2.0 BiTD 2014

[Ozzy Pete]

Depreciation curves....

Plus you need to take the benefit of the asset. In this case a new engine, new turbos. etc. If my engine went bang I'm certainly not going to be running out to buy a T6.1 to save paying 8k.

I drove the 140 for 6500miles / 6months. Not for me and that was back in 2015. Now, I certainly would not even consider that engine for that weight of vehicle.

Did you actually read the post? A remapped 140 is equal to a 180 without the 180 potential problems. So you wouldn’t consider that engine? It’s pretty much the same engine throughout the whole range except for Bi turbo. Start with 84 bhp and go up to 180. A new engine would not necessarily include ancillaries. Let’s just hope your 180 doesn’t go bang......

 

[Ozzy Pete]

Possibly, but only 1 turbo. Kickdown takes the Range Rovers and Cayennes on a local hill. Got to be worth something.

Porsche Cayenne and Range Rover sub 5 seconds 0-60...VW T5 California 12.4 seconds 0-60..
That’s some VW van you’ve got...

 

[Steve1]

Did you actually read the post? A remapped 140 is equal to a 180 without the 180 potential problems. So you wouldn’t consider that engine? It’s pretty much the same engine throughout the whole range except for Bi turbo. Start with 84 bhp and go up to 180. A new engine would not necessarily include ancillaries. Let’s just hope your 180 doesn’t go bang......

Wouldn't you worry that the extra strain caused by remapping an engine to produce over 25% more power than it was designed to take would potentially bring it's reliability or longevity to a point lower than one designed for the job. I suspect that if VW thought they could reliably get 180bhp from the 140 for the whole life of the vehicle, across all of the many made, they wouldn't have spent a huge amount of extra money to develop a different variant of it to get that extra power

 

[WelshGas]

Porsche Cayenne and Range Rover sub 5 seconds 0-60...VW T5 California 12.4 seconds 0-60..
That’s some VW van you’ve got...

There is a right angled bend to the Left, halfway up. They Always slow down for the bend .

 

[Ozzy Pete]

Wouldn't you worry that the extra strain caused by remapping an engine to produce over 25% more power than it was designed to take would potentially bring it's reliability or longevity to a point lower than one designed for the job. I suspect that if VW thought they could reliably get 180bhp from the 140 for the whole life of the vehicle, across all of the many made, they wouldn't have spent a huge amount of extra money to develop a different variant of it to get that extra power

The internals of both engines are basically the same. Except bi turbo.There’s lots of things that you wouldn’t think VW would do. Lie about the diesel emissions for one But they did. The torque curve is far more gentle with a remap and less need for changing gear all the time. It’s not the extra bhp you want it’s extra torque and far better fuel consumption.

 

[Ozzy Pete]

There is a right angled bend to the Left, halfway up. They Always slow down for the bend .

And the California handles better than a Porsche too?

 

[clarinetbcn]

Wouldn't you worry that the extra strain caused by remapping an engine to produce over 25% more power than it was designed to take would potentially bring it's reliability or longevity to a point lower than one designed for the job. I suspect that if VW thought they could reliably get 180bhp from the 140 for the whole life of the vehicle, across all of the many made, they wouldn't have spent a huge amount of extra money to develop a different variant of it to get that extra power

VW did think that. That’s why the 140 and the 180 are basically the same engine block, with the 180 having a dual turbo, different injectors and the only aluminum EGR cooler in the family of 2.0 variants of the same engine with different horsepower. The lower hp engines are essentially detuned versions for marketing reasons.

Disclaimer: I am not promoting remaps, that’s for you to research and decide.However, the 199/204/199 seems to be a VW remap of the 180, as far as I can tell, so VW doesn’t seem to be worried about durability when increasing hp with this engine block shared with the 140.

 

[Steve1]

The internals of both engines are basically the same. Except bi turbo.There’s lots of things that you wouldn’t think VW would do. Lie about the diesel emissions for one But they did. The torque curve is far more gentle with a remap and less need for changing gear all the time. It’s not the extra bhp you want it’s extra torque and far better fuel consumption.

I don't think that has convinced me.
When setting the original curves VW would have been balancing performance and reliability (it would get them more sales if they can set performance higher while maintaining reliability so they would have tried hard) with such an unbelievable amount of equipment and resource across many different sites worldwide that we probably can't even comprehend vs, usually a man with a rolling road and a laptop.
I wouldn't ward off others having it done, but ...
Saying you would never buy a 180 and warding off anyone else too, because there is a small chance that you might get a bad one sounds like the complete opposite to recommending to everyone remapping an engine and not worry about the risk of damage.
I would say both might have a risk level attached and in the absence of hard facts about either it would be hard to compare the risk level.

 

[Steve1]

VW did think that. That’s why the 140 and the 180 are basically the same engine block, with the 180 having a dual turbo, different injectors and the only aluminum EGR cooler in the family of 2.0 variants of the same engine with different horsepower. The lower hp engines are essentially detuned versions for marketing reasons.

Disclaimer: I am not promoting remaps, that’s for you to research and decide.However, the 199/204/199 seems to be a VW remap of the 180, as far as I can tell, so VW doesn’t seem to be worried about durability when increasing hp with this engine block shared with the 140.

I have no idea if the block is identical or not, but when building for reliability every component counts. If they are purely "detuned" for marketing reasons, using engine mapping alone there would be no differences at all to the engines. Yet there is as you mentioned.
It would be madness to detune and reduce price then not take some advantage of that reduced price with some lower spec components suitable for the lower performance. Guessing which ones it might be is the hard part.

 

[Ozzy Pete]

I don't think that has convinced me.
When setting the original curves VW would have been balancing performance and reliability (it would get them more sales if they can set performance higher while maintaining reliability so they would have tried hard) with such an unbelievable amount of equipment and resource across many different sites worldwide that we probably can't even comprehend vs, usually a man with a rolling road and a laptop.
I wouldn't ward off others having it done, but ...
Saying you would never buy a 180 and warding off anyone else too, because there is a small chance that you might get a bad one sounds like the complete opposite to recommending to everyone remapping an engine and not worry about the risk of damage.
I would say both might have a risk level attached and in the absence of hard facts about either it would be hard to compare the risk level.

Why wouldn’t it convince you? You have been told the reasons why yet because you have a 180 you can’t be convinced. VW themselves will do a remap for you so where is the problem.
I have never said that I wouldn’t buy a 180 and couldn’t be bothered one way or the other in just glad I have the 140.

 

[Steve1]

Why wouldn’t it convince you? You have been told the reasons why yet because you have a 180 you can’t be convinced. VW themselves will do a remap for you so where is the problem.
I have never said that I wouldn’t buy a 180 and couldn’t be bothered one way or the other in just glad I have the 140.

If I was looking for the lowest risk approach, I could be convinced to go 140. But definitely not to go remapped. Saying a remapped 140 is equal to a 180 without the 180 potential problems is a bold statement of "fact" with very little evidence to back it up. I wouldn't want a statement like that on my conscience if it turned out I was wrong.

 

[787driver]

My 2012 180 Bi Turbo started drinking oil at around 80k. EGR was completely worn( I saw the insides of it). New engine + new turbos £7.5k. Blanked off EGR and now runs around at 40mpg. Tough pill to swallow but luck of the draw!

 

[Steve1]

My 2012 180 Bi Turbo started drinking oil at around 80k. EGR was completely worn( I saw the insides of it). New engine + new turbos £7.5k. Blanked off EGR and now runs around at 40mpg. Tough pill to swallow but luck of the draw!

That sounds really bad for you, glad you got through it and out the other side though.

 

[Ozzy Pete]

If I was looking for the lowest risk approach, I could be convinced to go 140. But definitely not to go remapped. Saying a remapped 140 is equal to a 180 without the 180 potential problems is a bold statement of "fact" with very little evidence to back it up. I wouldn't want a statement like that on my conscience if it turned out I was wrong.

It’s already been stated that the new 204 and 199 are just a remapped 180. Remapping can be anything you want from dramatic increases in BHP which is definitely not what I would want. Then you can have a mild tune which gives better torque and increased MPG.
Remapping Diesel engines has been done for Many Many years and proved to be very safe when done by professionals ( Not DIY off EBay). From the previous poster you have heard once again that the early 180 can be a ticking time bomb . I’m glad I chose the 140 and after all it’s a camper van. The speed limits are 70 mph in the uk and 80 mph on mainland Europe and at those speeds the engine is doing around 2000 revs. It won’t be long before all vehicles will be limited GPS to those speeds.

 

[WelshGas]

It’s already been stated that the new 204 and 199 are just a remapped 180. Remapping can be anything you want from dramatic increases in BHP which is definitely not what I would want. Then you can have a mild tune which gives better torque and increased MPG.
Remapping Diesel engines has been done for Many Many years and proved to be very safe when done by professionals ( Not DIY off EBay). From the previous poster you have heard once again that the early 180 can be a ticking time bomb . I’m glad I chose the 140 and after all it’s a camper van. The speed limits are 70 mph in the uk and 80 mph on mainland Europe and at those speeds the engine is doing around 2000 revs. It won’t be long before all vehicles will be limited GPS to those speeds.

A little higher on the Autobahn - just saying.

 

[Steve1]

It’s already been stated that the new 204 and 199 are just a remapped 180. Remapping can be anything you want from dramatic increases in BHP which is definitely not what I would want. Then you can have a mild tune which gives better torque and increased MPG.
Remapping Diesel engines has been done for Many Many years and proved to be very safe when done by professionals ( Not DIY off EBay). From the previous poster you have heard once again that the early 180 can be a ticking time bomb . I’m glad I chose the 140 and after all it’s a camper van. The speed limits are 70 mph in the uk and 80 mph on mainland Europe and at those speeds the engine is doing around 2000 revs. It won’t be long before all vehicles will be limited GPS to those speeds.

As long as you are happy with your own choice, that's all that matters. I'm sure most other buyers are also happy with their choice too, including many 180 owners.