Petrol vehicles now added to VW scandal - Page 2

**Beastie** · 18-11-2015, 01:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mik

your obviously not an asthmatic, dirty diesel fumes seem to have a nasty effect , and we are not talking small amount of emissions past the legal limit , up to 40 times more , they need their asses kicked good and proper, if you think its ok to let them get away with it ......... perhaps you should have another think about it.

You're right, I'm not asthmatic and my comments are not targeted towards anyone who is - please also note that this thread is discussing petrol vehicles, not diesels.

I also acknowledge that the whole thing started with the diesels.

My point was, nobody knew what was going on 3 months ago and now it's everyone's problem?

What would have happened if the uni students didn't discover the problem - nothing!

Would we be having this discussion? - No!

Would VW (or any other brand) be blamed for the worlds "emissions" problems? No!

I can't help but feel that today's society is 'looking' for the next person to blame or the next law suit.

What VW did was wrong, but if it wasn't discovered, "who cares" or perhaps should I have said "who knew"

Romulus · 18-11-2015, 01:19 AM

Might be time to buy VW shares. In 6 months time no one will give a stuff.

mik · 18-11-2015, 09:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Beast

You're right, I'm not asthmatic and my comments are not targeted towards anyone who is - please also note that this thread is discussing petrol vehicles, not diesels.

I also acknowledge that the whole thing started with the diesels.

My point was, nobody knew what was going on 3 months ago and now it's everyone's problem?

What would have happened if the uni students didn't discover the problem - nothing!

Would we be having this discussion? - No!

Would VW (or any other brand) be blamed for the worlds "emissions" problems? No!

I can't help but feel that today's society is 'looking' for the next person to blame or the next law suit.

What VW did was wrong, but if it wasn't discovered, "who cares" or perhaps should I have said "who knew"

Point taken, I guess someone would have stumbled across it eventually.

Yellow_Festiva · 18-11-2015, 10:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mik

Point taken, I guess someone would have stumbled across it eventually.

I'm wondering... did a bunch of people sit in an office and calculate that the profits from sales with vehicles with fudged figures outweighs the costs involved with making them compliant and the drop in sales due to lower power outputs and performance????

Did they choose to just keep going till they were caught because it was better for the bottom line?

99AUXR · 18-11-2015, 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SumoDog68

No hate here , I just see discrepancies in my own displayed vs calculated figures and generally displayed ones are optimistic. I don't think I ever matched manufacturers figures - must be my driving style :-)

No worries bro, just more of a collective term

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Beast

You're right, I'm not asthmatic and my comments are not targeted towards anyone who is - please also note that this thread is discussing petrol vehicles, not diesels.

I also acknowledge that the whole thing started with the diesels.

My point was, nobody knew what was going on 3 months ago and now it's everyone's problem?

What would have happened if the uni students didn't discover the problem - nothing!

Would we be having this discussion? - No!

Would VW (or any other brand) be blamed for the worlds "emissions" problems? No!

I can't help but feel that today's society is 'looking' for the next person to blame or the next law suit.

What VW did was wrong, but if it wasn't discovered, "who cares" or perhaps should I have said "who knew"

So why even have rules if they don't mean anything? I care, just because they didn't play fair everyone else has to. The problem is not enough people care about emissions so it just gets ignored.

FGX335 · 18-11-2015, 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yellow_Festiva

I'm wondering... did a bunch of people sit in an office and calculate that the profits from sales with vehicles with fudged figures outweighs the costs involved with making them compliant and the drop in sales due to lower power outputs and performance????

Did they choose to just keep going till they were caught because it was better for the bottom line?

I heard that the boss at the time would tell someone to do something, and if it couldn't be done, threaten that there were plenty of other people who could. People worry about losing their jobs, are being asked to be fuel efficient, up on power, and down on emissions. You can't do it all, so you cut corners and end up in this mess.

Running a company that way was always going to get you in major trouble, blind Freddy could see it coming a mile away.

mik · 18-11-2015, 11:55 AM

If that is true , and the dudes he put the hard word to achieve the unachievable with the emissions did the job as required and made him look good to start with , he probably got a good bonus,
i wonder what they will do with him now if it turns out he is too blame for the current saga ?

tranquilized · 18-11-2015, 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yellow_Festiva

I'm wondering... did a bunch of people sit in an office and calculate that the profits from sales with vehicles with fudged figures outweighs the costs involved with making them compliant and the drop in sales due to lower power outputs and performance????

Did they choose to just keep going till they were caught because it was better for the bottom line?

Quote:

Originally Posted by FGX335

I heard that the boss at the time would tell someone to do something, and if it couldn't be done, threaten that there were plenty of other people who could. People worry about losing their jobs, are being asked to be fuel efficient, up on power, and down on emissions. You can't do it all, so you cut corners and end up in this mess.

Running a company that way was always going to get you in major trouble, blind Freddy could see it coming a mile away.

I've read similar explanations, and when you think about the way a company as massive as VAG is run you can understand how something like this could happen with very few people knowing about it.

Companies this size are usually, out of necessity, huge compartmentalised bureaucracies - each with their own assigned targets. The engineering group would have had their fuel efficiency, performance, and emissions targets along with a tight deadline.

It would seem they couldn't achieve it, so a group of lateral thinking chaps would have gotten together and come up with a solution - a very temporary and short lived solution as it turned out. It's not difficult to imagine virtually no one within the company except for those directly responsible knowing about the methods used. The people directly responsible would have received their bonuses, and probably jumped ship laughing all the way to the bank. And the rest is history.

castellan · 18-11-2015, 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrich

Its not about fuel economy its about the emissions the car releases........

It once was not about fuel economy and only some emissions but now it's also about fuel used as well.

b0son · 18-11-2015, 06:02 PM

http://www.msn.com/en-au/motoring/ne...cid=spartanntp

If they have to buy back affected vehicles, I cant see them surviving... surely? That would be an awful lot of money, more than they have?

superyob · 18-11-2015, 07:31 PM

Does anybody other than ecotards care whether V-Dubs pump out a bit more carbon??? How naughty of them, yawn...

Top_Ghia · 18-11-2015, 07:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by superyob

Does anybody other than ecotards care whether V-Dubs pump out a bit more carbon??? How naughty of them, yawn...

Yeah I do. I'm no greenie but its corporate fraud on a massive scale. It's also the air that we breath. Vdub sold these s***boxes claiming they are green and lean knowing full well that wasn't the case. Whoever signed off on this policy should go to prison.

99AUXR · 18-11-2015, 09:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Top_Ghia

Yeah I do. I'm no greenie but its corporate fraud on a massive scale. It's also the air that we breath. Vdub sold these s***boxes claiming they are green and lean knowing full well that wasn't the case. Whoever signed off on this policy should go to prison.

Thankyou, exactly how I feel.

Bossxr8 · 18-11-2015, 10:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by superyob

Does anybody other than ecotards care whether V-Dubs pump out a bit more carbon??? How naughty of them, yawn...

So they did the wrong thing, saved a lot of money in the process by not needing to fit certain emissions equipment, giving them an unfair advantage against their competitors while lying to buyers, and you think this is nothing?

Its fraud.

zilo · 18-11-2015, 10:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Silver Ghia

I can show you there is a car that betters the manufacturers specified fuel consumption figures:

For the FG X (I think the FG was slightly worse) Ford quotes per ADR81/02 for 6 speed manual 11.1 lt/100kms

Photo below shows my current average fuel consumption. Yesterday I was down in the city and came home along Mt Alexander Rd and Keilor Rd rather than the freeway, it was stop-start traffic therefore shows a little higher than the usual 10.1 lt/100km.

Sorry...can't let this one eyed post go unchallenged.

Your average speed is 54km/h?

You are comparing your fuel economy as being better than the test yet you aren't complying with the same test as they did?

So what do you think you have proven?

Nothing....take yours up to 120km/h like they do and report back on what your consumption is?

Bet you will get even worse than they did.

pottery beige · 18-11-2015, 10:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zilo

Sorry...can't let this one eyed post go unchallenged.

Your average speed is 54km/h?

You are comparing your fuel economy as being better than the test yet you aren't complying with the same test as they did?

So what do you think you have proven?

Nothing....take yours up to 120km/h like they do and report back on what your consumption is?

Bet you will get even worse than they did.

whats the magna pull @ $1.20

99AUXR · 18-11-2015, 11:12 PM

.....

**Silver Ghia** · 18-11-2015, 11:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zilo

Sorry...can't let this one eyed post go unchallenged.

Your average speed is 54km/h?

You are comparing your fuel economy as being better than the test yet you aren't complying with the same test as they did?

So what do you think you have proven?

Nothing....take yours up to 120km/h like they do and report back on what your consumption is?

Bet you will get even worse than they did.

I have shown that my car in everyday driving can easily better the published manufacturers fuel economy figure which people generally refer to. Regardless of how the published figure is derived.

Top_Ghia · 18-11-2015, 11:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 99AUXR

Pretty easy to get and average speed around 54km/h when driving around town. Unless you drive like an idiot that is. . .

It's pretty rare to see a car with such a high average speed. When customers complain about fuel economy the first thing I do is check the average speed. It's usually around 20-30 km/h.
An average of 54 is very high and indicates a lot of freeway or fast flowing driving.

**Silver Ghia** · 18-11-2015, 11:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Top_Ghia

It's pretty rare to see a car with such a high average speed. When customers complain about fuel economy the first thing I do is check the average speed. It's usually around 20-30 km/h.
An average of 54 is very high and indicates a lot of freeway or fast flowing driving.

I suppose that's why those people are complaining about their bad fuel economy then. They are stuck at traffic lights more often than not.

But with that sort of driving, the urban figure of 15 lt/100km would be more relevant to compare with, also published in the Ford website for the manual XR6.

And 54 isn't very high; I've seen around 70 with my BA Ghia; that was freeway driving with some stop start.

superyob · 18-11-2015, 11:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Top_Ghia

Yeah I do. I'm no greenie but its corporate fraud on a massive scale. It's also the air that we breath. Vdub sold these s***boxes claiming they are green and lean knowing full well that wasn't the case. Whoever signed off on this policy should go to prison.

I stand corrected! I did not think of that angle...

**russellw** · 19-11-2015, 08:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zilo

Sorry...can't let this one eyed post go unchallenged.

Your average speed is 54km/h?

You are comparing your fuel economy as being better than the test yet you aren't complying with the same test as they did?

So what do you think you have proven?

Nothing....take yours up to 120km/h like they do and report back on what your consumption is?

Bet you will get even worse than they did.

I'm not sorry and I'm not letting your crap go unchallenged.

The ADR37 test that we use to establish fuel consumption figures covers only 17.77 km at an average speed of 34.1 km/h and uses 95RON fuel for all petrol cars.

On that basis the figures supplied above are as representative of real world conditions as the ADR test - indeed they are probably harsher conditions.

Even if we actually start to use the NEDC standard it hardly gets much more onerous -

The NEDC entails putting the vehicle through four urban ECE-15 cycles and an extra-urban EUDC cycle. Each urban cycle lasts 200 seconds and covers 1.013 km at speeds of up to 50 km/h, averaging 18.7 km/h.

The single-phase EUDC extra-urban cycle is 400 seconds long, covers 6.955 km at speeds of up to 120 km/h. It averages out at 62.6 km/h however we are currently arguing for a modified EUDC in Australia (given the 120 km/h exceeds our open road speed limit) to lower maximum speed.

For fuel economy, the first four ECE-15 phases are combined to give the urban fuel consumption figures and the highway cycle comes from the last 400 seconds of the test. The combined-cycle figure comes from the entire 1200 second cycle, as do CO2 emissions figures.

Even using the unmodified Euro standard, the combined figure equates to an average speed of 33.58 km/h.

My EcoLPi betters it's quoted figures (12.4 Combined, 18.3 Urban, 9.0 Extra Urban) and has done pretty much since new and yes, I have an average speed that is much higher than the EUDC figure.

Russ

mik · 19-11-2015, 11:20 AM

I noticed lately vdub has been advertising like crazy , it won't surprise me if they actually sell a lot of cars despite the scandal, no doubt they will drop prices and a lot of people won't even think about it and will just buy a cheap new car regardless .
In any event people have short memories , so I would not expect the public outcry to last to long,
Tempting to put a tenner on it that in a few years time VW will have paid it's fines and be selling heaps ........ Business as usual.

**Silver Ghia** · 19-11-2015, 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mik

I noticed lately vdub has been advertising like crazy , it won't surprise me if they actually sell a lot of cars despite the scandal, no doubt they will drop prices and a lot of people won't even think about it and will just buy a cheap new car regardless .
In any event people have short memories , so I would not expect the public outcry to last to long,
Tempting to put a tenner on it that in a few years time VW will have paid it's fines and be selling heaps ........ Business as usual.

Yes, and the prices have already dropped considerably. The base Polo Trendline is currently around $8000 less (or ~33% less) than the Match that we bought 9 years ago.

Craig@AUDI · 19-11-2015, 12:43 PM

Trump · 19-11-2015, 06:53 PM

How about this nugget from Australia's version of Lionel Hutz:

http://www.theage.com.au/business/re...19-gl2zr8.html

**MR REKLAW** · 19-11-2015, 07:43 PM

So Basically after all carry on,this is how VW motors run.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_0xifuTqVA

wagnman · 19-11-2015, 08:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Silver Ghia

54 km/hr

Cool, thats much higher than my usual "combined" average km hence the great economy. Around brisbane my average kph rarely gets above 35kph lol

Seriously though my wife has a brand new range rover sport tdv6 which is rated as having a combined economy of 6.9 l/ 100 km but i camt get near that. As an example we regularly do runs from brisbane tp hervey bay to visit the rellies and if i reset the trip when leaving brisbane, drive the 350 odd kms to hervey bay, do a couple of short drives around hervey bay over the weekend (probably 50 to 60ks at most) then drive the 350 ks back to brisbane i generally hey 6.8 l/p 100 ks which in ky book if the car can supposedly do 6.9 l/ 100kms in "combined" driving i should be able to get way better on such a long motorway trip.

I'm not really complaining though because either way the car is awesome and gets crazy good economy regardless.

mooseman · 19-11-2015, 08:22 PM

So I work for a VW dealer and am happy to answer any questions anyone has. I'm not posting my own opinion piece on the matter because it will just end up in a stupid argument.

If anyone is interested that is...

Top_Ghia · 19-11-2015, 08:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mooseman

So I work for a VW dealer and am happy to answer any questions anyone has. I'm not posting my own opinion piece on the matter because it will just end up in a stupid argument.

If anyone is interested that is...

When will they have a fix?
Did you hear about the new lawsuit today? Class action is going after a full refund plus dollars for the fraud committed against its customers.
When a customer comes in for service are they informed their cars doesn't comply with emission laws and they risk heavy fines for driving it?
Do you feel bad about killing the whales?