Volkswagen under investigation over illegal software that masks pollution

[wai]

You answered your own questions there wai. If VW did the right thing they would be the first to deny everything. The issue was never that the cars didn't emit the same emissions as the test. The issue is they tricked the results to pass the test in the first place. If the car was driven the same way as the test is except on open road it fails the test. That's fraud.

No, it's not.

You see that you fail to understand is that the drive cycle test is NOT the same as driving a vehicle on the open road. Your statement "if the car was driven the same way as the test is except on the open road if fails the test" is simply NOT the case.

There is NO correlation between the drive cycle and the on-road test.

The researchers came up with what THEY considered to be an equivalent test, although there is no data that have provided to back that test up. Take a look at the official drive cycle. It has speeds up to 120 km/h.

Next, VW did NOT feed false data to during the official test. Again, the vehicle being tested does NOT feed ANY data to the test equipment. The test equipment measures tailpipe emissions. It does not accept any data from the test vehicle.

Lastly, the emission levels of the official test are NOT what a vehicle (ANY VEHICLE) is expected to achieve in-service. It never was intended to show what the maximum level would be achieved in-service.

Maybe it needs to be stated again.

In the very early 1970s, the California EPA decided to come up with a drive cycle to standardise emission testing. They instrumented a number of vehicles that matched the vehicle fleet in California and recorded speed and time. All the data was gathered and based on this, a unified drive cycle was developed. The dynamometer load was then adjusted based on the weight of the vehicle being tested.

Having established the cycle, tailpipe emissions were then measured with the vehicles operated on the now official cycle, and a maximum value of the various emissions were measured. These levels were then lowered in stages. There was never an assumption that in-service, similar emission levels would be achieved. The argument was that a reduction in the official test would see a reduction in-service, and this is what the purpose of the tests and emission laws were.

This was all done when we had carburettors and simple ignition/injection systems. There was not a computer to be seen in cars, let alone in homes. As a result, the fuel and ignition parameters were consistent across the range of operation.

We now have multiple computers taking inputs from dozens of sensors that change the engine parameters almost continuously. Despite this, the regulations have not changed. The definition of a "defeat device" would cover every vehicle from every manufacturer because ALL vehicles now have computers that control the engine, and the parameters used to operate on the official cycle are not necessarily the same parameters used in-service without any variation.

There has been a lot of mis-information put about with absurd suggestions that GPS was used to indicate the vehicle was not moving, and atmospheric pressure (haven't figured this one out), and somehow, the vehicle "feeding false information" while being tested.

[Rawcpoppa]

Wai I am on mobile so access to links are not possible right now for me but I will pull up the report for you later showing that the researchers did one test (which you highlighted in your post above) and discovered an issue. I'll also show where the regulators took this info and ran their standard test ( the same one that is run on the dyno) on the road. This is where the cheating became apparent. I don't know why you keep focusing only on the researchers.

[gldgti]

Hi gldgti - so companies should be allowed to behave illegally because of potential impact on Syrian refugees / national or global economy / insert other good reason here, and everyone stand by and say "No, it's OK, they are helping a good cause, we'll go light on them."

I don't think that's what you mean, but it's what it comes across as...

I agree that if VW 'fell' that would not be good for all of the above causes and reasons. But that is surely only part of the consideration. If VW are let off lightly, what happens to the next company caught, or the next company that decides to try and get away with it...

No, at no point do I say companies should be able to behave illegally. Nor do I think they should "get off lightly". But if they were ever going to get off lightly, that time has already passed.

[Eaglehawk]

Volkswagen fixes could extend to new car

New cars? Not going to happen...in Australia anyway...although it would stop me from a class action...

(Yes, yes, yes. Pure speculation...maybe I'll be happy with the fix...if it's needed...)

[ducksonetime]

It's pretty amusing reading thru this thread and seeing apologists defend VW on this one.

+1 it's been a great read!

[Amalgam]

Dieselgate: Volkswagen forced to cheat – Car Reviews, News & Advice - CarPoint Australia


"Underperforming new diesel engine family led to German giant's emission deception, claims report

Disappointing results from a billion-dollar new engine family forced the Volkswagen Group to cheat on its emissions tests, the New York Times has claimed."

As suspected, the cure could be worse than the disease.

[OilBurna]

One article said they have 3 options on the table including complete new car replacements


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Eaglen00b]

Its a massive distraction to keep talking around this issue as if its got anything to do with environmental protection.

VW diesels are (comparatively) clean and efficient. If you are going to drive a car at all, and you make any bones about envoronmental protection, then choosing a VW, including a TDI, is a better option in the scheme of things than a great deal of the competition.

This issue is completely about fraud, and I have already stated personally that this is really disappointing for me in terms of who I thought VW was, as a company, and who they really are.

I just fail to see how being anything other than hugely disappointed about the companies ethics will do any good (as I alluded in my previous post). If youre really disappointed, don't buy a VAG car ever again. But be careful where you buy your clothes and appliances too.

My opinion I suppose is that in the grand scheme, the people who are feeling like they are owed something for this breach of trust on the part of VW are the very people who stand to lose the least from it all, when all the dust settles.

Hence, I feel like it would be an injustice to see the company brought down under the veil of environmental protection, when its actually about people wanting to be compensated for some very undefinable drop in perceived value, or because they were systematically lied to.

I make no defense over the real issue for VAG here. They lied, they took a risk, and already they are racking up enormous and far reaching costs.

But I do think this pursuit of compensation, if valid, should have nothing at all do do with a justification on environmental protection grounds. Its a massive misdirection.

Hi gldgti,

The fact is, if a colossal commercial entity such as VAG is not prosecuted to the fullest legal extent, it could mean that a dangerous precedent is set for the industry. It's a lose lose situation for EVERYONE.

For statutory authorities, if they do not prosecute or at least be seen to be hauling VAG over the coals over this deception, it sends a signal that a big enough car manufacturer CAN get away with flagrant sidestepping of legislation/regulations as long as they have deep enough pockets to withstand the short/medium term financial hit and are willing to eat humble pie for a while.

On the flipside, if VAG does collapse because it gets absolutely reamed not just by the US government but governments in other regions of the world too, we the consumers lose out on what are, on the balance of things, pretty darn good cars and technology at a pretty reasonable price point.

There are no real winners in this scandal, except maybe the legal fraternity.

And as much as I hate to admit it, I'm reviewing my intention to purchase the new Alltrack once my lease is up. In fact, I'm a bit hesitant with purchasing ANY vehicle with a small displacement German Tdi at the moment. I know it's early days yet and this thing has yet to pan out, but I don't think I'm alone in re-evaluating purchasing decisions.

The minister for finance at home suggested a XC70 or XC90 the other night. *shudder* . No offence intended to any Volvo owners out there!!

[gldgti]

Hi gldgti,

The fact is, if a colossal commercial entity such as VAG is not prosecuted to the fullest legal extent, it could mean that a dangerous precedent is set for the industry. It's a lose lose situation for EVERYONE. BP *just* got away with what they did in the Gulf of Mexico, the environment lost big time on that one.

For statutory authorities, if they do not prosecute or at least be seen to hauling VAG over the coals over this deception, it sends a signal that a big enough car manufacturer CAN get away with flagrant sidestepping of legislation/regulations as long as they have deep enough pockets to withstand the short/medium term financial hit and are willing to eat humble pie for a while.

On the flipside, if VAG does collapse because it gets absolutely reamed not just by the US government but governments in other regions of the world too, we the consumers lose out on what are, on the balance of things, pretty darn good cars and technology at a pretty reasonable price point.

There are no real winners in this scandal, except maybe the legal fraternity.

And as much as I hate to admit it, I'm reviewing my intention to purchase the new Alltrack once my lease is up. In fact, I'm a bit hesitant with purchasing ANY vehicle with a small displacement German Tdi at the moment. I know it's early days yet and this thing has yet to pan out, but I don't think I'm alone in re-evaluating purchasing decisions.

The minister for finance at home suggested a XC70 or XC90 the other night. *shudder* . No offence intended to any Volvo owners out there!! [emoji14]

I'm not sure you get me.
Yes, VAG will be prosecuted by governing bodies and regulators where its valid (the fines are excellent revenue). Sighting the chance of dangerous precedents is nonsense. All those dangerous precedents have already been set, many times over. People just tend to have short memories. This is no watershed moment. This has all happened before, it will all happen again, regardless of the outcome here for VW.

Yes, the general public may litigate at their discretion.
But if Joe public wants to sue because he thought he was buying a clean diesel, and now he thinks he hasn't got one anymore, that's OK, but he really ought to end up wasting his and the legal fraternity's money (losing), because he has got a clean diesel, by all realistic comparisons. Just because the media takes and inch and runs a mile, we all gobble it up and suddenly most people who don't even know why they're reading a story have formed an unfounded view that VW tdis are the next environmental time bomb waiting to go off..... None of it is fact. The reality of the environmental impact is immeasurably small. So you can't justifiably use it as ammunition against anyone.
And if Joe public thinks that anyone who opposes him is automatically negligent regarding the environment.... Well, that's a pretty funny joke.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

[The_Hawk]

This article came across my feed today... is anyone surprised?

Official tester claims four more diesel car giants break toxic emissions limit | Daily Mail Online

[Transporter]

No no, John public is pi...of, because he feels that the resale value of his car that he is replacing every 3-4 years is down because of that.

if someone can replace a car when it's only 3-4 years, he really doesn't suffer any financial hardship, does he?

On the other hand, ordinary people who keep their car for much longer, shouldn't be much worst of when the time comes to buy the next TDI for the same or better price, because VW will try to get back/or stay at their current market position.

Also, should the price of the s/h TDI drop, it's a good news for people who buy the s/h cars.

-------------

This article came across my feed today... is anyone surprised?

Official tester claims four more diesel car giants break toxic emissions limit | Daily Mail Online

I was saying it from the beginning, that many more, if not all car makers could be doing the same. The current emissions laws must be very hard to stick to, and I doubt that they were set properly after discussion with the car makers.

The same Bosch ECU is under the bonnet of many brands, they also use the same brands injectors, really the same CR technology, the software is very similar, programmed by the sw engineers using the same/similar knowledge and equipments, so what can one really expect?

If the car doesn't meet the emissions, it really doesn't matter if it's 3x or 5x or 30x over the limit... they all failed emission test.

Bear in mind, in the US diesel fuel allows much more wear on the CR fuel components and they demand the lowest emissions.

Only, if the car manufacturers weren't greedy and never imported EU or even Japanese diesel, to let them choke on their own emissions from their gas guzzling 5-6L V8s.

[Rawcpoppa]

My responses in bold.

No, it's not.

You see that you fail to understand is that the drive cycle test is NOT the same as driving a vehicle on the open road. Your statement "if the car was driven the same way as the test is except on the open road if fails the test" is simply NOT the case.

There is NO correlation between the drive cycle and the on-road test.

The researchers came up with what THEY considered to be an equivalent test, although there is no data that have provided to back that test up. Take a look at the official drive cycle. It has speeds up to 120 km/h. Note that I am not referring to the researchers' tests but the regulator's tests. Lower down in you will see that CARB ran tests on a dyno in a method similar to on the road testing. That isn't some random researcher's viewpoint.

Next, VW did NOT feed false data to during the official test. Again, the vehicle being tested does NOT feed ANY data to the test equipment. The test equipment measures tailpipe emissions. It does not accept any data from the test vehicle.

By my use of the word feed I possibly was not clear enough. I meant that the vehicle ran itself differently (switch device) to create emissions that were fed to the test equipment. I never meant it in the sense that the vehicle was displaying false computer data via OBD2 port for example. It should be noted that REGULATORS are stating this and NOT the researchers.







Pics taken from EPA document found here: http://www3.epa.gov/otaq/cert/docume...a-09-18-15.pdf

Lastly, the emission levels of the official test are NOT what a vehicle (ANY VEHICLE) is expected to achieve in-service. It never was intended to show what the maximum level would be achieved in-service.

I agree that emissions levels of the official test are not what any vehicle is expected to achieve in-service HOWEVER manufacturers are allowed limits above the test levels. VW violated those limits and CARB took issue with that AFTER it was highlighted by researchers. CARB then did THEIR OWN tests and took issue with VW's ON ROAD IN-SERVICE NOx emissions.



Pics obtained from here: http://www.arb.ca.gov/newsrel/in_use...nce_letter.pdf

Maybe it needs to be stated again.

In the very early 1970s, the California EPA decided to come up with a drive cycle to standardise emission testing. They instrumented a number of vehicles that matched the vehicle fleet in California and recorded speed and time. All the data was gathered and based on this, a unified drive cycle was developed. The dynamometer load was then adjusted based on the weight of the vehicle being tested.

Having established the cycle, tailpipe emissions were then measured with the vehicles operated on the now official cycle, and a maximum value of the various emissions were measured. These levels were then lowered in stages. There was never an assumption that in-service, similar emission levels would be achieved. The argument was that a reduction in the official test would see a reduction in-service, and this is what the purpose of the tests and emission laws were.

This was all done when we had carburettors and simple ignition/injection systems. There was not a computer to be seen in cars, let alone in homes. As a result, the fuel and ignition parameters were consistent across the range of operation.

We now have multiple computers taking inputs from dozens of sensors that change the engine parameters almost continuously. Despite this, the regulations have not changed. The definition of a "defeat device" would cover every vehicle from every manufacturer because ALL vehicles now have computers that control the engine, and the parameters used to operate on the official cycle are not necessarily the same parameters used in-service without any variation.

There has been a lot of mis-information put about with absurd suggestions that GPS was used to indicate the vehicle was not moving, and atmospheric pressure (haven't figured this one out), and somehow, the vehicle "feeding false information" while being tested.

What you speak of here is not the same as speaking to what VW did. Running a separate map altogether JUST FOR TESTING is not the same as the car altering for variables such as EGR, timing etc during normal operation. I don't agree that all vehicles have cheat devices because if the test was run twice on the those same vehicles the expected results should be similar. In VW's case IF the car realises it is not under a test (even though technically it is still being tested in a lab) it changes the EGR, timing etc to give NOx results VASTLY different from expected

Links provided are from REGULATORS EPA and CARB. No links taken from researchers.

[DV52]

I've been reading this thread with interest - not so much to learn about how the events have unfolded (interesting that they are), but to understand the emotions of Aussie diesel car owners that may be affected. My amateur view is that whenever there is angst-in-the-air, information can be a great leveller (it can remove the spectre of febrile hyperbole and replace it with facts). So to this end, does anyone here know if that bastion of good customer relations (not), VW Australia has put-up an Aussie equivalent of the UK facility in the link below?
Cheers
Don
PS: click the panel that says "Use your VIN to see if your car is affected"

Diesel Info : Volkswagen UK

[Ryeman]

I've been reading this thread with interest - not so much to learn about how the events have unfolded (interesting that they are), but to understand the emotions of Aussie diesel car owners that may be affected. My amateur view is that whenever there is angst-in-the-air, information can be a great leveller (it can remove the spectre of febrile hyperbole and replace it with facts). So to this end, does anyone here know if that bastion of good customer relations (not) - VW Australia, has put-up an Aussie equivalent of the UK facility in the link below?
Cheers
Don

Diesel Info : Volkswagen UK

I understand, from what I've read so far, that VW expects to resolve all its issues, as far as specific fixes for all vehicles across all markets, around the end of this month.
As a result, and not being in any hurry at all, have resolved to sit back a wait for the 'letter' whilst they stew.
Then the fun will truly start.....you'll need a watercooled forum for sure then.
For those with leases maturing it could, however, be another matter as far as timing anxiety is concerned.

[DV52]

I understand, from what I've read so far, that VW expects to resolve all its issues, as far as specific fixes for all vehicles across all markets, around the end of this month.

Ryeman: LOL! - you have a wicked (and coincidentally, a rye/wry) sense of humour - I like it!! I wonder if VW's fix will also solve world hunger?

As a result, and not being in any hurry at all, have resolved to sit back a wait for the 'letter' whilst they stew.
Then the fun will truly start.....you'll need a watercooled forum for sure then.
For those with leases maturing it could, however, be another matter as far as timing anxiety is concerned.

Not sure why our brothers/sisters in the UK got a better response. At least with the UK site, folk there know (now) whether their car is affected, or not. Guess us Aussies just don't pay enough for our VW's to warrant the additional service (or perhaps being antipodean colonists, we simply don't have the same consumer rights as our country's founders)!

Thanks for your reply
Don