Why take the risk of exposure?
VW diesel cars found to emit from 10 to 40 times more pollutants than advertised.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/23/business/international/volkswagen-diesel-car-scandal.html?_r=0
VW software scandal...stupid, stupid, stupid.
(141 posts) (16 voices)-
Joe
MemberThe only vehicles that don't produce NOx are electric powered from Solar otherwise all internal combustion engines produce NOx.
And of course the power plant of external combustion engines also produce NOx.
May be we should all follow France and have Nuclear power for our electric vehicles no NOx from that, but of cource all mining produces NOx where does it end?
May be Euro 6 emission standards will mean no more small deisel engine powered passenger vehicles
Regards
JoePosted Wednesday 23 Sep 2015 @ 5:34:01 am from IP # -
Sunshine
Memberoilburner says "So getting the cars " fixed" will result in lower economy and performance?
Terrific."
no, the mod will mean that the ECU will show the correct emissions, what comes out the tailpipe will be the same, rather than the ECU outputting fake figuresPosted Wednesday 23 Sep 2015 @ 10:14:11 am from IP # -
Morbo
Memberif its above emission standards, it needs fixing so it goes below
@Joe: the hotter the combustion temp, the more NOx is generated. Gasoline burns hotter. So, Euro 6 will not be the end of Diesel.
But, keeping the dinosaur alive will cost more and more. Particulate filter, NOx trap, whats next. So eventually alternatives will become more feasible.Posted Thursday 24 Sep 2015 @ 12:07:23 am from IP # -
Bushwalker
MemberSunshine said:
oilburner says "So getting the cars " fixed" will result in lower economy and performance?
Terrific."
no, the mod will mean that the ECU will show the correct emissions, what comes out the tailpipe will be the same, rather than the ECU outputting fake figuresIncorrect (sorry)
The ECU controls the combustion process. What VW has done is to make the ECU alter the combustion when the ECU recognises that the vehicle is being tested. (like running through rev ranges while stationary and the steering doesn't move).
So a diesel VW passes the EPA tests with flying colours, but spews vastly more pollutants when driven on the road. When fixed, the vehicle's performance and economy will be impacted, no question. It will have to conform to the EPA test map in the ECU, not the normal driving map.
Posted Thursday 24 Sep 2015 @ 2:13:43 am from IP # -
It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
If the cars no longer comply with the requirements for them to be sold in some markets they may also no longer be registerable until the emissions are made compliant. That could be a huge issue for VW as they are may be forced into somehow fixing the vehicles. If they apply the cheap software fix to keep the emissions gear turned on it appears that the cars lose significant performance. Customers will rightfully be very unhappy if their car that used to have 90kW now only has 50kW. Civil proceedings would presumably follow.
If they apply a more complex technical fix such as AdBlue urea catalyst the cost per car will be very high.Which way will the cookie crumble?
Posted Thursday 24 Sep 2015 @ 7:33:51 am from IP # -
Bushwalker
MemberBet on a class action either way. It's going to be costly...
The internet is having some fun with it though:
Posted Thursday 24 Sep 2015 @ 8:30:13 am from IP # -
munter said:
If the cars no longer comply with the requirements for them to be sold in some markets they may also no longer be registerable until the emissions are made compliant.
Civil proceedings would presumably follow.
The link I posted goes to numerous other links which discusses VW halting diesel sales, recalls and class actions already starting. VW heavily promoted the diesel car's fuel efficiency and low emissions.
A big concern for VW in addition to their damaged credibility and savaged share price would be the anticipated penalties to be imposed by several countries. The penalties that are sure to be imposed by the US are almost certain to be severe.
Posted Thursday 24 Sep 2015 @ 8:44:42 am from IP # -
Greg C
MemberJoe said:
The only vehicles that don't produce NOx are electric powered from Solar otherwise all internal combustion engines produce NOx.
And of course the power plant of external combustion engines also produce NOx.
May be we should all follow France and have Nuclear power for our electric vehicles no NOx from that, but of cource all mining produces NOx where does it end?
May be Euro 6 emission standards will mean no more small deisel engine powered passenger vehicles
Regards
JoeI have driven a few hire trucks that are Euro 6 compliant. I also know of some passenger vehicles, French Manufacturers that are Euro 6 compliant. They use Urea injection to lower NOx. Much better economy too.
Posted Thursday 24 Sep 2015 @ 10:59:40 am from IP # -
Joe
MemberInteresting next door has a near new Pugot lovely turbo diesel EU5 comlient
Just got a dash alarm and went to service dept for help they said he had run out of the urea and it needed to be replaced, he asked what is the cost .... answere not a customer job must be replaced by our service technicians cost around $800 + labour ... he is not happy as this now means that all his fuel savings are out the window and he paid top dolar for a european car.
We paid slightly more than 1/2 what he paid for a AWD Korean TD with only a cat and get similar milage (6l/100km) to him so are streets ahead.. trade in time may take the smile off though
JoePosted Sunday 27 Sep 2015 @ 6:20:32 am from IP # -
Oilburner
MemberJoe said:
Interesting next door has a near new Pugot lovely turbo diesel EU5 comlient
Just got a dash alarm and went to service dept for help they said he had run out of the urea and it needed to be replaced, he asked what is the cost .... answere not a customer job must be replaced by our service technicians cost around $800 + labour ...They must be taking the piss.
" Urea" AKA, Adblue is available at most servos and you add it in when you fill up. It goes in a separate tank and is injected into the exhaust.
Saying the car is out of urea and needs more to be added by the dealer is like saying the car needs a full dealer service to top up the washer fluid.
This makes no sense. There is no urea in the vehicle other than what the operator has to regularly add. That's certainly a customer job.Your neighbour is either being taken for a hell of a ride or he does not know what he is talking about.
My mate had a truck a few years back when this Adblue malarkey first came in. Not many servos carried the stuff then. I remember one night coming back from qld to NSW along the Pacific highway and stopping at about 14 stations before we found one that had some. Not enough, but some. In it's infinite wisdom, the computer senses the Adblue has run out and restricts the engine to 50% power so it doesn't emit too much nerve gas, agent orange or whatever supposedly comes out the exhaust in it's absence.
My mate started buying the Urea in bulk and mixing it up himself. Not only cheaper but ensured a reliable supply. He carried enough to get him through his interstate trips which added up to a fair bit and well filled his tool boxes with the crap.
Interesting stuff, You mix it up and a 44 gallon drum stayed icy cold with condensation pouring off it for 3-4 days.
I don't know what they charge for this stuff now but it has to add significantly to the over all fuel cost. You could say a vehicle got X km/l but that doesn't tell the full story of the running costs that's for sure.
I believe they have got another system for heavy vehicles now than the adblue. I think it's a DPF based thing. Another stupid attempt at making exhaust " clean" while still emitting much more emissions overall that what need be.
Posted Sunday 27 Sep 2015 @ 11:00:53 am from IP # -
johnmath
MemberBushwalker said:
The ECU controls the combustion process. What VW has done is to make the ECU alter the combustion when the ECU recognises that the vehicle is being tested. (like running through rev ranges while stationary and the steering doesn't move).
Most, if not all, vehicle manufacturers have done this for at least the last decade, if not longer. I can't comment on whether VW's transgressions were worse than others, but it doesn't seem fair to me to single out one manufacturer.
How do I know this? An acquaintance of mine owns and operates one of only a couple of accredited emissions testing and compliance facilities in Australia. I have observed him doing emission compliance testing for Australian approvals and have discussed the procedure with him. The tests have been 'dumbed down' over the years due to pressure from the vehicle manufacturers in order to make testing 'less arduous', but in reality it has made cheating extremely easy. Any manufacturer that does not cheat is not even 'in the race'.
Posted Sunday 27 Sep 2015 @ 9:39:53 pm from IP # -
Bushwalker
MemberFair call, John.
I guess it remains to be seen as to the extent and amount of cheating that has been going on, but no doubt the first to be exposed will always cop the most ire.
From a vehicle purchaser's POV, I don't care if there has been cheating by one or by all manufacturers. If they have been cheating, then they have been fraudulent to the laws of the countries in which they sell the vehicles and deceptively fraudulent to purchasers of vehicles.
The appeal of a diesel car has been compliance under the same regulations as petrol cars from an emissions perspective and a benefit in economy and sometimes even performance. By the sound of the expose, the cars will have much less economy and performance if the passing ECU map is engaged instead of the cheating map. If that is the case, then the public has a right to compensation, and the manufacturer can expect strong responses from the bureaucracies involved.
I don't think the EPA's test procedure has been dumbed down, but it is a tightly parameter based procedure which leaves the door open for cheating. I don't know what the Aussie test procedure is, maybe that is dumbed down as your acquaintance suggests. I have also heard that the EPA does not test all cars and may accept manufacturer supplied test results. Now that the cat is out of the bag, things will change drastically.
As far as Australian emissions tests, isn't the issue that we don't have anywhere near as stringent emissions targets, so it's possible that a cheater double map ECU is less relevant for this country. We do have some cars on sale here that claim to pass EU standards with the urea system installed.
The results of this debacle will be very interesting, both in vehicle manufacturer responses and remediation as well as new testing procedures. I'm wondering if this will push diesels back.
Posted Monday 28 Sep 2015 @ 1:33:51 am from IP # -
Adblue costs don't appear to be too high (at least the advertised costs). Peugeot's advertising states:
AdBlue® needs to be topped up approximately every 12,500 miles. For most drivers this will be carried out as part of your Scheduled Service. However, the maximum range of a tank of AdBlue® can vary depending on your driving style.
Your local Peugeot Dealer will top up your AdBlue® tank with 10 litres of fluid for a fixed price of £9.99+, if a top up is needed before the scheduled service.
Clearly this is a UK blurb but I can't see the scale of costs being materially different in Australia. It sounds like there may be a more serious problem with Joe's friend's car.
Posted Monday 28 Sep 2015 @ 2:36:34 am from IP # -
johnmath
MemberI wasn't specifically referring to diesel cars. The emission testing for both diesel and petrol engined vehicles is equally non-representative of real world driving conditions. It is basically following a 'test drive profile' (accelerating, cruising and braking) and takes just a COUPLE OF MINUTES on a dynamometer, whilst the exhaust is analysed.
Most, if not all, vehicle manufacturers tune their emission control systems to give flying colours on the 'test drive profile' without compromising how they perform out on the road, and that means much greater fuel consumption (often around double) and much greater emissions in real life than reported on the window sticker.
Posted Monday 28 Sep 2015 @ 10:21:25 am from IP # -
Bushwalker
MemberAccording to the US EPA, that doesn't seem to be the case.
and here: http://www.ecfr.gov/graphics/pdfs/er19fe15.031.pdf
Looks way more highly involved than a couple of minutes on a dynanometer. It involves setting the vehicle up with control fuel, managing temperature, running cold and warm testing etc etc.
Couldn't find the Australian test procedure. Sounds like it is very basic by comparison though.
I agree that running a standard test is never going to exactly equal the normal running of a vehicle, but a standardised test will measure the results accurately between vehicles unless some manufacturers game the system with a normal map and a 'special' fraudulent map for testing. That is what VW has admitted they have done.
Tuning a vehicle to perform well in the emission test would be an expected manufacturer behaviour, purchasers of those vehicles operate the cars using the same map - if they drive in similar style and conditions as the test procedure they will achieve roughly the same results. In fact, isn't this exactly how the VW fraud was identified? Several cars were on road emission tested and the VW stood out as being way outside their test results while the other car/s were close to their test results.
Switching maps to game the test procedure but then delivering a vehicle operating with a 'dirty' map is an illegal, fraudulent, deception.
FTP Drive Test Procedure:
LA92 (California) Drive test procedure:
Posted Monday 28 Sep 2015 @ 1:26:54 pm from IP # -
johnmath
MemberBushwalker said:
Switching maps to game the test procedure but then delivering a vehicle operating with a 'dirty' map is an illegal, fraudulent, deception.Fraudulent and deceptive yes. Illegal - well not necessarily. The test is specified, and how a manufacturer achieves compliance is not.
Most, if not all, vehicle manufacturers make sure their engine management maps show good results under the compliance testing AND still perform competitively on the road, where drivers and owners have no way of knowing if they are compliant.
Purchasers of those vehicles will only use the same engine management map if/when they drive the emissions test cycle.
The Electronic Code of Federal Regulations is not inconsistent with my assertion, the only contention is whether 5 minutes or 30 minutes is a 'few' minutes. I really am not making this stuff up BTW. It's been going on for more than a decade, maybe two. My friend is accredited for USA and European compliance testing, not just Australia.
Further reading: http://qz.com/511064/all-car-companies-cheat-on-emissions-tests-its-just-that-most-do-it-legally/
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2015/09/22/Volkswagen-May-Not-Be-Only-Car-Company-Cheating-Emissions
Posted Monday 28 Sep 2015 @ 1:57:17 pm from IP # -
Bushwalker
MemberI think we might be talking about different tests, John.
There are smog compliance tests for vehicles already on the road, and there are tests that certify a vehicle for sale in the country/state. The certification tests involve a lengthy cycle of testing which involves more than a day according to the EPA. It involves changing the fuel, temperature conditioning and heat soak, emissions testing in several stages.
Purchasers of those vehicles will only use the same engine management map if/when they drive the emissions test cycle.
Correct. In VW's case, the vehicle is stationary on a dyno, with the door open and no movement of the steering wheel. The ECU identifies that condition, and switches to the 'clean' map. There is absolutely no way an owner of that vehicle can initiate that map while driving on a road.
Fraud is definitely illegal. Tuning a vehicle so that it performs well during a test cycle and leaving that tuning in place for the purchaser is not fraud.
Posted Monday 28 Sep 2015 @ 9:08:47 pm from IP # -
Oilburner
MemberOver 10 years ago a client of mine was building a Fast road/ drag car. He'd been hassled by the cops loads of times before and one of their tricks for making life hard for the performance guys who complied with every other rule and regulation was to have Smog testing done.
Because the car had an after market computer, the thing could run different maps with the press of some buttons on a controller.
The guy had 3. Power, economy and clean.
Go to clean mode and this thing would barely blow a unicorn fart. Wouldn't get out of it's own way. but they don't test performance, only emissions.If people or manufacturers can find loopholes in these overbearing laws, good on them I say. I doubt VW will get any more than a token slap on the wrist especially if this is in fact wide spread practice.
Gubbermints are very two faced when it comes to taking money from corporations and then appearing to condemn them.
Posted Tuesday 29 Sep 2015 @ 9:06:33 am from IP # -
johnmath
MemberBushwalker said:
I think we might be talking about different tests, John.No, we are talking about the same issue. My acquaintance runs an accredited emissions compliance testing facility that is one of only a couple in Australia. Any imported or locally manufactured vehicle sold in Australia may need to be tested for compliance and he may well be the person who does it. The test procedure may well have changed since I last witnessed it in terms of heating and cooling cycles, but I am absolutely certain that ECUs are designed to give good test results, irrespective of how they actually perform on the road.
Posted Tuesday 29 Sep 2015 @ 9:39:15 am from IP # -
Bushwalker
MemberOk then, we are talking about a lengthy standardised test, not a smog check, and not a few minutes of tailpipe assessment.
Anyone would expect a vehicle manufacturer to do their best to deliver a car that passes that test as well as meet industry expectations of economy and performance. It's up to the standards setting body to make sure the tests are relevant as possible to the real world and still maintain a procedure that can be standardised. Setting standards and testing vehicles against that standard are the responsibility of the standards body, usually a government department.
No problem with the standards body updating their test procedures to try and bring the test results closer to real world outcomes if they see variations between the test results and on the road results. I'd expect a thorough overhaul of procedures following this debacle.
None of this is relevant to the fraud carried out by VW.
Posted Tuesday 29 Sep 2015 @ 1:00:08 pm from IP # -
Bushwalker
MemberOilburner said:
If people or manufacturers can find loopholes in these overbearing laws, good on them I say. I doubt VW will get any more than a token slap on the wrist especially if this is in fact wide spread practice.Not a loophole, it's a fraud in VW's case.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/09/18/us-usa-volkswagen-idUSKCN0RI1VK20150918
"Put simply, these cars contained software that turns off emissions controls when driving normally and turns them on when the car is undergoing an emissions test," Cynthia Giles, an enforcement officer at the EPA, told reporters in a teleconference.
Volkswagen can face civil penalties of $37,500 for each vehicle not in compliance with federal clean air rules. There are 482,000 four-cylinder VW and Audi diesel cars sold since 2008 involved in the allegations. If each car involved is found to be in noncompliance, the penalty could be $18 billion, an EPA official confirmed on the teleconference.
That's a little bit more than a slap on the wrist...
And that is just the US, doesn't include remediation costs or class actions by owners. VW has confirmed there are 11 million of these cars sold worldwide, so about 22 times the US numbers.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/09/29/us-volkswagen-emissions-plan-idUSKCN0RT0OL20150929
Volkswagen announced plans on Tuesday to refit up to 11 million vehicles and overhaul its namesake brand to try to move on from the scandal over its cheating on diesel emissions tests.
New Chief Executive Matthias Mueller said the German carmaker would ask customers "in the next few days" to have diesel vehicles that contained illegal software refitted, a move which some analysts have said could cost more than $6.5 billion.
Looks like they are in for a whack to the side of the head even before fines, class actions, and trying to keep customers happy.
Posted Tuesday 29 Sep 2015 @ 1:07:26 pm from IP # -
johnmath
MemberBushwalker said:\
None of this is relevant to the fraud carried out by VW.I cannot talk with any certainty about the machinations within VW. I do however have first hand knowledge that vehicle manufacturers are complicit with the manipulation of both emission and fuel consumption test results.
That manipulation may be unethical, but it is not necessarily illegal. It is a consequence of how powerful the car industry lobby groups have been in shaping the nature of compliance legislation to suit the industry, rather than the society it is designed to protect.
Manipulating ECU programming to allow compliance with emissions tests goes back at least as far as Chrysler's 'electronic lean burn' introduced on Australian cars in the mid 1970s, which effectively disabled performance reducing pollution controls once the car was being driven under steady state conditions - i.e. not under a test algorithm.
it worked by crudely monitoring the amount and frequency of accelerator movements. Below a threshold, the fuel mixture was leaned out and the ignition timing advanced to improve fuel economy, but at a huge increase in NOX that was way above the regulatory limits. Of course this was never an issue in compliance testing, which involved (and still does) a lot of accelerator pedal movements in a short space of time.
Posted Tuesday 29 Sep 2015 @ 10:36:24 pm from IP # -
johnmath
MemberAnother effect of the motor industry's massive lobbying machine has been the prevention of pollution control regulations over small internal combustion engines, such as outboard motors, lawn mowers, chainsaws, slashers, etc.
I have read the the typical lawn mower mowing a typical domestic lawn produces as much petrochemical pollution as a modern car being driven several thousand kilometres.
Remember Ralph Sarich's Orbital Engine Company? It was set up in the 1970s to cash in on the expected extension of pollution controls to ALL internal combustion engines. The company developed high output small capacity engines with extremely low emissions. Despite selling licensing for their technology to practically all the major engine manufacturers worldwide, industry groups have successfully lobbied governments to convince them that small engine pollution controls are practically infeasible, which of course is nonsense.
Posted Tuesday 29 Sep 2015 @ 10:59:41 pm from IP # -
Bushwalker
MemberWell, I think we will have to agree to disagree on this John. I am clearly of the opinion that VW's ECU defeat device is absolutely illegal.
What is Fraud?
In law, fraud is deliberate deception to secure unfair or unlawful gain. Fraud is both a civil wrong (i.e., a fraud victim may sue the fraud perpetrator to avoid the fraud and/or recover monetary compensation) and a criminal wrong (i.e., a fraud perpetrator may be prosecuted and imprisoned by governmental authorities). The purpose of fraud may be monetary gain or other benefits, such as obtaining a drivers license by way of false statements.[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraud
You could argue that tuning the ECU software to beat the emissions tests can be construed as a Fraud. If that software operates the same in a test environment as it does on the road then you might have a struggle to prove it is actually a fraud, probably depends on the actual circumstances in each case.
But... If the manufacturer installs a software defeat device as VW has done and clearly admitted, this is a grand deception of the test process and the consuming public. It is clearly a fraud IMO. Any manufacturer engaging in such deception is in the same boat. I'm sure we will find out in due course if any other manufacturers have followed VW's path.
Posted Wednesday 30 Sep 2015 @ 12:45:42 am from IP #
