Volkswagen under investigation over illegal software that masks pollution

[wai]

Richo. Is talking about the diesel gate. On sky tonight.

I do hope he is talking to someone who actually knows what they are talking about.

Chances are it will be misinformation based on misinformation until it eventually becomes what is believed to be the truth.

[Amalgam]

Audi Australia Misleads Australian Media about Dieselgate

Dieselgate: Audi clarifies “inactive” claim – Car Reviews, News & Advice - CarPoint Australia

“Defeat device” is inactive… unless it's being activated

[I]Audi Australia has admitted the cheat software it described as “inactive” in local examples of the EA189 1.6- and 2.0-litre turbo-diesel engines is only inactive when it's not being activated.

In other words, the ‘defeat device’ software works in Australian Audis just as it does everywhere else, activating when it senses the engine is being lab tested and artificially adjusting its settings to drive down the output of health-affecting Nitrogen Oxide (NOx) to legal levels.

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

Today, Burgdorf and Audi Australia managing director Andrew Doyle clarified the “inactive” comments when questioned during a ‘dieselgate’ update teleconference with media.

“That was the information that we understood at the time and I guess the impact is that software is inactive unless the vehicle is being emissions tested,” Burgdorf said today. “So the customer won’t notice any impact on their vehicle on a daily basis.”

Pressed on the matter, Doyle said: “As Anna stated that was the information we had at the time … without trying to split hairs or be cute about it the software has no active effect.

“The software is live there and would therefore be active if it was put in a test environment. But in normal driving conditions it has no active effect would be the best possible way to describe it.”

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

Doyle refused to speculate on the long-term impact Dieselgate might have on the brand and its popularity in Australia.

“Looking after our customers is our first and final priority right now,” he said.[I]




I don't know whether to laugh or cry at the PR fiasco.

This is not the way to win back consumer trust.

[Eaglehawk]

I'm puzzled that during the Passat B8 launch, it was mentioned that "Unaffected Volkswagen models include the 2015-2016 model year Golf 7 TDI".

So, why is the website reporting my MY13 Golf TDI 110 as being unaffected too? My previous research seems to imply that the Golf MK7 TDI engine started using the EA288 engine from 2012 onwards (from memory), but that statement above worries me...

[bluey]

Go auto has an article about John Mellors take in the background story in mid-2000s - US market, large CAFE (corporate average fuel economy) penalties, Merc/Bosch Bluetec system, pressure on engineers to "fix it"


Can't find a link to separate article yet. Download newsletter and go to page 24.

http://goautomedia.cdn.on.net/goautonews/GoAutoNews_798.pdf

Top management like 3 wise monkeys.

[bluey]

I'm puzzled that during the Passat B8 launch, it was mentioned that "Unaffected Volkswagen models include the 2015-2016 model year Golf 7 TDI".

So, why is the website reporting my MY13 Golf TDI 110 as being unaffected too? My previous research seems to imply that the Golf MK7 TDI engine started using the EA288 engine from 2012 onwards (from memory), but that statement above worries me...

I have found it hard to discover the history of EA189. US documentation in self study programs suggests EA288 isn't released until MY15. I read Golf in Germany might have had EA288 as early as 2012.

Mahle aftermarket catalog is an easy source of VW engine codes, but that does not link to EA model designation.

Michael Horn's testimony suggested that EA288 is affected in USA - but might only need removal of cheat code.

If yours is an EA288 and otherwise passes our dated emissions standards, then maybe VW figured it is compliant as the US model and "cheat code" in itself is not illegal in Australia.

[dero]

I don't know whether to laugh or cry at the PR fiasco.

This is not the way to win back consumer trust.

Good grief... politicians give us better non-committal BS than that.

[greymad]

Strength through joy

[arcadelt]

Strength through joy

^

[The_Hawk]

Our Mk5 TDI consistently achieves better than the official figures in hills & city driving. In fact I think something is wrong if it's above. I put it down to driving style & I keep up with the traffic flow.

My BMW X3 (3.0D) has official combined fuel figures of 6.0l/100km. Lol... I reckon average you could get about 7.5, and over the 50,000km I've driven I've averaged 8.2l/100km.

The whole fuel economy figures process is broken.

Our 103TDI Multivan (which is unaffected by this issue) claims 8.2 Average, 10.4 Urban and 6.9L/100km combined.

I have tracked nearly every tank of fuel put through our van since new (I may have missed one or two). Our all time average is 9.6L/100km and the best is 7.8L/100km. To be fair alot of our trips can be to and from school/shops and the worst has been almost 13L/100km. But even with lots of small trips we tend to get out on the road for longer drives a bit too.

Here is the graph (thanks to Fuelly), I can pick that the last 12 months is a little worse as we haven't been out and about as much as we used to, but interestingly it seems to trend up. Even so, normal people, normal driving and we don't seem to get near the quoted figures.




(On a side note, I will add that consumption at 100km/h is much much better than at 110km/h... These things get best economy at about 90... and that's just not happening).

[PerthMTB]

VW release the first details of what vehicles will be like after the fix,...



And reassure owners that they'll still have plenty of horsepower!

[wai]

The whole fuel economy figures process is broken.

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.

[wai]

VW release the first details of what vehicles will be like after the fix,...



And reassure owners that they'll still have plenty of horsepower!

And there would even be emission irregularities here. You could take two such vehicles, and capture the gases exhausted. One run in a laboratory with the power unit operating on a treadmill, and the other with gas collection and sampling, but on normal roads, and I will guarantee you that the gas outputs would be completely different!

I wonder what the cheat would be here??????

[Ryeman]

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.

Exactly!
I can equal the 'country' figure simply by driving gently on a flat road with no wind and no traffic.....certainly not realistic.
But from Jan 2016 a more realistic testing procedure will apply and I imagine THAT will involve more realistic acceleration and higher load at speed.
There is to be a 'world' standard applicable form 2017 which should mean we don't get the dirty hand-me-downs any more.
Hard as the tests will be, the industry should, at least, have simply one emissions rule to satisfy.

[Ryeman]

And there would even be emission irregularities here. You could take two such vehicles, and capture the gases exhausted. One run in a laboratory with the power unit operating on a treadmill, and the other with gas collection and sampling, but on normal roads, and I will guarantee you that the gas outputs would be completely different!

I wonder what the cheat would be here??????

don't forget the dried dung.

[Elmura]

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