"laurentien" <luc.rolland@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:70a91138-4bbe-4e49-bd49-b04f8c826968@v72g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 29, 2:31 pm, "David Skelton" <david.skelton8...@tiscali.co.uk>
wrote:
> "laurentien" <luc.roll...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:3e57251c-e493-49a7-80a4-8b2f846212be@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 9, 2:36 pm, "dave AKA vwdoc1" <vwdoc1nos...@pleasehotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > thanks
> > I need to do some more research! ;-)
>
> > "Dave" <a...@b.c> wrote in message
>
> >news:k8SdnTAjlbwBWXDVnZ2dnUVZ8tSdnZ2d@bt.com...
>
> > >> So Volvo stopped using VW diesel engines?
>
> > > They may still use them in some cars but the current 1.6 and 2.0
> > > diesels
> > > are Ford/PSA engines
>
> Yes, BMW has made a lot of catching up when you consider how bad the
> 1990 2.5 turbo-diesel was.
>
> PSA also supplied the Diesel on Rover as well so I suspect that the
> Hondas built in the UK on the same lines than Rovers did get theirs
> form PSA.
>
> LHR
>
> The Rover 75 2.0 diesel is a detuned BMW unit.
> The PSA HDI and VW PD diesels are not very good when compared to the same
> era BMW engines.
> The Volvo D5 is a Volvo engine.
> None of them like supermarket diesel when used around town and the VNG
> turbos are not given enough exercise, and the particulate filter cannot
> regenerate properly.
>
> Best regards
>
> David

It depends which era you are talking about.

Middle of nineties, BMW did Diesels that had a very serious problem
and they were very weak compared to VW or PSA.
At that time, Rover was using PSA´s diesels. Maybe Rover switched to
BMW´s when they passed under BMW control.

I have to disagree here since the PSA and VW engines are very reliable
and it is shwon in the reports.
My own experience with the 1.9 L TDi is that it is a great engine with
ample torque for a large family transported in a sedan like the 80 or
now the A4. The milleage is just great and I do recommend to buy these
vehicles, especially the old ones.
We will need a few more years to see how the recent powerfull BMW
diesels survive and if they can outperform the others.

LHR

Is yours a PD TDi then, I thought it wasn't.
Talking a lot to the people who have to fix them, those PD engines are not
reliable. They have filthy emissions and the 1.9 TDi engine is pathetic.
Whenever I am behind a 1.9 VAG diesel, I cannot see ahead because of the
smoke pouring out of the tailpipe. That is partly why VAG have moved away
from PD technology and have adopted the common rail system.

The mid nineties and earlier BMW diesel engines did need a lot of oil
changes, and granted, the equivalent MB diesels were better.

The Landrover Freelander 2.0d is also a BMW engine too.

Best regards

David

> Is yours a PD TDi then, I thought it wasn't.
> Talking a lot to the people who have to fix them, those PD engines are not
> reliable. They have filthy emissions and the 1.9 TDi engine is pathetic.
> Whenever I am behind a 1.9 VAG diesel, I cannot see ahead because of the
> smoke pouring out of the tailpipe. That is partly why VAG have moved away
> from PD technology and have adopted the common rail system.

What! Sorry but I have a 1.9 PD 130 and there is never smoke pouring from
the exhaust. I've driven behind many too (as it's such a popular engine) and
they haven't poured smoke either.

I seem to remember reading that the 1.9 PD 130 was the most efficient diesel
available at the time. Obviously things have moved on and VAG have had to go
CR in order to keep up with emmisions but I would hardly call the PDs
"dirty"

Can you also clarify what you mean by "pathetic" when you talk about these
engines?

>
> The mid nineties and earlier BMW diesel engines did need a lot of oil
> changes, and granted, the equivalent MB diesels were better.
>
> The Landrover Freelander 2.0d is also a BMW engine too.

BMW diesels are great but there are some serious questions about
reliability. I would say that VAG engines are probably better in that
respect and not too far behind in terms of performance.

Audi will be introducing the new, clean version of its TDI diesel engine
in Europe and the U.S. beginning mid-2008 -- an engine it claims will be
the cleanest diesel in the world.

Here is a link that might be useful: lincenergy.us


--
adrieldenzel
------------------------------------------------------------------------
adrieldenzel's Profile: http://www.audiforum.ca/member.php?userid=7747
View this thread: http://www.audiforum.ca/showthread.php?t=29410

> Question there, how will they achive cleanliness ?
> Will they provide a particle filter such as Peugeot is doing at the
> moment ?
> or will they do it electronically ?

> The problem is that Diesel engines can be very clean if well tuned
> timingwise but this means people have to bring the cars to the garage
vevery year. Then, they even pollute much less than petrol cars, but
> not enough people are willing to keep their diesel tidy and you often
> see those black smoke coming out the tailpipe of too many cars and
> this even a worst problems with trucks who are not kept very clean by
> too many companies.

They use particulate filters (DPF).

Even without the DPF modern diesels are far cleaner due to the use of
electronic control of timing instead of mechanical.

"Dave" <a@b.c> wrote in message
news:8Y2dnYLJrKWkgo3UnZ2dnUVZ8r6dnZ2d@bt.com...
>> Is yours a PD TDi then, I thought it wasn't.
>> Talking a lot to the people who have to fix them, those PD engines are
>> not reliable. They have filthy emissions and the 1.9 TDi engine is
>> pathetic. Whenever I am behind a 1.9 VAG diesel, I cannot see ahead
>> because of the smoke pouring out of the tailpipe. That is partly why VAG
>> have moved away from PD technology and have adopted the common rail
>> system.
>
> What! Sorry but I have a 1.9 PD 130 and there is never smoke pouring from
> the exhaust. I've driven behind many too (as it's such a popular engine)
> and they haven't poured smoke either.
>
> I seem to remember reading that the 1.9 PD 130 was the most efficient
> diesel available at the time. Obviously things have moved on and VAG have
> had to go CR in order to keep up with emissions but I would hardly call
> the PDs "dirty"
>
> Can you also clarify what you mean by "pathetic" when you talk about these
> engines?
>
>>
>> The mid nineties and earlier BMW diesel engines did need a lot of oil
>> changes, and granted, the equivalent MB diesels were better.
>>
>> The Landrover Freelander 2.0d is also a BMW engine too.
>
> BMW diesels are great but there are some serious questions about
> reliability. I would say that VAG engines are probably better in that
> respect and not too far behind in terms of performance.
>
>

Hi Dave

The 130 PD engine was soonest of the PD range to be withdrawn from sale.
Make of that what you will.
Just because something is popular does not make it good. Remember the
Ford Escort and Vauxhall Nova from the eighties. Truly awful cars.
Can I assume that you researched the market before coming to a decision
about which car to buy ? If so, then it could follow that you have looked
after your vehicle and that might be why it has been fortunately reliable
for you.
Nearly every PD engined car when I've witnessed filthy clouds of brown /
black particulates from it's exhaust, it has been of the VW flavour. The
SEATs and Skodas do not seem to suffer as much. It is rarer for it to be
seen from a BMW tailpipe of the same era.Worse are the Toyotas and
Mitsubishis.
The PD engines require a particular oil and if not used will cause long term
problems.

I have stated before that smoke problems start for any number of reasons.
Shut
down procedure for one, gunning from cold is another, using supermarket fuel
yet another. Some owner / drivers are not satisfied with the performance of
their car and "upgrade" them. This does reduce longevity and reliability, no
matter what the tuners say. One of the most common causes of unreliability
is the complexity of electronic control systems currently employed in cars,
and I can only this getting worse. Some makers have been fitting fibre
optics
to increase the speed and volume of data transfer between various control
modules. The car's system then prioritises requests according to a preset
importance as seen by the programmers. For instance, brake light
illumination comes higher up the list than window regulators.
As consumers, we are now the testers of new technology being rushed to
market as a result of car makers trying to beat their competition.

I am not a fan of BMW, I hate their pig headed philosophy, their obsession
with runflats, I don't buy into the rear wheel drive argument, and in my
opinion, they are cheating with their CO2 claims for their "Efficient
Dynamics"
models, but they do make a good engine. Their diesels have for the last
nine years at least have been much quieter than the competition.
The main problem with the previous generation of common rail BMW engines was
the drivers. As
70 % of BMWs are bought by business as company cars, the drivers did not
have to pay for the maintenance / servicing and were not particularly
concerned for the car's health so to speak. I'm not saying ALL BMW drivers
are guilty of this, but most do not ensure that the turbos were cooled
enough before shutting off the engine. But this is not just BMW drivers*.
I do not think it would be that challenging to engineer an electric oil pump
to continue to supply oil to the turbo to reduce the heat sink in the turbo
bearings, our Audi has an electric water pump for continued turbo cooling
after turning off the engine.

*Not so long ago, possibly last year, I test drove two A4 2.0 TDi 170 Audis,
both were demonstrators with only a few hundred miles on them. The salesman
accelerated both cars from cold with his foot flat on the floor. I asked him
if he always thrashed the cars from cold and he replied "pretty much". I
told him I would not be buying a car from him or his dealership.

Unfortunately, there is a large potential problem with BMW diesels of the
last few years that often wrecks the engine. Some call them 'swirl flaps',
they are in the inlet manifold, one for each cylinder and part of their
function is to reduce engine output during moments of vehicle instability.
Audi also fit these flaps but have not seen the same extent of engine
failure.

Performance is a relative term. In pure number terms, the VW PD diesels do
have impressive figures, but those engines deliver their output in a very
non-linear fashion. They are very, very "peaky", (see
http://www.superchips.co.uk/curves/vagpd130.pdf courtesy of Superchips, the
standard engine - un modified - curves are the grey lines ) The torque curve
has very steep sides which is great
for the 'shove in the back' turbo acceleration enjoyed by the boy racers. It
is not so nice for the passengers. It is also terribly difficult to tow in
damp
conditions with a high torque 'peaky' output front wheel drive car.

One of the nicest four cylinder diesels I've experienced is the 1.9 unit
from FIAT and Alfa Romeo ( see
http://www.superchips.co.uk/curves/alfa1.9jtd150.pdf courtesy of
Superchips ). A smooth linear power delivery, but
one would have to be brave to buy one in an Italian car, and alas, also has
a belt driven cam. I think diesels need a chain driven cam.
One of our cars is a 2005 Audi with a 1.8 petrol engine which delivers a
maximum torque of 320 nm (236 fl/lb), but 90 % of that is available from
2000 to 5000 rpm. A very broad, flat curve.

Best regards

David

> The 130 PD engine was soonest of the PD range to be withdrawn from sale.
> Make of that what you will.

I think you're reading too much into it. The 130 was one of the last
versions of the 1.9 to be developed before the 2.0 PD 140 became the
mainstay VAG diesel engine so it follows that it would be dropped in favour
of the newer 2.0. The 130 had a good run of use right across the VAG range
and there were also 150 and 160. I've not heard of any major issues with
those.

It's also worth remembering that the 2.0 is a development of the 1.9 anyway.

> Just because something is popular does not make it good. Remember the
> Ford Escort and Vauxhall Nova from the eighties. Truly awful cars.
> Can I assume that you researched the market before coming to a decision
> about which car to buy ? If so, then it could follow that you have looked
> after your vehicle and that might be why it has been fortunately reliable
> for you.

I did. Of course there are cars with better engines out there but Audi had
the best overall package - quality, residuals, options. There are plenty of
PD engined cars running very high miles so I'm not worried

> Nearly every PD engined car when I've witnessed filthy clouds of brown /
> black particulates from it's exhaust, it has been of the VW flavour. The
> SEATs and Skodas do not seem to suffer as much. It is rarer for it to be
> seen from a BMW tailpipe of the same era.Worse are the Toyotas and
> Mitsubishis.

Again, there are plenty of PD engined cars VAG (mostly VW/Audi) of all ages
in my area and I've never seen any pouring smoke. I have however seen some
*very* smokey recent Mercedes diesels

> The PD engines require a particular oil and if not used will cause long
> term problems.

I'm well aware of that. There are plenty of choices that meet this spec so
I'm not worried. You just have to read any car manual to see that most
require oil that meets the manufacturers specs so VAG is not unusual in this
respect. My engine hardly uses any oil (maybe around 0.5 litre/10k miles)
between services anyway

> I have stated before that smoke problems start for any number of reasons.
> Shut
> down procedure for one, gunning from cold is another, using supermarket
> fuel
> yet another. Some owner / drivers are not satisfied with the performance
> of
> their car and "upgrade" them. This does reduce longevity and reliability,
> no
> matter what the tuners say. One of the most common causes of unreliability
> is the complexity of electronic control systems currently employed in
> cars,
> and I can only this getting worse. Some makers have been fitting fibre
> optics
> to increase the speed and volume of data transfer between various control
> modules. The car's system then prioritises requests according to a preset
> importance as seen by the programmers. For instance, brake light
> illumination comes higher up the list than window regulators.
> As consumers, we are now the testers of new technology being rushed to
> market as a result of car makers trying to beat their competition.

I'm well aware of the issues with turbo shutdown and also thrashing from
cold. I always have a gentle drive in the last half mile or so and let the
car idle for a few seconds before shutdown. I always warm the car before
using full revs. My engine uses virtually no oil. It is standard BTW.
Complexity is necessary in order to meet the emmisions regs. You simply
cannot have a clean diesel without electronics.

>
> I am not a fan of BMW, I hate their pig headed philosophy, their obsession
> with runflats, I don't buy into the rear wheel drive argument, and in my
> opinion, they are cheating with their CO2 claims for their "Efficient
> Dynamics"

Agreed. Efficient Dynamics won't make much difference on a car running for
long drives on the motorway. And of course there's the extra wear & tear on
the engine of the stop/start mechanism

> models, but they do make a good engine. Their diesels have for the last
> nine years at least have been much quieter than the competition.
> The main problem with the previous generation of common rail BMW engines
> was
> the drivers. As
> 70 % of BMWs are bought by business as company cars, the drivers did not
> have to pay for the maintenance / servicing and were not particularly
> concerned for the car's health so to speak. I'm not saying ALL BMW drivers
> are guilty of this, but most do not ensure that the turbos were cooled
> enough before shutting off the engine. But this is not just BMW drivers*.
> I do not think it would be that challenging to engineer an electric oil
> pump
> to continue to supply oil to the turbo to reduce the heat sink in the
> turbo
> bearings, our Audi has an electric water pump for continued turbo cooling
> after turning off the engine.
>
> *Not so long ago, possibly last year, I test drove two A4 2.0 TDi 170
> Audis,
> both were demonstrators with only a few hundred miles on them. The
> salesman
> accelerated both cars from cold with his foot flat on the floor. I asked
> him
> if he always thrashed the cars from cold and he replied "pretty much". I
> told him I would not be buying a car from him or his dealership.

That's a dealership issue not Audi. I'm sure there are plenty out there that
thrash cars because they don't own them. Some poor sod will end up buying an
ex-demo car thinking they're getting a good deal.

>
> Unfortunately, there is a large potential problem with BMW diesels of the
> last few years that often wrecks the engine. Some call them 'swirl flaps',
> they are in the inlet manifold, one for each cylinder and part of their
> function is to reduce engine output during moments of vehicle instability.
> Audi also fit these flaps but have not seen the same extent of engine
> failure.
>
> Performance is a relative term. In pure number terms, the VW PD diesels do
> have impressive figures, but those engines deliver their output in a very
> non-linear fashion. They are very, very "peaky", (see
> http://www.superchips.co.uk/curves/vagpd130.pdf courtesy of Superchips,
> the
> standard engine - un modified - curves are the grey lines ) The torque
> curve
> has very steep sides which is great
> for the 'shove in the back' turbo acceleration enjoyed by the boy racers.
> It
> is not so nice for the passengers. It is also terribly difficult to tow in
> damp
> conditions with a high torque 'peaky' output front wheel drive car.

Agreed. I think that shove is better managed by newer electronics and common
rail. You learn to drive around it but I move to the A4 from a V5 Bora and
they engine characteristics took a bit of learning. I'd still rather be in a
large engined NA petrol car but those will become rarer and rarer.

>
> One of the nicest four cylinder diesels I've experienced is the 1.9 unit
> from FIAT and Alfa Romeo ( see
> http://www.superchips.co.uk/curves/alfa1.9jtd150.pdf courtesy of
> Superchips ). A smooth linear power delivery, but
> one would have to be brave to buy one in an Italian car, and alas, also
> has
> a belt driven cam. I think diesels need a chain driven cam.

I'd not buy a FIAT but did consider the Alfa 156. The depreciation was just
too much and the fit and finish were poor. I also considered a Saab 9-3
which has basically the same engine but again the finish was rubbish for a
so-called "Premium" brand.

I think more and more new diesels (and petrols) are have chain driven cams.
The VAG 2.0 is still belt but I believe all their larger diesels are chain.
The 5.0 V10 is gear-driven.

> One of our cars is a 2005 Audi with a 1.8 petrol engine which delivers a
> maximum torque of 320 nm (236 fl/lb), but 90 % of that is available from
> 2000 to 5000 rpm. A very broad, flat curve.

The 1.8T is a very good engine but quite thirsty and of course there's the
oil sludge issue that has been widely reported. We did consider it but our
mileage was such that the diesel made more sense and of course residual
value of the diesel is far better.

"Dave" <a@b.c> wrote in message
news:SuednXpkKOMPUa7UnZ2dnUVZ8h2dnZ2d@bt.com...
>> The 130 PD engine was soonest of the PD range to be withdrawn from sale.
>> Make of that what you will.
>
> I think you're reading too much into it. The 130 was one of the last
> versions of the 1.9 to be developed before the 2.0 PD 140 became the
> mainstay VAG diesel engine so it follows that it would be dropped in
> favour of the newer 2.0. The 130 had a good run of use right across the
> VAG range and there were also 150 and 160. I've not heard of any major
> issues with those.
>
The 160 was not used in VW or Audi was it? I thought it was a Seat
development.

> It's also worth remembering that the 2.0 is a development of the 1.9
> anyway.
>
>> Just because something is popular does not make it good. Remember the
>> Ford Escort and Vauxhall Nova from the eighties. Truly awful cars.

Oops. I meant mk3 Escorts from the 90's

>> Can I assume that you researched the market before coming to a decision
>> about which car to buy ? If so, then it could follow that you have looked
>> after your vehicle and that might be why it has been fortunately reliable
>> for you.
>
> I did. Of course there are cars with better engines out there but Audi had
> the best overall package - quality, residuals, options. There are plenty
> of PD engined cars running very high miles so I'm not worried
>
>> Nearly every PD engined car when I've witnessed filthy clouds of brown /
>> black particulates from it's exhaust, it has been of the VW flavour. The
>> SEATs and Skodas do not seem to suffer as much. It is rarer for it to be
>> seen from a BMW tailpipe of the same era.Worse are the Toyotas and
>> Mitsubishis.
>
> Again, there are plenty of PD engined cars VAG (mostly VW/Audi) of all
> ages in my area and I've never seen any pouring smoke. I have however seen
> some *very* smokey recent Mercedes diesels
>
Mercedes diesels have been smoking badly since they went common rail,
strangely enough.

Last evening, I was on "row 2" of the "grid" of a traffic light Grand Prix
between a 56 plate 320d and a 56 plate A3 2.0 TDi. I'm glad I was behind the
BMW because the Audi left such a cloud for 100m that the other lane drivers
could not see ahead at all. Even the road was not visible. There was a trace
of smoke from the BMW exhaust. Maybe the fuel around here is not good.

>> The PD engines require a particular oil and if not used will cause long
>> term problems.
>
> I'm well aware of that. There are plenty of choices that meet this spec so
> I'm not worried. You just have to read any car manual to see that most
> require oil that meets the manufacturers specs so VAG is not unusual in
> this respect. My engine hardly uses any oil (maybe around 0.5 litre/10k
> miles) between services anyway

As I thought, you know more than most.

>
>> I have stated before that smoke problems start for any number of reasons.
>> Shut
>> down procedure for one, gunning from cold is another, using supermarket
>> fuel
>> yet another. Some owner / drivers are not satisfied with the performance
>> of
>> their car and "upgrade" them. This does reduce longevity and reliability,
>> no
>> matter what the tuners say. One of the most common causes of
>> unreliability
>> is the complexity of electronic control systems currently employed in
>> cars,
>> and I can only this getting worse. Some makers have been fitting fibre
>> optics
>> to increase the speed and volume of data transfer between various control
>> modules. The car's system then prioritises requests according to a preset
>> importance as seen by the programmers. For instance, brake light
>> illumination comes higher up the list than window regulators.
>> As consumers, we are now the testers of new technology being rushed to
>> market as a result of car makers trying to beat their competition.
>
> I'm well aware of the issues with turbo shutdown and also thrashing from
> cold. I always have a gentle drive in the last half mile or so and let the
> car idle for a few seconds before shutdown. I always warm the car before
> using full revs. My engine uses virtually no oil. It is standard BTW.
> Complexity is necessary in order to meet the emmisions regs. You simply
> cannot have a clean diesel without electronics.
>
>>
But VAG have had a lot of problems with their electronics. There is a TSB
regarding chassis earths.

>> I am not a fan of BMW, I hate their pig headed philosophy, their
>> obsession
>> with runflats, I don't buy into the rear wheel drive argument, and in my
>> opinion, they are cheating with their CO2 claims for their "Efficient
>> Dynamics"
>
> Agreed. Efficient Dynamics won't make much difference on a car running for
> long drives on the motorway. And of course there's the extra wear & tear
> on the engine of the stop/start mechanism
>
>> models, but they do make a good engine. Their diesels have for the last
>> nine years at least have been much quieter than the competition.
>> The main problem with the previous generation of common rail BMW engines
>> was
>> the drivers. As
>> 70 % of BMWs are bought by business as company cars, the drivers did not
>> have to pay for the maintenance / servicing and were not particularly
>> concerned for the car's health so to speak. I'm not saying ALL BMW
>> drivers
>> are guilty of this, but most do not ensure that the turbos were cooled
>> enough before shutting off the engine. But this is not just BMW drivers*.
>> I do not think it would be that challenging to engineer an electric oil
>> pump
>> to continue to supply oil to the turbo to reduce the heat sink in the
>> turbo
>> bearings, our Audi has an electric water pump for continued turbo cooling
>> after turning off the engine.
>>
>> *Not so long ago, possibly last year, I test drove two A4 2.0 TDi 170
>> Audis,
>> both were demonstrators with only a few hundred miles on them. The
>> salesman
>> accelerated both cars from cold with his foot flat on the floor. I asked
>> him
>> if he always thrashed the cars from cold and he replied "pretty much". I
>> told him I would not be buying a car from him or his dealership.
>
> That's a dealership issue not Audi. I'm sure there are plenty out there
> that thrash cars because they don't own them. Some poor sod will end up
> buying an ex-demo car thinking they're getting a good deal.
>
>>
I think the same can be said for ex-company cars too.

>> Unfortunately, there is a large potential problem with BMW diesels of the
>> last few years that often wrecks the engine. Some call them 'swirl
>> flaps',
>> they are in the inlet manifold, one for each cylinder and part of their
>> function is to reduce engine output during moments of vehicle
>> instability.
>> Audi also fit these flaps but have not seen the same extent of engine
>> failure.
>>
>> Performance is a relative term. In pure number terms, the VW PD diesels
>> do
>> have impressive figures, but those engines deliver their output in a very
>> non-linear fashion. They are very, very "peaky", (see
>> http://www.superchips.co.uk/curves/vagpd130.pdf courtesy of Superchips,
>> the
>> standard engine - un modified - curves are the grey lines ) The torque
>> curve
>> has very steep sides which is great
>> for the 'shove in the back' turbo acceleration enjoyed by the boy racers.
>> It
>> is not so nice for the passengers. It is also terribly difficult to tow
>> in
>> damp
>> conditions with a high torque 'peaky' output front wheel drive car.
>
> Agreed. I think that shove is better managed by newer electronics and
> common rail. You learn to drive around it but I move to the A4 from a V5
> Bora and they engine characteristics took a bit of learning. I'd still
> rather be in a large engined NA petrol car but those will become rarer and
> rarer.
>
>>
I prefer forced induction myself.

>> One of the nicest four cylinder diesels I've experienced is the 1.9 unit
>> from FIAT and Alfa Romeo ( see
>> http://www.superchips.co.uk/curves/alfa1.9jtd150.pdf courtesy of
>> Superchips ). A smooth linear power delivery, but
>> one would have to be brave to buy one in an Italian car, and alas, also
>> has
>> a belt driven cam. I think diesels need a chain driven cam.
>
> I'd not buy a FIAT but did consider the Alfa 156. The depreciation was
> just too much and the fit and finish were poor. I also considered a Saab
> 9-3 which has basically the same engine but again the finish was rubbish
> for a so-called "Premium" brand.
>
I did try two Alfa's, the GT 1.9jtdm and the 159(?) 1.9jtdm saloon, both
were demos and both had problems and loose interior trim. As I said, one
would need to be brave. I also looked at a 9-3 saloon and found it wanting
intenally for quality. As I found for the C-Class mercedes too.
I've not enjoyed the cars I've driven with electricaly asisted power
steering either. No feedback, numb.

> I think more and more new diesels (and petrols) are have chain driven
> cams. The VAG 2.0 is still belt but I believe all their larger diesels are
> chain. The 5.0 V10 is gear-driven.

The 2.7 and 3.0 v6 diesels have chain driven cams, but the crank has only 4
main bearings supporting it.

>
>> One of our cars is a 2005 Audi with a 1.8 petrol engine which delivers a
>> maximum torque of 320 nm (236 fl/lb), but 90 % of that is available from
>> 2000 to 5000 rpm. A very broad, flat curve.
>
> The 1.8T is a very good engine but quite thirsty and of course there's the
> oil sludge issue that has been widely reported. We did consider it but our
> mileage was such that the diesel made more sense and of course residual
> value of the diesel is far better.
>

This is our second 1.8T petrol Audi with no sludge issues. I thought that
was an American thing.
With regard to residuals, when one is buying a car the salesman will tell
you one thing, but when trading in for a newer one, he will tell you the
opposite. Our little cheap shopping car cost less to buy second hand than
what we will lose on either of the other cars in two years through
depreciation.
The Audi we have should retain it's value quite well, hopefully, as there
were only 1000 made in RHD and we got one with the comfy seats instead of
the fixed non-heated body huggers (the seats are not interchangeable), and
we are only doing about 1000 miles pa in it.

Best regards

David