VW may not be Exxon but...

alfadriver wrote: In reply to Ransom: That is pretty huge- we (F) get a lot of flack from CR when our actual numbers undershoot the sticker numbers by that much. If VW doesn't get the same kind of flack, then it will demonstrate some kind of bias to either VW or diesels or both.

That's a good point. While in my view it wouldn't be enough to drop the TDI in my "desirability ranking", it is a proportionally large change and represents a car very different from what they represented and sold it as.

So will burning X% more fuel offset the improved emissions? There is always a tradeoff. What is the penalty environmentally of burning more fuel? I wonder if they're fixing one problem and causing another.

CGLockRacer wrote: So will burning X% more fuel offset the improved emissions? There is always a tradeoff. What is the penalty environmentally of burning more fuel? I wonder if they're fixing one problem and causing another.

It is a trade off. But NOx is bad for health. Lives will be cut short. CO2 is not bad for anyone's direct health- it's just being accused of contributing to global warming.

There's a reason why NOx, HC, and CO were regulated way back in 1968 by California, and CO2 was not.

Coming soon....the motion picture. Found on google news:

http://www.ew.com/article/2015/10/12/leo-dicaprio-volkswagen

And the fun has started!! Today I saw ads on TV from 3 different "ambulance chasers" promising "If you have one of these Volkswagens, You may be entitled to a settlement".

bgkast wrote: Coming soon....the motion picture. Found on google news: http://www.ew.com/article/2015/10/12/leo-dicaprio-volkswagen

oh wow

Hal wrote: And the fun has started!! Today I saw ads on TV from 3 different "ambulance chasers" promising "If you have one of these Volkswagens, You may be entitled to a settlement".

Im working a home office day today. Every single commercial break on the local tv channel has one of these. Can I sue the lawyers for emotional trauma?

In reply to logdog:

Being a patent troll has been patented. You can probably find a lawyer to help you with this.

My BIL bought a TDI about a month ago. He is a diesel loving, eco nut. To put it mildly, he is PISSED and wants a buy back immediately.

alfadriver wrote: In reply to Ransom: That is pretty huge- we (F) get a lot of flack from CR when our actual numbers undershoot the sticker numbers by that much. If VW doesn't get the same kind of flack, then it will demonstrate some kind of bias to either VW or diesels or both. Also- that solution also assumes that just turning off the cheat will meet all of the goals. VW does not seem to think that turning it off will meet the emissions targets- at least for the gen1 stuff. *maybe* the gen 2 parts.

This is an interesting question to me as well, because most TDIs far outperform their EPA fuel economy ratings. In the CR test where they allegedly drove a TDI in cheat and non-cheat mode, the newer car went from 53 to 50 and the older from 50 to 46 mpg. The 2015 was rated at 45 Highway.

The telling thing is the relative performance and efficiency changes between the older and new cars in and out of the cheat mode.

Video: http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/cars/testing-volkswagen-diesel-fuel-economy-and-performance-in-cheat-mode

The German Gov't has issued orders to VW. Fix it and soon.

Toyman01 wrote: diesel loving, eco nut.

It still utterly, totally, completely baffles me that these two phrases could ever be used in the same sentence. Ever.

Knurled wrote:

Toyman01 wrote: diesel loving, eco nut.

It still utterly, totally, completely baffles me that these two phrases could ever be used in the same sentence. Ever.

Kind of confusing to me too. I think it's a less fuel, less pollution mind set.

In the latest chapter of our saga, it was recently revealed that VW actually updated and made changes to the "defeat device" software that resulted in 4 variants being used over a 7 year period. If true, it kind of destroys VW's claim that just a couple of rogue software engineers did this on their own. This isn't going to get better for them for a long time.

STM317 wrote: In the latest chapter of our saga, it was recently revealed that VW actually updated and made changes to the "defeat device" software that resulted in 4 variants being used over a 7 year period. If true, it kind of destroys VW's claim that just a couple of rogue software engineers did this on their own. This isn't going to get better for them for a long time.

There is just no way that it was a couple "rogue" engineers as VW claims. NO WAY.

http://www.autoblog.com/2015/10/19/vw-developed-4-separate-defeat-devices-over-7-years/

The funny thing is, VW was already being labeled as "eco terrorists" because they posted a video of a new Golf fitted with R-1234yf, which is flammable, rigged to vent refrigerant at speed. It contacted the turbo and resulted in a lot of fire.

That, I believe, is BS because VW was demonstrating a legitimate safety concern with that refrigerant.

Storz wrote:

STM317 wrote: In the latest chapter of our saga, it was recently revealed that VW actually updated and made changes to the "defeat device" software that resulted in 4 variants being used over a 7 year period. If true, it kind of destroys VW's claim that just a couple of rogue software engineers did this on their own. This isn't going to get better for them for a long time.

There is just no way that it was a couple "rogue" engineers as VW claims. NO WAY. http://www.autoblog.com/2015/10/19/vw-developed-4-separate-defeat-devices-over-7-years/

Absolutely.

I saw how much work and testing went into much, much smaller/less complex software driven products.

Yeah, I'm sure the "trip" was easy, but it means they developed two different engine maps for the car....not trivial.

In reply to z31maniac:

You don't need to run two different maps. Just change how the car is run. Not to say that it's easy- but to me a full map is months of development on a dyno- as it takes a lot of time to fill all the details in.

Not knowing diesel emissions well, they probably just tweaked the injection timing to reduce the feedgas NOx emissions, which lowers the burden on the catalyst, and reduces the number of times it gets regenerated.

Still, it would take 2-3 software guys, 4-5 calibrators, their supervisors, and their managers- plus the people one above those managers- all would have had to have known. When one isn't passing emissions, it goes up the ladder pretty darned quickly. Moreso- if meeting the standards results in a really poor driving car.

That upper manager would be about 3-4 steps from the CEO.

But that level of info would never get to a CEO anyway. Until now.

edit- one note- that goes for the first gen car. I'll assume that they have one group for that powertrain- so the different cars are the same. But there IS turnover- so many of those people would move from 2007 (when it had to really get going for a 2009 MY car) until 2015 (now that they are cert'ing a 2016 MY car) So add 50% more to the "who knew).

The alternative is that managers and supervisors are completely incompetent at their task of keeping an eye on their people.

Aaaaaannnnnnddddd it continues to get worse. Turns out VW's 3L v6 TDI engines may also be using faulty sofftware with a "defeat device"

http://www.autoblog.com/2015/11/02/vw-v6-tdi-diesel-emissions-defeat-epa/

At this point, I can't see VW salvaging the idea of small car diesels in this country.

alfadriver wrote: In reply to z31maniac: You don't need to run two different maps. Just change how the car is run. Not to say that it's easy- but to me a full map is months of development on a dyno- as it takes a lot of time to fill all the details in. Not knowing diesel emissions well, they probably just tweaked the injection timing to reduce the feedgas NOx emissions, which lowers the burden on the catalyst, and reduces the number of times it gets regenerated. Still, it would take 2-3 software guys, 4-5 calibrators, their supervisors, and their managers- plus the people one above those managers- all would have had to have known. When one isn't passing emissions, it goes up the ladder pretty darned quickly. Moreso- if meeting the standards results in a really poor driving car. That upper manager would be about 3-4 steps from the CEO. But that level of info would never get to a CEO anyway. Until now. edit- one note- that goes for the first gen car. I'll assume that they have one group for that powertrain- so the different cars are the same. But there IS turnover- so many of those people would move from 2007 (when it had to really get going for a 2009 MY car) until 2015 (now that they are cert'ing a 2016 MY car) So add 50% more to the "who knew). The alternative is that managers and supervisors are completely incompetent at their task of keeping an eye on their people.

My surprised face

In reply to Storz:

The recent news basically screams out that this is rooted very high in management.

The House Energy and Commerce Committee said "It's time for Volkswagen to fully come clean”…hehehe

$18 billion in fines in US.

Probably never will be paid in full. they'll work a deal.

iceracer wrote: $18 billion in fines in US. Probably never will be paid in full. they'll work a deal.

Better be a deal that allows me to drive to my local VW dealership and hand over the keys

CGLockRacer wrote: So will burning X% more fuel offset the improved emissions? There is always a tradeoff. What is the penalty environmentally of burning more fuel? I wonder if they're fixing one problem and causing another.

If you mean emissions from the car itself, it will be cleaner because emissions measurement is independent of the amount of fuel actually used, until you start measuring CO2 as emissions. So a 10mpg truck is cleaner in real numbers than a cheating 45mpg VW.

If you mean all-encompassing emissions like the additional environmental impact from having to extract/refine/transport an extra 2-10% more fuel... that would be harder to pin down.