(I was going to write something about the VW Dieselgate, and then realized that I had rather presciently written about it, or what helped cause it to happen, as well as the inevitable after-effects yet to come, back in 2007, at ttac.com. I’ll add a bit more commentary at the end).
No wonder the Germans are so gung-ho on sending their diesels across the pond. Europe’s two-decade long diesel-keg party has been crashed by a new generation of super-efficient, clean and cheaper gasoline engines. A royal diesel-overproduction hang-over is inevitable. The Germans’ morning-after solution: send the stinky leftovers to enthusiastic Yanks waiting with open arms, who’ve conveniently forgotten their killer hangover from the last US diesel orgy.
In 1892, an experimental ammonia engine literally blew up in engineer Rudolph Diesel’s face. Laid-up in a hospital bed, he pored over Nicolaus Otto’s pioneering work on the internal combustion engine. Diesel identified its weakness.
Diesel tumbled to the fact that the Otto engine’s efficiency was intrinsically compromised by the fact that it mixed fuel with air prior to compression. Too much compression resulted in uncontrolled pre-detonation. Diesel’s solution: inject fuel separately from the air to allow super-high compression and eliminating the need for a throttle (reducing pumping losses). Diesel’s engine was roughly 30% more efficient than Otto’s.
In 1989, VW/Audi ushered in the modern direct-injection (TDI) diesel. The group’s oil burning powerplant set a high-water mark in the diesel’s long development. With Europe’s high fuel costs, the more expensive (yet efficient) diesel engine could now pay for itself quite easily. The calculation triggered Europe’s diesel-boom, resulting in a 50 percent market share vs. gasoline-engined propulsion.
But Europeans have been paying a price (other than at the pumps): particulate emissions (Particulate Matter, or “PM”) and NOx pollution. Many European cities have serious particulate and diesel odor problems. Several European cities impose restrictions on diesels during PM alerts.
The new generation of “clean(er)” diesels that meet the US Tier2 bin5 standards cut PM emissions substantially, but not completely. Already, there are warnings that PM from “clean” diesels still poses a significant health risk.
The diesels coming our way carry several other penalties, especially versus the gas hybrid. The complicated and expensive NOx catalysts and urea injection schemes (“BlueTec”) cut efficiency by five percent. Meanwhile, the next Prius is projected to be 15 to 20 percent more efficient. And Toyota is bringing down hybrid production costs.
The diesel vs. hybrid mileage/cost gap widens… further. And the “clean” diesel’s just-barely compliant emissions still can’t touch the gas-hybrid’s practically breathable exhaust.
Then there’s the elephant in the room: global warming. Clearly, the political winds are blowing against CO2. Diesel fuel has higher carbon content, resulting in 17 percent more CO2 per gallon of fuel burned than gasoline. With the diesel’s efficiency superiority down to 25 percent, a “clean” diesel emits only 13 percent less CO2 than yesterday’s gas engine. And that small gap is… wait… gone.
While the diesel’s efficiency peaked in 1989, and lost 5 percent to PM cleansing, gas engine development is on a roll. Engineers are systematically tackling all the inherent deficiencies that Diesel identified in his hospital bed. (No wonder Rudolf was considered paranoid; maybe he suspected that eventually the Otto engine would catch up.)
A number of new gas-engine technologies has converged, which Europeans have been quick to embrace. VW’s 1.4-liter 170hp TSI gas engine is a perfect example of the trend. The TSI starts off with the help of a supercharger (no turbo-lag), and then switches to turbocharging (no parasitic losses). With diesel-like torque and direct injection, it’s the best of both worlds.
A CO2 output comparison with two other similar-output VW engines is telling. Their 170 horse 1.4-liter TSI produces 174g/kms of CO2. Their 150hp 2.5-liter five cylinder engine (US Rabbit only) emits 240g/km. And their 170hp 2.0-liter TDI diesel (not US compliant) produces 160g/km.
American Rabbit drivers are paying a whopping 38 percent efficiency penalty compared to the Euro-Golf TSI, as well as giving up gobs of torque and twenty horsepower. If VW’s 170hp TDI were “cleansed” to T2b5 standards, its CO2 output would be no better then the gasoline TSI.
And that’s just the jumping-off point. Start-stop technology, full valve control, and stratified direct-injection offer anywhere from 10 to 25 percent further improvement potential. Combine these goodies with mild-hybrid assist/regeneration, and the diesel party’s kaput. No wonder the Germans are all hard at work on mild-hybrid technology. It’s their best shot to keep up with Toyota’s CO2 meister, the Prius (102g/km).
A study by the consulting firm AT Kearny confirms the diesel’s demise. It predicts that only 25 percent of Europeans will find diesels an attractive economic proposition by 2020.
Have Rudolf Diesel’s paranoid nightmares come true? Not totally. Diesels are a welcome mix to the party for larger vehicles that spend a lot of time on the open road. Count on GM’s new 4.5-liter “baby” Duramax diesel to be more popular with the light-truck crowd than the gas hybrid option. But when it comes to smaller vehicles, the numbers just don’t add up.
Although Rudolf Diesel’s engine WAS intrinsically more efficient, it turns out that Otto’s engine is a lot more clever at learning new tricks.
(Update 9/22/2015) That article unleashed quite a reaction at the time, as the second American diesel love-affair was just really getting under way in the US. I was branded a “diesel hater” and “hybrid lover”, a rep that I’ve had a hard time shaking, since I have been a diesel skeptic for a long time. Ironically, I’ve somewhat softened my stance in the past few years, in part because the “Clean Diesels” from VW really did seem to be a surprisingly workable solution to the very stringent new US and EU emission standards. Well, that delusional party’s over.
My skepticism has primarily hinged on the following long-term view: that hybridization (with super-efficient gas Atkinson-cycle engines) offers better overall efficiency, is much cleaner, has lower CO output (because diesel has a higher CO content per gallon), and is the right technology to segue into the inevitable electrification of the automobile. I’m not saying all cars will be hybrid or electric by any given particular time frame, but the intrinsic efficiency and potential CO benefits of EVs does mean that as battery technology inevitable improves over time, their market share will also inevitable increase. It may take a while. Meanwhile, VW is drastically stepping up its future hybrid/EV product plans.
In the meantime, hybridization and ever-more efficient gas engines, which are much easier and cheaper to “clean”, have already put a crimp in the diesel’s advantage. Europe, which subsidized diesels by lowering the tax on it, created a huge diesel boom that many countries were already starting to regret. There has been a growing anti-diesel movement afoot in Europe, especially in big cities, because of emissions concerns. Some cities are proposing bans on diesels.
This huge VW crisis will only speed that inevitable process up. VW’s cheating was even more rampant in Europe than in the US, and this will fuel a more rapid move away from diesels, most likely by removing the tax advantages of diesel fuel, and possibly more draconian measures.
Will diesels disappear soon? Of course not. They can make a lot of sense, especially in larger vehicles: SUVs, light trucks and large trucks, although in the US, even that is in question. UPS is switching its massive fleet of delivery vehicles to gas engines, as they are simply more cost effective in the long term (lower initial cost, lower maintenance).
And refineries in the US and Europe are designed to produce a certain ratio of gasoline to diesel, which optimizes the refinery process. Any significant change in those ratios would require massive investments.
But there’s no question that this current crisis created by VW will have a very significant impact on the diesel’s market share, image and reputation. Americans in particular, who are typically more nimble in their buying habits/fads, have shown themselves to be willing to abandon diesels before, after the Olds V8 diesel fiasco, and will almost certainly now do so again.
But Europe will not be spared this shift either. It will take time, but the diesel’s best days are done and over. This is just the coffin nail on what I predicted to happen eight years ago. Ironically, the very company that popularized the modern direct injection diesel engine is the one wielding the hammer.
I don`t believe the Diesel is dead-yet. As you have said, Diesels will be sold in trucks, SUVs and others, the public on both sides of the Atlantic will probably return to them once the VW scandal blows over.As for VW itself, its reputation has been hurt. How seriously, I can`t say for sure, but it will probably take time for them to “rehabilitate” themselves like Audi and Toyota did after their “unintended acculeration” problems were resolved, and their hefty fines were paid.They say thast the public has a short memory, but only time will tell if it will be true in this case.
I didn’t say “dead”. And this is different than any of the previous “problems” you mentioned, because the shift away from diesels has already been under way, for some time. This is a long-term change unfolding slowly over time. The VW Diesel scandal will just accelerate it to one degree or another.
like I’ve said on other sites: back in the ’80s, GM kneecapped the idea of diesel cars. VW just put a bullet in its head.
I don’t believe the Diesel engine will ever die. Not as long as there are people whose livelihood depends on it. I’d buy a diesel powered truck if I had the money to buy it and use it.
I don’t know. It seems to me VW wanted to use the cheaper LNT lean NOx trap technology instead of the more expensive SCR selective catalytic reduction (urea injection). Of course there is no meeting emission regs with LNT while having acceptable MPG and power (ask Mazda) so they decided to ignore meeting the reg, unless the car was in test mode lol. No wonder VW could sell their diesels so much cheaper than everyone else 🙂
It’s deceit pure and simple but of the type you rarely see at the corporate level. VW gets more of a bad name on this than diesels but diesels suffer too — Daimler and BMW stock prices are both down. They must be really pissed at VW.
I tried to buy a diesel Chrysler Minivan. I got the codes from European web sites and went to my local dealer. WHen he put the codes in, the computer said they were good codes but he still couldn’t sell me the car. He was surprised at the computers response. When I told him what it was, he said the computer told him that the car could not be sold in the US. I wanted that minimvan that got 42 mpg with diesel instead of the gas one that got 22. I knew they were made here as I saw them everyday at the Baltimore harbor shipping terminal.
The Caravans used by the port probably weren’t road legal; you can do pretty much what ever you want at that point and the port might have even imported them directly from Europe.
I think Pete meant that he saw brand new ones being loaded onto ships to go overseas, not that they actually use them as work vehicles at the shipping terminal.
Right; the European-market versions (Chrysler Caravan/Voyager) built in the US. They used to be built in Austria, by Steyr-Magna, but that ended in 2007. Since then they’ve been built in Windsor, Canada. Which makes me wonder how they ended up in Baltimore?
They used VM Motori diesel four.
Since then they’ve been built in Windsor, Canada. Which makes me wonder how they ended up in Baltimore?
If they were pre-’08 short wheelbase they may have come from St. Louis South. Straight shot out I-70 to Baltimore on a Cassens autorack.
Except that pre-2008, the European vans were built in Austria, by Steyr-Magna. That’s why I find this odd; can’t imagine what Europe-bound Caravans were doing in Baltimore.
Paul- I live in the Detroit area. Cassens Transport has a large holding yard just across Conner Ave. from Jefferson North Assembly, where they temporarily store vehicles going to or coming from Canada. Chances are the minivans went from Windsor to Detroit to Baltimore.
I saw them lined up to be shipped out from 2004 through 2008. Those were the years I worked in that area and drove by there during my commute through the Baltimore Harbor Tunnel. They got there on railroad cars from who knows where. They had big “D” stickers right over the fuel filler door.
pete: were they LWB versions? I’m quite sure that only the swb ones were built in Austria, and that the lwb Chrysler Grand Voyager was exported from the US. That would explain it.
Well there you have it – a perfect example of our “free market” at work, heh heh!
I’m a big fan of diesels (1981 Rabbit, 1981 Nissan pickup, 1997 Passat TDi), but Paul’s article is spot-on. Emissions-wise, it takes more work to clean up the diesel’s exhaust, and that comes with a cost, complexity, and efficiency penalty. Most of the durability and reliability problems with diesel engines in the past 15 years have been due to the added emissions systems.
When it comes to zombie-apocalypse post-EMP automotive transportation, however, the old-school mechanically-injected diesel engine will be one of the only engines still operating.
Very interesting and insightful article Paul.
It makes me wonder just how damaging this will be to VW. Their stock is down 32% since Friday. Fines and recalls could run into the billions in the US alone. Investigations are being opened in Asia and Europe. 11 million cars affected worldwide.
It seems as though a large chunk of their business strategy depended on this deception. This is quickly turning into the biggest scandal in automotive history, at least from a financial perspective. I can only presume they have no Plan B, because just about any plan would have been better than taking the risk they did. The numbers are simply staggering.
Agree that this is a great write-up, and very prophetic.
I think the impact to the Volkswagen Group will be staggering. It is clear that this will be a global issue, and VW has a tremendous amount to lose, especially in Europe. The damage to VW’s reputation will be phenomenally hard to mitigate, especially since this seems to have been a deliberate deception emanating from the core of their operations. Software specifically developed to skirt regulations? Seriously?!? Trust in the brand will be shattered for a long, long time to come. I would imagine criminal charges are likely to be in the offing as well.
It will be interesting to see how this impacts the Audi brand also. Their success has been impressive, and I’m curious how many consumers, at least in the U.S., are particularly aware that the brand is part of the VW Group. Many customers may not have thought about it before, but given the educated/informed buyers that Audi tends to attract, I would think the reputational damage will extend over.
Of course, given the costs of product fixes, fines, legal fees, etc. the impact to the VW Group’s balance sheet will resemble the Chicxulub Crater–the one resulting from the asteroid hit 65 million years ago that took out the dinosaurs and changed life on earth. Just one example of the fallout: product development budgets will be under enormous strain moving forward. We can count on fewer future products, with less sophisticated engineering, as a result. I also think whole brands, like Seat, could be on the chopping block to offset the bleeding.
VW’s current reign as the World’s Largest Automaker will be short-lived indeed. How other automakers and governments respond, along the ramifications from that, will reshape the auto industry for decades to come.
“Seat, could be on the chopping block to offset the bleeding.”
This was one of my first thoughts regarding this whole mess. SEAT has been on unstable ground within the VAG group for some time now. How it will be able to survive the inevitable resource bleeding seems next to impossible to me.
A shame because SEAT has some quite nice looking cars, better than VW in my opinion. I saw quite a few SEATs in Mexico.
> It will be interesting to see how this impacts the Audi brand also. Their success has been impressive, and I’m curious how many consumers, at least in the U.S., are particularly aware that the brand is part of the VW Group.
When I recently got a key cut, the kid at the counter at the parts store grabbed a GM blank because he thought the GM owned Dodge.
I was on my way to work and there was a morning radio contest. The question was, “What car company owns the Cadillac brand?” None of the three callers correctly identified GM.
It wouldn’t surprise me if Audi’s reputation gets by relatively unscathed in this, compared to VW. Non-gearheads are pretty clueless about cars.
I’m tired of answering endless times about who owns Chrysler: Chrysler owns Chrysler! And I always wonder why there is a big tendency about people thinking it’s GM owning Chrysler rather than Ford?
I think that diesels don’t have much of a future as city cars. Over time more and more cities will restrict car usage in city centers, and not just in Europe. This could lessen the impact of electric/hybrids, that are at their best in stop and go traffic. Where the diesel shine is open road driving. This could increase as freight moves more to environment friendly rail and the aging societies of the west and east take to the road in their ever longer retirement.
Every truck load of freight that goes on rail creates two truck journeys one at either end of the tracks it saves nothing.
Not true.Maybe in NZ, with your very short distances. 🙂
Trains dont deliver Paul they only go as far as the railhead, they dont pickup freight at the factory or farm either, that has to be done by other vehicles then the freight transshipped onto rail then off again onto trucks, doesnt matter where you are.
NZ is worse because our topography doesnt allow for a rail network.
Here in the US most large factories are or used to be served by rail even some small ones. There is a rail siding to several small business near my house that is used about twice a week. In the US goods coming into LA for example will get loaded on rail in the terminal then shipped with in a few hundred miles of their destination by rail. There will still be a need for trucks but much less fuel is burned.
Out here, the trains do work very well, since the truck portions on the ends are much, much shorter. Even wheat that goes from Montana and the Dakotas to the port in Vancouver is much more efficient than trucking.
Not only do you save on emissions, but imagine how many trucks you would need to haul that grain….
Added to this would be the roads here in British Columbia simply could not cope with this kind of traffic, especially in the winter. Heavy trucks don’t do well in the Rockies, and rail is always cheaper and more reliable in Canada’s vast spaces and harsh winters. The trains that come through Roger’s Pass are simply huge, often with five engines hooked up. A surprising number of containers are coming down the old CNR line from Prince Rupert, the first planned terminus of Canada’s Transcontinental railway.
Sure, if the trains only run a few miles but the US and Canada are huge compared to NZ. NZ is like the size of New Jersey, one of our small states. I always thought that a slick thing would be a train that hauled the entire truck and the drivers stayed in a coach at the lead. If the trains were scheduled hourly and made good time, it could be done as long as the union rules allowed it. There are a lot of truck runs that parallel RR lines where this would work. Sort of like the Auto Train taking people and their cars from Suburban DC down to Sanford FL
Here in the States, there is great competition between the passenger trains and the cargo trainss; generally the cargo wins. Very few areas are willing to cede land to the railroads to build more capacity; this constrains passenger service even more. Both passenger and cargo trains share the same rails. If this mode continues, we will be bound to tractor trailer transport for (at least) the last mile, if not more.
If we (in the US) really wanted to do something about traffic congestion, we would find a solution to the right of ways that the railroads need. This is coming from a person who’s family depends upon LTL trucking for a living. I see the economic and environmental needs, and more stuff moved by rail is it.
Rudolph Diesel was paranoid for a reason… His death was very suspicious
No excuse for what VW has done. Also, no excuse for the EPA taking 8 years to figure out this cheat mode was being used. Probably only the tip of the iceburg, I bet other car and truck makers are having sleepless nights right now.
The EPA did NOT figure it out. One of our Universities did, probably students. I find this exceeding hilarious.
I’ve long been very skeptical and critical of the EPA’s “self testing” regime, which has encouraged gaming and cheating. The EPA should charge the automakers a small fee to step up its own in-depth testing of all cars, including actual over-the road testing. or use the massive fine VW will be paying to fund such an expanded testing program.
It’s just asking for it to have manufacturers certify their own cars, and only double check a small percentage of them and then only in the lab.
Correct you are SOTWW. I wonder how difficult it was from them to even get a response after they revealed what they discovered? As Paul noted, it’s never a good idea to have the fox guard the hen house, which happens all too often these days.
It was not a university initially, but the German (!) branch of a non-profit organization, the International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT). Their testing of European spec diesels found discrepancies, whereupon they suggested their US colleagues should test US spec vehicles. ICCT then contracted West Virginia University to test a US-spec Jetta, Passat, and a BMW X5 diesel. Notably, the BMW X5 met the emission standards. Results were published June 2014:
http://www.theicct.org/use-emissions-testing-light-duty-diesel-vehicles-us
Good to know this. Never mentioned in the local media.
…”Probably only the tip of the iceburg”…
That’s exactly what I heard on the radio this afternoon, regarding cheating software.
I agree. It’s inexcusable what Volkswagen did. It’s unforgivable. I’ve always liked diesel and the diesel engine. The problem is that US EPA emissions standards are such that it doesn’t matter what car makers do to try to meet standards, it’s never enough to please them.
No; the current European diesel emission standard (EU6) are now the same as the US standards.
The problem is that VW wasn’t wanting to spend the money to do it right (urea injection).
The NOx spec of Euro-6 isn’t as low as the US Tier 2 Bin 5 spec. Euro-6 is 80mg/km, the US is 50mg/mi or 31mg/km (section 2.1 of linked PDF) and a more stringent test procedure.
http://www.theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/ICCT_NOx-control-tech_revised%2009152015.pdf
Consequently, some European diesels use different (cheaper) emissions strategies when sold in Europe versus the US.
You’re right. I think the PM quantity allowed is the same.
As for PM, direct-injection petrol engines have similar amount of PM under certain circumstances, as diesels!
I have seen French article talking about a study which showed this unexpected result. Point is that direct injection, diesel or petrol, doesn’t allow enough time for fuel and air to mix (especially petrol in high-rpm driving), so combustion is never really complete for all molecules….
I have read that the TDIs emit anywhere from 10 to 40 times the allowed NOx amount, which would still seem to put them way over European standards.
That is exactly the complaint made recently by an independent test organization:
http://www.airqualitynews.com/2015/09/15/only-10-of-new-diesel-cars-meet-pollution-limits-study-finds/
In 2017, the EU is going to switch to a more realistic test cycle, and also add a real-world driving component to their Euro-6 certification testing. Many vehicles which currently pass the existing EU test cycle would fail the new ones.
I would think that Volkswagen would be more honest than that.
they’re not the same, but they’re close enough where it’d be feasible to develop a calibration which satisfies both standards.
I wouldn’t be surprised if, when the next big update of clean air regs come out, several manufacturers decided that diesel wasn’t worth the hassle.
I agree. It’d be simply unforgivable. I’m not against cleaner air, but I believe the standards the EPA are requiring for car makers are unrealistic, at best.
I think EPA deserves of getting Plymouth Reliant with 4 on floor with optional overdrive and EPA special lean burn as their only choice of working car.
all they did is say diesels were no longer exempt from emissions regulations, and they had to meet the same standards as gas engines. if that’s “unreasonable” in your book, go ahead and move to Beijing where you can still see the air.
besides, “unrealistic” implies they can’t be met. since gas engines meet the standards, and the diesel BMW X5 tested alongside the violating VWs stayed clean, then by definition the standards aren’t “unrealistic.”
I think for VW to correct the problem will require more than just turning off the defeat system, although that is not obvious. My guess is that with the system working full time it will fail. They probably need the urea injection process to make it work full time. They may have to recall all of the diesels permanently which then may lead to bankruptcy.
I dont think the German government will let VW go bankrupt a they are a massive
employer . We all now about Wolfsburg a full working city 5km square.
We have to look at the whole deal in perspective. Are you happy with your VWs
fuel mileage, performance and reliability?. Of course you are so in the real world, yes EPA ,the real world.. whats the problem?.
If the worst comes to the worst Im sure China would by VAG. VW are highly regarded and unlike the EPA they would not try to shut down a company resulting in job looses.
Is it about time we thaught back againest this Green Eco BS.
At this point the various government agency (world wide) have not decided what needs to be done about this. I don’t think here in the USA they will cause enough pollution to matter, but a fine is needed. VW will need to clean up new cars at a minimum.
Bankruptcy and going out of business are not the same thing.
This is a fascinating story. I am wondering what will happen with individual owners. I have read that existing cars are still legal to own and drive. But will dealers be required to somehow retrofit each one that comes through its doors? Had I bought a VW diesel expecting a certain level of MPG and performance, I would be reluctant to have the mods done. I wonder if a mandatory buy-back will be on the table.
Another interesting question is criminal liability. Criminal penalties against individuals for business violations is becoming more common. This is going to be a messy, messy situation.
I agree that the diesel’s time is coming to a close for passenger cars. In the US, it is virtually impossible to find a diesel automobile that will justify the higher purchase and running costs. However, will diesel fuel costs decrease once demand drops? As I understand refining, you cannot turn a barrel of crude into all gasoline. You are going to get some kerosene/diesel out of each barrel regardless, so diesel will be produced no matter what. A large reduction of demand in Europe might lead to a worldwide drop in price, slowing the day when diesel cars disappear altogether.
Good points and questions.
How it will affect current owners will have to play itself out. if it’s just a recall, many/most current TDi owners will just opt out, rather than have performance and efficiency be reduced. But if that’s not good enough for the EPA, a buy-back of all 500k affected cars is not out of the question, although I suspect that it may not come to that. There will be lots of negotiation…
As to the refinery process, I’m no expert on the subject. My understanding is that it’s most efficient to produce both gas and diesel from a given quantity of oil, but i’m not sure to what extent. In any case, the current European fleet is so huge, the change will not be quick. Over the long haul, markets will find a balance, and if diesel use globally really drops, refineries will just change their ratios, depending on the difference of the price drop vs. the loss of refining efficiency. It will self-balance, to some extent, I assume.
> How it will affect current owners will have to play itself out. if it’s just a recall, many/most current TDi owners will just opt out, rather than have performance and efficiency be reduced.
I read not that long ago that the US government was considering forcing vehicle owners to get recalls performed on their cars or they couldn’t get their license plates renewed. I think the biggest hurdle was logistics, since the DMV computers don’t necessarily have access to that information. A more realistic approach would be to ensure that all vehicles are up to date on recall work when a vehicle is resold, which would eventually catch most affected vehicles, except those owned by buy-and-hold vehicle owners.
California forces emission recalls be performed before renewing registration other states may as well. I assume EPA will watch the recall and force VW to obtain something over 90% compliance. VW will likely try give aways and small cash offers at first but I imagine holdouts will be offered 4 figure checks and buyouts.
But if that’s not good enough for the EPA, a buy-back of all 500k affected cars is not out of the question,
Just a couple months ago, the NHTSA ordered FCA to buy back several hundred thousand vehicles.
Apparently there have been several safety recalls on various models from Jeep and Dodge in the last few years, which FCA has not complied with. FCA sent out the recall notices, but when people brought their vehicles in for repair, the dealers never had the parts. Some people had been trying to get the repair made for a couple years.
The NHTSA finally ordered FCA to make the repairs they had already been ordered to make, or buy the vehicles back.
VW knows how to make the TDI compliant, because they are compliant when they are in the test booth. It’s a matter of customer satisfaction with the performance of a compliant TDI
Been trying for 9 months to get recall airbags for ’04 Mazda6. Eternal backorder. I wonder what happens when a body or repair shop orders them. Is the owner SOL?
nitpick: NHTSA ordered FCA to offer buybacks on that many vehicles. they didn’t require FCA buy back each and every one.
Another factor is that when one buys diesel fuel, one is in competition with all the heavy trucks, most of the medium trucks, a good many big pickups, all the bulldozers, cranes, and other construction equipment, and all the railroad locomotives. I suspect that there may not be much room to optimize the refinery process for more diesel fuel even were its use in cars to increase; something which seems increasingly unlikely now.
When a vehicle undergoes an emissions related recall or “update” the dealer is required to place a sticker underhood that notes the repair/update. So for area that have emissions testing they just have to require that the hood is lifted and verify that the work was been performed.
When doing straight distillation there is a fixed ratio of the products that come out of a particular type of crude. It is possible to alter the resulting products to produce other products but of course that is more expensive than straight distillation. However the demand for gas and diesel vs the other products, and the current specific fuel requirements already demands that the output be manufactured rather than just distilled.
Update: I just stumbled into a story that gives some insight into the drop in global diesel prices. A lot of new refineries in Asia/China have come on line recently that refine mainly diesel from sour crude, based on the assumption of a strong export market for the stuff. Bad timing.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/09/22/column-russell-fuel-asia-idUSL4N11S1G320150922?feedType=RSS&feedName=cyclicalConsumerGoodsSector
Hmm-
My first thought is that if Europe and the US decrease demand for diesel , China, India, and Africa which care less about pollution would become prime markets for diesel fuel. Given reduced Western demand, it be cheaper than gasoline for them.
See tobacco for an example where demand moved to Asia and Africa when American/European demand decreased.
Or leaded gasoline, for that matter.
In New England most homes use the fuel for heat. So that demand will still be around.
Had I bought a VW diesel expecting a certain level of MPG and performance, I would be reluctant to have the mods done. I wonder if a mandatory buy-back will be on the table.
I doubt owners will have a choice. In areas with periodic emissions testing, the moment someone drives their TDI in, the tech will punch the VIN into his terminal to verify if the “repair” has been performed. If not, the car gets an automatic fail, and the owner gets a ticket.
If VW does not offer a buyback, or compensation in the form of a four figure check, they will have a flood of suits contending the car does not perform as advertised.
Another interesting question is criminal liability. Criminal penalties against individuals for business violations is becoming more common. This is going to be a messy, messy situation.
JP Morgan is caught, seemingly annually, violating securities regs and manipulating markets. Jamie Dimon blames “rogue underlings” writes a check and goes on his merry way.
Fortunately, my Jetta wagon is a gasser. Went with the old 5 cylinder because I don’t like diesels, don’t like turbochargers and knew that my wintertime short drives would clog a diesel’s particle trap, generating a four figure repair bill.
I’m sure areas that have mandatory testing will require proof of compliance, and it would be easy enough to also require proof before registration renewal anywhere.
I recently purchased the 2013 MB E350 BlueTec we had been leasing. It’s the first diesel I’ve either owned or operated. We love the car so far.
I purchased a 2015 Golf TSI less than a month ago, I opted to avoid the diesel as I don’t know anyone who owns a TDI and I certainly am relieved in that decision. Needless to say this whole situation has me extremely disappointed in Volkswagen as a manufacturer. I took a leap of faith purchasing one of their products having come off of almost 10 years of nearly trouble free Japanese car ownership and now I feel they have let everyone down. The worst part is that this Golf is by far the best vehicle I have ever driven and if VW had just put the same quality of workmanship into every other car in their line up I think they could have succeeded eventually in their quest for greater sales just on the merits of their products. I’m waiting to see how they handle the fallout from this as they have hurt more than just the owners of their diesel products. As enthusiasts we all want to be proud of our vehicles and this is making it hard for me to feel that pride in a car that really is deserving of it.
I think that the Golf diesel has the urea system and should meet the standards. This should not have gotten the defeat software, but who knows.
It doesn’t. Anyway, Nick bought a gas TSI. And the Golf is a very nice car.
see this link: http://blog.caranddriver.com/detailed-vw’s-new-2-0-liter-ea288-four-cylinder-tdi-diesel/
Right; I didn’t pay attention to the “2016” part.
“…if VW had just put the same quality of workmanship into every other car in their line up I think they could have succeeded eventually in their quest for greater sales just on the merits of their products”
Well, VW did succeed in their quest for greater sales, becoming the #1 automaker for the first 6 months of 2015. A title I doubt they will hold by the end of the year.
Here was Toyota’s comment a couple months ago, pretty easy to read between the lines:
“Sales volumes or being the largest global automaker has never been a goal for Toyota,” Toyota spokesman Scott Vazin said in an email. “Our focus is on getting our products and services right for our customers and ensuring we are exceeding their needs and expectations. We congratulate VW on achieving its stated goal.”
I read that at the time. Toyota’s response is priceless, and prescient.
“Sales volumes or being the largest global automaker has never been a goal for Toyota,” Toyota spokesman Scott Vazin said in an email. “Our focus is on getting our products and services right for our customers and ensuring we are exceeding their needs and expectations. We congratulate VW on achieving its stated goal.”
So says the company that was fined $1.2B for concealing cases of unintended acceleration
Well, that’s a very different situation. Toyota’s US division clearly should have been more forthright in responding to the claims, but then no one has ever convinced me that there were true UA events. Yes, there were too many floor mats, some sticky accelerator pedals (from a US supplier), and obviously many cases of unintended wrong pedal application. Toyota bowed deeply, changed their oversight of Toyota USA, and paid a huge fee. But there was nothing remotely comparable with either the VW or GM situations. It was more like the Audi UA fiasco: there’s no way to tell the customers that they might have been making it happen. You suck it up and move on, as T has done.
“Toyota bowed deeply, changed their oversight of Toyota USA, and paid a huge fee.” “You suck it up and move on, as T has done.”
Honestly, I believe that to an extent GM did the same. A lot of folks came out of the woodwork after the issue became media time filler. As you indicate, there was some indication of UA at Toyota, and there was some indication of GM cars shutting down at speed.
But, its not like millions of GM cars were flying off the highway in the hands of little old ladies.
Why does the US supplier matter? They produce to a specification given by the manufacturer. Cost cutting is cost cutting, no matter who does it.
Much like the whole EPS issue with Cobalts, it doesn’t matter if it was a Japanese supplier to GM; the spec was issued by GM and met by the supplier. Who’s at fault here? The issuer of the spec or the builder of the product?
Geozinger: Toyota’s Japanese supplier for e-pedals (Denso) had a design that couldn’t stick. As part of increasing its local content, T started buying e-pedals from CTS, an American co. They already had a design that was totally different, and T agreed to buy it.
Yes, T ultimately was responsible for it (or took the responsibility for it), but it was not their design at all. And it was a design that was intrinsically more likely to be sticky (I examined both pedals in detail).
It wasn’t an issue of cost-cutting; T was trying to do the right thing and use a local supplier. That backfired badly.
I test drove gas and diesel Golfs last spring and was really impressed with the driving experience and finish quality.
Interestingly, VW Canada’s website was offering $1000 – $1500 discounts on Golf TDI’s in August, before deleting that engine option entirely last week! It makes me wonder if they were trying to offload as many TDI’s as possible before the expected news was made public. If I’d bought a TDI in August I’d be extremely angry.
Isn’t Alfa Romeo/Fiat Developed common rail Diesel much more efficient & cleaner than the TDI/Pumpe Duse system that VW invented/uses? Even after bosch purchased the rights to common rail from the Agnelli’s I read VW refused to use it because it wasn’t developed by them. Boy Germans sure are stubborn.
Fiat had a direct injected turbo diesel in a car model, the Croma, before the VAG Group went TDI.
The first car on the market with common rail injection was the Alfa Romeo 156, again, a Fiat Group product.
VW has been playing catch up in the diesel field they have been one step behind the whole time in 89 the managed to emulate PSA’s 1984 tech in 09 the caught up with Fiats 1990 tech, Common rail injection has been mainstream with major diesel passenger car producers since 2000 Fiat group and PSA/Ford developing their own systems Toyota has their D4D system fixed now no more injector problems, VW chose to short cut the regulations and got caught as they were always going to be.
And who had the first direct injection diesels for passenger cars? That was the single biggest leap in car diesel engine tech since the original Mercedes 260D of 1934. Hint: it begins with V. Or A, if you’re a stickler.
The 1987 Fiat Croma 1.9 TD.
Why do I keep forgetting that? My bad.
I think Austin Montego was on the market few months before Croma…
No, after the Croma, but still before VAG’s TDI.
VW had to move on from Pumpe Duse, since it was not as refined. Since 2009 they use common rail technology. But you’re right; the didn’t want to pay royalties.
VW didn’t “invent” the Pumpe-Düse design. it’s just a camshaft actuated unit injector (combined injection pump/injector,) which has been around since the 1930s.
VW does have a urea version of the 2 L TDI diesel. Retrofitting this system will be expensive. Owners who need to meet emissions standard in various states will not have the option to opt out (or that is my opinion). Here in the wild west there are no emission tests.
I’m not against cars meeting emissions standards if it can be done without sacrificing performance, reliability, durability, or fuel economy.
Emissions tests for diesels where I live are either a visual inspection for particulate matter (soot) on older models, or plugging into the OBD2 port and asking the computer if everything is OK for newer models. The affected VW diesels would pass either of those tests.
Because these are EPA emissions, I think they’d apply nationwide. Of course, in the western states, if it’s a simple contraption, I could see some people illegally disabling/removing it. But I still think it would have to be installed.
Yes we do get the emissions controls with new cars, but once they leave the dealer lot no one checks to see if they still work. I am not aware that anyone is disabling the systems, which would probably lead to more trouble. Someone I know who has a Prius with a check engine light on. Has been that way for months and it is thought that the problem had to do with not getting the fuel cap on right. Eventually something serious may go wrong but the check engine light will still be ignored.
In Pennsylvania, it’s by county. Some counties need yearly inspection / emmissions, mine only needs inspection. I have seen them do emmissions, their computer plugs into the ecu, and lets the garage know if it has thown a code. They may also do a physical lookover of the emmissions equipment.
VW – in a word – hubris.
As a DieselHead I’m finding this interesting .
I’ll keep my old rigs though , running strong and cheap to maintain unlike anything modern .
-Nate
That’s what I’d do. Perhaps the only “modern” diesel I’d buy is a Duramax Diesel used in Chevy/GMC trucks.
The big question is, were VW the only manufacturer cheating the EPA – are BMW and Mercedes diesels honest ?
I also wonder if the VW chief will hold on to his job….
The university also tested an X5 BMW diesel which did meet the standards.
You can be sure that every current diesel model sold just about everywhere is currently going under the microscope as a result of this fiasco, and auto manufacturers are holding high-level meetings to determine if they also cheated and do damage control.
The VW CEO, Martin Winterkorn, either knew or should have known what was going on. It just so happens that his contract is up for renewal shortly too. Wouldn’t surprise me if he is ousted.
This just in: VW CEO Martin Winterkorn has resigned his position, denies prior knowledge of the deception.
VW CEO Martin Winterkorn has resigned his position,
This produces another problem for VW. Following the ouster of Piech, Winterkorn announced a restructuring of VAG to reduce costs. iirc, the details of the restructuring were to be announced next month.
Now, with a new CEO, rumored to be the head of the Porsche division, who may have his own ideas, the restructuring will probably be delayed.
The only good I can see out of this is that, to cover the costs of the diesel fines, owner compensation and buybacks, VW may sell the non-core stuff Piech bought during his empire building phase in the 90s. Good bye Bentley, Bugatti, Lamborghini and Ducati. Fold Skoda and Seat operations into the VW brand and get rid of those redundant brands. VW would emerge as a more cohesive company pared down to VW as the mass market brand, Audi covering the luxury market, Porsche the sports market, and the vanity stuff gone.
But I bet VAG will not ask me for input.
As Anglophones, we read plenty about follies of the English-speaking car industry (such as by John Delorean), and thus, have an idea of their internal malfunctions. But European companies are opaque to me, it’s harder to know their mgmt. culture & what can go wrong in them, quite apart from German marketing propaganda about their engineering prowess. And Germany isn’t notorious for official corruption, either.
This illustrates how easy it is for irresponsible software developers to pull a fast one, in addition to the malware & adware crowd, who are legion, and the merely incompetent & sloppy.
Many traditional engineers seem to have an understanding of their societal responsibilities (safe bridges, cars, planes, etc.), but I do not see this often among fellow software developers; the software community seems to glorify the cowboy mentality despite the vital duties demanded of computers daily.
Are you sure that you want to use the phrase “irresponsible software developers” here?
When you have a successful career working for a large corporation, and are told to do something by the big bosses, you do it. Blame in this case lies far above the software developers.
That’s the Nuremberg Defense: “I vas only following orders.”
My employer has an Ethics Hotline for that sort of thing.
This goes up to CEO level. There’s no doubt in my mind Winterkorn knew about this. But I’d put my bet on Ferdinand Piech. This seems like a move quite in his league, and there’s just no way in hell this kind of big risk move would be done on a level without his active participation.
I’m not so sure…it seems unfathomable to me that a CEO would accept that kind of risk. Sounds more like the kind of thing lower-level management would do to meet the goals upper executives were expecting.
We’ll find out sooner or later.
Not with the iron fist Piech has run the company. Nobody would’ve dared take that risk against him with stakes that high. But yes, I don’t think we’ll find a written decree, I’d say someone was “suggested” taking that action.
Not to mention, whole scandal seems like a great moment for Piech to put “his” man in charge of VW (he and Winterkorn didn’t quite click, to put it mildly…).
I think you have a point – software developers come from a certain fast & loose culture, where many a hacker is admired and cleverness for cleverness’ sake is appreciated. I bet whoever designed the programe thought he was very clever and did not at all consider going to VW’s compliance guys (which I very much doubt were involved).
I see 3 issues are playing out together here
1 – the deception by VW to achieve a better (lower) emission test result through the software configuration, which I suspect was only there for this purpose (when else would you turn off the airbags etc?). No a defendable position for VW and its software partners, and they will have to accept the consequences.
2 – are the standards in these tests (and other fuel emissions tests) strict enough for the air standards we all want in our cities, and has the motor industry been able to hold these down whilst (maybe) following point 1? You could ask the same question about mandated fuel economy testing results as well.
3 – the points Paul raises about the ultimate efficiency of diesel against petrol. I suspect most diesel buyers (myself included) chose diesel for the fuel economy and tax advantages whilst enjoying that turbo shove, rather than the exhaust gas composition. regulators liked diesel for the exhaust gas composition, which is/was reportedly available.
And I susepct anyone who suffers a tax, city access disadvantage and depressed resale value as a consequence will justifiably want to seek redress.
It will be very interesting to see how this all plays out for the VAG group. For those who aren’t aware, yesterday’s stock value of the company dropped over 19%, or $16.9 billion dollars. I highly doubt we are even close to the bottom of this stock fallout either.
A few days ago it was trading @$170, now it is at $106….
32% and $26 billion since Friday are the figures after today.
Wow, and I thought GM’s ignition switch scandal looked big and messy. At the end of the day, most of the GM people responsible probably thought the switch problem was inconsequential and would not come to much of anything. Hardly responsible behavior, but it was more of a cover-up that got big and out of control, rather than an original intent to deceive.
VW appears to be guilty of outright conspiracy to violate U.S. federal, state, and EU regulations. It would seem very likely that some executives will experience prosecution. VW’s plans for expansion and domination of the auto world are likely in ruins at this point.
Paul’s comments on the diesel make a lot of sense, and JP’s comment is spot on in that for passenger cars in the U.S. it has been hard to make a rational argument for diesel. Until very recently, diesel typically was a good deal more costly then gas, which combined with higher acquisition costs kept diesel sales relatively weak compared to Europe. Why diesel has suddenly been cheaper than gas during 2015 has been a question in my mind.
Provided GM isn’t somehow also involved in dieselgate, they are likely rejoicing that the scandal hot potato has apparently been passed on.
There’s a CC series brewing on Automotive scandals, I can feel it.
The price of oil has been running around $1.00 per gallon. The real question is why are gas prices so high.
Disclaimer, I’m no expert……
I’m not sure what the definition of high gas prices is anymore. My guess is anything over about $2.25 USD per gallon has more to do with speculation then production costs and a reasonable profit on producing a commodity. Under $2.25 per gallon, prices are probably more sticky due to production and distribution costs.
Since everything on the ‘net is obviously true, I’ve attached a link to my 60 seconds of in depth research. This guy’s graph matches my gut feeling about gas prices – due to general inflation, the price of gas is currently quite reasonable. (That isn’t to say that I don’t long for the time when the dollar counter on the pump matched the gallon counter.)
http://www.randomuseless.info/gasprice/gasprice.html
Yes, gas prices are quite reasonable
In 1965, the average price of a gallon of gasoline was 31 cents in the U.S.
http://www.1960sflashback.com/1965/economy.asp
According to the BLS CPI inflation calculator (which is probably a bit conservative) that equates to $2.35 per gallon in 2015.
I’ve been waiting for an opportunity to post this point.
This is a bit out of date but it gives one an idea about the cost content of retail gas prices:
http://www.energytrendsinsider.com/2012/03/21/what-makes-up-the-cost-of-a-gallon-of-gasoline
And it’s true, the US is a major exporter of refined fuels.
BTW, in buying my wife a new car, we never considered VW or other Diesel models. The Prius’s outstanding reliability, + big factory/dealer discounts, clinched it, though we still fear other drivers reaching faulty conclusions about our politics, starting with our 1st trip home. There is a decline in civility on both ends of the political spectrum. Self Control is out of style.
BTW Paul, strictly speaking, Hybrids use the Atkinson Cycle, not Otto.
Actually, these modern hybrid “Atkinson cycle” engines aren’t genuine Atkinson cycle engines, as the real thing would be very expensive and heavy to build. These hybrid engines are “faux Atkinsons”, as they are just Otto engines with some delay in the valve timing.
Here’s our post explaining that: https://www.curbsideclassic.com/blog/the-atkinson-and-miller-cycle-engines-not-exactly-how-they-started-out-to-be/
Thanks, I was deceived by Wikipedia. So I suppose the Prius is a hybrid in more than one sense.
One problem is that gasoline is no longer a national commodity. So many regional areas require special blends, so that a shortage in one part of the country cannot necessarily be alleviated by supply from another part. Also, there are summer and winter blends, all due to air quality issues. The result is that gasoline costs more to make than it used to, and also that each refinery has a mini-monopoly in certain areas when it comes to selling the gasoline that is permitted in that area.
Another issue is that while it has been illegal to export oil since the early 70s, it is common to export gasoline. So, our refineries here have the ability to sell on the world market, which has an effect on our prices, keeping them more or less in sync with world prices.
Since I can’t edit my post above, I’ll just add here that AAA says today’s national average price per gallon is $2.284
http://fuelgaugereport.aaa.com/2015/
And Here is a link to the BLS inflation calculator
http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm
Gas is cheap. The all-time cheapest (inflation adjusted) was 2001, when it hit 98 cents.
I believe congress has or is close to making exporting oil legal once again, after 40 years.
The last two times I filled the tank on my DD the price was $1.829/gallon. If adjusted for inflation back to 1970 levels it would be less than the $0.27/ gallon prevalent at that time.
Paul thank you for a very good and timely article.
Here is the thing: if you look at the last 5 years of crude oil prices they run at around 100 to 110 or more per barrel. Gas prices run about $3.50 per gallon. Now oil is running about $45 per barrel. I think gas should be closer to $2.00, not $2.50. One might expect less than $2.
I find it hard to compare these scandals, nobody died as a direct result of the emmission software cheat. And while VAG clearly intended to deceive is GM’s cover up of a serious product defect not deceptive? Prosecution is warranted in both cases.
Point taken, and I’m not an expert on the GM case.
The initial internal discovery of the problem was likely ignored by people that never thought people might end up dying. And, like any product liability issue, there is usually some sort of line between the manufacturer producing a defective product, and the user doing something with the product that was stupid – excessive speed, lack of maintenance, ignoring an obvious problem, using a 5lb key chain – in many cases likely contributing causes.
Among young high school girls, the current key chain of choice is a sort of lanyard connected to a mini purse that holds their license. It wouldn’t take much to accidently snag that lanyard and the heavy mess connected to it and shut off the car. Perhaps somebody should sue the lanyard-purse-keychain manufacturers.
In the mid ’70s cars suffered “driveability” problems due to new pollution regs that manufactures met with cars that would stall out. My guess is that few folks died when their power steering and brakes suddenly shut down. Product liability is all about who is watching, counting, and able to get the villagers (and their lawyers) to grab torches and start the chase.
A childhood acquaintance of mine was involved in a high school auto accident where he was driving a 15 year old rusted out Camaro in a reckless manner. An accident occurred. There was fire and death in the car. The acquaintance survived, although badly burned. He looked terrible, he sued GM, he won big, he went to law school with some of the winnings……………
I’m amazed by how some young girls nowadays hang their key rings. If it’s an older car with worn key slots, it would likely fall off too.
My ’78 Volare still stalls frequently for the EPA special carburetor in a hot summer day, but it’s not that hard to deal with. I never panic on car stuff, which helps a lot in this kind of situation.
I am not a fan of product liability suits such as the one you related about the Camaro – I also have heard the heavy keychain defense, which is a bit like blaming the victim, primarily because GM made a business decision not to initiate a recall of a known defect.
In regard to VW, I think that this is a life threatening scenario – The life of VW that is……
Who will trust the company enough to buy their products moving forward?
people breathing in diesel crap may have died, or died earlier.
Right. People tend to poo-poo that dingleydave but they shouldn’t. This snippet from The Guardian is more of a generalized statement about all diesel manufacturers which don’t seem to be meeting claims in the real world, but it’s still pretty eye-opening. 11 million VWs certainly will be indirectly contributing to health problems and deaths, there is no question about that.
“Professor Martin Williams at King’s College London said that emissions from diesel cars cause roughly 5,800 premature deaths in the UK each year. “If you were to make the cars emit at the legal limit you could reduce those deaths by at least a factor of two and maybe more. Maybe a factor of five.””
The difference is that VW appears to have intentionally altered the software from day one to deceive regulators, while GM didn’t intentionally alter the ignition switch to be dangerous.
GM changed the ignition switch design because people complained that it was too difficult to turn. The realization that there was a defect came later.
VW’s initial behavior was therefore more egregious – it set out to deceive regulators. GM didn’t initially do that.
This is just crazy. VW has been letting standards drop for the last 10 years and it is something which is well known to people in the motor trade here (Austria) but the public has not registered it until now. Whether the scandal will affect VW sales heavily in its “home markets” (Germany, Austria, Switzerland) is yet to be seen, but I have a feeling used VW car values will drop to Opel ones. I was aware of the horror stories and when I started looking for a car I ended crossing out VW altogether. I don’t cover high mileage and hence whatever I would have saved on diesel fuel would have been lost by higher purchase price and servicing costs, and I’m not interested in tiny engines with motorbike hp levels (long term reliability doubts) which is now another holy grail at VW. Couple all of the above with overblown prices and it just did not make sense – I ended buying a 2L, normally aspirated gasoline-engined Japanese and I’m very glad I did.
So gas has dropped that far? It was starting to get close when I was there in August.
Frankly, I share your concerns about the downsized gas engines. They’re a great idea, and an inevitability, but I’d like to see more long-term reliability results. It’s one of the reasons we bought the TSX (Accord), with its well-proven NA 2.4. BTW, what did you buy?
The thing that drives me crazy about the downsized engines is that by the time people drive them hard enough in real world conditions, they frequently don’t get much better mileage than the engines they replaced. It’s all about chasing the insanity of CAFE regulations.
Generally, I’m in agreement with regulations that try to keep our air clean. The Chinese are the latest example of how bad things get if you ignore them as a society, But, I’m convinced that CAFE has been a terrible policy that has cost consumers dearly in terms of automotive product. Manufacturers will adjust product to what sells, and if consumers demand high MPG, such products will be produced. GM’s U.S. market decisions to launch the Corvair, Vega (and many others) and to down-size their cars before the first oil shock even occurred is testament to this. CAFE is trying to regulate the bogeyman of “running out of oil” when in reality, the issue is self regulating. If oil becomes scarce and expensive, alternative energies will be pursued. Politicians clearly do not understand economics.
CAFE and the EU equivalent are the root of the VW’s apparent conspiracy. VW was looking for MPG at the expense of clean air.
CAFE is a horribly broken system and the EPA and the manufacturers have been playing a game with it since the 1970s.
I completely agree on CAFE. The only time consumer demand meets up with what is allowed to be sold is when it happens by accident. I look for a replay of the nasty early 1980s again soon, with CAFE being bumped up again. However, I understand that the system works a little differently in making calculations, so maybe it won’t be as bad as before.
+1
If reduction in fuel consumption is all politicians want, then the most honest solution is to simply raise Federal fuel taxes; that is the best incentive to downsize, just as higher water rates will reduce water consumption. But it won’t happen because it hits voters at the fuel pump, where they can see it firsthand, unlike more easily-overlooked income & SS taxes.
A former tax auditor told me that many people actually believe they’re coming out ahead when they get an IRS refund, they’re that ignorant. If they had to pay cash, they’d revolt.
All true, but, I’d add that the law of supply and demand says there is no need for politicians to want a reduction in fuel use. And, a fixed tax at the pump would be highly regressive. The guy in a gass guzzling 7 Series doesn’t give a damn. The guy starting a delivery business would be hamstrung (again) by the government. Then, the government could come up with rebate schemes for the poor and small business because that would benefit society………scratch that, it would benefit tax accountants.
Politicians should be looking out for problems such as pollution and dependence on foreign oil, both of which can be serious problems to our society and economy. But, if a certain fuel becomes scarce, its use will be reduced because there are no other alternatives.
“If they had to pay cash, they’d revolt.”
Ain’t that the truth.
Hey you think this is bad? In Austria you are taxed on fuel, emissions _and_ hp (yes). 165 hp costs me €757,44 p.a. You can chip an engine without incurring a penalty – up to a point.
CAFE really compromises the balance of vehicle design, as the marginal cost for higher MPG above certain level isn’t worth the effort. With right gear, right coefficiency, and capable V8, it saves money compared to smaller cars with everything stuffed upfront.
Mazda 3 Sport G165. Direct injection 2L, 165 hp, 6sp manual (50 electronic brains/servoes less).
Brilliant car! And no TSI/TFSI engine, with its cam chain tensioner snapping, oil-burning habits….
I certainly hope so…
I was tempted a few years ago to buy a VW Jetta wagon TDI. I was attracted by its advertised mpg and clean emissions as well as its sporty design and handling. Thankfully, I ended up with a much more boring Honda wagon (CR-V) that is trouble-free, can be serviced almost anywhere, and does everything I need it to do. VW has let a lot of people down.
PS: There is hardly any difference in diesel v gasoline prices now, so it’s really only about the better MPG… http://www.sprit-preis.at/wien/
I’m glad to see Diesel prices come down. How long it remains down remains to be seen. But for the time being, at least it’s comparable to that of gasoline in some areas.
Mysteriously to me, the Diesel/gasoline price spread varies wildly in my area; some stations, like truck stops, have them at about parity, while at others, it reaches 60¢ higher for Diesel.
Gas is now about $2/gal.
Where I’m at, diesel is currently 30-50¢ below regular. Which makes me and my 15mpg diesel work truck happy.
Part of the wild disparities you’re seeing in price may be regulatory. Stations here are prohibited from selling fuel for less than they paid. The intent was to prevent deep-pocket big-box stores driving small independents out of business by selling at a loss until the little guys couldn’t compete.
The unintended consequence is that when prices are dropping, often the lower volume stations get stuck with a thousand gallons they’re required to sell for way over the prevailing price. And since their price is so high, comparison shoppers don’t fill up there. Which means it takes even longer to sell it all and bring in a new load at the new lower prices.
What is going to keep compression ignition engines around for a long time in the us is the ability to run LNG. This has already happened for buses and garbage trucks in So. Cal. and I’m sure elsewhere. For long-haul truck, building LNG refueling infrastructure may be nearly impossible, continent-wide.
The problem for passenger cars is that the fuel tanks are too large and ungainly to tuck away where existing gasoline/diesel tanks fit. We have had several CNG cars in the family. They were spark ignition engines that ran clean and economically, fuel tanks took up much of the luggage space.
I had high hopes for synthetic diesel made from natural gas (Fischer Tropsch), but that now seems most practical for producing synthetic jet fuel, as is already done by Shell in Quatar.
LNG engines aren’t compression ignition engines. They have to have spark plugs and an ignition system.
But they do use (or at least used to use) much of the same castings as their sister diesel engines. When I worked for Kenworth back in the 1990s, I worked on CNG and LNG fuel-level instrumentation for the NG option – I think it used an inline-6 Cummins engine (with spark plugs in place of the diesel injectors).
They were using some CNG and LNG Class 8 trucks in California. And the fuel gauges weren’t terribly accurate. This often led to an expensive class-8 tow truck trip back to the refueling depot.
I think you can now get LPG injection for diesels. Not sure how it works though.
It’s a power booster, much like the nitrous oxide systems used on gasoline engines.
That is diesel piloted LPG injection. In the past propane injection was for a performance increase but now it is the main fuel. The engine still has the regular diesel fuel system however that is only used to light the LPG. Basically the engine idles on diesel and the flow of diesel stays at the idle rate and then to accelerate the engine they inject propane into the intake tract. The diesel ignites and the burning diesel ignites the propane.
I haven’t owned a vw since my old air cooled beetles. Never really trusted them because the ones I knew about personally were frequently broken and I didn’t like their dealerships. I think if I had cared to hazard a guess as to which manufacturer would do this it would have been one of the Germans. Personal bias really means nothing and I guess we will see how this shakes out.
I owned a 1987 gas Jetta a few years back. Bought used from a Honda dealership (that should have been a tipoff since the owners traded it in for a new Honda) it was in mint shape and looked brand new. It was the worst car I have ever owned. Everything went wrong with that thing and I had nothing but trouble with the mechanical fuel injection. The dealership service was terrible and I got nothing but arrogance from the head of the parts dept. who was an old German.
A friend bought a 2001 Jetta that was just 4 years old. I told him not to but he didn’t listen, and lived to regret it. Nothing but problems with that car, he eventually ended up standing outside the dealership with a huge sign that read “VWs are Lemons!”
As far as I am concerned, VW deserves everything it gets from being so deceptive.
In my car driving before I leased a new car this year, a 2015 Golf TSi was in the short list. Then I came to my senses and remembered how horrible they are when they are not under warranty. The residuals, at least here in Canada, suck, making them expensive relative to their Asian competition.
VWs have probably been the most overrated cars in the last decade, among customers, which may be OK up to a point (after all, who buys a car for 100% rational reasons…), but also at management level, which can only be a recipe for disaster. I’ve always found the “Das Auto” campaign frankly embarrassing, now it just tells its own story. Yes, they definitely got what they deserved.
A neighbor of mine at my studio in the Whit does lots of work on VW diesels. If I see him later I’ll get his take.
I’m as big a fan of diesel as anyone, but I wouldn’t touch one of the new diesels since they added the extra emissions systems starting around 2007. I liken modern diesels to gasoline engines in the 1970’s, plagued with half-baked emissions systems that are unreliable and difficult/expensive to diagnose and repair. I have been hopeful that manufacturers will get the issues straightened out as they ultimately did for gas engines, but that hope is fading.
Assuming that VW can address the issue with a recall to reflash the ECUs of affected cars, I’m very interested to see what that does to driveability and emissions system component lifespan. Owners will not be happy if performance suffers, nor if they need to spend thousands of dollars replacing failed emissions-related components every few years.
VW TDIs with EGR have had soot-clogging issues in the intake manifold dating back into the 1990s – we’ll have to see whether this new fix resurrects this problem or not.
They are going to need to lower combustion chamber temperatures to reduce the NOx levels, BUT this then causes increased soot (which has to be periodically burnt out of the soot trap – “regeneration” so it doesn’t plug up). It’s a delicate balancing act.
There is a darn good reason why most diesel engines are using SCR now! Worst-case: I can see VW buying some or all of these cars back because they can’t be made compliant from an economic stantpoint (and they can be then be resold in third-world countries as used vehicles where they don’t have as strict of regulations).
Buying back 11 million cars isn’t feasible. That’s more than they sold all of last year.
The 11 million is worldwide. For the U.S. (which is what I was talking about), it’s less than 500K cars since 2009.
Seems like VW’s probs are not limited to the US so the number will be more than the US total.
> Seems like VW’s probs are not limited to the US so the number will be more than the US total.
If the software “device” is only enabled to deceive the EPA test cycle, then those are the only cars that should be under consideration because they passed the Euro-6 test fairly. On the other hand, if it’s discovered that the ECU also switches to a custom tune to deceive the Euro-6 test cycle, then VW is in much bigger trouble.
They did not pass the euro test fairly either, the software may not be the same but the concept is the same make the engine run compliantly when it senses it is being tested. Otherwise run it to make the most MPG/power.
Scoutdude: The Euro-6 spec for NOx allows 80mg/km versus 31mg/km for EPA Tier 2 Bin 5, and the Euro-6 dyno test isn’t as thorough as the EPA dyno test, so it’s possible that the VW engines could pass the Euro-6 test without cheating.
I so agree.
At least they don’t seem to have all the associated wires and hoses the old emission systems had. Then again maybe they do hard to tell what’s living under those pretty engine covers these days…
Looks like VW diesels are going to be like the GM/Olds V8’s in 1985.
Al I know is my wife is none too pleased considering she bought a new Beetle TDI earlier this year. She drove the 1.8 TSI and the TDI versions and preferred the strong highway performance of the TDI that compliments her fairly long Interstate commute. She’s also getting low 40’s on fuel economy which is incredible considering her treating the throttle and brakes as on/off switches.
I think VW should buy the cars back or give current owners a really good incentive to trade in to a gasoline VW. If they could make the cars work properly all of the time at a reasonable cost, reliability, and service life they would have done so from the get go.
They don’t have the trust of anyone on their side now. Get out the checkbook and take your medicine to get better.
Well, as a 2011 Jetta TDI owner I’m disappointed in VW. But I can answer why drivers would choose them over hybrids: the driving experience. The 2.0 diesel paired with the DSH tranny is a great combination. I’ve had no complaints and the handling is great for the segment. Prii just don’t have the same road manners and handling. Maybe the Jetta Hybrid does, but I haven’t driven one and VW seems little interest in promoting it, though that may change!
What I find interesting is the VW Group 3.0 V6 diesel doesn’t seem to be caught up in this. Surely it has to meet the same standards?
On the 4-cylinder TDI engines, VW tried to make-do without the expensive urea injection. The VAG V6 has it.
Except the 4 cylinder in the Passat has urea injection, and it also tested above the limit.
My understanding is all 2015’s with the new generation engine have it and they still fail emissions. At 3k my wife got a message from HAL to top up the adblue. No big deal, the dealer filled the tank and apologized for forgetting to top it up when she bought the car. They also insisted on doing a software update at the sme time for vague reasons. At 7k HAL started telling her she was low again so I figured they just lied about filling it all the way up – maybe they told the truth and the vague update is causing increased urea usage. I bought 3 gallons of adblue from a dealer and put it in myself to verify how much was actually put in the car. She drives mostly highway so she shouldn’t be using this stuff so fast – we’ll see. Some think this software update was an attempt to get in compliance and reported lower mileage and increased adblue usage after. I don’t know because I don’t drive the car everyday if the mileage dropped after the update nor do I really know if the car was delivered with a full tank of adblue. The dealer just told us it had to be topped up at each 10k service interval and we wouldn’t ever have to worry about it.
She’s at 9k now – I’m tempted to fill it myself again to see how much it’s really using.
If the 4-cylinder with SCR is failing too then the plot thickens. I have heard that a larger displacement diesel is going to have an easier time meeting modern emissions than a smaller one. If that is correct it wouldn’t surprise me that the Passat 4-cyl. is “dirtier” than the V6 CDI in something of similar weight.
Still you would think the Passat would pass with SCR otherwise why bother? Just go on with the software trick…
Maybe VW was feeling guilty. Maybe VW engineering is really, really bad. Or maybe there are others in this same boat.
Of course they’re failing. Which is why VW has put a hold on selling any new cars, 2016s included.
Why of course they’re failing? Haven’t read all of the press today but was always suspect of the LNT technology getting the job done and now we find out that it didn’t. Someone here posted that the VAG V6 CDI passed. If that’s true why wouldn’t you expect the 4-cyl. + SCR to pass?
Chances are it’s not off by much and a reflash would fix, but increase the usage of adblue. And if the 4-cyl. SCR is say five times the EPA limit on NOx, it’s like what a 2010 level for US gas engines? Not to make excuses but diesels with SCR are excellent performers and very clean.
Let’s not mix up the criminal actions on the part of an OE to gain an unfair advantage with diesel emissions.
And why would the V6 be passing? It might be a good time to get a screaming dealing on a Touareg or Audi A7 TDI. VW dealerships must be pretty lonely places right now!
Larger displacement engines are harder to make pass. The standards are grams per mile so the more fuel the vehicle burns the cleaner the exhaust has to be to meet the standards.
This is why VW did not even attempt to avoid DEF on the larger engines because they knew no one would ever believe that they could be complaint w/o it. Conversely this is why they figured that they could get away w/o DEF on the smaller engines, the lower fuel consumption made it plausible that they could meet the standards with in cylinder tech.
The reason that the 2016 models are not being released from the port is not because there is evidence that they don’t meet the standards. It is because CARB tested their initial fix and found that it was still a program designed to cheat the system. The increased DEF dosing in the early part of a drive cycle and after running long enough they revert to the low dosing that results in excessive emissions.
CARB shared that with the EPA and they immediately revoked the certificate of compliance for the 2016 models as incentive for them to get back to the negotiation table on the early cars and simply punishment, w/o taking the time to verify whether they are compliant or not.
“Larger displacement engines are harder to make pass.”
I’m not sure about that. At VW we saw the 3.0L V6 CDI pass its test in an Audi A6, but not the smaller 2.0L 4-cylinder in the Passat.
Today we are seeing the 3.0L Inline-6 CDI passing its test in a BMW X5, but not the smaller 2.0L 4-cylinder in an X3.
From what I understand, the lighter weight of the Passat over the A6 and the X3 over the X5 is not enough to overcome the high challenge a smaller diesel engine faces in a heavy car. The current emission check info tends to support my understanding.
Yes the vehicle with SCR are failing too. They only injected the proper amount of DEF when they sensed they were being tested. They did do an update that increased the dosing rate and make it does longer in the drive cycle, however CARB determined that they were still cheating the system and not meeting the standards.
So yeah that is why your DEF consumption increased and before it is all over it will increase again.
As a long time former owner of many Volkswagens I am disappointed in their actions. Having said that if you have ever spent much time at a vw dealership after pulling up in a 70’s rust bucket van to track down some out of production parts their feel good corporate image quickly fades away. I had a pre tdi diesel Jetta that gave me great service without the usual problems my non diesel vans had given me, I probably would still have it had except the resale value was enough to get me a 5 year newer nissan with 100 000 less kms on it for $100 cheaper.
Part of me thinks that I should start looking for a tdi in a couple of months when the value of these things tank. Especially if you can find one that hasn’t been “fixed” as I live in a province which doesn’t require emissions testing where I live.
This makes me wonder how it’ll impact the gasoline Volkswagens and Audis. We don’t know if they’ve done other things to their ogasoline cars, but I bet the prices will fall like a rock (Albeit not as much as the diesel ones)
I’m pretty happy with my old Audi- if they’ve done something to it, I’ve done well. I may buy another one, and this may help with prices. But, I won’t be touching one of their diesels for a long, long time….
Speaking of VW dealers – I wonder what their showroom traffic will be like. My guess is very, very low. Diesel buyers will obviously not be coming in and I suspect that a lot of others in the market for a car will stay away from VW either out of disgust or because they are cnfused about which cars have emissions problems.
It would not surprise me at all to see huge rebates soon to rebuild showroom traffic and sales.
I think the diesels, or at least the new ones, are already under a no-sell order.
Yup, even the website is devoid of diesel.
What are the ethics of driving-or purchasing for personal use-a vehicle that is known to not meet emission standards? From what I read, the “40 times the allowable standards” report was for only some of these cars-others tested as low as 5 times the standard for NOX. I certainly do not want to go back to ’60’s smog (perhaps those of us who breathed that air and lived through the pictures need to remind our younger friends of how bad it was-that air sickened and killed a lot more people than did those GM switches), but, realistically, how large a proportion of the national air pollution do these cars cause? I think the responsible people at Volkswagen deserve all that will be coming to them, but what to do for the people who bought the cars, honestly, and in many cases partly out of the belief that they were benefitting the environment?
Heard on the news today diesel VWs sold in NZ meet local emission standards so no reason to panic, I nearly died laughing we have no emission standards here that can be enforced its legal to remove particulate filters from diesel exhausts up to model year 2009, I’m wondering how VW manufactured heavy trucks are going to be affected does anyone know?
I count myself among the diesel engine fans, actually more of the old-school engines. But, as many of you, I was looking its evolution with growing concern and, now even more, I’m quite sure I wouldn’t buy any new diesel passenger car. Each new diesel engine generation brought added complexity, reduced reliability (and durability) and more and more expensive repairs. I’m quite sure the diesel engineers didn’t have any other cost effective options to keep up with emission regulations both in the US and Europe, but I agree that we are reaching a point where for car makers it might not make sense to continue with diesel engine development anymore.
Anyway, diesel will continue as the no.1 power source for ships, large trucks and (non-electric) trains for a while, and if this is about (global or US) environment, diesel passenger cars are definitely among the smallest diesel-related pollution sources!
VW management is being shown to be a bunch of arrogant a holes. This company should be banned from selling new cars in the US for a number of years. Nothing but a total buyback will be acceptable as there will be huge problems for the owners of these cars, especially here in CA with yearly emission checks. I am more thankful every day that none of my cars has a computer.
Your cars probably have higher emissions than any of these VW’s. Not defending VW and more than likely your cars are compliant with the law in your area but still…
Late to the party here, but CC’ers who have been around a year or longer may remember my parting of ways with my ’13 Beetle TDi convertible after only 18 months of ownership. It turned out to have really poor design choices that made the car completely unsuitable for below-freezing climates such as the Middle West where I live. The frameless windows freeze up and won’t drop the 10mm needed to open and close the doors (common problem on the Beetle coupe, too), The intercooler would gradually collect moisture (ice) to the point where the engine wouldn’t start, necessitating installation of an “intercooler cold weather kit.” It was a *great* warm-weather car, and excellent on road trips. I was getting around 41-42mpg (my calculations). But when my second Autumn was approaching, I decided there was no way I was going to go through the winter hassle again. link
I replaced the Beetle with a 2015 Honda Fit (which is now just over a year old, so I need to write up a report!). I’m averaging around 38-39mpg (again, my calculations), and since gasoline has generally been cheaper this past year, my per-mile fuel cost has been around $0.07 for the Fit vs. $0.10 for the Beetle.
Prior to the ’13 Beetle, I drove a ’00 New Beetle TDI for 12+ years and loved it (45mpg average). But it had a persistent diesel odor inside and out, and my wife got to where she wouldn’t ride with my unless absolutely necessary (sensitive to odors). She loved the ’13, as it had zero odor, even with the top down.
This whole flap only reinforces that I made the right decision to cut my losses. I’ll stick to my air-cooled Beetles from here on out!
I also found that this urea additive that is needed freezes up in very cold weather. So the diesels are really suitable for warmer climates with temperatures staying near zero (centigrade or 270 Kelvin). It will go to -10C, colder than that will start to freeze up.
I will say, in favor of the ’13, that it never gelled, even down to -20*, and with no additives in the tank. I had to be very diligent with the ’00 to add the additive and make sure I changed the fuel strainer every November (so no water in it). I presume they did a better job of keeping the fuel lines protected from exposure in the ’13.
I tried using an additive with my Olds diesel and #2 fuel, but at about -17 C (0F) it clogged up the fuel filters to the point that the engine would idle but not run and faster. I then (after it warmed up in a couple of days) filled the tank with #1 in the winter.
Wax crystals in the fuel clogged the fuel filter. This is normally what happens, as opposed to the common misconception that the fuel actually “gels” in the fuel line.
Google ‘diesel cloud point’ and have fun reading.
The DEF tanks have heaters in them to melt the DEF. Until the engine warms up it doesn’t need the DEF so there is time for the DEF to thaw before it is needed.
I still smirk a little inside every time somebody talks about exhaust fluid. I can’t help but think of muffler belts and blinker fluid. Who would have thought pee-based exhaust fluid would ever be a thing?
More reading here: http://forums.tdiclub.com/showthread.php?t=448053
and here: http://forums.tdiclub.com/showthread.php?t=448336
My wife and I are both feeling a high degree of anxiety over this whole situation right now. We bought our ’13 TDI Sportwagen in the winter of 2013. This was our first new car in 30 years. Since my wife is a traveling hospice nurse, we needed a vehicle that could get high fuel mileage as well as a enough cargo capacity to hold her nursing supplies. We test drove a Camry hybrid and the VW Sportwagen. We both loved the sportiness and the Germanic fit and finish of the VW and ended up getting a toffee brown Sportwagen with a manual. We now have a little under 60k and it has been very reliable and economical. The vehicle just had its first CEL last week (something to do with the emissions system). That repair cost $90. The dealer has always been helpful and polite. Our concern is the “fix” to make the car emissions compliant will diminish both the performance and fuel economy. Worse, the emissions system (like the EGR) itself could be stressed to a point of being failure prone on a regular basis. I’d prefer a buy back, but if they proceed with a software patch, the least VW can do is warranty the emissions system for 150k. Meanwhile we owe 15k on a car that could be unsellable in the near future.
Stephen King is working on a new story, “Children of the Winter Corn”.
When VAG first announced the “Clean Diesel” line I was truly amazed that they could get the car certified for North America without AdBlue injection. I was in Japan this spring and they sell it right at the diesel pumps, meaning every diesel car and truck in Japan is using it. Now we know that VW cheated, mostly to save money. Classic capitalism, German style.
I also agree with Paul about the future of diesel. Even now, it is more economical in most of Europe to buy and operate a gasoline engine and the advantage for gasoline is even more pronounced here in North America where gasoline is much cheaper. The extra cost of building and then cleaning up a diesel is simply not worth it in a vehicle less than five tonnes, in my personal experience.
We have just had the hottest summer on record. We know what is causing it. CO2 levels are going to have to be reduced, and the diesel is not the way to go. Ironically, for all the screeching nonsense about how doing anything about destroying the planet is somehow bad, it is actually cheaper for companies to go green. CNG is now common in large city vehicles such as buses and garbage trucks. Hybrids are a brilliant technology and have a far better future than diesel for passenger cars. Even heavy trucks are going hybrid, the savings in weight being enormous. All this saves operators money.
As much as I am disgusted by VW’s actions, to be honest some of the blame must be shared by politicians, environmentalists and NGOs who stubbornly insist on ever tighter emission standards, some of which are unrealistic. Not having a resonable phasing-in of emission standards was one of the reasons why the US car industry lost its leadership status in the 70s and 80s. It seems we are going through this again, with VW (and maybe others) being the affected party.
Not the politicians’ or environmentalists’ fault they set targets that were (then) easily achievable using then-current EFI technology and the manufacturers turned around and went to sometimes absurd, Rube Goldberg lengths to cling to carburetors.
There was nothing absurd about it. The electronics technology necessary for proper EFI operation was still in its infancy until the late 1980s. And go back and look at how expensive microcontrollers and memory were as well during that era.
I worked at Delco Electronics back in the 1980s – I watched this all play out first-hand.
@redmondjp – GM’s 1980s feedback carbs used essentially the same exact electronics as the EFI cars. Same ECM, same distributor, same sensors, etc. Every single GM passenger vehicle sold in the US after 1981 or so had either CCC or EFI so they definitely weren’t saving any $$ on the computing end by sticking with the carbs.
That EFI you’re speaking of in 1981 was still throttle body fuel injection, which really isn’t much of a step up from a feedback carb, and still shares a myriad of the negatives. The computing needed to control TBI is practically achievable with Radio Shack(RIP) components.
Multiport makes fuel injection work, whether mechanical or electronic. TBI/CFI was the cheapest/laziest way to tout that “fuel injection” badge marketing departments salivated over at the time, but at best it’s biggest end user benefit(including the socioenvirnmental impact) was that it took out the rube goldbergian complexity carburetors had by the time, and serve as a placeholder.
@XR7Matt – Up until the ’90s, most GM MPFI systems were batch-fire. Firing a bank of injectors vs. a single injector isn’t any more complicated as far as the code in the ECM is concerned.
The reality is that port EFI is only marginally better than TBI/CFI. Both require very similar electronics. In fact Edelbrock made port EFI systems to use on TBI equipped GM trucks and in the retrofit game there are people running port EFI with the GM “7747” TBI computer.
TBI and CFI is much more complex and needs more sophisicated computing power than any feedback carb ever did. A feed back carb just varied the base mixture based ont he jetting of the carb slightly in response to the O2 sensor. The TBI and CFI systems were speed density where they had to calculate the fuel requirements based on the rpm and MAP sensor readings. Then those calculations were refined by the O2 data and that refinement was stored in long and short term fuel trim tables allowing the computer to adjust for the varaince of individual components and wear. Feedback carb computers had none of that capability.
If we were to compare the various fuel systems used over the years based on their abilities/performance on a scale of 1-10 it would play out something like
Carb 4
Feedback Carb 4.5
TBI/CFI 9
Multipoint EFI 9.1
Sequential EFI 9.3
Direct injection 10
Fact is on a TBI or CFI system each injection event is the required fuel for the next cylinder just like in a Sequential EFI system. Meanwhile the non sequential port systems like the vast majority of early systems were batch fire. That meant that the injectors were on two separate channels like on many V engine TBI/CFI systems. So what happened is that each injection event was 1/2 of the fuel required for each cyl so there was pooling on the back side of the intake valve and it bore no relation to when the next time that valve would open unlike the TBI/CFI systems.
One of my friends in the IH world plays extensively with fuel injection on his IH’s and all sorts of vehicles and has done extensive testing on TBI, Port and Sequential injection systems using various generations of ECMs and the differences in performance and driveablitly are negligible. The only reason that the newer technologies are used is the marginal increase in emissions performance.
@Scoutdude – In general, yes…but that’s not how the GM “CCC” controls worked. They had the same MAP/Coolant/VSS/RPM/etc. inputs and the same adjustable spark/fuel map output as the EFI cars. The only fundamental difference was the injector(s) – or lack thereof. AFAIK they even used the same Motorola CPU as the “7747” you mentioned. Any difference in cost on the engine management side for CCC vs. TBI/MPFI at the time would have been negligible.
Yes the CCC cars had the same inputs but they didn’t have the same processing power. As I mentioned all they did was adjust the base mixture provided by the carb once the sensors said it was time to do so. The TBI cars have actual volatile memory, to learn the fueling and did real fueling calculations. I do agree with you that the cost on the electronics side was negligible going from CCC to TBI and the reality was on a variable cost per unit the TBI probably cost less than the computer controlled carbs though most of the carbs were existing units that were adapted to computer control so much of the tooling and development costs were long since fully amortized.
@ Scoutdude, batchfire isn’t ideal port injection, sure, and all things being equal there isn’t really a benefit between having port EFI or throttle body EFI. But things aren’t equal, the benefit of port EFI, even in the batchfire variety, is that intake manifold runners and plenums can be tuned specifically to the engine’s actual breathing needs for the specific application, maximizing both power and efficiency for a given displacement. The kinds of manifold designs(often with long curved runners) that allow these kinds of benefits can prove troublesome for Carburators and TBI/CFI systems, where fuel and air are drawn directly into the plenum and through the runners and then to the intake valves, leading to fuel puddling.
It’s a similar benefit modern direct injection has to compression ratios – There’s really not a lot of difference electronically that prevents a multiport system from controlling direct injectors, but the changes it allows for internally by having the injectors located in the combustion chambers instead of behind the valves are much different.
EFI was in it’s infancy when those rules were written, NOBODY used it, electronics weren’t exactly the beacon of trouble free operation in the 70s like ther are today. Mechanical fuel injection was the norm when it came to any fuel injection, and it was costly and could be troublesome, hence why it was pretty much found exclusively on higher end cars. Carbs were cheap, and yes the Rube Goldberg methods of making them comply were cheap too, but bear in mind they were placeholders.
Remember, this was nothing like today, where there’s 1 or maybe two engines to choose from in any given car. Port EFI isn’t an adaptation of a carburetor like short lived CFI, it requires a specific intake manifold for the injector bosses for one, and to take full advantage of it the manifold needs to be tuned to the engine. When you take into account that Detroit had not just I6s, V6s, I4s or V8s to make these specific parts for, but have variations in between – big block small block families, short deck tall deck variations in between, various displacements effecting the design itself (runner length and plenum volume), all of a sudden they’ve got dozens of specific castings to make for each model, let alone each brand in GM’s case. This is the reason engines were so radically consolidated in the 80s, especially at GM, and when you take into account ROI, that couldn’t just happen overnight because a politician dictated it so.
If what the environmental lobby wanted was port EFI they should have said so, and maybe provide support for it rather than their “you created this mess” and “adapt or die” legislation demeanor they had and still have. EFI ultimately became common by the mid 80s due in no small part to the concurrent advances in technology outside the then normal automotive sector. EFI could have been achieved using 70s technology, it was achieved by Desoto in the late 50s, but what made the troublesome unit used by Desoto not work would have been the same problem in the 70s – pre-microchip circuits – large convoluted circuits with old tech components. Just repairing 60s-70s pedals and amps will show you how much old Capacitors fail and how period resistors can drift radically out of spec(if they were even within it to begin with). We often tout today how far cars have advanced in tech in the last ten years with direct injection and the like, but make no mistake, that switch to EFI was a far more monumental and game changing switch.
Discussing the chicken/egg issue with EFI and engine management systems like we have now, brings up the question: would development of these systems have occurred at the pace it did without pressure from the EPA and CAFE?
Without pressure from regulations, would we still be driving carbed, pushrod engines like we had, with little development from the mid 50s into the early 70s?
Would jet engines have replaced piston engines as rapidly as they did, without WWII forcing the technology ahead?
There is a line in the film “Tucker” where the former Plymouth honcho that Tucker had brought on board says no “well run” company puts anything into R&D, unless forced to by the competition.
what made electronic fuel injection very reliable was the digital microprocessor that came into being in 1970’s. About the time that analog fuel injected Cadillac Seville went into production, GM knew that digital processors would be better. The 1980 Cadillac 368 had throttle body digital fuel injection. My 83 Buick Skyhawk had throttle body digital fuel injection.
Not all early injection systems were throttle-body and port injection does not necessarily require electronic controls. A lot of mechanical injection systems were multi-port, including the Rochester system used by Chevrolet and Pontiac, the Bosch systems used by Mercedes-Benz in the ’60s, the Lucas Mk2 used by Triumph, and I think the Alfa Romeo SPICA system. The fuel distribution was pretty well-understood; where mechanical injection systems were complicated and fussy was in trying to come up with a purely analog metering system that was sophisticated enough to handle the many different regimens involved in street driving. In that respect, electronic systems were potentially simpler, since they didn’t require the same kind of Rube Goldberg contortions to handle the different metering requirements.
Both mass air pressure (D-Jetronic and Bendix style) and mass air flow (L-Jetronic) electronic systems were in fairly extensive use by the late ’70s. The Japanese went in for license-built L-Jetronic in a big way (along with three-way catalysts) to meet their 1978 emissions standards. The main thing that delayed the wider adoption of electronic injection was that the commercial availability of lambda-sond oxygen sensors made it possible to achieve similar emissions — though not similar performance and drivability with cheaper feedback carburetors or mechanical injection.
Federal regulators are generally very cautious, I think wisely so, about specifying the goal they want to achieve rather than the means. It’s for good reason — the times they have specified a particular technological means have often ended up being problematic. (That was, incidentally, how the U.S. got tied to sealed beam headlights for so many years; originally, sealed beams were a great advance, so federal regulators made the mistake of saying, “Everyone should used sealed beams” rather than “… sealed beams or better.”) Also, industry is always moaning that regulators aren’t engineers and shouldn’t try to dictate how technology should be designed; then when the feds respond by saying, “Okay, we’ll set a goal and you can figure out how to reach it,” everyone bitches about that instead.
I think Steve is absolutely correct: We would not have universal fuel injection, sophisticated electronic engine management, electronic ignition, variable valve timing, etc., were it not for emissions and fuel economy standards. All those things have had enormous benefits in performance and drivability, but if the industry hadn’t had to meet emissions requirements, U.S. automakers would have decided the cost and complexity weren’t worth the benefits and we’d mostly still have carburetors and points.
Well I really didn’t intend to take an anti regulatory stance, nor even support it, I just mainly wanted to point out the reasons carburetors stuck around as long as they did, rather than parrot the old Detroit is lazy and cant adapt to chance stance.
Personally though, I don’t particularly mind mandates by name like the sealed beams, especially given the myriad of problems composites canhave, whether lousy output, or hazing/yellowing over, or cost. Backup cameras, ABS, stability control are to be mandated on all vehicles by direct means as well, very recently too. When it comes to emmissions and fuel economy regs however, it’s the stated goal, which comes off as ignorant frankly, the law of diminishing returns is very much in play when it comes to any technology, and figures tend to be arbitrary, or based on some hypothetical geopolitical speculation rather than an actual technological analysis.
I don’t disagree regulation pushed an advance, but I don’t necessarily agree that it’s solely responsible, the world isn’t that black and white. Many imports gained popularity amongst knowledgeable and influential buyers in the US based on their under the skin merits , whether it be safety like a Volvo, handling like a BMW, build quality like a Benz, or reliability from anything Japanese. Detroit ultimately would have had to adapt on their own to capture this marketshare rapidly getting grabbed from them, and ultimately I doubt cars, safety and technology wise, would have ended up much different today than they currently are in that scenario. It probably would have hurt Detroit a lot less however had they not been under a fixed deadline to make their cars essentially more import like when many popular imports were already how regulators essentially desired cars to be.
Okay, you go take a trip to Beijing and spend a few days. Then tell me emission controls are a silly idea.
Agreed–for all our romanticizing of older vehicles and their simplicity, I don’t think we’d want to live in cities filled with ’65 Chevys and their emissions, or have to depend on them day-to-day for our safety (if you choose to do so, your call, and I hope you always have the ability to choose). I didn’t particularly (ahem) like the fact that the South Coast Air Quality Management District banned wood-burning fireplaces in all new construction in LA County, either, but I also like to breathe–which I could actually do in LA, much more easily than I could have in 1972 or so.
I moved to SoCal in 1972 and the air quality was pretty horrible for many days of the year in those days. Dramatic improvement within the next decade and a half. My two trips to Beijing (and other cities in China) have been grim (and grimy) reminders of that time.
I quit buying VWs after many problems with a new 69 Beetle and the difficulties of working with the dealer to fix the car over three years. It appears that VW leadership doesn’t care very much about air quality around the world – too bad. So many people hurt by their decisions – consumers, line workers, dealers, sales staff, and folks around the world who deserve to breathe clean air. The resulting financial losses/unemployment will be so harmful to so many around the world as well.
About 10 years ago I was in Seoul and and decided to go for a quick 3 mile run. My lungs were burning by the time I was done. I can’t imagine living in a place like that.
Beijing is silly. I never figure out how a city with cars less than 8yo on average can produce so much pollution with grey sky nearly all the time, while Detroit still has blue sky with 10% carburetor cars on the road for daily use ( probably 20% during Woodward cruise, and many more older fuel injection cars, and counting on rusted out mufflers too ) and no emission inspection. Even with oil burning Honda minivans ( when the light turns green, it went away leaving me a big blue cloud ), coolant burning GM cars/Mustang ( I know when I smelled it ), Detroit is still cleaner despite those very compromised cars.
Or Beijing shouldn’t concentrate itself like that from the beginning.
Coal fired power generation.
There’s no way that 10% of the cars on the road in Detroit, or anywhere in America, still have carburetors.
The population of metropolitan Detroit is 3.7 million.
The population of metropolitan Beijing is 24.9 million.
That’s going to make a serious difference.
The phase in of emissions standards we certainly reasonable. They have had over 40 years to get to the point they are today. Diesel had it even better, it wasn’t until 07 that they started getting serious about diesel emissions and 10 when they finally had standards that met those that applied to every other fuel out there.
“On record”… oh, how I LOVE that loaded phrase!!! So… how hot was the summer of 1533? 1712? 1800? No idea… no idea at all. And BTW, we just had one of our coolest summers “on record” here in n.e. Ohio
Just got back from the UK – you can taste the diesel in the air.
Further to the post above – buying back polluting vehicles and then selling them again in the third world would probably be another public opinion disaster for VW.
I don’t think a post-07 US market diesel would be a good bet in the developing world, probably not a ready supply of the low-sulfur fuel needed to run them reliably.
I certainly wouldn’t trust it.
Not a huge Dieselboy, but I’d like to point out that the “new generation” of small, high-tech gasoline engines have increasingly concerning levels of PM emissions, mostly due to Gasoline direct injection (the use of stratified fuel injection only marginally solves the issue). Among the various toxic emissions from a Diesel engine, NOx are decently handled by SCR (which VW decided not to use before 2012, favoring the cheaper Lean NOx Trap despite the inherent difficulties to pilot a Diesel engine in lean conditions) and soot mass flow can be actually lower (with modern DPFs) than what certain gasoline engines produce in unfavorable conditions (to be fair, modern automatic transaxles are a huge benefit to avoid these “unfavorable conditions”).
As I already wrote, I’m not a huge proponent of Diesel engines, but gasoline engines are not perfect either ; they simply let out much lower amounts of “Political Matter” (PM… ok, terrible joke), and are not (yet) under the radar (although as far as I know, nearly every Euro manufacturer is working on Gasoline Particulate Filters by now, “just to be safe”).
For a given torque/power target, there’s no real way to reduce both CO2 emissions and PM/NOx production ; and thermal efficiency (which is directly related to COx emissions*) will soon be strongly back in favor of Diesel engines (already somewhere around 42% despite cleaning systems) with upcoming Gasoline cleaning systems hampering the 36% score usually found nowadays, although I have to concede that the greater weight of a fully equipped Diesel engine is not properly handled (for very small vehicles at least) by the hypothesis of a fixed torque -or power- target.
*By the way, Paul, you do seem to be mixing things up a bit between thermal efficiency (related to the energy density of the fuel) and fuel volumic efficiency (only related to the volume of fuel burned) in the article : Diesel does let out more COx per gallon burned, but it’s a normal consequence of its higher energy density. However, the efficiency superiority of Diesel is not calculated on a volumic basis, but rather on an energetic basis (“what kind of power do I get compared to the energy produced by my combustion”).
http://automobile.challenges.fr/dossiers/20150129.LQA6990/particules-l-essence-et-l-hybride-pire-que-le-diesel.html
Direct-injection petrol PM emissions are not that much lower….
If I were a VW dealer with a lot of money tied up in MY 2016 cars that I was barred from selling, I’d be a very unhappy camper.
If I were a VW dealer with a lot of money tied up in MY 2016 cars that I was barred from selling, I’d be a very unhappy camper.
According to media reports, not only did VW issue a stop sales order for new TDIs, dealers have been ordered to not sell any used TDIs they have on their lot.
I looked on Autotrader last night for used Jetta Sportwagens as they seem to be the model most often bought as a TDI. There were 14 wagons listed. Only 3 of them are gas engined.
The dealers do not have 2016 cars that they can’t sell. Their certificate of compliance was revoked and VW will add to their fine total if they introduce them into commerce, ie ship them to a dealer. Now they probably have 2015s that they are eating the floor plan on while they are prohibited from selling them.
By the way, thanks again to Paul and the cohort for keeping this topic so civil and informative. The comments on the other websites I have checked have gone way around the bend, while once again you guys have maintained a website for grownups. I work with inner city kids who seem to have a lot of asthma, so I tend to come down on the side of clean air, worry about all those particulate emissions and drive a Yaris. One car with dirty exhaust might not make much difference, but eleven million might. We all love our cars (wouldn’t be visiting this site if we didn’t), want them to be fun and function as well as possible, but cars have consequences. As should cheating the system and then marketing the cheat (as “Clean Diesel). Volkswagen is already suffering the consequences. I will be interested to see how this affects emission testing methods and government energy policy globally. We live in exciting times.
Last thought on the buyback option
Checking emission standards elsewhere in the world, the large markets, including Brazil, Argentina, Chile and Mexico have standards now, so simply shipping the TDIs back to Mexico will not solve anything.
Most reasonable strategy for all 11 million affected vehicles in the world
1-reprogram engine management system to delete the defeat subroutine
2-offer monetary compensation to owners for loss of performance/fuel efficiency
3-buy back cars from those who reject compensation, then resell the cars in the same market at a deep discount with the new/lower performance and fuel efficiency capability clearly stated.
As I recall, when Peter Egan retired from R&T, he had road trip plans and bought a Jetta TDI wagon. I wonder if he is going to come out of retirement to write something for R&T on this topic.
Diesel isn’t big in many of those markets anyway. In Mexico the gas v. diesel price difference is even worse than in the US due to Pemex subsidies and Brazil pushes ethanol quite heavily.
Interesting numbers from The Guardian…
“Volkswagen’s rigging of emissions tests for 11m cars means they may be responsible for nearly 1m tonnes of air pollution every year, roughly the same as the UK’s combined emissions for all power stations, vehicles, industry and agriculture, a Guardian analysis suggests.”
More here: http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/sep/22/vw-scandal-caused-nearly-1m-tonnes-of-extra-pollution-analysis-shows
The Guardian is getting carried away. It’s being said in the media that 11m VW vehicles have the code in their ECUs to defeat emissions testing, with 482,000 of those sold in the US. However, so far it’s only been proven that this “device” detects and defeats the EPA test cycle.
Recent studies have shown that many diesels in Europe (not just VW models) emit 10-40x the amount of NOx in real-world driving versus during Euro-6 compliance testing. However, if the cars passed the Euro-6 test without resorting to special programming in the ECU, then they have technically done no wrong. This just proves that the Euro-6 test is inadequate at approximating real-world driving conditions (which is true).
You have valid points but VW is the one that came up with the 11 million number from what I have read.
Whether or not all that pollution is illegal isn’t really relevant to the statement…the fact is that the cars are polluting far more than VW claimed.
The programming is there to defeat the Euro testing as well and that is where this whole mess started. They did on road testing of Euro 6 “compliant” vehicles and found they were way over the standards. So they said hey the US has stricter standards lets see how US spec vechicles test out to show just how clean clean diesel is.
Fact is both the EPA and Euro test doesn’t reflect the real world that well but it is far and away the best available options. Fact is that the conditions a vehicle is operated in vary greatly and there is no practical way to test how a vehicle does in sub zero temps, 100+ degree temps, at sea level and high altitudes and all the combinations in between.
It’s not just VW diesels but many European diesels that produce much higher NOx in real-world driving versus during Euro-6 testing. That has been known for some time, and is not because they’re all cheating on the test. If VW was not cheating on the Euro-6 tests, then they have done nothing wrong in Europe.
The ICCT was complaining to the EU that Euro-6 test methodology needs to be made more stringent because of the noted disparity, and pointed to how VW diesels in the US can pass the stricter EPA testing with additional exhaust after-treatment. To prove their point, they contracted West Virginia University in 2014 to test three US market diesel vehicles, two VW’s and a BMX X5. It is this report that uncovered the EPA test cycle cheat mode in the VW ECUs. The EPA was alerted of the anomalous findings.
http://www.theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/WVU_LDDV_in-use_ICCT_Report_Final_may2014.pdf
With respect to the EU, here’s where a problem for VW comes. I have read the interesting sections of this report. On page 101 (p.123 in the PDF) they note:
“NOx emissions of Vehicle B over the cross-multi state driving route, comprising predominantly highway driving, were observed to be… approximately 6 times exceeding the US-EPA Tier 2-Bin5 standard. However, most interestingly NOx emissions were found to be below the regulatory standard for portions of the route characterized by low or negligible changes in altitude (i.e. near zero road grade), and with the vehicle operated in cruise-control mode at approximately 120km/h while traveling northbound on Interstate 5 through the San Joaquin Valley (see route portions 3 through 6 in Figure 4.17).”
It sounds to me like a particular type of on-road driving will also enable the EPA cheat mode in the Jetta’s ECU. If the appropriate conditions are present in the Euro-6 test to enable the cheat mode, then VW did not pass the test fairly, whether it could have or not, and thus is open to the wrath of the EU regulators.
It’s like saying that you could have passed the test easily because it was an easy test, but you got caught with answers written on the palm of your hand so you’re still busted for cheating regardless.
“NOx emissions were found to be below the regulatory standard for portions of the route characterized by low or negligible changes in altitude (i.e. near zero road grade), and with the vehicle operated in cruise-control mode ”
It sounds to me like a particular type of on-road driving will also enable the EPA cheat mode in the Jetta’s ECU.
Yup. Call to the engine room for power to accelerate or climb a hill and the emission controls are turned off to increase power output. Steady state cruise doesn’t need the power, so emission controls on.
One manufacturer who does offer diesels (and probably won’t be accused of tampering with engines for results) is Subaru.
My sister has a 2008 Impreza 2.0D RX hatchback. She says it’s a good decent car, and whilst it’s not a WRX to drive, it’s economical and she found it better than the old 1996 VW Golf 1.9D she had a few years back (yes, remember the days when VW used to have the 1.9 D models with a naturally-aspirated diesel).
As it is, Subaru don’t sell diesel models in the U.S. or Canada. We have them here in the UK, and in Yorkshire, where I’m from, they’re quite popular.
Could a Subaru diesel be a good subject for a write-up here? Any other Subaru (or as you Americans call them, “Subies”) diesel owners here?
I don’t own a diesel car (well, aside from an SUV that’s a Chevy Captiva with a 2.2 diesel); my daily drive is a 1996 Mercedes E280 saloon, and I’ve had it 18 years now (got it as a 25th birthday present, yeah, I know, a Merc for a 25th birthday present). It still runs well, and looks far nicer than the newer E-Class.
The 1996 Mercedes E-Class… now that’s a COAL to write about! (Particularly the E280 model). Mine’s an Avantgarde, like this one… https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d7/Mercedes-Benz_W210_front_20080809.jpg
With all the anti-diesel noises being made by the media at the moment, thank god I didn’t get a diesel back in 1996. The E250D seems primitive by today’s standards. (It was a turbodiesel, but badged as D for diesel).
That said, the likes of Subaru and Mazda seem to offer good diesels.
I read somewhere about our government wanting to ban diesels from some city centres. Not getting into that argument, but as long as your car’s kept roadworthy, surely it won’t pollute? A friend of mine drives a ’76 Capri, but that would probably be banned from city centres, even though it’s kept in good condition, and won’t cause emissions problems. Not her daily driver, but a second car for weekends and such…
“Dieselgate” – funny, I read something about Jennifer Lawrence predicting this on a showbiz blog, back in April 2012. Who knew J-Law could be so prophetic? Did she know something we didn’t?
Sounds like a good day to go shopping at VW for a Golf in a month or so after they throw some cash on the hood.
The main reason people are buying small diesel cars overhere in the Netherlands is the price for the fuel. Diesel is much, much cheaper.
I filled my diesel Citroen today $1.09 per litre, regular gas 91 $1.78, 96 $1.89 per litre and I can go a long way on a litre of diesel.
The evening news last night showed how the system detects that the car is undergoing an emissions test. Dead simple really. It compares the speed of the front wheels to the rear. If the front wheels are spinning and the rears are not, it concludes the car is on a dyno and turns on the emissions controls.
If the emissions test is done on a stationary car, or a dyno that has all four wheels turning, it would not be able to detect the test cycle.
My last emissions test (with a ’98 gas-engined car, not a diesel) consisted of having the OBD hooked up for a couple minutes as the engine idled. So, could VW specify the conditions for conducting the test such that a dyno would always be used, “to duplicate real-world conditions” or some similar reasoning?
So, could VW specify the conditions for conducting the test such that a dyno would always be used,
I think the EPA uses a dyno when it certifies cars. A test like yours would probably only pick up codes from the engine management system, probably to catch people who have disconnected the check engine light, rather than have an engine or emissions fault repaired. If the triggers for the CEL are set to tolerate high levels of NOx, or if NOx levels are not monitored by the system, the car would pass an OBD test.
I have never lived in an area that had annual emissions testing. A city near me almost started testing, and they appeared to be using a tailpipe sniffer. That was in the early 90s, before OBD was common.
Bottom line is testing is expensive. Testing on a dyno with a tailpipe sniffer is the most expensive. A tailpipe sniffer, without a dyno is cheaper, and using a K-Mart OBD scanner is cheapest of all. Knowing that people don’t want to pay anything, VW probably, correctly, figured that once they got past the EPA dyno, their scheme would not be picked up by local emissions testing, because the local testing would be done the cheapest way possible.
Yes the FTP (Federal Test Procedure) and IM240 (as CA requires in some locations/vehicles) are both dyno drive cycles. Both are very specific on the speeds, rate of acceleration/deceleration ect. They also do not include high rates of acceleration which is when emissions are hardest to control. So it is easy to game them by looking at the rear wheel speed sensors and steering angle which is exactly what VW did.
At this point most states don’t test actual emissions they just check for codes that indicate an emissions component is no longer functioning as designed. As you mentioned that is definitely the lowest cost option and is not all bad since a system that isn’t designed to cheat will set a notification when conditions are such that increased emissions are likely. However that relies on the assumption that the mfg did not design the system to cheat on the test as VW did.
Thanks for the explanation–so this is really gaming the initial EPA certification and any other full-dyno test, which would be the hard part–the local OBD piece would be a snap after that.
Yeah the OBD II test has absolutely nothing to do with actual tail pipe emissions it just verifies that the computer thinks all of the components related to emission control are functioning properly.
Legitimate question, if one were to yank the ebrake and do a burnout, would it kick it into testing mode like when it detects it is on a dyno?
Legitimate question, if one were to yank the ebrake and do a burnout, would it kick it into testing mode like when it detects it is on a dyno?
Rear wheels stationary, fronts turning and front wheels turned straight ahead would meet the dyno criteria. On the other hand, test data that showed the cars compliant under light load, ie steady speed, flat road, but not compliant under acceleration/hill climbing conditions indicates there is a throttle input to the logic too, so doing a burnout would trip the defeat routine so maximum power was available.
It’s kind of funny really, the whole reason cars have steering angle and multiple wheelspeed monitoring is for safety regulation (ABS and ESC). Manipulating mandated components to do defeat a mandate.
Wouldn’t be able to do this on old cars! 😀
The main reason of diesel engine popularity in Europe, its their ability to go fast on the highway with small consumption increase. I´m talking about 100-140MPH speed, which is fairly common not only in Germany. Or push the car hard on the open road, same story. Plus, provide solid torque power. Thats something majority of European drivers were missing until 10 years ago, when the diesels become common even in cheap cars. V6 or V8 were/are premium. You need to realize, that average engine power in EU were around 100hp, due the high insurance etc.
The new TSI small engines with 1 or 2 turbo, or whatever goodies, might look well on the paper and provide the promised MPG if you drive it within speed limits. It even feel powerful, if you don’t push it too hard. If you do, then its only screaming small engine.
Try to push the TSI engine bit hard, and the MPG numbers goes up like B747. You can check the German site http://www.spritmonitor.de/en/ whats the real number VS the claimed numbers by manufacturers.
Re the emissions, agree the Europe smells like diesel, unfortunately. Hope this VW issue helps to clean the Europe air a bit.
Lukas, in general you are quite right, I would however like to make a few comments, if you don’t mind:
– 100-140 mph are definitely not common speeds, perhaps they are not very common even in Germany. 100-140 mph would be 160-225 KILOMETERS per hour! Even today when newer cars are more powerful than 20 or even 10 years ago, most cars can’t even go beyond 200 kph.
Except if that was a typo, because 100-140 kilometers per hour is indeed quite common on European motorways.
– the main reason why Europeans buy diesels is because of fuel prices. I agree that performance on the motorway plays a part, but I think the main reason is financial. Because of outrageous taxation on fuel (but also on cars with big engines and many hp) a powerful car and fuel for it is very expensive for a European consumer (who on average probably also has a lower dispensable income than an average American). Add to that the fact that diesel is taxed less than gasoline and therefore cheaper at the pump and the calculation is obvious.
– yes, TSI’s (like all turbocharged gasoline engines) are very thirsty when you step on the gas; their promised fuel efficiency is only attainable when driven within the speed limits. But like I said, rarely do Europeans drive much faster than 130-140 kilometrs per hour. This is the usual motorway speed limit in most European countries (some have even lower speed limits) – and even if you didn’t care about speeding tickets, heavy traffic will in reality often make it impossible to drive faster than 100-120 kph…
And not everyone drives on the autobahn all the time – probably the majority of driving is done either in cities or on the non-motorway open roads. Especially in the latter (with usual actual speed 70-90 kph), TSI and similar engines really give good mpg.
I speak from experience with driving a VW Touran with 140 hp 1.4 TSI – on the open road it’s to problem to get 5-6 lit/100 km (that’s 40-47 mpg). However, driving on the motorway at 130 kph will demand at least 7-8 liters /100 km (29-32 mpg)
I hope you do not mind these comments, as generally your main point was quite valid, and I didn’t want to criticize you, just to give my additional opinion on the matter.
And I wholeheartedly agree with your last sentence.
AWEboss, your comments are welcomed. Re the speed,I might agree that 90 percent of drivers goes within the speed limits, even in Germany. But the rest, which is still big number, drives +90-100MPH on the highway. This allows me to say, its common. I travel a bit, around 60.000km per year all over the Europe and 90-100MPH is my normal crusing speed, going up to +120MPH if traffic allows, when in Germany. And sometimes, I´m still overtaken by somebody faster. This is not happening in USA, where most of the traffic goes 70-80MPH.
But my main point is, that on the highway, or under heavy load, the diesel engines benefits the mosts, returning still resonable MPG not so different to number if driven within speed limits. Especially if you compare to the same car, but with the gas engine, its day and night difference. And I think, this is something US drivers can not realize due the low speed limits.
Additional benefit of diesel engine is high torque available as soon as turbos starts to breath (+1500RPM), which in my opinion, help to automatic transmission become popular option in last 10 years. They work well with big gas engines, or diesel.
But for average European driver, the TSI engine makes a lot of sense, have enough of power, while keeping MPG down, if driven resonably. Also the maintanence costs is lower, then diesel. For diesel, you pay premium, and if you count the total costs of ownership, usually it turns out the diesel is better choice only if you drive hell a lot more then usual 20? thousand km per year.
This is why the diesel engines are becoming less popular then they were in past and small turbo engines starts to rule.
Just turned my ’11 Jetta Sportwagen for a ’15 Golf Sportwagen. Old one had the 2.5 gas engine, and I was really thinking about the TDi for the new one. But doing most of my driving in and around NYC, just didn’t make any sense, both from a mileage and fuel availabity standpoint. Whew, that was close.
Have to say the 2015 is really sweet, with pretty much every aspect a noticable improvement on its predecesor.
About that $18B fine the media is hyperventilating about…
In 1998, Caterpillar and Cummins were busted for doing the same thing.
…a 1998 settlement between the U.S. Justice Department and several heavy duty diesel engine makers including Caterpillar and Cummins Engine Co.
The manufacturers agreed to pay $83.4 million in civil penalties after federal officials found evidence that they were selling heavy duty diesel engines equipped with “defeat devices” that allowed the engines to meet EPA emission standards during testing but disabled the emission control system during normal highway driving.
http://www.cnbc.com/2015/09/23/meet-the-man-who-uncovered-volkswagens-lie.html
$83M is chicken feed to VAG. The big cost will be settling with customers whose cars do not perform as advertised after the defeat system is removed.
Steve: that settlement with a number of big truck diesel manufacturers was for $1 billion, not 83.4 million. Maybe that was the fine”, but the manufacturers did pay $1 billion to settle this issue. That was not pocket change for these guys, much smaller than VAG
Steve: that settlement with a number of big truck diesel manufacturers was for $1 billion, not 83.4 million.
Here is how the $1B broke down.
In the 1998 case, the companies paid a combined $83.4 million in civil penalties, which was then the largest such fine for an environmental violation. They also agreed to spend $850 million to produce significantly cleaner engines and $109.5 million for additional environmental projects, including the development of new emission-control technologies.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/volkswagen-not-first-to-be-accused-of-using-software-to-fool-regulators-2015-09-22
In my book that $850M to develop cleaner engines and $109.5M in better emission control technology is the money they should have spent on their own to meet the standards, rather than trying to cheat. I am always amazed when a company cries about being “forced” to invest in R&D that they should be investing in as a routine part of their business.
My prediction is: this is going to result in some behind-the-scenes horse trading, whereby Germany gets to keep its motor industry and Europe ends up getting gene modified chickens from the US. After her recent stupidity inviting mass exodus of social security tourists and jihadists from the ME, Ms. Merkel will not be able to afford sitting on her back if she and the CDU / CSU want to retain their majority in the next elections.
Paul, I held off posting this rant because I tend to go off half cocked. But no, I’m sure I want to say this:
There is a whiff, nay, stench of hypocrisy from a man who drives a 1960’s Ford pick up truck that comments on the bad emissions of a 2010s Volkswagen TDI. Not only drive one- your employment, such that it is, beyond being a land lord, seems to be running a website dedicated to preserving cars that pollute insanely more than those Volkswagens you are kvetching about.
Prior to the initial emissions controls, the average car (to pick a metric) produced something like 1500 g/km of CO2. Now they produce between 100 and 300. The diesel powered cars like the VW TDI are, of course, much lower on CO2 than the average. A UK spec a Golf TDI similar to ours is 110g/km. You could drive 13-14 miles in a Golf TDI and produce less CO2 than your Ford does in one. Heck, I’m sure you could drive a Golf TDi with the faulty emissions programming several miles and not produce what your Ford does in NOx, either.
I’m not going to quote more statistics. I agree with Samuel Clemens- there are three kinds of lies- Lies, damned lies, and statistics. And I’m not objecting to you driving your pick up truck. I am a fan of older cars, like older cars, and if I had the money, I would drive older cars. I personally feel emissions controls for personal passenger cars reached their sensible limit with the basic advent of ODBII. I think all efforts past this produce far too small a return for far too much money, in many ways moving affordable new basic transportation out of reach of the masses, who are forced to drive older cars and pay more money for them over time.
All of this emissions controls and fuel economy standards are about clinging to a hopeless dream. They are, really, proof that we can’t fix the environment, and it will be destroyed, if not within my lifetime, at least within the lifetime of my grand children. I often suspect we went past the point of no return so long ago, I don’t have enough historical documentation to pinpoint what it was.
I gave up caring some years ago- I tried to save the world in my youth, but I have found that they had me outnumbered. Partially because people don’t understand the problem.
Life on Earth is a very fragile thing. Their are at least a hundred planets that have no life for every planet that does. And that is because the development of organic life requires a very delicate and specific set of conditions that are not easily achieved. It requires a specific mix of chemicals in the atmosphere, a specific temperature, a specific set of developmental conditions that result in the CO2O2 reciprocity that is the very basis of sustained life.
ANY severe interference with that mixture, and you are jamming a sabot into a very delicate gear work. It doesn’t matter if we produce too much CO2, too much NOx, too many carbon particulates, or too much H2O. Fuel cells are not pollution free power- they produce far too much water, which in time will screw up the climate of the world. CO2 is pollution… even though plants need to breathe it. Theres nothing wrong with CO2 as a compound- but too much of it and humans can’t breathe, not to mention messing up atmospheric conditions.
The ultimate solution to transportation is efficiency. If you are talking something with internal combustion, you are probably talking a twin-charged HCCI hooked up to a light hybrid. If you want to be sane enough to remove internal combustion from smaller vehicles (it probably will never make sense to remove it from large vehicles that must leave an electrical pick up grid, though e.g. trackless trolleys) than the solution is probably electric.
But the real solution is the elimination of personal transportation devices from all densely populated areas. Don’t remove diesels from cities- remove ALL ICE cars from city centers. Hell, remove all the cars and redesign the entire city around pedestrians and public transit. THAT is the real solution. THAT is the only way we can sustain personal mobility.
But its not going to happen. People are too bloody stupid. Witness poor people who support the Republican party- or rich people who support socialist agendas. Not getting political, but how many Americans, or people in general really, do you watch tirelessly fight against both their own best interests, and that of the greater good?
Volkswagen was trying to sell an affordable diesel, with the fuel economy that goes with it. The legislative situation was laid out in such a way that it clearly indicated nobody actually gave a turkey except for special interest groups who (like all special interest groups) are too stupid to figure out anything. Special interest groups, movements, and mobs have a lot in common. So without worrying about the environment (and why should we? Nobody else actually does!) they created a product that pleased their users and saved them money. And sold them.
Obviously for a profit… but do you have ANY idea how many companies, in how many industries, all over the country, nay, world, should be going to jail for lying about pollution controls, or product safety, or a whole load of other stuff? I’m talking about the loss of human lives here. Try, just try, to live in American without eating corn pesticides. (HFCS!) Business interests perpetuated that for decades- we are only starting to understand the implications.
Volkswagen’s actions involved trying to survive in a business that is stupidly regulated, with regulations that do not improve peoples lives. I don’t blame them. I’m not entirely sure they even broke the law- although I’m sure that won’t make a difference. The regulations stipulate that they must pass tests under specific conditions, and those cars clearly do that. Breaking the spirit is not breaking the law.
But don’t stand up and damn their special evilness. All companies dance around regulations, and don’t care about the spirit. And a lot of them even come within a hairsbreadth of breaking it- or even do. This transgression is essentially victimless- certainly just as victimless as you driving your Ford pickup around.
They deserve the same slap on the wrist other companies get when they commit the Cardinal Sin, and the only crime that matters- getting caught.
OMG, You’re trying to eco-shame me! I’m in the same camp as Al Gore now.
I don’t really need to defend my environmental footprint to anyone. I have the right to express my opinions about issues in the automotive regulatory world, which this VW thing is about. I never shamed VW about the additional NOx their diesels are emitting, because probably in the very big picture of things, it’s probably not all that material.
The issue is really all about blatant cheating. VW could have met the EPA standards, if they had used the more expensive DEF technology. But they didn’t. And chose to cheat.
Environmental regulations exist for a reason. I’m sorry you’re so pessimistic, but our air, water and food are a whole lot cleaner because of them. it’s a social obligations for corporations to meet standards that other companies must and can meet.
VW wanted to push diesels in the US for one reason only: as a marketing edge to sell more cars. To do so while cheating is not ok.
My old truck? Do you realize that I drive it less than a thousand miles per year? And only ever when I need to haul things, from the lumber yard, to the dump, etc. No, I don’t go joy-riding in it, like all of the other folks who take their classic cars out on the weekends. I’m not judging them; just saying.
In terms of HC and NOx, it’s undoubtedly “dirty”, but I live in an area that doesn’t have smog, so it’s really not an issue. No worse than folks driving their riding mowers every week.
In terms of CO output, it gets reasonable gas mileage (13-19 mpg).My overall CO footprint is very low. I work from home, so my automobile use is very low. My xB has 70k miles and is over ten years old. We keep the house very cool in the winter; my gas bill never exceeds $80/month. I use just one freestanding gas stove; I tore out the ducted furnace ages ago. And I’m in the middle of getting a large 3.5 kw solar array on our house.
The overarching issue is that issues like CO are only going to be solved by large-scale changes, not whether I drive my truck 1000 miles per year. That’s what we have regulations for. if you think change will come from shaming me and others for driving our old cars and trucks every once in a while, you’re barking up the wrong tree.
I’m rather disappointed in your comment. This is the first time anyone has tried to eco-shame me. Without knowing how I live my life, you’re in no position to judge.
Meanwhile, we all have a responsibility to ensure the large corporations toe the line when it comes to environmental regulations. Unfortunately, that’s all we have for ammunition right now. Hopefully, it will be enough.
This isn’t A first for someone Eco-shaming you, because I wasn’t. I was merely pointing out the inherent hypocrisy in blasting VW’s attempts to cirrcumvent pointless and ineffectual emissions regulations while promoting and supporting the daily driving (this ain’t GarageQueenClassics.com) of cars with lesser or non existent emissions controls.
I’ve been a small business owner too long to ever blame someone for trying to make a vaguely dishonest but victimless buck. In a world of rats I am not going to tar and feather one for stealing garbage. Which is my only objection to this whole circus surrounding VW.
Car pollution is such a small part of the worlds pollution problem- my charcoal grill usage probably pollutes more than your Ford. I’m not an eco guy, actually. Public transit to promote universal mobility was my thing until I burned out trying to push for it. My Eco knowledge was merely a tool to get certain people on board with my issue.
I find the inherent conflict I’m pointing out amusing. That’s all.
P.S. Don’t mention DEF. Its a nasty solution that gets around releasing pollutants by changing regulated pollutants into unregulated ones. Non solution.
If you think emission standards are pointless and ineffectual, than there’s no point in discussing the issue any further. I’m sorry you think the world is beyond hope. I don’t.
I pray to the almighty God you are right.
The earth is hard to kill, consider the dinosaur extinction event.
Anyone who has lived in an area such as SoCal over the last few decades knows very well that emissions standards work. The improvement in quality of life here in the 4+ decades since I arrived has been monumental. And with a great deal accomplished in terms of mass transit (the light rail trains to Santa Monica are being tested as I write and will be full operation in spring) and more on the way, this area will be a good mix of mass and individual transit within a few more years. I, too, am an optimist☺.
DEF is just a solution of ammonia and water. The SCR system injects DEF into the exhaust, where the ammonia (NH3) chemically reacts with nitrogen oxides (NOx) to form nitrogen (N2) and water (H2O). If you’re saying nitrogen and water are unregulated pollutants, I have bad news for you….
For what it’s worth, I recall the Magliozzi brothers commenting once that replacing an old car with a new one is likely harder on the environment than keeping the old one on the road, no matter how clean or efficient the new car is. A lot of raw materials and resources go into producing the new car.
If the old vehicle is used only a few thousand miles a year as Paul does, this amplifies the point that was made.
The fact that it’s a work truck helping provide housing to others, and not a classic car garage queen further amplifies this.
This is an editorial on the state of the industry, and I thought it was fairly written. While it’s a bit more snarky than what one would find in the mainstream media, there’s nothing in this article that should call Paul’s personal opinions or behaviour into question. The fact that Paul drives an old non-emissions controlled pickup truck has no bearing on the content of the editorial, which is as it should be.
VW did break the law. By adding a “cheat mode” to the ECU that reprograms the engine operating parameters only during the EPA test, they effectively made it so that the car that ran on the EPA test is not the same car that you can buy at the dealership. VW’s were even given special treatment (government subsidies to buyers) in some markets as a result of this! In return, VW benefited handsomely from this deception. That is fraud.
fraud: a person or thing intended to deceive others, typically by unjustifiably claiming or being credited with accomplishments or qualities.
Don’t be surprised if the EPA makes an example out of VW to scare other companies who would do the same. Also don’t be surprised if others are also found to be guilty, now that the entire industry is bound to come under the microscope.
An interesting article Paul. Here in New Zealand diesel is very popular as it’s almost half the price of petrol per litre. Here are the prices per litre (all in NZ$) of diesel and petrol at the local BP today:
Diesel – $1.205
Petrol –
91 octane – $1.923
95 octane – $2.123
98 octane – $2.209
On the surface that makes diesel a no-brainer, but diesel users also have to pay a RUC (Road User Charge) of $62 per 1000km. Even so, a diesel car that used fuel at the same rate as a petrol car here would be cheaper to fuel:
* For a diesel car that does 10L/100km, 1000km would cost $120.5 (fuel) + $62 (RUC) = $182.50.
* For a petrol car that does 10L/100km, 1000km would cost $192.30 (91 octane), $212.30 (95) or $220.90 (98).
Of course I’m biased, as I drove a diesel Toyota Hiace through the late 90s, and then diesel Nissan Laurels until 2 weeks ago (when I sold my last one).
Too many comments already to check if this has been addressed: this is a feast for the lawyers. The first ones will hit VW-AG with stock market related class action lawsuits. The lawyers will make millions on that alone. I wonder if any one of them will by a VW product with the money they make?
Then of course there will be an army of lawyers hired to defend VW AG.
More lawyers will run class action law suites on behalf of VW customers. Some individual owners will opt out of the the classes of plaintiffs that will be created and they will sue VW on there own.
Then I can imagine the the VW dealers will have an ax to grind against VW AG as their sales will be affected. They invested massive amounts in their dealerships trusting to have a great product line to offer.
Am I forgetting someone?
I find it a compelling thought that VW will declare bankruptcy and restructure, then emerge from bankruptcy maybe 5 years later. No doubt, they will look at the old GM to new GM history very closely.
see my comment above – no bunkruptcy will take place. Whoever shuts down VW (even if the proceedings were temporary Sanierungsverfahren (like Chapter 11 in the US)) shuts down Germany. This is something Angela Merkel cannot allow to happen, again, in particular after idiotically inviting all of the Middle East and Africa at the expense of the German tax payer, something which is already affecting her standing with German (and other European) citizens. As you may or may not know, there is a trade agreement being negotiated at the moment between the US and the EU, one which would allow US companies to export genetically modified food to Europe. This has been held up so far due to resistance from the European public as GM food is looked at with great suspicion here. Before VW’s shit hit the fan, I’d have said the chances of the agreement being effectively concluded were only 50/50. However, in its stupidity VW provided US food producers exactly what they needed to pressurize the EU to agree, particularly if one of the major EU state members will be in favor in order to save its main industry (I am certain other German car producers will feel the heat too). Other behind-the-scenes arm-twisting may also take place to force Europe to accept all manner of things, none of which are in its inetersts.This – to me – is no lesser reason to detest VW.
Wow! Very interesting.
It makes one really wonder about the TIMING of the release of this information since it appears that it has been known for some time now. Maybe for leverage? Monsanto is one very powerful corporation, after all . . .
Naaaaaah!
I used to like Volkswagen diesels. They may have been painfully slow by today’s standards but they’re generally simpler and more reliable than they are today.
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen,
All I can say is this is unequvicibly the biggest load of codswhollop ever written about diesel vehicles. The author obviously has no idea what he’s raving on about and probably doesn’t care.
I have just bought a 2002 Ford Mondeo tdci and traveled 1000kms with 52 litres of fuel costing $1.39 a litre AUD. What is wrong with that?
Why should other people decide for you what you can and can’t drive eh?
I totally agree. I see absolutely nothing wrong. I’d buy a diesel powered vehicle if I could find one.
My feelings *exactly!*