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

That attitude may be okay if you live in the boonies but I lived in the LA area back in the 70' and 80's when half the days in summer your lungs would hurt so badly due to the excess ozone and nitrous oxides in the air that it was hard to catch your breath. (I figure, if your lungs hurt, that can't be good).
After the government forced the kicking and screaming auto makers to install pollution control devices on all cars the air began to clear.
Now, although the air is still polluted some by automobiles giving us various levels of smog, my lungs haven't hurt in years.

Sometimes there are things more important than the almighty dollar.

 

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?

Generally you would think so, but VW fudged the nitrous oxide emissions which tend to be a function of compression ratio (compression temperature and pressure) so tend to be higher on a Diesel. So it's quite possible that reducing nitrous oxide emissions on a diesel could reduce its efficiency.

I wonder how the Japanese seem to be meeting the standards with their Diesels?

Edit: I think I may have the answer to my own question.
Many Diesels now use a form of Urea, otherwise known as Diesel Exhaust Fluid (DEF), injected into a catalytic converter to convert the nitrous oxides to nitrogen and water.

As I recall, VW stated when then came out with their "Clean Diesel" they could meet the nitrous oxide standards without using the urea, so their Diesels don't have that catalyst.
I remember wondering at that time how VW was able to get away without using Urea injection when most other road Diesels had to use it to meet the standards.
Apparently I now have the answer.

 

I would like to know who did the job and on what hardware. I know for sure one companies hardware is not evolved but I'm just curious exactly who's it was (The EDC17 from Bosch is said to be the hardware here).
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2015/09/20150921-vw2l.html
http://www.bosch-presse.de/presseforum/details.htm?txtID=2603&locale=en

I think this is the latest controller chip inside.
http://www.infineon.com/dgdl/tc1796...fileId=db3a304412b407950112b41bc4972cb1&ack=t

That attitude may be okay if you live in the boonies but I lived in the LA area back in the 70' and 80's when half the days in summer your lungs would hurt so badly due to the excess ozone and nitrous oxides in the air that it was hard to catch your breath. (I figure, if your lungs hurt, that can't be good).
After the government forced the kicking and screaming auto makers to install pollution control devices on all cars the air began to clear.
Now, although the air is still polluted some by automobiles giving us various levels of smog, my lungs haven't hurt in years.

Sometimes there are things more important than the almighty dollar.

I lived and worked in the area too during that time. When flying in from the east you could see the purple and green clouds at the peak of the mountain range spilling over into the desert.

Those were the days.

 

Yes, you could determine that the vehicle was emitting many times the standard, but you could not get deterministic data at the margins.

If you fully instrumented the car and drove prescribed profiles over a long distance you would very accurately capture the emissions characteristics of the car. I believe that is what the researchers did.

I think one reason they got away with it for so long is that once a testing program is in place (standard emissions test), there is little money or interest to test further.

 

If you fully instrumented the car and drove prescribed profiles over a long distance you would very accurately capture the emissions characteristics of the car. I believe that is what the researchers did.

I think one reason they got away with it for so long is that once a testing program is in place (standard emissions test), there is little money or interest to test further.

This reminds me of the Lumber Liquidators phenomenon. A stock analyst asked the question, 'how can Lumber Liquidators have both lower prices and higher profit margins than competitors.' Eventually the Wall Street journal sent an investigator to China to ask and found out that it was simple, the manufacturers make flooring for Lumber Liquidators that did not meet the formaldehyde specifications. Nothing was secret, the Chinese manufacturers were happy to offer standard flooring or the cheaper flooring that meets the Lumber Liquidators spec. At some point, the technology leader's product gets tested. Either by competitors, curious researchers or investors.

In the case of lumber Liquidators, I understand they are claiming that industry tests are not done fairly. That tests should be done on installed floors rather than the packaged product. Sounds rediculous as there is no way to test the product until the installation effort has been expended and the consumer is unlikely to want the inconvenience or expense of testing and replacing after the fact - but, surprisingly, the CPSC is actually listening to their theory for now. In the mean time, the CEO resigned.

In any case, it appears that VW was playing the same game of hoping nobody will look or claim that the king is not wearing what the king claims he is wearing.

 

The standard is x per 100 km. Is the driving 100 km in the city or in the country?

Wasn't this to address the urban clean air issue? That to me is stop and go traffic.

Makes one wonder, with the typical bounty, that all manufacturers would be testing their competition, to turn the SOB in and collect the bounty. 18 billion in fines would make a nice 10 percent bounty to the whistleblower.

 

CS:
Not too long ago I was outside Chicago's O'Hare Airport. Fortunately I had masks with me.

 

CS:
Not too long ago I was outside Chicago's O'Hare Airport. Fortunately I had masks with me.

Who is CS?

 

Who is CS?

He wrote the Chronicles of Narnia amongst a number of other classics.

 

That attitude may be okay if you live in the boonies but I lived in the LA area back in the 70' and 80's when half the days in summer your lungs would hurt so badly due to the excess ozone and nitrous oxides in the air that it was hard to catch your breath. (I figure, if your lungs hurt, that can't be good).
After the government forced the kicking and screaming auto makers to install pollution control devices on all cars the air began to clear.
Now, although the air is still polluted some by automobiles giving us various levels of smog, my lungs haven't hurt in years.

Sometimes there are things more important than the almighty dollar.

Perhaps but at that time there was also a mass reformulation of fuels to lower those types of pollutants. It wasn't just the lead they were taking out of the fuel back then. Also if I recall correctly there was also a fair amount of coal being burned in the area for heating and industrial use as well.

Back then there were only a few gasoline and diesel fuel formulas in play now we have at least 40 - 50 if not more.
My point is there was a lot more going on at the time behind the smog and air pollution reduction than just private automobile emissions changes.

 

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/09/22/epas-own-diesel-crimes-worse-than-vws/

 

That artcle sounds fishy to me.

 

Perhaps but at that time there was also a mass reformulation of fuels to lower those types of pollutants. It wasn't just the lead they were taking out of the fuel back then. Also if I recall correctly there was also a fair amount of coal being burned in the area for heating and industrial use as well.

Back then there were only a few gasoline and diesel fuel formulas in play now we have at least 40 - 50 if not more.
My point is there was a lot more going on at the time behind the smog and air pollution reduction than just private automobile emissions changes.

Perhaps in some areas but in LA it's mostly the millions of cars and trucks that cause the pollution.
The reformulation of gas was mostly to get the lead out so it won't poison the catalytic converters (and people), and the addition of a small amount of ethanol (10% or so) to oxygenate the fuel and reduce carbon monoxide emissions.

 

That artcle sounds fishy to me.

It does sound fishy, but there are other sources. Here's one: http://nlpc.org/stories/2015/01/30/epa-diesel-exhaust-experiments-children-discovered-california

And another
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybe...riments-on-hundreds-of-unsuspecting-subjects/

 

Had any of us been charged with writing the VW software, would any of us stood up to management "to save the company from disaster"? It would no doubt have cost us our jobs and they still would have found some patsy to do their bidding?

 

Question of law: It's clearly unethical to game the emissions test, but is it strictly illegal? I mean, if VW was clever enough to find a loophole, isn't it the fault of the law writer for leaving such a big loophole?

 

Question of law: It's clearly unethical to game the emissions test, but is it strictly illegal? I mean, if VW was clever enough to find a loophole, isn't it the fault of the law writer for leaving such a big loophole?

I was thinking along these lines. If the standard said, "emissions below x under conditions y are acceptable" where y detailed the use of, say, a dynamometer, and they did meet the standard under y conditions, then they met the letter of the 'law'.

This is probably how the lawyers will approach the problem.

 

I once won an obstacle ski race. No one else read the rules that detailed how much penalty would be assessed for skipping a given obstacle. I noted that one obstacle was taking the other competitors far longer than the time penalty they would have gotten for just skipping it.

The officials looked distressed as I went streaking by, but of course I won by a large margin, simply by knowing the rules and using them to my advantage.

Winning by technicalities is not discouraged in sports and isn't considered unethical in that realm. I don't think VW can help their public image this way, but avoiding billions in fines might be possible.

 

So, how did they correlate 100 km distance with the test used today? Do you think someone let's an "inspector" take off for a 100 km jaunt in their vehicle? Someone established the testing protocol and the standards to be met.

This is an urban problem. As I live in an urban area, my vehicles get emission tests annually.

It was nice of the government to create the opportunity for people to rechip their vehicles for more horsepower though. I've noticed that those performance chips are not illegal.

 

Question of law: It's clearly unethical to game the emissions test, but is it strictly illegal?

I'm going to answer my own question. See the EPA's opinion on which laws were violated.