[Sutripta]

Originally Posted by avinash_clt

Specifically for the 2.0TDI engines in discussion,
...
If someone could list out the critical components which they expect to remain same and to be different, we could fish the part numbers for them and have a comparison between different output variations of the 2.0TDI in both EA189 series and EA288 series.

Internal to the engine, ie not talking of ECU and related sensors, turbos, fuel delivery systems, radiators, self starters etc.
Pls. check out and let us know about
Pistons + rings, con rods with bolts, bearings and gudgeon pins, crank.
Cylinder head gasket. Maybe cylinder head bolts.
Exhaust valves.
Crancase ventilation systems.
Changes in the lubrication/ lube handling system.
Water pump.
Flywheel.

What are the yearly sales of each of the variants?

Regards
Sutripta

Originally Posted by Jeroen

I agree on the block. As I said, I really don’t know, not even an educated guess, more a shot in the dark really. Maybe a little bit of wishful thinking from my own profession thrown in. In my Telecom Networks I want to have as few different parts/configurations as possible.

Jeroen

If your modules are validated, then the major cost is that of integration, and validation (of system, not modules). Any sane person (ie a person still maintaining sanity after managing/ handling any nontrivial software project) will advice, keep the number of configurations as low as possible.

The case we are discussing here is not really analogous.

Regards
Sutripta

[avinash_clt]

Originally Posted by Sutripta

Internal to the engine, ie not talking of ECU and related sensors, turbos, fuel delivery systems, radiators, self starters etc.
Pls. check out and let us know about
Pistons + rings, con rods with bolts, bearings and gudgeon pins, crank.
Cylinder head gasket. Maybe cylinder head bolts.
Exhaust valves.
Crancase ventilation systems.
Changes in the lubrication/ lube handling system.
Water pump.
Flywheel.

Below I have listed the part numbers for major engine internals of the EA189 series 2.0TDI engines, in its 110PS, 140PS and 170PS iterations. These engines are/were used in pre-MQB cars of VAG. Comparisons have been restricted to the transverse engine applications alone, i.e no Audi A4/A6/Q5 etc. Same color across a row indicates identical part number used in all the iterations of the engine.

• Parts catalogue used OEMEPC (previously ETKA). Owing to the fact that this is a free database, there can be mistakes in quoted part numbers, but quite rare. Have extensively used it for sourcing and comparing parts for our cars, limitations found only on finding the latest revision of a particular part.
  
• As can be seen, the major engine internals are all same between the EA 189 2.0TDI producing 110PS/250Nm or 170PS/350Nm.
  
• These particular applications of the EA189 2.0TDI were chosen since all of them were sold in India. 110PS (Yeti 4x2, Laura MT), 140PS (Jetta, Laura DSG, Superb DSG, Yeti 4x4 MT etc), 170PS (Passat facelift).
  
• Part numbers for base engine assembly and short block are same between 110/140/170 PS variants.
  
• I am not sure of the exact difference between various engine codes with the same quoted power/torque, i.e within 170PS variants or 140PS variants.
  
• Variations in crankcase assembly / cylinder block within a particular 110/140/170PS variant seems to be due to different flange design on the timing side, presence of 'surge lock' in the oil sump. But each variation of the crankcase assembly goes in all three power applications.
  
• Flywheels are different between the various power applications. Within a particular power application, there is again difference based on the transmission, flywheel vendor (Sach vs LUK), whether vehicle has auto Start/Stop etc
  
• Crankcase ventilation is integrated into the cylinder head cover. The same cover is used in 110/140/170PS variants, and presumably the same crankcase ventilation system. Part number even corresponds to the same being used in certain 1.6TDI variants also.
  
• 170PS variant seems to have a different cylinder head assembly part number. As indicated in my previous post, there is compression ratio difference between certain iterations of 110/140PS vs 170PS and the same I believe is achieved with different heads, as virtually everything else is the same.
  
• In the longitudinal application of same generation EA189 2.0TDi (A4,A6,Q5 etc), the flywheel is understandably different as different transmissions are used. The crankshaft / connecting rod / associated bearings are also also different. However pistons, rings, valves, valve-train, cylinder head bolts etc are the same. The difference in part numbers seems to be more of a result of the longitudinal orientation of the engine alone. 177PS was the highest output in longitudinal application.
  
• Separate part number for gudgeon pins couldn't be found out.
  
• Lubrication requirements, filter, oil grades, recommended drain intervals etc are same between all iterations.
  
• The engines in the MQB diesel cars, i.e Audi A3, Octavia/Superb Mk3 are from the newer EA288 series. Internationally they are currently available in 150PS / 184PS / 190PS / 240PS (bi-turbo) applications. The same engine in India, for example in Octavia/Superb mk3 has been detuned for our fuel conditions. Except for the biturbo application, core engine internals are similarly same between 150-190PS variants of the EA288 2.0TDI also.

So to summarise, the 110PS 2.0TDI engine can handle 170PS (and possibly more) by supplementing it with the right aggregates.

[Jeroen]

Originally Posted by Sutripta

If your modules are validated, then the major cost is that of integration, and validation (of system, not modules). Any sane person (ie a person still maintaining sanity after managing/ handling any nontrivial software project) will advice, keep the number of configurations as low as possible.

The case we are discussing here is not really analogous.

I’m not talking about the software. I’m talking about the hardware. Radiobasestations come in many different configurations. They typically got designed and produced per configuration. So you might end up with x number of different cabinets, y number of different transmitters, z number of different filters etc.

So the question is then at what level can you standardise, fewer parts, and still get the overall cost of the product and or it’s maintenance cost in the field down.

What it means in practice is that you overdesign and thus incur a somewhat higher unit cost. Still the total cost of the family of products comes down.

Technology development allows us to cram more and more functions into one single Hardware unit. How you sell your products and services has a big impact as well. If you sell the products one by one, and your customer does it’s own field maintenance, compared to a managed capacity and managed service model, where we would responsible for everything.

Jeroen

[gthang]

Originally Posted by Jeroen

This 75% rule is often quoted, but to my knowledge has no fundamental basis in terms of engineering or design. It’s a rule of thumb at best, most likely part myth. At least when I was involved in engine design, we certainly did not have such rule.

Jeroen

Engineering Safety factor of 2.0 was not the norm?

Interesting, as I thought that was standard across all disciplines.

Cheers

[AMG Power]

@ OP: Making it simple

1. VW have obtained different power characteristics from the same engine by having different turbos, injectors and varying engine maps.

2. The reason that the Jetta / Octavia don't come with 190 Bhp as in the A4 is (a) cost and (b) to maintain model hierarchy. (Although with the 1.4 TSI in the A4, model hierarchy seems to have gone for a toss)

3. FE in the engines with varying power remains the same as the 190 Bhp engine will be ticking over at lower rpm compared to a 110 Bhp engine for the same speed. But at V Max the 190 Bhp engine will consume far more fuel than the 110 Bhp engine.

[Sutripta]

Originally Posted by avinash_clt

Below I have listed the part numbers for major engine internals of the EA189 series 2.0TDI engines, in its 110PS, 140PS and 170PS iterations.

Thanks a lot.

Intrigued about the cylinder head. A different SKU might be for something as simple as an extra pad to fit some accessory. But that would not account for the change in the gasket. But then again the exhaust valves are the same. Weird.

Must say I'm really surprised. Would have loved to be a fly on the wall during the decision making process.

Regards
Sutripta

[avinash_clt]

Originally Posted by AMG Power

FE in the engines with varying power remains the same as the 190 Bhp engine will be ticking over at lower rpm compared to a 110 Bhp engine for the same speed. But at V Max the 190 Bhp engine will consume far more fuel than the 110 Bhp engine.

Not true. The engine rpm as a function of vehicle speed is dependent only on the gear/final drive ratios. Among VAG cars which use 2.0TDI or 2.0TSI in varying states of tunes between their variants, they tend to maintain the same individual gear and final drive ratios, i.e 6-speed DQ250 dsg on 150/190PS of a particular vehicle model (Eg: Superb mk3) has the same gear ratios and will be doing 100 kmph at the same engine rpms.

Whether it is ARAI's FE testing cycles or the NEDC testing cycle via which CO2 ratings are arrived at in EU, the peak engine output isn't utilized/required, in both the accelerating as well as constant speed driving segments. Or in other words, to follow the particular FE testing cycle, both 170PS and 110PS variant will produce perhaps at the max say 80PS or 70PS (random assumptions).

Weight difference between, say a 110PS and 170PS variant of a particular VAG car with identical transmission and trim options is odd 20-30kg. Part of this also due to uprated brakes / wheels / tyres too.

As explained in previous posts, major engine internals remain identical between various variants of the 2.0TDI in a particular series (EA189 or EA288). So the part of the chemical energy stored in fuel which is lost as heat , friction, vibration/sound, exhaust gas flow etc is more or less the same (in a FE test cycle). This combined with approximately identical work (net energy) required for a particular vehicle to complete the FE test cycle, irrespective of being a 110/140/170 PS variant, means that every iteration of the 2.0TDI has more or less the same FE when tested under identical conditions (for a particular vehicle model).

In a real world driving scenario, a driver would accelerate faster from, say 50-120kmph with a 170PS engine than with a 110PS variant. This also increases the fuel consumption of the higher powered variant - but then this is not accounted for in a standard testing cycle by which FEs (kmpl or CO2) are currently determined.

[humyum]

Originally Posted by avinash_clt

Not true. The engine rpm as a function of vehicle speed is dependent only on the gear/final drive ratios. Among VAG cars which use 2.0TDI or 2.0TSI in varying states of tunes between their variants, they tend to maintain the same individual gear and final drive ratios, i.e 6-speed DQ250 dsg on 150/190PS of a particular vehicle model (Eg: Superb mk3) has the same gear ratios and will be doing 100 kmph at the same engine rpms.

Whether it is ARAI's FE testing cycles or the NEDC testing cycle via which CO2 ratings are arrived at in EU, the peak engine output isn't utilized/required, in both the accelerating as well as constant speed driving segments. Or in other words, to follow the particular FE testing cycle, both 170PS and 110PS variant will produce perhaps at the max say 80PS or 70PS (random assumptions).

Weight difference between, say a 110PS and 170PS variant of a particular VAG car with identical transmission and trim options is odd 20-30kg. Part of this also due to uprated brakes / wheels / tyres too.

As explained in previous posts, major engine internals remain identical between various variants of the 2.0TDI in a particular series (EA189 or EA288). So the part of the chemical energy stored in fuel which is lost as heat , friction, vibration/sound, exhaust gas flow etc is more or less the same (in a FE test cycle). This combined with approximately identical work (net energy) required for a particular vehicle to complete the FE test cycle, irrespective of being a 110/140/170 PS variant, means that every iteration of the 2.0TDI has more or less the same FE when tested under identical conditions (for a particular vehicle model).

In a real world driving scenario, a driver would accelerate faster from, say 50-120kmph with a 170PS engine than with a 110PS variant. This also increases the fuel consumption of the higher powered variant - but then this is not accounted for in a standard testing cycle by which FEs (kmpl or CO2) are currently determined.

Isn't it quite stupid if the 170 bhp version as the same gear ratio as a 110 bhp one if like you said the weights are same. Let me explain why?

A 170 bhp TDI for example would be producing atleast 10 Kgm of more torque, not utilising this torque by giving taller gear ratios is simply making sure the car surges past it's torque band at a much faster pace while not accelerating much after that which if the ratios were taller in the 170 bhp one against the 110 bhp one, the additional torque would make it climb speeds faster with the taller ratios. I hope I am making sense.

[avinash_clt]

Originally Posted by humyum

Isn't it quite stupid if the 170 bhp version as the same gear ratio as a 110 bhp one if like you said the weights are same. Let me explain why?

A 170 bhp TDI for example would be producing atleast 10 Kgm of more torque, not utilising this torque by giving taller gear ratios is simply making sure the car surges past it's torque band at a much faster pace while not accelerating much after that which if the ratios were taller in the 170 bhp one against the 110 bhp one, the additional torque would make it climb speeds faster with the taller ratios. I hope I am making sense.

Indeed it would be, and you do make sense. I was referring to cases where transmission types were also same, should have been clearer on that part .Will consider only EA189 2.0TDI for now (i.e its 110PS/140PS/170PS variants). Most pairing of 110PS engine was with a 5-speed MT, 140/170PS got a 6-speed MT or 6-speed DSG. Gear and final drive ratios were however same between 140/170 which used identical transmission types. Case is similar for 150PS/190PS 2.0TDI (EA288 series) which uses same transmission type (i.e same ratios when paired with 6-speed MT or 6-speed DSG or a 7-speed DSG). Below is a snippet from a Seat Ateca catalog. Case is similar for other cars also. Hope I am clear this time

DQ381 (7-speed wet clutch DSG) rations between 150PS/340Nm @ 190PS/400Nm variants of 2.0TDI



My previous post however was to highlight that it is not different gear ratios that render the various 2.0TDI iterations to have almost equal FE under similar test conditions.

[AMG Power]

Originally Posted by avinash_clt

Among VAG cars which use 2.0TDI or 2.0TSI in varying states of tunes between their variants, they tend to maintain the same individual gear and final drive ratios, i.e 6-speed DQ250 dsg on 150/190PS of a particular vehicle model (Eg: Superb mk3) has the same gear ratios and will be doing 100 kmph at the same engine rpms.

Not true. The below pics are of gear ratios from the Superb 170 bhp and Octavia 150 bhp versions. The gear ratios shown for the Octavia are different from that sold in India. VW have different gear ratios across the globe. In the pic above, the 170 bhp makes 120 kmph at 2000 rpm and the Octavia makes 120 kmph at 2300 rpm.

[Jeroen]

Originally Posted by avinash_clt

Below I have listed the part numbers for major engine internals of the EA189 series 2.0TDI engines, in its 110PS, 140PS and 170PS iterations.

Thanks very much for putting this table together. Very enlightening. It’s interesting to see such a broad power band range with, really, mostly, common parts!

Coming back to our earlier discussion, does suggest that parts are ‘over-engineered’ to cope with these difference. Which suggests to me that the cost advantages of overall standardisation are larger then trying to produce each and every part to an individual specification per engine version.

Jeroen

[SmartCat]

Originally Posted by Jeroen

Coming back to our earlier discussion, does suggest that parts are ‘over-engineered’ to cope with these difference. Which suggests to me that the cost advantages of overall standardisation are larger then trying to produce each and every part to an individual specification per engine version.

In hindsight, yeah, this standardization makes so much financial sense. Having the same "engine core" offers VW Group savings on -

- Logistical costs (in case of engine part replacement)
- Inventory costs (at the engine assembly plant)
- Manufacturing costs

Coming to manufacturing cost part, VW probably sources engine components from 10 different suppliers. The suppliers will be able to offer lower rates if the order is for 100,000 units per month with the same specs (rather than 30k orders per month for 140 BHP spec, 50K per month for 170 BHP spec and 10k per month for 190 BHP spec)

[AMG Power]

Here's an extract from the tech specs of the TDI CR with 110/140/170 states of tune for the Octavia. As you will notice, the 110 and the 140 have the same gear ratios but the 170 has different gear ratios.

[avinash_clt]

Originally Posted by AMG Power

Not true. The below pics are of gear ratios from the Superb 170 bhp and Octavia 150 bhp versions. The gear ratios shown for the Octavia are different from that sold in India. VW have different gear ratios across the globe. In the pic above, the 170 bhp makes 120 kmph at 2000 rpm and the Octavia makes 120 kmph at 2300 rpm.

Hello,

I did make a mention of 'between a particular vehicle model' and 'particular transmission type' in my responses. If we are to compare the stated/claimed FE of 2.0TDI engines in varying states of tune, we have to normalize them for vehicle weight, gear ratio, aerodynamics of a vehicle model, transmission type /associated losses, FE test-cycle, fuel quality etc and more, which I believe you too would agree to.

This is done easier by comparing the same generation of 2.0TDI engine in varying states of tunes and which uses identical transmission type, in the same vehicle. i.e to compare FE/CO2 ratings between say a Mk2 Octavia 6-speed DSG in its 140PS vs 170PS variant, or a Mk3 Superb 6-speed DSG in its 150PS vs 190PS etc. Currently we don't have such options for models launched in India, but EU have them.

Few points I would like to highlight:

• In the example, you are comparing between two different vehicle models: Octavia vs Superb and not from their same generation either. They do have different gear ratios, weights, drag coefficients etc.
• Yes, vehicles do have different gear ratios in different markets. I know that my Polo in India is geared shorter than the ones in EU, even while making more power/torque than them. To be honest I don't know whether cars like Octavia/Superb/Jetta etc also do since they are CKD units, and if it is worth for VAG to have different transmission parts bin for a small market like ours.
• But then again if we are to compare FE using ARAI results (kmpl) or CO2 ratings (g/km) obtained in European test cycle (NEDC), we can conisder only vehicle sold in the same markets as they are tested with different fuel grades as well as test-cycles.
• Among 2.0TDI engines in OP's post, there are two different series/generations. The 110PS/140PS/170PS are from the EA189 series (diesel-gate). The 150PS/190PS variants are from a newer EA288 series which went into MQB based cars (de-tuned to 143PS/177PS respectively in India). So comparing between 150PS vs 170PS 2.0TDI variant means you are likely comparing two different engines all together.
• If you are comparing between 150PS Octavia and 170PS Superb, then you are comparing two significantly different generations of engine and vehicles; to be precise EA288 2.0TDI in a Octavia Mk3 (MQB) and the older EA189 2.0TDI from a Superb Mk2. Different chassis platforms, vehicle generations, the older generation being heavier by odd 60-100kg between corresponding models. So yes they indeed have different gear ratios, no surprises.
• You can look up CO2 ratings of 140PS/170PS variants of Superb Mk2 (both 6-speed MT or 6-speed DSG), or 150PS/190PS variants of Superb Mk3 (again both 6-speed DSG/6-speed MT) and find that the CO2 ratings are pretty much the same.
• Gear ratio data via official VAG documentation is hard to come up. Only few catalogs/brochures have them, for example in the Seat Ateca (a Tiguan Mk2 equivalent).
• I presume the data is from 'http://www.cars-data.com' in these screenshots. But they occasionally have mistakes in them. You can look at their data provided against compression ratio / brake disc dia etc for eg.

Coming back to question of FE ratings of 2.0TDI engines: they are indeed similar between comparable 150PS vs 190PS applications or 140PS vs 170PS ones, owing to the limitations of test cycles (same acceleration rates irrespective of vehicle's capability, peak power/torque not utilized), and a highly similar base engine, rather than different gear ratios (which many time tend to remain the same).

Originally Posted by AMG Power

Here's an extract from the tech specs of the TDI CR with 110/140/170 states of tune for the Octavia. As you will notice, the 110 and the 140 have the same gear ratios but the 170 has different gear ratios.

Quite interesting. Could you please share the link to the same? Always something out there to correct and learn

However, going by the data you shared, you will notice that that 170PS is paired with shorter ratios than 140PS variant, isn't it counter-intuitive then and not as you expected? Calculating with a 205/55 R16 tyre (approx 632mm of rolling diameter), the data of gear ratio in the screenshot yield that 120kmph comes up at for 170PS: 2222rpm (6th gear) & 2640rpm (5th gear), and for the 140PS: 1990rpm (6th gear) & 2380 rpm(5th gear).

P.S: I saw your second response after typing mine for the first. But I will still keep them as it may help other readers to be in context, I understand you already quite are.

Originally Posted by Jeroen

Thanks very much for putting this table together.

Graag gedaan. Back home in India with troublesome after sales support of VW/Skoda, you end up reading and researching more than required.

Coming back to our earlier discussion, does suggest that parts are ‘over-engineered’ to cope with these difference. Which suggests to me that the cost advantages of overall standardisation are larger then trying to produce each and every part to an individual specification per engine version.

I too assume that they are over-engineered. It also means that someone picking up a used variant of VAG 110PS 2.0TDI (say a Laura MT or Yet 4x2) has lots of room to extract more the engine, if he chooses to. Another engine that comes to my mind with such a broad power application in the 2.2L four pot diesel from Merc, which was seen in approx 110/200PS and 250Nm/ 500NMmapplications. However, I am not familiar with its generations or iterations or part catalogues.

P.S: I am staying odd 100-150 south (I presume) of your location and hope you are enjoying the sun. Nice to meet you here in this thread.

[AMG Power]

Originally Posted by avinash_clt

However, going by the data you shared, you will notice that that 170PS is paired with shorter ratios than 140PS variant, isn't it counter-intuitive then and not as you expected?

It isn't counter intuitive when you understand its application. The 170 Bhp only did duty in the Octavia VRS. So if you notice, this is a close ratio gear box compared to the other one to improve performance in the VRS and attain a higher top speed. Hope this helps.