VW to equip Golfs with smaller engines next year
We expect to see a the sixth-generation of Volkswagen's now iconic Golf model break cover soon enough, and now we are hearing rumors of some new powertrain options for the MkVI as well. According to German news site Automobilwoche, we should expect to see at least one engine of smaller displacement than the current 1.4-liter gasoline unit that powers the current Golf model in Europe. Interestingly, VW is said to be considering a possible three-cylinder engine for the base-model Golf, which could displace as little as one liter. Another possibility is a 1.2-liter version of the engine with four cylinders. To make the rumored 75 horsepower, we'd expect to see the German automaker continue its use of turbocharging, supercharging or both, as it does with some versions of the 1.4-liter engine already in use. As is usually the case, we're not holding our breath for these engines to make it stateside.[Source: Automotive News Europe - sub. req'd]
Get a WordPress.com Blog
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
rouse42 9:37AM (6/03/2008)
yeah! how about the 1.4 TSI
Reply
geo.stewart 9:42AM (6/03/2008)
gee, do you REALLY think the US would want to spend 17K on a 3000lb+ car with 75 hp, german or not?
I didnt think so either.
I'd rather see weight get back down to 1900lbs like it was in teh late 70s
Reply
David(Postal) 9:45AM (6/03/2008)
Is that even possible now with all the safety regulations out there?
zamafir 9:58AM (6/03/2008)
I'm sorry but WHERE does the article, from a german publication, relating to germany, indicate such engines would make it state side, seriously. I know it's fun to play pretend but give me a break. There's a reason the tiguan only comes with 200hp/200tq 2.0T, vw understands what americans will bear and it's nothing but ludicrous to indicate they might be going through all sorts of expensive federalization of engines to bring a weaker powerplant over here. 1.4 TSi @ 170hp and 40mpg would be great, but if they're not even importing that, what would give u any sort of indication the 75hp variant was coming over when the article doesn't even hint at the possibility?
Drinking in the morning = bad ;)
Ian 10:26AM (6/03/2008)
Seeing as you can already get the Golf (Rabbit) int he US for $15,900, I'd imagine with a smaller motor, more stripped down you could get one for about $14,500.
The $17,000 one is the 4 door version which also includes heated seats, and a different center console/arm rest.
geo.stewart 11:06AM (6/03/2008)
zamafir,
with the quote "As is usually the case, we're not holding our breath for these engines to make it stateside",
one would naturally assume the author was contemplating those engines being offered in the US, especially as every article that mentions something being offered in Europe but not here would do so well if it were sold in NA.
I was contemplating the response they would receive and determining it would be lackluster.
As for the 17K, take your suggested 14.5K, add a typical $1K pkg to the deal, D&H, and paperwork fees and you are at 17K easy.
epilonious 9:43AM (6/03/2008)
Not mentioned in the article: "The US will be getting a new 2.6 liter cast iron five cylinder that makes 172 HP and 26 MPG in combined driving"
I really wish Americans would get over this fear that if the car can't do 0-60 in under 8 seconds the car is "Unsafe".
Reply
Rick 10:42AM (6/03/2008)
It's a gung-ho American mentality. Ever seen any of those huge pickup trucks with anything in the bed? Or any 7 passenger SUVs with more than 2 passengers?
It's a race to die with the biggest, baddest and most over the top toys. It's what I call the Dennis Leary state of mind (from his early 90's comedic skit)
Chase 10:44AM (6/03/2008)
Amen! ...Though thats what's going to happen, I still have unreasonable hope for a smaller-bored variant of the 2.0T. Maybe a 1.6T that makes 160hp and gets 26/38 mpg? Oh what a small car motor that would be, and it would even reuse a lot of VAG's US infrastructure.
PJ 1:51PM (6/03/2008)
The current base engine in the Jetta/Rabbit really is a laughable bit of product planning.
2.5 liters, 175 horses,
homunculus 9:44AM (6/03/2008)
Americans still have too much of a hard-on for hp.
Reply
srivendel 9:49AM (6/03/2008)
Sorry. I agree Americans are too hung up on horsepower, but 75hp is not enough for a 2,800 lb car. The Smart ForTwo weighs 800 lbs less and can barely get out of its own way.
One of the previous posters got it right: reduce weight if you're going to reduce horsepower so drastically.
Reply
Chase 10:57AM (6/03/2008)
Tell me... have you ever driven a car with 85 hp? 85 hp is still quite a bit of power. There is no drawback if you aren't on the freeway, and even on the freeway, 85 hp can reach about 90 mph (and that's way over the take-down speed of any highway patrol).
For a _base_ motor, what's not to like? It gives people another option. There are still going to be about 10 other motors europeans can chose from, and this motor isn't ever coming to the US.
srivendel 11:16AM (6/03/2008)
75hp? Several times. I've driven all manner of Peugeots and Renaults in Europe with those hp numbers. I've driven a ForTwo. I've also owned a Civic HX with 92hp. With the exception of the Smart, I enjoyed all those cars. Why? Because they didn't weigh nearly as much as a Golf.
I'm not sure you understood my point. The problem isn't the hp. It's the horsepower to weight ratio.
itguy07 12:37PM (6/03/2008)
To Chase, yes I have - 1986 Mustang 2.3 with 88hp and just over 100lb-ft mated to a 4 speed stick.
It was fun, but dog slow going up hills, getting up to speed, etc.
But it was a great first car and took a beating and kept on running at 175k.
amg 4:52PM (6/03/2008)
Actually, I think the issue with the smart's 0-60 times has more to do with its automated manual tranny than complete lack of power. Either way, even if it could only do 0-60 in 11 seconds, that's no different from my current vehicle and I have no problem with its speed or power, nor do I ever wind up "left behind" at stoplights, because most people barely gas off the line in regular driving.
Buzz Skyline 9:51AM (6/03/2008)
Why would VW need to supercharge or turbocharge a 1.4 liter engine to get 75 bhp? My 1978 Fiat x1/9 puts out that much with a 1.3 liter engine and 70's technology.
-Buzz
Reply
cheezwiz 10:02AM (6/03/2008)
I think VW needs some vtec. 1.2L = 120HP NA, and a lot more fun to drive.
rouse42 10:09AM (6/03/2008)
VW 1.4TSI makes 170hp - twincharged
in the UK Golf GT
makes 177tq at 1500rpm
gets a combined UK average of 38.7mpg (would be a little over 32mpg US average) but remember how much the golf weights
uk extra urban cycle is 48.7mpg so right around 41mpg US
if it weren't for the cost of the TSI it would make a great engine for the Rabbit to give it a boost of MPG. but i cant see the rabbit being $16xxx with TSI, more like 20k
maybe a Rabbit GT for $19xxx
ML 10:10AM (6/03/2008)
Don't you get it? Your Fiat's engine wasn't saddled with all of today's emission regulations. Laws are strangling performance out of modern engines and the only way to recover some of that lost performance is by the addition of some form of 'boost' (i.e. turbocharging or supercharging). And remember, cars today also have much stricter safety regs to meet (i.e. passenger crash protection, vehicle crush zones, etc., etc.) that add weight. It's just not as simple as it was in the 1970s.