djc Posted February 22, 2016 Report Share Posted February 22, 2016 Report from Germany that as part of the settlement of the diesel emissions scandal at VW, the EPA is negotiating for VW to produce electric vehicles at their TN plant and to help establish electric charging stations.That could introduce a new major player in electric vehicles here. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-volkswagen-emissions-usa-idUSKCN0VU0JA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnowStorm Posted February 23, 2016 Report Share Posted February 23, 2016 Well, that puts an interesting spin on the electrons. Build more electric cars and charging station and we'll forget about the "unfixable" diesel pollution? Anymore though, I have to wonder what they mean by "electric cars"? It should mean no gasoline - battery only. But recently, it seems any car with an electric motor is an "electric car". Confusion reigns supreme! Since the article links charging stations with the cars it may indeed mean true electric cars (battery only). We must wait and see, as we breath the noxious fumes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wab Posted February 23, 2016 Report Share Posted February 23, 2016 Maybe the EPA figures all those made in the USA electric cars will counteract some of those "clean Diesels" and maybe even a few Atkins Cycle engines? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C-MaxSea Posted February 23, 2016 Report Share Posted February 23, 2016 (edited) Snuffledorfer ! Did not know the EPA could dictate where things were built. ;) Way too Orwellian / fishy / outrageous sounding to me. Get those klunkers fixed or off the road. Swimming upstream in a PC world, Nick Edited February 23, 2016 by C-MaxSea Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raadsel Posted February 23, 2016 Report Share Posted February 23, 2016 Snuffledorfer ! Did not know the EPA could dictate where things were built. ;) Way too Orwellian / fishy / outrageous sounding to me. Get those klunkers fixed or off the road. Swimming upstream in a PC world, Nick I don't think the EPA actually can dictate where cars are built. I'm sure what is being talked about here is that VW is looking for alternatives to paying billions of dollars in fines; I've seen estimates that the possible fines are as much as $18 billion. Since it is questionable that VW could afford to pay that kind of fine, particularly with what they will also need to pay to fix the diesel cars they sold (and settle lawsuits with the owners of those cars), I'm guessing this is a deal the EPA is offering. It allows VW to not go bankrupt or be crippled by the huge fines, with the idea that electric cars and charging points helps alleviate some of the environmental damage done by their dirty diesel engines. It also still "pays" the US in terms of jobs, taxes, etc. created by the factory updates, to build the EVs, and additional cars built in the US. djc 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C-MaxSea Posted February 23, 2016 Report Share Posted February 23, 2016 (edited) Indeed, & certainly understood that the EPA holds the gun, but the article stated: "The paper, .......... said the EPA was asking VW to produce electric vehicles at its plant in Chattanooga, Tennessee" and not the other way around - and that constitutes garble speak/logic/outrageous overreach to me. Making amends to me requires VW to forward the solution & fix the problem, period, period, period, - not buying indulgences offered up by the EPA. Silly me,Nick Edited February 23, 2016 by C-MaxSea Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnowStorm Posted February 23, 2016 Report Share Posted February 23, 2016 What do you think would happen to the $18,000,000,000 if the EPA did collect it?Pay every US citizen about $56 Buy about 500,000 new electric cars and hand them out to half a million happy winners of the "Great Electric Car Sweepstakes" As above but 200,000 Teslas (you may need that bio-filter!) Build huge air purifiers for each metro area Pay off 0.1% of the national debt "Absorb" it within the agency (about 1 million dollars per employee) ????Its a lot of cash. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C-MaxSea Posted February 24, 2016 Report Share Posted February 24, 2016 (edited) Those all work for me - joke. They could compensate old folks impacted with chronic bronchitis though - seriously. If that number is correct & their 'hands are tied', than that identifies another problem - too much power and poorly written enabling acts giving them zero flexibility. (poorly written laws are rife) The marginally written, minimally reliable article, on the other hand suggests significant EPA flexibility (which I'm guessing is more likely correct); therefore the answer is simple - extract less money over time and demand resolution of the offending vehicles - now. Way too much foot dragging by VW and way too much pollution unrestrained in the process. I'm guessing they have 'fixes', but are afraid to implement them because they will negatively effect MPG's. Sadly, they find it much easier to bully the EPA, instead of getting those klunkers fixed ! Just MO,Nick Edited February 24, 2016 by C-MaxSea Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raadsel Posted February 24, 2016 Report Share Posted February 24, 2016 Those all work for me - joke. They could compensate old folks impacted with chronic bronchitis though - seriously. If that number is correct & their 'hands are tied', than that identifies another problem - too much power and poorly written enabling acts giving them zero flexibility. (poorly written laws are rife) The marginally written, minimally reliable article, on the other hand suggests significant EPA flexibility (which I'm guessing is more likely correct); therefore the answer is simple - extract less money over time and demand resolution of the offending vehicles - now. Way too much foot dragging by VW and way too much pollution unrestrained in the process. I'm guessing they have 'fixes', but are afraid to implement them because they will negatively effect MPG's. Sadly, they find it much easier to bully the EPA, instead of getting those klunkers fixed ! Just MO,Nick I've not followed closely but your last paragraph seems right to me; what I last recall hearing is that VW has found the fix for the vehicles without an urea system as too expensive to repair. Instead, it sounds as if VW is planning on "buying" those cars rather than trying to repair them. It would make sense for VW to delay that as long as possible, as miles are added the buy back price will drop. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marc Smith Posted March 1, 2016 Report Share Posted March 1, 2016 my take on it... the cars are not clunkers...they just are not clean diesels...As advertised. they are just normal cars with diesel engines Their actual MPG numbers usually exceeded those indicated on the window sticker. Ford had the same problem but the mileage was usually much lower and indicated on the window sticker (present company excluded of course) In the end, the ford Cmax pollutes more (present copmany excluded of course) than what ford had originally advertised...The TDI's are the same. they pollute more than advertised... I think ford played with the numbers to get what they wanted,...VW did the same thing (albeit on a much larger scale) and it took much longer for them to get caught... So how should they be punished...Ford paid us off... I would imagine the VW will do the same, and i'm sure they will come up with a recall fix as well. Of course there is no law to mandate anyone to get a recall done, so if the fix is offered, who's going to voluntarily take their car in to get its "nuts snipped" so to speak? Now if the states (california will take the lead) decide to start not passing the cars unless a visual inspection that the recall was done, may be needed for the car to pass inspections. Of course this only applies to areas where emission inspections are done... not sure how much in fines they should pay. 18 billion in fines... they will scoff at it... in 2012 on 254 billion in revenue they netted 28 billion. assets world wide exceed 450 billion... I woudl imagine that VW will opt to buy back some cars older high mileage cars where the recall fix dosn't make sense VS car value. Now if the rest of the world jumps on the band wagon and follows the EPA and hits VW with a fine of $37000 per vehicle (like the us is proposing) it woudl bankrupt the company. Fines on top of repairs/buybacks. VW would fold like a cheap suit. Only the lawyers would win. and youd end up with lots of people out of work... Yes they should be fined, and yes they should compensate the car owners... It will be interesting to see where the middle ground ends up being... Id be in favor of no fines being paid to the feds in lieu of significant reparations to the owners... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raadsel Posted March 1, 2016 Report Share Posted March 1, 2016 my take on it... the cars are not clunkers...they just are not clean diesels...As advertised. they are just normal cars with diesel engines Their actual MPG numbers usually exceeded those indicated on the window sticker. Ford had the same problem but the mileage was usually much lower and indicated on the window sticker (present company excluded of course) In the end, the ford Cmax pollutes more (present copmany excluded of course) than what ford had originally advertised...The TDI's are the same. they pollute more than advertised... I think ford played with the numbers to get what they wanted,...VW did the same thing (albeit on a much larger scale) and it took much longer for them to get caught... So how should they be punished...Ford paid us off... I would imagine the VW will do the same, and i'm sure they will come up with a recall fix as well. Of course there is no law to mandate anyone to get a recall done, so if the fix is offered, who's going to voluntarily take their car in to get its "nuts snipped" so to speak? Now if the states (california will take the lead) decide to start not passing the cars unless a visual inspection that the recall was done, may be needed for the car to pass inspections. Of course this only applies to areas where emission inspections are done... not sure how much in fines they should pay. 18 billion in fines... they will scoff at it... in 2012 on 254 billion in revenue they netted 28 billion. assets world wide exceed 450 billion... I woudl imagine that VW will opt to buy back some cars older high mileage cars where the recall fix dosn't make sense VS car value. Now if the rest of the world jumps on the band wagon and follows the EPA and hits VW with a fine of $37000 per vehicle (like the us is proposing) it woudl bankrupt the company. Fines on top of repairs/buybacks. VW would fold like a cheap suit. Only the lawyers would win. and youd end up with lots of people out of work... Yes they should be fined, and yes they should compensate the car owners... It will be interesting to see where the middle ground ends up being... Id be in favor of no fines being paid to the feds in lieu of significant reparations to the owners... The big difference between Ford and VW is in breaking the law. From the evidence provided, Ford made a technical mistake when it tested the Fusion, resulting in false numbers. You can argue if that is actually true but, from what I've seen, there is no evidence that Ford intentionally inflated the numbers. In terms of the C-Max, Ford took advantage of a legal loophole; where the EPA allows you to use the results from another car with the same powertrain -- without being required to take in the aerodynamics of the two vehicles. As such, no law was technically broken and Ford never had to pay an EPA fine -- instead, Ford's issue was solely with "false advertising", and this is why they paid off people who bought the car, thinking it would get better mileage. By contrast, there is evidence that VW actually conspired to cheat on the EPA testing. This is why they are in such trouble and are facing such a large fine. Though the $18 billion is the maximum fine; the EPA is not required to fine them the maximum. Also, this thread appears to show that the EPA is trying to work with VW to find alternatives to the fine, particularly alternatives that might help counteract some of the ecologic damage the cheating caused. In the meantime, VW is being damaged by not being allowed to sell diesel cars in the US, as well (I believe) as having some new diesel cars sitting in "storage" (on VW corporate lots, such as at the Port of Houston) for several months. Any settlement with the car owners is technically separate, though likely the EPA may make concessions based on reimbursements VW agrees to make to owners of the affected vehicles. At this point, from information released by VW, it appears that the Passats will likely be fixed easily, as well as the 2015 Jetta/Golf models, as these cars had urea systems built in. If I understand correctly, the fix will be primarily a software fix. The latest news for the remainder of the effected cars -- those without a urea system -- is that VW will need to buy them back, the cost and issues caused by trying to install the urea system is greater to VW than simply buying the cars back. The issue, of course, is what kind of money they will give the owners of these cars in compensation. What I've seen projected is "fair market value" for the cars, and then a rebate/cash allowance if they purchase a new VW. As for those vehicles VW will fix, I'm not sure what incentive VW may give, or various states may force, to get VW owners to fix their current vehicles. It wouldn't surprise me if VW automatically installs the update on any car that comes into their service centers, without asking the owners for permission, at least so long as it isn't a major fix (takes less than an hour to install). My impression is that the fix, on cars with urea system, will not greatly effect the performance of these cars. It may be considered inconsequential enough that, short of VW installing the update on any car they service, owners will not be forced to have their cars updated. My guess is the emphasis will be on buying back all the cars without urea systems, and that those cars will no longer be allowed to be licensed in the US after the VW buyback is "complete." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fbov Posted March 1, 2016 Report Share Posted March 1, 2016 +1 A similar post went to bit-heaven thanks to forum issues... this is getting old. Anyone else hate the new forum SW? My one comment is that VW will not be found a willing participant. Delay is their only weapon against a huge financial loss, and given the government of Lower Saxony has veto power over any such plan, you know actual $$$$$$$$$$$ will never change hands. VW will leave the US diesel market first. My money's on obsolescence. VW waits so long, the offending cars are no longer on the road. Fine is nominal. It's the government way (and I'm not talking domestically). HAve fun,Frank Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marc Smith Posted March 1, 2016 Report Share Posted March 1, 2016 Yes I get that VW knowingly broke the law... and ford did not break a law, just knowingly used a clever loophole to not test a car. I'm sorry I'm not that naive and I have to believe that as smart as ford engineers are they had to know that two different body styles of cars would perform differently. They knew what they did since they wanted to "kill the prius". so its not as egregious as what VW did but the end result is the same. cars that didn't perform as advertised. I think VW will be taught a lesson and made an example of... by the feds, and also by lawyers and class action lawsuits.... It will interesting to see how it unfolds... but long term or short term won't affect me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C-MaxSea Posted March 1, 2016 Report Share Posted March 1, 2016 (edited) .......... indeed, this is getting very old; not the least of which is putting Ford in the same league with VW - the issues are apples & oranges, most importantly in scale (volume of cars, pollution .............) I believe it is extremely important to note that the VW debacle is not just about VW and VW car owners; it is also, and arguably more importantly about the environment and public health. I lost 8-9 months of health last year likely caused by diesel pollution experienced on a trip to Italy last year (Check out the diesel pollution in Paris these days). It is no joke, many urban areas over there are choking in diesel fumes because of VW, Citroen .................... spitting out all of these klunker diesels. Yes it involves both cars & trucks, and we have a huge hidden health hazard here in our diesel trucks as well; and yes there are 'new & improved' diesels coming out. My point stands, get those identified, illegal diesel klunkers fixed or off the roads. Anyway, it is not just about money and making VW owners happy. A loyal VW owner for decades,Nick Edited March 2, 2016 by C-MaxSea Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djc Posted March 1, 2016 Author Report Share Posted March 1, 2016 Another difference between the Ford and VW cases may be the nature of the pollutants. Understating mileage means understating CO2, something our own metabolism makes and we exhale. VW's fraud involves Nitrous Oxides, dangerous reactive molecules and notorious smog producers. There are limits on NOx production for direct health reasons. The Ford's lower-than-stated mpg just means they are more like non-hybrids and fleet averages than originally stated. So the difference between the Frod and VW cases is a bit like the difference between selling Gin that doesn't meet label-stated alcohol proof vs. Gin that contains methanol. C-MaxSea and SnowStorm 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wab Posted March 2, 2016 Report Share Posted March 2, 2016 +1 A similar post went to bit-heaven thanks to forum issues... this is getting old. Anyone else hate the new forum SW? My one comment is that VW will not be found a willing participant. Delay is their only weapon against a huge financial loss, and given the government of Lower Saxony has veto power over any such plan, you know actual $$$$$$$$$$$ will never change hands. VW will leave the US diesel market first. My money's on obsolescence. VW waits so long, the offending cars are no longer on the road. Fine is nominal. It's the government way (and I'm not talking domestically). HAve fun, Frank "U.S. judge turns up heat on VW with March emissions fix deadline" "A federal judge turned up the heat on Volkswagen AG (VOWG_p.DE) on Thursday, setting a March deadline for the German automaker to state whether it has found an emissions fix for 600,000 diesel vehicles that is acceptable to U.S. regulators." http://www.reuters.com/article/us-volkswagen-emissions-idUSKCN0VY29M Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marc Smith Posted March 2, 2016 Report Share Posted March 2, 2016 lets look at the nox numbers. the VW cars are labeled for LEVII which means its .07gm/mi NOx for the usefull life of the car the EPA averages for Class IIb trucks GVWR 8500-10,000 lbs(ie most pickup trucks on the road) that were in use in 2008 is 3.08 grams per mile.... for Gas and diesel in 2008 WVU(folks who broke the story) ran tests on the jetta and passat. the range of NOX on the jetta was .61-1.15 g/km Average .88 and the passat was .034-.067 g/km average .50 g/km convert those numbers to g/mi .813 for the passat and 1.41 for the jetta... Soin 2008 2 million pickups were sold in the us... assume then that over the course of the last 6 years 12 million trucks were sold. compared to 500,000 VW's(audi ect) Yes they conspired to cheat the law... Yes the cars pollute at a higher rate than advertised up to 15x higher than a the LEV II standard which they wanted to achieve, but only 2x higher than the Teir 1 LEV. and far less than a lot of vehicles already on the road... So, yes lets teach VW a lesson and let it be a warning to other car makers (don't f%^& with the emissions) and at least get them to bring the cars into compliance with the what the emissions of a car should be. Then lets go after the real big pollution center of pickup trucks and other larger vehicles, which pollute far more per mile, and of which there are for more of them on the road than the TDI VW's but that another thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HotPotato Posted March 4, 2016 Report Share Posted March 4, 2016 It makes no difference to me whether they deal with this by fixing the cars, scrapping them and paying off the owners, or leaving them as-is and offsetting the same amount of pollution by other means. The trouble with "fixing" is that it may affect performance, MPG, and reliability, and owners may not go for that, either refusing or reversing the updates, as in the bad old early days of smog control devices on gas-powered cars. Some offsets that have been used in the past for pollution reduction include:pay to repower old 18-wheeler trucks and near-shore boats with cleaner enginespay to install catalyzed diesel particulate traps on school buses and city busespay for exhaust scrubbers on coal power plantTo which we can now apparently add, pay to build more charging stations, and build more electric cars. May I humbly suggest some DC quick chargers at public highway rest stops in California in the stretch between San Luis Obispo and Silicon Valley, and the stretch between Marin County and the Oregon border, so that travelers in and through the Golden State need not restrict their EVs to urban use only... djc 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.