Auto Wipers

On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 11:51:20 +0100, "David Skelton"
> wrote:

>
>>>There are loads of failed BMW diesel engines due to the extended oil change, and the
>>>way
>>>they are driven by company car drivers.
>>>Google 'BMW swirl flaps' and you will find out more.
>>
>> Having done that, it would appear that the swirl flaps themselves and
>> the local actuator are not in contact with engine oil so I'm somewhat
>> confused how the swirlflap issue relates to engine oil.
>>
>
>Recirculated exhaust gasses containing crankcase oil vapours, over time clogging up the
>EGR valve and building up on the flaps.

No..in a diesel, oil in the exhaust will be entirely made up of
unburnt diesel not engine oil. Any tiny amounts of engine oil will be
completely and massively irrelevant compared to the unburnt diesel oil
quantities.

>Crankcase oil unable to function correctly because of contamination due to the way the
>car is driven, and extended oil changes.

See above.

>Also, oil baking on the turbo spindle and creating seal leaks when the engine is shut
>down without an idling period after a 'blast'. Even synthetic oil will carbonise when it
>gets too hot. I have seen turbo charger casings glow red hot, that is above 700 degrees
>C.

Indeed but I'd suggest that isn't the fault of the oil and more the
impossible situation it's put in by an ignorant driver. I've never had
any turbo problems. My last car had a VNT turbo and used
semi-synthetic 10W40 - no oil-related problem ever. Stopping an engine
with a red hot turbo is abuse in my books. However, leaving your
engine idling in the UK can be illegal so I would not expect this
advice in vehicle instruction manuals.

>>>Imagine a trip of 11 miles with light traffic in ambient temperature of about 8 degrees
>>>C, would you expect the radiator fan to be running ? I found that the cooling system of
>>>that car serioulsy restricted. The car was two years old with 35,000 miles on it,
>>>bought
>>>second-hand with full main dealer service history.
>>
>> Yep..sounds exactly like my trip to work.
>
>But does your radiator cooling fan run at the time when the car is not enthusiastically
>driven ???????????

I would be prepared to believe someone who told me my fan never
operated to cool the engine. It never did on previous non-aircon cars
I owned - even in the traffic I have to deal with. It's not easy to
tell with the 325d as it doesn't have an engine temperature gauge and
I run the A/C all the time which uses the fan quite a lot.

>>>If using cheap fuel,
>>
>> Not in the UK.. :-(
>
>Supermarket fuel is what I mean...

There's far too much smoke and mirrors in that debate. I treat fuel as
fuel and get it wherever and whenever is convenient and cheapest.
Supermarkets here tend to compete with local oil company franchises
and the bizarre result is that I can regularly get Shell cheaper than
Tesco round here. I've not been convinced by the cheap/expensive fuel
debate - particularly for diesel.

>>>then the cars are more likely to smoke. Have you never been behind a
>>>car whose driver used the accelerator as a switch ?? Full on, or nothing. It's very
>>>frustrating driving through clouds of particulate matter.
>>
>> Last time I saw much of that was years ago when some manufacturers
>> toyed with direct injection diesel before common rail. Economical but
>> smoky!!
>>
>
>I see it every day down here ....

Maybe I should try specsavers..

>>>Common rail or not. They still
>>>smoke if driven poorly, maintained poorly and cheap fuel used to fill it up.
>>
>> So can petrol cars fitting those criteria. Indeed, it's petrol exhaust
>> that I find more irritating to my nose and lungs than diesel these
>> days (even before DPFs).
>>
>
>Not all diesels have DPFs today.
>But, I agree, old carburettor engines in poor tune, or with too much 'choke' irritate my
>breathing too.

What's a carburetor? Last time I had one of those was in..er..1980?
Fuel injection when the engine is cold goes for my nose.

>>>> At this point, it's your desires against BMWs claims.
>>>
>>>BMWs claims are to enable them to sell as many cars as possible. Hence, the poetic
>>>licence in their advertising.
>>
>> There's a difference between poetic licence and lying. BMW also have a
>> reputation to try and protect. You don't sell as many cars as possible
>> by destroying your reputation as a builder. Ask, Lancia.
>
>BMW do lie in their advertising:
>In electrical engineering terms, Brake Energy Regeneration is nothing like what is
>happening with BMW Efficient Dynamics.

Don't they recover energy from the alternator on some models when
braking? On mine ED seems to be an indicator that tells me to change
up a gear at 1300rpm..

>"BMW also have a reputation to try and protect", yes, that is why they advise you how to
>run-in their engines.
>But most of their reputation is in the minds of the public due to effective advertising.
>Just like VW, whose vehicles are not as reliable as people are made to believe.

Actually I haven't thought of VW as reliable for over 10 years now. In
the same way, I don't believe Merc quality has been that good for a
number of years either and Audi appear to be slipping. It's just that
owning a BMW, I do genuinely get the feeling that someone at BMW cares
just a little more than the equivalent person at other German car
manufacturers.

>That is not a statement about BMW reliability, but about brand perception.
>
>
>>>> 20 years ago, I knew a chap that drove his Fiat for 80,000 miles
>>>> without an oil change. If junk like that could survive such extreme
>>>> oil abuse (rust eventually killed that car) then I could *believe* a
>>>> modern long life oil in a modern engine doing 30,000 miles without
>>>> harm as long as it was done with long distance, oil-friendly driving.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Fiat actually make reasonable engines. The gearboxes and electrics fail if the tin worm
>>>does not strike first.
>>
>> They also invented common rail diesel but it would be a brave man that
>> said Fiat engines were better than BMW ones. As far as I know, Fiat
>> gearboxes and electrics are ok these days. Certainly, from personal
>> experience, my last Fiat 5 speed manual was a significantly sweeter
>> box than my current 6 speed BMW one. Aren't Fiats galvanised now too?
>
>You are twisting my responses, I did not write that they are better than BMW engines, I
>wrote that they make reasonable engines.

No. With you're reply, you implied that the reason the Fiat engine
went 80,000 miles without an oil change was because they made
reasonable engines. However, from what you've been saying earlier
about BMW engines, you don't think a BMW engine would cope with that
treatment.

>The Fiats I have had had failed electronic parts and gearboxes, and rust too.

Not recently though?

>>>I've never found anyone would do a job properly, and with due care, if they were not
>>>watched at the time.
>>
>> There's certainly a truth in there.
>>
>>>For the record, I am a victim of Autistic Spectrum Disorder.
>>
>> I'm sorry to say I had to look that one up. I'm glad to see no
>> evidence of it in your writing!
>
>Yes, because most info out there relates to kids, not mid-forty year olds. We still
>learn, but differently. I delete more than I let stay in my posts.

LOL..maybe you're a bit more normal than you think.

>>>Yes, I probably am paranoid too.
>>
>> Ah ha.. ;-)
>
>I'm am not worried about admitting mental illness. I have seen many types of 'trick
>cyclists', most of whom are out of their depth.

Here's one who isn't..ride with it..some of his stuff is staggering.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z19zFlPah-o

--
Z

In article >,
David Skelton > wrote:
> I would not use Castrol oil ever again. In my experience, it is *not* a
> good oil. (Experience of: GTX, Magnetec, SLX and SLX III)

Describe the problems you had.

> I have it on good authority that Castrol pay both BMW and Audi to
> endorse their oil.

Commercial deals like this have little bearing on the product. Unless of
course BMW and Audi are going to risk warranty claims by specifying an
unsuitable product.

--
*For every action, there is an equal and opposite criticism *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

>>Recirculated exhaust gasses containing crankcase oil vapours, over time clogging up the
>>EGR valve and building up on the flaps.
>
> No..in a diesel, oil in the exhaust will be entirely made up of
> unburnt diesel not engine oil. Any tiny amounts of engine oil will be
> completely and massively irrelevant compared to the unburnt diesel oil
> quantities.

No, you are wrong...

Engine oil enters the combustion process from worn rings, worn valve stem oil seals, the
PCV system, thrashing the engine from cold, and from damaged / worn turbo seals
especially in engines run on the incorrect oil spec.
This oil burns differently to diesel oil and leaves carbon deposits behind.


>>Crankcase oil unable to function correctly because of contamination due to the way the
>>car is driven, and extended oil changes.
>
> See above.
>
>>Also, oil baking on the turbo spindle and creating seal leaks when the engine is shut
>>down without an idling period after a 'blast'. Even synthetic oil will carbonise when
>>it
>>gets too hot. I have seen turbo charger casings glow red hot, that is above 700 degrees
>>C.
>
> Indeed but I'd suggest that isn't the fault of the oil and more the
> impossible situation it's put in by an ignorant driver.

Yes, indeed.

> I've never had
> any turbo problems. My last car had a VNT turbo

Lots of manufacturers (including Alfa on the 1.9d) used the Garrett GT1749V turbo without
the problems BMW had with them on the 320d, before the modification in the early mid
2000s.

>and used semi-synthetic 10W40 - no oil-related problem ever. Stopping an engine
> with a red hot turbo is abuse in my books.

Yes, exactly.


> However, leaving your
> engine idling in the UK can be illegal so I would not expect this
> advice in vehicle instruction manuals.

Leaving the car with the engine running and unattended on the public road is against the
law in the UK, and recently, leaving the engine idling unnecessarily has appeared in the
Highway Code to be illegal if the car is not under some sort of repair or testing purpose
whilst stationary on a public road (rule 123).

It has been the advice in some car handbooks I have had. But I would not advocate leaving
the engine running for longer than 3 minutes anyway. That is enough time for the turbo
spindle to shed speed and heat loading.


>
>>>>Imagine a trip of 11 miles with light traffic in ambient temperature of about 8
>>>>degrees
>>>>C, would you expect the radiator fan to be running ? I found that the cooling system
>>>>of
>>>>that car serioulsy restricted. The car was two years old with 35,000 miles on it,
>>>>bought
>>>>second-hand with full main dealer service history.
>>>
>>> Yep..sounds exactly like my trip to work.
>>
>>But does your radiator cooling fan run at the time when the car is not enthusiastically
>>driven ???????????
>
> I would be prepared to believe someone who told me my fan never
> operated to cool the engine.
>It never did on previous non-aircon cars I owned

I bet it did

>- even in the traffic
>I have to deal with.

More people live in the Home Counties than in the whole of Scotland.
I would find it hard to believe the traffic could be worse where you are.

> It's not easy to
> tell with the 325d as it doesn't have an engine temperature gauge

For some time now, temperature gauges have not indicated the actual engine temperature,
but what the ECU thinks you need to know, so to speak.

> and
> I run the A/C all the time which uses the fan quite a lot.


I never use A/C.
I have breathing difficulties that are made worse by cooled dry air, and it wastes fuel.


>>>>If using cheap fuel,
>>>
>>> Not in the UK.. :-(
>>
>>Supermarket fuel is what I mean...
>
> There's far too much smoke and mirrors in that debate. I treat fuel as
> fuel

It is certainly not

>and get it wherever and whenever is convenient and cheapest.
> Supermarkets here tend to compete with local oil company franchises
> and the bizarre result is that I can regularly get Shell cheaper than
> Tesco round here.
>I've not been convinced by the cheap/expensive fuel
> debate - particularly for diesel.

You will if you continue to use supermarket fuel extensively.

Shell is cheaper here (southern England) than some supermarkets too.
But in my own tests (petrol), I did not get a good MPG using Shell petrol. I get about 4%
better with two others.


>>>>then the cars are more likely to smoke. Have you never been behind a
>>>>car whose driver used the accelerator as a switch ?? Full on, or nothing. It's very
>>>>frustrating driving through clouds of particulate matter.
>>>
>>> Last time I saw much of that was years ago when some manufacturers
>>> toyed with direct injection diesel before common rail. Economical but
>>> smoky!!
>>>
>>
>>I see it every day down here ....
>
> Maybe I should try specsavers..
>
>>>>Common rail or not. They still
>>>>smoke if driven poorly, maintained poorly and cheap fuel used to fill it up.
>>>
>>> So can petrol cars fitting those criteria. Indeed, it's petrol exhaust
>>> that I find more irritating to my nose and lungs than diesel these
>>> days (even before DPFs).
>>>
>>
>>Not all diesels have DPFs today.
>>But, I agree, old carburettor engines in poor tune, or with too much 'choke' irritate
>>my
>>breathing too.
>
> What's a carburetor? Last time I had one of those was in..er..1980?
> Fuel injection when the engine is cold goes for my nose.

?????
There are still plenty of carb cars down here.


>>BMW do lie in their advertising:
>>In electrical engineering terms, Brake Energy Regeneration is nothing like what is
>>happening with BMW Efficient Dynamics.
>
> Don't they recover energy from the alternator on some models when
> braking?

Recover energy from the alternator ?? The alternator does not store energy. The
alternator does not create energy. It converts kinetic energy from the engine (from
burning fossil fuels) into electricity, and supposedly, on the over run. There would
never be enough energy converted from the vehicle's kinetic energy to charge the battery
using the time spent braking only. One is not braking for long enough.

Only when the battery is nearly fully charged will it only charge only on the over run,
not just when braking. It is monitored by the IBS and instructed via the Can-Bus how much
charge to deliver.
Most of the time, in traffic with your A/C on, ICE on, lights on, wipers on if it is
raining, brake lights on (if your are in breach of the Highway Code while stationary),
the battery wil be recieving charge from the alternator.

>On mine ED seems to be an indicator that tells me to change
> up a gear at 1300rpm..

Efficient Dynamics:

Brake Energy Regeneration: ( this is driving a motor in reverse bias as a generator) not
what BMWs do.

Active Aerodynamics: some BMWs have a device that looks like a Venetian Blind behind
the grill to speed the engine warm up time, and to reduce the co-efficient of drag at
higher speeds. The vents vary their opening according to how much heat the engine needs
to lose.

Lightweight Engineering: obviously to reduce weight, improving driving dynamics and
reduce fuel consumption.

Electric Power Steering: to reduce parasitic drag on the engine when not required.
Servotronic varies the amount of assistance given.

Gear Change / Optimum Shift Indicator: you know what that is for, manual 'boxes only.

Auto Stop Start: manuals (and, initially, 4 cylinder cars only). Does not work if you do
not shift into neutral and apply the handbrake when stopped. Also, a switch on the dash
turns it off if you do not want it to stop / start.

Reduced Rolling Resistance: really !!! If it was BMWs desire to reduce rolling
resistance, they would not offer such large wheel tyre combos. A wider tyre has a larger
rolling resistance.

Low Friction Fluids: is there a high friction fluid found in a cars drivetrain ...?

The different models have different variations fitted to the cars. Our (August) 2009 335d
only has one of these functions. That is the "Brake Energy Regeneration", nothing else.


>
>>"BMW also have a reputation to try and protect", yes, that is why they advise you how
>>to
>>run-in their engines.
>>But most of their reputation is in the minds of the public due to effective
>>advertising.
>>Just like VW, whose vehicles are not as reliable as people are made to believe.
>
> Actually I haven't thought of VW as reliable for over 10 years now.

When I used work for VAG (early nineties), I found that they were just the same as other
makes.

>In the same way, I don't believe Merc quality has been that good for a
> number of years either and Audi appear to be slipping.

Checked Mercedes out before changing every BMW (on the fifth one now). Not impressed, at
all.
Have had two Audis, build quality is not as good as the sheep motoring press gush out.
I've seen better quality plastics on a Lego brick, and a Citroen, and a Fiat.

>It's just that owning a BMW, I do genuinely get the feeling that someone at BMW cares
> just a little more than the equivalent person at other German car
> manufacturers.

I do not get that feeling. When improvements that could be made are suggested, one is
brushed aside.


>>>>> 20 years ago, I knew a chap that drove his Fiat for 80,000 miles
>>>>> without an oil change. If junk like that could survive such extreme
>>>>> oil abuse (rust eventually killed that car) then I could *believe* a
>>>>> modern long life oil in a modern engine doing 30,000 miles without
>>>>> harm as long as it was done with long distance, oil-friendly driving.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Fiat actually make reasonable engines. The gearboxes and electrics fail if the tin
>>>>worm
>>>>does not strike first.
>>>
>>> They also invented common rail diesel but it would be a brave man that
>>> said Fiat engines were better than BMW ones. As far as I know, Fiat
>>> gearboxes and electrics are ok these days. Certainly, from personal
>>> experience, my last Fiat 5 speed manual was a significantly sweeter
>>> box than my current 6 speed BMW one. Aren't Fiats galvanised now too?
>>
>>You are twisting my responses, I did not write that they are better than BMW engines, I
>>wrote that they make reasonable engines.
>
> No. With you're reply, you implied that the reason the Fiat engine
> went 80,000 miles without an oil change was because they made
> reasonable engines. However, from what you've been saying earlier
> about BMW engines, you don't think a BMW engine would cope with that
> treatment.

I meant that I was not surprised. I've never had a problem with a Fiat engine, but I did
with their gearboxes and electrics, and rust.
In general, someone whom buys a cheaper car does not give it their best care, more exotic
machinery needs better care.

You are the one whom said "junk like that".
I think it more that the owner / driver is the deciding factor on how long the car engine
lasts.

I do not think modern BMWs would be at their best if no oil changes + filter were
performed for 80,000 miles, nor many others that were given the punishment that most BMWs
get from their drivers.
I also do not think a modern Fiat could last 80,000 miles without an oil + filter change
either.

With modern engines, there is far more stress placed upon the oil than used to be the
case.
Extended oil drains coupled with tighter emission standards, improved fuel economy, and
reduced sump quantities mean that the oil is asked a lot more of than used to be the
case. Good oil condition is vital to the correct functioning of the engine. When the
engine is new, the mating surfaces are the worse they could be causing elevated oil
contamination.


>
>>The Fiats I have had had failed electronic parts and gearboxes, and rust too.
>
> Not recently though?

No

regards

David Skelton



--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

<GRIN>

DAS

To reply directly replace 'nospam' with 'schmetterling'
--
"Zathras" > wrote in message
...
[...]
> I think you might be slightly overestimating the power I have over oil
> companies there.
>
> --
> Z

Regrettably the SMMT (Soc of Motor Manufacturers and Traders) does not break
its publicly available stats down by model.

Sales by marque are he

http://www.smmt.co.uk/dataservices/v...istrations.cfm

I do not think the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) gives anything
free.

DAS

To reply directly replace 'nospam' with 'schmetterling'
--
"Zathras" > wrote in message
...
[...]
> I know what you're saying but in the UK, apparently, there are more
> BMW 3 series cars sold than Mondeos, and although I've not checked,
> that might be the same for other cars on your list too. Regardless, in
> the UK a BMW 3 series cannot possibly be far from middle of the road
> if it isn't exactly middle of the road. This wasn't the case a few
> years ago.
>
[...]

"Dave Plowman (News)" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> David Skelton > wrote:
>> I would not use Castrol oil ever again. In my experience, it is *not* a
>> good oil. (Experience of: GTX, Magnetec, SLX and SLX III)
>
> Describe the problems you had.

I think people could have different experiences of the same product, so some might agree,
some will disagree.

>
>> I have it on good authority that Castrol pay both BMW and Audi to
>> endorse their oil.
>
> Commercial deals like this have little bearing on the product. Unless of
> course BMW and Audi are going to risk warranty claims by specifying an
> unsuitable product.

Agreed, but it is my preference not to use it.

Best regards

David Skelton


>
> --
> *For every action, there is an equal and opposite criticism *
>
> Dave Plowman London SW
> To e-mail, change noise into sound.



--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 15:06:45 +0100, "David Skelton"
> wrote:

>
>"Dave Plowman (News)" > wrote in message
...
>> In article >,
>> David Skelton > wrote:
>>> I would not use Castrol oil ever again. In my experience, it is *not* a
>>> good oil. (Experience of: GTX, Magnetec, SLX and SLX III)
>>
>> Describe the problems you had.
>
>I think people could have different experiences of the same product, so some might agree,
>some will disagree.

That poor quality reply to a very reasonable question damages your
credibility. Why is Castrol not good? There must be a reason..

--
Z

Zathras > wrote:
>On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 15:06:45 +0100, "David Skelton"
> wrote:
>>"Dave Plowman (News)" > wrote in message
>>> In article >,
>>> David Skelton > wrote:
>>>> I would not use Castrol oil ever again. In my experience, it is *not* a
>>>> good oil. (Experience of: GTX, Magnetec, SLX and SLX III)
>>>
>>> Describe the problems you had.
>>
>>I think people could have different experiences of the same product, so some might agree,
>>some will disagree.
>
>That poor quality reply to a very reasonable question damages your
>credibility. Why is Castrol not good? There must be a reason..

In the case of Castrol in the US, they sell an enormous range of products
varying from bad to excellent.

If you look at the "Castrol Syntec" line, for instance, you will see that
all of the different viscosities are actually totally different formulations.
The 5W-40 meets the current BMW specs and is a "true synthetic" oil by
European standards... the 5W-50 has a different base oil and could not be
sold as a synthetic in Europe although it's considered a synthetic oil by
the FTC here in America.

Unfortunately something similar happens even with the low-cost GTX line of
oils.... different service specifications at the different viscosities,
and then they sell some other variants like "GTX High Mileage Oil" which
in fact are almost completely unrelated and have a very different additive
package to them.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On 22 Jun 2010 14:00:44 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

>Zathras > wrote:
>>On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 15:06:45 +0100, "David Skelton"
> wrote:
>>>"Dave Plowman (News)" > wrote in message
>>>> In article >,
>>>> David Skelton > wrote:
>>>>> I would not use Castrol oil ever again. In my experience, it is *not* a
>>>>> good oil. (Experience of: GTX, Magnetec, SLX and SLX III)
>>>>
>>>> Describe the problems you had.
>>>
>>>I think people could have different experiences of the same product, so some might agree,
>>>some will disagree.
>>
>>That poor quality reply to a very reasonable question damages your
>>credibility. Why is Castrol not good? There must be a reason..
>
>In the case of Castrol in the US, they sell an enormous range of products
>varying from bad to excellent.
>
>If you look at the "Castrol Syntec" line, for instance, you will see that
>all of the different viscosities are actually totally different formulations.
>The 5W-40 meets the current BMW specs and is a "true synthetic" oil by
>European standards... the 5W-50 has a different base oil and could not be
>sold as a synthetic in Europe although it's considered a synthetic oil by
>the FTC here in America.
>
>Unfortunately something similar happens even with the low-cost GTX line of
>oils.... different service specifications at the different viscosities,
>and then they sell some other variants like "GTX High Mileage Oil" which
>in fact are almost completely unrelated and have a very different additive
>package to them.

I can understand different formulations for different purposes. I
suppose the general question is, if the correct Castrol product is
selected for an application, will you ever get a deliberately bad
product?

--
Z

On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 16:57:04 +0100, "David Skelton"
> wrote:

>>>Recirculated exhaust gasses containing crankcase oil vapours, over time clogging up the
>>>EGR valve and building up on the flaps.
>>
>> No..in a diesel, oil in the exhaust will be entirely made up of
>> unburnt diesel not engine oil. Any tiny amounts of engine oil will be
>> completely and massively irrelevant compared to the unburnt diesel oil
>> quantities.
>
>No, you are wrong...
>
>Engine oil enters the combustion process from worn rings, worn valve stem oil seals, the
>PCV system, thrashing the engine from cold, and from damaged / worn turbo seals
>especially in engines run on the incorrect oil spec.
>This oil burns differently to diesel oil and leaves carbon deposits behind.

I disagree. If a modern diesel has *so* much engine oil in it's
exhaust so as to utterly overwhelm the effect of unburnt/burnt diesel
oil in the exhaust then the engine is a wreck and worthless IMO. Who
cares at that point if it munches the swirl flaps. I've never owned a
diesel that burned *any* measurable amounts of engine oil. Burning
diesel oil produces carbon deposits..often called soot. It can
regularly be seen in your part of the world, apparently.

>> I would be prepared to believe someone who told me my fan never
>>operated to cool the engine.
>>It never did on previous non-aircon cars I owned
>
>I bet it did

If a non A/C engine is sufficiently cooled by the airflow through the
radiator, why would the fan ever start?

>>- even in the traffic
>>I have to deal with.
>
>More people live in the Home Counties than in the whole of Scotland.
>I would find it hard to believe the traffic could be worse where you are.

I think you're logic is reversed now. I'd expect more fan running in
heavy slow moving traffic down south than in faster moving sparse
traffic up north.

>I never use A/C.
>I have breathing difficulties that are made worse by cooled dry air, and it wastes fuel.

Mentioning the fuel wasted by A/C while owning a 335d *is* a tad
bizarre.

>> There's far too much smoke and mirrors in that debate. I treat fuel as
>> fuel
>
>It is certainly not

How so? That debate centres on the additive differences. Many have
opinions on this but very few seem to actually know.

>>I've not been convinced by the cheap/expensive fuel
>> debate - particularly for diesel.
>
>You will if you continue to use supermarket fuel extensively.

I don't believe so. It didn't happen in the past so, unless something
like the Nikasil problem is lurking in my engine, I don't expect any
problems now. It's certainly not something I worry about in a diesel.

>There are still plenty of carb cars down here.

Do you live in a car museum?

>> Don't they recover energy from the alternator on some models when
>> braking?
>
>Recover energy from the alternator ??

I'm sure I saw that in BMW literature somewhere..that's all I meant.

>Brake Energy Regeneration: ( this is driving a motor in reverse bias as a generator) not
>what BMWs do.

<snip>

>The different models have different variations fitted to the cars. Our (August) 2009 335d
>only has one of these functions. That is the "Brake Energy Regeneration", nothing else.

So how do BMW do it?

>> Actually I haven't thought of VW as reliable for over 10 years now.
>
>When I used work for VAG (early nineties), I found that they were just the same as other
>makes.

That sounds about right..over 10 years ago.

>>It's just that owning a BMW, I do genuinely get the feeling that someone at BMW cares
>> just a little more than the equivalent person at other German car
>> manufacturers.
>
>I do not get that feeling. When improvements that could be made are suggested, one is
>brushed aside.

I'm not surprised! That's not a unique BMW failing.

>In general, someone whom buys a cheaper car does not give it their best care, more exotic
>machinery needs better care.

You'll need to explain that one..are more exotic cars poorer built,
unable to cope with the rigours of moving from a to b without tlc?

>You are the one whom said "junk like that".

I have the advantage of knowledge as opposed to guesswork. An
independent assessment of that Fiat was provided by a car thief who
stole it (it was never locked). It was driven 200 yards then the thief
abandoned it and walked in preference and he even left a note of his
opinions of the car!! The car *was* junk. I also think that Fiats from
last century tended to turn to junk as they headed much above 50,000
miles anyway.

>>>The Fiats I have had had failed electronic parts and gearboxes, and rust too.
>>
>> Not recently though?
>
>No

Your experience of Fiats is not really that relevant any more as the
newer ones are quite different animals to the old rusters of last
century. They may, or may not be, the best but they are markedly
better than the Fiats of the last century.

--
Z