By on February 5, 2016

Volkswagen Dealer Sign

Volkswagen Group of America has begun the process of buying back cars affected by the ongoing diesel emissions scandal, but you shouldn’t expect to receive a letter or phone call with a buyback offer anytime soon.

VW is going ahead with a buyback program that will see the automaker acquire affected vehicles from dealers’ certified pre-owned (CPO) inventories, a source familiar with the plan told TTAC.

Based on information provided by the source, it appears VW is buying back affected first-generation “clean diesel” TDI vehicles with lean NOx traps (LNTs) and exhaust gas recirculation (EGR), and not vehicles equipped with selective catalytic reduction (SCR) systems that rely on a urea-based solution to reduce NOx emissions.

The first generation of VW’s “clean diesel” vehicles used a version of the EA189 2-liter diesel engine that did not rely on diesel exhaust fluid, or AdBlue. Later models switched from the LNT/EGR system to the more costly SCR system that requires AdBlue.

It’s widely believed first-generation EA189 vehicles can not be fixed without significant modifications that include the addition of an SCR system. Those vehicles could cost the automaker as much as $2,500 in parts alone to retrofit. Later, second-generation EA189 vehicles are already equipped with SCR systems and are likely to be fixed instead of bought back by VW.

According to the source, there’s currently no plan for VW to acquire affected new vehicles from dealer inventories.

Requests for comment were not immediately returned by VW by time of publication.

[Photo: Flickr/Rob Brewer]

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

100 Comments on “Volkswagen is Buying Back Dirty Diesels, But Not From Owners...”


  • avatar
    seth1065

    Ok even by VW’s standards of good PR this will not work, so they buy back from the dealers, the affected cars but say nothing about the cars that are be driven by TDI owners? I gotta think there must be more involved, this makes no sense. I gotta say WTF. I think most of the TDI community has been pretty neutral on diesel gate but this may tip them over to saying screw you VW. This may solve some cash flow issues from a dealer standpoint but how does this solve the problem???? It does not so they are still back at square one with the EPA. They can not be this tone deaf. If anything I would assume this makes a buyback of all the E189 cars more likely. How can they buy back a 09 TDI from JoeBlow dealer and not the same 09 TDI from Joe Public????? Screw it,, it is friday Happy hour starts early I need a beer.

    • 0 avatar
      klossfam

      seth1065 – You are correct. They’ll end up buying back ALL the non-DEF equipped cars. No way it’ll be worth the fix (which would be adding a DEF/SCR system). They are in so deep it’s crazy…

      I drive a RAM EcoDiesel and have two gas VWs and still have no sympathy for their blatant arrogance and stupidity.

      • 0 avatar
        brettc

        VW could offer courses to other manufacturers on how to alienate repeat customers… I guess the VW executives think this is a good first step in their backward brains.

        I’m really hoping something is announced very soon for existing TDI customers with the gen 1 cars. As it is, I’m not putting a dime of maintenance into my car aside from oil changes and filling it with diesel.

        I did the 40K maintenance myself (10 days after the scandal broke) and luckily didn’t spend $700 for a dealer to do it. If I did I’d be kicking myself.

      • 0 avatar
        Sep28

        My Golf TDI is a 2015 model and it does not have Adblue tank. I’m an automotive Technician and I worked on diesel cars that have the adblue system. My golf for being the last diesel version of Mk7 does not have the adblue system. The exhaust does not have any sensors and spray nozzles for it and there is not tank stored underneath the car.

        So it been making think that they say the later version of the EA189 has the adblue system in the car.

        • 0 avatar
          amancuso

          If the car doesn’t have and adblue filler to the left of the gas filler, then it’s not a 2015 model year car. Maybe it’s a very early production ’15 but that’s unlikely.

    • 0 avatar
      heavy handle

      I don’t think this solves “the problem,” but it does solve “a problem,” with dealers. Dealers are VW’s actual customers. They can sell more new Volkswagens if they are the only place in town that offers good trade-ins on old Volkswagens.

      There isn’t much to complain about here. VW is happy, dealers are happy, and TDI owners are happy (provided they are ready to purchase a new car).

      • 0 avatar
        dartman

        I think it is time to end this nonsense about dealers being customers. Manufacturer-Distributor-Dealer-End User. The end user is the customer; the distributor and dealer are just a form of middlemen that add cost and some value to the supply chain. Because of a long and convoluted history of this relationship, and because obviously there are many more dealers than manufacturers, the dealers have amassed a great deal of political power and control over the distribution process. A good distributor/dealer is worth their weight in gold to a manufacturer because they enhance the value of the manufacturer’s products, which delivers profits for all; a crappy dealer–not so much; but it is difficult in the automobile industry to cancel dealers. BUT…no amount of marketing wizardy, customer coddling, free financing etc, will sell enough product profitably if the product sucks and is not accepted/desired by the end-user: the actual customer.

      • 0 avatar
        RobertRyan

        @heavy handle,
        Tell me what that has to do with the several references to of EFI Gas engines having worse particulates than Diesels,
        That was the issue I raised? Everyone has ignored or glossed over it? Deliberate?
        Your references are inaccurate, you cannot sell a Tier Regulation US Diesel in Australia, unless it is modified. Even though we are Euro 5( we are not several generations behind), current US Diesels do not meet CO2 emissions of Euro 5
        Current Transit US 3.2Diesel which is sold in the US, cannot be modified to be Euro 6, but passes US Tier regulations. UK Transits have to run a 2.2 litre Diesel engine

    • 0 avatar
      Scoutdude

      As mentioned this is the more immediate problem. Dealers are sitting on some CPO cars that they can’t sell right now and they are getting antsy about it because every day they sit on the lot and they can’t sell them costs them money. It says nothing about non-CPO inventory at this time.

      Consumers on the other hand as long as they don’t want/try to sell them right now are still reaping the benefits of VW’s cheating with better MPG, better power and no DEF.

      These cars will probably be accumulated in some storage lots for the near term. They may buy back the oldest, lowest value cars from the public. The cars that are still worth more money including those CPO buy backs will probably get fixed. The buy back CPOs will also be fixed if consumer cars are, they are of a higher value, but they probably won’t get fixed until the cars in consumer hands and the non-CPO inventory that is still at the dealers are.

      Once they know the exact cost they’ll set a threshold of age/miles of cars they will buy back and those they will fix and give the owner another payment for the loss of MPG.

  • avatar
    PrincipalDan

    This is like “death from a thousand paper cuts” – come up with a comprehensive plan, release entire freaking plan. That way every owner knows how their freaking issue is going to be handled.

  • avatar
    srh

    How long before these show up on dealer lots in Europe, where they can be made emissions-legal at a lower cost?

  • avatar
    Varezhka

    Well, it does make sense in a certain way.
    A dealer would be happy to get their non-compliant TDIs off their hand for the market value. A private owner with their valued at $5000 Jetta TDI as their only cars, probably not so much.

    That said, they really need a master plan, stat, because all this dribble of conflicting messages are only making things worse. A model of transparency, this company.

  • avatar
    RideHeight

    Dealers are more important than a small contingent of diesel owners to any emergency plan for VW’s staying in the US?

    • 0 avatar
      rocketrodeo

      Exactly. Apart from the incremental harm done all Americans by breathing slightly dirtier air, VWoA dealers are the folks who have been most directly harmed by dieselgate.

      • 0 avatar
        brn

        “Slightly dirtier air” is the entire basis behind the scandal. VW isn’t in trouble for devaluing vehicles. They’re in trouble for polluting, and lying about it.

        • 0 avatar
          BiffNotZeem

          “Slightly dirtier air” is not the basis behind the scandal. Deception with regards to emissions control laws is.

          There are studies that claim so many additional deaths because of a worst case (not typical case) scenario of exceedingly a small number emission target, but the methodologies used in the studies that I have read were questionable.

          As far as the delays in coming up with a complete solution from VW, it has taken them a while, but get real. They need to figure out things that happened a long time ago over a number of years, come up with engineering solutions that they couldn’t figure out back then and get them certified and more. And they have to do it without some of their best engineers who were fired for creating the problem in the first place.

          They created the problem, but expecting a quick answer for dealing with it is totally unrealistic. And it isn’t going to kill as many people as GM ignition switches or Takata airbags.

  • avatar
    SCE to AUX

    CARB/EPA to VW: “Great, now what about the EA189s that are actually, you know, on the road, killing people every day with their pollution?”

    • 0 avatar
      RobertRyan

      VW to CARB, ” Why are you allowing, new EFI/ Petrol engines, that make Diesels look spotless?”

      • 0 avatar
        wmba

        They aren’t. That idea is something you dreamed up on Moonbase Alpha somewhere in Orstrilia, same as all the other silly stuff you promulgate.

        Or to put it another way, hows about some actual, you know, links to show you’re correct?

        • 0 avatar
          RobertRyan

          Use what passes for your brain and find them yourself. Pretty easy

          • 0 avatar
            JimZ

            *whistle*

            Prior to the snap: Argument from Ignorance, offense attempted to shift the burden of proof. Five yard penalty, player will support his own assertions, remains 2nd down.

            Translation: if you have evidence that gas engines are so much dirtier than diesels, *post it.* Don’t lazily expect us to do the work for you.

          • 0 avatar
            RobertRyan

            Not hard to find. I suspect nothing will be done about it,as the issue would be huge.Very similar to the VW case where researchers found a gross violation, but nothing happened initially
            http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/60b7cc8c-56b2-11e3-ab12-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3zLtxo1BX

          • 0 avatar
            JimZ

            first you talk about EPA/CARB, now you try to support it with something going on in Europe.

            you’re an interesting person.

          • 0 avatar
            RobertRyan

            Because that is where the research was done. Hard to imagine it happening in the US, too many people part of the gas chain. VW transgression found by researchers in the US
            VW does have the right to ask why nothing done in the US, but would implicate itself

          • 0 avatar
            heavy handle

            Robert,

            That link is just some paywalled Murdoch rag. As an Australian, you surely know better than to rely on Murdoch as a primary source.

            This came out earlier this week:
            http://www.greencarcongress.com/2016/02/20160205-toronto.html

            Short version: GDI engines have issues, which vary greatly based on local conditions, but they do not “make diesels look spotless,” no matter what the News of the World might say.

          • 0 avatar
            RobertRyan

            @heavy handle
            Murdoch’s FT was not the original source, it was one of many I could access. Not trying to shoot the messenger, but the fact that nothing has been done is more of a concern. Too many vested interests, so everyone keeps quiet about it.No Diesels are not spotless, but newer EFI Gas engines are worse. In your reference from NA, it does point out they are problematical., but nothing has been done about it
            Another source
            http://www.transportenvironment.org/press/new-petrol-engines-cause-more-air-pollution-dirty-diesels

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            Here is Robert Ryan “logic”: European emissions regulations must be more stringent than US emissions regulations because America sucks.

            The fact that the US has more stringent standards for diesels than the EU is inconceivable to him. He really is that stupid.

          • 0 avatar
            RobertRyan

            You come on with an unsubstantiated idiotic comment. You do not give references

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            Maximum diesel NOx limits –

            US EPA – 50 mg per mile

            Euro 5 – 180 mg per km, or about 288 mg per mile

            Euro 6 – 80 mg per km, or about 128 mg per mile

            288 is higher than 50

            128 is higher than 50

            Leave it to a dumb bogan to not know that bigger numbers are bigger than smaller numbers.

          • 0 avatar
            RobertRyan

            Incorrect as usual , you deliberately left out the higher US Co2 limits and the Euro 6 NoX is the same as the US. You give no reference as usual to your post

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            128 is higher than 50, even in Australia.

            Are you a troll, or one of the dumbest people on the face of the earth?

          • 0 avatar
            RobertRyan

            Get off your drugs and your IQ, might get above 70

          • 0 avatar
            JimZ

            he has to be a troll, since immediately after I call him out for not supporting his assertions he flips around and complains that you aren’t supporting your assertions.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            I’m pretty sure that poor Ryan and his alter ego BAFO are just garden-variety morons.

            They believe things that aren’t true because they feel right, i.e. Australia rawks and America sucks.

            But they don’t really know the facts and aren’t smart enough to look them up, so they end up going in circles when confronted with the truth. I’m sure that poor Robert here had no idea what the regulations were, and explaining them won’t help.

          • 0 avatar
            RobertRyan

            You are a paid Troll, no references, ludicrous replies

          • 0 avatar
            heavy handle

            Robert:

            Euro6 limits
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_emission_standards#Euro6

            EPA Tier 2 Bin 5 limits (valid since 2010):
            http://www3.epa.gov/otaq/standards/light-duty/tier2stds.htm

            Australia is still implementing “the stringent Euro 5 emission standards ,” which means it’s three generations behind the US:
            https://infrastructure.gov.au/roads/environment/emission/

            I can save you the bother of clicking-through, the limits are exactly those Pch101 stated earlier, which you claimed were “incorrect.”

            This is hardly secret information, it’s only a few clicks away for anybody with web access. At this point I have to agree with everybody else who thinks you are trolling.

          • 0 avatar
            heavy handle

            Forgot to add this:

            Europe’s effective standards are approximately seven times the published standards, but this will be cut-down to just twice the published standards:

            http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/feb/03/eu-parliament-gives-green-light-for-loopholes-in-car-emissions-tests

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            Pch101,
            Again you are dispersing complete and utter fcking nonsense.

            Why do you consistently do this????

            THE EU SINCE 2014 HAVE HAD A 80mg/km limit and this is not the newer and harsher limits coming into effect.

            RobertRyan is talking particulates as well. GDI engines are currently emitting up to 1 000 times the particulates as a modern diesel.

            Why do you think gas engines are now using GDI in conjunction with port injection. How much more does this add to the cost of a gas powered vehicle?

            How much will a GPF add to the cost of a gasoline powered vehicle.

            Particulates are what cause respiratory issues, like cancers, etc.

            NOx isn’t the only emission that comes out of an exhaust.

            http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-15-5945_en.htm

            Pch101, you really are some form of fnckbot, the elitist socialist.

            You should move to Nth Korea, your specialised skills at un-truths could be used there to attempt to snow the Nth Koreans’.

          • 0 avatar
            RobertRyan

            @ Big Al from Oz,
            Tell This assorted US Trollfest, that Current US Diesels CANNOT be imported into Australia, unless modified.
            The 3.2 Litre Diesel Transit engine CANNOT be sold in Europe as it does not meet Euro 6. 2.2 Litre engine has been modified to meet it. Ford are building a smaller 2 Litre engine as well

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            @BAFO – Are you really backing up Robert Ryan’s drunken rants? He doesn’t know the difference between GDI and EFI.

          • 0 avatar
            RobertRyan

            Go back to sleep. Yes the EFI Gas engines that pollute 1000 times more than Diesels have not been forgotten

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            Al Gore should have given the Aussies mandatory birth control instead of the internet.

          • 0 avatar
            RobertRyan

            You could undergo , the first brain transplant. Except the monkey will want it’s brain back

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            Hint for next time: Make sure that you use correct spelling and punctuation when you attack another person’s intelligence.

          • 0 avatar
            RobertRyan

            I do. I notice you do not.

      • 0 avatar
        RobertRyan

        @JimZ
        Are you trolling?. What assertions? are wrong? P 101 gives no references and you are deliberately vague
        Where is your references?

        • 0 avatar
          DenverMike

          It’s like the guy that accuses everyone else of stinking, while he’s the only one in the room that doesn’t wear deodorant or bathe regularly.

          I’ve never seen anyone accuse so many commenters of “trolling”, and on so many sites around the world. Not even BAFO.

        • 0 avatar
          wmba

          The report you’re referring to says that some gasoline direct injection GDI (not port EFI) engines emit 10 times more particulates than diesel. That also makes GDI engines 1,000 times worse than port EFI.

          Not good, and I expect particulate filters will soon be the law.

          But this discussion has been about NOx, not particulates. You’re off arguing something else entirely and really seem to have no clue about correct designations for the two types of gas(petrol) engine. So what you spout is gibberish most of the time, and this instance is no different. Your responses are foolishness personified. It is difficult to be slow-witted, ill-informed and opinionated at the same time, but you manage the task well.

          • 0 avatar
            RobertRyan

            Totally, totally agree. Filters for Petrol engines iare going to be the next big thing. Problem is the cost( Diesel cost issue on a much larger scale). Still that pollution , especially the sub micron particles are very deadly, causes many uneccasry cancers.

      • 0 avatar
        Big Al From 'Murica

        Watch out for those contrails.

  • avatar
    seth1065

    I understand the dealers are their real customers but the dealers need someone to buy the cars from and TDI drivers are pretty loyal , a high percentage I would guess at least, so they should understand they need the consumers as well but this is VW so you never know.

  • avatar
    Cactuar

    “Those vehicles could cost the automaker as much as $2,500 in parts alone to retrofit.”

    Assuming this is dealer parts department pricing then VW’s cost should be around 150$ right?

  • avatar
    NickS

    Well, that is typical VW and even more typical of their actions on the diesel scandal: isolated and disconnected baby steps that only create more delay and controversy.

    I suspect the CPO program must give dealers specific legal protections from the manufacturer and that’s what may have forced VWs hand with the buy-back of those early TDIs.

  • avatar
    APaGttH

    Every time I think VW couldn’t possibly screw up this crisis further, they find another rock layer and dig right through.

    I guess the only saving grace in this whole story is the defects in the vehicle don’t directly kill people in ways that are obvious, so they go that going for them. But give it time – they’ll find some way to screw up that fact too.

  • avatar
    jthorner

    I wish VW would pay and listen to me to be their crisis management advisor. From day 1 of this scandal I have been saying that they should get out in front of this and offer generous buyback offers to everyone with an affected vehicle.

    Have those that sell them back sign an agreement not to sue.

    Offer them a generous cash offer, or an even better offer if the switch to a new VW vehicle. Offer a 100% of original cost cash buyout, or 120% towards the purchase of any new VW/Audi/Porsche vehicle.

    Become known instantly as the company which went above and beyond to fix the problem they created.

    If we learned anything from Watergate, it should have been that the cover-up and attempted *** covering creates an even bigger problem than the original crime.

    It really doesn’t matter how much it would cost VW to do as I have suggested, because every other course of action is going to end up costing even more.

    • 0 avatar
      Pch101

      The problem with your approach is that it would cost tens of billions of dollars and wipe out the company.

      This reminds me of Marchionne personally doing battle with NHTSA over the Jeep fuel tank problem. The issue was fairly straightforward — if Chrysler had bowed to NHTSA’s demands, it would have easily lost a couple of billion of dollars, which would have crippled the business and torpedoed its R&D budget. They are stalling because they are trying to reduce the price.

      • 0 avatar
        notwhoithink

        It wouldn’t cost tens of billions of dollars, nor would it wipe out the company. There’s 475k of these vehicles in the US. Buying them back at full retail would cost them between $13 billion and $15 billion dollars, not “tens of billions”. That’s a lot of money, but it’s nowhere near enough to wipe out the company. Some analysts were running the numbers a few months ago when the scandal first broke, and they estimated that VW could handle of hit of around $70 billion and still survive. It would be ugly, but they could do it.

        It’s far more likely that their buybacks will be at pre-scandal FMV, which brings the cost down to about $8 billion. Of course a buyback of any kind could come with a “bonus” for customers who apply the funds to a new VW., If the “bonus” was big enough you’d probably see at least half of the TDI owners jumping right into another VW. That means more sales for VW, which is what they’re going to need to recover from this problem.

        • 0 avatar
          Pch101

          You act as if $15 billion or whatever isn’t a lot of money. Let’s be real.

          And buyback costs don’t include all of the other costs, such as fines and money lost in litigation.

          • 0 avatar
            notwhoithink

            I’m not concerned about the $15 billion figure, because as I’ve already stated the $8 billion number is a more realistic solution. And how much much money did VW allocate in just Q4 for handling the dieselgate situation? It was $7.8 billion.

            As far as fines and penalties go, I’m pretty sure that the EPA and CARB will be willing to mitigate their fines in exchange for VW agreeing to get the cars off the road ASAP. At least they would be showing a good faith effort, unlike what they’ve done so far. The EPA has already thrown the book at VW, asking for nearly $48 billion in statutory fines. That’s something that could really put the hurt on VW, but spending $8 billion on their customers to make it right (and generate some goodwill with regulators and customers) is nothing by comparison.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            Your confidence in your prognostication skills and the trivial nature of losing tens of billions of dollars is remarkably naive.

            If VW responded to the first accusations with mea culpas and immediate offers to buy back all of its US diesels, then such a move could be expected to snowball and spread throughout the world, with every other government and litigant demanding the same thing as well as other compensation. It can be difficult to predict how far it will go because no one can know exactly how many dominoes will fall.

            VW is fighting and stalling because it helps to reduce the cost. Negotiation takes time. You may think that eleven figures is chump change, but it does not and understandably so.

        • 0 avatar
          APaGttH

          $13 to $15 billion would be DEVASTATING to an automotive company. Not even completely healthy companies like Toyota could write off $15 billion in a single country and not suffer short and mid-term consequences on R&D, marketing and customer support – which are typically the first places to get kicked in the balls when it is time to tighten the belts.

          • 0 avatar
            notwhoithink

            I didn’t say it would tickle, it would certainly hurt. But it won’t be devastating. VW already earmarked $7.8 billion in Q4 of 2015 to go towards addressing the issue, and there’s plenty more to come. The EPA filed suit asking for the maximum fines ($48 billion). That’s the number that VW really needs to be worried about. Spending $8 billion to get the offending vehicles off the road ASAP will go a long way towards buying some goodwill from regulators.

            There is no scenario where this doesn’t end up costing VW at least $20 billion by the time it’s all said and done. People need to get used to that idea pretty damn quick.

          • 0 avatar
            RideHeight

            “I didn’t say it would tickle..”

            Gen. Buck Turgidson in Strangelove pushing preemptive nuclear strike against USSR:

            “Mr. President, I’m not saying we wouldn’t get our hair mussed. But I do say no more than ten to twenty million killed, tops. Uh, depending on the breaks.”

          • 0 avatar
            jthorner

            I’m not being naive. I realize that the amount of money at stake is huge. I am saying that getting in front of the problem would have the lower long term overall cost than does the rope-a-dope VW has been playing.

            VW sold fraudulent products. As such, they have no right to the income they derived from the fraud. This was not a little mistake or misunderstanding, it was intentional fraud on a large scale, and it clearly was participated in by many people and many levels of management. Just because the company culture approved of the actions doesn’t make it right.

            Think of how much trouble certain religious organizations have caused themselves by hiding bad behavior. Eventually it all comes out into the open, and the costs and consequences grow ever larger. Sometimes “managing the problem” in an attempt to reduce long term costs is exactly what not to do.

            Call me naive if it makes you feel good, but I don’t accept that characterization.

          • 0 avatar
            jthorner

            VW shouldn’t have cheated in the first place. Every penny they received from selling the fraudulent vehicles is revenue they didn’t actually earn.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            As a practical matter, it serves VW’s interests to fight, even if it upsets some people on the internet (most of whom probably would not have bought their cars, anyway.)

            And given that VW is Europe’s largest automaker by a wide margin, failing to haggle would be a financial catastrophe.

    • 0 avatar
      RobertRyan

      VW is running a business, that employs directly 600,000 people.So many shareholders are impacted by what happens to VW

    • 0 avatar
      seth1065

      I never expected VW to buyback my car at what I paid for it, after all I drove it for 4 years now and 120,000 miles so I do not expect what I paid for the car to be the buyback, take value before scandal and add a generous bump to it , if you buy another VW you get the bump if you want a different car you get the buyout at what ever it was worth before the scandal. That to me would have been fair at least to me. This was directed to jthorne

      • 0 avatar
        honestwillie

        VW will eventually give every owner it’s pre-scandal value plus a generous bump. It is a little different situation than, e.g., a car accident, where just the value lost is owed. Here VW knowingly deceived owner and EPA, by selling them something (a clean car) that was never delivered in the first place. I bet every owner gets pre-scandal value + bump. Those who choose to buy new VW will get even larger bump.

        • 0 avatar
          seth1065

          Honestwillie,
          I think this is the only way VW can do a buy back, base it on 8/1/15 or some date and add a bump, they can not give sticker, what happens if you just bought it in July for 12k, you get 28K doubt that would fly. If they can tempt enough people into new VWs that helps their plant and get cars off dealers lots, the issue will be how many TDI drivers will trade in their cars and for what, not sure what VW has to offer instead of a TDI. We will have to wait and see what the buyout will look like before i decide what to do, I am not looking for another car payment at this point of my life so I would weigh that vs if there is a fix and what will that do to the MPG and power of my car now.

  • avatar
    DenverMike

    It’s still VW being VW. They’re making a sale, or keeping dealers happily making sales by taking back TDIs.

  • avatar
    dieseldub

    It’s getting real old having to correct publications on their incorrect interpretation of the technical side of these cars…

    Why bother mentioning EGR (Exhaust Gas Recirculation) with the first gen EA189? You do realize that all the later cars, even equipped with the SCR system, still have EGR as well, right?

    The very first TDI ever sold in the United States in 1996 in the B4 Passat has EGR. I would know, I own one and I work on these cars for a living!

    Not only that, but starting with those Gen 1 Commonrail fuel system clean diesels (EA189 family, CBEA and CJAA engine codes) they actually have TWO EGRs, not just one. Same applies for the Gen 2 CKRA engine code found in the 2012-14 Passat and all the EA288 family engines that came out for the 2015 Model Year. They all have two EGRs. One high pressure, which is the conventional setup that’s the same basic principle dating back to my ’96 Passat: take some of the pressurized exhaust gases just before the turbo and recycle them directly back into the intake manifold.

    The clean diesels added low pressure EGR, which takes exhaust gases after it’s already passed through the turbo, the oxidizing catalytic converter and diesel particulate filter (in that order) and re-introduces it into the intake stream at the only point in the intake system that has lower pressure than downstream exhaust: at the turbocharger’s compressor housing inlet. And it does that after that little bit of exhaust gas had to pass through a low pressure EGR filter and an EGR cooler.

    Got a little side tracked with my explanation, but your mentioning EGR in conjunction with the LNT system in the CBEA/CJAA engine code EA189 family engines makes it feel like you’re implying that the later cars equipped with SCR do NOT have EGR at all, which is utterly false.

  • avatar
    87 Morgan

    As many have stated, this is a mess of epic proportion.

    This whole situation for VW is contained for now…It is my belief the real damage will come when/if states that require emissions testing begin to not allow affected cars new registrations without proof that a fix has been installed. Since we know that not one of them has yet to have a fix installed this is when you get a public relations nightmare.

    The local news will start and then till national news. Could you imagine on CBS nightly national news a story of a single mom with two kids who is living just above the poverty line being told she can’t drive her car anymore because she can’t renew her license plates…

    Bailing out the dealers is a joke. They complain they are bleeding cash, stop it. If your a car dealer and running out of money it’s because you suck at it and should not own a store in the first place. Period. Even if it is a VW franchise. Plenty of Mitsu stores are still open and they are begging for any press good or bad….hell they manage to sell 8 new a month and 70 used month in and month out and do just fine.

    Once this whole sh!t show hits mr and mrs citizen, who can’t afford to just go get a new/used car because the one they have still works but are not permitted to drive anymore or risk a fine for a non-registered auto, then we will see VW get to work. At this point a large portion of the buying public has no idea this is going on.

    • 0 avatar
      seth1065

      87 Morgan,
      It will be a pretty simple for states that test, you get the fix or you fail emissions assuming they check, some states just test safety equipment and very little else, I just passed NJ emissions last week with my TDI because there is no fix right now so I am good for 2 more years. My guess is you will have to produce a letter with your VIN showing VW fixed your car to get a new sticker. Since VW will ( one of these days , weeks, months, years) fix it for free your single mom w 2 kids should not be out any money, In NJ if you fail you get 30 days to fix it. Now in states they do not test I am not sure what incentive TDI drivers have to get the fix, that most likely will get them less MPG or power. I doubt Mr or MRS will care that much, as long as it does not cost them money out of their pocket. I assume VW can not force you to sell your car back to them and I doubt the gov will seize your TDI, if there is no fix I assume you keep driving your car and keep on passing inspection.

      • 0 avatar
        jthorner

        You are assuming that a fix is feasible. My guess is that it is not feasible for many, if not all, of the cheating vehicles. Remember that event the latest and greatest 2016 model year vehicles still are not certified for US sale.

        US regulators are not likely to go for the flow straightener trick the Germany government fell over themselves to accept.

      • 0 avatar

        Which brings up the wide variety of inspection regimes in the States. Here in NY, the Check Engine light is your test. If it is off you pass, if it is on you fail. Meanwhile, in Montana, I have family which has “permanent registration” for the car. There are no inspections, and no emissions nonsense. One could live there happily with a TDi, or for that matter, any sort of car. Indeed, I noticed more than one car while visiting that had electric tape over the Check Engine light….

        Now you know where all the used cars that fail CA pollution go….

        One could argue that the CA and NY emissions regimes actually do nothing, as the cars don’t go away, just move to a new state.

        I have a particular hate for the CE light, as it comes on in ways that don’t necessarily mean you are polluting, and can entail expensive fixes, for example, in one of my cars, the cats light off a bit late…but they do work…I wouldn’t object to the older sniffer tests they did, but it appears they were too easy to fake. I also had to fight with the state inspections in NJ for pollution, but once my elderly GF took the car, magically it passed..

    • 0 avatar
      NickS

      @morgan

      This could perhaps happen to owners who refuse an approved fix, and perhaps after repeated notices and extensions to do so.

      No regulator will want to use the consumer as a pinata to compel VW to provide a suitable remedy. Not to mention that the owners have a valid argument — that they bought a car which had valid emissions certification from the regulators at the time of sale.

      Ideally, VW will put Feinberg to good use in all cases where the remedies available to owners will create undue hardship, etc. So, if, say, they only offer a buy-back at pre-scandal FMV for some vehicles, a financially strapped owner can get some kind of a like-kind replacement, or the difference in extra cash to get a similar car.

      This is not an issue between regulators and the average owner. It could eventually become one for the die-hards.

  • avatar
    28-Cars-Later

    Translation: We want the clean/low mile’d examples for export.

  • avatar
    Kevin Jaeger

    What the outrage is about escapes me. It makes perfect sense for VW to try to reduce the number of cars that need to be fixed. In fact, it would make a lot of sense to provide an incentive for third world dealers to be buying up and exporting as many illegal VW diesels as possible.

    Every one of these cars that gets traded in or shows up at an auction should be put on a boat to somewhere where it is no longer a liability.

    • 0 avatar
      seth1065

      Kevin jaeger,
      The outrage comes from the fact VW had anywhere from 2 and half years to as littles a 5 months to come up with a solution for this problem, they rolled the dice and cheated and got caught, they have mismanaged this from the start and now the best they can say is we will buy back cars from the dealers. What about the people who are driving the cars everyday, the ones are the lot are not hurting anyone, except the dealers bottom-line , maybe. Yes this decision will more than likely mean more buybacks are coming but why make the people who bought one of these cars seem like VW really does not give a crap about them? The only good thing VW did here is drop this Friday afternoon before the Superbowl where they hope it will be buried and not take a big PR hit as they might. VW is gonna end up with the cars anyway or a decent percentage of them anyway so why piss off the consumers who may give them another chance? They could have saved themselves some grief if they leaked consumer buybacks will be coming as soon as we figure out how to pay a fair number. Maybe they can not do that for some EPA reason. As of now I think TTAc is the only one reporting it, I have not seen it anywhere else so Good for TTAC for getting it but it has mostly flew under the radar.

    • 0 avatar
      jthorner

      The outrage is from how owners are being left wondering and worrying.

      But then, when has VWoA ever made the financial and emotional well being of their US customers a high priority? From 1st generation Rabbits with bad accelerator cables through sludge-monster motors blamed on the owners, on through high failure rate coils and into today’s dieselgate: VWoA consistently tries to minimize the cost to the company of engineering and manufacturing problems by pushing those costs onto buyers.

  • avatar

    My comments about just bagging the emissions system notwithstanding….

    I looked for new car. When gas was over $4 and approaching $5 in the NYMA, I needed to cut my gas costs with my 30k year driving.

    There were a lot of worthy choices at my price point and credit. I bought the VW TDi because it claimed 40 mpg and still drove like a real car. I’d had two A1 VW diesels, so I knew the old smoky clattery cars…and knew what I was getting into. The new cars were NOTHING like the old ones.

    I believed the clean diesel. I read the documents about the pollution system, the VW training documents on the web, and many many forum posts by owners.

    I did, indeed, think I was getting a clean car. Now, if I was really eco crunchy, I’d have gotten rid of my two stroke jetski years ago, but I’m not. Still, when Yamaha sold the Superjet in 1996, it met whatever standards there were. VW claimed the 2012 TDi passed tests…it didn’t.

    I’m out of the game as the TDi is gone, but yes, I felt lied to. I’d probably not buy another VW, as I wasn’t thrilled with the construction quality. This is a downside of DIY…you learn too much :)

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    Caveat Emptor is the lesson to be learned from VW. Let VW do their own thing. “Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.” If VW doesn’t want to make things right with the final consumer its their business but then the consumer should be forewarned and if the consumer still chooses a VW then that is their business. I personally believe VW should do something for their customers but legally they are not required to do so. Much harder and more expensive to get a customer back than to retain them. True the dealers are VW’s customers but without the retail customers there are no dealers.

  • avatar
    jthorner

    VW is moving closer to doing the right thing:

    http://news.yahoo.com/volkswagen-offer-generous-compensation-u-customers-paper-132938775–sector.html

  • avatar
    ReallyDoubt

    The only good news here is that VW makes Exxon look positively benevolent in their response to the Valdez spill. The Exxon response has long been touted as the poster child of how NOT to respond to a crisis, any crisis!

    It looks like VW is going to give Exxon some serious competition.


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Contributors

  • Vojta Dobes, Czech Republic
  • Matthew Guy, Canada
  • Kamil Kaluski, United States
  • Seth Parks, United States
  • Ronnie Schreiber, United States
  • Bozi Tatarevic, United States
  • Chris Tonn, United States
  • Moderators

  • Adam Tonge, United States
  • Kyree Williams, United States