The settlement as proposed is complete BS

IndigoBlueWagon · Jun 29, 2016

Where does it say there's no fix? Here's what someone else posted from the EPA docs yesterday for Gen 1 cars:

3.2.1 Require the installation of a new exhaust flap, EGR filter, and NOx Trap
that meets the specifications of BASF TEX2064, as proposed by Settling Defendants to
EPA and CARB on January 28, 2016, or, subject to EPA/CARB approval, such other
functionally and effectively equivalent hardware or software, provided that Settling
Defendants propose such other hardware or software in the applicable Proposed
Emissions Modification.

tobianogreg · Jun 29, 2016

That solution has already been rejected by CARB no?

IndigoBlueWagon · Jun 29, 2016

Has it? They rejected a recall proposal on Jan 12 of this year, but this was proposed after that. Taking a quick look I don't see any info that says this proposal has been rejected.

PFCoppinger · Jun 29, 2016

r11 said:
But, if he/she doesnt want to sell and expects to drive the car for another 10 years and 500K miles, force-taking the car away from the owner at "NADA fair value", plus extra stipend that gets nullified by the high mileage, is not fair. What kind of punishment is there for VW in this case ? NONE !

The buyback is not intended to be punishment to VW. It is intended to get as many of the cars off the road as possible within the two years, and gives owners a bit more than their cars were worth to do that. The punishment comes from the $5 billion in remediation payments and fines, which are paid to the govt, and by the potential for criminal prosecutions.

If you thought the government was going to let the fines slide in order to give you free money, well, oops, you were wrong.

Jimmy Coconuts · Jun 29, 2016

PFCoppinger said:
The buyback is not intended to be punishment to VW. It is intended to get as many of the cars off the road as possible within the two years, and gives owners a bit more than their cars were worth to do that. The punishment comes from the $5 billion in remediation payments and fines, which are paid to the govt, and by the potential for criminal prosecutions.
If you thought the government was going to let the fines slide in order to give you free money, well, oops, you were wrong.

Bingo

r11 · Jun 29, 2016

Excellent point in threadzilla Jr:

VW was instructed to derive the comp from RETAIL pricing as of 09 15. Instead, they did it based on TRADE_IN (huuge difference). And that's before they did the mileage trick !

IndigoBlueWagon · Jun 29, 2016

r11 said:
VW was instructed to derive the comp from RETAIL pricing as of 09 15. Instead, they did it based on TRADE_IN (huuge difference). And that's before they did the mileage trick !

Who says they didn't derive the comp from retail? It's accommodated in the increase in payment. They just used trade in as a starting figure and added to it.

dropnosky · Jun 29, 2016

PFCoppinger said:
The buyback is not intended to be punishment to VW. It is intended to get as many of the cars off the road as possible within the two years, and gives owners a bit more than their cars were worth to do that. The punishment comes from the $5 billion in remediation payments and fines, which are paid to the govt, and by the potential for criminal prosecutions.
If you thought the government was going to let the fines slide in order to give you free money, well, oops, you were wrong.

Exactly. Back in 99 they fined if i recall 10 or 15 heavy truck manufacturers 1 billion dollars for exactly the same cheat concept. That fine put some of them out of the road going engine business.

Flash forward to now a single company is being fined 5 billion for not learning the obvious late 90s lesson. The consumer is a minor irrelevancy, hammering VW for their stupidity so no one does it again for a while is the true goal.

Most auto manufacturers have been good since the late 90s rampant cheating among many and subsequent fining.

jdyno718 · Jun 29, 2016

Sean2002 said:
This is the part that I think people are missing. The settlement may not be great today, but it is really good in 1 to 2 years when we actually turn in our cars for the buyback.

My 2010 Jetta 6MT will get a little under $16,000 today, but that number will stay pretty constant the next 1 to 2 years. I'll probably drive more than the 1,000 miles a month figure, but even then, I'll only "lose" $500 over the next couple years. ..QUOTE]

I think your math is a little off, or my understanding is, it is only great if you drive less than average used in the buy back calculations:

Example: I actually drive 2,144 miles per month. This is greater than the average used in the buy back calculations of 1,042. If my car has 90,000 miles at the time of buy back and I sell my car back 15 months after September 2015. This results in an adjusted vehicle mileage of 74,370, When actually my adjusted mileage should be based on driving 2144 miles a month. My mileage on my car as of September 2015 would be 57,840. According to their charts https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/att._2c_-_passat_and_a3_mileage_table.pdf this results in a difference of the buy back modification of $1,260 less than what it would be if my actual mileage was used.

You can drive all you want, but it seems they will check your actual mileage at the time of buy back and then back calculate based on the average mileage of a US citizen to determine your mileage on Sept 2015. Did I miss something?

warrior1677 · Jun 29, 2016

The issue that's going to turn me away from VW is a lack information about the fix/settlement at my dealer. I stopped by the dealer today to ask about the fix and they were clueless the service department even said we would know two weeks before they would.

jdyno718 · Jun 29, 2016

warrior1677 said:
The issue that's going to turn me away from VW is a lack information about the fix/settlement at my dealer. I stopped by the dealer today to ask about the fix and they were clueless the service department even said we would know two weeks before they would.

Fixes haven't' even been approved yet by the EPA/CARB, Why would your dealer know what the fix is?

Once the fixes are approved it will still be a couple of months for the technical information to be correctly written up in a court filings describing the fix before the Judge can sign it and VW can actually implement it.

It will be a long time before a fix is available for us.

LNXGUY · Jun 29, 2016

dropnosky said:
Agreed 100%
Maybe they should ship out blankets and teddybears that smell like strawberries as well, along with the check.

I dunno if that would be enough to ease a lot of peoples 'pain and suffering' lol

ahfunaki · Jun 29, 2016

I'm actually happy with what I'm going to be getting back ( unless my calculations are wrong )...

I don't like this car and I can't wait to get rid of it...

rac · Jun 29, 2016

Suppose common sense had prevailed and the EPA (and individual states) had simply granted these cars a lifetime exemption on emissions violations while fining VW $15b.

Would anybody be complaining about the value of their cars?

If you hate the settlement, you can put yourself effectively in the same position by refusing the cash and driving the car out. Resale seems irrelevant as most owners appear to have planned on keeping their cars as long as possible. I doubt most states will be able to track fixed vs unfixed cars, so passing emissions tests 3+ years into the future isn't much of a concern.

As it is, VW is doing a credible job resetting the depreciation clock to September 2015 while adding in a significant kicker to pull your car off the road. Gen 1 owners are stuck with a larger gap to a new car replacement, but old cars aren't worth much. Getting more out of a car today than it was worth a year ago never happens.

No settlement is ever enough for the offended party, but VW's offer is more than $0, which is what the private party value is today.

Borsig · Jun 29, 2016

If the EPA wanted tghem off the road, they shouldnt have made it more attractive to drive my 2015 for 2 more years.

GetMore · Jul 3, 2016

IndigoBlueWagon said:
Looking at the thread of calculated buybacks it seems most people are going to end up having driven their cars for free or nearly free, exclusive of fuel, maintenance, insurance, and taxes, for the time they've owned it.

Free use of the car for its life with you seems to me to be pretty good compensation. Driving my '12 Golf for the three and a half years I owned it cost me about $7K in depreciation, by contrast.

I am having a difficult time understanding where you are coming from with this statement.
I have a 2010 'Wagen, and I will not be getting anywhere close to what I paid for the car, as a matter of fact, it will be less than half.

You mention depreciation costing you $7,000.

Are you and I not part of the "most people" you mention that owned their cars for free? I am guessing that might be what you mean, but I am having a hard time getting how you and I are not part of a larger group of owners than those with newer cars.

Just trying to understand.

Thanks!

IndigoBlueWagon · Jul 3, 2016

I sold my Golf a year ago, pre-dieselgate. So I didn't have a buyback. I was making the point that cars depreciate, and there are a lot of people out there with newer TDIs that will be able to sell them back for close to what they have in the car. If I still had the car I would probably get more than I sold it for a year ago. But I would also have had to pay insurance and taxes for a year on a car I rarely drove. So I don't mind.

In your case, I don't know how you could reasonably expect to get what you paid for 7 model year old car back when you return it, if you bought it new. You've had years of use of the car, and driven it many miles. If you look at KBB trade in values for your car today and compare them to your buyout I'm sure the buyout is more attractive.

Diesl · Jul 3, 2016

Glad the thread is open again

..but let's try to keep it on topic. What I was hoping we would discuss here is whether the settlement, as currently proposed, is meeting the goal proclaimed in the first sentence of the executive summary (see first post): namely, to compensate owners. My view is that it does not.

I don't know whether the summary is misrepresenting on purpose, or whether Judge Breyer and the victims' lawyers got bamboozled by VW/EPA/CARB, but as it is there is no compensation for people who were fraudulently sold a TDI not meeting specs unless they are willing to let VW either buy back or modify their car.

To me it seems the proposed settlement is as fraudulent as the original car sale.

I think this thread is not the right place to discuss buyback valuation details; there are better threads for that.

njn63 · Jul 3, 2016

warrior1677 said:
The issue that's going to turn me away from VW is a lack information about the fix/settlement at my dealer. I stopped by the dealer today to ask about the fix and they were clueless the service department even said we would know two weeks before they would.

With very few exceptions, the people that work at dealerships don't give a crap about the vehicles they are selling. If you read a magazine article about a vehicle you know more than the average salesman selling it.

This is common throughout the industry. Get used to it.

RollingCoal · Jul 3, 2016

IndigoBlueWagon said:
Who says they didn't derive the comp from retail? It's accommodated in the increase in payment. They just used trade in as a starting figure and added to it.

Yeah but that's not what there supposed to do now is it? The settlement was supposed to be retail plus additional compensation. 90% of the people who feel shorted by this deal wouldn't if they didn't use the fair trade in BS. Not only would the numbers add up but there wouldn't be as many people insulted by the offer. I'm not easily insulted I just want them to compensate me for buying a new car then turning right around and having to buy another. If I had gotten a few good years of use I seriously doubt the offer would rub me so wrong. It's funny that you feel so strongly that the deal was fair yet said early on in the thread you sold your tdi a while ago. No skin in the game.

I have a 2015 and if I take the buy back I will in-fact lose a decent sum of money on the deal. It's not really my choice to do so therefor some additional compensation is in order. No I don't mean 20 extra grand for no reason I just mean that I shouldn't have to pay sales tax on my new vehicle because I'm stuck selling it back to VW instead of trading it in to reduce my tax liability on the new vehicle.

Sure the mod offer seems fair on its face but there is no approved modification yet is there? I also don't want to be a test subject to said fix as this was not the configuration I bought the vehicle. We all know how much engineering goes into car building these days. I won't feel comfortable with any major changes being made after the fact. Because VW wants to put this scandal behind them I have zero faith that any fix will be tested thoroughly enough to the point where its not going to come with some issues of its own.

The only reasonable option seems to be the buy back and for people who bought the car new in the few months leading up to the scandal its looking like a raw deal. Getting a shiny new car for a few extra grand on my end doesn't seem like a great deal when you're already driving a shiny new car without the extra incurred expense.

Jimmy Coconuts · Jul 4, 2016

njn63 said:
With very few exceptions, the people that work at dealerships don't give a crap about the vehicles they are selling. If you read a magazine article about a vehicle you know more than the average salesman selling it.

This is common throughout the industry. Get used to it.

^^^^^ truth!

IndigoBlueWagon · Jul 4, 2016

RollingCoal, I understand your frustration. I guess it's inevitable that someone is going to feel they're getting the short end of the stick in this arrangement. I think folks with '09s aren't thrilled, either, nor are some folks with '15 Passats.

Why the numbers are what they are is anyone's guess. Perhaps it's because a car depreciates a lot as soon as it's titled. And you have an expensive Golf: that probably doesn't help.

But keep in mind that your car needs the most minor modifications to comply, if the suggested fixes are approved. They're not major by any stretch. And since you bought a 1st year model with a new engine, one could argue you're already are a bit of a test subject.

Sounds like in your case repairs and keep the car may be your best choice. Or drive it for two more years and then sell it back. At that point the numbers may make more sense.

dropnosky · Jul 4, 2016

Diesl said:
..but let's try to keep it on topic. What I was hoping we would discuss here is whether the settlement, as currently proposed, is meeting the goal proclaimed in the first sentence of the executive summary (see first post): namely, to compensate owners. My view is that it does not.
I don't know whether the summary is misrepresenting on purpose, or whether Judge Breyer and the victims' lawyers got bamboozled by VW/EPA/CARB, but as it is there is no compensation for people who were fraudulently sold a TDI not meeting specs unless they are willing to let VW either buy back or modify their car.
To me it seems the proposed settlement is as fraudulent as the original car sale.
I think this thread is not the right place to discuss buyback valuation details; there are better threads for that.

I have already asked you to quantify your pain and suffering and tell us what kind of a deal would be acceptable to you. No response yet. Do you want to "discuss" or do you want to say the word "fraudulent" as many times as you can?

Personally i find the proposed settlement more than fair. So far you have failed to tell us how it could be improved to be fair in your eyes.

DanB36 · Jul 4, 2016

It would appear, based on his last comment, that Diesl thinks a settlement should include a payout to owners who don't have their cars fixed or sell them back. Not sure why he would think that, though.

@Diesl, why is it "fraudulent" to require as a condition of receiving compensation that the car be repaired to a condition which is not "fraudulent" (or at least less "fraudulent")?

dropnosky · Jul 4, 2016

Im having a hard time seeing the pain and suffering here. Yes VW scammed the emissions test and is being punished for it. However, the consequence to owners is saving money on fuel economy. Its very hard to call that a negative impact on owners.

That leaves "being lied to" as the biggest source of pain and suffering, followed closely by a very hard to quantify impact on the environment as number 2.

So i have a car that is cleaner than any other diesel ive ever owned, has saved me money on fuel, and now im in a position to take advantage of the manufacturers punsihment and sell my car back for almost every dollar i have in it, OR let them fix it and give me a bunch of cash that more than offsets any loss of value. That will also offset any loss in economy fuel costs going forward. In the end ill be left with a big comfortable car thats only efficient, not super efficient, and a lot less money owed on a loan.

Id call that a win win. Somehow thats not good enough for some of us though

mrchill · Jul 4, 2016

The offer is more than fair. I would never have offered as much s vw has....its almost silly what they are doing. I cannot imagine why this deal seems unfair to you. If I chose to sell my cars back(and I wont) I would lose on the passat and gain on the jettas. Why? I paid 34k for the passat brand new. Had I bought a preowned with 10k miles on it, I would have saved 10k and a buyback would have returned every dime I paid. But...I didnt buy a Monet.....I bought a car. I never intended to collect its value through monetary means. I intended to drive it. Enjoy it... The fix is forthcoming. If you decide to fix it, then you get an enormous payout for your trouble....thats unheard of. If you are simply sad that all this happened, you can sell it back...no harm no foul. The buyback is MORE than generous. Unless you think you bought a rare painting.....

ottomatic · Jul 4, 2016

njn63 said:
With very few exceptions, the people that work at dealerships don't give a crap about the vehicles they are selling. If you read a magazine article about a vehicle you know more than the average salesman selling it.

This is common throughout the industry. Get used to it.

All VW sales people are required to learn about each model every year & take tests at the end of each course. It's called VW Academy. Each model takes about 5 hrs with a test @ the end. 25 questions & if you miss 2 you have to re-take course. I know cuz I had to take them & repeat them
VW sales people have to be certified.
My gripe was that they had the WRONG answers as being right which kept causing me to fail. I spent hours on the phone SHOWING them where they were wrong and pointing out the right answers. The Academy's excuse was it some how got mixed up in the translation.
Vw sales people should be knowledgeable if the dealership went by the book. I was & the dealership I worked @ went by the book

the courses, the f'd up computer system & the requirement to HOUND potential customers were the reason I left.

& Yes VW did commit FRAUD. Let them sell off one of their other divisions or let Germany bail them out & REALLY compensate.
The aggravation & worry is not worth owning a VW.

BTW all the sales people @ the dealership I worked @ did care about (our or their customers for that's how you get referrals)

Diesl · Jul 4, 2016

DanB36 said:
It would appear, based on his last comment, that Diesl thinks a settlement should include a payout to owners who don't have their cars fixed or sell them back. Not sure why he would think that, though.

@Diesl, why is it "fraudulent" to require as a condition of receiving compensation that the car be repaired to a condition which is not "fraudulent" (or at least less "fraudulent")?

VW defrauded (sorry, there's 'fraud' again; I hope nobody blows a gasket) you by selling you a car that didn't meet the specs they claimed it would meet. They should compensate you for this fraud, full stop. No whats, ifs or buts, and no matter what you do or don't do with your car. The interests of other parties to this settlement should have no influence on the basic fact that you as the victim in that fraudulent transaction need to be compensated. It's just a basic fairness requirement. Of course you are free to argue that you fully expect to get screwed over at every turn of your life, so why should it be different here, but that doesn't really have much convincing power for other people.

The settlement is fraudulent when it claims that its main goal (as stated in the first sentence of the executive summary) is to compensate owners, but then makes that compensation dependent on conditions and excludes a whole class of owners from receiving compensation.

This thread is not the place to discuss the amount of compensation. Let's just assume for the sake of argument that the $5,100+ amount that is touted as the minimum an owner receives (but based on trade-in value, and with other problems discussed in other threads) is fine.
If that compensation were given to every buyer, regardless of whether they sell back, fix or just keep the car, that would bring the proposed settlement in line with what it claims it is doing, and with basic requirements of fairness.

dropnosky · Jul 4, 2016

Yes, they defrauded you in a way that actually saved you some money. Thats a unique sort of fraud, but i guess you need to be paid for laying awake at night with a single tear rolling down your cheek because they LIED.

People lie to me every day, never before has the lie been to my benefit as in this situation.
In other words, a few more grand is what you need to be happy.

Looks like you will have to learn to live with unhappiness. I dont see that many people who share your point of view.

GetMore · Jul 4, 2016

IBW, I know there are people that fit your statement. I do understand where you are coming from.
I think my biggest issue is that the 'Wagen depreciated a lot more than I expected, having come from a '97 Passat. I just expected it to hold value better. My fault there, perhaps.

It seems (no proof) that we are being offered trade-in value, plus 20% (to make it retail, as per the court?), plus $2900 to sell back the vehicle.
People that go for the fix are getting 20% for the loss in value, plus $2900, or something along those lines.
Financially, unless you want out of the car, or aren't going to like the fix, it would be best to do the fix, instead of selling the car.

Diesl, I would like you to explain what financial loss you have suffered as a result of VW's fraud.
By all means, if you want them to compensate us for the damage they caused, they should place on the road vehicles that emit less NOx.

As to your argument that you are going to take a loss by replacing your car, yes, that is true. BUT, there is no requirement that you do so. Either get the fix, to be within allowable limits (which could be higher, but now permitted by an arrangement with the EPA), and take the extra cash, or don't do anything, and just keep driving. No loss.

If you did not plan on keeping the car forever then you were going to be where you are now with the buyback: You will take a loss and have to buy something else before you have gotten every cent of use out of the vehicle.

The settlement as proposed is complete BS

TDIClub Enthusiast, Principal IDParts, Vendor , w/

Veteran Member

TDIClub Enthusiast, Principal IDParts, Vendor , w/

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

TDIClub Enthusiast, Principal IDParts, Vendor , w/

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Member

Veteran Member

Top Post Dawg

Active member

Veteran Member

Vendor , w/Business number

Veteran Member

TDIClub Enthusiast, Principal IDParts, Vendor , w/

Veteran Member

Active member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

TDIClub Enthusiast, Principal IDParts, Vendor , w/

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

TDIClub Enthusiast, Super Secret Diesel Ninja Vend

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member