1.6 HDI/TDCIs - overall reliability

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.

JohnBoy26

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.

To be fair to George he is a valued member of boards and does give some good advice on here. I think your post is a bit unfair to words him.

Bpmull

I had a 1.6 tdci focus for a little over a year 40000 km although there was no one major thing went wrong like a turbo It was constant little niggles which still were quiet expensive to put right in some cases. Seemed to leak oil from everywhere I had to replace a lot of oil seals and hoses and stuff. The car broke down 3 times and by that stage I was just paranoid about it breaking down or a major costly repair like a turbo or injectors. When I sold it I figured life was too short to be sitting broken down and constantly trying to fix stupid problems.

My uncle had a c4 with that engine and he is absolutely obsessed with maintenance worse than me. He serviced his every 6k km and minded it like a baby still he had replaced injectors, egr and turbo before 140k km and that one had a really good service history even before he got it only ever proper 5w30 oil and all that.

I was completly neutral on ford and the Psa engine before getting the focus. But I won't be buying anything with that 1.6 Psa engine again. Seems like a few on here have been lucky with them. I'd just prefer something with better odds.

CJhaughey

Old diesel wrote: »

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

Yes that has a micro gauze screen in it that clogs and starves the turbo causing early retirement, There is a revised bolt that has a full length gauze screen,but I wouldn't be putting my faith in that either, other design features that aren't great are the sump allowing oil to remain even when drained with the bolt removed.
If you do the turbo you have to strip the engine more or less down to the short block and very very carefully clean the rest of the lubrication system or replace the pipe work.
Even then there is a possibility that unseen carbon deposits in the engine could come loose over time and cause turbo failure.

road_high

Bpmull wrote: »

I had a 1.6 tdci focus for a little over a year 40000 km although there was no one major thing went wrong like a turbo It was constant little niggles which still were quiet expensive to put right in some cases. Seemed to leak oil from everywhere I had to replace a lot of oil seals and hoses and stuff. The car broke down 3 times and by that stage I was just paranoid about it breaking down or a major costly repair like a turbo or injectors. When I sold it I figured life was too short to be sitting broken down and constantly trying to fix stupid problems.

My uncle had a c4 with that engine and he is absolutely obsessed with maintenance worse than me. He serviced his every 6k km and minded it like a baby still he had replaced injectors, egr and turbo before 140k km and that one had a really good service history even before he got it only ever proper 5w30 oil and all that.

I was completly neutral on ford and the Psa engine before getting the focus. But I won't be buying anything with that 1.6 Psa engine again. Seems like a few on here have been lucky with them. I'd just prefer something with better odds.

I had an s40 with this engine and had a similar experience. Oil leaks, egr valves and various turbo pipes leaking. All €100s to replace and repair. I sincerely hope they've improved it in more recent models.