Difference between EA888 and EA113 engines

[Tailpipe]

Both are 2-litre engines used in VW's Golf and Scirocco models, (as well as by the Audi A3, A4, A5, TT and other VW Group products). The EA888 is the latest of the two engines; it's used in the Golf GTI and develops 210 bhp. The EA113 is used in the Golf R and develops 270 bhp. The EA113 was previously used in the Mk 5 GTI and developed 200 bhp. The EA888 is more fuel efficient, with lower emissions and is apparently easier to build than the EA113. Given that the EA113 had already been tuned for service in the S3, it was easier and cheaper to simply stick this older lump in the R than develop the new EA888.

I suspect that fuel consumption in the Golf R may be significantly higher than that in the GTI. I am looking forward to reading the first road tests before I commit. If the R's price is steep too, the GTI's newer (and presumably better) engine may just tip the scales in its favour, especially now that the R's rear LEDs are available for its lesser sibling.

On the other hand, new doesn't always equal better. The EA888 may not be better at all; it may simply be a dumbed-down version of the EA113.

Anyone know anything more about this? 

[simonpolly]

775 

[VWKev]

Grabbed from various places around the interweb.....

The EA888 has new pistons, piston rings, a regulated oil pump, a new vacuum pump, a new high-pressure fuel pump and a new mass airflow sensor. Emissions are 170g/km and the fuel economy is around 10% better over the EA113. It also has a lower compression ratio of 9.6:1 compared to the Mk5’s 10.5:1.

[ub7rm]

It also has a chain driven cam rather than belt.  It also uses Audi's valve lift technology but it isn't fully implemented on the VW engines as it is on Audi's.  If you compare the emmissions from a 2.0T Audi to a 2.0T VW (EA888 obviously) the Audi version has better fuel economy and emissions compared to the vDub.  Rumour has it though that the dubs are going to get the fully implemented version soon.

[Tailpipe]

It also has a chain driven cam rather than belt.  It also uses Audi's valve lift technology but it isn't fully implemented on the VW engines as it is on Audi's.  If you compare the emmissions from a 2.0T Audi to a 2.0T VW (EA888 obviously) the Audi version has better fuel economy and emissions compared to the vDub.  Rumour has it though that the dubs are going to get the fully implemented version soon.

Wow! Thank you for this. Very interesting. With a chain-driven cam rather than a belt-driven one, I guess The GTI's engine will have better long-term reliability than EA113-equipped cars such as the Golf R and Scirocco R? If this is the case, then leaving out the performance boost of the R model, the GTI is probably the better car?

Surprised that VW doesn't already fit a fully implemented valve lift technology. For a long time, VW was treated as Audi's inferior little brother. I think VW is a better brand than Audi anyway. I have always thought of Audis as little more than over-priced VWs. With Martin Winterkorn (Audi's former boss) now head of the entire VW Group, it's nice to see VW getting a bit more love. I just hope this continues. Design boss Walter Da Silva (Audi's former head of design) has also moved to VW and was responsible for the Mk 6 Golf. He is presently developing a new look and feel for the entire VW brand and will be responsible for the Mk 7 Golf. He's talented, but I have to say that I never liked Audi's single-frame grille, so I hope he doesn't mess-up the honest simplicity of the Golf.

[ub7rm]

Well the trouble with chains is they do stretch and suffer from fatigue / wear as well but unlike a belt they don't tend to give you much warning when they fail and are harder to inspect.  For me the jury is out on which is better.  From a theoretical pov the chain is better as it should be maintenance free but this has not been the case for other chain driven engines (not VAG).  VAG might have done a better job though.

[Snoopy]

http://www.my-gti.com/1046/differences-between-the-gti-mark-v-and-mark-vi-engine