bhtooefr
TDIClub Enthusiast, ToofTek Inventor
Because those fueling systems aren't applicable to 4-cylinder diesels at the pressures that VW needs to meet emissions, and because those fueling systems are far more expensive.
A blown VE pump... can be replaced by anyone with a few tools, VCDS, and access to auctions on EGay, for very, very cheap, and it doesn't take out the whole fuel system, plus, it's probably over 10 years or more old.I'd argue that it's the fuel, exacerbated by the design.
Even the VE pumps have been blowing up more often on US ULSD, in ways that they never did before.
I'll bet those DSG transmissions out of TDI's are going to be cheap too, once these cars start dying like flies when the HPFP goes on them out of warranty and the owner needs to pony up 7 to $8000. That will surely have these cars off the road in 7 or 8 years, particularly the 2009's and 2010's with the 1st two iterations of the HPFP.If in 180,000 miles I have to replace my DSG, I'm not taking it to the dealer for a $6000 repair.
I've always liked wagons (likely from all those years riding backwards as a kid). The last wagon I had was at the other end of the spectrum. A 1994 Caprice wagon. 350 LT-1. If you read about them you'll see they are noted for the 4L60e going out of them. The tranny was originally designed for lighter cars.
Mine eventually did. 165,000 miles. I didn't take it to the dealer and spend whatever it was they would have charged. $3000? I bought a used one.
No facts so far shows that anything like that will happen. As I pointed out earlier, more and more are showing up for sale with over 100,000 miles.I'll bet those DSG transmissions out of TDI's are going to be cheap too, once these cars start dying like flies when the HPFP goes on them out of warranty and the owner needs to pony up 7 to $8000. That will surely have these cars off the road in 7 or 8 years, particularly the 2009's and 2010's with the 1st two iterations of the HPFP.
Kinda like all those 01M's that were rebuilt outside of the VW logo'ed door?No facts so far shows that anything like that will happen. As I pointed out earlier, more and more are showing up for sale with over 100,000 miles.
People will fix any that happen to fail for far less in garages that dont have VW hanging outside the door.
I've just got back into diesels after quite a few years. Just briefly, I used to sell VW's from 87 to 95. I bought my first diesel in 82. A Rabbit that already had 150,000 miles on it.Kinda like all those 01M's that were rebuilt outside of the VW logo'ed door?
Unless, of course, it's a "Dealer Only" part. The cost of repair could still be quite high.People will fix any that happen to fail for far less in garages that dont have VW hanging outside the door.
I agree with your analysis; there is not a perfect correlation. I should probably look at more car makers.Dogparkguy, it's not as simple as that. To some degree it will depend on your definition of quality, but a TSB doesn't necessarily directly correlate w/ a "problem". Let's also keep in mind that Audi's are packed with more tech and more luxury (more to go wrong). The QC standards used to build VW and Audi brands both run under VDA, ISO 16949, and a VW in-house standard. They're all very strict standards.
You also have to account for the demographic, the greater likelihood of complaints from consumers spending $10k to $20k more than a VW, etc.
If you were to look only at subsystem warranty repairs that are common between VW and Audi cars (2.0 TDI or TSI), you'd find they're very similar.
I can't wait for the response. I just hope that the technical aspects of the HPFP especially pump design and test paramenters, comparison with new Delphi pump design, and so forth are not redacted.
VW seems to be hanging their hat on ASTM D975. But we all know that there is no way that "all retail" fuel will ever be able to meet this spec. 100% of the time. All mechanical design processes have a factor of safety which should be based on real world operational parameters the device will see. Apparently, Bosch / VW neglected the uncertainly that exists in the real world. I can't wait for VW's responses to the questions relating to how much water and gas cause a failure.
One difference in the fuel quality is that the US and Canada are both using Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel (USLD). The method to reduce the sulfur also reduces the natural lubricity. At 15 ppm maximum for sulfur, I think we have the "cleanest" diesel in the world today. IIRC, Canada specifies a higher lubrictity standard and may be running B2. I am sure that someone will correct me on both parts if I am mistaken.I was wondering, How does the HPFP failure rates compare to the rates of occurances at other countries like Germany, Mexico, Brazil, Canada, Australia, other Asian, other European countries ?? While US fuel guidelines and fuel quality may not be the BEST in the whole world, I would think that it is many times better and more stringent than those found in Africa, Asia, South America, etc.
Methinks the engine would be stopped before the pump was in any danger. There are two fuel circuits in the pump, and lubrication takes priority over injection.what if the problem isn't the hpfp itself but the pump that send the fuel to it (lift pump?) that fail/get some air and let the hpfp starving -> no lubricity -> failure
I'd have to disagree. Injection can continue even when there is not proper lubrication. When a hpfp is failing injection continues up until the fuel pressure is no longer available because swarf blocks the fuel from getting to the rail and injectors.Thats why even with the pump sheading serious metal the injection will continue. The hpfp has already failed because of lack of lubrication.Methinks the engine would be stopped before the pump was in any danger. There are two fuel circuits in the pump, and lubrication takes priority over injection.
Europe defines ULSD as 10 ppm maximum, and is required for Euro V compliance.One difference in the fuel quality is that the US and Canada are both using Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel (USLD). The method to reduce the sulfur also reduces the natural lubricity. At 15 ppm maximum for sulfur, I think we have the "cleanest" diesel in the world today. IIRC, Canada specifies a higher lubrictity standard and may be running B2. I am sure that someone will correct me on both parts if I am mistaken.
NHTSA can also order buy-back and destruction of the cars, in the case of no fix being available, as happened with the Nissan Vans that were catching on fire, or the New Beetles that were produced after September 2010 with seat brackets that didn't meet 2011 standards.I'm not sure what NHTSA can do anyway. The only real solution is if there was a new pump that could be installed that does not fail. If such a pump existed, NHTSA could order a recall to replace all the pumps.
But as nothing like that exists, (not to my knowledge anyway), then there is no way out.
Most of the CRs have a lift pump, feeding a booster pump, feeding the HPFP.what if the problem isn't the hpfp itself but the pump that send the fuel to it (lift pump?) that fail/get some air and let the hpfp starving -> no lubricity -> failure
Dweisel is right about the pump injecting with limited lubrication and failing fuel supply.Methinks the engine would be stopped before the pump was in any danger. There are two fuel circuits in the pump, and lubrication takes priority over injection.
A reall problem occurs when the HPFP pressure regulator (bypass) valve screen (filter) clogs and the HPFP no longer gets a full lubricating flow of fuel; but the HP piston gets more / enough pressure feed (even if the filter for the HP piston filter is clogging).I'd have to disagree. Injection can continue even when there is not proper lubrication. When a hpfp is failing injection continues up until the fuel pressure is no longer available because swarf blocks the fuel from getting to the rail and injectors.Thats why even with the pump sheading serious metal the injection will continue. The hpfp has already failed because of lack of lubrication.
The lubricaton (low pressure side) does recieve more volume of fuel than the high pressure side. So,if you want to say that because the low pressure side recieves more fuel that is the 1st priority then I guess its just a difference of how you view it. Injection will happen reguardless of available lubrication.
Did this ever get to court? Is there anything more then a docket that is public record?The class action was dismissed yesterday. I've posted a docket printout in the JSW section.