Volkswagen under investigation over illegal software that masks pollution

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greymad

Strength through joy

http://www.vwwatercooled.com.au/foru...vwstuff-up-jpg

---

^ :thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jets

Our Mk5 TDI consistently achieves better than the official figures in hills & city driving. In fact I think something is wrong if it's above. I put it down to driving style & I keep up with the traffic flow.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Swallowtail

My BMW X3 (3.0D) has official combined fuel figures of 6.0l/100km. Lol... I reckon average you could get about 7.5, and over the 50,000km I've driven I've averaged 8.2l/100km.

The whole fuel economy figures process is broken.

---

Our 103TDI Multivan (which is unaffected by this issue) claims 8.2 Average, 10.4 Urban and 6.9L/100km combined.

I have tracked nearly every tank of fuel put through our van since new (I may have missed one or two). Our all time average is 9.6L/100km and the best is 7.8L/100km. To be fair alot of our trips can be to and from school/shops and the worst has been almost 13L/100km. But even with lots of small trips we tend to get out on the road for longer drives a bit too.

Here is the graph (thanks to Fuelly), I can pick that the last 12 months is a little worse as we haven't been out and about as much as we used to, but interestingly it seems to trend up. Even so, normal people, normal driving and we don't seem to get near the quoted figures.

http://www.vwwatercooled.com.au/foru...mrs_hawk-1.jpg


(On a side note, I will add that consumption at 100km/h is much much better than at 110km/h... These things get best economy at about 90... and that's just not happening).

VW release the first details of what vehicles will be like after the fix,...

http://www.vwwatercooled.com.au/foru...id=19492&stc=1

And reassure owners that they'll still have plenty of horsepower!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Swallowtail

The whole fuel economy figures process is broken.

---

The thing is that the published fuel consumption figures are run in accordance with a standard. This makes sure that the conditions and cycle that one vehicle operates will be exactly the same as another vehicle. As such, the figures can only ever be used for comparative purposes, and even here for the same type of vehicle only (i.e. passenger cars or wagons or vans)

Fuel consumption calculated in everyday use can vary tremendously because of the number of variables like wind (speed and direction), temperature, tyre pressure, road surface, traffic, a/c use, windows up/down, etc.

By the way, this is also why there is no correlation between official test emissions and emissions measured using a on-standard drive cycle that has not undergone any verification process.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PerthMTB

VW release the first details of what vehicles will be like after the fix,...

http://www.vwwatercooled.com.au/foru...on-uldzwhf-jpg

And reassure owners that they'll still have plenty of horsepower!

---

And there would even be emission irregularities here. You could take two such vehicles, and capture the gases exhausted. One run in a laboratory with the power unit operating on a treadmill, and the other with gas collection and sampling, but on normal roads, and I will guarantee you that the gas outputs would be completely different!

I wonder what the cheat would be here??????

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wai

The thing is that the published fuel consumption figures are run in accordance with a standard. This makes sure that the conditions and cycle that one vehicle operates will be exactly the same as another vehicle. As such, the figures can only ever be used for comparative purposes, and even here for the same type of vehicle only (i.e. passenger cars or wagons or vans)

Fuel consumption calculated in everyday use can vary tremendously because of the number of variables like wind (speed and direction), temperature, tyre pressure, road surface, traffic, a/c use, windows up/down, etc.

By the way, this is also why there is no correlation between official test emissions and emissions measured using a on-standard drive cycle that has not undergone any verification process.

---

Exactly!
I can equal the 'country' figure simply by driving gently on a flat road with no wind and no traffic.....certainly not realistic.
But from Jan 2016 a more realistic testing procedure will apply and I imagine THAT will involve more realistic acceleration and higher load at speed.
There is to be a 'world' standard applicable form 2017 which should mean we don't get the dirty hand-me-downs any more.
Hard as the tests will be, the industry should, at least, have simply one emissions rule to satisfy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wai

And there would even be emission irregularities here. You could take two such vehicles, and capture the gases exhausted. One run in a laboratory with the power unit operating on a treadmill, and the other with gas collection and sampling, but on normal roads, and I will guarantee you that the gas outputs would be completely different!

I wonder what the cheat would be here??????

---

don't forget the dried dung.

Well written WAI. I'd like to add: driver behaviour & technique. Interestingly, the sound the car makes has an affect on driver behaviour & thus fuel economy. Case in point, we had an R36 & V6 CC at the same time. My wife mostly drive the R36 & was getting great fuel consumption in outer Sydney (<9.8 L/100). When she drove the CC on the same route, she was getting 10.5 L/100.
This was odd as the official figures showed the CC with better economy, being lighter & longer geared from 4th gear. The CC also has less than half the km.
I put it down to her being lighter footed in the R36 due to the rorty noise vs the quiet CC. Months later, with an exhaust modified CC, she's getting long term 9.8 L/100.

Sent from my LG-D802 using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elmura

Well written WAI. I'd like to add: driver behaviour & technique. Interestingly, the sound the car makes has an affect on driver behaviour & thus fuel economy. Case in point, we had an R36 & V6 CC at the same time. My wife mostly drive the R36 & was getting great fuel consumption in outer Sydney (<9.8 L/100). When she drove the CC on the same route, she was getting 10.5 L/100.
This was odd as the official figures showed the CC with better economy, being lighter & longer geared from 4th gear. The CC also has less than half the km.
I put it down to her being lighter footed in the R36 due to the rorty noise vs the quiet CC. Months later, with an exhaust modified CC, she's getting long term 9.8 L/100.

Sent from my LG-D802 using Tapatalk

---

And I put it down to her low testosterone level.

Sent from my pigeon loft...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wai

The thing is that the published fuel consumption figures are run in accordance with a standard. This makes sure that the conditions and cycle that one vehicle operates will be exactly the same as another vehicle. As such, the figures can only ever be used for comparative purposes, and even here for the same type of vehicle only (i.e. passenger cars or wagons or vans)

Fuel consumption calculated in everyday use can vary tremendously because of the number of variables like wind (speed and direction), temperature, tyre pressure, road surface, traffic, a/c use, windows up/down, etc.

By the way, this is also why there is no correlation between official test emissions and emissions measured using a on-standard drive cycle that has not undergone any verification process.

---

It's the same test. They don't run a separate test for fuel consumption. While testing emissions they measure what comes out of the exhaust pipe - with modern white-man magic, they derive from the exhaust how much fuel was burnt.

As with emissions, it's not intended to be the ultimate guide to real-world results. It's supposed to be a standardised test that allows comparative assessment - how does any particular model compare against other vehicles under the same (artificial) conditions.

In the test lab, employ emission controls, have "clean" exhaust but burn more fuel.

In the real world, ignore emission controls, have "dirty" exhaust but burn less fuel.