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

BoatMad

fleex wrote: »

40 times more than the allowable levels of emissions when the car is not doing emissions test.

how can they detect if your golf is undergoing emissions test.

some clever German engineering.

http://jalopnik.com/epa-orders-volkswagen-to-recall-482-000-diesel-cars-for-1731665972

The software was supplied by Bosch to many car companies in 2007 , along woth a warning that using it could be regarded as a defeat device in the US under its clean air acts.

All car companies have to place the car into " test" mode to allow it to be tested. This is known and understood ( note this is nothing to do with NCT which is a much lower standard )

The certification tests are performed on a rolling road , supporting the driven wheels. The car has to be placed in test mode to prevent things like active stability and abs interfering . ( which is why NCT can't test 4x4 properly for example ) this is becoming more and more problematic as active dynamic stability systems become more common.

So it's not a question of " detecting " emissions testing , the car is setup specifically for the test. What VW was fall foul of the US clean Air acts , by incorporating a " defeat device " , ie software that manipulated the test results data fed to the ODB connector. As that the way the EPA does the test. VW are in hot water because the engines there are simply not capable in their current form of meeting US NOX emissions

In Europe several things are different,

A. NOX allowed levels for Euro 5 and now Euro 6 engines are 3x and 2x greater then US.

VW can produce engines , like all other EU diesel producers that meet Euro 6 emissions. VW have stated categorically that it's EA288 engine series meets Euro 6 standards.

The actual level of pollutants on the road is WELL KNOWN to be greater then the test allows. The tests only specify that under a defines test condition, the mod output. They do NOT state that it is a maximum allowable under all circumstances. Such an engine cannot be built and still have reasonable performance

The reason VW got caught of course is that it's almost the sole seller of small diesels on the US. ( along with a handful of BMW s) most European diesels are not sold in the US ( cause it ain't easy to make them compliant and remain small diesels )

The fact is , and this is borne out by the ICCT tests in Europe , is that NOX , co2 and fuel consumption " official " figures ate out by almost 40 % , with companies like Mercedes being one of the worst offenders.

That's the issue. Ie can real life diesel usage meet specifications and if not , are you in effect banning all small diesels.

BoatMad

alias no.9 wrote: »

VAG persisted with their proprietary Pumpe Duse technology for many years after most makers adopted Common Rail.

They backed the wrong horse and after bringing Pumpe Duse as far as it could go they eventually adopted Common Rail nearly 10 years after most of the rest of the market, they were way behind the curve with the technology and they had reliability issues on their early Common Rail engines.

They were desperately trying to keep pace with the market. All the while VW had been working to get Pumpe Duse to meet the tightening emissions before eventually giving up, the other manufacturers had been working to get their Common Rail engines to meet the same targets.

This is nonsense.

Current VW technology in small diesels , ( ands it's a specific small diesel issue ) is fully compliant with Euro 5 and Euro 6 standards with its 0.08g/km NOX levels ( twice that of the tier 2 USA levels )

This is the case with all small Diesel engines in Europe. Most of the work is actually done by companies like BOSCH not VW.

The car industry and especially the engine industry really acts as one development process. ( I used to work in an adjunct of engine design ) no manufacturer has any tech lead, most of what you hear is marketing bull sh!t , most engine developments come out of major suppliers like bosch etc.

The simple issue is this. No small diesel can actually meet current NOX standards in normal use.

Note that co2 is not regulated like NOX. NOX is not a green house gas either, but has implications for human health and things like acid rain

This issue is simply VW got caught in the US, primarily because it has been the only manufacturer of small diesels foolish enough to try and beat tier 2. ICCT didnt have any other range of car to test in the USA , in Europe they tested multiple brands and discovers virtually ALl exceeded the test results in normal use . THATS THE SCANDAL, if you want one ( but the regulators and industry know this of course )

There is no issue in Europe , the engines can meet Euro 6 requirements and VAG have recently stated that. of course the defeat software is there , but not used in the same way. VW are recalling cars to remove it , but in effect nothing changes.

In the US however , they are faced with an entirely different issue. How to pass thev0.04g/km NOX test , when it appears to be extremely difficult to do in a small diesel without killing the engine performance.

Bizarrely the co2 emissions will increase in the US As a result

Nothing will happen In Europe. Because policy makers are not going to kill the Diesel engine industry over night either.

The race between fuel consumption and emissions on diesel is over and it lost. You can have a clean diesel , with poorer fuel economy and performance , or you can increase the size of the engine , generate more c02 and particulate matter and make it " cleaner". Buyers buy diesels almost soley for fuel consumption , it that market advantage was lost ( as it will be ) you won't give away a diesel.

In future you'll see no diesels and their residuals will be worthless.

alias no.9

darragh o meara wrote: »

Ha, yeah I got offered a pre-regged passat today for 4 grand less than new.. 105 kms on the clock

What would be the typical discount from the new price on a pre reg Passat and what would be the typical discount on an equivalent pre reg Mondeo?

RedorDead

challengemaster wrote: »

I'd suggest you actually read the link, or even this thread. The emissions as a whole will likely change once the ECU is updated to achieve acceptable NOx levels, lowering MPG and increasing CO2 output.

So yes, while it's not about fooling CO2 tests - as soon as those cars get recalled the CO2 levels which their VRT and tax was/is based on is wrong.

Also you may want to do a bit more reading. Any document I have seen has stated that in extreme cases death is a possibility, but mostly it's that mortality effects are EQUIVALENT to X amounts of deaths. Nobody, as far as I'm aware, has actually died as a direct result of NOx. It's easier to demonstrate this using a report from the Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants.



Nobody has actually died. It's just a decrease in life expectancy. Of six months. So instead of a life expectancy of 81.5 years, you'd assume it's now 81 years. Apart from it's not - the life expectancy is already calculated using real-world figures - not assumptions. So it has no net result on your life, only you "lose" half a year you never would have lived anyway. Woop-de-fookin-doo.



Wow. Who doesn't need an extra 20 days (on average) tacked on at the end of their 81.5 year life. That made such a difference.

Furthermore that's an approximation using coefficients that they made up for the relationship between mortality and NOx. Because they actually haven't a clue as to how much an effect it does have.

Since 1980 the amount of NOx pollution has at least halved (EPA figures are 57% decrease). Thats already contributed greatly to an increased life expectancy. Reducing it to zero is only estimated to add another 6 months life expectancy. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, or suggesting we don't continue to improve - I'm just suggesting you critique what you read before regurgitating it as fact. "Killing people in the short to medium term" NOx are not.

This is more propoganda than it is science.

What levels of Nox are required to delete 6 months from your life expectancy and what difference does this VW issue at the minute make to that? 3 hours? Perspective people!

BoatMad

alias no.9 wrote: »

What would be the typical discount from the new price on a pre reg Passat and what would be the typical discount on an equivalent pre reg Mondeo?

both pollute equally

BoatMad

RedorDead wrote: »

What levels of Nox are required to delete 6 months from your life expectancy and what difference does this VW issue at the minute make to that? 3 hours? Perspective people!

lets maker it clear

VW is not the worst perform are here

read the ICCT " real world " tests on small diesels in Europe ( which was the focus of their research). They show that virtually all small diesels exceed their test results ( C02, Nox and L/100km) by upwards of 40%. Mercedes was highlighted as one of the worst , not VW by the way

jimgoose

BoatMad wrote: »

...are you in effect banning all small diesels.

In furtherence: are you in effect also banning small, revvy, high-compression turbocharged petrols?

BoatMad

jimgoose wrote: »

In furtherence: are you in effect also banning small, revvy, high-compression turbocharged petrols?

no because petrols produce cleaner combustion and hence inherently produce less C02 , NOx etc.

Small diesels ( as opposed to large one ) exist in cars PURELY because of fuel economy. remove that and diesels vanish as they are less reliable ,perform worse , are more costly to repair and are filled with non essential " gubbins" to try and make them clean, The market exists because governments in the 80s onwards forced overly on " fuel consumption" aka C0 ( not C02) production without understanding what they were getting into, diesels emit more c02, box and particulate matter then petrols , especially under real world driving conditions

jimgoose

BoatMad wrote: »

no because petrols produce cleaner combustion and hence inherently produce less C02 , NOx etc...

I think they're going to catch up though, as pressure and temperature keeps increasing while more and more efficiency is caned out of them.

dr.fuzzenstein

BoatMad wrote: »

no because petrols produce cleaner combustion and hence inherently produce less C02 , NOx etc.

Small diesels ( as opposed to large one ) exist in cars PURELY because of fuel economy. remove that and diesels vanish as they are less reliable ,perform worse , are more costly to repair and are filled with non essential " gubbins" to try and make them clean, The market exists because governments in the 80s onwards forced overly on " fuel consumption" aka C0 ( not C02) production without understanding what they were getting into, diesels emit more c02, box and particulate matter then petrols , especially under real world driving conditions

Well, I can't give up my 1.8 diesel Cmax that returns around 48 MPG. And so far requires nothing more in terms of servicing than any petrol has so far. And is large, comfortable and reliable. The LAST thing I will EVER drive is one of those 1 liter whizzbang squeezeboxes where sooner or later something will go wheeeeeegrgrgrgrgrgrhmbghhllllBANG! and result in a multi thousand Euro repair bill.
If I was now forced to drive a petrol, it would have to be a small sh*tcan. Not gonna happen and the existing car is needed to lug stuff around and bring the dogs off.
So if diesels were made uneconomical for commuting and petrol is not an option my only options would be to move (can't be easily done), fill her up with agri-diesel and terfcuk with everyone, or give up my job, sell my car, buy an Xbox and sign on the dole.
Or be a named driver on her car and buy a 1980's diesel Merc and use that to commute. Enjoying my current diesel? How would you like 10 times the sh*te coming out of the exhaust!

THIS is where this country is fcuked up as usual. If petrol should become an option, why not make petrol cheaper instead of diesel more expensive. Because as sure as the tides, this is the approach that will be taken "Ah jaysis, you'll be wantin' ta drive a deaasel, you'll be payin' us a load a money now, t'will be reaal deear!"
It's the same as the plan to load out of town shopping malls with extra charges, because city centers are dying. The Irish approach could be summed up by "You're doing well? We'll soon see about that!"
It's a fcuking crab bucket.

jimgoose

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Well...

To summarise the summary of the summary: You would be amazed how much stupid crap would be solved by the Government suddenly deciding to follow Goose's Edict: Just fcuk off, stop taking people's money and giving it to morons and/or criminals!! :pac:

BoatMad

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Well, I can't give up my 1.8 diesel Cmax that returns around 48 MPG. And so far requires nothing more in terms of servicing than any petrol has so far. And is large, comfortable and reliable. The LAST thing I will EVER drive is one of those 1 liter whizzbang squeezeboxes where sooner or later something will go wheeeeeegrgrgrgrgrgrhmbghhllllBANG! and result in a multi thousand Euro repair bill.
If I was now forced to drive a petrol, it would have to be a small sh*tcan. Not gonna happen and the existing car is needed to lug stuff around and bring the dogs off.
So if diesels were made uneconomical for commuting and petrol is not an option my only options would be to move (can't be easily done), fill her up with agri-diesel and terfcuk with everyone, or give up my job, sell my car, buy an Xbox and sign on the dole.
Or be a named driver on her car and buy a 1980's diesel Merc and use that to commute. Enjoying my current diesel? How would you like 10 times the sh*te coming out of the exhaust!

THIS is where this country is fcuked up as usual. If petrol should become an option, why not make petrol cheaper instead of diesel more expensive. Because as sure as the tides, this is the approach that will be taken "Ah jaysis, you'll be wantin' ta drive a deaasel, you'll be payin' us a load a money now, t'will be reaal deear!"
It's the same as the plan to load out of town shopping malls with extra charges, because city centers are dying. The Irish approach could be summed up by "You're doing well? We'll soon see about that!"
It's a fcuking crab bucket.

If all you care about is fuel economy, then diesels are great

However if you ( society) wishes also to care about exhaust pipe emissions along with fuel consumption , then you have to view diesels as a dying technology and European governments are now discovering the error of their ways


IN many countries diesel does not have the same price difference as petrol and in the UK it can be dearer.

The most reliable engine I ever had was a straight 6 - 4 litre petrol , had 230K MILES on it with not a single failure.

Modern stressed diesels are poorer in every way ( and I own two ) compared to petrol. all my new purchases in the coming years will either be electric or petrol

jimgoose

"We’ve been fooling ourselves about emissions for years", says the Irish Times this morning:

http://www.irishtimes.com/business/manufacturing/vw-scandal-we-ve-been-fooling-ourselves-about-emissions-for-years-1.2374833


TL;DR - "As one engineer from a leading car firm told The Irish Times earlier this year: "We might save the planet from global warning by all turning to diesel, but if we do, we’ll all be too busy dying from [the pollution] to enjoy it...""

Mycroft H

Sorry lads, can't afford to change from a diesel any time soon. It's too expensive to drive a petrol.

BoatMad

Mycroft H wrote: »

Sorry lads, can't afford to change from a diesel any time soon. It's too expensive to drive a petrol.

increasing the tax on diesel would of course change your mind

also I see people do very funny total cost of ownership calculations

Ive talked to several buying a small diesel on PCP , that will never see the difference in fuel costs cover the extra cost of the car over the duration of the PCP.

Talk about fooling yourself , i.e. euros from me left pocket are cheaper then euros from me right pocket !!!!:pac:

CJhaughey

With the way petrols are being stressed these days, their days could be numbered as well.
Ford have seen fit to stick a turbo 1 litre in the new Mondeo as the 1.0 Ecoboost making 123 hp.
Any bets on how long that powerplant will last without exact servicing on or before service intervals?

robnet77

BoatMad wrote: »

Sorry, this aspect , puzzles me, why should you be compensated in Europe. Why is the vehicle " lower value ". Your car is the same today as it was when you bought it. It passed the European certification tests , tests that don't rely on the OBD Information by the way.
...

well, VW have confirmed that European cars are affected as well, I read your reasoning why they would not be but it seems more of an uneducated guess from you to be honest.

As for the value, I have already read a few articles appeared in Italy where they are forecasting VW to lower their prices in the short term to keep their market quote, then again we're talking about forecasts made by so called "experts" but nobody can predict the future now, can they?

BoatMad wrote: »

You can argue that's europes tests are weak or ineffectual , but that's nothing specifically to do with VW. That's a whole car industry issue.

... so why nobody is talking about the likes of Renault, Peugeot, Fiat, etc.?

p.s. do you own shares in VW by any chance?

Tea 1000

CJhaughey wrote: »

With the way petrols are being stressed these days, their days could be numbered as well.
Ford have seen fit to stick a turbo 1 litre in the new Mondeo as the 1.0 Ecoboost making 123 hp.
Any bets on how long that powerplant will last without exact servicing on or before service intervals?

The Japs had high bhp from petrols for years and no problems.
In fairness, in the 90's when we had small N/A reliable petrols and a bit larger N/A reliable diesels, the 1 litre petrol was putting out give or take 50bhp. The 2 litre diesel about 65-70bhp.
Now a days, turbo diesels are putting out nearly 3 times the power of the N/A same size engine. Turbo petrols, only a bit over twice the power.
Why would you think the petrol can't take twice the power but the diesel has no problems with three times it?

vintagevrs

The diesel with 200bhp doesn't really have no issues though does it compared with and older model that would just keep on going?
I had a 2l diesel with 177 bhp that was well maintained (almost half the recommended service intervals) and it threw me a bill of 1500 euro after 70k miles.

BoatMad

Why would you think the petrol can't take twice the power but the diesel has no problems with three times it?

There are some complex answers to that

the simple one is that diesel combustion technology was inefficient to begin with and has more room for innovation to improve combustion efficiency.

However what has been forgotten in that process, is that diesels are very dirty engines

Alanstrainor

The 1.0 eco-boost has a good track record so far at least! And at that horsepower it puts out more than the NA 1.8 that the mondeo has had for years. I reckon it would do just fine with that engine. I thought it was a great engine when I had it in a rental B-Max.

BoatMad

robnet77 wrote: »

well, VW have confirmed that European cars are affected as well, I read your reasoning why they would not be but it seems more of an uneducated guess from you to be honest.

As for the value, I have already read a few articles appeared in Italy where they are forecasting VW to lower their prices in the short term to keep their market quote, then again we're talking about forecasts made by so called "experts" but nobody can predict the future now, can they?



... so why nobody is talking about the likes of Renault, Peugeot, Fiat, etc.?

p.s. do you own shares in VW by any chance?

sorry mate your wrong here

VW has confirmed that the BOSCH test software is present in some euro models. Thats not surprising . because of the " moral panic" they are removing that software. nobody has either retested VW engines either before or after this event and no charges have been laid against VW Euro engines .Nothing will change in Euro VW diesels as a result of removing the software

VW has conformed that all its engines comply without using the specific BOSCH software and pass Euro 5 and Euro 6 tests

ICCT, the company that started all this , was actually doing a report evaluating why ALL europeans diesels were emitting way more pollution then the tests suggested. it actually found Mercedes to be the worst . THIS IS THE SCANDAL

ICCT then went to the states to compare its seemingly cleaner diesels ( as NOX legal limits are half that of europe ) since there are few diesels for sale in the USA, they used VW and BMW. what they found is that VW ( and to a lessor extent BMW) were exactly like their European counterparts, and this is why they sought an explanation from the EPA

( quick mate sell those shares in Merc now!!!)

People are reading the daily mail versions of this story and not reading the base documents.

samih

Design process (CAD/CAM), materials and engine management systems *AND* fuels and oils have moved on since 80's. Engines can be tested exhaustively as models on a computer before a single part has been made. The software would automatically identify stress points and where the failure would first occur. At the same time lots of material can be removed form areas with lower stresses where failure would never occur.

I wouldn't be surprised if 1.0 ecoboost actually turned out to outlast the rest of the car and the 1.6 n/a engine that it replaced.

John T Carroll

samih wrote: »

Design process (CAD/CAM), materials and engine management systems *AND* fuels and oils have moved on since 80's. Engines can be tested exhaustively as models on a computer before a single part has been made. The software would automatically identify stress points and where the failure would first occur. At the same time lots of material can be removed form areas with lower stresses where failure would never occur.

I wouldn't be surprised if 1.0 ecoboost actually turned out to outlast the rest of the car and the 1.6 n/a engine that it replaced.

Servicing, especially correct oil quality/change intervals will be vital for the longevity of this or other highy stressed engines. The only way one can ensure this is to buy new.

BoatMad

samih wrote: »

Design process (CAD/CAM), materials and engine management systems *AND* fuels and oils have moved on since 80's. Engines can be tested exhaustively as models on a computer before a single part has been made. The software would automatically identify stress points and where the failure would first occur. At the same time lots of material can be removed form areas with lower stresses where failure would never occur.

I wouldn't be surprised if 1.0 ecoboost actually turned out to outlast the rest of the car and the 1.6 n/a engine that it replaced.

most of the reasons your engine doesnt last , comes down to two actions
( leaving out the odd lemon)

(a ) cost reduction of an existing successful design

(b ) incorrect servicing

These days with care you'll get 150K miles out of a petrol no problem , my crappy fiat is on 270K km . in my fathers day the engine was scrap at 100K miles ,thats if the body hadn't fallen apart with rust before that

Special Circumstances

BoatMad wrote: »

most of the reasons your engine doesnt last , comes down to two actions
( leaving out the odd lemon)

(a ) cost reduction of an existing successful design

(b ) incorrect servicing

These days with care you'll get 150K miles out of a petrol no problem , my crappy fiat is on 270K km . in my fathers day the engine was scrap at 100K miles ,thats if the body hadn't fallen apart with rust before that

By "these days ..." do you mean to imply the lifespan of a petrol engine has improved due to better design or incremental improvements or disimproved due to planned obsolescence ? Sorry to be pedantic, but an early 90's nissan sunny petrol engine would have done that mileage easily, and still probably gave 40mpg. OK, apart from the engine it was a biscuit tin with a chocolate gearbox but... shouldn't we expect at least that lifespan from any modern engine without having to baby the things?

El festino

BoatMad wrote: »

If all you care about is fuel economy, then diesels are great

However if you ( society) wishes also to care about exhaust pipe emissions along with fuel consumption , then you have to view diesels as a dying technology and European governments are now discovering the error of their ways


IN many countries diesel does not have the same price difference as petrol and in the UK it can be dearer.

The most reliable engine I ever had was a straight 6 - 4 litre petrol , had 230K MILES on it with not a single failure.

Modern stressed diesels are poorer in every way ( and I own two ) compared to petrol. all my new purchases in the coming years will either be electric or petrol

I need a new car and looking at a petrol but the choice is terrible. I'm talking a 12/13 saloon car such as a Mondeo, Insignia, Passat, Octavia. I can get a 1.4/1.2, that's it.

A 1.4 passast for example, with the kids, golf clubs, dogs been lugged around in it, am I better off going for a diesel for now or is the car too 'large' for a petrol. Admittedly I know nothing about cars!

I would rather a petrol but it is difficult until something make manufacturers make more of them.

BoatMad

to compare petrol and diesels of similar size, you need to compare total cost of ownership, compute monthly costs of ownership inc fuel.

in general if you are city based or have a lot of short journeys stay away from a diesel.

Tea 1000

Special Circumstances wrote: »

By "these days ..." do you mean to imply the lifespan of a petrol engine has improved due to better design or incremental improvements or disimproved due to planned obsolescence ? Sorry to be pedantic, but an early 90's nissan sunny petrol engine would have done that mileage easily, and still probably gave 40mpg. OK, apart from the engine it was a biscuit tin with a chocolate gearbox but... shouldn't we expect at least that lifespan from any modern engine without having to baby the things?

The main problem these days with everything is that it's very well designed and very efficient, but sent out to be built by the cheapest bidder. Hence reliability issues!!

BoatMad

Tea 1000 wrote: »

The main problem these days with everything is that it's very well designed and very efficient, but sent out to be built by the cheapest bidder. Hence reliability issues!!

the good old days weren't reliable