Come clean Skoda - vRS engine top mount!

[GREZA]

Why have Skoda changed the part number for the vRS engine top mount from 6Q0 19955K to 6Q0 199555BA and why is this item now effectively unavailable and on factory back order?

The only cause I can think of is that Skoda have finally decided to upgrade this notoriously weak component and the demand for the new version is so great they cannot satisfy orders.

If this is the case, then they should be honest like Toyota and issuer a public recall for the cars in question.

Instead one can be forgiven for thinking that they want to keep it as quite as possible in case they have are landed with a fat bill and bad publicity.

Or am I just being paranoid?

[JLneonhug]

the way Japanese culture work (maybe not strictly in business) BUT the culture is that if something is wrong, tend to put their hands up and apologies..

The tendency with other cultures is shove it under the rug until it bites back.. then sweet talk ones way of solving the problem (shift blame)..

Ofc this is only speculation from experience, I know fully well this is a sweeping statement and may not be true for MANY MANY companies or people.

[Static]

I dont think your wrong there.

Japanese culture is based on honour.

Western culture obviously is not nowadays :(

[ap0gee1978]

The difference is because it's not safety-related, and it's not a lifetime part anyway. The console bushes are a much bigger deal IMHO. But as has been said in another thread, a dose of realism needs to be injected here: you bought the vRS because it was cheap for what it was. Corners must have been cut to get you what is effectively a Polo GTI for several thousand pounds less (and TBH that will have the same engine mounts anyway!) Accept that things wear out and move on...

[AwesomeSarah]

The difference is because it's not safety-related, and it's not a lifetime part anyway. The console bushes are a much bigger deal IMHO. But as has been said in another thread, a dose of realism needs to be injected here: you bought the vRS because it was cheap for what it was. Corners must have been cut to get you what is effectively a Polo GTI for several thousand pounds less (and TBH that will have the same engine mounts anyway!) Accept that things wear out and move on...

Have to agree with you Chris

I did do warranty for Skoda for a while

Worn items are worn!!!! fair wear and tear that is

I have seen some items that are common to fail go in to a 5th year of warranty ( coil packs on the 1.8T engine , and head gaskets on the very early 1.4 8V Fabia , also IIFC the gearbox on the 1.9SDi Octavia

So they do help , the most annoying thing is IF the dealers tell you of this :(

Sarah

[GREZA]

I can't agree that Skoda have a culture of cutting corners to build a 'cheap' Polo GTI for the following reasons...

1. They did not have to recover a large proportion of the R&D costs for the chassis and mechanics as these had already been borne by other divisions of the parent company VAG

2. Skoda's labour costs are significantly less so a large part of the marginal cost of producing a car is saved

3. Skoda would not knowingly cut corners as they have suffered for many years from a poor image in the market and to cynically build cars with inherent shortcomings would simply devalue their newly won market respect. It would be a short term gain for a long term cost and totally counter productive.

In many ways their fear of 'Yet another Skoda problem' hitting the headlines and destroying their image once again probably explains why they won't do the decent thing and put their hands up over several minor problems that lets be honest no manufacturer is immune from.

This does not excuse them however and it does not excuse why they keep their TSB alerts under wraps to the extent that independent garages do not have access to them. This is potentially dangerous and at the very least a restrictive practice and they should be forced to publish these documents in a public forum as should all manufacturers.

Edited 16 July, 2010 by GREZA

[GREZA]

To revert to the part in question the latest incarnation of the engine top mount (Part no. 6Q0 199555BA) is unavailable in the UK at present.

As an ex Rover driver I recall all the moaning that went on about cars being off the road for weeks because of spare part issues.

Surely Skoda, as a company still manufacturing cars, should be able to satisfy demand for a part quickly or at least you would think so won't you?

[AwesomeSarah]

But Skoda , or evan VAG dont produce their parts , they come from other manufacturers

The idea of upgrading their parts has gone on for ages!!!!!

There has been many many supercessions going back even in to the Favorat

So I am sure there will still be many more to come

Sarah

[GREZA]

But Skoda , or evan VAG dont produce their parts , they come from other manufacturers

The idea of upgrading their parts has gone on for ages!!!!!

There has been many many supercessions going back even in to the Favorat

So I am sure there will still be many more to come

Sarah

No car manufacturer makes all the components for their models, that is pretty obvious those days are long gone. I've toured the Rolls-Royce factory and the production line is full of BMW parts which themselves in turn come from contract manufacturers.

That is not the issue, which is that Skoda or any other manufacturer for that point, design the components and also set manfuacturing and quality standards. If the design is shown to be defective once it gets into the field or the quality suspect, it is Skoda's issue and they should react quickly to put matter right.

To accept your apparent argument that one buys a car and thoroughout the term of ownership should expect to replace parts, not because they wear out in a reasonable time period, but because the original ones proved not up to the job, is completely irrational unacceptable and if anything mitigates in favour of buying Asian as at least their ethos is one that says 'if the part proves badly designed , we will replace it and the customer will not suffer as a result'.

I don't see why an engine mount should require a TSB 'greasing fix' twice in twelve months and now seemingly need to be replaced at my expense with an apparently redesigned part and all on a car that covered less than 25,000 miles!!!

[ap0gee1978]

OK, GREZA, if Skoda didn't have a significant stake in the development of the A04 platform, how come the Mk1 Fabia was the first platform to use it? And looking at it from the RAM perspective, why do you think the warranty period is limited by mileage AND time? To be a member of the real world, you have to accept that things will wear out and break on any machine as it gets older, and so you either indemnify yourself with an aftermarket warranty, or accept that bits need replacing from time-to-time.

The change in part number could just as easily be down to a different supplier, you know - and as I pointed out before, it's a part common to all A04 cars with the 1.9 diesel, so do you really think VW would go to the trouble of sending duff parts to Skoda? No. The entire group gets the parts from whatever supplier is providing them at the time...

Accept your car is getting on a bit, and either get it fixed or trade it in for a Hyundai and see how often it's in the garage over its seven year warranty period...

[AwesomeSarah]

Have to agree with Chris there

The 6Q0 part number automatically means that it IS a shared part number with the Polo and the Ibiza

Maybe even others too

So they would not send the crap ones to Skoda and keep the good ones for the VW`s

Skoda Fabia was launched in March 2000 the very first to have that chassis

To test it out for the other VAG range

If I remember right , it was Auto Express car of the year too

So it could not have been THAT bad????

Also the 1.9TDi did not come out straight away in this country , because they could not squeeze all the bits in under the bonnet for RHD

Sarah

[Irvtheswerv]

I reckon you are wasting your time with arguing with Greza.

He reckons that his VRS SE is an extremely desirable car which has retained more than 90% of its value after 3 years. It's not surprising therefore, that he would have unrealistic expectations of its quality.

[GREZA]

I reckon you are wasting your time with arguing with Greza.

He reckons that his VRS SE is an extremely desirable car which has retained more than 90% of its value after 3 years. It's not surprising therefore, that he would have unrealistic expectations of its quality.

Completely untrue, I do not expect to start changing anything other than normal service parts on a car at 25,000miles and that is not an unreasonable expectation.

Secondly, we have already locked horns Irvtheswerv on the subject of the current market price for vRS SEs. I have evidenced what is being asked for low mileage examples. In contrast though you haver made several opinionated assertions you have singularly failed to provide any evidence to back these up, namely examples of several dealers selling vRS SEs for £8k (I think that was your spurious claim). Your suggestion of search autotrader does not wash.

Nor have I claimed that VAG are sending Skoda sub-standard parts, where did that come from !?!?!

My argument is simply that a buyer/owner of a car, any car, has a reasonable expectation that it will not develop component faults premasturely and that if as is the case with this mount, a significant number of owners report problems, a responsible manufacturer would do the decent thing and rectify the matter quickly and with the minimum of inconvenience to its customers. That is simply good business sense.

Edited 16 July, 2010 by GREZA

[faboka vrs]

What a pointless thread.

"not because they wear out in a reasonable time period" what do you class as a reasonable time period? Thats like saying an Lancer Evo has a design fault before you need to service it every 6K miles. To me reasonable should be 20K miles.

WTF

[GREZA]

What a pointless thread.

"not because they wear out in a reasonable time period" what do you class as a reasonable time period? Thats like saying an Lancer Evo has a design fault before you need to service it every 6K miles. To me reasonable should be 20K miles.

WTF

For me 'reasonable' is related not to time but to use in 99% of cases. If a car sits in a garage, is started and run periodically but goes no where, time is largely irrelevant (perhaps tyres, battery, a/c charge are the exception).

So I would have to say with modern quality standards it is not unreasonable to expect a car to do at least 60k miles before anything unusual (other than a service item) needs changing. After all many new car warranties give a time and or usage restriction and 60k equates to the pretty much standard three year term.

Anything less and the motoring press should be highlighting the increased risk of big bills to prospective owners.

Edited 16 July, 2010 by GREZA

[martinch]

"not because they wear out in a reasonable time period" what do you class as a reasonable time period? Thats like saying an Lancer Evo has a design fault before you need to service it every 6K miles.

Well, the Evo's service interval is a stated service interval, so, err, no. :p (it forms part of its' specification)

To me reasonable should be 20K miles.

It depends upon what the part does, really, doesn't it? Some things can reasonably be expected to last the life of the car (e.g. the plastic interior trim around the window switch), whilst some items will obviously wear (cam belt, brakes, seats, etc). I don't know anything about the design of the engine mount in the Fabia, so I can't really comment on that, other than saying no car my relatives have had has required the replacement of anything in the engine bay that wasn't a service item (i.e. spark plugs, clutch, cam belt, etc) - maybe it is subject to wear due to its' design, or maybe it's made from rubber which will perish over time - I genuinely don't know...

[ap0gee1978]

If you've ever seen how much a diesel engine moves on start-up and shut-down compared to a petrol, you might understand what it has to put up with on the vRS. And as for the 'no-one else in my family' validation, I repeat that mine's fine after almost 100k, so I have just as much evidence of there NOT being a problem as you have of there being one.

To be honest, if you'd started this thread about console bushes, I might have been a bit more sympathetic, as they ARE a significant quality issue right across the VAG range, but as for your 'problem', please either put up or shut up...

[GREZA]

If you've ever seen how much a diesel engine moves on start-up and shut-down compared to a petrol, you might understand what it has to put up with on the vRS. And as for the 'no-one else in my family' validation, I repeat that mine's fine after almost 100k, so I have just as much evidence of there NOT being a problem as you have of there being one.

To be honest, if you'd started this thread about console bushes, I might have been a bit more sympathetic, as they ARE a significant quality issue right across the VAG range, but as for your 'problem', please either put up or shut up...

so you make excuses for a company that seemingly cannot make an engine mount that lasts more than 25,000miles. This is not rocket science, plenty of other manufacturers seem to accomplish this with out too much problem and have done so for many years when it comes to torquey diesel engines.

There seems to be a large number of owners both here and in Europe and not only with Skoda branded VAG cars, who complain about clunking sounds from the nearside of their cars, embark on changing all manner of suspension to components without silencing the problem and who most probably also have a mount that is the route cause of the problem.

[ap0gee1978]

It's only lasted 25k for you, but mine's done over four times that - so by applying your logic I can say without fear of contradiction that VAG seem to be able make an engine mount that is perfectly capable of surviving what is very likely to be the entire service life of most privately-owned cars?!?!

Seriously, I'm sorry you feel hard-done-by by having to perform the occasional running repair on a car that is neither new nor low-mileage, but you really need to develop a sense of perspective when calling for a global recall of all diesel engined A04 platform cars which is what you started out saying!

[GREZA]

It's only lasted 25k for you, but mine's done over four times that - so by applying your logic I can say without fear of contradiction that VAG seem to be able make an engine mount that is perfectly capable of surviving what is very likely to be the entire service life of most privately-owned cars?!?!

Seriously, I'm sorry you feel hard-done-by by having to perform the occasional running repair on a car that is neither new nor low-mileage, but you really need to develop a sense of perspective when calling for a global recall of all diesel engined A04 platform cars which is what you started out saying!

I'm sorry but I do not consider a three year old car with only 25,000 miles is in any way anything other than virtually new and very low mileage by modern standards.

Whilst I am sure there are many VAG A04 owners who have not had the problem ( I myself did not on my previous 04 vRS in close on 40k miles), the evidence is out there that there are a significant number who have and as the adage goes, for every one who voices the issue there are probably another twenty who have the problem but have not aired it in a public forum.

My lesson is simple, I shall not be buying another Skoda, no actually make that another VAG car on the strength of this experience. In the same way that when some years ago I had a Mercedes (described by the motoring press then as supposedly the best built car in the world) and I started going to the garage with this and that problem only to be told, 'Ah yes they are known for that fault', I determined never to buy a Mercedes again.

I resist buying Japanese not least because of the barbarous way in which that nation behaved during WWII, but it does seem that if monotonous reliability is what is desired, there is little option but to do so.

[ap0gee1978]

I would in fact say that defining something as a virulent problem on the basis of internet forum exposure ignores the majority of people who DON'T have the problem, and so HAVEN'T reported it. This applies just as much to rectal prolapse or identity theft as it does to car reliability. And I bet you haven't suffered either of them. So once again, I see your failed mount at 25k and raise you my functional mount at 100k.

As for a part being on back-order being evidence of huge demand, presumably the same applies to the EU headlight adaptors I had sent from the factory? By your logic, this was because there were so many Fabia drivers going over to the Continent that demand out-stripped supply, rather than the more plausible explanation that most drivers use generic ones that are cheaper, and so it's such a rare request that factors don't bother to stock them...

Have a word with yourself...

[GREZA]

I would in fact say that defining something as a virulent problem on the basis of internet forum exposure ignores the majority of people who DON'T have the problem, and so HAVEN'T reported it. This applies just as much to rectal prolapse or identity theft as it does to car reliability. And I bet you haven't suffered either of them. So once again, I see your failed mount at 25k and raise you my functional mount at 100k.

As for a part being on back-order being evidence of huge demand, presumably the same applies to the EU headlight adaptors I had sent from the factory? By your logic, this was because there were so many Fabia drivers going over to the Continent that demand out-stripped supply, rather than the more plausible explanation that most drivers use generic ones so it's such a rare request that factors don't stock them...

Have a word with yourself...

For a moderator you certainly use some choice not to say graphic language, how do you know I've not had a rectal prolapse - you assume too much as you do in respct of identity theft which I have suffered as have many of my friends! See how you feel when the bank rings and asks if you've just spent £400 in Kuala Lumpur.

In respect of why parts are on back order, we can both speculate and I guess both possibilities exist, high demand or virtually no demand so no stocking. However, the evidence on this forum alone of owners having to swap the part out suggests in the case of the mount, the latter is not the case.

In respect of your headlight adaptors, perhaps unlike yourself seemingly, the majority of owners are not so daft as to spring for the OEM ones when perfectly good alternatives are available for a lot less of the folding.

Edited 16 July, 2010 by GREZA

[faboka vrs]

Well, the Evo's service interval is a stated service interval, so, err, no. :p (it forms part of its' specification)

Ok bad example. Was trying to make a point in that everyones expetaction is different. And no mines not 20K

My fabia is now almost 6.5 years old and covered 90K miles. Its been driven on trackdays, handling days, used everyday for a 50 mile round trip for work etc. Have I had to replace the top engine mount erm no.

Its a car with moving parts, things wear out, if you buy a car and expect it to last forever with the exception of servicing parts then you need to take a step back. Do you buy a house and expect the roof to last for every?

[AwesomeSarah]

To be fair , even if the engine is not working , the mount still has a flippin heavy engine hanging off the end of it

Also if the part has been superceeded , then you could find a delay with getting them out to you , as they will be waiting for the manufacturer to produce them , then they have to be quality checked by VAG too , before they send them out

Sarah

[faboka vrs]

However, the evidence on this forum alone of owners having to swap the part out suggests in the case of the mount, the latter is not the case.

The members who have posted the problem on this forum will be a very small percentage of Skoda sales....

Right I'm off to read up on this so called comman fault. Never noticed the threads before.