VW emissions software update - disaster

Nonoperational

X6.430macman wrote: »

Diesel has come an awful long way. A modern complient diesel is now very clean.

Remember that anecdote about arguing with idiots? That applies.

Special Circumstances

Nonoperational wrote: »

Remember that anecdote about arguing with idiots? That applies.

Ah I wouldn't call them idiots, they knew what they were doing alright. Trying it on in the US was foolish though.

X6.430macman

dar83 wrote:

Cancer giving clean.

And petrol is clean??

ABC101

X6.430macman wrote: »

dar83 wrote:

Cancer giving clean.

And petrol is clean??

Nobody is saying Petrol is clean.   It too is a pollutant and harmful to health, benzene etc + a GHG contributor etc.
Coincidentally the particulate problem which Diesels suffer from (due to Direct injection) may also become a feature of petrol engines as direct injection is starting to be used there too.   
Perhaps the future is EV and self driving cars?
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1352231014006190

Anjobe

X6.430macman wrote: »

And petrol is clean??

There are two answers to that. In terms of climate changing CO2 emissions petrol is obviously worse than diesel. In terms of respiratory disease causing NOx and carcinogenic particulate emissions,yes petrol is relatively clean compared to diesel. Diesel was incentivisised because of the first issue, but is now considered a serious public health issue in cities because of the second.

Special Circumstances

Anjobe wrote: »

There are two answers to that. In terms of climate changing CO2 emissions petrol is obviously worse than diesel. In terms of respiratory disease causing NOx and carcinogenic particulate emissions,yes petrol is relatively clean compared to diesel. Diesel was incentivisised because of the first issue, but is now considered a serious public health issue in cities because of the second.

I think Nonoperational implied you are an idiot.

X6.430macman

Anjobe wrote:

There are two answers to that. In terms of climate changing CO2 emissions petrol is obviously worse than diesel. In terms of respiratory disease causing NOx and carcinogenic particulate emissions,yes petrol is relatively clean compared to diesel. Diesel was incentivisised because of the first issue, but is now considered a serious public health issue in cities because of the second.

I though ad blue sorted the problem of nox gases??

Toyotafanboi

X6.430macman wrote: »

I though ad blue sorted the problem of nox gases??

Adblu is a bit of a joke though really isn't it. I'd say the vast majority of passenger cars on the roads aren't equipped either way.

X6.430macman

Toyotafanboi wrote:

Adblu is a bit of a joke though really isn't it. I'd say the vast majority of passenger cars on the roads aren't equipped either way.

It's in all diesels now so must be working

Special Circumstances

X6.430macman wrote: »

It's in all diesels now so must be working

DPFs and DMFs are in all diesels too.
They must be working????

X6.430macman

Special Circumstances wrote:

DPFs and DMFs are in all diesels too. They must be working????

Under the right conditions, yes

Special Circumstances

X6.430macman wrote: »

Under the right conditions, yes

Yeah... like VW emissions controls right?

J.pilkington

ml100 wrote: »

Booked my golf in for a service last week and was told that it would need to get the emission fix, told them I didn't want it done yet until I looked into it more to see what was involved, I was then told I'd have to sign something stating I didn't want it done, they were quick enough with this, they are not as quick to query vw on goodwill known fault repair work
!

I hope you read it and told them to shove it and didn't sign it. I'm probably one of the few who read it, realised that by signing it I'm effectively accepting the car as is (false emissions) and letting vw be exonerated of any liability

X6.430macman

Special Circumstances wrote:

Yeah... like VW emissions controls right?

Doing sufficient miles to justify

Special Circumstances

X6.430macman wrote: »

Doing sufficient miles to justify

Justify wat

X6.430macman

Special Circumstances wrote:

Justify wat

To justify having a diesel and so a dpf etc so they work at their optimium

Toyotafanboi

X6.430macman wrote: »

It's in all diesels now so must be working

Does it have to be incorporated into all new diesel engines to gain approval?

It's certainly not in every model on sale at the moment.

ml100

J.pilkington wrote: »

I hope you read it and told them to shove it and didn't sign it. I'm probably one of the few who read it, realised that by signing it I'm effectively accepting the car as is (false emissions) and letting vw be exonerated of any liability

It's not going in until next week, did you sign it?, what can they do if you refuse to sign, not service the car?, might be time to find a good independent garage, I've had vw golf's for 20 years if they piss me off over this it will be the last vw I ever buy.

Special Circumstances

X6.430macman wrote: »

To justify having a diesel and so a dpf etc so they work at their optimium

The nox controls turn off outside "test conditions". How does driving it more justify more nox.

Toyotafanboi

ml100 wrote: »

It's not going in until next week, did you sign it?, what can they do if you refuse to sign, not service the car?, might be time to find a good independent garage, I've had vw golf's for 20 years if they piss me off over this it will be the last vw I ever buy.

They won't refuse to service it if you decline.

X6.430macman

Special Circumstances wrote:

The nox controls turn off outside "test conditions". How does driving it more justify more nox.

Dpf needs driving in order to keep it clean

Special Circumstances

X6.430macman wrote: »

Dpf needs driving in order to keep it clean

Sky is blue.



What does dpf have to do with nox controls turning off outside of certain very very narrow and specific "right conditions"?


Tbh I thought Nonoperational was warning you not to engage with the "idiots" that believe VW were in the wrong to do this. But maybe he was warning us?

Frankie Lee

Adblue does help get NOx emissions down a good bit in real world driving but the cars do still be way outside the supposed regulations with it.

Special Circumstances

Frankie Lee wrote: »

Adblue does help get NOx emissions down a good bit in real world driving but the cars do still be way outside the supposed regulations with it.

Of course it helps. In the extremely narrow range of conditions that coincidentally reflect t3st lab conditions. And a small percentage of real world driving.

That's because E.U. law allows automakers to program their emissions controls to deactivate when necessary to protect the engine from harm. And it allows the automakers to define for themselves what counts as a protective shutdown. So Opel's affected diesel vehicles shut off all emissions controls at ambient temperatures below 20C (68F), or above 30C (86F), or at speeds over 145 km/h (90 mph), or engine speeds more than 2400 RPM, or at elevations higher than 850 meters (roughly 2800 feet). As Schmitt points out, Opel has a plausible-sounding explanation for each of these parameters—but coincidentally, Opel and every other automaker knows that E.U. emissions testing occurs at ambient temperatures between 20C and 30C, at speeds below 145 km/h, with engine speed never exceeding 2400 RPM; they also know that the highest elevation of an E.U. testing facility is at roughly 800 meters.

The fact that the vast majority of real-world driving would trigger an emissions control shutdown? Irrelevant, says Opel: "Our engines are in compliance with the legal requirements."


www.roadandtrack.com/new-cars/car-technology/amp29293/vehicle-emissions-testing-scandal-cheating/


Diesel - it's so clean the emissions controls only have to work for a small percentage of real world driving and NEVER has to be tested at NCT! It's almost too good to be true!

ABC101

X6.430macman wrote: »

Toyotafanboi wrote:

Adblu is a bit of a joke though really isn't it. I'd say the vast majority of passenger cars on the roads aren't equipped either way.

It's in all diesels now so must be working

X6.430macman wrote: »

Toyotafanboi wrote:

Adblu is a bit of a joke though really isn't it. I'd say the vast majority of passenger cars on the roads aren't equipped either way.

It's in all diesels now so must be working

Is it in all diesels now?

H.E. Pennypacker

ABC101 wrote: »

Is it in all diesels now?

No - not all diesels sold new here use Adblue

X6.430macman

H.E. Pennypacker wrote:

No - not all diesels sold new here use Adblue

Was there some law to come into effect back in september/October that forced all or most diesels to the fluid?, maybe I'm wrong

ABC101

It was a rhetorical question I asked.
Only some vehicles / models have adblue.
Adblu is a Urea based compound which is stored in a tank, and metered into the exhaust system to reduce NOx.
Other posters on boards have mentioned that on the adblu tank being empty the car will complete it's journey home, but will not start unless the adblu tank is topped up.   Hence you cannot cheat the emissions requirement.
It does not sound like a simple retrofit, more like something which is developed as part of a new design.
I would imagine retrofitting a adblu system would not be easy, ECU upgrades, tank installations, filling caps, level sensors, injection pump and of course a exhaust pipe modification so that the urea can be pumped into the exhaust when the engine is operating.
Installing all this in a existing older car would not be a small undertaking, and we would have heard a lot about it by now if it was becoming mandatory.
Perhaps adblu will become mandatory in all FUTURE vehicle sales as part of Euro 7 regulations?   But retrofitting older diesels would never happen in my opinion.
Renault have publicly admitted that they are thinking of phasing out diesels in the A + B car segments, the cost of getting a emission compliant engine into a car of this class exceeds the sale price of the car, the return does not match the effort.
The future appears to be EV?

unkel

gctest50 wrote: »

fairly dismal - down 50%

Jaysus that is shocking! More than half of the torque gone! Where it matters most - in the lower rpms :mad:

Mooooo

ABC101 wrote: »

It was a rhetorical question I asked.
Only some vehicles / models have adblue.
Adblu is a Urea based compound which is stored in a tank, and metered into the exhaust system to reduce NOx.
Other posters on boards have mentioned that on the adblu tank being empty the car will complete it's journey home, but will not start unless the adblu tank is topped up.   Hence you cannot cheat the emissions requirement.
It does not sound like a simple retrofit, more like something which is developed as part of a new design.
I would imagine retrofitting a adblu system would not be easy, ECU upgrades, tank installations, filling caps, level sensors, injection pump and of course a exhaust pipe modification so that the urea can be pumped into the exhaust when the engine is operating.
Installing all this in a existing older car would not be a small undertaking, and we would have heard a lot about it by now if it was becoming mandatory.
Perhaps adblu will become mandatory in all FUTURE vehicle sales as part of Euro 7 regulations?   But retrofitting older diesels would never happen in my opinion.
Renault have publicly admitted that they are thinking of phasing out diesels in the A + B car segments, the cost of getting a emission compliant engine into a car of this class exceeds the sale price of the car, the return does not match the effort.
The future appears to be EV?

Scr with Adblue is the option most agri companies are taking now afaik to meet emissions. If the car is using scr there is no need for egr if I'm correct and the dpf would last longer?