Half a million VWs recalled, sneaky emissions software.

[dmsims]

Jimboka said:

I expect the performance is perfectly adequate for 99% of journeys. With the additional benefit of not being on first name terms with the Esso cashier, like most petrol owners are!

What a stupid comment

[chris watton]

Jimboka said:

RYH64E said:

fblm said:

130R said:

I have no sympathy for anyone that actually bought a 1.6 litre diesel.

And they have the audacity to complain that a recall might dent performance!

When the performance could be described as barely adequate in the first place they probably have a good case!

I expect the performance is perfectly adequate for 99% of journeys. With the additional benefit of not being on first name terms with the Esso cashier, like most petrol owners are!

When I read your 'contributions', I don't know why, but the word 'Adenoids' always spring to mind..

[mondeoman]

chris watton said:

Jimboka said:

RYH64E said:

fblm said:

130R said:

I have no sympathy for anyone that actually bought a 1.6 litre diesel.

And they have the audacity to complain that a recall might dent performance!

When the performance could be described as barely adequate in the first place they probably have a good case!

I expect the performance is perfectly adequate for 99% of journeys. With the additional benefit of not being on first name terms with the Esso cashier, like most petrol owners are!

When I read your 'contributions', I don't know why, but the word 'Adenoids' always spring to mind..

"You don't want to do it like that... "

[dmsims]

From the horses mouth:

Jimboka said:

Plenty of wild speculation & drivel on the other thread:, is another necessary?:-
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...

Quite

[powerstroke]

130R said:

I have no sympathy for anyone that actually bought a 1.6 litre diesel.

Agree these will be the same sort of folk that buy a 1.4 tsi instead of a v6 petrol..

[Scuffers]

powerstroke said:

130R said:

I have no sympathy for anyone that actually bought a 1.6 litre diesel.

Agree these will be the same sort of folk that buy a 1.4 tsi instead of a v6 petrol..

to be fair for a moment, we have been battered to death with CO2 figures being linked to tax (road, BIK etc) so buy smaller engined so called more eco cars.

the problem is that this same out-dated test is used for that too, so you have cars now with stellar CO2 figures that are actually no more economical than the ones they replaced.

My own experience of this is going from an S5 V8 with a CO2 figure of 298g/km to an A5 2.0 TFSi with a CO2 figure of 155g/km, ie. almost half.

the reality is the V8 averaged 26/27Mpg over it's life, the A5 is at 30Mpg, ie. it's some 15% better, not the 100% the test implies.

Root problem here is this, once you give people a target, with financial penalties for not meeting it, they will do whatever to meet said target (look at the NHS/Police/etc for other examples of target stupidity).

so, the moral of this story?

governments should not be setting targets based on stupidly simplistic thinking.

[skyrover]

I wonder how many people would not have bought the diesel if not for the tax incentive

[scenario8]

130R said:

I have no sympathy for anyone that actually bought a 1.6 litre diesel.

I've been away for a couple of weeks. When I left this story only affected the 2.0 cars - has this changed in my absence?

FWIW I've endured 80,000ish miles in a Golf 1.6 diesel and I suspect for over 95% of journeys for 95% drivers it's performance is more than adequate. Which isn't bad I suppose when it comes to satisfying its market.

[Exige77]

Thought it was always 1.6 and 2.0 engines ?

[scenario8]

Perhaps I was misinformed by the radio machine.

Or became dizzy by the speeds I was achieving at the time of hearing.

[maffski]

NelsonM3 said:

If adblue tanks have to be fitted I imagine they'll also have to include free refills for the life of the vehicle. Otherwise people have a genuine case for compensation.

I wonder if it might just be easier to give people a new car and ship their old one in a country that doesn't have such strict emission standards.

[anonymous-user]

chris watton said:

When I read your 'contributions', I don't know why, but the word 'Adenoids' always spring to mind..

The difference between 20mpg and 40mpg is about 6p a mile. 6p. To not have a little piece of you die every time you open the garage door or look out on the drive and see a miserable, dull, penny pinching diesel that's depreciating at a quid a mile or 25% overnight if its a VW

[Kawasicki]

RYH64E said:

When the performance could be described as barely adequate in the first place they probably have a good case!

Yeah...120mph top speed (where it feels relaxed and refined) and 60mph in under 10 seconds is dangerously slow.

[RYH64E]

Kawasicki said:

RYH64E said:

When the performance could be described as barely adequate in the first place they probably have a good case!

Yeah...120mph top speed (where it feels relaxed and refined) and 60mph in under 10 seconds is dangerously slow.

As measured by VW I suppose, maybe downhill and with a following wind?

[scenario8]

0-60 in 10 seconds and a 120mph top speed (even if measured optimistically) remain more than adequate and irrelevant respectively for 95% or more of drivers for 95% or more of their journeys, though.

[Axionknight]

scenario8 said:

0-60 in 10 seconds and a 120mph top speed (even if measured optimistically) remain more than adequate and irrelevant respectively for 95% or more of drivers for 95% or more of their journeys, though.

Absolutely, not everyone is on a quest for more speed and more power - it's plenty for most.

[Scuffers]

I used to think anything that can't make 0-60 in <10 should be banned from the road as dangerously slow.

[Axionknight]

I wonder what percentage of cars on the road here in the UK that is?

I bet it's a majority.

[FiF]

Scuffers said:

I used to think anything that can't make 0-60 in <10 should be banned from the road as dangerously slow.

Noting the used to think in that sentence, but personally pissed if Mk1Lotus Cortina banned as dangerously slow, which it isn't, not even close.

[powerstroke]

Axionknight said:

scenario8 said:

0-60 in 10 seconds and a 120mph top speed (even if measured optimistically) remain more than adequate and irrelevant respectively for 95% or more of drivers for 95% or more of their journeys, though.

Absolutely, not everyone is on a quest for more speed and more power - it's plenty for most.

Shesuss H ....standards are slipping this sort of torque might be ok on mumsnet!! but this is PH come on guys get a grip .....