-
considering mtdi swap into mk2
by
rw200
on 09 May, 2017 21:40
-
hello all, longtime lurker finally posting... got a mk2 jetta with a 1.6 TD (k14), DD for a year now, runs OK but really want some more poop. Just got a junk 97 Mk3 with an AHU, it will require at least cleanup and maybe more. I can say for sure that it isn't seized - thats about it. Really want the most direct path to TDI power in this thing; which I think is a rover pump, maybe a Holset or 2052 (or maybe just keep the k14), cable clutch for the 02a. And keep as much of everything else as possible - NO new dash, cluster, computer, obd port, additional sensors and need for laptops, software, cables, converters and all manner of BS. Are people generally happy with their rover pumps? I think I can swing it, skill-wise, longtime wrench-spinner - had pretty much the entire engine apart at different points over the last year, finishing up a rebuild of a spare pump for the 1.6. Don't really want to add a bunch of wiring.
-
#1
by
vanbcguy
on 11 May, 2017 11:24
-
Depending on how aggressively you drive you may be able to keep the original 020 with its cable clutch. Though I wouldn't really recommend it, the AHU will be putting out about double the stock torque of the 1.6...
Any of those turbos will work. The Holset would be my first choice, followed by the 2052, then the K14 in last place.
I've been happy with my Rover pump. It makes the car go, the pedal feels proper, has great low speed control, does all of that no problem. I'm tempted to mess a bit with the advance curve but I have huge injectors. Takes a governor mod just like a 1.6 pump. I have no issues spinning up to 5500.
Sent from my XT1097 using Tapatalk
-
#2
by
damac
on 11 May, 2017 19:33
-
i'm in the same boat with an alh. seems the holset is recommended allot. thats what i was going to blindly do and pick injectors later.
lots of people seem to suggest a mk3 subframe and b4 front crossmember are better for mount selections so thats where im at on mine. trying to find these parts locally. and what motor mount brackets and motor mounts to get since i don't know what i'm doing.
also i got mk3 diesel trannys because that seemed popular as well. it seems like as soon as you try and do things a little better the cost goes way up. i'm not sure if i am doing the right thing myself. for example if the engine mounts to the mk2 i could have just done that without cost. then i could have got some kind of older type vw turbo setup for cheaper making less work.
my gut is telling me to do these little extra things since im doing to daily drive it, but i struggle sometimes to because its taking me longer to get this project going and im wondering if i will notice the difference considering im use to the stock 1.6td.
-
#3
by
vanbcguy
on 11 May, 2017 19:56
-
FWIW I have my AHU in my B3 which uses a Mk2 style subframe. I kept the original subframe but went with a G60 hydraulic engine mount. I replaced the front crossmember with one from a VR6 B4 as I had enough issues with front mounts breaking in my Mk3. The Mk2 front mounts don't stand up to torque well.
A Mk3 02A trans is a good idea and will help with fuel economy too. Code CTN is the one you want if you're going that route. A stock 1.6TD diesel trans NOT from an Ecodiesel will work gear range wise but won't be all that fun if you hit 110km/h / 70 mph regularly.
Sent from my XT1097 using Tapatalk
-
#4
by
rw200
on 11 May, 2017 21:11
-
Thanks for the input! I am planning on the 02a trans (and mk3 subframe and hydraulic mounts, with passat front crossmember) - but was considering the cable clutch for it instead of the hydro. Will probably go with the vr6 clutch.
I know I'll need different rear mount to hang a bigger turbo; have seen them by SPA and darkside.
i've got the whole junk car, so will strip anything potentially useful just in case. For instance the bigger fuel tank seems attractive and will fit (i think). Not in a big hurry, will freshen up engine first. In the meantime maybe I can get the injection advance to work on the 1.6 .....
-
#5
by
urmas
on 12 May, 2017 04:11
-
I'm happy with my rover pump, and highly suggest the CTN tranny, i had it for a while with the 4T tranny, and the gearing was just too short for my comfort. I also suggest the Mk3 subframe so it doesn't vibrate to hell.
The CTN tranny swap involves a different pedal box (hydro clutch), which in my case was a painful, long affair, but id do it again, if i had to.
-
#6
by
rw200
on 14 May, 2017 11:13
-
Question: compare etdi vs mtdi smoothness/vibration
Dropped the ahu yesterday. Lots of corrosion, but the pump was full of fuel so is probably ok. On another thread the topic of TDI v TD vibration levels came up. I'm pretty interested in this as I deciding whether to go with a mechanical setup. If an e-tdi is way smoother than an m-tdi it might be worth the hassle to do all the wiring. There was some discussion of of per-cylinder compensation at idle with the e-pump. I understand that the overall idle speed could be rock-solid with an e-pump; but as I understand it there are 2 solenoids involved in the e-pump, one for timing (by bleeding off some case pressure) and the other for throttle (I guess by directly moving the piston/shaft collar around the piston). Compensating for a bum injector with overall throttle position I can understand, but an individually tailored amount of fuel for that cylinder only? Is the throttle solenoid fast enough to influence things on a per-cylinder basis? At a 900 rpm idle there would be injections happening every 30-odd milliseconds (I think that's right, 900/60=15 revolutions per sec, two injections per crankshaft revolution=30 injections per second -> yup). The masses are fairly small and the travels are also, so its possible. So the question is, can a mech pump with a mechanical governor idle as smooth as an e-pump? I think yeah, probably, maybe the idle speed would creep a little but I can deal with that. And lets keep the topic of timing retard at idle separate, please. Thoughts, anyone?
-
#7
by
rw200
on 14 May, 2017 11:15
-
clarify last post - I'm swapping in an ahu for the 1.6 that is in there, deciding whether to go etdi or mtdi, thanks
-
#8
by
libbydiesel
on 14 May, 2017 19:44
-
I cannot positively confirm or refute whether or not the e-pump can/does adjust fueling on a per cylinder basis. I also have never done an apples to apples comparison e-pump and m-pump on the same engine/same car and don't know anyone who has. Because of that it is quite hard to do a fair comparison. It would be a fun comparison, but I have plenty of other things to do. I think that retarding the timing probably has more to do with idle vibration than per-cylinder fuel quantity adjustment. I have not found the idle vibration to be any sort of issue on any of my mTDIs but different people have different sensitivities. From cold start the idle will creep a little on an mTDI. I've never considered that to be any sort of issue. I am currently running two eTDI ALH Jettas and a '91 ALH mTDI vanagon. I'll go do an apples to oranges comparison on vibration... Ok, I just cold started each of them and the idle vibration is remarkably similar in the driver's seat. Seat-of-my-pants told me the mTDI vanagon has a little less vibration at idle, but the engine is also farther away. There's obviously markedly more vibration that you can feel in the accelerator pedal when under way with the mTDI, because the eTDI pedal has no mechanical connection to the engine.
One thing that I KNOW to be true is that a properly assembled mTDI is intrinsically MORE reliable than a properly assembled eTDI. The mTDI is intrinsically more reliable because it has far fewer potential failure modes and almost none that do not simultaneously exist with the eTDI. As you mentioned the pumps are internally a little different from each other, but I believe they are similarly reliable. Honestly I haven't ever seen a properly built mechanical pump fail (other than leaking) except from bad fuel or from someone messing it up. Aside from the injection pump itself, you have the accelerator cable on the m-TDI vs. pedal potentiometer on the eTDI. It is not unheard of for either one to fail. I think they are similarly reliable. The additional failure modes that the eTDI has that the mTDI does not have, include any of the parts of the electronic engine management, e.g. ECU, crank position, pintle lift, map, clutch pedal switch, brake pedal switch, vss, etc, etc... Each of those parts a quite reliable but any of them can and occasionally do fail. Also, on the eTDI, you are relying on actually having those electrons flowing. If your alternator fails, you have a fairly limited amount of driving possible before you are dead-in-the-water. The mTDI can run for an extended period of time with a 9v battery connected to the stop solenoid or indefinitely with the stop solenoid removed removing the requirement for any electrical system at all. I've heard people say that it is easier to get parts for an eTDI than an mTDI. That idea is utter BS. It is always easier to not need to buy a part because your engine doesn't have that part on it... I have heard people say that the eTDI has OBD so diagnosis is easier. Again, utter BS. The OBD only has the capacity to diagnose the parts of the engine that do not exist on an mTDI. Virtually any failure of an mTDI is just as likely to occur on an eTDI and the eTDI OBD system will not help at the diagnosis.
Both engine management systems are fine. Neither install is overly difficult and provided quality work is done in either case they can be reliable. I have owned both eTDI and mTDI for several years and both are excellent. On stock eTDI vehicles I would not go through the effort of pulling the electronic engine management and installing an m-pump. On a conversion I would not do the extra labor of the electrical install in order to end up with a less reliable vehicle. Honestly, I'm so exhausted with the mTDI vs. eTDI conversation that it's really hard for me to write this type of post.
-
#9
by
rw200
on 14 May, 2017 20:59
-
Thank you for the detailed reply and qualitative assessment of your vehicles. I'll probably go mtdi. Should be in pretty good shape tool-wise; I've got the Ferret pulse adapter (how I know the advance is not presently working on the 1.6 ), and I've made up some jigs and such for the idi pump. Plus I've got access to a machine shop - so hogging out the pump bracket should be easy. One reason I decided on the ahu is that I'm already familiar with that general timing belt setup; and that it would fit the mk2 better than an alh.
Anyone have further advice re turbo? The K03 on the engine I just removed was shockingly small. I have read of good results with the k14, holset, or 2052. A wastegate turbo is easier to do and probably easier on the clutch as well. BTW what do people do for downpipes, this looks difficult - roll your own?
And how about the clutch actuation? By the time I replace the 20-yr old hydraulics I could buy a cable setup for the 02a (at least so I've read).
Thanks for the help!