VW fiddling emissions data

WellKnownSid

Johno100 wrote: »

"More money" for what exactly?

Old rope, presumably.

Possibly to compensate for the shame of ownership?

Yolina

Aaaand they've fiddled some more sorry, I mean there are "unexplained inconsistencies in CO2 values" with some cars, including petrol. An extra €2bn put aside (for now) for that little problem.

"Up to 800,000 petrol and diesel-powered cars have had their CO2 and mpg ratings wrongly certified"
http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/industry/vw-emissions-scandal-vw-admits-800000-cars-have-false-co2-and-mpg-certification

WellKnownSid

Apparently the board were completely surprised by the latest discovery.

Which seems impossible since they only made the discovery because they'd specifically gone out looking for irregularities.

There must have been one hell of a climate of fear within the company. Now they'll reward their most fearful staff by pursuing them until their careers are completely destroyed.

That will send a strong message to other staff - don't even think about getting caught in future - make sure your mistakes and/or failures are even better hidden. Re-double your efforts to ensure that whatever goes wrong is covered-up so well that you never personally get caught.

peter_the_piper

Either that or keep a good paper trail of any orders given like this.

WellKnownSid

peter_the_piper wrote: »

Either that or keep a good paper trail of any orders given like this.

Orders like that are so rarely given.

A bit like the Deepwater Horizon - no-one was told to be unsafe, but many less significant wrong decisions were taken, resulting in disaster when those decisions lined up. A black swan event... Couldn't possibly happen, but oddly just like the Texas black swan event that had happened a few years prior. Lessons not learned. Same systemic problems. No direct order to blow the place up, no one wrong decision.

Pressures of work - get the job done, already behind, over budget. If you say it can't be done then there's someone over there willing to say they can get it done for me. What was that you say? You can make it work? Good man, well done!

WellKnownSid

Yolina wrote: »

An extra €2bn put aside (for now) for that little problem.

The 2bn put aside isn't to recall more cars - the fact is that they emit more CO2 / consume more fuel than they originally claimed.

The 2bn is put aside to [STRIKE]bribe[/STRIKE] pay the relevant government fines and [STRIKE]pay off[/STRIKE] compensate owners for the extra fuel they need to use.

The total cost being banded around of recovering from this debacle is now some 28bn euros - they have the liquidity but there is some speculation that any additional revelations could result in the forced sale of certain parts of the business. SEAT - yes, I'm looking at you.

dannyrst

WellKnownSid wrote: »

The 2bn put aside isn't to recall more cars - the fact is that they emit more CO2 / consume more fuel than they originally claimed.

The 2bn is put aside to [STRIKE]bribe[/STRIKE] pay the relevant government fines and [STRIKE]pay off[/STRIKE] compensate owners for the extra fuel they need to use.

The total cost being banded around of recovering from this debacle is now some 28bn euros - they have the liquidity but there is some speculation that any additional revelations could result in the forced sale of certain parts of the business. SEAT - yes, I'm looking at you.

Out of curiosity, Do you think anyone would buy SEAT? I wouldn't be surprised if they were dissolved.

WellKnownSid

dannyrst wrote: »

Out of curiosity, Do you think anyone would buy SEAT? I wouldn't be surprised if they were dissolved.

FCA perhaps. There is a long (and chequered) history there. Reasonably close geographically. Don't know if it would 'fit' culturally (the strong US component vs VW's castoffs).

The_Bookman

=rizla= wrote: »

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.

Why would you "go in for new software"? "You"..... have been deceived. The car which you thought that you had purchased is actually fundamentally not what you were told that it was, and it has been deliberately and fraudulently described.


I will, I'm quite sure, eventually sound like a stuck record on this issue, but this is criminal deception. If you "go in", it should be for a full refund, or armed with a summons to serve on the dealer under the Theft Act.

Johno100

The_Bookman wrote: »

Why would you "go in for new software"? "You"..... have been deceived. The car which you thought that you had purchased is actually fundamentally not what you were told that it was, and it has been deliberately and fraudulently described.

I will, I'm quite sure, eventually sound like a stuck record on this issue, but this is criminal deception. If you "go in", it should be for a full refund, or armed with a summons to serve on the dealer under the Theft Act.

A full refund:rotfl:

Suppose you'd want the cost of the diesel you've put in it over how many years you've had it?