House Republicans ready Volkswagen bailout vote

[bonejob]

Where the frak did I say I was entitled to it?! What I said is that there is precedence from both Toyota and Chrysler for buybacks.

Your reading comprehension sucks.

Your long tirade about legal precedent and people wanting the car they paid for led me there.

What sealed it for me was your expression of your unwillingness to accept what you anticipate as Volkswagen's patch-job jury-rigged fix. You want VW to buy back all the affected cars for them to fix and resell as the market will allow.

All this, plus the self-righteous tone, spoke to a sense of entitlement on your part.

MY reading comprehension sucks? Funny... I've been thinking the same about you all along. You've misread everything I've written as personal attacks when they were not.

Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk

 

[jinjuku]

It's easy to infer. It's been years since anyone has gotten a new VW TDI off the lot for anything near that money. He didn't explicitly say it, but he didn't have to.

You are out of your mind with the distances you are jumping inference wise.

He made no allusion to used or new. Nada.

So what? Ordinary people do illegal things every day, from exceeding the speed limit to cheating on their taxes to aiming lasers at passing aircraft.

And those individuals can get caught and dealt with appropriately. Remember VW got away with this on a massive 11 million vehicle scale for ~6 years.

Keep doing something intentionally wrong, enough times and long enough, you too will be caught.

You too are making an assumption, that by pointing out hypocrisy, I am referring to you and others here personally. I am NOT!

I'm merely conversing in the context of this thread and my direct experience. You're making accusations and whomever you are making them against aren't here to answer you in response.

So since we have a very limited audience here and you are indeed speaking directly to me... I'm answering in the reciprocal. I don't find that unfair. My personal interactions with other VW owners is that they aren't likening this to GM deaths or a Civil War in Syria.

Nor did I ever say that you or anyone here chipped their vehicles, nor did I say anyone here approved of the practice.

But I did say that many people do it with little public outcry.

That depends on what the chipping does. There are platitudes of grey. I have a friend that chipped his Cruze for better fuel economy. It didn't negatively impact the emissions and cause it to fall out of compliance. He's in a jurisdiction with E-Check.

From this lack of public outcry and the apparent lack of will in the law enforcement community to vigorously enforce the laws, that seems to show that society as a whole really doesn't object to these practices very much.

But it clearly objects most vigorously when Volkswagen essentially does the same thing.

I think we can agree there are clear differences between individuals doing this and a manufacturer doing this on a massive, years long, scale.

I'm curious about how many chipped vehicles are out there. Is it in the Ten's of Thousands? Maybe a Hundred Thousand/s? I doubt millions. Neither makes it right.

As for everything else I'll let our respective posts speak for themselves.

 

[jinjuku]

Your long tirade about legal precedent and people wanting the car they paid for led me there.

What sealed it for me was your expression of your unwillingness to accept what you anticipate as Volkswagen's patch-job jury-rigged fix. You want VW to buy back all the affected cars for them to fix and resell as the market will allow.

All this, plus the self-righteous tone, spoke to a sense of entitlement on your part.

MY reading comprehension sucks? Funny... I've been thinking the same about you all along. You've misread everything I've written as personal attacks when they were not.

Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk

Anything about a VW fix is conjecture. The talk about not being able to make my generation VW compliant is from various 'News Outlets'.

If I'm self righteous then you are arrogant in all your presumptions. I can live with my self-righteous tone.

Arrogance is telling someone that purchased product A only to find out they actually got product B that they are whiny hypocrites when they have the audacity to actually speak their mind on the matter.

In the end my Jetta is paid off, it drives, it's resale value took a good hit, so I and 482,000 others basically are upside down in a vehicle in the real sense that they paid and owe more than it's worth.

I've already spoke with people that recently purchased that let the bank already have the car back.

 

[bonejob]

Anything about a VW fix is conjecture. The talk about not being able to make my generation VW compliant is from various 'News Outlets'.

If I'm self righteous then you are arrogant in all your presumptions. I can live with my self-righteous tone.

Arrogance is telling someone that purchased product A only to find out they actually got product B that they are whiny hypocrites when they have the audacity to actually speak their mind on the matter.

In the end my Jetta is paid off, it drives, it's resale value took a good hit, so I and 482,000 others basically are upside down in a vehicle in the real sense that they paid and owe more than it's worth.

I've already spoke with people that recently purchased that let the bank already have the car back.

Let's switch it up a bit. How many automakers game the EPA fuel economy rating protocols to show the best possible results on the EPA tests? I'll answer for you. ALL of them! Just one example,

I don't know anyone who owns a Toyota Prius who gets anywhere near the EPA fuel mileage numbers in real-world driving. Millions have purchased Priuses, paying a substantial premium for its "hybrid synergy technology," expecting a windfall in fuel savings, only to discover that their 21st century wonder doesn't get that much better mileage than the old Corolla they traded in to get it. In fact, it doesn't save enough in fuel over the normal lifespan of the vehicle to justify the price premium they paid.

This is a classic example of buying and expecting car A and instead getting car B. Should Prius owners sue to force Toyota to buy them back?

I don't know anyone whose new car does as well in real-world driving as their EPA fuel numbers. Is that fraud?

I just want to see where your head is, here.

The definition of being "upside down" on a car means that the car is worth less that the money still owed on the loan used to buy it.

Since your car is paid for, it doesn't meet that definition. A resale value that is less than you hoped for is not the same.

As for "paid and owe more than it's worth," of COURSE you paid more than it's worth. The down payment plus loan amount plus interest is ALWAYS more than the car is worth from the minute you drive it off the lot! And it only gets worse over time.

A car is not real estate nor is it any kind of investment. A car is a consumer product that is used up and eventually discarded. You will NEVER, even under the best conditions get your money out of it. You will ALWAYS take a hit.

You've paid the car off. If you sell it now, the amount you get for it may not be what you hoped, but it is essentially gravy.

I really don't see how you have been damaged. Not enough to justify the cost and headache of a lawsuit. And beware of class-action lawsuits. Typically, the lawyers make a killing, but the many complainants get pennies on the dollar. A real scam. Beware when law firms advertise their class-action law suits on TV. Avoid it like ebola.

As for those who are still paying for their cars, they will be upside down for most of the duration of their loan term in any case, until what they still owe is less than the car's market value.



Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk

 

[Chu Gai]

My wife had a first gen Prius to commute to work from her job. She routinely got 46+ mpg without coddling it.

 

[bonejob]

My wife had a first gen Prius to commute to work from her job. She routinely got 46+ mpg without coddling it.

(This will be a bit off-thread; I apologize in advance. But you challenged me, so I will answer.)

If she gets that mileage, more power to her. But I don't think that is typical. Yes, 46mpg is very good, but I've done the math. That figure is not enough better than a much cheaper Corolla to make it worth nearly twice the money. Over 10 years, you would be unlikely to save enough in fuel to justify the price premium.

BTW, 46+mpg is still significantly less than the EPA rating. The EPA rating on a Prius is 54mpg city, 50 mpg highway - figures that, if met in real-world driving, would enable one to just about break even, but you wouldn't be ahead.

I'm not here to beat up on Prius owners who like their cars. To each his or her own.

But speaking only for myself, forgetting altogether about mileage, when I was last looking for a car, I test drove a Prius and just wasn't that impressed with it. The well-equipped one I drove was priced close to entry-level Audi or BMW. But it drove no better than a typical Japanese economy pod - competent for sure, but not especially enjoyable. For that money, I'd better be able to enjoy driving it.

After I did the math, I concluded the gas savings not only didn't add up financially, they would be cold comfort, unable to compensate for paying that much for a car that is fundamentally just average.



Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk

 

[shadyJ]

The first gen Prius MPG tended to hover around the 40 something range, and they have since improved. I would not be surprised if current Priuses were able to do 50 MPG plus. And remember that gas prices will not stay low forever.

 

[Chu Gai]

(This will be a bit off-thread; I apologize in advance. But you challenged me, so I will answer.)

If she gets that mileage, more power to her. But I don't think that is typical. Yes, 46mpg is very good, but I've done the math. That figure is not enough better than a much cheaper Corolla to make it worth nearly twice the money. Over 10 years, you would be unlikely to save enough in fuel to justify the price premium.

As I stated, it was a company car and fuel and maintenance were not her responsibility. Also, I think at that time, there were gov't subsidies which brought the cost down. Mileage is but one way to compare cars. The Prius was very torquey, quiet, and merged well. It was a pity that a flat bed truck in NYC decided to back up into her.

BTW, 46+mpg is still significantly less than the EPA rating. The EPA rating on a Prius is 54mpg city, 50 mpg highway - figures that, if met in real-world driving, would enable one to just about break even, but you wouldn't be ahead.

Yes it is and I think everyone is aware that the EPA ratings for all cars reflects an artificial condition. Fortunately, there is no shortage of publications who test cars.

I'm not here to beat up on Prius owners who like their cars. To each his or her own.

But speaking only for myself, forgetting altogether about mileage, when I was last looking for a car, I test drove a Prius and just wasn't that impressed with it. The well-equipped one I drove was priced close to entry-level Audi or BMW. But it drove no better than a typical Japanese economy pod - competent for sure, but not especially enjoyable. For that money, I'd better be able to enjoy driving it.

Agreed. Not all prioritize the same way. As I see it, hybrids may tout fuel savings but I see it as a way to enhance performance.

After I did the math, I concluded the gas savings not only didn't add up financially, they would be cold comfort, unable to compensate for paying that much for a car that is fundamentally just average.



Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk

I think the wife's next car will be a Subaru but she's got some testing to do.

 

[bonejob]

As I stated, it was a company car and fuel and maintenance were not her responsibility. Also, I think at that time, there were gov't subsidies which brought the cost down. Mileage is but one way to compare cars. The Prius was very torquey, quiet, and merged well. It was a pity that a flat bed truck in NYC decided to back up into her.


Yes it is and I think everyone is aware that the EPA ratings for all cars reflects an artificial condition. Fortunately, there is no shortage of publications who test cars.


Agreed. Not all prioritize the same way. As I see it, hybrids may tout fuel savings but I see it as a way to enhance performance.


I think the wife's next car will be a Subaru but she's got some testing to do.

The only reason I brought it up in the first place is because I wanted to point out that no one gets very upset about the universal practice of automakers' gaming the EPA fuel economy testing protocols to deceive customers about the fuel economy they can expect. But when one automaker (so far) is caught gaming EPA emissions testing protocols, people want their heads on spikes.

I know people on this thread are offended by this notion, but it still looks to me like an inconsistent application of ethical standards, which fits the definition of hypocrisy.

Also, it raises my eyebrows a bit to hear someone use the words "performance" and "Prius" in the same paragraph!

The Prius is good as a transportation appliance, but by no stretch is the Prius driving experience on a par with a VW GTI, let alone an A4-series Audi or 3-series BMW, which cost only a little bit more similarly equipped. Indeed, the price of a fully optioned Prius tickles the bottom side of C-class Mercedes territory. If I'm paying that much for a car, a good transportation appliance with top-notch fuel economy is not enough for me.

BTW, Subaru makes an excellent car. I would take any Subaru over any Toyota.

Subarus are reliable, economical, interesting and full of character. Toyotas are reliable, economical and sooooo... pedestrian.

Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk

 

[Chu Gai]

VW cheated though and deceived regulators and consumers. No one likes a cheat. As to the other point, that's why God made all different kinds of titties.

 

[jinjuku]

Last time I checked we weren't talking about yet another EPA joke (how they determine mileage) but the other joke where manufactures are allowed to self certify their emissions and then collectively sell big ticket items based on a lie.

 

[Chu Gai]

Well, not only that, but when the vehicles are tested, the software senses the conditions and makes adjustments to the system. I guess all those wings the engineers were getting will now be recalled.

 

[jinjuku]

Well, not only that, but when the vehicles are tested, the software senses the conditions and makes adjustments to the system. I guess all those wings the engineers were getting will now be recalled.

No, just enable the software cheat where the wings turn red and they have little horns on their heads.

 

[ParadigmDawg]

VW Lawyer: Some Cars Not Fixable, Buy Back Possible

"Those cars would likely be older cars, fitted with Volkswagen’s EA189 engines, which Volkswagen of America boss Michael Horn told Congress in October would need significant hardware revisions to bring into compliance — without any severe impacts on performance and fuel economy."

Volkswagen Lawyer: Automaker May Buy Back Unfixable Cars

This might be their first admission that performance and fuel economy can be severely affected with a fix. But of course we already knew that

 

[Chu Gai]

Buy back at what price?

 

[ParadigmDawg]

Buy back at what price?

It's all about cost. Making EA189 engines compliant requires significant hardware changes and they decided that it's just cheaper to buy those back.
The urea-based vehicles will not be that expensive to fix because it is mostly a software flash...but ensuing performance, fuel economy and reliability is unknown at this time.

Remember that a "hardware fix" also means extensive tool and die costs, testing equipment, all sorts of expenses before they even get to the point of saying "this will cost $1800 to make, $200 to ship, $1800 to install, another $200 for a loaner car...four grand per car plus amortizing the development costs and possible warranty expenses..."

So it may just be there are so few cars affected, that it is cheaper, if not simpler, to just buy them back.

After all, if VW hasn't really offended those customers, they'll buy new VW's (or Audi's, whatever) and part of the new purchase price will come back into VW as profit, rather than just pure expenses.

 

[jinjuku]

Buy back at what price?

I doubt 06/2015 Market Value is going to fly simply for the reason anyone can sell their car at any time for market value.

I thought when Chrysler had to buy back a bunch of trucks it was at fair market value plus 20% of the MSRP. But that involved typical poor engineering at Chrysler. Not a systemic attempt at gaming the system.

I don't know if buy back at what people paid originally is fair or not. I honestly received 51 months of use out of the car. But if VW is going to give me the purchase price back at the end of 2016 I certainly will count myself more than lucky.

The next question is if there is a buy back what is my next car?

Honestly been looking at the Hyundai Azera. You can get 2014 models with 40K on them for $16-17K. That still leaves you as the 2nd owner with a little bit of factory warranty.

 

[ParadigmDawg]

I doubt 06/2015 Market Value is going to fly simply for the reason anyone can sell their car at any time for market value.

I thought when Chrysler had to buy back a bunch of trucks it was at fair market value plus 20% of the MSRP. But that involved typical poor engineering at Chrysler. Not a systemic attempt at gaming the system.

I don't know if buy back at what people paid originally is fair or not. I honestly received 51 months of use out of the car. But if VW is going to give me the purchase price back at the end of 2016 I certainly will count myself more than lucky.

The next question is if there is a buy back what is my next car?

Honestly been looking at the Hyundai Azera. You can get 2014 models with 40K on them for $16-17K. That still leaves you as the 2nd owner with a little bit of factory warranty.

I am honestly fine if Audi just gives me their Owner Compensation and it falls somewhere between what Porsche has offered and what VW has offered. Honestly there is not another car on the market at this time that would suit me as much as the Q5 TDI.

I will just let all this play out, the value on my car will go back up and then I will decide what I want next. I was "done" with Audi but now that they are discussing bringing a RSQ5 to the American market, I would be all over that. Over 450 HP in a small luxury SUV is what I am all about. If not I may go with the Macan S or GTS or a Range Rover since they now have the reliability back up. The new Jag F-Pace will need a good hard look too after the second year they have been on market.

I am purchasing one more cool car and then getting something I can keep through retirement.

 

[TheWarrior]

I am honestly fine if Audi just gives me their Owner Compensation and it falls somewhere between what Porsche has offered and what VW has offered. Honestly there is not another car on the market at this time that would suit me as much as the Q5 TDI.

I will just let all this play out, the value on my car will go back up and then I will decide what I want next. I was "done" with Audi but now that they are discussing bringing a RSQ5 to the American market, I would be all over that. Over 450 HP in a small luxury SUV is what I am all about. If not I may go with the Macan S or GTS or a Range Rover since they now have the reliability back up. The new Jag F-Pace will need a good hard look too after the second year they have been on market.

I am purchasing one more cool car and then getting something I can keep through retirement.

But that's the 3.0L TDI right? I thought it was only the 2.0L that was cheating...

 

[herbu]

I don't have a dog in this hunt, but I'm curious. Do these cars really NEED to be "fixed"? What happens if they are not? I suppose some level of air pollution beyond what was advertised. Is there any way to put a value on that additional pollution? (I know a certain "carbon tax" has already been discussed.)

Is there a way to "clean" an amount of car or factory emissions roughly equal to the additional emissions from VW? Even if the current cars are driven as-is to their normal end of life?

I'm trying to look at this thing in 3 pieces:
1) Prevent future, (new car), occurrence
2) Fix the environmental damage done, (paid for via a fine on VW)
3) Punitive, (additional fine on VW)

Just wondering.