3 ms·
That's not necessarily unreasonable. They complied with the regulation, which is determined by lab test. Perhaps the test is defective, but what else were the
by ibejoeb 11y ago
That's not necessarily unreasonable. They complied with the regulation, which is determined by lab test. Perhaps the test is defective, but what else were they supposed to do?
VW acted in bad faith and clearly exhibited the mentality you describe, but it doesn't seem to me that we know enough to determine how these few acted.
It does seem apparent the test is fairly useless. If we want to pursue this type of emissions control, everything I've read suggests that it's very possible to hit the marks in real-world conditions at the expense of power and fuel economy.
- grecy 11y agoI agree. It's wildly accepted the winner in most sports contents is the one the pushes the rules the hardest - i.e. push the line as hard as possible, without "breaking" the rules. I've not read the EPA rules, but I'm sure it says something like x amount of y gas under whatever conditions. At the end of the day, VW meets those rules.
- zardo 11y agoAt the end of the day, VW meets those rules. They definitely didn't. EPA didn't just make up the term "defeat device" last month. It's in the regulation that VW was supposed to comply with. The EPA rules also contain a NTE "not-to-exceed" limit, about 2.5x the test limit. They don't have much of an enforcement budget, so testing is pretty rare, but if the car exceeds the NTE limit, the manufacturer has to issue a recall to fix it.