Volkswagen in trouble!

The problem will be once the cheat is removed and the car is how it should of been from the start is it will do less mpg and not go as well! Possibly effecting the re sale value as well. For example ive got a seat ibiza ecomotive and I brought that for the free road tax and the 74 mpg I can get out of it if due to a vw cheat it got recalssed and I had to pay £200 a year in tax I wouldnt be best pleased!:rolleyes:

The way I look at it.

If you’ve bought one of the cars in question during the last couple of years, and so far
have been very happy with it. Does it really matter ?

Unless you are a fully paid up member of Friends of the Earth.

It may matter to you if the bottom drops out of the secondhand market for these cars as some are predicting.

If you are an asthmatic like me, you may also have concerns as NOx is a trigger.

Not a scrap!!;)

The way I look at it.

If you’ve bought one of the cars in question during the last couple of years, and so far
have been very happy with it. Does it really matter ?

Unless you are a fully paid up member of Friends of the Earth.

This will no doubt be a very ignorant question but if they can manipulate the emissions why isn’t that a standard feature on the car?

I believe the reasons are to do with fuel consumption and ‘driveability’
In full emission reduction mode, such as during the testing, the power is reduced, the engine is much more reluctant to accelerate and also reduces engine braking when the throttle is lifted.

So if/when all these vehicles are modified to match the emissions at all times, they may not be very nice to drive. This is why already a number of people in the US are saying they are worried owners won’t bring the cars in for the fix.

P

I’m not sure you are correct about turbocharging a petrol engine; more power for a given engine capacity certainly but does that translate to lower CO2 (%) emissions if more fuel is being burnt?

the modern way is to use a smaller capacity engine with a turbo to replace a normally aspirated engine. For example, my partners’ 1.2 Tsi Polo has 110 hp and 150lbft of torque, yet uses much less fuel in the real world, not just the ‘official’ figures, than the 1.6 normally aspirated version it replaces, which had 105hp and about 115lbft of torque. It is also much more punchy and nicer to drive in almost every way

This is taking into account the lower friction and pumping losses in the smaller capacity engine so the savings are made when full power is not required, e.g. Steady speeds. The Turbo also allows for excess air to help emissions.
They are starting to use cylinder deactivation to cut the losses even further in steady state conditions-the valves are held shut to reduce pumping losses on the deactivated cylinders I believe- the air compressed on the upstroke acts as a spring on the downstroke, the only losses being hysteresis in heating the trapped air I think.

This will no doubt be a very ignorant question but if they can manipulate the emissions why isn’t that a standard feature on the car?

I think in America the test is done with the driven wheels in a rolling road at a simulated road speed so the ECU will see from the ABS sensors the rear wheels are not moving it will also notice if the bonnet (hood) is open and maybe even detect something is plugged into the cig lighter/power socket. And I’m sure other things will let the car know its being tested so it switches the pollution control on and after the test when its back in normal use turns it off again. The same would apply for tests here even thinking about it for petrol cars as that test involves bringing the engine rpm up to approx 2500 while stationary for a minute or so! not saying other manufactures are doing it but it wouldn’t be hard if they wanted to.

What about Skoda and Seat vehicles? Also, since when did the US care about vehicle emissions? Whenever I see Americans discussing cars online they are proud of the fact that they squeezed ~30 mpg out of their US-built vehicles.

Mark 3 Octavia’s have the EA288, the older Octavia’s have the offending engine I believe.

How does the car know it’s under test?
I thought they just shoved a sensor up the exhaust and revved up?

Yes it was and I imagine in the EU it is usual practice with no boats being rocked between the EU and the big European corporate companies – particularly French and German ones. But that is staring to unravel now so the next few days will be “interesting”!!

Because the UK market, and I would guess but I’m not sure, the EU market is skewed …..

It was the US tests that appear to have driven this little ploy.

Moggy

Of course, but our whole economic model is, currently, based on burning fossil fuels; modern internal combustion vehicle engines are about as efficient as it is possible to get but the inescapable fact is if you burn (or oxide) a carbon fuel you produce CO2. Yes, you can squeeze as many miles out of that as possible but there are limits.

Because the UK market, and I would guess but I’m not sure, the EU market is skewed by the demand for low CO2 emissions. even now, Diesels produce 15%less CO2 fro a given power/torque output although petrol turbo’s are catching up

So why are petrol-engined vehicles allowed at all; unless each manufacturer must meet an ‘average’ level of low CO2 emissions across their entire range?

I’m not sure you are correct about turbocharging a petrol engine; more power for a given engine capacity certainly but does that translate to lower CO2 (%) emissions if more fuel is being burnt?

I am sure that is exactly what it is about. The EU and even more so, the UK, is fixated on ludicrously unattainable CO2 reduction levels.

What I cannot understand is why VW took such a risk when they presumably offer all the affected vehicles with a petrol engine also?

Because the UK market, and I would guess but I’m not sure, the EU market is skewed by the demand for low CO2 emissions. even now, Diesels produce 15%less CO2 fro a given power/torque output although petrol turbo’s are catching up

Diesel has hardly penetrated the United States car market, maybe under 3%; the emission targets are more easily attainable for petrol-engined vehicles.

Not sure how much time, effort and resources will have been diverted to this ‘fix’ above what was already dedicated to the normal engine management system. Keeping emissions within targets all of the time would have resulted in significant penalties to performance and economy; possibly penalties that would have made diesel-engined vehicles unattractive compared to petrol-engined vehicles. What I cannot understand is why VW took such a risk when they presumably offer all the affected vehicles with a petrol engine also?

If VW engineers are smart enough to design an engine management system that can spot when the car/engine is being tested on a rolling road, and then modify it’s performance accordingly, their engineering skills are to be praised, though the ethics and morals behind those skills are perhaps less praiseworthy!

In a warped sense… yes! I find it odd that 1) they took this gamble in the first place and 2) they used so much time, energy and resource in producing this naughty engine management system instead of developing one that kept emissions down all the time. On top of that, I was always under the impression that the heads of German car companies had a solid technical and engineering background (rather than our strain of wussy rent-a-CEOs) and could roll up the shirtsleeves and build motors if necessary. Usually this rhetoric is brought up by those that claim the UK is stuffed because of our lack of heavy industry. In light of this, I find it hard to believe that the head of VW had no knowledge of this fiddling. Is this indicative of a wider culture within the car industry, perhaps top-heavy companies forcing underlings to scrabble around to meet impossible targets? With the level of lobbying from the car industry in the US I find it odd that emissions targets weren’t more easily attainable, either by being set lower (ie higher acceptable emissions levels) or by fiddling figures the old fashioned way, such as making them up.

the regulations probably state that the vehicles have to pass the emissions test and the Volkswagen vehicles in question were passing the emissions test albeit by recognising that they were being tested and modifying their performance specifically to pass the test.

Yes indeed, if that proves to be the case, then VW were obeying the strict letter of the Law (meeting test criteria), whilst clearly ignoring the spirit of the Law (minimising pollution for every mile driven)…

I suspect the US lawyers may do very well out of this argument (as ever!).

As with any testing, unless it is independently policed/verfied, and also performed at random, then it is at risk of being abused, especially if the tester has a vested interest in achieving best possible results.

If VW engineers are smart enough to design an engine management system that can spot when the car/engine is being tested on a rolling road, and then modify it’s performance accordingly, their engineering skills are to be praised, though the ethics and morals behind those skills are perhaps less praiseworthy!

In EU much vehicle testing is actually performed by independent testing agencies, eg NCAP (who do far more than just their widely known “crash testing”), so the system is perhaps less open to abuse, but I have no doubt that any manufacturer sending a vehicle out for testing will first ensure it stands the best chance of achieving the best possible results…

At what point does “fettling to achieve best possible results” stray into “deliberate modification of performance to met targets”?

Will other manufacturers be found to have adopted similar “underhand” techniques? Time will tell, but if there is big money involved, then it seems entirely possible…

What gets me is how on earth they ever expected to get away with it, they must have known it would come out and would cost them billions.
It also makes one wonder if the emission laws are also outstripping technology, as one would have thought if VW could produce an engine since it came up with this illegal get around, they would have, thus negating their risk..
It also makes you wonder who else is doing it, one sees this as just the tip of what may be a large automobile companies con trick.

I hope you left it in mint condition.

No it sucked.