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

H.E. Pennypacker

Long Time Lurker wrote: »

Yeah a little more humility next time fan boys.

Which fan boys had you in mind?

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/apr/23/diesel-cars-pollution-limits-nox-emissions

Long Time Lurker

H.E. Pennypacker wrote: »

Which fan boys had you in mind?

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/apr/23/diesel-cars-pollution-limits-nox-emissions

All of them if you want. The idea that this would blow over was preposterous. And yes you're right, there is a very high probability that every manufacturer will be incriminated some how. I found it infuriating that when we were trying to have a proper discussion about this issue there was constantly a dismissing and mocking tone by many a contributor. It would probabaly assist intelligent open minded dialogue in the future if those with little to contribute could remain silent.

GustavoFring

Long Time Lurker wrote: »

I'm being very immature now but I'm laughing my head off at those who came in here with a mocking tone towards the rest of us who had the temerity to suggest that this might be a major fcukin issue. I figured it was blindingly obvious. So did like minded folk. We're not hearing too many 'it'll all blow over' comments now. Yeah a little more humility next time fan boys.

It still will for VW (and the others across the globe) in the grand scheme of things. Certainly will have knock on impacts on the rate of adoption of alternative fuels though, which is in my opinion going to be the biggest change from all of this. The impact on taxation... There will be one but the powers that be will take God knows how long.

lau1247

9935452 wrote: »

They claim no negative impact on power and fuel economy.
Which quite frankly i struggle to believe,
Consider a company the size of vw , you would imagine if it was that simple they would have come up with it when the engines came out day one.
Ill be waiting a long while to see what are the real results before i drop the audi in for the fix

I find it hard to believe also for the same reason.

I wonder if they state that it does no affect performance (if and when it clearly does), would they open themselves to even more lawsuits. That will be interesting to see

GustavoFring

lau1247 wrote: »

I find it hard to believe also for the same reason.

I wonder if they state that it does no affect performance (if and when it clearly does), would they open themselves to even more lawsuits. That will be interesting to see

I'd be dyno'ing the thing before and after.

My last two cars have had the same VAG engine, one EU5, one EU6. I'm convinced they've done serious fiddling with the engines since they're ahead of the press leaks.

shanec1928

so has anyone got the recall done on the 1.6? Could find anything about in on the last 40 pages on mobile.. Any noticeable difference?

Tesco Massacre

shanec1928 wrote: »

so has anyone got the recall done on the 1.6? Could find anything about in on the last 40 pages on mobile.. Any noticeable difference?

I had no idea they were doing the 1.6 vehicles at the moment.

The letter I received from VW stated "...we cannot specify exact dates at this time, but we anticipate the 1.6-litre TDI engine measures will arrive in the third quarter of 2016."

BoatMad

Long Time Lurker wrote: »

All of them if you want. The idea that this would blow over was preposterous. And yes you're right, there is a very high probability that every manufacturer will be incriminated some how. I found it infuriating that when we were trying to have a proper discussion about this issue there was constantly a dismissing and mocking tone by many a contributor. It would probabaly assist intelligent open minded dialogue in the future if those with little to contribute could remain silent.

Th fact is that diesels are inherently dirty and little can be done to fix that. Th eNEDC ( new European driving course) which is used to test cars, is so far away from " real world" that cars can easily pass its and then pump out whatever they like ( there is NO road based limits )

The fact is the consumer needs to decide , diesels or less pollution

novarock

GustavoFring wrote: »

I'd be dyno'ing the thing before and after.

My last two cars have had the same VAG engine, one EU5, one EU6. I'm convinced they've done serious fiddling with the engines since they're ahead of the press leaks.

Definitely agree with this - My Octavia had the EU5 2.0L TDI, now driving a Leon with the EU6 2.0 TDI. I traded about two weeks before the scandal broke. The difference in economy is drastic considering the difference in horsepower is 140 to 150. I can't get anywhere near the same average L/100km on motorway driving even though the Leon is lighter!

gctest50

GustavoFring wrote: »

I'd be dyno'ing the thing before and after.

My last two cars have had the same VAG engine, one EU5, one EU6. I'm convinced they've done serious fiddling with the engines since they're ahead of the press leaks.

It might know it's on a dyno and put on it's best performance for you

vectra

novarock wrote: »

Definitely agree with this - My Octavia had the EU5 2.0L TDI, now driving a Leon with the EU6 2.0 TDI. I traded about two weeks before the scandal broke. The difference in economy is drastic considering the difference in horsepower is 140 to 150. I can't get anywhere near the same average L/100km on motorway driving even though the Leon is lighter!

I have the 150 in my passat and got 62.5 at motorway speeds.
This was on a perfect day weather wise.
several weeks later i did the same trip at identical drivinf methods and could only achieve 53.7 because of torrential rain and stormy winds.

BoatMad

novarock wrote: »

Definitely agree with this - My Octavia had the EU5 2.0L TDI, now driving a Leon with the EU6 2.0 TDI. I traded about two weeks before the scandal broke. The difference in economy is drastic considering the difference in horsepower is 140 to 150. I can't get anywhere near the same average L/100km on motorway driving even though the Leon is lighter!

err, its as clear as day that as emissions limits are reduced , that the car horsepower must " fund" increasing attempts to produce a cleaner engine


its why the 1,4L diesel is basically dead. the additional performance hit is too obvious.

The diesel is a dirty engine , cleaned by mostly post processing , that post processing costs energy

frozenfrozen

And people just remove the cleaning post processes

Is there a graph somewhere showing emissions difference between petrol and diesel at different kW outputs? It just seems from my layman perspective that petrol outputs are consistently bad whereas diesel with can be clean under very specific constraints but with a slight change you're rolling coal or blowing out massive amounts of particulates, and the removal of dpf or a remap etc this is even worse.

BoatMad

frozenfrozen wrote: »

And people just remove the cleaning post processes

Is there a graph somewhere showing emissions difference between petrol and diesel at different kW outputs? It just seems from my layman perspective that petrol outputs are consistently bad whereas diesel with can be clean under very specific constraints but with a slight change you're rolling coal or blowing out massive amounts of particulates, and the removal of dpf or a remap etc this is even worse.

Diesel for example generates far more Nox, but less c02. its a trade iff of greenhouses gasses ( which are not pollutants ) against lower concentrations of gasses that are actually harmful pollutants , we have swung the barometer too far away from pollutants in my view

Special Circumstances

frozenfrozen wrote: »

And people just remove the cleaning post processes

Is there a graph somewhere showing emissions difference between petrol and diesel at different kW outputs? It just seems from my layman perspective that petrol outputs are consistently bad whereas diesel with can be clean under very specific constraints but with a slight change you're rolling coal or blowing out massive amounts of particulates, and the removal of dpf or a remap etc this is even worse.

Are you talking about nice cuddly green endorsed emissions like particulates and Nox, or that lethal stuff they use to put the fizz in soft drinks?

BoatMad

Special Circumstances wrote: »

Are you talking about nice cuddly green endorsed emissions like particulates and Nox, or that lethal stuff they use to put the fizz in soft drinks?

I presume this is a sarcastic comment , Im having a sheldon copper moment

frozenfrozen

garda I was only at 7k revs in second gear because I wanted more fizzy lemonaiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiide

Special Circumstances

BoatMad wrote: »

I presume this is a sarcastic comment , Im having a sheldon copper moment

It's an accurate summary of the fairy story many adults believe!

BoatMad

Special Circumstances wrote: »

It's an accurate summary of the fairy story many adults believe!

most adults have no idea on the subject in the first place

Seth Brundle

BoatMad wrote: »

most adults have no idea on the subject in the first place

Why should they?

BoatMad

kbannon wrote: »

Why should they?

weel I could argue , that any polluter should be informed as to what they are polluting and with what

car drivers need to be aware that the vehicles they are driving are " deadly"

Special Circumstances

BoatMad wrote: »

car drivers need to be aware that the vehicles they are driving are " deadly"

You said it man, bleedin rapid so they are!

Seth Brundle

BoatMad wrote: »

weel I could argue , that any polluter should be informed as to what they are polluting and with what

car drivers need to be aware that the vehicles they are driving are " deadly"

I think that you are over simplifying it. All cars cause pollution both in their production and also their usage. Should Joe Public know which one is worse?
Based on the system brought out in 2008, the public were told that tax would be lower for the less polluting models etc.
If diesel (in some situations) is more polluting than petrol then the authorities should manage this. It's why they're there. But don't blame the masses for not knowing which is worse or being experts in chemistry or internal combustion mechanics

BoatMad

kbannon wrote: »

I think that you are over simplifying it. All cars cause pollution both in their production and also their usage. Should Joe Public know which one is worse?

yes joe public should know and be informed

Based on the system brought out in 2008, the public were told that tax would be lower for the less polluting models etc.

Thats was greenhouse gasses , these are NOT pollutants , you breathe them without harm every day. This relates to climate change

NOX etc are pollutants , deadly ones, but are not greenhouses gasses.

there has been far to much focus on Co2 and not on pollutants , there is little control on pollutants in Europe.

If diesel (in some situations) is more polluting than petrol then the authorities should manage this. It's why they're there. But don't blame the masses for not knowing which is worse or being experts in chemistry or internal combustion mechanics

its not that simple. the Authorities are quilty in not ensuring that the car companies are forced to disclose real pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions levels , thats entirely true

equally drivers and the public should make themselves aware too.

Special Circumstances

"petrol/CO2 baaaaaaad, diesel/nox/particulates goooood"

Diesel switch cheers Greens
THE Green Party has said the swing towards buying energy efficient diesel cars confirms that “green policies do work”.

Taking credit for the success of the VRT regime introduced last year which awards drivers for buying low-emission cars, the party’s transport spokesman said drivers have changed their behaviour because of Environment Minister John Gormley’s policy changes.

Irish Examiner article from 2009. Amazing how science and common sense have progressed since those dark times when superstition and pseudo science ruled.

Seth Brundle

BoatMad wrote: »

yes joe public should know and be informed
<snip>


its not that simple. the Authorities are quilty in not ensuring that the car companies are forced to disclose real pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions levels , thats entirely true

equally drivers and the public should make themselves aware too.

The vast majority out there have no interest in learning whether their car releases 121g/km or 122g/km nor are they interested in knowing about NOx.
Only when it costs them money will they pay a little bit of attention.

However, to expect them to learn about it is naive. How? Online? So now the likes of my ma has to learn how to use a PC, figure out the internet and then figure out what this NOx thingy is? Then she finds that it's way over her head? All this so she knows that the car she has already bought is not the best one for the environment/whatever?

We have a government who form policy based on various sources of advice. We have a department of the environment who are meant to implement the policies and formulate best practices for the country.
Why should my ma have to learn chemistry as well?

TLDR: don't blame the public for not knowing/understanding/caring about the environment!

BoatMad

kbannon wrote: »

The vast majority out there have no interest in learning whether their car releases 121g/km or 122g/km nor are they interested in knowing about NOx.
Only when it costs them money will they pay a little bit of attention.

However, to expect them to learn about it is naive. How? Online? So now the likes of my ma has to learn how to use a PC, figure out the internet and then figure out what this NOx thingy is? Then she finds that it's way over her head? All this so she knows that the car she has already bought is not the best one for the environment/whatever?

We have a government who form policy based on various sources of advice. We have a department of the environment who are meant to implement the policies and formulate best practices for the country.
Why should my ma have to learn chemistry as well?

TLDR: don't blame the public for not knowing/understanding/caring about the environment!

whats needed is a simple labelling system like on fridges etc . that represents real world outputs of both C02 and pollutants , at least the user could easily compare.


Th current system is obscure, and is based on a very heavily flawed NEDC that was never designed to control emissions.


Lots more could be done to both educate and raise awareness.


this coupled with increasingly penalising heavier polluters , would help

Special Circumstances

BoatMad wrote: »

whats needed is a simple labelling system like on fridges etc . that represents real world outputs of both C02 and pollutants , at least the user could easily compare.


Th current system is obscure, and is based on a very heavily flawed NEDC that was never designed to control emissions.


Lots more could be done to both educate and raise awareness.


this coupled with increasingly penalising heavier polluters , would help

I'd say another 10c levy on petrol would solve all our problems.

BoatMad

Special Circumstances wrote: »

I'd say another 10c levy on petrol would solve all our problems.

thats just encourages fuel economy which is not really the same

jimgoose

BoatMad wrote: »

thats just encourages fuel economy which is not really the same

It's effectively the same as motor tax bands based on CO2 emissions, which means it wouldn't be significantly worse than the current shitshow. :pac: