Buying advice: Passat Variant or Sharan TSI 220 hp, 350 Nm

Hello.

I still have 2 TDIs.

A Passat BlueTDI Variant, 143 hp, manufactured in 2009, with 120,000 km on the odometer, has already had 3 AdBlue repairs.

and today, the approval process was rejected by the authorities because an unknown NOx error was noted in the tester's report.

Should be deleted from VW. Otherwise, excellent condition, no defects.

10 minutes later, at VW, they performed the inspection (AU) for me as a gesture of goodwill, using the conventional method, with the explanation that the readiness code might still be pending after the repair.

Since I had repairs done on it in October 2015 (NOX sensor) and August 2016 (tank heater), this could be the cause.

And please pass on my best regards to the examiner; he would have had to use the conventional method for the examination.
whatever.

and

I bought a Passat R-Line sedan with 177 horsepower in the middle of last year, specifically without AdBlue, for the reasons mentioned above.

It has the update now, and I can't say anything negative about it so far.

Now, after the emissions scandal and other issues, the BlueTDI still hasn't received an update, and I want to sell the Variant before the next AdBlue problem, with its associated mileage restrictions, ruins my vacation trips...

Okay, so the question is, if I were to go with a gasoline engine, how reliable is it, particularly regarding the timing chain and other components?
Because I'm not convinced by these small, downsized engines.

Okay, so either a Passat Variant or a Sharan with a 220 horsepower, 350 Nm TSI engine.

Is there a remaining range limitation for these engines, even in the event of Lambda errors or other issues?

I want to drive a vehicle for at least 10 years and up to 300,000 km, and I don't want to be stranded in the middle of nowhere in Southeastern Europe because the engine won't start due to an emissions problem!

Can anyone recommend something to me? I don't mind if it uses 2-3 liters more.
Considering there's no particulate filter yet, and no AdBlue...

I'm sorry, but after 20 years of diesel, based on my experiences, I'm putting diesel engines aside.
Since we now have two large vehicles, the mileage is distributed with each vehicle covering approximately 15,000 km per year.

Regards,
Chris.

Hi,

I am facing a question that is essentially the same.

"In my opinion, the current 2.0 TSI engine's technical..." Complexity:

- double injection system (direct and intake manifold)
- controlled oil and Water pump.
- adjustable single and... Variable valve timing.
- Valve lift switching (exhaust only)
- adjustable piston bottom cooling nozzles.
- complex rotary thermostat (map cooling)
- and much more.


The current 2.0 TDI engines, on the other hand, have a somewhat simpler design, although some of the points mentioned above still apply to some extent. Fortunately, there's now a low-pressure EGR system here that, when the engine is warm, draws verschandeln exhaust gases from after the DPF.

Unfortunately, the TSI engine still uses a chain, but it has been modified in this regard. The elongation is better monitored using a strain gauge, and there is also a viewing window with a mechanical indicator for it.

I would probably base my final decision on which engine variant to choose on upcoming transportation policy decisions, and I wouldn't buy it just yet.

It's also worth keeping in mind that the claim that "gasoline direct injection engines emit significantly more particulate matter than filtered diesel engines" hasn't been definitively proven yet. It's likely that this issue will be raised next, once diesel engines have been sufficiently scrutinized. VW certainly didn't announce, without a good reason, that they would gradually equip all gasoline-powered vehicles with particulate filters starting in 2017.
http://www.volkswagenag.com/content/vwcorp/info_center/de/news/2016/08/particulate_filter_for_petrol_engines.html

Okay, that's correct, except that the "1050 km" message, which indicates the remaining range based on AdBlue levels, should not appear in the event of an error, which I hope is the case.
If you're out in the Pampas at night and then you hear that you can't start the engine for the next 1050 kilometers...

As is the case now:

TÜV inspection passed, AU (emissions test) failed, unknown NOx error.

In the summer, the fuel heater was malfunctioning, and last fall, the NOx sensor needed to be replaced.

"I'm supposed to drive to VW, reverse the car, and then I'll get the sticker."
Otherwise, nothing! Everything is original.

VW, just like the TÜV (German technical inspection agency), used to measure these kinds of defects, but not anymore.
Conveniently, the inspection was already done so I wouldn't have to argue with the TÜV (technical inspection agency). Heading to the TÜV (technical inspection), everything looks good.

Two years ago, I checked, and at that time, the examination was also performed using a probe.

According to TÜV online, in cases of unknown NOx errors, the vehicle inspection (AU) can still be considered as passed.

The readiness code supposedly cannot be reset manually.

There was no sign on the AI.


And I'm just not in the mood for this kind of nonsense anymore, but I guess if there's no 2-liter [soda], then what else is there?


Best regards, Chris.

PAOKGREEK wrote:

I'm supposed to drive to VW, reset something, and then I'll get the sticker.

Do you have a car scanner? It should be possible to reset it using VCDS...

Best regards, Rainer.

Hi.

Yes, I have, but for some reason, it didn't work with my BlueTDI.

I didn't really look into it further after that, because I had another 2 years of TÜV (technical inspection) remaining.
Therefore, by next summer at the latest, I want to get a gasoline engine for my BlueTDI.
Given that we're talking about a Passat or a Sharan, the 1.4-liter engine option is not suitable.
Either the 1.8 or the 2 are still available.

Regards,
Chris.

I think it would work, after all, I am not aware of a single case of AdBlue problems where it didn't work.

Okay , I'll check again in the next few days, do a scan, and then I can report whether the problem might even be gone now.

The engine control unit's fault memory shows no errors.

Sure, here's the translation:

"Best regards."
Chris.

As a Sharan owner, I can only recommend it. However, if you're considering a Passat as well, you should test drive both. The Sharan is, to put it mildly, a comfortable means of transportation in its fully equipped version... if you see that as a good quality for a highway cruising vehicle, then it's perfect. Otherwise, he really appreciates the dynamism and agility of the [vehicle/machine/etc.].


Regarding the engine, I believe you were one of the beta testers for the first generation BlueTDI. So far, our Sharan has been running smoothly, even with frequent short trips.

I'm not familiar with the TSI engine, but I know someone who constantly complains about the fuel consumption of their Sharan. According to reports, achieving a fuel consumption of 10 liters per 100 kilometers (approximately 23.5 miles per gallon) is unfortunately very difficult to achieve with normal driving habits on the highway.

Probably, Volkswagen is currently offering good discounts on diesel vehicles as well. Perhaps a "good" introductory course with an extended warranty can help in this situation...

Yes, that could be.
"But when I look at other forums, I see that the new Passats and Sharans are also full of reports about AdBlue problems."
My colleague, who also drives a 2012 Sharan Diesel, has also driven it for nearly 80,000 km with no problems, even with short trips.
But this Sharan has Euro 5 emissions standards.
The limit was much higher than my Euro 6 standard.
So, much less had to be injected.
So, also also less wear and tear.
I was just a passenger back then.
Even driven a Sharan.
But I'm more of a relaxed driver.

The TSI engine with 220 horsepower produces 350 Nm of torque, while the older version has 70 Nm less, resulting in 200 or 211 horsepower.
Therefore, it should consume less.

Since spring, I've been driving the third-generation TFSI engine in my A5, and I'm very happy with the engine. In the convertible, I average around 10 liters per 100 kilometers, but I also find that acceptable, considering the quattro all-wheel drive and the S-tronic transmission. The first-generation TFSI engine in the A4 had the same fuel consumption for both the 2WD and manual transmission versions.
The Sharan will likely be comparable in terms of weight, and I think the fuel tank capacity will also be around 10 or 11 liters. I don't think the performance justifies the price.

I don't find the engine to be particularly complex, and you rarely hear about any problems with the machine. The engine is used very widely, and it performs well even in the GTI segment.

In the list above, you must remove the "regulated water pump" because he doesn't have one.

Okay, it wasn't exclusively about fuel consumption. But it seems very unlikely that an A5 would consume the same amount of fuel (on the highway at high speeds). Weight is a factor in fuel consumption, but other factors like aerodynamic drag (caused by the frontal area, for example) are even more important (at least in terms of appearance, I find the A5 superior to the Sharan...strictly speaking, this applies to almost all vehicles ). The numbers I heard are significantly higher than the ones you mentioned. That's just hearsay.

Regarding the exhaust aftertreatment following the DPF (where the SCR system begins), the mechanical components are largely the same for Euro 5 and 6 vehicles. While it's possible that a slightly larger amount of urea solution is injected (which could result in more ammonia being produced during the thermo- and hydrolysis reactions for the NOx reaction), I find it hard to imagine. The reaction path and, therefore, the residence time are the same, and they certainly wouldn't risk ammonia slip, as that would lead to certain NOx emissions in various (and, in my opinion, unavoidable) operating conditions. However, for the customer, it would be even worse if the vehicle emitted unpleasant odors.

In other words: I don't believe in increased wear and tear; in fact, I see a significant advantage in the low-pressure AGR system, even in EURO 6 vehicles.

Since I don't know the TSI engine in detail, but from what I've read, the complexity of the turbocharged gasoline engine is comparable to that of a turbocharged diesel engine. Unfortunately, the probability of failure increases with each additional component.


But let's get back to the topic. Your post reads as if the choice of engine was a bit of a mistake. It seems to be about the vehicle itself (that's how I understand it). As a Sharan owner (I sometimes drive it, as it's technically my wife's car), I can appreciate the advantages like the incredible amount of space, the comfortable and fast driving experience, and the sliding doors, which are quite practical (even though they probably take up a lot of parking space). What I wouldn't choose again are the electric tailgate and electric sliding doors. I find both of them "fun," but they don't add any real value. The panoramic sunroof (but probably the same as in the Passat) tends to rattle slightly on rough roads when it's open. The auxiliary heater seems like a good idea (as far as I know, the pre-heater is always included to ensure that the interior of the car remains ice-free, at least after the engine starts, during the winter).

If, like us, you often drive on the Autobahn, don't necessarily need a sporty driving experience, and are okay with a slightly higher Autobahn speed even with low traffic density, then the Sharan is a good option.


PS: And that whole thing about particulate filters on gasoline engines isn't exactly groundbreaking innovation from VW (it's definitely one of the key things needed to get the company back on track). Mercedes has already introduced them on some vehicles without any fuss... and while their return to the inline-six engine is good for marketing, the technician needs space for the exhaust treatment system, and it's best to have it integrated like it is on the four-cylinder engine, so what choice is there really? I believe the new Mercedes 6Ender is showing us all how to keep the reciprocating piston engine relevant for a little while longer.

Benni wrote:

In the list above, you need to remove "regulated water pump" because he doesn't have one.

You're right, I've read it again. However, I still consider a cooling system that takes up a full 6 pages in the technical specifications to be complex. Here, among other things, we have 2 rotary valves, a separate emergency thermostat, 2 check valves, a water-cooled intercooler, and a separate shut-off valve for the air conditioning system.

Electronically, the scenarios are generated.

Warm-up with stationary coolant.
Warm-up with micro-volume flow.
Warm-up with minimal flow rate and heating request.
Warm-up with the engine coolant connected.
Afterglow.
Emergency mode

controlled.

Indeed, there's not much being heard about failures at the moment; in the GTI forum, there are only a few reports about leaks in the cooling system. The fuel high-pressure pump occasionally causes problems with external leaks, and there have been 1-2 reports of mechanical issues in cylinder 4 (no compression).

But, as Matthias already wrote, the probability of failure increases with complexity, and I don't think I would be able to reach 300,000 km with a machine like that without major repairs. Moreover, working on it, especially in a Sharan, will be less enjoyable due to the smaller hood. I don't see the 2.0 TSI as a high-mileage engine, but rather as a fun option for vehicles with relatively low to moderate annual mileage.

matthiasTDI96 wrote:

The Sharan is, to put it mildly, a comfortable means of transportation in its fully loaded configuration... if you consider that a good-natured highway touring vehicle, then it's perfect. Otherwise, he really appreciates the dynamism and agility...

I have to disagree with you. I have the CFGB with 170 horsepower, and I drive it with 3 children, my wife, and luggage for a vacation, which is quite a load. According to the speedometer, 230 km/h is no problem... and there's still more potential. I think that's not bad for a standing, vertical sheet of plywood.

The fuel consumption was above 965 km. At a moderate speed, it was 7.2 liters, and when driving with full throttle, it was 8.2 liters. In that respect, I am more than satisfied with our Sharan.

Alternatively, there are no other options available for comparison on the gasoline engine side.
For me, a small engine size is a factor in its longevity.

The main criterion is the 1050km range limitation of the AdBlue system.
Sure, here's the translation:

"Just that."

And I usually keep my vehicles for at least 10 years or 300,000 kilometers.

If they had simply reduced the performance by 30 percent, as they did with the trucks, I wouldn't have minded.

Well...

PAOKGREEK wrote:

The main criterion is the 1050km range limitation of the AdBlue system. just that.

The AdBlue range remaining for the Sharan is 2500 km. The limit was significantly increased, or the storage capacity was expanded.

I'm also curious to see how the diesel debate and further environmental zone regulations will develop.

The remaining range for refueling is 2400 km on the Passat.
and
In case of an error.
Nox.
Pump.
Valve.
Heating.
etc.
1050 km, then the engine wouldn't start.
Do not confuse.
Sure, here's the translation:

"lg" is a German abbreviation that stands for "liebe Grüße," which translates to "best regards" or "warm greetings" in English.