Golf 118 TSI Engine Failures and Service Campaign 24S4

Nic;
I think you are going to find that there is no obligation on VWA to provide full disclosure, and that they've met their obligations by developing and providing a fix free of charge that they will back with the existing 3 year warranty.

If you car is running fine enjoy it and don't worry about it, like Lara Bingle has demonstrated sometimes too much information can be an bad thing. :afro:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nicandlance

I was basically stating that it took a Cars Guide article to help this particular person get the ball rolling in regards to a replacement engine.

---

I misunderstood you Nic. If VW Aus were mucking her around on a replacement/repair it then they should cop a serve. How long was her car off the road?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by logger

Anyhow now my car is updated with the new sc24S4. It is stone cold, parked outside overnight with coolant at 12 degrees. The start showed the EGR process occuring. 1080rpm as expected, slight but lesser rough running from EGR and climbing EGT. Much less IGN advance than normal. Instead of the EGT and CAT temps rocketing to 665C as per normal though, they peaked at a far more conservative 435 degrees. Then dropped back to 250 degrees and 680rpm.

At this point I thought – Yes they have changed the way it does the EGR to keep the temps down when the engine is cold. I know it can handle over 1000 degrees in the exhaust, when warmed up and at higher RPMs. but 665 degrees in a stone cold engine strikes me as one hell of a temp rise. Especially seeing the revs are only at 1080 and not 4 times that at 4-5000revs when you see higher temps around 800+ when flogging the engine.

I thought I had found something sc24S4 is doing differently, I had better double check.
So I waited about 5 hours until my car was cold again. (never got above idle the first time). Ran the same test again and bugger me, it was back to its old ways of EGR and 665 degrees in 20 seconds. I have NFI why on one COLD start behaved differently to the other.

So this disproves my very speculative theory.

Back to the drawing boards.
.

---

Hey Logger, I think you're on the right track here. Just cause u left the car for 5 hours may not have lowered the engine/oil/coolant temp enough for the ECU to see a "cold start"
Mine, when cold runs rough as guts at 1080 RPM till temp is achieved. However, if I go out in the morning and then again in the evening, the later start does not have the rough idle and higher revs. So I think the latent temps in the engine may be signalling the ECU to a "warmer" start if that makes sense. Hence your later post re an overnight stop resetting the ECU to the aggressive warm up routine. Only subjective on my part as I dont have the diagnostics that you do.
Interested to see how mine behaves after the re flash on Thursday.
Regards,
Brian

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nicandlance

Everyone is entitled to an opinion on this subject without being chastised for it.

---

I absolutely agree with that statement, except no where have you actually had an opinion on the topic! Lets be honest here, based on a number of cases you've jumped straight to the conclusion that your car is suddenly dud waiting to happen, and that the manufacturer - due to their timing of releasing an update post 'exposé' is suddenly not to be trusted. Both of these completely unfounded, further more your ignoring the fact that the update was released a mere number of weeks ago. How is anyone able to accurately ascertain the effects of such an update in such a small amount of time?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nicandlance

I (and I'm sure many others), have taken a big risk choosing this car - one that we thought was a quality machine... (well, on paper anyway)
Am I going to regret this in a few years time?
---------------------
It took an article to the Herald Sun to get things moving - hence my 'obvious mistrust' of the manufacturer

---

The only point I was attempting to get across in my original reply to your question was that at this point its all up in the air since the only people with complete and certain knowledge of the matter is the manufacturer themselves as Maverick, prise and hooba have all reaffirmed. There is no deep hidden secret waiting to be unleashed by some shadowy figure behind VW's back, nor is there any point in wishing for a magical guarantee by group of people that have no control over the matter. We are simply a group of consumers with a vested and similar interest over our vehicles, the very same as you.

Yes, I apologize for putting my point across in such a blunt matter, but I think you should be mature enough to realize that patience in this matter is vital, and there's no point fretting over the matter necessarily or going on the defensive and accusing others of becoming uncivil when a simple set of facts is being put across.

I am, as with all the other 1.4 TSI owners very much in the same boat as you. So far there has been nothing done by VW to cover up the issue, or ignore it. All blown engines have been addressed or replaced AFAIK, the ensuing data sent back to HQ where they've been able to come up with an ECU update that you, I and every other prudent 1.4 TSI owner will receive in the coming weeks/months. In light of this I don't see how VW have done anything to warrant public mistrust - yes there's been a serious problem with its product, but to the best of our knowledge its been rectified and in a reasonable time frame.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by logger

I am now wondering if the reason I saw the old, aggressive EGR on the subsequent cold start yesterday, is that it can record the fact that lambda was not implemented during previous run cycle. Therefore on subsequent starts it applied aggressive EGR to force rapid lambda.

---

Now that's interesting. If they were being really clever the catalyst warm up strategy would adapt depending on the useage history - eg a more agressive strategy if used for more short trips.

I have a colleague at work who uses his for for nearly all short trips and he has complained in the past about the rough running at startup. I'll have to ask him if he's noticed an improvement with the reflash. I do mostly longer trips in mine and haven't noticed anything different in the way it runs after startup so far.

Yeah it could be that way perhaps. Tell him to expect the same higher revs, but not the same roughness.

I am curious, should anything have been noted in my vehicle logbook to say sc24S4 has been applied? I reaslise it is obvious to see it has been done by looking at VCDS, VAG and most probably erwin. Just wondering if the logbook is supposed to reflect it as well. As far as I can tell it does not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by logger

I am curious, should anything have been noted in my vehicle logbook to say sc24S4 has been applied? I reaslise it is obvious to see it has been done by looking at VCDS, VAG and most probably erwin. Just wondering if the logbook is supposed to reflect it as well. As far as I can tell it does not.

---

The logbook is never marked with recalls AFAIK. Generally the only place they put something is for recalls and it's a sticker around the drivers door opening.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maverick

The logbook is never marked with recalls AFAIK. Generally the only place they put something is for recalls and it's a sticker around the drivers door opening.

---

Just checked and yes there is new sticker on the door frame notating what when where. Thanks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maverick

The logbook is never marked with recalls AFAIK. Generally the only place they put something is for recalls and it's a sticker around the drivers door opening.

---

If the tech did his job correctly, the recall should be signed & stamped in the service book Mav.

Along with the RH A-Pillar door jam recall sticker

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by golfworx

If the tech did his job correctly, the recall should be signed & stamped in the service book Mav.

Along with the RH A-Pillar door jam recall sticker

---

Thanks, is that only for recalls however as this wasn't a recall so perhaps this is the reason it's not in the book?