Golf 118 TSI Engine Failures and Service Campaign 24S4

[BBP]

Why wouldn't you? Seriously why would you run a $40K car on cheap rubbish fuel to save a few dollars?

Again, not the point.

If you release a product to the market and make various statements about its use, the buyer must be able to rely on those statements, otherwise we have a schmozzle.

[BBP]

You were writing this as I was writing my last post.
I must say this is very well written and I agree 100%.

Although I respect BBP's point of view, I seriously do not understand why he would want to limit the efficiency and diminish the experience of owning a great car, just to save a few bucks a month. As you said, it is just counter productive. You may as well just have saved the money and bought a base model Toyota instead.

Again again, that's irrelevant to my position.

[Maverick]

Again, not the point.

If you release a product to the market and make various statements about its use, the buyer must be able to rely on those statements, otherwise we have a schmozzle.

It is the point if you understood fuel.

98 octane fuel will cost you less as you travel further on one tank plus it saves you down the track as it contains many more conditioners to keep your fuel system clean.

Plenty of products are sold that are capable of being used in multiple different ways and in this case 95 octane is most likely ok but if you get a bad batch or two or you start clogging up the FSI system you can run into problems whereas with 98 octane fuel you have a larger safety margin but better cleaning and it costs you less.

It's the same with tyres, the car might ship with CSC3's which are fantastic tyre's and you choose instead of putting performance tyres back on the car when they wear but instead some bob jane all rounders (after all they meet the requirements) and you complain to VW when your car slides off the road in the next rain.

Just because a manufacturer has a minimum standard doesn't mean you shouldn't use a product that is better.

[BBP]

It is the point if you understood fuel.

98 octane fuel will cost you less as you travel further on one tank plus it saves you down the track as it contains many more conditioners to keep your fuel system clean.

Plenty of products are sold that are capable of being used in multiple different ways and in this case 95 octane is most likely ok but if you get a bad batch or two or you start clogging up the FSI system you can run into problems whereas with 98 octane fuel you have a larger safety margin but better cleaning and it costs you less.

It's the same with tyres, the car might ship with CSC3's which are fantastic tyre's and you choose instead of putting performance tyres back on the car when they wear but instead some bob jane all rounders (after all they meet the requirements) and you complain to VW when your car slides off the road in the next rain.

Just because a manufacturer has a minimum standard doesn't mean you shouldn't use a product that is better.

Err, I don't know how to explain it any simpler than I already have !

And there is no need to get personal, I have a pretty good grasp on fuel. My Dad was a mechanic and I basically grew up in his workshop playing with carbys and injectors. Let's just stick to the topic.

Patently, 98RON can be used and it would lead to better efficiency in the combustion chamber. Everyone with half a motoring brain cell knows that.

The issue here is that there is a suggestion that the fuel VW Australia recommends (AUSTRALIA'S 95RON, not Europe's or America's or Heaven's) is hurting these engines and resulting in damage.

If that is true (and none of us know whether it is or not), it is unacceptable and no VW customer should have to "work around it" by using 98RON. That's commercial law 101.

[Maverick]

Err, I don't know how to explain it any simpler than I already have !

And there is no need to get personal, I have a pretty good grasp on fuel. My Dad was a mechanic and I basically grew up in his workshop playing with carbys and injectors. Let's just stick to the topic.

I'm not getting personal but throwing some facts and suggestions out there.

Patently, 98RON can be used and it would lead to better efficiency in the combustion chamber. Everyone with half a motoring brain cell knows that.

The issue here is that there is a suggestion that the fuel VW Australia recommends (AUSTRALIA'S 95RON, not Europe's or America's or Heaven's) is hurting these engines and resulting in damage.

Volkswagen had an issue with a range of cars, Volkswagen is calling those cars back for a ECU update to fix the problem and that's the end of the story.

What isn't clear however is if the fuel that was used was not up to spec (ie not 95 RON) and/or was full of containments.

If that is true (and none of us know whether it is or not), it is unacceptable and no VW customer should have to "work around it" by using 98RON. That's commercial law 101.

There is no mention of a workaround using 98 RON however a prudent owner would choose to use 98 RON if they cared for the car and understood fuel.

[hooba]

I'm with BBP, the point is if the engines needed 98 then it is VW's responsibility not to tout 95 RON as a minimum.

Also the argument about sulphur content is purely speculative at this stage as AFAIK has not been confirmed by VW as the reason for the reflash.

[Corey_R]

Spoke to the service dept @ essendon VW, and its most likely a specific batch since I was asked to provide my VIN in order for them to determine whether the ECU update was applicable to my 118TSI specifically. Booked in for the 24th of this month, and its a DEC 09 build.

Thanks for the info DracZ

[Golf Mark 6]

Interesting discussions, but I have never, ever put anything but 98 RON in my car...

...and wherever possible I do use BP Ultimate. My local Petrol station is a BP.

[Golf Mark 6]

If the block is alloy, then I would expect the cylinders to have liners, so perhaps these are replaceable. I suspect it was just poor choice of words on somebody's part though, as machining a liner would probably be easier, assuming the tolerances can be met of course.

Sometimes the entire engine is replaced as a matter of pure economics. I read somewhere that Ford's 2.0 litre Duractec engine as used in the Focus is designed not to be repaired, although I suspect what that really means is that it was designed for machines assemble (presumably accurately and cheaply), and not for humans to disassemble.

The issue wasn't the cylinder itself, it was the piston (specifically the head of the piston in cylinder 2) that had a small crack.

I really don't mind a repair vs. an engine replacement as long as it's done properly and doesn't cause me issues somewhere down the line. Unfortunately I'm not sure I believe that this will happen.

[BBP]

I'm not getting personal but throwing some facts and suggestions out there.



Volkswagen had an issue with a range of cars, Volkswagen is calling those cars back for a ECU update to fix the problem and that's the end of the story.

What isn't clear however is if the fuel that was used was not up to spec (ie not 95 RON) and/or was full of containments.



There is no mention of a workaround using 98 RON however a prudent owner would choose to use 98 RON if they cared for the car and understood fuel.

1. So "It is the point if you knew anything about fuel" is not personal. Ok then ....

2. A problem leading to a recall is not the "end of the story". Saying something does not make it so Maverick. If the fuel grade is the issue (and again that is speculation on the part of us all) then God knows how many customers are going to have problems, engine failures, inconvenience etc. The story is whether those customers should have had the problem in the first place.

3. You guys mentioned the work around solution of 98RON, not me. I was just pointing out the irrelevance of that possible solution to the issue at hand.

4. "Caring for the car and understanding fuel" ... do I need to say it again? That's not the point. A careful owner should have to do no more than what the manufacturer suggests. No owner should have to "understand fuel" - VW tells them what to use !

[Rob Burns]

95RON is recommended isn't it?

Why should we have to pay for 98RON?

Not sure if this has been mentioned but 95 is the minimum specification and 98 is the recommended specification. If you look at your fuel door there should be a largish 95 with a smaller 98 in brackets after it.

[BBP]

Not sure if this has been mentioned but 95 is the minimum specification and 98 is the recommended specification. If you look at your fuel door there should be a largish 95 with a smaller 98 in brackets after it.

We know what the min specs are.

[Maverick]

1. So "It is the point if you knew anything about fuel" is not personal. Ok then ....

2. A problem leading to a recall is not the "end of the story". Saying something does not make it so Maverick. If the fuel grade is the issue (and again that is speculation on the part of us all) then God knows how many customers are going to have problems, engine failures, inconvenience etc. The story is whether those customers should have had the problem in the first place.

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.

3. You guys mentioned the work around solution of 98RON, not me. I was just pointing out the irrelevance of that possible solution to the issue at hand.

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.

4. "Caring for the car and understanding fuel" ... do I need to say it again? That's not the point. A careful owner should have to do no more than what the manufacturer suggests. No owner should have to "understand fuel" - VW tells them what to use !

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.

[Rob Burns]

We know what the min specs are.

Not according to the post that I quoted.

[Tux]

There is no mention of a workaround using 98 RON however a prudent owner would choose to use 98 RON if they cared for the car and understood fuel.

A prudent person would do as VW recommend and use 95 RON fuel and I think that is the point. An imprudent person would use 91 RON fuel!

Having said that I do believe that using 98 RON fuel is a good idea and that there are definite benefits in doing so.