m1kemex

They fixed it and appears to be working fine now. Maybe it's me but it seems like they flashed the ECU or something because I noticed that the instant consumption meter, wich is the option I usually have selected in the dash computer, is now being updated very quickly. I also did notice that the mileage improved very sightly. They had to disassemble the head and the turbo intake to get to the injectors; they replaced all gaskets there and those of the injectors. Plus all the mounting bolts of the common rail. Like the rest of you, the problem was that one of those screws fatigued and broke at the head. They didn't tell me which one of the bolts it was, but I have no reason to think it failed differently than what we already now (the one near the first injector). They charged me GBP 60, which I consider reasonable for a repair of this kind. Volkswagen of Mexico (they distribute SEAT over here) and the dealer paid for the rest. I service it in the same place I bought it and intend to remain doing so; perhaps they wised up and are trying to keep me happy. Thank you all, you've been very helpful. This is certainly a widespread issue so I'm still calling the consumer authorities to report it. I'm satisfied with the solution given, but I don't want to hear from someone else to go through this. Fuel leaks are very dangerous and should be approached proactively.

I just got the repair invoice. They are going to replace all gaskets and mounting bolts but they did not consider replacing the rail. Should I insist on that? Mine didn't do long hours loose; perhaps there was no damage. They originally quoted around 200 GBP but they are willing to do it for about 60. SEAT supposedly is going to pay for the parts.

BTW: nice recommendation on listing your engine code. My Toledo runs a CJZD, manufactured in Mladá Boleslav. How do I check the date of manufacture?

No way. I'm calling insurance to have someone tow it to the dealership. They *should* come and pick it, but I'm out of warranty,

My 2017 SEAT Toledo MK IV (110 HP 1.2 TSI) built by Skoda just began leaking fuel from under the bonnet. I did a short trip in the morning and returned home as normal. Then, in the afternoon, I tried to start the car again. It took like 2 seconds for the starter to finally begin ignition. With the motor running the EPC light stayed on so I quickly turned off the engine, only to find the same behavior when I tried again. Since the car seemed to be running fine despite the initial delay and the light, I moved the car outside to close the garage door. However, as I stepped out I begin to notice the gasoline smell and confirmed it when I took a look at the car from outside. It did leak quite a bit; there was a generous puddle where the car was parked and a path up to the next location. All in under one minute. I've never had a fuel leak before on any of my cars so I must admit that I sort of panicked (it's quite a fire hazard! Good thing it was cold). I decided to do nothing (not even take a look at the engine bay) and just take it to the dealer. I'm going to do so tomorrow and see what happens. But I'll make sure to bring a printed copy of this post in case they make excuses.

I've had no access to the 1.0 TSI to test first hand, but my car now has 3 years on the clock and I still think the same as when I originally wrote my comment. And it seems I'm not the only one: There is no mystery to it: the 1.2 TSI has more displacement, plus a smoother operation due the extra cylinder. Anyone who really knows about engines knows that cutting a cylinder on a 4 stroke engine is not a minor change. On a 4 cylinder, 4 stroke engine there is always one piston producing movement (only one of the four strokes -ignition and expansion- produces motion) at any time while, if you reduce the number of cylinders to three, there is an idle cycle every four in which the engine doesn't produce motion and depends on the flywheel to keep operating. Since they've improved manufacturing tolerances considerably lately, it's not the huge concern it was decades ago, but it's still producing uneven or pulsating power. The level of precision required to perform this has become so high, that VAG service manuals explicitly say that shops should not attempt to perform a full disassembly of the newer engines, as they are not equipped to put them back together to the tolerances they require to work properly. This, of course, applies to both 1.2 TSI and 1.0 TSI, but I suppose the average shop would have more luck attempting so with the 1.2 TSI than the 1.0 TSI. So to clarify my original point: yes, the 1.2 TSI and the 1.0 TSI are roughly equivalent to the average user, but that's only because they don't look at it with a critical eye. To the advanced user, it quickly becomes obvious that the 1.2 TSI is a rounder package overall. The 1.0 TSI uses many tricks (besides the improved fuel pump) like a regulated oil pump and sodium filled valves and it still lags behind. As I said, it seems more than obvious that the 1.2 EA211 engine was a stopgap to the 1.0, which was the preferred choice from the start due to manufacturing costs. Had they developed the 1.2 TSI to the same level of sophistication of the 1.0, it'd probably be in the 130-140 HP range. I'm willing to bet on the reliability even. The 1.2 loses a bit of efficiency due to the fixed pressure oil pump, but at the same time this makes it far less prone to fail. Time will prove me right.