VW & Audi to recall 500,000 diesels - Software detected, tricked EPA tests

[HotPotato]

Looks like diesel emissions cheating is a bigger problem in Europe than we thought: "they all do it" indeed.

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2015/10/uk-researcher-basically-every-diesel-automaker-is-illegally-polluting/#more-1187306

VWs aren't even the worst offender.

 

The Europeans have both high fuel taxes and stiff CO2 targets. You can optimize fuel economy and reduce CO2 emissions with a diesel if you don't mind it spewing loads of NOx. The regulations do mind that, of course, since NOx reacts with sunlight to create smog and make people sick or worse, but automakers' solution to that seems to be cheating on the emissions test.

 

Increasingly it seems like Clean Diesel is an oxymoron. And today's gasoline direct-injection (GDI) engines produce diesel-like levels of deadly particulate pollution, which IIRC the regulations don't take into account because GDI didn't even exist when they were written. Today's tiny gasoline turbos also run rich under load. In short, the much-vaunted gasoline clean tech from Hyundai/Kia and Ford is not so clean. Nissan seems have the right idea using CVT transmissions to optimize the efficiency of conventional powertrains instead--an Altima is big inside, has ample power, and will get 37 mpg all day long at extra-legal highway speed--but the CVT comes with its own problems, namely a much greater chance of transmission failure when mileage approaches six figures--and scrapping cars halfway through their useful life due to a costly repair isn't green either.

 

Ford seems to have an excellent solution to the MPG/emissions challenge with the C-Max Hybrid: robust powertrain components, in a car with European road manners and packaging, and diesel-like torque and economy. If they're smart, they'll get it to Europeans pronto. 

 

I hope this scandal, and the GDI scandal that may follow, will help push us all to a battery-electric future. It's a little ironic that some of the parts of the US embracing BEVs most strongly---the state of Colorado, the city of Indianapolis---are mostly coal-powered, unlike most of the US, which has been rapidly moving to cleaner natural gas and to some extent alternative energy. Folks smarter than me have done the math, and even a 100% coal-powered electric car is cleaner than most conventional cars, but it's even better if it's charged on Oregon hydropower or California rooftop solar rather than Indiana coal.

Edited October 4, 2015 by HotPotato

[C-MaxSea]

Looks like diesel emissions cheating is a bigger problem in Europe than we thought: "they all do it" indeed.

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2015/10/uk-researcher-basically-every-diesel-automaker-is-illegally-polluting/#more-1187306

VWs aren't even the worst offender.

 

The Europeans have both high fuel taxes and stiff CO2 targets. You can optimize fuel economy and reduce CO2 emissions with a diesel if you don't mind it spewing loads of NOx. The regulations do mind that, of course, since NOx reacts with sunlight to create smog and make people sick or worse, but automakers' solution to that seems to be cheating on the emissions test.

 

Increasingly it seems like Clean Diesel is an oxymoron. And today's gasoline direct-injection (GDI) engines produce diesel-like levels of deadly particulate pollution, which IIRC the regulations don't take into account because GDI didn't even exist when they were written. Today's tiny gasoline turbos also run rich under load. In short, the much-vaunted gasoline clean tech from Hyundai/Kia and Ford is not so clean. Nissan seems have the right idea using CVT transmissions to optimize the efficiency of conventional powertrains instead--an Altima is big inside, has ample power, and will get 37 mpg all day long at extra-legal highway speed--but the CVT comes with its own problems, namely a much greater chance of transmission failure when mileage approaches six figures--and scrapping cars halfway through their useful life due to a costly repair isn't green either.

 

Ford seems to have an excellent solution to the MPG/emissions challenge with the C-Max Hybrid: robust powertrain components, in a car with European road manners and packaging, and diesel-like torque and economy. If they're smart, they'll get it to Europeans pronto. 

 

I hope this scandal, and the GDI scandal that may follow, will help push us all to a battery-electric future. It's a little ironic that some of the parts of the US embracing BEVs most strongly---the state of Colorado, the city of Indianapolis---are mostly coal-powered, unlike most of the US, which has been rapidly moving to cleaner natural gas and to some extent alternative energy. Folks smarter than me have done the math, and even a 100% coal-powered electric car is cleaner than most conventional cars, but it's even better if it's charged on Oregon hydropower or California rooftop solar rather than Indiana coal.

 

You nailed it HP.  Lax emission standards, weak public health standards, combined with an obsession with diesels ......... Poooof goes the air quality, up goes NOx morbidity.

 

"Ford seems to have an excellent solution to the MPG/emissions challenge with the C-Max Hybrid: robust powertrain components, in a car with European road manners and packaging, and diesel-like torque and economy. If they're smart, they'll get it to Europeans pronto."   BINGO

Edited October 5, 2015 by C-MaxSea

[fbov]

Looks like diesel emissions cheating is a bigger problem in Europe than we thought: "they all do it" indeed.

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2015/10/uk-researcher-basically-every-diesel-automaker-is-illegally-polluting/#more-1187306

VWs aren't even the worst offender....

It's a sad day when a professor's opinion becomes a headline. That day came years ago, of course, as pundits are always happy to misapply news reports to further their goals.

 

First, you quote "thetruthaboutcars.com" which has a huge red flag in its name.

 

Next, you quote an article about an actual news report. Why did you not link to the news report?

 

Because it's just the Daily Mail... I see one guy, who stands to benefit from the scandal, reporting data taken randomly at the road side from random vehicles, because it fails the latest (2014) emission standards (which allow 2x the NOx than in the US). I then see that report being picked up by lobbying groups, as one might expect.

 

From the WVU report, car C, the "good" car that passed the emission standards, had 35x the allowed NOx emission in one of the tests. You can "prove" anything you want, you just need an audience that's short on skepticism.

 

Have fun,

Frank, your resident skeptic.

[Marc Smith]

All they have to do is tell the owners of the cars that they cannot drive them since they do not meet US safety and EPA guidelines.  Yes it woudl be a hardship for the people that own them,  as they'd then have to rent a car which means it would hurt VW in the wallet.  Big time.

 

Another option.  Tell VW  that they cannot sell any more cars(no matter the fuel or the brand) in the US until said problem is fixed.

 

Its not like this is a screw up or an accident,  this was a dedicated, premeditated fraud.  And it affects more than just the people who purchased the vehicles.

 

 

Bernhard and Krebs "realized that an AdBlue urea exhaust-treatment system would be needed to meet U.S. emissions standards," finance executives at Volkswagen found that solution to be too expensive, at more than $350 per vehicle.  After the emissions scandal turned into an international recall last week, Volkswagen said it was setting aside more than $7 billion to deal with the problem. The company also faces the possibility of more than $17 billion in potential fines, in the U.S. alone.

 

17 billion in fines, 482,000 vehicles.   thats $35,000 in fines per vehicle, just in the US alone if they are hit with the max fines, not counting the actual fix...  makes the $350 fix seem quite a bit easy to swallow...  and I imagine it was a much cheaper fix while the car was being built.

 

11 million cars world wide are affected by the fraud.  if VW is fined an amount similar to the us fines.  that would put VW in hock for about $380 billion in fines alone.

 

in 2012 VW net assets were 408 billion.  While I doubt other countries would fine VW as bad,  but...  ya never know.  Could this be the end of VW???

[ptjones]

I guess I'm missing something, if the cars will pass when the test is ministered then why can't they leave it in test mode all the time. Problem solved, at the loss in MPG's. ;)

 

Paul

[Marc Smith]

Just Run It In Test Mode

One is to “reflash” the engine control module, recalibrating the software so the car always runs the way it does during EPA testing, and always meets emission standards.

The downside here is that to achieve the drastic drop in NOx emissions, the cars in test mode sacrificed some fuel economy, or performance. Just how much is hard to say, but any drop in torque—one great thing about diesels is how they accelerate off the line—will not make drivers happy. And a drop in mileage would likely cost VW, since hundreds of thousands of drivers would have to spend more on fuel than VW promised at the time of sale.

There’s precedent for this: Last year, the EPA forced Kia and Hyundai to downgrade fuel economy ratings on more than a million cars (they blamed “procedural errors” at a shared testing facility). The Korean automakers spent $395 million on a settlement with vehicle owners aggrieved over higher than expected fuel costs.

 

how much did ford spend on a 4mpg drop... in the c max?? 800 bucks  so if VW spend $800 on rebate checks per car  that still 8.8 billion on top of any fines...world wide.  not counting any private lawsuits....which probably will happen

 

saw this site as well http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2015/09/heres-might-cost-fix-vw-car/

 

The long list of items needed to fit models of the Volkswagen Golf, Jetta, Beetle and Audi A3 doesn’t include the engineering needed to retrofit the cars and the costs to crash test the models after the significant modifications. That’ll add hundreds of millions to the bottom line.

Our own Bozi Tatarevic provided his preliminary list of additions (retail prices) that would be needed for each car based on the systems included in the Passat TDI — which still didn’t pass:

• Cooler ($361)
• Aftertreatment Fuel Tank ($534)
• Dosing Valve ($240)
• DPFE ($105)
• Temperature Sensor ($171)
• EGR ($401)
• Catalyst ($688)
Total = $2,500

Bozi points out that the urea tank most likely couldn’t be installed into the rear trunks due to the corrosive nature of the fluid. The secondary tanks would likely need to be installed under the car, next to a smaller, also-replaced, fuel tank. That would be an additional cost to Volkswagen (hundreds of dollars for each car) and further necessitate all new safety ratings.

The parts costs don’t take into account the hours of labor, which for a Jetta is 6-7 hours to change the diesel particulate filter alone. Such a substantial retrofit on their cars could take dozens of hours, incurring thousands in labor costs that Volkswagen would have to reimburse its dealers for. Labor rates, typically ~$100/hour, would likely be less for Volkswagen and the automaker would only reimburse dealers for the completion time detailed in the recall order.

Any sort of recall repair work and would need to be weighed against the cost for VW to buy back its own cars, which for a 2009 Jetta TDI, starts at about $7,000.

Edited October 6, 2015 by Marc Smith

[raadsel]

I guess I'm missing something, if the cars will pass when the test is ministered then why can't they leave it in test mode all the time. Problem solved, at the loss in MPG's. ;)

 

Paul

 

I wondered the same thing. It seemed like that might be an option, other than the huge amount of fuel economy, horsepower, and torque the vehicle would lose. I've seen reports since, though, that suggest that they actually rigged the tests. It seems the way they did it rigs the cars to pretend to run cleaner but they can't keep it clean over a longer period, possibly even making it so that it only runs "clean" at specific rpms that are part of the typical emissions testing

[C-MaxSea]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/07/business/international/vw-diesel-emissions-job-cuts.html?_r=0

http://www.autoblog.com/2015/10/06/west-virginia-sues-volkswagen-report/

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/business/vw-ceo-says-recall-to-sta/2174864.html

http://www.sltrib.com/home/3035132-155/with-few-dc-lobbyists-vw-braces
 
 
Repeat of the larger issue in the EU:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/03/pariss-first-attempt-at-car-free-day-brings-big-drop-in-air-and-noise-pollution

When the scandal broke over Volkswagen’s manipulation of emissions data for diesel vehicles, the French claimed this was typical “German economic arrogance”. Amid the bout of schadenfreude, no one mentioned that France has been flouting EU air quality targets since 2005.

In its report for 2014, Airparif wrote: “Despite meteorological conditions favourable to the quality of air in 2014, 2.3 million French people are still exposed to levels of pollution that do not respect the rules, particularly in the case of (lead) particles and nitrogen dioxide. Those living in the Paris region and near major roads are the most affected.” Airparif said pollutions levels were up to double those allowed by the regulations. Five pollutants posed problems in the capital: benzene, nitrogen dioxide, ozone and the fine particles PM10 and PM2.5. A report by the French Sénat, the upper house of parliament, found that air pollution costs France €101.3bn (£75bn) a year in negative health, economic and financial consequences. It said illnesses created or worsened by pollution included Alzheimer’s disease, heart disease, respiratory disease and some cancers. Polluted air is also linked to foetal development problems, the report said.  ............................................. The report – entitled Air Pollution: the Cost of Inaction – estimated that pollution caused up to 45,000 premature deaths in France a year, from asthma, chronic bronchitis, heart attacks, lung cancer and strokes.

Edited October 7, 2015 by C-MaxSea

[HotPotato]

It's a sad day when a professor's opinion becomes a headline. That day came years ago, of course, as pundits are always happy to misapply news reports to further their goals.

 

First, you quote "thetruthaboutcars.com" which has a huge red flag in its name.

 

Next, you quote an article about an actual news report. Why did you not link to the news report?

 

Because it's just the Daily Mail... I see one guy, who stands to benefit from the scandal, reporting data taken randomly at the road side from random vehicles, because it fails the latest (2014) emission standards (which allow 2x the NOx than in the US). I then see that report being picked up by lobbying groups, as one might expect.

 

From the WVU report, car C, the "good" car that passed the emission standards, had 35x the allowed NOx emission in one of the tests. You can "prove" anything you want, you just need an audience that's short on skepticism.

 

Have fun,

Frank, your resident skeptic.

 

 

Don't judge a book by its cover or a blog by its name. The Truth About Cars is an industry blog, and much to my chagrin when they're popping my favorite bubbles, "Skepticism About Car Stories" might be a more accurate name. Among other things, they ran this excellent explanation of why the TFLCar "test mode" dyno video discussed elsewhere in this thread is a crock: http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2015/10/tflcars-jetta-dyno-test-doesnt-show-us-test-mode/

 

I don't care for the Daily Mail either, but that's irrelevant; what's relevant is the researcher's findings, which come from measuring over 300 cars. "According to Tate, Mazda’s diesel engines, on average, emitted more than six times the European limit for nitrogen oxide emissions in new cars. Ford’s cars may have polluted more, but Tate said the automaker’s sample size was too small to tell."  I don't see any bold claim here. I do see something that fits with the notorious and well-documented pattern of manufacturers cheating on the European MPG tests--it's hardly a stretch to imagine they'd game emissions tests too.

 

TTAC is not endorsing dude's claim, just reporting it. But it's hardly the only hint that there's a problem here beyond VW. Recent testing has found illegal emissions levels from GM's 1.6 liter turbodiesel, BMW's X3 turbodiesel, and now Ford and Mazda diesels. More extensive testing will be needed to see if that's anomalous or indicative of a larger issue.

Edited October 7, 2015 by HotPotato

[fbov]

Have you read the WVU report? It's very comprehensive, and as such, enlightening to the entire topic. They didn't only test VW's....

 

I'd seen that link to TTAC's "debunking" of another test, but it just reinforces the idea that they're not qualified. A couple paragraphs in... 

The first red flag in the video was the conversation with what appears to be an emissions station technician. He makes a point of mentioning that they have to disengage traction control and that is likely what puts the car into test mode. ... This is not possible as the Mk VI Jetta does not have a button to disable traction control....

 

The "button" is called a "fuse." F-150 owners who plow snow pull their ABS fuses religiously, as "TC off" resets. (Traction control burns up brakes in applications that require wheel spin.)  

 

The Daily Mail quoted a researcher, and you pulled a line with some numbers in it to make a point. That's worthless. Linking to some of the researcher's published findings would be worthwhile. Linking to an independent researcher doing similar measurements would be worthwhile. It's the same with your other "recent testing," also with no substantiation or documentation.

 

Did you read the WVU report? It's a good piece of work.

 

Catch the part where the car that passed the emission tests, also failed the test? How do you give a passing grade to a failing car?

 

Researchers admit that the test was rigged, and discount the failure due to the test conditions, which were chosen specifically to assess a known worst case. All one needs do is set up a tail pipe sniffer at an intersection at the top of a long hill. Diesels will have run rich up the hill, I'd say "under full throttle" but diesels don't have a "throttle" to open, they just add more fuel - run rich.

 

This is a known diesel operating mode, as is regeneration of particulate traps (if present), which exceed all emissions standards, and are acceptable. They're recognized as temporary operating modes. You don't get "diesel" without them. This link quotes the interim head of the WVE Center for Alternative Fuels Engines and Emissions, and report author:

Catalytic converters break down NO_X only when they’re hot, and keeping them hot may sometimes require that you burn more fuel than you need for the performance you want. You might want to run the engine on a lean fuel-air mixture, but you have to run it rich. "There’s also a trap for NO_X that acts like a sponge,” Carder points out. “But if you saturate it with NO_X, then you have to go to a rich-burning condition to use the catalyst to reduce the NO_X” and thus wring out the sponge.

 

So, please, feel free to share data and discuss the situation, but please stop the rumor mongering. The truth will come out; you're just adding collateral damage by repeating half-truths. 

 

Have fun,

Frank

Edited October 7, 2015 by fbov

[HotPotato]

...

Edited October 10, 2015 by HotPotato

[HotPotato]

Have you read the WVU report? It's very comprehensive, and as such, enlightening to the entire topic. They didn't only test VW's....

 

I'd seen that link to TTAC's "debunking" of another test, but it just reinforces the idea that they're not qualified. A couple paragraphs in... 

The first red flag in the video was the conversation with what appears to be an emissions station technician. He makes a point of mentioning that they have to disengage traction control and that is likely what puts the car into test mode. ... This is not possible as the Mk VI Jetta does not have a button to disable traction control....

 

The "button" is called a "fuse." F-150 owners who plow snow pull their ABS fuses religiously, as "TC off" resets. (Traction control burns up brakes in applications that require wheel spin.)  

 

The Daily Mail quoted a researcher, and you pulled a line with some numbers in it to make a point. That's worthless. Linking to some of the researcher's published findings would be worthwhile. Linking to an independent researcher doing similar measurements would be worthwhile. It's the same with your other "recent testing," also with no substantiation or documentation.

 

Did you read the WVU report? It's a good piece of work.

 

Catch the part where the car that passed the emission tests, also failed the test? How do you give a passing grade to a failing car?

 

Researchers admit that the test was rigged, and discount the failure due to the test conditions, which were chosen specifically to assess a known worst case. All one needs do is set up a tail pipe sniffer at an intersection at the top of a long hill. Diesels will have run rich up the hill, I'd say "under full throttle" but diesels don't have a "throttle" to open, they just add more fuel - run rich.

 

This is a known diesel operating mode, as is regeneration of particulate traps (if present), which exceed all emissions standards, and are acceptable. They're recognized as temporary operating modes. You don't get "diesel" without them. This link quotes the interim head of the WVE Center for Alternative Fuels Engines and Emissions, and report author:

Catalytic converters break down NO_X only when they’re hot, and keeping them hot may sometimes require that you burn more fuel than you need for the performance you want. You might want to run the engine on a lean fuel-air mixture, but you have to run it rich. "There’s also a trap for NO_X that acts like a sponge,” Carder points out. “But if you saturate it with NO_X, then you have to go to a rich-burning condition to use the catalyst to reduce the NO_X” and thus wring out the sponge.

 

So, please, feel free to share data and discuss the situation, but please stop the rumor mongering. The truth will come out; you're just adding collateral damage by repeating half-truths. 

 

Have fun,

Frank

 

Quite reasonably, you expect data and analysis rather than idle musings. Quite reasonably, I expect a friendly and constructive tone rather than a snipey one. Apparently we both made a wrong turn and wound up on the Internet, and now we’re both disappointed.

 

I saw comedian Patton Oswalt live the other night. As he put it: “Internet comments can be summed up in one word: ‘Actually…’”

 

I agree, I should have provided sources, so I'll do that below. I disagree that magazine or blog articles are "worthless" -- most of us on here, including me, are not scientists, so we benefit from a summary that cuts to the chase. If that means I'm susceptible to politicized misinformation, then I have to live with that...althought FWIW, when the Daily Mail and the Guardian and industry publications are all reporting a story the same way, I feel pretty comfortable with it. 

 

To be clear, nobody's alleging that everyone's using defeat devices; they're pointing out that there are startling discrepancies between test-cycle results and real-world results for NOx. Why, and what to do about it, are TBD.

 

Manufacturers gaming European MPG/CO2 tests:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/08/21/eu-autos-idUSL6N0QL2DN20140821

European Commission research published last year showed that lab techniques, such as taping up car doors and windows and driving on an unrealistically smooth surface, explained around a third of a recorded drop in average EU emissions of planet-warming carbon dioxide (CO2), linked to reduced fuel consumption… [N]itrogen oxide (NOX) emissions, linked to lung disease and hundreds of thousands of early deaths, have been miscalculated to a still-greater extent than CO2 levels. "In the real world we have seen that NOX emissions are higher than indicated by the test, up to a factor 4 or 5 and exceptionally more," one EU official said.

 

BMW X3 emissions:

http://www.presseportal.de/pm/53065/3130280 (translated)

As the trade magazine AUTO BILD for their latest issue 39/2015 (EVT: 09/25/2015) learned exclusively, VW is not the only automaker whose cars produce showy nitric oxide levels. Even the BMW X3 xDrive 20d has the European emission standards (Euro 6 limit) is exceeded during road tests of the International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT) by more than 11 times. Thus, the car cuts even worse than the situation complained of by the US Environmental Protection Agency VW Passat. "All measured data suggest that this is not a VW-specific issue," says Peter Mock the ICCT. In tests of his institute the VW vehicles had the Euro 6 limit for the toxic nitrogen oxides (NOx) by an average of more than exceeded 22 times - determined the US Environmental Protection Agency.

 

Ford Focus diesel emissions:

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-34425306

In the tests conducted for the BBC, the VW emitted 0.664g of NOx per km, which is a touch under four times the regulated limit of 0.18g under the Euro 5 rules applicable to the VW... The Ford emitted 0.422g of NOx per km, which is more than five times the regulated limit of 0.08g under the Euro 6 rules applicable to the Ford.

 

Other automakers’ emissions:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/oct/09/mercedes-honda-mazda-mitsubishi-diesel-emissions-row?CMP=twt_gu

The Guardian in the UK has been reporting on real-world test results from a company called Emissions Analytics. After the latest round of checks, vehicles from Mercedes-Benz, Honda, Mazda and Mitsubishi were found to generate far more NOx than they should. The newspaper also published similar results for Renault, Nissan, Hyundai, Fiat, Volvo, Jeep, Citroën, VW, and Audi. On average, the figures are about four times over the limit of producing the pollutant.

[Marc Smith]

ok,  Lets say  that  VW comes up with a fix..  I guess I should say  we all know that VW will come up with a fix. And we all know that not all car owners follow all the rules/laws.

 

Is there anyway to force all the offending cars to get fixed?

 

IE  the car makers has to send out the recall notice.  and when the car is produced the work has to be done.  But nothing says that the car owner HAS to bring the car in.

 

If I owned a car and I brought my car in for a recall, when I got the car back, I was told,  "well you aren't polluting as much any more,  Oh by the way we've taken 20HP and 50 lbft of torque, and added about 100 lbs of stuff, taken away trunk space, reduced your MPG and added another maintenance item for you...  Have a nice day"

 

I'd not be too inclined to want to have the recall work done.

 

Even if VW  tell is customers.  Hey, we'll cut you a check, but to get the check  you have to have the recall done...  Not sure I'd still be inclined to do the work.

 

The car will still pass inspections.....

[plus 3 golfer]

ok,  Lets say  that  VW comes up with a fix..  I guess I should say  we all know that VW will come up with a fix. And we all know that not all car owners follow all the rules/laws.

 

Is there anyway to force all the offending cars to get fixed?

 

IE  the car makers has to send out the recall notice.  and when the car is produced the work has to be done.  But nothing says that the car owner HAS to bring the car in.

 

If I owned a car and I brought my car in for a recall, when I got the car back, I was told,  "well you aren't polluting as much any more,  Oh by the way we've taken 20HP and 50 lbft of torque, and added about 100 lbs of stuff, taken away trunk space, reduced your MPG and added another maintenance item for you...  Have a nice day"

 

I'd not be too inclined to want to have the recall work done.

 

Even if VW  tell is customers.  Hey, we'll cut you a check, but to get the check  you have to have the recall done...  Not sure I'd still be inclined to do the work.

 

The car will still pass inspections.....

And it will be easy to identify affected vehicles via VIN at registration renewal time. ;)  I would think that most states that have implemented emissions testing (in part or totally) will not renew the registration of affected vehicles until the recall work is done in a timely manner.  The "red-brown" haze is clearly visible over the Valley of the Sun on many days.

[raadsel]

And it will be easy to identify affected vehicles via VIN at registration renewal time. ;)  I would think that most states that have implemented emissions testing (in part or totally) will not renew the registration of affected vehicles until the recall work is done in a timely manner.  The "red-brown" haze is clearly visible over the Valley of the Sun on many days.

 

I disagree, I don't think it is that easy, particularly if you have private companies doing the testing rather than the government. First, you have to trust the people doing the emissions checks, that they are actually asking for the paperwork. Since many of the emissions testing places I've been use low paid employees, I'm not sure how many will even stop and think they need to ask for proof the recall work has done. Alternately, the dealership has to provide the documentation to the state, with the state ensuring they update the various cars records and track cars that don't have the recall completed. You also have to have changes in the registration/testing software so there is a field that tracks if the recall has been done. There is also the issue if the owner changes states.

 

At the very minimum it requires changes in regulations and updating their software. It will be interesting to see how it plays out. My personal thought, the absolute "best" fix is for the government to require VW to buy back all the vehicles -- and that may be cheaper overall for VW, as well. This way there is no issue trying to track what vehicles have been "fixed." The only issue then is ensuring current VW owners don't lose money on their vehicle, that they are able to replace their VW diesel with a comparable vehicle.

[plus 3 golfer]

I'm not saying the process wouldn't require change.  But, If states care about emissions given the magnitude of NOX emissions of the affected vehicles, the states can easily run affected VINs against their database of registered vehicles. I don't know how many affected TDIs are in the Phoenix area but I'll guess 10,000.  So, that might be the equivalent of 400,000 "clean" diesels.  What the states do to ensure emissions compliance of the affected vehicles and how they do it will require work.  It could simply require a signed statement (or box checked on the renewal page) from the owner that the work was done or that they understand the work must be done by the next renewal period on their car. Of course there will always be those that will "cheat" like VW (as they do now with illegal tunes, DPF removal and so forth).  :)

 

New from Conumer Reports on the VW "cheats".

 

In response to the scandal, Consumer Reports conducted new testing of 2015 and 2011 Volkswagen TDI diesel vehicles in this “cheat” mode to assess fuel economy and performance. We found a noticeable decline in fuel economy for both models. Our testing also showed reduced acceleration with the 2011 model, which is equipped with a lower-tech diesel filtration system.

 

[Marc Smith]

there have been thousands of federally mandated recalls that affect vehicle safety (which in turn potentially affects the safety of people who don't own the car). And never once has any vehicle ever been forced to be parked. I just don't see th Feds or states forcing that in this case.

 

 

Here in norther va. Inspections are done by private parties. But the emmisions equipment is linked to the state dot. However we don't even do sniff tests any more. They just plug into the computer. And if both computers say everything is ok...you get the pass

 

 

The real sticky wicket is the fact the VW engineers conspired to knowingly figuring out how to beat the test and doing so for a few years....that why I believe the penalties levied need to substantial to discourage other car makers. But those penalizes. Need to include a fool proof method of getting cars fixed or off the road. Which may mean as suggested a buy back. But it would have to be a high enough price(much better than fmv) to really entice current owners to sell.

 

It will be interesting to see what happens

[plus 3 golfer]

It will be interesting as this issue can significantly affect air quality in a region. I don't see any reason why a state (given a grace period) wouldn't deny registration if the vehicle is not "road" worthy - safety or emissions. It's not that the fix costs the owners any $.  Some states do have emission waiver rules IIRC for cost to repair.  It may take changes in state law though. I think you will find that vehicles to be operated in many states legally must have a valid safety or emissions sticker.  In AZ you can not renew your registration without a passing emissions test (for those vehicles requiring one).  But that doesn't prevent the car from being driven.  ;)  I don't see this issue as any different - no recall work done, no vehicle registration.

 

 

In AZ, vehicles 5 years or less in age do not require emissions testing and such vehicles after 5 years are only tested in the Phoenix and Tucson areas.  So, geographically speaking, the vast majority of the state is not subject to emissions testing.  So, IMO emissions testing is not the way for states to "check" if the recall work was done.  Here's an emissions testing map of the US:

 

Vehicle inspection laws by state:

  Periodic safety inspection required

  Safety inspection required upon sale or transfer

  Safety inspection required when registering a vehicle from another jurisdiction

  Emissions testing required in some areas

  Emissions testing required in all areas

  No inspection required

Striped: Both safety and emissions testing required

Edited October 11, 2015 by Plus 3 Golfer

[plus 3 golfer]

Delete

Edited October 11, 2015 by Plus 3 Golfer

[raadsel]

there have been thousands of federally mandated recalls that affect vehicle safety (which in turn potentially affects the safety of people who don't own the car). And never once has any vehicle ever been forced to be parked. I just don't see th Feds or states forcing that in this case.

 

 

Here in norther va. Inspections are done by private parties. But the emmisions equipment is linked to the state dot. However we don't even do sniff tests any more. They just plug into the computer. And if both computers say everything is ok...you get the pass

 

 

The real sticky wicket is the fact the VW engineers conspired to knowingly figuring out how to beat the test and doing so for a few years....that why I believe the penalties levied need to substantial to discourage other car makers. But those penalizes. Need to include a fool proof method of getting cars fixed or off the road. Which may mean as suggested a buy back. But it would have to be a high enough price(much better than fmv) to really entice current owners to sell.

 

It will be interesting to see what happens

 

I think there are some key differences, in this case. First, this is the only case I am aware of where the manufacturer intentionally programmed the car to fake passing emissions tests. Additionally, the car will "pass" emissions tests in the areas that require it, and many that do emissions testings don't actually test diesels.

 

Next, most cars with safety issues are something the owner should want fixed; typically recalls being done help, or at least are neutral, in respect to the cars resell value, as well as to the performance of the car. This is the only case I can think of where the fix is likely to make the car "worse", hurting both fuel economy and performance -- and as such will hurt resell value.

 

I also wonder if there won't be some amount of "protectionism." I'm sure GM, which sells the Chevy Cruze which directly competes against the Jetta/Golf, will lobby for VW to be hit hard. GM will likely complain about how much expense they have had in creating a clean diesel. Although there are some VWs built in the US, I am thinking a US company, one recently bailed out, may have some pull to make it harder for these VWs to stay on the roads -- with the hope that some former VW owners are willing to try the Cruze diesel.

 

The difference with VW is the very high emissions, compared to the standard, and the fact that is is against owner's best interests to get the recall done; I can't recall another recall that is close to this. Typically the recall issue only effects the owner, in a positive way, directly. This case is different since the owner is actually damaged; it is others (and the environment), because of the NOx, that are harmed. I think because of the special circumstances the government will have to do something different, at a minimum for the cars that have no urea system and are the worst polluters.

[fbov]

... To be clear, nobody's alleging that everyone's using defeat devices; they're pointing out that there are startling discrepancies between test-cycle results and real-world results for NOx. Why, and what to do about it, are TBD. ...

You sure of that? I think every journalist reporting a diesel emissions failure is hoping they're breaking the next VW scandal. The good ones get to the rest of the story, but not all.

 

I think the facts are that:

- VW admits using a defeat device, and

- all diesels will demonstrate the discrepancy you note between test-cycle and real-world emissions. It's news, but not scandal. 

 

The former is a real cause for public concern, debate, and judicial action. The latter is now being used to create a string of reports showing how each diesel manufacturer "exceeds emissions" as if they were on par with VW. The resulting public frenzy is unlikely to result in good legislative action, here or abroad. Expect scapegoats.

 

There are real downsides to capitalism...

 

HAve fun,

Frank

 

PS I think VW lucked out by doing this in software. I'll wager that the car is just locked in test mode, with no hardware retrofits where a urea system was not used to pass the lab test in the first place. The bigger question is the punitive aspect; how much fine, and how to handle the subterfuge.  

[Smiling Jack]

I think there are some key differences, in this case. First, this is the only case I am aware of where the manufacturer intentionally programmed the car to fake passing emissions tests. Additionally, the car will "pass" emissions tests in the areas that require it, and many that do emissions testings don't actually test diesels.

 

Next, most cars with safety issues are something the owner should want fixed; typically recalls being done help, or at least are neutral, in respect to the cars resell value, as well as to the performance of the car. This is the only case I can think of where the fix is likely to make the car "worse", hurting both fuel economy and performance -- and as such will hurt resell value.

...

.......

 

For what it's worth, this is not exactly the first time this sort of thing has been done intentionally.

 

In 1992, Cadillac did a similar thing for their full sized Cadillacs with the 4.9 L V-8.  The EPA tests were specified to be done with the air conditioning off.  Cadillac programmed their cars to pass the EPA test with the climate control system off, but when the A/C was turned on the computer switched to different settings which gave better performance and mpg but with greater emissions.  A few years later, the EPA discovered this trickery.  The EPA admitted that Cadillac had passed the tests legitimately and had abided by the letter of the rules, but accused them of intentionally violating the intent of the rules.  Cadillac agreed to replace chips on the affected cars with chips that would give lower emissions with the A/C on (at the expense of some performance and mpg).    It was not a recall, but it was done whenever any of the subject cars appeared a the dealers - often without the owners knowledge or consent, and even against the owners expressed instructions.  When the chip was replaced, the original chip was immediately destroyed; so that if owners who did not want the change would not be able to insist on having their old chips back when they discovered a record of the unwanted replacement on their receipt.

[C-MaxSea]

I think the facts are that:

- VW admits using a defeat device, and

- all diesels will demonstrate the discrepancy you note between test-cycle and real-world emissions. It's news, but not scandal. 

 

The former is a real cause for public concern, debate, and judicial action. The latter is now being used to create a string of reports showing how each diesel manufacturer "exceeds emissions" as if they were on par with VW. The resulting public frenzy is unlikely to result in good legislative action, here or abroad. Expect scapegoats.

 

There are real downsides to capitalism...

 

HAve fun,

Frank

 

diesel test cycle/real world discrepancies "not scandal" ?!. It is seen as a scandal by many in Europe (& here), and is a major deception of the European population (if not here).  (very likely population culling respiratory effects in major European urban centers where diesels are prevalent)

 

We are overdue a diesel 'frenzy' if we all breath better air as a result.  A frenzied media coverage of this scandal and related issues; & resulting deliberative (albeit messy at times) process to rectify, works for me. (point specific to VW and point specific to the larger issue of diesel emissions & diesel testing (or lack thereof))

 

Yes, sadly, there are always scapegoats.  But, with any luck we will move 2 steps forward and only 1 step back.  Glad we are finally debunking the myths of diesel and bringing the truth of NOx air pollution to the fore.

Nick

Edited October 12, 2015 by C-MaxSea

[SnowStorm]

A "loss of value" check just might work.  I asked a VW owner just yesterday if her car was one that had "fallen from grace".  She said it was and added something like "lost $7000 in value overnight".  Now if VW said I could bring my 2010 car in and pick up $7000, $8000 maybe $9000 (add some for mpg loss), I think there would be precious few "polluters" left.   I wish I knew what's going to happen - it could be real profitable to go out and buy a few VWs right now!

 

As to "buy back" I don't understand how that helps.  Half a million cars headed to the landfills and the smelters - not exactly a pollution free process!  And what about the owners?  They need cars - and liked their VWs - but there's no used ones to buy!  They're gone!  Will have to make half a million new ones!  Now how much pollution does building a new car create?  And how long will it take?  Good luck finding a rental car in a few months!  Maybe I'm missing something....

 

Oh I have it!  Just give each VW owner an Electric Car and have done with it!

 

P.S. What a mess - I knew we should have bought that Sportwagon!

[C-MaxSea]

EPA: ..........   "a second emissions-control software program in Volkswagen cars" under investigation .............

http://www.autonews.com/article/20151011/OEM11/151019998/epas-new-vw-probe-may-reveal-failure-to-disclose

 

 

Texas law suit.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2015/10/11/volkswagen-texas-attorney-general-suit/73769242/

Edited October 12, 2015 by C-MaxSea