Increased Oil Consumption Problem (2010 T5 Cali 180 bhp)

[briwy]

Millers just emailed again to say that a syringe and tube will be available as an option with the kit.

 

[pjm-84]

Due for an oil change in 1200 miles ...... do I have this checked? Currently 17000 miles on the oil.

 

[Looby]

All,


I ordered on line and did it myself. Results back this morning.......bad news...failing on silicon (38 v 15 ppm max) and aluminium (65 v 30 ppm max). This oil has only done ~ 3900 miles (oil should be good for 24000 miles)!!!!!! Most likely root cause is EGR cooler/valve assembly........now trying to decide approach with VW, whom to date have denied the problem exists, offered no material advise and will not pay for any diagnostics. Not happy!

This is a complete shock on a low mileage 2014 van. I had hoped that at this stage any test on oil would show a good result which would then mean a decision either to monitor the oil with regular tests or change the EGR purely as a precaution.
I will get our oil test kit ordered.
Thanks for sharing your results.

 

[veg_frenzy]

@veg_frenzy, you've been introducing silica into the mix (well silica in your question then silicon in your results post... Did you mean silica?).
Can I ask what the silica levels might indicate and where could high levels be arising from?

Excuse confusion....I meant silicon. I mentioned it as it was reported as out of expected allowable range in my oil test results.
There will always be very low levels of silicon in the oil itself (a few ppm, coming from the antifoam). Possible other sources could be seal degradation (unlikely as you'd likely see other issues, such as leaks) or other equipment degradation (unlikely to be the engine itself as there is none there, but maybe from elsewhere).
Silicon (if big enough) will eventually polish the cylinder linings, leading to easy 'blow by', thus depleting oil effectiveness and increasing wear.....a viscous cycle!
Regarding the "AlSi10Mg(Fe)" stamp.....not sure we can assume this has not changed between EGR cooler variants or something else may have changed. I'm guessing we'd never get this out of VW!
@T4WFA: This is why I was asking re silicon results after the "D" suffix cooler was fitted....it may give us some confidence that it would be suitable going forward.
@deccauk: Can ref post #171, do you have any Si numbers to share?
Thanks to all.

 

[deccauk]

@deccauk: Can ref post #171, do you have any Si numbers to share?
Thanks to all.

Yes - my silicon was 8ppm.

 

[Spartan]

Regarding the "AlSi10Mg(Fe)" stamp.....not sure we can assume this has not changed between EGR cooler variants or something else may have changed. I'm guessing we'd never get this out of VW!

Sorry if I wasn't clear but, for the Pierburg manufactured item (and I'm not aware of any other manufacturer), all variants (I can find images of) have exactly the same stamping (casting) on the part - unlike the VW part number, etc. which is just affixed to the part (sticker?). So I think we can be pretty sure they are made from the same AlSi10Mg(Fe) material (which is an internationally recognised nomenclature) ... right up until someone finds evidence to the contrary anyway.

I believe that the VW part number suffix (A, C, D) is more likely to pertain to manufacturing/design differences or (equally likely in my opinion) is just tied to a VW manufacturing/order 'batch', possibly related to the attached electronic EGR valve (which can't be ordered separately from the cooler) or engine management software version (major release).

I wouldn't be at all surprised if there is absolutely no difference in the EGR cooler part of the assembly between any of the VW part # suffixed variants (with the possible exception of the non-suffixed variant - well known for failure on the first CFCA engined models).

 

[veg_frenzy]

Yes - my silicon was 8ppm.

Thanks. I assume that was the last test result. Do you have numbers for the previous tests also? Thanks.

 

[deccauk]

I wouldn't be at all surprised if there is absolutely no difference in the EGR cooler part of the assembly between any of the VW part # suffixed variants (with the possible exception of the non-suffixed variant - well known for failure on the first CFCA engined models).

That is the concern. Nobody knows, so you may be correct in that assumption.

I have the non-suffixed variant, and have no issues yet after 38,000 miles. The thought that is now rattling around inside my head is that of driving style. If hard driving results in higher EGR cooler temperatures, will that exacerbate or accelerate EGR deterioration?

Perhaps I am just lucky, but I am retired, never in a hurry and always keen to get good mpg!

 

[veg_frenzy]

Sorry if I wasn't clear but, for the Pierburg manufactured item (and I'm not aware of any other manufacturer), all variants (I can find images of) have exactly the same stamping (casting) on the part - unlike the VW part number, etc. which is just affixed to the part (sticker?). So I think we can be pretty sure they are made from the same AlSi10Mg(Fe) material (which is an internationally recognised nomenclature) ... right up until someone finds evidence to the contrary anyway.

I believe that the VW part number suffix (A, C, D) is more likely to pertain to manufacturing/design differences or (equally likely in my opinion) is just tied to a VW manufacturing/order 'batch', possibly related to the attached electronic EGR valve (which can't be ordered separately from the cooler) or engine management software version (major release).

I wouldn't be at all surprised if there is absolutely no difference in the EGR cooler part of the assembly between any of the VW part # suffixed variants (with the possible exception of the non-suffixed variant - well known for failure on the first CFCA engined models).

Interesting. I was thinking the same.....I understand form some experts that the EGR valve itself is prone to being stuck open, thus leading to continual exhaust gas recirculation on both piston strokes. This in turn depletes oil dispersancy and thus accumulates soot, which then causes liner wear. Question is, would VW replace the valve only at less cost? I doubt it. Besides there may well be other changes that they have made to the cooler to improve it's corrosion (e.g. coatings).

 

[markh]

I wouldn't be at all surprised if there is absolutely no difference in the EGR cooler part of the assembly between any of the VW part # suffixed variants (with the possible exception of the non-suffixed variant - well known for failure on the first CFCA engined models).

According to the Facebook page (and also the German forum), the D version of the cooler has some sort of coating over the fins inside the cooler, in order to avoid them corroding. Apparently condensing acids in the returning exhaust stream attack the alloy and this is a known problem with this type of alloy.

The coating presumably alleviates this corrosion but for how long, I guess, is unknown!

Some more into on the corrosive behaviour of the alloy:
http://www.mdpi.com/2075-4701/6/7/148/pdf

 

[Spartan]

... I have the non-suffixed variant, and have no issues yet after 38,000 miles. The thought that is now rattling around inside my head is that of driving style. If hard driving results in higher EGR cooler temperatures, will that exacerbate or accelerate EGR deterioration?

Perhaps I am just lucky, but I am retired, never in a hurry and always keen to get good mpg!

Interesting. I was thinking the same.....I understand form some experts that the EGR valve itself is prone to being stuck open, thus leading to continual exhaust gas recirculation on both piston strokes. This in turn depletes oil dispersancy and thus accumulates soot, which then causes liner wear. Question is, would VW replace the valve only at less cost? I doubt it. Besides there may well be other changes that they have made to the cooler to improve it's corrosion (e.g. coatings).

Both excellent points and very pertinent. At this point I must admit to some 'lurking' on this thread - more from stupid superstition (don't want to "jinx" it) rather than anything more substantial.

As the owner of an 80K+ miles 2011 model, I was naturally concerned when I first found this subject. For the record, my beloved Cali has the "A" variant part fitted and apparently doesn't consume oil between services, although I must admit that, a bit like my bath routine, I have the oil changed every year whether it's needed or not.

Your oil consumption, like your 'gas mileage' may vary ...

If you're really interested I can recommend reading (or perusing) the following 'learned article' (from 2012) - it's fairly accessible to the layman (in parts at least). The author is Swedish but the document is written in English too:

http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:550799/FULLTEXT01.pdf

There are a few highlights:

• acidity (fairly obviously) can affect alu. corrosion and in diesel engines at low temperatures, emission condensate is more acidic. You could infer from this that if there was a problem with the EGR valve or the controlling software, 'cool', acidic emissions could have a more pronounced corrosive effect.
• the addition of Magnesium (Mg as in AlSi10Mg) to the alu. alloy increases strength but, in the presence of added Silicon, corrosion resistance can be reduced.
• "The use of aluminium as engineering material in EGR environment can therefore not be recommended".

Edit: my long post crossed-over with that of @markh but they seem to support each other (in conclusion at least). If it could be confirmed that the "D" variant has this coating then it implies that "someone on the inside" is completely aware of what is going on ...

 

[deccauk]

Thanks. I assume that was the last test result. Do you have numbers for the previous tests also? Thanks.

I've only done one test.

 

[veg_frenzy]

I've only done one test.

Apologies deccauk....I thought you did multiple tests, but just re-read that it was someone on the German TX forum (3x tests, 2 after the change of EGR cooler). If you're in contact with them, any chance you could ask for corresponding Si numbers for the 3x test they made? Many thanks.

 

[deccauk]

Apologies deccauk....I thought you did multiple tests, but just re-read that it was someone on the German TX forum (3x tests, 2 after the change of EGR cooler). If you're in contact with them, any chance you could ask for corresponding Si numbers for the 3x test they made? Many thanks.

His silicon values were 12, 7 and 3 in chronological order.

 

[Spartan]

According to the Facebook page (and also the German forum), the D version of the cooler has some sort of coating over the fins inside the cooler, in order to avoid them corroding. Apparently condensing acids in the returning exhaust stream attack the alloy and this is a known problem with this type of alloy.

The coating presumably alleviates this corrosion but for how long, I guess, is unknown!
...

So I have taken the time to read through the FB group pages/comments and the German TX forum threads/posts - what a slog! The main thread on the TX board (here) has 272 pages of posts at the time of writing (and is a continuation of another thread).

I think it's fair to say that the majority of content relating to the root cause of high oil consumption and the relationship (if there is one) to the EGR system is still mainly apocryphal, supposition and/or conjecture. This is entirely understandable and I don't mean to detract from any of the discussions on the subject - there is clearly a lot of well-reasoned and knowledgeable input. Unfortunately, it is occasionally contaminated by a few 'statements of fact' that, when questioned, can't be substantiated (poster doesn't respond or refers to other hypothesis on the subject - "fake news" is not a new thing it seems).

There is no denying that the high oil consumption problem exists in some vehicles. Plenty of stories on the TX forum regarding dealings with VW and dealers (TPIs, engine replacement, costs, goodwill, etc.) To balance that, some owners report no oil problems on older and higher mileage vehicles, for example, 177K kms on the non-suffixed EGR assembly part ...

I paid particular attention to any reference to the various versions of the EGR assembly and the cooler "coating" mentioned. Unfortunately, it became clear that the case for the existence of said coating is almost entirely speculative, at least in its exclusive application to the "D" variant. Its existence was hypothesised quite early in the TX discussion then became connected with the "D" version by association (there was already assumption that the EGR assembly could be the root cause; those who received a new engine noticed/checked the "D" variant; 2+2=5, wishful thinking - call it what you like). There is a solitary image that appears to show a manufacturer's pre-assembly unit where the fins appear to have a dark-greenish colour. It's not clear what variant this is and, to me eye, it's not really clear if the colour is due to a protective coating, casting release agent or simply down to the photograph lighting/reproduction?!

A few individuals have contacted Pierburg directly (the EGR assembly manufacturer) and helpfully recorded verbatim responses. In summary:

• Pierburg are (apparently) not aware of any known problem with the EGR assembly.
• Pierburg are (apparently) not aware of any recent redesign, any new coating.
• Pierburg give only 2 production part numbers for the assembly - 7.02756.04.0 & 7.02756.07.0 - the latter of which is the "current" version.

That last statement is, I believe, quite important but also slightly confusing. If you look at the VW label applied to the EGR assembly, besides the VW part number, you will see another number that looks remarkably similar to the Pierburg part number. From photographic evidence of the labels, I have (so far) established this relationship:

• 03L 115 512 = 7.02756.01
• 03L 115 512 A = 7.02756.04
• 03L 115 512 C = 7.02756.09
• 03L 115 512 D = 7.02756.11

(there could easily be other combinations I haven't found)*

These numbers are obviously similar to the Pierburg part numbers but not the same and are apparently not aligned (in any obvious way). From here, I tried to find a relationship between the Pierburg part numbers and the "pseudo-Pierburg" part numbers. You can try it yourself but so far, all I have been unable to uncover is this:

• Pierburg 7.02756.04.0 = VW 7.02756.01 (= VW 03L 115 512, the original)
• Pierburg 7.02756.07.0 = VW 7.02756.04, 7.02756.09, 7.02756.11 (VW A, C and D)!

This aligns with Pierburg's (reported) statement - that there has only ever been two variants manufactured - and casts doubt on the existence of any coating, at least in it's exclusive application to the "D" variant.

*I'll try to attach a couple of pictures here to help make the point, taken from the same "new old stock" EGR assembly with 'A' suffix. In case the images don't stick around, the photographic evidence here shows (or appears to show) that the "old" VW "A" variant is associated with the "current" Pierburg assembly part number "7.02756.07.0".

 

[deccauk]

*I'll try to attach a couple of pictures here to help make the point, taken from "new old stock" EGR assembly. In case the images don't stick around, the photographic evidence here shows (or appears to show) that the "old" VW "A" variant is associated with the "current" Pierburg assembly part number.

Especially when you see pictures like this, with the suffix letter hidden and version 07 and 11 on the same sticker:



You have been down the same road as me regarding digesting all the information on facebook and the TX forum, and your conclusions are pretty much the same as mine.

 

[Spartan]

Especially when you see pictures like this, with the suffix letter hidden and version 07 and 11 on the same sticker:

Interesting! There was a report on the TX board that, at some point, VW sent back their spares stock of this item to Pierburg. Your picture makes this report more plausible and maybe all Pierburg did was cover the VW part number with their own part number ...

Edit: Please feel free to ignore this. I'm guilty of falling into the speculation trap!

 

[Bobbybus]

That's good work Spartan! Thank you. One day, the truth will come out and I don't think VW will like it!

 

[WelshGas]

It could be, in the worldwide scheme of things, VW may not know the true cause because the Overall numbers of affected engines is small and has now been superseded by the T6 204. A BIG deal for the owner with an affected engine, but NOT a Big deal for VW worldwide.

 

[veg_frenzy]

Especially when you see pictures like this, with the suffix letter hidden and version 07 and 11 on the same sticker:

View attachment 19512

You have been down the same road as me regarding digesting all the information on facebook and the TX forum, and your conclusions are pretty much the same as mine.

?!?!?!?!!?!? ..........................so hard to decide what to do.
A mate of mine has his T5 in today for ECU fault check, compression test, etc.....sort of hoping they find an issue and fix it under warranty. Dealer is definitely giving him the run around. They have rejected any oil analysis flatly (even though it shows high Si Al - like most of us who have had it tested). My guess is that he will change to the new D suffix part at his expense.......I wish we could be show this has any material benefit (vs. annual oil change for example).

 

[deccauk]

Someone on the German forum has links to a dismantled engine. The owner was so incensed by the lack of help from VW that he bought a complete new engine and kept the old one for examination.

It was from a 2010 vehicle, had done116,000 km and the oil consumption per 1000km was 4 litres!

It looks bad...

 

[snowy55]

What a mess.
How can VW not hold their hands up and accept responsibility for that is beyond me.
But that is what big companies do, leave the little fellas to pick up the tab for their engineering incompetence.

 

[briwy]

Wow, that's really bad but unfortunatley no nearer the cause, just the effect.

 

[craigs902]

If you are having issues with you CFCA please join this FB paghttps://www.facebook.com/groups/vwcfca/e


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[markh]

Got the results of my oil analysis today. Not good! Very high levels of Iron, Aluminium and Silicon. No oil usage as yet. I spoke to the guy at Millers about it. He said he had done a lot of these samples for 180 T5s over the past month or two and that only 2 or 3 had been within acceptable limits. Most, like mine were miles above!

All rather worrying! It seems probable that nearly everyone with the 180 engine is likely to find they have high levels of Fe, Al and Si if they get their oil tested. From there is seems fairly inevitable that at some point it will turn into high oil usage and then engine replacement! The mileage at which it happens seems to vary quite a lot but the end result seems pretty consistent i.e. new engine! Just have to hope the good work from the guys on the Facebook forum / t5-life.com spurs VW into some sort of action before it happens!