Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2008 14:38:19 -0400
Reply-To: Jim Akiba <syncrolist@BOSTIG.COM>
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From: Jim Akiba <syncrolist@BOSTIG.COM>
Subject: Re: Audi Turbo motor swap
In-Reply-To: <20081009170228.98B711165C3@hamburg.alientech.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Yeah this is an interesting point, I'd agree that the interval change
would have affected this problem for sure. If they had set it to 60k
then many people would have been spared engine failure, and they would
have gotten a better reliability rating... aside from the lack of
heatshield on the turbo send lines on the B5 passat and the timing
belt failures, it performs well and is reliable, but the risks are
still quite high considering how expensive it is to replace/repair and
that it's an interference engine if/when the T-belt goes.
Jim Akiba
On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 1:02 PM, Mike S <mikes@flatsurface.com> wrote:
> At 11:56 AM 10/9/2008, george jannini wrote...
>>
>> It ain't opinion. Data is gathered from annual questionnaires sent
>> to CR readers. We calls 'em like we sees 'em.
>
> Self-selected responses are not statistically valid. No one is forced
> to return a questionnaire, and people with problems or gripes are more
> likely to respond. The dealer service experience will also sway the
> results.
>
> That means that if someone has multiple issues, they're more likely to
> respond with all issues they may have. For example, if person A only
> has an engine problem, and it is easily resolved by the dealer, they
> may not bother to return the questionnaire. OTOH, if person B has
> multiple problems, and dealer service is poor (as with many VW dealers,
> in my experience), they are more likely to respond. The result can be
> that vehicles with significant problems across-the-board can show a
> worse rating in every category, even though actual number of problems
> in any particular area are similar.
>
> There are also things which aren't really engine problems - timing
> belts have been mentioned for the 1.8t. The real issue is not the
> timing belts, or the tensioners, but that VW's recommended maintenance
> interval is unrealistic. For my 1.8t, VW says 105K miles for timing
> belt replacement, even though it's widely known in the enthusiast
> community that 60K is what's reasonable. There have been lots of
> failures on cars between 60K and 105K. I'm not aware of any when
> they're changed every 60K. But of course, if another manufacturer gives
> a realistic maintenance interval, then the VW engine would look worse
> for reliability when compared.
>
|