Volkswagen under investigation over illegal software that masks pollution

[matt510]

The ACCC can do what they like but the fact of the matter is right now VW Australia has not done anything wrong. Vehicles that are sold into the north American market have to meet totally different design regulations to Australia (everything from left hand drive, to headlight height, to indicator colours are covered here - emissions standards are equally as different from region to region - as are fuel requirements for each country (aussie diesel and US diesel is quite different) and engine oil requirements (yes this does make a difference to tailpipe emissions)). Did VWoAmerica break US law - looks like it. Did they break Australian law, doesn't look like it.

The ridiculous part of all this is that if you think the vehicle you buy off the lot today produces the same emissions levels that are required by Australian law you are sadly mistaken. Put your WRX or your EVO into an emissions test and you will get a big fat fail for excess hydrocarbon (among other things), i know this from first hand experience. Not really related to what VW have done, but could be pandora's box for emissions test data on vehicles in service !

[team_v]

Nice attitude cobber... flurk applying the patch software (btw, what patch software - you know something already?) and flurk the environment, be it local or global. Way to go for the world's future, not.

The impact of VW's "extra" emissions on the environment are negligible.

I would rather have the specs I bought the car for (power, torque, fuel economy) than a different spec just to achieve a figure no one even cared about or that will have a tangible difference (emissions volume)

[Tuan]

Nice attitude cobber... flurk applying the patch software (btw, what patch software - you know something already?) and flurk the environment, be it local or global. Way to go for the world's future, not.

Unfortunately not everyone buys their cars for reasons of being green or for the long term effects i.e. looking after the environment.

Some people are just happy to save money in the short term with cheaper diesel prices and better economy i.e. during the ownership period of their vehicle.

[Eaglen00b]

Unfortunately not everyone buys their cars for reasons of being green or for the long term effects i.e. looking after the environment.

Some people are just happy to save money in the short term with cheaper diesel prices and better economy i.e. during the ownership period of their vehicle.

Not to mention the term "green cars" is an oxymoron. If you want to be environmentally friendly, walk.
Buck naked.
And lay off the onions, curry, beans etc as they bugger up YOUR emissions control.

[wai]

The ACCC can do what they like but the fact of the matter is right now VW Australia has not done anything wrong. Vehicles that are sold into the north American market have to meet totally different design regulations to Australia (everything from left hand drive, to headlight height, to indicator colours are covered here - emissions standards are equally as different from region to region - as are fuel requirements for each country (aussie diesel and US diesel is quite different) and engine oil requirements (yes this does make a difference to tailpipe emissions)). Did VWoAmerica break US law - looks like it. Did they break Australian law, doesn't look like it.

The ridiculous part of all this is that if you think the vehicle you buy off the lot today produces the same emissions levels that are required by Australian law you are sadly mistaken. Put your WRX or your EVO into an emissions test and you will get a big fat fail for excess hydrocarbon (among other things), i know this from first hand experience. Not really related to what VW have done, but could be pandora's box for emissions test data on vehicles in service !

The thing is that it has been widely known in the US that with multiple computers controlling vehicles these days, in-service emissions are unlikely to bear any resemblance to the emission levels measured during testing. In the same way, the official fuel economy figures are not likely to be achieved in-service. Of course, they did not want to target any US manufacturer as that could prove politically difficult.

You would think that with the number of gas guzzlers in the US that they would have been the focus of any investigation or testing given that even a small increase per vehicle ends up dwarfing anything coming from diesel that make up the low end of single digit percentages of the market.

But then, that is the political animal. Much easier to demonise a "dirty foreign manufacturer". After all, diesel stinks, so it must be dirty.

In-service testing of vehicles opens up a whole can of worms as you are now going to apply penalties to buyers who have no control over the design and manufacture of the vehicles they have to accept a penalty for. It has to come down to a drive cycle of some sort, be it in a laboratory or on open roads, and so we end up back where we started.

You see, the regulators cannot get their minds around the fact that vehicles no longer have a fixed set of parameters as was the case with carburettors, simple fuel injection systems and mechanical ignition control systems. Much like all such regulations, the regulators like a magic number as in Hitch-hiker's Guide to the Galaxy for the answer to LTUAE. So, whatever they do, they will be back to where we are now.

Maybe what they need to know is that the current methodology of testing delivers cleaner exhaust emissions than what they had before. With a diesel, you may be able to re-map the injection, the valve timing, tweak the turbocharger, and the EGR, however things like a catalytic converter or LNT, or DPF, and the like are in circuit all the time the vehicle is operating. Prior to the current regulations and the ones that are being questioned, none of these features were present, so what they capture and neutralise was simply going out the tailpipe. Even right now, if you get caught behind a non-EuroX compliant vehicle, make sure you have your ventilation set to recycle as you will be bathed in light diesel smoke and all the unfiltered and untreated exhaust gasses. What vehicles are we talking about? Well the Ford Territory, or a Toyota Prado, or a Nissan Patrol. These are the usual "Mum's Taxis", so are not small numbers.

Like sand through the hourglass, so are the days of our lives.........

[Transporter]

Unfortunately not everyone buys their cars for reasons of being green or for the long term effects i.e. looking after the environment.

Some people are just happy to save money in the short term with cheaper diesel prices and better economy i.e. during the ownership period of their vehicle.

You've nailed it. But, now many say they did. Especially those who are the most vocal.

VW diesel over anything else for me at anytime. It's still cleaner than many Japanese diesels or the US ones. And you could remove that DPF, and it still would be cleaner. Example; Mitsubishi Triton 2.5 diesels don't have the DPF in Australia, since they can pass our emissions law without it. VW should've make the cars for AU market w/o the DPF to void any future complications, why they didn't it's beyond me.

I mean, really dirty like some other makes.

[gldgti]

Quite so ^^^

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

[gldgti]

You've nailed it. But, now many say they did. Especially those who are the most vocal.

VW diesel over anything else for me at anytime. It's still cleaner than many Japanese diesels or the US ones. And you could remove that DPF, and it still would be cleaner. Example; Mitsubishi Triton 2.5 diesels don't have the DPF in Australia, since they can pass our emissions law without it. VW should've make the cars for AU market w/o the DPF to void any future complications, why they didn't it's beyond me.

I mean, really dirty like some other makes.

VW did it because they care
VW clean diesel for the win

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

[woofy]

The original version of the "R" engine in my 2011 Santa Fe diesel had the DPF so I was prepared that mine would, however just for Australia they dumped them 1 yr later and non of the current Kia or Hyundais using that engine have them. Everywhere else, for sure.

I doubt there is going to be much of an issue here, Audi oz have already said their cars have the defeat but its not used, presumably as they don't need to meet higher emissions control here. It would be safe to assume any other VAG cars here also have it and most likely also with it off as there was no need for it. If they mess with things too much then the ACCC will come down on them if the fuel economy doesn't match what it was advertised too. On that note Kia and Hyundai apparently have been in trouble for that elsewhere but not here. Wonder why?

[pipedwho]

Since the 'defeat device' is probably just a few lines code that check for a number of input parameters before forcing the engine into 'test' mode, I doubt the 'not currently used' means anything more than that they never bothered to run a test in Australia.