VW Emissions Scandal

There must be plaintiff to start a lawsuit at all. Why should he start something and not get anything in return?

Can a lawfirm start the lawsuit by themselves? Probably yes, if they drive a company VW.

The only the person who has suffered loss can be the plaintiff, but often, the law-firm will identify and seek out the opportunity, and then "recruit" plaintiffs whom they will subsequently represent. Other law-firms jump on the bandwagon, seeking to represent additional plaintiffs. There can be many dozens, if not hundreds of law-firms involved in big cases, but it may actually be reasonably efficient if they all tend mount  identical cases that are then researched and dealt with en-mass.

Of course plaintiffs will not be interested if there is absolutely nothing in it for them, but often their only real contribution is to register for the action, and the law firm makes that very easy and then takes care of everything else, so even small payouts can make registering worthwhile (money for nothing). I expected that the law firms would gobble up about 75% or even 90% of the settlement. 30% was much lower than I expected.

The VW case will be complex as everyone struggles to define the true loss to the plaintiffs. As VW won't be denying liability (probably), their law-firms will simply try to argue down the nature of the damages. They may start with the position that once they recall and fix, or buy-back the cars, then they have mitigated all loss. The plaintiffs will contend that they have suffered inconvenience, distress, health effects, embarrassment etc. Even if the cars are "fixed" the plaintiffs will claim the cars are not as they were represented and they are suffering loss as a result (worse mileage, lower resale, less power etc...).

It gets more complicated if non-owners start claiming peripheral/consequential loss. If the owners of BMW diesels got together and demonstrated a loss of resale value as a result of VW's negligent and criminal actions they could perhaps mount a claim accordingly. Residents of European cities may claim damages from environmental pollution, health effects, distress etc. Taxi firms could claim loss of business if passengers avoid diesel taxis. The list is  a bit endless.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2...sung_tv_power_tests/

I bet this is everywhere, phones, cookers, 

The attorney starting the class action lawsuit that I heard about owns three VWs.

Some insight into what was VW's incentive to cheat and the interesting politics about emissions - http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/c...o6-emissions-targets

I'm sure that this will be a source and/or charge debate at the COP21 conference in early December 2015 where international agreements on climate change are to be made.

Jude

Slightly off topic but I am enjoying the irony of our local Volkswagen dealer here in Poole.

They are called Breeze and their slogan is 'a breath of fresh air'!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhvI2oeBPtY

This is a 2 wheel and 4 wheel dyno measurement of jetta 2010/11.

Nice example and i guess some kind of proof?

The VW scandal seems egregious. More subtle emissions-related liberties may be taken by auto makers. Foremost, registering higher than actual speedometer readings, which accrues greater apparent mileage than actually occurs. This serves the manufacturer in several ways:

• inflates mpg ratings,
• effectively reduces the mileage-related warranty period for the manufacturer,
• increases reliability ratings,
• can reduce speed-related violations, which has implications on insurance ratings for a manufacturer's fleet.

Part of this issue could be dismissed due to tread wear and differences in replacement tire diameters. Still, I've found that over the years all three of my Hondas consistently register a lower speed on publicly displayed radar positions than the speedometer indicates, typically 3-4 mph. Anyone else see something to this?

On my touran 1.6.TDI from 2013 with EURO5  emissions(yes it is one of the affected engines) I use GPS to get an idea of how much the speedometer is off.

Garmin GPS / VW speedometer

40 / 42

60 / 63

80 / 84

100 / 105

130 / 137

distance meter is correct though. If i drive 80 km the ODO meter on the car and Garmin will show the same. +/- 1km.

This is an aspect which is good, it avoids you from getting speeding tickets.

Speedos are allowed to read up to 10% fast and this is by no means a recent thing. Wheel size will affect the reading. I had a car that gave a 9% over actual reading when compared to GPS, this going down to 6% over actual when I put a set of wheels on which were one inch larger in diameter.

It's a bit rapid too...

https://youtu.be/6eGhjhx8O9MM

Very impressive and it's the take-off from a standstill which is almost unbelievable...

I had my Touran 1.6TDI EU5 (77kW) checked and came back positive.

Since this engines don't use Urea at all and new 1.6 EU6 do, I guess engine change is in order.

According to the MD of VW in the US this scandal is solely down to two rogue software engineers. Yeh. Right.

I received today a letter from those awfully nice Volkswagen people advising me that my car is one of those affected by the issue. So not only is my car only worth about half what it was two weeks ago, but in future it might not pass its MOT emissions test as the software which would have enabled a pass result will have been overwritten. So if I were to elect not to have the service action done, would the DVLA know and would I be breaking any law?

Actually I quite like my car; it's my second Passat and my third VW, but I now feel that I have been cheated.

That's because you have been cheated. They conned you. Not that there was any way of you or millions of others knowing. There's been a lot of hair splitting going on about the actuals, differences and margins regarding future value, performance, economy and emissions which does tend to detract from the heart of the matter - which is that VAG knowingly and calculatingly conned their customers.

So far, whilst there is no obligation on owners to have the fix carried out, there is only pretty vague advice that it would indeed be in their interests to do so, otherwise they might well see the value of their vehicle reduce.

This advice ignores somewhat the fact that, reportedly, having had the work done, they will probably suffer a decrease in both performance and fuel economy, which would have an even greater impact on values, I'd have thought.

Speaking as an Audi owner whose recently purchased car is affected, I'm looking to the manufacturer to come up with some better solutions than the above. 

Regards,

Dave.

They conned you

And people have been all too willing to be conned. We've seen new cars go from 150g of CO2 per km to 90g in the space of a couple of decades - while power output kept increasing together with top speed... Who could seriously believe that kind of tale? We wanted to have our cake and eat it: official fuel consumption figures went down - did our everyday consumption go down to the same extent?

Of course not, but those official figures reassured us and made us think that we could go on using our cars without changing our lifestyle. There's only one way to reduce our fuel consumption: stop using our cars as we've done so far.

In the UK at least, we have been led by the nose into "efficient" deisels which produce less carbon dioxide and therefore are all good. If anybody stopped for more than thirty seconds to do rudimentary independent research they might realise that a good promised (but seldom delivered) MPG value came at a potentially deadly cost. Meanwhile, makers were throwing out spare wheels to reduce weight to increase "efficiency" figures. Being stranded somewhere with an unrepairable flat and no spare doesn't seem all that efficient, but hey, what do we know? You could say (in fact I think you are saying) we get what we deserve. Greed and short shortsightedness (individual and corporate) go a long way and I suspect they will go a very long way indeed for VW.

Perhaps "getting what we deserve" is a bit strong, but we've certainly behaved foolishly. Believing that the industry could work miracles certainly helped us assuage our guilt (for those of us who felt and still feel guilty about ruining the environment).

The only real/genuine "loss" that I can see potentially being incurred by owners & class action plaintiffs would be if the recall fix results in a loss of power to achieve the legally required emissions target. 

That in itself could presumably be circumvented by VW in some way or other, eg renegotiating the target with the authorities in exchange for loss of green tax credits, etc.

The rest of the complaints are really just "noise" invented by lawyers to build a case and rake in fees & compensation......

IMHO of course  ;-)

Sorry if it looked like I was trying to put words in your mouth. A bit strong yes, but not a million miles away from true as you say.

That's what it is all about. To get us to continue to be good little consumers, we have to be comfortable (not feel too guilty) with our environmental impact. Fortunately for business, we are basically selfish and therefore, thanks to externalisation of the true environmental cost, assisted by "the tragedy of the commons", we consume and reproduce towards a planet unable to support our descendents.

Exactly, the filthiest country on the planet. I know i work there sometimes.

Its same thing except the pollution  is moved somewhere else. The battery ? hybrid myth.