Diesel Cayenne and VW emission issue
11-30-2016, 11:32 AM
#2116
Wow, that's a heck of a price. I just ran my trade in value through KBB.com and it came back at $30,981 with 86.5k miles. I don't have a ton of options but it's not a stripper; sticker was $71k I think.
11-30-2016, 12:42 PM
#2117
Rennlist Member
Technicalities aside, I am going to describe how I feel (hope any VW group reps are reading):
Imagine you are in a plane. The airline finds there are some technical difficulties and the FAA prevents the airline from flying that plane. It then offers the economy class passengers a refund, allows them to disembark first and provides them compensation to choose different flights to continue their journeys. Business class passengers are required to stay on board because the plane is going to be fixed anyway and it would cost more to compensate them for alternative transportation. Business class passengers get a token extra dinner.
If I was a premium passenger in that plane, do you think I'll continue being a customer of that airline?
Imagine you are in a plane. The airline finds there are some technical difficulties and the FAA prevents the airline from flying that plane. It then offers the economy class passengers a refund, allows them to disembark first and provides them compensation to choose different flights to continue their journeys. Business class passengers are required to stay on board because the plane is going to be fixed anyway and it would cost more to compensate them for alternative transportation. Business class passengers get a token extra dinner.
If I was a premium passenger in that plane, do you think I'll continue being a customer of that airline?
11-30-2016, 01:21 PM
#2119
Rennlist Member
Granted, if you're willing to take the graceful, slow application of the throttle approach you might never notice it. But if you like to mash the go-pedal off the line you're going to be sorely disappointed. That and the overall luxo-barge level of "handling". I wanted to like the RR Sport, really, but that accelerator lag was just entirely unacceptable.
11-30-2016, 01:38 PM
#2121
Advanced
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Why is this a joke? Because there was no reason to have the 2.0L and 3.0L cases separate. And it's been going on for about 15 months now. And the Judge has promised to move on this quickly, but has delayed for the third time essentially.
And the lead attorney Elizabeth Cabraser says:
"The strong praise the 2.0-liter agreement received from affected owners and lessees, environmental and consumer groups, auto industry analysts and ultimately the Court confirms this is the model that should be followed in any 3.0-liter resolution," Cabraser added. "Per the Court’s order, we cannot comment further on the settlement negotiation process."
This isn't rocket science, it should be settled by now, with the exact same terms as the 2.0L settlement.
11-30-2016, 02:32 PM
#2123
RL Community Team
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Originally Posted by visitador
Technicalities aside, I am going to describe how I feel (hope any VW group reps are reading):
Imagine you are in a plane. The airline finds there are some technical difficulties and the FAA prevents the airline from flying that plane. It then offers the economy class passengers a refund, allows them to disembark first and provides them compensation to choose different flights to continue their journeys. Business class passengers are required to stay on board because the plane is going to be fixed anyway and it would cost more to compensate them for alternative transportation. Business class passengers get a token extra dinner.
If I was a premium passenger in that plane, do you think I'll continue being a customer of that airline?
Imagine you are in a plane. The airline finds there are some technical difficulties and the FAA prevents the airline from flying that plane. It then offers the economy class passengers a refund, allows them to disembark first and provides them compensation to choose different flights to continue their journeys. Business class passengers are required to stay on board because the plane is going to be fixed anyway and it would cost more to compensate them for alternative transportation. Business class passengers get a token extra dinner.
If I was a premium passenger in that plane, do you think I'll continue being a customer of that airline?
The reality is that we were outnumbered 5-1 by the 2 liter cars. And they are dirtier. The court making them a priority isn't much of a surprise.
Having said that, and ongoing court case aside, I think Porsche's PR on this has sucked big time. Anyone in business knows communication, even without any specific information, goes a long way. I've gotten I think two emails / letters and that might include the offer with the additional CPO.
Not good by Porsche.
11-30-2016, 02:55 PM
#2124
There were very good technical, legal, and logistical reasons for separating the two. Even with what we now know (e.g. that the 3.0 issue isn't simply a paperwork problem) it still makes sense for them to have been separated cases. As Needsdecaf points out, it also makes logical sense that the 2.0 issue was resolved first (larger volume and higher relative pollution output).
11-30-2016, 03:36 PM
#2125
I have a 2015 CD pretty loaded. I purchased it bc prior to this they held their value well and gave great MPGs. Actually traded my GT3 for it. Personally the handling of this matter by Porsche was beyond silly. This is my 4th Porsche (Base Carrera, Turbo S, and GT3) and it will be my last. I remember for the GT3 fire Porsche did a fantastic job. Got invited to Atlanta for the opening of the Performance center with accommodations covered. However the fire issue was just a mistake and this is intentional fraud. My vehicle is worth barely anything. Trade in offers of 40-45k and the MSRP was 89k with only 15k miles. BMW has always impressed me with customer service, twice have they given me goodwill transmission replacements on my cars (M5 and 3 series) that had gone beyond warranty.
I feel ripped off and I feel no pity for Porsche or VW bc if this intential act of fraud was not uncovered they would continue to implement it indefinitely. Made whole or not Porsche and VW are not going to be a vehicle I will purchase ever again.
What is is even more astonishing is that every time you call them to inquire about a resolution they know nothing and they just tell you to wait. Why should I wait when your act of fraud screwed me of a large sum of money. Only got two emails from them and one was about the extended warranty! I replied how does that help me? My car is a lease!
I feel ripped off and I feel no pity for Porsche or VW bc if this intential act of fraud was not uncovered they would continue to implement it indefinitely. Made whole or not Porsche and VW are not going to be a vehicle I will purchase ever again.
What is is even more astonishing is that every time you call them to inquire about a resolution they know nothing and they just tell you to wait. Why should I wait when your act of fraud screwed me of a large sum of money. Only got two emails from them and one was about the extended warranty! I replied how does that help me? My car is a lease!
11-30-2016, 03:46 PM
#2126
Nordschleife Master
I have a 2015 CD pretty loaded. I purchased it bc prior to this they held their value well and gave great MPGs. Actually traded my GT3 for it. Personally the handling of this matter by Porsche was beyond silly. This is my 4th Porsche (Base Carrera, Turbo S, and GT3) and it will be my last. I remember for the GT3 fire Porsche did a fantastic job. Got invited to Atlanta for the opening of the Performance center with accommodations covered. However the fire issue was just a mistake and this is intentional fraud. My vehicle is worth barely anything. Trade in offers of 40-45k and the MSRP was 89k with only 15k miles. BMW has always impressed me with customer service, twice have they given me goodwill transmission replacements on my cars (M5 and 3 series) that had gone beyond warranty.
I feel ripped off and I feel no pity for Porsche or VW bc if this intential act of fraud was not uncovered they would continue to implement it indefinitely. Made whole or not Porsche and VW are not going to be a vehicle I will purchase ever again.
What is is even more astonishing is that every time you call them to inquire about a resolution they know nothing and they just tell you to wait. Why should I wait when your act of fraud screwed me of a large sum of money. Only got two emails from them and one was about the extended warranty! I replied how does that help me? My car is a lease!
I feel ripped off and I feel no pity for Porsche or VW bc if this intential act of fraud was not uncovered they would continue to implement it indefinitely. Made whole or not Porsche and VW are not going to be a vehicle I will purchase ever again.
What is is even more astonishing is that every time you call them to inquire about a resolution they know nothing and they just tell you to wait. Why should I wait when your act of fraud screwed me of a large sum of money. Only got two emails from them and one was about the extended warranty! I replied how does that help me? My car is a lease!
11-30-2016, 03:54 PM
#2127
Well two things driving a car with a lease payment on a car that is considerably worth less than what I originally agreed to pay for. Also at lease end my residual is locked at the beginning of the contract if I choose to purchase my lease. Also if I wish to terminate my lease early in a trade I will be screwed.
11-30-2016, 04:05 PM
#2128
Nordschleife Master
Well two things driving a car with a lease payment on a car that is considerably worth less than what I originally agreed to pay for. Also at lease end my residual is locked at the beginning of the contract if I choose to purchase my lease. Also if I wish to terminate my lease early in a trade I will be screwed.
11-30-2016, 04:18 PM
#2129
You're screwed regardless if there wasn't a scandal and wanted to terminate the lease early. Porsche's residual values on leases are horrific (i'm sure you're aware) this is why most lessees don't buy their cars at lease end. You should be happy the scandal broke, because now you can get a off lease CD for much less than you originally hoped for. I'm confused on why you're angry...
11-30-2016, 05:24 PM
#2130
Rennlist Member
RE: Court hearing delay
First off, I'm quite OK with the two week delay. We should understand there is a procedure that must be followed for a delay to be agreed by the court. Both sides are required to inform the court why they support or do not support a delay and the judge then decides (i.e. judges) the merits and states the court's position with regard to the proposal, i.e. to delay for a specific period of time or proceed with original schedule.
So what was originally proposed to be merely a "status conference" may indeed now be closer to a discussion of an "agreement in principle" between the parties when they return to court on Dec 15th, and so it does seem to make sense to allow the extra 2 weeks to determine if such an agreement is realizable. I suspect the court is taking a calculated risk [based on prior experiences] in granting the delay (two weeks is short ... thankfully) that there will be such an agreement to discuss rather than merely holding a status conference. I will be very surprised and disappointed if the Dec 15th hearing (officially still a status conference) is delayed yet again.
First off, I'm quite OK with the two week delay. We should understand there is a procedure that must be followed for a delay to be agreed by the court. Both sides are required to inform the court why they support or do not support a delay and the judge then decides (i.e. judges) the merits and states the court's position with regard to the proposal, i.e. to delay for a specific period of time or proceed with original schedule.
So what was originally proposed to be merely a "status conference" may indeed now be closer to a discussion of an "agreement in principle" between the parties when they return to court on Dec 15th, and so it does seem to make sense to allow the extra 2 weeks to determine if such an agreement is realizable. I suspect the court is taking a calculated risk [based on prior experiences] in granting the delay (two weeks is short ... thankfully) that there will be such an agreement to discuss rather than merely holding a status conference. I will be very surprised and disappointed if the Dec 15th hearing (officially still a status conference) is delayed yet again.