ALi-B

iTrader: (1)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-34298259

And its happening here, and not just VAG, but many makers.

Its obvious on MOT emissions tests...a flakey FSI (directed injection petrol) can often fail UK emissions limits due it chucking out far too many hydrocarbons; Its a flaw in the combustion design when operating in stratified or lean mode when only the fuel by the spark plug burns where the mixture is richer (and sometimes too rich)...anything outside that area doesn't burn as the mix is too lean so it goes into the catalyst to be burnt instead. On a new healthy engine, this doesn't happen, but on a worn engine with dodgy plugs, worn/fouled injectors with incorrect spray patterns, sensor faults, air leaks, clogged intake/exhaust ports and lower/uneven compressions, emissions in stratified charge/lean mode are higher than when operating at stoichiometric (14.7:1).

The main reason why lean burn petrol engines died out in the 1980s was emissions...I actually own one, early 80's Jaguar XJ-S...you can run it as lean as you like and it won't detonate (it just runs hotter). Later variants and USA exports went back to stoic after they fitted cats and lowered the compression ratios to reduce emissions...at the expense of having to burn more fuel.

Whats this got to do with cheating and faking tests? Well MOT emissions test...on VAG and BMW direct injected engines I've noted they can chuck out loads of emissions - and 50% of the time they won't fast pass the basic emission test, requiring the long test. But when doing so sometimes I hear a relay type click (especially on BMWs) and note a change in engine smoothness/note....when this happens the emissions change to be absolutely perfect so the car passes...I always wondered why this happens. It seems from the above recall that it could be intentional that the car detects a fast idle test and adjusts the fueling delivery to stoichiometric accordingly. Naughty Naughty.

Its been happening on diesels of all makes as well...The diesel emission test is basically floor the accelerator and measure the soot out the exhaust. What manufacturers have been doing is to prevent full throttle and/or limit peak engine revs when the car is stationary. This means the engine produces far far less soot. Although these days this is pretty redundant now as cars with DPFs fitted produce pretty much zero soot..(except ones that have had the DPF removed or gutted - failed one last week that had a gutted DPF for producing too much soot ).

Its all this emissions clap trap that's costing the consumer....these direct injected petrol engines don't run right and the manufacturers are cheating the system to mask the problem to get through emission tests. And the diesels are just getting strangled by filters which fail whenever something goes wrong causing the engine to smoke too much.

This is just with EU5 cars. It'll be even worse when EU6 onward goes more mainstream

andy97

iTrader: (1)

Emissions must improve, or alternative fuel propulsion systems. Hydrogen fuel cells and battery technology needs to be pushed forward

spudboytim

iTrader: (3)

I agree but it will never happen why we have oil. To many people making to much money im afraid. U can't tell me in this day and age that there isn't other viable propulsion systems! I actually know someone who had their idea of a alternative form of propulsion bought by shell for a undisclosed sum. Mmmm I wonder why!! ;-)

Tim.

ALi-B

iTrader: (1)

Indeed, but this isn't about pushing immature techologies though, this is about cheating tests and falsification of data.

Where the figures quoted bear litle resemblance to real world scienarios...bit like smart phone makers do when they quote battery life.

Falsification of data is not a isolated issue to just cars and phones; Even fridge freezers where the Samsung I bought puts out alot more than its quoted 42db...when the Leibherr I have since purchased with the same decibel rating is near silent. Why mention it? well, if you have a open plan kitchen, you'd understand the importance of noise ratings and if they are false....the quoted "A++" energy ratings are probably false too!

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

As are most manufacturers' fuel consumption figures.

Remove rear seats, remove spare wheel and tools, tape up all joins, remove wing mirrors anyone?

ALi-B

iTrader: (1)

Yep, we have a "European union" full of bureaucrats that magic all sorts of rules and regulations....but when it comes to making sure manufacturers provide meaningful data that is reflective of their real world operation they do sod all!

Another one; Tyre grip ratings...why is a cheapo Chinese no-brand tyre getting rated with a "A" wet grip and a high quality respected brand tyre achieves a "C"? Is it because the tests are done by the tyre manufacturer themselves and no doubt done on the first batch?

urban

iTrader: (1)

I didn't know that, so thank you.

dpb

gosh only 3% cars diesel in the states

50% here ! ,

Petem95

Staggering that a massive firm like VW would do something like this! Ok in real world air quality terms its nothing really, but the fact they've installed software to get around emissions tests is incredible really - this is going to hit them massively.

Really detailed article on the scandal linked below. I wasn't aware at all that cars, including Golf Mk7 were soft with urea tanks that need to be filled up at all until reading about this scandal!

http://jalopnik.com/your-guide-to-di...g-c-1731857018

bluenose172

iTrader: (2)

Didn't Subaru do something similar with the P1? When it thought it was under test conditions it would limit revs? I remember triggering it on the road and asking the question on here.

Graz

Likewise the "Economy" programmes on washing machines and dishwashers that they use to get the A++ rating but you never use yourself in reality and the programme takes forever compared to the normal ones. (Never quite figured out why it taking longer is more economic but must be some reason for it!)

andy97

iTrader: (1)

How are they going to sort this out?

Scenario. ...
Call in vehicle, reprogram the ecu and remove said cheat. Hand it back to customer, who now has a vehicle which will be so slow in comparison to old setup.

Plus side, emissions will be better for everyone.

ALi-B

iTrader: (1)

There was always something fishy on classic UK/EU scoobs; hold it at 2500-3000rpm in second gear at light throttle (like when following a slow car, prepared and ready to overtake) and the booting it, only to find its just giving 0.5bar boost with the lack of performance to match. Lift off the throttle and reapply and your back to the usual 1bar and performance. Lots of hearsay over why (noise, emissions etc), but nothing official.

Ever see watchdog with the EU6 compliant Fiat 500 1.2? The throttle mapping restricted/delayed the throttle response so much it made it almost impossible to pull away up a steep hill. I thought they were exaggerating and I blamed driver's poor clutch control...until the next episode they responded to that by getting Ben Colins to drive it, and by his own admission the only way he could get it to move without stalling or bogging was by burning up the clutch!

Earlier 1.2 500s didn't have any issue (I've driven plenty; it uses the old 1980's "Fire" engine just with more modern fuel/ignition control).

Fiat after originally denying the problem ended up doing a service campaign to install new engine software on cars that customers complained about (note; an official "recall" is something that is made public via the government's website which is usually related to safety stuff, like brakes, airbags etc. ).

I wonder if these 500s that have had the updated ECU software comply with EU6 anymore? I mean, who is going to test them once the car has been bought and used on the road? Not the MOT man....MOT limits aren't that strict and don't test for NOx.

BlkKnight

There is talk now of changing the MOT procedure to detect broken / missing / gutted CAT's & DPF's.

ALi-B

iTrader: (1)

MOT can only ever be a visual check though; tester isn't allowed to remove undertrays, engine covers or heat shields.

That said they can make the emissions test stricter. The diesel smoke limit is pretty relaxed; it only tests for soot and doesn't check NOx, considering the limit is 1.5m-1..a DPF equipped car will produce pretty much zero...a healthy non-DPF car will be around 1.0m-1, so all they need to do is drop the smoke limit to 0.5m-1 for DPF equipped (or EU5 onwards) cars.

Introducing NOx limits and testing for petrol and diesels would catch a hell of alot cars, although new testing equipment would be required...at the garage owners expense!

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

Two points:

The VAG scandal is dishonesty, and should be treated as such: huge fines, compensation and prison for whoever authorised it.

As for DPF deletes, etc, the bulletins have already gone out: ANY sign of tampering, it's an automatic fail. Mine was MoT this month and the tester showed me the bulletin.

grahamc

iTrader: (10)

If VAG are fined, where does that money go?

Surely this then opens them to a huge class action lawsuit by all those that own/have owned a vehicle of theirs.

SPEN555

I always found it strange when looking at company cars how BMW managed to have the most powerful engines and the lowest emissions at the same time.............Hmmm

VAG won't be the only ones I think they will ALL be doing it.

swaussie

My 2002 STi in Switzerland pulled timing between 4000-4500 rpm for this exact reason (to pass emission controls) that was well known "issue". I was told this by my ecutek tuner way back in 2004... I knew of two other owners of Swiss STi's that had the same problem.