EPA says Volkswagen cheated on emissions with 482,000 diesel cars

NIMAN

But if you model of VW had emissions of 99g and is now proven to be 120g, are the Irish government going to charge the owner more for it?

Very much doubt it.

Sitec

Markcheese wrote: »

Does the add blue stuff get added to the exhaust fumes - or squirted into the fuel ?
If it just gets squirted into the fuel could Vw just give affected drivers a free supply of little fuel additive bottles - to add when they fuel up ?
Or is that a bit too simple -

It's an exhaust after treatment so it looks like they're going to have to reduce engine power or fit SCR systems to reduce NOx.

Brasso

Markcheese wrote: »

Does the add blue stuff get added to the exhaust fumes - or squirted into the fuel ?
If it just gets squirted into the fuel could Vw just give affected drivers a free supply of little fuel additive bottles - to add when they fuel up ?
Or is that a bit too simple -

No I think it has to be added to the exhaust fumes, turns nitrous oxides in to nitrogen and oxygen gas. The cars like BMW that do have require a tank of a few litres that gets refilled at every oil change or thereabouts, the car gives a warning when it gets low I think.

bazz26

At last a scandal worthy of the Hitler parody.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKef1JFpiCA

osheen

Check out the adblue tanks and exhaust systems fitted to euro6 compliant trucks - they add over 500kg weught and reduce the fuel efficiency by up to 7% to reduce the Nox emmissions ( euro6 for trucks is not the same as euro 6 for cars )

mickdw

Ive read some of that report and from car selection alone, it would appear alittle biased in highlighting the issues with the smaller capacity diesel engines.
It doesnt exactly appear to be very neutral when they picked 2 vw 2.0d engined vehicles and a 3.0 bmw diesel.
The vws returning almost 50 mpg and the bmw returning in the 30s.
I realise that the study was undertaken for reasons other than catching out car manufacturers but I have a different feeling on it having read some of it.
Yes, the vws performed perfectly in the test lab when tested as part of this report and yes they put out multiples of the allowable levels on the road in mixed conditions but I note that they performed well on motorway cruise. Id be pretty certain similar will be found on alot of other cars when pushed in normal driving conditions.
From my basic understanding of this, I would very much like to see official testing carried out in a similar manner across further cars - all small capacity, high bhp to get a better impression of how they all perform.

colm_mcm

Fiskar

Markcheese wrote: »

Does the add blue stuff get added to the exhaust fumes - or squirted into the fuel ?
If it just gets squirted into the fuel could Vw just give affected drivers a free supply of little fuel additive bottles - to add when they fuel up ?
Or is that a bit too simple -

Americans won't wash that retrofit, neither would I. They should seek their purchase money back and buy a US product.

Still perplexed why the German government has not raided the offices of VW, this is a major crime. If perpetrated by another manufacturer the Germans would crawl all over them.

My PSA car has an additive tank and newer PSA have the UREA tank. I'm buying petrol next time, have seen and had enough of diesel, nor do I really do the mileage.

CJhaughey

Fiskar wrote: »

Americans won't wash that retrofit, neither would I. They should seek their purchase money back and buy a US product.

What US car maker has a small diesel that competes in the same sector as the Passat/Golf?

colm_mcm

Chevrolet cruze is the nearest I can think of

MTBD

Imagine if there was some sort of engine out there that was relatively clean burning and didnt produce that much toxic smoke out the back creating smog. And imagine if that engine was inexpensive to build, wasnt overly complicated by technology that is expensive to fix. And then imagine it was smooth, sounded great and had great torque and bhp figures...

Wait a second did I just describe N/A petrol engine from the late 90s? I think I did...

So basically the only disadvantage of large petrol engines was that they were somewhat thirstier than diesels. Governments really do know how to screw up a perfectly good system.

The large N/A petrol engine was the perfect ICE. Either replace it with electric or not at all. Everything else is a **** compromise.

Fiskar

CJhaughey wrote: »

What US car maker has a small diesel that competes in the same sector as the Passat/Golf?

I certainly ain't referring to a US diesel car. They were duped into buying an efficient and supposedly environmentally friendly German car, they should buy a US petrol model. Diesel is dead as a fuel at the moment after this,

colm_mcm

I think the US has plenty people who want a diesel but dont care about emissions

ThisRegard

Fiskar wrote: »

They were duped into buying an efficient and supposedly environmentally friendly German car, they should buy a US petrol model. Diesel is dead as a fuel at the moment after this,

Like I said already, diesel hasn't become inefficient over night. The suggestions of its demise are grossly exaggerated.

Marty McFly

vintagevrs wrote: »

The car is still the same car but this may very well have an impact on VW residuals if the brand takes a knock like this. People will be wary of buying VW because of a fear of the unknown reaction of the market. I too bought a Golf recently, and this is not going to help it's resale. Hopefully it will have zero impact.

In all fairness who buys a car thinking of its resale value?

You buy the car you want/like knowing your going to loose money on it through expenditure during ownership and in resale.

Cars are money pits fun momey pits but certainly not investments.

mickdw

ThisRegard wrote: »

Like I said already, diesel hasn't become inefficient over night. The suggestions of its demise are grossly exaggerated.

Direct fuel efficiency regarding MPG - sure but cost efficiency in manufacturing them to meet latest emissions standards - its a losing battle being fought by manufacturers.
Im delighted tbh. Force them to make the diesels really meet regs re cancer causing emissions, let them set diesel car prices accordingly for the tech installed, then watch Petrol come centre stage again as the cheaper, smoother, nicer sounding alternative for the masses.

road_high

Special Circumstances wrote: »

We will do what the Germans tell us to do. We wouldn't even be driving diesels if they had decided that promoting diesels didn't give them an advantage over manufacturers from outside Europe.

By the time some one of our influential politicians has perhaps realised there might be something up here, Germany will have told us their cars are "definitely clean now". We will accept this blindly and continue to implement really poor testing of diesel emissions. Because CO2.

What the hell are you rambling on about? It was the French car industry, Peugeot in particular that made huge initial strides with diesel, just everyone else followed including VW with the original Golf back in the day.
This Germany bullies us all conspiracy really knows no bounds with some people...

colm_mcm

Marty McFly wrote: »

In all fairness who buys a car thinking of its resale value?

You buy the car you want/like knowing your going to loose money on it through expenditure during ownership and in resale.

Cars are money pits fun momey pits but certainly not investments.

Resale value is definitely a factor when you're spending more than you wanted to. People do bank on residuals.

Marty McFly

colm_mcm wrote: »

Resale value is definitely a factor when you're spending more than you wanted to. People do bank on residuals.

Well maybe I'm just on my own then

But I've never bought a car thinking of resale value if I was to add up the amount of money I've spent and lost in resale value I'd probably drive myself demented.

I just don't see the logic in worrying about resale value when you know it's always going to be a loosing battle.

colm_mcm

Do you usually buy new cars?

Marty McFly

colm_mcm wrote: »

Do you usually buy new cars?

No but for some of the cars I bought if I'd chosen I could have bought a new car instead.

Even buying new it's the same thing your going to loose money regardless.

colm_mcm

if you're buying used it's not as simple. a car that hasn't great resale value is cheaper used so it's swings and roundabouts.

John T Carroll

Marty McFly wrote: »

No but for some of the cars I bought if I'd chosen I could have bought a new car instead.

Even buying new it's the same thing your going to loose money regardless.

Buy new and keep it forever as long as your not worried about keeping up with the Joneses.

Roger Mellie Man on the Telly

^^^ Buy second hand and keep it forever.

Spend the saved cash on more cosmetic surgery than the Joneses?

vintagevrs

Marty McFly wrote: »

Well maybe I'm just on my own then

But I've never bought a car thinking of resale value if I was to add up the amount of money I've spent and lost in resale value I'd probably drive myself demented.

I just don't see the logic in worrying about resale value when you know it's always going to be a loosing battle.

If I'm spending money on a car ofcourse I know it's going to lose money. How much money a car is likely to lose though can vary hugely and is definitely a consideration. It can often mean a car with a higher price tag can cost the same to run as a less expensive car that depreciates badly if you choose the right car.

I hear 458 speciales are holding value well.....

dashcamdanny

Marty McFly wrote: »

In all fairness who buys a car thinking of its resale value?

You buy the car you want/like knowing your going to loose money on it through expenditure during ownership and in resale.

Cars are money pits fun momey pits but certainly not investments.

I recently bought a new golf . The i30 and the Pulsar were serious considerations. But the resale value of the golf paid for the better quality car. Resale was a big consideration. I know if I keep her well, I should get a fairly big bit of my money back. And have a nice deposit for a GTI.

3 year plan..

I just hope this scandal is well behind them by then.


It does have me wondering about the power output now. Its was sold to me as a 110hp car. Would love a go on a dyno to see if they lied about that also.

James Delaney

@marty mcfly

I think it will take a little more than 3yrs to settle down.
It will take VW yrs to sort out this prob on existing cars sold between 2009:2015.

I certainly wont b buying 1.

Nobody in their right mind will fork-out Cocky & Arrogant prices charged by VW dealers anymore.
They have some neck charging these exorbidant prices in the 1st place.

Their goose is cooked.

James Delaney

CJhaughey wrote: »

What US car maker has a small diesel that competes in the same sector as the Passat/Golf?

TODAY every single US Diesel is way ahead of Passat/Golf

Special Circumstances

road_high wrote: »

What the hell are you rambling on about? It was the French car industry, Peugeot in particular that made huge initial strides with diesel, just everyone else followed including VW with the original Golf back in the day.
This Germany bullies us all conspiracy really knows no bounds with some people...

Whatever my ideas on who currently holds the reins and wields the whip in Europe (you are perfectly free to believe we all have a fair and proportionate voice, or hey may those sneaky danes are really running the show), I never excluded the french or italian motor industries from influencing the EU emissions strategy.

Which one of these scenarios is not the work of a rambling mind in your opinion:


Concentrating massively on CO2 and de prioritising nox and particulates was a sound and justifiable decision based on good science and no outside influence from EU motor manufacturers.

Or

Concentrating massively on CO2 and de prioritising nox and particulates was an understandable oversight despite how strict other regimes are on these pollutants.

Or

Concentrating massively on CO2 and de prioritising nox and particulates was a good business decision to suit EU motor manufacturers.


I'm not really concerned about who invented diesel engines (german), or advanced them at different stages ( certainly a lot of credit due to the French and also italians). Your argument based on which EU country was state of the diesel art at a particular periods could be taken even further ... sure the ancient barbarian tribes of lower saxony didn't even have cars, therefore they can't be influencing things now or at the time when the decision was made on co2 nox etc!! If de handschuh doesn't fit, you must acquit!!! Not a particularly logical argumen when you extend it, is it?

You are perfectly entitled to believe different things to me without me trying to bludgeon my opinion on you, but "the Germans couldn't have had a say at the time, sure it would have suited the french more" isnt a great argument in my opinion.

astrofool

Joe 90 wrote: »

Nope, not crazy at all. You burn coal or oil, produce steam, drive a turbine, spin a generator and then transmit the leccy to the user.

A loss at every stage between the fire from burning the fuel and the electricity coming out of the wall. That, and of course the costs of the pwer companies, is the price difference.

It would in fact be muche GREENER to heat your house by feuel burned at the house rather than by fuel burned at the electricity power plant.

The efficiency of a large steam turbine at a power plant in turning fuel into energy is about double than what you can achieve at your house, along with a central point for emissions clean up.