VW's magic particle-reducing software

STM317 wrote:

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.

Hi STM317,

I both understand and agree with what you’re saying.

In business metrics jargon, the EPA has established a “balanced scorecard” where anything that slips through one crack, ultimately gets captured by another.

From a holistic prospective, the EPA’s system does in fact work fairly well as it continuously drives down both the total amount of fuel burnt along with the cleanliness with which each gallon of fuel is burnt.

However, try explaining that to the starving college student that can’t get his 1.5 liter Honda registered because its PPM’s are a little over the limit while watching some dentist peel out of the smog center with tags for his 6.6 liter Vett that’s scraping right up against the PPM limit. We’ve got something like 1.5 X 1.1 = 1.65 T.E.H. “True Eco Hurt” units for the Honda Vs 6.6 X 0.9 = 5.94 T.E.H. units for the Vett.

I realize I’m comparing apples to oranges due to weight, drag, rolling resistance, and most importantly, average percent power output but still, the Vett probably is doing a lot more harm to the environment and yet gets a pass.

Anyway, I don’t want to blow a code 1500 if you know what I mean...

Just heard on the radio, there is a class action lawsuit starting.

Big surprise there.

In reply to RX Reven':

Please expand on this True Eco Hurt equation you have.

Trans_Maro wrote: Just heard on the radio, there is a class action lawsuit starting. Big surprise there.

Lawyers gotta eat too.

He's multiplying the theoretical PPM emissions outputs of the two cars (in this case, the Honda is doing worse then the Vett) by the displacement of the car (which dictates how much air it pumps per revolution), thus getting a total of pollutants emitted per unit of time.

Making the point that total pollutants are realistically a combination of stated emissions and fuel economy (assuming engine of similar efficiency).

RX Reven' wrote:

Hi STM317, I both understand and agree with what you’re saying. In business metrics jargon, the EPA has established a “balanced scorecard” where anything that slips through one crack, ultimately gets captured by another. From a holistic prospective, the EPA’s system does in fact work fairly well as it continuously drives down both the total amount of fuel burnt along with the cleanliness with which each gallon of fuel is burnt. However, try explaining that to the starving college student that can’t get his 1.5 liter Honda registered because its PPM’s are a little over the limit while watching some dentist peel out of the smog center with tags for his 6.6 liter Vett that’s scraping right up against the PPM limit. We’ve got something like 1.5 X 1.1 = 1.65 T.E.H. “True Eco Hurt” units for the Honda Vs 6.6 X 0.9 = 5.94 T.E.H. units for the Vett. I realize I’m comparing apples to oranges due to weight, drag, rolling resistance, and most importantly, average percent power output but still, the Vett probably is doing a lot more harm to the environment and yet gets a pass. Anyway, I don’t want to blow a code 1500 if you know what I mean...

Yeah, that's a valid point. Emissions and fuel economy can be a bit of a tug-of-war when designing a modern engine. But, you can't legally sell a new vehicle if it doesn't meet the current emissions standards so meeting emissions is the top priority when designing a modern engine, follwed by some combination of performance, fuel economy, and durability/longevity/warranty work.

I'm just saying that if a company were to make your theoretical 32L engine that somehow burned tons of fuel without emitting an unreasonable amount of hydrocarbons in the process, they'd have to sell a number of more fuel efficient vehicles to offset it according to CAFE.

Also, as far as I know, all the periodic state emissions test look for are functionality of the original emissions equipment, so as long as both vehicles have fully operational emissions equipment that was included stock, your college student's Honda beater and the dentist's new Vette should both pass, even if what actually comes out of the tailpipe may be different. They can't make the college student add emissions gear to meet current standards, his stuff just has to be functional. The tests that VW cheated are the tests required to certify their vehicles for sale in the first place, so its a bit different becasue they illegally sold 11 million cars or so.

RX Reven' wrote: However, try explaining that to the starving college student that can’t get his 1.5 liter Honda registered because its PPM’s are a little over the limit while watching some dentist peel out of the smog center with tags for his 6.6 liter Vett that’s scraping right up against the PPM limit.

Oddly enough, big/powerful engines are easier to be clean to an extent. Small engines have to work harder to run the federal test procedure. If they have to go into power enrichment under acceleration, it's game over. A big, powerful engine just has to gets the cats to light off ASAP, then it can loaf along in closed loop and working cats 100% of the time, at which point (in the real world) what comes out of the tailpipe is cleaner than what goes in the throttle body.

aircooled wrote: He's multiplying the theoretical PPM emissions outputs of the two cars (in this case, the Honda is doing worse then the Vett) by the displacement of the car (which dictates how much air it pumps per revolution), thus getting a total of pollutants emitted per unit of time. Making the point that total pollutants are realistically a combination of stated emissions and fuel economy (assuming engine of similar efficiency).

Except, the Federal test is not a PPM test. It's grams of pollutants. Engine displacement has nothin' to do with it, you're allowed X grams/mile and that's it. A smaller engine could put out more PPM and pass the Federal test.

That's another strike against post-production roller tests, the test is stacked against small engines in that respect too, since they measure PPM and not grams/mile like the standard the cars were actually built to.

G/Mile is the unit that is typically measured, but I think there is some way to math that into PPM for comparison.

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 linked it already - it's the FTP-75.

The point of the scantool test is that, in theory, the computer is monitoring every aspect of engine operation, and if anything falls out of spec, it will fail that monitor. You pass a scantool test if the computer has passed all monitors.

The Federal test is a roller and sniffer drive cycle where they collect all emissions from the vehicle, and if the grams/mile is below passing levels, then you're good. (It's slightly more complicated than that, because the automaker must certify that the vehicle won't fall out of spec for something like 80-150k miles, but that's the Test) Scantool testing is a maintenance and repair thing, for verifying that everything is still functioning as it should.

...and the CEO is gone.

It might very well be a good time to negotiate a great price on that VW you've been considering!

someone posted this on another board that i'm on, and it sums up pretty much exactly how i feel about this whole thing:

some guy on the interwebs said: VW engineers did exactly what they were required to do, the cars passed the test according to the test requirements. VW should sue the EPA over changing the rules.