Not 50 mpg.

You said: "...for giving their drivers a civil right of a better performing car thats being needlessly restricted by a pollution law thats based on nothing but the liberal agenda. "

Which means you think driving a better performing car is a civil right. And you think air pollution law is needless.


You keep trying to bring up NOx levels as if I am debating that. here's a hint, I am not debating that. I am challenging your assertion that driving a better performing car is a civil right.

I own a 1965 Chevy C10 with a 350 V8. Not smog devices whatsoever as pre-1975 cars are exempt from smog regulations in CA. So I am sure it emits more than a new VW. The issue is VW willful cheating.

http://lazonaimagery.com/main/truck01.jpg

In this day and age of news reports coming from every direction and hemisphere saying things such as the oceans are upwards of 3 times warmer in spots than they were 40 years ago, that upwards of half of all marine life has died off due to polution and warming, that more species are currently close to or at extinction levels (including several shark species) than ever before in modern history, all of which means it's not merely a "liberal agenda", it makes a story like this VW thing a bid deal in the majority of people's minds, thus there are simply going to be certain laws in place that govern vehicle emission rates.

It also means (and this part in particular really should be a no-brainer) that any auto maker who not only flouts those emission laws but willfully and purpusely designs and installs technology to hide the true emission levels their cars create is going to get the proverbial ass-reaming, both publically and financially. And in my opinion rightly so.

Crying that the law is a stupid law is an irrelevant side argument. Saying "it's a liberal thing", hogwash. You may as well say something equally inaccurate like "there are no conservative environmentalists". Governments are under an immense amount of pressure to not only uphold existing laws (such as this one) but to actually do MORE about it, and if you think that that pressure only comes from people of the political left you're daft.

It won't bankrupt VW, I was mostly kidding before. But owners are going to take a big hit on any resale value they were hoping for. Many are joining together and forming class action suits over this as we speak. Where it will all lead I couldnt say, but one thing I do know for certain is that VW's stock has dropped significantly. It will very likely continue to drop for a while yet, but at some point they'll start to recover from this and bounce back. What am I driving at you ask? Buy low, sell high... anyone? Anyone??

Anyone buying? Is the market overreacting to this so-called scandal?

CD, i'm guessing this is going to explode into a super massive issue. not saying VW won't survive it, they will, but this will be a big big deal i'm thinking.

glad I traded one in last month

Nice. I like old trucks :thumbsup

This has nothing to do with VW and their apparent faulty diesel emissions readings.

First off, everyone in the states is tested by the state for emissions... well maybe not florida.

This has to do with a much wider scandal in that the US will not accept gas efficient cars in the US because they don't want to lose gas money.

I have known, personally... that VW's bought in germany have gas mileage far above what a VW bought in a US has. I read this at least 3 years ago.

Here's a YOUTUBE video for you to view:



So VW was forced by the US government to supply inferior gas mileage cars to the US and now the US is saying VW is putting faulty emissions readings in their cars? Bullshit!

nice truck. i'm a truck guy. i knew you were a V8 drive-by. :1orglaugh

its economical warfare and either the us , french or asian car industry is sick of the domination of german brands and someone now dropped a nuke .

no one in the gov seriously cares about some more or less diesel in the air nowaday

And we thought we could take clean breaths of oxygen on Volkswagen exhaust!They fooled us!

Ummm... pollution control measures aren't about global warming. It is about real smog. So the "animals" harmed in this situation are humans and all others.

WSJ talking about smog and LA - Los Angeles Sees Health Benefits as Its Smog Haze Clears - WSJ

That is a gas engine, can't compare that to diesel. The combustion of diesel is not as clean as gas, that's why particle filters are only needed for diesel engines (Euro6).

Actually not all, only the 2.0 manufactured between 2009 to current and not equipped with the Urea Injection. So the Porsche, Audi (except the A3) and Touregs aren't affected, as are some of the Passats.

My guess is that they couldn't meet the North American emission standards with that particular engine (non urea injected) so they altered the programming.

The potential fallout from this will be huge. They will either have to modify the engine at a cost of several thousand dollars per car, or if they opt for just a reprogramming, have to come up with some compensation for owners. The car they bought would not be the same under the new programming. Either the engine's life will be shortened, or the performance will be affected, or both.

VW own most of the best luxury car brands on the planet, everyone is focusing on the actual VW cars when they also own Porsche, Lamborghini, Bugatti, Audi, Bentley as well. I don't see this hurting sales of those cars tho, if you are buying one of those you most likely don't give a fuck about this scandal because they are some of the best cars on earth that not many other cars come close to.

CEO has "stepped down."

How is the annual(?) testing worded in the US? In the UK i'm sure they could skirt around this being a problem as the annual MOT test certificate has always had a disclaimer on it saying A lot of people remove emissions equipment as it reduces performance, refit just for the test, then it's back off again.

To me, having the car run cleaner just for the test isn't much different from taking a smoky old shitbox for an hours thrash around on the way to be tested to make sure it plays nice while being inspected and scrapes a pass.

first, the article is limited only to WSJ subscribers, is unreadable to the general public. second, california has had its own pollution standards far longer than the last 20 years, so why is the smog better only for 20 years, when CA has had CARB since the 60s. does the article tie volkswagen directly to LA smog levels? probably not.

still waiting for 1 liberal to state the actual harm to any ecosystem, person or animal due to VW's "violation". What is the specific benefit of the EPA NOx level to anyone or anything? please stop avoiding this ive only asked 3 times, twice directly to people, who deflect. TCLgirls prefers to debate the idea of driving a faster car as a right. avoids my question like the plague. at least this post was an honest attempt to answer it. but even that article does not tie VW to any harm to anything.

:upsidedow

Why is it you equate clean air to "liberals. Is it because you know if it were up to conservatives the smog would be as bad today in LA as it was in the 60s..

Second you are asking a question which you already know can't be answered. Don't be such a crack monkey and use such a loaded question as your proof they dindu nuffin..

Yep. While he admits no wrongdoing on his part personally, he knows full well that the actions by the company under his watch were egregiously wrong. A lot of people bought those cars under the provision that they were environmentally friendly... like the advertising said they were.

I'm sure 11 Million cars pumping out 40x's the advertised/allowable emissions over the course of 10 years wouldn't hurt a fly. :upsidedow (plus the millions more they would have sold during that time had they not gotten caught)

In related news; VW's stock, having dropped nearly 40% over the past week, rose 7% today, which affirms what I said in my earlier post about the market overreacting.

Yes, this is a *big deal*, they are going to feel this both financially and image-wise for a long time to come.... and car buyers tend to have long memories, especially when the car they just bought was rendered near-worthless by the scumbaggery of the giant automaker.

But they'll recover eventually.

Wonder how many law firms are about to launch class-action lawsuits.

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh - Big money for the holidays.

I wonder how far VW/Audi stocks will drop? Head of Mazda is from South America. I loved his response when asked if he believed, as VW is saying, that only a few people at VW knew. After laughing he said, "Gimme a Break."

VW proof that the world is using 3-8th generation fossil fuels cause humans have been here before. lol.

Wow..... that's amazing. Fuck Volkswagen.

To revisit this, Audi had the same tech in their diesel engines as well.

Last months news.

The VW scandal will break Germany so no surprise German gov officials are pretending this did not happen. Like the Syria and friends invasion.

Plot twist: It's not a VW! :upsidedow

pointing out hypocrisy :winkwink:


edit: i find it stupid what VW did but i am about 100% sure that they are only the first to be caught. there will be more

nice story. it goes to show you will believe what you want to believe.

you do realize they said they can't directly tie 1 single death of anyone to this, right? that its all statistical smoke & mirrors created by people with a political agenda. just like public opinion polls.

the fucking guy can't even definitely state that anyone actually died, or may have died. That is what you bring to me as proof?

if anything, you just made my case.

:thumbsup

hello. if this is the level of intellect you bring to me, then go away. the article proves 1 thing only - that you are clueless about the manipulatability of statistics. plus, your still wrong. nothing tangible has been harmed, only statistical theories that a .00001% extra NOx may or may not kill some people. its so fucking nonsensical on its face you should be ashamed of yourself coming here with this shit.

again, name 1 ACTUAL, not theoretical based on some stat by some politically motivated tripe, ACTUAL person or animal harmed. ACTUAL...

but your the guy that posted the wrong pic of the clock suitcase hoax bomb. so clearly you have no interest in facts.

:error

come on TCL, name the actual human being, murdered by VW's tailpipe. NAME 1 SINGLE PERSON, just 1, on this whole wide world. name 1.

you can prove me wrong, just give us 1 name of 1 person murdered by their VW. Take all the time you need.

:)

i guess you cant even understand his own words. he could not commit to anyone ACTUALLY being killed. did you even read it?

:helpme

pointless. you are avoiding my questions, deflecting. you lose.

still waiting...just name 1 thing impacted. like actual impact. im sorry i couldnt anticipate in advance that you needed me to be crystal clear that i was asking for an actual death, not a statistical pony-show. but i guess you get hung up on such nonsense when you have no facts to back you up & you know you cant name 1 dead person or plant.

just name someone who got a fucking headcold from their fucking VW's tailpipe! anything!

clownshoes. :2 cents:

i never ever claimed you did. i only asked for any evidence of harm to anyone. you come to me with lies, damn lies, AKA, statistics.

which, according to the engineer, cannot directly point to a single actual fatality. only theoretical. you know, like the 42 year old 911 first responder, who owned a VW, & died. The VW put him over the top & he died. Just name 1 time that happened! Just 1!!!

Is there anyone more argumentative and dense than the man posting in plum?


Holy fuck I quit even reading threads he's in. Just beating the most obtuse off-base reasoning to death. I like the old truck though.

you are still deflecting. that means your losing. parcing words isnt gonna get you the win. come on! if the there are 5 people dying per year thanks to the actions of VW, then those people have names, right?

so tell me who died. until you answer this, you lose.

:)

yes. you cant name any harm, at all. & i repeat, you prove only that you are clueless about the malleability of statistics.

dialogue over. you failed.

TCL...i'll put it in big font so even a 10 year old can get it...

i hope this helps you understand this single sentence renders the entire article as speculative. but no, you are more worried that i skipped the word "actual" in wanting the harm defined.

this is why i am asking for real, actual harm, not theories from politically motivated tripe. if real people are dying, they have names, name them.

pfft. :upsidedow

you really are a terrible debater. twice in 1 hour you put words in my mouth. i never assumed you accept the article 100% as truth. never said you claimed a person died.

you have spent a dozen posts dancing around my definition of naming 1 single person or plant harmed. your answer is to cite politically motivated junk science, & then tell me this answers my question.

& you STILL will not directly answer anything to my simple, easy-to-answer question. As your information alludes to actual deaths, then those deaths are real, & therefore they are people with names. So name an individual who was harmed by VW's emmissions. I've asked for this 6 times now, but you instead discuss the way i phrase my questions.

:1orglaugh

Yes you did when you said: "you prove only that you are clueless about the malleability of statistics."

That would only be true if I accepted the article as 100% truth without keeping open the possibility of biases.