EnterName

Yeah I've heard this claim made by Michelin. "Strong" is a somewhat odd term to use when describing tyre performance, and allows plenty of wriggle room for interpretation. It might be true that 1.6mm of treat will shift water out of the way as well as 6mm, but I'd like to see some independent tests evidence to support it.

My Turanza 001's had about 5mm on when I replaced them due to cracking. I normally swap tyres when the tread depth reaches about 3mm. https://www.rospa.com/rospaweb/docs/advice-services/road-safety/vehicles/tyre-tread-depth.pdf

Never heard of them, Graham. I have to say I like the tyre size embossed in the tread though. That's a neat design. But cheap rubber is cheap for a reason. https://www.tyrereviews.com/Tyre/Riken/Riken-UHP.htm https://www.tyrereviews.com/Article/2023-Summer-Tyre-Market-Overview.htm

Hello! It looks like some rubber beautification chemical has been applied at some point. Might be worth trying rubber care product, or a care and protect product. For care I like this. For protection, I like this.

How about compromising and using 0W/30 oil? 😊

A colleague at work has bought a beautiful 2.0TDI AWD Yeti. Sadly, he's the sort of person who doesn't look after his cars, so I fear he will neglect this and run it into the ground. Example: Below is one of the tyres off his old car when he replaced it. (It was so worn it lost air so was flat when he got to work. As he was away for the day on business, I got it changed for him.) A shame if he does neglect it, as his new car was one of the last Yetis and really is a fine example. For now.

How does 5W30 help with engine longevity?

It's weird how even holding a phone while driving in the UK is illegal, but faffing about with menus on a screen is just fine if the screen comes attached to the car you're driving. I do despise such obvious inconsistency. (Yes there are laws against driving without due care and attention and whatever. Doesn't disprove my point.)

Love the seats! 👌

Hello and welcome! What engine did you choose?

Was that part number 5Q0971813A for the battery terminal cover?

No worries, let me clarify. When you posted.... All I was doing was pointing out that 250Nm does not a slug make. In fact it's the best the 1.5TSI can muster, and the 1.5TSI is no slug, AFAIK. Hence the comparison data, which allowed me to discover my 1.5TSI data was junk, so it's not been a wasted exercise. For me, at least.

Hmm. My car doesn't have a battery cover on the negative terminal. I wonder why?

Double-check you have the button battery in the right way round. After that, test you have it seated correctly. It can be a bit of a pain to get seated in properly.

No problem at all. I only replied as you're unlikely to get any support for your problem in this forum. Don't worry about it, it all seems a bit complicated at first on here, but it's easy enough to get your head around once you have been posting a bit. Don't be discouraged if you don't get a quick response, or a response at all. Sometimes that happens.

I did not know this. How silly!

What's the difference in taste. What flavour should tomtor be on the lookout for? 😋

deleted.

True. And that's relevant because....? Reminder

My thinking being ECO mode limits the amount of torque the engine is permitted to develop at low revs, which will force the drive to drive at reduced power unless they really cane it. So there's no luggy torque at low revs. I noticed my car changing gear at higher RPM from cold in in ECO mode than it does in Drive. I assume this is as there isn't as much torque available at low RPM, so it revs a bit higher (up to around 2K), to ensure the RPM in the higher gear is appropriate for the lower torque. I'll admit, it's a theory that seemed like a reasonable idea at the time. If you can fault my logic, I'll be happy to adapt my thinking if you're convincing.

NOTE: Slug mode torque on 2.0TSI is same as peak torque for 1.5TSI. So it's not that sluggy, really. Anyway, here's my revised/corrected graph. No idea why my 1.5TSI data was out like that, but as I've not shown much interest in the 1.5TSI, I guess I hadn't checked it. I did transfer over and transpose a lot of data at the time so I guess I went a bit number-blind. Graph Source data for graph. Mostly 1.5TSI data, with slug mode column added for graph. (Highlighted to show peaks) Link to site where I sourced the date I've used for the basic power figures. https://www.automobile-catalog.com/curve/2019/3147605/skoda_octavia_1_5_tsi_act_150.html#gsc.tab=0 I fudged the 2.0TSI slug mode power based on the torque limiter feature.

Slug mode on the 2.0 TSI isn't so bad. (Graph approximate) Edit: That 1.5TSI data looks wrong. I have to cook tea just now but will come back to that and double-check. Can't believe it gets up to near 150HP at that RPM. 🤨

One more thought on this issue, albeit a bit late. If you have the Gen3B engine, by running it in eco mode, the torque of the engine is limited to 250Nm. So operating the car in ECO mode might be preferable to Sport during running-in. If you're in a Gen3B-engined car. See https://procarmanuals.com/self-study-program-645-audi-2-0l-tfsi-engines-ea888-series/ for more info. )

I'll play Devil's advocate for a bit here: What if Skoda's initial 5 year change interval was a conservative estimate, and now there is more data out there on how well these belts do or don't last, the conservative guesstimate can be dispensed with and replaced with a "real-world" guestimate?. The main cause of cambelt failure on TSI engines seems to be ancillary device failure, causing the belt teeth to be ripped off or other belt damage. (Seized water pumps will trash a cambelt handily.) Just out of curiosity, when was the last time someone came onto Brisky with tales of a broken cambelt on their 1.4TSI? I searched for an incidence but couldn't find on on here. Disclaimer, I'm not a mechanic, so if you have better info, please correct me.

Well, that escalated quickly. 😐 @lmbSome re-calibration is usually required between social media platforms and Briskoda.