Volkswagen EPA scandal

[El Dildo]

seriously are we not going to talk about this?

their CEO is gone and millions of VW owners are stuck waiting in limbo to see if their vehicle registration or emissions inspection certificates are going to be renewed. the states in which they're currently registered could very well throw out the rolls and claim all of those vehicles are illegal to operate until new inspection standards have been met.

 

http://www.techtimes.com/articles/88799/20150926/volkswagen-scandal-aftermath-ceo-resigns-epa-road-test-cars-lawyers.htm

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/27/business/as-vw-pushed-to-be-no-1-ambitions-fueled-a-scandal.html

 

http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2015/09/25/affected-vw-owners-and-dealers-in-us-looking-for-answers

 

seems like VW was intensely jealous of Toyota's worldwide success and emissions numbers. so instead of legitimately playing catchup they just fudged their own books. at this point (in preparation for huge class-action lawsuits) VW has hired the same defense firm that British Petroleum hired after the Gulf oil spill.

Edited September 27, 2015 by El Diablo

[LeFox]

Should have played by the rules. They deserve what's coming to them.

Edited September 27, 2015 by ihavcandygetinthevan

[El Dildo]

but they were playing by the rules.

 

the EPA doesn't have enough funding to do its own testing.

the EPA writes the guidelines and then tells car companies "go ahead and do the research, then let us know your results."

 

this is how it applies to every car maker.

right now the biggest issue is that we don't know if VW was the only manufacturer who was doing this or if they were merely the first ones to be caught.

[Dottie]

To be honest, VW is probably not the only one who does not pass emissions tests for certain vehicles. Lets just hope that any other manufacturer who is in the same boat as vw has covered their ass well.

[Flachbau]

I'm willing to bet that there are other manufacturers that do this, but only more.. subtle. Some of these MPG ratings seem way too good to be true these days.

[Tchuck]

They probably aren't the only ones doing it. How the hell could something like this happen? We're talking about as much as 40 times the limit! That's insane!

[Svip]

It's actually quite simple. EPA's emission standard is far ahead of diesel technology as it is for larger diesel engines. Once you get to 1.6 and above, diesel engines are messy bastards.

 

Volvo said a few years ago, that they could not live up to the standards of Euro6 for diesel engines that was rolled out last year. Concepts like AdBlue and whatnot have been attempts to lower the dangerous emissions further from diesel engines. But performance is still the hardest hit by all these technologies.

 

So faced with a dangerously approaching deadline and failure to create the necessary equipment to keep the emissions down while performance good seemed sure, VW decided to put their devices in test mode, even after Bosch (which supplied the device) had warned them to only use it internally.

 

Bosch, by the way, provides a lot of electronics for vehicles, and this device has likely ended up in other brands' cars.

 

But I don't feel bad for VW nor people who buy diesel engines. Diesel is the devil's fuel and it will only come back to haunt you.

[sivispacem]

Anyone who believes this is solely a VW issue is deluded IMO. Their engines aren't markedly more efficient, more powerful etc than the competition according to EPA figures so if they've rigged the system you can bet that everyone else has too.

[CoreyDog2014]

All car makers have been up to this trick for years, thought it was common knowledge.

 

Unfortunately they got caught out, we have had enquiries in the UK already about vehicles getting no where near their alleged fuel consumption figures. VW seem to be the scapegoat now though.

 

I can imagine there are some very nervous people at the likes of Ford, BMW and others now.

[CoreyDog2014]

I'm willing to bet that there are other manufacturers that do this, but only more.. subtle. Some of these MPG ratings seem way too good to be true these days.

Your right there.

 

Bought my wife a Ford Fiesta with the 1.0 Turbo Ecoboost engine. The claim is 68mpg combined.

 

So far it will not get over 47mpg combined.

 

Not all bad news though, because they claim 99g co2 its vehicle excise duty exempt.

[Niko Montana]

This is messed up, but I wouldn't be surprised if other manufacturers are secretly doing this.

[TheMcSame]

 

I'm willing to bet that there are other manufacturers that do this, but only more.. subtle. Some of these MPG ratings seem way too good to be true these days.

Your right there.

You're both looking at MPG figures at face value. You should never trust MPG figures because they're conducted in ways that very likely bend the rules (removing things like wing mirrors, removing seats, taping up panel gaps, ect...), well, that'd be for real world tests. Other MPG tests would be done in labs under perfect conditions.

Edited September 28, 2015 by TheMcSame

[epoxi]

Not all bad news though, because they claim 99g co2 its vehicle excise duty exempt.

Road tax will be £140/year for all non-electric cars from April 2017, it will be very interesting to see how that reshapes the car market (especially since there is a £1,200 to £2,000 first year surcharge for 200+ gC02/km cars).

 

How much you want to bet all the cars on the road will soon be emitting "199 gC02/km"?

Edited September 28, 2015 by epoxi

[El Dildo]

it's not just VW owners waiting in the dark, wondering if they will legally be able to drive.

thousands of VW dealerships are suspending sales on certain models and rumors that some service stations have refused to operate on those same models until word comes down from above.

 

Anyone who believes this is solely a VW issue is deluded IMO. Their engines aren't markedly more efficient, more powerful etc than the competition according to EPA figures so if they've rigged the system you can bet that everyone else has too.

right, exactly.

see whatever deal that the EPA strikes with VW's lawyers, it won't change the system.

 

I wish multinational corporations were totally honest... in a perfect world.

but it's the EPA that needs overhaul.

 

I don't know how comparable agencies function in other countries.

in the UK I guess it's just the 'Environment Agency'?? I'm not familiar with their testing protocols or how strict their regulatory standards are in contrast to the US EPA.

[TheMcSame]

Road tax will be £140/year for all non-electric cars from April 2017, it will be very interesting to see how that reshapes the car market (especially since there is a £1,200 to £2,000 first year surcharge for 200+ gC02/km cars).

I doubt it'll change much tbh, if anything, it removes a lot of the incentive to buy an economical car imo. Sure, the first year cost will be higher, but if you're buying new/a car that's over a year old, it isn't going to make a difference, and I can't see people flocking to electric cars any time soon. I'll miss paying £30 road tax though when I end up with a 17 (or newer) plate car. I'll ride the cheap tax train as long as I can

 

 

I definitely think it was a move to discourage people from buying diesels though, a big factor when buying a car is road tax, and the lower tax bands were dominated by two types of cars. Underpowered petrol engines and most diesels that are 1.6l or under. Most people would probably jump on the 1.4/1.6l diesel instead of a 1.0l petrol because underpowered petrols are not pleasant to drive. With the flat rate, I suspect that people will buy more petrols with larger engines since road tax isn't much of an issue any more.

 

It's also worth noting that (if they really do it for new cars from April instead of cars new as of 2017) some 17 plate cars wont be affected since 17 plates will be issued from March to August.

Edited September 28, 2015 by TheMcSame

[Stephan90]

All I can say is, that this a huge shame not just for one company but for our whole country and economy and also 600,000 people who work for VW worldwide.

 

If they thought that it was impossible to be competitive regarding engine power and fuel consumption without use of the defeat device and with proper exhaust fume treatment, and that other manufacturers would use that to, why didn't they tell the public so that politicians knew about the problem and the competition becomes fair for everyone?!

 

Regarding Bosch as software supplier, they said they delivered a standard software tool for engine control and that the specific program was written by VW. It was reported that Bosch warned VW in 2007 two years before the first vehicle with the defeat device was sold in 2009, that using the software was only allowed for testing purposes. Bosch doesn't want to be held responsible. I also read that this program is very specific and must be validated by doing the test cycle with the actual car to make sure that the program does with the engine what it is supposed to do.

 

Apart from the CEO Winterkorn, three heads of VW development have been suspended now and VW has hired Jones Day an American law firm to investigate the incidents.

Edited September 28, 2015 by Stephan90

[Svip]

Well, what a surprise, tests show that VW diesel cars are not the only ones.

[Flachbau]

Probably wont make a difference, considering the media like to blame one source and one source only.

[Stephan90]

It was clear before that the tests are not reflecting reality and that pretty much all cars emit more on the street than they do in the lab. But the politicans are responsible for allowing these unrealisitc test cycles and not the carmakers. They need to compete with each other and no one can afford to make the cars stay within the limits when other carmakers don't do too.

 

But so far only VW or more exactly an unkown number of personel was so stupid to use an illegal defeat device, where the fiinancial risk is in no relation to what VW has saved or earned more.

Edited October 1, 2015 by Stephan90

[CoreyDog2014]

 

Not all bad news though, because they claim 99g co2 its vehicle excise duty exempt.

Road tax will be £140/year for all non-electric cars from April 2017, it will be very interesting to see how that reshapes the car market (especially since there is a £1,200 to £2,000 first year surcharge for 200+ gC02/km cars).

 

How much you want to bet all the cars on the road will soon be emitting "199 gC02/km"?

Luckily that's only on vehicles registered after the implemation date, can't backdate it to cover all vehicles.

 

My wife's car is VED exempt and will remain so. Sadly my Volvo V70 T5 isn't, costs a bloody fortune!

[TheMcSame]

Thought I'd look at the stocks and... Well... Have them .

 

 

 

 

Edited October 2, 2015 by TheMcSame

[epoxi]

Haha, all the people in the bounce saying "It's not that bad, the stock is obviously just devalued following a controversy."...and then it just gets even lower again.

 

(Apart from MAN of course)

Edited October 2, 2015 by epoxi

[El Dildo]

It was clear before that the tests are not reflecting reality and that pretty much all cars emit more on the street than they do in the lab. But the politicans are responsible for allowing these unrealisitc test cycles and not the carmakers. They need to compete with each other and no one can afford to make the cars stay within the limits when other carmakers don't do too.

honestly, if politicians had any f/cking balls, they would have demanded the kind of fuel standards we're seeing today 20 years ago.

and there's no reason why we couldn't have started there, thus avoiding this issue today entirely.

 

average consumer MPGs should have reached 35-40 in the 90s.

today we should be putting out vehicles that average 50 or more but here we are; still wrestling with an inconsistent and fossil-fuel supply while putting all the economic incentives on corporations to bullsh/t their way to a standard they should have arrived at decades ago when no incentive existed.

 

we can be mad at VW but we can also be a little disappointed with ourselves.

a little...

[marco6158]

In Italy Volskswagen AG recalled nearly 650000 vehicles. That's a lot of cars.

[Gnocchi Flip Flops]

So is this gonna really affect anyone like a buyer?

[DarkSavageDeathlyCloud]

though i think they shoud burn hard because they got burned(i hate liars) i think overall the inviromental impact some realy scared people are talking about is overrated

in the end global warming has not been proved yet that much and cows are resposible for most of the co2 gasses that are said to polute the inviroment

[epoxi]

though i think they shoud burn hard because they got burned(i hate liars) i think overall the inviromental impact some realy scared people are talking about is overrated

in the end global warming has not been proved yet that much and cows are resposible for most of the co2 gasses that are said to polute the inviroment

It is not the CO2 from cows that is a significant factor in global warming, it is the methane (CH4) they produce as this gas has a much stronger warming effect (supposedly by a factor of around 100x).

 

The proof of climate change is indisputable (it no longer tends to be called 'global warming' since depending on the locality the climate may get hotter or colder), global temperatures have been rising steadily and continuously and most significantly since the industrial revolution, and the weather has been getting more extreme in recent decades the world over.

 

It is of course still up for debate how much we actually contribute to climate change, but reducing CO2 emissions is a worthwhile endeavour as 'low carbon' solutions tend to align with more sustainable forms of energy, and reduce reliance on politically sensitive resources like oil.

 

That said, in cities (especially heavily populated developing ones and basins like LA) I would argue that reducing particulates is the priority as they have a more immediate and discernible effect on health and life expectancy, which is what makes the VW scandal so controversial.

Edited October 2, 2015 by epoxi

[Stephan90]

You guys got it wrong. The scandal is not about CO2 and global warming. It is about Nitrogen oxides (NOx) and difficulty of breathing, acid rain.etc.

 

Actually VW used the defeat device because the cars should only activate the technical parts that filter the NOx when the car is tested in lab during a test cycle but not in real life use. Actually, the NOx emission treatment system if activated increases the fuel consumption of the car.

 

The main motive to use the defeat device was to get more engine power while consuming less fuel at the cost of emitting more NOx.

Edited October 2, 2015 by Stephan90

[DarkSavageDeathlyCloud]

 

though i think they shoud burn hard because they got burned(i hate liars) i think overall the inviromental impact some realy scared people are talking about is overrated

in the end global warming has not been proved yet that much and cows are resposible for most of the co2 gasses that are said to polute the inviroment

It is not the CO2 from cows that is a significant factor in global warming, it is the methane (CH4) they produce as this gas has a much stronger warming effect (supposedly by a factor of around 100x).

 

The proof of climate change is indisputable (it no longer tends to be called 'global warming' since depending on the locality the climate may get hotter or colder), global temperatures have been rising steadily and continuously and most significantly since the industrial revolution, and the weather has been getting more extreme in recent decades the world over.

 

It is of course still up for debate how much we actually contribute to climate change, but reducing CO2 emissions is a worthwhile endeavour as 'low carbon' solutions tend to align with more sustainable forms of energy, and reduce reliance on politically sensitive resources like oil.

 

That said, in cities (especially heavily populated developing ones and basins like LA) I would argue that reducing particulates is the priority as they have a more immediate and discernible effect on health and life expectancy, which is what makes the VW scandal so controversial.

 

even if its rising, the sahara desert once was flooded, we had ice ages......

seriously, i think that even if we burn trough every fuel we can find, or actions are not that significant.

[Stephan90]

Just copied this from the Wikipedia artice discussion page. This sums it up:

 

"To comply with regulations, defeat devices will have to be removed or disabled. Will the car then fail its MOT test through emitting too much NOx? Biscuittin (talk) 13:31, 2 October 2015 (UTC)"

 

"Too much? Though I'm sure VW drivers are hoping for better, the simplest fix is to reprogram the ECU to stay in emissions test mode all the time, eliminating the illegal cheat mode. That will mean the NOx adsorber is not disabled, which will reduce NOx emissions -- that's the whole point of all of this. The NOx adsorber in operation will decrease fuel economy, and make the car less zippy to drive from a loss of low end torque, but emitting too much NOx? Not sure where you're getting that from. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:23, 2 October 2015 (UTC)"

Edited October 2, 2015 by Stephan90