NeilTM

Excellent idea! Not really sure why you couldn't substitute fuse 14 though since that only supplies the ECU does it not? I can make one of your widgets easily tomorrow and try your experiment and see how it compares. Even with the coil packs connected, I would have thought that any significant difference ought to be down to the ECU, but we'll see what we get.

What an amazingly clear and instructive photo, thank you. I've conducted the test and suspect that it does not reveal any anomaly. both diodes read 650 on my meter which reads out differently from yours. There is no decimal point in my readout, just 3 digits. If I short the leads out it reads 2. As a comparison, I tested the diode in the new relay which reads 634. I would expect that the different numbers in our readings probably reflect comparative inaccuracies between our meters, unless your slightly different ECU has slightly different value components. The consistency, and being in an expected sort of range seems more significant don't you think? My meter cost something like £2.50 inc postage from China through ebay, LOL. You haven't said what you thought of the idea to test the current draw of the unit, to compare with A. N. Other? Is that something you would mind doing? This is what the Cannock folk said about that: "We do monitor current draw from the ecu amongst other measurements and can monitor for unusually high figures which can on the car at the time not cause a fault but is showing that there is a failure mode sitting there hiding ready to show up at some point. " I took this to mean that the higher current draw would be permanently present and presumably therefore easier to test for? The question is, would a current meter between battery post and battery terminal with ignition switch turned on be a useful or possible test? Beginning on the 10amp range for safety of the meter? If there's a doubt about that I would be happy to sacrifice my meter to save you overloading yours since they are so cheap and I have 2 of them anyway. But I don't imagine somehow that they are talking anything like a 10amp draw as the excess, the thing would surely start glowing!

Thank you so much for all this Wino, I really appreciate it. Unfortunately my understanding lags a bit behind my appreciation, its clear you understand electronics a lot more than I do. I don't have an oscilloscope, but I have a brother who does 70 miles away, so that might be a possibility at some point. However, I get that I can certainly test battery voltage smoothness while running, and I have an analog multimeter as well as a digital one if that might be better at showing up a spike? A couple of questions about that test: Would I need to put the new relay in for that test? I don't want to risk blowing it if I don't have to, they are more expensive than fuses! Would this just be a test with the engine running, or should it include stopping and starting? How long to test for? OK, that's 3 questions! I recall my brother saying that these ECUs are incredibly robust, to the extent that they will even survive a reverse polarity jump start mistake, and so should presumably be able to cope with voltage spikes? Perhaps they do, but it is the relay and fuse which cops it instead of the unit? The Cannock people also thought that pin 62 was not significant to this fault. I'm quite keen on the idea of testing the normal current draw with just the ignition switched on, since if I have understood correctly from what the Cannock testers and yourself are saying, that might be an underlying predisposing condition, and easily tested for if I just know what I should be comparing it with? Its still raining here, so can't do anything immediately. Thanks again, Neil

I've only just seen your post. I've not had that problem on ours, but the mechanisms seemed very rough so I liberally oiled them by spraying WD40, and later a PTFE oil, GT85. I did this by spraying through the key slot using the supplied thin tube, and varying the angle as much as possible, and the locks have been much better since. I think oiling stands a very good chance of relieving what sounds like stiffness in the mechanism, possibly from lack of lubrication. Easy to try anyway.

That would be marvellous, thank you, generous as ever with your time and help. It occured to me that if I had a look at both sides of the board, there might be something visible, but didn't want to disturb all that mozarella glue too much if I might send it away ;-) I may have talked myself out of that uninspiring option. Presumably, if we know what the current draw should be, placing the current meter between battery contact and battery post with ignition on ought to measure the current draw? If we can't find a figure for that maybe someone with an OK car could test theirs, and I could run the same test? It would be great to find a good contender for the fault that way, and it would enable me to test a secondhand ebay unit as well. They seem to start at about a tenner, and might be a reasonable prospect if I can speak to the seller and feel some confidence that this was off a vehicle scrapped for other reasons. Hope springs eternal, or 'its not the despair, its the hope I can't stand'!

Ah, thanks. Can you say what would be involved in the 'soft coding'? This is all new territory to me.

I've had a reply from ATP Electronic Developments Ltd, Cannock, which leaves us with a £60 (inc VAT and postage) gamble basically on them finding a fault with the ECU, and us paying them £230 for a repair of ours or reconditioned unit without the fault. They would offer us that anyway even if they didn't find a fault, but that amounts to just throwing a large lump of money at replacing a lump of car in the hope that it cures the fault and it isn't something else. They said on the phone that it is 50/50 whether it is the ECU or the wiring. What they won't be drawn on is offering any kind of confidence in the unit if their test does not find the fault. If it does it does, if it doesn't it doesn't but if it doesn't that doesn't mean there isn't an intermittent fault. I thought their reply might be of interest here anyway, and would be interested in whether others thought it might be worth the punt and time involved to go for their bench test? Basically if the test comes back with nothing found we have not achieved anything towards reducing the Russian Roulette odds for my daughter, only if THE fault responsible is found can we then reasonably rule out the likelihood of a coincidental short in the wiring as well, which will be a pain to replace. I think the bottom line is that the only way to end THIS particular Russian Roulette game, there are still crankshaft sensors and the like that can dump you with no warning without any go, stop or steering, is to replace both the ECU and the wiring. They did say that with this unit they did not need the ignition key, (they do with some). Does this imply that any working ECU sporting the same part number known to have come out of a working car with no issues might do instead, or does it mean that from the vehicle information we supply they have the same access to key codes as the manufacturers and their agents would, and that they would thereby programme the ECU to the key? If anyone knows what the issues are with utilising a scrap ECU of the right number, please advise? Anyway, this was their reply: Me: Is it going to be an intermittent short to earth somewhere that is causing the fuse and the diode to blow? ATP: On inspection of the wiring diagram I would say that the power feed on ECU pin 23 is your issue (drawing excessive current). for the diode to fail then there has to be excess current draw through this circuit with a secondary fault of the fuse failing. Pin 62 Does not draw current through the diode it is upstream of this, so personally would count this out Me: Is it possible, and if so how likely is the ECU to be the source, and how reliably could that be tested? ATP: ECU'S Can be intermittent Our test rigs simulate the vehicle which includes loads to test relay outputs / injectors / ignition etc. Me: Given that the interval between intermittent events was 6 months, could a 2 day test (its actually 50 mins on their rig) for intermittence reliably reveal the intermittence if that is indeed where it is? A description of why it would, if indeed it would, would be appreciated in order to feel confidence in the relevance of paying for this test for this particular fault. If the unit passed your bench tests, what level of confidence could I have that the unit was not implicated in the fuse and diode blowing, and that the cause must be elsewhere such as an intermittent short in the wiring loom? ATP: Extremely tough question this. The only honest answer is that we fully load the ecu constantly this can increase the chance of seeing an intermittent fault. However, this is not always guaranteed. We do monitor current draw from the ecu amongst other measurements and can monitor for unusually high figures which can on the car at the time not cause a fault but is showing that there is a failure mode sitting there hiding ready to show up at some point. Me: Do you offer any level of guarantee for a customer's unit that has passed all your bench tests? ATP: The guarantee can only be that at the time of the test these were the particular results we saw.

It's all a blur! Page 308. Unfortunately, this time I need to solve the crime, otherwise she will want rid, and I can't blame her. I tried telling her that all cars come equipped with Russian Roulette games now, citing my Doblo with its crankshaft sensor sudden demise the same year, but in truth this is upping the stakes even more unreasonably isn't it?

Hello old friend, hope you had a good Christmas! It went on the hottest June day since 197? I don't think it rained before that, and no more than a brief shower if it did. The previous occasion was in Dec before anyone blames the heat for the identical fault. The car had not been used for four days, and prior to that had been on a long run, as it had when it went in Dec, and is the only common factor apart from location I can think of.. 3,900 miles since it last failed. Both failures were on short local trips barely more than a mile from home. I've written to ATP and ECU Repair describing the symptoms and basically inviting them to persuade me it might be worthwhile getting the ECU tested with them. If they can either give it a convincing clean bill of health or correct a fault then that's either a fix or looking at cutting out and replacing the old wiring. Pile of new fuses and a relay on order!

6 months, almost to the day and it did exactly the same as last time, blowing fuse 14 and its replacement I left my daughter with in case this happened again. Relay 429 serving the simos ecu unit has also gone in exactly the same way, shorting the diode, but otherwise functional. Tested the wiring again for any shorts, with and without the ECU plugged in without finding any, so we are back where we started. None of the ECU repair services inspire much. One will bench test for 48 hours for £60 to reveal any intermittent faults, but since it took 6 months for the intermittent short, if that is what it is, to recur, what would give me any confidence if they failed to find an intermittent in 2 days? Unless anyone has any better ideas I might check over the simos board myself, looking for dry joints or any other signs of failure. I had a look inside today as far as the back of the board as the breakdown guy said they can fill up with water, but all looks perfectly clean. If that reveals nothing, I suppose I could just assume it is the wire and cut it off at the simos connector and relay socket ends (and relay socket to fuse) and solder in another wire routed through the bulkhead, but if I don't actually find whatdunnit my daughter, quite understandably does not want the experience of losing engine, brakes and steering in the middle of traffic again, and will want rid of the car I've spent so much time and money setting up with new brakes all round, exhaust, battery, tyres. It ought now to be good for several years, but for nothing much in all probability if I could just find what! The brake servo hose repair however is absolutely fine - a proper job.

Well, its a car again, and one so over the moon daughter after surprising her by picking her up from town with it that they have gone off for a drive in it. It will be nice to see them when they get back! I suppose I should hit the marked solved button, although without knowing what caused the engine to stop, whether it is solved or merely waiting to intermittently hit again might only be determined by the passage of time. The historical fault code claiming a ground to earth in the fuel pump relay circuit which has not repeated after clearing, and which cannot be found probing the wiring, if it is an intermittent, is by their nature notoriously difficult to find if not presenting since it comes down to a visual inspection of the wiring, which cannot be satisfactorily carried out, becuse of its frequent obscurity. I am leaving her with a couple of replacment fuses, and I've marked the one to check if it happens again, since replacing it again might get her home, and then I would cut the wire out and replace it close to its ends, but that seemed rather drastic at this stage especially as there might be nothing wrong with it. As for the vacuum pipes joining in the fun, well you know what I think about that, and I still intend to try to do something about that shocking state of affairs, and will report back anything significant here. Just to recap the 'solution' if indeed it might be a lasting one, has been to replace the SIMOS (ECU) power relay, number 429 in big numerals on its end, located under the drivers side dash on the inside of the bulkhead. This was because it was found that the diode (which passes current only one way) was found to be short circuit from pin 86, and passed current between it and pin 86a in both directions as tested by the diode test setting on a cheap chinese multimeter, and then by putting a 12v car battery through a 21W indicator bulb just to be sure. Both Wino and my brother thought this to be possibly excessive, so use a 5W or lower if testing this way maybe, but the multimeter diode test was reliable as it turns out. Also its associated 10amp fuse, number 14 in the fuse panel under the end panel of the dash against the door on the drivers side. And of course to replace the defective brake servo pipes. I would like to thank everyone who helped us in this long saga here, I doubt we would have got it fixed without you. I just hope there is no sequel! And daughter just returned safely with flowers for Mum and a bottle of something, and says thank you to you guys also. I'm still here if there are any further questions or discussion, but for now at least, have a great Christmas. Best wishes, Neil and family.

I have rebuilt and fitted the servo vacuum pipe with the aforementioned Pirtex which is £2.96p inc VAT a metre, enough to do about 3 fabias. Not that penny pinching was the object, I'll leave that to VW, but it does put their price in perspective. I checked out the spec as best I could. The temp range of the pipe is -30C to 80C. The rated pressure is actually 20 bar, the 60 bar is its 'burst pressure', but I didn't have that much information on my sample, LOL. The 9.5mm(3/8") is the internal diameter. This a bit smaller than the perfect or easy fit, but the half inch, the next size up would have been sloppy and needed clips. These sizings seem to be standard throughout the industry, but with a water based lube that will dry out it was slow but not too much of a struggle to fit over the 'barbs' on the unions. There should be other Pirtex outlets elsewhere, but if anyone is stuck I can post them what I haven't used. At your own risk of course. There do seem to be other satisfactory options available. Not surprisingly the vintage car market is a potential source. This is what's written on the pipe: PIRTEX IAIR 20-010 9.5MM(3/8") WP 20 Bar AIR HOSE BSEN ISO 2398/BS5118/2 WWW.pirtek.eu 59B13 The job went very satisfactorily and I'm happy with it, but will of course keep an eye on it anyway. I'm still waiting for my brother to get back to me with any further thoughts or tests I could run to find a wiring short, but visual inspection is fine as far as it can be visually inspected, and the wire between pin 80 on the SIMOS and pin 86 on the fuel pump relay had continuity and no connection to earth which should have tested the 17909 "fuel pump relay circuit short to ground". Of course if there is an intermittent wiring short somewhere, it may well do the same again, and I'm still not happy about that but realising this may be as good as it gets, as I don't see how professional auto electricians would necessarily find such a fault either. Hopefully it might be a car again tomorrow. Neil

That's a nice little test habit - takes no time, but tests the brakes every time before moving - excellent idea. Should be compulsory on VW AUDI group cars then ;-) I might adopt it, although I suspect I don't have one on my Fiat as loss of servo assist is fairly instant if I stall the engine I noticed the other day. I guess the non return valve is there to retain some reservoir braking capacity after loss of or stall of engine. Neil

In a word, no, because the recall speaks of failure at all 4 points because of manufacturing defect, and what others have also experienced with no reason to assume rough handling or handling of any sort prior to visual inspection, and which is what tends to have been reported. Your instinct not to attempt to separate the pipes from the one way valve were sound and for the reason you give that these are heat treated assemblies as you describe, and therefore intended to be fitted once, and not capable of being dismantled and put back with the same pipe. If we are still speculating on reasons for the variable demise of these pipes, maybe variability in the heat treatment fitment itself has played a more significant role than subsequent operating conditions, or variations in the chemistry of the compound the pipes are made from? VW are in a uniquely perfect position to know the answer to all these questions ;-) If you look carefully at my pictures I think they reveal a brittleness to the plastic. There are even bits missing, so the thing has actually crumbled to some extent, not just split. It has no flexibility at all at those points yet it is called upon as a whole to flex, taking up movement of the engine against the static point of the servo mounted on the bulkhead. I don't want to destroy the evidence, but I imagine that the ends would be brittle if stressed, and shatter to fragments under a hammer compared with the main run of the pipe, but that is also very stiff. The approach to absorbing vibration between engine and chassis is intrinsically stressy on rigid, but thin fracturable material instead of a flexible neoprene type woven reinforced hose traditionally used without such issues. Material not dissimilar to fan belts which undergo the most incredible number of extreme bendings back on themselves in the fabia in just one revolution! It is to marvel that any material can do this without failing over kazillions of bendings, but it does. Neil

I'm afraid I cheated and turned both splits round for the sake of one photo instead of two. It would have been impossible, removing the pipe from the car to preserve that exact alignment up anyway, I'd have had to put the poor thing in a splint, LOL. The split pipe from the one way valve that doesn't have the writing on it, ie. top right of my first pic, if you turn it round I just noticed the beginnings of a split in that side too, and it runs through the centres of the two red dots you mentioned earlier. I can't tell if the very slight bur from the moulding seam might have excerbated the split, but if it did, then it was far too oversensitive to insult wasn't it? ;-) Neil

The Octavia from 97/98 was recalled for this brake pipe fault in 2003. Our fabia is 2005. I accept that the Inca seems from what you say to be a different kind of pipe failing, but AFAICT it is the same type of pipe used on the Octavia. Here is the link to the Octavia recall: http://www.dft.gov.uk/vosa/apps/recalls/searches/expand.asp?uniqueID=6FC3E486C032E8D500256CDA0045B061&freeText=BRAKE%20SERVO&tx= Here is someone on this forum experiencing the failure, and the type of pipe, if not the precise part numbers etc, can clearly be seen as something distinct from the Inca http://www.briskoda.net/forums/topic/189386-split-vacuum-hose-to-brake-servo/ Better pics are out there of the Octavia pipe, but I have to be a taxi to a carless daughter RIGHT NOW! Thank you for the caution though, Neil

I have wondered why the recalls that have happened were so specific in their date ranges, as if they were simply recalling all cars with the same batch number pipes, but if that were so, those details don't seem to appear on the pipe. But then there appear to be many failures outside those ranges anyway. I would like to know the answer, but long may yours continue to remain undamaged, just keep an eye on it anyway! Neil

Great, thanks. 150Lbs per sq in is approx 10 BAR which is one sixth of the pressure rating of the air hose I've been offered. If yours is OK 'mine' has to be. It is amply flexible to take care of the bends also, and half inch, the same. Wino has confrmed the likelihood, or at least the distinct possibility of no difference between his 2004 original and the 2015 replacement 11 years later. It does seem unlikely that a better quality hose would not as he says at least be given a suffix to distinguish it from original, but I suppose the date of manufacture actually does that in the context of the age of the vehicle. The plastic may be a different compound of course, but I don't suppose they would tell you if you asked since officially there is no problem at all with the fabia, hoho. They certainly didn't improve it two years after the first recall. Case closed I think. Will try to get some pics up tomorrow, it sulked when I tried today. Oh, and yes our pipe is exactly the same number. Conditions affecting the pipe? Who knows, surely no components reliably fail at the same time/mileage, or even at all, but Wino's was beginning to fail, and who knows how quickly they go once they start to split. Different mileages, different part of the country, different types of driving in dfferent weathers. But none of these factors would be significant given a proper margin of durability. Engine temp normal. The pipe at the back of my Doblo looks like new, but then so does everything else back there, I was amazed by how clean the engine compartment was on this now 14yo vehicle with 130,000 miles when I bought it with perfect dealership history, one lady owner in Canterbury. The Fabia - several owners, a couple of years in Stockport, a couple near Oxford, I forget the rest. Shouldn't matter. Neil

I defy anyone to be capable of safely steering and braking a vehicle with total loss of assist except at the slowest speeds, and with ample space. You don't just end up with the same capability as a car designed without assist! Nothing like. **IF** evolution due to past issues has taken place and the fault really is cured, then it was culpably slow to get to that point of proper resolution IF indeed it finally has. This is all speculation unless we actually know, in the context of a massive prior betrayal of trust persisting over many years. The DVSA clearly did see this as a critical failure since they did issue some recalls on failures that can't have been any worse than the one on our Fabia which was never recalled yet manifested the same failure over several years, and beyond the first recall by at least 2 years. The assumption that the pipe won't actually fall off is a scarily unsafe assumption. Our pipe was so brittle it has actually lost some bits, not just cracked, so loss of half the pipe breaking out at the union has to be perfecty expectable. And it is not as if pipes adequate for the task and for a long life of the car were not already tried and tested over many decades. I'm sorry but asking me to accept such an unsafe assumption of no total loss of braking as a standard as you seem prepared to justify simply appals me, and contradicts every stated expectation of safety car manufacturers ever make. If any of them made a statement like yours above there would be huge justifiable public outcry. It seems views are entrenched on the matter though, so in the absence of any actual evidence of satisfactory resolution I think I'm being perfectly rational and cautious in withdrawing my betrayed trust. And all of this is just to save them a few more pennies. The DVSA's declared standards are the same as mine and can be explored from here: https://www.gov.uk/vehicle-recalls-and-faults/faults-with-vehicles-parts-and-accessories They just haven't upheld them. By their criteria we have now suffered 3 notifiable faults in one year on two different vehicles, none of them subject to a recall. Quote from above link: "4. Faults with vehicles, parts and accessoriesFaults in the way vehicles, vehicle parts and accessories are designed or made have to be registered with the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency (DVSA) if they: mean it could become unsafe in the future if it’s not fixed could mean that the vehicle, part or accessory no longer meets the legal standard" But I don't know what there is left to say on this, this side of a further investigation of these matters. Neil

HOSE: Pirtek gave me a sample of thick but nicely flexible reinforced hose with internal weave, (ISO 2398/BS5118/2). It actually looks just like the pipe fitted to my Fiat Doblo. :-) It is rated at 60 bar pressure which is a lot. It is a tight fit, but will go on properly, lubricated only with some washing up liquid as recommended by our mechanic, and is a devil to get off again because of the barbs. Atmospheric pressure at sea level is approx one bar, or nearly 15psi or 30 inches of mercury, so the maximum vacuum it could be asked to withstand without collapsing is a 60th of the pressure it is designed to carry, and 15 psi is the theoretical maximum or perfect vacuum which I don't think gets reached. Idle vacuum is typically two thirds of that, and the overrun somewhere around 24 inches of mercury I think, or approx 12psi. From experience, that's a fairly spongy wheelbarrow wheel, LOL! It SOUNDS as if this ought to be more than adequate for the job, but does anyone have any informed opinions based on knowledge of such things? Unfortunately the spec for these pipes I was told does not include any measure of vacuum resistance. Possibly because the question is redundent and that it would way exceed any pressure our atmosphere could throw at it holding a perfect vacuum. I may have to contact the manufacturers to settle that Q unless anyone actually knows? It naturally occurs to ask how on earth sufficient vacuum to work the brakes could have been conveyed by a pipe with its ends split beyond the end of the unions it was shrunk over, such that there are permanent unclosable air ways in? If the pipe were carrying a pressure not a vacuum it would undoubtedly have fallen off under the slightest pressure. That it didn't anyway must have been down to the 'habit' of the material. Off the car you could rattle the pipes on the union, and shake them off! Although the vacuum is not great in terms of pipe pressure, the vacuum flow is large from the number of cylinder displacements on the induction stroke. So there is a huge low pressure (or suction rather) flow which would tend towards overwhelming the leaks into it, allowing a leaky pipe to get away with a lot of leakage. Which could explain why brakes still work seemingly OK or patchily with a pipe like mine. It can't have been far from every chance of falling off though, and then there would have been zero servo assist. Wino is assisting me offlist with tracing the wiring side of things rather than take up any more bandwidth here, but will make a final report of anything discovered. Cheers, Neil

I just want to be clear about something. I'm not trying to make out that Skoda or VW group cars are rubbish in general. The Fabia in most respects is a very respectable competent car, and my daughter loves it, or did until now. My brother who's career has been spent as an automotive engineer specialising in programming the 'brains', but aware of wider issues in the industry, informs me that the industry standard aimed for the life of any part is 100,000 miles. He tells me that everything is 'built down to a price', and that some makes build lower than others! This we all probably intuitively grasp and accept. Car manufacturers have always been keen to cut corners wherever they can, hopefully without crossing a line and producing something unfit for purpose or even dangerous, but this will inevitably happen from time to time in this endless search for saving on manufacturing costs. Engineers always want to do a proper job, but the bane of their life is accountants. It is when the safeguards and watchdogs are asleep at the wheel that sub standard stuff can persist beyond its known deficiency. What is in a way more frightening than that a supposedly respectable quality car manufacturer can produce dangerous brake parts, is that no one, including those specifically tasked in government agencies with ensuring adequate safety standards are adhered to, is taking the necessary responsibility for correcting a major defect like this, allowing it to persist over many years after it has been known about. This means the system for ensuring our safety is as broken as these dismal pipes, and that therefore we cannot be confident that the vehicles we are driving are as safe as we should be entitled to expect. That a sprinkling or sample of cars affected ended up being recalled is probably only because third parties took responsibility and reported them, trusting the system would do the right thing and get to the bottom of this and correct it properly. But this hasn't happened, yet the manufacturer by this time must have been well aware of the extent of the problem. It is the sheer apparent militancy of VW in determining to keep on saving pennies on brake pipes beyond all human decency, while enjoying sales of the replacements at double their original price that I find so shocking. This is a technology that is unproblematic unless you are on an insane mission to shave pennies off costs of adequate piping beyond what is sustainable, or should be sustainable. I can't tell you what any brake servo vacuum pipe on any previous car I've ever owned looked like because they never failed and would have been original. That's on a 19 year old Vauxhall that had done nearly a quarter of a million miles for eg. and the Xantia was getting on that way too. This is for pennies, literally! So that is the price being put on our lives. Neil

I don't know yet, but will investigate as you suggest tomorrow. I've gone past my understanding new things hour for today :-) Do you know what A99 in a circle is? I thought A in a circle might mean positive, but if it is they don't always say. That circles convention seems poorly explained, at least I don't understand it. Thanks for this, Neil

Please can you say how it is obvious that the new offering "is obviously now well and truly tested and is (re)designed for the job"? Or is this an assumption on your part based on trust in the VW group they have been busy betraying big time for most if not all of the life of the fabia, and other VW AUDI group models? I'm not being funny, this is a genuine question, because if you are merely making assumptions you must surely be in good company since it can only be through such assumptions, not put to any test, that the DVSA has managed not to notice that the fabia should have been recalled for the identical fault. The service book for our fabia printed in 2005 states that all pipes under the bonnet should be inspected once a year for leaks, a gloriously vague statement that does nothing to focus attention on the vacuum servo pipe in particular, known to the group since at least 2003 to be defective which is the date of the first recalls. This looks to me like sweeping things under the carpet. How can you trust their integrity? They have form. I know it is hard to get your head around something like this, such is their reputation for quality, but if everyone so believes in this then that is an exploitable self fulfilling prophesy is it not? There are no end of brand names that now produce rubbish that merely trades on an earlier reputation for quality. Look up reviews for 'thermos' or Stanley vacuum flasks for eg. As for messing about - please see my previous post. I have no intention of messing about, and every intention of finding something that can be relied upon because it is made for the job. A generic vacuum hose is surely worth searching for since the job it is called upon to do must surely be the same as for any other car brake servo pipe? If the pipe is a good fit, is flexible and tested to more than the vacuum the car will produce and intended for such applications, then where could the problem be? This is not rocket science. It's VW who have been messing about. I think you should to be OK if you inspect your pipe regularly, now knowing what to look for, but remember that it is only this forum or your own or your garages vigilance that has alerted you to this potential problem, which you presumably have already experienced since you replaced yours, not VW AUDI who alone are in the position to actually know the true extent of the problem but are busy hiding it, and choosing not to issue any recall for a model known to be affected throughout most if not all of the range. Just being in a position to know how many of this part, which should rarely if ever need replacing, they have sold, should have rung their alarm bells should it not? It is the known persistence of this fracture failure beyond their own earlier recalls that blows their cover surely? It is because I don't want to 'mess about', and because VW have that I am determined to do their job properly. The buck always rests with us. Neil

VACUUM SERVO PIPE: felicia 16v, could you possibly give details of what pipe you have used to rebuild these pipes as I'm not having much luck locally. Tried a couple of car spares places locally, and even the one that supplies all the local garages with just about everything, Motor Serv, had nothing at all generic on a reel. So I called in on Pirtek, which is literally walking distance from my home, who specialise in hoses, but came away with a couple of samples, neither of which I feel will be any good. They had nothing described as vacuum hose, only air hose. One was a nice thick woven reinforced 'rubber' 60 bar air pressure hose. It is hard to imagine it collapsing under a vacuum from the engine, although with finger and thumb on an end I could just about close it off, but not in the middle of its length, so I feel this is too uncertain to risk, even though the degree of vacuum might be well withing its capability to withstand. Guessing isn't good enough. The other was a steel reinforced rubber, more flexible than the stiff stuff originally fitted, but less forgiving of being forced over too large a union, and about 9.5mm internally. I would trust the pipe, I could not begin to pinch it, but it won't fit over and the next size up is too sloppy Lots of stuff claiming to be vacuum hose on ebay, but not sure how I would trust any of it, and most of it looking like the VW dooh dah. I want to see a made for purpose specifically vacuum pipe with data sheet and spec before I put something on daughter's car. Quaintly, the sizes seemed to be in imperial, although approximate metric was cited, so there was 3/8" and 1/2" pipes, the one too small, the other too big for these plastic unions which I measure as 12.5mm approx maximum diameter across the top of the 'barbs', or 10.4mm at the narrowest between the barbs. The steel reinforced nominal 10, but actually 9.5 the Pertek man said, will not force over it even with lubrication. There must be something proper made? Neil T

I need help interpreting the wiring diagrams. The blue and white wire above (it is the female half in Wino's excellent picture) - pin 5 had continuity with earth at the female half when disconnected. I can trace where that goes, but what it is not telling me is whether it should or shouldn't be connected to earth, at least I don't know how to interpret the wiring diagram. Neil