Diesel Claim

I bought various new diesel cars between 2009 and 2020 (lucky me) from Toyota, Fiat and Subaru. I keep hearing that I should sign up for some claim, but  I’m struggling to think of why I should be eligible for anything. The cars all did what I bought them for just fine and were worth what I expected them to be when I came to sell them. It sounds as though they emitted more pollution than they claimed, but it wasn’t me that suffered from that.

If the manufacturers lied then I can see that they should be punished, but shouldn’t any fine go to the NHS or something rather than the people who bought the cars?

Yes.

The claims seem to be for the emotional impact of the knowledge of all the deaths you caused by spewing out pollutants inadvertently.  Which I’m guessing is basically nil for most people.

VW is a bit of a different case – you were forced to have an update to remain emissions compliant which made your car worse, so that’s got more merit.

I asked the same a couple of years ago because I was seeing the same and have a Ford van. My thoughts mirrored yours and the consensus here was the same and, (for this place) surprisingly unanimous. It’s difficult to see how the claims have merit when the actual cheating was for a measure that’s not tested in the EU after sale.

The lad who sits behind me a work got a couple of K from VW. He’s not had the update added to his engine, so hasn’t suffered any performance degradation and the car is probably a year away from being scrapped so no second hand value penalty. He’s not complaining though obviously.

edit – molgrips, I’m not sure the update was enforced unless maybe you took it to a VW franchise for service or repair.

Claim farmers flying a kite now you can longer claim PPI. Speculatively compiling lists in the hope that manufacturers will cough up – of course their fees will probably exceed what will be paid to claimants – all that spam has to be paid for

A bunch of chancers trying to make easy money. I doubt anyone bought a diesel for environmental reasons, more economic or tax benefits, which they probably got.

It isn’t a fine, it’s compensation. They are compensating people that bought their vehicles as those people may have bought that particular vehicle because of its low emissions.

I doubt anyone bought a diesel for environmental reasons

I did, and I would again now that you can get SCR to reduce NOx.  They do produce less CO2, and CO2 is bad.

molgrips, I’m not sure the update was enforced unless maybe you took it to a VW franchise for service or repair

It wasn’t even then, AFAIK, but if you wanted to not be in breach of emissions regs you needed it.

It wasn’t even then, AFAIK, but if you wanted to not be in breach of emissions regs you needed it.

I don’t THINK (also not 100%) that it’s the case. The cheat was for NOx which is what caught them out in the US. EU MOT’s don’t have limits for that, all based on CO/CO2.

*awaits someone with proper knowledge on the subject.

but if you wanted to not be in breach of emissions regs you needed it.

Not sure that’s true, the emissions regs were around the testing and certification of the vehicle. If an unmodified VW breached emissions regs it would have failed an MOT. My now sold VW Touran never had a problem with MOTs and I deliberately didn’t have the update done.

I also have no intention of making a claim as aI bought the car for it’s size, functionality and fuel economy so at best the only environmental claims I can make is I wanted it to reduce CO2 emissions. Other emissions didn’t cross my mind when I bought it in 2013.

I bought my VW cos it had a boot big enough to put bikes in. It still has, so I don’t think I needed to be compensated for anything.

A bunch of chancers trying to make easy money.

This is my feeling.

There are many reasons for cars becoming more costly. Fuel claims amongst them ?

At the time I did think diesel cars were supposed to be a bit better for the environment (lower CO2). So I guess that was a factor in the decision, but I can’t honestly say it was a major one and I still can’t see how I suffered financially. I think I’ll just ignore the adverts and get on with my life.

Actually, the boot rattles a bit now, which can be annoying. Can I claim for that?

All the more reason not to need compensating then I suppose!

At the time I did think diesel cars were supposed to be a bit better for the environment (lower CO2).

They still are in respect of CO2, but at the time they were worse for NOx.  I think a lot of people seem to want something to be clearly labelled ‘good’ or ‘bad’ but the reality is more nuanced.

Molgrips is bang on it.  At the time a number of engine manufactures we’re trying to hold off putting complex SCR systems on, some managed to achieve it through engine architecture – Isuzu and Perkins and BMW were some that managed, but others, such as Mercedes and VW who (the former pushing for the adble technology (as they’d spent a lot of money on it with the German government), were’ unable to meet regs without going that route.  Manufactures warned the EU that they would not be able to meet the deadlines imposed and needed an extra ~2 years to roll out new architecture that would meet the rquirements (most engine lifecycles are 7+ years), in the meantime they worked towards the rules with a large dose of interpretation, but certianly not within the spirit of the rules.

By and large diesels are still the best powertrain option, the after-treatment systems are phenomonly good at reducing all but CO2, and even that there are some clever devices being trialled, though practacalities will probably not allow them to succeed.   After dieselgate there was a large spike in CO2 as everyone moved to petrol, that’s now flatlined and in some cases reduced as powertrains becom more efficient, hybrid and EV’s are introduced and transport habits have changed slightly.

and even that there are some clever devices being trialled, though practacalities will probably not allow them to succeed.

Ooh, go on?  Curious.

After dieselgate there was a large spike in CO2 as everyone moved to petrol, that’s now flatlined and in some cases reduced as powertrains becom more efficient, hybrid and EV’s are introduced and transport habits have changed slightly.

Can I ask – for the same mpg, does petrol produce more CO2 than diesel?

Can I ask – for the same mpg, does petrol produce more CO2 than diesel?

No, less.  Petrol is lighter, so a gallon of petrol contains less mass of carbon AIUI.  Moving as we did from an old small diesel to a bigger petrol hybrid for roughly the same mpg saved some CO2 and a huge amount of NOx.

Emissions made no difference to our choice of car, so I’m damned if I’m lining the pockets of some pseudo lawyer ambulance chaser pretending otherwise

Just for balance, for much of that period I was co2 limited if I wanted to receive company car alternative payments so co2 emissions were a fundamental part of my decision making on vehicles. If they’d reported them correctly I would have bought something else, probably smaller and cheaper to fit within the limits.

co2 emissions

It was NOx that they were cheating about, not CO2.

But I’m with the majority in thinking that the owners have nothing to be compensated for – effectively the cheating made them better off, so they suffered no loss.

Ref mpg q. The difference in carbon between diesel and petrol is marginal (), but the net heating value, (calories) is generally between 3-5megajoules per kilo more (that’s the carbon for you), in diesel and diesels are thermally more efficient than petrols. So mile for mile you produce less co2 in a diesel than you do in petrol (pure ice in both cases).  Hybridisation will start to favour petrol as long as they are used in the manner in which they were intended though.

<p style=”text-align: left;”>Ref q. Co2 capture, a company In the US has been working on a trap to catch the co2 at point of combustion on HGVs, but the kit is horrendously heavy and the uses a lot of energy.  The theory is good, the practical application not so much, maybe on a ship..</p>

There are many reasons for cars becoming more costly. Fuel claims amongst them ?

Pfft, whatever. It’s peanuts in comparison to the increase in commodities generally affecting car companies, and the compensation only has to be paid by lying bastards. I don’t see why there are so many simps for rapacious auto manufacturers. They should pay until they weep. Maybe then they won’t cheat the system we are all relying on to slow down the destruction of the planet.

It isn’t a fine, it’s compensation. They are compensating people that bought their vehicles as those people may have bought that particular vehicle because of its low emissions.

It’s allegedly a compensation for something that was never, ever an issue in the U.K. and Europe, and which nobody ever had a need to have their cars modified for. It was entirely due to cars emissions being fudged in American tests for NOx, because Americans didn’t then, and don’t now give a toss about CO2 emissions.
Just like PPI claims, the claims company will take at least a third of the claim for ‘administrative costs’.

A bunch of chancers trying to make easy money. I doubt anyone bought a diesel for environmental reasons, more economic or tax benefits, which they probably got.

Pushed by the prudent Gordon Brown in 2001 and subsidised by him, “The records confirm that ministers and civil servants in the Labour government were well aware that diesel pollution damages air quality” https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41985715

I think everyone knew/knows that. Unsure how anyone can’t think the black fumes out the exhaust is anything else.

After listening to the news report about the fuel retailers slow response to a drop in wholesale prices & fuel duty cuts, I wonder if the compo lawyers will have them as the next target?