VW TDi Emissions software scandal
- Thread starter pvm1234567890
- Start date
I wonder if anything will happen in the UK regarding this?
I "rejected" an Audi A4 back in 2012 because the fuel economy was nowhere near official figures. Now I realise that driving style and stuff has a part to play, and the way they are tested is completely unlike real world. But I was a good 35-40% off, despite driving miss daisy.
Think I lost around the £3-4k mark on the deal. And swore NEVER to buy a new VAG diesel.
I "rejected" an Audi A4 back in 2012 because the fuel economy was nowhere near official figures. Now I realise that driving style and stuff has a part to play, and the way they are tested is completely unlike real world. But I was a good 35-40% off, despite driving miss daisy.
Think I lost around the £3-4k mark on the deal. And swore NEVER to buy a new VAG diesel.
Other VW Group brands Skoda and SEAT have confirmed to Auto Express they have used the EA 189 engine in their cars, but were unable to comment on the presence of a 'defeat device'.
TAKEN FROM AUTO EXPRESS.
If have have a recall on our VW JETTA TDI for a software update and have to pay more roads tax not the end of the world, I will then have a Revo remap.
TAKEN FROM AUTO EXPRESS.
If have have a recall on our VW JETTA TDI for a software update and have to pay more roads tax not the end of the world, I will then have a Revo remap.
Last edited:
All shake and bake at VW, pulling back its talent in-house to shore up the parent group.
Porsche boss Mathias Mueller now Group CEO.
The VAG supervisory board have approved a new management structure for the group and the brands, and now Porsche is part of the brand group.
SEAT's chairman Jürgen Stackmann will take over role as sales and marketing boss at Volkswagen.
The new SEAT chairman is announced as Luca de Meo, currently sales and marketing chief at Audi also ex FIAT man, strange how history has a way of coming full circle.
Skoda boss is leaving his role to be boss of a re-organised North American VW division.
Porsche boss Mathias Mueller now Group CEO.
The VAG supervisory board have approved a new management structure for the group and the brands, and now Porsche is part of the brand group.
SEAT's chairman Jürgen Stackmann will take over role as sales and marketing boss at Volkswagen.
The new SEAT chairman is announced as Luca de Meo, currently sales and marketing chief at Audi also ex FIAT man, strange how history has a way of coming full circle.
Skoda boss is leaving his role to be boss of a re-organised North American VW division.
Last edited:
So, let's say that all the VAG group 1.6 and 2.0 EA189 diesels all have the "emissions defeat software" fitted (which is highly likely as emission CO2 figures are very much similar across the brands); What are the possible outcomes and fallout from this?
- 100% recall by VAG for all cars affected for software revision - This would give two possible outcomes....either they keep the same power and torque outputs and emissions officially increase or they keep the emissions the same and power and torque are reduced.
- If power and torque are reduced then then owners are due compensation based upon misrepresentation under the sales of goods act.
- If emissions are increased then owners are possibly due compensation based upon misrepresentation under the sales of goods act as long as they can prove that they will be losing out on either long term residual value as a direct consequence of the changes or the owners are directly financially burdened due to any increase in road tax levy.
I chose my Seat 184 FR for the wife based on power, running costs and residuals and now all three could theoretically change. If the Mrs keeps the car for ten years, then tax becomes more of a concern, whereas if if she keeps the car three years it is residuals which are more of a possible concern. How would you base claiming for any compensation, which all people affected SHOULD be due?
If she kept the car for another ten years and the government re-assessed the car from its current £30 a year tax to the next class up at £110, then why should she foot the extra £800 bill?
If she kept the car for three years and part exchanged the car and it turned out that she lost out on residuals by £1k+ Due to the VAG debacle why should she foot the extra £1k+? ..... and the extra £240 road tax?
Regardless of residuals and possible extra taxation, if the emissions are reduced by a compulsory recall, why should she have to drive a car that would inevitably have less power, torque and maybe a worse fuel consumption than what she originally bought the car with. This is especially pertinent for most drivers who selected the most powerful diesel in the VAG range. I know that I for one looked at the extra power and torque the 184 gave over its competitors, so why should I possibly have to run a car with less and if this was the case, how much would the car lose? 10bhp? 20bhp?30bhp? 20lbft? 30lbft?, 40lbft?
Where do I stand if I tell the dealer to bugger off and that they aren't touching my car?
- 100% recall by VAG for all cars affected for software revision - This would give two possible outcomes....either they keep the same power and torque outputs and emissions officially increase or they keep the emissions the same and power and torque are reduced.
- If power and torque are reduced then then owners are due compensation based upon misrepresentation under the sales of goods act.
- If emissions are increased then owners are possibly due compensation based upon misrepresentation under the sales of goods act as long as they can prove that they will be losing out on either long term residual value as a direct consequence of the changes or the owners are directly financially burdened due to any increase in road tax levy.
I chose my Seat 184 FR for the wife based on power, running costs and residuals and now all three could theoretically change. If the Mrs keeps the car for ten years, then tax becomes more of a concern, whereas if if she keeps the car three years it is residuals which are more of a possible concern. How would you base claiming for any compensation, which all people affected SHOULD be due?
If she kept the car for another ten years and the government re-assessed the car from its current £30 a year tax to the next class up at £110, then why should she foot the extra £800 bill?
If she kept the car for three years and part exchanged the car and it turned out that she lost out on residuals by £1k+ Due to the VAG debacle why should she foot the extra £1k+? ..... and the extra £240 road tax?
Regardless of residuals and possible extra taxation, if the emissions are reduced by a compulsory recall, why should she have to drive a car that would inevitably have less power, torque and maybe a worse fuel consumption than what she originally bought the car with. This is especially pertinent for most drivers who selected the most powerful diesel in the VAG range. I know that I for one looked at the extra power and torque the 184 gave over its competitors, so why should I possibly have to run a car with less and if this was the case, how much would the car lose? 10bhp? 20bhp?30bhp? 20lbft? 30lbft?, 40lbft?
Where do I stand if I tell the dealer to bugger off and that they aren't touching my car?
From what I've read they can't make it a mandatory recall because it's not causing danger to anyone. I may be wrong though.
I am trying to work out how it will all pan out for us that buy the cars second hand. I bought the 2.0tdi Ibiza because it was, as you said the most powerful diesel I could get in the range. I hope it all works out okay though.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Well, for a start, I'm pretty sure the government cant retrospectively increase the tax liability on a vehicle. Which is why, in 2006, when they retrospectively changed the tax rules, no car saw an increase in VED, although many (mostly diesels), registered since 2001, did see a decrease. I can't imagine the consumer being stung in this case. The manufacturer may get hit with a big fine however.
As for the residual value. Well, that's always the risk when buying a new car. If you bought it on PCP, then you always have the GMFV to fall back on. You can always just hand it back. You could also VT it once you have paid off 50% of the purchase price. Both instances may offset any possible loss in value.
Unless it's a safety related recall, I'm pretty sure you could refuse to have it done.
As for the residual value. Well, that's always the risk when buying a new car. If you bought it on PCP, then you always have the GMFV to fall back on. You can always just hand it back. You could also VT it once you have paid off 50% of the purchase price. Both instances may offset any possible loss in value.
Unless it's a safety related recall, I'm pretty sure you could refuse to have it done.
Do you think an emissions related recall wouldn't be classed as a safety recall? I bet they would try!!
At this time - the EA288 engine in the Leon 184 is not included in this scandal.
It is only the EA189 engine.
However - I agree that this will hit Diesel retail values for a while.
I agree with #107, too politically sensitive to change VED rates for owners, how many politicians and senior civil servants have Audi diesels. Most likely a fine to VAG for loss of tax revenue.
As regards fuel consumption. It's been well known for years that the current testing does not reflect the real world. What Car have their real world figures and generally the lower the fuel consumption figures the larger proportion difference. In reality if you assume that your fuel consumption will be 25% lower than the average stated you won't be too far out.
There is a new testing process being put together to try and get a more far figure, for example electric cars are VED free but the electricity does not all come from renewables so how is that fair.
As regards fuel consumption. It's been well known for years that the current testing does not reflect the real world. What Car have their real world figures and generally the lower the fuel consumption figures the larger proportion difference. In reality if you assume that your fuel consumption will be 25% lower than the average stated you won't be too far out.
There is a new testing process being put together to try and get a more far figure, for example electric cars are VED free but the electricity does not all come from renewables so how is that fair.
It's not - but the short sighted dimwits only take in to account what comes OUT of the car.
Or.... Long sighted dim-wits are assuming we'll make progress in greener electricity generation.
Eg consumers choosing their suppliers carefully and switching to one that has more renewable power.
Personally I'd love a tesla combined with solar panels on my house roof....
Sent from my C6903 using Tapatalk
No, it's for vehicles registered on/after 1st April 2017. "There will be no change to VED for existing cars..." HTH
Not quite "full stop", currently it only applies to euro5 cat vehicles. Since 01/09/2014 all cars produced are Euro 6 compliant and hence not affected.
All NEW models of cars introduced after September 1st, 2014 had to be euro6 compliant, existing production models were exempt until 1st September 2015 when ALL new cars must comply.
The Swiss say that about 180000 new cars will be affected. Unless they have fields full of old models, I don't see how they work that out.
You'd need a pretty big roof and a lot of sun to charge a tesla! Add to that the fact 99% of people would be charging their cars overnight when there is no sun.
The only "clean" power source that makes any sense IMO is nuclear. ( and yes i know you still have to find something to do with the waste)
What do you do on a windless night if we all rely on wind and solar? ... Sorry your (insert family member here) died, but we didn't have any wind last night, so we didn't have any power for the life support machine or any of the other hospital equipment etc etc.
Solar and wind power is an expensive joke that the rest of us have to subsidise... a bit like "clean" diesel cars. How can a car that spews out NOx and soot be charged £30 a year, yet my petrol cupra costs £290?
Last edited:
For every wind turbine and solar panel, you still have to have an alternative power source availible for when there's no wind or sun.
Maybe tidal and other hydro sources have some merit, but then if we believe in man made global warming(i don't) then we'll all be plauged by drought so that renders them useless too!
Maybe tidal and other hydro sources have some merit, but then if we believe in man made global warming(i don't) then we'll all be plauged by drought so that renders them useless too!
Last edited:
Similar threads
