So daughter was trying to buy a 320 d BMW 04 plate right royally messed about so is back looking, she has our old 1.9 pd TDI golf and she does 25k miles per year minimum.

Looking at mk5 golf 140 bhp engine to remap to 170 bhp but are the bkd engines a nightmare, they do not have dpf fitted and are PD but injectiors may be an issue. Currently down to 08 or 55 plate.

All help welcome

My 2008 140bhp Golf TDI engine has been fine for the past 4 years and 40k miles. I know it had a turbo at some point before I bought it at 4 years old with 102k miles. Brake callipers seize up on them though, I’ve had 3 of the 4 replaced in the last 12 months.

Not sure about the Golf’s but there are loads of issues with injectors in the 1.6 Caddy’s pre-2013. Only anecdotal evidence that the 2013 onwards is any better though.

It’s put me right off. Gonna have to keep looking for a decent 2.0l in my price range.

I have a BKP which is similar.

There was a long running injector issue for some of them which eventually was subject to a recall. There was also a disastrous oil pump issue on some engines (possibly not this one though) that should also have been fixed.

Other than that they should be ok as far as I know. I’m not aware of a systemic problem.

remap

I suggest this is a bigger issue than the engine…?

I can’t seem to find anything relating to a BKD engine recall for injectors and suggestions are that it’s ok on the oil pump issue as well.

Where are you reading about injector problems with them?

I was talking about my BKP, which I thought was just a slight change to BKD but I could be wrong. If you cannot find anything then good 🙂

BKD is a strong engine generally. Issues to look for are porous head (losing coolant) leak from egr cooler (losing coolant), egr clogged (remove and clean, replace or bypass), boost hoses popping off (self tapping screw will fix this) and turbo weakness (relative, should be good for 70k at least.) timing belt every 75k I think, budget about £450 for this job.

Pulls well with standard remap, not smokey, makes for a nice rapid car, my touran still returns 47mpg mixed motorway and inner city traffic.

Can’t help on the remapping, but my old 04 plate MkV 1.9TDi is still pushing out the particulates after 190K miles. The gearbox needed attention a couple of years back, at 150K when I passed it on to a friend – engaging 5th was a lottery. Otherwise a reliable little bus.

Yeah I realised. I was referring to the Op who mentioned injectors.

Looking at mk5 golf 140 bhp engine to remap to 170 bhp

WTF would you do that? It’s a hugely anti-social thing to do. It’s not even like a 140bhp golf is any way an underpowered car.

maxtorque – Member
I love it how people spout on about how “manufacturers” map their cars. Well here’s the crack, i’ve spent the last 30 years doing exactly that! There’s a good chance that quite a lot of people on this thread actually drive a car with ‘my’ map in it! So, please, don’t tell me the old “manufacturers leave loads of headroom” or “they map for the worst fuels” rubbish. Back in 1993, yes, maybe, in the last 10 years er,nope.

Lets discuss the 60mph thing. the original van will do 60mph in top gear, so the remapped one can’t downspeed its engine any further. (unless you are also putting the drive ratio up too, which you ain’t with a map)

The engine speed at 60mph before the map, is EXACTLY the same as the engine speed at 60mph after the map. And the power requirement is also exactly the same (unless you’ve somehow reduced the vans CdA as well). So if it’s now doing 60mph with “less throttle pedal” then as i said, the pedal map has just been changed…

And lets talk about making torque at low rpm. Being a diesel, the engine is attempting to run lean (excess air ) at all times. The OEMs have thing like smoke limits and NOx limits, in fact, both of those have their own limiting maps, and these maps are the first to get chopped by the aftermarket tuners.

Without a turbo change, you can’t get more air in at any given speed, so the only way to make more torque is to add more fuel.

About 5 years ago i was asked (as i run a company that consults on this sort of thing) to run a mapped car over the official drive cycle by a well known tuner (who shall remain nameless). 23 sec into the 22min drive cycle i pulled the plug and stopped the the test, because the mapped car was already 10x over the Particulate Limit…..

So, there are NO FREE LUNCHES in engine tuning these days, and as no aftermarket tuner i’ve ever met or heard of runs there cars over the official cycles, then i’m willing to bet my reputation that just about any mapped diesel car will be something like 10 to 100x more polluting than a std one.

How true are the rumours that VWs that have had the ‘fix’ since the emissions scandals have been less than ideal since the fix was applied? e.g. some people say no change, some people say their car hasn’t been right since.

None of this applies to engines this old. But as you say, reports vary on the newer cars – so who knows. Maybe the boy racer types are more tuned into the performance curve of their engine, normal drivers aren’t bothered?

Pieface >> Seen comments of up to 13mpg decrease in fuel efficiency in a few places among other issues.

Ref. the maxtorque info, how does it work when people are reporting increased bhp, increased torque & increased fuel efficiency? Are they lying?
I don’t know enough about workings of modern engines to refute any of it.

Not sure about the Golf’s but there are loads of issues with injectors in the 1.6 Caddy’s pre-2013. Only anecdotal evidence that the 2013 onwards is any better though.

Siemens changed the insulation in the injectors from mid/late 2013

Seen comments of up to 13mpg decrease in fuel efficiency in a few places among other issues.

I’d need to see more data on that and who was driving it.

how does it work when people are reporting increased bhp, increased torque & increased fuel efficiency? Are they lying?

They are probably producing much more emissions at the same time. Diesels can be made more efficient at the cost of emissions.

So this bit:

the only way to make more torque is to add more fuel.

Isn’t strictly true?
Or is it a balance of more efficiency from some measures and then offset some of that with less to create more torque?!

Are the people who want more power likely to care about the emissions as long as it can get through the MOT?

Are the people who want more power likely to care about the emissions as long as it can get through the MOT?

I suspect a few are ignorant about what they’re doing and have bought into the chippers marketing. Others know and don’t care. Which makes them anti-social arseholes.

I’m pretty sure that very people who have their cars remapped notify their insurance company which means they’re probably driving uninsured as well.

Isn’t strictly true?

Well Maxtorque clearly knows far more about this than I do, but I reckon the variables that a remapper can adjust are the injection timing, EGR amount and injection quantity.

If you inject too much fuel, then less percentage of it burns, but more burning is done overall. So you can get them to smoke like hell but make more power. The diesel tuning scene (yes, there is one) talks about the additional third skidmark created by the smoking exhaust. Remappers probably do this to a lesser extent I’d imagine.

I think advancing injection timing creates more heat and more NOx too along with more efficiency. EGR also lowers combustion temperatures to comabt NOx but also reduces efficiency when cruising – I think.

I think what maxtorque says is clearly true, however I’m not entirely sure that manufacturers don’t leave anything in reserve without downsides. Take the T5 for example the same engine (exactly the same engine) is sold in 3 different powerguises 84, 102, and 140bhp models. I don’t believe that remapping the 84 to the same level as one already sold by VW is going to be killing too many grannies with asthma.

Take the T5 for example the same engine (exactly the same engine) is sold in 3 different powerguises 84, 102, and 140bhp models.

Same engine, but with all the same parts stuck to it?

People often claim the 140 is the same as the 170, and I think maybe the block, crankshaft, pistons and what not are – but the turbo and injectors are uprated. Possibly stuff like the downpipe too. The normal things you’d upgrade if you were tuning it.

Yeah it’s got the same turbo, same ancillaries everything. Your right the 140 and 170 aren’t quite the same – not the case in the t5

How true are the rumours that VWs that have had the ‘fix’ since the emissions scandals have been less than ideal since the fix was applied? e.g. some people say no change, some people say their car hasn’t been right since.

BBC 1 WATCHDOG, featured failing vw cars last week and week before, they fail to accelerate, and go into limp mode on the motorway.

Buy a ford or a fiat.

they fail to accelerate, and go into limp mode on the motorway.

What, VW’s remap causes limp mode?

Yeah it’s got the same turbo, same ancillaries everything. Your right the 140 and 170 aren’t quite the same – not the case in the t5

Really? Not what this thread suggests.

http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/anybody-know-if-the-vw-t5-84ps-is-the-same-engine-as-the-102ps

Yeah it’s got the same turbo, same ancillaries everything. Your right the 140 and 170 aren’t quite the same – not the case in the t5

Sorry I wasn’t being clear, I’m talking about the 2.0tdi in the t5.1 not the 1.9tdi which that thread is referring to. The 1.9 is different.

they fail to accelerate, and go into limp mode on the motorway.

That’s a symptom of other issues not the issue itself.

The concern with the emissions fix is that it makes increased use of the EGR valve holding it open longer/more often to increase (?) combustion temperature. This reduces NOx but increases soot creation.

From my reading, the two effects of this are thought to be:

The EGR valve fails in some cases as it’s being stressed beyond its original design parameters.

The DPF will fill up sooner and with more frequent regeneration cycles.

A clogged DPF or failed EGR would i believe trigger limp mode.

I’m going to hazard a guess that the more stop-start driving you do the greater the risk will be especially if you don’t mix it up with decent motorway runs.

As for ownership / living with a post fix car I’d say it’s lost a little bit of low end torque, economy is down a touch and it regenerates more frequently (and that may be what’s hitting the economy). It’s only small losses and only noticeable if you are pretty sensitive to your car (certainly with the 170ps engine). But it’s enough to make me question if it would have been better left alone when taken with the other risks. Too late now. Drive it, have AA cover, hope it doesn’t break. It’s quite a nice car at the end of the day. I’m just trying not to get stuck in traffic too much in it.

(Post emissions fix VW owner)

Yeah it’s got the same turbo, same ancillaries everything. Your right the 140 and 170 aren’t quite the same – not the case in the t5

Really? Not what this thread suggests.

http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/anybody-know-if-the-vw-t5-84ps-is-the-same-engine-as-the-102ps

Above not correct the 84 T5 also has a variable vane turbo. Engine is the same as the 102.

OP I’d not bother with a remap on a Golf of that age doing 25k a year, the 140 and all that torque is plenty.

For reference I used to cover 30k+ a year in a mark5 with the 105PS 1.9tdi and it was enough although not particularly quick (I still miss it occasionally nearly a decade after the lease company had it back). It managed three of us down to the Alps with all our gear and a roofbox with no dramas and at an enthusiastic pace.

We also had an A3 with the 2.0/140 and that was really usefully quicker but rarely got fully stretched.