VW Faces $17B Fine for Emissions Scam

Lab rats and mice would have been a better choice.

Bob Wilson

 

And there's a place to get them real cheap.

 

Not if you want to control for variables like disease and parasites. A 'generic' lab mouse started at $10 each back in the '90s, and it climbs from there. Some are literally priceless.

 

I thought he was going to collect them at certain executive office buildings.

But you are right. If the experiments require controlling for existing diseases, parasites, and other factors, then those may not be good enough.

 

I came across this YouTube about recent diesel problems:

Perhaps we'll see an end of these:


Bob Wilson

 

Also spinning tires so this ticks all the PM 2.5 boxes.

 

Just needs to ride the brakes more.

 

Cheat software by any other name .... one can't help but notice the narrator of this video never uses the nasty words, rather makes reference to diesel emisions "issues", "condition", "programming", "problem" .... he never had the cojones to call a spade cheat a spade. Then you have to love some of the comments to the video - where diesel owners brag how they'll take the $3,000 fine/diminished value money .... have it fixed, & then when they get home tear all the new emissions stuff off. Too bad someone can't run a hose from their exhaust into their living room.
.

 

A poster on another forum went and blocked the EGR on his Civic VX, and I recall that being popular for other cars. Knew someone that admitted to running a pipe through his Ranger's cat.
Diesel owners aren't the only ones purposely circumventing their emission controls. It's just more obvious when they do.

 

Bob Wilson

 

In terms of particles, a DPF does do that. Wouldn't replace my room air filter with one though.
Some petrol cars will require exhaust filters in Europe, so this won't remain a diesel 'advantage' for long.

 

I believe!
Where can I get a Peterbilt - & vent it into my living room ....

.

 

Apparently, GPFs are not as efficient as DPF in removing exhaust particles, yet anyway - http://nanoparticles.ch/archive/2019_Czerwinski_PR.pdf

 

Aren't their particles finer to begin with?
If GPFs are starting at DPF 'mesh' size, their not doing as well at filtering wouldn't be surprise then.

 

Yes, gasoline engine particles typically are finer.

The explanation I've heard though is that diesel engines generally have higher engine-out PM mass, and thus "coat" the filter substrate more quickly than gasoline engines. A "coated" DPF is more efficient at removing particles from what I understand.

 

Did work on filtering Anthrax spores out of milk using a cross filter. It was suspected that the milk fat was doing the same thing.

 

Here are graphics from a CARB report ("California’s Informal Participation In The Particle Measurement Programme (Pmp) Light Duty Inter-Laboratory Correlation Exercise (Ilce_Ld), Final Research Report"), showing particle concentrations of HEPA-filtered background air and exhaust of a diesel passenger car. Signals are noisier in the exhaust measurements, especially the EEPS counter, but not much different overall.

 

This 2008 report?

I appreciate particulates have been well studied and understood. Now that DEF has finally gotten full approval and everyone is looking for defeat devices, diesels are better. Just I remember reading about some UK drivers who defeat their particle filters instead of fixing them. Of course we have our own 'rollin coal' and semi-trailer gliders for rebuilt, pre-emissions diesel engines.

Diesels are much improved but to borrow the old Prius claim that they were making the air cleaner begs the question: "From what?"

Bob Wilson

 

Maybe they cmight consider advertising , "we are now cleaner than mountains of coal ash - sometimes"

.

 

Owners of gasoline cars also defeat emission controls. The results just aren't visible to the naked eye.