Golf 118 TSI Engine Failures and Service Campaign 24S4

[Corey_R]

It's been discussed so many times in this thread already, as well as many other threads.

95 Octane fuel is the minimum requirement.
Inside your fuel flap it may have a "98 Octane Recommended". So whilst 95 is the minimum you must you, even VW recommend the use of 98 where available.

There is no harm in using the best fuel available. In fact, there are several advantages in addition to the high octane, including the fuel cleansing additives that help prevent and remove harmful carbon deposits.

[Ryan_R]

Yeah, I just came across one, but this thread had dropped off my 'Recently closed tabs' list.

[logger]

I do not think they would be failing due to using 95ron. But I do believe it would be of interest to correlate fuel ron used to the failures.
I have no intention of putting anything less than the recommended 98ron in my car, other than in small quantities on a get home basis.
Thanks for the correcting me on ron/roz.

Sent from my Nexus one using T@p@t@lk

[Stelex]

Why do think stelex says he will be buying 98 RON fuel from now on?

The folks at wagen ... I mean the folks at Volkswagen mentioned that they "think" that the low quality fuel (read Oz fuel) as well as the lower octane fuel (95) may be a contributing factor. He emphasised the words 'may' and 'we think' and suggested using 98 only as the fuel economy will take care of the price difference. One way to find out, I guess... My Golf had an average of about 6.6./100km over its first life (15.000 km), let's see how my Golf 6.1 runs on 98. They suggested BP premium as the best one to use.

[Corey_R]

The folks at wagen ... I mean the folks at Volkswagen mentioned that they "think" that the low quality fuel (read Oz fuel) as well as the lower octane fuel (95) may be a contributing factor. He emphasised the words 'may' and 'we think' and suggested using 98 only as the fuel economy will take care of the price difference. One way to find out, I guess... My Golf had an average of about 6.6./100km over its first life (15.000 km), let's see how my Golf 6.1 runs on 98. They suggested BP premium as the best one to use.

Hey Stelex, they completely replaced your engine right?
I'd too be interested in knowing how you go with your Golf 6.1 on the BP Ultimate in comparison to the Golf 6.0 on the Caltex Vortex 95. Obviously it's not completely scientific, but it's not often you have the 1 person have the same car but with two brand new engines have the opportunity to do this

[Stelex]

Yes, they put completely new engine in it. I'll see how I go with 98 and will let you know, although it may take couple of months before the clear trend emerges.

[Corey_R]

Yep, understood. This new engine will need to break in, just like any other new car

[Cossor]

Gee Stelex
At least, after the trauma, a new start with latest build. Now go and enjoy with confidence. The worst is over!
I understand ron98 gives better fuel economy, plus other benefits
And fuel performance statement is based on ron98.
I also note previous published (Newspaper) by VW Australia re Lamda probe failures due to "Dirty fuel" (Daily Telegraph several months ago)
Can't help wondering, if 'lean burn' feature of motor distorted due to incorrect information from Lambda probes!
Good argument to always use 98 fuel when available!

[cameronp]

My Golf had an average of about 6.6./100km over its first life (15.000 km)

6.6L/100km!! :-O What kind of driving style/conditions do you have that you can achieve that? I'm usually seeing 8-9 L/100km around Perth suburbia. Got 7.5 L/100km average over 1300km on a recent road trip on a long weekend, and after driving home from work today the trip computer was showing 12.0 L/100km.

[Stelex]

I'm not sure what to compare it to. For those in Brisbane, I live in Forest Lake and work at Woolloongabba, so they'll know the route. It's essentially 5km trip through suburb @ 40-60 km/h with several traffic lights and dropping off two kids at two schools, then about 10km on the motorway, which is so-so busy, averaging about 70-80 km/h, then into Moorooka and closer to city on Ipswich Road that slowly goes from average 50-60 to nearly stop and go when I get close to work. This last part from Moorooka to work I take no prisoners, I drive the wheels off that car through traffic, so switching to manual and going for it is a daily routine. No pensioner drive, that's for sure.

To indicate the difference, the loan vehicle VW gave me was Jetta Sport TSI, 2 l 147 kw turbo engine, I guess same as Golf GTI. Doing the same trip for 3 weeks Jetta averaged 9.8l, same driving style, same driving conditions, same trip. I used to have Mitsubishi Magna (3.5l V6) before and it was averaging around 11 l (91) or 12,5 l (e10) per 100 km for the same trip.

On the highway, when in the clear, Golf sips around 5.5 l when driving around 100km/h in ideal conditions. if I reeeeeally nurse it down to Gold Coast it can average 5.0 from Forest Lake to Southport (the highway part), but that's pain.

A few months ago we went from Brisbane through Beaudesert, Mt Lindsay, Queen Mary Falls, Boonah and back to Brisbane, half ways it's a nice flat open road where you can drive fast, the other half was mountainous winding road where the speed is not your best friend. I drove the entire trip in manual mode, giving it a real go for its money through the mountains and the consumption ended up being 7.8l. When I say giving it a real go I mean driving it between 3-5000 revs and touching red t each gear switch. BTW, for those interested, this was probably the most beautiful drive I've done in many years, Mt Lindsay is just amazing to drive through/over/around.

[cameronp]

That's way better than I've ever got from mine in similar conditions - your drive to work sounds similar to most of my non-commute driving. Currently has 4500km on the clock so it should be well and truly run in, have only ever used 98 RON from Caltex or BP. It's interesting that you were using 95 RON and getting better economy than I was with 98. I was actually thinking that the Golf was pretty damned economical because it was using up so much less fuel than my previous car - and about the same as my old Nissan Pulsar which was nowhere near as powerful.

I've only ever seen the average trip fuel meter drop below 7L/100km when travelling at low speeds (below 110, say) for long distances between stops. e.g. the freeway from Perth to Bunbury I got (IIRC) 6.7 L/100km, which is the flattest boringest 200km you could imagine, about half at 100 km/h and half at 110 km/h.

[prise]

Gee Stelex
Can't help wondering, if 'lean burn' feature of motor distorted due to incorrect information from Lambda probes!

I'm fairly sure that the 118 TSI doesn't use lean burn for a few reasons:

1) It would require NOX storage catalyst which isn't fitted (NOX storage catalysts can't be used in Aus anyway due to the sulphur levels in our fuel).
2) The data I and others such as LOGGER have obtained via the diagnostics port shows no evidence of lean burn. It runs at lambda=1 virtually the whole time, dropping a bit lower on full throttle and high revs (a lambda value of 1 equates to a fuel mix where there is just enough oxygen to burn the fuel completely. A value less than 1 is richer and a value greater than 1 is leaner).
3) The VW self learning material for the engine makes no mention of it using lean burn and says it uses "homgenous mode ( lambda 1)"

Most manufacturers using direct injection have stuck to homogenous charge (uniform mixture in the cylinder) with lambda = 1 as the cost of the catalytic converter required to clean up the nitrous oxides (NOX) produced during lean burn is prohibitive and ultra low fuel sulphur levels (<5ppm) are required to stop the sulphur poisoning the catalyst. BMW is one notable exception, however the models using this technology cannot be imported into australia.

[Corey_R]

I've only ever seen the average trip fuel meter drop below 7L/100km when travelling at low speeds (below 110, say) for long distances between stops. e.g. the freeway from Perth to Bunbury I got (IIRC) 6.7 L/100km, which is the flattest boringest 200km you could imagine, about half at 100 km/h and half at 110 km/h.

Holy crap man... I can get my POLO GTI with APR Stage I ECU, which VW rates at 7.9 in stock form, to do average trips below 7L/100km easily. I mean, this is a 14 year old 1.8T Audi motor. And we're not talking on highways either. Along Old Windsor Rd from Bella Vista to James Ruse to M4 to Parramatta Rd to Stanmore - I often get ~6.5L/100km. From Bella Vista, same route but off onto Silverwater Rd and all the way down the #6 through to Sutherland Shire, 5.9L/100km. These roads are mostly 70 and 80kph zones with lots of traffic lights along the way.

I guess it just comes down to how you drive your car, and also, traffic and how many lights you get

[prise]

I've only ever seen the average trip fuel meter drop below 7L/100km when travelling at low speeds (below 110, say) for long distances between stops. e.g. the freeway from Perth to Bunbury I got (IIRC) 6.7 L/100km, which is the flattest boringest 200km you could imagine, about half at 100 km/h and half at 110 km/h.

The tyres that come with the sportpack might give you a bit more rolling resistance but 6.7 seems high for that sort of run. Did you have had a strong headwind or crosswind becasue that can make a surprisingly large difference? In still air conditions my 118 TSI would normally use about 5.5 on a similar run. I've averaged 6.4 l/100m in the nearly 7000km since I bought it and I've got a combination of rubbish traffic and some freeway running.

[Cossor]

Thanks "Prise" for correcting my wrong assumption re VW using lean burn.
(Learn a bit more each day)
What I really had in mind, is if Lamda probe develops fault (Due to poor fuel)
Could this cause motor to enter unsafe operating conditions? Or would it just result in poor fuel economy?