VW has admitted to installing a device that tunes engine performance to minimize emissions while under an emissions test and ignores EPA Clean Air rules while in normal driving mode.

VW could be fined $37500 for each vehicle ($18B for cars sold in the US since 2009) plus whatever their do-Gooder customers will sue them for because the cars were not, in fact, "clean diesel" as they market the vehicles.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money...lkswagen-audi-evading-emission-laws/72400018/

Who did they hire to build the "defeat device" that allows 40x more nitrous oxides!

 

French Fry grease anyone? Least it smells good.

 

This needs to be stopped immediately. They are infringing on my business.

 

Where can I get one?

 

Where can I get one?

At your local junk yard.

 

Wow, that's unbelievably stupid.

 

I'm unclear on the advantages of running an engine in such a way that it produces more pollution. I thought the basic idea was to ensure more complete combustion to minimize the harmful stuff and improve efficiency. Was I misinformed?

 

I'm unclear on the advantages of running an engine in such a way that it produces more pollution. I thought the basic idea was to ensure more complete combustion to minimize the harmful stuff and improve efficiency. Was I misinformed?

There are a lot of ways that one can optimize an engine. Maximizing power is different than minimizing emissions.

Minimizing emissions and maximizing mpg are generally close in tuning but, some slight differences exist in this trade-off.

There are two reasons that I can think of that would drive VW to do this
1) If the consumer drives the car while it is tuned for minimum emissions (to meet the tests), the engine will be running extremely lean, hot, and have poor acceleration. So poor that consumers will not accept the performance. The mixture is enriched to improve performance.

2) similar scenario but different motivation. Extremely lean burning engine setup for low emissions. Unacceptably low for drivability. But the ultra lean setup was needed because they specified (negotiated) a catalytic converter with low surface area and/or low catalyst loading. This greatly reduces cost for the automotive company because precious metals are like ruthenium and rhodium are used as the catalyst. One of the mist expensive parts of a car - and a highly variable expense that jumps with daily market forces.

In reality, VW likely did it for both reasons and the consumer never knew - until this week.

 

Wow, that's unbelievably stupid.

If you get caught. It makes me wonder who else is playing games with the ECU/ECM.

http://www3.epa.gov/otaq/cert/documents/vw-nov-caa-09-18-15.pdf

 

Just one more example in a never ending parade of how "green" is a money making term used by big business to make MORE big business.
if MONEY is involved anywhere in the process the planet is <snip> no matter what WORDS are professed to the brainless masses saying otherwise.
Bend over sheeple. Daddy wants to drive.

So ends the lesson for today. Now everyone turn to page 128 in the hymn book.

 

There are a lot of ways that one can optimize an engine. Maximizing power is different than minimizing emissions.

Minimizing emissions and maximizing mpg are generally close in tuning but, some slight differences exist in this trade-off.

There are two reasons that I can think of that would drive VW to do this
1) If the consumer drives the car while it is tuned for minimum emissions (to meet the tests), the engine will be running extremely lean, hot, and have poor acceleration. So poor that consumers will not accept the performance. The mixture is enriched to improve performance.

2) similar scenario but different motivation. Extremely lean burning engine setup for low emissions. Unacceptably low for drivability. But the ultra lean setup was needed because they specified (negotiated) a catalytic converter with low surface area and/or low catalyst loading. This greatly reduces cost for the automotive company because precious metals are like ruthenium and rhodium are used as the catalyst. One of the mist expensive parts of a car - and a highly variable expense that jumps with daily market forces.

In reality, VW likely did it for both reasons and the consumer never knew - until this week.

After I asked and did more reading, I realized that there were other systems involved besides the basic combustion process, including catalytic converters. On my airplane I actually installed an EGT (Exhaust Gas Temperature) gauge to lean the mixture at cruise altitude and airspeed. Usual setting was 50°C cooler than maximum EGT. Thanks for the clarification.

 

If you get caught. It makes me wonder who else is playing games with the ECU/ECM.

http://www3.epa.gov/otaq/cert/documents/vw-nov-caa-09-18-15.pdf

Thanks for this link, I guess this thread could also have been titled: University of WV foils VW.

 

Unfortunately for VW executives, just last week, the US Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, issued a mandate to prosecutors to go after Executives (individuals), not just corporations in these types of cases. I am sure that that the German executives at VW Americas working as management in the US will suddenly go back to the German Headquarters for 'personal reasons'.

http://www.usnews.com/news/politics...pt-encourages-prosecutions-of-corporate-execs

 

This case speaks volume about governmental failures.

Someone high up at VW knew this and made a decision to defraud VW customers and to violate the laws. The government should have identified those people and bring them in front of the court and let the hammer fall wherever it needs to fall, on those individuals and on VW.

Our legal system is providing a way for big corporations to pay to violate our laws, and that has to stop. We should not tolerate "too big to prosecute and too rich to jail".

 

I don't know about the rest of you but when it comes to my vehicles I am far far more concerned about what it costs me in fuel to drive the damn thing X amount of distance that what comes out my tail pipe on the trip.

If anyone told me I have to bring my vehicle back to the dealer and have it retuned to have less power and worse fuel mileage numbers in order to meet an emissions compliance I would tell them to go pound their recall notices up their butts until they die.

 

I don't know about the rest of you but when it comes to my vehicles I am far far more concerned about what it costs me in fuel to drive the damn thing X amount of distance that what comes out my tail pipe on the trip.

If anyone told me I have to bring my vehicle back to the dealer and have it retuned to have less power and worse fuel mileage numbers in order to meet an emissions compliance I would tell them to go pound their recall notices up their butts until they die.

Yes, I think that topic will be the one that will be hard to fight. In the case of California, they will likely deny license plate renewal to anyone who cannot show proof of a repair. The EPA will likely collect their $37500 per vehicle, make VW announce a recall and be done with it. Then comes the Justice Department - they will likely sue VW for defrauding the American People and, with the new mandate in place, they may charge individuals with various version of fraud.

Vehicle owners will have their chance at VW - sue because the car does not make the horse power that was rated (or presented during a test drive), or, that the car is not truly "clean diesel" and they paid extra for diesel to save the environment. Finally, shareholders will have a crack at them for putting undue risk to the company by taking ileagle actions in the manufactuing and marketing of their product. It is surprising that the share price only dropped 3% on a day that an $18B liability showed up on their door step (about 25% of market cap).

It is also interesting how focus VW's "Responsiblity and Sustainability" comments are about digital electronics...

"As we see it, advancing digitization is not a threat but a major opportunity that we aim to and indeed will leverage."​

 

I did some digging and used a bit of fuzzy math based on what info I could find on line and,

HMMMMM..........

(a) Emission standards. Emission standards apply for engines measured using the test procedures specified in subpart F of this part as follows:

(1) CO2 emission standards apply as specified in this paragraph (a)(1). The applicable test cycle for measuring CO2emissions differs depending on the engine family's primary intended service class and the extent to which the engines will be (or were designed to be) used in tractors. For medium and heavy heavy-duty engines certified as tractor engines, measure CO2 emissions using the steady-state duty cycle specified in 40 CFR 86.1362 (referred to as the SET cycle). This is intended for engines designed to be used primarily in tractors and other line-haul applications. Note that the use of some SET-certified tractor engines in vocational applications does not affect your certification obligation under this paragraph (a)(1); see other provisions of this part and 40 CFR part 1037 for limits on using engines certified to only one cycle. For medium and heavy heavy-duty engines certified as both tractor and vocational engines, measure CO2emissions using the steady-state duty cycle and the transient duty cycle (sometimes referred to as the FTP engine cycle), both of which are specified in 40 CFR part 86, subpart N. This is intended for engines that are designed for use in both tractor and vocational applications. For all other engines (including all spark-ignition engines), measure CO2emissions using the transient duty cycle specified in 40 CFR part 86, subpart N.

(i) The CO2 standard for model year 2016 and later spark-ignition engines is 627 g/hp-hr.

(ii) The following CO2 standards apply for compression-ignition engines and all other engines (in g/hp-hr):

Model years Light heavy-duty Medium heavy-duty—
vocational Heavy heavy-duty—
vocational Medium heavy-duty—
tractor Heavy heavy-duty—
tractor
2014-2016 600 600 567 502 475
2017 and later 576 576 555 487 460
(2) The CH4 emission standard is 0.10 g/hp-hr when measured over the transient duty cycle specified in 40 CFR part 86, subpart N. This standard begins in model year 2014 for compression ignition engines and in model year 2016 for spark-ignition engines. Note that this standard applies for all fuel types just as the other standards of this section do.

(3) The N2O emission standard for all model year 2014 and later engines is 0.10 g/hp-hr when measured over the transient duty cycle specified in 40 CFR part 86, subpart N. This standard begins in model year 2014 for compression ignition engines and in model year 2016 for spark-ignition engines.

(4) This paragraph (a)(4) describes alternate emission standards for engines certified under 40 CFR 1037.150(m). The standards of paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this section do not apply for these engines. The standards in this paragraph (a)(4) apply for emissions measured with the engine installed in a complete vehicle consistent with the provisions of 40 CFR 1037.150(m)(6). The CO2 standard for the engines equals the test result specified in 40 CFR 1037.150(m)(6) multiplied by 1.10 and rounded to the nearest 0.1 g/mile. The N2O and CH4 standards are both 0.05 g/mile (or any alternate standards that apply to the corresponding vehicle test group). The only requirements of this part that apply to these engines are those in this paragraph (a)(4) and those in §§1036.115 through 1036.135.

So a vehicle can produce up to .1 grams of NOx production per HP hour, NOx has a GWP of ~310, and and it can produce ~600 grams of CO1 per HP hour, CO2 GWP =1.

As the regulations would dictate for every HP hour up to ~631 grams of greenhouse gases can be produced.

Now as factored against the estimated before and after compliance fuel efficiency numbers of the Volkswagen 2L diesel.

Non compliance ~5 l /100 km
Compliance ~7.1 L/100 km

Going further burning 1 liter of gasoline produces ~ 2355 grams of CO2 so at 7.1 l /100km the car will be producing about 16,720 grams of CO2 Vs the non compliance settings only producing 12,000 grams of CO2.

Add in the 2 grams of NOx per 100 KM for the compliant tuning and you get an GWP equivalent of 17,340 grams of CO2 per 100 km Vs the non compliant tuning producing 20 grams of NOx per 100 Km for a GWP equivalent of 18,200 grams of CO2 per 100 km.

In layman's terms that a theoretical CO2 equivalent savings of ~9.5%, but an added fuel cost of ~40% more per 100 Km give or take.

FYI 860 grams is about how much CO2 the average person makes by breathing in ~16 - 18 hours which BTW most people couldn't walk 50 KM in 16 - 18 hours let alone 100.

AW CRAP. That's it?


GWP values. http://www.icbe.com/emissions/calculate.asp

Federal emissions Standards. http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-id...0c8f9&mc=true&node=se40.33.1036_1108&rgn=div8)

 

The rules and standards might be goofy but VW lied and cheated knowing the rules and standards that others must follow to sell products here.

VW is a


I also find it ironic that the EPA is opposing rules to open up car electronics to legally reverse-engineering the codes for the public.

http://www.wired.com/2015/09/epa-opposes-rules-couldve-exposed-vws-cheating/

The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, an advocacy group that represents most of the world’s major automakers, including Volkswagen, opposed the DMCA exemption (.pdf), arguing it would create or exacerbate “serious threats to safety and security.”

 

the EPA is opposing rules to open up car electronics to legally reverse-engineering the codes for the public.

A decision isn't made on if a proposal has merit, but if it has sufficient benefits vs. additional risks it may bring.

Legalizing hacking an engine is one of those good things that should be banned.

 

A decision isn't made on if a proposal has merit, but if it has sufficient benefits vs. additional risks it may bring.

Legalizing hacking an engine is one of those good things that should be banned.

It's my F'ing car, my F'ing computer, phone and my devices. A ban on this will be about as effective as a ban on unlocking phones that Congress has already made an exemption in the DMCA for. The solution is to engineer cars that can provide the needed power and emissions or if the emission rules are stupid then change the rules so there won't be a need to hack controls.