Interesting reading - especially the last paragraph. Love a nice German sense of humor.

 

Yes that would legal, but the ACV (Actual Cash value) for the trade would be determined by the Dealer. Driven by market value.
If they found a place to wholesale the car for more money, they could allow you a higher ACV, which would also lower your tax liability. All well and good, and it would satisfy your State tax laws. If VW could play, they might be the wholesale buyer.

But I doubt that any settlement will allow VW to give the buyback incentive to a dealer - the settlement drafts are specifically directed to retail owners. So far.

It's going to be tightly controlled. Dealers are already under scrutiny about this, and I doubt that any of them would endanger their business by "playing" the system.

 

I take it back about Dealers not being able to get the same buyback as owners. See http://www.autonews.com/article/2016...utonews-weekly

One of the bullet points of the Dealer Settlement is I wonder how long after the Owner Settlement takes effect on the 2.0 cars this will be available. I'd guess - not before Owners start seeing money.
And I wonder if Porsche and Audi Dealers will have the same deal on VWs OR 3.0 cars.

 

Wow, that's very interesting. The trick, then, is to get a dealer to take your vehicle on trade for exactly your settlement value. Wonder how many will do this to facilitate another sale?

Typically, trade-ins are a pretty good source of income for car dealers, so this would bite into that. Then again, as far as Porsche diesels go, there's only a limited number and to sell another vehicle? From a customer relations perspective to keep possibly alienated customers in the brand, and at the specific dealership, I would think it would be totally worth it.

 

The Oct. 18 hearing is going to be interesting since there are tons of 2.0 owners who want to speak their minds.

 

If you enter "abgas skandal", you will find a ton of up to date information about the diesel scandal in german media. They are more accurate and some has the sense of humor that you mentioned (although gets lost in translation)

 

Diesel in EU

http://www.forbes.com/sites/bertelsc.../#22dc987988a5

 

See, now, I have some issues with this article:

http://www.roadandtrack.com/new-cars...igger-engines/

Specifically this quote:

But the emissions aren't ILLEGAL. Those cars are designed to do well on the test that they are designed for. Outside of that, they do poorly. Everyone knows this downsized turbo thing is a farce, and that those engines get far less fuel economy in the real world than predicted, and by a bigger margin vs. the older engines ever did.

But the gist of this article is that because those engines don't produce the low, low CO2 numbers all the time, they are polluting. They are not. That's like throwing a bunch of differential equations questions on a calculus exam and then wondering why all the test scores are so low. Just because it's math, doesn't mean it's the same thing!

You can't tell manufacturers that you must provide cars that meet certain emissions standards on a given test, and then get upset when the emissions differ outside of those parameters. Really? This is a shock to someone?

What a bunch of BS posturing.

 

^^^^^ I agree. If they meet standards, then they meet standards.
The Court ordered EPA to write standards that address on-road (non EPA test cycle) emissions in 2001. They have not done written those standards as ordered.
The rules will be tough to write, and tough to meet.
But requiring manufacturers to meet unwritten standards is just CYA.

"Oh, Officer, I didn't know they were thinking about lowering the speed limit here," as I pull out my license and registration....

 

There is a competing factor here. In cities, where air quality is most challenged, they have found that the new Tier 4, 5, 6 cars are not arriving in the fleet as fast as hoped for. Particulates are the biggest concern, which the new specs virtually eliminate, but the percentage of new-tier diesels is too low to have the desired impact.
In other words, people are keeping their cars longer, due to economic hard times AND the higher cost of the new diesels.
So these cities are banning diesels. First, they tried the older delivery trucks, then they banned other delivery vehicles. Now they are restricting diesel operation to certain hours.
I haven't seen the results yet, but I suspect that your average new-diesel buyer is discouraged by this. And since more people live in these high-population areas, one might expect the numbers of new diesel buyers to reflect the diesel restrictions more.

On the other hand, here in the U.S., manufacturers are jumping on the diesel bandwagon with diesels being offered in more car and light truck models. The new Chev Cruze just announced a diesel variant, for instance. Toyota is apparently scrambling to get a diesel in the Tundra. Range Rover is extending their 3.0 into more of their models. and so is M-B.

Another example, in SUV towing circles, the Jeep Grand Cherokee with its 3.0 VM Motari diesel is making big inroads and stretching manufacturing capacity.

There's no sign that diesel is dead here!

 

For sure CARB/EPA has nothing to do with this mess, VW decided to cheat and has paid for it in 2.0 lt cars lawsuit. Barely off the hook in EU although public perception there is that they are corrupt. That perceprtion is highest in their homeland. Least on this forum I guess, but I know most realize what is going on. This topic is a red herring as I and others have said. There is purpose here, but I do not want to speculate.

Diesel is on its way to graveyard in everywhere on Earth. US is located on...mother earth. But again not seeing that and trying to "prop up" an unjustified Diesel hooliganism is not fact based, but due to an agenda. And again, I do not have to speculate about it. Everyone is aware.

The only thing that will be dead is going to be the enthusiasm against the brand. Since all the signs point to a "fix" rather than an option to buyback....which is what everyone else got. Almost no one wants this.

EPA and CARB might force VW for a buyback, but VW will not voluntarily do it. I will be very surprised if they lay out a plan for buyback on October 18th.

I will replace "very surprised" with "AMAZED" in the previous sentence. But this might not be the end of this story and VW once again might find itself on the wrong side of calculation.

 

One more thing, EPA/CARB are the only hope for CD owners for a buyback. I hope they will make a strong case against the "fix" and force VW to provide this option.

Ahhh yes, that might cost quite a bit a dime to VW. And that is why both of these agencies are attacked here. So the agenda is not as "concealed" as one might think.

We are in the middle of VW PR campaign. That is why we are watching their ads, press relases under a topic like this. Posted by the same people. Over and over. They claim that is entertaining. I claim it is unethical.

 

From AP:

The EPA says it is still investigating emissions cheating problems with the 3-liter diesels, and it's exploring solutions that are "technically sound and a fair deal for consumers."

So....that is the reason they are under attack here. Realize people who attack EPA discuss only the "technicality" of the issue. They want you to focus only on the "technical solution". So if this "technical problem" is resolved you got a screaming deal!!!!. Many of these "forum contributors" also repeat that "you do not deserve anything else". "A buyback", my gosh! How come you dare to suggest it. Read these "contributors'" comments. That is what they have been telling us. Over and over.

EPA acknowledges the fair outcome is beyond a technical fix. According to them we deserve a "fair deal". That makes EPA an enemy to VW's PR machine. Understandable.

So what do we, the owners suppose to do? The answer is obivious! Watch more Porsche press releases and watch more of their ads.....all here in this forum....courtesy of VW PR and entertainment services.

 

Searcher, I think that you're 100% correct. And frankly I've moved on...just need to get rid of the Jetta TDI as the parking spot in Chicago is worth more than the car.

I was on 9hr flight today and had plenty of time to search for useless items and came across this very recent article that describes my trade-in vs. buy back and the tax predicament.

http://www.ctpost.com/local/article/...el-9966057.php

 

FYI, the Oct deadline is for a technical fix only. The parallel track program ordered by the judge had a deadline of Nov 4