2017 Octavia vRS - Setting Longlife/Variable Servicing

[Stouffer]

Hi All,
Having some problems with a local dealership. As I purchased VCDS for this very situations - hoping the experts might be able to help.
I'm looking to set my car to Longlife/Variable Servicing 20,000 / 2yrs

When I purchased the car I asked them to do this - they failed and it asked for a service the following year.
Decided to get it done, once again asked them to set to variable, 12 months later "oil inspection" warnings once more.

I simply want the service intervals to be set as variable 20,000/2yrs (which both my previous Octavia's have been set to without issue).
Could anyone give me some pointers please?

 

[Uwe]

Just to be clear, is it this car?

Newbie VCDS user - Octavia vRS 2017 coding help

Hi knowledgeable forum members. New car purchased, a November 2017 Petrol Octy vRS so I decided to take the plunge and purchase VCDS. I've completed some quite basic modifications - tear drop wipe, British Summer Time for Columbus, that kind of thing. I'm now on to the more complicated...

forums.ross-tech.com

-Uwe-

PS: unsolicited editorial content: IMO it is a mistake not to change your oil once a year or at least every 10,000 miles.

 

[DV52]

PS: unsolicited editorial content: IMO it is a mistake not to change your oil once a year or at least every 10,000 miles.

I'm surprised! Why?

Purely from an efficiency perspective - what's wrong with determining the service interval based on a calculation of the ACTUAL deterioration of the car's lubricant (i.e. based on ACTUAL sensor information) - rather than based on a fixed interval? Particularly with modern oils.

As I understand, the ESI calculation has a healthy safety margin - so the risks are very small!

Unless the vehicle is operating in the most extreme environment - why throw away perfectly good oil (and incur needless personal expense and unwarranted environmental expense)?

Don

 

[DV52]

Hi All,
Having some problems with a local dealership. As I purchased VCDS for this very situations - hoping the experts might be able to help.
I'm looking to set my car to Longlife/Variable Servicing 20,000 / 2yrs

When I purchased the car I asked them to do this - they failed and it asked for a service the following year.
Decided to get it done, once again asked them to set to variable, 12 months later "oil inspection" warnings once more.

I simply want the service intervals to be set as variable 20,000/2yrs (which both my previous Octavia's have been set to without issue).
Could anyone give me some pointers please?

@Stouffer Hi.

Depending on your view of Uwe's response regarding the validity of Audi/VW ESI facility (which has been around since late 2000 according to SSP 224 - try this:

Hex 17 module - Adaptation
IDE00512-ESI: minimum value km-driving distance/inspection > *15000 km
IDE00513-ESI: maximum value km-driving distance/inspection > 20000 km
IDE00514-ESI: maximum value of time between inspections > 720 d
IDE00827-ESI: minimum value of time between inspections > *365d
IDE00515-ESI: oil quality > good oil quality

Don
EDIT: * - values set to same as "FIX" service interval

 

[Uwe]

Purely from an efficiency perspective - what's wrong with determining the service interval based on a calculation of the ACTUAL deterioration of the car's lubricant (i.e. based on ACTUAL sensor information) - rather than based on a fixed interval? Particularly with modern oils.

Where are these sensors that measure oil deterioration and what exactly do they measure?

-Uwe-

 

[DV52]

@Uwe: Thanks. Arrhh..............now I see your point!!

If the vehicle comes with the PR number “QG1", then Shirely we both must agree that the calculation can be properly done - and in this case, ESI is a more efficient method for determining the lubricant's useful life.

For those cars that do not have the PR number (i.e. where ESI is a tweak) - then your point is valid for the missing sensors. However, I would assume that the calculation still gets done in this instance, but that since input from the missing sensors is zero, the contribution-benefit of the associated variables doesn't add/subtract to service interval. Many (most?) modern cars are fitted with an oil temperature sensor and ALL cars have coolant temperature sensors - albeit facilities like the oil level sensor may be missing. And, SSP 224 identifies a bevy of other sensors that lots of cars have fitted and that contribute to the calculation (i.e. seedometer, fuel consumption sensor, brake-pad thickness sensor etc).

I certainly do not know how the sensors contribute to the calculation and what aspect of the transducer measurement is used for ESI. But -would you agree that a way of dealing with those cars that do not have the PR number is to set IDE00512-ESI: minimum value km-driving distance/inspection and IDE00827-ESI: minimum value of time between inspections to the standard "FIX" values, but to set the "maximum" ESI channels to a higher number - assuming that this means that the calculation will yield no difference if ALL sensors are missing, but that there may be some benefit in service interval extension from those sensors that are fitted (whatever those sensors might be - I don't know)? Or do you believe that my suggestion will not achieve any difference between FIX and ESI facilities because the PR number is missing?

Don

 

[morris39]

I'm surprised! Why?

Purely from an efficiency perspective - what's wrong with determining the service interval based on a calculation of the ACTUAL deterioration of the car's lubricant (i.e. based on ACTUAL sensor information) - rather than based on a fixed interval? Particularly with modern oils.

As I understand, the ESI calculation has a healthy safety margin - so the risks are very small!

Unless the vehicle is operating in the most extreme environment - why throw away perfectly good oil (and incur needless personal expense and unwarranted environmental expense)?

Don

On my MY15 S3 the audi service interval information (accessed from the SRI Reset Menu) reports oil condition as poor after 2000 km of use but I only tested once. I ignore that advice, chang oil at 7500 km intervals

 

[Stouffer]

Hi,
Thank you for the replies.
Firstly - thanks DV52, I'll take a look at those adaptations once I get home from work this evening.

So this is actually my third Octy vRS (I know, obviously a bit of a fan - having had a Mk2, Mk2 - Facelift and now the current Mk3 Facelift). My previous two I had on variable servicing and they usually came up around the 18,000 - 19,000 mark.
There do appear to be plenty of people advising a service every 12,000 miles - I'm just convinced that isn't required, with the massive advances in synthetic oils, I don't believe that it needs doing that often.
Obviously I can turn around and say I've never had any issues with the 18k - 20k intervals and I'd be truthful if I said it - the Mk2 having an ABS sensor fail being the biggest issue and the Mk2.5 requiring a new inlet manifold - both "known issues" on the respective model and I'm sure not contributed to by my oil change regime.

I get used to every service being treated as "major" as opposed to the Minor./Major/Minor/Major flip you do each year on the standard regime.

 

[Stouffer]

Just to be clear, is it this car?

Newbie VCDS user - Octavia vRS 2017 coding help

Hi knowledgeable forum members. New car purchased, a November 2017 Petrol Octy vRS so I decided to take the plunge and purchase VCDS. I've completed some quite basic modifications - tear drop wipe, British Summer Time for Columbus, that kind of thing. I'm now on to the more complicated...

forums.ross-tech.com

-Uwe-

PS: unsolicited editorial content: IMO it is a mistake not to change your oil once a year or at least every 10,000 miles.

Sorry - and yes, this is the car in question:
2017 Octavia vRS, Manual Petrol.

 

[Uwe]

I'm just convinced that isn't required, with the massive advances in synthetic oils, I don't believe that it needs doing that often.

What massive advance? I think oils today are actually worse than they used to be. Many of the friction-reducing and EP (extreme pressure) additives they previously contained have been removed or reduced because they aren't good for the various emissions-cleaning components (DPFs, GPFs, SCR CATs, etc).

Then there's the fact that we used to have oils specific to diesel or gasoline applications, and now we have "Universal" oils that are ostensibly good for both, despite the fact that the contaminates that end up in the oil are quite different?

And lastly, we're now using absurdly thin oils like 0w20 because that brings some marginal increase in engine efficiency. Of course the manufacturers need this because they have government-imposed fuel economy or C02 emission fleet averages to meet.

There's no doubt it my mind that you'll make it through the warranty period if you use an oil that meets the manufacturers specs and change it when the car tells you to. But will your engine make it to 200,000 or 300,000 miles that way? I'm skeptical. Of course if you trade in ("upgrade") your car every few years, this may not matter to you. But to a person who wants to keep a car "forever" it should.

-Uwe-

PS: I apologize for the digression. It's your car. Do as you wish with it.

 

[MartinsX]

I agree with Uwe and I have something more to say in "service interval" theme, but I think this is not the right place for that...
OP had just technical question how to set service intervals to ones he want. And finally he got an answer. Case closed

 

[DV52]

hmm..... @Uwe (et al supporters of Uwe's positon)...... forgive my continuing skepticism on this matter, but there is a fundamental question in this debate worth considering IMHO; If ESI deniers are correct and if this facility is ultimately detrimental to the car's longevity (which at best can only truthfully be defined as a position of faith - because the hypothesis is extremely difficult to prove) - why did VAG introduce the facility in 2000?

Clearly ESI is antithetical to VAG's driver for increased dealer income - so it runs counter to the Board's prime directive; profit . Shirley ESI deniers can't possibly believe in the conspiracy theory that VAG's incentive was to make sure that their cars have lowered longevity? If this was true, clearly there must be far better ways of achieving this objective without affecting dealer profits!

And if the underlying hypothesis is true -given the intervening 20 year period since the introduction of ESI, wouldn't we be seeing early evidence of systemic lubricant related failures?

I'm trying to keep an open mind - but It just doesn't make logical sense - IMHO

Don

 

[Uwe]

wouldn't we be seeing early evidence of systemic lubricant related failures?

Maybe we should ask @Jack@European_Parts if he's ever seen any lubricant-related failures?

-Uwe-

 

[Jack@European_Parts]

Don Said....

truthfully be defined as a position of faith

WHAT truth and faith in WHAT?

Maybe we should ask @Jack@European_Parts if he's ever seen any lubricant-related failures?

-Uwe-

Holy shit this site has ESP ears......

RING RING, THE RINGS of the VAG four ring circus, ladies and gentlemen get ready for the show?
Are not the mere pervasive failures and need for so many TSB's with what are some type of "ISupdateIS" or revision self evident?

Just what IS IT ALL IS when no EDR by ORVR?

 

[DV52]

@Jack@European_Parts

Jack : It's been a while since last we spoke, thanks for responding - but you are going to have to help me here!!

Assume that I'm a rank moron with an IQ in the lower quartile of the normal distribution curve - which ain't far from the truth!! What are the acronyms in your post and how do they SPECIFICALLY apply to the subject matter in discussion?

I've absolutely no doubt that someone with your vast years of experience (and enviable expertise) has seen countless " lubricant-related failures". Just as I'm sure that you have also seen numerous other faults on VAG cars that can be grouped into various other categories. So, the sheer fact that a mechanic/master-technician of your standing and expertise has seen many "lubricant-related failures" is of itself, not remarkable in any way IMO

Again, for the SPECIFIC purpose of the matter under discussion - why do you believe that the wealth of "lubricant-related failures" that you have witnessed is PARTICULARLY linked to the car having ESI facility enabled?

And, especially for a litigious country like America and given the recent profile of VAG's "diesel-gate" fiasco - if there is substantive evidence of SYSTEMIC failure resulting from ESI causing reduced car longevity , why aren't the courts awash with legal action?

And finally, I ask again - why has VAG persisted in retaining this facility for 20 years when it has clearly resulted in loss of revenue for its dealer franchises (and its major benefit is to prematurely destroy the car's engine)?

Don

WHAT truth and faith in WHAT?

With the deepest respect - In this case, both mean a valid hypothesis based on clear evidence of the link between ESI and premature engine failure. It means a fact based theory that explains why ESI continues to be used after two decades on VAG vehicles despite evidence to the contrary and it means an explanation as to why millions of consumers around the world have simply accepted reduced engine longevity without action in the courts and without comment in public media (other than comment on this thread, of course)!!

 

[Uwe]

why do you believe that the wealth of "lubricant-related failures" that you have witnessed is PARTICULARLY linked to the car having ESI facility enabled?

It won't be particularly due to that, since NAR model cars are all on fixed intervals from the factory, and modern ones are almost all at 10,000 miles / 1 year.

However, I'm fairly confident Jack's opinion may be that even 10,000 miles is too long, but it may also depend on how the car is used.

-Uwe-

 

[DV52]

It won't be particularly due to that, since NAR model cars are all on fixed intervals from the factory, and modern ones are almost all at 10,000 miles / 1 year.

However, I'm fairly confident Jack's opinion may be that even 10,000 miles is too long, but it may also depend on how the car is used.

-Uwe-

@Uwe: forgive me -but I just couldn't resist emphasizing the bolded bit in your reply (which of course is exactly the objective of ESI).

 

[Jack@European_Parts]

Synthetic oil lubricants fail to stick to chains and tensioners or rails like SAE or thicker viscosity versions right?

As a result of aforementioned does not the same happen to zylinder rings & pistons due to further lack of materials to hold piston uniform in bore or rings against bore since the oil fails to stick , doesn't this result in planned obsolescence or is it failure to make DF "Deterioration Factor" of useful life or a vicarious warranty offense in the USA?

Combine this with each valve train stem being contaminated with oil and residual intake valve pooling is purported by overlap process further results in carbon build up, right?

Then don't blow by gasses as a result and worse in forced induction vehicles, the aforementioned diluted lubricants make way to oil pooling in some not all applications the TV flap resulting in misfire, in addition to oil pooling in intake or at intake flaps to exacerbate a misfire or need for carbon reclaimtion services that generate income for dealer service centers by unjust enrichment scheme & since should be under useful life warranty, since at least here are not a maintenance requirement now are they in repair manual or ROW?


Further from inadequate reclaiming of gasses, pervasive PCV/EVAP failure and is clearly documented is it not?

Due to this poor seal & everytime an engine is started fuel and water enter the sump do they not?

Do you think fuel leaking pervasively out of the HPP or being sucked into the intake directly by failed evap system, has anything to do with sump contaminated or ethanol based fuels that corrode and or displaces incompatible plastic ( such as PA12 etc.) used in fuel systems or adjuster bridges & that fails to comport with requirements of known types of fuels commercially available or worse willfully neglegant at time of certification & would this have anything to do with fuel injectors development of the clap like a Cheech and Chong infomercial?

Are not these aforementioned questions selfevident or a wet dream for a shyster lawyer seeking summary judgment?

Indeed Don your questions are as good as mine, well aren't they?

Like COVID does not everyone have to do their part, wear a mask, wear a condom, change your fucking oil and wash your hands regularly, continue education by forum employing social distancing?

 

[Uwe]

@Uwe: forgive me -but I just couldn't resist emphasizing the bolded bit in your reply (which of course is exactly the objective of ESI).

Yes, ESI does try to take how the vehicle is used into account, but that doesn't change my opinion that its recommendations for oil changes are generally too dang long, both in terms of time and mileage.

why has VAG persisted in retaining this facility for 20 years when it has clearly resulted in loss of revenue for its dealer franchises

Yes, dealers make their money selling parts and service. But what fraction of oil changes are actually done at a dealer, particularly after the warranty has expired? OTOH, VAG makes their money selling new cars.....

-Uwe-

 

[Jack@European_Parts]

Yes, dealers make their money selling parts and service. But what fraction of oil changes are actually done at a dealer, particularly after the warranty has expired? OTOH, VAG makes their money selling new cars.....

-Uwe-

Right this way sir, come up to the showroom, we can't offer you much of a trade now & that essentially your car is in fragments on the floor "CURBED", is it NOT?

5 minutes in.......for the big smile to service the account.