1.6 HDI/TDCIs - overall reliability

Old diesel

Its come up here a bit - about the 1.6 Peugeot HDI diesel engine (DV6) and their issues.

The big issue with them seems to be where the turbo fails due to carbon build up - and/or sludging - and subsequent related issues (potential engine failure etc).

Some people argue that they aren't so bad - but many others say - they are a disaster.

What im wondering is - how good or bad are they in reality - lots of stories of problems - but it is also one of the most widely used diesel engines out there.

So what is the actual reality - are they completely disastrous - or is the fact that there are so many of these engines out there - making the issues look a lot worse then in reality they are???

charcosull

The can of worms has been opened again. You will get several replies now from German car fans telling you how terrible they are.

My experience. Volvo C30 1.6d. 215,000km. Serviced every 15-20k km's for the first 100k km's. Serviced every 8-10k from then on.
No problems once things are kept on top of. Leaky injectors sorted straight away etc.

Any mechanics I have spoke too about say it is a fine engine once it is serviced regularly and with the correct oil.

Henry Ford III

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=90610339

BdaraB

We have two, a Suzuki with about 25K (miles) on it and a Focus with 50/60K both have been perfect reliability wise and might have missed servicing by 1 or two thousand miles. That is my experience with them and I have only heard of one 1.6 with a blown turbo, it was in a Focus van that would not have been serviced correctly, e.g. whatever oil was on hand

Old diesel

charcosull wrote: »

The can of worms has been opened again. You will get several replies now from German car fans telling you how terrible they are.

My experience. Volvo C30 1.6d. 215,000km. Serviced every 15-20k km's for the first 100k km's. Serviced every 8-10k from then on.
No problems once things are kept on top of. Leaky injectors sorted straight away etc.

Any mechanics I have spoke too about say it is a fine engine once it is serviced regularly and with the correct oil.

Henry Ford III wrote: »

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=90610339

See that's the issue - conflicting views - from various people who have had varied experiences of them.

My own view - is that yes these engines have given issues for some - but there are SO MANY cars on the road fitted with this engine - MINIs, Volvo S40/V50, Mazda 3, Ford Focus, Mk 6 Fiesta (not in Irish spec though) plus all the PSA stuff from Berlingo vans right up to Pug 407s. That youd wonder are there lots of them on the roads we don't know about - NOT giving issues

Its clear some can go for very big mileages - either through luck or very good maintenance.

But others can and do give issues at low mileages.

I guess ive seen one or 3 threads get derailed here due to 1.6 HDI/1.6 TDCI related discussion - and it gets boring when a thread on a SKODA which NEVER used this engine ends up with a discussion on this engine.



It is a shame that the 1.6 doesn't seem to be as good as its 2.0 HDI brother though - the 2.0 HDI seems generally to be fairly good

Old diesel

charcosull wrote: »

The can of worms has been opened again. You will get several replies now from German car fans telling you how terrible they are.

My experience. Volvo C30 1.6d. 215,000km. Serviced every 15-20k km's for the first 100k km's. Serviced every 8-10k from then on.
No problems once things are kept on top of. Leaky injectors sorted straight away etc.

Any mechanics I have spoke too about say it is a fine engine once it is serviced regularly and with the correct oil.

Forgot the leaky injectors - is that a 1.6 HDI issue too - I know the 1.4 HDIs give issues with leaky injectors

HeyArnold320

The alternators in these can fail too. Ford look for around 300 for a new one. Volvo look for 500 for the same part.

charcosull

Old diesel wrote: »

Forgot the leaky injectors - is that a 1.6 HDI issue too - I know the 1.4 HDIs give issues with leaky injectors

One went at around 190k. Easy and cheap to sort if they are caught before they bed in.

Poulgorm

I had a Volvo S40 with that 1.6 diesel engine. Bought new (07). Serviced at the specified intervals by the Volvo main dealer that I bought the car from. Plenty of motorway miles.

That did not save me. After 3 years (and about 57,000 miles), it started to cost me serious money. Soon got rid of it after that.

Don't touch them, as a second hand purchase. That particular 1.6 diesel engine is a disaster. And, as has been pointed out by others, it is used in a wide range of cars.

Mycroft H

Its the latter. There has been loads sold since 2005-6ish. Those who have a problem scream the loudest

I know of 4 on the road perfectly and ours has just crossed 160,000 miles. By the by they're fine once looked after. But they do not tolerate abuse, much the same with any other modern small capacity, high power engine. Buy one with a known history.

JohnBoy26

Mycroft H wrote: »

Its the latter. There has been loads sold since 2005-6ish. Those who have a problem scream the loudest

I know of 4 on the road perfectly and ours has just crossed 160,000 miles. By the by they're fine once looked after. But they do not tolerate abuse, much the same with any other modern small capacity, high power engine. Buy one with a known history.

You can maintain these to perfection and they could still end up breaking your heart. The same can't be said for other small diesel which tend to be more robust than these. Engines like Hyundai 1.6 crdi unit, Toyota's 1.4 d4d etc are more reliable and more robust engines.

cabb8ge

..... 1.6HDi high power? 110bhp not high

George Dalton

There was a similar thread on here a while back and I went looking through our books to try and get some facts on the matter.

I went back through the last 60 cars we work on regularly with this engine fitted and out of that 60 we replaced turbos on 6 of them. All of the 6 had gone substantially over the recommended mileage between services shortly before the turbo failed.

This engine is reliable if maintained perfectly on time every time. If you don't it will give you trouble. Not possibly give you trouble, not even probably give you trouble. It 100% will give you trouble.

Most other engines aren't so unforgiving. This combined with the average Irish motorist's "relaxed" attitude to maintenance and their tendency to kick up an awful fuss when they get a big repair bill is what gives the engine such a bad reputation.

mullingar

4 of these engines in the family. 2x Ford's, 2x Peugeot.

All have been super reliable as they have been serviced correctly.

My wife's 06 focus has around 120-130k miles on it, Dpf removed, remapped on dyno to 130hp, and it's a quick little motor.

All that has gone in 5 years of ownership is Dpf clogged (then deleted), alternator went @ 100k, EGR sized open so I just blocked it off. Very cheap engine to maintain.

As one poster said about this engine it is an excellent engine but has no tolerance of being abused.

So if anyone is thinking of buying one, definitely go for it , but ONLY with a service history.

JohnBoy26

George Dalton wrote: »

There was a similar thread on here a while back and I went looking through our books to try and get some facts on the matter.

I went back through the last 60 cars we work on regularly with this engine fitted and out of that 60 we replaced turbos on 6 of them. All of the 6 had gone substantially over the recommended mileage between services shortly before the turbo failed.

This engine is reliable if maintained perfectly on time every time. If you don't it will give you trouble. Not possibly give you trouble, not even probably give you trouble. It 100% will give you trouble.

Most other engines aren't so unforgiving. This combined with the average Irish motorist's "relaxed" attitude to maintenance and their tendency to kick up an awful fuss when they get a big repair bill is what gives the engine such a bad reputation.

No it's not!!

This Irish lack of maintenance argument being spouted on here and being blamed for everything is getting old at this stage.

This engines bad reputation for sludge and turbo is not confined to these shores.

What about all those cars in other countries that this has happened to? What about in the UK for example where many of these have suffered turbo failure with full service histories under their belt? What about these? Did "the average Irish motorist's relaxed attitude to maintenance" give these their "bad reputation" too?

George Dalton

JohnBoy26 wrote: »

What about all those cars in other countries that this has happened to? What about in the UK for example where many of these have suffered turbo failure with full service histories under their belt? What about these? Did "the average Irish motorist's relaxed attitude to maintenance" give these their "bad reputation" too?

I only deal in facts. Not internet hearsay.

JohnBoy26

George Dalton wrote: »

I only deal in facts. Not internet hearsay.

A P*ss poor response from you. How is it a "fact" that the so called "Irish lack of maintenance"is the reason for this engines bad rep?

FrontDoor

JohnBoy26 wrote: »

A P*ss poor response from you. How is it a "fact" that the so called "Irish lack of maintenance"is the reason for this engines bad rep?

John, I don't think you are going to be happy until everybody agrees with you about this engine.

JohnBoy26

FrontDoor wrote: »

John, I don't think you are going to be happy until everybody agrees with you about this engine.

That's not what my argument above is about to be fair.

Old diesel

JohnBoy26 wrote: »

No it's not!!

This Irish lack of maintenance argument being spouted on here and being blamed for everything is getting old at this stage.

This engines bad reputation for sludge and turbo is not confined to these shores.

What about all those cars in other countries that this has happened to? What about in the UK for example where many of these have suffered turbo failure with full service histories under their belt? What about these? Did "the average Irish motorist's relaxed attitude to maintenance" give these their "bad reputation" too?

BUT irish motorist approach to servicing possibly is a factor in all this - granted its far from the full story - and certainly this engines flaws can't be blamed on Irish owners approach to servicing.

But it cannot be ruled out as something which makes the issue a bit worse - because - I believe - as do others - and im happy to consider I may be wrong.

BUT - in general - I don't think many Irish motorists are overly diligent when it comes to servicing on time or generally having their cars maintained as perfectly as they could.

To rule Irish servicing standards in - OR out - we would need to see percentage failure figures for Irish 1.6 HDI engines vs other countries like the Uk.

You say (correctly imo) that cars with this engine have failed in the Uk and elsewhere even with perfect servicing.

BUT

The thing is - suppose the failure percentage in this engine were 10 percent in the Uk - but in Irish cars it was 30 percent - then how the cars were serviced here then becomes a potential factor in SOME of the failures.

If however its 20 percent in UK and 20 percent in Ireland - then the servicing can be ruled out as a factor - especially if we are able to assume with accuracy that UK cars are better serviced then Irish cars

Old diesel

JohnBoy26 wrote: »

A P*ss poor response from you. How is it a "fact" that the so called "Irish lack of maintenance"is the reason for this engines bad rep?

In fairness to George - he has done something ive never seen in relation to discussions on this engine.

The man has gone through servicing records for 60 cars HE HAS SERVICED in his business - and found that 6 of them have had turbos replaced by him.

Of course some of the 54 cars that George didn't replace the turbo on - may have had turbos replaced prior to George starting servicing those cars - Georges customer may have bought the car at 4/5 years old - and the turbo or even engine may have been replaced during those 4/5 years.

Far from been a piss poor response in all fairness - and maybe when someone goes to the bother of going through their records to look at something for AN INTERNET THREAD - with the intention of only delivering FACTS.

JohnBoy26

Old diesel wrote: »

BUT irish motorist approach to servicing possibly is a factor in all this - granted its far from the full story - and certainly this engines flaws can't be blamed on Irish owners approach to servicing.

But it cannot be ruled out as something which makes the issue a bit worse - because - I believe - as do others - and im happy to consider I may be wrong.

BUT - in general - I don't think many Irish motorists are overly diligent when it comes to servicing on time or generally having their cars maintained as perfectly as they could.

To rule Irish servicing standards in - OR out - we would need to see percentage failure figures for Irish 1.6 HDI engines vs other countries like the Uk.

You say (correctly imo) that cars with this engine have failed in the Uk and elsewhere even with perfect servicing.

BUT

The thing is - suppose the failure percentage in this engine were 10 percent in the Uk - but in Irish cars it was 30 percent - then how the cars were serviced here then becomes a potential factor in SOME of the failures.

If however its 20 percent in UK and 20 percent in Ireland - then the servicing can be ruled out as a factor - especially if we are able to assume with accuracy that UK cars are better serviced then Irish cars

I'm not saying lack of maintenance isn't a factor in some cases where these suffer from turbo failure. But there have been many cases where perfectly well maintained examples have suffered the same fate.

But to say that this engine's bad rep is down to Irish motorists is laughable. We are a small country and this engines bad rep spreads far beyond these shores.

I also don't believe cars are as badly maintained here as some make out. Its just unlike the UK we don't have the records to back up the work carried out. That doesn't mean cars here are badly maintained though. If that was the case there would be far more sh1t heaps on the road than their is.

MidlandsM

Old diesel wrote: »

In fairness to George - he has done something ive never seen in relation to discussions on this engine.

The man has gone through servicing records for 60 cars HE HAS SERVICED in his business - and found that 6 of them have had turbos replaced by him.

Of course some of the 54 cars that George didn't replace the turbo on - may have had turbos replaced prior to George starting servicing those cars - Georges customer may have bought the car at 4/5 years old - and the turbo or even engine may have been replaced during those 4/5 years.

Far from been a piss poor response in all fairness - and maybe when someone goes to the bother of going through their records to look at something for AN INTERNET THREAD - with the intention of only delivering FACTS.

Typing the word FACT block capitals on the internet, does not make something a fact.

JohnBoy26

Old diesel wrote: »

In fairness to George - he has done something ive never seen in relation to discussions on this engine.

The man has gone through servicing records for 60 cars HE HAS SERVICED in his business - and found that 6 of them have had turbos replaced by him.

Of course some of the 54 cars that George didn't replace the turbo on - may have had turbos replaced prior to George starting servicing those cars - Georges customer may have bought the car at 4/5 years old - and the turbo or even engine may have been replaced during those 4/5 years.

Far from been a piss poor response in all fairness - and maybe when someone goes to the bother of going through their records to look at something for AN INTERNET THREAD - with the intention of only delivering FACTS.

From what I gather on here I'm sure George is a nice guy and does excellent work but It was a p*ss poor response imo.

Despite dealing only in "facts" There is no fact in Irish motorist being the reason for this engines bad rep.

Old diesel

MidlandsM wrote: »

Typing the word FACT block capitals on the internet, does not make something a fact.

I never said it did - and in any case I didn't use the block capitals to make it a fact - I used them to stress something I considered an important point.

Old diesel

JohnBoy26 wrote: »

From what I gather on here I'm sure George is a nice guy and does excellent work but It was a p*ss poor response imo.

Despite dealing only in "facts" There is no fact in Irish motorist being the reason for this engines bad rep.

Okay lets not derail the thread - but I don't think it was a piss poor response at all.

The chap has merely explained that he prefers to deal with facts - he had previously presented us with those facts - 60 cars serviced by him - 6 needed turbos changing by him.

I disagree his response was what you considered to be - but I don't want to derail the thread - I actually started this thread in response to another thread been derailed by discussions on the 1.6 HDi.

So we both disagree on Georges response - that's no problem - lets just agree to disagree - and my apologies for disagreeing with you on it.

Now back to 1.6 HDIs

CJhaughey

I think the service interval was reduced on this engine during the first few years as well.
That has to be a sign that correct servicing is vital.

Old diesel

I will make a confession here - and apologies if this is a bit naughty, unethical or any other negative views you may have.

But my views on the 1.6 HDi issues - were influenced by the fact that I don't have a particularly high opinion of modern diesel engine reliability at all.

I really don't have a great tolerance for the failures I hear about on modern diesels.

Granted on some of the better - or less troublesome engines - imo - 2.0 HDI (ironically), Toyota 2.0 D4Ds, Euro 3 Volvo D5s the failures aren't overly common - and many drive away great.

I do think however - that the risk of something go wrong with a big bill is a bit too high for my liking

Henry Ford III

JohnBoy26 wrote: »

A P*ss poor response from you. How is it a "fact" that the so called "Irish lack of maintenance"is the reason for this engines bad rep?

I'd have a lot more time for George's real world opinion over your rather strange and oft repeated rants.

mullingar

+1,

I'd consider the opinion of a true professional over 1 persons vendetta any day

JohnBoy26

mullingar wrote: »

+1,

I'd consider the opinion of a true professional over 1 persons vendetta any day

Vendetta? What vendetta? What a strange comment.

JohnBoy26

Henry Ford III wrote: »

I'd have a lot more time for George's real world opinion over your rather strange and oft repeated rants.

Repeated rants? No one is ranting. Just attacking the post as one does on here. What's strange about that?

Row

Back in 2004 when this engine was first introduced into the peugeot/Citroen range mechanics (even peugeot/citroen) were'nt up to speed with the potiential problems due to the incorrect oil been used or stringent service intervals not been adhered to.

The now recommended oil (5w30 fully syn C2/low saps) was not widely used in the early days with some garages using say 10w/40 semi syn oil which was recommended for early 2.0 hdi's and this created alot of the know problems that we are seeing with this engine today.

Since the introduction of higher spec oils and the service intervals been pulled back from 20,000k to 15,000k problems have decreased considerably.

Also i think with this added awareness Mechanics/Owners are more vigilant when it comes to poor servicing/incorrect oil been used and this has reduced the potiential problems that have shown up in the past.


Like said above George has always been transparent/honest in whatever he says here and with the numbers of dv6 engines on his books this proves the point in what i have stated above.

Moving forward..:).....Owners/potential owners still need to be aware of these issues and insure that the car they own/buying has had a fsh within the recommended service intervals....;)

cabb8ge

Also one of the engines that not like suction oil removal, oil needs to be drained fully, also filter housing fully drained. Not one for the Advance groupon

Row

cabb8ge wrote: »

Also one of the engines that not like suction oil removal, oil needs to be drained fully, also filter housing fully drained. Not one for the Advance groupon

I usually drain fully (engine hot leave for a half an hour to drain) and use a suction pump as i find it pulls another cup full of oil out of the sump..:)

cabb8ge

Row wrote: »

I usually drain fully (engine hot leave for a half an hour to drain) and use a suction pump as i find it pulls another cup full of oil out of the sump..:)

Manufacturer technical bulletin specify not to use suction method.

Row

cabb8ge wrote: »

Manufacturer technical bulletin specify not to use suction method.

I know its not recommended but i find doing both (Drain tru the sump and suction) works well for me..:)

charcosull

Thanks for that George, it is good to get some kind of number on it.

CJhaughey

Row wrote: »

I usually drain fully (engine hot leave for a half an hour to drain) and use a suction pump as i find it pulls another cup full of oil out of the sump..:)

Thats because of the frankly crap sump design no? Recessing the drain bolt head into the sump allows quite a lot of oil to remain in the sump.

Old diesel

CJhaughey wrote: »

Thats because of the frankly crap sump design no? Recessing the drain bolt head into the sump allows quite a lot of oil to remain in the sump.

Is that the Banjo bolt ive heard mention off??? -

R.O.R

We have hundreds of cars on our fleet powered by this engine, in all of its various guises.

It's not bullet proof, but the issues we've seen are generally down to drivers going over the service interval.

Cannot recall us ever replacing a turbo....

corkgsxr

To be fair. Even though im not fond of the engine.

I had a 07 berligo. Covered about 20k klms.

Had a few small oil leaks. Turbo inlet seal 30 euro. And cam position sensor went. About 30 euro again.

Best I could get was 35 mpg. And 38 after decat.


the van around the engine was more bothersome on account of everything being made of cheese.

Found it quite slow to warm up in winter. Most of my driving was urban.

spiggotpaddy

George Dalton wrote: »

There was a similar thread on here a while back and I went looking through our books to try and get some facts on the matter.

I went back through the last 60 cars we work on regularly with this engine fitted and out of that 60 we replaced turbos on 6 of them. All of the 6 had gone substantially over the recommended mileage between services shortly before the turbo failed.

This engine is reliable if maintained perfectly on time every time. If you don't it will give you trouble. Not possibly give you trouble, not even probably give you trouble. It 100% will give you trouble.

Most other engines aren't so unforgiving. This combined with the average Irish motorist's "relaxed" attitude to maintenance and their tendency to kick up an awful fuss when they get a big repair bill is what gives the engine such a bad reputation.

So you looked back through your books to get some facts, you must really love this forum, or the cynical amongst us could see it as touting for business as you build your horde of cronies.

Henry Ford III

spiggotpaddy wrote: »

So you looked back through your books to get some facts, you must really love this forum, or the cynical amongst us could see it as touting for business as you build your horde of cronies.

Uncalled for I'd have said.

George gives plenty of valuable advice here absed on extensive real world experience. I don't think he touts for business at all.

George Dalton

JohnBoy26 wrote: »

A P*ss poor response from you. How is it a "fact" that the so called "Irish lack of maintenance"is the reason for this engines bad rep?

I'd be pretty certain it's not just an Irish thing but I can't vouch for the habits of motorists in other countries because I don't deal with them every day. For example I'm sure that there are plenty of motorists in the UK that don't maintain their cars properly but I can't produce any evidence to back it up.

So apologies, perhaps I should have left out the "Irish" part and simply said that poor maintenance is the reason for the engine's bad reputation. The reason I say this is the fact that with the cars on our books there is a direct correlation between missing services and subsequent turbo failure.

I'm not trying to claim these engines are perfect. There are certainly more reliable 1.6 diesel engines out there. As I have posted here many times before, these engines have no tolerance for neglect. It is certainly true that this is poor design on the part of PSA. Anything that is designed for a perfect world scenario usually ends up being trouble. I reckon that if these engines had been designed with an extre litre or so of oil capacity then that would have made all the difference in terms of standing up to abuse.

I'm just trying to counterbalance the over the top criticism of them on this forum. There are literally thousands of these engines giving trouble free service all over the country. If they were as bad as reading this forum would have you believe then the roads would be littered with broken down DV6 engined cars.

Gazzmonkey

What engine is in the 2007 1.6D Volvo S60?

Was at a local indy last night to get new tyres fitted and he showed me a Volvo he was working on all day. It blew the turbo a few months ago with 130,000 kilometres on the clock, he fitted a new turbo and whatever other bits & bobs it needed only for it to blow the new turbo after 8,000 kilometres.

The lady who owned it was there at the time and she was not in good form, didn't want to ask what the cost was going to be with her standing there but I would say she's out a few grand after blowing two turbos and needing a third!!!

George Dalton

spiggotpaddy wrote: »

So you looked back through your books to get some facts, you must really love this forum, or the cynical amongst us could see it as touting for business as you build your horde of cronies.

It wasn't love of the forum. It wasn't touting for business. It was just curiosity. I got tired of reading threads where people were slating the engine with no facts to back it up. I reckoned from our experience of them that they weren't all that bad so I decided to spend a few minutes checking out how my perception compared with the reality of the situation.

George Dalton

Gazzmonkey wrote: »

What engine is in the 2007 1.6D Volvo S60?

Was at a local indy last night to get new tyres fitted and he showed me a Volvo he was working on all day. It blew the turbo a few months ago with 130,000 kilometres on the clock, he fitted a new turbo and whatever other bits & bobs it needed only for it to blow the new turbo after 8,000 kilometres.

The lady who owned it was there at the time and she was not in good form, didn't want to ask what the cost was going to be with her standing there but I would say she's out a few grand after blowing two turbos and needing a third!!!

Same engine as being discussed in the thread.

Again I can only speak for my own experience but we have never had a repeat turbo failure on one of these. Repeat turbo failure generally means the cause of the original failure was not addressed when the turbo was replaced. Can you really blame the car for that?

Gazzmonkey

George Dalton wrote: »

Same engine as being discussed in the thread.

Again I can only speak for my own experience but we have never had a repeat turbo failure on one of these. Repeat turbo failure generally means the cause of the original failure was not addressed when the turbo was replaced. Can you really blame the car for that?

That's what the indy mechanic said, some other issue was causing damage to the turbo.

JohnBoy26

George Dalton wrote: »

Same engine as being discussed in the thread.

Again I can only speak for my own experience but we have never had a repeat turbo failure on one of these. Repeat turbo failure generally means the cause of the original failure was not addressed when the turbo was replaced. Can you really blame the car for that?

Repeated turbo failure can happen on these, even when the correct procedures for replascement are followed.

That's one of the reasons I decided not to buy one myself.

JohnBoy26

George Dalton wrote: »

I'd be pretty certain it's not just an Irish thing but I can't vouch for the habits of motorists in other countries because I don't deal with them every day. For example I'm sure that there are plenty of motorists in the UK that don't maintain their cars properly but I can't produce any evidence to back it up.

So apologies, perhaps I should have left out the "Irish" part and simply said that poor maintenance is the reason for the engine's bad reputation. The reason I say this is the fact that with the cars on our books there is a direct correlation between missing services and subsequent turbo failure.

I'm not trying to claim these engines are perfect. There are certainly more reliable 1.6 diesel engines out there. As I have posted here many times before, these engines have no tolerance for neglect. It is certainly true that this is poor design on the part of PSA. Anything that is designed for a perfect world scenario usually ends up being trouble. I reckon that if these engines had been designed with an extre litre or so of oil capacity then that would have made all the difference in terms of standing up to abuse.

I'm just trying to counterbalance the over the top criticism of them on this forum. There are literally thousands of these engines giving trouble free service all over the country. If they were as bad as reading this forum would have you believe then the roads would be littered with broken down DV6 engined cars.

Thanks for the reply George Apologies if I was a bit harsh.