Jump to content

Check Out Rock Auto's Current Email Header


Alexia
 Share

Recommended Posts

The VW 1.9L would likely produce marginally better fuel mileage.

 

I have an '02 VW TDI Golf with the 1.9L and can squeak out 46-48MPG with all highway driving. Shortbed 2WD MJs actually weigh in roughly the same as my Golf TDI. The biggest difference between the two is aerodynamics. The MJ is a brick with a lot of ground clearance whereas the VW is much lower and has some aerodynamic qualities to it. I wouldn't expect 45+MPG with a VW 1.9L in an MJ, but I don't think 38-42MPG would be hard to achieve.

 

I'm currently in the process of weighing all diesel engine options to transplant into my aging 4.0L in my 1992 since I'm making a lot of trips between MD and NJ (300 miles round trip). The VW 1.9L ranks up in the top 3 for diesel engine choices.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, kinda cool. Kinda scary. I hate those ads that target you because someone is tracking your evey internet move.....

 

That is not a targeted advertisement. They update the email header once a month with a new vehicle and it is static for everyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The VW 1.9L would likely produce marginally better fuel mileage.

 

Shortbed 2WD MJs actually weigh in roughly the same as my Golf TDI. The biggest difference between the two is aerodynamics. The MJ is a brick with a lot of ground clearance whereas the VW is much lower and has some aerodynamic qualities to it. I wouldn't expect 45+MPG with a VW 1.9L in an MJ, but I don't think 38-42MPG would be hard to achieve.

 

Put one of these babies on an MJ. 50MPG no sweat.

 

sculptair1.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The VW 1.9L would likely produce marginally better fuel mileage.

 

I have an '02 VW TDI Golf with the 1.9L and can squeak out 46-48MPG with all highway driving. Shortbed 2WD MJs actually weigh in roughly the same as my Golf TDI. The biggest difference between the two is aerodynamics. The MJ is a brick with a lot of ground clearance whereas the VW is much lower and has some aerodynamic qualities to it. I wouldn't expect 45+MPG with a VW 1.9L in an MJ, but I don't think 38-42MPG would be hard to achieve.

 

I'm currently in the process of weighing all diesel engine options to transplant into my aging 4.0L in my 1992 since I'm making a lot of trips between MD and NJ (300 miles round trip). The VW 1.9L ranks up in the top 3 for diesel engine choices.

Is the 200hp, 300ft/lbs of torque true about the 1.9?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is the 200hp, 300ft/lbs of torque true about the 1.9?

 

Not without serious engine, turbo, fuel, and engine management modifications. Stock is 90hp, 155ft/lbs of torque. You can get to 150hp, 275ft/lbs of torque pretty easily (and not be in over your head budget-wise) and that would be wayyyy more than enough. Don't let the low horsepower numbers scare you off. HP isn't everything and torque is way more fun!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just had a big thing written up with a good bit of info but my internet freaked and refreshed...dammit. summary of what I was saying. mk1 rabbit (golf) w/ 1.6l idi naturally apsirated at 1471 gross lbs gets a good solid 42 mpg (at least mine did and I drove the piss out of it. 91 4wd(I think) comanche w/ i6 engine at 2898 gross lbs and the mk1 rabbit is as much of a brick as the comanche, the coefficient drag of the rabbit is .42, so basically a brick, not sure of the comanche as I cannot find it. all in all, the current or anything past 04 vw tdi would rock the socks off a comanche or fuel mileage imho.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just had a big thing written up with a good bit of info but my internet freaked and refreshed...dammit. summary of what I was saying. mk1 rabbit (golf) w/ 1.6l idi naturally apsirated at 1471 gross lbs gets a good solid 42 mpg (at least mine did and I drove the piss out of it. 91 4wd(I think) comanche w/ i6 engine at 2898 gross lbs and the mk1 rabbit is as much of a brick as the comanche, the coefficient drag of the rabbit is .42, so basically a brick, not sure of the comanche as I cannot find it. all in all, the current or anything past 04 vw tdi would rock the socks off a comanche or fuel mileage imho.

 

I think your weights are a little on the low side. 2,900 may be in the ballpark for a shortbed 2WD w/2.5L, but pretty sure the 4WD's are a couple hundo more. Either way, the a 1.9L VW TDI would be a good fit, although I'd personally stay away from the '04 and newer ones as they had to make changes to the engine for new US diesel emissions which hurt the MPGs. '99-'03 1.9L TDI (ALH is the code) would be your best bet.

 

The availability and price of the 1.9L VW TDI is going to be a lot more attractive than, say, a 3.9L Cummins 4BT and 2.8L VM Motori, but the latter two engines will be more adaptable to the MJ/XJ engine bay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nah, what other thread are you posting in? Probably more appropriate than this one.

 

Neat read, though. The biggest issue and expense is mating a transmission to the 1.9L VW TDI since it's normally a transversely-mounted engine. That CNC'ed piece that HPA motorsports made looks like some serious $$$.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...