Jul '26 - Sep '26
Frequently Asked Questions About Audi Centre Rustenburg
How is Audi Centre Rustenburg rated on Hellopeter?
Hellopeter has tracked Audi Centre Rustenburg across 1 reviews. Audi Centre Rustenburg hasn't collected enough recent reviews — at least 10 in the last 12 months are needed — to calculate a TrustIndex score. Have you used Audi Centre Rustenburg? Write a review to help others decide.
Recent reviews (1)
Used this business recently? Share your experience to help others decide.
Used this business recently? Share your experience to help others decide.
Share Your Experience1 reviews | Active since Jul 2026
Paid R19,046.80 for repairs based on Audi Centre Rustenburg's diagnosis, yet the original fault remained unresolved
Paid R19,046.80 for repairs based on Audi Centre Rustenburg's (supergroup) diagnosis, yet the original fault remained unresolved I am posting this review in the hope that Audi South Africa will independently review the handling of my case by Audi Centre Rustenburg. On 20 April 2026, I booked my Audi A4 B9 2.0 TFSI into Audi Centre Rustenburg because of a recurring Engine Warning Light caused by a persistent rich-running fault. I paid R3,290.00 for diagnosis and basic settings/adaptation. The Engine Warning Light returned during my drive home, and I returned the vehicle on 21 April 2026 for further diagnosis. After several days, I was informed that faulty injector seals and defective injectors were responsible for the over-fuelling. Relying on the dealership's professional diagnosis, I authorised the recommended repairs. I ultimately paid R19,046.80, including the injector-related repairs and fuel used during testing. I collected the vehicle on 12 May 2026 believing the problem had finally been resolved. Within a very short distance of leaving the dealership, the Engine Warning Light returned and I immediately drove back. The vehicle then remained at the dealership until 29 June 2026 while they consulted with Audi Technical. What concerns me most is not simply that the repair failed, but that the diagnosis changed after I had already paid for the repairs recommended by the dealership. By 29 June 2026—more than two months after my original complaint and over seven weeks after I had paid for the injector-related repairs—I was being told that the injectors may not have been the root cause after all. Possible faulty injector O-rings and a blocked catalytic converter were now suggested as alternative explanations. This raises a straightforward question: if the injectors were ultimately not considered to be the cause of the fault, why was I required to pay for their replacement based on the dealership's original diagnosis? Another incident on collection day further undermined my confidence. On 29 June 2026, while still at the dealership, I connected my own diagnostic scanner to the vehicle. While I was waiting, a technician took the vehicle to have a tyre inflated. When I went to check on it, I found that my scanner had been unplugged and the dealership's diagnostic equipment had been connected in its place. I had not been informed that my scanner would be disconnected or that another diagnostic session would be carried out. Given that the original complaint remained unresolved, I found this deeply concerning. My own diagnostic scans from that day tell the story. At 12:53, while the vehicle was still at the dealership, fault code P0172 (Fuel Trim Bank 1 – System Too Rich)—the very fault underlying my original complaint—was already stored in the engine control module. By 15:52 that same afternoon, after only 21 miles (approximately 34 km) of driving, the vehicle was logging multiple rich-running fault codes, including "System too rich at idle, Bank 1" and "System too rich off idle, Bank 1". Both scans are independently timestamped and record the vehicle's VIN and mileage. I later contacted Audi Customer Care and was informed that the dealership had advised them the Engine Warning Light was not illuminated when I collected the vehicle. In my view, this does not address the real issue. A warning light can be temporarily off while fault codes remain stored and while the underlying fault is actively redeveloping, which is exactly what my scans from collection day demonstrate. The issue is not whether the warning light happened to be illuminated at a particular moment, but whether the original rich-running fault had actually been resolved. The available diagnostic evidence indicates that it had not. Throughout this matter, I have retained invoices, proof of payment, Vehicle Inspection Reports, ODIS diagnostic reports, emails, independent diagnostic scans, photographs, videos and audio recordings. Together, these documents establish a detailed chronology showing that the original complaint remained unresolved despite the repairs I paid for. After more than two months without my vehicle, paying R19,046.80 for repairs recommended by an authorised Audi dealership, and receiving changing explanations for the same unresolved fault, I have lost confidence in the diagnosis, the repair process and the manner in which this matter was handled. I respectfully request that Audi South Africa conduct an independent review of the complete documentary and diagnostic record rather than relying solely on summaries provided by the dealership. I am not seeking special treatment—only a fair, objective and evidence-based assessment of what occurred and an appropriate resolution based on the facts.
1 reviews | Active since Jul 2026
Paid R19,046.80 for repairs based on Audi Centre Rustenburg's diagnosis, yet the original fault remained unresolved
Paid R19,046.80 for repairs based on Audi Centre Rustenburg's (supergroup) diagnosis, yet the original fault remained unresolved I am posting this review in the hope that Audi South Africa will independently review the handling of my case by Audi Centre Rustenburg. On 20 April 2026, I booked my Audi A4 B9 2.0 TFSI into Audi Centre Rustenburg because of a recurring Engine Warning Light caused by a persistent rich-running fault. I paid R3,290.00 for diagnosis and basic settings/adaptation. The Engine Warning Light returned during my drive home, and I returned the vehicle on 21 April 2026 for further diagnosis. After several days, I was informed that faulty injector seals and defective injectors were responsible for the over-fuelling. Relying on the dealership's professional diagnosis, I authorised the recommended repairs. I ultimately paid R19,046.80, including the injector-related repairs and fuel used during testing. I collected the vehicle on 12 May 2026 believing the problem had finally been resolved. Within a very short distance of leaving the dealership, the Engine Warning Light returned and I immediately drove back. The vehicle then remained at the dealership until 29 June 2026 while they consulted with Audi Technical. What concerns me most is not simply that the repair failed, but that the diagnosis changed after I had already paid for the repairs recommended by the dealership. By 29 June 2026—more than two months after my original complaint and over seven weeks after I had paid for the injector-related repairs—I was being told that the injectors may not have been the root cause after all. Possible faulty injector O-rings and a blocked catalytic converter were now suggested as alternative explanations. This raises a straightforward question: if the injectors were ultimately not considered to be the cause of the fault, why was I required to pay for their replacement based on the dealership's original diagnosis? Another incident on collection day further undermined my confidence. On 29 June 2026, while still at the dealership, I connected my own diagnostic scanner to the vehicle. While I was waiting, a technician took the vehicle to have a tyre inflated. When I went to check on it, I found that my scanner had been unplugged and the dealership's diagnostic equipment had been connected in its place. I had not been informed that my scanner would be disconnected or that another diagnostic session would be carried out. Given that the original complaint remained unresolved, I found this deeply concerning. My own diagnostic scans from that day tell the story. At 12:53, while the vehicle was still at the dealership, fault code P0172 (Fuel Trim Bank 1 – System Too Rich)—the very fault underlying my original complaint—was already stored in the engine control module. By 15:52 that same afternoon, after only 21 miles (approximately 34 km) of driving, the vehicle was logging multiple rich-running fault codes, including "System too rich at idle, Bank 1" and "System too rich off idle, Bank 1". Both scans are independently timestamped and record the vehicle's VIN and mileage. I later contacted Audi Customer Care and was informed that the dealership had advised them the Engine Warning Light was not illuminated when I collected the vehicle. In my view, this does not address the real issue. A warning light can be temporarily off while fault codes remain stored and while the underlying fault is actively redeveloping, which is exactly what my scans from collection day demonstrate. The issue is not whether the warning light happened to be illuminated at a particular moment, but whether the original rich-running fault had actually been resolved. The available diagnostic evidence indicates that it had not. Throughout this matter, I have retained invoices, proof of payment, Vehicle Inspection Reports, ODIS diagnostic reports, emails, independent diagnostic scans, photographs, videos and audio recordings. Together, these documents establish a detailed chronology showing that the original complaint remained unresolved despite the repairs I paid for. After more than two months without my vehicle, paying R19,046.80 for repairs recommended by an authorised Audi dealership, and receiving changing explanations for the same unresolved fault, I have lost confidence in the diagnosis, the repair process and the manner in which this matter was handled. I respectfully request that Audi South Africa conduct an independent review of the complete documentary and diagnostic record rather than relying solely on summaries provided by the dealership. I am not seeking special treatment—only a fair, objective and evidence-based assessment of what occurred and an appropriate resolution based on the facts.