Thread: VW caught by the Yanks for breaking emission laws

Originally Posted by Eevo

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

It balances them, not negate.

Originally Posted by frantic

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.

Originally Posted by Eevo

more fuel consumption mean more emissions.

No and yes.
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.

Originally Posted by frantic

No and yes.
Yes more co2 but not necessarily Nox

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

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

Originally Posted by frantic

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"

Originally Posted by JDNSW

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

Originally Posted by DiscoMick

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?