Talk:TDI (engine)

WVO/SVO in TDIs

Use of waste vegetable oil and straight vegetable oil in TDI engines appears to be a topic of some controversy. I suggest editing the section on SVO/WVO to a) mention controversy b) list manufacturer statements c) include any references that can be sourced. This should be purely NPOV. Comments? Ibanix (talk) 22:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Badging

A small suggestion, but can someone add a "Badging" section or paragraph, explaining what the different colors of the "TDI" badging means? (ie. red I, red DI, red TDI, blue I, etc.) UrPQ31 (talk) 13:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no consistent overall guidelines for the differing colours of badges. This specific issue should be addressed on individual Volkswagen Group car or van articles. Rgds. 78.32.143.113 (talk) 16:41, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

POV

Deleting this paragraph, for biased tone :

Due to outrageous EPA passenger automobile diesel emission requirements in combination with a complete lack of a crackdown of high sulfur content in diesel fuel has kept the U.S. behind most of the world in diesel technology. It makes one almost think the U.S. has something against VW since VW is/was the major (or only) seller of diesel passenger cars in America for a long time now.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by LaughingMan11 (talk • contribs).

VW biodiesel/warranty reference gone

I'm removing the following paragraph because the supplied link no longer says what is quoted and Google cannot an equivalent statement anywhere on VW.com.

Volkswagen of America does not endorse the use of biodiesel in high percentages. They state that "[s]hould the use of substandard fuels, or higher level blends of biodiesel, damage your engine or fuel system, such damage cannot be covered under warranty". Thus a high-percentage biodiesel user who encounters fuel system problems can reasonably expect difficulty obtaining service under warranty if the biodiesel use is apparent to the dealer.

Has VW changed their position on biodiesel? --Imroy 10:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

AFAICT the VW warranty says that they do not warrant damage from a bad batch of fuel, period. It's not a biodiesel issue, per se. Presumably refiners are less experienced making ASTM fuel from vegetable oil (and now, animal fat too! per the Tyson-Cargill arrangement) but AFACT that's a lot less of an issue. I think the comment about VW voiding the warranty is FUD and should be removed under NPOV. --206.79.158.100 (talk) 23:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Inside the fuel filler flap of my Skoda, powered by the 100 bhp 1.9l TDi engine, it explicitly states "no biodiesel". Mr Larrington (talk) 13:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

VW Australia also specifically state no biodiesel. In my 2007 Golf TDI it also has the 'no biodiesel' sticker. peterl (talk) 23:40, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

why separate article?

Direct injection turbodiesels are produced by many manufacturers, yet the overwhelming focus of this article is VAG products. I don't think it's appropriate for wikipedia to have an article specifically for a trademarked name when similar technology is produced by other companies. Therefore I propose to move the content across to Direct Injection (or possibly Turbochargers, but DI is better because the breakthrough for TDI was when DI became possible, since non-DI turbodiesels had been around for years by then) 1292simon (talk) 13:58, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Oppose There's some argument for an article on TDI products across all manufacturers, even though VAG's work here was innovative, substantial and notable on its own. However merging this important intersection to either DI or turbocharging would be a very bad move. Most obviously because both of those topics are far broader than this, but also because TDI isn't just about direct injection. Direct injection in diesels has a far longer pedigree than this and the early non-common rail systems have even less in common with it. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:26, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, DI is broader that TDI. I don't see how this is a reason to have a separate article for TDI, it just means TDI would be a section in the DI article. In fact, putting them together would better show the development from non-common DI to common DI to TDI. 1292simon (talk) 15:11, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Then it might just as well merge oil engine and hot bulb engine too. You'll have an article that is trying to cover a century of development across vehicles from ships to Golfs, all in one short article. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:35, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Are you playing "reductio ad ridiculum"? If your suggestion is earnest, then hot bulb is a totally different technology to TDI, whereas TDI is a development of DI. The turbocharging article happily covers machines from motorbikes to trucks to ships to construction equipment; so there's nothing wrong with covering a large range of applications within a single article. 1292simon (talk) 01:27, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Turbocharged direct injection. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080229043108/http://www.chevron.com/products/ourfuels/prodserv/fuels/documents/elastomer_chevron_tb_2005Aug.pdf to http://www.chevron.com/products/ourfuels/prodserv/fuels/documents/elastomer_chevron_tb_2005Aug.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:38, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Mass changes on 19-20 June 2024

Please discuss the changes - and reversions - here on the talk page, as otherwise both of you are going to be blocked and that will serve no purpose to either of you. I personally cannot see whether the proposed changes are vandalism - I think not - so 750h+ why are you against them please? Additionally User talk:78.163.151.123 - please explain how they improve the article. Apologies - as you're an IP editor I'm not sure if the ping will work. I've also removed the vandalism warning from your talk page, as it seems inappropriate - unless I'm missing something? Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:18, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Apologies. I am concerned about the fact over 9000 characters were added to the article without explanation. 750h+ 08:28, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

And given the subsequent behaviour from the IP address, I'm firmly in agreement - I've added support at the RFPP section. I think the IP is also now in block territory, but not sure how much good that will do as they seem to be using multiple addresses in Turkey. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:34, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

@Chaheel Riens and 750h+: Chaheel Riens is correct that an explanation of the problem is required. IPs do not receive pings but a good technique is to start a new section focused on a particular change and briefly explain the problem. Then, if the IP restores the text, revert them with a link to the new section and ask them (in the edit summary) to discuss there. If necessary, post on the talk page of the most recent IP with a link to the article talk page. Administrators are not able to take the time to digest what is going on and it is necessary that those with some understanding of a topic take the first steps. Johnuniq (talk) 01:20, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

In this case though it escalated far beyond that far too quickly. The IP address was (as you can see in the article history) bulk adding literally thousands of characters of text, and linking to each section or even edit would have been prohibitive. As it seems to have been resolved now - by both article protection and IP blocks - I think this was dealt with as was best at the time. It became obvious almost as soon as I posted the above that the IP had no intention of stopping, changing or discussing their behaviour. Chaheel Riens (talk) 06:48, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

If there was a SPI you would only have to show that it is the same person, correct? That can't be hard, the quacking is off the scale. Show a basic Bad faith then just rubber stamp them? You will never be able to check all that stuff. Do you even know if it's bad, or is it just the way person acts? Either way... Sammy D III (talk) 14:03, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

@Chaheel Riens: it seems the editor is back, as seen here. 750h+ 13:13, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

@750h+: - thanks for the heads-up. I'll keep an eye on the articles I've watchlisted for sudden bloat. None of the articles edited so far are in my watchlist, but we'll see what happens. If it follows form of the last time, it won't be long before it's obvious. Chaheel Riens (talk) 14:16, 25 August 2024 (UTC)