Hey TDI Owners...

xflowgolf wrote:

bludroptop wrote: Flawed analogy - you cannot legally purchase or own stolen property regardless of your complicity. I legally own my Vdub.

I still think your assumption is a bit flawed. Keep in mind that the subject TDIs were illegally imported into the US (because VW filed false paperwork), so they are potentially subject to seizure and destruction if they wanted to go all the way down that avenue.

No way are the Feds going to seize privately owned automobiles that were bought in good faith. Yes, they're seizing illegally imported non-25-year cars, but there's no "good faith" there. (They could seize the cars, but they won't).

What'll happen is that they'll force VW to either buy back or fix, VW will decide which to do, and it will be up the state DMVs to enforce getting the fix done by denying registration if you can't prove that it's been done. There's no need to seize the cars -- they'll just stop you from driving it on the road legally if you don't get it "fixed".

And yes, there will be cars where VW will refuse to buy it back, but the fix is not acceptable to the owner. I expect that to be a class action lawsuit or three.

In reply to codrus:

The EPA has already stated that they are not going to do anything with the cars. It's up to VW and probably the DMV/Insurance to get it done.

Read yesterday in an industry trade magazine online that VW is planning (or being required, not clear on that) to buy back ~ 115,000 of the ~ 580,000 affected TDI's in the US. Per the article, the buyback would be on those vehicles that require too many modifications to be viable to bring into compliance with the EPA specs. Remaining 465,000 will apparently be modified. Guessing this means the oldest of the affected TDI's 'MAY' be the ones where a buyback offer is put forward by VW.

xflowgolf wrote:

bludroptop wrote: Flawed analogy - you cannot legally purchase or own stolen property regardless of your complicity. I legally own my Vdub.

I still think your assumption is a bit flawed. Keep in mind that the subject TDIs were illegally imported into the US (because VW filed false paperwork), so they are potentially subject to seizure and destruction if they wanted to go all the way down that avenue.

bludroptop wrote: I'm really hoping for a sweetheart deal from VWoA on a new GTI or one of those new AWD Golf Sportwagens that are rumored to be in the works. But it will take more than a $500 gift card to make me whole.

Agreed. It will be interesting to see how this all plays out.

Agreed its really no different than the gov confiscating and crushing Skylines and Defenders, they shouldn't be here legally in the first place.

In reply to Storz:

Other than the small detail that the EPA has already stated to Congress, no less, that they will not do anything to current owners of the car. DOJ won't do anything without direction.

(wow- Deja vu.)

einy wrote: Read yesterday in an industry trade magazine online that VW is planning (or being required, not clear on that) to buy back ~ 115,000 of the ~ 580,000 affected TDI's in the US. Per the article, the buyback would be on those vehicles that require too many modifications to be viable to bring into compliance with the EPA specs. Remaining 465,000 will apparently be modified. Guessing this means the oldest of the affected TDI's 'MAY' be the ones where a buyback offer is put forward by VW.

Based on how standards progress, I'd bet the cars that can't be modified to make their targets are middle ones.

According to the EPA database, the 2007 cars were T2B10 certs.

And that changed in 2009 to T2B5 certs.

Since that's a pretty short time, and the T2B5 level is much lower than T2B10 (NOx dropped by almost an order of magnitude, from .6 g/mi to 0.07 g/mi), I'd bet that the years are going to be 2009-2011 cars that will be bought back.

The early ones can probably squeek by with a lowering of FE that might be tolerable. But the later ones will probably require urea to make the standard, and if they can't- then the solution of buying them back (and selling them someplace else in the world) makes some sense.

Its like watching a sinking ship

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2016/01/report-volkswagen-withholding-documents-us-states-lawsuits/

Really?

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2016/01/report-volkswagens-fix-is-new-catalytic-converter/

Storz wrote: Really? http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2016/01/report-volkswagens-fix-is-new-catalytic-converter/

AFAIK, using a catalyst on a Diesel requires adding fuel to the exhaust. At any rate, the computer has got to be reflashed as well.

Knurled wrote:

Storz wrote: Really? http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2016/01/report-volkswagens-fix-is-new-catalytic-converter/

AFAIK, using a catalyst on a Diesel requires adding urea to the exhaust. At any rate, the computer has got to be reflashed as well.

FYP.

They already have catalysts on them, so they're probably updating the ones on there to be more effective.

It's the DPF that requires extra fuel shot in to regenerate (and they already do that, as the DPFs would just clog up otherwise).

CARB/EPA Rejected VW's proposed fix!

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2016/01/12/volkswagen-carb-california-air-resources-board-emissions-scandal/78688056/

Wonder what it was... Far too much cloak and dagger.

Ranger50 wrote: Wonder what it was... Far too much cloak and dagger.

Agreed.

Ranger50 wrote: Wonder what it was... Far too much cloak and dagger.

Theoretically, it could be proprietary. If they had actually found the magical catalyst that did not require urea to meet the emissions standards. But given that it's incredibly unlikely, well...

What I find funny is that they keep coming up with the "ideas" instead of just letting the engineer solve the problem. It's not as if CARB and the EPA are not going to run a BUNCH of tests on the fixes. Including on road testing.

The full rejection letter here

http://arb.ca.gov/msprog/vw_info/rejection_vw.pdf

Ranger50 wrote: Wonder what it was... Far too much cloak and dagger.

I take back what I posted earlier. Based on CARB's denial reply- they agree with you.

Seems to me VW did it to delay an approved fix to either gain some $ from the interest in the cash reserve they pulled or to really find a workable solution. Seems to be, according to the letter, that the proposed fix lacked the data to support it, which can take some time to gather and evaluate.

I'll still stick to my original statement, too much cloak and dagger going on from ALL parties to provide a workable solution(s) for consumers caught in the middle and now may end up with a driveway "brick" if a solution isn't applied soon and Kalifornia goes ahead and blocks renewal registrations....

In reply to Ranger50:

How do you see CARB and EPA hiding stuff? It's not their job to fix the problem- they just set the rules.

They are demanding the same thing you are asking- VW isn't providing it.

As for the time issue- technically, VW has had from Sept to come up with a fix- more realistically, they've had the knowledge of this for almost a year. They don't need more time. It's not as if it's an impossible problem to fix.

In reply to alfadriver:

Well, we've seen the Euro fix, as laughable as it is, as it was released. Why hasn't/wasn't the USA fix released especially since it appears to be a dud? It's fine that they let as plibians know why it won't pass muster but what was it? I probably am reading too much into the tea leaves but is the proposed fix a still viable option if the data is provided?

In reply to Ranger50:

Who's responsibility is it to tell the public that? To me, that's VW's job. I don't see them providing the supporting data to the public, but they do have to clearly explain the fix and the procedure to do it.

And reading the denial letter, what you ask for wasn't really presented to CARB/EPA anyway.

The "Euro fix" isn't applicable, so whatever it is, it's moot for US customers.

Bear in mind, VW's CEO is saying things like this- http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/01/11/462682378/we-didnt-lie-volkswagen-ceo-says-of-emissions-scandal

NPR: You said this was a technical problem, but the American people feel this is not a technical problem, this is an ethical problem that's deep inside the company. How do you change that perception in the U.S.? Matthias Mueller: Frankly spoken, it was a technical problem. We made a default, we had a ... not the right interpretation of the American law. And we had some targets for our technical engineers, and they solved this problem and reached targets with some software solutions which haven't been compatible to the American law. That is the thing. And the other question you mentioned — it was an ethical problem? I cannot understand why you say that.

I'm not sure how one could come close to interpreting the law wrong. Anti-defeat device statutes have been on the books for decades, and most of the bigger players have had their hands quite publicly slapped for doing it. Not being aware of that or interpreting it wrong is a bad excuse.

Even after admitting that they cheated, they are totally denying what's going on.

So now they're saying it wasn't intentional?

We didn't lie. We didn't understand the question first.

Biggest load of E36 M3 I've heard from this whole thing.

alfadriver wrote: In reply to Ranger50: Who's responsibility is it to tell the public that? To me, that's VW's job. I don't see them providing the supporting data to the public, but they do have to clearly explain the fix and the procedure to do it. And reading the denial letter, what you ask for wasn't really presented to CARB/EPA anyway. The "Euro fix" isn't applicable, so whatever it is, it's moot for US customers. Bear in mind, VW's CEO is saying things like this- http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/01/11/462682378/we-didnt-lie-volkswagen-ceo-says-of-emissions-scandal

NPR: You said this was a technical problem, but the American people feel this is not a technical problem, this is an ethical problem that's deep inside the company. How do you change that perception in the U.S.? Matthias Mueller: Frankly spoken, it was a technical problem. We made a default, we had a ... not the right interpretation of the American law. And we had some targets for our technical engineers, and they solved this problem and reached targets with some software solutions which haven't been compatible to the American law. That is the thing. And the other question you mentioned — it was an ethical problem? I cannot understand why you say that.

I'm not sure how one could come close to interpreting the law wrong. Anti-defeat device statutes have been on the books for decades, and most of the bigger players have had their hands quite publicly slapped for doing it. Not being aware of that or interpreting it wrong is a bad excuse. Even after admitting that they cheated, they are totally denying what's going on.

He is in utter complete denial about VW's ethics in this matter.

VW appears to primed for an owners Class Action Lawsuit.

The buyback on 500k vehicles would be about....10 Billion dollars.(?)

If it gets to that.....Would they have an customer goodwill remaining?

Rog

boulder_dweeb wrote: VW appears to primed for an owners Class Action Lawsuit. The buyback on 500k vehicles would be about....10 Billion dollars.(?) If it gets to that.....Would they have an customer goodwill remaining? Rog

10 billion is a lot less than the proposed EPA fine, I wonder if they agree to buy them all back if the EPA will negotiate on the fines?