VW Shares tumble after US accuses them of falsifying emissions data

From elsewhere...

The current VW diesel engine scandal is not the first time the German company has mislead its customers, as demonstrated in this exclusive retrospective.

1950 – When asked who founded company, claims to have ‘forgotten his name. Oh you know, chap with a moustache. Look, it’s not important.’

1961 – Denies the existence of water, especially for cooling engines.

1973 – Admits to over 30 years of fitting engines ‘at the wrong end’.

1981 – Launches Polo mk2, pretends not to know what ‘brakes’ are.

1989 – Claims front bumper brackets of facelift mk2 Golf are ‘definitely strong enough’.

1991 – Promises glovebox lid of mk3 Golf will stay closed.

1995 – Describes Polo Harlequin as ‘stylish’.

1997 – Accidentally uses GTI badge on mk4 Golf.

2003 – Claims to have sold a Phaeton to someone.

2006 – Admits all Passat TDIs in the outside lane of British motorways have secret ‘ back bumper mode’.
 
In the second quarter of this year renewables did NOT generate 20 whatever % of electricity. Yes, that is how it was reported how ever in practice there was one part of a Sunday morning (when demand is lowest) when generation allegedly reached that level. However to get back on topic some of the reaction to this is absurd, owners are reacting as though their cars are full of faults, poorly built, unreliable..... I agree VAG have seriously cocked up and basically committed a degree of fraud which is unacceptable especially when at the moment it appears no other manufacturer had to do this to meet the regulations.
 
Adrian888 said:
In the second quarter of this year renewables did NOT generate 20 whatever % of electricity. Yes, that is how it was reported how ever in practice there was one part of a Sunday morning (when demand is lowest) when generation allegedly reached that level.
Click to expand...

I don't want this thread to go off topic, but other readers can see the facts for themselves at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...t_data/file/463682/Energy_Trends_Sep_2015.pdf

To quote 3 statements that reference total energy generated over the whole quarter :
- Electricity generated in the second quarter of 2015 fell marginally, from 78.84 TWh a year earlier to 78.75 TWh.
- Renewable electricity generation was 19.9 TWh in 2015 Q2 (so 78.84 / 19.9 = 25%)
- Renewables’ share of electricity generation increased to 25 per cent from the 17 per cent share in the second quarter of 2014

The peak daily demand in 2Q is typically 43GW http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/ and the average hourly demand is 36GW (78.75TWh/91.25 days/24 hrs)
 
I've paid little attention to the whole Diesel debate other than to shake my head when reading about Boris Johnson et al speaking of sanctions on diesel cars accessing cities.. However having spent time last night ( mainly on BBC news) the rhetoric really doesn't sound good for the future of the TDI.

Whether the European giants invested wrongly in diesel technology 10 years ago due to the political position at the time doesn't really matter now the damage is done. But there's talk of the technology being available to make engines meet the standards for around 200 € per car so it beggars the question why wasnt the invesrment made if the 'clean' credentials were achievable in favour of 'cheat' technology.

Personally I'm just sorry about the whole thing. I'm impressed that VW have put their hands up and admitted the crime rather than skating around a myriad of corporate excuses.

I ask myself why this happens now though in the fiscal year when VW becomes the biggest volume car seller on the planet?

I'll still be buying VAG TDI :D
 
Last edited:
I find the whole concept of low emission cars a bit baffling. I think it was top gear that calculated that you could run an old 5.0 V8 for 20 years and not put out as much emissions as it would manufacturing a new car.
 
The VW Board were forced to admit it because the US EPA had them over a barrel - the EPA said they would ban VAG from selling new cars in the US if they didn't "come clean". Hence their public confession.
Again as per timing, VW were alerted to the discovery of the cheat system almost 18months ago. They've had plenty of time to come forward - it's only been the threat of commercial bans that has made VW show its hand.

The dust-to-dust argument is often used when trying to defend aged gas-guzzlers - it's often used to defend the Jeep as the "cleanest" vehicle ever made because the car is basically the same as it was 50 years ago and no R&D has been done to it/testing mileage/ low manufacturing technology requirements. I don't know how true it is. There is a huge amount of energy embodied in a car's manufacturing, but again that's a different argument from actual local tailpipe emissions during driving - which is what the problem is with diesel cars in particular in urban areas.

Renewables are now making a significant contribution to the overall electricity generation mix in the UK whether you like it or not! Generation always has to match demand, so you can pick and choose peak figures to back or dismiss either argument for or against, but Alan's link shows that the overall TWh figures averaged over a quarter (which takes into account rising and falling demand during the day), that we're getting 1/4 of our electricity from renewables, which includes hydro, solar PV, wind (offshore and onshore), anaerobic digestion and biomass.
 
Fair points Dan. You appear to have little love for the parent company of out little aluminum gems unless I misinterpret your posts so perhaps indeed your future lies with the i3 and that's the 'smart man's choice' for the future of this rock we inhabit.


I think Mike Mars makes a very good point earlier though. You say the US EPA had VAG management 'over a barrell' and they were forced to come clean.

Do you think this would have happened if it had been Ford or GM at the receiving end?
 
Hi Murdo
Don't get me wrong, I'm still very fond of the A2, but I think any time a large corporation is caught cheating we should reflect on how much automatic "support" we continue to give them.

As to whether Ford would have been treated differently - well Ford were caught by the EPA doing exactly the same thing as far back as 1997 with their "Econoline" series of MPVs, but the difference in that case was that as soon as the EPA said "we've found a defeat device", Ford owned up, withdrew the affected vehicles from sale, issued a recall, and paid a series of fines totalling about 8million dollars almost immediately. They didn't deny the evidence and sit on it for 18months as VAG has done. It's the cover-up that I find disgusting.

As to what my next car might be - I would love it to be an Audi-successor to the A2, but it doesn't seem as if there will be one. The Audi vehicle strategy is clearly to develop bigger and bigger vehicles above all else. They're pursuing a strategy of chasing the SUV market with more and more horsepower, rather than efficiency and good design. Little evidence of Vorsprung Durch Teknik. I really don't like SUVs, and there's little else in the Audi range that excites, which I think is a real shame.

Yes I like the i3 - I've driven it and it's a superb vehicle. It's also still very expensive, and has numerous compromises that would make it very hard for me to have it as a full daily driver replacement. The boot is tiny, there's no roof rack, and even with the ReX, I would struggle range-wise as I don't have easy access to either work-place charging, or guaranteed at-home charging (I don't have a driveway!).

I need to keep the A2 running - it's done 153k miles now and I'm sure I'll see off 160k pretty soon.
 
Last edited:
dan_b said:
Hi Murdo
Don't get me wrong, I'm still very fond of the A2, but I think any time a large corporation is caught cheating we should reflect on how much automatic "support" we continue to give them. . It's the cover-up that I find disgusting.
Click to expand...

We will agree to disagree then. I will continue to support VAG. They remain brilliant cars on the whole with the odd hideous exception in my subjective viewpoint.

Lots of distasteful conduct to come with a global procession of 'disgusted' customers putting their hands out for compensation for solacium due because of the environmental cover up :p

Ironically as the keeper of 3 ( I think) VAG Euro 5 TDI's since 2009 to date I'm probably going to be on the hit list for the no win no fee brigade.

What a mess.
 
Agreed!

It's probably put the kybosh on Audi entering F1 as an engine manufacturer though too, which is a shame!
 
Alan_uk said:
When I bought my A2 ten years ago it was my first diesel and a factor in choosing diesel was higher mpg, lower CO2, Euro IV compliance (reducing historic impact of pollution from diesels, so I thought), and long life engine matching long life body - i.e. a keeper for life. Now feeling guilty it was a wrong decision and maybe should have bought petrol.
Click to expand...

The current scandal is all about Euro V and the USA equivalent, not Euro III & IV. The PDI was not flexible enough for this type of 'management', which is why it was a dead end and VAG gave it up.

There are also problems with petrol engines as, along with all other IC engines (even gas), they all emit ultrafine particles (UFP's). Generally direct injection petrol engines emit far more UFP's than diesel engines with DPF's, so petrol is not necessarily a better solution. The problem is that there is no legislation for UFP's, even in the USA and there is no readily available instrumentation to monitor them. The current legislation for particulates is based on weight (quantity) so may be biased against diesel; quality is not considered, which is a mistake.

RAB
 
As for us supporting Audi, remember that it is the cars we like, we don't have to like the company too.

If the dealer provides a great service and the car is great I couldn't care if they were produced by Macdonalds !!!!

As for what the company get up to I think we are all pretty disappointed (to put in mildly) that VAG have done this, but the A2 is not part of that mess.

As an ex A1 owner, all I can say is that I was very disappointed with the actual MPG figures.
The company claimed it was capable of 75 MPG, the first day I had it (driving very carefully of course) I managed high 60's MPG.
After that the consumption was virtually the same as the A2. Perhaps if I had complained directly to Audi then I might have a case for compensation, but I am not the kind to pursue that. Cars rarely do the MPG figures that are quoted (whatever make they are).

And if they had "Cheating" software on my A1 I would feel that I had been cheated, but only because of the MPG (and so higher fuel costs than I was expecting, not the pollution, I don't think that I have personally suffered from the pollution any more than anyone breathing them in.

So I am putting it down to experience and I hope the fines given to Audi are sensible and not excessively high or low!

Steve B
 
so, it's the EA189s which are affected; Golf 6, Passat 7 and Tiguan I. It will be interesting to see just how harsh real-life emissions testing will become as a result of this. Expect yearly tests on a machine.

- Bret
 
bretti_kivi; said:
Expect yearly tests on a machine.
Click to expand...

There seems to be 2 issues arising from this saga. 1) the modified VW software on some/many models of diesel engine and 2) the way all diesel cars are tested.

re 2). It's reported that only 1 vehicle of each type is tested and the vehicle is provided by the manufacturer and often it is left to the manufacturer to do the testing! As a result the tested vehicle is tweaked to reduce emissions levels and increase fuel efficiency, e.g. special oils, slick tyres, removing non essential/mandatory accessories (e.g. passenger wing mirrors). These are nicknamed "golden vehicles". The vehicle is also new which means less emissions anyway.

So if the annual emissions test was applied to all vehicles and to the same standard as the new sample vehicle, I can see a very high rate of failure but probably with little action that the owner can take. Suing via a class action would take years and offer no immediate solution to keeping mobile.

Politically I can't see it happening to existing vehicles. Maybe from a future date but the Euro 6 bar seems to be much more higher than Euro 5. Can it be achieved on every car for year after year for the vehicle's life?
 
Yes, it can. I already have to stick to the Euro 4 limits on my car. It's completely doable (providing no-one messes overly much with the mapping or the EGR....). It's widespread across the EU; the Germans also have the AU and HU and they are now consistent with one another, but require the car to hold the limits it was registered under.

Turns out the EU were aware of the situation already last year and did nothing. And the UK position on the "clear air" regs (which would imply much of the above testing on a regular basis also of older vehicles) is that "we don't want this".

I do not see how this is compatible with class actions. The politics are simply too complex and fed, as usual, by money.

If a vehicle is well-maintained, with clean injectors, correct air filters, clean plugs, isn't burning oil or water, and the cats and sensors are in order, then I don't see why an older petrol car would fail to hold, e.g. Euro IV.

I have to put mine through its test again shortly, I will check just how far off the limits I am.

- Bret
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top