VW recall

[Scion]

Dave Plowman (News) put finger to keyboard:

Yeah, they'll give you a 50p refund and then hit you with a £25 policy change charge.

[Jethro_uk]

Sounds about right if you're driving nicely (no fierce acceleration, and selecting the correct gear). Our previous (2.0 litre engine - same model) car was giving me an average of 38, with the motorway average being 42.

Or something like that.

The biggest single factor in mpg is speed. I once experienced a 25% decrease in fuel consumption when I drove at 55 on a motorway, as opposed to 85. (Again) if any government was serious about the environment, they'd change speed limits, rather than piss around with windmills.

[Roger Mills]

But someone (not sure if was you) was arguing earlier that insurance companies would be interested if you failed to respond to the recall - in which case the ECU definitely *wouldn't* be remapped.

[Richard]

For those of you not fortunate enough to own a VW, this is what VW has to say re. my daughter's Golf: Dear Volkswagen customer,

We regret to inform you that the Type EA 189 engine built into your vehicle with the Vehicle Identification Number you submitted, is affected by software that may cause discrepancies in the values for oxides of nitrogen (NOx) during dynometer runs. Your car is safe from a technical standpoint and roadworthy.

We are very sorry to have broken your trust and are working at full speed to find a technical solution. Volkswagen will cover the cost relating directly to this repair.

We will be in touch with you directly to explain what steps are required. We'll do any necessary rectification work at our cost.

Yours faithfully,

Volkswagen

What's all the fuss about? I have no qualms about buying VW

[tim.....]

The software change is to make it meet the tax band for which it "qualified" during testing

Doing nothing is the state which (theoretically) puts it in a higher tax band.

(though HMG have said that they will not reclassify already registered cars)

tim

[dennis]

I think what they actually said was they wouldn't charge the higher rate that the emissions should attract but I assume that is only if the manufacturers fix it so its in the correct emissions band.

[Tim Watts]

My policy states they want to know about any modifications - they do not exempt modifications that make the car less speedy.

I suspect a downgrade would not affect the premium, but they most certainly do want to know, if only to not it in the records.

Being what they are, I would not be surprised if they used it as an excuse to dock a payout if not so informed.

[Tim Watts]

That is not a contradictory scenario.

[Robert]

Its not a modification but a service issue. Otherwise every minor change made by the garage - often free as part of a service - would be notifiable.

[Tim Watts]

It's not responding to a recall that I think is the issue.

Most recalls are safety related. Insurers probably have a default position on "not responding to a recall".

The fact this is not a safety issue probably will not stop the insurers using it as an excuse to sanction you.

The other stuff I mentioned was just to highlight how fussy insurers are.

[Hanny Z]

Basically so they know which car they are insuring.

Nothing to do with whether it increases the risk they are insuring.

Because that does increase the risk they are insuring.

But to reduce they risk they are insuring.

[Roger Mills]

Why on earth would you need to tell your insurers that you had made *no* changes to your car?

[Michael Chare]

To quote VW:

e regret to inform you that the Type EA 189 engine built into your vehicle with the Vehicle Identification Number WVWZZZ....... you submitted, is affected by software that may cause discrepancies in the values for oxides of nitrogen (NOx) during dynometer runs. Your car is safe from a technical standpoint and roadworthy.

We are very sorry to have broken your trust and are working at full speed to find a technical solution. Volkswagen will cover the cost relating directly to this repair.

We will be in touch with you directly to explain what steps are required. We'll do any necessary rectification work at our cost.

[Michael Chare]

I generally get a better fuel consumption driving at say 60 mph on motorways and main roads than driving locally where it is impractical and maybe illegal to reach such a speed.

[bert]

My manufacturer did not cheat (or if they did they made a total mess of it) and as a result I pay the top whack for a 2.4 TD. If someone else is driving a car with higher emissions than declared then they should pay the appropriate rate of VED. They can then take action under Sale of Goods Act and recoup the extra cost from the dealer who sold them the car. This country is supposed to be short of cash. Why are we letting these people of the hook?

[Hanny Z]

Its not a modification in the sense they mean.

They don?t demand to be notified of any recall that has happened to the car.

[Tim Watts]

I just explained my thinking on that in another recent post.

And it's not that outlandish.

I will cut and paste:

===== It's not responding to a recall that I think is the issue.

Most recalls are safety related. Insurers probably have a default position on "not responding to a recall".

The fact this is not a safety issue probably will not stop the insurers using it as an excuse to sanction you.

The other stuff I mentioned was just to highlight how fussy insurers are. ====

Stop trying to put common sense into this - it's insurance companies we're talking about.

IME they form a view a on something and then are unable or unwilling to apply common sense to the odd edge case.

Most recalls are something safety related. They also certainly take a dim view on not responding to a recall.

This is not a safety issue - which makes it an edge case. But if the word "recall" is mentioned, I bet they would still expect you to obey the recall or be penalised.

I'm not arguing the rights and wrongs of that - *I* am using my cynical view that that is how the insurers view the case.

[Tim Watts]

I'll have to check my small print (it's in PDF so easier).

I would have thought they would have covered that base: eg "not responding to a recall = bad bad user.

I didn't say they needed to be notified of a recall - just you should probably go for the recall.

[Tough Guy no. 1265]

Even better ignore the stupid treehuggers and get on with life.

[Tough Guy no. 1265]

Because they didn't purposefully buy a car with higher emissions.