Half a million VWs recalled, sneaky emissions software.

[heebeegeetee]

The Spruce goose said:

The thing about the USA they have the balls to stand up to companies. i dirve a diesel but they are not good cars for the health of others. The right thing is to tax deisel more and bring petrol prices down, to ensure better emissions. Labour where the ones who gave diesel a tax break and ended up how we are now in the uk.

Eh? Diesel is cheaper than petrol all over Europe and always has been. What has Labour, or even the UK, got to do with it?

Pesty said:

You say that like its a bad thing.


Plus you do know diesel emissions are dangerous yes?

Eh again?

All emissions are 'dangerous' if you want them to be.

If you want to commit suicide in as comfortable way possible, use an uncatalysed petrol engine, it'll kill you swiftly (and survivors have said you have very nice dreams too, apparently).

Catalyzed or not, whatever you do to it, you can't do the same with a diesel engine.

Diesel exhaust gas has only recently been classified as carcinogenic based on results from miners who worked underground for 30 years. The reasons diesel was used is because petrol is just far too dangerous - both the explosive nature of the fuel itself and the tailpipe emissions because of the carbon monoxide produced.

So, nobody ever worked underground with big petrol engines because it was too dangerous, but they could and did with diesel.

And as we now know what happens when exposed to such fumes in a concentrated manner for 30 years, we know it's not great for you (no st). But it seems its now being used as evidence to say that petrol is not as dangerous.

[davepoth]

heebeegeetee said:

And as we now know what happens when exposed to such fumes in a concentrated manner for 30 years, we know it's not great for you (no st). But it seems its now being used as evidence to say that petrol is not as dangerous.

There are two issues really - short term (breathe in piped exhaust gas and both will kill you) and the long term, "gives you cancer"-type issues.

Petrols are not as dangerous now, that's pretty much a given. Most of the really noxious stuff has been removed. The problem for diesel is that two things (particulates and NOx) are more or less intrinsic to diesel, and are really nasty in a long term fashion. That's why the conversation has changed.

[heebeegeetee]

davepoth said:

There are two issues really - short term (breathe in piped exhaust gas and both will kill you) and the long term, "gives you cancer"-type issues.

Petrols are not as dangerous now, that's pretty much a given. Most of the really noxious stuff has been removed. The problem for diesel is that two things (particulates and NOx) are more or less intrinsic to diesel, and are really nasty in a long term fashion. That's why the conversation has changed.

Well benzene hasn't been removed from the fuel, and that's really noxious and we ingest it every time we fill up, and particulates from petrol engines are numerous, lighter, remain airborne longer and penetrate the lungs more deeply, but the media seems only to want to report on the larger and heavier diesel exhaust particulate, almost as if nothing emerges from the petrol car's tailpipe.

Worries about cancer really shouldn't be an issue in this regard imo. Both petrol and diesel tailpipe emissions were both once equally classified as 'likely to cause cancer' The only reason diesel was changed to can/does cause cancer in 2012 was simply on the results of people who have worked underground with diesel for 30 years - but nobody has worked underground with petrol engines for 30 years because they couldn't, it was too dangerous.

So, amongst samples of groups of workers who toiled underground with diesel engines for 30 years, some were found to be showing signs of cancer. In reality, how do we really think that extrapolates to us in the genuine populace, as a hazard risk?

We are probably in far greater danger of cancer when we fuel our petrol cars, because the petrol-smell you take in contains benzene, a highly carcinogenic substance. But again, the real risk to us the general populace is also likely to be very low.

[Baryonyx]

boxedin said:

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.

I thought those 'flat spots' on motorbikes were an emissions fiddle to get the bikes through the tests of the time? My Triumph T595 Daytona has a 'flat spot', if you can call it that, at around 5000-5500rpm but it's nothing like you'd see as a 'flat spot' in a car, plenty of which have dreadful power delivery maps to get around the emissions testing. The thing with motorbikes is though, you can easily the map the flat spot out with a Power Commander or similar device, and very, very few 90's sports bikes will have an original exhaust anyway, since the done thing was always to get a loud slip on to enjoy!

[mini me]

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2015/09/20150918-e...

Not sure if posted on here already or not. There's two threads running on this, but, blimey.

[Mr GrimNasty]

davepoth said:

Petrols are not as dangerous now, that's pretty much a given. Most of the really noxious stuff has been removed. The problem for diesel is that two things (particulates and NOx) are more or less intrinsic to diesel, and are really nasty in a long term fashion. That's why the conversation has changed.

The risk has been vastly exaggerated by people with an agenda. There is essentially NO meaningful risk from private diesel motor vehicles. And anyway petrol cars emit far more highly carcinogenic HCs like benzene. The risk from wood burning stoves is thousands of times worse.

[mini me]

I think this thread is Missing the point. The point wrt this issue is in the link in my post above.

[Richjam]

I could be wrong but doesnt unleaded petrol contain benzene a known carcinogen? Seem to remember it was added when the dangerous lead was removed...

[L555BAT]

So what's the recall going to fix? De-tune the engine?

Who's going to voluntarily take their car in for that? Or could you be forced into taking it in?

[davepoth]

L555BAT said:

So what's the recall going to fix? De-tune the engine?

Who's going to voluntarily take their car in for that? Or could you be forced into taking it in?

The car will fail the smog test if it's not fixed, presumably.

[eharding]

Have the VW models cited by the EPA had a notably better performance or fuel economy than those of the competition whilst still complying with the US legislation, and hence led to the EPA looking more closely at the engine-management software, or are they roughly comparable to other cars from competing manufacturers?

In the latter case, should we expect that there have been a number of rather fraught board-meetings and departmental trouser-accidents across the industry as a whole since the EPA announcement, and we should expect further action from the EPA against other manufacturers in due course?

[Tango13]

Baryonyx said:

boxedin said:

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.

I thought those 'flat spots' on motorbikes were an emissions fiddle to get the bikes through the tests of the time? My Triumph T595 Daytona has a 'flat spot', if you can call it that, at around 5000-5500rpm but it's nothing like you'd see as a 'flat spot' in a car, plenty of which have dreadful power delivery maps to get around the emissions testing. The thing with motorbikes is though, you can easily the map the flat spot out with a Power Commander or similar device, and very, very few 90's sports bikes will have an original exhaust anyway, since the done thing was always to get a loud slip on to enjoy!

As Boxedin rightly said, the built in flat spots on bike were to get throught the drive by noise tests. The test involved riding the bike at a set speeed past a db meter before giving it full throttle, the flat spot ensured the bike bogged down and thus didn't make as much noise.

[tight fart]

L555BAT said:

So what's the recall going to fix? De-tune the engine?

Who's going to voluntarily take their car in for that? Or could you be forced into taking it in?

Talk of not being allowed to sell (re register) the car unless it's had the recall.

[turbobloke]

heebeegeetee said:

davepoth said:

There are two issues really - short term (breathe in piped exhaust gas and both will kill you) and the long term, "gives you cancer"-type issues.

Petrols are not as dangerous now, that's pretty much a given. Most of the really noxious stuff has been removed. The problem for diesel is that two things (particulates and NOx) are more or less intrinsic to diesel, and are really nasty in a long term fashion. That's why the conversation has changed.

Well benzene hasn't been removed from the fuel, and that's really noxious and we ingest it every time we fill up, and particulates from petrol engines are numerous, lighter, remain airborne longer and penetrate the lungs more deeply, but the media seems only to want to report on the larger and heavier diesel exhaust particulate, almost as if nothing emerges from the petrol car's tailpipe.

The particulate matter of diesel exhaust emissions contains benzene in amounts comparable to the concentrations of carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons - which are not found in emissions from small petrol engines.

Surely we mustn't forget particle-bound benzene from diesel engine exhausts?

heebeegeetee said:

Worries about cancer really shouldn't be an issue in this regard imo.

Actual research rather than opinion says otherwise. Hitomi Suzuki (Kyoto Uni) and the Mersch-Sundermann study for example. 3-NBA in diesel exhaust emissions is the most potent mutagenic carcinogen known.

heebeegeetee said:

Both petrol and diesel tailpipe emissions were both once equally classified as 'likely to cause cancer'

Were.

heebeegeetee said:

So, amongst samples of groups of workers who toiled underground with diesel engines for 30 years, some were found to be showing signs of cancer. In reality, how do we really think that extrapolates to us in the genuine populace, as a hazard risk?

That's not the only study to consider in this regard, but benzene is little different, a fact seemingly ignored above.

It's generally accepted within the scientific community that established cases of leukaemia in workers associated with benzene exposure have only been found where frequent exposures in excess of 100 ppm have occurred over many years.

heebeegeetee said:

We are probably in far greater danger of cancer when we fuel our petrol cars, because the petrol-smell you take in contains benzene, a highly carcinogenic substance.

If it was as dangerous as you suggest there would be breathing apparatus at filling stations or, before that became necessary, there would be an EU directive lowering the permitted benzene content even further than at present.

[heebeegeetee]

turbobloke said:

heebeegeetee said:

davepoth said:

There are two issues really - short term (breathe in piped exhaust gas and both will kill you) and the long term, "gives you cancer"-type issues.

Petrols are not as dangerous now, that's pretty much a given. Most of the really noxious stuff has been removed. The problem for diesel is that two things (particulates and NOx) are more or less intrinsic to diesel, and are really nasty in a long term fashion. That's why the conversation has changed.

Well benzene hasn't been removed from the fuel, and that's really noxious and we ingest it every time we fill up, and particulates from petrol engines are numerous, lighter, remain airborne longer and penetrate the lungs more deeply, but the media seems only to want to report on the larger and heavier diesel exhaust particulate, almost as if nothing emerges from the petrol car's tailpipe.

The particulate matter of diesel exhaust emissions contains benzene in amounts comparable to the concentrations of carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons - which are not found in emissions from small petrol engines.

Surely we mustn't forget particle-bound benzene from diesel engine exhausts?

heebeegeetee said:

Worries about cancer really shouldn't be an issue in this regard imo.

Actual research rather than opinion says otherwise. Hitomi Suzuki (Kyoto Uni) and the Mersch-Sundermann study for example. 3-NBA in diesel exhaust emissions is the most potent mutagenic carcinogen known.

heebeegeetee said:

Both petrol and diesel tailpipe emissions were both once equally classified as 'likely to cause cancer'

Were.

heebeegeetee said:

So, amongst samples of groups of workers who toiled underground with diesel engines for 30 years, some were found to be showing signs of cancer. In reality, how do we really think that extrapolates to us in the genuine populace, as a hazard risk?

That's not the only study to consider in this regard, but benzene is little different, a fact seemingly ignored above.

It's generally accepted within the scientific community that established cases of leukaemia in workers associated with benzene exposure have only been found where frequent exposures in excess of 100 ppm have occurred over many years.

heebeegeetee said:

We are probably in far greater danger of cancer when we fuel our petrol cars, because the petrol-smell you take in contains benzene, a highly carcinogenic substance.

If it was as dangerous as you suggest there would be breathing apparatus at filling stations or, before that became necessary, there would be an EU directive lowering the permitted benzene content even further than at present.

There are trace elements of benzene found in exhaust gases, along with countless other sources. However benzene is specifically added to petrol, at levels not known to be safe, because quite simply petrol has never worked as a fuel with having substances that are highly injurious to human health being added to it.

I see you are still referring to one document published in 1999 and which has never been backed up since.

The EU (and other authorities around the world) have done as you say, issued directives lowering levels of benzene use. I do know that levels of use have always been far higher that that recommended by the WHO.

I haven't suggested that benzene is that dangerous. I just find it odd that people latch on to reports about diesel fumes without checking why these reports come out, then make statements such as I responded to, that "diesel fumes are really dangerous you know" whilst every week they go to a filling station and ingest some benzene, which is likely to be every but as dangerous as exhaust gases which have to be ingested for 30 years in a concentrated environment before cancer is developed.

And that's despite supposedly having "most potent mutagenic carcinogen known".

[Halb]

Great thread.
I am learning stuff here.
Keep it up.

[Scuffers]

heebeegeetee said:

There are trace elements of benzene found in exhaust gases, along with countless other sources. However benzene is specifically added to petrol, at levels not known to be safe, because quite simply petrol has never worked as a fuel with having substances that are highly injurious to human health being added to it.

I see you are still referring to one document published in 1999 and which has never been backed up since.

The EU (and other authorities around the world) have done as you say, issued directives lowering levels of benzene use. I do know that levels of use have always been far higher that that recommended by the WHO.

problem here is that lead was banned on some pretty sketchy assumptions, and replaced with MTBE's

MTBE's are a much bigger problem, not just from tailpipe emissions, but also petrol vapour (hence the US has vapour recovery systems on fuel pumps).

I would argue that the banning of lead had more to do with the forced introduction of Cat's than anything else.

Diesel particulates are a problem, however, what's been done now to meet EU6 is getting to the point of plain stupidity, the demonising of NOx is laughable when you realise that the quantities are tiny and the net effect of all the strategies to reduce it are actually causing an increase in fuel consumption to the point that we are likely going to end up with even more NOx (as well as CO2 etc).

Back to VW, I would like to understand what evidence they have for this so called 'switch' (in SW)

I would also like to understand what the legislation says about the test regime and what you are supposed to actually meet, ie. if the legislation says you have to meet these emissions in this test, then I can see they are going to have issues doing VW over doing exactly that.

[heebeegeetee]

Scuffers said:

1. problem here is that lead was banned on some pretty sketchy assumptions, and replaced with MTBE's

2. MTBE's are a much bigger problem, not just from tailpipe emissions, but also petrol vapour (hence the US has vapour recovery systems on fuel pumps).

I would argue that the banning of lead had more to do with the forced introduction of Cat's than anything else.

Diesel particulates are a problem, however, what's been done now to meet EU6 is getting to the point of plain stupidity, the demonising of NOx is laughable when you realise that the quantities are tiny and the net effect of all the strategies to reduce it are actually causing an increase in fuel consumption to the point that we are likely going to end up with even more NOx (as well as CO2 etc).

Back to VW, I would like to understand what evidence they have for this so called 'switch' (in SW)

I would also like to understand what the legislation says about the test regime and what you are supposed to actually meet, ie. if the legislation says you have to meet these emissions in this test, then I can see they are going to have issues doing VW over doing exactly that.

1. Ooh, I'm really not sure about that. From what I've read the dangers of TEL were every bit known in 1925 when introduced as it was 40-60 years later when it's use was stopped. It is being said that 10 years after the use of TEL is banned in any given jurisdiction violent crime decreases significantly, and indeed while I don't have a link right now, it is being said that the reason football violence in the uk has all but disappeared is being put down to the removal of lead from the air.

2. The rest of your post is very interesting imo. Personally I think the time is not far away when only cars with very small petrol engines and/or only hybrid/electric cars will be allowed in cities, and tbh I do think there will be great benefits. Who knows, for the first time ever, the UK might even be forced to introduce genuine facilities for cyclists.

I'm puzzled by the VW thing, because AFAIAA all of the manufacturers have been playing such games for always. Even now in the UK, there possibly isn't a single vehicle that can attain official mpg figures through normal use, and therefore the same applies to emissions figures too.

[Starfighter]

It's all insignificant in the US anyway. They drive like a bunch of Muppets with very little forward planning.

That said, there was a significant environmental improvement where I spent Saturday night due to the numbers of Ferrari and other exotica including a very nice open top McLaren.

[AW111]

heebeegeetee said:

1. Ooh, I'm really not sure about that. From what I've read the dangers of TEL were every bit known in 1925 when introduced as it was 40-60 years later when it's use was stopped. It is being said that 10 years after the use of TEL is banned in any given jurisdiction violent crime decreases significantly, and indeed while I don't have a link right now, it is being said that the reason football violence in the uk has all but disappeared is being put down to the removal of lead from the air.

2. The rest of your post is very interesting imo. Personally I think the time is not far away when only cars with very small petrol engines and/or only hybrid/electric cars will be allowed in cities, and tbh I do think there will be great benefits. Who knows, for the first time ever, the UK might even be forced to introduce genuine facilities for cyclists.

I'm puzzled by the VW thing, because AFAIAA all of the manufacturers have been playing such games for always. Even now in the UK, there possibly isn't a single vehicle that can attain official mpg figures through normal use, and therefore the same applies to emissions figures too.

If you say that the test involves x minutes at 60.0 kph, so you tune your car to always have low emissions at 60.0 kph, that's within the rules.
If you say that we will run that low emissions map omly when temp is 25 +-2 degrees, bp is 1013 mb, and we have detected that the car is running a standard emissions test, that's cheating, and defined as such by the EPA. They make the rules, and explicitly disallow the sort of stuff that VW is accused of.