Most people drive with all 3 mirrors adjusted to see directly behind them. You should only use your inside mirror for that and then adjust your left outside mirror to see the lane to your left and the right outside mirror to see the lane to your right. Do this correctly and with some fine tuning you won't have any blind spots. Don't forget to lock the new settings in if your seat position memory also sets your mirrors.
Most people drive with all 3 mirrors adjusted to see directly behind them. You should only use your inside mirror for that and then adjust your left outside mirror to see the lane to your left and the right outside mirror to see the lane to your right. Do this correctly and with some fine tuning you won't have any blind spots.
Yes, that's exactly what I do ! However. I know for most people, it's very counterintuitive.
I know that VW will be required to offer a mechanical fix to US cars, so the question is simple: how much would they have to pay you to do it?
To start off with, I'm not unhappy with the car the way it is! The other: nobody else really cares! The EPA who says it wants it fixed, doesn't know me from Adam? It doesn't even know if my VW is out of compliance! MPG has actually increased on the next generation iteration.
So how many$$$ is a simple answer! It would depend on decrease in perceived/acutual loss of value on resale. Whether the fix adds/takes away. Pop some bigger injectors in with a new chip & precise VAG tune, & still fall within the specifications? Cool! Increased MPG? WOW! That's forward looking progress?!
Let's say it undoes the cheat-you get EPA mpgs and have to add urea every 10,000 miles. No power impact.
Most people drive with all 3 mirrors adjusted to see directly behind them. You should only use your inside mirror for that and then adjust your left outside mirror to see the lane to your left and the right outside mirror to see the lane to your right. Do this correctly and with some fine tuning you won't have any blind spots.
Yes, that's exactly what I do ! However. I know for most people, it's very counterintuitive.
Most people drive with all 3 mirrors adjusted to see directly behind them. You should only use your inside mirror for that and then adjust your left outside mirror to see the lane to your left and the right outside mirror to see the lane to your right. Do this correctly and with some fine tuning you won't have any blind spots.
Yes, that's exactly what I do ! However. I know for most people, it's very counterintuitive.
Yes it is, but you get used to it very quickly.
I have tried that method, and it doesn't work for me. I need to have a fixed point of reference in order to process the data. As such, I set the side mirrors so I can *just* see the side of the car, but then add convex mirrors to the outer rim of the mirrors in order to give a full view to the sides, including the ground, for blindless driving.
The rearview mirror is an afterthought for me, but I think that's a side effect of driving a cargo van extensively during my "formative" years. In that thing, it was side mirrors or nothing! It probably doesn't help that we frequently have a full load in the back that ends up blocking the rear view anyway! When we're on trips, I usually set the mirror so that I can easily see the kids in the back seat.
Now, keep in mind, this is when driving GASSER vehicles. Everyone knows that visibility in diesels is horrid no matter what you do. You know, with all those black clouds they emit and whatnot.
2018 Subaru Crosstrek, 2014 Audi Q7 TDI, 2013 Subaru Forester, 2013 Ford F250 Lariat D, 1976 Ford F250, 1969 Chevrolet C20, 1969 Ford Econoline 100
Some wag commented a few years back that it was unlikely that your rear quarter panel was going to run into your car, so why look at it in your side view mirror?
I know that VW will be required to offer a mechanical fix to US cars, so the question is simple: how much would they have to pay you to do it?
To start off with, I'm not unhappy with the car the way it is! The other: nobody else really cares! The EPA who says it wants it fixed, doesn't know me from Adam? It doesn't even know if my VW is out of compliance! MPG has actually increased on the next generation iteration.
So how many$$$ is a simple answer! It would depend on decrease in perceived/acutual loss of value on resale. Whether the fix adds/takes away. Pop some bigger injectors in with a new chip & precise VAG tune, & still fall within the specifications? Cool! Increased MPG? WOW! That's forward looking progress?!
Let's say it undoes the cheat-you get EPA mpgs and have to add urea every 10,000 miles. No power impact.
Having two Ad Blue systems, each with more torque outputs (56.3%, 72%) the Ad Blue addition every 10,000 miles & loss of mpg relative to same engine size with Ad Blue use, are probably misleading signposts. Since most folks don't have any consumption or cents per mile driven: Ad Blue realities & have issues running cheap calculators, I'll leave ithem out, unless people are interested.
Let's say it undoes the cheat-you get EPA mpgs and have to add urea every 10,000 miles. No power impact.
No power impact is a pipe dream. No change in EPA suggested MPG is a pipe dream. If that was the case why did they cheat ??
I am not a VW owner but if the car needs 'neutering', I want my full money back.
Larger or smaller injectors can be used. It's not a static equation. It's really too bad VW didn't decide to use the systems that could have met the standards. They have eventually gone to the Ad Blue/SCR systems.
Again advantaged diesel ! They are much more tweak able !
It's really too bad VW didn't decide to use the systems that could have met the standards. They have eventually gone to the Ad Blue/SCR systems.
Ad Blue system is patented by the Daimler Benz . VW has to pay royalty per car to them. They pay royalty for use in their Audi cars and high end Toureg but did not want to pay for the cheaper cars like Golf/ Jetta and Passat. So they decided to cheat with the software for these cheaper cars and the Skoda/Seat versions. Trying to save money boomeranged on them
Daimler recently lost their BlueTec patent, at least in the EU. The royalty payments are off the table. (faz.net)
Sounds like VW hated to have their name associated with Daimler on the tech.
In November 2006, VW , Audi and Daimler had agreed to jointly market the technology . 2007 announced Volkswagen Group on the Alliance . Then Daimler Audi threatened with a patent lawsuit , because the Ingolstadt were not entered into any license agreement for the BlueTec technology .
Let's say it undoes the cheat-you get EPA mpgs and have to add urea every 10,000 miles. No power impact.
No power impact is a pipe dream. No change in EPA suggested MPG is a pipe dream. If that was the case why did they cheat ??
I am not a VW owner but if the car needs 'neutering' , I want my full money back.
The loss in mpgs is going to EPA numbers from actual, which are usually higher. EPA mpgs are from the test with cheat enabled, low emissions mode.
I would think that any diesel driver who professes a genuine interest in environmental protection would be happy to have their car fixed for free and brought up to standard.
My wife and I both loved the styling of our 2014 Passat TDI
That is no styling at all. Plain bland 1970's sedan. VW saves money on car designers. Teutonic frugality You got to be Teutonic to love that 'styling'
Sorry, I completely disagree. The car is styled for use, not some trendy look without purpose. I don't like the junk I see these days, so we have different tastes.
Let's say it undoes the cheat-you get EPA mpgs and have to add urea every 10,000 miles. No power impact.
No power impact is a pipe dream. No change in EPA suggested MPG is a pipe dream. If that was the case why did they cheat ??
I am not a VW owner but if the car needs 'neutering' , I want my full money back.
The EPA numbers are unlikely to change. They already know how to pass EPA with engine settings. It is the actual mileage on the road and power output that is worrisome (along with those changes having no impact on longevity).
The letter we got from VW indicated that the only change was going to be a reduction in the top speed.
Let's say it undoes the cheat-you get EPA mpgs and have to add urea every 10,000 miles. No power impact.
No power impact is a pipe dream. No change in EPA suggested MPG is a pipe dream. If that was the case why did they cheat ??
I am not a VW owner but if the car needs 'neutering' , I want my full money back.
The EPA numbers are unlikely to change. They already know how to pass EPA with engine settings. It is the actual mileage on the road and power output that is worrisome (along with those changes having no impact on longevity).
The letter we got from VW indicated that the only change was going to be a reduction in the top speed.
If they could get EPA mileage without cheating, why did they cheat.
Let's say it undoes the cheat-you get EPA mpgs and have to add urea every 10,000 miles. No power impact.
No power impact is a pipe dream. No change in EPA suggested MPG is a pipe dream. If that was the case why did they cheat ??
I am not a VW owner but if the car needs 'neutering' , I want my full money back.
The EPA numbers are unlikely to change. They already know how to pass EPA with engine settings. It is the actual mileage on the road and power output that is worrisome (along with those changes having no impact on longevity).
The letter we got from VW indicated that the only change was going to be a reduction in the top speed.
If they could get EPA mileage without cheating, why did they cheat.
Million dollar unanswered question .
??? That question was answered on Day 1. They cheated to avoid the NOx standard. Nothing to do with EPA mpgs.
Let's say it undoes the cheat-you get EPA mpgs and have to add urea every 10,000 miles. No power impact.
No power impact is a pipe dream. No change in EPA suggested MPG is a pipe dream. If that was the case why did they cheat ??
I am not a VW owner but if the car needs 'neutering' , I want my full money back.
The EPA numbers are unlikely to change. They already know how to pass EPA with engine settings. It is the actual mileage on the road and power output that is worrisome (along with those changes having no impact on longevity).
The letter we got from VW indicated that the only change was going to be a reduction in the top speed.
If they could get EPA mileage without cheating, why did they cheat.
Million dollar unanswered question .
??? That question was answered on Day 1. They cheated to avoid the NOx standard. Nothing to do with EPA mpgs.
That said, VW did benefit by their cars getting better than EPA mpgs on the road.
Most diesel passenger cars and light duty trucks get better mileage than the EPA certified test procedures would indicate. VW didn't use the illegal software programming to game the EPA fuel economy standards as it appears to have been a cost savings measure of not having to install additional emissions hardware (i.e. a selective catalytic reduction (SCR) with urea (DEF) injection). While bringing some of the older cars into compliance in other markets where the standards are as stringent might involve a software update, it could very well impact economy or power. But for the US market and the newer Euro standards for the later model vehicles if they have to add urea/DEF injection and a better SCR/NOx catalyst it might not affect power or economy as much as people might think.
For example, by having a SCR system that can adsorb and process higher amounts of NOx that are created when running lean, this allows many newer diesels to run for longer periods under lean conditions that would otherwise cause spikes in NOx from the tailpipe. The longer the engine runs lean, the more power it can create and the less fuel it burns. Compare a non-compliant Jetta to a similarly sized Cruze and the Cruze has better power and highway economy despite having a better SCR system and urea/DEF injection.
I'd suspect that if VW does retrofit SCR urea/DEF injection the real-world city ratings might take a slight hit due to having to run more frequent, brief periods of time rich for the lean NOx catalyst to process the stored NOx in combination with the urea/DEF injection to assist breaking it down, but it's very possible the cars will still meet EPA city ratings. On the highway if the cars are under constant, light load and can run leaner it's possible they may even see a slight increase to real-world mileage.
That's assuming there isn't a significant increase in exhaust system back-pressure which would reduce the engine's volumetric efficiency and ability to breathe. Even if that happened they could still command more boost pressure from the turbocharger at a slight loss of economy to maintain rated power. Optimally I think VW could come out of this much better than expected if they can retrofit a system that actually improves economy slightly while not hurting power output. Combined with an extended powertrain warranty and free DEF refills for the life of the current owner (which as a side benefit might make VW dealers happy if it drives customer in for oil changes if they're getting free DEF at the same time) it might appease many of the consumer complaints.
That said, VW did benefit by their cars getting better than EPA mpgs on the road.
Most diesel passenger cars and light duty trucks get better mileage than the EPA certified test procedures would indicate. VW didn't use the illegal software programming to game the EPA fuel economy standards as it appears to have been a cost savings measure of not having to install additional emissions hardware (i.e. a selective catalytic reduction (SCR) with urea (DEF) injection). While bringing some of the older cars into compliance in other markets where the standards are as stringent might involve a software update, it could very well impact economy or power. But for the US market and the newer Euro standards for the later model vehicles if they have to add urea/DEF injection and a better SCR/NOx catalyst it might not affect power or economy as much as people might think.
For example, by having a SCR system that can adsorb and process higher amounts of NOx that are created when running lean, this allows many newer diesels to run for longer periods under lean conditions that would otherwise cause spikes in NOx from the tailpipe. The longer the engine runs lean, the more power it can create and the less fuel it burns. Compare a non-compliant Jetta to a similarly sized Cruze and the Cruze has better power and highway economy despite having a better SCR system and urea/DEF injection.
I'd suspect that if VW does retrofit SCR urea/DEF injection the real-world city ratings might take a slight hit due to having to run more frequent, brief periods of time rich for the lean NOx catalyst to process the stored NOx in combination with the urea/DEF injection to assist breaking it down, but it's very possible the cars will still meet EPA city ratings. On the highway if the cars are under constant, light load and can run leaner it's possible they may even see a slight increase to real-world mileage.
That's assuming there isn't a significant increase in exhaust system back-pressure which would reduce the engine's volumetric efficiency and ability to breathe. Even if that happened they could still command more boost pressure from the turbocharger at a slight loss of economy to maintain rated power. Optimally I think VW could come out of this much better than expected if they can retrofit a system that actually improves economy slightly while not hurting power output. Combined with an extended powertrain warranty and free DEF refills for the life of the current owner (which as a side benefit might make VW dealers happy if it drives customer in for oil changes if they're getting free DEF at the same time) it might appease many of the consumer complaints.
Would be a cheaper option for the VW to buy back the car at the KBB pre-scandal trade in value.
My wife and I both loved the styling of our 2014 Passat TDI
That is no styling at all. Plain bland 1970's sedan. VW saves money on car designers. Teutonic frugality You got to be Teutonic to love that 'styling'
Sorry, I completely disagree. The car is styled for use, not some trendy look without purpose. I don't like the junk I see these days, so we have different tastes.
I think he was just tweaking! Flying it up the flagpole, as it were.
That said, VW did benefit by their cars getting better than EPA mpgs on the road.
What I suspected all along, which ibit by bit I s being confirmed : they hit the mpg goals. That was a total no brainer. They probably showed on target N0x remediation in EPA testing parameters. They apparently had issues spending the money for the Ad Blue system/SCR, for the FULL operating range N0x remediation, (perhaps not the full specifications) ergo short cut, solves all issues. @ that point, if there were questions: they should have gotten legal involved. Then, after the deciding upper level cabal could have made the broader decisions. The smart bet would have been: suck it up, spend the money & may charged a tad more.
The bigger & much bigger 2.1 l, 3.0 l have zero issues meeting full N0x operating parameter specs. I am sure that is true for the Ad Blue 2.0 l engine also.
Would be a cheaper option for the VW to buy back the car at the KBB pre-scandal trade in value.
I'm sure they already have a team of bean counters going over potential costs but I'd be highly surprised if they implemented a massive buy-back program. The cost to mass produce retrofit components should lower the per vehicle hardware costs and VW corporate is likely going to pay the lower warranty reimbursement rates to dealers to install (as compared to retail labor rates if a consumer brought a car in and had the same amount of work done out of pocket). Vouchers or reimbursement for DEF at the automaker's cost and not retail mark-up prices through the parts department really shouldn't be a big factor over a vehicle's lifetime if they decided to provide that to consumers (assuming SCR/DEF system is retrofitted).
VW will also have emission certification costs, costs to modify their service parts system for future repairs, costs to develop training programs for retrofitted vehicles, costs to develop new service manuals and a lot of other little things a consumer might overlook, but even taking those types of items into consideration and adding them onto the cost of developing, procuring and installing a SCR/DEF solution and a new calibration (i.e. software tune) and maybe extending the emission system warranty I'd imaging the per vehicle cost could easily be in the multiple-thousand dollar range.
A consumer wanting to take advantage of the situation might want to get out of their car and have a buy-back initiated, but how much would that cost VW? They're already offering incentives for affected owners to buy other VW models but if they bought back all the cars what would they do with them? Dismantle and pay to recycle them? Laws will prevent them from being used as parts vehicles (similar to salvage operations on some of the container ship losses Mazda and Volvo suffered a few years back where they couldn't take the liability of reusing anything on the cars even if they appeared unaffected). And if they bought them back, repair, and then had to resell at a wholesale I'm betting they'd lose more money than just repairing and paying out on various class action lawsuits (assuming there's a measureable loss to the consumer) and other incentive programs like they've already started.
For someone like me, (from only my perspective) a good course of action would be to offer a tad to a bit more monies to buy a new TDI. This would book a new diesel car sale & in effect prevent a "desertion". So if they are spending app $4,300 per unit to sell & 2,000 loyalty,& let me make the best deal & zero down, what can I really say after that? But in truth, do I want a new car? No, unless the numbers pencil out!
Now here is something interesting. If VW were to buy back all 482,000 cars at an average of $15k it comes out to $7.2 billion, just what VW set aside at the beginning for the USA.
2009 Jetta TDI with 50k miles in very good condition has a trade-in value of $8000 to $8800. 2015 Jetta SE TDI is only worth about $18k.
My guess is they will buy off the EPA letting the vehicles that cannot be fixed with a software patch, live out their lives as they are. Anyone that wants to trade they will be generous with them.
My guess is they will buy off the EPA letting the vehicles that cannot be fixed with a software patch, live out their lives as they are. Anyone that wants to trade they will be generous with them.
Exactly my thoughts.
Or threaten to walk away. Not as if they have high stakes like Toyota in the US market.
Slow diesel news day ! Same horrid commute conditions ! 09 TDI@ 39 mpg,14 BT @ 36mpg.
A $8.8 k buy back (09 Jetta TDI) would make 9.33 cpmd: depreciation/ownership. It would be interesting to see if the 04 Honda Civic could meet or beat that. Edmunds.com sez ...YES! @ 4.2 cpmd: depreciation.
The 03 Jetta TDI (3.2 cpmd depre/ownership) BEATS the 04 Honda Civic (4.2 cpmd depre)! so the optimum/optimum is actually between 12/14 years, 186,000 and 187,000 miles to 240,000 miles. I projected 13 years ago the TDI would be cheaper (depreciation). Fast forward to 2015/2016 time frame, the projections still seems to ring true.
So for me, 187,000 miles to 240,000 miles would be the best (cheaper) PROJECTED cost per mile driven: depreciation, for the 2009 Jetta TDI. I
Slow diesel news day ! Same horrid commute conditions ! 09 TDI@ 39 mpg,14 BT@36mpg.
I can tell you like driving the GLK. I thought it was great fun to drive on both our test drives in the hills around town. Good acceleration and handling. How can you beat 36 MPG on a good sized CUV.
Slow diesel news day ! Same horrid commute conditions ! 09 TDI@ 39 mpg,14 BT@36mpg.
I can tell you like driving the GLK. I thought it was great fun to drive on both our test drives in the hills around town. Good acceleration and handling. How can you beat 36 MPG on a good sized CUV.
Eat your heart out RAV and CRV owners.
Yes ! I also am quite surprised that it posts 36 mpg in traffic! The double (2 cities: PA & SF & @ wall to wall freeway ) traffic sloughs are certainly not as fun as the faster SOS/DD legs.
Fuelly.coml lists 2014 TRAV4 @24.7 mpg, HCRV @26 mpg, if folks think that you and I are prone to exaggeration & hyperbole. 36 mpg ( 3rd tank full) is 46% to 38.5% BETTER.
One kicker here: 14 MB GLK 250 BT is app 1,000 #'s HEAVIER than either!!?!
Make one wonder if both RAV4, CRV would get better or worse mpg with 1,000 #'s more ?
The GLK 250 BT would be a monster minus 1,000#'s! It would get even better mpg!!
"The Japanese companies said that they could have adapted the diesel engines they sold in Europe to make them meet the US’s stricter standards for nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions. But Mazda found the environmental demands made the vehicle’s performance unacceptably poor, while Honda believed the extra costs of adjusting the engines was unjustified.
Mazda’s and Honda’s struggles lend credence to the idea VW started cheating on emissions tests to overcome the difficulties of meeting US emissions standards while maintaining vehicle performance."
I haven't posted here for years. Back then I was comparing a Prius to a TDI. In 2010 I ended up buying a used 2006 Prius with 40K miles that now has 120K miles. I also bought a Prius V a couple of years ago as our "big" car. The 2006 Prius has been averaging in the upper 40s MPG for the past 5 years and the Prius V in the low 40s. Zero mechanical problems with either car. My gut instinct at the time was to avoid VW because of long-term reliability issues (electrical, etc) and I'm soooooo glad I avoided getting one. I always wondered why the real-work MPG on VW TDIs was always higher than the EPA tested MPG, but now I guess we know.
With all the talk of record low prices: gas, ethanol, natural gas, diesel, DEF @ the pump (diesel emissions fluid) is @ app $2.99 per gal. http://www.pilotflyingj.com/pump-def?start=50
I bought (3 units of 2 each 2.5 gal containers@ $12 ea or) $2.40 per gal.
My "thirsty" VW Touareg TDI, the last 3 times takes 4.5 gal for app 14,500 miles (low def lamp lights) , each time.
I haven't posted here for years. Back then I was comparing a Prius to a TDI. In 2010 I ended up buying a used 2006 Prius with 40K miles that now has 120K miles. I also bought a Prius V a couple of years ago as our "big" car. The 2006 Prius has been averaging in the upper 40s MPG for the past 5 years and the Prius V in the low 40s. Zero mechanical problems with either car. My gut instinct at the time was to avoid VW because of long-term reliability issues (electrical, etc) and I'm soooooo glad I avoided getting one. I always wondered why the real-work MPG on VW TDIs was always higher than the EPA tested MPG, but now I guess we know.
Glad to hear it! I hope you continue to enjoy the gas hybrid rides!
Thanks to Prius buyers, by law, regulations Toyota can continue to sell the WAY more profitable and HUGE, HUGE,HUGE volumes of large cars, SUV's, PU trucks! Trust me, I have had more (7) Toyota's, than I have had diesels (4) ! 2004 Tundra got 15.2 mpg! F/F to 2015 @ 14.8 mpg. Ya gotta LOVE progress!
On topic, you probably would not have been happy with a VW, let alone a diesel! VW has never been, nor appealed to the car as appliance market. For how & the environs I drive, I would not have enjoyed a Prius. Would it have worked in our commute application? Absolutely!
I am also glad I didn't get the 2003 @43 mpg / 2004 @ 45 mpg Prius es ! The 2004 EPA was 60 c/50 h.The realities were not close, aka lies. But like you say, guess we now know! The EPA did DOCTOR the tests, due to PO'd owners & probably huge lobby monies. The doctored tests gave hybrids the EPA mpgs the advantage. It hardly changed the realities. The 2003 VW Jetta TDI has done a consistent 50 mpg, range of 44 to 62 mpg, over 187,000 miles..
Of course, you do know that VW Touareg has a hybrid version !? Fuelly puts it @ 21/22 mpg. That IS slightly better than the 19/20 mpg for the gas only. The TDI (my) gets 32/35 mpg.
"The Japanese companies said that they could have adapted the diesel engines they sold in Europe to make them meet the US’s stricter standards for nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions. But Mazda found the environmental demands made the vehicle’s performance unacceptably poor, while Honda believed the extra costs of adjusting the engines was unjustified.
Mazda’s and Honda’s struggles lend credence to the idea VW started cheating on emissions tests to overcome the difficulties of meeting US emissions standards while maintaining vehicle performance."
You think that's why Mazda decided against releasing the diesel 6 here in the US?
In diesel news, VW rivals scrapped US small diesel car plans over emissions rules. (Financial Times link so it may go paywall at any minute).
"The Japanese companies said that they could have adapted the diesel engines they sold in Europe to make them meet the US’s stricter standards for nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions. But Mazda found the environmental demands made the vehicle’s performance unacceptably poor, while Honda believed the extra costs of adjusting the engines was unjustified.
Mazda’s and Honda’s struggles lend credence to the idea VW started cheating on emissions tests to overcome the difficulties of meeting US emissions standards while maintaining vehicle performance."
You think that's why Mazda decided against releasing the diesel 6 here in the US?
Very plausible . They did not want to cheat like VW
My guess is that Honda and Mazda and maybe Toyota couldn't figure out how Volkswagen met the US emissions regs without some sort of AdBlue system and didn't want to admit that their engineers couldn't match VW's.
Welcome back @bobw3 - the next generation Prii coming out after the first of the year look... well, they look new and improved. Wish the V wasn't a year behind in the update cycle.
Yep, the answer has been pretty simple, regardless of whether nobody to anybody likes it or not. DEF/SCR are the technologies that met/meets the N0x standards . All of the mentioned OEM's did not want to spend the monies.
Yep, the answer has been pretty simple, regardless of whether nobody to anybody likes it or not. DEF/SCR are the technologies that met/meets the N0x standards . All of the mentioned OEM's did not want to spend the monies.
Yes, looks like diesels will work well for medium/heavy pickups and SUVs, and premium (Audi/BMW/MB/some VW) vehicles, all with DEF/SCR. Main-line cars will be hybrids or turbo+small engines. But I think those turbo/small engines have their own problem with gross overstatement of EPA mpgs (Ford's "Ecoboost", especially).
edit - I will be looking at Mazdas - I'd prefer to avoid turbos and CVT transmissions, Mazdas avoid both, but get good mpgs, much better than the equivalent Ford Ecoboost in real world driving.
A big advantage of diesel/DEF/SCR over hybrids for heavier vehicles is cost. Hybrid additional cost (mostly batteries) goes up directly with vehicle weight, while the additional cost of a diesel/DEF/SCR over a gasser isn't nearly as sensitive to weight.
I would not buy a GASSER turbo. They are known for heat issues & oil use. It is a HUGE disadvantage! There is no doubt in my mind the diesel oil consumption of 1/4 to 1/2 qt/ L in a 30,000 miles OCI would skyrocket to 2,500 miles per qt, if it were a gas turbo. That is 12 qt/l where 1/2 qt/l would have done nicely.
Now here is something interesting. If VW were to buy back all 482,000 cars at an average of $15k it comes out to $7.2 billion, just what VW set aside at the beginning for the USA.
2009 Jetta TDI with 50k miles in very good condition has a trade-in value of $8000 to $8800. 2015 Jetta SE TDI is only worth about $18k.
My guess is they will buy off the EPA letting the vehicles that cannot be fixed with a software patch, live out their lives as they are. Anyone that wants to trade they will be generous with them.
Just my guess.
What would they do with all the cars they buy back, sell them in some other country that's not so picky and make a nice profit? That would probably really enrage all the diesel haters, as they would have accomplished nothing.
I don't have a clue what it will cost for DEF in my Touareg TDI. I have 100% service including brakes for the first 4 years 48k miles. That is worth about $2000 if I bought that with a new MB ML350 Bluetec.
Speaking of MB Diesels. I am really impressed with their 4 cylinder 2.1L diesel engine. What's not to like with 369 ft lbs of torque. And it is available across several vehicles up to the 5000 lb GLE, (old ML model). MB should be very proud of that engine. Not sure anyone will top it for a while. Though it looks like the BMW X3 28D is close in the running.
The twin turbo MB IN the GLK 250 BT consumes less DEF per mile. I just don't know what it is @ 22,000 miles yet? The post for the VW Touareg TDI DEF was observed once and personally done twice.
The twin turbo MB IN the GLK 250 BT consumes less DEF per mile. I just don't know what it is @ 22,000 miles yet? The post for the VW Touareg TDI DEF was observed once and personally done twice.
I did not get the first indication on DEF until 9,000 miles and it came up 1500 miles left for adblue. I now have 26k miles and the dealer has topped it twice. I am guessing about 6 gallons every 10k miles. Which is far less than a penny a mile. Not worth considering in the overall TCO per mile.
What would they do with all the cars they buy back, sell them in some other country that's not so picky and make a nice profit? That would probably really enrage all the diesel haters, as they would have accomplished nothing.
They could be sold in Mexico. They were likely built there. And it would be top of the line vehicles for them. It looks like Nissan and GM are the only automakers that sell more than VW in Mexico. Brazil may not take to diesel, and they have huge import tariffs. Germans love diesel, and if they are like me, love a bargain.
Comments
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
The rearview mirror is an afterthought for me, but I think that's a side effect of driving a cargo van extensively during my "formative" years. In that thing, it was side mirrors or nothing! It probably doesn't help that we frequently have a full load in the back that ends up blocking the rear view anyway! When we're on trips, I usually set the mirror so that I can easily see the kids in the back seat.
Now, keep in mind, this is when driving GASSER vehicles. Everyone knows that visibility in diesels is horrid no matter what you do. You know, with all those black clouds they emit and whatnot.
Emissions Scandal Is Hurting VW Owners Trying To Resell (NPR)
Volkswagen funded research that disputes link between diesel and ill health (prweek.com)
Diesel Prices Approach 2015 Lows (truckinginfo.com)
Having two Ad Blue systems, each with more torque outputs (56.3%, 72%) the Ad Blue addition every 10,000 miles & loss of mpg relative to same engine size with Ad Blue use, are probably misleading signposts. Since most folks don't have any consumption or cents per mile driven: Ad Blue realities & have issues running cheap calculators, I'll leave ithem out, unless people are interested.
No power impact is a pipe dream. No change in EPA suggested MPG is a pipe dream. If that was the case why did they cheat ??
I am not a VW owner but if the car needs 'neutering' , I want my full money back.
Again advantaged diesel ! They are much more tweak able !
Ad Blue system is patented by the Daimler Benz .
VW has to pay royalty per car to them. They pay royalty for use in their Audi cars and high end Toureg but did not want to pay for the cheaper cars like Golf/ Jetta and Passat.
So they decided to cheat with the software for these cheaper cars and the Skoda/Seat versions.
Trying to save money boomeranged on them
Daimler recently lost their BlueTec patent, at least in the EU. The royalty payments are off the table. (faz.net)
Sounds like VW hated to have their name associated with Daimler on the tech.
The letter we got from VW indicated that the only change was going to be a reduction in the top speed.
Million dollar unanswered question .
Got it !!
For example, by having a SCR system that can adsorb and process higher amounts of NOx that are created when running lean, this allows many newer diesels to run for longer periods under lean conditions that would otherwise cause spikes in NOx from the tailpipe. The longer the engine runs lean, the more power it can create and the less fuel it burns. Compare a non-compliant Jetta to a similarly sized Cruze and the Cruze has better power and highway economy despite having a better SCR system and urea/DEF injection.
I'd suspect that if VW does retrofit SCR urea/DEF injection the real-world city ratings might take a slight hit due to having to run more frequent, brief periods of time rich for the lean NOx catalyst to process the stored NOx in combination with the urea/DEF injection to assist breaking it down, but it's very possible the cars will still meet EPA city ratings. On the highway if the cars are under constant, light load and can run leaner it's possible they may even see a slight increase to real-world mileage.
That's assuming there isn't a significant increase in exhaust system back-pressure which would reduce the engine's volumetric efficiency and ability to breathe. Even if that happened they could still command more boost pressure from the turbocharger at a slight loss of economy to maintain rated power. Optimally I think VW could come out of this much better than expected if they can retrofit a system that actually improves economy slightly while not hurting power output. Combined with an extended powertrain warranty and free DEF refills for the life of the current owner (which as a side benefit might make VW dealers happy if it drives customer in for oil changes if they're getting free DEF at the same time) it might appease many of the consumer complaints.
The bigger & much bigger 2.1 l, 3.0 l have zero issues meeting full N0x operating parameter specs. I am sure that is true for the Ad Blue 2.0 l engine also.
VW will also have emission certification costs, costs to modify their service parts system for future repairs, costs to develop training programs for retrofitted vehicles, costs to develop new service manuals and a lot of other little things a consumer might overlook, but even taking those types of items into consideration and adding them onto the cost of developing, procuring and installing a SCR/DEF solution and a new calibration (i.e. software tune) and maybe extending the emission system warranty I'd imaging the per vehicle cost could easily be in the multiple-thousand dollar range.
A consumer wanting to take advantage of the situation might want to get out of their car and have a buy-back initiated, but how much would that cost VW? They're already offering incentives for affected owners to buy other VW models but if they bought back all the cars what would they do with them? Dismantle and pay to recycle them? Laws will prevent them from being used as parts vehicles (similar to salvage operations on some of the container ship losses Mazda and Volvo suffered a few years back where they couldn't take the liability of reusing anything on the cars even if they appeared unaffected). And if they bought them back, repair, and then had to resell at a wholesale I'm betting they'd lose more money than just repairing and paying out on various class action lawsuits (assuming there's a measureable loss to the consumer) and other incentive programs like they've already started.
2009 Jetta TDI with 50k miles in very good condition has a trade-in value of $8000 to $8800.
2015 Jetta SE TDI is only worth about $18k.
My guess is they will buy off the EPA letting the vehicles that cannot be fixed with a software patch, live out their lives as they are. Anyone that wants to trade they will be generous with them.
Just my guess.
Exactly my thoughts.
Or threaten to walk away. Not as if they have high stakes like Toyota in the US market.
A $8.8 k buy back (09 Jetta TDI) would make 9.33 cpmd: depreciation/ownership. It would be interesting to see if the 04 Honda Civic could meet or beat that. Edmunds.com sez ...YES! @ 4.2 cpmd: depreciation.
The 03 Jetta TDI (3.2 cpmd depre/ownership) BEATS the 04 Honda Civic (4.2 cpmd depre)! so the optimum/optimum is actually between 12/14 years, 186,000 and 187,000 miles to 240,000 miles. I projected 13 years ago the TDI would be cheaper (depreciation). Fast forward to 2015/2016 time frame, the projections still seems to ring true.
So for me, 187,000 miles to 240,000 miles would be the best (cheaper) PROJECTED cost per mile driven: depreciation, for the 2009 Jetta TDI. I
Eat your heart out RAV and CRV owners.
Fuelly.coml lists 2014 TRAV4 @24.7 mpg, HCRV @26 mpg, if folks think that you and I are prone to exaggeration & hyperbole. 36 mpg ( 3rd tank full) is 46% to 38.5% BETTER.
One kicker here: 14 MB GLK 250 BT is app 1,000 #'s HEAVIER than either!!?!
Make one wonder if both RAV4, CRV would get better or worse mpg with 1,000 #'s more ?
The GLK 250 BT would be a monster minus 1,000#'s! It would get even better mpg!!
http://jalopnik.com/what-you-should-know-about-being-a-cash-buyer-at-a-deal-1737301990
Although it's easier to make sure the loan has no pre-payment penalty and just pay it off in a few weeks.
In diesel news, VW rivals scrapped US small diesel car plans over emissions rules. (Financial Times link so it may go paywall at any minute).
"The Japanese companies said that they could have adapted the diesel engines they sold in Europe to make them meet the US’s stricter standards for nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions. But Mazda found the environmental demands made the vehicle’s performance unacceptably poor, while Honda believed the extra costs of adjusting the engines was unjustified.
Mazda’s and Honda’s struggles lend credence to the idea VW started cheating on emissions tests to overcome the difficulties of meeting US emissions standards while maintaining vehicle performance."
With all the talk of record low prices: gas, ethanol, natural gas, diesel, DEF @ the pump (diesel emissions fluid) is @ app $2.99 per gal. http://www.pilotflyingj.com/pump-def?start=50
I bought (3 units of 2 each 2.5 gal containers@ $12 ea or) $2.40 per gal.
My "thirsty" VW Touareg TDI, the last 3 times takes 4.5 gal for app 14,500 miles (low def lamp lights) , each time.
PMD, oz= .00397.
CPMD: DEF= .0007448 cents.
Thanks to Prius buyers, by law, regulations Toyota can continue to sell the WAY more profitable and HUGE, HUGE,HUGE volumes of large cars, SUV's, PU trucks! Trust me, I have had more (7) Toyota's, than I have had diesels (4) ! 2004 Tundra got 15.2 mpg! F/F to 2015 @ 14.8 mpg. Ya gotta LOVE progress!
On topic, you probably would not have been happy with a VW, let alone a diesel! VW has never been, nor appealed to the car as appliance market. For how & the environs I drive, I would not have enjoyed a Prius. Would it have worked in our commute application? Absolutely!
I am also glad I didn't get the 2003 @43 mpg / 2004 @ 45 mpg Prius es ! The 2004 EPA was 60 c/50 h.The realities were not close, aka lies. But like you say, guess we now know! The EPA did DOCTOR the tests, due to PO'd owners & probably huge lobby monies. The doctored tests gave hybrids the EPA mpgs the advantage. It hardly changed the realities. The 2003 VW Jetta TDI has done a consistent 50 mpg, range of 44 to 62 mpg, over 187,000 miles..
Of course, you do know that VW Touareg has a hybrid version !? Fuelly puts it @ 21/22 mpg. That IS slightly better than the 19/20 mpg for the gas only. The TDI (my) gets 32/35 mpg.
VW has other hybrids and @ least one EV.
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and let us know! Post a pic of your new purchase or lease!
MODERATOR
2015 Subaru Outback 3.6R / 2024 Kia Sportage Hybrid SX Prestige
Welcome back @bobw3 - the next generation Prii coming out after the first of the year look... well, they look new and improved.
http://www3.epa.gov/otaq/standards/light-duty/tier2stds.htm
edit - I will be looking at Mazdas - I'd prefer to avoid turbos and CVT transmissions, Mazdas avoid both, but get good mpgs, much better than the equivalent Ford Ecoboost in real world driving.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
Speaking of MB Diesels. I am really impressed with their 4 cylinder 2.1L diesel engine. What's not to like with 369 ft lbs of torque. And it is available across several vehicles up to the 5000 lb GLE, (old ML model). MB should be very proud of that engine. Not sure anyone will top it for a while. Though it looks like the BMW X3 28D is close in the running.
They could be sold in Mexico. They were likely built there. And it would be top of the line vehicles for them. It looks like Nissan and GM are the only automakers that sell more than VW in Mexico. Brazil may not take to diesel, and they have huge import tariffs. Germans love diesel, and if they are like me, love a bargain.