5 ms·

You think they would've done something after the Volkswagon disaster... this is either extreme ignorance (we don't really know what our code does) or malicious

You think they would've done something after the Volkswagon disaster... this is either extreme ignorance (we don't really know what our code does) or malicious intent (let's hope we don't get caught like them).

cptskippy 10y ago
The release doesn't actually state that they violated emissions standards. It just says that they failed to notify the EPA of the presence of software that can alter the vehicle's emissions profile. Do trucks and SUVs in the US even have emissions standards? I know they're exempt from emissions tests in many states which is part of the reason for their popularity.
- hx87 10y ago
  Every passenger vehicle in the US has to meet emissions standards. Testing whether they actually meet those standards in everyday practice is up to the states. If you roll coal in rural Montana it's up to individual police officers whether to pull you over or not.
- dplgk 10y ago
  That's not why they're popular. They're popular because the average American thinks bigger is better and they also want a bigger car for when they have an accident, they can kill the other person instead of themselves.
  - mikestew 10y ago
    Though I see a slight grayish tint to your comment indicating some down votes, you're spot on. Does anyone really think someone's automotive buying decision goes something like, "yeah, it's hard to park and the mileage sucks, but at least I don't have to take 30 minutes out of my day once every few years to go get emissions tested. That'll make the rough ride and the hundreds of extra dollars in fuel expenses worth it."? No, no one has ever thought that when buying a car.
    - sp332 10y ago
      There was a subsidy relating to "business" vehicles weighing over 3 tons. It was supposed to target commercial equipment but lots of small business owners just started buying huge SUVs. http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2008/07/highways_paved_with_gold.html http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2008/07/high... It's been toned down a bit recently. http://www.section179.org/section_179_deduction.html http://www.section179.org/section_179_deduction.html
    - revelation 10y ago
      Consumer demands are a big part of it. I doubt they would have too many issues meeting emission specs if passenger cars were limited to the 40-50kW they realistically need.
    - Zak 10y ago
      Big cars were always popular in the US. Until the mid 1970s when fuel economy standards and an oil crisis or two changed the market. The oil crisis passed, but the economy standards did not. Trucks weren't held to the same standards as cars, so manufacturers started making more carlike trucks to meet consumer demand for larger vehicles. The improved visibility and image of toughness and independence also helps drive truck and SUV sales.
      - galdosdi 10y ago
        The visibility is modified, not improved. Far away objects are more visible and very nearby objects (like curbs or children) are less visible. Bad drivers driving huge cars through dense places are scary...
        Zak 10y ago
        Consumers with this preference perceive that their visibility is better. Don't confuse them with facts. I think it's mostly related to the percentage of other vehicles that they can see over.
    - mikeash 10y ago
  - gwbas1c 10y ago
    Have you ever driven in a snowstorm? They're popular in areas with snow because the drivetrain handles better in the snow, and the higher ground clearance means that they can handle unplowed roads.
    - Coincoin 10y ago
      All you really need is FWD and snow tires. Sure AWD and extra height will save you some shoveling that one time you will park a little too far in a snow bank, but it's not worth the extra cost and weight. The only thing you absolutely don't want in snow is RWD.
    - oconnore 10y ago
      An awd sedan works great on the unplowed roads in Colorado.
      - InitialLastName 10y ago
        May have been a bad decision, but I drove a Toyota Solara (2-door Camry) through years of winters in (properly) upstate NY. Knowing when/how to drive in snow goes a long way further than AWD or ground clearance.
- benjarrell 10y ago
  Diesels are required to have a particulate filter: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_particulate_filter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_particulate_filter Which is usually used with exhaust fluid: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_exhaust_fluid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_exhaust_fluid
  - problems 10y ago
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but most regular consumer vehicles aren't required to have a urea/DEF system, but all the big trucks and commercial vehicles tend to. Somebody was blaming this on trucks, but I'm thinking this might be the opposite - their small cars as it was with VW because they don't have these sorts of systems in place.
    - Reason077 10y ago
      You're right. It's now light diesel vehicles that are the primary problem with regard to excessive NOx emissions. At least in Europe, where there are a huge number of light diesel vehicles on the roads. But there are, of course, a lot of old pre-DEF heavy vehicles on the roads too that would not comply with modern emissions standards.
    - djrogers 10y ago
      The engine in question did have a DEF system though...
  - Reason077 10y ago
    DEF (AdBlue) can significantly reduce NOx emissions. It's now standard in modern heavy diesel trucks, busses, etc. However, it's very rare to find it in light diesels such as cars and SUVs which often have real-world NOx emissions far in excess of what emissions standards allow. DPFs remove visible soot from diesel emissions, but their actual benefit for health is less clear. They don't trap the ultra-fine, PM2.5 invisible sooty particles which are the most dangerous because they can penetrate the lungs and enter the bloodstream. These particles are associated with increased risk of cardiovascular diseases and cancer. DPFs also tend to break down after a few years of use. Often, they end up being (illegally) removed by owners who don't want to pay for an expensive replacement.
- icantdrive55 10y ago
  Every state has their own commitment to testing Emission standards. Califirnia is too strict in my opinion. (CARB--require your Smog Technicians to have two ways of verifying the Visual Inspection. Most Shops only have a inexpensive Motor Emmission Manual to verify components. It is filled with errors. The better Smog Testing Stations have Mitchell Manuals online--which are spot on.) While, only 13 counties in Texas, require biannual emmission tests. After 24 years--no smog checks. While in CA, it's 1974, or earlier. (I went to automotive school, and still have had issues Smoging too many vechicles I have owned, and worked on. In all, but one case, it was a technician's error, or an error in the refrence material.)
- mrbabbage 10y ago
  > Do trucks and SUVs in the US even have emissions standards? I know they're exempt from emissions tests in many states which is part of the reason for their popularity. In 1999, California enacted its LEV (low emissions vehicle) II regulations, which moved most pickup trucks and SUVs into the same regulatory scheme as passenger vehicles: https://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/levprog/levii/factsht.pdf https://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/levprog/levii/factsht.pdf
  - cptskippy 10y ago
    I recall that, Ford had to purchase a bunch of Honda V6 engines for their trucks because they didn't have an engine that could meet the standards.
Zigurd 10y ago
It's all out in the field, and fixing the problem in the field would be devilishly hard. VW's cheat enabled them to sell diesels without urea injection. Retrofitting that without admitting guilt or drawing attention isn't practical.

cptskippy 10y ago

The release doesn't actually state that they violated emissions standards. It just says that they failed to notify the EPA of the presence of software that can alter the vehicle's emissions profile. Do trucks and SUVs in the US even have emissions standards? I know they're exempt from emissions tests in many states which is part of the reason for their popularity.

hx87 10y ago
Every passenger vehicle in the US has to meet emissions standards. Testing whether they actually meet those standards in everyday practice is up to the states. If you roll coal in rural Montana it's up to individual police officers whether to pull you over or not.
dplgk 10y ago
That's not why they're popular. They're popular because the average American thinks bigger is better and they also want a bigger car for when they have an accident, they can kill the other person instead of themselves.
- mikestew 10y ago
  Though I see a slight grayish tint to your comment indicating some down votes, you're spot on. Does anyone really think someone's automotive buying decision goes something like, "yeah, it's hard to park and the mileage sucks, but at least I don't have to take 30 minutes out of my day once every few years to go get emissions tested. That'll make the rough ride and the hundreds of extra dollars in fuel expenses worth it."? No, no one has ever thought that when buying a car.
  - sp332 10y ago
    There was a subsidy relating to "business" vehicles weighing over 3 tons. It was supposed to target commercial equipment but lots of small business owners just started buying huge SUVs. http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2008/07/highways_paved_with_gold.html http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2008/07/high... It's been toned down a bit recently. http://www.section179.org/section_179_deduction.html http://www.section179.org/section_179_deduction.html
  - revelation 10y ago
    Consumer demands are a big part of it. I doubt they would have too many issues meeting emission specs if passenger cars were limited to the 40-50kW they realistically need.
  - Zak 10y ago
    Big cars were always popular in the US. Until the mid 1970s when fuel economy standards and an oil crisis or two changed the market. The oil crisis passed, but the economy standards did not. Trucks weren't held to the same standards as cars, so manufacturers started making more carlike trucks to meet consumer demand for larger vehicles. The improved visibility and image of toughness and independence also helps drive truck and SUV sales.
    - galdosdi 10y ago
      The visibility is modified, not improved. Far away objects are more visible and very nearby objects (like curbs or children) are less visible. Bad drivers driving huge cars through dense places are scary...
      - Zak 10y ago
        Consumers with this preference perceive that their visibility is better. Don't confuse them with facts. I think it's mostly related to the percentage of other vehicles that they can see over.
  - mikeash 10y ago
- gwbas1c 10y ago
  Have you ever driven in a snowstorm? They're popular in areas with snow because the drivetrain handles better in the snow, and the higher ground clearance means that they can handle unplowed roads.
  - Coincoin 10y ago
    All you really need is FWD and snow tires. Sure AWD and extra height will save you some shoveling that one time you will park a little too far in a snow bank, but it's not worth the extra cost and weight. The only thing you absolutely don't want in snow is RWD.
  - oconnore 10y ago
    An awd sedan works great on the unplowed roads in Colorado.
    - InitialLastName 10y ago
      May have been a bad decision, but I drove a Toyota Solara (2-door Camry) through years of winters in (properly) upstate NY. Knowing when/how to drive in snow goes a long way further than AWD or ground clearance.
benjarrell 10y ago
Diesels are required to have a particulate filter: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_particulate_filter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_particulate_filter Which is usually used with exhaust fluid: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_exhaust_fluid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_exhaust_fluid
- problems 10y ago
  Correct me if I'm wrong, but most regular consumer vehicles aren't required to have a urea/DEF system, but all the big trucks and commercial vehicles tend to. Somebody was blaming this on trucks, but I'm thinking this might be the opposite - their small cars as it was with VW because they don't have these sorts of systems in place.
  - Reason077 10y ago
    You're right. It's now light diesel vehicles that are the primary problem with regard to excessive NOx emissions. At least in Europe, where there are a huge number of light diesel vehicles on the roads. But there are, of course, a lot of old pre-DEF heavy vehicles on the roads too that would not comply with modern emissions standards.
  - djrogers 10y ago
    The engine in question did have a DEF system though...
- Reason077 10y ago
  DEF (AdBlue) can significantly reduce NOx emissions. It's now standard in modern heavy diesel trucks, busses, etc. However, it's very rare to find it in light diesels such as cars and SUVs which often have real-world NOx emissions far in excess of what emissions standards allow. DPFs remove visible soot from diesel emissions, but their actual benefit for health is less clear. They don't trap the ultra-fine, PM2.5 invisible sooty particles which are the most dangerous because they can penetrate the lungs and enter the bloodstream. These particles are associated with increased risk of cardiovascular diseases and cancer. DPFs also tend to break down after a few years of use. Often, they end up being (illegally) removed by owners who don't want to pay for an expensive replacement.
icantdrive55 10y ago
Every state has their own commitment to testing Emission standards. Califirnia is too strict in my opinion. (CARB--require your Smog Technicians to have two ways of verifying the Visual Inspection. Most Shops only have a inexpensive Motor Emmission Manual to verify components. It is filled with errors. The better Smog Testing Stations have Mitchell Manuals online--which are spot on.) While, only 13 counties in Texas, require biannual emmission tests. After 24 years--no smog checks. While in CA, it's 1974, or earlier. (I went to automotive school, and still have had issues Smoging too many vechicles I have owned, and worked on. In all, but one case, it was a technician's error, or an error in the refrence material.)
mrbabbage 10y ago
> Do trucks and SUVs in the US even have emissions standards? I know they're exempt from emissions tests in many states which is part of the reason for their popularity. In 1999, California enacted its LEV (low emissions vehicle) II regulations, which moved most pickup trucks and SUVs into the same regulatory scheme as passenger vehicles: https://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/levprog/levii/factsht.pdf https://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/levprog/levii/factsht.pdf
- cptskippy 10y ago
  I recall that, Ford had to purchase a bunch of Honda V6 engines for their trucks because they didn't have an engine that could meet the standards.

Zigurd 10y ago

It's all out in the field, and fixing the problem in the field would be devilishly hard. VW's cheat enabled them to sell diesels without urea injection. Retrofitting that without admitting guilt or drawing attention isn't practical.