VW - busted!

Forums › Transport (cars, bikes and boats) › VW - busted!

1 | ... | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13

3925 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1403590 10-Oct-2015 18:23

Technofreak:
dafman: For me, it's nothing to do with the emissions, it's simply their ethics. I'm not going to give $40k+ to a company that deliberately sets out to deceive it's customers.

But you're quite happy to give $40K plus to another manufacturer who may well be deceiving their customers but haven't yet been caught?

Two wrongs don't make a right, i.e. just because others are doing it doesn't make what VW did any better but to crucify VW on their own is just being naive.

That's a ridiculous response to state that other car manufacturers are as equally fraudulent as VW, but not yet caught. At this stage, until shown otherwise, it's VW and VW alone.

Technofreak

6530 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1403618 10-Oct-2015 20:33

dafman:
Technofreak:
dafman: For me, it's nothing to do with the emissions, it's simply their ethics. I'm not going to give $40k+ to a company that deliberately sets out to deceive it's customers.

But you're quite happy to give $40K plus to another manufacturer who may well be deceiving their customers but haven't yet been caught?

Two wrongs don't make a right, i.e. just because others are doing it doesn't make what VW did any better but to crucify VW on their own is just being naive.

That's a ridiculous response to state that other car manufacturers are as equally fraudulent as VW, but not yet caught. At this stage, until shown otherwise, it's VW and VW alone.

Are trying to tell us that you believe VW is the only manufacturer that's been gaming the system?

Sony Xperia XA2 running Sailfish OS. https://sailfishos.org The true independent open source mobile OS
Samsung Galaxy Tab S6
Dell Inspiron 14z i5

xlinknz

1127 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1403628 10-Oct-2015 20:52

Technofreak:
dafman:
Technofreak:
dafman: For me, it's nothing to do with the emissions, it's simply their ethics. I'm not going to give $40k+ to a company that deliberately sets out to deceive it's customers.

But you're quite happy to give $40K plus to another manufacturer who may well be deceiving their customers but haven't yet been caught?

Two wrongs don't make a right, i.e. just because others are doing it doesn't make what VW did any better but to crucify VW on their own is just being naive.

That's a ridiculous response to state that other car manufacturers are as equally fraudulent as VW, but not yet caught. At this stage, until shown otherwise, it's VW and VW alone.

Are trying to tell us that you believe VW is the only manufacturer that's been gaming the system?

Well we have a choice trial by media or innocent until proven guilty !

In the course of time it will come out, arguably soon you'll be better off buying a VW as you'll know the VW emissions results will be accurate or buy from those who are not [yet] proven guilty but are suspected [which could be everyone else including petrol lol]

dafman

3925 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1403761 11-Oct-2015 11:00

Technofreak:
dafman:
Technofreak:
dafman: For me, it's nothing to do with the emissions, it's simply their ethics. I'm not going to give $40k+ to a company that deliberately sets out to deceive it's customers.

But you're quite happy to give $40K plus to another manufacturer who may well be deceiving their customers but haven't yet been caught?

Two wrongs don't make a right, i.e. just because others are doing it doesn't make what VW did any better but to crucify VW on their own is just being naive.

That's a ridiculous response to state that other car manufacturers are as equally fraudulent as VW, but not yet caught. At this stage, until shown otherwise, it's VW and VW alone.

Are trying to tell us that you believe VW is the only manufacturer that's been gaming the system?

Yes, until shown otherwise, I think VW is the only manufacturer who installed software designed to defraud emissions testing.

jarledb

Webhead
3253 posts

Uber Geek

Moderator

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1403838 11-Oct-2015 13:19

xlinknz: arguably soon you'll be better off buying a VW as you'll know the VW emissions results will be accurate or buy from those who are not [yet] proven guiltt

The only tampering we know of has been with some of VWs diesel engines. So the sure fire way to make sure you don't get a car that has been tampered with is to stay away from the whole Volkswagen car range. (Skoda, Seat, VW, Audi, Porsche etc).

To me the fraud they have committed here has eroded my confidence in the brand. So while I was interested in several cars from different Volkswagen brands, I now will keep well away. Even with cars that was not affected by the tampering they did in this case. I suspect I am not alone in that.

Jarle Dahl Bergersen | Referral Links: Want $50 off when you join Octopus Energy? Use this referral code
Are you happy with what you get from Geekzone? Please consider supporting us by making a donation or subscribing.

Aredwood

3885 posts

Uber Geek

#1403866 11-Oct-2015 14:54

NZ really needs to consider if requiring cars to meet NOx standards is even best idea overall? In my opinion concentrating on fuel economy and particulate emissions would give the best overall results. Simply because to get lower NOx emissions you need to burn more fuel. Or use selective catalyst reduction (adblue [urea] injection) But my understanding is that urea also involves alot of emissions to produce. So it would be stupid to not include these emissions also. Also the exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) systems require cleaning which usually involves removal of the intake manifold to do so. So this increases maintenance / servicing costs. It is far easier to get low particulate emissions when you don't have to worry about NOx. As the higher exhaust gas temps allow the particulate filter to "self regenerate" more. So it does not require active regeneration (squirting fuel down the exhaust) as often.

I just don't see a worthwhile cost / benefit ratio of reducing NOx emissions. Considering the NZs Kyoto Protocol commitments, (more fuel use means more carbon emitted to the atmosphere) The cost of fuel, and the fact it has to be imported. (cheap diesel in the USA means using a bit more for NOx reduction is not so much of a problem over there) While I think that reducing particulate emissions would give the biggest gains to health. And can be done cheaply / easily if you remove the requirement for NOx emissions as well.

Myself I own a 2002 Mercedes Vito. It doesn't have any factory fitted emissions control equipment as it is NZ new. It has done almost 300,000K. So will need to be replaced soonish. Yet I don't want to buy a new van that is fitted with equipment that will make it use more fuel. As well as increase maintenance costs / reduce reliability.

Technofreak

6530 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1403874 11-Oct-2015 14:56

dafman: Yes, until shown otherwise, I think VW is the only manufacturer who installed software designed to defraud emissions testing.

Well it seems there's evidence to show VW isn't in this on their own;

From Carscoops.com

During the past three years, Transport & Environment (T&E), with the support of the International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT – the organization that alerted US authorities to its concerns over VW), has exposed several ways carmakers manipulate emissions tests in Europe for both air pollution and CO2 emissions.

Add a more worrying fact: for virtually every new model that comes onto the market, the gap between test and real-world performance leaps. With the launch of the VW Golf Mk7, the gap between test and real-world CO2 emissions jumped from 22 percent to 41 percent, while for the new Mercedes C-Class it rose from 37 percent to 53 percent. For the Renault Clio IV, the gap almost doubled from 19 percent to 34 percent. These results lead T&E and ICCT to believe that more automakers are using “defeat devices".

“All measured data suggests that this is not a VW-specific issue,” ICCT’s Europe Managing director Peter Mock told Auto Bild.

So far BMW is the only one to deny this, the others have all kept their silence.

There's certainly evidence to show that the test figures don't meet actual figures by considerable margins for manufacturers other than VW.

No matter how that's done "defeat device" or otherwise it's still fraudulent in my eyes.

To just pick out VW on their own is naive and ridiculous.

Sony Xperia XA2 running Sailfish OS. https://sailfishos.org The true independent open source mobile OS
Samsung Galaxy Tab S6
Dell Inspiron 14z i5

Equinox IT

Cloud spending continues to surge globally, but most organisations haven’t made the changes necessary to maximise the value and cost-efficiency benefits of their cloud investments. Download the whitepaper From Overspend to Advantage now.

Batman

Mad Scientist
29760 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1403901 11-Oct-2015 15:30

Poor Lance Armstrong boo hoo

Technofreak

6530 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1403903 11-Oct-2015 15:38

But my understanding is that urea also involves alot of emissions to produce. So it would be stupid to not include these emissions also.

I agree, it's probably a bit like when we went to unleaded petrol, we removed one baddie only to replace it with another. However the "greenies" feel good now we have gotten rid of lead no matter the impact of what has replaced it.

Sony Xperia XA2 running Sailfish OS. https://sailfishos.org The true independent open source mobile OS
Samsung Galaxy Tab S6
Dell Inspiron 14z i5

dafman

3925 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1403906 11-Oct-2015 15:50

Technofreak:
dafman: Yes, until shown otherwise, I think VW is the only manufacturer who installed software designed to defraud emissions testing.

Well it seems there's evidence to show VW isn't in this on their own;

From Carscoops.com

During the past three years, Transport & Environment (T&E), with the support of the International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT – the organization that alerted US authorities to its concerns over VW), has exposed several ways carmakers manipulate emissions tests in Europe for both air pollution and CO2 emissions.
Add a more worrying fact: for virtually every new model that comes onto the market, the gap between test and real-world performance leaps. With the launch of the VW Golf Mk7, the gap between test and real-world CO2 emissions jumped from 22 percent to 41 percent, while for the new Mercedes C-Class it rose from 37 percent to 53 percent. For the Renault Clio IV, the gap almost doubled from 19 percent to 34 percent. These results lead T&E and ICCT to believe that more automakers are using “defeat devices".

“All measured data suggests that this is not a VW-specific issue,” ICCT’s Europe Managing director Peter Mock told Auto Bild.

So far BMW is the only one to deny this, the others have all kept their silence.

There's certainly evidence to show that the test figures don't meet actual figures by considerable margins for manufacturers other than VW.

No matter how that's done "defeat device" or otherwise it's still fraudulent in my eyes.

To just pick out VW on their own is naive and ridiculous.

What's the absolute best thing that VW could hope for right at the moment? That a competitor is found to also be using defeat devices in their vehicles. I fully expect a heap of VW engineers are currently tearing down competitors diesels to see if this is the case. But if they are, they obviously ain't found nothing yet ...

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#1403916 11-Oct-2015 16:42

NZ uses about 750,000 tonnes of urea each year (mainly for fertiliser, some is made in NZ, Kapuni). A few tonnes used in Adblue isn't significant.

When NZ first went to unleaded petrol, an issue was that for the existing fleet that had been using leaded high octane fuel, then they were either of an age where they had no catalytic converter and probably no electronic injection or if they had catalytic converters, they'd have been non-functioning because the lead would have killed the catalyst. Lead had to go so that catalytic converters could work. The original high octane unleaded fuel being sold contained large quantities of "BTX". This a cheap, effective octane booster produced in cracking/reforming processes in the refinery. The "B" is benzene, and particularly if they were running rich / poorly tuned, they would have been spewing significant quantities of benzene as well as other nasties out the exhaust, with no catalytic converter oxidising these pollutants. This has changed, maximum benzene level in NZ petrol is regulated (1% max IIRC?). Other octane boosters are used.
Don't lament the removal of tetraethyl lead. Not only were claims about valve seat recession vastly overstated, but a bonus is that exhaust systems last longer - I don't think I've needed to replace a muffler in a car since the late '80s - before that it used to be a regular thing. IMO the use of tetra ethyl lead was the result of a very notable 20th century environmental fraud, Ethyl Corp maintaining that the lead was harmless and exposure from exhaust leading to no higher levels of lead than was "natural". What they did though was cherry-pick data, analysis of old human bone samples chosen from periods in history where lead goblets were used, lead plumbing with (acid) rainwater collection, lead salts used in paints etc etc. Thus spent almost a century arguing that they were doing no harm, because the lead levels in people exposed to auto exhaust was not influencing "natural" background levels. So, IMO, they lied.

Anyway, pollution (NOx) does matter. It kills people. If cycle beating is being used by all the manufacturers, then that needs to be sorted. Even if it's not possible to meet in "real life" tests the targets set for existing "dyno" tests, then we need to know. If that means increasing the limits, but policing them better, and that leads to lower overall emissions, then that's how it should be. It will probably have an impact on car performance - there's no free lunch.

Defenders of the VW "cheat" arguing that those diesels are great should wait and see. They might not seem so great (ie vs a Mercedes or a Hyundai) if they cost more to run and maintain and don't perform as well and probably cost more to buy, when they have to meet (without "cheating") the admittedly poor test programs which allowed them to pass by cheating - even if they can still use "cycle-beating". All diesel cars might be consigned to the history books if it's not possible for them to stack up economically or environmentally against petrol engine cars including hybrids, when they're all tested using methods eliminating "cycle beating".

Technofreak

6530 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1403959 11-Oct-2015 19:18

Fred99

Some of those octane boosters used to replace tetra ethyl lead are carcinogenic so it's not a win win replacing tetra ethyl lead.

The removal of lead had nothing at all to do with the longevity of exhaust systems it was the introduction of stainless steel exhaust systems that made the difference. I know of engines burning tetra ethyl lead with stainless systems that last for a long long time.

I'm not making a case for using tetra ethyl lead I was just making the point that very often we replace one baddie with another.

As others have mentioned here there is some debate as to which is worse NOx or the cure for NOx.

I'm not sure hybrids are so environmentally friendly. The chemicals in the batteries and the disposal of those chemicals pose a few challenges.

Sony Xperia XA2 running Sailfish OS. https://sailfishos.org The true independent open source mobile OS
Samsung Galaxy Tab S6
Dell Inspiron 14z i5

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#1404051 11-Oct-2015 22:30

Technofreak: Fred99

1) Some of those octane boosters used to replace tetra ethyl lead are carcinogenic so it's not a win win replacing tetra ethyl lead.

2) The removal of lead had nothing at all to do with the longevity of exhaust systems it was the introduction of stainless steel exhaust systems that made the difference. I know of engines burning tetra ethyl lead with stainless systems that last for a long long time.

I'm not making a case for using tetra ethyl lead I was just making the point that very often we replace one baddie with another.

3) As others have mentioned here there is some debate as to which is worse NOx or the cure for NOx.

4) I'm not sure hybrids are so environmentally friendly. The chemicals in the batteries and the disposal of those chemicals pose a few challenges.

1) - as I mentioned, the original octane booster added to unleaded high octane fuel was "BTX". Yes the "B" (benzene) in that mix is carcinogenic. It causes leukemia. Levels of benzene allowed in petrol are now much lower than was allowed. There are issues with use of MTBE and other octane boosters. Not as bad as lead - not even close.

2) The removal of lead certainly did have a major incidental impact on life of exhaust systems. But anyway, that wasn't the main point of removing lead - just a side benefit. Lead had to be removed so that catalytic converters could be used.

3) Worse for what? NOx is bad. The "cure" is $. If that renders diesel (cars) uneconomical, then get over it - drive something cleaner.

4) The batteries are able to be - and are - recycled. Fossil fuel is never recycled, except by spurious argument that "CO2 helps plants grow".

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1404086 12-Oct-2015 07:44

Fred99:
Technofreak: Fred99

1) Some of those octane boosters used to replace tetra ethyl lead are carcinogenic so it's not a win win replacing tetra ethyl lead.

2) The removal of lead had nothing at all to do with the longevity of exhaust systems it was the introduction of stainless steel exhaust systems that made the difference. I know of engines burning tetra ethyl lead with stainless systems that last for a long long time.

I'm not making a case for using tetra ethyl lead I was just making the point that very often we replace one baddie with another.

3) As others have mentioned here there is some debate as to which is worse NOx or the cure for NOx.

4) I'm not sure hybrids are so environmentally friendly. The chemicals in the batteries and the disposal of those chemicals pose a few challenges.

1) - as I mentioned, the original octane booster added to unleaded high octane fuel was "BTX". Yes the "B" (benzene) in that mix is carcinogenic. It causes leukemia. Levels of benzene allowed in petrol are now much lower than was allowed. There are issues with use of MTBE and other octane boosters. Not as bad as lead - not even close.

2) The removal of lead certainly did have a major incidental impact on life of exhaust systems. But anyway, that wasn't the main point of removing lead - just a side benefit. Lead had to be removed so that catalytic converters could be used.

3) Worse for what? NOx is bad. The "cure" is $. If that renders diesel (cars) uneconomical, then get over it - drive something cleaner.

4) The batteries are able to be - and are - recycled. Fossil fuel is never recycled, except by spurious argument that "CO2 helps plants grow".

Diesel is the best fuel for commercial vehicles, SUVS (real SUVs), agricultural and construction etc. Until viable alternatives are found petrol and diesel are the best available.

pdath

252 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1404088 12-Oct-2015 08:03

Anyone who gets their ECU 'chipped' or has modified software installed is also gaming the system and likely causing greater emissions than their vehicle would have produced at the factory. In order to totally clamp down on this way of evading the rules, Govt. would need to insist on some sort of ECU verification process during a WOF. Can anyone really see that happening, especially in country garages that don't even have a dyno or any electronic testing gear at all, like my local mechanic?

VW have already written me a letter stating that "VW in Germany is working at full speed on a technical solution so that this issue can be fixed". No thanks Tom, I will leave my ECU as is. If some kind of forced recall process is put in place, it's easy enough to get the ECU modified afterwards, so back to square one...

In California, where this all rolled out, it is already illegal to "chip" or "modify" your ECU, unless that chip or ECU is already certified.

I hope that regulation NEVER comes into force in NZ. I like the idea of being able to adjust the parameters of my vehicle - much more than I care about the emissions.

California seems to have taken the more extreme position of the state telling the people how to live their lives. We live in a free country. We should be free to go about our own lives and make our own decisions, free from interference from the state - with the exception of major issues of public safety. I don't consider ECU modifications and "chipping" to be major issues of public safety.

Try my latest project, a Cisco type 5 enable secret password cracker written in javascript!

1 | ... | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13