I'm intrigued by the notion that engines are 'bench tested' before they get into a  car.  I can imagine a new design of engine being bench tested extensively, but I'd be frankly amazed if each and every individual engine that gets built is run at all before it gets into the car. It would be vastly expensive, slow and inefficient to do so, wouldn't it?.  Anyone have any current knowledge/references to educate me?

 

Bearing surfaces go through long trials for QA testing initially and then with random engine samples at whatever rate that is.

 

There may be a bench run up test on each engine however, my father suggests (but he's been retired over 10 years). This is important to check for seal leaks etc.

 

Polyurethane tend not to leak later but can initially hence may benefit from the initial run checks on each engine, whether this is true still who knows.

Great to hear that the Volkswagen Group Quality Control and component procurement has improved so much in the last couple of years.

Obviously millions of engines are good, only hundreds of thousands around the world have bad components.

Or Fundamental Design or manufacturing faults.

(As customer services says, all overblown on the internet. Or so they wish..)

Must be user failures.

http://briskoda.net/forums/topic/266114-18tsi-and-20tsi-engine-failures/page-43

http://briskoda.net/forums/topic/294051-cave-cthe-14tsi-just-reply-please-if-you-have-had-an-engine-replaced

(Over 25% failed of the 1,800 Skoda Twinchargers imported 2010-2012, then the VW, Skoda & Audi Twinchargers have the same failure rate.

Even factory replacement engines required replacing in some cases.   QA maybe not good as suggested in post #26 ^^^^ Above.)

http://revotechnik.com/support/technical/14tsi-twincharger-engine-issues

Edited 1 October, 20169 yr by Offski

Prefix letter G on the MKIII - definitely within their production years

 

Maybe the 'G' in 1989 but there was another 'G' in 1968 and that was 4 years before the MK1. That was firmly Zephyr and Zodiac territory. 

 

You can be excused for not knowing about that though 

 

First engine I rebuilt was a 1.1 kent crossflow , yes certainly things have moved on, though surprising how much has not.

Bearing surfaces go through long trials for QA testing initially and then with random engine samples at whatever rate that is.

 

There may be a bench run up test on each engine however, my father suggests (but he's been retired over 10 years). This is important to check for seal leaks etc.

 

Polyurethane tend not to leak later but can initially hence may benefit from the initial run checks on each engine, whether this is true still who knows.

 

From the manufacturing videos I've watched, most engines go through an automated test station. For something as complex and expensive as a car engine every unit it probably given a test run before being signed off. Automated testing is reasonably quick and cheap and you can add longer test cycles with more parameters for more expensive engines that need to withstand harsher conditions (premium engines, performance engines).

Sample testing is something you do to simple and incredibly numerous (and cheap) production run items, not cars.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=gY2H_Qyoi44

Edited 1 October, 20169 yr by Offski

Maybe someone has seen every VW Group engine being test run in a rig on a video somewhere.

Edited 1 October, 20169 yr by Offski

I too have watched far too many of these.
Also:

Unlike many on here I don't have spreadsheets recording my fuel consumption figures over time using brim-to-brim methods to obtain accurate figures. However, in my experience VAG engines, one a 2.0TFSI Petrol and the other a 177PS CR Diesel, I noticed a gradual but steady improvement in fuel consumption up to around 20,000 miles based on how many miles I was getting to a tank. My current car, a 177PS diesel, is now comfortably covering over 600 miles per tank compared to just over 500 miles when I first got it; in 11 months I have covered over 17,000 miles. I can't say I've noticed any increase in power or responsiveness though.

Maybe the 'G' in 1989 but there was another 'G' in 1968 and that was 4 years before the MK1. That was firmly Zephyr and Zodiac territory. 

 

You can be excused for not knowing about that though 

 

First engine I rebuilt was a 1.1 kent crossflow , yes certainly things have moved on, though surprising how much has not.

 

I'm living in more modern times, I would had said "old" or "original" G plate if that is what I really meant to say

 

In abrasives and tolerances terms, things have moved on a lot on mass production prepared engines.........

From the manufacturing videos I've watched, most engines go through an automated test station. For something as complex and expensive as a car engine every unit it probably given a test run before being signed off. Automated testing is reasonably quick and cheap and you can add longer test cycles with more parameters for more expensive engines that need to withstand harsher conditions (premium engines, performance engines).

Sample testing is something you do to simple and incredibly numerous (and cheap) production run items, not cars.

 

Yes, I questioned him on the run up point, and commented it on post #26 that it was likely.

 

I'm sorry though, you seem to know much more about this than my father who was 3m abrasives consultant visiting most of the european factories until about a decade ago I'll tell him he's wrong about the sampling. Sorry what is your background again ? Expert in watching youtube videos

 

He did say as per my point it is practical they would do a run up test on each engine, e.g. checking for leaks.

However that's nothing to say of the intial development of the line, and checking for quality (sig sigma) before you let loose a line of engines being produced, if he mentioning sampling I don't doubt at some point it must be used whether its initial development - or even later randomly as you produce the engines.

 

It seems crazy to just leave things to chance once something so expensive so I wouldn't be surprised if they did have some sort of random inspection.

I don't know his experience of this and its not my background and I don't want to keep pestering him with mundate stuff but if he says it then I believe it.

It happens on even abrasives production itself ( to ensure consistent quality), so why not in other processes.

@vRSAnt a decade is a long time in manufacturing process development

My VRS TSI got around 38mpg on a 500 mile trip to Wales the first weekend I had it (from brand new) now 16k later and doing the same kind of journey it will return the same fuel economy. Feels just as rapid and has never used any oil either. Has been very consistent.

@vRSAnt a decade is a long time in manufacturing process development

 

Yes it probably is. So please describe all the important developments since he's been gone the last decade or so then

I'd second that - I did observe a very noticeable drop in avg fuel consumption in the 1.4TSI MkII I was driving before this one. It happened around 10k kms / 6 months.

My 1.6 Tdi has just passed 6200 miles (10,000km) and just done 130 miles today on a mix of single carriageway A roads and twisty country roads with villages in between and probably got my best mileage (68.4 according to trip computer, I know it is a bit optimistic). Will be interested to see how it goes on.

Subjectively the new cars I owned have always seemed to run freer after the first few 1000 miles are past.

The original post also asked about perceived power.

 

Can't speak for Skodas, but the old saw about Saabs (which had an element of truth) was they were only just getting run in around the 50k miles mark, and my sample of half a dozen users and some 18 cars agreed with this. Rather than start to get weaker, they do (did :( ) become noticeably more throttle responsive as the miles grew from around 40k onwards, peaking around 70k and only started dropping off very slightly over 100k. But that could've just been sympathetic treatment kicking in.

.... about Saabs (which had an element of truth) was they were only just getting run in around the 50k miles mark, and my sample of half a dozen users and some 18 cars agreed with this. 

 

My Aero struggled to get more than 22mpg, but I didn't care coz it was ballistic 

 

Awww, I miss my Aero    Shameless off topic pic:

 

 

Gaz

The original post also asked about perceived power.

 

 

Speaking about perceived power; my stereo got louder today, tyres had a load more grip and throttle response was amazing.

 

The secret... I left my 7 month old with his grandparents and went for a drive by myself. It's the first time I've been alone in the car since he was born and it felt like I was flying.

This thread reminds me of this joke

A physicist, an engineer, and a statistician go on a hunting trip, they are walking through the woods when they spot a deer in a clearing. The physicist calculates the distance of the target, the velocity and drop of the bullet, adjusts his rifle and fires, missing the deer 5 feet to the left. The engineer rolls his eyes. 'You forgot to account for wind. Give it here', he snatches the rifle, licks his finger and estimates the speed and direction of the wind and fires, missing the deer 5 feet to the right. Suddenly, the statistician claps his hands and yells "We got him!"

Sorry, I'm being flippant, it's actually very informative

I'd thought of that Wino, do you think the nozzle is possably to big therefor Mrs G is not getting the correct level of unleaded

Clearly you're under the belief that Mrs G run on unleaded, when in fact she run off the black pump and likes a bit of Diesel.

While the derv pump has a bigger nozzle, unleaded can still be put in the Derv tank.

Due to the age of the engine, it is unlikely to be catastrophic, but may result in rough running and odd behaviour.

:p

Just be greatful she doesn't have a DPF

Edited 8 October, 20169 yr by cheezemonkhai

 

My Aero struggled to get more than 22mpg, but I didn't care coz it was ballistic 

 

Awww, I miss my Aero    Shameless off topic pic:

 

 

Gaz

 

NIce car, Gaz.

Saab geek time - That's one of the earlier ones built after the introduction of the one piece bumper. Mine was a late '54 plate, just before Dame Edna. How do I know? it's got the earlier door mirrors, more of a "swing up" fold. Mine and all later ones had a more horizontal fold. Very slightly different shape to the housing and glass too. Some idiot smashed my offside mirror and the repairers fitted the earlier style mirror. Took them weeks to get a replacement.

Okay so this time last year mine was at 233.6bhp.

 

Roll forward a year and 8,000 miles and it's now at 240.1bhp.

 

Similar temperature and atmospherics.  Same rollers (JKM).

 

Is this evidence of it loosening up?  Easy to say yes to, but me, I'm not so sure.

 

Gaz