Diesel Cayenne and VW emission issue
11-29-2016, 10:58 PM
#2101
Rennlist Member
I think it is about VW not wanting to provide "any" compensation and just do the "fix." Our lawyers most likely believe we have been economically injured and need to be compensated.
As I said before, VW is keen to use the media to mitigate the damages. The latest statements by the Porsche North American CEO were in total disregard to us. He wants to flood the market with the unsold inventory as used cars. We are talking thousand plus CDs entering the used market. If you are holding your CD till the end of its life, then it does not matter. But if you were thinking of using it as a trade in then your CDs value certainly has gone down.
As I said before, VW is keen to use the media to mitigate the damages. The latest statements by the Porsche North American CEO were in total disregard to us. He wants to flood the market with the unsold inventory as used cars. We are talking thousand plus CDs entering the used market. If you are holding your CD till the end of its life, then it does not matter. But if you were thinking of using it as a trade in then your CDs value certainly has gone down.
By saying they will dump all the CDs sitting on the lots as used vehicles, they've just caused a pretty big drop in existing used values. I'm sure it hasn't shown up yet on the value guides, but dumping ~17% of the total vehicle population into the market at depressed prices will certainly have an impact on our values, at least temporarily.
PCNA didn't do their side any good with this announcement. They should have waited until the deal was done, though that certainly would have looked a lot like a "F-U" to current owners.
11-29-2016, 11:20 PM
#2103
RL Community Team
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
How is that a joke?
They sound like they are close, just working out the compensation.
Would you rather have the lawyers roll over on whatever VW is offering to get the vehicles off the road? I don't think Beyers wants to see that, either. He seems to want a decent solution in the most expedient manner.
If the parties came to him and said, "we're close... we have a technical solution, but we're still hashing out the compensation part. Give us 2 more weeks and we think we'll be there," why wouldn't he postpone a hearing that will just say, "we're close... we have a technical solution, but we're still hashing out the compensation. Let's schedule another hearing for mid-December because we're pretty sure we'll have it worked out by then?"
Of course the lead lawyer wants as much compensation as possible and VW wants as little as possible. But if they think they can resolve the differences with 2 weeks more, why not give it a try?
I think everyone realizes if they don't, it's going to trial, so the extra time - before a trial starts next year costs nothing.
They sound like they are close, just working out the compensation.
Would you rather have the lawyers roll over on whatever VW is offering to get the vehicles off the road? I don't think Beyers wants to see that, either. He seems to want a decent solution in the most expedient manner.
If the parties came to him and said, "we're close... we have a technical solution, but we're still hashing out the compensation part. Give us 2 more weeks and we think we'll be there," why wouldn't he postpone a hearing that will just say, "we're close... we have a technical solution, but we're still hashing out the compensation. Let's schedule another hearing for mid-December because we're pretty sure we'll have it worked out by then?"
Of course the lead lawyer wants as much compensation as possible and VW wants as little as possible. But if they think they can resolve the differences with 2 weeks more, why not give it a try?
I think everyone realizes if they don't, it's going to trial, so the extra time - before a trial starts next year costs nothing.
11-29-2016, 11:22 PM
#2104
RL Community Team
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
This will - or should - now be factored into any compensation. I hope the lawyers are listening!
By saying they will dump all the CDs sitting on the lots as used vehicles, they've just caused a pretty big drop in existing used values. I'm sure it hasn't shown up yet on the value guides, but dumping ~17% of the total vehicle population into the market at depressed prices will certainly have an impact on our values, at least temporarily.
PCNA didn't do their side any good with this announcement. They should have waited until the deal was done, though that certainly would have looked a lot like a "F-U" to current owners.
By saying they will dump all the CDs sitting on the lots as used vehicles, they've just caused a pretty big drop in existing used values. I'm sure it hasn't shown up yet on the value guides, but dumping ~17% of the total vehicle population into the market at depressed prices will certainly have an impact on our values, at least temporarily.
PCNA didn't do their side any good with this announcement. They should have waited until the deal was done, though that certainly would have looked a lot like a "F-U" to current owners.
Even my wife, who thinks I am feeding her this story in a ploy to get her to buy a new car said "****" when I told her about the 10,000 discounted never sold CD's that would hit the market. IMO, that would depress prices MORE than the whole scandal itself.
11-29-2016, 11:33 PM
#2105
But the used cayenne drop in value is technically non-existant until you actually try and sell the vehicle, which even then, one can argue that this event is characteristic of Market forces. I don't see how you can make a successful argument, in that these trucks aren't investment vehicles (no pun intended), and at that point one can even argue that a new model release has similar effects, therefore how do you assign liability.
This will - or should - now be factored into any compensation. I hope the lawyers are listening!
By saying they will dump all the CDs sitting on the lots as used vehicles, they've just caused a pretty big drop in existing used values. I'm sure it hasn't shown up yet on the value guides, but dumping ~17% of the total vehicle population into the market at depressed prices will certainly have an impact on our values, at least temporarily.
PCNA didn't do their side any good with this announcement. They should have waited until the deal was done, though that certainly would have looked a lot like a "F-U" to current owners.
By saying they will dump all the CDs sitting on the lots as used vehicles, they've just caused a pretty big drop in existing used values. I'm sure it hasn't shown up yet on the value guides, but dumping ~17% of the total vehicle population into the market at depressed prices will certainly have an impact on our values, at least temporarily.
PCNA didn't do their side any good with this announcement. They should have waited until the deal was done, though that certainly would have looked a lot like a "F-U" to current owners.
11-30-2016, 12:20 AM
#2106
RL Community Team
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
But the used cayenne drop in value is technically non-existant until you actually try and sell the vehicle, which even then, one can argue that this event is characteristic of Market forces. I don't see how you can make a successful argument, in that these trucks aren't investment vehicles (no pun intended), and at that point one can even argue that a new model release has similar effects, therefore how do you assign liability.
11-30-2016, 01:45 AM
#2107
Rennlist Member
Yes, it definitely sucks. This would be a raw deal for us owners.
Even my wife, who thinks I am feeding her this story in a ploy to get her to buy a new car said "****" when I told her about the 10,000 discounted never sold CD's that would hit the market. IMO, that would depress prices MORE than the whole scandal itself.
Even my wife, who thinks I am feeding her this story in a ploy to get her to buy a new car said "****" when I told her about the 10,000 discounted never sold CD's that would hit the market. IMO, that would depress prices MORE than the whole scandal itself.
OK, yep: "There are currently around 10,000 affected Cayenne Diesels in customer hands, plus another 1,300-1,500 still sitting on dealer lots...."
So maybe 17% was an over estimate. Looks like 13-15%, but still a significant number that will impact prices, if only temporarily, until they're gone.
11-30-2016, 01:50 AM
#2108
Instructor
Yes, it definitely sucks. This would be a raw deal for us owners.
Even my wife, who thinks I am feeding her this story in a ploy to get her to buy a new car said "****" when I told her about the 10,000 discounted never sold CD's that would hit the market. IMO, that would depress prices MORE than the whole scandal itself.
Even my wife, who thinks I am feeding her this story in a ploy to get her to buy a new car said "****" when I told her about the 10,000 discounted never sold CD's that would hit the market. IMO, that would depress prices MORE than the whole scandal itself.
The number unsold diesels is "1,300 to 1,500 Cayennes in dealership inventories." according to the Autoweek article.
Still a significant number.
It will be a supply and demand question. If they get snapped up in 30 days it shouldn't affect our resale. If they are sitting around next April, it will show that the diesel market has disappeared.
I think they will quickly. Fingers crossed. (Getting unsolicited inquiries on my '15 these days.)
11-30-2016, 01:53 AM
#2109
Rennlist Member
But the used cayenne drop in value is technically non-existant until you actually try and sell the vehicle, which even then, one can argue that this event is characteristic of Market forces. I don't see how you can make a successful argument, in that these trucks aren't investment vehicles (no pun intended), and at that point one can even argue that a new model release has similar effects, therefore how do you assign liability.
You could maintain that once you get the settlement, you want out of the vehicle, but Porsche is further hampering your ability to fairly trade the vehicle by depressing the market with their announcement.
And as the class' lawyer, they should be making such a claim to get more in their settlement column.
11-30-2016, 09:49 AM
#2110
RL Community Team
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Thought it was about 1500-1700?
OK, yep: "There are currently around 10,000 affected Cayenne Diesels in customer hands, plus another 1,300-1,500 still sitting on dealer lots...."
So maybe 17% was an over estimate. Looks like 13-15%, but still a significant number that will impact prices, if only temporarily, until they're gone.
OK, yep: "There are currently around 10,000 affected Cayenne Diesels in customer hands, plus another 1,300-1,500 still sitting on dealer lots...."
So maybe 17% was an over estimate. Looks like 13-15%, but still a significant number that will impact prices, if only temporarily, until they're gone.
10,000 is the number of fixable diesels owned by consumers.
The number unsold diesels is "1,300 to 1,500 Cayennes in dealership inventories." according to the Autoweek article.
Still a significant number.
It will be a supply and demand question. If they get snapped up in 30 days it shouldn't affect our resale. If they are sitting around next April, it will show that the diesel market has disappeared.
I think they will quickly. Fingers crossed. (Getting unsolicited inquiries on my '15 these days.)
The number unsold diesels is "1,300 to 1,500 Cayennes in dealership inventories." according to the Autoweek article.
Still a significant number.
It will be a supply and demand question. If they get snapped up in 30 days it shouldn't affect our resale. If they are sitting around next April, it will show that the diesel market has disappeared.
I think they will quickly. Fingers crossed. (Getting unsolicited inquiries on my '15 these days.)
Certainly makes it better.
11-30-2016, 09:54 AM
#2111
RL Community Team
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
It is obvious that satisfaction of these liens would have a substantial impact on Class
Members. Not only does a reduced payment fail to adequately compensate Class Members, but it
also negatively effects the environmental benefits contemplated by the Settlement. With a smaller
cash payment, Class Members may have little incentive to sell their vehicles back and, as a result,
these vehicles will remain in their current polluting state. For the reasons set forth below, the
Court ORDERS Volkswagen to pay Class Members their Settlement compensation directly and in
full, notwithstanding any purported liens on that compensation. Not only does recognizing these
liens require Volkswagen to violate the terms of the Settlement, but ensuring that Class Members
are made whole, whether or not they retained counsel, must be the highest priority.
I added the bold section.
11-30-2016, 09:55 AM
#2112
RL Community Team
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
First auditor's report on the 2.0 claims payout process, for those of you interested:
http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/filelib...Supervisor.pdf
http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/filelib...Supervisor.pdf
11-30-2016, 10:36 AM
#2113
RL Community Team
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
I think at this point that VW realizes that they aren't going to get away with "no compensation". The 2.0 class gets compensation regardless of a buyback or fix. That is set. And even if a class member opts to wait for the fix, of which there is none that has been approved to date for any of the three classes of cars, he or she can later request the buyback when it is shown what the result of the fix is. And still recieve the compensation.
The 2.0 compensation formula is:
For an Eligible Owner who acquired the Eligible Vehicle on
or before September 18, 2015, Owner Restitution is calculated as 20% of the Vehicle Value, plus
a fixed amount of $2,986.73, plus whatever additional amount is necessary, if any, to make the
Restitution Payment no less than $5,100.
No idea how they came up with those numbers. I would assume we would get something with a similar formula. 20% of the vehicle value on the 9/18/15 date would be, for my 2014, somewhere around $11,000, given the auction values were around $55k at that time.
In the last 2 months, 6 2014 CD's have gone through Manheim auction. Average miles about 32,000, average price about $41,000. That's a decent drop in just over a year, and reflective of about, imo, $5k worth of extra depreciation. I have auction access and watch pricing all the time, including prior to this fiasco.
There are a lot of factors at work here. The judge has repeatedly said in all of his statements that his goal is to make the class members whole, to give them a choice in how to proceed, and to get the polluting cars off the road or modified as quickly as possible. Reading the consent decree for the 2.0 cars, which I urge you all to do even though it's painfully long, you can see the level of detail which needs to be hammered out for a deal to be made. The fact is, no fix for the 2.0 liter cars yet exists. A full 50 pages of an appendix to the consent decree detail how a fix will be obtained and administered. It makes for interesting reading.
Part of how the fix is to be administered is that any proposed fix must include:
4.3.6 A description of any and all reasonably predictable changes, adverse or
otherwise, on vehicle attributes which may reasonably be important to vehicle owners,
including: fuel economy, reliability, durability, Noise Vibration and Harshness, vehicle
performance (for example, 0-60 mph time, top speed, etc.), and drivability.
4.3.7 A description of any and all reasonably predictable changes, adverse or
otherwise, on aspects of vehicle maintenance which may reasonably be important to
vehicle owners, including but not limited to oil changes, EGR cleaning, DEF refill, and
DPF replacement.
so that the 2.0 owners can decide if they want to sell the car back or take the fix.
There are so many details that need to be hammered out that I'm not surprised it's taking this long. Based on the previous documentation, current leaks / articles, etc., here's my guess how this plays out. Take is for what it's worth, which is simply my guess based on all I have read and seen to date.
1. VW admits that the first gen 3.0 liter cars are unfixable and offers a buyback only for them. I believe that this is what the Reuters article was about.
2. Unlike the 2.0 liter cars, a fix for the 3.0 liter cars will be approved at the time of the consent decree. It is my guess that this is what's delaying the resolution at this time. Or at least providing the bulk of the delay.
3. Owners of the second gen 3.0 liter cars will be given a choice: buyback at 9/18/15 prices or take the fix.
4. Owners of all 3.0 liter cars will be given a restitution payment with a formula similar to the above.
This is only my guess, so you are free to say that I'm completely nuts. The way I could see no buybacks being offered is if that VW can show that a fix for the cars can be done that does not affect performance, MPG, drivability, etc. and brings the cars 100% into compliance with their original design standards. The Consent Decree notes that the 2.0 liter fix targets are actually not as stringent as the original standards. The judge calls it a compromise and that's one of his tenets in the ruling of the fairness of the Consent Decree. But given all the Judge's rhetoric, I don't see the 3.0 liter owners not getting the buyback choice. Because the fix will likely result in a car that's got either adverse effects to performance or maintenance. We cannot be made 100% whole unless the fix has none of these impacts. To do that, VW would have to prove that there were no adverse effects on performance, and also that there were no issues with additional maintenance. I just don't see that happening.
But I could be dead wrong.
We shall see.
The 2.0 compensation formula is:
For an Eligible Owner who acquired the Eligible Vehicle on
or before September 18, 2015, Owner Restitution is calculated as 20% of the Vehicle Value, plus
a fixed amount of $2,986.73, plus whatever additional amount is necessary, if any, to make the
Restitution Payment no less than $5,100.
No idea how they came up with those numbers. I would assume we would get something with a similar formula. 20% of the vehicle value on the 9/18/15 date would be, for my 2014, somewhere around $11,000, given the auction values were around $55k at that time.
In the last 2 months, 6 2014 CD's have gone through Manheim auction. Average miles about 32,000, average price about $41,000. That's a decent drop in just over a year, and reflective of about, imo, $5k worth of extra depreciation. I have auction access and watch pricing all the time, including prior to this fiasco.
There are a lot of factors at work here. The judge has repeatedly said in all of his statements that his goal is to make the class members whole, to give them a choice in how to proceed, and to get the polluting cars off the road or modified as quickly as possible. Reading the consent decree for the 2.0 cars, which I urge you all to do even though it's painfully long, you can see the level of detail which needs to be hammered out for a deal to be made. The fact is, no fix for the 2.0 liter cars yet exists. A full 50 pages of an appendix to the consent decree detail how a fix will be obtained and administered. It makes for interesting reading.
Part of how the fix is to be administered is that any proposed fix must include:
4.3.6 A description of any and all reasonably predictable changes, adverse or
otherwise, on vehicle attributes which may reasonably be important to vehicle owners,
including: fuel economy, reliability, durability, Noise Vibration and Harshness, vehicle
performance (for example, 0-60 mph time, top speed, etc.), and drivability.
4.3.7 A description of any and all reasonably predictable changes, adverse or
otherwise, on aspects of vehicle maintenance which may reasonably be important to
vehicle owners, including but not limited to oil changes, EGR cleaning, DEF refill, and
DPF replacement.
so that the 2.0 owners can decide if they want to sell the car back or take the fix.
There are so many details that need to be hammered out that I'm not surprised it's taking this long. Based on the previous documentation, current leaks / articles, etc., here's my guess how this plays out. Take is for what it's worth, which is simply my guess based on all I have read and seen to date.
1. VW admits that the first gen 3.0 liter cars are unfixable and offers a buyback only for them. I believe that this is what the Reuters article was about.
2. Unlike the 2.0 liter cars, a fix for the 3.0 liter cars will be approved at the time of the consent decree. It is my guess that this is what's delaying the resolution at this time. Or at least providing the bulk of the delay.
3. Owners of the second gen 3.0 liter cars will be given a choice: buyback at 9/18/15 prices or take the fix.
4. Owners of all 3.0 liter cars will be given a restitution payment with a formula similar to the above.
This is only my guess, so you are free to say that I'm completely nuts. The way I could see no buybacks being offered is if that VW can show that a fix for the cars can be done that does not affect performance, MPG, drivability, etc. and brings the cars 100% into compliance with their original design standards. The Consent Decree notes that the 2.0 liter fix targets are actually not as stringent as the original standards. The judge calls it a compromise and that's one of his tenets in the ruling of the fairness of the Consent Decree. But given all the Judge's rhetoric, I don't see the 3.0 liter owners not getting the buyback choice. Because the fix will likely result in a car that's got either adverse effects to performance or maintenance. We cannot be made 100% whole unless the fix has none of these impacts. To do that, VW would have to prove that there were no adverse effects on performance, and also that there were no issues with additional maintenance. I just don't see that happening.
But I could be dead wrong.
We shall see.
11-30-2016, 10:38 AM
#2114
RL Community Team
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
This is not the same situation as VAG buying out an owner of, say, a GT3 that caught on fire with the stipulation that their compensation not be disclosed. We are way past that. It's all out in the open now.
11-30-2016, 10:42 AM
#2115
I just bought a 2013 with 70k miles for $32,300 from a Porsche dealer (was not a CPO). Not a whole lot of options on the vehicle but it was in pretty good condition and the warranty is good through 11/19. The base gas versions, albeit they had lower miles, were going for about $46,000.