TAch Miami

One mistake should be corrected to read 2.2 SUVS are 2015 and 2016 Cayennes. 2013 and 2014 Cayennes are 2.1 SUVs.

__________________
2014 991 TT
2013 958 CD

infinitybreaker

What is upsetting is that for leases it does not matter if your car is an Audi Porsche or VW you get 3200. I would assume lease on a Porsche is significantly more than the other two. This will be my last Porsche. .

deilenberger

I don't understand your reasoning. In a lease - when you're done with the lease you give it back to the manufacturer/financer. You have no residual value in the vehicle - no equity. Your use and enjoyment of the vehicle hasn't been harmed. A settlement is supposed to be about making the person who has been injured "whole" - ie - back to where they were before the incident that precipitated the settlement.

Where is the loss to the lessee they're being compensated for? I would imagine that by the time this entire thing is settled - the majority of leases will have expired due to the time. Most are 2-3 years, with the less expensive ones being 2 year low mileage leases.

And if there is no loss to the lessee - I can't see it really matters how much the lease cost. They made a deal with Porsche to rent a car. Porsche rented it to them for the amount they agreed on. So far - nothing has changed. The car hasn't been modified, and the lessee's experience should remain the same as they thought it would be when they initiated the lease.

What exactly do you think the lessee should be getting and why?

infinitybreaker

If the settlement shared your opinion on the matter then zero compensation would have been provided to lessees. Obviously this is not the case. This to say there was no harm done to lessees of these vehicles is difficult to defend. There was harm done, obviously less than those who purchased these vehicles. However just as the amounts for purchasers increases with relation to MSRP so should the lease.

During lease inception the lessees agreed to pay rent on a car that they felt had a certain value. That value has now been damaged due to misrepresentation.

deilenberger

You haven't shown any tangible damage to the lessees. The perceived value of the vehicles - according to everything people here are saying - has not dropped, actually - and I can only base it on what's been said in this thread - they are in demand.

As far as them getting some "compensation" - I think of it as a "bribe" to go away and not join in some class-action lawsuit. They have nothing to be compensated for - so it can only be either a guilt payment or a bribe. Given VW's MO - I suspect a bribe is more likely. They've shown an amazing capacity for denying guilt.

skiahh

Correct. And ant the end of the lease, you walk away and the finance company is left holding the bag of that value damage.

You are still getting what you agreed to pay for. The USE of a vehicle that looks like the one you leased and performs like the one you leased.

The only argument to be made is that perhaps you would not have leased this particular vehicle if you had known it emitted higher levels of pollution. So, the lesser amount is to compensate you for the flawed decision making facts you had, not because you've actually lost anything in this whole deal; any value that you actually have an ownership interest in, that is.

Searcher356

although it might be a stretch, you might set this up as a 1031 tax free exchange....

Searcher356

There is also the possibility that mpg and performance will increase. The biggest hurdle there is controlling the combustion temperature to keep NOx in check.
But ir there are enhanced cats and piping, maybe they will offset any other performance loss.
There have been a few years passed now, and the engineers know more today than they did before.
Maybe it will all be good.
(Of course CARB would have a conniption fit if they weren't able to lower the performance.)

MJG911

yeah, I can't see why lessee's are even getting compensated at all. They should get a reduction in residual in the event they want to buy it out, but other than that, there is no financial harm to them.

MJG911

I thought I have read in several places that the .1 are 2012 and earlier only.

visitador

Maybe you are confusing with Generation 1 (2009-2012)?

Generation 2 (2013-2016) are the 2.1 SUV, 2.2 SUV and 2 PC

I think when we generally talk here as .1, we mean the 2.1, which are basically all the CDs prior to the mid cycle redesign.

alexaqui

My interpretation is that people paid (a premium even) to drive these vehicles. The cars were misrepresented and perhaps there is damage to the effect that you paid more for the car than you should have; even as a levee.

Assuming my interpretation is correct, we are all getting essentially compensated for the misrepresentation and not so much for the loss in performance. Based on the extract at jalop the definition of "performance loss" is pretty broad. I believe the threshold was 3mpg and a few % of horsepower. I'm sorry.. 3mpg is a ~10% performance hit to fuel economy. For $500? Hmmm... While the overall number is nice, it represents about the loss in value I saw when I tried to sell the car shortly before and after this all happened. I've had capital tied up now in the car and have been waiting to see before making a move. There are some costs to that as well!

Honestly, as it is written I'm not sure I want to accept the settlement. I want to see the actual performance hits. Is there any recourse to us mere mortals without unlimited funds or is it just better to bend over and just accept what they are offering?

bella1

Seeing the positive here on my 2013 and 2015:

If Emissions Compliant Repair IS Timely Available by FALL 2017;

1) repair payments are $8229 to $8629 and $9633 to $10236 respectively
2) 2013 has CPO thru 2020 and 125,000 miles (has 75000 miles now)
3) 2015 has CPO thru 2021 and 100,000 miles (has 15000 miles now)
4) If the impact to performance is 10% so what

If Emissions Compliance Repair NOT Timely Available:

1) 2013 Buyback $58953 to $75141 or Option 2 Payment $14678 to $29106
2) 2015 Buyback $74150 to $99434 or Option 2 Payment $15899 to $45911
3) VW uses NADA value from Sept 2015 so you have two years of depreciation not counted and the use of the vehicle over that time!

I am going to take the offer and move on. I never bought these cars for the environment. I like the diesel, mileage, and torque. I still do. It is unfortunate to see VW and Porsche take a hit like this. But it is amazing how little it will really impact the bottom line over time. Best of luck to all you Cayenne diesel people!

Needsdecaf

No, you didn't "pay more for a car than you should have". None of us did. Unless somehow you bought this car for its emissions......which is a pretty laughable concept.

The fact is, the only party damaged in the lease is the lease holder. Because this has only reduced the residual value. If the new, lower, residual value was what the lease was based on, then lesees would actually have paid MORE on their lease.

User 52121

Agreed. It's the dealer or leasing company that takes the hit.