VW 2.0T Motor in the MK5 and MK6

[lancerplayer]

Are the 2.0T motors offered by the VW GTI (MK5 and MK6)as problematic as the 1.8T? Have people had luck with them or are they a money pit? If the correct oil and oil change interval were followed properly, should one be worried about the 2.0T?

MK5 = 2.0T FSI
MK6 = 2.0T TSI

 

[cryption]

I just posted a thread about this on the tex.

quick answer - yes with a but

long answer - no with an if

See this thread about a discussion I had with another guy today:

http://forums.vwvortex.com/showthread.php?5142478-Any-big-2.0t-problems

The 2.0t FSI has cam follower issues
http://forums.vwvortex.com/search.php?searchid=5476173

The issue is "mostly" resolved switching to a roller-bearing in the TSI motors - but the new diesels are having issues now so who knows.

And, like all DI engines it suffers from intake valve buildup
http://www.audizine.com/forum/showthread.php/336352-Audi-FSI-Engine-Carbon-Build-up-Megathread

I have a 2007 A4, and I have so far had to replace the cam follower, HPFP, cam, and pulled the intake manifold to clean valves.

It's not a bad engine if you are willing to do some work.

I'm not in college anymore so my 2.0t will be the last DI engine I own. I just don't have the time to maintain it the way it needs.

 

[saaber1]

Problems with FSI are:

1) Fuel Dilution
2) Intake valve deposits
3) HPFP cam follower wear

Problems with TSI are:

1) Fuel Dilution
2) Intake valve deposits (unknown yet if it is as severe as in the FSI)

VW 502 oils are not cutting it in the FSI. Ester-based oils are dealing with the fuel dilution much better based on the over 100 UOAs in the database.

Not enough info. yet on the TSI to say exactly how hard it is on oil. Certainly fuel dilution and valve deposit issues exist but to what extent we don't know yet. Feel free to search my username on these issues because I've probably commented on most of the related threads and some of those threads have good info. Also reference the BMW related threads as they also relate to Intake deposits.

 

[cryption]

To add to what saaber said about oil - the 10k interval VW calls for is WAY to long. I run a 3k interval on mine (but usually get around to changing it at 4k or so).

FSI engines have typically killed their oil by 5k miles

Also you need to use a higher quality oil. I have been using Lubro-Moly in mine but have been considering a switch to Amsoil.

(Saaber, I wouldn't mind your input on amsoil in the 2.0t)

 

[cryption]

Likewise, in regards to fuel we see more issues here in America then they have in Europe due to the high sulfur content in our fuels.

But problems aside, it IS a really fun motor.

 

[crw]

I'm as interested in the answers as anyone. Let me give you my 1.8T experience based on a 2001 VW Jetta (just for the purposes of discussion):

This is simply in the 4.5 years I've owned it!

Underhood hoses deteriorate quickly. They seem to melt from the inside out. Replacements are expensive. I built my own rather than spend $75 for their "Y-Pipe".

The wires that feed the coil packs, the insulation on them cracks and deteriorates.

The coil packs have been replaced several times under warranty. (Key note... "several times".)

The brake sensor was replaced under warranty. This wouldn't be so bad if I had a VW dealer in my town.

The throttle body (drive-by-wire) went bad. I bought a replacement on Ebay... the part cost would have been around $600 otherwise.

The alternator was putting out lower than normal voltage, causing all sorts of problems. This was difficult to diagnose and was done by a local mechanic.

I needed to replace the thermostat. Not a huge deal, but difficult to access...

ASR (anti-slip regulation) madness. Sorry, even if you turn the D@^* system off, it still jumps in and deters you in your attempt to drive on a snow covered road. This is over-engineering........ sometimes wheel slip is OK! Leave me alone!!!

Now as for sludge, I don't think the 1.8T has a problem in the transverse mounted engines. It did on the passat, which has a traditionally oriented 1.8T, and the plumbing was not good in that configuration. My 1.8T internals are clean.

Finally, I get a constant P0170 (system too lean) code. I cannot get rid of it. I've had several MAF sensors, and replaced the O2 sensor. I just live with it (or, my daughter does).

Ha ha, OK, I sure hope the 2.0T is better than that!

 

[cryption]

My 1.8t was far more reliable then my 2.0t is now .... and the 1.8t was pushing 20lb out of a K04.

 

[rshunter]

Originally Posted By: cryption
Likewise, in regards to fuel we see more issues here in America then they have in Europe due to the high sulfur content in our fuels.

But problems aside, it IS a really fun motor.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, our sulfur content is not what it was years ago and is not the issue. The issue is the difference in fuel metering by the engine management system, in order to meet our emissions regulations.

 

[cryption]

I disagree, our sulfur content may be less then is has been in the past - but it is still high enough to prevent the 2.0t from running in lean burn mode (spraying fuel in the center of the combustion chamber instead of the wall) and causing an increase in fuel dilution.

Even today they are seeing less cam follower failures and less intake buildup in European cars

 

[Kaie]

get a mk3 and be done with it =D

 

[cryption]

But but ... the 1.8t NEVAR looses


And the 12v VR6 is a whole other mess of problems. They are just actually worth it ....

(Corrado owner)

 

[rshunter]

Originally Posted By: cryption
I disagree, our sulfur content may be less then is has been in the past - but it is still high enough to prevent the 2.0t from running in lean burn mode (spraying fuel in the center of the combustion chamber instead of the wall) and causing an increase in fuel dilution.

You're grabbing hold of the wrong end of the stick. Our vehicles are kept from running in stratified charge mode to keep NOx emissions down. Those are created at greater concentrations by the higher combustion temperatures of a lean-burn mode. It has nothing to do with the sulfur content of the fuel.

 

[saaber1]

Originally Posted By: cryption
To add to what saaber said about oil - the 10k interval VW calls for is WAY to long...

+1. Both the UOAs and the literature support this statement.

Deposits increase as the oils degrade over time (the y axis shows amount of valve deposits, while x axis shows the service interval of the oil in hours, f.e. e2/125 is 125 service hours on oil E2. Note that the deposits were cleaned off each time so these are independent runs).

(ISA and Haji-Silaiman)

Some oils degrade quickly in a DI fuel-diluting turbo charged motor. Expert Terry Dyson warned us about this years ago. And the over 100 UOAs in the database for the Audi/VW 2.0FSI supports exactly what he said. Indeed the worst deposit evidence we have on the 2.0 FSI is from engines that ran OEM oils at OEM intervals, such as this one shown below (M1 0w40 at 10k intervals according to the manual).

Originally Posted By: cryption
You need to use a higher quality oil.

+1 UOAs and expert advice from folks such as Terry Dyson of Dyson Anlaysis support this statement.

Originally Posted By: Terry
reb03, the M1 0w40 should not be run longer than 1000 miles to be safe.. Audi and BMW know they are having problems but are marketing tied to certain LARGE oil company that sponsors BITOG thus they cannot speak out about it.

TD
Originally Posted By: Terry
reb03, I have customers running BMW5w30, M1 0w40 all with the same effect, the wear control is good if we change the oil at 1000 mile intervals but the deposit formation from REAL volatility issues are slowly damaging the engines. I just worked a 07 335 Biturbo yesterday USING ASTM lab tests on the used oil and M1 0w40 went from VOA flash of 430+F to 280 F in 1150 miles, oil sheared to 12.1 cSt and fuel was at 1.99% by IR. Amsoil has not been tested in this engine yet. Because Amsoil is a traditional based PAO I predict similar results to the M1 0w40 which is still one of few M1 products that can perform reasonably well.

Terry

Also the literature does show that intake deposits vary by oil type.

(ISA and Haji-Silaiman)

Originally Posted By: cryption
(Saaber, I wouldn't mind your input on amsoil in the 2.0t)

I won't comment on using Amsoil in this engine because some of the most promising Amsoil candidates haven't been tried yet in this motor (at least we don't have UOAs on them).

Reference thread for the above info. FYI: http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubb...145#Post2093145

 

[cryption]

The problem related to engine wear does lie with the sulfur, or at least one of the problems.

Because it cannot run in lean burn, there is additional fuel in the oil. The high levels of sulfur damage the viscosity of the oil at a much higher rate, causing premature wear of the cam follower due to the oil loosing its viscosity faster then it would across the pond.

Cam follower failure is lubrication related (and on early vehicles they had some sub par metal for the cams)

 

[rshunter]

Hold it. Your argument for why sulfur is responsible for the issue is flip-flopping around. Care to plant a stake somewhere?

 

[cryption]

What do you mean? Volkswagens in North America run richer by design - but that in turn causes additional problems. Volkswagen being Volkswagen.

 

[cryption]

Likewise, The FSI uses dual injection on startup. This allows the timing to be retarded and dump fuel into the cats to heat them up faster at the cost of fuel dilution - bringing us back to the viscosity issue.

 

[rshunter]

If you'll stop editing your posts, to change the substance of the post, it would be a lot easier going forward.

Your original argument was that our "high" sulfur levels prevented the 2.0T from being able to run in stratified charge mode. In fact, sulfur levels have nothing to do with that. It is our nitrogen oxide emissions regulations, which have tighter limits, that make it impossible to stay within those limits while in stratified charge mode.

The increase in NOx is due to the high combustion temperatures reached while in this lean-burn mode, not due to the sulfur level. You'll note that other manufacturers also have engine designs which have lean-burn modes. They are also precluded from using them in the U.S. market due to NOx emissions.

It is the fuel metering levels necessary to control combustion temps that are leading to fuel dilution problems. The thinning of the motor oil is, in and of itself, what is responsible for the accelerated wear. The sulfur level has nothing to do with this, either.

If you think sulfur is acting as an abrasive, adding to the wear issue, you need to do more research before disseminating your "knowledge".

 

[Quattro Pete]

Originally Posted By: cryption
The problem related to engine wear does lie with the sulfur, or at least one of the problems.

Because it cannot run in lean burn, there is additional fuel in the oil. The high levels of sulfur damage the viscosity of the oil at a much higher rate, causing premature wear of the cam follower due to the oil loosing its viscosity faster then it would across the pond.

If it was this simple, then using thicker oil in the US should have fixed the issue. Has it?

 

[Audi Junkie]

I'll have a UOA from my TSI on Edge 5w30 in spring.