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

BoatMad

jimgoose wrote: »

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

co2 emissions are not pollutants and are not really the issue

jimgoose

BoatMad wrote: »

co2 emissions are not pollutants and are not really the issue

I know exactly what is a pollutant and what isn't. My point is fuel consumption and CO2 emissions are effectively the same thing, and taxing fuel usage at the forecourt isn't usefully different from CO2 emission-based motor tax bands.

Special Circumstances

BoatMad wrote: »

co2 emissions are not pollutants and are not really the issue

WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAT?

reklamos

Honestly, how many people care about the labels?
Majority only care about how much it is going to cost. Labeling is not going to help here. The switch to 'green' diesels happened because of tax and fuel consumption. Change that and the switch will happen again.

P.S. I've seen my neighbor chopping his sofa and using it to heat the house? Do you think he thought about the environment, pollution or the fact that he tried to gas the whole estate? Nope. The only thing in his head was 'it free' and BTW we live in smokeless zone.

Markcheese

reklamos wrote:

P.S. I've seen my neighbor chopping his sofa and using it to heat the house? Do you think he thought about the environment, pollution or the fact that he tried to gas the whole estate? Nope. The only thing in his head was 'it free' and BTW we live in smokeless zone.

Untill you said about gassing the estate I was thinking the guy should have been congratulated for recycling his wooden sofa...

josip

Markcheese wrote: »

Untill you said about gassing the estate I was thinking the guy should have been congratulated for recycling his wooden sofa...

Der treeted vud ist verbotten zun fuhrer!

737max

What language is that? Dutch or German.

josip

737max wrote: »

What language is that? Dutch or German.

Makeyup

Since 1991, shares now down 50%

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-36137719

Special Circumstances

josip wrote: »

Makeyup

From the Republic of Makeyupia. Where pseudo science is preferred to real science. Is number one country for urea production!

vectra

I wonder will the EPA fine every manufacturer and put them all out of businness.

Mitsubishi admits to cheating economy tests for 25 years

http://www.carmagazine.co.uk/car-news/industry-news/mitsubishi/mitsubishi-admits-cheating-emissions-tests-on-japanese-k-cars/

BoatMad

vectra wrote: »

I wonder will the EPA fine every manufacturer and put them all out of businness.

Mitsubishi admits to cheating economy tests for 25 years

http://www.carmagazine.co.uk/car-news/industry-news/mitsubishi/mitsubishi-admits-cheating-emissions-tests-on-japanese-k-cars/

No , it has no history of that , quite the opposite

BoatMad

Special Circumstances wrote: »

WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAT?

Co2 is not a pollutant , there is simply too much of it

Marcusm

jimgoose wrote: »

I know exactly what is a pollutant and what isn't. My point is fuel consumption and CO2 emissions are effectively the same thing, and taxing fuel usage at the forecourt isn't usefully different from CO2 emission-based motor tax bands.

But they're not essentially the same thing as the quantum of consumption is different depending on mileage. Ireland has committed to a reduction in CO2 emissions and faces penalties for not meeting the targets. theoretical test CO2 is irrelevant as a low rated car doing 50,000kms will emit more and contribute to breaching targets more than a high emitter doing 10,000kms.

robtri

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"

just as all EV car drivers need to realize they are polluting as well....

grogi

robtri wrote: »

just as all EV car drivers need to realize they are polluting as well....

Yes, but:
- it is much easier to control emissions at one facility than millions of smaller
- it is more efficient to produce kWh of energy at the plant and move it over the grid than produce it at the spot.

Plus there is flexibility in energy source (coal, gas, atomic, sun etc) when it is generated centrally.

robtri

grogi wrote: »

Yes, but:
- it is much easier to control emissions at one facility than millions of smaller
- it is more efficient to produce kWh of energy at the plant and move it over the grid than produce it at the spot.

Plus there is flexibility in energy source (coal, gas, atomic, sun etc) when it is generated centrally.

But we dont control it better

jimgoose

Marcusm wrote: »

But they're not essentially the same thing as the quantum of consumption is different depending on mileage. Ireland has committed to a reduction in CO2 emissions and faces penalties for not meeting the targets. theoretical test CO2 is irrelevant as a low rated car doing 50,000kms will emit more and contribute to breaching targets more than a high emitter doing 10,000kms.

I couldn't agree more. I meant it isn't usefully different in terms of halting this mad quest to get cars running on barman's farts.

Fiskar

the failure of all diesel car manufacturers to pass the emissions limits in Europe when these cars are touted as more energy efficient (yes they are) but unfortunately pollute the environment more suggests to me it would be a foolish man that would lay down hard cash for a new diesel.
I reckon a scrapage package to allow diesel car owners switch will no doubt come in over the next few years.

robtri

Fiskar wrote: »

the failure of all diesel car manufacturers to pass the emissions limits in Europe when these cars are touted as more energy efficient (yes they are) but unfortunately pollute the environment more suggests to me it would be a foolish man that would lay down hard cash for a new diesel.
I reckon a scrapage package to allow diesel car owners switch will no doubt come in over the next few years.

Diesels days are numbered...
with Paris aiming for 2020 to have all Diesel cars banned from the city and looks like London is considering following

reklamos

Marcusm wrote: »

But they're not essentially the same thing as the quantum of consumption is different depending on mileage. Ireland has committed to a reduction in CO2 emissions and faces penalties for not meeting the targets. theoretical test CO2 is irrelevant as a low rated car doing 50,000kms will emit more and contribute to breaching targets more than a high emitter doing 10,000kms.

And this is why it is idiotic to have yearly motor tax based on some unrealistic lab CO2 values that manufactures provide. Many countries include this into fuel price. This way the more you drive = the more fuel you use = the more you pollute = the more you pay. Which to me makes more sense rather than having fixed motor tax.

grogi

reklamos wrote: »

And this is why it is idiotic to have yearly motor tax based on some unrealistic lab CO2 values that manufactures provide. Many countries include this into fuel price. This way the more you drive = the more fuel you use = the more you pollute = the more you pay. Which to me makes more sense rather than having fixed motor tax.

Yes. But this brings other issues close to borders...

grogi

robtri wrote: »

Diesels days are numbered...
with Paris aiming for 2020 to have all Diesel cars banned from the city and looks like London is considering following

That's putting the bar high. It will be lowered later to the public satisfaction.

Rockin

Could the increased emissions be responsible for early failure of a diesel particulate filter (DPF) ?
I had mine fail early, just looking at this image here and they look very interconnected
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/business/international/vw-diesel-emissions-scandal-explained.html?_r=0

Special Circumstances

Rockin wrote: »

Could the increased emissions be responsible for early failure of a diesel particulate filter (DPF) ?
I had mine fail early, just looking at this image here and they look very interconnected
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/business/international/vw-diesel-emissions-scandal-explained.html?_r=0

Could defeat mode cause a dpf failure? Unlikely.

Dpf clean soot from the exhaust gas. Soot is more likely when the engine is not running as economically as possible. The defeat mode made the cars more economical, at the expense of much more NOX emissions.

Dpf failure is due to diesel being an inherently filthy fuel. And short trips and granny driving.

The good news is that even though your engine produces enough toxic cap to clog the emissions equipment, you can just get the clogged innards removed and spread the diesel love around the town instead. There is NO convincing test for DPFs at the moment and there won't be any time before we are all almost ready for electric cars.

It might sound like a bad thing to be dusting everyone with cancer soot, but because CO2 is all that matters in the EU, technically you'll be helping the environment as your car will be more fuel efficient after removing the restriction in the exhaust.

Marcusm

grogi wrote: »

Yes. But this brings other issues close to borders...

UK diesel is approx €1.38 as compared to maybe €1.08 here; don't you think that issue already exists. The UK is now reducing motor tax to a single annual rate in any event. Only the upfront charge will be emissions based.

Fiskar

My next car will have one of these in 147 bhp format, shows the direction of VW is away from diesel
http://www.autoblog.com/2016/04/28/volkswagen-engine-variable-turbo-ea211-vienna/

grogi

Fiskar wrote: »

My next car will have one of these in 147 bhp format, shows the direction of VW is away from diesel
http://www.autoblog.com/2016/04/28/volkswagen-engine-variable-turbo-ea211-vienna/

Even with years of experience in diesels and despite much lower exhaust temperature, the blades in variable geometry turbos often get stuck (usually in unfavourable position)... With petrols the exhaust runs is much hotter.

The first generation will be a disaster...

Eric Cartman

grogi wrote: »

Even with years of experience in diesels and despite much lower exhaust temperature, the blades in variable geometry turbos often get stuck (usually in unfavourable position)... With petrols the exhaust runs is much hotter.

The first generation will be a disaster...

+1 , also at a 12.5:1 compression ratio with an aluminium block, I can see a lot of early HG failures.

BoatMad

robtri wrote: »

just as all EV car drivers need to realize they are polluting as well....

EV car drivers are not polluting. This is a typical nonsense argument . No more then the pollution involved in creating diesel and petrol is outside the control of the petrol or diesel car driver , the pollution involved in creating electricity is outside the control of the EV driver.

What is within their control is the decision in what they drive and the direct pollution that mode of transport creates.


Leaving aside that the pollution involved in hydrocarbon production and consumption is a function of its technology , whereas electricity can and is generated in increasing non polluting forms ( see Norway )

BoatMad

reklamos wrote: »

And this is why it is idiotic to have yearly motor tax based on some unrealistic lab CO2 values that manufactures provide. Many countries include this into fuel price. This way the more you drive = the more fuel you use = the more you pollute = the more you pay. Which to me makes more sense rather than having fixed motor tax.

Yes but the idea is to influence people to purchase more efficient and less polluting cars. The issue however is the unsuitability of the NEDC to this desire.