VW fiddling emissions data

Crag30

reeac wrote: »

An £800 service? I can see why you need a low VED. My Jag , in the nearly 14 years that I've had it, has never cost more than around £500 or more usually £350 at The main agent.

I had a cam belt change on this service which was in fact cheaper than my old Nissans to do, and a couple of other bits. Other than this, service costs have been competitive.

I wouldn't describe myself as a VAG sheep either. That's a comment for non Audi owners. I had a choice when I was looking for a car, all estates, and the Audi won.
I've had my letter confirming my car is one of the 395,000, and that they don't know yet what they are going to do about it. I don't know what the outcome is going to be, but if a simple software upgrade changed it from the car I was happy with to something I wouldn't have bought, shouldn't I be entitled to some compensation, even if it was another Audi without the problem at a discounted price?Therefore keeping their sales up and compensating those they've fooled.

WellKnownSid

Lord_Baltimore wrote: »

A bit disparaging Sid. After all, VAG saw fit to mug its own 'sheep', many of whom are members here.

More a eye-rolling reference to the fact that so many people are incredibly fickle and tend to buy brands not cars. There then follows some surprise that their car is no different to any other car (I bought an X because I though it wouldn't damage the environment / breakdown / cheat the emissions test). Truth is... It burns fossil fuels. It has exhaust emissions. It might go wrong. The salesperson wasn't entirely honest (and, as it turns out, neither were the engineering teams).

The next reaction, after the devastating news breaks that they simply bought a car... is talk of compensation when no obvious damage has occurred.

In 12 months time they'll be back to VW / Audi / etc are the best thing since sliced bread... Until that is their EGR valve / DPF / oil pump dies...

sheramber

We bought a 1.6 diesil that was claimed to have 105 BHP- the same as the our previous 1.8 diesil had.( the 1-8 was no longer made as the 1,6 had the same BHP now)

However, now we discover that having 105 BHP would mean that the 1.6 would not pass the emission test.

So, to achieve that software was added that 'tells' the car that it is under test and the level of emissions is restricted to a pass level.

When not under test the car returns to the previous over the limit emissions.

So, if they remove the software they have to also make an sdjustment which will restrict the amount of emissions so that the car will !!!!!! the tests.

If that results in a reduction in BHP no longer will we have a car that has the power of 105 BHP, which is what we bought.

The car with less than 105 BHP will have less power which may not pull out trailer efficielntly- one reason for buying the car.

That car is not what we bought and is not fit for the purpose as it no longer has sufficient power.


On the plus side, less BHP may mean we get even better MPG than we get at the moment.

WellKnownSid

My Peugeot 208 has a 1.6 and it's 115BHP. Does 65mpg all day - over 80 if I drive sensibly.

If Peugeot can do it, it cannot be that hard to produce a 1.6 with 105 brake and pass the tests without cheating.

sheramber

Well it obviously was too difficult for VW or they would have done it in the first place

Lord_Baltimore

WellKnownSid wrote: »

The next reaction, after the devastating news breaks that they simply bought a car... is talk of compensation when no obvious damage has occurred.

You're beginning to sound like another of VW's infamous 'cheat devices' Sid . You haven't been installed on social media to dissipate the fact that people are fuming have you ?

I don't think anyone should be distracted from going for compensation. Criminal fraud has taken place and victims in their millions ought to demand their pound of flesh.

WellKnownSid

Lord_Baltimore wrote: »

You're beginning to sound like another of VW's infamous 'cheat devices' Sid . You haven't been installed on social media to dissipate the fact that people are fuming have you ?

I don't think anyone should be distracted from going for compensation. Criminal fraud has taken place and victims in their millions ought to demand their pound of flesh.

Yep, they've put aside £5bn to pay me to spread the word

Seriously, though... It has been estimated that several hundred people will have died in Europe as a result of these extra exhaust gas emissions.

And people want compensation because they've lost the right to brag that they drive a Seaudi or a Skov-W.

Priorities, people, priorities...

lucifersangel87

Got my "Your car is affected" letter through this weekend.
I'm just wondering if it's still too early on in proceedings to get the lawyers involved.
I know a firm dealing with a no-win-no-fee policy on the VW scandal, but if VW do the right thing and don't put up a fuss, I won't need a lawyer and will get more money (no fee at all).

Any thoughts on it?

=rizla=

Joe_Horner wrote: »

The emissions that VED is based on (ONLY CO2, which is just another name for fuel consumption) is nothing to do with the emissions that they were cheating in these tests.

That's the problem when politicians, the green brigade and the meeja bang on about "emissions emissions emissions" - it just ends up confusing unrelated factors as far as the public is concerned.

It's quite simple:

They were cheating the figures for nasty pollutants (mainly oxides of nitrogen). The levels of these have no effect at all on the VED band.

VED is based on average fuel consumption expressed in different units - nothing more, nothing less.

Only, if they made that clear then it'd be immediately obvious to everyone that how your drive is as, if not more, important than what you drive and the large hikes in duty on the back of "emissions" would have been a lot harder to implement.

The thing is, if they felt the need to design software to detect when the car was under test, and then altered the engine map to pass the test then surely it would either be lowering the mpg or bhp or maybe even reliability, otherwise why not run this map all the time?


The issue now for owners affected is do you go in for new software?, at the risk of lowering mpg or bhp or reliability, all of which would be hard to prove in any later litigation, or leave your car as it is.

Johno100

lucifersangel87 wrote: »

Got my "Your car is affected" letter through this weekend.
I'm just wondering if it's still too early on in proceedings to get the lawyers involved.
I know a firm dealing with a no-win-no-fee policy on the VW scandal, but if VW do the right thing and don't put up a fuss, I won't need a lawyer and will get more money (no fee at all).

Any thoughts on it?

"More money" for what exactly?