PD 1.9 EU4: Why is it so complicated?

Hello,

If I look at my EU4 save file...

without AGR-DK (exhaust gas recirculation system) and without a separate glow plug control unit (which sometimes malfunctions and incorrectly reports good glow plugs as defective, as is often the case with BLT systems).

Then I always wonder why this vulnerable and expensive equipment was installed in the EU3 -> EU4 evolution (ATD -> AXR or ASZ -> BLT), when the EU4 can even be made to work with a 160 hp engine and a non-regulated AGR cooler, and otherwise with the simple ATD hardware setup.

Did the Seat developers completely outdo their colleagues in Wolfsburg with the BUK, or is there something else going on?

Okay, first of all:

You're talking about a 5-year difference in development time. The AXR, as the first EU4 PD, was adjusted to meet these emission standards with relatively minor modifications, without significantly changing the overall size or design. In essence, it was a 'quick fix.' The BUK, on the other hand, was refined through small, precise changes and a longer development process to achieve the same result. So, it was anything but a quick fix.
In addition, these engines had to be installed in the heavier G4/5 platform at VW, while at Seat, they were only used in the lighter Polo platform. This also results in significant improvements in emissions reduction.
The AXR in the G4 also only received the EU4 approval as a switch and with the declared weight of 1395kg. It would never have received it if it weighed over 1400kg (due to stricter emission limits). The problem is that every station wagon weighed more than 1400kg .
The Polo platform made and continues to make it even simpler.


I don't quite understand your 'complicated' approach. The electric coolant control valve (DK) and AGR (Abgasrückführung) cooler control are actually completely trouble-free on the AXR and BKC engines. Controlling a shut-off valve using pneumatics seems utterly pointless to me. The engine control unit (MSG) receives no information about the position of the shut-off valve. If it gets stuck (and I've seen many), troubleshooting becomes a real pain. On the AXR, there would be an error message in the error memory, and that would be it. However, I haven't encountered any that have gotten stuck yet.

Okay, I can understand your 'frustration' regarding the BLT. They've clearly gone way overboard with that.

goettmann wrote:

The BUK was refined through small, precise adjustments and lengthy development stages. So, it was anything but a rushed project.

Therefore, it was truly mature in terms of the cost-benefit ratio.
The more incomprehensible it is that this "gem" was only installed in the rather exotic Ibi Cupra .

Quote:

In addition, you must consider that these engines had to be installed in the heavier G4/5 platform at VW, while at Seat, they were only used in the lighter Polo platform. This also results in a significant amount of emission reduction.

Lighter is relative... A curb weight of approximately 1250 kg (without the driver!) for the Cupra TDI is, in my opinion, already quite substantial. But presumably, the chosen flywheel mass was just enough in the emission cycle to stay below the EU4 limits.

Quote:

Controlling a diverter valve pneumatically is absolute nonsense to me. The MSG (Motor Steuergerät) receives no information about the position of the diverter valve. If it gets stuck (and I've seen many), troubleshooting becomes a lot of fun. With the AXR engine, there would be an error message in the error memory, and that would be it. However, I haven't had one get stuck yet.

I have read about (jerky) problems with the regulated EGR valve several times, which were resolved by replacing the valve unit.
It's been a while, so please don't ask me to quickly provide any links right now.

BTW, do you remember which parts of the faulty pneumatic AK caused it to jam?

Quote:

Okay, I can understand your "frustration" regarding the BLT to some extent. They clearly went way overboard.

. . . by largely copying the AXR concept: AGR-DK and smaller PDEs, and also adding the GZ-StG on top of that.
The thing has really become a crutch compared to the BUK, just to impress the EU4 community about ~1 year earlier.

So, truly mature in terms of the cost-benefit ratio .


So, I would see it differently .
The customer was unfairly overcharged by deliberately omitting components.


The more incomprehensible it is that this 'gem' was only installed in the rather exotic Ibi Cupra .


Nein ... More details below.


... But it's likely that the selected flywheel mass in the exhaust cycle was just barely sufficient to meet the EU4 emission limits.


That's right. 1400kg is the 'magic' limit. The G5 had already exceeded that limit as well.
That's why the Passat didn't receive the EU4 emissions standard until so late.
It's clearly visible in the KBA lists with the emission values.

So, the BUK (likely referring to a specific model or trim level) was not of interest for the G5/6 or Passat, and for the Polo, they didn't want to create competition for the Ibiza. SEAT was marketed and positioned as the sporty brand within the VAG (Volkswagen Group) conglomerate.
It's pointless to create too many overlaps in the product catalog. This defines the target audience for the Polo/Fabia in a slightly different way. The larger engine remained excluded (in my opinion, rightfully so).


'So, I've read about several instances of (sticking) problems with the controlled EGR valve, which were resolved by replacing the valve assembly.'


The actual problem lies elsewhere. The flap is just one of many consequences that are often changed. However, this unfortunately doesn't provide a long-term solution. That's all I have to say about it... sorry.


Bitte gib mir den Text, den du übersetzt haben möchtest.
BTW, do you remember which parts of the faulty pneumatic AK caused it to jam?


Yes, the flaps have jammed. The cause is unknown.


The thing has really become a crutch compared to the BUK, just to impress the EU4 community about ~1 year earlier.

Well, I wouldn't quite see it that way... the BLT can also be installed in vehicles weighing over >1400kg. That's not possible with the BUK. -> Sekt or Selters

Quote:

Yes, the flaps have jammed. The cause is unknown.

I can definitely see that.

I once had a valve (038 .... E) that I wanted to experiment with (I wanted to install it on a 1Z engine).
There were clear signs of grinding marks on the actual pipe section, caused by the valve when it was closed.
If there's also some thermal distortion involved, it might end up staying stuck like that.

m;

dieselmartin wrote:

If a bit of thermal distortion is added to that, it can sometimes get stuck.

And then there are the evil EGR deposits.

The AGR (Abgasrückführung valve) is located AFTER the shut-off valve.

... although it was just a few centimeters higher.

dieselmartin wrote:

The AGR valve, however, comes AFTER the shut-off valve. ... even if it's only by a few centimeters.

It's correct. But I still haven't seen a throttle body that wasn't also full of EGR sludge. Have you ever seen an intake manifold that was completely caked with sludge, and the throttle body was clean?

goettmann wrote:

Customers are being unfairly charged a high price by selectively omitting components.

That's one way to look at it. But I'm definitely willing to buy less material without a price reduction if the overall system becomes simpler, less prone to failure, and easier to maintain .

Quote:

With the Polo, the intention was not to create a competitor for the Ibiza.

This was certainly done with the gasoline models: both the 6L Cupra and the 9N GTI Cup Edition featured the 1.8T engine with 180 horsepower.

Quote:

The flaps have jammed. The cause is unknown. Bitte gib mir den deutschen Text, den du übersetzt haben möchtest. If this one breaks (and I've had many break), troubleshooting becomes really fun.

Well, I'm confident enough to diagnose this by ear: The engine fires a few times and then sputters(!) and dies.
If it starts poorly, the organ's rotational speed increases unnaturally after about 2 seconds because the starter motor has very little compression to overcome.

But why don't the engine flaps get stuck? Do the servo motors have more power than the pneumatic cylinders to open the flap again after it's been closed?

Quote:

The BLT engine can also be installed in vehicles weighing over 1400kg. This is not possible with the BUK engine.

. . . because the BLT engine has greater reserves up to the EU4 emission standards? Then I wonder why it couldn't be used in models beyond the Polo/Ibiza/Fabia platform.

Quote:

Sekt or Selters

Sekt, please - pure and unfiltered!!

Quote:

But why don't the engine flaps get stuck? Do the servo motors have more power than the pneumatic cylinders to open the flap again after it's been closed?

That is called pneumonia.
The flaps are sucked shut and then released by a spring, causing them to open again.

Is there currently a thread going around where someone is complaining about an electric valve BLB (ball valve with lift bar)?

m;

That's one way to look at it. But I am definitely willing to buy fewer components without a price reduction, if that makes the overall system simpler and less prone to failure (and easier ).


It seems straightforward at first glance. I can and want to say nothing more about it.


Just like what was done with the gasoline models: both the 6L Cupra and the 9N GTI Cup Edition had the 1.8T engine with 180 horsepower .


That also caused a lot of pain. Additionally, there were conflicts with the motorsports program, which resulted in the loss of several customers.


I think I can manage that...


You Ulf.
Unfortunately, I trust fewer and fewer workshops with this. Error memory is empty -> car is okay. It's quite simple for them. Unfortunately, this is becoming less and less common.


But why don't the engine flaps get stuck? Do the servo motors have more power than the pneumatic cylinders to reopen the flap after it's been closed?


They probably get jammed sometimes (I haven't experienced that yet), but if the flap is open, then an error message appears.
The forces acting on the normal parking flap are somewhat uneven, which is why they tend to jam up sooner or later. The motor flap's mounting is a bit more robust.

. . . because the BLT has larger reserves up to the EU4 emission standards? Then I wonder why it didn't make it beyond the Polo / Ibiza / Fabia platform.


Time has taken its toll on that one. I still remember the G5 with BLT, but they never made it into the main series, as they were replaced by the CR models.

Sparkling wine, please - neat and unfiltered!!

And then Grandpa Müller comes along and says, '...... But that Japanese company XYZ offers me more for the money...' and you're right back in the arms race .

goettmann wrote:

The forces in the normal parking flap are somewhat uneven, and therefore they tend to jam sooner or later. The motor flap's mounting is a bit more robust.

What do you mean by "uneven" (between which values)?

Well, but apparently, AK malfunctions don't seem to be a common problem.
Otherwise, one would probably read about more real-world cases than just the one ASV that was dismantled due to a faulty AK fuse (I can't recall any others at the moment).

Quote:

And then Grandpa Müller comes along and says, "...... But that Japanese company XYZ is offering me more for the money..." and suddenly you are back in the arms race

. I certainly won't .
My two armor spirals (pointing downwards ) are actually just about power-to-weight ratio and fuel consumption, ideally without driving bans in nonsensical zones - and in that sense, the 6L BUK is doing quite well .

What do you mean by 'unequal' (between which values)?


In one direction, it's spring-loaded, and in the other direction, it's pneumatically controlled. The forces are not 100% equal, which leads to uneven wear and can cause it to jam.
The engine cover is perfectly symmetrical in terms of force distribution, and the wear is also symmetrical. This significantly reduces the likelihood of it becoming jammed.


Well, but apparently, AK malfunctions don't seem to be a common problem.


So, I've had enough of it.
It's not a persistent problem.
However, none of this is particularly complicated. Even a 'simple' mechanical system can have errors, and often even more (based on my own observations).


...
My two armor spirals (pointing downwards ) are actually just about power-to-weight ratio and fuel consumption, ideally without driving bans in nonsensical zones - and in that sense, the 6L BUK is doing quite well .

Correct... That's why I also support the '5-liter car'...



Ulf, I'm going to twist your words around now .

Just a few years ago, you were using a VP37 and had good reasons not to switch to a PD. Now you have two of them. And you're actually asking 'why so complicated'? You couldn't have made a bigger technological leap than from a VP37 to a PD. And you didn't complain about it being 'too complicated' then!
Therefore, I cannot fully understand your statement. Technology continues to advance, and so does the complexity of systems. Particular attention is being paid to electronics.
Go ahead and take a look at the Mercedes W211 (older E-Class). It doesn't really have much in common with its predecessors. Neither the W210 nor the W124 had nearly as much (problematic) electronics on board. But that's just the way development goes.
Developers often try to explore and push boundaries, and they sometimes exceed those limits. This can lead to situations where a step back and a shift in direction ultimately lead to progress.
Even in Formula 1, there have been such scenarios. And hardly anyone understood how a small 'private team' with a limited budget could have become an F1 world champion in 2009.
Very few people know the (technical) background and what actually happened behind the closed doors of the workshop. The audience certainly doesn't.

goettmann wrote:

Spring-loaded in one direction and pneumatic in the other. The forces are not 100% equal, and therefore, due to uneven wear, it can get stuck.

Aha

Quote:

The engine cover is perfectly symmetrical in terms of forces, and the wear is also symmetrical. This significantly reduces the likelihood of jamming.

Does the cover sit directly on the engine shaft without any intermediate gears or similar components? And isn't there also a rotary encoder potentiometer that will eventually fail due to wear?

Quote:

Even a "simple" mechanical system can have errors, often even more (my own observation).

However, the maximum possible number of errors in a system increases with the number of its components. Therefore, a simple system is fundamentally more reliable - provided that it is designed and built with the same care as a complex one.

Quote:

Just a few years ago, you were using VP37 and had good reasons not to switch to a PD. Now you have two of them. And you actually ask "why so complicated"?

Yes: why is the PD system (which I chose because of its performance potential) being made even more complicated beyond the inevitable complexity, and (making it fundamentally unnecessary prone to failure)?

Quote:

Neither the W210 nor the W124 had as much (problematic) electronics on board. But that is simply the course of development.

. . . which the majority of customers accept without complaint, rather than using their purchasing behavior to demand a return to older, more reliable technology.
For me, "reliable" is definitely more important than "just new" without an objective increase in usefulness, but it seems I am quite alone in that opinion.

Quote:

The maximum possible number of errors in a system increases with the number of its components. Therefore, a simple system is inherently more reliable - provided it is designed and built with the same care as a complex one.

If a system becomes something more complex, but in doing so becomes manageable, then that is, for example, an advantage.

m;

And isn't there also a potentiometer for the angle sensor that will eventually fail due to wear?


I haven't disassembled any yet...


The maximum possible number of errors in a system increases with the number of its components.


Definitely not!
Nur wenn du davon ausgehst das alle Komponenten die gleiche Ausfallwahrscheinlichkeit haben, dann ja. Otherwise, no.
However, that is not the case for the DK construction in the AXR.


Therefore, a simple system is generally more reliable - if it is designed and built with the same care as a complex one.


Please provide the text you would like me to translate from German to English. I will then provide the translation.
Wrong approach


Yes: Why is the PD system (which I chose because of its performance potential) being made even more complicated beyond the inevitable complexity, and thus unnecessarily vulnerable?


It actually doesn't
...which the majority of customers passively accept, rather than demanding a return to older, proven technologies through their purchasing behavior.


'That's wrong... the (vast) majority of customers demand these systems (because they've been told to). Companies that can't offer these things will quickly fail, especially in the automotive testing sector.'
Wasn't there a post about this before?


For me, 'reliable' is definitely more important than 'just new' without an objective increase in usefulness - but it seems I'm pretty much alone in that opinion .

No... you're definitely not alone .