# VW Caught Cheating...



## ChevyGuy (Dec 13, 2014)

I saw that. It will be interesting to see how happy the owners are with their VWTD after the update. I suspect it will take some of the fun out of the car. (Why else would VW have done it?)


----------



## PanJet (Jun 18, 2013)

Was just going to post this myself. This is an interesting development for VW. 

I believe Caterpilliar tried something similar about 15-20 years ago where they "derated" their engines during testing, but changed the parameters for normal use since the derated tuning met emissions, but was junk for actual use.


----------



## pandrad61 (Jul 8, 2015)

Does not surprise me. its easier to cheat then comply with emmisions. time for a big fine and a big hit to there oil burner sales


----------



## PanJet (Jun 18, 2013)

ChevyGuy said:


> I saw that. It will be interesting to see how happy the owners are with their VWTD after the update. I suspect it will take some of the fun out of the car. (Why else would VW have done it?)


The smart TDI owners will just ignore the recall.


----------



## pandrad61 (Jul 8, 2015)

> The smart TDI owners will just ignore the recall.


defiantly lol. funny that even with them turning the systems off on road they still have emissions issues :go:


----------



## ChevyGuy (Dec 13, 2014)

PanJet said:


> The smart TDI owners will just ignore the recall.


If that plays out like the Cruze gasser recall this year, the owners won't be able to renew/register their car in some states - like California.


----------



## ChevyGuy (Dec 13, 2014)

I wonder if GM will reconsider skipping the CTD for 2016? Depending on what happens, they might have just been handed a big opening in the passenger diesel market.


----------



## pandrad61 (Jul 8, 2015)

> like California.


that right there is the problem. comifornia will care. rest of the usa i dont think will bother


----------



## PanJet (Jun 18, 2013)

This article has more detail.

It appears this may indirectly affect GM. _"CARB and EPA have begun procuring in-use diesel vehicles produced by other manufacturers to screen the vehicles for possible defeat devices."

_Let's hope GM has been playing by the rules.


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

PanJet said:


> The smart TDI owners will just ignore the recall.


Won't work in California. I think you'll have to show proof of having had this recall done to pass emissions. I wouldn't be surprised to see other states, especially those in the northeast make the same requirement of proof of recall completion. Frankly I think the real solution here will be for each state to issue a fix-it ticket to all VWs involved in this recall. All it would take is a mass mailing to the owners and/or a notice on their next registration renewal notice that states you must have this recall done or you will NOT be allowed to reregister your vehicle. Provide a copy of the receipt showing the recall has been completed along with your registration check.


----------



## cruze2011white (Feb 2, 2011)

The big downsize here for VW owners may be a decent drop in MPG compared to what they were getting.


----------



## jalaner (Dec 28, 2013)

The Nitrogen oxides emissions are controlled by the diesel exhaust fluid treatment of the exhaust. I wonder if the software reduced or cut off the addition of the DEF when not in EPA test mode. Aside from reducing DEF consumption would the TDI also perform better?


----------



## PanJet (Jun 18, 2013)

This could get extremely messy for VW. There is already talk of up to $18 billion (with a B) in fines - $37,500 for every car produced this way. Also, if the fix causes any significant change in mileage or performance, I smell a massive lawsuit from TDI owners. Also, it appears this may affect even their new TDI engine as it includes 2015 models.


----------



## PanJet (Jun 18, 2013)

jalaner said:


> The Nitrogen oxides emissions are controlled by the diesel exhaust fluid treatment of the exhaust. I wonder if the software reduced or cut off the addition of the DEF when not in EPA test mode. Aside from reducing DEF consumption would the TDI also perform better?


VW TDIs did not have DEF until recently (2015 for Jetta and Golf and maybe 2014 for Passat??). Prior to that (most of the cars in question) they relied on EGR to reduce NOx. A fix could certainly cause performance issues.


----------



## money_man (Feb 25, 2014)

Vw didn't use Def until around 2013. I could be wrong though.


----------



## money_man (Feb 25, 2014)

Be nice to see their mpg drop, tdi owners are on a high horse and need to be knocked down a little. They had to have cheated for the mpg gain as that is the number 1 reason people buy diesel.


----------



## ChevyGuy (Dec 13, 2014)

PanJet said:


> This article has more detail.



"EPA said VW must fix the vehicles, but didn’t formally order a recall."

Hmmm.


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

cruze2011white said:


> The big downsize here for VW owners may be a decent drop in MPG compared to what they were getting.


That would be the next fine against VW.


----------



## ChevyGuy (Dec 13, 2014)

jalaner said:


> The Nitrogen oxides emissions are controlled by the diesel exhaust fluid treatment of the exhaust. I wonder if the software reduced or cut off the addition of the DEF when not in EPA test mode. Aside from reducing DEF consumption would the TDI also perform better?


From what I've read, part of the NOx problem is the regen cycle. It's the high temperatures needed to clean too soot filter. I wonder if the defeat program just prevented a regen from happening in the lab. If true, then that means the car doesn't meet requirements - at all. I'm not sure what it would take to fix it. Switch to replaceable filters? Oh, that would go over real well.

And the problem isn't just in the US. Apparently they're discovering in Europe that their tests don't reflect real-world results: Are 'Clean Diesels' Actually Not Nearly As Clean As Claimed?

This could be the start of something bigger.


----------



## money_man (Feb 25, 2014)

My clean diesel is clean. It's only VW with a problem. Yeah that's it


----------



## Jim Frye (Mar 16, 2011)

More information on this issue and VW is not the only cheater on the emissions testing stage. And we all remember Hunday's EPA fake numbers. 

EPA: Volkswagen used ‘defeat device’ to illegally skirt air-pollution controls - The Washington Post


----------



## N8zdad (Mar 23, 2014)

I guess VW told the EPA to farfegnugen off!


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

Those sneaky Germans...

I wonder if their Audi TDIs were affected too.


----------



## ChevyGuy (Dec 13, 2014)

jblackburn said:


> I wonder if their Audi TDIs were affected too.


"Affected diesel models include the 2009-15 Volkswagen Jetta, 2009-15 Beetle, 2009-15 Golf, 2014-15 Passat and 2009-15 Audi A3."


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

ChevyGuy said:


> "Affected diesel models include the 2009-15 Volkswagen Jetta, 2009-15 Beetle, 2009-15 Golf, 2014-15 Passat and 2009-15 Audi A3."


Ah! I missed that. So the 2.0's only, I guess.

I guess I should have said the V6 and V10 models.


----------



## gulfcoastguy (Feb 21, 2013)

jblackburn said:


> Those sneaky Germans...
> 
> I wonder if their Audi TDIs were affected too.


Yes


----------



## oilburner (Jun 13, 2013)

N8zdad said:


> I guess VW told the EPA to farfegnugen off!


good one!


----------



## money_man (Feb 25, 2014)

So far until they check other models.


----------



## Tomko (Jun 1, 2013)

Das auspuff ich nicht tonen.


----------



## PanJet (Jun 18, 2013)

I'm rather baffled how in the world it went this long (at least six to seven years since 2009 model years were involved) without being noticed.

How many people are involved with the creation of a car? There had to be countless people that knew about it. After all, there had to be engineers who knew the engine couldn't meet emissions spec without cheating, software developers who created the cheating software, and of course the didn't do it on their own, so I'm sure there were multiple levels of management involved. It's not like one or two people decided, "Hey, let's just modify the entire operating specs of the car," and no one else in the company knew about it. You would think the whistle would have been blown long ago. For that many people to keep their mouths shut for so long is beyond me.


----------



## money_man (Feb 25, 2014)

If it doesn't meet the standards for it's model year, VW should have to buy it back. Then they should be crushed.


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

PanJet said:


> I'm rather baffled how in the world it went this long (at least six to seven years since 2009 model years were involved) without being noticed.


Since the VW and cruze both use the same size engine at 2.0L maybe someone at the EPA wondered why GM needed DEF to pass emissions and VW didn't. With the same size engine and fuel type you should expect similar efficiency and tail pipe emissions, no way around those physics.


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

ChevyGuy said:


> And the problem isn't just in the US. Apparently they're discovering in Europe that their tests don't reflect real-world results: Are 'Clean Diesels' Actually Not Nearly As Clean As Claimed?.


Even if the testing needs adjustment, the so called clean diesel is a half truth.... Clean compared to what? Sure diesel engines are much cleaner than they were previously but if you compare to a gas counter part such as a cruze 1.4T auto and diesel cruze, the tail pipe C02 emissions is slightly higher with the diesel(see the energy and environment tab on the link below). The Cruze ECO with the Manual trans is even lower yet. 

Compare Side-by-Side


----------



## ChevyGuy (Dec 13, 2014)

PanJet said:


> You would think the whistle would have been blown long ago. For that many people to keep their mouths shut for so long is beyond me.


First off, where was the car developed? If it was Germany, it might be a lot easier to keep quiet. If we fudged the regs in, say, the UK so we could sell our cars there - how many US people would care that we fudged it? Especially since exposing is likely to close the section they're working for? Wistleblower status only goes so far.


----------



## PanJet (Jun 18, 2013)

LOOOONNNNNGGG Thread over at TDI Club about it with a lot of ticked off owners. Apparently the 2016 TDI's have been delayed and speculated to be because of this. What a year for GM to be out of the small diesel market. Assuming the CTD is legitimate, GM has proven a small, powerful, and efficient diesel can meet US emissions. They probably could have sold a boatload this year if the TDI gets put on hold for a while.

Side note: A number of them seem to think this is why they're routinely getting higher than EPA rated mileage, but I think we've established the same with the CTD. It has more to do with the EPA's method for testing diesels tends to underrate the mileage vs real life.


----------



## PanJet (Jun 18, 2013)

ChevyGuy said:


> First off, where was the car developed? If it was Germany, it might be a lot easier to keep quiet. If we fudged the regs in, say, the UK so we could sell our cars there - how many US people would care that we fudged it? Especially since exposing is likely to close the section they're working for? Wistleblower status only goes so far.


I'm not so much thinking intentional whistleblower necessarily, but simply with a large number of people knowing about it, it seems it would be nearly impossible for it to not slip out somewhere even if accidentally. What about people who maybe worked for VW at some point during the cover up but no longer do from moving on somewhere else? There has to be at least a few in six years. They may have no loyalties to VW anymore. Also, what about the tuning market? TDIs have a huge tuning market. How did no one catch this software?


----------



## PanJet (Jun 18, 2013)

spacedout said:


> Even if the testing needs adjustment, the so called clean diesel is a half truth.... Clean compared to what? Sure diesel engines are much cleaner than they were previously but if you compare to a gas counter part such as a cruze 1.4T auto and diesel cruze, the tail pipe C02 emissions is slightly higher with the diesel(see the energy and environment tab on the link below). The Cruze ECO with the Manual trans is even lower yet.


That's not a true apples to apples comparison as the 2.0L TD and the 1.4T are not really in the same power class.. A gasoline engine which produced similar power to the diesel will use more fuel and emit more CO2/mile.


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

PanJet said:


> That's not a true apples to apples comparison as the 2.0L TD and the 1.4T are not really in the same power class.. A gasoline engine which produced similar power to the diesel will use more fuel and emit more CO2/mile.


*

FACT: the cruze diesel produces more emissions than the gas counter parts in the same class car. * I did not fudge the numbers, compare power output but just looking at overall emissions, which are higher with the diesel vs gas. This is the same for most other diesel cars/trucks compared to their gas counterparts. 

Like I said clean diesel is a half truth, its only cleaner than previous diesels.


----------



## Tomko (Jun 1, 2013)

One thing for sure is that VW won't take this lying down. They'll be sending plane loads full of lawyers to fight (explain) this. 

They're not going to roll over and take this like a man.


----------



## Tomko (Jun 1, 2013)

A comment I just read at the New York Times:

[h=3]Bill Krause[/h] Great Neck, NY 18 hours agoAs a former Volkswagen owner, I have to say that I am deeply shocked that they were able to make a piece of electronics that works.


----------



## money_man (Feb 25, 2014)

Hahaha. Every tdi owner I talk to is amazed that Chevrolet makes a diesel and they're excited about I because they say after about 3 years the vw just falls apart.


----------



## jalaner (Dec 28, 2013)

So VW started using the defeat system to avoid using DEF to control NOx emissions. This gave VW a huge advantage on the sales floor compared to the CTD. I always wondered how the TDI could be so clean without DEF. The logical fix would be for the regulators to require VW to retrofit the affected TDI models with a DEF system, a huge cost for VW, probably not even economically feasible. VWs' recent switch to DEF indicates they knew this is coming. This could actually increase the value of non DEF TDIs if they can't be retrofitted.


----------



## money_man (Feb 25, 2014)

There should be no taking it easy on vw. They knew there was a problem and choose to gamble, they lost. Now they should have to bring the cars up to the emissions standards of their model years. If it's not economically feasible than to bad. Leave north America or fix the vehicles and then ask for a bailout.


----------



## AWJustus22 (Feb 19, 2015)

Does anybody think we'll eventually see a buyback program for these cars if the "fix" is deemed to be too costly. Also, GM sure picked the worst MY year ever to put the CTD on hiatus.


----------



## money_man (Feb 25, 2014)

The vw guys are over there crying about losing fuel mileage. Yeah, that would suck to have to play by the same rules the other diesels have to. 

They all act like the tdi is the o ly diesel in north America. Sorry to break it to them but there's also the cruze diesel even if it doesn't come with a manual option. In all likelihood after the epa gets done with them our automatics will get better city mileage than their manuals. 

Hello btw tdi club, I know how you boys like to watch the diesel section of this Forum


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

money_man said:


> If it doesn't meet the standards for it's model year, VW should have to buy it back. Then they should be crushed.


And the buyback should be at MSRP or what the owner paid for it, whichever is higher. Don't forget sales taxes, titling, and registration either. For second or subsequent owners the money should go to the original owner and then the subsequent owner should get bluebook (prior to this being announced). This type of shenanigans should seriously hurt a car company.


----------



## money_man (Feb 25, 2014)

I agree. Maybe the Germans don't care about the air quality but we do. However I have no clue if this is going to come to Canada.


----------



## Tomko (Jun 1, 2013)

Having lived in both countries I am of the opinion that Germans care way more about their environment than Canadians.

However, that's no excuse for what we understand to have taken place.


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

spacedout said:


> Even if the testing needs adjustment, the so called clean diesel is a half truth.... Clean compared to what? Sure diesel engines are much cleaner than they were previously but if you compare to a gas counter part such as a cruze 1.4T auto and diesel cruze, the tail pipe C02 emissions is slightly higher with the diesel(see the energy and environment tab on the link below). The Cruze ECO with the Manual trans is even lower yet.
> 
> Compare Side-by-Side


Here's the numbers:









The gas model rankings don't surprise me, but I am somewhat surprised at the number of barrels of oil for the CTD being higher.


----------



## ChevyGuy (Dec 13, 2014)

PanJet said:


> I'm not so much thinking intentional whistleblower necessarily, but simply with a large number of people knowing about it, it seems it would be nearly impossible for it to not slip out somewhere even if accidentally.


I imagine there's a fair amount of "containerization" of knowledge in a company. Maybe only a few people even knew what the inch-thick EPA binder said. The rest had no idea this was illegal. Also, we don't know what it would have taken to write the software for this. Perhaps only a few code writers were in the know. The rest of the guys worked with just the modules. But it will be interesting to learn just how many did know.




Tomko said:


> One thing for sure is that VW won't take this lying down. They'll be sending plane loads full of lawyers to fight (explain) this.


Nit pick: Law licenses are only good in the state they're issued. They'll have to hire an equal number of lawyers on this side to do that actual work.




Tomko said:


> A comment I just read at the New York Times:*Bill Krause*
> 
> Great Neck, NY 18 hours agoAs a former Volkswagen owner, I have to say that I am deeply shocked that they were able to make a piece of electronics that works.


Wait, when did the Germans buy Lucas Electric?

That article does answer one question: "Experts in automotive technology said that disengaging the pollution controls on a diesel-fueled car can yield better performance, including increased torque and acceleration."

That makes sense now. From what I remember, NOx is formed from high combustion temperatures in air-breathing cars. So, either you have to lower the combustion temperature (such as using EGR), or clean it up afterwards. And yes, I can see lower combustion temperature affecting performance. Chevy chose to left the engine perform (and pollute) but clean up it with DEF.

How this will play out will be hard to tell. The emissions side of the EPA could be satisfied with a simple reflash so the car is always in "treadmill mode". But the ticked off owners and the consumer protection people will be a different story. It's hard to know how it will play out, but I wouldn't be surprised but what it turns into "take the money and run" by the government (massive fines, but VW will not have to make good. The cars will be off the road in a few years anyway though normal attrition and some senator will get to fund some clean air initiative.)

One of the big questions I have is how this will play out on the consumer end. How can the feds force the owners into whatever is decided? Individual states can do it via registration, but I'm not aware of anything the feds can do to get all states to do that. So, either the feds will get a new hammer, or this will be a half-hearted recall with only some states enforcing it.




AWJustus22 said:


> Does anybody think we'll eventually see a buyback program for these cars if the "fix" is deemed to be too costly. Also, GM sure picked the worst MY year ever to put the CTD on hiatus.


Maybe. But again the question is how to force the owners to give them up. As far as I know, all prior buybacks were based on consumers wanting to dump their lemons. But I don't think the bulk of the consumers are unhappy with their cars as-is. That may change after the emissions reflash.





obermd said:


> And the buyback should be at MSRP or what the owner paid for it, whichever is higher. Don't forget sales taxes, titling, and registration either. For second or subsequent owners the money should go to the original owner and then the subsequent owner should get bluebook (prior to this being announced). This type of shenanigans should seriously hurt a car company.


Won't happen. Way too complex. More likely a buyback at a higher price - perhaps what a used car dealer would sell them for. That way there would be enough cash to buy the replacement rather than just what consumer could sell it for.

But if you really wanted to get nasty: Free exchange. Drive in with a 2009, drive off in a 2015. That's how you get the consumers to play along.:laugh:

Edit: I wonder what the build cost is for one of those? That might be cheaper than a buy-back on a per car basis.


----------



## Jim Frye (Mar 16, 2011)

AWJustus22 said:


> Also, GM sure picked the worst MY year ever to put the CTD on hiatus.


Probably the same crew that decided a Cruze hatchback wasn't needed in the U.S. for 5 model years.


----------



## ChevyGuy (Dec 13, 2014)

AWJustus22 said:


> GM sure picked the worst MY year ever to put the CTD on hiatus.


I wonder how hard it would be for Chevy to crank up the production line for a few 2016 CTD classics? There's probably too much engineering to be done to get a 2016 G2 CTD out the door without a major fopa.


----------



## Blue Angel (Feb 18, 2011)

PanJet said:


> I'm rather baffled how in the world it went this long (at least six to seven years since 2009 model years were involved) without being noticed.


If, and that's a big IF, it ends up being administered at full strength, it might be an extremely rare case of the punishment fitting the crime... from The Detroit News article:

"The Environmental Protection Agency and California’s Air Resources Board said VW violated federal law and, in theory, *could face fines of up to $18 billion — $37,500 per vehicle — as well as criminal prosecution.* Both agencies issued notices of non-compliance to VW Friday, a step necessary before ordering a recall."

EPA: 482K VW diesel vehicles violated emissions rules


----------



## Tomko (Jun 1, 2013)

obermd said:


> Here's the numbers:
> 
> View attachment 164129
> 
> ...


This is interesting. But what it fails to address is the use of anything other than 87 octane in the gasoline models. The carbon footprint for higher octane fuels is similarly increased. Therefore in practical application the gasoline numbers will be elevated. 

There also remains the the issue of anyone using a tune that would similarly impact these ideal condition baseline numbers.


----------



## money_man (Feb 25, 2014)

Tomko said:


> Having lived in both countries I am of the opinion that Germans care way more about their environment than Canadians.
> 
> However, that's no excuse for what we understand to have taken place.


Whoa!!! Let's not say things we can't take back!


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

Good points Tom.


----------



## PanJet (Jun 18, 2013)

spacedout said:


> *
> 
> FACT: the cruze diesel produces more emissions than the gas counter parts in the same class car.*


False.

Cruze CTD to Cruze 1.4T to Verano (2.4 & 2.0T)

Cruze CTD to gas Cruze (1.4T & 1.8)

All same car with different engines - the only gas one that beats the CTD in CO2/mile is the 1.4T.




spacedout said:


> ...This is the same for most other diesel cars/trucks compared to their gas counterparts.


Also false.

VW Jetta (TDI vs. 2.0T vs. 1.8T)

(Granted, this may change, but at the moment, TDI beats both gas versions.

BMW 328d vs 328i

No contest, diesel wins hands down here.

Ram 1500 EcoDiesel vs 5.7 V8 vs. 3.6 V6

Diesel beats all gas configs.



Look, I'm not saying you're fudging anything, just that what you're comparing isn't exactly an apples-to-apples comparison. It's a well known fact that diesel emits more CO2/unit of fuel than gasoline, but diesel also has more energy per same unit, so the gains in efficiency typically outweigh the added pollution. Clearly, the many variables (power, engine efficiency, transmission efficiency, etc.) make it very difficult to compare on a per mile basis, but to simply say diesel pollutes more CO2/mile compared to gasoline is not completely correct without knowing all the facts involved.


----------



## PanJet (Jun 18, 2013)

obermd said:


> ...I am somewhat surprised at the number of barrels of oil for the CTD being higher.


At least the way the refineries are configured in the US, more gasoline is extracted per barrel of oil than diesel fuel.



jalaner said:


> So VW started using the defeat system to avoid using DEF to control NOx emissions. This gave VW a huge advantage on the sales floor compared to the CTD. I always wondered how the TDI could be so clean without DEF. The logical fix would be for the regulators to require VW to retrofit the affected TDI models with a DEF system, a huge cost for VW, probably not even economically feasible. VWs' recent switch to DEF indicates they knew this is coming. This could actually increase the value of non DEF TDIs if they can't be retrofitted.


2015 TDI models are include, and all 2015s have DEF, so it's not just a lack of DEF, although the DEF equipped models might be easier to remedy.


----------



## GotDiesel? (Sep 9, 2013)

Here for a good laugh ....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKef1JFpiCA


----------



## Jim Frye (Mar 16, 2011)

It's beginning to look like nearly every car forum on the web has at least one thread about this news. Maybe bad PR is better than no PR, but I'll doubt it.


----------



## blk88verde (Apr 30, 2011)

Consumers Union pulled their recommendation for the TDI Consumer Reports yanks VW recommendations


----------



## money_man (Feb 25, 2014)

Good. It should be like this for any company that tries this bullshit


----------



## ChevyGuy (Dec 13, 2014)

Jim Frye said:


> Maybe bad PR is better than no PR, but I'll doubt it.


I doubt it too. I suspect no one has painted a real advantage of diesel for the average consumer. The distance between fill-ups doesn't seem to be a problem for most people. So I don't see a positive outcome from this.





blk88verde said:


> Consumers Union pulled their recommendation for the TDI Consumer Reports yanks VW recommendations


"The magazine says the recommendations will remain suspended until it can perform tests on the cars after recall repairs."

Smart move. It's not just political - they're going to re-assess the car's standing from the consumer's point of view.


----------



## gulfcoastguy (Feb 21, 2013)

Well it's not like several dozen people died from a faulty VW ignition switch.


----------



## Tomko (Jun 1, 2013)

Pollution poisons and kills. That's why Nixon gave us the EPA.


----------



## money_man (Feb 25, 2014)

gulfcoastguy said:


> Well it's not like several dozen people died from a faulty VW ignition switch.


Lol nah, instead they'll just give our children asthma.


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

gulfcoastguy said:


> Well it's not like several dozen people died from a faulty VW ignition switch.


Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) are the main component of highly acidic rains that have been killing forests throughout the Northern Hemisphere, including those in New England and the Black Forest in Germany. NOx is also a major component in the brown cloud smog layers that sit over many large cities, contributing to asthma and other respiratory ailments in people, which leads to increased healthcare costs. This is why reducing NOx emissions is important. VW's "defeat software" (EPA legal term) increases NOx emissions so they are an order of magnitude higher than allowed, even under the initial NOx emissions standards from the 1970s after the Clean Air Act was passed.


----------



## gulfcoastguy (Feb 21, 2013)

Actually Sulfer Dioxides are the main cause of acid rain. Nitrogen oxides are blamed for smog. By coincidence diesel fuel is permitted to have 15ppm of sulfur while gasoline is permitted to have 50 ppm.


----------



## ChevyGuy (Dec 13, 2014)

gulfcoastguy said:


> Well it's not like several dozen people died from a faulty VW ignition switch.


Oh, I'm sure someone will come up with some math that shows the excess smog created by those half million cars attributed to x number of deaths. I'm not saying that I relive it, but I'll bet the "science" is there.


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

gulfcoastguy said:


> Actually Sulfer Dioxides are the main cause of acid rain. Nitrogen oxides are blamed for smog. By coincidence diesel fuel is permitted to have 15ppm of sulfur while gasoline is permitted to have 50 ppm.


That's what I thought until I started researching this yesterday. Turns out it takes both sulfur and nitrogen oxides to combine to create acid rain. If gasoline is permitted to have 50 ppm of sulfur oxides we need to reduce those as well.


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

obermd said:


> That's what I thought until I started researching this yesterday. Turns out it takes both sulfur and nitrogen oxides to combine to create acid rain. If gasoline is permitted to have 50 ppm of sulfur oxides we need to reduce those as well.


Let me explain further about reducing the sulfur oxides limit for gas powered cars:

If a vehicle is being sold to the general public (base this on the commercials and actual sales), then it should have exactly the same tailpipe emissions standards as any other vehicle. This applies to gas, diesel, electric, hydrogen, cars, light & medium trucks, SUVs, crossovers, etc. I know that this sounds extreme, but the simple fact is that in some areas SUVs and trucks outnumber cars on the roads.


----------



## jalaner (Dec 28, 2013)

The CTD does produce slightly more CO2/mile than the 1.4 but it is much more efficient per unit of power with 2x the torque and more total hp than the gasser. So the CTD owner gets V6 torque while producing 4 cylinder CO2 emissions and a better driving experience. Much better at high speed and on hilly interstates. NOx +H2O produces (HNO3) nitric acid, SO2 + H2O produces (H2SO4) sulfuric acid. Acid rain can contain either or both.


----------



## money_man (Feb 25, 2014)

Can't base it against the 1.4T anyway. How does the 2.0TD stack up against a 2.0L of the same year.


----------



## PanJet (Jun 18, 2013)

ChevyGuy said:


> Oh, I'm sure someone will come up with some math that shows the excess smog created by those half million cars attributed to x number of deaths. I'm not saying that I relive it, but I'll bet the "science" is there.


Maybe if all 500,000 affected cars were running in the same small geographic area, there might be a measurable difference in air quality as a result. I'm guessing anyone would have a hard time proving 500,000 small, efficient cars gradually hitting the road over 6-7 and spread out across the entire country would have any measurable effect on air quality or health.

For that reason, quite frankly, I think the EPA would do best to leave these cars alone, especially the non-DEF equipped ones which are likely to be harder to remedy. Forcing a recall to fix half a million cars which are running much cleaner than millions of cars still on the road from before 2007 and will likely cause efficiency and performance losses at no fault of the consumer is irresponsible for almost zero actual benefit. Fine the crap out of VW for skirting the rules, but leave the existing owners alone.


----------



## money_man (Feb 25, 2014)

Nope. Doesn't work. Why should vw be allowed to have vehicles on the road that don't adhere to the emission standards of their model years. That's not even reasonable. If the other manufacturers are forced to adhere to the standards than so should vw.


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

PanJet said:


> For that reason, quite frankly, I think the EPA would do best to leave these cars alone, especially the non-DEF equipped ones which are likely to be harder to remedy. Forcing a recall to fix half a million cars which are running much cleaner than millions of cars still on the road from before 2007 and will likely cause efficiency and performance losses at no fault of the consumer is irresponsible for almost zero actual benefit. Fine the crap out of VW for skirting the rules, but leave the existing owners alone.


We're not talking a mechanical change here. We're talking about removing a small amount of software code that turns the full emissions system on when the car detects that only the drive wheels are spinning. Personally I think this deserves the $18 Billion fine and a stop sale on all VW diesels, regardless of model, until each model can be tested to verify it doesn't have this code.

And before anyone calls me a liberal, my position is 100% selfish - I don't want to breathe the crap.


----------



## PanJet (Jun 18, 2013)

money_man said:


> Can't base it against the 1.4T anyway. How does the 2.0TD stack up against a 2.0L of the same year.


GM doesn't currently have a non-turbo 2.0L gas engine, but the CTD beats just about every other 4-cyl gas engine GM makes with the exception of the 1.4T and the 1.2L in the Spark. Since diesels have far more torque, but usually less horsepower than a similar sized gas engine, it is difficult to compare one-to-one, but the 2.4L non-turbo in the Buick Verano would probably be the best comparison to the CTD all things considered. The 1.4T in the Cruze has less horsepower and far less torque than the diesel, and the gasonline 2.0T in the Verano Turbo has similar torque to the diesel, but also far more horsepower. The 2.4L non-turbo has more horsepower than the diesel, but a lot less torque, so they're somewhat in the same playing field. The CTD has about 15% lower CO2/mile emissions than the 2.4L Verano.

I posted several comparisons a couple pages back about 2/3 down the page (click on "Energy and Environment" tabs in those links to see CO2/mile comparisons).


----------



## PanJet (Jun 18, 2013)

obermd said:


> We're not talking a mechanical change here. We're talking about removing a small amount of software code that turns the full emissions system on when the car detects that only the drive wheels are spinning. Personally I think this deserves the $18 Billion fine and a stop sale on all VW diesels, regardless of model, until each model can be tested to verify it doesn't have this code.
> 
> And before anyone calls me a liberal, my position is 100% selfish - I don't want to breathe the crap.


I realize it's just a software change, but clearly bringing the cars in compliance with EPA regs will likely have efficiency, performance, and possibly reliability losses if the current systems can't handle the change well, otherwise why would VW have skirted the rules to begin with? For the newer DEF equipped models, it might be as simple as pumping more DEF into the exhaust stream - no big deal, DEF is cheap. However, for the majority of these cars, which do not have DEF systems, bringing them in compliance without adding DEF systems may cause significant changes. Why should the consumers take the penalty for those losses, which is not their fault, for a negligible improvment in pollution? Half a million small cars polluting more than current regs but still less than former regs will have zero effect on you, especially when you consider the millions of pre-2007 cars and trucks on the road polluting many times worse than this relatively small number of cars. Keep in mind that some changes may even have a net negative effect on the environment overall. Fixing NOx without DEF requires using more cooled EGR, which make the engine less efficient and causes higher fuel burn and more soot.

Stop sale of VW diesels - absolutely; punitive fines for VW - most definiately; fix those that can be fixed with only minor (if any) drivability changes - certainly, but force many to suck up efficiency, performance, and reliability losses for nearly zero effect on the environment - no.


----------



## Jim Frye (Mar 16, 2011)

Why did VW skirt the rules and cheat with software? Isn't it obvious? They couldn't/wouldn't profitably engineer a system that met the standards, so they cheated to bring to market vehicles to sell that weren't up to snuff. Even if they killed or sickened no one, they were wrong. If they could have cheated on crash testing, would that have been OK? Regardless of who made the rules, that's what you have to play with, or don't play. If you break the rules, expect to pay the price for your disregard (except for some sports figures). It's too bad that they got away with it for so long (sound familiar?) that now it's an almost insurmountable problem.


----------



## PanJet (Jun 18, 2013)

money_man said:


> Nope. Doesn't work. Why should vw be allowed to have vehicles on the road that don't adhere to the emission standards of their model years. That's not even reasonable. If the other manufacturers are forced to adhere to the standards than so should vw.


They're not VW's cars anymore. That's where punitive fines and higher scruteny come in. Make VW pay for skirting the rules and selling non-compliant cars, and make it hurt enough that they won't do it again. Making the owners pay (through efficiency, power, and reliability losses if the fix can't be accomplished without such losses) for something that is not their fault nor did they know anything about for what I would guess is almost zero effect on the overall environment is pointless. We're not talking about a defect that makes the car unsafe that needs to be fixed, we're talking a small a relatively small amount of additional pollution in the form of NOx that quite likely isn't hurting anyone.



Jim Frye said:


> Why did VW skirt the rules and cheat with software? Isn't it obvious? They couldn't/wouldn't engineer a system that met the standards, so they cheated to bring to market vehicles to sell that weren't up to snuff. Even if they killed or sickened no one, they were wrong. If they could have cheated on crash testing, would that have been OK? Regardless of who made the rules, that's what you have to play with, or don't play. If you break the rules, expect to pay the price for your disregard (except for some sports figures). It's too bad that they got away with it for so long (sound familiar?) that now it's an almost insurmountable problem.


Who's saying they (VW) shouldn't pay? I'm saying don't make the owner's of the existing cars pay for it if it results in losses to them. Stick it to VW, but don't punish the owners. We aren't talking about a car that has bad seatbelts or catches fire or stops or accelerates unintentionally, we're talking about a relatively small amount of added pollution in the form of NOx at levels which is still lower than that of pre-2007 cars. Heck, the "fix" might actually have a net negative on environmental factors if they end up burning more fuel (more fuel burned = more CO2 emitted).


----------



## PanJet (Jun 18, 2013)

Jim Frye said:


> They couldn't/wouldn't engineer a system that met the standards, so they cheated to bring to market vehicles to sell that weren't up to snuff.


I'm going to assume it is "wouldn't." Clearly a diesel that meets standards and still performs is quite possible. Several other companies including GM have proved that. The CTD is more powerful, more efficient, and as far as we know cleaner running than the TDI's (unless we find out GM cheated too). VW probably just didn't want to deal with the cost of creating the proper functioning systems, hence why their TDI's are so affordable compared to GM's diesel.


----------



## ChevyGuy (Dec 13, 2014)

PanJet said:


> but force many to suck up efficiency, performance, and reliability losses for nearly zero effect on the environment - no.


Why allow them to enjoy an illegal benefit? Force VW to fix them all - with a buyout option for owners who don't want to keep their degraded car. The owner will be no worse off then if VW played right from the start. Either way, they'll have the car they should have gotten.

It's also a penalty that VW can't negotiate down or bribe their way into a reduction.


----------



## ChevyGuy (Dec 13, 2014)

PanJet said:


> Make VW pay for skirting the rules and selling non-compliant cars, and make it hurt enough that they won't do it again.


How much do you want to bet that whoever made that decision isn't even with WV now? That would have been 6-7 years ago. Will that person suffer? If not, then there's no promise that "they" won't do it again. Corporations are made of people. If you don't make the right people suffer, if you let them keep their bonus and promotions for a "job well done", then we can expect to see this again. "I'll benefit and it won't blow up on my watch. It will be the next guy's problem."


----------



## Jim Frye (Mar 16, 2011)

*VW Speaks...*

Volkswagen CEO apologizes, orders external probe on emissions allegations


----------



## Jim Frye (Mar 16, 2011)

ChevyGuy said:


> How much do you want to bet that whoever made that decision isn't even with WV now? That would have been 6-7 years ago.


That's the point here. VW got away with the cheat in the beginning and then carried it forward for so many years. Got hooked on the cheat, and seemingly didn't even try to fix it with better engineering.


----------



## PanJet (Jun 18, 2013)

ChevyGuy said:


> Why allow them to enjoy an illegal benefit? Force VW to fix them all - with a buyout option for owners who don't want to keep their degraded car. The owner will be no worse off then if VW played right from the start. Either way, they'll have the car they should have gotten.
> 
> It's also a penalty that VW can't negotiate down or bribe their way into a reduction.


The buyers did nothing illegal, and what benefit? A car that functions as advertised? You're talking as if they made off with some sort of sweet deal. By the numbers, the CTD is more powerful and more efficient than a TDI, and it is emissions compliant, so it's not as if TDI owners are getting some sort of sweet deal. They're the ones getting screwed by VW. They purchased the cars with the good faith that it performs the way VW advertised and meets all regulations. If VW didn't cheat and the cars had, let's hyptothetically say 10% lower mileage and less power, then perhaps many TDI owners would not have purchased. It's not their fault. So no, it's not the car they "should have gotten" if they end up with a crappier car. They "should have gotten" a car that performs well _and_ met all regulations. The two are clearly not mututally exclusive.

If the government forced a buyout option for degraded cars, that's just fine, because it doesn't force the owners to suck up performance losses. So far, however, all we've heard is that VW will be forced to "recall" all affected cars and bring them in compliance. If no buyout option is available, that just means owners will be forced to suck up any performance losses for something that is not their fault.


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

PanJet said:


> I realize it's just a software change, but clearly bringing the cars in compliance with EPA regs will likely have efficiency, performance, and possibly reliability losses if the current systems can't handle the change well, otherwise why would VW have skirted the rules to begin with? For the newer DEF equipped models, it might be as simple as pumping more DEF into the exhaust stream - no big deal, DEF is cheap. However, for the majority of these cars, which do not have DEF systems, bringing them in compliance without adding DEF systems may cause significant changes. Why should the consumers take the penalty for those losses, which is not their fault, for a negligible improvment in pollution? Half a million small cars polluting more than current regs but still less than former regs will have zero effect on you, especially when you consider the millions of pre-2007 cars and trucks on the road polluting many times worse than this relatively small number of cars. Keep in mind that some changes may even have a net negative effect on the environment overall. Fixing NOx without DEF requires using more cooled EGR, which make the engine less efficient and causes higher fuel burn and more soot.
> 
> Stop sale of VW diesels - absolutely; punitive fines for VW - most definiately; fix those that can be fixed with only minor (if any) drivability changes - certainly, but force many to suck up efficiency, performance, and reliability losses for nearly zero effect on the environment - no.


The 2011-2013 LT and LTZ automatics were just recalled for this very reason, and GM didn't do it on purpose that anyone can tell. Why should VW be treated differently? If fixing the software reduces the combined fuel economy numbers then VW should also be on the hook to reimburse the original owners for the cost of diesel fuel for the difference, similar to what Hyundai/Kia had to do.


----------



## PanJet (Jun 18, 2013)

obermd said:


> The 2011-2013 LT and LTZ automatics were just recalled for this very reason, and GM didn't do it on purpose that anyone can tell. Why should VW be treated differently?


Did the 2011-2013 LT and LTZ's suffer appreciable performance losses (mileage, power, reliability)? If so, then the same should apply. The owners should be compensated for any losses absorbed from a car that does not perform as originally advertised. The only difference here is since VW did it on purpose, they need to be hit with punitive fines.

Maybe the TDI can be fixed with no performance losses. If that's the case, this whole discussion is moot, and happy day! Fine VW, apply the fix, and move on, but that remains to be seen.


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

PanJet said:


> The buyers did nothing illegal, and what benefit? A car that functions as advertised? You're talking as if they made off with some sort of sweet deal. By the numbers, the CTD is more powerful and more efficient than a TDI, and it is emissions compliant, so it's not as if TDI owners are getting some sort of sweet deal. They're the ones getting screwed by VW. They purchased the cars with the good faith that it performs the way VW advertised and meets all regulations. If VW didn't cheat and the cars had, let's hyptothetically say 10% lower mileage and less power, then perhaps many TDI owners would not have purchased. It's not their fault. So no, it's not the car they "should have gotten" if they end up with a crappier car. They "should have gotten" a car that performs well _and_ met all regulations. The two are clearly not mututally exclusive.
> 
> If the government forced a buyout option for degraded cars, that's just fine, because it doesn't force the owners to suck up performance losses. So far, however, all we've heard is that VW will be forced to "recall" all affected cars and bring them in compliance. If no buyout option is available, that just means owners will be forced to suck up any performance losses for something that is not their fault.


Except that the buyers didn't get a car that functioned as advertised. I see a class action lawsuit against VW coming out of this. As to your assertion that the buyer's shouldn't be punished, while I agree with you the fact of the matter is that the car you purchased doesn't meet the road standards at the time of manufacture. VW should be on the hook to "make whole" anyone who is driving one of these vehicles and is the original purchaser.


----------



## Tomko (Jun 1, 2013)

I predict that one outcome of this will be a wealth transfer to lawyers.


----------



## PanJet (Jun 18, 2013)

obermd said:


> And the buyback should be at MSRP or what the owner paid for it, whichever is higher. Don't forget sales taxes, titling, and registration either. For second or subsequent owners the money should go to the original owner and then the subsequent owner should get bluebook (prior to this being announced). This type of shenanigans should seriously hurt a car company.


I realize this is from a few pages back, but I just noticed it.

I don't think the buyback should be that extensive. As you said, the owner's should be "made whole," but there is no need for individual owners to profit from this. Plenty of owners got many miles of good use out of these cars, and they didn't lose anything up until now, so either compensate accordingly for loss of performance and value as a result of the cheat, or buy back the car with an adjustment for use of the car. If you've already put 150,000 miles on a 2009 TDI, you shouldn't get your full $2x,xxx MSRP back. The punitive part to VW should come in form of fines to the EPA.


----------



## ChevyGuy (Dec 13, 2014)

PanJet said:


> The buyers did nothing illegal, and what benefit? A car that functions as advertised?


They have a car that performs by cheating and continues to cheat.




PanJet said:


> If the government forced a buyout option for degraded cars, that's just fine, because it doesn't force the owners to suck up performance losses.


Which was part of my proposal.


----------



## ChevyGuy (Dec 13, 2014)

PanJet said:


> I don't think the buyback should be that extensive. As you said, the owner's should be "made whole," but there is no need for individual owners to profit from this. Plenty of owners got many miles of good use out of these cars, and they didn't lose anything up until now, so either compensate accordingly for loss of performance and value as a result of the cheat, or buy back the car with an adjustment for use of the car.


I think they owners should get the same price as they would have paid if they had just bought the car from a used car dealer pre-recall. That should be sufficient funds to buy an exact replacement. (Or as close to "exact" as you can get.)

So someone who just bought the car last week would make no profit, or take any loss. That's still better than most situations where owners only get wholesale or trade-in price which falls short of replacement cost.


----------



## PanJet (Jun 18, 2013)

ChevyGuy said:


> I think they owners should get the same price as they would have paid if they had just bought the car from a used car dealer pre-recall. That should be sufficient funds to buy an exact replacement. (Or as close to "exact" as you can get.)
> 
> So someone who just bought the car last week would make no profit, or take any loss. That's still better than most situations where owners only get wholesale or trade-in price which falls short of replacement cost.


Agreed. This is pretty much what I was proposing. I was disagreeing with the proposal to buy back all cars at MSRP + taxes and fees unless you just bought a brand new 2015 recently.


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

Anyone seen a VW diesel commercial since this news broke?


----------



## money_man (Feb 25, 2014)

I'm sorry man. I can't agree that we should just leave the vehicles be. They need a software fix, if they lose mpg, reliability, or performance than so be it. We all need to play by the same rules.


----------



## Jim Frye (Mar 16, 2011)

obermd said:


> Anyone seen a VW diesel commercial since this new broke?


Same one three times on ABC. Extolling the wonders of their infotainment support. Nothing about diesels though.


----------



## money_man (Feb 25, 2014)

It's hurting domestic sales when imports are allowed to skirt the rules which may allow them to be more reliable.


----------



## gulfcoastguy (Feb 21, 2013)

PanJet said:


> I'm going to assume it is "wouldn't." Clearly a diesel that meets standards and still performs is quite possible. Several other companies including GM have proved that. The CTD is more powerful, more efficient, and as far as we know cleaner running than the TDI's (unless we find out GM cheated too). VW probably just didn't want to deal with the cost of creating the proper functioning systems, hence why their TDI's are so affordable compared to GM's diesel.


From what I remember circa 2006 VW wanted to use SCR but the EPA wouldn't agree to it because 1) they considered it an untried tech 2) they wanted the cars to stop dead in their tracks if they allowed it and the DEF tank ran empty rather than allow a limp mode. So VW came up with a way that seemed, to on paper, satisfy the EPA without requiring regular servicing. Remember that these cars existed for model years 2009 through 2013 before the diesel Cruze was offered and in essence paved the way for the diesel Cruze. VW did use SCR in their V 6 diesel models which were considered trucks and treated differently by the EPA.


----------



## Robby (Mar 1, 2013)

I was reading Jalopnik this evening…..VW has put a stop sale on all remaining 2015 vehicles with the 2.0 diesel.
The U.S. E.P.A. has pulled VW's Certificate of Conformity for all 2016 2.0 diesels and has ordered a stop sale on any in this country as well.

All VW diesel commercials have been pulled.
Bad news for VW…..Diesel sales account for almost 25% of VW sales.

Rob


----------



## Merc6 (Jun 8, 2013)

between the different companies, how many passenger Diesel cars are out there on the market?


----------



## money_man (Feb 25, 2014)

Around 8-10. 

Ctd
VW jetta
VW golf
VW beetle
Passat
Mercedes something
BMW something

I'm probably missing one or two.


----------



## Tomko (Jun 1, 2013)

They're all listed here. Just scroll down. 

August 2015 Dashboard - HybridCars.com

But only VW and Chevy offer economy cars with diesel. All others are upmarket vehicles.


----------



## GotDiesel? (Sep 9, 2013)

Why ??? Big Brother Doesn't ......


----------



## GotDiesel? (Sep 9, 2013)

Darn....Looks like I'm going to have to buy another TDI Cruze ...


----------



## money_man (Feb 25, 2014)

GotDiesel? said:


> Darn....Looks like I'm going to have to buy another TDI Cruze ...


That sounds like a win for you!!


----------



## vwgtiglx (Jun 13, 2013)

Robby said:


> I was reading Jalopnik this evening…..VW has put a stop sale on all remaining 2015 vehicles with the 2.0 diesel.
> The U.S. E.P.A. has pulled VW's Certificate of Conformity for all 2016 2.0 diesels and has ordered a stop sale on any in this country as well.
> 
> All VW diesel commercials have been pulled.
> ...


ABC was still running VW TDI ads during the Packers/Seahawks game on Sunday night football.


----------



## Jim Frye (Mar 16, 2011)

*Piling on VW...*

VW's Stock Plunges After Diesel Recall, With More Woes to Come - NBC News

Volkswagen Denied Deception to E.P.A. for Nearly a Year
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/22/business/international/volkswagen-shares-recall.html?_r=0


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

vwgtiglx said:


> ABC was still running VW TDI ads during the Packers/Seahawks game on Sunday night football.


NBC? Sounds like NBC sports is getting their feed the same way NBC news does - two to three days late.


----------



## ChevyGuy (Dec 13, 2014)

Jim Frye said:


> VW's Stock Plunges After Diesel Recall, With More Woes to Come - NBC News


"Significantly, the EPA last Friday described the VW recall as an "opening salvo" into a broader investigation,"

Which makes me wonder what's in the wings. I don't think it's uncommon to "optimize to the test" - meaning the car may exceed the standard if subjected to something outside of the standard testing. So the question is how far is "too far" between legitimate tuning and a defeat device?

We could see the EPA go overboard and charge every company whose cars exceed the standard in ANY testing.


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

ChevyGuy said:


> "Significantly, the EPA last Friday described the VW recall as an "opening salvo" into a broader investigation,"
> 
> Which makes me wonder what's in the wings. I don't think it's uncommon to "optimize to the test" - meaning the car may exceed the standard if subjected to something outside of the standard testing. So the question is how far is "too far" between legitimate tuning and a defeat device?
> 
> We could see the EPA go overboard and charge every company whose cars exceed the standard in ANY testing.


The EPA's comment makes me wonder if this is why Chevy issued the emissions recall for the 2011-2013 1.4T Cruze. GM trying to get ahead of this issue?


----------



## ChevyGuy (Dec 13, 2014)

obermd said:


> The EPA's comment makes me wonder if this is why Chevy issued the emissions recall for the 2011-2013 1.4T Cruze. GM trying to get ahead of this issue?


Maybe. Of course, GM could have simply cooperated on a valid oversight.


----------



## NickD (Dec 10, 2011)

Ha, too long to read all these posts, but under the new Wisconsin emission law, as long as the check engine light is off, the vehicle is fine.

I assume whatever VW did, keeps the check engine light off.


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

ChevyGuy said:


> Maybe. Of course, GM could have simply cooperated on a valid oversight.


This is my assumption as well since the EPA didn't make a big deal of this.


----------



## PanJet (Jun 18, 2013)

Granted, this is speculation on the writer's part, but this Bloomberg article is suggesting there may be criminal charges involved. 

I'd be surprised if there were, myself, but who knows.


----------



## money_man (Feb 25, 2014)

Anyone that knowingly did this should be charged. I break the law, I go to jail. How come these people shouldn't.


----------



## ChevyGuy (Dec 13, 2014)

PanJet said:


> but this Bloomberg article is suggesting there may be criminal charges involved.


How does that work? Especially if the people involved are living in Germany? As so much about who is at fault will have to come from the company's own email system. Who know if we'll get all of that? (Besides, even I know when it's unwise to use email and use the phone instead.)

Elsewhere: "Volkswagen was sued Friday in a federal court in San Francisco in a consumer class-action case alleging that the defeat device has caused vehicles to lose value." And so it begins.


----------



## BowtieGuy (Jan 4, 2013)

The fix will surely alter the affected vehicles performance, or fuel economy, or both. That stands to leave a LOT of unhappy diesel customers.
I wonder what kind of effect this will have on US opinions of diesel vehicles in general. VW has a long reputation of diesel alternatives in the US. Will such a blow to one of the most popular diesel manufacturers in the US start a downward trend to the recent increased interest and popularity of diesel vehicles we are currently seeing here in the US?


----------



## Robby (Mar 1, 2013)

I think subverting the law by creating a program specifically designed to sidestep and mislead the certification process that all manufacturers must abide by does indeed call for criminal charges.

It was done with intent and evidently given the go ahead by individuals high up in the pecking order.

This is not a 'Whoops, we made a error'……..it is a 'Whoops, you caught us'…….

Rob


----------



## Tomko (Jun 1, 2013)

money_man said:


> Anyone that knowingly did this should be charged. I break the law, I go to jail. How come these people shouldn't.


They have lawyers. Lawyers who will argue that there's a difference between being guilty in fact; and, guilty in law. 

A lawyer can can be your best friend or worst enemy. 'Keep your friends close - and your enemies closer.'


----------



## Jim Frye (Mar 16, 2011)

PanJet said:


> Granted, this is speculation on the writer's part, but this Bloomberg article is suggesting there may be criminal charges involved.
> 
> I'd be surprised if there were, myself, but who knows.


I think that speculation is about the imminent civil class action suits being put together, especially in California, and possible criminal governmental false advertising suit(s) in the different countries affected. Falsely declaring the mileage, and the emissions, in marketing to the public and to the various governmental agencies will get you the Hyundai effect.


----------



## Jim Frye (Mar 16, 2011)

obermd said:


> This is my assumption as well since the EPA didn't make a big deal of this.


And Chevy probably didn't deny anything in writing for a year to the EPA like VW did. Quite likely why the EPA announced this so vehemently. Fool me once, etc.


----------



## gulfcoastguy (Feb 21, 2013)

All a class action lawsuit will accomplish to to make a lot of lawyers wealthy while giving the owners a free $20.00 coupon good for their next VW product. On a side note will they start doing similar on road testing on Cruze diesels and diesel pick ups? The EPA needs a lot of cash to remediate a certain river in Colorado it seems.


----------



## Jim Frye (Mar 16, 2011)

*VW & The State of Denial*

Here's more on what appears to be facing VW's cheating. 

VW rocked by emissions scandal as prosecutors come calling | Fox News


----------



## gulfcoastguy (Feb 21, 2013)

Jim Frye said:


> Here's more on what appears to be facing VW's cheating.
> 
> VW rocked by emissions scandal as prosecutors come calling | Fox News


And based on the Fox article it seems that my suspicions are possibly correct. Obama smells blood in the water. He and his green supporters hate diesel almost as much as coal and nuclear power. They are going for a hat trick, every diesel power vehicle will end up taking new on the road tests that they were not designed for (cheat codes or not). I would say that that new diesel powered Colorado or Mazda 6 is highly unlikely now.


----------



## zen_ (Mar 15, 2015)

It would seem like the perfect opportunity for GM to throw a manual in the TDI Cruze and make some _haha VW_ commercials...provided GM isn't cheating too. Concerning VW though, it's really quite mind boggling that they threw so much money into changing the attitude about diesel in America, only to be doing this all along. How could they have thought they would never get caught?


----------



## gulfcoastguy (Feb 21, 2013)

Yes Zen, provided that they aren't cheating ,and provided that the new on the road tests aren't more rigorous that the test that the diesel Cruze was designed to pass, and provided that Obama doesn't instruct them to test and to retest until he gets the results that he likes. Oh and GM needs to throw in a hatchback, a wagon, and a manual.


----------



## ChevyGuy (Dec 13, 2014)

Jim Frye said:


> Here's more on what appears to be facing VW's cheating.
> 
> VW rocked by emissions scandal as prosecutors come calling | Fox News



"The Obama administration, meanwhile, announced it is expanding its investigation of what it's calling "defeat devices" in diesel vehicles, to make sure other manufacturers aren't using similar schemes to thwart federal Clean Air laws."

This could get ugly. Does alternate testing finding an engine that produce smog in excess of standards proof of a illegal defeat device, or is it simply pushing the engine harder than the standardized test? There plenty of room for people with an agenda. 

As for GM, I've always been amused by two contradictory proverbs:
American: "The squeaky wheel gets the grease."

Japanese: "The nail that sticks out gets hammered down."​
GM doesn't want to be the nail that sticks out before the EPA has concluded they're OK.


----------



## PanJet (Jun 18, 2013)

gulfcoastguy said:


> Yes Zen, provided that they aren't cheating ,and provided that the new on the road tests aren't more rigorous that the test that the diesel Cruze was designed to pass, and provided that Obama doesn't instruct them to test and to retest until he gets the results that he likes. Oh and GM needs to throw in a hatchback, a wagon, and a manual.


They can't change the rules in the middle of the game. Assuming GM didn't cheat, so long as they pass the tests they were supposed to pass legitimately, then I don't see there being any issue. The EPA can't move the goalposts and fail them now if they passed legitimately before.


----------



## PanJet (Jun 18, 2013)

gulfcoastguy said:


> And based on the Fox article it seems that my suspicions are possibly correct. Obama smells blood in the water. He and his green supporters hate diesel almost as much as coal and nuclear power. They are going for a hat trick, every diesel power vehicle will end up taking new on the road tests that they were not designed for (cheat codes or not). I would say that that new diesel powered Colorado or Mazda 6 is highly unlikely now.


Do you have any sources to back any of this up? 

If GM didn't cheat, the Colorado is already coming. The Mazda 6 may be a different story, but that's because, unlike VW, they decided not to cheat in order to pass EPA tests, and so far they apparently have decided that the investment necessary to bring a compliant diesel to the U.S. is not their top priority.

It's not as if compliant diesels aren't possible, VW just decided it was easier to cheat than to be compliant. There are millions of compliant diesels on the road and will continue to be. It may not always be economical in small passenger cars, but diesel isn't going anywhere.


----------



## Jim Frye (Mar 16, 2011)

*How VW Got Caught*

Posting this here, as well as in the diesel thread, so it's not missed by the non-diesel folks. It explains a lot on what led to the incrimination. 

It Took E.P.A. Pressure to Get VW to Admit Fault

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/22/business/it-took-epa-pressure-to-get-vw-to-admit-fault.html?_r=0


----------



## gulfcoastguy (Feb 21, 2013)

Well Panjet lets just wait 6 months and see.


----------



## gulfcoastguy (Feb 21, 2013)

PanJet said:


> They can't change the rules in the middle of the game. Assuming GM didn't cheat, so long as they pass the tests they were supposed to pass legitimately, then I don't see there being any issue. The EPA can't move the goalposts and fail them now if they passed legitimately before.


You think they can't move the goal posts? Like I said earlier let's wait 6 months and see.


----------



## ChevyGuy (Dec 13, 2014)

PanJet said:


> They can't change the rules in the middle of the game.


I don't know about that.




PanJet said:


> Assuming GM didn't cheat, so long as they pass the tests they were supposed to pass legitimately, then I don't see there being any issue. The EPA can't move the goalposts and fail them now if they passed legitimately before.


What I think would be a reasonable approach is to do a "in motion" test to see what the results are. As long as they don't exceed the specs by too much, that's fine. But a big discrepancy is likely to create additional headaches - regardless of the cause.

And there's the rub - how many can continue to meet EPA specs outside of the rigid tests?


----------



## PanJet (Jun 18, 2013)

gulfcoastguy said:


> Well Panjet lets just wait 6 months and see.


Umm...ok. I'll be happy to revisit this thread in six months, and I'm pretty sure I'll be happy to report that there will still be just as many diesels on the road as today, probably more, and assuming GM didn't cheat as well, they'll still be selling diesel vehicles along with anyone else who didn't cheat (BMW, Mercedes, Ram, Ford, Jeep, etc).


----------



## NickD (Dec 10, 2011)

Listening to the news on this subject, EPA is talking about an 18 billion dollar fine for VW. Not quite use to working with dollars of this amount, but I think this is a bit more than 900 million. Yep, did mention this was a diesel.

EPA was always a lot more interested in reduced emissions than fuel economy, but if the latter is reduced, still putting more emissions into the atmosphere, and most of it is after the fact.

One thing for sure, you don't mess with the EPA, just as bad if not worse than the IRS.


----------



## PanJet (Jun 18, 2013)

NickD said:


> EPA was always a lot more interested in reduced emissions than fuel economy, but if the latter is reduced, still putting more emissions into the atmosphere, and most of it is after the fact.
> 
> One thing for sure, you don't mess with the EPA, just as bad if not worse than the IRS.


Very true. It is interesting in the NYT article Jim posted above, it talks about how the EPA has much more authority and punitive power than the NHTSA. So build a dangerous car and deal with the NHTSA with a maximum fine of $35 million (+ probably more civil penalties). Build a car that pollutes a little too much, and the EPA can slam the book at you at $37,500/vehicle. Just think if something like this happened on a high volume vehicle like the Cruze, Corolla, or Civic? The potential maximum penalty is mind boggling!


----------



## PanJet (Jun 18, 2013)

Here is the original ICCT study which uncovered this whole scandal to begin with. Yes, it's really long and technical, but here's a chart from the study which shows the three cars' NOx emissions in real world driving.

Real World:








Vehicle A = 2012 Jetta SportWagen TDI (LNT), Vehicle B = 2013 Passat TDI (SCR), Vehicle C = BMW X5 xDrive35d (SCR)

Note that the non-DEF TDI, the 2012 Jetta, has much higher levels of NOx emissions. It is relying on EGR only to reduce NOx. The 2013 Passat with the SCR (SCR is the name of the system that uses DEF), has much lower emissions, but still far too high. The BMW has acceptable levels of emissions. Clearly, conforming diesels are quite possible. BMW has done it.

One curious question has been: Why do the newer SCR equipped VWs cheat as well since the SCR using DEF can lower NOx levels much more efficiently than EGR usage? 

This is just a hypothesis, but the answer might be that since VW had already gotten away with cheating for so long, why not keep cheating and tune their cars to have much lower DEF consumption? The CTD was advertised to have a DEF range of roughly 10,000 miles. I haven't seen anything official, but I've heard claims of VW TDI's having a DEF range of perhaps 15,000 to 20,000 miles. Also, check out this TDI Club thread from just a few months ago. TDI owners were quite pleased at their DEF consumption rates. One even commented how VW's were seeing real world consumption rates perhaps half that or less than other diesels.


----------



## spaycace (Feb 9, 2012)

PanJet said:


> Build a car that pollutes a little too much, and the EPA can slam the book at you at $37,500/vehicle. Just think if something like this happened on a high volume vehicle like the Cruze, Corolla, or Civic? The potential maximum penalty is mind boggling!


Better yet ... think about what would happen if it were to be imposed on the F-150, or Silverado/Sierra twins, or Ram.


----------



## NickD (Dec 10, 2011)

NOx deals with greater combustion chamber temperatures that increases the efficiency resulting in greater fuel economy. With gas and direct fuel injection, already proven that a 30% increase in fuel economy, but that leaner burn results in greater NOx production.

EPA would approve this if someone can come up with a catalytic type converter that would reduce NOx emissions, but even after some odd 30 years, nobody has been able to do this. So have to live with poorer fuel economy. Some thought they did, but really didn't. Key is that there is about 80% of nitrogen in the air. Course, another is that there is carbon in the fuel with other problems. Or another way of putting it, putting garbage in and trying to get pure air out.

EGR is the current means to reduce emission NOx emissions, the old not so nice way was adding lead to the fuel. Can either be done with a valve, not good if it plugs up, will burn up the engine, or the better way is to close the exhaust valves early leaving in exhaust in the combustion chamber from the last cycle. But either method effectively reduces the displacement of the engine by as much as 30%. Water injection is another method, but nobody has figured out how to use this as water freezes below 32*F and considered too complicated for the average driver. This has been going on for more than 50 years now.

Really haven't followed the problem with VW, but is excess NOx the problem?


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

EPA Expanding VW Investigation to Include 3.0L V6 Engine

I was wondering when they'd throw the V6 into the investigation.


----------



## Tomko (Jun 1, 2013)

I fear that this will give diesels another black eye. Just as the Oldsmobile LF9 sullied diesels in the North American market for more than a generation - I am concerned that VW may have just done the same.


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

jblackburn said:


> EPA Expanding VW Investigation to Include 3.0L V6 Engine
> 
> I was wondering when they'd throw the V6 into the investigation.


I wouldn't be too surprised if that software is in VW's 3 liter engine ECMs as well. A lot of software gets copied & pasted and if I remember correctly VW released their 3 liter diesels after their 2 liter versions.


----------



## UlyssesSG (Apr 5, 2011)

`
The VW diesel emissions scandal may eventually catch up other automakers in Europe. It's been suspected for quite some time that there is widespread fraud across several brands under Euro 6 emissions mandates. Only time will tell, but in the long run diesel-powered automobiles are toast in Europe, and perhaps in North America, too.

_*Flash:
*_German and Bristish newspapers are reporting that Volkwagen CEO Prof. Dr.-Ing. Martin Winterkorn will resign or be ousted by the VW Supervisory Board at their meeting this Friday, September 25th. Rumour is Dr. Winterkorn will be replaced by Porsche CEO Matthias Müeller.


----------



## UlyssesSG (Apr 5, 2011)

obermd said:


> I wouldn't be too surprised if that software is in VW's 3 liter engine ECMs as well. A lot of software gets copied & pasted and if I remember correctly VW released their 3 liter diesels after their 2 liter versions.


Volkswagen had already admitted that the "defeat device" software is installed in many of their diesel engines not immediately targeted by ongoing investigatory probes. VW also claims that in _most _instances it has no affect on emissions performance. I emphasize the word _most _because that's the exact word VW chose in its disclosure.


----------



## GotDiesel? (Sep 9, 2013)

If you think the Cruze is clean ,Guess again ... The cruze is clean but not as clean as you think it is ... just you wait ...you will see......This ordeal has all the manufactures on edge over this as now every one is getting looked at. The system on the cruze in not as overly complex compare to the VW TDI yet is clean????? Humm I say BS its not ..... no way it can be , yes it may be cleaner but no way is this car out of the woods...


----------



## money_man (Feb 25, 2014)

GotDiesel? said:


> If you think the Cruze is clean ,Guess again ... The cruze is clean but not as clean as you think it is ... just you wait ...you will see......This ordeal has all the manufactures on edge over this as now every one is getting looked at. The system on the cruze in not as overly complex compare to the VW TDI yet is clean????? Humm I say BS its not ..... no way it can be , yes it may be cleaner but no way is this car out of the woods...


Let's not say things we can't take back.


----------



## Tomko (Jun 1, 2013)

Since the emissions package on the CTD was engineered in Detroit by GM and not by VW in Wolfsburg I think we can give enough benefit of the doubt to listen to credible sources at this time and not conjecture or personal opinions that may or may not be misinformed. 

Andrei has a relationship with Mike Siegrist who was the chief engineer on the CTD. Maybe he can drop him a line.


----------



## money_man (Feb 25, 2014)

Yeah it's not even reasonable to say the ctd is equally bad. Bmw passes so why wouldn't gm?


----------



## MP81 (Jul 20, 2015)

Most other brands (including Chevrolet) should have no issue - they use DEF to reduce NOx emissions. 

VW did not, and everyone spent years trying to figure out how they passed emissions while not having to utilize urea to do so.

Well, turns out they didn't really, haah.


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

GotDiesel? said:


> If you think the Cruze is clean ,Guess again ... The cruze is clean but not as clean as you think it is ... just you wait ...you will see......This ordeal has all the manufactures on edge over this as now every one is getting looked at. The system on the cruze in not as overly complex compare to the VW TDI yet is clean????? Humm I say BS its not ..... no way it can be , yes it may be cleaner but no way is this car out of the woods...


Apparently the Cruze Diesel uses 10 times the DEF as the VWs which use DEF. Is the Cruze out of the woods, we won't know until the EPA is done with this investigation but I'm reasonably certain GM didn't knowingly cheat. I don't think Mary Barra would tolerate it.


----------



## pandrad61 (Jul 8, 2015)

WOW 10X MORE. hmm having to fill the tank every 10k miles is not bad at all, so vw owners can drive def worry free for 50k lol


----------



## NickD (Dec 10, 2011)

What you don't want to do with any vehicle, compliant with emission standards or not. Is get on your hands and knees and take ten deep breaths of whatever comes out of the exhaust pipe. 

"Those cars emitted nitrogen oxides, which can exacerbate respiratory conditions such as asthma, at up to 40 times the standard level, the EPA said."

Another way of putting this only takes one VW to cause this problem or up to 40 vehicles that can easily surround you in traffic that will give you the same dose. 

How about getting stuck in ten lanes of stalled traffic for hours with all this going around. Worse yet, just living or working just a few feet away from these over packed roadways. And by living there, exposed to this stuff 24/7.


----------



## Tomko (Jun 1, 2013)

GotDiesel? said:


> I have removed every thing that would clog the system up.....took a few months of work but got it done ... NO DPF,NO UREA ...NO EGR , NO NOTHING!!yet it looks stock.. , car runs so much better with out all that crapola on it ... Custom Tune files and bigger injectors as well... Also fixed the BS crappy feed back you feel at idle or stop light ... GM what the Flip were you NOT thinking geeez next time dont be cheap and use better mounts for crying out loud ...also move the fuel filter to the engine bay using a VW filter system now...


Does anyone know if this will result in a $37,500 EPA fine?


----------



## Jim Frye (Mar 16, 2011)

*The Numbers Change for VW...*

*And not for the better. *

Volkswagen emission scandal widens: 11 million cars affected

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/09/22/us-usa-volkswagen-idUSKCN0RL0II20150922

http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/a17430/ezra-dyer-volkswagen-diesel-controversy/


----------



## pandrad61 (Jul 8, 2015)

great day to own a CTD. our value will go up some hopefully


----------



## Tomko (Jun 1, 2013)

One of life's unintended consequences with a rare positive outcome. But still sad that it's coming at the expense of otherwise innocent VW owners.


----------



## pandrad61 (Jul 8, 2015)

yah while it does suck for them ill ride that bright side as long as i can. For GM this is a gift from above, with the competition critically wounded its the perfect time to strike with the new cruze diesel (if only it was ready)


----------



## NickD (Dec 10, 2011)

Talk about inflation, for years the EPA fine for messing around with emissions was $25,000.00, now its $37,500.00?


----------



## UlyssesSG (Apr 5, 2011)

`
It's nothing to laugh about and I don't rejoice in the _Schadenfreude_ many seem to be feeling at VW's self-inflicted woes, but this cartoon from one popular German newspaper seems timely.


click image to enlarge​


----------



## ChevyGuy (Dec 13, 2014)

money_man said:


> Yeah it's not even reasonable to say the ctd is equally bad. Bmw passes so why wouldn't gm?


My biggest consern is that the emissions would spike if the engine was pushed harder than the standardized test. It's not a defeat device in that the car does it on the dyno or off. But that spike is where the sense of performance is. IOW, the car's not really broken, but the EPA would insist on keeping standards in all phases of driving - forcing a ECM update that limits the throttle taking away performance.

Note that for the BMW, the real-world performance did exceed the standards by several times on a hill. If the EPA goes after that, we can kiss diesel goodbye.


----------



## Tomko (Jun 1, 2013)

More than once in my lifetime I've seen the V8 declared dead. And now more than once in my lifetime I am seeing the diesel declared dead. 

I predict that in the future they will not only continue to live: but thrive.


----------



## PanJet (Jun 18, 2013)

obermd said:


> Apparently the Cruze Diesel uses 10 times the DEF as the VWs which use DEF.


From what I understand, the CTD does use a lot more DEF, but 10 times might be a bit of an exaggeration. Purely anecdotal evidence would lead me to believe it's closer to 1.5 to 2 times, which is still significant.



ChevyGuy said:


> My biggest consern is that the emissions would spike if the engine was pushed harder than the standardized test. It's not a defeat device in that the car does it on the dyno or off. But that spike is where the sense of performance is. IOW, the car's not really broken, but the EPA would insist on keeping standards in all phases of driving - forcing a ECM update that limits the throttle taking away performance.
> 
> Note that for the BMW, the real-world performance did exceed the standards by several times on a hill. If the EPA goes after that, we can kiss diesel goodbye.


The EPA may at times be a PITA, but they aren't stupid. They know it is nearly impossible to tune for every possible driving situation and change in variables. That is why they test the way they do, so all external factors are controlled. If a vehicle can pass the test without cheating, the manufacturer has done it's job according to the regs. That does not mean it will _never_ exceed the limit ever, just that overall the vehicle meets standards. I'd guess there are very few if any fossil fuel powered vehicles on the planet which stay completely under the limit 100% of the time in every possible driving dynamic.

As I said before, it may not always be econonical to produce consumer level small passenger diesels, but as long as ICE exist, diesel will not even come close to dying. In the vast majority of diesel applications, gasoline can't even begin to compete. Diesel will only die someday as a result of a much larger shift to EV and even then may outlive gasoline as larger applications where diesel engines are common are much harder to replace with EV.


----------



## money_man (Feb 25, 2014)

http://jalopnik.com/hitler-is-understandably-pissed-about-volkswagens-diese-1731943072


----------



## ChevyGuy (Dec 13, 2014)

PanJet said:


> The EPA may at times be a PITA, but they aren't stupid.



It depends on who is in charge
It depends on congress not getting involved.


----------



## NickD (Dec 10, 2011)

Every vehicle ever made would flunk the test if they were done when the engine is cold. O2 sensors and cat are worthless, and the engine has to run rich outputting CO until it warms up, plus the vehicle is in open loop mode depending on learned parameters.

Warm up time is a bit longer in cooler climates giving cause to get very poor fuel economy from oxygenated gas. And if even talking about a 30*F difference, may only take an extra 30 seconds to warm up.

With the Cruze, been averaging about 150 miles or more less per tank than using summer gas. And don't give me this BS that vehicles consume more fuel in cold weather. Before about 20 years ago, didn't make any difference, sure does now, not only with the Cruze, but with all vehicles.


----------



## Tomko (Jun 1, 2013)

Since I started tracking my fuel mileage tank by tank in 1985 I've always registered worse fuel economy in the winter compared to the summer. Even when using the A/C.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

Tomko said:


> Since I started tracking my fuel mileage tank by tank in 1985 I've always registered worse fuel economy in the winter compared to the summer. Even when using the A/C.


Yep, I saw the same even with my carbureted Honda running non-ethanol fuels.

That durn winter gas though?:question:


----------



## Jim Frye (Mar 16, 2011)

*The Pack Of Legal Beagles...*

It appears that the upcoming civil class action lawsuits will be led by lawyers and law firms that bought into VW's advertising and actually bought the Cheater's cars. Likely the last people you want to "wedgie" in the market place. 

_"Ten plaintiffs lawyers who have brought class actions against Volkswagen said in interviews that so many clients are calling them that they are not planning special advertising campaigns to reach Volkswagen and Audi owners."
_
How U.S. lawyers were so quick off the mark to sue Volkswagen | Reuters


----------



## Jim Frye (Mar 16, 2011)

Tomko said:


> Since I started tracking my fuel mileage tank by tank in 1985 I've always registered worse fuel economy in the winter compared to the summer. Even when using the A/C.


I see the mileage in both of our cars drop 2 - 3 mpg when winter blend is being pumped.


----------



## Tomko (Jun 1, 2013)

I always thought it had more to do with greater rolling resistance in the winter and reduced thermal efficiency.


----------



## PanJet (Jun 18, 2013)

According to this New York Times article, the methodology the software used to determine when the car was being tested was in fact almost exactly what several members on here guessed it was.

From article:


> Here is how the Volkswagen scheme worked, according to the federal Environmental Protection Agency: The cars’ software turned on the pollution-control equipment only during inspections. No human intervention needed. The software could silently deduce that an inspection was taking place based on the position of the steering wheel (cars hooked up to emissions meters don’t make turns), the speed of the vehicle, how long the engine had been running and barometric pressure.


----------



## MP81 (Jul 20, 2015)

Tomko said:


> I always thought it had more to do with greater rolling resistance in the winter and reduced thermal efficiency.


A multitude of things. 

Winter blend has a lower energy value per gallon than summer gas - meaning you need to use more to get the same amount of energy as summer blend.

As you stated, rolling resistance does increase as temperature decreases, so that's another factor.

Colder air is more dense than warmer air, requiring more fuel in order to maintain the proper AFR.

Depending on the setting you have it on, running the heater or defroster will [likely] kick on the AC compressor in order to dry out the air coming into the vehicle, causing extra accessory drag on the engine.


----------



## ChevyGuy (Dec 13, 2014)

MP81 said:


> Colder air is more dense than warmer air, requiring more fuel in order to maintain the proper AFR.


But wouldn't that produce more power? Racers will sometimes use icebox to get cooler intake air.


----------



## NickD (Dec 10, 2011)

Cold air in terms of air resistance is not as drastic as you may think, a very complicated subject, too much to be described here. For one this air density is base on absolute zero so the ratios are extremely small. For another, our atmosphere is not in a closed box so the air can expand freely in an open atmosphere. You learn all about this if you take flying lessons, another misnomer is that humidity in air actually decreases its density. Contrary to popular believe.

How is this for a complete idiot, Al Gore with CFC's, or R-12 in terms of ozone depletion, what an idiot this guy is, but yet has the power. Yes putting R-12 in a closed container and exposing it to UV radiation will break it down into its basis components. Consisting of carbon, hydrogen, chlorine, and fluorine and yes that chlorine extremely active will combine with O2 and form a heavier than air molecule. But the ionosphere is nothing like a seal container, air currents are constantly changing.

And where did this this chlorine come from, its not found in nature, but found combined in a compound in this earth. And from the earth it came from and to the earth it returned. So in other words, CFC's are biodegradable. And not even found if some is released into to the atmosphere. NASA couldn't even find any. But its replacement, R-134a is not, now contributed to global warming.

This is the problem when we put complete idiots in charge of our government, and the conversion to R-134a was not done either by the users or the producers by made to be done by the consumers at their expense. A single mom with kids where AC is required the way they are made today had to bare the expense.

Only two requirements to become head of the EPA, first and far most have to help the president get elected, an appointed position. Here your ability to be a good BSer is your most important asset. Second, you must have a chemistry IQ of less than 2. Same holds true of all 1525 governmental agencies. We use to have just three.


----------



## pandrad61 (Jul 8, 2015)

> But wouldn't that produce more power? Racers will sometimes use icebox to get cooler intake air.


 yes colder air is more dense and can make more power if partnered with more fuel. colder air is like a few more psi of boost its great and dandy but wont do much without fuel to match (quick lames term example i could think of). 
reason drag racers do this is to keep the intake charge and the intake system from heat soaking and to them the loss of .023 seconds from a initial cold charge is the world to them


----------



## MP81 (Jul 20, 2015)

pandrad61 said:


> yes colder air is more dense and can make more power if partnered with more fuel. colder air is like a few more psi of boost its great and dandy but wont do much without fuel to match (quick lames term example i could think of).
> reason drag racers do this is to keep the intake charge and the intake system from heat soaking and to them the loss of .023 seconds from a initial cold charge is the world to them


Yup - it's the basic principal of a cold air intake - pulls in colder air. Also why CAIs don't always increase fuel economy and sometimes decrease it - while you may reduce intake restriction, and you definitely add more power from pulling in colder air - you need more fuel to maintain the same air fuel ratio (you'd lean out otherwise).


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

PanJet said:


> According to this New York Times article, the methodology the software used to determine when the car was being tested was in fact almost exactly what several members on here guessed it was.
> 
> From article:
> 
> ...


Someone want to explain how barometric pressure plays into this? I can see all of the other items.


----------



## Jim Frye (Mar 16, 2011)

*The Hits Just Keep On Comming*

The effects of VW's cheating seems to be spreading. It seems this is affecting other diesel sales and getting more governments involved. Friday appears to be the day of reckoning for VW's CEO. 

Volkswagen chief faces grilling by board over diesel scandal | Reuters


And there's this that covers auto manufacturer's cheating over the decades:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/24/b...ollows-a-long-auto-industry-pattern.html?_r=0


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

One of the reports I saw over the weekend is that France is actually considering eliminating diesel fuel at the pump. The French government said that they started pushing Diesel before the catalytic converter was developed and at the time they felt it was a better choice. Now they are apparently not so sure.


----------



## PanJet (Jun 18, 2013)

obermd said:


> One of the reports I saw over the weekend is that France is actually considering eliminating diesel fuel at the pump. The French government said that they started pushing Diesel before the catalytic converter was developed and at the time they felt it was a better choice. Now they are apparently not so sure.


Total knee jerk reaction. I'd like to see them try. Europe is 50% or more diesel. If they want to collapse their economy overnight, by all means, go ahead. Even if they stopped all diesel vehicle sales today, it would take years for them all to filter out of the system.


----------



## PanJet (Jun 18, 2013)

obermd said:


> Someone want to explain how barometric pressure plays into this? I can see all of the other items.


I can't say with any authority, but my guess is that they might test in a pressure controlled environment at standard atmospheric pressure to control for that variable as well? 

In order to make the test fair, I would imagine they try to control for as many variables as possible. Standard atmospheric pressure is a known variable (29.92 inHg, or about 14.696 psi or 1013.25 millibars at mean sea level with an adjustment for elevation). Actual atmospheric pressure is constantly changing and rarely lands right on standard, so if the car detected standard pressure along with all the other factors, it probably assumed it was being tested.


----------



## boneheaddoctor (Dec 10, 2014)

Emissions test are NEVER done in a pressure controlled enviroment...its not even temperature controlled....its in the open bay of a garage every place I've ever seen.

However not every place has a 4 wheel Dynomometer for the places that have that type of test (I live in a place that does those sort of tests)...and wheel sensors for the antilock brakes would be a dead giveaway its not driving on a normal road at that time....that however doesn't account for the shops that do.


----------



## Jim Frye (Mar 16, 2011)

*"Off With Their Heads!!"*

The blood letting has begun at VW. 

Volkswagen CEO Martin Winterkorn resigns amid scandal


----------



## Tomko (Jun 1, 2013)

Jim Frye said:


> The blood letting has begun at VW.
> 
> Volkswagen CEO Martin Winterkorn resigns amid scandal


I personally don't like seeing anybody loose their job, but this guy isn't exactly an hourly wage worker. I'm also happy to see somebody in senior leadership stand up and be accountable. A seemingly foreign concept in our government these days.


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

Jim Frye said:


> The blood letting has begun at VW.
> 
> Volkswagen CEO Martin Winterkorn resigns amid scandal


This prevents the VW Board of Directors from grilling him on Friday.


----------



## 30 Ounce (Nov 18, 2012)

obermd said:


> Someone want to explain how barometric pressure plays into this? I can see all of the other items.


Most air intakes are positioned in the front of the vehicle to take advantage of the high pressure area there to force air into the intake system. The sensors can read that change in pressure and adjust as needed.


----------



## ChevyGuy (Dec 13, 2014)

MP81 said:


> you need more fuel to maintain the same air fuel ratio (you'd lean out otherwise).


Isn't that the job of the ECM and all it's sensors? If nothing else, the o2 sensor would tell it.


----------



## pandrad61 (Jul 8, 2015)

yes and it does, but when you add super cold air charge of 50 degrees the computer adds more fuel to make up for the more oxygen dense air charge thus burns more fuel but will make more power and pollute more. to keep at a perfect air fuel computer adjust fuel not the air, because the air controller is the driver with his foot. no one would buy a car if the computer cut your throttle because it wants to maintain perfect air fuel. as air gets denser for the exact amount of throttle given more fuel must be given to not run lean so yes more engine power but more fuel.


----------



## ChevyGuy (Dec 13, 2014)

pandrad61 said:


> because the air controller is the driver with his foot.


The Cruze is a throttle by wire.


----------



## jalaner (Dec 28, 2013)

My understanding is that the TDI cheat software simply detects the EPA test by 2 rolling wheels instead of 4. How could a car detect barometric pressure? I also doubt that the French are planning to ban diesel cars. Diesel has a lower carbon output for heavier vehicles vs gas and hybrid when the considerable carbon required for manufacturing the huge hybrid batteries is factored into the carbon footprint.


----------



## Tomko (Jun 1, 2013)

Cars have been detected barometric pressure since the 1970s.


----------



## ChevyGuy (Dec 13, 2014)

jalaner said:


> My understanding is that the TDI cheat software simply detects the EPA test by 2 rolling wheels instead of 4.


I believe that's a theory that many have batted around. But the factual reports suggests it's watching the driving profile.


----------



## iggy (Feb 14, 2013)

First... car companies have been cheating emissions tests for a long time, probably not to this extent though...

Carmaker Cheating on Emissions Almost as Old as Pollution Tests - Bloomberg Business

VW not alone in evading emissions rules


Meanwhile... it seems the outing of the issues with the VWs goes back to Europeans testing to see how US model diesels were meeting the US standards , it seems Europeans first realized that the VWs there weren't getting the emissions on the road that they did in stationary tests. Then when doing mobile testing in the USA it was realized that they were seeing really high numbers during real world driving..

The level of ingenuity used to detect if the car as in real world driving went beyond detecting that all for wheels weren't turning at speed... apparently they looked at steering wheel position and probably many other factors to figure out when the car was actually on the road and not on a dyno... ( motion sensors, whatever... )

How Smog Cops Busted Volkswagen and Brought Down Its CEO - Bloomberg Business


----------



## iggy (Feb 14, 2013)

I bet the EPA will start doing tests of virtually all cars/trucks that measure the emissions while the vehicles are actually being used on the road. I also would not be surprised if VW is not the only company that's done something like what VW apparently has, I guess only time will tell.


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

OK - anyone know where the latest figure of 11 million VW Diesels impacted came from? I kept hearing this yesterday but can't find a source for it.


----------



## iggy (Feb 14, 2013)

obermd said:


> OK - anyone know where the latest figure of 11 million VW Diesels impacted came from? I kept hearing this yesterday but can't find a source for it.


According to USA today Volkswagen emission scandal widens: 11 million cars affected , in the article it says that VW officials gave that number. 

I wonder what it would take to bankrupt VW. 11 million times what... There will be costs to remedy the problem, fines, law suits, on and on... I'd hate to be a VW car dealer right now, how much do you think their sales have and/or will drop over the coming weeks/months?


----------



## jalaner (Dec 28, 2013)

VW will not be bankrupted over emissions. They have too much political clout and the people with health effects from increased NOx can't prove VW caused it. A huge fine will be issued then the EPA will allow VW to subtract the cost of remediation from the fine. I'm glad I don't own VW Stock which went down 20% in one day.


----------



## iggy (Feb 14, 2013)

jalaner said:


> VW will not be bankrupted over emissions. They have too much political clout and the people with health effects from increased NOx can't prove VW caused it. A huge fine will be issued then the EPA will allow VW to subtract the cost of remediation from the fine. I'm glad I don't own VW Stock which went down 20% in one day.


Well, in the US they are talking fines of like $26,000 per car. At this point it's unclear if they will be able to get these cars to pass emissions testing without the cheat in place. It could cost thousands of dollars per car to attempt a fix. If the fuel consumption goes down significantly bellow the original figures, they would have to reimburse owners for the differences... There will clearly be class action law suits where owners want to recover the cost of depreciation that is due to a result of the lower millage and such... This isn't going to be a simple fine and a reprogramming of the ECU... it will be much more complicated and expensive.

11,000,000 effected cars ( maybe even more who knows )


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

I see Germany is going to start road testing diesels from all manufacturers.


----------



## ChevyGuy (Dec 13, 2014)

iggy said:


> I bet the EPA will start doing tests of virtually all cars/trucks that measure the emissions while the vehicles are actually being used on the road. I also would not be surprised if VW is not the only company that's done something like what VW apparently has, I guess only time will tell.


I fully expect a "sanity check" test as well. Note that the BMW did exceed limits in some driving, but nothing like the VW.


----------



## boneheaddoctor (Dec 10, 2014)

Whats going to end up happening is some people in the EPA are going to be buying vacation homes and large boats....the EPA is one of the most corrupt outfits in the USA. Seeing is how they actually answer to nobody...who will stop them.


----------



## gulfcoastguy (Feb 21, 2013)




----------



## NickD (Dec 10, 2011)

Very true, can make any regulation they like without proof.

If VW is hit with all these fines, do not see how they can survive this when the fines greatly exceed whatever profit they made selling an automobile.

With the overnight shift to R-134a, several vehicle manufacturers just met the bare compatibility requirements, but none of the performance. Several shops in the Kansas City area to please their customers reverted back to R-12, after all, still and R-12 system. Were caught, EPA called this a sham retrofit and fined them out of business. Just as an example of the power of the EPA.

First to go abroad was our semiconductor business, yes, chemicals are required, but dumped into the local sewer systems and getting into ground water causing birth defects. Could have been stored in a separate tank for processing, but no, were kicked out of this country, along with everything else.

Sure don't solve problems, just move them someplace else. Really can't have respect for an agency of this type.


----------



## money_man (Feb 25, 2014)

Vw is worth 296 billion. They live but it might hurt a little.


----------



## PanJet (Jun 18, 2013)

I stumbled on a couple of really great articles today discussing more technical detail and a bit of what the future might hold.

Article 1 talks about the technical details of the matter plus has a great little infographic on how the VW cheated. Of interest to me, the author seems to agree almost exactly with my hypothesis for why VW cheated in the first place.

Quote from the article:


> The unknown at this point in time is why Volkswagen Group chose to circumvent their own very effective emissions solution. One possible reason is to keep potentially dirty exhaust gas out of the engine to prevent a need for premature maintenance, as diesel exhaust can clog air intake eventually when it’s recirculated. The other reason that keeps rolling around in my mind is whether it was an attempt to reduce the consumption of diesel exhaust fuel in order to lower costs for consumers.


Article 2 attempts to dive into the "future of diesel." I think they might be slightly underestimating the power of public perception and how that might affect diesel even though it might be techincally very possible to achieve true clean-diesels, albeit perhaps increasingly costly. In that light, this article might be slightly optimistic, but then again, it is to be expected for auto manufacturers with investments in diesel to continue to be optimistic about it. Time will tell.

An interesing quote from the article from GM on the Cruze diesel:


> “GM and its brands are committed to the robust emissions compliance of all our vehicles,” said Otie McKinley, spokesman for General Motors, which will release its Chevrolet Colorado and GMC Canyon midsize pickup trucks with diesel options before the end of the year.
> “We do not have ‘defeat devices’ in vehicles we engineer and manufacture,” McKinley said. “We expect our employees to be informed and act legally and ethically, without exception. As such, our diesel introduction and marketing plan remain on track.”


----------



## ChevyGuy (Dec 13, 2014)

PanJet said:


> Quote from the article: _The unknown at this point in time is why Volkswagen Group chose to circumvent their own very effective emissions solution. One possible reason is to keep potentially dirty exhaust gas out of the engine to prevent a need for premature maintenance, as diesel exhaust can clog air intake eventually when it’s recirculated. The other reason that keeps rolling around in my mind is whether it was an attempt to reduce the consumption of diesel exhaust fuel in order to lower costs for consumers._


That seems like a pretty odd/risk reward. I think they were avoiding something more serious. Perhaps that "premature maintenance" was worse then the author is suggesting.


----------



## PanJet (Jun 18, 2013)

ChevyGuy said:


> That seems like a pretty odd/risk reward. I think they were avoiding something more serious. Perhaps that "premature maintenance" was worse then the author is suggesting.


There's a little more in the article that eludes to it, but I think it goes beyond just "premature maintenance" to include reduced mileage and performance, primarily for the pre-DEF cars. By the time DEF came along, they'd already gotten away with it for over for years, so why not just keep doing it and keep the DEF consumption low?


----------



## iggy (Feb 14, 2013)

I think both of those articles are quite biased towards those who very committed to diesel autos, which I guess there's nothing wrong with. However I think at least in the USA, this VW thing is going to put a serious dent in the inroads and/or enthusiasm that VW had largely been responsible for in getting the US market to buy diesel. Because VW had such dominance in the US passenger car diesel market, I think this is a major set back for diesel cars here, which makes me ( someone who has no skin in the game ) skeptical and much less optimistic.

I am skeptical that there is a easy fix for the VW cars sold in the USA, especially the older ones that didn't use DEF. It does depend on what VW's real motivation was of course. If it was to significantly reduce the maintenance needed for the cars to be reliable that presents one set of problems for VW. If it was to keep fuel millage up higher, that presents another set of problems for VW... if it effects both of those , it's a double whammy for VW. Most likely, it will mean that any future diesel cars VW makes cost more, because the cost reflects the true cost to maintain emissions at the level governments are requiring, then it's a triple whammy for VW.

Assuming none of the other auto makers were cheating the emissions, then maybe diesel will roll on and continue to take a bigger market share... but I think short term, the market share will take a huge hit , especially here in the USA, where the economics of operating a diesel auto, really don't quite come out in the consumers favor ( largely due to the price of diesel vs gasoline and the higher price tag for the vehicle itself ).

I for one remain pretty skeptical that there will be any easy way for VW to get their diesel cars in compliance with the US emissions requirements, especially in the older models that didn't have DEF at all. Given the fines and such that they clearly are going to face, every VW diesel car they sold over the past 6 years is going to cost them 2 times or more , what it actually cost them to make. 

I wouldn't even begin to speculate how things will go for them in Europe.



PanJet said:


> I stumbled on a couple of really great articles today discussing more technical detail and a bit of what the future might hold.
> 
> Article 1 Article 2


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

Very well put iggy.


----------



## jalaner (Dec 28, 2013)

The EPA is an absolutely essential agency just trying to protect health and environment. The legislation was mandated by the Nixon administration in response to thousands of blatant environmental problems created by unregulated US businesses that were exposing citizens to asbestos, PCBs, lead, mercury, and hundreds of other known pollutants. Nixon was no environmentalist but was required to act after his administration was overwhelmed with environmental problems that were so expensive that they endangered the economy. The EPA has improved the environment and US corporations are more profitable than ever. Just pull up a chart of the S&P 500 from 1970 to present for proof. VWs motive for the emissions cheat was simply to avoid the expense of the DEF system, increasing profit margins on 4 cylinder diesel models. It worked from 2009 to 2013 when California regulators started to question the emissions. So they started installing DEF systems in all diesels in 2015 when it became obvious that they had been caught. It will be interesting to see if VW will have to retrofit DEF systems and reimburse car owners.


----------



## UlyssesSG (Apr 5, 2011)

iggy said:


> It does depend on what VW's real motivation was of course.


_Plain and simple:_ Volkswagen's primary motivation was build market share in the United States, where they were and are failing miserably, and to extend their diesel mass market dominance in Europe.

_Related:_ The German Transport Ministry announced this morning that almost three million diesel-powered VWs registered in Germany are believed to be non-compliant at this point in time, specifically citing the 2.0, 1.6 and 1.2 liter TDi engines. VW light trucks are reportedly are also under suspicion.


​


----------



## ChevyGuy (Dec 13, 2014)

iggy said:


> I for one remain pretty skeptical that there will be any easy way for VW to get their diesel cars in compliance with the US emissions requirements, especially in the older models that didn't have DEF at all.


Emissions compliance? Easy. Remove defeat device. It passes when it's turned on.

Dealing with the real reason they installed the defeat device - that's where it gets hard. It's possible they may not try to fix it - they'll just pay off the owners and move on.


----------



## iggy (Feb 14, 2013)

Yes, at some level you are correct... the easiest solution might be to pay off the owners. However that easy fix could be very expensive. Does the car die in 20,000 miles after the defeat has been removed? does the millage drop by 20%? what actually happens to the car and the value of the car. If I owned one, I'd not be satisfied until they refunded my original purchase price.



ChevyGuy said:


> Emissions compliance? Easy. Remove defeat device. It passes when it's turned on.
> 
> Dealing with the real reason they installed the defeat device - that's where it gets hard. It's possible they may not try to fix it - they'll just pay off the owners and move on.


----------



## ChevyGuy (Dec 13, 2014)

iggy said:


> Yes, at some level you are correct... the easiest solution might be to pay off the owners. However that easy fix could be very expensive.


Indeed. But that may be the only possible fix if it's not possible to maintain MPG and performance and comply with the EPA. I don't think "pay and pollute" is on the table, but sacrificing MPG/performance is.




iggy said:


> Does the car die in 20,000 miles after the defeat has been removed? does the millage drop by 20%? what actually happens to the car and the value of the car.


What that article is suggesting is that even with modifications, you could probably expect a decrease in MPG and performance. And that's after a full re-design and rebuild. Something that's not going to happen on a used car.




iggy said:


> If I owned one, I'd not be satisfied until they refunded my original purchase price.


On a 2009, second owner? Not going to happen. I think the fair thing is the pre-announcement, off-the-lot price for a used car identical to yours. That would give you enough money to buy a replacement of identical value. Not the trade in, but the off-the-lot price.

We may see two options. Those with the older non-DEF models may only have a buyback. Their value is too low compared to the cost of remediation. The newer ones won't take as much to fix and have a higher value. But even then, there will probably be compensation for lost value/MPG/performance or a buyback option.

Or, and here's a wild thought - what's the cost of the "fix" compared to the cost of building a replacement car? Would it be cheaper for VW to just give away a new (fixed) 2016? For the consumer that's more than just compensation (even if the MPG and performance decline). For the accountants, the variable cost of making additional cars might be cheaper. What a way to build goodwill and put a number of cars on the road. (Volkswagen Of America Was In Very Rough Shape Before The Emissions Scandal.) If the numbers make sense, it would be the biggest comeback ever.


----------



## iggy (Feb 14, 2013)

Why couldn't a second hand owner get back the price they paid for the car? What if you bought it two weeks ago and paid above market value because you thought it was worth it or just didn't now any better?

Paying back the value pre-announcement may be all they 'owe' you... but the lawyers need their cut too you know 

But then all we are is speculating... Buy back of some sort, may very well be the cheapest fix...


----------



## ChevyGuy (Dec 13, 2014)

iggy said:


> Why couldn't a second hand owner get back the price they paid for the car?


First, it would be a mess to try and document. Some of those sales could be private buyer. Secondly, to give a full refund when you've had use of the car for some time isn't right either. 

I'm just going by what I think is right. It only has to be good enough that the lawyers will decide they're not likely to win in court. I'd think anything north of trade-in value would do that. That seems to be the standard in insurance cases.

Modifying my earlier suggestion - what about a very generous credit on a new car? A big enough one that with the trade-in might be pretty close to a the new car price? VW gets to book a sale and the customer is happy with a value. Virtually all cars get traded in at some time. I'd imagine quite a few owners would be ready to switch anyway. New owners of the fixed new car won't have any claim for the original MPG or performance - they're buying "as is" - including the new specs. Right now, I think this option is my best prediction of what will happen: All cars fixed, and a coupon for a very generous credit on a new VW/Audi. (With a smaller cash out for those not wanting the coupon.) I'll bet the spreadsheet wizards can make that look good. Fair? Maybe not completely, but if the coupon is good enough, the lawyers for the owners will have a rough go of it.


----------



## NickD (Dec 10, 2011)

Not hurting the VW CEO.

"_Martin Winterkorn_, the CEO of Volkswagen Group, resigned today amid a scandal involving the emissions control systems on Volkswagen and Audi diesel vehicles. According to Bloomberg, he could benefit from a $32 million pension on his way out."

Unless he gets hit with criminal charges.


----------



## PanJet (Jun 18, 2013)

iggy said:


> Why couldn't a second hand owner get back the price they paid for the car? What if you bought it two weeks ago and paid above market value because you thought it was worth it or just didn't now any better?


ChevyGuy is right. This opens up a huge can of worms.

For one, it's not VW's responsibility to compensate you for value that was never there. If you "didn't know any better" and paid $15,000 in a private sale transaction for a six-year old Jetta with 150,000 miles on it, that's not VW's responsibility. Their responsibility is to compensate you for your actual loss as a result of their actions. If the car's fair market value pre-announcement is $10,000, that's all VW's responsibility is to you if they indeed buy it back.

Second, regardless of whether you're the original or a second-hand owner, if you've gotten use out of it pre-buyback (if there is one), VW doesn't owe you for that use. Why should someone who bought their car in 2009 and drove 150,000 miles get purchase price back? Lemon Laws work much the same. In most cases, there is an adjustment for use before the buyback. Rarely will a person ever get 100% of their purchase price back unless it falls apart the day after they bought it.

Paying the owners what it would cost them to purchase an equal replacement is the most fair, regardless of original or second-hand owners. If you own a 2009 with 150,000 miles, you get a lot less back than someone who purchased a 2015 model last week (assuming all models are bought back, which may or may not be the case).


----------



## Jim Frye (Mar 16, 2011)

It would be interesting to watch the KBB values on a couple of these VWs and see what happens to the value as time progresses. Since I never considered a VW TDI, I'm not that interested to do that much effort.


----------



## Tomko (Jun 1, 2013)

This interesting read

This is Why Volkswagen Won't Pay $18 Billion

cites a probable fine of $3.26 billion.


----------



## Jim Frye (Mar 16, 2011)

*Glad We Don't Have Lobbiests Here...*

Otherwise things could be worse than we think.

*Volkswagen Scandal Highlights European Stalling on New Emissions Tests*

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/29/w...ean-stalling-on-new-emissions-tests.html?_r=0

This is the best explanation of VW's plight I've read yet. Pretty much sums up the whole mess. 

*Volkswagen's Biggest Challenge Right Now: Fixing the Cars*

http://www.foxbusiness.com/investing/2015/09/28/volkswagen-biggest-challenge-right-now-fixing-cars/


----------



## Blue Angel (Feb 18, 2011)

obermd said:


> Someone want to explain how barometric pressure plays into this? I can see all of the other items.


I sent an email to my contacts at Transport Canada, asking them if they know whether the NRCan / EPA testing facilities are barometrically regulated. My gut feeling is YES, but I'm not 100% sure.

There was a comment from a member about emission testing being done in garages open to the atmosphere... while this is certainly true for emission test centers, it has absolutely no resemblance to the facilities in which the Government tests are run. These facilities are laboratories in every sense of the word, very impressive. I've been in the NRCan test facilities, though that was before the 5-Cycle testing was implemented. 5C is in place now for 2015 MY vehicles in Canada, as it has been since 2007 in the U.S.

Anyone interested in the 5-Cycle methods can read about them here (a Canadian page but the tests are the same in the U.S.):

5-cycle Testing | Natural Resources Canada


----------



## gulfcoastguy (Feb 21, 2013)

PanJet said:


> Do you have any sources to back any of this up?
> 
> If GM didn't cheat, the Colorado is already coming. The Mazda 6 may be a different story, but that's because, unlike VW, they decided not to cheat in order to pass EPA tests, and so far they apparently have decided that the investment necessary to bring a compliant diesel to the U.S. is not their top priority.
> 
> It's not as if compliant diesels aren't possible, VW just decided it was easier to cheat than to be compliant. There are millions of compliant diesels on the road and will continue to be. It may not always be economical in small passenger cars, but diesel isn't going anywhere.




It's a little early but I find this interesting.

http://www.autonews.com/article/201...ups-first-to-get-extra-scrutiny-from-epa-carb


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

Jim Frye said:


> Otherwise things could be worse than we think.
> 
> *Volkswagen Scandal Highlights European Stalling on New Emissions Tests*
> 
> ...


It's even worse than this. VW may also be on the hook for reimbursing the US Government five times the claimed tax credits for their "clean diesels" plus additional charges relating to corporate lobbying to get these tax credits approved by Congress.


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

gulfcoastguy said:


> It's a little early but I find this interesting.
> 
> http://www.autonews.com/article/201...ups-first-to-get-extra-scrutiny-from-epa-carb


Hopefully GM gets the EPA and CARB to do their testing at the same time. CARB is more restrictive so if this is passed the EPA's test should also be passed.


----------



## gulfcoastguy (Feb 21, 2013)

And for an article that you don't have to subscribe to in order to view: Thanks, Volkswagen: Chevy Colorado Diesel May Get Delayed Due To Extra EPA Scrutiny


----------



## MP81 (Jul 20, 2015)

Luckily:



> Update: A Chevrolet spokesman told us they are in “the final stages of emissions certification for the new Colorado diesel, and are on track for a fall introduction.”


----------



## gulfcoastguy (Feb 21, 2013)

We will see. I am reminded of the Keystone pipeline though.


----------



## UpstateNYBill (Jan 14, 2012)




----------



## Jim Frye (Mar 16, 2011)

*The Cheating Virus Spreads*

It looks like Europe is going after other manufacturers following VW's misdeeds. The European version of our EPA has released a report that looks like an indictment of others. Audi, BMW, Citroen, Mercedes, and Opel are identified. The PDF at the end of the article is an eye opener. 

VWâ€™s cheating is just the tip of the iceberg | Transport & Environment


----------



## UlyssesSG (Apr 5, 2011)

UpstateNYBill said:


>


Priceless, except for Volkswagen AG and its shareholders which are currently out over $30 _Billion_ large and counting so we could all enjoy one good laugh about *Fahrversmogen*. BTW, I understand VW's revised diesel lineup will include a new halo model called the VW Cheatah.


----------



## UlyssesSG (Apr 5, 2011)

`*“A conscience is that still small voice that people won't listen to.” *
― Carlo Collodi, _Pinocchio_


click image to enlarge​


----------



## UlyssesSG (Apr 5, 2011)

`
Financial news source _The Street_ posed this question in today's edition:
*Want a Diesel, but Not a VW? Here Are 9 Fuel-Efficient Diesels Not Named Volkswagen*

No mention of our Cruze CTD. None, nada, zilch.
Boy, talk about a well-engineered value-priced diesel automobile that flies under the radar!

- -
Want a Diesel, but Not a VW? Here Are 9 Fuel-Efficient Diesels Not Named Volkswagen - TheStreet


----------



## money_man (Feb 25, 2014)

Those are all cars that are way to pricey.


----------



## 30 Ounce (Nov 18, 2012)

Wow! That reporter should be fired! The one car that was actually in the same class as the VW tdi and he doesn't even mention it. That's a dick move!


----------



## ChevyGuy (Dec 13, 2014)

30 Ounce said:


> Wow! That reporter should be fired! The one car that was actually in the same class as the VW tdi and he doesn't even mention it. That's a dick move!


Not at all. 2017 is too far in the future. As a car writer, you don't write about last year's model. It's all about "now", the new 2016.


----------



## BlueTopaz (Aug 25, 2012)

I don't see how that article can even be published. Non of those cars are anywhere near the cost of a VW diesel. Apples to oranges.


----------



## grs1961 (Oct 23, 2012)

Numbers 9 to 5 (hah!) are the sort of fugly things only a complete moron would drive.

Don't you get Peugeot or Mazda with diesel engines in the USA? (Peugeot have officially stated that their diesels are *not* cheating the emissions tests.)


----------



## pandrad61 (Jul 8, 2015)

PEUGEOT is not in the USA at all. no american consumer would buy it ( french crap) and Mazda is working to get diesels here


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

grs1961 said:


> Numbers 9 to 5 (hah!) are the sort of fugly things only a complete moron would drive.
> 
> Don't you get Peugeot or Mazda with diesel engines in the USA? (Peugeot have officially stated that their diesels are *not* cheating the emissions tests.)


We don't have DeGaulle's Revenge (Peugoet) in the US. Mazda made a statement earlier this week that they're having second thoughts about bringing a diesel to the US.


----------



## UlyssesSG (Apr 5, 2011)

grs1961 said:


> Don't you get Peugeot or Mazda with diesel engines in the USA? (Peugeot have officially stated that their diesels are *not* cheating the emissions tests.)


*French automobiles* are no longer sold new in the United States, and haven't been for many, many years. 

IIRC, Citroën abandoned the USDM in the 1970s while Peugeot left our marketplace sometime in the 1980s or maybe early 1990s. In my neck of the woods and on the Left Coast I used to see a fair number of Peugeot 404 diesel station wagons (_Estates_), in fact we had one in my extended family, but they've now disappeared from our roads except for the rare loyalist who still attempts to soldier on with baling wire, twine and tin snips.

Renault was still active in the 1970s as a standalone marque and then in the 1980s as a captive import through American Motors Corporation, which also owned Jeep. One AMC Renault was called the Alliance and was a comfortable little saloon but disappeared when AMC was folded into Chrysler Corporation. I believe the Alliance was based on the Renault R-12, but I'm not certain of it. Also offered through AMC was the Renault R-5 which was called the "LeCar" over here. I personally drove a 1971 R-16 in the late 1970s and early 1980s while a graduate student at the University of Minnesota and it was a fantastic automobile. Not a performance vehicle of course, but it made up for what it lacked in performance with unique and lovely Francophone style, all the while delivering great fuel economy. It rode almost as plushly as a DS-21 and was designed as a very useful 5-door liftback with a seating configuration that rivaled today's Honda Fit (_Jazz_). Mine was a chalky grey pastel blue model with a living room comfortable light grey interior upholstered in a supple leather-like material. We called her "Biscuit" and she exulted in her expressive élan, grace and 4-speed manual column shift.

C'était le temps des fleurs, mes amis.

*Re: Mazda ..*
The company's been teasing us with the possibility of a diesel motor for several years now, but nothing's come of it to date and I don't believe it ever will because Mazda's engineers cannot get the engine to meet strict EPA emissions requirements within the target financial parameters given them by the company's accountants. Of course if they had known Ferdinand Piëch's dirty little secret trick employed by Volkswagen, and chosen to use it, a Mazda diesel likely could have been a reality here long ago.

C'est la vie.

- -
Ulysses


----------



## Tomko (Jun 1, 2013)

I think the last French automobile sold in the new world was the 1992 dodge Monaco. It was really a Renault. A person with whom I'm acquainted owned one in my neighbourhood back in the day. He with a surname beginning with de_ pretty much sums it up.

When I was in France last year my brother squired me around in a Citroen C4 Picasso. Diesel with a stick. It was perfect for what it was.


----------



## UlyssesSG (Apr 5, 2011)

UlyssesSG said:


> French automobiles ...
> I personally drove a 1971 R-16 in the late 1970s and early 1980s while a graduate student at the University of Minnesota and it was a fantastic automobile. Not a performance vehicle of course, but it made up for what it lacked in performance with unique and lovely Francophone style, all the while delivering great fuel economy. It rode almost as plushly as a DS-21 and was designed as a very useful 5-door liftback with a seating configuration that rivaled today's Honda Fit (_Jazz_). Mine was a pastel-coloured model with a living room comfortable interior upholstered in a supple leather-like material. We called her "Biscuit" and she exulted in her expressive élan, grace and 4-speed manual column shift.
> 
> C'était le temps des fleurs, mes amis.





_pour agrandir, cliquez sur l'image_​


----------



## UlyssesSG (Apr 5, 2011)

`


Okay, now back on topic. Interesting, worthwhile read in today's edition of Automotive News:

THE VW DIESEL CRISIS
*VW rivals risk bigger blow as emissions scandal hits diesel*

BRUSSELS (Reuters) -- Volkswagen Group's cheating on emissions tests has soured the European car industry's heavy bet on diesel, with Renault, PSA/Peugeot-Citroen and Fiat Chrysler potentially facing bigger long-term setbacks than the company that sparked the crisis.

_more ..._


----------



## UlyssesSG (Apr 5, 2011)

*Apocalypse Now?
*


*Volkswagen’s Nightmare: No ‘Fix’, A Legal Apocalypse And A Busted Future
*
While Volkswagen has said that it will recall “and repair” the 11 million cars fitted with the fraudulent ‘defeat device’, it is highly likely that there is no possible repair. What is it proposing to do? Re-engineer all 11-million cars so that they comply with the emissions claims? And it will do this while maintaining the performance outputs and driving characteristics that induced customers to choose a Volkswagen product over competing products? Is the latter even possible?

- -
Volkswagen’s Nightmare: No ‘Fix’, A Legal Apocalypse And A Busted Future


----------



## Jim Frye (Mar 16, 2011)

*More Fuel (not diesel) For The Fire*

Volkswagen Scandal: 2 Engineers At Center of Probe Into Automaker - Fortune


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

Jim Frye said:


> Volkswagen Scandal: 2 Engineers At Center of Probe Into Automaker - Fortune


If these two engineers are proved to be involved in this it pretty much ties their boss to it as well.


----------



## ChevyGuy (Dec 13, 2014)

UlyssesSG said:


> THE VW DIESEL CRISIS
> *VW rivals risk bigger blow as emissions scandal hits diesel*


The one paragraph summery: "A renewed push to close EU test loopholes promises to add billions of euros to diesel engine costs already at the limit of mass-market viability, hitting small-car brands hardest while shifting demand to hybrids, where the Europeans are several years behind Japanese competitors."

VW has the size and R&D to survive. The little guys don't.

This could be a big opening for GM and their Volt technology.


----------



## pandrad61 (Jul 8, 2015)

I never understood why we need hybrids when diesel is just as fuel efficient and practical


----------



## ChevyGuy (Dec 13, 2014)

I'd think VW's first action is to "fix" it's 2016 cars sitting on the dealer lots. A quick reflash will remove the defeat device. Hopefully it can still pass lab testing, but may be like the other cars in real-world testing. But more importantly, it gets those cars moving again and protects their dealer network. Since the cars haven't sold yet, they can revise the performance expectations.

It's fixing the already sold cars that's going to be a real mess.


----------



## ChevyGuy (Dec 13, 2014)

pandrad61 said:


> I never understood why we need hybrids when diesel is just as fuel efficient and practical


Depending on your daily driving, the CO2 can be less. Particularly for plug-in hybrids.


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

pandrad61 said:


> I never understood why we need hybrids when diesel is just as fuel efficient and practical


If your electric grid is wind, solar, hydro, or just about anything other than coal based then plug-in hybrids (PHEVs) are more efficient and atmospheric clean than any ICE engine will ever be.


----------



## pandrad61 (Jul 8, 2015)

in a perfect world when we are coal/oil non dependent sure but now ehh not so much


----------



## ChevyGuy (Dec 13, 2014)

obermd said:


> If your electric grid is wind, solar, hydro, or just about anything other than coal based then plug-in hybrids (PHEVs) are more efficient and atmospheric clean than any ICE engine will ever be.


Oh, now you're bringing *logic* into the argument. The consumer wants to be emissions free as possible. It's not their fault that their electric company burns coal. 

Besides, that's all going to be replaced by solar panels, right? :sarcasm:


----------



## boraz (Aug 29, 2013)

pandrad61 said:


> I never understood why we need hybrids when diesel is just as fuel efficient and practical


for city driving?
for long highway trips?
for towing 20,000#?

each has an application that its better at.


----------



## ChevyGuy (Dec 13, 2014)

boraz said:


> for city driving?
> for long highway trips?
> for towing 20,000#?
> 
> each has an application that its better at.


The question is, once you've stolen the yuppies with the green factor, how big of a market is left for small car diesel for the things it excels at?

At some point, "it's not big enough to be worth bothering with" kicks in.

Perhaps it's easier to stretch something from the truck/suv line to capture that market than to try and re-engine a car.


----------



## boraz (Aug 29, 2013)

ChevyGuy said:


> The question is, once you've stolen the yuppies with the green factor, how big of a market is left for small car diesel for the things it excels at?
> 
> At some point, "it's not big enough to be worth bothering with" kicks in.
> 
> Perhaps it's easier to stretch something from the truck/suv line to capture that market than to try and re-engine a car.


why would a yuppie by a diesel? wrong application for them.


----------



## ChevyGuy (Dec 13, 2014)

boraz said:


> why would a yuppie by a diesel? wrong application for them.


Then what's the selling point of a "clean diesel"? Wasn't it partly because diesel has less CO2?


----------



## boraz (Aug 29, 2013)

ChevyGuy said:


> Then what's the selling point of a "clean diesel"? Wasn't it partly because diesel has less CO2?


its clean as in it doesnt put out black smoke

diesel was retarded choice for a city dweller, and clean diesel is even worse choice for that

electrics and hybrids for city driving, diesel for hwy driving


----------



## pandrad61 (Jul 8, 2015)

diesel does well in all fields except for high performance motor racing. as a city car my cruze does absolutely wonderful. i do a good 50/50 mix of highway and city and not once have i had a regen issue or even noticed any problems a gas burner would not have.. great choice for me in the city, has passing power that i need and still gets great mpg in the city. on the highway its at home eating miles.
Chevy called it the clean diesel because Americans for the most part remember the days old mercs and other oil burners would bellow out black smoke and soot. to the average American consumer this was bad so chevy went out to clean up the image and it did so (if only GM advertised the diesel more) .

the problem i have with hybrids is that in 15 years you will be carting a dead brick worth more then the car to repair at that point. is all the added complexity really worth an extra 2mpg city?


----------



## UlyssesSG (Apr 5, 2011)

pandrad61 said:


> Chevy called it the clean diesel because Americans for the most part remember the days old mercs and other oil burners would bellow out black smoke and soot. to the average American consumer this was bad so chevy went out to clean up the image and it did so (if only GM advertised the diesel more).


Huh? Revisionist history? It's GM's ill-fated Oldsmobile Cutlass Diesel (1978-1985) that many automotive pundits believe harmed the cause of diesel-powered passenger cars for decades in the United States, though people under a certain age would have no memory of that embarrassing failure.


----------



## pandrad61 (Jul 8, 2015)

like you said, young people like me wont remember, i remember old Mercedes because i have been to Latin America and have seen how dirty they are.plus the green moment is very strong now a days so it would suit them to comply because the market is leaning that way. personally i don't care for the green moment, i drive a motorcycle almost everywhere that gets great mpg and is clean burning and i use a car only when needed. so when i see a hippy type yell at me for driving my 4x4 v8 jeep i just shrug


----------



## UlyssesSG (Apr 5, 2011)

pandrad61 said:


> I drive a motorcycle almost everywhere that gets great mpg and is clean burning.


Good for you, Pandra! :th_dblthumb2:
I ride my motorcycle _(and bicycle)_ whenever possible, too, but doubtless not as much as you.

Today's modern street motorcycles, at least the ones sold new here in the USA, the UK and Europe employ advanced engine and emissions technologies as well as safety systems (2-channel ABS, slipper clutches, LED lighting) to deliver outstanding performance, efficiency and laudable tailpipe emissions. A smaller displacement sportbike can clock zero to 60 miles per hour in roughly 5-6 seconds all the while delivering upwards of 70 mpg or more in combined usage. Whoever said you can't have your cake and eat it, too, hasn't ridden today's two-wheeled wonders.


----------



## pandrad61 (Jul 8, 2015)

exactly. not everyone needs a big car to get around. when i go to work i ride my motorcycle, when i need to take long trips or get stuff around town too big for my backpack i take the cruze, when i need to carry lumber and want to go hunting i take my jeep. being green is not necessarily owning a hybrid its about minimizing the impact whenever possible.
i see so many people in my area here in Florida that drive a ford f350 4x4 turbo diesel so get a few groceries at the store and never have they used the truck for towing or work.


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

pandrad61 said:


> exactly. not everyone needs a big car to get around. when i go to work i ride my motorcycle, when i need to take long trips or get stuff around town too big for my backpack i take the cruze, when i need to carry lumber and want to go hunting i take my jeep. being green is not owning a hybrid its about minimizing the impact whenever possible.
> i see so many people in my area here in Florida that drive a ford f350 4x4 turbo diesel so get a few groceries at the store and never have they used the truck for towing or work.


I've see big SUVs running around Denver that I know have seen less dirt road than my Cruze.


----------



## UlyssesSG (Apr 5, 2011)

pandrad61 said:


> Being green is not _(necessarily)_ owning a hybrid its about minimizing the impact whenever possible.


Well said Pandra, well said.


----------



## pandrad61 (Jul 8, 2015)

> I've see big SUVs running around Denver that I know have seen less dirt road than my Cruze


I get the whole you like luxury thing and can afford 200$ a week fill ups but your doing unnecessary harm to the environment. fuel would be cheaper, roads in better shape, less impact on the environment if people would buy there cars as needed. i need my jeep and yes its a double floating axle 4x4 v8 but i off set it by not driving it unless needed.


----------



## UlyssesSG (Apr 5, 2011)

*- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -**
VW Diesel Saga, 06 Oct 2015 Update
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

VW will delay or cancel non-essential investments, CEO Mueller says*
BERLIN (Bloomberg) -- Volkswagen Group CEO Matthias Mueller said the automaker will delay or cancel non-essential projects as pressure mounts to slash spending in the wake of the diesel-emissions scandal.
VW will delay or cancel non-essential investments, CEO Mueller says
*

UK car sales rise 8.6% on strong demand for diesel, VW cars*
LONDON (Reuters) -- UK new-car registrations rose by 8.6 percent percent in September as demand for diesel vehicles remained strong despite Volkswagen Group's emissions scandal.
UK car sales rise 8.6% on strong demand for diesel, VW cars


*VW says 8 million cars in EU are affected by cheat software*
BERLIN (Reuters) -- Volkswagen Group said 8 million diesel vehicles in the European Union were fitted with software capable of cheating vehicle emissions tests, according to a copy of the letter sent to German lawmakers. Vehicles with 1.2-, 1.-6 and 2.0-liter diesel engines of the type EA 189 are affected.
VW says 8 million cars in EU are affected by cheat software


*VW considers diesel fixes ranging from upgrade to new car, report says*
MUNICH (Bloomberg) -- Volkswagen Group is exploring options from a simple software upgrade to outright replacing cars as a deadline approaches to present a fix for up to 11 million rigged diesel vehicles.
VW considers diesel fixes ranging from upgrade to new car, report says


*VW has no evidence against suspended top engineers, report says*
BERLIN (Reuters) -- Volkswagen Group has not found any evidence against three top engineers suspended as part of its internal investigation into the rigging of U.S. emissions tests, a source close to the company's supervisory board told Reuters. Two sources said the automaker's internal inquiry had found that employees began to install software designed to cheat diesel emissions tests in 2008, after realizing a new engine developed at great cost would fail to meet both U.S. emissions standards and in-house cost targets.
VW has no evidence against suspended top engineers, report says


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

I wonder if this scandal will start to rollback the $500 Million annual subsidies governments around the world give coal and oil. One of the complaints that has been leveled at the US Government, and the Obama Administration in particular, is that we have been subsidizing solar and wind generation. Both these technologies would have a lot easier time competing against oil and coal if oil and coal weren't being subsidized so heavily.


----------



## boneheaddoctor (Dec 10, 2014)

pandrad61 said:


> like you said, young people like me wont remember, i remember old Mercedes because i have been to Latin America and have seen how dirty they are.plus the green moment is very strong now a days so it would suit them to comply because the market is leaning that way. personally i don't care for the green moment, i drive a motorcycle almost everywhere that gets great mpg and is clean burning and i use a car only when needed. so when i see a hippy type yell at me for driving my 4x4 v8 jeep i just shrug


I flip the hippy type person the middle finger is they object to anything, what I'm driving or how I'm driving it.

I've got three OLD IDI diesels, two turbo one non-turbo. (in my sig file)

If anyone objects then they can buy me a NEW vehicle of similar specifications and capacity to my liking....or they can perform an anatomically impossible act upon themselves.


----------



## UlyssesSG (Apr 5, 2011)

boneheaddoctor said:


> I've got three OLD IDI diesels, two turbo one non-turbo. (in my sig file)





boneheaddoctor said:


> 1983 Mercedes 300D Turbodiesel
> 1979 Mercedes 300SD Turbodiesel
> 1971 Mercedes 280SE (how many 1971 cars with factory fuel injection, 4 speed automatic and 4 wheel disk brakes have you seen?)


*Great automobiles, all, as was the durable 240D.
*When I grew up in West Germany all the taxicabs were 240Ds in their trademark buff cream colour. No _Yellow Cab_ gaudiness. Also, back in the States, mid 1970s, I drove a 1969 Mercedes 280SE. Solid as a rock, exquisitely built, stately. Pure old school Mercedes at its Teutonic finest.


----------



## Tomko (Jun 1, 2013)

Not even M-B makes them like that anymore.


----------



## UlyssesSG (Apr 5, 2011)

*Is VW Doomed?*

*Egregious mismanagement sets the stage.*

ft.com *> *companies *> *industrials *> *Automobiles

*Culture clash gives clue to Volkswagen scandal*

Richard Milne in Wolfsburg
06 October 2015

*Employees say new management could have spotted emissions problem*

A decade ago, Volkswagen was mired in scandal and in the grip of a power struggle. But revelations in recent weeks suggest the fallout from that time is still being felt at Europe’s biggest carmaker as it tries to cope with an even bigger scandal.

Last week, an internal investigation into allegations that VW manipulated US emissions tests presented evidence to the group’s supervisory board that the first actions in the scandal could have taken place as long ago as 2005-06, according to people familiar with the probe...

- - - - - - - - -
Financial Times:
Culture clash gives clue to Volkswagen scandal


----------



## ChevyGuy (Dec 13, 2014)

pandrad61 said:


> the problem i have with hybrids is that in 15 years you will be carting a dead brick worth more then the car to repair at that point.


What percentage of cars get to live that long? I see it as a potential problem for those in the economic class that have to drive that old a car, but not much of a problem for the typical first or second owner.


----------



## boraz (Aug 29, 2013)

pandrad61 said:


> the problem i have with hybrids is that in 15 years you will be carting a dead brick worth more then the car to repair at that point. is all the added complexity really worth an extra 2mpg city?


itll be more than 2 mpg extra, hybrids get better city mpg than hwy

its ~$2000 to replace the batteries on a prius, thats not far off from what the cruze diesel will have needed at same age

yeah there are those that look at an older car as what it worth, but the better way to look at it is what it will return to you cost per mile for the repair....i just put $3000 into one of my 16yo 180,000 mile vehicles....it will give me another 3yrs of driving, EASY...at <$100/mth...


----------



## ChevyGuy (Dec 13, 2014)

boraz said:


> yeah there are those that look at an older car as what it worth, but the better way to look at it is what it will return to you cost per mile for the repair....i just put $3000 into one of my 16yo 180,000 mile vehicles....it will give me another 3yrs of driving, EASY...at <$100/mth...


Or, as my dad put it: a car is worth what you can get out of it. (And he wasn't talking resale value).


----------



## boneheaddoctor (Dec 10, 2014)

UlyssesSG said:


> *Great automobiles, all, as was the durable 240D.
> *When I grew up in West Germany all the taxicabs were 240Ds in their trademark buff cream colour. No _Yellow Cab_ gaudiness. Also, back in the States, mid 1970s, I drove a 1969 Mercedes 280SE. Solid as a rock, exquisitely built, stately. Pure old school Mercedes at its Teutonic finest.



Are you certain those were 240D's that were cabs where you were? All the ones I've seen and I know where there are still a few in junkyards in Europe were 200D's. Yes I've driven one of those....actually wondered what was wrong with it. Couldn't get out of its own way. That was 15 years before I bought my First old Mercedes.


----------



## boneheaddoctor (Dec 10, 2014)

boraz said:


> itll be more than 2 mpg extra, hybrids get better city mpg than hwy
> 
> its ~$2000 to replace the batteries on a prius, thats not far off from what the cruze diesel will have needed at same age
> 
> yeah there are those that look at an older car as what it worth, but the better way to look at it is what it will return to you cost per mile for the repair....i just put $3000 into one of my 16yo 180,000 mile vehicles....it will give me another 3yrs of driving, EASY...at <$100/mth...


Buy an old Mercedes..I bought my 300D 10 years ago with 140K mikes miles on it for $2,800....has 220K miles on it now runs like a charm but the tinworm has a hold of it. Cost a small fortune to ship a non-running rust free chassis from the south west to move all the good parts to. Been exceptionally reliable. Even by NEW car standards (as in brand new)


----------



## Tomko (Jun 1, 2013)

Poor folks drive old cars because they can't afford new. 

Rich folks drive old cars because they can afford to repair them.


----------



## UlyssesSG (Apr 5, 2011)

boneheaddoctor said:


> Are you certain those were 240D's that were cabs where you were? All the ones I've seen and I know where there are still a few in junkyards in Europe were 200D's. Yes I've driven one of those....actually wondered what was wrong with it. Couldn't get out of its own way. That was 15 years before I bought my First old Mercedes.


Now that you mention it BHD (boneheaddoctor), I believe there may have been 200Ds but there were also other models including 220Ds and 240Ds. What they all were though were Mercedes-Benz W114/W115s, which were in production from 1968 until 1976. You are absolutely correct in remembering they were modest performers in terms of acceleration _(although my music teacher Mr Hudgins who drove a 240D once told me that in polite society its performance should be referred to as "maidenly")_, but they drove like a real Mercedes-Benz, were durable and relatively inexpensive to operate otherwise they would never have become the preferred vehicle for livery service.
- -
See Wikipedia: Mercedes-Benz W114



1973 Mercedes-Benz W115 220D with US-spec headlights
and corresponding side markers and reflectors​


----------



## brian v (Dec 25, 2011)

( BHD ) I love IT Ulllysses .

I wonder if he is still clandestined . Yeah I read that the Mercedes were real runners up there in Alaska too !


----------



## pandrad61 (Jul 8, 2015)

> What percentage of cars get to live that long? I see it as a potential problem for those in the economic class that have to drive that old a car, but not much of a problem for the typical first or second owner


actually a lot of cars. my 87 Chevy g van is still kicking with very little money into it to keep it running, my 95 grand cherokee is the same, my supra same, and my 90 cbr 1000. if you do cheap maintenance then cost of keeping it running will not be bad in 15 years


----------



## UlyssesSG (Apr 5, 2011)

`
OCTOBER 8, 2015
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
*Volkswagen Emissions Investigation
*- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
*LIVE hearing before House sub-committee in Washington, DC.* 

Volkswagen Group of America President and CEO Michael Horn testifying at a Congressional hearing on the investigation into alleged air quality standards cheating by the German automaker.

Watch this program live


----------



## PanJet (Jun 18, 2013)

Some Observations from the Live Hearing

Some interesting quotes:
_
"Volkswagen says most of the 500,000 U.S. cars with diesel engines that cheat on emissions tests will need complex hardware and software fixes that will take several years.__U.S. CEO Michael Horn is telling a U.S. House subcommittee that the cars will still get the window sticker fuel mileage when they are repaired. But the fixes might affect performance, including a one-or-two mile-per-hour drop in top speed._
_Horn says software changes alone will work for newer models, but 430,000 cars dating to 2009 will need mechanical fixes that are still being developed._

_Horn says software will repair about 90,000 newer Passat models, but they may need an additional sensor."_

This seems to go along with the idea that the newer, DEF equipped models will be a much easier fix with possibly no loss in performance or mileage. I'm curious what the "complex hardware" fix is for the older models, however. Could they really be considering retrofitting SCR (DEF equipment) to the older models? That would seem to be cost prohibitive.

_"'To my understanding this was not a corporate decision, this was something individuals did,' Horn said._
_He says 'a couple' software developers in Germany were responsible for the cheat."_

Hmm, I'm raising the BS flag. He may be correct that it was not a "corporate decision," but I don't see how it's possible that this could be pulled off by only 'a couple software developers.' There had to be other players - engineers, middle management, etc.

_"U.S. CEO Michael Horn tells lawmakers that the company may pay customers for a loss in resale values because of the scandal."_

As expected. 
Read more here: The Latest: VW is looking at compensating car owners | The Charlotte Observer​


----------



## boneheaddoctor (Dec 10, 2014)

UlyssesSG said:


> Now that you mention it BHD (boneheaddoctor), I believe there may have been 200Ds but there were also other models including 220Ds and 240Ds. What they all were though were Mercedes-Benz W114/W115s, which were in production from 1968 until 1976. You are absolutely correct in remembering they were modest performers in terms of acceleration _(although my music teacher Mr Hudgins who drove a 240D once told me that in polite society its performance should be referred to as "maidenly")_, but they drove like a real Mercedes-Benz, were durable and relatively inexpensive to operate otherwise they would never have become the preferred vehicle for livery service.
> - -
> See Wikipedia: Mercedes-Benz W114
> 
> ...


Modest performer is being nice....really really nice. Unless compared with tectonic plate movement or Glaciers. Though I should have mentioned the W123 chassis vs the W114 /W115 you pictured or the W108.

The W123 was the taxi cab of choice when I was first in Europe (and the ones I was referring to)..the older chassis had long since replaced for the cabs I've seen. And what was mentioned as well...Not even Mercedes makes them like that any more. Nobody does. That was back when the company was run by engineers...not accountants making all the decisions.

And to BrianV ...I've never even been to Alaska. Too cold and my wife would make my life ****. Because if your wife isn't happy...she will do her best to make sure YOU aren't happy either. Far too remote for her. And I would miss decent internet access speeds.


----------



## ChevyGuy (Dec 13, 2014)

PanJet said:


> _"'To my understanding this was not a corporate decision, this was something individuals did,' Horn said._
> _He says 'a couple' software developers in Germany were responsible for the cheat."_
> 
> Hmm, I'm raising the BS flag. He may be correct that it was not a "corporate decision," but I don't see how it's possible that this could be pulled off by only 'a couple software developers.' There had to be other players - engineers, middle management, etc.


He didn't say it was software engineers. They wouldn't have had the motivation anyway. It was probably the decision of a couple of management engineers (folks with the "engineering" title, but are really management).

Apparently the software was developed outside of VW - by Bosch: Bosch warned VW about illegal software use in diesel cars, report says That could limit the knowledge to a fairly small number of people in VW.


----------



## UlyssesSG (Apr 5, 2011)

PanJet said:


> _Horn says software will repair about 90,000 newer Passat models, but they may need an additional sensor." _This seems to go along with the idea that the newer, DEF equipped models will be a much easier fix with possibly no loss in performance or mileage.


Yes, and he also said that, as he understood it, the modifications for this group of Passats might reduce the automobile's top speed by a few miles per hour. An insignificant performance change, IMO. 




PanJet said:


> I'm curious what the "complex hardware" fix is for the older models, however. Could they really be considering retrofitting SCR (DEF equipment) to the older models? That would seem to be cost prohibitive.


In fact in addition to software changes Volkswagen are seriously considering retrofitting hardware including an SCR system to bring the affected Gen-1 model TDI vehicles into compliance. Yes, this solution is expensive but apparently VAG's only realistic option.




PanJet said:


> _"'To my understanding this was not a corporate decision, this was something individuals did", Horn said. _Hmm, I'm raising the BS flag.


In fact Mr Horn himself has raised the "BS flag" himself, but can only answer the committee's questions with the information provided him by his superiors in Wolfsburg. I personally believe his testimony was forthcoming and, for his part, every word spoken, truthful.


- -
*My summation:* Volkwagen's got a huge mess to clean up, but it it's doable _.. and .._ several of the House Congressional subcommittee's panel members used their time in today's session not to help engender a greater understanding of the matter at hand in order to benefit all interested parties but as a televised opportunity to be grandstanding political arses. Their ignorance spoke volumes and made me absolutely furious.
- -
Ulysses


----------



## LiveTrash (May 24, 2015)

Found this car in the parking lot today.


----------



## UlyssesSG (Apr 5, 2011)

`*
Here is a quick summary of today’s hearing:
*


Michael Horn is not an engineer
The Germans did it: the code in the software that created the defeat device was created by engineers in Germany, not in the US where Horn is the boss
While the cars do not meet emissions standards, they are safe to drive
Horn feels personally deceived and cannot sleep at night. His goal is to see that US dealers, consumers and employees through this crisis. Profitability of US dealers is his number one priority.
Recall and fixes could take years.
Horn outlined company’s five-step plan. The first step is investigation. Second, the company is focusing on reassuring the public that their cars are safe to drive. Third, VW is working to develop a fix for all the different groups of cars affected. “Each will require a different remedy, but these remedies can only be our first step for our customers,” Horn said. As fourth step, VW will examine its compliance, processes and standards to “make certain that something like this cannot happen again”. The final, fifth step, is to have regular and open communication with VW customers, dealers, employees and public.
Three people have suspended so far
“To my understanding this was not a corporate decision,” Horn said. “This was something individuals did.”
Horn said that the reason this might have happened “was pressure in the system to get resolutions and also in conjunction with cost pressure as well”. He continued: “It’s…wrong if you put corporate profits before people. I think we have to get to the point that we put people first and not the pressure and corporate profits.”

Reference:
Head of VW America says he feels personally deceived | Business | The Guardian

Download PDF:
Testimony of Michael Horn, President and CEO of Volkswagen of America (VWoA)


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

PanJet said:


> Some Observations from the Live Hearing
> 
> _"'To my understanding this was not a corporate decision, this was something individuals did,' Horn said._
> _He says 'a couple' software developers in Germany were responsible for the cheat."_


The two engineers he's referring to worked directly for his predecessor. They were at the very top of the corporate food chain and are both being criminally investigated by Germany along with their boss. So technically yes, this was a pair of individuals, but because of their position in the company their word was the same as a corporate directive.

Is there a class somewhere that all CEOs are required to take? They all seem to be able to say nothing while speaking.


----------



## roadrunnerA12 (Jan 21, 2015)

Time to invest in CF Industries. CF Industries Products: Diesel Exhaust Fluid


----------



## JRB'sOilburningCruze (Feb 25, 2015)

I'm hopeful that VW will do the right thing and bring their cars up to standard. What has not been talked about much is, by cheating on emission controls, VW was able to artificially lower the price of the affected models. To get the same level of performance VW would have had to add $X.XX to the cost of the vehicle to fully comply with emission standards. If they would have added all the equipment to comply that could have made their TDI's more expensive and VW could have possibly given up market share. VW's cheating allowed them to sell more cars at lower prices stealing potential customers from other auto brands. Since they thought they would not be caught it was an easy (criminal) decision for VW management. So, as for VW saying this was done by some rogue software engineers I call BS. They wanted to sell cars, they were able to sell 500,000 cars cheaper than than required and artificially inflating their bottom line. This was a calculated risk taken by senior VW management.


----------



## ChevyGuy (Dec 13, 2014)

JRB'sOilburningCruze said:


> This was a calculated risk taken by senior VW management.


Yes, but maybe not directly.

As the quality pioneer Deming says "Quality starts in the boardroom". They may not have made the decision to cheat, but they created the maze, selected the rats and placed the cheese that went into the maze.

It could easily be someone lower down made the decision to cheat because that was the only way for them to get their cheese. (Incentives for performance and cost goals.)

A classic example from many years ago: Sears decided to reward mechanics that were able to "up sell" their customers on added work that needed to be done. It started off as a nice idea - but realize who was making the most money: The guy would could sell jobs that weren't really needed. A consumer investigation raked Sears over the coals and they went back to "their core business" of tires, shocks and batteries. Did anyone tell anyone to cheat? No, but the board lacked street smarts in setting up the maze and the cheese and not thinking about where that would take them.


----------



## gulfcoastguy (Feb 21, 2013)

What competing auto brands? Who else offered a 4 cylinder diesel passenger car between 2008 and mid spring 2013 that cost less than $40,000.00? By 2013 that had already added Adblue and SCR in Passats and planned to incorporate it in their other cars when the next 6 year production cycle came up. They did add it in the 2015 models.


----------



## UlyssesSG (Apr 5, 2011)

JRB'sOilburningCruze said:


> VW's cheating allowed them to sell more cars at lower prices stealing potential customers from other auto brands


Oh really, JRB?

Pray tell what other automobile companies offered a mass market-priced diesel passenger car in the USA during the time period in question. None, nada, zilch, zed until Chevrolet began offering the Cruze CTD, now no longer offered for sale in North America, in very small numbers.




gulfcoastguy said:


> What competing auto brands? Who else offered a 4 cylinder diesel passenger car between 2008 and mid spring 2013 that cost less than $40,000.00? By 2013 that had already added Adblue and SCR in Passats and planned to incorporate it in their other cars when the next 6 year production cycle came up.


Precisely, GCG.

Yes, somehow a fundamental structural and perhaps cultural flaw at VW's global headquarters in Wolfsburg failed to catch and stop this diesel emissions problem _(called "Das Abgasskandal" in German)_ with the EA189 TDI motor from taking root and growing into the mess about which we are now learning but I don't for one second believe that Volkswagen's supervisory board or its' CEO Dr Martin Winterkorn would knowingly put the entire enterprise, an icon of German industry and automotive leadership as well as a leading employer and contributor to the German economy, at existential risk to sell a few more cars in America.


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

UlyssesSG said:


> Oh really, JRB?
> 
> Pray tell what other automobile companies offered a mass market-priced diesel passenger car in the USA during the time period in question. None, nada, zilch, zed until Chevrolet began offering the Cruze CTD, now no longer offered for sale in North America, in very small numbers.


I can see how VW doing this could cause other car manufacturers to delay introducing a diesel into the US market while they tried to figure out how VW was producing the cars at a low enough cost to not be loosing money on each one sold.





UlyssesSG said:


> Yes, somehow a fundamental structural and perhaps cultural flaw at VW's global headquarters in Wolfsburg failed to catch and stop this diesel emissions problem _(called "Das Abgasskandal" in German)_ with the EA189 TDI motor from taking root and growing into the mess about which we are now learning but I don't for one second believe that Volkswagen's supervisory board or its' CEO Dr Martin Winterkorn would knowingly put the entire enterprise, an icon of German industry and automotive leadership as well as a leading employer and contributor to the German economy, at existential risk to sell a few more cars in America.


The two senior engineers in VW, both of whom reported directly to Winterkorn, are under criminal investigation in Germany for this. It sounds to me like he knew.


----------



## Tomko (Jun 1, 2013)

UlyssesSG said:


> *My summation:* Volkwagen's got a huge mess to clean up, but it it's doable _.. and .._ several of the House Congressional subcommittee's panel members used their time in today's session not to help engender a greater understanding of the matter at hand in order to benefit all interested parties but as a televised opportunity to be grandstanding political arses. Their ignorance spoke volumes and made me absolutely furious.
> - -
> Ulysses


They are politicians. This is what the do.


----------



## JRB'sOilburningCruze (Feb 25, 2015)

UlyssesSG said:


> Oh really, JRB?
> 
> Pray tell what other automobile companies offered a mass market-priced diesel passenger car in the USA during the time period in question. None, nada, zilch, zed until Chevrolet began offering the Cruze CTD, now no longer offered for sale in North America, in very small numbers.
> 
> ...


You are correct there is/was no other sub $40K diesel passenger car in the US market besides the CTD, which is gone for 2016. The additional equipment may have made the VW much more expensive and gas models from other manufacturers may have been considered by buyers. What I guess I did not communicate clearly enough, if VW did not disable the emission system and still targeted performance and fuel economy as the cheater cars, the overall cost of the car could have been potentially thousands more. Let's say that made the Jetta 6-7K more expensive. People would most likely consider an alternative, including a gasoline powered car. VW gamed the system and lost. VW management had to know. I'm sure VW investigated current emission testing in every state in the US to see what the potential risk was. And it was 500,000 cars in the US, more than a few cars. Plus all the diesel cars they sold globally. Lets say profit margin on the cheater cars is $2,500, which I have no idea what the profit margins are. That's $1.25B. Plus profits on financing, parts, extended warranties, etc. So yes, even in your words an icon of German manufacturing would consider this if they could pad the bottom line by a cool billion, on just North American sales. In an ultra competitive global industry, the motivation to pad the bottom line anyway possible is gigantic. VW is not in business to be a nonprofit. They want to sell as many cars as possible and deliver maximum profits to the shareholders. And if you think they are not driven by profit pressures because they are a German company you're naive.


----------



## Tomko (Jun 1, 2013)

Horn said: “It’s…wrong if you put corporate profits before people. I think we have to get to the point that we put people first and not the pressure and corporate profits.”

That sir, is not capitalism. It's some other kind of -ism.


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

Tomko said:


> They are politicians. This is what the do.


And if you want car insurance in 15 minutes, there's Geico.


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

Tomko said:


> Horn said: “It’s…wrong if you put corporate profits before people. I think we have to get to the point that we put people first and not the pressure and corporate profits.”
> 
> That sir, is not capitalism. It's some other kind of -ism.


It can be capitalism. Depends on who is driving this policy. There are companies that do quite well putting their customers first.


----------



## UlyssesSG (Apr 5, 2011)

obermd said:


> I can see how VW doing this could cause other car manufacturers to delay introducing a diesel into the US market while they tried to figure out how VW was producing the cars at a low enough cost to not be loosing money on each one sold.


You can always be counted on to be the intelligent and fair voice of reason and gently remind guys like me when they've jumped the gun. Of course I am aware other manufacturers have diesel engines that will never be offered here for numerous reasons, primary of which is the one you cited above. In the heat of the moment I never paused long enough to consider that in doing what they did with the defeat device, Volkswagen were in effect stealing sales by impeding the possibility of a more competitive marketplace in diesel-powered passenger cars.




obermd said:


> The two senior engineers in VW, both of whom reported directly to Winterkorn, are under criminal investigation in Germany for this. It sounds to me like he knew.


It's quite possible but it troubles me terribly to think that a man of his intelligence would risk putting VW in a situation that could pose an existential threat to the company, let alone jeopardize the livelihoods of hundreds-of-thousands of Volkswagen employees and their families or anybody else directly or indirectly earning their daily bread by their association with Volkswagen around the globe.

Both Dr Winterkorn and his former boss and one-time mentor Prof Dr Ferdinand Piëch have been reported to be demanding taskmasters who did not lightly suffer underlings who failed to meet the performance targets they set. In that environment I could see key employees doing whatever it takes to please them in order to avoid their wrath without having been directly told to pursue a specific illegal plan to achieve the desired end result. That said, I hope the full truth will eventually out.

Sadly, I too believe this fish rots from the head down.


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

This fiasco is now reaching into Bosch, AG as well. Apparently VW had Bosch create this system but Bosch is claiming it was for testing purposes only to see the difference between using emissions control and not using emissions control.


----------



## PanJet (Jun 18, 2013)

UlyssesSG said:


> Recall and fixes could take years.


Perhaps in the meantime VW offers existing owners sweet discounts and trade deals on new cars in an effort to "buy-back" a few of the older ones and get them off of the road. It would help move current inventory, perhaps keep a few owners in the VW corral, save the cost of retrofitting a few cars, and avoid having to pay out cash for a real buy-back.

...just an idea


----------



## ChevyGuy (Dec 13, 2014)

UlyssesSG said:


> Both Dr Winterkorn and his former boss and one-time mentor Prof Dr Ferdinand Piëch have been reported to be demanding taskmasters who did not lightly suffer underlings who failed to meet the performance targets they set. In that environment I could see key employees doing whatever it takes to please them in order to avoid their wrath without having been directly told to pursue a specific illegal plan to achieve the desired end result.


I have no knowledge of the people involved, but that's the kind of thing I'd expect to see: An arbitrary goal set on high and the only way to meet is to cheat.




UlyssesSG said:


> Sadly, I too believe this fish rots from the head down.


If you're willing to consider management that's lost it grasp with reality as "rot" then I'll agree.


----------



## ChevyGuy (Dec 13, 2014)

obermd said:


> This fiasco is now reaching into Bosch, AG as well. Apparently VW had Bosch create this system but Bosch is claiming it was for testing purposes only to see the difference between using emissions control and not using emissions control.


I'm sure VW is a major buyer of Bosch. You do what you have to to keep the customer happy. The news reports I linked to before indicated that Bosch told them it was illegal. So I guess the real question is who were they talking to? Probably someone in engineering.

How much did Bosch know? Did they know it was in mass production? And even if they did, what were they to do? Take down their own customer? Legally, probably they would have to throw VW under the microbus, but that's easy to say and hard to do. They needed an anonymous tip line. Maybe drop hints to a testing agency so they'd "discover" the deception.


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

UlyssesSG said:


> Sadly, I too believe this fish rots from the head down.





ChevyGuy said:


> If you're willing to consider management that's lost it grasp with reality as "rot" then I'll agree.


There is some truth to the old joke - How do you keep a fish from smelling - cut off it's nose. For as many different vehicles to turn on and off the emissions depending on testing/not testing requires someone very high in management to approve. Remember, it's not just VW brand cars and light trucks that are doing this. It's all of VW's German brands, so someone high up in VWAG had to know and approve of this. The three people being investigated by Germany are Winterkorn and his two most senior, direct reporting engineers. Winterkorn was VWAG CEO. The CEO of VW America, who got called in front of Congress the other day, very likely had absolutely nothing to do with this. Congress needs to subpoena Winterkorn and get Germany to ship him over for this.


----------



## pandrad61 (Jul 8, 2015)

bosch should have no responsability in this. its like a full racing exhaust that eliminates cats. it says not legal for road use and bosch im sure warned them and said what ever not our problem.


----------



## Tomko (Jun 1, 2013)

UlyssesSG said:


> Both Dr Winterkorn and his former boss and one-time mentor Prof Dr Ferdinand Piëch have been reported to be demanding taskmasters who did not lightly suffer underlings who failed to meet the performance targets they set. In that environment I could see key employees doing whatever it takes to please them in order to avoid their wrath without having been directly told to pursue a specific illegal plan to achieve the desired end result.


Also known as the: _I was only following orders _​defence.


----------



## pandrad61 (Jul 8, 2015)

> Also known as the: _I was only following orders _​defence


hey its a great get out of jail card play. in the end he is not in the legal department or bean counters that sign off on the design. if it did not pass he was not told as a engineer to go back and re do the emissions systems


----------



## PanJet (Jun 18, 2013)

WSJ has published an article with data from KBB. They're starting to quantify the value losses. According to this, VW diesels have lost an average of 13%, an average of $1,700/car, since the news broke last month.


----------



## ChevyGuy (Dec 13, 2014)

pandrad61 said:


> bosch should have no responsability in this. its like a full racing exhaust that eliminates cats. it says not legal for road use and bosch im sure warned them and said what ever not our problem.


That's fine if all they did was supply the software and VW installed it. It's another if they provided 11 million ECU's with that software installed. 

Do we know the details?


----------



## UlyssesSG (Apr 5, 2011)

*Schadenfreude much?*

`
I guess it was to be expected. Vultures, _ahem... enterprising entrepreneurs_, are swooping in fast to make a quick buck off the spectacle of a badly wounded VW. Bumper stickers available at $7.50 a pop.

​


----------



## UlyssesSG (Apr 5, 2011)

*Don't like VW? Blame the British. *

`
Features

*Volkswagen scandal - Volkswagen Abgasskandal
*

_The Volkswagen factory in Wolfsburg in the 1940s. Photo: Volkswagen archive
_*
How VW was rebuilt by a plucky young Englishman*

Published: 25 Sep 2015 15:51 GMT+02:00

*There have been plenty of jokes about Volkswagen's origins in the Nazi era after news of its dodging emissions standards broke. But less well known is the role a British officer played in saving the company directly after the Second World War.
*
When Major Ivan Hirst arrived in Wolfsburg – the home of Volkswagen cars - he was less than impressed with what he found. The streets were overgrown and potholed. The small population lived in barracks.

And the Volkswagen factory was even worse.

"A disgusting smell hung over the whole property," Hirst later recalled."All the drainage systems had been damaged in Allied bombing and hadn't been repaired. The toilets were broken and completely unhygienic. It was awful!"

It was August 1945 and Hirst – a 29-year-old major in the British Army - had been assigned the task of dismantling the factory by his military superiors. Germany was to have no industry worthy of the name, allied commanders had decided.

*Major Ivan Hirst, British Army*








_Ivan Hirst. Photo: Volkswagen archive_

But Hirst saw enough potential in the town and its sole source of income to try and save the plant.

He had himself worked as an engineer during the war and had been impressed by the Volkswagen cars that Allied troops had captured from the Germans.

So he found the best remaining version of the car left over from the Nazi period, painted it in camouflage, and presented it to his superiors as the solution to their urgent need to replace vehicles damaged during the war.

The military hierarchy agreed and on August 22 work began on a contract for 20,000 Volkswagen, plus 500 trailers and 500 military vehicles.

"That saved Volkswagen,“ Hirst, the son of Oldham industrialists, said years later.

On 27th December 1945 the factory went into production, two months late – and before new year 1946 55 Volkswagen had already been wheeled pout of the factory doors. By March they had hit 1,000.

In the first years the company grow almost exponentially, with 10,000 cars produced by the end of 1946 and turnover already hitting 55 million marks. In 1947 the company tied up its first export deal.

*14 men to a room*
*







*
_The barracks where Volkswagen workers lived. Photo: Volkswagen archive.
_
But malnutrition was a significant problem. In the winter of 1946/7 the small town with a population of 20,000 faced a "starvation winter" in which hundreds of thousands of people died nationwide.

At the plant, employees collapsing due to exhaustion was a common problem. Vitamin deficiencies resulting in tooth loss were also rife.

Hirst also had to deal with a lack of qualified employees. Many of the engineers and factory workers who had been active at the factory during the war now sat in prisoner of war camps.

The conditions in the town - also renamed earlier in the year from the catchy City of the Strength through Joy Car to Wolfsburg – were also miserable.

Men were sleeping 14 to a room on straw mattresses, often without woolen blankets. Many workers moved away shortly after arriving.

But Hirst was a master motivator and himself showed an incredible work ethic, working ten- to twelve-hour days.

By wrangling army connections, the young man from west Yorkshire managed to struggle through. At one point he persuaded his commanders to release 1,000 previous builders of the car - known in Nazi times as the Strength through Joy car – from camps.

On another occasion he secured a shipment of fish from Hamburg to fend off hunger.

By the time the Englishman left the company in 1949 it had been transformed into the biggest car company in Germany.

The irony is that the world's largest car maker might have been founded by the Nazis in 1937, but it can thank its survival to a plucky British officer – and the need of the British army for reliable, efficient cars

- -
Source: How VW was rebuilt by a stubborn Englishman - The Local


----------



## pandrad61 (Jul 8, 2015)

> That's fine if all they did was supply the software and VW installed it. It's another if they provided 11 million ECU's with that software installed.


why should a supplier be held responsible for what the manufacturer built? with this logic then if i stabbed someone at the bar then the knife company should be liable. Bosch is a automotive supplier and they got a good contract to make a specific part, its not there job to ask questions and make sure the manufacturer is complying with laws


----------



## brian v (Dec 25, 2011)

Hey any some ones ever play bumper cars with VW's ?

Yeah ya get a bunch of V -dubs in a big field ( private property ) and ahhh drive around or put a brick on the gas peddle and ahh watch ..


----------



## ChevyGuy (Dec 13, 2014)

pandrad61 said:


> why should a supplier be held responsible for what the manufacturer built? with this logic then if i stabbed someone at the bar then the knife company should be liable.


Knifes have a legal use. But if you're supplying 11 million ECUs that aren't "street legal", what would the legal use be?

They might be on the hook for not reporting that.


----------



## pandrad61 (Jul 8, 2015)

Its not there job to report them. they are in the business to make parts not over see manufacturing of road legal vehicles. should Microsoft have to report any and all parties that buy computers that they think might be used for hacking?


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

ChevyGuy said:


> Knifes have a legal use. But if you're supplying 11 million ECUs that aren't "street legal", what would the legal use be?
> 
> They might be on the hook for not reporting that.


The fact that the ECUs can have their emissions control software turned on and off is actually good. It allows the manufacturer to turn off the emissions for R&D and then back on for shipping. It's the final manufacturer who determines when the emissions control system should be on and off.


----------



## ChevyGuy (Dec 13, 2014)

pandrad61 said:


> Its not there job to report them. they are in the business to make parts not over see manufacturing of road legal vehicles. should Microsoft have to report any and all parties that buy computers that they think might be used for hacking?


You might want to look up the legal term "conspiracy". If you know something illegal is going on and fail to take action, you can be held for conspiracy. Usually that's reserved for the most serious of crimes, like murder. I don't know as anything will become of it, but they're not home free. 




obermd said:


> The fact that the ECUs can have their emissions control software turned on and off is actually good. It allows the manufacturer to turn off the emissions for R&D and then back on for shipping. It's the final manufacturer who determines when the emissions control system should be on and off.


An on/off switch is one thing. It's not clear to me who came up with the "detection" part of the software. What legal use could there be for "I'm being tested" software?


----------



## pandrad61 (Jul 8, 2015)

im sure Bosch has a huge lawyer team that will easily get the company out of any conspiracy charges. conspiracy is if they knew for a fact 100% they are going to use it in that manor. they are owned by VWAG and they simply made a product a customer asked for. if the customer used it in a illegal manor that's there problem, they are not conspirators they are simply doing there job. blame the group of people that actually did something illegal and install these in a illegal manor


----------



## ChevyGuy (Dec 13, 2014)

It's not going to be near as bad on them as it will be on VW, but I suspect the authorities will extract some quantity of flesh - either directly or from paying for the defense team.


----------



## UlyssesSG (Apr 5, 2011)

`
FORTUNE INSIDER > VW EMISSIONS SCANDAL
*The biggest culprit in VW’s emissions scandal*

COMMENTARY by Paul Argenti
OCTOBER 13, 2015, 6:00 AM EDT



Rather than playing the blame game, executives should ask if pressures to grow at all costs might have created dishonest employees.

Over the last month, the German automaker, Volkswagen, has been in the hot seat for installing software that covered up diesel emissions during testing by the EPA. As is often the case, the situation came to a head with the obligatory congressional hearing last week when the company’s Group America President and CEO, Michael Horn, faced questions and criticism from the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations. In that testimony, Horn was apologetic, but said he was not aware that the software had been installed. The New York Times was quick to write in an editorial that it is hard to believe this was not a corporate decision rather than the work of “a couple of software engineers.” They went on to suggest that VW needs to come clean now and quickly.

My experience, however, working for over three decades as an academic and consultant on crises and more recently in the area of corporate responsibility, suggests otherwise. And, the idea that someone in senior management had to know misses the point of this crisis. It may be many things, but my sense is that rather than a large conspiracy, it is yet another example of a company h3ll-bent on growth whose performance culture created this problem rather than direct orders from the top of the company.

_More..._

- -
Source: The Biggest Culprit in Volkswagen's Emissions Scandal - Fortune


----------



## Jim Frye (Mar 16, 2011)

At least no one has died from the programming decisions at VW (Deepwater Horizon).


----------



## ChevyGuy (Dec 13, 2014)

UlyssesSG said:


> the idea that someone in senior management had to know misses the point of this crisis. It may be many things, but my sense is that rather than a large conspiracy, it is yet another example of a company h3ll-bent on growth whose performance culture created this problem rather than direct orders from the top of the company.


Pretty much backs what I was trying to say. To me, the "money shot" was this one:


> One of the most surprising studies that I came across in my work was a National Business Ethics Survey that looked at how employees viewed ethics in their organizations over a 10-year period. What the study found was that the most common cause for an employee to compromise ethics did indeed come from the top, but not how you would think. In that study, 70% of employees identified pressure to meet unrealistic business objectives as most likely to cause them to compromise their ethical standards, and 75% identified either their senior or middle management as the primary source of pressure they feel to compromise the standards of their organizations.


That's information that allows you to understand this, past and future issues. Both in the news and closer to you.

Edit: it's a classic "same game, different players" thing.


----------



## money_man (Feb 25, 2014)

Jim Frye said:


> At least no one has died from the programming decisions at VW (Deepwater Horizon).


Not but I wonder how many people developed asthma and other breathing problems.


----------



## Aussie (Sep 16, 2012)

Last report I heard was 90,000 VW diesel recalls in Australia and a class action by 1,000 owners so far.


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

I wonder how many people will join the lawsuits if every jurisdiction with roadside emissions testing requirements started automatically failing these cars.


----------



## Jim Frye (Mar 16, 2011)

obermd said:


> I wonder how many people will join the lawsuits if every jurisdiction with roadside emissions testing requirements started automatically failing these cars.


To quote the Donald: It will be *HUGE!*


----------



## UlyssesSG (Apr 5, 2011)

*How VW Diesels Perform in 'Cheat Mode'*

`*
How Volkswagen Diesels Perform in 'Cheat Mode' | Consumer Reports*
Published on Oct 9, 2015
Volkswagen has admitted to using special software settings on 2.0-liter diesel cars to cheat on EPA emissions testing. Consumer Reports put two of these models through testing to see how they perform on the road in "cheat mode."


----------



## blk88verde (Apr 30, 2011)

Just saw this article in Autoweek about the loss of value on the used market for TDI's. Used VW diesel prices nosedive as fix remains unclear | Autoweek


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

According to ​EPA says VW's V6 diesels are also emissions cheaters - CBS News the EPA has added VW V6 diesels:


2014 VW Touareg
2015 Porsche Cayenne
2016 Audi A6 Quattro, A7 Quattro, A8, A8L, and Q5

Sounds like VW cheated on all their diesel engines.


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

Given that it appears that VW cheated on _*ALL*_ their diesels I have come to the conclusion that VW should be ordered to buy back in cash at the original MSRP every single diesel car they have sold in this country, regardless of if the current owner is the original owner or a second owner. VW should also be held responsible for the sales tax portion of the purchase. These cars should be pulled off the roads and destroyed - I do not believe VW can fix them. In addition, VW officials involved in the design of these cars should be charged under US Anti-Trust laws, even if they are not US citizens or in the US. The reason for the Anti-Trust charge is that by cheating other manufacturers couldn't compete with emissions systems that actually operated within the law.

This is not a case of a simple error or negligence, this was a deliberate act, pure and simple. VW needs to be held accountable - I don't care if they're "too big to fail." Let the company fail. If it takes VW selling off the company to pay this, so be it.


----------



## Jim Frye (Mar 16, 2011)

Now it's Porsche and Audi that are being called into question on the emissions cheating. TV article I heard today said the cheat software was used in all VW etc. diesels, even the V6 ones. Heard a joke the other day that a used Astek is more marketable than a diesel Jetta.

Porsche, more Audi models pulled into VW emissions scandal | Reuters


----------



## ChevyGuy (Dec 13, 2014)

obermd said:


> Given that it appears that VW cheated on _*ALL*_ their diesels I have come to the conclusion that VW should be ordered to buy back in cash at the original MSRP every single diesel car they have sold in this country, regardless of if the current owner is the original owner or a second owner.


I disagree. I'm fine with a buyback, but not a MSRP. That's a jackpot for others. And I don't know as pushing a corporation does much. Because that doesn't fall on the person who made the decision.

I say go after the individuals. Go after their pensions and retirement accounts. That will make future decision-makers think twice if their decision could come back on them even after they've left.


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

The MSRP requirement is to send a message to the entire automotive industry - don't knowingly cheat. Civil charges aren't sufficient for VW executives - felony criminal charges with the associated jail time and forfeiture of all assets derived from their criminal activities is what's needed.

I'm actually surprised the NHTSA hasn't ordered a recall or refund on all VW diesels to bring them into compliance or get them off the roads.


----------



## ChevyGuy (Dec 13, 2014)

obermd said:


> The MSRP requirement is to send a message to the entire automotive industry - don't knowingly cheat.



"The industry" isn't the problem - it's the individual decision-makers in the companies. Punishing "the company" does nothing. The company (or industry) feels no remorse or pain.
Don't believe for a second that the politicians will allow ordinary individuals to profit instead of routing that money to fund their programs.


----------



## PanJet (Jun 18, 2013)

obermd said:


> Given that it appears that VW cheated on _*ALL*_ their diesels I have come to the conclusion that VW should be ordered to buy back in cash at the original MSRP every single diesel car they have sold in this country, regardless of if the current owner is the original owner or a second owner.


Absolutely not. VW's crime was not to the individual owners (other than for loss of value), but to society as a whole for selling cars polluting more than they should be. Half a million owners (in the US) should not profit from VW's crime against society.

Buy-back yes, but only at value to replace with equivalent car (basically the cars' value just before the crime was known) and only to current owners. It makes zero sense to pay both current and former owners.

Punish VW by maxing out the fine. $37,500/car is far higher than the MSRP of all of these cars, and paid to the EPA pays the debt to society, not just half a million owners. That plus corruption and fraud charges against the individuals responsible.


----------



## PanJet (Jun 18, 2013)

obermd said:


> I'm actually surprised the NHTSA hasn't ordered a recall or refund on all VW diesels to bring them into compliance or get them off the roads.


Since it is not an immediate safety concern, the NHTSA really has no authority in the case. That, plus the fact that the EPA actually has more statutory authority to level penalties, and much higher ones at that, and the NHTSA isn't really a factor here.


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

PanJet said:


> Absolutely not. VW's crime was not to the individual owners (other than for loss of value), but to society as a whole for selling cars polluting more than they should be. Half a million owners (in the US) should not profit from VW's crime against society.
> 
> Buy-back yes, but only at value to replace with equivalent car (basically the cars' value just before the crime was known) and only to current owners. It makes zero sense to pay both current and former owners.
> 
> Punish VW by maxing out the fine. $37,500/car is far higher than the MSRP of all of these cars, and paid to the EPA pays the debt to society, not just half a million owners. That plus corruption and fraud charges against the individuals responsible.


Former owners who sold/traded their VWs have no claim here - they had already previously and voluntarily removed themselves from the "injured" party list. Current owners only. By the way, $37,500 is nowhere near the MSRP for this second round of cars that have been identified. The reason I want to see MSRP for each car to the current owner is that that owner will need the money to purchase a replacement. The current owners need to be made "whole" in legal terms.


----------



## PanJet (Jun 18, 2013)

obermd said:


> Former owners who sold/traded their VWs have no claim here - they had already previously and voluntarily removed themselves from the "injured" party list. Current owners only. By the way, $37,500 is nowhere near the MSRP for this second round of cars that have been identified. The reason I want to see MSRP for each car to the current owner is that that owner will need the money to purchase a replacement. The current owners need to be made "whole" in legal terms.


Yes, but what you're advocating is far and away more than being "made whole." You said that every VW diesel ever sold in the US starting with model year 2009 should be bought back at MSRP. What about the guy who has a 2009 with almost 200,000 miles on it. Are you seriously advocating that person should get back the original purchase price (and then some since he likely bought it at less than MSRP) for a car which he has gotten 200,000 miles of good use out of?

Being "made whole" in the form of a buyback would mean buying back each and every car at replacement value. For someone with a 2009 Jetta with 200,000 miles, that means likely a few thousand dollars. For someone who bought 2015 Passat six months ago and has 5,000 miles on it, that means full purchase price (including any taxes and fees paid) less an adjustment for the 5,000 miles of use. This is not to be confused with the depreciation hit the car has already taken simply because it's a new car, it's just a minor adjustment for use. For someone who bought a brand new 2016 Audi A8 a month ago and has driven it 100 miles, that likely means full purchase price including taxes and fees, but again, not MSRP if they didn't pay MSRP. Why should they profit? They get every penny back, so they've lost nothing.

The buybacks are to make whole the owners who got a vehicle that isn't technically legal in the US. The $37,500/car penalty is the punishment. The combiniation of the two is plenty more than the total MSRP of all vehicles sold.

Side note, I'm fairly sure the average MSRP of all the vehicles in question is less than $37,500. I don't know the numbers for sure, but I'm guessing the much less expensive VW sales far outnumber the sales of the diesel V6 vehicles in question.


----------



## Jim Frye (Mar 16, 2011)

I really feel for those VW diesel owners that live in areas that have mandatory emissions testing. They are the ones who are going to get the immediate shaft. Sure others have lost value, but only if they have to sell/trade the thing in. I wonder how many will just say screw it and drive it till the wheels fall off? I'll bet the folks that have leased their VW diesel are not worried. The leasing company gets the pig back and gets stuck with a car they can't give away. Bet the auction lots will be flooded with these rolling faux pas.


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

PanJet said:


> Yes, but what you're advocating is far and away more than being "made whole." You said that every VW diesel ever sold in the US should be bought back at MSRP. What about the guy who has a 2009 with almost 200,000 miles on it. Are you seriously advocating that person should get back the original purchase price (and then some since he likely bought it at less than MSRP) for a car which he has gotten 200,000 miles of good use out of?
> 
> Being "made whole" in the form of a buyback would mean buying back each and every car at replacement value. For someone with a 2009 Jetta with 200,000 miles, that means likely a few thousand dollars. For someone who bought 2015 Passat six months ago and has 5,000 miles on it, that means full purchase price (including any taxes and fees paid) less an adjustment for the 5,000 miles of use. This is not to be confused with the depreciation hit the car has already taken simply because it's a new car, it's just a minor adjustment for use. For someone who bought a brand new 2016 Audi A8 a month ago and has driven it 100 miles, that likely means full purchase price including taxes and fees, but again, not MSRP if they didn't pay MSRP. Why should they profit? They get every penny back, so they've lost nothing.
> 
> ...


Yes I am advocating this. I figure individuals will be better stewards of the extra money than the government. The flip side of this is the EPA needs to declare that none of these cars can be reregistered in the US without a road emissions test to show the car meets the standards in place at the time of manufacture. Basically these cars need to be off the roads and the only way to do that is to ensure the current owners have the financial resources to replace them.


----------



## boneheaddoctor (Dec 10, 2014)

I seem to remember them doing something similar with Dihatsu vehicles when it was found they cheated on the crash testing in the USA (if I remember correctly)


----------



## PanJet (Jun 18, 2013)

obermd said:


> Yes I am advocating this. I figure individuals will be better stewards of the extra money than the government. The flip side of this is the EPA needs to declare that none of these cars can be reregistered in the US without a road emissions test to show the car meets the standards in place at the time of manufacture. Basically these cars need to be off the roads and the only way to do that is to ensure the current owners have the financial resources to replace them.


So let me get this straight. You think VW should be forced to buy back a whole bunch of cars at full original MSRP, some of which are 6+ years old, because "individuals will be better stewards of the extra money than the government," yet in the same breath, you're advocating for the government to strong arm everything and force VW to do all of this and enforce more regulations? You apparently don't trust the government with money, but...you want more government?

So maybe you should go buy yourself a used up 2009 VW diesel and hope the government decides to follow this scheme so you can profit tens of thousands of dollars...*for what?* You said earlier that former owners have no claim. Why should someone who just bought a used VW with 200,000 miles two months ago for $5k make the profit and not the original owner then? What claim do they have besides they currently own the car? VW buys it back for $5k, no harm no foul. They have their money back to buy whatever they could have afforded in the first place. Why on Earth would this person deserve a $25k payment just because they happened to buy a used VW car two months ago?


----------



## PanJet (Jun 18, 2013)

boneheaddoctor said:


> I seem to remember them doing something similar with Dihatsu vehicles when it was found they cheated on the crash testing in the USA (if I remember correctly)


I have no idea if this is true or not, but if it is true, this is a totally different situation. Cheating on crash testing is an immediate safety concern which could directly impact the lives of the owners. The tort was not against society as a whole, but against the people who drove and rode in the cars whose lives were put in immediate danger through no fault of their own.

VW's situation is completely different in the fact that there is no immediate safety concern to the owners. The damage is to the environment as a whole, and ultimately society. Other than loss of value (which I'm all for compensating), the owners have suffered no more or less than the guy who lives next door to them who bought a Prius.


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

PanJet said:


> So let me get this straight. You think VW should be forced to buy back a whole bunch of cars at full original MSRP, some of which are 6+ years old, because "individuals will be better stewards of the extra money than the government," yet in the same breath, you're advocating for the government to strong arm everything and force VW to do all of this and enforce more regulations? You apparently don't trust the government with money, but...you want more government?
> 
> So maybe you should go buy yourself a used up 2009 VW diesel and hope the government decides to follow this scheme so you can profit tens of thousands of dollars...*for what?* You said earlier that former owners have no claim. Why should someone who just bought a used VW with 200,000 miles two months ago for $5k make the profit and not the original owner then? What claim do they have besides they currently own the car? VW buys it back for $5k, no harm no foul. They have their money back to buy whatever they could have afforded in the first place. Why on Earth would this person deserve a $25k payment just because they happened to buy a used VW car two months ago?


You had to already have ownership of the car at the time this news broke. We have a lot of diesels in our cities generating a lot of extra pollutants that are known to have negative impacts on human health. The only way to get them off the streets is for the government, especially in those areas with enforced emissions standards, to simply state that these cars must pass a road emissions test (I wouldn't mind seeing this for all cars by the way) to ensure they are operating properly. Fail emissions => no registration.

In the case of VW, they made a corporate decision to fleece the consumer by shutting down their emissions while driving. If we force those cars off the roads because by design they cannot meet the emissions standards that were in place when they were built who is going to pay for the replacement cars. It sure as **** should NOT be the taxpayer. It should be the guilty company, in this case VW. In addition, there are a pair of long standing common laws, now codified in US Federal and most state law, that you cannot profit from illegal activities and that victims should be compensated. VW has profited from illegal activities and any one who owned one of these cars when this was discovered is a victim. Ergo => VW buys these cars back from the current owner at MSRP. MSRP is what VW expected to sell the car for and it reduces bookeeping for everyone involved as VW has those records. VW no longer profits from their crime and the current owners have the cash available to replace the cars.

Now if VW figures out a way to bring the car into compliance then that is what should be done, even if it means loss of fuel economy and/or power. In the case of lost fuel economy in this situation, the original owners only should receive compensation using the model developed for the Hyundai/Kia fuel economy cheating back in 2012/2013.

Personally, I don't think VW can fix any but the most recent generation of cars. I think the technology they used simply can't do the job over the long haul.


----------



## PanJet (Jun 18, 2013)

obermd said:


> You had to already have ownership of the car at the time this news broke.


Person A bought a heavily used VW for $5k the day before the "news broke." Person B doesn't watch the news and bought a heavily used one the day after. Under your "buy back at MSRP plan," I guess Person A who bought his just two days earlier just won the lottery, and Person B as well as both of the guys who drove them around for six years and just sold them knowing nothing about the situation got screwed - makes zero sense.



obermd said:


> We have a lot of diesels in our cities generating a lot of extra pollutants that are known to have negative impacts on human health.


Mostly irrelevant point. There are millions of pre-2007 diesels on the road polluting far more than a few hundred thousand efficient small cars. If this was solely about pollution and not about corporate corruption and illegal activity, we're really straining at gnats here. That doesn't change the fact these cars are post-2007 and illegal for the years in which they were built/sold and should be punished accordingly.



obermd said:


> In the case of VW, they made a corporate decision to fleece the consumer by shutting down their emissions while driving.


The consumer wasn't fleeced at all other than loss of value. The consumer got a better performing more efficient car. Society was fleeced through added pollution. The owners have no more claim to loss of environment than do their neighbors who have never owned a VW.



obermd said:


> If we force those cars off the roads because by design they cannot meet the emissions standards that were in place when they were built who is going to pay for the replacement cars. It sure as **** should NOT be the taxpayer.


Who said anything about taxpayers paying for anything? VW buys back the cars *at replacement value* to get them off the streets _and _pays the $37,500/vehicle fine to the EPA for punishment of the illegal activity. The owners are made whole and have the cash to buy an equivalent replacement car.



obermd said:


> In addition, there are a pair of long standing common laws, now codified in US Federal and most state law, that you cannot profit from illegal activities and that victims should be compensated. VW has profited from illegal activities and any one who owned one of these cars when this was discovered is a victim. Ergo => VW buys these cars back from the current owner at MSRP. MSRP is what VW expected to sell the car for and it reduces bookeeping for everyone involved as VW has those records. VW no longer profits from their crime and the current owners have the cash available to replace the cars.


VW buys back every car *a**t replacement value *_and_ pays the $37,500/car sold fine to the EPA for every illegal vehicle sold, and VW profits how??? They're buying back every single car _and_ paying the fine, which is higher than the average MSRP than every car sold in question. There's no way they profit. They're loosing, big time. I don't understand why you think they need to give a jackpot to the owners to accomplish this. In 2009 Joe Smith buys a 2009 VW diesel for $22,000. I have no idea what profit margins on cars are, but let's just say VW made 25% profit on the sale after costs of manufacturing etc., meaning they profited $5,500. In 2015 VW has to buy back the car at replacement value, let's say replacement value on that exact car is now $10,000. VW buys it back for $10,000 _and_ pays the EPA a fine of $37,500 for selling it. In other words, VW had the cost of manufacturing the car (if their profit margins are 25% that means the cost was 75%, so $16,500) plus the $10,000 buyback plus the $37,500 EPA fine less the $5,500 original profit they made. 

Result: Any profit is wiped out and VW _looses_ $58,500 on just that one car, the EPA has more money to enforce and improve regulations and testing to help prevent it from happening again, the car is off the street and no longer polluting, _and_ the current owner has the cash to replace the car for an equivalent car. If the car is newer and VW has to pay a higher replacement value to buy it back and get it off the street, the loss is even higher! VW is punished, society gets its retribution through the goverment getting the fines, and the owner is made whole.


----------



## Jim Frye (Mar 16, 2011)

I predict that by the time this gets sorted by VW et. al., we'll all be too old to use one of them. Also saw that Germany is going to retest all of VW based diesel cars. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/busi...babbc4-831b-11e5-8bd2-680fff868306_story.html

VW faces emissions notice in India


----------



## ChevyGuy (Dec 13, 2014)

Since it sounds like this defeat device worked a different way, I'm suspecting it was created by a different group within the company.

And since it appears to work the same way regardless of if it's tested or not, I wonder if it meets the legal definition of a defeat device?


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

ChevyGuy said:


> Since it sounds like this defeat device worked a different way, I'm suspecting it was created by a different group within the company.
> 
> And since it appears to work the same way regardless of if it's tested or not, I wonder if it meets the legal definition of a defeat device?


Good questions. The only question that needs to be answered is do these cars meet emissions standards while driving? My guess is they don't.


----------



## Classy56 (Jul 16, 2014)

obermd said:


> Good questions. The only question that needs to be answered is do these cars meet emissions standards while driving? My guess is they don't.


They're passing Ca's SMOG checks though.


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

Classy56 said:


> They're passing Ca's SMOG checks though.


Static or roadside? Roadside is the important one.


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

Just saw this: Volkswagen Shares Dive on New Emissions Woes - WSJ

It appears that every single VW sold in the past decade should be immediately parked for emissions violations.


----------



## Gus_Mahn (Aug 16, 2011)

obermd said:


> Just saw this: Volkswagen Shares Dive on New Emissions Woes - WSJ
> 
> It appears that every single VW sold in the past decade should be immediately parked for emissions violations.


I don't know about all of them but yesterdays WSJ said there's about 800,000 VW gas cars that also may have been cheating.


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

Gus_Mahn said:


> I don't know about all of them but yesterdays WSJ said there's about 800,000 VW gas cars that also may have been cheating.


I think I saw somewhere that 800,000 cars is close to VW's past 3 years worth of sales. VW was selling about 350,000 cars a year in the US, including diesel models.


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

space invader said:


> I wonder if the early 2000 models cheat too mine passed smog easy.


The cheating appears to have started in the mid-2000s.


----------



## ChevyGuy (Dec 13, 2014)

obermd said:


> Good questions. The only question that needs to be answered is do these cars meet emissions standards while driving? My guess is they don't.


What really matters is how the law was written. Was it "can't exceed this at any time", or was it "can't exceed this in the test" with defeat devices outlawed? I'm suspecting the latter.

I'm sure EPA will quickly amend it's rules if the timer is not found to be a defeat device. As far as I can tell, the road tests are just a "sanity check" for the lab results with no legal basis. But when the road test are found to be way off from the lab, then the EPA wants to know why and to see if there's any cheating. Or possibly change future standards to better reflect the real-world.


----------



## Jim Frye (Mar 16, 2011)

obermd said:


> I think I saw somewhere that 800,000 cars is close to VW's past 3 years worth of sales. VW was selling about 350,000 cars a year in the US, including diesel models.


Here's the info. from MY 2002 to the present. The first link is brand and the second is group. 

http://www.goodcarbadcar.net/2012/10/volkswagen-brand-sales-figures-usa-canada.html

Volkswagen Group Sales Figures - GOOD CAR BAD CAR


----------



## Jim Frye (Mar 16, 2011)

*VW To Woo Diesel Owners...*

Looks like VW will try to buy customer confidence in their diesel cars. Don't know what they are going to spend on each customer, but it's their first step, I guess. 

Volkswagen Seeks to Rebuild Trust With U.S. Initiative - WSJ


----------



## sparkman (Oct 15, 2015)

Interesting start, wish I could see the rest of the article.

I remember back when Dad had his '98 Tacoma. Toyota recalled it for frame rust issues that condemned the thing. Toyota was willing to pay KBB value x2 to take it off the road.


----------



## Jim Frye (Mar 16, 2011)

sparkman said:


> I remember back when Dad had his '98 Tacoma. Toyota recalled it for frame rust issues that condemned the thing. Toyota was willing to pay KBB value x2 to take it off the road.


My Brother-In-Law had a late '90s Corolla wagon that rusted out after a couple of years all around the strut towers. Toyota gave him a check and took the car directly to a crusher.


----------



## Jim Frye (Mar 16, 2011)

sparkman said:


> Interesting start, wish I could see the rest of the article.


Sorry about that. When I had the link up originally, the entire article was viewable and I got to it from Google News web site. The gist of the article was each U.S. diesel owner would get two cards. A debit card they could use for anything they wanted and a credit card to be used at VW dealerships. No mention of dollar values, but I'm guessing that would vary depending on the year and model of VW diesel you owned,,,,or not.


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

The article I saw was that it would be two cards of $550 each.


----------



## ChevyGuy (Dec 13, 2014)

sparkman said:


> Interesting start, wish I could see the rest of the article.


You can read the whole article if you go there from Google. So the trick is to google the headline and then take that link to see the whole article.


----------



## money_man (Feb 25, 2014)

obermd said:


> The article I saw was that it would be two cards of $550 each.


Lol!!! To buy back a defective diesel? 2001 golf's are still going for $3-$4k here with 400k+ km on them.


----------



## pandrad61 (Jul 8, 2015)

> Lol!!! To buy back a defective diesel? 2001 golf's are still going for $3-$4k here with 400k+ km on them.


I have noticed that the old gold gas or diesel did not depreciate as much as expected. when i was tying to buy one everyone here in Florida wanted an outrageous price with lots a miles that always sad " it has 270,000 miles but they are only highway".


----------



## PanJet (Jun 18, 2013)

money_man said:


> Lol!!! To buy back a defective diesel? 2001 golf's are still going for $3-$4k here with 400k+ km on them.


It's not a buy-back, just an attempted goodwill gesture to current owners.


----------



## PanJet (Jun 18, 2013)

For the nay sayers, the 2016 Duramax Colorado and Canyon have been cleared by the EPA and CARB and are good to go. They were the first new diesels to undergo additional scrutiny since the VW scandal broke. Also, official ratings are out. 31/22/25 hwy/city/combined.

_"Even greater news for Chevrolet and GMC was the presentation of a “Certificate of Conformity”, certifying both trucks, and their diesel engines, were in complete compliance of U.S. emission tests. The 2016 Colorado and 2016 Canyon both underwent extra scrutiny following the diesel-emissions scandal at Volkswagen." _-more at GM Authority

_"...the EPA and California Air Resources Board recently chose the truck to take the additional step of real-world emissions tests. The 2.8-liter Duramax four-cylinder with 181 horsepower and 369 pound-feet of torque had no problems with the more stringent evaluation, and "the agency expressed no issues or concerns," according to the company's statement." -more at Autoblog_

GM has been playing it straight.


----------



## Robby (Mar 1, 2013)

Yahoo is reporting that Volkswagen is accusing two domestic cars of the same type of shinanagans. They singled out the Cruze.

I'll guess they are looking at the recent reprogram recall for the 1.4T for a overrich at WOT condition.

When your world starts caving in you do everything you can to divert attention.......we'll see how this pans out.

They have a unnamed Ford product in their sights as well.

Rob


----------



## money_man (Feb 25, 2014)

They're just idiots man.


----------



## Robby (Mar 1, 2013)

Diversion of the issue at hand is usually reserved for lawyers and politicians......unusual to see a corporation try the technique.

Almost makes me wonder how deep VW's relationship with its government really is.......almost like our EPA is taking on Germany.

Thinking out loud,
Rob


----------



## ChevyGuy (Dec 13, 2014)

Robby said:


> I'll guess they are looking at the recent reprogram recall for the 1.4T for a overrich at WOT condition.


Which raises some interesting questions. I doubt if the EPA's driving profile would include WOT. So 1) How was this discovered and 2) Was it really illegal?

For the latter, there would have to be some kind of law that says certain standards have to be maintained in all phases of operation - not just the road test.

But I'll bet that GM complied much earlier in the discovery process than VW.


----------



## Robby (Mar 1, 2013)

GM was proactive......VW is reactive and the cheat would have continued if not discovered by some enterprising young folks on this side of the pond.

Rob


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

Robby said:


> Yahoo is reporting that Volkswagen is accusing two domestic cars of the same type of shinanagans. They singled out the Cruze.
> 
> I'll guess they are looking at the recent reprogram recall for the 1.4T for a overrich at WOT condition.
> 
> ...


GM found and reported the problem to the EPA and NHTSA. They also figured out how to fix the cars and recalled them for this repair. VW hid their emissions issues and fought not just the EPA, but also the CARB and European emissions regulatory agencies for several years before being forced to admit they did this when West Virginia University researchers figured out how to monitor emissions while driving. The researchers actually expected to disprove the claims that VW diesels were emitting a lot more pollutants on the road than VW's accusers were claiming.


----------



## blk88verde (Apr 30, 2011)

More bad news on the VW emissions cheating -CARB rejects VWs proposed fix CARB rejects Volkswagen's proposed diesel fix | Autoweek


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

blk88verde said:


> More bad news on the VW emissions cheating -CARB rejects VWs proposed fix CARB rejects Volkswagen's proposed diesel fix | Autoweek


Doesn't surprise me. I suspect the fixes didn't address the underlying issue - computer turning off the emissions systems. The only real fix for this is for the computer to stop turning off the emissions systems and VW can't do this without encountering MPG violations aka Kia/Hyuandi a couple of years ago.


----------



## boneheaddoctor (Dec 10, 2014)

Robby said:


> Yahoo is reporting that Volkswagen is accusing two domestic cars of the same type of shinanagans. They singled out the Cruze.
> 
> I'll guess they are looking at the recent reprogram recall for the 1.4T for a overrich at WOT condition.
> 
> ...



SO they feel that if they can't cheat to continue to sell cars...then nobody should be able to sell them at all?

Can they back up those accusations? I'm betting not, or we would have heard all about it if there was.

Why am I visualizing a 5 year old stomping his feet whining that his friend Billy is allowed to jump off the garage roof with a skateboard....right after you catch him trying to do it and take it away before he breaks his neck.


----------



## Jim Frye (Mar 16, 2011)

I read yesterday, that Renault was under scrutiny for emissions cheating in Europe. Time will tell if VW's claims that they aren't the only scofflaws in the auto manufacturing world are valid. I'm pretty sure I've seen a couple of statements by GM officials that the Cruze is fully compliant, both here and abroad.


----------



## Aussie (Sep 16, 2012)

Only VW has been scrutinised in Australia.


----------



## GlennGlenn (Nov 27, 2015)

Robby said:


> Yahoo is reporting that Volkswagen is accusing two domestic cars of the same type of shinanagans. They singled out the Cruze.
> 
> I'll guess they are looking at the recent reprogram recall for the 1.4T for a overrich at WOT condition.
> 
> ...





boneheaddoctor said:


> SO they feel that if they can't cheat to continue to sell cars...then nobody should be able to sell them at all?
> 
> Can they back up those accusations? I'm betting not, or we would have heard all about it if there was.
> 
> Why am I visualizing a 5 year old stomping his feet whining that his friend Billy is allowed to jump off the garage roof with a skateboard....right after you catch him trying to do it and take it away before he breaks his neck.



What made me laugh is the fact that the diesel Cruze is a 2.0 and not a 1.4 gasser. Different cars, different engines. Fact is, VW TDI are screwed glued and tattooed at this point. They can't back up anything. Chevy did it right with DPF, EGR and SCR . No fancy firmware to trick a test. Now it's being said that VWs creditors are backing out of further loans. The Cruze passed as did the Colorado. Get over it VW!!


----------



## ironflower (Oct 28, 2014)

On the way home from work I heard on the radio that VW may not be able to fix their diesel emission problems.


----------



## Christopher_2 (Jul 31, 2012)

I would think if it could have been fixed easily or at all, VW would have back doored the problem using an update as a cover. As in get it out the door keep working on a fix and get the update. Sounds more like they said screw it and let it go. Now they are in trouble.



ironflower said:


> On the way home from work I heard on the radio that VW may not be able to fix their diesel emission problems.


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

Christopher_2 said:


> I would think if it could have been fixed easily or at all, VW would have back doored the problem using an update as a cover. As in get it out the door keep working on a fix and get the update. Sounds more like they said screw it and let it go. Now they are in trouble.


Time to start buybacks for the original owners. MSRP or actual sale price for them and book value prior to this hitting the news for everyone else.


----------



## ChevyGuy (Dec 13, 2014)

I'm waiting for the right time to buy stock. Trying to find the "dark before dawn". Not that I like VW, but nearly always the end result is not as bad as feared.

I'm wondering why the problem. The later cars could do it, maybe not at the rated MPG, but they could. That would mean another hit, but I'd think that would be a fine and not a requirement to fix.

I'm seeing one of the problems is Germany is holding up a recall for the Passat. There seems to be some questions if it will still comply after the upgrade. I guess they're doing a lot more testing this time around.


----------



## IndyDiesel (May 24, 2015)

ChevyGuy said:


> I'm waiting for the right time to buy stock. Trying to find the "dark before dawn". Not that I like VW, but nearly always the end result is not as bad as feared.
> 
> I'm wondering why the problem. The later cars could do it, maybe not at the rated MPG, but they could. That would mean another hit, but I'd think that would be a fine and not a requirement to fix.
> 
> I'm seeing one of the problems is Germany is holding up a recall for the Passat. There seems to be some questions if it will still comply after the upgrade. I guess they're doing a lot more testing this time around.


Why would you even consider buying a stock when the management is so bad? I think this company is at huge risk in my opinion. Cheating at this level is really poor management. I wouldn't buy the stock or a car forever. New or used.


----------



## ironflower (Oct 28, 2014)

According to Motor Trend March edition the V-6 diesel engines are implicated in the emission scandal.


----------



## ChevyGuy (Dec 13, 2014)

IndyDiesel said:


> Why would you even consider buying a stock when the management is so bad?


Contrarian investing. You by stock when things are bad, because it's rarely as bad as everyone thinks. VW hasn't gotten to where it was by being totally inept. I suspect they will rebound.


----------



## IndyDiesel (May 24, 2015)

ChevyGuy said:


> Contrarian investing. You by stock when things are bad, because it's rarely as bad as everyone thinks. VW hasn't gotten to where it was by being totally inept. I suspect they will rebound.


Well I will respectfully disagree. I am in the industry and I won't touch it. Too many great companies to be proud to own, versus a company that made a HUGE mistake that no one will forget and it affects every human in the planet with the air we all breathe. I think you will likely loose money. When the knife falls get the **** out of the way. The cost of the mistake will linger for years. I had seriously considered a TDI for several years, I will never even look again.


----------



## ChevyGuy (Dec 13, 2014)

IndyDiesel said:


> Well I will respectfully disagree. I am in the industry and I won't touch it. Too many great companies to be proud to own, versus a company that made a HUGE mistake that no one will forget and it affects every human in the planet with the air we all breathe. I think you will likely loose money. When the knife falls get the **** out of the way. The cost of the mistake will linger for years. I had seriously considered a TDI for several years, I will never even look again.


How did it work out with Union Carbide and Bhopal? (Hint: 48.875 before, low of 34.00 a few day after, Back in 50+ 7 months later. And that's with well over 3,000 dead) 

Or BP and the oil spill? 

VW may never go back to it's glory days, but there's pretty good odds it will go higher than it is now. Isn't that how stocks work? Buy low, sell high?


----------



## IndyDiesel (May 24, 2015)

ChevyGuy said:


> How did it work out with Union Carbide and Bhopal? (Hint: 48.875 before, low of 34.00 a few day after, Back in 50+ 7 months later. And that's with well over 3,000 dead)
> 
> Or BP and the oil spill?
> 
> VW may never go back to it's glory days, but there's pretty good odds it will go higher than it is now. Isn't that how stocks work? Buy low, sell high?


I wish you the very best of luck. In my book there are things in life more important than just making money.


----------



## Patman (May 7, 2011)

pandrad61 said:


> that right there is the problem. comifornia will care. rest of the usa i don't think will bother


California definitely cares. Cousin of mine lives in LA area said he failed the emissions test with his 2000 Acura and the Acura/Honda mechanic said since the car had 114000 miles he needed a new timing belt. Scheduled replacement at 100,000. He said the car ran fine. It was my assumption that it may have stretched and skipped a tooth causing emission changes thus causing the failure. I am the family "mechanic" or at least knows the most about cars LOL.


----------



## ChevyGuy (Dec 13, 2014)

Volkswagen Engineer Pleads Guilty for His Role in Conspiracy to Cheat U.S. Emissions Tests


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

ChevyGuy said:


> Volkswagen Engineer Pleads Guilty for His Role in Conspiracy to Cheat U.S. Emissions Tests


Wow.


----------



## diesel (Jun 8, 2013)

ChevyGuy said:


> Volkswagen Engineer Pleads Guilty for His Role in Conspiracy to Cheat U.S. Emissions Tests


I wonder if he will be getting any death threats. He can bring the house down.


----------



## BrandoFisher117 (Mar 14, 2016)

ChevyGuy said:


> Volkswagen Engineer Pleads Guilty for His Role in Conspiracy to Cheat U.S. Emissions Tests


Unreal.


----------

