nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

VW emissions software update - disaster

Golfgorfield

So i own a 2010 Golf GTD with DSG.
I received the letter to have the car made legal again for arguments sake amd decided to let my vw dealer do ot when in for service.
Its a 60,000 mile very well maintained with all main dealer stamps.
The car pulls like a train through the gears and when in sport mode it holds the revs in the high torque band brilliantly and is a joy to drive.

Well it was.......

After the software upgrade ive driven it over the weekend and it is certainly not the car it was, it feels much slower and its much more revvy and much less torquey.... in sport mode it doesnt hold the revs like it did and the dsg has become a bit dopey, theres also a slight vibration/wobble under acceleration at low speed which has appeared.

Has anyone any experience of this situation?
Im raging i got it done at all now.
I have phoned VW who stated they guarantee the car should feel exactly the same... just like they guaranteed all their engines were within emissions laws........

Has anyone noticed any differences after they had theirs done?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Special Circumstances

Anjobe wrote: »

There are two answers to that. In terms of climate changing CO2 emissions petrol is obviously worse than diesel. In terms of respiratory disease causing NOx and carcinogenic particulate emissions,yes petrol is relatively clean compared to diesel. Diesel was incentivisised because of the first issue, but is now considered a serious public health issue in cities because of the second.

I think Nonoperational implied you are an idiot.

Anjobe

X6.430macman wrote: »

And petrol is clean??

There are two answers to that. In terms of climate changing CO2 emissions petrol is obviously worse than diesel. In terms of respiratory disease causing NOx and carcinogenic particulate emissions,yes petrol is relatively clean compared to diesel. Diesel was incentivisised because of the first issue, but is now considered a serious public health issue in cities because of the second.

ABC101

X6.430macman wrote: »

dar83 wrote:

Cancer giving clean.

And petrol is clean??

Nobody is saying Petrol is clean. It too is a pollutant and harmful to health, benzene etc + a GHG contributor etc.
Coincidentally the particulate problem which Diesels suffer from (due to Direct injection) may also become a feature of petrol engines as direct injection is starting to be used there too.
Perhaps the future is EV and self driving cars?
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1352231014006190

X6.430macman

dar83 wrote:

Cancer giving clean.

And petrol is clean??

Special Circumstances

Nonoperational wrote: »

Remember that anecdote about arguing with idiots? That applies.

Ah I wouldn't call them idiots, they knew what they were doing alright. Trying it on in the US was foolish though.

Nonoperational

X6.430macman wrote: »

Diesel has come an awful long way. A modern complient diesel is now very clean.

Remember that anecdote about arguing with idiots? That applies.

Special Circumstances

X6.430macman wrote: »

Diesel has come an awful long way. A modern complient diesel is now very clean.

So clean they don't even have to test it at NCT except for a token joke test ;-)

dar83

X6.430macman wrote: »

Diesel has come an awful long way. A modern complient diesel is now very clean.

Cancer giving clean.

X6.430macman

ABC101 wrote:

Diesel begins with a D, that's because it's Dirty!

Diesel has come an awful long way. A modern complient diesel is now very clean.

ABC101

SBPhoto wrote: »

ABC101 wrote: »

Innocent buyers were sold a pig in a poke etc, won't be the first time or the last, VW may have lied / cheated but other manufacturers frequently lie too.

Irish Dept of the Environment would never go to Germany and demand back taxes for polluting engines.

But then again the Irish system is CO2 based, not NOx or particulates.

I blame the Green Party who rammed this system down the publics throat, incentives to switch from petrol to diesel etc

Diesel begins with a D, that's because it's Dirty!

All fuels are dirty

It was a "pun" on the letter "D", not all fuels begin with D.
It could be argued that Hydrogen (if produced environmentally) is a clean fuel etc.

Special Circumstances

SBPhoto wrote: »

All fuels are dirty

So... we should incentivise the dirtiest?
Not sure what you're getting at tbh.

SBPhoto

ABC101 wrote: »

Innocent buyers were sold a pig in a poke etc, won't be the first time or the last, VW may have lied / cheated but other manufacturers frequently lie too.

Irish Dept of the Environment would never go to Germany and demand back taxes for polluting engines.

But then again the Irish system is CO2 based, not NOx or particulates.

I blame the Green Party who rammed this system down the publics throat, incentives to switch from petrol to diesel etc

Diesel begins with a D, that's because it's Dirty!

All fuels are dirty

ABC101

Innocent buyers were sold a pig in a poke etc, won't be the first time or the last, VW may have lied / cheated but other manufacturers frequently lie too.

Irish Dept of the Environment would never go to Germany and demand back taxes for polluting engines.

But then again the Irish system is CO2 based, not NOx or particulates.

I blame the Green Party who rammed this system down the publics throat, incentives to switch from petrol to diesel etc

Diesel begins with a D, that's because it's Dirty!

zilog_jones

ABC101 wrote: »

Well 8.5 times the Legal NOx limit is still better than 40 times the NOx limit.
If the engine cannot be altered to produce NOx at or below the limit then after engine mods are required, like urea injection etc, addblue or whatever.
If they are not going to install that then what is the point?

The 8.5 times was measured both before and after in the case of this Amarok - this is based on Euro 6 limits which are more lenient than the US EPA stuff. Of course we don't know the full story as no one has independently tested all the other VW diesels before and after the update.

VW don't care about reducing limits during real world driving as they're legally not required to.

Cee-Jay-Cee

Pkiernan wrote: »

Should owners who now are fully aware that their cars emit more CO2 than represented be forced to pay higher Road Tax if they refuse to have their cars fixed?
I think that they should. Claim it back off VW if you want but polluter should be paying.

They bought the cars in good faith. Why should they now be penalised for not wanting to change the way their cars perform. This is VW's problem and any loss of motor tax should be taken from them, in fact the gorvernmeht could make a pretty penny by working out the additional cost per car and back dating it to when ever each car had was new and landing the bill on VW. there would be massive support for it by everyone!

ABC101

Well 8.5 times the Legal NOx limit is still better than 40 times the NOx limit.
If the engine cannot be altered to produce NOx at or below the limit then after engine mods are required, like urea injection etc, addblue or whatever.
If they are not going to install that then what is the point?
Some people won't be bothered too much about NOx / particulate emissions and so on. However if you lived in a bigger city like London, Paris etc, you would care. Even if your own health was perfect it would be disheartening to see other people suffer from respiratory illness etc.

zilog_jones

CalamariFritti wrote: »

So as an owner of an affected car you will have to make a decision. Screw the emissions and have nothing done to the car or be 'compliant'...

Even from an emissions point of view it apparently makes no difference in the real world - that German magazine test of the Amarok before and after (see my post here a few days ago) showed it still produced 8.5 times over the legal limit of NOx during actual driving. The software update only needed to make the car legal during the NEDC test cycle, which is some rolling road bullshít.

Basically, it's a complete waste of time and doesn't fix the real problem.

colm_mcm

True that. The time allotted is rarely enough and the rates are quite low. I'd imagine it's not a pleasant campaign.

Toyotafanboi

mags1962 wrote: »

This is purely a money making exercise for the VAG dealers as the cost of the work will be reimbursed to them by VAG central and the more fixes they do the more they can claim back.

Warranty/ recall work is rarely lucrative. If anything dealers would probably much rather a good run of servicing than be inundated by a recall that they struggle to break even on.

mags1962

I've had at least 3 letters and a phone call, from a customer service company employed by VAG, and ever time I've told them I won't be getting it done.
Mine's a 2012 2.0 TDI 170 bhp Audi and as has been said "If it ain't broke ....".
It's out of warrantee now so I'll be getting an Independant to do any work needed from now on without having to worry that they will do the fix.
This is purely a money making exercise for the VAG dealers as the cost of the work will be reimbursed to them by VAG central and the more fixes they do the more they can claim back.

Golfgorfield

Pkiernan wrote: »

Should owners who now are fully aware that their cars emit more CO2 than represented be forced to pay higher Road Tax if they refuse to have their cars fixed?
I think that they should. Claim it back off VW if you want but polluter should be paying.

No.

Golfgorfield

colm_mcm wrote: »

I wonder if anyone with a standard non fixed version has any dyno figures? Would be interesting to do a side by side. Or even if you could fit a standard non fixed ecu and do two dyno runs?

There is a post in here with a graph of an A5 dyno before and after. Startling results that mirror exactly what ive experienced.

bear1

Pkiernan wrote: »

Should owners who now are fully aware that their cars emit more CO2 than represented be forced to pay higher Road Tax if they refuse to have their cars fixed?
I think that they should. Claim it back off VW if you want but polluter should be paying.

No.

colm_mcm

I wonder if anyone with a standard non fixed version has any dyno figures? Would be interesting to do a side by side. Or even if you could fit a standard non fixed ecu and do two dyno runs?

bazz26

Problem is that you would have limited funds to pay one solicitor while they have a whole law firm with way more money. Then there is your time trying to prove before and after.

Pkiernan

Should owners who now are fully aware that their cars emit more CO2 than represented be forced to pay higher Road Tax if they refuse to have their cars fixed?
I think that they should. Claim it back off VW if you want but polluter should be paying.

bear1

I wonder, could you have cause for legal challenges?

CalamariFritti

Common sense will tell you that you cannot expect to have this fix applied and the car to be the exact same after. If that was possible then they wouldn't have to cheat in the first place. Something's got to give.

So as an owner of an affected car you will have to make a decision. Screw the emissions and have nothing done to the car or be 'compliant' with something nobody will ever pull you over for and live with reduced performance/efficiency/whatever.

I know what I'd do.

Are VW actually claiming the fix will neither affect performance nor efficiency?

zilog_jones

I bet they did no real technical examination - they're not going to gain anything out of it by doing so. Unfortunately, with no hard evidence to back up your claims, it's your word against theirs and it will be difficult to prove anything. VW just want to tick some boxes to claim they made their best efforts to make their vehicles legal by EU type approval standards - they clearly don't give a shít about customers.

bazz26

It's gas that they claim the car was remapped prior to the fix yet will not produce proof of their findings to make the claim.

I know what you mean by being done with them and moving on but I'd still put it to them on their social media outlets such as facebook and twitter so at least it might alert other owners who were thinking of bringing their car into be "fixed". Social Media perception is normally important to these companies.