VW's magic particle-reducing software

We had an '09 Jetta TDI, and now have a '14 Sportwagen TDI. We got recall letters a few weeks apart for both back in the Spring for emissions related computer tuning. I did some cursory sleuthing on TDIClub, and it was a mixed bag of no difference to a loss of a MPG or two for those that had the recall done. Ours will not be getting the recall. There's no inspection in AR, and we intend to keep the car for the duration.

Our cars only see the dealer for DSG service, and the Service Advisor I've used has always respected my wishes not to have a recall done if I didn't want it done, i.e. fuel filler nozzle restrictor doohickey.

We never bought the cars for their "greeness," we bought the cars for the great MPGs they return with little regard to how they're driven, and the fact that they've still got enough power to move, while getting great MPGs. All of that is in addition to simply liking the cars.

KyAllroad wrote: All this drama over piddling little bits of particulate. I'd be willing to bet that that if you added up the total added pollution of all 485,000 VWs is still less than what a brodozer in full coal rolling mode puts out.

Particulate is HC, not NOx.

And I half expect coal-rollers to get Diesel non-commercial vehicles banned in the US.

This won't start and end with VW. Many other cars are suspected of non-compliance and their manufacturers will be outed. As the EPA and CAFE mandate technologically impossible standards, manufacturers will deem it more cost-effective to cheat the test than try to comply.

The standards are possible. They just aren't possible if you want to drive a giant whale of a POS that is so unwieldy that the government had to mandate backup cameras because they're too big for the average person to see out of.

The problem isn't the standards. The problem is the people buying cars.

Knurled wrote: The problem isn't the standards. The problem is the people buying cars.

Think of all the world problems that could be solved if people were rational/reasonable.

1988RedT2 wrote: This won't start and end with VW. Many other cars are suspected of non-compliance and their manufacturers will be outed. As the EPA and CAFE mandate technologically impossible standards, manufacturers will deem it more cost-effective to cheat the test than try to comply.

No indeed, Caterpillar and many others have been in trouble over the decades past for falsifying diesel emissions.

Nor is it new for emissions (of any type) not to be cleaned up if it's not worthwhile financially. A million dollar fix or a thousand dollar fine. The choice is pretty obvious when the choices are so disparate. Which isn't all that uncommon. Only when it it's financially worthwhile to clean up does that tend to actually happen.

In reply to bigdaddylee82:

I did get the first recall done and MPGs did not change, however my tailpipe is now sooty. I will NOT be getting this new recall done. I am also budgeting for the DPF and EGR delete and tune for better MPGs, drivability, and

I'll be curious how this pans out for the owners, particularly owners who don't want to get their cars reflashed and updated.

I doubt there will be any police action forcing owners to update their cars against their will. I also doubt there will be a refusal to renew tags or such, but this is more plausable.

I don't think the emission scanners have the programming to tell if the cars have the latest software installed. This might change, though, but it would take years I imagine.

I dealt with a somewhat similar problem with an earliesh Volvo V70. Volvo incorrectly wrote the onboard OBD software for these cars so they never indicated a readiness state for emission testing. Volvo has never recalled these cars to fix this permanent problem.

After a few times of coming in for testing and getting sent off to drive for a few more weeks, I finally came in with all the documentation on the problem. However, I didn't need to present it, because this final time the car was wavered and passed. I was looking at the screens with the tech, there was nothing indicating this car could never display readiness, or to pass the car on through, but perhaps this tech actually knew it.

KyAllroad wrote: All this drama over piddling little bits of particulate. I'd be willing to bet that that if you added up the total added pollution of all 485,000 VWs is still less than what a brodozer in full coal rolling mode puts out.

No way, I'd guess about 10-20 of these VWs is equivalent to 1 coal-rolling brodozer. So would be 24-48k brodozers worth of pollution for that number. But today's news says that as many as 11 million cars may be affected, so you might have to multiply that number by about 22...

Knurled wrote: The standards are possible. They just aren't possible if you want to drive a giant whale of a POS that is so unwieldy that the government had to mandate backup cameras because they're too big for the average person to see out of. The problem isn't the standards. The problem is the people buying cars.

It was none other than Abraham Lincoln who famously referred to "government of the people, by the people, and for the people" and you want government to do what? You want them to pass laws not favored by a majority of Americans? I see.

Do you see where I'm going with this?

foxtrapper wrote: Nor is it new for emissions (of any type) not to be cleaned up if it's not worthwhile financially. A million dollar fix or a thousand dollar fine. The choice is pretty obvious when the choices are so disparate. Which isn't all that uncommon.

Chrysler did this in the late 70s.

Knurled wrote:

foxtrapper wrote: Nor is it new for emissions (of any type) not to be cleaned up if it's not worthwhile financially. A million dollar fix or a thousand dollar fine. The choice is pretty obvious when the choices are so disparate. Which isn't all that uncommon.

Chrysler did this in the late 70s.

It’s not the fine, it’s the stock valuation.

VW immediately lost nearly a quarter of its value on Monday when the news broke. This isn’t some theoretical paper loss, this is real cash money they now don’t have for R&D, equipment upgrades, etc…who knows, they may even have to lay-off some of their Quality people (hehehe, just a little fanboy jab).

Kate Gibson / MoneyWatch / September 21st, 2015

So, what were the rules of the test?

If all the EPA said was "pass this plug-in test" then VW did exactly that.

We need to know the rules of engagement.

Trans_Maro wrote: So, what were the rules of the test? If all the EPA said was "pass this plug-in test" then VW did exactly that. We need to know the rules of engagement.

I assume it's more than that, otherwise it would be like a drug test that doesn't specify that the pee has to be from you.

I think we'll probably see these corporations band together for the purpose of refuting the feasibility of the EPA requirements. There are those in government that need to be shown just who it is that actually wields the power here.

Remember, this is the government we're talking about.

GameboyRMH wrote:

Trans_Maro wrote: So, what were the rules of the test? If all the EPA said was "pass this plug-in test" then VW did exactly that. We need to know the rules of engagement.

I assume it's more than that, otherwise it would be like a drug test that doesn't specify that the pee has to be from you.

Trans_Maro wrote: So, what were the rules of the test? If all the EPA said was "pass this plug-in test" then VW did exactly that. We need to know the rules of engagement.

In order to be certified for sale, a vehicle must be tested on a chassis dyno. All vehicles in a given class follow the same protocol. There are a series of tests in sequence that must be passed, and then they look at composite emissions over that series of tests. It's supposed to simulate "real world" driving situations. Things like cold starts, stop and go driving, hilly terrain, or highway cruising. The assumption, is that if the vehicle passes those tests, then they should behave the same in the real world. Engines also go through accelerated wear conditions to simulate performance/emissions at advanced mileage/hours of use. So an engine may be tested brand new, and then again with the equivalent of 60,000 miles, 100,000 miles, and 300,000 miles.

VW was basically ensuring that their vehicles would only pass those tests, and then significantly altered the emissions controls anytime the vehicle was operating outside of those very narrow test conditions.

I'm curious to know exactly why they made those decisions. Whether their cars could only meet emissions for a very short time without more expensive hardware, or they thought they could improve fuel economy/performance or vehicle longevity by altering the emissions controls when not being tested, or some other reason.

So I had a thought. Let's say that VW does a software recall that decreases MPGs. The cars will use more fuel for the same mileage, but emissions FROM THAT CAR will be lower. What about the emissions from the fuel delivery trucks, more fossil fuels burned overall, etc. Does the NOx savings balance out or will the "fix" make things worse overall in the long run due to collateral damage? Kind of the electric cars being dirtier argument because of mining for battery source material, power plant type, etc.

EDIT: Or maybe the government doesn't care because they'll be collecting more fuel taxes.

^Good question. I guess it depends on how much the MPGs are decreased by. It looks like the fix required would decrease both MPGs and power, ouch.

You'll also have to weigh NO2 (which is what the cheaty VWs are spewing) against other forms of pollution (I imagine CO2 would go up from burning more fuel with the fix).

CGLockRacer wrote: So I had a thought. Let's say that VW does a software recall that decreases MPGs. The cars will use more fuel for the same mileage, but emissions FROM THAT CAR will be lower. What about the emissions from the fuel delivery trucks, more fossil fuels burned overall, etc. Does the NOx savings balance out or will the "fix" make things worse overall in the long run due to collateral damage? Kind of the electric cars being dirtier argument because of mining for battery source material, power plant type, etc. EDIT: Or maybe the government doesn't care because they'll be collecting more fuel taxes.

Somebody correct me if I’m wrong but I think all emissions are measured in PPM (parts per million).

So, you could have a 20 liter V32 that burns a gallon at minute and as long as the PPM’s are within spec, the EPA will define you as an eco-hero.

Of course, you could easily multiply displacement X rpm’s X PPM’s to determine the absolute amount of pollutants a car is admitting but again, I don’t think they do that. If they did, a 4 liter would only be able to put out half the PPM’s of a 2 liter, etc.

On related news, Wall Street has declared VW’s CEO “The Walking Dead” and believes a formal resignation is imminent.

RX Reven' wrote: Somebody correct me if I’m wrong but I think all emissions are measured in PPM (parts per million). So, you could have a 20 liter V32 that burns a gallon at minute and as long as the PPM’s are within spec, the EPA will define you as an eco-hero.

Correct.

RX Reven' wrote: So, you could have a 20 liter V32 that burns a gallon at minute and as long as the PPM’s are within spec, the EPA will define you as an eco-hero.

Theoretically, if you pass the test, your capable of selling your vehicle. But that doesn't account for CAFE regs which also have to be considered, and I doubt people would be lining up for an engine with such poor fuel economy.

I'm betting that the cars run better and get better fuel economy in their current form. If the "fix" results in reduced fuel mileage, is it really an improvement?

Whats more important, reduced emissions or reduced fuel usage?

I doubt many people bought them to be eco friendly. Everyone I know with a TDI bought it because of fuel mileage.

Don't know about the car industry, but in my experience dealing with the EPA and other government agencies, they typically have a set of rules you must pass, and at least with us, they could change the rules on the fly with no notice. You still had to comply even then. The tests though were straight forward, and there was no reading between the lines. You either passed the criteria they set forth, or you didn't. They didn't care about anything else.

Now if they wanted to make you pay for something, they could. My previous company was almost single handedly put out of business due to government intervention. We were in the mining safety industry, mainly with coal mines, and the EPA and MSHA came down on us hard. They would approve items (sometimes taking as long as 5 years), and then an inspector would check it out once deployed and disagree with it, making outrageous demands for "fixes" that were impossible. We weren't the overall target, the coal mines were, but they mandated our equipment and then made it impossible to deploy. And I could go on about the EPA and their huge questionaires that took a team of lawyers a year to fill out.

Not to get too off track, but my point is, do we really know the entire story here?

RX Reven' wrote: It’s not the fine, it’s the stock valuation.

It can be, but for many, it's simply the difference between the cost of compliance vs the penalty for non-compliance. When it's going to cost millions to comply, but only a few thousand in penalties to not, the choice is pretty obvious.

That's why the sting has to be real. Otherwise, it's not worth complying.