EA113 vs EA888 TSI / TFSI

[Ecosseven]

Afternoon all,

I'm considering either a petrol powered Octavia vRS or Seat Leon FR. I know that they have both used the newer EA888 2.0litre turbo engine since 2009.

My question is what are the main differences between the engines? I understand that the EA888 has slightly better fuel economy but not sure of the other difference. The Skoda alledgedly produces 11bhp less than the Leon (197 vs 208bhp) but not sure if this is just marketing blurb or reality?

I would love a Golf GTI but there is quite a gap in second hand values between the Golf and the equivalent Octavia and Leon.

Cheers.

Edited by Ecosseven on Friday 1st June 18:30

[blank]

The main advantage of the later engine is that it's chain driven, rather than belt driven. So no expensive cambelt changes every 4 years!

[the-photographer]

There is a technical PDF here

http://www.f1technical.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=3...

Otherwise the newer engine is chain driven, with a little more power and economy.

I suspect that Skoda with 197bhp is the older engine.

[Stoofa]

It's almost certainly going to be software - and that is it.
The Golf GTI, the Seat and Octy vRS all share the same engine, however the "official" bhp is different on all of them.
VW see every single Skoda sale as a lost VW sale (one could argue that if they lowered the price of the VW then we wouldn't have this situation) so they tend to either "nobble" the Skoda specs or just print them as being lower.

I owned a 56 plate Octy vRS with the TFSI and now own an 11 plate Octy vRS with the TSI.
I had to give the older TFSI around 1L of oil a month - within VW/Skoda specifications, the TSI hasn't needed a drop since I bought it just over a year ago.
Both engines remap well and software alone could easily take you to 250 - 255bhp with a nice torque increase too.

Chain is a god-send, with no service intervals listed there is no 60,000/4 year expense of a new belt.

[the-photographer]

Just as a comparison to the post above my GTI (EA113) uses about 1.5litres every 10,000 miles.

[DrBezza]

Stumbled across this thread as it answered a question I wanted to pose.

So the Occy uses the same TSI engine as Leon/Golf and presumably current Scirrocco?

JUst dont understand why VAG rate it at 197 BHP, when the give the Leon 208. Surely the Leon is the car more likely to steal Golf sales, the OCtavia being more of a family mans performance wheels.

It would be interesting if someone could get a rolling road test on a current standard Octavia. Perhaps the chap with the 11 reg one wouldnt mind volunteering?!!!

[the-photographer]

I found this

briskoda (page2)

Which confirms that a 2012 VRS has the EA888 engine (look a the engine pics and compare with a MK6 GTI)
with the power lowered to 200PS.

Edited by the-photographer on Monday 4th June 11:43

Edited by the-photographer on Monday 4th June 11:44

[Stoofa]

I'm very often over at the Briskoda forums and "stock" on the later Octy vRS sees measurements anywhere from 200bhp - 210bhp. There was so proof posted and a few is just relying on people telling the truth. However it does all indicate that the engines are totally the same and it's down to how VW force the various marques to report the figure.
I never had a run before my car was remapped. I'm now seeing approx. 250bhp - I would have been interested to see it before.

[FamilyDub]

Just as a comparison to the post above my GTI (EA113) uses about 2.5litres every 10,000 miles.

Thanks to the Photographer for layout

[the-photographer]

FamilyDub said:

Just as a comparison to the post above my GTI (EA113) uses about 2.5litres every 10,000 miles.

Thanks to the Photographer for layout

This engine seems a bit of lottery (unless you drive hard/track lots).

[FamilyDub]

I do mainly cold starts, short trips and the occasional 'sporty driving'.

I reckon 2,500 miles at worst and 4,000 aat best between top-ups.

[rix]

I had a TSI'd 2010 vRS but have also had use of the older units in a 2006 vRS and a 2005 GTi, and limited drives of a 2012 mk6 GTi. I couldn't notice any difference in power between any of them when considering the skodas are a bit heavier. However the '888 in the vRS sounded a lot less appealing than it does in the mk6 - almost a bit gravelly and strained. Where as the old unit sounded nice on both cars. Not sure I'd of that's just down to the exhaust?

Anyone know what's fitted to 2012 A4 TSi? Is it exactly the same as the Octavia and golf? I ask as it seems a bit more sluggish at low revs and slightly more peaky. Would be interesting to know if and how the maps differ between cars.

[the-photographer]

rix said:

I had a TSI'd 2010 vRS but have also had use of the older units in a 2006 vRS and a 2005 GTi, and limited drives of a 2012 mk6 GTi. I couldn't notice any difference in power between any of them when considering the skodas are a bit heavier. However the '888 in the vRS sounded a lot less appealing than it does in the mk6 - almost a bit gravelly and strained. Where as the old unit sounded nice on both cars. Not sure I'd of that's just down to the exhaust?

Anyone know what's fitted to 2012 A4 TSi? Is it exactly the same as the Octavia and golf? I ask as it seems a bit more sluggish at low revs and slightly more peaky. Would be interesting to know if and how the maps differ between cars.

Interesting, the A4 engine uses valve lift and should be much better at low revs with 350nm (same as a typical diesel).

What gearbox was fitted, was it horror-tronic?

[rix]

the-photographer said:

Interesting, the A4 engine uses valve lift and should be much better at low revs with 350nm (same as a typical diesel).

What gearbox was fitted, was it horror-tronic?

No - all manuals, tho forgot to mention the a4 was Quattro. May have something to do with it?

[the-photographer]

rix said:

the-photographer said:

Interesting, the A4 engine uses valve lift and should be much better at low revs with 350nm (same as a typical diesel).

What gearbox was fitted, was it horror-tronic?

No - all manuals, tho forgot to mention the a4 was Quattro. May have something to do with it?

Hmm, I don't know, more drive-train inertia, different gearbox ratios in the quattro?

[AndyandChrisGTR]

rix said:

the-photographer said:

Interesting, the A4 engine uses valve lift and should be much better at low revs with 350nm (same as a typical diesel).

What gearbox was fitted, was it horror-tronic?

No - all manuals, tho forgot to mention the a4 was Quattro. May have something to do with it?

I have an A4 with this engine and quattro but s-tronic. It's an excellent engine/gearbox combo but seriously drinks some oil. I probably put a litre in every 4-500 miles. Audi just say they all do that sir, although I've never had another car consume oil anything like this before. Other than that its a fantastic engine. Lots of low down torque and enough high end grunt for most UK road occasions. You may be finding that the quattro is making it bog down slightly but its still far quicker off the line than the front wheel drive versions (the front wheels just don't cope with the torque)

[MisterF]

I've got an Edition 30 GTi. I understand it has the EA113 engine as fitted to the S3 Audi, bigger turbo, inter cooler lighter internals etc. having dug further, it seems VW detuned it DOWN to 230bhp from 265bhp, can't go upsetting Audi S3 drivers. They called it the 'jubilee' tune.

The Revo tuner I spoke to confirmed it to be the S3 engine etc, so it can be re-tuned also. Following a stage 1 tune only he quoted me 300 bhp. Had actually believed it to be more, but advised that this is what he quotes so as to not disappoint! Wow!

DSG tuned to remove software torque limits on the gearbox and it's quite a result. It seems this is a little known fact about the ED30/35 models!

Edited by MisterF on Friday 4th April 15:32

[Dr G]

Quite a widely known fact; a couple of Seats are easily nudged to 300+ also

[GuitarTech]

The EA888 without valvelift comes in two versions for Europe: 197bhp and 208bhp. They're mechanically identical, the 11bhp more is achieved through another software version. You can tell by the motor type nummber: CCZA is 197bhp and CCZB has 11bhp more. My son in law has a Passat CC with a CCZB revision, and my Jetta VI has the CCZA version: There is no discernable difference in the performance, although the CC weighs 70Kg more than the Jetta, which I guess will make them equal. Both versions are fine engines, no cambelt, but 3 chains altogether, and I have read some stories about trouble with the camchain tensioner giving trouble on some early versions.