EPA says Volkswagen cheated on emissions with 482,000 diesel cars

grogi

Special Circumstances wrote: »

We have a VERY long thread having a laugh at the idea of somebody in Ireland suing VW for being put in the situation of "pumping out a LOT of emissions despite being sold a 'clean' diesel" or "creating less emissions at the expense of efficiency or power".

"there's nothing wrong with them"
"the fix changes nothing"
"how is she losing out?"

Is the owner losing out or not?

No.

Special Circumstances

Special Circumstances wrote: »

Is the owner losing out or not?

grogi wrote: »

No.

Is there a change to the car's performance or efficiency?

Micky 32

Truckermal wrote: »

What are the consequences of refusing this software update as I had my Audi serviced today and I had to sign a form saying that I was refusing to accept it..

You were actually made sign something? If you didn't sign would they have witheld your car??:rolleyes:

Truckermal

Micky 32 wrote: »

You were actually made sign something? If you didn't sign would they have witheld your car??:rolleyes:

I didn't sign it and refused the update but they serviced the car and that was the end of it..

Toyotafanboi

Micky 32 wrote: »

You were actually made sign something? If you didn't sign would they have witheld your car??:rolleyes:

The signing is just for the dealers records to prove to Audi that they offered it when you visited. You're perfectly entitled to decline it.

If you sign to say you declined the update, you could walk back in an hour later and ask to have the update and recieve it, no problem. The offer will remain open.

Nobody would be witholding cars ffs.

grogi

Special Circumstances wrote: »

Is there a change to the car's performance or efficiency?

Let me illustrate it with a story...

A lady comes to the shop and ask the salesman for a knife. He shows her different knifes, this for fish, this for meat... She picks one, pays and the man brings a box from the shelf with a knife inside.

She opens it at home, it is very nice. Exactly like the one she has seen in the shop. There is a small a text on it she did not see before, saying "This belonged to Gordon Ramsey"...

A week later she brings this knife for sharpening to the shop. The owner takes it and says "oh, I am so sorry. By mistake a knife that you got was a special one, that once belonged to Gordon Ramsey. Please accept our apologies - here is a knife you bought". And gives her identical knife, but without that text...

Should she sue the owner? Well - she is worse than she was before the sharpening. But in the end she got exactly what she paid for.

The same story is here - as long as the cars were not misrepresented and they still achieve the advertised figures in NEDC test, there is no basis for a lawsuit. People bought a car that was supposed to achieve 173mpg (or whatever si-fi figure) in NEDC test, and it still does. The fact that in real life the performance changed is irrelevant - because nobody is stupid enough to claim real-world performance.

grogi

Truckermal wrote: »

I didn't sign it and refused the update but they serviced the car and that was the end of it..

A refusal like that opens you for liability - because you are with intend driving a car that does not conform to the required emission levels. I find it highly unlikely that somebody will be hold accountable for that - but the possibility is there.

Seth Brundle

grogi wrote: »

A refusal like that opens you for liability - because you are with intend driving a car that does not conform to the required emission levels. I find it highly unlikely that somebody will be hold accountable for that - but the possibility is there.

Not if there is reason to object.
This software update is reputed to cost the owner in higher fuel consumption. Why would you agree to this without any confirmation on fuel economy?

Special Circumstances

grogi wrote: »

Let me illustrate it with a story...
Tl/dr

Back in the real world, is the owner losing out?

You can say no, and contradict your own statement regarding "boards experts deny any change to power or efficiency" or you can say yes and contradict the contrived Gordon ramseys sex toy story or whatever.

grogi

Special Circumstances wrote: »

Back in the real world, is the owner losing out?

You can say no, and contradict your own statement regarding "boards experts deny any change to power or efficiency" or you can say yes and contradict the contrived Gordon ramseys sex toy story or whatever.

No, the owner is not worse in a way to justify a law suit. As long as the owner is getting exactly what they paid for.

Now, if the reduced real-world fuel economy influences the residuals - that's a moment to seek compensation. We are not there yet.

grogi

One more thing...

Don't get ne wrong, I firmly believe VW should be made bankrupt. There is absolutely no justification to the damage, on some many level, that was done.

I am however strongly against frivolous lawsuits. And suing VW privately is one.

grogi

kbannon wrote: »

Not if there is reason to object.
This software update is reputed to cost the owner in higher fuel consumption. Why would you agree to this without any confirmation on fuel economy?

Sorry, but this is excuse from the kindergarten... He called me bad words first! You could be steeling petrol and be asked to stop, but refused. For very good reason - it will cost you more to buy it legally...

As long as one did not refuse a remap, there is a reasonable doubt that he or she did not know about the harmful substances produced.

Once the refusal is given to fix that, regardless of the underlying motives, that doubt goes away. He knew and is still intentionally doing the same.

Henry Ford III

Seems reasonably straightforward to me:-

VAG cheated, got found out, and must now put things right at enormous cost.

Values haven't dropped here, yet. In the circumstances however I think there's a good chance they will, particularly if the "fix" increases fuel consumption. Anyone who refuses the fix will also be hit I suspect.

grogi

Henry Ford III wrote: »

Seems reasonably straightforward to me:-

VAG cheated, got found out, and must now put things right at enormous cost.

Values haven't dropped here, yet. In the circumstances however I think there's a good chance they will, particularly if the "fix" increases fuel consumption. Anyone who refuses the fix will also be hit I suspect.

Absolutely. When that happens - it is time to sue. Right now - no basis for the lawsuit. A lawsuit now will do harm actually - diluting the impact of the rightful one.

I blame the scumbags solicitors for that - they smelled money and are trying to cash it.

However the impact might not be severe at all. Public might not know exactly which engines where involved (VW is very good at rolling different engine for every car... They take pride in inventing new engine codes apparently ) and might ignore the whole VW scandal, as they "are nice cars, torque et al.". VW has made some terrible engines in the past, without much of an impact...

Special Circumstances

Do you have a specific or general problem with that post?

Glitch in the matrix there methinks, post I was referring to is non operational right now it seems!!

Long Time Lurker

Just reading nsome of the posts here and it seems there's a general consensus that things are all fine with VW's numbers post modifications.

Which poster here (who works for one of the fleet companies) basically said that VAG group vehicles real world mpg figures are collapsing post emissions modifications.

Special Circumstances

Long Time Lurker wrote: »

Just reading nsome of the posts here and it seems there's a general consensus that things are all fine with VW's numbers post modifications.

Which poster here (who works for one of the fleet companies) basically said that VAG group vehicles real world mpg figures are collapsing post emissions modifications.

They're grand grand grand, owners are not gonna lose out by getting the fix or not. Jawohl?? ;-)

grogi

Special Circumstances wrote: »

They're grand grand grand, owners are not gonna lose out by getting the fix or not. Jawohl?? ;-)

Please tell me you're just pretending not to understand...

Special Circumstances

grogi wrote: »

Please tell me you're just pretending not to understand...

The owners here aren't losing out on any way, therefore have no claim to any compensation. Right?

grogi

Special Circumstances wrote: »

The owners here aren't losing out on any way, therefore have no claim to any compensation. Right?

VW did not lie to them about the consumption. The owners bought cars that achieved particular figure in NEDC test - and the cars still achieve that.

Sure - in real world they might consume more after the "emission fix". But every manufacturer claim in Europe consumption figures only in NEDC tests. If those are not changed, the owners have nothing to base the lawsuit on now.

Like in the knife story - you cannot claim a loss when someone is taking something back that wasn't yours in the first place.

Special Circumstances

Grand grogi, I think some of us in the real world have a different interpretation of losing out (last year i spent X to do Y, now i spend Z due to recall) no matter what analogy about buying used celebrity chef underwear you spin.

That does leave me puzzled over how I was wrong with the "grand grand grand not gonna lose out" response to LTL?

So, when boards' biggest VW fanboi (with a fantastically ironic username) comes in and says there is no change to performance or efficiency, you are going to say
a)quite correct, Nedc is all that matters yo!
Or
b)no compensation is due as the nedc is still correct, but there is a measurable and reproduce able difference between a recalled pass at and a not recalled passat.

grogi

Special Circumstances wrote: »

So, when boards' biggest VW fanboi (with a fantastically ironic username) comes in and says there is no change to performance or efficiency, you are going to say
a)quite correct, Nedc is all that matters yo!
Or
b)no compensation is due as the nedc is still correct, but there is a measurable and reproduce able difference between a recalled pass at and a not recalled passat.

grogi wrote: »

I don't recall anybody on the forum claiming that. Acutally @R.O.R. mentioned that some of the customers complained that consumption increased 1.5l / 100km...

But if the car still achieves the sames figures in NEDC, there is nothing to seek compensation for.

I think I already made it clear before

Markcheese

Most (but not all )of the general public wont really notice fuel consumption difference (if there is any) from the little bit of mesh fix..
They buy 50 euros of diesel a time and the price is always varying..
As far as I can tell in the US the regs indicate the car has to drive to regs ( they don't ,so thats why the big payoff )
In europe the regs say the car has to pass the emissions test ,and they did.. (all manufacturers game the test to some extent) ,so they have effectivly covered their ass.. if there was an issue on "cheating" it'd probably be between individual goverments and vw..
I'd love to see the irish goverment present vw with a bill for lost vrt and lost road tax ,based on number of cars sold and the difference in co2 rating for effected time .. it'd be a reasonably easy sum to work out..

Long Time Lurker

EndaHonesty wrote: »

Says yer man who constantly brings up other poster's old posts... :rolleyes:

What kind of car do you drive?

Its irrelevant.

VW's numbers - in the real world - were always different from the claimed (as are every manufacturer) but importantly they're now also significantly worse than they previously were in the real world.

Don't mind the test scores, approved numbers nonsenses. They're always way off.

EndaHonesty

Long Time Lurker wrote: »

Its irrelevant.

It's not if he drives a diesel.

josip

Markcheese wrote: »

Most (but not all )of the general public wont really notice fuel consumption difference (if there is any) from the little bit of mesh fix..
They buy 50 euros of diesel a time and the price is always varying..
...

There's so much wrong with this I don't know where to begin.

Henry Ford III

grogi wrote: »

VW did not lie to them about the consumption. The owners bought cars that achieved particular figure in NEDC test - and the cars still achieve that.

Sure - in real world they might consume more after the "emission fix". But every manufacturer claim in Europe consumption figures only in NEDC tests. If those are not changed, the owners have nothing to base the lawsuit on now.

Like in the knife story - you cannot claim a loss when someone is taking something back that wasn't yours in the first place.

If that were the case beyond the fix there'd be no justification for compensation anywhere in the world.

As we all know that's not the case.

grogi

Henry Ford III wrote: »

If that were the case beyond the fix there'd be no justification for compensation anywhere in the world.

As we all know that's not the case.

a) NEDC Test stand for "New European Driving Condition Test". Outside Europe they quote different figures. For instance Leaf has range of 175km according to NEDC test while only 117km according to EPA.

b) Everywhere else in the world the cars might get banned from the roads. This means the residuals were affected. Again - not the case in Europe.

Henry Ford III

grogi wrote: »

a) NEDC Test stand for "New European Driving Condition Test". Outside Europe they quote different figures. For instance Leaf has range of 175km according to NEDC test while only 117km according to EPA.

b) Everywhere else in the world the cars might get banned from the roads. This means the residuals were affected. Again - not the case in Europe.

So who is getting it wrong? The size of the financial settlement suggests Europe is.

These are the same engines worldwide. The fix is the same worldwide.

There's plenty of talk of residuals being negatively affected in Europe.

Just because that hasn't filtered down to a small market with strong brand loyalty like ours doesn't mean it won't at some point.

If i were a VAG diesel owner I'd be very concerned.

grogi

Henry Ford III wrote: »

So who is getting it wrong? The size of the financial settlement suggests Europe is.

These are the same engines worldwide. The fix is the same worldwide.

Europe is, of course. The agencies should put more pressure on VW and investigate if they broke European law. I am not convinced that what has been revealed so far proofs VW actually did brake the law here.

They did however acted in a very anti-competitive manner, put hybrid/electric innovation on hold and polluted our environment.

VW should sweat and example made of it. For not a single company to try similar stunt anymore. However political forces will not allow that.

Henry Ford III wrote: »

There's plenty of talk of residuals being negatively affected in Europe.

Just because that hasn't filtered down to a small market with strong brand loyalty like ours doesn't mean it won't at some point.

As you pointed out - it is talk right now. When it finally happens, there will be grounds to seek for compensation. Right now - those owners are just getting a label of hysterical vultures

Henry Ford III wrote: »

If i were a VAG diesel owner I'd be very concerned.

If I were before, I would not be at this stage