Seems like FIAT's situation might be unrelated, i.e. they are apparently being sued in the US for unrelated stuff[0] i.e. forcing dealers to report higher sales data than real (though the thing seems somewhat odd).
>"This was a couple of software engineers who put this in for whatever reason," Michael Horn, VW's U.S. chief executive, told a House subcommittee hearing. "To my understanding, this was not a corporate decision. This was something individuals did."
While VW DE said "no engineer will be sued over this, we will give them total immunity and want them to speak free", and subsequently suspended 10 of their top managers, and had 2 CEOs resign in a row.
It’s clear that VW US’ CEO has only his own interests in mind.
"Volkswagen is citing German privacy law in refusing to turn over emails and other communications between its executives, the source said. The emails were sought by a group of 48 U.S. state attorneys general investigating excess emissions"
doesn't give me the greatest confidence in that story.
For now, only VW AG (so VW, Audi, Seat, Skoda and Porsche). BMW, Mercedes, Renault, Opel and PSA (Peugeot, Citroen) have been mentioned, but I haven't seen any confirmations.
If a manufacturer is claiming high gas mileage, reasonable power and low emissions out of a small turbo diesel, chances are they're lying. You can only have two of those three, and so if you buy a diesel car, you're at risk for having it fail inspections or at the very least lose it's resale value. I, personally, wouldn't buy a diesel at all until this whole thing sorts itself out. Ford, Toyota, Nissan and Honda make a variety of hybrid electric vehicles that get good mileage, have low emissions and put out reasonable amounts of power. Nissan makes the Leaf, which is a small, affordable electric vehicle with a useful range. GM is planning on releasing a new electric car called the Bolt later this year, although I'm unsure of it's european availability.
Once one of them started gaming the tests and nobody reported it, it's not unreasonable to assume others started doing it too. There are real costs to complying. VW has been kicking everybody's tail in diesel too, so I'd expect one of two things after they all had a chance to reverse engineer tdi, they'd buy VW motors for their cars or they'd do the same tricks.
It will be interesting to see unfold, it could very well end diesel in consumer cars which would be unfortunate as I think there are real values to the diesel cycle.
That's a bit of an overly broad sweep against the car industry. Technically, those emission standards are achievable and many cars do achieve them without cheating or the like, including diesel cars.
If you want to be sure to not be affected, buy either a petrol / gas or electric car. I'm pretty sure tesla will not be affected by this..
I test drove a Leaf and I was very impressed in all respects. And I drive a BMW. They are cheap with govt subsides.
Roughly the same tech is used by Renault in its poorly marketed but awesome Zoe. They are both affordable, and quite more so 2nd hand.
Small gasoline engines are very frugal. E.g., Fiat's fantastic TwinAir. I drove one during 36 months in Scandinavia and I got better mileage than many diesels. Due to turbo, some particles might be nasty though.
Somewhere in between you have many hybrid cars. Small Lexus are not too expensive and they are very nice.
Problem at least in Portugal is a lot manufacturers aren't even offering gasoline vehicles. Lexus only offers the NX in hybrid form (which is great) but starts at 45k Euros.
Other brands offer hybrids but only on higher models (BMW hybrid only available on the X5 not X3 or Audi only offering it on the Q7).
(yes, I know, I could probably buy a small hybrid car, but we are looking for something with more space otherwise we would stick with our current one)
I think it has to do with the difficulty of refueling one quickly (and safely), high pressure gas fittings are just asking for trouble.
Also, I was recently a passenger in one while my car was being serviced; it seems they must store a rather high volume tank /somewhere/ (the trunk space suffers).
Or perhaps they are probing the fact I had to change my window regulators EIGHT TIMES on my previous car (Scenic), while the vigorously defended that 1) it was not a design fault and 2) refused to make the repair at their own costs.
And despite hundred of pages of online forum discussion about this particular problem.
And, mind you, it's not just them, I think the auto-industry needs to be kicked, hard, and repeatedly until they start behaving with a notch more honesty.
The thing is, it may not be a design fault, but an improperly built part from a supplier that botched it with cost cutting measures. The production samples Renault received were probably glorious and will work for centuries, only to have the production run substitute a cheaper material that is "functionally equivalent".
I dont disagree. To me its a game of blame passing, but I think that is the reality of the car biz. Brands usually design the look and most of the time the engine. Suppliers do the rest.
If you don't know what search terms to put into Google, you'll never know it's a common problem until after it happens to you.
For example, we didn't know that, until a few years ago, Subarus were prone to cracked head gaskets. We only learned that after it happened to us and the mechanic told us it was very common. Armed with new search terms, Google confirmed what the mechanic said.
Don't know why you're getting downvotes without comments. It's as valid an opinion as any, especially given the leverage you can wield with 1,000 employees these days.
I don't think anyone would argue that there isn't a certain size of corporation over which there are more disadvantages than advantages (to society at least).
This won't be popular, but since I could drive (15 1/2), what has bothered me about the auto industry is the average customer.
I have never got my head around people who buy these vechicles filled with gadgets, and expect these gadgets to last for more than a few seasons. (I know this is offtopic, and the discussion is about emmissions and cheaters, but if customers realized just how hard it is to get these sporty vechicles to run terrific at all times right--while being essentially choked by a plethora of smog devices. Well they might not be so picky.)
I've sold cars. I've worked as a mechanic. I'm not going to spout off a lot of advice, but there's some things I feel should be said:
1. If buying used, forget about that "I need to bring my mechanic by, before I buy." That's used car lot advice. Not private sale advice. Bring cash if you wanted good deal. The better cars evaporate pretty quick.
2. Forget about all the gadgets. Roll up your own windows. A good heater on a used car is nothing more than an engine that's running hot, or the thermostat is missing or stuck.
Look for vechicles that are built well. A used Toyota is a safe bet.
3. Early on learn a little about auto mechanics. Over a lifetime, you will be suprised how much you save. With today's three propriariary, computer cars--well it's more difficult, but then again, you have the Internet.
4. When buying a vechicle research the drivetrain, and engine. Is the drivetrain time tested? Is the engine reliable?
5. Forget about color, sear heaters, all the gadgets. They just Break down. My father's quote on electric Windows, "The day I can't roll down my own windows--take me out of my misery." My father was old school though. He always had an older vechicle, with enough modifications to outrun the State police--if needed. A Mickey's beer between his leg, and a lit Carleton in his lips. Car security was a kill switch running between the secondary wire on the distributer, and a switch in the cab, and a claw hammer behind the seat. Times were definetly different back then.
> if customers realized just how hard it is to get these sporty vechicles to run terrific at all times right--while being essentially choked by a plethora of smog devices. Well they might not be so picky.
We already are not picky. We've been used to buying crap for the last few decades, when companies realized they don't have to care about quality. Between planned obsolescence and skimping on manufacturing & QA, there are almost no good-quality products available on market. Everything is designed to be as bad as possible while still being sellable.
Yes, making quality things is hard, but it's not that hard. And, curiously, it has been done before - products manufactured more than few decades ago were much better than their current equivalents - be it shoes, furniture, or appliances like washing machines, microwave ovens or electric kettles. Many still use those products of the past today. Companies started making crap products on purpose, and I believe that we absolutely should be much more picky and demanding than we're now. The only reason this shit flies is because we can't coordinate well enough to push back.
Just fine them for transgressions. But like, seriously fine them. VW is worth ~350 billion Euro, had 200 billion Euro of revenue and 10 billion Euro of profits (2014 data). Fine them those 10 billion EUR. And if they squeal, fine them 20 more. That's more than enough to erase all the damage they did, account for unfair market advantage and do some serious progress on environmental issues.
It's not particular to the car industry, you can see it everywhere, from 3M making every American and possibly every living thing more propense to cancer [0] to Unilever dropping tons of mercury on the forests of India[1] to IBM taking every position they can to India because it's cheaper[2].
The reason is: if this reflects on "making more money" they will do it and fight to make it look right until they are challenge on court, as a result probably the fines will be lower than the earnings related to how they did it.
Edit: there is nothing wrong with moving positions to a another country.
This isn't going to get fixed as long as the individuals at the top still become multimillionaires/billionaires even if the companies in question go kaput.
The penalties for doing this need to be:
(1) Confiscation of individual wealth, and
(2) Prison
That isn't the answer. Many of the people who you'd target don't have the kind of control needed to actually "fix" it. Its generally a cultural problem with the company and the company is the target that should be destroyed in the extreme case where (2) would be appropriate [which nukes the wealth of the shareholders].
But the cultural problem comes from somewhere. And if we're going to reward those who "succeed" with unimaginable riches, the penalties for failing at that scale need to be equally harsh. Alternatively, we realize this, and thus implement a tax structure such that we have no more billionaires.
Why are we(the shareholders) paying the top CEOs if they cant control their company?
Why should they be rewarded for hurting us?
How do cultures get established and reinforced if not through management's expectations and actions?
I think all of these questions point to the fact that we are letting those reaping the benefits abrogate the responsibilities.
I definitely think that they should be tied more closely together if we want something like market forces to help resolve the problems at hand instead of paying people to effect NO change (or effectively random change).
The shareholders who appoint the board who appoints the CEO.
> Why are we(the shareholders) paying the top CEOs if they cant control their company?
No CEO has 100% control of their company.
> Why should they be rewarded for hurting us?
You should have picked better. Like any employer, you are responsible for the ultimate cost of the actions of your employees. The title doesn't magically change that.
> How do cultures get established and reinforced if not through management's expectations and actions?
You should have the Board fire the CEO if you believe the CEO is the problem. It isn't like shareholders have no recourse.
Ultimately, the Board/shareholders are the CEO's boss. The buck stops there as far as who is responsible for employing everyone at the company [including the CEO]. Simply because you want a scapegoat doesn't change where the power rests.
> I think all of these questions point to the fact that we are letting those reaping the benefits abrogate the responsibilities.
Yes, shareholders push for profits before other factors and have abrogated their civil responsibility by not picking differently.
Instead, shareholders pick people that they think will maximize their personal wealth.
Similarly, the C-suite is heavily compensated in stock and destruction and/or value loss of said stock impacts their personal financial decision directly. If you truly are concerned, you can always "lock" stock compensation for N years to keep the CEO from selling it so short sighted decisions will bite them on the ass even after they left their post.
>The reason is: if this reflects on "making more money" they will do it and fight to make it look right until they are challenge on court, as a result probably the fines will be lower than the earnings related to how they did it.
The reason behind this reason is that as long as consumers keep demanding cheaper products, companies will continue looking for ways to lower their costs. Just take a look at poultry farms, they are living hells, but people don't seem to mind it as long as they can buy 6 chicken nuggets for 99 cents.
We can't have the cake and eat it too, we have to decide whether we want companies to be responsible or if we want to pay less for the products and services we consume.
> The reason behind this reason is that as long as consumers keep demanding cheaper products, companies will continue looking for ways to lower their costs.
I'd have no problem with actually competing price vs. quality but the problem is with legislative/judicial challenges to things like environmental laws and consumer protection.
We simply don't punish enough those who willingly shit on the commons to make a buck (and consumers are often in the dark about the quality of their goods), and so those who have large investments in these vehicles use some that money to influence/corrupt the regulatory and legislative bodies to prevent their cash flow from being stopped.
I'm all for a little conspiracy, but Renault themselves have little exposure in the US market to begin with. They have a strong relationship with Nissan - including sharing some (but not all) engine tech - but overall the US would seem to be a minor player here in terms of market exposure.
Additionally, I don't think Nissan sells any diesel-based cars in the US. The linked article doesn't specifically say that the probe at Renault is concentrating on diesels, admittedly, but the article does infer that.
I just can't imagine this helping the US automakers very much.
Like others have said - Volkswagen was just the tip of the iceberg. All of the major car companies knew what Volkswagen was doing and they did it too just to keep up. Now that Volkswagen has fallen they're now snitching about other car companies in an effort to reduce their exposure by spreading the blame and implicating others.
64 comments
[ 4.7 ms ] story [ 128 ms ] threadAFAIK, Peugeot hasn't been raided (yet). Here's some context about the companies' exposure to the diesel scandal: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-09-25/peugeot-re...
[0] http://www.wsj.com/articles/fiat-shares-suspended-several-ti...
http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/221104-california-rejects...
http://www.latimes.com/business/autos/la-fi-hy-vw-hearing-20...
It’s clear that VW US’ CEO has only his own interests in mind.
[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/13/business/volkswagen-offeri...
[2] http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/21/business/volkswagen-suspen...
Sadly, it’s almost completely unreported in English media, somehow it appears that only German media has properly reported on it.
"Volkswagen is citing German privacy law in refusing to turn over emails and other communications between its executives, the source said. The emails were sought by a group of 48 U.S. state attorneys general investigating excess emissions"
doesn't give me the greatest confidence in that story.
Hard to find actual info, there are a lot of probes to various companies, but which ones have been verified?
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Duratorq_engine#1.6_.22Ti...
we only know authorities investigated on renault closely but the relation to the cheating scandal isn't confirmed
It will be interesting to see unfold, it could very well end diesel in consumer cars which would be unfortunate as I think there are real values to the diesel cycle.
If you want to be sure to not be affected, buy either a petrol / gas or electric car. I'm pretty sure tesla will not be affected by this..
I test drove a Leaf and I was very impressed in all respects. And I drive a BMW. They are cheap with govt subsides.
Roughly the same tech is used by Renault in its poorly marketed but awesome Zoe. They are both affordable, and quite more so 2nd hand.
Small gasoline engines are very frugal. E.g., Fiat's fantastic TwinAir. I drove one during 36 months in Scandinavia and I got better mileage than many diesels. Due to turbo, some particles might be nasty though.
Somewhere in between you have many hybrid cars. Small Lexus are not too expensive and they are very nice.
Other brands offer hybrids but only on higher models (BMW hybrid only available on the X5 not X3 or Audi only offering it on the Q7).
(yes, I know, I could probably buy a small hybrid car, but we are looking for something with more space otherwise we would stick with our current one)
Otherwise you can hack the market a bit and perhaps buy it in Spain?
Buying in Spain is an hassle and legalisation is quite expensive.
Also, I was recently a passenger in one while my car was being serviced; it seems they must store a rather high volume tank /somewhere/ (the trunk space suffers).
http://www.transportenvironment.org/publications/mind-gap-20...
And despite hundred of pages of online forum discussion about this particular problem.
And, mind you, it's not just them, I think the auto-industry needs to be kicked, hard, and repeatedly until they start behaving with a notch more honesty.
The problem hasn't existed yet when you bought the car?
For example, we didn't know that, until a few years ago, Subarus were prone to cracked head gaskets. We only learned that after it happened to us and the mechanic told us it was very common. Armed with new search terms, Google confirmed what the mechanic said.
42% of Forester's are returned for engine problems [1]
28% of Subaru Legacy's too [2]
For both models it is the most frequent category of failure
The legacy is still no.86 in the reliability stakes though [3]
[1] http://www.reliabilityindex.com/reliability/search/236
[2] http://www.reliabilityindex.com/reliability/search/238
[3] http://www.reliabilityindex.com/top-100
what specifically do you propose? I am genuinely interested. Who should do what?
I don't think anyone would argue that there isn't a certain size of corporation over which there are more disadvantages than advantages (to society at least).
I have never got my head around people who buy these vechicles filled with gadgets, and expect these gadgets to last for more than a few seasons. (I know this is offtopic, and the discussion is about emmissions and cheaters, but if customers realized just how hard it is to get these sporty vechicles to run terrific at all times right--while being essentially choked by a plethora of smog devices. Well they might not be so picky.)
I've sold cars. I've worked as a mechanic. I'm not going to spout off a lot of advice, but there's some things I feel should be said:
1. If buying used, forget about that "I need to bring my mechanic by, before I buy." That's used car lot advice. Not private sale advice. Bring cash if you wanted good deal. The better cars evaporate pretty quick.
2. Forget about all the gadgets. Roll up your own windows. A good heater on a used car is nothing more than an engine that's running hot, or the thermostat is missing or stuck. Look for vechicles that are built well. A used Toyota is a safe bet.
3. Early on learn a little about auto mechanics. Over a lifetime, you will be suprised how much you save. With today's three propriariary, computer cars--well it's more difficult, but then again, you have the Internet.
4. When buying a vechicle research the drivetrain, and engine. Is the drivetrain time tested? Is the engine reliable?
5. Forget about color, sear heaters, all the gadgets. They just Break down. My father's quote on electric Windows, "The day I can't roll down my own windows--take me out of my misery." My father was old school though. He always had an older vechicle, with enough modifications to outrun the State police--if needed. A Mickey's beer between his leg, and a lit Carleton in his lips. Car security was a kill switch running between the secondary wire on the distributer, and a switch in the cab, and a claw hammer behind the seat. Times were definetly different back then.
We already are not picky. We've been used to buying crap for the last few decades, when companies realized they don't have to care about quality. Between planned obsolescence and skimping on manufacturing & QA, there are almost no good-quality products available on market. Everything is designed to be as bad as possible while still being sellable.
Yes, making quality things is hard, but it's not that hard. And, curiously, it has been done before - products manufactured more than few decades ago were much better than their current equivalents - be it shoes, furniture, or appliances like washing machines, microwave ovens or electric kettles. Many still use those products of the past today. Companies started making crap products on purpose, and I believe that we absolutely should be much more picky and demanding than we're now. The only reason this shit flies is because we can't coordinate well enough to push back.
If it doesn't hurt, they won't learn.
The reason is: if this reflects on "making more money" they will do it and fight to make it look right until they are challenge on court, as a result probably the fines will be lower than the earnings related to how they did it.
Edit: there is nothing wrong with moving positions to a another country.
[0]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01...
[0]http://www.aboutlawsuits.com/link-dupont-teflon-cancer-26060...
[0]http://www.delawareriverkeeper.org/resources/Factsheets/A_DU...
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kodaikanal_mercury_poisoning
[2]http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB123799610031239341
The penalties for doing this need to be:
(1) Confiscation of individual wealth, and (2) Prison
Targeting the shareholders in civil suits will encourage better/more defensive CEO choices and other board decisions.
Direction stems from the top and the top is the Board [elected by shareholders] and not the CEO. Pretending otherwise is simply ignorance.
Why are we(the shareholders) paying the top CEOs if they cant control their company?
Why should they be rewarded for hurting us?
How do cultures get established and reinforced if not through management's expectations and actions?
I think all of these questions point to the fact that we are letting those reaping the benefits abrogate the responsibilities.
I definitely think that they should be tied more closely together if we want something like market forces to help resolve the problems at hand instead of paying people to effect NO change (or effectively random change).
The shareholders who appoint the board who appoints the CEO.
> Why are we(the shareholders) paying the top CEOs if they cant control their company?
No CEO has 100% control of their company.
> Why should they be rewarded for hurting us?
You should have picked better. Like any employer, you are responsible for the ultimate cost of the actions of your employees. The title doesn't magically change that.
> How do cultures get established and reinforced if not through management's expectations and actions?
You should have the Board fire the CEO if you believe the CEO is the problem. It isn't like shareholders have no recourse.
Ultimately, the Board/shareholders are the CEO's boss. The buck stops there as far as who is responsible for employing everyone at the company [including the CEO]. Simply because you want a scapegoat doesn't change where the power rests.
> I think all of these questions point to the fact that we are letting those reaping the benefits abrogate the responsibilities.
Yes, shareholders push for profits before other factors and have abrogated their civil responsibility by not picking differently.
Instead, shareholders pick people that they think will maximize their personal wealth.
Similarly, the C-suite is heavily compensated in stock and destruction and/or value loss of said stock impacts their personal financial decision directly. If you truly are concerned, you can always "lock" stock compensation for N years to keep the CEO from selling it so short sighted decisions will bite them on the ass even after they left their post.
The reason behind this reason is that as long as consumers keep demanding cheaper products, companies will continue looking for ways to lower their costs. Just take a look at poultry farms, they are living hells, but people don't seem to mind it as long as they can buy 6 chicken nuggets for 99 cents.
We can't have the cake and eat it too, we have to decide whether we want companies to be responsible or if we want to pay less for the products and services we consume.
I'd have no problem with actually competing price vs. quality but the problem is with legislative/judicial challenges to things like environmental laws and consumer protection.
We simply don't punish enough those who willingly shit on the commons to make a buck (and consumers are often in the dark about the quality of their goods), and so those who have large investments in these vehicles use some that money to influence/corrupt the regulatory and legislative bodies to prevent their cash flow from being stopped.
Just wait till TPP is signed and ratified...
http://lwn.net/Articles/670488/
Additionally, I don't think Nissan sells any diesel-based cars in the US. The linked article doesn't specifically say that the probe at Renault is concentrating on diesels, admittedly, but the article does infer that.
I just can't imagine this helping the US automakers very much.