Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
(8-16 oz) per 20,000 miles. So with 4.5, 20,000 mile intervals, the TOTAL oil consumption in 90,000 miles ranges from 1.125 to 2.25 qts. The nexus here with the gasser turbos is the (TDI)turbo.
VW engines have always had a reputation for consuming oil. As a result, it makes sense to check the oil levels at regular intervals. Another consequence, it makes almost no sense to do a LESS than 10,000 mile OCI. In effect if the consumption is 1000 miles per quart (or whatever), you have put up to 10 new (more or less of course) quarts during the 10,000 miles OCI. Indeed that is more than the 4.5 quarts or so that IS normally changed at 10,000 miles.
Sincerly,
Paul
Here is a movie that shows how to replace cabin filter.
My daughters 2001 Gulf also consumes oil the same way. She just carries a case of cheap oil in the trunk. My other daughter has a 2001 NewBeetle with 2.0 engine and it consumes NO oil at all.
Keep in mind this is NOT a problem per se, as long as you do not allow the oil to get low enough to cause damage, this is just an inconvenience.
"Where does it go" you ask? The answer is "out the tailpipe".
In my experience, there are several possibilities for the brakes to "drag" and cause overheating just after replacing the pads.
1) Air bubbles in the hydrolic system
2) Sticking calipers
3) Pad sliding-surfaces not properly filed smooth and lubed.
The "dragging" brakes very often show up just after replacing the pads.
If they "opened up" the hydrolic system, there is the possibility that some air got into the system. Air in the system is usually accompined with "spongy" pedal feel.
Another reason is because the calipers have to be pushed in to make room for the new pads. This forces the caliper pistons to be "working" in an area in which they were not previously.
Also, the sliding surfaces where the pads ride against can get "pitted" with use. If this pitting is not filed smooth, then the new pads can bind up. (thus not release)
You may also wish to ask about your brakes in the forum titled "Stop here! Let's talk about brakes"
Any chance I could fix this with a little duct tape?
Gotta love the DUCK.
Dave the Pirate.
does anybody have any idea how can I fix this issue.
Thanks,
:sick:
http://westfield-et.com/product_info.php?products_id=51
If it is low it might take a little extra revs to get enough pressure for the trans to be able to shift.
There are some transmission places that will test drive and put a scanner on it for little to no cost.
Have you looked in your owners-manual?
thanks
I'm not even sure this is what you need, since I can't hear the sound. Since you're going to need to buy a strut compressor anyway, and a workshop manual, you might think about just taking it to a shop that sells struts--of course they'll want to sell you the whole thing....an alignment shop might take a crack at it.
I own a 1999 New Jetta 2.0 Automatic, and i recently replaced the stock air box and filter with a performance cone air filter
i notice a difference in sound when accelerating the car, but cannot really notice a difference in horsepower, or gas mileage.....yet
i've been told by someone that this is not necessarily a good idea to have a cone in place of the stock air box, because the cone is more exposed to the heat of the engine compared to the air box and actually sucks in more hot air, thus having a NEGATIVE effect on the engine. that having the box protects the air coming into the engine more
others have told me that the air box "chokes" the engine of air and thus results in poor gas mileage and power and that the cone is the way to go
can anyone clarify any of this for me? should i just put the air box back in get a KnN filter? would this result in more HP and bring in somewhat cooler air compared to the cone just being out in the open?
both these people i've talked to seem to have pretty good points to back their arguments, but not sure which one i should agree with, i just wanted to see if any of you guys out there could help out a fellow VW driver :-)
any help and thoughts are greatly appreciated
thanks in advance
-Kay
Some negative effects of your "cone";
*)Suck in warm underhood air. (The stock system sucks in COLD air from front of grille)
*) If it is the "oiled guaze" type, the oil from it will DESTROY your Mass AirFlow meter.
It has actually been PROVEN with testing that the german-made filters are the best for your VW. The others simply do not contain the same amount of filtering material and they allow more crud to pass into your engine. There are websites you can review if you are interested in the details of these tests.
Also, you may actually get LESS horsepower with that "cone" because the warm underhood air will "fake out" the MAF thus forcing the computer to inject the wrong amount of fuel.
I am willing to bet that most of the folks you are listening to have been reading advertizments that try to SELL those cone filters. Unless you have highly modified your engine, the stock intake system is the best. It is a JOKE to think that the German engineers designed the airbox to choke the engine. Do not forget that the VERY SAME airbix is just fine with the VR6 engine and turbocharged engines that consume MASSIVE amounts of air.
UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES SHOULD YOU INSTALL ONE OF THOSE OILED GUAZE FILTERS (aka K&N)-- THE OIL FROM IT WILL DESTROY YOUR MASS AIRFLOW SENSOR!! -- (you have been warned)
If you want HORSEPOWER on the 2.0 engine - install one of the supercharger kits. (Then a "cone" may be needed)
If you want MPG - change your driving habits. (Or get the TDI engine which is over 50MPG)
A short pipe inside the engine might give you just a touch better throttle response but really this is a minimal positive effect, especially on small displacement engines.
I'd say either go back to the original stock system or buy a high quality cold-air system---and even with the latter, your HP "gain" is going to be very minimal, and at very high RPM.
Unless you couple the custom air intakes with other modifications to fuel system, engine internals and exhaust, it's pretty much a waste of money for the paltry gains in power IMO.
Truly it will work, but I would not recommend it. But to follow the already proffered advice. It is truly that good from the oem.
The (dirty) filtered side was as one would expect, dirty.
It is hard to ask for more trouble free maintenance!?
Partly true - a K&N filter can be used successfully without destroying the MAF sensor - the key is making sure that the filter isn't over-oiled - a common mistake made by those unfortunate few whose MAF sensors met their demise.
I don't use it personally. After months of researching performance filters for my car, I decided to keep the existing factory airbox and purchase an ITG panel filter for my chipped 1997 Jetta 2.0L. It's a high-flow filter with a dust retention rate of 99%. The ITG Panel filter (made in England) never needs washing or oiling (unlike the K&N) - the bottom half of the filter is pre-oiled from the factory (The oil that is used is somewhat thicker than the K&N oil). They recommend wiping the filter with a lint free cloth to remove the surface dirt, and then using a vacuum cleaner to remove the deeper particles at every engine service interval.
So far I've been using this filter for 15,000 miles, and there hasn't been any residue on my MAF (or on the top 1/2 of the filter), and the engine's pickup and response has improved greatly, without the excessive intake sound from the cone intakes.
That being said, I wouldn't try this on my 2003 1.8T. That car will use nothing but stock air filters. During discussions with my longtime VW mechanic, he mentioned that the Mk3 MAF sensors are less susceptable to contamination due to the quick heating time of the magnesium element (to 1000 degrees F). The MAF elements on the early MKIV cars, for some reason, didn't heat up as quickly, and as a result, failed because it wasn't hot enough to burn off any residue. The MAF was eventually redesigned for the later MKIV cars in order to heat up quicker for contaminant removal.
Stay tuned...
If you can get to a auto parts store they might be able to read the codes for you.
Our AutoZone does it for free and then can print out what each codes represents.
Had this done for my daughters 1998 Jetta.
Hopes this helps.
Once you have codes and what they are for then post again.
thanks again
If you want to replace the snowscreen... I would personally start at a salvage yard. All of the A4 VWs (except New Beetle) should have the same snowscreen.
THanks!
Also, your MAF sensor was part of another VW recall.Here is a copy of it If your MAF is not sensing the airflow properly, then it MAY be affecting the effecincy of yout catalyst.
You did not say how many miles are on your VW... have you read your FEDERAL EMMISSIONS WARANTEE that came with your car? All emmissions equipment is waranteed by law for 10 years / 100.000 miles. (for your 2001)
(The coilpacks and the catalyst are considerd emmissions equipment which are covered by federal law.)
My only suggestion would be for you to use high-temp SILICONE sealer (Available in tubes at autostores) instead of metallic epoxy.
I suggest this for 2 reasons;
1) Silicone is FLEXABLE and will not crack.
2) Anything metallic on a coilPack may be a source of arcing.
The repair shop says that the water pump needs to be replaced. He also said that small pieces of plastic could have broken off the pump and gotten into the radiator, so I should replace the radiator too.
My question is whether there is a real risk if I don't replace the radiator or is the mechanic trying to pull a fast one?
I have never heard of the impeller actually breaking apart causing plastic parts to plug up the radaitor. Besides....what do they do about all the engine passageways that might be plugged.
In other words, I would recommend replacing the waterpump with one of the quality METAL impellers. Also, since they have to remove the timing belt to do this, REPLACE the timing belt and assoiated pulleys / tensionors.
How many miles are on your 2000 Jetta?
Which engine do you have?
Has the timingbelt ever been replaced? (If yes, then they must have NOT done the job properly)
Personally, I am not convenced that your problem is really the waterpump.
It has 125K miles.
It's a 2L gas engine.
The timing belt has not been replaced.
If you don't think the problem is the waterpump, do you think it is with the timing belt, or do you think the thermostat is bad?
The cost of changing the timing belt is in the LABOR... it is comparativly cheap to replace the parts while it is torn apart. (Kits are available that contain ALL the replacable parts do do the job)
Now, this false sense of "saving a buck" has come back to byte you in the backside because it it sounding as if all that labor needs to be done again.