Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

VW Emissions Scandal


  • Please log in to reply
593 replies to this topic

#1 Canuck

Canuck
  • Member

  • 2,072 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 22 September 2015 - 15:10

I'm surprised this isn't already a topic of discussion, given the ramifications. Seems to me there was a discussion here in the not-too-distant past about another manufacturer who did something not unlike VW, wherein the code was specifically written to minimize emissions under certain parameters that matched those of the emission testing cycle.  In thinking about that previous example (without actually bothering to search for it and re-read it because I'm remarkably lazy), it's not that much different at all.  It's gaming the system, with the possible exception that VW's code appears to be very specific to being on a set of rollers.

 

I doubt very much that we'll see an $18 billion fine, but I really can't think of a more fitting circumstance under which the maximum fine is applicable.  This isn't some ma-and-pa shop selling onesie-twosie out the back door, but a massive, global, multi-branded manufacturer very, very flagrantly and deliberately violating the regulations, not to mention deceiving their customers. What we'll end up seeing, I suspect, is the same thing that happened in the financial meltdown: VW is too big to fail, and that the side-effects of the maximum fine would outweigh the deterrent / punishment. They'll get a substantial (by $ value, but not relative value) fine, people will be fired, a codemonkey somewhere in the depths of VW will be publicly hanged, drawn and quartered (in the metaphorical sense of course) or found stuffed in a small, locked-from-the-outside duffel bag with the keys inside wherein the court will determine it death-by-misadventure like the Clinton email hacker.

 

So the question then is, if we can't actually punish a corporation for such an in-your-face / *FU* action, what teeth do the rules have? What becomes of the deterrent factor if, at the end of the day, the profit from violation outweighs the financial punishment?



Advertisement

#2 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,730 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 22 September 2015 - 16:39

Your never too big to get punished. If it causes troubles they can split up their multi billion company. Just like GM did.



#3 ray b

ray b
  • Member

  • 2,746 posts
  • Joined: January 01

Posted 22 September 2015 - 17:37

maybe porsche can get free again from the corpRATS

 

 



#4 desmo

desmo
  • Tech Forum Host

  • 19,453 posts
  • Joined: January 00

Posted 22 September 2015 - 17:53

Why is there a maximum fine when provable damages could exceed that figure exponentially?

#5 mariner

mariner
  • Member

  • 1,811 posts
  • Joined: January 07

Posted 22 September 2015 - 17:57

Rather than get into all the politics and emotion on this cheat - as VW have admitted - here is link ot the study which prompted the EPA/CARB to start looking

 

http://www.theicct.o...al_may2014.pdfi



#6 jure

jure
  • Member

  • 330 posts
  • Joined: August 10

Posted 22 September 2015 - 17:58

Can someone explain how this trick increases performance of the engine? If I understood correctly this trick only effects exhaust catalytic reaction. Surely the exhaust is shaped in such a way that this reaction does not have an effect on combustion performance - where's the trick then?

 

Article on the trick: http://www.wired.com...tors_picks=true


Edited by jure, 22 September 2015 - 18:00.


#7 jimjimjeroo

jimjimjeroo
  • Member

  • 2,103 posts
  • Joined: December 08

Posted 22 September 2015 - 17:58

It's discussed in the paddock club ☺

#8 mariner

mariner
  • Member

  • 1,811 posts
  • Joined: January 07

Posted 22 September 2015 - 20:06

After the serious article link I cat help one cheapshot

a

It would seem that th VW Bluemotion sales pitch should really be Blue not in Motion

 

Sorry



#9 Lee Nicolle

Lee Nicolle
  • Member

  • 9,892 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 22 September 2015 - 22:32

Personally I feel everyone of these suspect cars should be pulled from the roads until they comply. Then watch the public sue VW to oblivion. I had a wholesaler in yesterday who deals a lot of late stuff and the reaction is already they are near unsaleable. He will not buy one unless it is firmly placed before he buys it.

That is without the damage to the enviroment these stinking diesels create.

 

 If a tuning shop modifies a vehicle so it does not comply they get pinged and the customer gets his vehicle removed from the roads until it complies [some modified vehicles do comply] 

So really no difference.

 

All the manufacturers fudge, that is why the sticker on the window and real world mileage vary so much for economy. The Euro manufacturers seem to be the 'experts'



#10 Lee Nicolle

Lee Nicolle
  • Member

  • 9,892 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 22 September 2015 - 22:41

Can someone explain how this trick increases performance of the engine? If I understood correctly this trick only effects exhaust catalytic reaction. Surely the exhaust is shaped in such a way that this reaction does not have an effect on combustion performance - where's the trick then?

 

Article on the trick: http://www.wired.com...tors_picks=true

This sprouts both truth and fallacy. In reality most diesels are hardly more fuel efficient. And cost a lot more to maintain and service. Yet alone purchase.

And a lot of the time diesel fuel is more expensive than petrol too. And they NEVER have the throttle response or overtaking power of a petrol. Yet alone they are noisy and you get filthy hands everytime you refuel. I know a couple of women who will not refuel them full stop, send hubby or the son, with a roll of kitchen paper to clean up before they touch the controls.

 

The manufacturers are pushing commercial and SUV buyers into diesels. Many models only come diesel. 

And more than a few engines are junk too. They are leaned down so much that they fail prematurely.



#11 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 6,733 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 22 September 2015 - 23:06

Can someone explain how this trick increases performance of the engine? If I understood correctly this trick only effects exhaust catalytic reaction. Surely the exhaust is shaped in such a way that this reaction does not have an effect on combustion performance - where's the trick then?

 

Article on the trick: http://www.wired.com...tors_picks=true

In the VW example it is NOx emissions that are being fiddled. One easy way to reduce NOx from a diesel engine is to ****** the injection timing. The downside is reduced performance and increased fuel consumption. Not saying this is what VW did, but I would be surprised if ******** timing wasn't at least part of the mix.



#12 Greg Locock

Greg Locock
  • Member

  • 5,656 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 23 September 2015 - 01:10

Dunno Lee, my territory 3.2 diesel got around 9 l/100, my Falcon petrol gets around 11. The Falcon is quicker but rarely is that an issue.

 

Incidentally, most manufacturers probably don't cheat, they test according to the rules. The tests themselves are stupid, and manufacturers do develop for the tests, that's why there is a disparity between sticker mpg and real world.



#13 Joe Bosworth

Joe Bosworth
  • Member

  • 642 posts
  • Joined: May 05

Posted 23 September 2015 - 01:54

Lee

 

Back in post #10 you stated, "This sprouts both truth and fallacy. In reality most diesels are hardly more fuel efficient. And cost a lot more to maintain and service. Yet alone purchase.

And a lot of the time diesel fuel is more expensive than petrol too. And they NEVER have the throttle response or overtaking power of a petrol. Yet alone they are noisy and you get filthy hands everytime you refuel. I know a couple of women who will not refuel them full stop, send hubby or the son, with a roll of kitchen paper to clean up before they touch the controls."

 

I have to admit that until recently I would have echoed your sentiments.  But a little while back I ended up with a rental Opel Astra on an overseas trip.  I was astounded on how good a car it was.  Then two years ago my wife wanted to replace her car and I kind of steered her close to a TDI Astra in her searches.  She ended up choosing the Astra over others.

 

We now have two years experience with it with both in-town piddling around and with highway/freeway trips of up to 8 hours duration.  My wife does almost all of the in-town driving and I do almost all of the long travel stuff.  I can only say that your allegations hardly apply.

 

The only maintenance costs have been oil changes and filters, identicle cost to petrol vehicles.  Fuel economy is outstanding, better than hybreds on the highway and close in town.  Best highway was 4.1 l/100km on a 4 hour trip on country roads at speed.  Can get under 4.0 on long distance freeway in spped control mode at the limit.  It is outstandingly quick in over-taking acceleration and nearly at super hatch stop light stuff when set in Sport mode.  In regular mode you wouldn't hardly know it is a diesel. Besides acceleration is all relative as long as there is no turbo lag which does not exist witth the Astra. Fuelling in town is clean and interestingly our diesel price is not affected by the daily petrol cost cycles so that it averages out pretty evenly on per liter cost vs petrol.

 

In a nutshell, I we are sold on this example of TDI and will likely buy another when this has reached post maturity.  Incidentally, our son in law has a Toyota Hilux Turbo diesel with similar level of satisfaction.

 

Regards



#14 Lee Nicolle

Lee Nicolle
  • Member

  • 9,892 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 23 September 2015 - 03:23

In the last week I have had the fuel economy discussion with 3 displaced petrol buyers. Navara diesel V his 4 y/o V6 petrol. Maybe a 5% saving. Both towing and empty. Hilux, similar and he hates it!  DMax, one loves it and it is so economical, the next is that it is ok but not  great deal better than his old V6 Isuzu! 

My Landcruiser V8 petrol is about a 100k per tank [135 L] worse than the diesels. My last big trip with diesel @ 20c a litre dearer was cheaper! This equates too even in metro driving

And the current V8 diesel has a poor reputation! And they are all far dearer to service. I wont be buying 200 anytime soon!

 

As a repairer personally I would not touch a samall passenger car in diesel. Economy is generally ok, but the rest is not. And they are gutless and noisy.

And dont forget the added purchase cost.

To me and many other diesels are for big trucks, toy diesels are a waste of time. Big 4WDs that do bush work do make sense with the bottom end torque but for the rest forget it.

Though most manufacturers are fitting toy engines with turbos and some are just hatefull junk.



#15 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 6,733 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 23 September 2015 - 05:31

 . . . not to mention the emissions scandals!



#16 Greg Locock

Greg Locock
  • Member

  • 5,656 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 23 September 2015 - 06:02

I just thought of a direct back to back comparison, Mondeo 2.0 TD vs whatever the petrol engine, that was easily 6.2 vs 7.5 or more. Admittedly the diesel is down on power, enough to show in the Melbourne Rd  Grand Prix,  but 1000 km on a tank vs 700 ish is a big deal.

 

The only real downside is refuelling mess.



#17 mariner

mariner
  • Member

  • 1,811 posts
  • Joined: January 07

Posted 23 September 2015 - 07:16

European fuel taxes have long favoured diesels in several countries like Belgium. Diesels were seen as the "peoples engine" so lower taxes.

 

Diesel should do more mpg than petrol its a heavier fuel wth more energy per volume - and more carbon vs hydrogen which is basically why its heavier.

 

So on a climate change and enegy basis ( CO2gms/km) it's advantage over petrol is less.

 

Im no engine expert but I would guess the efficency ( gms CO2/km ) gap between an equal power diesel and petrol engine of under 1.5 litre may no be down to about 10%. with the new smal turdo/DI engines like Ford's. 3 cylinder one.

 

Thats true in a recent version Of ThE VW Polo.

 

For years in Europe diesels were allowed much higher levels of Nox and particualtes than petorl unlike the stricter US standards. Now euro 6 has partially eliimnated that extra diesel permitted pollution the manufacturing cost issue becomes stronger.



#18 Tenmantaylor

Tenmantaylor
  • Member

  • 12,505 posts
  • Joined: July 01

Posted 23 September 2015 - 13:59

This sprouts both truth and fallacy. In reality most diesels are hardly more fuel efficient. And cost a lot more to maintain and service. Yet alone purchase.

And a lot of the time diesel fuel is more expensive than petrol too. And they NEVER have the throttle response or overtaking power of a petrol. Yet alone they are noisy and you get filthy hands everytime you refuel. I know a couple of women who will not refuel them full stop, send hubby or the son, with a roll of kitchen paper to clean up before they touch the controls.

 

The manufacturers are pushing commercial and SUV buyers into diesels. Many models only come diesel. 

And more than a few engines are junk too. They are leaned down so much that they fail prematurely.

 

You obviously havn't driven a BMW 330d then. Amazing straight 6 engine and thanks to massive torque way better at overtaking than any petrol car I've ever driven and that includes an N/A Petrol 4L V8 Audi RS4. You'd have to spend a hell of a lot more money to get a faster 40-70mph car with a petrol engine. I think only the M3 is faster in the petrol versions (an extra 20-30k).


Edited by Tenmantaylor, 23 September 2015 - 14:00.


#19 Canuck

Canuck
  • Member

  • 2,072 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 23 September 2015 - 15:33

Diesel here is quite common, particularly for passenger trucks of 3/4 ton and up size.  In my particular region, they are the "hotrod" of choice for a large segment of the population (typically young, male and employed as crew on drilling rigs or related). To get stuck behind one of these behemoths at a stoplight, where you have the distinct displeasure of being the 2nd car in the lane, means you will suck on a thick black cloud of look-at-me exhaust as they launch themselves on green.  They are admittedly, rather quick when well built. There are a handful of local shops that specialize in diesel performance, and a number of Ford dealers that will sell you a fully-optioned, enormously lifted (8") F-350 crew-cab new off the lot at almost 6 figures. A $90,000 pickup. But I digress.

 

Personally, I find that VW did this rather fascinating. It shows a remarkable amount of hubris on someone's part, but I wonder how far up it actually goes. It's improbable that this was the decision of a software engineer, nor the CEO's. I'd like to think that at the highest levels of leadership, they would have been aware of the rather significant impact of such a poor decision - short term gain, catastrophic long term pain.  Maybe not - people like to point out how CEOs tend towards psychopathy. So then, is there a software engineering leader, or a powertrain leader that has been slowly growing insane with the mounting pressure of this secret? Waiting for the lid to blow off so they're exposed? How many people would have to know to make this happen? Is it a case of being pressured into making the impossible possible - Captain James T Kirk demanding ever more of Scotty and the Enterprise - until someone cracked and decided on a shortcut to meeting the requirements? Or something far more banal and forthright - the only way to make this sellable is to cheat the test?

 

On purely academic level, I would think the challenge of writing the code to be an engaging one.



Advertisement

#20 Fat Boy

Fat Boy
  • Member

  • 2,207 posts
  • Joined: January 04

Posted 23 September 2015 - 16:36


 

So on a climate change and enegy basis ( CO2gms/km) it's advantage over petrol is less.

 

 

Perhaps, if we only measure CO2, but this is only a myopic politicians approach. There are (many) other considerations. http://www.theguardi...-choking-cities



#21 Greg Locock

Greg Locock
  • Member

  • 5,656 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 23 September 2015 - 23:17

Canuck, I've known of three cases roughly equivalent to this and all were initiated at a low level. One wasn't caught so far as I know, one was this one http://forums.autosp...mog-test/page-3 (McG made a very relevant point in VW's context) and one resulted in fines and spankings.

 

I doubt you'll really find senior management ever saying - break the law to get round this, whereas I can believe that some of them would acquiesce if some bright spark proposes a rule bending/breaking solution to a  real issue. More likely in today's tick the box mentality it never really got mentioned. We asked the cal guys to get the car though emissions and they've done it. Tick the box, on with the next gateway.

 

Someone elsewhere wondered that if their entire proto fleet had this feature, as seems likely, whether the emissions gear will actually survive 100000 miles of actual use, as opposed to being ballast.  Also,if so, their consumption of urea or whatever must have been way off expectations, which should have raised flags.



#22 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 6,733 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 23 September 2015 - 23:41

I am staggered that it took so long to pick this up. (Is it 6 years?)  There are a number of researchers around the world performing on-road emissions testing along with non-EPA-cycle dyno testing.



#23 Greg Locock

Greg Locock
  • Member

  • 5,656 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 24 September 2015 - 00:20

I guess 18 Billion dollars will pay for more EPA checking of self certified vehicles, hopefully including more on road tests as well (which are a pain). Here's some other recent similar cases http://www.detroitne...pa-vw/72617246/


Edited by Greg Locock, 24 September 2015 - 00:34.


#24 Lee Nicolle

Lee Nicolle
  • Member

  • 9,892 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 24 September 2015 - 01:21

I just thought of a direct back to back comparison, Mondeo 2.0 TD vs whatever the petrol engine, that was easily 6.2 vs 7.5 or more. Admittedly the diesel is down on power, enough to show in the Melbourne Rd  Grand Prix,  but 1000 km on a tank vs 700 ish is a big deal.

 

The only real downside is refuelling mess.

That being a major problem. Most diesel pumps seem to have a dirty mess around them. see my comments re women above.

45 years ago when I pumped gas to earn a few bucks one of the jobs was cleaning the driveway every day. Never happens now and some sites are filthy. and the place I worked did not even have a diesel pump then.. and when they eventually got one it was way over off the driveway proper. Where the spill soaked into the gravel!

Most diesel owners then bought their own bulk fuel. And I am bloody sure there is a LOT of polluted sites around. My father lost half a tank of duty free diesel [for farm tractors] when the tank leaked through a faulty fitting and plenty was spilled when said tank was being refilled too, a litre or two a couple of times a month adds up. Two tanks, one for trucks with duty and one for agriculture.


Edited by Lee Nicolle, 24 September 2015 - 09:32.


#25 bigleagueslider

bigleagueslider
  • Member

  • 1,235 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 24 September 2015 - 04:42

From what I read the software algorithm only affected operation of the SCR system. This could potentially increase NOx emissions slightly under some driving conditions, but claims made by the EPA of a 10-40 times increase in NOx emissions over the test requirements should be taken with a grain of salt. The NOx emissions of a modern US automotive engine are almost zero. So even if one of these VW engines produced NOx emissions "40 times" that of the 2014 EPA regs, it is probably still several orders of magnitude cleaner than a similar engine certified by the EPA just 10-15 years ago. And there are millions of these vehicles still being driven daily. Thus, the EPA and CARB's claims that VW should pay tens-of-$billions in fines due to the incredible damage to public health their actions caused seems enitrely without merit.



#26 Greg Locock

Greg Locock
  • Member

  • 5,656 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 24 September 2015 - 07:48

Hey, why not read the UWV technical paper that initiated the EPA's letter? No grain of salt required.



#27 jure

jure
  • Member

  • 330 posts
  • Joined: August 10

Posted 24 September 2015 - 12:13

In the VW example it is NOx emissions that are being fiddled. One easy way to reduce NOx from a diesel engine is to ****** the injection timing. The downside is reduced performance and increased fuel consumption. Not saying this is what VW did, but I would be surprised if ******** timing wasn't at least part of the mix.

I don't know how those test are done, but if one would measure power/torque at the same time as emissions, something should have given wrong result. Did people who bought "2.0 diesel with 150hp" then buy 150 hp engine with correct emissions  (and so more powerful diesel with higher emissions) or did they buy 150hp diesel with higher emissions?



#28 saudoso

saudoso
  • Member

  • 6,742 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 24 September 2015 - 14:56

The later.

#29 Canuck

Canuck
  • Member

  • 2,072 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 24 September 2015 - 17:22

More likely in today's tick the box mentality it never really got mentioned. We asked the cal guys to get the car though emissions and they've done it. Tick the box, on with the next gateway.

 

Such a thing isn't out of the realm of possibilities, but that still means that someone somewhere made a very conscious decision to go down this path, and as you've suggested, there should have been ample evidence within their own testing to suggest something was amiss to other people who would not necessarily have known about the "fix". Either everyone involved turned a blind eye to it - willful blindness, or someone big enough gave it a rubber stamp (I suppose those are not mutually exclusive either).  Both are worrying in the broader context of corporate accountability. I know this action is flagrantly and blatantly illegal, with real-world health implications.  There's no grey zone or fudge factor, but <rationalize rationalize rationalize>.



#30 Fat Boy

Fat Boy
  • Member

  • 2,207 posts
  • Joined: January 04

Posted 24 September 2015 - 19:25

Thoughts:

 

1. If I was one of the researchers, I would have gone to VW, blackmailed the hell out of them, and be in Fiji with _a lot_ of zeroes in the bank account. I don't know if I'm surprised or incredulous about this actually coming to light.

 

2. Judging from the roller dyno tests that various racecar sanctioning bodies do, I for one am shocked.....shocked, I say....that mapping would be created to produce certain acceptable results during testings that is not necessarily representative of actual operation.



#31 mariner

mariner
  • Member

  • 1,811 posts
  • Joined: January 07

Posted 24 September 2015 - 21:04

This article was published by the German Der Speigel magazine just before the VW scandal broke but it is an interesting , if lurid, description of life at the top in VW

 

http://www.spiegel.d...-a-1032210.html

 

I wil leave you to judge if top mgt knew what was going on on emissions



#32 Graveltrappen

Graveltrappen
  • Member

  • 1,261 posts
  • Joined: March 15

Posted 24 September 2015 - 21:25

Literally just received my 18month order sheet for my latest company car. Unfortunately the cars on offer are 1.6 TDI A3's and A3 Sportbacks. I dare say that they'll now have to review this, as the company car tax based on the c02 emissions will now surely be ridiculous when the true figures are revealed, and to counteract this they'll have to remove a shedload of performance to meet the stated output.

#33 Lee Nicolle

Lee Nicolle
  • Member

  • 9,892 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 24 September 2015 - 22:58

Canuck, I've known of three cases roughly equivalent to this and all were initiated at a low level. One wasn't caught so far as I know, one was this one http://forums.autosp...mog-test/page-3 (McG made a very relevant point in VW's context) and one resulted in fines and spankings.

 

I doubt you'll really find senior management ever saying - break the law to get round this, whereas I can believe that some of them would acquiesce if some bright spark proposes a rule bending/breaking solution to a  real issue. More likely in today's tick the box mentality it never really got mentioned. We asked the cal guys to get the car though emissions and they've done it. Tick the box, on with the next gateway.

 

Someone elsewhere wondered that if their entire proto fleet had this feature, as seems likely, whether the emissions gear will actually survive 100000 miles of actual use, as opposed to being ballast.  Also,if so, their consumption of urea or whatever must have been way off expectations, which should have raised flags.

That is one of the many problems with all 'pollution' equipment. It MAY be good on a new car but when the engine gets tired [over a 100000km] but still totally serviceable a lot of it is useless, Exhaust sensors that do not read correctly, vaccuum switches that do not work properly any more, computers that seem to lose function. injectors that are half carboned up etc etc. Yet alone timing chains that have significantly altered cam timing, ring and valve seal that is not really tight [eg 10% leakdown] etc etc.

Mind you since these are high volume production engines one wonders if they ever complied anyway. We all know of both the lemon engines that drink fuel, overheat and do all sorts of wrong things and conversely the 'freak' engines that do things really well. Almost certainly neither comply.

 

Modern electronics do seem to be a little better than 20 years ago but also cost a whole lot more to maintain. The workshops with the so called test equipment often get fault codes that are not faults. Though do sell a lot of spare parts :clap: .  And that sometimes fixes the vehicle too!

Though when the computers are programmed to lie it is a real concern. That is why most motorsport now has control ECUs.

As I said before these modern diesels are so lean most of the time to be a real reliability concern. Diesels love fuel with plenty of black smoke!



#34 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 6,733 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 24 September 2015 - 23:18

As I said before these modern diesels are so lean most of the time to be a real reliability concern. Diesels love fuel with plenty of black smoke!

Diesels are more reliable when run leaner.



#35 Greg Locock

Greg Locock
  • Member

  • 5,656 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 25 September 2015 - 01:37

"if one would measure power/torque at the same time as emissions"

 

You don't run full throttle on the emissions rollers. So you can't check the WOT characteristics. I suppose that could be changed, but then you'd probably need new dynos.



#36 imaginesix

imaginesix
  • Member

  • 7,525 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 25 September 2015 - 02:02

More likely in today's tick the box mentality it never really got mentioned. We asked the cal guys to get the car though emissions and they've done it. Tick the box, on with the next gateway.

Ha, so glad to hear I'm not the only one to work in a place like that!

#37 imaginesix

imaginesix
  • Member

  • 7,525 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 25 September 2015 - 02:02

For a fix, could VW just add a button to make the 'cheat' code a user-selectable mode? The default setting would be the cheat mode, so it would pass emissions, and then drivers can choose the 'HO' mode if they want.

I drove a TDI Q5 a few weeks ago and it has a user-defeatable Auto-start/stop feature. By default, the Auto-start/stop is enabled and I'm sure that's how it's tested for economy and emissions. So why not do something like that with these cheating TDIs?

#38 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 6,733 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 25 September 2015 - 03:11

Sounds like an opportunity for the aftermarket chip-tuners.



#39 Greg Locock

Greg Locock
  • Member

  • 5,656 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 25 September 2015 - 04:52

That's a big issue, even if VW can force the owners to bring the cars in to get them fixed (ie switch the USE_EPA_CAL flag to TRUE always) then the owner can just go and buy an aftermarket chip.

 

Incidentally shouldn't OBDII be logging all these high NOX events or is NOX inferred rather than measured by the car?


Edited by Greg Locock, 25 September 2015 - 04:52.


Advertisement

#40 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 6,733 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 25 September 2015 - 05:04

Inferred at best and probably not on board - I would think.



#41 Peter Morley

Peter Morley
  • Member

  • 2,225 posts
  • Joined: October 02

Posted 25 September 2015 - 09:10

I find it amazing that so many people are surprised that cars have been fiddled to pass emissions tests, many cars have been setup to make figures look better - ranging from gear ratios in the days when 0-60 acceleration was boasted about to the widespread introduction of stop-start systems that blatantly fiddled the test (stop-start cars were assumed to have zero emissions at rest hence the average figure was far lower than the true value).

#42 imaginesix

imaginesix
  • Member

  • 7,525 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 25 September 2015 - 09:34

That's a big issue, even if VW can force the owners to bring the cars in to get them fixed (ie switch the USE_EPA_CAL flag to TRUE always) then the owner can just go and buy an aftermarket chip.
 
Incidentally shouldn't OBDII be logging all these high NOX events or is NOX inferred rather than measured by the car?

The OBDII only reports if it's operating outside designed parameters. The assumption is that within those parameters the system is functioning as tested by the EPA cycle, and therefore it's clean.

#43 Greg Locock

Greg Locock
  • Member

  • 5,656 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 25 September 2015 - 09:42

Here's some useful info on the emissions systems under discussion http://www.greencarc...50921-vw2l.html



#44 imaginesix

imaginesix
  • Member

  • 7,525 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 25 September 2015 - 09:42

For a fix, could VW just add a button to make the 'cheat' code a user-selectable mode? The default setting would be the cheat mode, so it would pass emissions, and then drivers can choose the 'HO' mode if they want.

I drove a TDI Q5 a few weeks ago and it has a user-defeatable Auto-start/stop feature. By default, the Auto-start/stop is enabled and I'm sure that's how it's tested for economy and emissions. So why not do something like that with these cheating TDIs?

Thinking further, VW could warn owners that the H.O. mode is an off-road legal option only, and leave it in their hands to be responsible or not.

#45 Lee Nicolle

Lee Nicolle
  • Member

  • 9,892 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 25 September 2015 - 10:19

Local media reports lawyers looking for a class action. And officially here in Oz VWs are still kosher. Though probably have the same 'cheats' to pass Aussie emission rules too.

Ask any 'tuner' hoon about getting defected for maybe modifications. And the fees to both get the vehicle tested and then pay the fees to get the defect off. A VW badge is now a liscence for a defect!

Intersetingly a couple of people have brought up, does this ame cheat apply to petrols too.

And ofcourse how many other manufacturers have done similar? Particularly Euro cars. 

One presumes the US rules are different for  'truck' type utes in the US. All those RAMS, Effys, Chev Duallies and the like are all [to me] as dirty as!


Edited by Lee Nicolle, 25 September 2015 - 10:22.


#46 Canuck

Canuck
  • Member

  • 2,072 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 25 September 2015 - 18:52

For a fix, could VW just add a button to make the 'cheat' code a user-selectable mode?

No - that would be a direct contravention of the act. Moving the "switch" from a predefined set of sensor values to a physical switch in no way changes the fundamental act of allowing the vehicle to bypass or otherwise defeat emissions equipment, which is the charge being leveled by the EPA. If you read the EPA's letter, it's very specific and rather clear.

 

Aftermarket tuners would have the ability to alter the programming regardless - this doesn't really change much for them, although I suppose a bright spark with connections, or remarkable chip-hacking skills you need to get at the protected firmware, could duplicate the program and offer it as an entry-level tune for the patched cars, essentially undoing VW's software update.  I don't know how big the market for that would actually be though.  If you bought the unit because it's a "clean diesel" and gets good mileage, it's unlikely that you'll be prepared to pay to sacrifice the clean part of that requirement.



#47 mariner

mariner
  • Member

  • 1,811 posts
  • Joined: January 07

Posted 25 September 2015 - 18:53

Some parts this drama hve become seriously funny like the prediction that euro interest rates will be kept low or much longer due to  the VW group struggling.

 

Some are rather sad like the Environment editor of a respected Uk newspaper saying that car makers are forced to trade off betwen better fuel consumption and less CO2. Yes thats right, CO2 goes up when fuel consumption gets better !

 

But in all of this the most common statement is that " VW car swere shown to produce  40 times, or up to 40 times the permitted EPA Nox level.In the entire WVU report I cannot find one reference to 40 times the EPA  Nox limit. .

 

what they said in the conclusion was.

 

In summary, real-world NOx emissions were found to exceed the US-EPA Tier2-Bin5
standard (at full useful life) by a factor of 15 to 35 for the LNT equipped Vehicle A, by a factor
of 5 to 20 for the urea-SCR fitted Vehicle B (same engine as Vehicle A) and at or below the
standard for Vehicle C with exception of rural-up/downhill driving conditions, over five predefined
test routes.

 

A and B are the VW 's and C is a BMW .

 

I also love the final words of their report

 

It is noted that only three vehicles were tested as part of this measurement campaign with
each vehicle being a different after-treatment technology or vehicle manufacturer; conclusions
drawn from the data presented herein are confined to these three vehicles. The limited data set
does not necessarily permit drawing more generalized conclusions for a specific vehicle category
or after-treatment technology.

 

Obviously what VW did was utterly wrong and criminal but its amazing how the media stories are now so far from the one peice of actual research done.


Edited by mariner, 25 September 2015 - 18:54.


#48 Fat Boy

Fat Boy
  • Member

  • 2,207 posts
  • Joined: January 04

Posted 25 September 2015 - 19:14

Sounds like an opportunity for the aftermarket chip-tuners.

 

 

top10videogamecheatcodes_1.jpg


Edited by Fat Boy, 25 September 2015 - 19:14.


#49 GreenMachine

GreenMachine
  • Member

  • 1,521 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 25 September 2015 - 21:16

Obviously what VW did was utterly wrong and criminal but its amazing how the media stories are now so far from the one peice of actual research done.

 

Haven't VW made statements/admissions?



#50 Greg Locock

Greg Locock
  • Member

  • 5,656 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 26 September 2015 - 00:15

Yes, VW have admitted the software switch exist, they have admitted to a 'screw-up', and they have started firing people.

 

Incidentally you may remember a VW TDI recall a couple of years back, that was their shot across the bows. I think the killer is the excellent result for car C in that WVU report.