VW Scandal - What's the story in Ireland ?

alongwaytotipp

VW have reached a settlement of $15b today in the US. It includes compensation of up to $10k per car owner !. I have one of these dodgy cars and got a letter from VW a few months ago to say that they will be in contact soon with the details of an AP to have a software update applied. I haven't heard anything since.

I would be interested if anybody knows what is the situation here, especially regarding any possible payouts to car owners ? I doubt if the state (DPP) or EU is taking a case against them on behalf of us car owners as I have heard nothing. If they do it will probably take years (look at Anglo !). Are individuals getting together to create a class action lawsuit ? I haven't looked for any legal advise on this so far but I think I will do so soon.

Any ideas if selling the car will eliminate me from any possible future compensation payout ? Personally, I would expect that it doesn't as the buyer of such a car from now on will be aware of the fault and so not entitled to compensation. Even though I may not own the car when any compensation is agreed I would expect that I would receive payment for buying the goods under false pretences. I presume if I sell the car that I need to declare this fault otherwise I could be liable for withholding information that impacts the value of the car.

shietpilot

Payouts? More like we will pay the payouts for the US buyers.

Atlantic Dawn

It's a German company in the EU, the Germans run the EU, very unlikely to get anything except the issue fixed.

There is a case running in Castlebar but no idea what current progress on it is...
http://www.rte.ie/news/2016/0607/793926-volkswagen-castlebar-court/

George Dalton

What exactly are you hoping to be compensated for?

The_Honeybadger

Is there a possibility of the annual motor tax being increased on these vehicles?

kirving

It should be, but if that were to happen then I can see VW having to pay for it. Anything like that will be heavily resisted.

I can't understand why people expected to be compensated. VW developed a car with more power and better fuel consumption for the every day driver, and their cheating of the test (which the dongs on the street know is a joke) saved the customer money too.

Aside from the environmental issues, VW are being made an example of here because they directly profited by A) lying to the US Authorities which goes down like a lead baloon, Lying to customers and C) were unfair to the competition.

dashoonage

Drive on lads. Forget about it.

Truckermal

mickeyk wrote: »

Is there a possibility of the annual motor tax being increased on these vehicles?

No its Nox that was affected not Co2..

EndaHonesty

George Dalton wrote: »

What exactly are you hoping to be compensated for?

They're hoping to be compensated for not being compensated before they sell their car...

bazz26

Let me guess, people want compensation for being told that their diesel car is greener than it actually is?

bladespin

Yes, I'd say so, false description of sold goods, it's basically deception which I'm sure has caused severe emotional turmoil. Probably the root cause of Brexit.

grogi

mickeyk wrote: »

Is there a possibility of the annual motor tax being increased on these vehicles?

Why?! They never lied about CO2 results from NEDC...

grogi

George Dalton wrote: »

What exactly are you hoping to be compensated for?

The only thing I can see compensations happen is when you had VW stocks and those felt to the ground. There are some transparency rules when it comes to stock-traded shares and VW did not complete those and in the result people are loosing money.

Compensation on the cars?! Can't really see a reason, unless the tax changes - but it won't.

Truckermal

A know all bollocks in the pub told people that my A4 tax would go up to 2.5K...:D Also the black pack with a sline is the Base model ..:pac:

MackMack

All depends on how they "fix" the emissions problem. If it results in the car using more fuel or having less power, then compensation should be made for changing the characteristics of the car.

grogi

MackMack wrote: »

All depends on how they "fix" the emissions problem. If it results in the car using more fuel or having less power, then compensation should be made for changing the characteristics of the car.

The manufacturer very rarely claims how the car consumes in the wild. What they tell is how much they have achieved in a NEDC... So even if it suddenly doubles - there is no grounds for any claims.

On the other hand - if one rejects to have it remapped - it forms grounds for voiding the warranty.

Special Circumstances

I doubt any compensation will be offered but

grogi wrote: »

On the other hand - if one rejects to have it remapped - it forms grounds for voiding the warranty.

It seems some posters don't regard this "suffer decreased mpg and increased CO2 (yuck, awful stuff) or we may void your warranty" scenario you describe as a grounds for a case against VW. :pac:

MackMack

grogi wrote: »

On the other hand - if one rejects to have it remapped - it forms grounds for voiding the warranty.

Warranties on cars aren't tied to getting recall repairs done. The warranty will still be valid regardless of whether you get the recall done.
On the other hand, are VW offering a new warranty to the car for the changes they make with this recall?

bladespin

grogi wrote:

On the other hand - if one rejects to have it remapped - it forms grounds for voiding the warranty.

Definitely not, warranty is 'as sold'.

Special Circumstances

bladespin wrote: »

Definitely not, warranty is 'as sold'.

Are you sure they wouldn't get sticky with ya if you serviced it yourself etc then came looking to them for warranty when something went wrong?

bear1

And how much op should vw compensate the customer? Of what inconvenience is it to you?
I dont buy that the car will depreciate in value nonsense and the tax wont be affected so I see no grounds for vw having to make compensation payments.

alongwaytotipp

This whole emissions scandal doesn't bother me in the slightest but I'd be dammed if I was going to miss a chance of a payout... They are paying out in the US so why not elsewhere ?
grounds for compensation include: buying deceptive goods, the stress and worry of not having a car that was as environmentally friendly as I thought, wasting my time to have the ca fixed...etc. I'd say 10k should cover

MackMack

There's only 2 grounds for compensation here. Power and fuel economy.

I bought a car that was 170bhp but now VW want to change that to only 150bhp. A 150bhp car would have been much cheaper when I originally bought the car.
Same for fuel economy. VW sold the car based on 50mpg but now want to change it so it only does 40mpg. That's something that would again have made a person buy a different cheaper car.

dar83

alongwaytotipp wrote: »

This whole emissions scandal doesn't bother me in the slightest but I'd be dammed if I was going to miss a chance of a payout... They are paying out in the US so why not elsewhere ?
grounds for compensation include: buying deceptive goods, the stress and worry of not having a car that was as environmentally friendly as I thought, wasting my time to have the ca fixed...etc. I'd say 10k should cover

And this, is the problem with Ireland today. :rolleyes:

Cordell

I never owned a VW but I want to be compensated as well. After all it's not the driver that breaths in the fumes, but the others. I am the others. 10k will do, thank you very much.

chillin117

alongwaytotipp wrote: »

This whole emissions scandal doesn't bother me in the slightest but I'd be dammed if I was going to miss a chance of a payout... They are paying out in the US so why not elsewhere ?
grounds for compensation include: buying deceptive goods, the stress and worry of not having a car that was as environmentally friendly as I thought, wasting my time to have the ca fixed...etc. I'd say 10k should cover

Apply that logic to minor accidents and you have the high insurance costs that we have today. 10k for ''Stress and Worry'' when that woman clipped my mirror in Tesco car park !:mad:

cletus

How soon will the affected cars be in bangernomics range. I'd like to buy one, so that I too could be stressed and compensated

bazz26

I have to smile at people who want compensation because the diesel car they bought was not as kind to the environment as they were led to believe. If people were that concerned about the environment at the time of purchase then why did they buy a diesel car to begin with. To me it's a bit like ordering a diet coke with your kebab and taco fries.

bladespin

bazz26 wrote: »

To me it's a bit like ordering a diet coke with your kebab and taco fries.

Man your diet is terrible, you're probably harming the environment more than the car :eek: how would you feel if you had ordered your 'diet' coke and got fanta instead?

There are bigger things between heaven and earth but no matter how they downplay it the buyer did not get what they were sold.

bazz26

My point is that some people are suddenly concerned that their diesel car is not as earth friendly as they were told when they bought it. Where they such tree huggers when they were shopping for a car? Diesel cars have always been harmful no matter what amount of marketing bull they put out there so it's interesting to see how owners are in shock now that it doesn't do what it said on the tin or is it just a case of them suddenly being concerned environmentalists when the hint of compensation is mentioned? Why didn't they just buy a hybrid if they were that concerned about the environment?

Special Circumstances

bazz26 wrote: »

My point is that some people are suddenly concerned that their diesel car is not as earth friendly as they were told when they bought it. Where they such tree huggers when they were shopping for a car? Diesel cars have always been harmful no matter what amount of marketing bull they put out there so it's interesting to see how owners are in shock now that it doesn't do what it said on the tin or is it just a case of them suddenly being concerned environmentalists when the hint of compensation is mentioned? Why didn't they just buy a hybrid if they were that concerned about the environment?

But diesel is VERY clean????

bladespin

bazz26 wrote: »

Why didn't they just buy a hybrid if they were that concerned about the environment?

Issue is not how green or not so the car is, it's just not what they were sold.

BTW you do understand that Hybrids are just as bad for the environment than diesels don't you?

Special Circumstances

I mean, it's clearly better, how anyone would think it was dirty is beyond me ???

Special Circumstances

They say adrenaline, I guess it sounds better than concentrated urine, but really they are SOOOO clean and fun!



Anyhooo, you can see how they would have to pay out in the US after barraging people with utter lies about cleanliness. They just made governments force people to buy them over here.

bazz26

bladespin wrote: »

Issue is not how green or not so the car is, it's just not what they were sold.

BTW you do understand that Hybrids are just as bad for the environment than diesels don't you?

Of course, hybrids like any other manufactured produce have an environmental footprint. However hybrids like petrol cars don't directly emit NOX.

bladespin

bazz26 wrote: »

Of course, hybrids like any other manufactured produce have an environmental footprint. However hybrids like petrol cars don't directly emit NOX.

This is true, but their footprint is very significant, even compared to the dreaded diesel, worse again most owners aren't aware how to drive them in order to benefit from the tech - proper tree huggers.

grogi

bladespin wrote: »

This is true, but their footprint is very significant, even compared to the dreaded diesel

Not the Prius vs Hummer comparison.. It was busted several times already...

bladespin wrote: »

worse again most owners aren't aware how to drive them in order to benefit from the tech - proper tree huggers.

And what that would be?!

bladespin

grogi wrote: »

Not the Prius vs Hummer comparison.. It was busted several times already...

I wouldn't compare those two fro sure but they both have a similar impact on the environment in their own way, the materials used to build, run and eventually recycle them all have a cost.

grogi wrote: »

And what that would be?!

I see a few sailing along the motorway each day, not exactly their favoured stomping ground rendering them considerably poorer than a diesel of similar size, but I'm guessing they're happy in the knowledge of what they're doingfor the environment.

You'll also see then darting from the lights, that's petrol baby, yeah the bad stuff, not the leccy.

grogi

bladespin wrote: »

I wouldn't compare those two fro sure but they both have a similar impact on the environment in their own way, the materials used to build, run and eventually recycle them all have a cost.

A few before you did...

I see a few sailing along the motorway each day, not exactly their favoured stomping ground rendering them considerably poorer than a diesel of similar size, but I'm guessing they're happy in the knowledge of what they're doingfor the environment.

You'll also see then darting from the lights, that's petrol baby, yeah the bad stuff, not the leccy.

You can do exactly the same with a diesel or an ordinary petrol - and achieve more/less same fuel efficiency improvement. Sufficient to say that those don't make any sense, as no-one is driving them as efficiently as possible?

Hybrids are more efficient if driven the same, average way. I don't know why - maybe because of the LCD constantly showing you energy flows and charts with fuel consumption - but Prius does encourage to drive even more efficiently. But it never stopped me from flooring it if I wanted and witnessing faces surprised how fast it can be...

bladespin

grogi wrote: »

A few before you did...

Please show me where I did that????

grogi wrote: »

You can do exactly the same with a diesel or an ordinary petrol - and achieve more/less same fuel efficiency improvement. Sufficient to say that those don't make any sense, as no-one is driving them as efficiently as possible?

Oh yes but the 'normal' traffic aren't wearing halos lol.

grogi wrote: »

But it never stopped me from flooring it if I wanted and witnessing faces surprised how fast it can be...

Believe me I'll never be surprised by haw 'fast' a Prius can be.:rolleyes:

daveharnett

dar83 wrote: »

And this, is the problem with Ireland today. :rolleyes:

On the other hand, I'd argue that our failure to punish companies for illegal, unethical, deceptive or anti-consumer behavior is a problem.

Publicly traded companies are amoral by their nature. If the manufacturers mend their ways, it will be because the US-VW payouts put the fear of god into them.

Special Circumstances

bladespin wrote: »

.
Believe me I'll never be surprised by haw 'fast' a Prius can be.:rolleyes:

4pot daysul torques are REAL torques ha? None of this Nancy torque from 0 rpm fairy business amiright?

Renegade Mechanic

Ok folks, time for mechanic school

I always put diesels as worse than Petrol, because we studied the emissions components of both in depth during the college phases of the apprenticeship. It annoyed me no end how cheap diesels were by being taxed "by emissions".

Nox emissions are the worst emissions. By far.
They're created by combustion temperatures reaching over 1200 degrees. This happens in both petrol and diesel cars, but is combated by the EGR. By circulating a loop of un-burnable exhaust gases, you reduce the amount of oxygen available to the reduced amount of fuel during cruising, thereby reducing combustion temperatures slightly. This is also to combat the release of, among the Nox gasses, Nitrous Oxide. That too is produced over 1200 degrees, but when that burns, the combustion temperatures explode upwards of 1500 degrees in some cases, facilitating the creation of hugely increased levels of Noxious emissions. Exponential upward spiral.

Remember the old days when reducing the fuelling by turning the carb lean would melt the insides of your engine? That was because of the heat. So much oxygen was available to the fuel at hand that every scrap burned. Not as good as is sounds because the resulting heat facilitated everything above. Not enough to race with in 5 second bursts, just enough melt your engine over a few journeys....

It's a trade off.

Sounds mental but you need to burn more fuel to create less heat, as the fuel molecules absorb heat during combustion whereas the air doesn't do it as well.

In a naturally aspirated petrol, that ideal ratio is 14.7 parts air to 1 part fuel. It's the best compromise between emissions and performance. And the EGR is easily capable of keeping everything in check during cruising.

While conventional petrol engines generally run a compression ratio of 11:1, diesel engines run around twice that. A little less in the case of turbocharged ones. Not only that but diesels run as lean as 30 parts air to 1 part fuel, sometimes going beyond 60 parts air....

The level of heat generated during the combustion here is way over the threshold necessary to produce Noxious gasses. But due to the shape of the piston and the design of the combustion process, the heat is contained in a sort of "air cusion" in which no fuel burns - way more effectively than in a petrol - so the diesel engine is better able to handle and dissipate the heat. But emissions are still there. And I'm afraid EGRs just can't cope. They lose their effectiveness with soot accumulation for a start and even without that, they generally can't allow the necessary volumes of exhaust gasses into the circuit to keep the heat in check because A: most of the gasses will be in the "air cusion" simply keeping the heat from getting to the metal.
And B: because the volume necessary would actually cost you noticeable power loss...

So!!! What do you, a diesel offering manufacturer, do in a market where people buy cars on how little fuel they inject in relation to the oxygen at hand how little fuel they use?

Why, you lie!.
And far more manufacturers than Volkswagen have been lying, just you wait

In the meantime the only way to reduce those emissions is to increase fuelling. Significantly.
If your new Volkswagen was doing 60 mpg, it will need to now do 50mpg to follow the environmental laws they said they were following. That's what will happen with the "fix" they're being recalled for.

Which may piss you off because the 03, 1.6 petrol Renault Laguna I had did that all day every day

Now, at the end of the day, diesel uses less fuel in most cases. That's why you don't exactly see many petrol engined Nissan Patrols on the roads...
If you got one for that reason, then good on you. If you pontificated to people about how you got one for the environment however, then get stuffed and join the delusional hybrid crowd, who's lithium mining, transport and processing makes a greater environmental impact than the actual manufacturing of most small cars, alone..

grogi

Renegade Mechanic wrote: »

In the meantime the only way to reduce those emissions is to increase fuelling. Significantly.

That's absolutely not true. In order to reduce the emission of NO and NOx, selective catalytic reduction is used.

If your new Volkswagen was doing 60 mpg, it will need to now do 50mpg to follow the environmental laws they said they were following. That's what will happen with the "fix" they're being recalled for.

Without changing the engine mechanically - yes, you're right. Running on "rich" mixture reduces NOx, but increases variety of PM emissions..

Renegade Mechanic

grogi wrote: »

That's absolutely not true. In order to reduce the emission of NO and NOx, selective catalytic reduction is used.



Without changing the engine mechanically - yes, you're right. Running on "rich" mixture reduces NOx, but increases variety of PM emissions..

Current emissions devices can't actually cope with the emissions created by burning the amount of fuel these cars were sold on.
I highly doubt VW are going to replace every vehicles emissions equipment from the exhaust port to the rear bumper, over simply remapping the ECU's fuelling mixture.

ItsLikeThis

Got my recall letter today [2011 Passat]

Cordell

grogi wrote: »

That's absolutely not true. In order to reduce the emission of NO and NOx, selective catalytic reduction is used.



Without changing the engine mechanically - yes, you're right. Running on "rich" mixture reduces NOx, but increases variety of PM emissions..

Actually it is true. ANY kind of emission control needs energy to work. Catalytic converters need some unburnt fuel to stay on the working temperature, DPFs need unburnt diesel to regenerate, the urea used in the SCR needs energy to be manufacured, etc. And all this energy means higher CO2 emissions.
Any filter on the exhaust will make the engine less efficient, it will burn more fuel in order to push the gases through those filters, again increasing CO2 emissions.

bladespin

Special Circumstances wrote:

4pot daysul torques are REAL torques ha? None of this Nancy torque from 0 rpm fairy business amiright?

Not a member of tge TDI fanboy club either, chosen method of transport is Honda fireblade, after that there's very little I can term 'fast'.