Volkswagen under investigation over illegal software that masks pollution

[greymad]

Well written WAI. I'd like to add: driver behaviour & technique. Interestingly, the sound the car makes has an affect on driver behaviour & thus fuel economy. Case in point, we had an R36 & V6 CC at the same time. My wife mostly drive the R36 & was getting great fuel consumption in outer Sydney (<9.8 L/100). When she drove the CC on the same route, she was getting 10.5 L/100.
This was odd as the official figures showed the CC with better economy, being lighter & longer geared from 4th gear. The CC also has less than half the km.
I put it down to her being lighter footed in the R36 due to the rorty noise vs the quiet CC. Months later, with an exhaust modified CC, she's getting long term 9.8 L/100.

Sent from my LG-D802 using Tapatalk

And I put it down to her low testosterone level.

Sent from my pigeon loft...

[ParaBul]

The thing is that the published fuel consumption figures are run in accordance with a standard. This makes sure that the conditions and cycle that one vehicle operates will be exactly the same as another vehicle. As such, the figures can only ever be used for comparative purposes, and even here for the same type of vehicle only (i.e. passenger cars or wagons or vans)

Fuel consumption calculated in everyday use can vary tremendously because of the number of variables like wind (speed and direction), temperature, tyre pressure, road surface, traffic, a/c use, windows up/down, etc.

By the way, this is also why there is no correlation between official test emissions and emissions measured using a on-standard drive cycle that has not undergone any verification process.

It's the same test. They don't run a separate test for fuel consumption. While testing emissions they measure what comes out of the exhaust pipe - with modern white-man magic, they derive from the exhaust how much fuel was burnt.

As with emissions, it's not intended to be the ultimate guide to real-world results. It's supposed to be a standardised test that allows comparative assessment - how does any particular model compare against other vehicles under the same (artificial) conditions.

In the test lab, employ emission controls, have "clean" exhaust but burn more fuel.

In the real world, ignore emission controls, have "dirty" exhaust but burn less fuel.

[OilBurna]

Anyone see the latest dual cab ute test on car advice the Amarok was the only one to get close to the stated fuel consumption figures


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Rawcpoppa]

Anyone see the latest dual cab ute test on car advice the Amarok was the only one to get close to the stated fuel consumption figures


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Just read that the 2016 US diesels were withdrawn because they too had the cheat software.

Not officially confirmed but Der Spiegel has a story about 30 managers being associated with the cheat software at vw.

This thing is on drip feed. Lots of events in hindsight make sense now.

[jrgti]

Not sure if anyone else has posted this video link about driving the car in cheat mode -
How Volkswagen Diesels Perform in 'Cheat Mode' - Consumer Reports Video Hub
Is it really running in cheat mode or just the computer system detecting an anomaly and permanently reducing torque and power just like it would with stability control turned on?
I really wouldn't mind the idea of cars having a cheat mode from factory but with an opposite effect on power and torque.

[Elmura]

Not sure if anyone else has posted this video link about driving the car in cheat mode -
How Volkswagen Diesels Perform in 'Cheat Mode' - Consumer Reports Video Hub
Is it really running in cheat mode or just the computer system detecting an anomaly and permanently reducing torque and power just like it would with stability control turned on?
I really wouldn't mind the idea of cars having a cheat mode from factory but with an opposite effect on power and torque.

Thanks for the link. Interesting that disabling the rear wheel sensors and putting the car into test mode caused a measurable drop in fuel economy.

[wai]

In the test lab, employ emission controls, have "clean" exhaust but burn more fuel.

In the real world, ignore emission controls, have "dirty" exhaust but burn less fuel.

"Ignore emission controls"??

The DPF is still in circuit, so is the catalytic converter. The only thing that can be changed is the injection timing and frequency, and the EGR, and maybe the variable turbocharger.

This is no different to engine mapping employed by every car maker.

If you really want to see a "cheat", look at the exhaust bypass used by some car makers. Here it is a clear cheat. The bypass valve is set to deliver a quiet exhaust noise reading for the test, but when being used outside the parameters of the test, the bypass valve is activated. But that is seen as "only noise", so is acceptable.

[Greg Roles]

Yeah all they could really do with a "stealth emission tune" is drop fuelling ( and thus overall emissions, who cares about power ), which in turn lowers EGT's and thus NOx. The economy figures would also look great. Wai is right in that a bit more boost would lean things out ( which is fine for a diesel ) and probably assist passing a test. Add to that a 100% duty EGR further dropping NOx. Particulates will go through the roof, but who cares if the DPF loads much faster in testing, none of that comes out the pipe into the test rig.

My guess is the software fix will be the same economy, a bit less power overall through the rev range, and more EGR. I bet it will still meet 103kw and 320nm at some peak, on some dyno, somewhere, we all know the massive variance there.

Catchcan time people.

The smaller sub 2.0 TDI engines always struggle with their physically smaller cats and DPF's, added to the fact these small cars are often city driven rather than chosen for highway vehicles, and reduce the chance of proper heat and passive cat/DPF regens.

Probably be a very good thing is the little-un's had a proper fix, I hear of a LOT of DPF drama with the small TDI's.

[Rawcpoppa]

"Ignore emission controls"??

The DPF is still in circuit, so is the catalytic converter. The only thing that can be changed is the injection timing and frequency, and the EGR, and maybe the variable turbocharger.

This is no different to engine mapping employed by every car maker.

If you really want to see a "cheat", look at the exhaust bypass used by some car makers. Here it is a clear cheat. The bypass valve is set to deliver a quiet exhaust noise reading for the test, but when being used outside the parameters of the test, the bypass valve is activated. But that is seen as "only noise", so is acceptable.

Why would regulators let that slide for other car makers?

[Transporter]

We have the same model , but I cannot understand why when we have AFAIK the same 103kw engine as a golf/Tiguan we are not affected??
Nobody seems to be able to explain?

Maybe because the commercial vehicles are allowed more pollutants from the exhaust.

[greymad]

Maybe because the commercial vehicles are allowed more pollutants from the exhaust.

It's a possibility, yes - but who of us here really know whether this is the case: it can be discussed until the cows come home. Or until someone researches and locates the emission regulation requirements for Australia.
I was pleasantly surprised (amazed, actually) to find our 132kw T5 "in the clear" - and I do hope VW Australia are not trying to pull a swifty in telling me that. There's no going back on it, though - they've done themselves enormous and very long lasting damage; far beyond the short-term financial cost to the company.

[dero]

Too much Government verbage for me to want to sift through but for assistance to whomever who wishes to do so:

https://infrastructure.gov.au/roads/motor/design/adr_online.aspx

Specifically, go to ADR-79. Emissions Controls for Light Vehicles.
There are 5 documents. It looks like document on the out-link flagged as "00" is the primary one. "01 and "02" documents are addendum documents. "03" and "04" are small amendments.

Each out-link goes to a page where the entire document can be downloaded. Document "00" has a download link leading to 4 documents of 4 pages, 199 pages, 4 pages and 176 pages.

[wai]

Why would regulators let that slide for other car makers?

Remember, this is the US where it all started. Even the California EPA did nothing for weeks after being made aware. It is only when it went public that they piped up.

The thing is that what has been carried out by the researchers has been done using a non-approved methodology, and a non-approved test. The levels that are being talked of as an upper limit are for tests carried out in laboratory conditions and not in everyday driving.

Basically, they do not want to upset the US car maker lobby, and apart from that, it is not a mandated test. It is close to an absolute certainty that every other car maker does precisely the same thing. The researchers will not test other brands, particularly US brands, because there will be veiled threats made regarding funding to the university. Logic would say, that when they came up with these figures, they should have widened their testing to include other brands, but they have not.

This then begs the question "Why has the California EPA sat on its hands and done no independent testing of its own in the same way they did to establish the original drive cycle and emission limits?". The answer (in all probability) is lobbying against including local brands.

By the way, I contacted the RMS regarding the annual tests now called e-Safety Checks for renewal of registration in NSW. They pointed me to the rules for Authorised Inspection Stations. They used to do a basic check for CO and unburned HC, bit from the mandatory equipment that they must now have, there is no mention of an exhaust gas analyser, so even the basic CO/HC check is no longer required in NSW.

[Rawcpoppa]

Remember, this is the US where it all started. Even the California EPA did nothing for weeks after being made aware. It is only when it went public that they piped up.

The thing is that what has been carried out by the researchers has been done using a non-approved methodology, and a non-approved test. The levels that are being talked of as an upper limit are for tests carried out in laboratory conditions and not in everyday driving.

Basically, they do not want to upset the US car maker lobby, and apart from that, it is not a mandated test. It is close to an absolute certainty that every other car maker does precisely the same thing. The researchers will not test other brands, particularly US brands, because there will be veiled threats made regarding funding to the university. Logic would say, that when they came up with these figures, they should have widened their testing to include other brands, but they have not.

This then begs the question "Why has the California EPA sat on its hands and done no independent testing of its own in the same way they did to establish the original drive cycle and emission limits?". The answer (in all probability) is lobbying against including local brands.

By the way, I contacted the RMS regarding the annual tests now called e-Safety Checks for renewal of registration in NSW. They pointed me to the rules for Authorised Inspection Stations. They used to do a basic check for CO and unburned HC, bit from the mandatory equipment that they must now have, there is no mention of an exhaust gas analyser, so even the basic CO/HC check is no longer required in NSW.

Just to clarify, when you say researchers you are referring to researchers working within the regulators such as the EPA and CARB? Or do you mean researchers working on their own or or independent companies separate from the regulators?

[Ryeman]

Remember, this is the US where it all started. Even the California EPA did nothing for weeks after being made aware. It is only when it went public that they piped up.

The thing is that what has been carried out by the researchers has been done using a non-approved methodology, and a non-approved test. The levels that are being talked of as an upper limit are for tests carried out in laboratory conditions and not in everyday driving.

Basically, they do not want to upset the US car maker lobby, and apart from that, it is not a mandated test. It is close to an absolute certainty that every other car maker does precisely the same thing. The researchers will not test other brands, particularly US brands, because there will be veiled threats made regarding funding to the university. Logic would say, that when they came up with these figures, they should have widened their testing to include other brands, but they have not.

This then begs the question "Why has the California EPA sat on its hands and done no independent testing of its own in the same way they did to establish the original drive cycle and emission limits?". The answer (in all probability) is lobbying against including local brands.

By the way, I contacted the RMS regarding the annual tests now called e-Safety Checks for renewal of registration in NSW. They pointed me to the rules for Authorised Inspection Stations. They used to do a basic check for CO and unburned HC, bit from the mandatory equipment that they must now have, there is no mention of an exhaust gas analyser, so even the basic CO/HC check is no longer required in NSW.

The 'cheat' was accidentally discovered by an NGO attempting to show how good the 'clean diesel' tech was.
They eventually contacted the Californian EPA who had to formally ask VW to explain the discrepancy .......VW 'sandbagged' for some time but eventually had to admit they couldn't pass the test cycle without their fiddle.
The fact that no manufacturer meets the test cycle once on the road is a separate issue to be addressed next year with a more realistic testing regime, much to the stress of all emissions engineers now.
Seeing authorities can detect, during a 'drive-by' the fact you haven't paid a fine or the reg means surely NOx test won't be beyond them either.