Diesel Cayenne and VW emission issue
#1501
This I think didn't have to be the case and add to the the mismatch between what VW customers/owner have recieved so far versus what the more premium owners of Audi and Porsche have gotten in similar kind just leave a bad taste in quite a few folks mouths and should never have been. Both equally paid for vehicles certified to be good to go and with X promised performance...they were not party to the fraud perpetrated so the differential in how each party has been treated is just wrong. Just because one can afford to pay X for a vehicle more than the lesser brand/model does in no way entitle them to less information, courtesy or right to a fix and in a way I would think if it was the other way around and owners of the lesser costing vehicle was receiving similar treatment maybe the media or even VW would be more "in arms" demanding actionable fixes. Just my 2 cents...
The simple fact of the matter is that we, as the owners of these vehicles are left with vehicles with a diminishing secondhand buyer base, a tainted image, a vehicle discontinued by the manufacturer.....which will all play to the hands of possible bargain shoppers.
The compensation that people will get is going to be immediately discounted by the market. Similar to most domestic vehicles, most of which has a big delta between their MSRP and their purchase price. Those vehicles are never valued by their MSRP in the second hand market.
The biggest cost of ownership in any vehicle is depreciation. The facts mentioned above clearly demonstrates how VW royally screwed us, their loyal, mostly fanatic (and I can count myself in to that description) customers.
Based on what we have seen so far, there is clearly lack of ethics, morality and respect to customers...but in addition there is a staggering lack of communication skills.
I find all this to be...unbelievable
If these forums are monitored in any form or fashion, I think owners have a responsibilty to express their frustration (rather than getting into deep discussions about artificial topics like EPA/CARB what not).
Maybe that will change their attitude in finding a solution and teach them to communicate better with their customers....just maybe.
#1504
Originally Posted by Searcher356
I represent a minor segment of the Cayenne market - I like the fuel economy, I like the low-rev drivability. It's handling is superb and un-SUV-like. I like the looks on friends' faces when I tell them they have been riding or driving a diesel! I love driving 700 miles at 85 mph, and I pull a 27' RV through the Colorado mountains (not at 85, though). Gas engined cars just aren't up to the task. I don't want another pickup truck.
The CD is tuned perfectly. Even when you step on it, the rpm and gearing syncs you right in the power band at all times. Not sure how the "fix" is going to improve/keep the drivability aspect of the car.
#1505
If this is true, then why is VW paying billions of dollars? If their defeat devices let them pass the test, but there are no more requirements, then they did not do anything illegal and should not have to pay any fines... or even fix the vehicles.
There has to be something more here; no company would just capitulate to the tune of billions of dollars if they did not technically violate any laws, rules or regulations. It would be cheaper to fight the charges and pay the legal costs that would clear them. Or at least minimize any costs associated with the charges.
VAG violated something that gave the US Government and the class(es) some very big teeth, whether EPA rules or something else.
There has to be something more here; no company would just capitulate to the tune of billions of dollars if they did not technically violate any laws, rules or regulations. It would be cheaper to fight the charges and pay the legal costs that would clear them. Or at least minimize any costs associated with the charges.
VAG violated something that gave the US Government and the class(es) some very big teeth, whether EPA rules or something else.
In answer to your question:
Let's suppose that EPA still hasn't complied with the 2002 Court order to write complete regulations. And let's say that the Media gets wind of testing by independents that show VW's are emitting greater than allowed pollutants. And let's say that the Public gets irate, but as usual has no clue where to direct their anger. VW becomes the stuff that tabloids feed on, and mis-information and disinformation flies wildly about.
The EPA and CARB are joyful that nobody is pointing fingers at them for not doing their job, including complying with a direct Court Order to do so, and they pile on.
VW can either capitulate to the $$$$Billlions of non-associated fines and electric grid infrastructure on top of restitution to owners, or they can counter-sue EPA for dereliction of duty and lack of appropriate guidance, and claim that they did not in fact violate any written regulations.
(At least one petroleum company did just that - resulting in re-affirmation by the Courts of EPA's responsibility to write regs. Sinclair, I think.)
But what would be the outcome if VW fought the EPA and CARB? They would be in Court for years, and it may not be a wise decision to "offend" the Agencies that regulate you.
And of course, we think we know that VW made conscious decisions to circumvent the intent of the law (somebody admitted it). They just have a weak hand.
Leaving the decision for such a counter-suit in the hands of a politically-appointed Judge may be even more stupid than doing the deed in the first place.
So the better tactic (especially with the VW Board comprised of several anti-VW Directors) might be to pay the money and shut up, hoping the mess would blow over before their funds dried up.
I would prefer to see the Auto Industry as a whole, sue EPA & CARB and (again) force them to write real-world regulations. But that would probably backfire - the regs would likely be punitive in nature, instead of constructive.
(If somebody on this Forum can find EPA regs subsequent to their 2006 "Intent to Regulate Durability" documents, let me know. I have not been able to find them.)
#1506
Your question is a good one. One thing, though, I haven't heard VW admit to a defeat device on the 3.0L engines. If there isn't one, then it's guilt by association.
In answer to your question:
Let's suppose that EPA still hasn't complied with the 2002 Court order to write complete regulations. And let's say that the Media gets wind of testing by independents that show VW's are emitting greater than allowed pollutants. And let's say that the Public gets irate, but as usual has no clue where to direct their anger. VW becomes the stuff that tabloids feed on, and mis-information and disinformation flies wildly about.
The EPA and CARB are joyful that nobody is pointing fingers at them for not doing their job, including complying with a direct Court Order to do so, and they pile on.
VW can either capitulate to the $$$$Billlions of non-associated fines and electric grid infrastructure on top of restitution to owners, or they can counter-sue EPA for dereliction of duty and lack of appropriate guidance, and claim that they did not in fact violate any written regulations.
(At least one petroleum company did just that - resulting in re-affirmation by the Courts of EPA's responsibility to write regs. Sinclair, I think.)
But what would be the outcome if VW fought the EPA and CARB? They would be in Court for years, and it may not be a wise decision to "offend" the Agencies that regulate you.
And of course, we think we know that VW made conscious decisions to circumvent the intent of the law (somebody admitted it). They just have a weak hand.
Leaving the decision for such a counter-suit in the hands of a politically-appointed Judge may be even more stupid than doing the deed in the first place.
So the better tactic (especially with the VW Board comprised of several anti-VW Directors) might be to pay the money and shut up, hoping the mess would blow over before their funds dried up.
I would prefer to see the Auto Industry as a whole, sue EPA & CARB and (again) force them to write real-world regulations. But that would probably backfire - the regs would likely be punitive in nature, instead of constructive.
(If somebody on this Forum can find EPA regs subsequent to their 2006 "Intent to Regulate Durability" documents, let me know. I have not been able to find them.)
In answer to your question:
Let's suppose that EPA still hasn't complied with the 2002 Court order to write complete regulations. And let's say that the Media gets wind of testing by independents that show VW's are emitting greater than allowed pollutants. And let's say that the Public gets irate, but as usual has no clue where to direct their anger. VW becomes the stuff that tabloids feed on, and mis-information and disinformation flies wildly about.
The EPA and CARB are joyful that nobody is pointing fingers at them for not doing their job, including complying with a direct Court Order to do so, and they pile on.
VW can either capitulate to the $$$$Billlions of non-associated fines and electric grid infrastructure on top of restitution to owners, or they can counter-sue EPA for dereliction of duty and lack of appropriate guidance, and claim that they did not in fact violate any written regulations.
(At least one petroleum company did just that - resulting in re-affirmation by the Courts of EPA's responsibility to write regs. Sinclair, I think.)
But what would be the outcome if VW fought the EPA and CARB? They would be in Court for years, and it may not be a wise decision to "offend" the Agencies that regulate you.
And of course, we think we know that VW made conscious decisions to circumvent the intent of the law (somebody admitted it). They just have a weak hand.
Leaving the decision for such a counter-suit in the hands of a politically-appointed Judge may be even more stupid than doing the deed in the first place.
So the better tactic (especially with the VW Board comprised of several anti-VW Directors) might be to pay the money and shut up, hoping the mess would blow over before their funds dried up.
I would prefer to see the Auto Industry as a whole, sue EPA & CARB and (again) force them to write real-world regulations. But that would probably backfire - the regs would likely be punitive in nature, instead of constructive.
(If somebody on this Forum can find EPA regs subsequent to their 2006 "Intent to Regulate Durability" documents, let me know. I have not been able to find them.)
#1507
Let's face it, this is our number one priority. Not sure we'd notice a 1-2 mpg drop, wouldn't be happy about it, but it they'd compensate for that. Nothing can compensate revising the CD to drive like something we didn't buy in the first place.
#1508
RL Community Team
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 8,947
Likes: 2,631
From: The Woodlands, TX.
I am with Dr. Cayenne on this one. I find it galling that the AUDI chief, during press interviews, throws out the October dates as if the deadlines came from them. Does he think we are stupid and don't have Internet access to court transcripts? If you read the court transcript, all VW was saying was "we are almost there, we are almost there, just let us drag this with the regulators." Had not the judge imposed the October deadline, we would still be now held hostage by VW's so claimed "technical salvation around the corner."
#1509
RL Community Team
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 8,947
Likes: 2,631
From: The Woodlands, TX.
The current regs are ridiculous. And I'm not talking just diesel or emissions, I'm talking CAFE, etc. These huge loopholes for oversized vehicles are ridiculous.
And don't get me started on off road diesel, and on-road heavy hauling diesel. I had a diesel generator running at my construction site 24/7 for 3 months and I guarantee I put out more emissions in that time than every single 3.0L diesel that VAG sold cumulative.
#1510
Hear hear.
The current regs are ridiculous. And I'm not talking just diesel or emissions, I'm talking CAFE, etc. These huge loopholes for oversized vehicles are ridiculous.
And don't get me started on off road diesel, and on-road heavy hauling diesel. I had a diesel generator running at my construction site 24/7 for 3 months and I guarantee I put out more emissions in that time than every single 3.0L diesel that VAG sold cumulative.
The current regs are ridiculous. And I'm not talking just diesel or emissions, I'm talking CAFE, etc. These huge loopholes for oversized vehicles are ridiculous.
And don't get me started on off road diesel, and on-road heavy hauling diesel. I had a diesel generator running at my construction site 24/7 for 3 months and I guarantee I put out more emissions in that time than every single 3.0L diesel that VAG sold cumulative.
A long-term Re-Think of how EPA regulates. I'd like to see more data-driven goals, and fewer Poll-driven Regs that are intended to shape elections. There is a lot at stake here (the future of Transportation), and manufacturers will continue to be held hostage without succinct guidance.
As affected owners, we should to see beyond this red herring the EPA is using to deflect criticism, and hold EPA/CARB's feet to the fire, to do their jobs.
I just hope they don't hold up a settlement with Owners until they get on track with the Mission they are charged with.
#1511
Well, here's something that says there are laws - criminal laws - here, that are in effect... and effectively written enough to convict someone.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/compa...ate/ar-AAiHuOw
http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/compa...ate/ar-AAiHuOw
#1512
Well, here's something that says there are laws - criminal laws - here, that are in effect... and effectively written enough to convict someone.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/compa...ate/ar-AAiHuOw
http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/compa...ate/ar-AAiHuOw
But the case here is fabricating in-house tests that were submitted to the EPA for vehicle certification, not violating emissions rules.
Which leads us back to the lack of written Regulations for autos after they leave the test cycle. And the dilemma the EPA is now facing - leading to ever-increasing scrutiny of Diesels from all manufacturers.
With effective Regulations, manufacturers could engineer, build, release and sell their autos. Now, it's just stalling by the Feds while they go through the motions of applying non-existent rules.
#1513
Took my Spyder in for the 10k mile service and was given a Cayenne diesel loaner. I was surprised that the engine was a lot louder at idle than my TDI Touareg. Also dash vibration associated with the engine at idle. Is this a normal thing on these vehicles or is there likely an issue? My Touareg is so quiet you wouldn't guess it was diesel. Other than that, I loved the Cayenne. I particularly liked the 32 mpg which my Touareg no longer gets. I have the Touareg at my local mechanic for a 120k mile service. He thinks he can get my fuel mileage back with the air filter replacement. Fingers crossed.
#1514
Took my Spyder in for the 10k mile service and was given a Cayenne diesel loaner. I was surprised that the engine was a lot louder at idle than my TDI Touareg. Also dash vibration associated with the engine at idle. Is this a normal thing on these vehicles or is there likely an issue? My Touareg is so quiet you wouldn't guess it was diesel. Other than that, I loved the Cayenne. I particularly liked the 32 mpg which my Touareg no longer gets. I have the Touareg at my local mechanic for a 120k mile service. He thinks he can get my fuel mileage back with the air filter replacement. Fingers crossed.