because I really like the 2015 Golf TSI.
because I really like the 2015 Golf TSI.
What major company didn't "try to destroy the world"?
Hmm, point taken. At leas they use lube.
My friend is shopping for a car and I said to checkout the VW Golf, seemed good for him. And he said he wouldn't support a company that would do something like that and try to hide it.
It's a weird thing. VW isn't going away. I'm not sure at what point one can buy a car from them without it being a tacit admission that "I don't care too much how you behaved..."
Big companies do a lot of bad things, but I think there's some validity to the idea that taking your business elsewhere while public attention is on the behavior is a small, but where-it-counts ($$$, lest there be any confusion) indicator that behaving better might attract business.
In any case, I'm bummed for no TDI Sportwagen, but I'm excited about the Mini. Wish their dang "where in production is my car?" website were a bit more granular... 
Pretty much any large corporation is apathetic to the point of de facto evil. If your friend is ready for the red pill he should start reading some of Noam Chomsky's books. At least if he buys a used car he won't be directly giving money to the automakers! Which coincidentally is why none of the automakers care about our opinions.
Vigo wrote: Pretty much any large corporation is apathetic to the point of de facto evil. If your friend is ready for the red pill he should start reading some of Noam Chomsky's books. At least if he buys a used car he won't be directly giving money to the automakers! Which coincidentally is why none of the automakers care about our opinions.
Yes, but they should, since we're the people who buy the cars from the original owners, giving said oo's the cash they need to buy the new cars.
Not listening to us is just shortsightedness on the car makers parts....
In reply to OldGray320i:
So, you are saying if automakers listened more to the needs of used car buyers, they would sell more new cars?
I seriously doubt it.
In reply to SVreX:
It would be interesting to know to what extent the used market really affects resale value, and in turn how much that affects demand for particular new cars.
Seems like one of those lower-order effects, but I bet it rates higher than noise in the system. Maybe even higher than cupholder count...
I will not deal with Sprint ever again. I quit Netflix after years of being a customer after the way they bungled their rate change. I still hold it against GM that we were forced to bail them out and would have a tough time considering buting any new GM product, even the ones that I otherwise like. Strangely, I don't have much of a change of opinion when it comes to VW, but I guess I never really considered buying a new car from them.
SVreX wrote: In reply to OldGray320i: So, you are saying if automakers listened more to the needs of used car buyers, they would sell more new cars? I seriously doubt it.
As do I... that was humor. Or at least an attempt at it....
My parents buy Hondas in part because they have high residual value. What a car is worth on the back end is something people do look at.
High residual value directly translates to lower lease rates, and that drives new car sales (well, leases, but it's still a sale from the manufacturer's perspective).
Coldsnap wrote: because I really like the 2015 Golf TSI.
the 2.0 tsi is a fun little engine.
As for VW, Shortcuts always catch up to you. It might take some time, but shortcuts will always bite you.
My BIL bought a 2016 vw wagon yesterday. He's pretty much a greenie. He actually didn't associate the vw scandal with emissions, just mileage. He would have bought a diesel yesterday if they would have sold it to him. At least he got a manual 
i still don't get what VW did that was so wrong...
they were told that they had to pass certain tests...
they made it so they passed certain tests...
novaderrik wrote: i still don't get what VW did that was so wrong... they were told that they had to pass certain tests... they made it so they passed certain tests...
Are you being sarcastic?
Law says all manufacturers vehicles must emit under certain emissions in ALL conditions. Foot to the floor up a hill fully loaded? Must meet emissions. Idling in traffic, must meet emissions. 90 mph drafting the 18 wheeler in traffic, must meet emissions.
What VW did was wrong because they exploited the testing method to avoid getting caught at failure in complying with the law.
So they intentionally broke the law by releasing a product that they knew wouldn't pass and committed fraud to cover it up.
I guarantee you the biggest conversation we are not privy to is who might go to jail and how many zeros will be involved in the fines. That conversation would be being had in Germany and the US. Well the jail thing in Germany as the US doesn't jail rich people unless they screw over richer people.
From 40 CFR 86.1811-4:
§86.1811-4 (c) Tier 2 FTP exhaust emission standards. Exhaust emissions from Tier 2 vehicles must not exceed the standards in Table S04-1 of this section at full useful life when tested over the Federal Test Procedure (FTP) described in subpart B of this part. Exhaust emissions from Tier 2 vehicles must not exceed the standards in Table S04-2 of this section at intermediate useful life, if applicable, when tested over the FTP.
VW is toast.
EDIT: Thanks Ranger50 for the catch on me copying the wrong section...
In reply to Flight Service:
VW is in the light duty diesel market.
Probably same verbiage but still different and valid argument that needs to be addressed.
I still love VW, I'm not sure every other company has not cheated and just has not been caught. At least they aren't hiding safety flaws.
simontibbett wrote: I still love VW, I'm not sure every other company has not cheated and just has not been caught. At least they aren't hiding safety flaws.
You think VW doesn't use the Equation? LOL
Flight Service wrote:novaderrik wrote: i still don't get what VW did that was so wrong... they were told that they had to pass certain tests... they made it so they passed certain tests...Are you being sarcastic? Law says all manufacturers vehicles must emit under certain emissions in ALL conditions. Foot to the floor up a hill fully loaded? Must meet emissions. Idling in traffic, must meet emissions. 90 mph drafting the 18 wheeler in traffic, must meet emissions. What VW did was wrong because they exploited the testing method to avoid getting caught at failure in complying with the law. So they intentionally broke the law by releasing a product that they knew wouldn't pass and committed fraud to cover it up. I guarantee you the biggest conversation we are not privy to is who might go to jail and how many zeros will be involved in the fines. That conversation would be being had in Germany and the US. Well the jail thing in Germany as the US doesn't jail rich people unless they screw over richer people. From 40 CFR 86.1811-4: §86.1811-4 (c) Tier 2 FTP exhaust emission standards. Exhaust emissions from Tier 2 vehicles must not exceed the standards in Table S04-1 of this section at full useful life when tested over the Federal Test Procedure (FTP) described in subpart B of this part. Exhaust emissions from Tier 2 vehicles must not exceed the standards in Table S04-2 of this section at intermediate useful life, if applicable, when tested over the FTP. VW is toast. EDIT: Thanks Ranger50 for the catch on me copying the wrong section...
not being sarcastic at all.. rules said "this is how we will test it. you must pass this test".. they built vehicles that passed the tests.
if you don't think that every new vehicle from every manufacturer on the road is "guilty" of this in some way, then you are the naive one..
In reply to novaderrik:
No, they didn't pass the test. The test requires that the way the car runs on the cycle is identical to how it runs on the road. VW got around that- the cars ran differently on the test than in the real world. They are not the first to do that, and previous cheaters got in a lot of trouble.
And, yes, I don't think that every new car from every manufacturer is guilty of the same thing. Being that we are in the know of all the competitive analysis, I'm pretty sure that I'n not naive. Let alone, one of the people who had to develop and demonstrate that a new car met the rules.
Here's the pertaining code
Section 203 (a)(3)(b) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), 42 U.S.C. Sec. 7522(a)(3)(b), prohibits the manufacture, selling, or installation of any device that bypasses, defeats, or renders inoperative a required element of the vehicle’s emissions control system.
Since the car fails on road, and it runs completely differently vs. on the cycle, it's a defeat device.
I've been thinking that a lot of the way some feel about VW's cheat has to do with politics. There's plenty out there who don't care about pollution, who think it's pretty cool VW tried something like this.
But what if a manufacturer made a "defeat device" for peak power testing - a car that knew it was hooked up to a Dyno, for example, and tuned itself to make 100 more horsepower than it did in all other situations. Would we all be ok with that?
This deal is a bit more nuanced. The CFR section cited by Flight Service actually doesn't support his argument that the vehicle can never exceed the emission limits. It specifically says it can't exceed the limits when tested in a very specific way (the FTP test mentioned).
What VW did is detect when the car is running the test and then use different 'software' to control the powertrain in a manner that would pass the test but not in the manner they wanted the car to work in normal use. Hence the term defeat device. That is cheating.
What every manufacturer does, though, is put more emphasis on emissions in those operating conditions that are common during the FTP test and less (or no) emphasis on emissions in other operating conditions (low or high ambient temperatures, high altitudes, more aggressive engine speeds and throttle positions, etc.). So, if the car ran the test on the chassis roll and ran the same test on a real road at typical temperatures, you would get the same results (unlike the VW case). But if the emissions are measured on a totally different drive cycle, they could end up significantly higher than the allowed limits specified for the FTP cycle.
This level of nuance is going to be hard for the general public to understand. The general assumption is that the emissions limits are never to be exceeded, while in practice every car on the road today will exceed those limits under very common (but different from the FTP) conditions. And those cars all meet the letter of the law because they pass the test using the same 'software' that is used on the road.
Would you mind if your local gas pump put out 3.5 quarts instead of a gallon?
bastomatic wrote: I've been thinking that a lot of the way some feel about VW's cheat has to do with politics. There's plenty out there who don't care about pollution, who think it's pretty cool VW tried something like this.
They should spend a day in a big Chinese city and then re-evaluate their positions...
You'll need to log in to post.
