"Adrian" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 06 Oct 2015 16:01:18 -0700, sm_jamieson wrote:

But what are they going to do ? Adblue ?

Forget AdBlue. These are EuroV emission cars.

It's going to be a software tickle. The ECU has the ability already to
meet the NOx requirements - because it goes into a map that does that,
when it sees the test. All that's going to happen is that map'll be used
all the time.

Which'll reduce power and increase fuel consumption.

Which means that the cars are then not as described in the sales literature
and not as they performed on a test drive. I wonder what the Sale of Goods
Act says about the validity of the sale in that circumstance...

"NY" wrote in message
...
"Adrian" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 06 Oct 2015 16:01:18 -0700, sm_jamieson wrote:

But what are they going to do ? Adblue ?

Forget AdBlue. These are EuroV emission cars.

It's going to be a software tickle. The ECU has the ability already to
meet the NOx requirements - because it goes into a map that does that,
when it sees the test. All that's going to happen is that map'll be used
all the time.

Which'll reduce power and increase fuel consumption.

Which means that the cars are then not as described in the sales
literature and not as they performed on a test drive. I wonder what the
Sale of Goods Act says about the validity of the sale in that
circumstance...

It says that you are entitled to a full refund of what
you paid for it and are free to return the car to the seller.

On 07/10/15 08:59, Andy Burns wrote:
plenty of other cars pass Euro5 after all, of course that might mean
*their* cheat modes are more subtle and haven't been spotted yet.

Any manufacturer that wasn't designing to meet the regulations by more,
or less, cheating, is in breach of their obligations to shareholders.

A LOT of pensions funds have big holdings in VAG....

VW just took it to new heights - that's all.

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

In article , NY
wrote:
"Adrian" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 06 Oct 2015 16:01:18 -0700, sm_jamieson wrote:

But what are they going to do ? Adblue ?

Forget AdBlue. These are EuroV emission cars.

It's going to be a software tickle. The ECU has the ability already to
meet the NOx requirements - because it goes into a map that does that,
when it sees the test. All that's going to happen is that map'll be
used all the time.

Which'll reduce power and increase fuel consumption.

Which means that the cars are then not as described in the sales
literature and not as they performed on a test drive. I wonder what the
Sale of Goods Act says about the validity of the sale in that
circumstance...

did their UK sales literature say anything about NO2 emissions? The one for
my car only mentions CO2 emissions - which doesn't seem to be in question.

--
Please note new email address:

On 07/10/15 09:11, Andy Burns wrote:


And if one manufacturer's engines *are* that bad, you can pretty well
guarantee all other diesels are bad enough to fail too.

Actually no, that's not true.

NOx is a function of just how lean the burn is, and how the actual
injection process and combustion chamber interact.

It's possible that other engines are better without tweaking.

there are at least tow parameters I can think of - possibly three - that
would dictate the leanness of the burn

- combustion chamber design shapewise
- whether single or multiple injection pulses per detonation are used,
and their timing
- how much boost is put into the engine under less than full power
conditions

The last is a two edged word. If you throw in more air, the exhaust of
course has a lower percentage, for a given amount of NOx, but the total
NOx may increase.

What you really want of course is to ru(i)n them, off liquid oxygen with
no nitrogen.

It is rocket science!



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

On 07/10/15 10:07, Chris Bartram wrote:
On 07/10/2015 08:43, Adrian wrote:
On Wed, 07 Oct 2015 08:41:30 +0100, Chris Bartram wrote:

The other thing, IIRC, is that making it meet NOx emissions (probably by
increasing EGR?) will (again IIRC) increase particulates.

Except they are DPF equipped.

It may well mean DPFs in cars used mainly for short journeys get clogged
more frequently, of course.

I'd guess all of them would need more regen, and of course, yet more
fuel used to do that.

Thi9s is nothing to do with DPF or particulates. Its all about NOx


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

On 07/10/15 10:08, wrote:
Tim+ wrote:

"VW expects to start a recall of cars affected by its emissions scandal in
January, the car giant's new chief executive, Matthias Mueller, has said.
All affected cars will be fixed by the end of 2020, he told German
newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitun"

Pleased to see some urgency at last! ;-)

Sheesh. I expected that this would take some time to sort out but 2020?? I
guess by then they'll have significantly fewer vehicles to deal with.

I don't really understand why they're recalling the cars at all.
After the software change they won't be one iota more economical or
different to drive.

What difference will it make to anything?

They will be slower and less economical.


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

On 07/10/15 10:45, wrote:
Tim Streater wrote:
In article , wrote:

Tim+ wrote:

"VW expects to start a recall of cars affected by its emissions scandal in
January, the car giant's new chief executive, Matthias Mueller, has said.
All affected cars will be fixed by the end of 2020, he told German
newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitun"

Pleased to see some urgency at last! ;-)

Sheesh. I expected that this would take some time to sort out but 2020?? I
guess by then they'll have significantly fewer vehicles to deal with.

I don't really understand why they're recalling the cars at all.
After the software change they won't be one iota more economical or
different to drive.

Yes, they'll pass the NOx test (were they to take it)

What difference will it make to anything?

They'll consume more fuel and be more sluggish to drive.

Do we know that? I.e. is the change going to try and make them
'really' conform to the requirements all the time or are they just
going to remove the cheat?

Yes, we do know that. If there wasn't some performance hit from meeting
the regulations without cheating, they wouldn't have cheated would they?


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

In article ,
Tim+ wrote:
"VW expects to start a recall of cars affected by its emissions scandal in
January, the car giant's new chief executive, Matthias Mueller, has said.
All affected cars will be fixed by the end of 2020, he told German
newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitun"

Pleased to see some urgency at last! ;-)

But what they don't say is what effect the 'fix' will have on performance
and economy, etc.

--
*Hang in there, retirement is only thirty years away! *

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

On 07/10/2015 11:48, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 07/10/15 10:07, Chris Bartram wrote:
On 07/10/2015 08:43, Adrian wrote:
On Wed, 07 Oct 2015 08:41:30 +0100, Chris Bartram wrote:

The other thing, IIRC, is that making it meet NOx emissions
(probably by
increasing EGR?) will (again IIRC) increase particulates.

Except they are DPF equipped.

It may well mean DPFs in cars used mainly for short journeys get clogged
more frequently, of course.

I'd guess all of them would need more regen, and of course, yet more
fuel used to do that.

Thi9s is nothing to do with DPF or particulates. Its all about NOx


Yes...

but increasing EGR to reduce the NOx increases particulates due to
incomplete combustion. As Adrian pointed out, the DPF will catch that,
but it will need more frequent regen.

On 07/10/2015 10:27, sm_jamieson wrote:
On Wednesday, October 7, 2015 at 9:49:04 AM UTC+1, F wrote:
On 06/10/2015 23:26, Tim+ wrote:

"VW expects to start a recall of cars affected by its emissions scandal in
January, the car giant's new chief executive, Matthias Mueller, has said.
All affected cars will be fixed by the end of 2020, he told German
newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitun"

Pleased to see some urgency at last! ;-)

Sheesh. I expected that this would take some time to sort out but 2020?? I
guess by then they'll have significantly fewer vehicles to deal with.

Latest is 'by end 2016'.

The fix is a software update but some may need new injectors and cats.


New injectors ? Changing the spray pattern and/or number of injections per cycle ?

They just said 'may need new injectors and catalytic converter'...

--
F

www.vulcantothesky.org - 2015, the last year to see a Vulcan fly

On 07/10/2015 11:50, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 07/10/15 10:45, wrote:
Tim Streater wrote:
In article , wrote:

Tim+ wrote:

"VW expects to start a recall of cars affected by its emissions
scandal in
January, the car giant's new chief executive, Matthias Mueller, has
said.
All affected cars will be fixed by the end of 2020, he told German
newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitun"

Pleased to see some urgency at last! ;-)

Sheesh. I expected that this would take some time to sort out but
2020?? I
guess by then they'll have significantly fewer vehicles to deal with.

I don't really understand why they're recalling the cars at all.
After the software change they won't be one iota more economical or
different to drive.

Yes, they'll pass the NOx test (were they to take it)

What difference will it make to anything?

They'll consume more fuel and be more sluggish to drive.

Do we know that? I.e. is the change going to try and make them
'really' conform to the requirements all the time or are they just
going to remove the cheat?

Yes, we do know that. If there wasn't some performance hit from meeting
the regulations without cheating, they wouldn't have cheated would they?


It does make you wonder how many people will bother to get their cars
changed. Could be a big saving to VW.



--
Michael Chare

In article ,
Michael Chare wrote:
It does make you wonder how many people will bother to get their cars
changed. Could be a big saving to VW.

In the US, it could be they have no option. Since the reason for the tests
there is to control emissions. So if they don't accept the mods could be
prosecuted.

--
*What do little birdies see when they get knocked unconscious? *

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

On 07/10/2015 08:56, Tim Watts wrote:

[1] I know. And a mentioning in a previous post, I go to HiQ for
"ordinary" stuff like tyres, suspension bushes, brakes etc. But things
that involving having half the car in bits I don't really trust anyone
else but either VW or a VW specialist. And the VW specialist is in a
sodding awkward location...

I got a main dealer to do my cambelt - they have fixed prices for such
things, which aren't too bad. (Citroen).

That worked very well once with a broken clutch cable a few years back -
fixed price of about a hundred quid, took them two days apparently.

(I would have DIYd it but I wasn't there at the time).

They did forget to plug the wires back onto the wastegate and EGR
electrovalves, which made it very slow, but fortunately easy to fix
(once I worked out what was wrong) and they gave me a few more quid off.

"Adrian" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 07 Oct 2015 08:41:57 +0100, Andy Burns wrote:

just removing the cheat does nothing beyond ensuring the cars would
fail EuroV certification

And you know that because ... ?

Because there's allegations that the cars emit "more than 40x" the
permitted NOx, yet the US NOx requirement is not THAT much stricter than
EuroV.

Hell, if they really ARE emitting over 40x, then they'd fail every single
Euro standard back to the early '90s.

That's almost certainly a peak amount bandied around by the vested interests
for effect

the running average could be as little as 1.5 times the allowed

tim

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 7 Oct 2015 10:13:02 +0100, Chris Bartram
wrote:



I can't see insurers insisting on that- thousands of cars serviced
outside the dealer network will already be running old engine maps- my
car would be had I not paid an independent to update it after i had an
intermittent running problem.

Of course all
such people may be as honest as the day is long and told them about a
modified chip.

I was more leaning to an insurer thinking why hasn't he had the
official update done is the owner hiding an after market
performance chip which we would class as a modification and charge
more for or use as a reason to invalidate a claim.


OTOH if the VW change does reduce performance to be noticeable the
after market chip makers/re programmers could be busy if word gets
around that such things can be done.

I thought it was already common knowledge?


Amongst the people who read things like usenet, the car pages in
newspapers etc it could be. But I reckon that many purchasers of cars
like VW and similar cars purchase one and just use it ,it is only when
it fails that how it works may come into consideration. Many do not
even read the owners manual fully

That's hardly surprising when they contain such nuggets as:

"wash your car after every rainfall"

I kid you not

tim

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"NY" wrote in message
...
"Adrian" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 06 Oct 2015 16:01:18 -0700, sm_jamieson wrote:

But what are they going to do ? Adblue ?

Forget AdBlue. These are EuroV emission cars.

It's going to be a software tickle. The ECU has the ability already to
meet the NOx requirements - because it goes into a map that does that,
when it sees the test. All that's going to happen is that map'll be used
all the time.

Which'll reduce power and increase fuel consumption.

Which means that the cars are then not as described in the sales
literature and not as they performed on a test drive. I wonder what the
Sale of Goods Act says about the validity of the sale in that
circumstance...

It says that you are entitled to a full refund

less the "value" of the amount of use that you have had from the product


of what
you paid for it and are free to return the car to the seller.


tim

"charles" wrote in message
...
In article , NY
wrote:
"Adrian" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 06 Oct 2015 16:01:18 -0700, sm_jamieson wrote:

But what are they going to do ? Adblue ?

Forget AdBlue. These are EuroV emission cars.

It's going to be a software tickle. The ECU has the ability already to
meet the NOx requirements - because it goes into a map that does that,
when it sees the test. All that's going to happen is that map'll be
used all the time.

Which'll reduce power and increase fuel consumption.

Which means that the cars are then not as described in the sales
literature and not as they performed on a test drive. I wonder what the
Sale of Goods Act says about the validity of the sale in that
circumstance...

did their UK sales literature say anything about NO2 emissions? The one
for
my car only mentions CO2 emissions - which doesn't seem to be in question.

I doubt that you could claim any compensation for failure to meet the "book"
NO2 value

you could if they forced you to have a modification to meet that requirement
and that resulted in a serious loss of performance.

tim

"alan_m" wrote in message
...
On 06/10/2015 23:26, Tim+ wrote:

"VW expects to start a recall of cars affected by its emissions scandal
in
January, the car giant's new chief executive, Matthias Mueller, has said.
All affected cars will be fixed by the end of 2020,

Forgetting the date, but what does "fixed" mean?

I doubt anyone knows - Yet!

tim

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , wrote:

Tim+ wrote:

"VW expects to start a recall of cars affected by its emissions scandal
in
January, the car giant's new chief executive, Matthias Mueller, has
said.
All affected cars will be fixed by the end of 2020, he told German
newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitun"

Pleased to see some urgency at last! ;-)

Sheesh. I expected that this would take some time to sort out but 2020??
I
guess by then they'll have significantly fewer vehicles to deal with.

I don't really understand why they're recalling the cars at all.
After the software change they won't be one iota more economical or
different to drive.

Yes, they'll pass the NOx test (were they to take it)

What difference will it make to anything?

They'll consume more fuel

why

if they are made more "emissions efficient" logic sys that will be because
they burn the fuel more efficiently and thus get a better miles per gallon

and be more sluggish to drive.

This bit I agree with

tim



--
"People don't buy Microsoft for quality, they buy it for compatibility
with what Bob in accounting bought last year. Trace it back - they buy
Microsoft because the IBM Selectric didn't suck much" - P Seebach, afc

tim.....

if they are made more "emissions efficient" logic sys that will be because
they burn the fuel more efficiently and thus get a better miles per gallon

As I understand it, burning fuel efficiently usually means at higher
temperature. The higher the temperature, the higher the NOX.

To reduce NOX, combustion temperatures need to be reduced, with an
associated loss of efficiency.

Tim

sm_jamieson wrote:

New injectors ? Changing the spray pattern and/or number of injections per cycle ?

AIUI the VW TDIs can already do multiple injections per stroke.

Hanny Z wrote:

There isn't all that much difference in the NOx levels allowed in the US
and EU, so its likely it will fail the Euro5 certification

Perhaps.

without the cheat
given that the independent US testing showed it grossly exceeded the
US standards when tested in the real world without the cheat.

WGAF what it does on the road, compared to what it does on a (non
cheated) test, if there's a big difference it's the test's fault.

On 07/10/2015 09:11, Andy Burns wrote:

Everyone knows that in the real world mpg and emissions numbers don't
match what they do under test conditions (assuming no cheating). How
much difference did the cheat mode make under test conditions 0.9x
normal? 0.5x normal? 0.025x normal sounds unlikely.

Everybody knows that mpg, etc. vary with driver, BUT, the emissions of
NOX are a limit which they should not exceed whatever the driver does.

On 07/10/2015 11:47, The Natural Philosopher wrote:


What you really want of course is to ru(i)n them, off liquid oxygen with
no nitrogen.

It is rocket science!




How much zeolite would you need to reduce the N2 levels to give a
significant reduction of NOX?

On 07/10/2015 10:08, wrote:
Tim+ wrote:

"VW expects to start a recall of cars affected by its emissions scandal in
January, the car giant's new chief executive, Matthias Mueller, has said.
All affected cars will be fixed by the end of 2020, he told German
newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitun"

Pleased to see some urgency at last! ;-)

Sheesh. I expected that this would take some time to sort out but 2020?? I
guess by then they'll have significantly fewer vehicles to deal with.

I don't really understand why they're recalling the cars at all.
After the software change they won't be one iota more economical or
different to drive.

What difference will it make to anything?


They won't poison as many asthma suffers.

"tim....." wrote in message
...

"Adrian" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 07 Oct 2015 08:41:57 +0100, Andy Burns wrote:

just removing the cheat does nothing beyond ensuring the cars would
fail EuroV certification

And you know that because ... ?

Because there's allegations that the cars emit "more than 40x" the
permitted NOx, yet the US NOx requirement is not THAT much stricter than
EuroV.

Hell, if they really ARE emitting over 40x, then they'd fail every single
Euro standard back to the early '90s.

That's almost certainly a peak amount bandied around by the vested
interests for effect

the running average could be as little as 1.5 times the allowed

That isn't what the independent testing in the US found.

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"tim....." wrote in message
...

"Adrian" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 07 Oct 2015 08:41:57 +0100, Andy Burns wrote:

just removing the cheat does nothing beyond ensuring the cars would
fail EuroV certification

And you know that because ... ?

Because there's allegations that the cars emit "more than 40x" the
permitted NOx, yet the US NOx requirement is not THAT much stricter than
EuroV.

Hell, if they really ARE emitting over 40x, then they'd fail every
single
Euro standard back to the early '90s.

That's almost certainly a peak amount bandied around by the vested
interests for effect

the running average could be as little as 1.5 times the allowed

That isn't what the independent testing in the US found.

isn't it (except that the US limit is lower than the EU so replace 1.5 by
say 3 times)

note the "up to" part

that's a big indicator that this figure was measured for a very small part
of the test and the average was a lot lower

It's marketing-speak (in reverse)

tim

"tim....." wrote in message
...

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"NY" wrote in message
...
"Adrian" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 06 Oct 2015 16:01:18 -0700, sm_jamieson wrote:

But what are they going to do ? Adblue ?

Forget AdBlue. These are EuroV emission cars.

It's going to be a software tickle. The ECU has the ability already to
meet the NOx requirements - because it goes into a map that does that,
when it sees the test. All that's going to happen is that map'll be
used
all the time.

Which'll reduce power and increase fuel consumption.

Which means that the cars are then not as described in the sales
literature and not as they performed on a test drive. I wonder what the
Sale of Goods Act says about the validity of the sale in that
circumstance...

It says that you are entitled to a full refund

less the "value" of the amount of use that you have had from the product

No, not in that case.

of what you paid for it and are free to return the car to the seller.

"tim....." wrote in message
...

"alan_m" wrote in message
...
On 06/10/2015 23:26, Tim+ wrote:

"VW expects to start a recall of cars affected by its emissions scandal
in
January, the car giant's new chief executive, Matthias Mueller, has
said.
All affected cars will be fixed by the end of 2020,

Forgetting the date, but what does "fixed" mean?

I doubt anyone knows - Yet!

I bet VW does.

"tim....." wrote in message
...

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , wrote:

Tim+ wrote:

"VW expects to start a recall of cars affected by its emissions scandal
in
January, the car giant's new chief executive, Matthias Mueller, has
said.
All affected cars will be fixed by the end of 2020, he told German
newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitun"

Pleased to see some urgency at last! ;-)

Sheesh. I expected that this would take some time to sort out but
2020?? I
guess by then they'll have significantly fewer vehicles to deal with.

I don't really understand why they're recalling the cars at all.
After the software change they won't be one iota more economical or
different to drive.

Yes, they'll pass the NOx test (were they to take it)

What difference will it make to anything?

They'll consume more fuel

why

Because that is the only way to get the engine to
produce lower NOx emissions by just changing
how the engine is run, dont run as lean a mixture.

if they are made more "emissions efficient" logic sys that will be because
they burn the fuel more efficiently and thus get a better miles per gallon

and be more sluggish to drive.

This bit I agree with

"Andy Burns" wrote in message
o.uk...
Hanny Z wrote:

There isn't all that much difference in the NOx levels allowed in the US
and EU, so its likely it will fail the Euro5 certification

Perhaps.

No perhaps about that.

without the cheat
given that the independent US testing showed it grossly exceeded the
US standards when tested in the real world without the cheat.

WGAF what it does on the road, compared to what it does on a (non cheated)
test, if there's a big difference it's the test's fault.

We're discussing the discrepancy between the real world and the cheat test.

"tim....." wrote in message
...

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"tim....." wrote in message
...

"Adrian" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 07 Oct 2015 08:41:57 +0100, Andy Burns wrote:

just removing the cheat does nothing beyond ensuring the cars would
fail EuroV certification

And you know that because ... ?

Because there's allegations that the cars emit "more than 40x" the
permitted NOx, yet the US NOx requirement is not THAT much stricter
than
EuroV.

Hell, if they really ARE emitting over 40x, then they'd fail every
single
Euro standard back to the early '90s.

That's almost certainly a peak amount bandied around by the vested
interests for effect

the running average could be as little as 1.5 times the allowed

That isn't what the independent testing in the US found.

isn't it

Nope.

(except that the US limit is lower than the EU so replace 1.5 by say 3
times)

The discrepancy was a lot more than 3 times.

note the "up to" part

Not relevant to the independent test.

that's a big indicator that this figure was measured for a very small part
of the test

No it was not with the independent test.

and the average was a lot lower

No it was not with the independent test.

It's marketing-speak (in reverse)

Nope, there is no marketing involved.
It was a proper scientific paper.

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"tim....." wrote in message
...

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"NY" wrote in message
...
"Adrian" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 06 Oct 2015 16:01:18 -0700, sm_jamieson wrote:

But what are they going to do ? Adblue ?

Forget AdBlue. These are EuroV emission cars.

It's going to be a software tickle. The ECU has the ability already to
meet the NOx requirements - because it goes into a map that does that,
when it sees the test. All that's going to happen is that map'll be
used
all the time.

Which'll reduce power and increase fuel consumption.

Which means that the cars are then not as described in the sales
literature and not as they performed on a test drive. I wonder what the
Sale of Goods Act says about the validity of the sale in that
circumstance...

It says that you are entitled to a full refund

less the "value" of the amount of use that you have had from the product

No, not in that case.

yes in this case

the idea that you can take back a 4 year old car and claim back 100% of the
original purchase price is simply not going to work.

The law specifically covers this case. A claim for compensation for, in
this case, "not as described" will be reduced by the value you have had from
ownership, if the claim is made more than 6 months after purchase.

This isn't established case law. It is statute!

tim

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"tim....." wrote in message
...

"alan_m" wrote in message
...
On 06/10/2015 23:26, Tim+ wrote:

"VW expects to start a recall of cars affected by its emissions scandal
in
January, the car giant's new chief executive, Matthias Mueller, has
said.
All affected cars will be fixed by the end of 2020,

Forgetting the date, but what does "fixed" mean?

I doubt anyone knows - Yet!

I bet VW does.

How much :-)

tim

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"tim....." wrote in message
...

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"tim....." wrote in message
...

"Adrian" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 07 Oct 2015 08:41:57 +0100, Andy Burns wrote:

just removing the cheat does nothing beyond ensuring the cars would
fail EuroV certification

And you know that because ... ?

Because there's allegations that the cars emit "more than 40x" the
permitted NOx, yet the US NOx requirement is not THAT much stricter
than
EuroV.

Hell, if they really ARE emitting over 40x, then they'd fail every
single
Euro standard back to the early '90s.

That's almost certainly a peak amount bandied around by the vested
interests for effect

the running average could be as little as 1.5 times the allowed

That isn't what the independent testing in the US found.

isn't it

Nope.

(except that the US limit is lower than the EU so replace 1.5 by say 3
times)

The discrepancy was a lot more than 3 times.

qualified by "up to"


note the "up to" part

Not relevant to the independent test.

that's a big indicator that this figure was measured for a very small
part of the test

No it was not with the independent test.

and what part of the independent test makes a claim of "up to" mean
"always"?

"up to" means sometimes, if you want to claim "always" that's the word you
use


and the average was a lot lower

No it was not with the independent test.

The fact that the test was done independently is completely irrelevant.
It's the words used in the report than are important.

No-one makes a claim of "up to" to mean that was that average. They use it
to mean that was the short term peak - simple arithmetic thus means that the
average will be lower. Regardless of who performed the test.

And I'll go further than that. The absence of the average figure in the
report suggest that the peak figure was very limited, if it wasn't you
wouldn't be embarrassed about quoting the average.


It's marketing-speak (in reverse)

Nope, there is no marketing involved.

The report contained the phrase "up to" that is ALWAYS marketing speak. It
is a weasel word used to imply to the reader that the important item is
large than it really is.

It was a proper scientific paper.

What's that got to do with it?

So the calculation of the "up to" value has been rigorously tested. That
doesn't stop the use of that figure in the summary being bogus. Scientists
are not immune from using marketing to sell their skills

tim

"tim....." wrote in message
...

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...



I doubt anyone knows - Yet!

I bet VW does.

How much :-)

I'll save you from wasting your money

Just watched the VW Guy being "grilled" by the US Congressional committee
and when asked

"How are you going to fix this", he skirted around a little bit but
basically his answer was:

"we haven't got a ****ing clue"

tim

On 07/10/2015 14:21, F wrote:
On 07/10/2015 10:27, sm_jamieson wrote:
On Wednesday, October 7, 2015 at 9:49:04 AM UTC+1, F wrote:
On 06/10/2015 23:26, Tim+ wrote:

"VW expects to start a recall of cars affected by its emissions
scandal in
January, the car giant's new chief executive, Matthias Mueller, has
said.
All affected cars will be fixed by the end of 2020, he told German
newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitun"

Pleased to see some urgency at last! ;-)

Sheesh. I expected that this would take some time to sort out but
2020?? I
guess by then they'll have significantly fewer vehicles to deal with.

Latest is 'by end 2016'.

The fix is a software update but some may need new injectors and cats.


New injectors ? Changing the spray pattern and/or number of injections
per cycle ?

They just said 'may need new injectors and catalytic converter'...

And now they've told the US that some (read in the 100s of 1000s) can't
be fixed with software and will need a second tank for urea and a
replacement cat.

--
F

www.vulcantothesky.org - 2015, the last year to see a Vulcan fly

On 08/10/2015 16:52, tim..... wrote:

"tim....." wrote in message
...

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...



I doubt anyone knows - Yet!

I bet VW does.

How much :-)

I'll save you from wasting your money

Just watched the VW Guy being "grilled" by the US Congressional
committee and when asked

"How are you going to fix this", he skirted around a little bit but
basically his answer was:

"we haven't got a ****ing clue"

No, he said some with software but most with a urea tank and/or a new
cat designed for Nox.

--
F

www.vulcantothesky.org - 2015, the last year to see a Vulcan fly

On 08/10/15 17:47, F wrote:
On 07/10/2015 14:21, F wrote:
On 07/10/2015 10:27, sm_jamieson wrote:
On Wednesday, October 7, 2015 at 9:49:04 AM UTC+1, F wrote:
On 06/10/2015 23:26, Tim+ wrote:

"VW expects to start a recall of cars affected by its emissions
scandal in
January, the car giant's new chief executive, Matthias Mueller, has
said.
All affected cars will be fixed by the end of 2020, he told German
newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitun"

Pleased to see some urgency at last! ;-)

Sheesh. I expected that this would take some time to sort out but
2020?? I
guess by then they'll have significantly fewer vehicles to deal with.

Latest is 'by end 2016'.

The fix is a software update but some may need new injectors and cats.


New injectors ? Changing the spray pattern and/or number of injections
per cycle ?

They just said 'may need new injectors and catalytic converter'...

And now they've told the US that some (read in the 100s of 1000s) can't
be fixed with software and will need a second tank for urea and a
replacement cat.

That sounds about right.


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