On 28/09/2015 13:24, Chris J Dixon wrote:


Bosch is understood to have delivered the software to Volkswagen
on the basis that it was test purposes and not for normal driving
mode."

Chris

Depends on what you mean by "test purposes". VW could argue that they
were doing precisely that!
--
Cheers,
Roger
____________
Please reply to Newsgroup. Whilst email address is valid, it is seldom
checked.

On 28/09/15 10:28, Sam Thatch wrote:


"Dave Liquorice" wrote in message
ll.co.uk...
On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 17:54:50 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

The cheatware detects when a motor undergoes emissions testing,
and
then

how is that possible?

As others have said by some physical anomally that wouldn't occur in
the real world or by the "brain" knowing what the testing profile is.
ie stationary at idle for 15 seconds, 1st gear to 10 mph in 4 second
2nd gear to 20 mph over 3 seconds, 3rd to 30 mph in 3 seconds, hold
for 30 secs, up to 40 in 5, up to 4th hold for etc ....

That second possibility wouldn't work. By the time its noticed that
pattern, it's too late to run the engine so that the emissions would
be good enough to satisfy the test.

Think the other way round: assume it is always a test until departure
from the profile proves otherwise. It doesn't matter it occasionally the
real world performance is degraded to test profile as it will not be
sustained for long.

--
DJC
(–€Ì¿Ä¹Ì¯–€Ì¿ Ì¿)

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
There was a rant about this in the Times today. Well, more generally
about how the EU regs are arranged to suit looney greens and big
business too, while actually costing lives.

Very clever one that - being able to satisfy both ends of the spectrum
at one stroke. Seems they can't be so stupid as most on here think.

That may be satisfying both ends, but not doing the populace - you
know, the electorate (you may have heard of them) - much good at all.

So rather typical of government everywhere?

--
*Vegetarians taste great*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
So rather typical of government everywhere?

Typical of EU government, where *unelected* commissioners drive the
agenda. Probably typical of government of any large entity, so not just
the EU should be scrapped as too large, but also the US, China, Russia,
and India. Break 'em all up into smaller states.

So the UK into England, Scotland Wales Ireland? England also likely into
smaller parts? That certainly is what some want. Let's all go back to the
village mentality. Will certainly give the multinationals a chance to
screw everyone big time.

The Catholic Church suffers from the same problem, IMO, and the same
solution applies for the same reasons.

No interest in the Catholic Church as it has no jurisdiction in the UK.
It's up to the individual to believe what it teaches.

--
*Artificial Intelligence is no match for Natural Stupidity *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 28/09/2015 10:35, Fredxxx wrote:
On 28/09/2015 10:00, Brian-Gaff wrote:
I'd have thought that this kind of mode would be called test mode and
used
by the manufacturer to check nothing was out of alignment. The fact
that it
also is used in official testing seems to be a bit of a silly thing to
suggest.

That does depend on the wording of the test requirements. It could be
the car conformed to the letter to the law rather than in the spirit of
the law.

Yes, (AIUI) they met the test requirements when being tested!


--
Michael Chare

On 28/09/2015 09:55, Brian-Gaff wrote:
What I could never get a simple answer on though is this. If the management
was used in this so called low emission mode all the time, just how much
performance would you loose?
I am beginning to think that this is probably because no engine ever made
could pass the emissions standard on real life conditions of driving no
matter what you did. any standard that is not achievable is basically
pointless. What should be done is that a range of emissions under the
different conditions needs to be given and its up to the purchaser what they
decide to buy. and of course its up the regulators to decide on which list
they will support with their tax schemes.

Other cars have passed the same test so maybe they cheated too or maybe
they have better engineers.

News wrote
Rod Speed wrote

It will be interesting to see if anyone else has done too.

Indeed. It has been suggested that the tests are such
that no vehicle could pass, in real world conditions.

I'm not convinced that that is accurate.

That then begs the question, how do non VWs pass?
Are all diesel cars cheating the tests, one way or another?

Seems unlikely that the original test that discovered VW's
faking didn't try any other diesel and find that they all did
and blow the lid off the entire industry.

On 28/09/2015 20:42, Rod Speed wrote:
News wrote
Rod Speed wrote

It will be interesting to see if anyone else has done too.

Indeed. It has been suggested that the tests are such that no vehicle
could pass, in real world conditions.

I'm not convinced that that is accurate.
That then begs the question, how do non VWs pass? Are all diesel cars
cheating the tests, one way or another?

Seems unlikely that the original test that discovered VW's
faking didn't try any other diesel and find that they all did
and blow the lid off the entire industry.

They did, I recall an article that said diesel emissions from other
German manufactured cars were similar to formal test results.

"MM" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 28 Sep 2015 19:30:16 +1000, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



"MM" wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 28 Sep 2015 08:02:58 +0100, Chris Bartram
wrote:

On 28/09/2015 07:25, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 28/09/15 01:54, wrote:
On Sunday, 27 September 2015 23:04:15 UTC+1, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

The cheatware detects when a motor undergoes emissions testing, and
then

how is that possible?

One report said that it detected the steering wasn't being used when
the
car was being "driven" on a rolling road test rig to check emissions.

I have seen a suggestion that there's a "test" mode that on the surface
disables ESP etc for rolling road testing, but I've never seen any
evidence of this beyond hearsay. Even if there isn't, if it's a 2WD car,
pretty easy to tell if it is on a rolling road via the ABS sensors, and
even if 4WD, as has been suggested elsewhere in this thread, via the
steering angle sensor.

Nowadays design engineers can use miniature sensors to monitor
practically anything on a vehicle. The chips are tiny and are always
getting smaller. I should think it's a doddle to rig the system, but
what I cannot get my head around is, how on earth did VW ever
think it would get away with the scam?

They clearly did for years.

It will be interesting to see if anyone else has done too.

Wouldn't surprise me if they've all been doing it, including my Suzuki
Alto, at present zero rated for RFL.

The main contra on that is that I would have expect those who
discovered that VW had utterly flouted the testing regime would
have immediately tested other diesels and blown the lid of the
entire diesel industry very spectacularly indeed. Since they didn't,
its more likely that it isn't that common.

Didn't quite a few just stop selling their diesels in the US
because the emissions test was so hard to comply with and
the US car diesel market wasn't big enough to care about ?

On Mon, 28 Sep 2015 19:28:43 +1000, Sam Thatch wrote:

The cheatware detects when a motor undergoes emissions testing,
and then

how is that possible?

As others have said by some physical anomally that wouldn't occur
in
the real world or by the "brain" knowing what the testing profile
is.
ie stationary at idle for 15 seconds, 1st gear to 10 mph in 4
second
2nd gear to 20 mph over 3 seconds, 3rd to 30 mph in 3 seconds,
hold
for 30 secs, up to 40 in 5, up to 4th hold for etc ....

That second possibility wouldn't work. By the time its noticed that
pattern, it's too late to run the engine so that the emissions would
be good enough to satisfy the test.

Disagree you could be pretty sure after the first three driving steps
above, 10 seconds. ISTR that the tests take about half an hour, 10
seconds in "dirty" mode is going to be masked by the following 1790
in "clean" mode.

--
Cheers
Dave.

"DJC" wrote in message ...
On 28/09/15 10:28, Sam Thatch wrote:


"Dave Liquorice" wrote in message
ll.co.uk...
On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 17:54:50 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

The cheatware detects when a motor undergoes emissions testing,
and
then

how is that possible?

As others have said by some physical anomally that wouldn't occur in
the real world or by the "brain" knowing what the testing profile is.
ie stationary at idle for 15 seconds, 1st gear to 10 mph in 4 second
2nd gear to 20 mph over 3 seconds, 3rd to 30 mph in 3 seconds, hold
for 30 secs, up to 40 in 5, up to 4th hold for etc ....

That second possibility wouldn't work. By the time its noticed that
pattern, it's too late to run the engine so that the emissions would
be good enough to satisfy the test.

Think the other way round: assume it is always a test until departure from
the profile proves otherwise. It doesn't matter it occasionally the real
world performance is degraded to test profile as it will not be sustained
for long.

That wouldnt be viable. Too many would experience that
performance degradation in real life and it would be very
variable, so they would be demanding it get fixed in the
warranty period causing a big hike in warranty claims.

They couldnt even have a note in the maintenance
manuals saying that variable performance should be
ignored because they couldnt say why that happens
and is nothing to worry about.

"Fredxxx" wrote in message
...
On 28/09/2015 20:42, Rod Speed wrote:
News wrote
Rod Speed wrote

It will be interesting to see if anyone else has done too.

Indeed. It has been suggested that the tests are such that no vehicle
could pass, in real world conditions.

I'm not convinced that that is accurate.
That then begs the question, how do non VWs pass? Are all diesel cars
cheating the tests, one way or another?

Seems unlikely that the original test that discovered VW's
faking didn't try any other diesel and find that they all did
and blow the lid off the entire industry.

They did, I recall an article that said diesel emissions from other German
manufactured cars were similar to formal test results.

And yet none of the other German manufacturers
have had anything like the effect on their share price.

Quite frankly, I just don’t believe it.

On 28/09/2015 23:49, Rod Speed wrote:


"Fredxxx" wrote in message
...
On 28/09/2015 20:42, Rod Speed wrote:
News wrote
Rod Speed wrote

It will be interesting to see if anyone else has done too.

Indeed. It has been suggested that the tests are such that no vehicle
could pass, in real world conditions.

I'm not convinced that that is accurate.
That then begs the question, how do non VWs pass? Are all diesel cars
cheating the tests, one way or another?

Seems unlikely that the original test that discovered VW's
faking didn't try any other diesel and find that they all did
and blow the lid off the entire industry.

They did, I recall an article that said diesel emissions from other
German manufactured cars were similar to formal test results.

And yet none of the other German manufacturers
have had anything like the effect on their share price.

Perhaps you interpreted what I meant incorrectly, unlike VW, other
German cars had the same emissions in road tests as they did in formal
testing.

"Fredxxx" wrote in message
...
On 28/09/2015 23:49, Rod Speed wrote:


"Fredxxx" wrote in message
...
On 28/09/2015 20:42, Rod Speed wrote:
News wrote
Rod Speed wrote

It will be interesting to see if anyone else has done too.

Indeed. It has been suggested that the tests are such that no vehicle
could pass, in real world conditions.

I'm not convinced that that is accurate.
That then begs the question, how do non VWs pass? Are all diesel cars
cheating the tests, one way or another?

Seems unlikely that the original test that discovered VW's
faking didn't try any other diesel and find that they all did
and blow the lid off the entire industry.

They did, I recall an article that said diesel emissions from other
German manufactured cars were similar to formal test results.

No record of that in
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volksw...ons_violations

And yet none of the other German manufacturers
have had anything like the effect on their share price.

Perhaps you interpreted what I meant incorrectly,

Yes I did.

unlike VW, other German cars had the same emissions in road tests as they
did in formal testing.

Yes, that's much clearer now.

In message , Fredxxx
writes
On 28/09/2015 23:49, Rod Speed wrote:

And yet none of the other German manufacturers
have had anything like the effect on their share price.

Perhaps you interpreted what I meant incorrectly, unlike VW, other
German cars had the same emissions in road tests as they did in formal
testing.

This is the point I worry about. Is it really realistic to assume that
VW engineered diesel engines are so much worse that any others that they
require cheating to pass standard tests?

Another point. All major manufacturers purchase vehicles made by their
competitors and strip them to the last not and bolt. You can bet that
if one manufacturer found cheating by another, they would shout it from
the rooftops - unless they're all doing the same thing, to a greater or
lesser extent.
--
Graeme

On 29/09/2015 08:05, News wrote:
In message , Fredxxx writes
On 28/09/2015 23:49, Rod Speed wrote:

And yet none of the other German manufacturers
have had anything like the effect on their share price.

Perhaps you interpreted what I meant incorrectly, unlike VW, other
German cars had the same emissions in road tests as they did in formal
testing.

This is the point I worry about. Is it really realistic to assume that
VW engineered diesel engines are so much worse that any others that they
require cheating to pass standard tests?

Yes. VW sell on performance from their little engines and now it turns
out they just cheated. They could meet the requirements but they would
have less performance and may not be competitive.

Now they are just illegal to sell if they don't pass the tests so they
will have to down rate all the cars and see if anyone still wants a low
powered car.

News wrote
Fredxxx wrote
Rod Speed wrote

And yet none of the other German manufacturers
have had anything like the effect on their share price.

Perhaps you interpreted what I meant incorrectly,
unlike VW, other German cars had the same emissions
in road tests as they did in formal testing.

This is the point I worry about. Is it really realistic to assume
that VW engineered diesel engines are so much worse that
any others that they require cheating to pass standard tests?

Its more than VW chose to sell their diesel cars to
the most stringent market. Others didn't bother.

Another point. All major manufacturers purchase vehicles made
by their competitors and strip them to the last not and bolt.

Not necessarily with all some subsets of the market like with diesels tho.

You can bet that if one manufacturer found cheating
by another, they would shout it from the rooftops

Or they had no diesel TDI cars of their own so didn't test VW's.

- unless they're all doing the same thing, to a greater or lesser extent.

There aren't all that many with small diesel TDI cars.

"dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...

Yes. VW sell on performance from their little engines and now it turns out they just
cheated. They could meet the requirements but they would have less performance and may
not be competitive.

Now they are just illegal to sell if they don't pass the tests so they will have to
down rate all the cars and see if anyone still wants a low powered car.


But this doesn't really ring true does it ?

If people bought diesel VW's simply on the strength of manufacturer's
claims, and were totally oblivious to this supposed poor performance
then fair enough.

But's that's not how things are in the real world is it ?
I'd imagine most people cjhoose a particular model either as
a result of reviews in car mags or as a result of personal
recommendations or word of mouth generally.

For instance given the supposed influence of "social media"
nowadays its rather surprising that all these rubbish VW's
to say nothing of Audis and Porshes haven't shown up on
Facbook ot Twitter or had websites devoted to them.
How they were all being left at the lights, being overtaken
by milk floats and cyclists etc

In fact all the evidence seems to indicate that the first time
anyone noticed how rubbish they were was two weeks ago as a result
of some tests in the US the details of which nobody appears to
understand.

So where is "Top Gear" when you need them ?

If there was ever an excuse for a one hour special, simply burning
up some VW's around the track this was it.

michael adams

....

Oops, my mistake. Post first think later.

Your point is obviously if they have to adjust the cars to meet the
US test then its that, which will lead to the poor performance.


michael adams

....



"michael adams" wrote in message
...

wrote a load of ******** which is best ignored


"dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...

Yes. VW sell on performance from their little engines and now it turns out they just
cheated. They could meet the requirements but they would have less performance and may
not be competitive.

Now they are just illegal to sell if they don't pass the tests so they will have to
down rate all the cars and see if anyone still wants a low powered car.


But this doesn't really ring true does it ?

If people bought diesel VW's simply on the strength of manufacturer's
claims, and were totally oblivious to this supposed poor performance
then fair enough.

But's that's not how things are in the real world is it ?
I'd imagine most people cjhoose a particular model either as
a result of reviews in car mags or as a result of personal
recommendations or word of mouth generally.

For instance given the supposed influence of "social media"
nowadays its rather surprising that all these rubbish VW's
to say nothing of Audis and Porshes haven't shown up on
Facbook ot Twitter or had websites devoted to them.
How they were all being left at the lights, being overtaken
by milk floats and cyclists etc

In fact all the evidence seems to indicate that the first time
anyone noticed how rubbish they were was two weeks ago as a result
of some tests in the US the details of which nobody appears to
understand.

So where is "Top Gear" when you need them ?

If there was ever an excuse for a one hour special, simply burning
up some VW's around the track this was it.

michael adams

...

On 29/09/15 01:33, Fredxxx wrote:
On 28/09/2015 23:49, Rod Speed wrote:


"Fredxxx" wrote in message
...
On 28/09/2015 20:42, Rod Speed wrote:
News wrote
Rod Speed wrote

It will be interesting to see if anyone else has done too.

Indeed. It has been suggested that the tests are such that no vehicle
could pass, in real world conditions.

I'm not convinced that that is accurate.
That then begs the question, how do non VWs pass? Are all diesel cars
cheating the tests, one way or another?

Seems unlikely that the original test that discovered VW's
faking didn't try any other diesel and find that they all did
and blow the lid off the entire industry.

They did, I recall an article that said diesel emissions from other
German manufactured cars were similar to formal test results.

And yet none of the other German manufacturers
have had anything like the effect on their share price.

Perhaps you interpreted what I meant incorrectly, unlike VW, other
German cars had the same emissions in road tests as they did in formal
testing.
No, but they haven't been caught yet...


--
Global warming is the new Margaret Thatcher. There is no ill in the
world it's not directly responsible for.

"dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
On 29/09/2015 08:05, News wrote:
In message , Fredxxx
writes
On 28/09/2015 23:49, Rod Speed wrote:

And yet none of the other German manufacturers
have had anything like the effect on their share price.

Perhaps you interpreted what I meant incorrectly, unlike VW, other
German cars had the same emissions in road tests as they did in formal
testing.

This is the point I worry about. Is it really realistic to assume that
VW engineered diesel engines are so much worse that any others that they
require cheating to pass standard tests?

Yes. VW sell on performance from their little engines and now it turns out
they just cheated. They could meet the requirements but they would have
less performance and may not be competitive.

Now they are just illegal to sell if they don't pass the tests so they
will have to down rate all the cars and see if anyone still wants a low
powered car.

Its more complicated than that with the different emission regimes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volksw...sion_standards

"michael adams" wrote in message
...

"dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...

Yes. VW sell on performance from their little engines and now it turns
out they just cheated. They could meet the requirements but they would
have less performance and may not be competitive.

Now they are just illegal to sell if they don't pass the tests so they
will have to down rate all the cars and see if anyone still wants a low
powered car.


But this doesn't really ring true does it ?

If people bought diesel VW's simply on the strength of manufacturer's
claims, and were totally oblivious to this supposed poor performance
then fair enough.

But's that's not how things are in the real world is it ?
I'd imagine most people cjhoose a particular model either as a result of
reviews in car mags or as a result of personal recommendations or word of
mouth generally.

Or a test drive.

For instance given the supposed influence of "social media"
nowadays its rather surprising that all these rubbish VW's
to say nothing of Audis and Porshes haven't shown up on
Facbook ot Twitter or had websites devoted to them.
How they were all being left at the lights, being overtaken
by milk floats and cyclists etc

In fact all the evidence seems to indicate that the first time anyone
noticed how rubbish they were was two weeks ago as a result of some tests
in the US

Which just happens to have the most stringent diesel standards.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volksw...sion_standards

the details of which nobody appears to understand.

Plenty do.

So where is "Top Gear" when you need them ?

The plug was pulled on them by some fools in the BBC.

If there was ever an excuse for a one hour special, simply burning up some
VW's around the track this was it.

Those yanks already did that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volksw...ng_condu cted

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 29/09/15 01:33, Fredxxx wrote:
On 28/09/2015 23:49, Rod Speed wrote:


"Fredxxx" wrote in message
...
On 28/09/2015 20:42, Rod Speed wrote:
News wrote
Rod Speed wrote

It will be interesting to see if anyone else has done too.

Indeed. It has been suggested that the tests are such that no
vehicle
could pass, in real world conditions.

I'm not convinced that that is accurate.
That then begs the question, how do non VWs pass? Are all diesel cars
cheating the tests, one way or another?

Seems unlikely that the original test that discovered VW's
faking didn't try any other diesel and find that they all did
and blow the lid off the entire industry.

They did, I recall an article that said diesel emissions from other
German manufactured cars were similar to formal test results.

And yet none of the other German manufacturers
have had anything like the effect on their share price.

Perhaps you interpreted what I meant incorrectly, unlike VW, other
German cars had the same emissions in road tests as they did in formal
testing.

No, but they haven't been caught yet...

Or they dont bother to sell diesel cars in the US.

dennis@home put finger to keyboard:

On 28/09/2015 09:55, Brian-Gaff wrote:
What I could never get a simple answer on though is this. If the
management was used in this so called low emission mode all the time,
just how much performance would you loose?
I am beginning to think that this is probably because no engine ever
made
could pass the emissions standard on real life conditions of driving no
matter what you did. any standard that is not achievable is basically
pointless. What should be done is that a range of emissions under the
different conditions needs to be given and its up to the purchaser what
they decide to buy. and of course its up the regulators to decide on
which list they will support with their tax schemes.

Other cars have passed the same test so maybe they cheated too or maybe
they have better engineers.

There was speculation that VW cheating the tests allowed them to remove
the AdBlue system from their 2-litre range hence reducing unit cost.

On 28/09/2015 01:54, wrote:
On Sunday, 27 September 2015 23:04:15 UTC+1, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

The cheatware detects when a motor undergoes emissions testing, and then

how is that possible?

By looking at steering input, throttle position, and a barometric
pressure sensor apparently... on a rolling road there are completely
static inputs on the first two, and the pressure sensor does not record
a change in pressure with increasing speed.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

People who bought a VW to drive around London with no tax may now be told its too polluty and therefore sue VW for the loss of the price of the car....

On 28/09/2015 23:08, Sam Thatch wrote:


That wouldnt be viable. Too many would experience that
performance degradation in real life and it would be very
variable, so they would be demanding it get fixed in the
warranty period causing a big hike in warranty claims.

They couldnt even have a note in the maintenance
manuals saying that variable performance should be
ignored because they couldnt say why that happens
and is nothing to worry about.
I could see that it might be possible to run in clean mode by default at
idle and low throttle openings, and alter it when the pedal if pressed-
after all, this is largely a modulation of the EGR valve, which happens
all the time anyway as part of the normal map.

In message , at 08:05:21 on Tue, 29
Sep 2015, News remarked:

Perhaps you interpreted what I meant incorrectly, unlike VW, other
German cars had the same emissions in road tests as they did in formal
testing.

This is the point I worry about. Is it really realistic to assume that
VW engineered diesel engines are so much worse that any others that
they require cheating to pass standard tests?

They are worse because they purposely left off the AdBlue system. Other
more recent VWs with the system, and other manufacturers' cars with the
system, are not "cheating" (allegedly).
--
Roland Perry

In article ,
michael adams wrote:
In fact all the evidence seems to indicate that the first time
anyone noticed how rubbish they were was two weeks ago as a result
of some tests in the US the details of which nobody appears to
understand.

Emissions aren't something the driver will notice, or can test himself.
Unless clouds of smoke. But does understand performance and MPG.

The point is the VW in question would perform on the road pretty poorly,
if left in the mode whereby it passes the emissions test.

Diesels are different to petrol engines in that excessive fuelling will
produce more power. But also greatly increases emissions.

--
*IF YOU TRY TO FAIL, AND SUCCEED, WHICH HAVE YOU DONE?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Perhaps you interpreted what I meant incorrectly, unlike VW, other
German cars had the same emissions in road tests as they did in formal
testing.

No, but they haven't been caught yet...

Dunno how many other makers sell small diesels in the US - where the
emission regs are tighter than elsewhere.

What I've not seen is anything definitive about this VW and Euro regs.

--
*Thank you. We're all refreshed and challenged by your unique point of view

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Tue, 29 Sep 2015 10:54:32 +0000, Scion wrote:

dennis@home put finger to keyboard:

On 28/09/2015 09:55, Brian-Gaff wrote:
What I could never get a simple answer on though is this. If the
management was used in this so called low emission mode all the time,
just how much performance would you loose?
I am beginning to think that this is probably because no engine ever
made
could pass the emissions standard on real life conditions of driving
no matter what you did. any standard that is not achievable is
basically pointless. What should be done is that a range of emissions
under the different conditions needs to be given and its up to the
purchaser what they decide to buy. and of course its up the regulators
to decide on which list they will support with their tax schemes.

Other cars have passed the same test so maybe they cheated too or maybe
they have better engineers.

There was speculation that VW cheating the tests allowed them to remove
the AdBlue system from their 2-litre range hence reducing unit cost.

Small problem...

There's talk of "40x" the permitted NOx.

For Euro V (which these engines are), NOx max is .18g/km. For Euro VI
(which the AdBlue replacements are), NOx max is 0.05g/km.

For Euro III - in 2000, the first to introduce a NOx cap - the cap was
0.8g/km.

So... 40x the EuroVI cap would be 2g - four times the fifteen year old
and twice superceded cap. 40x the Euro V cap would be 7.2g/km - nearly
15x the Euro III cap...

The US caps don't appear to be anywhere NEAR as easy to understand -
there doesn't appear to be a NOx cap, instead a raft of different tiers
of NMOG+NOx. Whatevertheflying****erigar NMOG is...

googles
Oh. Right. Non-Methane Organic Gas. The sum of all non-oxygenated and
oxygenated hydrocarbons. So let's call it equivalent to the EU HC+NOx.

So... Euro V 0.230g/km, Euro VI 0.170g/km

The US figures are in mg/mile - so Euro VI is about 27mg/mile, and Euro V
is about 36mg/mile. Both are way down in the lower bins. Even Euro
III's .56g/km = 89mg/mile. Hell, even 1992's Euro I had a cap of HC+NOx
of 0.97 = 155mg/mile - within the current upper US bin, and only 5.5x the
Euro VI figure, let alone the alleged "40x"...

https://www.dieselnet.com/standards/us/ld_t3.php

So WTF is going on?

In message , at 14:19:43 on Tue, 29 Sep
2015, Adrian remarked:

There was speculation that VW cheating the tests allowed them to remove
the AdBlue system from their 2-litre range hence reducing unit cost.

Small problem...

There's talk of "40x" the permitted NOx.

For Euro V (which these engines are), NOx max is .18g/km. For Euro VI
(which the AdBlue replacements are), NOx max is 0.05g/km.

I think that's 40x one of the common US limits of 0.031, and perhaps the
"cheat" is so good that it reduces the NOx to 1/40th while being tested.
--
Roland Perry

On Tuesday, September 29, 2015 at 3:19:49 PM UTC+1, Adrian wrote:
On Tue, 29 Sep 2015 10:54:32 +0000, Scion wrote:

dennis@home put finger to keyboard:

On 28/09/2015 09:55, Brian-Gaff wrote:
What I could never get a simple answer on though is this. If the
management was used in this so called low emission mode all the time,
just how much performance would you loose?
I am beginning to think that this is probably because no engine ever
made
could pass the emissions standard on real life conditions of driving
no matter what you did. any standard that is not achievable is
basically pointless. What should be done is that a range of emissions
under the different conditions needs to be given and its up to the
purchaser what they decide to buy. and of course its up the regulators
to decide on which list they will support with their tax schemes.

Other cars have passed the same test so maybe they cheated too or maybe
they have better engineers.

There was speculation that VW cheating the tests allowed them to remove
the AdBlue system from their 2-litre range hence reducing unit cost.

Small problem...

There's talk of "40x" the permitted NOx.

For Euro V (which these engines are), NOx max is .18g/km. For Euro VI
(which the AdBlue replacements are), NOx max is 0.05g/km.

For Euro III - in 2000, the first to introduce a NOx cap - the cap was
0.8g/km.

So... 40x the EuroVI cap would be 2g - four times the fifteen year old
and twice superceded cap. 40x the Euro V cap would be 7.2g/km - nearly
15x the Euro III cap...

The US caps don't appear to be anywhere NEAR as easy to understand -
there doesn't appear to be a NOx cap, instead a raft of different tiers
of NMOG+NOx. Whatevertheflying****erigar NMOG is...

googles
Oh. Right. Non-Methane Organic Gas. The sum of all non-oxygenated and
oxygenated hydrocarbons. So let's call it equivalent to the EU HC+NOx.

So... Euro V 0.230g/km, Euro VI 0.170g/km

The US figures are in mg/mile - so Euro VI is about 27mg/mile, and Euro V
is about 36mg/mile. Both are way down in the lower bins. Even Euro
III's .56g/km = 89mg/mile. Hell, even 1992's Euro I had a cap of HC+NOx
of 0.97 = 155mg/mile - within the current upper US bin, and only 5.5x the
Euro VI figure, let alone the alleged "40x"...

https://www.dieselnet.com/standards/us/ld_t3.php

So WTF is going on?

I had not worked out the figures, but this 40x figure bleated in all the press did not seem likely to me - it is probably media confusion perpetuated as usual.

Simon.

sm_jamieson put finger to keyboard:

On Tuesday, September 29, 2015 at 3:19:49 PM UTC+1, Adrian wrote:
On Tue, 29 Sep 2015 10:54:32 +0000, Scion wrote:

dennis@home put finger to keyboard:

On 28/09/2015 09:55, Brian-Gaff wrote:
What I could never get a simple answer on though is this. If the
management was used in this so called low emission mode all the
time, just how much performance would you loose?
I am beginning to think that this is probably because no engine
ever made
could pass the emissions standard on real life conditions of
driving no matter what you did. any standard that is not achievable
is basically pointless. What should be done is that a range of
emissions under the different conditions needs to be given and its
up to the purchaser what they decide to buy. and of course its up
the regulators to decide on which list they will support with
their tax schemes.

Other cars have passed the same test so maybe they cheated too or
maybe they have better engineers.

There was speculation that VW cheating the tests allowed them to
remove the AdBlue system from their 2-litre range hence reducing unit
cost.

Small problem...

There's talk of "40x" the permitted NOx.

For Euro V (which these engines are), NOx max is .18g/km. For Euro VI
(which the AdBlue replacements are), NOx max is 0.05g/km.

For Euro III - in 2000, the first to introduce a NOx cap - the cap was
0.8g/km.

So... 40x the EuroVI cap would be 2g - four times the fifteen year old
and twice superceded cap. 40x the Euro V cap would be 7.2g/km - nearly
15x the Euro III cap...

The US caps don't appear to be anywhere NEAR as easy to understand -
there doesn't appear to be a NOx cap, instead a raft of different tiers
of NMOG+NOx. Whatevertheflying****erigar NMOG is...

googles
Oh. Right. Non-Methane Organic Gas. The sum of all non-oxygenated and
oxygenated hydrocarbons. So let's call it equivalent to the EU HC+NOx.

So... Euro V 0.230g/km, Euro VI 0.170g/km

The US figures are in mg/mile - so Euro VI is about 27mg/mile, and Euro
V is about 36mg/mile. Both are way down in the lower bins. Even Euro
III's .56g/km = 89mg/mile. Hell, even 1992's Euro I had a cap of HC+NOx
of 0.97 = 155mg/mile - within the current upper US bin, and only 5.5x
the Euro VI figure, let alone the alleged "40x"...

https://www.dieselnet.com/standards/us/ld_t3.php

So WTF is going on?

I had not worked out the figures, but this 40x figure bleated in all the
press did not seem likely to me - it is probably media confusion
perpetuated as usual.

Simon.

Could be that the 40x is what the people who discovered the anomaly found
during 'real-world' tests vs. the permitted output for the band that the
cars were in. If so the tested output with the cheat software disabled
will likely be less.

On Tue, 29 Sep 2015 15:08:03 +0000, Scion wrote:

So... Euro V 0.230g/km, Euro VI 0.170g/km

The US figures are in mg/mile - so Euro VI is about 27mg/mile, and
Euro V is about 36mg/mile. Both are way down in the lower bins. Even
Euro III's .56g/km = 89mg/mile. Hell, even 1992's Euro I had a cap of
HC+NOx of 0.97 = 155mg/mile - within the current upper US bin, and
only 5.5x the Euro VI figure, let alone the alleged "40x"...

Could be that the 40x is what the people who discovered the anomaly
found during 'real-world' tests vs. the permitted output for the band
that the cars were in.

So the "real world" emissions are six or seven times what was permitted
nearly 25 years ago...?

No, I don't buy it. I don't buy that VW's engineers are uniquely
incompetent and disingenuous, either.

On Tuesday, September 29, 2015 at 4:14:05 PM UTC+1, Adrian wrote:
On Tue, 29 Sep 2015 15:08:03 +0000, Scion wrote:

So... Euro V 0.230g/km, Euro VI 0.170g/km

The US figures are in mg/mile - so Euro VI is about 27mg/mile, and
Euro V is about 36mg/mile. Both are way down in the lower bins. Even
Euro III's .56g/km = 89mg/mile. Hell, even 1992's Euro I had a cap of
HC+NOx of 0.97 = 155mg/mile - within the current upper US bin, and
only 5.5x the Euro VI figure, let alone the alleged "40x"...

Could be that the 40x is what the people who discovered the anomaly
found during 'real-world' tests vs. the permitted output for the band
that the cars were in.

So the "real world" emissions are six or seven times what was permitted
nearly 25 years ago...?

No, I don't buy it. I don't buy that VW's engineers are uniquely
incompetent and disingenuous, either.

But why would VW basically admit to fraud if they did not believe themselves to be guilty? They did not try to spin it in a PR way at all.

One article I read said that most diesels in the US use urea exhaust treatment, but VW did not include that on the 2.0 TDIs making out they have superior engine tech that did not need it. Of source that engine tech (just more exhaust re-circulation during "test" mode ?) was not active in normal driving.

I also heard it reported that they did include Urea treatment, but it was switched off during normal driving so it would not run out.

Not sure which is correct.

Simon.

Adrian put finger to keyboard:

On Tue, 29 Sep 2015 15:08:03 +0000, Scion wrote:

So... Euro V 0.230g/km, Euro VI 0.170g/km

The US figures are in mg/mile - so Euro VI is about 27mg/mile, and
Euro V is about 36mg/mile. Both are way down in the lower bins. Even
Euro III's .56g/km = 89mg/mile. Hell, even 1992's Euro I had a cap of
HC+NOx of 0.97 = 155mg/mile - within the current upper US bin, and
only 5.5x the Euro VI figure, let alone the alleged "40x"...

Could be that the 40x is what the people who discovered the anomaly
found during 'real-world' tests vs. the permitted output for the band
that the cars were in.

So the "real world" emissions are six or seven times what was permitted
nearly 25 years ago...?

"The VW cars under investigation emit up to 40x the national standard for
nitrogen oxide, which is linked to asthma & lung illnesses." - a tweet
from the EPA on Sep 18th. So yes, it seems that way, with a caveat for the
"up to" phrase - perhaps that's an instantaneous reading vs. an average
over a longer time for the test.

No, I don't buy it. I don't buy that VW's engineers are uniquely
incompetent and disingenuous, either.

I don't doubt that other manufacturers have all sorts of tricks to reduce
emissions during testing; I would be surprised if they all cheat as
blatantly as VW has done. BMW for example have specifically said they
don't use test-run detection software.

On 29/09/2015 16:25, sm_jamieson wrote:
On Tuesday, September 29, 2015 at 4:14:05 PM UTC+1, Adrian wrote:
On Tue, 29 Sep 2015 15:08:03 +0000, Scion wrote:

So... Euro V 0.230g/km, Euro VI 0.170g/km

The US figures are in mg/mile - so Euro VI is about
27mg/mile, and Euro V is about 36mg/mile. Both are way down
in the lower bins. Even Euro III's .56g/km = 89mg/mile. Hell,
even 1992's Euro I had a cap of HC+NOx of 0.97 = 155mg/mile -
within the current upper US bin, and only 5.5x the Euro VI
figure, let alone the alleged "40x"...

Could be that the 40x is what the people who discovered the
anomaly found during 'real-world' tests vs. the permitted output
for the band that the cars were in.

So the "real world" emissions are six or seven times what was
permitted nearly 25 years ago...?

No, I don't buy it. I don't buy that VW's engineers are uniquely
incompetent and disingenuous, either.

But why would VW basically admit to fraud if they did not believe
themselves to be guilty? They did not try to spin it in a PR way at
all.

One article I read said that most diesels in the US use urea exhaust
treatment, but VW did not include that on the 2.0 TDIs making out
they have superior engine tech that did not need it. Of source that
engine tech (just more exhaust re-circulation during "test" mode ?)
was not active in normal driving.

I also heard it reported that they did include Urea treatment, but it
was switched off during normal driving so it would not run out.

Not sure which is correct.

Could be both... IIUC some of the later model 2L engines do have the
urea treatment system, while the earlier ones were claimed to not need it.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On Tue, 29 Sep 2015 17:15:02 +0100, John Rumm wrote:

One article I read said that most diesels in the US use urea exhaust
treatment, but VW did not include that on the 2.0 TDIs making out they
have superior engine tech that did not need it. Of source that engine
tech (just more exhaust re-circulation during "test" mode ?) was not
active in normal driving.

I also heard it reported that they did include Urea treatment, but it
was switched off during normal driving so it would not run out.

Not sure which is correct.

Could be both... IIUC some of the later model 2L engines do have the
urea treatment system, while the earlier ones were claimed to not need
it.

The engines in question are Euro V in Europe, and were in production from
2009 on - they've been discontinued in Europe now.

AdBlue has basically only come in with Euro VI, legal requirement from
last year.

In message , at
17:15:02 on Tue, 29 Sep 2015, John Rumm
remarked:
I also heard it reported that they did include Urea treatment, but it
was switched off during normal driving so it would not run out.

Not sure which is correct.

Could be both... IIUC some of the later model 2L engines do have the
urea treatment system, while the earlier ones were claimed to not need
it.

The ones with Urea treatment were 16-valve models fitted to Passats,
rather than the non-urea 8-valve models fitted to smaller vehicles, and
a few Passats.
--
Roland Perry