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

jimgoose

BoatMad wrote: »

err.. the supply of second hand cars is somehow endless , and existing cars last forever do they , what are you smoking

What I am referring to, as you well know, is this current fad of leathering people into buying brand-new turbodiesels that are unnecessary and a total waste of money.

BoatMad wrote: »

nonsense, as that provides no incentive to produce cars that emit less pollution , merely cars that have lower consumption , as VW have proved, make you car dirty and it will be efficient and powerful.

it severely penalises goods vehicles , where there is little option but to use the engines as they find them

It provides plenty incentive to people, i.e. drivers of cars, to produce less pollution. This in turn leads them to demand more fuel efficiency. The incentive to produce less of other pollutants should be the regular, scheduled pollution test, not some stupid "smoke test" or asking the car what it thinks about it's own emissions, as they currently do in California. And you'll find that operators of goods vehicles won't be long bating manufacturers into producing engines that use even less fuel.

BoatMad wrote: »

you display a remarkable lack of understanding of diesel technology

Is that a fact! :pac:

BoatMad

It provides plenty incentive to people, i.e. drivers of cars, to produce less pollution. This in turn leads them to demand more fuel efficiency. The incentive to produce less of other pollutants should be the regular, scheduled pollution test, not some stupid "smoke test" or asking the car what it thinks about it's own emissions, as they currently do in California. And you'll find that operators of goods vehicles won't be long bating manufacturers into producing engines that use even less fuel.

Making a diesel car in particular, more fuel efficient does not mean making it less polluting . IN fact the opposite can be the case, which is why VW resorted to what they did, The imposition of cleaner rules for diesels , Euro 6 etc, is forcing UP fuel consumption especially where the power requirements need to stay the same , vehicles have got heavier and heavier in recent years

hence a tax on fuel , encourages fuel consumption efficiency, it does nothing to encourage lower emissions

is this current fad of leathering people into buying brand-new turbodiesels that are unnecessary and a total waste of money.

Irish car buyers seem to decouple running costs from ownership costs. Hence the popularity of diesels. yet I asked someone recently ( on a PCP) to compute theire " great fuel savings" against the adder for buying a diesel model. they were suprised that on a PCP they would never own that car long enough to effect the fuel savings, in reality the petrol car would be cheaper, Ah but sure they we're still saving a fortune on fuel !!!!!!!

jimgoose

BoatMad wrote: »

Making a diesel car in particular, more fuel efficient does not mean making it less polluting . IN fact the opposite can be the case, which is why VW resorted to what they did, The imposition of cleaner rules for diesels , Euro 6 etc, is forcing UP fuel consumption especially where the power requirements need to stay the same , vehicles have got heavier and heavier in recent years

hence a tax on fuel , encourages fuel consumption efficiency, it does nothing to encourage lower emissions...

Yes, I know that. Hence the requirement for a proper emissions test as well, which is currently not in place for diesel-engined cars. I mentioned that above - in fact, I've mentioned it a few times. If it was easy, they'd all be at it.

BoatMad

jimgoose wrote: »

Yes, I know that. Hence the requirement for a proper emissions test as well, which is currently not in place for diesel-engined cars. I mentioned that above - in fact, I've mentioned it a few times. If it was easy, they'd all be at it.

if you legislative intention is to overly penalise diesel cars, then you might as well set emissions standards that in effect cant be met.

There is only a certain point to where emissions can reasonably be taken, other wise the internal combustion engine simply will not work

Right now we have no alternative so we will have to accept a degree of pollution consistent with the ability to engineer such engines to a reasonable price

jimgoose

BoatMad wrote: »

if you legislative intention is to overly penalise diesel cars, then you might as well set emissions standards that in effect cant be met.

There is only a certain point to where emissions can reasonably be taken, other wise the internal combustion engine simply will not work

Right now we have no alternative so we will have to accept a degree of pollution consistent with the ability to engineer such engines to a reasonable price

I'm not for a nanosecond advocating overly-penalising diesel-engined cars. I am merely advocating a proper gas-analysis which checks for levels of certain known pollutants, the same as what's done on petrol cars. The carbon dioxide end of it can be sorted out at the forecourt, along with the "motor tax".

snaps

Now that this has been found out, will it affect tax bands/rates on these vw cars?

So the actual emmisions figure is a lot higher than first thought, thus a different tax band (road tax)?

BoatMad

snaps wrote: »

Now that this has been found out, will it affect tax bands/rates on these vw cars?

So the actual figure is a lot higher than first thought, thus a different tax band (road tax)?

it has no implications for EU cars because the tests in Europe are tailpipe tests , the issue was in the states they use the cars own diagnostic output as evidence of compliance.

The software then lied ( quite common really in computers )

The issue was detected by a US/European based testing house that noticed the diesel tests on certain cars ( which they passed) in Europe were considerably poorer then in the US, The US has a stricter emissions rating ( especially in California) and the testing house set out to show that US based but , european made diesels could be made to pass stricter EU tests, But ---clanger, discovered the US were in effect just as polluting as the EU ones - red faces all round in VW

jimgoose

snaps wrote: »

Now that this has been found out, will it affect tax bands/rates on these vw cars?

So the actual emmisions figure is a lot higher than first thought, thus a different tax band (road tax)?

The emitted substance in question is various oxides of nitrogen. The post-'08 motor tax bands here are based on CO2 emissions, which is basically fuel efficiency.

gctest50

BoatMad wrote: »

...............

it severely penalises goods vehicles , where there is little option but to use the engines as they find them
........

little hybrid truck

BoatMad

gctest50 wrote: »

little hybrid truck

what about artics?

snaps

BoatMad wrote: »

it has no implications for EU cars because the tests in Europe are tailpipe tests , the issue was in the states they use the cars own diagnostic output as evidence of compliance.

The software then lied ( quite common really in computers )

The issue was detected by a US/European based testing house that noticed the diesel tests on certain cars ( which they passed) in Europe were considerably poorer then in the US, The US has a stricter emissions rating ( especially in California) and the testing house set out to show that US based but , european made diesels could be made to pass stricter EU tests, But ---clanger, discovered the US were in effect just as polluting as the EU ones - red faces all round in VW

Well I'm reading its affecting 11m cars worldwide now?

BoatMad

CO2 emissions, which is basically fuel efficiency.

not really, a diesel can be made more efficient by polluting more, for example RGR recombination robs the engine of power and hence has to be made bigger ( as does active DpF, etc ),

jimgoose

BoatMad wrote: »

not really, a diesel can be made more efficient by polluting more, for example RGR recombination robs the engine of power and hence has to be made bigger ( as does active DpF, etc ),

CO2 emissions have nothing to do with the DPF or the EGR, the function of the former being to adsorb particulate matter from the fuel, and that of the latter being to lower combustion temperatures thus reducing NOx formation. I suppose the nub of the thing is whether or not one considers CO2 to be a pollutant! :pac:

BoatMad

jimgoose wrote: »

CO2 emissions have nothing to do with the DPF or the EGR, the function of the former being to adsorb particulate matter from the fuel, and that of the latter being to lower combustion temperatures thus reducing NOx formation. I suppose the nub of the thing is whether or not one considers CO2 to be a pollutant! :pac:

I know, what I was ham fistedly trying to say was that fuel efficiency and pollutant production are not a linear relationship, you can actually make a diesel more fuel efficient if you accept certain pollutants. The issue at the heart of the VW, is how to make it both fuel efficient and reduce pollutants

I know that for C02, theres a direct relation ship , about 2600 grams per litre

unkel

BoatMad wrote: »

not really

Yes it is. The relation between fuel use and CO2 production is pretty linear. There's so much carbon in a litre of fuel, which turns into CO2 after combustion (gave or take a little loss in carbon monoxide )

Different figures for petrol and diesel though

jimgoose

BoatMad wrote: »

I know, what I was ham fistedly trying to say was that fuel efficiency and pollutant production are not a linear relationship, you can actually make a diesel more fuel efficient if you accept certain pollutants. The issue at the heart of the VW, is how to make it both fuel efficient and reduce pollutants

Finally we converge and agree, chief. There are somewhat conflicting requirements here, between conserving resources and lowering harmful substance levels. And that is firmly VW's - and other manufactuers' - problem. Meanwhile, legislation and regulation should recognise this state of affairs, and decide what exactly we are about: improving fuel economy and protecting people and their environment, or flogging cars and making money.

jimgoose

unkel wrote: »

...gave or take a little loss in carbon monoxide...

Would you like to know how much CO, according to the NCT's gas analyser, a 16-year old 3l Jaaaag with 160,000 miles on it that burns a litre of oil every 1,500 miles, produces? Have a guess!

BoatMad

Finally we converge and agree, chief. There are somewhat conflicting requirements here, between conserving resources and lowering harmful substance levels. And that is firmly VW's - and other manufactuers' - problem. Meanwhile, legislation and regulation should recognise this state of affairs, and decide what exactly we are about: improving fuel economy and protecting people and their environment, or flogging cars and making money.

we agree here except for

decide what exactly we are about: improving fuel economy and protecting people and their environment, or flogging cars and making money

it isn't that black or white, ultimately we need at this point , the internal combustion engine and diesels are part of that . Hence pollutant legislation can only proceed in line with what is technically capable of being built at an acceptable price to provide transport vehicles. If you legislate too greatly in banning pollutants , you run the risk of having no compliant engines

for example in diesel rail locomotives , is has proven so difficult to meet Tier 3 specifications, that for example EMD has hd to withdraw from the market for 2 years to try and develop a new engine, Both the US and Europe had to relax the legislation simply to allow locomotives to be made to meet the increasing demand for rail freight locomotives. It has lead to in the UK refurbishing old clapped out locos, and putting them back in service, where arguably they are creating vastly more pollutants and poorer fuel economy then if new engines were bought

You cant simply decide one or the other priority , its a balance

jimgoose

BoatMad wrote: »

we agree here except for...

Yes of course, I agree with all that and never contradicted it! "Improving fuel economy and protecting people and their environment" needs to be gone about in a sensible, achievable way.

unkel

jimgoose wrote: »

Would you like to know how much CO, according to the NCT's gas analyser, a 16-year old 3l Jaaaag with 160,000 miles on it that burns a litre of oil every 1,500 miles, produces? Have a guess!

Looked up my own cars: 12 year old straight 6 petrol: 0.00% and 15 year old 4 cylinder petrol: 0.01%

Yours probably similar enough?

jimgoose

unkel wrote: »

Looked up my own cars: 12 year old straight 6 petrol: 0.00% and 15 year old 4 cylinder petrol: 0.01%

Yours probably similar enough?

Yup!

JJJJNR

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

My bet, they're all at it, they just haven't been found out yet. If you were to design a car that met all the latest emissions regulations under real life driving conditions AND do 64 MPG, it would not do 100 mph or hit 60 in under 10 seconds.
I just don't know what all the fuss is about. A braindead baboon would know that you just CANNOT design a car that drives as we expect it AND hit all emissions and MPG targets. Just because some politicians decree it to be done doesn't make it possible.

Once you have the money, (cough) you can buy whatever you want.

Joe 90

jimgoose wrote: »

Finally we converge and agree, chief. There are somewhat conflicting requirements here, between conserving resources and lowering harmful substance levels. And that is firmly VW's - and other manufactuers' - problem. Meanwhile, legislation and regulation should recognise this state of affairs, and decide what exactly we are about: improving fuel economy and protecting people and their environment, or flogging cars and making money.

The legislators probably see flogging cars and making money as really being paying salaries and pensions.

jimgoose

Joe 90 wrote: »

The legislators probably see flogging cars and making money as really being paying salaries and pensions.

Quite so. Then let them come out and say that, as opposed to a load of Who-Shot-John hooey about the environment. :pac:

Stallingrad

This story gets more bizarre by the day, added urea? From where is it added, and did the engineers ever wonder what this little reservoir (if that is way it was) was for?

How were the competition achieving good results, while VW had to fiddle theirs so dramatically, there must be a huge can of worms waiting in the wings. This could be potentially ruinas for VW as the lawsuits roll in. I'd say Winterkorn will be gone with days, of not hours. This is huge.

jimgoose

Stallingrad wrote: »

This story gets more bizarre by the day, added urea? From where is it added, and did the engineers ever wonder what this little reservoir (if that is way it was) was for?

How were the competition achieving good results, while VW had to fiddle theirs so dramatically, there must be a huge can of worms waiting in the wings. This could be potentially ruinas for VW as the lawsuits roll in. I'd say Winterkorn will be gone with days, of not hours. This is huge.

That's the very thing - VW were running these vehicles without urea. The competition are using urea.

R.O.R

jimgoose wrote: »

That's the very thing - VW were running these vehicles without urea. The competition are using urea.

Larger & higher power VW/Audi/Skoda's are now using AdBlue (Urea) so it's possible they have been using it in the US for longer than here.

Joe 90

Letting arts grads run riot in engineering was never going to end well...

jimgoose

R.O.R wrote: »

Larger & higher power VW/Audi/Skoda's are now using AdBlue (Urea) so it's possible they have been using it in the US for longer than here.

They've been using it since 2008, since regulations necessitated it. However, the four-cylinder 2l units, considered small engines in the USA, did not use it. VW maintained that they were capable of meeting the regulations using the DPF alone, with regeneration. This would have smelled of bullshít to anyone versed in this stuff, as DPF cooking via valve-timing and/or injection tweakery sends NOx production shooting up, but there you go. :pac:

Conor20

Good article in Bloomberg about this: VW Scandal Will Speed Up Diesel's Demise Hopefully!

The Volkswagen emissions scandal has broader implications than the potential damage it can do to Europe's biggest carmaker. It's the result of Europe backing the wrong emissions-reducing technology on a regulatory level. There is now an opportunity to reverse that error and force the continent's сar manufacturers to concentrate on hybrid and electric vehicles. They've got the technology and resources to reshape the market.

VW had an advantage in diesel technology, which it wanted to leverage in the U.S., for a reason. In the mid-1990s, the European Commission and European Union member countries' governments started a campaign of massive intervention to stimulate the use of diesel engines in cars. At the beginning of that decade, Europe and Japan had about 10 percent of diesel automobiles on the road. After 1995, the trends diverged widely..


..European automakers have the technology to compete in the electric vehicle market: Their models outsell Japanese and American ones in EU countries where electric powertrains are popular. In business terms, however, the move away from diesel -- which should accelerate now -- will be extremely costly, much more expensive than the regulatory fines the industry will probably face in the aftermath of the VW scandal.

There's light at the end of the tunnel, though. Once the transition is completed, the Europeans, with their engineering strength, will make the hybrid and electric market much more competitive. In the U.S., too, Volkswagen will be back: After all, its e-Golf outsells the Tesla Model S in Norway today.