Not getting the emissions fix?

I live in NJ and have a 2015 Golf Sportwagon SE MT TDI that is elegible for buy back or emissions fix. I love the car (except for the uncomfortable front seats) so I think I want to keep it but don't want the emissions fix to kill the mileage. What kind of MPG are people seeing that had the fix done? I was also thinking about not getting the fix done and keeping it as is. Anybody else doing this? Would I be able to pass inspection without the fix?
Thanks for your help

Why do you think the emissions fix will kill the mileage?

If you look around here you'll see that it really hasn't impacted the fuel consumption.

^What the Tortoise said. I haven't seen a drop in MPGs and it seems like the consensus is the same unless I've misread everyone else's reports.

Even if it did reduce millage by a few MPGs, the value of the restitution payment plus the extended warranty far exceeds what little extra you would pay each fill up.

free money to buy a delete and tune to get even better mileage!

The comments I have seen, have indicated that with the 'Fix - Act I' there are significantly more regens and the AdBlue consumption is up.

From the 60k miles driven so far, everytime I have a regen my trip mileage drops 4-5 mpg. Thus if there are more regens - lower mileage.

I am holding out on not doing the 'Fix'.

Im up at 45k miles and I honestly do not see a difference in trip mileage when there is a regen vs. no regen unless the regen hits on a short trip. I just don't see the reasoning behind forgoing the fix because you lose "4-5 mpg" on a trip every 200 to 300 miles.

Just for the sake of argument, lets say your car gets 45 mpg normally and 40 mpg during a regen. You fill up at 450 miles and during that time you have two 50 mile trips that net 40 mpg due to regens. In this scenario you refuel with about 10.25 gallons. Without the regens it would have only been 10 gallons. at $2.50/ gallon (around here) you only lose $0.62 per fill up.

Now for the sake of argument your regens double after the fix. Same scenario at 50 mile trips per regen cycle netting 40mpg while the remaining miles are at 45 mpg. Here you lose $1.38 per fill up.

If the second scenario was true, you will have to drive over 100k more miles before the savings at the pump match the restitution. That doesn't even include the value of the extended warranty.

From what I have seen with my car, the frequency of regens is about the same. The difference is, they are allowed to begin much sooner than before the fix. This results in what can seem like more frequent regens if I interup it because of a series of short trips around town. Personally, I am not concerned with increase adblue usage. From what I have read, it only has increased about 15% which does not impact refilling every 10k miles. Even if it does, adblue is dirt cheap and takes no time at all to refill.

In MY opinion and based on the numbers I ran for myself, there is no reason to delay the fix even if you have to deal with a few trips showing lower mpgs.

The only way not getting the fix makes sense is if you are doing the buyback.

Phase one is just an ECU change. If you don't like it get it tuned with the 4-5K VW gives you. A good tune will only cost 1/10th of that.

Phase two hasn't even started yet so no sense in speculating on that one.

All of the comments I have seen says there is little or no impact to MPG for phase one and most think the car drives better.

Thank you for your replies. From what I just read phase 1 of the fix (computer mod) does not have a big impact on fuel consumption. Has anybody done the other phases? How do they affect economy?

The phase 2 fix is not available yet. It is my understanding that the emissions components were not designed to last for the 160k of the extended warranty under the new operating conditions. The second phase of the fix will be to install new components that will survive to 160k (and hopefully well past that point). Apparently it will also involve an additional adblue sensor to make sure you arent just using water. I do not believe much is known beyond that. I would hazard a guess that the phase 2 fix should not alter performance since the new operating parameters would already be addressed in the the first phase. If I'm wrong or missing something I'm sure someone else will chime in.

Saw this last week on my '15 GSW, bought "fixed" in April

As you can see by the miles on the car it's not exactly broken in, but FE seems to be in the mid- to high 40s.

My reading shows that the second fix seems to consist of replacing emissions components that may not survive the warranty period, and an addition of a sensor. Not sure if there's a reflash or not. Paperwork isn't clear.

I bought my car with the fix done. I have 6k miles on it. Last tank I got 520 miles and it took 11.1 gallons to fill it back up. I don't do maths very good but I'm happy with those numbers and I'm coming from a Honda Fit which is no slouch in the mpgs.

Also fwiw there's a thread here showing the first stage of the fix actually increases HP and TQ.

You are losing out of a lot money if you don't get the fix. The first part is a software fix that takes about an hour to complete and I got about $4000. I have not noticed any negative impacts what so ever. In fact, it feels like it runs a little better now. And next year they replace the DPF and I get another $2000. Why wouldn't you get it done? Even if it nerf's the car you can still get a tune for around $600 and restore it back. And you still ahead like $5000.

Un"fix"ed:






Even saying that the inaccuracy of the computer requires a subtraction of 20%, that's still 55.6 mpg and 50.2 mpg respectively. Are people who have had the "fix" done registering mpg this high?

I think I saw numbers like that maybe twice in the 30k miles of pre fix driving. I often see mid to high 50's on my 30 mile commute home from work. On the other hand, I almost never see that on the way to work because going to work has more uphill and coming home is going back down. I see no change between my pre and post fix mpg. If there is anyone here who is unhappy about their post fix mpgs, they are awfully quiet. The biggest argument for getting the fix is the restitution payment. If you refuse the fix out of fear of loosing out on a few mpgs, you WILL lose money. If you are regularly seeing those mpgs, and IF the fix did reduce that by 5 mpg, it will take even longer to see your mpg savings against the restitution than the scenario I laid out earlier. Not to mention 4k today plus 2k next year is worth more than a few dollars a week spread out over the next 3 to 10 years depending on how much you drive.

demagxc said:

I think I saw numbers like that maybe twice in the 30k miles of pre fix driving. I often see mid to high 50's on my 30 mile commute home from work. On the other hand, I almost never see that on the way to work because going to work has more uphill and coming home is going back down. I see no change between my pre and post fix mpg. If there is anyone here who is unhappy about their post fix mpgs, they are awfully quiet. The biggest argument for getting the fix is the restitution payment. If you refuse the fix out of fear of loosing out on a few mpgs, you WILL lose money. If you are regularly seeing those mpgs, and IF the fix did reduce that by 5 mpg, it will take even longer to see your mpg savings against the restitution than the scenario I laid out earlier. Not to mention 4k today plus 2k next year is worth more than a few dollars a week spread out over the next 3 to 10 years depending on how much you drive.

Click to expand...

I get 60's on the readout quite often, so, I am curious, though, if anyone's "fixed"-vehicle readout is showing 60's+ in MPG.

I'd be more concerned about reliability of the vehicle post-"fix" than MPG. The extended warranty is certainly a plus on the side of getting the "fix" and all, but that doesn't necessarily help immediately when your car strands you somewhere due to a "fix" failure. That's something that a lot of people are glossing over quite a bit. As soon as you change the programming without long-term testing (typically 3 years is standard in automotive development), you're taking a risk. The vehicle is unpredictable.

If people are ok with walking 10-20 miles to the nearest town with no warning, then groovy.

I trust you realize that those FE readings aren't really indicative of anything. Anyone can coax a high reading out of a vehicle for 40 or 60 miles. Full tank economy or, better still, average of three tanks, is a better indicator of what the car is really achieving.

What are you seeing on full tanks?

IndigoBlueWagon said:

I trust you realize that those FE readings aren't really indicative of anything. Anyone can coax a high reading out of a vehicle for 40 or 60 miles. Full tank economy or, better still, average of three tanks, is a better indicator of what the car is really achieving.

What are you seeing on full tanks?

Click to expand...

48.6 MPG calculated average from 7/13/15 (first fill-up at gas station) to 7/13/16 (last recorded fill-up at gas station). Now I bought 600 gallons of diesel and don't really measure it out into the vehicles. FE readout is an indicator of fuel efficiency of the vehicle, it simply has some known inaccuracy to it. I've recorded between 10-20% over-estimation of fuel efficiency over the year I kept strict records. That being the case, I arbitrarily choose to use a .8 multiplier to the readout value to gauge my general fuel efficiency. So, if I check my lifetime fuel efficiency and it reads 60.1 MPG, I assume that my actual MPG is between 48.1 and 60.1 MPG.

That's a pretty big range. I've found the cluster readings on my car to be 3-6 MPG high. Not terribly useful.

IndigoBlueWagon said:

That's a pretty big range. I've found the cluster readings on my car to be 3-6 MPG high. Not terribly useful.

Click to expand...

I think you mean not terribly useful to you. I find my FE readout very useful.

I personally find 3-6 MPG high or low to be statistically insignificant.

Absolute MPG is not a huge focus to me, otherwise I'd have a calibrated readout, have fuel measuring equipment and keep strict records.

The concern I'd have is if "fix"-affected critical components would outlast your roadside assistance, even if they are under warranty for 11 years/162K miles. Without a proven history, the cars are unpredictable once "fixed".

Chances are people in general will be lucky enough not to get stranded, but everyone should admit the chances they're taking by getting their autos "fixed".

-- Nicole

Miss_Athanatos said:

I think you mean not terribly useful to you. I find my FE readout very useful.

I personally find 3-6 MPG high or low to be statistically insignificant.

Absolute MPG is not a huge focus to me, otherwise I'd have a calibrated readout, have fuel measuring equipment and keep strict records.

The concern I'd have is if "fix"-affected critical components would outlast your roadside assistance, even if they are under warranty for 11 years/162K miles. Without a proven history, the cars are unpredictable once "fixed".

Chances are people in general will be lucky enough not to get stranded, but everyone should admit the chances they're taking by getting their autos "fixed".

-- Nicole

Click to expand...

Anywhere from 48 to 60, yeah, that's not very useful (to me).

It is OK to not "personally" find a 3-6mpg error significant (even though a reading of 5 off out of 50 will be significant to many), that's your tolerance level on this matter. Just don't use "statistically insignificant", that's more complicated.

Keep in mind that your car is a first year production car for the North American market, with emissions components that are configured specifically for sale here. Given that I'm not sure they're significantly more "proven" than the replacement parts post-fix.

Most emissions failures won't strand you, unless you ignore the warnings. I've owned a bunch of unusual cars, take good care of them, and can count on my thumbs the number of times I've been stranded. Of the list of things I worry about, that's pretty far down.

aditud said:

Anywhere from 48 to 60, yeah, that's not very useful (to me).

It is OK to not "personally" find a 3-6mpg error significant (even though a reading of 5 off out of 50 will be significant to many), that's your tolerance level on this matter. Just don't use "statistically insignificant", that's more complicated.

Click to expand...

I don't doubt that reading/calculating 48 - 60 MPG won't satisfy some people, but for most people, absolute MPG is a curiosity, not a useful pursuit. The dollars and cents of it don't actually make it worthwhile to track absolute values. Relative MPG can satisfy most people in the knowledge that the car continues in excellent fuel efficiency, exceeds all other cars of the same class, and gives a pleasure associated with the knowledge.

If you say that 3-6 MPG is 4.5 MPG just for this example, and you're seeing 50.1 MPG on your readout, that's less than a 9% deviation. Typically anything under 10% deviation is considered statistically insignificant, due to human or mechanical errors in setting up and carrying out an experiment/test.

IndigoBlueWagon said:

Keep in mind that your car is a first year production car for the North American market, with emissions components that are configured specifically for sale here. Given that I'm not sure they're significantly more "proven" than the replacement parts post-fix.

Most emissions failures won't strand you, unless you ignore the warnings. I've owned a bunch of unusual cars, take good care of them, and can count on my thumbs the number of times I've been stranded. Of the list of things I worry about, that's pretty far down.

Click to expand...

How long a vehicle has been in production is not the same as how long it's spent in R&D.

Also, have you looked at the list of things covered unter the "fix" warranty?

- Entire exhaust after-treatment system, &c.
- Entire fuel system, &c.
- EGR system, &c.
- Turbocharger, &c.
- On-Board Diagnostic system, &c.

Also, engine sub-assy.

Manufacturers do not warrant those things which they do not expect to be affected by a change. The warranty is simply a bet that these things will not fail within a given period, because they ought not. However, we all know by experience of the world that in many cases these things do fail and receive service under the warranty.

Miss_Athanatos said:

I don't doubt that reading/calculating 48 - 60 MPG won't satisfy some people, but for most people, absolute MPG is a curiosity, not a useful pursuit. The dollars and cents of it don't actually make it worthwhile to track absolute values. Relative MPG can satisfy most people in the knowledge that the car continues in excellent fuel efficiency, exceeds all other cars of the same class, and gives a pleasure associated with the knowledge.

If you say that 3-6 MPG is 4.5 MPG just for this example, and you're seeing 50.1 MPG on your readout, that's less than a 9% deviation. Typically anything under 10% deviation is considered statistically insignificant, due to human or mechanical errors in setting up and carrying out an experiment/test.

Click to expand...

It's simple math: 60-48=12. That's 25% of the low number. So, when you say "I'm reading 65mpg, but I know that in reality that's anywhere between 48 and 60" the only takeaway from that statement is that the MFD is useless. This is hardly a matter of opinion.

Also, in most studies the statistical insignificance threshold is set at 5%, not 10%.

Calculating fuel economy takes about 10 - 30 seconds per fill up using fuelly app on my phone. It's not that hard to get a pretty good average. I track all my vehicles. Almost 70k miles since new and averaging over 48 mpg. My display reads high by a few points.

Personally it's buy back or fix/money for me. Can't imagine doing neither of those items.

I don't normally travel places I would have to walk 10-20 miles if my car broke down. I can't imagine walking more than a few feet to get into a tow truck.

aditud said:

So, when you say "I'm reading 65mpg, but I know that in reality that's anywhere between 48 and 60" the only takeaway from that statement is that the MFD is useless.

Click to expand...

Were that what I wrote, then your conclusion would be true.

My main point is not about the fuel efficiency, but rather about the reliability of the vehicle once it has become unpredictable by the phase I "fix". I honestly don't know why anyone would willingly turn his good VW into a beater (which to my knowledge is understood by the american to mean a car that may strand you unpredictably), even if one has only to walk 1-2 miles ordinarily to get help.

It's just an additional point of consideration to the fuel efficiency if fuel efficiency is what is important to VW owners.

Miss_Athanatos said:

Were that what I wrote, then your conclusion would be true.

Click to expand...

From your posts:

"So, if I check my lifetime fuel efficiency and it reads 60.1 MPG, I assume that my actual MPG is between 48.1 and 60.1 MPG."

"I think you mean not terribly useful to you. I find my FE readout very useful."

Most of these cars have been re-flashed multiple times prior to sale. Mine had been re-flashed three times before I bought it, including the latest fix. So not getting the emissions fix doesn't necessarily avoid the car having been tampered with.