6 ms·

I'm actually looking at getting a car at the moment so I've been looking into this to better understand the repercussions for consumers. It's weird, VW say tha

by aidos 11y ago

I'm actually looking at getting a car at the moment so I've been looking into this to better understand the repercussions for consumers. It's weird, VW say that if your car if affected, they'll fix it. It's a software update that a) won't affect performance and b) won't affect fuel consumption. So, why did they do it in the first place? Edit "VW confirmed the fix will not affect the performance or fuel economy of the cars, while Mueller also said the cars will pass the European emissions test (without cheating) after the fix has been installed." - http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/volkswagen/92893/vw-emissions-scandal-recalls-compensation-is-your-car-affected-latest-news http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/volkswagen/92893/vw-emissions-s...

oinkgrr 11y ago
The software before the update was used to detect if a car was being tested for emissions/ fuel consumption. Then it lowered power and fuel consumption. So it gave skewed figures. Which means in normal driving it was always giving more than advertised figures. So the fuel consumption has not changed from before update for normal driving. So you won't see any difference. Edit: ah my bad. Ah, it specifically relates to particulate emissions, that is not related to fuel consumption
- icebraining 11y ago
  But then how will they pass the test?
  - adwf 11y ago
    It will still pass, they were just pushing the emissions tests lower so that the car could fit in a lower tax bracket. I don't know about every country, but in the UK you get taxed on how polluting your car is. I believe that various governments have made a promise not to increase the taxes on existing cars, as the consumers were unaware at the time of purchase.
    - tamana 11y ago
      Is VW paying the tax difference, or walking away with a government handout?
      - adwf 11y ago
        No it's the consumers being taxed on road vehicles every year. The lower tax makes them quite attractive in comparison to other manufacturers.
- thaumasiotes 11y ago
  What would be the point of getting your car fixed, assuming you're describing it accurately?
  - CapitalistCartr 11y ago
    Getting owners to go in for the fix is part of the problem. Some states will most likely require it to be done before renewing the license plate, or before allowing resale, etc.
- NeutronBoy 11y ago
  > So the fuel consumption has not changed from before update for normal driving. So you won't see any difference. Uh, I think you've got it backwards. Won't the updates mean it drives in 'test mode' (e.g. acceptable emissions that meet the standards) all the time? Meaning that it will result in some downside (which was apparently bad enough that they cheated in the first place)
  - guscost 11y ago
    Specifically, reducing NOx (without using DEF) pretty much requires the engine to burn a richer mixture. This means more fuel injected, so less fuel efficiency and more unburnt hydrocarbons clogging up the particulate filter. Without retrofitting DEF systems onto the older cars, any fix is likely to be a significant hit to efficiency and reliability. I think maybe performance would suffer too but I forget how that would work.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
speps 11y ago
More information there, DEFCON talk of someone reverse engineering the ECU and then discovering the actual data that corresponded to the EURO5 emissions test : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZSU1FPDiao https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZSU1FPDiao
- rvense 11y ago
  Not DEFCON, CCC. They have their own video streaming service which doesn't do the tracking Youtube does: https://media.ccc.de/v/32c3-7331-the_exhaust_emissions_scandal_dieselgate https://media.ccc.de/v/32c3-7331-the_exhaust_emissions_scand...
  - acz 11y ago
    So the disassembling confirms that ECU is just not feeding the exhaust with AdBlue/Urea. So what is the advantage for VW in all this?! It does not make your car more powerful, it makes it less eco-friendly, you are just saving money on AdBlue/Urea. They could easily reverse it back, the power will be the same, pollution levels will be okay, only AdBlue/Urea consumption will increase.
    - B1FF_PSUVM 11y ago
      I've read that US regulations required no additives outside of regular service intervals.
Shivetya 11y ago
My understanding, having owned two TDI vehicles affected by the recall, is that the statement of not affecting performance and fuel economy is based on the fact the EPA numbers were calculated with all the emissions systems active. Now what will be affected are all those individual reports of ten to twenty percent better than EPA numbers many TDI fans love to rave about. Both my TDIs were like 40 highway / 30 city rated and yet over their lifetime the vehicle average was closer to if not higher than the highway number. Granted I do not drive like most people I see; racing to each stop and such. Still the numbers I had versus what the EPA said cannot all be explained by good driving. My question is, if it was so easy to slip diesels past emissions testing then how about gasoline powered cars? Worse with the regards to diesels I think a truck manufacturer was caught cooking numbers in the nineties?
- CapitalistCartr 11y ago
  Yes, Caterpillar. http://jalopnik.com/how-the-epa-won-1-billion-from-diesel-cheaters-long-be-1732109485 http://jalopnik.com/how-the-epa-won-1-billion-from-diesel-ch...
elorant 11y ago
Assuming that both of those claims are correct, my guess is that they did it to make their cars more affordable in EU where road tax is related to emissions. Although I personally don’t know anyone who bought a VW because the yearly traffic fee is lower than in other cars. Generally speaking their cars are stellar in every account which makes this whole situation seem utterly stupid. They didn’t need to do it, they already had the advantage towards the competition.
- iofj 11y ago
  Company cars (which are tax-exempt or partially tax-exempt in some parts of Europe) care a lot about this.
- alkonaut 11y ago
  That is likely a large part of it at least (reaching 120g/km in consumption is very important). BUT the CO2 emissions is proportional to the fuel consumption. There is (very simplified) only one way to get both better performance and lower consumption from an internal compbustion engine, and that is to increase the temperature of the combustion. This gives higher power output and lower consumption and thus lower CO2 emission. For diesel engines increasing temperature has the drawback of producing NOx emissions. In order to reduce NOx emissions, the combustion must be cooler/fatter so uses more fuel and/or provides less power. The hack that VW did was to use a profile for the fuel mixture that produces low NOx and low power when it detects that it is being measured. Otherwise it produces high power, and low consumption. Using the cooler/fatter fuel mixing is a simple way of cutting NOx, but it also gives worse fuel consumption and power. For engines without urea devices, there is (as far as I can see) no possible workaround. They will have to either make hardware changes to the cars or make a software fix that reduces performance and increases consumption.
- jpea 11y ago
  VW is not in the same situation in the U.S. though. They have a lot of competition (they're not even in the top 10), so if they didn't do it in the the EU, but cheated on the U.S. models, there would be vastly differing output levels, signaling a discrepancy between the two models.
tyho 11y ago
What the software actually did was stop the mixing of DEF[0] into the exhaust gases. DEF is a consumable catalyst that reduces NOx emissions[1]. If they had mixed it in properly as they did when the car was under test, then fuel consumption or performance would not change, but the resovwair of DEF inside the car would be depleted more quickly. My theory is that they reduced the consumption rate of DEF so that it could be filled up during regular services without being depleted before one was due. They could instead just provide a larger reservoir of DEF, or schedule more frequent maintenance. Either solution would not impact fuel consumption or performance but would fix the issue. Remember DEF is injected into the exhaust gases and does not interact with the engine at all. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_exhaust_fluid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_exhaust_fluid [1] https://lwn.net/Articles/670488/ https://lwn.net/Articles/670488/
- cr3ative 11y ago
  My car is affected by this recall (as confirmed by a letter from the VW group to my registered address) and does not have a DEF / AdBlue system.
- paol 11y ago
  Maybe that's the case for engines that use DEF, but the cheating was done in engines with no DEF injection systems too. In those engines at least I doubt very much "the fix will not affect the performance or fuel economy", unless they resort to extremely expensive changes that seem unlikely (like adding said system to cars that don't have it).
  - tyho 11y ago
    I am not sure, I have no idea what they did in cars that didn't have the urea injection system.
  - DannyBee 11y ago
    So they'd be dumb to say it just for PR reasons - A bunch of people will test it, if their statements turn out to be false, they'll be a massive class action suit that will be pretty easily won. It's entirely possible, of course, that they are counting on this, and decided by then things will have died down enough PR wise that making the PR statement makes sense.
alkonaut 11y ago
> It's weird, VW say that if your car if affected, they'll fix it. It's a software update that a) won't affect performance and b) won't affect fuel consumption. So, why did they do it in the first place? I think it's safe to say that until someone actually has had their car fixed by this new software, and then tested its performance and consumption after that we can assume that it's impossible. I'll believe it's possible when I see it. My guess: VW europe will claim to make a performance-neutral fix, but simply cut the performance and increase the consumption of the affected cars. Anyone in the EU who finds that annoying can try to scream with very little chance of getting any compensation from VW because of how EU consumer laws work. In the US where they are actually scared of being sued into compensating customers they will make more advanced fixes potentially even retrofitting urea systems where possible.
- sokoloff 11y ago
  > In the US where they are actually scared of being sued into compensating customers they will make more advanced fixes potentially even retrofitting urea systems where possible. You don't think there will be class action lawsuits if they mount a diesel exhaust fluid (DEF) tank taking up any cargo or other usable space? Or if they don't provide a lifetime supply of free DEF (or more likely a cash payment to cover the likely DEF costs for the projected life of the car)?
  - alkonaut 11y ago
    As an EU consumer I'd be delighted if they did that, even if I was paying for my own DEF and it took a chunk of my cargo space. I'm sure there will be class action lawsuits in both the US and the EU regardless. The reason they are only doing the cheap software changes in the EU is likely because they think they will either win any legal processes OR it's much cheaper to lose them than to fix cars (both of which are probably true).
    - sokoloff 11y ago
      > As an EU consumer I'd be delighted if they did that, even if I was paying for my own DEF and it took a chunk of my cargo space. That's very personal thing and it's easy for a lawyer to argue that VW has no longer delivered a car conforming to the original specifications for cargo space/capacity, etc and that the consumer is due compensation to compel them to accept the new specifications. I can't imagine that flying without additional compensation in the US (and frankly, don't believe that it should).
Havoc 11y ago
It'll definitely impact performance.

by aidos 11y ago

oinkgrr 11y ago

The software before the update was used to detect if a car was being tested for emissions/ fuel consumption. Then it lowered power and fuel consumption. So it gave skewed figures. Which means in normal driving it was always giving more than advertised figures. So the fuel consumption has not changed from before update for normal driving. So you won't see any difference. Edit: ah my bad. Ah, it specifically relates to particulate emissions, that is not related to fuel consumption

icebraining 11y ago
But then how will they pass the test?
- adwf 11y ago
  It will still pass, they were just pushing the emissions tests lower so that the car could fit in a lower tax bracket. I don't know about every country, but in the UK you get taxed on how polluting your car is. I believe that various governments have made a promise not to increase the taxes on existing cars, as the consumers were unaware at the time of purchase.
  - tamana 11y ago
    Is VW paying the tax difference, or walking away with a government handout?
    - adwf 11y ago
      No it's the consumers being taxed on road vehicles every year. The lower tax makes them quite attractive in comparison to other manufacturers.
thaumasiotes 11y ago
What would be the point of getting your car fixed, assuming you're describing it accurately?
- CapitalistCartr 11y ago
  Getting owners to go in for the fix is part of the problem. Some states will most likely require it to be done before renewing the license plate, or before allowing resale, etc.
NeutronBoy 11y ago
> So the fuel consumption has not changed from before update for normal driving. So you won't see any difference. Uh, I think you've got it backwards. Won't the updates mean it drives in 'test mode' (e.g. acceptable emissions that meet the standards) all the time? Meaning that it will result in some downside (which was apparently bad enough that they cheated in the first place)
- guscost 11y ago
  Specifically, reducing NOx (without using DEF) pretty much requires the engine to burn a richer mixture. This means more fuel injected, so less fuel efficiency and more unburnt hydrocarbons clogging up the particulate filter. Without retrofitting DEF systems onto the older cars, any fix is likely to be a significant hit to efficiency and reliability. I think maybe performance would suffer too but I forget how that would work.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

speps 11y ago

More information there, DEFCON talk of someone reverse engineering the ECU and then discovering the actual data that corresponded to the EURO5 emissions test : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZSU1FPDiao https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZSU1FPDiao

rvense 11y ago
Not DEFCON, CCC. They have their own video streaming service which doesn't do the tracking Youtube does: https://media.ccc.de/v/32c3-7331-the_exhaust_emissions_scandal_dieselgate https://media.ccc.de/v/32c3-7331-the_exhaust_emissions_scand...
- acz 11y ago
  So the disassembling confirms that ECU is just not feeding the exhaust with AdBlue/Urea. So what is the advantage for VW in all this?! It does not make your car more powerful, it makes it less eco-friendly, you are just saving money on AdBlue/Urea. They could easily reverse it back, the power will be the same, pollution levels will be okay, only AdBlue/Urea consumption will increase.
  - B1FF_PSUVM 11y ago
    I've read that US regulations required no additives outside of regular service intervals.

Shivetya 11y ago

My understanding, having owned two TDI vehicles affected by the recall, is that the statement of not affecting performance and fuel economy is based on the fact the EPA numbers were calculated with all the emissions systems active. Now what will be affected are all those individual reports of ten to twenty percent better than EPA numbers many TDI fans love to rave about. Both my TDIs were like 40 highway / 30 city rated and yet over their lifetime the vehicle average was closer to if not higher than the highway number. Granted I do not drive like most people I see; racing to each stop and such. Still the numbers I had versus what the EPA said cannot all be explained by good driving. My question is, if it was so easy to slip diesels past emissions testing then how about gasoline powered cars? Worse with the regards to diesels I think a truck manufacturer was caught cooking numbers in the nineties?

CapitalistCartr 11y ago
Yes, Caterpillar. http://jalopnik.com/how-the-epa-won-1-billion-from-diesel-cheaters-long-be-1732109485 http://jalopnik.com/how-the-epa-won-1-billion-from-diesel-ch...

elorant 11y ago

Assuming that both of those claims are correct, my guess is that they did it to make their cars more affordable in EU where road tax is related to emissions. Although I personally don’t know anyone who bought a VW because the yearly traffic fee is lower than in other cars. Generally speaking their cars are stellar in every account which makes this whole situation seem utterly stupid. They didn’t need to do it, they already had the advantage towards the competition.

iofj 11y ago
Company cars (which are tax-exempt or partially tax-exempt in some parts of Europe) care a lot about this.
alkonaut 11y ago
That is likely a large part of it at least (reaching 120g/km in consumption is very important). BUT the CO2 emissions is proportional to the fuel consumption. There is (very simplified) only one way to get both better performance and lower consumption from an internal compbustion engine, and that is to increase the temperature of the combustion. This gives higher power output and lower consumption and thus lower CO2 emission. For diesel engines increasing temperature has the drawback of producing NOx emissions. In order to reduce NOx emissions, the combustion must be cooler/fatter so uses more fuel and/or provides less power. The hack that VW did was to use a profile for the fuel mixture that produces low NOx and low power when it detects that it is being measured. Otherwise it produces high power, and low consumption. Using the cooler/fatter fuel mixing is a simple way of cutting NOx, but it also gives worse fuel consumption and power. For engines without urea devices, there is (as far as I can see) no possible workaround. They will have to either make hardware changes to the cars or make a software fix that reduces performance and increases consumption.
jpea 11y ago
VW is not in the same situation in the U.S. though. They have a lot of competition (they're not even in the top 10), so if they didn't do it in the the EU, but cheated on the U.S. models, there would be vastly differing output levels, signaling a discrepancy between the two models.

tyho 11y ago

What the software actually did was stop the mixing of DEF[0] into the exhaust gases. DEF is a consumable catalyst that reduces NOx emissions[1]. If they had mixed it in properly as they did when the car was under test, then fuel consumption or performance would not change, but the resovwair of DEF inside the car would be depleted more quickly. My theory is that they reduced the consumption rate of DEF so that it could be filled up during regular services without being depleted before one was due. They could instead just provide a larger reservoir of DEF, or schedule more frequent maintenance. Either solution would not impact fuel consumption or performance but would fix the issue. Remember DEF is injected into the exhaust gases and does not interact with the engine at all. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_exhaust_fluid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_exhaust_fluid [1] https://lwn.net/Articles/670488/ https://lwn.net/Articles/670488/

cr3ative 11y ago
My car is affected by this recall (as confirmed by a letter from the VW group to my registered address) and does not have a DEF / AdBlue system.
paol 11y ago
Maybe that's the case for engines that use DEF, but the cheating was done in engines with no DEF injection systems too. In those engines at least I doubt very much "the fix will not affect the performance or fuel economy", unless they resort to extremely expensive changes that seem unlikely (like adding said system to cars that don't have it).
- tyho 11y ago
  I am not sure, I have no idea what they did in cars that didn't have the urea injection system.
- DannyBee 11y ago
  So they'd be dumb to say it just for PR reasons - A bunch of people will test it, if their statements turn out to be false, they'll be a massive class action suit that will be pretty easily won. It's entirely possible, of course, that they are counting on this, and decided by then things will have died down enough PR wise that making the PR statement makes sense.

alkonaut 11y ago

> It's weird, VW say that if your car if affected, they'll fix it. It's a software update that a) won't affect performance and b) won't affect fuel consumption. So, why did they do it in the first place? I think it's safe to say that until someone actually has had their car fixed by this new software, and then tested its performance and consumption after that we can assume that it's impossible. I'll believe it's possible when I see it. My guess: VW europe will claim to make a performance-neutral fix, but simply cut the performance and increase the consumption of the affected cars. Anyone in the EU who finds that annoying can try to scream with very little chance of getting any compensation from VW because of how EU consumer laws work. In the US where they are actually scared of being sued into compensating customers they will make more advanced fixes potentially even retrofitting urea systems where possible.

sokoloff 11y ago
> In the US where they are actually scared of being sued into compensating customers they will make more advanced fixes potentially even retrofitting urea systems where possible. You don't think there will be class action lawsuits if they mount a diesel exhaust fluid (DEF) tank taking up any cargo or other usable space? Or if they don't provide a lifetime supply of free DEF (or more likely a cash payment to cover the likely DEF costs for the projected life of the car)?
- alkonaut 11y ago
  As an EU consumer I'd be delighted if they did that, even if I was paying for my own DEF and it took a chunk of my cargo space. I'm sure there will be class action lawsuits in both the US and the EU regardless. The reason they are only doing the cheap software changes in the EU is likely because they think they will either win any legal processes OR it's much cheaper to lose them than to fix cars (both of which are probably true).
  - sokoloff 11y ago
    > As an EU consumer I'd be delighted if they did that, even if I was paying for my own DEF and it took a chunk of my cargo space. That's very personal thing and it's easy for a lawyer to argue that VW has no longer delivered a car conforming to the original specifications for cargo space/capacity, etc and that the consumer is due compensation to compel them to accept the new specifications. I can't imagine that flying without additional compensation in the US (and frankly, don't believe that it should).

Havoc 11y ago

It'll definitely impact performance.