1.8T longitudinal inline3 EA888 successor, yay or nah?
Discussion
Just thinking out loud here, but we all know that any transverse engine layout is fighting physics when it comes to handling due to the weight being in-front of the front axle. Not to mention the FWD/FWD-bias drivetrains they demand.
Packaging used to be an issue, but with modern turbocharging, just like how the 2.0T inline 4 has come to enable many smaller cars to punch above their weight bracket - I feel like the 1.8T inline 3 could do the same.
I know we have the B38 BMW 1 series - but i’m thinking that it would be super cool to make the Golf R, S3, and the TTS (even if the TT is now dead, rip) a bit more special - since they’re great cars - just not great “driver’s cars”.
With a longitudinal inline 3, you’d move the CoG closer to the middle of the car and keep the drivetrain much simpler for any AWD application. An inline 3 would to serve as extra weight reduction on these smaller and sporty cars too. I doubt any modern hatchback would need a longer hood to accommodate a longitudinal inline 3 either.
Just seems like a no brainer to me. VW could make a 1.8T inline 3 as a successor (of sorts) to the great EA888, and it would allow this extra dimension to be added to the MQB platform.
The 1.6T i3 toyota engine comes stock at ~260bhp. That’s plenty for the GTI, A3, or TT. With slightly larger cylinders taking the engine to 1.8l, i’m sure ~300bhp for the Golf R, S3 and TTS would have been fairly realistic. For better weight distribution and simpler (and dare I say better) drivetrain, it would seem like a no brainer to me.
Except from the fact that the EA888 and MQB platform already exist and that this idea would force them to spend a lot of new money on research and development - it would seem to me that they’d have a platform for the history books.
Shame everything’s going electric and innovation towards ICE vehicles is surely going to disappear
Packaging used to be an issue, but with modern turbocharging, just like how the 2.0T inline 4 has come to enable many smaller cars to punch above their weight bracket - I feel like the 1.8T inline 3 could do the same.
I know we have the B38 BMW 1 series - but i’m thinking that it would be super cool to make the Golf R, S3, and the TTS (even if the TT is now dead, rip) a bit more special - since they’re great cars - just not great “driver’s cars”.
With a longitudinal inline 3, you’d move the CoG closer to the middle of the car and keep the drivetrain much simpler for any AWD application. An inline 3 would to serve as extra weight reduction on these smaller and sporty cars too. I doubt any modern hatchback would need a longer hood to accommodate a longitudinal inline 3 either.
Just seems like a no brainer to me. VW could make a 1.8T inline 3 as a successor (of sorts) to the great EA888, and it would allow this extra dimension to be added to the MQB platform.
The 1.6T i3 toyota engine comes stock at ~260bhp. That’s plenty for the GTI, A3, or TT. With slightly larger cylinders taking the engine to 1.8l, i’m sure ~300bhp for the Golf R, S3 and TTS would have been fairly realistic. For better weight distribution and simpler (and dare I say better) drivetrain, it would seem like a no brainer to me.
Except from the fact that the EA888 and MQB platform already exist and that this idea would force them to spend a lot of new money on research and development - it would seem to me that they’d have a platform for the history books.
Shame everything’s going electric and innovation towards ICE vehicles is surely going to disappear
FakeCarGuy said:
Just thinking out loud here, but we all know that any transverse engine layout is fighting physics when it comes to handling due to the weight being in-front of the front axle. Not to mention the FWD/FWD-bias drivetrains they demand.
Packaging used to be an issue, but with modern turbocharging, just like how the 2.0T inline 4 has come to enable many smaller cars to punch above their weight bracket - I feel like the 1.8T inline 3 could do the same.
I know we have the B38 BMW 1 series - but i’m thinking that it would be super cool to make the Golf R, S3, and the TTS (even if the TT is now dead, rip) a bit more special - since they’re great cars - just not great “driver’s cars”.
With a longitudinal inline 3, you’d move the CoG closer to the middle of the car and keep the drivetrain much simpler for any AWD application. An inline 3 would to serve as extra weight reduction on these smaller and sporty cars too. I doubt any modern hatchback would need a longer hood to accommodate a longitudinal inline 3 either.
Just seems like a no brainer to me. VW could make a 1.8T inline 3 as a successor (of sorts) to the great EA888, and it would allow this extra dimension to be added to the MQB platform.
The 1.6T i3 toyota engine comes stock at ~260bhp. That’s plenty for the GTI, A3, or TT. With slightly larger cylinders taking the engine to 1.8l, i’m sure ~300bhp for the Golf R, S3 and TTS would have been fairly realistic. For better weight distribution and simpler (and dare I say better) drivetrain, it would seem like a no brainer to me.
Except from the fact that the EA888 and MQB platform already exist and that this idea would force them to spend a lot of new money on research and development - it would seem to me that they’d have a platform for the history books.
Shame everything’s going electric and innovation towards ICE vehicles is surely going to disappear
The GR corolla uses the same 1.6 with 300bhp. We just didn't get it here.Packaging used to be an issue, but with modern turbocharging, just like how the 2.0T inline 4 has come to enable many smaller cars to punch above their weight bracket - I feel like the 1.8T inline 3 could do the same.
I know we have the B38 BMW 1 series - but i’m thinking that it would be super cool to make the Golf R, S3, and the TTS (even if the TT is now dead, rip) a bit more special - since they’re great cars - just not great “driver’s cars”.
With a longitudinal inline 3, you’d move the CoG closer to the middle of the car and keep the drivetrain much simpler for any AWD application. An inline 3 would to serve as extra weight reduction on these smaller and sporty cars too. I doubt any modern hatchback would need a longer hood to accommodate a longitudinal inline 3 either.
Just seems like a no brainer to me. VW could make a 1.8T inline 3 as a successor (of sorts) to the great EA888, and it would allow this extra dimension to be added to the MQB platform.
The 1.6T i3 toyota engine comes stock at ~260bhp. That’s plenty for the GTI, A3, or TT. With slightly larger cylinders taking the engine to 1.8l, i’m sure ~300bhp for the Golf R, S3 and TTS would have been fairly realistic. For better weight distribution and simpler (and dare I say better) drivetrain, it would seem like a no brainer to me.
Except from the fact that the EA888 and MQB platform already exist and that this idea would force them to spend a lot of new money on research and development - it would seem to me that they’d have a platform for the history books.
Shame everything’s going electric and innovation towards ICE vehicles is surely going to disappear
The longitudinal engine would also mean a RWD platform, unless it's mounted so far forward that it's having in front of the front axle. You could of course have a very long bonnet and mount it backwards behind the axle. The cars listed are all transverse mounted because they are FWD platforms.
The reason to have them transverse, not longitudinally mounted, is so they can have an engine and gearbox all under the bonnet, and more space in the cabin, which is what most people want. Transverse mounted engines can easily power an AWD set up as they currently do, which would of course be harder if mounted longitudinal, as the drive then needs to go to the front axle which may be in front of the engine. Can of course be done, but you would presumably need to route the drive underneath the engine, which would mean it needs to be higher and therefore you would have a higher centre of gravity.
So for a FWD or AWD (or small mid engined) platform, transverse makes far more sense. I'm not sure why you would want a longitudinal engine in a small platform?
The reason to have them transverse, not longitudinally mounted, is so they can have an engine and gearbox all under the bonnet, and more space in the cabin, which is what most people want. Transverse mounted engines can easily power an AWD set up as they currently do, which would of course be harder if mounted longitudinal, as the drive then needs to go to the front axle which may be in front of the engine. Can of course be done, but you would presumably need to route the drive underneath the engine, which would mean it needs to be higher and therefore you would have a higher centre of gravity.
So for a FWD or AWD (or small mid engined) platform, transverse makes far more sense. I'm not sure why you would want a longitudinal engine in a small platform?
I highly doubt you’ll have problems with cabin space with an inline 3 engine mounted longitudinally. That’s the whole reason I suggested it. Transmission tunnel spacing isn’t really at a premium, so I really don’t think you’d need to extend the hood or reduce cabin space to make it work. You would need to redesign the chassis though of course.
Furthermore, yes, the whole point would be to make the car RWD bias. Why would you put an engine in longitudinally to power the front wheels?
Look at the size of this: https://fukuiautoparts.com/shop/engine-complete/bm... you think with properly designed mounting points, this wouldn’t fit under the hood of a Golf? If you’re worried about the transmission infringing on cabin space, you could make it a transaxle gearbox on the rear and sacrifice a little bit (honestly, not a lot) of boot room instead.
I’m just saying, longitudinal RWD is more suited to good driving dynamics than transverse FWD. Makes no sense to fight physics with the latter option, imo. The AWD on these transverse systems aren’t the best.
Furthermore, yes, the whole point would be to make the car RWD bias. Why would you put an engine in longitudinally to power the front wheels?
Look at the size of this: https://fukuiautoparts.com/shop/engine-complete/bm... you think with properly designed mounting points, this wouldn’t fit under the hood of a Golf? If you’re worried about the transmission infringing on cabin space, you could make it a transaxle gearbox on the rear and sacrifice a little bit (honestly, not a lot) of boot room instead.
I’m just saying, longitudinal RWD is more suited to good driving dynamics than transverse FWD. Makes no sense to fight physics with the latter option, imo. The AWD on these transverse systems aren’t the best.
There is no market for RWD hatchbacks, which is why the BMW 1 series is now FWD. They had small engines mounted longitudinal and it meant they were more cramped and less practical than competitors. Compare a current 1 series with the previous generation to see how this works in reality. So the short answer is there is no reason for a manufacturer to do it. That is aside from the move to electric, which makes all this redundant anyway.
It could be done, but it would mean a very bespoke and expensive one off model, which is not desirable to any company making money, or compromising on the rest of the line up.
The Golf R is already technically brilliant, would it be better if longitudinal and RWD? It is ultimately a small car with an engine and gearbox mounted close to the front axle, not far forward from it as Audi's longitudinal engines famously were. Customers would not notice an improvement, but would notice less space. The AWD system is very good.
And there will be no new Golf or TT models, as they are going the way of the Focus and Fiesta too.
It could be done, but it would mean a very bespoke and expensive one off model, which is not desirable to any company making money, or compromising on the rest of the line up.
The Golf R is already technically brilliant, would it be better if longitudinal and RWD? It is ultimately a small car with an engine and gearbox mounted close to the front axle, not far forward from it as Audi's longitudinal engines famously were. Customers would not notice an improvement, but would notice less space. The AWD system is very good.
And there will be no new Golf or TT models, as they are going the way of the Focus and Fiesta too.
Edited by MikeM6 on Wednesday 30th August 07:53
FakeCarGuy said:
Just thinking out loud here, but we all know that any transverse engine layout is fighting physics when it comes to handling due to the weight being in-front of the front axle.
Not necessarily. Peugeot 104, for example.FakeCarGuy said:
Furthermore, yes, the whole point would be to make the car RWD bias. Why would you put an engine in longitudinally to power the front wheels?
Best ask the Audi, Citroen and Renault engineers, amongst others, who've done it that way.
CanAm said:
FakeCarGuy said:
Just thinking out loud here, but we all know that any transverse engine layout is fighting physics when it comes to handling due to the weight being in-front of the front axle.
Not necessarily. Peugeot 104, for example.TT S/Golf R/S3 being 'great drivers cars', I stopped reading and started
after that point. Must be so bad to be blinkered to one manufacturer like VAG, producing mountains of the same boring cars with different badges on 
Would suggest OP drive something genuinely great to drive to awaken them, however if Revo won't flash it with a 'pop n bang' map for them, and then readily available financed air ride kits being bountiful, then it probably won't be a 'great drivers car'. Oh, and some God-awful eBola/Rota wheels, cringe af 'Sadboi Car Club/Anti Social Social Club/Gravity/Roll Hardon' stickers/air fresheners, and Instagram posts shouting out their 5 mates who valet vehicles for a living.
CKY said:
Don't provide illustrations of proper engineering, if it doesn't have a VW badge it'll fall on deaf ears.
TT S/Golf R/S3 being 'great drivers cars', I stopped reading and started after that point. Must be so bad to be blinkered to one manufacturer like VAG, producing mountains of the same boring cars with different badges on
Would suggest OP drive something genuinely great to drive to awaken them, however if Revo won't flash it with a 'pop n bang' map for them, and then readily available financed air ride kits being bountiful, then it probably won't be a 'great drivers car'. Oh, and some God-awful eBola/Rota wheels, cringe af 'Sadboi Car Club/Anti Social Social Club/Gravity/Roll Hardon' stickers/air fresheners, and Instagram posts shouting out their 5 mates who valet vehicles for a living.
You need to work on your reading comprehension because I literally said the opposite. I said they’re good cars - just not good as driver’s cars. Chill out mate. TT S/Golf R/S3 being 'great drivers cars', I stopped reading and started
after that point. Must be so bad to be blinkered to one manufacturer like VAG, producing mountains of the same boring cars with different badges on Would suggest OP drive something genuinely great to drive to awaken them, however if Revo won't flash it with a 'pop n bang' map for them, and then readily available financed air ride kits being bountiful, then it probably won't be a 'great drivers car'. Oh, and some God-awful eBola/Rota wheels, cringe af 'Sadboi Car Club/Anti Social Social Club/Gravity/Roll Hardon' stickers/air fresheners, and Instagram posts shouting out their 5 mates who valet vehicles for a living.
mcflurry said:
Assuming that it takes a few years for the design and testing of a new model, realistically would a car manufacturer spend the time when they are being nudged towards electrickery power?
Oh for sure, I don’t believe it’s likely to happen. Just day dreaming I suppose. If things were different and electric cars weren’t a thing, then i’d perhaps be a bit more hopeful lol. The reason it doesn't happen is that once you value engineer everything one way or another you're left with a more expensive car, that people won't buy in sufficient volume. It's cheaper to engineer a sub-optimal layout to handle well enough given they're all too quick for the roads anyway.
That's without considering the ICE/EV environment we're in.
That's without considering the ICE/EV environment we're in.
Not sure what the ends would be of this ?
A lot of FWD 4 cyl cars make great drivers cars, I had an M135i and, out of the box it was crap as a drivers car.
More to it than just driven wheels, a lot of the fastest stuff on track days is the FWD stuff when set up properly.
All about the package, plenty of lame RWD cars, plenty of great FWD ones and everything inbetween, Audi used longitudinal engines in FWD cars and they were never hailed as fantastic handlers, mainly as it was slung right out ahead of the front axle.
And anyway, nobody is going to develop and ice platform for marginal gains in handling when everything is going electric.
A lot of FWD 4 cyl cars make great drivers cars, I had an M135i and, out of the box it was crap as a drivers car.
More to it than just driven wheels, a lot of the fastest stuff on track days is the FWD stuff when set up properly.
All about the package, plenty of lame RWD cars, plenty of great FWD ones and everything inbetween, Audi used longitudinal engines in FWD cars and they were never hailed as fantastic handlers, mainly as it was slung right out ahead of the front axle.
And anyway, nobody is going to develop and ice platform for marginal gains in handling when everything is going electric.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff