3 ms·

I think that's the point though, to give power when you need power, and fuel efficiency when you don't. So everyone does do it, because its a good thing. I thin

I think that's the point though, to give power when you need power, and fuel efficiency when you don't. So everyone does do it, because its a good thing. I think you're making a mistake about what crime they're accused of. The tradeoff between efficiency and power is ok, but what they did is have software that detected when an emission test was being run and created a fake engine profile that only made fuel efficient tradeoffs, and when the emission test stopped the engine went back to the regular tradeoffs. That was their crime. They hid what settings they were really picking and specifically wrote software to defeat an emissions test.

ChuckMcM 9y ago
> That was their crime. They hid what settings they > were really picking and specifically wrote software > to defeat an emissions test. I actually agree with you on this. That said, I've heard people defend VW and presumably would GM as well with "The law says you must have this level of emissions when your car is tested. And that is exactly what they did, they made sure the car followed the law and emitted what was required of it to emit during the test." It completely side steps the intention of course, and I would certainly not sanction it as an excuse, but it nicely illustrates how sophistry and regulation are an odd match.
- _pmf_ 9y ago
  > but it nicely illustrates how sophistry and regulation are an odd match Except for the tiny detail that the law explicitly forbids using special emission control modes during stationary test bench usage. At least in the VW case, it was not a relaxed interpretation of the rules.