On Thu, 24 Sep 2015 13:56:26 -0400, "Steve W."
wrote:

Vincent Cheng Hoi Chuen wrote:
Ashton Crusher wrote in
:

That's my point for this thread branch, yes. Not only isn't it worth
it, the code is none of teh EPA's damn business.

What I don't understand is that the code, apparently, allowed *more*
fuel to the engine (to cool the combustion chamber) which lowered NOx
emissions.

So, fixing the problem should result in *less* fuel to the engine, if
that's the case.

When they reflash the ecu, wouldn't that lowering of fuel *increase* gas
mileage *and* bring NOx emissions back down to where they said they were?


Backwards.

Less fuel = hotter burn in the combustion chamber = higher NOx numbers
It shows up as vehicles that get better EPA mileage numbers than the
sticker says because they are burning less fuel.

To correct the issue they need to increase the fuel to the engine to
cool the combustion temperatures.

Remember we are talking DIESEL here. The more fuel, the hotter the
burn. Same is true of Gasoline, but only to a point. The point doesn't
come in to play with a compression ignition engine

The end result will be that the EPA MPG numbers will be closer to
reality because the engine is now using the fuel to keep the NOx numbers
down. The only "bad" side effect will be that the particulate trap and
the NOx catalyst will need to burn more often to regenerate.



OR VW could come up with a DEF retrofit to drop the NOx numbers.
Are their DEF vehicles included in the "scam" -(Tourag, T7 and
Passat) TDI

Vincent Cheng Hoi Chuen wrote:
Ewald Böhm wrote in
:

My question is HOW did the car *know* it was being *tested* for
emissions?

This video says that the VW TDI meets all California and US & Europe
requirements! https://youtu.be/GzuFXeO48Rw?t=635

So it must be true?

"Bob F" wrote in :

This video says that the VW TDI meets all California and US & Europe
requirements! https://youtu.be/GzuFXeO48Rw?t=635

So it must be true?

It was ironic.

On Sat, 19 Sep 2015 00:19:10 +0000, Ewald Böhm wrote:

My question is HOW did the car *know* it was being *tested* for emissions?

What I don't understand is that VW had to submit test results from a
(supposedly) independent company in Europe to get certified in Europe
for the 11 million cars that might be affected.

They apparently contracted that job out to Applus Idiada of Spain.

Has anyone any idea how Applus Idiada verified the wrong numbers?

Ewald Böhm wrote in message


Apparently Volkswagen/Audi cheated on the USA emissions tests since
2009 to 2015 by turning off the EGR to lower nitrogen oxide emissions
ONLY when the car was being tested for emissions.

Was the software really all that "sophisticated"?

The NY Times said it was "sophisticated".
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/25/bu...boardroom.html

I think it was just brazen.

Wait, let's get this fukun straight. The EGR valve LOWERs N2O emissions by lowering peak combustion temperature.

It takes a high temperature to burn nitrogen and that is the deal, it combines with the O2 and becomes NO2. This does not happen as much at lower temperatures.

The EGR system allows the intake system to brerathe really well, usually with VEs (volumetric efficiency) over 100 even in normally aspirated engines because of good camshaft design.

you can get all this, and use EGR to make regular gas burn like premium. That is one of the things it does. Lowering the peak combustion temperature, by the laws of physics, will slow down the combustion rate.

Ignition ping is caused by too fast combustion.

Modern cars have a knock sensor and continually advance the base ignition timing incrementally until the knock sensor "reports". Then it backs off. This allows it to give you better performance with better gas. I know this is a diesel, but when it comes to EGR it still does the same thing.

Bottom line, they turned off the EGR until such time the car was under test, ;detected either by the connection of the tester, or the fact that the non-drive wheels were not turning. That information is readily available from the ABS system, and traction control if so equipped.

I am surprised the admitted it. I would have said there is no explanation and we would just pay a fine, like $5 million or so to your favorite charity as well.

"Golf on Wednesday ?"
"Definitely, we are going to kick your ass"
"Really"

On Fri, 25 Sep 2015 01:56:01 +0000, JJ wrote:

I think it was just brazen.

Apparently cheating is rather common.

Volkswagen Test Rigging Follows a Long Auto Industry Pattern
By DANNY HAKIM and HIROKO TABUCHISEPT. 23, 2015
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/24/bu...y-pattern.html

wrote:


Ignition ping is caused by too fast combustion.

Modern cars have a knock sensor and continually advance the base ignition
timing incrementally until the knock sensor "reports". Then it backs off.
This allows it to give you better performance with better gas. I know this
is a diesel, but when it comes to EGR it still does the same thing.
The VW cars in queston are DIESEL, not gas.

Jon

posted for all of us...



On Sat, 19 Sep 2015 16:36:33 -0400, Tekkie®
wrote:

posted for all of us...


Then how do you explain the FACT that todays engines -
1)produce higher spedific output than engines in the past
2) Consume fewer gallons of gas per unit distance travelled
AND
3) produce lower exhaut emissions

-than the engines of only a few years back - muchless the
"uncontrolled" engines of the 50s and 60s, and the early emission
engines of the 70s and 80s?

VW will just have to step up to the plate and spend in retrofits what
they should have spent in initial design and production - plus.


Wise business decision... Why do they do this? It would be a great subject
of an independent analysis. Weren't they owned by Chrysler at the start of
this?
VW has NEVER been owned by Chrysler, nor has Chrysler been owned by
VW

I am glad you challenged me! I was thinking of the VW/Chrysler plant in PA.
I was mistaken in ownership. Thank you.

--
Tekkie

On Fri, 25 Sep 2015 17:08:15 -0400, Tekkie®
wrote:

posted for all of us...



On Sat, 19 Sep 2015 16:36:33 -0400, Tekkie®
wrote:

posted for all of us...


Then how do you explain the FACT that todays engines -
1)produce higher spedific output than engines in the past
2) Consume fewer gallons of gas per unit distance travelled
AND
3) produce lower exhaut emissions

-than the engines of only a few years back - muchless the
"uncontrolled" engines of the 50s and 60s, and the early emission
engines of the 70s and 80s?

VW will just have to step up to the plate and spend in retrofits what
they should have spent in initial design and production - plus.


Wise business decision... Why do they do this? It would be a great subject
of an independent analysis. Weren't they owned by Chrysler at the start of
this?
VW has NEVER been owned by Chrysler, nor has Chrysler been owned by
VW

I am glad you challenged me! I was thinking of the VW/Chrysler plant in PA.
I was mistaken in ownership. Thank you.
Like AMC, Chrysler DID buy some engines from VW back around then -
the Omni-Horizon originally used a VAG supplied engine (Audi fox?) a
bit bigger than the rabbit engine at the time - and I believe AMC used
basically the same engine in the early 4 cyl Spirit.

On Thu, 24 Sep 2015 02:55:49 +0000 (UTC), Vincent Cheng Hoi Chuen
wrote:

Ashton Crusher wrote in
:

That's my point for this thread branch, yes. Not only isn't it worth
it, the code is none of teh EPA's damn business.

What I don't understand is that the code, apparently, allowed *more*
fuel to the engine (to cool the combustion chamber) which lowered NOx
emissions.

So, fixing the problem should result in *less* fuel to the engine, if
that's the case.

When they reflash the ecu, wouldn't that lowering of fuel *increase* gas
mileage *and* bring NOx emissions back down to where they said they were?

Have you actually seen any factual data that they were providing more
fuel? From the little bit of decent info I've seen it looked more
like they were trying to extend the life of some "filter" by turning
the filter "off" and just letting the stuff fly out the tailpipe.

some info here..
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...explainer.html

On Fri, 25 Sep 2015 01:56:01 +0000 (UTC), JJ
wrote:

Ewald Böhm wrote in message


Apparently Volkswagen/Audi cheated on the USA emissions tests since
2009 to 2015 by turning off the EGR to lower nitrogen oxide emissions
ONLY when the car was being tested for emissions.

Was the software really all that "sophisticated"?

The NY Times said it was "sophisticated".
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/25/bu...boardroom.html

I think it was just brazen.


No reason it can't be both.

"The VW cars in queston are DIESEL, not gas. "

I have to admit that at first I didn't catch that. But then I did. However, doesn't the same apply ? The theory of EGR is to starve it for O2 a bit so the burning slows down. That should apply here as well.

But then I am not completely versed in all the pumps etc. these things may use. There was a time when they could not use a catalytic convertor on a diesel. Apparently things have changed. but what was presented really did seem to indicate that turning off the EGR except during a test was the issue. That is the impression I got in the beginning.

However, now other things are coming out, for one the allowing more fuel. But aren't those diesels just like the biguns ? There is no throttle, the injection pump determines the power output. Am I wrong here ? Where the hell would I get such information ? I can't just walk into a car lot and start taking apart their cars to find out.

As far as I know, diesels takes in all the air they can get so there is no controlling the mixture. It needs all that air to ignite the fuel. Putting in more fuel should not cool the burn, just make it burn more. Without a throttle plate the mixture is what it is and there is nothing that can be done.

Therefore the only way to control N2O is by EGR, and the article did state that the N2O may have been 40 times the limit.

Another poster somewhere in thread mentioned they should think about all this gas mileage and consider the pollution produced in the refining (cracking) process. Governments can be pennywise and poundfoolish really when it comes to things that require gray matter. Like what they did to flourescent lights. When I was in business I used them because they were more efficient and lasted longer. It was not a big business so I generally had the 4 foot 40 watt jobs. They lasted many years.

Then they came out with those frikken energy saving jobs and they not only flickered worse when cold, they also did not last as long. they totally disregarded the pollution caused not only by manufacturing more bulbs, but all the **** in the landfills.

One of these days I am going to contact the bleeding heart liberals about this. Lead free solder is used because of planned obsolescence, or actual planned failure to the point of unrepairability. This must stop.

Catalytic convertors are still mandated even though they are almost useless.. At least in gas cars, with the computer they can run so clean they do not need it. In fact they could be tuned for better mileage and performance without it because there HAS to be some pollution and oxygen in the exhaust to keep the cat lit. The mixture cannot be stoichometric, which would be the ideal and pretty much the exhaust, except for mostly nitrogen, CO2 and H2O.. But there would be nothing to catalyse.

Yup, they actually pollute on purpose to test the convertor. How does that grabya ? They are putting gout more heat, and less power and efficiency by mandate.

Beam me up Scotty, there is no intelligent life here. At least it seems. The fact is that these politicians are such mother****ers that they may well know EXACTLY what they're doing.

Maybe. Generally, I have found intelligent people to be more trustworthy than idiots. They know the consequences of their actions. They become socially and morally responsible. So that means an intelligent politician might just be an oxymoron.

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.

"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. "

Ahh, the "FQ".

The Fahrvergnügen Quotient.

On 9/26/2015 2:58 PM, 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.


My guess is that VW will use a software update rather than spend
thousands on a hardware fix. I think the update should come with a
hundred dollar check and a 2L bottle of Coke - diet or regular as a
jester of goodwill.

OTOH, my guess is that a lot of folks will just ignore any fix, if they
can avoid it. The big question is will they be compelled by the state or
feds to do this or will this be be treated as just another recall.

On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 16:48:22 -1000, dsi1 wrote:

On 9/26/2015 2:58 PM, 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.


My guess is that VW will use a software update rather than spend
thousands on a hardware fix. I think the update should come with a
hundred dollar check and a 2L bottle of Coke - diet or regular as a
jester of goodwill.

OTOH, my guess is that a lot of folks will just ignore any fix, if they
can avoid it. The big question is will they be compelled by the state or
feds to do this or will this be be treated as just another recall.


A software fix would be OK if it doesn't wind up overloading the
filter/particle trap every 30 days requiring it to be serviced.

dsi1 wrote:
On 9/26/2015 2:58 PM, 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.


My guess is that VW will use a software update rather than spend
thousands on a hardware fix. I think the update should come with a
hundred dollar check and a 2L bottle of Coke - diet or regular as a
jester of goodwill.

OTOH, my guess is that a lot of folks will just ignore any fix, if they
can avoid it. The big question is will they be compelled by the state or
feds to do this or will this be be treated as just another recall.

You won't be able to ignore it. The EPA has a LOT more power than the
NHYSA does. They will simply blacklist the VIN numbers of all the
vehicles that are not in compliance with the regulations.

Owners will probably get a letter telling them that they have XXX days
to get to a dealer and have the fix done. If they don't they will get a
letter from the Feds telling them that they are driving a non-compliant
vehicle and that the registration has been suspended.


--
Steve W.

On 9/20/2015 3:49 PM, sms wrote:

snip

I had a smog check this morning on a 2007 Camry. The shop had a new
machine for newer vehicles. Since September 2013, 2000 and newer
vehicles no longer get tested on the dynamometer and no longer get a
probe shoved up their tailpipe. The whole test is done via the OBD-II
port (as well as a visual inspection).

For diesel vehicles you can see the details he
http://www.smogtips.com/diesel-smog-test.cfm

So clearly VW was not just looking at wheel rotation, they probably
turned on the emission controls whenever they detected something reading
the sensors. I wonder if an ELM327 transceiver or a Progressive
"Snapshot" would have any effect.

On 9/28/2015 6:42 AM, Steve W. wrote:
dsi1 wrote:
On 9/26/2015 2:58 PM, 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.


My guess is that VW will use a software update rather than spend
thousands on a hardware fix. I think the update should come with a
hundred dollar check and a 2L bottle of Coke - diet or regular as a
jester of goodwill.

OTOH, my guess is that a lot of folks will just ignore any fix, if
they can avoid it. The big question is will they be compelled by the
state or feds to do this or will this be be treated as just another
recall.

You won't be able to ignore it. The EPA has a LOT more power than the
NHYSA does. They will simply blacklist the VIN numbers of all the
vehicles that are not in compliance with the regulations.

Owners will probably get a letter telling them that they have XXX days
to get to a dealer and have the fix done. If they don't they will get a
letter from the Feds telling them that they are driving a non-compliant
vehicle and that the registration has been suspended.



The way I see it, it's just another recall and the feds should just
grant an exception for the victims of this scam. I think that's an easy
solution to this problem.

"sms" wrote in message
...
On 9/20/2015 3:49 PM, sms wrote:

snip

I had a smog check this morning on a 2007 Camry. The shop had a new
machine for newer vehicles. Since September 2013, 2000 and newer vehicles
no longer get tested on the dynamometer and no longer get a probe shoved
up their tailpipe. The whole test is done via the OBD-II port (as well as
a visual inspection).

For diesel vehicles you can see the details he
http://www.smogtips.com/diesel-smog-test.cfm

So clearly VW was not just looking at wheel rotation, they probably turned
on the emission controls whenever they detected something reading the
sensors. I wonder if an ELM327 transceiver or a Progressive "Snapshot"
would have any effect.

Here's an interesting point. It seems CA has portable roadside emissions
checkpoints that measure the emissions as you drive. I wonder why they
haven't seen a major problem with VW vehicles as they pass these
checkpoints?

Maybe it is a minimum difference between a properly working system and a VW
in the fuel economy mode? Like someone else said - is the nominal emission
near zero and 10 to 40 times worse is still an extremely small amount of
NOx.

dsi1 wrote:
On 9/28/2015 6:42 AM, Steve W. wrote:
dsi1 wrote:
On 9/26/2015 2:58 PM, 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.

My guess is that VW will use a software update rather than spend
thousands on a hardware fix. I think the update should come with a
hundred dollar check and a 2L bottle of Coke - diet or regular as a
jester of goodwill.

OTOH, my guess is that a lot of folks will just ignore any fix, if
they can avoid it. The big question is will they be compelled by the
state or feds to do this or will this be be treated as just another
recall.
You won't be able to ignore it. The EPA has a LOT more power than the
NHYSA does. They will simply blacklist the VIN numbers of all the
vehicles that are not in compliance with the regulations.

Owners will probably get a letter telling them that they have XXX days
to get to a dealer and have the fix done. If they don't they will get a
letter from the Feds telling them that they are driving a non-compliant
vehicle and that the registration has been suspended.



The way I see it, it's just another recall and the feds should just
grant an exception for the victims of this scam. I think that's an easy
solution to this problem.

That's just it, this isn't just another recall. These vehicles do not
meet US emissions standards as they are. The EPA will either force VW to
do a full recall and verification campaign or they could even make them
replace the cars. That is what still has to be determined.


--
Steve W.

My question is HOW did the car *know* it was being *tested* for emissions?

I saw a brief article in the newspaper and things suggested we
Barometric pressure
Steering wheel position

among other things.

Possible, but I think the easiest way would be via the ABS. Rear wheels not turning. I could be wrong, I think German engineers get better drugs than most.

On 9/29/2015 8:36 AM, Steve W. wrote:
dsi1 wrote:
On 9/28/2015 6:42 AM, Steve W. wrote:
dsi1 wrote:
On 9/26/2015 2:58 PM, 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.

My guess is that VW will use a software update rather than spend
thousands on a hardware fix. I think the update should come with a
hundred dollar check and a 2L bottle of Coke - diet or regular as a
jester of goodwill.

OTOH, my guess is that a lot of folks will just ignore any fix, if
they can avoid it. The big question is will they be compelled by the
state or feds to do this or will this be be treated as just another
recall.
You won't be able to ignore it. The EPA has a LOT more power than the
NHYSA does. They will simply blacklist the VIN numbers of all the
vehicles that are not in compliance with the regulations.

Owners will probably get a letter telling them that they have XXX days
to get to a dealer and have the fix done. If they don't they will get a
letter from the Feds telling them that they are driving a non-compliant
vehicle and that the registration has been suspended.



The way I see it, it's just another recall and the feds should just
grant an exception for the victims of this scam. I think that's an
easy solution to this problem.

That's just it, this isn't just another recall. These vehicles do not
meet US emissions standards as they are. The EPA will either force VW to
do a full recall and verification campaign or they could even make them
replace the cars. That is what still has to be determined.



It doesn't have to be like that. Let's just treat it like another recall
and move on! What can I say, I'm a dreamer...

On Saturday, September 19, 2015 at 6:49:22 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Sat, 19 Sep 2015 12:08:40 -0700, "Bob F"
wrote:

Steve W. wrote:
. wrote:
On 9/19/2015 11:12 AM, Steve W. wrote:
Sure will. You have to enter the VIN into the system to start the
inspection. IF the EPA requires a recall to reflash the ECM to
remove that software and "correct" the problem, that would have to
be done at a dealer. They will track completed vehicles by VIN. The
state can just flag ALL those vehicles. You pull in, they plug in
the tester, and your VIN doesn't show on the "recall complete"
list. You don't get inspected. That has happened before for other recalls.
I'm betting the fix
will be to re-flash the ECM software to remove the "switch". Then
run each one through the full EPA test regardless of registration
state. That because this if a federal law that was broken.

What will be fun will be watching all the johnny racer types who
modified the cars by removing emissions gear and "tuning" the ECM.
VW could actually show them to the EPA and say "THEY removed the
systems so they should pay a fine as well".

When has the EPA ever gone after individual passenger car vehicle
owners?

Happens a lot more than you might think. States get into the act under
the umbrella of the EPA laws.


VW intentionally wrote software for their vehicles with the express
intent of violating the EPA laws. They admitted to that already so it
will be interesting to see what happens. The EPA could recall the
cars, judge them as "unrepairable gross polluters" and have them
crushed. I doubt they will go that far but they have done it before
under the "cars for cash" BS.

Or, the EPA could require that all the cheating cars be re-programmed to meet
requirements all the time, and owners could sue VW's ass off for cheating them,
since the resulting performance will be terrible.

The cars should be re-programmed, at the expense of VW. And then a lot
of class action suits should be filed against VW. I suppose, to be
fair to the car buyers who did not knowingly participate in the scam,
there should be an option to have the new firmware installed. If they
get the new firmware then they get to sue. If not then they would get
no compensation because they have not suffered a loss.
ERS

Owners will NOT have the option to opt out of the firmware being upgraded because the cars are not EPA certifiable at this point. They need to be brought into compliance by U.S. law or be crushed if they cant. If the owner refuses to get an approved fix done, then many (if not most) will fail the car's emissions test and pull the reg (CT).

As far as suffering loss, that depends on the fix. If the firmware (and most likely hardware) changes do bring the cars into compliance, but causes a loss of performance and/or fuel mileage, then the owners have indeed suffered a compensable loss. If it can be shown that the resale of the cars suffered as a result of all of this, then that's also compensable. If the fix actually improves performance and efficiency (long shot but who knows?), then it's a win for the customer as long as the fix doesn't shorten the life of the engine.

If the fix ends up being like so many other recalls, I'm sure VW will also include some VW swag for the customers to compensate for the trouble (VW backpack, key rings, VW feminine hygiene products, etc.) and probably coupons for service and/or extending the warranty.

It will be interesting to see if VW had a fix ready in case the scam became known.

In sci.electronics.repair Scott Dorsey wrote:
=?iso-8859-15?Q?Tekkie=AE?= wrote:
Then the lead issue. I don't know if lead in gas was harmful or not but that
train has left the station. My observation is the air is "better" but is
that because of cars or the fact PA is ground zero of the "rust belt" and
manufacturing has left?

There are few things more terrifying than slow lead poisoning. The improvement
in the amount of lead in people's bodies has been amazing since lead was
taken out of gas.

That's not to say MBTE isn't pretty bad... it is. But lead is about the
scariest thing you can imagine.

When I was fresh out of college with an EE degree, I interviewed at a battery
plant in Alabama.... and as soon as you walked into the town you could see
the people in town being stupid. Everybody, everybody in town had clear signs
of lead exposure. I got out of there as quickly as I could and I did not look
back.

can you elaborate on this?

Actually the physiological effects of lead had absolutely nothing to do with its removal from gasoline.

It was the fact that is would screw up the catalytic convertors on cars. Lead abatement in paint, apartments and all that was a totally separate issue.

And if your kids are eating paint chips off the walls, you might want to watch them better, or possibly feed them better. Remember, they pick your retirement home.

Oh and BTW, did anyone get smarter ? People are ****ing more stupid than ever.

Cause and effect matter not right now, because the fac is it did not work. They are getting dumber and dumber.

Cydrome Leader wrote:
In sci.electronics.repair Scott Dorsey wrote:
=?iso-8859-15?Q?Tekkie=AE?= wrote:
Then the lead issue. I don't know if lead in gas was harmful or not but that
train has left the station. My observation is the air is "better" but is
that because of cars or the fact PA is ground zero of the "rust belt" and
manufacturing has left?

There are few things more terrifying than slow lead poisoning. The improvement
in the amount of lead in people's bodies has been amazing since lead was
taken out of gas.

That's not to say MBTE isn't pretty bad... it is. But lead is about the
scariest thing you can imagine.

When I was fresh out of college with an EE degree, I interviewed at a battery
plant in Alabama.... and as soon as you walked into the town you could see
the people in town being stupid. Everybody, everybody in town had clear signs
of lead exposure. I got out of there as quickly as I could and I did not look
back.

can you elaborate on this?

On scary battery plants or MBTE exposure, or long-term lead exposure rates?
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

In sci.electronics.repair Scott Dorsey wrote:
Cydrome Leader wrote:
In sci.electronics.repair Scott Dorsey wrote:
=?iso-8859-15?Q?Tekkie=AE?= wrote:
Then the lead issue. I don't know if lead in gas was harmful or not but that
train has left the station. My observation is the air is "better" but is
that because of cars or the fact PA is ground zero of the "rust belt" and
manufacturing has left?

There are few things more terrifying than slow lead poisoning. The improvement
in the amount of lead in people's bodies has been amazing since lead was
taken out of gas.

That's not to say MBTE isn't pretty bad... it is. But lead is about the
scariest thing you can imagine.

When I was fresh out of college with an EE degree, I interviewed at a battery
plant in Alabama.... and as soon as you walked into the town you could see
the people in town being stupid. Everybody, everybody in town had clear signs
of lead exposure. I got out of there as quickly as I could and I did not look
back.

can you elaborate on this?

On scary battery plants or MBTE exposure, or long-term lead exposure rates?
--scott

both-

I imagined you visited some dirty smelting town where everybody was a
mouth breather caked in filth. The battery plant must have been a pleasant
place too.

Gary, IN had the permanent pollution cloud over it from heavy until maybe
the early 2000s. The smell was awful.

Cydrome Leader wrote:
can you elaborate on this?

On scary battery plants or MBTE exposure, or long-term lead exposure rates?
--scott

both-

I imagined you visited some dirty smelting town where everybody was a
mouth breather caked in filth. The battery plant must have been a pleasant
place too.

The battery plant was in a town called Leeds, Alabama, and I have no idea
what happened to it. I was born in Pittsburgh so I have a pretty high
tolerance for industrial waste in the air, but lead is scary. The company
there had sent recruiters to gatech and as a new grad I was trying to get
as many plant tours as possible just to see what the industry was like.

I still do try to get plant tours whenever I can.

Here is some recent but pretty complete data on lead levels in children:
http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/lead/data/national.htm

And here is a good overview on why any lead is bad:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2533151/

I don't have a good online citation on how blood lead levels dropped when
leaded gasoline was banned, but "Cities: An Environmental History" has
an overview.

Gary, IN had the permanent pollution cloud over it from heavy until maybe
the early 2000s. The smell was awful.


But if it was anything like Pittsburgh, the sunsets were beautiful. My
aunt is still upset that they closed the mills down and now with no sulfur
in the air she keeps getting mildew on her roses.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On 9/19/15 08:12, mike wrote:
On 9/18/2015 9:42 PM, Ewald Böhm wrote:
On Fri, 18 Sep 2015 22:45:53 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

I also find it interesting that a large allegedly reputable company
would do something intentional to cheat like that. Too easy to get
caught or ratted out.

According to the news reports, VW admitted culpability.

If I were the owner of the affected cars, I would NOT bring them in for
the recall, since it's not a safety issue.

They will definitely lose performance after the "fix" (while they will
also do worse on emissions testing results).

It's a lose:lose situation for the car owner to get the car "fixed", I
think, because of those two results.

Do you agree?
Is there anything "good" that will happen if the owners "fix" their cars?

Will you have any choice?
If the test procedure for those cars is changed to test the "real"
emissions, they will FAIL.
If you care about air quality, you have to do that.
Here in Oregon, you don't get your license plates renewed if you fail.

You want VW to FIX the problem consistently with the
original driveablilty and economy.
Since that's likely not possible, what do you do now?
Force them to replace the whole car?

Yeah. Do a buyback and sell them where it's bloody hot
3rd world countries in africa and asia would rejoice
(australians would too I'm sure)

On 9/19/15 15:25, Stormin Mormon wrote:
On 9/19/2015 12:42 AM, Ewald Böhm wrote:
On Fri, 18 Sep 2015 22:45:53 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

I also find it interesting that a large allegedly reputable company
would do something intentional to cheat like that. Too easy to get
caught or ratted out.

According to the news reports, VW admitted culpability.

If I were the owner of the affected cars, I would NOT bring them in for
the recall, since it's not a safety issue.

They will definitely lose performance after the "fix" (while they will
also do worse on emissions testing results).

It's a lose:lose situation for the car owner to get the car "fixed", I
think, because of those two results.

Do you agree?
Is there anything "good" that will happen if the owners "fix" their cars?


I'm likely mistaken, but my gut sense is that lower emissions
means lower performance, and lower mileage. My guess is that
the "fix" will be a downgrade of some kind.


The proper fix would be to buy the cars back from the (willing) owners
at bluebook and sell them to the (3rd world) countries that do not
participate in the smear campaign against VAG and could not care less
about the emissions.
An even more proper fix would be for VAG to withdraw from the american
market altogether.
There are lots of other markets where you do not have to make
emissions claims at all and that would appreciate the 4 banger
[turbo]diesels from VAG

"Ewald Böhm" wrote in message
...
Apparently Volkswagen/Audi cheated on the USA emissions tests since
2009 to 2015 by turning off the EGR to lower nitrogen oxide emissions
ONLY when the car was being tested for emissions.

REFERENCES:
http://blog.ucsusa.org/volkswagen-ca...cle-recall-887
http://www.engineering.com/AdvancedM...EPA-Tests.aspx
http://hothardware.com/news/vw-inten...-482k-vehicles
etc.

My question is HOW did the car *know* it was being *tested* for emissions?


According to NBC, the emission controls were altered when only the front
wheels were turning, as on a dynometer.


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On 10/4/2015 2:39 PM, Klaatu wrote:
"Ewald Böhm" wrote in message
...
Apparently Volkswagen/Audi cheated on the USA emissions tests since
2009 to 2015 by turning off the EGR to lower nitrogen oxide emissions
ONLY when the car was being tested for emissions.

REFERENCES:
http://blog.ucsusa.org/volkswagen-ca...cle-recall-887
http://www.engineering.com/AdvancedM...EPA-Tests.aspx

http://hothardware.com/news/vw-inten...-482k-vehicles

etc.

My question is HOW did the car *know* it was being *tested* for
emissions?


According to NBC, the emission controls were altered when only the front
wheels were turning, as on a dynometer.

I don't know about diesels, but newer gasoline powered cars in
California don't use the dyno anymore. The levels are all read from the
sensors via the OBD-II port, at least in California.

On 05/10/15 13:33, sms wrote:
On 10/4/2015 2:39 PM, Klaatu wrote:
According to NBC, the emission controls were altered when only the front
wheels were turning, as on a dynometer.
I don't know about diesels, but newer gasoline powered cars in
California don't use the dyno anymore. The levels are all read from the
sensors via the OBD-II port, at least in California.

It's trivial to detect that the car is not being driven.
No steering wheel motion, no compass variation, no accelerometer (if
fitted), no... you name it, I'm sure there's a long list of candidates.

On 10/4/2015 9:04 PM, Clifford Heath wrote:
On 05/10/15 13:33, sms wrote:
On 10/4/2015 2:39 PM, Klaatu wrote:
According to NBC, the emission controls were altered when only the front
wheels were turning, as on a dynometer.
I don't know about diesels, but newer gasoline powered cars in
California don't use the dyno anymore. The levels are all read from the
sensors via the OBD-II port, at least in California.

It's trivial to detect that the car is not being driven.
No steering wheel motion, no compass variation, no accelerometer (if
fitted), no... you name it, I'm sure there's a long list of candidates.
YOu're overthinking it. It's about driveability
If the rear wheels ain't turning, you should turn on the emission
controls. When the car is stopped in traffic, might as well make it
clean. Performance isn't an issue when stopped.
I'd have taken it a step further and made it clean whenever driveability
isn't compromised...like when not accelerating at a rate faster than
you could do with the emission controls functioning.
Probably would never have been detected.