How Can / Will VW fix all those dodgy engines?

[996TT02]

I'd guess that a remap of sorts will be fine in most cases.

Obviously (since there was a reason for having the two-mode software) there will be a "cost" to the owner, probably making the car compliant with emissions regs will reduce the power or economy.

Barring any legal requirement to do so, most owners would feel better off not doing anything.

However the VW remap changes may be unnoticeable for practical purposes. If a 150bhp Golf (at 4000 rpm) is now down to 140bhp but with most of the torque still available lower down, most drivers would not notice the difference. Pure speculation and figures out of a hat of course.

Then again some owners get their own cars remapped at indies so I'd say that the people who do notice or care may well opt for the recall if forced upon them, then off to privately remap once the VW certificate is in hand.

End of the day it's very very bad for VW but not much more than an inconvenience of varying seriousness for owners.

Edited by 996TT02 on Thursday 8th October 12:47

[GreatGranny]

Not just an inconvenience.

Not affected myself but if you are doing 25k miles per year and your mpg drops 10% that's another £200ish on your fuel bill.

That difference will increase if you tow with the car (the Tdi engine is an excellent and popular engine for towcars).
Lower power, more effort, more fuel used.

I know its not a huge amount of money but if it was me and my VW was out of warranty I would be tempted to ignore the recall.

[pfnsht]

What confuses me is how some of the same model of cars are fitted with the device and some are not. Take my car for example - 2013 Seat Exeo 170ps. It is affected.

However take a selection of 2010/2011/2012/2013 Exeo models of the same car and some have the device and some do not (source: Seat Cupra net forum & owners feedback).

How can the same car that surely has to apply with the same type approvals be both equipped with the device and not equipped with the device; surely the ones that do not have it would not pass an emissions test either if they are making the same power/torque etc.

And if this is true then surely there are more than the 1.2m cars vag claim to need fixing for emissions purposes.

[GC8]

battered said:

GC8 said:

Emissions may come out of the exhaust, but altering the exhaust wont fix the problem OP!

Well, bits of the exhaust are key to fixing the problem.

Does the affected engine use Adblue?

[eliot]

I bet if the remap also increased the power of the car by a little bit all this moaning and talk of compo would dissappear!

[Grayedout]

Depending on the wording of the regulations then you could say VW have done nothing wrong.

If it says the car must produce emission levels less than X on this drive cycle (which is known not to represent the real world) then they have achieved that. If the regulations then do not state that the same MAP used for the test must be used on the road then what have they done wrong?

[cootuk]

I predict a cracking trade in custom remaps and black boxes if worse mpg remaps are forced upon vehicles.

[Mr2Mike]

pfnsht said:

What confuses me is how some of the same model of cars are fitted with the device and some are not. Take my car for example - 2013 Seat Exeo 170ps. It is affected.

However take a selection of 2010/2011/2012/2013 Exeo models of the same car and some have the device and some do not (source: Seat Cupra net forum & owners feedback).

How can the same car that surely has to apply with the same type approvals be both equipped with the device and not equipped with the device; surely the ones that do not have it would not pass an emissions test either if they are making the same power/torque etc.

Do all these models have exactly the same engine and specification (e.g. power output)?

[pfnsht]

Mr2Mike said:

Do all these models have exactly the same engine and specification (e.g. power output)?

It would appear so - there were only a couple of exeo variants - 170 ps and 143ps. There were SE and sport trim levels and looking at the replies some 2010 cars have the device and some don't and like wise for 2011, 2012. Unless owners are telling porkies it seems odd.

[01samuelr]

I have one of the affected golfs as a company car 1.6tdi. 70mph or a gps 67mph gives me 51mpg. This is real world driving on the motorway and a mix of country roads. I do around 20-25k a year so a good person to test a car in all situations. As you can see its quite the way off what volkswagen claim. I think its 74mpg. Another member of staff has a bmw 420d and he regularly gets high 50 low 60s on the same type of journeys.

I will never buy a volkswagen with my own money even before the emissions scandal. Poorly made, overpriced crap.

[battered]

The Moose said:

battered said:

CRA2Y said:

Advice from CAB:

"Under the Sale of Goods Act 1979, goods should be of a satisfactory quality, fit for purpose and as described. My rights have been breached because the item you sold me is faulty. I would like a repair/replacement/part-refund."

What'll it be?

Fitness for purpose.
The purpose of this car is to act as a passenger vehicle, powered by diesel fuel, and to meet the road safety requirements of the territory where it was sold. Has it stopped working? Does it work less well than before? Have any of the safety systems stopped working? Would it pass an MoT test?

If the answers to the above are no, no, no and yes, you're going to struggle to claim that it's unfit for purpose.

Over to you, in what way does it fail to meet your user requirements? What's changed since a month ago?

Surely the car has been mis-sold?

How, exactly? What representations did they make to you, as a UK customer, that are now proven to be untrue? Sale and Provision of Goods and Services Act applies, as discussed above. Read it, and tell us what bit of the law they have broken.

[telecat]

01samuelr said:

I have one of the affected golfs as a company car 1.6tdi. 70mph or a gps 67mph gives me 51mpg. This is real world driving on the motorway and a mix of country roads. I do around 20-25k a year so a good person to test a car in all situations. As you can see its quite the way off what volkswagen claim. I think its 74mpg. Another member of staff has a bmw 420d and he regularly gets high 50 low 60s on the same type of journeys.

I will never buy a volkswagen with my own money even before the emissions scandal. Poorly made, overpriced crap.

My Son Got one as a compnay car last month. The engines that feeble on a hill he has to rev the nuts off it to get the handbrake off and keep the thing rolling. As for this "problem" it's pretty obvious that car makers use software to invoke a testing mode. Obviously VW didn't hide it well enough.

[b0rk]

battered said:

I suspect that in operation outside test mode the system injects much less urea solution in order to reduce refill frequency and possibly increase catalyst life, but this is a guess. Of one thing I am sure - I'm not messing with this technology unless I absolutely have to, because this stuff is just dying to go wrong and hand you a big bill.

Whilst the is all very factual the current system for most cars is based around LNT rather than SCR, meeting Euro 5 requirements may well be possible with little if no noticeable effect via software. The EU5 standard allows three times the NOx emissions to the US Tier 2 / Bin 5 standard. Remember EA189 evolved into the apparently compliant EA228 engine.
Now meeting US Tier 2 / Bin 5 requirements appears a whole other world of pain.

[Monkeylegend]

telecat said:

As for this "problem" it's pretty obvious that car makers use software to invoke a testing mode. Obviously VW didn't hide it well enough.

Apart from the 13 major car manufacturers who have categorically stated that they do not use any type of cheat device/software to give results during emission testing different to those when the car is driven.

Unless you know differently?

[ChrisRS6]

Blakewater said:

Everyone who works for the Volkswagen Group and its suppliers and other associated companies. Volkswagen going to the wall would have a very bad effect on a lot of people who don't deserve it, whatever you think about a few arrogant people at the top. We all work, or have worked, for tossers at some point.

They aren't going to go to the wall though...yes they'll take a massive financial hit but they'll recover and it will all be rosy next year.

[The Moose]

battered said:

The Moose said:

battered said:

CRA2Y said:

Advice from CAB:

"Under the Sale of Goods Act 1979, goods should be of a satisfactory quality, fit for purpose and as described. My rights have been breached because the item you sold me is faulty. I would like a repair/replacement/part-refund."

What'll it be?

Fitness for purpose.
The purpose of this car is to act as a passenger vehicle, powered by diesel fuel, and to meet the road safety requirements of the territory where it was sold. Has it stopped working? Does it work less well than before? Have any of the safety systems stopped working? Would it pass an MoT test?

If the answers to the above are no, no, no and yes, you're going to struggle to claim that it's unfit for purpose.

Over to you, in what way does it fail to meet your user requirements? What's changed since a month ago?

Surely the car has been mis-sold?

How, exactly? What representations did they make to you, as a UK customer, that are now proven to be untrue? Sale and Provision of Goods and Services Act applies, as discussed above. Read it, and tell us what bit of the law they have broken.

Please forgive me if I'm incorrect - I would be the first to hold my hands up and say that I most certainly am not an expert. Neither do I own an affected car.

However, I was under the impression that the cars were being sold as Euro 5 (??) emissions standard compliant. I also understand (again, usual caveats about being an expert etc), but from what I read, Euro 5 emissions limit the amount of NOx to 0.18g/km (from AA website) and the cars are producing up to 1.5g/km.

As far as I can see, that means the car is in fact not Euro 5 compliant and therefore in my mind, the cars have been mis-sold.

[Blakewater]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

The UK government at least has already said it won't be rebanding any vehicles as a result of this. In California there is a threat that vehicles won't pass their MOT equivalent if they aren't taken in for the recall changes.

[CRA2Y]

The Moose said:

Please forgive me if I'm incorrect - I would be the first to hold my hands up and say that I most certainly am not an expert. Neither do I own an affected car.

However, I was under the impression that the cars were being sold as Euro 5 (??) emissions standard compliant. I also understand (again, usual caveats about being an expert etc), but from what I read, Euro 5 emissions limit the amount of NOx to 0.18g/km (from AA website) and the cars are producing up to 1.5g/km.

As far as I can see, that means the car is in fact not Euro 5 compliant and therefore in my mind, the cars have been mis-sold.

In addition, if I purchased a car, and the DESCRIPTION in the sales brochure quoted 0-60 in 9 seconds and 32mpg, and then it is 'fixed', and now does 0-60 in 10.4 seconds and 25mpg, I personally would say it was NOT AS DESCRIBED. People are of course free to disagree with this opinion.

This opinion is based on the fact that the cars will run legally in 'defeat' mode, and the easiest option would be to set this to permanent - and this has to have an effect on performance/economy - as if it didn't, well there would be no need for the defeat mode.

Edited by CRA2Y on Thursday 8th October 21:48

[Vaud]

You forget durability. US emissions require passing at 0 miles and, IIRC, 150k as well.

[Lowtimer]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

No. No effect at all.

Same as if you yourself have your car chipped, or a bigger turbo put on, or cam it and put a big valve head on, or scrap the injection and put it on carbs, or whatever. None of that affects the VED if done after the first registration.

Only mod that would affect VED is if it is a pre March 2001 car and you swap a less than 1549 cc engine for a big one.