rbradleysd

I could be totally wrong but the 2L customers didn't have a trial for the settlement because VW reached an agreement with the settlement team so I'd imagine this would be the same type of thing (someone correct me if I'm wrong) where the trail would start IF they can't agree to something during negotiations

MP4.2+6.0

I skimmed the transcript. To me it becomes obvious very early on that VW/Audi is trying to prove a fix to the vehicles.That's where they failed on four bangers in some contexts. And if they get to a fix, then implicitly no buyback.

I think the dates are slipping out...again. Previously they said August to report back to CARB for Gen 2.2 vehicles that Q5 should be. See bottom of p3 of last CARB bounce letter here: http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/vw_info...ver_letter.pdf Now it seems to say Nov.--for data submission that is. It was clear gov't needs time after that to evaluate. In prior CARB bounce the submission was Feb, with lots of backfilling supplemental submissions afterward by VW/Audi as likelihood of bounce was probably getting obvious. CARB told them within about two weeks of Feb submission it was a probable bounce but kept it "confidential"--up until the actual bounce letter in July, so that was five months more. Just adding those two periods (Nov + 5 months), that is around another eight months from now. They also are subdividing the 2.2 group into further categories, which I'm not familiar with. Thus at bottom of p 15 they talk about just a software flash, but then for "older" 2.2 (and 2.1) vehicles they talk about a cat. converter change and additional sensors. I'm not convinced though the lawyer doing the talking knew the subject matter t that level--or rather the probable script writer he was relying on who may have slipped up at times. Way at the beginning he labels Cayennes as 2.2 for example, while I think they are 2.1 like later Q7's; lower torque.

The net to me reading the script is they are clearly trying to get a repair fix through, and implicitly to avoid buyback. The lawyer also talks a lot about getting the newest ones fixed first because they have the longest lives left on road, but doesn't bother to say logically those are Q5's with the biggest dealer inventories they are stuck with on the ground here. Q7's are probably second with what should be 2.1's, but those are increasingly extinct dodo birds for dealers as last gen, so if salable will be more akin to selling used ones with no miles and a price TBD. At least with still current gen Q5's in inventory and assuming they are indeed 2.2, Q5 owner interests are aligned to VW/Audi. Give it another 8 months and a gen 2 Q5 announcement though and they will hatch another set of going extinct birds. Powerful incentive actually for Audi to get butt in gear; that could be another $10K value hit per vehicle easy with my rule of thumb a generation change "costs" about 20% hit to depreciation--on top of year over year norm. Unfortunately owners are trapped by same calendar and depreciation math and without backstop of buyback answer so far.

As various replies have pointed out, and I have in other older posts and the linked document above, CARB has bounced them twice now, hard. At end of transcript judge is also counseling it seems basically to get it done or the trial scenario will be advanced forward. Net, it is another punt until next hearing date in Nov. Judge seems to have teed up the admonitions to get the testing done or be prepared to have "Plan B" imposed or moved toward as he was mentioning.