Volkswagen under investigation over illegal software that masks pollution

[h100vw]

Just wondering about the testing process. Would a "4 Motion" drive line need a 4 roller testing dyno? If so the rear wheels turning would not bring the cheat into play.

Pulling the handbrake on a click, removing the haldex fuse, disconnecting the haldex plug or on some VCDS will disable it.

4 motion wouldn't impede using a dyno

[twincab]

Thanks for that info, didn't know it was that easy to turn a 4motion into a 2motion

[Ryeman]

A 'post fix' Pistonheads graph/table on a 2.0 (EA189 I presume)
note the sub 2000rpm loss of torque ......the table quantifies a very significant reduction with the crossover being in the 2200rpm/110kmph area it appears.

https://onedrive.live.com/?authkey=%...%21104&o=OneUp

[arcadelt]

A 'post fix' Pistonheads graph/table on a 2.0 (EA189 I presume)
note the sub 2000rpm loss of torque ......the table quantifies a very significant reduction with the crossover being in the 2200rpm/110kmph area it appears.

https://onedrive.live.com/?authkey=%...%21104&o=OneUp

Interesting graph, but I don't know what it means. Is the creator saying that there is a affect on the driveability of cars post fix in the rev range that we mostly use, and how would that translate to the road?

[Umai Naa!!]

I wonder how controlled the back-to-back testing was?

[Ryeman]

I was wrong, the crossover is ~ 2600rpm......say 130kph which just happens to be most European motorway cruising speeds.
The power and torque discrepancies occur in the area that the emissions test would take place ie incremental acceleration, low speeds and idling.
Just a coincidence I suppose..........?.

Im assuming Pistonheads are a reputable, tuning experienced, organisation. They are owned by a publishing house I understand.
Can we expect something from VW in response to this UK 'expose' ?.

Looking at the graphs, I'm confused as I've always understood that the EA189 typically produced its max torque (340nm?)from 1750rpm which obviously isn't the case based on the above.

?

[Greg Roles]

Dyno's all differ, so I wouldn't worry about the lack at the magic 1750, more the difference in before and after. Even allowing for variation in dyno runs, there is a huge drop as the turbo comes onto boost, so just based on this graph, I wouldn't suggest doing the recall. Car should feel a lot more sluggish on the road, but lets wait and see when more data comes out. I'll be getting my Yeti done, as I'll simply tune it afterwards, but based on this first bit of info, I'd be expecting it to be a terrible step backwards in low end torque.

IF this data is correct, by god there will be a backlash, as that graph is a massive difference in drivability.

[Ryeman]

I couldn't find a preamble, but I imagine it's the same vehicle's before and after.
I would really like to know how the 'before' max torque is so out of whack with the brochure claimed (and common) 1750rpm.

[stefcio007]

I couldn't find a preamble, but I imagine it's the same vehicle's before and after.
I would really like to know how the 'before' max torque is so out of whack with the brochure claimed (and common) 1750rpm.

These small engines which have a turbo means the torque is better at lower RPMs so they state that in brochures. Notice how in non-turbo cars the "max torque" is achieved later? I could be wrong though.

It's probably just marketing to make the cars look better on paper.

[Ryeman]

These small engines which have a turbo means the torque is better at lower RPMs so they state that in brochures. Notice how in non-turbo cars the "max torque" is achieved later? I could be wrong though.

It's probably just marketing to make the cars look better on paper.

Im mystified as to how they can claim it (340nm/1750) but not be confirmed by the graph.......900rpm higher (2650) is a big variation)
Seat-of-the-pants it felt about right though, at least 'before'.......not now though, it seems.