Half a million VWs recalled, sneaky emissions software.
Discussion
fblm said:
Mr GrimNasty said:
For people that believe the 'diesels are killing x thousand a year' nonsense, here is something that might educate you, it's specifically about EPA ozone limits - but the same concepts/fallacies/dishonesty apply to all 'pollutant' death claims/limits.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/10/04/new-climate-...
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/10/04/new-climate-...
You're going to have to do better than a blog about ozone to dismiss research on "all pollutants". Are you serious? Google image search 'nox smog'. It's not hokum climate 'science'; you can fvcking see it, feel it and choke it up. First they came for the diesels!!!
fblm said:
I have no idea what relevance it has, it was you who asked, you tell me! So Mexico is terrible and the US/EU are much better, fine. Have you stopped to wonder why? Do you think pollution emissions standards have anything to do with it? In any event, whilst I've never been, a good friend and long term resident of LA tells me its still really bad there in summer despite being many times better than 20 years ago. What is your point? Research by MIT suggests air pollution prematurely kills 200,000 people a year in the US and vehicle emissions are the biggest contributor. http://news.mit.edu/2013/study-air-pollution-cause... There are no doubt plenty of objections to the research and the findings, principally IMO the concept of premature deaths and the thorny old correlation and causation problem. Personally if I lived in a big city I think an early death would be preferable 
. I am skeptical of all research in the climate/environmental 'sciences' but MIT is hardly Anglia Polytechnic and if you are going to refute these numbers you've got to do a lot better than wildly extrapolating an unrelated blog about ozone.
my point is that the latest iterations of emission control have just got to sill levels and are totally unachievable in the real world, so what exactly is the point?. I am skeptical of all research in the climate/environmental 'sciences' but MIT is hardly Anglia Polytechnic and if you are going to refute these numbers you've got to do a lot better than wildly extrapolating an unrelated blog about ozone. EU4 NOx limits were probably about as far as practicable from a pollution POV, they could be meet with reasonable certainty that in the real world, they would still be achievable, and were low enough to just about dismiss any arguments about smog and the like.
then along came EU5 and 6, setting limits that are, to all practical purposes, impossible to meet in real world conditions.
Car makers do what they can to meet the limits within the strict test criteria knowing full well that in the real world, they will never meet the limits.
The real question is why go about setting a limit that has no practical demonstrable benefit over the previous one?
show me the 29,000 death certificates showing NOx as the cause of death?
in fact, show me any evidence at all that we have a genuine smog/pollution issue in the UK (and in this remember that 90+% of the cars on the road are pre-EU5/6 anyway).
This in the same stupid logic that banned lead from petrol with zero real evidence of it being a problem (at the levels that were used)
dmsims said:
I suggest you do a bit more research ........ woosh parrot
CBABesides, what's the point
Loads of cars and bikes have been dodging emissions/noise for ages.
how many cars have crappy torque curves and flat spots to meet emission requirements
this is absolutely b
ks how vw are being singled out when it's been going on for yearsif this was chevrolet/ford/gm it wouldn't be in the news at all.
Scuffers said:
my point is that the latest iterations of emission control have just got to sill levels and are totally unachievable in the real world, so what exactly is the point?
EU4 NOx limits were probably about as far as practicable from a pollution POV, they could be meet with reasonable certainty that in the real world, they would still be achievable, and were low enough to just about dismiss any arguments about smog and the like.
But the trouble with Euro IV (and Euro V) was that in the really real world it made no difference. The diesels still pollute just as much as they did in Euro IIIEU4 NOx limits were probably about as far as practicable from a pollution POV, they could be meet with reasonable certainty that in the real world, they would still be achievable, and were low enough to just about dismiss any arguments about smog and the like.
Scuffers said:
then along came EU5 and 6, setting limits that are, to all practical purposes, impossible to meet in real world conditions.
But that was the entire basis behind the government push towards diesel. That increasingly strict emissions standards would counter the nasty NOx from diesel with improvements in CO2. xjay1337 said:
dmsims said:
I suggest you do a bit more research ........ woosh parrot
CBABesides, what's the point
Loads of cars and bikes have been dodging emissions/noise for ages.
how many cars have crappy torque curves and flat spots to meet emission requirements
this is absolutely b
ks how vw are being singled out when it's been going on for yearsif this was chevrolet/ford/gm it wouldn't be in the news at all.
As has been pointed out many many times there is a huge difference between playing to the tests and cheating the tests.
It's the difference between revising for an exam and writing down the answers on your arm.
xjay1337 said:
CBA
Besides, what's the point
Loads of cars and bikes have been dodging emissions/noise for ages.
how many cars have crappy torque curves and flat spots to meet emission requirements
this is absolutely bks how vw are being singled out when it's been going on for years
if this was chevrolet/ford/gm it wouldn't be in the news at all.
If you can feel the flatspot. Then it's not hidden from you. You could, in ideal conditions, get the measured MPG and emissions. You'll never encounter those ideal conditions, but that's not the fault of the car manufacturer.Besides, what's the point
Loads of cars and bikes have been dodging emissions/noise for ages.
how many cars have crappy torque curves and flat spots to meet emission requirements
this is absolutely b
ks how vw are being singled out when it's been going on for yearsif this was chevrolet/ford/gm it wouldn't be in the news at all.
What VW did was to include something that even under ideal conditions, you could not use. Something hidden from you that could only exist in test conditions.
IF Ford or GM have done the same kind of thing and get caught there is soon to be precedent on how to deal with them. But having optimised mappings/gear ratios etc for the test, is not the same as what VW have done.
Fastdruid said:
Scuffers said:
my point is that the latest iterations of emission control have just got to sill levels and are totally unachievable in the real world, so what exactly is the point?
EU4 NOx limits were probably about as far as practicable from a pollution POV, they could be meet with reasonable certainty that in the real world, they would still be achievable, and were low enough to just about dismiss any arguments about smog and the like.
But the trouble with Euro IV (and Euro V) was that in the really real world it made no difference. The diesels still pollute just as much as they did in Euro IIIEU4 NOx limits were probably about as far as practicable from a pollution POV, they could be meet with reasonable certainty that in the real world, they would still be achievable, and were low enough to just about dismiss any arguments about smog and the like.
EU5/6 are IMHO pointless as even with all the ad-blue systems etc it's practically impossible to meet and still have a workable car engine.
Fastdruid said:
Scuffers said:
then along came EU5 and 6, setting limits that are, to all practical purposes, impossible to meet in real world conditions.
But that was the entire basis behind the government push towards diesel. That increasingly strict emissions standards would counter the nasty NOx from diesel with improvements in CO2. powerstroke said:
Before we all go tree hugger remember our lovely petrol engines dish out the same sort of stuff!!
First they came for the diesels!!!
With the superchargers wound up my boat does 1 mpg of super unleaded. Keep your tree hugger accusations to yourself! First they came for the diesels!!!
I'm not coming after anything, this stemmed from speculation pages ago regarding the size of the US fines/penalties/damages. IMO studies like this will, absurdly, be used by the lawyers of the many class actions to pin as many deaths as possible 'statistically' on VW. Our thoughts on the veracity of the 200,000 number are interesting but I'd suggest VW need a more stout defence than a print out of a blog about ozone. Scuffers said:
my point is that the latest iterations of emission control have just got to sill levels and are totally unachievable in the real world, so what exactly is the point?
EU4 NOx limits were probably about as far as practicable from a pollution POV, they could be meet with reasonable certainty that in the real world, they would still be achievable, and were low enough to just about dismiss any arguments about smog and the like.
then along came EU5 and 6, setting limits that are, to all practical purposes, impossible to meet in real world conditions.
Car makers do what they can to meet the limits within the strict test criteria knowing full well that in the real world, they will never meet the limits.
The real question is why go about setting a limit that has no practical demonstrable benefit over the previous one?
show me the 29,000 death certificates showing NOx as the cause of death?
in fact, show me any evidence at all that we have a genuine smog/pollution issue in the UK (and in this remember that 90+% of the cars on the road are pre-EU5/6 anyway).
This in the same stupid logic that banned lead from petrol with zero real evidence of it being a problem (at the levels that were used)
I don't disagree but the defence 'the targets are too strict and pointless anyway' is also not going to fly in a US court.EU4 NOx limits were probably about as far as practicable from a pollution POV, they could be meet with reasonable certainty that in the real world, they would still be achievable, and were low enough to just about dismiss any arguments about smog and the like.
then along came EU5 and 6, setting limits that are, to all practical purposes, impossible to meet in real world conditions.
Car makers do what they can to meet the limits within the strict test criteria knowing full well that in the real world, they will never meet the limits.
The real question is why go about setting a limit that has no practical demonstrable benefit over the previous one?
show me the 29,000 death certificates showing NOx as the cause of death?
in fact, show me any evidence at all that we have a genuine smog/pollution issue in the UK (and in this remember that 90+% of the cars on the road are pre-EU5/6 anyway).
This in the same stupid logic that banned lead from petrol with zero real evidence of it being a problem (at the levels that were used)
Munter said:
If you can feel the flatspot. Then it's not hidden from you. You could, in ideal conditions, get the measured MPG and emissions. You'll never encounter those ideal conditions, but that's not the fault of the car manufacturer.
What VW did was to include something that even under ideal conditions, you could not use. Something hidden from you that could only exist in test conditions.
IF Ford or GM have done the same kind of thing and get caught there is soon to be precedent on how to deal with them. But having optimised mappings/gear ratios etc for the test, is not the same as what VW have done.
that's a very fine line..What VW did was to include something that even under ideal conditions, you could not use. Something hidden from you that could only exist in test conditions.
IF Ford or GM have done the same kind of thing and get caught there is soon to be precedent on how to deal with them. But having optimised mappings/gear ratios etc for the test, is not the same as what VW have done.
VW are accused of having SW that identified the test and then ran a different set of mappings accordingly.
The others will be doing something similar, ie, on using an area of the map that's in the test, and has been adjusted to meet the test criteria.
One is 'cheating' the other is 'optimising', the net effect however is pretty much the same.
Scuffers said:
The others will be doing something similar, ie, on using an area of the map that's in the test, and has been adjusted to meet the test criteria.
No completely different - it's clear in the EPA regs that you have to declare any 'defeat device'. The others can explain exactly what's in their engine map and how it related to engine sensors - you can optimise the engine map to whatever you want (mpg, torque, emissions etc.) as long as it's intention is declared. VW did not tell the EPA 'we switch between two maps based on steering position and pedal dynamics' - if they did then this would be fine, though of course they wouldn't have passed the emissions test!Scuffers said:
This in the same stupid logic that banned lead from petrol with zero real evidence of it being a problem (at the levels that were used)
All my life I have heard selfish people like you whining about every piece of environmental regulation, real or proposed, no matter what it is.You have already said you're happy with NOx and lead, and I assume you are fine with particulates : is there any regulation of any emission you think is a good idea?
AW111 said:
All my life I have heard selfish people like you whining about every piece of environmental regulation, real or proposed, no matter what it is.
You have already said you're happy with NOx and lead, and I assume you are fine with particulates : is there any regulation of any emission you think is a good idea?
bully for you!You have already said you're happy with NOx and lead, and I assume you are fine with particulates : is there any regulation of any emission you think is a good idea?
I have no problem with the particulate limits, these are not only a proved problem, but also solvable.
the issue I have is when people take a emission and automatically deem it a problem, then go on to keep reducing it on the basis that it must be better to have less of it.
Nox in high concentrations is a problem, however, when was this? (in the UK).
Yes, it should be restricted, but the levels we are demanding now with EU6 are quite frankly stupid, both because they are way beyond what could ever be demonstrated as a problem, and ignoring all of that, are essentially impossible to meet (in the real world).
No car/truck/etc can possibly meet the EU6 NOx limit in the real world.
Scuffers said:
bully for you!
I have no problem with the particulate limits, these are not only a proved problem, but also solvable.
the issue I have is when people take a emission and automatically deem it a problem, then go on to keep reducing it on the basis that it must be better to have less of it.
Nox in high concentrations is a problem, however, when was this? (in the UK).
Yes, it should be restricted, but the levels we are demanding now with EU6 are quite frankly stupid, both because they are way beyond what could ever be demonstrated as a problem, and ignoring all of that, are essentially impossible to meet (in the real world).
No car/truck/etc can possibly meet the EU6 NOx limit in the real world.
I'm in partial agreement with you : yes the EU6 limits appear unnecessarily restrictive, no they are not unachievable, it will jusf have a cost in £, mpg and power.I have no problem with the particulate limits, these are not only a proved problem, but also solvable.
the issue I have is when people take a emission and automatically deem it a problem, then go on to keep reducing it on the basis that it must be better to have less of it.
Nox in high concentrations is a problem, however, when was this? (in the UK).
Yes, it should be restricted, but the levels we are demanding now with EU6 are quite frankly stupid, both because they are way beyond what could ever be demonstrated as a problem, and ignoring all of that, are essentially impossible to meet (in the real world).
No car/truck/etc can possibly meet the EU6 NOx limit in the real world.
If you think of all the posters rhapsodising over the power, economy and low monthly payments on their TDI VAG-mobile, maybe it was always too good to be true : would 5% less power and economy make them rubbish? 152 hp vs 160, 38 mpg vs 40?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff