Volkswagen under investigation over illegal software that masks pollution

[bluey]

Thanks Greg, I stand corrected. The particular model I'm interested in is the 130kw TDI Tiguan (MY16) as I have one on order for delivery in November which has now got caught up in all this mess! Do you happen to know what engine this has - is it the EA189 or EA288, and does it have EGR?

See model list above. I'm reasonably sure yours would have new engine. euro6 compliant cars per ICCT white paper data would probably easily pass real world test to our NOX emissions standards.

[Buzy_Robot]

Bluey - Volkswagen kept fudging for a year and claiming there were technical glitches causing these discrepancies. It was only when US authorities refused to certify Volkswagen vehicles and threw irrefutable proof at them did they relent and admit their deception.

[bluey]

Bluey - Volkswagen kept fudging for a year and claiming there were technical glitches causing these discrepancies. It was only when US authorities refused to certify Volkswagen vehicles and threw irrefutable proof at them did they relent and admit their deception.

Sure there is a huge media circus about cheating and some admission of a failing of some form.

I haven't seen a straight description of what exactly they have supposedly admitted to. Not from a reliable source. Code is closed, so nobody outside VW and maybe Bosch knows what's in it.

ICCT data shows virtually all small diesels blowing higher emissions in real world vs tests and ICCT are saying they are recommending euro6 real world NOX limit be doubled for real world test.

The only anomaly that forced VW into "admission" appears to be the 35x higher NOX on apparently rather hilly (35x hillier) "real world" test in the first report commissioned by ICCT done by WVU. So sure something is screwy if NOX is up 35x, but the ICCT white paper didn't show that for VW - up to 14x by Volvo. But the media and stock market is having fun with it all.

[grtuned]

I presume in the future all findings will come out regarding the exact differences in readings.
But for the CEO to quit over this issue it shows that something illegal was done to falsify data.
its good thing to see that big companies are accountable for deception.
But for me in the end I would still buy Vw any day regardless of whatever's happened.

[tigger73]

I think you'll find the reason the CEO went was because of the billions of $ wiped off the share value. The CEO is there to increase the share value/pay out dividends. He failed spectacularly on both of these accounts. First thing VW should not have put the "cheat" code in the ECU and second once discovered, VW senior management did not address the issue appropriately. End result is billions wiped off the value of the company and shareholders are rightly pissed.

[team_v]

Investigations into other manufacturer diesel engines:

Diesel BMW, Mercedes, Opel, PSA Cars Suspected Of Cheating On Emissions Tests As Well

[wai]

1.6 TDI CR GreenLine 77 kW 2010–2015 CAYC (EA189) 1598 ccm, I4, 16V DOHC, common-rail, turbocharged 77 kW (105 PS; 103 hp)
1.6 TDI CR 77 kW 2013–2015 CAYC (EA189) 1598 ccm, I4, 16V DOHC, common-rail, turbocharged 77 kW (105 PS; 103 hp)

All the reports from the US had the 2 litre units only mentioned, but this includes 2 1.6 litre units as well.

[wai]

Investigations into other manufacturer diesel engines:

Diesel BMW, Mercedes, Opel, PSA Cars Suspected Of Cheating On Emissions Tests As Well

Ok, first, as with the fuel consumption test, the results from an emission test is NOT the same as the results you will get in real life. Without any "defeat devices", the relativity between cars will remain the same.

I don't know how many of the commentators have actually seen a test conducted, but I can assure you that you would hang your head in shame if you ever drove like that. There are times where the acceleration required is so high that the vehicle (and I do not mean a small one) cannot keep up and the trace line has to be stopped for the vehicle to catch up.

So, when the article says this, I am pretty certain that the authors have not actually seen a test performed.

These models include the diesel Audi A8 tested in Europe, which produced nitrogen oxide emissions 21.9 times over the legal limit on the road, a BMW X3 diesel that was 9.9 times over the limit, an Opel Zafira Tourer (9.5 times) and Citroen C4 Picasso (5.1 times). The results are really troubling considering that all these vehicles passed the laboratory test.

All the emission standards state that when the vehicle is tested in accordance with the standard (and currently there is no requirement for the test to be carried out anywhere other than on a dynamometer), it shall not exceed the limits specified.

So, yes, they will not necessarily emit emissions as in the tests in real world conditions, and those in the industry know this, and it does not really matter because the drive cycle was never designed to guarantee maximum emission levels. It is for this reason that the next stage of emission tests that will require a further test to be carried out on the road, and there will be different levels of emissions set.

In the case of VW, they have admitted implementing the "cheat". The reality is that just as with getting your licence, you only have to pass the knowledge test and the driving test but you do not necessarily have to be the best driver in the world. What is wrong is implementing the emission control features for the test on the dynamometer, but then disabling or partially disabling them on the road. It is taken that the same controls used on the dynamometer will be implemented for normal driving.

For example, in Australia, the ADR states that the vehicle shall be designed to comply with the rule. The NSW Clean Air Act applies to vehicles that have not been registered, and that for vehicles that have been registered, there is a tailpipe sample taken while stationary under very specific conditions and only certain emissions are measured.

All in all, it is a mess, and the longer it keeps going the way it is, the worse it is going to be for the car industry and car buyers and owners.

[brad]

All the emission standards state that when the vehicle is tested in accordance with the standard (and currently there is no requirement for the test to be carried out anywhere other than on a dynamometer), it shall not exceed the limits specified.

In California & the Britain they do emissions testing at the registration check. It's not the same test as that required for certification but you need to pass the test to get registration.

Having to comply at the time of certification carries an expectation that compliance with the regulation will be ongoing on all similar types. That's the whole idea of homogolation or type certification.

I can understand what you are saying and I'm fully aware that emissions / fuel consumption / crash / whatever testing generally doesn't represent life outside of the laboratory but "I didn't think you meant ALL the cars had to comply" really doesn't cut the mustard.

[Ryeman]

If you watch the series Yes (Pri)Minister, a seriously accurate depiction of the public service, in the post Raygun era of deregulation, you will understand that the 'regulators' don't mind you telling someone you're gaming the system, just don't put it in print to them.....life is too short and they are cynically underfunded to make treasury accounts look good but also keep the hoi polloi comfortable in their delusional belief that everything is hunky dory.
The GFC is an obvious example of watchdog underfunding....and it's called 'fiscal responsibility' on top of that!