OT: VW cheating emissions on TDI vehicles

[shovelhd]

Originally Posted by oldpotatoe

Diesel around here is only about 3-5 cents more than gas...about $1.55 or so. I would rather just keep the car as is or even close. I don't get hyperventilated about the whole gig...just a car.

I wish. I just filled up at $2.09. RUG is $1.71.

[Ken Robb]

Originally Posted by shovelhd

I wish. I just filled up at $2.09. RUG is $1.71.

Oh cry me a river! In San Diego we can buy our required special California blend used nowhere else: Regular $2.59, "Premium" 91 octane $2.79.

[David Kirk]

I hear you and that makes good sense.

Where I disagree is that the car doesn't present a safety issue.....it does compromise our collective safety with its very high NOX emissions. It's not going to cause me to lose control and hit a tree but it does measurably effect the air we share and this harms us all.

I think the only reason it's acceptable is because the NOX is invisible.....out of sight and out of mind. But let's say that the NOX had a color to it so that one could see this dangerous gas being emitted the entire time the car is in use. Most people would be very upset if all these cars were "rolling coal" all the time and obviously polluting. But since we can't see it we tend to dismiss it. But it's there and it's bad for us.

You are of course correct - it runs no differently then the day I bought it and I like the way it goes down the road. But it pollutes in no small way and has since day one. But if they issue a buy-back there is a high likelihood that the EPA will decertify the car and I would not be able to register is next time around and the car would no longer be legal for road use. So even if I didn't care about the pollution and wanted to continue to use it and pollute I would not have the option.

dave

Originally Posted by shovelhd

Dave, you are making a consumer fraud argument, which is certainly valid. The missing elephant in the room is the FTC. If they do not get involved then you would have to pursue a money back deal on your own.

If you take the fraud out of it, it's still a recall situation with a stop sale. The car runs and drives no differently than when you bought it. Nobody is preventing you from registering it and driving it. This is not a safety issue. Therefore you should not be compensated 100% for the use of a perfectly good car.

[shovelhd]

I hear ya. I live in a CARB state that checks diesel emissions yearly, including recall status. I'd be hosed.

VW employed Ken Feinberg for a reason. I don't think it's to give us another round of gift cards.

[David Kirk]

Originally Posted by shovelhd

I hear ya. I live in a CARB state that checks diesel emissions yearly, including recall status. I'd be hosed.

VW employed Ken Feinberg for a reason. I don't think it's to give us another round of gift cards.

Yeah - I have real respect for Feinburg and think if anyone can make this straight he can.

dave

[shovelhd]

Hey, if I end up $3K richer out of this deal, I'll be sure to order a Dave Kirk frame

[palincss]

Originally Posted by Ken Robb

Oh cry me a river! In San Diego we can buy our required special California blend used nowhere else: Regular $2.59, "Premium" 91 octane $2.79.

You expect things to cost more in Paradise.

[David Kirk]

Originally Posted by shovelhd

Hey, if I end up $3K richer out of this deal, I'll be sure to order a Dave Kirk frame

It's a deal.

dave

[sjbraun]

So Dave's running a sympathy sale for TDI owners?

Score!!!

[r_mutt]

Dave I think your argument summed up my feelings exactly.

[Rusty Luggs]

Originally Posted by David Kirk

You and I see this in different ways.

The book value and what insurance would give me for the car should it be totaled is immaterial to me. I can only see that I bought one thing and was given another and the value of that thing I didn't ask for doesn't matter to me. I want what I paid for or my money back.

This will be a weak analogy no doubt as my coffee hasn't fully kicked in yet but stick with me if you don't mind.......

Let's say I walk into the car dealer and tell them I want the model that comes with the V6 engine and that I'm OK with paying a premium for it over the 4 cylinder. I make the deal and drive it for some period of time - say a month. I lift the hood to check the fluids and see that I have a 4 cylinder and not the V6. I didn't get what I paid for.

I bring the 4 banger back to the dealer. What should they do for me? If I'm not mistaken the logic you are sharing says I had free use of the 4 cylinder for a month and that the car is now used so the dealer is only obligated to give me that used value toward a trade on a V6. I'm saying I want the V6 or my money back.

I didn't get the car I was told I would get. I don't want damages - I want the car I paid for originally and if that is not possible I want my money back. I chose the car very carefully based on the specs and the company lied about them and gave me something different. This is bait-and-switch at best.

------------------

If I totaled the car the insurance is meant to make me whole and put the car back into the condition it was in prior to the accident or to give me the money to buy a car in a similar used state......no one expects that the insurance would give me new car money to replace a used car. The thing here is that the car itself isn't in question. The insurance doesn't pay to replace my car with a 4 cylinder when I owned a V6. They don't question what the car actually is.

This is the key difference between how you and I see this. You are implying I got a car and I should be happy. I'm saying I got a car that wasn't what what the manufacturer told me I was getting and that I'm not happy with that - and I should not suffer financially because the maker lied about the car.

-------------------

Let's make this bike related to honor where we are. Say someone orders a custom frame built of 953 but and the builder lies and tells them it's 953 but instead they use 30 year old 531 and hope the customer doesn't notice.....but they do notice. Should the builder tell them they rode the bike for a year before the lie was discovered so they don't owe the customer a full value compensation because they had a bike to use for that period of time? I don't think so.

dave

First, buyback as part of VW痴 EPA driven effort to eliminate non-compliant vehicles from the road isn稚 about compensation for giving you something other than what you have paid for other folks have pointed out that that is a separate issue. Everything I have read so far does not indicate EPA is out to punish consumers. Just my speculation, but I doubt that EPA is going to make it so you are forced to stop driving your car and accept a buy-back. I suspect that what they will look at is how many vehicles get removed from the road by whatever buyback plan VW executes, and that other penalties (fines) to VW will be dependant on that number. Motivates VW to make a good enough buy back offer to recover as many cars as they can, which is EPA痴 goal. I just think the political fall out from punishing consumers would be too great. Just my thoughts, though, maybe I知 completely wrong.

To look at the 的 didn稚 get what I paid for issue wouldn稚 you agree that reasonable compensation to you would need to be proportional to how substantial the difference was in the product, and the time period you enjoyed use of it? Your examples are pretty major deviations, but even using those examples, let痴 just extend the time frame you don稚 notice that your car is a 4 cylinder for, say 2 years still entitled to a full refund? Bike is used by owner for 6 years before he sees some rust, indicating it痴 not stainless still entitled to a full refund? Or are the consumers entitled to the difference in what they paid for and what they got?
What if the deviation in the bike frame wasn稚 as significant, say the customer paid $25 for a pump peg. A year later he realizes it doesn稚 have a pump peg. Is the builder obligated to buy the frame back at the full price the customer paid? Build a complete new frame? Refund his $25. Something in between?

Curious, did you buy a TDI based on more than just one of its attributes, or based solely on emissions? Did you actually comparison shop base on claimed grams/mile emissions? I suppose some folks may have, but I suspect most people bought a TDI for attributes that included things like fuel consumption, utility and performance.

[ergott]

Originally Posted by Rusty Luggs

Curious, did you buy a TDI based on more than just one of its attributes, or based solely on emissions? Did you actually comparison shop base on claimed grams/mile emissions? I suppose some folks may have, but I suspect most people bought a TDI for attributes that included things like fuel consumption, utility and performance.

No, but we all purchase vehicles assuming they pass emissions standards.

It's false advertising and we have a product that was never legal to own/operate. From the looks of it, they will not be able to get most of the cars compliant without significant alterations that will lead to both worse performance and efficiency. In that case, owners need to be made whole. The car we would end up isn't the car we purchased and therefor it's a case of bait and switch.

What do you think is reasonable in this case?

[David Kirk]

Originally Posted by Rusty Luggs

First, buyback as part of VW痴 EPA driven effort to eliminate non-compliant vehicles from the road isn稚 about compensation for giving you something other than what you have paid for other folks have pointed out that that is a separate issue. Everything I have read so far does not indicate EPA is out to punish consumers. Just my speculation, but I doubt that EPA is going to make it so you are forced to stop driving your car and accept a buy-back. I suspect that what they will look at is how many vehicles get removed from the road by whatever buyback plan VW executes, and that other penalties (fines) to VW will be dependant on that number. Motivates VW to make a good enough buy back offer to recover as many cars as they can, which is EPA痴 goal. I just think the political fall out from punishing consumers would be too great. Just my thoughts, though, maybe I知 completely wrong.

To look at the 的 didn稚 get what I paid for issue wouldn稚 you agree that reasonable compensation to you would need to be proportional to how substantial the difference was in the product, and the time period you enjoyed use of it? Your examples are pretty major deviations, but even using those examples, let痴 just extend the time frame you don稚 notice that your car is a 4 cylinder for, say 2 years still entitled to a full refund? Bike is used by owner for 6 years before he sees some rust, indicating it痴 not stainless still entitled to a full refund? Or are the consumers entitled to the difference in what they paid for and what they got?
What if the deviation in the bike frame wasn稚 as significant, say the customer paid $25 for a pump peg. A year later he realizes it doesn稚 have a pump peg. Is the builder obligated to buy the frame back at the full price the customer paid? Build a complete new frame? Refund his $25. Something in between?

Curious, did you buy a TDI based on more than just one of its attributes, or based solely on emissions? Did you actually comparison shop base on claimed grams/mile emissions? I suppose some folks may have, but I suspect most people bought a TDI for attributes that included things like fuel consumption, utility and performance.

I'm sorry but it's hard to read your post - it looks like it didn't cut/paste well into this format and some things went a bit sideways.

Yes.....if I bought a car that I thought was a 6 but turned out to be a 4 and only noticed two years later I'd still want the 6 or a refund. And similarly if the framebuilder lies to the customer and tells them they have a 953 bike but really has a 531 bike it wouldn't matter how long the rider had owned the wrong bike......it's still the wrong bike.

The pump peg thing happened to me years ago. Not actually a pump peg but a chain hanger......the customer went back and forth on the hanger during the order process and we got our wires crossed and I didn't build the frame with one and they opened the box and were disappointed. Whose fault was this? I'm honestly not 100% sure. So I took the frame back, added the hanger, had the paint touched up and paid the shipping both ways at no cost to the owner. It was the right thing to do. I work very hard at not making mistakes but I'm human so stuff can happen.....but I stand behind it. Now VW needs to stand behind their "mistake."

As to your last question - yes we did look at the emissions of the car (comparing it to other brands and models as well as the gas version of the Jetta) before we decided on on the Jetta TDi. We balanced the emissions, fuel consumption, size, handling, utility, quality, cost....etc. When we factored in all these things it left the Jetta TDi as the only real choice for us.

It's plain to see that you and I see this much differently and that's probably as hard for you to understand my point of view as it is for me to understand yours. But that's the way life works. I know that I have a good bit on the line since I own one of the affected cars and have real skin in the game and that no doubt changes the way things are looked at.

We'll see where it goes - hopefully sooner rather than later.

Thanks,

dave

[znfdl]

Originally Posted by David Kirk

I'm sorry but it's hard to read your post - it looks like it didn't cut/paste well into this format and some things went a bit sideways.

Yes.....if I bought a car that I thought was a 6 but turned out to be a 4 and only noticed two years later I'd still want the 6 or a refund. And similarly if the framebuilder lies to the customer and tells them they have a 953 bike but really has a 531 bike it wouldn't matter how long the rider had owned the wrong bike......it's still the wrong bike.

Dave:

I totally agree with you, as I bought a TDI for the whole package, MPG, low emissions and drivability.

Emissions is strike one, if changes are made to the car and impacts drivability and mpg, then that is three strikes.

This is from a loyal VW owner who recently bought a GTI.

[Rusty Luggs]

Originally Posted by David Kirk

I'm sorry but it's hard to read your post - it looks like it didn't cut/paste well into this format and some things went a bit sideways.

Yes.....if I bought a car that I thought was a 6 but turned out to be a 4 and only noticed two years later I'd still want the 6 or a refund. And similarly if the framebuilder lies to the customer and tells them they have a 953 bike but really has a 531 bike it wouldn't matter how long the rider had owned the wrong bike......it's still the wrong bike.

The pump peg thing happened to me years ago. Not actually a pump peg but a chain hanger......the customer went back and forth on the hanger during the order process and we got our wires crossed and I didn't build the frame with one and they opened the box and were disappointed. Whose fault was this? I'm honestly not 100% sure. So I took the frame back, added the hanger, had the paint touched up and paid the shipping both ways at no cost to the owner. It was the right thing to do. I work very hard at not making mistakes but I'm human so stuff can happen.....but I stand behind it. Now VW needs to stand behind their "mistake."

As to your last question - yes we did look at the emissions of the car (comparing it to other brands and models as well as the gas version of the Jetta) before we decided on on the Jetta TDi. We balanced the emissions, fuel consumption, size, handling, utility, quality, cost....etc. When we factored in all these things it left the Jetta TDi as the only real choice for us.

It's plain to see that you and I see this much differently and that's probably as hard for you to understand my point of view as it is for me to understand yours. But that's the way life works. I know that I have a good bit on the line since I own one of the affected cars and have real skin in the game and that no doubt changes the way things are looked at.

We'll see where it goes - hopefully sooner rather than later.

Thanks,

dave

Yes, all good, OK not to agree. Discussion forum. Hope things work out in your favor.
I would say, my comments aren't just based on how I "feel" about the issue. Not an attorney, but have had some experience and training on subject of how even seemingly black and white contractual issues get resolved.
On consumer product front, I googled the the issue from the 90's on class action settlement for computer monitors not being the advertised diagonal dimension. Settlement was something like $19 rebate or $6 cash after rebate expired - nothing like buy back or refund at full price. Just one I could remember off the top of my head.

Think you and I have worn this one out, though. Certainly understand the frustration with the whole thing - can't say I'd be happy about being put in that position.