4 ms·

If Volkswagen couldn't figure out how to meet US emission standards for diesel without cheating, I find it likely other manufacturers (who have less diesel expe

by gok 9y ago

If Volkswagen couldn't figure out how to meet US emission standards for diesel without cheating, I find it likely other manufacturers (who have less diesel expertise) would have an even harder time. VW expects to pay $7.3B for 11 million cheating cars, so less than $700 per vehicle. GM will probably get about the same deal. Considering the profit margin on these vehicles in particular (big trucks), cheating was probably a good call financially.

revelation 9y ago
None of the car manufacturers can show anywhere close to emissions testing performance in real-world tests: https://youtu.be/7t4paclIwuU?t=13m15s https://youtu.be/7t4paclIwuU?t=13m15s And for GM, the linked video already shows Opel installed defeat devices, which is a daughter brand. So it's just natural that the same "technology" shows up in other GM cars.
- jabl 9y ago
  That presentation is awesome, thanks!
chrisweekly 9y ago
$700 per vehicle doesn't come close. Anecdata: buyback option on my 2011 jetta sportwagen tdi netted me a check north of $8000 -- after they paid off my loan balance. Maybe the $700 per car is the penalty per se, but the scandal cost a lot more than that!
pvnick 9y ago
Then it is the regulations that need changing
endorphone 9y ago
If Volkswagen couldn't figure out how to meet US emission standards for diesel without cheating VW could meet the emissions standards, and went through the actual testing and passed. It had such an effect on either fuel economy or long term reliability however that they cheat on the road. However it's notable that the only VW vehicles that fail are the ones that don't use diesel exhaust fluid (DEF). This is something that you refill periodically and it's sprayed into the exhaust to reduce a lot of the harmful exhaust. That system costs a couple of thousand dollars, so they eliminated it and claimed that they found a way around it. The GM trucks, in contrast, have the DEF systems, just like all of the Mercedes and higher end VW diesel cars do. Too many commentators are taking the word of a legal firm that got some easy prey and now hopes there's blood in the water.
- ATsch 9y ago
  According to what I have learned from a talk the analysing of the VW code [1] the VW cheating consisted of dispensing less AdBlue (VW proprietary DEF) than necessary when no test was detected. That's very much at odds with what you say. I'm not claiming what you say is wrong, I'm just curious how those findings fit in with what you said. [1] "Dieselgate — a year later" https://youtu.be/SjlHtLux9vc https://youtu.be/SjlHtLux9vc
  - endorphone 9y ago
    The controversy in the US and Canada revolved around vehicles that did not have DEF systems, in particular those with the EA189 engine. https://www.honestjohn.co.uk/company-car-tax-advice/news/which-volkswagen-audi-skoda-and-seat-models-are-fitted-with-an-ea189-engine/ https://www.honestjohn.co.uk/company-car-tax-advice/news/whi... VW has since announced a EA288 engine that deprecates the old one, and the new engine uses DEF. But sure, there is suspicion that a lot of other makers cheat to degrees. Use less DEF and it's more convenient and less costly for your users. Use the EGR less and improve fuel economy and reduce possible maintenance issues. Etc. That was not the primary problem, though.
    - hx87 9y ago
      Given how cheap DEF is and how easy it is how to fill, I wonder why automakers have the perception that consumers don't like to fill them up.
      - makomk 9y ago
        As I understands it, the US restricts how often cars can require DEF top-ups so strictly that it's impossible to meet both the emissions requirements and the top-up interval requirements with a reasonably sized tank.
        jessaustin 9y ago
        Our truck has a DEF tank that's smaller than the fuel tank, and requires refilling about a tenth as often as the fuel tank does. A nearby truck stop has a DEF dispenser, so it's no more difficult to fill than the fuel tank. Of course this truck probably emits more NOx than an emissions-compliant diesel car would, but it also burns about twice as much fuel. The real problem with DEF in passenger cars is those "luxury" manufacturers that require a special tool to fill the DEF tank, as if DEF were some rare or dangerous substance.
TazeTSchnitzel 9y ago
> couldn't figure out how to meet US emission standards for diesel without cheating Isn't it less that they couldn't figure out how to meet the standard, but rather that they did not like the consequences? Evidently the cars in question could operate in a lower-emission mode.
_pmf_ 9y ago
> GM will probably get about the same deal. This would actually be unfair, since VW does not have to pay a cent in the EU (the prosecutor being an employee of the state of Niedersachsen, which is also a major stockholder in VW and on the advisory board, apparently does not help).

by gok 9y ago

revelation 9y ago

None of the car manufacturers can show anywhere close to emissions testing performance in real-world tests: https://youtu.be/7t4paclIwuU?t=13m15s https://youtu.be/7t4paclIwuU?t=13m15s And for GM, the linked video already shows Opel installed defeat devices, which is a daughter brand. So it's just natural that the same "technology" shows up in other GM cars.

jabl 9y ago
That presentation is awesome, thanks!

chrisweekly 9y ago

$700 per vehicle doesn't come close. Anecdata: buyback option on my 2011 jetta sportwagen tdi netted me a check north of $8000 -- after they paid off my loan balance. Maybe the $700 per car is the penalty per se, but the scandal cost a lot more than that!

pvnick 9y ago

Then it is the regulations that need changing

endorphone 9y ago

If Volkswagen couldn't figure out how to meet US emission standards for diesel without cheating VW could meet the emissions standards, and went through the actual testing and passed. It had such an effect on either fuel economy or long term reliability however that they cheat on the road. However it's notable that the only VW vehicles that fail are the ones that don't use diesel exhaust fluid (DEF). This is something that you refill periodically and it's sprayed into the exhaust to reduce a lot of the harmful exhaust. That system costs a couple of thousand dollars, so they eliminated it and claimed that they found a way around it. The GM trucks, in contrast, have the DEF systems, just like all of the Mercedes and higher end VW diesel cars do. Too many commentators are taking the word of a legal firm that got some easy prey and now hopes there's blood in the water.

ATsch 9y ago
According to what I have learned from a talk the analysing of the VW code [1] the VW cheating consisted of dispensing less AdBlue (VW proprietary DEF) than necessary when no test was detected. That's very much at odds with what you say. I'm not claiming what you say is wrong, I'm just curious how those findings fit in with what you said. [1] "Dieselgate — a year later" https://youtu.be/SjlHtLux9vc https://youtu.be/SjlHtLux9vc
- endorphone 9y ago
  The controversy in the US and Canada revolved around vehicles that did not have DEF systems, in particular those with the EA189 engine. https://www.honestjohn.co.uk/company-car-tax-advice/news/which-volkswagen-audi-skoda-and-seat-models-are-fitted-with-an-ea189-engine/ https://www.honestjohn.co.uk/company-car-tax-advice/news/whi... VW has since announced a EA288 engine that deprecates the old one, and the new engine uses DEF. But sure, there is suspicion that a lot of other makers cheat to degrees. Use less DEF and it's more convenient and less costly for your users. Use the EGR less and improve fuel economy and reduce possible maintenance issues. Etc. That was not the primary problem, though.
  - hx87 9y ago
    Given how cheap DEF is and how easy it is how to fill, I wonder why automakers have the perception that consumers don't like to fill them up.
    - makomk 9y ago
      As I understands it, the US restricts how often cars can require DEF top-ups so strictly that it's impossible to meet both the emissions requirements and the top-up interval requirements with a reasonably sized tank.
      - jessaustin 9y ago
        Our truck has a DEF tank that's smaller than the fuel tank, and requires refilling about a tenth as often as the fuel tank does. A nearby truck stop has a DEF dispenser, so it's no more difficult to fill than the fuel tank. Of course this truck probably emits more NOx than an emissions-compliant diesel car would, but it also burns about twice as much fuel. The real problem with DEF in passenger cars is those "luxury" manufacturers that require a special tool to fill the DEF tank, as if DEF were some rare or dangerous substance.

TazeTSchnitzel 9y ago

> couldn't figure out how to meet US emission standards for diesel without cheating Isn't it less that they couldn't figure out how to meet the standard, but rather that they did not like the consequences? Evidently the cars in question could operate in a lower-emission mode.

_pmf_ 9y ago

> GM will probably get about the same deal. This would actually be unfair, since VW does not have to pay a cent in the EU (the prosecutor being an employee of the state of Niedersachsen, which is also a major stockholder in VW and on the advisory board, apparently does not help).