What did you laugh? VW did the cheating because it was cheaper that to do it the legal way. Performance was not the reason, $$$ was. Everything is about money, EVERYTHING!!Whatever they do, they wont have a fix that wont get them in trouble. Best bet for them would be to buy them back and ship them to countries with less restrictions to minimize their loss.
I recall speaking to a Service rep at Yorkdale VW who shook his head and stated with such confidence and said " the fix will make the car better and better performance and more fuel economy" I laughed at him and said " there is no fix that they can do that will make the car better at all or else they would not have lied and rigged the computer."
Im in the same boat as Savageman69.
Good Luck Vw.
What he bought after shouldn't be relevant.I think they would make us demonstrate a loss to qualify, so owning the car at the time of the scandal at a minimum. It's compensation for the loss in residual value. Not sure how they will treat people who sold after the scandal. If they made a loss selling, they should get compensation. Now savage sold at a loss, but then bought another for a bargain, so not sure how that would work
Why not? In international trade law, it's about proving "injury", so why wouldn't it be similar here? The scandal lead to him losing money on one vehicle. But that loss was probably made up for by the one he bought next. So where is the injury? It was a wash in the end, maybe even gain if the new one lost more value. So if there is a component for the loss, plus another bonus for the inconvenience, "emotional trauma", etc, I can see the latter applying in this case, but not the former?What he bought after shouldn't be relevant.
Now from a business perspective, why would they give the full $5K on a lease? The lessee doesn't own the vehicle, the lessor does, and the lessor suffered the loss on value as well when the vehicle is returned. I'd see there being some sort of split between the two.the $5000 from what I read will be given only if you decide to repair the vehicle and keep it , (now if you finance the vehicle that amount will be applied to your VW credit, so the amount of owing will be less by $5000, those that paid off will get cheque in the mail) those that lease you will have chance to return the vehicle at no cost to you, but if you lease and want to drive after the repair the $5k will be applied to vw credit and your monthly payments will drop
Why not? In international trade law, it's about proving "injury", so why wouldn't it be similar here? The scandal lead to him losing money on one vehicle. But that loss was probably made up for by the one he bought next. So where is the injury? It was a wash in the end, maybe even gain if the new one lost more value. So if there is a component for the loss, plus another bonus for the inconvenience, "emotional trauma", etc, I can see the latter applying in this case, but not the former?
I can't wait for them to file their own CAS and find an attorney to argue their case with a straight face.it will be the same as $1000 gift , people who purchased after scandal broke down didn't get any, I think this still will apply , VW will set these rules,
there will be many unhappy people ... once these rules become public..
Why would they have a case? Those that bought after the scandal knew full well what they were buying. Why should they get compensated?I can't wait for them to file their own CAS and find an attorney to argue their case with a straight face.
Exactly. That's my point. Check threadzilla. There are people that bought months after the scandal hit...that knew exactly what they were getting into...that are asking "am I gonna get paid too?"Why would they have a case? Those that bought after the scandal knew full well what they were buying. Why should they get compensated?
Now from a business perspective, why would they give the full $5K on a lease? The lessee doesn't own the vehicle, the lessor does, and the lessor suffered the loss on value as well when the vehicle is returned. I'd see there being some sort of split between the two.
So if he decided to get a bit bicycle then what? Or decided not to get a car at all. What he buys after make no difference.Why not? In international trade law, it's about proving "injury", so why wouldn't it be similar here? The scandal lead to him losing money on one vehicle. But that loss was probably made up for by the one he bought next. So where is the injury? It was a wash in the end, maybe even gain if the new one lost more value. So if there is a component for the loss, plus another bonus for the inconvenience, "emotional trauma", etc, I can see the latter applying in this case, but not the former?
This is incorrect.it will be the same as $1000 gift , people who purchased after scandal broke down didn't get any, I think this still will apply , VW will set these rules,
there will be many unhappy people ... once these rules become public..
This is incorrect.
I purchased my car after the scandal and still received the $1000 credit because I owned the car prior to the cut-off date imposed by VW.
What he bought after shouldn't be relevant.
If he bought another car or bicycle, the argument could be made he was negatively impacted by VW, and the loss of his VW after the scandal. If someone turns around and buys another TDI, they are demonstrating that they didn't care about the scandal at all, plus they took advantage of it to get another one at a better price. You usually need to show injury/harm in some way to claim a remedy. This whole settlement to the individual consumers is to compensate them for harm. I think with the initial $1000 VW was only interested in their reputation, so didn't care about circumstances and gave it to everyone. For this next more expensive round, I think there will be more scrutiny.So if he decided to get a bit bicycle then what? Or decided not to get a car at all. What he buys after make no difference.
They really only gave people $500. The other $500 served two purposees: 1. It threw dealers a bone, and 2. People would continue to maintain the cars that VW knew they'd have to buy back at some point.If he bought another car or bicycle, the argument could be made he was negatively impacted by VW, and the loss of his VW after the scandal. If someone turns around and buys another TDI, they are demonstrating that they didn't care about the scandal at all, plus they took advantage of it to get another one at a better price. You usually need to show injury/harm in some way to claim a remedy. This whole settlement to the individual consumers is to compensate them for harm. I think with the initial $1000 VW was only interested in their reputation, so didn't care about circumstances and gave it to everyone. For this next more expensive round, I think there will be more scrutiny.
VW, one smart cookie boy.They really only gave people $500. The other $500 served two purposees: 1. It threw dealers a bone, and 2. People would continue to maintain the cars that VW knew they'd have to buy back at some point.
It's not like anyone would stop maintaining their cars at that point. Perhaps now, you will find people stop doing maintenance, because they know VW will have no choice to buy back their car.They really only gave people $500. The other $500 served two purposees: 1. It threw dealers a bone, and 2. People would continue to maintain the cars that VW knew they'd have to buy back at some point.
You can bet that there are more than a few people running around on marginal tires, timing belts at or over the change interval, non-essential items broken or in less than optimum condition, etc. There has been multiple threads pop up with exactly that question (between September and March)..."should I put off doing my timing belt?"It's not like anyone would stop maintaining their cars at that point. Perhaps now, you will find people stop doing maintenance, because they know VW will have no choice to buy back their car.
The other question is the crazy exchange rate nowadays .... they disregarded it during the "500+500" goodwill package ... they cannot take the same approach under the buyback terms ... 5K US$ is not 5K CA$ ... this is big money, with lawsuits waiting to leap out of trench ....
Yup. I had to put new tires on mine in late October. I was not happy about it, as I was new car shopping when the news broke.I'm delaying work while I await the outcome
I will soon need new summer tires
I will soon need new winter ties
My front bumper needs to be replaced
I need a hitch
I need (want) a tune
Not doing any of this until I know whether I am keeping the car
my boss is going to Northtown VW in Buffalo to get new tires. we did get the Visa and dealer cards in US dollars though.I'm delaying work while I await the outcome
I will soon need new summer tires
I will soon need new winter ties
My front bumper needs to be replaced
I need a hitch
I need (want) a tune
Not doing any of this until I know whether I am keeping the car
I Paid US dollars but will wait to see if there is an offer in US dollars and maybe it will go to 'my' California address.You can bet that there are more than a few people running around on marginal tires, timing belts at or over the change interval, non-essential items broken or in less than optimum condition, etc. There has been multiple threads pop up with exactly that question (between September and March)..."should I put off doing my timing belt?"
Did you pay USD for your car or CAD? If you paid $25,000 CAD (or however much)...they aren't going to give you $25,000 USD, just because that's how much they gave a U.S. customer that...wait for it...paid $25,000 USD for their car.
Who's to say whether or not they'll do buybacks in Canada. The only reason they're doing them in the U.S. is because of the potential penalties. If it weren't for our consumer protection laws, VW would be just as indifferent to us as they are to their European customers.
Edit: I'm not trying to be a d1ck. As I've said from day one (in the main thread)...the only reason that VW will do anything that benefits consumers, is if it behooves them to do so. i.e. The only reason they're going to buyback cars in the U.S. is that it's cheaper than the alternative.
You do realize what you are in the "Ima cheaps$" owner's forum, right?That's like complaining about having to do brakes. Start thinking with your heads not your wallet.
My car has 78,000km on it, and I have been rotating two sets of tires. If you do the math, I'm not riding around on bare tires. I just like to replace mine earlier, but I won't until I know what is going on. Could go a few more years with the tread I have left. Just generally wouldn't choose to.That's like complaining about having to do brakes. Start thinking with your heads not your wallet.
VW's marketing people nailed it. When I sent this to my parents and GF...they all asked if I was interviewed for this piece, lol.You do realize what you are in the "Ima cheaps$" owner's forum, right?
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money...ssion-volkswagen-group-clean-diesel/82376012/According to the lawsuit, VW marketers studied potential diesel customers and determined that they "rationalize themselves out of their aspirations and justify buying lesser cars under the guise of being responsible."