Diesel Cayenne and VW emission issue
09-27-2016, 04:34 PM
#1606
Instructor
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank You DR Cayenne for reversing your position and allowing forum members to post their own contributions - whether they pass your relevancy test or not. That is a relief!
As a co-member of the Scientific Community (with me), you certainly understand that all information can be relevant, and that suppressing certain opinions of points of view is usually detrimental to full understanding of the topic at hand. To that end, I'll thank you not to dismiss viewpoints that don't support your personal thesis.
I am sorry that many of the people, agencies or entities mentioned on the previous 100+ pages of this thread are not here to defend themselves, but that won't stop any of us from having opinions about them and possibly even expressing those opinions. If you feel strongly that they are being unfairly treated in their absence, please alert them and invite them to participate in this forum. Their rebuttals will probably be of interest to the open-minded members here.
As far as Schmitt goes, he DOES write varying opinions, for different publications - I gave you two examples above.
I, too, have read his pieces for decades. But I never called him the things you attributed to me. You missed the part where I praised his article when you constructed your rant.
I made NO comments about the Judge - that's a figment of your imagination. But, yes, on several things I DO have more knowledge than Schmitt. Particularly when put in a larger context, so I may disagree with him.
And yes, Speigel, is spotty in Journalistic veracity, just as Reuters, Forbes and WSJ - it's an unfortunate development in Journalism today. One must be a meticulous reader not to be lead astray.
The Free-Lance Writer Community is all over the board, including writing pieces that conflict with ones they may have written a week ago!
As I mentioned before, Autoweek (my source for the Schmitt/Forbes story) seems to have the most reliable editorial standards - I recommend it as a good subscription for our forum readers here. They provide links to the more relevant articles world-wide.
But please don't misquote me, as you have several others, by manipulating the quotes, and don't attribute things that I have never referenced, to me. That's disingenuous. And your repeated spewing of derisive name-calling for those who "think differently" from you is, to use your oft-said words, immoral, disgraceful, and deplorable.
Those of us who have contributed to this thread will thank you for your own attention to the lofty standards that you spout.
We all have something to say, and it all has merit. Please respect our input. If you aren't interested, just don't read it. Somebody else may gain a tidbit of insight.
I will continue to post my findings of current developments, and I will often put them in context with my decades of Biological, Automotive, Diesel, Emissions technology, Regulatory and EPA experience.
History, and the Players, can go a long way in understanding just how this is all moving, and the impediments to that movement.
As a co-member of the Scientific Community (with me), you certainly understand that all information can be relevant, and that suppressing certain opinions of points of view is usually detrimental to full understanding of the topic at hand. To that end, I'll thank you not to dismiss viewpoints that don't support your personal thesis.
I am sorry that many of the people, agencies or entities mentioned on the previous 100+ pages of this thread are not here to defend themselves, but that won't stop any of us from having opinions about them and possibly even expressing those opinions. If you feel strongly that they are being unfairly treated in their absence, please alert them and invite them to participate in this forum. Their rebuttals will probably be of interest to the open-minded members here.
As far as Schmitt goes, he DOES write varying opinions, for different publications - I gave you two examples above.
I, too, have read his pieces for decades. But I never called him the things you attributed to me. You missed the part where I praised his article when you constructed your rant.
I made NO comments about the Judge - that's a figment of your imagination. But, yes, on several things I DO have more knowledge than Schmitt. Particularly when put in a larger context, so I may disagree with him.
And yes, Speigel, is spotty in Journalistic veracity, just as Reuters, Forbes and WSJ - it's an unfortunate development in Journalism today. One must be a meticulous reader not to be lead astray.
The Free-Lance Writer Community is all over the board, including writing pieces that conflict with ones they may have written a week ago!
As I mentioned before, Autoweek (my source for the Schmitt/Forbes story) seems to have the most reliable editorial standards - I recommend it as a good subscription for our forum readers here. They provide links to the more relevant articles world-wide.
But please don't misquote me, as you have several others, by manipulating the quotes, and don't attribute things that I have never referenced, to me. That's disingenuous. And your repeated spewing of derisive name-calling for those who "think differently" from you is, to use your oft-said words, immoral, disgraceful, and deplorable.
Those of us who have contributed to this thread will thank you for your own attention to the lofty standards that you spout.
We all have something to say, and it all has merit. Please respect our input. If you aren't interested, just don't read it. Somebody else may gain a tidbit of insight.
I will continue to post my findings of current developments, and I will often put them in context with my decades of Biological, Automotive, Diesel, Emissions technology, Regulatory and EPA experience.
History, and the Players, can go a long way in understanding just how this is all moving, and the impediments to that movement.
Never intended to suppress, divert or manipulate (no one has any power to). Never reverted anything (that is "in your dream word" I quoted someone else I watched on TV yesterday night)
Love the freedom of speech.....but it goes both ways. Let me give you an example:
Although you try to single out me, I am not the only one that feels the CARB/EPA discussions are not relevant to OP. It is not me who said that CRB/EPA issues are redherring(s). So there is more than one person (and I am sure that there are many) who thinks this is "off topic". I can critique and call it "off topic" and you can not suppress that either. And yes, every time you bring this topic to the forum, if I find it irrelevant I will label it as "off topic".
Furthermore I will be suspicious if you are doing this deliberately as a trolling effort to divert attention.
Regarding Bettell Schmitt, I am not sure if he has been writing in US for "decades", he was in China and Japan for many years. But I have followed him for quite a while (since his TTAC years) and always found him to be a knowledgeble auto-industry analyst. However I have to insist that implying him to be a hired pen lacks ethics.... as long as you do not come up with hard evidence. And no, your articles do not suggest that at all. I have read them and never felt what you claim. And you are correct "I feel strongly that they are being unfairly treated in their absence".
However the burden is on you, not me to "invite them to participate in this forum". Tell Bertell for example that you made allegations that he "DOES write differing opinions based on who PAYS him", your exact words, and ask him to clarify his position. If you sincerely belive that is the case, it is your DUTY to call him to this forum to clarify himself. Talking behind his back will continue to be unethical.
This thread is about CD non-compliance and customer concerns regarding the outcome of this ordeal. And we DO have a right to talk about VW as there is HARD EVIDENCE that they were involved in a decades long fraud. Top to bottom. The immoral party is not us when we critize them.
I have no saying that you call Der Spiegel, Reuters and WSJ as spotty, while praising Autoweek. This I guess does not need a response.
But again, you are again dragging irrelvant parties to the discussion calling them names, making baseless alllegations about their journalistic abilities with NO EVIDENCE. And in their absence. Behind their back. They are not "spotty journalists" just because you think they are.
So are yo a certified columnist critique of some sort alongside "decades of Biological, Automotive, Diesel, Emissions technology, Regulatory and EPA expert" as you portray yourself.
Let me tell you, I know no one in scientific community who does that. The debate is based on hard facts, in front of an audience, not behind their backs. Again your argument has to be based on cold hard facts, not your feelings. You can not besmear people behind their backs with baseless allegations. Try doing that and you will be recognized in academic circles...really fast.
The reason why I referred "the article" (and I really....really do not want to go there) is due to the fact that someone made an assertion that VW did not harm anyone. Tell that to the next asthmatic kid when he is looking at you, frigtened with no idea why he/she can not breathe. I will leave it at that.
Coming to ad hominem, yes there is party that is disingenious and quite manipulative. That party may have the intent to divert the conversation to "off topic" areas for personal agenda. That party might besmear people behind their back. Whenever this happens, I will call it for what it is.
Last edited by Dr Cayenne; 09-27-2016 at 04:49 PM.
09-27-2016, 06:42 PM
#1607
Ugh. I have you on ignore and should probably continue to do so, but this latest spat got me curious and I see you are still up to you same old blathering.
It does not matter what you or anyone else "feel". Feelings are irrelevant in a discussion like this. It is a simple fact that CARB/EPA are very much part of this issue both in how it came to be and how the resolution has played out.
You claim some of us are "cheerleaders" for VW, but based on your own standards I'd say you are a cheerleader for CARB/EPA and want to cover up their part in this whole debacle.
If the CARB/EPA had A) put out realistic limitations that were actually attainable and B) had real testing procedures that did not include just accepting what the MFGs tell them, then we would not be in this mess as A) VAG probably wouldn't have tried such a blatant cheat and B) it would have been found much sooner and without relying on a 3rd party.
VAG was wrong to do what they did, of that there is no question. CARB/EPA is wrong to have enabled them to do so, of that there is also no question.
What is at question is what is an appropriate resolution to this situation and by stating that CARB/EPA have no part of it you are either lying to yourself, trolling us, or have no concept of how the world (and specifically government agencies (especially highly politicized ones)) works.
Let's see this hard evidence of "decades long fraud" then. The issue has spanned multiple decades, but it has only been going on for a single decade (and not even quite that yet). That quote of yours is disingenuous at best and liable at worst.
You should try reading (and following) what you write sometimes...
No you want. You will give us the proof that no other medical professional has been able to offer to directly tie any ailment in any person directly to any car emissions through ambient/normal exposure since the clean air act took effect. Don't try to throw out someone's unsubstantiated thesis either, let's see the peer reviewed and tested proof that the level of NoX we are talking about has any appreciable effect. If you can't/won't do so, then you need to quit spouting your unsubstantiated lies/hyperbole.
You talk about facts, yet you throw out unsubstantiated drivel about asthmatic kids when you know damn well (if you really are a Doctor) it can not be directly tied to this unless they spent considerable amount of time in enclosed spaces with running motors.
What's you're address? I'd like to send you a mirror as you clearly don't own one.
Ugh. Enough. Back to ignoring your sorry excuse for hyperbolic and misrepresentative drivel. Hopefully I'll be more successful this time.
You claim some of us are "cheerleaders" for VW, but based on your own standards I'd say you are a cheerleader for CARB/EPA and want to cover up their part in this whole debacle.
If the CARB/EPA had A) put out realistic limitations that were actually attainable and B) had real testing procedures that did not include just accepting what the MFGs tell them, then we would not be in this mess as A) VAG probably wouldn't have tried such a blatant cheat and B) it would have been found much sooner and without relying on a 3rd party.
VAG was wrong to do what they did, of that there is no question. CARB/EPA is wrong to have enabled them to do so, of that there is also no question.
What is at question is what is an appropriate resolution to this situation and by stating that CARB/EPA have no part of it you are either lying to yourself, trolling us, or have no concept of how the world (and specifically government agencies (especially highly politicized ones)) works.
And we DO have a right to talk about VW as there is HARD EVIDENCE that they were involved in a decades long fraud.
Again your argument has to be based on cold hard facts, not your feelings.
Tell that to the next asthmatic kid when he is looking at you, frigtened with no idea why he/she can not breathe. I will leave it at that.
You talk about facts, yet you throw out unsubstantiated drivel about asthmatic kids when you know damn well (if you really are a Doctor) it can not be directly tied to this unless they spent considerable amount of time in enclosed spaces with running motors.
yes there is party that is disingenious and quite manipulative
What's you're address? I'd like to send you a mirror as you clearly don't own one.
Ugh. Enough. Back to ignoring your sorry excuse for hyperbolic and misrepresentative drivel. Hopefully I'll be more successful this time.
09-27-2016, 07:12 PM
#1608
Instructor
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ugh. I have you on ignore and should probably continue to do so, but this latest spat got me curious and I see you are still up to you same old blathering.
It does not matter what you or anyone else "feel". Feelings are irrelevant in a discussion like this. It is a simple fact that CARB/EPA are very much part of this issue both in how it came to be and how the resolution has played out.
You claim some of us are "cheerleaders" for VW, but based on your own standards I'd say you are a cheerleader for CARB/EPA and want to cover up their part in this whole debacle.
If the CARB/EPA had A) put out realistic limitations that were actually attainable and B) had real testing procedures that did not include just accepting what the MFGs tell them, then we would not be in this mess as A) VAG probably wouldn't have tried such a blatant cheat and B) it would have been found much sooner and without relying on a 3rd party.
VAG was wrong to do what they did, of that there is no question. CARB/EPA is wrong to have enabled them to do so, of that there is also no question.
What is at question is what is an appropriate resolution to this situation and by stating that CARB/EPA have no part of it you are either lying to yourself, trolling us, or have no concept of how the world (and specifically government agencies (especially highly politicized ones)) works.
Let's see this hard evidence of "decades long fraud" then. The issue has spanned multiple decades, but it has only been going on for a single decade (and not even quite that yet). That quote of yours is disingenuous at best and liable at worst.
You should try reading (and following) what you write sometimes...
No you want. You will give us the proof that no other medical professional has been able to offer to directly tie any ailment in any person directly to any car emissions through ambient/normal exposure since the clean air act took effect. Don't try to throw out someone's unsubstantiated thesis either, let's see the peer reviewed and tested proof that the level of NoX we are talking about has any appreciable effect. If you can't/won't do so, then you need to quit spouting your unsubstantiated lies/hyperbole.
You talk about facts, yet you throw out unsubstantiated drivel about asthmatic kids when you know damn well (if you really are a Doctor) it can not be directly tied to this unless they spent considerable amount of time in enclosed spaces with running motors.
What's you're address? I'd like to send you a mirror as you clearly don't own one.
Ugh. Enough. Back to ignoring your sorry excuse for hyperbolic and misrepresentative drivel. Hopefully I'll be more successful this time.
It does not matter what you or anyone else "feel". Feelings are irrelevant in a discussion like this. It is a simple fact that CARB/EPA are very much part of this issue both in how it came to be and how the resolution has played out.
You claim some of us are "cheerleaders" for VW, but based on your own standards I'd say you are a cheerleader for CARB/EPA and want to cover up their part in this whole debacle.
If the CARB/EPA had A) put out realistic limitations that were actually attainable and B) had real testing procedures that did not include just accepting what the MFGs tell them, then we would not be in this mess as A) VAG probably wouldn't have tried such a blatant cheat and B) it would have been found much sooner and without relying on a 3rd party.
VAG was wrong to do what they did, of that there is no question. CARB/EPA is wrong to have enabled them to do so, of that there is also no question.
What is at question is what is an appropriate resolution to this situation and by stating that CARB/EPA have no part of it you are either lying to yourself, trolling us, or have no concept of how the world (and specifically government agencies (especially highly politicized ones)) works.
Let's see this hard evidence of "decades long fraud" then. The issue has spanned multiple decades, but it has only been going on for a single decade (and not even quite that yet). That quote of yours is disingenuous at best and liable at worst.
You should try reading (and following) what you write sometimes...
No you want. You will give us the proof that no other medical professional has been able to offer to directly tie any ailment in any person directly to any car emissions through ambient/normal exposure since the clean air act took effect. Don't try to throw out someone's unsubstantiated thesis either, let's see the peer reviewed and tested proof that the level of NoX we are talking about has any appreciable effect. If you can't/won't do so, then you need to quit spouting your unsubstantiated lies/hyperbole.
You talk about facts, yet you throw out unsubstantiated drivel about asthmatic kids when you know damn well (if you really are a Doctor) it can not be directly tied to this unless they spent considerable amount of time in enclosed spaces with running motors.
What's you're address? I'd like to send you a mirror as you clearly don't own one.
Ugh. Enough. Back to ignoring your sorry excuse for hyperbolic and misrepresentative drivel. Hopefully I'll be more successful this time.
Last edited by Dr Cayenne; 09-27-2016 at 07:36 PM.
09-27-2016, 07:41 PM
#1609
Instructor
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"“He Who Knows And Knows That He Knows Is A Wise Man - Follow Him;
He Who Knows Not And Knows Not That He Knows Not Is A Fool - Shun Him”
The remainder of your babbling does not deserve a response anyway.
09-27-2016, 10:12 PM
#1612
Instructor
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Will just disregard, it is a waste of my valuable time (crosses fingers and hopes the topic not to turn into pages and pages of irrelevant CARB/EPA/Judge Breyer rant)
I find this quite hilarious and would like to share it with you though:
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/201...pealing-prize/
09-27-2016, 10:21 PM
#1613
Instructor
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
09-28-2016, 12:57 PM
#1614
Instructor
There are Dealers who have a waiting list for used Diesels. Mine just offered me a surprising amount for our '15 - outright purchase.
In looking at book values, the CDs have been increasing in value over the last several months, but just flattened this month.
Our M-B ML Diesel, on the other hand, has seen the usual month-to-month depreciation.
Find a Dealer who has developed their Diesel Market and go for it!
If you're looking at another brand, they like conquest sales, so your timing is still good - but hurry!
09-28-2016, 06:36 PM
#1615
Instructor
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd trade right now if you are of a mind.
There are Dealers who have a waiting list for used Diesels. Mine just offered me a surprising amount for our '15 - outright purchase.
In looking at book values, the CDs have been increasing in value over the last several months, but just flattened this month.
Our M-B ML Diesel, on the other hand, has seen the usual month-to-month depreciation.
Find a Dealer who has developed their Diesel Market and go for it!
If you're looking at another brand, they like conquest sales, so your timing is still good - but hurry!
There are Dealers who have a waiting list for used Diesels. Mine just offered me a surprising amount for our '15 - outright purchase.
In looking at book values, the CDs have been increasing in value over the last several months, but just flattened this month.
Our M-B ML Diesel, on the other hand, has seen the usual month-to-month depreciation.
Find a Dealer who has developed their Diesel Market and go for it!
If you're looking at another brand, they like conquest sales, so your timing is still good - but hurry!
So I am not sure if dealers "with a long list of buyers" is a product of your imagination at work or not. For sure the values are plunging more than its gas equivalents (increase in value over past several months ????) And thank you for offering me the option of buying a different brand; been driving Porsches for more than most people here .... so no thanks (with the reservation of outcome of this mess of course, won't bring my business to Porsche if they screw CD owners really hard in the end)
Last edited by Dr Cayenne; 09-28-2016 at 09:36 PM.
09-28-2016, 08:05 PM
#1616
Let me add my .02 cents worth and yes I have skin in the game as we own two diesel Cayennes and are completely happy with them and hopefully can drive them as is for many years.
I honestly don't expect a "solution" as Porsche was never in non compliance. The CARB judge is asking for a a "solution" and yet the EPA as I understand it has failed to to write the standards as required by law. So to what standard should Porsche apply a solution to .. a standard that does not exist. This is separate from the VW 2.0 liter issue which is clearly not in compliance. so I think this issue with the Cayenne will just linger on. For those that want to trade out of their Cayennes I offer some sympathy . My position is just leave me and my Cayennes alone and let me enjoy a truly outstanding vehicle
I honestly don't expect a "solution" as Porsche was never in non compliance. The CARB judge is asking for a a "solution" and yet the EPA as I understand it has failed to to write the standards as required by law. So to what standard should Porsche apply a solution to .. a standard that does not exist. This is separate from the VW 2.0 liter issue which is clearly not in compliance. so I think this issue with the Cayenne will just linger on. For those that want to trade out of their Cayennes I offer some sympathy . My position is just leave me and my Cayennes alone and let me enjoy a truly outstanding vehicle
09-28-2016, 08:58 PM
#1617
Instructor
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yep that is how much we are screwed unless there is a buyback option.
I am saying this with an intent to discourage you; not at all, since I undrestand you have 2 vehicles and you enjoy them a lot (I do too, but I do not hold on to my DDs after warranty - > not handy, do not have time to deal with st(d)ealer and such).
...but realize this is an "orphan vehicle" now. No more new CDs or Macan D.'s in the future. Quite the contrary, they are pushing for electric vehicles big time:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...ine&yptr=yahoo
I quote this from Herbert Diess:
"Looking ahead, Diess was keen to stress the company's focus on electric vehicles, saying that diesel VWs will have disappeared "for sure" by 2020.
I won't be surpirised to see them leave diesel market for good, earlier than anyone else for non-commercial vehicles.
check this out:
"probably by the year 2021, become fully electric with a new platform entirely designed for the future"
whole article:
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/volks...150033835.html
So there will be a excessive loss of value in the long run compared to gas versions....just not as big as in the short run.
Again, not meant to discourage or disillusion, just stating the likely outcome of this mess for owners.
But thx for expressing your sympathy for us, the ones who will suffer the most due to acute unexpected deprecation of the vehicles (CD used to hold their values beter than its gas Cayenne peers untill the dieselgate you know)
Last edited by Dr Cayenne; 09-28-2016 at 09:28 PM.
09-28-2016, 09:15 PM
#1618
If they agree with the 2.0 I think we are going to have a positive outcome
09-28-2016, 09:33 PM
#1619
Instructor
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not a Tesla owner, not a Tesla share owner (I guess...well at least not intentionally), but the tone in this can be seen as corporate arrogance at its best:
"Volkswagen executives are using the Paris auto show to tout its future electric vehicles, aiming at U.S. electric car maker Tesla Motors Inc (TSLA.O). Mueller, however, objected to the comparison.
"How many cars do they sell per year? How many? Fifty thousand per year," he said. "Do you know how many Volkswagen sells? 10 million! Why do we then talk of competition?"
"Volkswagen executives are using the Paris auto show to tout its future electric vehicles, aiming at U.S. electric car maker Tesla Motors Inc (TSLA.O). Mueller, however, objected to the comparison.
"How many cars do they sell per year? How many? Fifty thousand per year," he said. "Do you know how many Volkswagen sells? 10 million! Why do we then talk of competition?"
