Why did Golf go up in flames ?
Discussion
CraigyMc said:
300bhp/ton said:
angusc43 said:
I wouldn't drive 5 minutes with the service indicator on.
That sounds a little extreme, even for the most ignorant 
The comment shows the level of ignorance that is possible. No wonder so many people get ripped off when they get there car serviced.
redstu said:
CraigyMc said:
300bhp/ton said:
angusc43 said:
I wouldn't drive 5 minutes with the service indicator on.
That sounds a little extreme, even for the most ignorant The comment shows the level of ignorance that is possible. No wonder so many people get ripped off when they get there car serviced.
fangio said:
You mean none of you have seen an exhaust manifold glowing cherry red? The oil would ignite when he slowed from motorway speeds, where the 70 mph wind would keep the manifold a tad cooler.
And in a modern car, there would be no smell as the engine compartment is pretty well sealed from the cabin.
I have but not on a 100hp 1.6 Golf, and even a cherry red manifold won't ignite engine oil.And in a modern car, there would be no smell as the engine compartment is pretty well sealed from the cabin.
Edited by busta on Friday 24th December 19:19
buggalugs said:
In my experience engine oil doesn't start to burn on a typical hot exhaust manifold - it will make a lot of smoke and smell but there will be no flames. Brake fluid will flame up, not sure about petrol - don't think it does but wouldn't wanna check!
Eta,
I was quite interested to find the answer about petrol, and dug up this article about it -
http://garrett-engineers.com/items-of-general-inte...
They spray loads of different car fluids onto a metal surface at 1000F. It seems even a 50/50 mix of coolant and water will burn!!
Bear in mind though that a petrol engine held steady at max power will have EGT's of up to 1500F ish, but if we're just talking about normal driving round and the temp on the outside of a manifold, I can't see it being anywhere near that which is probably why most people's experience of getting oil on a manifold is that that nothing happens except for some smoke.
Sacary stuff. Never would have thought coolant, especialy dilute, would burn. Nor brake fluid for thet matter.Eta,
I was quite interested to find the answer about petrol, and dug up this article about it -
http://garrett-engineers.com/items-of-general-inte...
They spray loads of different car fluids onto a metal surface at 1000F. It seems even a 50/50 mix of coolant and water will burn!!
Bear in mind though that a petrol engine held steady at max power will have EGT's of up to 1500F ish, but if we're just talking about normal driving round and the temp on the outside of a manifold, I can't see it being anywhere near that which is probably why most people's experience of getting oil on a manifold is that that nothing happens except for some smoke.
Edited by buggalugs on Friday 24th December 13:31
anonymous said:
[redacted]
His insurance is there to put him back in the position he was in prior to the loss, not to play CSI. Form the sound sof the firs, there won't be much to oinspect, but any car that's had the engine on fire will pretty well have wrecked the whole front end (rear on some cars, for the pedants)anonymous said:
[redacted]
Seems reasonable to write it off over the phone given the incident circumstances. Did he have a courtesy car within his policy, if not then that may have some bearing on why he's not getting one. On most policies a courtesy car is either an optional extra, limited to if the car's being repaired or c14 days in the event of a write off and tends to be a bog standard Micra or similar. Credit Hire (like-for-life) are only offered in non-fault cases, which a single vehicle inscident can neever be.I can't help on the mechanical side, as I'm a total numpty.
Cost Captain said:
paddyhasneeds said:
It's a 2006 Golf.
I'd have thought you'd have to be pretty f
king negligent as an owner to be driving it in a state where it can catch fire and a year without a service sounds like nothing tbh.
Not helpful I know, but it just sounds very odd.
I was thinking this!I'd have thought you'd have to be pretty f
king negligent as an owner to be driving it in a state where it can catch fire and a year without a service sounds like nothing tbh.Not helpful I know, but it just sounds very odd.
I had a 1999 ford ka that had a very very minor electrical fire when it was 7 years old, but a 4 year old, 25k golf being completely destroyed? something fishy....
It could be absolutely anything, a rogue cigarette butt thrown out the window of a car in front (it's not unknown for them to get sucked into the intake pipe, and come to rest against the air filter, with a lovely supply of air to fan the flames), something stuck to the exhaust/catalyst and that's just the random stuff...
Oil leaking onto a manifold can and does set light (are there any MOT testers who can confirm that a bad oil leak around the manifold can cause a fail?) trust me, when the breather pipe split on the RS turbo I was in let go dumping oil on the manifold, the orange glow from the bonnet vents were definitely flames (thank god for coffee and flasks is all I can say)
Coil pack? Common on the VAG Fsi engines I believe - even a mild misfire at motorway speeds can overheat the catalyst pretty quickly, and underseal burns pretty well
There's also the possibility of the oil cap or dipstick not being refitted as others have said - oily rag?
If the car has already been declared a write off (depending on the severity of the fire, it's likely as I believe fire damage is one of the reasons for a car not being allowed back on the road as it can weaken the steel in the body shell) then it's common for insurance companies to offer no replacement car - a car is normally only supplied if the car is being resided, or if the Ins Co are awaiting an assessment.
Oil leaking onto a manifold can and does set light (are there any MOT testers who can confirm that a bad oil leak around the manifold can cause a fail?) trust me, when the breather pipe split on the RS turbo I was in let go dumping oil on the manifold, the orange glow from the bonnet vents were definitely flames (thank god for coffee and flasks is all I can say)
Coil pack? Common on the VAG Fsi engines I believe - even a mild misfire at motorway speeds can overheat the catalyst pretty quickly, and underseal burns pretty well
There's also the possibility of the oil cap or dipstick not being refitted as others have said - oily rag?
If the car has already been declared a write off (depending on the severity of the fire, it's likely as I believe fire damage is one of the reasons for a car not being allowed back on the road as it can weaken the steel in the body shell) then it's common for insurance companies to offer no replacement car - a car is normally only supplied if the car is being resided, or if the Ins Co are awaiting an assessment.
-Z- said:
redstu said:
CraigyMc said:
300bhp/ton said:
angusc43 said:
I wouldn't drive 5 minutes with the service indicator on.
That sounds a little extreme, even for the most ignorant The comment shows the level of ignorance that is possible. No wonder so many people get ripped off when they get there car serviced.
Superhoop said:
It could be absolutely anything, a rogue cigarette butt thrown out the window of a car in front (it's not unknown for them to get sucked into the intake pipe, and come to rest against the air filter, with a lovely supply of air to fan the flames
There was a show on BBC Radio 2 or 5 a few months back where a Chief Investigative Fire Officer said this was one of the most common reasons for vehicles to catch fire when they're driving along.AndyLB said:
-Z- said:
redstu said:
CraigyMc said:
300bhp/ton said:
angusc43 said:
I wouldn't drive 5 minutes with the service indicator on.
That sounds a little extreme, even for the most ignorant The comment shows the level of ignorance that is possible. No wonder so many people get ripped off when they get there car serviced.
Interesting thread. On Friday 24th December when it looks like this was posted, we had exactly the same problem with our 2006 1.6 Golf FSI. We had been driving happily for over 2 hours, and stopped at services on the M5 for a cuppa. Everything was fine, car sat still for all of about 10 minutes happily. Then tried to start the engine and it spluttered, started running very roughly. Stopped engine and tried again only to have smoke start to pour out from the bonnet. Quickly shut off engine and was ready to run for an exthinguisher, but seemed to have stopped it in time for any flame to take over and eventually the smoke dissipated. Very thick white acrid smoke smelling highly of electrical wiring.
Car was recently serviced with new oil, no warning lights anywhere before hand. Getting it towed back to home soon, hopefully its not too expensive to repair
It would be interesting if the original poster lets us know the root cause of their fire, maybe there is a fault with this model. Maybe needs to be highlighted to VW before something more serious happens...?
Car was recently serviced with new oil, no warning lights anywhere before hand. Getting it towed back to home soon, hopefully its not too expensive to repair
It would be interesting if the original poster lets us know the root cause of their fire, maybe there is a fault with this model. Maybe needs to be highlighted to VW before something more serious happens...?
MJK 24 said:
There was a show on BBC Radio 2 or 5 a few months back where a Chief Investigative Fire Officer said this was one of the most common reasons for vehicles to catch fire when they're driving along.
Honest John said:
Sun 15 Sep 2002
This is copyright Steve Hannaford so cannot be reproduced for gain without his permission:-
The book was published mid-June. It is called "Steve Hannaford's method for the investigation of vehicle and automotive fires"
Steve Hannaford
Hannaford Forensic Services Ltd
PO Box 2104
Wrexham LL11 3AQ
tel:01978 790390
fax: 01978 790490
email: hannaford@clara.co.uk
CIGARETTES AND INCANDESCENT MATERIAL
What are the chances of a cigarette end which has been thrown out of a car being able to start a fire in the vehicle behind? This could only be, perhaps, a one in a thousand chance. Well, if you stop and think that there may be ten thousand cigarette ends thrown out of car windows every day, that means ten vehicle fires per day might be caused by those thrown out cigarette ends. I've suggested ten thousand, but the figure might well be closer to one hundred thousand, or even one million! When you extrapolate the figures, the results are quite frightening.
Everyone knows the old story about the cigarette being thrown out of the driver's window only to enter by the open rear passenger window and start a fire on the back seat. I have only ever had one or two fires caused by this. No, what I am talking about here is the cigarette end that is thrown out of the window of the car in front and gets either sucked into the air-filter of the car behind, or manages to pass through a gap in the radiator grille and comes into contact with the combustible under-bonnet lining.
I am now going to tell you something that may surprise you: in our experience, perhaps fifteen or even twenty percent of all car fires that occur on motorways and dual-carriageways are caused by cigarette ends thrown out of vehicle windows either being sucked into the air-filter or becoming lodged in contact with the under-bonnet lining of the car directly behind.
This whole scenario is, I am told, far more prevalent in countries where they drive on the left ie with right-hand drive vehicles. The reasoning for this is that the majority of us are right-handed - and ashtrays in virtually all right-hand drive vehicles are built into the centre console to the left of the driver. Hence, it is easier to throw the cigarette end out of the window than to change hands and stub it out in the ashtray. In left-hand drive countries, the ashtray is to the right of the driver, and so it is easier to use.
Older cars do not suffer in the same way, because the intake air is usually drawn into the air-filter from within the engine compartment, ie from behind the coolant radiator. This offers a high degree of protection from cigarette ends, though the air is first warmed by passing through the radiator. In the quest for more power, colder, denser air can be drawn into the air-filter box by locating the intake opening forward of the coolant radiator, and this is the major factor in more modern vehicles that gives rise to the cigarette end problem.
Another plus for older cars is the air-filter box being made of pressed steel. This does not prevent the fire starting on the air-filter, but limits the speed and extent of development out into the engine compartment.
Manufacturers are well aware of the propensity for this to cause fires, and will often cite it on the basis that it is some sort of "Act of God" Frankly, I was unaware that God was a smoker. In my view, if manufacturers are aware of the potential for this, then they should be designing their air intakes a little more carefully, and ensuring that the under-bonnet lining material is, at the very least, fire retardant. I would also have thought that by now, it would have been simple to design an intake system that was not susceptible to cigarette end ignition.
If you check through the DoT Vehicle Inspectorate recall list, you will find that three major commercial vehicle manufacturers have had to recall some of their vehicle models for modification. This was because, on right-hand drive models, the air intake was directly behind the driver's window. Thus, when the driver disposed of a cigarette end out of the window, it could be immediately sucked into the air intake ducting, down onto the air-filter and a fire would ensue shortly afterwards.
The manufacturers took this problem very seriously. The view taken seems to be that, if the fault is occurring on a regular basis because the driver of that vehicle is (unwittingly) setting fire to it as a result of their own discarded cigarette end, this is different from the scenario where the cigarette end is thrown out of the window of the car in front by someone else. I know of one situation where a responsible manufacturer changed the position of the air intake on an articulated tractor unit from behind the driver's window to the front grille. Unfortunately, this simply put it straight in line for those cigarettes thrown out of the window of the car in front, instead of those thrown by its own driver.
Incidentally, I had an experience where a commercial vehicle manufacturer changed the intake from the driver's side (offside) to the passenger side (nearside) to alleviate this problem on its UK vehicles. This worked well, except we were then suddenly being instructed to investigate fires in road sweeping vehicles where the chassis and cab were made by this same manufacturer. The problem? Road-sweepers in the UK are left-hand drive (or have dual controls), so the driver is sitting on the left, directly in front of the air intake - and the discarded cigarette end was causing the problem once again.
Certain makes and models of cars are more prone to this than others. For instance, many of the Japanese manufacturers seem to put the air intakes right behind the headlamp cluster (still forward of the radiator). This makes it very difficult for the burning end of the cigarette to enter. I can certainly confirm that we have had very few Japanese vehicles having caught fire due to the cigarette end phenomenon. Likewise, one or two British and European manufacturers do not make our list of vehicles frequently set on fire by incandescent material, simply because of the location of the intake opening.
The problem is in not only making a grille that is small enough to stop a cigarette end from entering, but also ensuring that the layout of the intake is such that, when the cigarette end hits the grille mesh (or passes straight through and strikes the front of the radiator), and breaks up into small pieces of incandescent material, these cannot be sucked into the airbox and onto the combustible filter element. It seems that only a relatively small fragment of glowing material is sufficient to ignite the air-filter or other debris (for instance, dried leaves) in the air-filter box. This is because of the inevitable high flow of air through the air-filter while the engine is running. Likewise there is a possibility of the cigarette end, or incandescent fragments from it, getting trapped by or lodged up against the under-bonnet lining material when a cigarette strikes the front of the car.
Generally, in the case of the under-bonnet lining material catching fire, there will be a very distinctive burn pattern; the only item largely consumed in the fire will be the under-bonnet lining material, with corresponding damage to plastics at high level across the top of the engine compartment. In this scenario, I would not expect to see significant burn patterns lower down within the engine compartment, though length of burn time will be a factor if the fire manages to take hold.
With cigarette ends or incandescent material entering the airbox, there is a specific sequence of events that I should bring to your attention. This sequence of events is typical, though certainly not exclusive.
Another part of the engine that will suffer in this type of fire (if fitted) is the turbo-charger. Often, the intake impeller will break up, depositing debris inside the intercooler.
It is always the exception that proves the rule, and I have had several instances where we have had a completely different set of circumstances, though the fire damage was still most consistent with this phenomenon. In all these instances, the vehicles had been driven slowly around "B" roads with only moderate traffic, and several vehicles had been parked with the drivers having walked away before they realised something was wrong. In one instance the driver had noted a loss of power just as they were parking. In another, the first the driver knew there was something wrong was when the ignition light came on (this was because of the physical layout - the airbox was directly in front of the battery and associated fusible links). In these instances, the burn patterns were such that the fire could have only originated within the airbox. Ultimately, it might be an hour (or more) later if the cigarette only initiates a smouldering fire in the air-filter.
I remain of the view that if a manufacturer is aware of the propensity for their design of intake to attract incandescent material, then it is a design fault. I am continually amazed that manufacturers seize the opportunity to blame cigarette ends for starting fires in air-filters as if it is no fault of theirs. If one cigarette is to enter the intake of a new design of car for the first time, then I expect the manufacturer to take note and do something about it. I cannot see any excuse for continually blaming a cigarette end for having started a fire as if there is no responsibility on the part of the manufacturer to take action. It is, after all, entirely foreseeable, and they are well aware of the problem.
In the case of under-bonnet linings, these are often made from a mix of cotton with other fibres. The exposed surface is then treated with a (usually black) fire retardant finish. Note that "fire retardant" does not mean "fire proof", as many in the automotive industry seem to think! There have been some major recalls because of the discovery, once a new model was released, that in normal use, the under-bonnet lining was all too frequently becoming ignited by cigarette ends discarded in the ways previously described. In one instance that I know of, a new (and still current) model was recalled for an alternator fault, and while that was being done, a new under-bonnet lining was also fitted, though the owner would not even be aware that this was done.
In another instance, where the under-bonnet lining was composed of a combustible cotton blend, a smouldering fire was discovered under the bonnet two days after the vehicle was last parked. The lesson therefore has to be that smouldering fires in either the air-filter or under-bonnet lining do not necessarily have to manifest themselves while the vehicle is being driven, nor even within minutes (or hours?) of being parked.
I am sure that the general public are simply not aware that the lining under the bonnets of their cars are combustible and, in many cases, easily ignited. I understand from one manufacturer that they found the answer was quite simple - mix the cotton blend with twenty percent glass-fibre, and apply the fire retardant coating to both sides.
In defence of the manufacturers, I do think that there should be some effort made to alert the general public to the dangers of throwing cigarette ends out of car windows. I do not know of an insurer suing a manufacturer over a fire started by a cigarette end thrown out of a car in front on the basis of a vehicle design flaw. I think there might be a legal argument that the manufacturer is not entirely responsible for a source of ignition that is external to the vehicle. Ultimately, educating drivers is the key. Efforts could be made to make it socially unacceptable to dispose of cigarettes out of vehicle windows. One day!
This is copyright Steve Hannaford so cannot be reproduced for gain without his permission:-
The book was published mid-June. It is called "Steve Hannaford's method for the investigation of vehicle and automotive fires"
Steve Hannaford
Hannaford Forensic Services Ltd
PO Box 2104
Wrexham LL11 3AQ
tel:01978 790390
fax: 01978 790490
email: hannaford@clara.co.uk
CIGARETTES AND INCANDESCENT MATERIAL
What are the chances of a cigarette end which has been thrown out of a car being able to start a fire in the vehicle behind? This could only be, perhaps, a one in a thousand chance. Well, if you stop and think that there may be ten thousand cigarette ends thrown out of car windows every day, that means ten vehicle fires per day might be caused by those thrown out cigarette ends. I've suggested ten thousand, but the figure might well be closer to one hundred thousand, or even one million! When you extrapolate the figures, the results are quite frightening.
Everyone knows the old story about the cigarette being thrown out of the driver's window only to enter by the open rear passenger window and start a fire on the back seat. I have only ever had one or two fires caused by this. No, what I am talking about here is the cigarette end that is thrown out of the window of the car in front and gets either sucked into the air-filter of the car behind, or manages to pass through a gap in the radiator grille and comes into contact with the combustible under-bonnet lining.
I am now going to tell you something that may surprise you: in our experience, perhaps fifteen or even twenty percent of all car fires that occur on motorways and dual-carriageways are caused by cigarette ends thrown out of vehicle windows either being sucked into the air-filter or becoming lodged in contact with the under-bonnet lining of the car directly behind.
This whole scenario is, I am told, far more prevalent in countries where they drive on the left ie with right-hand drive vehicles. The reasoning for this is that the majority of us are right-handed - and ashtrays in virtually all right-hand drive vehicles are built into the centre console to the left of the driver. Hence, it is easier to throw the cigarette end out of the window than to change hands and stub it out in the ashtray. In left-hand drive countries, the ashtray is to the right of the driver, and so it is easier to use.
Older cars do not suffer in the same way, because the intake air is usually drawn into the air-filter from within the engine compartment, ie from behind the coolant radiator. This offers a high degree of protection from cigarette ends, though the air is first warmed by passing through the radiator. In the quest for more power, colder, denser air can be drawn into the air-filter box by locating the intake opening forward of the coolant radiator, and this is the major factor in more modern vehicles that gives rise to the cigarette end problem.
Another plus for older cars is the air-filter box being made of pressed steel. This does not prevent the fire starting on the air-filter, but limits the speed and extent of development out into the engine compartment.
Manufacturers are well aware of the propensity for this to cause fires, and will often cite it on the basis that it is some sort of "Act of God" Frankly, I was unaware that God was a smoker. In my view, if manufacturers are aware of the potential for this, then they should be designing their air intakes a little more carefully, and ensuring that the under-bonnet lining material is, at the very least, fire retardant. I would also have thought that by now, it would have been simple to design an intake system that was not susceptible to cigarette end ignition.
If you check through the DoT Vehicle Inspectorate recall list, you will find that three major commercial vehicle manufacturers have had to recall some of their vehicle models for modification. This was because, on right-hand drive models, the air intake was directly behind the driver's window. Thus, when the driver disposed of a cigarette end out of the window, it could be immediately sucked into the air intake ducting, down onto the air-filter and a fire would ensue shortly afterwards.
The manufacturers took this problem very seriously. The view taken seems to be that, if the fault is occurring on a regular basis because the driver of that vehicle is (unwittingly) setting fire to it as a result of their own discarded cigarette end, this is different from the scenario where the cigarette end is thrown out of the window of the car in front by someone else. I know of one situation where a responsible manufacturer changed the position of the air intake on an articulated tractor unit from behind the driver's window to the front grille. Unfortunately, this simply put it straight in line for those cigarettes thrown out of the window of the car in front, instead of those thrown by its own driver.
Incidentally, I had an experience where a commercial vehicle manufacturer changed the intake from the driver's side (offside) to the passenger side (nearside) to alleviate this problem on its UK vehicles. This worked well, except we were then suddenly being instructed to investigate fires in road sweeping vehicles where the chassis and cab were made by this same manufacturer. The problem? Road-sweepers in the UK are left-hand drive (or have dual controls), so the driver is sitting on the left, directly in front of the air intake - and the discarded cigarette end was causing the problem once again.
Certain makes and models of cars are more prone to this than others. For instance, many of the Japanese manufacturers seem to put the air intakes right behind the headlamp cluster (still forward of the radiator). This makes it very difficult for the burning end of the cigarette to enter. I can certainly confirm that we have had very few Japanese vehicles having caught fire due to the cigarette end phenomenon. Likewise, one or two British and European manufacturers do not make our list of vehicles frequently set on fire by incandescent material, simply because of the location of the intake opening.
The problem is in not only making a grille that is small enough to stop a cigarette end from entering, but also ensuring that the layout of the intake is such that, when the cigarette end hits the grille mesh (or passes straight through and strikes the front of the radiator), and breaks up into small pieces of incandescent material, these cannot be sucked into the airbox and onto the combustible filter element. It seems that only a relatively small fragment of glowing material is sufficient to ignite the air-filter or other debris (for instance, dried leaves) in the air-filter box. This is because of the inevitable high flow of air through the air-filter while the engine is running. Likewise there is a possibility of the cigarette end, or incandescent fragments from it, getting trapped by or lodged up against the under-bonnet lining material when a cigarette strikes the front of the car.
Generally, in the case of the under-bonnet lining material catching fire, there will be a very distinctive burn pattern; the only item largely consumed in the fire will be the under-bonnet lining material, with corresponding damage to plastics at high level across the top of the engine compartment. In this scenario, I would not expect to see significant burn patterns lower down within the engine compartment, though length of burn time will be a factor if the fire manages to take hold.
With cigarette ends or incandescent material entering the airbox, there is a specific sequence of events that I should bring to your attention. This sequence of events is typical, though certainly not exclusive.
- Firstly, the type of roads that are being covered. Usually this will occur on dual carriageways and motorways where speeds in excess of 50 mph are being maintained. When the cigarette end is thrown out of the window of the car in front, it flies straight back into the engine compartment of the car behind without even touching the ground. Thus, fairly heavy traffic conditions, though where moderate speeds are being maintained, is the first event in the sequence to look for.
- Secondly, the discovery of the fire. Because the fire originates within the airbox, there will usually be no warning lights or electrical malfunctions in the first instance. However, there will be a loss of power. If the air-filter is burning and producing smoke, this will obviously drastically reduce the engine efficiency. The first the driver knows about the occurrence is a sudden loss of engine power - either while still travelling on the motorway or dual carriageway, or after they have just left it. Depending upon the engine compartment layout, electrical failure might rapidly follow. I have known several instances where the battery was next to the airbox, and there was a loss of supply before the car came to a halt.
- Thirdly, the fire will really only manifest itself to the occupants once the vehicle has come to a standstill. All the time the engine is running, it is sucking fire through the air-filter and intake ducting - through the inlet manifold, and throwing much of the smoke and products of combustion out of the exhaust. Once the vehicle has come to a standstill, if the engine is left running, the flow of air is greatly reduced; or very often the engine is turned off or might have stalled. Then the fire can burst out of the airbox and ducting - if it has not already done so.
Another part of the engine that will suffer in this type of fire (if fitted) is the turbo-charger. Often, the intake impeller will break up, depositing debris inside the intercooler.
It is always the exception that proves the rule, and I have had several instances where we have had a completely different set of circumstances, though the fire damage was still most consistent with this phenomenon. In all these instances, the vehicles had been driven slowly around "B" roads with only moderate traffic, and several vehicles had been parked with the drivers having walked away before they realised something was wrong. In one instance the driver had noted a loss of power just as they were parking. In another, the first the driver knew there was something wrong was when the ignition light came on (this was because of the physical layout - the airbox was directly in front of the battery and associated fusible links). In these instances, the burn patterns were such that the fire could have only originated within the airbox. Ultimately, it might be an hour (or more) later if the cigarette only initiates a smouldering fire in the air-filter.
I remain of the view that if a manufacturer is aware of the propensity for their design of intake to attract incandescent material, then it is a design fault. I am continually amazed that manufacturers seize the opportunity to blame cigarette ends for starting fires in air-filters as if it is no fault of theirs. If one cigarette is to enter the intake of a new design of car for the first time, then I expect the manufacturer to take note and do something about it. I cannot see any excuse for continually blaming a cigarette end for having started a fire as if there is no responsibility on the part of the manufacturer to take action. It is, after all, entirely foreseeable, and they are well aware of the problem.
In the case of under-bonnet linings, these are often made from a mix of cotton with other fibres. The exposed surface is then treated with a (usually black) fire retardant finish. Note that "fire retardant" does not mean "fire proof", as many in the automotive industry seem to think! There have been some major recalls because of the discovery, once a new model was released, that in normal use, the under-bonnet lining was all too frequently becoming ignited by cigarette ends discarded in the ways previously described. In one instance that I know of, a new (and still current) model was recalled for an alternator fault, and while that was being done, a new under-bonnet lining was also fitted, though the owner would not even be aware that this was done.
In another instance, where the under-bonnet lining was composed of a combustible cotton blend, a smouldering fire was discovered under the bonnet two days after the vehicle was last parked. The lesson therefore has to be that smouldering fires in either the air-filter or under-bonnet lining do not necessarily have to manifest themselves while the vehicle is being driven, nor even within minutes (or hours?) of being parked.
I am sure that the general public are simply not aware that the lining under the bonnets of their cars are combustible and, in many cases, easily ignited. I understand from one manufacturer that they found the answer was quite simple - mix the cotton blend with twenty percent glass-fibre, and apply the fire retardant coating to both sides.
In defence of the manufacturers, I do think that there should be some effort made to alert the general public to the dangers of throwing cigarette ends out of car windows. I do not know of an insurer suing a manufacturer over a fire started by a cigarette end thrown out of a car in front on the basis of a vehicle design flaw. I think there might be a legal argument that the manufacturer is not entirely responsible for a source of ignition that is external to the vehicle. Ultimately, educating drivers is the key. Efforts could be made to make it socially unacceptable to dispose of cigarettes out of vehicle windows. One day!
"No, what I am talking about here is the cigarette end that is thrown out of the window of the car in front and gets either sucked into the air-filter of the car behind, or manages to pass through a gap in the radiator grille and comes into contact with the combustible under-bonnet lining."
Combustible under bonnet lining eh?
Nice theory though..
Combustible under bonnet lining eh?
Nice theory though..
TheEnd said:
"No, what I am talking about here is the cigarette end that is thrown out of the window of the car in front and gets either sucked into the air-filter of the car behind, or manages to pass through a gap in the radiator grille and comes into contact with the combustible under-bonnet lining."
Combustible under bonnet lining eh?
Nice theory though..
He also could've quoted the risk of a cigarette burning through the rizla paper pipe that the petrol runs along into the engine, now that would cause a fire Combustible under bonnet lining eh?
Nice theory though..
anonymous said:
[redacted]
That dealer is talking bks! There is NO system for the car to monitor the Brake fluid.anonymous said:
[redacted]
The Golf 5s do suffer from AC Compressors chewing themselves internally (and then dumping the swarf into the condenser) But the idea behind regular running is to keep the rubber O rings moist from the (Pag) oil in the system. Pipes don't tend to dry out as such. Some can fracture, but it's rare on Golfs. But TDi Sharans seem to do it a lot.-Z- said:
Go on then, please explain the process by which that would happen.
Devils Advocate. The oil sensor heats up and then depending on how st the oil has got it will take a longer time to cool down again. (not infra red really) This time is what the computer checks and decides what condition the oil is in. And then decides whether to bring the light on early IF the car is on variable servicing.However, unless he put in treacle its unlikely to cause an engine fire.
To the OP. Have you got any pics?
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff