PDA

View Full Version : VW caught by the Yanks for breaking emission laws



Pages : 1 [2] 3

joel0407
2nd December 2015, 09:35 AM
No.
Vast majority have no adblue system.

JD you may have your nitros mixed up , this article explains better than I could.

VW scandal caused nearly 1m tonnes of extra pollution, analysis shows | Environment | The Guardian (http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/sep/22/vw-scandal-caused-nearly-1m-tonnes-of-extra-pollution-analysis-shows)

Such rubbish reporting. I stop reading now the first time I hear it refereed to as a device. It's a program not a device. It's like VW cars are the only cars to have a Engine Control Unit (ECU) and that device cheated emission testing. Sorry I think near every car sold today would have an ECU so is every car sold today cheating emission?

joel0407
2nd December 2015, 09:46 AM
I do not have my oxides mixed up, I am talking about NO2.


John

You do have some stuff confused mate. I know because I made the same mistake. NOx is not NO2. One is Nitrogen and the other Nitrogen Oxide.

What really makes it confusing is AdBlue is a solution of high-purity urea. Urea is the stuff in your urine that burns grass off. Urea has the highest nitrogen content of all nitrogenous fertilizers. Adding it to the exhaust just changes the form of the nitrogen into a form that is not tested as part of emissions tests. To me changing the form of an emission into something that is not tested is just as much cheating as anything else. If you add more one end, you get more at the other.

isuzurover
2nd December 2015, 09:51 AM
You do have some stuff confused mate. I know because I made the same mistake. NOx is not NO2. One is Nitrogen and the other Nitrogen Oxide.
...

Sorry but you have NFI what you are saying. For the sake of us all please step away from the keyboard and go and do some reading.

N2 is nitrogen in the air. High temperature combustion (e.g. in an engine produces NO (N2+O2 = 2NO). NO rapidly oxidises in the environment into NO2 (depending on how close to a source (engine) you measure you will have various ratios of NO to NO2).

NOx is used because it groups NO and NO2.

joel0407
2nd December 2015, 09:52 AM
Sorry but everything in your post is incorrect.
In the range of air-fuel ratios diesels operate more fuel means higher combustion temperatures and more NOx.
see here:
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2015/12/998.jpg
http://users.actrix.co.nz/dougal.ellen/forums/Diesel%20A-F%20Ratios.jpg



This defies everything and I mean everything I have read and it has been a lot.

NOx levels are not set like CO2 emissions. There is a direct ratio for fuel in and CO2 out but that's not the case for NOx.

Happy Days.

Eevo
2nd December 2015, 09:56 AM
interesting but useless

Nitric oxide is produced during thunderstorms due to the extreme heat of lightning,[5] and is caused by the splitting of nitrogen molecules. This can result in the production of acid rain, if nitric oxide forms compounds with the water molecules in precipitation.

Scientists Ott et al[6] estimated that each flash of lightning on average in the several mid-latitude and subtropical thunderstorms studied turned 7 kilograms (15.4 pounds) of nitrogen into chemically reactive NOx. Ott stated, ?In other words, you could drive a new car across the United States more than 50 times and still produce less than half as much NOx as an average lightning flash.?

PAT303
2nd December 2015, 09:57 AM
^^ yep,it's no different to plug in electric vehicles,they just move the pollution from column A to column B.I'd like to know how much coal is burned compared to fuel to get two vehicles to travel 500k's. Pat

joel0407
2nd December 2015, 10:00 AM
Sorry but you have NFI what you are saying.



Wow that's a big call mate. I guess you are an expert on this subject.

Care to enlighten us on what adding Urea to the exhaust does to reduce NOx?

I really don't understand that.:angel:

joel0407
2nd December 2015, 10:15 AM
I guess this is why the media got such a run out of this.

We have guys like "frantic" making out like the world will end because his VW produces more than a standard. (yes I have followed you on VWWATERCOOLED forum as well).

And "isuzurover" who wants to debate what causes it. (I'm happy to learn and discuss but don't appreciate being told I know nothing).

And then "evo" and "PAT303" who I am with that this isn't really that big of a thing.

I think the standards are dodge. They are made by uninformed people. Just like I'm sure everyone has asked them selves more than once "Why are the council doing that, there was nothing wrong with it". The governments get it right more than 50% of the time and that what keeps the world moving forward but the rest just sells news papers.

Yes VW lied and they have admitted to that but i don't understand why the same question isn't being asked about all the other manufactures that also don't meet the standard. How are they doing it?

Yes VW NOx is high but are their other emissions lower and how much lower. Maybe their CO2 is so low the benefit will of set the extra little bit of NOx. Oh wait, that's not bad news so it wont sell a paper.

grey_ghost
2nd December 2015, 10:47 AM
Hi All,

I can attest to the fact that the scandal has certainly hurt re-sale values of VW's - especially if yours was one of the naughty ones (mine was).

There is a class action under-way, with the legal firm taking 25% fees off whatever is won, with a "no win, no fee" clause..

The legal firm that I contacted was still interested in taking on my case with VW - even though I have now sold the car...

All I can say is - VW knowingly did something bad and they got caught. I have no doubt that there are many other companies, around the world, from all walks of life - also doing the dodge.. It's just that VW got caught.

As a former VW owner - my only gripe is that it hurt my back pocket when I sold the vehicle...

DiscoMick
2nd December 2015, 10:51 AM
I have to agree there. There are plenty of aftermarket tuners that would have played extensively with this ECU and knew what it did and how it worked.

Yes I have wondered about the Steinbauer that was fitted to my Defender when I bought it. It makes that annoying noise when I turn it off so I assume the EGR is still working and cleaning itself.

Sent from my SM-G900I using AULRO mobile app

p38arover
2nd December 2015, 10:52 AM
Wow that's a big call mate. I guess you are an expert on this subject.

Umm, I think Ben might just be that with his doctorate and the research he does.....

isuzurover
2nd December 2015, 11:02 AM
interesting but useless

Nitric oxide is produced during thunderstorms due to the extreme heat of lightning,[5] and is caused by the splitting of nitrogen molecules. This can result in the production of acid rain, if nitric oxide forms compounds with the water molecules in precipitation.

Scientists Ott et al[6] estimated that each flash of lightning on average in the several mid-latitude and subtropical thunderstorms studied turned 7 kilograms (15.4 pounds) of nitrogen into chemically reactive NOx. Ott stated, ?In other words, you could drive a new car across the United States more than 50 times and still produce less than half as much NOx as an average lightning flash.?

It depends if you are interested in environmental or health effects. Vehicles emit NOx at/near ground level. emissions during thunderstorms are emitted across the whole air column and often washed out by the rain falling at the same time.

To put things in perspective, I was speaking to a leading EU air quality modeller the other week. He said that their models can only predict about 1/3 of the NOx in the air in Europe (they use both natural and anthropogenic sources as model inputs). They were forced to use emissions factors which corresponded to vehicle regulations. If they use "real" nox emissions from vehicles as an input to their models they now predict accurately.

JDNSW
2nd December 2015, 11:31 AM
It depends if you are interested in environmental or health effects. Vehicles emit NOx at/near ground level. emissions during thunderstorms are emitted across the whole air column and often washed out by the rain falling at the same time.

To put things in perspective, I was speaking to a leading EU air quality modeller the other week. He said that their models can only predict about 1/3 of the NOx in the air in Europe (they use both natural and anthropogenic sources as model inputs). They were forced to use emissions factors which corresponded to vehicle regulations. If they use "real" nox emissions from vehicles as an input to their models they now predict accurately.

It would be interesting to know just how they know the "real" emissions from vehicles is measured - I suspect it could be best described as an informed guess, seeing that they would vary widely according to conditions, mix of vehicles etc. Which of course begs the question as to whether the "informed" meant a number that gave the right answer and looked reasonable.

However, there is no doubt at all that emissions of all types, are different in "real" motoring from those measured in testing. But the reason that testing is done in closely specified conditions is that the emissions vary so widely according to the conditions, and it is unrealistic to expect that they will ever match test figures at all closely. What VW have done though is to deliberately game this difference. Other manufacturers may have done this as well, but certainly all manufacturers have designed their products to be able to meet the specified tests, knowing that they will not give the same figures in normal use.

No different from racing yacht designers designing to meet the rules, and doing their best to produce a product better than the opposition even though they were designed to meet the same rules - that are there to try and make the handicap commensurate with the actual speed of the yacht.

And then there is the unanswered question as to how many localities really have health problems from NOx emissions from diesel cars. Certainly in this country there would, I suspect, be far more emitted by diesel trucks, and I doubt there are many localities where it is a problem regardless. And what proportion of diesel cars do these model VW represent in this country anyway?

John

isuzurover
2nd December 2015, 12:25 PM
It would be interesting to know just how they know the "real" emissions from vehicles is measured - I suspect it could be best described as an informed guess, seeing that they would vary widely according to conditions, mix of vehicles etc. Which of course begs the question as to whether the "informed" meant a number that gave the right answer and looked reasonable.
...

There are extensive studies on this in the EU. [Basically they have portable equipment which fits in the back of (any) car and connects to the exhaust] They have measured the emission rates from a huge range of vehicles under a very wide range of conditions. There have been studies for around 5 years showing real emissions were up to 300x higher than test emissions, but a lot of this was put down to the EU drive cycle acceleration rate being unrealistically slow.

isuzurover
2nd December 2015, 12:34 PM
Umm, I think Ben might just be that with his doctorate and the research he does.....

Funnily enough the first journal paper I ever published was on NOx emissions from petroleum refineries.
I was also down at the farm when the VW story first broke, and had just heard about 5s on the radio about it before all the media started calling me up.

joel0407
2nd December 2015, 01:34 PM
Funnily enough the first journal paper I ever published was on NOx emissions from petroleum refineries.
I was also down at the farm when the VW story first broke, and had just heard about 5s on the radio about it before all the media started calling me up.

So what does the AdBlue do?

bee utey
2nd December 2015, 01:53 PM
So what does the AdBlue do?
Ya could do a google search, ya know.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_exhaust_fluid

It reduces the nitrogen oxides back to nitrogen and water with some CO2 produced..

isuzurover
2nd December 2015, 02:06 PM
So what does the AdBlue do?

The process is called selective catalytic reduction (SCR). NO is reduced to N2 through reaction with aqueous ammonia on a catalyst.

isuzurover
2nd December 2015, 03:11 PM
Currently in a DSITI / BCC seminar. Data they have shows 63% of NOx in greater brisbane region is from motor vehicles.

JDNSW
2nd December 2015, 06:37 PM
Currently in a DSITI / BCC seminar. Data they have shows 63% of NOx in greater Brisbane region is from motor vehicles.

Two questions need to be asked on this -

1. How much is from diesel cars?

2. How much is from the affected VW models?

And, of course, is the total level a significant health risk. Would not surprise me if it is, because Brisbane has weather conditions conducive to stagnation fairly often.

Actually, I'm surprised that the proportion attributed to motor vehicles is not higher than that, although the error bars on that figure could be interesting, as could the variability of the levels.

John

isuzurover
2nd December 2015, 07:46 PM
Two questions need to be asked on this -

1. How much is from diesel cars?

2. How much is from the affected VW models?

And, of course, is the total level a significant health risk. Would not surprise me if it is, because Brisbane has weather conditions conducive to stagnation fairly often.

Actually, I'm surprised that the proportion attributed to motor vehicles is not higher than that, although the error bars on that figure could be interesting, as could the variability of the levels.

John

I cannot answer 1 and 2. However it is an underestimate as it is based in national pollutant inventory data, so suffers similar problems to the EU modelling i mentioned earlier. As for health effects, levels in brisbane are similar to the scandinavian study i posted a couple of pages back.

PAT303
2nd December 2015, 08:34 PM
Yes I have wondered about the Steinbauer that was fitted to my Defender when I bought it. It makes that annoying noise when I turn it off so I assume the EGR is still working and cleaning itself.

Sent from my SM-G900I using AULRO mobile app

I wouldn't worry about your defender Mick,it's your Mazda you should be concerned about,in real world driving tests they pumped out more pollutants than any other make,10 times what VW produced. Pat

PAT303
2nd December 2015, 08:40 PM
I cannot answer 1 and 2. However it is an underestimate as it is based in national pollutant inventory data, so suffers similar problems to the EU modelling i mentioned earlier. As for health effects, levels in brisbane are similar to the scandinavian study i posted a couple of pages back.

I wouldn't mind as would many others if you posted up actual facts about this subject,going by some of the replies to this thread many people are getting caught by misinformation or are simply getting the interpretation wrong,we would appreciate it. Pat

ozscott
2nd December 2015, 09:53 PM
I don't want to hear from VW apologists. ;) Cheers

PAT303
3rd December 2015, 09:32 AM
I don't want to hear from VW apologists. ;) Cheers

And I don't want to hear from uniformed knockers ;). Pat

gusthedog
3rd December 2015, 09:52 AM
And I don't want to hear from uniformed knockers ;). Pat

I'm happy with knockers whether they're in a uniform or not ;)

Pricey

isuzurover
3rd December 2015, 11:20 AM
I wouldn't mind as would many others if you posted up actual facts about this subject,going by some of the replies to this thread many people are getting caught by misinformation or are simply getting the interpretation wrong,we would appreciate it. Pat

What in particular Pat?

As I said to all the journalists, the irony is that VW have just been doing what all the aftermarket tuning companies have been doing...
So you are right - anyone with a "chipped" engine cannot be critical of VW...

ozscott
3rd December 2015, 01:43 PM
Pat
1. How dare you mention my knockers
2. I'm not taking off my uniform for you (VW lover!!)

Cheers

PAT303
3rd December 2015, 05:49 PM
What in particular Pat?

As I said to all the journalists, the irony is that VW have just been doing what all the aftermarket tuning companies have been doing...
So you are right - anyone with a "chipped" engine cannot be critical of VW...
Anything you think is relevant,I'd like to hear your opinion on how you would lower NOx emissions.What we have now,EGR's,DPF,urea etc to me are just solutions to a problem that create more problems,band aids. Pat

PAT303
3rd December 2015, 05:50 PM
Pat
1. How dare you mention my knockers
2. I'm not taking off my uniform for you (VW lover!!)

Cheers

Thanks for putting that image in my mind,I'm off to rub soap in my eye's :p. Pat

ozscott
3rd December 2015, 07:26 PM
Try a toothbrush!

Cheers

DiscoMick
3rd December 2015, 08:31 PM
I wouldn't worry about your defender Mick,it's your Mazda you should be concerned about,in real world driving tests they pumped out more pollutants than any other make,10 times what VW produced. Pat

Our Mazda 2 is petrol, not diesel, so is that still true? The wife wouldn't be pleased, as she thinks her 2 is the bees knees.

Sent from my GT-P5210 using AULRO mobile app

ozscott
3rd December 2015, 08:49 PM
You couldn't prize me out of the little 3 GT to a Golf in any universe.

Cheers

PAT303
3rd December 2015, 09:05 PM
Our Mazda 2 is petrol, not diesel, so is that still true? The wife wouldn't be pleased, as she thinks her 2 is the bees knees.

Sent from my GT-P5210 using AULRO mobile app

Don't know about petrol,the diesel is a shocker,I'd like to know how they got it passed emission tests ;). Pat

DiscoMick
3rd December 2015, 09:08 PM
Don't know about petrol,the diesel is a shocker,I'd like to know how they got it passed emission tests ;). Pat

The wife will be pleased.

Sent from my GT-P5210 using AULRO mobile app

PAT303
4th December 2015, 03:33 PM
Still doesn't answer my question but does it. Pat

cuppabillytea
5th December 2015, 10:27 AM
No.

isuzurover
5th December 2015, 10:25 PM
Don't know about petrol,the diesel is a shocker,I'd like to know how they got it passed emission tests ;). Pat

Emissions tests are largely an honesty system. However IME the mazda "skyactive" diesels seem pretty good, and certainly drive well.

Australia is a long way behind the rest of the world in terms of emissions standards. Basically Ford and Holden jumped up and down and said it was all too hard, that is why the current EU/US regulations are being rolled out gradually until 2018. The sticking point seemed to be particle number emission measurement, even though my lab and a couple of others in Brisbane can measure it accurately. It is probably no coincidence that local manufacturing will cease before 2018.

Heavy vehicles are assessed on a sensible metric of emissions per kWh of engine output. Passenger vehicles have to conform to emissions per km regulations based on a standard "drive cycle" and acceleration rate. The EU acceleration rate has been criticised as being far too slow (granny on a sunday drive), as it was set in the '70s. The US (CARB) acceleration rate is far more realistic.

As for your previous question, if I had the answer I would be a billionaire. Diesels are the only viable solution for long haul transport, but I imagine that before too long most commuting in urban areas will be in electric vehicles. It is much easier to treat power station emissions than vehicle emissions.

LandyAndy
5th December 2015, 10:31 PM
From the amount of diesel soot my D4 deposits on the rear door,I wonder if we are the next on the chopping block????
Andrew

isuzurover
5th December 2015, 10:39 PM
From the amount of diesel soot my D4 deposits on the rear door,I wonder if we are the next on the chopping block????
Andrew

My contacts in the European automotive industry are sure it is not limited to VW.

I have been surprised how much soot I have seen D3s/D4s/RR_Sports emit while driving around.

However for the EU regs (which we also have in Australia), a manufacturer could program a single map to meet emissions at low acceleration rates (as used in the test regulations) but still have plenty of power in the top end. This would not strictly be a "defeat device".

The US/CARB regs were a lot more stringent and use much more realistic acceleration rates, hence the 2 separate maps.

scarry
6th December 2015, 07:43 AM
From the amount of diesel soot my D4 deposits on the rear door,I wonder if we are the next on the chopping block????
Andrew

No soot on mine…...probably the way yours is driven:p:D:angel:

DiscoMick
6th December 2015, 08:07 AM
Gotta say the Puma Defender doesn't seem to blow much compared with our previous 300Tdi, which was pretty smoky at startup.

Sent from my GT-P5210 using AULRO mobile app

PAT303
6th December 2015, 01:05 PM
My contacts in the European automotive industry are sure it is not limited to VW.

I have been surprised how much soot I have seen D3s/D4s/RR_Sports emit while driving around.

However for the EU regs (which we also have in Australia), a manufacturer could program a single map to meet emissions at low acceleration rates (as used in the test regulations) but still have plenty of power in the top end. This would not strictly be a "defeat device".

The US/CARB regs were a lot more stringent and use much more realistic acceleration rates, hence the 2 separate maps.

This is a good point,it can't just be VW,if VW felt the need to ''cheat'' the tests I cannot believe other manufacturers aren't either.Another Q,whats the difference between petrol and diesel as far as emissions go?,is it only the NOx and particulate that causes grief with diesels?,I'm asking because how do American 6+ litre V8's pass when a 2.0ltr TD doesn't? Pat

isuzurover
7th December 2015, 12:12 PM
This is a good point,it can't just be VW,if VW felt the need to ''cheat'' the tests I cannot believe other manufacturers aren't either.Another Q,whats the difference between petrol and diesel as far as emissions go?,is it only the NOx and particulate that causes grief with diesels?,I'm asking because how do American 6+ litre V8's pass when a 2.0ltr TD doesn't? Pat

The best collation of emissions standards is here:
https://www.dieselnet.com/standards/

Euro6 emissions standards have very little variation between petrol and diesel - a bit more NOx for diesel, a bit more CO for petrol.

California standards have no difference. That is why it is very hard for diesels to meet them.

Diesels are more efficient but produce more emissions (particularly NOx and CO). It is easier for petrol engines to meet the standards. Also, a 2L diesel at 2 bar boost (absolute) may as well be considered a 4L engine.

Some rules also allow a small number of high performance cars as long as you make enough small cars that run below emissions levels. That is why you see cars like the Abarth and hybrid lambo coming out...

Edit: Also the EU tests use a drive cycle that can best be described as granny out for a sunday drive. It is easy to get an engine to put out low emissions if it isn't putting out much power.

Gerokent
9th December 2015, 10:17 AM
The best collation of emissions standards is here:
https://www.dieselnet.com/standards/

Some rules also allow a small number of high performance cars as long as you make enough small cars that run below emissions levels. That is why you see cars like the Abarth and hybrid lambo coming out...



So the way to go for manufacturers is to produce LOTS of smaller cars (or buy out small car manufacturers) and then go to town producing W12, 600hp mega cars. As long as the total emissions is within an average, overall limit. The TOTAL amount of emissions is higher, but the average per car is lower.
So more cars = less emissions.

PAT303
9th December 2015, 12:48 PM
So the way to go for manufacturers is to produce LOTS of smaller cars (or buy out small car manufacturers) and then go to town producing W12, 600hp mega cars. As long as the total emissions is within an average, overall limit. The TOTAL amount of emissions is higher, but the average per car is lower.
So more cars = less emissions.

Yep,thats about it,all made null and void by the millions of 2 stroke postie bikes smoking their way around the undeveloped world. Pat

Redback
9th December 2015, 01:07 PM
Well we got a letter yesterday informing us of the progress of the fix, it's only a software update/reflash for the Amarok according to the letter, and they garrantee it will not have any effect on power and economy.

So we will see if that is true or not soon.

Slunnie
9th December 2015, 02:06 PM
Well we got a letter yesterday informing us of the progress of the fix, it's only a software update/reflash for the Amarok according to the letter, and they garrantee it will not have any effect on power and economy.

So we will see if that is true or not soon.
I haven't read this thread, but I expect this to be the case for just about all of them in Aus. They'll just get rid of the cheat software which I understood to be redundant in Aus anyway.

PAT303
9th December 2015, 05:48 PM
Thats how it's been reported,Oz vehicles never had it operate because they never needed it. Pat

isuzurover
9th December 2015, 05:50 PM
Well we got a letter yesterday informing us of the progress of the fix, it's only a software update/reflash for the Amarok according to the letter, and they garrantee it will not have any effect on power and economy.

So we will see if that is true or not soon.

As Slunnie says, Australia is way behind Europe/US, so I doubt the so called "cheat" software made the cars noncompliant with our laws.

joel0407
9th December 2015, 08:18 PM
just jumping back in mid conversation here.

There has been discussion about how much VW knew about the cheat program. I think initially most of them denied knowledge and blamed a few engineers. I don't know if that has changed.

I commented somewhere pretty early that other would have surely known especially with the work some tuners do.

I just remembered something today. A good friend of mine has a petrol Tiguan which has the the same ECU as the diesels. He had a performance tune programmed to his ECU by ARP. The tuner was able to load multiple engine maps, I just can't remember how he changed program. This was at least 5 years ago so it's been pretty common knowledge there was the ability to have different tunes but I guess the tuners just never knew why they were there.

Happy Days

frantic
10th December 2015, 09:29 PM
just jumping back in mid conversation here.

There has been discussion about how much VW knew about the cheat program. I think initially most of them denied knowledge and blamed a few engineers. I don't know if that has changed.

I commented somewhere pretty early that other would have surely known especially with the work some tuners do.

I just remembered something today. A good friend of mine has a petrol Tiguan which has the the same ECU as the diesels. He had a performance tune programmed to his ECU by ARP. The tuner was able to load multiple engine maps, I just can't remember how he changed program. This was at least 5 years ago so it's been pretty common knowledge there was the ability to have different tunes but I guess the tuners just never knew why they were there.

Happy Days

I haven't read this in a while, but I would be pretty safe in saying , an ECU with the capacity to hold 2 (or more in your experience) states of tune and the ability to understand when its being tested and implement the "clean" running program would cost more than an ECU with room only for 1 running program that sets a lower level emissions down low but increases when accelerator fully flattened.
The approval for this more expensive ECU would be well out of the engineers hands and signed off upon much further up the tree. For a simple example lets say the twin program ECU costs $30 EU each, take this over the 11million vehicles equipped with it and that's a $330 million euro decision. Do many engineers you know order on that scale without senior approval?

There have been a few articles from Germany where Bosch reportedly told VW only to use the second tune/map in prototypes as it would be illegal, as well as a report that one of VW's own engineers reported issues but was ignored/hushed up. Now maybe Bosch are going to play the "we didn't know game" and claim they thought it was just a VW mistake that let them sell 11million of a more expensive unit that did nothing illegal. But when some articles are saying the programing was installed at the Bosch factory it could get interesting.
That is the difference between say a mazda or BMW that may put out 3-5 times when pushed harder in the real world but who do not have a separate program purposefully designed to beat the emissions testing like the VW while the real world program puts out 35-40 times the limit.

Slunnie
11th December 2015, 03:28 PM
As Slunnie says, Australia is way behind Europe/US, so I doubt the so called "cheat" software made the cars noncompliant with our laws.

Here we go - a non-issue in Aus.

It seems the issues were based in the US and their push to expand into that market.

No real changes for anything in Australia.

Volkswagen Australia confirms no local models exceed claimed CO2 emissions (http://www.caradvice.com.au/402676/volkswagen-australia-confirms-no-local-models-exceed-claimed-co2-emissions/)

JDNSW
11th December 2015, 04:14 PM
That article is talking about CO2 emissions. The original problem was NOx emissions. I think someone, probably the paper, is either getting confused or being deliberately confusing. The comments pick this up.

But NOx emissions were never an issue in Australia. What will be an issue in Australia, and it will be interesting to see how the courts treat it, is the impact of the damage to VW's reputation as reflected in owner's resale value.

John

PAT303
11th December 2015, 05:58 PM
I haven't read this in a while, but I would be pretty safe in saying , an ECU with the capacity to hold 2 (or more in your experience) states of tune and the ability to understand when its being tested and implement the "clean" running program would cost more than an ECU with room only for 1 running program that sets a lower level emissions down low but increases when accelerator fully flattened.
The approval for this more expensive ECU would be well out of the engineers hands and signed off upon much further up the tree. For a simple example lets say the twin program ECU costs $30 EU each, take this over the 11million vehicles equipped with it and that's a $330 million euro decision. Do many engineers you know order on that scale without senior approval?

There have been a few articles from Germany where Bosch reportedly told VW only to use the second tune/map in prototypes as it would be illegal, as well as a report that one of VW's own engineers reported issues but was ignored/hushed up. Now maybe Bosch are going to play the "we didn't know game" and claim they thought it was just a VW mistake that let them sell 11million of a more expensive unit that did nothing illegal. But when some articles are saying the programing was installed at the Bosch factory it could get interesting.
That is the difference between say a mazda or BMW that may put out 3-5 times when pushed harder in the real world but who do not have a separate program purposefully designed to beat the emissions testing like the VW while the real world program puts out 35-40 times the limit.

In real world testing VAG vehicles were the cleanest by a large margin,as I've already posted,if VAG had to cheat and their vehicles are the cleanest,how are the likes of Mazda getting through?. Pat

frantic
11th December 2015, 11:09 PM
In real world testing VAG vehicles were the cleanest by a large margin,as I've already posted,if VAG had to cheat and their vehicles are the cleanest,how are the likes of Mazda getting through?. Pat

Umm, you've made this claim, but no evidence?
The original uni study tested vw and bmw, the vw exceeded the U.S. levels of Nox by 35 times , the bmw was only 3 at worst.
Of course if you could provide a link to a comparison study of NOx emiissions between a vw golf tdi and a tdi Mazda to the eu or us levels it would clarify what your saying?:)

ozscott
12th December 2015, 07:13 AM
Im keen to see some stats too. I have seen plenty of smoky Euro diesels but no Mazdas...

Cheers

DiscoMick
12th December 2015, 10:18 AM
I haven't seen any references to smoky Japanese or Korean diesels but I'd be interested in the results of any valid comparisons.

Sent from my SM-G900I using AULRO mobile app

cuppabillytea
12th December 2015, 10:31 AM
Mazda Is a Ford brand. It's interesting that no investigation into U.S brands has surfaced. I'm no apologist for VW but unless all manufacturers are scrutinised to the same degree, the stoning of VW is a bit pointless.

BMKal
12th December 2015, 10:36 AM
Pretty sure that Ford only owns a very small stake in Mazda - I read somewhere that it's around 2% - so I'd hardly call Mazda a Ford brand. ;)

PAT303
12th December 2015, 09:49 PM
Umm, you've made this claim, but no evidence?
The original uni study tested vw and bmw, the vw exceeded the U.S. levels of Nox by 35 times , the bmw was only 3 at worst.
Of course if you could provide a link to a comparison study of NOx emiissions between a vw golf tdi and a tdi Mazda to the eu or us levels it would clarify what your saying?:)

It was done months ago in England,vehicles were fitted with testing equipment and driven around London,VAG vehicles were the cleanest by far,do a search,I don't know how to link. Pat

ozscott
12th December 2015, 11:37 PM
Pat what newspaper so we can google it?

Cheers

cuppabillytea
12th December 2015, 11:56 PM
Pretty sure that Ford only owns a very small stake in Mazda - I read somewhere that it's around 2% - so I'd hardly call Mazda a Ford brand. ;)
Well, I was only seven years behind the times. :angel:

frantic
13th December 2015, 08:36 AM
Again pat, no.
Four more carmakers join diesel emissions row | Environment | The Guardian (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/oct/09/mercedes-honda-mazda-mitsubishi-diesel-emissions-row)
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/sep/30/wide-range-of-cars-emit-more-pollution-in-real-driving-conditions-tests-show
Mazda along with merc and bmw where shown.to be emitting 1.5-4times.nox limit, not the 35 that vw shows.
To put up a link, just select all the writing in the top search /address row copy and.paste.
On your computer it's usually right click mouse on the phone it's usually double tap.

DiscoMick
13th December 2015, 08:52 AM
Appears from that story that the tests showed the vehicles were about 7 times over on average, but Mazda diesel results were better than most.

Sent from my SM-G900I using AULRO mobile app

PAT303
13th December 2015, 02:56 PM
Again pat, no.
Four more carmakers join diesel emissions row | Environment | The Guardian (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/oct/09/mercedes-honda-mazda-mitsubishi-diesel-emissions-row)
Wide range of cars emit more pollution in realistic driving tests, data shows | Environment | The Guardian (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/sep/30/wide-range-of-cars-emit-more-pollution-in-real-driving-conditions-tests-show)
Mazda along with merc and bmw where shown.to be emitting 1.5-4times.nox limit, not the 35 that vw shows.
To put up a link, just select all the writing in the top search /address row copy and.paste.
On your computer it's usually right click mouse on the phone it's usually double tap.

Where in that report does it say VW was 35 times over?. Pat

DiscoMick
13th December 2015, 07:31 PM
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-34324772

This story says some VW vehicles, which include Audi, Skoda and Porsche, emitted up to 40 times the US standards for NOx, which are tougher than the EU standards, which seem to have been poorly designed and implemented, but other companies were also in the wrong, of course.

Sent from my SM-G900I using AULRO mobile app

PAT303
13th December 2015, 09:53 PM
Mick,they didn't run the vehicles on the road with emissions equipment fitted,they just reported that vehicles could produce 40 times the limit without proof,that is the same site that tested the vehicles on the road and found VAG the best and Mazda the worst in real world tests. Pat

frantic
14th December 2015, 05:31 AM
Mick,they didn't run the vehicles on the road with emissions equipment fitted,they just reported that vehicles could produce 40 times the limit without proof,that is the same site that tested the vehicles on the road and found VAG the best and Mazda the worst in real world tests. Pat

Again, no pat.:(
The original study that showed up to 35 times us EPA emissions by vw, not Mazda , WAS done on the road in real world conditions with the emissions gear attached. ;) google it. There are pics and video of it fitted.
University of west Virginia I think, where actually aiming for the opposite outcome, which was to prove how clean and efficient diesel's where.
The Academic Paper That Broke the Volkswagen Scandal - The Atlantic (http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/09/volkswagen-scandal-cheating-emission-virginia-epa/407425/)
Found one with a pic.
http://www.news.com.au/technology/innovation/motoring/the-who-what-and-why-of-volkswagens-diesel-scandal/news-story/c85b7b40002550588e1437f6ae86eba5
Middle is pic of test gear fitted for 2400km testing.

PAT303
14th December 2015, 02:44 PM
Again, no pat.:(
The original study that showed up to 35 times us EPA emissions by vw, not Mazda , WAS done on the road in real world conditions with the emissions gear attached. ;) google it. There are pics and video of it fitted.
University of west Virginia I think, where actually aiming for the opposite outcome, which was to prove how clean and efficient diesel's where.
The Academic Paper That Broke the Volkswagen Scandal - The Atlantic (http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/09/volkswagen-scandal-cheating-emission-virginia-epa/407425/)
Found one with a pic.
VW scandal: How four university students destroyed a company (http://www.news.com.au/technology/innovation/motoring/the-who-what-and-why-of-volkswagens-diesel-scandal/news-story/c85b7b40002550588e1437f6ae86eba5)
Middle is pic of test gear fitted for 2400km testing.

Again, no frantic.If you read the report it said the vehicles could show figures 35 times over the limit,thats like driving a defender up a steep hill and saying economy wise it could use 20ltre per 100 ;).I have no interest in emissions,if you want to save the world ride a bike to the shops,what does interest me is the wholesale BS that this ''scandal'' has created. Pat

frantic
15th December 2015, 07:11 AM
Again, no frantic.If you read the report it said the vehicles could ( no not could, did.)show figures 35 times over the limit,thats like driving a defender up a steep hill and saying economy wise it could use 20ltre per 100 ;).I have no interest in emissions,if you want to save the world ride a bike to the shops,what does interest me is the wholesale BS that this ''scandal'' has created. Pat

Pat, three times you've claimed, " no real world testing " and " Mazda did far worse" with zero info to cover your claims . Now when your handed pics and links to the real world testing, you dismiss it?
As to your hill climb claim, a defender , or Mazda doesn't have two seperate engine programs , with one designed to defeat lab tests by recognising when it's being tested and the other to breach the type of emissions that cause numerous health problems and deaths.
All the other manufacturers , if you bothered to google, in real world tests where between 1.5-4 times Nox levels(except the ovlov) in real world tests.
The real b.s is that 4 vw city runabouts( 1.2-1.5 ton)emit the same amount of NOx as three 40 ton trucks, and that vw designed a system to save them money at the cost of people's health.
Here's a copy of one paragraph from the news.
They triple-checked the accuracy of their equipment after the Volkswagen Jetta they tested showed readings 30 times more than the claimed pollution rating.

Here's the actual study paper; go to page 61/62 for the on road results. On the highway the Vw was "only 15 times" the multiple but around town and "uphill/downhill" rural it was 35 times.
http://www.theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/WVU_LDDV_in-use_ICCT_Report_Final_may2014.pdf.

Nox has little effect on global warming, but a much larger effect on peoples health. So driving a diesel will slow global warming, but choke you doing it.

PAT303
15th December 2015, 12:38 PM
Frantic,I found what I was looking for.The information I have is from a Dr James Tate,researcher and Lecturer for Transport studies at Leeds University.They found that VAG engines on average produced .41 grams of NOx per km,the lowest of any make,this was over numerous vehicles driven over a period of time,the 35 times over the limit you could referring to was from one vehicle in one test,in that very same test a Volvo V60 produced 40 times the limit and on inspection it was found to have a faulty component,most likely the EGR.The engine VAG is in trouble for,it's code is EA189 is the very same engine Tate has been testing,the Mazda engines produced 1.1 grams per km driven in the same conditions,if you do some research on Mazda's they have had ongoing DPF problems,that could explain their poor result.Again the same testers have found the ''clean'' vehicles,Mazda's skyactive and Fords equivalent were no less polluting that normal vehicles. Pat

PAT303
15th December 2015, 12:48 PM
Pat, three times you've claimed, " no real world testing " and " Mazda did far worse" with zero info to cover your claims . Now when your handed pics and links to the real world testing, you dismiss it?
As to your hill climb claim, a defender , or Mazda doesn't have two seperate engine programs , with one designed to defeat lab tests by recognising when it's being tested and the other to breach the type of emissions that cause numerous health problems and deaths.
All the other manufacturers , if you bothered to google, in real world tests where between 1.5-4 times Nox levels(except the ovlov) in real world tests.
The real b.s is that 4 vw city runabouts( 1.2-1.5 ton)emit the same amount of NOx as three 40 ton trucks, and that vw designed a system to save them money at the cost of people's health.
Here's a copy of one paragraph from the news.
They triple-checked the accuracy of their equipment after the Volkswagen Jetta they tested showed readings 30 times more than the claimed pollution rating.

Here's the actual study paper; go to page 61/62 for the on road results. On the highway the Vw was "only 15 times" the multiple but around town and "uphill/downhill" rural it was 35 times.
http://www.theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/WVU_LDDV_in-use_ICCT_Report_Final_may2014.pdf.

Nox has little effect on global warming, but a much larger effect on peoples health. So driving a diesel will slow global warming, but choke you doing it.

The one thing I would say about this is,looking at the results from the different driving conditions,how would you make a vehicle compliant when the results are so different?,interesting how the down hill runs produce the most NOx also,as Isuzurover posted,he'd be a Billionaire if he worked it out. Pat

Sitec
15th December 2015, 06:07 PM
Any argument is null and void really when you think what China and India churn out each day. We have a VW Golf GTD with the aforementioned engine in it, and it goes like a rocket, does 5.5lt per 100 km, and it won't be going in for its recall, as it will probably come back derated!

Hybrid cars are the ones that are laughable... Cost lots more to make, use some pretty nasty stuff, and then are very difficult to scrap when done with. They're also entertaining to have to deal with at road traffic accidents!

frantic
16th December 2015, 12:17 PM
Frantic,I found what I was looking for.The information I have is from a Dr James Tate,researcher and Lecturer for Transport studies at Leeds University.They found that VAG engines on average produced .41 grams of NOx per km,the lowest of any make,this was over numerous vehicles driven over a period of time,the 35 times over the limit you could referring to was from one vehicle in one test,in that very same test a Volvo V60 produced 40 times the limit and on inspection it was found to have a faulty component,most likely the EGR.The engine VAG is in trouble for,it's code is EA189 is the very same engine Tate has been testing,the Mazda engines produced 1.1 grams per km driven in the same conditions,if you do some research on Mazda's they have had ongoing DPF problems,that could explain their poor result.Again the same testers have found the ''clean'' vehicles,Mazda's skyactive and Fords equivalent were no less polluting that normal vehicles. Pat

Umm DOH!
The original test was over 2400 km each on 3 cars, none of which where ovlov's.
They had sensitive equipment hooked directly to the cars exhaust.
Your guy sat on the side of the road with a machine watching passing traffic only finding the cars actual make, year and model by checking with the UK dmv /rta. This means he had No Flipping Idea as to which cars where stock, modified, high km, maintained well or poor or at all, and generalised his figures. The us study did a lab test of the 3 cars that showed they met the required level in the lab as a comparison then highlighted the massive difference on the 2 vws(2400km on one and almost 5000 in the other) in real world driving, your guy did none of that. He sat on the side of the road for 6 days to get his name in the paper.
Which do you think would be more accurate?
Also his highest" reading "( if you call sniffing the breeze a reading) of a ford at 1.1 was still only 70% that of the vw's 1.5 in the u.s study.

DiscoMick
16th December 2015, 02:20 PM
Any argument is null and void really when you think what China and India churn out each day. We have a VW Golf GTD with the aforementioned engine in it, and it goes like a rocket, does 5.5lt per 100 km, and it won't be going in for its recall, as it will probably come back derated!

Hybrid cars are the ones that are laughable... Cost lots more to make, use some pretty nasty stuff, and then are very difficult to scrap when done with. They're also entertaining to have to deal with at road traffic accidents!

Be careful about that. When you go to sell the first question a buyer is likely to ask is has it been retuned because of the VW emissions scandal. If it hasn't then it might be harder to sell for a decent price, if it does not comply with emissions regulations..

Sent from my GT-P5210 using AULRO mobile app

isuzurover
16th December 2015, 05:26 PM
...

But NOx emissions were never an issue in Australia. ...

I wouldn't go that far John. If you read below you will see that it has been known for a few years now that engines emit hundreds of times the legislated limits in the "real world". It was however assumed that the engines were compliant at the (slow) acceleration rates used in type approval testing. There is a possibility that the dual map has been used for years...




The nitrogen dioxide (NO2) pollution in urban areas of Europe can be partially attributed to the increasing market penetration of diesel cars that show higher distance-specific nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions than gasoline cars. The on-road NOx emissions of diesel cars, furthermore, appear to exceed substantially applicable emissions standards. This observation raises concerns that the introduction of more stringent Euro 6 emissions standards in 2014 may not adequately reduce the distance-specific on-road NOx emissions of new diesel cars. We address the existing concerns by analyzing the gaseous emissions of one novel Euro 6 diesel car and six Euro 4-5 diesel cars with Portable Emissions Measurement Systems (PEMS). We find that the average on-road NOx emissions of the Euro 6 car (0.21 ? 0.09 gram per kilometer [g/km]) are considerably lower than those of the Euro 4 cars (0.76 ? 0.12 g/km) and the Euro 5 cars (0.71 ? 0.30 g/km). The selective catalytic reduction (SCR) system of the Euro 6 diesel car is suitable to limit NOx emissions during real-world on-road driving. Still, all tested cars, including the Euro 6 diesel car, exceed their NOx emissions standards on the road by 260 +/-130%. This finding suggests that the current type-approval procedure does not adequately capture the on-road NOx emissions of diesel cars. By introducing a complementary emissions test procedure that covers a wide range of normal operating conditions, the European legislative authorities can address this problem and ensure that Euro 6 will indeed deliver an adequate reduction in the NOx emissions of new diesel cars.



Any argument is null and void really when you think what China and India churn out each day. ...
No it isn't. Most NOx in Australian towns and cities is from vehicles. Environmental limits are often exceeded. Significant health associations have been found at levels below environmental limits.
In terms of global climate effects then yes, Australia is likely insignificant, but there is more to it than that.

As an aside, I am hoping someone does a dyno test before and after the recall..

EDIT. All the "+/-"s in the quote above have been replaced with "?"

frantic
16th December 2015, 10:47 PM
Isuzurover your probably correct.
The ecu manufacturers Bosch told vw not to use the dual programs in mass production as it would not be legal in 2007. Bosch have now gone silent as they have been named in several law suits that claim since Bosch supplied the 11 million plus ecus with the programming on board they had a hand in the deception.
Bosch may have charged more for an ecu that could carry 2 programs and recognise testing but it would have been far far less than the 350 euro a vehicle to fit an effective adblue system.
Let's just make it easy in saying the ecu cost 50 euro extra but this represents a 3.3 billion attempt to swindle the emissions and consumers. ( 11 million cars and 300 saving per car)

isuzurover
17th December 2015, 12:40 AM
Vehicle B in the tests had SCR and was also noncompliant on NOx.

JDNSW
17th December 2015, 05:47 AM
I stand by my comment for two reasons. Most Australian towns and cities rarely if ever have atmospheric conditions that allow NOx to accumulate long enough to become a significant health hazard, and in a different way they are not a legal issue because the ADR requirements are less stringent than either US (especially California) and Euro specifications. Further, diesel cars represent a tiny proportion of cars in Australia (or USA) compared to Europe.

The comparison of "real world" performance compared to test performance in any respect for any manufactured device is always going to be fraught with difficulty, but (apart from deliberate attempts to perform differently for tests, which is what the VW scandal is about) it really reflects on the test specifications rather than on the manufacturer.

Looking on it from a broader perspective, there is also the question as to whether reducing NOx emissions at the expense of increased CO2 emissions is really the best policy, balancing local environmental conditions against global effects.

John

DiscoMick
17th December 2015, 09:45 AM
Pretty sure most people who live next to busy roads would not agree that NOx emissions are not a problem for them. We expect vehicles to meet the emissions standards - if they don't it's a problem for everyone. Saying its not in my backyard so its not a problem is the wrong way to think about this. Everyone is affected in some way. For example, every taxpayer has to fund the billions of dollars which have to be spent on health care for people affected by vehicle emissions, so everyone is affected.

Sent from my GT-P5210 using AULRO mobile app

JDNSW
17th December 2015, 11:50 AM
Pretty sure most people who live next to busy roads would not agree that NOx emissions are not a problem for them. ....

Pretty sure most people living next to busy roads do not have a clue what NOx emissions are!

As far as I am aware there is no suggestion that the vehicles in question do not meet ADRs. Perhaps the ADRs need to be changed, but any such change should ideally be backed up with firm data to quantify the improvement, for example in health costs, relative to costs such as economic costs and increased carbon emissions. And the data used should be relevant, not transferred unquestioningly from countries with different traffic mix, population density and climate.

As far as "not in my backyard" goes, there must be some limit to regulations that cost everyone but benefit only small sections of the community, although this principle is very largely ignored. (for example - the protected dairy and manufacturing industries we had for a century)

And you can always reverse the point of view - in this case, the health improvements from limiting NOx emissions accrue primarily to those in a few city situations, but the increased fuel costs are primarily felt by those in rural areas where driving distances are longer and they are more likely to need four wheel drives that are more likely to be diesels.

John

frantic
17th December 2015, 05:57 PM
Pretty sure most people living next to busy roads do not have a clue what NOx emissions are!
Pretty sure most do!
As far as I am aware there is no suggestion that the vehicles in question do not meet ADRs. Perhaps the ADRs need to be changed, but any such change should ideally be backed up with firm data to quantify the improvement, for example in health costs, relative to costs such as economic costs and increased carbon emissions. And the data used should be relevant, not transferred unquestioningly from countries with different traffic mix, population density and climate.
Without the deceitful program they don't meet ADR. Regarding emissions.
As far as "not in my backyard" goes, there must be some limit to regulations that cost everyone but benefit only small sections of the community, although this principle is very largely ignored. (for example - the protected dairy and manufacturing industries we had for a century)

And you can always reverse the point of view - in this case, the health improvements from limiting NOx emissions accrue primarily to those in a few city situations, but the increased fuel costs are primarily felt by those in rural areas where driving distances are longer and they are more likely to need four wheel drives that are more likely to be diesels.
They use virtually the same fuel but also use adblue (correctly isuzu rover):D to clean the exhaust

John

Health | Nitrogen Dioxide | US EPA (http://www3.epa.gov/airquality/nitrogenoxides/health.html)
Here's a link to a few of the health issues that "nobody knows about". How many suffer asthma that you know? Other respiratory problems? Heart disease?
NOx aggravates, or makes these worse.
Merc 6.4-7.3/100km : Diesel engines (http://www.mercedes-benz.com.au/content/australia/mpc/mpc_australia__website/en/home_mpc/passengercars/home/new_cars/models/m-class/w166/facts_/engines/dieselengines.html)
BMW around 50 mpg old money:The BMW X5 - Luxury 4 Wheel Drive Cars by BMW - BMW Australia (http://bmw.com.au/com/en/newvehicles/x/x5/2013/showroom/introduction.html?DBC=2774&gclid=CN60hJ234skCFYVjvAodRjwCfw&gclsrc=aw.ds)
All the new landies will have adblue as well, probably the new defender.
Euro 6 Compliance - Ownership - Land Rover (http://www.landrover.co.uk/ownership/euro-6-emissions-standards.html)

JDNSW
17th December 2015, 07:43 PM
Unless I am mistaken (and correct me if I am) ADRs applicable to these vehicles do not require them to meet Euro6 levels. This being the case do you have any reference showing that they do not meet the Australian ADRs? What NOx levels are they required to meet here? And what data or tests did VW use to show meeting these?

In regard to your quoted fuel economy figures, perhaps it would be unkind of me to suggest that the tested figures are no more close to real life than tested emissions are. (and I wonder how many manufacturers have designed their cars to fudge these as well?)

I am not trying to suggest that NOx emissions are not a health hazard, but that they are not as severe a one as is suggested if you use data from locations with vastly different conditions. And what percentage of those in this country originate from diesel engined passenger cars?

John

PAT303
17th December 2015, 07:56 PM
Pretty sure most people who live next to busy roads would not agree that NOx emissions are not a problem for them. We expect vehicles to meet the emissions standards - if they don't it's a problem for everyone. Saying its not in my backyard so its not a problem is the wrong way to think about this. Everyone is affected in some way. For example, every taxpayer has to fund the billions of dollars which have to be spent on health care for people affected by vehicle emissions, so everyone is affected.

Sent from my GT-P5210 using AULRO mobile app

It's a bit rich to live next to a major road and then bitch about the air quality,every taxpayer has to pay billions for healthcare to help smokers,drinkers,drug users,cyclists,footballers,the idiots that jump off cliffs,get washed off rocks and the general brain dead people who do stupid things for a laugh alive.I think this conversation has gone down hill for the simple reason that todays vehicles,even if they fudge emission tests are leagues ahead of yesterdays vehicles regarding pollution,if we were serious about emissions we would,like those nasty deceitful Europeans emission test vehicles every year as part of the registration,but that would result in pretty much every Japanese diesel and many more modded vehicles like EGR blanked Td5 landies being taken off the road,and we couldn't have that. Pat

PAT303
17th December 2015, 07:58 PM
Unless I am mistaken (and correct me if I am) ADRs applicable to these vehicles do not require them to meet Euro6 levels. This being the case do you have any reference showing that they do not meet the Australian ADRs? What NOx levels are they required to meet here? And what data or tests did VW use to show meeting these?

In regard to your quoted fuel economy figures, perhaps it would be unkind of me to suggest that the tested figures are no more close to real life than tested emissions are. (and I wonder how many manufacturers have designed their cars to fudge these as well?)

I am not trying to suggest that NOx emissions are not a health hazard, but that they are not as severe a one as is suggested if you use data from locations with vastly different conditions. And what percentage of those in this country originate from diesel engined passenger cars?

John
John,don't thread drift this conversation with facts :D. Pat

gusthedog
17th December 2015, 08:15 PM
This been posted on here yet?

http://www.industrytap.com/worlds-15-biggest-ships-create-more-pollution-than-all-the-cars-in-the-world/8182

Maybe time to rethink the way we move things around the planet ;)

Pricey

frantic
17th December 2015, 10:19 PM
Unless I am mistaken (and correct me if I am) ADRs applicable to these vehicles do not require them to meet Euro6 levels. This being the case do you have any reference showing that they do not meet the Australian ADRs? What NOx levels are they required to meet here? And what data or tests did VW use to show meeting these?

In regard to your quoted fuel economy figures, perhaps it would be unkind of me to suggest that the tested figures are no more close to real life than tested emissions are. (and I wonder how many manufacturers have designed their cars to fudge these as well?)

I am not trying to suggest that NOx emissions are not a health hazard, but that they are not as severe a one as is suggested if you use data from locations with vastly different conditions. And what percentage of those in this country originate from diesel engined passenger cars?

John

Your mistaken in that the vw's don't meet euro5 , hell the vw's tested in the USA didn't meet euro 3, which AFAIK is in force here from 2013, or 2006 in eu3 case.
I wasn't just showing economy , but emissions as all 3 have adblue or the equivalent.

cuppabillytea
23rd December 2015, 01:15 AM
I live four doors up from the City West Link. I feel no ill effect from Nox. I do when I'm standing on the after deck of a tug boat at full noise. Or when the Dock is full of ships with their auxiliaries cranking.

joel0407
23rd December 2015, 01:30 AM
Why are you so hard on VW frantic?

I mean there are plenty of other manufactures that don't meet the standards and some plenty worse.

muddymech
23rd December 2015, 10:16 AM
elon musk and a few others had an idea of how vw should sort it little cheat out

Here's how Elon Musk and friends would want to punish Volkswagen | Business Insider (http://www.businessinsider.com/how-elon-musk-would-want-to-punish-volkswagen-2015-12)

DiscoMick
23rd December 2015, 01:43 PM
VW is planning to recall its cars here to offer a software fix so it complies with Aussie emissions rules, so obviously they currently don't comply or the company wouldn't be planning the fix.
It surprises me that some people apparently don't care about having clean air. As someone who lived in polluted Bangkok and has visited many dirty cities (anyone mention Beijing) I put a high value on clean air. Vehicle emissions rules exist for a reason.

Sent from my SM-G900I using AULRO mobile app

isuzurover
23rd December 2015, 10:20 PM
I live four doors up from the City West Link. I feel no ill effect from Nox. ...

How do you know? Are you including chronic effects? Diabetes?

cuppabillytea
23rd December 2015, 10:43 PM
How do you know? Are you including chronic effects? Diabetes?
My most recent health checks have me A OK. This is comprehensive check.
Apart from that I feel well and happy. What more can I say?

frantic
24th December 2015, 12:55 AM
Why are you so hard on VW frantic?

I mean there are plenty of other manufactures that don't meet the standards and some plenty worse.

Who?
Who has on purpose sold 11 million cars that they not only knew didn't meet the emissions laws, but breached them in terms of NOx output to match a bus or truck?
The results are global health, (studies estimates vary from 150 extra deaths a year to 1500 from respiratory and other health issues) pollution and screwing over their customers in several ways. First in loss of value, secondly,potentially, in higher running cost as the we all know how good having the egr open more is for the engine.
Would you be happy to lose $5000 value in your car and know it could contribute to health issues in your family?

A late question, why do you defend and try to divert or reduce their fault by saying "somebody else is doing it " without any evidence?

Eevo
24th December 2015, 01:25 AM
the sky is falling

PAT303
24th December 2015, 07:58 PM
Who?
Who has on purpose sold 11 million cars that they not only knew didn't meet the emissions laws, but breached them in terms of NOx output to match a bus or truck?
The results are global health, (studies estimates vary from 150 extra deaths a year to 1500 from respiratory and other health issues) pollution and screwing over their customers in several ways. First in loss of value, secondly,potentially, in higher running cost as the we all know how good having the egr open more is for the engine.
Would you be happy to lose $5000 value in your car and know it could contribute to health issues in your family?

A late question, why do you defend and try to divert or reduce their fault by saying "somebody else is doing it " without any evidence?

Did someone in a VW run over your dog or something?,considering the average age of a vehicle in Australia is 10 years old do you really think pollution from new VW vehicles have had any impact on our health?,who gives a **** about 150-1500 people dying GLOBALLY from pollution anyway,in America an average of 5000 people per year die from eating hamburgers. Pat

joel0407
24th December 2015, 10:10 PM
Who?
Who has on purpose sold 11 million cars that they not only knew didn't meet the emissions laws, but breached them in terms of NOx output to match a bus or truck?
The results are global health, (studies estimates vary from 150 extra deaths a year to 1500 from respiratory and other health issues) pollution and screwing over their customers in several ways. First in loss of value, secondly,potentially, in higher running cost as the we all know how good having the egr open more is for the engine.
Would you be happy to lose $5000 value in your car and know it could contribute to health issues in your family?

A late question, why do you defend and try to divert or reduce their fault by saying "somebody else is doing it " without any evidence?

Are you saying the others didn't know they were exceeding the limits? So they just did it by accident but VW did it on purpose?

http://www.carsguide.com.au/car-advice/diesels-may-use-less-fuel-but-thats-not-what-theyre-best-at-37453

I own a 2013 Skoda Yeti Diesel and I bought shares in VW about 3 weeks after the news was release. LOL

joel0407
24th December 2015, 10:14 PM
I have it on good word that this vehicle didn't meet emissions either but it was turned around for other reasons before it got to Australia.

Irregular Sleigh Vehicle Towed Back To North Pole – The Shovel (http://www.theshovel.com.au/2015/12/24/sleigh-towed-back-to-north-pole/)

isuzurover
24th December 2015, 11:18 PM
My most recent health checks have me A OK. This is comprehensive check.
Apart from that I feel well and happy. What more can I say?

I will tell all my colleagues who are experts in cancer and diabetes epidemiology they can rest easy then. Cbt says if your current health check is ok you won't develop any long term health effects due to environmental exposures...

PAT303
25th December 2015, 11:40 AM
Yep,he'll die from heart failure instead,the developed worlds biggest killer :D Pat

scarry
25th December 2015, 12:33 PM
I have it on good word that this vehicle didn't meet emissions either but it was turned around for other reasons before it got to Australia.

Irregular Sleigh Vehicle Towed Back To North Pole ? The Shovel (http://www.theshovel.com.au/2015/12/24/sleigh-towed-back-to-north-pole/)

Methane emission regulations?:D

Some of these desk jockies must be running out of regulations to invent:confused:

cuppabillytea
26th December 2015, 02:20 AM
I will tell all my colleagues who are experts in cancer and diabetes epidemiology they can rest easy then. Cbt says if your current health check is ok you won't develop any long term health effects due to environmental exposures...
I don't wish to be dismissive of the experts or the facts that they have laboured to present us, but I will be 62 in a couple of weeks and I have spent my entire life breathing the most polluted air that Australia has to offer, that is, the air of inner western Sydney. Quite stupidly I have spent a lot of that time smoking as well.
I don't claim to have suffered no damage from that but I do lead a normal, active and happy life.
Cheers, Billy.

isuzurover
26th December 2015, 04:31 PM
I don't wish to be dismissive of the experts or the facts that they have laboured to present us, but I will be 62 in a couple of weeks and I have spent my entire life breathing the most polluted air that Australia has to offer, that is, the air of inner western Sydney. Quite stupidly I have spent a lot of that time smoking as well.
I don't claim to have suffered no damage from that but I do lead a normal, active and happy life.
Cheers, Billy.

There are of course rare individuals who have smoked all their lives and/or worked with asbestos for many years yet remained healthy. It doesn't mean either of those things are any less harmful, just that some people either have good luck or good genetics.

scarry
26th December 2015, 07:11 PM
Mate of mine turns 70 next year,he is a retired carpenter, at work some days they couldn't see from one end of the workshop to the other for asbestos dust:(

His lungs are fine, but his is wife died from asbestosis,at 38yrs old,the asbestos in his clothes was the cause of her asbestosis.

cuppabillytea
27th December 2015, 12:35 AM
There are of course rare individuals who have smoked all their lives and/or worked with asbestos for many years yet remained healthy. It doesn't mean either of those things are any less harmful, just that some people either have good luck or good genetics.
Yes I am aware of that. Hope fully I am one of the genetically blessed, because I've had some serious exposure to asbestos as well.
Please don't think that I am one of those who is not concerned about air quality or environmental issues in general. I just wonder how important an issue NoX really is and whether by focusing so much attention on the things we can easily clean up, we are not ignoring the things that are more difficult that will eventually get us in the neck.
I said in an earlier post that we should be focusing on phasing out fossil fuel burners. That sentiment was reenforced by muddymech's post which alerted us to the comment by Elon Musk that VW should be made to invest in the production of Electric Vehicles That same amount that they would have been fined.
We probably all know subconsciously, that ultimately VW will get no more than a spaghetti flogging if the action agains them is punitive, because they just cannot be allowed to go down in a screaming heap. Forcing them to invest in alternative technology would benefit every one.
Cheers, Billy.

Eevo
27th December 2015, 07:12 AM
notice how when this came out, neither the Australian or the American EPA grounded all the VW's that were were emitting above the standard.

scarry
27th December 2015, 10:13 AM
notice how when this came out, neither the Australian or the American EPA grounded all the VW's that were were emitting above the standard.

Now that would give the lawyers a field day:mad:

Just imagine grounding millions of cars.

Tank
27th December 2015, 10:45 AM
I don't wish to be dismissive of the experts or the facts that they have laboured to present us, but I will be 62 in a couple of weeks and I have spent my entire life breathing the most polluted air that Australia has to offer, that is, the air of inner western Sydney. Quite stupidly I have spent a lot of that time smoking as well.
I don't claim to have suffered no damage from that but I do lead a normal, active and happy life.
Cheers, Billy.
Quote: " the most polluted air that Australia has to offer,"
I'm afraid Lilyfield (i.e. Sydney) is only 4th on the list, Launceston, Tas. has that dubious title, closely followed by Tuggeranong, ACT, then Melbourne, then Sydney, in all of these locations Domestic Wood Heaters are the largest Source of air polluting deadly Carcinogenic PM2.5 from their emissions of Woodsmoke.
Check NPI, though they don't measure anything smaller than PM10, Regards Frank.

PAT303
27th December 2015, 01:28 PM
I didn't realise VW made wood heaters :p. Pat

Eevo
27th December 2015, 01:37 PM
Now that would give the lawyers a field day:mad:

Just imagine grounding millions of cars.

it would be within the powers of the EPA to do so.

BMKal
27th December 2015, 03:56 PM
I didn't realise VW made wood heaters :p. Pat

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2015/12/155.jpg (http://postimage.org/)


https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2015/12/156.jpghttps://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2015/12/156.jpghttps://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2015/12/156.jpg

TonyC
27th December 2015, 04:24 PM
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2015/12/155.jpg (http://postimage.org/)


https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2015/12/156.jpghttps://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2015/12/156.jpghttps://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2015/12/156.jpg

That is so cool, and sooo off topic:D

Tony

PAT303
27th December 2015, 05:03 PM
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2015/12/155.jpg (http://postimage.org/)


https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2015/12/156.jpghttps://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2015/12/156.jpghttps://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2015/12/156.jpg

Where do you find this stuff :confused: :D. Pat

cuppabillytea
27th December 2015, 09:02 PM
Quote: " the most polluted air that Australia has to offer,"
I'm afraid Lilyfield (i.e. Sydney) is only 4th on the list, Launceston, Tas. has that dubious title, closely followed by Tuggeranong, ACT, then Melbourne, then Sydney, in all of these locations Domestic Wood Heaters are the largest Source of air polluting deadly Carcinogenic PM2.5 from their emissions of Woodsmoke.
Check NPI, though they don't measure anything smaller than PM10, Regards Frank.
That's a relief. Thank you. :D

DiscoMick
28th December 2015, 09:36 PM
notice how when this came out, neither the Australian or the American EPA grounded all the VW's that were were emitting above the standard.

I think I read the Americans stopped their imports of the suspect new VWs at the docks.

Sent from my SM-G900I using AULRO mobile app

Eevo
29th December 2015, 02:46 AM
I think I read the Americans stopped their imports of the suspect new VWs at the docks.


and all the existing one are still on the road.

scarry
29th December 2015, 01:04 PM
I think I read the Americans stopped their imports of the suspect new VWs at the docks.

Sent from my SM-G900I using AULRO mobile app

That should be happening on every dock everywhere.

Although they may get away with it in countries that don't have strick emission regs, i suppose.

PAT303
29th December 2015, 08:51 PM
What about all the other makers who's vehicles don't pass,which is pretty much all of them,do they get left on the docks too or are we still just blaming VW for all the worlds woes?. Pat

frantic
30th December 2015, 05:14 AM
What about all the other makers who's vehicles don't pass,which is pretty much all of them,do they get left on the docks too or are we still just blaming VW for all the worlds woes?. Pat

So far none, not one, of "the other makers" have been found to have a dual map ecu purposefully designed to defeat emissions laws in every country.
In the original test that started vws scandal the bmw met all its requirements except for hilly climbs when it did 2-3 times the nox limit. Over the same section the vw was pumping out 38 times Nox limits can you see the difference?
Over highway and suburban driving the bmw met its lab results, the vw didn't. It has a specific program to recognise an emissions test and adjust it's engine map to suit.
Now the supposed fix is a airflow restricted mesh and a flashing of the ecu, which will mean much more egr with all the issues associated.

JDNSW
30th December 2015, 05:56 AM
As Frantic says - VW are getting a lot of blame because of a deliberate effort to circumvent the testing regime. Not to be confused with the effectiveness of the testing regime to represent real life. More like the practice of many owners to disable EGR on their Landrovers, only done automatically for them, without the owner's knowledge.

As I think I mentioned earlier in this thread, the same as some refrigerator manufacturers whose products detect the testing regime and allow a wider temperature variation while being tested for power use.

John

PAT303
30th December 2015, 01:57 PM
So far none, not one, of "the other makers" have been found to have a dual map ecu purposefully designed to defeat emissions laws in every country.
In the original test that started vws scandal the bmw met all its requirements except for hilly climbs when it did 2-3 times the nox limit. Over the same section the vw was pumping out 38 times Nox limits can you see the difference?
Over highway and suburban driving the bmw met its lab results, the vw didn't. It has a specific program to recognise an emissions test and adjust it's engine map to suit.
Now the supposed fix is a airflow restricted mesh and a flashing of the ecu, which will mean much more egr with all the issues associated.

You are correct,no other maker has been ''caught'' dudding the system,only VW,but no other maker has passed the emissions test either,you even admitted this in your reply,the BMW passes as long as it doesn't go up hills,3 times or 38 it's a fail,you can't have your cake and eat it too. Pat

JDNSW
31st December 2015, 05:50 AM
You are correct,no other maker has been ''caught'' dudding the system,only VW,but no other maker has passed the emissions test either,you even admitted this in your reply,the BMW passes as long as it doesn't go up hills,3 times or 38 it's a fail,you can't have your cake and eat it too. Pat

The emission test does not involve going up hills. To suggest that because the item being tested should conform to the test results outside the test parameters means it does not pass the test is simply twisting the meaning.

Whether an item passes a test, and whether the test applies to real life are two separate matters, and saying that they are the same is simply wrong.

John

joel0407
31st December 2015, 09:08 AM
The emission test does not involve going up hills. To suggest that because the item being tested should conform to the test results outside the test parameters means it does not pass the test is simply twisting the meaning.

Whether an item passes a test, and whether the test applies to real life are two separate matters, and saying that they are the same is simply wrong.

John

Well if you are going that technically to the letter. VW will pass if driven in the exact same way as the test. So they would then pass.

Happy Days

PAT303
31st December 2015, 11:19 AM
The emission test does not involve going up hills. To suggest that because the item being tested should conform to the test results outside the test parameters means it does not pass the test is simply twisting the meaning.

Whether an item passes a test, and whether the test applies to real life are two separate matters, and saying that they are the same is simply wrong.

John

John,frantic has put huge amounts of vigor into letting everyone know VW vehicles have spewed 38 times the allowable amount of emissions while driving up hills in real world driving tests,real world testing involves driving up hills and he,like all the other critics have pushed it as their main point,that is not twisting the meaning and yes both are separate matters.You and I and every other person with common sense knows trying to get accurate real world results in a lab is idiotic but that is how they do emission tests,crash tests and economy tests as examples. Pat

Slunnie
31st December 2015, 11:45 AM
Well if you are going that technically to the letter. VW will pass if driven in the exact same way as the test. So they would then pass.

Happy Days
Yep, I agree. The vehicles have to comply with that test, not real world conditions. Its the same as fuel consumption etc - nobody gets consumption as advertised in real world use. VW have done that, they've just designed a motor that passes the test, much the same as the other manufacturers. The issue is the US testing protocol. I have no doubt that the other diesel engines when under the load while being tested are also mapped and timed in fueling and ancillaries to come in under emissions, because it seems that when you put your foot down they are all doing their own thing.

bee utey
31st December 2015, 02:15 PM
John,frantic has put huge amounts of vigor into letting everyone know VW vehicles have spewed 38 times the allowable amount of emissions while driving up hills in real world driving tests,real world testing involves driving up hills and he,like all the other critics have pushed it as their main point,that is not twisting the meaning and yes both are separate matters.You and I and every other person with common sense knows trying to get accurate real world results in a lab is idiotic but that is how they do emission tests,crash tests and economy tests as examples. Pat
Pat, do city environments consist entirely of uphill driving? No? Perhaps, just perhaps, testing was designed to have some relevance to average city driving so you could roughly estimate the total emissions of NOx a typical city driven diesel put out in a day, without crippling its performance too much.

Tank
1st January 2016, 05:50 PM
Point is why have an emissions test at all if the only time that it (VW in this case) complies with emission laws is in the Laboratory tests.
The tests are only relevant if the emissions standard put down by Clean Air legislation can be met in Real World situations, you know, where we all live and Breathe, Regards Frank.

Eevo
1st January 2016, 06:32 PM
Pat, do city environments consist entirely of uphill driving? No? Perhaps, just perhaps, testing was designed to have some relevance to average city driving so you could roughly estimate the total emissions of NOx a typical city driven diesel put out in a day, without crippling its performance too much.

the older generation keep telling me when they were younger they had to walk to school and it was uphill both ways!

i do agree testing should represent typical driving and i think it should include hills driving (both up n down) as a component.

as you know with the south eastern freeway, it's a bit of a climb. i can tell if a car is diesel or not just by sitting 100m behind the car and watching the exhaust.

frantic
1st January 2016, 07:19 PM
Well if you are going that technically to the letter. VW will pass if driven in the exact same way as the test. So they would then pass.

Happy Days

No, in the other parts of the uni study they where driven in a similar way to a test and failed, where the bmw passed.
This is what my "vigorous " detail is. The program by vw knows when it's not moving and being tested. So it failed every time it was driven.
The EPA and everyone knows when you use full acceleration and shift down gears such as when climbing steep hills, you use more fuel and emmit more crap, but 95% of your driving is at 1/4-1/2 acceleration and so your emissions, like the bmw should be at or very close to their rules.
Eevo, if you go to work, up a hill, you come home down it;)

Eevo
1st January 2016, 08:31 PM
Eevo, if you go to work, up a hill, you come home down it;)

yes but that doesn't negate the extra emissions from going up.

frantic
1st January 2016, 11:14 PM
yes but that doesn't negate the extra emissions from going up.

It balances them, not negate. ;)

Eevo
2nd January 2016, 03:06 AM
It balances them, not negate. ;)

no it doesn't.
ive tried it with fuel economy/consumption dozens of times. driving 50km of up n down uses more fuel compared to 50km of flat, peak hour traffic.
to n from work is 50km round trip for me

more fuel consumption mean more emissions.

frantic
2nd January 2016, 03:26 AM
more fuel consumption mean more emissions.

No and yes.:D
Yes more co2 but not necessarily Nox;)
Go read the original study, then look up the us tier charts and the truck emissions.......
Basically three18 wheel 40ton 2015 us compliance semi-trailers whould emmit less nox than four1.2-1.5ton vw's, but the vw's would use far,far less diesel.:twisted:

Eevo
2nd January 2016, 04:29 AM
No and yes.:D
Yes more co2 but not necessarily Nox;)

for sure.
mind you, im not driving a diesel either.

JDNSW
2nd January 2016, 06:27 AM
The point of having standard test conditions is that they are repeatable. That is, you can carry out a test in Detroit and get the same results in Geelong.

It is easy to say that there is no point in having test conditions if they do not give the same results in real life, but this is missing the point that for tests to be useable for anything, they have to be possible to carry out. It is simply impossible to test anything (in this case car emissions) in all the circumstances that they could be used in.

The tests could, for example, simulate testing a cold start in Denver in winter, and bumper to bumper traffic in Beijing, and unlimited speed on the Suart Hwy, but then you have missed out on testing for crawling through mud in PNG in 100% humidity at 35C and the Simpson starting at -10C and close to zero humidity but 30C and still zero humidity a few hours later. And even if you tested for all of these there are still an infinite number of operating conditions you have not tested for.

I repeat - what VW have done is simply designed a system that is deliberately deceptive. Whether they have actually done anything illegal in the design rule terms will depend on the small print in the legislation - but they will certainly have done something illegal in consumer legislation terms in a many countries.

John

Tank
2nd January 2016, 08:32 AM
Who?
Who has on purpose sold 11 million cars that they not only knew didn't meet the emissions laws, but breached them in terms of NOx output to match a bus or truck?
The results are global health, (studies estimates vary from 150 extra deaths a year to 1500 from respiratory and other health issues) pollution and screwing over their customers in several ways. First in loss of value, secondly,potentially, in higher running cost as the we all know how good having the egr open more is for the engine.
Would you be happy to lose $5000 value in your car and know it could contribute to health issues in your family?

A late question, why do you defend and try to divert or reduce their fault by saying "somebody else is doing it " without any evidence?
WHO? the AHHA that's WHO, the Australian Home Heating Association had a snap pollution Audit by the Federal Government and it was found that over 60% of available new Domestic Wood Heaters (DWH) for sale in Australia DID NOT comply with AS4013 (particulate matter air pollution) emissions.
The Govt. did nothing, Prof. John Todd who conducted AS4013 compliance tests for the AHHA said the AS was a farce because the Lab. tests could not be duplicated in a home situation and would emit (PM) air pollution up to (or more than) 100 times the AS4013 of 4.5g/kg of wood burnt.
One new compliant to AS4013 standard DWH operated in the usual manner will emit more PM2.5 in one 24 hour period than a new car will emit in it's entire lifetime.
400 people die prematurely in Sydney each and every year as a direct result of PM air pollution, which is up to 87% of Sydney's total air pollution for 6 months of the year. NSW DOH, NSW EPA, CSIRO DAR found by carbon dating dust particles collected at EPA air monitoring stations in and around Syney (PM10<) that up to 87% were of recent origion, i.e. NOT Fossil Fuels, up to 1400 deaths/year in Australia alone, over 3million in India/year, WHO has listed PM2.5 (of which woodsmoke is the major source) as taking over from Mosquito's as the worlds biggest killer, so Pat303, you might have a different view if a relative or friend was one of those numbers. WHO has also stated that"there is NO safe level of exposure to wood smoke (PM2.5)".
Health costs range between $2500 to $3000 per year per DWH, will cost NSW Taxpayers $8 billion over the next 12 years.
There have been a few Senate investigations, nothing much has changed, nothing that is to hurt the AHHA, they have deep pockets and the pollies always seem to need more and more. The Australian Standards committee that sets the emissions level for AS4013 DWH emissions has NO medical representatives, but it does have the AHHA which has the power to veto any changes it don't like, there's democracy for you.
Off Topic, don't think so, Regards Frank.
Check out "Australian Air Quality Group"

DiscoMick
2nd January 2016, 09:10 AM
The point of having standard test conditions is that they are repeatable. That is, you can carry out a test in Detroit and get the same results in Geelong.

It is easy to say that there is no point in having test conditions if they do not give the same results in real life, but this is missing the point that for tests to be useable for anything, they have to be possible to carry out. It is simply impossible to test anything (in this case car emissions) in all the circumstances that they could be used in.

The tests could, for example, simulate testing a cold start in Denver in winter, and bumper to bumper traffic in Beijing, and unlimited speed on the Suart Hwy, but then you have missed out on testing for crawling through mud in PNG in 100% humidity at 35C and the Simpson starting at -10C and close to zero humidity but 30C and still zero humidity a few hours later. And even if you tested for all of these there are still an infinite number of operating conditions you have not tested for.

I repeat - what VW have done is simply designed a system that is deliberately deceptive. Whether they have actually done anything illegal in the design rule terms will depend on the small print in the legislation - but they will certainly have done something illegal in consumer legislation terms in a many countries.

John

Exactly. You can't have proper comparisons unless the testing procedures are standardised. Allowing varying conditions means the results are probably meaningless.
The real message of the VW scandal is that the testing regime has to be changed, particularly in Europe, so it isn't just done in steady state conditions, which VW has shown how to beat, but also includes a cycle to simulate on road conditions. I believe California, which has the highest standards (go the Governator), already has such a test. That seems likely to happen. So, get used to EGRs, DPF and Adblue on your vehicles, because Australia will inevitably adopt the amended overseas standard. Guess I'll have to put up with my EGR going through its noisy shutdown cycle.

Sent from my GT-P5210 using AULRO mobile app

Slunnie
2nd January 2016, 10:40 AM
So, get used to EGRs, DPF and Adblue on your vehicles, because Australia will inevitably adopt the amended overseas standard.

I don't think Aus will follow the US standard, most likely Europe.

On another note, does an Adblue system know what it has in it, or does it merely dispense?

DiscoMick
2nd January 2016, 11:07 AM
I don't think Aus will follow the US standard, most likely Europe.

On another note, does an Adblue system know what it has in it, or does it merely dispense?

Yes we dont import many US cars (which often aren't very good - an exception being Ford's Fiesta and Focus). I think Europe will have to adopt the tougher US standard so then we'll follow.

Sent from my SM-G900I using AULRO mobile app

defmec
2nd January 2016, 11:58 AM
My wife has the polo 1.6 that is affected by the omissions cheat , giving the fact I'm running a stage 3 map and no egr on my td5 it would be Hippocratic of me to tell he to take it in for the fix .plus I want evidence that the fuel economy and power will not be affected. Other than the dpf that clogged and sent the car into limp mode and cost us $200 for the stealership to fix the car is fantastic .

vnx205
2nd January 2016, 12:04 PM
My wife has the polo 1.6 that is affected by the omissions cheat , giving the fact I'm running a stage 3 map and no egr on my td5 it would be Hippocratic of me to tell he to take it in for the fix .plus I want evidence that the fuel economy and power will not be affected. Other than the dpf that clogged and sent the car into limp mode and cost us $200 for the stealership to fix the car is fantastic .

I realise that there are medical issues associated with this topic, but I suspect your auto correct has misunderstood what you wanted to say.

The Hippocratic Oath is an oath historically taken by physicians. It is one of the most widely known of Greek medical texts. In its original form, it requires a new physician to swear, by a number of healing gods, to uphold specific ethical standards.

I assume you were concerned about being hypocritical. :)

Slunnie
2nd January 2016, 01:08 PM
My wife has the polo 1.6 that is affected by the omissions cheat , giving the fact I'm running a stage 3 map and no egr on my td5 it would be Hippocratic of me to tell he to take it in for the fix .plus I want evidence that the fuel economy and power will not be affected. Other than the dpf that clogged and sent the car into limp mode and cost us $200 for the stealership to fix the car is fantastic .
I would ask for it not to be fixed.

joel0407
2nd January 2016, 05:03 PM
as you know with the south eastern freeway, it's a bit of a climb. i can tell if a car is diesel or not just by sitting 100m behind the car and watching the exhaust.

I highly doubt you can do this with a modern diesel. This is the inside of the exhaust of my Skoda. Yes a VW Diesel. I could probably find a old picture of my WRX. My Diesel Skoda will stay this clean for well over 3 months or 6000 - 7000km. Then it tarnishes and I need to polish it again. My Petrol WRX would be dirty in 2 tanks of fuel.

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2016/01/930.jpg (http://s560.photobucket.com/user/joel0407/media/Yeti%20Lights/DSC_0007_zpslsttqxmc.jpg.html)

Here is an old photo with it about as dirty as it gets. I have no idea why I was taking this photo

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2016/01/931.jpg (http://s560.photobucket.com/user/joel0407/media/Yeti%20tow%20bar/E5740C6A-1885-4AF6-983E-4D023EE93F73_zpszlebjgft.jpg.html)

Yes I know the Nox emission is about smaller particles that we wont see.

Here is another dirty one of my Skoda. It's not overly clear but you can see the inside of the exhaust is not black.

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2016/01/932.jpg (http://s560.photobucket.com/user/joel0407/media/1618703_10205709237843006_5887814421920997626_n_zp seofeema1.jpg.html)

And yes same tips on my WRX

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2016/01/933.jpg (http://s560.photobucket.com/user/joel0407/media/560296_3710202886454_560512873_n_zpsslv0juoq.jpg.h tml)

Eevo
2nd January 2016, 06:44 PM
I highly doubt you can do this with a modern diesel. This is the inside of the exhaust of my Skoda. Yes a VW Diesel. I could probably find a old picture of my WRX. My Diesel Skoda will stay this clean for well over 3 months or 6000 - 7000km. Then it tarnishes and I need to polish it again. My Petrol WRX would be dirty in 2 tanks of fuel.


modern diesels too. they are better but you can still tell

joel0407
2nd January 2016, 07:27 PM
modern diesels too. they are better but you can still tell

How's that? I have followed my Yeti numerous times and there is not a hint of visible smoke or anything else out the pipe. Even when my wife is leaving me for dead off the lights and I'm in the Disco.

Not many long hills here in Darwin though but I dont recall it from when we lived in Canberra.



Happy Days.

Slunnie
2nd January 2016, 07:32 PM
How's that? I have followed my Yeti numerous times and there is not a hint of visible smoke or anything else out the pipe. Even when my wife is leaving me for dead off the lights and I'm in the Disco.

Not many long hills here in Darwin though but I dont recall it from when we lived in Canberra.



Happy Days.
It says Tdi on the back. :D

Eevo
2nd January 2016, 07:40 PM
i cant speak for yeti. dont think ive seen one.
d4's def do.

joel0407
3rd January 2016, 07:00 AM
Shouldn't matter if you've seen a Yeti Just the same VW Diesel in all the later VW Diesels.

BMKal
3rd January 2016, 01:16 PM
Shouldn't matter if you've seen a Yeti Just the same VW Diesel in all the later VW Diesels.

Yep. ;) My young bloke has a new Amarok diesel ute, and you can't see any sign of this being a diesel from behind (other than the Tdi badge) when he boots it up the road. Definitely a lot "cleaner" than my D4. :D

joel0407
3rd January 2016, 04:07 PM
Definitely a lot "cleaner" than my D4. :D

Well apparently not according to this thread. LOL

Slunnie
3rd January 2016, 04:56 PM
Well apparently not according to this thread. LOL
This whole thread in my opinion is a storm in a tea cup for anywhere but US whose emission laws are not in line with the rest of the world. Personally, I think the VW group put out excellent vehicles and have manufactured best engine of the year for many years (mind you it was the petrol turbo).

DiscoMick
3rd January 2016, 05:23 PM
Noxious emissions are invisible so watching the exhaust reveals nothing useful except possibly if the engine is running rich and wasting unburnt fuel.
Huge numbers of people suffer various illnesses which are worsened by noxious emissions, sometimes fatally. This is a really big deal. We are talking about a company deciding it has the right to decide to deliberately poison many people to boost its profits.

Sent from my SM-G900I using AULRO mobile app

joel0407
3rd January 2016, 08:43 PM
Noxious emissions are invisible so watching the exhaust reveals nothing useful except possibly if the engine is running rich and wasting unburnt fuel.
Huge numbers of people suffer various illnesses which are worsened by noxious emissions, sometimes fatally. This is a really big deal. We are talking about a company deciding it has the right to decide to deliberately poison many people to boost its profits.

Sent from my SM-G900I using AULRO mobile app



I agree but I don't think we can have our cake and eat it too.

While I think we need to be as clean as we reasonably can be, if we want todrive around in cars, we will make pollution. If we want to make and useelectricity whether we make pollution building wind turbines or make pollution burningcoal or don?t make any until a nuclear power plant goes bad. Everything has atrade off.



I think modern diesels are about as clean as we are going to get withouttrading things off. Yeah sure we can make less pollution but then you get lesspower so then you?ll buy a petrol instead that will just make a different pollution.

Eevo
3rd January 2016, 09:51 PM
This is a really big deal.
of the cars affected, what percentage of all the cars in the world do they make up?

PAT303
3rd January 2016, 10:07 PM
of the cars affected, what percentage of all the cars in the world do they make up?

Bazinga. Pat

joel0407
4th January 2016, 07:10 AM
of the cars affected, what percentage of all the cars in the world do they make up?

Not only do I suspect it's a very small amount but while they do breach the limit, they still produce less emissions than some only a couple of years old.

Now before someone jumps in and says "No they create more NOX". Yes they might create more nox but they still create less other pollutants such as CO2.

So yes. I don't get the big deal and that's why I bought shares in VW.

DiscoMick
4th January 2016, 08:57 AM
I agree but I don't think we can have our cake and eat it too.

While I think we need to be as clean as we reasonably can be, if we want todrive around in cars, we will make pollution. If we want to make and useelectricity whether we make pollution building wind turbines or make pollution burningcoal or don?t make any until a nuclear power plant goes bad. Everything has atrade off.



I think modern diesels are about as clean as we are going to get withouttrading things off. Yeah sure we can make less pollution but then you get lesspower so then you?ll buy a petrol instead that will just make a different pollution.




Soon our cars will be electric and they'll be recharged from charging stations which are solar powered, or from panels on their roofs, so that should fix that. Yes, I know making batteries is a messy business, but it will still be an improvement.
It's a bit like everyone said there was no alternative to smelly petrol lawn mowers, but my electric mower works just fine.

Sent from my GT-P5210 using AULRO mobile app

PAT303
4th January 2016, 10:55 AM
Soon our cars will be electric and they'll be recharged from charging stations which are solar powered, or from panels on their roofs, so that should fix that. Yes, I know making batteries is a messy business, but it will still be an improvement.
It's a bit like everyone said there was no alternative to smelly petrol lawn mowers, but my electric mower works just fine.

Sent from my GT-P5210 using AULRO mobile app

Seriously Mick you live in fantasy land :confused:,we won't change to electric cars for the same reason our power production won't change from coal,because alternatives don't work.Environmentalists/hippys/tree huggers what ever you call them are the worlds biggest hypocrites,all of them want to save the world but don't want to sacrifice their daily conveniences to do it,your a good example,why didn't you buy an electric vehicle re-charged from solar panels on your roof instead of your Mazda?,don't whinge about other people polluting the environment when your contributing your fair share ;). Pat

bee utey
4th January 2016, 11:12 AM
...we won't change to electric cars for the same reason our power production won't change from coal,because alternatives don't work...
:Rolling::Rolling::Rolling:

It's like saying that heavier-than-air flight is impossible, then came the Wright brothers. It's like saying that there will never be more than a handful of computers world wide, then came PC's. Alternative energy is real and works, it will only get better over the next 5 to 10 years. Already some people in the world can buy themselves an electric VW Golf (http://www.volkswagen.co.uk/new/e-golf-vii/home) and charge it at home. This vehicle can already do what 90% of commuters require from a vehicle. Want more range? Have a second car with a dinosaur engine for weekends. :)

First Drive: Volkswagen Golf e-Golf 5dr Auto | Top Gear (http://www.topgear.com/car-reviews/volkswagen/golfgolf-sv/e-golf-5dr-auto/first-drive)

Mick_Marsh
4th January 2016, 11:36 AM
:Rolling::Rolling::Rolling:

It's like saying that heavier-than-air flight is impossible, then came the Wright brothers. It's like saying that there will never be more than a handful of computers world wide, then came PC's. Alternative energy is real and works, it will only get better over the next 5 to 10 years. Already some people in the world can buy themselves an electric VW Golf (http://www.volkswagen.co.uk/new/e-golf-vii/home) and charge it at home. This vehicle can already do what 90% of commuters require from a vehicle. Want more range? Have a second car with a dinosaur engine for weekends. :)

First Drive: Volkswagen Golf e-Golf 5dr Auto | Top Gear (http://www.topgear.com/car-reviews/volkswagen/golfgolf-sv/e-golf-5dr-auto/first-drive)
Very limited in range. Takes quite a while charging. Charges from the power generated from the brown coal burners out in eastern Victoria.
It wouldn't get me to work.
Forget about interstate trips.

Solar cars! DiscoMick's preferred daily drive:
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2016/01/861.jpg

bee utey
4th January 2016, 11:57 AM
Very limited in range. Takes quite a while charging. Charges from the power generated from the brown coal burners out in eastern Victoria.
It wouldn't get me to work.
Forget about interstate trips.



Whut? I thought you denizens of the Windy West were innovators and grew your own power, like this:

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2016/01/860.jpg

Eevo
4th January 2016, 11:57 AM
bushfire in SA, new years eve at mosquito hill, i was on one of the strike teams.
while waiting to be released, we talked about electric cars, some people in favor, some against.

then i mentioned, how about an electric fire truck.

suddenly no one thought it was a good idea.

Mick_Marsh
4th January 2016, 12:06 PM
Whut? I thought you denizens of the Windy West were innovators and grew your own power, like this:

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2016/01/860.jpg
The HHO generator works better.
When I fit the Hiclone, I'll be producing more power than I can use.

DiscoMick
4th January 2016, 12:55 PM
Seriously Mick you live in fantasy land :confused:,we won't change to electric cars for the same reason our power production won't change from coal,because alternatives don't work.Environmentalists/hippys/tree huggers what ever you call them are the worlds biggest hypocrites,all of them want to save the world but don't want to sacrifice their daily conveniences to do it,your a good example,why didn't you buy an electric vehicle re-charged from solar panels on your roof instead of your Mazda?,don't whinge about other people polluting the environment when your contributing your fair share ;). Pat

I completely disagree. The alternatives already work. Its not far away. You should catch up with what's actually happening right now. It is real. It is coming. Get ready.

Sent from my SM-G900I using AULRO mobile app

Eevo
4th January 2016, 01:26 PM
The alternatives already work. I

yes but only when the sun is shining and the wind is blowing :)

TerryO
4th January 2016, 01:31 PM
It's only a matter of time before cars are electric or powered by some other form of energy.

I am no greenie at all, but I have run a class of racing for electric bikes in my race series for four years now. The first year it was a sad and bad joke, they hardly ever finished a race and they were that slow that my D1 would have passed them down the front straight at EC. The second year they got better but still nothing to write home about. Four years later and the most powerful motorbike racing in the series, which includes factory team Superbikes as tested on our Dyno is a electric bike with over 220 rear wheel horsepower.

The gains in technology in four short years is astounding to watch, anyone who can't see how this technology will soon become the norm for transport is wearing blinkers.
Forget about lack of range, that is changing to, so is recharge times, these bikes can recharge now in 15 minutes after a race using a single phase outlet, it used to take them 4 hours plus.
There are cars available now that can do 400 kilometres between charges, as I said this technology is going ahead in leaps and bounds, it's only a matter of time before it gets to a price and efficiency tipping point. It might actually be global warming that drives this to happen as burning coal is less polluting and has less global warming consequences then burning petrol and diesel.

As I said I'm no greenie but if you are close to this stuff it is obvious where it is going.

Slunnie
4th January 2016, 01:34 PM
yes but only when the sun is shining and the wind is blowing :)
Things have developed.

Mick_Marsh
4th January 2016, 01:44 PM
According to Mr Wiki, electric cars have been around since the late 1800s.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_electric_vehicle

The high cost, low top speed, and short range of battery electric vehicles, compared to later internal combustion engine vehicles, led to a worldwide decline in their useStill got most of the same issues.
Hands up those that have an electric car.
A friend owns one. It's very nice. It has convinced me the electric car is not for me.

Eevo
4th January 2016, 02:12 PM
Things have developed.

not really.
storage, looks good, but isnt proven yet. and is still expensive

DiscoMick
4th January 2016, 02:16 PM
It's only a matter of time before cars are electric or powered by some other form of energy.

I am no greenie at all, but I have run a class of racing for electric bikes in my race series for four years now. The first year it was a sad and bad joke, they hardly ever finished a race and they were that slow that my D1 would have passed them down the front straight at EC. The second year they got better but still nothing to write home about. Four years later and the most powerful motorbike racing in the series, which includes factory team Superbikes as tested on our Dyno is a electric bike with over 220 rear wheel horsepower.

The gains in technology in four short years is astounding to watch, anyone who can't see how this technology will soon become the norm for transport is wearing blinkers.
Forget about lack of range, that is changing to, so is recharge times, these bikes can recharge now in 15 minutes after a race using a single phase outlet, it used to take them 4 hours plus.
There are cars available now that can do 400 kilometres between charges, as I said this technology is going ahead in leaps and bounds, it's only a matter of time before it gets to a price and efficiency tipping point. It might actually be global warming that drives this to happen as burning coal is less polluting and has less global warming consequences then burning petrol and diesel.

As I said I'm no greenie but if you are close to this stuff it is obvious where it is going.

All very true. I'm not a greenie either, but I can see where it is going. The technology behind renewables is fast-moving and making huge gains. This is where the new jobs are being created. The trends are unstoppable. For example, new ways of recharging phones have already cut their recharging time dramatically and new phones are coming which can recharge to 80% in an hour. That will flow on to vehicles.
One day electric charging stations will have replaced petrol servos and charging will be so quick your vehicle will recharge while you're stopped for lunch. Solar roofs will also extend battery life. Buildings will also be solar powered with battery banks and independent of the grid. Wind power is also gaining rapidly.
In 20 years time, I predict the idea of burning coal or even petrol will seem as antiquated as riding a horse to work. Climate change impacts will be so undeniable that coal will be banned to cut emissions. Solar and wind will be everywhere. Nuclear will also make a comeback in miniaturised applications, I think.
This is the new reality. Denying it makes no difference - this is the way it is.





Sent from my GT-P5210 using AULRO mobile app

TerryO
4th January 2016, 02:32 PM
not really.
storage, looks good, but isnt proven yet. and is still expensive

The reason storage still is still expensive is because of lack of economy of scale.

There are plenty of examples of how technology starts off expensive and within a short period of time becomes cheaper then the technology it replaces.
Think back ten plus years ago it cost back then $10k to buy a average sized flat screen TV and only those with much higher than average incomes could afford such luxuries. Now you can buy a giant screen tv that most living rooms struggle to accomodate for a thousand or two and the masses nearly all own at least one big TV.

Slunnie
4th January 2016, 02:50 PM
not really.
storage, looks good, but isnt proven yet. and is still expensive
There are countries now who are providing almost all of their electricity needs from renewables. Costa Rica is about 99% for 5m people most of this comes from hydro, Uraguay is about 95% for 3.5m people and this is mostly from wind and sun. I understand there are other countries in a similar situation.

rick130
4th January 2016, 03:06 PM
The reason storage still is still expensive is because of lack of economy of scale.

There are plenty of examples of how technology starts off expensive and within a short period of time becomes cheaper then the technology it replaces.
Think back ten plus years ago it cost back then $10k to buy a average sized flat screen TV and only those with much higher than average incomes could afford such luxuries. Now you can buy a giant screen tv that most living rooms struggle to accomodate for a thousand or two and the masses nearly all own at least one big TV.


Talk is that Tesla's new battery factory coming online will drive down the costs dramatically while pushing efficiency up, and Elon Musk keeps saying the only reason he keeps pushing things along is to encourage others to compete and really drive things forward. (no pun intended :D)

Eevo
4th January 2016, 03:13 PM
The reason storage still is still expensive is because of lack of economy of scale.

There are plenty of examples of how technology starts off expensive and within a short period of time becomes cheaper then the technology it replaces.
Think back ten plus years ago it cost back then $10k to buy a average sized flat screen TV and only those with much higher than average incomes could afford such luxuries. Now you can buy a giant screen tv that most living rooms struggle to accomodate for a thousand or two and the masses nearly all own at least one big TV.


i understand that but the proof is in the pudding

Eevo
4th January 2016, 03:15 PM
There are countries now who are providing almost all of their electricity needs from renewables. Costa Rica is about 99% for 5m people most of this comes from hydro, Uraguay is about 95% for 3.5m people and this is mostly from wind and sun. I understand there are other countries in a similar situation.

aust isnt in the position of bring able to rely on mass hydro.
Uraguay is 65% hydro

Eevo
4th January 2016, 03:16 PM
Talk is that Tesla's new battery factory coming online will drive down the costs dramatically while pushing efficiency up, and Elon Musk keeps saying the only reason he keeps pushing things along is to encourage others to compete and really drive things forward. (no pun intended :D)

i hope so but i'm not holding my breath.

vnx205
4th January 2016, 03:20 PM
It's only a matter of time before cars are electric or powered by some other form of energy.

I am no greenie at all, but I have run a class of racing for electric bikes in my race series for four years now. The first year it was a sad and bad joke, they hardly ever finished a race and they were that slow that my D1 would have passed them down the front straight at EC. The second year they got better but still nothing to write home about. Four years later and the most powerful motorbike racing in the series, which includes factory team Superbikes as tested on our Dyno is a electric bike with over 220 rear wheel horsepower.
... ..... ...



The electric bike achievement that I like to mention to people to indicate how far things have come is the speeds they can now average around the Isle of Man.

I used to say that a couple of years ago a couple of electric bikes averaged over 100mph (about 160km/h), a feat not achieved by petrol powered bikes until some time in the 1950s.

A quick check of last year's results shows that development has not stood still.

2015 SES TT Zero Challenge Results

1 John McGuinness (Team Mugen) - 18:58.743 - 119.279 mph

2 Bruce Anstey (Team Mugen) - 19:02.785 - 118.857 mph

3 Lee Johnston (Victory/Parker Racing) - 20:16.881 - 111.620 mph

4 Guy Martin (Victory/Parker Racing) - 20:37.987 - 109.717 mph

5 Robert Wilson (Team Sarolea Racing) - 21:15.256 - 106.510 mph

6 Michael Sweeney (University of Nottingham) - 30:56.695 - 73.156 mph

McGuinness and Mugen dominate 2015 SES TT Zero Challenge (http://www.gizmag.com/isle-of-man-tt-zero-results-review-2015/37987/)

For those who can only think in metric, the winner averaged 192 km/h.

To get a sense of measure, McGuinness has now officially surpassed Joey Dunlop's 1984 winning performance on the Honda RS500, a proper two-stroke GP bike of the era. His average speed was faster than what the Sidecars have ever done, more than enough to win this year's Lightweight TT and would have easily landed him a top-20 finish in the Supersport class.

JDNSW
4th January 2016, 03:23 PM
I think that eventually we will be mostly driving electric cars. I have long wanted to have one, but they have always been (and still essentially are) impractical, at least for my use.

Will they be standard transport in twenty years? Perhaps, but I am not holding my breath. While technology has advanced quite significantly in some areas, in others it has not.

For example, I have been reading about the batteries that are going to revolutionise transport for at least fifty years - and they are still not here.

We have (sort of) cars that can give reasonable performance, have a range of perhaps 400km, and recharge in a few hours (long lunch). But my thirty year old Landrover has a range of over 1200km, and can refuel in ten minutes or less. Furthermore, unlike the leading electric car brands, it can carry nine people or close to a tonne, tow three and a half tonnes, has enough ground clearance to actually get to my house, and has a reasonable (demonstrated) chance of surviving an impact with a 70kg macropod at 110kph and still be driveable. It is, I suggest, going to be a long time before an electric vehicle can meet these requirements, even without meeting the economic requirement of being cheap enough that I would have a hope of buying it.

As for electric power - I see renewables being increasingly used - but fossil fuels are still a lot cheaper, and getting cheaper as fast if not faster than renewables. Phasing out fossil fuels will be driven, however, by the need to reduce carbon pollution. For Australia, while it is likely that battery backed renewables may make a significant contribution, the only foreseeable practical replacement for base load power is nuclear. I cannot see how changing electricity generation away from fossil fuels can do anything except increase electricity prices dramatically. In part, this will be compensated for by increased efficiencies.

One thing to be borne in mind is that the majority of distributed power is not used in homes, although this is what we first think of.

John

TerryO
4th January 2016, 03:27 PM
What some of the South American country's are doing is very impressive but pales into insignificance compared to what Germany is up to. The Germans are reportedly producing on a regular basis over 70% of the energy needs through renewables already.

So much for not being able to store solar energy, Germany is one of the most industrialised economy's in the world and it is powering most of it through sun and wind.

Why? Because they are greenies! Nope, while most of Europe is hanging off whether Russia will allow gas to be sent south and west each year depending on how Putin feels this week Germany has decided to become as quickly as possible totally independent when it comes to electricity. As I said earlier, there just needs to be a good enough reason and the world will change, for Germany that reason was already obvious and needed to be put into action.


How Germany Became a Solar Superpower (http://www.triplepundit.com/2015/08/germany-became-solar-superpower/)

Slunnie
4th January 2016, 03:27 PM
aust isnt in the position of bring able to rely on mass hydro.
Uraguay is 65% hydro
And this is the reason nothing can work. :D

Mick_Marsh
4th January 2016, 03:48 PM
Ah, yes, Germany......

Forbes Welcome (http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/03/14/germanys-green-energy-disaster-a-cautionary-tale-for-world-leaders/)

And......

Germany facing power blackouts - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/9609777/Germany-facing-power-blackouts.html)

The internet is littered with stories of their big fail.......

https://carboncounter.wordpress.com/2015/06/06/why-germanys-nuclear-phaseout-is-leading-to-more-coal-burning/

Mick_Marsh
4th January 2016, 03:55 PM
I have been reading about the batteries that are going to revolutionise transport for at least fifty years - and they are still not here.

Recently I heard of the development of a high energy density long service life battery being developed. A sulphur/sulphur battery.
It was touted to revolutionise energy storage provided they could get the cost down........

..........and stop it bursting into flames.

I'm all for R&D, but it is only a small step on it's journey to a commercially viable product.

Eevo
4th January 2016, 04:00 PM
And this is the reason nothing can work. :D

well yes.

hydro works 24-7
solar only works during the day
wind only works when its windy

Eevo
4th January 2016, 04:05 PM
Recently I heard of the development of a high energy density long service life battery being developed. A sulphur/sulphur battery.

i think its a lithium sulfur battery actually.

and sulfur isnt green as its a pollutant.


edit: i'll rephrase that, lithium sulfur is more likely to succeed compared to sulfur -sulpur

Mick_Marsh
4th January 2016, 04:06 PM
well yes.

hydro works 24-7
solar only works during the day
wind only works when its windy
Hydro only works when there is water. In NZ, not a problem. In Tasmania, not usually concerned.
How many MW are generated from the SA hydro power generation plants?

Eevo
4th January 2016, 04:10 PM
How many MW are generated from the SA hydro power generation plants?

not many if any.

frantic
4th January 2016, 04:12 PM
Not only do I suspect it's a very small amount but while they do breach the limit, they still produce less emissions than some only a couple of years old.

Now before someone jumps in and says "No they create more NOX". Yes they might create more nox but they still create less other pollutants such as CO2.

So yes. I don't get the big deal and that's why I bought shares in VW.

So for eight years , 1 car in eight made by the worlds no1 car maker had that scam ecu.
11million, which is only 1 in 50 out of the global fleet, but ALL their emissions are also higher , or did you miss that one Joel?
The one where VW also owned up to doing special mods to their cars to get lower fuel economy usage.
Their emissions of BOTH Nox and CO2 are way way higher . Nox is higher than Euro3 limits. And they have faked their fuel results(again for tax concessions) which directly relates to Carbon dioxide output.
The first site lists all the affected models given by VW.
Volkswagen lists MY2016 vehicles with false CO2 emissions (http://paultan.org/2015/11/17/volkswagen-lists-my2016-vehicles-with-false-co2-emissions/)
Volkswagen - Dieselgate: VW admits CO2 'irregularities' | GoAuto (http://www.goauto.com.au/mellor/mellor.nsf/story2/0B265D71C2F146F4CA257EF30000F933)

Now at first VW said 800,000 in the E.U alone since 2012, then released a list with the 400,000 plus 2016 models affected, as they tax based on fuel usage, but "magically" VW reduced that number to............... 36,000.;) yup all totally believable.

TerryO
4th January 2016, 04:17 PM
From memory over 80% of Australia's population lives within 50 kilometres of the ocean, which as long as the moon exists is the most powerful and reliable potential source of hydro electricity there is on the planet.

How does that old saying go? ... None are so blind as those who will not see.

Mick_Marsh
4th January 2016, 04:17 PM
i think its a lithium sulfur battery actually.
Ah, yes. Quite right.

Eevo
4th January 2016, 05:16 PM
From memory over 80% of Australia's population lives within 50 kilometres of the ocean, which as long as the moon exists is the most powerful and reliable potential source of hydro electricity there is on the planet.

How does that old saying go? ... None are so blind as those who will not see.

yes but why does noone use it?

DiscoMick
4th January 2016, 05:26 PM
Isn't South Australia already generating over half its power from wind, which can blow 24 hours a day, of course.
As for base load power, that's only an issue for the networks, but we need to change the point of view for electricity and start seeing it from the viewpoint of consumers rather than centralised power companies. Household battery banks will free houses from needing the grid, so that wil sidestep that issue.
With such a huge landmass its impossible to believe we can't power this country, including our transport, from renewables.

Sent from my GT-P5210 using AULRO mobile app

Eevo
4th January 2016, 05:28 PM
Isn't South Australia already generating over half its power from wind, which can blow 24 hours a day, of course.

it can blow but its not consistent
historically, it blows zero MW 25% of the year.

PAT303
4th January 2016, 05:29 PM
:Rolling::Rolling::Rolling:

It's like saying that heavier-than-air flight is impossible, then came the Wright brothers. It's like saying that there will never be more than a handful of computers world wide, then came PC's. Alternative energy is real and works, it will only get better over the next 5 to 10 years. Already some people in the world can buy themselves an electric VW Golf (http://www.volkswagen.co.uk/new/e-golf-vii/home) and charge it at home. This vehicle can already do what 90% of commuters require from a vehicle. Want more range? Have a second car with a dinosaur engine for weekends. :)

First Drive: Volkswagen Golf e-Golf 5dr Auto | Top Gear (http://www.topgear.com/car-reviews/volkswagen/golfgolf-sv/e-golf-5dr-auto/first-drive)

So if we want to be environmentally friendly we need to buy two cars :confused:,for city driving why not use public transport or ride a bike?. Pat

Eevo
4th January 2016, 05:42 PM
or city driving why not use public transport or ride a bike?. Pat

for me, too far to ride a bike, and too many hills.
bus is more expensive than driving
bus is double to triple the time it takes driving by car
bus only come every 30min at best

Mick_Marsh
4th January 2016, 05:44 PM
So if we want to be environmentally friendly we need to buy two cars :confused:
What a great idea.
I need another car.

gusthedog
4th January 2016, 05:54 PM
for me, too far to ride a bike, and too many hills.
bus is more expensive than driving
bus is double to triple the time it takes driving by car
bus only come every 30min at best

How far is too far? :)

I used to ride 20 km to work in the city. Now I live in the country it's 3 blocks of commuting by bike :D We have one bus per day to Melbourne :p

Pricey

V8Ian
4th January 2016, 06:59 PM
I don't think Aus will follow the US standard, most likely Europe.

On another note, does an Adblue system know what it has in it, or does it merely dispense?
It can be tricked with water.

ramblingboy42
4th January 2016, 07:22 PM
yes but why does noone use it?

.....they do.

TerryO
4th January 2016, 07:51 PM
yes but why does noone use it?


Not quite right old mate, there are roughly half a dozen tidal power stations around the world in operation with another ten or so proposed to be built soon.

Most were previously built to see how efficient and cost effective they are and apparently they are. ... ;)

rick130
4th January 2016, 07:52 PM
From memory over 80% of Australia's population lives within 50 kilometres of the ocean, which as long as the moon exists is the most powerful and reliable potential source of hydro electricity there is on the planet.

How does that old saying go? ... None are so blind as those who will not see.


An article in The Guardian today claimed 85% within 30km Terry.
That's even better numbers. :D

rick130
4th January 2016, 08:09 PM
Not quite right old mate, there are roughly half a dozen tidal power stations around the world in operation with another ten or so proposed to be built soon.

Most were previously built to see how efficient and cost effective they are and apparently they are. ... ;)


WA wave energy project turned on to power naval base at Garden Island - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-02-18/wa-wave-energy-project-turned-on-to-power-naval-base/6141254)

bee utey
4th January 2016, 08:24 PM
So if we want to be environmentally friendly we need to buy two cars :confused:,for city driving why not use public transport or ride a bike?. Pat

Yes, until electric cars outperform fossil monsters in every way, the best way is to have a choice that minimizes operating cost AND pollution while allowing you to have a practical work horse available as well. That dinosaur doesn't need to be new you know, recycling an old one for limited use is just fine (hello Australian Land Rover Owners forum!!). Or of course you could have just the one electric car and hire what you need on a few days of the year, if that works out the best for you.

Many families have one car per licensed driver in the household already, so trading the short and frequent trip one up to full electric makes sense. Even some single people own more than one vehicle. As a student I had a V8 car and ran a tiny 4 cylinder car completely on the savings from not commuting to tech school in the V8. The commute was 1/2 hour by car or 2 hours by bus, so car commuting was the only practical option. I would have loved to have an electric car for the commute. But that wasn't possible 30 odd years ago, and 30 years into the future will be just as different. :)

Slunnie
4th January 2016, 08:35 PM
It can be tricked with water.
Legend, thanks for this Ian!

Slunnie
4th January 2016, 08:41 PM
WA wave energy project turned on to power naval base at Garden Island - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-02-18/wa-wave-energy-project-turned-on-to-power-naval-base/6141254)
And thats just waves? I would have expected that there would be a heap of opportunity for hydro / tidal along the coast too.

PAT303
4th January 2016, 08:46 PM
Bee utey,I've had a choice and that has been driving the same Tdi defender for 18 years,how much have I saved in both cost and pollution over driving a new battery powered vehicle that would have had it's batteries replaced at least twice as well as all the coal burned doing almost 500K?.For all of you who think electric is enviro friendly can you tell me why the batteries are manufactured in countries like China and recycled in countries like India?,for those of you who think wave power,wind power,solar are the way to go you should do some research on base power requirements,and then ask yourself if YOU want to rely on it when YOU really need it most. Pat

bee utey
4th January 2016, 09:53 PM
Bee utey,I've had a choice and that has been driving the same Tdi defender for 18 years,how much have I saved in both cost and pollution over driving a new battery powered vehicle that would have had it's batteries replaced at least twice as well as all the coal burned doing almost 500K?.For all of you who think electric is enviro friendly can you tell me why the batteries are manufactured in countries like China and recycled in countries like India?,for those of you who think wave power,wind power,solar are the way to go you should do some research on base power requirements,and then ask yourself if YOU want to rely on it when YOU really need it most. Pat

So Pat, what do think is the pinnacle of evolution of the motor vehicle? Is it the Model T Ford? Is it the 300TDi Defender? Is this year's cutting edge vehicle the last ever vehicle to be improved? Do you really think that there is no room for battery tech to evolve to a point where it out competes fossil fuels? You know, there's what industry insiders call the Kodak moment, where a company sneers at new tech and ties its fortunes to old tech continuing forever. Guess what, Kodak is dead. Film has almost completely died under the digital onslaught. Battery tech still has a long way to go but has made huge strides in the last few years alone. It is what is called a disruptive technology. One day it will be bigger than fossil fuel. And that is an opinion of not just me but qualified people who have access to huge amounts of data on energy industries.

Oh and "base load" is a myth invented by manufacturers of inflexible coal and nuclear plants, and to maintain the myth they have to sell it off cheap as domestic water heating after 11pm. New energy sources have new challenges that don't involve millions of dumb time clocks switching on resistive heating elements all over the country. With a solar boosted heat pump HWS I have virtually zero "base load" after 11pm, so do other solar powered houses. :)

Mick_Marsh
4th January 2016, 10:02 PM
Oh and "base load" is a myth invented by manufacturers of inflexible coal and nuclear plants, and to maintain the myth they have to sell it off cheap as domestic water heating after 11pm. New energy sources have new challenges that don't involve millions of dumb time clocks switching on resistive heating elements all over the country. With a solar boosted heat pump HWS I have virtually zero "base load" after 11pm, so do other solar powered houses. :)
Oh, I was waiting for this. You clearly have no understanding what base load is.
So, it's all peak load then, is it?

bee utey
4th January 2016, 10:26 PM
Oh, I was waiting for this. You clearly have no understanding what base load is.
So, it's all peak load then, is it?

Haha, what a comedian. I know what "base load" is, it's a dinosaur.

It's all just load, capable of being provided in various ways. Hey, you could try googling "base load myth", and read some of the analysis out there. For starters:

Busting the baseload power myth ? Analysis and Opinion (ABC Science) (http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2010/12/02/3081889.htm)

Eevo
4th January 2016, 10:34 PM
How far is too far? :)

I used to ride 20 km to work in the city. Now I live in the country it's 3 blocks of commuting by bike :D We have one bus per day to Melbourne :p

Pricey

for me its about 25km up n down hills.
if it was 25km on the flat it might be ok.
still take me an hour though

Eevo
4th January 2016, 10:34 PM
Not quite right old mate, there are roughly half a dozen tidal power stations around the world in operation with another ten or so proposed to be built soon.

Most were previously built to see how efficient and cost effective they are and apparently they are. ... ;)

in the grand scheme of things, they make up less than 0.1% of all power generation in the world.

Mick_Marsh
4th January 2016, 10:52 PM
Haha, what a comedian. I know what "base load" is, it's a dinosaur.

It's all just load, capable of being provided in various ways. Hey, you could try googling "base load myth", and read some of the analysis out there. For starters:

Busting the baseload power myth ? Analysis and Opinion (ABC Science) (http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2010/12/02/3081889.htm)
There is a reason why it is called "base load power". It's not just about power generation. I wonder if you can work it out.
Oh, did you read the comments after. Some good ones there.

Ah, solar and wind. No matter how you sell it, they still only work when the sun is shining or the wind is blowing.
I guess that means no air-con on a hot and still summers night.
No heaters on a still and overcast day in winter.

Last I read of Mills he was going to provide 24 hour solar power in the U.S. The solar advocates have gone quiet on how that turned out. Mills conveniently ignores the variability of solar and wind generation, which is why they are unsuitable for base load supply. Solar/wind have their place but it will never be as base load supply. If only the solar/wind advocates would stop trying to make a base load silk purse out of a renewable energy sow's ear, then they might have some credibility. As it is, they have none.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Mills_%28solar_researcher%29
I suspect Mr Mills has little knowledge of power distribution systems. Any idea what his qualifications are?

PAT303
4th January 2016, 11:35 PM
So Pat, what do think is the pinnacle of evolution of the motor vehicle? Is it the Model T Ford? Is it the 300TDi Defender? Is this year's cutting edge vehicle the last ever vehicle to be improved? Do you really think that there is no room for battery tech to evolve to a point where it out competes fossil fuels? You know, there's what industry insiders call the Kodak moment, where a company sneers at new tech and ties its fortunes to old tech continuing forever. Guess what, Kodak is dead. Film has almost completely died under the digital onslaught. Battery tech still has a long way to go but has made huge strides in the last few years alone. It is what is called a disruptive technology. One day it will be bigger than fossil fuel. And that is an opinion of not just me but qualified people who have access to huge amounts of data on energy industries.

Oh and "base load" is a myth invented by manufacturers of inflexible coal and nuclear plants, and to maintain the myth they have to sell it off cheap as domestic water heating after 11pm. New energy sources have new challenges that don't involve millions of dumb time clocks switching on resistive heating elements all over the country. With a solar boosted heat pump HWS I have virtually zero "base load" after 11pm, so do other solar powered houses. :)

Never said the Tdi was the pinnacle of motor vehicles,if you read any of my posts on the defender replacement thread you would know I think an electric defender would be the best 4wd vehicle possible,it would have four independant traction motors powered by a frugal T/D engine like the Tdi.I'm not against electric cars,solar,wave energy,what I'm against are people who think we will have it within a few years,you lot are dreaming,absolutely dreaming. Pat

frantic
5th January 2016, 08:23 AM
Unfortunately one thing the electric car crowd ignore is the finites. There is only a limited and finite supply of certain elements used to make the high power batteries.
This creates 2 issues that no one wants to answer.
1. How long would supply last if a majority of the worlds 80million sales PA went electric or hybrid? I've read anything from 20 to 330+ years , a lot seem to say a shorter life than fossil fuels, so hopefully a more knowledgable person could enlighten us?
2. Current supply could not handle a massive increase in demand and the main sources of supply are locked up.

Found it,
http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/Is-There-Enough-Lithium-to-Maintain-the-Growth-of-the-Lithium-Ion-Battery-M

Basically if the worlds majority of cars where battery powered there would be a 17 year lifespan for lithium.
Rare earths are another issue. But just focus on this one to start.

rick130
5th January 2016, 09:14 AM
Unfortunately one thing the electric car crowd ignore is the finites. There is only a limited and finite supply of certain elements used to make the high power batteries.
This creates 2 issues that no one wants to answer.
1. How long would supply last if a majority of the worlds 80million sales PA went electric or hybrid? I've read anything from 20 to 330+ years , a lot seem to say a shorter life than fossil fuels, so hopefully a more knowledgable person could enlighten us?
2. Current supply could not handle a massive increase in demand and the main sources of supply are locked up.

Found it,
Is There Enough Lithium to Maintain the Growth of the Lithium-Ion Battery Market? | Greentech Media (http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/Is-There-Enough-Lithium-to-Maintain-the-Growth-of-the-Lithium-Ion-Battery-M)

Basically if the worlds majority of cars where battery powered there would be a 17 year lifespan for lithium.
Rare earths are another issue. But just focus on this one to start.


Good point, and frm the little I know the rare earths are just that, very rare !

Seeing as this thread has gone OT, and talking of finite supplies, there is bugger all Helium left !
Google it, it's really surprising, and we waste it on party balloons !

Who hasn't done the Chipmunks impersonation at a party, I know I have mucking around with the kids (OK, there was one big one there that just had to act like a little one :D).
There's seven billion of us now and all resources except the sun and wind are finite. And we can probably include ocean currents and waves in that.

Everything else has a fixed supply.
things may not be as dire as for example predicted back in the seventies regarding oil, but how much digging up stuff can we tolerate ?
It's impacting severely in some areas already on our precious water and food supplies.

We are going to have to embark on some serious recycling just to maintain our lifestyles, and as the third world starts demanding the things the first world takes for granted........

TerryO
5th January 2016, 09:43 AM
Interesting that the article that Frantic has linked to talks about what is expected to happen by 2015 when it was supposedly written in 2015. Most of what he writes is fairly old recycled material from other people's articles that he has come to conclusions about and then glued together in to his own article.

The one thing he completely ignores in his writings is that lithium-ion batterys are just about completely recyclable and can be recycled time and time again.

Having said that just like with every technology sooner or later something else comes along when it becomes economically viable to change. 200 years ago most houses in Europe used whale oil for lighting, that need killed off most of the worlds whales so then there was a need to find a different technology which lead to the introduction of firstly coal gas lighting and then when there wasn't enough supply of that in some places eventually electricity.

Throughout history this is what man has done when required.

If you look back ten years ago the experts were saying Oil was meant to commercially run out in the next twenty years now they are saying there is enough commercial reserves for another fifty plus years. Eventually oil will run out and other affordable forms of energy will be needed, but long before it does run out worries about things like global warming and air quality etc will cause politicians around the world to change direction on how personal transport and other high energy users are supplied with affordable electricity.

As I said I'm no greenie at all and never have been, but I am a pramatic realist and it doesn't take to much grey matter to see where this is all going. Will it happen in the next five years like some think? No but it will happen in most of our lifetimes, the often older flat earth brigade more than likely won't see the end game but they will if they open their eyes even a little bit be able to see the change coming, in fact, if they started looking now they would see it has already begun.

frantic
5th January 2016, 06:24 PM
Interesting that the article that Frantic has linked to talks about what is expected to happen by 2015 when it was supposedly written in 2015. Most of what he writes is fairly old recycled material from other people's articles that he has come to conclusions about and then glued together in to his own article.

The one thing he completely ignores in his writings is that lithium-ion batterys are just about completely recyclable and can be recycled time and time again.

Having said that just like with every technology sooner or later something else comes along when it becomes economically viable to change. 200 years ago most houses in Europe used whale oil for lighting, that need killed off most of the worlds whales so then there was a need to find a different technology which lead to the introduction of firstly coal gas lighting and then when there wasn't enough supply of that in some places eventually electricity.

Throughout history this is what man has done when required.

If you look back ten years ago the experts were saying Oil was meant to commercially run out in the next twenty years now they are saying there is enough commercial reserves for another fifty plus years. Eventually oil will run out and other affordable forms of energy will be needed, but long before it does run out worries about things like global warming and air quality etc will cause politicians around the world to change direction on how personal transport and other high energy users are supplied with affordable electricity.

As I said I'm no greenie at all and never have been, but I am a pramatic realist and it doesn't take to much grey matter to see where this is all going. Will it happen in the next five years like some think? No but it will happen in most of our lifetimes, the often older flat earth brigade more than likely won't see the end game but they will if they open their eyes even a little bit be able to see the change coming, in fact, if they started looking now they would see it has already begun.

I think the recycling of lithium batteries has been covered elsewhere, in that its cheaper, 4-6 times on current prices, to mine and make new batteries as a electric/hybrid only carries about 10-12 kg out of a battery pack weighing in the hundreds. You cannot ship them in bulk as the older and more damaged they are, the more chance they will go up in a ball of fire as they cause a chain reaction if not packed correctly. Look into the airfreight rules/incidents of a majority of plane couriers to see the issues.

vnx205
5th January 2016, 07:07 PM
Something I learned tonight that is almost related to some of the threads in this post is that there is an electric vehicle in the Dakar Rally. I believe this isn't the first year there has been an electric vehicle.

I realise they are carrying a bigger battery pack than you would expect in a commuter vehicle, but it seems to me that the Dakar would be a fairly serious test.

JDNSW
5th January 2016, 07:14 PM
One of the things most people seem to be unaware of is that while in theory, there is a finite supply of any raw material, in reality, this is vastly greater than "the known reserves" which is the figure these predictions are almost invariably based on.

No rational mining company is going to put money into exploration to deliberately extend reserves beyond perhaps ten years at current rates of production, and further, the "reserves" are highly dependent on price of the mineral.

A good example of this is in the oil industry. High prices over the last few years have resulted in a lot of reserves becoming available for production - and as these have come into production, prices have fallen. Same with iron ore and coal.

And while lithium mines are rare, this largely reflects the demand for the product, as lithium is one of the common elements in the earth's crust.

Rare earths are somewhat different. While not spectacularly rare, they are very difficult and expensive to extract from the ores. Incidentally, there is a rare earth mine progressing towards production near Dubbo, but it probably needs increased world demand to actually start production. The number of hoops they have had to jump through over the last ten years is mind-boggling.

John

rick130
5th January 2016, 09:37 PM
Getting back on topic. :D

U.S. Authorities Sue Volkswagen Over Emissions-Cheating Software (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/us-authorities-sue-volkswagen-over-emissions-cheating-software_568ab81ce4b06fa68882fba6)

spudfan
7th January 2016, 04:04 AM
Could get expensive....
VW faces billions in fines as U.S. sues for environmental violations | Reuters (http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-volkswagen-usa-idUKKBN0UI1TN20160105)

frantic
11th January 2016, 12:37 PM
Let the arse covering begin!

Volkswagen irks Dieselgate investigators (http://www.carpoint.com.au/news/2016/volkswagen/volkswagen-irks-dieselgate-investigators-100835)

So now supposedly they can't release any emails on the subject as it's against German law.
Obviously it was as vw said, 6 engineers all,on their Lonesome who ordered 11 million ecu's. ;)

p38arover
11th January 2016, 04:30 PM
According the NRMA magazine, Open Road, the NRMA has had to defer it's Australia's Best Cars 2015 because they've had to drop VW, Audi, and Skoda from the contenders and to start again.

Slunnie
11th January 2016, 08:14 PM
According the NRMA magazine, Open Road, the NRMA has had to defer it's Australia's Best Cars 2015 because they've had to drop VW, Audi, and Skoda from the contenders and to start again.
That's interesting, because they still meet their own criteria.

AndyG
15th January 2016, 09:18 AM
Nocookies | The Australian (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/the-times/volkswagen-beats-pollution-tests-without-cheating/news-story/a1dd041ff9954462c4a17a5cf5fe8a7c)

I wonder what tests NRMA will rely on in its judging, if any

Eevo
15th January 2016, 01:34 PM
Nocookies | The Australian (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/the-times/volkswagen-beats-pollution-tests-without-cheating/news-story/a1dd041ff9954462c4a17a5cf5fe8a7c)

I wonder what tests NRMA will rely on in its judging, if any

behind a paywall, cant see a thing

cuppabillytea
16th January 2016, 01:42 PM
behind a paywall, cant see a thing
Should have gone to Spec Savers. :wasntme:

Slunnie
16th January 2016, 01:54 PM
Should have gone to Spec Savers. :wasntme:
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2016/01/406.jpg

cuppabillytea
16th January 2016, 02:03 PM
:lol2: Then I saw the Claret :eek:

AndyG
16th January 2016, 02:21 PM
behind a paywall, cant see a thing

Had to get off my arse,
get a beer
turn on PC
crack beer
tappty tap

They are the motor industry?s most awkward success. Some new diesel cars, including Volkswagens, are passing the EU?s toughest emissions tests with flying colours.

For VW, whose latest diesel cars have emerged as the cleanest of those tested, the findings suggest the destruction of the firm?s reputation in the ?defeat device? scandal was pointless. The results suggest VW has the technical capability to produce low-emission cars without cheating.

It comes as carmakers spend millions of dollars lobbying the EU for new vehicles to be allowed to emit more than double the current limit of 0.08 grams of nitrogen *oxides (NOx) per kilometre. European parliamentarians are due to vote on this measure shortly, so the finding that some carmakers are already meeting the standard will undermine industry claims that they need years to build cars that comply.

The results are emerging from a new wave of road tests carried out across Europe after the VW scandal, in which the company admitted fitting millions of cars, including Audi, Seat, Skoda and Porsche models, with software that could detect when a car was being tested and artificially reduce emissions.

One British firm, Emissions Analytics, has fitted more than 1000 cars with monitoring systems that measure the greenhouse gases emitted in road driving.

Such tests are far more challenging for pollution suppression systems than the gentle, laboratory-based measurements used to approve cars officially for road use.

Nick Molden of Emissions Analytics says he had tested 200 diesel cars, many of them built under euro 6, the EU?s latest and toughest emissions standard. Of these, the Audi A4, A5 and A6 Ultra models were the cleanest, along with a VW Golf TDI and a BMW 320d, all emitting under the EU maximum.

?There is a wide range of performances, with some marques producing consistently low emissions and, at the other end of the spectrum, some being very high, with 10 times the EU NOx maximum,? Molden says.

Emissions Analytics is setting up Europe?s first public ratings scheme for diesel vehicles, making pollutant emission data publicly available. ?It means consumers can choose cleaner cars and policymakers can find out which marques and models to target for enforcement action or excluding from city centres,? Molden says.

A test for a German car magazine Fiat?s 500X 1.6 Multijet emitted about 9.5 times more NOx when on roads. Fiat says road tests were unreliable: ?Emissions measurements on road tests are highly subjective, influenced by many factors and not repeatable,? a spokeswoman says. But VW welcomed the tests, saying it reflected engineering improvements such as the addition of a ?lean NOx trap? that destroys the oxides.

The findings will fuel debate in the European parliament where MEPs have been angered by industry proposals, backed by Britain, to introduce ?conformity factors? into the emissions limits. This means the maximum emissions permitted would be multiplied by a figure reflecting the difficulty for manufacturers of adjusting to the new limits.

The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders says conformity factors ?would overcome problems in calibrating equipment?.

The motor industry is fighting proposals to make its kilometres-per-litre claims for new vehicles more accurate. Consumer organisations such as the UK?s Which? have repeatedly criticised the industry for inflating the mpg figures ? leaving motorists facing hundreds of dollars a year in unexpected fuel bills. However, the European carmakers? association, ACEA, says it needs at least five years to make improvements.

The Sunday Times

why does lean NOx trap sound like EGR valve to me :confused:

Slunnie
16th January 2016, 02:47 PM
I think in that is also the difference between manufacturers who have improved their engines through efficient design of the engine - I think VW are one of those and it can be seen by how incredibly easy they are to do performance upgrades to and how little fuel they use. I would say there is not a lot between these motors now and one that has been prepared. Others on the other hand I think are not designed as well and they rely on various settings to achieve their targets and in the process make less power, more pollution and use more fuel - these will be the ones who are worried about new standards as they will need to redesign their motors and upgrade their manufacturing processes to comply.

An example. Compare a Subaru WRX motor to one from a GolfR/AudiS3.

rick130
16th January 2016, 02:49 PM
:lol2: Then I saw the Claret :eek:


Coolant.


(I hope.....)

Toxic_Avenger
16th January 2016, 03:00 PM
Coolant.


(I hope.....)

Or auto transmission fluid

Eevo
16th January 2016, 03:07 PM
body fluids

Slunnie
16th January 2016, 03:18 PM
:lol2: Then I saw the Claret :eek:
The Claret!

https://www.facebook.com/bonnie.riach/posts/1256956210987701

grey_ghost
9th February 2016, 02:37 PM
For those of you interested, I just received this email from VW:

Dear XXX,
Your: Tiguan

In December 2015 we wrote to you in relation to diesel engine emission software issues. I am pleased to confirm that the recall campaign is nearing commencement in Australia, which will see the implementation of a software upgrade to the diesel vehicles in Australia that are impacted.

Due to the number of variants of engine management software there will be a phased release of the technical solution. The first vehicle to have the technical solution installed is the Volkswagen Amarok. We will be contacting Amarok customers soon with more information.

It is anticipated the recall date for other affected 2.0 litre diesel engines to commence in March 2016 and for affected 1.6 litre diesel engines it will be in the second half of 2016.

This work will be carried out at no cost to customers.

The time to complete the work is expected to be under an hour, although the vehicles may be required for a little longer. When booking in your vehicle your Dealer will be able to advise the anticipated time required and discuss your transport needs during the service work being completed.

When the recall commences for your vehicle we will contact you, and invite you to make an appointment with your chosen Volkswagen Dealer.

For further information please visit our dedicated information website Volkswagen Australia Diesel Emissions News & Information (http://www.volkswagendieselinfo.com.au).

Regards

Jason Bradshaw ? Director of Customer Experience
Volkswagen Australia

Interestingly - I didn't think that the Amarok had an issue, although I stopped reading about this issue a while back because I sold my VW... :angel:

Cheers,
GG.

PhilipA
9th February 2016, 03:10 PM
Funny, It has been known for Oh 20 years that MAFS need at least 30CM of straight tube and or a flow diffuser to ensure that the sampled air has an accurate homogeneity with the total air flow through the MAF. Even a 1991 RRC has a grid to homogenise the airflow.

Maybe they were trying so cut the cost a bit.
Regards Philip A

Toxic_Avenger
24th November 2016, 01:12 PM
Reuters (amongst others) reports that:

Volkswagen ... would drop diesel vehicles in the United States and refocus on sport utility and electric vehicles, as the automaker looks to reboot strategy for its core brand in the Americas in the wake of a damaging diesel emissions cheating scandal.
The move, announced by VW brand chief Herbert Diess, breaks with earlier suggestions it could return to the once-popular technology after the emissions scandal fades from memory.

Reuters link (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-volkswagen-strategy-idUSKBN13H0OE)

Slunnie
24th November 2016, 03:03 PM
Reuters (amongst others) reports that:

Volkswagen ... would drop diesel vehicles in the United States and refocus on sport utility and electric vehicles, as the automaker looks to reboot strategy for its core brand in the Americas in the wake of a damaging diesel emissions cheating scandal.
The move, announced by VW brand chief Herbert Diess, breaks with earlier suggestions it could return to the once-popular technology after the emissions scandal fades from memory.

Reuters link (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-volkswagen-strategy-idUSKBN13H0OE)
US's loss.

BMKal
24th November 2016, 07:09 PM
Meanwhile, the V6 diesel Amarok has just become available in Australia. I'm waiting for the local dealership to get one in so that I can test drive it. Reports I've read so far are very promising. ;)

Slunnie
24th November 2016, 07:18 PM
Meanwhile, the V6 diesel Amarok has just become available in Australia. I'm waiting for the local dealership to get one in so that I can test drive it. Reports I've read so far are very promising. ;)
If that's the same 3 litre TDV6 motor as whats in the Audi Q5, you will absolutely love it!

BMKal
24th November 2016, 08:53 PM
If that's the same 3 litre TDV6 motor as whats in the Audi Q5, you will absolutely love it!

I assume it's the same as the Q5. From the write-up in Mr4X4's page, same engine as the Q7 and Porsche Cayenne, but with a few mods such as larger capacity steel sump (others have aluminium), modified pistons for the type of work expected of the engine, and it has a dipstick where the upmarket models don't.

My young bloke has the 2.0 litre Amarok and we're all very impressed with that. More grunt can only be better. :D

frantic
25th November 2016, 07:48 AM
There is also rumours of a 7 seat wagon version to arrive next year, same as Colorado/MIX 4tuner Everest designs. LR really need to move the defender replacement along and learn from others wins and losses.
For example most people say the rok is better than the hilux dmax Navarro and triton,(depending upon person is equal to a ranga) but it sells way less. The main reason is perception of undersized engine. LR should offer 2 engines both smaller 4 and either a larger capacity 5 or 6cyl as well as a petrol engine for USA.

cripesamighty
28th November 2016, 03:47 PM
I'm all for that, just so long as it is mechanically more reliable than the Amaroks. I was talking to a VW mechanic a while ago and he said none of the guys he worked with would ever buy one....

BMKal
28th November 2016, 08:45 PM
I'm all for that, just so long as it is mechanically more reliable than the Amaroks. I was talking to a VW mechanic a while ago and he said none of the guys he worked with would ever buy one....

Funny that ................. I know quite a few people with Amaroks, including my son (who is a diesel mechanic). I have yet to hear of anyone having any mechanical problems with them. ;)

Blknight.aus
28th November 2016, 09:18 PM
Funny that ................. I know quite a few people with Amaroks, including my son (who is a diesel mechanic). I have yet to hear of anyone having any mechanical problems with them. ;)

Its more to do with sympathy towards our mates...

IF you dont want to do it yourself would you expect someone else to want to...

cripesamighty
29th November 2016, 12:23 AM
The VW mechanic I talk to at least a couple of times a week has had several Amaroks in his workshop with engines that grenaded themselves around 70-80,000kms due to the damage caused by timing belt failures. He said it's a not infrequent problem and from memory VW ended up changing the design of the timing belt cover to mitigate it. Will ask him for more details tomorrow.

Another car that ended up in the workshop had all sorts of electrical issues from new that still hadn't been sorted after the warranty expired. The owner ended up selling his Amarok, bought a new 2.8L Hilux and promptly rolled it. Oh, what a feeling....


Edit: Just did a quick search online and yep, they introduced a new timing cover. Also found some horror stories, but that's usual for most types of car online.
http://australiancar.reviews/reviews.php#!content=recalls&make=Volkswagen&model=Amarok&gen=926

Edit 2: A little closer to home. http://www.aulro.com/afvb/american-manufactured/186952-amarok-failure-80k-complete-destruction.html

Redback
29th November 2016, 07:25 AM
The VW mechanic I talk to at least a couple of times a week has had several Amaroks in his workshop with engines that grenaded themselves around 70-80,000kms due to the damage caused by timing belt failures. He said it's a not infrequent problem and from memory VW ended up changing the design of the timing belt cover to mitigate it. Will ask him for more details tomorrow.

Another car that ended up in the workshop had all sorts of electrical issues from new that still hadn't been sorted after the warranty expired. The owner ended up selling his Amarok, bought a new 2.8L Hilux and promptly rolled it. Oh, what a feeling....


Edit: Just did a quick search online and yep, they introduced a new timing cover. Also found some horror stories, but that's usual for most types of car online.
AustralianCar.Reviews: #1 for Reviews and Used Car Valuations (http://australiancar.reviews/reviews.php#!content=recalls&make=Volkswagen&model=Amarok&gen=926)

Edit 2: A little closer to home. http://www.aulro.com/afvb/american-manufactured/186952-amarok-failure-80k-complete-destruction.html

That's only the first model, VW fit the updated timing cover under warranty, our's was done 2yrs ago, the other issue on the first model was the throwout bearing, again fixed under warranty, the throwout bearing is the only issue we have had with our Amarok, it went at 34,000ks, it's now got 150,000ks up and going strong.

We love our Rok, lovely to drive, quiet, smooth, oodles of torque, much much better to drive than the Ranger, Triton or Colarado(we have these at work) I must say though, the Ranger interior is a bit better looking though, but apart from that, doesn't even come close.

PAT303
29th November 2016, 06:05 PM
The VW mechanic I talk to at least a couple of times a week has had several Amaroks in his workshop with engines that grenaded themselves around 70-80,000kms due to the damage caused by timing belt failures. He said it's a not infrequent problem and from memory VW ended up changing the design of the timing belt cover to mitigate it. Will ask him for more details tomorrow.

Another car that ended up in the workshop had all sorts of electrical issues from new that still hadn't been sorted after the warranty expired. The owner ended up selling his Amarok, bought a new 2.8L Hilux and promptly rolled it. Oh, what a feeling....


Edit: Just did a quick search online and yep, they introduced a new timing cover. Also found some horror stories, but that's usual for most types of car online.
AustralianCar.Reviews: #1 for Reviews and Used Car Valuations (http://australiancar.reviews/reviews.php#!content=recalls&make=Volkswagen&model=Amarok&gen=926)

Edit 2: A little closer to home. http://www.aulro.com/afvb/american-manufactured/186952-amarok-failure-80k-complete-destruction.html
So the same as LR then?,the 300 Tdi had half a dozen upgrades for the timing gear. Pat

cripesamighty
29th November 2016, 09:33 PM
Certainly sounds like a Land Rover doesn't it! I'm sure they will sort it out, if they haven't already.

Overheard the same mechanic today talking to a friend of his who owns another workshop. They had 5 Amaroks in the last 2 months with blown turbos. All were 2015 models and some widget has been leaking inside the engine where the leak can't be seen and it affected the turbos. I didn't hear what the widget was but it might be a bad component batch if the failures are all the same model year. Unfortunately two of those vehicles came from the same company and the owner was not happy.

He also had a Hilux in there today which hadn't been serviced in over 5 years. The owner wanted to know why it would be making funny noises....