Althouse: "If the reason they are fun to drive is that they are spewing up to 40 times the amount of pollutants they are supposed to be, I just find it outrageous, frankly."

September 22, 2015

"If the reason they are fun to drive is that they are spewing up to 40 times the amount of pollutants they are supposed to be, I just find it outrageous, frankly."

"“I’d be surprised if they can get that emissions under control and still have the performance.... That’s probably why they did this in the first place."

Diesel, "kind of slushy on the road," not "very peppy." But if it is... it's too good to be true, apparently.

IN THE COMMENTS: Joe Dirt correctly said: "The comment on about a 'slushy' ride and pep was related to the Prius, not the VW." And the Prius is not a diesel. So let me reframe my last line as a question: Would a diesel car feel sluggish if it was properly set to meet environmental standards? Did Volkwagen cheat because it couldn't make a diesel car that people would want unless they cheated?

88 comments:

Curious George said...: Call the Green Police!; 9/22/15, 8:20 AM
MadisonMan said...: It's cases like this for which I am grateful that the EPA and Clean Air Act have regulatory teeth.

I'm wondering if the people who put this all in motion at VW are still working there. Or did they parachute out, golden-style, and leave the Company to deal with the considerable and well-deserved fall-out.; 9/22/15, 8:20 AM
traditionalguy said...: War on non-electrics rolls along with EPA attacks on efficient transportation raised to Religious Blasphemy Law status. That part in the Constitution about not establishing a Government Religion has been trashed with faking science by totally corrupt bureaucrats and threatening jail for real scientists who speak out.; 9/22/15, 8:24 AM
Joe Dirt said...: The comment on about a "slushy" ride and pep was related to the Prius, not the VW; 9/22/15, 8:25 AM
cubanbob said...: MadisonMan said...

It's cases like this for which I am grateful that the EPA and Clean Air Act have regulatory teeth.

I'm wondering if the people who put this all in motion at VW are still working there. Or did they parachute out, golden-style, and leave the Company to deal with the considerable and well-deserved fall-out.
9/22/15, 8:20 AM "

Hold on there. Government Man speaks with forked tongue; diesels are more fuel efficient and thus spew less carbon dioxide. Pick your poison.; 9/22/15, 8:29 AM
Michael K said...: "many of their owners — who thought they were buying fuel-efficient and environmentally friendly vehicles — angry and feeling betrayed."

Oh the horror ! Nothing is as slushy as a Prius, which I drove as a rental car in June. I almost got run over by a truck the acceleration was so poor. Good gas mileage, though. Diesels also get good gas (oil) mileage and the fuel is cheap except for the excessive taxes California charges,.; 9/22/15, 8:34 AM
khesanh0802 said...: @Curious George Terrific link!; 9/22/15, 8:39 AM
khesanh0802 said...: Not that different from Solyndra, or many other green scams. Build in perverse incentives and you will get perverse behavior, although this is really over-the-top. Establish a system and someone will game it.; 9/22/15, 8:42 AM
Simon Kenton said...: I drive a diesel pickup and in factory tune it will pull 65 to 90 passing a car at an altitude of 7000+. It takes no notice of trailers in any weight I have ever put behind it. There is no question about peppy. It gets about 20 on the road. It is possible to chip it; the 5 settings go from slightly more economical than factory to terrestrial rocketry - in the range of 700 hp, much black smoke, shortened engine and transmission life. "I burn my candle at both ends; it will not last the night...." I'm not surprised such an option exists for VWs; they are plenty common on the after-market and are out for gassers as well as diesels, but I am surprised the factory furnished it.; 9/22/15, 8:48 AM
Michelle Dulak Thomson said...: This "scandal" is being misreported everywhere. What happened is that VW had two modes their Diesels could run under. One was low-emissions; the other was higher-emissions, higher-performance. The car's computer reset to low-emissions mode when it was stationary, hence the nice numbers. But the performance numbers (including mileage) came from the other mode. Clever, but not quite fraudulent.

Interesting: This is being reported everywhere as an emissions scandal, when it might just as well have been a mileage scandal. I guess emissions are the bigger deal these days.; 9/22/15, 8:48 AM
TreeJoe said...: This is why I drive a 425hp rear wheel drive vehicle daily, 17k miles a year this past year. Because it allows me to KNOW - to have complete confidence - in exactly how much I'm polluting. :)

(All seriousness, my vehicle is a 2015 and is ridiculously clean and gets 28mpg on the highway in a 4-door 425hp sedan - technology is amazing!)

Diesel is a very interesting technology. It ignites without spark and tends to be used in the most robust of engine designs. But it uses a nasty fuel and sounds awful.

On the other side, gasoline engines have made ridiculous strides in cleanliness and efficiency. Your average honda civic today - using gas engines - is cleaner, more powerful, and just as fuel efficient as a diesel passenger car made 5-10 years ago.

Diesel as a passenger car engine made some sense when diesel engines were 40% more fuel efficient and diesel fuel was within 3-7% of gasoline costs (or even lower).

In the U.S., today, neither is the case anymore.; 9/22/15, 8:53 AM
chickelit said...: This "scandal" is being misreported everywhere. What happened is that VW had two modes their Diesels could run under. One was low-emissions; the other was higher-emissions, higher-performance.

Isn't that the case for gasoline-powered emissions as well? I remember getting my gas-powered vehicle smogged: They always did a high RPM and a low RPM test. Any motor puts out more exhaust at higher RPMs. And California didn't even begin smog-testing diesels until relatively recently.; 9/22/15, 8:54 AM
Chris N said...: Gaia is a cruel mistress; 9/22/15, 8:55 AM
Chris N said...: And if you're getting strong emotions over emissions, you probably need something else to do.

Nobody expects the Green Inquisition!; 9/22/15, 8:59 AM
rhhardin said...: It's just ordinary adjustment of the engine environment as the load changes, like a high-tech spark advance, if diesels had spark.

The government comes down on car makers that are not unionized.

It's scandal theater.; 9/22/15, 9:05 AM
Paco Wové said...: "This "scandal" is being misreported everywhere"

NPR this morning had a segment on this - I think exactly one clause of one sentence mentioning, obliquely, what had actually happened, and all the rest was wow-just-wow-I-can't-even-O.M.G. hyperventilating and propaganda.; 9/22/15, 9:10 AM
Michael K said...: Maybe the EPA can use the VW fine to clean up that river they destroyed with mine waste. Just a thought.; 9/22/15, 9:12 AM
Bruce Hayden said...: Know several guys who each have several older 300D Mercedes diesels (and, yes, that was redundant). They run forevermore, and some are the perfect car for preppers, since they will run after getting hit by an EMP (something about solid state instead of electronic systems).

Still a bit surprised by VW here, given how their Audi unit was almost destroyed a couple decades ago by a mostly bogus sudden shift problem with their automatic transmissions. I think that is where the interlock between brakes and automatic transmissions comes from, which now prevents you from shifting into gear without the break being applied (and the problem wasn't unique to Audi - my father had had it with a Volvo).; 9/22/15, 9:25 AM
Gahrie said...: From what I have read, the regulations specify that cars must meet the emissions standards at the time of testing.

Sounds to me like VW is run by Democrats.....; 9/22/15, 9:29 AM
Hagar said...: Years ago, Ford sold vehicles ballyhooed for their high gas mileage, but this was according to EPA ratings, which were deceptive. The EPA testing procedure at that time did not reflect actual driving conditions, and Ford just set up their gear ratios and black boxes to get maximum results in the EPA mileage test; never mind the real world. This made the cars very awkward to drive, in some cases even dangerous, and of course real world gas mileages were nowhere near the advertised ones.

So, how was this different from the VW story? Well, Ford was careful not to make a secret of it; anyone that paid attention knew what they did and bought other cars.

VW did do their skullduggery in secret, or so the EPA claims, but then they would say so would they not? And the MSM is heavily biased both in favor of the EPA and UAW, so ....

I think I will wait a little and see what more comes to light before I join the hue and cry.

I have had some complaints about VW AG over the years, but I never thought they were stupid.; 9/22/15, 9:30 AM
SGT Ted said...: Note that getting the vehicles into EPA compliance means reducing the fuel economy, which means more fuel burned per car.

Why not roll back the regs to pre-2009 levels? What's so sacred about them?; 9/22/15, 9:35 AM
cubanbob said...: The only scandal here is the incompetence of the EPA, reason enough to fire its entire staff and disband the agency. The agency can't get a shopper to buy a few vehicles at random for various dealerships and test them in a real world setting? Again reason enough to disband the agency staffed by incompetents at best and ideologues at worst.; 9/22/15, 9:36 AM
William said...: Which was the bigger scandal: using slave labor or this? VW bounced back nicely after the slave labor scandal so maybe they'll survive this. If you house your workers in unheated barracks and feed them 600 calories a day, that's a way of producing cars that keeps the environmental costs of production to a minimum. Poor VW. They're damned if they do and damned if they don't.; 9/22/15, 9:36 AM
Wince said...: chickelit said...
This "scandal" is being misreported everywhere. What happened is that VW had two modes their Diesels could run under. One was low-emissions; the other was higher-emissions, higher-performance.

Michael K said...
Maybe the EPA can use the VW fine to clean up that river they destroyed with mine waste. Just a thought.

You know the EPA had to be searching for something sensational to take the mine waste story off the headlines.; 9/22/15, 9:39 AM
Hagar said...: And Ralph the Raider and the Demon Audis turned out to be mostly about yuppie drivers hitting the gas pedal along with the brake on the up-scale AUDIs, which were aimed at German autobahn drivers.
The Canadian auto regulators said their research showed this right away when the issue came up, and everybody has since been careful to separate the pedals to account for American drivers.; 9/22/15, 9:40 AM
rehajm said...: The car's computer reset to low-emissions mode when it was stationary, hence the nice numbers. But the performance numbers (including mileage) came from the other mode. Clever, but not quite fraudulent.

It sounds as though the vehicles being 'stationary' or in park would not be sufficient to place the car in the emissions passing mode. For testing EPA uses a stationary dyno which would cause features like traction or stability control to detect a dangerous situation, so it's alleged the cars had a special dyno calibration mode. It's that mode and that mode only where the vehicles could meet emissions standards...

And to answer Ann it's entirely possible, even likely VW could not make these engines comply with EPA standards while maintaining acceptable performance for consumers. Think VW bus...; 9/22/15, 9:40 AM
SGT Ted said...: BTW the fix would be very simple and involve a software flash to reprogram the ECM to disregard the emissions tester and bring the fuel/air mixture to a point where it meets compliance in actual driving conditions.; 9/22/15, 9:42 AM
William said...: I live in NYC. There's a bar I know that has absolutely terrific French fries. I wonder if there's any skulduggery going on with the trans fats in their friers? This VW scandal undermines the social contract.; 9/22/15, 9:42 AM
Curious George said...: "MadisonMan said...
It's cases like this for which I am grateful that the EPA and Clean Air Act have regulatory teeth."

Grateful? What a bed wetter.; 9/22/15, 9:42 AM
SGT Ted said...: Besides, this is coming from the Obama administration, so how do we even know it's true?; 9/22/15, 9:43 AM
Michael said...: I happen to own a VW Touareg diesel. Great vehicle. Very peppy. My second one. I have no earthly idea what kind of mileage it gets but am happy that the cost of fuel has come way down over the last year. I don't give a shit how many pollutants it is spewing into the air but it is not subject to the recall having a different engine than the one they fudged on. Sorry they got caught. Glad I am not going to have to get mine "fixed."; 9/22/15, 9:46 AM
Etienne said...: Interestingly, Paris has made it a goal to rid the city of diesel. It can't get clean air otherwise, and the government has said it was a terrible mistake to subsidize diesels over gasoline the last 20 years. The city is so polluted now, that they have to have odd-even license plate days to drive into the city.

The other bad thing, is the millions they are spending to remove soot from the monuments (or not, when they are broke).

Owning a diesel is the same as burning gypsies and Jews in an oven.; 9/22/15, 9:51 AM
Michael said...: Oh, John Decker pictured in the NYT article feels totally ripped off. Fucking pussy. Why didn't he buy a goddamn electric car?; 9/22/15, 9:54 AM
chuckR said...: The Truth About Cars has had several entries about VW since this broke.
All manufacturers game the EPA and CAFE ratings - that's what they are there for - standard benchmarks. I'm not buying the idea that VW has a legitimate dual mode engine mapping and won't unless they show that on the road, under loads similar to the EPA test, the low emissions mode is used. Bet that won't happen. I also think it is fraud because, in the words of Michael Horn, CEO of VWOA, "We have totally screwed up". I don't think he's referring to PR and crisis management.
The other aspect of this, besides fraud, is real world impact and damage. Tell me about NOX levels in 1970, 1980, etc, and also what the current allowable is and what VW will produce in a typical suburban/urban driving cycle.
Thanks, Michael K for reminding us of EPA's screwup with the (used to be) impounded mine waste. Not sure if VW's $18 billion potential fine would be enough to scour the streambeds of all the noxious stuff.; 9/22/15, 9:55 AM
Hagar said...: I have read that the "skulduggery" may be based on a very narrow reading of the legislation and the EPA regulatory language.

Sort of like when Roger Penske was teaching the SCCA to proofread their rulebook before publishing it.; 9/22/15, 9:58 AM
chuckR said...: if, obd2,eq,true, then
call be_good
else
call let_er_rip
endif; 9/22/15, 10:01 AM
CWJ said...: "many of their owners — who thought they were buying fuel-efficient and environmentally friendly vehicles — angry and feeling betrayed."

Many, and yet they couldn't find more than one to interview.; 9/22/15, 10:03 AM
chuckR said...: Michael - they are coming after your Touareg too. And the diesels in the Cayenne, Q5, A6, A7 and A8.
Once the clock strikes 13, nobody trusts it ever again.; 9/22/15, 10:08 AM
Wince said...: But the Iranian mullahs can be trusted to do their own nuclear inspections?; 9/22/15, 10:10 AM
Chaswjd said...: It's Kirk's Kobayashi Maru solution to the CAFE standards.; 9/22/15, 10:18 AM
Eric the Fruit Bat said...: (1) I think in one of the astronomy lecture CDs the guy used diesel combustion to illustrate the point that denser stars don't last as long as un-denser stars.

(2) It has been my experience that diesel fumes and a hangover will visit upon a man the punishment he richly deserves.

(3) I rented a new Dodge Dart, recently, and it was "very peppy." An automatic, I found myself in third gear at 20 mph. It was like driving a go cart with upholstery. Intended for the young person on a tight budget, was my surmise.; 9/22/15, 10:18 AM
CWJ said...: This deception threatens VW's reputation, and to break the history of trust between automaker and buyer. Then five short paragraphs later the reporters write about VW working to erase the memories of previous bad products. I find reading the contradictions of modern reporting absolutely maddening. I'm constantly scrolling up and down to try to square what I just read with what was written earlier. It only makes sense, if you can forget what you read after each paragraph.; 9/22/15, 10:20 AM
Kyzer SoSay said...: I think the opposite of dense is "sparse". But it took me about two minutes to think of it.; 9/22/15, 10:26 AM
Kyzer SoSay said...: @ CWJ -
Just as they want it to be.; 9/22/15, 10:27 AM
robinintn said...: They didn't cheat at all. They made an engine that complies "at the time of testing" which is what the regulations require.

I note that it's being framed as a serious criminal violation, but the investigation, and the framing, is by their competition, Government Motors, so it should be taken with a HUGE grain of salt.

It all makes me want one of these VW diesels.; 9/22/15, 10:35 AM
MadisonMan said...: It all makes me want one of these VW diesels.

I'll pass. Too cold here.

Maybe the technology has gotten around that.

I do notice that Diesel is a lot more expensive than gas when I drive on the Interstate. Most of the time.; 9/22/15, 10:42 AM
chuckR said...: robinintn

I wonder if that hair splitting will save them. Don't think so.

Relevant agency EPA - excess pollution, no deaths, potential fine $18 billion - VW
Relevant agency NHTSA - unintended acceleration, up to 89 deaths (but probably fewer directly attributable to this, rather than just occurring in a car with the suspect pedal design), fine $1.2 billion - Toyota
Relevant agency NHTSA - crappy ignition switch, 124 deaths (but probably fewer directly attributable to this), fine $0.9 billion - GM

Enforcement and penalties sure look inconsistent to me.; 9/22/15, 10:55 AM
dhagood said...: i own a 2005 passat tdi. this car has consistently run up and down the colorado mountains under cruise control without having to downshift on any grade. variable vane turbocharged diesel engines are quite "peppy" in that they provide loads of torque and torque is literally what makes the wheels go round.

the mileage is why i bought the car: i average just under 41 mpg. the best i've gotten is 44.5 or so and the worst i've gotten is just over 36. while most of my driving is the antithesis of stop and go, i do take it on shopping trips and such in the metro denver area.

as far as fuel costs, in denver at the moment diesel fuel is something like 30 cents a gallon cheaper than gasoline.

rehjam: And to answer Ann it's entirely possible, even likely VW could not make these engines comply with EPA standards while maintaining acceptable performance for consumers.

fiddlesticks. the emissions technology utilized to meet current epa requirements is selective catalytic reduction (scr). since the scr technology is utilized only in the engine's exhaust system the impact on engine performance is minimal. the engines using scr are just as peppy as they ever were (or weren't).

the issue with implementing scr is the cost of adding the diesel exhaust fluid (def) tank, the associated piping, sensors, and ecu programming. it has nothing to do with vehicle performance.

finally, i don't understand what vw was thinking. this is not the first time diesel engine manufacturers in the american market were caught fudging diesel emissions tests. the over the road truck engine manufacturers were caught doing pretty much the same exact thing 15 or so years ago and there was expensive hell to pay. you don't get to be the world's largest automotive manufacturer by being stupid, so why was vw being stupid about diesel emissions in 2015?; 9/22/15, 11:00 AM
Known Unknown said...: "Your average honda civic today - using gas engines - is cleaner, more powerful, and just as fuel efficient as a diesel passenger car made 5-10 years ago. "

My wife drives one. If you turn on the leaf button, you lose a lot of pep, but get better mileage. Turn off the little leaf, and it goes pretty well for a small-engine car.; 9/22/15, 11:07 AM
Birkel said...: I suppose passing emissions regulations that are impossible to meet without magic or poor performance is too much to ask.; 9/22/15, 11:24 AM
Michael K said...: My impression is that it is very dangerous to be a competitor of Government Motors in the Obama era.; 9/22/15, 11:29 AM
CWJ said...: I have a question for the other commenters here. I've been conducting an experiment. I drive a '12 BMW x3 with the base 3.0 in-line 6. In the "sport" setting, it's a lot more satisfying to drive, but I assumed I'd lose significant mph if I used it all the time. So I've been alternating between the two settings three or four tanks at a time to make sure that I had a good mix of driving cpeeds, and found no consistent difference in my mileage. What gives? Absent any benefit at the gas pump, is the normal setting there to meet emissions requirements?; 9/22/15, 11:35 AM
CWJ said...: Cpeeds? Clearly my inner Russian was typing.; 9/22/15, 11:42 AM
CWJ said...: MPG not MPH. Lord, I'm off today.; 9/22/15, 11:55 AM
holdfast said...: @Coupe said..."Owning a diesel is the same as burning gypsies and Jews in an oven.

Hey! That's mean. We burn much cleaner than diesel.; 9/22/15, 12:02 PM
rehajm said...: CWJ, if your X3 has the DHP and you're switching to sport mode via the rocker switch it could be you're only (or mostly) only altering the handling and steering setup rather than making meaningful changes in accelerator sensitivity and transmission shift points that would impact fuel economy. Shifting to Sport via the gear selector would have a bigger impact on throttle and shift points, thus likely mileage. All that said changes between sport and normal modes should only result in a 1-2 mpg difference between modes assuming similar driving conditions. Between the two modes you could also be making slight changes in your driving style that could offset the expected mpg difference.; 9/22/15, 12:14 PM
JSD said...: The Audi acceleration problem was due to the placement of the brake and gas pedal. Older sports cars used to place the brake and gas pedal close together for “heal and toe” breaking and downshifting. While breaking for a corner, you could simultaneously blip the throttle between gears in a downshift and match the engine RPMs to the transmission/tire speed. This keeps the wheels from locking and the back end from getting loose. It’s not easy and probably a bad idea for 99.9% of drivers, but sports car enthusiasts like to think they bought the real thing. Modern cars have made this entirely meaningless and even Ferraris have gone to electronic paddle shifting.; 9/22/15, 12:19 PM
CWJ said...: Thanks, rehajm!

For others reading, I have a ZF 8-speed, and the switch between modes is via the gear shifter. The change in shift points and consequent RPM is quite dramatic.; 9/22/15, 12:21 PM
Sigivald said...: Would a diesel car feel sluggish if it was properly set to meet environmental standards?

No; we know this because other diesels don't cheat and are not sluggish.

As far as I can tell, VW's shenanigans were to avoid having to have DEF/Urea Injection systems on those cars.

Note that the VAG cars with 6 cylinder diesels (the Q5 and A6, for instance) are not on the list, and see this Edmunds review of the A6 TDI:

"With the A6 TDI, you get the best of both worlds. The all-wheel-drive TDI's 3.0-liter turbodiesel V6 cranks out 240 hp and 428 lb-ft of torque, teaming up with the eight-speed auto. The combo was good enough to hit 60 mph in just 5.6 seconds in our testing. Yet fuel economy is a stellar 29 mpg combined (24/38), ranking right up there with frugal compact sedans. In an Edmunds test over 400 miles with varying driving conditions, we averaged 27.8 mpg."

240hp is not a lot of horsepower, but 428 lb-ft is full-size-truck-level torque, and 5.6 seconds is plenty fast for a mid-size sedan.

Earlier this year I test drove a GLK250 diesel; it was also plenty fast enough, with a 2L TDI.

Mercedes, of course, uses urea injection for emissions compliance, like everyone but VW.; 9/22/15, 12:32 PM
Michael K said...: "we know this because other diesels don't cheat and are not sluggish."

My wife had a 240D and it was lucky to get up the freeway onramp.

The 300D was pretty good.; 9/22/15, 12:41 PM
Jim Gust said...: I have a 2011 TDI Jetta. I was surprised at how quiet the engine is, and there is no diesel exhaust that I can smell, in contrast to trucks and busses. Very consistent 40 MPG, winter and summer. They've improved the glow plugs, so I've had very little trouble with starting it in the CT winters.

At 40 MPG, the carbon footprint of this vehicle is already pretty light. How much of a performance hit will I have to take if the car is "fixed"? Has anyone quantified the actual gain, and compared it to the total emissions of all those 20 MPG cars on the road?; 9/22/15, 1:06 PM
rehajm said...: dhagood said...

fiddlesticks. the emissions technology utilized to meet current epa requirements is selective catalytic reduction (scr). since the scr technology is utilized only in the engine's exhaust system the impact on engine performance is minimal. the engines using scr are just as peppy as they ever were (or weren't).

Bullshit.; 9/22/15, 1:06 PM
chuckR said...: Sigivald

Detroit News reports that a little EPA birdie told them EPA will be looking at the 3.0L six cylinder diesels from VW/Audi/Porsche. Given what EPA now knows, why wouldn't they?

I have heard two tales of how this was uncovered - the first a greenie NGO wanting to show how VW was environmentally responsible (oops) and the second a bunch of college kids. No tale yet about how the EPA actually found anything on their own.

Meanwhile, EPA is urging a return to normalcy along the rivers they polluted. Kind of hypocritical. It is an inconvenient truth that while the water will flush clean relatively shortly, the riverbed sediments won't. VW's CEO is out the end of the week. How about the head of the EPA? Nah.; 9/22/15, 1:18 PM
Hagar said...: The 240 D was a very long time ago.

The current diesels also must run on the revised diesel fuel standards. It is a whole different world out there from the old GM diesels, etc.; 9/22/15, 1:31 PM
Hagar said...: One also remember the old shenanigans about headlight lamps, covered headlights, etc.; 9/22/15, 1:35 PM
Nichevo said...: One also remember the old shenanigans about headlight lamps, covered headlights, etc.

No, do tell.; 9/22/15, 1:45 PM
Hagar said...: US law since 1940 required headlights to be "Sealed Beam" in accordance with a 1938 GE patent.
At the time they were great, but it was a "fixed" specification, while most European countries stayed with performance specifications, which allowed manufacturers flexibility to develop superior systems over time.
The US law, however, stayed in force until 1984, when the Detroit manufacturers finally decided to get with the program and integrate their world-wide operations.
The head light requirement was simply a dodge to impose extra cost on "foreign" manufacturers to build special adaptions for their US market cars.

Likewise, the US discovered that the extra glass fairings on VW and some sports cars' headlights was a safety hazard about the time VW passed Chrysler as the worlds 3d largest auto manufacturer.

The US still require windshields to be made according to PPG patents and will not accept anything else regardless of the performance qualities of other designs.; 9/22/15, 2:27 PM
Hagar said...: And I believe it is still true that "foreign" manufacturers' cars - such as Hondas made in Ohio - must have a higher "Made in USA (including Canada)" content in order to be classified as "domestic" than "domestic" (read Detroit/UAW) manufacturers' cars made in, say, Mexico.; 9/22/15, 2:33 PM
Hagar said...: or China.; 9/22/15, 2:35 PM
Freder Frederson said...: They didn't cheat at all. They made an engine that complies "at the time of testing" which is what the regulations require.

Can you provide a link to the regulation you quote. Otherwise I call bullshit. If the regulation were written that way, it would be pointless.; 9/22/15, 2:42 PM
Hagar said...: Glad to see you agree, Freddie.; 9/22/15, 2:49 PM
MadisonMan said...: If the regulation were written that way, it would be pointless.

Not quite pointless. After all, bureaucrats would still be employed to mandate compliance.

But I understand your point.; 9/22/15, 2:50 PM
Hagar said...: But that defense is too Clintonian for a non-Clinton to get away with; hence VW's apologies and Hr. Winterkorn is out.; 9/22/15, 2:57 PM
dhagood said...: couldn't be bothered to read the link, eh rehjam? if you're content to wallow in your ignorance, it is certainly fine with me.; 9/22/15, 2:59 PM
rehajm said...: dhagood said...
couldn't be bothered to read the link, eh rehjam? if you're content to wallow in your ignorance, it is certainly fine with me.

Your link does nothing to support your assertion. Nearly all of the VW cars in question don't even have an AdBlue system, except for a few 2015 models.

So your assertion - the emissions technology utilized to meet current epa requirements is selective catalytic reduction (scr). since the scr technology is utilized only in the engine's exhaust system the impact on engine performance is minimal. - is stupid. Even when vehicles have one of these systems you can't just tune the chip for performance and expect the urea to take care of whatever you throw at it. The vast majority of the performance/emissions tradeoff is made with combustion.; 9/22/15, 3:26 PM
Just asking questions (Jaq) said...: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-09-22/dear-volkswagen-was-your-biggest-mistake

They should have spent A LOT more money on Democrats.; 9/22/15, 3:39 PM
Just asking questions (Jaq) said...: They didn't cheat at all. They made an engine that complies "at the time of testing" which is what the regulations require.

The Tom Brady defense!; 9/22/15, 3:40 PM
n.n said...: Environmentalists for the "green" industry prefer that the pollutants are spewed in someone else's backyard. It's not marketable when the disruption and consequences are either obvious or reported.; 9/22/15, 4:38 PM
dhagood said...: @rehjam: you opine that vw can't make diesel engines that both meet current emissions requirements and provide acceptable performance. other manufacturers do (or at least haven't been caught yet), including gm for passenger cars, ford, ram, and gm for pickup trucks, and cummins, detroit diesel, and paccar for over the road trucks. the technology for doing this is scr (i think exhaust gas recirculation is still being used as well) and all the aforementioned manufacturers use it.

in fact, vw used scr in the 2012 and 2013 passat tdi engines which are not part of the epa emissions controversy. people that own those cars seem to be pretty happy with their performance based on what i read on various tdi forums. there is a patchwork of add/removing scr equipment to/from various vehicle models and model years but generally it seems that vw tried to get away with not using scr on the smaller cars (golf and jetta) but included scr on the bigger cars (passat).

i frankly don't get why vw thought the emissions could be possibly be different by installing a very similar engine in a different orientation (golf and jetta are mounted transversely; passat is longitudinal; in 2005 at least it was the same engine with different accessory mounting).; 9/22/15, 4:56 PM
rehajm said...: Couldn't be bothered to read the link, eh dhagood? You're obviously content to wallow in your ignorance..; 9/22/15, 7:22 PM
dhagood said...: oh, i read it. did you?

What cars are affected by this?

The cars are 2009 to 2015 TDI Volkswagen Golf, Jetta, Beetle and Audi A3s, and the 2014 to 2015 Passat. All are powered by the company’s 2.0-liter turbodiesel four-cylinder engines. There are other diesels engines in the greater VW stable, but those aren’t affected here as far as we know.

and

If VW ends up having to make software changes and retrofit an entire SCR system to the cars (other than the Passat TDI)—something that would likely cost it thousands of dollars per car—performance would likely be unchanged, but interior volume might be reduced to accommodate a liquid-urea tank and associated plumbing.

do try to keep up.; 9/22/15, 8:44 PM
rehajm said...: dhagood said...
oh, i read it. did you?

Yes, and for comprehension. Again, nothing you've posted supports your position they won't ultimately degrade performance to get these vehicles to meet EPA standards. You're referencing vehicles that don't have the 'switch', which aren't relevant. You're referencing speculation of adding urea to engines without the system, which even if they can retrofit them there's no evidence that will allow them to comply on it's own. They will still need to adjust volume, timing and other factors with combustion. Urea is not the fix all you're making it out to be. You'll see...

...and do try to keep up.; 9/23/15, 6:02 AM
rehajm said...: you opine that vw can't make diesel engines that both meet current emissions requirements and provide acceptable performance.

I never made such an assertion. The discussion was regarding specific vehicles with the 'switch'.; 9/23/15, 6:25 AM
Quaestor said...: The VW scandal is hardly surprising. The whole Green movement/lifestyle/quasi-religion is fraught with deliberate lies, myths, and deceptive practices. Anyone who chooses a car based on it's Green reputation is a lamb waiting to be fleeced by either a sharp salesman or a Green evangelist, or both. Those SMUG polluters deserve everything they get.; 9/23/15, 8:02 AM
Rusty said...: And yet even with the "switch" a diesel is more efficient than a gasoline engine.; 9/23/15, 8:08 AM
SGT Ted said...: The vast majority of the performance/emissions tradeoff is made with combustion.

This is the truth. EFI has allowed manufacturers to run incredibly lean A/F ratios, which has to be done in order to meet ever increasing emissions standards. Every EFI bike spark plug I pull service on shows a lean condition, rather than what a proper stoichiometric A/F ratio will show.

Better engine performance always means more air and more fuel, which eventually means higher NOX emissions than are allowed and that cannot be handled by the catalytic converter alone.; 9/23/15, 9:48 AM
SGT Ted said...: Given that CAFE standards are utterly subjective, artificial, politically driven and in some cases, completely unrealistic, I have no problem with auto manufactures gaming them.; 9/23/15, 9:51 AM
Rusty said...: I'm with you , sarge.
There's a point in the process where increasing efficiency another 5% just isn't worth it. A diesel engine when tuned right is a pretty efficient fuel consumer at speed. And this is without emission controls. Volkswagon has done some breakthrough small diesel engine pioneering.

Now a trivia question;

Who can name the first diesel aircraft engine used in combat?; 9/23/15, 1:07 PM