UK-POLOS.NET - THE VW Polo Forum

Can someone tell me if there are any hardware difference between this two variants of the 1.0TSI engine that goes in Polo. I know that the stronger comes with a 6 speed gearbox but I am interested only in the engine parts (maybe different turbo, intercooler, camshaft ...)
Thank you !

Hi. Take a look at this. There are some differences, but mainly the same.

https://procarmanuals.com/vag-ssp-539-1 ... -function/

brainbow wrote: Sun Jun 02, 2019 5:09 pm Hi. Take a look at this. There are some differences, but mainly the same.

https://procarmanuals.com/vag-ssp-539-1 ... -function/

Thanks, in the meantime I have contacted Volkswagen UK and their response was

I have spoken to our Technical Support Team who advised the 1.0-l TSI engines belonging to the EA211 petrol engine product range,the engine mechanics are essentially the same for the two output versions of the Polo, the different outputs are achieved with the engine management software.

I'd love VW to offer a 'software change' to get mine up from 95bhp to 115bhp.
I'm not bothered about the 95bhp only having 5 gears, it doesn't need 6.

While the main change will be with the ECU there are physical differences in the engines between the different power outputs. Taken from the manual above it states the following:

The 1.0-1 3-cylinder TSI engine is another engine from the EA211 engine family. The engine mechanics are essentially the same for the two output versions for the Polo described in this book. The only difference is the sodium-filled exhaust valves and a more heat-resistant cast steel housing for the turbocharger in the 81-kW output version.

While a software tune would be able to bump up the power, I doubt you will ever see an official VW software tune as they deemed the need for hardware changes to handle the extra power reliably.

The sodium valves are for improved heat transfer, same for the more heat resistant housing for turbo charger.
They will be there for good reason, I.e. without this VW would expect the standard version to probably go pop with engine/turbo under the increased stress of the 115 variant

It does need 6, I hate the way you have to accelerate to 3,000 rpm in first then when you change to second it drops to around 1,500 rpm. no power and just throbbing in the cabin.

TElwoody wrote: Thu Jun 06, 2019 8:33 am It does need 6, I hate the way you have to accelerate to 3,000 rpm in first then when you change to second it drops to around 1,500 rpm. no power and just throbbing in the cabin.

But more power and torque would improve that.
It's a vicious circle.

l3rady wrote: Wed Jun 05, 2019 3:54 pm While a software tune would be able to bump up the power, I doubt you will ever see an official VW software tune as they deemed the need for hardware changes to handle the extra power reliably.

I know, but it would be nice if manufacturers did.
I remember reading a few years that one manufacturer's dealers were offering remaps done by them and with full main dealer backing.
I can't recall who!
A good additional revenue stream for them with little risk.

Ford offer Mountune remaps/performance packs that are fully endorsed by them and so won't affect warranty.

The outputs set by manufacturers are as much for the sake of emissions compliance as they are about mechanical sympathy. Remappers don't give a toss about CO2 and NOx output compliance, they are under no regulatory duties to care.

My Alpina D3 was basically just a tuned 320D.
Taking it from around 163bhp up to around 205bhp.
It struck me as weird that Alpina changed the turbo, intercooler, injectors etc, when a remap would have done exactly the same.
In fact, a remap might have been better as it would have kept the smaller turbo.
Using the bigger 325D turbo just led to horrible lag.

Andy Beats wrote: Thu Jun 06, 2019 2:17 pm My Alpina D3 was basically just a tuned 320D.
Taking it from around 163bhp up to around 205bhp.
It struck me as weird that Alpina changed the turbo, intercooler, injectors etc, when a remap would have done exactly the same.
In fact, a remap might have been better as it would have kept the smaller turbo.
Using the bigger 325D turbo just led to horrible lag.

The remapper doesn't care how long the car lasts when they put extra load on existing hardware. BMW/Alpina will have to consider that as there's an expectation for the car to last beyond the warranty and operate as efficiently as possible for emissions regs. Bigger outputs need bigger turbos and bigger intercoolers to cool what gets recirculated (for a bigger expansion coefficient during combustion. Pushing the injectors towards the upper limits of their functionality may result in inefficient fuel dispersion patterns during injection too.

Even with the Polo GTI engine, there are significant differences to the Golf GTI engine variant - higher output engines of the same type get harder/forged piston rods, different inlet architecture (Polo retains MPI with all that Audi valve lift tech on the front end, Golf doesn't), as well as the usual hardware changes you already mentioned - the Polo's intercooler being the main factor in limiting stock hardware output to about 250ps.

As we've already seen, a higher output car working hard less often than a lower output car of the same engine type is usually more efficient when driven the same way.

Just had a quick look but my Gti has the same 8 injectors my R had. The Polo looks like it has variable valve lift on the inlet where as the R had it on the outlet.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk