V6 Diesel software update recall

[Petrol Pete]

On November the 1st on this thread i said 'if it was my car it would never see the inside of a main MB dealer ever again'

Which bit of my advice did you guys who took their cars to the slaughter not understand ?

 

[TeddyRuxpin]

Well, not everyone saw the thread, or remembers a thread that was quickly read on an internet forum... nor is the process explained clearly at the dealer. In my particular experience, I wasn't really 'asked' or explained that it was voluntary.

 

[TeddyRuxpin]

I will probably call them up and have a go at them a bit tomorrow though, for fun. If they get ****y, I'll probably cancel my service plan.

 

[Petrol Pete]

Well, not everyone saw the thread, or remembers a thread that was quickly read on an internet forum... nor is the process explained clearly at the dealer. In my particular experience, I wasn't really 'asked' or explained that it was voluntary.

Sorry Teddy, sort of kicking you while you were down mate,apologies. It does not surprise me that they did not ask your permission my guess is they need to get this done to as many cars worldwide to avoid some kind of action against them.
You got caught up in it. Let us know what they say when you call them

 

[rf065]

I see an opening for the remappers here, restoring cars to the way they used to be rather than outright power increases.

 

[st13phil]

It does not surprise me that they did not ask your permission my guess is they need to get this done to as many cars worldwide to avoid some kind of action against them.

I would expect that to be the case.

For those who are minded not to have the update performed at this time, it's also my best guess that this will be a sort of "cumulative update" situation rather than stand-alone, meaning that at any time in the future that the car is subject to an ECU update - perhaps to correct an issue that you have - it will receive the emissions update too, whether you like it or not.

 

[st13phil]

I'm not sure what the situation is regarding increased fuel consumption.

Logic says that the engine's mapping was the way it was to achieve enhanced fuel consumption figures on the standard EU test cycle. It's reasonable to assume that such fuel consumption figures - albeit with the caveats always printed underneath them - would have been viewed as a critical part of the buying decision by the purchaser, i.e. an inducement to purchase. If the subsequent changes to the engine map really do result in increased consumption on the standard EU test cycle and not just in real-world use (in other words, are provably worse), then it's reasonable to say that the information provided by the manufacturer that lead to the purchase of the car was misleading, and that it would be equally reasonable to require compensation for the increased running costs.

Having said that, I think it's a slam-dunk certainty that Daimler would refute such a request and would vigorously defend any Court action that sought to prove their liability. I wonder if the Consumers Association would consider running a test case? Perhaps it's time for someone who is affected and also a member of "Which?" to contact them?

 

[190]

Not only would fuel consumption have influenced a buying decision, a vehicles official fuel consumption will have been declared under type approval. Anything that changes the original figures would surely not be permitted as it might have implications for Vehicle tax.

This business of forcing owners to have an update whether they like it or not is reminiscent of Microsoft forcing Windows 10 on users and then further subsequent updates, in some cases wrecking computers in the process. We are already living in the world of big brother, everyone thinks they know what's good for us, even the politicians.

 

[st13phil]

Not only would fuel consumption have influenced a buying decision, a vehicles official fuel consumption will have been declared under type approval. Anything that changes the original figures would surely not be permitted as it might have implications for Vehicle tax.

That's a very good point and one that causes me to hesitate regarding establishing liability for increased running costs.

Increased fuel consumption = increased CO2 emissions, so a car ostensibly in one of the UK tax bands based upon its declared emissions values could quite easily be in a higher band after a software update. However, when the VW emissions scandal was in full flood HMG said that they would not pursue owners for the delta between the tax paid and what would have been due had the true (higher) emissions been declared.

 

[TeddyRuxpin]

What's funny is, while emissions are lower to meet a legal requirement (and covering their lies), the car is using 10-20% more natural resources to achieve that. I wonder which is actually 'better' for the planet.

 

[TeddyRuxpin]

Sorry Teddy, sort of kicking you while you were down mate,apologies. It does not surprise me that they did not ask your permission my guess is they need to get this done to as many cars worldwide to avoid some kind of action against them.
You got caught up in it. Let us know what they say when you call them

No probs, I haven't called them yet, just waiting for my phone battery to charge! Not exactly sure outcome I'm actually trying to get from the call, although maybe just logging a formal complaint. And likely cancelling my service plan if I get a hint of ****y-ness from them, which I expect to be the case.

When they put it on my dad's car, I did speak to a service manager and told him that I was pissed off, and mentioned my economy dipping and he seemed surprised and said he'd 'make a note of it'...

I see an opening for the remappers here, restoring cars to the way they used to be rather than outright power increases.

Yes, I'm now thinking about this. I don't want my car pumping out lots of harmful emissions though. It's not like I want the car to produce more emissions just so I can save some money. I'm not a boy racer and while I would love more power and efficiency AND less emissions, I'm guessing that's not possible.

Further, the car was purchased second hand. The blend of power and economy was a big factor in purchasing this car, and I would have gone 530d or 535d (I was looking at a 535d which is more economical and more powerful, before purchasing my W212) if I'd know about this. However, I have no contract with MB (other than the service plan) and it's not like THEY mis-sold me the car.

 

[TeddyRuxpin]

One more thing to add. I think on some cars the ECU update was 'voluntary' (mine), but I think on some other cars (slightly newer revisions), it is mandatory. But I'm not sure - I think the difference is between the EU5 and EU6 engine standard?

My dad is elderly and doesn't know anything about ECU updates etc. By the time I found out the car had been taken in for service and called up, it was too late. They had applied the update and said they couldn't 'undo' it as they didn't have the old ECU code available.

He didn't get the letter that was left in my car, all he got was this note on his service statement...

 

[Bellow]

What's funny is, while emissions are lower to meet a legal requirement (and covering their lies), the car is using 10-20% more natural resources to achieve that. I wonder which is actually 'better' for the planet.

Different pollutants with differing effects.
CO2 affects the planet overall, NOx (which is what this is about) local air quality and directly, respiratory health.

Yes, I'm now thinking about this. I don't want my car pumping out lots of harmful emissions though. It's not like I want the car to produce more emissions just so I can save some money. I'm not a boy racer and while I would love more power and efficiency AND less emissions, I'm guessing that's not possible.

Thing is though, the air quality is being monitored and if it doesn't clean up then more measures will be taken. Such as further city exclusions/sur-charges or reduced speed limits as per Holland.

 

[TeddyRuxpin]

Good points, which I am aware of - but in the first instance, I wasn't just talking about emissions; it's the fact that you're now using ~15% more of the planet's non-renewable resources (i.e. you are buying 15% more fuel to do the same miles per year) in order to cover up lies from car manufacturers, so that they can meet their targets and cover their tracks.

Human health is, I suppose, more important, but it's hardly a great solution for the environment or the planet.

Anyway, it's the lack of accountability and the lying from MB (and other car manufacturers) that really gets me. Can you tell?

 

[Bellow]

Good points, which I am aware of - but in the first instance, I wasn't just talking about emissions; it's the fact that you're now using ~15% more of the planet's non-renewable resources (i.e. you are buying 15% more fuel to do the same miles per year) in order to cover up lies from car manufacturers, so that they can meet their targets and cover their tracks.

Human health is, I suppose, more important, but it's hardly a great solution for the environment or the planet.

Anyway, it's the lack of accountability and the lying from MB (and other car manufacturers) that really gets me. Can you tell?

Yep, I get your point re increased fuel usage - and corresponding increase in CO2 output.

A particular engine technology was suggested back in the 1960s specifically for ''when NOx emissions become problematic''.
The OEMs though pushed on pursuing CO2 reduction as if NOx did not exist. Then when it became 'problematic' they cheated. Now, it is too late to explore the 1960s technology (though one European OEM has at least tried) as the now voiceless OEMs (on account of their cheating) have little option but pursue electrification while doing the best they can with their existing IC technology which was doomed to fail - as predicted 60 years ago. Shameful.

 

[TeddyRuxpin]

Ethical question to all: if the update has been done to your car, and you had the option to put it back - would you?

Is a 10-20% reduction in economy worth it for the decrease in NOx and it's harmful effects?

(Even if it is to cover up MB lies)

 

[TeddyRuxpin]

Minor update: I spoke to a nice (non-technical) guy at MB HQ and he has forwarded it to Brooklands service managers and service team and they will be calling me back...

 

[TeddyRuxpin]

More of an update:

A polite MB Brooklands service advisor (the same chap that I dealt with on the day) called me back and was sympathetic and professional. He spoke to the technical supervisor and said 'there haven't been other reports from MB Germany of this'. I actually mentioned (informally) that some people on forums are talking about it and have similar issues, so my issue isn't the only one.

*You guys should kick up a fuss with your dealer's too, so that they don't think I'm some mad nightmare customer. They are probably relying on most people's passivity on the matter!*

He said that the issue could be down to other problems (of course...), but that they would be glad to investigate. He also did mention the possibility of putting the old map back on the car.

So long story short, they booked me in on 9th Dec to get it 'looked at'.

I see an opening for the re-mappers here, restoring cars to the way they used to be rather than outright power increases.

I actually just called MSL tuning. The guy there was really nice and professional, and said that - for whatever reason - their remaps only adjust the economy from where the car is now and they do not tinker with that part of the ECU. So, their standard stage 1 map gives the car 2-5% more fuel efficiency, but only from where the baseline level is NOW. So if you lose 15% and gain 3%, you're still 12% down. A full eco map gives max 8% fuel economy saving.

So they'd have to get their hands on the 'full' previous ECU code to get it sorted, which is unfortunately doubtful, from what he said.

Spending £350-450 (plus a likely insurance premium increase) to get back a few % of fuel economy doesn't seem worthwhile!

 

[ColinMerc]

Got mine done few weeks ago e350, fuel consumption a lot lower now...actually thinking of selling it now

 

[TeddyRuxpin]

What kind of figures/decrease are you getting?

In any case - please let them know so at least they are aware! Why suffer in silence and sell your car without even trying to kick up a fuss first?

The more people who complain, the less likely they will be able to deny that the issue exists.

The only thing to note is also that the diesel in stations has probably recently switched to winter diesel, and the outside temps are a bit colder, so a MPG decrease should be expected. But as much as I'm seeing, I don't believe.