Half a million VWs recalled, sneaky emissions software.

[skyrover]

Starfighter said:

The "Big 3" have had a bit of a downer on imported diesels for a few years already. The emissions regulations were effectively written by Detroit tomake it very hard for a diesel to pass any of the tests. Net results was that a VAG 4 pot TDI doing 50mpg was branded a dirty yet a big V8 petrol doing 10mpg (on a good day) was classed as clean.

That's because the big petrol V8 IS very clean

6.2 V8 Ford Raptor:

NMHC = 0.005
NOx = 0.005
CO = 0.276

1.4 Fiat 500:

NMHC = 0.016
NOx = 0.010
CO = 0.192

4 Stroke leaf blower:

NMHC = 0.182
NOx = 0.031
CO = 3.714

2 Stroke leaf blower:

NMHC = 1.495
NOx = 0.010
CO = 6.445

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

That big V8 petrol if you look at the figures is producing less NOx than the little petrol fiat 500 and way less than your average diesel golf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NOx

Edited by skyrover on Saturday 19th September 08:12

[boxedin]

PorkInsider said:

Interesting, but will this not be similar to what motorcycle manufacturers used to do to pass noise tests?

I don't know if the same test still applies but they used to have to accelerate bikes flat out in 2nd from 30mph over a set distance of 100ft and the max noise level was measured over the run.

As a result, 90s 'superbike' class bikes used to be factory fitted with a huge flat-spot in the mapping to cover this off so that they didn't hit peak torque, and hence peak noise, during the run.

It's nothing new to find automotive companies working around test parameters.

Sorry, but this is Nox emissions, not the 4000-4500 rpm flat spot engineered in for noise. Not comparable, VW deserve to get royally reamed on this.

[rb5er]

98elise said:

Pesty said:

Starfighter said:

The "Big 3" have had a bit of a downer on imported diesels for a few years already. The emissions regulations were effectively written by Detroit tomake it very hard for a diesel to pass any of the tests. Net results was that a VAG 4 pot TDI doing 50mpg was branded a dirty yet a big V8 petrol doing 10mpg (on a good day) was classed as clean.

You say that like its a bad thing.


Plus you do know diesel emissions are dangerous yes?

And petrol emissions are good for you?

Hardly anything is "good for you" but diesel emissions are far far more harmful than petrol.

Not even the same league. Unfortunately in the UK diesel filth is everywhere.

[ian in lancs]

Another day another corporation with another huge compliance issue; I doubt they are the only ones doing this.

Sadly compliance avoidance and compliance enforcement is a growth area and very, very expensive to get right and very, very expensive to get wrong.

As national and regional political will manifests itself in ever more complex regulations, sometimes contradictory, there is much corporate effort to examine what technical compliance will mean and how that can be enshrined in policy and procedures. As there's cost involved engineers et al will look for ways to be minimally compliant; just do enough. That's reasonable. What we appear to have here is deliberate circumvention of the testing regime and as such deception and out of order.

The perpetrators deserve all that will happen. Whether others are doing 'it' is immaterial and doesn't make it right. Neither does an argument over legitimacy or motive of regulations. Whether those regs are anti-competitive in favour of domestic producers isn't relevant either. If one chooses to do business in a given market one accepts the regulations of that market - comply or exit. PESTLE for those who've been to Business School! Simples.

Compliance failures are classically caused by..

Regulations unworkable - collaborate in drafting

Lack of knowledge / training - train
Procedures / tools unworkable - invest

Trained but personally choose not to - disciplinary
Trained but coerced by someone more senior/culture of organisation - disciplinary, fines, regulatory control, denial of trading etc

The latter two are the most serious and deserve appropriate consequences

I would add this corporate behaviour has been going on for years and will go on for years. Exhibit 1 - the tobacco industry!

If you want a secure, well paid and interesting job, get into compliance!

Edited by ian in lancs on Saturday 19th September 08:54

[ian in lancs]

From VW UK...oops

Think Blue. Putting sustainability at the heart of Volkswagen.

Think Blue embodies Volkswagen's business-wide commitment to creating a whole new standard of technologically progressive, environmentally friendly products that will help shape a more sustainable future.

Our commitment £42 billion invested by 2018

30% CO2 reduction across the range by 2015

25% waste reduction in our factories by 2018

Explore our approach to reducing waste during the production process, find out where you can get involved to recycle your car battery or read about vehicle end of life recovery.

Alternatively, visit our sustainability website or download our sustainability report for a detailed account of our strategy to reduce our impact on the environment.

Our achievements

All new Golfs come with BlueMotion Technology

we have been recognised with green awards for our factory programme

313 mpg can be achieved with our record breaking XL1

[Scuffers]

skyrover said:

Starfighter said:

The "Big 3" have had a bit of a downer on imported diesels for a few years already. The emissions regulations were effectively written by Detroit tomake it very hard for a diesel to pass any of the tests. Net results was that a VAG 4 pot TDI doing 50mpg was branded a dirty yet a big V8 petrol doing 10mpg (on a good day) was classed as clean.

That's because the big petrol V8 IS very clean

6.2 V8 Ford Raptor:

NMHC = 0.005
NOx = 0.005
CO = 0.276

1.4 Fiat 500:

NMHC = 0.016
NOx = 0.010
CO = 0.192

4 Stroke leaf blower:

NMHC = 0.182
NOx = 0.031
CO = 3.714

2 Stroke leaf blower:

NMHC = 1.495
NOx = 0.010
CO = 6.445

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

That big V8 petrol if you look at the figures is producing less NOx than the little petrol fiat 500 and way less than your average diesel golf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NOx

problem with that is all your figures are either PPM or %

ie, yes as a % the emissions are lower, but as the total tailpipe volume for the V8 is massive compared to the leaf blower, the question of which is the more polluting is somewhat moot.

this is the single biggest screw up in all emissions testing these days, no account is taken for the total emissions, only the proportions - the only exception to this is the measure of CO2/Km.

in recent years, the clamp down on NOx has been staggeringly stupid, with zero actual evidence that it was ever a problem in the first place.

[mini me]

All emissions as tested by manufacturers are measured in g/km. as are the regulated thresholds.

[oop north]

It's a pretty well known thing in economics that as soon as you make something a target it ceases to be a useful / reliable measure. All automotive manufacturers play the "game" on emissions (though perhaps Subaru don't judging by their scores!) - which isn't to excuse it

[Sheepshanks]

davepoth said:

Cyder said:

I've heard of very similar techniques being used recently in the car industry too.

It must be pretty easy to do, especially for the silly EU economy test - it's so far removed from how anyone would drive that you could program a special mode and nobody would ever notice.

This isn't about the Economy test - they have a similar one for the US too - it's about the test which is similar to our MOT.

Working around the economy test is easy - indeed many cars have multiple modes. They just have to default to the one used the test.

[Roo]

The bit I don't understand is how would the car know it needed to be in test mode?

I was in the US 18 months ago and the number of diesel cars around was massively up on the last time I was out there about four years ago. There were constant TV, paper and billboard adverts for Passat diesels.

[anonymous-user]

mini me said:

All emissions as tested by manufacturers are measured in g/km. as are the regulated thresholds.

And what are the figures quoted above? Are they, as Scuffers says, ppm or %, or are they g/km, the only meaningful measure?

[mini me]

I wouldn't like to say but without specifying the units they are meaningless. I have no idea how you would calculate g/km for a leaf blower either so you are basically comparing apples with oranges.

[ralphrj]

Roo said:

The bit I don't understand is how would the car know it needed to be in test mode?

Because the official test follows a specific routine. The ECU was programmed to detect when it was following the precise routine of the test and switched to an ultra low emissions setting. It would be virtually impossible to replicate the exact routine in real life so customers would never notice.

[skyrover]

Scuffers said:

skyrover said:

Starfighter said:

The "Big 3" have had a bit of a downer on imported diesels for a few years already. The emissions regulations were effectively written by Detroit tomake it very hard for a diesel to pass any of the tests. Net results was that a VAG 4 pot TDI doing 50mpg was branded a dirty yet a big V8 petrol doing 10mpg (on a good day) was classed as clean.

That's because the big petrol V8 IS very clean

6.2 V8 Ford Raptor:

NMHC = 0.005
NOx = 0.005
CO = 0.276

1.4 Fiat 500:

NMHC = 0.016
NOx = 0.010
CO = 0.192

4 Stroke leaf blower:

NMHC = 0.182
NOx = 0.031
CO = 3.714

2 Stroke leaf blower:

NMHC = 1.495
NOx = 0.010
CO = 6.445

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

That big V8 petrol if you look at the figures is producing less NOx than the little petrol fiat 500 and way less than your average diesel golf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NOx

problem with that is all your figures are either PPM or %

ie, yes as a % the emissions are lower, but as the total tailpipe volume for the V8 is massive compared to the leaf blower, the question of which is the more polluting is somewhat moot.

this is the single biggest screw up in all emissions testing these days, no account is taken for the total emissions, only the proportions - the only exception to this is the measure of CO2/Km.

in recent years, the clamp down on NOx has been staggeringly stupid, with zero actual evidence that it was ever a problem in the first place.

The engines were run through the FTP75 cycle

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FTP-75

[davepoth]

Sheepshanks said:

davepoth said:

Cyder said:

I've heard of very similar techniques being used recently in the car industry too.

It must be pretty easy to do, especially for the silly EU economy test - it's so far removed from how anyone would drive that you could program a special mode and nobody would ever notice.

This isn't about the Economy test - they have a similar one for the US too - it's about the test which is similar to our MOT.

Working around the economy test is easy - indeed many cars have multiple modes. They just have to default to the one used the test.

http://www3.epa.gov/otaq/cert/documents/vw-nov-caa...

Here's the notice from the EPA.

[BeefMaster9000]

Roo said:

The bit I don't understand is how would the car know it needed to be in test mode?

The tests are performed in a lab to get repeatable and comparable results between different manufacturers and test dates.

i.e.
- EU cycle is performed at sea level, 25 degrees C ambient temperature +/- 2 degrees, starting with a 'cold' engine.
- The maximum engine load & speed required for the vehicle to complete the test is known.
- The whole test is performed in a straight line.
- The test is performed with 'accessories' such as air conditioning, heated seats, etc. switched off

etc.

Therefore, if you were sneaky, to pass legislated emissions targets on the official tests, but also get good real world fuel economy (as they are contradictory objectives) you could change engine calibration settings if:

- ambient temperature was < 23 deg or > 27 deg or the engine has reached fully hot oil and coolant temperatures.
- pedal demand exceeded the engine load or engine speed required during the emissions test
- steering angle deviated from 0 degrees
- air con, heated/cooled seats, heated screen etc. switched on.

Sounds like they used this sort of criteria to switch EGR off, meaning they were no longer compliant on NOx but their combustion efficiency and the rate at which they would fill a DPF with soot would be reduced.

By fixing this, EGR would be switched back on over a wider operating range, resulting in lower peak cylinder pressures therefore lower NOx, at the expense of reduced combustion efficiency and increased particulate matter.

This will increase the frequency of DPF regeneration, and further increase real world fuel consumption, emitting more CO2 but less NOx.

Edited by BeefMaster9000 on Saturday 19th September 12:18

[Sheepshanks]

davepoth said:

http://www3.epa.gov/otaq/cert/documents/vw-nov-caa...

Here's the notice from the EPA.

Thanks. I particularly like the way VW blamed everybody else for a year.

[Mr_B]

Sneaking in software sounds a bit of a risk given that people chip tune diesels a fair bit and aftermarket tuners/ECU makers soon start learning all its secrets.

[Sheepshanks]

Mr_B said:

Sneaking in software sounds a bit of a risk given that people chip tune diesels a fair bit and aftermarket tuners/ECU makers soon start learning all its secrets.

Related: http://www.wired.com/2015/09/epa-opposes-rules-cou...

[Mr_B]

Sheepshanks said:

Mr_B said:

Sneaking in software sounds a bit of a risk given that people chip tune diesels a fair bit and aftermarket tuners/ECU makers soon start learning all its secrets.

Related: http://www.wired.com/2015/09/epa-opposes-rules-cou...

Interesting. Thanks