Thread: VW caught by the Yanks for breaking emission laws

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

Originally Posted by frantic

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...al_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

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!

Originally Posted by PAT303

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.

Originally Posted by Sitec

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

Originally Posted by JDNSW

...

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.

Originally Posted by Sitec

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 "?"

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)

Vehicle B in the tests had SCR and was also noncompliant on NOx.