>> Is yours a PD TDi then, I thought it wasn't.
>> Talking a lot to the people who have to fix them, those PD engines are
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
> reliability. I would say that VAG engines are probably better in that
> respect and not too far behind in terms of performance.
> The 130 PD engine was soonest of the PD range to be withdrawn from sale.
> Make of that what you will.
I think you're reading too much into it. The 130 was one of the last
versions of the 1.9 to be developed before the 2.0 PD 140 became the
mainstay VAG diesel engine so it follows that it would be dropped in favour
of the newer 2.0. The 130 had a good run of use right across the VAG range
and there were also 150 and 160. I've not heard of any major issues with
those.
It's also worth remembering that the 2.0 is a development of the 1.9 anyway.
> Just because something is popular does not make it good. Remember the
> Ford Escort and Vauxhall Nova from the eighties. Truly awful cars.
> Can I assume that you researched the market before coming to a decision
> about which car to buy ? If so, then it could follow that you have looked
> after your vehicle and that might be why it has been fortunately reliable
> for you.
I did. Of course there are cars with better engines out there but Audi had
the best overall package - quality, residuals, options. There are plenty of
PD engined cars running very high miles so I'm not worried
> Nearly every PD engined car when I've witnessed filthy clouds of brown /
> black particulates from it's exhaust, it has been of the VW flavour. The
> SEATs and Skodas do not seem to suffer as much. It is rarer for it to be
> seen from a BMW tailpipe of the same era.Worse are the Toyotas and
> Mitsubishis.
Again, there are plenty of PD engined cars VAG (mostly VW/Audi) of all ages
in my area and I've never seen any pouring smoke. I have however seen some
*very* smokey recent Mercedes diesels
> The PD engines require a particular oil and if not used will cause long
> term problems.
I'm well aware of that. There are plenty of choices that meet this spec so
I'm not worried. You just have to read any car manual to see that most
require oil that meets the manufacturers specs so VAG is not unusual in this
respect. My engine hardly uses any oil (maybe around 0.5 litre/10k miles)
between services anyway
> I have stated before that smoke problems start for any number of reasons.
> Shut
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
> As consumers, we are now the testers of new technology being rushed to
> market as a result of car makers trying to beat their competition.
I'm well aware of the issues with turbo shutdown and also thrashing from
cold. I always have a gentle drive in the last half mile or so and let the
car idle for a few seconds before shutdown. I always warm the car before
using full revs. My engine uses virtually no oil. It is standard BTW.
Complexity is necessary in order to meet the emmisions regs. You simply
cannot have a clean diesel without electronics.
> I am not a fan of BMW, I hate their pig headed philosophy, their obsession
> with runflats, I don't buy into the rear wheel drive argument, and in my
> opinion, they are cheating with their CO2 claims for their "Efficient
> Dynamics"
Agreed. Efficient Dynamics won't make much difference on a car running for
long drives on the motorway. And of course there's the extra wear & tear on
the engine of the stop/start mechanism
> models, but they do make a good engine. Their diesels have for the last
> nine years at least have been much quieter than the competition.
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
> if he always thrashed the cars from cold and he replied "pretty much". I
> told him I would not be buying a car from him or his dealership.
That's a dealership issue not Audi. I'm sure there are plenty out there that
thrash cars because they don't own them. Some poor sod will end up buying an
ex-demo car thinking they're getting a good deal.
> Unfortunately, there is a large potential problem with BMW diesels of the
> last few years that often wrecks the engine. Some call them 'swirl flaps',
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
> damp
> conditions with a high torque 'peaky' output front wheel drive car.
Agreed. I think that shove is better managed by newer electronics and common
rail. You learn to drive around it but I move to the A4 from a V5 Bora and
they engine characteristics took a bit of learning. I'd still rather be in a
large engined NA petrol car but those will become rarer and rarer.
> One of the nicest four cylinder diesels I've experienced is the 1.9 unit
> from FIAT and Alfa Romeo ( see
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> has
> a belt driven cam. I think diesels need a chain driven cam.
I'd not buy a FIAT but did consider the Alfa 156. The depreciation was just
too much and the fit and finish were poor. I also considered a Saab 9-3
which has basically the same engine but again the finish was rubbish for a
so-called "Premium" brand.
I think more and more new diesels (and petrols) are have chain driven cams.
The VAG 2.0 is still belt but I believe all their larger diesels are chain.
The 5.0 V10 is gear-driven.
> One of our cars is a 2005 Audi with a 1.8 petrol engine which delivers a
> maximum torque of 320 nm (236 fl/lb), but 90 % of that is available from
> 2000 to 5000 rpm. A very broad, flat curve.
The 1.8T is a very good engine but quite thirsty and of course there's the
oil sludge issue that has been widely reported. We did consider it but our
mileage was such that the diesel made more sense and of course residual
value of the diesel is far better.
David Skelton - 01 Dec 2008 15:18 GMT
>> The 130 PD engine was soonest of the PD range to be withdrawn from sale.
>> Make of that what you will.
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> VAG range and there were also 150 and 160. I've not heard of any major
> issues with those.
The 160 was not used in VW or Audi was it? I thought it was a Seat
development.
> It's also worth remembering that the 2.0 is a development of the 1.9
> anyway.
>
>> Just because something is popular does not make it good. Remember the
>> Ford Escort and Vauxhall Nova from the eighties. Truly awful cars.
Oops. I meant mk3 Escorts from the 90's
>> Can I assume that you researched the market before coming to a decision
>> about which car to buy ? If so, then it could follow that you have looked
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> ages in my area and I've never seen any pouring smoke. I have however seen
> some *very* smokey recent Mercedes diesels
Mercedes diesels have been smoking badly since they went common rail,
strangely enough.
Last evening, I was on "row 2" of the "grid" of a traffic light Grand Prix
between a 56 plate 320d and a 56 plate A3 2.0 TDi. I'm glad I was behind the
BMW because the Audi left such a cloud for 100m that the other lane drivers
could not see ahead at all. Even the road was not visible. There was a trace
of smoke from the BMW exhaust. Maybe the fuel around here is not good.
>> The PD engines require a particular oil and if not used will cause long
>> term problems.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> this respect. My engine hardly uses any oil (maybe around 0.5 litre/10k
> miles) between services anyway
As I thought, you know more than most.
>> I have stated before that smoke problems start for any number of reasons.
>> Shut
[quoted text clipped - 23 lines]
> Complexity is necessary in order to meet the emmisions regs. You simply
> cannot have a clean diesel without electronics.
But VAG have had a lot of problems with their electronics. There is a TSB
regarding chassis earths.
>> I am not a fan of BMW, I hate their pig headed philosophy, their
>> obsession
[quoted text clipped - 36 lines]
> that thrash cars because they don't own them. Some poor sod will end up
> buying an ex-demo car thinking they're getting a good deal.
I think the same can be said for ex-company cars too.
>> Unfortunately, there is a large potential problem with BMW diesels of the
>> last few years that often wrecks the engine. Some call them 'swirl
[quoted text clipped - 26 lines]
> rather be in a large engined NA petrol car but those will become rarer and
> rarer.
I prefer forced induction myself.
>> One of the nicest four cylinder diesels I've experienced is the 1.9 unit
>> from FIAT and Alfa Romeo ( see
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> 9-3 which has basically the same engine but again the finish was rubbish
> for a so-called "Premium" brand.
I did try two Alfa's, the GT 1.9jtdm and the 159(?) 1.9jtdm saloon, both
were demos and both had problems and loose interior trim. As I said, one
would need to be brave. I also looked at a 9-3 saloon and found it wanting
intenally for quality. As I found for the C-Class mercedes too.
I've not enjoyed the cars I've driven with electricaly asisted power
steering either. No feedback, numb.
> I think more and more new diesels (and petrols) are have chain driven
> cams. The VAG 2.0 is still belt but I believe all their larger diesels are
> chain. The 5.0 V10 is gear-driven.
The 2.7 and 3.0 v6 diesels have chain driven cams, but the crank has only 4
main bearings supporting it.
>> One of our cars is a 2005 Audi with a 1.8 petrol engine which delivers a
>> maximum torque of 320 nm (236 fl/lb), but 90 % of that is available from
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> mileage was such that the diesel made more sense and of course residual
> value of the diesel is far better.
This is our second 1.8T petrol Audi with no sludge issues. I thought that
was an American thing.
With regard to residuals, when one is buying a car the salesman will tell
you one thing, but when trading in for a newer one, he will tell you the
opposite. Our little cheap shopping car cost less to buy second hand than
what we will lose on either of the other cars in two years through
depreciation.
The Audi we have should retain it's value quite well, hopefully, as there
were only 1000 made in RHD and we got one with the comfy seats instead of
the fixed non-heated body huggers (the seats are not interchangeable), and
we are only doing about 1000 miles pa in it.
Best regards
David