Golf 118 TSI Engine Failures and Service Campaign 24S4

[Golf Mark 6]

What a passionate argument!

Had I actually used 95 RON I would probably be kicking myself right now. BUT I DIDN'T.

So whatever problem my engine had, it's not 95 RON related.

I always used the best fuel I could find - ALWAYS 98 RON. And usually BP Ultimate.

And if it's an issue with the useless Aussie fuel in general, then people using 95 RON will also have problems.

[BBP]

Find me a model of car that has left the production line without any design flaws or faults?

Volkswagen identified an issue with a production range that could be due to many many factors, they have released a fix for this fault, they are fixing cars under warranty that fail and are being proactive in addressing this issue. There was no recall issued, a recall is different to a field campaign.



A prudent owner that understands fuel would not run an engine on a minimum requirement fuel when for no more outlay they can get a premium fuel that gives their engine more room if there is a problem IMO.



Sure and does this mean leaving the tyres on the minimum inflation levels, replacing the tyres with cheap tyres that meet the requirements despite poor performance, using a fuel that is borderline if you get a bad batch and so forth. A careful owner would not do any of these but would realise that there are benefits in having increased tyre pressures, using higher performance tyres, using a better performing fuel (especially given the FSI) and so forth.

Volkswagen have addressed the issue and will look after those that have failures. As I said it's the end of the story as far as customers are concerned, they're not going to find out any more information from the dealer because it's unlikely Volkswagen has gone into detail with them.

Staggeringly, you don't get the issue I have Maverick, and I don't have the energy to explain it all again.

Time to get ready for the Budget. Can't wait to see all ALP heads nodding in unison behind Wayne Swan ... the intellectual giant and economic wizard that he is!

God help us all.

[gerhard]

Staggeringly, you don't get the issue I have Maverick, and I don't have the energy to explain it all again.

Time to get ready for the Budget. Can't wait to see all ALP heads nodding in unison behind Wayne Swan ... the intellectual giant and economic wizard that he is!

God help us all.

And you objected when you thought Maverick was getting personal, but it's OK for you to get personal about a leader elected by the majority in our democratic system.

Government would be better if using a higher quality parliament, but the people have mandated the use of a parliament meeting the minimum standard.

In reply to the earlier question about whether the engine will be satisfactory long term if the piston is replaced rather than the whole engine, the answer would be yes. A hairline piston crack will not usually damage the bore in an engine, so a new piston and rings can be installed. I expect VW will replace the entire set of pistons, rings, and big end bearings, and your engine will last as long as a new crated engine would.

However, if there is scoring the story could be different - I don't know if these blocks can be re-bored at all. If yes, then all would be OK with a set of oversized pistons. If no, clearly the block would need replacing.

[Coaster]

Why the F are you talking politics?

I have to agree with BBP, no one should have to worry about what grade of fuel they choose, as long as it is equal to or better than the minimum. Having said that, I always use 98 RON.

Also, following on from cameronp about different brands of fuel, I know in Perth and Adelaide, there is only 1 refinery each, so I would assume the sulphur content would be exactly the same for each brand in those cities. Maybe the larger cities have more than 1 refinery and there may be some subtle differences between them. I would not rely on anecdotal evidence from users and tout 1 brand over any other.

[BBP]

And you objected when you thought Maverick was getting personal, but it's OK for you to get personal about a leader elected by the majority in our democratic system.

Government would be better if using a higher quality parliament, but the people have mandated the use of a parliament meeting the minimum standard.

Nice one. I like it !

[MaccaTSI]

When I bought my car the min recommendation for fuel in the 118TSI was 98RON. VW revised it not long after and changed the minimum to 95RON.

see here: http://www.caradvice.com.au/38849/ne...-ron-unleaded/

Personally, I don't use anything less than 98.

The article states that they took into account the Aussie fuel standards and felt that 95 was appropriate, but surely there was a reason it was originally 98. At the time I thought it was to make the car more marketable because I'd seen complaints that the car required 98 and made it seem more expensive to run.

Recommendation or not, I don't want to take any chances and want to use the best fuel I can put in there

[MaccaTSI]

Back on the topic of engines blowing up, I've got mine booked in for next week to get a couple of things looked at. They said they'll plug it in when I take it in to see if it needs the update after I asked about it.

It's a bit rough when cold but seems to warm up ok. Also a few times there's been a clicking/grinding noise from the back followed by a puff of smoke.

So hopefully my car is not about to go down the same route as others on here... eek

[cameronp]

Interestingly, when the 1.4 twincharger was first released (2007), Europe was on the Euro4 fuel and emissions standards, which allow the same maximum sulfur content (50ppm) as in current Australian 95RON and 98RON. So you would think that there is nothing fundamentally stopping the engine from working with Australian fuel. I guess that doesn't rule out the ECU having been misprogrammed for it, though.

Am I right in understanding that the owner's manual for the 118TSI recommends using 98RON fuel, with 95RON being the minimum (and resulting in reduced power output)? In that case, I reckon both BBP and Maverick are right: you would have to be pretty daft to use 95 regularly, but if doing so results in engine damage, Volkswagen have some serious explaining to do.

[prise]

If the block is alloy, then I would expect the cylinders to have liners, so perhaps these are replaceable.

The 1.4 has a graphite cast iron block with an open deck design - no liners.

Also we're making an assumption here that it is fuel related - it is possible that they made an error in the ECU calibration when doing the SW variant for the Australian market. It wouldn't be the first time a product was sold with a software error!

[flappa]

Aren't they detuning the Golf R for Australian Conditions ? Couldn't it be possible they "should" have detuned the TSI for OZ as well. Higher temps, lower fuels etc etc etc.

[Brian]

I may be wrong, but wasn't this motor detuned from 125kW to 118kW to suit Australian fuel?
This should have resulted in a ECU map to suit OZ fuels I would have thought. Has VW got it wrong from the start?
I purchased mine 2nd hand at 8000K and is going great. Have used BP, Caltex and Mobile 98 since I've had it and can't discern any difference in performance or economy between the fuels. But who knows what the previous owner used.
Booked in for a reflash on the 20th and then an APR upgrade.
Hope everyones outcomes are positive.
Brian

[Golf Mark 6]

The 1.4 has a graphite cast iron block with an open deck design - no liners.

Also we're making an assumption here that it is fuel related - it is possible that they made an error in the ECU calibration when doing the SW variant for the Australian market. It wouldn't be the first time a product was sold with a software error!

Does this mean that if there is damage they'll have to re-bore the engine?

[Corey_R]

More likely that they'll just replace the engine - as per all the other cases.

[Diesel_vert]

The 118 kW motor hasn't been detuned for Australia, as the Volkswagen website in Germany shows the same output of 118 kW (160 PS). It also says to use fuel that has a minimum RON of 95, is sulphur free (i.e. 10 ppm) and conforms to EN 228, of which I've already commented on. Same goes for the 90 kW (122 PS) TSI and the 155 kW (210 PS) TSI in the Golf GTI. In fact, the 199 kW (270 PS) motor in the Golf R is the only one which explicitly states that, although 95 is the minimum recommendation, 98 is required to achieve maximum performance.

Currently, according to the Fuel Quality Standards Act 2000, the maximum limit for sulphur is 150 ppm for regular unleaded (91) and regular unleaded E10 (93~94), and 50 ppm for premium unleaded (95) and super premium unleaded (98 ). Pathetic, really.

It is the desire of the Rudd government to harmonise Australian Design Rules (ADRs) with United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UN ECE) vehicle regulations, by introducing Euro 5/6 standards (and hence, by deduction, 10 ppm petrol) as soon as possible, but they made the mistake of consulting with the Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries (FCAI) and the Australian Petroleum Industry (AIP) beforehand, who essentially said they support it but want it delayed. So its been delayed.

The majority of the European population would use premium if they don't have to use super premium in the same way the majority of the Australian population would use regular if they don't have to use premium. However, enthusiasts, which are the minority of the population, would recommend using super premium (with good reason). And it's mostly enthusiasts who hang out on these forums, hence the type of responses you've received, BBP (some of which is uncalled for).

BBP is correct in arguing that if Volkswagen say 95 is fine, then it's fine, as 95 is no dirtier than 98, unlike what some have been saying - I certainly wouldn't worry about it in a pinch. However, also consider that we enthusiasts are also correct in saying that super premium has indeed a higher concentration of cleansing additives than premium (at least BP Ultimate does, don't know about Caltex Vortex 98, Mobil Synergy 8000, Shell V-Power, etc). But I'm not here to tell how to run your life, your decisions are your own and don't let other members tell you otherwise.

Back to the engine failure - I'm no engineer but I'm of the impression that relatively high sulphur levels (I'm talking about 50 ppm vs 10 ppm, not anything silly like 150 ppm), whilst documented & demonstrated to be harmful to fuel consumption, TWC's and DPF's, shouldn't adversely affect engine performance to the extent that piston heads are cracking. I'm happy to be proven otherwise, but so far I believe there is a more fundamental problem here.

[Corey_R]

The way it was explained by BMW in an article from months back (I can't find it at the moment, so I'm talking from memory here), is that the higher concentration of sulphur causes issues, especially during the "lean burn" process of the latest modern engines, which can cause ring failure, piston failures, and thus can also cause damage to the cylinder itself.

Now in relation to the 118TSI.
If you look at the specs for the MKV Golf GT Manual. The engine had the same torque, and slightly more power (125kw @ 6000rpm vs 118kw @ 5900rpm). But it also consumed 7.7L/100km vs only 6.2L/100km in the 118TSI Manual. Now there's only 30kg difference between these two cars, so not enough to influence fuel consumption during an ADR test. I don't know what the aerodynamic efficiency rating of both cars is, but I doubt that it has any factor (especially since ADR is on a rolling road anyway). So pretty much changes to the engine and/or ECU have allowed for 1.5L/100km less fuel to be used in the 118TSI.

Again - I'm no mechanic, but this really seems to be in the area of what the BMW article was talking about, and other Euro manufacturers were discussing.