VW Faces $17B Fine for Emissions Scam

I don't believe I have supported Perry and my only comments so far concerned the hypocrisy of the EPA. I'll just stick with diesels aren't automatically bad engines.

 

The thing about this fraud is the massive scale and duration. A CEO would be getting a massive number of inputs from different sources about this going on over the years. Ongoing R&D results would constantly be pointing out the impossibility of using this technique on future engines without big investments in more devious software. Bosch sending official letters telling the company not to use the defeat software would be extremely unlikely to escape the CEO's notice. Engineers being removed for stating facts requires the CEO be aware of the facts. Etc. For the CEO to still be disconnected after 6 years requires actively suppressing an army of messengers handling a "dirty little secret" that is known by nearly all the emissions engineers working diesel engines at VW.

 

I know this is a bit academic, but shouldn't the figure be 4000%, not 40% in the video?


SM-G900I ?

 

great article, great writer, thanks serge!

 

I am no math expert, but I would agree that 40% more is 0.4 x 100 or 1.4 times the normal level, and 40 times is 40 x 100% = 4000%

$1.40 vs. $40.0

 

You are correct but noticed there were a lot of 'misquotes' about the amount found. Then I read the U of West Virginia report released by the International Council on Clean Transportation.

The other lay numbers '10 to 40 times' also played a little too fast for my tastes. Some rounding occurred and not necessarily in a good way. So as a homework assignment, find the original reports and share them with us. <GRINS>

Bob Wilson

 

Trollbait has been using the more accurate percentages in all his posts.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/09/22/business/international/vw-volkswagen-emissions-explainer.html?_r=0

 

don't put serge to the test.

 

The Passat has the Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) system that uses urea to neutralize the NOx. Yet the Passat levels are only half that of the Jetta. One can speculate the 'cheat' turned off part of the emissions in the Passat. Another hypothesis is the existing emissions system in the Jetta has only enough capacity to pass the EPA test protocol and even working perfectly, will still fail.

As for the Passat, we can only hope they turned off part of the emissions system and kept some part of the SCR. After all, not using the urea would have been suggestive of the problem. But this gives another clue to the cheat. If an SCR system has less urea consumption relative to diesel consumption, it would suggest that vehicle needs a closer look.

Bob Wilson

 

GM's new diesel pickups first to get extra scrutiny from EPA, CARB

 

The Passat issue could be the system under-sizing but then rural hill climb would have given an indication of that. Another possibility could be the issue with sensing the condition and delay associated with SCR application, if it is designed as on/off system. Or it could be as simple as difference in ambient temperatures.

Another possibility is the general deficiency of EPA test; meaning that what they test does not correlate to real life. So you could design non-cheating system which would sail through EPA but fail in real life.

There are too many ifs, let's hope that VW and/or EPA will give us some transparency on this.

 

It was EPA transparency that gave the specs to the cheater coder. In contrast, 'Comsumer Reports' does no emissions testing and is totally obscura about their mileage protocol. Might as well be 'Car and Driver' which is another waste of print and ink.

Bob Wilson

 

My biggest concern that whilst this is a diesel scandal, in reality it is a lean burn scandal.

Meaning that the gasoline engines currently rolling on the road will exceed allowed max under load/boost conditions.

And this will delay adaptation of HCCI.

 

He is referring to MPG being 40% more than on NEDC cycle, not the NOx values.

There were tons of articles in EU that don't get the difference between CO2 and NOx, it just shows that EU is obsessed only with CO2, and CO2 is directly correlated with MPG.

 

I'm not surprised. I suspect most of the general public in the US (at least) is confused by CO2 emissions vs. NOx and other air pollutants (e.g. particulate matter, CO, etc.)

The problem is the use of the words emissions and low emissions. Which are they referring to?

 

Just to put the records straight:
40 times the norm is 3900% above it...not 4000%
On second thought, this belongs to Fred, doesn't it?

 

Anyone knows if the SCR used in the Passat is instead of the NOx trap (Zeolite) or in addition to it? My suspicion is that it is in addition and the defeat device manipulated the trap area in all models by diverting the gasses to bypass it in all road trips, and if this is the case there is no easy elegant way out.

 

To be more accurate, it's 3650% above the allowable limit (1460/40)


SM-G900I ?

 

The 40% he was referring to at ~1:20 is the CO2/MPG indeed.

But one of diesel's points is they ability to consistently do better than the posted mileage, so the 40% might not be that accurate for diesels. E.g. 2015 Jetta is rated at 6.2l/100km, fuelly said real world is 6.3l/100km... ~2% over the posted mileage.

SM-G900I ?