Golf 118 TSI Engine Failures and Service Campaign 24S4

[Olaf the Golaf]

Both the 118TSi and the bike I had were supposed to run on 95, i still run 98 (unless it isn't available at the time). Called my dealer about this just this afternoon and asked whether i should be looking at bringing mine in, he said that he believed it was only a problem with the DSG models, which would point away from fuel wouldn't it? as fuel would effect DSG and manual the same?

I also had the car in with them recently getting the water pump replaced and he said if it was necessary to do on my car it would have been done then, which it wasn't (unless they haven't itemised it on the bill and not mentioned it to me, and i can't see the point of them being that secretive about it...)

[Corey_R]

Called my dealer about this just this afternoon and asked whether i should be looking at bringing mine in, he said that he believed it was only a problem with the DSG models, which would point away from fuel wouldn't it? as fuel would effect DSG and manual the same?

I would question the dealer again, or maybe ask another dealer.
I can confirm that there are members of this forum who have already got their 118TSI manuals booked in for this new ECU to be installed. Also, it is an ECU update, not a DSG mechatronics or electronics update. In addition, none of the articles or information presented thus far has indicated that it is just for the DSG model (or any mention of DSG or manual at all for that matter).

[DracZ]

I would question the dealer again, or maybe ask another dealer.
I can confirm that there are members of this forum who have already got their 118TSI manuals booked in for this new ECU to be installed. Also, it is an ECU update, not a DSG mechatronics or electronics update. In addition, none of the articles or information presented thus far has indicated that it is just for the DSG model (or any mention of DSG or manual at all for that matter).

Spoke to the service dept @ essendon VW, and its most likely a specific batch since I was asked to provide my VIN in order for them to determine whether the ECU update was applicable to my 118TSI specifically. Booked in for the 24th of this month, and its a DEC 09 build.

[dave_r]

Don't have much to add except on the previous white cars I owned ~4-5yrs ago I noticed a big difference with the output of different fuels. At the time, Shell Optimax was dirty as hell. It would leave the rear bumper black and if you had a tail wind when stationary it smelled like rotten eggs (believe this is the sulphur). On the otherhand, using Mobil Synergy 8000 which was also a 98RON fuel, left no mess on the rear bumper at all and didn't smell.

There was no difference in performance but if 2 different fuels can have such a marked difference in output at the tailpipe, imagine what they're doing in the engine internals!

[BBP]

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.

Everyone knows all that. You missed my point.

If VW recommends 95RON, then that is what I should be able to use without any risk of damage. I don't care about the money. I have an XF Jag, the Golf is just for my wife.

[BBP]

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

Again, not the point.

If you release a product to the market and make various statements about its use, the buyer must be able to rely on those statements, otherwise we have a schmozzle.

[BBP]

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.

Again again, that's irrelevant to my position.

[Maverick]

Again, not the point.

If you release a product to the market and make various statements about its use, the buyer must be able to rely on those statements, otherwise we have a schmozzle.

It is the point if you understood fuel.

98 octane fuel will cost you less as you travel further on one tank plus it saves you down the track as it contains many more conditioners to keep your fuel system clean.

Plenty of products are sold that are capable of being used in multiple different ways and in this case 95 octane is most likely ok but if you get a bad batch or two or you start clogging up the FSI system you can run into problems whereas with 98 octane fuel you have a larger safety margin but better cleaning and it costs you less.

It's the same with tyres, the car might ship with CSC3's which are fantastic tyre's and you choose instead of putting performance tyres back on the car when they wear but instead some bob jane all rounders (after all they meet the requirements) and you complain to VW when your car slides off the road in the next rain.

Just because a manufacturer has a minimum standard doesn't mean you shouldn't use a product that is better.

[BBP]

It is the point if you understood fuel.

98 octane fuel will cost you less as you travel further on one tank plus it saves you down the track as it contains many more conditioners to keep your fuel system clean.

Plenty of products are sold that are capable of being used in multiple different ways and in this case 95 octane is most likely ok but if you get a bad batch or two or you start clogging up the FSI system you can run into problems whereas with 98 octane fuel you have a larger safety margin but better cleaning and it costs you less.

It's the same with tyres, the car might ship with CSC3's which are fantastic tyre's and you choose instead of putting performance tyres back on the car when they wear but instead some bob jane all rounders (after all they meet the requirements) and you complain to VW when your car slides off the road in the next rain.

Just because a manufacturer has a minimum standard doesn't mean you shouldn't use a product that is better.

Err, I don't know how to explain it any simpler than I already have !

And there is no need to get personal, I have a pretty good grasp on fuel. My Dad was a mechanic and I basically grew up in his workshop playing with carbys and injectors. Let's just stick to the topic.

Patently, 98RON can be used and it would lead to better efficiency in the combustion chamber. Everyone with half a motoring brain cell knows that.

The issue here is that there is a suggestion that the fuel VW Australia recommends (AUSTRALIA'S 95RON, not Europe's or America's or Heaven's) is hurting these engines and resulting in damage.

If that is true (and none of us know whether it is or not), it is unacceptable and no VW customer should have to "work around it" by using 98RON. That's commercial law 101.

[Maverick]

Err, I don't know how to explain it any simpler than I already have !

And there is no need to get personal, I have a pretty good grasp on fuel. My Dad was a mechanic and I basically grew up in his workshop playing with carbys and injectors. Let's just stick to the topic.

I'm not getting personal but throwing some facts and suggestions out there.

Patently, 98RON can be used and it would lead to better efficiency in the combustion chamber. Everyone with half a motoring brain cell knows that.

The issue here is that there is a suggestion that the fuel VW Australia recommends (AUSTRALIA'S 95RON, not Europe's or America's or Heaven's) is hurting these engines and resulting in damage.

Volkswagen had an issue with a range of cars, Volkswagen is calling those cars back for a ECU update to fix the problem and that's the end of the story.

What isn't clear however is if the fuel that was used was not up to spec (ie not 95 RON) and/or was full of containments.

If that is true (and none of us know whether it is or not), it is unacceptable and no VW customer should have to "work around it" by using 98RON. That's commercial law 101.

There is no mention of a workaround using 98 RON however a prudent owner would choose to use 98 RON if they cared for the car and understood fuel.