to rev it to nearly 9000 rpm to get that because it doesn't have any frakking torque!  139 ft-lbs at 6100 rpm, to be exact.  It'd be a TERRIBLE mass-market engine.  There's a reason it's restricted to the Civic Si and not used in other cars. 

The VW 2.5L is a mass-market engine, not a high-performance niche engine.  It's torquey and linear powerband (177 ft-lbs at 4250 rpm) is much more accessible and pleasant to most buyers, even if the specific output is lower than the Civic Si's and even if it's less satisfying to a talented driving enthusiast looking to carve canyons.

The VW 2.5L's specific output is about as good as, or better, than the four-cylinders seen in the Altima, Accord (base), Camry, Fusion, Mazda3s, Corolla XRS, etc.  You say that they could pack more power in without compromise, but nobody (except the 2011 Sonata and the Accord EX) does in the industry does when you're talking about 2.4L-2.5L four-cylinders in mass-market applications. 

Yes,  but Honda's turning out that 197 hp that with only 2.0 liters - hence the high-revving, low torque nature of the motor.  VW has 2.5 liters to play with - I find it hard to accept that they can do no better than 170.  When Honda really "stress out" an engine they can wring another 40 ponies out of that same 2.0 displacement - remember the original S2K?  That was how long ago now?  If you're waiting for me to stand up and cheer 170hp out of 2.5 liters, you're in for a long wait.  It's not that I would rather see a smaller-displacement, higher-revving, lower-torque 4-cylinder Honda motor - it's that I woud like more ponies to go along with the torque that this significantly bigger 5 cylinder VW motor produces.  If Hyundai can get 30hp more out of the same displacement, it can't be beyond the abilities of VW.

Jaeger

[Mitlov]

Yes,  but Honda's turning out that 197 hp that with only 2.0 liters - hence the high-revving, low torque nature of the motor.  VW has 2.5 liters to play with - I find it hard to accept that they can do no better than 170.  When Honda really "stress out" an engine they can wring another 40 ponies out of that same 2.0 displacement - remember the original S2K?  That was how long ago now?  If you're waiting for me to stand up and cheer 170hp out of 2.5 liters, you're in for a long wait.  It's not that I would rather see a smaller-displacement, higher-revving, lower-torque 4-cylinder Honda motor - it's that I woud like more ponies to go along with the torque that this significantly bigger 5 cylinder VW motor produces.  If Hyundai can get 30hp more out of the same displacement, it can't be beyond the abilities of VW.

Jaeger

You ignored the part of my post that pointed out that the power and displacement of the VW 2.5 is on par with offerings in the Camry, Accord (base engine), Altima, Fusion, Mazda3s, Corolla XRS, etc.  Let's throw the Mazda6, Chevy Malibu, Volvo S40 into the mix as well.  The Sonata is the exception to the rule (and brand new).  Everybody else offers an engine with performance similar to the Golf's 2.5L. 

Are you offended by the performance of the 2.5L in the Nissan Altima?  Of course not.  That's what you should compare the VW 2.5L to.

The Civic Si's engine is a performance-oriented extra-cost upgrade engine.  Even setting aside its mass-market unfriendliness, compare it to VW's 2.0T, not VW's 2.5L.  Apples to oranges.

[Jaeger]

Yes,  but Honda's turning out that 197 hp that with only 2.0 liters - hence the high-revving, low torque nature of the motor.  VW has 2.5 liters to play with - I find it hard to accept that they can do no better than 170.  When Honda really "stress out" an engine they can wring another 40 ponies out of that same 2.0 displacement - remember the original S2K?  That was how long ago now?  If you're waiting for me to stand up and cheer 170hp out of 2.5 liters, you're in for a long wait.  It's not that I would rather see a smaller-displacement, higher-revving, lower-torque 4-cylinder Honda motor - it's that I woud like more ponies to go along with the torque that this significantly bigger 5 cylinder VW motor produces.  If Hyundai can get 30hp more out of the same displacement, it can't be beyond the abilities of VW.

Jaeger

You ignored the part of my post that pointed out that the power and displacement of the VW 2.5 is on par with offerings in the Camry, Accord (base engine), Altima, Fusion, Mazda3s, Corolla XRS, etc.  Let's throw the Mazda6, Chevy Malibu, Volvo S40 into the mix as well.  The Sonata is the exception to the rule (and brand new).  Everybody else offers an engine with performance similar to the Golf's 2.5L. 

Are you offended by the performance of the 2.5L in the Nissan Altima?  Of course not.  That's what you should compare the VW 2.5L to.

The Civic Si's engine is a performance-oriented extra-cost upgrade engine.  Compare it to VW's 2.0T, not VW's 2.5L.  Apples to oranges.

Well, this is what I get for saying something even vaguely negative about beloved VW.  Not even negative, really, to someone who doesn't have a knee-jerk defend-VW at-all-costs response permanently engaged.  I guess you didn't read my earlier posts saying it was an entirely adequate output for the vehicle itself?

And again, kindly refrain from putting words in my mouth - particularly when they are utter rubbish.  I am not "offended" by the power output of the Altima.  Or the VW.  Nor did I ever come close to suggesting that.  I just think VW can do better with 2.5l of displacement.  By necessary inference, so can Nissan.  Hyundai does considerably better with less displacement.  They are pretty mainstream.  And their offering is one of the more recent.  It demonstrates what can be accomplished with marginally less displacement than the VW brings to the table, and not in an extreme "performance" application, either.

But ignore that - VW is wonderful and their wonderful cars are only surpassed by their exceptionally wonderful drivers.  There, feel better?

Jaeger

[Mitlov]

There's plenty of negative things you can say about VW.  A lot of people have complained that the 2.5L is coarse and slow-revving.  Say that and I won't object.  Complain that it's hard to find a 5MT or 6MT now that the brand is all about dual-clutch transmissions and I certainly won't object.  I'm not objecting because you're criticizing VW; I'm objecting because you're criticizing VW for doing something that everyone else does too.

Maybe the Altima line was too much of a hard-edged jab, but I was just trying to make a point: VW's 2.5L is exactly where the rest of the market is in this particular segment.  Despite a caveat here and a caveat there, you were complaining that you expected more horsepower for the displacement out of their base engine when it's on par with every base engine of similar size on the market except ONE brand-spankin'-new engine.

The Civic Si's engine isn't a base (i.e., inexpensive), mass-market-oriented engine.  VW's 2.5L is.  I honestly don't understand why we're comparing them.

[Flinter]

I think the debate here is really around the choices Engineers make when designing an engine for a particular application.

The Engineers at VW chose to go with a cast iron block and aluminum head 5 cylinder long-stoke design with the 2.5L engine design of the Golf. (82.5mm bore by 92.8mm stroke). Typically, this longer stroke or "undersquare" design leads to peak torque at relatively low rpm but lower maximum rpm due to the increased forces on the pistons/rods/crankshaft due to higher piston speeds resulting from a longer stroke. The smaller bore also leads to smaller valve openings which makes getting air/exhaust into and out of the engine more difficult as rpm's go up. Thus the 6000 rpm redline on this engine and lower peak horsepower. With the use of lighter and more exotic materials (pistons, crank, rods) and technology to help the engine breath better at higher RPM (variable valve lift, variable length intake manifold, improved exhaust designs etc.). I'm sure that VW could get this engine to rev higher and make higher peak HP but that would have cost and potentially reliability implications. Unfortunately, this is probably not something VW wants to deal with in a high volume lower cost base engine.
Power: 168 bhp (125 kW) @ 5,700 rpm; Torque: 176 ft·lbf (239 N·m) @ 4,250 rpm

Over at Honda when they designed the K20 series of engines the decision was made to go with an all aluminum inline 4 cylinder "square" engine design (Bore / Stroke 86 mm x 86 mm). The shorter stroke allows for higher RPM due to the resulting reduction in piston speeds and associated internal forces. In addition the larger bore allows for larger valves and better engine breathing. The higher max RPM (8000rpm) leads to a higher peak HP but the downside is that peak torque occurs at higher RPM's. Of course part of the reason this thing can rev to 8K rpm is probably due to lighter and more exotic materials (pistons, crank, rods) and technology to help the engine breath better at higher RPM (variable valve lift etc.). This costs more and results in a more complex and expensive engine.
Power: 197 bhp (147 kW) @ 7800 rpm;  Torque: 139 ft·lbf (189 N·m) @ 6200 rpm

Two very different engine designs and therfore a very different feels to a driver.

[HeliDriver]

The Honda 2.0L makes 197 horsepower, but you have to rev it to nearly 9000 rpm to get that because it doesn't have any frakking torque!  139 ft-lbs at 6100 rpm, to be exact.  It'd be a TERRIBLE mass-market engine.  There's a reason it's restricted to the Civic Si and not used in other cars. 

I don't know too much about the newer Honda engines, but I doubt the one you're speaking of would be that terrible in a grocery getter, and I'm sure the reason Honda doesn't use it for such simply comes down to cost.

The 1.6L in my old Honda made 111 lb*ft at 7,000 rpms and 160 hp at 7,600 rpms. That sounds like a horrible, peaky, useless-around-town engine, no?

The funny thing is, if you compare the dyno chart of my high-strung engine with the base 1.6L in the low-end car, you'll find they match up almost exactly from idle up to around 6,000 rpms. The more powerful engine simply keeps revving when the base engine is giving up. If you never took either engine above 6,000 rpms, you'd probably never be able to tell them apart.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying that either engine a torque-monster. I'm just saying that Honda's peaky, top-end motors often get a bad rap as being almost undrivable around town. Really, they're no worse for daily driving and grocery getting than Honda's base engines.

[footlong58]

What about the extra cylinder?  My SE-R gets 177hp from a 2.5L four...

I understand that everyone in the segment is around that 170 mark with big fours, and VW is right in the mix...  2.5L is 2.5L, right, but the VW has an extra cylinder and around the same, if not a little less, hp...

[tpl]

Flinter you stated that the VW 2.5  is a  "high volume lower cost base engine".  Is it a really a high volume engine by VW standards?  Where else in the world do they sell it?  The only place I can find is NA in the Golf & Jetta and the long departed Eurovan.

[Jaeger]

What about the extra cylinder?  My SE-R gets 177hp from a 2.5L four...

I understand that everyone in the segment is around that 170 mark with big fours, and VW is right in the mix...  2.5L is 2.5L, right, but the VW has an extra cylinder and around the same, if not a little less, hp...

The current Sentra Spec V makes 200hp from 2.5l.  The mid-level Accord engine makes 190hp from 2.4l.  The basest of base model Hyundai Sonata makes 190hp from 2.4l.  All 4 cylinders.  All the same or less displacement than VW's 5 cylinder. 

It's not about market segment or market branding as "performance" or "mainstream" - it's simply an observation about volumetric efficiency.  Making more power from less displacement is not a bad thing, it's a good thing.  As I have said, 170 from 2.5l is not bad, it doesn't suck and it certainly doesn't offend.  But neither does it impress.  If Hyundai sticks that 2.4l 4-banger into a compact sedan, you think they'll detune it to 170 because that's on par with the market segment?  I don't.

Jaeger

PS - VWs are wonderfully wonderful and only surpassed by their exceptionally wonderful drivers.

[vdk]

It's an engine suited to the NA market. Relatively large displacement, lazy, not very powerful but torquey down low, cheap and unpretentious.

[Jaeger]

It's an engine suited to the NA market. Relatively large displacement, lazy, not very powerful but torquey down low, cheap and unpretentious.

If an extra 20hp would make that engine "pretentious" I'd be willing to live with the label.

Jaeger

[Flinter]

Flinter you stated that the VW 2.5  is a  "high volume lower cost base engine".  Is it a really a high volume engine by VW standards?  Where else in the world do they sell it?  The only place I can find is NA in the Golf & Jetta and the long departed Eurovan.

This is true, the 2.5L 5 cylinder is probably not a high volume engine by VW standards given that it is used only in NA in the Golf & Jetta.

I probably should have said "high volume lower cost engine".

[Mitlov]

As I have said, 170 from 2.5l is not bad, it doesn't suck and it certainly doesn't offend.  But neither does it impress. 

I can't disagree with that on any level.

Good thing this is the cheapest engine in the cheapest car VW offers in North America (excluding the Canada-only "City Golf"), not a "mid-range" or "range-topping" engine.  If you want to be impressed, get a Golf with a 2.0T or a TDI.

[Mitlov]

What about the extra cylinder?  My SE-R gets 177hp from a 2.5L four...

I understand that everyone in the segment is around that 170 mark with big fours, and VW is right in the mix...  2.5L is 2.5L, right, but the VW has an extra cylinder and around the same, if not a little less, hp...

I think displacement has a lot more to do with power output than number of cylinders does.

And for what it's worth, Volvo's naturally-aspirated 2.4L inline-five puts out power similar to VW's.  Just a tad less than the VW, I think.

[quadzilla]

If you want to be impressed, get a Golf GTI with a 2.0T or a TDI.

Fixed it. This rest isn't directed at you Miltov, just adding to the conversation.

I've never driven the 2.5L but I'm sure its good at what it does and is so much better than that 2.Slow they used in the past.

Another reason VW can't bump up the power anymore is because the GTI has 'only' 200hp.

Personally, I don't understand why they keep making them have more hp, why not concentrate on making them more fuel efficient?

Audi does has a five cyl 2.5L Turbo in the TT-RS good for around 335hp.

[Mitlov]

Personally, I don't understand why they keep making them have more hp, why not concentrate on making them more fuel efficient?

Just like a 2.5L with 20 more horsepower would cannibalize GTI sales, maybe they're worried that a 2.5L with 10 more mpg would cannibalize TDI sales?  I'm NOT defending this reasoning--I think it's lame when a company deliberately hamstrings a car to not cannibalize a more expensive car (Clarkson tore into Porsche for the Cayman's power output on this same point)--but as a practical business matter, maybe that's where they're coming from.  Keep the 2.5L cheap and adequate-but-not-impressive, so that people who want more will either go 2.0T or TDI.