Diesel Cayenne and VW emission issue
12-27-2016, 06:36 PM
#2581
RL Community Team
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
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"
"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"
This would let them still keep cars on the road, but would give owners a choice. How do you read it?
12-27-2016, 06:43 PM
#2582
Here is my translation:
I believe those are the dates that they (GOV) expect VAG to submit their proposed modifications and the GOV will be expeditious ruling on wether or not it is acceptable. If not, they will have the opportunity to submit another 'Final' proposal.
At least it appears that we should know something about a fix by no later than Feb.
I believe those are the dates that they (GOV) expect VAG to submit their proposed modifications and the GOV will be expeditious ruling on wether or not it is acceptable. If not, they will have the opportunity to submit another 'Final' proposal.
At least it appears that we should know something about a fix by no later than Feb.
12-27-2016, 07:23 PM
#2583
Rennlist Member
There is going to be a fix. Otherwise there is no need to do all this convoluted settlement. It is just fancy words for the regulators to give VW a discount after all the pounds they took. The discount being us having compromised CDs. They hope we will be fine with some extra change money
12-28-2016, 12:33 AM
#2584
RL Community Team
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
There is going to be a fix. Otherwise there is no need to do all this convoluted settlement. It is just fancy words for the regulators to give VW a discount after all the pounds they took. The discount being us having compromised CDs. They hope we will be fine with some extra change money
12-28-2016, 02:57 AM
#2585
Rennlist Member
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.
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.
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"
"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"
12-28-2016, 11:59 AM
#2586
Track Day
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: We should contact Klaus Zellmer directly......
From a November 11, 2016 press release by Porsche:
"Customer satisfaction is our highest priority in our endeavor to deliver a unique and rewarding Porsche experience," said Klaus Zellmer, President and CEO, Porsche Cars North America, Inc. "We pride ourselves on building exciting and innovative sports cars, but our success is ultimately measured by the approval and appreciation of our customers. I would particularly like to thank our dealer partners who have made it their mission to provide a benchmark experience for their clients who are purchasing a Porsche."
I think that Mr. Zellmer should hear from each and every owner of the CD as to our customer experience.....
"Customer satisfaction is our highest priority in our endeavor to deliver a unique and rewarding Porsche experience," said Klaus Zellmer, President and CEO, Porsche Cars North America, Inc. "We pride ourselves on building exciting and innovative sports cars, but our success is ultimately measured by the approval and appreciation of our customers. I would particularly like to thank our dealer partners who have made it their mission to provide a benchmark experience for their clients who are purchasing a Porsche."
I think that Mr. Zellmer should hear from each and every owner of the CD as to our customer experience.....
12-28-2016, 02:31 PM
#2587
Rennlist Member
Originally Posted by Needsdecaf
There is as much, if not more, language in the 2.0 Consent Decree. And that includes a fix or buyback. I've read that one too. The requirements listed for the 2.0 fix are very similar in level of detail. They are not simply letting VW slide on these.
Now ask yourself why go through all that convoluted settlement? So that they all can say they are satisfied. I bet the regulators are going to approve the fix, however flaw it is. VW saves a few billion, regulators get more $, psc gets paid, and hope owners are happy with a couple of thousands
12-28-2016, 11:14 PM
#2588
RL Community Team
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
The 2.0 settlement allows owners outright buyback or fix if they want to. If buyback is a choice, they could easily copy the 2.0 settlement. The 2nd gen 3.0 owners have no choice. VW will provide a fix and only if the regulators say no, then a buyback is possible. That is my interpretation.
Now ask yourself why go through all that convoluted settlement? So that they all can say they are satisfied. I bet the regulators are going to approve the fix, however flaw it is. VW saves a few billion, regulators get more $, psc gets paid, and hope owners are happy with a couple of thousands
Now ask yourself why go through all that convoluted settlement? So that they all can say they are satisfied. I bet the regulators are going to approve the fix, however flaw it is. VW saves a few billion, regulators get more $, psc gets paid, and hope owners are happy with a couple of thousands
12-29-2016, 07:24 AM
#2589
Rennlist Member
This is the best summary explanation of diesel emission law I have read to date. Figure I would pollute this thread with technical information because I can't whine and bitch as well in comparison. Below makes total sense if you have followed Diesel engines in 2000s. Don't know where the Audi 2.0T, Gen I and II 3.0T diesel emissions levels are at.
Post #19
http://www.peachparts.com/shopforum/...luetecs-2.html
"Emissions requirements did drive the change. Starting in 2004 the US introduced 10 "Bins" of differing emissions compliance levels. Bin 1 is the cleanest (zero emissions) and Bin 10 is the dirtiest. Over time increasingly cleaner levels are required of light duty passenger cars. Bins 9 and 10 were no longer permitted as of the 2007 model year. Bins 6, 7, and 8 were no longer permitted as of the 2010 model year.
The om648 E320 CDI is a Bin 10 vehicle, hence not legal for sale in the US after 2006. The om642 E320 Bluetec is a Bin 8 vehicle, so OK for sale from 2007 through 2009 model years. The e350 Bluetec (with DEF) introduced in 2010 is a Bin 5 vehicle (which also happens to have been the California standard all along).
For comparison, Bin 10 permits 0.6 grams/mile of NoX, Bin 8 is 0.2. Bin 10 permits 0.8 grams/mile of particulate matter, Bin 8 is 0.2. CO and Formaldehyde standards are the same between the two. So there are significant reductions in NoX and PM emissions going from the 648 to the 642 - approximately 70%."
Post #19
http://www.peachparts.com/shopforum/...luetecs-2.html
"Emissions requirements did drive the change. Starting in 2004 the US introduced 10 "Bins" of differing emissions compliance levels. Bin 1 is the cleanest (zero emissions) and Bin 10 is the dirtiest. Over time increasingly cleaner levels are required of light duty passenger cars. Bins 9 and 10 were no longer permitted as of the 2007 model year. Bins 6, 7, and 8 were no longer permitted as of the 2010 model year.
The om648 E320 CDI is a Bin 10 vehicle, hence not legal for sale in the US after 2006. The om642 E320 Bluetec is a Bin 8 vehicle, so OK for sale from 2007 through 2009 model years. The e350 Bluetec (with DEF) introduced in 2010 is a Bin 5 vehicle (which also happens to have been the California standard all along).
For comparison, Bin 10 permits 0.6 grams/mile of NoX, Bin 8 is 0.2. Bin 10 permits 0.8 grams/mile of particulate matter, Bin 8 is 0.2. CO and Formaldehyde standards are the same between the two. So there are significant reductions in NoX and PM emissions going from the 648 to the 642 - approximately 70%."
12-29-2016, 10:32 AM
#2590
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.
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.
12-29-2016, 12:34 PM
#2591
Rennlist Member
Lets face it. No buyback if VW provides a fix that is acceptable by the regulators. The regulators never gave a reason why prior fixes were not acceptable. I always thought it was merely negotiation tactics. They have reached the end of how much to sweeze VW. So, my gut reaction is they will say yes to the next fix. Call me a cynical
12-29-2016, 12:50 PM
#2592
12-29-2016, 01:11 PM
#2593
Rennlist Member
12-29-2016, 01:55 PM
#2594
Rennlist Member
Originally Posted by gnat
FTFY
You're not cynical, I'm cynical
You're not cynical, I'm cynical
[edit: to those owners, please keep those letters. May be evidence of bad faith by the regulators]
12-31-2016, 11:24 PM
#2595
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.
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.
Some of you may think I am whining... I'm not. I'm just acting. MY money is talking and it is not talking in the direction of Porsche for the first time in a while.