tim-spam

Lots of people - nice car, especially the TDI's...

I also change mine ASAP after the warning light comes on. However, there is a considerable amount of pad left when the warning light first comes on - I would guess at least 5mm, which would probably equate to several thousand miles depending on how you drive. Having said that, I have never tried this out - warning light = change pads ASAP. Ignoring this could mean reduced braking efficiency and new discs being required as well. As regards braking efficiency, so long as there is some pad material remaining, this will not be significantly affected.

The red figures above refer to the TDI engines as fitted to the Sharan, Alhambra and Galaxy from 2000 - 2006, and, as you say, are correct, if a little prophetic - the TDI 130 and TDI 150 were not yet available in 2001. The 85kW engine with 285Nm of torque refers to engine code AJM, which was fitted to some versions of the Golf and Bora. The 85kW engine with 310Nm of torque refers to engine code AUY, and has (yes, you may have guessed it) a different torque curve. The figures that I have quoted are the same, and are taken from the owner's manuals that come with the car, and, yes, they are in print - what else would you expect? You will also find the same figures quoted in the TIS, Elsawin, Bentley, RTA, etc. This is because these are the figures quoted by the manufacturer. Now, unless everyone is going to test one of each engine on a dynamometer themselves, what else would you expect? However, VAG's competitors will have done this, and if the figures were incorrect, you can bet that this would have been drawn to the attention of various interested bodies. Now, in order to achieve european type approval, the manufacturer has, by law, to accurately measure the maximum power and torque capabilities of the engine (amongst many other things) and submit this information as part of the technical construction file. This file also has to include the operator's manual (ie: the book supplied with the car). If the basic data is incorrect, the manufacturer is breaking the law. If the data in the operator's manual is not consistent with that in the rest of the technical construction file, there is no way that the authorities will grant type approval. How do I know this? It's part of my job. If you can read and interpret basic english, and have read my previous posts, you will understand exactly how the engines can have the same (or very similar) maximum torque capability, and different maximum power outputs. If you do not wish to understand this, there is nothing anyone else can do about it - you will continue to waste time trying to convince yourself and others that your misconceived ideas are valid.

I really cannot believe that you are still trying to argue your case - you don't have a case to argue. I think it really is time to accept that you're in a hole, and that it would be a good idea to stop digging. Still, if you really want to continue, go ahead - good entertainment (the comments about the Audi A4 were pretty amusing too). By the way, the last figures you nearly believed are those for the earlier TDI 90 and TDI 110 engines, which had lower torque outputs than the later engines. Also, if you read them properly, you will notice that the maximum torques were quoted at 1900rpm and not 2400rpm.

As we know that the doubts are certainly not based on fact, you appear to have summed it all up pretty well - spot on!

Utter rubbish ! Check your facts they are clearly wrong. Therefore if 150 BHP engine has a torque of 310Nm the 110BHP = 227Nm the 115BHP = 238NM the 130BHP = 269 NM I await a more sensible reply ;) I think that answers your question.

Yet another couple of corkers from big kev... I think there is only one person here disputing the figures, but at the risk of repeating what's already been said, the properly measured figures from the manufacturer (and they have to be properly measured and reported to obtain European Type Approval) are as follows: TDI 115 - 85kW at 4000rpm, 310Nm at 1900rpm TDI 130 - 96kW at 4000rpm, 310Nm at 1900rpm TDI 150 - 110kW at 4000rpm, 320Nm at 1900rpm There should be no argument about it - these are the facts. In my last post, I explained fully and comprehensively how the above facts are completely consistent with the physical principles involved, so any further dispute about them is totally pointless.

NikpV - you're quite right. As for lb/ft (pounds per foot), what on earth are they? The imperial measure for torque is lbf ft, or ft lbf - ie: a product, not a ratio - 1 pound force applied at a radius of 1 foot. Right, time for the facts, together with a correct explanation. Considering the TDI 115, 130 and 150, they all produce their maximum torque at 1900rpm, 310Nm for the 115 and 130, and 320Nm for the 150. Whilst some may find this difficult to understand, these are the facts. Now, Power (Watts) = Torque (Nm) x Engine Speed (radians per second). 1900rpm = 199 rads/sec Therefore, the power output at maximum torque for the 115 and 130 = (199 x 310)W = 61.7kW (or 83bhp) For the 150, this figure is a little higher at 63.7kW (or 85bhp). These are the power outputs at 1900rpm. Increasing engine speed above 1900rpm, results in a reduction of torque output, but this reduction is proportionately less than the increase in engine speed, such that the power output continues to increase until 4000rpm is reached, above which the torque falls away more rapidly. So, maximum power occurs at 4000rpm, which is 419 rads/sec. Therefore the power and torque figures for the TDI engines at 4000 rpm are: TDI 115 Power = 85kW (115bhp), Torque = 85000/419 = 203Nm TDI 130 Power = 96kW (130bhp), Torque = 229Nm TDI 150 Power = 110kW (150bhp), Torque = 263Nm So, you can see that, whilst the maximum torque outputs are very similar for the three engines, the torque output above 1900rpm falls away more slowly on the more powerful versions such that their maximum power outputs reached at 4000rpm are higher. By the way, if the TDI 150 produced its maximum torque at 4000 rpm, it would kick out around 134kW (180bhp) - nice... Incidently, acceleration is proportional to torque, and the above figures show pretty clearly why the in gear acceleration is so good with the TDI engines. So far, this thread has produced some pretty amusing posts, but the later ones from Big Kev are real corkers....

310Nm for TDI 115 and TDI 130, 320Nm for TDI 150 - all at 1900rpm - these are the facts. The maximum engine powers occur at around 4000 rpm. so for 600 rpm out of 4000 rpm the 115 has 55% more power than the 2.3? or for 3400 rpm out of 4000 rpm the 115 has lower power than the 2.3 or 85% of the time the 115 has lower power than the 2.3. Hardly any proof of a better performing engine! Facts and figures can be made to read whatever someone wants them to mean and are therefore meaningless in 95.73% of cases. Logic obviously not a strong point here! Just to help, the fact that the TDI 115 has between 53% and 60% more pulling 'power' between 1900rpm and 2500rpm obviously does not mean that it suddenly has less than a 2.3 below and above this range.

Just noticed your edited signature - 1998 R reg 1.9TDi Ghia 110bhp - nice engine.

It should 'kick in' at around 1300 - 1400rpm - maximum torque occurs at 1900rpm. To test, roll along at around 1000rpm in 3rd, and then put your foot down - you should start to feel some real 'push' at just over 1300rpm.

VW?

Interesting......makes about as much sense as choosing a petrol powered MPV.....

If the heater booster billows out clouds of smoke, it's running too rich or not igniting properly - there should be very little visible smoke when it's working correctly (although there will usually be a little just after start-up). On a very cold day, you can see a little visible condensation, but apart from that, the exhaust should be almost invisible most of the time.

It is not a coincidence - you have fixed the problem, and the reason is as follows: The diesel has no throttle cable and engine power demand is determined by a potentiometer on the accelerator pedal. There is a safety system in place, such that, in the very unlikely event of a potentiometer fault causing the engine to speed up uncontrollably, touching the brakes will bring it down to idling speed and so prevent a possible accident. This is done by the ECU receiving a signal from the brake light switch. If the ECU detects any fault in the brake light circuit, it reduces the engine power and the glowplug warning light is illuminated. On an automatic, you are also prevented from selecting a gear. I hope this answers your question.

So, you do not actually know - and, yes, you are wrong - Le Mans 2006. Just one more figure for you to consider when talking of real life acceleration - at between 1900rpm and 2500rpm, the TDI 115 has between 53% and 60% more pulling 'power' than a 2.3 petrol. But, to return to the original question - things likely to go wrong... On a petrol version, check that the fuel filler flap pivot is not worn out from over use. On a diesel, check that the fuel filler flap pivot is lubricated to prevent siezure from infrequent use.

So, the Audi A4 is 'overboosted'. What does this 'fact' mean? TDI power band:- 1350rpm to 4700 rpm. Maximum torque:- 310Nm at 1900rpm - no need to use more than 2500rpm in normal driving. Sounds pretty relaxed to me. Euro 4 emissions compliancy requires particulates emissions to be reduced by 99% - enough said. What a surprise - can you name me a car where this isn't the case? I thought it was all in the name of reducing congestion. Either way, it won't work, as its just yet another example of the government trying to raise yet more motoring taxes. Totally untrue (it's an MPV for heaven's sake!) - but in a good diesel, it is possible to cover ground pretty quickly with very little effort, and without consuming excessive amounts of fuel. You have mentioned two things about your Audi A4 which are probably linked. You find it difficult to drive it smoothly, and your fuel consumption is disappointing - you seem to get less mpg than I do in my Alhambra (which is heavier than an A4 and has a much larger frontal area). You also comment on the noise (I would guess that the measured interior noise in an A4 is lower than that in a Galaxy, petrol or otherwise) - all this points to a problem of driving style... The way in which a diesel delivers its power, together with its far superior efficiency, makes it an ideal partner with heavier vehicles such as MPV's - look at the relative sales figures if you have any doubts. Even when towing, I rarely need to use more than 2500 - 3000rpm. The overall running costs and the superior driving characteristics are the main reasons why I, and the vast majority of other MPV owners, choose diesel. Oh, and two more facts for you: 1) Toyota Avensis 1.8 petrol - combined fuel consumption 39.2mpg 2) Audi A4 2.0 TDI - combined fuel consumption 49.6mpg And another two: 1) VW Sharan 1.8T petrol - combined fuel consumption 29.1mpg 2) VW Sharan TDI - combined fuel consumption 43.5mpg

I would like to thank you - your link is really good and will be a great help if (when) I have to do mine.

Now that really is a good idea.....

But, you clearly have not actually measured anything. Look at the figures - apart from the 2.3 having a very slightly faster 0-60 time (and that will be screaming up to the red line before every gearchange - hardly relevant day to day) than the 115 TDI, you are completely and utterly wrong. And, both the 130 and 150 TDI's are quicker to 60 anyway. As I said before, driving a car where the rate of acceleration tends to increase with rising revs, and revving the engine to higher revs, may feel faster, but, in this case, is not. If you followed a well driven TDI (excluding the 90 bhp version of course), with the driver using no more than 3000 rpm, you would have to drive a 2.3 pretty hard to keep up. The TDI delivers its power in a much more relaxed way and consequently may not feel as fast, but in normal day-to-day driving is far better. As for the earlier comments about the 2.0 TDI Audi A4 - ridiculous! And those about petrol cars being more 'carbon friendly' (whatever that's supposed to mean) - even more ridiculous!

From my own observations (I live along the road from an MPV 'specialist' seller), your figures for price and depreciation are way off the mark. However, if we assume that the initial purchase price makes the critical difference (and that is what you are claiming), then why on earth did you choose a Galaxy over an Alhambra? Anyway, this purchase price argument is pretty tenuous at best. For example, you have said that anyone buying new would be mad to buy the 2.3 petrol version over the diesel (which leads to the interesting conclusion that 2.3 Galaxy owners are either mad, or rely on others being mad...). When buying seconhand, most people will be buying within a budget, and so the purchase price will be the same whether diesel or petrol - it's just that the diesel may be a little older and / or have slightly more miles on it. If you also consider that depreciation slows down as a car gets older, and that diesels depreciate more slowly anyway, by buying a slightly older diesel, the depreciation will be much lower - so, savings all round. As regards noise, the diesel is not at all unpleasant ( although opinions are obviously subjective and differ from person to person), and is quieter when cruising at the legal limit (2000rpm). As regards overtaking performance, consider the following (very common) scenario: You are following a lorry at 40mph along an A road, and you pull out to overtake. What gear would you use? I would guess that you would use 3rd or 4th, and, in this case, the diesel would leave the 2.3 petrol for dust. The only way you could keep up is to use 2nd gear (which is the gear that is used at this speed during 0 - 60 and 30 - 70 through-the-gears tests), and then any noise advantage has disappeared as quickly as the fuel through your injectors. Don't be deceived by what you feel - changing down and revving the engine may feel faster, but it often isn't. For most drivers, the diesel would also accelerate to 60mph more quickly, because the power and torque are much more accessible. To quote some actual measured figures: 40-60mph in 5th - diesel = 9.5 seconds, 2.3 = 12.5 seconds. 40-60mph in 4th - diesel = 7.3 seconds, 2.3 = 9.7 seconds. 50-70mph in 5th - diesel = 10 seconds, 2.3 = 13.5 seconds. 50-70mph in 4th - diesel = 8.7 seconds, 2.3 = 10.5 seconds. 50-70mph in 5th, the diesel is 3.5 seconds quicker! So, amazed though you may be, the real life overtaking performance of the diesel is much better than the 2.3 - fact. I have also driven a 2.3 Galaxy (and a 2.0 Sharan), and with 5 adults on board, there was far more gearchanging needed when driving through the hills of the lake district - in these situations, my diesel was vastly superior and far more relaxing. The other owners were highly impressed by the way my diesel accelerated up hills in 4th gear for which they needed to use 3rd gear to maintain speed. To be honest, although the performance of the 2.3 Galaxy was better than that of the 2.0 Sharan, the difference was nowhere near as big as I expected. I have also recently tried the latest 2.0 TDI Sharan - if you get the chance, try one. If you do, and still have any doubts about diesel afterwards, I'll be amazed. But, if you bought your car because you like it, then that's great - enjoy it. If I was going to be irrational and buy a petrol version, I would definitely go the whole hog and get a VR6 - although you would be spending even more at the pumps, at least you would be able to enjoy the pinnacle of performance and refinement.

Now, you really are joking - the petrol versions have only one significant advantage - initial purchase price is lower. That's it, although I suppose you could make that two if you talk about the ultimate performance and refinement of the VR6. The 4 cylinder petrol versions average around 25mpg, against 40mpg for the diesel. Working on an average annual mileage of 12000, that would equate to a saving of over

Can you select any of the other gears easily when stationary? If first gear synchromesh has worn out, you should still be able to select the gear without crunching, if you wait a second or two for the input shaft to stop turning after pressing the clutch. I strongly suspect you have a dragging clutch, rather than a gearbox problem causing your gear selection difficulties. If you can select first easily when rolling forwards, and reverse easily when rolling backwards, that would point to it being a dragging clutch. As a matter of interest, what were the problems fixed by replacing your turbo vacuum control pipes?

Wow - that looks pretty clean (unlike your hands, I guess!). What did you use to clean the carbon off?

Just out of interest, I wonder if anyone has ever fixed the charge pressure positive deviation problem by replacing the boost control solenoid, the T-MAP sensor or the various hoses. It seems that most people who have had this problem have done (or had done for them) one or more of the above, and it never seems to work - I've read quite a few forums, and the story is almost always the same. In the end, the only thing that seems to work is cleaning the VNT mechanism (either by stripping it down or using one of the aerosol de-cokers) or replacing the turbo. I've also just found the following post on another forum, which may be of interest: "As already stated, you most likely got the boost pressure - positive deviation code. It means the ECM saw more boost than it wanted and to keep you from blowing the engine up, it cuts the fuel. This is what we call limp mode. Once you cycle off the key, it resets itself till the next time you get too much boost. There could be any number of things that can cause overboost. A faulty N-75 valve (but that usualy causes a negative deviation code), sticky vanes inside the turbo, or the vacuum actuator itself gets stuck in the full boost (retracted) position. The cheapest & easisest thing to do is to try to free up the moving parts of the turbo. As already stated, this can be done with a vag-com. In measuring blocks group 011, click on basic settings & the car will cycle the vanes through the full range of motion every 10 or 20 seconds or so. If you don't have a Vag-com, you can remove the vacuum line that goes down to the turbo and apply vaccum to it with a hand held vacuum pump. Pump it so that the actuator it at its full retracted position and then release the vacuum. Repeat several times. If you don't have a vacuum pump, then it can be done by hand. The spring in the actuator is very stiff, so it takes tough fingers to move it up & down. You can get assistance by using an open ended wrench on the end of the lever and use it as leverage. Whichever method you use, spray some penetrating fluid around the lever while you move it through its range." I didn't know before that you could use VAGCOM to do this - could be useful. I'm very sceptical about the use of penetrating fluid around the lever - I can't see this doing much good.