Erklärung MWB 4 bei PD-ASZ (Synchronisationswinkel)? | Posts 16+

Hi,

must still revisit the topic, hoping someone can help me.


I have a BKD engine, and the timing belt was only replaced at 120,000 km because I was having issues with fuel consumption. As a result, I was always assuming that the timing was incorrect.

A second workshop immediately confirmed to me, "Incorrect timing... best to replace the belt again" (by this time it had already reached 34,000 km).
I immediately responded, of course, and was very annoyed with the first one. Workshop, and had a new belt installed.
Interestingly, the car ran worse afterward. Reduced airflow, higher consumption.

Idle speed before, without air conditioning: 0.5l/h
Now, at idle: After a cold start, it consumes 0.5 l/h for a while, and as the coolant temperature increases, it settles at 0.7 l/h and remains there.

Generally, consumption has increased by approximately 1-1.5 liters.
This is particularly noticeable in the Stop&Go mode. If, for example, I drive on the highway at the optimal torque, and thus do not put any strain on the engine, I still achieve a fuel consumption of 5 liters.
However, in city transport, I now need: 9 liters (without air conditioning), 10-11 liters (with air conditioning)
Previously, I always used between 7-8 liters without air conditioning, and between 7.5-8.5 liters with air conditioning.

I have also complained twice and had the timing belt checked. The workshop insists that everything is correct, and there is only one correct setting for the PD.
Unfortunately, she also couldn't/didn't want to tell me what the problem was.

A third workshop now states that the LMM is providing incorrect values, and the increased fuel consumption can be attributed to the faulty LMM... and they definitely recommend replacing it. However, I'm still not entirely convinced. A defective LMM should actually reduce performance and fuel consumption, or am I misunderstanding something???
Or could there also be the possibility that due to incorrect values, more is consumed because the accelerator is used more???

Now, however, let's get to the topic:
Before the 2nd timing belt replacement, I "unintentionally" logged the MWB 4. Back then, I couldn't really get much out of the numbers.
Now I have the values for the first workshop, and the values for the second. Workshop comparison.
Funding start and funding duration are both within the optimal range for both.
However, the "Twist Angle" field shows differences:

In 1. Log typically shows a deviation angle of 0° KW, but at certain RPMs, it shows -0.5° KW.
Currently, the value is at 1.5° KW, it increases to 2°KW at certain speeds, and very rarely, it drops to 1° KW.

What does this value exactly indicate? While both values are within the tolerance range, is this the optimal value?
Why does the angle drop to -0.5KW at the first 0°KW?
and for the second login, positive, so from 1.5 to 2???
Does this indicate a distorted KW?

And: The second workshop had claimed that the timing belt was off by 1-2 teeth. Wouldn't that also mean that the values are outside the tolerance? Would a motor with a wrong belt even run 34,000 km???
According to my logic, the garage lied, and the timing belt was actually not faulty. Or is it possible that the timing belt is 1-2 teeth off, but the measurements are still correct?
I haven't paid the invoice yet, and I will say that it was a "misdiagnosis." Can you please confirm this?

Please help me. I still have warranty on the car, but no mechanic could help me (I unfortunately messed up with the first one out of anger, and I can't go back there anymore).

Quote:

According to my logic, the garage lied, and the timing belt was actually not faulty. Or is it possible that the timing belt is 1-2 teeth off, but the measurements are still correct?

I would say that the hairdryer is lying. Even a single tooth misalignment (approximately 10-15 degrees KW) could already lead to engine damage.

Just as I thought, thank you.

Does there exist a relationship between the steering angle and fuel consumption/power?
At 0°KW, the engine consumes quite a bit less fuel (assuming the O2 sensor isn't necessarily the culprit).

In any case, the master of the 3rd workshop stated that, in 90% of cases, the LMM is to blame. Furthermore, oil sludge is now also leaking from the AGR valve. However, the master said that if it was normal, it could also be checked.

My brother also has the BKD in his Touran. And in his case, the deviation angle is extreme on the other side. It's at -2° KW. Even with him, the car consumes the same amount of fuel as it does with me...
Both my mechanic and his mechanic checked the timing belt again, and they both said that everything was fine.

How would one mechanically adjust the tilt angle? In other words, how would one make it return to approximately 0° KW? The workshops are always struggling when you throw any measurement groups at them

Does anyone have an idea?

The issue with the 1.5°KW turning angle being incorrect was a problem. I reviewed the logs again. Winkel decreases from 1.5°KW to 1°KW

The value only appears at 2°KW at 3000rpm

keiner ne antwort?
Okay, here's the translation:

so:
Now, at my insistence, the AGR valve has been replaced.
Initially, the master thought that it would also be okay if the AGR (presumably a component related to oil injection) allowed 1-2 drops of oil to leak out.
Thanks to this forum, I was able to convince him (apparently he later checked somewhere) that a leaking AGR indicates a faulty membrane.
Now the LMM is new, and the AGR, and lo and behold. The car is now running "smoothly" and can be driven more fuel-efficiently.
Thank goodness.

Unfortunately, no one is responding

Now I have this phenomenon (incidentally, since the second timing belt replacement)

The idle fuel consumption was previously always constant at 0.5l/h when the air conditioning was turned off.
Now, however, it's quite strange. I start the cold engine, which then consumes 1.1-1.3 liters per hour.
As far as normal and correct.
After a short distance, the idle consumption drops to 0.5l/h. As the coolant temperature increases, it only drops to 0.6l/h, and around 90°C, it stabilizes at a consumption of approximately 0.7l/h.
How is this even possible? Should the engine, the warmer it gets, not consume less fuel???

I don't believe that any SkodaMeister will have an answer to that. You are my last hope.
Does anyone know about this phenomenon? One idea could be {POSSIBLE_CAUSE}.
That could just be a sign that something is wrong.

I have checked everything except the diesel filter (new LMM, new AGR, new air filter, hoses are okay).
I encountered this problem, as I mentioned, only after the last timing belt replacement. Before that, the car has 150,000 km and has been driven for 20 months with a constant idle consumption of 0.5 liters/hour.

Greetings
Serdar

PS:

Normally, it should create a new thread, but unfortunately, I still can't create my own. Sorry

serdarg wrote:

The idle fuel consumption was previously always constant at 0.5l/h when the air conditioning was turned off.

I doubt it!

Quote:

Now, however, it's quite strange. I start the cold engine, which then consumes 1.1-1.3 liters per hour. As far as normal and correct.

Yes, everything is correct.

Quote:

After a short distance, the idle consumption drops to 0.5l/h. As the coolant temperature increases, it only drops to 0.6l/h, and around 90°C, it stabilizes at a consumption of approximately 0.7l/h.

Yes, also correct ...

Quote:

How is this even possible? Should the engine, the warmer it gets, not consume less fuel???

Only if the fuel temperature is absolutely constant, then yes.
In the PD (Powder Metallurgy) process, the fuel temperature is far from constant.

Quote:

Does anyone know about this phenomenon? One idea could be {POSSIBLE_CAUSE}.

See above.

Quote:

That could just be a sign that something is wrong.

No, everything is normal.
Some vehicles exhibit this behavior very prominently, while others do not. No reason to worry.

serdarg wrote:

(since the recent timing belt replacement) After a short distance, the idle consumption drops to 0.5l/h. As the coolant temperature increases, it only drops to 0.6l/h, and around 90°C, it stabilizes at a consumption of approximately 0.7l/h. How is this even possible? Shouldn't the engine, the hotter it gets, consume even less fuel???

Normally, yes. It will likely be similar to yours in 99% of cases, "only" your consumption calculation is slightly inaccurate.

Quote:

Does anyone know about this phenomenon? One idea could be {POSSIBLE_CAUSE}. This could only be a sign that something is not right.

Most likely, the NW has simply been adjusted differently since the ZR change.
In the MSG, there are a lot of correction factors for quantity and consumption calculation, which together form a very sensitive chain. If only one of the constraints (like the NW position) doesn't quite align with the software fundamentals, then something "bad" can happen, as in your case.
Since the energy consumption display is only a rough estimate, I would simply ignore the problem as long as the actual (real) nighttime consumption and performance are correct.

So, it's not that bad.
I thought it was a sign of something being misconfigured. At least, he needs about 0.2 liters more than before.

Regarding the "constant idle consumption". Previously, as stated, it was at approximately 98% 0.5l/h. It would occasionally fluctuate between 0.4 and 0.5l/h. However, the value also did not change with increasing operating temperature.
After a short warm-up period, he indicated a consumption of 0.5 liters per hour, and this remained consistent. No matter whether the temperature was 60° or 90°.
That's exactly what's making me so suspicious. But if you say it's "unimportant," I'd rather just stay out of it.
Otherwise, I wanted to get the camshaft checked, as the degree of rotation is now showing a difference of 1.5KW.

After replacing the LMM, which is particularly important for the AGR, the fuel consumption has decreased somewhat.
D.h. ich habe die Möglichkeit, um Kraftstoff zu sparen, wenn ich es brauche. Bevor der AGR defekt war, konnte ich im Stadtverkehr machen, was ich wollte. Der Motor verlor irgendwie immer seinen "Druck", welchen ich durch Gas geben kompensierte. Therefore, the consumption was always above 9 liters.

As I said, I'm now much happier, but I feel that the car is no longer accelerating as powerfully. It all happens much more smoothly and evenly, but even at higher engine speeds, it doesn't become "rougher" compared to before.

Let's get back to the topic of "Twist Angle". Would that mean that an angle outside of the 0-value, which I consider optimal, would be a late or... Early adjustment of the NW?
If so. What exactly should I adjust to get the angle to 0?
2-3 experts stated that you can't adjust anything in the 2.0 PD. Either the position is correct, or the engine would run poorly, or even seize up.

serdarg wrote:

2-3 experts stated that you can't adjust anything on the 2.0 PD.

Oh dear, my previous answer refers to the 1.9 PDs. I missed that you were driving something else
I'm afraid I don't know how much of my response will be transferable.

serdarg wrote:

Regarding the "constant idle consumption". Previously, as stated, it was at approximately 98% 0.5l/h. It would occasionally fluctuate between 0.4 and 0.5l/h. However, the value also did not change with increasing operating temperature. After a short warm-up period, he indicated a consumption of 0.5 liters per hour, and this remained consistent. No matter whether the temperature was 60° or 90°.

... So, he actually swayed...

I have already said before: some exhibit this behavior to a greater or lesser extent. With the 16-valve engines, I also noticed it more clearly.

Quote:

That's exactly what's making me so suspicious. But if you say it's "unimportant," I'd rather just stay out of it.

Yes.

Quote:

... 2-3 experts stated that you can't adjust anything in the 2.0 PD. Either the position is correct, or the engine would run poorly, or even seize up.

The settings can be adjusted to a certain extent. If the marking tool fits, the settings are also correct.

@Ulf

Quote:

Oh dear, my previous answer refers to the 1.9 PDs. I missed that you were driving something else. Unfortunately, I don't know how much of my response will be transferable.

From the basic premise, it works well.

serdarg wrote:

As I said, I'm much happier now, but I still have this feeling that the car isn't accelerating as powerfully anymore. ...

Measurements would be more appropriate here as a "feeling"

Okay, let's do it. Which values should I log?
One more question I have. The start of funding during the Cold War. Is it serious?
According to the label file, the tolerance range is 4.v.OT - 2 n.OT. However, in the cold state, it is 7.6-8 v. OT
Is the "cold" start time unimportant, or must it also be within the tolerance range?

Sorry, that I'm asking so many questions, but the more I learn about the subject, the more my thirst for knowledge grows.

serdarg wrote:

Sorry, that I'm asking so many questions, but the more I learn about the subject, the more my thirst for knowledge grows.

Okay...

So, a meaningful DZR test or a K-Power measurement provides more information about a performance deficiency.

Yes, I will do that at my earliest convenience, thank you.
Do you have any further ideas regarding the aforementioned start of funding? When the engine is cold, it should be outside the tolerance range as described. When the engine is warm, it should be at 0 v. OT lies (if I'm not mistaken)