By on July 10, 2013

450x336xIMG_1682-450x336.jpg.pagespeed.ic.dWxC93-79x

Volkswagen is reviving a historic (or infamous, depending on your perspective) nameplate for the 2014 model year, as it drops the 2.5L 5-cylinder engine. In its place is a 1.8L four-cylinder engine making 170 horsepower and 184 lb-ft of torque.

The new 1.8T engine luckily has no relation to the prior 1.8T, which ate coilpacks like Takeru Kobayashi at a Nathan’s buffet. The new 1.8T will be in place on the Passat, Jetta and Beetle, as well as the next-generation Golf when it debuts as a 2015 model.

Also big news for the much maligned Jetta: all versions will get an independent rear-suspension, replacing the much criticized beam axle suspension. The penalty for this is electric power steering. Can’t win ‘em all, right?

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

94 Comments on “Volkswagen Kills Its Five-Banger, Revives The 1.8T...”


  • avatar
    Tinn-Can

    I don’t get the electric power steering jabs… Don’t the mini and mazda3 have electric power steering and most people don’t complain about steering feel with those cars… Just all the pump failures…

    • 0 avatar
      ...m...

      …electric power steering doesn’t have to be bad: the evora’s EPS is world-class, every bit a peer to the elise’s manual-steering gold standard…

      • 0 avatar
        Volt 230

        Don’t the FR-S/BRZ have electric steering? and no one complains about the way they turn

        • 0 avatar
          MR2turbo4evr

          Yes. And so does the S2000 and RX8.

          • 0 avatar

            Exactly, though I’d still like a “loaded beam” with an added in stabilizer bar out back for my Echo. The Scion xB had one, and it appears the xA did, too. One of my sisters had a Matrix XR with it, as does another sister who’s ’06 Corolla S has it. That Matrix sure felt like it rotated in a more controlled fashion than my car, which I’d like.

          • 0 avatar

            My bad… and the site won’t let me delete that message or edit.

            Anyway, I was going to say: isn’t there a difference between an electric pump and all-out EPS?

          • 0 avatar
            hgrunt

            A mechanical engineer once told me there is no reason why EPS systems should have any less feedback hydraulic systems. There’s actually more control over steering parameters and it’s a matter of tuning.

            There’s probably a variety of reasons why there’s ‘crappy’ EPS systems out there, but that’s more of a question for someone more familiar with how those kinds of decisions are made at a car company.

    • 0 avatar
      Beerboy12

      I agree that it is a bit over bitched about. The first attempts where terrible but it’s been around long enough to have been decently refined by now.

    • 0 avatar
      Power6

      Well if it it has a “pump” that is not the electric power steering that is so maligned. Electric motor driven conventional hydraulic is not the same as the column or rack mounted direct motor driven variety.

      • 0 avatar
        namstrap

        Seems to me the first time I saw this was on the Subaru XT6.
        The extended engine left no room for a belt driven pump, so an electric motor was used. Having information like steering angle and steering wheel turning speed fed into a computer allowed for infinite stiffness control.

        • 0 avatar
          Power6

          Ahh the Subaru “Cybrid” steering, I guess that one is a real oddball it doesn’t use a rotary type pump it is some sort of ram system electrically driving the hydraulic assist to the rack.

          I remember my old MX6 had a variable assist steering(conventional hydraulic), the ECU for it was under the driver’s seat, you could remove the box and uncover a hidden switch to adjust the steering more or less firm.

      • 0 avatar
        Brian P

        VW’s system uses an electric servo to drive the rack directly. I have no complaints about the EPS in my Mk5 (2006) Jetta TDI.

      • 0 avatar

        The directly-driven sounds more like my uncles 2006 Equinox, then. Good lord I hate that helm… and that turning circle is among the worst I’ve ever dealt with. It actually feels worse in turning circle than the long-bed ’13 F250 crew-cab’s I drive sometimes in my volunteer job.

    • 0 avatar
      raded

      The current-gen Mazda3 uses “electro-hydraulic steering,” which is different.
      Not sure about the 2014 Mazda3.

  • avatar
    99GT4.6

    What was wrong with the old 1.8T engine? Lots of problems?

    • 0 avatar
      ott

      Fanboys will tell you no, but as someone who’s sold a large number of these in the used car market, I’ll have to say yes. Not that the 5 cylinder lump was any better…

      • 0 avatar
        28-Cars-Later

        Yeah I’m pretty sure the former VAG 1.8T was terrible, you’d think to differentiate this new engine from it they would name it something else.

      • 0 avatar
        JLIU

        what issues does the 5 cyl have that I should know about!?

        I owned a mark4 GTI with the 1.8T, and that car spent more days in the garage being repaired than it spent on the streets…

        but I’ve been owning the 5 cyl for 2 years, and had no issues so far…

        • 0 avatar
          th009

          I will say that my wife is driving a 2004 MY 1.8T, doesn’t suffer from lag, it’s on its original coilpacks, doesn’t burn oil, and has not had a single engine-related repair in its 100,000 km career.

          It’s only anecdotal, but since we have lots of anecdotes in the other direction, I thought I’d throw this one in.

          • 0 avatar
            krhodes1

            I know lots of people with VWs like your wife’s and all that I have owned have been the same – bulletproof. ’04 was past the coil pack issues though. I believe ’99-02 was the range for that for the most part.

            I do have an unscientific theory though. German cars in general do not like hot climates. And by hot, I mean south of New England. They seem to be great up here in the cold, but the farther south you go, the more problems. Has seemed to track well with both BMWs and VWs, but just an observation based on hanging out on various forums for many years.

          • 0 avatar
            lon888

            I completely agree with your hot weather assessment about German cars and hot weather. Here in Oklahoma, our really hot summers wreck German/European cars at an alarmingly fast rate. When I was shopping for my VW, there was a 2 year old 6-series BMW. The leather was faded/cracked and the center console was in pieces. If you want own an European car around here, you had better keep in a garage.

          • 0 avatar
            Kyree S. Williams

            “Here in Oklahoma, our really hot summers wreck German/European cars at an alarmingly fast rate.”

            Used car prices are getting pretty high here in OK. I bet they still wanted 85% of the price-as-new…even with the damage.

          • 0 avatar
            mypoint02

            I sold a MY 2000 Audi A4 with the 1.8T last year. I replaced one coilpack in 12 years (2001 was when the issues really started) and it had the original turbo and no boost issues. That’s not to say I didn’t have any issues with the car, but they were more of the typical VAG issues. You know, window regulators, mass airflow sensors, a clogged heater core, and it ate rear wheel bearings like Kobayashi. Twas a great car in winter though.

      • 0 avatar
        raph

        Exactly when I heard 1.8T my reaction was “Well that’s a good choice” as I’ve been led to believe by Volkswagen guys that the 1.8T was/is the engine to have.

        • 0 avatar
          segfault

          The old 1.8T had significant turbo lag, suffered from oil consumption and coil pack failures, and was prone to engine oil sludge, partly because VW didn’t spec synthetic oil at first.

          • 0 avatar
            kmoney

            My neighbour’s A3 1.8T failed due to engine sludge at 105,000 KMS. He was alway a big fanboy of German cars, but this definetly went a long way toward changing his mind….

          • 0 avatar
            ExPatBrit

            The coil pack problem took a long time to fix. Many owners just had a spare set in the trunk, rather than worrying about breaking down and having to be towed. 10 minutes to replace all 4. It took them to Rev-R to fix the problem. Meanwhile the idiotic were driving with the check engine light flashing . The unburned fuel killing the catalytic converter, or sometimes setting the car and sometime the garage and house on fire.

            The 10,000 mile oil change recommendation also caused a lot of problems because people used cheap oil and FRAM filters. Unfortunately the longitudinal mounted 1.8T has a shallow sump so sludge was common. Later they spec’d a larger filter on those motors to increase oil capacity. It was pretty rare on transverse 1.8Ts.

            Another of the problems with these engines was the weak hydraulic timing belt tensioner design that was used along with the plastic water pumps. Replacement was not required until 105,000 miles, unfortunately many vehicles didn’t make it to 1/2 that mileage and many engines were damaged or destroyed. A class action lawsuit made VAG take responsibility. To this day you will often see cars advertised that had new engines fitted at around 70,000 miles.

            When everything is well on the 1.8T it’s a great motor. Lot’s of low end torque, drive it gently and mileage is very good. Hopefully they get it right and try to not compromise the design to make the JD Power predicted cost of ownership look good.

    • 0 avatar
      sirwired

      Well, it had good points and bad points: The good was that it had a lot of torque available at low RPM’s, easily modified, relatively efficient compared to other engines of the time, and had very sturdy internals that could take a LOT of upgrades without requiring things like new rods or pistons.

      On the downside, VW took several revisions to avoid producing coilpacks that sucked, and longitudinal applications were prone to sludge. There was also a couple of years with a badly-designed timing belt tensioner prone to failure well before the spec’d replacement interval of 105k.

      All in all, if you took care of it according to it’s actual requirements (as opposed to the original maintenance instructions) it was a pretty darn good engine. (Mine’s at 120k and all it needs is a PCV overhaul.) But it’s reputation for unreliability was not undeserved.

      • 0 avatar
        Conslaw

        I had a 2003 1.8T that I really enjoyed. My wife didn’t like the recalls but we actually never had an engine-related problem in 70K+ miles until the car was wrecked. We caught the dealer putting 10W30 bulk oil in the engine where synthetic oil was specified. I wonder if that was the source of some of the problems. This engine NEEDS synthetic oil. The thing I loved most about it was that if you drove it very gently, you could keep out of the turbo and get economy car MPG, high 20s city. If you wanted to go fast the turbo gave you plenty of kick.

    • 0 avatar
      sirwired

      It is/was very maintenance-sensitive. And the maintenance schedule it really needed was more strict than the one in the manual. (Full-synth oil, t-belt changes every 60k (not 105k), and enough knowledge to nip problems cheaply before they became expensive ones.)

      Maintained according to it’s (undocumented) needs, and it was a very good engine for the time.

      • 0 avatar
        Bill

        I used to work as a claims adjuster for an extended warranty company. Bought way too many of these engines between 70-90k miles due to timing belt failures, and there was nothing we could do about it since the factory service interval was 105k miles. I used to hear from a lot of service advisors that they would recommend having the maintenance done at 60k and the customer would decline the work and assume they were being ripped off since the manual said 105k, only to find out the hard way later on that the manual was woefully inadequate.

        • 0 avatar
          Kyree S. Williams

          I take it your extended warranty company wasn’t one of the ones that fell off the face of the earth once they got enough suckers to buy the warranties…

          • 0 avatar
            Lorenzo

            Some of those companies that fell off the face of the earth did so because they gave claimants like my sister the runaround, closed offices when the number of claims there got too big, and were shut down by state consumer affairs agencies for never paying off any claims. It sounds like Bill’s company was not one of those.

    • 0 avatar
      parabellum2000

      I test drove an audi A4 1.8T in 2005. It was used, maybe a 2001 (I can’t remember for sure). It had 40,000 miles on it, and it was without a doubt the slowest vehicle I ever drove. I’m certain the turbo had failed or the engine was in limp-home mode, but the salesman swore it was fine. When I say slowest vehicle, that includes loaded moving trucks. It was horrifyingly slow!

      I ended up buying a 2000 Acura TL which felt like a muscle car by comparison. I believe something was wrong with the car, I just didn’t want to pay to find out what, and apparently neither did the dealership.

      • 0 avatar
        ExPatBrit

        The original B5 A4 1.8T quattro was 3300 lbs and had 150hp. It you had tip-tronic it was not a fast car.The last versions had 170hp and even more weight.

        Many owners chipped the original b5 A4, for $300-400 an extra 30-40 hp .

        Other Audis with the same motor had up to 225 hp stock. The internals were very strong. Even when the timing belt broke it rarely damaged the bottom end.

        • 0 avatar
          Fordson

          The 150-hp 1.8T in the Passat was rated that way because the VR6 was rated at 172 hp. The 1.8T actually made 150 at the wheels. The GTI versions were rated at 170 mostly because by then the GTI VR6 had come out with a multi-valve version of the engine rated at 201 hp. They charged a lot more for the VR6 but in reality it made very slightly more hp (and less usable torque) than the 1.8T fours.

          The 1.8T started the VW tradition (carried on to this day) of underrating its four-cylinder turbo engines.

  • avatar
    NoGoYo

    Aww, killing the 5 cylinder again? I was excited to see the 5 cylinder return after a long absence.

  • avatar
    TOTitan

    I like the 5 cylinder in my daughters 08 rabbit. Zero issues since new, and its torquey

  • avatar
    1998redwagon

    does anyone know if this new 1.8t eats regular or premium. seems to me that given vw’s desire to get to 800K unit sales in NA it would make sense to stay the course with 87 octane fuel. the old 1.8t definitely took 91 octane and that was a drawback for many potential buyers.

    170hp and 184 ft# torque is very close to the 2.5L 5 cylinder 170hp and ~170 ft# torque. if the mileage improves and it is done on regular gas it is a win-win for all.

    • 0 avatar
      tjominy

      if I had to guess, that “t” hanging out after the 1.8 demands premium motor fuel.

      • 0 avatar
        mik101

        Not necessarily, it depends on how it’s tuned. If it is a direct injection motor then it likely won’t need it. The cooling effect of the high pressure fine spray has a cooling effect that somewhat mitigates the need for higher octane fuels in some applications.

        Hopefully it doesn’t require it, then there’s more room for tuners with better fuel once the aftermarket gets hold of them.

        It would be slightly foolish to require it if they expect it to be the bread and butter motor, but stranger things have happened.

    • 0 avatar
      Extra Credit

      The engine has been certified using regular unleaded.

    • 0 avatar
      30-mile fetch

      The horsepower and torque figures are very close, but if VW underrated this engine like they did their 2 liter turbo, perhaps it will be quite a bit quicker than the 5 cylinder, which always was a bit slower in instrumented dashes than real world performance suggested.

  • avatar
    ajla

    I know power isn’t everything, but I thought the big reason the Passat got the 2.5L instead of a turbo was to save costs.

    However, now that it’s getting a turbo engine anyway, I think offering the Passat with a 200hp 2.0T as standard would be a better move.

    At 170hp, that’s last in the class. So fuel economy is going to have to be class leading.

    • 0 avatar
      Kyree S. Williams

      “At 170hp, that’s last in the class. So fuel economy is going to have to be class leading.”

      Well, only because of public perception and the drive for larger specification-metrics. But you and I know that it’s not about how much power an engine produces, but how that power is applied. I think, given Volkswagen’s pedigree, that drivability won’t be an issue. Reliability, however, is an entirely-different story…

    • 0 avatar
      Lorenzo

      Is VW doing so well here that they can raise prices? The formula was a lower priced car by cheapening the mechanicals and interior. People didn’t notice the cheaper materials in the interior, and the 5-cylinder is cheaper to build, runs on regular and is less maintenance-needy as the turbo. How can they put a turbo and multi-link rear suspension on a Passat and still offer it at sub-$25k prices?

  • avatar
    LeMansteve

    So the new 1.8T makes the same hp and a modest 18ft-lbs of torque more than the revised 1.8T introduced (to north america) in 2002? Well, I guess they don’t want to step too closely to the heels of the 2.0T in the GTI/GLI.

    OK, the old 1.8T did require premium fuel. Maybe this new version will take regular, and perhaps it is detuned to hit mileage and emissions targets.

  • avatar
    krhodes1

    Interesting move. I am assuming that the 1.8T will be better on gas by a bit, and probably more torque down low. But I always liked the I5. Simple, sounds nice, efficient ‘enough’. If you want big mileage buy a TDI. I wonder if part of this is that they are just not making the I5 in enough volume to bother anymore. Save more by standardizing across the board – they put that 4cyl turbo family in everthing.

    Premium vs. regular? Seriously, who cares? At +/- $4/gal, the difference is rounding error, and it doesn’t take much added efficiency to more than make up the cost. Especially with turbo engines.

    I would hardly put the blame for ‘eating coils’ on the old 1.8T – that was a supplier cost-cutting issue, and VW fixed it with the recall anyway. They did very much have a sludging issue with them though. The longitudinaly mounted engines had a much smaller sump to clear the cross-member, so held a lot less oil than they probably should have. And in typical fashion, VW extended the OCI without mandating synthetic oil. Add turbo heat and you get a fine recipe for sludged up engines. Saab got hit by the same thing around the turn of the century, as did Toyota and numerous others. Water under the bridge at this point, the OEMs learned a lesson there.

    • 0 avatar
      sirwired

      If a poorly spec’d part is bolted to the engine, part of the ignition system, and it’s failure can leave you stranded by the roadside, I think it’s fair to call it an “engine” problem. (And I’m somebody that loves my 1.8T B5)

    • 0 avatar
      99GT4.6

      In Canada premium can regularly be 15 cents more than regular

      • 0 avatar
        Preludacris

        To add to this…
        That’s per LITRE.

        If your car gets 6L/100km, that’s an extra nine bucks per thousand km.

        $2700 over 300,000 km.

        There better be a very marked difference in efficiency to make up that difference in my mind.

        • 0 avatar
          Sigivald

          $2,700 over the life of the car?

          Good reason not to live in Canada, eh?

          (Here in the US, VW’s much larger market, it’s maybe 20-30 cents a *gallon* difference, and given our base price that’s maybe 6-8% higher than regular.

          That’s just … not super important for people who weren’t going to just buy a TDI or a Prius instead anyway.

          It’s about the difference between 33mpg and 31mpg. Meh.)

        • 0 avatar
          krhodes1

          @ sirwired

          My point is that the configuration of the engine was not the problem with the coils. The VR6 ate coil packs just as much as the 1.8T, and it had two more of them for even more fun. Thus it is not a ’1.8T’ issue, is a ‘VW leaned on the supplier to cut cost too much’ issue. And thus has ZERO relevance to the new engine 20 years on.

          @Preludacris

          But what is the $2700 vs. the total sum spent on fuel over 300K? Rounding error.

          Around here, Premium is typically $.25-.30 more per gallon, with regular around $3.80. So on a 15 gallon fill up $4.50 extra over a fill up that is already $57. Doesn’t take much of an increase in mpg to make that up, 1.5mpg or so. And particularly with a modern turbo, you can EASILY see more than that. Less octane means the engine management has to pull back the boost AND the spark advance. Driving style matters of course, the heavier the foot, the more difference it will make.

          And as the price of fuel goes higher, the difference between grades tends to stay pretty much the same. When I was a new driver 25 years ago, Premium was ~$.20 more a gallon when regular was ~$.80. Now gas is nearly 4X as expensive, but the Premium surcharge has only gone up 50%. Bargain.

          Of course, it is utterly stupid to put premium in a car that is not spec’d for it. No advantage there. But to my mind, NOT tuning the engine to run on premium is leaving efficiency on the table. Tune for premium and you can have better power and potentially better fuel economy too. Modern turbos tend to be just fine running on anything, the engine management will adjust as needed, but higher octane will get you enough better mileage to pay for itself in my experience.

        • 0 avatar
          99GT4.6

          Not so relevant with a fuel sipping volkswagen but that difference is way worse once you start getting into gas guzzling stuff like a muscle car or truck that is premium only.

        • 0 avatar
          99GT4.6

          Not so relevant with a fuel sipping volkswagen but that difference is way more than $2700 once you start getting into gas guzzling stuff like a muscle car or truck that is premium only.

        • 0 avatar
          th009

          Let’s rather say $900 over 100,000 km, as few people will keep their car longer than that.

          What’s that, 3% of the cost of the car? Will you really lose sleep over it?

          I would rather worry about that 10% ethanol content you are getting at most gas stations, and the reduction in fuel economy it gives you. You ARE buying ethanol-free gas, right?

          • 0 avatar
            krhodes1

            Sadly not an option where I live, the corn lobby managed to get my non-corn growing state to mandate 10% corn juice in all gasoline sold here. Ridiculous!

          • 0 avatar
            th009

            In Ontario, the government requires 5% ethanol on average. Fortunately Shell puts 10% ethanol in the standard grade and then keeps the premium grade ethanol-free.

    • 0 avatar
      Fordson

      I had a 2000 Passat GL wagon I bought used in December of 2002 with 37k miles on the clock, with the 1.8T engine (AGW engine, I think). Very, very soon after that, the campaign came out to use the larger filter, go to 0W-40 full synthetic and use 5k mile change intervals. We followed that (in fact, we used the super-giant Mann oil filter that would fit on the north-south Passat version of this engine) and drove the car until we traded it in at 164k miles. No sludge, no oil consumption – I think the car was making more power then than when I first got it. Great, strong-running engine. Car averaged almost 28 mpg over its entire time with us.

  • avatar

    Ah, I’d heard rumors for some time, but now it’s here. :(

    It’s not that the 2.5L is a good or bad engine (I was so glad they got the HP and torque up in later years), I just like the sound. There’s a Jetta around here with a 2.5L complete with an intake and mild exhaust and hot damn– it’s a great and unique sound! Hell, it shares a head with a Gallardo– I’m sure there’s a little to eek out of that engine even without turbo (though I could be wrong).

    As for the torsion-beam rear end, I know it’s not perfect but they do an alright job considering the simplicity. They are cheap, light, space efficient, and can still be used in performance applications. Even now, the Fiesta ST and 500 Abarth use this set-up, as does (of all things) the Renault Megane RS 265 RS– and that’s lauded as one of the best handling rear-drivers out there right now. Don’t discount that set-up too readily.

    • 0 avatar
      Beerboy12

      The trailing arm beam axle (Torsion Beam) also acts as a stabilizer / anti roll bar. It is a good inexpensive solution. Most drivers, even fairly skilled ones won’t notice the difference.

      • 0 avatar

        Exactly, though I’d still like a “loaded beam” with an added in stabilizer bar out back for my Echo. The Scion xB had one, and it appears the xA did, too. One of my sisters had a Matrix XR with it, as does another sister who’s ’06 Corolla S has it. That Matrix sure felt like it rotated in a more controlled fashion than my car, which I’d like.

        • 0 avatar
          Fenian

          My last car, a 2008 Honda Fit, had a torsion beam rear suspension. By adding an aftermarket rear sway bar from Progress, which essentially bolted to the bottoms of the spring perches, the handling was greatly improved. Understeer was cut down dramatically and it was way more fun to drive through the twisties.

          I’m not sure if they make that for your Echo, but that was money well spent.

          • 0 avatar

            They have a few, as well as under-body bracing that can be had front and rear. I think it’s Tanabe that makes the ones I’ve read about. Since the Echo and xA are damned near identical (the wheel base is .1″ longer on the Scion, and rear track a little more on the Scion but otherwise same parts) there is a few aftermarket pieces out there.

            As is, the car does alright, but plow and roll is still very much there. I don’t need it to be a racer, but it’d be nice to have a little extra control when I push it. Eibach Pro-Kit springs coupled to KYB-GR2′s is a suggested combo for me, along with the bar. The car already has Miata alloys that cut unsprung weight down by 4.25lbs per wheel, and the rubber is 10mm wider (something I’d been doing already for years).

      • 0 avatar
        th009

        The torsion beam axle is also lighter than IRS. It’s not a bad solution at all, even if it got ripped to shreds by enthusiast mags and blogs.

        • 0 avatar
          CJinSD

          The unsprung weight of a torsion beam is higher than that of a comparably sized IRS, but the body structure doesn’t have to be as stiff for it to work, since the suspension loads are concentrated at two trailing arm mounts that get to share their load through the beam itself.

          I’ve driven a number of cars that worked great on a variety of surfaces from a performance perspective, including my old Jetta. They don’t ride as well as a decent IRS though.

          • 0 avatar

            Good point, I hadn’t thought about un-spring weight. I guess in “lighter” it means the over-all vehicle weight is down because of the less-stiff (likely lighter) structuring.

      • 0 avatar
        danio3834

        Yet torsion beams are often referred to as a POS solution when used on cars like the Cobalt or Cruze.

  • avatar
    JD321

    The new 1.8L TSI is a better motor.

  • avatar
    sportyaccordy

    I have the I5 in my wife’s Rabbit now. It’s not thrilling but it def sounds better than a generic 4 banger. And I chalk up its pretty abysmal mileage so far to a CEL and the fact that VW managed to make a 5 door wagon hatchback weigh 3100lbs (23 MPG mixed driving). Had I known it weighed so much I prob would have looked elsewhere… to its credit though it does ride like a luxury car.

  • avatar
    gslippy

    Good riddance to the 2.5. Fives ought to be outlawed; they’re a lumpy compromise between a compact 4 and a smooth 6. I’ll take a 4 any day over a 5. I particularly admire Volvo for offering a transverse straight-6 as an option to their 5; it’s quite a packaging job.

    No complaints about going to electric power steering, except that it’s VW electrics.

    • 0 avatar
      CJinSD

      The transverse I6 is quite a packaging job until you need to make a U-turn. I had a couple I5 Audis about 20 years ago. They were smoother than German or US I4s of the day. The BMW M20 was much smoother though. Today’s best balance-shaft I4s of similar displacement don’t shake like they used to. I don’t have much wheel time in the last of the I5s, so I don’t know if they were improved enough to keep pace.

    • 0 avatar
      30-mile fetch

      The 5 cylinder is odd and I’ve often wondered why it was ever offered in the first place instead of a 2.x liter 4. Keep in mind that the Jetta/Rabbit originally were competing with other compacts running 1.8-2.0 liter fours and most of those engines were loud, buzzy, and had no punch in the lower rev range. The VW 5 was an interesting alternative even if you paid for it at the pump.

  • avatar
    Jacob

    God bless the early adopters of this engine!

  • avatar
    tjominy

    Derek, any indication why the suspension change? The engine change I get because the current mill is hyper-uncompetitive MPG. But at launch we were told that fat, dumb and drunk ‘Murican consumers wouldn’t notice the solid beam in between slurping venti lattes and eating Big Macs.

  • avatar
    luvmyv8

    Now as far as the EPS is concerned, does that include the GLi as well?….. I’m only curious as I was really considering a GLi/GTi back when I was looking for a car.

  • avatar
    APaGttH

    Wasn’t the 1.8L turbo 4 “diesel injected.” ;-) Or was this the one where replacing the coils every 20K miles was, “regular maintenance.”

  • avatar
    Beerboy12

    I suspect the new 1.8 T will be a vastly different beast to the last one.

  • avatar
    jpolicke

    Hopefully the turbo doesn’t copy the design in the current TDI, in which the turbo housing is cast as one piece with the manifold and the electronic wastegate is not available separately. Mine lived 66,000 miles before failure.

  • avatar
    Marko

    Let’s call the new 1.8 the “1.8TSI” to avoid confusion, OK?

  • avatar
    GST

    For what it is worth, I have put 140,000 miles on my 2001 Audi TT roadster with the 1.8 litre 4 using 87 octane fuel (regular) exclusively with zero engine problems so far. Did replace the belt at 90,000 instead of 105,000 at dealer recommendation. Getting 32 mpg on freeway trips.

  • avatar
    brettc

    According to fueleconomy.gov, the 1.8T in the 2014 Jetta is rated 26/36 for the manual, and 25/36 for the automatic (which is a non-DSG, traditional 6-speed automatic). It’s also rated to run on 87 octane fuel.

    I’m very interested in the 1.8T equipped Jetta for the wife’s next car. It’s being built in their new Silao, Mexico factory so hopefully they get the bugs worked out of it before it gets put into vehicles. If it can achieve 36 MPG highway on regular unleaded it should be a pretty decent engine choice. And hopefully they don’t forget to specify synthetic for the oil type!

    And electric steering is great in my opinion. No problems with it in my Sportwagen so I don’t see what the big deal is. It steers the car fine and it’s one less fluid reservoir to deal with.

    • 0 avatar
      30-mile fetch

      I agree that the electric steering in the Sportwagen, Golf, and previous Jetta were quite good. I seem to remember that it was the hydraulic setup in the new Jetta that was criticized for being sloppy on center and numb.

  • avatar
    JD321

    The American EA888 1.8L TSI is a bit different (cost-cutted) from the ones built in Europe and Asia. The next GTI will have the advanced EA888 2.0L TSI which is a GREAT engine…Smooth and torquey!

  • avatar
    30-mile fetch

    Hmmm, must go test drive this new engine once it comes out. I’ve had the infamous 5 cylinder w/ 5spd manual for over three years now and can’t understand the level of abuse heaped on it. 0-60 times are unremarkable, but real world performance feels much better to me. Very driveable, decent punch down low, doesn’t require frequent downshifting to move through holes in traffic. Wouldn’t be happy paying $29K for a Passat with one, but in a $21K Sportwagen it really is a decent powertrain.

    VW is throwing the mouthy automotive press a bone with the IRS, real customers don’t know, don’t care, couldn’t tell the difference.

    • 0 avatar
      danio3834

      I agree with you, my mother in-law had a 5 banger Jetta for a few years and I thought the engine was much nicer and smoother than any of the 4 cylinder VeeDubs available.

      She got rid of it at 4 years once numerous failures began to happen outside warranty in a one dealer town.

  • avatar
    ccd1

    The question which immediately came to my mind was what is going to power the redesigned TT-RS??? Reports were that the turbo 5 banger was going to be carried over to the redesigned model

  • avatar
    chicagoland

    “The penalty for this is electric power steering…”

    Sounds like the same Luddite complaints about anything new in cars. Heard it about EFI, ECM’s, breaker-less ignition, radial tires, catalysts, and even remote keyless entry.

    “why in my day we didn’t need no heaters in cars!”

  • avatar
    GeeKay

    Excuse me, BUT, I have a 2003 1.8T, bought new, and it has never, ever, eaten a single coilpack in 180,000Km.

    Just sayin’

  • avatar
    Shalini

    I think the electrical power cannot give these types of power in at a time. It can give single hydraulic power only or maximum two.


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Subscribe without commenting

Recent Comments

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Authors

  • Brendan McAleer, Canada
  • Marcelo De Vasconcellos, Brazil
  • Matthias Gasnier, Australia
  • J & J Sutherland, Canada
  • Tycho de Feyter, China
  • W. Christian 'Mental' Ward, Abu Dhabi
  • Mark Stevenson, Canada
  • Faisal Ali Khan, India