beware VW turbo repair scham

"John S." > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Well of course it is spinning - that is by definition the way turbos
> work. Cruising down the highway it is having virtually no impact on
> the engine. It is under acceleration that the value of a turbo can be
> seen. Otherwise you could remove it and probably improve milage by 2-3
> mpg.

If turbos consume more fuel, I say again, why do busses, ambulances, fire
engines... heck, just about ANY diesel now days, use them? If you went
without a turborcharger in these engines, it would take a much bigger engine
to power these vehicles and give the performance that the consumers want.
In other words, they'd suck up more fuel.

"Magnulus" > wrote
> "fbloogyudsr" > wrote
>> Since you don't seem to want to believe me, go to
>> http://www.answers.com/topic/turbocharger and read the
>> wikepedia article. Notice it talks about "increased power",
>> but never mentions efficiency (other than the fact that
>> the turbo actually *reduces* efficiency).
>
> Increased power can equal increased efficiency. The two are not
> mutually
> exclusive. If you find a way to make an engine that burns less fuel but
> delivers enough power for the application, then that engine is the more
> efficient.

NONONONONONO! You need to take some physics courses.
TANSTTAAFL. Every bit of HP you get out of an engine takes
*MORE FUEL*. Period. Exclamation point. Your "definition"
of efficiency is inadequate, bogus, and incorrect.

The only way that you get a little better mileage out of a car with
a turbo diesel rather than a normal diesel *OF THE SAME HP*
rating is because the turbo engine is smaller and hence the
car supporting it is lighter and has less rolling resistance. But
that *DOES NOT* say anything about the engine efficiency.

Floyd

Go back and reread the thread.

Magnulus wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> > Don't forget the possibility of replacing the MAF sensor, and the
> > once/40k timing belt changes.
>
> The newer MAF sensors don't wear out as much. The timing belt is not
> unique to VW diesels, lots of other cars have belts that must be changed.

Name *one* other vehicle that requires the change at 40k mile
intervals. (I know of one, no longer in production.)

Most TB replacements are at very high mileage - hell, even the VAG 1.8T
motor has a 60k replacement recommendation. And *that's* pretty low
too.

> > No matter what, this car is not a Toyota gas-powered car, and it will
> > require as much money to keep on the road, when you include all the
> > maintenance.
>
> Maybe, but personally I think Toyotas are not as good.

Reliability? Please - let's get real. Toyotas are bullet-proof.
Boring as hell, but bullet-proof.

> VW has better
> crash ratings, better features as standard.

Which has what effect on operational costs, again? That's right, none.

> And it just looks nicer.

I won't argue that, but that's a very subjective thing, and doesn't
have any bearing on the operational costs.

> Corollas look a bit cheap in comparison. And some people like hatchbacks
> and wagons.

Value judgements that have nothing to do with how much it costs to keep
a vehicle on the road.

> > Maybe in 10 years your slushbox TDI will fetch 50% of that, but I
> > wouldn't count on it.
>
> I would could on it. In ten years gas will probably be over 3 dollars per
> gallon. A "slushbox" Jetta TDI is going to be alot more attractive than a
> Ford Explorer.

Since when were we comparing Ford Exploders to anything? I'm talking
TOYOTA. If you can't keep the discussion straight, maybe you should
quietly bow out.

Toyotas and Hondas have high resale values for a reason. VWs have low
resale values for a reason. TDI Passat wagon resale values are an
anomaly based on desirability amongst the diesel crowd who want more
hauling capacity than a sedan offers. And the manual tranny ones
always seem to go for more. As much as $3k more. Slushbox diesels,
even TDI, are about the slowest vehicle on the road, and anyone looking
for a diesel will know to get a manual tranny if they want to get any
kind of acceleration out of them. That's why they go for more.
Sorta like the resale on a FWD Audi vs quattro cars.

E.P.

"fbloogyudsr" > wrote in message
...
> NONONONONONO! You need to take some physics courses.
> TANSTTAAFL. Every bit of HP you get out of an engine takes
> *MORE FUEL*.

If that were true, then engines would never get more efficient.

>
> The only way that you get a little better mileage out of a car with
> a turbo diesel rather than a normal diesel *OF THE SAME HP*
> rating is because the turbo engine is smaller and hence the
> car supporting it is lighter and has less rolling resistance.

The turbodiesel engines in the current TDI's are bigger (1.9 liter-100-110
hp) than the diesel engine from the 1970's and 80's (I believe they were 1.5
liter- 50-70 hp), yet the fuel consumption is about the same. And the VW
diesels from the 70's and 80's weighed over 1000 lbs less (the old
Golf/Rabbit weighed about 1900 lbs., the current Golf TDI weighs about 3000
lbs)

"John S." > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Go back and reread the thread.
>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbocharger

It specificly says that the disadvantages of turbocharges for gasoline
engines (more fuel consumption, less compression, less efficiency), don't
apply to diesels. Diesels also don't have throttles that mix air and fuel,
and the fuel is injected straight into the cylinder, it is not mixed with
air outside the cylinder except in older diesels that used port injection.

On Tue, 31 May 2005 00:40:13 -0400, Magnulus wrote:

> The turbodiesel engines in the current TDI's are bigger (1.9
> liter-100-110
> hp) than the diesel engine from the 1970's and 80's (I believe they were
> 1.5 liter- 50-70 hp), yet the fuel consumption is about the same.

.... which is because of technology advancement, not because the turbo
makes the engine more efficient.

> And the VW diesels from the 70's and 80's weighed over 1000 lbs less
> (the old Golf/Rabbit weighed about 1900 lbs., the current Golf TDI
> weighs about 3000 lbs)

In Germany VW had SDIs in the late 90s for a while, TDIs without a turbo.
They were gutless but used significantly less gas than the TDIs. VW got
rid of them, because few people bought them. You should look around for
one, would be a perfect match for your fuel saving fetish and your
problems with fast driving.

Chris

> wrote in message
ups.com...
> Name *one* other vehicle that requires the change at 40k mile
> intervals. (I know of one, no longer in production.)

The timing belt on my Jetta wagon lasts for around 80,000 (I would have to
look it up, but it is not 40k). It was only on the pre-2003 models that the
belt had to be changed every 40k, and even then they came out with newer
belts for the older models which last longer.

>
> > VW has better
> > crash ratings, better features as standard.
>
> Which has what effect on operational costs, again? That's right, none.

It doesn't matter to me. It's ultimately human life on the line, which
is priceless, or at least that's the government's mantra. Toyota is too
cheap to put side curtain airbags on their cars as standard, or ABS, or any
number of things. That speaks alot about their company's philosophy when
most of the low end cars they ship don't even have cruise control or ABS,
yet they cost about 17,000 dollars. Heck, for about a thousand more I can
get a brand new VW Golf turbodiesel. I want to buy into a company that
makes me feel good about buying their products, not just because it's good
for me but because the company does the right thing with all their cars.
The fact is that the Corolla and Civic are predominantly barebones cars,
strictly utilitarian, and what little safety features they have as standard
are only designed to pass lax US crash tests. I cannot feel good about
buying a car from a company like that.

> Toyotas and Hondas have high resale values for a reason. VWs have low
> resale values for a reason.

And what's that reason? The TDI has high resale value, the reliability
is decent, very good in late models. You have bought into that crap about
ricemakers having some kind of Midas touch, some kind of superhuman, godlike
powers over automobiles. A quick perusal of reality will show you there
are plenty of issue with Asian cars. Heck, it turns out the Toyota Prius,
one of their flagship cars, can have a softwaere error that kills the car at
highway speeds, Toyota cars do have wiring problems occasionally, and Honda
is having problems with some of their CVT's making too much noise. No car
is perfect. OTOH, Volkswagen's reliability according to sources such as
J.B. Power and CR is improving to the point that most get a "good" rating.
Many of the problems can be traced to switchover to production of the Jetta
at the Puebla plant in Mexico in the late 90's; many TDI's are built in
Brazil.

>TDI Passat wagon resale values are an
> anomaly based on desirability amongst the diesel crowd who want more
> hauling capacity than a sedan offers. And the manual tranny ones
> always seem to go for more. As much as $3k more. Slushbox diesels,
> even TDI, are about the slowest vehicle on the road

Not true. The performance is about the same as any other economy car.

And the manual TDI's where I live seem to go for less money than the
autos, though there are more manual TDI's than many other manual car model
options. Manuals just don't sell, regardless of the car.

>, and anyone looking
> for a diesel will know to get a manual tranny if they want to get any
> kind of acceleration out of them.

I don't drive a manual; I don't care for rowing through gears constantly.
I also don't need really fast acceleration, so fast the wheels lose traction
constantly. Acceleration for cars now days is more than adequate. A 0-60
of around 11 seconds is plenty fast for my needs- I rarely push the car that
hard anyways- I don't have the need, and I don't see many people
accelerating that fast either. 40-50 years ago that kind of acceleration
was reserved for sports cars.

Magnulus wrote:
> "John S." > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>
>>Go back and reread the thread.
>>
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbocharger
>
> It specificly says that the disadvantages of turbocharges for gasoline
> engines (more fuel consumption, less compression, less efficiency), don't
> apply to diesels. Diesels also don't have throttles that mix air and fuel,
> and the fuel is injected straight into the cylinder, it is not mixed with
> air outside the cylinder except in older diesels that used port injection.
>
>

Um, name ONE Diesel engine that didn't inject the fuel either directly
into the chamber or into a "pre-chamber..."

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

"Magnulus" > wrote
> "fbloogyudsr" > wrote
>> NONONONONONO! You need to take some physics courses.
>> TANSTTAAFL. Every bit of HP you get out of an engine takes
>> *MORE FUEL*.
>
> If that were true, then engines would never get more efficient.

(THROW UP HANDS)