Fooking diesel engine faliures !

[mclwanB]

[quote]\ I agree that anecdote- other than everyone agreeing that they've never had a problem with a vehicle- is of limited use. Just a thought- maybe we could do something about it:

http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
[quote]\

Or maybe not due to PH T&Cs. Don't find http://www.reliabilityindex.com/ of any use at all in determining which car to buy as average repair costs are not useful if 10 are good but one is catastrophically expensive. Also doesn't split between petrol and diesel or individual models! Averages aren't the only problem, outlyers can be a real issue to real people!

Edited by mclwanB on Sunday 5th October 12:02

Edited by mclwanB on Sunday 5th October 12:05

[mclwanB]

daemon said:

siovey said:

I've just bought an old golf 1.9 tdi130 with 135k on the clock. I only need to keep it for 6-12 months and 10k miles. I was looking at this or the 2.0 petrol with half the mileage for the same money. Hopefully i've made the right choice reliabilty wise!!!

You havent.

More risk of the diesel car failing. Doesnt mean it will, just there is more risk of it.

The older 1.9's (as the 130 is) have a very good reputation. All the BXE ones are 2007-9 PD105s

[siovey]

mclwanB said:

daemon said:

siovey said:

I've just bought an old golf 1.9 tdi130 with 135k on the clock. I only need to keep it for 6-12 months and 10k miles. I was looking at this or the 2.0 petrol with half the mileage for the same money. Hopefully i've made the right choice reliabilty wise!!!

You havent.

More risk of the diesel car failing. Doesnt mean it will, just there is more risk of it.

The older 1.9's (as the 130 is) have a very good reputation. All the BXE ones are 2007-9 PD105s

Good to know...

[Sir Fergie]

The way I see it - is that if you are spending 6 k on a new engine or 2 k plus for new injectors or have a serious of issues over time adding up to big money.

That would buy a lot of fuel if a thirstier car is more reliable

And IME - there are additional costs to a breakdown/time off road for repairs.

Which include.

1) lost income if off the road

2) accommodation costs if away from home.

3) cost of trains/hire cars for the duration off the road.

Obviously in the case of a 40 to 50 k annual mileage - it may be argued that the fuel cost will overcome the repair cost situation.

But that is something an owner should take into account when calculating overall running costs imo

[Fastdruid]

mclwanB said:

Fastdruid said:

Er, that's on top of the car allowance which pays for the car, insurance, VED and saving up for the next car.

HMRC company car mileage rates for my own car? Feck off!

Edited by Fastdruid on Thursday 2nd October 22:56

)
Last financial year- car cost me 12900 including everything (incl depreciation)

Paid 9000 incl car allowance (after tax taken off for allowance).

This is a 5 year old high mileage skoda so depreciation won't pay for a decent replacement- probably a 4-5k 100k mile Mondeo

Do not want to spend 3.2k more on fuel (a petrol would struggle to do 30mpg in my use; although if as much went wrong every year as that year it would be close!)

So lets get this right, you have paid £3900pa of your own money to drive a diesel Skoda for the company you work for's business? You pay ~10p per mile of your personal cash for the privilege of driving for them?

I'd be demanding a company car and fuel card myself.

[Devil2575]

mclwanB][quote said:

\ I agree that anecdote- other than everyone agreeing that they've never had a problem with a vehicle- is of limited use. Just a thought- maybe we could do something about it:

http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
[quote]\

Or maybe not due to PH T&Cs. Don't find http://www.reliabilityindex.com/ of any use at all in determining which car to buy as average repair costs are not useful if 10 are good but one is catastrophically expensive. Also doesn't split between petrol and diesel or individual models! Averages aren't the only problem, outlyers can be a real issue to real people!

Edited by mclwanB on Sunday 5th October 12:02

Edited by mclwanB on Sunday 5th October 12:05

As long as the sample size is big enough outliers won't have a significant effect on the average. If they do then they aren't outliers.

Any car can suffer a terminal failure and no amount of reliabilty can guarantee it won't happen to you, it just reduces the probabilty that it will. Cars are complicated machines with lots of moving parts that go through all weathers constant heat cycles and varying degrees of maintenance. It's not supprising that they suffer failures from time to time, especially as the miles build up. It says a lot about our expectations when someone complains about a car giving them a 2k bill at 150k miles. 20 years ago that kind of milage was end of life for a lot of engines.

[Sir Fergie]

Fastdruid said:

mclwanB said:

Fastdruid said:

Er, that's on top of the car allowance which pays for the car, insurance, VED and saving up for the next car.

HMRC company car mileage rates for my own car? Feck off!

Edited by Fastdruid on Thursday 2nd October 22:56

)
Last financial year- car cost me 12900 including everything (incl depreciation)

Paid 9000 incl car allowance (after tax taken off for allowance).

This is a 5 year old high mileage skoda so depreciation won't pay for a decent replacement- probably a 4-5k 100k mile Mondeo

Do not want to spend 3.2k more on fuel (a petrol would struggle to do 30mpg in my use; although if as much went wrong every year as that year it would be close!)

So lets get this right, you have paid £3900pa of your own money to drive a diesel Skoda for the company you work for's business? You pay ~10p per mile of your personal cash for the privilege of driving for them?

I'd be demanding a company car and fuel card myself.

Its a fair point on the 3,900 but the thing is - if you ran this Skoda as a normal everyday car - no business driving - youd still be paying the 3,900 imo.

Yes - running the car for business means extra expense - hence the 9,000 in expenses and car allowance.

Now whether 9 k is enough of an allowance and expenses in the first place is another debate entirely

[mclwanB]

Sir Fergie said:

Fastdruid said:

mclwanB said:

Fastdruid said:

Er, that's on top of the car allowance which pays for the car, insurance, VED and saving up for the next car.

HMRC company car mileage rates for my own car? Feck off!

Edited by Fastdruid on Thursday 2nd October 22:56

)
Last financial year- car cost me 12900 including everything (incl depreciation)

Paid 9000 incl car allowance (after tax taken off for allowance).

This is a 5 year old high mileage skoda so depreciation won't pay for a decent replacement- probably a 4-5k 100k mile Mondeo

Do not want to spend 3.2k more on fuel (a petrol would struggle to do 30mpg in my use; although if as much went wrong every year as that year it would be close!)

So lets get this right, you have paid £3900pa of your own money to drive a diesel Skoda for the company you work for's business? You pay ~10p per mile of your personal cash for the privilege of driving for them?

I'd be demanding a company car and fuel card myself.

Its a fair point on the 3,900 but the thing is - if you ran this Skoda as a normal everyday car - no business driving - youd still be paying the 3,900 imo.

Yes - running the car for business means extra expense - hence the 9,000 in expenses and car allowance.

Now whether 9 k is enough of an allowance and expenses in the first place is another debate entirely

Can demand as much as I like- I have tried- this is all I get. In my career employers have realised that they can get away from providing them for employees (although they themselves all have provided vehicles).

It could be worse- travelling district nurses get 20ppm after 3500miles!

[mclwanB]

Devil2575 said:

mclwanB][quote said:

\ I agree that anecdote- other than everyone agreeing that they've never had a problem with a vehicle- is of limited use. Just a thought- maybe we could do something about it:

http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
[quote]\

Or maybe not due to PH T&Cs. Don't find http://www.reliabilityindex.com/ of any use at all in determining which car to buy as average repair costs are not useful if 10 are good but one is catastrophically expensive. Also doesn't split between petrol and diesel or individual models! Averages aren't the only problem, outlyers can be a real issue to real people!

Edited by mclwanB on Sunday 5th October 12:02

Edited by mclwanB on Sunday 5th October 12:05

As long as the sample size is big enough outliers won't have a significant effect on the average. If they do then they aren't outliers.

Any car can suffer a terminal failure and no amount of reliabilty can guarantee it won't happen to you, it just reduces the probabilty that it will. Cars are complicated machines with lots of moving parts that go through all weathers constant heat cycles and varying degrees of maintenance. It's not supprising that they suffer failures from time to time, especially as the miles build up. It says a lot about our expectations when someone complains about a car giving them a 2k bill at 150k miles. 20 years ago that kind of milage was end of life for a lot of engines.

But would you complain at a 7k bill at 63k miles 1.5k at 90k miles and 3k at 105k miles? I do!

WRT outliers it rather depends on your data set. If all the conditions are the same then I agree that a bigger survey size will sort it. However if you have a look at the reliability index data it does not 1. Distinguish petrol from diesel cars of the same model and 2. the cars that do the best in the survey all have very low mileages and 3. the cars that do best in the survey would be mainly petrol.

Knowing that a petrol Jazz at an average of 24k is the most cost effectively reliable car has no relevance to someone who has to buy an older diesel car at a higher mileage and run it to a stuipid mileage for financial reasons!

Any car can fail expensively I'm just trying to avoid or circumvent those cars that have an inherent design fault next time around. Hopefully a Mondeo with a PSA engine will be low risk (apart from the DPF and DMF!). I've looked into financing a nearly new car with a 5 year warranty and can't afford it TBH.

Edited by mclwanB on Monday 6th October 20:08

[Devil2575]

mclwanB said:

But would you complain at a 7k bill at 63k miles 1.5k at 90k miles and 3k at 105k miles? I do!

WRT outliers it rather depends on your data set. If all the conditions are the same then I agree that a bigger survey size will sort it. However if you have a look at the reliability index data it does not 1. Distinguish petrol from diesel cars of the same model and 2. the cars that do the best in the survey all have very low mileages and 3. the cars that do best in the survey would be mainly petrol.

Knowing that a petrol Jazz at an average of 24k is the most cost effectively reliable car has no relevance to someone who has to buy an older diesel car at a higher mileage and run it to a stuipid mileage for financial reasons!

Any car can fail expensively I'm just trying to avoid or circumvent those cars that have an inherent design fault next time around. Hopefully a Mondeo with a PSA engine will be low risk (apart from the DPF and DMF!). I've looked into financing a nearly new car with a 5 year warranty and can't afford it TBH.

Edited by mclwanB on Monday 6th October 20:08

Sorry, I must have missed that. What car are we talking about?

[mclwanB]

Mk2 Skoda Octavia 1.9 TDI (PD105). New slave and master cylinder more recently (140k), would classify that as wear and tear.

Other things include aircon went at 115k (apparently if it's the compressor this is a 600 fix, if not then who knows), rear wiper motor just failed and fused the washer motor (new motor but still fuses them intermittent), electric windows intermittent (but usually work), heating intermittent, cigarette lighter just failed (fortunately don't need it)...

but these aren't diesel related! It's the age old decision for me, buy a newish car with a warranty and watch it depreciate to nothing in no time or buy an older one and spend a small fortune on fixing it!

[Justin Case]

mclwanB said:

Looking on Autotrader if you put in "petrol, estate, manual, 2.0-2.5, up to 6yrs old and up to 6k" you get 91 hits for the UK! 2 2008 Mazda 6 petrols, going to have a look on fuelly as to how close to 39.2mpg they actually get (probably not going to break 30mpg in my use). Anyone have experience of them?

Sorry to go off topic but finding some of this useful!

I have a 2007 Mazda 6 estate so probably the same engine. It does about 38-40 mpg on motorways and A roads and about 30 mpg in town, but I'm not too bothered as I mainly use it for long journeys. It has only done 46,000 so I hope that it will last a few years yet; a friend with the 2.3 Sport (not MPS) has got up to 120,000 miles with no trouble. After reading this thread though, I'm definitely not tempted to go diesel, and especially not Mazda

[Rammy76]

mclwanB said:

daemon said:

siovey said:

I've just bought an old golf 1.9 tdi130 with 135k on the clock. I only need to keep it for 6-12 months and 10k miles. I was looking at this or the 2.0 petrol with half the mileage for the same money. Hopefully i've made the right choice reliabilty wise!!!

You havent.

More risk of the diesel car failing. Doesnt mean it will, just there is more risk of it.

The older 1.9's (as the 130 is) have a very good reputation. All the BXE ones are 2007-9 PD105s

The old 1.9's do have a good reputation. The petrol is still a much better bet though particularly for that situation/mileage.

My old 1.9 diesel cost me a turbo at 130000 miles, they don't come cheap.

[wjwren]

Lexus is220d. Cost me £2000 in 12 months. Dpf blocked £520 from Lexus. Flywheel and clutch £1450 from independent. Then air con compressor went not related to diesel but equally annoying. Garage quoted £400 for part second hand plus fitting. Never bothered and sold it. Hated that car. Dashboard creaked like hell when it got warm as the brackets used to expand.

[xjay1337]

wjwren said:

Lexus is220d. Cost me £2000 in 12 months. Dpf blocked £520 from Lexus. Flywheel and clutch £1450 from independent. Then air con compressor went not related to diesel but equally annoying. Garage quoted £400 for part second hand plus fitting. Never bothered and sold it. Hated that car. Dashboard creaked like hell when it got warm as the brackets used to expand.

My Dad has an IS220d and had to have a whole new top end, whole new gearbox, new DPF, etc etc.

There are some engines which just have inherant problems (as the 2.2 d4d engine does) but the same can be said of petrols.... no-one can sit here and go "DIESELS ARE UNRELIABLE", as mentioned, just because you happened to have bad fortune and 3 of your mates do does not equate to 100% of the population.

[Adrian E]

xjay1337 said:

wjwren said:

Lexus is220d. Cost me £2000 in 12 months. Dpf blocked £520 from Lexus. Flywheel and clutch £1450 from independent. Then air con compressor went not related to diesel but equally annoying. Garage quoted £400 for part second hand plus fitting. Never bothered and sold it. Hated that car. Dashboard creaked like hell when it got warm as the brackets used to expand.

My Dad has an IS220d and had to have a whole new top end, whole new gearbox, new DPF, etc etc.

There are some engines which just have inherant problems (as the 2.2 d4d engine does) but the same can be said of petrols.... no-one can sit here and go "DIESELS ARE UNRELIABLE", as mentioned, just because you happened to have bad fortune and 3 of your mates do does not equate to 100% of the population.

For comparison my folks run an IS250 petrol on an 06 plate which has had nothing bar an ABS sensor outside of routine servicing. It does plenty of short runs too and easily does mid-30s mpg average

[decadent]

mclwanB said:

Vag group- 1.9 bulletproof... unless it's a bxe. 2.0 cr problematic with water pumps etc. 1.6s too new to know of issues? Some dpf issues

I think you meant the "PD" 2.0 VAG diesel & water pump failure. They also have dpf issues, but more because that engine wasn't designed to have a dpf.

The CR's (2009 onward & also 2.0) are pretty reliable. Low reporting of dpf issues too.

Any car, be it petrol or diesel will need money spent on repair as the miles and or useage increases. Diesels are more complicated versus a normally aspirated petrol, but compared to a turbo petrol both would be capable of throwing up big bills.

If you want a reliable car that is at a lower risk of an expensive failure I'd probably look for a NA petrol, probably japanese (although the 2.0 8v VAG engine is pretty reliable).

[Sir Fergie]

xjay1337 said:

wjwren said:

Lexus is220d. Cost me £2000 in 12 months. Dpf blocked £520 from Lexus. Flywheel and clutch £1450 from independent. Then air con compressor went not related to diesel but equally annoying. Garage quoted £400 for part second hand plus fitting. Never bothered and sold it. Hated that car. Dashboard creaked like hell when it got warm as the brackets used to expand.

My Dad has an IS220d and had to have a whole new top end, whole new gearbox, new DPF, etc etc.

There are some engines which just have inherant problems (as the 2.2 d4d engine does) but the same can be said of petrols.... no-one can sit here and go "DIESELS ARE UNRELIABLE", as mentioned, just because you happened to have bad fortune and 3 of your mates do does not equate to 100% of the population.

Its not so much the "unreliability" - but the size of the bills - back in the old days - you might need an engine after so many miles.

But you could get a replacement cheap enough as they were relatively simple things hence cheaper - so if you had to replace an engine - it got changed - you kept driving - all good.

Theres no way the normal person can afford to put 5 grand of repairs into a car in 80 k - on TOP of the purchase and other costs of the car.

[mclwanB]

decadent said:

mclwanB said:

Vag group- 1.9 bulletproof... unless it's a bxe. 2.0 cr problematic with water pumps etc. 1.6s too new to know of issues? Some dpf issues

I think you meant the "PD" 2.0 VAG diesel & water pump failure. They also have dpf issues, but more because that engine wasn't designed to have a dpf.

The CR's (2009 onward & also 2.0) are pretty reliable. Low reporting of dpf issues too.

Any car, be it petrol or diesel will need money spent on repair as the miles and or useage increases. Diesels are more complicated versus a normally aspirated petrol, but compared to a turbo petrol both would be capable of throwing up big bills.

If you want a reliable car that is at a lower risk of an expensive failure I'd probably look for a NA petrol, probably japanese (although the 2.0 8v VAG engine is pretty reliable).

Yes decadent, the 2.0 pd tdi engines are the ones with water pump issues.. but injector issues on the CR engines are also reported:

"The latest CR engines run very nicely and are smoother than the PDs (but without the "shove") but I am beginning to hear of far too many (piezo again) injector failures and HP pump failures. Best avoided for now unless under warranty. The beauty of the PD system is that the highly stressed pump plunger followers are oil rather than fuel lubricated. It makes a considerable difference."

http://www.honestjohn.co.uk/carbycar/skoda/octavia...

Just also reading about a Honda CRV diesel that has had 3 DMF in 115k miles (although mine and the four colleagues who've run them, travelling a total of 520k miles only had 1 go..)

I realise that a car taken to a high mileage is more likely to go wrong, I'm just trying to find one without/ with fewer known issues and/ or is cheaper to fix! Currently looking at a Mazda 6 2.0 petrol or a Mondeo 2.0 TDCI. Had a look at leasing a new car but it is completely out of the question financially for this vet assistant unfortunately!

The benefits of converting to a solid flywheel (with new clutch) seem to be varied, with people either loving it or having lots of problems (including several reports of lunched gearboxes). Trying to buy a car that has just had a new one is the plan if I go diesel

[xjay1337]

mclwanB said:

Yes decadent, the 2.0 pd tdi engines are the ones with water pump issues.. but injector issues on the CR engines are also reported:

"The latest CR engines run very nicely and are smoother than the PDs (but without the "shove") but I am beginning to hear of far too many (piezo again) injector failures and HP pump failures. Best avoided for now unless under warranty. The beauty of the PD system is that the highly stressed pump plunger followers are oil rather than fuel lubricated. It makes a considerable difference."

http://www.honestjohn.co.uk/carbycar/skoda/octavia...

Just also reading about a Honda CRV diesel that has had 3 DMF in 115k miles (although mine and the four colleagues who've run them, travelling a total of 520k miles only had 1 go..)

I realise that a car taken to a high mileage is more likely to go wrong, I'm just trying to find one without/ with fewer known issues and/ or is cheaper to fix! Currently looking at a Mazda 6 2.0 petrol or a Mondeo 2.0 TDCI. Had a look at leasing a new car but it is completely out of the question financially for this vet assistant unfortunately!

The benefits of converting to a solid flywheel (with new clutch) seem to be varied, with people either loving it or having lots of problems (including several reports of lunched gearboxes). Trying to buy a car that has just had a new one is the plan if I go diesel

Sorry, but I have to pull you up on this.

How are the 2.0 PD (so BKD being the only one...) engines more prone to waterpump failure than any of the other engine? Almost the entire VAG range of engines from 1998 onwards use in effect the same water pump and all are on the same service intervals... it's more common for them to fail in older cars, more due to age and lack of correct replacement in alignment with manufacturers specs..