27 ms·

Mitsubishi: We've been cheating on fuel tests for 25 years

254 points by sdneirf 10y ago

basicplus2 10y ago
Perhaps we are at the extreme limits of emissions reductions and no real further gains can be made unless more active equipment is used on the exhaust such as electrostatic precipitators for diesels, and extra direct treatment like catalytic converters do.
- toomuchtodo 10y ago
  Which is why the penalty to automakers should be to force them to build electric vehicles.
  - voodootrucker 10y ago
    The penalty for automakers should be based on the law as it was written. They need no exemptions based on the scale of their crimes. If they broke the law and knew about it, then someone has to go to jail. That's how the law works, and the only thing that will prevent another 25 years of false governance.
    - TheSpiceIsLife 10y ago
      Law is a little more nuanced than 'commit crime -> go directly to jail', which I'd argue is a good thing.
    - yuzi 10y ago
      > If they broke the law and knew about it, then someone has to go to jail. What planet do you live on?
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
    - toomuchtodo 10y ago
      I agree decision makers should still go to jail, but we're not going to suddenly dissolve automakers who employee hundreds of thousands of people (witness the US government stepping in to save GM). If you can't build petrol cars that meet emissions standards, you must build electric vehicles.
      - uremog 10y ago
        It's ok for them to just not make cars if they can't make them right.
        CapitalistCartr 10y ago
        OK for whom? The US gov't clearly does not think its OK. I doubt the employees think its OK. I don't think its OK. We need cars now. In the present. Not in a decade or two when the major ones manage to make affordable electric ones and when our electric grid can handle that.
        toomuchtodo 10y ago
        Battery technology is already five years ahead of predictions. If Tesla can make a $35K electric vehicle that 400k people are waiting 2 years for, why can't major automakers? Also, the current electrical grid (at least in the US) can easily support 100% of light vehicles if they all transitioned to electric vehicles. The DOE did a study on this about 6 years ago. Need more power? Build more solar and wind, and use electric cars to soak it up.
        CapitalistCartr 10y ago
        The major automakers can of course make 100K luxury automobiles, electric or not. They don't replace the 17 million normally-priced cars the rest of us buy each year. Studies and predictions are nice, but to build it and make it work takes decades. We have a massive infrastructure in the country. And of course, it won't work the way we planned. Everything changes and pivots, not just SV startups.
    - __jal 10y ago
      I wish we lived in a world where those responsible for large crimes went to jail. > That's how the law works I think you meant that's the fairy tale "we" tell the little people.
      - andrepd 10y ago
        It's true though. Being a cynic is all very well and perhaps even realistic, but it doesn't change the fact that the law ought to be applied.
    - dnautics 10y ago
      "If they broke the law and knew about it, then someone has to go to jail. That's how the law works..." Hopefully the next time you break the law by willingly jaywalking there will be a cop around to take you to gaol.
  - MichaelBurge 10y ago
    That's not really how the law works. You don't use it as a weapon against people you don't like, and you especially don't let judges come up with completely arbitrary penalties that benefit a popular political position. If you want that, you can go to Europe or China. Frankly, your suggestion is as ridiculous as a judge sentencing you to a career in pouring concrete for sidewalk repairs, because you let a tree root upend your sidewalk and caused a trip hazard. A judge simply can't sentence free-spirited US citizens to do work favoring some politician's political platform.
    - RubyPinch 10y ago
      Court ordered service exists in the US et al., no?
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
- tobltobs 10y ago
  No need for more technology. Just increase the price of gasoline about 100-200% and people will start using their brain instead of their belly (or dikk) when buying a car.
  - onion2k 10y ago
    Great for everyone rich enough to buy a new electric car, but not so good for poor people who can only afford second-hand cars.
    - Pitarou 10y ago
      I disagree for three reasons: First, there is a strong economic case that, if an activity harms society as a whole, policies that raise the cost of that activity to a level commensurate with that harm are good policies. Second, it has been demonstrated time and again that keeping gas prices low is an ineffective and wasteful way to help the poor. Third, as the price of gas rises the value of older, less efficient cars falls, so buyers of second-hand cars won't be too badly affected. Of course, it's a different matter for those who already own an inefficient car.
      - 5ilv3r 10y ago
        Old low maintenance cars can be a great deal even with $5 gas. How many mechanic trips does it take to justify doubling your gas mileage? (Depends on the car obviously, but it's a question any penny pincher will ask)
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - Sharlin 10y ago
      It's not a binary dichotomy between electric and ICE vehicles. The proliferation of SUVs is a completely preposterous phenomenon in an era where smaller, lighter, more fuel-efficient cars should be the norm.
      - 10y ago
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- sliverstorm 10y ago
  Mitsubishi is a bad one to judge by. Aside from this, there's: In what was referred to as "one of the largest corporate scandals in Japanese history", Mitsubishi was twice forced to admit to systematically covering up defect problems in its vehicles. Four defects were first publicised in 2000, but in 2004 it confessed to 26 more going back as far as 1977, including failing brakes, fuel leaks and malfunctioning clutches -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitsubishi_Motors#Historical_troubles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitsubishi_Motors#Historical_t... Basically, I don't trust them further than I can throw them. Besides, this latest scandal goes back 25 years, and we definitely have made large strides in fuel economy over that time. (Though much of the gain has been offset by things like increasing vehicle weight for safety & comfort)
- nradov 10y ago
  The fraud reported here impacts CO₂ emissions, not particulates. Plenty more can be done to reduce CO₂ emissions through increased thermodynamic efficiency, hybrid drive trains, weight reduction, and drag reduction. We are nowhere near the extreme limits yet, it's just a question of cost effectiveness. Gasoline engines with modern emissions control systems already emit tiny amounts of particulates and other pollutants. Diesel engines are probably not going to be viable for light passenger vehicles much longer as the limits get stricter.
enqk 10y ago
Those small vehicles (kei cars) were reported to be under attack during the TPP trade agreement negociations because they had special tax breaks. http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2012/01/27/business/lower-tax-rates-for-kei-cars-arent-ok-with-american-automakers/#.Vx_hr3qPW70 http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2012/01/27/business/lower-t...
stegosaurus 10y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_emission_standards#/media/File:Euronorms_Diesel.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_emission_standards#/m... As a layman these sorts of reductions always seemed pretty strict to me. It seemed like a backdoor way of banning ICE's. We know that we need to hit zero CO2. I think that regulations on emissions are the complete wrong way to go about it, though. Health issues in cities are irrelevant if global warming means the cities are underwater. Tax the fuel, give incentives to renewable energies and batteries, and let the market sort it out. Or, have the government seriously attack on the research front. It feels a bit like we're sitting here with this 'money' abstraction and pretending that energy research is too expensive, when realistically, governments across the world have the might to make clean energy the next Apollo project. Why aren't they? That would be a fantastic legacy for any president/prime minister/whatever. The UK could take bits of land it owns, chuck homes there, give some fresh university grads in shit economic situations some research to crunch on. Like Manhattan 2.0. You can't just say to people 'oh, your car is impossible, let's go and sniff each other's armpits on the subway, and you'll have to walk to the countryside'. It just doesn't work.
- JumpCrisscross 10y ago
  > It feels a bit like we're sitting here with this 'money' abstraction and pretending that energy research is too expensive, when realistically, governments across the world have the might to make clean energy the next Apollo project. Why aren't they? I think we're scared we won't find a cheaper source of energy than fossil fuels. At least for a few generations. Confronting the reality that society will have a smaller energy budget going in the future compared with the past is a scary prospect for democracy, because it challenges a leg of the "growing pie" assumption.
  - stegosaurus 10y ago
    The idea of 'cheap' makes increasingly less sense going forward as the abstraction of money falls apart due to automation. What matters is EROEI with externalities included (e.g. energy cost of carbon capture or sea barriers or whatever). But even if we play that game, in the UK we already pay something like a 75% combined tax rate (probably higher now) on car fuels. So we've already priced in 4x. And household electricity bills are generally trivial compared to stuff like land cost. We can, and will, afford it in monetary terms.
safdeep 10y ago
Not surprised certainly. This is Tour de France. Everyone cheats. VW just got caught early. You'd have to wonder who Lance Armstrong is in this case.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
vhiremath4 10y ago
The article says: "Investors responded by pushing Mitsubishi shares down by 10%. The fuel test scandal has now erased half of the company's market value, and its shares are sitting at a record low." Shouldn't a 10% drop in their shares result in a 10% drop in the company's market value? Not 50%? I don't know much about this kinda stuff - please be chill.
- brobinson 10y ago
  "has now" = from first news of a scandal to this point The mentioned latest 10% drop brings them down to about 50% of their market cap before the scandal broke.

254 points by sdneirf 10y ago

Perhaps we are at the extreme limits of emissions reductions and no real further gains can be made unless more active equipment is used on the exhaust such as electrostatic precipitators for diesels, and extra direct treatment like catalytic converters do.

toomuchtodo 10y ago
Which is why the penalty to automakers should be to force them to build electric vehicles.
- voodootrucker 10y ago
  The penalty for automakers should be based on the law as it was written. They need no exemptions based on the scale of their crimes. If they broke the law and knew about it, then someone has to go to jail. That's how the law works, and the only thing that will prevent another 25 years of false governance.
  - TheSpiceIsLife 10y ago
    Law is a little more nuanced than 'commit crime -> go directly to jail', which I'd argue is a good thing.
  - yuzi 10y ago
    > If they broke the law and knew about it, then someone has to go to jail. What planet do you live on?
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
  - toomuchtodo 10y ago
    I agree decision makers should still go to jail, but we're not going to suddenly dissolve automakers who employee hundreds of thousands of people (witness the US government stepping in to save GM). If you can't build petrol cars that meet emissions standards, you must build electric vehicles.
    - uremog 10y ago
      It's ok for them to just not make cars if they can't make them right.
      - CapitalistCartr 10y ago
        OK for whom? The US gov't clearly does not think its OK. I doubt the employees think its OK. I don't think its OK. We need cars now. In the present. Not in a decade or two when the major ones manage to make affordable electric ones and when our electric grid can handle that.
        toomuchtodo 10y ago
        Battery technology is already five years ahead of predictions. If Tesla can make a $35K electric vehicle that 400k people are waiting 2 years for, why can't major automakers? Also, the current electrical grid (at least in the US) can easily support 100% of light vehicles if they all transitioned to electric vehicles. The DOE did a study on this about 6 years ago. Need more power? Build more solar and wind, and use electric cars to soak it up.
        CapitalistCartr 10y ago
        The major automakers can of course make 100K luxury automobiles, electric or not. They don't replace the 17 million normally-priced cars the rest of us buy each year. Studies and predictions are nice, but to build it and make it work takes decades. We have a massive infrastructure in the country. And of course, it won't work the way we planned. Everything changes and pivots, not just SV startups.
  - __jal 10y ago
    I wish we lived in a world where those responsible for large crimes went to jail. > That's how the law works I think you meant that's the fairy tale "we" tell the little people.
    - andrepd 10y ago
      It's true though. Being a cynic is all very well and perhaps even realistic, but it doesn't change the fact that the law ought to be applied.
  - dnautics 10y ago
    "If they broke the law and knew about it, then someone has to go to jail. That's how the law works..." Hopefully the next time you break the law by willingly jaywalking there will be a cop around to take you to gaol.
- MichaelBurge 10y ago
  That's not really how the law works. You don't use it as a weapon against people you don't like, and you especially don't let judges come up with completely arbitrary penalties that benefit a popular political position. If you want that, you can go to Europe or China. Frankly, your suggestion is as ridiculous as a judge sentencing you to a career in pouring concrete for sidewalk repairs, because you let a tree root upend your sidewalk and caused a trip hazard. A judge simply can't sentence free-spirited US citizens to do work favoring some politician's political platform.
  - RubyPinch 10y ago
    Court ordered service exists in the US et al., no?
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
tobltobs 10y ago
No need for more technology. Just increase the price of gasoline about 100-200% and people will start using their brain instead of their belly (or dikk) when buying a car.
- onion2k 10y ago
  Great for everyone rich enough to buy a new electric car, but not so good for poor people who can only afford second-hand cars.
  - Pitarou 10y ago
    I disagree for three reasons: First, there is a strong economic case that, if an activity harms society as a whole, policies that raise the cost of that activity to a level commensurate with that harm are good policies. Second, it has been demonstrated time and again that keeping gas prices low is an ineffective and wasteful way to help the poor. Third, as the price of gas rises the value of older, less efficient cars falls, so buyers of second-hand cars won't be too badly affected. Of course, it's a different matter for those who already own an inefficient car.
    - 5ilv3r 10y ago
      Old low maintenance cars can be a great deal even with $5 gas. How many mechanic trips does it take to justify doubling your gas mileage? (Depends on the car obviously, but it's a question any penny pincher will ask)
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - Sharlin 10y ago
    It's not a binary dichotomy between electric and ICE vehicles. The proliferation of SUVs is a completely preposterous phenomenon in an era where smaller, lighter, more fuel-efficient cars should be the norm.
    - 10y ago
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
sliverstorm 10y ago
Mitsubishi is a bad one to judge by. Aside from this, there's: In what was referred to as "one of the largest corporate scandals in Japanese history", Mitsubishi was twice forced to admit to systematically covering up defect problems in its vehicles. Four defects were first publicised in 2000, but in 2004 it confessed to 26 more going back as far as 1977, including failing brakes, fuel leaks and malfunctioning clutches -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitsubishi_Motors#Historical_troubles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitsubishi_Motors#Historical_t... Basically, I don't trust them further than I can throw them. Besides, this latest scandal goes back 25 years, and we definitely have made large strides in fuel economy over that time. (Though much of the gain has been offset by things like increasing vehicle weight for safety & comfort)
nradov 10y ago
The fraud reported here impacts CO₂ emissions, not particulates. Plenty more can be done to reduce CO₂ emissions through increased thermodynamic efficiency, hybrid drive trains, weight reduction, and drag reduction. We are nowhere near the extreme limits yet, it's just a question of cost effectiveness. Gasoline engines with modern emissions control systems already emit tiny amounts of particulates and other pollutants. Diesel engines are probably not going to be viable for light passenger vehicles much longer as the limits get stricter.

enqk 10y ago

Those small vehicles (kei cars) were reported to be under attack during the TPP trade agreement negociations because they had special tax breaks. http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2012/01/27/business/lower-tax-rates-for-kei-cars-arent-ok-with-american-automakers/#.Vx_hr3qPW70 http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2012/01/27/business/lower-t...

stegosaurus 10y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_emission_standards#/media/File:Euronorms_Diesel.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_emission_standards#/m... As a layman these sorts of reductions always seemed pretty strict to me. It seemed like a backdoor way of banning ICE's. We know that we need to hit zero CO2. I think that regulations on emissions are the complete wrong way to go about it, though. Health issues in cities are irrelevant if global warming means the cities are underwater. Tax the fuel, give incentives to renewable energies and batteries, and let the market sort it out. Or, have the government seriously attack on the research front. It feels a bit like we're sitting here with this 'money' abstraction and pretending that energy research is too expensive, when realistically, governments across the world have the might to make clean energy the next Apollo project. Why aren't they? That would be a fantastic legacy for any president/prime minister/whatever. The UK could take bits of land it owns, chuck homes there, give some fresh university grads in shit economic situations some research to crunch on. Like Manhattan 2.0. You can't just say to people 'oh, your car is impossible, let's go and sniff each other's armpits on the subway, and you'll have to walk to the countryside'. It just doesn't work.

JumpCrisscross 10y ago
> It feels a bit like we're sitting here with this 'money' abstraction and pretending that energy research is too expensive, when realistically, governments across the world have the might to make clean energy the next Apollo project. Why aren't they? I think we're scared we won't find a cheaper source of energy than fossil fuels. At least for a few generations. Confronting the reality that society will have a smaller energy budget going in the future compared with the past is a scary prospect for democracy, because it challenges a leg of the "growing pie" assumption.
- stegosaurus 10y ago
  The idea of 'cheap' makes increasingly less sense going forward as the abstraction of money falls apart due to automation. What matters is EROEI with externalities included (e.g. energy cost of carbon capture or sea barriers or whatever). But even if we play that game, in the UK we already pay something like a 75% combined tax rate (probably higher now) on car fuels. So we've already priced in 4x. And household electricity bills are generally trivial compared to stuff like land cost. We can, and will, afford it in monetary terms.

safdeep 10y ago

Not surprised certainly. This is Tour de France. Everyone cheats. VW just got caught early. You'd have to wonder who Lance Armstrong is in this case.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

vhiremath4 10y ago

The article says: "Investors responded by pushing Mitsubishi shares down by 10%. The fuel test scandal has now erased half of the company's market value, and its shares are sitting at a record low." Shouldn't a 10% drop in their shares result in a 10% drop in the company's market value? Not 50%? I don't know much about this kinda stuff - please be chill.

brobinson 10y ago
"has now" = from first news of a scandal to this point The mentioned latest 10% drop brings them down to about 50% of their market cap before the scandal broke.