VW in trouble over alleged US emission test manipulations
Discussion
va1o said:
UK site is now up to check if your car is affected - http://www.volkswagen.co.uk/owners/dieselinfo
If so you'll get this message:
Oof, two out of two (her Golf and my CC). Wonder what happens next? I'm wanting to swap to a petrol GTI, are VW going to be nice and give me a decent trade in for the CC I wonder lol. If so you'll get this message:
VW said:
Dear Volkswagen customer,
We regret to inform you that the Type EA 189 engine built into your vehicle with the Vehicle Identification Number [removed] you submitted, is affected by software that causes discrepancies in the values for oxides of nitrogen (NOx) during dynometer runs. Your car is safe from a technical standpoint and roadworthy.
We are very sorry to have broken your trust and are working at full speed to find a technical solution. Volkswagen will cover the cost relating directly to this repair.
We will be in touch with you directly to explain what steps are required. We'll do the necessary work at our cost and have you quickly back on the road.
Yours faithfully,
Volkswagen.
We regret to inform you that the Type EA 189 engine built into your vehicle with the Vehicle Identification Number [removed] you submitted, is affected by software that causes discrepancies in the values for oxides of nitrogen (NOx) during dynometer runs. Your car is safe from a technical standpoint and roadworthy.
We are very sorry to have broken your trust and are working at full speed to find a technical solution. Volkswagen will cover the cost relating directly to this repair.
We will be in touch with you directly to explain what steps are required. We'll do the necessary work at our cost and have you quickly back on the road.
Yours faithfully,
Volkswagen.
Edited by Jezzerh on Sunday 4th October 21:28
gizlaroc said:
St John Smythe said:
b
hstewie said:
As expected I guess!hstewie said:Those results are simply the fault of the test.
Without wishing to get too involved in finger pointing and my fuel is better than your fuel plus other childish pursuits, I wonder if anybody has taken a reading on BOTH Co2 and NoX when a car is doing a DPF regen. The stench from the exhaust when in progress is awful, and given that these will occur frequently in an urban environment (particularly for those doing low mileages). For the record I drive diesels, and diesels are ideal for certain types of journey but they are not suited for low mileage drivers. If I were doing less that 10k miles per annum it would be petrol all the way.
tomjol said:
heebeegeetee said:
tomjol said:
This has been covered earlier in the thread, stop parroting it as though it's meaningful.
It hasn't been covered at all. There was a link to a coupe of documents published somewhere - hardly overwhelming proof of a supposed global problem.The comparison in the previous example was with smoking tobacco - surely you wouldn't argue that smoking tobacco isn't a serious health risk?
So if diesel cars are definitely killing people, as politicians are saying, where is the evidence, who are the peopel being killed.
We all die, so we must be talking of people dying prematurely. But serious question - what is the average of this premature? Are we talking hours, days, weeks, months or years? What is the scale of the problems we are talking about?
Some of you guys are very definite in your stance against diesel, so you must have a clear idea, surely?
Back in the 80s (when air quality was worse, presumably) the research had identified that air quality may determine on what day in a week a mortally ill patient will die. Has this situation got better or worse?
heebeegeetee said:
tomjol said:
heebeegeetee said:
tomjol said:
This has been covered earlier in the thread, stop parroting it as though it's meaningful.
It hasn't been covered at all. There was a link to a coupe of documents published somewhere - hardly overwhelming proof of a supposed global problem.The comparison in the previous example was with smoking tobacco - surely you wouldn't argue that smoking tobacco isn't a serious health risk?
So if diesel cars are definitely killing people, as politicians are saying, where is the evidence, who are the peopel being killed.
We all die, so we must be talking of people dying prematurely. But serious question - what is the average of this premature? Are we talking hours, days, weeks, months or years? What is the scale of the problems we are talking about?
Some of you guys are very definite in your stance against diesel, so you must have a clear idea, surely?
Back in the 80s (when air quality was worse, presumably) the research had identified that air quality may determine on what day in a week a mortally ill patient will die. Has this situation got better or worse?
For a start, I'm not one of those guys. I'm just explaining that your question is daft.
Secondly, I still don't think you've got it. You're never going to have some research presented to you which says Mr Smith of 23 Acacia Ave died at 12:23 PM on the 17th of October, precisely 8 years, 3 months and 19 days before he was scheduled to expire, directly due to emissions from diesel cars. Ever. Understand that statistical evidence is a thing and perhaps we can then move on.
ETA: If you do actually know all of this already, then apologies, but it's not the impression I'm getting
Edited by tomjol on Monday 5th October 09:13
The difficulty with the statistical analysis in this case is that there is no good control sample because locations with high levels of diesel fumes (ie cities) also tend to have higher than normal levels of all sorts of other nasty things. One can, to a degree, work out how much of a given chemical is coming from diesel engines but it's very hard to get a varied enough sample to state with reasonable confidence what proportion of the increased mortality rate is due to which of the chemicals.
Demonstrating the short-term effects of different concentrations of things like Nitrogen Dioxide isn't too difficult but proving the long-term effects is almost impossible. Since many pollutants have no significant short-term effects and potentially very nasty long-term ones with prolonged exposure, this makes the whole picture rather muddy and makes it possible for people with a particular agenda to argue either side of the argument without much fear of conclusive contradiction.
Demonstrating the short-term effects of different concentrations of things like Nitrogen Dioxide isn't too difficult but proving the long-term effects is almost impossible. Since many pollutants have no significant short-term effects and potentially very nasty long-term ones with prolonged exposure, this makes the whole picture rather muddy and makes it possible for people with a particular agenda to argue either side of the argument without much fear of conclusive contradiction.
Edited by kambites on Monday 5th October 09:18
St John Smythe said:
gizlaroc said:
St John Smythe said:
bhstewie said:
As expected I guess!hstewie said:Those results are simply the fault of the test.
The article says 4 other manufacturers were found to be outputting levels far higher in the real word. No s
t Sherlock!! Basic physics that is. We didn't need a report to tell us that.
BMW have already said they set their cars up to make sure they are are clean as possible on the test, they do everything they can to manipulate the results, but their cars are not fitted with defeat software, that is what VW are in trouble for.
Now if course it may come out that BMW were lying and they have themselves fitted some defeat software, but I doubt that will happen, if they had they would have kept quiet and prayed they didn't get caught.
The
gizlaroc said:
St John Smythe said:
gizlaroc said:
St John Smythe said:
bhstewie said:
As expected I guess!hstewie said:Those results are simply the fault of the test.
The article says 4 other manufacturers were found to be outputting levels far higher in the real word. No s
t Sherlock!! Basic physics that is. We didn't need a report to tell us that.
BMW have already said they set their cars up to make sure they are are clean as possible on the test, they do everything they can to manipulate the results, but their cars are not fitted with defeat software, that is what VW are in trouble for.
Now if course it may come out that BMW were lying and they have themselves fitted some defeat software, but I doubt that will happen, if they had they would have kept quiet and prayed they didn't get caught.
The
Redlake27 said:
gizlaroc said:
St John Smythe said:
bhstewie said:
As expected I guess!hstewie said:Those results are simply the fault of the test.
Note with interest that no other media outlets seem to be reporting this blokes results and it doesn't appear to be on Mails front page now.
OK, if we have no way whatsoever of determining who is having their lives cut short by air quality caused by diesel cars, or even no way at all of identifying the level of the problem, whether derv cars are shortening lives by hours/days/weeks/months/years, how do check the veracity of what we're being told, do we continue to just blindly follow what politicians are telling us and be taxed accordingly?
clonmult said:
A "defeat device" is effectively making the cars as clean as possible on the test. Its just that the BMW wording doesn't claim "defeat device", when it appears to be just that.
Nonsense. There is a very important difference:-The BMW is set up, performing in accordance with its usual maps, etc to perform well in the test conditions.
The VW ran special maps and other processes specifically for the test.
The BMW results might mislead if not put in context; the VW results were a fraud.
clonmult said:
A "defeat device" is effectively making the cars as clean as possible on the test. Its just that the BMW wording doesn't claim "defeat device", when it appears to be just that.
It's more subtle than that. The thing being defeated is not the test, it is the emissions control systems. The allegation is that the car turns off the emissions controls when it detects that it is not being tested. That is not the same as ensuring that the car is as clean as possible when driven in the same way that is tested.heebeegeetee said:
OK, if we have no way whatsoever of determining who is having their lives cut short by air quality caused by diesel cars, or even no way at all of identifying the level of the problem, whether derv cars are shortening lives by hours/days/weeks/months/years, how do check the veracity of what we're being told, do we continue to just blindly follow what politicians are telling us and be taxed accordingly?
Do you have to ask this question several times a day?heebeegeetee said:
OK, if we have no way whatsoever of determining who is having their lives cut short by air quality caused by diesel cars, or even no way at all of identifying the level of the problem, whether derv cars are shortening lives by hours/days/weeks/months/years, how do check the veracity of what we're being told, do we continue to just blindly follow what politicians are telling us and be taxed accordingly?
I expect there is plenty of data available on the web if you have time to find and read. e.g.https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/HIAi...
Whoa....the statements from the chairman of VW are very worrying indeed as to the future of VW:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-10-04/...
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-10-04/...
clonmult said:
A "defeat device" is effectively making the cars as clean as possible on the test. Its just that the BMW wording doesn't claim "defeat device", when it appears to be just that.
BMW have said they have not used any defeat device, there is a big difference between setting up your car to pass the emissions tests and to fraudulently cheating the test. gizlaroc said:
clonmult said:
A "defeat device" is effectively making the cars as clean as possible on the test. Its just that the BMW wording doesn't claim "defeat device", when it appears to be just that.
BMW have said they have not used any defeat device, there is a big difference between setting up your car to pass the emissions tests and to fraudulently cheating the test. When you create a test (or target), what you set out to measure becomes the important thing to the people you are testing. If it turns out that it isn't the important thing to you, you've screwed up. So if you test cars on a cycle which does not reflect how they are actually used, you should not be surprised if the performance on the test and the performance in use diverge. It's pretty much inevitable. Still doesn't justify breaking the rules of the testing, though.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff