Diesel Cayenne and VW emission issue
10-26-2016, 07:40 AM
#1846
RL Community Team
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
And Lawyers are always trying to get paid.
10-26-2016, 02:54 PM
#1847
RL Community Team
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
The full text of the Consent Decrees is available to read online:
http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/crb/vwmdl
Since I unfortunately have experience with Consent Decrees, the majority of the language in here is familiar to me. Nonetheless, while this does not directly solve the issue for the 3 liter cars, it gives more insight into the thinking of the court, and some additional details on the transactions which are likely coming our way.
Unlike the court transcripts, these documents do not read easily, so it'll be some time before I comb through all of them. But right away, one thing I see is that the court was adamant that whatever fix is filed and approved by VW is subject to the following:
The Consent Decree also requires Volkswagen to notify consumers if a Fix is
approved or disapproved before they must select a buyback or a Fix and to provide a detailed
emissions modification disclosure that explains how the Fix will likely impact vehicle
performance and emissions control. (See App’x B ¶ 5.1.1-5.1.2, Dkt. No. 1973-1.) This allows
consumers the opportunity to evaluate their options and choose accordingly. If a consumer
decides a Fix is not appropriate, the buyback option remains available. Given that consumers will
have the ability evaluate any approved Fix and may elect another remedy if the Fix is
unsatisfactory, the Court cannot conclude this remedy is substantively unfair.
The owners having a choice has been an oft-repeated mantra by the judge, so I have hope that we too will receive a choice.
Edit: As part of the fix, VW must attach a label to the car stating what parts were changed but also the new fuel economy of the car. Interesting.
Second Edit: Jumped to Appendix B, Vehicle Recall and Emissions Modification Program. It is getting very technical.
http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/crb/vwmdl
Since I unfortunately have experience with Consent Decrees, the majority of the language in here is familiar to me. Nonetheless, while this does not directly solve the issue for the 3 liter cars, it gives more insight into the thinking of the court, and some additional details on the transactions which are likely coming our way.
Unlike the court transcripts, these documents do not read easily, so it'll be some time before I comb through all of them. But right away, one thing I see is that the court was adamant that whatever fix is filed and approved by VW is subject to the following:
The Consent Decree also requires Volkswagen to notify consumers if a Fix is
approved or disapproved before they must select a buyback or a Fix and to provide a detailed
emissions modification disclosure that explains how the Fix will likely impact vehicle
performance and emissions control. (See App’x B ¶ 5.1.1-5.1.2, Dkt. No. 1973-1.) This allows
consumers the opportunity to evaluate their options and choose accordingly. If a consumer
decides a Fix is not appropriate, the buyback option remains available. Given that consumers will
have the ability evaluate any approved Fix and may elect another remedy if the Fix is
unsatisfactory, the Court cannot conclude this remedy is substantively unfair.
The owners having a choice has been an oft-repeated mantra by the judge, so I have hope that we too will receive a choice.
Edit: As part of the fix, VW must attach a label to the car stating what parts were changed but also the new fuel economy of the car. Interesting.
Second Edit: Jumped to Appendix B, Vehicle Recall and Emissions Modification Program. It is getting very technical.
Last edited by Needsdecaf; 10-26-2016 at 03:03 PM. Reason: added additional facts found
10-26-2016, 03:25 PM
#1848
But right away, one thing I see is that the court was adamant that whatever fix is filed and approved by VW is subject to the following:
The Consent Decree also requires Volkswagen to notify consumers if a Fix is
approved or disapproved before they must select a buyback or a Fix and to provide a detailed
emissions modification disclosure that explains how the Fix will likely impact vehicle
performance and emissions control. (See App’x B ¶ 5.1.1-5.1.2, Dkt. No. 1973-1.) This allows
consumers the opportunity to evaluate their options and choose accordingly. If a consumer
decides a Fix is not appropriate, the buyback option remains available. Given that consumers will
have the ability evaluate any approved Fix and may elect another remedy if the Fix is
unsatisfactory, the Court cannot conclude this remedy is substantively unfair.
The Consent Decree also requires Volkswagen to notify consumers if a Fix is
approved or disapproved before they must select a buyback or a Fix and to provide a detailed
emissions modification disclosure that explains how the Fix will likely impact vehicle
performance and emissions control. (See App’x B ¶ 5.1.1-5.1.2, Dkt. No. 1973-1.) This allows
consumers the opportunity to evaluate their options and choose accordingly. If a consumer
decides a Fix is not appropriate, the buyback option remains available. Given that consumers will
have the ability evaluate any approved Fix and may elect another remedy if the Fix is
unsatisfactory, the Court cannot conclude this remedy is substantively unfair.
10-26-2016, 05:28 PM
#1849
RL Community Team
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
10-26-2016, 06:26 PM
#1850
Rennlist Member
If you guys want to peek into the thoughts of CARB regarding the 3.0 issue, here is an a snipe of what CARB told European parliament:
"Question from European parliament: In the aftermath of the VW revelations, other European manufacturers - BMW, Renault, Daimler, Opel, Fiat etc. - have been accused and come under suspicion of changing the performance of vehicle emission control system during the real-world operation by using the so called ‘thermo windows’. It has become clear that there is a broad range of temperature limits used to reduce the effectiveness of EGR technology (e.g. below 10°C - Daimler or below 17°C - Renault and Opel). The definition of a defeat device is practically identical in the US and EU. Could you please tell us whether, according to your expertise, the use of a thermo window could be considered a defeat device or as an exception to the general prohibition due to the need to protect the engines in certain conditions? Could you please
elaborate on the main differences between the US and EU regulatory approach with regards to implementing and enforcing the ban on defeat devices?"
CARB's response: We cannot comment on the specifics of our ongoing investigations into potential issues related to emission controls by other auto makers. As you know, as of the time of generating this written response, we still have to resolve the remaining violations associated with VW’s 3.0L engines. We are generally aware of the developments in Europe with other auto makers and the reference to a “thermo window.” However, at the moment, we can only acknowledge the plausibility that such an approach, if undisclosed, could fit into the definition of a defeat device under California law, and these methods could be violations of other regulatory requirements.
In addition, we cannot comment on the differences between your regulatory approach and California’s, as we do not have detailed knowledge of your requirements applicable to defeat devices. In our case, California regulations make it explicitly clear what constitutes a defeat device. In addition, our authority for compliance and enforcement is delineated in State law."
Full letter can be found here: https://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/vw_inf..._committee.pdf
"Question from European parliament: In the aftermath of the VW revelations, other European manufacturers - BMW, Renault, Daimler, Opel, Fiat etc. - have been accused and come under suspicion of changing the performance of vehicle emission control system during the real-world operation by using the so called ‘thermo windows’. It has become clear that there is a broad range of temperature limits used to reduce the effectiveness of EGR technology (e.g. below 10°C - Daimler or below 17°C - Renault and Opel). The definition of a defeat device is practically identical in the US and EU. Could you please tell us whether, according to your expertise, the use of a thermo window could be considered a defeat device or as an exception to the general prohibition due to the need to protect the engines in certain conditions? Could you please
elaborate on the main differences between the US and EU regulatory approach with regards to implementing and enforcing the ban on defeat devices?"
CARB's response: We cannot comment on the specifics of our ongoing investigations into potential issues related to emission controls by other auto makers. As you know, as of the time of generating this written response, we still have to resolve the remaining violations associated with VW’s 3.0L engines. We are generally aware of the developments in Europe with other auto makers and the reference to a “thermo window.” However, at the moment, we can only acknowledge the plausibility that such an approach, if undisclosed, could fit into the definition of a defeat device under California law, and these methods could be violations of other regulatory requirements.
In addition, we cannot comment on the differences between your regulatory approach and California’s, as we do not have detailed knowledge of your requirements applicable to defeat devices. In our case, California regulations make it explicitly clear what constitutes a defeat device. In addition, our authority for compliance and enforcement is delineated in State law."
Full letter can be found here: https://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/vw_inf..._committee.pdf
10-26-2016, 06:51 PM
#1851
RL Community Team
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
If you guys want to peek into the thoughts of CARB regarding the 3.0 issue, here is an a snipe of what CARB told European parliament:
"Question from European parliament: In the aftermath of the VW revelations, other European manufacturers - BMW, Renault, Daimler, Opel, Fiat etc. - have been accused and come under suspicion of changing the performance of vehicle emission control system during the real-world operation by using the so called ‘thermo windows’. It has become clear that there is a broad range of temperature limits used to reduce the effectiveness of EGR technology (e.g. below 10°C - Daimler or below 17°C - Renault and Opel). The definition of a defeat device is practically identical in the US and EU. Could you please tell us whether, according to your expertise, the use of a thermo window could be considered a defeat device or as an exception to the general prohibition due to the need to protect the engines in certain conditions? Could you please
elaborate on the main differences between the US and EU regulatory approach with regards to implementing and enforcing the ban on defeat devices?"
CARB's response: We cannot comment on the specifics of our ongoing investigations into potential issues related to emission controls by other auto makers. As you know, as of the time of generating this written response, we still have to resolve the remaining violations associated with VW’s 3.0L engines. We are generally aware of the developments in Europe with other auto makers and the reference to a “thermo window.” However, at the moment, we can only acknowledge the plausibility that such an approach, if undisclosed, could fit into the definition of a defeat device under California law, and these methods could be violations of other regulatory requirements.
In addition, we cannot comment on the differences between your regulatory approach and California’s, as we do not have detailed knowledge of your requirements applicable to defeat devices. In our case, California regulations make it explicitly clear what constitutes a defeat device. In addition, our authority for compliance and enforcement is delineated in State law."
Full letter can be found here: https://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/vw_inf..._committee.pdf
"Question from European parliament: In the aftermath of the VW revelations, other European manufacturers - BMW, Renault, Daimler, Opel, Fiat etc. - have been accused and come under suspicion of changing the performance of vehicle emission control system during the real-world operation by using the so called ‘thermo windows’. It has become clear that there is a broad range of temperature limits used to reduce the effectiveness of EGR technology (e.g. below 10°C - Daimler or below 17°C - Renault and Opel). The definition of a defeat device is practically identical in the US and EU. Could you please tell us whether, according to your expertise, the use of a thermo window could be considered a defeat device or as an exception to the general prohibition due to the need to protect the engines in certain conditions? Could you please
elaborate on the main differences between the US and EU regulatory approach with regards to implementing and enforcing the ban on defeat devices?"
CARB's response: We cannot comment on the specifics of our ongoing investigations into potential issues related to emission controls by other auto makers. As you know, as of the time of generating this written response, we still have to resolve the remaining violations associated with VW’s 3.0L engines. We are generally aware of the developments in Europe with other auto makers and the reference to a “thermo window.” However, at the moment, we can only acknowledge the plausibility that such an approach, if undisclosed, could fit into the definition of a defeat device under California law, and these methods could be violations of other regulatory requirements.
In addition, we cannot comment on the differences between your regulatory approach and California’s, as we do not have detailed knowledge of your requirements applicable to defeat devices. In our case, California regulations make it explicitly clear what constitutes a defeat device. In addition, our authority for compliance and enforcement is delineated in State law."
Full letter can be found here: https://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/vw_inf..._committee.pdf
What a no answer..
10-26-2016, 07:23 PM
#1852
Oh I don't know, I find this part interesting:
Shouldn't a regulatory body be staying abreast of what other related bodies are doing in other jurisdictions to make sure they are staying up to date and relevant?
I'm certainly jaded about CARB, but that definitely reads like a big middle finger to a group that seems to have accepted that they made regulatory mistakes and are trying to figure out how to correct them. Flip it around and I have seen nothing from CARB/EPA indicating "hey, we left a bunch of loopholes here that we need to look into correcting"...
In addition, we cannot comment on the differences between your regulatory approach and California’s
I'm certainly jaded about CARB, but that definitely reads like a big middle finger to a group that seems to have accepted that they made regulatory mistakes and are trying to figure out how to correct them. Flip it around and I have seen nothing from CARB/EPA indicating "hey, we left a bunch of loopholes here that we need to look into correcting"...
10-26-2016, 10:09 PM
#1853
Rennlist Member
Not necessarily. If VW thinks they can fix these engines without impacting performance, or compensating sufficiently for loss of performance (and mpg, of course) without having to buy them all back, I suspect that's what they would do.
It'd be a heck of a lot cheaper to install, say a $7500 fix (just a number I made up as an exampe; I have no idea what it will actually cost) and offer, say, $20K to us all than it would to buy back these vehicles at an average of $55K (again, trying to pull an average out of you know where... and it may well smell like I did just that!) plus the compensation payment.
It'd be a heck of a lot cheaper to install, say a $7500 fix (just a number I made up as an exampe; I have no idea what it will actually cost) and offer, say, $20K to us all than it would to buy back these vehicles at an average of $55K (again, trying to pull an average out of you know where... and it may well smell like I did just that!) plus the compensation payment.
10-26-2016, 10:16 PM
#1854
Rennlist Member
If you guys want to peek into the thoughts of CARB regarding the 3.0 issue, here is an a snipe of what CARB told European parliament:
"Question from European parliament: In the aftermath of the VW revelations, other European manufacturers - BMW, Renault, Daimler, Opel, Fiat etc. - have been accused and come under suspicion of changing the performance of vehicle emission control system during the real-world operation by using the so called ‘thermo windows’. It has become clear that there is a broad range of temperature limits used to reduce the effectiveness of EGR technology (e.g. below 10°C - Daimler or below 17°C - Renault and Opel). The definition of a defeat device is practically identical in the US and EU. Could you please tell us whether, according to your expertise, the use of a thermo window could be considered a defeat device or as an exception to the general prohibition due to the need to protect the engines in certain conditions? Could you please
elaborate on the main differences between the US and EU regulatory approach with regards to implementing and enforcing the ban on defeat devices?"
CARB's response: We cannot comment on the specifics of our ongoing investigations into potential issues related to emission controls by other auto makers. As you know, as of the time of generating this written response, we still have to resolve the remaining violations associated with VW’s 3.0L engines. We are generally aware of the developments in Europe with other auto makers and the reference to a “thermo window.” However, at the moment, we can only acknowledge the plausibility that such an approach, if undisclosed, could fit into the definition of a defeat device under California law, and these methods could be violations of other regulatory requirements.
In addition, we cannot comment on the differences between your regulatory approach and California’s, as we do not have detailed knowledge of your requirements applicable to defeat devices. In our case, California regulations make it explicitly clear what constitutes a defeat device. In addition, our authority for compliance and enforcement is delineated in State law."
Full letter can be found here: https://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/vw_inf..._committee.pdf
"Question from European parliament: In the aftermath of the VW revelations, other European manufacturers - BMW, Renault, Daimler, Opel, Fiat etc. - have been accused and come under suspicion of changing the performance of vehicle emission control system during the real-world operation by using the so called ‘thermo windows’. It has become clear that there is a broad range of temperature limits used to reduce the effectiveness of EGR technology (e.g. below 10°C - Daimler or below 17°C - Renault and Opel). The definition of a defeat device is practically identical in the US and EU. Could you please tell us whether, according to your expertise, the use of a thermo window could be considered a defeat device or as an exception to the general prohibition due to the need to protect the engines in certain conditions? Could you please
elaborate on the main differences between the US and EU regulatory approach with regards to implementing and enforcing the ban on defeat devices?"
CARB's response: We cannot comment on the specifics of our ongoing investigations into potential issues related to emission controls by other auto makers. As you know, as of the time of generating this written response, we still have to resolve the remaining violations associated with VW’s 3.0L engines. We are generally aware of the developments in Europe with other auto makers and the reference to a “thermo window.” However, at the moment, we can only acknowledge the plausibility that such an approach, if undisclosed, could fit into the definition of a defeat device under California law, and these methods could be violations of other regulatory requirements.
In addition, we cannot comment on the differences between your regulatory approach and California’s, as we do not have detailed knowledge of your requirements applicable to defeat devices. In our case, California regulations make it explicitly clear what constitutes a defeat device. In addition, our authority for compliance and enforcement is delineated in State law."
Full letter can be found here: https://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/vw_inf..._committee.pdf
Oh I don't know, I find this part interesting:
Shouldn't a regulatory body be staying abreast of what other related bodies are doing in other jurisdictions to make sure they are staying up to date and relevant?
I'm certainly jaded about CARB, but that definitely reads like a big middle finger to a group that seems to have accepted that they made regulatory mistakes and are trying to figure out how to correct them. Flip it around and I have seen nothing from CARB/EPA indicating "hey, we left a bunch of loopholes here that we need to look into correcting"...
Shouldn't a regulatory body be staying abreast of what other related bodies are doing in other jurisdictions to make sure they are staying up to date and relevant?
I'm certainly jaded about CARB, but that definitely reads like a big middle finger to a group that seems to have accepted that they made regulatory mistakes and are trying to figure out how to correct them. Flip it around and I have seen nothing from CARB/EPA indicating "hey, we left a bunch of loopholes here that we need to look into correcting"...
Basically, "we're CARB and we'll do what we want. We're aware of the general practice of you Europeans regarding the 'thermo window", but we don't care. We haven't decided yet if we're going to deign to allow a common practice to not be considered a cheat in this case. As far as the differences between the EU and CARB, we're too important to know what the EU is doing for air quality and regulations (and, quite franly, we don't care)."
Like gnat said, that's pretty much flipping a big bird to the EU.
10-26-2016, 10:54 PM
#1855
Instructor
If you guys want to peek into the thoughts of CARB regarding the 3.0 issue, here is an a snipe of what CARB told European parliament:
.... However, at the moment, we can only acknowledge the plausibility that such an approach, if undisclosed, could fit into the definition of a defeat device under California law, and these methods could be violations of other regulatory requirements.....
.... However, at the moment, we can only acknowledge the plausibility that such an approach, if undisclosed, could fit into the definition of a defeat device under California law, and these methods could be violations of other regulatory requirements.....
That's what both the EPA and CARB are hanging their hats on, and THAT will likely win in various Courts.
But notice that CARB is not suing for excess emissions - just the method that VWOA used to submit their in-house certifications. Which was fast and loose, and they deserve to be held accountable.
10-26-2016, 11:07 PM
#1856
Instructor
The full text of the Consent Decrees is available to read online:
http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/crb/vwmdl
Since I unfortunately have experience with Consent Decrees, the majority of the language in here is familiar to me. Nonetheless, while this does not directly solve the issue for the 3 liter cars, it gives more insight into the thinking of the court, and some additional details on the transactions which are likely coming our way.
Unlike the court transcripts, these documents do not read easily, so it'll be some time before I comb through all of them. But right away, one thing I see is that the court was adamant that whatever fix is filed and approved by VW is subject to the following:
The Consent Decree also requires Volkswagen to notify consumers if a Fix is
approved or disapproved before they must select a buyback or a Fix and to provide a detailed
emissions modification disclosure that explains how the Fix will likely impact vehicle
performance and emissions control. (See App’x B ¶ 5.1.1-5.1.2, Dkt. No. 1973-1.) This allows
consumers the opportunity to evaluate their options and choose accordingly. If a consumer
decides a Fix is not appropriate, the buyback option remains available. Given that consumers will
have the ability evaluate any approved Fix and may elect another remedy if the Fix is
unsatisfactory, the Court cannot conclude this remedy is substantively unfair.
The owners having a choice has been an oft-repeated mantra by the judge, so I have hope that we too will receive a choice.
Edit: As part of the fix, VW must attach a label to the car stating what parts were changed but also the new fuel economy of the car. Interesting.
Second Edit: Jumped to Appendix B, Vehicle Recall and Emissions Modification Program. It is getting very technical.
http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/crb/vwmdl
Since I unfortunately have experience with Consent Decrees, the majority of the language in here is familiar to me. Nonetheless, while this does not directly solve the issue for the 3 liter cars, it gives more insight into the thinking of the court, and some additional details on the transactions which are likely coming our way.
Unlike the court transcripts, these documents do not read easily, so it'll be some time before I comb through all of them. But right away, one thing I see is that the court was adamant that whatever fix is filed and approved by VW is subject to the following:
The Consent Decree also requires Volkswagen to notify consumers if a Fix is
approved or disapproved before they must select a buyback or a Fix and to provide a detailed
emissions modification disclosure that explains how the Fix will likely impact vehicle
performance and emissions control. (See App’x B ¶ 5.1.1-5.1.2, Dkt. No. 1973-1.) This allows
consumers the opportunity to evaluate their options and choose accordingly. If a consumer
decides a Fix is not appropriate, the buyback option remains available. Given that consumers will
have the ability evaluate any approved Fix and may elect another remedy if the Fix is
unsatisfactory, the Court cannot conclude this remedy is substantively unfair.
The owners having a choice has been an oft-repeated mantra by the judge, so I have hope that we too will receive a choice.
Edit: As part of the fix, VW must attach a label to the car stating what parts were changed but also the new fuel economy of the car. Interesting.
Second Edit: Jumped to Appendix B, Vehicle Recall and Emissions Modification Program. It is getting very technical.
What is interesting here - is the Judge's continual directive (maybe assumption) that owners be presented with the Fix as an option.
My fear, and expectation, is that the regulators dilly dally around and - well - just don't get around to approving a fix, so we will not have an option.
I think that suits THEM just fine. But if the Judge follows through more emphatically,maybe we WILL see a reasonable fix, on which we can make informed decisions.
10-26-2016, 11:19 PM
#1857
RL Community Team
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Originally Posted by gnat
Oh I don't know, I find this part interesting:Shouldn't a regulatory body be staying abreast of what other related bodies are doing in other jurisdictions to make sure they are staying up to date and relevant?
I'm certainly jaded about CARB, but that definitely reads like a big middle finger to a group that seems to have accepted that they made regulatory mistakes and are trying to figure out how to correct them. Flip it around and I have seen nothing from CARB/EPA indicating "hey, we left a bunch of loopholes here that we need to look into correcting"...
I'm certainly jaded about CARB, but that definitely reads like a big middle finger to a group that seems to have accepted that they made regulatory mistakes and are trying to figure out how to correct them. Flip it around and I have seen nothing from CARB/EPA indicating "hey, we left a bunch of loopholes here that we need to look into correcting"...
Originally Posted by skiahh
Oh, I think that's quite an answer.
Basically, "we're CARB and we'll do what we want. We're aware of the general practice of you Europeans regarding the 'thermo window", but we don't care. We haven't decided yet if we're going to deign to allow a common practice to not be considered a cheat in this case. As far as the differences between the EU and CARB, we're too important to know what the EU is doing for air quality and regulations (and, quite franly, we don't care)."
Like gnat said, that's pretty much flipping a big bird to the EU.
Basically, "we're CARB and we'll do what we want. We're aware of the general practice of you Europeans regarding the 'thermo window", but we don't care. We haven't decided yet if we're going to deign to allow a common practice to not be considered a cheat in this case. As far as the differences between the EU and CARB, we're too important to know what the EU is doing for air quality and regulations (and, quite franly, we don't care)."
Like gnat said, that's pretty much flipping a big bird to the EU.
10-26-2016, 11:20 PM
#1858
RL Community Team
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Originally Posted by Searcher356
Needsdecaf, Thanks for delving into the Consent Decree. I, too, have been involved in Consent Decrees. Unfortunately, the Decrees themselves are augmented by verbal directives when the Judge releases his findings. Those comments, found in transcripts, are usually part and parcel of the Decree, and actionable. Lots to digest.
What is interesting here - is the Judge's continual directive (maybe assumption) that owners be presented with the Fix as an option.
My fear, and expectation, is that the regulators dilly dally around and - well - just don't get around to approving a fix, so we will not have an option.
I think that suits THEM just fine. But if the Judge follows through more emphatically,maybe we WILL see a reasonable fix, on which we can make informed decisions.
What is interesting here - is the Judge's continual directive (maybe assumption) that owners be presented with the Fix as an option.
My fear, and expectation, is that the regulators dilly dally around and - well - just don't get around to approving a fix, so we will not have an option.
I think that suits THEM just fine. But if the Judge follows through more emphatically,maybe we WILL see a reasonable fix, on which we can make informed decisions.
10-27-2016, 09:58 AM
#1859
Advanced
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not necessarily. If VW thinks they can fix these engines without impacting performance, or compensating sufficiently for loss of performance (and mpg, of course) without having to buy them all back, I suspect that's what they would do.
It'd be a heck of a lot cheaper to install, say a $7500 fix (just a number I made up as an exampe; I have no idea what it will actually cost) and offer, say, $20K to us all than it would to buy back these vehicles at an average of $55K (again, trying to pull an average out of you know where... and it may well smell like I did just that!) plus the compensation payment.
It'd be a heck of a lot cheaper to install, say a $7500 fix (just a number I made up as an exampe; I have no idea what it will actually cost) and offer, say, $20K to us all than it would to buy back these vehicles at an average of $55K (again, trying to pull an average out of you know where... and it may well smell like I did just that!) plus the compensation payment.
10-27-2016, 10:04 AM
#1860
RL Community Team
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Not necessarily. If VW thinks they can fix these engines without impacting performance, or compensating sufficiently for loss of performance (and mpg, of course) without having to buy them all back, I suspect that's what they would do.
It'd be a heck of a lot cheaper to install, say a $7500 fix (just a number I made up as an exampe; I have no idea what it will actually cost) and offer, say, $20K to us all than it would to buy back these vehicles at an average of $55K (again, trying to pull an average out of you know where... and it may well smell like I did just that!) plus the compensation payment.
It'd be a heck of a lot cheaper to install, say a $7500 fix (just a number I made up as an exampe; I have no idea what it will actually cost) and offer, say, $20K to us all than it would to buy back these vehicles at an average of $55K (again, trying to pull an average out of you know where... and it may well smell like I did just that!) plus the compensation payment.
1. Reading through the transcripts, the judge has repeatedly identified that one of the biggest reasons that the CD is fair is that the owners have a choice. He's used that as one of his points in overcoming buyer's objections to the settlement, and he also used it in his Decision justifying why the CD is a good settlement for the class. Since he's made it one of the key tenets of his legal decision, I can't imagine that he would abandon this for the 3 liter cars.
2. The technical requirements listed in Appendix 3 of the Consent Decree are very, very rigorous. The judge admitted that the numbers that they are aiming the fix to hit are not quite the numbers that VW was supposed to have originally certified the car to. I think the number was 85 to 90%. However, while the requirements for emissions are somewhat forgiving, the other requirements for the fix are very, very rigorous. The amount of testing and certification required is insane. VW must submit 4 cars of each of the three generations for CARB to test. There are real world tests, not dyno tests. Individual engines to be bench aged and tested to failure. Individual parts must be tested to make sure they make it to a normal service life. All the parts must be warrantied including the fuel system, the turbo, etc. There is an absolute ton of detail that must be met by the fix. I simply can't imagine that VW's going to have a fix up their sleeve that'll be approved any time soon. That brings me to point 3....
3. The Judge has repeatedly said that he wants a speedy resolution to the issue. He has repeatedly touted the speed at which this settlement has been reached, and has repeatedly mentioned that he wants the polluting cars off the road as soon as possible. Given the requirements set forth in item 2, I just can't see that he won't push for a buyback requirement. If you look at the timeframes allowed for the 2 liter cars, which VW has been working on longer, a fix won't be approved for some time.
4. As I noted in another post above, as part of any approved fix, VW is required to detail to the owners not only what is proposed to be changed, but also what potential effects the fix may have on mileage, performance and maintenance requirements. Each car must also be labeled with a sticker identifying that it has had the fix done and contains modified parts, etc. Again, I can't imagine that they would abandon this for the 3 liter cars and the only reason to inform you what effects it may have is so that, again, you have a choice to accept the fix or do a buyback.
5. Two meetings ago (believe it was latter September), the Judge said to VW that he thought it was great that VW felt confident that they were working toward a fix. But, and I'm paraphrasing here, because it's likely that the fix would probably be rejected and take time to be approved, he asked VW to work on a settlement on a parallel track. That's what we're going to hear about next week. So I can't imagine that he would ask them to go down the road of proposing a settlement (buyback) that is in addition to a fix....only to then abandon it. Just doesn't make sense to me.
6. The Der Spiegel article stating that Audi is planning on buying back 25k older generation units. Der Spiegel is not known for it's conjecture. While Audi has yet to confirm this, with this particular news outlet, I tend to believe that's what Audi is thinking. Although I don't think the judge will simply let them buy them back. I think he will make them propose a fix.
Again, this is ONLY my opinion. I certainly can't say that it's what will happen. But it's my gut feeling based on reading the actual words of the judge, and the content of the Consent Decree directly. I could very well be wrong and it could be wishful thinking. But the precedent has been set with the 2 liter cars and I don't believe that that will be abandoned moving forward.
Last edited by Needsdecaf; 10-27-2016 at 10:42 AM.