The dangers of increasing GTI turbo-boost

formul8 said:

Chipping or mods or whatever do not blow up engines, your right foot does.

You can boost the living hell out these motors and have it last as long as a stock engine, provided you don't beat the living hell out of it.

Click to expand...

True, but how does increase in boost pressure accelerates the wear and tear of parts? i.e., originally 300k miles useful life piston ring became 280k or 250k or 200k? Would it be safe to assume a 20% boost in torque decreases useful life of parts by 17%?

What he said made sense, that if the GTI engine is durable enough to run at R level of torque/HP, why did VW fortify the engine? Could it be the manufacturing variability of both engine and turbo charger compounded to a high sigma in end drive train durability?

formul8 said:

Why does a 4th gen F-Body keep coming up in discussions on this site? Apples and oranges and has little in common with the GTI other than having 4 wheels and a hatch.

Click to expand...

Great efforts has been made to derail the discussion because no one could prove him wrong with any supporting evidence. Besides "lol wikipedia", "lol c & d paper racer" or "go drive your camero".

I can think of several manufacturers that use old engines in their higher performance cars when they already have stronger motors being use in lower performance cars. I'm sure a lot of it is about money.

harddrivin1le said:

So why didn't VW simply boost the EA888 to 268 HP - 270 HP for their new "R20" instead of going to all the extra trouble of specifying and installing a fortified, 270 HP, EA113 that's far less fuel efficient?

Click to expand...

I hate to even wade into this train wreck of a thread, but are you seriously going to tell me that, as someone who claims to be an experienced mechanical engineer, you can't think of a single other reason VW might use the older engine block?

Ok, let me help you out here. Just a few possibilities in no particular order:

1: Being older, they have more data on how reliable the engine is, and better know the limits. It could well be that the new block can take twice the boost as the old one, but it is so new that they don't really have the reliability data to feel comfortable with that yet.

2: Being older, there are already an abundance of both internal and third-party performance solutions to draw on, without having to do any real engineering. They can just bolt on existing parts, or copy solutions that are already proven to work in this configuration, instead of having to design and test a new solution from the ground up.

3: Business units do not always operate in lock-step. I have no idea how long the R group spent perfecting the performance of the R20, but they could have been working on it for years, meaning they started with the old block, and want to see ROI on that development, before moving on to the new engine. Typically "new" products don't start their development cycle at the end of the last product, different teams are working in parallel, and development projects get finished and rolled out at different rates.

4: It costs a lot to retool a factory. I am 100% certain that not every engine production facility is yet geared up to produce the new engine, and what better way to still make a profit off the older facilities, than to use those engines in limited editions where any of the above advantages come into play?

5: I don't know how JIT VW's engine manufacturing is, but they might have just had a backstock of the old engine blocks, and had to find something to do with them.

Those are off the top of my head. I'm not saying any one of those IS the reason they are using the old block, but every one of those is just as plausible a supposition of why they COULD be using the old block as anything you are claiming.

The big problem with your whole argument, is that you are trying to pretend that there is NO OTHER POSSIBLE explanation for using the older block, but that it is stronger and better suited to high-performance applications. In fact, there are innumerable other possible explanations. The fact that you can't see this, either calls into question your rationality on this subject, or calls into question your supposed expertise. Either way, that makes you look kind of trollish.

http://www.my-gti.com/1046/differences-between-the-gti-mark-v-and-mark-vi-engine

The Audi TT-S and the VW Golf R also use the EA113 engine....

oddspider said:

Everything that I have read has also stated that the ea113 is being phased out. They will use it till it is no longer useful. Just the specs on the ea888 alone tell me it is more boost friendly as well as being more Eco friendly.

Click to expand...

http://www.my-gti.com/1046/differences-between-the-gti-mark-v-and-mark-vi-engine

*1 these versions have stronger pistons pins and new rings, reinforced connecting rods, new bearings, reinforced cylinder block at the main-bearing pedestals and cap, new, lightweight aluminium-silicon alloy cylinder head for high temperature resistance and strength, adjusted exhaust camshaft timing, increased cross-section high-pressure injectors, 1.2 bar boost pressure turbocharger with larger turbine and compression rotor.

Click to expand...

So it would be safe to argue that boosting MK5 GTI (EA 113) to MK6 Golf R (EA 113+?) type of torque/HP probably won't be safe for long-term durability (otherwise VW won't fortify the engine as much). But it is still hard to compare the durability differences between MK6 GTI (EA 888) and MK6 Golf R (EA 113+)?

cnimativ said:

Great efforts has been made to derail the discussion because no one could prove him wrong with any supporting evidence. Besides "lol wikipedia", "lol c & d paper racer" or "go drive your camero".

Click to expand...

You mean except the direct quote from VW saying the engine is capable of greater stresses than he says it is, and the guy from APR with hands-on experience modding these engines, and all the people out there who have already driven their modded cars past the 50,000 miles he says you would be lucky to get out of the engine before it is slag? You mean aside from all that evidence, no one can prove him wrong?

I think you have an odd definition of proof. He is the one claiming that VW specifically designed their new engine to be weaker than the engine it is replacing. I think he is the one carrying the burden of proof, not the people who have already proven him factually inaccurate on several points.

cnimativ said:

http://www.my-gti.com/1046/differences-between-the-gti-mark-v-and-mark-vi-engine



So it would be safe to argue that boosting MK5 GTI (EA 113) to MK6 Golf R (EA 113+?) type of torque/HP probably won't be safe for long-term durability (otherwise VW won't fortify the engine as much). But it is still hard to compare the durability differences between MK6 GTI (EA 888) and MK6 Golf R (EA 113+)?

Click to expand...

VW/Audi's HIGH PERFORMANCE 2.0T applications use the EA113 engine. The EA888 engine is limited to 211 HP in factory applications.

My argument started right there and that's where I'm going to end it.

And EA113 engines, in their higher performance forms, are still in mass production.

That wouldn't be the case if VW/Audi felt that increasing boost (without making expensive internal engine mods) on their present EA888 could provide them with the same mix of power, longevity and reliability - particularly since the EA888 is more fuel efficient.


http://www.my-gti.com/1046/differences-between-the-gti-mark-v-and-mark-vi-engine

The Audi TT-S and the VW Golf R also use the EA113 engine....

oddspider said:

Straight from vw's mouth when I asked about the current ea888 motor found in the gti and other vehicles worldwide. So that would be a "liberal" side of 270hp for the 2.0l


Shaunh

Click to expand...

Just throwing this out there: This could also be the reason why they did not use the motor. Why put an engine that is "maxed out" in their top of the line I-4 vw? People who buy the R are clearly going to be enjoying it. There is always a little room for improvement in any motor.

http://www.arinahnell.com/other/vw/tech/20tsi.pdf

You can quote things all day long but the spec sheet you provided doesn't tell me the 113 is stronger than 888. The notation at the bottom doesnt say that the parts in 113 are stronger than 888 but this noted version uses stronger parts. Stronger than what.....other ea113's. You are reading what you want

cnimativ said:

True, but how does increase in boost pressure accelerates the wear and tear of parts? i.e., originally 300k miles useful life piston ring became 280k or 250k or 200k? Would it be safe to assume a 20% boost in torque decreases useful life of parts by 17%?

What he said made sense, that if the GTI engine is durable enough to run at R level of torque/HP, why did VW fortify the engine? Could it be the manufacturing variability of both engine and turbo charger compounded to a high sigma in end drive train durability?.

Click to expand...

Simple. Stay out of the boost.

Your right foot is the most effective component to long engine life.

(but, boost is FUN!!! )

cnimativ said:

So it would be safe to argue that boosting MK5 GTI (EA 113) to MK6 Golf R (EA 113+?) type of torque/HP probably won't be safe for long-term durability (otherwise VW won't fortify the engine as much). But it is still hard to compare the durability differences between MK6 GTI (EA 888) and MK6 Golf R (EA 113+)?

Click to expand...

Except that isn't even a rational argument. There are plenty of people out there who have run stage 3 APR on their EA 113, and exceeded the reliability he is claiming, without the "fortification" of the EA 113+. Does that mean that the EA 113 is too weak to take the mods people have already done to them, just because it isn't "fortified?" His argument is that they are using a fortified EA 113, so the EA 888 must be weak, which means the EA 888 is stronger. Then why did they have to "fortify" it? Who is to say that the exact same "fortifications" to an EA 888 wouldn't enable even higher power than a "fortified" EA 113?

At no point in this entire argument, has there been a single shred of evidence that adds up to what he is claiming, at all. Let me break this down for you really simply He is saying that A(EA113)+B(fortification)=X(EA113+), X>W(EA888) therefore A>W. That doesn't follow. To make that statement you would would have to know the value of B. It could well be that W+B=Z Z>X, meaning W>A. At no point does anyone find for the value of A or B, they just say that X>W, therefore A>W.

Other than the timing chain vs timing belt, and a difference in compression, nothing appears massively different between the two engines' basic specs. (Which comes from yet ANOTHER blog/forum site.)

Of course SOME of the higher performance versions will have heightened steel strengths.

It's similar to the Mustangs. They used the same block with different internals. The GT got a 2v head design on all aluminum internals in the 4.6L block. The Mach1 and Terminator cobra used the same block, but the internals were forged. The Termy had a blower on top of it. Both had 4v heads, though.

Same block, different internals. That doesn't seem to the case between these two engines.

In the long run, I don't care. If something breaks, I'll make it bigger/better/stronger.

Also there are indications On the spec sheet hardriven provided that the ea888 was/is designed to make more power. The two things that pop out are the compression ration and the capability of the fuel system.

I think what got this thread so heated was that you, hardriven, threw out this 50k mile mark for a stg2-3 ea888 motor until it blows. All with nothing at all to back up that claim.

lmlloyd said:

You mean except the direct quote from VW saying the engine is capable of greater stresses than he says it is, and the guy from APR with hands-on experience modding these engines, and all the people out there who have already driven their modded cars past the 50,000 miles he says you would be lucky to get out of the engine before it is slag? You mean aside from all that evidence, no one can prove him wrong?

I think you have an odd definition of proof. He is the one claiming that VW specifically designed their new engine to be weaker than the engine it is replacing. I think he is the one carrying the burden of proof, not the people who have already proven him factually inaccurate on several points.

Click to expand...

His proof is maybe insufficient and with second hand research. No one has of yet disproved his thesis in this thread, but only on the minor details.

formul8 said:

Simple. Stay out of the boost.

Your right foot is the most effective component to long engine life.

(but, boost is FUN!!! )

Click to expand...

I know, its like crack. Getting tired of Stage 1 in less than 1k miles and now I want more!

lmlloyd said:

Except that isn't even a rational argument. There are plenty of people out there who have run stage 3 APR on their EA 113, and exceeded the reliability he is claiming, without the "fortification" of the EA 113+. Does that mean that the EA 113 is too weak to take the mods people have already done to them, just because it isn't "fortified?" His argument is that they are using a fortified EA 113, so the EA 888 must be weak, which means the EA 888 is stronger. Then why did they have to "fortify" it? Who is to say that the exact same "fortifications" to an EA 888 wouldn't enable even higher power than a "fortified" EA 113?

At no point in this entire argument, and there been a single shred of evidence that adds up to what he is claiming, at all. Let me break this down for you really simply He is saying that A(EA113)+B(fortification)=X(EA113+), X>W(EA888) therefore A>W. That doesn't follow. To make that statement you would would have to know the value of B. It could well be that W+B=Z Z>X, meaning W>A. At no point does anyone find for the value of A or B, they just say that X>W, therefore A>W.

Click to expand...

Don't think he ever stated A > W.

In your language, he was stating (A + B = X) and (X > W | @ 270 torque). The fallacy is at the second half of his logic where no one has any prove yet. And remember its the durability we are talking about, not the boost to HP or Torque.

But, using the same logic (A + B = X) and given (B > 0), it is indisputable that (X > A | @ 270 torque). Therefore, boosting a MK5 GTI to the level of MK 6 R WILL decrease the engine life.

The magnitude of the decrease in engine life is never part of the logic equation and is not yet determined. So all examples you can cite with MK5 running S2 for more than 50k miles does not contribute to the logic but merely provides some scattered data point to the magnitude.