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

Dardania

mickdw wrote: »

I agree with the point made that vw should have come out fighting.
They could have said that this test was developed and they built cars that meet the requirement of the test. They could surely have argued that they will build cars to comply with any test procedure implemented but until the tests change, there is no reason to alter the cars in any way.
Surely it is up to the authorities to design and implement a suitable testing regime that will examine the cars emissions performance over a range of driving conditions.

Interesting perspective - going after the letter of the law interpretation rather than the spirit of it...

Does the law mandate that the car must pass a test for NOx, or does it mandate that it mustn't exceed the levels at any time?

pippip

mickdw wrote: »

I agree with the point made that vw should have come out fighting.
They could have said that this test was developed and they built cars that meet the requirement of the test. They could surely have argued that they will build cars to comply with any test procedure implemented but until the tests change, there is no reason to alter the cars in any way.
Surely it is up to the authorities to design and implement a suitable testing regime that will examine the cars emissions performance over a range of driving conditions.

But the problem is they weren't to build cars to beat a test, they were to build cars to comply with regulations. Unless they could argue it met regulations, which they didn't, then the test itself is sort of irrelevant.

CJhaughey

pippip wrote: »

But the problem is they weren't to build cars to beat a test, they were to build cars to comply with regulations. Unless they could argue it met regulations, which they didn't, then the test itself is sort of irrelevant.

Not really, if you look at it objectively the car complied with regulations at the time it did the test.
Whether or not the car continued to comply outside the test is not really relevant.

The NCT is the exact same, test is only valid on the date of the test.
Once you drive it out of the test centre its no longer applicable.
The certificate may be in force but not the test.

Dardania

CJhaughey wrote: »

Not really, if you look at it objectively the car complied with regulations at the time it did the test.
Whether or not the car continued to comply outside the test is not really relevant.

The NCT is the exact same, test is only valid on the date of the test.
Once you drive it out of the test centre its no longer applicable.
The certificate may be in force but not the test.

What's the purpose of the test, in your understanding? Why are they testing?

CJhaughey

Dardania wrote: »

What's the purpose of the test, in your understanding? Why are they testing?

Which test? NCT or the CARB tests for NoX?

Dardania

CJhaughey wrote: »

Which test? NCT or the CARB tests for NoX?

CARB test

dr.fuzzenstein

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

You are missing:
airplanes, trucks, tractors, harvesters, buses, trains, ships, diggers, industrial plant, generators and let's not forget:
Houses being heated by diesel and kerosene.

If you truly care about your child with asthma, rather than making a hysterical point, you will not rest until all the above are banished.
Good thing I copied this long list, typing it out every time was exhausting.

You don't think there's a difference between a town/city being full of diesel cars emitting dangerous levels of pollutants and most of that stuff being in less densely populated areas? Or how much less pollution a train uses compared to how much would come out of cars to perform the same job? Other than the Western Rail Corridor of course. :pac:

josip

Deleted User wrote: »

You don't think there's a difference between a town/city being full of diesel cars emitting dangerous levels of pollutants and most of that stuff being in less densely populated areas? Or how much less pollution a train uses compared to how much would come out of cars to perform the same job? Other than the Western Rail Corridor of course. :pac:

Some of what seems intuitive to us about transport may be incorrect.
Funny that they used a Passat in the study
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1465041/Cars-are-more-fuel-efficient-than-trains-claims-study.html
Full details
http://www.estudiomc.es/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/transport-energy-consumption.pdf

CJhaughey

Dardania wrote: »

CARB test

To check for NoX emissions under the test parameters.

This type of thing has been engineered into vehicles for decades.
In Australia there was strict noise regulation under ADR's for motorcycles a long time ago, probably 20 years at this stage.
The manufacturers set the bikes ECU to drop the power output at the test revs.
Was that cheating?
The manufacturer simply sets the electronics to give a predetermined max value at a certain point.
As ECU's have become more powerful, their ability to modify many more engine processes have developed accordingly.
If any manufacturer can build an engine that complies with emissions regs at all stages of its lifecycle and in all the different conditions of maintenance/use/abuse and still run reliably I'd be amazed.
Thats why these tests are such a sham in the first place.

pippip

CJhaughey wrote: »

Not really, if you look at it objectively the car complied with regulations at the time it did the test.
Whether or not the car continued to comply outside the test is not really relevant.

The NCT is the exact same, test is only valid on the date of the test.
Once you drive it out of the test centre its no longer applicable.
The certificate may be in force but not the test.

But if you pass your NCT and have a crash the NCT is irrelevant and investigators will look to see if your car was roadworthy.

Same thing, test is irrelevant, its how the car is on the road that is the law.

VW tricked the test and then proceeded in putting a car on the road that breaks the law.

jimgoose

CJhaughey wrote: »

...strict noise regulation under ADR's for motorcycles a long time ago, probably 20 years at this stage.
The manufacturers set the bikes ECU to drop the power output at the test revs...

One word: Dynojet.

Dardania

CJhaughey wrote: »

To check for NoX emissions under the test parameters.

This type of thing has been engineered into vehicles for decades.
In Australia there was strict noise regulation under ADR's for motorcycles a long time ago, probably 20 years at this stage.
The manufacturers set the bikes ECU to drop the power output at the test revs.
Was that cheating?
The manufacturer simply sets the electronics to give a predetermined max value at a certain point.
As ECU's have become more powerful, their ability to modify many more engine processes have developed accordingly.
If any manufacturer can build an engine that complies with emissions regs at all stages of its lifecycle and in all the different conditions of maintenance/use/abuse and still run reliably I'd be amazed.
Thats why these tests are such a sham in the first place.

I think there is some editorial in your view that the only reason the test exists is to prove that the vehicle passes the test.
My opinion is that the test exists to prove that all the time, the vehicle meets the requirement.
And certainly reading the EPA's letter to VW (http://www3.epa.gov/otaq/cert/documents/vw-nov-caa-09-18-15.pdf ), they make reference to the vehicle having to achieve the requirement during normal operating mode - I don't think a test is normal operating mode for a vehicle?

In the case of your Australian example, sounds like cheating to me.

I personally believe that we as a society of people should recognise what is & isn't technically feasible, rather than cheating at tests. E.g. driving a car will emit an amount of NOx

jimgoose

Dardania wrote: »

...In the case of your Australian example, sounds like cheating to me...

This goes on all over Europe, most particularly in Ireland and the UK, and has done since the dawn of the GSX-R Hooligan, innit?!? We prefer to think of it as tuning out that horrendous, even potentially dangerous, flat-spot around ~5,000RPM put there by Euro-twits.

josip

josip wrote: »

Some of what seems intuitive to us about transport may be incorrect.
Funny that they used a Passat in the study
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1465041/Cars-are-more-fuel-efficient-than-trains-claims-study.html
Full details
http://www.estudiomc.es/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/transport-energy-consumption.pdf

You're right that it's not always obvious. However fuel use is but one factor and it happens to have chosen the most favorable type of journey possible for a diesel car, funny that. :P

JJJJNR

bazz26 wrote: »

There's a lot more to this, than just cars and emissions, its corporate espionage at the highest level, political as they come and intertwines on a lot of other areas. 007 stuff.

I love when it all come a cropper like this, its amazing, plus my VPN was down yesterday..see you next Tuesday!

bazz26

FortySeven wrote: »

A 40% reduction in the value of one of the worlds largest companies is barely 'blowing things out of proportion'. This is one of the biggest stories in the world, it is THE biggest story in the motoring industry, something that affects everybodys life. Also, a bit annoying if you happen to have a child with asthma, care about the environment you live and breath in or just hate getting ripped off.

This is epic, it is only the beginning. I would love to know what could possibly be bigger than this that we are missing?

You seem to be missing the point, this story seems to have grabbed mass hysteria by Joe Public and turned them into drama queens whom 2 weeks ago didn't care.

If you care about the environment why would you buy a brand new car at all that is build in a factory that contributes to more pollution? Keep your old car as that ecological footprint has already been made.

If you are concerned for asthmatics or people's health in general then why would you be buying a diesel car at all which are well known for emissions that are harmful to life.

The nonsense being said that this will be the end of diesel cars or VW is just comical. They might suffer in the short term but they are large enough to recover from this and I don't see why they wouldn't.

dr.fuzzenstein

Deleted User wrote: »

You don't think there's a difference between a town/city being full of diesel cars emitting dangerous levels of pollutants and most of that stuff being in less densely populated areas? Or how much less pollution a train uses compared to how much would come out of cars to perform the same job? Other than the Western Rail Corridor of course. :pac:

City center:
trucks, trains, buses, boats (in some), central heating...
You wouldn't say that if you lived in an apartment overlooking the quays in Dublin. Friend lived there, he turned grey within a year, he was like the walking dead. Why? Buses. of all the above, they are by far the worst.
The sooner we get THOSE cancer spewing, baby murdering, planet killing monsters out of city centers, the better.
Unless you don't really care about cleaning up the cities and just have a grudge against diesel cars.

We would have to ban all ICE traffic from city centers, as well as central heating that burns any kind of fuel. So transport and heating in city centers is purely electric. otherwise we're just not taking this seriously.

bazz26

JJJJNR wrote: »

There's a lot more to this, than just cars and emissions, its corporate espionage at the highest level, political as they come and intertwines on a lot of other areas. 007 stuff.

I love when it all come a cropper like this, its amazing, plus my VPN was down yesterday..see you next Tuesday!

But corporate espionage is nothing new, it's been around for ages. It's the drama this scandal has created is that what is I'm talking about. People saying they wouldn't buy a car from them now because it's not as described or not as clean as was portrayed is just laughable. Where buyers so concerned with those things 2 weeks ago? The irony of them buying a diesel car with concern for the environment and their fellow man is just funny imo.

Dardania

bazz26 wrote: »

But corporate espionage is nothing new, it's been around for ages. It's the drama this scandal has created is that what is I'm talking about. People saying they wouldn't buy a car from them now because it's not as described or not as clean as was portrayed is just laughable. Where buyers so concerned with those things 2 weeks ago? The irony of them buying a diesel car with concern for the environment and their fellow man is just funny imo.

There was the story about the champagne drinking environmentalist in California who was betrayed by VW with her 2 year old diesel Passat - apparently she was troubled that when she was driving 40 minutes each way to save the seals or something. If environmentalism was such an aim, why not buy a smaller car?!

CJhaughey

Dardania wrote: »

I think there is some editorial in your view that the only reason the test exists is to prove that the vehicle passes the test.
My opinion is that the test exists to prove that all the time, the vehicle meets the requirement.
And certainly reading the EPA's letter to VW (http://www3.epa.gov/otaq/cert/documents/vw-nov-caa-09-18-15.pdf ), they make reference to the vehicle having to achieve the requirement during normal operating mode - I don't think a test is normal operating mode for a vehicle?

In the case of your Australian example, sounds like cheating to me.

I personally believe that we as a society of people should recognise what is & isn't technically feasible, rather than cheating at tests. E.g. driving a car will emit an amount of NOx

I would agree with that viewpoint however large parts of Germany are dependent on the production and sale of Automobiles.
In order to make people move into new cars instead of holding onto sound and reliable machines the regulators propose ever stricter regimes of emissions.
We have reached a point where Diesel as a fuel cannot be made any cleaner without going to inordinate lengths involving injecting Urea into the exhaust and fitting DPFs and the like which in many cases seriously reduce the useful life of the engine.
The EU and the individual states have themselves to blame as they encouraged the growth of the diesel passenger car sector due to concerns about Co2, which has resulted in many people driving cars with diesel engines which are not suitable for their driving style.
Its policy driven stupidity.
Whats cleaner? Making a new car from scratch with all the embodied energy that entails or driving an older car with worse emissions?

carrotcake

...And now the Seat numbers are out: Seat says 700,000 cars have 'cheat' emissions software

Stallingrad

VAG are in big trouble. Could go down in history as the worst blunder in corporate history.

dr.fuzzenstein

Stallingrad wrote: »

VAG are in big trouble. Could go down in history as the worst blunder in corporate history.

No doubt. Even worse than Irish water?
But we'll see, because there are plenty of other makes out there who seem to have different real life MPG figures, so that would be a good indicator of who is "massaging" their figures a little.

eagerv

Can someone explain to me how present engines (Euro 6 Compliant) are not implicated.

Surely these engines are developments from the Euro 5 engines, with more HP and lower CO2. And in most cases on popular models NOx lowering such as Adblue has not been used.

I hope I'm wrong, but I don't think we know the full extent of the problem yet..

Marcusm

CJhaughey wrote: »

Not really, if you look at it objectively the car complied with regulations at the time it did the test.
Whether or not the car continued to comply outside the test is not really relevant.

The NCT is the exact same, test is only valid on the date of the test.
Once you drive it out of the test centre its no longer applicable.
The certificate may be in force but not the test.

Your name sake would be proud.

There is a massive distinction between a type approval cert based on a sample car and an NCT for a single vehicle.

The creation of a special driving mode which only kicks in on the test, ie which is automatically excluded in any other driving conditions, is prima face proof of an attempt to obtain the approval by deception. They might as well have provided a completely separate car. It not that the test does not simulate real world driving, it's that the car operates differently on the test as compared to real world driving, not that the driver gas remapped the software but that the test map is never the real map.

everlast75

Just pondering.. if a remap of the ECU is required, and this results in higher mpg and also higher emissions and therefore higher tax, it "could" be held to be breach of contract, which would mean compensation.

"If" it is held by the Courts to be a fundamental breach, then its possible to rescind the contract which means handing back the car...

Possible scenarios..

Tea 1000

everlast75 wrote: »

Just pondering.. if a remap of the ECU is required, and this results in higher mpg and also higher emissions and therefore higher tax, it "could" be held to be breach of contract, which would mean compensation.

"If" it is held by the Courts to be a fundamental breach, then its possible to rescind the contract which means handing back the car...

Possible scenarios..

It won't result in higher tax though. The cars won't be retested post retrofit of the "fix", and the official grade the car received won't be post-adjusted.
If anything, it'll make the affected cars worth more because they'll have lower tax than the newer ones!
There won't be much in it in any case, because it was specifically the NOx emissions that were reduced in the cheat, which might not have been necessary to pass Euro 5 certification, which means no adjustment needs to be made in Europe.
The Government here won't retro-apply any new offical figure that is found out post-recall, just like they didn't retro-apply CO2 ratings in 2008 to cars bought previously. The official line will be that customers purchased the cars in good faith based on the official reading. If the Government will do anything at all, it'll be to issue a fine to VW. But they won't do that.

Europe will sort this out within Europe after they make all the right noises for the public and for global reputation. Then it'll go away silently. It's in no one's benefit over here to cause major disruption to the status quo. So the solution will be well planned.

dashcamdanny

This would be a good time to buy shares in VW as a long term investment I reckon.

http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=VOW.DE+Interactive#{"range":"5d","allowChartStacking":true}

dashcamdanny

This would be a good time to buy shares in VW as a long term investment I reckon. Bargain share prices ..

http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=VOW.DE+Interactive#{"range":"5d","allowChartStacking":true}

John T Carroll

eagerv wrote: »

Can someone explain to me how present engines (Euro 6 Compliant) are not implicated.

Surely these engines are developments from the Euro 5 engines, with more HP and lower CO2. And in most cases on popular models NOx lowering such as Adblue has not been used.

I hope I'm wrong, but I don't think we know the full extent of the problem yet..

This link might give some clues, it mentions reduced compression ratio in I think Mazdas case coupled with reduced weight.
http://www.fleetnews.co.uk/fleet-management/euro6-diesel-cleans-up-its-act/52786/