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

MuppetCheck

Interesting video.

https://youtu.be/GhvI2oeBPtY

Tea 1000

BoatMad wrote: »

the good old days weren't reliable

90's Japanese cars are probably as reliable as combustion engines are ever going to get. The drive from the companies was on the build quality.
Now it's on cost everywhere.

BoatMad

MuppetCheck wrote: »

Interesting video.

https://youtu.be/GhvI2oeBPtY

Jesus, what leaps of logic those guys took, the car detected a fault and could have easily been running in a reduced power mode.and without coincident emissions testing , what did they prove - nothing

muppets

Markcheese

BoatMad wrote: »

Jesus, what leaps of logic those guys took, the car detected a fault and could have easily been running in a reduced power mode.and without coincident emissions testing , what did they prove - nothing

muppets

Doesn't a tdi legitimately have a test mode ?(as do most cars) - otherwise it throws a fault code because only the front wheels are turning -
So a more accurate comparison would have been to put the car into test mode (on 2 wheel rolling road) and compare it to the 4 wheel rolling road test-

BoatMad

Markcheese wrote: »

Doesn't a tdi legitimately have a test mode ?(as do most cars) - otherwise it throws a fault code because only the front wheels are turning -
So a more accurate comparison would have been to put the car into test mode (on 2 wheel rolling road) and compare it to the 4 wheel rolling road test-

correct , all modern cars have a test mode and the car is set up to confirm to the requirements of the national test that applies

in the case of the EPA ,my understanding is they do not do a tail pipe test, they plug into the OBD connector and read the results that way using the cars own measuring system

( the temptation to cheat must be strong there )


whereas these muppets , generated a traction control issue and the car quite rightly reduced powered

you could tell they were muppets, I loved the bit " tell about your 4 wheel drive rolling road - bubba" , "well its got a belt that drives the rear rollers - bob", sheesh nice one sherlock

Deedsie

Hi,

I have a 2009 2.0 TDI Golf. Is there anyway I can check today if my car is affected by this? From VIN number?

The engine is a CBDC apparently. Any suggestions how I could confirm if my car has EA189?

Thanks

dr.fuzzenstein

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

Fabulous, why don't I just buy one of those for my daily commute!
Here's why not:

Cmax between 2009 and 2015:

km, start 110000 now 435000= 325000
Car, bought for €8k, no worth maybe €3.5, €5000
Insurance, €440p/a= €2520
Tax: can't be arsed looking it up, maybe €600 p/a= €3000
FUEL: estimating 1.4 middling per liter and around 6l/100 km= 19500 liters= €27300
Servicing:
Cheap hoor on tires, €500 a year=€3000, 16.25 oil changes (performed by yours truly), €812.5 in total, one emergency fuel line problem+timing belt=€600, clutch €600, shocks €300, springs €100, brake parts €150, add misc like lights and other fiddly crap €200=
€5762.5 **


Grand Total:
€43582


Now let's look at your car and just take the engine end fuel into consideration:

changes:
Tax p/a =€1080=€5400
Fuel, considering a VERY generous 8 liters/100km and a unit price of €1.50, 26000 liters= €39000!!!
Grand total:
€57682 in the very, very best possible circumstances!

Total difference:
€14100

But sure, why don't I buy a 4 fcuking liter petrol for my daily 120 km commute! :rolleyes:
But sure the argument of "dem deisels, shure they'll be fallin' apart every 5 meters!" from some bloke down the pub is enough to forget my ACTUAL EXPERIENCE with many, MANY diesels over the years and buy a 4 fcuking liter petrol!


CHALLENGE:

Alright petrol heads, here's a brainteaser for you:
Considering that I do 65000 km per annum, like a roomy vehicle, can't run over the above costs by a single cent (because it's hard as it is) and I need a bit of poke for the motorway journey, what is your recommendation I buy?
Oh yes, I can't get any credit, so saying "get a loan" won't work. Not that I could afford to pay it back anyway, driving a petrol
It's diesel for me and if diesel won't work, a classic 1980's diesel Merc and chip fat.


**
Looking over my repair bill, oh yes, I drive a catastrophically unreliable car!
So far it has needed oil, filters, tires, springs, shocks, a timing belt, a clutch, just awful.
No wait, petrol cars need those too? Well smack me down with a flagpole!

Myth busted.

edit:
I don't expect too many thinks (or even thanks) for my work, because facts and truth usually don't get you any thanks here.

Second edit:

Between 2001 and 2015 I have driven an 04 Focus, a 2009 Connect, a 1999 Focus Estate, a 2006 CMax and some abortion of a 1997 Renault 1.9 Megavan.
The Km between all of them reach near enough the half a million mark or above. Injectors: none. Fuel Pumps: none engines blown: none, DMF's: 1, after 250k km.
Suuuuure, diesels are all rubbish and unreliable.

FortySeven

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Fabulous, why don't I just buy one of those for my daily commute!
Here's why not:

Cmax between 2009 and 2015:

km, start 110000 now 435000= 325000
Car, bought for €8k, no worth maybe €3.5, €5000
Insurance, €440p/a= €2520
Tax: can't be arsed looking it up, maybe €600 p/a= €3000
FUEL: estimating 1.4 middling per liter and around 6l/100 km= 19500 liters= €27300
Servicing:
Cheap hoor on tires, €500 a year=€3000, 16.25 oil changes (performed by yours truly), €812.5 in total, one emergency fuel line problem+timing belt=€600, clutch €600, shocks €300, springs €100, brake parts €150, add misc like lights and other fiddly crap €200=
€5762.5 **


Grand Total:
€43582


Now let's look at your car and just take the engine end fuel into consideration:

changes:
Tax p/a =€1080=€5400
Fuel, considering a VERY generous 8 liters/100km and a unit price of €1.50, 26000 liters= €39000!!!
Grand total:
€57682 in the very, very best possible circumstances!

Total difference:
€14100

But sure, why don't I buy a 4 fcuking liter petrol for my daily 120 km commute! :rolleyes:
But sure the argument of "dem deisels, shure they'll be fallin' apart every 5 meters!" from some bloke down the pub is enough to forget my ACTUAL EXPERIENCE with many, MANY diesels over the years and buy a 4 fcuking liter petrol!


CHALLENGE:

Alright petrol heads, here's a brainteaser for you:
Considering that I do 65000 km per annum, like a roomy vehicle, can't run over the above costs by a single cent (because it's hard as it is) and I need a bit of poke for the motorway journey, what is your recommendation I buy?
Oh yes, I can't get any credit, so saying "get a loan" won't work. Not that I could afford to pay it back anyway, driving a petrol
It's diesel for me and if diesel won't work, a classic 1980's diesel Merc and chip fat.


**
Looking over my repair bill, oh yes, I drive a catastrophically unreliable car!
So far it has needed oil, filters, tires, springs, shocks, a timing belt, a clutch, just awful.
No wait, petrol cars need those too? Well smack me down with a flagpole!

Myth busted.

edit:
I don't expect too many thinks (or even thanks) for my work, because facts and truth usually don't get you any thanks here.

Second edit:

Between 2001 and 2015 I have driven an 04 Focus, a 2009 Connect, a 1999 Focus Estate, a 2006 CMax and some abortion of a 1997 Renault 1.9 Megavan.
The Km between all of them reach near enough the half a million mark or above. Injectors: none. Fuel Pumps: none engines blown: none, DMF's: 1, after 250k km.
Suuuuure, diesels are all rubbish and unreliable.

You state your list of cars that never gave you trouble, tell me, why did you sell a car that gave no trouble? Roughly 3 years ownership of each car and off it went? I bet there are 5 people who wished they never bought that car that never broke off you. I have a friend who does the same, buys car, drives car with basic maintenence, sells car when it is running like a dog and has plenty issues all about to pop off a firecracker in his wallet.

johnny osbourne

wir mussen die Amerikaner ueber den tresen ziehen wegen diese scheiss emmisions,


(we have to trick the americans about the emmissions)

dr.fuzzenstein

FortySeven wrote: »

You state your list of cars that never gave you trouble, tell me, why did you sell a car that gave no trouble? Roughly 3 years ownership of each car and off it went? I bet there are 5 people who wished they never bought that car that never broke off you. I have a friend who does the same, buys car, drives car with basic maintenence, sells car when it is running like a dog and has plenty issues all about to pop off a firecracker in his wallet.

Megane, 04 Focus and Connect, company vans, not my decision, 1999 Focus bought for a song and had to be replaced with Cmax for daily commute.
Cmax has done 325k km since I bought it and is running better than the first day.
So, a rant in response to facts, have some more facts.

FortySeven

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Megane, 04 Focus and Connect, company vans, not my decision, 1999 Focus bought for a song and had to be replaced with Cmax for daily commute.
Cmax has done 325k km since I bought it and is running better than the first day.
So, a rant in response to facts, have some more facts.

I work in a Ford dealership. I call BS. I see these cars everyday. 325k km? Who are you kidding?

FortySeven

A timeline of deception

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-10-02/volkswagen-decade-deception-full-chronology

robbie99

BoatMad wrote: »

correct , all modern cars have a test mode and the car is set up to confirm to the requirements of the national test that applies

in the case of the EPA ,my understanding is they do not do a tail pipe test, they plug into the OBD connector and read the results that way using the cars own measuring system

( the temptation to cheat must be strong there )


whereas these muppets , generated a traction control issue and the car quite rightly reduced powered

you could tell they were muppets, I loved the bit " tell about your 4 wheel drive rolling road - bubba" , "well its got a belt that drives the rear rollers - bob", sheesh nice one sherlock

Hey boatmad, you should read the EPA's Notice of Violation to VW. It describes how VW cheated the certification testing.

http://www3.epa.gov/otaq/cert/documents/vw-nov-caa-09-18-15.pdf

You should also keep in mind that VW's NOx emissions were up to 40 times (that's 4000%, not 40%) higher than allowed.

The certification testing for emissions is a tailpipe test.

What VW did was that when it sensed that it was on a dyno being tested, it ran the engine on a "dyno calibration" map that detuned the engine and ran the emission reducing systems at 100%. This allowed them to pass the test. They didn't need to fake any engine parameters or values being passed through the OBD port. The OBD port values only come into play during their NCT equivalent testing where they were only checking for fault codes.

dr.fuzzenstein

FortySeven wrote: »

I work in a Ford dealership. I call BS. I see these cars everyday. 325k km? Who are you kidding?

Bought in 09 with about 110k km on it, currently 345k km on it. I can gladly furnish a pic of the mileage readout, as well as current NCT certificate and report. Smoke 0.150 /m whatever that means.
Engine, gearbox, turbo and injectors all original, fuel pump was once replaced with a second hand one bought for a hundred euro as a fault elimination exercise. It wasn't the fuel pump. Still have original pump sitting on shelf should I ever need it.

edit:
Worked it out, 13 cent/km all in. I could do it cheaper with petrol, but I would be driving a Smart.
Unlike a lot of people who own a diesel, I actually do the mileage.

Toyotafanboi

FortySeven wrote: »

I work in a Ford dealership. I call BS. I see these cars everyday. 325k km? Who are you kidding?

Are you saying a midern diesel ford can't do 180k miles?

FortySeven

Toyotafanboi wrote: »

Are you saying a midern diesel ford can't do 180k miles?

Where did I say that?

Toyotafanboi

FortySeven wrote: »

Where did I say that?

Here?

FortySeven wrote: »

I work in a Ford dealership. I call BS. I see these cars everyday. 325k km? Who are you kidding?

FortySeven

Toyotafanboi wrote: »

Here?

We are talking about maintenance costs. Look here.

The Km between all of them reach near enough the half a million mark or above. Injectors: none. Fuel Pumps: none engines blown: none, DMF's: 1, after 250k km.

It is a rare diesel that has not had one of the issues he listed with that mileage.

dr.fuzzenstein

FortySeven wrote: »

We are talking about maintenance costs. Look here.



It is a rare diesel that has not had one of the issues he listed with that mileage.

Well, it's had timing belt, 1 electrical fault (not sure, garage fixed it), a fuel line drawing air, clutch and DMF, several sets of pads, discs all round, shocks all round, 2 rear bearings (forgot about those), rear brake disc shields, front springs, front top mounts, one inner tie rod end, some front bushings that always go in them, a heap of oilchanges, a heap of filters (oil, air and diesel), a bunch of lights, a heap of tires, a battery, in the very beginning a hose from intercooler to intake blown (fixed by garage), blower motor resistor, a fuel pump put in that was probably older than the one that came out, the fuel line from filter to pump, a coolant hose (replaced with something pulled from a hedge) and a thermostat. That should pretty much cover it.
Clutch, timing belt, fuel line, bushings, tires (of course), elelctrical fault, a blown hose (under warranty) were fixed by the garage. Everything else, by myself. Servicing yourself will save quite a few bucks.

So all in all I may be off in servicing costs, but not by much. So my maintenance goes quite a bit past basic. Biggest single expense by quite a distance is still fuel cost.
Currently considering maybe rebuilding turbo next year, it's whining a tiny bit. More a precaution than anything else.
I guess I'm also quite lucky, but always found Fords to be reliable. When I worked for my last employer (2001 to 2009), they changed over to Ford in 2004. In that time maybe 2 cars didn't start and that was a bad earth. That is for a fleet of cars. Before it was Renault and after it was Citroen, things were quite a bit different with those! Marzipan cars they were called.

RenP

The initial test in USA was conducted in 2013 and interesting one out of three vehicle tested, passed the emissions in real world.
That was BMW X5. the failed ones were Volkswagon Jetta and Passat.
Since I don't have many posts to my name, I cannot post the link here.
But, interested individuals may search "10 Volkswagen Scandal Facts WMNews Ep. 47 " in YouTube

BoatMad

robbie99 wrote: »

Hey boatmad, you should read the EPA's Notice of Violation to VW. It describes how VW cheated the certification testing.

http://www3.epa.gov/otaq/cert/documents/vw-nov-caa-09-18-15.pdf

You should also keep in mind that VW's NOx emissions were up to 40 times (that's 4000%, not 40%) higher than allowed.

The certification testing for emissions is a tailpipe test.

What VW did was that when it sensed that it was on a dyno being tested, it ran the engine on a "dyno calibration" map that detuned the engine and ran the emission reducing systems at 100%. This allowed them to pass the test. They didn't need to fake any engine parameters or values being passed through the OBD port. The OBD port values only come into play during their NCT equivalent testing where they were only checking for fault codes.

I read through your link completely. It contains no informatio on the specific test methods of the CLean Air Act. The letter refers to the testing done by West Virginia university AFTER ICCT had altered the epa of its findings.

the EPs self certification test saga

The actual tests are covered in 40 CFR 86 part R. Subpart R.
I quote the relevant section

"
(G) For the 2012 through 2014 model years only, in lieu of testing a vehicle for N2O emissions, a manufacturer may provide a statement in its application for certification that such vehicles comply with the applicable standards. Such a statement must be based on previous emission tests, development tests, or other appropriate information and good engineering judgment.
"

The EPA essentially allows for self certification.

who actually detected the issues
Remember the epa caught none of this by its own hands or actions. It was a European body the ICCT , which was doing a study in Europe where it discovers that actual real world emissions of diesels was in excess of 40 times permitted levels ( and yes you are right , mine was a misprint )

These results were published and are available online. Note it particularly mentioned Mercedes as the worst culprit. Tpthe fact is that European regulatory authorities know full well that on road diesels can't attain the test data specified in Euro 5 and euro 6 NOX on the road.

the real scandal

Even though europes NOX levels are set at TWICE the USA's Teir 2 levels , on road euro diesels in Europe from virtually all manufacturers , emit significantly more pollutants , more co2 and higher litres / 100 then officially certified

The ICCT data has been used by several lobby groups in Europe to lobby the EU commission and the German government. In the past, critical of real world diesel s . They were ignored and rebuffed.

then what happened
The ICCT under the auspices of WVU , decided to test major euro diesels in the USA to highlight to the EU regulatory regimes ( mistakenly ) that euro diesels in the USA seemingly can pass the much more stringent US Teir 2 NOX levels , the only major euro brand they can compare is certain VW models and BMWs X5 , most euro diesels are not sold in the USA

What they discover is that the euro diesels are equally as bad as in Europe , despite being seeming, certified under a tougher NOX regime.

ok the cats out of the bag , what did ICCT do

ICCT , through. WVU , asked the EPA to explain how could such emissions be legal in the US . EPA are provided with all the data from the ICCT tests. The EPA queries VAG , VAG spend most of 2014,2015 obsfuscating the issue , claiming faults etc. they even effect a recall that does not satisfy the EPA.

The EPA then in the face of VWs reluctance to explain the issue , threaten to withhold certification of 2015-2016 modeis, defying VW access to USA markets.

VW admits , in a phone call to the EPA , that the cars contain software that detects dyno testing . EPA then alleges that this software is defined as a " defeat device " as designated by 40 CFR 86 of the CAA.

ok summarise

* The NOX tests are essentially self certified in the USA under 40 CFR 86

* did VW falsify the self certification , the EPA have not alleged that.

* the real world testing by WVU , is not the test specified in 40 CFR 86 part R , however the CAA while it allows transgressions over the specified NOX levels requires the engine to comply in all normal use conditions. Clear vags EN 189 engine range does not comply

* the EPA demand the removal of the " defeat device " and demand VAG put forward a solution to make existing engines compliant

* VAG have yet to detail how that will be done. In fact there is evidence it may be impossible for VAG to make the engines compliant. VW could be faced with withdrawing 12 million existing vehicles from the US market., truely a doomsday scenario

and back in Europe

* VAG categorically states that current VW engines are fully compliant with Euro 5 and Euro 6 NOX emissions standards , which of course are more lenient then the USA.

* under pressure VAG in europe agree to recall cars to remove they" defeat software " which they admit is installed in European cars.

questions that have not been answered

* There is no evidence that the " defeat software " was ever used to cheat an official test. The EPA has merely alleged the defeat device is present and VW is in violation of the CAA. So did VW lie on the self certification tests

* no official tests to determine actual NOX levels have been carried out in the USA before the EPA was altered by ICCT. Subsequently the CARB tested a 2012 jetta and a 2014 passat , which merely confirmed the ICCT data. Further more the testing revealed that the ODB data did not reflect the actual pollutants being produced when under dyno testing. Again it seems VW diesels are never compliant , on a dyno or off it. The defeat software was not designed to defeat the CAA tests , there was no need , VAG self certified NOX emissions. This is an EPA scandal

* can VAG ever meet Teir 2 NOX with small diesels ?

* vag only acknowledged the existence of a defeat software , when they could not advance reasons why the tested models failed to pass the CARB tests when certification. The EPA did not detect the defeat software. They noticed the ODB data did not detect the correct emissions data when on a dyno

* EU regulators have known for some time that all small euro diesels are producing significantly more pollutants on road then official tests show. Yet nothing has been done

* no one in Europe has done official tests to determine diesel pollutants in the light of the ICCT data.

The scandal is a failure of regulation not VW. VW simply were the ones with their hands in the cookie jar just when the lights got switched on, but lots more cookies are missing and more importantly euro-mum knew they were going missing. Hmmm

BoatMad

Just to clarify a few things

1, EPA tests for NOX are self certified by the manufacturers, this has long been a criticism of the CAA tests. ( and the EPA )

2. The defeat software doesn't turn on anything to make the engine compliant , it merely lies through the ODB connector. , by law under the CAA a car must have an ODB port and must collect and report the levels of stated pollutants. The EPA violation letter makes reference to the control of the NOX lean trap , but yet no testing procedure has been identified where this was discovered. The CARB tests discovered the OBD data was misleading , the car never compiled on the dyno or on the road.

Did the EPA merely make this claim because VW told them what the software does. ?


3. Unless the tests are somewhere , to my understanding no one has shown that VW diesels EVER Complied with the CAA NOX levels , defeat device or not. What they did was lie as in point 2.

4. This would suggest that 2012-2014 small VW engines were never compliant and VW knew about it. The fact that any simple tail pipe test would reveal it, shows that VW knee no one in the US does tailpipe testing as standard.

5. Tailpipe testing is used in conformance testing in Europe , but under euro test conditions the car is carefully configured for such tests. VW have stated that under those conditions the engines are euro 5 or 6 compliant. That statement has or has not been tested.

6. Removing the defeat software will not do anything one way or the other to the engines setup, either pollutants , or performance, in the us or Europe

7. NCT testing doesn't read NOX levels.

BoatMad

Sorry duplicate

BoatMad

Just in case anyone is confused. In the USA conformance testing is based on a series of self certification tests , ie the manufacturer follows a defined EPA test procedure and submits the results

From the EPA web site

"Once EPA sets emission standards for a particular engine and/or vehicle category, manufacturers must produce engines that meet those engine and motor vehicle within the chain of commerce in the United States to meet a set of emission standards and conformity requirements. Anyone wishing to sell an engine or vehicle within the United States must demonstrate compliance with the CAA and all applicable EPA regulations. Upon adequate representation of conformity by the manufacturer and possibly confirmatory testing by EPA, EPA may issue a Certificate of Conformity which provides authorization for production and sales within the United States.

The certification process begins when a manufacturer submits an application for certification to EPA for a group of vehicles or engines having similar design and emission characteristics. EPA requires manufacturers to provide detailed information to show that they have met all of the applicable requirements to qualify for a certificate of conformity. The application for certification describes those vehicles or engines specifically covered by the certificate of conformity. The certificate is a license to produce and sell the vehicle and covers only those vehicles within the timeframe of the corresponding implementation schedule.

The Clean Air Act (CAA) requires every or engines specifically described in the application.

All of EPA’s emission regulations specify test procedures to measure engine or vehicle emission levels. EPA uses the test results to determine compliance with the applicable emission standards."

Note the sentence " possible conformity testing " , the EPA does not habitually test the cars them selves , relying on the manufacturers test data, in practice unless it suspects something it does no independent testing. 40 CFR 86 specifies test procedures and standards but it's up to VW to run the EPA test

BoatMad

By the way , for you original source material junkies this is mega interesting

Heres the letter that CARB, who actually did the testing ( the EPA never tested anything ) wrote to VW http://www.arb.ca.gov/newsrel/in_use_compliance_letter.pdf

It makes interesting reading , note that this letter which gives the chronology does not mention stuff about steering wheels not moving or traction control being off. It merely says that CARB could not get the engine to be compliant in several of its tests Even after the recall , whilst the NOX improved it didn't improve enough

Then it was VW that admitted that the software existed and presumably explained how it worked.

What's not clear is that with or without the software , was the engine ever compliant. The letter would seem to suggest that it was NEVER compliant.

I wonder is VW conveniently allowing the software ruse to take the blame to avoid the issue that in fact VW falsified the EPA test results in the first place. Remember these are self certified tests done by VW and submitted to the EPA. This would be much more serious for VAG , as while one is a violation of the defeat device clause of the CAA , the other is corporate malfeasance on a grand scale, ie knowingly introducing an non compliant engine into the US and falsifying the data to allow it to be deemed approved.

I suspect VAG will be forced to take back all vehicles and compensate the owners according as I suspect the problem can't be fixed.

Deedsie

I have a 2009 2.0 TDI Golf. Is there anyway I can check today if my car is affected by this? From VIN number?

The engine is a CBDC apparently. Any suggestions how I could confirm if my car has EA189?

CJhaughey

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.

All well and good saying that computer models are able to predict the engine life based on Finite element analysis but in the real world the quality of fuels has actually deteriorated and the lubrication depends on a strict servicing schedule using for the most part low SAPS oil.
Add to this part being supplied from the cheapest outsourced makers.
If any one part of this equation is neglected then the whole model is thrown out and lifetime will probably be reduced accordingly.
During the engines lifetime it may be found that service intervals actually have to be reduced from their over optimistic first levels.
A good example is the DV6 PSA diesels which if not maintained correctly suffer a host of terminal faults which can lead to the engine being beyond repair.
Cars are more powerful from smaller displacements these days but the life cycle is also shorter than older engines which are not as stressed.

dr.fuzzenstein

Thanks Boat Mad, all this makes for very interesting reading. Trouble sleeping?
This really is fascinating and we'll see if others get caught.

gctest50

BoatMad wrote: »

...........
I suspect VAG will be forced to take back all vehicles and compensate the owners according as I suspect the problem can't be fixed.

time to buy shares in the sodium silicate factory :P

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB124934376942503053

Back in suburban Chicago, Mr. Mueller says his company sold 15,000 gallons of sodium silicate last week, up from a typical level of 200 gallons a week. "At one point this week I worked 32 hours without a break," says Mr. Mueller.

dr.fuzzenstein

I would be very surprised if a car was made illegal to drive and own. And I would like to know if those ginormous US made pickup trucks that leave a cloud of smoke like a steam engine are anywhere near as clean as the VW's. They probably have an exemption, if your vehicle is "'murican" enough, it is exempt from any environmental laws.
Ah, would you know it, they are:
http://electrifyingtimes.com/gasguzzlerloophole.html