Thread: VW caught by the Yanks for breaking emission laws

Originally Posted by DiscoMick

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

Originally Posted by JDNSW

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) to clean the exhaust

John

Health | Nitrogen Dioxide | US EPA
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
BMW around 50 mpg old money:The BMW X5 - Luxury 4 Wheel Drive Cars by BMW - BMW Australia
All the new landies will have adblue as well, probably the new defender.
Euro 6 Compliance - Ownership - Land Rover

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

Originally Posted by DiscoMick

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

Originally Posted by JDNSW

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 . Pat

This been posted on here yet?

http://www.industrytap.com/worlds-15...the-world/8182

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

Pricey

Originally Posted by JDNSW

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.

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.