"tim....." wrote in message
...

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"tim....." wrote in message
...

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"NY" wrote in message
...
"Adrian" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 06 Oct 2015 16:01:18 -0700, sm_jamieson wrote:

But what are they going to do ? Adblue ?

Forget AdBlue. These are EuroV emission cars.

It's going to be a software tickle. The ECU has the ability already
to
meet the NOx requirements - because it goes into a map that does
that,
when it sees the test. All that's going to happen is that map'll be
used
all the time.

Which'll reduce power and increase fuel consumption.

Which means that the cars are then not as described in the sales
literature and not as they performed on a test drive. I wonder what
the Sale of Goods Act says about the validity of the sale in that
circumstance...

It says that you are entitled to a full refund

less the "value" of the amount of use that you have had from the product

No, not in that case.

yes in this case

the idea that you can take back a 4 year old car and claim back 100% of
the original purchase price is simply not going to work.

It does with other consumer products that are not as described.

The law specifically covers this case.

Yes.

A claim for compensation for, in this case, "not as described" will be
reduced by the value you have had from ownership, if the claim is made
more than 6 months after purchase.

Pity about those who have only had it for less than 6 months.

This isn't established case law.

Pity about the case law in that situation.

It is statute!

Just one of the things that matters in this case.

"tim....." wrote in message
...

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"tim....." wrote in message
...

"alan_m" wrote in message
...
On 06/10/2015 23:26, Tim+ wrote:

"VW expects to start a recall of cars affected by its emissions
scandal in
January, the car giant's new chief executive, Matthias Mueller, has
said.
All affected cars will be fixed by the end of 2020,

Forgetting the date, but what does "fixed" mean?

I doubt anyone knows - Yet!

I bet VW does.

How much :-)

It will be impossible to prove so no point in a formal bet.

I just dont believe that when VW has announced how long
the recall will take, that they dont know what they plan to do.

"tim....." wrote in message
...

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"tim....." wrote in message
...

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"tim....." wrote in message
...

"Adrian" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 07 Oct 2015 08:41:57 +0100, Andy Burns wrote:

just removing the cheat does nothing beyond ensuring the cars would
fail EuroV certification

And you know that because ... ?

Because there's allegations that the cars emit "more than 40x" the
permitted NOx, yet the US NOx requirement is not THAT much stricter
than
EuroV.

Hell, if they really ARE emitting over 40x, then they'd fail every
single
Euro standard back to the early '90s.

That's almost certainly a peak amount bandied around by the vested
interests for effect

the running average could be as little as 1.5 times the allowed

That isn't what the independent testing in the US found.

isn't it

Nope.

(except that the US limit is lower than the EU so replace 1.5 by say 3
times)

The discrepancy was a lot more than 3 times.

qualified by "up to"

Not in the formal scientific report.

note the "up to" part

Not relevant to the independent test.

that's a big indicator that this figure was measured for a very small
part of the test

No it was not with the independent test.

and what part of the independent test makes a claim of "up to" mean
"always"?

There is no up to in the independent report.

"up to" means sometimes, if you want to claim "always" that's the word you
use

There is no up to in the independent report.

and the average was a lot lower

No it was not with the independent test.

The fact that the test was done independently is completely irrelevant.

Nope.

It's the words used in the report than are important.

There in no up to in the independent report.

No-one makes a claim of "up to" to mean that was that average.

There in no up to in the independent report.

They use it to mean that was the short term peak - simple arithmetic thus
means that the average will be lower. Regardless of who performed the
test.

There in no up to in the independent report.

And I'll go further than that. The absence of the average figure in the
report

That is straight from you arse, we can tell from the smell.

suggest that the peak figure was very limited, if it wasn't you wouldn't
be embarrassed about quoting the average.

I'm not embarrassed about anything.

It's marketing-speak (in reverse)

Nope, there is no marketing involved.

The report contained the phrase "up to"

No it does not.

that is ALWAYS marketing speak.

Like hell it is. There is no marketing involved with a
formal independent scientific report that wasnt even
paid for by VW and exposed what they had got up to.

It is a weasel word used to imply to the reader that the important item is
large than it really is.

It was a proper scientific paper.

What's that got to do with it?

Clearly nothing whatever to do with marketing.

So the calculation of the "up to" value has been rigorously tested.

There is no up to in there.

That doesn't stop the use of that figure in the summary being bogus.

Clearly it can't be MARKETING.

Scientists are not immune from using marketing to sell their skills

That formal scientific report was essentially ignored by the world
for a hell of a long time after it was presented. Some marketing.
They didnt even splash it in the media to show what a brilliant
operation it was and suggest that all the other manufacturers
of diesels should be paying them to test their cars and prove
that they hadn't done what VW had done.

On 07/10/2015 01:02, Dave Liquorice wrote:


Seems to add up.


Hasn't very recent legislation reconfirmed that a UK retailer cannot
palm off a sale of goods problem to a manufacturer?

In the UK a customer has the legal right to get the retailer to to fix
the problem within a very short time scale, or return the money.

I wonder how long before we all start getting cold calls " have you been
miss-sold PPI or a diesel VW ......."?

And how long it will be before the VW financially takes down a few large
dealerships?


--
mailto: news {at} admac {dot] myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

"F" news@nowhere wrote in message
o.uk...
On 08/10/2015 16:52, tim..... wrote:

"tim....." wrote in message
...

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...



I doubt anyone knows - Yet!

I bet VW does.

How much :-)

I'll save you from wasting your money

Just watched the VW Guy being "grilled" by the US Congressional
committee and when asked

"How are you going to fix this", he skirted around a little bit but
basically his answer was:

"we haven't got a ****ing clue"

No, he said some with software but most with a urea tank and/or a new cat
designed for Nox.

that's just a theoretical solution

they still need a practical one

you can't simply install extra hardware under a car that wasn't originally
designed to hold it

tim



--
F

www.vulcantothesky.org - 2015, the last year to see a Vulcan fly

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"tim....." wrote in message
...

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"tim....." wrote in message
...

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"NY" wrote in message
...
"Adrian" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 06 Oct 2015 16:01:18 -0700, sm_jamieson wrote:

But what are they going to do ? Adblue ?

Forget AdBlue. These are EuroV emission cars.

It's going to be a software tickle. The ECU has the ability already
to
meet the NOx requirements - because it goes into a map that does
that,
when it sees the test. All that's going to happen is that map'll be
used
all the time.

Which'll reduce power and increase fuel consumption.

Which means that the cars are then not as described in the sales
literature and not as they performed on a test drive. I wonder what
the Sale of Goods Act says about the validity of the sale in that
circumstance...

It says that you are entitled to a full refund

less the "value" of the amount of use that you have had from the
product

No, not in that case.

yes in this case

the idea that you can take back a 4 year old car and claim back 100% of
the original purchase price is simply not going to work.

It does with other consumer products that are not as described.

in your county perhaps

not in this one


tim

"alan_m" wrote in message
...
On 07/10/2015 01:02, Dave Liquorice wrote:


Seems to add up.


Hasn't very recent legislation reconfirmed that a UK retailer cannot palm
off a sale of goods problem to a manufacturer?

new rules only apply to new sales.

historic sales will have the old rights

(Having said that, the old rules made this the retailer's problem, but the
old statutory remedy is less clear)


In the UK a customer has the legal right to get the retailer to to fix the
problem within a very short time scale, or return the money.

correct

few of the cars in question qualify as sold within a "very short time"
(which case law establish was a very low number of weeks)


I wonder how long before we all start getting cold calls " have you been
miss-sold PPI or a diesel VW ......."?

And how long it will be before the VW financially takes down a few large
dealerships?

They will look after the dealers, it's pointless not to

tim

alan_m wrote:
On 07/10/2015 01:02, Dave Liquorice wrote:


Seems to add up.


Hasn't very recent legislation reconfirmed that a UK retailer cannot
palm off a sale of goods problem to a manufacturer?

That's been the case for many years now. The recent change doesn't
change it AFAIK.

In the UK a customer has the legal right to get the retailer to to fix
the problem within a very short time scale, or return the money.

The recent change more closely defines matters such as the exact meaning
of "fix the problem" and "very short time scale".

I wonder how long before we all start getting cold calls " have you been
miss-sold PPI or a diesel VW ......."?

Note that car dealers are not car retailers. They negotiate a contract
between the customer and the manufacturer. They're not responsible for
the goods in the way a retailer is. Your contract is with VW, not the
dealer.


While we're talking about terminology I'll add that the VWs are not
being "recalled". Recalls are for safety and similar issues only. Legal
and insurance issues concerned with recalls do not apply.

--
Mike Barnes
Cheshire, England

Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Mike Barnes
wrote:

While we're talking about terminology I'll add that the VWs are not
being "recalled". Recalls are for safety and similar issues only. Legal
and insurance issues concerned with recalls do not apply.

OOI, what are they calling this non-recall recall, then?

We'll have to wait and see when it happens.

--
Mike Barnes
Cheshire, England

"tim....." wrote in message
...

"tim....." wrote in message
...

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...



I doubt anyone knows - Yet!

I bet VW does.

How much :-)

I'll save you from wasting your money

Just watched the VW Guy being "grilled" by the US Congressional committee
and when asked

"How are you going to fix this", he skirted around a little bit but
basically his answer was:

"we haven't got a ****ing clue"

Just because some ****wit yank doesnt have a
****ing clue doesnt mean that the krauts dont.

"alan_m" wrote in message
...
On 07/10/2015 01:02, Dave Liquorice wrote:


Seems to add up.


Hasn't very recent legislation reconfirmed that a UK retailer cannot palm
off a sale of goods problem to a manufacturer?

In the UK a customer has the legal right to get the retailer to to fix the
problem within a very short time scale, or return the money.

I wonder how long before we all start getting cold calls " have you been
miss-sold PPI or a diesel VW ......."?

And how long it will be before the VW financially takes down a few large
dealerships?

That last is more likely to be just because car buyers stay away.

"tim....." wrote in message
...

"F" news@nowhere wrote in message
o.uk...
On 08/10/2015 16:52, tim..... wrote:

"tim....." wrote in message
...

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...



I doubt anyone knows - Yet!

I bet VW does.

How much :-)

I'll save you from wasting your money

Just watched the VW Guy being "grilled" by the US Congressional
committee and when asked

"How are you going to fix this", he skirted around a little bit but
basically his answer was:

"we haven't got a ****ing clue"

No, he said some with software but most with a urea tank and/or a new cat
designed for Nox.

that's just a theoretical solution

Nope.

they still need a practical one

They have one.

you can't simply install extra hardware under a car that wasn't originally
designed to hold it

But you can install extra hardware in a car that
wasnt designed to have it. Happens all the time
with after market addons.

"tim....." wrote in message
...

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"tim....." wrote in message
...

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"tim....." wrote in message
...

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"NY" wrote in message
...
"Adrian" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 06 Oct 2015 16:01:18 -0700, sm_jamieson wrote:

But what are they going to do ? Adblue ?

Forget AdBlue. These are EuroV emission cars.

It's going to be a software tickle. The ECU has the ability already
to
meet the NOx requirements - because it goes into a map that does
that,
when it sees the test. All that's going to happen is that map'll be
used
all the time.

Which'll reduce power and increase fuel consumption.

Which means that the cars are then not as described in the sales
literature and not as they performed on a test drive. I wonder what
the Sale of Goods Act says about the validity of the sale in that
circumstance...

It says that you are entitled to a full refund

less the "value" of the amount of use that you have had from the
product

No, not in that case.

yes in this case

the idea that you can take back a 4 year old car and claim back 100% of
the original purchase price is simply not going to work.

It does with other consumer products that are not as described.

in your county perhaps

not in this one

You just proved it does in the first 6 months.

"tim....." wrote in message
...

"alan_m" wrote in message
...
On 07/10/2015 01:02, Dave Liquorice wrote:


Seems to add up.


Hasn't very recent legislation reconfirmed that a UK retailer cannot palm
off a sale of goods problem to a manufacturer?

new rules only apply to new sales.

historic sales will have the old rights

(Having said that, the old rules made this the retailer's problem, but the
old statutory remedy is less clear)


In the UK a customer has the legal right to get the retailer to to fix
the problem within a very short time scale, or return the money.

correct

few of the cars in question qualify as sold within a "very short time"
(which case law establish was a very low number of weeks)

That very short time scale is the time for the fix to get
done, not the time to be notified about the problem.


I wonder how long before we all start getting cold calls " have you been
miss-sold PPI or a diesel VW ......."?

And how long it will be before the VW financially takes down a few large
dealerships?

They will look after the dealers, it's pointless not to

Not even possible if the problem is far fewer
customers buy cars from them anymore.

On 08/10/15 20:43, tim..... wrote:

you can't simply install extra hardware under a car that wasn't
originally designed to hold it


Tell that to the manufacturers of all the bolt on extras that are in vogue.





--
Global warming is the new Margaret Thatcher. There is no ill in the
world it's not directly responsible for.

On 08/10/2015 20:43, tim..... wrote:

"F" news@nowhere wrote in message
o.uk...
On 08/10/2015 16:52, tim..... wrote:

"tim....." wrote in message
...

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...



I doubt anyone knows - Yet!

I bet VW does.

How much :-)

I'll save you from wasting your money

Just watched the VW Guy being "grilled" by the US Congressional
committee and when asked

"How are you going to fix this", he skirted around a little bit but
basically his answer was:

"we haven't got a ****ing clue"

No, he said some with software but most with a urea tank and/or a new
cat designed for Nox.

that's just a theoretical solution

That's not how it sounded to me.

they still need a practical one

His words implied they had one.

you can't simply install extra hardware under a car that wasn't
originally designed to hold it

The words he used implied a tank within a tank: 'twin tanks'.

--
F

www.vulcantothesky.org - 2015, the last year to see a Vulcan fly

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"tim....." wrote in message
...

"F" news@nowhere wrote in message
o.uk...
On 08/10/2015 16:52, tim..... wrote:

"tim....." wrote in message
...

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...



I doubt anyone knows - Yet!

I bet VW does.

How much :-)

I'll save you from wasting your money

Just watched the VW Guy being "grilled" by the US Congressional
committee and when asked

"How are you going to fix this", he skirted around a little bit but
basically his answer was:

"we haven't got a ****ing clue"

No, he said some with software but most with a urea tank and/or a new
cat designed for Nox.

that's just a theoretical solution

Nope.

they still need a practical one

They have one.

you can't simply install extra hardware under a car that wasn't
originally designed to hold it

But you can install extra hardware in a car that
wasnt designed to have it. Happens all the time
with after market addons.

I didn't say you couldn't

I'm saying that you can't design and test it (and the method of post
installing it) in three days.

The chances that they have achieved this by today, is NIL

tim

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"tim....." wrote in message
...

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"tim....." wrote in message
...

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"tim....." wrote in message
...

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"NY" wrote in message
...
"Adrian" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 06 Oct 2015 16:01:18 -0700, sm_jamieson wrote:

But what are they going to do ? Adblue ?

Forget AdBlue. These are EuroV emission cars.

It's going to be a software tickle. The ECU has the ability
already to
meet the NOx requirements - because it goes into a map that does
that,
when it sees the test. All that's going to happen is that map'll
be used
all the time.

Which'll reduce power and increase fuel consumption.

Which means that the cars are then not as described in the sales
literature and not as they performed on a test drive. I wonder what
the Sale of Goods Act says about the validity of the sale in that
circumstance...

It says that you are entitled to a full refund

less the "value" of the amount of use that you have had from the
product

No, not in that case.

yes in this case

the idea that you can take back a 4 year old car and claim back 100% of
the original purchase price is simply not going to work.

It does with other consumer products that are not as described.

in your county perhaps

not in this one

You just proved it does in the first 6 months.

the cars in question are from 2009.

last time I looked, that was more than 6 months ago

tim

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"tim....." wrote in message
...

"alan_m" wrote in message
...
On 07/10/2015 01:02, Dave Liquorice wrote:


Seems to add up.


Hasn't very recent legislation reconfirmed that a UK retailer cannot
palm off a sale of goods problem to a manufacturer?

new rules only apply to new sales.

historic sales will have the old rights

(Having said that, the old rules made this the retailer's problem, but
the old statutory remedy is less clear)


In the UK a customer has the legal right to get the retailer to to fix
the problem within a very short time scale, or return the money.

correct

few of the cars in question qualify as sold within a "very short time"
(which case law establish was a very low number of weeks)

That very short time scale is the time for the fix to get
done, not the time to be notified about the problem.

Nope

It's the period of ownership

tim

"tim....." wrote in message
...

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"tim....." wrote in message
...

"F" news@nowhere wrote in message
o.uk...
On 08/10/2015 16:52, tim..... wrote:

"tim....." wrote in message
...

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...



I doubt anyone knows - Yet!

I bet VW does.

How much :-)

I'll save you from wasting your money

Just watched the VW Guy being "grilled" by the US Congressional
committee and when asked

"How are you going to fix this", he skirted around a little bit but
basically his answer was:

"we haven't got a ****ing clue"

No, he said some with software but most with a urea tank and/or a new
cat designed for Nox.

that's just a theoretical solution

Nope.

they still need a practical one

They have one.

you can't simply install extra hardware under a car that wasn't
originally designed to hold it

But you can install extra hardware in a car that
wasnt designed to have it. Happens all the time
with after market addons.

I didn't say you couldn't

I'm saying that you can't design and test it (and the method of post
installing it) in three days.

You dont have to if its already being installed in some
of your cars and you just need to install it in more of them.

The chances that they have achieved this by today, is NIL

Wrong when its already installed on some of your cars, and it is.

"tim....." wrote in message
...

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"tim....." wrote in message
...

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"tim....." wrote in message
...

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"tim....." wrote in message
...

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"NY" wrote in message
...
"Adrian" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 06 Oct 2015 16:01:18 -0700, sm_jamieson wrote:

But what are they going to do ? Adblue ?

Forget AdBlue. These are EuroV emission cars.

It's going to be a software tickle. The ECU has the ability
already to
meet the NOx requirements - because it goes into a map that does
that,
when it sees the test. All that's going to happen is that map'll
be used
all the time.

Which'll reduce power and increase fuel consumption.

Which means that the cars are then not as described in the sales
literature and not as they performed on a test drive. I wonder
what the Sale of Goods Act says about the validity of the sale in
that circumstance...

It says that you are entitled to a full refund

less the "value" of the amount of use that you have had from the
product

No, not in that case.

yes in this case

the idea that you can take back a 4 year old car and claim back 100%
of the original purchase price is simply not going to work.

It does with other consumer products that are not as described.

in your county perhaps

not in this one

You just proved it does in the first 6 months.

the cars in question are from 2009.

That is a lie.

"tim....." wrote in message
...

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"tim....." wrote in message
...

"alan_m" wrote in message
...
On 07/10/2015 01:02, Dave Liquorice wrote:


Seems to add up.


Hasn't very recent legislation reconfirmed that a UK retailer cannot
palm off a sale of goods problem to a manufacturer?

new rules only apply to new sales.

historic sales will have the old rights

(Having said that, the old rules made this the retailer's problem, but
the old statutory remedy is less clear)


In the UK a customer has the legal right to get the retailer to to fix
the problem within a very short time scale, or return the money.

correct

few of the cars in question qualify as sold within a "very short time"
(which case law establish was a very low number of weeks)

That very short time scale is the time for the fix to get
done, not the time to be notified about the problem.

Nope

Yep.

It's the period of ownership

Nope.

On 07/10/2015 22:00, dennis@home wrote:

They won't poison as many asthma suffers.

More likely they will poison exactly the same number of asthma sufferers
but less severely, don't you think?

--
Rod

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"tim....." wrote in message
...

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"tim....." wrote in message
...

"F" news@nowhere wrote in message
o.uk...
On 08/10/2015 16:52, tim..... wrote:

"tim....." wrote in message
...

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...



I doubt anyone knows - Yet!

I bet VW does.

How much :-)

I'll save you from wasting your money

Just watched the VW Guy being "grilled" by the US Congressional
committee and when asked

"How are you going to fix this", he skirted around a little bit but
basically his answer was:

"we haven't got a ****ing clue"

No, he said some with software but most with a urea tank and/or a new
cat designed for Nox.

that's just a theoretical solution

Nope.

they still need a practical one

They have one.

you can't simply install extra hardware under a car that wasn't
originally designed to hold it

But you can install extra hardware in a car that
wasnt designed to have it. Happens all the time
with after market addons.

I didn't say you couldn't

I'm saying that you can't design and test it (and the method of post
installing it) in three days.

You dont have to if its already being installed in some
of your cars and you just need to install it in more of them.

You really don't understand this process do you?

when the exhaust system was redesigned to include all of the extra kit, the
car floor pan will have been re-crafted to include all of the necessary
recesses, strengthened mounting points, routes for the filling system, and
necessary electronics etc.

the 2009 floor pan will have none of that, so retrofitting isn't as simple
as "bolt on into the available space" as you think because there is no
available space on these cars - you will have to create one.


The chances that they have achieved this by today, is NIL

Wrong when its already installed on some of your cars, and it is.

On cars that have been designed to hold that kit

the 2009 YM was not

tim

"tim....." wrote in message
...

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"tim....." wrote in message
...

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"tim....." wrote in message
...

"F" news@nowhere wrote in message
o.uk...
On 08/10/2015 16:52, tim..... wrote:

"tim....." wrote in message
...

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...



I doubt anyone knows - Yet!

I bet VW does.

How much :-)

I'll save you from wasting your money

Just watched the VW Guy being "grilled" by the US Congressional
committee and when asked

"How are you going to fix this", he skirted around a little bit but
basically his answer was:

"we haven't got a ****ing clue"

No, he said some with software but most with a urea tank and/or a new
cat designed for Nox.

that's just a theoretical solution

Nope.

they still need a practical one

They have one.

you can't simply install extra hardware under a car that wasn't
originally designed to hold it

But you can install extra hardware in a car that
wasnt designed to have it. Happens all the time
with after market addons.

I didn't say you couldn't

I'm saying that you can't design and test it (and the method of post
installing it) in three days.

You dont have to if its already being installed in some
of your cars and you just need to install it in more of them.

You really don't understand this process do you?

We'll see...

when the exhaust system was redesigned to include all of the extra kit,
the car floor pan will have been re-crafted to include all of the
necessary recesses, strengthened mounting points, routes for the filling
system, and necessary electronics etc.

the 2009 floor pan will have none of that, so retrofitting isn't as simple
as "bolt on into the available space" as you think because there is no
available space on these cars - you will have to create one.

It doesnt necessarily involve a redesigned exhaust system.

The chances that they have achieved this by today, is NIL

Wrong when its already installed on some of your cars, and it is.

On cars that have been designed to hold that kit

the 2009 YM was not

You dont know that either.

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"tim....." wrote in message
...

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"tim....." wrote in message
...

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"tim....." wrote in message
...

"F" news@nowhere wrote in message
o.uk...
On 08/10/2015 16:52, tim..... wrote:

"tim....." wrote in message
...

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...



I doubt anyone knows - Yet!

I bet VW does.

How much :-)

I'll save you from wasting your money

Just watched the VW Guy being "grilled" by the US Congressional
committee and when asked

"How are you going to fix this", he skirted around a little bit but
basically his answer was:

"we haven't got a ****ing clue"

No, he said some with software but most with a urea tank and/or a
new cat designed for Nox.

that's just a theoretical solution

Nope.

they still need a practical one

They have one.

you can't simply install extra hardware under a car that wasn't
originally designed to hold it

But you can install extra hardware in a car that
wasnt designed to have it. Happens all the time
with after market addons.

I didn't say you couldn't

I'm saying that you can't design and test it (and the method of post
installing it) in three days.

You dont have to if its already being installed in some
of your cars and you just need to install it in more of them.

You really don't understand this process do you?

We'll see...

when the exhaust system was redesigned to include all of the extra kit,
the car floor pan will have been re-crafted to include all of the
necessary recesses, strengthened mounting points, routes for the filling
system, and necessary electronics etc.

the 2009 floor pan will have none of that, so retrofitting isn't as
simple as "bolt on into the available space" as you think because there
is no available space on these cars - you will have to create one.

It doesnt necessarily involve a redesigned exhaust system.

AIUI the solution that you seem to think that they can retrofit is the
addition of "AdBlue" into the exhaust system,

ISTM that this requires a modified Exhaust system


tim

"tim....." wrote in message
...

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"tim....." wrote in message
...

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"tim....." wrote in message
...

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"tim....." wrote in message
...

"F" news@nowhere wrote in message
o.uk...
On 08/10/2015 16:52, tim..... wrote:

"tim....." wrote in message
...

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...



I doubt anyone knows - Yet!

I bet VW does.

How much :-)

I'll save you from wasting your money

Just watched the VW Guy being "grilled" by the US Congressional
committee and when asked

"How are you going to fix this", he skirted around a little bit
but
basically his answer was:

"we haven't got a ****ing clue"

No, he said some with software but most with a urea tank and/or a
new cat designed for Nox.

that's just a theoretical solution

Nope.

they still need a practical one

They have one.

you can't simply install extra hardware under a car that wasn't
originally designed to hold it

But you can install extra hardware in a car that
wasnt designed to have it. Happens all the time
with after market addons.

I didn't say you couldn't

I'm saying that you can't design and test it (and the method of post
installing it) in three days.

You dont have to if its already being installed in some
of your cars and you just need to install it in more of them.

You really don't understand this process do you?

We'll see...

when the exhaust system was redesigned to include all of the extra kit,
the car floor pan will have been re-crafted to include all of the
necessary recesses, strengthened mounting points, routes for the filling
system, and necessary electronics etc.

the 2009 floor pan will have none of that, so retrofitting isn't as
simple as "bolt on into the available space" as you think because there
is no available space on these cars - you will have to create one.

It doesnt necessarily involve a redesigned exhaust system.

AIUI the solution that you seem to think that they can retrofit is the
addition of "AdBlue" into the exhaust system,

I didnt say that.

ISTM that this requires a modified Exhaust system

Having fun thrashing that straw man ?