
Drivers still like VW - dodders
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-10-16/drivers-still-like-vw
======
OopsCriticality
"Drivers still like VW" _at the moment_ , before any fixes have been applied.

It's a bit abstract right now. Let's see what happens after the fix is rolled
out, the owners need to schedule their appointments for the recalls, deal with
(possible) lower fuel economy and performance, and (possible) lower resale
values.

~~~
PantaloonFlames
lower economy, lower performance, and possible higher maintenance costs too.
Some of the proposed fixes involve retro-fitting Urea-based SCR systems, which
need to be maintained more than "no filter at all".

But those effects are long-term and therefore less quantified and immediately
apparent. Seems to me, the major influencer on how drivers feel about VW is
the news items about how bad VW is.

~~~
CodeWriter23
They're not going to retrofit an SCR system on to cars proven to meet
emissions standards when the software is running in compliance mode. They're
going to reflash the ECU with software that doesn't cheat. The result for the
consumer: a minor drop in fuel economy and more frequent cycling of the Diesel
Particulate Filter (DPF) will have a little more noticeable impact on
performance than when in cheat mode.

The DPF is like a muffler with a trap to catch the soot and ash from the
exhaust. That black stuff you see coming out of a truck but never from a TDI
even when in cheat mode. When the DPF is cycling, the engine passes unburned
fuel from intake to exhaust on every fourth stroke. The unspent fuel lands on
the trap, and when the hot exhaust from the next stroke ignites that fuel, the
soot and ash are reduced, which in turn reduces NOx emissions. If they are
smart with the software, they'll try to run the DPF when the car is cruising
not accelerating, and the impact on performance will be hardly noticeable at
all.

Cycling the DPF more often will likely result in a longer lifespan for that
unit. Currently they need to be cleaned when they become fouled. Cycling the
DPF more frequently, thus burning the soot out of the trap more regularly will
likely reduce fouling.

------
ioanpopovici
What is amazing is the fact people don't realize is that what VW did
indirectly caused disability and even death, but hey if it does not affect me
I'll just buy a VW anyway.

I'm really sick of these TBTF corporations doing whatever they want. They do
something illegal that causes a lot of harm and if they are caught they just
cruise the waters of ignorance to safety and then rinse and repeat.

We are just sheep...

~~~
skimpycompiler
> What is amazing is the fact people don't realize is that * insert any global
> industry * caused disability and even death, but hey if it does not affect
> me I'll just buy * the product * anyway.

This is true for almost anything. Food industry is a huge greenhouse gases
producer which indirectly causes pollution and some deaths. Meat, which might
be considered a luxury, is the top ingridient in many dishes, environmental
impact is higher for producing meat that that of driving cars (globally). Just
heating causes pollution and death.

Our reliance on fossil fuels will in 100 years cause a lot of indirect deaths.

People aren't sheep. They just don't care.

~~~
msandford
> environmental impact is higher for producing meat that that of driving cars
> (globally)

That's a pretty tall claim. Have you got a citation? I'd also argue that there
are ways to grow meat much more environmentally friendly and not all that more
expensive than traditional feed lots.

> People aren't sheep. They just don't care. Sheep care, at least for their
> babies and each other.

You're a fool if you believe this. Sheep don't plan their environment in any
kind of meaningful way, they just wander around eating. If you cut the field
in half and move the sheep from side to side and actually manage their grazing
you can get more production per acre than if you just leave the sheep to
themselves.

Without the farmer intervening and selling sheep off, they'd quickly outgrow
the feeding capacity of their naive grazing strategy, continue having babies,
and start causing deaths from malnutrition.

Please learn about natural systems a little bit before spouting things that
sound insightful but which are actually devoid of any reality.

~~~
skimpycompiler
> That's a pretty tall claim. Have you got a citation? I'd also argue that
> there are ways to grow meat much more environmentally friendly and not all
> that more expensive than traditional feed lots.

FAO of the United Nations - report 2006
[http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/a0701e/a0701e00.HTM](http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/a0701e/a0701e00.HTM)

There are newer reports but I just want to point out how long the information
is out.

This is the direct citation:

> _The livestock sector is a major player, responsible for 18 percent of
> greenhouse gas emissions measured in CO2 equivalent. This is higher share
> than transport._

What's also a little bit comforting is that the impact is reducing (production
is getting more and more efficient). Although as Chinese became rich and
started eating meat insanely fast doubling the consumption of the USA, same
might happen to peoples of India and Africa.

Increase of demand might neutralize the efficiency increase.

> You're a fool if you believe this. ...

Well, this is not really sheep I had in mind. I was thinking more of the free
roaming - no owner - kind of animals.

> Please learn about natural systems a little bit before spouting things that
> sound insightful but which are actually devoid of any reality.

I completely do not get how my half-assed comment about sheep escalated to
your comments about my education (or lack of).

~~~
msandford
If you grow grass-fed meat instead of grain fed you eliminate most all of the
net CO2 emissions. There are still gross CO2 emissions, but once you stop
drivings tractors and making fertilizer, there's very little net impact of
animals save perhaps the sequestering effects. Net CO2 emissions are from
"extra" carbon going into the atmosphere, gross CO2 emissions are from CO2
emissions of recently sequestered carbon.

So burning wood from clearing brush in your backyard would be gross CO2
emissions, but burning gas in the chainsaw would be net emissions (at least
until people start synthesizing fuel from CO2 and water).

[http://www.treehugger.com/green-food/in-defense-of-the-
cow-h...](http://www.treehugger.com/green-food/in-defense-of-the-cow-how-
eating-meat-could-help-slow-climate-change.html)

[http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/ss574](http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/ss574)

[http://naldc.nal.usda.gov/catalog/39886](http://naldc.nal.usda.gov/catalog/39886)

[http://www.nature.com/articles/srep10892](http://www.nature.com/articles/srep10892)

[https://www.environment.gov.au/climate-change/emissions-
redu...](https://www.environment.gov.au/climate-change/emissions-reduction-
fund/methods/sequestering-carbon-in-soils)

> Well, this is not really sheep I had in mind. I was thinking more of the
> free roaming - no owner - kind of animals.

Those animals too will not plan their reproductive urges around the
environment so they will also tend to overpopulate and underpopulate in
cycles. I don't really consider that caring, that's just nature taking its
course.

> I completely do not get how my half-assed comment about sheep escalated to
> your comments about my education (or lack of).

If you want to be sarcastic, make it obvious. You made a lot of matter-of-fact
statements prior, so why shouldn't I take it at face value? Show empirically
that sheep do care, or say that you meant it sarcastically. Internet comments
don't make it obvious that you're smirking.

~~~
skimpycompiler
I'd like to see grass-fed meat meeting the demands of 5 billion people.

No one is arguing that the environmental impact can't be reduced. I'm just
saying that people are blind and don't care about deaths caused by having a
car, but they are also blind and don't care about deaths caused by eating
meat.

Yes, not everyone buys their meat from bad sources, I'd definitely like for it
to become a majority.

Unfortunately, there's not enough land for that, I'd rather eat bugs.

> If you want to be sarcastic, make it obvious.

Yes I agree that my comment about sheep was entirely unnecessary, as was this
whole discussion, I removed it.

~~~
msandford
It might well be possible. I don't know if you have the patience for it, but
this is a very interesting talk: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjzvtM-
Wo4c](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjzvtM-Wo4c)

Basically he argues that yes you can. There are a few reasons this makes
sense.

1\. All food comes from the sun to begin with (except for what diesel you add
in via plowing, etc)

2\. There aren't huge variations in different plant's ability to perform
photosynthesis (might be 2x, might be 5x, but probably not 1000x)

3\. This means it doesn't matter too much if you grow the grain, harvest it,
transport it, feed it to cows or if you just grow grass and let them eat it

4\. Grasses grow according to a S-curve meaning that there's an optimal height
to grow a grass up to, and harvest it down to, for maximal production which is
entirely different than annual crops

I'd really encourage you to watch the video, though, if you can stand it
because it's very enlightening.

~~~
skimpycompiler
I rarely lose my patience, I do love the subject of sustainable growth and
will check your video.

~~~
msandford
When you go start a farm you'll have to invite me to visit.

------
ufmace
I'm not terribly surprised, considering that the whole scandal is basically
meaningless to the consumer experience. I wonder how many people who report on
stories like this are aware of how little the average consumer actually cares
about deals and tricks between giant corporations and the Government regarding
changes in emissions characteristics that they will probably never notice.

~~~
dragonwriter
> I'm not terribly surprised, considering that the whole scandal is basically
> meaningless to the consumer experience.

Right: the scandal is about VW fudging a test to mislead on the scale of an
_externality_ ; unlike government tested fuel economy (which is about consumer
information, so deception on that hurts primarily the direct purchaser),
emissions testing is about protecting the _public at large_ from paying
(through environmental impacts) for benefits received by the particular
consumer of the vehicle (and, in the form of profits from the trade, the
vehicle manufacturer.)

So, on the VW scandal, drivers and the company are the beneficiaries of the
deception, so its unsurprising that drivers _qua_ drivers would not be angered
by the company's deception.

~~~
roymurdock
> drivers qua drivers

This is a silly distinction. You can't sensibly divorce "drivers" from all the
other various functions of human beings who drive.

Many drivers are also people who enjoy living in a clean city with minimal
pollution. Many more do not enjoy being lied to by a company they have paid in
an explicit contract to exchange money for certified goods. Some of these
drivers are also angry that they are being disrespected by their elected
officials who are unable or unwilling to represent them in an appropriate
manner.

Sure, drivers get a cheaper car in a vacuum. But this vacuum doesn't exist and
is merely an academic distinction/rhetorical argument.

~~~
bryanlarsen
You're agreeing with the post you're calling silly.

"drivers qua drivers don't care" says that while the part of a driver which
cares about driving doesn't care, it very strongly implies that there's
another part of drivers that does care. Otherwise the OP would have just said
"drivers don't care" instead of "drivers qua drivers don't care".

~~~
roymurdock
Not calling the post silly. OP has a good point. Saying that it's silly to
consider anyone a driver qua driver.

------
monksy
For the most part, their cars are better and they have a reputation for long
lasting cars(At least I feel that is the case when compared to the other
"comparable cars") You have a happy user base. I'm not too concerned with the
whole emissions scandal: 1. I don't have a diesel and 2. Its a regulation
issue. If VW acted in bad faith and degraded the guarenteed performance.. I
would be pissed. We haven't see a response on what is going to happen so far.

Most of the responses to the finding have been snarky comments about "how vw
is bad." (We need to find out what went wrong and fix it... circlejerking
about the whole issue, or the negative press, isn't going to do a lot of good)

~~~
dnissley
At least here in the US, my perception has been just the opposite. VWs not
only cost more, but are less reliable than comparable vehicles. They seem to
have the street price of a Honda/Toyota, but the reliability of a
Nissan/Chevy/Chrysler, and their maintenance costs have a reputation of being
about the same as a German luxury car (high). Hence their comparatively small
market share here (3-4%).

The one redeeming factor for VW seems to be powertrain options and selling a
station wagon that isn't an SUV or a Subaru (Golf Sportwagen).

~~~
superuser2
Volkswagen has _excellent_ interiors. The $18k Golf feels in many ways like a
$40k BMW 3-series. Most competitors' interiors are gaudy, cheap and plasticky,
ugly, or spartan. Other than BMW, the only people selling the "German
sportscar" experience are luxury brands, Volkswagen AG subsidiaries, or both.

Depends on the model, but Golf for the last 5 years has gotten a Very Good
(4/5) for reliability from Consumer Reports. They used to be terrible in the
mid-2000s, but improved drastically since then.

~~~
copperx
Whoa. What? If I could use only one adjective to describe VW it would be
"plasticky". I've always seen VW interiors as incredibly austere. I drive a
2006 TDI Beetle and I find my 1991 Honda Accord to be more comfortable.

~~~
superuser2
I guess I'm excepting Beetle and focusing on Jetta and Golf. They're not
everyone's thing, but I love them, and they have their niche.

------
chrisweekly
I own a 2011 Jetta Sportwagen TDI (my 3rd tdi, and 4th --and last -- vw/audi),
and I am royally pissed. I will not buy another VW nor Audi. I loved my tdi
for its combination of performance, comfort and carbon footprint (42 mpg). I
try to "vote with my dollars", and am strongly pro-environment. Outrage is
appropriate here, imho. I encourage everyone to boycott VW/Audi. Let's send a
signal.

~~~
CodeWriter23
The TDI, even when in cheat mode, continues to be among the lowest carbon
footprint of any vehicle. The cheat mode causes NOx emissions to climb up to
that of a diesel truck, think a 16' box truck. And the car is capable of
complying with NOx emissions.

Some rogue engineers made a hack to have the MPGs come out as 31/40 instead of
29/38\. That's what happened. VW will take corrective actions across the
board, right down to fixing your vehicle to comply with emissions regulations.

------
mordocai
As an anecdote, I still plan on my next car being a TDI VW Golf, assuming they
are available in the US by the time I'm looking in a couple years.

As another commenter said, I really don't care about "the deals and tricks
between giant corporations and the Government".

~~~
joshkpeterson
I only buy clothes made in sweatshops by 6 year old children because it's
cheaper, and as another commenter said, I really don't care about "the deals
and tricks between giant corporations and the Government"

~~~
LesZedCB
That's not a fair comparison. Environmental externalities are not the same as
children being exploited for labor, no matter how you frame it.

I do think that it is highly naive to say one doesn't care about the deals and
tricks that big corporations pull off. Especially with the rampant consumer
economy in the US, being an uninformed consumer is irresponsible. However, I
have to agree with the GP, I was just saying yesterday that I also would still
be willing to buy a VW. they are really (subjectively by some measures,
objective by other) good cars, despite the recent scandal.

~~~
justizin
> Environmental externalities are not the same as children being exploited for
> labor, no matter how you frame it.

Beyond a sufficient level of terrible, relative comparison is unnecessary.

~~~
LesZedCB
I'm vegetarian, not vegan. Some buy only organic, fair-trade food instead of
the cheapest, mass-produced variety. Some people are actually informed about
the sources of their clothes and choose not to buy some.

There are ethical and moral implications and trade offs for all. I think that
judging the OP because VW makes a diesel car that gets only 35MPG instead of
42 and saying it's equivalent to buying clothes from sweat-shop brands is
disingenuous at best. As I said above, I do not agree with the lassie-faire
sentiment of letting corporations do what they want to buying whatever.

EDIT, for context, the highest level commenter was downvoted below 0 before.

~~~
joshkpeterson
No you're right, they're not equivalent. But I was more attacking the OP's
stated justification, and the indefensibly stupid and self-serving attitude
that allows a person to make such a statement.

------
forgotmypassw
Even if they cheated during the tests, they were exactly the same cars before
and after the reveal of that fact, so I don't see why people would suddenly
stop liking their cars.

~~~
neogodless
As mentioned elsewhere in the thread, the cars will be "fixed" via a recall of
some sort, which will likely reprogram the ECU to reduce emissions, which will
in turn reduce performance and gas mileage. Now that might be voluntary - I
don't know if laws will compel people to do that, though emission testing
might start requiring such updates. Plus, the new cars released will not be
able to "have great gas mileage, performance AND low emissions" without
technology advances since the cheating is caught and disallowed going forward.
So they might be less competitive, initially (though in the US, there isn't
really much diesel competition.)

------
arprocter
1/4 of the US VW inventory being 2L diesel is a lot higher than I would've
guessed

------
n0mad01
Electrocution death row contenders still like electricity.

Linkbait, anyone?

~~~
draw_down
Wow, what a perfectly terrible comment!

