Mythdoc;5360504
[I said:
1. *Nobody is requiring gen 2 owners to get the fix...
2. *Nobody claimed that there might not be observable performance hits. This was all part of the settlement, which was public record on February 1 of this year.
3. In short, the settlement was great while people were handing out free money. Why squeal now that it isn’t fair?
4. As a final thought experiment, here’s a question: if dieselgate had never been discovered, would you be better off or worse off? If the answer is better, then I am not sure what you are whining about.
5. As for “regular owners,” theirs is the one category that might be worse off: folks who bought their gen 2 new, who still own it, and would like to sell it soon. Perhaps, even with the free money, they come out behind, if you consider that some of them are having trouble trading these vehicles while everything sorts out. But, people who like to buy brand new cars and trade them every 2-3 years are always, always, on the poor end of the investment curve.
6. I have a factory warranty until November, so, no hurry to get the fix just to have the warranty kick in. If it sucks, maybe I won’t have it done. I’ll still be ahead.
7. I will add that I can't really follow why some posters feel SO reamed or cheated by all that has transpired, except of course to blame VW for their criminal actions, for which we are being well rewarded.
[/I]
Mythdoc, I can't quite figure out your angle on this. Much of what you say is pragmatic and accurate, but at the same time you are defensive of VW and scornful of those who feel aggrieved. Above I snipped some comments that are of interest.
1. You are right. No one has to get the fix. Like you, I might. Or I might not. I'm waiting until the answer become obvious, the last minute, or when my current warranty runs out, whichever comes first. In this narrow sense the settlement is fair - they aren't seizing our cars or forcing unwanted "fixes".
2. I disagree with your analysis here. To the extent that the settlement terms made it acceptable for VW's "fix" to affect performance adversely, it is a disagreeable settlement. Those who orchestrated the settlement deserve the criticism they are getting. Like many of us, I bought a vehicle because of a fixed set of performance characteristics. It's not ok to reach a settlement that allows such a change. IMPORTANT NOTE: I recognize there is at present inconclusive data about the effect of the "fix." If it turns out the "fix" is benign on performance, terrific.
3. I disagree with your analysis here. Very few 3.0 owners thought the "free money" was great, because we all knew the chances/likelihood that we would be denied the buy-back option if the fix hurt performance. A better settlement would have been to allow us to have our cars fixed and then, if dissatisfied, sell them back at the buy-back price - so VW, and not we, could assume the financial and practical challenges of selling a used 3.0 into this market.
4. I'm open to your thought experiment, but I don't understand it. If dieselgate had never been discovered, I think I'd be better off individually. Whether as a member of society at large we are better off with its discovery has been fodder for thousands of posts already. Now that it has been discovered, though, I'm clearly worse off - I have the same vehicle I always had, and without the fix it still performs magnificently - but if i I want to sell it there's no market for it, fixed or otherwise.
5. You are largely correct here. I'm someone who bought new and would have considered selling in 2-3 years, or not, depending. I am therefore on the poor end of the investment curve, to use your term. I believe, though, that the investment curve is worse than it would have been (meaning I can get less out of my 3.0 in private sale or trade than had dieselgate not occurred), even factoring in the bribe money. I admit to no definitive data to support this - guessing the value of a 3.0 today had dieselgate not happened is impossible. In part I'm factoring in the difficulty finding a dealer to even take it in trade, assessing the value of the trade, or trying to explain dieselgate to a potential private-sale buyer...ugh. That's not a fun picture.
6. I agree with you here. Like you I'm fortunate to be able to delay getting my 2nd half of fix money until we all get more data about performance effects. Not everyone has that luxury, for financial and/or warranty reasons. The luxury of my position - being able to pocket the money-to-date while keeping my great-performing vehicle as-is for another 2 years or 40,000 miles - is not lost on me. I'm lucky.
7. Some of what you say here is true, and it's hard to find fault...until you added the value judgement that we are "well rewarded." For some, the reward is terrific. For others, not so much. If you can't sell your vehicle for decent value into an uncertain market, and you can't afford not to accept the fix money, you're probably unhappy if yours is the "fix" that hurts your vehicle's performance. Stuck in a neutered vehicle you can't sell reliably for decent value, you are justified in not feeling "well rewarded."
My takeaway from your posts, Mythdoc, is that you're happy with how it turned out for you. I read others' posts that feel similarly. Not everyone is, though, and their grievances over the settlement terms seem valid.
I agree with you that the word "conspiracy" is a bit much. It seems more likely to me that class counsel saw the finish line, and a fee, approaching - and mailed it in rather than fighting for the last 6-8% of the affected customers, by declining to press for a buyback option for all 3.0s.
Off to have my '14 Lux's 60k service tomorrow. I'll be curious to see if the dealer's SW asks me if I want to schedule my "fix." I"m guessing not. I am glad that the settlement doesn't require me to say yes, and lets me keep money anyway. That is a curious part of the deal.
