Volkswagen under investigation over illegal software that masks pollution

[Eaglehawk]

Supposing you're assumption is correct.. How will you prove it? Dyno before and after?
Simpler to avoid the recall surely if you're concerned.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

If we avoid the recall, then aren't we putting ourselves at risk of being fined? Yes, my friends have suggested doing a dyno before and after. On the same day even.

[wai]

Supposing you're assumption is correct.. How will you prove it? Dyno before and after?

There are very distinct rules that vehicles have to meet.

First, the ADRs have an overriding statement in them that say that the vehicle must be manufactured to comply with the rule. No individual can be issued with a defect notice (for example) because the vehicle fails to meet the requirements of the ADR. Also, as far as I can tell, the cars involved WERE manufactured to comply, and they did comply.

Next, in NSW (for example), the requirements of the ADRs apply to "vehicle that have not been registered". Until a vehicle has been registered, the EPA (or whatever they are called this week) can take any vehicle that has not been registered off the showroom floor and put it through the test specified in the ADR.

For vehicle that HAVE been registered, there is a requirement to meet a maximum CO level (not CO2) at an engine speed specified in the rule. This is measured by way of a probe put in the exhaust pipe and and the engine run at the specified speed. This applies to both petrol and diesel fuelled vehicles. Additionally, diesel vehicles must not emit visible smoke for more than a specified time.

So, no one can be required to have anything retrofitted, because the vehicle has already been registered. The government would have to introduce special laws to make this retrospective, and this would open a can of worms as it could be extended to a whole lot of other things. This is much the same as safety recalls. The government can mandate a recall on the manufacturer/distributor, but individuals can not have someone knocking on the door demanding anything be done.

[Eaglen00b]

Supposing you're assumption is correct.. How will you prove it? Dyno before and after?
Simpler to avoid the recall surely if you're concerned.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

Not a bad idea actually. It will most definitely help if you have documentation to support your claim of degraded vehicle performance if things go that way.

[gldgti]

There are very distinct rules that vehicles have to meet.

First, the ADRs have an overriding statement in them that say that the vehicle must be manufactured to comply with the rule. No individual can be issued with a defect notice (for example) because the vehicle fails to meet the requirements of the ADR. Also, as far as I can tell, the cars involved WERE manufactured to comply, and they did comply.

Next, in NSW (for example), the requirements of the ADRs apply to "vehicle that have not been registered". Until a vehicle has been registered, the EPA (or whatever they are called this week) can take any vehicle that has not been registered off the showroom floor and put it through the test specified in the ADR.

For vehicle that HAVE been registered, there is a requirement to meet a maximum CO level (not CO2) at an engine speed specified in the rule. This is measured by way of a probe put in the exhaust pipe and and the engine run at the specified speed. This applies to both petrol and diesel fuelled vehicles. Additionally, diesel vehicles must not emit visible smoke for more than a specified time.

So, no one can be required to have anything retrofitted, because the vehicle has already been registered. The government would have to introduce special laws to make this retrospective, and this would open a can of worms as it could be extended to a whole lot of other things. This is much the same as safety recalls. The government can mandate a recall on the manufacturer/distributor, but individuals can not have someone knocking on the door demanding anything be done.

Assuming they even tried a CO and particulate test on any of the VAG TDI engines affected, they would pass easily with or without a software change.


Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

[Transporter]

Not a bad idea actually. It will most definitely help if you have documentation to support your claim of degraded vehicle performance if things go that way.

Since the power and the torque that manufacturers specify and advertise is from the engine dyno not the chassis dyno, you most likely don't have a claim.

[Eaglen00b]

Since the power and the torque that manufacturers specify and advertise is from the engine dyno not the chassis dyno, you most likely don't have a claim.

I should clarify. The intent of getting the before and after dyno test done is to confirm whether the VW "fix" has any effect on performance. I'm not talking about slick glossy brochure quoted power and torque numbers as they are (and should be taken as)indicative. There is absolutely no flocking way that every identical model and spec of a vehicle rolling off the factory floor will have identical power and torque outputs. Engineering tolerances introduces some variability.

The "before" dyno is the baseline. Nothing to do with engine or chassis dyno. It is the relative difference with the "after" dyno test which is of interest.

To ensure integrity of the dyno results, ideally a copy of a calibration certificate should be obtained for the test equipment so the standard range of error is known. So one gets results like 132.7kW +/- 0.5kW and 378nm +/- 1nm (for example).

However, if the "fix" gets equal or better results, then of course there wouldn't be a claim....

[team_v]

I should clarify. The intent of getting the before and after dyno test done is to confirm whether the VW "fix" has any effect on performance. I'm not talking about slick glossy brochure quoted power and torque numbers as they are (and should be taken as)indicative. There is absolutely no flocking way that every identical model and spec of a vehicle rolling off the factory floor will have identical power and torque outputs. Engineering tolerances introduces some variability.

The "before" dyno is the baseline. Nothing to do with engine or chassis dyno. It is the relative difference with the "after" dyno test which is of interest.

To ensure integrity of the dyno results, ideally a copy of a calibration certificate should be obtained for the test equipment so the standard range of error is known. So one gets results like 132.7kW +/- 0.5kW and 378nm +/- 1nm (for example).

However, if the "fix" gets equal or better results, then of course there wouldn't be a claim....

Even a dyno isn't going to give you valid evidence as you would need near identical conditions to be able to validate the power loss.

[brad]

If we avoid the recall, then aren't we putting ourselves at risk of being fined? Yes, my friends have suggested doing a dyno before and after. On the same day even.

fined for what & when? I've never had a car subject to emissions testing in my life.

[Eaglehawk]

fined for what & when? I've never had a car subject to emissions testing in my life.

wai's post was very informative, consider my question moot

[Eaglen00b]

Even a dyno isn't going to give you valid evidence as you would need near identical conditions to be able to validate the power loss.

Hmmm... I disagree. Granted, we'll have to wait and see what transpires overseas and locally in terms of documented effects of the "fix". But if dyno testing does pick up a gross difference in results one could say that on the balance of probabilities, taking into account the massive scandal VW finds themselves in, the "fix" had something to do with it.

As for individual claims, I believe dyno testing documentation will help to assert any claim when viewed in conjunction with the body of evidence in the public domain.

Regardless, I'd would still much rather spend the relatively small sum to get the testing done then NOT needing to use the results instead of saving that miniscule fee by not doing the testing and kicking myself later.