I too think CR, at least for auto reliability is untrustworthy. sbergman, I know you are a smart guy, but in this case just listen to us VW owners and please don't insult us by saying experiences of dedicated VW owners are just useless (or nearly so) anecdotes.
10k.....no friggin way......not in my Passat
- Thread starter BigJohn
- Start date
- Status
I have a female friend, went from Jetta IV, to Passat 5.5 to Jetta V GLI to CC. She basicly never had a problem....at all. She only kept them 3 years, maybe 4, but no minor or major problems, at all.
Mom's 1996 Passat 2.0 is just fine too. Going on 15 y/o, it's had an exhaust, secondary inj pump, and that's it. No suspension, no drivetrain work, at all. It uses no oil, never left her stranded. Solid, like riding in a cinderblock.
My take is that at a certain time, VW sales blew up, c.1999 with the J-IV and the Passat 5.5. People flocked to those cars from other low maintenance vehicles and got burned. Would I buy one of them used, no. Would I buy a new VW, yes.
Mom's 1996 Passat 2.0 is just fine too. Going on 15 y/o, it's had an exhaust, secondary inj pump, and that's it. No suspension, no drivetrain work, at all. It uses no oil, never left her stranded. Solid, like riding in a cinderblock.
My take is that at a certain time, VW sales blew up, c.1999 with the J-IV and the Passat 5.5. People flocked to those cars from other low maintenance vehicles and got burned. Would I buy one of them used, no. Would I buy a new VW, yes.
Quote:
They send out a survey for people fill it out and send back.
You may have quibbles with the design of the study, but CR's work does qualify as a study. Certainly random folks posting their problems to a user board cannot. The sample base for CR's statistics is far larger. The selection bias is far smaller. And the results are collated in a way that allows direct comparisons to be made. Quite unlike random claims posted on a owner forum... compared to random postings on the zillion other different owners forums across the Internet.
While CR's methodology may not be perfect, do to the constraints of reality, it is likely the best information available. Particularly for making comparisons across brands. Comparing CR's statistical collations to disparate collections of random postings across the net is beyond silly.
They send out a survey for people fill it out and send back.
You may have quibbles with the design of the study, but CR's work does qualify as a study. Certainly random folks posting their problems to a user board cannot. The sample base for CR's statistics is far larger. The selection bias is far smaller. And the results are collated in a way that allows direct comparisons to be made. Quite unlike random claims posted on a owner forum... compared to random postings on the zillion other different owners forums across the Internet.
While CR's methodology may not be perfect, do to the constraints of reality, it is likely the best information available. Particularly for making comparisons across brands. Comparing CR's statistical collations to disparate collections of random postings across the net is beyond silly.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: JAG
please don't insult us by saying experiences of dedicated VW owners are just useless (or nearly so) anecdotes.
It's nothing to do with VW owners specifically. Anecdotal evidence, as a class, is generally next to useless. Worse than useless when people give it more credence than it deserves. If an effect is as clear through the most casual observation, as people are claiming here... why would such a strong effect not show up in a uniform survey?
please don't insult us by saying experiences of dedicated VW owners are just useless (or nearly so) anecdotes.
It's nothing to do with VW owners specifically. Anecdotal evidence, as a class, is generally next to useless. Worse than useless when people give it more credence than it deserves. If an effect is as clear through the most casual observation, as people are claiming here... why would such a strong effect not show up in a uniform survey?
It does. Look at your CR data for the Toyota Matrix and the Pontiac Vibe. Why the difference? They are the exact same car coming off of the same production line.
I'll tell you why. Toyota owners are smart. They have that feeling. They'll gladly fill out the CR report and tell you how perfect their Toyota is. On the other hand, GM only builds unreliable junk...
I have yet to see any identical car sold under a Japanese name and a US name receive equal ratings.
Ed
I'll tell you why. Toyota owners are smart. They have that feeling. They'll gladly fill out the CR report and tell you how perfect their Toyota is. On the other hand, GM only builds unreliable junk...
I have yet to see any identical car sold under a Japanese name and a US name receive equal ratings.
Ed
BTW Subaru's rec. to do 3750 OCI's was due to the fact many people STILL won't use synthetic in a turbocharged car. Easier to change conventional sooner than later and have coking/sludge issues ala Passat 1.8t.
It also had a bit to do with severe service the majority of the American public does put cars through.
Myself? I am using GC soon, well sooner since I loaded a new map on it yesterday so now it makes more power than stock. I am going to drain the AutoRX rinse a little early just to make myself happy. It will see 2 5k mile OCI's with UOA's just to determine a pattern.
I put GC through 8k miles of diesel use in my TDI so I have no reason to think it won't last at all.
Bob:
I hope my warming it up first you don't mean the driveway, the only thing that will warm is your butt. Drive it nicely, get it warm, then stomp it.
Ed:
I agree 100%, the same person complaining about a Geo Prizm would egg on & on about a Corolla.
It also had a bit to do with severe service the majority of the American public does put cars through.
Myself? I am using GC soon, well sooner since I loaded a new map on it yesterday so now it makes more power than stock. I am going to drain the AutoRX rinse a little early just to make myself happy. It will see 2 5k mile OCI's with UOA's just to determine a pattern.
I put GC through 8k miles of diesel use in my TDI so I have no reason to think it won't last at all.
Bob:
I hope my warming it up first you don't mean the driveway, the only thing that will warm is your butt. Drive it nicely, get it warm, then stomp it.
Ed:
I agree 100%, the same person complaining about a Geo Prizm would egg on & on about a Corolla.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: edhackett
I have yet to see any identical car sold under a Japanese name and a US name receive equal ratings.
Meanwhile, random anecdotal postings to various Internet forums clearly tell the true story...
As I said... while CR's data may be imperfect, it's likely the most reliable source available.
Aside from that (and I haven't checked the Matrix vs Vibe charts) I'm not sure I agree with your explanation for any difference. Living in Oklahoma, I'm absolutely immersed in blind, irrational pride in anything American. To the point that it sometimes makes me want to vomit.
-Steve
I have yet to see any identical car sold under a Japanese name and a US name receive equal ratings.
Meanwhile, random anecdotal postings to various Internet forums clearly tell the true story...
As I said... while CR's data may be imperfect, it's likely the most reliable source available.
Aside from that (and I haven't checked the Matrix vs Vibe charts) I'm not sure I agree with your explanation for any difference. Living in Oklahoma, I'm absolutely immersed in blind, irrational pride in anything American. To the point that it sometimes makes me want to vomit.
-Steve
Originally Posted By: edhackett
It does. Look at your CR data for the Toyota Matrix and the Pontiac Vibe. Why the difference? They are the exact same car coming off of the same production line.
I'll tell you why. Toyota owners are smart. They have that feeling. They'll gladly fill out the CR report and tell you how perfect their Toyota is. On the other hand, GM only builds unreliable junk...
I have yet to see any identical car sold under a Japanese name and a US name receive equal ratings.
Ed
Exactly...CR "owners" data is completely unreliable. They cant even verify if the respondent actually owns the car in question.
It is far from the best data available. Unfortunately they have built a large following of lemmings who swallow the "fiction" as "fact".
It does. Look at your CR data for the Toyota Matrix and the Pontiac Vibe. Why the difference? They are the exact same car coming off of the same production line.
I'll tell you why. Toyota owners are smart. They have that feeling. They'll gladly fill out the CR report and tell you how perfect their Toyota is. On the other hand, GM only builds unreliable junk...
I have yet to see any identical car sold under a Japanese name and a US name receive equal ratings.
Ed
Exactly...CR "owners" data is completely unreliable. They cant even verify if the respondent actually owns the car in question.
It is far from the best data available. Unfortunately they have built a large following of lemmings who swallow the "fiction" as "fact".
For a survey to be reliable there has to be much more info than CR provides . Sample size for instance is never mentioned . I don't remember CR ever publishing any specifics about their methodology which makes their data spurious to my thinking .
Anecdotal information is also reliable but there is useful information on automotive web sites and also a chance to ask questions about procedures and experiences .
Anecdotal information is also reliable but there is useful information on automotive web sites and also a chance to ask questions about procedures and experiences .
Originally Posted By: bruno
For a survey to be reliable there has to be much more info than CR provides . Sample size for instance is never mentioned .
The topic is the relative reliability of CR's collations and random anecdotes in Internet forums. For an anecdote the sample size is 1. Specifically, 1 person who in most cases more than likely wouldn't have sought out posted to the forum if he hadn't had a problem. So there is a severe selection bias involved with the anecdotes. As large as CR's subscriber base is, and considering the limited number of car models available (relative to the subscriber base), I would be surprised if any model had a really low sample size.
Quote:
I don't remember CR ever publishing any specifics about their methodology which makes their data spurious to my thinking. Anecdotal information is also reliable [SIC] but there is useful information on automotive web sites and also a chance to ask questions about procedures and experiences .
I assume you meant to say that anecdotal evidence is also "unreliable". But in order to ask questions about procedures and experiences of the author of an anecdote... you have to post a question asking them. Have you asked CR for clarification or additional information?
You are applying a double standard. While I agree that it would be nice if CR's survey could be more scientific and better documented, you need to apply the same rigorous standards to authors of random anecdotes. And when you do, the more formalized approach necessarily comes out *far* ahead, however imperfect it may be.
-Steve
For a survey to be reliable there has to be much more info than CR provides . Sample size for instance is never mentioned .
The topic is the relative reliability of CR's collations and random anecdotes in Internet forums. For an anecdote the sample size is 1. Specifically, 1 person who in most cases more than likely wouldn't have sought out posted to the forum if he hadn't had a problem. So there is a severe selection bias involved with the anecdotes. As large as CR's subscriber base is, and considering the limited number of car models available (relative to the subscriber base), I would be surprised if any model had a really low sample size.
Quote:
I don't remember CR ever publishing any specifics about their methodology which makes their data spurious to my thinking. Anecdotal information is also reliable [SIC] but there is useful information on automotive web sites and also a chance to ask questions about procedures and experiences .
I assume you meant to say that anecdotal evidence is also "unreliable". But in order to ask questions about procedures and experiences of the author of an anecdote... you have to post a question asking them. Have you asked CR for clarification or additional information?
You are applying a double standard. While I agree that it would be nice if CR's survey could be more scientific and better documented, you need to apply the same rigorous standards to authors of random anecdotes. And when you do, the more formalized approach necessarily comes out *far* ahead, however imperfect it may be.
-Steve
sbergman, how do you think I found out about widespread coilpack failures in VW 1.8T engines? People on the internet (www.vwvortex.com) about 5 years ago. Then guess what? A few months ago I got a letter from VW saying there have been widespread coilpack failures and that they were going to pay for coilpack replacement on my engine (and others in the same boat). Why are you posting on the internet? Aren't your posts and those you are reading useless? This has drifted so off-topic...sorry OP.
Turbo engines are incredibly hard on oil, even more so for ones w/o water cooled turbo's (few have), which promotes "coking". See picture of intake valves saaber1 picture.
Driving a turbo engine hard will exaccerbate an early demise, if using std grade oils, syn or not. Both my opinion and professional experience.
VW has previously issued a TSB for sludge problems on the 1.8T engine. It appears the 2.0T may well have issues, too.
I beleive 10K OCI is feasible. The question is just how many times can this be done before the engine gives up? Again, see the 100k oil sludge pic.Yikes.
A better oil is needed. Even for the current OCI, if it were my car. I'd look for a low NOACK rated oil to help prevent viscosity increase due to burn off/evap, as described.
I also have a 2.0T, but it's an ABA (2008cc) with a JH GTI head with a bar of boost. It has a water-cooled turbo AND a turbo timer AND fancy smancy oil. Will start using UOA to determine OCI based on my setup and driving habits.
In my golden days (think i had those) would change oil every 2K miles or less. Used Castrol 20-50 GTX in a 84 VW when it was "the" oil. Then it failed me at 1500 miles and the world of synthetics saved me. Twenty years sure goes by fast
Just some thoughts of my own to share. Best of luck!
Driving a turbo engine hard will exaccerbate an early demise, if using std grade oils, syn or not. Both my opinion and professional experience.
VW has previously issued a TSB for sludge problems on the 1.8T engine. It appears the 2.0T may well have issues, too.
I beleive 10K OCI is feasible. The question is just how many times can this be done before the engine gives up? Again, see the 100k oil sludge pic.Yikes.
A better oil is needed. Even for the current OCI, if it were my car. I'd look for a low NOACK rated oil to help prevent viscosity increase due to burn off/evap, as described.
I also have a 2.0T, but it's an ABA (2008cc) with a JH GTI head with a bar of boost. It has a water-cooled turbo AND a turbo timer AND fancy smancy oil. Will start using UOA to determine OCI based on my setup and driving habits.
In my golden days (think i had those) would change oil every 2K miles or less. Used Castrol 20-50 GTX in a 84 VW when it was "the" oil. Then it failed me at 1500 miles and the world of synthetics saved me. Twenty years sure goes by fast
Just some thoughts of my own to share. Best of luck!
Originally Posted By: JAG
sbergman, how do you think I found out about widespread coilpack failures in VW 1.8T engines? People on the internet (www.vwvortex.com) about 5 years ago. Then guess what?
Wow. One of the countless rumors flying around the Internet turned out to have some truth to it. Film at 11.
You're ignoring the points I made in the previous post.
Anyway, back closer to the original topic, my point is that VW has no business reason to stick their necks *way* out by recommending 10k OCI's on an engine that would benefit from shorter OCIs. And very good business reasons for sticking with a more middle of the road 5k or so, for any of their engines which they feel could benefit it. There is nothing shameful about a 5k recommendation. And people certainly don't base their car purchase decisions upon whether the OCI recommendation is 5K or 10k. Most likely, they don't even look that up until *after* they own the car. But a trail of failed engines could be very bad for VW's image and reputation.
So on the one hand, we have VW continuing with a 10k recommendation, suggesting that they see no reason to change it. And on the other, we have rumors on the Internet from people who don't give a very good rationale for their recommendations of short OCI's, plus some slightly better reasoned, and rather plausibly argued suggestions that shorter OCI's could actually be worse for these engines.
-Steve
sbergman, how do you think I found out about widespread coilpack failures in VW 1.8T engines? People on the internet (www.vwvortex.com) about 5 years ago. Then guess what?
Wow. One of the countless rumors flying around the Internet turned out to have some truth to it. Film at 11.
You're ignoring the points I made in the previous post.
Anyway, back closer to the original topic, my point is that VW has no business reason to stick their necks *way* out by recommending 10k OCI's on an engine that would benefit from shorter OCIs. And very good business reasons for sticking with a more middle of the road 5k or so, for any of their engines which they feel could benefit it. There is nothing shameful about a 5k recommendation. And people certainly don't base their car purchase decisions upon whether the OCI recommendation is 5K or 10k. Most likely, they don't even look that up until *after* they own the car. But a trail of failed engines could be very bad for VW's image and reputation.
So on the one hand, we have VW continuing with a 10k recommendation, suggesting that they see no reason to change it. And on the other, we have rumors on the Internet from people who don't give a very good rationale for their recommendations of short OCI's, plus some slightly better reasoned, and rather plausibly argued suggestions that shorter OCI's could actually be worse for these engines.
-Steve
Sludge in gasoline engines is usually black emulsion of water and other combustion by-products, and oil formed primarily during low-temperature engine operation. Sludge is typically soft, but can polymerize to very hard substance. It plugs oil lines and screens, and accelerates wear of engine parts.
Synthetic oils will not form sludge...it can't happen.
What will then cause this if synthetic oil is used? It's plain and simple...a bad engine to begin with...poor design...or both.
VW/Audi...my advice...sell putty knives with your automobiles.
aka...you can keep them.
Synthetic oils will not form sludge...it can't happen.
What will then cause this if synthetic oil is used? It's plain and simple...a bad engine to begin with...poor design...or both.
VW/Audi...my advice...sell putty knives with your automobiles.
aka...you can keep them.
You obviously haven't seen BMW engines on factory oci then if syn oil doesn't sludge.
Originally Posted By: JAG
sbergman, how do you think I found out about widespread coilpack failures in VW 1.8T engines? People on the internet (www.vwvortex.com) about 5 years ago. Then guess what? A few months ago I got a letter from VW saying there have been widespread coilpack failures and that they were going to pay for coilpack replacement on my engine (and others in the same boat). Why are you posting on the internet? Aren't your posts and those you are reading useless? This has drifted so off-topic...sorry OP.
Jag, you are never going to convince this guy of anything. There are plenty of VW owners who obviously are very knowledgeable who have already chimed in on this thread. Plus hundreds and hundreds of others on other places. This guy already has his mind made up that anything found on the internet is false vs. anything from manufacturers is gospel.
That is a total slap in the face to all BITOGers because they try to post informative information, real-world experiences, and try to learn. It is not worth the time IMO to discuss this any further as the guy just seems to enjoy making ridiculous arguments and trolling. Not worth my time anyway as I'm not into that. I want to learn and help others learn.
This guy has obviously not done the research that you and other knowledgeable VW owners have. From an ignorant perspective, it's easier to say that everybody else's comments are just "random anectdotes". It's much more difficult to actually do the research and learn. But of course if his purpose is just to keep promoting arguments (i.e. trolling) there is of course no benefit to actually learning anything for oneself, it's easier just to say that everything on the internet is just made up. Sorry, but BITOGers are not liars. They are people trying to learn, unlike this guy.
sbergman, how do you think I found out about widespread coilpack failures in VW 1.8T engines? People on the internet (www.vwvortex.com) about 5 years ago. Then guess what? A few months ago I got a letter from VW saying there have been widespread coilpack failures and that they were going to pay for coilpack replacement on my engine (and others in the same boat). Why are you posting on the internet? Aren't your posts and those you are reading useless? This has drifted so off-topic...sorry OP.
Jag, you are never going to convince this guy of anything. There are plenty of VW owners who obviously are very knowledgeable who have already chimed in on this thread. Plus hundreds and hundreds of others on other places. This guy already has his mind made up that anything found on the internet is false vs. anything from manufacturers is gospel.
That is a total slap in the face to all BITOGers because they try to post informative information, real-world experiences, and try to learn. It is not worth the time IMO to discuss this any further as the guy just seems to enjoy making ridiculous arguments and trolling. Not worth my time anyway as I'm not into that. I want to learn and help others learn.
This guy has obviously not done the research that you and other knowledgeable VW owners have. From an ignorant perspective, it's easier to say that everybody else's comments are just "random anectdotes". It's much more difficult to actually do the research and learn. But of course if his purpose is just to keep promoting arguments (i.e. trolling) there is of course no benefit to actually learning anything for oneself, it's easier just to say that everything on the internet is just made up. Sorry, but BITOGers are not liars. They are people trying to learn, unlike this guy.
Originally Posted By: saaber1
Jag, you are never going to convince this guy of anything. There are plenty of VW owners who obviously are very knowledgeable who have already chimed in on this thread. Plus hundreds and hundreds of others on other places. This guy already has his mind made up that anything found on the internet is false vs. anything from manufacturers is gospel.
I totally agree. That's why I didn't respond to him again. Thanks for your post.
Jag, you are never going to convince this guy of anything. There are plenty of VW owners who obviously are very knowledgeable who have already chimed in on this thread. Plus hundreds and hundreds of others on other places. This guy already has his mind made up that anything found on the internet is false vs. anything from manufacturers is gospel.
I totally agree. That's why I didn't respond to him again. Thanks for your post.
Originally Posted By: JAG
I totally agree. That's why I didn't respond to him again. Thanks for your post.
No. You didn't reply because you have no suitable response to this, quoted from my previous post for reference:
Originally Posted By: sbergman27
Anyway, back closer to the original topic, my point is that VW has no business reason to stick their necks *way* out by recommending 10k OCI's on an engine that would benefit from shorter OCIs. And very good business reasons for sticking with a more middle of the road 5k or so, for any of their engines which they feel could benefit it. There is nothing shameful about a 5k recommendation. And people certainly don't base their car purchase decisions upon whether the OCI recommendation is 5K or 10k. Most likely, they don't even look that up until *after* they own the car. But a trail of failed engines could be very bad for VW's image and reputation.
So on the one hand, we have VW continuing with a 10k recommendation, suggesting that they see no reason to change it. And on the other, we have rumors on the Internet from people who don't give a very good rationale for their recommendations of short OCI's, plus some slightly better reasoned, and rather plausibly argued suggestions that shorter OCI's could actually be worse for these engines.
This is the core of my argument. The side-issue about whether VW's have various problems is not of any great concern to me, and is largely a distraction. (The objective evidence that I've seen does suggest that VW's are not particularly reliable.) I think we can safely dispense with all that and concentrate upon why VW, who are in a position to be very knowledgeable regarding the failure rate of their various engines, and the effect of OCI on that rate, makes the recommendations that they do.
-Steve
I totally agree. That's why I didn't respond to him again. Thanks for your post.
No. You didn't reply because you have no suitable response to this, quoted from my previous post for reference:
Originally Posted By: sbergman27
Anyway, back closer to the original topic, my point is that VW has no business reason to stick their necks *way* out by recommending 10k OCI's on an engine that would benefit from shorter OCIs. And very good business reasons for sticking with a more middle of the road 5k or so, for any of their engines which they feel could benefit it. There is nothing shameful about a 5k recommendation. And people certainly don't base their car purchase decisions upon whether the OCI recommendation is 5K or 10k. Most likely, they don't even look that up until *after* they own the car. But a trail of failed engines could be very bad for VW's image and reputation.
So on the one hand, we have VW continuing with a 10k recommendation, suggesting that they see no reason to change it. And on the other, we have rumors on the Internet from people who don't give a very good rationale for their recommendations of short OCI's, plus some slightly better reasoned, and rather plausibly argued suggestions that shorter OCI's could actually be worse for these engines.
This is the core of my argument. The side-issue about whether VW's have various problems is not of any great concern to me, and is largely a distraction. (The objective evidence that I've seen does suggest that VW's are not particularly reliable.) I think we can safely dispense with all that and concentrate upon why VW, who are in a position to be very knowledgeable regarding the failure rate of their various engines, and the effect of OCI on that rate, makes the recommendations that they do.
-Steve
- Status
Similar threads
