Golf 118 TSI Engine Failures and Service Campaign 24S4

[cameronp]

BP Ultimate > *
To everyone:
If you are spending over 30k on a car, why would you cheap out a dollar or 2 every fortnight and run your car on poorer quality fuel.
If it's that much of a pricing issue, just don't have one coffee in that fortnight and you will be ahead.

Alternatively, if all of the fuel is actually of the same quality, why pay extra for a brand name? AFAIK all of the petrol in Western Australia comes out of the same refinery, BP Kwinana. The only difference that you need to worry about is the octane rating (i.e. 98 / 95 / 91 RON). I'm not sure what the situation is in other states.

Something doesn't sound quite right about this "sulfur in Australian fuel is causing engines to explode" explanation, and I note that the actual articles don't mention anything about this, just people on this forum. The only mentions I can find online about sulfur content in fuel causing engines problems is from when low-sulfur diesel was first introduced here, and sound completely unrelated. There are plenty of other high-pressure turbocharged engines out there and I haven't heard of others having to be specially modified for Australian petrol. I'd love to hear an explanation or references about this from someone who actually understands what's going on, and also curious to know what the ECU modifications actually did.

It's rather worrying to read about these engines exploding when I've just ordered one!

[cameronp]

... and on a related note, does anyone know whether the same engine used in the Mark5 Golf GT TSI is also subject to the recall? Or, for that matter, whether people on this forum have been seeing the same kinds of engine failures with it?

[AdamD]

However, if the brochure says 95RON, then that's what I'll be using. If VW have released an engine that can't cope with 95RON then that is a Fair Trading Act issue for them - misleading and deceptive, not fit for purpose etc.

If the issue really is related to fuel quality (and it's all speculation at this point, based solely - I believe - on the lack of issues in overseas markets), then that's precisely why VW is in the process of providing an ECU remap - to allow the engine to better cope with the fuel the car has been advertised as being compatible with, under the conditions under which it must operate.

However, just because a car can operate with a certain grade of fuel doesn't mean it'll operate at peak efficiency with that fuel, especially when it's been designed as the VW petrol engines have, with European fuels in mind. I consider 95 RON fuel the equivalent of a junk food diet. Without the best fuel the car won't operate as powerfully, or as economically, and there may well be longer-term side-effects - which you may not be able to attribute directly to the fuel (and so warranty claims are not cut-and-dried).

As an aside, the "premium" 98 RON fuels in Australia aren't the equivalent of 95 RON with a higher octane rating - they typically have special additives and cleaners added to reduce engine deposits and keep the engine running better over time (and, as Corey has pointed out, have a lower sulphur content as well).

In my opinion, choosing to use 95 RON fuel because "the brochure says 95RON" is counter productive. Sure, it may be cheaper in the short term, but it potentially compromises the performance and long-term efficiency of your car, and your ownership experience. For that reason I never use anything other than 98.

[team_v]

If the issue really is related to fuel quality (and it's all speculation at this point, based solely - I believe - on the lack of issues in overseas markets), then that's precisely why VW is in the process of providing an ECU remap - to allow the engine to better cope with the fuel the car has been advertised as being compatible with, under the conditions under which it must operate.

However, just because a car can operate with a certain grade of fuel doesn't mean it'll operate at peak efficiency with that fuel, especially when it's been designed as the VW petrol engines have, with European fuels in mind. I consider 95 RON fuel the equivalent of a junk food diet. Without the best fuel the car won't operate as powerfully, or as economically, and there may well be longer-term side-effects - which you may not be able to attribute directly to the fuel (and so warranty claims are not cut-and-dried).

As an aside, the "premium" 98 RON fuels in Australia aren't the equivalent of 95 RON with a higher octane rating - they typically have special additives and cleaners added to reduce engine deposits and keep the engine running better over time (and, as Corey has pointed out, have a lower sulphur content as well).

In my opinion, choosing to use 95 RON fuel because "the brochure says 95RON" is counter productive. Sure, it may be cheaper in the short term, but it potentially compromises the performance and long-term efficiency of your car, and your ownership experience. For that reason I never use anything other than 98.

Quoted for Truth!
This is why i will only be using BP Ultimate 98 in my new VW

[Corey_R]

Cameron, there are numerous articles on numerous websites about this topic of Australian fuel quality. Hundreds actually. Way too many to bother linking, just do some google searches. But I'll post you one on this such topic from yesterday:
2011 M-Class faces fuel issues in Oz

Admittedly, there haven't been any specifically about the 118TSI which mention fuel or sulphur quality, but there has to be something about Australia which is unique, and I don't see how VW are exempt from an issue which is causing all the other manufacturers from Europe issues.
Oh and btw. Fuel quality in Australia has also been used by both Nissan and Honda as to why they haven't bought out some of their "high-pressure turbocharged engine" models to Australia in the past. Wwe didn't get the real Honda Integra Type R in the later models, and we also didn't get the top spec Nissan 200SX. For that matter we also don't get the top spec Mitsubishi Lancer Evo's even today - although I don't care enough about them to actually take notice about why Mitsubishi don't bring them to Australia.

[Corey_R]

If the issue really is related to fuel quality (and it's all speculation at this point, based solely - I believe - on the lack of issues in overseas markets), then that's precisely why VW is in the process of providing an ECU remap - to allow the engine to better cope with the fuel the car has been advertised as being compatible with, under the conditions under which it must operate.

However, just because a car can operate with a certain grade of fuel doesn't mean it'll operate at peak efficiency with that fuel, especially when it's been designed as the VW petrol engines have, with European fuels in mind. I consider 95 RON fuel the equivalent of a junk food diet. Without the best fuel the car won't operate as powerfully, or as economically, and there may well be longer-term side-effects - which you may not be able to attribute directly to the fuel (and so warranty claims are not cut-and-dried).

As an aside, the "premium" 98 RON fuels in Australia aren't the equivalent of 95 RON with a higher octane rating - they typically have special additives and cleaners added to reduce engine deposits and keep the engine running better over time (and, as Corey has pointed out, have a lower sulphur content as well).

In my opinion, choosing to use 95 RON fuel because "the brochure says 95RON" is counter productive. Sure, it may be cheaper in the short term, but it potentially compromises the performance and long-term efficiency of your car, and your ownership experience. For that reason I never use anything other than 98.

You were writing this as I was writing my last post.
I must say this is very well written and I agree 100%.

Although I respect BBP's point of view, I seriously do not understand why he would want to limit the efficiency and diminish the experience of owning a great car, just to save a few bucks a month. As you said, it is just counter productive. You may as well just have saved the money and bought a base model Toyota instead.

[Flighter]

I'm not mechnical (well not to the extent of understanding this procedure), but I don't undestand how they can "replace a cylinder" in an engine. Pistions, cylinder heads, sure, but not a cylinder itself. I would feel much better if the entire engine were replaced if it were my car.

If the block is alloy, then I would expect the cylinders to have liners, so perhaps these are replaceable. I suspect it was just poor choice of words on somebody's part though, as machining a liner would probably be easier, assuming the tolerances can be met of course.

Sometimes the entire engine is replaced as a matter of pure economics. I read somewhere that Ford's 2.0 litre Duractec engine as used in the Focus is designed not to be repaired, although I suspect what that really means is that it was designed for machines assemble (presumably accurately and cheaply), and not for humans to disassemble.

[cameronp]

Cameron, there are numerous articles on numerous websites about this topic of Australian fuel quality. Hundreds actually. Way too many to bother linking, just do some google searches. But I'll post you one on this such topic from yesterday:
2011 M-Class faces fuel issues in Oz

Ahh, cheers for that link. Searching for articles about sulphur in fuel and direct injection turned up some more interesting interesting results - previously I had only been finding articles relating to sulphur in diesel, which is irrelevant to the 118TSI. Quite a few pages mention potential problems with fuel injectors in newer European engines, as well as longer-term damage to catalytic converters. It is also apparently not a problem unique to Australia - the USA has similar fuel quality issues. I did note, however, that the 1.4 twincharged engine is not available on the USA-market Golf.

Interestingly, 95 and 98 RON fuel in Australia is required to have lower sulphur than 91 RON unleaded - 50 ppm rather than 150 ppm. In USA, the maximum appears to be 80 ppm.

I was under the impression that the reason for high-power Japanese cars being detuned in Australia was just an issue with octane number - with over 100 RON petrol being readily available in Japan - not due to higher levels of impurities in our fuel, but I could be wrong.

[Maverick]

95RON is recommended isn't it?

Why should we have to pay for 98RON?

Why wouldn't you? Seriously why would you run a $40K car on cheap rubbish fuel to save a few dollars?

[ozgti]

BMW had issues with Nikasil liners on their engines in the early-mid 90's The sulphur content of our fuels used to eat the lining up and you'd do the engine in. New liners (Difficult. Easier to replase the engine with non nikasil ined engines)