Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 22 2015, 09:53 AM

In this alleged free market economy, people should be going to gaol.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34322016

Posted by: je suis Charlie Sep 22 2015, 10:58 AM

Car manufacturers have always massaged their emissions / consumption data, nothing to see here, move along please.

Posted by: Biker1 Sep 22 2015, 11:06 AM

Annoying though that some VW owners have been getting away with less road tax than they should be paying.
Road tax is now based on emission figures, yes?

Posted by: je suis Charlie Sep 22 2015, 11:28 AM

Except that the emissions standards and testing are completely different in Europe than over there. Oh and it just isn't VW doing it either. All new diesel engines are Euro 6 compliant.

Posted by: motormad Sep 22 2015, 11:45 AM

I love how my diesel spits out red hot soot at high EGTS


I suspect VW are not the only manufacturer to do this. Including on some petrol models.
Note it was a green-"cars are awful" group who discovered it.

Posted by: je suis Charlie Sep 22 2015, 12:14 PM

And the first head falls into the basket as the head of VW resigns. Could do no less.

Posted by: On the edge Sep 22 2015, 04:04 PM

Actually, umm....

The cynic in me keeps wondering why the Americans always find its the 'foreign firms' who somehow break their regulations....odd that isn't it.

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 22 2015, 04:15 PM

I understand American firms have been done under similar deals as well.

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 22 2015, 04:15 PM

Of course there's something to see here: this is corporate fraud.

Posted by: je suis Charlie Sep 22 2015, 04:36 PM

Why? Is your VW not the car it was last week? The fact is that the US regulatory body set VW a test, which they passed, which every manufacturer passed. Its merely VW who have been held up as the whipping boy, just wait to see who else gets caught up in this. Its like an not, just cos its OK now doesn't mean it's OK when it drives down the road.

Posted by: spartacus Sep 22 2015, 05:18 PM

At first glance though (I'm not that bothered as I don't own any VW shares) it seems quite a wheeze to knowingly adjust software so that it defeats or blocks out any negative results in order to promote the brand and put one over the opposition. A criminal wheeze, but clever all the same.....

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 22 2015, 05:34 PM

I don't have a VW, but that is irrelevant because no, it is not the car I bought, had I bought one. Your MOT analogy is also specious as that is a different matter. That's down to chance where as what VW were doing was purposely misleading its customers and making false claims, and there are rules about that.

Whether or not VW are the only ones (I very much doubt they are) is also irrelevant.

Posted by: Strafin Sep 22 2015, 09:11 PM

Road Tax?

Posted by: On the edge Sep 22 2015, 09:16 PM

That seems pretty clear. Integrity isn't a word that's used much in our capitalist society. Given what we see day after day, should we even be surprised any more?

Posted by: CrackerJack Sep 22 2015, 09:56 PM

You know what he's referring to don't you?
Car Tax.





Our Vehicle Tax rates are based on CO2 emissions. This current spat is to do with NOx emissions, which is a key measurement in vehicle testing in the US due to it being the major component of smog and their weather being more prone to impact of that pollutant, especially in California etc. They don't like diesel cars. In particular they don't like foreign diesel cars.

The more you read about this the more you feel a certain amount of Schadenfreude initially given that British car manufacturing has been largely knocked out thanks to the vagaries of the EU and British Governments. But then you wake up and realise that this is just another attack by the US lobbyists to protect their home-grown gas-guzzling mega-motor industry.

The US legal system is there to protect US interests at all costs and hinder any foreign competition. It is that blatant. There are many cases of the US legal (you can't say "justice") system heavily penalising foreign companies whilst ignoring (or only giving a slap on the wrists) for US companies doing similar.

This is worse where US companies ignore patents and copyrights from foreign companies.


Car engines have relied on software for many years. Basically, all major manufacturers try their best to fiddle the figures and grab the lion's share of the market and unfortunately it's virtually impossible to meet the EU and US NOx emission standards without very expensive trickery fitted to the engine - which would have the side effect of killing the efficiency and thus fuel consumption. VW are the first to suffer. Others will follow. I wouldn't be surprised if the VW disaster recovery lawyers are working on a plan to deflect the spotlight from them and onto the entire industry within the day.


However the spat with VW is nothing compared to the shenanigans with GM....

Federal prosecutors have agreed to settle a criminal probe into General Motors for concealing an ignition switch defect linked to at least 124 DEATHS. Under the deal, General Motors agreed to pay $900 million as part of a deferred prosecution agreement, but no GM executives will be prosecuted for covering up the deadly defect. The Justice Department’s deal with GM has been widely criticized by consumer advocates and families who lost loved ones.

Clarence Ditlow, head of the Center for Auto Safety, said, "GM killed over 100 people by knowingly putting a defective ignition switch into over 1 million vehicles. … Today, thanks to its lobbyists, GM officials walk off scot-free while its customers are six feet under."

Posted by: CrackerJack Sep 23 2015, 05:22 AM

The game here is about NOx which is one of the main toxic components of exhaust fumes. Diesels produce more NOx than petrol due to the higher combustion pressures.

When you hook up a vehicle to the test rig it (the test rig) monitors various parameters via the engine management system and sensors. VW, GM, and several others [probably all] have written a routine into the software that detects when the test kit is hooked up and operates the engine in such a way that NOx emissions are reduced.

NOx is formed by heat and pressure and since turbo diesels a) run hot and generate lots of pressure in the cylinders, they generate more NOx than petrol engines.

Basically reducing NOx increases particulates and vice versa. So, when on test you run the engine in a mode the reduces NOx but will eventually clog up the DPF and Cat. Since the test is short, you can afford to this and then revert to normal operation once the test has finished.

Posted by: Biker1 Sep 23 2015, 07:22 AM

I see, thanks for clearing that up rather than being pedantic about what kind of tax it is.
I am old enough to remember when it was called Road Fund Licence (Tax).

Posted by: motormad Sep 23 2015, 09:05 AM

I agree.
I don't think this matters one bit to consumers (it certainly wouldn't bother me).
A lot of cars have lean burn routines written into the ECU


It makes me laugh.

There is a HUGE diesel tuning scene in America.
Mainly for massive American Pickups, Ford F150s, Dodge Rams, and so on.

Nothing seems to be done about these?



Just an easy target.

Posted by: motormad Sep 23 2015, 10:03 AM

further to that



Vehicle A = 2012 Jetta SportWagen TDI DSG (LNT), Vehicle B = 2013 Passat TDI DSG (SCR), Vehicle C = 2013 BMW X5 xDrive35d (SCR)

as you can see even the bmw is over on the route 3 test..... no fuss for them!

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 23 2015, 10:27 AM

This is all besides the point. the fact is VW (and I sure others do too) wilfully deceived its customers.

Posted by: Berkshirelad Sep 23 2015, 10:59 AM

But it's nothing new.

In the '70s when California had stricter emission controls on petrol engines than other states, US manufacturers added a belt-driven air pump to dilute the exhaust emissions and reduce the percentages measured. This was standard practice.

I don't see the furore. Like our MoT test, the US emissions test is only valid at the time of the test. VW-Audi group would appear to have been quite clever in a technological sense producing software to manage this.

Unlike our MOT, diesels in the US are tested for emissions.

How is this really any different from the technology applied to obtaining the best mpg figures for 'standardised' testing?

Posted by: Turin Machine Sep 23 2015, 11:21 AM

The biggest (practical) problem for now is misinformation caused by, and whipped up by, the media. This could lead to a review of ved bands for ALL diesel vehicles, lower residuals and higher tax rates on diesel fuel. All unfounded of course but when did the government EVER fail to spot a taxable bandwagon they could jump on?

Posted by: Turin Machine Sep 23 2015, 11:55 AM

."If only everything in life was as reliable as an emissions test."

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 23 2015, 12:20 PM

The manufacture was making false claims!!!

Had they published figures that said: we know how to make the emissions better, but at a cost to consumption (as say, a customer option), then fine, but that wasn't the case.

THEY WILFULLY LIED and being nothing new is irrelevant.

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 23 2015, 12:20 PM

DP error.

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 23 2015, 12:22 PM

It was caused by a lying manufacturer who deliberately cheated a test.

Posted by: motormad Sep 23 2015, 12:43 PM

Before anyone ****** about car tax going up our taxation system is based on co2 not nox.

Posted by: je suis Charlie Sep 23 2015, 12:55 PM

Jeez guys, sounds like you need more cowbell!

Posted by: Turin Machine Sep 23 2015, 12:57 PM

For now that is, public pressure can be a powerful lobbyist, even if the public is a misinformed ****.

Posted by: Berkshirelad Sep 23 2015, 02:01 PM

Nobody has wilfully lied.

They have merely installed technology that allows them to pass the US emissions tests and the time the car is being tested.

Only a difference in degree with a change of fuel or additive or an "Italian tune up" prior top an MoT test

The scaremongering in the press is not really relevant in the UK - the only emissions test in the MoT for a diesel is a smoke test (ie can you still see the other side of the garage after revving it).

Again, I don't see it as a major issue. The relevant government has set a standard and the manufacturers then come up with ways to ensure the standard has been met - which it is if the vehicle is under test.

An engine ECU is not a dumb peice of electronic - it is a sophisticated computer. ECUs switch engine maps constantly to achieve the best engine output etc. depending on a large number of factors acting on the vehicle, VW just has an additional map that responds to the vehicle being on test in US

Posted by: On the edge Sep 23 2015, 04:21 PM

Frankly, the testers haven't been particularly intelligent either - apparently this has been going on for a good time. Surely, the consistent good results must have aroused suspision a lot earlier.

Yes, the manufacturer seems to have knowingly mislead, but why the shocked surprise? After all, even our Tesco has been at it. Then look at the rest of our establishment.

Crocodile tears; we now have what we voted for. When money is King, integrity goes out of the window. If anyone is to blame, it's the audit/testers, who should have been expecting this type of thing.

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 23 2015, 05:32 PM

This is akin to a car dealer selling a car with an MOT but temporarily installed a cat for the test.

If VW didn't lie then they have nothing to worry about, do they.

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 23 2015, 05:39 PM

Of course it is buyer beware, but what this is down to is corporate fraud, that is why it is big news.

Posted by: je suis Charlie Sep 23 2015, 06:01 PM

Sounds like someone needs a cuddle.

Posted by: On the edge Sep 23 2015, 06:19 PM

Funny old life. Get an election count wrong, just shrug shoulders. Bankrupt your bank, just retire on a massive pension. Completely reverse what you said to get elected and become a coalition partner, just grin and sing a daft song.

Manipulate a not particularly relevant technical test on a car.......

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 23 2015, 06:28 PM

A point of order: "Completely reverse what you said to get elected and become a coalition partner" is an exaggeration of the fact. "Compromise on a manifesto pledge and become a coalition partner" is fairer I think.

The surprise is the idea that a reputable car manufacturer is prepared to defraud the consumer. The good thing about this event, news worthy or not, is that the public have a choice and power to punish the miscreants.

Surely this is a time to celebrate an exposure of corporate greed? And we can also see how apparent 'quality' can be just a load old guff.


I like Dubs mind, but never really put them above other marques.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Sep 23 2015, 06:55 PM

I may have misunderstood this, but I believe the difference is that when technology is applied to obtaining the best mpg figures for 'standardized' testing then the car you buy and take home has exactly those same efficiency characteristics as it had when it was tested. The test may not represent real-world driving and so in your everyday driving you may not necessarily get the efficiency that's quoted in the test, but the real-world efficiency you get will be broadly comparable with the real-world efficiency of any other car that scored the same in the standardized test.

What VW have done is cheated the test, and so the real-world efficiency of a VW is going to be worse than the real-world efficiency of another car that got a comparable standardized tests.

It's like employing a job applicant who got a double first in mathematics and Russian from Magdalen. Their real-world skills may not be everything you expect, but all things being equal they will be comparable with any other applicant with the same qualification. What VW have done is sold you a Sociology graduate with a Desmond from Essex.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Sep 23 2015, 07:01 PM

I haven't read the details so I may be wrong, but I believe that the software switch configures the engine for optimum efficiency, so that minimizes CO2, so although NOx might also change it's the CO2 which is the significant issue here.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Sep 23 2015, 07:07 PM

No, you were right.



Mind you, I'm pretty sure that the CO2 emissions would increase too or else there'd be no reason for the subterfuge, you'd just leave the "defeat device" enabled and everyone would be happy.

Posted by: On the edge Sep 23 2015, 09:34 PM

No such thing as reputable these days as paragraph one demonstrates! Adam Smith raw makes life much easier, no surprises. As paragraph one demonstrates. Sure there was a coalition, but they gave up the policy, could have voted with but kept policy for later, that would have been the honourable thing. VW were and are still just as reputable as any of the others. Only thing I'm surprised about is that after our past experiences anyone thinks they are.

What's to celebrate? We find examples and incompetences every day of the week - yet apart from 'being shocked' in reality, all we do is follow the example ourselves more and more. Lovely society we have.

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 23 2015, 10:14 PM

They could have done, but perhaps some fringe parties offer some polices as a form of pressure. In the case of the Lib Dems, they wanted to make Uni as viable to as many as possible, but failing that they helped to install a progressive alternative that made it easier for the less well healed people to go to Uni.

If the Lib Dems draft the policy knowing full-well they couldn't and wouldn't deliver it, then I would agree with you, but a party being naive is not necessarily a sign of being dishonourable.


I'd like to rephrase that with: VW were and are still just as disreputable as any of the others. I like to think I'm not that stupid, but I am actually surprised VW have done what they did.


People can only be people.

Posted by: motormad Sep 23 2015, 11:05 PM

Not quite.
Firstly there is no defeat device. Again, media talking poopie!! It's built into subroutines in the ECU.


random ramble

I am not an ECU specialist but I like to get involved and my own diesel is running a lot of extra bits, it's not my first foray into diesel ECU's. I am familiar with the process and routines built into the older edc15 ECU's built into the "PD" engined diesel cars (these are pretty easy to map).
The "defeat device" is simply, in laymans terms, a logic script that says "if this -> do this". Now on the EDC15 there isn't really much in terms of this, you basically have timing/advance, soi (start of injection), duration (the amount of degrees the injectors would inject a determined value of fuel know as the iq (injection quantity), as they were driven from the camshaft) and a few other parts, not to mention boost control, EGR cycles and such like. They were produced in a time when diesels weren't mandated with DPF filters so they had relatively free-go on what to do.

I know a lot less about the more "modern" ECU's (my car is a Common Rail 170 VW TDI) fitted with the EDC17 ECU. There are no really financially viable "home" ecu read cables or software to actually edit this software so I am reliant on what my tuner (the UK's #1 VAG diesel tuning outfit) are willing to share with me and guesstimation based on my previous experience. But I know there are over 10,000 subtables on basic engine duties alone before you start to get into advanced routines outside of basic engine functions. The even newer Common Rail stuff fitted to the US spec cars that may have Ad-Blue and what not, it would not surprise me if there were 75k programmable routines on the newest engines, so you can do pretty much whatever you want.

Probably something along the lines of, if the ESP/ABS is disabled, and only the front/driven wheels are turning and acceleration is slow with less than X percent throttle input, do <this> within the combustion cycle to minimise NOX output.

The issue, which the news are not reporting on, is not in relation to carbon emissions, it's in relation to NOX emissions.
Very different kettle of fish.
NOX is a by-product of diesel combustion and is neutralised, in some lorries and big mercedes diesels now, with the use of a urea-based post-combustion clean up, industry dubbed "ad-blue" (it's basically fish wee).

This is what is "up to 40x higher"
It does not mean a car emitting 120g/km of CO2 is now producing 4.8kilos of the stuff per KM
This is where media outlets need to take a step back and actually report on the facts

Now, let's break it down

as an owner of a VW this doesn't really effect anyone at all. You bought the car for it's performance, fuel economy, looks, price, whatever.
You didn't buy it because of EPA (american emissions people) compliance, this was probably in the minds of 0.00001% of the buyers.
In the UK some of us care about car tax (call it VED if you want, it's car tax to us normal blokes) so may purchase a car with that in mind.
NOX emissions isn't necessarily related to CO2 output.

And as said NOX is not measured in the UK emissions test so will not effect any of us really, let's be honest.
I doubt there will be any major pressure, the news has been so dry lately because no-one has been bombing the middle east and ISIS have sort of slipped through the cracks, and no more immigrants are migrating from Syria, that they are making it into a HUGE deal when it really isn't a big deal whatsoever.


Andy - I'm disappointed to hear you are surprised that VW did this
Especially in the US. US diesel car sales are WAY under 5% of total vehicle sales. Yes, they may have sold 11m world wide. Only a very small number of these are actually in America and actually fall under this fault. i believe it's around 500,000.
much smaller than any other sort of recall for examples Priuses BRAKES NOT WORKING (more important)

I'm not surprised at all. You have to remember that no matter what an engineer can do there is not free reign to do what they want. EVERYTHING is a compromise in a mass production car. Bean counters and financial people at the end of the day are faced with the following scenario to meet ever stringent (and perhaps too much so) US laws brought in suddenly, mainly to discourage the sale of diesel vehicles


Design a WHOLE new engine at great cost and expense for a small market (US <5% of all cars are diesel, Eurozone it's more like 50%)
OR
Make the engine less powerful/less reliable/less economical in order to meet emissions standard
OR
Program the ECU to pass the test scenario to meet emissions standards.

option 3 is a no brainer really.

You are acting like they have frauded billions from peoples pockets when really all they've done is cheat on one test.
I am not saying that VW didn't do anything wrong. They clearly did. I just think the whole "SCANDAL" headlights are stupid.

VW are not going to be fined $18bn - the largest ENVIRONMENTAL (important bit) fine in US history was $18.7bn from BP about the oil spill - there is no "cleanup" needed. No baby ducks were hurt. No big black oil slick floating randomly across the ocean.

VW are not going to become bankrupt - they own skoda, vw, audi, seat, porsche, bugatti, lamborghini, and bentley. Only very recently they also had a 20% stake in Suzuki and they also own Ducati Motorcycles, and MAN/SCANIA trucks (I only know the trucks because of a client at work who repairs them). It is simply not possible for a company of that size to become bankrupt with so many brands.

The only people who will be sueing VW over "loss of value of their vehicles" or any other absolutely bizzare reason are idiot american art-hards who want to try and make a quick buck to buy their next cheeseburger.

Big hoo-har over nothing if you ask me!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 24 2015, 12:01 AM

Tell me what would have happened had VW not cheated the test in the first place?

The point is trust. VW can't pass the homologation, so are prepared to risk their reputation and hope they get away with by knowingly breaking the law (allegedly). That is what I'm surprised about.

This would be perfectly fine if they then kept the setting after the test. Call it the American Spec Dub.

Posted by: je suis Charlie Sep 24 2015, 12:33 AM

Err, wrong. The so called cheat device is a sub routine within the engine management system that recognized when it was connected to the analytical machine, this then prompted the engine to supposedly inject additional urea in the downstream catalyst. This had the effect of diminishing the amount of nitric oxide detected by the machine. It in no way affects the amount of CO2 produced.
There is NO problem with the CO2 emissions, only with the oxides.

The reason it went back to normal once disconnected was that otherwise the driver would find his adblue tank emptying in short order.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Sep 24 2015, 06:02 AM

That's all plausible, and I see how jiggering with the amount of ad-blue would affect NOx and ecenomy (you pay for the ad-blue presumably) without having any effect on the CO2, but the reports I was reading and hearing, especially on Radio4 yesterday morning, were talking about the car's power being affected and the enging running hotter and wearing out quicker so it sounded as though the engine management computer and injection timing was also involved, though I acknowledge this might have been a journalistic assumption. Have VW come clean and said specifically what they did or has the engine management computer code been reverse-engineered?

Posted by: Rdg Sep 24 2015, 08:46 AM

So the same as tuning a petrol to run more lean to pass emission tests in UK (thus running hotter and wearing valves faster)

I see this as nothing different than a car having a "sport" button (all tests done with sport disabled but most driving done with it enabled) but without the button. In the 70's they pumped air into the exhaust mainifolds with claims about scavenging effect but really as it diluted the exhaust gases to reduce the ppm of Hydrocarbons which california was mandating a max level for.

This time around the US has set unfeasibly low NoX levels as they dont really want diesel based cars (pickups come under different rules) particularly non US ones, so to meet the near impossible in the real world tests the car makers have set their ECU to recognise the non-real world scenario and use a non real world mapping.

Only discovered as a US environmental group showed that loads of vehicles didnt hit their claimed figures from the test so investigations started. Personally I think it is indicative of our modern electronic cars, the more efficient we want vehicles to be the more carefully managed combustion has to be and everything comes at a trade off CO2/NOx/reliability/mgp , currently different countries seem to value different bits of that higher yet car manufacturers want to produce the fewest number of engines globally as possible

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 24 2015, 08:52 AM

"I see this as nothing different than a car having a "sport" button (all tests done with sport disabled but most driving done with it enabled) but without the button." It is like that in so far as mapping, but not the same with the issue in hand.

The issue is corporate integrity: what else are they lying about?

Posted by: motormad Sep 24 2015, 09:13 AM

Issue being to do this probably creates poor driving qualities / low power.



That's pretty much it - certain engine conditions can cause increased temperatures which would cause engines to not last as long
There is no official statement/diagnosis as of yet.

you do pay for the ad-blue.
i think these cars which are advertised as 40x the NOX limits didn't even have adblue.

Posted by: Rdg Sep 24 2015, 09:55 AM

I don't see it as a matter of integrity - i bet the conversation went along the lines of.

Mr VW sales&marketing to Engineer: We need to sell diesels in the US of A

Mr Engineer: They have a silly test designed to stop us flogging diesels over there

Mr S&M: Can't you design a version of the engine to meet the test

Mr Engineer; we could but it wouldnt last as long, give as good mpg or drive as well and it would cost loads to do which we wouldn't make back on the number of units we would sell in that spec

Mr S&M: Damm, can you think of a way around that

Mr Engineer: Well like the flat spot all motorcycle engine engines have at about 2/3 peak power so they beat the noise regs we could program the engine map for the specifics of the test and otherwise leave it as it is in the EU, that would work

Mr S&M: Yeah that sounds like a good idea Hans, go do it


I would also be amazed if it turns out VW group are the only people who do it

Posted by: motormad Sep 24 2015, 10:29 AM

^^ completely agree with you sir.

Posted by: Berkshirelad Sep 24 2015, 10:48 AM

As do I

I don't understand the huge moral outrage seemingly caused by software being engineered to meet a poorly designed test

The use of the term "defeat device" is both misleading (as there is no device - simply some lines of code) and emotionally-charged journo-speak

As the UK MoT test checks diesels for visible particles at maximum revs, I am will to bet that manufacturers selling into the UK market have the ECU software "tuned" to best effect at full throttle.

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 24 2015, 11:07 AM

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34345210


These are different arguments and are clearly missing the point!

I think what we all should do is wait for the story to unfold, eh?

Posted by: On the edge Sep 24 2015, 01:54 PM

Of course none of us would ever stoop so low. Trouble is I have this nagging memory of old bangers and MOTs, some boot polish on the tyres, bit of bean can round the break cams, some porridge oats in the radiator and saw dust in the sump. Polish it up, and one of the lads in the local knew where the dodgy garages were for the price of a pint.

Remember, 'corporate' is actually us at work! As I've grown older I've been meeting too few people who'd turn to a boss and say 'no, that's immoral'. Also remember, people today have to be given respect, it's no longer earned.

Posted by: Rdg Sep 24 2015, 02:20 PM

I own a VW Diesel (well a Skoda) and it matters not a jot to me - I bought the car because I like diesels (**** i am mad and even like the smell) and the 1.9tdi is a very economical motor - I don't care what comes out of the end of the pipe compared to what officially comes out as it was not part of my buying decision. As long at it does 60mpg+ on long A road drives it is irrelevant to me.

To sue someone (as the Americans are apt to do) you need to have suffered a detriment and be seeking recompense for that - even if my engine was the newer 1.4 or 2.0 and so in this batch what detriment would I have suffered

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 24 2015, 03:03 PM

I think it seems quite obvious to me who like or have Dubs on this site! However, you are an example why we sometimes need regs and regulations.

At very least, you are not allowed to make false claims: a trading standards type thing. What else do VW (or any other car manufacturer) say that is BS?

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 24 2015, 03:06 PM

None of that excuses anyone and is besides the point. In any event, we are an evolving species and we are slowly working out how to engage with each other.


On one hand RUP is an moral upstanding person fighting to expose an alleged cover-up, on the other you appear go 'meh' when one of the largest car manufactures is exposed for alleged fraud.

Posted by: Rdg Sep 24 2015, 03:54 PM

i havent commented in the RUP debate so not guily of that m'lud


I am not an avid VAG fan but am a Diesel fan, personally I would rather spend 30 mins in a sealed garage with a diesel than a petrol (think CO), yes I think cheating at tests is wrong but I also think that all manufacturers are doing it in one way or another as the environmental lobby has led to stupid restrictions and therefore unrealistic testing regimes. The race to have more "green" cars leads to perfectly serviceable cars/engines/trucks/bikes being scrapped to be replaced with newer more "efficient" models without a thought as to the resources used to make those new vehicles. The newer vehicles are so tech heavy we cant service them ourselves and even when we can you still need to get a computer (or a dealers computer) to tell the car you have given it a new oil filter so it resets the little red light. A Prius meets all the emission regs but I would bet any money that whole of life my 10yo Octavia has a far lower environmental impact even though being an older engine spec it would definitely fail the current emission regs.

As an aside best solution for future personal vehicles is in my opinion a rolling chassis with electric motors in each wheel, a battery pack and then a small generator driven by a small constant revs diesel engine which could be tuned for v.low emissions as no need to be responsive to throttle (electric motors are very torquey a would be sporty as anything) - then the engine could be replaced by hydrogen fuel cell / fusion reactor as new energy sources become available without a massive redesign or scrapping of the original vehicle - Prius is the worst of all worlds and overly complex

Personally I am more interested in asking the question "why did they feel they had to cheat the test ?" rather than "did they cheat ?"

so if you really want a comparison to the RUP issue i would say

I would be asking "why did RUP use the word Numpty ?" not "did he use the word ?"

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 24 2015, 05:55 PM

Soz, I posted the wrong quote, it was in reply to OTE.

I think "why did they feel they had to cheat the test ?" is a very valid point.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Sep 24 2015, 06:26 PM

Are you new here?

Posted by: Strafin Sep 24 2015, 06:26 PM

It's like the horsemeat scandal all over agin. I don't think the act itself is the first issue in a lot of people's minds. It's the deceit.

Posted by: spartacus Sep 24 2015, 06:29 PM

I can't believe the number of class action lawyers that are circling over this issue. It's the first port of call for everyone these days. VW shareholders were on the radio saying they were going to seek compensation. Car buyers are indignant that they've been duped into buying a 'Green Car' which is less green than they were told and will be after their slice of the compensation. Even had a call from an asthma sufferer wanting to enquire about whether compo might be headed their way... This country's turning into the US (but with different engine tests)

Posted by: Simon Kirby Sep 24 2015, 06:31 PM

Agreed, though I'm not so sure about the fusion reactor, that's a bit too "Back to the Future" for me.

Posted by: spartacus Sep 24 2015, 07:00 PM

Because if he used the word '****' he would have been thrown out of the Town Hall?



It's 2015!! When I was a spotty faced teenager reading my Marvel comics in the 1970s my vision and I think that of all my friends was that by the year 2000 at the very least the mode of travel would be hover-cars... Isn't that still the ultimate dream car for spotty faced teenager? (only now the time line has been moved to 2050)

Posted by: je suis Charlie Sep 24 2015, 08:35 PM

SMMT issues a statement on Volkswagen emissions scandal

Published 23 September 2015

The industry body for car manufacturers - the SMMT - has issued a statement on the Volkswagen emissions scandal.

In an effort to reassure car buyers that this is an isolated incident and limited to the American market, it has said:

“The UK automotive industry understands the concerns consumers may have following the actions of one manufacturer in regard to emissions testing and the subsequent decision to recall a large number of its cars. This is, however, an issue affecting just one company and there is no evidence to suggest that any other company is involved, let alone that this is an industry-wide issue.

“Consumers should be reassured that cars sold in the UK must comply with strict European laws. All cars must complete a standard emissions test, which, unlike in the US, is independently witnessed by a government-appointed independent agency.

“On the separate on-going debate about real world testing, industry accepts that the current test method for cars is out of date and is seeking agreement from the European Commission for a new emissions test that embraces new testing technologies and which is more representative of on-road
conditions.”

The body has also issued a Q&A on emissions testing in the UK:

Why is it done?

All cars sold in the UK have to undergo an official emissions test under EU law. This is to ensure they meet the latest emissions standards, as set by the European Commission, before they can be sold to the consumer.

The latest emissions standard is Euro-6 – and all new cars registered in the EU from 1 September 2015 are required to meet this standard. A range of emissions is tested, including carbon monoxide, particulate matter, hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides (NOx).

What is the test?

It is a laboratory test, which ensures consistency and absolute comparability from one vehicle to another. The vehicle is put onto a ‘rolling road’ and fitted with equipment to measure emissions. The vehicle will then perform a standardised drive cycle known as the New European Drive Cycle (NEDC) – which contains set acceleration/deceleration levels, and replicates different driving conditions.

If the vehicle emits levels of pollutants lower than the limits set for the Euro-6 standard, it will receive a Euro-6 approval certificate, meaning the vehicle can be sold.

What are the conditions of the test?

The test is carried out in a controlled temperature of 20-30 degrees centigrade, and the car must be calibrated to the specification as sold to the customer.

All of the vehicle’s components must be present and cannot be tampered with. For example, the alternator belt must be intact and the brakes must function fully to pass testing. The vehicle will be checked to ensure it has the same tyre pressures, fluid levels and components as it would have on the road.

Who carries out the test?

The test is carried out in a government-approved test facility, with a government-appointed independent witness (see below).

Who governs the test?

The EU test operates in strict conditions and is witnessed by a government-appointed independent approval agency. In the UK, this is the Vehicle Certification Agency, which is responsible to the Department for Transport.

How old is the test?

The current test dates back to 1996.

What is the difference between the EU test and the US test?

In the US, the official tests are carried out by the manufacturer and not witnessed by an independent third-party as they are in the EU. The results are submitted to the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which decides whether to accept them or test the vehicle itself.

The emissions limits set in the US tests are different from those in the EU. The conditions of the test in the US – in other words, the driving cycle – are also different to those in the EU.

Can a ‘defeat device’ be used in the EU tests?

No. This is illegal under EU law, as set out in EC Regulation 715/2007.

Are emissions regulations changing?

Yes. The next stage of EU emissions standards will incorporate real-world driving. The industry is seeking agreement from the European Commission for a new emissions test that embraces new testing technologies and which is more representative of on-road conditions.

Posted by: On the edge Sep 25 2015, 08:30 AM

That's EXACTLY the point!

No one, or rather very very few are willing to do anything at all when such things happen locally. For the most part they don't even want even to make the effort and vote out the very people who are perpetuating such forms of corporate governance. So lets save the 'shock horror' - this is what we've voted for, this is what we've got.

By the way, most of us DO know exactly how to engage with each other, or are you suggesting evolution is going backwards?

Posted by: On the edge Sep 25 2015, 08:40 AM

Good question; there are some obvious answers. There is also a supplementary, why did their establishment have people who thought like that and felt able even to suggest such a course of action, let alone recommend?

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 25 2015, 09:05 AM

Some of us think they do.

Who exactly 'voted for corporate indiscretion', the shareholders I suppose, but it is they who will suffer now. We are actually talking about apathy, but you get that when you entrust others. We trust certain brands so when that fails in such a basic way, it is 'shocking'.

There is a train of thought that we can evolve backwards, as we continue to support the weak and useless; however, my evolution point is that, like evolution, attitudes take time to change and won't change in a matter of decades or even centuries.

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 25 2015, 09:09 AM

Like I alluded to earlier: while we are all under pressure to meet targets and especially in a free market-like environment, people are inclined to cut corners, especially when their livelihood depends on it. It is for this reason that effective regulation is necessary; however, perhaps in this case they were just doing what everyone else is doing: a bit like professional sport.

Posted by: Turin Machine Sep 25 2015, 09:43 AM

To be perfectly honest, if, and it's a big if, I was to take exception with VW it would more likely be with the fact that during WWII 80% of its workforce was slave labour drawn from the camps. Getting excited over some compound few people have even heard of till now? Meh!

Posted by: motormad Sep 25 2015, 09:57 AM

It is pretty pathetic
When buying cars, people care about FUEL ECONOMY
that fuel economy is not what's questioned here
people do not buy cars "to be green"

It's so, so, so so wrong.

Posted by: Rdg Sep 25 2015, 10:52 AM

Totally agree - as I said earlier, I looked at 60mpg+ not "less than x part per million NOx" when getting my car

Posted by: Simon Kirby Sep 25 2015, 11:06 AM

The NOx family of gasses cause smog and are particularly problematic for people with respiratory disease - it's been a big killer in our industrial past and is a big problem in some foreign citiese - in Greece and China for example. It's a good thing that we get on top of NOx vehicle emissions.

Posted by: Berkshirelad Sep 25 2015, 12:01 PM

Except in Newbury, obviously

The Burger King roundabout for example

Posted by: Turin Machine Sep 25 2015, 12:19 PM

And we are on top of NOx emissions, that's what Euro 6 is all about. Still, who can put their hands up and truthfully say they had even considered the NOx output of their present car when they bought it? Truthfully. Oh and if your driving anything diesel that isn't AT LEAST Euro 5 compliant I suggest you go stand in the naughty corner! Not to mention those clever sods who have had their dpf gutted and egr valves blanked. And how many of you tarmac heroes are driving around with a decat exhaust "cos it sounds good innit"?

Posted by: je suis Charlie Sep 25 2015, 12:24 PM

I love it when people bleat on about this pollution malarkey, they don't seem to bothered about all the pollution from the diesel lorrys bringing them their Tesco pizza cos they're to lazy to get off their *** and walk to the shops. Or what's being blown out the back of those jet engines when they're on the way to two weeks in Benidorm, not to mention the muck that gets thrown out of the third world tractors by the people who grow their food because "we absolutely must have fresh grapes in Waitrose in January". Two week cruise round the Med anyone? Seen the **** coming out of those funnels? But exceed some arbitrary limit for some chemical compound they've never heard of before and suddenly everyone's a sodding expert on the subject.

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 25 2015, 12:38 PM

So you are all expert on air pollution now.


You are all defending the indefensible: if it isn't a big deal, then it would never have been a big deal, but it is a big deal. We should learn from this and other corporate deceptions.

You are right but for the wrong reason. It is why we need effective regulation: to protect us from ourselves. I also think you would be surprised about the amount of people that would be put off if they knew the comparative pollution figures. The reason people aren't bothered is because they assume they are driving in the most pollution free cars possible at the moment.

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 25 2015, 12:44 PM

People are bothered, but people still have to live. People go to Tesco et al. because they're open, convenient and have more choice. They're are also deceived by the cleaver selling tactics.


Completely agree, but what we are complaining about here isn't the pollution (looking at Facebook at the moment, it just seems to be a laugh); it is the deception.

Posted by: je suis Charlie Sep 25 2015, 01:28 PM

Organized religion has been deceiving us and conning us for millennia, go worry about that.

Posted by: Berkshirelad Sep 25 2015, 01:42 PM

And if pollution from diesels cars was really so important, it would be illegal to drive anything that doesn't meet Euro 6 standards


Mine is 13 years old and is Euro III standard - but it is a luxury car that cheap to buy and run

Posted by: Berkshirelad Sep 25 2015, 01:44 PM

Aah, the "My imaginary friend is bigger than your imaginary friend" argument

Posted by: motormad Sep 25 2015, 02:27 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-NdaoB8Ll0

but it does sound good innit.



on the subject of NOX emission and respirtory diseseas, I read somewhere that only 5% of airborne nox is from cars

Buses, taxis and lorries, etc.
Argricultural
and energy production
make up the most of it

Also, before VW get too badly moaned at here's a study.

http://www.theicct.org/real-world-exhaust-emissions-modern-diesel-cars

Posted by: On the edge Sep 25 2015, 05:57 PM

Ah, so people are only bothered if it materially affects their own way of life...yes that fits. In reality, then, very few really gives a xxx about the VW problem. The Tesco example is a good one, there are other just as convenient supermarkets, but Tesco sales didn't noticeably dip when scandles broke; that took a couple of German deep discounters. That's the only reason the majority get bothered. As for VW, at least the Germans managed to keep a couple of volume car manufacturers, even if they've made a silly mistake, it's more than we've managed to do.

Posted by: Turin Machine Sep 25 2015, 11:44 PM

Anyway, thank the Lord, its all OK now. Footballs on the front page, apparently it's totally corrupt (who would ever had thought?). So all the knuckledraggers and meatheads can worry about that now instead. Phew!!

Posted by: Biker1 Sep 26 2015, 07:54 AM

Absolutely!!
Couldn't have put it better myself. In fact, probably not half as good!

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 26 2015, 08:59 AM

It is no wonder this world like what it is: it seems we have a long way to go.

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 26 2015, 09:05 AM

It is for this reason we need to have effective regulation and why it isn't wise to treat these things lightly. You and I are no exception, but we are not as clever as we think we are and this is demonstrated by the strawman fallacies and confirmation bias shown in the arguments posted in this thread. Not to mention our tendency towards heard mentality.

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 26 2015, 09:07 AM

I 'worry' about neither, but religion is at the root of why were are able to have this debate; not withstanding your assumption is in itself a narrow-minded opinion.

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 26 2015, 09:27 AM

Hmmm... I'm not sure any of that equates to be unfair to VW (after all it is the act of deception that is the concern); however, I understand that NO_x is only a part of the story, but more specifically NO₂ is a problem, according to this report: http://www.cleanair.london/wp-content/uploads/CAL-227-Reducing-NOx-emissions-from-diesel-vehicles_030413.pdf

Posted by: je suis Charlie Sep 26 2015, 09:42 AM

And you, with your uninformed, argue about everything mentality have the furthest to travel!

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 26 2015, 09:53 AM

Hysterical.

Posted by: Turin Machine Sep 26 2015, 09:55 AM

Err, Nitrogen dioxide is actually part of the group of oxides NOx. Its actually a free radical, bit like you really. But my point is that, oh never mind, you don't understand and don't want to understand so why should I waste my time trying to explain the intricacies of molecular chains to you. Just go on shouting. It obviously makes you happy.

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 26 2015, 11:34 AM

I know it is, that is what the article states. Don't take my poor grammar as proof of ignorance in anything.

Who's shouting by the way?

What this is proving is we are paying for things that are ineffective, whether agencies that cannot monitor properly, or car manufacturers who willfully deceive tests.

Posted by: On the edge Sep 26 2015, 02:13 PM

Believe me, I'm not clever and have no certificates to prove it! It's never been an attribute I'd want; having known some acclaimed very clever people. Anyone, particularly those who aspire to be our leaders and betters, cheating the system should be abhorred. However, given what we've learned during the past few decades when we've followed unrestrained free market economics, without leg of hinderance, why are we so surprised when this happens, what made VW immune? We do have Regulation already, but inept and inefficient. Only a radical change will alter an of this and that's not going to be universally welcome.

Posted by: Turin Machine Sep 26 2015, 05:22 PM

a, yes, but I knew, you had to look it up.
b, we, are not paying for anything. And the monitoring of the Euro6 test is a deal more stringent than the US using governmental inspectors and independent third parties to oversee.

Posted by: Biker1 Sep 26 2015, 09:45 PM

And that.

Posted by: Biker1 Sep 26 2015, 09:57 PM

Explain please.

Posted by: Turin Machine Sep 26 2015, 11:41 PM

He can't.

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 27 2015, 01:04 AM

To spread the 'good news' they had to teach us to read and write, for starters.

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 27 2015, 09:03 AM

The vast majority of knowledge comes from 'looking up'.

The average car buyer and tax payer pay for most things.

Posted by: Exhausted Sep 27 2015, 10:22 AM

When I buy my vehicle excise duty and if in my wisdom I have purchased a so called low emissions car according to the sales and declared data by the vehicle manufacturer at the moment, I am in either a low tax band or even nil tax band.

Now I find that the declared emissions by the manufacturer have been falsified, will my nice shiny low emissions car be lifted into a new tax band and will I now be expected to pay a higher amount each month ?.

If this impacts my pocket, now I am interested in what Volkswagen have done, as by cheating, they will cost me (possibly) quite a few quid over the life of my car. So, can I return my car to the dealer for a full refund as it was mis-sold. I see the possibility of a new thing for the PPI guys to get their teeth into. Watch this space if the UK is also part of this deceit and it surely will be.

Ve hav ways of making our cars fool the buyers. Up until now everything was satisfactory.

Posted by: motormad Sep 27 2015, 09:37 PM

They are not going to hike up taxation rates on cars.

So stop worrying :₩

Posted by: Biker1 Sep 28 2015, 07:46 AM

Hmmmm. Bit flimsy there AC!!

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 28 2015, 10:57 AM

How is it flimsy?

Posted by: Exhausted Sep 28 2015, 04:07 PM

You have inside knowledge then. But as my motor is a right gas guzzler, I won't let it worry me.

Posted by: je suis Charlie Sep 28 2015, 04:52 PM

I of course, have already bowed to his encyclopedic knowledge of all things 'Mota'.

Posted by: Biker1 Sep 29 2015, 07:31 AM

What, if it wasn't for religion we all wouldn't be able to communicate, i.e. read and write??

Posted by: motormad Sep 29 2015, 09:41 AM

Well, let's look at it logically.

It would only effect new cars registered/made.
They aren't going to back-track on cars which have already been registered.

Posted by: Berkshirelad Sep 29 2015, 01:18 PM

Also, we don't arrange VED bands according to NOX emissions, but CO2

Posted by: je suis Charlie Sep 29 2015, 01:57 PM

Yet!

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 29 2015, 03:42 PM

That's one of them there strawman arguments that is!

Posted by: motormad Sep 29 2015, 03:47 PM

Ever.

Posted by: Turin Machine Nov 2 2015, 11:10 PM

Ho Hum.
http://www.carmagazine.co.uk/car-news/motoring-issues/2015/budget-2015-how-it-affects-uk-motorists/

Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 4 2015, 02:39 PM

I see VW are in more doo-dah with other marques too. Strange no-other manufacturers have been had yet. Perhaps it was just VW who are polluting cheats?

Volkswagen says 800,000 cars may have false CO2 levels: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34712435

Posted by: je suis Charlie Nov 4 2015, 03:13 PM

From another forum,
"I've just thought of a way to make millions! Ask BMW, Mercedes et al, how do they produce a diesel engine clean enough to pass the tests? Then simply ring up the head honcho at VAG and sell him the idea! Brilliant yet soo simple! I mean, what can go wrong?"

Posted by: Turin Machine Jan 20 2016, 09:58 AM

So, where are all the VW's in this list? Don't see these results on every front page today.

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/cars/article-3406844/The-dirtiest-diesels-revealed-Study-finds-95-exceed-nitrogen-oxides-threshold.html

Whole thing was totally blinkered and one sided with people who know nothing about the subject jumping on the bandwagon.

Posted by: On the edge Jan 20 2016, 11:16 AM

Dunning-Kruger writ large! If only they'd asked Turing Machine!

Posted by: Turin Machine Jan 20 2016, 11:30 AM

Obviously not huh?

Posted by: Andy Capp Jan 20 2016, 03:55 PM

The rightful complaint was of a manufacturer, VW, wilfully cheating the albeit flawed omissions test.

Posted by: je suis Charlie Jan 20 2016, 07:05 PM

And these makers didn't. Numpty.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jan 20 2016, 08:02 PM

Please make sense if you are going to be rude.

Have you sold your 'filthy' Dub yet?

Posted by: je suis Charlie Jan 20 2016, 08:13 PM

Yeah, traded it for a jeep grand Cherokee.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jan 20 2016, 11:10 PM

So you won't get all techy now when we slag off VWs then?

Posted by: je suis Charlie Feb 3 2016, 06:03 PM

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/feb/03/eu-parliament-gives-green-light-for-loopholes-in-car-emissions-tests

Posted by: Biker1 Feb 4 2016, 09:21 AM

Oh dear!
Have a look at "least reliable" in http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/road-and-rail-transport/11537964/Bentleys-are-the-least-reliable-cars-says-survey.html list.

Posted by: je suis Charlie Feb 5 2016, 04:32 AM

Yeah but I opted for the special edition, made from unicorns horn stuck together with pixie dust and fairies tears. Cost a little more but worth every penny.

Posted by: Biker1 Feb 5 2016, 09:18 AM

Ever been had??
Now that's what I call a car salesman!!

Posted by: je suis Charlie Feb 6 2016, 09:57 AM

He was very nice about it while he was counting the money though, said not to worry about the staggering amount of pollution it created as no one cared as it didn't have a VW badge on it so nobody would ever notice, and he's right! Cool!

Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 6 2016, 11:57 AM

Unlike VW, at least he didn't try to hide the fact. Diesels: dirty smelly ugly sounding things.

Posted by: je suis Charlie Feb 6 2016, 12:56 PM

Actually, these days, with dpf, egr, catalysts and urea injection, a modern diesel is cleaner than a three year old petrol engine. And in some cases cleaner than a new one! Many, including mine can easily pass the white handkerchief test. Ugly sounding? Well , you've got me on that one.

Posted by: motormad Mar 2 2016, 01:41 PM

I took all my emissions gubbins out and fitted a huge great big turbo instead.
Much better.


Also, Jeep Cherokes' are awful cars.

Posted by: je suis Charlie Mar 2 2016, 02:01 PM

More BHP, (Barry horse powaah)

Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 2 2016, 06:29 PM

Just one? Pfft!

Posted by: Turin Machine Mar 2 2016, 06:48 PM

Hah! I took all my gubbins out, fitted two turbos, a V8 and nitrous! Kids, just playing at it.

Posted by: On the edge Mar 2 2016, 07:43 PM

What are you lads going to do when the driverless ones come on stream? Campaign for council race tracks I suppose!!!

Posted by: Turin Machine Mar 2 2016, 08:16 PM

Driverless cars? Oh like the one that crashed into a bus last week. No ta.