You're telling me that a fully stock certified Audi with an automatic would not cover a blown engine due to valve float? Alrighty then

Obviously in the case of the S4s it was different because they were chipped, and under the Magnuson-Moss warranty act it could obviously prove that the chip was the direct cause of engine failure, but in this case it is a mere software glitch (or not, that's what I was trying to figure out with this post).

 

IS shifting to neutral when going down hill a normal driving mode?
It's kinda like shifting to park when traverling at 15 MPH ... LOL


BTW what does Sterling Moss and what's his name Magnum have to do with eating potato chips in an S4?

 

I was merely saying that if you're eating potato chips in an S4 and get T-boned by a Dodge Magnum, you will likely spill them.

And not so much. Shifting in to park while moving would pretty much grind the crap out of the transmission and could potentially even wreck it. In neutral everything is freewheeling, so there is actually even less friction than if it was in gear.

 

Yes. Guilty until proven innocent in the audi shop. More than likely they can find what actually happened, like the freeze frame data right before the engine grenaded. You were at 7600+ RPMS, not covered. You were operating the engine outside normal operation by putting it in neutral, thats YOUR fault. They could also tell you were in neutral too if that would be your defense.
On top of all this awesomeness, that automatic S4 WAS stock. She put it in neutral (on accident) panicked, then dropped it into gear, snapped the chain and toasted the engine. Not the same as valve float i know, but in your example she still wouldn't be at fault. Im here to tell ya that no matter how unfair you think that is it won't be covered. She sued, audi settled, which is why no one has heard of this story before, audi didn't want the bad publicity. Hell look at what happended to toyota which started as a simple floor mat.
I guess if it came down to it you could sue as she did, but your story would be different because you were deliberately doing it, and they could prove that by checking the black boxes of how many times you put it in neutral while driving.
Of course you can just go out and grenade your motor and let us know how that works out for ya.

 

Yeah that would all seem to make sense... Forgot that they really do have access to a lot of data about the car's functions these days.

But hey I wasn't looking to get flamed for bad driving or how I'm definately going to float my valves and blow the motor, just that I found it odd that there was a limiter up there and wondered if it's because the engine can actually handle it. Like I said it sounds peculiar to put a limiter of any kind at an engine speed that is above what it can handle.

 

Well if it didn't give the maximum the engine can do, it wouldn't be an audi, it would be a ford ranger....

 

If you abuse your car, expect to be flamed.

 

If you consider freewheeling in neutral "abuse", then you're awfully uninformed about the mechanics of transmissions, and if you consider jackrabbit starts abuse then I'd wager that 4.2 of yours hasn't been driven the way it was supposed to. And the accidental overrev was just that; and it made me curious enough to find the limiter and then ask about it.

 

Was it accidental when you recreated it the second time?

As far as my 4.2, it has been up to 135 mph so rest assured it is being driven the the way it is supposed to be driven . But you won't catch me reving it to 7600 rpms in the driveway.

 

Good, good. Nope, like I mentioned after I noticed a distinct limiter I then decided to find it. Somehow I knew it wouldn't grenade on the spot