Club Touareg Forum banner
2,001 - 2,020 of 13,153 Posts
Spin doctor? Motivation? I look to gain nothing. I certainly understand the situation with the 2.0. No argument there. VW is getting its due.

What exactly has been determined with the 3.0? It's not so clear, unlike the 2.0. Until then, I refrain from a rush to judgment.

What do you look to gain? $1000? What is that going to do for you? It's a gesture.

If there was no dieselgate, would you be enjoying your Touareg TDI?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

X2
 
Folks - lets ease up on the banter. Nobody here has an agenda, its just a bunch of people chit chatting. Lets not take it beyond that.
Actually I do...I want a German built diesel/electric hybrid with 4CAir, 3 rows for my growing brood, and have it be as ecologically friendly as any carbon burning vehicle can be...;)

Oh and of course, see Winterkorn get the fullest extent of German prosecution that he and his gang deserve ;)
 
^^^[Edited for brevity]

A short tutorial on how to spot a spin-doctor: listen for them to say "I am neutral" while pushing their own interpretation of facts.

Try as I might to figure it out, I am missing one important element of what you write about all this, and it is the motivation. Can you tell me what do you hope to gain from trying to minimize the gravity of what VW did?
To be clear, I am not minimizing anything. You can parse my statements and twist to your liking and deem me a spin-doctor. That's your opinion and you are entitled to post it.

I am simply awaiting clarity and a resolution. You seem have it all figured out, gravity and all. Without full details, I lack those skills.
 
Except that has nothing to do with the diesel engines in the Touareg and does not even apply to the 4 cylinder engines in the US. In short, that article is about a fix for some European 1.6 liter cars but contains no information on the scandal in the US.
In my mind it's still useful background information. It's a complicated puzzle with many pieces.
 
In my mind it's still useful background information. It's a complicated puzzle with many pieces.
This is true and why we wait and will continue to wait until there is a positive resolution.
 
I have only seen a few articles that actually discussed the science, the physics, the whatever you want to call the guts of the problem. Must of the newspapers dumb down the story until it doesn't really explain the technical side at all. Even if the story was about the 1.6 motor, I still say that it is a must read.

The conclusion is troubling. Did VW do this just to save a few dollars of warranty cost? I know fixing the 2004/5 Touaregs cost a small fortune and right after that VW did go into their famous de-contenting and been counting (Winterkorn) phase. Speculation: Was Winterkorn pressing the employee's to not only meet impossible emission standards, but was he expecting them meet impossible cost of ownership levels at the same time?

Remember m-fine, that the 1.6 was the engine that was supposed to be the hardest to fix. Sure this fix only needs this to meet the much lower EU specs, but it makes me suspect that a software update is going to go a looooong way to fixing all the motors in the EU.

I don't think that the 2.0 will get off easy in the US. The EPA is going to try to set an example and my gut feeling is VW will regret lying to the EPA.

However it is also my gut feeling that all the 3.0 will need is a software update, even in the US.
 
However it is also my gut feeling that all the 3.0 will need is a software update, even in the US.
I think you're right. I hope there is little or no effect of performance.
 
Actually, the 1.6 will be the EASIEST to fix. The reason is this: All the regulatory requirements for both NOx and CO2 are expressed in total TONS of the 'problem' gas. Smaller engines produce many many fewer tons of anything than a very few large engines - think big 18 wheelers, triple trailers etc.
The various jurisdictions break down the total tons (or pounds) of emittents by their expected load-miles driven and allocate the amounts accordingly. That is where the EPA numbers come from. Even a large change in percent of emissions on a small displacement engine will provide only a tiny change in the total emissions profile.
 
There are multiple engines, multiple countries with different legal requirements, and there will be multiple fixes. The press is not doing a great job of sorting things out, and I don't think we are doing ourselves any favors muddying the waters here either.

The VW designed 2.0 in North America had complicated cheat software that was intended to fake the emissions tests. A airflow stabilizing screen won't fix these because they already have one. The fix for these is likely to impact mileage and or performance and possibly have long term maintenance impacts. We don't know enough about the plan yet to say, but it will not have any impact on Touaregs.

The 3.0 Audi engines in our Touaregs have code that controls the catalyst warmup that is legal in Europe, but was not properly disclosed to the EPA and appears to be unacceptable to the EPA, especially in context of the 2.0 scandal. A relatively simple software fix has been submitted to EPA and CARB regulators for approval. If approved, it should not have a significant negative impact on the Touaregs performance, but we can't say for certain yet. We should know more soon.

The VW 1.6 engine in Europe will be getting the improved intake air flow control as part of a larger solution to meet less strict European standards. There may also be significant negative impacts from this solution, but it does not impact Touaregs.
 
2,001 - 2,020 of 13,153 Posts