VW should wait until 1/21/17 they won't get any fine money back, but they'll likely be able to resell any TDI bought back in the used market without penalty.
VW should wait until 1/21/17 they won't get any fine money back, but they'll likely be able to resell any TDI bought back in the used market without penalty.
In reply to Enyar:
How do you mean? If by buy back after VW has the car, no as I mentioned above - VW is obligated not to resell the cars.
If by purchase from unsuspecting owner and resell to VW the answer is also no. The buyback premium is limited to those who purchased the cars prior to the scandal breaking.
And finally I doubt you'll find a good deal on a TDI, as you're competing with the extremely rich buyback offer.
Yeah, the whole thing seems to be a windfall for TDI owners and a debacle for anyone else in the car world. It's like the Cash for Clunkers of diesel.
So I haven't read the whole thread, or all the details about the buy back, but let me ask you guys this. If the owners of these cars are angry that they can't find a suitable replacement(diesel/manual/wagon/etc..), can they just keep the car they own? The buy back is not mandatory, correct?
In reply to Mazdax605:
You can opt for the recall fix and cash with keeping the car. But I would not be surprised if there isn't a fix and then you have a car you can't register anywhere because their is no fix.
I suspect this is like most anything else. There are a certain percentage of people in the world that want to be po'd and want to be vindictive about whatever happens to come their way. Couple this with web sites wanting to get clicks, and the po'd person who maybe takes "grave offense" to the situation has an instant audience.
einy wrote: I suspect this is like most anything else. There are a certain percentage of people in the world that want to be po'd and want to be vindictive about whatever happens to come their way. Couple this with web sites wanting to get clicks, and the po'd person who maybe takes "grave offense" to the situation has an instant audience.
You just described every facebook "news" article ever posted. You won't BELIEVE what they did next...number 8 will SHOCK you!
All The deal text has been posted before- the cars will be destroyed and not sent around the world. If a dealer thinks otherwise, they are uninformed.
As for IF- sure, you can try to keep it, but bear in mind two things- every single VIN is known- so both states can deny new plates and insurances can deny coverage.
The only people "harmed" are those who like diesels. The rest of us get slightly cleaner air to breathe.
My little brother traded his jeep wrangler in for cash for clunkers, but before he did it I stripped that thing clean and made almost $1,000 selling parts on craigslist. Airbags, top, doors, pass & rear seat, spare, dash parts...
I would do the same if I was turning in a TDI today.
Sad face. I've always wanted a newer manual TDI, and they are virtually non-existent on the craig. Almost as bad as cash for clunkers
I have a 2012 Jetta TDI and I do love it! I haven't decided to sell it back to VW or try to keep it. The issues with keeping it are not all clear to me yet, if there are any. Some states may deny registration but I haven't heard that happening in my state or any states near by. It seems it's mostly the blue states on each coast that have their panties in a bind about allowing you to keep registering your TDI.
If I do sell it back I think I will keep it right up to the deadline for doing so. I won't lose anything by doing this. I paid around $23,500 for the car out the door and expect to reap around $27,000 in total. That's for the car and the damage award. I can't lose. In the mean time I have to decide what to replace it with. Most likely something used as there is nothing new that fits my needs.
einy wrote: I suspect this is like most anything else. There are a certain percentage of people in the world that want to be po'd and want to be vindictive about whatever happens to come their way. Couple this with web sites wanting to get clicks, and the po'd person who maybe takes "grave offense" to the situation has an instant audience.
Regardless of the product, I'd be pissed if I was lied to about what I was buying.
I'm surprised how many here on GRM are OK with one of the largest corporations in the world lying about the products they sell.
Seems more like sour grapes.
Cash for clunkers was great for me. I had friends in all the dealerships around. They basically gave me access to a free junkyard while it was going on. The biggest thing I got was a set of 33" super swappers, I just had to supply a set of rollers to replace them.
rslifkin wrote:kanaric wrote: I thought the cruze diesel was an option but it doesn't look like it's sold anymoreSupposedly it's coming back, but the Cruze hatchback is significantly shorter in length and holds a lot less than the VW Sportwagen did. A friend and I managed to fit a full standing freezer (slightly shorter than a standard fridge, same in the other dimensions) in his with the seats down. It was too long for the Jeep, but it fit in the VW perfectly. No way that would work in the Cruze.
All they need to do is update the old wagon but they are too stubborn.
I don't think states can deny registration renewal based on not participating. However I don't think you get the $5K until you either turn the car in for the buy back, or bring it in for the non-existent fix. So yeah, you can keep it, but there is a chunk of money you aren't getting.
I am ready to sell mine back...just waiting for the offer. I submitted the paperwork on 10/11, had it approved on 10/25, and still nothing. If they would hurry up, I might even buy a new GTI.
z31maniac wrote:einy wrote: I suspect this is like most anything else. There are a certain percentage of people in the world that want to be po'd and want to be vindictive about whatever happens to come their way. Couple this with web sites wanting to get clicks, and the po'd person who maybe takes "grave offense" to the situation has an instant audience.Regardless of the product, I'd be pissed if I was lied to about what I was buying. I'm surprised how many here on GRM are OK with one of the largest corporations in the world lying about the products they sell. Seems more like sour grapes.
If I'd bought the car because it was "green" I might care more. I've already made myself a pariah in other similar threads for my thoughts on the matter, but the car's "greenness" was superfluous to any of its other selling features. VW's work around to pass emissions was engineering/programing genius, but I'm a Smokey Yunick fan too.
Before I got the buy-back quote, I was gung-ho, "I love this car, I'm keeping it, you can't make me, blah, blah, blah." However, VW is compensating me more than enough to make me change my mind, and not feel too bad about it.
So to me, they're making it right, but in the grand scheme of things, with all the crap in this world to get upset about, I wasn't too messed up about what VW did wrong in the first place.
Mazdax605 wrote: So I haven't read the whole thread, or all the details about the buy back, but let me ask you guys this. If the owners of these cars are angry that they can't find a suitable replacement(diesel/manual/wagon/etc..), can they just keep the car they own? The buy back is not mandatory, correct?
A "suitable replacement" doesn't exist because the VWs broke some rather major regulations in order to make their cars exist. They shouldn't have existed in the first place. People are upset because their expectations have been grossly overinflated by VW's antics and reality just isn't good enough for them anymore.
Knurled wrote:Mazdax605 wrote: So I haven't read the whole thread, or all the details about the buy back, but let me ask you guys this. If the owners of these cars are angry that they can't find a suitable replacement(diesel/manual/wagon/etc..), can they just keep the car they own? The buy back is not mandatory, correct?A "suitable replacement" doesn't exist because the VWs broke some rather major regulations in order to make their cars exist. The VW Diesels don't exist any more than you make $5000 a month by earning $3000 and spending an additional $2000 on credit. You had your fun, but now reality has to ensue.
A similar car with DEF and a few other things could easily exist. The reason VW cheated is because they didn't want to run a DEF system. And without doing that, it was either compromise emissions or destroy fuel economy.
rslifkin wrote: A similar car with DEF and a few other things could easily exist. The reason VW cheated is because they didn't want to run a DEF system. And without doing that, it was either compromise emissions or destroy fuel economy.
They didn't want to run DEF because they didn't want to redesign their chassis, and their corporate strategy is to use only three or four floorpans under everything. Having a separate floorpan for the Diesels would be counter to the way they do business.
alfadriver wrote: All The deal text has been posted before- the cars will be destroyed and not sent around the world. If a dealer thinks otherwise, they are uninformed. As for IF- sure, you can try to keep it, but bear in mind two things- every single VIN is known- so both states can deny new plates and insurances can deny coverage. The only people "harmed" are those who like diesels. The rest of us get slightly cleaner air to breathe.
Help me understand this a bit (because you are much more knowledgeable about CARB standards, etc than I).
I thought CARB was a standard that limited the emissions of a manufacturer's entire FLEET, not individual cars.
That would mean that VW could have limited the number of TDI's sold, and offset them with smaller cleaner vehicles. So, the impact on the general populace (as far as all of us having cleaner air to breathe) would have been negligible. (IF VW had balanced the fleet in the first place).
The car itself is not an environmental threat, the overall fleet would be.
(Yes I know there were other issues- fraud probably ranks pretty high).
Additionally, the emissions outputs are measured in particles per million, NOT particles per mile. That would mean that a vehicle that burns a great deal less fuel could have an overall lower gross emissions output than a "cleaner" one that burned more fuel per mile. I realize this is not how the EPA measures things (and therefore not an excuse for Dub's illegalities). I am, however, questioning the statement about us all getting air that is a little cleaner to breathe.
Additionally, since ALL TDI's are used, it is reasonable to assume the current owners will use their credits to buy a used vehicle. That would mean the net gain in air quality would be a complete crapshoot (depending on what used cars the owners purchased), at least until all existing used cars cycle out of the market.
Am I missing something?
SVreX wrote: I'm not excusing what they did. I have, however, driven a TDI Touareg- its a fricken stump puller. I understand they misled the public, but they also built a helluva car. If I owned one, I would seriously consider not turning it in, because I would never find anything comparable to replace it. I don't see what vindictiveness will accomplish. The punishments were decided by the courts. It's not my job to seek revenge, or somehow feel I have the moral obligation to inflict additional pain. I am not sure how I feel about whether they should be able to export them or not. Once the owners have been compensated and the terms of the legal settlement have been reached, I don't think I have an issue with it.
Waaaaiiiii.....it includes the v10tdi? E36 M3. I want one of those.
In reply to SVreX:
Not all tailpipe emissions are the same. Diesels struggle with pollutants that gasoline engines don't, and vice versa. The biggest thing that diesels struggle with is NOx, which is a primary ingredient of smog, leads to lung cancer, and generally sucky air quality. Modern diesels use SCR/DEF systems to neutralize the majority of NOx emissions. VW elected to cheat to avoid the cost of installing these systems, and as such their vehicles were releasing NOx levels That weren't acceptable 15 years ago before diesel emissions standards got strict and far beyond what's allowed now.
So, a few million cheating diesels are worse than a few million equivalent gasoline vehicles for air quality. The affected TDI owners would have to replace their vehicles with much older diesels to avoid having any positive impact, and I'm not certain that there are many 15+ year old diesel passenger cars left, let alone VW products.
In reply to SVreX:
No on both counts.
Each car is certified on it's own. It has it's own target to meet. Last time I checked, the car was something like Tier2 Bin 10 to start, and moved down a little over time. The reality is that it pumped out roughly uncatalized emissions. If it were the fleet- then VW would be on the hook to replace the entire fleet, and not just the model with this specific engine.
Second, the measurement is mass per mile, not parts per million.
Since the cars were putting out actual grams per mile instead of the certified amount to be about 1/30 of that, it does make the air a little dirtier. Not everyone here cares, but reading the settlement, most of the fine will be used to help reduce other sources of NOx to offset the increase due to these cars. At least here in the US.
You may be mistaking the emission requirements with the older CAFE requirements- which is a fleet average for fuel economy. Or perhaps the overall feet average requirements- where the sum of the entire fleet has to be a specific amount. And for that last part- VW likely had a very clean car to offset the not terribly clean part of what the diesel was supposed to be.
One other thing- there's both CARB and EPA requirements.
In reply to alfadriver:
Ok. Thanks for the clarification.
alfadriver wrote: As for IF- sure, you can try to keep it, but bear in mind two things- every single VIN is known- so both states can deny new plates and insurances can deny coverage.
This is not correct regarding denial of registration. We do know the VINs and who owns them.
I was on a Settlement call on Monday and it was specifically reiterated that participating States shall not deny registration to affected vehicles. This language has been used from the beginning and has not changed. A State can elect not to be a beneficiary of the Settlement and do whatever they want, which could include denying registration renewals. This would require a State to pursue their own litigation apart from EPA. So far, I am not aware of any State that has not chosen to participate with EPA. I think even California is on board, though I am Region 3 and they are way over on the other side.
You'll need to log in to post.
