Fabia RS - Leistung fehlt | Posts 16+

I agree with that. My SMIC is also clean; I always check it. However, I won't remove my fogger or anything like that.

Here are the logs you requested: 01-07-08 and 03-10-11.

/download.php?id=1886

Wäre schön wenn Ihr sie euch mal anschauen könntet. ViHi there!


P.S.: Outside temperature: 9°C, driving in 4th gear.

samoht wrote:

Here are the promised logs from 01-07-08 and 03-10-11

.
Well, everything seems to be perfectly fine so far.

Fuel injection amount = torque limitation.

Boost pressure is perfectly regulated.

Air mass is okay.

That is to say, you won't get anywhere with software version 5405.

The next steps in finding the missing horsepower are detailed in technical articles about common mistakes and VAGCOM tests for diagnosing power loss.

Before that, I recommend a K-Power measurement or, at the very least, a blowdown test. This will initially give you an approximate idea of the extent of the problems, and it requires less effort than immediately going through all the catalogs.

Thank you, Ulf, for your quick analysis.

Well, I guess I'll just have to wait and see what happens when it's time for the next timing belt replacement; maybe something will change by then.

"Nevertheless, thank you very much!"

hi samot,

(This appears to be a greeting in Samoan.)

I also have an RS model manufactured in November 2003, but it has new software and a modified chip.
"That's interesting. Now we know that the old software was used until October 2003, and the new one has been in use since November 2003."

I had a similar problem about six months ago.
The oil leak is not normal. In my case, the entire LD (likely referring to a lubrication or pressure system) is still verschandeln after 75,000 km. However, your boost pressure is normal. It would be interesting to use a dynamometer to determine how many horsepower are actually missing.

I know from the previous owner that supposedly 10 horsepower is missing according to the dynamometer readings. But I don't really put much stock in those measured values; they tend to vary quite a bit.
I will definitely need to address that leaking intercooler again.
However, I'm not entirely sure how to do it yet. As I mentioned, I've already replaced the sealing rings. Perhaps I'll try using Loctite.

The oil leak is really bothering me. This shouldn't be happening. Best regards.

samoht wrote:

The oil leak is really bothering me. Something like that shouldn't happen.

Whether it's allowed or not... the fact is that many TDIs with the clip-on air intake hoses leak oil at the connections.
As long as it's just a layer of dust that's slightly oily and not actual oil streaks, the effort required to fix it would be many times greater than the benefit.

ulf wrote:

samoht wrote: The oil leak is really bothering me. Something like that shouldn't happen.

Whether it's allowed or not... the fact is that many TDIs with the clip-on air intake hoses leak oil at the connections.
As long as it's not a stream of oil, but just a layer of dust that is slightly oily, the effort required to fix it would, in my opinion, be many times greater than the benefit.

It's like this... when I installed my boost gauge, I wondered why the large pressure hose was hanging so loosely inside. At first, I thought I had installed it incorrectly again. But apparently, that's how it's supposed to be . It's clear that eventually, oil will seep out somewhere. What surprises me is that there isn't any pressure loss }.

Hi,
"So, I struggled with the leaky connection at the bottom of the SMIC as well, but on the second attempt, using a generous amount of Loctite sealant, it seems to have worked. Where oil was leaking out, charge air has been escaping for quite some time! Specifically, the escaping charge air is pushing the oil film out of the intercooler circuit. So, pressure is definitely being lost there, and the turbocharger needs to work harder."
haithamina

haithamina wrote:

Where oil comes out, the charge air has been leaking for a long time! Or rather, the escaping charge air pushes the oil film in the charge air duct outwards. So pressure is definitely being lost there, and the auxiliary turbocharger (ATL) has to do more work. haithamina

It's not always necessary: some designs only seal optimally when there is pressure applied (example: piston rings).
The intercooler seals are also located in grooves, essentially like piston rings.

It's possible that the oil only leaks out when there is no (high) load differential, but everything seals properly under normal engine load.

It's my opinion that we shouldn't really start talking about extra work for the ATL due to leaks until audible hissing or whistling noises are present.
Inaudible leaks (if they exist at all) are so small that the pressure sensor doesn't really "notice" the losses through these relatively tiny openings – because a pressure difference of 1 bar or more creates quite a noise, even with very small holes.

However, as a driver, you need to be sensitive to "new sounds" in order to hear smaller turbocharger air leaks.

@ulf

What was that phone number for MSG again?

Does the same thing happen when you log in with VAG-Com?

You meant SGxxxx.

For me, it says SG7000 . Is that correct, or am I mistaken?

Boon wrote:

@ ulf What was that phone number for MSG again? Does the same thing happen when you log in with VAG-Com? You meant SGxxxx. For me, it says SG7000 . Is that correct?

Am I misunderstanding something?
Apparently, you are confusing the older MSG ...019LA with your ...019NF }.

SG 7000 is a newer data version of 019NF, which I am not familiar with.
However, your problem with the high overshoot of the LD signal is consistent with what was seen in the previous version of the 019NF.

Given that there are countless ways to modify any software, and sometimes new data versions are released due to what we might consider trivial issues, I assume that the LD (Load Distribution) behavior of the first 019NF was not recognized as a problem requiring modification when version 7000 was being written.

Quote:

It is not always necessary: some designs only seal optimally when there is pressure present (example: piston rings). The intercooler seals also sit in grooves, essentially like piston rings.

@ Ulf
Hi Ulf, I'm also a positive thinker, and your explanation would reassure me if it were correct. Unfortunately, in this thread /viewtopic.php?t=12772&highlight=schlauch+verliert+%F6l, I described that I no longer believe in sealing the LL section under internal pressure.
In addition, there are important differences between the sealing of the piston rings mentioned and this seal on the oil cooler: The piston rings have a tendency to press against the cylinder wall. This tendency is not present in the sealing ring. The piston rings seal when they are pressed up or down in the grooves. The sealing ring sits motionless in the groove.
In the thread, there are also photos of the LL hose and LLK with a clip connection http://fotoalbum.web.de/gast/upswimmer/haithamina. You can see that the green sealing ring sits in a groove on the stainless steel part of the LL hose (DSC04168_b) and is inserted into the cylindrical plastic connector of the LLK (DSC04162_b). The connector cylinder of the LLK seems to have a continuous inner diameter. The flanges of the LL hose are "fixed" by the clips and two recesses in the LLK connector. The hose then has some play because the clip does not push it 100% into the LLK. Basically, this doesn't matter: the sealing ring is supposed to provide the seal, which it does not achieve/cannot achieve completely (otherwise, the LL hose would certainly slip when inserted). The design is flawed: in my case, all other connections in the LL circuit (those with hose clamps) were/are 100% leak-proof.
But I agree with you: the pressure loss is certainly negligible, and the sealing ring should be able to prevent any noticeable leakage of coolant. Nevertheless, the oil leak and the soaking of the lower engine cover bothered me, so I sealed the connection with sealant. Unfortunately, this makes it much more difficult to remove/separate the coolant hose/coolant reservoir in the future.
haithamina

haithamina wrote:

Hi Ulf, I'm also a positive thinker, and your explanation would reassure me if it were correct. Unfortunately, in this thread /viewtopic.php?t=12772&highlight=schlauch+verliert+%F6l, I described that I no longer believe in sealing the LL section under internal pressure...

Okay, I can't prove the opposite to you... however, even on the original equipment manufacturer (OEM) SMIC from Volvo, I have these clip connections, and they show virtually no oil leakage.
This, in turn, may be due to the fact that the LL hoses are positioned at an angle of approximately 20 degrees downwards within the SMIC .

@ulf
Yes, that could be a reason. In my case, the connection between the hose and the low-temperature circuit is the lowest point of the low-temperature line.
However, I believe that any leaks, no matter where they are, will eventually "sweat" if there's enough oil in the low-level line. In your case, either the low-level line is sealed, or your ATL isn't leaking oil, or both of those things are true. Either way, it seems like you're lucky.
But: Did you replace the original SMIC, and if so, did that solve the problem with the clip connections? Sorry, I know we're getting pretty far off-topic. If necessary, you can also send me a private message.
haithamina

haithamina wrote:

But: did you not replace the original SMIC, and are you therefore already free from the problem of clip connections?

Yes, but there are still 6 clip connections remaining between the compressor and the EGR unit: all of them are dry.

So far, I haven't seen much oil in the air lines, except for a small puddle at the end of the aluminum pipe connecting the turbocharger to the intercooler (SMIC). And that's exactly where the clip hose is jammed in very tightly; it's nothing like the looseness I see at the other clip connections.