4 ms·

As a consumer, surely you have a fairly legitimate comeback with "the fuel economy & power is now rubbish, I'd have never bought the car in the first place if i

by amatix 11y ago

As a consumer, surely you have a fairly legitimate comeback with "the fuel economy & power is now rubbish, I'd have never bought the car in the first place if it was like that"? Pretty hard for VW to prove otherwise, and I don't know whether the outcome would look like a refund, replacement, or something else... (the first two would cost billions)

CWuestefeld 11y ago
Several years back, Hyundai got in trouble for having worse fuel efficiency than their EPA numbers claimed. They had to pay off all owners of that car (I don't recall whether that was due to class action lawsuit, or an agreement with the gov't). So it seems to me that if VW has to detune their engine performance, they'll similarly have to compensate owners of the affected cars.
- QuotedForTruth 11y ago
  That was easy to do since you could determine the difference in gas cost between advertised and actual performance. How do you value power though?
  - toomuchtodo 11y ago
    Determine the average sales price of vehicles with the power your car now has after correcting its ECU fuel maps, subtract that from the average sales price of vehicles with the power you advertised. That number you arrive at is the compensation you owe each person who purchased your vehicle.
  - Evolved 11y ago
    toomuchtodo 4 minutes ago Determine the average sales price of vehicles with the power your car now has after correcting its ECU fuel maps, subtract that from the average sales price of vehicles with the power you advertised. That number you arrive at is the compensation you owe each person who purchased your vehicle. I don't think that would quite work because the new sales would also factor in distrust and changes in consumer perception and taste which further reduces the amount of sales VW might have. You'd essentially have to do this in a vacuum where the updated vehicles' sales were subtracted from the non-updated vehicles and the numbers crunched on the premise that nobody ever found out about this and it was just fixed and swept under the rug. Either way, I like your idea and I hope these owners get adequately compensated for this.
    - CWuestefeld 11y ago
      the new sales would also factor in distrust and changes in consumer perception and taste which further reduces the amount of sales But that would be appropriate, because these factors would negatively affect the potential resale value for the defrauded owner.
  - alkonaut 11y ago
    Exactly. I just ordered a Passat Wagon 2Liter diesel 191hp (Last week, what are the odds?) because among the options under the pretty strict CO2 emission restrictions I needed to follow (120g/km) it seemed like the best choice. If the CO2 emissions had happened to be ever so slightly higher than 120g/km then I couldn't have bought it, and would have picked the V70 D4 instead. Obviously, if VW had been fair, maybe they couldn't have squeezed 191hp and 5L/100km consumption out of it. Suppose it would have been 170hp and 5L/100km instead to reach the required emissions targets. Now instead of better perforomance than the competition (such as the Volvo) it would have be worse! It's entirely possible I wouldn't have picked it. So as a customer I'm not really suffering from VW's wrongdoing here. At least not yet (until I get a message saying my not-yet-received car will be delayed 2 months and is already less powerful than when I ordered it). Volvo on the other hand may well have already lost a sale of a new car. Makes you wonder how many sales they lost, and makes you realize how important accurate tests are.
    - jacquesm 11y ago
      A couple more 'anecdotes' like that and I see an entirely different angle of fall-out from all this, lost income from missed sales by other brands.
    - mcguire 11y ago
      "Last week, what are the odds?" So this scandal is all your fault, then? :-)
ghaff 11y ago
It would seem that this is just one of the ways that this issue is going to get very ugly for VW. To the degree a required fix "just" affects the fuel economy, they can presumably make a payment that would mollify most (but not all) owners. If the performance profile is materially affected though, I can absolutely see a lot of owners demanding a refund.
switch007 11y ago
In the UK VW claim up to 88 MPG on one model, yet real-world MPG is more like 66% of that figure at best. [1] All they have to do is caveat it with: "*MPG figures are obtained from laboratory testing and intended for comparisons between vehicles and may not reflect real driving results." =/ [1] http://www.honestjohn.co.uk/realmpg/volkswagen/golf-vii-2013/16-tdi-bluemotion http://www.honestjohn.co.uk/realmpg/volkswagen/golf-vii-2013...
Evolved 11y ago
Given the cars that are affected are on the lowest end of VW's and Audi's lineups, you can safely assume these owners don't have/won't spend significant amounts of personal wealth to sue VW. They'll likely accept a voucher for $500-1000 and a "sorry" and be on their way. They really don't have much legal pull even in a class action lawsuit which will likely be less $ than VW made in profits on the overestimated power and mileage numbers. Furthermore, the owner of the 2009 Jetta TDI will have less bargaining room than the owner of the 2014 Audi A3 taking into consideration the price, age, mileage and status of the vehicle. I wouldn't be surprised if VW argue the older vehicles (say 2009-2012) benefited from the software more than the 2013+ vehicles and thus are entitled to even LESS compensation. "That's a bold strategy. Let's see how it plays out." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Ru8DMW-grY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Ru8DMW-grY
- dclowd9901 11y ago
  For something of a litmus test, the most recent Ford Fiesta model advertised better-than-actual gas mileage numbers. To mitigate the issue, Ford sent checks for the assumed loss of money to owners for the lifetime of the vehicle (which amounted to a couple hundred dollars). I imagine VW will only be required to make up the assumed loss of value of the vehicles unless the states intervene (California and NY are notorious for this).

by amatix 11y ago

CWuestefeld 11y ago

Several years back, Hyundai got in trouble for having worse fuel efficiency than their EPA numbers claimed. They had to pay off all owners of that car (I don't recall whether that was due to class action lawsuit, or an agreement with the gov't). So it seems to me that if VW has to detune their engine performance, they'll similarly have to compensate owners of the affected cars.

QuotedForTruth 11y ago
That was easy to do since you could determine the difference in gas cost between advertised and actual performance. How do you value power though?
- toomuchtodo 11y ago
  Determine the average sales price of vehicles with the power your car now has after correcting its ECU fuel maps, subtract that from the average sales price of vehicles with the power you advertised. That number you arrive at is the compensation you owe each person who purchased your vehicle.
- Evolved 11y ago
  toomuchtodo 4 minutes ago Determine the average sales price of vehicles with the power your car now has after correcting its ECU fuel maps, subtract that from the average sales price of vehicles with the power you advertised. That number you arrive at is the compensation you owe each person who purchased your vehicle. I don't think that would quite work because the new sales would also factor in distrust and changes in consumer perception and taste which further reduces the amount of sales VW might have. You'd essentially have to do this in a vacuum where the updated vehicles' sales were subtracted from the non-updated vehicles and the numbers crunched on the premise that nobody ever found out about this and it was just fixed and swept under the rug. Either way, I like your idea and I hope these owners get adequately compensated for this.
  - CWuestefeld 11y ago
    the new sales would also factor in distrust and changes in consumer perception and taste which further reduces the amount of sales But that would be appropriate, because these factors would negatively affect the potential resale value for the defrauded owner.
- alkonaut 11y ago
  Exactly. I just ordered a Passat Wagon 2Liter diesel 191hp (Last week, what are the odds?) because among the options under the pretty strict CO2 emission restrictions I needed to follow (120g/km) it seemed like the best choice. If the CO2 emissions had happened to be ever so slightly higher than 120g/km then I couldn't have bought it, and would have picked the V70 D4 instead. Obviously, if VW had been fair, maybe they couldn't have squeezed 191hp and 5L/100km consumption out of it. Suppose it would have been 170hp and 5L/100km instead to reach the required emissions targets. Now instead of better perforomance than the competition (such as the Volvo) it would have be worse! It's entirely possible I wouldn't have picked it. So as a customer I'm not really suffering from VW's wrongdoing here. At least not yet (until I get a message saying my not-yet-received car will be delayed 2 months and is already less powerful than when I ordered it). Volvo on the other hand may well have already lost a sale of a new car. Makes you wonder how many sales they lost, and makes you realize how important accurate tests are.
  - jacquesm 11y ago
    A couple more 'anecdotes' like that and I see an entirely different angle of fall-out from all this, lost income from missed sales by other brands.
  - mcguire 11y ago
    "Last week, what are the odds?" So this scandal is all your fault, then? :-)

ghaff 11y ago

It would seem that this is just one of the ways that this issue is going to get very ugly for VW. To the degree a required fix "just" affects the fuel economy, they can presumably make a payment that would mollify most (but not all) owners. If the performance profile is materially affected though, I can absolutely see a lot of owners demanding a refund.

switch007 11y ago

In the UK VW claim up to 88 MPG on one model, yet real-world MPG is more like 66% of that figure at best. [1] All they have to do is caveat it with: "*MPG figures are obtained from laboratory testing and intended for comparisons between vehicles and may not reflect real driving results." =/ [1] http://www.honestjohn.co.uk/realmpg/volkswagen/golf-vii-2013/16-tdi-bluemotion http://www.honestjohn.co.uk/realmpg/volkswagen/golf-vii-2013...

Evolved 11y ago

Given the cars that are affected are on the lowest end of VW's and Audi's lineups, you can safely assume these owners don't have/won't spend significant amounts of personal wealth to sue VW. They'll likely accept a voucher for $500-1000 and a "sorry" and be on their way. They really don't have much legal pull even in a class action lawsuit which will likely be less $ than VW made in profits on the overestimated power and mileage numbers. Furthermore, the owner of the 2009 Jetta TDI will have less bargaining room than the owner of the 2014 Audi A3 taking into consideration the price, age, mileage and status of the vehicle. I wouldn't be surprised if VW argue the older vehicles (say 2009-2012) benefited from the software more than the 2013+ vehicles and thus are entitled to even LESS compensation. "That's a bold strategy. Let's see how it plays out." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Ru8DMW-grY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Ru8DMW-grY

dclowd9901 11y ago
For something of a litmus test, the most recent Ford Fiesta model advertised better-than-actual gas mileage numbers. To mitigate the issue, Ford sent checks for the assumed loss of money to owners for the lifetime of the vehicle (which amounted to a couple hundred dollars). I imagine VW will only be required to make up the assumed loss of value of the vehicles unless the states intervene (California and NY are notorious for this).