VW Scandal

[ppppenguin]

Different sizes. If previous owner had modified the suspension and fitted different tyres the average person might well be totally unaware of this.

[Murphyv310]

Yes indeed.
 Insurance companies  are now really strict, often though modifications make very little difference to premiums. 
I replaced my wheels and tyres from a MG ZT as it was from an equivalent model it made no difference to my insurance.

[Nick]

Meanwhile...

   

[AlanBeckett]

With the best will in the world it stinks, and I don't mean that metaphorically. A Mate of mine used to work at MIRA and he'd tell me all sorts of horror stories about Vehicle Testing.

I worked for many a long year in the Hazardous Area Supply Industry. You have to submit to an Approved Test House an actual Sample of the product you propose to make, along with Drawings. Assuming it's Approved the assumption is that you keep making the same thing, and they turn up regularly and check that it's true.

There was a splendid turn of phrase in ancient Certs, which if I remember rightly says:- 
The Manufacturer attest, upon his own Authority, that .... (essentially he'll keep making the same thing) 

The ATEX Directive says:-
The Manufacturer bears the ultimate responsibility for the Safety of the Product.

Clearly for Consumer Products it's not quite so fierce, but they should at least try.

I have an 02 TD4 Freelander. It's done some 63,000 Miiles so it should be in its Prime. I've been logging the consumption since I got it some 6 years ago, and no matter how I drive it it does 29 to the Gallon. The Manufacturer's data says 35 - B******t.

Alan

[Ed_Dinning]

Hi Gents, as the software resides in the ECU, and these are not normally manufactured by the car company themselves, it looks like the original idea cam from the likes of Bosh et al; then presumably sold to all the major manufacturers as an "improvement". There would, of course, have been complicity by the motor manufacturers.

Looking at the bigger picture, I suspect that the standards may have been set so tight that they were not achievable on a vehicle that would give a sensible MPG or performance figure.
In a previous life I worked with civil servants and their masters; it was not unknown for totally unrealistic specs to be dreamt up and published by people who had little knowledge of the systems to which the specs apply; they were also difficult people to get to see common sense/ error of their thought process.

Various figures have been put out about the "appalling" increase in death rates due to this software fix. I believe a figure of 27,000 was quoted in the US.
I would really like to know where this figure has come from, and if true, why have alarm bells not been loudly ringing at the spike on the death statistics.

BUT, I'm only an Engineer who likes to deal in facts not fables.
Would the great motoring public make the choice between cleaner cars or poorer performance given the choice?
I'm sure Messrs Clarkson et al could make a good programme out of it!!

Ed

[pwdrive]

Well well...Manufactures claiming something that aint...who'd of guess it

[terrybull]

I have only recently joined this forum and while exploring came accross this thread. I have owned deisel cars for almost 30 years, long before they were as common as they are now. In the early days I often had garage staff running out to warn me I was putting deisel in my car. I have qualified as an advanced driver and drive my car at moderate speed, in fact I am a rather slow driver and drive with economy in mind. No harsh braking or acceleration. I drive my car in a manner that you should and would expect to get somewhere near the manufacturers fuel consumption figures. My last 5 cars have been VW's all deisel. The current one as the previous one is a blue motion polo. I have had this one now from new just over a year it fuel consumption has been very disappointing. I am well off the published mpg. I actually took it back to the dealer to check it because the fuel economy was so poor and no where near the car it replaced which was essentially the same but earlier model blue motion polo. This was prior to when the emmisions scandal hit. I was told it was running perfectly and would improve with use. It did but not by much. I will not buy another deisel nor another VW and have written to them telling them how disappointed I am. Their response has been silence. I don't beleive that VW are the only manufacturer to 'massage' their figures. If you bought a radio that stated it covered 5 to 50 MHz and it didn't you'd be rightly miffed so why should we accept these wildly optimistic vehicle performance figures. The whole thing is a sham.

[Murphyv310]

Hi Terry.
Yes I agree, as an advanced driver myself I drive for the passengers comfort, anticipate braking and the road ahead. I also have done an instructor course.
We should be due to our skills able to eke out the best fuel consumption from our vehicles. I have driven many VW vans during my working career. I found the consumption of the VW Caddy & T5 poor in comparison to published figures. My present car an Automatic Rover 75 V6 2.5 litre petrol is not renowned for its economy but my driving style gives better figures than the published ones, my car though is 15 years old!
Just makes me feel that today you cannot trust anyone.

[Pat Pending]

When I purchased my Octavia tdi. A friend at the same time bought a VW Golf with the same power unit. Rfl on the Skoda at the time was £90, the Golf, £30, he has had to have his car modified mine has not. As he bought the car in good faith I don't think he should be penalised but I think it would be within the Governments right to make VW compensate for lost revenue in exchange for being allowed to continue trading in the UK.  The rest of us would be locked up for this kind of deception. 

As for mpg claims the Skoda does "what it says on the tin" but the vast majority of cars don't, a colleague has a kia 1.2 diesel that has a claimed 78mpg on combined cycle....it apparently does 37! (And is as slow as a snail to boot). The big get out was as always "it must be the way you drive sir" when he complained.

 The problem with regulatory authorities is that manufacturers soon learn what boxes to tick and what hoops to jump through to get the approval of the auditors.

[Keithstv]

The mpg figures are obtained from a set of standardised tests and bear no relation to real life. I get nowhere near the claimed 47mpg from my Yeti TDI. I'm actually getting nearer 38.4mpg based on the fuel actually used. Up here in Yorkshire we have things called hills which are capable of reducing mpg very effectively. MPG also depends on the weather, time of year, weight carried, speed etc. There are proposals to add a real life figure to the official mpg figures but to be meaningful this would have to be done on a standard route at set speeds and at a specific time of year. A test done in London would have different results to one done in, say Exeter.

Oh and my car is affected by the diesel scandal, I'm awaiting the notice for it's update.

Keith