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

grogi

Europe , with its much lower standards on emissions , never needed VW to cheat anyway.

To back this statement up, tell us what are EURO-6 and current EPA or Californian requirements for CO, PM and NOx levels?

The difference will not be bigger than 50% - which in my book does not constitute MUCH lower standard.

Note that the " scandal " is about NOX emmisions , not fuel consumption

It's worth pointing out , that there is no limit to what an engine can put out while on the road , the emmisions limit relate solely to the NEDC laboratory test process

Yes. But if the vehicle detects that it's being tested and modifies the way it works, it is cheating.

BoatMad

grogi wrote: »

To back this statement up, tell us what are EURO-6 and current EPA or Californian requirements for CO, PM and NOx levels?

The difference will not be bigger than 50% - which in my book does not constitute MUCH lower standard.

Tier 3 NMOG+NOX is currently at 100mg/KM, compared to close to 200 for current Eur0 6

particulate is more then twice as lenient , in Euro 6 , 6 as against 3 pm

The NEDC test as currently configured is unduly lenient towards diesels ( as its lightly loaded and run at very low speeds ) . EPA FTP is more lenient towards petrols

http://www.theicct.org/sites/default/files/ICCT_comparison%20Euro%20v%20US.pdf

Yes. But if the vehicle detects that it's being tested and modifies the way it works, it is cheating.

No one is saying that VW did not cheat the EPA tests , it clearly did and it said it did. What I am saying is that no-one has said VW cheated on the NEDC tests , nor has VW ever admitted it has. ( it merely admitted the " presence " of the mythical software )

grogi

BoatMad wrote: »

Tier 3 NMOG+NOX is currently at 100mg/KM, compared to close to 200 for current Eur0 6

particulate is more then twice as lenient , in Euro 6 , 6 as against 3 pm

Tier 3 is going to be enforced from 2017. Currently Tier 2 is in force - and honestly I don't understand it
Your Euro6 figures are a bit off as well - it allows 5mg/km of PM and 80mg/km of NOx.

To sum up - no, EPA limits are not far more strict than European.

Bigus

Autocar opinion "Volkswagen is in big trouble - and the emissions scandal is yet to seriously impact
Sales revenue has fallen by 3.4% and after-tax profits are down 20% on last year. VW can't simply engineer itself out of this one


http://www.autocar.co.uk/blogs/industry/opinion-volkswagen-big-trouble-and-emissions-scandal-yet-seriously-impact

grogi

Bigus wrote: »

Autocar opinion "Volkswagen is in big trouble - and the emissions scandal is yet to seriously impact
Sales revenue has fallen by 3.4% and after-tax profits are down 20% on last year. VW can't simply engineer itself out of this one


http://www.autocar.co.uk/blogs/industry/opinion-volkswagen-big-trouble-and-emissions-scandal-yet-seriously-impact

Profits are down because they did put a huge bag of money aside for compensations. Business is going very well for VW...

BoatMad

Bigus wrote: »

Autocar opinion "Volkswagen is in big trouble - and the emissions scandal is yet to seriously impact
Sales revenue has fallen by 3.4% and after-tax profits are down 20% on last year. VW can't simply engineer itself out of this one


http://www.autocar.co.uk/blogs/industry/opinion-volkswagen-big-trouble-and-emissions-scandal-yet-seriously-impact

Any reading of the data shows that the epa tests are approximately twice as tough as the nedc, and they don't suit diesels which the nedc currently does. You ate forgetting to factor in Euro 6 compliance factors as well

Leaving aside the fact that both are not on road tests or limits, I m not sure what point you are trying to make.

VW has not being accused of cheating the nedc , ( by any authorative body ) nor have vw admitted they cheated the nedc. These are matters of record.

EndaHonesty

grogi wrote: »

Profits are down because they did put a huge bag of money aside for compensations. Business is going very well for VW...

Profits and Provisions are not directly connected.
Profits are down, VW are suffering a significant downturn at the moment, for various reasons, not least the emissions scandal.

everlast75

they only made a 2.4 Billion Euro profit in the first quarter.

clearly they are up sh*t creek!??!

BoatMad

EndaHonesty wrote: »

Profits and Provisions are not directly connected.
Profits are down, VW are suffering a significant downturn at the moment, for various reasons, not least the emissions scandal.

VW are not experiencing a " significant downturn " , 3.4 % less sales is not a " significant down turn "

EndaHonesty

BoatMad wrote: »

VW are not experiencing a " significant downturn " , 3.4 % less sales is not a " significant down turn "

Falling sales, escalating costs due to recalls and the potential billions in fines is significant by any definition.

368100

EndaHonesty wrote: »

Profits and Provisions are not directly connected.
Profits are down, VW are suffering a significant downturn at the moment, for various reasons, not least the emissions scandal.

When a provision is made in financial accounts it directly impacts the net profit figure so they are entirely related.

Long Time Lurker

BoatMad wrote: »

VW are not experiencing a " significant downturn " , 3.4 % less sales is not a " significant down turn "

Registrations. Not sales.

Why do people keep falling for this. Their registration figures are down by that amount (that is if those figures are correct) Its impossible to tell exactly how much their profitable retail sales figures are down but it's no doubt considerable. They're pre registering, hire driving and fleet discounting like never before. Caddy vans for example, once the king of small vans, have been so hoored by leaseplan their residual value is almost destroyed.

Atlantic Dawn

Castlebar court orders VW to disclose information over emissions

Volkswagen has been ordered to disclose information regarding emissions in respect of a car owned by a motorist in Roscommon.

The interim order for discovery of documentation was made by a District Court Judge, in a case taken against the car manufacturer.

Eithne Higgins of Croghan, Boyle, Co Roscommon, is seeking compensation after Volkswagen admitted cheating on emissions tests last year.

It emerged last Autumn that the company had installed software in diesel cars to trick emissions testers in the United States. In the weeks that followed, thousands of vehicles in Ireland were recalled.

This afternoon at Castlebar District Court, Judge Mary Devins ordered that all original documentary technical expert evidence relating to the claimant's car be presented to her within a six week timeframe.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2016/0607/793926-volkswagen-castlebar-court/

BoatMad

Long Time Lurker wrote: »

Registrations. Not sales.

Why do people keep falling for this. Their registration figures are down by that amount (that is if those figures are correct) Its impossible to tell exactly how much their profitable retail sales figures are down but it's no doubt considerable. They're pre registering, hire driving and fleet discounting like never before. Caddy vans for example, once the king of small vans, have been so hoored by leaseplan their residual value is almost destroyed.

it remains a mystery to me why certain people seemingly want VW to fail !!

grogi

BoatMad wrote: »

it remains a mystery to me why certain people seemingly want VW to fail !!

Because it should be clear that cheating does not work in the long term.
If they don't get hit until it really hurts, it would only encourage more abuse, from VW and everyone else.

BoatMad

grogi wrote: »

Because it should be clear that cheating does not work in the long term.
If they don't get hit until it really hurts, it would only encourage more abuse, from VW and everyone else.

sorry read the ICCT reports , every car in europe was over the limits

grogi

BoatMad wrote: »

sorry read the ICCT reports , every car in europe was over the limits

Oh Lord, you clearly don't understand the issue here...

There is a test procedure and cars are optimized for it. As a result a car that passes this test will have different results in real-life. That's understandable. That is applicable to emissions, economy or safety.

The test does not mimic the world in full. But if a car is good enough to pass the test, it is considered good enough for real world application as well. For instance, if it can pass Euro6 tests, it is (by today standards of course) bloody good. You can use the test results to compare two vehicle...

What VW is completely different. They effectively presented two cars - one optimized for the test and one optimized for road conditions. Why they did it is completely beyond my understanding - they are well capable of achieving the limits... Advertising maybe - "We don't need AdBlue!" ?!

BoatMad

grogi wrote: »

Oh Lord, you clearly don't understand the issue here...

actually the reason Im defending ( in a sort of a way , VW) is that I do ,

There is a test procedure and cars are optimized for it. As a result a car that passes this test will have different results in real-life. That's understandable. That is applicable to emissions, economy or safety.

we agree, both the NEDC and EPA tests are solely lab based and have no applicability to on road emissions

The test does not mimic the world in full. But if a car is good enough to pass the test, it is considered good enough for real world application as well. For instance, if it can pass Euro6 tests, it is (by today standards of course) bloody good. You can use the test results to compare two vehicle...

it doesnt mimic the real world in any possible way at all. ( unless you figure 30kmph hot start is real world )
no conclusion of that sort can be reached and the ICCT team clearly presented damming evidence that european diesel road output was appalling , nor can you use the test results in direct comparison in reality because again there is no correlation between test results and on road emissions

What VW is completely different. They effectively presented two cars - one optimized for the test and one optimized for road conditions

.

no they did not

what they did was (a) present the EPA with compliance documentation as a result of their internal testing that showed that the models in question passed the EPA tests .
the CARB in duplicating the EPA tests , (b) could not get the models in question to actually pass the full suite of EPA tests .

The CARB (c) then challenged VW to explain ( or fix ) the fact that seemingly compliant cars could not pass the test , when performed by the CARB

(d) after a software update , they still failed and under persistent demands from the CARB and (e) a ban on new imports by the EPA, VW ( f) admitted the existence of " defeat software. The CARB then accused VW (g) of having " defeat software, as the CARB have never actually proved such defeat software existed

Why they did it is completely beyond my understanding - they are well capable of achieving the limits... Advertising maybe - "We don't need AdBlue!" ?!

its very clear why VW engaged in what they did, its clear that the models in question especially the 2009 models could NEVER pass the EPA tests , whereas they could pass the easier Euro NEDC tests , even the 2014 model could not pass the test where the test period was extended

VW have had to admit defeat on the 2009 models as they are readying a buyback program as they cant technically make the cars pass, ( these are the Nox trap cars ), the 2014 models with selective catalytic regeneration can be made pass with however a significant fall in performance at fuel economy ( which is why VW had to cheat in the US in the first place) This gives you a clear reason why they cheated , i.e. they couldnt technically make the engines pass in the first place

its instructive note that claims by non authorised test houses in europe have made claims that several other car companies seem too be gaming the NEDC, its instructive too note that no authoritative test centre has maintained VW gamed the NEDC

vectra

I wonder how this will end|?

http://m.rte.ie/news/2016/0607/793926-volkswagen-castlebar-court/

BoatMad

vectra wrote: »

I wonder how this will end|?

http://m.rte.ie/news/2016/0607/793926-volkswagen-castlebar-court/

how is this person going to fund this lawsuit ?

Special Circumstances

BoatMad wrote: »

how is this person going to fund this lawsuit ?

With all the money they saved on diesel and tax and by removing DPF/EGR I suppose? :pac:

Special Circumstances

vectra wrote: »

I wonder how this will end|?

http://m.rte.ie/news/2016/0607/793926-volkswagen-castlebar-court/

There's a 50/50 chance she'll be bundled into a Transporter and never heard from again unless she manages to escape from working in VW's new "Telsa beater" battery factory.

Bazzy

BoatMad wrote: »

how is this person going to fund this lawsuit ?

i'd say the solicitor is using it as a test case if they win he can take every vw case and win

if he loses he gives his barristers a few bob it'll be interesting to watch

josip

UK considering increasing tax on diesels.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/07/transport-secretary-diesel-taxes-could-be-hiked-to-cut-air-pollu/

grogi

BoatMad wrote: »

actually the reason Im defending ( in a sort of a way , VW) is that I do ,

Your understanding of the technical aspects of the issue is very thorough, no questions about that.

BoatMad wrote: »

we agree, both the NEDC and EPA tests are solely lab based and have no applicability to on road emissions.

Yes, we do.

BoatMad wrote: »

it doesnt mimic the real world in any possible way at all. ( unless you figure 30kmph hot start is real world )
no conclusion of that sort can be reached and the ICCT team clearly presented damming evidence that european diesel road output was appalling , nor can you use the test results in direct comparison in reality because again there is no correlation between test results and on road emissions

The cars need to pass the test, regardless how unreal it is. The tests should be updated, no questions asked.

But optimising for a test as it is right now is a different story from presenting a different software for the test or falsifying documentation.

BoatMad wrote: »

no they did not

It is a simplification - but they did. At least that's what they admitted to.

BoatMad wrote: »

its very clear why VW engaged in what they did, its clear that the models in question especially the 2009 models could NEVER pass the EPA tests , whereas they could pass the easier Euro NEDC tests , even the 2014 model could not pass the test where the test period was extended

This gives you a clear reason why they cheated , i.e. they couldnt technically make the engines pass in the first place

They could not make them compliant without AdBlue injections. And they still can't. But with the urea injection it is much easier.


To sum up my point of view:
* tests - emissions, consumption and safety - need to be updated
* it is ok to optimize for the tests as they are right now
* it is not ok to cheat, falisfy documentation or anything of such nature.
* the enforcement should be severe, so that nobody else tries that again.

BoatMad

The cars need to pass the test, regardless how unreal it is. The tests should be updated, no questions asked.

you understanding that EPA testing is self compliance by the manufacturer ?. thee is normally no independent testing , unlike in Europe

But optimising for a test as it is right now is a different story from presenting a different software for the test or falsifying documentation.

VW have never admitted falsifying documents, my own view is the " defeat software " was a diversion to distract from the fact that VW falsified the compliance test . to date there has been no independent verification that any such defeat software exists .... funny that

It is a simplification - but they did. At least that's what they admitted to.

They never submitted ANY cars for the test , CARB decided on the the tests after receiving the ICCT/University of Virginia data. they tested a 2009 and a 2014 VW ( NOX trap and SCR respectively) VW did not " submit " anything.

neither the NOX trap or the SCR passed and CARB demanded to know why a seemingly ( self) certified vehicle couldnt pass its the EPA tests , what followed was the scandal . my own belief is the software was never there

They could not make them compliant without AdBlue injections. And they still can't. But with the urea injection it is much easie

the 2009 model was a NOX trap, VW have admitted they cant modify such vehicles to make them compliant, they are readily a buyback campaign,

The 2014 and others with SCR ( which is Adblue, i.e. Urea ) can be modified to pass Tier 2, but at a cost of significant fuel economy and power especially in the small engines

To sum up my point of view:
* tests - emissions, consumption and safety - need to be updated
* it is ok to optimize for the tests as they are right now
* it is not ok to cheat, falisfy documentation or anything of such nature.
* the enforcement should be severe, so that nobody else tries that again.

* Yes
* Yes and No
*sure, but we only know that VW admitted to a supposed unverified defeat software,
* all diesels should be subject to real world limits , but that would remove all diesels from the roads and thats not politically acceptable, However the day of the diesels is over ( and in fact all ICE) by 2030 ICE use in personal transport will be legacy and minimal

everlast75

Bazzy wrote: »

i'd say the solicitor is using it as a test case if they win he can take every vw case and win

if he loses he gives his barristers a few bob it'll be interesting to watch

In order to succeed in recovering damages you have to prove a loss. it's not good enough to say you were mislead.

she will have to prove that the "scandal" meant her car suffered a greater depreciation that it would have otherwise and I can't see how she can do that.

BoatMad

everlast75 wrote: »

In order to succeed in recovering damages you have to prove a loss. it's not good enough to say you were mislead.

she will have to prove that the "scandal" meant her car suffered a greater depreciation that it would have otherwise and I can't see how she can do that.

I agree, I cannot see how she will win, the fact that the cars are compliant in Europe, means VW has no case to answer

grogi

BoatMad wrote: »

I agree, I cannot see how she will win, the fact that the cars are compliant in Europe, means VW has no case to answer

I don't follow this suit and I don't know what she's suing for.

But if the misconduct of VW did cause a significant loss of market value of its stock, the plaintiff did suffer loss and try to get those loses recovered.

colm_mcm

The strange thing about this case is she's suing on the basis that the road tax and vrt amounts are supposedly technically incorrect so she might have to pay back the difference.
Bit of an odd one as there has been no indication that revenue would do anything retrospectively.