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.

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!!!!!!!!!!!!

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.

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.

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?

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

"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?

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.

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

^^ completely agree with you sir.

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.

VW manipulated diesel emissions tests in Europe, says German minister


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?

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.

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

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?

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.

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 ?"

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.

Are you new here?

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.