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?

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

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?

My guess is that anytime something was connected to the diagnostic
connector the car turned on all the emissions systems. I know that
here in AZ they have been doing the emissions test for cars for quite
a few years now by plugging into the diagnostic connector and reading
the computer looking for pending codes that haven't turned on the CEL.
If you have more then a couple pending codes you fail. My PT is a
2009 model and it's always been tested that way so the time frame is
certainly doable.

On 9/18/2015 8:19 PM, Ewald Böhm wrote:
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?


I found that interesting for two things. I assume the car's computer
knows an instrument is plugged in so it changes the program.

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.

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?

On Fri, 18 Sep 2015 22:45:53 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

I assume the car's computer
knows an instrument is plugged in so it changes the program.

Very few states use OBD emissions testing, and certainly California
doesn't yet, where California is fining VW along with the EPA.

http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/smogche...bd_only_im.pdf

Most use tailpipe testing.

Some, like California, run the car through the Federal Test Procedure
on a dynomometer.

Given thats at least three different procedures (where each state can
easily be different), I don't see *how* the engine computer *knows* it's
being tested for emissions.

Since almost no states use the OBD method, that's why I asked how the car
knows it is being tested.

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?

Fix the emissions by reprogramming the computer
(Let the air quality test people enforce owner compliance.
Maybe require a recall complete document. Maybe require
VW to supply a zillion adapters to make the tests right.)
AND
refund the owner the current (pre-disclosure)
bluebook value of the vehicle...let that be the fine and paid to
the people actually financially harmed? That sounds like a simple
solution that puts the cash where it's needed and fixes the emissions
and hits VW where it hurts. No fuss, no muss, no new laws, just
enforce the existing ones.
It's a win-win...except for VW.

OR we could just
Fine them billions and fritter it away wherever such fines
are frittered?

Do nothing and get a better gas mask?

Ewald Böhm wrote:
On Fri, 18 Sep 2015 22:45:53 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

I assume the car's computer
knows an instrument is plugged in so it changes the program.

Very few states use OBD emissions testing, and certainly California
doesn't yet, where California is fining VW along with the EPA.

http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/smogche...bd_only_im.pdf

Most use tailpipe testing.

Some, like California, run the car through the Federal Test Procedure
on a dynomometer.

Given thats at least three different procedures (where each state can
easily be different), I don't see *how* the engine computer *knows* it's
being tested for emissions.

Since almost no states use the OBD method, that's why I asked how the car
knows it is being tested.


How do you figure that "almost no states use OBD" testing. In fact most
of the states do not use a dyno any longer.

Alaska, Arizona, California (in areas that require "enhanced" emissions
testing), Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky,
Maine, Massachusetts, Missouri (St. Louis), Nevada, New Hampshire, North
Carolina, Oregon, Texas (Houston and Dallas/Ft. Worth), Utah (Salt Lake
City), Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin, New Jersey, New York (in areas
that require emissions testing), Pennsylvania (Pittsburgh and
Philadelphia) and Virginia ALL use some type of OBD II testing, some use
both OBD II and tailpipe.

As to how it knows it's being tested. Simple, as soon as the OBD test
link gets plugged into the port it starts asking the ECM which protocol
it communicates with. Emissions testing uses a specific test protocol,
that doesn't query ALL of the systems on the vehicle. Easy enough to
tell the ECM - When this protocol is queried activate this programming.

No different than the way software is set up in some cars to change the
driving parameters based on different "modes" or valet keys or key fob type.


--
Steve W.

Ewald Böhm wrote:
On Fri, 18 Sep 2015 22:45:53 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

I assume the car's computer
knows an instrument is plugged in so it changes the program.

Very few states use OBD emissions testing, and certainly California
doesn't yet, where California is fining VW along with the EPA.

http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/smogche...bd_only_im.pdf

Most use tailpipe testing.

Some, like California, run the car through the Federal Test Procedure
on a dynomometer.

Given thats at least three different procedures (where each state can
easily be different), I don't see *how* the engine computer *knows* it's
being tested for emissions.

Since almost no states use the OBD method, that's why I asked how the car
knows it is being tested.



http://obdclearinghouse.com/index.php

--
Steve W.

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.

-
..
Christopher A. Young
learn more about Jesus
.. www.lds.org
..
..

On 9/18/2015 5:19 PM, Ewald Böhm wrote:
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?

Can't speak for all states, but in California one of the first steps in
an emissions test is for the codes to be read via the OBD-II port. They
won't even proceed to the tailpipe test if there are incomplete
self-tests on the vehicle (I ran into this once when I brought a vehicle
in just after I changed the car battery).

It would be rather simple for the vehicle's computer to note that the
OBD-II port was active and to change the emissions system settings for
the next 30 minutes to an hour.

I suspect that most states with smog tests read the codes via the OBD-II
port prior to proceeding with tailpipe testing.

My brother-in-law had a Smog Pros franchise for many years and just sold
it last month. In some cases he would do pre-tests prior to hooking to
the state's computer so a vehicle could be repaired before being
labeled a gross polluter. A VW TDI would never pass a pre-test via the
EGA (exhaust gas analyzer unless the codes had been read first. But I
doubt he ever had done a pre-test on a VW TDI.

He told me that once he had a vehicle that was only slightly out of
compliance and he offered to repair it for $40. The owner declined,
saying he would fix it himself. Without an EGA that really isn't a good
idea, but the owner left then came back for his free retest under the
"Pass or Retest Free." So he did the retest and now the vehicle was so
far out of compliance that it was a gross polluter. The owner then
wanted to pay $40 for the repair and have it tested again but it was too
late. He could get the repairs done but the vehicle's status had been
sent to the state and now the owner had to take the car to a different
"Test-Only" smog check station and pay again. He also would have to now
get a smog check every year instead of every two years (that requirement
is no longer in effect).

On Saturday, September 19, 2015 at 5:30:51 AM UTC-4, Steve W. wrote:
Ewald Böhm wrote:
On Fri, 18 Sep 2015 22:45:53 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

I assume the car's computer
knows an instrument is plugged in so it changes the program.

Very few states use OBD emissions testing, and certainly California
doesn't yet, where California is fining VW along with the EPA.

http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/smogche...bd_only_im.pdf

Most use tailpipe testing.

Some, like California, run the car through the Federal Test Procedure
on a dynomometer.

Given thats at least three different procedures (where each state can
easily be different), I don't see *how* the engine computer *knows* it's
being tested for emissions.

Since almost no states use the OBD method, that's why I asked how the car
knows it is being tested.


How do you figure that "almost no states use OBD" testing. In fact most
of the states do not use a dyno any longer.

Alaska, Arizona, California (in areas that require "enhanced" emissions
testing), Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky,
Maine, Massachusetts, Missouri (St. Louis), Nevada, New Hampshire, North
Carolina, Oregon, Texas (Houston and Dallas/Ft. Worth), Utah (Salt Lake
City), Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin, New Jersey, New York (in areas
that require emissions testing), Pennsylvania (Pittsburgh and
Philadelphia) and Virginia ALL use some type of OBD II testing, some use
both OBD II and tailpipe.


I guess that's the list. I know for sure here in NJ they use OBD
for emissions compliance testing. Back in the days of Christie Whitman,
we spent several hundred million dollars installing dynos and tailpipe
testing eqpt in all the state owned inspection facilities. They
gave the contract to some out of state hacks that screwed it up
royally, it took years longer to get working, etc. At the time,
most of us thought it was stupid and that Whitman should have stood
up to the feds, who shoved it down our throats, fought against it, etc.
After it was working, within just a few years, the EPA switched to
using OBD. Of course they had to have know this was coming, it
just didn't pop up overnight. So, just a few years after the dynos
and all the gear went in, they ripped it all out and junked it.

Today, we finally have some sanity. NJ used to check for everything,
from horn, to front end, to headlight aiming. Now they just check
for emissions, they don't even check for cracked windshields or brakes
anymore. The inspection is good for 2 years. New cars don't have to
be inspected for 5 years. Two of my vehicles, an older Mercedes diesel
and my Harley no longer have to be inspected at all, ever again. Yipeee!

On Sat, 19 Sep 2015 04:42:00 +0000, 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?

Possibly the insurance companies might deny liability for any claims if
the car has not been maintained in accordance with the manufacturer's
recommendations? They're well known for trying any get-outs they can and
the courts generally find in favour of them due to the doctrine of
'utmost good faith' which applies to insurance contracts.

On Sat, 19 Sep 2015 00:12:53 -0500, 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.

Some cut.

Some states, like Nebraska, do no testing. We had some testing
for horns, lights, etc. back in the 70s, but dropped it. I think
the testers hollered too loud about the low testing fee allowed.
I wonder how many of the non-compliant vehicles will end up in
states with no testing.

--
Using Opera's mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

On Saturday, September 19, 2015 at 9:19:46 AM UTC-4, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Sat, 19 Sep 2015 04:42:00 +0000, 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?

Possibly the insurance companies might deny liability for any claims if
the car has not been maintained in accordance with the manufacturer's
recommendations? They're well known for trying any get-outs they can and
the courts generally find in favour of them due to the doctrine of
'utmost good faith' which applies to insurance contracts.

Another loon. When has an emission issue ever had anything to do
with an auto insurer paying a claim? Emissions compliance doesn't
cause accidents.

"EwaldBöhm" 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?

My question is HOW did they name you ewald?
LOL

On 9/19/2015 8:47 AM, trader_4 wrote:


New cars don't have to
be inspected for 5 years.

CT had the testing contracted out and EVERY car had to be done. It was a
money maker for the testing company. Now it is done by local authorized
garages and they comply with the 5 year rule. I forget the numbers, but
in the first few years, 99.999% of new cars pass the test but paid the
fee.

On 9/19/2015 8:40 AM, Dean Hoffman wrote:
On Sat, 19 Sep 2015 00:12:53 -0500, mike wrote:

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.

Some cut.

Some states, like Nebraska, do no testing. We had some testing
for horns, lights, etc. back in the 70s, but dropped it. I think
the testers hollered too loud about the low testing fee allowed.
I wonder how many of the non-compliant vehicles will end up in
states with no testing.

Passenger car testing of any type has ALWAYS been a scam
and is enacted for generating revenue. Nothing more, nothing
less. "Unsafe" cars have NEVER been a significant proximate
cause of accidents nor does smog testing of these vehicles
lead to measurably cleaner air. These two concerns are best
addressed at time of manufacture.

On 9/19/2015 12:42 AM, Ewald Böhm wrote:


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?


You can feel good that the spotted owl is not choking on your fumes.
The only way to force you to get the fix is if the car will no longer
pass unless it was done. I don't know if the eqipment doing th testing
will be able to tell.

On 9/19/2015 9:17 AM, Cursitor Doom wrote:

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

Possibly the insurance companies might deny liability for any claims if
the car has not been maintained in accordance with the manufacturer's
recommendations? They're well known for trying any get-outs they can and
the courts generally find in favour of them due to the doctrine of
'utmost good faith' which applies to insurance contracts.


Do you know of any claims denied because the owner did not get an oil
change? Dirty air filter?

On Saturday, September 19, 2015 at 4:30:51 AM UTC-5, Steve W. wrote:
Ewald Böhm wrote:
On Fri, 18 Sep 2015 22:45:53 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

I assume the car's computer
knows an instrument is plugged in so it changes the program.

Very few states use OBD emissions testing, and certainly California
doesn't yet, where California is fining VW along with the EPA.

http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/smogche...bd_only_im.pdf

Most use tailpipe testing.

Some, like California, run the car through the Federal Test Procedure
on a dynomometer.

Given thats at least three different procedures (where each state can
easily be different), I don't see *how* the engine computer *knows* it's
being tested for emissions.

Since almost no states use the OBD method, that's why I asked how the car
knows it is being tested.


How do you figure that "almost no states use OBD" testing. In fact most
of the states do not use a dyno any longer.

Alaska, Arizona, California (in areas that require "enhanced" emissions
testing), Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky,
Maine, Massachusetts, Missouri (St. Louis), Nevada, New Hampshire, North
Carolina, Oregon, Texas (Houston and Dallas/Ft. Worth), Utah (Salt Lake
City), Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin, New Jersey, New York (in areas
that require emissions testing), Pennsylvania (Pittsburgh and
Philadelphia) and Virginia ALL use some type of OBD II testing, some use
both OBD II and tailpipe.

As to how it knows it's being tested. Simple, as soon as the OBD test
link gets plugged into the port it starts asking the ECM which protocol
it communicates with. Emissions testing uses a specific test protocol,
that doesn't query ALL of the systems on the vehicle. Easy enough to
tell the ECM - When this protocol is queried activate this programming.

No different than the way software is set up in some cars to change the
driving parameters based on different "modes" or valet keys or key fob type.
--
Steve W.

I'm glad we don't go through that nonsense here in Alabamastan. Most people here don't care if polar bears fry when all the ice melts and New York drowns. I imagine all automobiles with an internal combustion engine could be made completely emissions free if you wanted to pay as much for your low end Hyundai as you'd pay for a new Rolls Royce today. I wonder if metal thieves are still sneaking around parking lots cutting the catalytic converters off cars? Yea, let's put gobs of expensive emissions control stuff on vehicles that thieves will steal hen you leave your car parked somewhere. It used to be that thieves would break into a car to steal the radio or battery. Now it's that very expensive ECU. o_O

[8~{} Uncle Metal Monster

Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 9/19/2015 12:42 AM, Ewald Böhm wrote:

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?


You can feel good that the spotted owl is not choking on your fumes.
The only way to force you to get the fix is if the car will no longer
pass unless it was done. I don't know if the eqipment doing th testing
will be able to tell.

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".

--
Steve W.

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?

On 9/19/2015 12:12 PM, Steve W. wrote:

I don't know if the equipment doing the testing
will be able to tell.

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.

Ahhh, that will do it. The spotted owl breaths easier.

On Sat, 19 Sep 2015 04:42:00 +0000 (UTC), 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.

May not be able to pass emmissions next year if the recall is not
done.

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

The "fix" may be a lot more involved than removing the "over-ride"
code.
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?

.. 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.

--
Steve W.

On Sat, 19 Sep 2015 04:45:38 +0000 (UTC), Ewald Böhm
wrote:

On Fri, 18 Sep 2015 22:45:53 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

I assume the car's computer
knows an instrument is plugged in so it changes the program.

Very few states use OBD emissions testing, and certainly California
doesn't yet, where California is fining VW along with the EPA.

http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/smogche...bd_only_im.pdf

Most use tailpipe testing.

Some, like California, run the car through the Federal Test Procedure
on a dynomometer.

Given thats at least three different procedures (where each state can
easily be different), I don't see *how* the engine computer *knows* it's
being tested for emissions.

Since almost no states use the OBD method, that's why I asked how the car
knows it is being tested.
Don't know how other jurisdictions do it, but in Ontario the old
"drive clean" test was a "rolling road" sniffer test at two speeds,
with the car connected to the computer via the diagnostic port, but
not accessing discrete codes.

The new system does away with both the "rolling road" and the sniffer,
meaning it can only "guess" or "deduce" if the NOX is within range -
it cannot tell if the reduction catalyst is working because only the
oxidizing catalyst is monitored by the secondary O2 sensor.

It is POSSIBLE that VW implements the "over-ride" whenever a certain
sequence of events is performed that are substantially the same as the
initialization procedure for running the test (There is a perscribed
sequence of events that MUST be performed to get a valid test result)
(like 20 many seconds at a particular RPM, followed by another given
period of time at another RPM) which, if performed during the normal
process of driving would also put the system in "bypass" for the
anticipated duration of the test.

On Sat, 19 Sep 2015 08:25:23 -0400, 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.

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.

-
.
Christopher A. Young
learn more about Jesus
. www.lds.org
.
.

On 9/19/2015 12:20 PM, 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.

I've still yet to hear or read of a single case myself.

VW intentionally wrote software for their vehicles with the express
intent of violating the EPA laws.

Yes, I know. But the EPA will be the only route by which this
could be addressed given that many states don't even do testing.

On 9/19/2015 10:11 AM, THE COLONEL, Ph.D wrote:
"EwaldBöhm" 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?

My question is HOW did they name you ewald?
LOL



I had one of the first VW Rabbits in 1978. After about 48,000 miles
and about 4 years later, I was noticing significant oil usage, about a
quart every 500 miles. VW told me it was acceptable. Finally, I couldn't
deal with that response and paid the $125 VW wanted to have new valve
stem seals installed when they gave me their diagnosis to what was
happening.
A year later I read about a class action suit that had been brought
against VW by thousands of Rabbit owners for excessive oil usage in
their cars. It seemed that many owners, who didn't regularly check their
cars for oil were simply seizing their engines for lack of oil as they
ran them. VW agreed to pay each Rabbit owner where the problem was found
to exist a refund check of $125 rather than go to court.
It turned out that VW initially built the engines using substandard
valve stem seals. Had they used the ones recommended, which contained
teflon, and cost a dollar more per seal ($8 more per engine), the
excessive oil usage would not have occurred. As much as I truly enjoyed
my 1972 VW bug for its quirkiness but very reliable behavior, I have
continued to have doubts about ever buying another VW since the Rabbit
problem.
So, although I'm surprised at VW's elusive scheme to circumvent U.S.
pollution controls I'm not dumbfounded.

Jan Alter

On Sat, 19 Sep 2015 09:36:27 -0500, "." wrote:

On 9/19/2015 8:40 AM, Dean Hoffman wrote:
On Sat, 19 Sep 2015 00:12:53 -0500, mike wrote:

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.

Some cut.

Some states, like Nebraska, do no testing. We had some testing
for horns, lights, etc. back in the 70s, but dropped it. I think
the testers hollered too loud about the low testing fee allowed.
I wonder how many of the non-compliant vehicles will end up in
states with no testing.

Passenger car testing of any type has ALWAYS been a scam
and is enacted for generating revenue. Nothing more, nothing
less. "Unsafe" cars have NEVER been a significant proximate
cause of accidents nor does smog testing of these vehicles
lead to measurably cleaner air. These two concerns are best
addressed at time of manufacture.
I will respectfully dissagree - with qualifications.

In the early years of safety checking, at least in Ontario, the
initial passs rate was quite low - and the requirement that a cat pass
a safety check when changing ownership took a LOT of dangerous crap
off the road. Annual safety checks in Ontario only affect commercial
vehicles - and again there is a pretty high failure rate - and since
selective enforcement has been in place the number of wheels coming
off commercial vehicles and killing drivers of other vehicles has
dropped SIGNIFICANTLY. Enforcement is the key.

As for emission testing - in the early years it had merit. There were
a LOT of "gross poluters" on our roads - and it was very simple to
defeat emission controls and change the calibration of an rngine (by
adjusting timing, rejetting carbs etc) so that what left the
manufacturer and what was on the road were not necessarilly the same.

With today's computer controlled vehicles, unleaded gas, etc, the VAST
majority of vehicles pass, even when 20 years old - if reasonably
maintained, and the OBD2 only testing is a total farce and nothing but
a money-grab -

Safety shecks for vehicle transfer and annually for commercial
vehicles is both a consumer protection AND safety issue - and worth
continuing. (along with "selective enforcement" on the roads - see a
"questionable" vehicle - pull it over and inspect it for basic safety
standards, and possible send for "secondary inspecion" by a registered
safety inspection station. Bring it up to standard or take it off the
road.

On Sat, 19 Sep 2015 10:45:01 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 9/19/2015 9:17 AM, Cursitor Doom wrote:

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

Possibly the insurance companies might deny liability for any claims if
the car has not been maintained in accordance with the manufacturer's
recommendations? They're well known for trying any get-outs they can and
the courts generally find in favour of them due to the doctrine of
'utmost good faith' which applies to insurance contracts.


Do you know of any claims denied because the owner did not get an oil
change? Dirty air filter?
Not even for driving in the winter with bald summer tires. The
insurance company HAS to pay up - but they can make it EXTREMELY
difficult to afford insurance in the future - - - - - - - - - - -

On Sat, 19 Sep 2015 12:12:41 -0400, "Steve W."
wrote:

Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 9/19/2015 12:42 AM, Ewald Böhm wrote:

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?


You can feel good that the spotted owl is not choking on your fumes.
The only way to force you to get the fix is if the car will no longer
pass unless it was done. I don't know if the eqipment doing th testing
will be able to tell.

Sure will. You have to enter the VIN into the system to start the
inspection.
Not any more. The ECU is linked to the VIN, and the OBD2 tester reads
the VIN directly from the ECU

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".

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.

I hope they don't follow the Microsoft Windows 10 model, where upgrades
and patches will be installed automatically no matter what you do.

On 9/19/2015 12:46 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 19 Sep 2015 09:36:27 -0500, "." wrote:

Passenger car testing of any type has ALWAYS been a scam
and is enacted for generating revenue. Nothing more, nothing
less. "Unsafe" cars have NEVER been a significant proximate
cause of accidents nor does smog testing of these vehicles
lead to measurably cleaner air. These two concerns are best
addressed at time of manufacture.
I will respectfully dissagree - with qualifications.

In the early years of safety checking, at least in Ontario, the
initial passs rate was quite low - and the requirement that a cat pass
a safety check when changing ownership took a LOT of dangerous crap
off the road.

If only there were any documentation to support that claim.

Annual safety checks in Ontario only affect commercial
vehicles - and again there is a pretty high failure rate - and since
selective enforcement has been in place the number of wheels coming
off commercial vehicles and killing drivers of other vehicles has
dropped SIGNIFICANTLY. Enforcement is the key.

My comment referred only to individual owned passenger cars.

As for emission testing - in the early years it had merit. There were
a LOT of "gross poluters" on our roads - and it was very simple to
defeat emission controls and change the calibration of an rngine (by
adjusting timing, rejetting carbs etc)

It still is.

so that what left the
manufacturer and what was on the road were not necessarilly the same.

And those that in any manner overrode emission controls were
an insignificant percentage of the motoring public.

With today's computer controlled vehicles, unleaded gas, etc, the VAST
majority of vehicles pass, even when 20 years old - if reasonably
maintained, and the OBD2 only testing is a total farce and nothing but
a money-grab -

Safety shecks for vehicle transfer and annually for commercial
vehicles is both a consumer protection AND safety issue - and worth
continuing. (along with "selective enforcement" on the roads - see a
"questionable" vehicle - pull it over and inspect it for basic safety
standards, and possible send for "secondary inspecion" by a registered
safety inspection station. Bring it up to standard or take it off the
road.

Again, my comment referred only to individual owned passenger cars.

On 9/19/2015 10:36 AM, Jan Alter wrote:

snip

I had one of the first VW Rabbits in 1978. After about 48,000 miles
and about 4 years later, I was noticing significant oil usage, about a
quart every 500 miles. VW told me it was acceptable. Finally, I couldn't
deal with that response and paid the $125 VW wanted to have new valve
stem seals installed when they gave me their diagnosis to what was
happening.

Was it a California Rabbit?

I had a 49 state Rabbit (1979) and never burned oil. I moved to
California and it seemed that everyone with a California Rabbit had the
oil burning problem. People driving around with cases of oil in their cars.

As I recall, the issue was that VW did not change the valve stem seal
material when they went from leaded fuel to unleaded fuel. My Rabbit
used leaded gasoline. The lead apparently lubricated the valve stem
seals and prevented them from deteriorating.

VW finally was forced to fix the problem but the feds got them because
the excessive oil burning was putting the vehicles out of compliance
with emissions standards, not because of the oil burning per se. I
didn't get new valve stem seals since my car never burned oil.

On Sat, 19 Sep 2015 12:34:45 -0500, "." wrote:

On 9/19/2015 12:20 PM, 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.

I've still yet to hear or read of a single case myself.

Spot checking of modified vehicles at large "car shows" has been
promised, and reported. Just because your car is registered as a 1927
model "T" ford does not mean it is exempt from emissions testing if it
has a 2009 Chevy LT between the frame rails.

Officially it needs to meet the requirements for the 2009 vehicle the
LT was originally supplied for (determined by the engine number).


VW intentionally wrote software for their vehicles with the express
intent of violating the EPA laws.

Yes, I know. But the EPA will be the only route by which this
could be addressed given that many states don't even do testing.

wrote:

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?

This is almost entirely the result of fuel injection combined with
accurate feedback control. Feedback control makes a huge improvement
in the efficiency of the engine and that means both lower emissions
and more power.

And, it's true that it took the emission control regulations to force
the car manufacturers to start thinking out of the box at new ideas to
try and improve efficiency back in the seventies. Had it not been for
the emission control regulations, we might never have got the engine
improvements that make engines so much more efficiency today.

BUT, it's true that many of the other tricks used to get emissions
numbers down have been at the expense of performance, and many of them
have been just plain attempts to game the system.

There is a very longstanding tradition of gaming the system, dating back
to air pumps back in the seventies which did in fact improve the efficiency
of early catalytic converters, but mostly just diluted the exhaust so that
the concentration of emissions was reduced. The actual amount of emission
was the same, but the numbers recorded at the smog station were lower.

This current attempt on VW's part is not something new in isolation, this
is part of a tradition going back forty years now. It shouldn't surprise
anyone, and it's certainly not anything specific to VW.

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.

Odds are that instead they will take the route of just leaving the
controller in "low emissions" mode all the time, which probably will
affect performance. Part of how that will work out will depend on what
they were actually doing to bring the numbers down, and we don't know that
without actually measuring it or looking at the controller source.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On Sat, 19 Sep 2015 12:57:04 -0500, "." wrote:

On 9/19/2015 12:46 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 19 Sep 2015 09:36:27 -0500, "." wrote:

Passenger car testing of any type has ALWAYS been a scam
and is enacted for generating revenue. Nothing more, nothing
less. "Unsafe" cars have NEVER been a significant proximate
cause of accidents nor does smog testing of these vehicles
lead to measurably cleaner air. These two concerns are best
addressed at time of manufacture.
I will respectfully dissagree - with qualifications.

In the early years of safety checking, at least in Ontario, the
initial passs rate was quite low - and the requirement that a cat pass
a safety check when changing ownership took a LOT of dangerous crap
off the road.

If only there were any documentation to support that claim.

Well, as a mechanic back then, I can assure you I failed a LOT of
dangerous cars, repaired many of them, and scrapped almost as many.

Annual safety checks in Ontario only affect commercial
vehicles - and again there is a pretty high failure rate - and since
selective enforcement has been in place the number of wheels coming
off commercial vehicles and killing drivers of other vehicles has
dropped SIGNIFICANTLY. Enforcement is the key.

My comment referred only to individual owned passenger cars.

Which here in Ontario only require safety checks for transfer, or if
older than a certain age, depending on the insurance company, to get
or maintain insurance coverage.

As for emission testing - in the early years it had merit. There were
a LOT of "gross poluters" on our roads - and it was very simple to
defeat emission controls and change the calibration of an rngine (by
adjusting timing, rejetting carbs etc)

It still is.

Tell me how the average hack can adjust the timing on his 2002 Ford
Taurus 3.0 32 valve V6??? Or even adjust the mixture?

so that what left the
manufacturer and what was on the road were not necessarilly the same.

And those that in any manner overrode emission controls were
an insignificant percentage of the motoring public.

You would be surprised how many Olds 350 rockets back in the mid
seventies had the timing significantly altered to eliminate
overheating when pulling a trailer, or how many "super six" mopars had
the carburetion and timing adjusted off-spec to get rid of
"driveability problems" - and how many "lean burn" mopars were
"converted" to non-lean-burn without changing the camshaft (which was
required if you were going to be anywhere CLOSE to passing emissions)
and how many AIR systems were removed from GM engines - and how many
EGR systems were disconnected ---- just for starters. (under the
mistaken idea that they could get better mileage by simply removing
them)

The numbers WERE significant.

With today's computer controlled vehicles, unleaded gas, etc, the VAST
majority of vehicles pass, even when 20 years old - if reasonably
maintained, and the OBD2 only testing is a total farce and nothing but
a money-grab -

Safety shecks for vehicle transfer and annually for commercial
vehicles is both a consumer protection AND safety issue - and worth
continuing. (along with "selective enforcement" on the roads - see a
"questionable" vehicle - pull it over and inspect it for basic safety
standards, and possible send for "secondary inspecion" by a registered
safety inspection station. Bring it up to standard or take it off the
road.

Again, my comment referred only to individual owned passenger cars.

And "selective enforcement" can be, and is, applied to private
passenger vehicles as well - at least here in Ontario.

On 9/19/2015 2:21 PM, sms wrote:
On 9/19/2015 10:36 AM, Jan Alter wrote:

snip

I had one of the first VW Rabbits in 1978. After about 48,000 miles
and about 4 years later, I was noticing significant oil usage, about a
quart every 500 miles. VW told me it was acceptable. Finally, I couldn't
deal with that response and paid the $125 VW wanted to have new valve
stem seals installed when they gave me their diagnosis to what was
happening.

Was it a California Rabbit?

I had a 49 state Rabbit (1979) and never burned oil. I moved to
California and it seemed that everyone with a California Rabbit had
the oil burning problem. People driving around with cases of oil in
their cars.

As I recall, the issue was that VW did not change the valve stem seal
material when they went from leaded fuel to unleaded fuel. My Rabbit
used leaded gasoline. The lead apparently lubricated the valve stem
seals and prevented them from deteriorating.

VW finally was forced to fix the problem but the feds got them because
the excessive oil burning was putting the vehicles out of compliance
with emissions standards, not because of the oil burning per se. I
didn't get new valve stem seals since my car never burned oil.

Mine was a Pennsylvania Rabbit. I don't recall that the government was
suing because of out of compliance emission standards, but your
description sounds plausible.
From what I have seen of the practices of many car companies I
would say maybe it would be a good practice to buy our cars used, wait a
few years to see if any problems develop or what secrets that the
company new about become revealed.

wrote:

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.


And the resulting diesels may be a lot less desired.

The diesel differences between testing and reality are not a new thing.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/...y-diesels.html