Golf 118 TSI Engine Failures and Service Campaign 24S4

[Brian]

I may be wrong, but wasn't this motor detuned from 125kW to 118kW to suit Australian fuel?
This should have resulted in a ECU map to suit OZ fuels I would have thought. Has VW got it wrong from the start?
I purchased mine 2nd hand at 8000K and is going great. Have used BP, Caltex and Mobile 98 since I've had it and can't discern any difference in performance or economy between the fuels. But who knows what the previous owner used.
Booked in for a reflash on the 20th and then an APR upgrade.
Hope everyones outcomes are positive.
Brian

[Golf Mark 6]

The 1.4 has a graphite cast iron block with an open deck design - no liners.

Also we're making an assumption here that it is fuel related - it is possible that they made an error in the ECU calibration when doing the SW variant for the Australian market. It wouldn't be the first time a product was sold with a software error!

Does this mean that if there is damage they'll have to re-bore the engine?

[Corey_R]

More likely that they'll just replace the engine - as per all the other cases.

[Diesel_vert]

The 118 kW motor hasn't been detuned for Australia, as the Volkswagen website in Germany shows the same output of 118 kW (160 PS). It also says to use fuel that has a minimum RON of 95, is sulphur free (i.e. 10 ppm) and conforms to EN 228, of which I've already commented on. Same goes for the 90 kW (122 PS) TSI and the 155 kW (210 PS) TSI in the Golf GTI. In fact, the 199 kW (270 PS) motor in the Golf R is the only one which explicitly states that, although 95 is the minimum recommendation, 98 is required to achieve maximum performance.

Currently, according to the Fuel Quality Standards Act 2000, the maximum limit for sulphur is 150 ppm for regular unleaded (91) and regular unleaded E10 (93~94), and 50 ppm for premium unleaded (95) and super premium unleaded (98 ). Pathetic, really.

It is the desire of the Rudd government to harmonise Australian Design Rules (ADRs) with United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UN ECE) vehicle regulations, by introducing Euro 5/6 standards (and hence, by deduction, 10 ppm petrol) as soon as possible, but they made the mistake of consulting with the Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries (FCAI) and the Australian Petroleum Industry (AIP) beforehand, who essentially said they support it but want it delayed. So its been delayed.

The majority of the European population would use premium if they don't have to use super premium in the same way the majority of the Australian population would use regular if they don't have to use premium. However, enthusiasts, which are the minority of the population, would recommend using super premium (with good reason). And it's mostly enthusiasts who hang out on these forums, hence the type of responses you've received, BBP (some of which is uncalled for).

BBP is correct in arguing that if Volkswagen say 95 is fine, then it's fine, as 95 is no dirtier than 98, unlike what some have been saying - I certainly wouldn't worry about it in a pinch. However, also consider that we enthusiasts are also correct in saying that super premium has indeed a higher concentration of cleansing additives than premium (at least BP Ultimate does, don't know about Caltex Vortex 98, Mobil Synergy 8000, Shell V-Power, etc). But I'm not here to tell how to run your life, your decisions are your own and don't let other members tell you otherwise.

Back to the engine failure - I'm no engineer but I'm of the impression that relatively high sulphur levels (I'm talking about 50 ppm vs 10 ppm, not anything silly like 150 ppm), whilst documented & demonstrated to be harmful to fuel consumption, TWC's and DPF's, shouldn't adversely affect engine performance to the extent that piston heads are cracking. I'm happy to be proven otherwise, but so far I believe there is a more fundamental problem here.

[Corey_R]

The way it was explained by BMW in an article from months back (I can't find it at the moment, so I'm talking from memory here), is that the higher concentration of sulphur causes issues, especially during the "lean burn" process of the latest modern engines, which can cause ring failure, piston failures, and thus can also cause damage to the cylinder itself.

Now in relation to the 118TSI.
If you look at the specs for the MKV Golf GT Manual. The engine had the same torque, and slightly more power (125kw @ 6000rpm vs 118kw @ 5900rpm). But it also consumed 7.7L/100km vs only 6.2L/100km in the 118TSI Manual. Now there's only 30kg difference between these two cars, so not enough to influence fuel consumption during an ADR test. I don't know what the aerodynamic efficiency rating of both cars is, but I doubt that it has any factor (especially since ADR is on a rolling road anyway). So pretty much changes to the engine and/or ECU have allowed for 1.5L/100km less fuel to be used in the 118TSI.

Again - I'm no mechanic, but this really seems to be in the area of what the BMW article was talking about, and other Euro manufacturers were discussing.

[break]

It's the old case where you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.

Let them put 95 octane, or even crappy 98 octane (ie. mobil/caltex etc.) in their cars and whine about engine failure while we all use our BP Ultimate and enjoy the benefit of less engine problems and more power.

[Syd118TSI]

If you look at the specs for the MKV Golf GT Manual. The engine had the same torque, and slightly more power (125kw @ 6000rpm vs 118kw @ 5900rpm). But it also consumed 7.7L/100km vs only 6.2L/100km in the 118TSI Manual.

There's some confusion regarding this (I've seen it quoted in reverse) but the AU Volkswagen site actually says:

"The Golf 118TSI Comfortline travels 100km on just 6.5 litres,* or 6.2 litres* with a DSG transmission."

To me it makes perfect sense that with the additional gear of the DSG it should use less fuel.

7.7L/100KM vs 6.5L/100KM is still a substancial difference, but given that the GT was presented as a sporty drive it's understandable that they'd sacrifice a little economy for speed (0.3 seconds quicker on the 0-100) as those buying the GT badge weren't doing so specifically with fuel economy in mind.

[dopey]

It just comes down to the tuning. The GT had a richer tune, and probably ran a little more boost. That's why it was more powerful and used more fuel. Same as when you get an APR flash, really.

Put simply, the 118TSI is running a tune that is too lean for our poor quality fuel. It would be absolutely fine overseas where the 95+RON fuel is cleaner, but it's on too much of a fine line for this countries fuel supply, hence the cases of pinging and detonation that are occuring. The new update they are doing will simply be a "safer" computer tune - I will be interested to see how much richer they run now.

I really hope this new tune puts an end to the broken engine stories, it's a real shame to see this happening to an otherwise fantastic car.

[Zaul]

Unless I'm mistaken, there is no refinery in Adelaide. All fuel is now shipped in from interstate. The only refinery that did exist at Port Stanvac is about to become a desalination plant.

[nicandlance]

Mine went in this morning and I got it back in around 40 minutes. Was also given a free voucher for a car wash.
Hopefully I can relax now and not have to worry about my engine blowing up!