I realize you're playing devil's advocate, but we don't get that kind of temperature swing here in Southern CA.
Fact is, I'm now driving with the AC off where it's normally on, and am getting 5+mpg less than I used to.
I'll hand calculate mileage over my next 2 tanks. I've been going by the numbers on the OBC. Most I ever got was 640 miles on a single tank on a road trip. Average for me was between 520 and 550 miles per tank depending on how I drove. When I would fill up, it would say 520-550 miles til empty, this time from full it said 440.
You suggesting that "oh well maybe the OBC is more accurate now" is pretty insulting. You continually suggest that folks with complaints (mind you I'm not a speculator) have nothing to complain about. Nothing was mentioned in any paperwork, Audi has not provided any details as to what was done. There were no notes that listed "fixed OBC estimated MPG calculations." What they handed me was a document listing reduced MPG to 19/27 (I believe originally it was 19/28), and that's it.
Your vehicle isn't even close to the same weight class as mine (1100 lbs lighter with a similar engine), I wouldn't expect you to be experiencing the same issues I am. Please have the decency to refrain from insinuating that others are imagining things (which I certainly am taking it as).
The mere fact that anyone would attempt to draw a distinction between a speculator and an original owner or single car owner as a daily driver is patently absurd. Is the date you became an owner somehow relevant to one's reliance upon the expectation that your attorney performs well? It could easily be argued that an owner prior to the published settlement in no way relied upon its adequacy as a remedy, while a speculator purchased knowing the prior 2 liter settlement was fairly reached and those owners sufficiently and adequately represented by counsel.
The job performed by the attorneys in the three liter matter was pathetic. When a consumer is misled in a material way, the settlement must require a buyback option, PERIOD. Any risk of deterioration of performance or market value should not be placed upon the consumer, but rather upon the party that occasioned the possibility of the diminution. The amount of secrecy surrounding the repair, the lack of objective and published test numbers, the vague and carefully worded disclosure of the effect of the repair; it all points to the fact the plaintiffs counsel was clueless in this settlement. Look at this sentence:
"The Lawyer I spoke to from the settlement said that it would be a big help if I were to get some sort of actual figures/numbers instead of things that are subjective."
REALLY? No %^$#! You should call the attorney back and tell him/her that he/she is absolutely right, it would be a big help. The fact that they just came to this most obvious conclusion AFTER settling the case and selling out all the three liter owners is inexcusable. A fair settlement would have included a buy back option at the discretion of the owner (after the repair experience). The owner would have to make the decision in say 45 or 60 days post repair. The repair compensation should have been set at a number where most owners would have had to struggle with the decision. This number, strangely enough, had already been determined. It is the difference between the buy back number (found in the settlement), and the current market value on the date of decision. This number is a much more accurate measure of appropriate compensation for the owners, and I would not be questioning the professional competency of the attorneys.
Do the math yourself, and you will see it is more fair and makes sense. You would also struggle with the decision, as the compliance repair compensation would adequately address your damage. Take your current market value and subtract it from the buy back option in the chart, and you will have a number about twice what you received as a result of complying with the repair. THAT IS the number owners should have received if they kept the car, post fix. I would hazard a guess most would keep them. Then you would have been compensated for any loss of market value and/or performance and you (the consumer) could decide for yourself if it was adequate and appropriate.
The additional and appropriate amount would have cost maybe $10,000 more per car on about the 50,000 or so three liters in circulation. Is 500 million dollars a big deal on top of the total settlement costs? Not really, perhaps half went to our "court appointed attorneys" and VAG kept the other half it saved.