EPA accuses Volkswagen, Audi of evading emission laws

PeeGee said:
Not for things like this, even if the fix has no impact on performance the stigma will remain.

A good example is the audi 5000 in the 80s and "unintended acceleration" that was completely false.
Click to expand...

I own a 2015 Jetta and would go buy another one tomorrow. "meh, don't care"
 
Clark1961 said:
Yes, dynamometer testing is standard around here.
Click to expand...



ARFlyer said:
I despise those people more then anything. Their normally ****oles on the road and have a almost total disregard of other people's health.



One almost ran me off the freeway in Houston, the other day, after I past him. Apparently he didn't like the idea of a Subaru out running him. :lol:
Click to expand...



genna said:
He probably just didn't like the idea of Subaru in general. :yikes:
Click to expand...


LOL. Reading the "coal roller" comments with a chuckle. My truck will do it if I set it to a ridiculous setting on the add on computer, but done *right* and not for the purpose of acting a certain stereotype, it adds huge amounts of horsepower and torque and does NOT blow additional smoke. Diesels smoke when they're fed too much fuel for the available air.

My truck being a 2001, long before the computers were as smart as the current ones, adding a larger air intake, a significantly upgraded turbo, and a four inch exhaust system, along WITH the computer upgrade, along with slightly upsized injectors, results in a maximum upgrade of almost 200 horsepower if set in the "I would like to shorten the lifespan of the rest of my drivetrain" mode. In towing mode (much more sedate), it's about an 85 HP increase and a reasonable torque increase on the low end.

It'll smoke at low RPM and high throttle position until the circa 1999 computer system figures out the engine is being overfueled and spins up the turbo harder. There's also the standard problem of turbo lag on a bigger turbo, often "fixed" by going to a double or triple turbo setup. Give it enough air, it won't smoke, but it'll go like a bat outta hell unloaded, and pull mountainous terrain with the largest trailer weight the vehicle is rated to pull, with only EGT temp as the limiting factor.

So under hard acceleration with the upsized injectors even in "stock" mode, mine will "puff" a bit and then the turbo catches up and it scoots like a little rocket ship that weighs 7400 lbs with the normal load and hitch in the bed. I modulate the throttle slower off of the line most of the time, but if I need to get over or something, bummer... It's going to puff for a sec. I can also help it not do that by keeping the RPM wrapped up, but that doesn't help right off the line in 2nd.

The "kids" and "kids at heart" will set them up to be underfueled in certain configurations but very few run the like that 100% of the time. They're just goofing off. The "OMGBBQ!" reactions of some here who haven't pushed for electronic injection approvals from FAA and mogas tanks at their home airports, are pretty petty when compared to the so-called "waste" of fuel that most GA flights are. (Oh goodie. You're night current again and haven't flown anywhere at night in ten years. LOL!)

As far as Lesbaru's go, I also own one of those. It gets horrendous fuel mileage for a 4 banger little car. Driven right, the 7400 lb diesel dually matches it's fuel mileage, and I track it. 19.7 is this year's average minus trips towing the big trailer, after all is said and done, and the Lesbaru gets a solid 20. 21 on a lucky tank.

I'd put a twin turbo on the Cummins to get rid of the puffs but it's not worth the money spent. Plus I have one of the nefarious "light cases" (similar to the same problem from Continental in some models of aircraft engine) that can't handle more than about 30 lbs of turbo boost or it'll crack the block near a lower bolt.

Here's a little secret. The ONLY time I "roll coal" on purpose in my diesel is when someone egregiously tailgates. Do that to me and I WILL punch the computer up to "stupid fuel" mode and drop it into 6th on the manual transmission and floor it. It'll guaranteed get you off my ass while you're poking at your cell phone while driving. I've also been known to judiciously use the rather loud horn on the truck to get the attention of some idiot poking at their phone in the lane next to me on the highway... It's hard to maintain a phone call with a Dodge horn "stuck on" right next to your car.

A train whistle and air tank for same, would be more fun. Always reserved for the morons who can't put their phone down...

Anyway, my truck would easily pass our opacity standards in stock mode, if I lived in the emissions district or cared, neither of which is true.

I've seen what the morons at Colorado emissions locations do to stick shifts on their dynos and I wouldn't own a stick inside the emissions district unless I had budgeted to replace the transmission or driveshaft soon thereafter a test. They slam shift and treat the vehicles under test like complete crap. Total misunderstanding of how syncros work or what "matching revs" means. Total ass-hats.

Could I buy a fancy new chicken pee diesel? Maybe. Mine with mods AND a complete head rebuild last year is still one THIRD the cost of a new one. And no pee tank to fill to pretend like the thing is going to be "clean" towing 12,500 lbs of trailer and getting 9 MPG in the flatland and 4 MPG in the mountains.

Plus it's always entertaining to note that those always whining the loudest about the minority running "dirty" diesels are always the first in line for government handouts to afford their cleaner vehicles, and also seem to never mind the exemptions for city busses, construction equipment, fire trucks, ambulances, snow plows.

You name it... If there's a government vehicle that would fall under the diesel rules, they'll make an exemption for it. Those spew way more crap than the "teenagers" and "teenager mentality" folks who drive a modified pickup truck every day. Let's not even throw in the government gas vehicles that start and never get shut off until the 12 hour shift is over, even if eight of it, is spent parked beside a road with the LED lights going (no need for the huge alternators, idle up systems to keep them from overheating, or any of that stuff anymore, and yet... They still have all that stuff...) instead of simply putting in two batteries and an isolator for starting.

Gotta keep the laptop in the center console that they type on (illegally) while driving, cool, while you're out directing traffic. LOL... Whatever. Shut it off or get the OS set up right for sleep mode. Sheesh. And put an "out of park" interlock on the thing that disables the keyboard. Because you know, you're all about "safety rules" ... Right. Haha.
 
Investigation is leading to similar cheating at Audi and Porche.

Zero surprise here.
 
Not one I made, I laughed way to hard at this.
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_2015-09-26-14-11-00_1.jpg
    Screenshot_2015-09-26-14-11-00_1.jpg
    231.6 KB · Views: 71
I'm still trying to figure out why the ecofreaks have such a hard on for diesels. They're more efficient then gas and produce less emissions per gallon and even less per mile. They whine about carbon emissions then complain that diesels capture most carbon as a solid.....soot. Soot is now the evil cancer causing agent that will kill us all. Do they prefer the carbon to be released as carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide? The nitrogen oxides produced by diesels are perhaps the most visible pollutants and create the brown clouds but they are less toxic to us and planet by the eco logic when compared to the carbon and hydrocarbons coming from gas engines. I think they're pretty silly about the whole thing but it just shocks me that they get so worked up about the small things and then spend millions on crap that creates more of the problems they hate.

Frank
 
Todays diesels are equipped with diesel particulate filters and produce very little soot, certainly not a measurable percentage of their carbon output. Carbon in soot has not been burned and as such does not contribute to the power generation of the engine.

As far as I can follow, the VW issue is not about soot, it is about NOx. There are different ways to reduce NOx in diesel exhaust, ironically the settings that make a diesel most efficient tend to produce more NOx.

Many of the enthusiasts already avoid going to the dealer for anything but warranty work. VW dealerships are a checkered bunch and VWUSA is not minding the store. The only reason to go there is for warranty work (which is unfortunately quite common). VW will probably just re-flash every car that comes in for an oil-change to bring it in compliance with the EPA rules. The regular VW customers will just take the car back and put up with the loss of fuel economy and power, the enthusiasts just re-load whatever tune they have on the ECU while still in the dealerships parking lot.
 
BiffJ said:
I'm still trying to figure out why the ecofreaks have such a hard on for diesels. They're (snip) produce less emissions per gallon and even less per mile.
Click to expand...

Can you cite a reference for that? Also, which emissions specifically?

Anyone who's driven on a highway in France with all those little diesels knows that at the end of the trip you can tell you've been inhaling all those emissions. I don't enjoy breathing those.
 
BiffJ said:
I'm still trying to figure out why the ecofreaks have such a hard on for diesels. They're more efficient then gas and produce less emissions per gallon and even less per mile.
Click to expand...
Diesels have had tailpipe NOx problems - until the auto companies convinced the regulators that they could convince customers refill urea injection tanks, NOx was a pretty tough nut to crack. So, instead of pushing diesels, they sold the public on gasoline hybrids.

And, historically, EPA and CARB didn't give a rat's ass about fuel economy.

Politics and profit margins.

Nothing more, nothing less.
 
Last edited:
11224163_1092355800775771_7909345931162972034_n_zpslpmqmoqa.jpg
 
Hahaha
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_2015-09-26-19-01-45_1.jpg
    Screenshot_2015-09-26-19-01-45_1.jpg
    185.4 KB · Views: 59
Apparently the discrepancies between official emissions tests and actual levels were pretty large.

"There was one vehicle with 15 to 35 times the emissions levels and another vehicle with 10 to 20 times the emissions levels."

:eek:

The Unassuming Engineer Who Exposed Volkswagen
 
Palmpilot said:
Apparently the discrepancies between official emissions tests and actual levels were pretty large.

"There was one vehicle with 15 to 35 times the emissions levels and another vehicle with 10 to 20 times the emissions levels."

:eek:

The Unassuming Engineer Who Exposed Volkswagen
Click to expand...

They broke the law and should suffer the consequences. The Clean Air Act is a very successful piece of legislation. If it had never been introduced most major cites would look like LA in the 60s or Beijing today. It's also successfully removed tons of lead and mercury from being dumped into the environment.

We've also learned that the EPA needs to change its testing to real world conditions and not to rely on companies truthfully complying with the stated regulations.
 
Palmpilot said:
Apparently the discrepancies between official emissions tests and actual levels were pretty large.

"There was one vehicle with 15 to 35 times the emissions levels and another vehicle with 10 to 20 times the emissions levels."

:eek:

The Unassuming Engineer Who Exposed Volkswagen
Click to expand...

Guilt or innocence notwithstanding, per the link:

"The results of that study, which was paid for by the nonprofit International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT) in late 2013 and completed in May 2014, were later corroborated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and California Air Resources Board (CARB)."

Now there's a group I can trust not to have an agenda.
 
Yep, this will be ugly, and hits close to home. The wife has a 2012 Golf TDI. Wonderful car (up till now), comfortable, nary a lick of trouble, handles like a dream, well appointed and the MPG is 45+ on a lot of trips. She really loves the car.. but.. isn't all that thrilled with the "cheating" news (she's a bit on the "Green" side of the eco spectrum).

From what I understand, if they re-program the ECU, performance and MPG will take a hit.

Gary
 
The essence of this circumvention device was that it shutoff the injection of the hippy juice in normal operation and only turned it on during what was determined to be the test case that the EPA was using (had something to do with the fact that they don't turn the steering wheel during the test or such).
 
Blatham489 said:
Guilt or innocence notwithstanding, per the link:

"The results of that study, which was paid for by the nonprofit International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT) in late 2013 and completed in May 2014, were later corroborated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and California Air Resources Board (CARB)."

Now there's a group I can trust not to have an agenda.
Click to expand...

What difference would an agenda make? If their results were false, that would be easy for VW to prove, and it would be a lot less expensive than the fines that have been talked about.
 
ARFlyer said:
We've also learned that the EPA needs to change its testing to real world conditions
Click to expand...
What would be "real world conditions"? How would you get consistent results without a consistent test cycle?

and not to rely on companies truthfully complying with the stated regulations.
Click to expand...
Where I used to work, an attempt to introduce a defeat device, or cheat on a test, would get one slapped down in an instant.

Getting software to work around the cycle would involve several people in multiple departments, so you can't just blame one rogue engineer. But the chances that the CEO was clued in seem slim to me.
 
PeeGee said:
Not for things like this, even if the fix has no impact on performance the stigma will remain.

A good example is the audi 5000 in the 80s and "unintended acceleration" that was completely false.
Click to expand...

And to this day people tell exploding Ford Pinto jokes. That was another hugely over hyped problem. Ford retrofitted nearly all the Pintos with a pretty simple fix, but public perception persists to this day. Anybody sees one now and the first thing out of their mouth will be something about getting hit in the back and blowing up.
 
flyingron said:
The essence of this circumvention device was that it shutoff the injection of the hippy juice in normal operation and only turned it on during what was determined to be the test case that the EPA was using (had something to do with the fact that they don't turn the steering wheel during the test or such).
Click to expand...

Most Jettas don't have hippy juice.
 
flyingron said:
The essence of this circumvention device was that it shutoff the injection of the hippy juice in normal operation and only turned it on during what was determined to be the test case that the EPA was using (had something to do with the fact that they don't turn the steering wheel during the test or such).
Click to expand...

There's no hippy juice to inject... I have had 2 jettas in the suspect years.. This is purely a software tweak. Nothing less and nothing more.
 
Doggtyred said:
There's no hippy juice to inject... I have had 2 jettas in the suspect years.. This is purely a software tweak. Nothing less and nothing more.
Click to expand...

Well... you hope. If they tweak the hell out of the tune and it still doesn't pass, things get uglier. Seeings how other manufacturers have had to go with the "hippy juice", perhaps VW isn't as clever as they said they were and things get expensive.

Stay tuned. I'm glad the only VWs I ever owned were air cooled and went ting-ting-ting down the road.
 
I still want to see a report on the emissions behavior from someone who doesn't have an axe to grind.

My Jetta pre-dates all this. I can still make nice black smoke burning soot of the turbo and NOx cat and it's all good :)
 
weilke said:
I still want to see a report on the emissions behavior from someone who doesn't have an axe to grind.
Click to expand...

Who would you suggest? I don't think there's anyone anywhere who would have the know-how to do the testing, that someone here wouldn't accuse of bias.

If VW thought the accusations were false, don't you think they would be rerunning the tests themselves?
 
By the way, Volkswagen is implicitly admitting that the models involved do not meet emissions standards:

"We are committed to making this right and preventing it from ever happening again. We will bring these TDI vehicles into compliance with the federal and state emissions regulations." [emphasis added] ​

http://www.vwdieselinfo.com/
 
weilke said:
I still want to see a report on the emissions behavior from someone who doesn't have an axe to grind.
Click to expand...

You mean like the group that discovered the issue while trying to prove these engines were clean?
 
Palmpilot said:
Who would you suggest? I don't think there's anyone anywhere who would have the know-how to do the testing, that someone here wouldn't accuse of bias.

If VW thought the accusations were false, don't you think they would be rerunning the tests themselves?
Click to expand...

I see a lot of 'up to' being thrown around. In daily use, cars are allowed to temporarily exceed the federal numbers as long as they remain net in compliance. Depending on when in the cycle you catch the vehicle you will see higher numbers. Anyone remeber the Audis with 'unintended acceleration' ? Never happened either.
 
weilke said:
Anyone remeber the Audis with 'unintended acceleration' ? Never happened either.
Click to expand...

Yes it did. I've been in old Audi 5000s where that happened.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Yes it did. I've been in old Audi 5000s where that happened.
Click to expand...

I bet you were never in one where the engine could overpower the brakes, were you?

That was the essence of the complaints, and I still remember watching the 60 Minutes episode during which they eviscerated Audi for the putative problems with the cars; the only source of information they had was a plaintiffs' lawyer group called "Audi Victims Network," and at no point did they bother to talk to any competent engineers to seek an explanation of how a relatively modestly-powered car's drivetrain could somehow overpower four disc brakes, fully applied.

Of course that would have ruined the story.

We had a "sudden acceleration" event in a Honda Civic, and I had to reach in through the driver's window to turn the ignition key off while the engine raced after the car hit my wife's Buick on the bumper. She knew, for a fact, that the car kept going while she pressed as hard as she could on the brake pedal. But when we looked, her foot was firmly planted on the gas.

It happens.
 
weilke said:
I see a lot of 'up to' being thrown around. In daily use, cars are allowed to temporarily exceed the federal numbers as long as they remain net in compliance. Depending on when in the cycle you catch the vehicle you will see higher numbers. Anyone remeber the Audis with 'unintended acceleration' ? Never happened either.
Click to expand...

If you're concerned about the methodology or the way the results are being characterized, the complete study is available online:

http://www.theicct.org/use-emissions-testing-light-duty-diesel-vehicles-us
 

Attachments

  • WVU_LDDV_in-use_ICCT_Report_Final_may2014.pdf
    4.7 MB · Views: 3
SCCutler said:
I bet you were never in one where the engine could overpower the brakes, were you?
Click to expand...

No, but I turned off the ignition when it happened. Those cars did, absolutely have an uncommanded acceleration problem. Since the vacuum from the engine at that point was low/non-existant, power brakes could easily turn to manual brakes and be insufficient for an average (read: bad) driver to handle. And, of course, the people who hit the gas and not the brake (saw that once with a 90 year old woman in a parking lot).

It's the same with the GM ignition switch issue. The problem is easy to deal with if you're a competent driver. I've had cars shut off on me a couple dozen times. Once my Excursion did it in NYC and I not only coasted to safety, but into a parallel parking spot (obviously I went in forward) with no power steering. But bad drivers hit trees and sued GM.
 
With all this finger pointing, and accusations to the car makers, I"m prolly the only one who sees EPA as actively culpable also. Car makers are out to sell what car buyers want to buy. TDI buyers wanted a clean diesel yes, but they more important wanted a high economy, safe, reliable vehicle. I would bet that if we put up a poll to rank the importance of being green, it would come in near last in all other attributes of a car.

The EPA was and is our country's watchdog, and it's up to them to supposedly keep car makers on the up and up. Vendors will skirt, and obfuscate, and edge the fine line of regulation when it costs them customers and affects the bottom line. That's why we have an EPA, and when they don't do their job, it looks like we all suffer for their failings(again).

One would think, that in this day the EPA would do the kind of test that this university did to insure that they haven't been fooled with. There is some history with the truck makers doing similar in the past, so now it seems like one of those 'fool me once, shame on me, fool me twice, shame on you' deals. Well, EPA got beat by VW for 6 YEARS. I find this incompetent for a govt dept with 'Environment' in their name. But - pretty sure I'm the lone guy that thinks this way, and that's ok, I don't need or really care about validation. The EPA has lived down to their reputation once again, but lets hop on the VW blame bus, diesel powered - as it were....
 
SCCutler said:
I bet you were never in one where the engine could overpower the brakes, were you?

That was the essence of the complaints, and I still remember watching the 60 Minutes episode during which they eviscerated Audi for the putative problems with the cars; the only source of information they had was a plaintiffs' lawyer group called "Audi Victims Network," and at no point did they bother to talk to any competent engineers to seek an explanation of how a relatively modestly-powered car's drivetrain could somehow overpower four disc brakes, fully applied.

Of course that would have ruined the story.

We had a "sudden acceleration" event in a Honda Civic, and I had to reach in through the driver's window to turn the ignition key off while the engine raced after the car hit my wife's Buick on the bumper. She knew, for a fact, that the car kept going while she pressed as hard as she could on the brake pedal. But when we looked, her foot was firmly planted on the gas.

It happens.
Click to expand...

Within the past year or so, I mistakenly got my foot on the gas pedal instead of the brake while driving on a freeway on cruise control. Fortunately, I found the correct pedal in time, but since then, I've been getting in the habit of keeping my left foot touching the left side of the clutch pedal when I'm on cruise control, so that I won't lose track of the pedal locations.
 
docmirror said:
I find this incompetent for a govt dept with 'Environment' in their name. But - pretty sure I'm the lone guy that thinks this way, and that's ok, I don't need or really care about validation. The EPA has lived down to their reputation once again, but lets hop on the VW blame bus, diesel powered - as it were....
Click to expand...

That's the same EPA that just recently filled a river with yellow minining sludge.

The fact that vehicles exceed the emission standards in actual operation is nothing new. If the standard is supposed to apply in day to day operation, it needs to be written in a way that requires on the road testing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top