Volkswagen under investigation over illegal software that masks pollution

[team_v]

But it wasn't a "safe" car in terms of the long term affects on peoples health

How so.

What measurable impact will the higher emissions have compared to the proposed unachievable emissions limits?

[theresanothersteve]

I think the issue here is no longer the fact VW diesels do not meet mandated emissions levels as claimed but the fact VW knowingly cheated the test (and held themselves up as exemplars).

Given VW's recent history (engine reliability, DSG etc) this is another body blow to the brand. No-one, least of all an enthusiast's website, can deny the benefits of VW ownership, but the perception of VW is such that it is going to hurt the brand. Seriously.

We never bought the Jetta as a keeper, and although VW resale is not as strong as some others, it was reasonable. I don't think it will be for a while after the latest issue. The first question will be VW's viability. Does it have the cash reserves for the remedial work and fines it will inevitably have to pay? The next question is sales, which it will need to move forward. What sort of discounting or packaging will it need to increase sales. Make no mistake, they will need to increase sales if they wish to remain viable. Any discounting (or becoming insolvent) will have a knock on effect when it comes to resale time.

VW have destroyed people's trust in the brand. And, as we know, trust is something we all want in VW, that's what made them what they were a few years ago.

[Buzy_Robot]

Autogefühl calling for a balanced perspective:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eddH8AfJVMk

[gldgti]

Its a massive distraction to keep talking around this issue as if its got anything to do with environmental protection.

VW diesels are (comparatively) clean and efficient. If you are going to drive a car at all, and you make any bones about envoronmental protection, then choosing a VW, including a TDI, is a better option in the scheme of things than a great deal of the competition.

This issue is completely about fraud, and I have already stated personally that this is really disappointing for me in terms of who I thought VW was, as a company, and who they really are.

I just fail to see how being anything other than hugely disappointed about the companies ethics will do any good (as I alluded in my previous post). If youre really disappointed, don't buy a VAG car ever again. But be careful where you buy your clothes and appliances too.

My opinion I suppose is that in the grand scheme, the people who are feeling like they are owed something for this breach of trust on the part of VW are the very people who stand to lose the least from it all, when all the dust settles.

Hence, I feel like it would be an injustice to see the company brought down under the veil of environmental protection, when its actually about people wanting to be compensated for some very undefinable drop in perceived value, or because they were systematically lied to.

I make no defense over the real issue for VAG here. They lied, they took a risk, and already they are racking up enormous and far reaching costs.

But I do think this pursuit of compensation, if valid, should have nothing at all do do with a justification on environmental protection grounds. Its a massive misdirection.

[Swallowtail]

Because of the cost?
Supposing all the vultures get their meal, and VW fell. What good would that acheive? Everyone gets their little pound of flesh, but hundreds of thousands of people lose their job, and they never did anything wrong.
On the flip side, if nobody went chasing their few grand, the company goes on, hopefully learns from the mistake (it still gets punsihed - already has been) and all those workers and the good the money brings to the economy in the EU keeps on.
How many fewer Syrian refugees would Germany take on if VAG didn't exist?

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

Hi gldgti - so companies should be allowed to behave illegally because of potential impact on Syrian refugees / national or global economy / insert other good reason here, and everyone stand by and say "No, it's OK, they are helping a good cause, we'll go light on them."

I don't think that's what you mean, but it's what it comes across as...

I agree that if VW 'fell' that would not be good for all of the above causes and reasons. But that is surely only part of the consideration. If VW are let off lightly, what happens to the next company caught, or the next company that decides to try and get away with it...

[wai]

You answered your own questions there wai. If VW did the right thing they would be the first to deny everything. The issue was never that the cars didn't emit the same emissions as the test. The issue is they tricked the results to pass the test in the first place. If the car was driven the same way as the test is except on open road it fails the test. That's fraud.

No, it's not.

You see that you fail to understand is that the drive cycle test is NOT the same as driving a vehicle on the open road. Your statement "if the car was driven the same way as the test is except on the open road if fails the test" is simply NOT the case.

There is NO correlation between the drive cycle and the on-road test.

The researchers came up with what THEY considered to be an equivalent test, although there is no data that have provided to back that test up. Take a look at the official drive cycle. It has speeds up to 120 km/h.

Next, VW did NOT feed false data to during the official test. Again, the vehicle being tested does NOT feed ANY data to the test equipment. The test equipment measures tailpipe emissions. It does not accept any data from the test vehicle.

Lastly, the emission levels of the official test are NOT what a vehicle (ANY VEHICLE) is expected to achieve in-service. It never was intended to show what the maximum level would be achieved in-service.

Maybe it needs to be stated again.

In the very early 1970s, the California EPA decided to come up with a drive cycle to standardise emission testing. They instrumented a number of vehicles that matched the vehicle fleet in California and recorded speed and time. All the data was gathered and based on this, a unified drive cycle was developed. The dynamometer load was then adjusted based on the weight of the vehicle being tested.

Having established the cycle, tailpipe emissions were then measured with the vehicles operated on the now official cycle, and a maximum value of the various emissions were measured. These levels were then lowered in stages. There was never an assumption that in-service, similar emission levels would be achieved. The argument was that a reduction in the official test would see a reduction in-service, and this is what the purpose of the tests and emission laws were.

This was all done when we had carburettors and simple ignition/injection systems. There was not a computer to be seen in cars, let alone in homes. As a result, the fuel and ignition parameters were consistent across the range of operation.

We now have multiple computers taking inputs from dozens of sensors that change the engine parameters almost continuously. Despite this, the regulations have not changed. The definition of a "defeat device" would cover every vehicle from every manufacturer because ALL vehicles now have computers that control the engine, and the parameters used to operate on the official cycle are not necessarily the same parameters used in-service without any variation.

There has been a lot of mis-information put about with absurd suggestions that GPS was used to indicate the vehicle was not moving, and atmospheric pressure (haven't figured this one out), and somehow, the vehicle "feeding false information" while being tested.

[Rawcpoppa]

Wai I am on mobile so access to links are not possible right now for me but I will pull up the report for you later showing that the researchers did one test (which you highlighted in your post above) and discovered an issue. I'll also show where the regulators took this info and ran their standard test ( the same one that is run on the dyno) on the road. This is where the cheating became apparent. I don't know why you keep focusing only on the researchers.

[gldgti]

Hi gldgti - so companies should be allowed to behave illegally because of potential impact on Syrian refugees / national or global economy / insert other good reason here, and everyone stand by and say "No, it's OK, they are helping a good cause, we'll go light on them."

I don't think that's what you mean, but it's what it comes across as...

I agree that if VW 'fell' that would not be good for all of the above causes and reasons. But that is surely only part of the consideration. If VW are let off lightly, what happens to the next company caught, or the next company that decides to try and get away with it...

No, at no point do I say companies should be able to behave illegally. Nor do I think they should "get off lightly". But if they were ever going to get off lightly, that time has already passed.

[Eaglehawk]

Volkswagen fixes could extend to new car

New cars? Not going to happen...in Australia anyway...although it would stop me from a class action...

(Yes, yes, yes. Pure speculation...maybe I'll be happy with the fix...if it's needed...)

[ducksonetime]

It's pretty amusing reading thru this thread and seeing apologists defend VW on this one.

+1 it's been a great read!