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

pippip

Another twist the VW saga....Leo's film is going to be epic

German prosecutors have widened their investigation of Volkswagen to include suspicions of tax evasion linked to the emissions cheating scandal.

Prosecutor Birgit Seel said the probe was focused on five Volkswagen employees but did not release their names.

The focus of the investigation is on tax breaks Volkswagen received for producing low-polluting cars that it might not have qualified for if the emissions had been correctly reported, Ms Seel said.


http://www.breakingnews.ie/business/german-volkswagen-investigation-expands-to-include-tax-evasion-707190.html

Stallingrad

The company is looking increasingly ****!d.

mickdw

Stallingrad wrote: »

The company is looking increasingly ****!d.

Not VW fault.
We asked for low emissions cars, the hardworking Germans gave us what we wanted. They were only producing what we asked for. We had an incredible appetite for new cars, way beyond what we should be driving, after all the German worker drives an older car.
The Germans did nothing wrong. It was the greedy consumerism of the irish that pushed the entire low emissions agenda unfortunately dragging the large German corporation down with us.
Clearly we lost our heads, dragged vw into 100 billion euro loses and we must pay.
Some would foolishly argue that the most cost effective solution here would be to sacrifice vw, however our knowledgeable government advise that this would not be possible and clearly the irish people must pay for their wrong doing.
A levy on all earnings of the irish workforce would be the most reasonable option here. Ireland can then hold its head high and show the world that we pay our debts and are a strong and stable nation.

Special Circumstances

haha you had me going there for the first few sentences mickdw

We all partied wha? Ain't no party like a diesel nox party...

robbie99

Ya know, whatever losses VAG incur and possible state aid required, will be nothing compared to what little Ireland had to pump into our banks. I don't want to see VAG go bust and disappear, but equally I've no sympathy for them.

Long Time Lurker

robbie99 wrote: »

Ya know, whatever losses VAG incur and possible state aid required, will be nothing compared to what little Ireland had to pump into our banks. I don't want to see VAG go bust and disappear, but equally I've no sympathy for them.

Not that it would happen but I couldn't care less.

Ron Burgundy II

robbie99 wrote: »

Ya know, whatever losses VAG incur and possible state aid required, will be nothing compared to what little Ireland had to pump into our banks. I don't want to see VAG go bust and disappear, but equally I've no sympathy for them.

VW are too big to fail. I would imagine huge restructuring will take place with some of the brands in their control will be off loaded such as Scania, MAN etc as these companies seem to be unaffected at the moment anyway.

The German Gov would surely step in somewhere to provide aid of some sort, this company is huge employer for the city of Wolfsburg.

Long Time Lurker

Ron Burgundy II wrote: »

The German Gov would surely step in somewhere to provide aid of some sort, this company is huge employer for the city of Wolfsburg.

They're not allowed to step in. Ultimately survival would depend on the vultures circling. Could you imagine it. GM buying Skoda, the Chinese buying VW, heaven forbid Fiat Spa popping Audi in beside Ferrari.

colm_mcm

I don't think Audi/Seat/skoda would be that attractive a proposition for a buyout without platform sharing.

colm_mcm

Renault Estace 1.6 dci (who even knew such a thing existed!) found to emit 25 times the published levels of Noxxes

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/11/24/renault-emissions-idUSL8N13J1M120151124

vectra

colm_mcm wrote: »

Renault Estace 1.6 dci (who even knew such a thing existed!) found to emit 25 times the published levels of Noxxes

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/11/24/renault-emissions-idUSL8N13J1M120151124

Wouldn't that be the same as the 1.6 nissan engine?

BoatMad

In my view, the panorama programme , whilst telling us basically what we already knew , showed to me, that in fact there is no " defeat software " ,virtually ALL. small diesels are breaking emmissions limits on road. It's worth pointing out that the denials of Opel in the bbc programme were nearly identical to what VW said initially to the CARB when it finally tested the VWs.

VWs invented the " defeat software " ( I mean just publish that part of the ECU source code, if it exists ) to distract attention from the fact that the industry cant build small compliant diesels. VW was faced with saying ( a ) " shucks we can't make compliant diesels " , or ( b ) " it's 5 rogue engineers in room 43A that's to blame "

The scandal is the existence of EU tests that implicitly accept that the car will pollute way over the test figures.

As the retired testing inspector on panarama said "we been testing the wrong things in the wrong way , for some time "

VW only difference , is it got caught.

Furthermore without the connivence of regulators , it will not be able to make these cars compliant , no VW will be capable of outputting on the road , as little emissions as it will in the test. , why ,because it's basically scientifically impossible to build a small capacity diesel , sufficently powerful , low fuel consumption , low co2 , low NOX engine

FortySeven

So we are back to the death of diesel. Excellent.

BoatMad

FortySeven wrote: »

So we are back to the death of diesel. Excellent.

Yes , except the punters want 4 l/100 km cheaper fuel cars. That today equals diesel

dr.fuzzenstein

BoatMad wrote: »

Yes , except the punters want 4 l/100 km cheaper fuel cars. That today equals diesel

And I don't see that as an unreasonable request and why should we now be told "I'm sorry, but you will now have to put up with worse fuel economy and more expensive fuel".
I know the "enthusiasts" want everyone to drive 3.5 liter petrols, or if we are cost conscious, 2 liter turbo petrols, but people who drive nice cars for 10 miles on the weekend tend to lose sight of the fact that a lot of us have to get around and we have to do it for as cheap as possible. And then sneer at that sentiment as if it's something to be ashamed of.
Bollocks to that, petrol is not an option for many people, maybe diesel was missold, but in the long run it's not going anywhere.
I know that there are some people on this thread rubbing their hands with glee and dancing from foot to foot at the thought that diesel will be completely abolished in all applications by next Tuesday and there is already an small puddle under their feet from all the excitement, but this is simply not going to happen. As much as you all relish the prospect of millions of commuters being taxed off the road and thousands of workers being made redundant, no politician will do that if a compromise can be found. No government, even in the EU, is obstinate enough to cost themselves billions or even trillions, just so they can say at the end "at least I followed the law to the very letter". It doesn't work like that in the real world.
I dare say that diesel will be used differently and Mary going to the shop will be pushed towards small petrol, hybrid or EV, but in the end there are applications where you cannot have petrol over diesel, it simply doesn't compute, the figures just do not support it.

Toyotafanboi

Not that I disagree with your point, but modern petrol technology is catching up with diesel in terms of fuel efficiency and (at least we are lead to believe) it's cleaner too. as you say, probably not today or tomorrow but the medium to long term prospects for diesel are not good at present unless the technology can be developed to make it much much cleaner. At the moment, yes diesel makes much more sense for commercial applications and certain private applications, but who is to say it will always be the case?

jimgoose

Toyotafanboi wrote: »

Not that I disagree with your point, but modern petrol technology is catching up with diesel in terms of fuel efficiency and (at least we are lead to believe) it's cleaner too...

Can I just say, GDI setups with the living ballacks turbo'd out of them are no slouches for particulate emissions either. They're catching up right enough.

Special Circumstances

BoatMad wrote: »

In my view, the panorama programme , whilst telling us basically what we already knew , showed to me, that in fact there is no " defeat software " ,virtually ALL. small diesels are breaking emmissions limits on road. It's worth pointing out that the denials of Opel in the bbc programme were nearly identical to what VW said initially to the CARB when it finally tested the VWs.

VWs invented the " defeat software " ( I mean just publish that part of the ECU source code, if it exists ) to distract attention from the fact that the industry cant build small compliant diesels. VW was faced with saying ( a ) " shucks we can't make compliant diesels " , or ( b ) " it's 5 rogue engineers in room 43A that's to blame "

The scandal is the existence of EU tests that implicitly accept that the car will pollute way over the test figures.

As the retired testing inspector on panarama said "we been testing the wrong things in the wrong way , for some time "

VW only difference , is it got caught.

Furthermore without the connivence of regulators , it will not be able to make these cars compliant , no VW will be capable of outputting on the road , as little emissions as it will in the test. , why ,because it's basically scientifically impossible to build a small capacity diesel , sufficently powerful , low fuel consumption , low co2 , low NOX engine

No.


The fact that the lab tests are a joke and real world emissions differ from lab emissions in contrived tests is a completely different matter to "defeat devices".

A "defeat device" turns on, or boosts, emissions controls solely for the purpose of passing or improving emissions tests. These emissions controls are not active (at all or in the smae order of magnitude) under any other circumstances on cars with defeat devices.


This is fundamentally different to building a car that performs as specified under some (very select) real world conditions which are approximated by the lab tests.
(OK, yes, I concede that it's pretty much a moral difference, small diesels are still a pox on health and the environment whether their gaming of the tests is "unsporting" or not)


Again, I'm going to have to say you either have an agenda here or there are multiple personalities posting under your account or you just like contradicting anyone you can - in the last few days you have said - "the lab tests are a joke" - "real world tests are irrelevant, if it passes in the lab then that's all that matters" - "they can't build compliant small diesels because their behaviour differs in the real world" - "theres no such thing as defeat software, they are all at the same thing". Taken in pairs those statements needn't be mutually exclusive but you can't have all at once.

Whether defeat software exists or not will be very easy to see once the "fixes" are approved. The fact that all these manufacturers tear down and analyse any new tech from competitors and VW haven't managed to overtly or covertly "dob in" anyone else... well either VW are not smart enough to pick up on competitors using defeat devices (to be fair they did come very late to the CR party) or the competitors aren't using defeat devices, just the methods that officials turn a blind eye to.

FortySeven

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

And I don't see that as an unreasonable request and why should we now be told "I'm sorry, but you will now have to put up with worse fuel economy and more expensive fuel".
I know the "enthusiasts" want everyone to drive 3.5 liter petrols, or if we are cost conscious, 2 liter turbo petrols, but people who drive nice cars for 10 miles on the weekend tend to lose sight of the fact that a lot of us have to get around and we have to do it for as cheap as possible. And then sneer at that sentiment as if it's something to be ashamed of.
Bollocks to that, petrol is not an option for many people, maybe diesel was missold, but in the long run it's not going anywhere.
I know that there are some people on this thread rubbing their hands with glee and dancing from foot to foot at the thought that diesel will be completely abolished in all applications by next Tuesday and there is already an small puddle under their feet from all the excitement, but this is simply not going to happen. As much as you all relish the prospect of millions of commuters being taxed off the road and thousands of workers being made redundant, no politician will do that if a compromise can be found. No government, even in the EU, is obstinate enough to cost themselves billions or even trillions, just so they can say at the end "at least I followed the law to the very letter". It doesn't work like that in the real world.
I dare say that diesel will be used differently and Mary going to the shop will be pushed towards small petrol, hybrid or EV, but in the end there are applications where you cannot have petrol over diesel, it simply doesn't compute, the figures just do not support it.

What you are saying is that your lifestyle is more important than everyone else's clean air. I manage with petrol. Why can't you?

Long Time Lurker

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

And I don't see that as an unreasonable request and why should we now be told "I'm sorry, but you will now have to put up with worse fuel economy and more expensive fuel".
I know the "enthusiasts" want everyone to drive 3.5 liter petrols, or if we are cost conscious, 2 liter turbo petrols, but people who drive nice cars for 10 miles on the weekend tend to lose sight of the fact that a lot of us have to get around and we have to do it for as cheap as possible. And then sneer at that sentiment as if it's something to be ashamed of.
Bollocks to that, petrol is not an option for many people, maybe diesel was missold, but in the long run it's not going anywhere.
I know that there are some people on this thread rubbing their hands with glee and dancing from foot to foot at the thought that diesel will be completely abolished in all applications by next Tuesday and there is already an small puddle under their feet from all the excitement, but this is simply not going to happen. As much as you all relish the prospect of millions of commuters being taxed off the road and thousands of workers being made redundant, no politician will do that if a compromise can be found. No government, even in the EU, is obstinate enough to cost themselves billions or even trillions, just so they can say at the end "at least I followed the law to the very letter". It doesn't work like that in the real world.
I dare say that diesel will be used differently and Mary going to the shop will be pushed towards small petrol, hybrid or EV, but in the end there are applications where you cannot have petrol over diesel, it simply doesn't compute, the figures just do not support it.

Options:

A) Reduce power outputs from diesels to help return real world MPG figures thus reducing real world Nox/Co2 emissions.

Reduce taxes on petrol considerably so as to encourage the use of it over diesel. Allow companies to reclaim VAT on petrol too so as to make it viable for high mileage vehicles.

C) Reduce speed limits everywhere and enforce it vigorously. Nothing will reduce consumption more than lower limits.

And its on this point that I suggest Germany should take note. One wonders how much more fuel Germany, as a country, burns through every year compared to its European neighbours because of speed limitless Autobahns. The exponential increase in consumption because of Germans doing 150 mph everywhere is monumental. To get real solutions and real answers then real questions have to be asked. The nonsense we've been up to with regulation thus far has been farcical.

josip

Long Time Lurker wrote: »

... One wonders how much more fuel Germany, as a country, burns through every year compared to its European neighbours because of speed limitless Autobahns. The exponential increase in consumption because of Germans doing 150 mph everywhere is monumental. To get real solutions and real answers then real questions have to be asked. The nonsense we've been up to with regulation thus far has been farcical.

I don't disagree with your point about lower speed limits reducing emissions, but have you ever driven in Germany? The vast majority of them drive at speeds similar to other motorway users in other countries in my experience.
Less than 2% ever drive at 160kph+ I think.
"Germans doing 150mph everywhere" is a bit off the mark.

Long Time Lurker

colm_mcm wrote: »

I don't think Audi/Seat/skoda would be that attractive a proposition for a buyout without platform sharing.

Agreed.

Audi/Alfa/Lancia/Maserati/Jeep

Skoda/Opel/Chevrolet/Buick

VW/Geely :eek:

Seat ...... nah never mind

BoatMad

Again, I'm going to have to say you either have an agenda here or there are multiple personalities posting under your account or you just like contradicting anyone you can - in the last few days you have said - "the lab tests are a joke" - "real world tests are irrelevant, if it passes in the lab then that's all that matters" - "they can't build compliant small diesels because their behaviour differs in the real world" - "theres no such thing as defeat software, they are all at the same thing". Taken in pairs those statements needn't be mutually exclusive but you can't have all at once.

Whether defeat software exists or not will be very easy to see once the "fixes" are approved. The fact that all these manufacturers tear down and analyse any new tech from competitors and VW haven't managed to overtly or covertly "dob in" anyone else... well either VW are not smart enough to pick up on competitors using defeat devices (to be fair they did come very late to the CR party) or the competitors aren't using defeat devices, just the methods that officials turn a blind eye to.

My arguments are entirely consistent

in summary

1. for the current legal purpose of placing a car on the EU market , compliance with the NEDC test is all that is required, what happens on the road is uncontrolled by law. Hence for the manufacturer, thats all it cares about . Its not even clear if " so-called" defeat devices ( which is an american term), are actually illegal in the EU.Manufacturers are allowed to prepare the test car in a totally unrealistic way anyway ( bald tyres, disconnected ancillary system, tapped seams etc, these are also deafest devices in reality )

2. almost all automative tech is common amongst manufactures, there is little advantage in anyone brand that can be found ( reliability and costs yes ) . VW have access to no more or no less " tech" then any other large manufacturer ( most comes from third party specialist companies anyway )

3. If you ignore VWs comments about " defeat software" and you look at the BBC panorama program, you would conclude that in fact the Opel was even worse then VW. Its noted that a swis lab has also made the same claims against Renault. ICCT them,selves tested 20 makes on prad and all failed .


Hence we can conclude that the problem is endemic to small diesels. VW in my view " invented" this software claim to avoid the whole issue of non-compliant in small diesels ( under 3 litre) and I now suspect they wish they had never opened their mouth


There is no " defeat software", fundamentally all small high performance diesels cannot be make compliant while retaining good fuel economy, performance and low CO2.

Thats the bit you seem unwilling to understand or even to actually analyse , rather you engage in " Daily Mail " science
But hey , its also easier to beat up on the guy that look wierd isnt it.

BoatMad

I see VW have prosed a simple €10 air mass sensor as a solution to european E188 engines , interesting !!!

aphex™

You guys sound like you have a bit of industry experience. But you can't look forward properly.

What you fail to see is that 5 years from now most cars should have some form of hybrid system in them and that will be the end of daesul.

Any your lungs will thank you for it.

BoatMad

aphex™ wrote: »

You guys sound like you have a bit of industry experience. But you can't look forward properly.

What you fail to see is that 5 years from now most cars should have some form of hybrid system in them and that will be the end of daesul.

Any your lungs will thank you for it.

Hybrids are a dead end tech, BEV is the way forward , thats clear , most Hybrids are running in ICE mode virtually all the time anyway

colm_mcm

colm_mcm wrote: »

I don't think Audi/Seat/skoda would be that attractive a proposition for a buyout without platform sharing.

Their share price is recovering sharply, up 30% since the Oct low, I don't think a buyout is at all on the cards.

aphex™

BoatMad wrote: »

Hybrids are a dead end tech, BEV is the way forward , thats clear , most Hybrids are running in ICE mode virtually all the time anyway

True but for toe in the water they might be OK. Then Rex. Then full BEV.

Special Circumstances

BoatMad wrote: »

My arguments are entirely consistent

in summary

1. for the current legal purpose of placing a car on the EU market , compliance with the NEDC test is all that is required, what happens on the road is uncontrolled by law. Hence for the manufacturer, thats all it cares about . Its not even clear if " so-called" defeat devices ( which is an american term), are actually illegal in the EU.Manufacturers are allowed to prepare the test car in a totally unrealistic way anyway ( bald tyres, disconnected ancillary system, tapped seams etc, these are also deafest devices in reality )

2. almost all automative tech is common amongst manufactures, there is little advantage in anyone brand that can be found ( reliability and costs yes ) . VW have access to no more or no less " tech" then any other large manufacturer ( most comes from third party specialist companies anyway )

3. If you ignore VWs comments about " defeat software" and you look at the BBC panorama program, you would conclude that in fact the Opel was even worse then VW. Its noted that a swis lab has also made the same claims against Renault. ICCT them,selves tested 20 makes on prad and all failed .


Hence we can conclude that the problem is endemic to small diesels. VW in my view " invented" this software claim to avoid the whole issue of non-compliant in small diesels ( under 3 litre) and I now suspect they wish they had never opened their mouth


There is no " defeat software", fundamentally all small high performance diesels cannot be make compliant while retaining good fuel economy, performance and low CO2.

Thats the bit you seem unwilling to understand or even to actually analyse , rather you engage in " Daily Mail " science
But hey , its also easier to beat up on the guy that look wierd isnt it.

So you are saying VW are taking one for the team here by constructing the "defeat device" bogeyman, rather than saying "we're not doing anything the rest aren't". Not enough LOLs in the internet for that.

And anyone saying otherwise about them is engaged in "daily mail science" and beating up on the person with an illogical theory? Where do you stand on scientology, I could see you putting forward a good defence for them!

jimgoose

BoatMad wrote: »

...Hence we can conclude that the problem is endemic to small diesels...

It appears to affect the 3l V6 TDI as well.

BoatMad wrote: »

I see VW have prosed a simple €10 air mass sensor as a solution to european E188 engines , interesting !!!

Presumably this is a replacement for the existing MAF that runs different calibration?