from the article in post 260 ...
Robert Bosch warned Volkswagen in 2007 that it would be illegal to use engine management software at the heart of the diesels emissions scandal in production cars, German newspaper Bild am Sonntag said.

Engine management software has been part of the American automotive industry for a very long time. Otherwise, we would still be using archaic emission controls from the 1970s. Engine Management software is a broad based category.

I wonder how much weight the testing equipment added to the vehicle under test. It seems to me, under excessive loads, the engine consumes and emits more than under light loads. That's just a thought, although I have no idea of the basis.

 

I have yet to follow the rational behind the supposed load changes a few tens of pounds of equipment would make on a ton plus vehicle yet the variance in weight between having one of my malnourished looking 100# cousins driving by herself Vs having four of us 250+ # guys packed in it is of no consequence ?

 

Some of those pictures show a lot of equipment being used, not to mention the modifications to capture the exhaust. I was curious of that weight. We are talking a two liter four cylinder. The equipment and the two people, the vehicle operator and the equipment operator had to equal something, and if it were more than whatever they assumed to be the max weight, how did that affect the engine's performance and ultimately the readings.

The jetta specs said max payload, when properly equipped, is 1001 lbs. I was just thinking about the tests, and didn't know the payload specifications nor the payload during the tests.

The vw golf has a max payload of 1131 lbs.

The tests are being touted as "real world" tests. In the real world, there may be only a driver, of average weight, not approaching the max payload. I would think the loading, and more consumption of fuel, would equal more emissions. The standards have been listed in vehicle mile. if you normally burn 1 gal of fuel in 36 miles and now your burning it in 32 miles because of the payload, that's a little over a gallon to get that same 36 miles.

Just something that crossed my mind while reading the various links. Don't mean nuttin' .

 

These are all 4 seat vehicles. It does not seem realistic to base performance on only one occupant. Does anyone know for sure??

I bet now is a good time to be in the "portable emissions equipment" business. There is going to be a lot of testing going on, and not just Volkswagens. I am sure that every car manufacturer will be tested real time in the near future.

 

Engine management software has been part of the American automotive industry for a very long time. Otherwise, we would still be using archaic emission controls from the 1970s. Engine Management software is a broad based category.

It would be illegal to use Engine Management software as a defeat device for emissions.

 

 

These are all 4 seat vehicles. It does not seem realistic to base performance on only one occupant. Does anyone know for sure??

I bet now is a good time to be in the "portable emissions equipment" business. There is going to be a lot of testing going on, and not just Volkswagens. I am sure that every car manufacturer will be tested real time in the near future.

Chemical analysis instrumentation is often bulky but rarely heavy. The heaviest things about the instrumentation is the compressed gas cylinders needed for many types of analysis but small, portable cylinders can easily be swapped in without any change to the equipment. There is no way adding 300 lbs of instruments and cylinders to a 3000 lb car are going to cause the emissions to go up and exceed federal limits by 30 times! Besides, VW already admitted they used a defeat device. They never said the current emissions cannot be met. As I said early in this thread, they either did it because the limits cannot be met
- at a price they were willing to put into a VW, or
- at a performance hit the consumer is willing to accept

Look, VW was looking for a niche market - diesel. They were charging a premium price for a diesel vs gasoline cars, their customer were accepting performance that was less than a gasoline car all for the hope of getting better milage than a gasoline car. VW knew that there was a market for consumers that 'kind of' wanted something different like an affordable diesel car and they were about the only option in own. That market of 'kind of wanting' an affordable diesel car would go away if performance was low or if price of the vehicle was high or perceived benefit to the environment would go away.

It was VW's only option to make this niche market exist and allow them to be the only option to fill the demand of this niche market. I wouldn't mind seeing this company and their culture auctioned off piece wise, their culture eliminated and let them be an example to the auto industry that this behavior is not tolerated.

 

How does an increase in fuel consumption does not increase emissions? We are not talking. Could be 7 to 30 times according to the document. Funny thing about that word could..... It's not definitive. It may be more, it may be less.

Engine management software still controls emmissions. I agree using it to cheat the EPA testing is unethical. Of course, wait til all vehicles are tested in this manner.....

 

How does an increase in fuel consumption does not increase emissions? We are not talking. Could be 7 to 30 times according to the document. Funny thing about that word could..... It's not definitive. It may be more, it may be less.

Engine management software still controls emmissions. I agree using it to cheat the EPA testing is unethical. Of course, wait til all vehicles are tested in this manner.....

Many cars have been tested this way. That is what this research center at WVU is famous for. That is why the scientist in Europe who were first looking at VW tracked down WVU and asked them to do the test. It is not completely new and the VW diesels were not the first to be tested. They were the first to cause the scientists at WVU to say, "wow EPA, you need to see this."

If Volkswagen thought the test method was unfair or questionable, they would have fought harder to be treated 'fairly'. VW was cornered and new they were cheating and were, apparently caught red handed in their cheat. VW has ADMITTED to doing it and did not give justification for doing it (e.g. "The test was too hard"). Instead, they pointed at mid-level engineers and said they went rouge.

If your arguments had any merit, VW would have used these arguments as their first method to avoid accusations. They had a team of lawyers discussing this with the EPA for nearly a year. I am sure the lawyers had this argument and many others. No of them have merit or they would not have said they did it with software cheats in public. How can you keep trying to find loopholes in the EPA's rules when VW even gave up?

 

The biggest issue I have with the burning more fuel to make less pollution design is that most of the numbers they have are based on highest production level of NOx possibly to be generated Vs the overall typical average level as it would be weighted against CO2.

As with the VW diesels all we hear are the screaming about the up to 40x Nox levels they can produce which are only achievable with the combination the lowest grade and quality of fuel along with full throttle hard lugging ofthe engine which to be honest only represents a very small fraction of they way those vehicles are driven.

As the rules state now NOx emissions can not be more than .1 grams per horsepower hour whereas CO2 emissions in many detuned emissions compliant engines can be over 800 grams per HP hour and not be factored in at all.

Now the problem comes from the math when you factor NOx to have a GWP of 310 Vs CO2 at 1 at typical driving conditions not full throttle hard lugging with low grade fuels.

Good fuel and minimal emissions control on a engine tuned to produce maximum mechanical efficiency might fall into the 1 - 2 grams of NOx and under 550 grams of CO2 per Hp hour giving it a GWP average of between 860 and 1170 per hp hour of mechanical output.

Now with low grade fuel and a engine that needed heavy detuning to meet the NOx emissions requirement you could very well be seeing 1000+ grams of CO2 and .1 grams of NOx per HP hour giving it a GWP per HP hour equivalent to ~1031 which would be worse than the worst levels being made by a good well tuned efficient non compliant engine and only slightly better than the same engine in its worst average running conditions.

To make things even more skewed if the total lifetime average volumes of GWP related pollutants are factored against each engine the non compliant one will show lower total per running hour based GWP numbers but higher total numbers being it will typically last longer before wearing out than the compliant one that will show higher numbers per running hour but lower total numbers because it wore out sooner.

Unfortunately when it's all said and done regardless of which way you go when otn factoring the worst of one against the best of the other the overall total GWP numbers tend to come out about equal. The only difference is one make syou spend more taxable money than the other over the life of your vehicle and that's what matters most to those who want your money.

 

We won't know what kind of hit fuel consumption took with emission controls enabled on the TDI until those engines get fixed and retested, so no speculation of emissions with/without emissions controls would be of any value. Even if we had the numbers, it would have no relationship to and autos that passed emission qualifications without defeat devices, since the devices would have a different impact on fuel consumption than other methods used on non defeat cars.

 

Your view from a great big "square state" with less than 500,000 people is a bit skewed vs some of us living in or near urban areas or major manufacturing facilities.

Maybe not.

http://www.sltrib.com/csp/mediapool/sites/sltrib/Pages/gallery.csp?cid=3001592&pid=2396807

 

@GopherT

My question really is, are we using an false standard?

Let's say you have your perfectly tuned pickup that passed all emission testing without any form of a cheat.

You drive 180 miles round trip to and from the jobsite, averaging 18 mpg, consuming 10 gallons of fuel. Your payload consists of you, your lunch, and your tools.

Say you decide to take your family out camping. Your payload is you, the family, your tools, and that nice 5th wheel. You drive the same amount of miles round trip, but you now got 8 mpg. You consumed 22.5 gallons of fuel.

The standard of x per vehicle mile is crazy. Your perfectly tuned engine will have a emission value of x per gallon. So your really green driving to and from the jobsite. Are you as green when your consuming 2.25 times the fuel for the same distance? I don't think so.

Payload is important. Your mpg's depend on it.

During real world driving, payload is a factor.

 

@GopherT

My question really is, are we using an false standard?

Let's say you have your perfectly tuned pickup that passed all emission testing without any form of a cheat.

You drive 180 miles round trip to and from the jobsite, averaging 18 mpg, consuming 10 gallons of fuel. Your payload consists of you, your lunch, and your tools.

Say you decide to take your family out camping. Your payload is you, the family, your tools, and that nice 5th wheel. You drive the same amount of miles round trip, but you now got 8 mpg. You consumed 22.5 gallons of fuel.

The standard of x per vehicle mile is crazy. Your perfectly tuned engine will have a emission value of x per gallon. So your really green driving to and from the jobsite. Are you as green when your consuming 2.25 times the fuel for the same distance? I don't think so.

Payload is important. Your mpg's depend on it.

During real world driving, payload is a factor.

Payload does impact mpg, I agree. Over the years, there were proposals to add tests in addition to the empty vehicle test. Auto manufacturers aregued and argued additional regulations an testing will bankrupt them. Republican legislatures argued too much government. I cannot imagine that you will be able to push additioal testing through. Good luck.

Also, 90% of fuel burned in "light vehicles" which are cars, SUVs and quarter ton pickups is with 2 or fewer people in a car with no additional payload. If you burn more than 10% of your annual fuel budget on camping trips with your family, you are a better man than I am. Give me a hotel and cable any day over a trailer.

 

Personally, I wouldn't push anything to the EPA. I'm just saying you can make something look bad by increasing the payload causing a higher reading because of the lower MPG. It's being disingenuous. We already know the EPA, according to some, grossly underestimated their recent spill out west.

I'm sure this "cheat" will cause additional testing. The CARB attachment below does mention the per gallon rate for emissions of medium diesels.

As far as my camping, I got slightly less mpg pulling a 4000 lb trailer with my F150. It was a 1994, straight six, 5 speed manual 4x4. I sold both before I moved to Texas.

 

Skip forward to the VW part.

 

22:30 min in they start talking about VW

 

We already know the EPA, according to some, grossly underestimated their recent spill out west....

I bet that spill has done far more environmental damage than all the VW's combined (hacked or not!). How's about we call it even?

 

Skip forward to the VW part.

Some really smart guys (except the Detroit Free Press guy - he likes the NOx emission standards of China. What a goon. Hasn't he seen the photos of the Beijing air that people slice into wedges before inhaling.

 

I bet that spill has done far more environmental damage than all the VW's combined (hacked or not!). How's about we call it even?

Could you please share your conversion factors? If you haven't done the math on the emissions, what odds are you giving on the bet?