***** This thread is now closed, please CLICK HERE to go to Volume 2 *****
==========================================================
www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-34298259
Naughty, naughty! I wonder if similar tactics are employed by them (and other manufacturers) to improve results in EU economy and emissions testing?
Can't see any mention of whether the cars are petrol or diesel? Perhaps the former given that they're recalling 500,000 cars?
Last edited by: VxFan on Thu 24 Sep 15 at 23:04
|
Extraordinary. I suppose the illegal system could be fitted to either type, but since I've never seen, heard or talked to the owner of one diesel car in the US, half a million would take some finding.
I do wonder about the BBC's back-of-envelope maths, though. If it's really to cost VW $18bn, that's $36,000 per vehicle. Are they planning to replace the entire car?
|
>> I do wonder about the BBC's back-of-envelope maths, though. If it's really to cost VW
>> $18bn, that's $36,000 per vehicle. Are they planning to replace the entire car?
>>
Given how strict the Californian air pollution rules are it may well include a buy back at full cost.
|
|
I wonder if other diesel producers have had they cars 'scanned' for this software, and VAG are just the first. Sounds quite resourceful if it can detect just when it's undergoing a US MoT.
|
|
This is a serious blooper on behalf of VW. They have deliberately gone out of their way to deceive both buyers and the Govt. One wonders what else they have cheated on; safety testing, ignoring potential recall issues, etc?
|
|
So maybe the $18bn includes some element for loss of goodwill, future sales and fines...
|
|
You would be miffed if you had a VW diesel company car and the UK taxman just asked you for another 10% income tax because the emissions were set a few bands too low!
|
>> You would be miffed if you had a VW diesel company car and the UK
>> taxman just asked you for another 10% income tax because the emissions were set a
>> few bands too low!
>>
Just sue the dealer.
|
>>
>> Just sue the dealer.
In your purchase contract it states manufacturers reserve the right to change specification at any time
Not sure it was meant to cover ""on the fly while driving"
|
So VW have to recall the cars, remove the device and ensure they pass the emissions test (which the cars can't do without the device that has been removed!). The 18billion cost must therefore be a buy-back (and scrap) cost, hence the recall of 500,000 cars costing that much.
The most amazing thing to me is that VW have sold that many diesels in California!
|
|
Must admit I have never seen a VW diesel in CA. My friends have a Golf estate 1.8T. And their other four vehicles are all petrol, starting with a 2.0 Scion, 2.5 Outback, 3.5 V6 Toyota Sienna & 4.7 V8 Toyota Tundra. Not much chance of misfueling in that household.
|
...2.0 Scion, 2.5 Outback, 3.5 V6 Toyota Sienna & 4.7 V8 Toyota Tundra. Not much chance of misfueling in that household.
Not with all that practice, no.
|
|
I imagine the device or software is a bought in item, so I wouldn't be surprised if other brands have it fitted
|
There was an old narrow gauge railway line from Kandy to Nuwara Eliya in Ceylon when I was a child in the late forties. It had open-sided passenger carriages I think, like the local buses.
I never travelled on it although I was at school in Nuwara Eliya, and the road there from Trincomalee passed through Kandy. I wanted to, but it all looked a bit too unsupervised to the parents, so it wasn't allowed. When they didn't drive me the 100 or so miles themselves, they sent me in a grey naval Bedford bus full of sailors going upcountry on leave. The sailors were kind to the unaccompanied 10-year-old and left me alone for the most part. It was a hot, boring and intimidating day.
The best bit was paying for and ordering my own lunch with the massive (to me) wad of large denomination rupee banknotes my parents had given me in the modest Kandy eaterie favoured by the matelots. I always ordered lots of chips... crisps really in Ceylon back then, fried in coconut oil or ghee.
Our school walks sometimes took us along this railway, which had two steam engines known irritatingly to my schoolfellows as Squeaky and Garratt. I put a copper 1c. coin on the rail once when a train was coming, and retrieved it afterwards: flattened in a curve and still too hot to hold. I had to dig for it in the gravel into which it had been fired.
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Sat 19 Sep 15 at 15:33
|
|
Is this the greatest thread drift of all time ?
|
|
Spectacular. "Drift" just isn't a big enough word.
|
I don't mean to be tiresome. Surely that post has a bit of everything, history, train-spotting, colonial politics, cars... just like a compressed evening's TV.
I tried to add something about the loud, soporific whine of those Bedford buses hauling themselves uphill and round the hairpins in intermediate gears. Pink stripe got me.
|
Pink Stripe got me.
Which is Red Stripe mixed with what?
|
>> Which is Red Stripe mixed with what?
>>
Ghee ?
That was monumental drift even Humph would be impressed.
If it's in VW and Audi will it apply to SEAT and Skoda too ? Do they sell those in the US ?
The EU will wake up from it's slumber and ask VAG to report if this applies to Europe sometime around 2020.
Last edited by: gmac on Sat 19 Sep 15 at 17:46
|
"Drift" just isn't a big enough word.
Maybe if you prefix it with 'continental'?
|
>> You would be miffed if you had a VW diesel company car and the UK
>> taxman just asked you for another 10% income tax because the emissions were set a
>> few bands too low!
>>
Should that happen I won't hold my breath waiting for the company car drivers rushing to return the company leased cars and fund their cars themselves.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Sat 19 Sep 15 at 18:41
|
|
Didnt know the Yaris came in Envious Green.
|
>> Didnt know the Yaris came in Envious Green.
>>
I do not envy anyone who has to work, freebe car or not.
|
You chose to drive a Yaris ?
My wife had one while her Auris Estate Hybrid was in "the shop".
Submariners are a special breed is all I can say. Of all the cars out there I cannot imagine why anyone would say, yep ! this is the one. I guess that's what makes us all different.
|
>> You chose to drive a Yaris ?
It's a shopping trolley and airport taxi FFS! Aircraft are for serious travel, 15 or 50 minutes to the local airports.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Sat 19 Sep 15 at 22:29
|
>> Should that happen I won't hold my breath waiting for the company car drivers rushing
>> to return the company leased cars and fund their cars themselves.
>>
Why would they do that ? It's a tool for their job and one they have to pay tax on.
Last edited by: gmac on Sat 19 Sep 15 at 19:15
|
>> Why would they do that ? It's a tool for their job and one they
>> have to pay tax on.
>>
So no private use then, or is that a perk and the reason for the tax ? I didn't realise that there was a tool tax.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Sat 19 Sep 15 at 19:43
|
No, I know of people who have a "company car" and a book they use for tax purposes to prove the car is used only for work. Every journey and mileage is recorded.
These books are legal documents, screw with the tax office under such circumstances and good luck to you. They still have to pay the 1% of list price as monthly tax.
|
|
I know of people who have similar restrictions on their vehicles. Although these are vans but i think the principle is the same.
|
>> www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-34298259
>>
>> Naughty, naughty! I wonder if similar tactics are employed by them (and other manufacturers) to
>> improve results in EU economy and emissions testing?
>>
Waaaayyy back in the early nineties my then boss had just left a major car manufacturer, even then the ECU firmware he had written had 'emissions test' and 'normal driving' modes - although at that time you switched from one to the other by some sequence of gas and brake pedal pushes, with the ignition on but the engine not running.
So I wouldn't be at all surprised if there's a fair few manufacturers sweating now.
|
|
If this was a deliberate attempt to subvert US law, the Yanks will be looking to throw someone in jail.
|
Good Luck ! with that, they're still going after Sepp Blatter from 1994 and the Visa/Mastercard thing. They will not get anywhere near Wolfsburg. A cash payoff will be made looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong
before any VW management face porridge.
|
>> Good Luck ! with that, they're still going after Sepp Blatter from 1994 and the
>> Visa/Mastercard thing. They will not get anywhere near Wolfsburg. A cash payoff will be made
>> looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
>> oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
>> oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
>> oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
>> ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong
>> before any VW management face porridge.
Don't you believe it. Sep Blatter is not exporting cars into the USA and putting GM and Fords nose out of joint. There is money at stake.
|
$18bn ought to be enough to make it go away.
Keep an eye on how many top auto execs from Germany attend the LA auto show in Jan. That will be a good indicator. Maybe that's why Mr BMW at Frankfurt passed out on stage ?
Like his style though, true BMW man, took two parking spaces when he hit the ground.
Last edited by: gmac on Sat 19 Sep 15 at 22:54
|
...true BMW man, took two parking spaces...
}:---D
Gave no visible warning of his change of direction either.
|
|
And something was amiss with the 50/50 weight distribution.
|
|
Stupid question, but why can't the ECU run in polar-bear-friendly mode all the time? Or is it the case that it's physically unable to achieve motorway speeds etc?
|
>> Stupid question, but why can't the ECU run in polar-bear-friendly mode all the time? Or
>> is it the case that it's physically unable to achieve motorway speeds etc?
>>
When I had my car re-mapped I used an outfit recommended from a BMW car forum that a mate owned.
The chap that turned up was very patient and explained things fully to me.
He told me that manufacturers tune their cars' via the ECU to originally maximise the mpg figures .... and then latterly the emissions as well as economy.. and that those settings are good for the lab test conditions, but not necessarily as good for every day driving.
Furthermore, one model of car might well be driven in the Sahara or the Arctic Circle or have poor quality fuel... whereas the next one might be in Blighty all its life on good fuel.
So if VW have done as has been suggested, they've sort of done what I've done, which is adjust the car after the lab test... which to me highlights the pointlessness of the lab test, albeit VW are still underhand in these circumstances.
|
Still find it hard to believe that other manufactures aren't doing this as well, maybe VAG took the chance to sell diesels in ultra strict CA whereas others haven't bothered.
Out of interest, are HGVs in CA diesels? and if so are they running ultra clean?
|
>> Out of interest, are HGVs in CA diesels?
Yes
>> and if so are they running ultra
>> clean?
Not a hope, filthy things. Ultra noisy too. And fast.
|
|
VW sold diesel cars in America (California is my reference state) at least around 98/99. Then diesels were not on sale for a while and then they were again.
|
|
I can't help but think that similar tricks are behind the incredible test mpg figures that all manufacturers claim, but which are virtually unobtainable in real life.
|
>> I can't help but think that similar tricks are behind the incredible test mpg figures
>> that all manufacturers claim, but which are virtually unobtainable in real life.
>>
I don't think so - and they do randomly pull production cars and they have to get within a certain percentage of the stated CO2 emissions (which directly relates to MPG).
I don't know if VW's cheat affected CO2/MPG - all the comments seem to be about the NOx figure, which I think is difficult (hence AdBlue in many diesels to meet the EU6 NOx requirements).
|
|
The Insignia used to loaf along doing 78mpg at 50mph but felt like it was towing a supertanker if you put your foot down. Wonder if I was triggering something similar.
|
|
More likely just very high gearing. The TDS will do 50 in 6th at 1,300rpm with the gearchange governess's approval, but even with three litres to call on it's in no hurry to accelerate from there.
|
>> The Insignia used to loaf along doing 78mpg at 50mph but felt like it was towing a supertanker if you put
>> your foot down. Wonder if I was triggering something similar.
I'm sure I recall reading in the 1990s of cars' ECUs being deliberately programmed to run lean at 56mph - the then all-important fuel economy test speed.
Without naming names, in the course of my work transporting motors I have previously taken development vehicles to labs for emissions / economy testing. Don't think they aren't all at it, and to a surprisingly great extent too.
Last edited by: Dave_C220CDI on Mon 21 Sep 15 at 20:26
|
|
I find it astonishing that with large numbers of highly-paid officials and engineers in the EPA & CARB(California Air Resources Board),no one investigated the plumbing required to operate this system.I know from personal experience that this could and would not happen in the EU.
|
>>the plumbing required to operate this system.
Not just software then?
>> this could and would not happen in the EU.
Because somebody would measure the emissions in normal use to see that they were congruent with the test results?
|
"they do randomly pull production cars"
Really? If so, howcome they've only just spotted the VW scam?
All manufacturers try to 'optimise' car emissions to achieve the most favourable results, e.g. by increasing tyre pressures, removing the brake pads, running on lighter oil and disconnecting as many ancillaries as possible, so why is the software mode suddenly a big issue? None of this is remotely honest, and if I was VW, I'd be invoking the law of the playground - 'everyone else is doing it, Sir'.
Perhaps all cars should be tested as they come off the production line and issued with a certificate that can be updated at MOT time.. :-)
|
>> "they do randomly pull production cars"
>>
>> Really? If so, howcome they've only just spotted the VW scam?
Randomly taking cars off the line will make no difference if they are designed to beat the test, will it?
|
and if I was VW, I'd be invoking the " we modified the software to reduce the polloution when the vehicle was stuck in slow moving traffic". (Based on the suppostion that the trigger for reduced emissions was a a lack of steering inputs). It is then merely a shortcoming in the the testing procedure.
Corporate ability to understand the results of detailed inputs from different departments can be very limited at times. Corporate conspiracy is not easy to conceal when it crosses boundaries of responsibility. Could be that somebody just added a few lines of code with the best intentions? and then later on somebody else found that test results conducted by another (outside?) organisation provided very satisfactory figures.
|
>> Corporate ability to understand the results of detailed inputs from different departments can be very
>> limited at times.
This one looks fishy but on the whole I'd always assume cock-up far more likely than conspiracy.
|
>>This one looks fishy but on the whole I'd always assume cock-up far more likely than conspiracy.
Generally I would agree that cock-up is usually the case 99.99% of the time.
This one, though, is strange.
Assuming the facts to be as printed, then the test was quite intentionally defeated. Now that's a big step to take for any company. Whilst not illegal in and of itself, it is going to attract a great deal of unwanted and ongoing attention if discovered.
It also, as was mentioned, is cross function. That makes it difficult to do, more likely to be leaked and an unusual step to take.
Then knowingly selling a car under the auspices of an inaccurate emissions certificate is quite a most surprising and unwise step to take. If you consider how amazingly litigious the auto industry is in the US, then legal shadows are constantly present,
Does it suggest that their engine was discovered to be not a very good one and unlikely to be successful or that they were advertising outstanding performance/emission details?
Finally to deny something which you *know* to be true and which you *know* can be proven and which you know *will* be uncovered is mind-bogglingly stupid.
And to continue denying when it must be inevitable that their analysis had revealed the truth internally is beyond description.
In fact the whole thing is such a flat out fatal move, this could see VAG leave the US, that it is very difficult to believe that the company did it on purpose.
But its such a *big* thing, I can't really see how they could have done it by mistake.
I wonder if its not VAG who did this.
Who makes the ECU? Are they outsourced? I wonder if they promised VAG a level of performance and then didn't tell VAG how they achieved it.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Tue 22 Sep 15 at 21:25
|
>> Who makes the ECU? Are they outsourced? I wonder if they promised VAG a level
>> of performance and then didn't tell VAG how they achieved it.
The ecu and development is almost certainly outsourced, however because it is closely coupled to a lots of other components VW lead engineers almost certainly are the only people who know how it all stitches together, so its inconceivable they didn't know how it worked.
What we have probably is big company internal controls, oversight and communication issues. Could be that the engineers thought they could get away with it, both internally and externally. Its inconceivable cheating and lying could be authorised but secret corporate policy
|
|
Istr that VW use Teves for electronics/ ECUs. Teves is owned by Continental, which VW owns a substantial shareholding in. This (or something like this) came up on HJ when VAG were having trouble with failing ESP modules on Mk V Golfs and their sister cars.
|
>> I can't help but think that similar tricks are behind the incredible test mpg figures
>> that all manufacturers claim,
Absolutely the same principle. Applies to NHS stats, police detection rates, GCSE pass rates, you name it. Often it's a case of people marking their own homework. In the VW case, the test regime is 100% transparent and passing the test (not reducing emissions) becomes the objective.
|
Shares down 20% in early trading.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34311819
Could not happen to a nicer company :-)
|
|
As we have two VWs in the family I'm expecting hefty compensation from them.
|
>> As we have two VWs in the family I'm expecting hefty compensation from them.
You'll get nowt.
|
BP cut corners to "save money" in the Gulf of Mexico - £50 billion & still counting.
GM knew of ignition switch issues and some airbags did not inflate - 150 unnecessary deaths and subsequent claims to be settled.
When you cut corners to save money you have to face the consequences - Asbestos in schools & hospitals, councils not carrying out road repairs when needed..........smaller scale than BP or GM but they all add up.
|
Volkswagen shares plunge 17% on exhaust scandal
The EPA said that the fine for each vehicle that did not comply with federal clean air rules would be up to $37,500 (£24,000). With 482,000 cars sold sincThe EPA said that the fine for each vehicle that did not comply with federal clean air rules would be up to $37,500 (£24,000). With 482,000 cars sold since 2008 involved in the allegations, it means the fines could reach $18bn.
That would be a considerable amount, even for the company that recently overtook Toyota to be the world's top-selling vehicle maker in the first six months of the year. Its stock market value is about €66bn ($75bn; £48bn).e 2008 involved in the allegations, it means the fines could reach $18bn.
That would be a considerable amount, even for the company that recently overtook Toyota to be the world's top-selling vehicle maker in the first six months of the year. Its stock market value is about €66bn ($75bn; £48bn).
|
|
I used to have cars like that. One tweeked the carburettor mixture control to weaker in order to get through the MOT, then reset it to normal afterwards.
|
I would struggle to believe that this eqpt wasn't in Euro cars as well.
VAG have done a roaring trade recently with their Bluemotion type vehicles and have an abundance of company car drivers drawn by the high mpg and low CO2 rates. Or to put it another way, if you as a company had this software, why wouldn't you use it your advantage in every market you operate in?
|
|
Will there be implications for VAG cars (or any diesel cars) using the London Low Emission Zone ? (Others may exist).
Last edited by: Old Navy on Tue 22 Sep 15 at 08:35
|
|
Diesel gets its comeuppance at last. Ban the filthy stuff once and for all. It's been a big scam all along.
|
>> Diesel gets its comeuppance at last. Ban the filthy stuff once and for all. It's
>> been a big scam all along.
>>
Don't get too exited, the whole emmisions regime both petrol and diesel will be under the microscope. There is taxation at stake.
|
If VAG are proved to have fixed the tests of diesels in the UK, George Osborne is going to be one lucky Chancellor.
Huge fines, back taxes on understated RFL will be worth £billions..
|
According to the Telegraph front page this morning, the software of the "defeat technology" involved "works by sensing when a car is being tested" and "injecting urea into the exhaust system to cleanse emissions". How exactly might this sensing work?
|
|
Steering wheel position, apparently. If the wheel seems to be locked straight ahead, the car infers that it's on a test rig and engages 'defeat mode'. Normal use involves much more movement of the wheel, so it's back to 'normal mode'.
|
>> Steering wheel position, apparently.
Thanks, WDB. That's the bit that's missing from everything I've read so far, here and elsewhere.
|
Wow. Big business in cheating for a few bob shocker.
Not surprised. They will be fined and the world will move on to the next big business scandal.
|
Brilliant. Fine as many companies as many billions as possible and America's trillions-wide budget deficit is wiped out overnight.
At last someone has discovered the silver bullet...
|
>> Brilliant. Fine as many companies as many billions as possible and America's trillions-wide budget deficit
>> is wiped out overnight.
>> At last someone has discovered the silver bullet...
>>
*Shrug* What else is there to do? Regulations obviously don't work with banks, car manufacturers, pharma companies etc etc etc........
They will keep on cheating on the basis that they'll mostly get away with it. What else can we realistically do other than fine them?
|
>> Wow. Big business in cheating for a few bob shocker.
I'm a bit surprised; our mandatory induction training courses included lots of stuff on doing things by the book and how to blow whistles without fear of retaliation if you spotted anything dodgy. Might be easy to hide little indiscretions but not the sort of thing VW have been up to, you'd think.
|
|
The driver on the road will be more concerned over the delays (and possible lost income) involved in a mass recall. I wonder how many lorries would be recalled from the UK's vast fleet and what the cost to industry would be.
|
>>our mandatory induction training courses included lots of stuff on doing
>> things by the book
That is the company's defence if somebody gets caught; and probably a compliance requirement in itself.
I could not count the number of times I have had a conversation to the effect that "we can't actually ensure that everybody actually does this the right way, but we can show that we used all reasonable endeavours to get it right by having a mandatory training course and periodic refresher training".
>>and how to blow whistles without fear of retaliation if you
>> spotted anything dodgy.
It's still a brave man or woman who does it. And what turns into a scandal is often something that was considered standard practice and widely known - it wouldn't occur to many people that there was a whistle to blow.
>>Might be easy to hide little indiscretions but not the sort of
>> thing VW have been up to, you'd think.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if (a) a lot of people knew about it, but never really questioned it; and (b) more manufacturers have done it, or something equivalent, than not.
|
w Volkswagen’s emissions scandal unfolded
May 2014 The West Virginia University’s (WVU) Centre for Alternative Fuels, Engines and Emissions publishes results of a study commissioned by the International Council on Clean Transportation that found significantly higher-than-claimed in-use emissions from two diesel cars, a 2012 Jetta and a 2013 Passat. A BMW X5 also tested passed the tests. WVU alerts California Air Resources Board (CARB) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to the issue.
Summer 2014 Over the course of the year following the publication of the WVU study, VW continues to assert to CARB and the EPA that the increased emissions from these vehicles could be attributed to various technical issues and unexpected in-use conditions.
December 2014 VW issues a voluntary recall of approximately 500,000 vehicles to address the emissions issue.
6 May 2015 CARB, in coordination with the EPA, conducts follow-up testing of these vehicles both in the laboratory and during normal road operation to confirm the efficacy of VW’s recall. Testing shows the recall has had only a limited benefit. None of the potential technical issues suggested by VW can explain the higher test results consistently confirmed during further testing by CARB.
Summer 2015 CARB and the EPA make it clear that they will not approve certificates of conformity - necessary for vehicles to be sold in the USA – for VW’s 2016 model year diesel vehicles until the manufacturer car adequately explain the anomalous emissions and ensure the agencies that the 2016 model year vehicles would not have similar issues.
3 September 2015 During a meeting VW admits it has designed and installed a defeat device in these vehicles in the form of a sophisticated software algorithm that detects when a vehicle is undergoing emissions testing.
18 September 2015 CARB and the EPA make their findings public, stating that Volkswagen has violated two sections of the Clean Air Act, firstly by selling or offering for sale vehicles that did not comply with their certificates of conformity, and second by manufacturing and installing into these vehicles an electronic control module capable of switching its calibration to beat the emissions tests.
www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/industry/vw-usa-boss-our-company-was-dishonest-we-have-totally-screwed
tells the timeline of the discovery.
I suspect many VAG executives will go to jail... over 12 months of deliberate lying..
Last edited by: madf on Tue 22 Sep 15 at 11:07
|
>> I suspect many VAG executives will go to jail... over 12 months of deliberate lying..
>>
If only the same sanction could be applied to service staff who say things like "we can't find the fault" or "that's the first time we've ever seen that issue".
|
>>I suspect many VAG executives will go to jail... over 12 months of deliberate lying.
When I first read that I suspected it of being a bit sensationalist or optimistic. (Sorry). But now reading the reports this is utterly stunning.
Unless there is something significant and material to come to light, VW is in serious trouble and its US Executives on personal level as well.
It seems that they did it on purpose - which must have been an expensive, conscious and aware piece of development deliberately to bypass US emissions laws and then covered it up. It would not surprise me if VW US/NA failed to survive this.
On the occasions I have needed to make significant statements one has legal advice coming out of one's ears. So for the Board to make statements seemingly shown to be untrue, that if they knew them to be untrue would also have known that they could be shown to be untrue is really shocking.
And frankly, even if they can show that they didn't know the statements to be untrue, that extreme level of lacking control and awareness would cause them to be deemed culpable anyway.
I have to believe that there is more to it. Some fact not yet seen.
Otherwise madf may be exactly correct, Execs could well be in jail.
Last edited by: Webmaster on Tue 6 Oct 15 at 08:49
|
Right and wrong are thought of as immutable concepts but the definition used by individuals varies enormously.
Most of us have either worked or holidayed in countries where corruption is endemic. Is it because the population as a whole is less 'good' or honourable than elsewhere? That seems unlikely.
I'm trying to avoid words such as groupthink and paradigm, put it is perfectly possible, and common, for a set of connected people to share, and accept as right, behaviours that would and do seem completely out of order to others.
The inexcusable and exceptional factor here is that even if the oompa loompas took it as normal, any competent and responsible senior manager should have been able to work out that the approach would not be seen as reasonable by the regulators (which they almost certainly did) and that they were running a huge and unacceptable commercial risk.
We can only speculate as to how widely known the method was at VW. It seems unlikely that we are yet in possession of all the facts.
|
According to Radio 4 this morning BMW dunnit also, allegedly.
Sigh.
Oh, and GM (Vauxhall) also.
Tip of iceberg, I expect.
Last edited by: Alanović on Tue 22 Sep 15 at 14:49
|
>> That is the company's defence if somebody gets caught; and probably a compliance requirement in
>> itself.
Well yes; they can do it in a perfunctory manner, or do it like they mean it.
We've got a company wide 'Raising concerns' daily quiz running at the moment - might win an Asus Zenfone 2 or Basis Watch, whatever they are :)
(only have to answer an ethics question, not dob in your boss)
Last edited by: Focusless on Tue 22 Sep 15 at 11:23
|
>> "defeat technology" involved "works by sensing when a car is being tested" and "injecting urea
>> into the exhaust system to cleanse emissions".
But most diesels until recently (in Europe at least) didn't have a tank for urea... Or did these cars have a small tank just for test purposes??
The cleaner diesels from VAG and others now have a urea tank to reduce NOx emissions. Maybe that's okay because it's bigger and always used? The new A4 has the option of having a 24 litre urea tank instead of the default 12 litre one.
|
The problem is worldwide..
"Volkswagen says 11 million vehicles worldwide are affected by the scandal that has erupted over its rigging of US car emissions tests.
It said it was setting aside €6.5bn (£4.7bn) to cover costs of the scandal.
VW added this would pay for "necessary service measures and other efforts to win back the trust of our customers"."
www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34325005
In my view, £4.7Bn is inadequate...Trebled damages in US..etc
|
www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/industry/volkswagen-emissions-scandal-11m-vehicles-worldwide-could-be-affected
a new statement issued this morning, the German manufacturer explained that the engine at the centre of the controversy is the Type EA 189 four-cylinder diesel, and VW has said that the notable deviation between emissions results in testing and on-road driving were only for cars fitted with this engine.
But the company also admitted that the engine management software at the centre of the scandal is also installed in other Volkswagen Group diesel engines. However VW believed it doesn’t have an effect in the majority of cars in which it features.
|
>>In my view, £4.7Bn is inadequate
I suspect so, especially as there is now a class action suit from the owners. I dislike the US system of awarding damages, especially awarding punitive damages to the plaintiff.
However, it is what it is and this is going to cost a ton.
|
>> But most diesels until recently (in Europe at least) didn't have a tank for urea...
>> Or did these cars have a small tank just for test purposes??
>>
Perhaps the tank is there (as it is on our EU6 Tiguan) but they inject more of it during the test to firther reduce the NOx level.
Irritatingly, despite everything written so far in various media, I still don't understand exactly what VW have done and what its effect is. For example, if it means AdBlue injection quantities have to be increased then could have a serious cost (not to mention inconvenience) implication.
|
>> I still don't understand exactly what VW have done
As you can imagine a car severely restricted to limit emissions would restrict its own power. An engine unleashing all its power would blow the emissions limit.
Imagine the computer knew that if it was being tested it was not going to need to accelerate or go up hill. So it could lean off the mixture excessively. Emissions would drop significantly at the cost of performance readiness. Unusable in real conditions, perfectly find under a rigid and known test.
Now increase that to all the factors the computer controls - fuel mix, timing etc. etc.
|
SQ 4 LB
>> Now increase that to all the factors the computer controls - fuel mix, timing etc.
>> etc.
>>
The frustrating thing is that everyone seems to be guessing.
You say, as an example, I take it - "lean the mixture". OK, but that generally increases the NOx emissions (and it's those that are the specific problem here).
Last edited by: VxFan on Tue 22 Sep 15 at 21:28
|
The point remains....
Normal engine performance is a balance between economy, performance and emissions. Modern computers level of engine control, rigid tests, and nefarious ideas allow the potentially mischievous to avoid the compromise and use the ideal in each limited situation.
|
>> avoid the compromise
>> and use the ideal in each limited situation.
>>
That's very well put. It's exactly what we all used to do in the old days at MOT time, but covering a much wide range of variables, and done automatically by a clever device that knows when it is being tested.
But surely recalling a car and fixing the settings at the best one to meet the emissions standards will result not just in a loss of performance but puts the engine at risk of damage?
It has always been possible to turn the mixture screw to over-weak, but at the cost of burned out exhaust valves. Won't something similar happen now?
|
>>Won't something similar happen now?
You'd think so - someone has bought a car with x emissions and y performance and x economy.
There is seemingly no way to achieve all three legitimately. So will people live with a car with a) lesser performance or b) worse emissions?
I'd guess, them being Americans, they'll go with c) Sue for millions.
|
>> There is seemingly no way to achieve all three legitimately.
You say that, but the BMW X5 that was tested alongside the two VWs produced acceptable results vs the claimed figures.
What's confusing here is that most of the affected cars don't use SCR/AdBlue so it would make some sense to find that VW made tweaks that affected the way the NOx trap works.
However the Passat included does use SCR/AdBlue and as this is something that happens late in the exhaust system you wouldn't expect anything done at that point to affect the cars overall performance - so why mess with it?
|
Volkswagen US boss says 'we screwed up'
www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34322016
Re UK
"There is no evidence that manufacturers cheat the cycle," he said. "Vehicles are removed from the production line randomly and must be standard production models, certified by the relevant authority - the UK body being the Vehicle Certification Agency, which is responsible to the Department for Transport."
However, he also described current testing methods as "outdated" and said the car industry wanted an updated emissions test, "more representative of on-road conditions".
|
>> "Vehicles are removed from
>> the production line randomly and must be standard production models, certified by the relevant authority
From the description of the trickery earlier in the thread (detects when steering wheel is in a fixed position = test mode), can't see that the above would have prevented it being used.
Last edited by: Focusless on Tue 22 Sep 15 at 10:57
|
Feridand Piech resigned as Chairman of VAG in 25th April 2015..
The PR said "
Earlier this month Piech - who along with the Porsche family controls 51% of the VW Group, the second largest car maker in the world - was quoted as saying he had "distanced" himself from CEO Winterkorn, bringing into public a row over the levels of profits within the VW Group and its failure to make inroads in to the American market."
www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/industry/vw-group-chairman-ferdinand-piech-resigns
Perhaps a hint that this was known about by then
"6 May 2015 CARB, in coordination with the EPA, conducts follow-up testing of these vehicles both in the laboratory and during normal road operation to confirm the efficacy of VW’s recall. Testing shows the recall has had only a limited benefit. None of the potential technical issues suggested by VW can explain the higher test results consistently confirmed during further testing by CARB". (Autocar ref I posted earlier).
SO VW would have known by then the game was up in the USA and they would be found out.
I suspect Piech was the driver behind this all - it would explain why he was forced to resign then and why VAG kept stalling - they knew they were stuffed.
But as FMR said : Any company would surely take counsel's advice and that surely would have been to come clean..
Or did the Board not know? In which case it is extraordinary.. I suspect they found out in April and Piech HAD to go..
I am guessing here so none of this can be taken as an accusation..
Last edited by: madf on Tue 22 Sep 15 at 13:30
|
Reports say that real emission figures were 40 times higher than what VW reported during tests.
That begs the question how come VW is so bad manufacturing engines that bad compared to other car makers?
If they are not bad, how come no other maker is caught doing so?
|
I think the problem is VAG was claiming much lower emissions than its competitors- giving a competitive advantage.. (see UK Company Car Taxation)
(BMW X5 passed tests in California).
|
Another proof why emission based taxation is wrong. The
Just move it to fuel - more you drive more you pay.
A low emission but high mileage car pollutes more than a higher emission lower mileage car!
|
|
Ah, but then the Daily Mail and its readers complain about taxation on fuel and start campaigns.
|
>> Perhaps the tank is there (as it is on our EU6 Tiguan) but they inject more of it during the test
>> to firther reduce the NOx level.
There was't an Adblue tank on my Passat CC with the 170PS diesel engine.
If the cheating was all down to software and without this cheat the car's emissions would be a lot higher, I can't see how they can fix these cars and get the emissions lower.
I must say I'm not that surprised VAG was doing this. Diesels were illegal for a while in California - one reason why my brother hung on to his old 1999 VW diesel bug for so long. All down to emissions. I wouldn't be surprised if others were doing it as well.
These 'tests' are there to be beaten in a way and in a way you'd have to say VAG didn't cheat they just beat the test. The fact that in the real world you couldn't run the engine like that perhaps is irrelevant because the test is a silly made up static test and in no way reflects the real world.
People have complained for years they cannot get the MPG of the official combined test (I never did in a diesel) and therefore if MPG is lower, CO2 and other emissions will be higher. The Passat CC I had emitted 129g/km of CO2 and it was apparently because of 'stop-start' and regenerative braking that it was so much lower than the previous non Bluemotion version which was several tax bands higher (CO2 emissions was 153g/km)..... BIK would be 5% higher. Hmmm. Or was it 'cheating' in the official tests....??
|
>> These 'tests' are there to be beaten in a way and in a way you'd
>> have to say VAG didn't cheat they just beat the test. The fact that in
>> the real world you couldn't run the engine like that perhaps is irrelevant because the
>> test is a silly made up static test and in no way reflects the real
>> world.
That's how I see it.
Someone create a silly test and someone else has been innovative and beaten it. Let's face it the tests bear no resemblance to real life driving.
Tenner says it's not just VW...by a long shot.
|
They are not accused of breaking the law by cheating the test; they are accused of breaking the law by selling a car not in accordance with the relevant issued emissions certificate.
The fact that they facilitated that by deliberately beating the test will impact the severity of action taken against them and prevent most defenses.
|
>> They are not accused of breaking the law by cheating the test; they are accused of breaking
>> the law by selling a car not in accordance with the relevant issued emissions certificate.
But the car does have the emissions on the certificate when tested as per the standard test. The test can only measure the emissions in the artificial, test environment. The test does not measure emissions when the car is driven in the real world. Maybe it's the test that needs changing. The tests in Europe involve rolling roads and therefore no wind resistance for example.
I would imagine they are not the only manufacturer cheating like this. The emissions of say BMWs and Mercedes are equally as low.
The 'cheating' will be related to the tests for the new Audi A4 diesel as well. I pointed out the default fuel tank capacity is only 40 litres. The Adblue tank is 12 litres. Both can be increased in size free of charge. But the official figures for the car relate to the smaller tanks. They're building them like that for a reason.
|
Another example of a feature I don't think works in the real world as well as you might expect. Although I've not done exhaustive testing.
My Audi A3 with 7 speed DSG has an economy driver profile. This allows the car to disengage the engine to coast when you lift off the accelerator. It also has the air con in eco mode. You'd assume you'd get better mpg if you use the economy mode. Well I don't think you do.
The only way of knowing for sure if to drive the exact same route at the same speed in different modes. But with the car set to individual, I've got everything pretty much on dynamic except the acceleration and it seems to do better for mpg (around town and on motorways).
Reasons why it's probably better is that when in 'coasting' mode the engine revs drop to idle but all four cylinders are probably running. When used in the other modes the cylinder deactivation can kick in on light loads (e.g. 'coasting') and the regenerative braking charges the batteries.
Just a theory but I do think eco mode uses more petrol. But it's probably there to beat some test or other.
|
|
I belive that most (all?) modern diesels shut off the fuel on over run and reintroduce it as the engine revs drop to about 1000. So coasting uses more fuel than overrun as the engine is using idle fuel.
|
I believe that most (all?) modern diesels shut off the fuel on over run and reintroduce it as the engine revs drop to about 1000.
Certainly true of mine, although it comes back at about 700. Even at that engine speed, the torque is strong enough to accelerate the car forward in the lower gears, which - until I got used to it - had me lurching towards empty small roundabouts that the old car would have smoothly negotiated in third.
It's led to earnest discussions on some other driving fora as to whether it's OK to do an interim gearchange in a long deceleration, rather than have to dip the clutch at (in my car) 27mph. (No, incidentally, I don't think it is. )
|
|
The logic behind coasting with the gearbox disengaged is to maintain speed for longer. Maybe the diesel A3 S-Tronic coasts as well to avoid engine braking?
|
>> The 'cheating' will be related to the tests for the new Audi A4 diesel as
>> well. I pointed out the default fuel tank capacity is only 40 litres. The Adblue
>> tank is 12 litres. Both can be increased in size free of charge. But the
>> official figures for the car relate to the smaller tanks. They're building them like that
>> for a reason.
>>
Certainly some US comments that I've seen say Audi TDi's with AdBlue have the Adblue tank sized to last between services - it's expected use is at a rate of 1% of the amount of fuel used, ie a litre of AdBlue for every 100L of fuel.
That's WAY lower than figures for our just acquired Tiguan. Same 12L tank, and the salesman tald me it would last between services. But VW say 1.5L per 620 miles - so it'll run out before 5000 miles, never mind 10 or 15K. The rate is nearer 3% than 1%.
|
Other cheats in the European testing for emissions that are allowed include:
- Taping up gaps in the body work to reduce resistance
- Pump up the tyres to reduce rolling resistance
- Disconnect the alternator to reduce engine load
- Accelerate very very slowly
I know that stop-start reduces emissions for part of the test quite a bit. That's the bit when the test measures emissions when the car is stationary to simulate being stopped in traffic.... So the engine being off, the overall emissions will be lower.
This reminds me a bit of how teams work around the rules governing F1. So we had double diffusers, blown exhausts, launch control and traction control that was hidden in a different ECU than the one you'd expect (hence standard ECU's now), even 6 wheels. Rules are there to be worked around to your advantage.
Also like tax rules and how the rich get around paying their due.
|
>>Rules are there to be worked around to your advantage.
Absolutely.
Which is why there doesn't seem to be any suggestion that manipulating the car's behaviour, even in a test, is against the law.
However, they have used the certificate as the basis. Now, I have no idea what the certificate actually says, but imagine it says something like;
"This car will emit the following crap under normal driving conditions as verified in test no. 1234".
And VW have deliberately worked the test and *know* that statement to be untrue.
How on earth they have achieved that, and whether or not it is their fault, their responsibility or their luck, they have KNOWINGLY sold a car which is not in accordance with its description and which is more harmful to the environment than they have said.
And I bet, and I haven't checked, that the words "knowingly sold" are in whatever formal wording has been used by the authorities.
|
>> And VW have deliberately worked the test and *know* that statement to be untrue.
Well they all have. There's not one manufacturer that has their real world results the same as the lab ones.
|
>> >> And VW have deliberately worked the test and *know* that statement to be untrue.
>>
>> Well they all have. There's not one manufacturer that has their real world results the
>> same as the lab ones.
I think that's the point. They are optimised for the tests anyway. To an engineer, tweaking the software to minimise the emissions on test and conversely trading some of that off for performance or economy* in road conditions probably didn't 'feel' wrong - I imagine a lot of people knew, regarded it as just something that everybody did, assumed that anybody experienced in the industry understood in general terms, and tacitly comprehended that it wasn't something to discuss externally as it clearly undermined the claimed figures.
The Tesco "accounting scandal" bears similarities.
*CO2 emissions would decrease with greater economy; not so NOx it seems. Fixing the emissions is going to make the measured (and presumably real) fuel economy worse from what I have read.
|
>> I think that's the point. They are optimised for the tests anyway.
Well, the manufacturers need to tune their cars just for the test... sell them as they are, which will be inefficient for every day driving...and give their customers a voucher to cover the cost of an aftermarket re-map, covered by the warranty if done with an approved technician.
I know i'm posting this in jest... but how stupid is the current system?
At least VW are allowing their customers to have a sensible car for everyday driving.
|
>> They are not accused of breaking the law by cheating the test; they are accused
>> of breaking the law by selling a car not in accordance with the relevant issued
>> emissions certificate.
Isn't one linked to the other?
|
No you are all wrong.
They sold a car which when tested used one set of equipment a certain way - and the test assumed it would be used like that in normal use. In normal use, it used a different way of operating.
So the car tested is not the same as the car as used to drive normally.
(I expect if it was to meet emissions in everyday use, it would use the additive so quickly it would need refilling every 1,000 miles or so - so impractical).
And the rules would specify: car tested = car as used on road.. which is clearly and demonstrably false.
|
>>No you are all wrong.
uhhh....
>>And the rules would specify: car tested = car as used on road.. which is clearly and demonstrably false.
Isn't that what I said?
"Knowingly sold......"
|
There are a shed load of US laws broken here. All the way from technical ones like local CA laws for selling cars that don't meet EPA rules, to Federal ones like corporate fraud.
As i said back on Saturday, the Yanks are going to want to see jail sentences handed out.
|
In the real world surely a great many people are more interested in mpg than emissions?
In the UK where the daft VED system relies on published emissions, I would think that anything which reduces the tax would be welcomed by many!
(Clouds, silver lining? )
Green thumb for VW ?
|
>> (Clouds, silver lining? )
Wha'? New model from RR is it, Cloud XIV 'Silver Lining' ponces' option pack, 100 grand's worth of marquetry and leatherwork and a soft old huge aluminium old-fashioned pushrod V8 sort of thing...
Bet that makes a few emissions, what? More power to its elbow of course if you like that sort of thing. I'm no moralist.
|
>> (I expect if it was to meet emissions in everyday use, it would use the additive so quickly it
>> would need refilling every 1,000 miles or so - so impractical).
Not all the cars will have AdBlue/Urea injection systems and tanks. I suspect the engine in my Passat CC is of the same lineage but that didn't. But maybe they do in the US.
>> And the rules would specify: car tested = car as used on road.. which is clearly and
>> demonstrably false.
It's the test that's wrong in my opinion. You could run engines differently to meet the regulations. I am sure they only did this to get lower CO2 and NOx levels - so the other manufacturers probably did too.
I can see how this has broken a whole load of laws. But if they did this in the UK, the main beneficiary is the buyer or driver. Higher emissions would mean more road tax. And for company car drivers higher BIK.
|
"Not all the cars will have AdBlue/Urea injection systems"
Only the ones with the 'Bluemotion' badge.. :-)
|
|
Incorrect. My Passat CC was a Bluemotion (not full Bluemotion mind) and it didn't have the AdBlue/Urea tank.
Last edited by: rtj70 on Tue 22 Sep 15 at 18:56
|
rtj
That was TIC - hence the smiley...
|
>> They are not accused of breaking the law by cheating the test; they are accused
>> of breaking the law by selling a car not in accordance with the relevant issued
>> emissions certificate.
>
>Isn't one linked to the other?
Absolutely.
But only one of them is illegal.
|
|
Does this affect company car drivers in the UK? Or might it? Personally it doesn't bother me one hoot. Today I had to make an unexpected journey from Settle to visit my 97yo Aunt in Bradford. About 80 mile round trip, roof down both ways, and 33 mpg on trip computer thingy despite thrashing it in places. Diesels. Pah.
|
|
If petrol cars are found to have "fixed" Emission levels it might eventually affect taxation, there is no way that HMRC is going to be ripped off.
|
It's not going to be that simple. The tests VAG 'cheated' on in America were related to NOx emissions. Taxation in the UK is based on CO2 emissions. There is probably a correlation between true CO2 and NOx emissions but I doubt it's simple.
And if this goes back to 2009.... how are HMRC going to prove a particular model missed emissions back then. Testing the 2009 model today is not going to be the same as testing the brand new model in 2009.
|
Taxation in the UK is based on CO2 emissions.
Yes, but approval to sell the car in the EU at all depends on satisfying NOx emission standards, hence Euro 6. That makes the stakes a lot higher than tax rates - if anything similar has been happening in Europe.
|
I would not be surprised if all volume car makers have indulged in software that detects a test being carried out and modifies the fuelling accordingly. Probably undetectable too in actually using the car as the tests are artificial and no-one actually will ever drive like it.
I'd have to see the rules of the testing, but this 'adjustment' may not even be illegal in a lot of countries. Sharp practice, yes, but motor racing is similar where those with a big budget can sail very close to the limit. In the early days of noise testing in motor sport, a Honda car had an exhaust that passed the test, but at other throttle openings and speeds was excruciatingly noisy. After the RAC rally that year, they were told the rules would be modified with the sole reason of catching them, and them only if they didn't stop taking the urine, and acted within the intention of the rules. Sensible exhaust followed.
|
If you believe the headlines on the Telegraph website, shares in all the German car marques have dived.. and the VW scandal might kill off diesel engines altogether.
So not a good week for the Germans as they've managed to cause huge disharmony within the EU as well.
|
"disharmony within the EU"
Not that that's too difficult.. :-)
|
>> This is from the Telegraph on how they were rumbled -
The pair contacted the Californian Air Resource Board and the US Environment Protection Agency who launched an investigation in May 2014.
There followed months of fencing by Volkswagen who insisted on repeating the tests themselves and claimed that the figures were the result of minor discrepancy software error which could be fixed easily with a recall.
It wasn't until the EPA and the CARB threatened to withhold certification for its 2016 diesel models that Volkswagen admitted its wrongdoing in early September.
Another nail in the coffin :)
|
>> If you believe the headlines on the Telegraph website, the VW scandal might kill off diesel engines altogether.
>>
That's exactly what I've been thinking. And if the diesel market dies, then the car market will look very different, assuming the current tax regime on petrol continues. I mean who will want a big (petrol-powered) SUV or car with it's crippling CO2 tax and thirst? People like Jaguar Land Rover, as well as the Mercedes, BMW etc. should be very worried. PSA, Renault, Fiat, the Japanese and Koreans must be sniggering to themselves.
|
|
Eh? Citroen C-Crosser, Reanult Kadjar, FIAT Freemont, Toyota Landcruiser, Nissan Navara/Pathfinder, KIA Sorento, Hyundai Santa Fe, SsangYong Whateverthehelluglywotsit...............
|
The diesel market in the US is less than 3%, so that market dying won't hurt anyone.
In Europe I think its around 50%, so that is unlikely to die.
>>. I mean who will want a big (petrol-powered) SUV or car with it's crippling CO2 tax and thirst?
Lots of people. The same ones who buy them now. And for those that want diesel, they'll just keep on buying them.
This will have an impact on VW without a doubt. But I doubt it will have any impact on diesel's in general that would not have happened anyway.
p.s and how much is the "crippling CO2 tax" on a £55,000 Landrover Discovery?
|
>> >>. I mean who will want a big (petrol-powered) SUV or car with it's crippling
>> CO2 tax and thirst?
>>
>> Lots of people. The same ones who buy them now. And for those that want
>> diesel, they'll just keep on buying them.
>>
Nearly all these new cars are company cars. The BiK is much higher, hence why everyone buys diesel. The number of large petrol SUVs and large petrol cars is miniscule.
If diesel 'dies' no-one will be able to buy them, and most won't buy petrol equivalents because of higher tax and poorer consumption. The market will decline and these people will go to smaller cars - the Quashquis of this world. It is Discoveries, Range Rovers, Cayennes, Q7s etc. that will suffer.
|
"It is Discoveries, Range Rovers, Cayennes, Q7s etc. that will suffer."
Every cloud has a silver lining.. :-)
|
>>Nearly all these new cars are company cars..............
>>............It is Discoveries, Range Rovers, Cayennes, Q7s etc. that will suffer.
You think that the majority of Discoverys and the like are company cars? That sounds unlikely or at least surprising.
>>and most won't buy petrol equivalents because of higher tax and poorer consumption.
I don't think that's true.
But in fact I don't think enough less (if you see what I mean) people will buy diesel engined cars to cause the market to die at all.
I expect it to diminish over time, but there's not going to be any death as such.
Most likely there will be a decrease in investment causing diesels to fall behind in tech and performance and gradually be supplanted by other power sources.
Which is going to happen with or without VW.
|
>> >>and most won't buy petrol equivalents because of higher tax and poorer consumption.
>>
>> I don't think that's true.
>>
Some SUVs aren't available with petrol engines in the UK - keeping on at VW, the current Tiquan isn't, and neither are cars like LandRover Discovery Sport.
|
Some SUVs aren't available with petrol engines in the UK.
Because the market today doesn't warrant it, but they're made with petrol engines for other markets. If conditions here change - and I'll be amazed if they do to the extent some here seem to be imagining (hoping?) - then it would be a simple matter to run up UK versions of the petrol models.
But that would give them a problem with their average CO2 per vehicle, so they'd be more likely to push PHEVs as an alternative to diesel. But diesel won't disappear, so it doesn't matter that much.
|
>> a big budget
A speck of dirt on my monitor screen caused me to misread that as "fudget".
I thought I had coined a new word, but as always I was beaten to the post. :)
|
|
2014 report on rigging of car emissions www.youtube.com/watch?v=pjUr3RQRERM … #newsnight
|
Part of the US emissions testing states...
To obtain a certificate of conformity, a manufacturer must submit a list of all auxiliary emission control devices (AECDs) present on the vehicle. The EPA’s definition of an AECD is “any element of design which senses temperature, vehicle speed, engine RPM, transmission gear, manifold vacuum or any other parameter for the purpose of activating, modulating, delaying or deactivating the operation of any part of the emission control system.â€
The issue facing Volkswagen is the switchable system in the ECM was not declared.
“Due to the existence of the defeat devices in these vehicles, the affected Volkswagen vehicles do not conform in all material respects to the vehicle specifications described in the applications for the certificates of conformity that purportedly cover them,†said the EPA.
A defeat device is an AECD “that reduces the effectiveness of the emission control system under conditions which may reasonably be expected to be encountered in normal vehicle operation and use. Motor vehicles equipped with defeat devices cannot be certified.â€
The last sentence says it all. VW fitted it and didn't declare it. Its not "sharp practice" it is fraud.
|
snipquote 4 lazy person
>> The issue facing Volkswagen is the switchable system in the ECM was not declared.
>>
>>
Does this mean all remaps are illegal in the US ?
Last edited by: VxFan on Wed 23 Sep 15 at 18:43
|
"Diesels. Pah."
I never liked them. They all sound and smell like tractors to me.
|
>>I never liked them. They all sound and smell like tractors to me.
I agree with that. And drive like them, if you ask me.
|
>> >>I never liked them. They all sound and smell like tractors to me.
>>
>> I agree with that. And drive like them, if you ask me.
>>
Trouble is, my V6 3 litre petrol auto is showing 15.5mpg on the trip...(local journeys only, up and down hills on edge of Dartmoor).
The other car a 2.0 diseasel is showing 36.6mpg... for the same journeys.
Performance wise they aren't really that far apart, unless you start getting to a very high speed.
|
Peugeot 205 non-turbo diesel only sounded dieselly on very cold mornings. Once warm it was a gem of an engine, quiet to silent and with five usable gear ratios. 52mpg going like the wind... an all-time 'classic' that deserves the epithet.
Burned a bit of oil at high revs/throttle openings... you could see the smoke in the rv mirror...
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Wed 23 Sep 15 at 14:57
|
>> Burned a bit of oil at high revs/throttle openings... you could see the smoke in the rv mirror...
Chassis was far from perfect: nose-heavy, with unassisted steering that managed to be both low-geared and heavy. It was OK when you got used to it and made allowances, and the ride was very comfortable. Power steering would have made it a very nice motor.
52mpg doesn't sound much today but it was then, especially in a car driven mostly pedal-to-metal.
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Wed 23 Sep 15 at 15:16
|
>> Power steering would have made it a very nice motor.
>>
>>
>>
I had two 205 diesels from new. The last one was when they were being phased out, came loaded with extras and had power steering.
As you say, lovely motors and a great favourite with driving instructors.
|
>> 52mpg doesn't sound much today but it was then, especially in a car driven mostly pedal-to-metal.
Someone else claimed 53mpg in a 205 diesel. Spot on comrade!
Damn fine little motor, even more economical on paper with cheap narrow tyres and better handling to boot, yee-hah!
|
>> Peugeot 205 non-turbo diesel only sounded dieselly on very cold mornings. Once warm it was
>> a gem of an engine,
I had one of those too. Cross country it's ability to pull out of the twists and turns of B roads allied to GTi style roadholding allowed remarkable cross country progress. I couldn't half shift it from Banbury to the A5 via the 'old' B4525 > Thorpe Mandeville > Canons Ashby > Litchborough
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Wed 23 Sep 15 at 21:17
|
>>I never liked them. They all sound and smell like tractors to me.
I'm with this ^Gisa, although the Datsun Note derv jobbie I droved recently went quite well.
Maybe the 'oily' pump in garages will be placed far away from the petrol pumps again, like it used to be, hopefully.
|
Sigh!
>> Maybe the 'oily' pump in garages will be placed far away from the petrol pumps
>> again, like it used to be, hopefully.
>>
Careful what you wish for. Everyone running for the exit with their diesel to jump into a environmentally friendly Euro VI petrol might want to read this first:
www.transportenvironment.org/sites/te/files/publications/GDI%20Briefing_final_T&E.pdf
Last edited by: VxFan on Wed 23 Sep 15 at 18:44
|
>>Careful what you wish for. Everyone running for the exit with their diesel to jump into a environmentally friendly Euro VI petrol might want to read this first:
>>www.transportenvironment.org/sites/te/files/publications/GDI%20Briefing_final_T&E.pdf
What's the problem then, if a GPF costing around €50 cleans up the emissions produced by GDI.
|
>> What's the problem then, if a GPF costing around €50 cleans up the emissions produced
>> by GDI.
>>
The problem for me would be the car I buy today will not have one. No info if it can be plumbed in or if extra control is required. The car I get today would be classed as dirty in fewer than 16 months leaving me thousands poorer and in the same position.
|
Can't get that link.
Money no object, multi-cylinder petrol engine is nicer. But there are lots of terrific diesels.
We live in a golden age, believe me. Any jalopy will seem great compared to the way rough old nails used to be in my young day.
|
Car are much better than what I started out with and I've only been driving since 1986.
My own view is EU III was the peak of diesel power and MPG with catalytic converter each subsequent emission increment has knocked 10% off the MPG in my experience. I've gone from a Volvo S60 D5 EU III to S60 D3 EU V and dropped from 45 to 36 MPG same usage, same roads, same garage for fuel.
|
>>We live in a golden age, believe me. Any jalopy will seem great compared to the way rough old nails used to be in my young day.
There's a hell-of-a lot more cars in cities these days, and many more diesel-engine vehicles, than there were in your young days. I'm just glad I live up here away from it all, apart from the China clay dust (cough) and the Radon gas.
:}
|
>> I'm just glad I live up here away from it all, apart from the China clay dust (cough) and the Radon gas.
>>
>> :}
Location is important, I am not downwind of any cities, power stations, or other pollution generators. Being near the sea helps too.
|
>>Location is important, I am not downwind of any cities, power stations, or other pollution generators. Being near the sea helps too.
I go by the lime/yellow coloured lichen which grows up here en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lichen#/media/File:Flavoparmelia_caperata_-_lichen_-_Caperatflechte.jpg
if it's clean enough for e'e, it's clean enough for me.
|
snipquote for lazy person!!
>> Location is important, I am not downwind of any cities, power stations, or other pollution
>> generators. Being near the sea helps too.
If the smog does not get you, the tsunami will..
Last edited by: VxFan on Thu 24 Sep 15 at 23:01
|
|
Volkswagen CEO Martin Winterkorn just resigned
|
>> Volkswagen CEO Martin Winterkorn just resigned
>>
That had to be a given..how many more?
|
|
Other than trying to placate the media, a CEO resigning is pretty meaningless in the scheme of things.
|
Has anyone from the EU said anything yet ? I've read various transport ministers calling for action bur heard nothing from the great and the good in Brussels.
This is a mess. Who in their right mind would walk into a showroom now and drop £30k+ on not only a depreciating asset but one you have no idea whether is legal or not. This is not just a VW issue.
Until someone shows some leadership car showrooms are going to have the tumbleweed rolling across them.
|
>>Who in their right mind would walk into a showroom now and drop £30k
If I liked diesels I might think now was *exactly* the right time to buy. I should think there will be some very healthy discounts.
>some leadership car showrooms are going to have the tumbleweed rolling across them
Surely people will continue to buy cars, albeit that they may choose a different one?
I really think the impact on the market is going to come from the manufacturers, not the customers. And that mostly from the state of their finances.
|
>> >>Who in their right mind would walk into a showroom now and drop £30k
>>
>> If I liked diesels I might think now was *exactly* the right time to buy.
>> I should think there will be some very healthy discounts.
Perxactly. There will be some cracking deals to be had shortly, specially in VW dealerships, and after all, WFD does it make to the driving and ownership experience?
Last edited by: Zero on Wed 23 Sep 15 at 18:31
|
>> If I liked diesels I might think now was *exactly* the right time to buy.
Would the same apply to VW shares perhaps? It seemed one could have made money buying Tesco shares last year when they had their moment of horror.
|
>>
>> >> If I liked diesels I might think now was *exactly* the right time to
>> buy.
>>
>> Would the same apply to VW shares perhaps? It seemed one could have made money
>> buying Tesco shares last year when they had their moment of horror.
Buying at the right time is only half the story. Had you bought tesco shares a year ago they were around 168p. If you sell them now they are around 168p Had you sold them in April they were around 250p
|
|
While half listening to the news about Chinese investment in UK nuclear power stations I heard the statement "Part of the governments long term plan to get us into electric cars". I don't know which programme it was or who it was attributed to. Just the first time I had heard someone say there was a plan.
|
"plan to get us into electric cars"
Not very bright of them to be shutting down large power stations then, is it?
(Fawley, Didcot, Longannet, Eggborough, etc.)
To return to VW, what exactly is the recall for - to put them back to the 'undrivable' setting..?
|
>> "plan to get us into electric cars"
>>
>> Not very bright of them to be shutting down large power stations then, is it?
>>
>> (Fawley, Didcot, Longannet, Eggborough, etc.)
>>
Don't worry we have lots of wind powered generators. :-)
|
It's going to be very interesting how VW fix this (in the general scheme of things).
1. All current owners get a recall to have the ECU flashed with a tree hugging solution.
But who wants a Passat that now does 0 to 60 mph in 20 seconds ?
Then there is the issue of parts breaking as the engine could be so restricted its under strain.
Or the as blue stuff runs out every 3000 miles.
2. How are VW going to regain trust in their products ?
3. Could vosa start pulling all VW's on the road 'surpising' owners with high emissions and a fine ?
4. Further down the road, could VW owners bill VW for parts that suddenly break as the engines are running greener but wear out quicker ?
Then there is the problem of just how many other car manufacturers are doing this too ?
Very interesting times ahead.
I bet VW sales forecourts are very quiet at the moment
|
|
I am assuming Seat, Skoda will also be implicated in this?
|
>> 3. Could vosa start pulling all VW's on the road 'surpising' owners with high emissions
>> and a fine ?
No because the car is perfectly legal, and specially if its passed the last MOT
VOSA can go whistle.
|
Sorry I'm too lazy to Google this for myself, but aren't Californian emissions regulations much tighter than Euro VI?
If so than removing the cheat SW from European spec. cars (assuming they have some variation on the theme, which is yet to be established, but a distinct possibility) would possibly result in a semi-undriveable car rather than a complete clunker?
Interesting times ahead anyway.
|
>> No because the car is perfectly legal, and specially if its passed the last MOT
>>
>> VOSA can go whistle.
>>
Exactly. Until re-maps are outlawed.
|
>> 4. Further down the road, could VW owners bill VW for parts that suddenly break
>> as the engines are running greener but wear out quicker ?
If the ecu was last flashed by VW the existing warranty (and any goodwill) applies.
|
Its seems to be well established that it doesn't work in Europe either.
Reasons given for the discrepancy between test and real world emissions include temporary load increases (going up hills etc) and DPF regeneration!
www.theicct.org/sites/default/files/ICCT_PEMS-study_diesel-cars_2014_factsheet_EN.pdf
(report by the people who alerted the EPA)
|
What we have is software designers and automotive engineers meeting their brief from the salesmen
1/ We want a car the drives well, good flexible torque and power
2/ We want one that produces good MPG figures on the various required tests.
3/ We want one that meets emission requirements
4/ We want one that meets low tax requirements.
Off you go lads, deliver us the goods.
|
|
What they'll have trouble explaining is their responses since it was suspected that something was iffy.
|
>> What they'll have trouble explaining is their responses since it was suspected that something was
>> iffy.
"We gave you what you asked for" wont cut it?
|
Actually I meant the Board's response to the authorities.
Ultimately it is usually the statutory directors who take legal responsibility for the company's behaviour and actions, not usually the person who actually did it.
|
|
Error.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Wed 23 Sep 15 at 19:56
|
Not knowing, or making a mistake, will insufficient.
They will need to show that they did not know, could not be expected to know, and had taken reasonable steps to try to find out.
Unless you have got a senior person ready to fall on their sword and take one for the team, then lack of sufficient control, governance and awareness can be as fatal to your freedom as lying.
|
I note that people are whinging about these special economical US tweaked examples being sold in large numbers to the public. People are claiming that it's a betrayal of the public's 'trust'.
Do me a sodding favour. People are being sold special economical VWs in large numbers. WTF are the idiots complaining about?
It's true that these eco-tuned jalopies are a bit slow and reluctant. But no ordinary British driver will even notice that, having supermimser in his/her sodding genes...
|
I suspect that diesel will gradually reduce in terms of market share in the UK. Low capacity petrol engines are improving even if (just like diesels), their real world economy is nowhere near the official figures.
I had a 205 diesel as my first car and whilst the steering was heavy, it was supremely reliable and very economical. Actual calculated economy over 130,000 miles was 53 mpg!
Current cars are a VW Golf 2.0 TDi (no laughing in the corner please!) and a Qashqai 1.5 dCi. The foremer easily betters 60mpg (according to the computer), irrespective of what NOx emissions are spewing from the tailpipe. It's now driven by Mrs Moo and is my old company car. At one stage, her annual mileage was around 20,000, so it made sense. Her current annual mileage is under 10,000, so it will almost certainly get replaced with something petrol powered when the time comes. Quite like the look of a Peugeot 308 with the 1.2 'Puretech' 130ps petrol engine and an auto gearbox.
The Qashqai is the current company car and whilst it's claimed MPG is 74, it's actually thirstiest than the Golf. Computer is claiming 59.6 mpg over 16.5k miles, but that's with a lot of steady (65mph) motorway cruising. What replaces it in 2017 will to a large extent be dictated by company car tax laws at the time. Best guess at the moment is one more diesel, but I'm expecting to end up moving towards some sort of petrol/hybrid/plug-in type 'thing' in due course.
|
I really prefer the way a manual diesel drives, compare to a manual petrol.
We had a Fabia 101BHP diesel for 10 years, from new, and loved it.
The diesel Alhambra we swapped it for to return to the UK, was a delight to drive on long trips - so comfy - too.
Now we have an auto (petrol) that is not so important, but in any event there's no way to justify the cost of a diesel on our nowadays, minuscule, mileage.
|
My Audi A3 saloon with the 1.4 turbo petrol engine and S-Tronic comes close to the economy of the Passat CC diesel. Comparing apples and oranges I know. Diesel vs. petrol. DSG vs manual. Smaller/lighter car vs. big heavy.
The DSG might actually be part of the reason for quite good mpg. I probably didn't let the diesel drops revs enough by not running it in higher gears. I opted for the DSG initially because:
(a) acceleration compared to a far more torquey diesel did not need manual gear changes for sudden need of acceleration
(b) emissions were lower than the diesel A3's and no 3% BIK hike
(c) the petrol was cheaper than the diesel
(d) at one point the emissions of a DSG 1.4TFSI was lower than the manual making the monthly cost difference only £4 but the newer 150PS manual dropped to 109g/km for CO2
If I'd gone for exactly the same spec CC as I had, the monthly difference between the Audi A3 1.4TFSI DSG and CC GT 170PS was about £100 per month! The CC price had gone up in terms of BIK costs. The A3 costs me approx £50/month less than the Passat CC did when I had it.
I didn't factor in price of fuel and mpg... I probably do around 9000 private miles a year. If it was my car and not company then diesel would not be a consideration due to mileage. Although often CO2 emissions make them cheaper - but the 1.4TFSI is cheaper still.
In 2017 when there might be no 3% BIK charge for a diesel - who knows what is now going to happen - a diesel will probably be cheaper overall.
Last edited by: rtj70 on Wed 23 Sep 15 at 23:11
|
Given that Mrs Moo's car will be bought with our own hard earned, I'm wary of going for a DSG or similar type auto 'box, as the car will be kept after the warranty expires.
Peugeot are calling their 'traditional' 6 speed slush box an 'efficient automatic transmission' (EAT) and paired to their 3 pot petrol engine the economy and emission figures are pretty tidy.
Several mags have run this engine in long term tests and seem to get mid 40s MPG in real world driving. I recall an Autocar test where they reckoned the auto box and 130ps 1.2 engine were the sweet spot in the range. I guess with these low capacity petrols, an auto box would hide the relative lack of low end torque compared to a diesel, although an unduly heavy right foot and frequent use of kickdown and high revs is likely to wreak havoc at the pumps!
|
>> the economy and emission figures are pretty tidy.
There are two possibilities;
1) The rest of the car industry is lily-white and completely innocent of similar activities. Indeed of any activity designed to improve test results without impacting normal road behaviour.
or
2) The emission figures for a lot of models are just about to get revised.
Now given that I suspect the CEO of VW didn't know about this when it was originally done, I am also suspecting that "not knowing anything" is not giving other CEOs in the motor industry much comfort or confidence.
I am thinking that there is a shed-load of checking and making sure going on. And even where previously things have been rounded down, they're going to start getting rounded up.
And even if they don't find thus dubious practice, they may find similar.
Last edited by: Webmaster on Tue 6 Oct 15 at 08:49
|
>> www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/09/23/hail-vw-heroic-resistants-green-tyranny/
After all if we wanted to engage in fatuous green virtue-signalling we wouldn’t have bought a VW, we’d have got a Prius.
...
It’s true though. VW makes cars for people whose main priority is cars, as opposed to people who want to show how guilty they feel about doing something quite as disgusting as driving.
Not sure that's true though for the people buying (for example) BlueMotion models.
Last edited by: Focusless on Thu 24 Sep 15 at 09:40
|
>> Not sure that's true though for the people buying (for example) BlueMotion models.
>>
I think that , for most VW drivers, certainly in my case the bluemotion bit of the model name is irrelevant. It wasn't chosen as eco or anything else, it is well equipped , had very low BIK and goes like the proverbial
|
BMW UK has stated that its road cars “do not use any software that can influence emissions in the test cycle†in the wake of the scandal surrounding fellow German car maker Volkswagen.
Along with a Passat and Jetta, a US-specification 3.0-litre BMW X5 was one of three diesel-powered vehicles involved in the initial research project into Nitrogen Oxides emissions conducted by West Virginia University (WVU), which then relayed its findings to the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
During the tests in 2014 the X5 did not record any emissions readings to concern WVU’s researchers.
A BMW UK spokesman told Autocar: “Regarding BMW’s position, we do not use any software that can influence emissions in the test cycle.
www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/industry/bmw-why-x5-complied-independent-us-emissions-tests
AND The German Government knew about VW months ago
tinyurl.com/owxst2m
Last edited by: madf on Thu 24 Sep 15 at 09:55
|
>> ... the bluemotion bit of the model name is irrelevant ... had very low BIK
It's the Bluemotion bit that gives it low BIK rates. Stop-start and regenerative braking for example.
Although the BMW X5 3.0d mentioned above caused no concern for emissions.... what about the 'cleaner' EfficientDynamics? Does that do anything to keep emissions low apart from lower power, low rolling resistance tyres, low ride height, etc.
Last edited by: rtj70 on Thu 24 Sep 15 at 10:27
|
"....as British lawyers also urged UK motorists to sue"
Salt of the earth, gotta love lawyers.
|
>> "....as British lawyers also urged UK motorists to sue"
>>
>> Salt of the earth, gotta love lawyers.
And exactly what loss is the UK motorist suing to recover?
|
TV report...
VW have stated the cars sold in Europe also have the software installed
|
Which in itself is not an offence.
It will depend on how they represented the engine's emissions when selling them and what and how many rules about such things exist (not many, I would guess)..
|
|
I can't see on what grounds you could sue in the UK. We all know mpg in the real world is lower than in the test/lab environment. If they did reduce NOx and especially if they reduced CO2 levels in the tests, the British drivers are benefiting from lower road fund licence costs and BIK for company car drivers.
|
The specific issue in the US is that to obtain a vehicle's certificate, the manufacturer must declare all the Auxiliary Emission Control Devices that were operating when it passed the test. VW fell foul of two rules here: the defeat device is an AECD and it didn't declare it, and defeat devices are specifically prohibited anyway.
No idea whether any of this applies in Europe, but remember that the test in question is for oxides of nitrogen, and so all the assertions here about erroneous and fudged CO2 figures are irrelevant.
As for NOs in the UK, the MoT rules, which I have in front of me, require diesel passenger cars granted type approval since September 2014, and all models sold new since this month, to emit no more than 80mg/km. (The equivalent Euro 5 value, applicable from September 2009 and January 2011, is 180mg/km.)
Euro 6 cars are too new to have faced an MoT, but Euro 5s (including my BMW, with the same basic engine as the X5 that was unofficially exonerated in Virginia) are not. For any defeat device to work in Europe it will have to cope with the multiplicity of different conditions found under testing regimes in 40+ countries; not impossible but seems unlikely to work everywhere.
If VW has been installing illegal devices in Europe, the most likely outcome seems to be an expensive recall to retrofit a larger urea-based anti-NOX mechanism, perhaps with a subsidy to the first owner to cover the cost of the additional amount of additive. I can't see that it would be in anyone's interest to scrap hundreds of thousands of vehicles.
|
>> most likely outcome seems to be an expensive recall to retrofit a larger urea-based anti-NOX mechanism
A lot of these cars do not have a urea-based anti-NOx mechanism. The newer VAG diesels do but my Passat CC didn't. Retrofitting these might not be possible.
|
Germany's transport minister says Volkswagen has admitted using the same fake emissions test in Europe as it used to falsify results in the US.
Alexander Dobrindt said it was not known how many of the 11 million vehicles affected were in Europe.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34345210
Osborne to get a huge bonus on RFL from VAG?
|
It depends if the cheat mechanism also cut CO2 emissions. In America the concern is over NOx emissions.
And now shares in BMW down 10% because a test of an X3 xDrive 2.0d are 11 times higher than they should be.
|
It depends if the cheat mechanism also cut CO2 emissions.
And nothing but hysterical speculation (plenty here) suggests that it did.
|
What does it have to do with VED?
And RTJ's Passat was built ages before 2014, so was Euro 5, not Euro 6, hence no urea. (Although BMW says only a handful of its Euro 6 engines use urea.)
|
>> Osborne to get a huge bonus on RFL from VAG?
>>
HMRC will be a bit upset if they have been ripped off.
|
|
Obviously, but what evidence is there that they have been?
|
Since the NOx limits in Europe (prior to Euro VI) weren't particularly onerous, even if VW have used the sneaky map in Europe I cant see that it would make much difference, apart from if they would have been over the Euro IV or V with NOx...
What I would say is that as pressure increases in the combustion chamber, doesn't CO2 diminish, whilst NOx's increase (as a general rule)?
So the emissions are a balancing act between the two. If VAG effectively removes its' NOx emissions from the test they are at an advantage CO2 wise over their competitors aren't they?
|
SQ 4 LB
>> Osborne to get a huge bonus on RFL from VAG?
>>
I don't see why.
RFL isn't NOx based IIRC, it's CO2
The cars (presumably) meet the specific requirements of the specific Euro VI test - unless the Euro VI test specification has the same 'no cheating' clause as the Californian one, and removing the cheat SW means CO2 emissions fail (which it may do)
Last edited by: VxFan on Thu 24 Sep 15 at 23:02
|
Presumably they have an adequate anti-NOx system, so they can pass the test.
The problem is that it is switched off or crippled when not being tested, enabling among other things better performance, lower CO2, and lower particulates/smoke in normal use.
Just putting the car into the "test" map for normal running might (or might not, given the other limitations of the test) fix the real world NOx emissions but there are other trade-offs to consider. NOx reduction, all else (essentially clean up devices) being equal, is a trade off with particle and/or CO2 emissions.
Just using more adblue may require a bigger adblue reservoir for practical reasons, but will almost certainly have knock on effects on particle emissions/dpf performance/life, CO2, fuel consumption, and performance. If that wasn't the case, I suspect they would just have had a bigger adblue tank in the first place.
It could get very messy, and the owners may well end up with lower performance and higher running costs for fuel and adblue; VW's CO2 ratings at model and corporate level will also increase to the extent that they can't be mitigated by new software tweaks or mechanical changes (which maybe also have knock on effects in production costs and performance/drivability.
I wonder whether VW will end up being obliged to issue new software and fixes for dealers to apply to all affected vehicles at service time. That might be something owners will seek to avoid if it adversely affects performance, reliability, and cost.
|
Some people have been saying for a while that the expected NOx reductions have not translated into air quality benefits. This is almost certainly a general problem.
It is a consequence of the difficulty of managing outputs with "KPIs". Anybody who has ever done it in a (much simpler) business environment knows and expects that when you squeeze a problem in one place it bulges out somewhere else as a slightly different one.
The people who set these tests for vehicles are aware of this and go to great trouble to try and ensure that the regulations have the desired effect overall.
|
NOx reduction, all else (essentially clean up devices) being equal, is a trade off with particle and/or CO2 emissions.
Is it? OK, CO2 reductions are (generally) achieved by reducing energy demand and improving combustion efficiency, whereas particulates and NOs are removed after the fact in the exhaust. Additional devices in the exhaust can affect back pressure and reduce engine efficiency, so enabling one only for the test is likely to overstate CO2 emissions in the test, so you'd expect to see lower emissions in the real world with the NOx system disabled. Wouldn't you?
|
>> If that wasn't the case, I suspect they would just have had a bigger adblue tank in the first place.
Except the engines (EA189) didn't all have an Adblue injection system. There certainly wasn't one on my Passat CC diesel. And the same engine was in many cars, e.g.
Volkswagen Golf (all versions), Jetta, Beetle, Scirocco, Eos, Passat, CC, Touran, Sharan and Tiguan; Skoda Octavia, Superb and Yeti; SEAT Leon, Altea and Alhambra; Audi A3, A3 cabrio, A4, A5, A6, TT, Q3 and Q5. There's even a Jeep using the engine.
The newer EA288 engine has a urea-injection system for the exhaust. The EA189 was a Euro 5 engine whereas the EA288 is Euro 6.
|
>> There's even a Jeep using the engine.
That's a point. The Dodge Journey which was sold in the UK had a VAG 2.0TDi engine. I wonder if Chrysler are warming their lawyers up?
(I quite like those Journeys, despite generally being SUV averse.)
|
|
I tell you what, whoever does the marketing/advertising for VW these days must be already touring their nearest super-yacht dealerships in anticipation of the forthcoming instructions to rebuild their image.
|
>> I tell you what, whoever does the marketing/advertising for VW these days must be already
>> touring their nearest super-yacht dealerships in anticipation of the forthcoming instructions to rebuild their image.
They can buy them from the corporate governance guys who are getting the german equivalent of P45's
|
"Two of Volkswagen group's highest-ranking engineers will be forced to quit by the end of the week, German paper Bild is reporting.
Unnamed sources told the newspaper Audi's R&D boss Ulrich Hackenberg and Porsche's engine chief Wolfgang Hatz will be dismissed at a meeting of the supervisory board on Friday.
VW and Porsche declined comment while Audi couldn't be reached for comment, Reuters said."
tinyurl.com/pxkaodd
The real world figures for Audi emissions are strikingly higher than test ..21.9 times in Audi A8 (see link above)
|
|
Will the global warming / climate change extremists who campaigned for the almost impossible to achieve limits take any responsibility for their role in this fraud? I don't think so.
|
|
No, because (accepting your spurious premise for a moment) climate change is about CO2, a global pollutant, whereas this affair concerns oxides of nitrogen, whose harmful effects are localized.
|
>> No, because (accepting your spurious premise for a moment) climate change is about CO2,
The lowering of which is a trade off with NOx. There is a connection. As I said earlier, you squeeze a balloon in one place and it bulges out somewhere else.
|
|
Saying it twice doesn't make it true. Your analogy assumes the good result in reducing oxides of nitrogen is exactly balanced by the penalty in increased carbon dioxide. That's plainly not the case.
|
does anybody know the science / engineering of the matter?
Is there any direct connection or not?
|
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1110016812000907
I only read it very quickly, but it doesn't seem to support that the increase of one occurs with the decrease of the other.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Thu 24 Sep 15 at 15:35
|
The Adblue chemistry is simple enough; Wikipedia has the equations in an article headed 'Diesel Exhaust Fluid'. Any effect on combustion efficiency will be either from increased back pressure from having another thing in the exhaust path, or from changes in fuel mixture or injection timing intended to reduce oxides of nitrogen at source. The latter bit is complex, but to suggest, as Manatee does, that there's a 1:1 relation makes no sense.
Which means, until someone proves otherwise, that this is a question of oxides of nitrogen and has nothing significant to do with carbon dioxide, VED, BIK, HMRC or George Osborne.
}:---)
Last edited by: Webmaster on Tue 6 Oct 15 at 08:49
|
I see this as two methods to reduce NOx. Some manufacturers (including VAG now) inject urea in the exhaust to react with the NOx in a Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) to convert it into harmless water vapour and nitrogen. Prior to this, the other method would have been to vary the way diesel is burned in the engine (how VAG was doing it).
I know some later VAG EA189 engines had Selective Catalytic Reduction using AdBlue added on to reduce emissions.
But looking at those chemical formulas on Wikipedia, it actually shows that the NOx plus the urea eventually gets converted into Nitrogen, Water and CO2. So this process increases CO2 emissions for cars.
2(NH2)2CO + 4NO + O2 → 4N2 + 4H2O + 2CO2
|
>> The Adblue chemistry is simple enough; Wikipedia has the equations in an article headed 'Diesel
>> Exhaust Fluid'. Any effect on combustion efficiency will be either from increased back pressure from
>> having another thing in the exhaust path, or from changes in fuel mixture or injection
>> timing intended to reduce oxides of nitrogen at source.
One of the products of reaction between the urea and the NO is CO2.
|
|
Except most of the VAG diesels with the cheat software do not use SCR with AdBlue to reduce NOx emissions. So a bit of a red herring.
|
>>One of the products of reaction between the urea and the NO is CO2.
It seems a very complex relationship between NOx, CO2 and particulates and I don't think I care enough to learn this stuff, but for those that do...
"Typically, a reduction in one of the emissions will result in an increase in the other."
kuscholarworks.ku.edu/bitstream/handle/1808/10206/Ragone_ku_0099M_12367_DATA_1.pdf?sequence=1
www.co2meter.com/blogs/news/13380573-emission-reduction-in-diesel-engines-tested-with-k-33-co2-sensor
|
One of the products of reaction between the urea and the NO is CO2.
Yes but in trivial quantities. The molar masses of NO and CO2 are 30g and 44g respectively. The equation gives us 2CO2 produced for 4NO treated, so 88g CO2 for every 120g NO.
But the difference in allowance between Euro 5 and Euro 6 is 100 milligrams per kilometre. So to remove those 100mg of NO, we produce about 75mg of CO2. Negligible.
|
>> So to remove those 100mg of NO, we produce about 75mg of CO2. Negligible.
Not really negligible overall is it. How many lots of 75mg of CO2 is produced by say 10 million vehicles driving say 10,000 miles per annum?
|
And what has the difference between Euro 5 and Euro 6 to do with the price of fish? Euro5 is 180mg, Euro6 is 80mg/Km. The peccant panzerwagens were allegedly chucking out up to 40 x the test target.
If that target is equivalent to Euro 6, then by fixing the problem with adblue the CO2 impact will be material (from that cause alone).
I haven't tried to work out the size of the adblue tank that would be required.
I will be amazed if it is as simple as using more adblue. If it had been, they would have done it in the first place.
Last edited by: Manatee on Thu 24 Sep 15 at 16:59
|
You're stubbornly assuming there is use of AdBlue on these VAG engines. Most of them do not. So to retrofit the use of SCR means you need to modify more than the size of a tank! If there isn't a tank, modifications to the exhaust, an injection system, an ECU for controlling it.....
They will probably find it cheaper scrapping 500,000 cars than modifying them.
|
>> You're stubbornly assuming there is use of AdBlue on these VAG engines.
No I'm not. I'm just responding to WdB.
|
>> does anybody know the science / engineering of the matter?
>> Is there any direct connection or not?
Only on a general knowledge basis.
The higher the combustion temperature, the greater the NOx and the lower the particulates. More complete combustion results in less black carbon, but the higher temperatures enable N & O from the air to combine into NO that quickly oxidises to NO2.
Exhaust gas recirculation is mainly about managing the high combustion temperatures down but substituting the more or less inert products of combustible mixture reduces work output and efficiency, which is probably one way of explaining the parallel CO2 penalty. It's a heat engine. Reducing the heat reduces the energy content of the expanding gas. A less inefficient approach is to even out the temperature distribution in the combustion process to minimise hot spots but they will always exist.
|
>> Saying it twice doesn't make it true.
It's still true though.
>>Your analogy assumes the good result in reducing
>> oxides of nitrogen is exactly balanced by the penalty in increased carbon dioxide.
Did I say that? Any fool can stretch an analogy too far.
|
If I was VAG and knowing there is going to be a huge fine, I'd try something left field to get positive PR... They know there's going to be a fine. They know they are going to have to sort out nearly 500,000 cars in the US for sure.
And the US and EU could also make the 'pain' caused to VAG do some good instead of just taking billions of pounds. So how about forcing VAG to fund some of the help needed for the refugees coming to Europe at the moment. A few billion Euros could do a lot of good.
|
However, the net result is that a car cannot be sold with NOx over a certain limit.
In the US VW sold a shedload which were over that limit, knew they were doing it, fiddled a test to enable them to do it, and then denied it when challenged. Insofar as the US officialdom is concerned, they are right in the cack.
They are probably in the mire with the customers as well (car reduced in value, stressed about increased pollution, upset about false description etc. etc.)
However, if I understand correctly, it would appear that program was not relevant for the tests in Europe since they are done differently - I assume that means it is more difficult /impossible for the car to detect that it is being tested.
If there was an effect on other emissions, it seems that it was either very small or actually improved them. If Manatee's assumption is correct and the VW NOx emissions were higher than stated, that should also mean that CO2 is lower and I presume HMRC will be giving some money back.
So effectively the only reason that Europe, other than Germany, is leaping about is because it feels left out?
Last edited by: Webmaster on Tue 6 Oct 15 at 08:48
|
With all this emission problems for VAG, I was thinking - would I get another VAG car? Answer is definitely yes.
So I wondered what price the A3 saloon is now compared to when I got it.... and I spotted emissions for CO2 are higher. The website has changed. The brochure changed last month too. So my car if I got it now emits 4g/km more of CO2 than the one I have... so that's one higher band for BIK taxation.
Just makes you wonder if they increased CO2 emissions for the car because they no longer do something on the test? Figures overtime tended to go down. Before I ordered my S-Tronic variant I discounted the manual because it's higher CO2 emissions meant the actual difference to me was £4/month more for the S-Tronic. Then the newer 150PS manual dropped emissions to the same 109g/km for CO2 as the S-Tronic.
Also the Sport and S-Line models were identical for emissions.... Now they are not and there's a footnote saying fitting different tyre sizes can impact this. Well it didn't last year. :-)
Last edited by: rtj70 on Thu 24 Sep 15 at 17:30
|
>>Will the global warming / climate change extremists who campaigned for the almost impossible to achieve limits take any responsibility for their role in this fraud? I don't think so.
Why should they? If VAG thought that the limits were not realistic, then they could either have voiced concerns or not taken part. They chose a rather more elaborate third option.
The simple fact is that VAG have been caught with their trousers down and therefore must face the music.
|
As i said yesterday...
"2) The emission figures for a lot of models are just about to get revised."
I'd guess they are hoping that it will slide under the radar.
|
>> As i said yesterday...
>>
>> "2) The emission figures for a lot of models are just about to get revised."
>>
>> I'd guess they are hoping that it will slide under the radar.
>>
I doubt G Osborne is going to let them.. Say 1 million cars over the 6 year period at £30/car/year.. minimum. Or £180 million.. Or a lot more...
|
You've got to stop it sometime, and it will limit damage for future sales.
And for it to matter for the past they would have to show that VW knowingly screwed with the test and then materially misrepresented the cars.
If the "US fiddle" didn't work or have an impact here, that might be hard.
Honestly taking the test but the test not being good enough won't be their "fault".
|
I missed that yesterday Mark. But for sure the official emissions for my car are now 4g/km higher for CO2 than they were a year ago.... or even a few weeks ago.
Okay paying 40% tax on an extra 1% of £31k isn't much but it's still around £10pm.
Of course the official figure for the car was/is 109g/km for mine when delivered. But order the same since August and it's 113g/km.
Last edited by: rtj70 on Thu 24 Sep 15 at 17:54
|
VW recalling cars in North America - WillDeBeest
