By on August 4, 2015

ea211_14_tsi_engine_5122Volkswagen just took the wrapper off its 1.4-liter turbocharged four cylinder that will replace the 2-liter naturally aspirated noise machine in most of its Jettas, the automaker announced today.

The engine will produce 150 horsepower (vs. 115 hp in the outgoing model) and will produce 184 pound-feet of torque (vs. 125 in the old engine) and highway fuel economy is expected to reach 39 mpg, the automaker said.

The engine uses a small, single-scroll compressor for its turbocharger and an integrated intercooler. The engine can be mated to either a five-speed manual (!) or six-speed automatic.

The small displacement, force-fed engine is roughly related to the EA111 engine, but features a smaller bore and longer stroke. The compact design saves weight and space and Volkswagen engineers hinted that the engine could see further boosting in different applications for the engine in the future.

According to representatives from Volkswagen, the 1.4-liter turbocharged engine should be appearing in dealerships toward the end of August or early September.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

86 Comments on “Goodbye, Volkswagen 2.Slow; Oh, Hello New 1.4T...”


  • avatar
    vtecJustKickedInYo

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but does this mean this is the cheapest car on the market with a Water to Air Intercooler :D

    • 0 avatar
      colin42

      Technically this is an aftercooler. It would only be an intercooler if it is located between a low pressure compressor and a high pressure compressor

      • 0 avatar
        EAF

        True; but the two terms, in automotive, have become synonymous.

        It is definitely water to air and it is integrated into the intake manifold from what I can see in the picture. How efficient could this setup possibly be? Engine coolant or a dedicated circuit? Seems like a potential disaster to me! The only advantage I can think of is a lower pressure drop (quicker spool) since the charge pipes and “aftercooler” occupy less real estate.

        I think the valve cover in this thing houses the camshafts and caps, similar to that Volvo 5 cylinder turbo engine (retarded).

        I also believe it uses a timing belt just like the 2.slow, probably a good idea! I’ve come to believe chains, in OHC applications, cause more problems than what they’re worth.

        • 0 avatar
          vtecJustKickedInYo

          If done right, a water to air is more efficient and I dont see it being a disaster because VW is honestly pretty good with coolant (minus Porsche Cayenne Nylon Hose – but it passed DVP&R). It will be integrated into the cooling system because it is significantly cheaper and it has already been done with the S4,S5 Supercharger intercooler.

  • avatar
    th009

    Jetta Hybrid already has this engine.

  • avatar
    xflowgolf

    This would be right at home swapped into an old Rabbit pickup truck. I’ve read elsewhere this is tuned to run on plain ol’ 87 octane as well.

    I’m a TDI driver, but it’s hard to ignore the cost efficiency potentials of this new mill, without the complexities of diesel particulate filters and emissions systems. At 150hp/184tq. it’ll likely be plenty competent for base model duty.

  • avatar
    GermanReliabilityMyth

    Fare thee well, 2.Slow, we hardly knew ye.

    Actually, wait…no. You overstayed your welcome. Good riddance. Although VW sure is gonna miss all those red circles, courtesy of the aforementioned boat anchor and humble-but-reliable 2.5.

    C’est la vie. I mean dass ist leben.

    • 0 avatar
      sirwired

      I don’t think that they actually sold that many Jettas with the 2.slow, so it should not have had much of an effect on their CR scores. (But yeah, they are gonna miss the 2.5)

    • 0 avatar

      Oh man, can we have a moment for the 2.5?

      Thirsty? Yes. But reliable, sounded good, and torquey. RIP, underappreciated 2.5, first and last of the reliable VW gas engines.

      • 0 avatar
        GermanReliabilityMyth

        *pours one out*

        Definitely. You hit all points, but it had a lot of character, a damn good torque curve and definitely one of the more/most reliable VW powerplants. It’s always nice to see I’m not the only one who appreciated the little bugger. I’ve said it many times before, but I had been on the fence about buying a VW wagon for years. The fact that 2014 was the last of the 2.5 breed, and the known quantity for reliability, I pulled the trigger.

        • 0 avatar
          CoreyDL

          Can someone tell me where the horribly trashy idea that you should pour out for a fallen homie came from?

          The idea that something you’re drinking is cheap enough to a) dump it out and b) make a mess of whatever floor you’re standing on is absurd.

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            Thug Life: Volume 1

          • 0 avatar
            CoreyDL

            My white people judgment face came on.

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            I’m not 100% sure where the term started, but there was a popular 2Pac song called, “Pour Out a Little Liquor,” that was on one of his most popular albums, Thug Life: Vol I, and one of my favorite albums, the Above the Rim soundtrack.

          • 0 avatar
            RideHeight

            “make a mess of whatever floor you’re standing on”

            Whoever does that should be required to clean that bar after closing time.

            Or better yet, the next morning.

          • 0 avatar
            CoreyDL

            You’d think with the ultra-levels of concern around their new J’s that they’d want as clean a floor as possible.

          • 0 avatar
            RideHeight

            “their new J’s”

            Could you translate that for a geezer?

          • 0 avatar
            GermanReliabilityMyth

            My understanding is that it’s rooted in the ancient practice of libation. It’s considered a form of minor sacrifice for the deceased. See the link below for more detail:

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libation

          • 0 avatar
            CoreyDL

            @Ride

            J’s are any expensive shoe, originally referencing Air Jordan’s. The people who would “pour one out” might purchase these shoes on layaway, or in stead to their child support payment. They’re often white, and kept as clean as possible. Shoe laces untied, to make them extra impractical, and so they can walk slower across the street when crossing traffic.

            It inconveniences people with actual places to go, and makes them feel important.

            This phenomenon is also seen in Canadian geese.

          • 0 avatar
            RideHeight

            Thanx, Corey!

            I seen dem! But the analogy used to be a different bird, back in da day.

          • 0 avatar
            RideHeight

            “the ancient practice of libation”

            Which I’m guessing was done onto something with better drainage properties than bar carpet. Like dirt.

          • 0 avatar
            CoreyDL

            Sometimes they’re on the curb when they do it, so it can get to the street drainage rather quickly. The little stream will put out the dropped Newports along the way.

          • 0 avatar
            RideHeight

            ” the dropped Newports ”

            You miss nothing.

      • 0 avatar
        sportyaccordy

        It had to be torquey. The Rabbits and Jettas they were in weighed like 3100-3300lbs lol. My Civic with its sprightly 1.8L feels much faster most of the time, thanks to its ~400lb lower weight. I think they redline at like 5500 too. And my wife’s Rabbit only gets slightly better gas mileage than my old 350Z. The only merits to the 2.5 were that it sounded weird and didn’t break…. hardly something worth pouring anything out for.

        • 0 avatar

          “and didn’t break”

          Given the history of VW’s gas engines, this alone is an enormous accomplishment that deserves recognition. It finally gave those of us who won’t accept a catastrophic engine failure as an eventuality in a modern car the chance to purchase and drive a VW.

          • 0 avatar
            30-mile fetch

            Yep. The reliability scores of the 2.5 pushed me over the fence into VW ownership. I like nearly everything about my car, but if the reliability scores had been lower it would have been no sale.

        • 0 avatar
          30-mile fetch

          The VWs are indeed heavy and that blunts the hp and displacement advantage. The Civic may feel much faster, but C&D tests I’ve found show very similar out-and-out acceleration at 0-30, 0-60, and 1/4 mile. However, their top gear acceleration tests fall in the VW’s favor due to the grunt at lower engine speeds.

          This lets me be lazy and not downshift. Sometimes I like being lazy.

          Your Rabbit also has the 150hp version of the 2.5. Around 2008 or 2009 it went to 170 hp.

  • avatar
    bumpy ii

    This is basically VW walking back the “big and cheap” strategy they adopted for the US-spec Jetta and Passat. They already tossed the torsion beam and the 2.5, and now it’s the 2.0’s turn.

  • avatar
    sirwired

    Finally! That 2.0 engine, while quite the workhorse, is a bit of an embarrassment… I can only imagine how many Jetta sales have been lost when the dealer has to reveal that to get the price in the ad, a buyer has to buy a car with that inadequate engine in it.

    It’s served VW well, but there’s no excuse for selling an engine essentially unchanged in a quarter-century. And it’s not even particularly efficient.

    The 2.5 I5 was a little coarse, and not particularly efficient, but at least it did not plumb the very bottom of the barrel for acceptable power in the US.

  • avatar
    PRNDLOL

    I remember when the same 2 litre 115 hp engine was the standard in the MK3 generation, and that was more than 20 years ago. It’s way past the best-before date so it’s right to chuck it.

  • avatar
    Menloguy

    So I take it that the base Jetta S which currently has the 2.0 engine will have this 1.4 engine starting in about September? I was looking into a Jetta SE with the 1.8 TSI engine but the horsepower and fuel economy of the new 1.4 engine sounds appealing.

    • 0 avatar
      brettc

      I assume that’s what will happen. I’m thinking they might have to raise the price but maybe they’ll do some more decontenting instead. Time for drum brakes again. ;)

  • avatar
    another_VW_fanboy

    the 2.0 is ancient and slow. One thing it had going for it was reliability. Just because its not fast doesn’t mean its bad. i see more than a few Jetta s around so they did sell in my area at least. Im sure those drivers appreciate that with regular 10000 mile oil changes and 60000 timing belt service their slow little engine will start and run everyday for years. Hope the new base engine can have that kind of reliability and longevity.

    • 0 avatar
      Nick_515

      Jiffy’s every 3k (non-synthetic) and a single timing belt done at 98k (i was young and stupid). That mofo pulled hard when I sold it at 133k.

      That engine made me an aggressive driver. When cruising and chatting with your companion, you’d be doing 75, then imperceptibly 80, 85, 90, and you’d realize how fast you were going in horror at 95. But then someone would cut you off back to 60, and THEN it took A WHILE to get up to 80 again (too lazy to downshift). So I was unwilling to slow down, and would do it as late as possible as little as possible. That, to me, is the definition of an aggressive driver. But it does save gas.

  • avatar
    APaGttH

    Forced induction and “normal” oil consumption that most would consider excessive is a bad, bad, combination.

    • 0 avatar
      rehposolihp

      Can someone explain to me how burning 5 gallons of dino juice every 100 miles is fine, but burning a quarter gallon of different dino juice every 1000 miles is terrible?

      Does burning oil somehow mean the engine isn’t working? Oil isn’t even that expensive as replacement fluids go.

      • 0 avatar
        LeMansteve

        The primary job of engine oil is to lubricate and remove heat from internal friction surfaces. It is not supposed to get burned in the combustion chamber. There are seals in place to prevent engine oil from reaching the combustion chamber. If the engine starts to burn oil, then something is failing or failed.

        Plenty of cars do not burn a drop of engine oil. That is the expected result.

        On cars that take synthetic oil at $7/qt and have drain intervals of 10k miles or more, replacing a quart every 1k miles starts to add up.

        • 0 avatar
          gasser

          +1
          I also believe that with all the effort of oxygen sensors and 3 way catalysts, pouring the combustion products of a liter of heavy oil through the pollution control system from day one will add to its longevity. Catalytic converters are expensive to replace.

      • 0 avatar
        kvndoom

        100% of all drivers check their gas level every day.

        99.5% of all drivers (made up number, but you get the gist) never check their oil level and just go to the shop when they reach the miles on their window sticker.

        • 0 avatar
          brettc

          And then there are the people that don’t bother with service. My wife has a friend with a Subaru that’s not very old (5-7 years). Last I heard she was at something like 20000 miles since her last oil change. And she’s not one to do oil analysis, just lazy. I can see why manufacturers are trying to make cars idiot proof, but bigger idiots just keep coming.

        • 0 avatar
          th009

          Most modern cars have an oil level warning light.

          • 0 avatar
            brettc

            Yes, but that doesn’t mean it knows what condition the oil is in unless it has the wear sensor in the pan. It just tells you if it’s low or not. It is possible to drive way too far on an oil fill without burning much/any. Needless to say I would not want to buy that woman’s car used.

  • avatar
    CoreyDL

    Is this the same engine they use in Audis with the 2.0T?

    So there will be a 1.4T and a TDI in the Jetta. And that’s it?

    • 0 avatar

      No. The SEL and a new “Sport” trim will continue to carry the 1.8-liter TSI. Then, of curse, you have the TDI, and the Hybrid, which has *been* using this 1.4-liter TSI.

      • 0 avatar
        CoreyDL

        I forgot about the 1.8! The GLI doesn’t get something special? Isn’t the GTI engine a 2.0?

        I am way behind on my VW engine choices. I see the Touareg offers a 3.6 V6. To my knowledge that isn’t in Audis!

        • 0 avatar
          dal20402

          The 3.6 was the base Q7 engine until it was replaced by the 3.0T.

          It’s a bit surprising there was never an A6 3.6 during the same timeframe.

          • 0 avatar
            CoreyDL

            Well that’s one thing the Touareg has got going for it, an NA 6. But who the fumble is paying $50K+ for a Touareg? Explains why you don’t see any of the new model. That’s just Q7 money (which is also outdated).

            Though I do find the Touareg better looking than the Q7, which is ungainly.

            The engine options for the A6 should always be: 2.8, 3.2 or 3.6, and 4.2!

          • 0 avatar
            dal20402

            Brand-new Q7 is no longer outdated. And it’s a lot better proportioned than the old one, which just looked fat.

            The 3.0T is a better fit for a Q7 than any of those old high-revvers, even the V8. It’s a complete sweetheart with unending torque.

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            American’s don’t have time for a $50K VW SUV that only seats five. For that price, you can find a nice Yukon or Expedition.

            Or for less, there are a number of 5 and 7 passenger CUVs/SUVs.

          • 0 avatar

            No, but it had the 3.2-liter, which was problematic.

          • 0 avatar
            derekson

            “Well that’s one thing the Touareg has got going for it, an NA 6. But who the fumble is paying $50K+ for a Touareg? Explains why you don’t see any of the new model. That’s just Q7 money (which is also outdated).”

            I regularly see Touaregs advertised at up to 10k below MSRP. At those prices it’s actually a pretty good buy. The Touareg also has a 10 year/100,000 mile power train warranty, compared to 5/60,000 for other VWs.

          • 0 avatar
            CoreyDL

            I do agree on much better appearance of new Q7. I have not seen one in real life yet, and I forgot about the model change actually.

        • 0 avatar

          Forgot about the GLI. Probably because it costs too much. But yes, it gets a larger 2.0 TSI

      • 0 avatar
        derekson

        The Jetta Hybrid has the last generation 1.4 TSI. This is a new one (I think it goes by EA211) that was basically built for the A3 e-tron and Golf GTE. It’s not really a coincidence that this engine is finally replacing the 2.slow around the same time as the A3 e-tron hits the U.S. market.

        Incidentally this new 1.4 TSI makes as much torque on its own as the Hybrid makes with the 1.4 and electric motor combined.

  • avatar
    wmba

    wonderful. VW’s “Oh yes, it jumped a tooth on the timing chain and smashed the pistons” piece of junk. Commonly combined with the series 200 dry clutch 7 speed DSG for the ultimate owner nightmare.

    Stay far, far away.

    • 0 avatar
      SCE to AUX

      While I’m loathe to defend VW, interference engines are everywhere today. Given today’s compression ratios, I doubt there is an engine produced whose pistons can freewheel safely.

      And it’s exceptionally rare for one to jump time, whether chain- or belt-driven. The last car I saw do this was a 94 GM 3.8, which resulted in spun bearings rather than smashed pistons.

  • avatar
    TrailerTrash

    Yet another turbo.
    I see lots of comments here and around the internet abut the issues with the Ford turbos not getting the MPG as advertised on the windows.
    Is Ford the only company having these issues, real or unreal? Or are the VW and other turbos also struggling with the real, reputations or impressions of mileage?

    • 0 avatar
      SCE to AUX

      I believe the problem is across the board.

      Turbos aren’t exactly the problem; they can achieve EPA if driven very gently, but most people use the boost to make it drive like a V6.

      Another problem is the mismatch between the EPA test protocols and real-world driving practices, and turbos seem to suffer more than most cars when comparing EPA to reality.

      Finally, there was the ‘scandal’ of Ford and Hyundai (and maybe others) whose self-declared EPA ratings weren’t even close to real-world experience – partially due to lying and/or incompetence. Turbo cars were part of the hijinks, and so their reputation was further tarnished a bit.

      • 0 avatar
        ajla

        “Turbos aren’t exactly the problem; they can achieve EPA if driven very gently”

        Well, that is good since the EPA rates the 2.0T Sonata and Fusion for 1 MPG better than the V6 Accord and Camry and the CTS V-sport has the same rating as the Charger SRT8.

        Using turbos to replace engines that traditionally had 3.5L or more of displacement doesn’t seem to result in a lot of fuel savings even by the EPA tests.

        • 0 avatar
          TrailerTrash

          See I dunno.
          Maybe, maybe not.
          But my own experience with a now 66K MKS with the 3.5TT is pretty good. Oh, I admit IF I truly enjoy the force it drops drastically. And it IS hard NOT to enjoy the torque. It really is.
          But I do dive nicely and the ave MPG today is 23.5. It does get better…and this is with a 60 HWY/40city….the exact opposite of the EPA testing.

          My 2.0 2013 Escape turbo now with 11K showing was averaging 24.4…but then I switched to 93 oct premium OR 91 oct Marine fuel. The MPG today is exactly 27. That is with pretty easy driving as well. And this little CUV is pretty fun to drive.
          But still…27 MPG??? That is damn good.

          So I think the turbos can give you that wonderful power AND MPG…if you know how to drive and limit your enjoyment.

        • 0 avatar
          kvndoom

          When the autotragic transmissions are programmed to minimize boost at the known EPA test speeds, this is the result.

    • 0 avatar
      derekson

      The 1.8 TSI matches the EPA ratings in the Jetta, Passat, and Golf from everything I have read. I don’t see why this engine should be any different.

      I’ve read that the Hyundai/Kia turbos also match their rated fuel economy numbers pretty well too. And the 1.4T in the Chevy Cruze seems to get high 30s in real world highway driving.

      It is mostly a Ford problem.

      • 0 avatar
        rpn453

        Yeah, it seems to do well. The last time one was in a Car and Driver comparison test – a 1.8L in a Jetta – it was second of five in terms of how well its tested fuel economy compared to its EPA fuel economy. It actually used the most fuel, but was the heaviest, most powerful, and fastest car with the lowest EPA ratings in the comparison.

        http://www.caranddriver.com/comparisons/2014-honda-civic-ex-l-vs-2014-kia-forte-ex-2014-mazda-3-i-touring-2014-toyota-corolla-s-2014-volkswagen-jetta-se-final-scoring-performance-data-and-complete-specs-page-7

        When the 2.5L NA was compared to the 2.0L turbo in an all-Jetta comparison, the much faster 2.0L turbo easily beat the 2.5L in terms of fuel economy; 31 mpg to the 2.5L’s 26.

        http://www.caranddriver.com/comparisons/final-scoring-performance-data-and-complete-specs-page-6

  • avatar
    Cabriolet

    Still have a 1990 VW with the original 1.8 engine. Of course the car has a weight of only 2100 Lbs and with 95 HP runs fine. The 1.6, 1,8 and later 2,0 8V were good engines. They were simple and if you forgot to change the timing belt you did not destroy the engine. Had quite a few VW with this engine and they never failed me. At a steady 65-70 MPH i could get a good 30 MPH and had no trouble keeping up with traffic. They always started and parts were cheap and easy to get. Understand the original engine was designed by Audi before VW purchased them and was designed for diesel use. VW used the same engine for gas service and mot owners got well over 300,000 miles from this simple engine. Of course time marches on and engines are not that simple now, Dual cams, timing chains, computers direct injection turbos etc. Whatever both my wife’s GTI and my GTI have been bulletproof so far but i would like to drive this 1.4 it could be a fun car. My GTI by the way gets approx 30 MPH with 1/2 city and 1/2 highway. Not bad for a 200 HP car at 3200 pounds,

  • avatar
    manny_c44

    The European 1.4t was supercharged and turbocharged and was very unreliable. Hopefully this one is at least as good as the 1.8t and 2.0t

  • avatar
    Der_Kommissar

    Anyone know if they are going to be putting this in the Golf SportWagen too? It’s hard enough to find a gas GSW on the lots now with only one gas engine. With two (possibly) god only knows what strange product mix they will settle on.

    Second thought- if they switch the Jetta SE over to this engine, I would think the 2015’s with connectivity and nav would be pretty attractive since it still has the 1.8t…

    • 0 avatar
      dal20402

      “Anyone know if they are going to be putting this in the Golf SportWagen too?”

      Strongly doubt it. It’s not a high enough volume product for three engines and the JSW never had the 2.slow in the US.

  • avatar
    Zykotec

    Good riddance ,I hope. I can’t understand how it was possible to sell such an underachieving engine as long as they did. My ’86 Sierra had a 115hp 2.0i.
    The VW 2.slow was already regarded as a 2.slow in the mid 90’s when most japanese 1.6 liter engines made as much, or more.
    I know VAG (at least until recently)also made a 102 hp 1.6. Maybe not awful for an economy engine from the 80’s/90’s, but pretty horrible by modern standards.
    I did drive a 1.2 Golf mk7 last year, which was actually plenty fast under Norwegian speed limits, but promptly ran completely out of breath above 60mph. It also could do 56 mpg, which isn’t bad for a gas engine
    (my 2.0 Mondeo can barely do 50mpg Highway, or just 35 mixed)

    • 0 avatar
      30-mile fetch

      “I can’t understand how it was possible to sell such an underachieving engine as long as they did.”

      Low price, low expectations. Lots of new Jettas with this engine in my town, especially in the lower income areas. Seems to be mostly younger people driving them, and given the rate I’ve seen some of them blasting down the interstate, 115hp is still enough to be an aggressive driver at 85mph. Come to think of it, they don’t have any problem outpacing traffic in the 45mph surface roads either.

      In a country where 50mpg out of a sedan would be described as incredible rather than “barely”, the 30 mpg of the 2.slow isn’t that big of a deal either.

    • 0 avatar
      cgjeep

      The price on the 2.0 is very low so it can end up competing with Nissan Versas and the like. 120HP is enough to compete there. Funny I drove a 2.0 and a 2.5 both with manuals. I preferred the 2.0, was geared better. On the 2.5 I had to drop to 3rd to get meaningful acceleration while on highway.

  • avatar
    Edsel Maserati

    According to VW’s press release, this engine also replaces the 1.8 turbo four in the SE. This gets my attention. I recently had a Jetta SE for a week and I really, really liked that 1.8 engine. It revved beautifully. The gas mileage was very close to the EPA numbers — mid 20s in town, 35 or so on the highway. (Driving a steady 63 mph got it right on the EPA highway button of 37.) I came out of the experience really wanting to own one. It just felt like a fun car.

    So if they’re dumping that engine, I hope it’s for a good reason besides the extra 2 mpg highway.

    • 0 avatar
      30-mile fetch

      There’s no good reason from a consumer perspective to replace the 1.4 with the 1.8 in the SE. I’m guessing it is cheaper for VW to do so and lets them use the more powerful 1.8 as a way of upselling to the higher trim levels. Buy it now while you can, that 1.8 shames just about every other engine in the class.

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • jack4x: “Nothing worse than having to rev the $hit out of gas engine to get it to move when your trying to keep...
  • DenverMike: It’s an Isuzu. That’s not a terrible thing but if it’s like the big Duramax,...
  • Schurkey: SAFE does not go NEARLY far enough. E-N-D “CAFE”. Permanently. Roll back emissions standards to...
  • Jagboi: After the 430 there was a 462 MEL. It was replaced by the 460 in 1968.
  • ajla: “The diesel will be a lot more relaxing & comfortable to drive when towing.” As would an HD...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Timothy Cain
  • Matthew Guy
  • Ronnie Schreiber
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Chris Tonn
  • Corey Lewis
  • Mark Baruth