"The G-shaped turbocharger enabled the
1.8-liter to generate 160 horsepower and 165 lb-ft. of torque. Linked to
a five-speed manual transmission, the four-banger propelled the GTI G60
from zero 62 mph from a stop in 8.3 seconds – 0.7 seconds faster than a
stock 16-valve mk2 GTI – and on to a top speed of 134 mph."
(An ascertainment from the U.S.A. for a foreign car).
Although g60, in its operation, is not as smooth as is its successor VR6, or its contemporary t3's 4 cylinder boxer, although it is not the most powerful engine ever built, it is far ahead from them in terms of durability, maturity and the easiness of a cheap upgrade.
Compared to VR6 is lighter and less fuel thirsty, (for the same horsepower), and compared to another of its successors, the notorious turbo 1.8 l, is faster, (for the same horsepower, due to the difference in the way of the performance between the turbo and the supercharger), and with much better peripherals, f. ex. the water pump.
The above is for those who cannot understand how it is possible for the g60 to be faster than the 1.8t, with the same power. (In reality, even with less power).
1.8t: the water pump with a destroyed, plastic, impeller.
The substance is not the only problem here. The drive is from the camshaft's belt and is not the optimum.
f.ex.:
"i am in a pickle--i have a 2000 VW golf 1.8 turbo. i was driving home at
about 40-45 mph and my water pump exploded, and then broke my timing
belt, and now we are wondering if my valves are bent..."
The only problem is that VW's marketing department, of the era, "forgot" to say that g-lader needs maintenance. And when it is maintained properly, lasts more than a turbo unit and has a cheaper service.
But there are more about VW's incomprehensible attitude when debuted the g60 back at 80's, making the g60 one of the best but most misunderstood engines...
Here you can see, (and hear), how a new, (rebuild), g60 works, (at: 01:35).
Here without the g-lader, (1.8l, 8v, naturally aspirated):
and here how it starts and works after 25 years of usage, absolutely without repairs, (but with a new g-lader), at 275.000 km..(21/January/17: 288.000 km., still going strong without any repair).
03/June/2017 Update
Start----
Because someone may say that it is self-evident for an engine to sound like this, (even after 300.000 km. and 25 years of use, without repairs), please consider g60's successor and how it sounds after 30 years of progress.
Here is how, the last TSI 1.8t generation, sounds, (with 30 years of progress and some use) :
But wait!
This is a 2015 engine, it may has a problem.
Lets consider a 2017 brand new engine from a review, (with 30 years of progress and zero use).
Please go at: 11:48
Please go at: 11:48
End of the 03/June/2017 Update----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Always stronger vs the 1.8t, for the same horse power:
The Diesel deception.
(Just a first glance from the g60's point of view).
Nobody can imagine that a petrol engine with a supercharger, (160 hp), may consume, under circumstances, less fuel, (up to 50%), than a 1.4l diesel, (47 hp), of the same era, of course!
And all these when the petrol car with the g60 is 200 kgr. heavier!
Research paper is coming, stay tuned!
24/January/17
50% less? No! Wrong! It is 78% less!
200 kgr. heavier? No! It is 550 kgr. heavier!
Research paper.
Martin Treiber (corresponding author)
Institute for Transport & Economics
Technische Universität Dresden
Arne Kesting
Institute for Transport & Economics
Technische Universität Dresden
Christian Thiemann
Institute for Transport & Economics
Technische Universität Dresden
27/January/17
Applying a Fuel Consumption Model to the NGSIM Trajectory Data"
This is a paper having the above central idea. And there is nothing special with this, it is a matter of the routine operation of an academic institution.
But there is something really strange. To make the necessary measurements, two conventional cars are employed. One compact, diesel, car, a Polo 1.4, (a 1990 model), and a medium passenger car which is, no more no less, a Passat Syncro g60, (!), (of the same era).
The authors of the paper, consider the Passat as a conventional car, proper for representative measurements, although it is 4wd, using an engine with an unique supercharger, old and very rare!
Of course, it couldn't be better for the goals of the present page, so let's see, not the total paper, which has an absolutely different reason for it's creation, but the very interesting comparative data about the fuel consumption of the two cars used, the one compact, 2wd and diesel, and the other, medium, 4wd and petrol.
The authors of the paper give us the specifications of the two, (probably as they tested):
Parameter VW Passat Syncro Petrol VW Polo Diesel
Effective cylinder volume C cyl 1.8l 1.4l
Basic power consumption P 0 3kW 2kW
Vehicle mass m 1600kg 1050kg
Friction coefficient µ 0 0.015 0.015
Friction coefficient µ 1 0.0003s/m 0.0003s/m
Cross-sectional area A 2.03m 2 1.70m 2
Air-drag coefficient (cd-value) c w 0.32 0.36
Table 1: Car data for typical passenger cars like a VW Passat and a VW Polo.
Important points:
1)Passat has more cubic inches.
2)Passat has supercharger.
3)Passat is 550 kgr. heavier.
4)Passat has a wider cross-sectional area.
5)Passat is 4wd and Polo 2wd.
6)Passat has better aerodynamics.
7)Passat uses petrol as fuel and Polo diesel.
Strategic assumption: the car is going to be used for medium and long distance traveling.
If the criterion is the best possible fuel economy, someone has to choose the compact, diesel, car. Right?
Wrong!
As we can see in the above diagrams, traveling with a speed of 130-140 km/h, (of course 140 km/h is the limit for the little, diesel, engine but not for the traveler), the diesel, compact, 2wd, car uses two to five times more fuel than the bigger, heavier, 4wd, petrol g60! Or, the Passat g60 is up to78% more fuel efficient , (in terms of quantity), than the Polo!
06/August/2017
SAE paper, the g-lader
Now I can see why in my 1992 Passat, not used for races, but for spirited driving, lasted for 250.000 km. without any service, more than any other compressor or turbo, as far as I know.
For example:
Superchargers:
Rotrex Superchargers:
" When used within specifications the Rotrex supercharger does not wear due to the traction design that has no metal to metal contact. The life span of a Rotrex supercharger is more than 100.000 km assuming operating conditions are within specifications and recommended oil change frequencies are followed".
Turbos:
The engine oil is highly stressed circulating through them.
Bearing failings, case crackings, (especially when a 4x4 vehicle is passing through water), and all these may start as low as 50.000 km.!
the g-lader
The third generation g-lader, with the wider 11 m.m. small belt, seems to be bulletproof.
(Starting from new, it needs a service every ~100.000 km).
But there are coming and the newer generations, (not by vw), g65, g70 e.t.c.. Who knows...
08/August/2019
Seven years of use, 43.000 k.m. with the wider 11 m.m. small belt, Gates, powergrip.
The belt is extracted for inspection/change.
There are no signs of wear/damage. It seems that changing it now, to be on the safe side, is not necessary.
It seems that a change at the belts service, at a 80.000 k.m. -100.000 k.m. interval, could be rational.
Any way, the change is done. But the screams, of the past, about its fragility, seems to be no sense, as well as, the direction to change it every year (!).
( This observation is not for the tiny, original, 6 m.m. belt, though).
12 August 2024
24/January/17
50% less? No! Wrong! It is 78% less!
200 kgr. heavier? No! It is 550 kgr. heavier!
Research paper.
Martin Treiber (corresponding author)
Institute for Transport & Economics
Technische Universität Dresden
Arne Kesting
Institute for Transport & Economics
Technische Universität Dresden
Christian Thiemann
Institute for Transport & Economics
Technische Universität Dresden
27/January/17
Title
"How Much does Traffic Congestion Increase Fuel Consumption and Emissions? Applying a Fuel Consumption Model to the NGSIM Trajectory Data"
This is a paper having the above central idea. And there is nothing special with this, it is a matter of the routine operation of an academic institution.
But there is something really strange. To make the necessary measurements, two conventional cars are employed. One compact, diesel, car, a Polo 1.4, (a 1990 model), and a medium passenger car which is, no more no less, a Passat Syncro g60, (!), (of the same era).
The authors of the paper, consider the Passat as a conventional car, proper for representative measurements, although it is 4wd, using an engine with an unique supercharger, old and very rare!
Of course, it couldn't be better for the goals of the present page, so let's see, not the total paper, which has an absolutely different reason for it's creation, but the very interesting comparative data about the fuel consumption of the two cars used, the one compact, 2wd and diesel, and the other, medium, 4wd and petrol.
The authors of the paper give us the specifications of the two, (probably as they tested):
Parameter VW Passat Syncro Petrol VW Polo Diesel
Effective cylinder volume C cyl 1.8l 1.4l
Basic power consumption P 0 3kW 2kW
Vehicle mass m 1600kg 1050kg
Friction coefficient µ 0 0.015 0.015
Friction coefficient µ 1 0.0003s/m 0.0003s/m
Cross-sectional area A 2.03m 2 1.70m 2
Air-drag coefficient (cd-value) c w 0.32 0.36
Table 1: Car data for typical passenger cars like a VW Passat and a VW Polo.
Important points:
1)Passat has more cubic inches.
2)Passat has supercharger.
3)Passat is 550 kgr. heavier.
4)Passat has a wider cross-sectional area.
5)Passat is 4wd and Polo 2wd.
6)Passat has better aerodynamics.
7)Passat uses petrol as fuel and Polo diesel.
Strategic assumption: the car is going to be used for medium and long distance traveling.
If the criterion is the best possible fuel economy, someone has to choose the compact, diesel, car. Right?
Wrong!
As we can see in the above diagrams, traveling with a speed of 130-140 km/h, (of course 140 km/h is the limit for the little, diesel, engine but not for the traveler), the diesel, compact, 2wd, car uses two to five times more fuel than the bigger, heavier, 4wd, petrol g60! Or, the Passat g60 is up to78% more fuel efficient , (in terms of quantity), than the Polo!
06/August/2017
SAE paper, the g-lader
For example:
Superchargers:
Rotrex Superchargers:
" When used within specifications the Rotrex supercharger does not wear due to the traction design that has no metal to metal contact. The life span of a Rotrex supercharger is more than 100.000 km assuming operating conditions are within specifications and recommended oil change frequencies are followed".
Turbos:
The engine oil is highly stressed circulating through them.
Bearing failings, case crackings, (especially when a 4x4 vehicle is passing through water), and all these may start as low as 50.000 km.!
the g-lader
The third generation g-lader, with the wider 11 m.m. small belt, seems to be bulletproof.
(Starting from new, it needs a service every ~100.000 km).
But there are coming and the newer generations, (not by vw), g65, g70 e.t.c.. Who knows...
08/August/2019
Seven years of use, 43.000 k.m. with the wider 11 m.m. small belt, Gates, powergrip.
The belt is extracted for inspection/change.
There are no signs of wear/damage. It seems that changing it now, to be on the safe side, is not necessary.
It seems that a change at the belts service, at a 80.000 k.m. -100.000 k.m. interval, could be rational.
Any way, the change is done. But the screams, of the past, about its fragility, seems to be no sense, as well as, the direction to change it every year (!).
( This observation is not for the tiny, original, 6 m.m. belt, though).
12 August 2024
Today we 'll see a myth of the auto industry, a unique master piece of art and technology, a magic item, which may be at any living room, just for decoration, but not as usually we see it.
And by that, I mean that we see it, as a brand new part, as vw introduced it, or as an opened problematic part, which needs repair or, even, it is beyond repair.
You see, at the era of the introduction to the industry, 30 years +, before, any jeune premier, without a Porsche but, with the vw equivalent, the Corrado g60, had to prove that his Corrado is better, (as he was driven by the auto magazines), or, at least, equal to the Porsches.
On the other hand, vw had, for various reasons, to prove that the Golf g60 Syncro was LE CAR, (to my humble opinion, it was near, a little bit after the Syncro Vanagon).
I am not going to make a white paper about the social clima nor the auto industry environment of the late 80's to 90's, this, even if I could, is not my intention.
I am going only to say that all this intense reality, from this specific prism of view, was trying to express some savage intentions through this little, precious, heart, the g-lader.
Here in Greece, we had a, very important, clever and perspicacious auto journalist, (respecting him, I am not referring his name), who said that the vw chief engineer, (and after him the total vw), was disappointed from the g-lader.
So here I am against all this literature, trying to see the truth. Of course anyone can have his own "truth". Why mine can be better?
Only the facts can give answers:
Factoids:
#1 A car manufacturer has a very intense antagonism. He is pushed to prove things, in races especially.
But the vast majority of their customers are indifferent, (me too).
They need a car for their daily driving or, even, for weekends, for adventures, e.t.c, e.t.c..
So it was a good thing that vw went to the various rallys with the g60 engine in order to improve it, but to the extend to make it better for the people, to the potential customers, and not to the racers.
And it seems that this goal was achieved to a major extend, as 'll see.
#2 A lot of g60 users, (of the era), complained that the g-lader was fragile. And they may were right, since, the manufacturer, never gave a maintenance schedule for it.
But, one way or another, today we know everything about the maintenance of the g-lader and, most importantly, there are improved materials for the internals and the 3rd generation g-lader which, is not supposed to be, but it is really better.
And something more we know today, the g-lader is not for races!
(But there are no g-laders, or g-lader racers any more...
).
For a normal, daily use, it is a perfect solution:
a) with very low oil temperatures, in contrast to the cooked turbo oil and engine bay.
b) absolutely noiseless, in contrast to similar superchargers.
c) high capacity, enough for 200 hp + without modifications and with 68 m.m. pulley and ABT kit.
d) has no turbo lag.
e) has a very good durability, especially compared to the vw family turbos and superchargers.
f) Talking about durability, which was the main criticism at the dark ages, here you can see, at 70000 km., the condition of the internals, of mine g-lader, (only the short tooth belt was changed at ~35000 km., Redline the oil, mainly). I closed it without any spare part change, since everything looks brand new and rotates smoothly.
(The two shell parts glued together, there was a tiny oil leakage from the beginning).
The Shocking Truth
%20logo.png)
%20logo.png)
%20logo.png)
%20logo.png)
%20logo.png)
%20logo.png)
%20logo.png)
%20logo.png)
%20logo.png)
%20logo.png)
%20logo.png)
%20logo.png)
%20logo.png)
(No wear at all?).
17 March 2025
Do you know that in nowadays there is an aluminum supercharger, I mean brand new not used, vs the OEM made from magnesium?
I was ignorant of this, very interesting fact, and to understand what are the differences I asked the manufacturer, mr. Tobias Theibach.
He answered to me rapidly, within 12 hours, and I thanked him very much. He gave me the permission to put here his answer:
"Hello!
I would be happy to try to explain this to you.
The magnesium displacer only weighs approx. 720 grams. The aluminum displacer weighs 1069 grams.
The low weight of the magnesium displacer puts less strain on the bearings and shafts. The risk of the displacer touching the housing at high speeds is significantly lower.
With the aluminum displacer, the load on the bearings and shafts is higher. The advantage of aluminum is that the material is harder. There is hardly any wear on the running surfaces or grooves.
It depends a little on your driving style which displacer is better for you. If you tend to ride more comfortably, at low revs and prefer to ride a larger impeller, the aluminum displacer is perfectly adequate.
However, if you ride sportily, at higher speeds and would prefer to ride a smaller wheel, then the magnesium displacer is the right one for you!
Tobias Theibach
No comments:
Post a Comment