Volkswagen Group of America 2200 Ferdinand Porsche Dr. Herndon, VA 20171

Re: Defective Clock Spring part 5K0-953-569 AS

To whom it may concern: My 2016 VW CC (VIN: Wvwbp7an2ge512668) has a clock spring failure. I brought my car in to Riverhead Bay Motors on 2/12/2019, with the hope of diagnosing and fixing the part. They had to order the part, so only diagnosis was done. Diagnosis confirmed that the clock spring (in VW’s own words from the bill): “Upon further diag found clock spring defective”). I was told in conversations prior to bringing the car in, with corporate, if they identified a torn clock spring as the cause, a case manager would look into and consider if my car perhaps had a faulty part and the fix could be covered by Volkswagen.

After many days spent waiting for the opportunity to speak to a supervisor, I finally was able to on 2/15/2019. Volkswagen is refusing to acknowledge that my clock spring issue is the same as what prompted: both a recall, and an extended warranty, and is peer to of an active investigation—escalated to an engineering analysis--by the NHTSA (EA18-003). They are insisting I pay out of my own pocket to replace their defective product. Since the supervisor was unwilling to give any info on who made the part and whether the relation was causal, I spent some time this weekend using the NHTSA as a transparent resource. What I have found is that the faulty part in my car is the same one that was involved in a previous recall, and the same one involved in a voluntary extended warranty—although my VIN is not part of either action. Much of my own research has involved the review of the many piecemeal responses to NHTSA Inquiry EA18-003.

The component which failed is Part number: 5K0-953-569 AS. The part is supplied by Valeo (otherwise referred to as Valeo Robust), and appearing to be in the class CW50/2012---for the VW CC model years 2012-2016 (see below, Table one: Clock spring part identifier). According to confirmation with Michelle Stokes at Riverhead Bay Motors on 2/18/2019—part 5K0-953-569 AS is THE ONLY clock spring that is available to my car—so my car is about to have a faulty part replaced…with the same faulty part, and I have no say in this matter. While Michelle Stokes states that the part has to actually come out in order to ascertain if there is, in fact, a tear in the cable—she has assured me I will be able to keep the faulty part after the repair is done—so I will have the actual faulty part for my records once the repair is complete, and will be happy to supplement this letter with pictures of the part, as well as any information the mechanic is able to provide after the repair. This part (identified as 5K0-953-569 AS) is THE SAME part that VW has replaced in its other VW CC models. The 2012-2014 Volkswagen CC, with the same part, was part of recall 15V483000.

Additionally, 2016 Volkswagen CC’s with this part, have been part of a voluntary extended warranty, see: NHTSA ID Number: 10149942 NHTSA ID Number: 10149941 (see below for COPY OF WARRANTY EXTENSION LETTER SENT TO ONLY SOME OWNERS WITH FAULTY CLOCK SPRINGS; See below also The models with *some vehicles identified as having faulty parts (no information on how some were determined faulty, and some safe)

Table 5 (see below) shows that 3,859 2016 VW CC’s were part of this campaign. Other model years suffered higher numbers. This NHTSA corresponds to VWP-18-11, which includes model years 2010-2017 VW CCs (along with many other makes and models) Since it is an extended warranty and not a recall, it’s impossible to know which of the cars (or why) were included or excluded. VW’s own submitted evidence shows the majority of complaints received about clock springs since the first mandated recall are: 1) not in the recall; 2) included the robust design (same design as my car) based on their responses to EA 18-003.

VW changes the clock spring that my car has, going from the CW50/12 (aka Valeo Robust Design) to the CW 45/16 (aka Valeo Ring) on or around 2016—based on their response to Request 9—to EA 18-003. The reason they give for the change is “despite decreasing numbers for failing clock springs due to the implementation of the robust design, analysis results showed that the robust design still left possibly for hair and fiber to enter clock spring”. It is clear from this statement that the design was changed due to lingering issues with the design of 5K0-953-569 AS. (see below for Production schedule for clock springs; See also Clock spring roll out with reasons why changes were made).

Since the 2012 Volkswagen CC was part of recall: 15V483000, and the same exact part is confirmed to be in the 2016—why is it not included in a recall? Why are some 2016 VW CC’s involved in the “extended warranty”, but VW will not disclose what made some are included, and others not? Volkswagen’s own representative in a conversation on 2/15/2019 stated that Volkswagen’s relationship to their suppliers is of supreme importance. When I asked why my safety as a consumer is not as important as their relationship to their supplier, Volkswagen’s representative had “no comment”, and seemed unable to see how that was the logical conclusion (i.e. customer not as important). Since the same exact part is confirmed to be in the 2016 VW CC, as is in previous years that are defective, why is it not included in a recall? The diagnostic code pulled from my car (confirmed by Michelle Stokes at Riverhead Bay Motors on 2/18/2019), is one the same as in Diagnostic codes from Response 6 (see below). The diagnostic code pulled on my car is: VAG00588—Driver side airbag igniter: Upper limit exceeded

Again: why are some 2016 VW CC’s involved in the “extended warranty”, but VW will not disclose what made some included, and others not? No evidence has been presented to suggest that the performance of the defective product (part 5K0-953-569 AS) is in some way tied to where it was installed or when—the part is faulty in and of itself, according to VW’s own admissions.

It seems Volkswagen is comfortable jeopardizing the safety of its consumers, and forcing them to cover costly repairs (and spend excessive amounts of time researching the matter), even with mounting evidence that they knew about this defect—continue to know about the defect--and chose not to act. And continue to do so. The timeline for repairs made on the initial recall---were belabored, and not in any way rushed to accommodate the safety concern which was posed—Volkswagen dragged its feet and was forced to comply, taking its sweet time in doing so. See Part 573 Vehicle Safety report, under separate cover.

As an aside--I cannot determine the cause of the inaccurate reporting by Volkswagen: Please note per below Tables X and Y that Volkswagen, in its responses, identifies my 2016 Volkswagen CC as a “subject vehicle” for reasons unknown, as it is labeled in other places as a “peer vehicle”. These inaccuracies are in response to NHTSA Inquiry EA18-003, and are included in Tables X and Y below.

I know that the open, active investigation by the NHTSA only covers through 2014 model years—however, the same part that was faulty in those model years continued to be used in future model years. The replacement part they used also had issues (again, refer to Clock spring roll out with reasons why changes were made). Volkswagen admits through their responses that they know that they have multiple faulty Valeo clock springs--which is why they went to the new design (labeled as KW31/18) for current and future model years—it was due to known defective product(s).

I respectfully request that Volkswagen review the facts of my complaint, and reconsider whether I as a consumer should be liable to pay out of pocket to replace their known defective product.

I additionally request the NHTSA open the years of their investigation to include some “peer” vehicles, which the 2016 is part of. There is misleading (or inaccuracies) supplied in the responses (see below), with VW listing the 2015-2017 VW CC as a “subject vehicle”, when it is not—it is in the peer group, but I can only speculate what the nature of this inaccurate reporting is. I respectfully request that the scope of this investigation be expanded to include ALL vehicles which were equipped with known defective clock springs.

Sincerely,

One very frustrated consumer