The extra weight is just the NOx reduction hardware.

If it's a diesel then probably but if it's a gas burner it's just a heavy built block!

From what I have been reading to reduce the NOx levels on gas engine's they are cheating the air flow and relative compression ratios with the camshaft profiles.

Back in the early days they ran fairly normal camshaft profiles but dropped the engine compression severely to cut NOx and then added air pumps to supply more clean air to the catalytic converters so that they could use it to burn off the pollutants.
The problem with doing it that way was the compression ratio reduction severely reduced the engine's efficiency and let more unburned fuel go out the exhaust into the catalytic converter where it was further burned to reduce the remaining pollutants.

As of now they use camshaft profiles that have even larger intake to exhaust overlaps to pump that extra air and fuel through the engine into the exhaust so the catalytic converters can be kept hot enough to work properly. It works but the big camshaft overlaps reduce the effective compression ratios so that an engine that measures with a 9:1 compression ratio is actually lucky if its effective compression is much over 7:1.

Now with the latest emissions requirements they needed to move even more air through the engine to dilute the exhaust but they have to keep the effective compression ratio down to keep NOx production down.
The only real way to do that is to make the camshaft profiles pump even more air through the engine but to do that without dropping the effective compression ratios down any lower they went and bumped the physical ratios up way higher.
In the case of your Nissan engine they are doing like was done with the Toyota Prius engines and running high compression ratios of 11:1 or more but with huge camshaft bleed off to keep the effective ratios down low enough to prevent NOx production.

From a old school engine builders perspective it's interesting to note that due to the large difference between mechanical compression ratio and effective ratio that most of today's engine can not take having an old school high torque towing type camshaft profile without doing severe damage simply due to the excessive effective compression ratio that that type of camshaft makes.
The only way around that is to replace the pistons with lower compression ratio units or grind out more space in the cylinder heads which then messes up the computer control system because a high-efficiency high torque camshaft and matching compression ratio pistons or head work requires a different air fuel ratio to work properly which happens to fall far enough outside a stock engines computer program settings that it can't handle the engine control properly.

It's some pretty fascinating engineering behind how they make burning more fuel less efficiently to look cleaner works.

 

@tcmtech
I'm sorry, apparently sarcasm brackets really ARE really needed. Lighten up my friend!

 

No hard feelings here! I haven't taken any of these emissions debacle nonsense serious so far.

Mostly I just like to inform others of what is really going on, how it's done and how it really compares as a whole in the larger picture of things.

From what I have ever seen the less significant something is the more of a stink the media and politicians make of it.

In this case VW's cheat to make Tier 3 compliance look like tier 4 represents a whopping ~1.5% level cheat of the gross emissions reductions done since VW's pre-emissions days altogether.

 

No hard feelings here! I haven't taken any of these emissions debacle nonsense serious so far.

Mostly I just like to inform others of what is really going on, how it's done and how it really compares as a whole in the larger picture of things.

From what I have ever seen the less significant something is the more of a stink the media and politicians make of it.

In this case VW's cheat to make Tier 3 compliance look like tier 4 represents a whopping ~1.5% level cheat of the gross emissions reductions done since VW's pre-emissions days altogether.

From my point of view, it is more of an unfair competition issue than an EPA issue. I also think the competitors knew all about the games VW was playing. They were losing market share but they were not going to blow the whistle when it was only half a year's worth os sales by mid-2009. That would be a slap on the wrist for VW to take back a handful of cars as their Clean Diesel campaign was just starting. I'm sure the competitors wanted VW to have a nice full basket of eggs before that basket is knocked out of their hands and a very complicated and messy situation is created as those eggs splatter all over the farmyard.

 

From my point of view, it is more of an unfair competition issue than an EPA issue. I also think the competitors knew all about the games VW was playing.

Exactly right. They cheated for the money and not because they believed the standards are meaningless.
What VW has also done was to make any possible compromise on future emissions standards almost impossible and to give EPA/CARB the leverage to be tougher on existing cars with enhanced testing.

http://www.autonews.com/article/20160307/OEM11/303079956/after-vw-cheated-tests-got-tougher

 

Exactly right. They cheated for the money and not because they believed the standards are meaningless.

Well have you ever known anyone to lie and cheat when there wasn't a perceived personal gain or avoidance of work or responsibility involved?

 

From my point of view, it is more of an unfair competition issue than an EPA issue. I also think the competitors knew all about the games VW was playing. They were losing market share but they were not going to blow the whistle when it was only half a year's worth os sales by mid-2009. That would be a slap on the wrist for VW to take back a handful of cars as their Clean Diesel campaign was just starting. I'm sure the competitors wanted VW to have a nice full basket of eggs before that basket is knocked out of their hands and a very complicated and messy situation is created as those eggs splatter all over the farmyard.

I am not so convinced that they were just letting VW have enough rope to hang themselves with. I have more suspicions that they were waiting to see if they could get away with it and for how long and to what effect the ramifications of getting caught would be.

In all honesty, I have more reasons to believe that the overall majority of manufacturers have the exact same cheat capabilities already figured out (some probably already in play too) and if the getting caught didn't add up to too much of a problem they would be implementing them as well.

As far as I am concerned they weren't cheating. They made sure their vehicles passed the given tests just as we did and do with our school work and business work in life.

I mean seriously, how many contractors and business people have all of us ever dealt with that someone how got certified to be able to such and such work yet it's painfully obvious they do not know what they are doing or deserve to hold the licence or certification they got? And how many of those people gave you the very strong feel that they are more concerned with keeping more honest and capable people out of their line of work than they are with doing a good honest and fair work?

Too many for me that what I have seen. It's not a work or business ethic issue. It's standard operating procedure. Someone makes a rule or regulation and sets up a test and you find a way to pass that test so you can continue to work to satisfy your need for personal gain.

 

The EPA and CARB might feel empowered, but remember, GM was to big to fail and should the EPA find too much, the union's would be complaining when the automaker shuts down for an extended period to comply with the EPA.

 

Well have you ever known anyone to lie and cheat when there wasn't a perceived personal gain or avoidance of work or responsibility involved?

Yes, all the time in LE or intelligence.

 

I mean seriously, how many contractors and business people have all of us ever dealt with that someone how got certified to be able to such and such work yet it's painfully obvious they do not know what they are doing or deserve to hold the licence or certification they got?

As my grandma always said, "that don't make it right".

 

As far as I am concerned they weren't cheating. They made sure their vehicles passed the given tests just as we did and do with our school work and business work in life.

So what, to your mind, would constitute cheating?

It's not a work or business ethic issue. It's standard operating procedure. Someone makes a rule or regulation and sets up a test and you find a way to pass that test so you can continue to work to satisfy your need for personal gain.

So it's okay as long as everyone else is doing it?

 

@tcmtech
I'm interested as well. What is the point of your agreements? How should people and companies in a modern, organized society behave? And, if they misbehave what is the punishment (if any).

Is everyone allowed to break rules and comitmemts? Then why have any? Do I just get to shoot you if I want your pickup truck and I am faster to the trigger than you? Do you get to shoot me because you think I am planing to take your pickup?

Please lay out a full argument of where you stand on rules in a society instead of all of these "it's not fair" claims or "it costs too much" claims or "the rules cannot be met by VW (but-they-can-by-all-of-VW's-competitors) claims. It's getting tiresome to hear and your arguments are weak and shallow and wouldn't stand up in a real court or a court of public opinion (nobody here has been sympathetic to your cause yet).

 

Well have you ever known anyone to lie and cheat when there wasn't a perceived personal gain or avoidance of work or responsibility involved?

On many occasions. I have a relative that will lie even when it is patently obvious that the truth would place them in a better position.

I have also known many people (and companies) that have NOT lied when doing so WOULD have been to their benefit.

 

I feel the why when and how of lying and cheating in the workplace or most anywhere relating to rules and laws is that when too many feel that a rule or law is unfairly or unreasonably biased that ignoring it or finding a solution to get around it is when lieing an cheating is most often justified in a persons mind set or business practice.

Just look at every country and its government and how many laws and rules there are that everyone knows full well are bogus and only there to cater to a certain privileged and or controlling few and how many more rules and laws are in place that have absolutely no real justified scientific or moral backing behind them?

As for myself, I don't put much faith in any laws but I put a load of it in basic moral and ethical behavior such as do on to others as I would like done on to me and do what I can to stop those who do things we know are bad and wrong.

If you think that out gunning me to get my vehicle is okay do you think that someone outgunning you to get it from you is then also okay? It's just someone in turn doing to you what you did to me that's all. I don't!

I don't take advantage of you because I wouldn't want someone taking advantage of me and that's what I see as a standard moral and ethical rule set that we will all try and follow regardless of what the laws say is or is not acceptable.

That's how I see basic morality law and rulesets working. as for technical and related, well to be honest, I have serious doubts about way too many of those rules and laws and their true validity Vs their use as a cover for certain parties or persons to gain more power than they deserve or should have the right to acquire and that comes from a failure on our part to actively learn and understand what those rules and wants are Vs their actual real gains or validity as whole in society.

As I have tried to show in the last number of my posts that the regulations that VW chose to ignore are not a huge environmental threat like so may are trying to make them out to be but a power and money grab being the last set of ignored laws only represent a roughly 1.5 % gain in total emissions reductions , while costing roughly 8x as mush as reducing the first 98% cost us, when compared to the original pre emisons day levels of everything.

I don't pretend to know what anyone else thinks of this or the numbers but in my scientific logical rationalization I know full well what the first 98% cost us in losses in potential fuel efficiency and I sure as hell don't want to spend 8 times more than that to clean up that last 1.5% and give up 10 - 15% more fuel efficiency to get it when it can not be reasonable proven to do any further good for the majority of situations.

Now as for who lies and cheats to get where they are well that not my problem unless it's negatively affecting my life in some way but then again if its a law I have very strong beliefs was put into place for political control or financial gain VS true honest benefit of society I have no problem with finding a way to lie and cheat to get around it being obviously someone had to have lied and cheated a whole lot of people to get them to sign it into effect in the first place.

someone posted this on another forum I hang out in and I find it to be well worth the read being it explains a whole lot of the how and why we have so many stupid rules laws and those willing fight to uphold them at any cost despite solid provable justifications VS costs that say otherwise to their validity and place in our society.

March of the Zealots.
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/zealots.htm

 

Somewhere back there it was mentioned that VW knew the answer and that was the urea injection. Mercedes was using it. When I looked at buying a Golf I had heard other vendors required that and as far as I was concerned that was a show stopper. I would never buy a car that required some proprietary juice only available by having it serviced at the dealer. In fact when VW announced there was no such secret sauce required, I was good to go and I bought one.

Keep in mind I had no idea that urea was a simple water soluable plant fertilizer available over the counter as AdBlue. It sounded like some expensive stuff. That's the choice I think VW faced, sell us on adding this stuff or cheating. We know what they chose. Years from now when they agree on a fix my car which currently has 80k miles will be ready to trade in and I will happily accept most any offer. The pedals are too narrow for my feet anyway.

 

Somewhere back there it was mentioned that VW knew the answer and that was the urea injection. Mercedes was using it. When I looked at buying a Golf I had heard other vendors required that and as far as I was concerned that was a show stopper. I would never buy a car that required some proprietary juice only available by having it serviced at the dealer. In fact when VW announced there was no such secret sauce required, I was good to go and I bought one.

Keep in mind I had no idea that urea was a simple water soluable plant fertilizer available over the counter as AdBlue. It sounded like some expensive stuff. That's the choice I think VW faced, sell us on adding this stuff or cheating. We know what they chose. Years from now when they agree on a fix my car which currently has 80k miles will be ready to trade in and I will happily accept most any offer. The pedals are too narrow for my feet anyway.

Thank you for on firming my theory above on the unfair competition angle. VW was viewed as the superior diesel option because they had great power and no urea solution to add (one more annoying bit if maintenance) and the perception that VW had superior engineering.

Also, I thought the VW pedals were adjustable? Or replaceable (with a wider spread).

 

Competitive advantage or greed?

Is it competitive advantage or greed to hire someone because of their race or gender and list them as a partner to improve one's chance at a contract? It happens in the world of government small business contracts.

Is it competitive advantage or greed to use one's veteran status to improve one's chance at a contract? It happens in the world of government small business contracts,

Is it ethical to use either of the above to gain a contract when all you are is a figure head that sub-contracts others to do the work?

Where do we, as a society draw the line?

No where does it demand the business owner to have a scintilla of knowledge with respect to the work they are bidding. The market bears the responsibility to weed out poor businesses.

Where is the cost benefit analysis on each reduction in the requirements? The reduction and the recent findings is a good reason for more employees at the EPA to check the vehicles. That is a benefit to a bureaucracy where the number of authorized employees dictate the number of supervisors and managers.

If you need a cost benefit analysis example, what would your inventory costs be to repair 98 percent of the consumer electronics that pass through your repair shop?

 

Competitive advantage or greed?

Is it competitive advantage or greed to hire someone because of their race or gender and list them as a partner to improve one's chance at a contract? It happens in the world of government small business contracts.

Is it competitive advantage or greed to use one's veteran status to improve one's chance at a contract? It happens in the world of government small business contracts,

Is it ethical to use either of the above to gain a contract when all you are is a figure head that sub-contracts others to do the work?

Where do we, as a society draw the line?

We usually draw the line at criminal activity (VW) for competitive advantage or greed but will sometimes let you slide for likely crimes if the cause might be be honorable. Delorean arrested with briefcase full of cocaine Competitive advantage, greed are as American as apple-pie. If you flat-out lie about your veteran status to improve one's chance at a contract you should be held accountable if you get caught.

 

What an arbitrary set of bull - I understand he concept in full (too well, in fact). The idea that they put actual numbers on the table and use 95% as a target has no basis in fact. There are so many variables and some companies stop benefiting at 40% while others can easily achieve 98% - it all depends on design constrains and business rules. It would have made a fine example to demonstrate some text but to claim 95% is the number is ridiculous.

For example, Apple is one of the biggest companies in the world but likely have the smallest spare parts inventory. They simply sell you a replacement phone, not individual parts. Sears, on the other hand, essentially drove themselves into the ground trying to carry replacement parts for nearly every model of tool or appliance they ever made up until about 1990. Then they had to figure out how to do things differently. unfortunately, the path they took was not a good one and they have been riding on the brink of destruction for the past 20 years.

 

I still don't have a feel for what VW hoped to gain. Less cost per vehicle, yes. More units sold and market share gained by having a superior technology in the market, yes. But adding all that up brings in what, maybe $2K per car? In the U.S. we're talking about a half million cars. So maybe VW stood to gain a billion dollars in the U.S. if they never got caught?

Now they stand to lose $20B in the U.S. One can argue whether a 20X penalty is appropriate, but I think everyone would agree that the penalty should exceed any ill-gotten gains by a wide margin.

What surprises me in retrospect is that VW did this. It was a really stupid and shortsighted gamble. Did they really believe they would never be caught? If I had launched a cheater product, I'd be in constant fear the competition would study how I accomplished the advanced technology. I'd be less worried about regulatory organizations, but I still would not bet on them never finding it.

If I were a VW shareholder, I'd want to know who made this decision and I'd want them skewered on a pike. There are prudent gambles made all the time in business, but this doesn't seem like one.