Half a million VWs recalled, sneaky emissions software.
Discussion
Esseesse said:
skyrover said:
Technically the car's will no longer be type approved, ergo suitable for the road.
Will it still pass an MOT? They'd be going down a sticky path if they want to compel car owners to hobble their cars.On the other hand they might say fix the car or take it up with VW
GreatGranny said:
But you didn't really think the A5 would be twice as economical as the S5 did you?
no not really but I did expect it to be slightly bigger difference having previously had an A4 with the same engine, that said it still getting better as the engine has More miles on it.skyrover said:
Esseesse said:
skyrover said:
Technically the car's will no longer be type approved, ergo suitable for the road.
Will it still pass an MOT? They'd be going down a sticky path if they want to compel car owners to hobble their cars.On the other hand they might say fix the car or take it up with VW
They can't change the MOT tests to monitor emissions to be within a certain variation from the published results, because everybody with more than 2 brain cells has known for years the published results are essentially a comparative guideline, not a real value.
All the Gov stands to do is annoy voters by changing anything that affects cars currently on the road. Better to take action against VW for their past, and change the tests/rules on new cars from all manufacturers, but leave the voter on the street alone.
Then you get happy voters, a little bit of extra income from fines against VW, and the new "real world" tests/etc (coming in 2017?) to keep the eco mentalists under their rock. Happy days all around (unless you are VW...but they already know that).
The actual difference was 15% in your mileage between the v8 and the diesel and assuming the fuel prices were the same throughout you could possibly live with it but in reality you'd have been paying more for the diesel anyway so pence per mile is perhaps the better yardstick.
Something like that...
Something like that...
Scuffers said:
not sure what you're getting at?
Oilchange said:
The actual difference was 15% in your mileage between the v8 and the diesel and assuming the fuel prices were the same throughout you could possibly live with it but in reality you'd have been paying more for the diesel anyway so pence per mile is perhaps the better yardstick.
Something like that...
What diesel?Something like that...
Scuffers said:
not sure what you're getting at?
2.0TFSi Petrol
Interesting article on the BBC interviewing the man who's team discovered the defeat device, he says that VW had the chance to fix it earlier but continued to try to hide the device, for me that inability to hold their hands up earlier when given the chance to is probably the most damning part of the whole thing.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34519184
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34519184
We had a letter from VW yesterday, telling us my wifes Tiguan is effected and that it would have to be brought in for work.
What really annoyed me was that in this letter, there was no apology, nothing to say sorry we have been complete tools, nothing remotely showing remorse. This strikes me as somewhat arrogant, certainly not an approach I would take when I have broken the law and misled paying customers.
I was expecting a grovelling letter to say how sorry they were and how they are going to try their hardest to rectitfy the problem, but no. It read as though they were doing me a favour for offering to fix it.
Well after being totally screwed over by them a few months back and having to outlay nearly £500 on something that should of been covered by warranty, they can foxtrot oscar.
What really annoyed me was that in this letter, there was no apology, nothing to say sorry we have been complete tools, nothing remotely showing remorse. This strikes me as somewhat arrogant, certainly not an approach I would take when I have broken the law and misled paying customers.
I was expecting a grovelling letter to say how sorry they were and how they are going to try their hardest to rectitfy the problem, but no. It read as though they were doing me a favour for offering to fix it.
Well after being totally screwed over by them a few months back and having to outlay nearly £500 on something that should of been covered by warranty, they can foxtrot oscar.
fblm said:
Scuffers said:
just watched the TV of the committee hearing...
I do hate the way the politicians use it for point scoring rather than asking the relevant questions.
No real world customer is going to give 2 sh*ts if the cars NOx is a little high or not, they care about how much fuel it's going to use and what it;s tax bill is, so to claim they feel cheated is just laughable.
People will be saying that though I guarantee it. There were people on this forum saying how cheated they were by the Libor scandal they couldn't even tell you what Libor was! Some people are just born victims.I do hate the way the politicians use it for point scoring rather than asking the relevant questions.
No real world customer is going to give 2 sh*ts if the cars NOx is a little high or not, they care about how much fuel it's going to use and what it;s tax bill is, so to claim they feel cheated is just laughable.
but if/once a successful claim is brought to court against a car maker, I foresee people starting to question the other claims of the car companies.
MPG claims by makers are already quite fictional. If there has been any manipulation done for this, why wouldn't claims for financial loss be able to be brought.
The big difference with this and the PPI/Banks is that car makers cannot easily get the money back. Whilst when you claim against a bank, they will just reduce interest, increase charges etc, so never lose a penny themselves
Jinx said:
fblm said:
No they arn't its just the official test is not representitve of real world driving. If you drove your car exactly like the official test you would very likely get the official MPG.
And not very far at all on a rolling road in a lab http://www.dft.gov.uk/vca/fcb/the-fuel-consumption...
fblm said:
Jinx said:
fblm said:
No they arn't its just the official test is not representitve of real world driving. If you drove your car exactly like the official test you would very likely get the official MPG.
And not very far at all on a rolling road in a lab http://www.dft.gov.uk/vca/fcb/the-fuel-consumption...
the big issue with the std drive cycle is that for the test, everything is turned off (AC/etc etc) and the acceleration rates are glacial, nothing like modern traffic.
if they just changed the drive cycle (to something more typical of today's driving) and the defaults for gear changes etc, the dyno test should become more realistic again.
I would suggest they could get the drive cycles from real world driving, say with 2 sets of figures, one for a town/city environment and one for more rural/open road, used a combination of both and publish figures for both separately as well as combined.
ukaskew said:
My Citigo does 0-60 in 13.9 seconds, I still comfortably out-accelerate 98% of cars on my daily commute, even up the 15% gradient hill, and have never needed/wanted more power/speed on the commute.
Away and don't talk silly. Seriously, in 1964 it might have been quicker than 98% of the cars on the way to work. You've got a gay car that serves no purpose unless for the weekly shop. Don't come on here spouting performance figures like that as if its something to be proud ofEdited by Ollie_M on Thursday 15th October 09:32
(and appearing on t'other thread)
moanthebairns said:
ukaskew said:
My Citigo does 0-60 in 13.9 seconds, I still comfortably out-accelerate 98% of cars on my daily commute, even up the 15% gradient hill, and have never needed/wanted more power/speed on the commute.
Away and don't talk silly. Seriously, in 1964 it might have been quicker than 98% of the cars on the way to work. You've got a car that serves no purpose unless used for the weekly shop. Don't come on here spouting performance figures like that as if its something to be proud of. Edited by Ollie_M on Thursday 15th October 09:25
moanthebairns said:
ukaskew said:
My Citigo does 0-60 in 13.9 seconds, I still comfortably out-accelerate 98% of cars on my daily commute, even up the 15% gradient hill, and have never needed/wanted more power/speed on the commute.
Away and don't talk silly. Seriously, in 1964 it might have been quicker than 98% of the cars on the way to work. You've got a gay car that serves no purpose unless for the weekly shop. Don't come on here spouting performance figures like that as if its something to be proud of. Edited by Ollie_M on Thursday 15th October 09:31
"Volkswagen has revealed to authorities in the US that current 2016 diesel models are fitted with software that could help them produce lower emissions levels during official tests. The Volkswagen emissions scandal was previously thought to be limited to models built between 2009 and 2015 fitted with the EA 189 engine - but this news opens up the possibility that current VW Group models could also be involved."
^^
from autoexpress.
Yes, the lack of any apology on the letter simply solidifies my view on what sort of company VW are.
^^
from autoexpress.
Yes, the lack of any apology on the letter simply solidifies my view on what sort of company VW are.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff