Cruise control won't select 9th gear...common?

[Bobby Dazzler]

It is very much the same with PC's.
Everyone that owns one has it set up and working perfectly, then a software update comes and screws it all up.
Because the software companies know best.

They probably do know best about their software to be honest. Well better than the average user of the software anyway.

 

[Bobby Dazzler]

Since this, when in automatic and cruise control at 70mph it won't go into 9th gear!!! My local dealership (Harrogate MB ) did some tests and said car was fine (although did almost no testing at 70mph) and that the car went into 9th at 76mph...which i pointed out was illegal!

I know the post i’m replying to is very very old but...

So to recap, you’re about to explode and your blood is boiling because your car can’t automatically use 11% of the available gear ratios at legal road speeds in the UK, when cruise control is activated,

But you’re absolutely fine about being unable to use more than 50% of the vehicles top speed in the UK, whether cruise control is active or not, or in any gearbox mode?

Sorry if that has tipped you over the edge.

 

[FiveAlive]

I know the post i’m replying to is very very old but...

So to recap, you’re about to explode and your blood is boiling because your car can’t automatically use 11% of the available gear ratios at legal road speeds in the UK, when cruise control is activated,

But you’re absolutely fine about being unable to use more than 50% of the vehicles top speed in the UK, whether cruise control is active or not, or in any gearbox mode?

Sorry if that has tipped you over the edge.

The fundamental point is that the car's characteristics have changed since it was bought. Specifically, in this case the fuel consumption is worse and hence running costs are higher. Allegedly this is to improve emissions, and hopefully no-one finds that goal in itself anything but a good thing.

However, the change is to achieve the emissions regulations that were already in place at the time that the car was built. Mercedes (and others, of course) implemented a fudge to meet the emissions testing level whilst being far outside the regulations' intended level in normal use. Buyers bought cars in good faith expecting that they were compliant, and expecting certain levels of perfomance and economy*. Mercedes have been caught out, the cars have been modified and now owners face higher running costs because they were effectively misled by Mercedes. The punishment is going to the wrong people. In similar circumstances Volkswagen have seen heavy fines around the world and Mercedes themselves have gone further in Germany than in the UK with, for instance, EU6 conversion subsidies for some models.

*I know the government economy figures are nonsense but I, for one, use real-world results from road tests and the likes of Honest John's user MPG database as part of my purchasing decision.

 

[Bobby Dazzler]

However, the change is to achieve the emissions regulations that were already in place at the time that the car was built. Mercedes (and others, of course) implemented a fudge to meet the emissions testing level whilst being far outside the regulations' intended level in normal use. Buyers bought cars in good faith expecting that they were compliant, and expecting certain levels of perfomance and economy*. Mercedes have been caught out, the cars have been modified and now owners face higher running costs because they were effectively misled by Mercedes.

Genuine questions:

1. How have owners been misled?

2. As a result of the software update have the official published fuel consumption figures or emissions changed?

 

[rf065]

An alternative experience here, I serviced mine at an Indy and found out he connects them to the Mercedes server and updates them too.
Before, it would go into 9th at no less than 64mph, even using the paddles 64mph, nothing less.
After, first time on the m/way accelerating briskly, it changed to 9th at 75mph. Soon discovered if you accelerate more leisurely, it will go into 9th around 68mph.
Then discovered that using the paddles it now goes into 9th as low as 62mph.
Cannot find any other changes and I'm actually happier that I can now get it into 9th at only 62mph.

 

[markjay]

Genuine questions:

1. How have owners been misled?

2. As a result of the software update have the official published fuel consumption figures or emissions changed?

Buyers of MB (and VW, etc) cars received an hidden benefit, that is now being taken away from them. Their cars are now back to what they should have been. Taking away a benefit - even if it was erroneously given in the first place - is always bound to cause some resentment.

 

[Bobby Dazzler]

Buyers of MB (and VW, etc) cars received an hidden benefit, that is now being taken away from them. Their cars are now back to what they should have been. Taking away a benefit - even if it was erroneously given in the first place - is always bound to cause some resentment.

I agree, I can understand why people want to hold on to what they were given incorrectly, but that’s not the specification of what they purchased (trickier for second owners).

When you’re given the wrong drink in a restaurant or bar, it’s not often they allow you to keep the original. Even though I never ordered it I often thing “you tight what’s it, you could have given me that, it’s only going to end up in the sink”.

 

[FiveAlive]

Genuine questions:

1. How have owners been misled?

2. As a result of the software update have the official published fuel consumption figures or emissions changed?

To repeat: vehicles were sold under the expectation that they were in compliance with the emissions regulations in place at the time of manufacture. The emissions update due to a 'deal' with regulators tells us that this was not true - Mercedes haven't carried out this update out of the goodness of their hearts, they were forced to in order to avoid additional huge fines. Hence buyers were misled about the cars' emissions compliance.

I don't think that official figures are re-evaluated after first registration as a general rule. But as well as countless observations from owners, Mercedes openly acknowledge that fuel consumption has worsened - certainly my local service agent offered up this information before I suggested it.

 

[FiveAlive]

Buyers of MB (and VW, etc) cars received an hidden benefit, that is now being taken away from them. Their cars are now back to what they should have been. Taking away a benefit - even if it was erroneously given in the first place - is always bound to cause some resentment.

It was not a "benefit". It was an integral aspect of the product offering as stated by the manufacturer. The fact that this was based on mis-truths by the manufacturer does not change that. If the car was never capable of the set of features as originally marketed, the manufacturer should surely accept that and recognise that they have downgraded aspects of the product after purchase. Too many commenters on here seem to think that owners were somehow in on the act and knowingly taking advantage of some loophole.

 

[markjay]

It was not a "benefit". It was an integral aspect of the product offering as stated by the manufacturer. The fact that this was based on mis-truths by the manufacturer does not change that. If the car was never capable of the set of features as originally marketed, the manufacturer should surely accept that and recognise that they have downgraded aspects of the product after purchase. Too many commenters on here seem to think that owners were somehow in on the act and knowingly taking advantage of some loophole.

My understanding is that buyers got cars with worse emissions and better mpg than what it should have been?

I agree that worse emissions can't really be considered a 'benefit', but surely better mpg is a benefit to the owner?

 

[FiveAlive]

My understanding is that buyers got cars with worse emissions and better mpg than what it should have been?

I agree that worse emissions can't really be considered a 'benefit', but surely better mpg is a benefit to the owner?

The vehicles were marketed as having both better MPG and better emissions performance. This is what buyers thought they were buying. Unless owners have their own testing labs they'd have no way of knowing otherwise. To now change the cars to have worse MPG and the same emissions as they thought they had in the first place means that the cars have been downgraded from what the buyers believed they had bought. You are choosing to assume that buyers knew that their cars had worse emissions than the stated emissions standard, which is nonsense.

 

[markjay]

My understanding is that the so-called 'defeat device' detected when the car was being emissions-tested and altered the engine characteristics to suit the emission test requirements, while in reality when driven under normal conditions (i.e. not while being emissions-tested) the car actually delivered better bhp and mpg and worse emissions.

If this is indeed the case, then your post appears to be assuming that buyers of new cars knew at the time that the cars will perform on the Road better than they did on the test rig.

Now, I don't know if owners indeed new this or not, but I find it unlikely that MB officially marketed the car's as exceeding the testing results?

Where I do see a valid point, is that whatever happened, the car is now your property and I don't think that MB has the right to modify your vehicle without your consent. Especially is the reason for them doing so is a civil arrangement that they have reached with the relevant authorities here in in Germany, I.e. there's no court order or act of Parliament giving them the powers to carry this modification to your car.

That said, your only remedy as an owner is the civil courts, and these tend to focus on demonstrable financial damages. It will be difficult to prove that the car is delivering poorer mpg after the unsolicited modification. I am not suggesting this isn't the case, just that proving it in a court of law might be somewhat onerous for the individual owner.

Hopefully the class action will seek to do just that.

 

[Bobby Dazzler]

To repeat: vehicles were sold under the expectation that they were in compliance with the emissions regulations in place at the time of manufacture. The emissions update due to a 'deal' with regulators tells us that this was not true - Mercedes haven't carried out this update out of the goodness of their hearts, they were forced to in order to avoid additional huge fines. Hence buyers were misled about the cars' emissions compliance.

I don't think that official figures are re-evaluated after first registration as a general rule. But as well as countless observations from owners, Mercedes openly acknowledge that fuel consumption has worsened - certainly my local service agent offered up this information before I suggested it.

So you feel like you’ve been misled because your emissions have potentially been higher than expected during the period of your ownership?

If so, then Mercedes have put you back in the position you previously believed you were in by performing the software update, so isn’t that that addressing your concern?

There’s no need to retest - official emissions and fuel consumption data is as it was before - that’s the purpose of the software update, to ensure that the car performs the same as in the test.

 

[Bobby Dazzler]

The vehicles were marketed as having both better MPG and better emissions performance. This is what buyers thought they were buying. Unless owners have their own testing labs they'd have no way of knowing otherwise. To now change the cars to have worse MPG and the same emissions as they thought they had in the first place means that the cars have been downgraded from what the buyers believed they had bought. You are choosing to assume that buyers knew that their cars had worse emissions than the stated emissions standard, which is nonsense.

Following the software update you will now have the fuel economy potential and emissions performance that was marketed by Mercedes when the car was new.

You are not in a worse position than marketing information suggested, you are now in the same position - that’s the purpose of the software update, to ensure the car performs as tested.

During the time you’ve owned the car before the software update was applied you enjoyed even better fuel economy potential but worse emissions performance, but never knew it.

The official fuel economy and emissions figures are directly related, and so “fixing” the emissions fixes the MPG, but for you it won’t feel like MPG is fixed because it’s worse in real world conditions! Correct, but worse.

What doesn’t help is that the official tests back then were designed to make comparison simple for consumers in several scenarios, and was not reflect real world conditions.

 

[Wolfie1]

Nobody actually cares about emissions lets be honest, if they did they would buy an electric car, cycle, walk etc. They only say they do now cause some free money may come their way

 

[FiveAlive]

The official fuel economy and emissions figures are directly related, and so “fixing” the emissions fixes the MPG, but for you it won’t feel like MPG is fixed because it’s worse in real world conditions! Correct, but worse.

What doesn’t help is that the official tests back then were designed to make comparison simple for consumers in several scenarios, and was not reflect real world conditions.

I fully appreciate what you and markjay are saying in terms of official NEDC MPG figures being intrinsically tied to the official emissions figures, as they are measured at the same time.

But, as I mentioned previously, I also use road test results and reported figures from real-world drivers as part of my buying decision. The NEDC MPG figures have been deemed almost irrelevant for many years and real-world figures were always a more reliable measure. Mercedes have a press fleet so that their cars can be evaluated in detail by the motoring press: Mercedes will have known that in the real world the MPG was better than it should have been, at the expense of emissions. They will have also known that the motoring press would measure and report the real-world MPG but would not measure the real-world emissions. The same is true for fleet managers and anyone else using more than a quick test drive in their purchasing decisions: MPG is easy to measure but emissions are not.

Hence I do not think that it is sufficient to say that, as the cars now meet the official figures (assuming that they do), they are what the buyer thought they were getting. Mercedes allowed, and enabled, non-official figures to be measured knowing that the cars would appear in their best light whilst the downside involved in achieving that remained undetected.

 

[FiveAlive]

Nobody actually cares about emissions lets be honest, if they did they would buy an electric car, cycle, walk etc. They only say they do now cause some free money may come their way

I think that says more about you than it does about me. Until the dieselgate scandal kicked off, many people bought diesels (which were more expensive than petrols) not least because they were considered to be better for the environment. There was even encouragement from the government to nudge people into diesels with reduced taxation. And the idea that 5 or 10 years ago someone with a 150 mile round-trip daily commute would have bought an electric car is laughable.

 

[Wolfie1]

No they seen more mpg’s and thought yep thats the way forward, however its dressed the vast majority of folk think ace costs less practically im doing it

 

[markjay]

I think that says more about you than it does about me. Until the dieselgate scandal kicked off, many people bought diesels (which were more expensive than petrols) not least because they were considered to be better for the environment. There was even encouragement from the government to nudge people into diesels with reduced taxation. And the idea that 5 or 10 years ago someone with a 150 mile round-trip daily commute would have bought an electric car is laughable.

My understanding is that the purpose was to help the UK meet it's CO2 emissions commitments.

Furthermore, here in London, cars with low CO2 were exempt from the Congestion Charge - even though CO2 has nothing to do with congestions or with air quality.

So it would seem that in our haste to meet CO2 emissions targets, we have increased pollution and reduced the air quality in our city centres.

 

[m96]

Welcome.

This will depend on how the automatic transmission was programmed from the factory... keeping in mind that in many European countries the speed limit on Motorways is higher than our 70mph.

What does the speed limit have to do with anything? Doesnt change the optimal rpm for a certain speed vs engine load... Stays the same regardless where the car is