Golf R -v- Golf GTI

[AdamD]

Cool vids WJ.

+1, thanks WhiteJames! I've got to say, that R looks composed and quick and just gets down to business!

[WhiteJames]

Six (6) individual fuel openings (EA88 -v- Single fuel opening (EA113)

Fuel System

EA888 Motor

Injector


Each fuel injector has six individual fuel openings providing better mixture preparation. This also helps prevent “wetting” the intake valves and the combustion chamber surfaces during injection cycles. The angle of cone of the jet is 50°. These modifications have resulted in reduced HC emissions, particulate matter formation, and oil thinning.

Some hard core enthusiasts chasing big power gains on the older EA113 type motor in the Mark V GTI complain that the piston rings in the GTI are the weak link (think KO4). I’d agree to an extent. Part of the problem may also stem from the single port injector on the EA113 motor.


As mentioned above, the single port injector on the EA113 motor may have a tendency to wet the valves, more importantly, wetting the combustion chamber surfaces (cylinder bore). The excess fuel can cause the oil to thin or wash away, reducing the lubrication between the piston ring and cylinder bore, causing added heat friction, ultimately damaging the rings and bore. This may result in higher oil consumption in the longer-term. It’s a bit like driving with the choke on in an older vehicle with excess fuel washing away the oil.


The new EA888 has a multi-port injector with six individual fuel openings provides better mixture prep. The amount of fuel required for each rpm/load factor is metered with greater accuracy on the EA888 motor in the Mark 6 GTI. This may prevent the thinning or washing away of the oil that is trapped in the cross hones of the cylinder bores. The six individual fuel openings on the EA888 does not only improve fuel economy, but should improve the longevity of the motor & long term oil consumption as the oil trapped in the cross hones of the bore will not be as prone to be thinned out or washed away – esp. for those chasing big gains in horsepower in the EA888 motor of the Mark 6 GTI.

Cheers
WJ

[G-rig]

WJ, can you feel the difference when you're driving?

Ps the MK6 GTI is super responsive and the DSG is so fast and crisp when the engine is warmed up. Hopefully the R's DSG is as fast.

[dave_r]

WJ, can you feel the difference when you're driving?

I'm curious about that too. I quite like reading the technical analysis but I can't help to think that the fun police have stepped in and what either car is all about is being lost. Not going to be thinking about any of it mid corner on a twisty run!

[WhiteJames]

Tractability, useability, responsiveness, driveability - The power of the EA888 motor

The compression ratio between the 2005 and 2006 build Mark 5 GTI varied: 10.5:1 –v- 10.3:1. The difference between model years in terms of driver feel was tangible. It’s been stated that the later 2006 build MKV GTI’s actually made a tad more power than the stated 147kW/280Nm of the original 2005 GTI. Additionally: The damper rate in the 2005 MKV GTI was lower than the 2006 MKV GTI. They’re subtle but notable differences that finely tuned butt-o-meter can decipher. Similar thing with, but not as pronounced, in driver feel in (APR) the High Pressure Fuel Pump (HPFP) on the Stage II MKV GTI –v- Stage II non-HPFP MKV GTI.


It’s worth noting the difference in compression ratio between the Mark 5 GTI –v- Mark 6 GTI does not enable direct apples for apples comparison. Mark 5 had 10.5:1/10.3:1, whereas the new Mark 6 GTI has 9.6:1 allowing it to run on 95RON. Even though the fuel metering of the EA888 has greater precision, the motor has been dulled down to a degree with the lower compression ratio. The Golf R runs 9.8:1 compression ratio with a larger KO4 turbo – again – apples and oranges due to greater KO4 lag. Mark V GTI and Golf R using the EA113 require 98RON.


On another issue:


Read MOTOR Magazine August 2010 issue re: EVO –v- Golf R whilst having my morning Latte. Interesting to see that the Golf R failed to out-brake the Golf GTI – maybe paying extra for consistency under repeated hard use, but not outright stopping power, as mention in my very first post write-up. Given that as a driver, I don’t plan on doing any launch control starts or travel up to 180kph, I paid particular attention to the 80-120kph acceleration test in this review. The 80-120kph is a great measure of real world performance for an everyday driver out on the public roadway – simulates overtaking that caravan or fully laden lorry etc. The EVO and Golf R being dead heat at 3.6 seconds for 80-120kph – the Golf GTI 0.2 seconds slower at 3.8 seconds (Manual in 3rd gear only) – testament to the usability, driveability and tractability of the Golf GTI and the EA888 motor.


Cheers
WJ

[WhiteJames]

Variable valve lift on Audi versions of the EA888

EA888 motor - cylinder head & valvetrain

cast aluminium alloy; four valves per cylinder, 16 valves total, low-friction roller finger cam followers with automatic hydraulic valve clearance compensation, toothed chain-driven double overhead camshaft (DOHC), continuous vane-adjustable variable intake valve timing, Audi variants have two-stage "valvelift" inlet valve lift variable control

See this review for more info on the EA888 motor used in the Audi. Apparently: Volkswagen's EA888 version in the Mark 6 GTI does not use the valve lift tech control. This feature is only reserved for Audi at this point in time. Goes part way to explaining why Audi's cost more. Similar thing with Skoda not having EDL/XDS electronic diff.

Driven: 2009 Audi A5 2.0T FrontTrak Ethanol Test Mule

Planned for the higher-cost applications of the 2.0T-FSI like Audi's A4 and A5, an even more efficient and powerful 2.0T-FSI will come equipped the company’s unique new valve control system known as valvelift. This component alone is good for five percent better fuel economy, but it also further augments torque, making turbocharged applications like our A5 2.0T mule feel like a brawny naturally aspirated V6.

Unlike other bulky and complex systems, valvelift is cleverly simple, with control directly on the camshafts that allows for lightning quick adjustment – just two turns of the crankshaft. Employment of valvelift provides the ability of the engine to dethrottle intake under partial load. By varying patterns of the two inlet valves, the charge is specifically tuned for optimized consumption and power. Where this seriously translates into fuel savings is pulling at constant speeds under partial loads – basically highway and even high-speed autobahn cruising.

Currently, Audi claims the system is stable at engine speeds reaching 7,200 rpm, suggesting a wide compatibility for valvelift applications in Volkswagen Group offerings will eventually be seen. However, valvelift is not yet compatible with high-revving mills like the 4.2-liter V8 found in the RS 4 and R8.

Cheers
WJ

[WhiteJames]

One of the most significant changes to this new family is the incorporation of a chain-based drive. Building on lessons learned in developing Audi’s 4.2l V8 for compact applications like the S4, use of inverted-tooth chains to drive camshaft, oil pump and balance shaft operation resulted in lowered noise levels and lowered frictional loss while the chain system’s useful life matches that of the engine.Seldom seen in four-cylinder applications, EA 888 also makes use of balance shafts integrated into the lighter grey cast iron crankcase. Unlike other balance shaft designs, the new configuration from Audi combines for improved cost and lower noise, as well as optimized weight and crank case stiffness. Eight counterweights have also been used in the crankshaft for optimum internal balance.

The EA 888 family is also quite flexible. It’s suitable for production anywhere in the Volkswagen Group’s network of engine production facilities. The engine family can take a wide variation of fuel quality, allowing it to be used in any of the markets in which the Volkswagen Group sells cars. Designed to be lighter than the equivalent displacement engines they replace, the EA 888 family is also sturdy enough for applications on the liberal side of 134 hp per liter. They also boast more dynamic torque buildup that’s more pleasurable to drive and consumes less fuel in the process.

Driven: 2009 Audi A5 2.0T FrontTrak Ethanol Test Mule

This dynamic torque buildup can be referenced against my 'tractability test' in the original write-up post # 1. As another forum member has posted, there is still some development process involved before the EA888 motor can be used in conjunction with a larger KO4 type turbo charger that spools up very fast in the higher rev range. Can't help but think that an EA888 motor with Audi's two-stage valve-lift tech would be perfect for the next generation MK7 Golf R. Having said that: Next generation Audi A3 Quattro should have the EA888 with valve-lift tech. Also explains how the current Audi A5 2.0TSI has a broader power band than the Mark 6 GTI.

Cheers.
WJ

[Corey_R]

Can't help but think that an EA888 motor with Audi's two-stage valve-lift tech would be perfect for the next generation MK7 Golf R. Having said that: Next generation Audi A3 Quattro should have the EA888 with valve-lift tech. Also explains how the current Audi A5 2.0TSI has a broader power band than the Mark 6 GTI.

Cheers.
WJ

Nah - it's not really R material yet.
Even with the valve lift, the power is still the same - 155kW. It's just that instead of the torque being 280Nm like it is on the GTI, it's 350Nm like it is in the Audi A5 etc.
But I get what you're saying, by the time the next R comes along, they should have a "high powered" version producing 200kW+ and probably even more torque - whether achieved using the K04 turbo or some other method.

In the mean time... there ain't nothing wrong with the EA113 motor, and it's available today. Hence why even Audi are using it in their $100,000+ cars

[hooba]

Driven: 2009 Audi A5 2.0T FrontTrak Ethanol Test Mule

This dynamic torque buildup can be referenced against my 'tractability test' in the original write-up post # 1. As another forum member has posted, there is still some development process involved before the EA888 motor can be used in conjunction with a larger KO4 type turbo charger that spools up very fast in the higher rev range. Can't help but think that an EA888 motor with Audi's two-stage valve-lift tech would be perfect for the next generation MK7 Golf R. Having said that: Next generation Audi A3 Quattro should have the EA888 with valve-lift tech. Also explains how the current Audi A5 2.0TSI has a broader power band than the Mark 6 GTI.

Cheers.
WJ

I'd love to get behind the wheel of an EA888 powered Audi, because I'm loving the amount of bottom end torque available in the MK6 GTI. My only other car which has had such effortless overtaking ability whilst cruising along in top gear was powered by a V8.

[MkVIGTI]

My first turbocharged car and I have to wonder, what turbo lag?

[WhiteJames]

Below is an article further expounding on the virtues of the EA888 TSI 1.8 and 2.0 Audi developed motors. Cheaper to build, lighter, stronger, longer lasting, less NVH and good for 100kW per litre.

Interesting read

BPY engine vs CCTA engine is a very clear thing: The CCTA engine is a complete new design and improves in many areas where the old engine was a compromise. (Note: I'm german and called up a friend in germany who happened to be an Audi Master mechanic. He forwarded me a pdf document ; this one is actually a public document).
balance shafts: BPY has a add-on solution (expensive) vs build-in in CCTA. The goal is to improve the accoustic behavior as well as the mid- to high-end vibration. This will help wear and tear long term for any attached part as well as internal engine block parts.

engine block: aside from the fact that the engine block is shared with the new 1.8L engine of the same family ( hence "world engine") it has been build for higher average internal pressures up to 25 Bar. That in turn allows for higher specific power output of greater 100kW/L and 175Nm/L. The current BPY engine is by far not build for that.

engine block vs crankshaft: to prevent longterm warping Audi/VW used a metal composition with almost identical expansion coefficients 13.17 and 13.26 um/mK. This has been an issue with the bearings at high power output and high temperature.

thermal profiles: the engine was optimized for higher temp effeciency which means less losses and better gas milage.

Head and block: the head is aluminum and has a different characteristic. To minimize stress between both parts they used highly komplex FEM Modells to optimize the mounting points and a better more evenly distribution of the stress points. That's a major improvement for the gaskets and for the head mounts (bolts). The old engine wasn't optimized that well.

waterpump and thermostat housing was removed from the block because of the lack of structurell support. But all oil and oil return paths , blow-by paths and chain housing was integrated. The engine is lighter, shorter, better to maintain due to an overall lower component count for the engine. Keep in mind, this engine is also cheaper to manufacture (one of the main goals) as well as being manufacturable all over the world (in the US as well). This engine was actually a co-developent of Audi and a steel plant (sounds funny I know, but they have the knowledge of HOW to make it). This was not driven by VW.

Needless to say that, in the current configuration this engine is good for 270HP in the standart build. In the paper they also talked about the manufacturing process of precision pouring and casting and there they are about a factor of 2x better than on the old engine. Their process window is much much tighter now and more reliable. That bgood for process variation.

So knowing what is in the paper, and neglecting the modding aspect of the older BPY engine for the moment, the CCTA engine is a generation better, more reliable and more efficient. The smaller new 1.8L brother is already one of the best choices in germany. Compared to the older 1.8T engine it has 50% more torque (less 10 HP) but is almost as drivable as the 2.0L BPY engine. And that is a statement in one of my german car magazines. So my choice is clear here. Anyone who has the new engine now is lucky to have it, because it's the future.
(Audi will have some mods that VW engines won't get like variable valve lifting)

See link for this info plus pictures of the new Audi developed EA888 TSI motor. Half way down you can spot the four lobe camshaft actuator for the fuel pump.

VAGfans.com Web Forums - View topic - ETKA illustrations CCTA or EA888 engine 2.0TSI

The Audi version of the EA888 TSI with valve-lift tech and 350Nm would probably be a bit much for the FWD GTI. Audi only use the 1.8 litre EA888 TSI for FWD application and reserved the 2.0 litre EA888 TSI for the quattro Audi's. Word has it that the Mark 7 GTI will not only be cheaper to build, but lighter than the MK6 GTI. In this case, it could be reasonable to expect that Volkswagen may downsize the FWD GTI to 1.8 litre EA888 TSI. Audi-only valve-lift tech really improves fuel economy in addtion to raising and broadening the amount of engine torque.

Cheers
WJ

[Guy_H]

In the past couple of weeks we have learnt why VW (and Audi) don't use the new "EA888" motor for any of their "top end" performance models (Golf R & S3, Scirocco R) nor do they use it for Motorsport.

Apart from internal strength (the FSI motor is stronger), the oil delivery system & the "separate" oil sump on the new motor will not cope with reasonable G forces & supply oil to the bearings.

I'm sure this will be addressed in future generations of the motor.

[Corey_R]

Thanks for the information Guy_H.

I almost hate to ask this question... but, have you found this out by "personal experience" or through some tech bulliten etc from VW?

[Guy_H]

No, we have been lucky, both the MK6 GTI's that we ran at Wakefield at Easter (Derek from European Autotech's was the second one) would use 100ml of oil per lap, so a five lap session = 500ml of oil. This was on Semi slicks.

It has also been found out by certain driver training groups who use them & also the Magazine that tested them at Wakefield found the same thing.

A friend of mine in Germany who works with VW Motorsport confirmed what we had found & told us that's why the "old" engine continues in the higher performance models.

We have modified our sump & PCV system to alleviate the issue. So far, so good

[Guy_H]

I should also mention the "new" engine uses a steel sump that is separate from the main engine "compartment" - when you pull the sump off, you can see another partition in the main engine case (you can not see the crank) - there is a large opening for oil return on gearbox side. The "old" engine, uses a big alloy baffled sump, when you remove it, you can see the bottom of the crankshaft.