On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 12:21:37 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Sunday, September 27, 2015 at 3:02:44 PM UTC-4, Bob F wrote:
trader_4 wrote:
On Saturday, September 26, 2015 at 8:58:24 PM UTC-4, Ashton Crusher
wrote:
On Wed, 23 Sep 2015 18:42:47 +0000 (UTC), Winston_Smith
wrote:

On Wed, 23 Sep 2015 10:00:58 -0400, Steve W. wrote:

I would bet there will be a software "patch" that will
erase the different testing maps, the cars will then meet the
original EPA standards

I think the point is that the cars can only either meet the
emissions standards with reduced drivability, or, with the addition
of a urea system.

Either will be expensive.

What I'd like to find out someday is what the actual difference "on
the road" is in drivablity between the cars in "cheat" mode versus
when they run with all the emissions turned on like they are supposed
to. It would be funny if there really wasn't very much difference
and they did this just to get 31.9 mpg instead of 31.2 mpg and 0-60
of
12.0 seconds rather then 12.3.

It's also possible that there are other serious effects. Like
maybe the emission system components can't stand the constant
operation. Apparently there are cat converters, urea systems,
particulate filters involved too.

I don't think urea is used in the VW violations.

I didn't either, but someone here, Ashton maybe?, posted a link
yesterday to a news article explaining what was involved and
they showed two affected design, one of which used urea.

The only thing I've seen is a diagram showing a "filter/particle
trap". Do those use urea? Maybe the reason VW was turning it off
wasn't vehicle performance issues but simply because the filter
clogged up too quickly if it was used all the time so they just let
the stuff blow out the tailpipe when it wasn't being emissions tested.
That would certainly make the filter last longer!!!