Since several days I'm maintaining a discussion with some friends.

The topic is engine sharing between the different brands of the same group (VAG, PSA, etc...) and especially talking about he VAG group.

I know this is a tricky topic, because everyone has his favorite brand and tends to consider it better than the rest.

So, my supposition is the group designs an engine, lets say the 115CV 1.6 FSI that is used in the Golf, A3, Touran, Octavia, Passat... and I assume the engine is always the same despite the car that it's going to be mounted on. I base this supposition in the engineering design reutilization principle. The more you use a design, the better, you have to maintain a single production line for every car that mounts it, so if you have two factories and one fails, you can use the other one to provide engines while you repair the first. I think you know what I mean.

The other "faction" says that the materials used in the engines are different for the different brands. Better quality materials for Audi and VW (I'm excluding Porsche here) and lower quality materials for SEAT and Skoda.

None of us are experts in mechanics, so the discussion has reached a point where no one can add useful information to it.

Is there a way to know th truth? Can we discuss this topic to reach reasonable conclusions?

Please, I don't want to start a "My car is better tha yours" discussion, we've had enough subjective matters on that topic.



PS: I would like to explain myself better, but when things go this abstract it's the best I can do with my english.

If all parts were manufactured from the same production line, then I would say that is it possible for the parts that are within tighter tolerances to the original design spec would go to the more prestigious makes of the group.

When it comes down to aftermarket parts, they will most likely be the same for all makes, but possibly with an increased price for the more expensive makes. After all, if you paid more for the car then you can pay more for bits.

Quote from Eldanor :

The other "faction" says that the materials used in the engines are different for the different brands. Better quality materials for Audi and VW (I'm excluding Porsche here) and lower quality materials for SEAT and Skoda.

The mechanical difference between the different engines produced for different Volkswagen AG brands is the engine covers, it's about there where the difference stops, only the odd big part has the brand stamped on it the rest are just generic Volkswagen parts. In my experience of working on them there's no real difference mechanically between most VWs or Audis (less experience with Seat and Skodas) the front end unbolts in exactly the same way from exactly the same cross member design for servicing.

I would imagine that having a separate engine line for what is essentially the same engine would dramatically increase costs, and that's the complete opposite of what most (all?) manufacturers aim to do.

The most cost efficient method is the "any color you like, as long as it's black" approach. Sure, buyers would love the idea that they paid more because better parts/materials were used, but most are probably not willing to pay enough to make that idea a reality. Instead, all they get is a nicer interior.

you'd be surprized... seat is now using german car parts so that choise of engine dont surprise me plus that engine is famous for the high miles its capable of so if you skoda use it it wouldnt surprise me either...

also you'll notice that apart from leather seats and a slightly differant badge the skoda octiva and the vw passat are quiet alike , im guessing that skoda is owned by vw like most good companys..

Quote from theirishnoob :

im guessing that skoda is owned by vw like most good companys..

Skoda=Seat=Volkswagen=Audi = VAG Group

I remember watching a TV program a while back..............

Some guy needed the rear suspension orbs (hydromatic?) on his Bentley fixed, they ordered the genuine bentley part, and inside the bentley bag was a Citroen orb, exactly the same part, but about a 500% markup for being in a Bentley bag....

Same goes for PSA and VAG parts, engines manufactured with different materials for Skoda/Seat than Volkswagen?, rubbish, they are all made in the same plant, using the same tooling and same materials.

Quote from theirishnoob :

also you'll notice that apart from leather seats and a slightly differant badge the skoda octiva and the vw passat are quiet alike , im guessing that skoda is owned by vw like most good companys..

Spot the obvious mate


Id take a nice vRS or vRS Diesel over a Passat (Unless of course it was the 3.6 VR6) if it was cheaper, everyone knows they're the same car so why not?

Forbin pretty much covered all of it though.

P.S : Doesn't Skoda mean like 'not so good' ?

Quote from theirishnoob :

you'd be surprized... seat is now using german car parts

No shit, seeing as it is owned by a German company. Try writing in English next time as well, makes you look far more intelligent

SEAT have been using German bits since before they were VAG owned.

Anyone else remember the 'System Porsche' Ibizas from the late 80s/early 90s ?

Quote from Bean0 :

Anyone else remember the 'System Porsche' Ibizas from the late 80s/early 90s ?

Yes! It was kind of funny to have the Porsche tag under the bonnet

Back on topic, thank you for the comments. The engine and platform sharing made sense to me from the start and I think is the correct answer to the problem

It seems that a lot of old small-block American V8s still use a similar design to what they did in the 60s. I think that some car manufacturers overdevelop their engines. I personally believe that it is best just to re-use the static parts of the engine, like the block of the engine. What needs to be developed in my opinion is the methods of fuel and air delivery. After all, no matter if the engine is a V8, or little I4, you won't go anywhere without fuel, air, and lubrication.

Quote from wheel4hummer :

It seems that a lot of old small-block American V8s still use a similar design to what they did in the 60s. I think that some car manufacturers overdevelop their engines. I personally believe that it is best just to re-use the static parts of the engine, like the block of the engine. What needs to be developed in my opinion is the methods of fuel and air delivery. After all, no matter if the engine is a V8, or little I4, you won't go anywhere without fuel, air, and lubrication.

Hmm... what's slightly more technologically advanced, a heavy low revving unresponsive cast iron GM small block, they're still using a pushrod engine, which has had to be converted to run on fuel injection, or BMWs high revving V8 aluminium block engine with twice as many valves, four times as many camshafts and 8 times as many throttle butterflies

Quote from ajp71 :

Hmm... what's slightly more technologically advanced, a heavy low revving unresponsive cast iron GM small block, they're still using a pushrod engine, which has had to be converted to run on fuel injection, or BMWs high revving V8 aluminium block engine with twice as many valves, four times as many camshafts and 8 times as many throttle butterflies

See, that's what I mean.

Quote from wheel4hummer :

See, that's what I mean.

Well the valves, injectors and butterflies all effect fuel and air delivery, there's no point in try to develop a pre-historic engine block into a modern engine, it just isn't going to happen.

Quote from ajp71 :

Well the valves, injectors and butterflies all effect fuel and air delivery, there's no point in try to develop a pre-historic engine block into a modern engine, it just isn't going to happen.

But that doesn't stop it from being my opinion!

Different approach, usually technology is my favorite.

Although I watched a program last week that tested a Z06 against an F430. The Z06 outbraked, out accelerated, and whooped the F430 to peices around the track. The F430 could pull 0.1g more lateral accel though. Not it's not a fair test of course, but Z06s are definitely not useless cars, and parts would cost a fraction of the Ferrari's.

I would still rather have for a daily driver a turbo 4, or 6 than a larger V8. It's just so brilliant having a much smaller engine that you can force feed like a mofo when you want too, rather than silly amounts of cubic inches eating up gas for no reason.

About engine swapping, you would sometimes be surprised what manufactor made the engine that you have under the bonnet.

I remember a discussion where it was stated that the new Mitsubishi Lancer could be bought with turbodiesel engines that were infact exactly the same used in the Peugeot 407. People started discussion if that meant that you can put the Evo engine in the 407...

Quote from Ball Bearing Turbo :

rather than silly amounts of cubic inches eating up gas for no reason.

The biggest V8 that I would like is a 427 small block. Any bigger then that is IMO useles. But, some V8 Camaro/Trans Am drivers on a forum report getting as much as 26MPG on the highway. Although, I do agree that a V8 in traffic is a horrible waste of gas. But when you are cruising down a highway at 75MPH, the story is different.

EDIT: A V8 Miata, now that is a good idea.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v ... ;mode=related&search=

Quote from Ball Bearing Turbo :

I would still rather have for a daily driver a turbo 4, or 6 than a larger V8. It's just so brilliant having a much smaller engine that you can force feed like a mofo when you want too, rather than silly amounts of cubic inches eating up gas for no reason.

turbos are sluggish though and make the handling anything from worse to a lot worse
so if you want power high revs is where its at imho ... ~300 hp from a 2.5l inline 4 ... thats what id call an engine

Quote from wheel4hummer :

The biggest V8 that I would like is a 427 small block. Any bigger then that is IMO useles. But, some V8 Camaro/Trans Am drivers on a forum report getting as much as 26MPG on the highway. Although, I do agree that a V8 in traffic is a horrible waste of gas. But when you are cruising down a highway at 75MPH, the story is different.

You don't think that 7L worth of engine is really ridiculous when you can get similar performance with a fraction of the weight and fuel consumption? Highway mileage depends on a lot of things anyway, if you drive in a city then that's what matters most. Cruising down the highway can be done just as effectively with much smaller engines of course.

Don't get me wrong, I enjoy all forms of cars and so forth, but there's no question which ideas make more sense, especially considering the peak oil sitution.

Quote from Shotglass :

turbos are sluggish though and make the handling anything from worse to a lot worse
so if you want power high revs is where its at imho ... ~300 hp from a 2.5l inline 4 ... thats what id call an engine

I've never heard anyone criticise an F40 or a 911 turbo

Clearly, if you're on mostly about LFS turbochargers you'd be 100% correct.

Besides, if the alleged slugishness really bothers you, then supercharging is for you.

I'm sure I don't have to tell you that now-a-days with fancy ceramic variable geometry blades, high speed ball bearings and whatnot, it's really not a big issue. Especially for a daily driver, those things don't matter. Just the fact that you have plenty of passing power and a fun car when you want it to be. The rest of the time it's still economical in comparison.

But I do agree, if it's performance ONLY that you're after, then a small high revving engine would be the choice. I would still think that a turbo engine would be more drivable in regular situations though, as a generality.

Quote from Ball Bearing Turbo :

You don't think that 7L worth of engine is really ridiculous when you can get similar performance with a fraction of the weight and fuel consumption?

You kind of mis-understood me. I meant that any more then 7L of displacement is ridiculous. And, the weight of a modern V8 isn't as much as it used to be.

Quote from wheel4hummer :

You kinda mis-understood me. I meant that any more then 7L of displacement is ridiculous.

You kind of misunderstood me, I meant that even though you said what you said, I personally still think that even 7L is ridiculous.

Quote from wheel4hummer :

The biggest V8 that I would like is a 427 small block. Any bigger then that is IMO useless. But, some V8 Camaro/Trans Am drivers on a forum report getting as much as 26MPG on the highway. Although, I do agree that a V8 in traffic is a horrible waste of gas. But when you are cruising down a highway at 75MPH, the story is different.

The car I drive (a 1.6 Ford Focus) uses half the fuel on the motorway (52.3 mpg) and isn't too bad round town (42.8 mpg combined). It still costs more to fill up than that 7 litre monstrosity because our petrol isn't £1.50 a gallon. I reckon you can also have far more fun with a nice smooth small engine on the road with much less fear of loosing your license.

Quote :

EDIT: A V8 Miata, now that is a good idea.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v ... ;mode=related&search=

No that is a really silly idea, taking a nice little sports car suitable for having fun on the road and turning it into something that will be horrible to cruise with and grossly over engined for any fun on the road. On a track however, is a different issue

IMO the 3.5 litre Rover V8 that's in the Morgan and returns about 30mpg on the motorway is the sensible upper limit for a road car in terms of engine size and quite frankly power as well.