VW Diesels - Page 7

JCL · #1 09-28-2015, 09:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joshdub

The EU is a collection of push overs. I doubt they have the balls to cripple VAG. But we are also still trying to figure out what exactly happened. If it does come out as blatant cheating, it'll be bad, but not crippling bad.

It is the German government that set the ultimatum, not the EU

VW has admitted what happened. There is third party corroboration from the supplier that developed the software and told VW not to use it on road vehicles. Do you think there is doubt about what happened, and whether it was or wasn't intentional cheating?

Joshdub · #2 09-28-2015, 09:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JCL

It is the German government that set the ultimatum, not the EU

VW has admitted what happened. There is third party corroboration from the supplier that developed the software and told VW not to use it on road vehicles. Do you think there is doubt about what happened, and whether it was or wasn't intentional cheating?

It has yet to be seen how it actually got into production vehicles as well as evidence for intent to deceive. It could have been that the upper management deiced to cheat, or the test software got implemented and overlooked/forgotten about, or a disgruntled employee(s) purposefully implemented it. We don't know exactly what happened as far as that goes yet. What we do know is that there has been a significant amount of drama in the higher ups for years.

All I am saying is that all the cards are not yet on the table.

Ricky Bobby · #3 09-29-2015, 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joshdub

Then you have others conspiring that this whole thing is just to get diesels off the road entirely

That statement alone speaks volumes. Lots of electric car lobbyists all over the world nowadays.

VW should just cut a check for the difference of sticker between a TDI and a gas model of the same car for owners (I.E. if a Gas engine and samely equipped Golf is $22,500, but a TDI is an upcharge of $2,000, cut a check for $2,000) etc, for those who wish to keep driving their diesel after the fix is implemented.

Then for those who wish to keep them, the warranty on the the engine and emissions equipment (DPF's are spendy to replace) for 150k miles regardless of age.

For those who are so horribly wronged, offer them retail price on trade in towards a new purchase, or buy back.

Yes its going to cost a ton of money for VW but instead of letting the lawyers get billions, and the actual purchasers geting $48.06, it might be helpful for them to be proactive here.

blondboinsd · #4 09-29-2015, 12:00 PM

As a TDI owner (Q5 Diesel) who isn't impacted (like the X5 I've got the more sophisticated AdBlue system) I'm still pissed at VW for not being innovative enough to create a solution that passes U.S. standards. On the flip side I'm also pissed at the EPA for their anti-Diesel regulations that make it basically nearly impossible to meet emissions on a low cost Diesel. I mean is a 50 MPG car spreading 10% (on average) more NOX than allowed REALLY worse for the environment than a 20 MPG car meeting NOX? I'm thinking no when you factor in the cost of fueling (and obtaining the fuel) for that 30 MPG difference. It's also interesting to me that the EPA pollutes a massive river by being negligent and you don't see nearly the same level of anger as you do here on their part. Just my 2 cents....

Unfortunately the real "losers" here are the TDI owners who paid a premium for a "clean diesel" and now find themselves with a vehicle attracting the social stigma of the Ford Pinto. They are the ones that VW needs to make it right with.

Ricky Bobby · #5 09-29-2015, 12:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blondboinsd

As a TDI owner (Q5 Diesel) who isn't impacted (like the X5 I've got the more sophisticated AdBlue system) I'm still pissed at VW for not being innovative enough to create a solution that passes U.S. standards. On the flip side I'm also pissed at the EPA for their anti-Diesel regulations that make it basically nearly impossible to meet emissions on a low cost Diesel. I mean is a 50 MPG car spreading 10% (on average) more NOX than allowed REALLY worse for the environment than a 20 MPG car meeting NOX? I'm thinking no when you factor in the cost of fueling (and obtaining the fuel) for that 30 MPG difference. It's also interesting to me that the EPA pollutes a massive river by being negligent and you don't see nearly the same level of anger as you do here on their part. Just my 2 cents....

Unfortunately the real "losers" here are the TDI owners who paid a premium for a "clean diesel" and now find themselves with a vehicle attracting the social stigma of the Ford Pinto. They are the ones that VW needs to make it right with.

Great post, and I actually am surprised you are from SoCal and posting this. The river is something I have been saying for weeks, but that was an
"oops" moment.

But yes, agreed on many fronts with you, and as a 2.0 TDI owner, yes we are the real losers. We keep our cars for years and planned on keeping the '14 Sportwagen for at least 5-7 years when we purchased it in June, but I'm sure resale value is going to suffer.

I do plan on having the car tuned and keeping my emissions system intact after the "fix", which I'm sure is a software reflash from VW which will keep the car "neutered" a bit and in the dyno mode 100% of the time. The aftermarket tuners can bring the performance/mileage back, and will most likely be more fun to drive than it is now, after done.

Other TDI owners like you also suffer now, because its hard to change the stigma as most people are uneducated armchair consumers and voters who hear you say you have an Audi diesel and they accuse you of it being dirty, etc.

JCL · #6 09-29-2015, 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ricky Bobby

Other TDI owners like you also suffer now...

It isn't just other TDI owners. It will also be other diesel owners, more so the passenger vehicles than the pick up trucks.

JCL · #7 09-29-2015, 01:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blondboinsd

I'm also pissed at the EPA for their anti-Diesel regulations that make it basically nearly impossible to meet emissions on a low cost Diesel. I mean is a 50 MPG car spreading 10% (on average) more NOX than allowed REALLY worse for the environment than a 20 MPG car meeting NOX? I'm thinking no when you factor in the cost of fueling (and obtaining the fuel) for that 30 MPG difference.

You should start with the correct incremental emissions. The EPA said up to 40 times for NOx, not 10% more. I am sure it varies in the real world, so let's use 20 times just for a quick calculation.

Is a car getting 2.5 mpg really worse for the environment than a 50 mpg car? Most would agree it is, IMO. The thing is, people don't think about emissions, but are focussed on fuel efficiency. That is what led to VW implementing the cheat. If you think about 20 times factors though, and apply that to something that we all care about, fuel efficiency, it puts another light on it.

Joshdub · #8 09-29-2015, 01:45 PM

40x sounds like a big number, but what is the extent of that number? How does it factor into real world situations? Also, what is the trade off? Don't diesels emit less Co2 than gas cars, but higher NOx? Does the significantly better fuel efficiency (and everything that entails, from processing, to transport, to consumption) offset the higher NOx? Is 40x higher still cleaner than 10, 15, 20 years ago?

What is the BIG picture here? Everyone is just saying "omg NOx".

JCL · #9 09-29-2015, 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joshdub

40x sounds like a big number, but what is the extent of that number? How does it factor into real world situations? Also, what is the trade off? Don't diesels emit less Co2 than gas cars, but higher NOx? Does the significantly better fuel efficiency (and everything that entails, from processing, to transport, to consumption) offset the higher NOx? Is 40x higher still cleaner than 10, 15, 20 years ago?

What is the BIG picture here? Everyone is just saying "omg NOx".

Real world testing showed 10-35 times the standard. That testing was extensive. Some tests showed up to 40 times, and that is what the EPA announced. I went with 20 times in my example above, for lack of a better estimate.

The product development trade off is NOx vs (hp/fuel efficiency/torque/drivability - pick one or all)

A significant trade off for the manufacturer is cost. The cheat was most likely implemented to avoid the cost of things like SCR, while offering a product that consumers would adopt in greater numbers

No, higher NOx is not offset by greater fuel efficiency. If we wanted to do that calculation, you would have to do a human population health impact analysis. We know the impact of smog on annual deaths by country. There have already been calculations published of how many deaths in North America the VW emissions resulted in indirectly. For the fuel consumption/CO2 "upside" you would have to estimate the lives saved by the delay in global warming effects.

Diesels emit less CO2, which is why Euro vehicles tended to diesel engines (Euro rules have focused on CO2, at least up until now, but that is changing). Also, CO2 is related to fuel consumption, so CO2 is used as a proxy in Euro emissions regulations.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas, so the primary impact is on global warming and resultant climate change. NOx is a primary contributor to smog, which has more immediate health impacts in cities.

Europe is getting more worried about smog, and is coming up with NOx regulations. That will put a dent in the popularity of diesels in Europe, particularly if governments there decide to start taxing diesel fuel more like they tax gasoline, which is a real possibility. It all comes down to cost of ownership. A diesel vehicle with more expensive emissions controls, without government vehicle subsidies at point of sale to promote diesel industries, and without reduced fuel taxes relative to gasoline, has a hard time competing with a gasoline engine or alternate fuel. That is why this all matters, diesel was a gamble that Euro manufacturers bet on, and which they now have to reconsider. Some may already have done so; look at how BMW is promoting the i3 and i8, relative to their diesels (at least in some markets).

Consider that most diesel vehicles have been sold with tax breaks (subsidies) that were passed on to purchasers. Governments have started claims against VW to get those tax breaks back for the past years of fraudulent sales.

I keep hearing about the EPA, but US vehicles represent only 4.5% of the problem for VW. A drop in the bucket. The future will be played out on a larger stage IMO.

JCL · #10 09-29-2015, 03:08 PM

Interesting read from a slightly different perspective, about Euro carmakers and the differences between published emissions results and those achieved in practice.

The study linked below shows what the spread is for various popular vehicles, including some BMWs, and includes a discussion on some of the optimization methods used. Things like pushing the brake pads back into the calipers and taping over the door seams before a test. Changing tires for low rolling resistance tires, and overinflating. The background is that in Europe that is no central EPA group that does the test, rather manufacturers hire their own testing agencies and report the numbers. Those numbers aren't just for consumers who want to know what their fuel cost will be, they are the basis of tax rates and green vehicle incentives, and so on. That means that governments are pursuing automakers regarding potentially inflated claims, as tax fraud.

Bosch, who supplied the cheat software to VW, were referenced by a source who claimed the same software was supplied to BMW. BMW denied using it on vehicles for sale, and there is no evidence of a similar cheat. But there is a wide gap between reported and real world numbers, 48% in the case of the 5 series.

More of the iceberg.

Quote:

The system of testing cars to measure fuel economy and CO2 emissions is utterly discredited. This report analyses the gap between test results and real-world performance and finds that it has become a chasm, increasing from 8% in 2001 to 31% in 2012 and 40% in 2014. Without action this gap will grow to nearly 50% by 2020.

Mercedes cars have the biggest average gap between test and real-world performance, with real-world fuel consumption exceeding test results by nearly half. None of the improvement in emissions measured in tests of Opel/Vauxhall cars since 2008 has delivered improvement on the road, and their real-world fuel economy is actually getting worse. Just a fifth of the apparent improvement in emissions from the launch of the Mark 7 VW Golf (Europe’s best-selling car) have been achieved on the road.

Full report:

http://www.transportenvironment.org/...2015_FINAL.pdf