wytstang
New member
- Apr 29, 2006
- 4,216
- 0
It's my or anyone else is choice since I/they own the vehicle to keep or remove X part. Risk depends on your state and age of vehicle but in the end it IS the consumers choice on what to do.
VW Scandal
- Thread starter VISITOR
- Start date
SameGuy
New member
- Jul 1, 2011
- 1,927
- 0
That's simply false.
I'm not saying you mustn't do it, just letting you know that you modify your vehicle at your own legal risk. Just because some states or provinces don't do proper smog testing doesn't mean that disabling or removing factory-installed emissions controls isn't still illegal.
I'm not saying you mustn't do it, just letting you know that you modify your vehicle at your own legal risk. Just because some states or provinces don't do proper smog testing doesn't mean that disabling or removing factory-installed emissions controls isn't still illegal.
SameGuy
New member
- Jul 1, 2011
- 1,927
- 0
Doesn't need a chip, just a software flash to reenable the EGR on its normal driving program, at a cost of about 10% power and fuel efficiency under certain driving and environmental situations. A proper fix would be the installation of a DEF injection system, at a retrofit cost of around $1500 per car.
Ricorocks
SELF BANNED
- Mar 30, 2014
- 516
- 0
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ricorocks View Post
Agree! We've devised a system, to address environmental concerns, for sure it's not perfect, but still needs to be adhered to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SameGuy View Post
We are all on the same page.
Oldmodman said:
The public does not get to vote regarding EPA issues. Should voting on pollution issues be allowed, total chaos would result, with special interest, paying for outcomes. The design is intentional so the public has no control over environmental laws enacted.
Should you feel the laws are to restrictive or onerous you & all others corporations etc. Can air your grievance in a court of law. Alternatively at the ballot box you can vote for, who most likely represents your values, on issues.
Oldmodman said:
Perhaps not you, but most align with one team & allow that team to do the there thinking for them. Ditto head from ... What we have is a 'dumb-ING down' of the American voter, which permits manipulation.
Oldmodman said:
I understand your frustration and how you felt cheated. I believe "lied" is too harsh a term, for the facts given. At the time she spoke to you, it may have been her honest intent. Sometimes things change, or can become hijacked (no longer in control of) that necessitate, a change of plan. Without an explanation or accounting & reason for the funding change, by Senator Feinstein, I would reserve opinion.
Offroad use has expanded this thread, to a new topic. I can tell you this, offroading is very destructive to, to fragile habitat, & requires long period of time to recover from that usage. I understand how polarized the issue is, Off roaders at war with tree huggers etc. I can remember issues regarding, somewhere in the California desert to Las Vegas, via off road & BLM.
Originally Posted by Ricorocks View Post
Agree! We've devised a system, to address environmental concerns, for sure it's not perfect, but still needs to be adhered to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SameGuy View Post
We are all on the same page.
Oldmodman said:
The public does not get to vote regarding EPA issues. Should voting on pollution issues be allowed, total chaos would result, with special interest, paying for outcomes. The design is intentional so the public has no control over environmental laws enacted.
Should you feel the laws are to restrictive or onerous you & all others corporations etc. Can air your grievance in a court of law. Alternatively at the ballot box you can vote for, who most likely represents your values, on issues.
Oldmodman said:
Perhaps not you, but most align with one team & allow that team to do the there thinking for them. Ditto head from ... What we have is a 'dumb-ING down' of the American voter, which permits manipulation.
Oldmodman said:
I understand your frustration and how you felt cheated. I believe "lied" is too harsh a term, for the facts given. At the time she spoke to you, it may have been her honest intent. Sometimes things change, or can become hijacked (no longer in control of) that necessitate, a change of plan. Without an explanation or accounting & reason for the funding change, by Senator Feinstein, I would reserve opinion.
Offroad use has expanded this thread, to a new topic. I can tell you this, offroading is very destructive to, to fragile habitat, & requires long period of time to recover from that usage. I understand how polarized the issue is, Off roaders at war with tree huggers etc. I can remember issues regarding, somewhere in the California desert to Las Vegas, via off road & BLM.
wytstang
New member
- Apr 29, 2006
- 4,216
- 0
You seem to be under the impression that I don't understand that it's illegal to remove smog equipment. You also seem to be under the impression we have a government agency looking under the hood of our vehicles. You are wrong on both (in most states).
My original post which was on topic remains the same VW took the choice (and it is absolutely a choice to keep or remove smog equipment if one chooses) from those who purchased their VW based on good smog testing which was and is wrong.
SameGuy
New member
- Jul 1, 2011
- 1,927
- 0
Wow, that's a straw man.
Of course it's your "choice" to break a law. Duh. Go ahead and smoke in an airplane lavatory, it's your choice to do so. While you're in there, go ahead and disable the smoke detector, it's your choice to do so. If you don't get caught, good for you.
The manufacturer chose to break the law and got caught. Simple enough. The fact that the end user didn't get a "choice" in fudging the smog tests has ZERO to do with it. The buyer got a car that meets the claimed power output figures, and actually gets better fuel mileage than claimed. The only party that got cheated or lied to was the EPA, which has its own agenda. But Politics aside, making false statements to the EPA and cheating their testing system is illegal. VW got caught cheating a flawed system, but it's still the law.
Of course it's your "choice" to break a law. Duh. Go ahead and smoke in an airplane lavatory, it's your choice to do so. While you're in there, go ahead and disable the smoke detector, it's your choice to do so. If you don't get caught, good for you.
The manufacturer chose to break the law and got caught. Simple enough. The fact that the end user didn't get a "choice" in fudging the smog tests has ZERO to do with it. The buyer got a car that meets the claimed power output figures, and actually gets better fuel mileage than claimed. The only party that got cheated or lied to was the EPA, which has its own agenda. But Politics aside, making false statements to the EPA and cheating their testing system is illegal. VW got caught cheating a flawed system, but it's still the law.
Ricorocks
SELF BANNED
- Mar 30, 2014
- 516
- 0
wystang said:
Perhaps not an informed choice! To think someone, has the knowledge, science & engineering skills, somehow to make it better, than the designers & engineers is foolish. You may tweak one thing better, while causing something else to be worse.
This like those arm chair quarterbacks, somehow those fans know more than the pros. Not real bright thinking.
A system exists to, so as to keep pollution low, it's the duty of citizens to participate honestly.
Normally it works like this: EPA certification is required, for sale of autos in the US. One team makes it particularly tough, for EPA to do it's job, & tries to keep funding to the EPA low, thus making it more difficult to accomplish there tasks. EPA relies on manufacturers to self test, then report those figures to EPA, who then certifies. Cheating has been going on for a long time. Special non real world testing conditions, are routinely used, so as to achieve certification. Now some individuals, come along and tinker with emission controls, & problem solved.
If you think like that, you've got all the answers, well take your, notes etc. to any car manufacturer, you will be hired & famously wealthy.
Perhaps not an informed choice! To think someone, has the knowledge, science & engineering skills, somehow to make it better, than the designers & engineers is foolish. You may tweak one thing better, while causing something else to be worse.
This like those arm chair quarterbacks, somehow those fans know more than the pros. Not real bright thinking.
A system exists to, so as to keep pollution low, it's the duty of citizens to participate honestly.
Normally it works like this: EPA certification is required, for sale of autos in the US. One team makes it particularly tough, for EPA to do it's job, & tries to keep funding to the EPA low, thus making it more difficult to accomplish there tasks. EPA relies on manufacturers to self test, then report those figures to EPA, who then certifies. Cheating has been going on for a long time. Special non real world testing conditions, are routinely used, so as to achieve certification. Now some individuals, come along and tinker with emission controls, & problem solved.
If you think like that, you've got all the answers, well take your, notes etc. to any car manufacturer, you will be hired & famously wealthy.
Bunky
Well-known member
- Jun 20, 2007
- 6,427
- 148
One could say the environment (and people who breath the air) was also impacted since that was the purpose of the rule but that is another complete discussion.
SameGuy
New member
- Jul 1, 2011
- 1,927
- 0
One could say that, but that IS the other half of the discussion. We know VW cheated, we know VW got caught. Making the cars comply at this point isn't a win for the environment or the people, as already discussed. Making the EGR work the way it's supposed to work only reduces NOx emissions but at the very real cost of increased fuel use and significantly increased tailpipe emissions. It also increases fouling of the car's intake system, increasing wear and further increasing fuel consumption and wear, and requiring more maintenance and in some cases reducing the useful life of the engine, a much bigger hit to the environment.
Ricorocks
SELF BANNED
- Mar 30, 2014
- 516
- 0
SameGuy all of things you mentioned have been considered, by mfg's & regulators. Do you know more than them? Your concerns about engine life, have been factored into the equation, what's real important is remaining current on maintenance schedules & have work done by a qualified mechanic, when suggested, 2nd opinion if necessary.
VW cheated many mfg's cheat, VW got caught, which exposes others, draws attention to the problem, where action can occur.
Unless your a design engineer, working directly in the field, with industry or a in the know govt. regulator. I really do not think your qualified to make those judgement calls on smog controls.
Keep in mind satisfying EPA, by mfg in house testing, only gets permission to sell nationally, where states, can & do implement, there own regulations, often times more stringent than EPA. California implements, more stringent requirements, often times, which become adopted by other states & EPA.
Perhaps NOx emissions, are so bad they trump, your other concerns, or despite what you think, NOx.
In CA running co-gen plants (independent power plants, selling electricity to the utility & providing service to a customer), the number one concern, AQMD, was NOx, we had 24/7 recording graphs, that showed compiance/non compliance, we had so many minutes per month, we could be out of compliance without getting fined. To help maintain compliance, we injected, very pure water into the flame (jet engine) which reduced efficiency, but reduced NOx. You just could not armchair quarterback & say, well hell with water injection & NOx, we will tell them the jet is more efficient, by not doing it. That just does not work & harkens back to your EGR theory. Larger jet's at co-gen plants, injected AMMONIA, into the flame, reducing efficiency, but controlling NOX.
VW cheated many mfg's cheat, VW got caught, which exposes others, draws attention to the problem, where action can occur.
Unless your a design engineer, working directly in the field, with industry or a in the know govt. regulator. I really do not think your qualified to make those judgement calls on smog controls.
Keep in mind satisfying EPA, by mfg in house testing, only gets permission to sell nationally, where states, can & do implement, there own regulations, often times more stringent than EPA. California implements, more stringent requirements, often times, which become adopted by other states & EPA.
Perhaps NOx emissions, are so bad they trump, your other concerns, or despite what you think, NOx.
In CA running co-gen plants (independent power plants, selling electricity to the utility & providing service to a customer), the number one concern, AQMD, was NOx, we had 24/7 recording graphs, that showed compiance/non compliance, we had so many minutes per month, we could be out of compliance without getting fined. To help maintain compliance, we injected, very pure water into the flame (jet engine) which reduced efficiency, but reduced NOx. You just could not armchair quarterback & say, well hell with water injection & NOx, we will tell them the jet is more efficient, by not doing it. That just does not work & harkens back to your EGR theory. Larger jet's at co-gen plants, injected AMMONIA, into the flame, reducing efficiency, but controlling NOX.
VISITOR
Active member
- May 10, 2007
- 9,859
- 3
- Thread starter
- #72
taken from NY Times... btw, I think is just the beginning of a lot of headache, lawsuits, and money involved for VW...
FRANKFURT — Volkswagen began installing software devised to cheat on emissions tests in 2008 after realizing that a new diesel engine, developed at great expense, could not meet pollution standards in the United States and other countries, people with knowledge of the automaker’s internal inquiry said on Sunday.
Rather than stop production of the engine and throw out years of work and investment, managers decided to cheat, the people said, confirming a report in Bild am Sonntag, a German newspaper. They did not want to be identified because of the sensitivity of the issue.
It remained unclear who was responsible for the decision, which has created a crisis at the world’s largest automaker. The deception will force the company to undertake costly repairs on as many as 11 million affected vehicles and has tarnished Germany’s image as a bastion of engineering prowess.
In late September, Volkswagen suspended three top managers who played prominent roles in engine development, but the carmaker has not publicly disclosed the reasons for the suspensions.
“We are working intensively to clarify what occurred,” a company spokesman said in a statement. “Thoroughness comes before speed. We will provide information as soon as we have facts.”
Volkswagen is expected to disclose some of the findings from its internal inquiry this week. By showing that it is aggressively investigating what led to the fraud, the company may be seeking to limit further damage to its reputation and future car sales.
After interviewing engineers who participate in engine development, internal auditors have determined that the illegal software was installed beginning in 2008, according to the people familiar with the inquiry, which is still at a preliminary stage.
By then, Volkswagen had spent several years developing a new diesel engine line, known as the EA 189, which included both 1.6- and 2.0-liter versions, and was preparing for production. The EA 189 was one of the most important engines in the company, destined not only for millions of Volkswagen-brand cars but also for a wide variety of other brands from the parent Volkswagen Group, like Audi, Skoda and Seat, as well as some light utility vehicles.
FRANKFURT — Volkswagen began installing software devised to cheat on emissions tests in 2008 after realizing that a new diesel engine, developed at great expense, could not meet pollution standards in the United States and other countries, people with knowledge of the automaker’s internal inquiry said on Sunday.
Rather than stop production of the engine and throw out years of work and investment, managers decided to cheat, the people said, confirming a report in Bild am Sonntag, a German newspaper. They did not want to be identified because of the sensitivity of the issue.
It remained unclear who was responsible for the decision, which has created a crisis at the world’s largest automaker. The deception will force the company to undertake costly repairs on as many as 11 million affected vehicles and has tarnished Germany’s image as a bastion of engineering prowess.
In late September, Volkswagen suspended three top managers who played prominent roles in engine development, but the carmaker has not publicly disclosed the reasons for the suspensions.
“We are working intensively to clarify what occurred,” a company spokesman said in a statement. “Thoroughness comes before speed. We will provide information as soon as we have facts.”
Volkswagen is expected to disclose some of the findings from its internal inquiry this week. By showing that it is aggressively investigating what led to the fraud, the company may be seeking to limit further damage to its reputation and future car sales.
After interviewing engineers who participate in engine development, internal auditors have determined that the illegal software was installed beginning in 2008, according to the people familiar with the inquiry, which is still at a preliminary stage.
By then, Volkswagen had spent several years developing a new diesel engine line, known as the EA 189, which included both 1.6- and 2.0-liter versions, and was preparing for production. The EA 189 was one of the most important engines in the company, destined not only for millions of Volkswagen-brand cars but also for a wide variety of other brands from the parent Volkswagen Group, like Audi, Skoda and Seat, as well as some light utility vehicles.
SameGuy
New member
- Jul 1, 2011
- 1,927
- 0
Rico, I never said I know better than anyone. If you read my posts, I agree with virtually everyone. VW made a business decision, and now they must pay for that bad business decision. They spent many years and many Euros developing a small Diesel engine that met emissions standards in most countries, and met the performance and efficiency expectations of their customers. What they did not do is make the costly business decision to adjust for more stringent emissions standards in the US and Canada enacted right before they decided to release the engines. I'm guessing here, but they probably surmised that it's hard enough to sell Americans a small diesel-engined car that costs more than its gasoline counterpart, so it would be even harder if it cost significantly more than that. All they had to do was engineer the car with a DEF system and change the cat and DPF. They chose not to reengineer the cars destined for North America, it now seems. Bad decisions cost money, and now they will pay lots of it.
In the meantime, Mercedes took their time developing a four cylinder diesel for the global market. They have enough pad in their pricing to not scare away potential buyers with a more costly engine option, and were able to develop a 2.1 liter turbo diesel with DEF and DPF that develops significantly more power and torque than the VW 2.0 TDI, and gets similarly good fuel economy. But, hey, MB can sell cars here that cost $45k and up. A $35k diesel Jetta? Hard sell.
Also, please don't question my knowledge. Just google any terms relating to VW and EGR and you'll see that fouling EGRs, intakes and combustion chambers is more than just an occasional nuisance, it is the single biggest issue with VW's small diesels over the last two decades. If you've worked on even just one TDI you'll curse the decision to use EGR as a kludge emission control.
In the meantime, Mercedes took their time developing a four cylinder diesel for the global market. They have enough pad in their pricing to not scare away potential buyers with a more costly engine option, and were able to develop a 2.1 liter turbo diesel with DEF and DPF that develops significantly more power and torque than the VW 2.0 TDI, and gets similarly good fuel economy. But, hey, MB can sell cars here that cost $45k and up. A $35k diesel Jetta? Hard sell.
Also, please don't question my knowledge. Just google any terms relating to VW and EGR and you'll see that fouling EGRs, intakes and combustion chambers is more than just an occasional nuisance, it is the single biggest issue with VW's small diesels over the last two decades. If you've worked on even just one TDI you'll curse the decision to use EGR as a kludge emission control.
Ricorocks
SELF BANNED
- Mar 30, 2014
- 516
- 0
When the head of Audi, became CEO of VW, the goal (pressure was on) to increase US sales three fold. The CEO envisioned the diesel, playing an important role. At the time Mercedes, & VW had a licensing agreement for a Mercedes diesel, also VW had the in house (VW) E189 TDI engine. The decision was made to go with E189 & drop the agreement with Mercedes. Two super star engineers, warned, but the pressure was on to triple US sales.
VW was hell bent on being the number one mfg. surpassing both GM & Toyota. Greed got in the way, it cost the CEO his job, & exposed, a cobweb, of problems, at VW & the industry in general. Now exposure, promises to improve the situation.
True VW made mistakes & was caught, yes they will be doing damage control for awhile
This is not an isolated case, cheating is "ROUTINE" in the industry, EPA (due to factors previously mentioned), relies on mfg. to Self Test, then report, results to them. This CAUGHT could have been any mfg. Greed or the lust to be #1, made it more probable, that cheating would be uncovered.
More than (you suggest, "All they had to do...") changing DEF's, cat,DPF, or EGR. It's just not that simple, or what you describe was well known by those two engineers. What did get in the way, was the CEO's desire, to be #1, or GREED
This is exactly why, we need regulations/regulators, who can perform there job, with little interference, from politicians with an agenda. We also need whistle blowers, who can come fwd. without fear of retaliation. etc.
Regarding pollution, some pollutants are much more important than others, & hence the others can be tolerated to a greater degree. Any time you burn, fossil fuel, be it in a jet engine, or internal combustion engine. You get pollutants, & regulators (science), have to go after (decision) what is the worst, & how to attack, the problem, without, killing an industry. It's well known that going after a particular pollutant, CAN & DOES decrease efficiency, & can cause other problems. Knowing this informed decisions are made, biased (both ways) abound on the internet. Googling some aspect, then reading biased, or non biased paper, is not a GOOD substitute for, the science involved in keeping us pollutant free.
Mostly we agree.
VW was hell bent on being the number one mfg. surpassing both GM & Toyota. Greed got in the way, it cost the CEO his job, & exposed, a cobweb, of problems, at VW & the industry in general. Now exposure, promises to improve the situation.
True VW made mistakes & was caught, yes they will be doing damage control for awhile
This is not an isolated case, cheating is "ROUTINE" in the industry, EPA (due to factors previously mentioned), relies on mfg. to Self Test, then report, results to them. This CAUGHT could have been any mfg. Greed or the lust to be #1, made it more probable, that cheating would be uncovered.
More than (you suggest, "All they had to do...") changing DEF's, cat,DPF, or EGR. It's just not that simple, or what you describe was well known by those two engineers. What did get in the way, was the CEO's desire, to be #1, or GREED
This is exactly why, we need regulations/regulators, who can perform there job, with little interference, from politicians with an agenda. We also need whistle blowers, who can come fwd. without fear of retaliation. etc.
Regarding pollution, some pollutants are much more important than others, & hence the others can be tolerated to a greater degree. Any time you burn, fossil fuel, be it in a jet engine, or internal combustion engine. You get pollutants, & regulators (science), have to go after (decision) what is the worst, & how to attack, the problem, without, killing an industry. It's well known that going after a particular pollutant, CAN & DOES decrease efficiency, & can cause other problems. Knowing this informed decisions are made, biased (both ways) abound on the internet. Googling some aspect, then reading biased, or non biased paper, is not a GOOD substitute for, the science involved in keeping us pollutant free.
Mostly we agree.
Ricorocks
SELF BANNED
- Mar 30, 2014
- 516
- 0