It's the end of the world, we'll all die...

 

Oh hang on, even when they're dirty they're still cleaner than the old ones.

Scrub that!

Scrubbing will damage the paintwork, please ignore cheesemonkhai's advice . . . :no:

It's the end of the world, we'll all die...

 

Oh hang on, even when they're dirty they're still cleaner than the old ones.

Scrub that!

 

For one I am not convinced that that is true.  I much preferred my 130 hp PD than the 140 CR that replaced it.  I reckon the 1.9D did at least 5 mpg and probably closer to 10 mpg better and when we had them both together for a while the 1.9D 130 walked away from the 140 CR in acceleration (both Golf platformed cars).

 

Yes the CR was quieter but when looking at the technical spec I surmised that in fact that the redesign was to make the engine quieter, smoother and cheaper and not perform better apart from the 2 mm larger bore ie more CCs.

 

When seeing all the spec for the Common rail engine, which is/was not new technology as I worked on it in the late 70s and early 80s as a marine engineer, and thankfully for a change of employer who did not force me to have a diesel anyways, it was the obvious time to change to TSI technology, twin charge in my opted case, which worked out to give economy in the 40s normally and in the 50 mpgs occasionally as does the Renault TCE engine, actually well in to the 60s when toodling.   

 

Still would like to have had a Ibiza Cupra PD - 160 hp and 0-60 in 7.6 seconds (in the dry of course as wheel spin was a big issue).

 

Vorsprung durch (SCR or TSI) technik.

Edited 1 December, 201510 yr by lol-lol

I see what you're getting at

But

The fact that they are 35-40 times over the U.S. test regime once on the road may alter that prior (accommodating) European test cycle surely.

I would imagine the post fix certification test will be a little more rigorous than before if only for authorities to prove they're NOT patsies.

It doesn't say much for euro air quality if it isn't.

 

We are not in the US. The US has a much lower NOx limit and has tougher testing cycles.

 

The EU does not have on the road tests. In the new Euro RDE cycle (Simulated on road) that will be introduced in 2017 for new vehicles only  VW with cheat software emitted 4 to 6 times the current allowed amount of NOx, this is about the industry average on other vehicles with diesels and some like GM diesels performed worse than the VW.

 

The EA189 engines will only have to pass Euro 5 on the current NEDC cycle. they can't make the test more difficult for VW, just the same as other Euro 5 diesels.

Vag sales drop 24.7% this month in USA

But the Spin says that sale of Diesels is not being hit in Germany.

 

The articles do not say which Manufacturers Diesel cars are being bought.

 

..................

50 people helping with the Internal Investigation after coming forward to testify

Edited 1 December, 201510 yr by GoneOffskiroottoot

For one I am not convinced that that is true.  I much preferred my 130 hp PD than the 140 CR that replaced it.  I reckon the 1.9D did at least 5 mpg and probably closer to 10 mpg better and when we had them both together for a while the 1.9D 130 walked away from the 140 CR in acceleration (both Golf platformed cars).

 

Yes the CR was quieter but when looking at the technical spec I surmised that in fact that the redesign was to make the engine quieter, smoother and cheaper and not perform better apart from the 2 mm larger bore ie more CCs.

 

When seeing all the spec for the Common rail engine, which is/was not new technology as I worked on it in the late 70s and early 80s as a marine engineer, and thankfully for a change of employer who did not force me to have a diesel anyways, it was the obvious time to change to TSI technology, twin charge in my opted case, which worked out to give economy in the 40s normally and in the 50 mpgs occasionally as does the Renault TCE engine, actually well in to the 60s when toodling.   

 

Still would like to have had a Ibiza Cupra PD - 160 hp and 0-60 in 7.6 seconds (in the dry of course as wheel spin was a big issue).

 

Vorsprung durch (SCR or TSI) technik.

 

I agree with you  in that my experience was the 130 PD engine performed   better than the  CR 140, both in terms of MPG and acceleration etc   BUT I was  always on tender hooks re that  130 engine not blowing up. Maybe you did not read about the problems  with the shaft  driving the oil pump breaking, with disastrous  consequences, as you can imagine. It was  another design fault of  V G and which the ruination of many a PD engine until  those with the too thin  shaft had been replaced with more  robust ones.  So when the CR  version came along, I was most relieved to learn the weak  oil pump shaft had been  replaced by something  of  stronger ability, but seems one problem gets replaced by another!.

 

For one I am not convinced that that is true.  I much preferred my 130 hp PD than the 140 CR that replaced it.  I reckon the 1.9D did at least 5 mpg and probably closer to 10 mpg better and when we had them both together for a while the 1.9D 130 walked away from the 140 CR in acceleration (both Golf platformed cars).

 

Yes the CR was quieter but when looking at the technical spec I surmised that in fact that the redesign was to make the engine quieter, smoother and cheaper and not perform better apart from the 2 mm larger bore ie more CCs.

 

When seeing all the spec for the Common rail engine, which is/was not new technology as I worked on it in the late 70s and early 80s as a marine engineer, and thankfully for a change of employer who did not force me to have a diesel anyways, it was the obvious time to change to TSI technology, twin charge in my opted case, which worked out to give economy in the 40s normally and in the 50 mpgs occasionally as does the Renault TCE engine, actually well in to the 60s when toodling.   

 

Still would like to have had a Ibiza Cupra PD - 160 hp and 0-60 in 7.6 seconds (in the dry of course as wheel spin was a big issue).

 

Vorsprung durch (SCR or TSI) technik.

 

I agree with you  in that my experience was the 130 PD engine performed   better than the  CR 140, both in terms of MPG and acceleration etc   BUT I was  always on tender hooks re that  130 engine not blowing up. Maybe you did not read about the problems  with the shaft  driving the oil pump breaking, with disastrous  consequences, as you can imagine. It was  another design fault of  V G and which the ruination of many a PD engine until  those with the too thin  shaft had been replaced with more  robust ones.  So when the CR  version came along, I was most relieved to learn the weak  oil pump shaft had been  replaced by something  of  stronger ability, but seems one problem gets replaced by another!.

 

 

That was a PD140, that was in the superb (Mk1).

 

The PD140 in the octavia was fine and didn't have that issue. Personally I thought the PD140 was an outstanding engine and I prefered it to the CR140 I had in hire cars from time to time.

PD engines had injector issues according to VWwatercooled forum threads I've read and they say that hasn't reoccurred with the CR ones...........so far.

PD engines had injector issues according to VWwatercooled forum threads I've read and they say that hasn't reoccurred with the CR ones...........so far.

 

I had several 1.9D in Octavias, Fabia (VRS Mk 1) and Audi A3 and A4.

 

Must have done about quarter of a million miles between them.

 

Only issue I have was with the A3 which the variable blade actuation on the turbo went and that was at 63K miles so had to argue the with VAG over their crap 60K warranty as the car was less than two years old.

 

Injectors are cheap, turbos are not so much.  When are VAG going to move to a 100K warranty like most companies? (Or you can pay for it, there is confidence in ones product, not).

Edited 2 December, 201510 yr by lol-lol

I had the PD150 engine in a seat Leon, cracking engine, economical and powerful with a power band that came in with a kick.

On the downside it was a noisy engine just couldn't compete with the competition so suppose it had to superseded.

If there were no emissions issues they'd still be a 'cracking (dirty) engine'.

Without a fundamental breakthrough light urban diesels are a dead end, and VW have basically indicated it themselves.

Today's New York Times

Dateline London

Interesting reading about VW's lobbying attempts (on behalf of euro manufacturers) to delete from 2017 EC emissions legislation

Cold starts

And

High speed, from the certification process.

The (VW) author's (lobbyist's) name was redacted from public documents relating to the submission, predictably.

Seems it won't succeed.

Today's New York Times

Dateline London

Interesting reading about VW's lobbying attempts (on behalf of euro manufacturers) to delete from 2017 EC emissions legislation

Cold starts

And

High speed, from the certification process.

The (VW) author's (lobbyist's) name was redacted from public documents relating to the submission, predictably.

Seems it won't succeed.

 

 

PSA and GM have already successfully lobbied for the 2017 NOx levels for diesels to be doubled from the current 0.08g/km to 0.16g/km.

 

We will be back to 2007 levels of NOx until 2019.

 

PSA has said they are unable to make the majority of their small diesels meat real world tests in 2017 at the current levels and their medium to large diesels would need an extra £1500 worth of addition emission controls.

GM stated that all but premium diesels would be priced out of the market.

 

Although the French Government have been highly critical of VW and have major issues with NOx pollution they have actually backed this move. Perhaps there are too many PSA jobs at risk.

 

Lee

Edited 2 December, 201510 yr by logiclee

I wonder with so many diesel vehicles in Europe the only way forward is to relax the emission tests and older diesels will get slowly phased out over the coming years.

Alternatively there could be a two tier test for newer and older diesels, either way it must put people off buying a diesel.

Presumably a test relaxation would never happen in the US where there are far fewer diesels so VAG could  buy then back and flog them off in Europe.

Whatever happens it looks like the death knell for diesel engines over the coming years.

I've not seen any emission tests on BMW's I wonder if their engines really are cleaner.

Angela Merkel in a California hotel personally lobbied the CARB to reduce the NOx emissions test standard back in 2010 with big Arnie in attendance also.

She complained the standard was a threat to German auto manufacturers.

(Green Car Reports)

Vag sales drop 24.7% this month in USA

Tight supply was a factor also.

A lot of the emissions level problem could be solved by moving to lighter weight aluminum or composite car bodies.

 

Yes they cost more to make than fiddling the software and require other changes, but frankly a smaller, "less clean" engine will produce less emissions when pulling 800kg  than a larger, but much "cleaner" one pulling 1500kg

That is a great idea, Volkswagen Group can do that on the Premium Models, and still they had Defeat Devices,  and then Co2 / mpg 'Irregularities' in Testing during Certification.

& they do lightness in the smaller cheaper cars, and they just feel small and cheap really.

Even then they were having 'Irregularities' with Diesel Bluemotion vehicles.

 

People that want a bigger car want a bigger car.

Maybe a British Built Infiniti from Nissan is the answer.

http://infiniti.co.uk

Edited 3 December, 201510 yr by GoneOffskiroottoot

PD engines had injector issues according to VWwatercooled forum threads I've read and they say that hasn't reoccurred with the CR ones...........so far.

 

I think only the PD170, with piezo injectors, the others have been pretty good IMHO.

That is a great idea, Volkswagen Group can do that on the Premium Models, and still they had Defeat Devices,  and then Co2 / mpg 'Irregularities' in Testing during Certification.

& they do lightness in the smaller cheaper cars, and they just feel small and cheap really.

Even then they were having 'Irregularities' with Diesel Bluemotion vehicles.

 

People that want a bigger car want a bigger car.

Maybe a British Built Infiniti from Nissan is the answer.

http://infiniti.co.uk

 

But they're all still built out of steel on the whole.

 

Look at the jaguars out of aluminium or the composites, which cost a lot, but would help if they made additional panels out of them, like a frame designed such as the smart 4 two

I think only the PD170, with piezo injectors, the others have been pretty good IMHO.

 

Some PD140's also had the injector issues like the BKP in the Passat.

 

And we'd better not mention the oil/water pump and balancer shaft issues.

A truly light weight car has to have a somewhat knobbly/stiff ride due to having to be able to deal with a relatively high % of 'load' weight unless they go to the added expense of air suspension.

The costs make then make it uncompetitive .....unless there is a big fuel/emissions/tax penalty relating to consumption - and the manufacturers are very good at lobbying.

Battery weight and positioning has ride AND handling benefits, in comparison........but is a threat to govt revenue.

Some PD140's also had the injector issues like the BKP in the Passat.

 

And we'd better not mention the oil/water pump and balancer shaft issues.

 

Re the latter, I already have, a few messages back. I think that problem was potentially greater than some think.  The balancer shaft  I had not heard about, however. We never  had these problems with engines years ago, ok, they weren't as  efficient as they are now, but certainly more reliable and less complicated. What worries me is with all the computer regulated/activated  aspects of cars now, what happens when the  software  starts to go haywire, which it  surely will  after a certain age.  To think, brakes, steering, engine management, accelerator, road-holding, power distribution et al are all computer regulated, the mind boggles  what can ( and will ) go wrong  when the vehicle gets old. I doubt many cars now will attain collector status?.

^^^^^ they have a 'designed life' of just 10 years and are meant to be recycled.

Economies are judged on the basis of fleet age around the 10 year mark and spares are required to be held for at least 10 years.

After 10 years the economics of major repair don't add up either.

Imagine any other computerised device being repaired after 10 years.