Ursachen für ölfressende Neuwagen? | Posts 32+

brezelmann01 wrote:

Based on my experience, I wouldn't assume that the engines had been running before being installed in the vehicle.

This contradicts the DIN/ISO 9000/9001 standards regarding traceability. Because in that case, the engine manufacturing plant would not be able to determine whether the product delivered to the final assembly is free of defects, and a production process compliant with DIN ISO requires this capability. In the engine production process, there are final inspection stations where the engine is connected to a testing environment and undergoes its initial run.

The most critical moment in a motor's lifespan, especially for large-scale production, is the first three to four minutes. After that, the engine may still suffer significant damage, but a short transport journey won't have a major impact.
The traceability of each step in the work process (including the transport phase) makes it possible to directly attribute damage to a specific worker or work step. The Quality Department will likely take a closer look if there are frequent failures during certain work processes (at least that's how it works here) and then address the responsible person.

The myth that engines are often damaged in the factory is no longer valid. This may have been true in the past, perhaps during the Beetle era, when a comprehensive inspection of the production process was not as crucial, and some production-related failures reached the customers.

Roger wrote:

@Ulf: You make it a little easier on your car if you order it in the spring or summer... However, I find it even more important that you allow the new paint to cure properly and that you can also apply a protective coating without needing a heated garage, before salt and gravel start to impact it. I also think that the initial break-in period will be better for an engine that isn't so cold. Therefore, I never order my new cars towards the winter.

Hi Roger,

too late ... then I can only hope that it will be built in Pamplona and that at least the loading operations there will not take place in freezing temperatures.

I'm considering picking it up in WOB, among other things, for the initial break-in period. The range should be sufficient to reach the Saarland region, which would then only require one cold start.

The delivery is scheduled for March. Hopefully, the peak of the salt season will be over by then.

ulf wrote:

For example, to get the car broken in, I'm considering having it picked up in WOB. The distance to the Saarland region should be sufficient for most of the journey and would then only require 1 cold start.

Hi Ulf,

That is definitely something I would recommend. In my opinion, the best way is to gradually accelerate onto the highway with a slightly increasing load.

Hi Ulf,

I would definitely do that. The Autostadt is worth a visit, and the drive home afterwards is even more enjoyable.

My parents did the same thing with their Passat, and I even had to pick up my Ibiza from the re-importer in Paderborn, which is over 400 km away.

It was also great that the Ibi consumed only a third of what the rental C-Class (gasoline V6 automatic) used on the way there.

Best regards,

Jan.

Quote:

This contradicts the DIN/ISO 9000/9001 standard regarding traceability. Because then, the engine manufacturing plant would not be able to determine whether the product delivered to the final assembly is free of errors or not, and a production process compliant with DIN ISO requires this capability. In the engine production process, there are final inspection stations where the engine is connected to a testing environment and undergoes its initial run.

As I said, I'm only speaking from my own experience, and you can't see any soot. I don't work in a motor factory myself, so I can't make a 100% certain statement. However, I still believe that there should be visible traces of soot. How is that possible? Especially on the first attempt, I think a significant amount of soot/oil should be blown out and settle on the rough surface of the cylinder head, right? Also, the coolant channels are free of residue and completely dry. In most engines, the belt for the compressor (of course, for gasoline engines), the water pump, etc., isn't even installed yet, let alone any signs of wear on the pulleys. However, I would also be surprised if the engines were removed without being inspected, I agree with you on that.


Sure, here is the translation of the text from German to English:

"Dirk"

brezelmann01 wrote:

It would surprise me if the engines were removed without an inspection, but I agree with you on that...

Hi Dirk,

You don't need the auxiliary components in the test environment. The turbo/compressor can also be added later. The most important thing is that it runs smoothly for a short period. Cooling is not necessary for the short term, or can be achieved using gas.
The test environment has nothing to do with a real installation; for example, a turbo engine might run as a naturally aspirated engine, without a starter generator or other components. The mounting components are also purchased parts and do not need to be inspected separately (the supplier must ensure this).

@Jan6K

'In my opinion, the Autostadt is only worth visiting if you're picking something up there. It's not worth going there just for that. Regarding fuel consumption: the 100 hp PD engine used less fuel on the way back than our Golf 1.6 16V used on the way there. 6 liters versus 11-12 liters is a huge difference. However, it could also be because the Golf was driven extremely hard on the way there (full throttle at 6,000 RPM takes its toll).' At a speed of 130 km/h, the Golf 8 consumed 8.5 liters (which is still too much).

Best regards, WarLord.

@WarLord:

How did you manage to get the fuel consumption of your Golf 1.6 down to 11-12 liters?

I had a Passat station wagon with the same engine as a rental car. He rarely saw the engine speed drop below 5,000 RPM on the 360 km drive to the automotive city when driving in a certain mode, but he still managed to achieve a fuel consumption of approximately 10 liters.

BTW, I still think it's too much. Especially since the gasoline is expensive.

'We were constantly pushing the engine to its maximum speed, according to the speedometer, which was around 200 km/h, whenever possible. We had to stop for fuel after about 450 km. I consider this engine to be the biggest piece of junk ever built (along with the 1.8 and 2.0 liter engines). VW can't build practical gasoline engines. They make good diesel engines (and are actually the leaders in that area), but their gasoline engine lineup is mostly junk (with a few exceptions, like the 1.8 T).' They used to have some interesting gasoline-powered models as well.

Best regards, WarLord.

We also have one of those 1.6L Passats. Fuel consumption of 11 liters per 100 kilometers is common with a certain driving style.

Hi!
I would like to add another email to this topic, which I received from a guest of the Diesel Mechanic Forum... thank you again for that!


"Please provide the text you would like me to translate from German to English."
During a tour of a large Swabian car manufacturer, in the...
In engine manufacturing, there are so-called cold tests and hot tests.
Apparently, the mechanics of every engine (without the surrounding components) are...
"cold tested," whatever that means. A hot test (with fuel?) is no longer performed on every engine. That could be an explanation. I didn't have the opportunity to ask.

Best regards, Joe.
"Please provide the text you would like me to translate from German to English."


Best regards,
Sure, here is the translation of the text from German to English:

"Dirk"