Golf 118 TSI Engine Failures and Service Campaign 24S4

[cameronp]

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.

It was pretty much still. My average over 4500km is around 8 L/100km, from a combination of a variety of different driving conditions. Even on a mostly-freeway non-hooning run I usually see a bit above 7 L/100. When I was waiting for my Golf to arrive and borrowing other people's cars on weekends, I was getting a bit over 7 L/100km on my dad's 2L Ford Focus and a bit below 5 L/100km on a friend's Golf TDI. All this is making me think there might be something odd about my car. I'll check the tyre pressures and oil level tomorrow (since I haven't looked at either in the time I've owned it).

Anything else worth checking out or experimenting with? I'm not sure that taking it to the dealer and saying "my fuel consumption is a bit higher than expected" would be particularly well-received. :-/

[prise]

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?

There are two lamda probes, one before and one after the catalyst so normally a fault in a probe would be detectable by the ECU as it would result in inconsistent readings between the two followed by the dreaded check engine light and limp home mode (poor power and economy) to prevent engine damage. If fuel was bad enough to damage the probe it would normally also damage the catalyst and as far as I know there haven't been reports of catalysts being replaced.

VW stated in their original response to caradvice that the ECU software changes were in relation to the knock sensor so it is more likely that some combination of knock sensor and fuel burn properties caused knocking to be undetected until it had caused damage. This would be consistent with the sudden nature of the failures. With high boost engines you only need a few seconds of knocking to permanently damage the pistons so a knock sensor calibration problem can be terminal.

The ECU via the knock sensor is actually listening for high frequency vibration at very specific frequencies. The knock sensor is bolted directly to the engine block at the back of the engine. The ECU software has to be tuned to the characteristics of that model of engine and sensor.

My last car was a Mazda 6MPS and it required an ECU update to fix the knock sensor calibration. In the case of Mazda the sensor had been tuned to be too sensitive so on two occasions without warning my car went into a limp home mode with no power and had to be restarted each time to reset it.

[prise]

Anything else worth checking out or experimenting with? I'm not sure that taking it to the dealer and saying "my fuel consumption is a bit higher than expected" would be particularly well-received. :-/

I'd start keeping records for a few highway runs on cruise control, making sure you have the tire pressures set correctly (get yourself a decent tyre pressure gauge and make sure you set the pressures before you drive when the car is cold). I'd record the following info.

Distance travelled
Average speed on the MFD
Average fuel consumption on the MFD
Fuel consumption based on old fashioned (fuel in vs k's travelled) if you get the chance - this will tell you over a few tanks whether the MFD estimate is out.
Weather (temperature, wind, rain)
How many passengers
Diference in height between the start and finish of the route - a 200m altitude change over a route can make a surprising difference. If you are doing out and back routes then this wouldn't matter.
Number of cold engine starts in the route.

That's about all I can think of, unless you're driving with the windows down or or something unusual like that.

[Cossor]

There are two lamda probes, one before and one after the catalyst so normally a fault in a probe would be detectable by the ECU as it would result in inconsistent readings between the two followed by the dreaded check engine light and limp home mode (poor power and economy) to prevent engine damage. If fuel was bad enough to damage the probe it would normally also damage the catalyst and as far as I know there haven't been reports of catalysts being replaced.

Many thanks 'prise'
This DOES put my mind at rest
(The previous reported Lambda probe problems and fuel sensitivity was I believe for Golf mk V)
Have been told by dealer my Golf will be MY11, so assume will have any corrections made by VW

[cameronp]

Average fuel consumption on the MFD
Fuel consumption based on old fashioned (fuel in vs k's travelled) if you get the chance - this will tell you over a few tanks whether the MFD estimate is out.

I've done this comparison already since I was in the habit of tracking fuel consumption (obsessive-compulsively?) back when I owned cars without trip computers. The MFD display has been pretty much spot on with the old-fashioned measurement.

That's about all I can think of, unless you're driving with the windows down or or something unusual like that.

Nope, nothing unusual that I can think of...

I'll be making a trip to Joondalup on the weekend (about 30km+ of freeway each way), so I'll start keeping some records when I do that. And if I post any further on this I'll make a separate thread to avoid incurring the wrath of the moderators, since this is wandering a little off-topic.

[Corey_R]

Nope, nothing unusual that I can think of...

You don't happen to run your aircon at 16 on the hot days then do you? hehe

[Rocket36]

on the whole fuel thing, there are a LOT of countries in Europe that have SHOCKING fuel compared to Australia. Engines are re-mapped differently to cope but I guess they got it wrong in this case. It's why most R36s appear to blow smoke under WOT - it's actually unburnt fuel as the engine is designed to run quite rich, which is safe - i.e. engine shouldn't fail with a mixture that leans towards rich.

On the flip side, I agree with other sentiments... why people spend thousands on cars and don't run the best quality fuel available is beyond me. the difference is a couple of dollars a tank (or the cost of a cup of coffee). And BP Ultimate is the best of what we have since V Power Racing is no longer available.

[Maverick]

And BP Ultimate is the best of what we have since V Power Racing is no longer available.

BP ultimate is better anyway, V power racing used 10% ethanol to boost it to 100 octane which meant it had less energy then BP ultimate 98 octane.

This isn't even looking at all the other negatives of ethanol.

[Diesel_vert]

on the whole fuel thing, there are a LOT of countries in Europe that have SHOCKING fuel compared to Australia. Engines are re-mapped differently to cope but I guess they got it wrong in this case. It's why most R36s appear to blow smoke under WOT - it's actually unburnt fuel as the engine is designed to run quite rich, which is safe - i.e. engine shouldn't fail with a mixture that leans towards rich.

I assume you are referring to the Eastern bloc?

On the flip side, I agree with other sentiments... why people spend thousands on cars and don't run the best quality fuel available is beyond me. the difference is a couple of dollars a tank (or the cost of a cup of coffee). And BP Ultimate is the best of what we have since V Power Racing is no longer available.

The majority of people aren't car enthusiasts so they don't know or care that using 98 affords them a bit more power and fuel economy. What difference is a couple of kW and km to them? And though we may cringe at the thought of using 95, those who do don't deserve to be punished with engine failure - in the unlikely event that is the cause.

BP ultimate is better anyway, V power racing used 10% ethanol to boost it to 100 octane which meant it had less energy then BP ultimate 98 octane.

This isn't even looking at all the other negatives of ethanol.

Actually, V-Power Racing 100 only had 5% ethanol and besides, the European standard for petrol EN228 allows a maximum of 5% ethanol anyway, so there should be no problems using the stuff, provided the fuel hasn't gone stale.

It's a pity Shell stopped producing it. I personally love ethanol. Higher octane means the computer can advance the timing (or just retard it less), which means more power. The only negative for me was the price of the damn fuel, though my priorities are different as I couldn't care less about higher fuel consumption, environmental issues, etc.

[ozgti]

I runu a tank of 95 every 4 tanks of 98. Oddly, I get better mileage from 95 than 98 (about 70kms more).

[Diesel_vert]

Well according to VW's German website, only for the 199 kW TSI in the Golf R and the older FSI engines does it explicitly mention that 98 is required for maximum performance.

Other engines have no such blurb, other than to use 95. But if running 98 was worth it on the 90/118/155 TSI engines, certainly the Germans of all people would have said so...

[Corey_R]

Look in your fuel tank flap

As logger posted a few pages back, from the inside of his 118TSI:


The minimum is 95, the recommended is 98.

[logger]

... if running 98 was worth it on the 90/118/155 TSI engines, certainly the Germans of all people would have said so...

...They have said so. Not sure what you mean by "worth it"? Fuel economy, engine Longevity? Volkswagen/Germans have fitted a label on the fuel door that clearly recommends 98 over (95).



the most un-German thing about the fuel label is the buggers could not stick it on straight


Jinx Coreying....

[Diesel_vert]

Well if that's the case, they should fix their website.

[pologti18t]

Well if that's the case, they should fix their website.

They have... it now says min 95RON for all Golf Models (petrol). Fuel type: Premium ULP, minimum RON 95.

There is not even a little "*" stipulating that extra performance/economy will be achieved using 98RON.