Diesel Cayenne and VW emission issue
12-15-2016, 04:13 PM
#2281
They seem to be few and far between, and there is also the lingering question of, "What will the settlement do to used values?" so tough to say if NOW is really the "time to buy" or not.
Motor Werks says they are sitting on 5 or 6 brand new ones in inventory they're not allowed to sell. If they eventually get "fixed" and sold as "used" I do not see them heavily discounting them, honestly. According to my sales guy, they moved "a couple" of them (no idea how many exactly but I did take a "new" one for a test drive last week just to see how the diesel felt) over to their loaner fleet just so they're getting some use. I imagine most dealers likely did the same thing.
Napleton has 2, seem nicely equipped.
12-15-2016, 04:36 PM
#2282
I just did
They seem to be few and far between, and there is also the lingering question of, "What will the settlement do to used values?" so tough to say if NOW is really the "time to buy" or not.
Motor Werks says they are sitting on 5 or 6 brand new ones in inventory they're not allowed to sell. If they eventually get "fixed" and sold as "used" I do not see them heavily discounting them, honestly. According to my sales guy, they moved "a couple" of them (no idea how many exactly but I did take a "new" one for a test drive last week just to see how the diesel felt) over to their loaner fleet just so they're getting some use. I imagine most dealers likely did the same thing.
Napleton has 2, seem nicely equipped.
They seem to be few and far between, and there is also the lingering question of, "What will the settlement do to used values?" so tough to say if NOW is really the "time to buy" or not.
Motor Werks says they are sitting on 5 or 6 brand new ones in inventory they're not allowed to sell. If they eventually get "fixed" and sold as "used" I do not see them heavily discounting them, honestly. According to my sales guy, they moved "a couple" of them (no idea how many exactly but I did take a "new" one for a test drive last week just to see how the diesel felt) over to their loaner fleet just so they're getting some use. I imagine most dealers likely did the same thing.
Napleton has 2, seem nicely equipped.
12-15-2016, 05:29 PM
#2283
If the settlement is yet another snub to us by just saying we'll fix them and that's it, then the doubt is removed and they have shown that they think they can get away with pretty much anything and all the "pomp and circumstance" that goes with the brand is smoke and mirrors. And as we know, smoke eventually dissipates....
I mean, the "diminished value" could have just as easily happened if Porsche *dropped* prices, instead of *raising* them, in 2015, by $8k. Would all of the pre-2015 buyers suddenly be entitled to diminished value claims?
I'm no expert, but I remain optimistic. I also don't think that the values will be hurt THAT much.
If they WERE selling new for $75k, and used ones are (just for example/argument) averaging $50k, I don't see them suddenly selling new ones (with "used" title and "fix" applied) for $55k and really undercutting the used market (remember dealers sell used cars too). I bet they knock something like $5k off and that's that. With the new vehicle warranty running 6y/100k now anyways, the only thing you're really missing out on with a "used" title are new-vehicle loan rates.
I've been labeled a mouth piece for VAG for it, but I still laugh my *** off over it all as it's funny as hell if you don't factor in the customer impact.
VAG just thumbed their nose at the idiotic and overly restrictive regulations and used the regulations themselves against the regulators by coding the cars specifically to the tests. It's brilliant.
They would have gotten away with it too if it weren't for those pesky kids!!!
VAG just thumbed their nose at the idiotic and overly restrictive regulations and used the regulations themselves against the regulators by coding the cars specifically to the tests. It's brilliant.
They would have gotten away with it too if it weren't for those pesky kids!!!
I was pretty heavily involved on the emissions side, and still have friends/family heavily involved... and really, the regulations ARE ridiculous. In some counties in California, our diesels were (not kidding) *cleaning* the air.... the air was dirtier going into the air filter than it was coming out the tailpipe!
When you regulate noise, regulate fuel economy minimums, AND regulate emissions... and THEN set the bar HIGH on all of them... at some point, something's got to give.
A lot of manufacturers now (for sure the "Big 3" in the US) are operating on a "credits" system - they can "borrow" against their ULEVs to offset the emissions for their non-ULEVs. That's running out though.
I would 100% NOT be surprised to find that more (or possibly ALL) of them are cheating to some degree. And not just diesels.
Yeap thats pretty much why I ended up where I did (and actually on the back of a great 12 years (now 15) of owning the 996 with only minor annoyances).
I honestly don't know what I'd replace it with. The 958.2 doesn't appeal to me with the changes they made and the next Cayenne is right out as an option based on what we've seen of it. Thinking if I did get a good buyback I'd say screw the MPG and look for a good CPO'd Peridot 2013 GTS. Otherwise, all the options suck to me
I honestly don't know what I'd replace it with. The 958.2 doesn't appeal to me with the changes they made and the next Cayenne is right out as an option based on what we've seen of it. Thinking if I did get a good buyback I'd say screw the MPG and look for a good CPO'd Peridot 2013 GTS. Otherwise, all the options suck to me
12-15-2016, 06:42 PM
#2284
Rennlist Member
What other car to replace a CD? Maybe the upcoming Land Rover Disco with the Diesel engine. But I'll wait for real world road tests to see if it is fun driving or not
12-15-2016, 08:07 PM
#2286
Rennlist Member
Originally Posted by OmniGLH
LAND ROVER?!
Ok look I'm new to the thread and all buuuuut I think maybe you need to go sit in the corner for a little bit and think about what you just said...
Ok look I'm new to the thread and all buuuuut I think maybe you need to go sit in the corner for a little bit and think about what you just said...
12-15-2016, 10:27 PM
#2290
Rennlist Member
I think we can assume that then performance and MPG of a fixed CD will be similar to the X5 or Rover 3.0 V6 diesel numbers since they are in compliance. Decide if you can live with that or not. They are probably working the details on how VAG will get there.
JLR product quality have improved a lot since Tata took over. They make a great product today IMHO and I am looking to replace my GL with a RR.
JLR product quality have improved a lot since Tata took over. They make a great product today IMHO and I am looking to replace my GL with a RR.
12-16-2016, 11:00 AM
#2292
Intermediate
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We shouldn't be surprised
With all of the recent talk on this thread about compensation amounts and buybacks and the seemingly utter surprise at what the current scuttlebutt is, I am wondering why. Everyone seems to be focused on comparing what the 3.0L settlement should be to that of the 2.0L but in reality, these are two very different situations that really shouldn't be compared in terms of settlement amounts.
To summarize things a bit:
-With the 2.0L engines VW implemented a solution that they knew couldn't do the job so they detected the test and made it work for the very short period while the test was going on. VW admitted they cheated and the intent was to deceive everyone.
-With the 3.0L's VW implemented a system like everyone else. One that can do the job (or at least should if they aren't grossly incompetent), but turned it off in many if not most situations. One of the differences here is that the rules explicitly allow the system to be turned off as long as this was documented and disclosed. Of course VW forgot/skipped that step. VW NEVER admitted they cheated here. All along they have been claiming that it was an error nothing more. If I am wrong here, please point me to something of substance that contradicts my claim. I have been looking and I haven't seen it.
Sure their customers the general public and the media have been saying well if they so blatantly cheated in one area, they probably did the same in the other. I sure think they did, but this doesn't mean that they did in the eyes of the law. In this case, without an admission of guilt, I don't see how intent can be proven. Without the intent, they simply did or at least can claim that they did what all of the manufacturers of diesel vehicles do, shut of emissions controls "to protect the engine". The ability to do this is necessary and as I mentioned explicitly allowed in the regulation.
The point here is not to say that VW didn't cheat with the 3.0L engines but rather to say these are two very different cases. As I mentioned above, I have not seen anything from VW stating anything different from what they were claiming all along. Pretty much every writer/journalist presented a story of lies and deceit, and the regulators are stomping all over the place claiming the same. However, how can the intent be proven. In fact, I don't see how VW can ever change their story here. All of the supposed "true offenders" are no longer with the company (if you believe what you read) and the current administration can simply claim "it wasn't me" and "this is not what our investigation has discovered" with a reasonably straight face. If there was a smoking gun in terms of evidence against them it would have surely come out by now. I'd even bet that if way back in the beginning VW disclosed their "engine protection" emission control shutoff software device that the EPA would have simply said OK and never checked anything, and this whole thread would have been a lot shorter, and less interesting.
Without the willful intent as is present in the 2.0L case, there is no way that the expectations of the 3.0L stakeholders should be even remotely comparable. My opinion of course here, I am sure it is not going to be very popular but still I really don't think anyone should be surprised.
To summarize things a bit:
-With the 2.0L engines VW implemented a solution that they knew couldn't do the job so they detected the test and made it work for the very short period while the test was going on. VW admitted they cheated and the intent was to deceive everyone.
-With the 3.0L's VW implemented a system like everyone else. One that can do the job (or at least should if they aren't grossly incompetent), but turned it off in many if not most situations. One of the differences here is that the rules explicitly allow the system to be turned off as long as this was documented and disclosed. Of course VW forgot/skipped that step. VW NEVER admitted they cheated here. All along they have been claiming that it was an error nothing more. If I am wrong here, please point me to something of substance that contradicts my claim. I have been looking and I haven't seen it.
Sure their customers the general public and the media have been saying well if they so blatantly cheated in one area, they probably did the same in the other. I sure think they did, but this doesn't mean that they did in the eyes of the law. In this case, without an admission of guilt, I don't see how intent can be proven. Without the intent, they simply did or at least can claim that they did what all of the manufacturers of diesel vehicles do, shut of emissions controls "to protect the engine". The ability to do this is necessary and as I mentioned explicitly allowed in the regulation.
The point here is not to say that VW didn't cheat with the 3.0L engines but rather to say these are two very different cases. As I mentioned above, I have not seen anything from VW stating anything different from what they were claiming all along. Pretty much every writer/journalist presented a story of lies and deceit, and the regulators are stomping all over the place claiming the same. However, how can the intent be proven. In fact, I don't see how VW can ever change their story here. All of the supposed "true offenders" are no longer with the company (if you believe what you read) and the current administration can simply claim "it wasn't me" and "this is not what our investigation has discovered" with a reasonably straight face. If there was a smoking gun in terms of evidence against them it would have surely come out by now. I'd even bet that if way back in the beginning VW disclosed their "engine protection" emission control shutoff software device that the EPA would have simply said OK and never checked anything, and this whole thread would have been a lot shorter, and less interesting.
Without the willful intent as is present in the 2.0L case, there is no way that the expectations of the 3.0L stakeholders should be even remotely comparable. My opinion of course here, I am sure it is not going to be very popular but still I really don't think anyone should be surprised.
12-16-2016, 11:28 AM
#2293
Without the willful intent as is present in the 2.0L case, there is no way that the expectations of the 3.0L stakeholders should be even remotely comparable. My opinion of course here, I am sure it is not going to be very popular but still I really don't think anyone should be surprised.
Regardless of intent, the impact to the owners is the same, reduced values. Furthermore, the 2.0l scandal clearly tarnished the sole TDI line and this was evident even before the 3.0 cars were drug into the mess. Prices weren't showing much impact, but public opinion was clearly TDI = bad and they didn't want to quibble over the number of liters.
The real question that remains is if there is a fix and what its impact will be. If, like the 2.0, it is too extreme and will have significant impact to the owners, then a buyback is clearly warranted. If it has minimal impact, then a buyback probably isn't warranted and instead some other commiserate compensation on top of the "loss of value" compensation makes more sense. If they claim the fix will have no impact, I'm not going to believe them without independently verified numbers.
12-16-2016, 11:40 AM
#2294
Advanced
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With all of the recent talk on this thread about compensation amounts and buybacks and the seemingly utter surprise at what the current scuttlebutt is, I am wondering why. Everyone seems to be focused on comparing what the 3.0L settlement should be to that of the 2.0L but in reality, these are two very different situations that really shouldn't be compared in terms of settlement amounts.
To summarize things a bit:
-With the 2.0L engines VW implemented a solution that they knew couldn't do the job so they detected the test and made it work for the very short period while the test was going on. VW admitted they cheated and the intent was to deceive everyone.
-With the 3.0L's VW implemented a system like everyone else. One that can do the job (or at least should if they aren't grossly incompetent), but turned it off in many if not most situations. One of the differences here is that the rules explicitly allow the system to be turned off as long as this was documented and disclosed. Of course VW forgot/skipped that step. VW NEVER admitted they cheated here. All along they have been claiming that it was an error nothing more. If I am wrong here, please point me to something of substance that contradicts my claim. I have been looking and I haven't seen it.
Sure their customers the general public and the media have been saying well if they so blatantly cheated in one area, they probably did the same in the other. I sure think they did, but this doesn't mean that they did in the eyes of the law. In this case, without an admission of guilt, I don't see how intent can be proven. Without the intent, they simply did or at least can claim that they did what all of the manufacturers of diesel vehicles do, shut of emissions controls "to protect the engine". The ability to do this is necessary and as I mentioned explicitly allowed in the regulation.
The point here is not to say that VW didn't cheat with the 3.0L engines but rather to say these are two very different cases. As I mentioned above, I have not seen anything from VW stating anything different from what they were claiming all along. Pretty much every writer/journalist presented a story of lies and deceit, and the regulators are stomping all over the place claiming the same. However, how can the intent be proven. In fact, I don't see how VW can ever change their story here. All of the supposed "true offenders" are no longer with the company (if you believe what you read) and the current administration can simply claim "it wasn't me" and "this is not what our investigation has discovered" with a reasonably straight face. If there was a smoking gun in terms of evidence against them it would have surely come out by now. I'd even bet that if way back in the beginning VW disclosed their "engine protection" emission control shutoff software device that the EPA would have simply said OK and never checked anything, and this whole thread would have been a lot shorter, and less interesting.
Without the willful intent as is present in the 2.0L case, there is no way that the expectations of the 3.0L stakeholders should be even remotely comparable. My opinion of course here, I am sure it is not going to be very popular but still I really don't think anyone should be surprised.
To summarize things a bit:
-With the 2.0L engines VW implemented a solution that they knew couldn't do the job so they detected the test and made it work for the very short period while the test was going on. VW admitted they cheated and the intent was to deceive everyone.
-With the 3.0L's VW implemented a system like everyone else. One that can do the job (or at least should if they aren't grossly incompetent), but turned it off in many if not most situations. One of the differences here is that the rules explicitly allow the system to be turned off as long as this was documented and disclosed. Of course VW forgot/skipped that step. VW NEVER admitted they cheated here. All along they have been claiming that it was an error nothing more. If I am wrong here, please point me to something of substance that contradicts my claim. I have been looking and I haven't seen it.
Sure their customers the general public and the media have been saying well if they so blatantly cheated in one area, they probably did the same in the other. I sure think they did, but this doesn't mean that they did in the eyes of the law. In this case, without an admission of guilt, I don't see how intent can be proven. Without the intent, they simply did or at least can claim that they did what all of the manufacturers of diesel vehicles do, shut of emissions controls "to protect the engine". The ability to do this is necessary and as I mentioned explicitly allowed in the regulation.
The point here is not to say that VW didn't cheat with the 3.0L engines but rather to say these are two very different cases. As I mentioned above, I have not seen anything from VW stating anything different from what they were claiming all along. Pretty much every writer/journalist presented a story of lies and deceit, and the regulators are stomping all over the place claiming the same. However, how can the intent be proven. In fact, I don't see how VW can ever change their story here. All of the supposed "true offenders" are no longer with the company (if you believe what you read) and the current administration can simply claim "it wasn't me" and "this is not what our investigation has discovered" with a reasonably straight face. If there was a smoking gun in terms of evidence against them it would have surely come out by now. I'd even bet that if way back in the beginning VW disclosed their "engine protection" emission control shutoff software device that the EPA would have simply said OK and never checked anything, and this whole thread would have been a lot shorter, and less interesting.
Without the willful intent as is present in the 2.0L case, there is no way that the expectations of the 3.0L stakeholders should be even remotely comparable. My opinion of course here, I am sure it is not going to be very popular but still I really don't think anyone should be surprised.
12-16-2016, 11:56 AM
#2295
Rennlist Member
It is so funny that all these new posters are regurgitating the same arguments over and over again. There has been an economic impact on the owners by willfully manipulating software to go around the emissions tests. Even this thread shows new owners who took advantage of the issues. We discuss the 2.0 settlements because that is the only guiding examples we got. If things were as simple as "oops, we made an honest mistake," things would have been resolved eons ago