Long term reliability of DSG

[Greg Roles]

I think Kryten has a very valid point, as these pirelli folk who flash and power up their golf's are testing the limits of the DSG in real time!

That said, I've been in a few DSG cars now, and it's still too much like an "auto" for me, but then I have suffered Ford auto's for several years and am shell shocked..

[jb747]

Try googling 'VW DSG recall', take a deep breath and read.

Yes, well mostly I'm reading a bunch of American whingers. The incidence of any major problem still seems to be extremely small. Heck, if a recall (for a temperature sensor) was going to be a deal killer, then my current Toyota Hilux would have been returned ages ago. Many cars have issues, and most are minor. The vast majority of what I've read seems to come from people who have decided (for whatever reason) that they prefer manuals, and then all of the opinion comes from that starting point.

[gerhard]

Yep, the American stupidity knows no bounds.

Just ask Toyota - the latest instalment in the American consumer saga concerns floor mats. Toyota saves 30 cents per car by not fixing them to the carpet, and some idiots killed themselves in a Lexus that jammed the throttle open when the mat somehow floored the throttle ????? A passenger rang 911 to say they were travelling faster and faster, but they were too stupid to turn the key off, crashed, and killed themselves.

So when the Americans start on the DSG, it's about as serious a problem as a floor mat that's not fixed.

And as for the Toyota recall - well their engineers have designed a solution to the moving floor mat problem - they are going to zip tie then to the seat frame........

[gregozedobe]

Well here's a high mileage DSG (post # 9 from the thread below on the UK Briskoda site)

264,000kms on DSG 2.0tdi, remapped from new...............................enough said !

http://briskoda.net/octavia-ii/yet-more-dsg-woes/159347/

[deuterium]

Well here's a high mileage DSG (post # 9 from the thread below on the UK Briskoda site)



http://briskoda.net/octavia-ii/yet-m...g-woes/159347/

That's enough for me. I think I'll take the plunge. The car is just too good. Nothing really screams out "unreliable" to me.

[triode12]

That's enough for me. I think I'll take the plunge. The car is just too good. Nothing really screams out "unreliable" to me.

18K sounds like a good deal if the kms are low/reasonable. Got for it.

[VW Convert]

Just on the straight forward premise that the more complex a mechanism is the less likely it is to be reliable, then logic indicates a manual is preferable. As all the DSG fans always insist: "a DSG is an automated manual, not an automatic", so it has 2 clutches (not one), plus a split drive system plus the (in)famous mechatronic unit controlling everything, so a lot more components to potentially go wrong compared with a manual. It also has regular servicing requirements, which can be expensive for the 6 speed wet clutch DSG.

Hey Greg,

I always find your posts interesting and well thought through, but I’m going to disagree on this one. On the surface, the premise that the more complex a mechanism the less likely it is to be reliable would seem logical but let’s not forget, most of us on this site are driving cars for which there are less complex alternatives but does that make the less complex cars more reliable? For example, a DOHC engine is more complex than a SOHC engine which is more complex than a OHV engine which is more complex than a side valve engine. Should therefore VW be offering us side valve engines? That of course is a rhetorical question. Based on the logic you are using, we would all be driving model T fords or perhaps 1885 Benz’s.

On the DSG specifically, it is undoubted that to rebuild a DSG would be more costly than to rebuild a manual gearbox but the DSG takes one important factor out of the equation, that is the operator. I have seen countless gearboxes (admittedly not car but truck and bus) gearboxes destroyed by incompetent operators. The DSG, by the nature of its design all but eliminates operator damage and only gross stupidity could result in operator damage. Despite being able to change gears very quickly, no stress is placed on the DSG because the gearchange is not happening in the time between clutch disengagement and engagement, it has already occurred prior to this and the rapid change is merely the disengagement of one clutch and the engagement of the other.

Two clutches? Yes, but for a given number of gearchanges, each clutch is doing half the work, so therefore the life should be longer.

Split drive systems? Trucks have had this type of arrangement in their inter axle power dividers since before I was born (and believe me, I’m no spring chicken!) In the DSG, as with the clutches, each shaft is driving for only 50% of the time.

The infamous mechatronics unit? Count up the number who have complained, then compare against those who have no problems, then if you have time, check the number of posts about Polo GTI manual gearbox problems.

Servicing? Yes, the DSG requires servicing at 60,000 KM, costs about $400 (dealer price), not cheap but necessary for maximum service life.

Rileyowner made the comment about using customers as unpaid research and development staff. I agree with that, but that applies to every single car owner in the world and every manufacturer does it. Car building is about continuous development, stand still and you are dead. Sure, all manufacturers do their R&D but I’ve been in the game long enough to know that the ultimate test is in the real world, on real roads in the hands of day to day drivers. Each warranty claim is analysed and products reviewed with a view to improvement, product improvement occurs day by day and is incorporated on production lines, that is why part numbers change continually.

No one will ever be able to prove conclusively that the DSG is/isn’t more expensive in the long run, all I know is it suits me and I’m happy to move forward with technology. The reality is that apart from the Mechatronics unit, the DSG is quite conventional in its componentry (as opposed to its layout) and my gut feeling is that these boxes will last a long time.

Cheers

George

[flat04]

That's enough for me. I think I'll take the plunge. The car is just too good. Nothing really screams out "unreliable" to me.

Only just found this thread. I think we bought this car late last week. Flew over from SA on Friday and drove it back. It is one of the best Mk5's we have seen for sale, apart from a few scratches on the roof. It fits the description you gave and was from Mt Pleasant.

Sorry if it was the one you were interested in. Not sure why it was advertised without mention of heated seats, ipod interface and I think the stability control was an option then too.

Andrew

[gregozedobe]

Part 1 of 2 (very long)

I was going to PM George on this so I didn't take the thread too far away from its original purpose, but after looking at the subject again I thought I'd reply publicly. If it's too long for you to read (and it is really long, even by my standards), then just move on to the next thread that does interest you. Otherwise, read and enjoy

Hello George,

I always enjoy a lively debate, and if it is done with good humour, rational argument with supprting logic and NO personal attacks/insults then so much the better

Let the (good-natured) debate continue.............

Firstly - the More complex = Less reliable issue (mostly general theory, but with a manual vs DSG bent where appropriate)

I always find your posts interesting and well thought through, but I’m going to disagree on this one. On the surface, the premise that the more complex a mechanism the less likely it is to be reliable would seem logical but let’s not forget, most of us on this site are driving cars for which there are less complex alternatives but does that make the less complex cars more reliable? For example, a DOHC engine is more complex than a SOHC engine which is more complex than a OHV engine which is more complex than a side valve engine. Should therefore VW be offering us side valve engines? That of course is a rhetorical question. Based on the logic you are using, we would all be driving model T fords or perhaps 1885 Benz’s.

My premise is not just logical on the surface, I believe it is an absolute truth (and I very rarely make that claim). Perhaps I shouldn't have simplified it so much it for consumption for all types (which is what I did before). I'll say it again with much more detail this time

A Every single component has a failure rate, usually expressed in mean usage time/cycles per failure.

B This failure rate can be decreased by further development and improvements in design/manufacture/assembly (often as a result of real-world failures).

C Consequentially, most manufacturers do decrease the failure rate of the mechanisms they have been making over a period of time. It's bad for their business if they don't, and they may go out of business if they lag too far behind their competitors.

D As you increase the number of individual components in a mechanism the failure rate goes up UNLESS you improve the reliability of some or all of the components. If you want I can drill down further on the reasons why, but I don't see the need to unless someone really insists.

E To make it worse, the failure rate usually goes up by more than just the simple arithmetical increase in number of components. There are four reasons for this:

F Each component interacts wth other components, and each interaction is another possible failure point in itself (both components may be perfectly fine, but something goes wrong with the way they interact). The same applies to interactions between the different mechanisms this mechanism interacts with.

G The novelty factor (and not in an amusing way). If you increase the number of components, then it is more likely the mechanism is doing something "new", rather than just more of the same sort of functions as before (which are more likely to have been tested thoroughly in the real world, and therefore to be highly reliable). Doing anything "new" exposes the mechanism to the risk of a different sort of failure to those experienced previously (ie the chance of failure is increased).

H When adding complexity to a mechanism it is more likely to have more functions than before, these new functions can themselves go wrong, thus adding new potential points of failure.

I Once the complexity of functions reach a certain point, manufacturers frequently decide to add a dedicated control unit. This control unit is also a mechanism, with its own potential for failures (eg DSG mechatronic).


So given the above, how the hell do most manufacturers manage to change things an introduce new features without building totally unreliable vehicles you might ask ? It mostly comes down to improving reliability via better basic design, R&D, testing, assembly practices and letting other manufacturers go first (the ones with bigger budgets for this stuff - eg Mercedes, BMW).

They can still get it wrong, and sometimes they fix it up (eg poor hardening on cams & followers in early Transporter T5s), in other cases it seems they just let the customers cope with the problem (Polo GTI manual gearboxes ?).

This brings us back to the OPs reason for posting, ie manual gearboxes vs DSGs in Golf Mk Vs. I can truthfully say " I have seen very few reports of failure and serious problems for manual gearboxes in Golf Mk Vs, while I have read many reports of problems with 6 speed DSGs, particularly the mechatronic units". These real world experiences match in quite well with what I described in A to I above.

I am quite happy to benefit from true advances in automotive engineering, but sometimes I'd be quite happy to do without until they get it working properly all the time. A good example is the auto wiper setting on my Octy. It works fine about 30% of the time, but the other 70% of the time it is just annoying (too sensitive most of the time, not sensitive enough occasionally). On balance I prefer the old-fashioned manually controlled intermittent wipers on my Transporter. I don't doubt that in time VAG will get it working better, but at the moment it isn't really a true advance for me.

Bugger - I got this message "The text that you have entered is too long (12095 characters). Please shorten it to 10000 characters long." so I'll have to split this post into 2 parts (I did warn you it was going to be a long epistle).


to be continued............ (see Part 2 of 2)

[gregozedobe]

Part 2 of 2 (also very long)

As promised, the rest of the epistle...........

Secondly - Operators can damage Manual gearboxes, whereas DSGs reduce the possibility.

.... but the DSG takes one important factor out of the equation, that is the operator. I have seen countless gearboxes (admittedly not car but truck and bus) gearboxes destroyed by incompetent operators. The DSG, by the nature of its design all but eliminates operator damage and only gross stupidity could result in operator damage.

True, but how many CAR gearboxes have you seen "destroyed by incompetent operators" ? I have never ever needed a repair on a car gearbox I've owned (and yes, I had quite a few for over 190,000km, so I have had them long enough to notice). Clutches, yes, as they are a consumable (but not very many of them either). I'm not saying it can't happen, but seems rare enough to not be a significant factor.

Despite being able to change gears very quickly, no stress is placed on the DSG because the gearchange is not happening in the time between clutch disengagement and engagement, it has already occurred prior to this and the rapid change is merely the disengagement of one clutch and the engagement of the other.

My experience was thet generally the DSG engaged the (next gear) clutch significantly quicker than I do when driving normally (ie gently), plus the frequent engagement/disengagement when doing very slow speed manouvering felt like it would be creating more wear than when doing the same speeds ina manual. Maybe a slight advantage to the manual gearbox ?

Two clutches? Yes, but for a given number of gearchanges, each clutch is doing half the work, so therefore the life should be longer.

But there are two of them, so the total cost may be similar ?

Actually, because they are wet clutches they may last longer than most of the cars they are fitted to, so the running cost will likely be less. Before you get too excited about "winning one", I must point out that you have to factor in the increased purchase price of a new Golf with a DSG So, advantage Manual gearbox again.

Split drive systems? Trucks have had this type of arrangement in their inter axle power dividers since before I was born (and believe me, I’m no spring chicken!) In the DSG, as with the clutches, each shaft is driving for only 50% of the time.

And that would be a valid point IF they were fitting components from truck gearboxes into Golf DSGs, but they aren't. See point G above about components that haven't been tried and tested over a long period of time.

The infamous mechatronics unit? Count up the number who have complained, then compare against those who have no problems, then if you have time, check the number of posts about Polo GTI manual gearbox problems.

My rules of debate stipulate you should only compare like with like, so either you compare only Golf V manuals with only Golf V DSGs, or you compare ALL VW manual gearboxes with ALL VW DSGs (IIRC some Passat owners have had a few problems with their DSGs also). Advantage Manual gearbox (seeing a pattern here yet ? )

Servicing? Yes, the DSG requires servicing at 60,000 KM, costs about $400 (dealer price), not cheap but necessary for maximum service life.

Thank you for that concession

Rileyowner made the comment about using customers as unpaid research and development staff. I agree with that, but that applies to every single car owner in the world and every manufacturer does it. Car building is about continuous development, stand still and you are dead. Sure, all manufacturers do their R&D but I’ve been in the game long enough to know that the ultimate test is in the real world, on real roads in the hands of day to day drivers. Each warranty claim is analysed and products reviewed with a view to improvement, product improvement occurs day by day and is incorporated on production lines, that is why part numbers change continually.

I agree they do improve things (and so they should) based on real world experience (as I said in points B, C & D above).

Unfortunately the bean counters can (and do) intervene on warranty claims, so existing owners don't always benefit from these improvements in relaibility.

A good example is the early R5 (5 cyl TDI) motors had a dud waterpump which frequently failed (and in a nasty way - it let coolant into the engine oil). This engine was fitted to both Touaregs and Transporters.

Once the problem became known to VW they decided to do a "campaign" and replace the waterpump on ALL Touaregs as they came in for servicing, even if the pump hadn't failed yet. It was a very different story for Transporters, they would only fix them under warranty, and once the warranty expired they refused to pay for them (unles you were lucky enough to get a "good will" contribution).

A cynical person might think the difference in treatment was because there aren't many Touaregs out there and they are seen as one of VWs "prestige" products, whereas there are an awful lot more Transporters sold, and they are "just" a van.

No one will ever be able to prove conclusively that the DSG is/isn’t more expensive in the long run, all I know is it suits me and I’m happy to move forward with technology. The reality is that apart from the Mechatronics unit, the DSG is quite conventional in its componentry (as opposed to its layout) and my gut feeling is that these boxes will last a long time.

Actually, VW could if they wanted to (but I doubt they will ever release such sensitive information). According to my logic (above) a DSG is more likely to be more expensive to run over the long term than a manual gearbox, but the main reason I didn't get one was I simply prefer the driving experience with a manual. If I regularly drove in heavy traffic I would probably have bought a GTI with a DSG instead of my much loved Octy.

My gut feeling is that as they get (a lot) older and therefore worth less money, some of these cars are going to be junked if they have DSG problems as it won't be economic to repair them.

Anyway, I've enjoyed the debate, and thank you to those few who have persevered and read right to the end.

Cheers,

Greg C

[Rileyowner]

Thank you VWconvert and Gregozedobe for your well considered and well expressed responses.

I guess the proof will be in the pudding and that might take 5-10 years. By then, I'll probably be prepared to take a punt on VWs latest 14 speed, handlebar-mounted clutchless gear-change system.

[anarchycamp]

Try googling 'VW DSG recall', take a deep breath and read.

Ever thought that maybe people only post stuff when they have a problem? A small amount of pissed off people with issues are always going to scream louder than the massive amount of people boxes that have been running for the last 5 years without any issues.

Its a car designed by people and computers who are designed by people so not surprised there have been some problems. Talk to a VW/Audi tech as to how many DSG issues they have seen.

As far as Manual vs DSG, its like laces vs velcro, whatever floats your boat....

[mrcurlywhirly]

Certainly an interesting debate. These are questions we pondered before buying our car.

As a driving enthusiast I would have never entertained the notion of owning anything automatic. In the end I found the DSG experience to be incomparible with a standard auto, and after driving a DSG equipped Golf we opted for that in our R32.

Was it the right choice? Depends on what criteria you use to decide, and i doubt we will have expectations of 300,000kms trouble free, that is a very high expectation of any car. You cannot be guaranteed of the reliability of any car over that distance, and as has been mentioned earlier in the thread, the bad experiences will be broadcast very loudly while the good ones rarely surface. For example we have had great experiences with two Subarus - others have not.

The driving experience in our car has been brilliant, gear changes are almost instantaneous, fuel economy has been excellent for a car with this much power. Supposedly DSG optomises acceleration and economy.

As far as we are concerned the DSG has provided the features we wanted, the car can provide a relaxed doddle through the traffic with minimal input from the driver, or can be unleashed in sport or paddle shift mode on a weekend drive through the mountains. For the few dollars extra it provides us with these multiple driving options, almost like two cars in one, which (to us) far outweigh the risk of additional service cost.

Granted it is a potential expense including DSG complexity to any vehicle. But Turbos, DSG, ABS, ESP basically electronic anything is a risk. Gone are the days when having a CDI ignition and inertia reel seatbelts was 'innovation', now there are a million features shoehorned into most cars, and they all can break! While they don't we should just enjoy them, rather than worrying about the expense, and recognise that many of them also add to occupant safety - both directly and indirectly.

So for the OP the choices should be weighing up longevity Vs price Vs enjoyment. if it was purely longevity i would just buy a deisel Toyota Hilux; if the North Sea, a wrecking ball and a drop off a highrise can't break it.... well what can?

[Tux]

I'm trying not to worry..

I've ordered my GTI MkVI with DSG so have actively been reading everything I can about it. I am concerned about it's longevity and reliability and I think I'll be taking up the extended warranty option.

It's comforting to read that there are many who have never had any trouble with the DSG and I guess like everything in life it's a risk and it it's worth taking then take it. In this instance I think it's a worthwhile piece of technology...but I'll get extended warranty..

[Jetz01]

This is an interesting post. My 07 Jetta is currently sitting in the garage and waiting for over a week to have a dealer look at a problem we experianced two weeks ago on the freeway (explained in post - http://www.vwwatercooled.org.au/newf...ad.php?t=40808).

Basically during this time I have been reading about potential problems with the car (even Youtube has a lot of video footage!). We've read a fair bit around the DSG unit and although it is a great unit (love driving the car), there can be some reliability issues. Although with any car you are bound to have the occasional fault, if the problem I have with my car is the same issue as seen by other people, it becomes more of a safety issue, especially with the fact that the car shut down on a fwy while travelling 100km/h. This car has been purchased as a family car so I would hate to see this problem, as little as it may be in global terms be of a serious risk. I do believe there is some sort of recall in the US but not sure here. What you may find is that people don't communicate these problems as in most cases for now the cars are under warranty, but as cars begin to get older and these problems emerge, you may have more people speaking up... I do love our car as it drives and handles well, but I guess it's always best to do some homework before buying your car.

Update - March 2: The mechatronic is the problem and is being replaced. Depending if there is a part available in OZ or needs to come overseas will determine if I get the car back this week or not.