Hi All

I average about 20K miles a year so diesels have always been for me. I can remember the passat I had, got it at 80K and sold it at 180K (it was the AFN) engine 110 BHP. The engine was still going strong.

However, thinking of the new Superb, the 170 BHP. Planning to get one high mileage with 60k on the clock. I am hearing all about the DPF problems new cars are having. I was wondering if anyone has had any DPF problems on their Skoda Superb?

Thanks

Hi All

I average about 20K miles a year so diesels have always been for me. I can remember the passat I had, got it at 80K and sold it at 180K (it was the AFN) engine 110 BHP. The engine was still going strong.

However, thinking of the new Superb, the 170 BHP. Planning to get one high mileage with 60k on the clock. I am hearing all about the DPF problems new cars are having. I was wondering if anyone has had any DPF problems on their Skoda Superb?

Thanks

Not as yet neither did we on out Octy VRS which has done 60k in the 4 years we have owned it

I think diesels can still be reliable - but they need looking after.

We bought our CR170 "for the long term". For us this means that regular oil changes (not the variable schedule).

We also use BP Ultimate fuel. We do get a better MPG - which is almost exactly cancelled out by the higher price.

Our hope is that it will extend injector life etc.

When the car goes beyond 3 years, we'll probably go for a 3rd party Warranty. Most like "Warranty Direct"

- because they seem to offer the most comprehensive cover (better than Skoda)

If you're buying a second diesel, I think you need to start by looking at the service history very closely.

Hi All

I average about 20K miles a year so diesels have always been for me. I can remember the passat I had, got it at 80K and sold it at 180K (it was the AFN) engine 110 BHP. The engine was still going strong.

However, thinking of the new Superb, the 170 BHP. Planning to get one high mileage with 60k on the clock. I am hearing all about the DPF problems new cars are having. I was wondering if anyone has had any DPF problems on their Skoda Superb?

Thanks

The main problem with a DPF is incorrect driving method. If the manufacturers instrctions are followed you should have no problems. A DPF works extremely well, possibly too well, it is most important to use the correct engine oil, low ash, especially if you start to burn oil. My vehicle 170 DSG is now 13 months old, fuel used is BP Ultimate Diesel, the exhaust tail pipes are as clean and shiny as the day I collected it from the dealer. It has been used for town, rural and motorway driving. I have no concerns about vehicles fitted with a DPF, retired Motor Vehicle Technician with almost 50 years in the trade. If you PM me I will forward a couple of sheets of DPF info.

You can attach the pdf to your post.

I beg to differ.

Diesels are just not as reliable as they used to be. In the past they were relatively crude bits of engineering, but were substantially over-engineneered due to the technology they were harnessing. As a result they usually soldiered on for ever with a minimum of maintenance. I had a 45 year old diesel engine in my boat and it was 100% reliable.

A modern diesel cannot match it for 2 reasons. Firstly its "agricultural" tendencies have been viewed unfavourably by the manufacturers Marketing departments so all sorts of attempts are being made to smooth out its worse characteristics. Latest buzz is CR technology which is OK unitl it goes wrong. The you are faced with a mega bill. Secondly, and more importantly we have the dreaded emissions targets.

The appearance of the DPF is a consequence of this. It is poor a poor answer to the requirement in my opinion. The AA have devoted a portion of their website to whinge abvout the reliability of these devices, and I suggest those interested should look on a Mazda owners website for examples of their DPF eating the 2.0 litre diesel engines. Any technology that relies on the owner driving x mph for y miles every z days is just not fit for purpose.

In the case of the DPF it is instructive that Skoda are still offering non-DPF diesels, probably to pacify the taxi market.

Note that I drive a diesel but to pretend they are as reliable as when they were simple engines would be to delude myself.

Edited 27 January, 201016 yr by Minimoke

I think diesels can still be reliable - but they need looking after.

We bought our CR170 "for the long term". For us this means that regular oil changes (not the variable schedule).

We also use BP Ultimate fuel. We do get a better MPG - which is almost exactly cancelled out by the higher price.

Our hope is that it will extend injector life etc.

When the car goes beyond 3 years, we'll probably go for a 3rd party Warranty. Most like "Warranty Direct"

- because they seem to offer the most comprehensive cover (better than Skoda)

If you're buying a second diesel, I think you need to start by looking at the service history very closely.

By addiding BP Ultimate diesel (I am doing about 450 miles) which means an extra £10 (2pence per mile) of fuel per week £520 per year.

Do you really get the extra mileage from the BP ultimate?

Edited 27 January, 201016 yr by chipmonster

You have an engine. You have two parameters: power and reliability. And you have to choose one. The more powerful your engine is, the less reliable.

For example, take the Mercedes S400 CDI. Around 300 BHP at 4.500 rpm, 4 litres. And now take a big truck with the same technology (common-rail, variable geometry turbocharger, etc) with 300 BHP. It's very big (over 12 litres) and it delivers its maximum power at around 1.500 rpm. Do you really think the car is as reliable as the truck? They can't be, it's impossible.

And if you add to this the current "crazy" 30.000 km service intervals, you will clearly understand the longevity achieved by the old engines (for example 1.9 TDI 90 or 110 BHP). I remember my old Seat Cordoba TDI 90 BHP. No problem at all in more than 300.000 km. I look at my colleagues' A4s and Passats, equipped with the 2.0 TDI, some of them with 170 BHP, and I can't be surprised when they fail. They previously had different versions of the 1.9, so it isn't due to the drivers: it's due to the engines.

So the final question: are diesels as reliable as they used to be? Clearly not.

Are they reliable? Yes, if you take care of them. Forget about the nonsense extremely long service intervals, forget about high revs, drive them the way they are designed to be driven (highways, at constant rate) and your engine will last. Drive them as a sport car, changing the oil every 30.000 km, and your engine won't last.

Edited 28 January, 201016 yr by Alvaro

I beg to differ.

Diesels are just not as reliable as they used to be. In the past they were relatively crude bits of engineering, but were substantially over-engineneered due to the technology they were harnessing. As a result they usually soldiered on for ever with a minimum of maintenance. I had a 45 year old diesel engine in my boat and it was 100% reliable.

A modern diesel cannot match it for 2 reasons. Firstly its "agricultural" tendencies have been viewed unfavourably by the manufacturers Marketing departments so all sorts of attempts are being made to smooth out its worse characteristics. Latest buzz is CR technology which is OK unitl it goes wrong. The you are faced with a mega bill. Secondly, and more importantly we have the dreaded emissions targets.

The appearance of the DPF is a consequence of this. It is poor a poor answer to the requirement in my opinion. The AA have devoted a portion of their website to whinge abvout the reliability of these devices, and I suggest those interested should look on a Mazda owners website for examples of their DPF eating the 2.0 litre diesel engines. Any technology that relies on the owner driving x mph for y miles every z days is just not fit for purpose.

In the case of the DPF it is instructive that Skoda are still offering non-DPF diesels, probably to pacify the taxi market.

Note that I drive a diesel but to pretend they are as reliable as when they were simple engines would be to delude myself.

Well 45 years ago diesel engines did 4mpg no doubt they are more advanced and complicated that they were but all engines are more relible than they were , ask the average motor mechanic the last time they did a de-coke for example once visit to the dealers every 18,000 miles as opposed to 3 visits in the good ole days

DPF, turbos and the like are not engine components imo and petrol turbo engines are in the most much more unreliable than the diesels

DPF is of course another issue and is there for legislation not engine efficiency but for the most part most owners probably wont have an issue if they do the brutal truth is that a diesel never did and is unlikley to ever suit their driving habits so a case of the wrong car not a bad engine

I just filled my car. Ultimate was 119.9 p/l, and ordinary diesel 114.9 p/l. A difference of 5p/l

The car took £60 worth. Had I bought ordinary it would have cost me about £57.50.

The difference in cost is slightly over 4%

We drive our Superb smoothly and carefully - and try and get a good MPG. On long distances we can get a true 54MPG. (based on fuel pump and distance).

More generally we do mixed driving and get about 47MPG.

In order to recoup the cost of the Ultimate we need to see an increase of about 45 (4.2% to be more precise).

At 50 miles per gallon, his means we need to gain about 2MPG.

For OUR car the way WE drive it, I reckon we get the 2MPG gain. But I think a lot depends on how you use your car and how you drive you car. I can easily see that some people would see no benefit.

If you want a reliable diesel, buy an SDI, simples

I think diesel engines in there selfs are reliable, just the parts strapped to them like turbo's etc etc. Unless there is a problem with porous heads etc etc.

I've the 1.9tdi PD105, with 141k on i've not actually had a problem with the engine internals as of yet and it didn't come with a full service history. I've found everything else around the engine and body to have worn out first!

A couple of the service intervals was between 3 months and was dumping on 16-18k at a time!

And i dont know how much of that was with a map on, as i only found out with the Briskoda RR day. I've since had it removed and replaced with a standard map.

I just filled my car. Ultimate was 119.9 p/l, and ordinary diesel 114.9 p/l. A difference of 5p/l

The car took £60 worth. Had I bought ordinary it would have cost me about £57.50.

The difference in cost is slightly over 4%

We drive our Superb smoothly and carefully - and try and get a good MPG. On long distances we can get a true 54MPG. (based on fuel pump and distance).

More generally we do mixed driving and get about 47MPG.

In order to recoup the cost of the Ultimate we need to see an increase of about 45 (4.2% to be more precise).

At 50 miles per gallon, his means we need to gain about 2MPG.

For OUR car the way WE drive it, I reckon we get the 2MPG gain. But I think a lot depends on how you use your car and how you drive you car. I can easily see that some people would see no benefit.

Just checked today, the ultimate diesel is £1.29 per litre and standard diesel £1.1 that is 27 % more than standard price?

Are your prices correct?

Yes. My prices are correct. I took them off the pump yesterday.

I even wrote them down to be certain.

(Nodeway Garage, Welwyn Herts).

It's always been about 5p / litre difference around here.

I find the figures you give astonishing.

Yes. My prices are correct. I took them off the pump yesterday.

I even wrote them down to be certain.

(Nodeway Garage, Welwyn Herts).

It's always been about 5p / litre difference around here.

I find the figures you give astonishing.

The price of ultimate diesels fluctuates a lot. The normal BP stations (preton new road, Blackburn 1.299 Per litre, Grimshaw Park 1.199 per litre and top of Preston new road 1.169 per litre).

The mind boggles, so going to fill up from the 1.169 which is only down the road where i fill up (the difference is 13 pence per litre which is £7.80 per tank).

thanks all

Just checked today, the ultimate diesel is £1.29 per litre and standard diesel £1.1 that is 27 % more than standard price?

Are your prices correct?

£1.29 sounds more like ultimate petrol rather than diesel

I think diesel engines in there selfs are reliable, just the parts strapped to them like turbo's etc etc. Unless there is a problem with porous heads etc etc.

I've the 1.9tdi PD105, with 141k on i've not actually had a problem with the engine internals as of yet and it didn't come with a full service history. I've found everything else around the engine and body to have worn out first!

A couple of the service intervals was between 3 months and was dumping on 16-18k at a time!

And i dont know how much of that was with a map on, as i only found out with the Briskoda RR day. I've since had it removed and replaced with a standard map.

My Octy II 1.9Tdi PD 105 had covered 115k miles when it was replaced at 4 years old with a Superb II. Apart from requiring a new fuel filter housing (ouriginal design leaked, but replacement was a leak-free redesign), rear wash wipe motor and lefthand cruise stalk I had no problems and the car never let me down.

There were no creaks and all the electrics worked as they should. I offered the car to my Father who declined, but a year on regrets not buying the car from the leasing company for around £3,200-£3,300.

With no DPF this engine would suit town/city driving.

The engine was super flexible and I'd have been interested in getting it RR'd. It must have been producing an easy 110-120PS. If I'd have kept the car I'd have had it remapped which I'm sure would have been a revelation (worked wonders on the Superb).

I wonder whether the 1.6 and 2.0 CR diesels will prove as reliable as the PD diesels?

seriously folks I am really glad I purchased the 1.9tdi 105pd as a very good friend of mine a german diesel engine developer told me that the new engines being developed the cr and similar models to come out over the next 5 years are not as long lived as the previous power plants they are not built to the same strengths

The internals of the CR engines arent as "solid" as the pd its true but thats part of the efficiency and also helps with the general performance ie making it smoother, quieter, rev higher and be more efficient its not a cost saving exercise but a development , the pd engine is positively agricultural compared to the cr and no doubt in years to come diesel engines will be further refined

no doubt in years to come diesel engines will be further refined

And therefore less reliable, which was the title of this post...

No one discuss about smoothness, power, etc, obviously today's diesels are much better than before, but the fact is that they are also less reliable.

They might be "more complex" or even "more fragile" - but that does not have to mean "less reliable".

A lot depends on how the car is treated. I still believe it will prove possible to get long, reliable life

from modern common rail diesels - but you may need to pamper them a bit more in order to do so.

Personally I am quite content to pamper my CR diesel in exchange for a smoother, more efficient, quieter

and more refined engine. Other people may well have different priorities - these choices are all subjective.

However the new emission rules aren't going to give everyone the choices they might prefer.

And therefore less reliable, which was the title of this post...

No one discuss about smoothness, power, etc, obviously today's diesels are much better than before, but the fact is that they are also less reliable.

Why less reliable ???

Is it a fact, i've yet to see any evidence of that at all ?? I also remember early diesel Montegos, Peugeots and Fords being very unreliable and fragile.

I have to add my hideous experience to this, I have always driven diesel engines, never had a petrol car, List of the cars as follows, VW Caddy 1.9, Ford Focus 1.8TD,01 Mondeo LX 2.0TDI, 02 Mondeo Zetec 2.0 and then the horrible experience, 06 Volvo S40 1.6D DPF, This is where it all went wrong, had this car from new, Withing the first 6 Months with less than 20K KMS on the clock i got towed to the garage as the car had gone into "safe mode", Turns out the DPF was blocked up and didnt regen, 4 Months Later, Same again, Towed to the garage, Next year, Massive performance drop and various serious engine warning lights, DPF Again, Sensors replaced, this went on EVERY 10K KMS for the last 4 years, I have been rescued by the AA 5 Times!!!, Oh and to top it off, at 60K Kms the timing belt pre-tensioner shattered and caused the car to be up on blocks in a volvo dealer for 4 weeks!, So i have NO faith in newer diesels with DPF Technology at all, These things are getting too complicated and thrown together in a hurry, That being said, im changing to a 1.9 Superb soon, but im happy doing tht as its a non dpf engine!

I had a Ford Fester van with the 1.8D engine - 59 bhp I think - and it was utterly bullet proof. It was thrashed all day every day (had to be in order to move) and rarely serviced but it never, ever went wrong in 120,000 miles.

I then had a Citroen Berlingo 1.9D XUD. Utterly reliable and did over 150,000 miles.

After that it was a more modern common rail Nissan Primera. The engine was very reliable over 138,000 miles and was serviced regularly.

Then it was a 1.9 PD130 Octavia - brilliant engine and I still miss it even now. It ran most of its life with a Dragon tuning box strapped to it's ass and was totally faultless for over 120,000 miles :clap:

SWMBOs 1.5dCi 82PS Micra was a cracking little car and was 100% reliable over 3 years.

The two 2.0TDI PD140s i've driven have been less than reliable. The current '07 L&K has been woefully unreliable with the main problems being a cracked cylinder head, exploding turbo, new tandem pump and DMF.

Even non DPF diesels can be crap and unreliable (BKD engine).

In contrast we haven't had a peep out of the DPF equipped vRS TDI in almost 3 years apart from the 26E6 'recall'.

The ever increasing demands on emissions, fuel consumption, ease of use and refinement have to take their toll somewhere. EGR, Dual mass flywheels and DPFs are good examples of this.

Who would have guessed a decade ago we would have a 2 litre diesel engine that delivers in excess of 50mpg (claimed), tickles 150mph, does 0-60 in 7 seconds, doesn't have any discernable turbo lag and produces more than 200BHP - we call it the 123d :yes:

There is a distinct difference between the term 'reliable' and 'robust'. An old basic diesel engine is robust as in it can withstand untold abuse with little or no servicing. A newer diesel can be reliable provided it is looked after.