tim-spam

The NCAP results are for the Mk 1 Sharan, and are pretty good for a car made before 2000 (the equivalent Chrysler Voyager, amongst others, barely scored 1 star). The Mk 2 has had many safety improvements, including a stiffer bodyshell, but has not been tested by NCAP. I'm certain that the new Sharan will be even better than the Mk 2, but NCAP tests are at best only a simulation of real crash situations - so, although these tests give a reasonable indication of crash safety, there are many other tests that the better manufacturers carry out before they will sign off a new car's structure (and some of their tests are much more realistic than the NCAP tests). Other manufacturers (Renault?) design specifically to get a good NCAP result for marketing purposes.

Many of them are behind the silver plate you are trying to remove, one goes to the turbo, and another goes to the spherical vacuum reservoir - you will be able to see most of the rest to the left of, and disappearing behind that silver plate.

Not really novel - Eberspachers are very common on commercial vehicles and quite a few cars destined for colder climates. Shouldn't be unreliable either, if properly maintained (and there's the real problem). How will the new Galaxy diesels get warm inside, unless some form of supplimentary heating is provided - unless, of course the Ford diesel is less efficient than the VAG one and can provide sufficient waste heat.....

Number 137, and we still haven't got a final diagnosis........

They're still making the Alhambra - with the 2.0 TDI 140 as well. So they could go to Seat instead of Ford, and they'll save a few grand into the bargain.

Still, with less engine torque, the clutch should have an easier time........

Have the brakes lost their bite at low speed, because, if they have, this would point to a vacuum leak somewhere, which may also prevent the turbocharger vanes from moving to increase boost pressure. Another thing to try is gently pulling off the small hose that dropped off before and listening for a hiss, which would indicate whether it's holding vacuum or not. If there is no significant vacuum, it's then 'just' a case of tracing the leak or blockage. There are many other possible things to check, but this is a good place to start.

But the real replacement for the current cars is due out in 2007, with a far better choice of engines and one can but hope that it will not replicate some of the errors with the new Galaxy such as not having a spare wheel, even as an option.

When searching on the mytyres website, specify 'reinforced tyres', and it will only list reinforced tyres.

Just to clarify the situation regarding reinforced tyres and the load rating index, which you will see are not the same thing.

Tyre load index is not dependent upon tyre size at all. A load index of 92 gives a load rating of 630kg, 95 gives 690kg, and 97 gives 730kg. I think you will find that if the load rating is less than the minimum recommended by the manufacturer (in this case, 95), you may have problems with insurance, police, etc. As regards reinforced tyres, these have reinforced sidewalls and generally run at higher pressures than standard tyres. They are normally recommended for heavier vehicles such as light commercials and MPV's. 'Reinforced' or 'Extra Load' does not imply a particular load rating, but, for a given type of tyre, the reinforced version normally has a load index 4 points higher than the non-reinforced version. On my car, the recommended tyre is a reinforced tyre with a load index of at least 95 - a tyre with a load index of more than 95 alone is not recommended, and neither is a reinforced tyre with a load index of less than 95 (although I don't think these are available in the 215/55R16 size anyway). Hope this helps.

Would be nice if there was though.

The 215/55R16 NRHi reinforced tyre is load rated at 97.

I must say that, even by your usual high standards, that has got to be one of the best posts I've seen for some while - and from someone who has genuinely contributed so much to this forum and helped so many. Brilliant!

Although a non-smoker myself, I think that may be the best idea!

Don't worry on my account - you certainly haven't offended me. One possible side effect of the clutch slipping badly could have been less engine load, and hence less noise. As it was, the lack of turbo boost caused less engine load, and hence less noise (no turbo whistle either).

When the little tube fell off, it introduced a vacuum leak, which would have also affected the brake servo - once re-connected, the brake servo operation would have improved due to not having a vacuum leak any more. So, that observation makes perfect sense. As for doing 20mph in 4th at 1500rpm, unless one or both of the instruments are inaccurate, the clutch is slipping quite badly - if you lift the accelerator without slowing much, do the revs immediately drop? If you floor the accelerator, do the revs immediately race away? Or do the revs rise in direct proportion to the road speed? No mention about this being the only problem, no mention about being 100% certain, and certainly no disregard of other comments - just a perfectly true diagnosis from the piece of evidence quoted in the statement (ie: revs are higher than they should be for the gear selected) - so why all the fuss and attempted "points scoring"? Because, if MO4 is unfortunate enough to have a slipping clutch (and, believe me, I hope she doesn't), there will be quite a bit of egg on faces - and this may even require a little "Humble Pie Eating"!

On behalf of all those who diagnosed a slipping clutch (including myself), the above statement is totally consistent and correct for a vehicle with a correctly functioning manual transmission. On behalf of MO4, I sincerely hope your descriptions were inaccurate, because at 1500rpm in 4th, the car should be doing nearly 40mph, and not 20mph as reported. To test the clutch, simply wait until you are going up an incline at between 1500rpm and 2000rpm in one of the higher gears, floor the accelerator and see how the revs and road speed compare. 2000rpm equates to around 50mph in 4th, 60mph in 5th and 70mph in 6th. On behalf of those who are so 'wise' after the event, on a forum such as this, diagnoses have to rely on words, pictures (sometimes) and descriptions. The fact that a hose falling off prevented the turbo going on to boost (limp mode is a different thing) was the event that triggered this topic, there is a possibility that a more serious problem has been identified along the way - we shall see.

After having recently replaced Dunlops on mine, I am very surprised that you had tyres that were even noisier. I've fitted Nokian NRHi's, and they are hugely better than the Dunlops, but the wear rate is different to that of the Dunlops. With the Dunlops, the rears had roughly half the wear rate of the fronts, and, swapping them front to rear at 10,000 miles, all four needed replacing at 23,000 miles. With the Nokians, the wear rate of the front tyres is only slightly less than that of the Dunlops so far, but the rears seem to be wearing at only about a quarter as much as the fronts. In other words, at the rear, the Nokians look like lasting at least twice as long as the Dunlops, but at the front they look like lasting only slightly longer. However, as tyres tend to wear more slowly as they wear, we shall see. But, so far, so good, and they grip so much better than the Dunlops, and are quieter too.

There is no clear plastic pipe on the Mk II AFAIK. However, there is an electric pump in the fuel tank - perhaps this may be the problem?

It is a very good idea to check / replace all of the vacuum pipes, as this is comparatively cheap and easy to do. However, it sounds as if your system is holding vacuum pretty well. In addition, vacuum leaks would tend to reduce the level of turbo boost - your problem is intermittant over-boosting. This could be caused by a blockage somewhere, so it is definitely worth checking around.

Assuming you have the access, drilling it out may be the best option, as it should not damage anything but the bolt itself. Try the following method: If the bolt is, for example, an M8, use a good 6.5mm drill. On an allen bolt, the rounded off socket ensures that the drill is centralised. Starting carefully to avoid snatching, drill down 3 or 4mm beyond the bottom of the socket into the shank of the bolt. Once you have done this, you should find that the shank in this area yields, and therefore releases the pre-tension in the bolt. Then, hammer a 1/4" (6.35mm) allen key bit into the head, and the bolt should unscrew quite easily. It is important that you drill far enough down the shank, firstly to release the bolt's pre-tension, and secondly to give some purchase to the allen key if the head of the bolt "pings" off as sometimes happens. Hope this helps.

Overheating of the clutch can cause sudden failure if the diaphragm breaks - but I guess you won't be doing that again. All of the above points firmly to clutch slip (how else can the revs increase with no increase in the speed of the car?) - perhaps the descriptions were wrong...... Glad the problem's fixed though.

Does it really take 30 posts (oh no - I've just made it 31!) to diagnose a slipping clutch??????????

Revs are higher than they should be for the gear selected - firm diagnosis - clutch slipping.