Seat fordert WIV-Öl bei Festintervallmotor: warum? | Posts 16+

...
If you are looking for reading material, take a look at the T5 forum for topics such as DPF, oil dilution, oil pump, water pump, ...

Can you absolutely, with 100% certainty, prove that it's due to the oil? ... NO! ... These engines have a different problem.

For information: I manage a fleet of vehicles. Currently, there are approximately 1500 vehicles from various manufacturers. I definitely cannot identify any defect patterns that are dependent on the oil. The fact that I also have a large number of T5 vehicles with the problems you mentioned does not stem from the oil. To the extent that I can provide information, that is what I can tell you...

'For example, I have some VW PD engines that have exclusively used 50601 oil (even though I normally avoid it). They've been run in a mixed environment, from desert to arctic conditions, with and without trailers, under full and partial load, and by a variety of drivers. These engines have over 500,000 km on them and show no signs of wear. A few months ago, we disassembled one of these engines for analysis. We only found normal wear and tear, nothing unusual. The same would have been true with other oils.'
For reference... At VW, the expected lifespan of a car is still assumed to be 8 years and 15,000 km/year. Other manufacturers have similar assumptions. Only BMW goes further with 16 years.

It is largely correct that the attempt to achieve a lower HTHS (High-Temperature High-Shear) value was aimed at improving low-viscosity properties and, consequently, fuel efficiency. However, it is not true that this would necessarily lead to a disproportionate increase in wear. That is nonsense!

goettmann wrote:

... The fact that I, too, have a lot of T5s with the problems you mentioned above is not due to the oil. To the extent that I can provide you with information... ... "For example, I have some VW PD injectors that have only ever run on 50601 (although I normally avoid using 50601)." ... Was aber nicht stimmt das damit der Verschleiß überproportional zugenommen haben soll. DThat's nonsense!

Hi Goettmann,
No, you misunderstood me. The T5 problems I mentioned are NOT related to the oil! They were an example of corporate issues, where the corporation denies any connection between the parts they use, their recommendations, and the actual damage that occurs. They would do the same with wear and tear caused by oil.

The experiences you described regarding VW vehicles, 506.01 oil, operating conditions, and the lack of "disproportionate" wear, are certainly likely to alleviate some concerns.
However, while a lower HTHS viscosity might help save fuel, it will likely not positively affect wear in most cases. Have you checked how the wear compares between vehicles filled with oil meeting the 506.01 specification and those filled with oil meeting the 505.01 specification? Perhaps the wear would have been even lower with the use of 505.01 oil?
I still believe that, when given the option, the increased HTHS (High-Temperature High-Shear) value can be advantageous in terms of wear, especially for vehicles primarily used for long distances and with engines that have a high displacement (e.g., "Ulf" engines, which are known for being hard to start).

Why do you state above that you "normally avoid" the 506.01?

haithamina

Well, I'm not sure either. Who else drives a 1.9 TDI PD with 118 kW? And what does the owner's manual say? If I use the Castrol oil finder, it also only suggests 50700. Furthermore, Castrol no longer produces 506.01.
I have an ATD engine, manufactured in 2003, and I only use 505.01 oil with a viscosity of 5W-40.
Regarding the question of why some people shot a deer...
Back then, the 505.01 oil was paired with the Spezi 5W-40. 505.01 was only available in 5W-40.
Nowadays, that's not the case anymore! VW now requires an oil with a 5W-30 specification for its new approvals!
The new 505.01 oil is a Spec 5w-30, low-ash oil, and is suitable for use with retrofit filters.
The major oil manufacturers (Mobil, Shell, Elf, etc.) no longer produce the 505.01 specification in a 5W-40 viscosity grade; they only offer it in 5W-30.
Ulf, what kind of oil have you been using so far, and what was your experience regarding things like smoothness after starting, oil consumption, etc.?
"The 1.9 PD concept from 1999 was essentially built unchanged until my engine's production date in 2006 (and beyond)." Do you think the engine and the manufacturing process remained the same for 7 years? There were changes and optimizations here and there, especially due to the long-life service! I think there were adjustments and modifications made, even if the part numbers are the same.
I hope you have good luck choosing the beer!
Well, I always buy my oil from a partner shop of the ADAC.
505.01 for €28.50 for 5 liters, thanks to 1 liter free for ADAC members.
"However, a 507.00 grade oil would still be affordable. But I'm not supposed to use it, so I don't have any experience with oils that meet the VW507.00 specification."

haithamina wrote:

There are people who are very satisfied with non-approved 0W-40 oil in their PD-TDI engines, even considering the price. Could this be another alternative?! haithamina

Seven years ago, the 505.01 oil was one of the most expensive oils available.
And today? There is no cheaper HC oil in 5W-40...

scroll tdi wrote:

Ulf, what kind of oil have you been using so far, and what was your experience regarding running smoothness after starting, oil consumption, etc.?

In my Polo (ASZ, manufactured in 2004), I initially used the factory-filled oil with specification 506.01 until the flexible service interval, and since then I've been using LiquiMoly DieselHighTech 5W40 / 505.01. Approximately at the same time as I switched oils, the oil consumption between changes (about 12,000 km per year) also went down to almost zero, despite the tuning to approximately 160 horsepower.
Regarding the mechanical smoothness after starting, I can't find anything negative to say.
Since the DieselHighTech oil is no longer available at the hardware store, I switched to LiquiMoly TopTech 4100 (also 5W40 / 505.01) during the last oil change in April 2009. So far, it feels exactly the same as the DieselHighTech.

The oil in my "new" car was already very dark shortly after the oil change performed by the dealer (according to the note, with mileage readings of 50400 / 50700), as if they hadn't drained it completely. Therefore, I quickly replaced the oil and filter with TopTech 4100.

Perhaps the manufacturer assumes that the engines in most modern vehicles are primarily used for short trips, which would naturally justify the use of "thinner" oils.
That would also explain why not only VAG, but also all other manufacturers specify 0W-30 and 5W-30 oils.

Well, Ulf,

So, it's something that almost everyone has observed: that brand new engines, when using the factory-supplied oil, tend to consume more oil initially, but this issue usually disappears after the first oil change.

I also use 505.01 oil from the aftermarket, and I've been doing so for a long time. The engine now has almost 160,000 km on it and is running smoothly. Recently, I removed the valve cover, and there were no noticeable dirt or wear marks on the crankshaft.

...
Have you ever checked how the wear and tear compares between vehicles filled with oil meeting the 506.01 specification and those filled with oil meeting the 505.01 specification? Perhaps the wear would have been even lower if 505.01 oil had been used?


'In a test involving 12 vehicles that were operated for over 250,000 km using both oils, no significant differences were observed. The fuel consumption of the vehicles using the 50601 oil was only marginally lower. However, both oil types fell within the typical range of variation for this vehicle model.'


...
Why do you state above that you 'normally avoid' the 506.01?
...


Too expensive!
We only resort to the 50601 when it is absolutely necessary.

I'm still not quite wrapping my head around the whole thing with the Seat 118kW.
I also checked the oil finder on the Fuchs website, and it only recommends longlife oil, even though the table indicates a fixed-interval oil.
Well, which other companies within the Volkswagen Group use the BPX or BUK (PD) engine?
I really think there's no typo and that you need to use an oil that meets the 507.00 specification, not the 505.01 specification.
It's surprising that Fuchs is making these statements, especially since they recently released 2 new 505.01 approvals for 2 new oils. It's a crazy world of oils.
Fuchs now also offers a 5W40 oil with the 505.01 specification, low ash content, and BMW LL04 approval.

HI,
my comment:
The most important thing is to change it every 15,000 km or 1 year, regardless of whether it's "longlife" or "winter-in-vehicle" oil.

scroll tdi wrote:

Well, who else in the VW group uses the BPX or BUK (PD) engine?

Nobody, those two engines were only used in the Ibiza. Yes, they are 1.9 PD engines.

Quote:

Seriously, think about it, it might not be a typo, and you might need to use an oil that meets the 507.00 standard, not the 505.01.

. . . even though it has the same hardware as the ARL, which is allowed to use the 505.01. . .

Quote:

Crazy oil world..

Exactly!

I'm going to continue writing here because the topic in https://community.dieselschrauber.org/en/viewtopic.php?t=22388&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=42 is a bit off-topic.

goettmann wrote:

Do you still believe that the oil recommendations from manufacturers are completely arbitrary and made by people sitting at desks? Then my job would certainly be completely unnecessary icon_wink.gif. No, these recommendations are very important and should be followed, even if they seem "completely nonsensical" from the outside.

ulf wrote:

According to the documents, the engine blocks from ARL (150hp G4 platform EU3) and BPX (160hp Ibiza EU3) are completely identical. The BPX has, on paper, 10 Nm and 10 hp more, and a different turbocharger, which [speculation] may slightly reduce exhaust back pressure in the maximum power range [/speculation]. The ARL engine can use either 505.01 or long-life oil, while the BPX (and the BUK, which is identical to the BPX except for the particulate filter) is, according to the documentation, fixed to long-life oil even with fixed maintenance intervals. As someone who is not an insider, I find it extremely difficult to believe that this comparison is based on objective technical necessities.

goettmann wrote:

If your engines only consist of the block, then your observation is also correct. Unfortunately, many components inside and around the engine have been changed, and these components are designed to function with motor oil, which means the oil recommendation is tailored to these specific components. Incidentally, the particulate filters also operate in this oil. According to my records, the hydraulic components are also different in both engines, at least for the standard equipment. However, the replacement parts are the same. And these components are also lubricated by the oil. And finally, the other turbocharger might also use a completely different type of oil. Or does yours not receive any engine oil?

ulf wrote:

Then that's probably a more recent information sheet than the one I reviewed during hours-long meetings on the case a few years ago... I'll have to delve back into it.

Okay, after some searching in the file, I found the following concise information for the Leon ARL and Ibiza BPX/BUK models, both manufactured in 2006:

Partial engine including crankshaft, pistons, and oil pump = 038100103QX for both engines.
Complete ZK (including valves, NW, PDE) = 038103265GX for both engines.
Besides the charger, I believe these two packages should include all the parts that run in the oil or are lubricated.
In other words, if you rebuild an ARL or BPX/BUK engine after a major failure using these OEM parts, you end up with two completely identical engine blocks, including all moving parts, which consequently have the same lubrication requirements.

According to this, only the loader remains as a possible hardware-related reason why the BPX/BUK should receive WIV-OIL.

@goettmann:
Which parts in the engine have been changed in the BPX compared to the ARL, according to your information?

ulf wrote:

... Partial engine components including crankshaft, pistons, and oil pump = 038100103QX for both engine types. Complete ZK (including valves, water pump, and PDE) = 038103265GX for both engines. ...

Ah, yes... Ulf is already using replacement parts in new engines... Very interesting...

Of course, it never occurred to you that replacement parts are built from a huge pool of old parts, and therefore often meet completely different (later) specifications.
However, the fact that the PDEs between the ARL and the BUK are different results in different ET lists (as you yourself have written).
"But why does VW seriously list the exact same cylinder head (including the pressure distribution channels) for both the ARL and BUK engines? Please explain that to me..."
Sorry, but you can safely throw away the parts lists for your research. They are comparison parts and not (necessarily) the parts that are installed in series production. }

The entire purpose is to keep the Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) as low as possible. However, in most cases, the later specification will eventually cover the older one, and there is no risk to the lifespan.
However, just because your engine experiences higher thermal stress compared to the ARL model doesn't mean you can use the same oil as the ARL.

Bertil wrote:

You probably never thought that replacement parts are built from a huge pool of old parts, and therefore often meet completely different (later) specifications. No, I'm not an insider enough to know that.

The fact that the PDEs between the ARL and the BUK are different results in different ET lists (you even wrote this yourself).
Only why does VW seriously list the exact same complete cylinder head (including PDEs) in the AT for both ARL and BUK engines? So, please explain that to me...

Quote:

It's also been puzzling me. However, I suspect that a detailed comparison of all moving parts in the ZK would also reveal a degree of interchangeability with the ARL (except for the BUK-PDE components). And for the comparison between the ARL and BPX, the ZK comparison would still need to be accurate, because they also share the same PDE components, despite the known differences in oil specifications.

Sorry, but you can safely throw away the parts lists for your research. These are comparison parts and not (necessarily) the parts that are installed in production.

Quote:

The entire purpose is to keep the ET (electrical torque) effort as low as possible. However, often the later specification will cover the old one anyway, and there is no risk to the lifespan. This means that, depending on the required ET, you upgrade your motor with higher-quality parts, so that the factory is aware of it? And that a BPX, assembled from a complete ZK unit and a separate engine, might be more resistant to critical oil selection than a BPX from the engine factory?

However, just because your engine experiences higher thermal stress compared to the ARL, it doesn't mean you can use the same oil as the ARL.

Quote:

Well, if the +20 Nm / 0 PS are solely responsible for the more expensive oil requirement, then chipped Seat ARLs (with 505.01 in the oil pan) should be failing en masse due to lubrication problems. After all, even the most basic tuner can achieve 330 Nm / 160 PS by plugging an ARL into a laptop. Only when you want

significantly more power than the BPX / BUK engines offer do these simple EDC15 modifications fail.

ulf wrote:

.... Well, if only the +20 Nm / 0 HP are responsible for the more expensive oil requirement, then chipped Seat ARL engines (with the 505.01 specification in the oil pan) should be failing en masse due to lubrication problems.

At the very least, their lifespan is significantly shorter than the stock version... and that is definitely the case... ... And the "parking lot tuner" doesn't have to offer a 2-year warranty (and may even offer even more goodwill).

Sure, here's the translation:

"Anything else?"
The connecting rod bearings for the ARL and BPX/BUK engines are different. They are even from different manufacturers! Although the parts list for the ARL shows the same bearings, those are the newer ones. However, they were different in production. Also, the clearance setting for the crankshaft/connecting rod is different for the BPX/BUK engines.
So, the blocks are anything but the same.

But of course, the plain bearings in the block aren't lubricated by oil in your case...

Quote:

No, I don't have enough inside information for that.

I didn't deny that in the first place, so you're not considering the underlying process(es) enough. But I'm going to be blunt and explain everything in detail here.
Accept what the manufacturer specifies; it has a purpose and reason.

"He who whispers, lies!" As long as consumers have no way of finding out exactly what the individual VW oil specifications entail, it's understandable that there's some distrust.

On the other hand, no statement of this kind can demand: Unfortunately, even the 150 hp version of our current engine tends to develop surface imperfections (or whatever), which is due to design flaws. Rectifying these flaws in production would cost at least €7,823.41, which our board would never approve for good reasons.
Since the problem would become even more apparent with a performance-enhanced variant, we're taking a drastic measure and specifying the most demanding oil standard our corporation has to offer: 507.00. You are also welcome to use 505.01 if it meets the Mercedes-Benz 229.51 standard, after all, the people at DB probably know more about oil than we do...

It's not uncommon for replacement parts to only be available in newer or higher-quality versions.