alfadriver wrote:MDJeepGuy wrote: In reply to Hal: And these cars would pass that test. They do not pollute at low speeds.It's not that they don't pollute at low speeds, they run a totally different calibration when the hood is up, only two wheels are spinning, and the steering wheel doesn't turn. Otherwise, they are dirty.
I understand, just figured I didn't want to type it all out.
In reply to STM317:
But the tests don't exist to show degradation that would be the owner's responsibility, and the settlement didn't require the vehicles be removed from service. The owner is not outside the law. How can he be held responsible to meet a standard that does not exist?
In reply to STM317:
BTW, I think you are taking the position regulators would take, and I am taking the position I believe the courts may take.
Which was kinda my point. 
STM317 wrote: In reply to SVreX: I don't know about individual states tests, but for the initial certification, the EPA does require accelerated lifetime tests to establish a baseline of emissions throughout a period of several hundred thousand miles of use. The emissions are expected to worsen slightly over time as equipment degrades, so the standard for a diesel vehicle with 400,000 miles may be a bit more relaxed than when it was brand new, but there are still standards at each stage that must be met. You can't sell a vehicle that legitimately meets standards when new, but proceeds to degrade to a point outside of that standard as time goes on.
Other than California, states have no certification requirement. The emissions testing states do is either part of an overall vehicle inspection required by some states OR part of a program because the state is a non-attainment area, so that they have to do something to reduce their pollution.
And to address the age requirement- the standard over the last 10 years is 100,000, 120k, or 150k miles plus a time period (150k/10 years) where the car had to be under the standard. After that, the car is no longer regulated. Although, while not regulated, the MIL light is still active, and will flag the car as being above the standard.
That being said- one area that I've never looked into- how states deal with older, high mileage cars. I suspect that they want them to be ok, but I honestly do not know.
The whole issue of how cars change over time/distance/aging is really interesting- but mostly because I'm a nerd who enjoys the science. One nice thing- about 10 years ago, the EPA led all of the OEM's to put in place a common aging system that we all follow. Which is nice. Basically, I can accelerate age a catalyst system is just over a week. But that is a total different thread.
(funny tangent- most of you probably think working for an OEM calibrating is really cool because you get to drive and work on prototypes. Which is true. But when my focus changed to emissions, they physics involved really boosted the interest in my career)
SVreX wrote: In reply to STM317: But the tests don't exist to show degradation that would be the owner's responsibility, and the settlement didn't require the vehicles be removed from service. The owner is not outside the law. How can he be held responsible to meet a standard that does not exist?
The tests don't, but the rules do. OEM's cover any MIL light issue up to a distance- like 50k for 80k standard, 80k for 120k standard- etc. After that, any failures are up to the owner to fix.
That sounds harsh, but given how reliable cars are these days, the failures are not all that common. AND there are mechanisms that IF they are common, the OEM's will have to step in to recall the product.
SVreX wrote: In reply to STM317: BTW, I think you are taking the position regulators would take, and I am taking the position I believe the courts may take. Which was kinda my point.
That's where things have the potential to get pretty interesting. Grab your popcorn.
Received my offer letter this morning. It's going back in roughly one piece as I don't want a piece of this E36 M3 car left laying around.
All said and done I have the loan paid off and get a few grand in my pocket. I'm happy but not happy. Happy as this is almost complete and gone but unhappy that the car was slowly turning into steaming pile of E36 M3 with little things breaking or not working. Not bad for a couple of front end collisions too....
In reply to Ranger50:
So you drove a car, wrecked it a few times, got paid for it, and you're not happy? Wow.
I love people that wreck or don't maintain a car then complain it's a pile of junk. Maybe it's not the car.
I admit to being a little confused about why anyone would be upset about the buy back.
You got to use the car for FREE, then are getting a check for well over the value that's worth, in some cases, more than the purchase price.
Um, so what's the problem again?
In reply to MDJeepGuy:
How about my complaints have nothing to do with the front end being knocked off a few times?
The steering is vague and sucks. Drivers speaker is blown. Lack of important instrumentation. Lack of defeatable traction control. Seats lack support. iPhone interface is misdesigned and way too short to be useful. I hate lug bolts. Why no parking lights on the headlight switch?
In reply to docwyte:
I sure didn't get every penny back, so how is it free? All said and done, I paid 5k from purchase to buyback.
Did you not know it had lug bolts before you bought it? Did you not do in or drive it? Did the instrumentation change after the purchase?
How did you not notice all of that before you bought it? I guess that it vws fault too? Your lack of observation....
You'll need to log in to post.
