4 ms·

There have been zero reports, that I'm aware of, that any of these cars would have failed the emissions test without the "defeat device". Still waiting to hear.

There have been zero reports, that I'm aware of, that any of these cars would have failed the emissions test without the "defeat device". Still waiting to hear. Edit: Easy guys, in Canada there is no known impact yet as it is being investigated. I forgot I was on the internet where everyone keeps their pitchforks in their back pocket. http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/volkswagen-emissions-rigging-1.3236548 http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/volkswagen-emissions-rigging... We do ACTUAL emissions tests in Canada (Ontario at least) - it sounds like USA is different in how it works (probably differs by state?), but we have machines to actually grade pollution. The 2009 model VWs will be emissiosn tested this year as they are 7 years old, so why this hasn't been news yet in Canada is very interesting, which is why I say I'm waiting to hear how all of these cars fair in upcoming tests. http://www.ontario.ca/page/drive-clean http://www.ontario.ca/page/drive-clean Edit 2: I'm wrong, we don't do tailpipe emissions test on cars newer than 1998! So the defeat device is the exact reason why I hadn't heard about any vehicles actually failing emissions testing here.

JoeAltmaier 11y ago
What have you been drinking? Why have a 'defeat device' if it doesn't do anything? Of course they would fail, spectacularly, without the device. That's the entire point. The estimate is, CO emissions are reduce 40X to pass the test. Meaning, the cars are 40 times too dirty to be on our roads.
- JimmaDaRustla 11y ago
  In Canada, we used to only ever do tailpipe tests, meaning a defeat device wouldn't be able to fool the testing. Apparently I'm wrong though - turns out Canada doesn't do tailpipe tests on cars newer than 1998 (this is news to me), meaning the defeat device is the exact reason why I hadn't heard about any cases of cars failing the emissions test.
  - djrogers 11y ago
    * In Canada, we used to only ever do tailpipe tests, meaning a defeat device wouldn't be able to fool the testing. * I think you misunderstand both the testing and the defeat device. We do tailpipe testing here in the US, and the defeat device results in far cleaner tailpipe emissions during said tests. It's not just an OBD data-hiding thing, it actually changes the emissions. edit - clarification, we may not do tailpipe tests on diesels here, didn't occur to me that gas tests would be different than diesel.
- vonmoltke 11y ago
  > CO emissions are reduce 40X to pass the test NOx, not CO. And it's up to, not always. > Meaning, the cars are 40 times too dirty to be on our roads. No, it means the cars are up to 40 times too dirty in this one respect to be on our roads.
  - dsuth 11y ago
    Not sure why you are equivocating in this instance. It's clearly an intentional breach of regulations, which the CEO has fessed up to. NOx emissions are a serious concern, whether they 'are' 40x too high, or 'up to' 40x too high is not a valid point of contention. Anything over the mandated limit is a health risk, and equivocating over how much is like asking whether you'd want 3 years, or 10 years shaved off your life expectancy.
    - vonmoltke 11y ago
      There is no equivocation in my post whatsoever. I was responding to what I saw as a lazy "sound bite" post that was using incorrect information to make a stronger point than it had. There was no judgement about the actions of VW, no downplaying of the seriousness of NOx pollution. Those issues are not relevant to the question of whether the facts presented are materially correct, which they were not. I will address one thing, though: > Anything over the mandated limit is a health risk, and equivocating over how much is like asking whether you'd want 3 years, or 10 years shaved off your life expectancy. That is not equivocating. Also, pollution exists on a continuous scale. Saying everything over the limit is equivalently "bad" and everything under the limit is equivalently "good" is ignoring that. There is a big difference in effect between, say, twice the limit and 40 times the limit.
jeromeflipo 11y ago
Seriously? "Then German received the results of the real-world tests. “We were astounded when we saw the numbers,” he said. On the open road, the Jetta exceeded the U.S. nitrogen oxide emissions standard by 15 to 35 times. The Passat was 5 to 20 times the standard." - http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-09-19/volkswagen-emissions-cheating-found-by-curious-clean-air-group http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-09-19/volkswagen... "As described in the NOV, a sophisticated software algorithm on certain Volkswagen vehicles detects when the car is undergoing official emissions testing, and turns full emissions controls on only during the test. The effectiveness of these vehicles’ pollution emissions control devices is greatly reduced during all normal driving situations. This results in cars that meet emissions standards in the laboratory or testing station, but during normal operation, emit nitrogen oxides, or NOx, at up to 40 times the standard. The software produced by Volkswagen is a “defeat device,” as defined by the Clean Air Act." - http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/21b8983ffa5d0e4685257dd4006b85e2/dfc8e33b5ab162b985257ec40057813b!OpenDocument http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/21b8983ffa5d0e46852...
jonknee 11y ago
Actually every single report about this story has noted the cars would have failed the emissions test without the software specially designed to cheat and pass (if not there would be no reason to have said software!).
- JimmaDaRustla 11y ago
  I was speaking in terms of Canadian testing. Turns out, I was still wrong - I assumed Canada was strictly performing tailpipe tests, not ODB instrument testing. Turns out they don't do tailpipe tests on cars newer than 1998 (this is news to me), meaning the defeat device is the exact reason why I hadn't heard about any cases of cars failing the emissions test.

JoeAltmaier 11y ago

What have you been drinking? Why have a 'defeat device' if it doesn't do anything? Of course they would fail, spectacularly, without the device. That's the entire point. The estimate is, CO emissions are reduce 40X to pass the test. Meaning, the cars are 40 times too dirty to be on our roads.

JimmaDaRustla 11y ago
In Canada, we used to only ever do tailpipe tests, meaning a defeat device wouldn't be able to fool the testing. Apparently I'm wrong though - turns out Canada doesn't do tailpipe tests on cars newer than 1998 (this is news to me), meaning the defeat device is the exact reason why I hadn't heard about any cases of cars failing the emissions test.
- djrogers 11y ago
  * In Canada, we used to only ever do tailpipe tests, meaning a defeat device wouldn't be able to fool the testing. * I think you misunderstand both the testing and the defeat device. We do tailpipe testing here in the US, and the defeat device results in far cleaner tailpipe emissions during said tests. It's not just an OBD data-hiding thing, it actually changes the emissions. edit - clarification, we may not do tailpipe tests on diesels here, didn't occur to me that gas tests would be different than diesel.
vonmoltke 11y ago
> CO emissions are reduce 40X to pass the test NOx, not CO. And it's up to, not always. > Meaning, the cars are 40 times too dirty to be on our roads. No, it means the cars are up to 40 times too dirty in this one respect to be on our roads.
- dsuth 11y ago
  Not sure why you are equivocating in this instance. It's clearly an intentional breach of regulations, which the CEO has fessed up to. NOx emissions are a serious concern, whether they 'are' 40x too high, or 'up to' 40x too high is not a valid point of contention. Anything over the mandated limit is a health risk, and equivocating over how much is like asking whether you'd want 3 years, or 10 years shaved off your life expectancy.
  - vonmoltke 11y ago
    There is no equivocation in my post whatsoever. I was responding to what I saw as a lazy "sound bite" post that was using incorrect information to make a stronger point than it had. There was no judgement about the actions of VW, no downplaying of the seriousness of NOx pollution. Those issues are not relevant to the question of whether the facts presented are materially correct, which they were not. I will address one thing, though: > Anything over the mandated limit is a health risk, and equivocating over how much is like asking whether you'd want 3 years, or 10 years shaved off your life expectancy. That is not equivocating. Also, pollution exists on a continuous scale. Saying everything over the limit is equivalently "bad" and everything under the limit is equivalently "good" is ignoring that. There is a big difference in effect between, say, twice the limit and 40 times the limit.

jeromeflipo 11y ago

Seriously? "Then German received the results of the real-world tests. “We were astounded when we saw the numbers,” he said. On the open road, the Jetta exceeded the U.S. nitrogen oxide emissions standard by 15 to 35 times. The Passat was 5 to 20 times the standard." - http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-09-19/volkswagen-emissions-cheating-found-by-curious-clean-air-group http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-09-19/volkswagen... "As described in the NOV, a sophisticated software algorithm on certain Volkswagen vehicles detects when the car is undergoing official emissions testing, and turns full emissions controls on only during the test. The effectiveness of these vehicles’ pollution emissions control devices is greatly reduced during all normal driving situations. This results in cars that meet emissions standards in the laboratory or testing station, but during normal operation, emit nitrogen oxides, or NOx, at up to 40 times the standard. The software produced by Volkswagen is a “defeat device,” as defined by the Clean Air Act." - http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/21b8983ffa5d0e4685257dd4006b85e2/dfc8e33b5ab162b985257ec40057813b!OpenDocument http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/21b8983ffa5d0e46852...

jonknee 11y ago

Actually every single report about this story has noted the cars would have failed the emissions test without the software specially designed to cheat and pass (if not there would be no reason to have said software!).

JimmaDaRustla 11y ago
I was speaking in terms of Canadian testing. Turns out, I was still wrong - I assumed Canada was strictly performing tailpipe tests, not ODB instrument testing. Turns out they don't do tailpipe tests on cars newer than 1998 (this is news to me), meaning the defeat device is the exact reason why I hadn't heard about any cases of cars failing the emissions test.