Leopard680
A2OC Donor
........Have you been mis-sold TDI?......... Sorry... *exits stage left* 
VW Shares tumble after US accuses them of falsifying emissions data
- Thread starter dan_b
- Start date
Birchall
Dick Chown Award 2016
........Have you been mis-sold TDI?......... Sorry... *exits stage left*
Nice one, that made me smile!!!!
Steve B
Alan_uk
A2OC Donor
Bret, what's included (i.e what is measured) in the Finish annual test? Does it include all the parameters that constitute a Euro 4/5/6 test (as relevant to the vehicle)?
bretti_kivi
Member
It's a little complex, but the test is for...
at tickover:
- CO < 0.5%
- HC < 100 ppm
at >2000 rpm
- CO <0.2%
- HC < 100ppm
- Lambda 1 +- 0.03
Diesels also get the smoke test; max revs and then measured on opacity. 3.0 is the number for turbos registered before 2006, after 1.1.2006, it's 1.5. The unit for that I'd have to check, can't get a quick answer here.
How close this is to Euro 4? that demands 1.0% CO, total HC @ 100ppm, and NOx at 0.08. So it's actually a little stricter, amazingly enough. Unless there's something I missed, which is possible on the CO side. It appears to be the same for the Germans.
The argument "this is too expensive" for MoT stations is total and utter junk. It's simply not wanted, for whatever reason.
- Bret
at tickover:
- CO < 0.5%
- HC < 100 ppm
at >2000 rpm
- CO <0.2%
- HC < 100ppm
- Lambda 1 +- 0.03
Diesels also get the smoke test; max revs and then measured on opacity. 3.0 is the number for turbos registered before 2006, after 1.1.2006, it's 1.5. The unit for that I'd have to check, can't get a quick answer here.
How close this is to Euro 4? that demands 1.0% CO, total HC @ 100ppm, and NOx at 0.08. So it's actually a little stricter, amazingly enough. Unless there's something I missed, which is possible on the CO side. It appears to be the same for the Germans.
The argument "this is too expensive" for MoT stations is total and utter junk. It's simply not wanted, for whatever reason.
- Bret
Alan_uk
A2OC Donor
Thanks Brett
The UK smoke test for vehicles is:
Passenger cars and light commercial vehicles first used on or after 1 August 1979 and before 1 July 2008
Turbocharged engines 3.0m[to power of]-1
Naturally aspirated engines 2.5m[to power of]-1
Passenger cars and light commercial vehicles first used on or after 1 July 2008
Turbocharged engines 1.5m[to power of]-1
Naturally aspirated engines 1.5m[to power of]-1
Measurement is maximum smoke value (absorption coefficient) measured under free acceleration.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...t_data/file/346222/emissions_17th_edition.pdf page 14 for diesels.
The UK smoke test for vehicles is:
Passenger cars and light commercial vehicles first used on or after 1 August 1979 and before 1 July 2008
Turbocharged engines 3.0m[to power of]-1
Naturally aspirated engines 2.5m[to power of]-1
Passenger cars and light commercial vehicles first used on or after 1 July 2008
Turbocharged engines 1.5m[to power of]-1
Naturally aspirated engines 1.5m[to power of]-1
Measurement is maximum smoke value (absorption coefficient) measured under free acceleration.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...t_data/file/346222/emissions_17th_edition.pdf page 14 for diesels.
Pras
A2OC Donor
Audi confirmed as well no mention of the A2
dan_b
A2OC Donor
Reading more around the subject this morning, it seems this came about because VW Management decided it didn't want to pay the extra to install AdBlue systems in their diesels to meet Californian emissions standards, but thought they could get away with using the software cheat, which Bosch had told them would be illegal to use on the road. I remember Mercedes launched their AdBlue-equipped Diesels into the US market around the same time and made a big play about it.
Alan_uk
A2OC Donor
Yes, the BBC report says Audi confirmed the affected models include the A1, A3, A4, A5, A6, TT, Q3 and Q5. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34377443
Whilst the A2 pre-dates these shenanigans at least there was some honesty with the A2, particularly with the 1.2 3L - if you wanted 100 mpg then you put it into eco mode and switched off the AC (if fitted). You then got slow acceleration, lower top speed and gear changing was taken out of your control. If you wanted fast acceleration, fast top speed (reported faster than a 1.4) and sporty driving then you got lower mpg - you couldn't have both but at least you had a choice and it was transparent. It was also less polluting.
A2 owners often say that Audi should have kept the A2 going, continuing to refine and develop it but I suspect one reason for dropping it was that most people want their cake and eat it - i.e. a supposedly high performance, high mpg, low polluting and lower costs. So people bought into the dream of new cars but now we've woken up with a nightmare.
I'm giving a talk about the A2 soon, entitled "Engineering excellence, but was it ahead of its time?" No doubt there will be people in the audience who will say the A2 was unbelievable and a fraud.
Whilst the A2 pre-dates these shenanigans at least there was some honesty with the A2, particularly with the 1.2 3L - if you wanted 100 mpg then you put it into eco mode and switched off the AC (if fitted). You then got slow acceleration, lower top speed and gear changing was taken out of your control. If you wanted fast acceleration, fast top speed (reported faster than a 1.4) and sporty driving then you got lower mpg - you couldn't have both but at least you had a choice and it was transparent. It was also less polluting.
A2 owners often say that Audi should have kept the A2 going, continuing to refine and develop it but I suspect one reason for dropping it was that most people want their cake and eat it - i.e. a supposedly high performance, high mpg, low polluting and lower costs. So people bought into the dream of new cars but now we've woken up with a nightmare.
I'm giving a talk about the A2 soon, entitled "Engineering excellence, but was it ahead of its time?" No doubt there will be people in the audience who will say the A2 was unbelievable and a fraud.
dan_b
A2OC Donor
It's tricky isn't it - you can essentially have high MPG, but poorer emissions per litre of fuel burned, or you can have lower emissions per litre, but poorer MPG.
I'm wondering if you still end up with lower overall emissions with a car that has significantly higher MPG but relatively poorer emissions, because you use less fuel for the same distance travelled - less burned = lower emissions?
I think it's been the pursuit of "high performance" whilst also having a "luxury barge" that has been the downfall here - they stopped chasing efficiency and just went all out for big and brash. Don't worry about engineering it properly, just cheat it with software.
I'm wondering if you still end up with lower overall emissions with a car that has significantly higher MPG but relatively poorer emissions, because you use less fuel for the same distance travelled - less burned = lower emissions?
I think it's been the pursuit of "high performance" whilst also having a "luxury barge" that has been the downfall here - they stopped chasing efficiency and just went all out for big and brash. Don't worry about engineering it properly, just cheat it with software.
Birchall
Dick Chown Award 2016
As I mentioned I owned an A1 for two years.
Not only was it suggested that I could get 70 MPG (no way unless I drove it like the handbrake was on) but it also qualified for zero road tax because of the emissions. So if it is verified that it was used on that model in Europe, yet again it is a double whammy, owners claiming they were cheated (due to potentially inflated MPG figures) and the government also claiming they were cheated out of the road tax.
I still think Leylands amusing comment above is classic and indicates what will happen in the future.
Calls constantly saying " we believe that you owned a VW Audi diesel AND had an accident in it AND paid PPI on the finance payments."
It should see the unemployment figures drop again while the call centres are being staffed.
Steve B
Not only was it suggested that I could get 70 MPG (no way unless I drove it like the handbrake was on) but it also qualified for zero road tax because of the emissions. So if it is verified that it was used on that model in Europe, yet again it is a double whammy, owners claiming they were cheated (due to potentially inflated MPG figures) and the government also claiming they were cheated out of the road tax.
I still think Leylands amusing comment above is classic and indicates what will happen in the future.
Calls constantly saying " we believe that you owned a VW Audi diesel AND had an accident in it AND paid PPI on the finance payments."
It should see the unemployment figures drop again while the call centres are being staffed.
Steve B
Last edited:
dan_b
A2OC Donor
The official MPG tests are ludicrously unlike real world driving though aren't they.
To simulate urban driving, part of the test is that they accelerate the car from 0-30 and then back to zero. Fair enough you might think. But to do so the test allows 26 seconds to do so. 26! To simulate extra-urban driving, part of the test is to accelerate from 30 to 60mph in 35 seconds!
Who here has ever accelerated that slowly in any car? It's so unlike real world driving it's almost ridiculous.
I think they should relate the tested acceleration time to a % of the car's actual capable acceleration time - e.g. test all cars in their 0-30, 30-60mph and other tests at, say, 25%, 50%, 75% and 100% of their real performance. So rather than testing an RS4's MPG when it's probably accelerating at 1% throttle (and no wonder is able to appear so efficient on the test), actually test it as it's going to be driven and do it at WOT - then we might see "official" MPGs that more closely represent what most people achieve, and not just the committed hypermilers.
To simulate urban driving, part of the test is that they accelerate the car from 0-30 and then back to zero. Fair enough you might think. But to do so the test allows 26 seconds to do so. 26! To simulate extra-urban driving, part of the test is to accelerate from 30 to 60mph in 35 seconds!
Who here has ever accelerated that slowly in any car? It's so unlike real world driving it's almost ridiculous.
I think they should relate the tested acceleration time to a % of the car's actual capable acceleration time - e.g. test all cars in their 0-30, 30-60mph and other tests at, say, 25%, 50%, 75% and 100% of their real performance. So rather than testing an RS4's MPG when it's probably accelerating at 1% throttle (and no wonder is able to appear so efficient on the test), actually test it as it's going to be driven and do it at WOT - then we might see "official" MPGs that more closely represent what most people achieve, and not just the committed hypermilers.
This issue is about emissions NOT economy figures so in practice can someone explain how owners of VW group products actually suffered financially? A survey I saw earlier today indicated at least 66% of current VW owners will still buy another so hopefully rational common sense will prevail. I can see a lot of owners switching to petrol or hybrid and soon finding their mpg figures are total bull and get frustrated at the lack of grunt from thrashing their 1.0 litre turbo Eco boxes to death.
Last edited:
Birchall
Dick Chown Award 2016
I don't see how you can separate the two issues.
Many of the pollutants are caused by how much fuel the car is consuming, the cheat code apparently reduced the fuel being injected to enable the pollution to reduce.
The more efficient an engine can burn its fuel the less pollutants it produces, the more efficient it burns the fuel the better the MPG.
A car that is stated as being capable of 70 MPG and then produces 55 MPG under sensible, economical driving tactics, is likely to be more polluting anyway.
So I believe that you can't totally separate the two issues.
I may be wrong and I am happy to be corrected, but an inefficient engine pollutes and has poor MPG?
Steve B
MikeMarsUK
A2OC Donor
Actually this is at the core of the problem - NOx emissions happen as ignition temperatures increase, 1300c degrees+, and this is worse when the engine is running lean (as in diesel engines) because it's the nitrogen and unburnt oxygen from the intake air which forms the NOx when heated enough.
On the other hand, to achieve efficient combustion of all the fuel (and hence reduce CO2), you want to run lean and have as high ignition temperatures as possible. So to reduce CO2 emissions you increase NOx emissions (and vice versa).
Mazda has a very interesting diesel engine which runs at low compression (and hence temperature), and therefore gives out less PM10 and NOx and needs far less filtering. However it isn't particularly efficent...
The following link about EGR valves gives some background.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exhaust_gas_recirculation
Last edited:
Loss of value in the product and loss of the premium paid for a low-polluting product will be the basis of the class actions.
dan_b
A2OC Donor
Which is the point - the cheat software detected the presence of the test conditions and therefore made the car run rich, putting more unburnt fuel into the exhaust, enabling the post-combustion catalysts and EGR recirculation to do their magic and reduce the NOx levels under those conditions. Obviously running rich is the opposite of what you want for good MPG, which is the main selling feature of diesels in the first place...
Speaking of Mazda - the next gen of their petrol SkyActiv engines are actually going to be the first petrol engines that don't require spark ignition - they're operating under compression ignition only - which is amazing when you think about it.
Another development is that BMW is about to introduce water-injection into its petrol engines to improve emissions too. They've developed a system that takes water condensation from the air-conditioning unit to collect water so that the water tank for the water-injection shouldn't need topping up in regular use.
Speaking of Mazda - the next gen of their petrol SkyActiv engines are actually going to be the first petrol engines that don't require spark ignition - they're operating under compression ignition only - which is amazing when you think about it.
Another development is that BMW is about to introduce water-injection into its petrol engines to improve emissions too. They've developed a system that takes water condensation from the air-conditioning unit to collect water so that the water tank for the water-injection shouldn't need topping up in regular use.
bretti_kivi
Member
so I've dug up the original CAFEE report. The interesting bit is that the Passat actually hits the Euro5 numbers bang on the nail. The BMW obviously does a *lot* worse on consumption, but then it does put less crud out of the tailpipe. The Passat owners will not be able to sue. The car fulfils the requirements, also within the testing. No dice. Nothing in Europe going on there.
Jetta owners - how many of those are there? - may be able to, but for what? €500? That the car does not fulfil the requirements at the time of registration would be true for a 2011 to 2014 car, but the present emissions are not tested in any meaningful way, so.... I expect an adblue addon for those owners who want it, at zero cost. And that will be about it.
- Bret
Jetta owners - how many of those are there? - may be able to, but for what? €500? That the car does not fulfil the requirements at the time of registration would be true for a 2011 to 2014 car, but the present emissions are not tested in any meaningful way, so.... I expect an adblue addon for those owners who want it, at zero cost. And that will be about it.
- Bret
Cheshire Cat
Active Member
What about the distress, the loss of kudos, the guilt complex of having poisoned your neighbours for the last five years. The lawyers are sharpening their pencils as we speculate.
As someone else said it will keep the lawyers claims centres busy for a few months. It becomes too expensive to fight the claims and that just opens the flood gates. PPI miss selling claims are still going strong after five ? years.
I dare say PPI settlements put some people into their VW so they won't be slow in making another claim.
As someone else said it will keep the lawyers claims centres busy for a few months. It becomes too expensive to fight the claims and that just opens the flood gates. PPI miss selling claims are still going strong after five ? years.
I dare say PPI settlements put some people into their VW so they won't be slow in making another claim.
Sadly, that's one of the drawbacks of oil fired central heating. I'm all electric so the neighbours are fine, but I do feel a bit guilty for the ones living next to the power station.
Cheers Spike
Last edited: