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

[fbov]

 

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

Discovering one's ignorance isn't scandal, it's the first step of education. There was no deception involved in "diesel test cycle/real world discrepancies," just a lot of learning. You should not be surprised, then, to learn that these discrepancies are also true of gasoline engines. TANSTAAFL.

 

As to concern over air quality, consider that:

- EPA standard for NOx is 0.04 g/km, and has been since 2009.

- EU standard for NOx is 0.06g/km, and has been since last month.

 

The EU has yet to put their money where their mouth is. Perhaps the real goal is to sell newspapers... or internet hits.

 

HAve fun,

Frank

Edited October 12, 2015 by fbov

[fbov]

It's been enlightening, as I research this stuff, to look at European emission laws, and vehicle registration profiles. Regardless the VW scandal, diesel emissions are a really big deal for Europe, the US is leading the world for no apparent reason, and the EU just starting to get serious.

 

53% of new car registration in the EU are diesel, and that's nothing new, so there are generations of them still running. Diesels are 0.8% of new car registrations in the US, and in 2014, 2/3 were VW/Audi.

 

EU NOx emissions standard (Euro 6) is 80 mg/km. The comparable US standard, Tier 2Bin5 is 40 mg/km

Prior EU Euro 5 NOx limit was 180 mg/km., and there was no standard prior to 2000's 500 mg/km.

 

EU NOx standard completed phased-in period last year, US phase-in was completed in 2009.

 

EPA tests cars over 5 standard routes, albeit only the initial urban route (FTP-75) is used for emissions, likely because automotive air pollution was seen as an urban issue in the 1960's. EU's test route (NEDC) has similar shortfalls to FTP-75, so they're changing routes, too (WLTC).

 

And best of all, I found some real test data... from the same folks who brought you the WVU report: the International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT).  They show data taken by Allgemeiner Deutscher Automobil-Club using a chassis dynamometer, comparing the two EU test routes with 32 cars from 2012-2014 model years. Cars pass the old test route...

 

If Europe has a health issue due to diesel emissions, it's a result of their own inaction.  The technology's been there for decades. The political will to use it has not. That's a scandal.

 

HAve fun,

Frank

[Smiling Jack]

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.

 

 

Further to this, I should add that the bit about "without the owners knowledge or consent, and even against the owners expressed instructions"  was from my own personal experience.

[raadsel]

It's been enlightening, as I research this stuff, to look at European emission laws, and vehicle registration profiles. Regardless the VW scandal, diesel emissions are a really big deal for Europe, the US is leading the world for no apparent reason, and the EU just starting to get serious.

 

 

The reason the US "leads", as I understand it, is because we drive far more miles than most other countries in the world. From what I can find (though this will vary by country), the average European only drives 4,500 per year, which is about a third of what Americans drive.

[C-MaxSea]

It's been enlightening, as I research this stuff, to look at European emission laws, and vehicle registration profiles. Regardless the VW scandal, diesel emissions are a really big deal for Europe, the US is leading the world for no apparent reason, and the EU just starting to get serious.

 

53% of new car registration in the EU are diesel, and that's nothing new, so there are generations of them still running. Diesels are 0.8% of new car registrations in the US, and in 2014, 2/3 were VW/Audi.

 

And that is scandalous.  Selling diesels for decades in full knowledge of their NOx emissions and public health risks.  Just like they are finally waking up to cigarette smoke/second hand smoke ......... public places .............. decades late. More than enough knowledge to act more responsibly many years ago.

 

 

EPA tests cars over 5 standard routes, albeit only the initial urban route (FTP-75) is used for emissions, likely because automotive air pollution was seen as an urban issue in the 1960's. EU's test route (NEDC) has similar shortfalls to FTP-75, so they're changing routes, too (WLTC).

 

And that is scandalous.  Test cycles out of touch with the real world driving resulting in a market swamped with decades of polluting vehicles. More than enough knowledge to act more responsibly many years ago.

 

If Europe has a health issue due to diesel emissions, it's a result of their own inaction.  The technology's been there for decades. The political will to use it has not. That's a scandal.

 

Bravissimo !  And that is indeed the worst element of the scandal(s).  A wealth of knowledge over time and delinquent action & inaction.

 

Have fun,

Nick

 

(The diesel pollution we experienced in Italy a few months ago was not fun, rather debilitating actually.  ;))

(The diesel pollution we experienced a couple days ago here in Ballard, WA, watching a VW Beetle round the block a couple times looking for a parking spot was also not fun - cute car, but a stinking mess, and that was from across the street ;))

Edited October 13, 2015 by C-MaxSea

[fbov]

The reason the US "leads", as I understand it, is because we drive far more miles than most other countries in the world. ...

I also think we had a bit of a scandal ourselves, back in the 1960's, with lead. When the health impacts were first reported, it was greeted like '90's concussion reports in the NFL - they destroyed the researchers' careers. However, lead is sufficiently toxic that spreading tons across our cities didn't go unnoticed, photo-chemical smog was easy to find, and with unleaded fuel, it was promised could clean the air with a simple catalyst!

 

The result was the 1970's...

[C-MaxSea]

Australia:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/australians-fear-dirty-car-influx-after-vw-scandal-1444737089

VW mixing in more electric ?:

http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1100444_vw-to-focus-on-electric-plug-in-hybrid-tech-slash-spending-due-to-diesel-scandal
 

Edited October 13, 2015 by C-MaxSea

[stevedebi]

Just a note for CA. The registration process indicates if a smog check is done. I think it would be fairly simply for the state to cross check the VIN to ensure the fix was done, or to do an independent check of their databases and flag any VW Diesel that is attempting to renew registration without the fix.

[Marc Smith]

 

 

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....

 

yeah  they are not going to have to build any new cars if there is a mass buy back.  already enough cars just parked and waiting for owners.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-05-16/where-worlds-unsold-cars-go-die

 

kinda makes you wonder if you could get some real good deals from these over stocked lots

[obob]

yeah  they are not going to have to build any new cars if there is a mass buy back.  already enough cars just parked and waiting for owners.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-05-16/where-worlds-unsold-cars-go-die

 

kinda makes you wonder if you could get some real good deals from these over stocked lots

 

Great article for me to look at before negotiating a new car deal.

[Marc Smith]

Great article for me to look at before negotiating a new car deal.

no doubt....hell, bring it in with you when you make a deal.

 

I found this as well.  too bad...

http://www.snopes.com/photos/automobiles/unsoldcars.asp

[obob]

no doubt....hell, bring it in with you when you make a deal.

 

I found this as well.  too bad...

http://www.snopes.com/photos/automobiles/unsoldcars.asp

 

Snopes is the best.  I am glad I have that snopes perspective now.

 

So the point is VW has a lot of cars to be concerned about and the I need to be careful reading articles from the web.

 

Snopes is my friend.

[C-MaxSea]

More on the "warmup strategy" software:
http://news.yahoo.com/2016-vw-diesels-software-affecting-emissions-tests-142019516--finance.html

Auto industry software copyright questions:
http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1100457_carmakers-lobby-to-keep-software-secret-despite-vw-emission-scandal

Der Spiegel stuff:
http://www.wired.com/2015/10/dozens-of-managers-were-involved-in-vws-diesel-scandal/

Vahland resigns after weeks on job:
http://www.latimes.com/business/autos/la-fi-hy-volkswagen-test-cheating-resignation-20151014-story.html

Edited October 14, 2015 by C-MaxSea

[raadsel]

Let me add one picture, a satellite view from Google Maps. This is one of "those lots" which thousands of cars are parked in Houston. Even better, this is specifically a VW owned lot. Yes, if you drive by it in months like July or August the lot is overflowing (you can get a good view from I-610), as they have imported the early stock of the next model years cars but haven't yet shipped them to dealers (in the above view, you can see the trains there where they are loading the cars). And there are times, during the year, when they might build up some inventory as they've shipped in cars faster than dealers are selling them. There are other times that the lot is largely empty.

 

Actually, I should drive by there sometime; I wonder if they don't have a large number of 2016 diesel cars sitting on the lot that are in "limbo", since they can't sell them until the emissions modules are fixed.

[fbov]

Wow, it's been a week!

 

Now that folks are interested, it seems the VW scandal is old news for domestic tailpipe sniffers...

http://jalopnik.com/did-one-company-spot-volkswagens-diesel-deception-six-y-1737309474

 

Sales are slumping, but no one's concerned in financial circles. I wonder why? Is VW's European market the only one European bankers care about? Is it that the US sales are a small fraction of the offending cars? Is VW too big to be punished by EU regulators?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/neilwinton/2015/10/19/volkswagen-sales-start-to-feel-the-impact-of-diesel-scandal/

 

The psychologists and sociologists in the group might enjoy this one. It's a very real phenomenon, but I think it's a stretch for top management to claim ignorance.

http://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/an-engineering-theory-of-the-volkswagen-scandal

 

A little something to put VW's "scandalous emissions" in perspective...

http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1100528_vw-joins-chrysler-with-dirtiest-tailpipe-after-diesel-scandal-revealed

 

And the one that should have the investment bankers quaking in their boots. Legal precedent upholds the Clean Air Act prohibition against any emissions defeat device.

http://jalopnik.com/how-the-epa-won-1-billion-from-diesel-cheaters-long-be-1732109485

 

Have fun,

Frank

[plus 3 golfer]

Bloomberg:  VW defense is "Bad Apple Route", management unaware.  Bloomberg if so: VW has "governance issues" if small group of engineers can get away the emissions cheat.  

 

It's hard to believe VW management (lots of engineers at the top) was unaware that it's virtually impossible to build a "clean diesel" without an SCR system and have the performance characteristics of the VW TDi when introduced in 2008 (MY 2009).  I know at TDiClub we were amazed at how VW could achieve such performance.  Sounds just like the Ford 47 mpg EPA claim for the C-Max in that engineers in Ford's management should have known the 47 mpg claim would be virtually impossible to achieve in the EPA tests.

[stevedebi]

Bloomberg:  VW defense is "Bad Apple Route", management unaware.  Bloomberg if so: VW has "governance issues" if small group of engineers can get away the emissions cheat.  

 

It's hard to believe VW management (lots of engineers at the top) was unaware that it's virtually impossible to build a "clean diesel" without an SCR system and have the performance characteristics of the VW TDi when introduced in 2008 (MY 2009).  I know at TDiClub we were amazed at how VW could achieve such performance.  Sounds just like the Ford 47 mpg EPA claim for the C-Max in that engineers in Ford's management should have known the 47 mpg claim would be virtually impossible to achieve in the EPA tests.

It is quite possible the C-Max would have passed the EPA tests at the mileage they approved - if they had checked it. It uses the same drivetrain and software as the Fusion Hybrid, and wind dynamics are not part of the testing so far as I know. They tested the Fusion, and the EPA signed off on using the same numbers for the C-Max. The problem is that the C-Max cross section killed the mileage, so in the real world it didn't do as well, especially on the highway. I believe that 47 is not impossible at 55 MPH, I regularly get 44 at about 65 MPH.

[plus 3 golfer]

It is quite possible the C-Max would have passed the EPA tests at the mileage they approved - if they had checked it. It uses the same drivetrain and software as the Fusion Hybrid, and wind dynamics are not part of the testing so far as I know. They tested the Fusion, and the EPA signed off on using the same numbers for the C-Max. The problem is that the C-Max cross section killed the mileage, so in the real world it didn't do as well, especially on the highway. I believe that 47 is not impossible at 55 MPH, I regularly get 44 at about 65 MPH.

You are forgetting about the second change in EPA FE for a several Ford models where the road load hp coefficients were somehow in error. ;)  Also, you are forgetting about  Raj Nair's (Ford VP of something) rationale why consumers couldn't get 47 mpg. He used every excuse but the fact that Ford based the 47 MPG on the Fusion Hybrid EPA test results (which were technically not against EPA rules at the time).  So, again Ford was not truthful in their explanation as to why reviewers and consumers were not achieving the EPA C-Max numbers. ;)

[stevedebi]

You are forgetting about the second change in EPA FE for a several Ford models where the road load hp coefficients were somehow in error. ;)  Also, you are forgetting about  Raj Nair's (Ford VP of something) rationale why consumers couldn't get 47 mpg. He used every excuse but the fact that Ford based the 47 MPG on the Fusion Hybrid EPA test results (which were technically not against EPA rules at the time).  So, again Ford was not truthful in their explanation as to why reviewers and consumers were not achieving the EPA C-Max numbers. ;)

I don't think I'm forgetting anything when I speak of the real world MPG I get when driving in hybrid mode. 47 and 47 is ceratainly achievable when driven correctly. But most folks don't want to drive as a hybrid needs to be driven - too much trouble.

 

If you just run around town any old way, expect 40; if you do 80 on the highway (I have), expect 36 MPG (what I got).

[plus 3 golfer]

I don't think I'm forgetting anything when I speak of the real world MPG I get when driving in hybrid mode. 47 and 47 is ceratainly achievable when driven correctly. But most folks don't want to drive as a hybrid needs to be driven - too much trouble.

 

If you just run around town any old way, expect 40; if you do 80 on the highway (I have), expect 36 MPG (what I got).

Why does this always degrade to what one person can get in the real world???  It's immaterial what I get for FE or you get.  It's the EPA tests and FE numbers that matter and Ford screwed them up by using the wrong road load hp number for the Fusion Hybrid initially.  So, the C-Max numbers were wrong to begin with since Ford used the Fusion test data which was wrong.  I'd suggest you go back and review what happened and maybe it will clear things up for you.

[stevedebi]

Why does this always degrade to what one person can get in the real world???  It's immaterial what I get for FE or you get.  It's the EPA tests and FE numbers that matter and Ford screwed them up by using the wrong road load hp number for the Fusion Hybrid initially.  So, the C-Max numbers were wrong to begin with since Ford used the Fusion test data which was wrong.  I'd suggest you go back and review what happened and maybe it will clear things up for you.

Wrong? I just told you that I can get those exact MPG numbers. Regardless of what EPA says, that is real world. It may be immaterial to you, but it is the most important thing to me. EPA numbers are based on 55 MPH and done on a dynameter with specific conditions (hence they can be detected by software, to get back to the original theme of this thread). Real world emissions and MPG are key to this topic. They are about as unrealistic as can be in general.

 

I gather you didn't read my posts either; I believe I'm pretty clear on what happened, and in fact I said that they used the Fusion numbers at first, which started the entire thing. And it was the "real world" results of drivers that got the EPA interested in what was going on with the C-Max.

[plus 3 golfer]

 

It is quite possible the C-Max would have passed the EPA tests at the mileage they approved - if they had checked it. It uses the same drivetrain and software as the Fusion Hybrid, and wind dynamics are not part of the testing so far as I know. They tested the Fusion, and the EPA signed off on using the same numbers for the C-Max. The problem is that the C-Max cross section killed the mileage, so in the real world it didn't do as well, especially on the highway. I believe that 47 is not impossible at 55 MPH, I regularly get 44 at about 65 MPH.

 

Let's try this again.  But believe what you want to but get the facts correct.  EPA doesn't check it. It's up to the manufacturer to get it right.

 

Your premise / logic is wrong because Ford used the wrong dyno coefficients in the initial Fusion Hybrid testing and in the first revision of the C-Max numbers (where's Ford's oversight / controls) .  Also, aerodynamic drag along with other drag components are taken into account in the EPA test cycles on the dyno through the use of the proper dyno coefficients (there's a good write up on this IIRC by Idaho Nat. Lab or maybe ORNL).  Had Ford used the proper coefficients in the initial Fusion Hybrid test (as they did in retesting the Fusion), the C-Max would have been 42 mpg instead of 47 mpg.  FORD (not the EPA) was wrong initially in the C-Max EPA FE.  EPA does not "sign off" on any testing or results.  The manufacturer does the testing.  This is my point and only point - Ford screwed up the dyno tests for the C-Max, Fusion and other models initially. Until that was corrected all other EPA test data on the Fusion and C-Max are bogus.

 

So, the revised Fusion EPA number is 42 mpg not 47 mpg based on the correct dyno coefficients. Again, had Ford used the proper dyno numbers initially, the C-Max would have been 42 mpg based on the Fusion Hybrid.  There's a likelihood that had Ford initially published 42 mpg for the C-Max, there may not have been an "uproar" by real world drivers and testers not reaching the EPA numbers since we now know the C-Max is rated at 40 mpg.  Raj Nair might have been able to convince the public that it's due to consumers' driving habits, climate, break-in and so forth.  But Raj should have pointed out that the C-Max has a higher aerodynamic drag than the Fusion and thus The C-Max is not likely to get the same EPA number as the Fusion based on the EPA rules allowing the use of the Fusion Hybrid numbers. Why didn't Raj do this???? 

 

The C-Max cross section did not kill the mileage compared to the Fusion.  The aero effects are rather minor in the EPA testing between the Fusion and C-Max (2 mpg) compared to using the wrong dyno coefficients in both the C-Max and Fusion Hybrid.  ;)  The big difference is in the dyno coefficients.  Obviously the aero effects will likely be more than 2 mpg difference at say 75 mph cruising.  The EPA highway rating show a difference of 4 mpg between the Fusion and C-Max as that has speeds up to about 80 mph (the highway FE is based on only the high speed part of US06).

 

Again, it's immaterial that I can get over 60 mpg if I want to.  That's not the point.  The EPA numbers are an indication of what a "typical" driver might get so that a consumer can compare vehicles.  What is typical is another discussion and there are threads on this.  Some will get significantly more than the EPA rating (perhaps those in temperate climates, limited AC use, longer, slower trips and so forth), others significantly less (perhaps cold climate, short trips, use of heater, high speeds and so forth).  The point is that my actual FE or what I can do if I hypermile, cruise at 55, 65 or 80 mph, it's not material to the EPA numbers.  

[stevedebi]

Let's try this again.  But believe what you want to but get the facts correct.  EPA doesn't check it. It's up to the manufacturer to get it right.

 

Your premise / logic is wrong because Ford used the wrong dyno coefficients in the initial Fusion Hybrid testing and in the first revision of the C-Max numbers (where's Ford's oversight / controls) .  Also, aerodynamic drag along with other drag components are taken into account in the EPA test cycles on the dyno through the use of the proper dyno coefficients (there's a good write up on this IIRC by Idaho Nat. Lab or maybe ORNL).  Had Ford used the proper coefficients in the initial Fusion Hybrid test (as they did in retesting the Fusion), the C-Max would have been 42 mpg instead of 47 mpg.  FORD (not the EPA) was wrong initially in the C-Max EPA FE.  EPA does not "sign off" on any testing or results.  The manufacturer does the testing.  This is my point and only point - Ford screwed up the dyno tests for the C-Max, Fusion and other models initially. Until that was corrected all other EPA test data on the Fusion and C-Max are bogus.

 

So, the revised Fusion EPA number is 42 mpg not 47 mpg based on the correct dyno coefficients. Again, had Ford used the proper dyno numbers initially, the C-Max would have been 42 mpg based on the Fusion Hybrid.  There's a likelihood that had Ford initially published 42 mpg for the C-Max, there may not have been an "uproar" by real world drivers and testers not reaching the EPA numbers since we now know the C-Max is rated at 40 mpg.  Raj Nair might have been able to convince the public that it's due to consumers' driving habits, climate, break-in and so forth.  But Raj should have pointed out that the C-Max has a higher aerodynamic drag than the Fusion and thus The C-Max is not likely to get the same EPA number as the Fusion based on the EPA rules allowing the use of the Fusion Hybrid numbers. Why didn't Raj do this???? 

 

The C-Max cross section did not kill the mileage compared to the Fusion.  The aero effects are rather minor in the EPA testing between the Fusion and C-Max (2 mpg) compared to using the wrong dyno coefficients in both the C-Max and Fusion Hybrid.  ;)  The big difference is in the dyno coefficients.  Obviously the aero effects will likely be more than 2 mpg difference at say 75 mph cruising.  The EPA highway rating show a difference of 4 mpg between the Fusion and C-Max as that has speeds up to about 80 mph (the highway FE is based on only the high speed part of US06).

 

Again, it's immaterial that I can get over 60 mpg if I want to.  That's not the point.  The EPA numbers are an indication of what a "typical" driver might get so that a consumer can compare vehicles.  What is typical is another discussion and there are threads on this.  Some will get significantly more than the EPA rating (perhaps those in temperate climates, limited AC use, longer, slower trips and so forth), others significantly less (perhaps cold climate, short trips, use of heater, high speeds and so forth).  The point is that my actual FE or what I can do if I hypermile, cruise at 55, 65 or 80 mph, it's not material to the EPA numbers.  

Thanks for the information. I think we are speaking of different things, and a bit off topic. I was speaking of the actual mileages because that is what my wife is worried about on her 2014 Passat TDI - if the changes will affect the performance and mileage she gets now. I expect the EPA numbers to remain the same. That is why I mentioned actual mileage. But thanks for the additional information. I had not read of the dyno error. I was aware that the manufacturers did the testing; by "signing off" I meant that the EPA accepted their numbers, and approved using the C-Max numbers based on the Fusion.

[C-MaxSea]

"Alt-fuel tech"
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2015/10/26/vw-diesel-alt-fuel/74633270/
 
 
"VW scandal: the winners and losers"
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/oct/30/vw-scandal-the-winners-and-losers-from-carmakers-to-car-owners
 
 
Price guarantees for dealers:
http://www.autonews.com/article/20151030/RETAIL07/151039985/vw-offers-dealers-a-price-guarantee-on-used-diesel-vehicles?CSAuthResp=1%3A1573590178499434%3A423310%3A17%3A24%3Aapproved%3A5565FDC1482A2804F8F2E18D01BADAC9
 
 
Right on stevedebi ! It is about the real world when it comes to emissions & MPG’s. Real world emissions that are as low as possible (and not grossly under reported), and real world MPG’s that you & I can attain with minimal emissions.  Thankfully our EPA, though fraught with problems, has responded forcefully and will impact the situation with VW here.  Unfortunately the EU's comparable 'EPA' is so woefully behind/inept/compromised that it will take many years to catch up.
 
As you noted:  “If you just run around town any old way, expect 40; if you do 80 on the highway (I have), expect 36 MPG (what I got).” Yes indeed the C-Max is a 40 mpg car on average over time by average drivers. But ............. ding dang it, Why be normal/average when you can do so much better if you choose, especially in milder climates. To each his own, of course.  I'm with you stevedebi  (“I regularly get 44 at about 65 MPH.”, 44+ for us).  My vote is for ECO Cruising, minimizing fuel use, minimizing exhaust emissions, & achieving above average MPG results. (Works better for the planet & pocket !)
 
Last time I checked the real world was very material to our family - like breathing,
Nick

Edited October 31, 2015 by C-MaxSea

[C-MaxSea]

Add Porsche to the list, additional Audis/engine
 

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-vw-action-20151102-story.html

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-11-02/u-s-expands-investigation-of-volkswagen-emissions-cheating
 

 

'Golden Shares', the EU model of government ownership in industries:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-09-24/did-privilege-enable-volkswagen-s-diesel-deception-
 

Edited November 3, 2015 by C-MaxSea