Dr Cayenne

To gnat whatever:

Again you have no clue what the message is. I will not follow you or reply to you as your message is full of contradictions and you are bringing your own decisions that are irrelevant to the topic like "e.g. I don't give a rat's a.. about depreciation because I always intended to have the car for a long time and that hasn't changed".... Why do you expect that we give a "rat's a... to what you will do?. Majority of people with affected vehicles do not agree with you in any case.

You cherrypick my "buyback is not possible" comment without referring to my original comment "based on your responses I understand that there will not be a buyback program for our vehicles" which is..... based on your responses, not my guess, which again shows that your are not following.

"we are actually educated about this problem and some of us actually do have knowledge of how situations like this work so we can make educated guesses about what the outcome will be." This again is pure speculation as I have said before. This is a pretty "unique" situation and your "educated guesses" are created out of thin air as far as I am concerned.

"If you don't wish to have a reasoned discussion about the situation, why did you post in the thread?" That is none of your business. I understand you have plenty of time to make many suggestions in this thread but I assume you feel entilted to "police the thread" too. Won't work.

"Actually there is a possibility that no fix is needed." Really? Trying to be funny I assume. EPA and all the parties involved are in disagreement with your "educated guess" here for sure.

"And if you read the thread and took the time to understand it rather than demanding we spoon feed it to you" Go "spoon feed" yourself first. Or you can continue to "carry a photo of your car, making flat 6 engine sounds", I do not mind either way. I am trying to be civil here.

You can continue your diatribe but you do not deserve any further response. I have no time for your nonsense.

gnat

I'm replying to what you are writing. Write something different if you want a different response.

Your "contribution" won't be missed, but please show these contradictions before you leave.

Speaking of not reading what people write and taking things out of context...

I specifically said that what people think is a fair compensation will depend on their personal view of how (or even if) they have been wronged. I then proceeded to use my own anecdotal case to show that.

If you took the time to actually read the thread you would see that I am not alone in not caring about the depreciation aspect. You are also far from alone in being worried about it. Both illustrate the point I was making perfectly. Each owner will judge the fairness of any compensation by their own terms.

I didn't cherrypick anything. You said it and I quoted it. You accused me of making things up about how this will shake out, but that is exactly what you are doing with such comments.

Unlike you, however, I have backed up my beliefs on the subject with reasoned arguments based on a historical view of such cases that can be called similar. You just attack me and have made no effort to actually defend your statements.

The scope of the situation is unique, but there is plenty of settled case law on related examples (manufacturers intentionally cheating EPA tests). We can make educated guesses from that information.

Emissions systems and how they work are also well understood at this point so it is perfectly reasonable that people can make educated guesses about what is going on, how it can be fixed, and how such fixes will impact things.

None of what I have said is "created out of thin air". It is based on established facts of similar case history and an understanding of the emissions systems.

None of what I have said is fact either though, but I have never claimed it to be. It is an educated guess based on researching and understanding the subject matter.

It's a public forum that I regularly contribute to and this is a subject dear to my heart as I am an owner of an impacted vehicle so it is very much my business to follow the thread and contribute to the discussion.

You came in and made an incorrect assertion. I corrected it and you have gotten bent out of shape about that and have continued to make accusations and cast aspersions.

I'm not policing anything. You stated incorrect information, I corrected you, and you have attacked me.

I'm not going to sit idly by while someone makes inaccurate comments as that harms the whole community and certainly not going to ignore childish personal attacks.

All you had to do after my first response was walk away with nothing more to add, thank me for correcting your misunderstanding, or provide counter arguments to try to support your original statements. You did none of those and instead attacked me personally.

You clearly have no idea how CARB and EPA actually function. They are political entities first and foremost. They were embarrassed horribly by VW and their first goal here is to make VW pay dearly for making them look incompetent. If you don't think that is true, then why is this so much worse for VW where no one anywhere in the world has been demonstrably hurt or killed by this compared to the results of the GM ignition fiasco? This is political first and foremost, make no mistake about that.

Between the ongoing beating their reputation is taking and the direct financial pain this 2.0l settlement is going to cause VW, it is a distinct possibility that CARB and the EPA could decide that they have extracted their pound of flesh and are ready to move on. Personally I wouldn't bet on that as both agencies are notoriously petty about such things, but it is indeed a possibility.

What either side says in public about the negotiations has little to do with what is actually going on in the negotiations. Anything that is made public about that is specifically done for PR spin in an attempt to change the dynamic of the negotiations.

Even once it is settled if it is purely a fine, it can simply be agreed off the books that it's never to be paid. If a fix is stipulated they can simply leave out binding statements about when such a fix must be implemented. There all kinds of ways that such things get presented to the public so that it appears that something was done when nothing really was.

So not only can you not use the quote feature to make your posts easier to read, you apparently can't comprehend what quotes are or who they are attributed to... (hint: not me, but I find the paranoia of 911 owners to actually drive their car's hilarious. Another hint for you, ru was being sarcastic too)

If you are trying to be civil, then drop the BS personal attacks and insults and lets have a reasoned discussion about why you think my statements are wrong backed up with actual information. Discourse is how we learn new things and expand ourselves. Saying "nuhuh!" to things we don't agree with benefits no one.

If you want to have a reasoned discussion, I'm game and all ears. If you want to "take your ball and go home", I won't miss you either.

skiahh

Now, back to our originally scheduled topic...

VW says it can fix the 3.0l engines without affecting performance:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/compa...les/ar-AAhOMw3

...without a buyback.

chsu74

I noticed that my CD don't have higher idle when cold starting to warm up cats quicker compared to my GL or other USA spec cars. I notice ROW cars, in Europe, as an example functions like this. There will be more fuel consumed if a higher idle on cold starts is implemented as part of the new fix.

skiahh

Not sure how much higher the idle is, or would be, but I imagine this would be a minuscule amount of fuel that would be undetectable in mpg calculations... unless you spend significant time idling the engine.

chsu74

Cars have a cold start idle at 1500 RPM and then drop. Length of time varies according to outside temp as I recall.

sclemmons

Great Article. This reflects what I have been thinking.

Post on RLOT here.

https://rennlist.com/forums/politics...l#post13418242

And American Spectator here.

http://spectator.org/vw-shaken-down/

Needsdecaf

My diesel definitely does not do this. Cold idle speed same as hot.

Needsdecaf

I don't think many of us here expected a buyback. I know that I didn't. Of course I thought, oh what fun it would be if they did buy it back and what would I get but that's just whistling Dixie.

Truth is that, as others have stated, the buyback is due to the difficulty of a fix on the 2.0 liter cars without exhaust gas treatment. Since our cars already have the urea injection, it should be easy to bring into compliance. Probably just software. They have to just figure out how to not lose performance and mileage. If it means more ad-blue, that's not a biggie for most of us I would think. I have personally had my then 7 year old help me refill the adblue tank. And you can get 5 gallons for about $25 bucks on sale and that's enough for probably 2 years.

Personally, I drove a 2016 CD as a loaner about a year ago and I loved how they had re-tuned the ECU. Felt much stronger, and shifts were much sportier. If they re-tune the cars to feel like that, hell, I would have paid for it!

The biggest thing this does for us is establish a pattern of payouts for those cars NOT bought back. Looking at the table in the settlement link above shows that for a 2014 Passat SEL TDi, you would receive about $7k in compensation, presumably for lost value. So what might we expect this value to be once the fix for our 3.0 liter cars is announced?

I wonder.

skiahh

Same here.

My pickup, however, does this... and it doesn't have a cat to warm up. When the ambient air temp is below 32 and the vehicle is idling, it'll ramp up to 1500 to warm the block quicker and prevent any fuel leaking by the pistons.

PJ Cayenne

I too had a late model CD loaner a few months ago. It did feel stronger, but thought is was in my head. Loved that thing. If that tune gets into my '14 I'd be a happy camper.

chsu74

Late CD loaners don't have the "fix" tune. It has a revised tune for newer models before this debacle.

Needsdecaf

I understand that. I had the loaner before all of this even came down.

What I am saying is that I am hoping that when the inevitable re-tune for the older cars ECU's happens, I hope that in order to placate us / regain any loss in performance from increased emissions measures, that they make the new "fix tune" feel like the 2016 and up base tune.

I spoke to the service manager and he confirmed that Porsche did remap the 2016 cars, however there was no way to back-load in the tune on an older car since the computer matches the required ECU programming with the VIN.

Here's hoping.

Needsdecaf

No, it definitely wasn't in your head. I asked and confirmed that the 2016 cars got a remap.

For me, I think it was a combination of both increased strength from the engine combined with more positive transmission shifting algorithms. I noticed that it was slower to upshift, and the lockup going into third was much less noticeable (my car shifts into third, then locks the torque converter and it almost feels like a double shift because the RPM's drop when the converter locks). This doesn't happen on the newer cars. I think it locks as soon as it goes into third and therefore third feels much stronger because there is no slip at the beginning of the gear.

Whether that's 100% accurate I do not know, but there is a difference in that part of the rev band and it was very noticeable in the newer car.

PJ Cayenne

Although I drove the loaner about a 100 miles, I didn't notice the change in shifting. It just felt a bit quicker. I did note the computer mpg data was a bit lower on loaner. Nice running machine.