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

5W30

5W30 wrote: »

You might be right but IMO EVs (at current generation) defeat the purpose of the car and the freedom it gives. Personally I'd rather hassle free, fast fuel ups than having to worry about charging the car.

Yes it may cost more but it's worth it, again IMO.

I don't have to worry about charging it either, not too concerned about a 10 min charge or the 20 extra mins it takes me in total to get in and out.

I take the Diesel on the long trip (over 150 miles, mainly to keep miles off for the lease), I wouldn't have the Leaf if it was our only car where I live. But the EV is doing the most mileage and at 20,600 Kms isn't small mileage in 9 months.

The 160 Km Leaf in 2016 would be the one to get for now I don't know if anyone does more than this regularly but the choice is there. The E-Golf and I3/Zoe.

5W30

5W30 wrote: »

Yes it may cost more but it's worth it, again IMO.

1300 V 190 Euro's worth it for the sake of 10 min charge ? not to me. See I wouldn't have a new car and pay so much more for fuel.

jca

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Is it any surprise that a simulated test would produce real life figures ?

The NEDC is a farce and designed so the motor industry can get past emissions tests but the tests are to become real, tested on actual roads, I read somewhere and manufacturers are "worried" haha, so they should be, diesel is unnecessary for the majority of people who drive 20-40 miles a day, it's the "road tax" that attracts them.

BMW have ambitious plans to scrap diesel by 2020.

MPG figures in most cases are well off. Most people can't reach the claimed figures.

Their piece of knicker elastic for a timing chain won't be missed by their unfortunate owners.

r3nu4l

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Good find, how did you come across this ?

...

this should make international headlines, you won't see the media report it

What? It is all over international media. It was the main headline on the front of the financial times this morning and is on BBC News too...

No surprise here at all. Kia and Hyundai were suspected of this last year by US authorities but nothing was ever proven.

You can be sure plenty of other manufacturers are at it too.

ba_barabus

I'll be honest. I never work out mpg or emissions. Just give me a car that is in its own way good to drive

r3nu4l

r3nu4l wrote: »

What? It is all over international media. It was the main headline on the front of the financial times this morning and is on BBC News too...

No surprise here at all. Kia and Hyundai were suspected of this last year by US authorities but nothing was ever proven.

You can be sure plenty of other manufacturers are at it too.

Of course they're all at it even the U.S car companies.

Only saw it on RTE news Site. Didn't look elsewhere.

alias no.9

[Deleted User] wrote: »

True, I guess though my car is one of few models that can actually get it's claimed emissions ratings, range is another matter

I wouldn't be worried about Co2 and this is where Europe failed miserably by having such an emphasis on Co2 and promoting Diesel as some kind of clean fuel.

If BMW are considering abandoning Diesels for plug in cars, I'd say the writing is on the wall for the rest of the manufacturers too. BMW said it will be too difficult and expensive at that point it would be easier to add a batter and motor.

I think Nissan plan the complete opposite after 2020 they want to have all their fleet electric, in other words they want to skip plug ins for all EV but they don't have plans to stop making petrol or diesel cars yet that I've heard.

What are the emissions when it's running off power from Moneypoint?

jelutong

It could cost VW £11.5b allegedly.

colm_mcm

I'm sort of impressed though.

John T Carroll

alias no.9 wrote: »

I doubt they're the only ones. Modern cars are designed to perform in the standardised tests regardless of real world performance be it for CO2, NOx or particulates.

As you say modern cars are designed to perform to standarised tests but VW are accused of detecting when emission testing is taking place and only switching on all its emission control devices during this time.

"The cars employed a sophisticated software algorithm to detect when the car was undergoing official emissions testing and turn on full emissions controls only on that time."

Seth Brundle

Given the reduced emissions rating, will we see any governments (including our own) looking for the correct values and then completing a VRT re-assessment along with a claim for outstanding motor tax?

Lissavane

John T Carroll wrote: »

As you say modern cars are designed to perform to standarised tests but VW are accused of detecting when emission testing is taking place and only switching on all its emission control devices during this time.

"The cars employed a sophisticated software algorithm to detect when the car was undergoing official emissions testing and turn on full emissions controls only on that time."

It'll be interesting to see if VW were at this in Europe and markets other than the US.

I'd have thought that the NCT might detect this scam, if it did take place in VWs sold in Ireland. But maybe not, if the software detects when it is under test conditions.

theShire

colm_mcm wrote: »

I'm sort of impressed though.

Me too, it took ingenuity to create this 'defeat device'

It's a bit like the toyota turbo for the wrc that got them kicked out.

Totally underhanded but these took some serious engineering minds to create

cerastes

alias no.9 wrote: »

What are the emissions when it's running off power from Moneypoint?

Its got to be a better use of energy and have less emissions, surely? but Id be interested to know a figure on that, suppose it depends on whats producing the electricity.

Lissavane

kbannon wrote: »

Given the reduced emissions rating, will we see any governments (including our own) looking for the correct values and then completing a VRT re-assessment along with a claim for outstanding motor tax?

No. Any penalties would be imposed on the manufacturer. If VW were at this in Europe, it's unlikely that any penalty would be imposed on them, given that Germany effectively owns the robbing, dysfunctional kip that is the EU.

John T Carroll

cerastes wrote: »

Its got to be a better use of energy and have less emissions, surely? but Id be interested to know a figure on that, suppose it depends on whats producing the electricity.

When Monepoint (with pulverised coal fired boilers) was being built, Flue gas "scrubbing" was costed as well but because it would have added to the cost of electricity it was put on the long finger, I think they are scrubbing the gases now after pressure from the EEC but I may be wrong on this. Its like everything else really, we wont do it until forced by legislation, "DPF deletion" on diesel engines and EGR disabling on all types of engines will likewise continue until we are forced to discontinue it but it can all be put down to human nature?.

Re Moneypoint, if memory serves me right, each boiler consumed 118 tons of coal per hour.

challengemaster

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't have to worry about charging it either, not too concerned about a 10 min charge or the 20 extra mins it takes me in total to get in and out.

I take the Diesel on the long trip (over 150 miles, mainly to keep miles off for the lease), I wouldn't have the Leaf if it was our only car where I live. But the EV is doing the most mileage and at 20,600 Kms isn't small mileage in 9 months.

The 160 Km Leaf in 2016 would be the one to get for now I don't know if anyone does more than this regularly but the choice is there. The E-Golf and I3/Zoe.

Deleted User wrote: »

1300 V 190 Euro's worth it for the sake of 10 min charge ? not to me. See I wouldn't have a new car and pay so much more for fuel.

Seeing as you're classing charging time per day, why not compare the cost difference at the same level? I bet it doesn't look half as impressive.

20 mins on a commute every working day for a year is ~5800 minutes per year wasted waiting for your car to charge. That's nearly 97 hours. That's not taking into account any weekend driving. Most people have better things to do with their life than spend over 4 days of their life every year charging a car.

Also you're basing figures on "if" they were on your night rate. What was the actual cost? We can all pull figures out of our arse for what things would have cost if....

And those 97 hours charging your car aren't being factored in because they're currently being subsidised, nor would they be on the night rate either. It'd cost everyone a lot less to commute if they were all getting free fuel every day.

There's no doubt it probably is saving you money, but you've got a serious case of rose tinted glasses going on.

alias no.9

alias no.9 wrote: »

What are the emissions when it's running off power from Moneypoint?

Probably a lot less than the emissions in the refinery process of petrol and diesel, and the transportation involved. Then there's all the chemicals used in the process. Then add to the fact the Internal combustion engine is 20-30% efficient V 80-85% for the EV. We have up to 40% energy from wind now and growing. You also have the choice to charge via your own wind turbine or solar PV. Coal accounts for about 15-20% of our energy mix. Except for the last few days which have been pretty calm. So you need a lot more ev batteries to store all the excess wind energy we get rather than export some of it. Wind at night can be used to charge EV batteries. We have plenty of spare capacity at night while all the power stations have to keep burning fuel to be ready for demand.

I don't think my electricity comes from money point anyway, most likely a Gas fired plant with mix of wind.

The EV also needs no oil throughout it's life, no filters, no spark plugs, no glow plugs, belts etc. The battery can be reused and broken down after. Very little lithium goes into the production of batteries so currently it's not worth extracting it but that's because there is not enough batteries to make it worth while yet.

For every tank of petrol and diesel there is enough electricity consumed at the refinery to drive an ev 80-100 miles, this is before transportation of the oil to the refinery - to the garage and this isn't including any other energy mix.

challengemaster

challengemaster wrote: »

Seeing as you're classing charging time per day, why not compare the cost difference at the same level? I bet it doesn't look half as impressive. /QUOTE]

Don't get this ? maybe I'm too tired !

challengemaster wrote: »

20 mins on a commute every working day for a year is ~5800 minutes per year wasted waiting for your car to charge. That's nearly 97 hours. That's not taking into account any weekend driving. Most people have better things to do with their life than spend over 4 days of their life every year charging a car. /QUOTE]

Told you it doesn't bother me, I could go out over lunch if I wanted and it's charged by the time I get me sambo made up and pay for it and eat it but I couldn't be bothered. So I sit in the canteen or do whatever. More wasted time. I'd rather get home an hour earlier but anyway.

For the 20 mins I can reply to boards posts, send a few emails etc what I'd do at home anyway.

Weekend driving doesn't really cost me charging time if I do go somewhere. I can go into town plug in to a standard street charge point and in 2 hrs I get from 25-90% and usually plenty for me to get home .

challengemaster wrote: »

Also you're basing figures on "if" they were on your night rate. What was the actual cost? We can all pull figures out of our arse for what things would have cost if....

190 Euro's to drive 20,500 Kms is as close as you'll get based on my consumption of 18 Kwh/100 Kms. But it's a lot less because of all the free public charging and it is including 15% consumed by the charger which is 85% efficient. This isn't a figure out of my arse.

challengemaster wrote: »

And those 97 hours charging your car aren't being factored in because they're currently being subsidised, nor would they be on the night rate either. It'd cost everyone a lot less to commute if they were all getting free fuel every day.

I work 15 shifts per month and 10 mins charging = 27.5 hrs per year . where did you get 97 ? again I'm tired so my maths could be off.

I bet you watch more tv than this ? how's that any more productive ?

If I stay in my current job using the work charge point means 0 charging for commuting.

The charge points are there, so is the car, no reason anyone that was in the market for a similar cost car couldn't buy an EV be it leaf/Zoe I3 etc.

They won't be free from sometime in 2016. And I pay my taxes too.

challengemaster wrote: »

There's no doubt it probably is saving you money, but you've got a serious case of rose tinted glasses going on.

No rose tinted glasses for me, I see the Leaf as it is for me, that's a practical decent car that's not consuming petrol or diesel and I can put that savings of fuel/maintenance/motor tax into paying the car. And I'm happy to be off petrol and diesel.

The Leaf costs about the same as an average diesel hatch but much better equipped and far cheaper to run and absolutely, 20 mins a day is well worth saving probably 1,700 or more euro's on fuel a year. Excluding maintenance, motor tax savings. + I get free work charging which will save when the charge points are not free from sometime in 2016.

Don't forget that for 2016 the leaf gets more range, the 2018 leaf gets 150-200 miles, Tesla model 3 200 miles, Audi will have an SUV with a claimed 500 Kms. And of course the Model S 90 Kwh has about 275 miles range.

cerastes

I wouldnt mind going the electric route, but finances prevent it, I suppose it hasnt come up, but with so few on the roads, Im suprised they arent allowed use the bus lanes,

Marcusm

alias no.9 wrote: »

I doubt they're the only ones. Modern cars are designed to perform in the standardised tests regardless of real world performance be it for CO2, NOx or particulates.

They are practically the only seller of diesel passenger vehicles in the U.S.; likely they have been targeted by domestic car companies. That may come back to bite the big 3 but not in diesel.

Atlantic Dawn

The Euro tests worked well to virtually wipe out sales of the majority of non Euro built cars, it would be a shame if they were revealed to be an out and out scam.

Roen

challengemaster wrote: »

20 mins on a commute every working day for a year is ~5800 minutes per year wasted waiting for your car to charge. That's nearly 97 hours. That's not taking into account any weekend driving.

Never mind the time it takes. You are aware humans don't go into suspended animation when they charge their EVs?
I use the time to catch up on phone calls to the family, emails, club business, doing the odd bit of shopping, and my personal favourite. Stretching out after a hike.

It's not a net gain or loss. It's stuff I'd do anyway I just do it in or near the car. It's certainly not wasted time no matter what way you look at it. Unless of course you've already made up your mind.

As for people having better things to do. Well, I'm sure some do. I wouldn't give the average person too much credit.

cerastes

cerastes wrote: »

I wouldnt mind going the electric route, but finances prevent it, I suppose it hasnt come up, but with so few on the roads, Im suprised they arent allowed use the bus lanes,

No, and the bus lanes are crowded enough. There could be more incentives maybe such as free or reduced tolls and no V.R.T and reduced VRT.

Atlantic Dawn

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

The Euro tests worked well to virtually wipe out sales of the majority of non Euro built cars, it would be a shame if they were revealed to be an out and out scam.

Of course it is a scam, it's only there to protect the European auto industry not our air quality.

From Wiki

Criticism[edit]

Inability to represent real-life driving
The NEDC was conceived at a time when European vehicles were lighter and less powerful. The test offers a stylized driving speed pattern with low accelerations, constant speed cruises, and many idling events, however the transient accelerations are much steeper and more dynamic in practice,[6] in part caused by the power surplus of modern engines, as the 0–100 km/h (0–62 mph) average time decreased from 14 seconds in 1981 to 9 seconds in 2007.[7] The UK consumer group Which? criticise the NEDC as being out of date, having been first introduced in the 1970s and not updated since 1997 - before hybrid cars and stop-start technology was generally available. They also criticise it for not replicating real-world driving conditions and having numerous loopholes which mean the test figures are unachievable in practice. Weaknesses noted are: that tests are not necessarily repeatable and comparable, the test cycle does not include sustained motorway driving, test cycles can be performed using optional economy settings which will not typically be selected by drivers, the test cycle is performed with ancillary equipment such a air conditioning and heated windows switched off, the tests can be carried out at 1.2mph below the required speed thus using less fuel, roof rails and passenger door mirror can be removed for the test, tyre pressures for the test can be set above the recommended values thus reducing rolling resistance, no official body polices the tests and the car companies can arbitrarily reduce their results by 4% at the end of the cycle.


Cycle beating

For the emission standards to deliver real emission reductions it is crucial to use a test cycle that reflects real-world driving style. However the fixed speeds, gear shift points and accelerations of the NEDC offer possibilities for manufacturers to engage in what was called 'cycle beating' to optimise engine emission performance to the corresponding operating points of the test cycle, while emissions from typical driving conditions would be much higher than expected, undermining the standards and public health.[6] In one particular instance, research from two German technology institutes found that for diesel cars no 'real' NOx reductions have been achieved after 13 years of stricter standards.[9]

jimgoose

Hmm. It seems this has to do with new NOx adsorber technology, as opposed to the older but tried-and-tested selective catalytic reduction system still used by the likes of Mercedes. Apparently this technology isn't as effective as VAG would like on larger engines, and this was proving problematic with California's legendarily strict smog regulations. Happily, since Assembly Bill AB 2289 took effect in 2013, newer diesel cars aren't subjected to a tailpipe probe, but "instead use the vehicle’s own emissions monitoring systems. This system has saved consumers in 22 states time and money." I'll bet it has! So the trick VAG did now becomes a rather trivial matter of code, as 'twere. Handily, this kind of thing can be used for all manner of "improvements" via alternate fuel map tables, injector dwell times, etc. :pac:

Of course this doesn't effect Ireland, where the NCT currently does not perform emissions testing per sé on diesels at all, but simply measures the density of particulate matter in the exhaust gas. I believe, and I kid you not, it's based on the amount of light blocked by a cubic meter of exhaust. Pity they don't emit soup, we could be waiting behind them with forks.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

By the way at current diesel prices the Leaf if using all my own night rate leccy would have cost about 190 Euro's V 1300 in a 5.1 L/100 Km diesel or about 55 mpg imp. That's excluding maintenance and motor tax savings.

See that's why I shouldn't post on Boards after a 12 hr shift and hour drive home.

I made a mistake with the calculation. From another post today.

"So if I've driven 20,000 kms and since 15-20th january I divide 100 /20,000 gives me 200 multiply that by 18 (kwh) gives me 3,600 Kwh consumed (8 kwh/100 Kms consumption) multiply 3,600 by 0.08 Cent = 288 Euro's + 15% for the charger consumption (85% efficient) = 331 Euro's . "

That's at a speed of 100-120 kph. over 84 miles. Sometimes more sometimes less. 18 kwh/100 Kms is my highest consumption.

So if you average 5.1 L/100 Kms in your diesel (per tank) you'll pay about 1300 euros for diesel about 1,000 more over 20,000 kms. + more maintenance, motor tax. I still have 10K to go before (inspection)

frozenfrozen

I'd love to see the emissions reading of a diesel making the 'I haven't accelerated this hard in three weeks' mushroom cloud

jimgoose

jimgoose wrote: »

...Of course this doesn't effect Ireland, where the NCT currently does not perform emissions testing per sé on diesels at all, but simply measures the density of particulate matter in the exhaust gas. I believe, and I kid you not, it's based on the amount of light blocked by a cubic meter of exhaust. Pity they don't emit soup, we could be waiting behind them with forks.

I've taken to fretting about the ice caps and the little furry critters and what-not, so to that end I'm going to need some enlightenment on this:


From: goose@lameduck.net
To: info@ncts.ie
Subject: NCT emissions testing...

Dear Sir/Madam,

I have a question regarding the emissions testing performed during NCT tests. As we know, petrol vehicles are subjected to a tailpipe probe gas analysis, measuring levels of carbon monoxide and hydrocarbon, as well as stoichiometric lambda. This is well and proper, controlling levels of harmful substances released into the environment as cars are driven.

However, it appears that no such analysis is performed on diesel-engined vehicles. I believe the NCT "smoke test" performed on such vehicles is basically a light-based smoke density assessment. This to be fair would gauge the performance of diesel particulate filters, but does not measure levels of harmful substances such as the aforementioned carbon monoxide and also other poisonous, even carcinogenic, substances present in turbodiesel exhaust such as nitrogen oxides and acetaldehyde.

Could you explain to me why a similar gas analysis is not performed on diesel-engined vehicles during the NCT test? European Union emissions standards have set limits for diesel-engined vehicles for carbon monoxide since the original Euro-1 standard in 1992, and for nitrogen oxides ("NOx") since Euro-3 in 2000.

Thanks and regards,

--
James D.I.A.K.S. Goose

Was this same story not out last year or about but with BMW?