Here's your stripped car test case folks...

ericy · Dec 20, 2016

atomicfront said:
I guess he is somewhere trying to put Humpty Dumpty back together again. He is out probably 12k but he was famous for a day.

To me this seemed like a highly likely outcome. I hope he kept all of the bolts and screws and knows where they all go.

VeeDubTDI · Dec 20, 2016

It'll be very interesting to see what comes of the discussions with the lawyers in the coming days. I fully expect VW to drag their feet on this - at the very least, it will deter others who have this same plan, resulting in more money for VW at the end of the day. If they flat-out accepted his car today, many others would be jumping on the stripper bandwagon.

VeeDubTDI · Dec 20, 2016

visortgw said:
REJECTED!

Appointment postponed.

scooperhsd · Dec 20, 2016

It's one thing to turn in a car that has been in an accident - it's entirely different when the car presented is "stripped".

atomicfront · Dec 20, 2016

visortgw said:
REJECTED!

Now he is complaining about how long he has waited already. What an idiot. He didn't see this coming?

atomicfront · Dec 20, 2016

visortgw said:
REJECTED!

ericy said:
To me this seemed like a highly likely outcome. I hope he kept all of the bolts and screws and knows where they all go.

Much easier to dismantle a car than to put it back together. He could take it to a body shop but I am guessing it won't be cheap to reassemble.

turbobrick240 · Dec 20, 2016

atomicfront said:
Now he is complaining about how long he has waited already. What an idiot. He didn't see this coming?

That's what caught my attention as well. If he really wanted a quick, smooth buyback, then stripping the car bare was pretty moronic.

VeeDubTDI · Dec 20, 2016

atomicfront said:
Now he is complaining about how long he has waited already. What an idiot. He didn't see this coming?

For sure, if he was in any sort of hurry, this stunt probably wasn't the best idea.

JGEO · Dec 20, 2016

I better put my all weather mats back in. Dang it!

visortgw · Dec 20, 2016

VeeDubTDI said:
It'll be very interesting to see what comes of the discussions with the lawyers in the coming days. I fully expect VW to drag their feet on this - at the very least, it will deter others who have this same plan, resulting in more money for VW at the end of the day. If they flat-out accepted his car today, many others would be jumping on the stripper bandwagon.

But now it is going to get interesting as VWGoA tries to redefine "Operable" from what is written in the court documents.

VeeDubTDI · Dec 20, 2016

visortgw said:
But now it is going to get interesting as VWGoA tries to redefine "Operable" from what is written in the court documents.

Indeed. We'll see if a "spirit of the law" clause shows up somewhere.

GoFaster · Dec 20, 2016

Can't say I'm one bit surprised.

At a minimum, this will drag out the case. I suspect this will result in a "clarification".

visortgw · Dec 20, 2016

VeeDubTDI said:
Indeed. We'll see if a "spirit of the law" clause shows up somewhere.

What's their allowed threshold? Severe body damage, OK? Remove the head unit, OK? No doors, rejected!

grawk · Dec 20, 2016

maybe "post on reddit" - rejected

I bet they delayed the buyback rather than rejecting it because they know he'd end up winning, and just want to get it less prominent before accepting it.

ericy · Dec 20, 2016

grawk said:
maybe "post on reddit" - rejected

I bet they delayed the buyback rather than rejecting it because they know he'd end up winning, and just want to get it less prominent before accepting it.

For all I know, they might just drag it out for a year and a half and then take the car. If they get to 85% without this car, are they even obligated to take it?

Had he not posted the thing on redditt, he might have been able to sneak the thing past.

But the point is really to dissuade anyone else from trying the same stunt.

k1xv · Dec 20, 2016

The relevant word needing clarification is not "operable". Rather, it is "vehicle", and how many and what parts can be removed before what is left is no longer a "vehicle".

Given that the public purpose of the settlement is to get the designated TDis off the road, a person who has rendered his machine unlicenseable for on road use has no "vehicle" to turn in.

GoFaster · Dec 20, 2016

visortgw said:
What's their allowed threshold? Severe body damage, OK? Remove the head unit, OK? No doors, rejected!

If it were up to me (which it most certainly is not) ... Dents ... scrapes ... stuff there but not working ... not a problem. Intentionally stripped car ... problem. Basically the car would have to be roadworthy and substantially complete. And if the buyback value were contingent upon options (e.g. navigation), said options would have to be there. Not necessarily working, but there. Not there, then drop down to whatever the lower buyback is for a vehicle without that option.

atomicfront · Dec 20, 2016

grawk said:
maybe "post on reddit" - rejected

I bet they delayed the buyback rather than rejecting it because they know he'd end up winning, and just want to get it less prominent before accepting it.

I doubt he wins. They told him To contact their attorneys if he had questions. He wanted to get some attention and he got it. Why he ever thought they would take his car in that condition is beyond me. If it had been in a crash it is one thing but to purposely destroy it is another. He is a complete idiot.

k1xv · Dec 20, 2016

grawk said:
maybe "post on reddit" - rejected

I bet they delayed the buyback rather than rejecting it because they know he'd end up winning, and just want to get it less prominent before accepting it.

End up winning where? At the turn in? There is no arbitrator at the turn in to resolve disputes. No, he would go to his appointment, they would say "no" to his tender of his "car". He would have no recourse at that appointment. If he refused to leave with his "car", they could call the cops to have him removed.

Maybe he should switch to "fix" and drive the car that way for two years while he waits for a fix to be developed.

fookin · Dec 20, 2016

The spirit of the buyback is to get the cars off the road and this jackass already did that by making it street illegal. His car is no longer a car. It's a shell. On the other hand, I'm glad he ran this test.

PacCoastFwy923 · Dec 20, 2016

sriracha said:
It's just a little bit of NOx, which dissipates over night.

Yeah, dissipates into a pesky layer of smog; dissipates into your pink little lungs. . And then, once you're prematurely dead and buried from asthma or emphysema or whatever, it completes the cycle.

No need to defend VW hot sauce, NOx emissions aren't better than or worse than CO², they're bad in their own right.

visortgw · Dec 21, 2016

VWGoA's response (so far):

"Volkswagen’s priority is to make the 2.0L TDI settlement process as seamless and convenient as possible for our affected customers and we are working hard to ensure that this is the case. The program is governed by specific eligibility guidelines and other conditions which were agreed by all the parties and approved by the Court.

Subject to regulatory approval of modifications that will allow vehicles to meet agreed emissions standards, the settlement allows Volkswagen to modify some of the vehicles we buy back so they can be returned to commerce rather than scrapped. The great majority of Volkswagen owners take very good care of their vehicles and are returning them for buyback intact."

So... Is the requirement "operable" or "intact" ("Operable" is clearly defined in the settlement guidelines that are referenced)? I know that Joe has taken this to the extreme, but maybe VWGoA needs better lawyers writing and reviewing settlement guidelines.

Throwback7r · Dec 21, 2016

I hope he takes all the stuff and jams it in the back of the Golf with a made up Ikea-like manual and one of the stupid bent key things.

k1xv · Dec 21, 2016

Maybe it could also use more customers who act in good faith.

speedrye · Dec 21, 2016

So, I have a pair of matching wagons with different color exteriors and interiors... I could make a mismatch of body panels and interior parts and still meet whatever new definition they come up with. If the guy had any sense, he would've just found someone with a matching car and mentality and done a part swap. Still a PITA for VW, but the resulting cars would be acceptable.

NRU73 · Dec 21, 2016

I'm confused how so many get bent out of shape trying to defend VW in the case of stripping the cars.

It's a case of morals. Technically what he did is no different than driving a jeep with the doors off which is not a ticketable offense in most states.

As long as it has all required lighting, mirrors, windshield and wipers it's a car.

VW is just dragging this out. Going by the Court Doc's, IMO, they've got no leg to stand on in this.

I'm not condoning this, but I'm not mad or angry at him either.

If anything it's funny to see him try and even funnier to see the angry posts about him here and on other media outlets.

visortgw · Dec 21, 2016

speedrye said:
So, I have a pair of matching wagons with different color exteriors and interiors... I could make a mismatch of body panels and interior parts and still meet whatever new definition they come up with. If the guy had any sense, he would've just found someone with a matching car and mentality and done a part swap. Still a PITA for VW, but the resulting cars would be acceptable.

Or, you could find many owners to do the same, and VWGoA could wind up with a new batch of Harlequins!

MonsterTDI09 · Dec 21, 2016

We all knew someone would try this. It should be rejected.

wbclassics · Dec 21, 2016

k1xv said:
Maybe it could also use more customers who act in good faith.

I bought my TDI in good faith with the understanding that VW didn't lie and cheat on what they sold me.

740GLE · Dec 21, 2016

Well this is good PR for VW that has been overshadowed by the 3.0L.

I wouldn't be surprised if some lawyer picks his case up and fights for him and gains some PR for it as well.

The amount of time spend going over the agreement, i'm shocked absolutely no one thought if this.

My thoughts maybe the judge will force VW hands to buy it back, they've already agreed to the cash of buying back the car so whats the harm?

Here's your stripped car test case folks...

Veteran Member

Wanderluster, Traveler, TDIClub Enthusiast

Wanderluster, Traveler, TDIClub Enthusiast

Top Post Dawg

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Top Post Dawg

Wanderluster, Traveler, TDIClub Enthusiast

Well-known member

Veteran Member

Wanderluster, Traveler, TDIClub Enthusiast

Moderator at Large

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Moderator at Large

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

TDIClub Enthusiast, Veteran Member

Well-known member

Top Post Dawg