Thread: VW caught by the Yanks for breaking emission laws

Originally Posted by Tombie

Fix the second quote - it wasn't me

very observant, the second quote wasnt you, it was discomick no need to fix it.

Originally Posted by DiscoMick

I wouldn't argue with you about the other issues you mentioned, but I don't think they are as clear as deliberate lying.
Saying that your vehicle meets an emissions standard, and then admitting it doesn't, is very clear-cut.

Don't forget its not just the government they've lied to, they've also lied to their 91,000 customers too by selling them something which we now know didn't meet the required standards for being roadworthy. We almost bought a Polo (before deciding on the Mazda 2) - we assumed the Polo met all required standards in Australia. Now we know it wouldn't have, so VW lied to us.

How many Japanese vehicles do you see WITHOUT suspension upgrades?,the manufacturers say the vehicles can carry X load or tow X amount but they know the vehicles can't,that is very clear-cut and is no different to what VW did.Lastly the Oz vehicles do meet Oz standards,they don't meet Californian standards which are only relevant in California. Pat

Is part of the problem that manufacturer claims, and not only vehicles are accepted on face value and not tested, even randomly. For example dodgy electrical cable and fascia material.

It would be interesting to see some double cabs loaded to the max pass the same tests a modified vehicle goes through.

How many Japanese vehicles do you see WITHOUT suspension upgrades?,

I think maybe this could have the words "privately owned" added.

I would think that 100% of company vehicles and rental vehicles are stock, and they usually do the job they are designed for. And that is probably the majority of them on the road.

Altered suspension is often a fashion accessory .

I will be interested to see when the first car magazine or journalist tests a reprogrammed VW against a fiddled one to see what the effect of the changes are.
Will it be slower? Will it use more fuel?

If the US figures of 40 TIMES the allowed NOx are true then it is hard to see how the engines could meet Euro 4 Vs 5.

It seems this all stems from VW arrogance and unwillingness to buy the Mercedes technology.

All the journos should be embarrassed by all their adoration of VW performance and criticism of the "low outputs " of Japanese diesels. He who laughs last laughs longest.
Regards Philip A

it doesnt take much to blow the Oxides of Nitrogen figures around.

just as an exmple dropping the total amount of fuel but injecting it earlier will change it but doing that costs HP and torque (there are other things that you can play with as well like the EGR settings). Excusing oversimplification, Dropping power to favor emissions in a test environment that doesn't factor an "X amount of Y per HP Per Z of GVM" just a "must only produce X amount of Y per Liter of engine displacement" while operating under operating condition set G isnt going to be noticed. It'd be a stretch but I reckon you could just about tweak and aftercare a tdi300 or isuzu 4bd1 to pass the static tests the yanks use But I wouldn't want to be driving it in that configuration.

With the cheat device, the VW's met the emissions target claims didn't they? But these are just not achieved on the road?

Most manufacturers have fuel consumption claims that seem to be unachievable except in test conditions don't they?

VW are not so different.

At least they are one of the few companies that publish performance figures that can be matched by anybody on any day in any of their cars which is unlike most. I've seen numerous tests where even on a cool day with a rubbered up track numerous manufacturers cant get cars anywhere near claimed 0-100's and 400m times.

The thing is VWs still give fantastic fuel consumption don't they? My daughters Polo gets about 5.5 i think, over 40 mpg.

That's the real world benefit, less fuel consumption means less pollution.
Look at the "combined cycle" urban and highway fuel consumption for most of the modern diesel cars. Its between 5-7.5 l /100 kms. ( 38 to 56 miles per gallon).
Twenty years ago that type of fuel economy was motorcycle country. My estimation is we probably getting 50-60% more miles for every gallon than 20 years ago, a remarkable achievement.

The Americans are indignant but they often drive big pick up trucks with V8 & even V10 engines . If they were really serious about it they would tax cars according to their emmisions. ( guaranteed vote looser)

On the mater of the Australian design rules , its a racket to protect the Australian motor importers and dealers. Are we so arrogant that we think motor maker need to make cars to our rules? There's something special about us? A RHD Mercedes, VW, Pugoet, Toyota needs to be specially modified for us? It's an artificial barrier to free trade in vehicles, that makes our vehicles more expensive.

I had to laugh when i wanted to import my 2001 Vespa PX 200, from Singapore "no can do" doesn't comply with the ADRs.

Like yeh, Piaggio made 5 million of them and sold them in every country in the world, for 40 years, but mine doesn't comply to the ADR.
Same with a RHD Defender, sure landrover make special ones just for Australia.

My Moto guzzi V7 classic astounded the Americans for value, it was in the dealerships for sale at less than 9000 USD. In Australia 14,000 $A, at the time when the aussie dollar was worth more than the USD. How come?

The sooner we adopt a common emission and design rules with other big RHD markets like the UK, Singapore, India, this monopoly can be broken. there'll be no obstical to importing our own vehicles and applying the 10 % GST. Rant over, simmo

Originally Posted by PhilipA

I think maybe this could have the words "privately owned" added.

I would think that 100% of company vehicles and rental vehicles are stock, and they usually do the job they are designed for. And that is probably the majority of them on the road.

Altered suspension is often a fashion accessory .

I will be interested to see when the first car magazine or journalist tests a reprogrammed VW against a fiddled one to see what the effect of the changes are.
Will it be slower? Will it use more fuel?

If the US figures of 40 TIMES the allowed NOx are true then it is hard to see how the engines could meet Euro 4 Vs 5.

It seems this all stems from VW arrogance and unwillingness to buy the Mercedes technology.

All the journos should be embarrassed by all their adoration of VW performance and criticism of the "low outputs " of Japanese diesels. He who laughs last laughs longest.
Regards Philip A

All mine vehicles have the suspension replaced,I've never had one that didn't.Have you got any independently sourced emission figures from ''low output'' Japanese diesels?. Pat