Another person fobbed off with a software update .NoDiscoSport wrote: ↑Fri Mar 16, 2018 11:31 amFor a company so riddled with errors perhaps somebody just forgot about the app. Or maybe they knew that it would be easier to dismiss a phone app message with a shrug of the shoulders and a few casual remarks, "Oh that, it's just a software glitch. Like the spurious low oil warning you had as well, see that's another one. Useless software...." Wait. That IS just what happened and people swallowed it. Totally effective strategy. Then people can say to the judge, "Oh no, sir, not us. No way did we conceal it. Look, there's the phone app. We surely would have disabled that as well - if we were being dishonest like the nasty man is saying."Dashnine wrote: ↑Fri Mar 16, 2018 11:01 amThen they'd have killed the app reporting the 'service required' too.shouldvegotamerc wrote: ↑Fri Mar 16, 2018 12:11 am
Regarding the first part of JLRP00100 dealing with the third counter and the "sleepy" PCM interface that always sent 32k km to the IC.
Didn't loads of people report having the service warning on their iphones in June/July 2016? Those cars would have been 16MY. The evidence I've read suggests that the cars have always calculated the dilution accurately, just that in the early days they had been programmed to - how should one put this politely? - keep it to themselves. Stop and think for a moment. How remarkably convenient it was for JLR that a car exhibiting such profound diesel dilution problems should happen to have another problem with the software responsible for monitoring the knock-on effects of that same problem. So as few people as possible would know about the crappy exhaust system until it was too late. Too much of a co-oincidence there.
Thing is, if they DID do something to hide the damaging fault with the exhaust, they would have been obliged to consider every last little detail, including leaving an escape route just like this.