Downsizing is everywhere though - any similar stories from the 170PS 1.4 TwinAir engines - or the Ford EcoBoost 1.0? Both also around the 125bhp/litre mark.

Funnily enough, no horror stories from other engines with a similar bhp/cc output - the 265PS 2.0 in the Golf/Scirocco??

Only real "closure" will be when the root cause is identified. Before my time with VAG, but was it this "bad" when the 1.8T's were dying due to coil packs?

Things still aren't that bad IMO. There's many more good engines than bad ones.

^^ this .

Let's say we have 20 motors here with drinking problem and it is very likely these days that if you do have a problem you start searching the mis-information highway for answers and you will find Briskie. I think the numbers are below 1% of production.

I want nothing more than to find out the root cause of this...

http://www.howmanyleft.co.uk/about

'skoda fabia vrs s-a'

Figures on here worth checking. for cars registered.

ie

Q4, 2010/ 427, 2011/ 1.5k , 2012/ 1.9k

*Sorry thats not right but check them yourself if interested.*

Not so sure at the 1% figure.

100 vRS sold per dealer or dealer group & only one coming back in with High Oil usage problems.!!

(or 10 new ones sold per dealer and how many have they seen back in other than for servicing)

maybe a Dealer/Briskoda sponsor would have some idea on the return rate on vehicle sold to be checked or warranty work carried out.

Looking back at launch the first cars & Demonstrators at Dealers that required attention in 2010 or since it is quite a high percentage that have had problems, between then and now..

We need to hear of more vRS or Twincharger 1390cc 178bhp engines that have done over 50,000 miles without issues.

Some sort of figures or Media statement from VAG/Skoda would make matters a little clearer.

Any official response would actually clear things up.

george

Approaching 30,000 miles, but have had one engine (valve related, not oil burning).

in fact, my last twincharger car (Scirocco 160PS) also had engine issues, but that was due to VW speccing the wrong spark plugs at service time (40k). At that point (mid-2011), no Scirocco had made it past 40k without a new engine but the reason was found (parts call for the service was wrong - VAG system incorrect)

^^ this .

Let's say we have 20 motors here with drinking problem and it is very likely these days that if you do have a problem you start searching the mis-information highway for answers and you will find Briskie. I think the numbers are below 1% of production.

I want nothing more than to find out the root cause of this...

From the Briskie forums we now have reports of drinking problems on at least 59 cars (vRS Mk2's).

24 of these are known to have had the oil breather fix, although there are now 17 reports of failure.

25 of these cars have had engine replacements (with no further reports of problems apart from one case).

2 cars were rejected/exchanged.

SUK now have well documented procedures for addressing oil consumption issues.

Doesn't fill me with confidence. Been thinking about selling for financial reasons for a while and when it's driven hard it goes well but that isn't sustainable. I'm spending more in fuel (24-30mpg driven even a little briskly), more in tyres and still spending on oil.

Not a cheap car to run seeing as you 'have' to use super unleaded and full it with oil all the time.

£5 - £8 a tank more over normal fuel.

Changed mine as was worried about stuff like that and car out of warranty.

I only drink rarely or smoke so I don't mind paying £5 extra a tank but I still don't get why my MPG hasn't improved much in 16000 miles.

Mine neither, although its gone now and been replaced with a Rapid.

What year is yours? They aren't worth an awful lot part ex due to vat offer but then we saved money so technically didn't lose as much.

61 plate, 16000 miles

They aren't worth an awful lot part ex due to vat offer but then we saved money so technically didn't lose as much.

im ythinking of putting mine up for £9500. 17k miles, 4 service stamps, cruise, black pack, heatseats, climate control. Seems like a lower price than all the equivalent cars out there. If someone gives me 9k ill be happy as i just want rid ASAP. £5k loss in 2 years isnt too bad.

Not a cheap car to run seeing as you 'have' to use super unleaded and full it with oil all the time.

£5 - £8 a tank more over normal fuel.

Changed mine as was worried about stuff like that and car out of warranty.

I'm sure it'd run fine on std unleaded

Downsizing is everywhere though - any similar stories from the 170PS 1.4 TwinAir engines - or the Ford EcoBoost 1.0? Both also around the 125bhp/litre mark.

Funnily enough, no horror stories from other engines with a similar bhp/cc output - the 265PS 2.0 in the Golf/Scirocco??

Only real "closure" will be when the root cause is identified. Before my time with VAG, but was it this "bad" when the 1.8T's were dying due to coil packs?

Is not the prime mover behind this downsizing a wish to improve the official mpg figures,with durability taking second place?

All of these engines have forced induction and as we all know they generally achieve the power they do by increased boost pressure.

Modifications then have to be made to cope with the extra stresses involved....these may stand the tests of time/mileage well or less well.

It would be interesting to know the boost pressure on the twin charger,I've not seen it mentioned.When using all the performance on mine there is a distinct kick at the higher end of the rev range...higher boost in the map?I rarely go to the red line with mine and intend to keep this policy in the future,this might help reliability but who knows?

I think boost pressure on the twincharger is 1.05bar on the supecharger, rising to 1.2bar when on the turbo - but could be mistaken!

Indeed - emissions (CO2) and mpg are driving the downsizing revolution; partly to satisfy the rules by which vehicles (cars) are sold by; governments make up these rules so the manufacturers design cars and engines to suit them. Very rarely does it change the real world economy for bulk of driving - stop/start won't help when you're doing a 100 mile motorway run although smaller engines at cruise do consume less (and hence boost them to achieve the performance level you expect from a car of that size).

As much as some people might scoff at the factual content, Top Gear did a very worthy test a while back; a Prius and a BMW (M3, possibly - but certainly not a cooking model or diesel) going round their track. The BMW was more efficient than the Toyota to achieve exactly the same performance (they followed each other).

My consideration for a car is heavily swayed by the mystical CO2 figure as a company car driver as I suspect others are also; the difference between seemingly similar vehicles can be 50 or 100% different in terms of the monthly tax bill... Fabia vRS - £3200 BIK (so for me, about £1200 a year); (now obsolete) Octavia vRS £5000 BIK (tax bill of £2k p.a.). Fabia wins. Before anyone else mentions it, hardly any difference between Octavia diesel and petrol in terms of tax bill...

Downsizing is the current revolution in petrol technology; diesels have had all the glory for the last 10 years going through the common rail era and outputs size-on-size almost doubling. Last time there were 1.4 turbos was in the late 80's where 110-115bhp was the fragile limit; 1.6 turbos making 130-140bhp or so and a good 2 litre turbo making 200bhp. It was predicted in the mid-noughties that diesels were about to hit their level and petrol engines would come for the fore. almost 10 years in, we've got direct petrol injection, compound forced induction and ever rising specific outputs, climbing at the same rate as diesels did in the 2000's. Its still in the evolution stages; there's a bit more to come before reliability increases to the 200k+ mile levels we've become used to until recently. More technology, more to go wrong...

I hear they've finally managed to get compression ignition petrol engines working without self-destructing, so that'll be next. That WILL give serious improvements (I think I heard 30% increase on current efficiency/power levels)...

Is not the prime mover behind this downsizing a wish to improve the official mpg figures,with durability taking second place?

All of these engines have forced induction and as we all know they generally achieve the power they do by increased boost pressure.

Modifications then have to be made to cope with the extra stresses involved....these may stand the tests of time/mileage well or less well.

It would be interesting to know the boost pressure on the twin charger,I've not seen it mentioned.When using all the performance on mine there is a distinct kick at the higher end of the rev range...higher boost in the map?I rarely go to the red line with mine and intend to keep this policy in the future,this might help reliability but who knows?

Downsizing indeed is to achieve better MPG by reducing weight but withour decreasing power. Stratified injection lean burn mode at low loads helps with that a lot as well. The problem of durability is not really a problem as those alloys have huge (in comparison to traditional) tensile strenght and hardness (up to 450N/mm2 where traditional grey cast iron was below 100N/mm2 - some produce specialist casts with 800N/mm2, think it's Yanmar or something). The problem lies in thermal stresses stored in such castings when they are quenched. It takes quite a number of heat cycles to relieve engine block from stresses, this causes dimensional instability (deformations) leading to changing tolerances - sudden oil thirst at high'ish mileage etc. That's why no real tuner will touch a brand new engine. They take old ones and re-machine them to required tolerances to produce reliable, extremely highly tuned motors.

As to the boost data supercharger works from zero feeding turbo up to 2.4k rpm peaking at 2.5bar absolute together (measured in the intake manifold), SC alone is capable of 1.75 absolute at 17.5k rpm (low as high end roots chargers spin easily to 50k rpm and more - drag racing superchargers need 800bhp just to spin them at max output!!!). From 2.4k rpm to 3.5krpm it's mainly turbo with SC regulating flap actuating SC's contribution - this is to avoid turbo lag. Here Manifold pressure can reach 2.75bar absolute

3,500 rpm and upwards blower works alone producing max 2.0bar absolute in intake manifold peaking at 5.5k rpm.

@phil - THat TG test was a complete phoney as there is absolutely no point testing a hybrid vehicle against performance machine on a track. Conclusions were cmpletely false and misleading but higly entertaining. Why didn't they do a an eco town run test with the two vehicles as well, huh?

To be honest the "track test" is probably quite relevant to my style of driving when trying to get home in a hurry....and most others judging by the driving styles on the A38 out of Birmingham and on the M42/M6..

I didn't think my numbers were right on the boost; I was trying to remember from the pretty pictures on the VAG demo on youtube..

se above in graphical form

To be honest the "track test" is probably quite relevant to my style of driving when trying to get home in a hurry....and most others judging by the driving styles on the A38 out of Birmingham and on the M42/M6..

I didn't think my numbers were right on the boost; I was trying to remember from the pretty pictures on the VAG demo on youtube..

As it is for me sometimes when I need to make it some place on time

I don't store such crap in my head either, I have my references

Would you mind providing a little more detail plz.

What mileage was the motor when replaced?

Did they explain what happened and why it failed?

millage was 24,060 and i literally took it back for its second consumption test explaining you could smell oil burning through the exhaust, the head gasket was leaking, it knocked loudly from the bottom end on a start up and the oil cap smelt as if petrol was being poured in. They didn't really explain anything just that a few hours later they said it was beneficial for the car for a complete bottom engine but got it back with a new head as well

Oh and since the new engine I'm hitting better mpg figures around 35 as opposed to 23

You didn't take any photos of the failed bits by any chance? Bores, pistons, head?

Well I managed 6700 miles and was greeted by the "dreaded" light...

Quite a good innings but still gutting

Funnily enough, no horror stories from other engines with a similar bhp/cc output - the 265PS 2.0 in the Golf/Scirocco??

I'm pretty sure it's a different engine, not twin charged at all.

I have the 265bhp reinforced TFSI lump in my S3, I think on the newer Golf and Scirocco R it's the

same engine as mine but for some reason on those it's called a TSI...?