Volkswagen 1.4-Liter TSI TwinCharger Named International Engine of the Year, Green Engine of Year
17 June 2009
Volkswagen won the overall 2009 International Engine of the Year Award—the first time the company took the top award—with its 1.4-liter TSI Twincharger engine. (Earlier post.)
The unit is offered across much of the VW model range, including the Golf, Scirocco and Eos, and is used by Seat in the Ibiza Cupra. The turbocharged and supercharged 1.4-liter also won the 1-liter to 1.4-liter category and was voted Green Engine of the Year, beating both Toyota’s and Honda’s new electric-hybrid powerplants.
Although losing out on the top award this year, BMW’s ‘M Power’ 4-liter V8 topped the 3-liter to 4-liter category and its 3-liter DI Twin Turbo was named the best 2.5-liter to 3-liter engine. BMW shared a third category win with PSA for their 1.6-liter Turbo engine in the 1.4-liter to 1.8-liter category.
Mercedes-Benz took three category wins, with the 2.1-liter diesel winning the 2-liter to 2.5-liter category and the AMG-developed, 6.2-liter V8 winning the Above 4-liter category, with the same unit also judged to be the Performance Engine of the Year.
The Awards, which are judged by 65 motoring journalists from 32 countries across four continents, also rewarded a variety of other manufacturers for engine excellence in a number of different categories. Toyota won the Sub 1-liter category with its 998cc, three-cylinder engine; Audi was highlighted for its 2-liter, four-cylinder TFSI engine in the 1.8-liter to 2-liter category; and Porsche’s 3.8-liter flat-six was voted New Engine of the Year.
The 11th annual International Engine of the Year Award ceremony took place at Engine Expo 2009 in Stuttgart, Germany on 17 June.
| International Engine of the Year Awards 2009 Winners | |
|---|---|
| International Engine of the Year | Volkswagen 1.4-liter TSI Twincharger (Golf, Eos, Scirocco, Touran, Tiguan, Jetta, Seat Ibiza Cupra) |
| Best New Engine of 2009 | Porsche 3.8-liter flat-six (911) |
| Green Engine of the Year | Volkswagen 1.4-liter TSI Twincharger (Golf, Touran, Tiguan, Jetta) |
| Sub 1-liter | Toyota 1-liter (Aygo, Yaris, Peugeot 107, Citroën C1, Subaru Justy) |
| 1-liter to 1.4-liter | Volkswagen 1.4-liter TSI Twincharger (Golf, Eos, Scirocco, Touran, Tiguan, Jetta, Seat Ibiza Cupra) |
| 1.4-liter to 1.8-liter | BMW-PSA 1.6-liter Turbo (MINI Cooper S, Clubman, Peugeot 207, 308) |
| 1.8-liter to 2-liter | Audi 2-liter TFSI (A4, A5, Q5, VW Scirocco, Golf GTi) |
| 2-liter to 2.5-liter | Mercedes-Benz Diesel 2.1-liter (BlueEfficiency C-Class, BlueEfficiency E-Class) |
| 2.5-liter to 3-liter | BMW 3-liter DI Twin-Turbo (135, 335, X6, Z4, 730) |
| 3-liter to 4-liter | BMW 4-liter V8 (M3) |
| Above 4-liter | Mercedes-AMG 6.2-liter (CLK, S, SL, CL, CLS, ML) |
| Performance Engine of the Year | Mercedes-AMG 6.2-liter (CLK, S, SL, CL, CLS, ML) |
I have my doubts about the overall value of an engine with dual superchargers.
However, I love the sophisticated technology of such engines, and that is probably why it won.
Were the Prius and Insight electric-hybrid powerplants, or just their engines, in this "Green Engine" competition?
Posted by: ToppaTom | 17 June 2009 at 01:57 PM
The value lies in the downsizing to gain fuel effieicncy which will be optimised when the engine does not need to be under load for accelerating in operation, like most turbocharged engines.
The supercharger with turbo offers the additional benefit of emilinating turbo-lag and I guess allows for more downsizing. So you can then use this engine in vehicles which traditionally need larger engines.
In other words most people may react negatively to the thought of having a car that is powered only by 1.4 litres, because of underpower issues. It's not uncommon for cars which are underpowered to get poor mileage if they have to be driven hard to get any reasonable power output.
My Passat has the older 1.8 20V turbocharged engine, so for a car of this size you can get efficiency and performance, although not both together. Put it this way, its easy to get over 40 miles per imperial gallon with the Passat through gentle driving. The turbo, by providing maximum torque throughout the rev range instead of at a peak point allows for better driveability, so you don't lose power up hills or have frustration when it comes to passing slower vehicles.
I'm surprised that more petrol cars don't have turbos. They are commonplace in diesel cars now and give pertol cars a good run for their money in performance against petrol powered cars in the mid-range. Using turbos more could wean the American public of V6's onto smaller 4 cylinders and increase efficiency.
Posted by: Scott | 18 June 2009 at 02:03 AM
Supercharging seems to lose most of the gain of downsizing.
When I compare turbo 4 cylinder with non-turbo V6 production cars, the gain in mileage is hard to find - Supercharging requires a lower compression ratio even with a bulky, expensive intercooler.
The supercharger with turbo results in more cost just to eliminating turbo-lag.
Many people react positively to the thought of a turbo + supercharger, because of the ego power but these engines are often replaced by a good V6 in the next model year.
Its not uncommon for turbo or supercharged cars to run rich to avoid pre-ignition and detonation and get poor mileage if they have to be driven hard to get the power output they offer.
A modern V6 fuel injected engine gets reasonable mileage even at WOT, more so with DFI.
Turbos are commonplace in diesel cars because the CR need not be lowered, no intercooler is required, more air in a diesel does not require more fuel and more pressure means better combustion not pre-ignition and detonation.
I think lower horsepower results in better mileage (partly because you can NEVER accelerate fast) but I am not sure supercharged/downsized does.
Posted by: ToppaTom | 18 June 2009 at 07:24 AM
Mercedes had a 2.3 liter 4 cylinder super charged engine used in C series and SLK models for years. It put out 180 hp and got 23 mpg in the city. That seems like a good way to go to get performance AND economy.
Posted by: SJC | 18 June 2009 at 11:41 AM
18-20 mpg in the city is more like it for an MB SLK230.
For a small 2 seater, 2.3L is not necessarily downsized, more like the car is downsized.
Posted by: ToppaTom | 18 June 2009 at 09:55 PM
Going back to the Passat example a 1.8 non-turbo with 125bhp gets about the same, if not less mileage than the 1.8 turbo with 150 bhp. Other passat variants also don't compare well. The 2.0 litre 4 cylinder which is a non turbo, with 130 bhp gets the same, or less. Then those with the 2.3 or 2.8 litres V6, whilst having more power suffer significantly with poorer mileage. The power difference should not be an issue as the 1.8 turbo can be 'chipped' to offer more power and a slight gain in fuel economy. So clearly downsizing does have its advantages. This coould also be improved if a 6th gear was introduced to the transmission to reduce consumption at Highway speeds.
My partners 1997 Audi A6 2.5TDI (140bhp) gets 55 mpg (imperial) on the highway at 70mph, thanks to 6th and no doubt to the turbo and the increased torque which allows for higher transmission.
Posted by: Scott | 19 June 2009 at 02:09 AM
2004 Mercedes-Benz SLK-Class SLK230 Roadster
Horsepower 192 @ 5500 RPM
Torque 200 @ 2500 RPM
Gas Mileage 22 mpg City / 28 mpg Hwy
Engine 4-Cyl. Supercharged
Transmission Automatic
Drivetrain RWD
I was off by 1 mpg and 10 hp. The point is you can get good mileage and performance and that it has been done for years.
Posted by: SJC | 19 June 2009 at 10:59 AM