SpewLabour Posted September 19, 2015 Share Posted September 19, 2015 Looks like the boys at VW have been a bit naughty and have been using software to cheat clean air laws in the US. They have been ordered to recall 500,000 diesel cars by the US Govt, could be sued by other manufacturers and might be fined up to $37,500 per vehicle (up to $18 billion!!) Having said that, if only the EPA and the US Govt tried to help people really in need, like the victims of Bhopal - abandoned by the US company that killed them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
long time lurking Posted September 19, 2015 Share Posted September 19, 2015 Trade wars VW becoming ever more popular in the US especially diesels I can only guess but they must be running a different engine map when the car is stationary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stormymonday_2011 Posted September 19, 2015 Share Posted September 19, 2015 More bad news for the Fatherland. There is nothing the U.S. authorities enjoy doing more than extracting huge amounts of cash from European multinationals as BP found out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
happy_renting Posted September 19, 2015 Share Posted September 19, 2015 More bad news for the Fatherland. There is nothing the U.S. authorities enjoy doing more than extracting huge amounts of cash from European multinationals as BP found out. It sounds like VW have wilfully ripped off it's customers, as well as the US authorities. I'm siding with the US on this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dgul Posted September 19, 2015 Share Posted September 19, 2015 It sounds like VW have wilfully ripped off it's customers, as well as the US authorities. I'm siding with the US on this one. I'd assume that they're all at it - VW only made the mistake of being caught. I do think that the USA is very quick to hand massive fines to foreign companies while being favourable to US companies (or, to put it another way, happy to impose what are effectively protectionist measures where it suits). [anyway, resorting to national stereotypes I can well imagine the reason why there is such legal certainty is that the low-emissions routine is nicely documented in the code as das einspritz fur regierungsabgasuntersushung or something, whereas the routine in the Japanese car would be 'emission table 17', the Italian car would be 'Alberto's special code' while the British car would be - see Japanese car. Not sure what the French approach would be - anyone work with French coders?] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rave Posted September 20, 2015 Share Posted September 20, 2015 It sounds like VW have wilfully ripped off it's customers, as well as the US authorities. I'm siding with the US on this one. If they'd been cheating fuel efficiency tests to give a falsely high result I'd agree- but by the sounds of it they've done the reverse. An engine tuned for efficiency produces a lot more NOx than one designed for low emissions, as I understand it. VW have debatably done their customers a favour here selling them cars that use less fuel. The question is how much of a disservice they have done everyone else by selling cars that pump out a lot more NOx than they should (while, presumably, pumping out less CO2). I work in the bus industry and I assume that as a result I have breathed in a lot more diesel fumes than most people, and I'm still in reasonable health, but I'm only 36 and so have plenty of time to develop issues as a result, I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrPin Posted September 20, 2015 Share Posted September 20, 2015 Basically all the car manufacturers lie extensively with their economy/pollution figures by using highly contrived unrealistic tests. A bit like audio amplifier manufacturers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BristolBuyer Posted September 20, 2015 Share Posted September 20, 2015 I guess the code could look for a specific sequence of long stationary warm-up times, and specific acceleration/deceleration profiles, and then adjust it's behaviour into emissions test mode. If the test has to be performed on all vehicles, then presumably the required accelerations are lower than those usually encountered in the real world, which might also help detect tests. It might be quite difficult to prove this without access to un-obfuscated source code. The manufacturers might claim that the code in fact is "gentle/cautious driver mode". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
libspero Posted September 20, 2015 Share Posted September 20, 2015 If they'd been cheating fuel efficiency tests to give a falsely high result I'd agree- but by the sounds of it they've done the reverse. An engine tuned for efficiency produces a lot more NOx than one designed for low emissions, as I understand it. VW have debatably done their customers a favour here selling them cars that use less fuel. I presumed HR was being sarcastic, there's no obvious financial disadvantage to their customers at all. The point seems to be that VW have passed all the US tests because the tests were flawed. Instead of improving the tests to catch them out they are throwing a hissy fit. Given US form, I'm siding on trade protectionism too. Hopefully Merkel will "counter sue" one of the US manufacturers for fiddling the EURO 6 tests. Perhaps by deliberately "cheating" the tests by dropping the emissions at specific test points on the engine map. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
happy_renting Posted September 20, 2015 Share Posted September 20, 2015 I wasn't being sarcastic. The ripoff was in leading people to beleive they were paying for a vehicle that was cleaner than it really was. Apparently manufacturers weren't delivering better fuel consumption, I presume they were delivering the fuel consumption advertised (if that), and only by higher NOx emmissions than claimed. There will be costs to vehicle owners. poorer second hand value; and perhaps higher road tax rates as the vehicles are not as clean as previously believed. There are so many manufacturer scams though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
happy_renting Posted September 20, 2015 Share Posted September 20, 2015 Basically all the car manufacturers lie extensively with their economy/pollution figures by using highly contrived unrealistic tests. A bit like audio amplifier manufacturers. Indeed. I used to have an Amstrad amplifier that would sh*t everywhere! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrPin Posted September 20, 2015 Share Posted September 20, 2015 I wasn't being sarcastic. The ripoff was in leading people to beleive they were paying for a vehicle that was cleaner than it really was. Apparently manufacturers weren't delivering better fuel consumption, I presume they were delivering the fuel consumption advertised (if that), and only by higher NOx emmissions than claimed. There will be costs to vehicle owners. poorer second hand value; and perhaps higher road tax rates as the vehicles are not as clean as previously believed. There are so many manufacturer scams though. The Americans are much more honest about this. It does 30 mpg on a good day. When I was last in the USA, people were paying premium prices for imported Jap and Euro vehicles, which despite the half pint engines, consumed far more fuel than was claimed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frozen_out Posted September 20, 2015 Share Posted September 20, 2015 Basically all the car manufacturers lie extensively with their economy/pollution figures by using highly contrived unrealistic tests. A bit like audio amplifier manufacturers. Basically, you're wrong. But don't let reality get in the way of a good, uninformed opinion. If the tests are so contrived and useless, why write a special program to cheat it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloo Loo Posted September 20, 2015 Share Posted September 20, 2015 Basically, you're wrong. But don't let reality get in the way of a good, uninformed opinion. If the tests are so contrived and useless, why write a special program to cheat it? Bankers do it all the time....conform to regulation and find the loophole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrPin Posted September 20, 2015 Share Posted September 20, 2015 Basically, you're wrong. But don't let reality get in the way of a good, uninformed opinion. If the tests are so contrived and useless, why write a special program to cheat it? We will have to agree to "disagree", Mr Frozen. I'm an old bloke now, and I pretty much know which cars are worth buying, and believe me, I have had some crap! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest eight Posted September 20, 2015 Share Posted September 20, 2015 Highly coincidental that this crops up around the same time that VW's future presence in Formula 1 is all but confirmed. This is exactly the kind of "form" they will need to prosper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
long time lurking Posted September 20, 2015 Share Posted September 20, 2015 I guess the code could look for a specific sequence of long stationary warm-up times, and specific acceleration/deceleration profiles, and then adjust it's behaviour into emissions test mode. If the test has to be performed on all vehicles, then presumably the required accelerations are lower than those usually encountered in the real world, which might also help detect tests. It might be quite difficult to prove this without access to un-obfuscated source code. The manufacturers might claim that the code in fact is "gentle/cautious driver mode". Most modern diesels will only rev to 2500-3000 rpm when stationary This will be about a running a different map when stationary i.e no signal from vss (vehicle speed sensor) ECU reverts to emission test map most revert to a different map when stationary anyway Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
libspero Posted September 20, 2015 Share Posted September 20, 2015 Most modern diesels will only rev to 2500-3000 rpm when stationary This will be about a running a different map when stationary i.e no signal from vss (vehicle speed sensor) ECU reverts to emission test map most revert to a different map when stationary anyway If the government don't like it they should stick an FTIR in the back of the car and monitor the emissions on a normal road run. Then tell the manufacturers they aren't meeting spec and ban future sales until compliance is hit or specs are changed. If the government set a test which doesn't capture real world conditions that is the fault of the government/test, not the manufacturer. My car is a superb example. It's a plug in hybrid which attracts a £5k grant from the government, produces 45g of carbon per km and does 150 mpg. The fact that the above is total bs is because of the way they test it. My super green car actually does about 28mpg (repeatably) which means it is using almost exactly twice as much fuel as a typical modern diesel. Saving the planet though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
libspero Posted September 20, 2015 Share Posted September 20, 2015 Basically, you're wrong. If the tests are so contrived and useless, why write a special program to cheat it? Conversely, if the tests are so good how were they able to? I refer to my previous comment about sticking an FTIR in the car and doing real world testing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrPin Posted September 20, 2015 Share Posted September 20, 2015 If the government don't like it they should stick an FTIR in the back of the car and monitor the emissions on a normal road run. Then tell the manufacturers they aren't meeting spec and ban future sales until compliance is hit or specs are changed. If the government set a test which doesn't capture real world conditions that is the fault of the government/test, not the manufacturer. My car is a superb example. It's a plug in hybrid which attracts a £5k grant from the government, produces 45g of carbon per km and does 150 mpg. The fact that the above is total bs is because of the way they test it. My super green car actually does about 28mpg (repeatably) which means it is using almost exactly twice as much fuel as a typical modern diesel. Saving the planet though. Fantastic Libby, my totally un-green V8 does 28 mpg too. I am not convinced I am "saving the planet". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frozen_out Posted September 20, 2015 Share Posted September 20, 2015 Conversely, if the tests are so good how were they able to? I refer to my previous comment about sticking an FTIR in the car and doing real world testing. That's fine if you want to wait until the entire car is built before you test the engine. I need to find out exactly what is being alleged against Volkswagen. What I do know is that hitting both pollution and efficiency specs on diesels is so difficult under the current legislation it's difficult to see the major companies taking it too much further from here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Generation Game Posted September 20, 2015 Share Posted September 20, 2015 Highly coincidental that this crops up around the same time that VW's future presence in Formula 1 is all but confirmed. This is exactly the kind of "form" they will need to prosper. Does anybody remember this story from 2008? http://www.cnbc.com/id/27414247 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
libspero Posted September 20, 2015 Share Posted September 20, 2015 That's fine if you want to wait until the entire car is built before you test the engine. I need to find out exactly what is being alleged against Volkswagen. What I do know is that hitting both pollution and efficiency specs on diesels is so difficult under the current legislation it's difficult to see the major companies taking it too much further from here. I meant more from the governments POV. Presumably they test each car for type approval. Something like this would do it perfectly.. Just needs some heated lines and a pump. Would fit in the rear of most cars. http://www.mksinst.com/product/product.aspx?ProductID=181 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloo Loo Posted September 20, 2015 Share Posted September 20, 2015 If the government don't like it they should stick an FTIR in the back of the car and monitor the emissions on a normal road run. Then tell the manufacturers they aren't meeting spec and ban future sales until compliance is hit or specs are changed. If the government set a test which doesn't capture real world conditions that is the fault of the government/test, not the manufacturer. My car is a superb example. It's a plug in hybrid which attracts a £5k grant from the government, produces 45g of carbon per km and does 150 mpg. The fact that the above is total bs is because of the way they test it. My super green car actually does about 28mpg (repeatably) which means it is using almost exactly twice as much fuel as a typical modern diesel. Saving the planet though. Heavy right foot?...or just a crappy car? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
libspero Posted September 20, 2015 Share Posted September 20, 2015 Heavy right foot?...or just a crappy car? Both Edit to add: not so much crappy, just real world usage doesn't come close to industry spec (which the government use for VED ratings etc). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.