DRC Recall in US/Canada

[P_G]

So how bad was your DRC Dave? Were they wet glossy or the dried on residue you get and the pressure was low?

Dried on residue and low pressure.

So different from mine as they were wet glossy on the front 1st time round and then DRC valves second time which should have been replaced on the first occassion.

It looks as thought here should be categorisation of failure, i.e. actual shock failure (wet glossy) or DRC system failure (pressure).

[Sims]

So how bad was your DRC Dave? Were they wet glossy or the dried on residue you get and the pressure was low?

Dried on residue and low pressure.

So different from mine as they were wet glossy on the front 1st time round and then DRC valves second time which should have been replaced on the first occassion.

It looks as thought here should be categorisation of failure, i.e. actual shock failure (wet glossy) or DRC system failure (pressure).

You can categorise as you wish to make it look good, but did it need fixing or would you have been happy to carry on with your glossy fronts, low pressure and malfunctioning valves. NO.

Audi have acknowledged it.

[Sims]

Just to get this right Arthur; are you saying that you have been advised that >200 RS4's have been in for recall in the US and 2 or less have had a DRC failure?

And at the same time of the 200 cars quoted by Sims from one dealer which I assume is Camberley Audi in the UK you have been advised that only 3 were classified as pressure test failures?

1st part yes

2nd, no, don't know, 'taking a piss on sims' (isn't that what you guys call it?lol)

This is not about you & me. It's not right to knowingly chuck out erroneous data.

[PetrolDave]

You can categorise as you wish to make it look good

That's a big assumption regarding P_G's motive suggesting we categorise the DRC failures.

I regard categorising the DRC failures as a prudent piece of data gathering that we MAY be able to use to put further pressure on Audi UK - depending on what the data tells us (no assumptions until we have the data).

I was told 2 years ago that my front shocks were "slightly moist" - but since the pressure was still OK, the ride was still better than my previous S4 and there was no knocking from the suspension I used my automotive engineering knowledge and experience to agree that the system was still working correctly and that no action was necessary. Two years later the situation was different - there was dried on residue, a noticeable worsening of the ride and low pressure so it was clear that one or more components in the system had failed.

Knowing whether this gradual deterioration is the normal failure pattern would be useful to all RS4 owners, since it could POSSIBLY be used to detect early signs of DRC failure?

IMHO it would be useful to know:
1) date/miles when dampness/leakage first reported/noticed.
2) date/miles when deterioration in ride first noticed.
3) date/miles when knocking sounds from the suspension first noticed.
4) date/miles when DRC pressure first reported out of acceptable range.
5) date/miles when DRC components replaced and what components were replaced and whether this was paid for by Audi.

Let's stop the silly slanging match that has become the norm on this forum and start working together as owners to make sure we get the support from Audi that our great cars deserve.

[ArthurPE]

This is not about you & me. It's not right to knowingly chuck out erroneous data.

I'm not sure you're in a position to judge what is 'right' and 'wrong'
especially you, lol

but you are correct on the one count...it's not about you and me
so quit e-stalking psycho boy

[ArthurPE]

...

Audi have acknowledged it.

what have they 'acknowledged'?

I have seen nothing in writing stating that the system is defective
only that some have 'reported' leaks

and no where do they state the actions (US and UK) are due to malfunctions, but only to satisfy the customers concerns

it's seems more economic and customer satisfaction driven than technical

[ArthurPE]

stop making sense
people want pitchforks and torches
" it's a witch! "

a log of pressure vs time & mileage would be immensely useful...
and I bet Audi has such data and is continuing to collect such

it seems like people think Audi sits around trying to figure out ways to screw the public...rather than just a bunch of guys like us trying to do the best they can within the constraints of the 'system'

we all have them: financial, knowledge, regulatory, time, etc.
why would they be different? why should they be perfect when we allowed not to be?
double standard

You can categorise as you wish to make it look good

That's a big assumption regarding P_G's motive suggesting we categorise the DRC failures.

I regard categorising the DRC failures as a prudent piece of data gathering that we MAY be able to use to put further pressure on Audi UK - depending on what the data tells us (no assumptions until we have the data).

I was told 2 years ago that my front shocks were "slightly moist" - but since the pressure was still OK, the ride was still better than my previous S4 and there was no knocking from the suspension I used my automotive engineering knowledge and experience to agree that the system was still working correctly and that no action was necessary. Two years later the situation was different - there was dried on residue, a noticeable worsening of the ride and low pressure so it was clear that one or more components in the system had failed.

Knowing whether this gradual deterioration is the normal failure pattern would be useful to all RS4 owners, since it could POSSIBLY be used to detect early signs of DRC failure?

IMHO it would be useful to know:
1) date/miles when dampness/leakage first reported/noticed.
2) date/miles when deterioration in ride first noticed.
3) date/miles when knocking sounds from the suspension first noticed.
4) date/miles when DRC pressure first reported out of acceptable range.
5) date/miles when DRC components replaced and what components were replaced and whether this was paid for by Audi.

Let's stop the silly slanging match that has become the norm on this forum and start working together as owners to make sure we get the support from Audi that our great cars deserve.

[P_G]

Wholeheartedly agree with PetrolDave and his sequncing of symptoms is similar to mine. When I had the front shocks replced because they were glossy the pressure was still within parameters and I had not noticed any deterioration in the ride quality and certainly no clunking so yes I was happy to drive it having been shown the diagrams by Audi on how they classify shocks as being acceptable or needing repacing.

When I did get clunking it was found the pressure was low and the valves were replaced and the system recharged.

Thus I suggested catergorisation and Dave's list of data is a decent one. It would also perhaps tie in with what Arthur is getting at in DRC failure i.e. pressure test failure. What can't be accounted for however is the number of dealers who have the correct equipment to do the test or re-pressurise properly.

One last comment to Sims; how exactly would accurately categorising a known issue be construed to 'look good'? If anything it eliminates doubt or misinterpretation and gives a true value rather than the hyperbole that, like PetrolDave suggested is all to common place now in this forum and is sensationalised for whatever reason.

[P_G]

BTW Sims, you look like you are one of the lucky ones as having looked on the DRC sticky yours hasn't failed? So how many miles does you car have on it or was DRC replaced before you bought it. If so you would have documenation from Audi when and at what mileage it had been done?

[P_G]

Sims?

[ArthurPE]

Sims?

cricket: chirp...chirp



if anyone cares mine are doing fine lol