"Chris Bartram" wrote in message
...
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-

But that approach would see it fail the emissions test on the machine.

after all, this is largely a modulation of the EGR valve, which happens
all the time anyway as part of the normal map.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
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.

It must involve a lot more than just what they sold in the
US given that they are about to recall 11M of their cars.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-09-2...candal/6814896

In article , MM
writes
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.

MM
You have an Alto diesel?
--
bert

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

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?

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.

On such commissioner is quote in the DT today as saying (and I
paraphrase) that he didn't give a f*** about the electorate because they
couldn't vote him out.
The Catholic Church suffers from the same problem, IMO, and the same
solution applies for the same reasons.


--
bert

"Adrian" wrote in message
...
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.

Not with the euro standards, only with the more stringent US standards.

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 article , Chris J Dixon
writes
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
It was also reported today that VW had been cautioned eight years ago
not to rig the tests by its software supplier Bosch. According to Bild
am Sonntag, Bosch had written to VW in 2007.

Yes - I did wonder about this. Bosch (and others) generally supply much of
the injection, and I'd guess would also be involved with writing the
software. Since they will be supplying much the same to other makers too.
So - again a guess - is they are the author of the software involved. So
wonder if it was hacked by VW?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/...kswagen/118946
72/Volkswagen-crisis-Car-giant-warned-against-emissions-rigging-eight-ye
ars-ago.html

"Bosch, the German engineering firm, is said to have explained in
a memo to VW that use of the software to manipulate results would
be against the law.

A 2007 letter warned against using the software during regular
operation, according to an internal VW investigation seen by
German weekly Bild am Sonntag.

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
Similar comment in the DT
--
bert

"Scion" wrote in message
...
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.

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.

35x actually.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volksw...ng_condu cted

If so the tested output with the cheat software disabled will likely be
less.

What ?

"Adrian" wrote in message
...
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, not with the American emissions standards.

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

But it is clear they chose to not include the AdBlue system with
those cars that that failed the real world test.

On Tue, 29 Sep 2015 20:43:34 +0100, bert wrote:

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

You have an Alto diesel?

They don't make a diesel. The petrol comes in at 99g/km.

It has to have _something_ in its favour...

Sam Thatch wrote:


"Adrian" wrote in message
...
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.

Not with the euro standards, only with the more stringent US standards.

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?

Have I missed something? How does 560mg/Km become 89mg/mile?

"sm_jamieson" wrote in message
...
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.

It shouldn't be hard to check the owners manual whether it has urea
treatment or not.

"Scion" wrote in message
...
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.

And the US testing that exposed the VW fraud found that
the BMW did fine in the same test they used for the VWs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volksw...ng_condu cted

On 29/09/2015 20:53, bert wrote:
In article , Chris J Dixon
writes


"Bosch, the German engineering firm, is said to have explained in
a memo to VW that use of the software to manipulate results would
be against the law.

A 2007 letter warned against using the software during regular
operation, according to an internal VW investigation seen by
German weekly Bild am Sonntag.

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

Similar comment in the DT

But you'd need to see the actual memo *and* understand the subtleties of
the German language know whether it was a serious warning or a "nudge,
nudge - wink, wink"!
--
Cheers,
Roger
____________
Please reply to Newsgroup. Whilst email address is valid, it is seldom
checked.

"Roger Mills" wrote in message
...
On 29/09/2015 20:53, bert wrote:
In article , Chris J Dixon
writes


"Bosch, the German engineering firm, is said to have explained in
a memo to VW that use of the software to manipulate results would
be against the law.

A 2007 letter warned against using the software during regular
operation, according to an internal VW investigation seen by
German weekly Bild am Sonntag.

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

Similar comment in the DT

But you'd need to see the actual memo *and* understand the subtleties of
the German language know whether it was a serious warning or a "nudge,
nudge - wink, wink"!

Bet you wouldn't be able to work it out even with the
actual memo and that sort of fluency with German.

It's clearly an absolutely classic protect Bosch's arse memo.

On Tue, 29 Sep 2015 20:43:34 +0100, bert wrote:

In article , MM
writes
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.

MM
You have an Alto diesel?

No, but it has an engine management system that is running firmware
that could be frigged to make the emissions look better. After all,
how come Suzuki managed to reduce the emissions down to zero-rated? My
previous Alto was free for the first year and £20 after that. Just
sayin'.

MM

On Tue, 29 Sep 2015 19:58:53 +0000 (UTC), Adrian
wrote:

On Tue, 29 Sep 2015 20:43:34 +0100, bert wrote:

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

You have an Alto diesel?

They don't make a diesel. The petrol comes in at 99g/km.

It has to have _something_ in its favour...

It has a heck of a lot more than just fuel economy to offer. First,
it's cheap. The OTR price in March was £5999. Plus, the dealer gave me
£3000 for my old Alto (three years old). For my purposes it's all I
need as a runabout. I'm retired so I don't drive much. Mainly local
trips, and very occasionally a longer journey. The previous Alto never
had any fault whatsoever. So far this Alto is exactly the same:
utterly reliable. I've done 3,000 miles since March 2.

What other car could you buy brand-new at that price that is better
value?

You can't!

MM

On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 08:08:55 +0100, MM wrote:

It has to have _something_ in its favour...

It has a heck of a lot more than just fuel economy to offer. First, it's
cheap. The OTR price in March was £5999. Plus, the dealer gave me £3000
for my old Alto (three years old). For my purposes it's all I need as a
runabout. I'm retired so I don't drive much.

So why on earth buy a new car? What did your last one have on it - 20k
miles?

What other car could you buy brand-new at that price that is better
value?

You can't!

That doesn't make it actually any good, y'know.

Adrian put finger to keyboard:

On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 08:08:55 +0100, MM wrote:

It has to have _something_ in its favour...

It has a heck of a lot more than just fuel economy to offer. First,
it's cheap. The OTR price in March was £5999. Plus, the dealer gave me
£3000 for my old Alto (three years old). For my purposes it's all I
need as a runabout. I'm retired so I don't drive much.

So why on earth buy a new car? What did your last one have on it - 20k
miles?

If I had unlimited funds I'd buy new.

*Possibly* not an Alto, though :-)

Ogles Audi R8, again

What other car could you buy brand-new at that price that is better
value?

You can't!

That doesn't make it actually any good, y'know.

Yerbut some people want new, cheap. And if the Alto works for him, good
luck to him. 50% depreciation over 3 years isn't too harsh either.

Rod Speed put finger to keyboard:

"Scion" wrote in message
...
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.

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.

35x actually.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Volkswagen_emissions_violations#U.S._testing_condu cted

If so the tested output with the cheat software disabled will likely be
less.

What ?

I meant that if the real-world 40x/35x multiplier is a peak figure, then
the actual multiplier would be less if calculated in the same way as
during testing.

Sam Thatch put finger to keyboard:

"Roger Mills" wrote in message
...
On 29/09/2015 20:53, bert wrote:
In article , Chris J Dixon
writes


"Bosch, the German engineering firm, is said to have explained in a
memo to VW that use of the software to manipulate results would be
against the law.

A 2007 letter warned against using the software during regular
operation, according to an internal VW investigation seen by German
weekly Bild am Sonntag.

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

Similar comment in the DT

But you'd need to see the actual memo *and* understand the subtleties
of the German language know whether it was a serious warning or a
"nudge, nudge - wink, wink"!

Bet you wouldn't be able to work it out even with the actual memo and
that sort of fluency with German.

It's clearly an absolutely classic protect Bosch's arse memo.

And I bet there's some relieved sighing / back clapping / high fiving
going on at Bosch right now.

On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 08:11:15 +0000, Scion wrote:

50% depreciation over 3 years isn't too harsh either.

50% depreciation over 20k miles...?

In message , at 08:39:44 on Wed, 30 Sep
2015, Adrian remarked:

50% depreciation over 3 years isn't too harsh either.

50% depreciation over 20k miles...?

Depreciation is measured in years, with a relatively small allowance for
high/low mileage.
--
Roland Perry

"Scion" wrote in message
...
Sam Thatch put finger to keyboard:

"Roger Mills" wrote in message
...
On 29/09/2015 20:53, bert wrote:
In article , Chris J Dixon
writes


"Bosch, the German engineering firm, is said to have explained in a
memo to VW that use of the software to manipulate results would be
against the law.

A 2007 letter warned against using the software during regular
operation, according to an internal VW investigation seen by German
weekly Bild am Sonntag.

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

Similar comment in the DT

But you'd need to see the actual memo *and* understand the subtleties
of the German language know whether it was a serious warning or a
"nudge, nudge - wink, wink"!

Bet you wouldn't be able to work it out even with the actual memo and
that sort of fluency with German.

It's clearly an absolutely classic protect Bosch's arse memo.

And I bet there's some relieved sighing / back clapping / high fiving
going on at Bosch right now.

Arent the Germans into thigh slapping to music
while wearing leather shorts or something ?

Sam Thatch put finger to keyboard:

"Scion" wrote in message
...
Sam Thatch put finger to keyboard:

"Roger Mills" wrote in message
...
On 29/09/2015 20:53, bert wrote:
In article , Chris J
Dixon writes


"Bosch, the German engineering firm, is said to have explained in a
memo to VW that use of the software to manipulate results would be
against the law.

A 2007 letter warned against using the software during regular
operation, according to an internal VW investigation seen by German
weekly Bild am Sonntag.

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

Similar comment in the DT

But you'd need to see the actual memo *and* understand the subtleties
of the German language know whether it was a serious warning or a
"nudge, nudge - wink, wink"!

Bet you wouldn't be able to work it out even with the actual memo and
that sort of fluency with German.

It's clearly an absolutely classic protect Bosch's arse memo.

And I bet there's some relieved sighing / back clapping / high fiving
going on at Bosch right now.

Arent the Germans into thigh slapping to music while wearing leather
shorts or something ?

Well the Bavarians are - so that'll cover BMW fer sure. They'll be
drinking out of them funny tankards with the hinged lids too, in between
bites of Bratwurst.

In article ,
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 08:39:44 on Wed, 30 Sep
2015, Adrian remarked:

50% depreciation over 3 years isn't too harsh either.

50% depreciation over 20k miles...?

Depreciation is measured in years, with a relatively small allowance for
high/low mileage.

That'll be why so many used cars are 'clocked'?

--
*Did you ever notice when you blow in a dog's face he gets mad at you? *

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

"Scion" wrote in message
...
Sam Thatch put finger to keyboard:

"Scion" wrote in message
...
Sam Thatch put finger to keyboard:

"Roger Mills" wrote in message
...
On 29/09/2015 20:53, bert wrote:
In article , Chris J
Dixon writes


"Bosch, the German engineering firm, is said to have explained in a
memo to VW that use of the software to manipulate results would be
against the law.

A 2007 letter warned against using the software during regular
operation, according to an internal VW investigation seen by German
weekly Bild am Sonntag.

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

Similar comment in the DT

But you'd need to see the actual memo *and* understand the subtleties
of the German language know whether it was a serious warning or a
"nudge, nudge - wink, wink"!

Bet you wouldn't be able to work it out even with the actual memo and
that sort of fluency with German.

It's clearly an absolutely classic protect Bosch's arse memo.

And I bet there's some relieved sighing / back clapping / high fiving
going on at Bosch right now.

Arent the Germans into thigh slapping to music while wearing leather
shorts or something ?

Well the Bavarians are - so that'll cover BMW fer sure.

But not Bosch.

They'll be drinking out of them funny tankards with
the hinged lids too, in between bites of Bratwurst.

How unspeakable.

In message , at 11:10:24 on Wed, 30 Sep
2015, "Dave Plowman (News)" remarked:

50% depreciation over 3 years isn't too harsh either.

50% depreciation over 20k miles...?

Depreciation is measured in years, with a relatively small allowance for
high/low mileage.

That'll be why so many used cars are 'clocked'?

To get over the "high mileage" issue, rather than create a "low mileage"
car in most instances I suspect. Of course these days it's more
difficult, especially if mileages are reported to DVLA and old MOT
certificates are available to inspect.
--
Roland Perry

On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 11:10:24 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 08:39:44 on Wed, 30 Sep
2015, Adrian remarked:

50% depreciation over 3 years isn't too harsh either.

50% depreciation over 20k miles...?

Depreciation is measured in years, with a relatively small allowance
for high/low mileage.

That'll be why so many used cars are 'clocked'?

With older cars, mileage is more significant.

But don't take our word for it; have a look at a used car price guide.

Adrian put finger to keyboard:

On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 08:11:15 +0000, Scion wrote:

50% depreciation over 3 years isn't too harsh either.

50% depreciation over 20k miles...?

And three years, yes.

Sam Thatch put finger to keyboard:

"Scion" wrote in message
...
Sam Thatch put finger to keyboard:

"Scion" wrote in message
...
Sam Thatch put finger to keyboard:

"Roger Mills" wrote in message
...
On 29/09/2015 20:53, bert wrote:
In article , Chris J
Dixon writes


"Bosch, the German engineering firm, is said to have explained in
a memo to VW that use of the software to manipulate results would
be against the law.

A 2007 letter warned against using the software during regular
operation, according to an internal VW investigation seen by
German weekly Bild am Sonntag.

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

Similar comment in the DT

But you'd need to see the actual memo *and* understand the
subtleties of the German language know whether it was a serious
warning or a "nudge, nudge - wink, wink"!

Bet you wouldn't be able to work it out even with the actual memo
and that sort of fluency with German.

It's clearly an absolutely classic protect Bosch's arse memo.

And I bet there's some relieved sighing / back clapping / high fiving
going on at Bosch right now.

Arent the Germans into thigh slapping to music while wearing leather
shorts or something ?

Well the Bavarians are - so that'll cover BMW fer sure.

But not Bosch.

Hey, I'm allowed the occasional brain fart. In fact I insist on it!

In article ,
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 11:10:24 on Wed, 30 Sep
2015, "Dave Plowman (News)" remarked:

50% depreciation over 3 years isn't too harsh either.

50% depreciation over 20k miles...?

Depreciation is measured in years, with a relatively small allowance for
high/low mileage.

That'll be why so many used cars are 'clocked'?

To get over the "high mileage" issue, rather than create a "low mileage"
car in most instances I suspect. Of course these days it's more
difficult, especially if mileages are reported to DVLA and old MOT
certificates are available to inspect.

It's less important as a car gets older. Most likely to happen on a high
miles newish car. That's where the big profits are.

--
*I was married by a judge. I should have asked for a jury.

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

In article ,
Bob Eager wrote:
That'll be why so many used cars are 'clocked'?

With older cars, mileage is more significant.

In terms of percentage depreciation, rather than years?

But don't take our word for it; have a look at a used car price guide.

How do you arrive at a figure for mileage that equates to a year? A year
doesn't wary. The mileage a car covers does. And the average miles a car
covers per year tends to go down as it gets older.

--
*I'm pretty sure that sex is better than logic, but I can't prove it.

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

In message , Scion
writes

Well the Bavarians are - so that'll cover BMW fer sure. They'll be
drinking out of them funny tankards with the hinged lids too, in between
bites of Bratwurst.

Don't get them too excited - they'll invade Poland ...

--
Graeme

On 30/09/2015 08:31, Adrian wrote:
On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 08:08:55 +0100, MM wrote:

It has to have _something_ in its favour...

It has a heck of a lot more than just fuel economy to offer. First, it's
cheap. The OTR price in March was £5999. Plus, the dealer gave me £3000
for my old Alto (three years old). For my purposes it's all I need as a
runabout. I'm retired so I don't drive much.

So why on earth buy a new car? What did your last one have on it - 20k
miles?

To be fair to him, if he's looking for an easy reliable option, buying
new offers advantages, and 1K/year isn't that bad.

On 30/09/15 09:49, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 08:39:44 on Wed, 30 Sep
2015, Adrian remarked:

50% depreciation over 3 years isn't too harsh either.

50% depreciation over 20k miles...?

Depreciation is measured in years, with a relatively small allowance for
high/low mileage.

My camper has only done 26K miles but its almost worthless


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

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Depreciation is measured in years, with a relatively small allowance for
high/low mileage.

My camper has only done 26K miles but its almost worthless

Camper vans tend to hold their value rather better than cars. Really more
dependant on condition than anything else?

--
*OK, so what's the speed of dark? *

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

On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 14:22:09 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Camper vans tend to hold their value rather better than cars. Really
more dependant on condition than anything else?

Very true - and much more so than the vans they're based on.

A van that'd be £500-1000 is easily £5k+ if it's been ram-raided through
MFI at some stage, and isn't actively a health hazard to be in.

On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 07:31:35 +0000 (UTC), Adrian
wrote:

On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 08:08:55 +0100, MM wrote:

It has to have _something_ in its favour...

It has a heck of a lot more than just fuel economy to offer. First, it's
cheap. The OTR price in March was £5999. Plus, the dealer gave me £3000
for my old Alto (three years old). For my purposes it's all I need as a
runabout. I'm retired so I don't drive much.

So why on earth buy a new car? What did your last one have on it - 20k
miles?

Peace of mind. New cars tend not to go wrong. That's been my
experience, anyway. And I've been driving since 1963.

20k? You're joking! As I recall it had about 12,000 miles on it.
Probably why the dealer gave me a good part-exchange deal.

By the way, the previous Alto (with the slightly higher emissions and
£20 RFL after the first year) delivered 67 mpg on a long trip.

What other car could you buy brand-new at that price that is better
value?

You can't!

That doesn't make it actually any good, y'know.

What's wrong with it? Unless you can cite hard evidence, I'll assume
you're just a wind-up merchant.

MM

On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 08:11:15 +0000 (UTC), Scion
wrote:

Adrian put finger to keyboard:

On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 08:08:55 +0100, MM wrote:

It has to have _something_ in its favour...

It has a heck of a lot more than just fuel economy to offer. First,
it's cheap. The OTR price in March was £5999. Plus, the dealer gave me
£3000 for my old Alto (three years old). For my purposes it's all I
need as a runabout. I'm retired so I don't drive much.

So why on earth buy a new car? What did your last one have on it - 20k
miles?

If I had unlimited funds I'd buy new.

*Possibly* not an Alto, though :-)

Ogles Audi R8, again

What other car could you buy brand-new at that price that is better
value?

You can't!

That doesn't make it actually any good, y'know.

Yerbut some people want new, cheap. And if the Alto works for him, good
luck to him. 50% depreciation over 3 years isn't too harsh either.

Especially since it never went wrong, never had to be taken into the
dealer, except for its annual service, and cost practically nothing to
run. The new one is even cheaper. Zero-rated RFL.

MM

On 30/09/2015 18:55, MM wrote:

Especially since it never went wrong, never had to be taken into the
dealer, except for its annual service, and cost practically nothing to
run. The new one is even cheaper. Zero-rated RFL.

What's the insurance on it?