Oil related engine failures

[upgw]

OK, It's been quite a while since I've seen an oil related engine failure, but I've directly seen two Audi 1.8T engine failures now and I know for a fact that one of these was a well-maintained machine with easy driving regular changes (non synthetic), but it still sludged up and lost pressure at 100K miles. The owner received a notice from Audi saying they would reimburse him the $1000 if he could 'prove' he changed the oil.. he's working on that. Looks like it is a much bigger problem:

http://www.autoweek.com/news.cms?newsId=100717

They are now requiring synthetic oil and 3000 mile intervals for the 1.8T engine, an engine that's on its way out anyway for Audi and VW.

- Patrick

 

[mahlers]

Those highly-sprung little tubo engines really generate some heat. I'm surprised that they didn't mandate synthetic oil from the start. Anytime you have a turbo, you should be using a good synthetic - especially for a daily-driver that doesn't go through a cool-down period before shutting down. Those turbos just cook the oil if they're shut down before a good cooling-off period, and dino oil turns to tar really quick.

 

[mlmartin]

Heat is probably the problem, but Audi _used_ to know how to deal with it. My wife's 1991 200 TQW with a 20 valve 2.2 liter five cylinder produces just under 220 HP. It has over 230000 miles on it with reasonable adherence to the manufacturer's recommendations. I suspect a bean counter had more to do with the 1.8T's problems than an engineer.

Matthew

 

[gsxr1100]

Nothing new. My Lexus has the same engine problems from 96 to 2002.

the Lexus letter sent to me said, "..as the expense of a rental car, associated with oil gel related repairs. All we ask is that you show a reasonable effort to regularly maintain your vehicle." Define reasonable I ask....

Again welcome to the world for poor designs.

 

[Soundguy]

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( suspect a bean counter had more to do with the 1.8T's problems than an engineer.
)</font>

I agree. The way it usually goes is the company owner hires the engineer to design a product.. then hires a marketing person, and a bean counter and a legal dept. Once they all get their say.. the engineer has to redesign the product to cost less, ( probably reduce lifespan) and take every shortcut available... in the end when the product fails, marketing and sales blame the engineering dept.

( I don't sound bitter do I??? )

Soundguy

 

[slowrev]

Chris,
We ALL KNOW that marketing and sales never do anything wrong /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif I used to be a Technical support manager for a fiber optics concern. My boss was the sales director. I'll bet you can guess how things worked out. Only job I have ever had that truly I hated. Not the job but the situation. After I left my old boss had the nerve to call me up several times asking questions, just hung up and smiled /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif

I think pro sales people are just people that flunked out of law school.

 

[RWEST]

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( I think pro sales people are just people that flunked out of law school)</font>
/forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif ROFL!! /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif