VW Faces $17B Fine for Emissions Scam

I like this funny that appeared over here today;

Matt cartoons witty political cartoons and satirical sketches - Telegraph

 

And how is it different from what Caterpillar did 15 years ago? they used "defeat device" too.

There are actually 2 issues here, if you think about it: one is the pollution and another is cheating. If it weren't for pollution there would be no cheating, right?

 

i think you're misconstruing orenji's point. intentionally?

 

funny that is how I feel he interpreted my OP (#369)

 

No way!
That's impossible....

 

perhaps you're right. it's hard to argue about how bad the pollution is, vs other vehicles in this particular circumstance, but it isn't hard to imagine that vdub was putting profits ahead of peoples health, and would have continued to do so. and if they hadn't been caught, that might have encouraged them to come up with other profitable deceptions down the road.

 

Another reason for higher real life MPG could be manual transmission. Here is a snapshot of one of the most efficient non-hybrid non-diesel cars sold in US:


As you see while EPA rates CVT at 39MPG and 5MT at 37, the real life MPG is 40.9 and 44.8 respectively. I'll bet the 7.8MPG bump would be enough to trigger your bullsh*t detector.

Also fuelly data are mess sometimes, there is no clear separation by engine/transmission/market. In EU fuel has higher octane ratio and even CR for the same engine can be higher than sold in US. Mirage for example is likely to be misrepresented on fuelly due to CVT/5MT and 1.0L sold in other markets.

Not defending VW in any way, just pointing out at data issues.

 

Every car has some type of pollution. From the building of it, to the driving of it, to the dismantling of it. So pollution is not the issue with VW at the moment, it has to do with being deceptive to buyers and the EPA.

 

I am not disagreeing with VW being a caught cheat which needs to be punished.

What I see as an issue is the fact that this has been taken out of context and blown out of proportions Monica Lewinsky style.

You could argue that EPA diesel rules are too strict, and point out their hypocrisy, especially when put side by side with commercial diesel EPA rules. Does this mean the light duty diesel rules need to be more lax? maybe, but the real issue that commercial diesel rules need to be more strict. At least for the buses, and delivery/garbage trucks.

 

Woa Hoss (1960s TV show quote)

This is called a 'false equivalency' when in reality there are degrees or shades of gray.

Actually pollution is the issue regardless of source. More importantly, the concentration of pollution around concentrations of humans like in cities and mega-sized suburban areas. After all, we don't want to be like China who like the USA in the 1960s and 70s realized pollution was poisoning ourselves.

BTW, the cartoonists are having a ball:

Source: New Political Cartoons

Bob Wilson

 

The Real Winner in the VW Diesel Scandal? Hybrid Cars | WIRED

 

Perfect timing for Gen4 Prius.

 

...at least it redirects the Smug, Gay, Green Peace, Democrat Prius jokes for a while.

 

Good timing for hybrids in Europe. Diesel is now an even dirtier word that it was before.

Shame it coincides with Honda pulling the last of their hybrids from the EU - D'oh.

 

First, let's correct a misunderstanding here. Emission limits and measurements are done in an amount over a distance, g/mi or g/km for most of them. They aren't tied to fuel economy. The only emission directly tied to fuel economy is CO2.

Bob W. posted a link with a good technical description of VW's diesel emission control devices earlier. There are two basic methods of controlling NOx after the engine; LNT(lean NOx trap) and SCR(selective catalyst reduction).

SCR is the one that uses DEF/AdBlue/urea, and is the best method for reducing NOx without downgrading performance or fuel economy. All new diesel passenger cars of 2016 use it now. The cheater VWs with it emitted NOx in the 5 to 20 times more range of the limit. To get that down to the required limit, more DEF is just needed to be injected. That will affect service schedules, but not fuel economy. The only way the fix will effect fuel economy is if the DPF regen cycles were decreased by the cheat.

Even though the better method for emissions control, SCR was viewed as a negative, specially early on, by buyers because of the additional maintenance and expense. Mercedes, the first company to use it in the US, has some outrageous prices for AdBlue.

LNT uses a zeolite to trap excess NOx. It needs to be periodically regenerated, which uses fuel to do so. So these cheater cars will likely see a drop in fuel economy after the fix. Honda considered bringing over a diesel Accord early on when SCR was a big negative for sales. They dropped it when using LNT left the car not much better than a gasoline one. Mazda has been trying to get their SkyActiv-D to pass the EPA, but aren't happy with the loss of performance the fixes entail. For most of their customers, and VW's, performance means more than just fuel economy.

Aside: the EPA research showing their test under rating diesels used user surveys, and includes pre NOx emission control models.
Another one: the federal, lean burn, original Insight had a similar LNT system.

It can be bad for Europe and elsewhere that the diesels are popular, if the cars emissions aren't brought up to the correct spec. With the numbers of diesels sold in the US, you should be more concerned with the pollution from older gasoline cars.

After all the BS reports, studies, and data twisting Prius owners have had to deal with over the years, I expect better here.

The initial study found only 35 times(more below) higher levels at the max for the LNT models. They went down to a low of 10 times. The SCR cheater VW was 5 to 20 times. In the introduction of the actual paper, an average of 6 times higher was mentioned.

The WHO study classification came about from a study on miners working in an enclosed space with diesels that had little to no emission controls. It also was concerning particulates, something that gasoline cars emit more of than a filtered diesel.

The linked article refers to this release, London becomes first world city to quantify the health effects of nitrogen dioxide (NO2) | London City Hall. The study is the first to link deaths to NOx. It also reduced the estimates of deaths linked to particulates. It also freely admitted that NOx emissions aren't solely from diesel vehicles.

As the only affordable diesel car in the US, the diesel Jetta was a profitable seller for VW. My hypothesis is that they were under pressure to keep the model available without using SCR, that could hurt sales at the time. Laziness likely let the cheat get into the programming of SCR equipped models that likely didn't need it, and greed prolonged its use, and delayed the switch to SCR, in the LNT models

But diesels use less fuel idling than a gasoline ICE model. But it is because it is running lean and making more NOx.

That is likely where the figure comes from, but is also a figure without any published work behind it. The ICCT report was attempting to mimic real world drive cycles, and includes their test routes.

Regardless, using the 35 or 40 times quote alone is good for grabbing attention in a headline or click bait, but it isn't what should be used if the intention is to determine an actual impact from the extra NOx of the cheater cars. The value was the worse case one, and simple average is likely unrepresentative for such analysis. The ICCT report ranges the LNT model between 10 and 35 times, and the SCR one at 5 to 20 times. Using the lowest low, and the highest high, the simple average is 20 times, but the reports mentions an average of 6 times. This means the worse case values occurred much less often than the not quite as bad values.

I advocate for diesels, because they seem to have an edge in the field of renewable fuels. Just by using some of them will reduce the NOx the engines produce. I am not brand specific. If it seems that I favored VW, it is because it was the only brand with an affordable diesel model for decades in the US.

If I got a VW diesel, it would a pre-2003 Jetta wagon. It has a 2000lbs tow rating, and the relative lack of emission controls means I can run 100% biodiesel in it. The German makes limit you to B5 with the newer ones. This would be a road trip and truck replacement, and will see little annual miles; <5000. For day to day use, I'd pick the Cruze. I like the Chevy interiors and seats. Plus, GM, and Ford, allow up to B25.

I'd still choose a plug in first.

The ICCT study that started this all, also included a BMW. For the most part, its NOx emissions met its EPA certification. It went over on the hilly road route, but not enough for the team to also dyno test it like the VWs. The reports of BMW exceeding limits likely comes from another ICCT study that was performed in Europe. It showed diesels exceeding their limits, but it also showed gasoline cars exceeding their limits, just not to such a degree. It could be a sign of cheating, or just a sign that official testing isn't reflective of drive cycles out in the real world.

Take that BMW's higher than spec emissions during hilly driving. Well, the EPA test cycles don't simulate such driving in any way. It is driving on flat, level roads, and the other tests are the same. These portable emission analyzers are a relatively recent addition to the tools available to researchers. We will likely see them being adopted by regulatory agencies in the near future. If not for actual testing, but to at least refine the dyno test cylces.

We need to watch out for greed leading to public damages no matter the source.

 

along with repairs to cars, reparation to owners for lost value, fines for whatever evildoing went on, there should also be a fine for whatever the amount of pollution was, commensurate with any polluting industrial fine.

 

2004 Prius came out during very low oil price as well. It's mileage pretty much doubled Camry's was then. It'll do it again.

This thread reminds me of this Hybrid vs Diesel discussion on Edmunds site 12 years ago. @john1701a and I participated. Look where we are after 12 long years.

You can also see the anti-Prius and pro-IMA attitude of Xcel (Wayne Gerdes).

 

the end of the rainbow?

 

The trick with SCR is to oversize it, 'n' times the oil change interval. Also make the fluid an Autozone standard part.

Bob Wilson