Have to also add to this fact " to pay a billion Euros for not being guilty ?" why does that. if you are not guilty you would fight it to the end not to pay . But lets just say for example you have a company and you are not guilty and someone accuses you of wrong doing , and you know you are not guilty and you give someone a billion for not being guilty just because you have extra cash ? maybe. There is no logic there. Where there is smoke there is fire , in my opinion.

 

Finally someone with someone common sense and understands the difference between the MB case and VW case. It's what I have been stating all along, the MB case is pretty much dead on arrival. And no this is not a matter of opinion. Opinions do not count in court, only facts.

 

In real World smart people rather pay a billion to settle the case, than spend 10 billions on lawyers and 5 years in courts.

 

An important difference in the M-B vs VW cases, is that the VW case seemed to originate with an objection raised by a regulatory agency, CARB. The M-B case appears to originate from an NGO, the law firm representing the class.

 

Indeed, that's why I think this is a DOA. The law firm filing this, claims testing was done, but they have not substantiated who did the testing. As I stated in my previous post, the silence from CARB who is completely separate from EPA, is very deafening with respect to the legitimacy of the lawyers legal claim. Others on here have stated there is a smoking gun....We however in the US do not follow EU6 standards, we also do not have on road testing, in fact I do not believe there is a single state that actually does actual diesel emissions testing on passenger vehicles. And for that matter a lot of states such as Texas, exempt diesel passenger vehicles from any emissions testing of any kind, instead only gasoline powered vehicles are required to satisfy an OBDII emissions test.

 

Like I mentioned before everyone is entitled to his own , opinion. When you see the facts it is obvious when everything got stared in 2016, you can see the Trump administration changing EPA and CARB staff and its directors , so it is more than obvious who is staling the process. And yes you are right in between the VW and Mercedes case when Obama Administrations was EPA and Carb were doing their job and things got done. In Daimler diesel case there is nothing left to do then Private Class action lawsuit if won than everyone will act after fact. Read the 477 pages of the lawsuit it will be very clear with lots of proves of cheating. https://www.hbsslaw.com/uploads/case...-complaint.pdf, no innocent company pays 1 Billion penalty in Germany just for giggles. It might not happen soon enough but give it 6 months from now when you read in the newspaper they got nailed. I hope there is buyback because everyone that I know would sell their diesel bluetec cars back asap to them , no one would keep any of the bluetec high maintenance cheating garbage that is poisoning environment and everyone in it.

 

Nevada, or at least Clark County does particles sniff testing on rolls.
But I suspect they have very poor testers as my cars and truck record 0 particles, including the car with DPF delete.
Funny gasoline vehicles don't get sniffed and don't go on rolls. OBD only.

 

So I skimmed through the document. But mainly focused on areas around page 80-85. Meaningless data being provided by the lawyers. Why? EURO V and VI standards is all they are talking about. They keep bringing up how the cars have failed European standards. And yes there is a major section devoted to on road testing and how under various conditions they failed to meet EPA standards. And do I really care? No, I am in the process of finding someone to implement SCR, DPF and EGR deletes.

Since you keep insisting on OPINION!!!!! You look at all those F250 diesels, GM Diesel and Dodge Diesel pickup trucks. I doubt they meet the standards as well, but you don't see anyone filing lawsuits over the issue. If anything they the owners can't wait to do the deletes themselves.......Why else would plenty of those trucks be able to "rolling coal", not that I encourage that act.....

 

Copied from this document: https://dmvnv.com/pdfforms/ec4.pdf
"The opacity meter
measures the opacity (visible particulate emissions) of
your exhaust. A sample of the exhaust is gathered and
evaluated by the opacity meter. A visual inspection for
tampering of emission control devices is also part of the
inspection procedure"

Basically NOX is not tested or measured. The only device the opacity test might pickup is if you do not have a DPF filter. But even then unless you are rolling coal, I doubt you will fail the opacity test.

 

My DPF (what also is CAT combo) is empty shell, yet the engine scored 0 particles on the test.
My F350 with 6.7l diesel scored 0 as well.
As for "visual inspection" part, I leave no comments....

 

For not being guilty things are moving to the right direction . https://europe.autonews.com/automake...sel-disclosure
Cant wait to hear for the Buyback here soon.

 

I wonder if we have a forum members who can understand legal part of that.
Shareholders are owners of the company.
They sue themselves?
Sounds like the only winners here will be lawyers.

 

Indeed, combined with the fact that at this point European Laws, European emissions standards are being argued and not necessarily applicable to the US. European Emissions standards primarily focus on CO2 emissions and have less stringent standards for NOX.

Defeat Devices as defined by the EU and the US are very different:

EPA:
The US EPA defines defeat devices based on U.S. regulation 40 Code of Federal Regulation
(CFR) §86.1803-01 as follows:
“Defeat device means an auxiliary emission control device (AECD)122 that reduces the
effectiveness of the emission control system under conditions which may reasonably
be expected to be encountered in normal vehicle operation and use, unless:
(1) Such conditions are substantially included in the Federal emission test procedure;
(2) The need for the AECD is justified in terms of protecting the vehicle against
damage or accident;
(3) The AECD does not go beyond the requirements of engine starting; or
(4) The AECD applies only for emergency vehicles and the need is justified in terms
of preventing the vehicle from losing speed, torque, or power due to abnormal
conditions of the emission control system, or in terms of preventing such abnormal
conditions from occurring, during operation related to emergency response. Examples

EURO Defeat Devices:
Defeat devices are in principle forbidden in the EU. Article 5 (2) of Euro 6 Regulation
715/2007/EC121 prohibits the use of defeat devices apart from a few exemptions, including
to protect the engine against damage and ensure safe operation.
Article 3(10) defines defeat device as “any element of design which senses
temperature, vehicle speed, engine speed (RPM), transmission gear, manifold vacuum
or any other parameter for the purpose of activating, modulating, delaying or
deactivating the operation of any part of the emission control system, that reduces
the effectiveness of the emission control system under conditions which may
reasonably be expected to be encountered in normal vehicle operation and use”.

 

Small movement on the lawsuits. https://www.law360.com/delaware/arti...ase-back-to-nj

 

Useless link. Requires subscription.

 

Try this one is free. https://law.justia.com/cases/federal...020-01-10.html

 

I read it but I don't know what this means: "we will vacate the District Court’s order and remand this matter to the District Court for consideration of the Mercedes Manufacturers’ third-party beneficiary and equitable estoppel arguments under applicable state law"

 

Mind you I am not a lawyer, but having now read it at least 3-4 times, It basically means the judge will not deal with this matter and sent it back because the plaintiffs are required as part of their purchase contract to arbitrate this with Mercedes Benz. In other words, nothing is happening at this point.

 

Did we really need 68 replies to come to this?

 

Please provide FACTS to support this assertion. Otherwise it is merely a statement of opinion. Though it might qualify you to work for Adam Schiff's band of fantasy weavers.

 

Hi All from UK

A software update is being applied to all diesel MB from Dec 2019.

I have been talking to the dealer, and while being helpful and supportive are unable to offer further assistance. I believe the dealers are frustrated too, as there are now a significant loyal customer base who are unhappy as their cars have been de-tuned.

Beware: This software update will radically changed you car for the worse, but improve your NoX.

The issue has to be taken up with Mercedes Benz and an official complaint raised, a complaint number needs to be sort:

Contact MB on: UK: 01908 245000

They acknowledge:
* This is an official MB "enhancement", and that the NoX levels would be reduced. I stated I would have chosen a petrol version if I required lower NoX levels.
* The top gear in 7 & 9 gears models only operate at ~76 MPH, above the UK legal limit, all gear change points have been effected.
* MANUALLY placing the car into 9th at 70mph has limited effect, as on the flat it will automatically move to DRIVE and change to 8th.
* Operating within the speed limit the car will never reach top gear
* The fuel economy is worse, as the engine power curve has been lowered. So that the engine revs higher; regurgitating more exhaust gasses and significantly warming the catalytic converter, hence lowering NoX.
* Additional ad-blue will be consumed.
* All MB approved second-hand cars must have this "enhancement" to leave the forecourt.
* All regular services by MB will incorporate the enhancement, under the T&C, to service the vehicle.

I believe that MB is encouraging drivers to operate above the speed limit, not consistent with the flow of motorway traffic, putting drivers and passenger's safety at greater risk.

This has been miss sold as an enhancement, when MB will not tell you the consequences of the update.

Is anyone aware of a Class-Action, as this is not the car I originally purchased.

Follow up action with Mercedes Benz

“Paddy Byrne” from the Mercedes Benz call centre has said (attached).
“The dealer has contacted Mercedes Benz Technical and has confirmed it is impossible to reverse the software update”. Therefore, our response can only be “The software cannot be reversed”.

have said that I can raise the issue with “The Motor Ombudsman”

Follow up Action with The Motor Ombudsman

The Motor Ombudsman has said that it is outside of their remit and cannot help
I should contact the “Citizen’s Advice Bureau”



-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Mercedes-Benz Customer Service PB-1-25906028206
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2020 11:14:53 +0100
From: cs.uk@cac.mercedes-benz.com
To:

13th February 2020

Ref: PB-1-25906028206

Dear Mr Winstanley,

Mercedes-Benz Model: C-Class C 250 d 4MATIC
Chassis No: WDDxxxxxxxxxx
Registration: xxxxxx

Thank you for contacting Mercedes-Benz Customer Service.

As per our recent phone conversation, the following is written confirmation of our final statement with regards to your complaint case. Based on the concerns you raised regarding the change in gear shifting since a software update was applied, I raised a complaint case and conducted an investigation.

I contacted Mercedes-Benz of Southampton for feedback regarding your issue. The Retailer have confirmed they contacted our internal technical specialists who have advised that it is impossible to reverse the software update. As discussed, 9th gear is still reachable by manual gear shifts at a lower speed. However, I can appreciate taking into account influences of road inclination and load, that the car can shift quite easily back to 8th gear. Having been in contact with our trained technicians I can confirm that the car cannot be returned to its previous state.

I trust this finds you well and should you have any further requirements, please do not hesitate to contact me or any of my colleagues.

If you are unhappy with this final decision or feel this matter is unresolved, you can seek advice with an CTSI Certified Alternative Dispute Resolution provider. We are prepared to engage with The Motor Ombudsman to resolve your dispute. Further details can be found at www.themotorombudsman.org, or alternatively their telephone number is 0345 241 3008 selecting option 1.

Yours sincerely

Paddy Byrne
Customer Service UK

Mercedes-Benz UK Customer Service can be contacted by telephone on 008 009 777 7777 or 0207 660 9993, Monday - Friday between 08:00 & 18:00.

Mercedes-Benz Customer Assistance Center Maastricht N.V. Gelissendomein 5, 6229 GK Maastricht , Netherlands. Register No.: K.v.K. Limburg 33014909

If you are not the addressee please inform us immediately that you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete it. We thank you for your support.

Mercedes-Benz collects and processes your personal data as necessary for the provision of our services.
If you would like to know more about your general privacy rights, we refer you to the privacy statement on the following website: www.mercedes-benz.co.uk

[ACTIVITY ID:1-BYU0C0U][CASE ID:1-BWFS3AM]

 

By trying to make things go away , they just got more into hole . https://www.law360.com/benefits/arti...emissions-deal Now Judge wants to know how did they cheat heheheh and why they are paying 19 million , what for?

 

Article will not show without leaving them some money.

 

Hey @Benzman444 here we are 6 months later and nothing......nada zip, have they been nailed? NO, as stated before, this is being driven the this one law firm, whereas the VW case was driven by both EPA and CARB. This not an opinion as you stated before. This is fact. CARB is separate from EPA and even they are not lifting a finger to address this issue with Mercedes.

 

Well no offense to you, but I don't think this statement has any ground. Older diesel Benzes emit MUCH MUCH more pollutant than the bluetec. The reason that they are cheating on emission is because the EPA regulation on the emission is UNREASONABLE. Just like when you are having an exam and normally the pass line is 60 points. However if the teacher sets the pass line to 95 points or 100 points, then students are going to cheat for sure.