GolfGTIforum.co.uk
Model specific boards => Golf mk7 => Golf mk7 GTD/TDI => Topic started by: adekil on 21 November 2013, 18:29
-
So I've now clocked up a measly 850 miles over 6 weeks and I find the acceleration to be somewhat sluggish at times, mostly when its very cold or just setting off! And then when the engines been running for a short while acceleration is very nice but not constantly very nice!
Maybe I need more miles on the clock to wake up the engine and its not ideal coming from a diesel 150BHP GT TDI either as the difference is not overly noticeable at times (speed wise)
What's everyone else's opinion on your GTD's performance?
-
Seems slightly less potent than my old Scirocco 170 tdi, dissapointingly. Sometimes I wonder whether the gtd has a power limiting function when the engine is cold. Saw my dealership about lacking power and mpg. Apparently be only look into it when enough people complain.
-
I agree... and I think this coincides with my previous post about Normal mode feeling quicker than Sport, I now believe it was a case of me starting in Sport, then switching to Normal once the engine warmed up so it felt quicker!
I have to say though I recently saw a 2006 Megane Sport (175bhp) pull away and I was more impressed with that than what I felt in the GTD (I used to have this Megane model so I know the power output difference)
Maybe thats why VW added the engine growl in sport mode to deceive us :undecided:
-
I'm more than happy with the performance of my car but I've come from a 1.4 Ibiza before this. I think the main problem with the performance is how refined it is. You barely have to touch the throttle and you're at 60+ in 3rd.
Mine does struggle to get the power down on 2nd if I slam the accelerator down but its manageable.
-
I think you're right KyleB - For me coming from a similar engine spec its not massively different but I've been following the hype of the stats and how everyone said those figures were outstanding and that set my expectations really high. Although performance differs on environment, I am swayed towards monkeyhangers comment or maybe the car really does need a good run in.
Still though I love this car and its still fairly new to me to see what its potential is or hoping is :)
-
Very early days driving my wife's GTD + DSG but I'd be inclined to wait for the oil temp to rise before pushing too hard.
Once warm with the gearshift in S and for a diesel it seems plenty quick enough.
Against my manual S2000 with its raucous, howling 9000 rpm, my wife hates it, the Golf delivers tons of oomph in total comfort and is probably still tight with just over 6000 miles.
I love the S2000 but with the flappy paddles to play with I'm enjoying the Golf.
It's the noise the S2000 makes that really adds to the excitement so perhaps the Golf could be just a little too refined for some.
-
I think you need to define "plenty quick enough". Coming from a 170TDI CR Scirocco, and previously having a 140TDI CR Scirocco, I can say that mine is lacking in power (a little) and torque (a lot).
My car is a smidge slower than my 170, and feels like it has the torque of the 140. 5th and 6th gear acceleration in my GTD are poor next to the 170TDI Roc, feeling on a par with my 140TDI Roc. The GTD will wow if you are coming from a 120PS car. The GTD is far less willing to pull on torque than the 170 was if you say find yourself in 6th at 60mph and want to accelerate to 80mph.
I tried "Normal" in my car today about 3 miles into my journey and it did seem to feel livelier and my mpg was lower than normal. I got to work and the fan started blaring when I switched off - undergoing a regen, so it may have been just that.
If my car doesn't improve on output and mpg, and there is "nothing" wrong with it (got about 1850 miles on now), i'm going to feel more cheated than I already do.
-
mine doesn't feel sluggish or underpowered. problem is people are comparing it to previous cars and you can't. it's entirely different as Georgek has said and what kyle said about it being refined is spot on. the gtd is a very quick car but also very smooth where the old engines were like a bag of spanners for refinement. no problem in my gtd for acceleration in any gear.
-
I think my previous car (or a MK6 GTD) is the closest comparison you could get to a MK7 GTD, and I would expect with a 14PS advantage on paper and supposedly 0.6s faster in the 0-62 sprint should yield a noticeable difference.
I have conceded that i'm not going to see any great changes in the 0-62 time because the traction is so poor in comparison to my Scirocco - I never had any tramping in the Scirocco....ever. Not even full throttle. The tyres were 10mm wider (might make a tiny difference), and Pirelli P7s, then Michelin Pilot Sport 3s. The GTD brochure prominently states "anti-tramping function" as a key GTD feature. Not on my GTD it isn't.
But initial traction and low end performance aside, improved smoothness or not (which may just mean watching your dials as the car may be doing more than you think it is from just the feel of it), my GTD is lacking in torque in the higher gears. Sometimes i'm convinced they put a 2.0TDI 150 lump in, instead of the GTD engine.
For mcmaddy, coming from a Tiguan, the difference will be clear. Even a 170TDI with 4WD will feel a lot slower in the change of pace in the upper gears than even my GTD as it stands - it is a bigger and heavier car.
-
I think it's as mentioned, maybe it's refinement etc.
When I did a test drive (admittedly on a 2.0 TDI GT DSG), it didn't feel as quick as the 2.2 i-DTEC Civic I was in at the time.
In reality, the two cars are very similar in power, torque etc, but it just felt like the Civic was quicker, even though it wasn't. It's just that it does it so easily I think.
But that being said, similar to your Roc's, I was in an A4 Allroad with the same engine (well actually it was the newer 177), and in 6th, that thing pulled ridiculously good. Would hit the torque straight away and accelerate, hardly any turbo lag.
-
I have a theory about this and I will not be able to support it with anything until after I take delivery of my GTD Manual at the beginning of December.
I have had discussions with monkeyhanger on here about the performance and he's been pretty scientific about it and I believe him when he says that his GTD is a little slower than his 170TDI Roc - we could argue here that within a reasonable margin for error that performance of his GTD and his Roc are to all intents and purposes identical.
I would expect much between them, to be honest - the power:weight ratios are close to identical, you might expect the Roc to be a little faster at high speeds because of its smaller frontal area and lower drag.
It is likely that owing the variances in manufacture that monkeyhanger had a powerful 170 Roc and an average GTD...
The only way to prove or disprove the above would be to run both cars back to back on a rolling road.
I think refinement is certainly one aspect that would make the GTD feel slower. The other is likely to be the torque curve. Is suspect that the Roc had a narrower torque band with a higher peak and that the GTD has a wider less torque band with little or no peak. This would explain the perceived lack of pull in the higher gears. Maybe the GTD needs to be driven differently to extract best performance by making use of the wider torque band by changing down...
As I said, just a theory at the moment...
-
I would say DSG is perhaps the cause of the poor mpg :nerd:
-
I would say DSG is perhaps the cause of the poor mpg :nerd:
But monkeyhanger's theory (based on some evidence) is that in many cases the DSG folk are seeing better fuel consumption that those with manual gearboxes...
-
I would say DSG is perhaps the cause of the poor mpg :nerd:
But monkeyhanger's theory (based on some evidence) is that in many cases the DSG folk are seeing better fuel consumption that those with manual gearboxes...
Does anybody think Volkswagen have accidently mixed up all the mpg and CO2 figures for their Manual & DSG cars? :shocked:
I bought a manual GTi because I like the gear box but also being its better mpg.
-
Talking feel vs refinement (dulling the feel in adding refinement), there’s no denying poor mpg – that’s a figure the MFD kicks out no matter what you are feeling when driving.
I’ve used a marker point on my commute road and when I enter that road at exactly 30mph from the roundabout’s filter lane and floor it to a certain sign, I could do 83mph in my Scirocco and only 80mph in the GTD (consistently 80mph over 5 or 6 goes in the dry). Feel or not, my GTD is not as quick. To a very small extent 4th gear acceleration is worse and to a much larger extent, 5th and 6th gear acceleration are worse. For 60-80mph acceleration, I usually now opt to drop to 4th, whereas I used to leave it in 6th.
I feel like VW snuck the 150PS GT TDI engine into mine (5th/6th gear torque is the most noticeable difference between the 150/184 and the old 140/170).
-
And its nothing to do with the engine not being run in yet?
This sounds very bad :undecided:
GTI7me has had 48.5mpg out of his GTi :huh:
-
@monkeyhanger As I said I believe what you've said...
When I get mine and I've run it in, I'll run some back to back tests with the g/f's BMW 120d M-Sport - which from a performance perspective feels pretty much as I expected from a performance perspective...
-
I had attributed my initial poor performance and low mpg to the use of Shell V-power (which is less potent, but cleaner) for the first 2.5 tanks of fuel. I had seen a small improvement when moving to standard Esso, but not much. Just hoping that I didn’t have an irreversibly poor running in period because of the V-power, although I don’t think that is the case because others here are seeing similar mpg.
It does confuse the hell out of me why DSGers (including my dad) are generally seeing much better mpg. I’m thinking that the DSG box’s management of gear changes is more in tune with the engine than the gear change prompt software on the manual. It sometimes makes no sense at all. Sometimes it’ll happily take being sat at 42mph in 6th, but drop a few mph and it wants you to drop to 5th (fair enough), but as soon as you’re in 5th, it wants 4th, then 3rd. So you end up from 6th at 42mph to the car wanting to be in 3rd at 36mph, move back up to 42mph and it wants 6th again, which suggests to me that it doesn’t want a higher engine speed for a regen. Some of the time (lately) I have given up taking the gear change indicator as gospel and ignore the car wanting to be sat at 36mph in 3rd and leave it in 4th or 5th instead.
My dad hammers his DSG and still gets 51 indicated/48 actual mpg.
If I could buy again, I’d buy a GTI and expect 35mpg.
-
Well for those who know how to read these graphs here's the VW print out of the power and torque curves for the 103KW/125KW CR engine from the Scirocco, and the 184ps unit in the new GTD ?
Certainly looks like the 184ps engine holds it's peak torque longer ?
(http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2835/10992302035_8091576904_o.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/58190042@N03/10992302035/)
2013-11-22_111959 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/58190042@N03/10992302035/) by Sootchucker (http://www.flickr.com/people/58190042@N03/), on Flickr
(http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2837/10992405233_5f7147f552_o.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/58190042@N03/10992405233/)
CR 2.0 184PS (http://www.flickr.com/photos/58190042@N03/10992405233/) by Sootchucker (http://www.flickr.com/people/58190042@N03/), on Flickr
-
Of course we should all be seeing a dip in our mpg anyway with the colder weather being upon us. I generally saw a 10% dip in mpg in winter vs summer on previous TDIs. Maybe 44mpg now at 3C (7am in the morning) vs 44mpg in September at 16C is an improvement? Probably won’t find out until next May, although we might see our mpg take a dip when the sub-zero weather comes.
Might be a good time to check tyre pressures again too it they were last topped up in the warmer weather – you may find your tyre’s resting pressure to be a few PSI lower in the colder weather.
-
Yes about 10% for me too. I have the TPMS so even the slightest pressure drop sets the warning off!
-
Those graphs show to me that the 140 unit has most of its power from much lower in the rev range. At 3k revs, the 140 is putting out 93% of its power and torque is already tailing off, whereas the 184 is only putting out 89% of peak power at 3k revs and torque isn’t noticeably tailing off until 3.5k revs and at 4k revs there is still 320Nm (84% of max) there vs 235Nm (73%) for the 140.
From that we should be driving these differently for performance. In the 140 (and possibly 170 if it has a similar graph) there seems little benefit of going over 3k revs in most circumstances, whereas you might want to keep going to closer to 4k revs in the 184 so that on the change up you are still in 3k revs territory if you are accelerating hard. Doing the same with the 140 will see your torque fall right off.
Maybe we aren’t pushing our GTDs hard enough when we’ve been used to only rarely going beyond 3000rpm-3500rpm on the older models?
The shapes also say to me that the GTD should be far better than the old ones at around 1700rpm. I don’t find this with mine. The 170 used to pick up nicely from around 1700rpm, but my GTD seems to really pick up much closer to 2000rpm. It seems very laggy between 1700 and 1900 rpm compared to my 170, which is why I frequently find myself dropping from 6th to 5th or 4th to go from 60 to 80mph because that sh!tty bit of performance around 1700-2000rpm that I would experience in 6th at 60-70mph just isn’t worth it. Of course I am assuming that the 170 has a similar graph to the 170. Maybe the actual graph will shed some light on mine feeling sluggish at 1700-2000rpm.
-
Maybe we aren’t pushing our GTDs hard enough when we’ve been used to only rarely going beyond 3000rpm-3500rpm on the older models?
Might be something in that.
It seems very laggy between 1700 and 1900 rpm compared to my 170, which is why I frequently find myself dropping from 6th to 5th or 4th to go from 60 to 80mph because that sh!tty bit of performance around 1700-2000rpm that I would experience in 6th at 60-70mph just isn’t worth it.
FWIW, I find with my 320d (E90) at 60mph, if I want proper acceleration, I'll always drop to 4th, as it just won't have the shove in 6th that is sometimes needed. 2500-3000rpm on is where it really puts the power down and changing up at 4000rpm you're then back in the sweet spot for the next gear. Had it 2 1/2 years, over 100k on the clock and its performed like this from day 1.
Having the same power & torque as the 320, I'm expecting similar performance when I get my GTD - standing starts will be a little slower due to the FWD, but I will be disappointed if the performance is much different. As it is a company car - I'll be finding out about the performance pretty much straight away :evil: :evil:
It's almost as if diesels are becoming more like a petrol with the power delivery (not rpm though :sad:) and petrols are getting closer to diesel like torque with the new generation of twin scroll turbos.
-
Diesels and petrols are getting ever closer together - just look at the fuels. We want higher Cetane in diesels to make the fuel a little more volatile and start igniting earlier in the compression/combustion cycle. In petrols we want higher RON to delay combustion for as long as possible in the compression/combustion cycle - they'll be meeting in the middle soon enough.
-
Maybe we aren’t pushing our GTDs hard enough when we’ve been used to only rarely going beyond 3000rpm-3500rpm on the older models?
Might be something in that.
Maybe holding onto the revs more will help keep DPF regens at bay too.
-
In the GTD I think the 50+mpg is if its kept around the 1700 rpm, over 2000 rpm and mpg reduces and will not get 50+mpg. As for me I wil be pushing my GTD hard everyday...cant wait to update this forum with my real driving experience....and I currently have a bmw 320d and this car is a rocket can push revs as high as 4-4.5 and torque is there, lower revs slightly suffers.
-
In the GTD I think the 50+mpg is if its kept around the 1700 rpm, over 2000 rpm and mpg reduces and will not get 50+mpg. As for me I wil be pushing my GTD hard everyday...cant wait to update this forum with my real driving experience....and I currently have a bmw 320d and this car is a rocket can push revs as high as 4-4.5 and torque is there, lower revs slightly suffers.
The 320d is not a rocket... its 180bhp and ~1500kgs (unladed)... That's not to say they not a great car but they're no rocket. The lower rev lethargy will be, at least, partly down to the mass...
As for the comments about fuel consumption... of course you will see better fuel consumption at 1700rpm then 2000rpm. I would expect to see 50mpg or so on a motorway cruise at ~75mph in the GTD (which I'll bet is more than 2000 rpm)...
-
I was a bit like Monkeyhanger in being underwhelmed by performance. Now got about 1600 miles on the clock.
I think I'm going to stop worrying about MPG and just drive the car hard, when the conditions permit. I am unable to get much more than 45mpg on long runs when driving like a nun. It is also taking the enjoyment away, chugging along at 1500rpm trying in vain to get 50+ mpg.
Last week I had a bit of fun with an astra gtc of some nature (had double exhausts and a kit - I only saw that when I turned off the road and he went by) and the car felt plenty fast enough and I really enjoyed driving it. I presume I am like everyone else and have very little power (like nothing) below 1750 rpm and I believe the gear changes in the manual prompt you to change up too quickly. Any change in gradient of the road and you can easily find yourself below the torque band as you are in the gear you've been prompted by in the MFD, you have no pull to maintain road speed and it is frustrating as hell!!
As an aside does anyone else's avg. consumption take quite a long time to get any information on start up? Mine seems to take forever and I've no doubt it is correct but it always has a readout in the low to mid teens when it does fire up!
-
80mph is 2200rpm in 6th, so scaling that down, 75 should be around 2050rpm (2062 to be precise). I got 48mpg on a 65 mile return trip to Hartlepool recently, doing a constant 80mph, so 75mph/50mpg should be doable. Downside is, that would have been 53mpg in similar conditions in the Scirocco.
-
The graphs on the previous page suggest that the torque doesn't really ramp up until you pass 1750rpm so I guess that they will feel a little soft below that...
-
80mph is 2200rpm in 6th, so scaling that down, 75 should be around 2050rpm (2062 to be precise). I got 48mpg on a 65 mile return trip to Hartlepool recently, doing a constant 80mph, so 75mph/50mpg should be doable. Downside is, that would have been 53mpg in similar conditions in the Scirocco.
Given that the long term average in my current car is 25.8mpg and on a run I can make >30 mpg... I don't think I'll be too disappointed :smiley:
What's more, I get to keep the existing car for when I want to go quickly or bask inthe sunshine... :evil:
-
I suppose (Like AMarsh) it is time to say bollocks to mpg and start having more fun with the car, to hell with the fuel economy because it isn’t going to please me seeing what it is.
I would never sit in the gear change prompt range for overtaking, I use them as speed maintenance or gentle acceleration prompts only. I do find myself wanting to change down a lot more with the GTD than I did with the 170, there seems far more times where the torque is lacking without dropping a few cogs. The car runs for about 1/3 of a mile (I’m guessing ½ a Km) before it starts to show trip mpg. The figures generated are probably meaningless with a huge margin of interpretation/error until you have done that minimum journey length.
-
Corgi: my bmw has a 130,000miles on the clock, is a touring some maybe even heavier....most of the time im on my own and the torque is pritty constant after 1800 all the way to 4500...in my eyes car is a rocket mate and returns 40+mpg @ 80mph...so heavier then most vw/audis, more powerful and returns more mpg....whats gone wrong with VW???
-
I had a mk6 GTD before and I was averaging 48mpg most of the time, this was calculated from litres used against miles driven not the computer which always seemed 10% out. The MK6 felt quicker lower down and seemed to tolerate accelerating in higher gears from low revs. The MK7 for all of the 1100 miles I've driven it seems a bit more hesitant at low revs and like others I feel I have to be in a lower gear than the car tells me. To get better mpg I've been using eco driver profile but it's like driving a lower powered version of the car. So far best I've gotten has been 45mpg over a tank and I also think the smaller tank changes our perception of the fuel performance. I would regularly get nigh on 600 miles to a tank when doing some longer runs, this car I'm struggling to get near to 500miles let alone north of it. I'm not usually one to moan about manufacturers claims but I have sent an e-mail to the dealer regarding the engine performance saying how disappointed I am when comparing it to VW's claims in the literature. Not had an answer yet.
-
There's been plenty of discussion on the BMW forums to show that general driving in Eco Pro (similar, I guess to our Eco) does not result in improved fuel consumption, mainly, I guess, because people drive the car a little harder to make up for the softened throttle response.
In the g/f's 120d we have found that Eco Pro is good for constant speeds e.g. motorway from a fuel consumption perspective whereas Normal or even Sport are better in other circumstances...
-
Hi all :smiley:,
I'm long time lurker, had to join to reply to this thread, usually just come here and check out whats going on etc GTI/GTD wise with like minded people...
Had a GTD since beginning of Oct ordered April, got nearly 6k on clock and it hasnt been babied at all. It is still very tight. My prev passat 170 DSG seemed to have an internal software switch turned on at 20k and it really loosened up and became a lot quicker. Put 100k on that over 3 years and it was still awesome to drive.
The GTD engine needs to be warm and and driven a lot harder, too hard in caparison to the passat in some respects as it needs more aggression and this rubs off on my driving style / mood.. :sad:
But when it is driven in the higher rev band (sports best for DSG gearing and holding the band) its mental, but doesnt necessarily feel it! some days it does feel quicker and seems to pull harder than others?!
A friendly 170 rocco and myself "had it" this morning and trust me, hes wanting a 184 PS. Quite close lower speeds but by the time i was in 4th he was behind me :smiley: DSG may help though. The pull from 80 - 120MPH is phenomenal for a diesel. At 70/80 the DSG foot to floor will drop to 4th and then your off, just keep it planted. The engine does back off very quickly on throttle release (hence keep planted) and a dsg will shift straight up and lose power in the acceleration.
I get anywhere from 38 - 60 MPG depending on the driving style and distance. Worth remembering short trips MPG will always be low from cold, and its worth checking MPG after a reset once engine is warm then do a few miles.
Worth noting the DSG is better to drive as it doesnt go striaght to 6th at 30MPH although does not feel as smooth on the changes.
Got the squeaky suspension too, got to get it in!
-
I did take it fairly easy for the first 1k though :smiley:
-
The 80-120mph test was on a private runway or track, right?
I only ask because your post reads like you did it on the motorway which is not what you might want certain folks to believe :wink:
-
I drove my GTD today on the same roads as yesterday, same weather conditions and with the same style and acceleration and it felt quicker for sure; actually it was colder today!
Yesterday it felt sluggish and yes I appreciate the refinement comments but today was just as refined as yesterday although I could feel when being pushed back in my seat the car was quicker.
I'm using 3rd or 4th gear most of the time due to the short distances I travel to work so cannot comment on higher gears but those two should have the best acceleration (excluding the potentially fun 2nd gear thanks to shoddy traction)
I haven't even bothered about the MPG as I got this car for fun, will worry a little later on in life regarding cost of fuel :whistle:
If there really is a science behind getting the most out of the car then the fun factor has been taken away already.
I always max or closely max the revs out too so my findings aren't due to me being soft on the peddles.
I'm going to watch closely the next time I see a MK7 TDI driver in case they are laughing because they have my GTD engine!
-
Corgi: my bmw has a 130,000miles on the clock, is a touring some maybe even heavier....most of the time im on my own and the torque is pritty constant after 1800 all the way to 4500...in my eyes car is a rocket mate and returns 40+mpg @ 80mph...so heavier then most vw/audis, more powerful and returns more mpg....whats gone wrong with VW???
At that speed (over 110km/h) the weight factor doesn't "play" much... It's the aerodynamics of the vehicle. Considering that your Beemer is a touring (better aerodynamics due to longer body) it's not abnormal to have better fuel consumption. I think that's the way it should be...
-
The 80-120mph test was on a private runway or track, right?
I only ask because your post reads like you did it on the motorway which is not what you might want certain folks to believe :wink:
Of course the rocco test was to 80MPH and the rest on private land :wink:
Dont know many mways that arnt majorly congested most of the time, and got to respect speed around other drivers as it is usually the bad driving from them that will cause a crash, pulling out on you etc
-
If you're after 'Fun' and economy isn't a problem maybe the GTD isn't the answer.
-
Has anyone actually 'figured' their GTD using a test device ( eg VI Monitor ) or even a stopwatch..?
We've road-tested GTD DSG for Volkswagen Driver magazine and clocked best 0-60 time of 7.45 secs and it averaged 48 and achieved best 65 mpg on a cruising run... car had only 1000 miles on it, so these will only improve with a bit of loosening up..
Test is scheduled for publication in the Jan issue of Volkswagen Driver out in mid-Dec
-
Shall look out for that issue! Was is it a DSG or manual car?
-
everyone's getting hung up on comparing the new gtd to previous cars. you can't do that, its a totally different car to a 170 scirocco or a 140 golf. it's like comparing apples and oranges. just drive the new car you've bought and don't compare it to something you got rid of.
-
BMW build better diesel engines. Its that simple
Never understood eco modes / maps etc. as said you just end up driving harder. When people ask me about eco remaps I tell them that they are next to useless; hence why I only offer something towards the more performance orientated end of the scale. It obviously works as most report at least a 5mpg improvement :smiley:
My own personal experience with the PD engine (yes its old tech) in my Audi is that its a lot happier sat at motorway + cruising speeds than tootling around A&B roads
Oh and to get it even close to the quoted MPG figures its taken DPF delete and remapping........
-
Would a DPF delete damage the longevity of the engine at all? Or would it just result in black smoke when hooning it?
-
Would a DPF delete damage the longevity of the engine at all? Or would it just result in black smoke when hooning it?
Just results in a bit more smoke but even then its not excessive. Its mainly down to how its mapped. ive run mine for 20,000 miles since removing the DPF :smiley:
However dont forget i have the old PD engine which did suffer DPF issues. The newer CR engines are much more robust and its rare for then to suffer DPF problems
-
Would a DPF delete damage the longevity of the engine at all? Or would it just result in black smoke when hooning it?
Removing the DPF will not cause engine damage but it needs to be removed properly with the appropriate software changes. The latest unit includes an SCR catalyst too...
It's going to make these Diesel cars an 'interesting' used car proposition that's for sure. Be interesting to see if/when Nox measurement is used in future MOT's and if the smoke test is updated too.
-
was told recently that it's an immediate mot fail if the dpf has been removed.
-
As I understand the situation, it would not be a MOT failure at the moment, but will almost certainly be in the near future based on the fact that the car will no longer comply with the European Type Approval that was granted for the model.
-
As I understand the situation, it would not be a MOT failure at the moment, but will almost certainly be in the near future based on the fact that the car will no longer comply with the European Type Approval that was granted for the model.
Which will be for cars bult from a certain date like they did for cats on petrols. They picked a date and everyone had to comply with that. It wasnt a retrospective date as far as im aware
How would you feel if the MANUFACTURER told you to remove the DPF to avoid problems and you then failed the MOT because they then said even older cars have to have it fitted. My missus works for Trading Standards and have dealt with cases where the manufacturer has agreed to pay for a remap and DPF removal as its actually cheaper for them to do so than fit a replacement DPF
Also what about cars where the same engine is fitted yet not a DPF on one and one on another??
Its like a game of football. You keep playing until you hear the whistle. For now carry on IMO
-
" Its an offence under the Road Vehicles ( Construction and Use ) Regulations to use a vehicle that has been modified in such a way that it no longer complies with the air pollutant emissions standards it was designed to meet "
" Removal of a DPF will almost invariably contravene these requirements making the vehicle illegal for road use.
-
Kind of defeats the point in buying a GTD if your removing something which has a negative impact on CO2 and MPG. :)
As stated, it's against the law.
-
As I understand the situation, it would not be a MOT failure at the moment, but will almost certainly be in the near future based on the fact that the car will no longer comply with the European Type Approval that was granted for the model.
Which will be for cars bult from a certain date like they did for cats on petrols. They picked a date and everyone had to comply with that. It wasnt a retrospective date as far as im aware
How would you feel if the MANUFACTURER told you to remove the DPF to avoid problems and you then failed the MOT because they then said even older cars have to have it fitted. My missus works for Trading Standards and have dealt with cases where the manufacturer has agreed to pay for a remap and DPF removal as its actually cheaper for them to do so than fit a replacement DPF
Also what about cars where the same engine is fitted yet not a DPF on one and one on another??
Its like a game of football. You keep playing until you hear the whistle. For now carry on IMO
The Smoke test limit was halved for cars from July 2008.
What sort of smoke results have you been getting? I suppose you could always flash back to stock power if there were issues.
-
Does anyone even know how clean a MK7 GTD is without it's DPF? Could it meet current standards? Not sure anyone here knows that. A Jersey (or was it Guernsey) model has no DPF because it would choke up very quickly, given the size of the island. Do they have exemptions on emissions to allow them to remove the DPF without recourse, or can VW tune up a non DPF variant to remain just within current regs?
Common rail TDIs are a lot cleaner than the old PD units in terms of soot generation. VW has always been quick to implement DPF addition rather than wait for regs to enforce their addition.
-
'How would you feel if the MANUFACTURER told you to remove the DPF to avoid problems and you then failed the MOT because they then said even older cars have to have it fitted. My missus works for Trading Standards and have dealt with cases where the manufacturer has agreed to pay for a remap and DPF removal as its actually cheaper for them to do so than fit a replacement DPF
Also what about cars where the same engine is fitted yet not a DPF on one and one on another??
Its like a game of football. You keep playing until you hear the whistle. For now carry on IMO'
Has this situation not already occured with Tyre Pressure Monitoring Systems and MILs? The MOT regs were changed in 2012 and were applied to All cars and light vehicles irrespective of year of manufacture, were they not? The very same may well apply to DPFs at some point?#
-
Well I certainly left my brothers a3 sline. 140. Then we pulled over to plug in his dtuk box. Apparently raising his power to 180ps. Again the result was in the GTDs favour. Quit considerably , over a rolling start. 1 mile test. Also u sat with a type r the other night quite comfortably. (Sport mode) at times I could have passed. If it wasn't so icy!!!! SHAME.
-
If its against the law then how does my car pass its MOT? :huh:
I dont have a friendly MOT tester and the last two MOT's have been done at stations 30 miles apart. As for the smoke results they have been well within the limits and at no point was the car flashed back to standard
However what I do find strange is the smoke test is done whilst the car is sat still. Revving the engine whilst stationary does not put anywhere near the same load on the engine as whilst in motion so to me its a bit pointless :undecided:
With regards to TPMS how can you test something if its not fitted?
For DPF's to become part of the MOT EVERY diesel car has to be fitted with one from manufacture. Yet not all all or where. My father in law has a 2007 Fiat Bravo with a 1.9cdti engine but not DPF. Yet the same model built in the same 6 months with the same engine has a DPF fitted. Should the father in laws car fail the MOT because there is no DPF??
-
Do you know the actual smoke results?
-
If its against the law then how does my car pass its MOT? :huh:
I dont have a friendly MOT tester and the last two MOT's have been done at stations 30 miles apart. As for the smoke results they have been well within the limits and at no point was the car flashed back to standard
However what I do find strange is the smoke test is done whilst the car is sat still. Revving the engine whilst stationary does not put anywhere near the same load on the engine as whilst in motion so to me its a bit pointless :undecided:
With regards to TPMS how can you test something if its not fitted?
For DPF's to become part of the MOT EVERY diesel car has to be fitted with one from manufacture. Yet not all all or where. My father in law has a 2007 Fiat Bravo with a 1.9cdti engine but not DPF. Yet the same model built in the same 6 months with the same engine has a DPF fitted. Should the father in laws car fail the MOT because there is no DPF??
As regards TPMS - I should have said that it is an MOT check item for ALL cars and Light Vehicles SO FITTED. irrespective of year of manufacture. My previous car - 2005 GTI which had TPMS fitted from new - became subject to this for the first time last year, 7 years after manufacture. There are many many newer vehicles that are not TPMS fitted and therefore are not subject to this check. I could foresee something similar happening with DPFs... sooner rather than later?
-
Do you know the actual smoke results?
Only for last year I think. Haven't got the paperwork to hand. Didnt get given the smoke test results this year :huh: but I saw the test performed and it passed
One question to ask is how do the MOT testers know exactly what is fitted to each car for them to test it? With the TPMS how do they check it?? Genuine question as I do not know :sad:
-
If the warning light for TPMS is illuminated (proof the vehicle is so fitted) at the time of the test then it's a FAIL. Same applies to Illuminated ABS warning light, MIL light etc. I would presume that the MOT tester would attempt to reset the TPMS before failing as it is quite possible that the owner had forgotten to press the button to reset the system after a puncture.
-
Says TPMS is for vehicles that were fitted with it from 2012 onwards
http://www.theaa.com/motoring_advice/car-servicing-repair/mot-changes-2012.html
:undecided:
-
Says TPMS is for vehicles that were fitted with it from 2012 onwards
http://www.theaa.com/motoring_advice/car-servicing-repair/mot-changes-2012.html
:undecided:
I stand corrected. Thanks for pointing that out :smiley:
-
Do you know the actual smoke results?
Only for last year I think. Haven't got the paperwork to hand. Didnt get given the smoke test results this year :huh: but I saw the test performed and it passed
One question to ask is how do the MOT testers know exactly what is fitted to each car for them to test it? With the TPMS how do they check it?? Genuine question as I do not know :sad:
Yeh you have to ask for the emissions results now, they use to print it all on the same sheet before.
Also I agree revving the engine while stationary doesn't represent the engine at load. I guess if you're belching out a lot of smoke stationary then a test under load is likely to be worse.
-
Says TPMS is for vehicles that were fitted with it from 2012 onwards
http://www.theaa.com/motoring_advice/car-servicing-repair/mot-changes-2012.html
:undecided:
I stand corrected. Thanks for pointing that out :smiley:
Dont take that as gospel mind; thats from the AA website lol :smiley:
I think half the problem is people have a conversation or overhear something being said and it gets turned into something different
I prefer to wait until something OFFICIAL has been published :smiley:
-
For DPF's to become part of the MOT EVERY diesel car has to be fitted with one from manufacture. Yet not all all or where. My father in law has a 2007 Fiat Bravo with a 1.9cdti engine but not DPF. Yet the same model built in the same 6 months with the same engine has a DPF fitted. Should the father in laws car fail the MOT because there is no DPF??
I'm talking about removing the dpf from the car not cars that didn't have one in the first place. if the car is supposed to have a dpf and the not tester finds its been removed then it's apparently a fail. how true this is I don't know it's just what I was told.
-
Time to eat my hat i guess :lipsrsealed: :whistle:
http://www.aftermarketonline.net/News/Industry-News/2013/29465-/MOT-rules-tightened-to-detect-missing-DPFs
Oh well. Doesn't worry me..... :smiley:
Wonder how those who had the DPF removed and paid for by the dealer / manufacturer will fare :undecided: thats going to be interesting!!
Equally I thought that the MOT was to ensure your vehicle was safe for the road. A DPF has nothing to do with safety
-
Excessive smoke that would obscure other road users vision is considered a fail.
-
Excessive smoke that would obscure other road users vision is considered a fail.
And a right royal pain in the Bee-hind!!!
-
Excessive smoke that would obscure other road users vision is considered a fail.
And a right royal pain in the Bee-hind!!!
Thing is the test currently done places nearly zero load on the engine therefore you dont see that much smoke. Which is fortunate for most Fords and Vauxhalls be cause they would fail :laugh: :laugh:
-
Just read the following:
http://www.trl.co.uk/trl-news-hub/transport-news/latest-transport-news/diesel-vehicle-mots-to-be-tightened_801669206.htm (http://www.trl.co.uk/trl-news-hub/transport-news/latest-transport-news/diesel-vehicle-mots-to-be-tightened_801669206.htm)
Sounds like there will be a check for DPF from next year.
-
Just read the following:
http://www.trl.co.uk/trl-news-hub/transport-news/latest-transport-news/diesel-vehicle-mots-to-be-tightened_801669206.htm (http://www.trl.co.uk/trl-news-hub/transport-news/latest-transport-news/diesel-vehicle-mots-to-be-tightened_801669206.htm)
Sounds like there will be a check for DPF from next year.
Some daft logic in there talk of undoing the work of the manufacturers to reduce CO2 emissions. DPFs clear soot by combusting it into CO2 - they create more CO2, not less, although there are no arguments that the soot is more harmful than a little more CO2 liberated in its combustion. They do need to get their facts straight before making scientifically incorrect statements to justify the use of the DPF.
For me, the use of a DPF should be subjective - if they can make a diesel clean enough not to need one (by a defined output limit) then it's use should not be mandatory. Getting a cold diesel to not produce soot and work to the best of it's efficiency is probably the biggest challenge, but it may be possible in the not too distant future.
Right now we're in a position where 30% of the cars on the road are producing most of the undesirable emissions, those without catalytic converters and old/thirsty tech.
-
Changing the subject somewhat.
My GTD arrived today and on the first initial 20 mile spin it to holds up well to my g/fs 120d M-Sport (subjectively) in terms of performance and is much more refined than I expected.
The power delivery so far has surprised me as it doesn't suffer with that horrible soft off boost delay, sudden delivery and narrow powerband that previous diesels I've driven had and that the 1er still has to an extent, the power curve is much smoother and more progressive...
-
Changing the subject somewhat.
My GTD arrived today and on the first initial 20 mile spin it to holds up well to my g/fs 120d M-Sport (subjectively) in terms of performance and is much more refined than I expected.
The power delivery so far has surprised me as it doesn't suffer with that horrible soft off boost delay, sudden delivery and narrow powerband that previous diesels I've driven had and that the 1er still has to an extent, the power curve is much smoother and more progressive...
It has quite a wide power band compared to previous TDIs. The older ones really tailed off past 3300rpm, this one is strong with its torque delivery all the way to 4000, so you might find yourself pushing it a bit harder before change-up than you might otherwise be used to with a VAG TDI. I was a little disappointed with mine until I held onto the gears a little longer and stopped driving it like my Scirocco 170TDI when I put my foot down. Avoid Shell V-power like the plague when you fill up.