Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

VW Emissions Scandal


  • Please log in to reply
593 replies to this topic

#101 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 6,733 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 07 October 2015 - 23:44

In the UK cars are taxed on CO2, if you do a more realistic test and get higher CO2 the taxes go up. That sytem is due to change but company cars which are 50% of the UK market hit users income tax bills directly related to CO2 rating so the after-tax income of 3-4 milion people would go down.

 

Sounds dumb to me. CO2 emissions are directly proportional to the quantity of carbon in the fuel burned by the engine. Tax the bloody fuel.

 

Don't penalise the guy who wants to own a thirsty, luxury/performance vehicle but drives it rarely and for a short distance only.



Advertisement

#102 Magoo

Magoo
  • Member

  • 2,772 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 08 October 2015 - 01:20

Two news items today:

 

 

VW will not offer diesels in the USA in 2016 

 

http://www.latimes.c...1007-story.html

 

 

 

Canucks file $2.5 billion class-action lawsuit

 

http://www.autoguide...against-vw.html



#103 Canuck

Canuck
  • Member

  • 2,072 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 08 October 2015 - 03:57

Well we're shy of oil revenue these days, got to make up for it somewhere. It's a start. Actually I'm surprised there's only the two to date - one in the US and one here. I'd have expected more but perhaps they're just cleaning their guns and taking careful aim before pulling the lawsuit trigger. Fricken field day for the lawysharks.

What about all the non-OEM / non-manufacturing players of the industry? All the media layers that laud and promote and tout the various OEMs with engine awards and green awards and whatever other flavour of the week there happens to be. Will it be short-lived mock scorn and hurt feelings or will they turn their backs on VW long term and treat them like a pariah? I wonder how short-lived the hippie indignation will last before they're wooed by very well crafted marketing again.

#104 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 6,733 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 08 October 2015 - 05:02

There is a class action on its way in Australia.

http://www.theguardi...r-paul-fletcher

 

US resale values drop.

http://www.cnbc.com/...13-percent.html

Interesting thing is petrol engined Golf  (-12.4%) fell more than diesel engined Golf (-10.9%).


Edited by gruntguru, 08 October 2015 - 05:12.


#105 Tenmantaylor

Tenmantaylor
  • Member

  • 12,496 posts
  • Joined: July 01

Posted 08 October 2015 - 08:36

Shows that it's damaging VW more than it's damaging Diesel.



#106 Tenmantaylor

Tenmantaylor
  • Member

  • 12,496 posts
  • Joined: July 01

Posted 08 October 2015 - 08:39

Sounds dumb to me. CO2 emissions are directly proportional to the quantity of carbon in the fuel burned by the engine. Tax the bloody fuel.

 

Don't penalise the guy who wants to own a thirsty, luxury/performance vehicle but drives it rarely and for a short distance only.

 

Ah but the government would argue you'll drive the same number of miles regardless of the fuel type car you purchase, the tax incentive is to buy a less polluting car. And they tax the hell out of both fuels already.



#107 Tenmantaylor

Tenmantaylor
  • Member

  • 12,496 posts
  • Joined: July 01

Posted 08 October 2015 - 08:45

I think you have to be careful, there again that is precisely how VW were caught in the first place. I don't think anybody loves roller tests, or believes they are a good model for the real world, but the problem is, how do you replace them?

 

One thing our fuel consumption guys do is to run a convoy of current production car, main competitor, and new car, on the sort of routes that magazines use. That is horrendously expensive, not all that accurate and of course rather tricky to use as a development target. It is primarily done so we don't look too stupid when the reviews come in (and so far as I know our real world fuel consumption has always improved model by model-at least I don't get 15 l/100 km any more!).

 

Hi Greg - I genuinely believe they have to do a potentially highly variable real world randomised test and post it alongside the control tests and let the consumer decide. It isn't that expensive to hire 5 people on minimum wage and drive the cars for a day then aggregate the results. Even if this wasn't a barrier to entry for a market it could be a good consumer indicator until the regulators and manufacturers really get their **** together and come up with a controlled version of something similar.



#108 mariner

mariner
  • Member

  • 1,811 posts
  • Joined: January 07

Posted 08 October 2015 - 09:02

I'm pretty sure no lawmaker or bureaucrat will ever take this suggestion up but there is a MUCH simpler and cheaper way of identifying real world consumption than more expensive government testing.- at least based on UK data.

 

Most large fleets collect very careful cost data for their company cars and vans. Fuel consumption is monitored by vehicle partially to detect employee fraud and partially to check driver behaviour. So any big fleet wil get the newest cars and soon have huge milage databases They also track taveling employee calendars so can sort out long journey drvers versus urban ones.

 

Ask each of them to dump the de personalised data by month into an SQL database and real world consumption data would be available within 4 - 6months of a new car launch. A bigger, more realistic and probably quicker method than yet more new gov't tests.

 

In the  Uk company car fleets exceed 3 milion units at any time. In fact the governemnt car motability  scheme which leases cars to disabled people at a break even cost to taxpayers has over 500,000 cars alone.


Edited by mariner, 08 October 2015 - 09:26.


#109 Tenmantaylor

Tenmantaylor
  • Member

  • 12,496 posts
  • Joined: July 01

Posted 08 October 2015 - 09:38

Great idea :up:



#110 thegforcemaybewithyou

thegforcemaybewithyou
  • Member

  • 3,225 posts
  • Joined: April 12

Posted 08 October 2015 - 10:05


Ask each of them to dump the de personalised data by month into an SQL database and real world consumption data would be available within 4 - 6months of a new car launch. A bigger, more realistic and probably quicker method than yet more new gov't tests.

 

You could use the German page spritmonitor.de to get an idea of the real world fuel consumption, where people can track their own mpg.

 

This link http://www.spritmoni...e=80&minkm=5000 shows the VW Golf since 2010, Diesel, power max 80kW, min mileage 5000km. The average is 5,33l/100km(+-1 to account for different driving styles and other factors).


Edited by thegforcemaybewithyou, 08 October 2015 - 10:07.


#111 Talisman

Talisman
  • Member

  • 5,926 posts
  • Joined: January 05

Posted 08 October 2015 - 10:05

I'm pretty sure no lawmaker or bureaucrat will ever take this suggestion up but there is a MUCH simpler and cheaper way of identifying real world consumption than more expensive government testing.- at least based on UK data.

 

Most large fleets collect very careful cost data for their company cars and vans. Fuel consumption is monitored by vehicle partially to detect employee fraud and partially to check driver behaviour. So any big fleet wil get the newest cars and soon have huge milage databases They also track taveling employee calendars so can sort out long journey drvers versus urban ones.

 

Ask each of them to dump the de personalised data by month into an SQL database and real world consumption data would be available within 4 - 6months of a new car launch. A bigger, more realistic and probably quicker method than yet more new gov't tests.

 

In the  Uk company car fleets exceed 3 milion units at any time. In fact the governemnt car motability  scheme which leases cars to disabled people at a break even cost to taxpayers has over 500,000 cars alone.

 

Great idea in theory.  Unfortunately poor in practice.

 

If you have a particular brand that sells predominantly to company fleets you could expect long motorway runs where the car runs pretty close to optimally.  If you have a brand that sells predominantly to families you'll have lots of inefficient short runs in town, i.e. to school and back.  Have one that sells predominantly in rural areas like Subaru and compare them to ones that sell predominantly in cities.  The emissions and figures will not just be a reflection of the cars but the manner in which they are used which will depend largely on the customer base. 

 

Standardised lab tests are used for a very good reason, they compare the cars (and only the cars) in reproducible conditions.  By all means reform the tests (I think we're all agreed that there needs to be change here) but don't use a methodologically inferior type of testing instead.

 

The tests are there not to compare the cars BTW but to ensure they meet regulations for emissions to make them legal for sale in a particular market.

 

BTW the reality is that the 'real world' tests some have proposed here will be totally shot down by both the manufacturers and the regulators with good reason, because of the lack of reproducibility inherent.  If you want such tests they already exist, just go buy a good consumer magazine.


Edited by Talisman, 08 October 2015 - 10:07.


#112 Canuck

Canuck
  • Member

  • 2,072 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 08 October 2015 - 13:28

Interesting. Perhaps the CEO's resignation was more telling than I first thought. Certainly wasn't a well-kept secret.

http://www.cbc.ca/m/...ating-1.3262100

Edited by Canuck, 08 October 2015 - 13:30.


#113 mariner

mariner
  • Member

  • 1,811 posts
  • Joined: January 07

Posted 08 October 2015 - 15:39

Great idea in theory.  Unfortunately poor in practice.

 

If you have a particular brand that sells predominantly to company fleets you could expect long motorway runs where the car runs pretty close to optimally.  If you have a brand that sells predominantly to families you'll have lots of inefficient short runs in town, i.e. to school and back.  Have one that sells predominantly in rural areas like Subaru and compare them to ones that sell predominantly in cities.  The emissions and figures will not just be a reflection of the cars but the manner in which they are used which will depend largely on the customer base. 

 

Standardised lab tests are used for a very good reason, they compare the cars (and only the cars) in reproducible conditions.  By all means reform the tests (I think we're all agreed that there needs to be change here) but don't use a methodologically inferior type of testing instead.

 

The tests are there not to compare the cars BTW but to ensure they meet regulations for emissions to make them legal for sale in a particular market.

 

BTW the reality is that the 'real world' tests some have proposed here will be totally shot down by both the manufacturers and the regulators with good reason, because of the lack of reproducibility inherent.  If you want such tests they already exist, just go buy a good consumer magazine.

 

 

I'm not sure if my suggestion would work in other contries but it probably would work in the Uk due to the sheer size and range of the  company car/lease fleets.

 

About 50% of all uk new car sales  are fleet/business and BMW's and Audi's are at least as popular as Fords etc so the brand range is wide. The fleet  image is of a sales guy grinding up a motorway in his/her Mondeo but many cars are purely tax efficient wage boosts and seldom get driven much on company busines just comuting to work and private. use.

 

I can see some brands that might be too small a sample but with 3 - 4 milion company cars its data miner's dream source.


Edited by mariner, 08 October 2015 - 15:40.


#114 kikiturbo2

kikiturbo2
  • Member

  • 835 posts
  • Joined: December 04

Posted 08 October 2015 - 21:40

It was the imfamously corrupt US Lousiana  politician Huey " Kingfish" Long who once said " one day the people of Lousiana will get honest government and they won't like it"

 

I suspect the same wil apply to this saga of how " wrong " the NEDC test is and how it must be changed to show real life fuel consumption.

 

In the UK cars are taxed on CO2, if you do a more realistic test and get higher CO2 the taxes go up. That sytem is due to change but company cars which are 50% of the UK market hit users income tax bills directly related to CO2 rating so the after-tax income of 3-4 milion people would go down.

 

If f the test is made more realistic then the EU either has to relax the 95gms/km average target for 2020 and admit it's reneging on climate change or accept the consequences in the market. Basically that wil be to wipe dozens of european models on sale because getting a real 95gms/km is probably out of reach with known technology, at least by 2020.

 

So imagine a new car buyer going into a BMW showroom, say, and seeing only small engined 1 series on show. "wheres the 3 series I want to buy?" - sorry its over 95 gms real world so we dont sell it anymore.

 

Given new car lead times doing the right thing on CO2/emissions tests may cause chaos.

exactly... changing the emissions test cycle opens up a whole can of worms that will end up costing the customer..



#115 kikiturbo2

kikiturbo2
  • Member

  • 835 posts
  • Joined: December 04

Posted 08 October 2015 - 21:45

Hi Greg - I genuinely believe they have to do a potentially highly variable real world randomised test and post it alongside the control tests and let the consumer decide. It isn't that expensive to hire 5 people on minimum wage and drive the cars for a day then aggregate the results. Even if this wasn't a barrier to entry for a market it could be a good consumer indicator until the regulators and manufacturers really get their **** together and come up with a controlled version of something similar.

 

I think there is another viewpoint on this.

We as customers can always complain that the NEDC cycle doesnt reflect our usage but the fact is that we could learn to replicate the driving style that will in fact lower our fuel consumption significcantly. I like sports cars and do have a gas guzzler at home, so guilty as charged.., but fact is that 99% drive in most unefficient manner and than bit$h about the fuel consumption...



#116 Greg Locock

Greg Locock
  • Member

  • 5,656 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 08 October 2015 - 22:08

"The average is 5,33l/100km(+-1)"

 

Now it may be a little unfair of me, but how do you fancy the final invoice for your car having a 20% tolerance? Or it turning up with 4 seatbelts instead of 5?



#117 GreenMachine

GreenMachine
  • Member

  • 1,518 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 08 October 2015 - 22:52

I like sports cars and do have a gas guzzler at home, so guilty as charged.., but fact is that 99% drive in most unefficient manner and than bit$h about the fuel consumption...

 

Haha, so true. I think of it as the 'fun tax' ...



#118 bigleagueslider

bigleagueslider
  • Member

  • 1,235 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 09 October 2015 - 03:46

The numbers regarding the amount of financial compensation VW might be liable for makes it obvious this is just a money grab, and has nothing to do with any actual harm caused by NOx emissions above the EPA standard from these cars. The NOx emitted from these cars is only a miniscule fraction of global NOx emissions during the period.



#119 Lee Nicolle

Lee Nicolle
  • Member

  • 9,884 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 09 October 2015 - 09:23

VW deliberatly cheated. Tonights news has the US boss trying to blame 'rogue elements' which would be absolute b/s. In reality he should be sacked today.

I am sure all the meeting records have been destroyed ofcourse.

 

Regular checking like the Uni study that found these findings in the great scheme of things is not that expensive when coupled with the dyno testing.

Tyres are checked on set routes, new models are checked on set routes in product testing and I am sure these results were replicated in testing!

Ooops caught out again. How many people in the VW world knew. I suspect quite a few.

 

VW not selling diesels in the US is a forward move, it reiterates the fact that VW know they cannot comply.

 

I guess VW will not be playing motorsport soon,, they will need a LOT of money to keep the companies in business after fines and lawsuits



Advertisement

#120 Talisman

Talisman
  • Member

  • 5,926 posts
  • Joined: January 05

Posted 09 October 2015 - 10:12

I'm not sure if my suggestion would work in other contries but it probably would work in the Uk due to the sheer size and range of the  company car/lease fleets.

 

About 50% of all uk new car sales  are fleet/business and BMW's and Audi's are at least as popular as Fords etc so the brand range is wide. The fleet  image is of a sales guy grinding up a motorway in his/her Mondeo but many cars are purely tax efficient wage boosts and seldom get driven much on company busines just comuting to work and private. use.

 

I can see some brands that might be too small a sample but with 3 - 4 milion company cars its data miner's dream source.

 

The point is that such a test would not be reproducible and doesn't take account of the fact that different brands, models and submodels attract a different population subgroup and therefore will probably be driven differently.

 

Taking another example, do you think a VW Golf GTi will be driven overall in the same style as a 1.2 TSI?  Do you think the GTi will attract a different type of driver and will be driven differently to the economy model?  Do you think that might result in a difference in real world economy simply due to differences in the way the cars are used?  Even with a massive sample size you're likely to see such a difference.



#121 Talisman

Talisman
  • Member

  • 5,926 posts
  • Joined: January 05

Posted 09 October 2015 - 10:13

The numbers regarding the amount of financial compensation VW might be liable for makes it obvious this is just a money grab, and has nothing to do with any actual harm caused by NOx emissions above the EPA standard from these cars. The NOx emitted from these cars is only a miniscule fraction of global NOx emissions during the period.

 

The financial penalty that will be inflicted on VW will not be calculated relative to the environmental damage, it will be calculated to be punitive enough to ensure that in future, no other car manufacturer will be tempted to bypass EPA testing procedures and cheat.



#122 thegforcemaybewithyou

thegforcemaybewithyou
  • Member

  • 3,225 posts
  • Joined: April 12

Posted 09 October 2015 - 10:46

"The average is 5,33l/100km(+-1)"

 

Now it may be a little unfair of me, but how do you fancy the final invoice for your car having a 20% tolerance? Or it turning up with 4 seatbelts instead of 5?

 

Well, for me the range 5,33l/100km(+-1) real world consumption is a very useful help. I would compare similar cars(VW Golf, Audi A3, Opel Astra, BMW 1,...) and their consumption range.

 

For similar ranges, this means that my driving style and the road and traffic conditions have the biggest influence. If one ends up at the upper end of the consumption range, one should check his driving style first and then the car! For example my dad refuses to use the top gear in his car, even if the dashboard indicates "shift up".



#123 Cirio

Cirio
  • Member

  • 211 posts
  • Joined: September 15

Posted 09 October 2015 - 15:42

Looks like the fix is going to be expensive:

 

Almost half of the Volkswagen cars in Europe affected by the diesel emissions scandal require major hardware changes – including the installation of new parts – in order to meet pollution standards.

The revelation by the German transport ministry that 3.6m cars in Europe require hardware changes underlines the scale and expense of the repairs that will be required as a result of the scandal.

Michael Horn, the boss of VW in America, told a congressional hearing on Thursday that the hardware fix was “complex” and could involve a new fuel injector tank being fitted to cars.



#124 bigleagueslider

bigleagueslider
  • Member

  • 1,235 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 10 October 2015 - 04:11

The financial penalty that will be inflicted on VW will not be calculated relative to the environmental damage, it will be calculated to be punitive enough to ensure that in future, no other car manufacturer will be tempted to bypass EPA testing procedures and cheat.

First, VW did not bypass EPA emissions test procedures. All the VW car models in question passed the EPA emissions tests with flying colors. Where VW alledgedly violated US federal law was by not providing full disclosure in their EPA CoC application for the vehicle models. By not providing full disclosure on the EPA CoC applications, the CoCs essentially became invalid. And so VW violated US federal law by importing and selling cars without a valid CoC. That's the basis of the complaint the EPA forwarded to the US DoJ.

 

But here's the reality of the situation. The US EPA has no authority to enforce their regulations. Only the US DoJ has authority to prosecute violations of federal laws. And here's the kicker- the US AG has complete discretion in deciding whether or not to prosecute. In January 2017 a new US President will take office and will appoint a new US Attorney General. That new US AG might decide not to pursue any case against VW, and that would be the end of it, as far as the US federal government is concerned. Of course there is always the possibility that individuals could pursue civil litigation against VW, but that would likely be a difficult case to win.



#125 Canuck

Canuck
  • Member

  • 2,072 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 10 October 2015 - 17:08

What? No. The EPA's case says rather clearly that the VW software and sensors together form an emissions control defeat device and that such a device is a violation.

#126 mariner

mariner
  • Member

  • 1,811 posts
  • Joined: January 07

Posted 10 October 2015 - 17:54

Either the ratio of lawyers to engineers in VW was much higher than I thought or they are displaying extreme arogance over this affair.

 

Here is there reply to an enquiry by Autocar which has found out "defeat devices" are illegal in the EU too.

 

The spokesman also raised the possibility that, even if VW Group cars are found to have employed the software manipulation system in European tests, it may not breach regulations. "It is not certain whether this function can be catagorised as a defeat device under European standards," he said.

Blog: when is manipulation software not a defeat device?

Although the regulations clearly state "the use of defeat devices that reduce the effectiveness of emission control systems shall be prohibited", the spokesman's comments suggest VW is investigating not only whether the software activated, but also whether, if it did, it constitues a defeat device under the definitions of the European tests.

Under European regulations, a defeat device is described as "any element of design which senses temperature, vehicle speed, engine speed (RPM), transmission gear, manifold vacuum or any other parameter for the purpose of activating, modulating, delaying or deactivating the operation of any part of the emission control system, that reduces the effectiveness of the emission control system under conditions which may reasonably be expected to be encountered in normal vehicle operation and use."

 

If software isnt an element of design on a modern car what is?

 

BTW  blog makes interesting reading.



#127 Magoo

Magoo
  • Member

  • 2,772 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 12 October 2015 - 01:52

First, VW did not bypass EPA emissions test procedures. All the VW car models in question passed the EPA emissions tests with flying colors. Where VW alledgedly violated US federal law was by not providing full disclosure in their EPA CoC application for the vehicle models. By not providing full disclosure on the EPA CoC applications, the CoCs essentially became invalid. And so VW violated US federal law by importing and selling cars without a valid CoC. That's the basis of the complaint the EPA forwarded to the US DoJ.

 

But here's the reality of the situation. The US EPA has no authority to enforce their regulations. Only the US DoJ has authority to prosecute violations of federal laws. And here's the kicker- the US AG has complete discretion in deciding whether or not to prosecute. In January 2017 a new US President will take office and will appoint a new US Attorney General. That new US AG might decide not to pursue any case against VW, and that would be the end of it, as far as the US federal government is concerned. Of course there is always the possibility that individuals could pursue civil litigation against VW, but that would likely be a difficult case to win.

 

 

What a novel theory. Please let us know if and when it begins to describe reality. We sure wouldn't want to miss that. 



#128 bigleagueslider

bigleagueslider
  • Member

  • 1,235 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 12 October 2015 - 02:13

What? No. The EPA's case says rather clearly that the VW software and sensors together form an emissions control defeat device and that such a device is a violation.

The vehicle models submitted for EPA emissions complaince testing were identical to what VW sold in the US. If you were to operate one of the VW models in question in exactly the same manner as the EPA did during their emissions compliance testing, you would get the same results the EPA did showing the vehicle in compliance.

 

The EPA NOV sent to VW September 18, 2015 states they are in violation of US CFR 40 86.1844-01(d)(11) which covers disclosure of Auxiliary Emissions Control Devices (AECDs) on the Certificate of Compliance (CoC) application. The EPA claims VW did not provide full disclosure of AECDs on their CoC applications. You need to remember that AECDs are not illegal if they are disclosed on the EPA CoC application. The only action the EPA can take on its own is to revoke/suspend the CoC they issued for the VW models in question based on the fact that VW did not provide full disclosre concerning AECDs.

 

The US DoJ can prosecute VW if they find sufficient evidence that they were in violation of US CFR 40 86.1844-01(d)(11), which may result in civil penalties and remdial action.



#129 bigleagueslider

bigleagueslider
  • Member

  • 1,235 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 12 October 2015 - 02:34

What a novel theory. Please let us know if and when it begins to describe reality. We sure wouldn't want to miss that. 

Here's the EPA NOV sent to VW. The "alleged violations" start at the bottom of page 3. After you read the NOV and the relevant sections of US federal law I noted in my last post, let me know where anything I stated is untrue.



#130 Magoo

Magoo
  • Member

  • 2,772 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 12 October 2015 - 02:59

Here's the EPA NOV sent to VW. The "alleged violations" start at the bottom of page 3. After you read the NOV and the relevant sections of US federal law I noted in my last post, let me know where anything I stated is untrue.

 

No, see paragraph one. Defeat devices are specifically prohibited. The violation is in having a defeat device, not in failing to disclose it. I don't know how much Costco charged you for your law degree, but you should ask for your money back. 


Edited by Magoo, 12 October 2015 - 03:00.


#131 Greg Locock

Greg Locock
  • Member

  • 5,656 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 12 October 2015 - 10:50

I saw the VW USA boss blaming it on 'a couple of rogue software engineers'. Now, having worked for at least one company where that might have been possible in the dim and distant past, I think I can be pretty confident in saying those days are long gone. I realise he's a sales and marketing guy and so may not know quite what hoops have to be jumped through to get a cal into a development fleet. What puzzles me is that either the defeat switch was only present in some cars, or else the whole fleet had it. If (a) then Somebody authorised different cals for the emissions development and sign off cars, and then put that cal into production, in which case Somebody is no mere engineer, or if (b) then the performance of the fleet (mpg (better), urea usage (better), performance(better), reliability(don't know),tire wear(worse)) would be at odds with the computer models or other predictions running the strangled calibration. (b) actually seems more likely, just that nobody joined the dots.



#132 Dmitriy_Guller

Dmitriy_Guller
  • Member

  • 4,796 posts
  • Joined: July 01

Posted 12 October 2015 - 13:33

Great idea in theory.  Unfortunately poor in practice.

 

If you have a particular brand that sells predominantly to company fleets you could expect long motorway runs where the car runs pretty close to optimally.  If you have a brand that sells predominantly to families you'll have lots of inefficient short runs in town, i.e. to school and back.  Have one that sells predominantly in rural areas like Subaru and compare them to ones that sell predominantly in cities.  The emissions and figures will not just be a reflection of the cars but the manner in which they are used which will depend largely on the customer base. 

That's far from an insurmountable problem, especially if you have GPS data.  You can statistically control for other factors, that's what statisticians are paid to do.



#133 GreenMachine

GreenMachine
  • Member

  • 1,518 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 12 October 2015 - 20:36

I could see the two as complementary.



#134 Cirio

Cirio
  • Member

  • 211 posts
  • Joined: September 15

Posted 12 October 2015 - 21:28

On aonther tack, when would be the best time to buy a new VW/Audi (petrol, of course)? Sales will be tanking and they'll be trying to shift stocks so there should be some hefty discounts around.



#135 Oho

Oho
  • Member

  • 9,811 posts
  • Joined: November 98

Posted 13 October 2015 - 06:07

On aonther tack, when would be the best time to buy a new VW/Audi (petrol, of course)? Sales will be tanking and they'll be trying to shift stocks so there should be some hefty discounts around.

 

Do they keep much stock? Cars if I am not mistaken are mostly manufactured to order...



#136 Cirio

Cirio
  • Member

  • 211 posts
  • Joined: September 15

Posted 13 October 2015 - 08:59

Do they keep much stock? Cars if I am not mistaken are mostly manufactured to order...

Is that the case for the A3 as well? That's what I was thinking of getting.



#137 Oho

Oho
  • Member

  • 9,811 posts
  • Joined: November 98

Posted 13 October 2015 - 09:10

Is that the case for the A3 as well? That's what I was thinking of getting.

 

In general I think, that's why customers can be offered so many options to choose from making up literally thousands or permutations if not more on color, upholstery, equipment, engine, transmission what not...

 

That said if sales tank they may end up selling cars at aggregate loss as the loss may very well be less than the loss of shutting plants down...


Edited by Oho, 13 October 2015 - 09:12.


#138 Peter Morley

Peter Morley
  • Member

  • 2,224 posts
  • Joined: October 02

Posted 13 October 2015 - 10:27

On aonther tack, when would be the best time to buy a new VW/Audi (petrol, of course)? Sales will be tanking and they'll be trying to shift stocks so there should be some hefty discounts around.

VW's arrogance doesn't help, even when they were having to buy more and more fields to store unsold cars here they weren't inclined to offer a serious discount - unlike the top end German makes who offered huge discounts.

They used to be an Apple type product where people were prepared to pay a premium for their products but customers seem to have wised up and you don't see anything like as many VWs as you used to.

 



#139 Cirio

Cirio
  • Member

  • 211 posts
  • Joined: September 15

Posted 13 October 2015 - 11:25

I just checked a French 'Mandataire' site and it's offering 15-23% discounts on the model I was looking at.

 

ETA: Quite aside from actually shutting plants down, there must be a lot of work in process, sub-assemblies etc.


Edited by Cirio, 13 October 2015 - 11:27.


Advertisement

#140 Peter Morley

Peter Morley
  • Member

  • 2,224 posts
  • Joined: October 02

Posted 13 October 2015 - 14:42

15-23% is OK but 10% seems pretty normal for many makes, people like Fiat offer 21% (= VAT here) on many models, BMW were apparently doing 40%+ on some of their bigger cars!

 

VW Belgium are currently offering 2000 euros off some models plus an extra 1000 if bought quickly, those promotions were already in place and well over 10% of the price of many of them.

 

I suspect there won't be huge discounts on the affected models specifically, because they will have to update them anyway - it's not like they can sell them as they are (unless they do a deal with a country that isn't bothered about emissions tests).

 

It will be interesting will be to see if the people who say they bought their cars because of the emissions figures can convince anyone into giving them any compensation, those who said they bought them for their economy will presumably struggle.

 

I wonder if the subcontractors for the injectors & chips VW will have to replace find their costs for producing so many very quickly raises the price significantly!



#141 Cirio

Cirio
  • Member

  • 211 posts
  • Joined: September 15

Posted 13 October 2015 - 14:54

I'm not sure how fast the fixes will be. The UK head of VW was talking about expecting to complete the retrofit by the end of 2016. It will be interesting if they're allowed to get away with that.



#142 Talisman

Talisman
  • Member

  • 5,926 posts
  • Joined: January 05

Posted 13 October 2015 - 15:46

I'm not sure how fast the fixes will be. The UK head of VW was talking about expecting to complete the retrofit by the end of 2016. It will be interesting if they're allowed to get away with that.

 

I was reading that VW have made public that the 1.6l engines will need urea tanks installed.  That would be a substantial amount of work given the number of cars involved, but it would also mean that performance would not be affected.

 

I don't think the 2.0l engines will get away with a software update.



#143 Talisman

Talisman
  • Member

  • 5,926 posts
  • Joined: January 05

Posted 13 October 2015 - 15:47

VW's arrogance doesn't help, even when they were having to buy more and more fields to store unsold cars here they weren't inclined to offer a serious discount - unlike the top end German makes who offered huge discounts.

They used to be an Apple type product where people were prepared to pay a premium for their products but customers seem to have wised up and you don't see anything like as many VWs as you used to.

 

It makes sense though, if you want a bargain VW they have a product for you called a Skoda or SEAT.  Both are sold with large discounts often available, I assume to reduce the number of sales bleeding away to cheaper brands like Citroen, FIAT or the Korean makers.



#144 BRG

BRG
  • Member

  • 16,958 posts
  • Joined: September 99

Posted 13 October 2015 - 17:22

I was reading that VW have made public that the 1.6l engines will need urea tanks installed.  That would be a substantial amount of work given the number of cars involved, but it would also mean that performance would not be affected.

 

I don't think the 2.0l engines will get away with a software update.

This morning, I received a letter from SEAT UK.  It referred to my 1.6 TDi Ibiza, which I presciently traded in last month for a new petrol model just before this all blew up.  The letter suggests that they would need to do a software update on all affected engines and to fit new injectors on the 1.6 litre engines only.  No mention of urea at all.  But that might be because EU rules are less stringent than California's.

 

As for sales, I went to the car wash today and the car park was full of new VWs stored there for the local dealer.  Far more cars than normal.



#145 mariner

mariner
  • Member

  • 1,811 posts
  • Joined: January 07

Posted 13 October 2015 - 19:15

At the Uk Parliamentary hearings into " deiselgate" the boss of VW UK confirmed that the UK fixes were software only for 2.0 litre engines and software plus new injectors for the 1.6 litre. No mention of urea tanks , presumably because as BRG says the EU nox limits are far more lax than the US EPA ones. VW must be glad of that as retrofititng urea systems to every EU car would have cost billions! Mind you they are still going to have to explain the PR reality that they are willing to " poison" EU citizens more than US ones just to save money.

 

He also said something very interesting - in response to the question " will the fixes worsen fuel consumption" his answer was "no, the VW instructions to its engineers is they must produce a  fix which doesnt worsen the current fuel consumption "

 

Now that implies that for the 2.0 litre engines VW can meet the ( admittedly easier ) EU nox WITHOUT hitting economy just hrough software updates. Which rather begs the question why did they send out cheat cars in the EU in the first place if they could have uploaded the " magic" software now promised by the UK VW boss??


Edited by mariner, 13 October 2015 - 19:18.


#146 saudoso

saudoso
  • Member

  • 6,742 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 13 October 2015 - 22:18

Less power?



#147 Magoo

Magoo
  • Member

  • 2,772 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 14 October 2015 - 00:30

He also said something very interesting - in response to the question " will the fixes worsen fuel consumption" his answer was "no, the VW instructions to its engineers is they must produce a  fix which doesnt worsen the current fuel consumption "

 

Now that implies that for the 2.0 litre engines VW can meet the ( admittedly easier ) EU nox WITHOUT hitting economy just hrough software updates. Which rather begs the question why did they send out cheat cars in the EU in the first place if they could have uploaded the " magic" software now promised by the UK VW boss??

 

I take that to mean VW will understate, downplay, and backspin the fuel economy reduction for as long as it can, while working on the best possible fix and wishing, waiting, and hoping for the public anger and comsumer outrage to subside. 

 

In the Nixon administration, this strategy was known as Modified Limited Hangout. 



#148 GreenMachine

GreenMachine
  • Member

  • 1,518 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 14 October 2015 - 01:01

It might be early days yet, but have we seen much 'public anger and consumer outrage'?

 

Lots of commentators, public officials, MPs etc are sounding off, but I wonder if the public actually gives a rats, especially when they may perceive that they have been getting a benefit from VW which they will now lose (fully or partially).



#149 Greg Locock

Greg Locock
  • Member

  • 5,656 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 14 October 2015 - 02:11

I was reading that VW have made public that the 1.6l engines will need urea tanks installed.  That would be a substantial amount of work given the number of cars involved, but it would also mean that performance would not be affected.

 

 

Wrong. The UWV report tested a Passat with urea tank and it was also cheating. So, if they need the EPA cal to meet emissions, you can safely assume that a urea system will hit mpg and torque.



#150 Lee Nicolle

Lee Nicolle
  • Member

  • 9,884 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 14 October 2015 - 03:02

At the Uk Parliamentary hearings into " deiselgate" the boss of VW UK confirmed that the UK fixes were software only for 2.0 litre engines and software plus new injectors for the 1.6 litre. No mention of urea tanks , presumably because as BRG says the EU nox limits are far more lax than the US EPA ones. VW must be glad of that as retrofititng urea systems to every EU car would have cost billions! Mind you they are still going to have to explain the PR reality that they are willing to " poison" EU citizens more than US ones just to save money.

 

He also said something very interesting - in response to the question " will the fixes worsen fuel consumption" his answer was "no, the VW instructions to its engineers is they must produce a  fix which doesnt worsen the current fuel consumption "

 

Now that implies that for the 2.0 litre engines VW can meet the ( admittedly easier ) EU nox WITHOUT hitting economy just hrough software updates. Which rather begs the question why did they send out cheat cars in the EU in the first place if they could have uploaded the " magic" software now promised by the UK VW boss??

I suspect a salesman,,, one of the ones that cause grief. They tell lies!  

The truth will be more fuel less power.


Edited by Lee Nicolle, 14 October 2015 - 03:03.