VW cheated on emissions tests

[Farm Boy]

Unbelievable. How could they possibly think they would get away with this? I don't think I would ever buy a VW, Audi, SEAT, or Skoda ever again...

An old conversation of ours is springing to mind.

In all good faith though after riding London's subway system for a week I can conceive of where your blind spot was during that exchange.

 

[warpus]

Without stricter standards and regulations this sort of thing is going to continue happening.

 

[Farm Boy]

Appears to be an enforcement issue rather than a standards issue. Shortly to become a punishment, or not, issue.

 

[Formaldehyde]

You're probably making incorrect assumptions about how easy it is to get better than rated fuel economy, and how little it disrupts traffic.

If you are beating the EPA mileage estimates by a sizable amount, you are likely driving like an old lady.

It is quite easy to tell. When a traffic light turns green, if the cars ahead pull away while the cars behind form a line behind you, you aren't accelerating fast enough. Keeping up with the flow not only reduces road rage, it is also quite a bit safer.

 

[Farm Boy]

Depends on where you're driving. It's quite easy to pass for the most part around here. If somebody seems to want to accelerate faster than I am, and I happen to be in front of them, I'll even kindly facilitate their ability to pass me completely legally by hovering 10-15mph below the speed limit so they don't have to break the law while getting around.

 

[Formaldehyde]

All this Emission Testing is a bunch of Crap!
Why don't they Emission test Dump Trucks, Tractor Trailers and other Commercial Vehicles?
You are all being fed horse dung again!, especially the environmentalist out there!, the gov't only cares about the dough you pour in for your e-tests, they don't give a flying crap about the environment!

You are partly right. Commercial vehicles aren't emissions tested because they are perceived to be a tiny fraction of the number of vehicles on the highway, which they are.

But the political part is that the anti-environmentalist Republicans are responsible for them not being tested. Every attempt to do so has been defeated by big business and various lobbying groups. They could easily make these vehicles much cleaner than they are now, just like the coal plants that pollute the air.

Depends on where you're driving. It's quite easy to pass for the most part around here. If somebody seems to want to accelerate faster than I am, and I happen to be in front of them, I'll even kindly facilitate their ability to pass me completely legally by hovering 10-15mph below the speed limit so they don't have to break the law while getting around.

If you are in the middle of nowhere where the road is a straight line for miles, you are absolutely right. It isn't much of an issue at all. I have even seen people politely move right onto the shoulder to make it obvious they want you to pass while making it even easier to see the road is clear. Kudos to them.

But then again, how often is road rage even an issue in such environments? Missing the next traffic light can be a really big deal in some instances when the person is running late for work or an appointment and it takes 5 minutes for the lights to cycle. Not to mention it actually contributes to more pollution and less gas mileage for everybody having to sit at a light where you normally would not.

Most people who live in populated areas can't possibly make the EPA mileage numbers, which are based on a test where the vehicle is driven intentionally slower than normal using techniques to conserve as much gas as possible. Beating those numbers by a sizable amount might be a good thing and quite possible where you live. But in an urban or even suburban environment it typically means someone isn't pressing the accelerator pedal nearly hard enough to keep up with the flow.

 

[Zelig]

If you are beating the EPA mileage estimates by a sizable amount, you are likely driving like an old lady.

Driving like an old lady isn't conductive to good fuel economy.

It is quite easy to tell. When a traffic light turns green, if the cars ahead pull away while the cars behind form a line behind you, you aren't accelerating fast enough. Keeping up with the flow not only reduces road rage, it is also quite a bit safer.

Yeah, I don't do that. Acceleration has hardly any impact on fuel economy as long as the revs are sensible - accelerating too slowly is worse for fuel economy, as you spend too much time going below optimal speed, and going slower than flow puts you in more situations where you have to brake.

Most people who live in populated areas can't possibly make the EPA mileage numbers, which are based on a test where the vehicle is driven intentionally slower than normal using techniques to conserve as much gas as possible.

Only if you define "populated" as gridlock. Only time I approach rated economy is when my average speed is <20. In populated areas, slow speeds are killer to fuel economy.

 

[Cutlass]

Without stricter standards and regulations this sort of thing is going to continue happening.

Farm Boy is right in that this is more of an enforcement issue than a regulation issue. All the 'pro business' political leaders who've taken office in recent decades have cut practical enforcement to the bone. When a company does get caught, the fines tend to be trivial. Or if not trivial, get reduced on appeal, and then reduced again, and again, and eventually hardly paid at all. Exxon still hasn't paid the settlements of the Exxon Valdize incident, and that's older than you are.

 

[shadowplay]

I would have expected better from Hitler's car.

 

[bhavv]

So are they bankrupt yet?

 

[Kaitzilla]

But VW has admitted that about 11 million cars worldwide are fitted with the so-called "defeat device".

Oh snap!

When the cars were operating under controlled laboratory conditions - which typically involved putting them on a stationary test rig - the device appears to have put the vehicle into a sort of safety mode in which the engine ran below normal power and performance. Once on the road, the engines switched from this test mode.

The result? The engines emitted nitrogen oxide pollutants up to 40 times above what is allowed in the US.

VW should Tom Brady this thing when the $1,000,000,000 fine shows up.

 

[FriendlyFire]

Ford killed 271 people with its fuel tank, Chrysler switch off odometers, Hyundai faked gas milage, GM was the first busted using software to cheat in 95. GM also killed 124 people with its faulty ignition switch.
What the hell is wrong with every car corporations ?

Volkswagen Test Rigging Follows a Long Auto Industry Pattern

For decades, car companies found ways to rig mileage and emissions testing data.

Cheating in the United States started as soon as governments began regulating automotive emissions in the early 1970s. In 1972, certification of Ford Motor&#8217;s new cars was held up after the Environmental Protection Agency found that the company had violated rules by performing constant maintenance of its test cars, which reduced emissions but did not reflect driving conditions in the real world. Ford walked away with a $7 million fine.

Such gadgets became known as &#8220;defeat devices,&#8221; and they have long been banned by the E.P.A. But their use continued to proliferate, and they became more sophisticated

Beyond emissions, the industry has long been contemptuous of regulation. Henry Ford II called airbags &#8220;a lot of baloney,&#8221; and executives have bristled at rules requiring higher mileage per gallon

The universe of automotive scandals has been a broad and often tragic one, including Ford&#8217;s 1978 recalls of 1.5 million Pintos after evidence emerged that its gas tanks were prone to catch fire during impacts. The Chrysler Corporation was indicted in 1987 on charges of disconnecting the odometers of 60,000 cars used by executives and then selling them as new. The Ford-Firestone scandal that started in the late 1990s was linked to 271 deaths. And more than 23 million cars have been recalled by 11 automakers over airbags made by Takata that could violently rupture in an accident.

Misleading gas mileage claims have disturbed regulators and consumers who find that cars often use more gas than promised on the window sticker

&#8220;We call it the tip of the iceberg,&#8221; said Jos Dings, the director of Transport and Environment. &#8220;We don&#8217;t think this will be limited to Volkswagen. If you look at the testing numbers for the other manufacturers, they are just as bad.&#8221;

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/24/business...ttern.html?_r=0

 

[Arwon]

Most people who live in populated areas can't possibly make the EPA mileage numbers, which are based on a test where the vehicle is driven intentionally slower than normal using techniques to conserve as much gas as possible. Beating those numbers by a sizable amount might be a good thing and quite possible where you live. But in an urban or even suburban environment it typically means someone isn't pressing the accelerator pedal nearly hard enough to keep up with the flow.

I tracked it over the first year I had my 2006 Corolla (manual) by recording the odometer and what octane fuel I used each time I filled up. My primary purpose was finding out if 91, 95 and 98 octane made any fuel efficiency difference (it didn't but subjectively it runs quieter at high speed on higher octane fuel). But I found that I actually got exactly the fuel efficiency (6.9L per 100km) claimed in my manual. Are EPA estimates different to what manufacturers put in their driver manuals?

For the record I live in a city of 350k people and do a fair bit of highway driving too. Where possible I accelerate foot-to-the-floor in second gear to get up to the desired speed (jump to third to keep accelerating past 80kph), then skip-shift to top gear once I'm at speed, as I was taught by my instructor when I was learning. I was told this method of rapid acceleration in a low gear to cruising speed is the most fuel efficient because you spend less time on the accelerator pedal and use your revs more effectively.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

A rational system would not require vehicular emissions to be below some arbitrary cap defined by the class into which the machine is sorted, but would instead charge a simple fee based on whatever emissions they do produce. High emissions vehicles should be legal but very expensive to drive.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

In general there are many people who want to own a car and want
one's government to regulate that it is:

(a) cheap to buy
(b) cheap to run
(c) good performance
(d) safe
(e) good carrying capacity
(f) long lasting
(g) friendly with low emissions.

Ultimately these are incompatible objectives. I.e. wishful thinking.

The car companies observed that customers would notice (a) to (f) but not
notice (g) so that the last requirement (g) was in reality quietly dropped.

They likely concluded that ecowarriors insistent on (g) be better sold a bicycle.

The way I see it people more or less asked to be lied to and there was a
competition that went out of control between the companies as to who
could tell the biggest lie and VW simply made the mistake of winning that.

The greens have been foolish and allowed themselves to be deceived, strangely
enough this reminds me most of the neo-cons asking for evidence of Saddam's WMD.

There is a lot of this hopeful thinking; e.g. we only buy palm oil/timber from
sustainably maintained plantations/logged forests; where the fraudsters charge
a premium for a documentation trail to set the customers' conscience to rest.

I don't think there's a lot of people who actually want the government to regulate a, b, c, e, or f. There's enough choices available on the market that cover all or parts of those that why would people even want to regulate it?

I'm not sure they're alone in cheating. US maybe felt the need to get some influx of cash. Can't sue their own manufacturers then..

The US is picking on VW to get cash because they don't want to accuse their own vehicle manufacturers of the biggest auto scam ever of doing the same thing? Is that what you just posted?

Well, not exactly. You're just very good at suing. ..and I don't really trust your politicians-corporate relations. EU is getting better at suing though. Maybe China and Russia will get there too.

That's exactly how I read your post though. Still not sure what you meant otherwise.

 

[civvver]

MPG ratings and emissions tests aren't the same thing, especially in this case when what they are testing for is emission of air pollutants. This test mode to beat the smog tests might also improve their MPG ratings though. Basically diesels produce a lot more smog than gas, which is why the US has had very high standards for them, mainly cus California drives most of the environmental regulations in the US and LA has had smog problems forever due to it's landscape. Thus they got super high standards passed that most diesels couldn't meet until clean diesel tech was introduced.

While it is a bit disheartening, no one has died directly as a result of this, the outrage seems a bit overblown just because of the sheer amount of cars potentially involved. Other car makers have straight up killed people because of negligence. It's astounding that GM got basically a slap on the wrist for those ignition switches, but I didn't expect much more considering the democrat run government just finished bailing them out of bankruptcy so they could further shore up the union vote. GM is like Obama's baby corporation.

 

[Formaldehyde]

I tracked it over the first year I had my 2006 Corolla (manual) by recording the odometer and what octane fuel I used each time I filled up. My primary purpose was finding out if 91, 95 and 98 octane made any fuel efficiency difference (it didn't but subjectively it runs quieter at high speed on higher octane fuel). But I found that I actually got exactly the fuel efficiency (6.9L per 100km) claimed in my manual. Are EPA estimates different to what manufacturers put in their driver manuals?

For the record I live in a city of 350k people and do a fair bit of highway driving too. Where particle I accelerate foot-to-the-floor in second gear to get up to the desired speed (jump to third to keep accelerating past 80kph), then skip-shift to top gear once I'm at speed, as I was taught by my instructor when I was learning. I was told this method of rapid acceleration in a low gear to cruising speed is the most fuel efficient because you spend less time on the accelerator pedal and use your revs more effectively.

Australia uses different octane ratings than the US. American gas is usually 87 to 93 octane. I would presume your numbers basically map onto our lower numbers.

Octane really isn't important unless you have a higher compression engine (to reduce knocking) or have an ECU that will adjust the advance to take advantage of the higher octane. Most modern engines have knock sensors so the ECU will the spark to accomodate lower octane fuel without knocking, which is harmful to the engine. This might be what you were hearing with lower octane fuel if your car doesn't have a knock sensor or it is defective.

Here is a good video explaining that some cars can take advantage of higher octane fuels while others cannot.


Link to video.

Based on your tests, it looks like your car is one of those which cannot do so.

The most efficient way to accelerate is based on the brake specific fuel consumption (BSFC), which is dependent on the particular engine. You want to accelerate at the lowest BSFC.

Here is a sample chart for a diesel engine where the lowest BSFC is at peak torque:

My normally aspirated Porsche 944 had a gauge that would tell you when you were accelerating at the optimum fuel efficiency. Of course, I completely ignored it and kept my foot planted nearly all the time. But I did look at the gauge enough to see that maximum acceleration was definitely not the most efficient. It was much lower.

EPA has an extensive program to determine MPG ratings that they have frequently changed over the years. Here is information regarding their latest test procedures. They mandate the tests the auto vendors must perform to determine the numbers using real world tests of various sorts. Then the EPA supposedly validates these number in a laboratory using a dynamometer. I presume they do this by comparing their dyno readings to the MPG ratings to see if any cars in a particular class have substantially different positions in the two datasets compared to the other vehicles.

Each new car in the US has a window sticker with these numbers on it.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

While it is a bit disheartening, no one has died directly as a result of this,

Define 'directly'. People absolutely do die from pollution.

This kind of thinking is what allows polluters to externalize their cost to society and the environment.


Let me put it this way, if I came over and dumped hydrazine on your lawn and you died, I'd go to jail.

But when the power company dumps flyash in your drinking water and causes you to have a heart attack, well, you weren't 'directly' killed by the power company so meh.

 

[Mise]

IIRC CarTest for DOS used to show the most fuel efficient way of driving. I'm at work so can't confirm, but from memory it has some lovely graphs that show you the most efficient revs and so on for your car. Of course, it won't have any modern car, but you can add cars manually yourself anyway using data from the manual.

EDIT: My personal rule of thumb is to accelerate at around 3 krpm, and cruise at 1.2 ish (don't remember exactly - don't have a car in front of me rn).

 

[Samson]

The most efficient way to accelerate is based on the brake specific fuel consumption (BSFC), which is dependent on the particular engine. You want to accelerate at the lowest BSFC.

Here is a sample chart for a diesel engine where the lowest BSFC is at peak torque:

I totally to not get that chart, though I am sure it makes sense. Here is the fuel efficiency for my old car, in a way that I find easier to read. It says that the engine is most efficient between 3 and 4k rpm, so the most efficient way to accelerate is to use full throttle within this rev range. I do wonder what the shape of this graph is for modern fuel injected cars.