# Would this VW diesel issue bother you?



## Leo G (May 12, 2005)

Poor CEO

http://www.silverdoctors.com/rewarding-failure-volkswagen-ceo-to-receive-32-million-pension/


----------



## BucketofSteam (Jun 16, 2013)

carzie said:


> I can only hope the vast majority don't agree with that comment....you my fellow contractor are an idiot for thinking that way.


So you ever ask yourself how earth managed to keep going after all the chemicals that get thrown into the atmosphere just from natural sources?

Earth doesn't need our protection what it needs is for humans to start being smart about things.


----------



## illbuildit.dd (Jan 7, 2015)

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HnL-7x4n4d8


This commercial shows how well built these cars really are


----------



## The Coastal Craftsman (Jun 29, 2009)

illbuildit.dd said:


> https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HnL-7x4n4d8
> 
> 
> This commercial shows how well built these cars really are



That's not politically correct. I'm gonna contact CNN


----------



## illbuildit.dd (Jan 7, 2015)

BCConstruction said:


> That's not politically correct. I'm gonna contact CNN


But,,, I'm not a politician


----------



## The Coastal Craftsman (Jun 29, 2009)

MarkJames said:


> In the case of VW, the evidence has been uncovered...willful deception. They probably will be found criminally liable for what they did, again proven to be willful and intentional. We'll see.
> 
> 
> 
> If you have hard evidence on Ford, let's hear it. Does Ecoboost never perform as they say, or is it dependent on driving and lots of other variables? Also, are there actual tests that Ford sells you on? You will need details or indisputable data if you don't have a smoking gun.



The evidence is that no one is getting the MPG they said they would. As an example if I drive our car on the interstate I get 1mpg more than they say I should get. If I drive my truck on interstate I get 1mpg more than they say I should and the ecoboost gets about 7mpg less than they say it should. So does that mean that all the people who bought that vehicle were robbed and lied too. To me it's exactly the same as VW just did but there no admittance of guilt. 

Also why has this story only now just decide to show its self. This news is over a year old but now it's suddenly the MSM's biggest story world wide. There's a political reason behind it being blown up like it is. Perhaps the big 3 decided it was time to pull the rabbit out the hat seeings VW are taking such a massive chunk of US car sales and get the liberal tears flowing so that people react on emotions like they do on any environmental issue.


----------



## MarkJames (Nov 25, 2012)

BucketofSteam said:


> So you ever ask yourself how earth managed to keep going after all the chemicals that get thrown into the atmosphere just from natural sources?
> 
> Earth doesn't need our protection what it needs is for humans to start being smart about things.


Yeah, right.

I visited Poland in the 80's. In certain cities, my eyes burned like hell the entire time. Supposedly it was a combo of smog related to burning unleaded fuel . How come nature didn't fix it all by itself? 

Same for China. What's up with nature? It's getting lazy.


----------



## MarkJames (Nov 25, 2012)

BCConstruction said:


> The evidence is that no one is getting the MPG they said they would. As an example if I drive our car on the interstate I get 1mpg more than they say I should get. If I drive my truck on interstate I get 1mpg more than they say I should and the ecoboost gets about 7mpg less than they say it should. So does that mean that all the people who bought that vehicle were robbed and lied too. To me it's exactly the same as VW just did but there no admittance of guilt.
> 
> Also why has this story only now just decide to show its self. This news is over a year old but now it's suddenly the MSM's biggest story world wide. There's a political reason behind it being blown up like it is. Perhaps the big 3 decided it was time to pull the rabbit out the hat seeings VW are taking such a massive chunk of US car sales and get the liberal tears flowing so that people react on emotions like they do on any environmental issue.


Simple. The reason it's big now is that the number of vehicles involved is much larger. 500k vs. 11M. Bigger problem, more countries affected.

It's kind of like why Hillary's email story won't go away. It keeps getting bigger. (I hope to see her behind bars for that.)

I'm all ears on the Ecoboost accusations if you have anything to cite. Any links? (Seriously.) I don't know much about those vehicles but am willing to learn.


----------



## The Coastal Craftsman (Jun 29, 2009)

MarkJames said:


> Yeah, right.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yet animal agriculture is still the number one contributor to global warming by a massive amount yet I bet you eat meat. What about all the people who are affect by the issues this causes. Oh yeah it's because 95% of environmentalist eat meat so they don't want to upset that situation. 

There's vastly bigger issues that should have outrage than s persons car getting more MPG and power than it really should be allowed to.


----------



## The Coastal Craftsman (Jun 29, 2009)

MarkJames said:


> Simple. The reason it's big now is that the number of vehicles involved is much larger. 500k vs. 11M. Bigger problem, more countries affected.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Get on almost any truck forum and see the complaints. Just like not every VW engine is affect by this issue not every ecoboost is affected but it's a massively large amount of people affected. There's been numerous posts in this forum alone about it. I have one friend who's don't do too bad. The rest I know with that engine do real bad. Yet in Fords eyes it's within acceptable allowances. 25% less fuel economy is 25% more pollution being pumped into the air.


----------



## MarkJames (Nov 25, 2012)

BCConstruction said:


> Get on almost any truck forum and see the complaints. Just like not every VW engine is affect by this issue not every ecoboost is affected but it's a massively large amount of people affected. There's been numerous posts in this forum alone about it. I have one friend who's don't do too bad. The rest I know with that engine do real bad. Yet in Fords eyes it's within acceptable allowances. 25% less fuel economy is 25% more pollution being pumped into the air.


First of all, it's Ford, so it can't be true.  Say it ain't so!

But it sounds more like technology that didn't pan out as hoped, and that's a whole lot different than intentionally installing software to mislead on emissions readings. Admit it. One is skirting THE LAW intentionally, and the other is just hopeful, sales-y bullsh_t. This vaguely reminds me of the Cadillacs that had that engine that adjusted the number of cylinders 8-6-4. It didn't perform as they hoped, but that's about it. Did they willfully mean to have an engine that performed no better than prior ones? No.


----------



## carzie (May 21, 2013)

BucketofSteam said:


> So you ever ask yourself how earth managed to keep going after all the chemicals that get thrown into the atmosphere just from natural sources?
> 
> Earth doesn't need our protection what it needs is for humans to start being smart about things.


 By running straight pipes with no emission control is being smart?

You are right, earth has been designed to control "natural" emissions, not from how many billions of tail pipes and factory stacks? It's time we all realized that humans are the cause of the problem.

This little rock we call earth is all we have, without it what are our options? Our kids and grand kids are depending on us to make the right choices.


----------



## carzie (May 21, 2013)

BCConstruction said:


> The evidence is that no one is getting the MPG they said they would. As an example if I drive our car on the interstate I get 1mpg more than they say I should get. If I drive my truck on interstate I get 1mpg more than they say I should and the ecoboost gets about 7mpg less than they say it should. So does that mean that all the people who bought that vehicle were robbed and lied too. To me it's exactly the same as VW just did but there no admittance of guilt.
> 
> Also why has this story only now just decide to show its self. This news is over a year old but now it's suddenly the MSM's biggest story world wide. There's a political reason behind it being blown up like it is. Perhaps the big 3 decided it was time to pull the rabbit out the hat seeings VW are taking such a massive chunk of US car sales and get the liberal tears flowing so that people react on emotions like they do on any environmental issue.


The MPG they are claiming you get are for a test at optimal efficiency, as in no load, level ground, no wind and at a specified mph at which the engine performs most efficiently. Every manufacturer does it, it has come to light, at least here in Canada this is miss-leading and the way they determine MPG is changing.

You`re reasoning behind why MSM has picked on this story is off. If it had been Honda yes but VW not a chance. I see 10xs the Hondas as I do VW on the road. Maybe the reason is because the big 3 have been complying with the standards.


----------



## The Coastal Craftsman (Jun 29, 2009)

MarkJames said:


> First of all, it's Ford, so it can't be true.  Say it ain't so!
> 
> 
> 
> But it sounds more like technology that didn't pan out as hoped, and that's a whole lot different than intentionally installing software to mislead on emissions readings. Admit it. One is skirting THE LAW intentionally, and the other is just hopeful, sales-y bullsh_t. This vaguely reminds me of the Cadillacs that had that engine that adjusted the number of cylinders 8-6-4. It didn't perform as they hoped, but that's about it. Did they willfully mean to have an engine that performed no better than prior ones? No.



To me it's not getting what was paid for. That's the issue here for any off them. If the consumer didn't get what they were expecting then they should be able to have it fixed for free or get a new vehicle. I think the ecoboost Issue is a bigger issue than the VW issue. Ones not getting anywhere the intended MPG and ones getting more than it should be. Ones off setting its environmental impact by doing way more mpg whilst one is getting way less mpg which means more fuel burnt. 

My mates VW Touareg is meant to be in the recall now. He said he gives 0 s***s because he didn't buy it for MPG or environmental impact. He bought it for being a quality SUV.


----------



## The Coastal Craftsman (Jun 29, 2009)

carzie said:


> The MPG they are claiming you get are for a test at optimal efficiency, as in no load, level ground, no wind and at a specified mph at which the engine performs most efficiently. Every manufacturer does it, it has come to light, at least here in Canada this is miss-leading and the way they determine MPG is changing.
> 
> 
> 
> You`re reasoning behind why MSM has picked on this story is off. If it had been Honda yes but VW not a chance. I see 10xs the Hondas as I do VW on the road. Maybe the reason is because the big 3 have been complying with the standards.



Since 2009 all vehicles have been tested in real world situations so that excuse can no longer be used. I know this because my 2009 f150 was rated at exactly the same MPG as the year before it even though it was lighter, more aerodynamic and more fuel efficient. That's when I noticed they changed the way all vehicles were tested. Quite a few lot mpg over previous years. They didn't get less in real life they just gave more realistic numbers. So a 2009 even though it was getting more MPG than the 2008 the sticker showed the same MPG because it lost 2mpg in model year 2009.


----------



## BucketofSteam (Jun 16, 2013)

MarkJames said:


> Yeah, right.
> 
> I visited Poland in the 80's. In certain cities, my eyes burned like hell the entire time. Supposedly it was a combo of smog related to burning unleaded fuel . How come nature didn't fix it all by itself?
> 
> Same for China. What's up with nature? It's getting lazy.


Ever think that just maybe humans weren't meant to cluster in tight groups like that?


----------



## MarkJames (Nov 25, 2012)

BCConstruction said:


> To me it's not getting what was paid for. That's the issue here for any off them. If the consumer didn't get what they were expecting then they should be able to have it fixed for free or get a new vehicle. I think the ecoboost Issue is a bigger issue than the VW issue. Ones not getting anywhere the intended MPG and ones getting more than it should be. Ones off setting its environmental impact by doing way more mpg whilst one is getting way less mpg which means more fuel burnt.
> 
> My mates VW Touareg is meant to be in the recall now. He said he gives 0 s***s because he didn't buy it for MPG or environmental impact. He bought it for being a quality SUV.


You seem to be assuming the VW customers would accept the marginal MPG gain for 10x to 40x worse emissions. For many buyers, that's where you're wrong. Both were factored into the buyer's decision, and that's why they were heavily advertised that way. There was lots of press to support that, too.

Again, how about posting some links re: the ecoboost issues? Google didn't help much and I'm lazy. Thx.


----------



## MarkJames (Nov 25, 2012)

BucketofSteam said:


> Ever think that just maybe humans weren't meant to cluster in tight groups like that?


Whatever the heck does that mean? Maybe humans weren't meant to be posting here, either. :stuart:


----------



## The Coastal Craftsman (Jun 29, 2009)

MarkJames said:


> You seem to be assuming the VW customers would accept the marginal MPG gain for 10x to 40x worse emissions. For many buyers, that's where you're wrong. Both were factored into the buyer's decision, and that's why they were heavily advertised that way. There was lots of press to support that, too.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, how about posting some links re: the ecoboost issues? Google didn't help much and I'm lazy. Thx.



Like I said before people who buy diesels don't care about the environment. It's like eating meat and being a animal rights activist. 

I have prob bought more new cars in my life than most people I know and I have never once looked into the environmental impact the car puts out. I didn't even care about the MPG on our 2016 as I didn't buy the car for mpg or environmental impact. 

I bet if I asked every TDI owner I know and there's a lot of them as quite a few own A3's and golfs that not one would say emissions figures bothered them and I would say they could t even tell me what they were either. Prius owners yes, volt owners yes, telsa owners yes etc etc these people prob give a crap about these figures. Diesel owners not so much. Next you will tell me truck owners with Diesel engines care about the environment to. Does anyone on this forum even know the emission ratings of their vehicle?


----------



## The Coastal Craftsman (Jun 29, 2009)

MarkJames said:


> Whatever the heck does that mean? Maybe humans weren't meant to be posting here, either. :stuart:



He's correct. Humans were never meant to cluster like they do in the millions. Nature was never designed to handle it and it's the reason now why animal agriculture is causing so much damage to the environment as so many are clumped in such a small area producing more pollution from ****s and farts than by all vehicles combined just to feed the humans. 

Whilst we in about cows you want to know an Interesting fact. It takes over 1000gallons of water to produce just one half pounder beef burger.


----------



## 91782 (Sep 6, 2012)

BCConstruction said:


> For one I'm not being defensive. I'm just explaining how an inspection works. These cars already pass emissions tests. They are clean enough to be on the road and even though they put out more Nox than they should it's still lower than most other vehicles on the road. The government can't tell you what you can and can't do to your car. I could go and put a turbo the size of a dustbin lid on my vehicle and as long as it passes emissions test done by the state it's fine. *I could remove every bit of electronics on my car which help it pass the regulations to be sold and as long as it passes state emissions testing it's perfectly legal to drive. *





BCConstruction said:


> Like I said they can't make you fix the issue. It's completely different to tampering with your emissions equipment. (blah-blah-blah removed)


No exactly what you discussed was in fact TAMPERING WITH EQUIPMENT.

Nice try to not include the relevant quote..

Reality remains - it's illegal.

If you want to drive the car legally - then yes, you'd have to restore the equipment to OEM specs.

http://www.bayjournal.com/article/1995_legislative_highlights_from_virginia_and_maryland_

"In the meantime, the state will continue its current tailpipe testing, along with a *visual check under the hood to make sure that anti-pollution devices haven't been tampered with. *"

Hmm, let's see, has the Common wealth gotten more strict since 1995? Why yes, I think so.


----------



## Calidecks (Nov 19, 2011)

BCConstruction said:


> The emissions test is the same for every car. It don't matter if it's a Lamborghini or a Prius. As long as it passes the test its allowed to be on the road. It don't matter if it's a 30liter engine or a 1liter engine. Once you have bought the car the government can't tell you what has to be fixed and what don't. As long as it passes state inspection it's allowed on the road. A prime example is the GM and Toyota issue where hundreds of people died. The owners don't have to get the fix if they don't want to even though you could kill others on the road The state inspection will not fail the car because it's functioning within their parameters to pass. Like I already said these cars are already passing state inspections. The only way they wouldn't is if they change the allowable amounts for emissions but buy the time they lower it to the amount of the TDI with def delete you would have already banned 95% of the cars of the road.
> 
> By the way my brothers a licensed vehicle inspector and does the def deletes. He know a little bit more about this than you. But go ahead prove me wrong. Currently they pass and you have to prove they can't. Good luck.


You know Barri, after you preached for 16 pages in another thread that curb wieght includes pencils people and gum only in the Chevy Truck but not the Ford, your creditability is shot with me.


----------



## The Coastal Craftsman (Jun 29, 2009)

SmallTownGuy said:


> No exactly what you discussed was in fact TAMPERING WITH EQUIPMENT.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Lol this gets better every post. So now state inspectors connect upto my OBD port and scan the ECU for Maps to ECU that even Audi struggle to detect with a full scan. 

Ok so currently the vehicle passes inspection because it has low enough emissions. Until you can show me it won't your both clearly wrong. Your just making assumptions about stuff you have no idea about. Let's wait and see who's right. My best mate has a affect vehicle and my mother in laws beetle is too. Gonna know real soon what their options are.


----------



## The Coastal Craftsman (Jun 29, 2009)

Californiadecks said:


> You know Barri, after you preached for 16 pages in another thread that curb wieght includes pencils people and gum only in the Chevy Truck but not the Ford, your creditability is shot with me.



And still you don't know what your talking about. The facts have not changed. The SAE figures for payload and tow capacity are not on 3/4tons currently. Only half tons so I'm still right. On 1/2tons your payload is calculated not from your curb weight but your payload after fuel and driver. Yet you choose not to believe the SAE tests.


----------



## The Coastal Craftsman (Jun 29, 2009)

*Would This VW Diesel Issue Bother You?*

Here you go mike now it's more common knowledge for most people but your self. Pay close attention to the last section on the right. Oh look it says it includes driver and passenger which the 3/4 vehicle don't because they don't follow the SAE tests.


----------



## Calidecks (Nov 19, 2011)

BCConstruction said:


> Here you go mike now it's more common knowledge for most people but your self. Pay close attention to the last section on the right. Oh look it says it includes driver and passenger which the 3/4 vehicle don't because they don't follow the SAE tests.


Nope you said curb wieght includes pencils. not GVW. Nice try


----------



## Calidecks (Nov 19, 2011)

Here's your quote

Quote:

Originally Posted byBCConstruction*

I'm not talking about GVRW. Mike perhaps learn the difference between GVRW and Curb weight.*

Your curb weight is the trucks weight plus anything. This includes a pencil to a bunch of tool boxes that's in the vehicle.

As I said before add a bed liner you have less payload, add a truck rack you have less payload, add a truck cap you have less payload. your truck will never has the same curb weight it heft the factory with. I have over 400lbs of stuff in my truck that deducts away from my payload as it's always in there.*


----------



## Calidecks (Nov 19, 2011)

Here's my correct reply

Your curb wieght doesn't include tool boxes tools or racks.*

The curb weight of your vehicle is the weight of the car with all of the standard equipment and amenities, but without any passengers, cargo or any other separately loaded items in it. Thus, the curb weight is the amount that the vehicle weighs when it's resting on the curb and not in use. This is generally the standard weight that the manufacturer assigns to the car.


----------



## The Coastal Craftsman (Jun 29, 2009)

Californiadecks said:


> Here's my correct reply
> 
> Your curb wieght doesn't include tool boxes tools or racks.*
> 
> The curb weight of your vehicle is the weight of the car with all of the standard equipment and amenities, but without any passengers, cargo or any other separately loaded items in it. Thus, the curb weight is the amount that the vehicle weighs when it's resting on the curb and not in use. This is generally the standard weight that the manufacturer assigns to the car.



Is that not what I said. Your curb weight is how ever your vehicle is equipped when on the curb. If you added a toolbox and the trucks on the curb its the trucks curb weight. That has to be accounted for in the overall GVRW and payload. How many times does it take to get this through your head. But you did try numerous times to take the thread of course because you were wrong. But again as I said the SAE tests for the payload on half tons include stuff the 3/4tons don't which you wouldn't accept. Because you kept brining up curb ratings which the SAE includes passengers but Curb weight does not. Has it sunk in yet. And this was the reason the 1/2ton had higher over payload capacity compared to the maxed out 3/4 capacity. It's pretty simple to understand. 

Here you go

1/2ton payload includes driver and passenger 
3/4ton payload does not include driver and passenger 

They have to be deducted from payload capacity on 3/4ton and about.


----------



## Calidecks (Nov 19, 2011)

BCConstruction said:


> Is that not what I said. Your curb weight is how ever your vehicle is equipped when on the curb. If you added a toolbox and the trucks on the curb its the trucks curb weight. That has to be accounted for in the overall GVRW and payload. How many times does it take to get this through your head. But you did try numerous times to take the thread of course because you were wrong. But again as I said the SAE tests for the payload on half tons include stuff the 3/4tons don't which you wouldn't accept. Because you kept brining up curb ratings which the SAE includes passengers but Curb weight does not. Has it sunk in yet. And this was the reason the 1/2ton had higher over payload capacity compared to the maxed out 3/4 capacity. It's pretty simple to understand.
> 
> Here you go
> 
> ...


That's not how curb wieght is officially calculated. Curb wieght is the vehicle with nothing in it. You can worm your way out of it but you screwed up on the terminology, got very nasty calling me names and this and that and the whole time your definition of curb wieght isn't anywhere near the same as the manufacturers. 

Here's the definition of curb weight set by the environmental protection agency

Curb weight
Curb weight (US English) or kerb weight (UK English) is the total weight of a vehicle with standard equipment, all necessary operating consumables such as motor oil, transmission oil, coolant, air conditioning refrigerant, and a full tank of fuel, while not loaded with either passengers or cargo.


----------



## Robie (Feb 25, 2005)

This may turn into a real bad situation for all of Germany and lots of Europe. Just read an article that said the automotive industry accounts for 25% of the country's output with all connected businesses considered.


----------



## Calidecks (Nov 19, 2011)

They're liars and cheats. Even though it may not be a big deal with consumers it is certainly scandalous. I can't believe it's all there is either.


----------



## The Coastal Craftsman (Jun 29, 2009)

Californiadecks said:


> That's not how curb wieght is officially calculated. Curb wieght is the vehicle with nothing in it. You can worm your way out of it but you screwed up on the terminology, got very nasty calling me names and this and that and the whole time your definition of curb wieght isn't anywhere near the same as the manufacturers.
> 
> Here's the definition of curb weight at by the environmental protection agency
> 
> ...



Are you even reading my replies or just spouting of the same crap. 

That's exactly what I'm saying. What's clear mike is your gonna keep trying to make it seem like your right but anyone reading my replies except you gets it. 

I'm not sure exactly how many times it's gonna take. 

Here you go again let's try another way. Your curb weight on 3/4 tons does not include passengers. It only includes what ever equipment is in that vehicle. As an example anything that's always in there. Bed liners, pens, jump leads etc etc. these have to be deducted from your gvrw to get your payload capacity as well as driver and passenger. 

The payload for the 1/2 tons is now tested to SAE standards so the payload you see advertised is including passenger and driver. That's 300lbs the 3/4 does not account for so to get a comparison of payload capacity you have to deduct the same 300lbs from the 3/4 ton payload as its not included in the curb weight. Only your standard equipment is like I said the stuff that's always in there. 

I'm starting to think you just ain't got a clue about anything mike. You just can't comprehend simple things like this. Even when the facts are there to read for your self.


----------



## Calidecks (Nov 19, 2011)

BCConstruction said:


> Are you even reading my replies or just spouting of the same crap.
> 
> That's exactly what I'm saying. What's clear mike is your gonna keep trying to make it seem like your right but anyone reading my replies except you gets it.
> 
> ...


You said curb wieght includes my pencils, it don't. End of story


----------



## Calidecks (Nov 19, 2011)

Californiadecks said:


> You said curb wieght includes my pencils, it don't. End of story


If I added a toolbox and the truck is on the curb my curb wieght would be the truck minus the toolbox.


----------



## The Coastal Craftsman (Jun 29, 2009)

In a year it will be forgotten and the fix will prob still be in the works. 

I got some work from the owner of the local Audi dealership. I went in to see him about a deck and pergola He said business has been great as people are panicking that the cars will stop getting shipped here even though they are not affected models. Talk about panic buying.


----------



## Calidecks (Nov 19, 2011)

bcconstruction said:


> is that not what i said. your curb weight is how ever your vehicle is equipped when on the curb. If you added a toolbox and the trucks on the curb its the trucks curb weight.


this is simply not true.


----------



## The Coastal Craftsman (Jun 29, 2009)

Californiadecks said:


> If I added a toolbox and the truck is on the curb my curb wieght would be the truck minus the toolbox.



No it's not. Your curb weight is the total weight of the vehicle as it stands without passengers. Under your logic you could add 3000lb off tool boxes and it still leave you with 3000lb payload as the curb weight has not increased. Your payload is based off your curb weight. That's also why your payload is lower when people are in the car.


----------



## Calidecks (Nov 19, 2011)

BCConstruction said:


> No it's not. Your curb weight is the total weight of the vehicle as it stands without passengers. Under your logic you could add 3000lb off tool boxes and it still leave you with 3000lb payload as the curb weight has not increased. Your payload is based off your curb weight. That's also why your payload is lower when people are in the car.


But you said curb wieght includes pencils. You agree now that it doesn't, right?


----------



## The Coastal Craftsman (Jun 29, 2009)

Californiadecks said:


> this is simply not true.



Prove it to me then by explaining how your payload is figured out. I can't wait to hear this.


----------



## The Coastal Craftsman (Jun 29, 2009)

Californiadecks said:


> :laughing::laughing:



I laughed at that too when I read it again. But hang on I did miss something in your favor. You have a better track saw than me. Hang on you don't because I got the TS75 too. But TS55 V's your Mafell you win.


----------



## Calidecks (Nov 19, 2011)

BCConstruction said:


> It's happened more times than I can be bothered to list. Did you know that almost every company has been caught sending reprogrammed cars for reviews. It's not at all uncommon. Ford have done it, Nissan have done, Toyota has done it, GM has done it there's hardly any who have not.
> 
> As if I get like this with anything I own. You have tried this before and that didn't end good for you did it so let's do it again.
> 
> ...


Why do you feel the need to defend them so much? You've come in on every post in their defense. Your so the same with Ford, cesspool. Now it's VW/Audi, if someone besides yourself disses them. You look foolish, because for whatever reason you take it personally. Then when I mention it you feel the need to put me down call me a loser and everything else. If that's not an ego problem,I don't know what is. 

Good gawd man step back and have a look at yourself you should be embarrassed. :laughing:


----------



## The Coastal Craftsman (Jun 29, 2009)

*Would This VW Diesel Issue Bother You?*



Californiadecks said:


> Why do you feel the need to defend them so much. You've come in on every post in their defense. Your so the same with Ford, cesspool. Now it's VW/Audi, if someone besides yourself disses them. You look foolish, because for whatever reason you take it personally. Then when I mention it you feel the need to put me down call me a loser and everything else. If that's not an who ego problem, don't know what is.
> 
> Good gawd man step back and have a look at yourself you should be embarrassed. :laughing:



I'm not defending them though and I think people who bought the car because it was better for the environment should be able to get compensation and even their money back on the car. 

I just think it's stupid how it's being blown up so big because they sold people a car that got better fuel efficiency that was stated by about 20%+ and saved them doing def deletes after warranties up whilst still having factory warranty. Wish I could remap mine and keep warranty Which saved them about $1500-$2000 in the delete alone and the saving on the fuel they saved and they didn't get charged any extra for this. 

And I just told you Audi lied to me the same as VW did so that's not defending them. It's no joke either. They said I would have 450hp and 410TQ with 25mpg. That's what I expected to get but them idiots gave me nearly 500hp and 450TQ and 27mpg. 

I'm waiting on the government to figure out they gave me more than I paid for like that TDI and do a recall to reduce my MPG and power back to stock like the TDI's are getting.

Ok I'm stepping back. My stuffs still better than yours even at this distance.


----------



## The Coastal Craftsman (Jun 29, 2009)

Bro just send me this lol


----------



## Calidecks (Nov 19, 2011)

From my local paper

"The U.S. government does not require vehicle owners to fix cars with open recalls. But because the affected cars emit from 10 to 40 times the legal limit of nitrogen oxides, it’s likely California and/or the federal government will enact legislation requiring proof the car has been fixed before it can be sold or registered to another buyer".


----------



## Leo G (May 12, 2005)

My emissions test doesn't even list NOx. Just CO and HC

My HC are 7ppm with a limit of 300ppm. So 40x 7 is 280...PASS

My CO at idle, which was the worst of the 2 readings was .04 with a limit of 1.60. So 40x .04 is 1.60 PASS...barely.

It certainly is in the upper range, but still legal.


----------



## Calidecks (Nov 19, 2011)

Leo G said:


> My emissions test doesn't even list NOx. Just CO and HC
> 
> My HC are 7ppm with a limit of 300ppm. So 40x 7 is 280...PASS
> 
> ...


Isn't that set by each state? If so I'm pretty sure California standards are the highest in the nation. I got that excerpt from the Orange County Register.


----------



## The Coastal Craftsman (Jun 29, 2009)

Californiadecks said:


> From my local paper
> 
> "The U.S. government does not require vehicle owners to fix cars with open recalls. But because the affected cars emit from 10 to 40 times the legal limit of nitrogen oxides, it’s likely California and/or the federal government will enact legislation requiring proof the car has been fixed before it can be sold or registered to another buyer".



I don't doubt California would do that either. Make a bunch of laws affecting the seller even if It was not their fault. Highly unlikely they will though as it will open a can of worms because it's already passing emissions at levels below many other vehicles on the road so do you make all the other people with vehicles worse than that also get a fix. It's like a double slap to the face of Diesel owners.


----------



## Leo G (May 12, 2005)

Californiadecks said:


> Isn't that set by each state? If so I'm pretty sure California standards are the highest in the nation. I got that excerpt from the Orange County Register.


All I know is what's on the test results. You should have yours in the glovebox. Why don't you take a look?


----------



## The Coastal Craftsman (Jun 29, 2009)

Californiadecks said:


> Isn't that set by each state? If so I'm pretty sure California standards are the highest in the nation. I got that excerpt from the Orange County Register.



Well some states don't require any testing but there's no doubt in my mind that California would be one of the strictest if not the strictest of any states.


----------



## Calidecks (Nov 19, 2011)

BCConstruction said:


> I don't doubt California would do that either. Make a bunch of laws affecting the seller even if It was not their fault. Highly unlikely they will though as it will open a can of worms because it's already passing emissions at levels below many other vehicles on the road so do you make all the other people with vehicles worse than that also get a fix. It's like a double slap to the face of Diesel owners.


Any slap in the face can be directly blamed on VW/Audi. Had they not of gotten greedy and been idiots, there would be no can of worms, period!


----------



## The Coastal Craftsman (Jun 29, 2009)

Californiadecks said:


> Any slap in the face can be directly blamed on VW/Audi. Had they not of gotten greedy and been idiots there would be no can of worms, period!



That's why I said it's a double slap in the face. I never been a fan of Diesel engines but after this I'm even less of a fan. They gonna get such strict rules on them now they will be getting less miles than a E85 ford model T.


----------



## 91782 (Sep 6, 2012)

http://prospect.org/article/road-hazard-millions-autos-us-highways-recalled-not-repaired

"In California, if a vehicle owner fails to respond to an energy emission recall notice or the car fails to meet the state standard, the owner’s registration renewal will be denied until the repair is complete."


----------



## Calidecks (Nov 19, 2011)

SmallTownGuy said:


> http://prospect.org/article/road-hazard-millions-autos-us-highways-recalled-not-repaired
> 
> "In California, if a vehicle owner fails to respond to an energy emission recall notice or the car fails to meet the state standard, the owner’s registration renewal will be denied until the repair is complete."


And there's 30,000 of those cars in Cali


----------



## Leo G (May 12, 2005)

Has there been a recall on them yet?


----------



## The Coastal Craftsman (Jun 29, 2009)

*Would This VW Diesel Issue Bother You?*



SmallTownGuy said:


> http://prospect.org/article/road-hazard-millions-autos-us-highways-recalled-not-repaired
> 
> 
> 
> "In California, if a vehicle owner fails to respond to an energy emission recall notice or the car fails to meet the state standard, the owner’s registration renewal will be denied until the repair is complete."



That should be a Law in every state and not just for emissions but for major drive train issues too.


----------



## The Coastal Craftsman (Jun 29, 2009)

Leo G said:


> Has there been a recall on them yet?



Not yet but it's coming. Doubt it will be a TSB either as it goes back to 2009 and all them cars are out of warranty.


----------



## Calidecks (Nov 19, 2011)

Dozens of VW and Audi diesel owners have already filed class-action lawsuits against the company. As an owner, “you don’t have to do anything affirmatively to join,” said Richard McCune, partner in the Redlands law firm McCuneWright LLP, which filed a class-action suit against Volkswagen on Monday. “That’s the beauty of a class action. If the court certifies it, everybody is grouped together.” McCune estimates as many as 200 class-action suits could eventually be filed against VW in multiple states. Those lawsuits are likely to be consolidated in federal court starting Dec. 3, when a judge is assigned to the case.


----------



## 91782 (Sep 6, 2012)

http://www.good4utah.com/news/local-news/recall-utah-volkswagen-dealers-say-dont-panic

*"Utah dealers say they are waiting on procedures to deal with the mandatory U.S. recall. "*

"Volkswagen has stopped selling the diesel cars in the U.S. until the issue is fixed. "

"Health officials are working with the EPA and Volkswagen to conduct the necessary testing. "


----------



## Calidecks (Nov 19, 2011)

If the device was so insignificant why would they think it was worth risking billions for? I think there's more to it than we know yet.


----------



## The Coastal Craftsman (Jun 29, 2009)

I'm interested to see how this goes as there's already few of my Familey members and friends asking how they can get money from VW even though they have no idea what's going on. All they hearing is lawyers and payouts. When I told them what it's all about they said they ai t bothered about fixing it they just want money lol. I wonder if I can get some cash for them lying about my cars power output. Flood gates are gonna open here.


----------



## Leo G (May 12, 2005)

So you come from a slimy family :blink:


----------



## 91782 (Sep 6, 2012)

Californiadecks said:


> If the device was so insignificant why would they think it was worth risking billions for? I think there's more to it than we know yet.


What is at issue is the trade off between drive-ability and emissions standards.

Volkswagen wanted to be elite today for what would HAVE to be a epic spanking down the road.

And the other mfrs will get dragged in, and its gonna get real nasty.

Worse, the EPA is going to get seriously scrutinized for having not considered the possibility of such an obvious ploy.


----------



## The Coastal Craftsman (Jun 29, 2009)

Does this mean more strict emissions controls now though as these cars been passing since 2009. Even in Cali they been passing so I bet we see a hard push on emissions testing standards to be more strict. Damn my wife's 2006 Mazda only barely made it through emission inspections. What happens with cars in that band where they only barely make it and there's nothing you can do to make them burn cleaner other than new engines.


----------



## The Coastal Craftsman (Jun 29, 2009)

Leo G said:


> So you come from a slimy family :blink:



Yeah a few of them are to be honest. Out for what they can get kind of people.


----------



## Calidecks (Nov 19, 2011)

BCConstruction said:


> Does this mean more strict emissions controls now though as these cars been passing since 2009. Even in Cali they been passing so I bet we see a hard push on emissions testing standards to be more strict. Damn my wife's 2006 Mazda only barely made it through emission inspections. What happens with cars in that band where they only barely make it and there's nothing you can do to make them burn cleaner other than new engines.


I can tell you that until the cars are giving accurate readings, they will be considered as failed. (Meaning having no "cheating device") They're not going to say, "well, normally you would pass so we don't need a current test". What other cars since 2009 have been doing is completely irrelevant.


----------



## The Coastal Craftsman (Jun 29, 2009)

Californiadecks said:


> I can tell you that until the cars are giving accurate readings, they will be considered as failed. (Meaning having no "cheating device") They're not going to say, "well, normally you would pass so we don't need a current test". What other cars since 2009 have been doing is completely irrelevant.



They are giving accurate readings. They just don't give accurate readings to the testers who gave them their ratings for efficiency ratings on the window sticker. 

VW knew the testing procedure these people put the car through. Sensors plugged in here and here and here and here, front wheels not rolling but back wheels rolling, no steering input, specific RPM's etc etc. this is why when they tested on the road they thought their figures were messed up as they were different to the lab conditions. On an inspection in our state they just stick a prob in the exhaust. The car does not know its being tested in this scenario and acts like it does any other day of the week and it's emissions are low enough to pass. Basically the car was programmed to only run in the lean mode when on a rolling road with all the parameters hit and then it would do its thing. 

The engine would destroy its self in a matter of hrs of it run in that mode full time.


----------



## Leo G (May 12, 2005)

BCConstruction said:


> Does this mean more strict emissions controls now though as these cars been passing since 2009. Even in Cali they been passing so I bet we see a hard push on emissions testing standards to be more strict. Damn my wife's 2006 Mazda only barely made it through emission inspections. What happens with cars in that band where they only barely make it and there's nothing you can do to make them burn cleaner other than new engines.


The cars have been passing because of the cheat systems.


----------



## BucketofSteam (Jun 16, 2013)

Californiadecks said:


> All that really matters none. I think what most people are pissed about is the fact that they are liars, cheats and basically thieves. When you lie to someone to get them to buy something from you, you're a thief as far as I'm concerned.
> 
> If the car was so damn good without the device then why did they need it? I'll answer that. It was greed. How stupid is that? All good and everthing unless you're one of the other automakers competing.


So why are you concerned with a few diesels not fitting arbitrarily decided numbers when there's thousands of container ships and tankers burning bunker fuel at a rate that no car would ever be able to do?


----------



## TimelessQuality (Sep 23, 2007)

No Leo they've passed because they are clean enough for today's standards. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## blacktop (Oct 28, 2012)

I heard today what this VW fuss was all about . 


I think it was Genius !!! I just think It's a shame they got caught !


----------



## The Coastal Craftsman (Jun 29, 2009)

*Would This VW Diesel Issue Bother You?*



Leo G said:


> The cars have been passing because of the cheat systems.



Not true. The company doing the tests published their results and how it defeated the tests.

It was running in Lean mode which is very bad for Diesel engines just like wash down is. The nature of the tune means it can't run for more than a few mins before damage happens. 

My brother was a master tech for VW. He read the report. He's the one who told me about it about a year ago.


----------



## Leo G (May 12, 2005)

TimelessQuality said:


> No Leo they've passed because they are clean enough for today's standards.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Then what's the big hub bub about?


----------



## 91782 (Sep 6, 2012)

BucketofSteam said:


> So why are you concerned with a few diesels not fitting arbitrarily decided numbers when there's thousands of container ships and tankers burning bunker fuel at a rate that no car would ever be able to do?


Or, how about NASCAR?

Because every vehicle manufactured is supposed to meet those same "arbitrarily decided numbers".

Because the topic is vehicles not container ships.

Because 60% of all fossil fuels in the USA is consumed by light vehicles.

That said: a single container ship is said to produce harmful emissions equivalent to 50 million automobiles, and altogether may be responsible for as many as 60,000 premature deaths worldwide.


----------



## The Coastal Craftsman (Jun 29, 2009)

Leo G said:


> Then what's the big hub bub about?



That they cheated on the tests which all cars have to abide by. Basically like cheating on an exam is a simple way to put it. Once in the hands of the consumer the system that cheated would never activate. That's why that test company took so long to figure it out. The program only functioned under a specific set of rules. Almost like a virus


----------



## The Coastal Craftsman (Jun 29, 2009)

SmallTownGuy said:


> Or, how about NASCAR?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Saying fossil fuels don't dial in on this specific issue. Them experts on the news said 98% of the emissions which VW are being pulled for are made by big rigs and that even adding the filters to the VW wouldn't even make a blip on the radar but the C02 increase would be in the millions of tons so the fix is a bad thing not a good thing. 

It's all political they want to go after them because they skirted around the EPA rules for new vehicles.


----------



## Leo G (May 12, 2005)

All they care about is the money from the fines. If they really cared they'd just force them to fix it. But they'll do both. Large fine and make them fix it.


----------



## The Coastal Craftsman (Jun 29, 2009)

Leo G said:


> All they care about is the money from the fines. If they really cared they'd just force them to fix it. But they'll do both. Large fine and make them fix it.



They will def fine them. Gonna be a bunch of big wigs in EPA getting a nice bonus this year. Making people fix it will be difficult in every state event CA. That nazi state has got lock down on making people do **** they don't want to do. Some states don't even test emissions so they can't really say anything.


----------



## Calidecks (Nov 19, 2011)

BucketofSteam said:


> So why are you concerned with a few diesels not fitting arbitrarily decided numbers when there's thousands of container ships and tankers burning bunker fuel at a rate that no car would ever be able to do?


I don't care what they spew. Absolutely means nothing to me. I don't like liars cheats and thieves. You can add idiots to that as well


----------



## Calidecks (Nov 19, 2011)

There's a lot of laws I don't agree with, but I have to abide by them. Especially in business. You can't have a company skewing the playing field, to out sell the competition.


----------

