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

Odyssey 2005

Toyotafanboi wrote: »

What are you basing this on? The fact that it's a high miles or that it's had the update done?

Both 330k and an update = worthless. .if the update wasn't done I would have a different outlook.

Toyotafanboi

Odyssey 2005 wrote: »

Both 330k and an update = worthless. .if the update wasn't done I would have a different outlook.

More like 330k = worthless.

Do you honestly think it's value would rise noteably if the update was withheld? Put a figure on it, please.

knipex

Odyssey 2005 wrote: »

Both 330k and an update = worthless. .if the update wasn't done I would have a different outlook.

Sorry more like 330K plus dodgy ERG valve = worthless.

I have a golf with 260k up on it. No lights no issues, no ERG problems etc, no update and its still not worth a whole lot..

Sam Russell

knipex wrote: »

Sorry more like 330K plus dodgy ERG valve = worthless.

I have a golf with 260k up on it. No lights no issues, no ERG problems etc, no update and its still not worth a whole lot..

But you have no lights on and no need to get an EGR valve at a cost of upwards of €900. That is a whole lot better than that faced by JoeySoap's son whose Jetta suddenly developed expensive lights on on the dash after getting the update.

See post #265.

.

Odyssey 2005

Toyotafanboi wrote: »

More like 330k = worthless.

Do you honestly think it's value would rise noteably if the update was withheld? Put a figure on it, please.

Absolutely not...but I feel it would be a lot more saleable...not that I was even thinking of selling. It's driving like a car with80 k and looks it too. But the update causes problems with regard to saleability and for me with regard to confidence in the car..

Stallingrad

Toyotafanboi wrote: »

You'd want to be off your head buying a second hand VW at all.

The "technical measure" is easily spotted. VW even have a website that helps you avoid it.

Was looking at a UK one recently, could not get the VW.co.uk emisions checker to work, then found out that the Das Welt Warranty does not travel with the car so that was then end of that!

Toyotafanboi

Odyssey 2005 wrote: »

the update causes problems with regard to saleability

Sorry to keeping harping on this, but how so?

Honestly I don't see anything to support this, anywhere? I know if a non VW dealer wants to beat a car down on price they use it as an excuse, but VAG diesels are consistently the best sellers in the country, regardless of this.

Diesel VW's locally seem to be selling as strong as ever from what I can see. Having a dickie EGR on the other hand will devalue the car a whole pile, but they were fond of those pre EmissionsGate and it didn't affect values then.

Maybe it should devalue them, but it the social aspect of the cheating didn't devalue them, the perceived "fix" definitely won't.

This is all speaking locally, of course. Worldwide may be a different story.

tonic wine

I will not buy a car that has had the update. I'm in the market to buy one, but not one with the update.
I do alot of motorway miles per year and MPG in a diesel is important. There is plenty of other options out there, why bother buy one with the update with the bad experiences some customers have had post this "fix".

dlmo

Just to add something contrary to experiences here...just my experiences, no science.

I've had the update done to both our cars (2012 A6 2.0 & 2011 1.6 Golf) both over 4 months ago - both have FSH with main dealers.

On the A6, no noticeable drop in power or economy - I don't drive it much but the OH has not noticed any difference.

In the Golf I do a 600Km round trip weekly (25% motorway) and before the update I would never get below 4.9 L/100Km, whereas I'm now getting as low as 4.4 consistently on the run. Same amount of crap in the car, same driving style. No adverse impact on performance - it's a 90Bhp so performance was always sh*te, and is no better or worse.

zilog_jones

dlmo wrote: »

In the Golf I do a 600Km round trip weekly (25% motorway) and before the update I would never get below 4.9 L/100Km, whereas I'm now getting as low as 4.4 consistently on the run. Same amount of crap in the car, same driving style.

Are you sure about that? 4 months ago was winter, so you're going to get worse fuel consumption anyway. And are you measuring fuel usage yourself, or going by the trip computer? Trip computers are not known for their accuracy (they're usually calculating fuel consumption based on airflow, not actual fuel flow), and VW are not exactly well known for making truthful software...

Seth Brundle

tonic wine wrote: »

I will not buy a car that has had the update. I'm in the market to buy one, but not one with the update.

How would you know without proper confirmation?

MOTM

I'd a letter from VW to bring in my 2012 Passet 1.6TDI 105BHP in for the update. The car is running like clockwork and averages around 60mpg. I'm very wary of risking this.

The first letter I got was Jan 2017 saying the "technical measure will involve a software update to the engine management system". They sent me another letter in April 2017 saying "we should clarify that the technical measures will also involve the fitting of a flow transformer in front of the air mass sensor".

Doesn't exactly inspire confidence that the measure itself or the wording around it has changed in a few months. Good article on it here: https://www.theguardian.com/money/2017/mar/25/vw-volkswagen-audi-skoda-seat-emissions-fix-left-car-undriveable

Anyone know if driving a VW without the update when an update is available from VW will impact on car insurance (i.e. if driving it without the update, is it considered a "modified vehicle" requiring possible change to insurance policy)?
...aside from the NOx emissions, I can't think of any other reason to jeopardise the car by doing this update.

joujoujou

MOTM wrote: »

[...]

Anyone know if driving a VW without the update when an update is available from VW will impact on car insurance (i.e. if driving it without the update, is it considered a "modified vehicle" requiring possible change to insurance policy)?
...aside from the NOx emissions, I can't think of any other reason to jeopardise the car by doing this update.

No, it's not. I'd rather say update could be considered a modified vehicle instead (in fact it's obviously not). Just don't update and if you're gonna visit dealers in the future and give them a car for even very minor and completely irrelevant issue do not forget to loudly and clearly state you don't want it to be updated.

grogi

joujoujou wrote: »

No, it's not. I'd rather say update could be considered a modified vehicle instead (in fact it's obviously not). Just don't update and if you're gonna visit dealers in the future and give them a car for even very minor and completely irrelevant issue do not forget to loudly and clearly state you don't want it to be updated.

It is the manufacturer that is bringing the car to the desired condition. Actively refusing the fix is like modifying it...

joujoujou

grogi wrote: »

[...] Actively refusing the fix is like modifying it...

Not modifying is modifying? :eek:

MOTM

grogi wrote: »

It is the manufacturer that is bringing the car to the desired condition. Actively refusing the fix is like modifying it...

Can anyone confirm that an insurance company has raised this as an issue? I've talked to 2 separate mechanics (neither are VW) and one said he wouldn't go near the update, the other said the only reason he can think of is that an insurance company might say you're not covered if you didn't do the update. He'd no proof to back it up though.

I'm nearly afraid to ask my insurance company as I won't want to be railroaded into taking on the upgrade.

Gwynston

I can't imagine how this would even be an issue for insurance?

Surely it's classified as maintenance/repair work? You don't need to tell the insurance company when you get a new exhaust, or even a completely new engine!

mikeecho

I think everyone that wants an update, or wants their vw to be eco, should get the update.. if they don't like it, get it remapped, back to an original map.

And yes... pay for it out of your own pocket.

Otherwise.. leave it as is.

zilog_jones

mikeecho wrote: »

I think everyone that ... wants their vw to be eco, should get the update..

There is evidence it increases fuel consumption, and makes no difference with emissions in real world driving (they're only obliged to fix it for the test cycles) - so I would suggest nobody does the update.

Toyotafanboi

Did the AutoCar independent test not go to prove that Nox was notably reduced after the update?

zilog_jones

But that was just a test on a rolling road, no?

Toyotafanboi

No it was "real world" one one of the UK circuits iirc.

grogi

zilog_jones wrote: »

But that was just a test on a rolling road, no?

Even if it was, it would be outside of NEDC spec - so the car wouldn't know...

Anyway - you said 'there is evidence ... (the fix) makes no difference with emissions in real world driving'. Is there? Mind sharing the sources?

zilog_jones

Toyotafanboi wrote: »

No it was "real world" one one of the UK circuits iirc.

It was done on a rolling road at Millbrook Proving Ground, not on the roads. See here: https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/industry/autocar-test-shows-worse-economy-after-volkswagen-diesel-fix

grogi wrote: »

Even if it was, it would be outside of NEDC spec - so the car wouldn't know...

Well no - they have to get rid of the "cheat device" aspect of the software, so it needs to pass the test in a much less blatantly cheating way than before, i.e. it shouldn't "know" when it's performing an NEDC cycle. So a similar rolling road test (Autocar weren't specific on their test cycle) could also result in similarly favourable results.

Anyway - you said 'there is evidence ... (the fix) makes no difference with emissions in real world driving'. Is there? Mind sharing the sources?

http://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/news/vw-diesel-update-amarok-leistung-gleich-gut-verbrauch-leicht-erhoeht-10551733.html (use Google Translate)
They did emissions tests on the road and saw no appreciable difference with NOx emissions. If fuel consumption is going up, then CO2 emissions has to be increasing.

Of course, in both cases these are magazines testing just one type of car - far from definitive conclusions, and not necessarily unbiased sources.

grogi

zilog_jones wrote: »

They did emissions tests on the road and saw no appreciable difference with NOx emissions. If fuel consumption is going up, then CO2 emissions has to be increasing.

CO₂ has nothing to do with NOₓ. Typically the relationship is reverse - if you pump more fuel thus increasing CO₂, the emission of NOₓ decreases because the combustion temperature decreases.

I don't need to translate to understand the findings of auto-motor-und-sport. However methodology of the test is not revealed, it is hard to argue with it without any way to reproduce the experiment.

Of course, in both cases these are magazines testing just one type of car - far from definitive conclusions, and not necessarily unbiased sources.

When did magazines become unbiased source of information? ;-)

zilog_jones

grogi wrote: »

CO₂ has nothing to do with NOₓ. Typically the relationship is reverse - if you pump more fuel thus increasing CO₂, the emission of NOₓ decreases because the combustion temperature decreases.

I didn't say NOx had a direct correlation with CO2 - I said increased fuel consumption will mean increased CO2 emissions, but they noticed no significant change in NOx emissions.

Of course magazines are biased, I was being polite

joeysoap

Update; VW denying that the fix had anything to do with the EGR going faulty but they agreed to replace the EGR for €150 with a 2 year guarantee.

zilog_jones

It's good they're doing goodwill on these EGR valve replacements (was the car out of warranty?), but I have my suspicions that they know more about these failures than they're willing to tell you...

Gwynston

joeysoap wrote: »

Update; VW denying that the fix had anything to do with the EGR going faulty but they agreed to replace the EGR for €150 with a 2 year guarantee.

That's precisely what happened with our 2011 Golf when the EGR went 6 weeks after the recall.

benny79

I wouldnt be given them a penny and insisting they do it foc with warranty!