This was exactly my point to address those who would have inevitably claimed you cannot rely on sensors to check your oil for you.
New 2.0 TFSI VW out of oil after 4k miles
- Thread starter Dr House
- Start date
This was exactly my point to address those who would have inevitably claimed you cannot rely on sensors to check your oil for you.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 37,804
- Location
- block 16, cell 12
Hmm possibly.
pcv goes to.a catchcan then to atmosphere. The fumes would only really make it past the catchcan with the vacuum pull of the intake sucking it through. there is a second crank vent tube that also goes to the intake but i left that.in place. My car isn't a vag and with the engine behind the driver i don't get any fumes into the cab anyway.
They stopped being good after Meteora. And that was released in 2002
Caporegime
- Joined
- 13 May 2003
- Posts
- 34,564
- Location
- Warwickshire
That's the only one I've listened to, so perhaps I was a bit hasty calling them 'amazing' based on one album
.That's a great album though!
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
Why not? The clear advantage of diesel is the additional fuel economy which can save a great deal of money if you cover a large number of miles per annum. Diesel has with it inheritent disadvantages - vibrations through the cabin at idle, the horrible thrum, the often lumpy power delivery and in older cars, the issues that life expired DPF's, failing turbocharges and troublesome high pressure injectors bring and the high cost involved with replacing these parts. But these are compromises that often it makes perfect sense to take in pursuit of more efficient fuel use for high mileage drivers.
Doing 5000 miles a year however completely changes the economics of owning a diesel car. At 5k a year fuel is not a major cost regardless of the engine in your car - therefore the huge savings you get with some diesels simply do not benefit you. Instead you are left with pretty much just the disadvantages when what you could, and arguably should, do is use the low mileage to your advantage and pick a nice petrol engine - and enjoy vibration and clatter free trips around town, smooth and more linear power delivery and a freedom from bills relating to particulate filters, high pressure injectors, turbochargers and all the other complex ancillary components that go into delivering the fuel consumption high mileage drivers want.
And the best bit? Petrol cars are even cheaper to buy in the first place.
Fox summed it up nicely. He missed the whole new vs used debate which is a can of worms in itself. Without getting into that, I would argue that any benefits of having a new car are tiny if you are doing next to no miles. It's foolish to spend the extra on a new car if it is basically just a drive ornament.
This is so ridiculously true.
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 May 2010
- Posts
- 12,852
Shorter easier to digest version.
Higher initial purchase cost.
Fuel is more expensive.
Reliability.
Fox did some it up well, however I would say one thing about that ...in my experience a lot of 4 cylinder petrol engines aren't actually as nice to drive as their diesel counterparts. Bigger petrol engines are much nicer of course ...but the small 4 pots ...not so much. At least the diesels have some torque and rev so low on the motorway that you can't hear them (depends a bit on the car I suppose). The 2 and 2.5 litre Ford/Mazda petrol engines are just crap ...I have no other way of putting it I'm afraid. I'm not saying they are all like that but the Ford/Mazda ones are imo.
Hi, fyi the 2.5 engine that was used in the ST, and the Mk4 mondeo, was a Volvo unit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straight-five_engine and I'm not sure if the current range of Ford engines are shared by Ford/Mazda anymore. Certainly the Ford diesel's aren't as they are all part of the PSA group, then there is the new 1.6 ecoboost, which I believe has been developed by Ford only http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_EcoBoost_engine the exhaust on the the Mk3 Focus with the ecoboost has a special accoustic tuning to make it sound ok http://www.autotechblog.org/ford-1-6-l-ecoboost-engine-acoustic-tuning
Chris
Chris
Hi, shorter, rubbish, on pre-owned the difference is negligible, fuel is more, although the gap is getting smaller, offset by the better fuel consumption of a diesel, diesels are more reliable than petrol. Oh, and they can be as much fun to drive then a petrol and are easier to get more performance from versus cost.
Chris
Chris
Care to back that up with some figures?
[TW]Fox;19674158 said:
Really?
I did 4500 miles recently with the M47 engine and it used exactly 300ml!
Something seems slightly amiss, unless it was literally down to bedding in.
Ooops misread.... 4000 on ONE Litre, sorry thought you meant 4000 miles from min to empty was fine... sigh... /moron mode off.
Hang on, lets get this straight, the max to min on the Sirocco is only 1L ?? So in 4K its consumed 1L from new whilst bedding in?
I would be ecstatic with that!
Last edited:
Yes.
A completely different engine, heck it doesnt even run the same fuel!
Exactly 300ml eh? How did you measure it, a complete draindown test or something?
I'm talking about the 4 cylinder NA unit not the Volvo turbo engine. The 2.5 is used in the Mazda 6 Sport ...the 2.3 version that the 2.5 was derived from used to be used in the Mondeo and and Mazda and the 2.5 is now used in various cars in North America ...including the Fusion I was driving around not long ago.
The Volvo l5 is very good, the l4 Ford unit is crap though, whichever size it comes in. I really feel the diesels are better ...the only way they aren't better is reliability.
Hi, blimey I didn't realise we were having two debates, sorry did't look at your name. Anyway, to condense the argument, and really we agree. Although I can't see where you get it from that diesels are less reliable, seeing as they are specific to long daily usage because of reliability, you suggest this by saying that they are only for vehicles that do over 5k.
They are much easier to tune because they use direct injection with a turbo. Thus for only £275 you can easily get over a 30ps and 55 ftlb's increase, much easier and cheaper than a standard common garden engine found in the majority of todays cars. Having said that, the ecoboost uses the same tchnology and from what I've seen they'll be just as easy to tweak...
Chris
They are much easier to tune because they use direct injection with a turbo. Thus for only £275 you can easily get over a 30ps and 55 ftlb's increase, much easier and cheaper than a standard common garden engine found in the majority of todays cars. Having said that, the ecoboost uses the same tchnology and from what I've seen they'll be just as easy to tweak...
Chris