Volkswagen under investigation over illegal software that masks pollution

[wai]

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.

[wai]

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



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??????

[Ryeman]

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.

[Ryeman]

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.

[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

[greymad]

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...

[ParaBul]

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.

[OilBurna]

Anyone see the latest dual cab ute test on car advice the Amarok was the only one to get close to the stated fuel consumption figures


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Rawcpoppa]

Anyone see the latest dual cab ute test on car advice the Amarok was the only one to get close to the stated fuel consumption figures


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Just read that the 2016 US diesels were withdrawn because they too had the cheat software.

Not officially confirmed but Der Spiegel has a story about 30 managers being associated with the cheat software at vw.

This thing is on drip feed. Lots of events in hindsight make sense now.

[jrgti]

Not sure if anyone else has posted this video link about driving the car in cheat mode -
How Volkswagen Diesels Perform in 'Cheat Mode' - Consumer Reports Video Hub
Is it really running in cheat mode or just the computer system detecting an anomaly and permanently reducing torque and power just like it would with stability control turned on?
I really wouldn't mind the idea of cars having a cheat mode from factory but with an opposite effect on power and torque.