asbsecu e93

That's exactly my point. This should be called what it is....a delayed/deferred financial arrangement for VW.

VW has publicly stated their intent is to abandon Diesel technology in the US. Why should they throw any additional funds into R&D for a segment they'll effectively shrink?

The EPA is getting paid to basically allow VW to kick this can until 2018 while us 3.0 owners are in limbo.

Searcher356

The "cheat" wasn't that they exceeded any written emission standards, it's that they failed to divulge to EPA the differences in their in-house test procedure for approval. They either "forgot" (unlikely) or hoped the EPA would just overlook the changed procedure.

Interesting about some of the media film about the fix - shows installing the swirl device in the intake path. This was what was proposed, and apparently approved by some nations.
No tech results published (that I have seen) to see if it works, but CARB rejected it.
Maybe if VW repaves the entire length of I-5 with new sensors for self-driving cars, CARB will approve a fix.

Needsdecaf

What's the difference?

An AECD, what you say VW failed to divulge, is a set of parameters when the system is essentially not in compliance with the emissions standards. Certain reasons for doing this include low or high operating temperatures, etc. so VW designed one big AECD to cheat the system.

Really doesn't matter what they call it. They broke the rules. EPA is being stupid, but in the end VW didn't follow the rules

Needsdecaf

CARB has really gone over the edge now:

http://www.roadandtrack.com/new-cars...om-volkswagen/

mdrobc1213

Nice letter Guards Red but it will likely not do you any good other than to express some of your feelings about this whole debacle in public as a sort of therapy to help get this off your chest and resolve the issue a bit a least in your mind. Whatever solution and fix is and how it will play off for each CD owner is likely still a few months away and we'll probably not really know until this time next year how this will totally play out.

As for the 911 vs Cayenne comparision...two different cars built for two different purposes and markets. One is a legend which built the company the other is the one that saved the company...obviously as we can see Porsche feels very different ways about each and its customer base. CD are not that large of their SUV market and they still sell enough other Cayenne models that more than make up for the small number of CDs sold in the US. Add the Macan now to that mix and I am afraid as we have seen that that CD market is disposable [in the US at least] thus the decision to leave diesels in the US by VW for the short and likely near term future. Strictly a business decision by VW-AG...your love for your CD doesn't live here at least to Porsche!
They DO have a consideration for the owners...fix the car. Option will be offered and approved and some $$ compensation along with probably lifetime Ad Blue refills and the added warranty. Probably Porsche doesn't have to offer much beyond the fix in their minds and likely legally according to various laws/legal means if they really wanted to...but that's just speculation on my part. If it really was a legal issue...do it or else due to a severe violation that would ban them say from the US...then they'd have been done it. Period.

My point is alot of this is voluntary or negotiable for them thus the length of time this whole mess has dragged on. If it were killing folks or the environment really I think we'd have seen a fix very quickly. But as said above and confirmed with a few off-the record convos with friends working at various Porsche dealers I've used in the past...the small number of CD's versus the other Cayenne Models still avail/sold plus the Macan's numbers have given Porsche a fair amount of attitude as they address the Cayenne Diesel "problem" as it is called internally. Small numbers sold/take in the US means it is expendable guys as we've seen to this point already. VW and Audi have sold a bit more cars and have more market place presence so a different approach (i.e. fairly quick buyback and compensation) has been offered for the 2.0L when it became apparent how complex/problematic the fix would be. Customers will vote with their pockets and feet eventually as they have always done especially as other manufacturers seek to take market share for these lost products one would think.
Wow...that sounds like a steal/deal....as said before other makers will fill the void with products and options that will make some buyers move over to them. Sales/dealers call them "conquest buyers" and actively seek them and track the numbers I have been told in convos with a few of my friends that work at luxury/hi end dealership. Am sure there are plans and point papers amongst Mercedes, Volvo, BMW, Land Rover, Lexus, and now Maserati amongst a few others on how to capitalize on Cayenne diesel buyers remorse. LOL We took a similar option but opted to stay with the brand as my wife really wanted another Cayenne (we had a 2009 Cayenne S prior) and something bigger than her Q5 so when our dealer offered us a super deal on a Cayenne v6 and threw in additional maintenance plan, wheel package, discount off MSRP, and added warranty if we stayed and chose another vehicle...it was an acceptable alternative choice for us which we are satisfied with. Biggest issue I have here is that the offer given to us was an individual dealer decision NOT something that Porsche NA or VW AG proposed and condoned....but what our sales manger, advisor, and the GM thought was right given that we'd ordered a car, paid our $$, and waited 4.5 months for it to arrive only to have the stop sale hit and our car to be held at the port in eternity. Add to it we had already sold our Q5 prior made it even more critical that a solution be found/made and we made that clear. We were not happy having kept our end of the bargin/deal and taken active steps towards our planned Cayenne Diesel purchase; they appreciated that and took what steps they could to make things fair and right for us...so we stayed with them and eventually got a new '16 Cayenne v6 from them albeit after an additional 60 days delay. A lot of other owners will make a similar choice at some point before the 85,000 cars are fixed/sold/turned in most likely.

Not saying everyone will leave the brand...folks love their CDs and my sales guy says he has a list of buyers for sure. Also says they will sell but that valuations will fall due to the scandal and the issues as the fix will most likely NOT give buyers the car they bought...no other way around it otherwise Porsche would have fixed this already. Cars will take some hit to performance and/or MPG but how much is being very tightly held and we won't know till they likely start fixing cars. The cars are a depreciating asset as always just the 'fix" and diesel cheat in some ways has and will appreciate that rate...either now at the time of fix or later at point of resale given the visibility of everything and the hard facts of what the solution for all of this will entail...eventually for all parties involved.
Agree the engineering plus the politics and the global scale of this makes you wonder WTF was VW thinking or at least WTH the engineers were thinking! Add to it the amount it will cost them and VW will I think spend years recovering from this and have totally shot all of their TDI-clean diesel efforts for what the past 5-8 yrs in the US. Sad and uncalled for.

chsu74

Never really understood market share of car market in CA vs all of USA. $800 million out of $2 billion fines for state of CA means CA typically occupies 40% of USA market share?

gnat

I'd say 40% is low for how important they think they are

How does one state get so much influence over the rest of the country?

alexaqui

Have to wonder how much of people moving on to other cars is because the competition has improved and the degree to which the Cayenne is starting to feel old and in need of an update. As stated before, I ended up with an AMG product over a Porsche. While part of it was driven by my distaste of where I believe Porsche is heading in general, a good part of it was because I wanted something new and different. My CD was part of the first batch delivered in the US; it's been around a while now!

As car enthusiasts, we have to appreciate the many great options on the road right now! Not sure that is so good for Porsche across all categories. As much as I *loved* my 911, I would seriously consider an AMG GT (I have a dedicated track car).

chsu74

I believe the state of California has a GDP that ranks 5th or 6th in the world. Have to respect those numbers if you do a bit of business there..

visitador

Enough for mighty VW to kowtow. Any other country has been able to do that?

Searcher356

Sometime in the near future, most brands will be "found out" for the methods they use to meet emission tests.
Scrutineering is upon everybody, now. Diesels first, then gas. Hopefully on alternative fuel and electric cars soon.
Since EPA never wrote regulations or standards for on-the-road emissions, manufacturers have taken liberty with that portion of their emissions, to meet the ever-more-stringent EPA written tests.
There is no penalty for doing this, unless one of them opens their mouth and confesses. That's what VW did here, and the legal remedy is entirely politically driven.
Again, because no emission standards have been exceeded.

visitador

Well, VW had to open its mouth. The regulators basically told VW either confess or no sales at all!

Mallens

Just read the court transcript on the last teleconference.

Some highlights:

1. Half the conference was about the 2.0l, they are enthusiastic about the progress VW has made with the buybacks - they obviously avoided reading any media reports about how bad it is going. They did bringing up the customer's stripping their cars, court is not pleased with hearing this, Judge commented on it but will take action if it continues.

2. 3.0L, Everyone seems excited about the progress (note - that doesn't include consumers). VW, Audi, and Porsche get all of 2017 to create a fix that must be approved by EPA and CARB, only for emission issues, and any conversation about the adverse effect of those modifications wasn't mentioned. They did say that owners will be receiving compensation but didn't say when or how much.

My concern is the fix and timeline given to VAG to muddle around and submit proposed fixes for review. While I read the court docs explaining the testing procedure for the emission fix, it is clearly in VAG's interest to delay... delay.... delay, not just for monetary reasons, but the more time that goes on, the greater the chance that the regulators will approve their fix so they can move on to other endeavors. Porsche CEO has said it is an easy fix for Gen II and Get III 3.0L back in Jan of 2016, yet the court says they get another additional year to delay.

If this is so easy, why the extra year? With CARB and EPA getting paid (before us), where is the motivation now to help us as consumers? I have dealt with CARB and was not surprised when I heard they had their own backdoor agreement with VW and all the money they will get.

Mallens

Just called PCNA and spoke to CS rep Brenda, she was very pleasant on the phone.

1. Made sure all my contact info was up to day
2. Complained we aren't hearing anything from PCNA, she said she isn't told much either
3. Mentioned CEO said he would dump all CD onto market once the fix is approved, more loss of value.
4. Brand, we talked about how Porsche represents itself as a premium brand, yet miscommunicates that with their CD customers who are being left in the dark and treated like crap compared to at least the VW and Audi customers.

The biggest take away - EVERYONE NEEDS TO WRITE TO THE CEO OF PCNA, this is the only way outside of the court to get him to or take action.

Mallens

From the Second Partial Consent Decree 12-20-2016


"IV. EMISSIONS MODIFICATION PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS"
"4.1 Defendants may submit to EPA and CARB, for any Test Group or combination of Test Groups of the 3.0 Liter Subject Vehicles, an Emissions Modification Proposal according to the schedule and requirements specified in this Section IV. In addition to the requirements specified herein, the Emissions Modification Proposal must contain all the elements of an Ordered Recall Plan/Remedial Plan, pursuant to 40 C.F.R. Part 85, Subpart S and Cal. Code Regs., tit. 13, § 2125. EPA/CARB will not approve an Emissions Modification Proposal unless and until Defendants have provided in a Submission or Submissions all materials required under Section IV of this Appendix B to EPA/CARB."
"4.2 Each Emissions Modification Proposal must be submitted by Defendants to EPA and CARB on or before the dates and as specified in the chart below. EPA/CARB will use the agencies’ best efforts to either approve or disapprove each complete proposal (as detailed herein) within 45 Days of the actual Submission. To facilitate an expeditious review and approval process, Defendants may submit data and Emissions Modifications Proposals at any time before the deadlines below. Regardless of the time of Submission, no Approval can be made until after the Effective Date of the Consent Decree. If any of the Final Submittal Deadlines below expire prior to the Date of Entry, such deadlines will be extended to fourteen (14) Days beyond the Date of Entry."



"Generation "Defendants’ Expected Submittal Date" "Defendants’ Final Submittal Deadline"
1.1 "August 25, 2017" "November 10, 2017"
1.2 "August 25, 2017" "November 10, 2017"
2.1 "February 24,2017" "May 12, 2017"
"2.2 SUV" "February 11,2017" "April 25, 2017"
"2 PC" "April 7, 2017" "June 23, 2017"