VW ... Rumours starting already ...

[BillyJim]

That's only what petrol cars are emission tested on. Diesels it's just smoke, ATM.

True. I stand humbly corrected. But my point remains the same - affected cars in the UK, if any, aren't going to suddenly fail MOTs or face higher VED rates as a result of the NOx emissions.

What the VW scandal does do is offer all the ammunition the anti-diesel lobbyists could ever want to restricting/banning use of diesel cars per se.

[Tesla]

After more research. There are other Euro 6 diesels which do not use Adblue and instead utilise "NOx traps". So perhaps this is how the 2.0tdi 150bhp passes Euro6. Unsure why the 4x4 version has adblue though, perhaps as it'll be more popular in a specific market where adblue is essential/tighter emissions rules?

One article did suggest NOx traps are only workable for low capacity engines, unsure if a 2.0 150ps would be considered that or not.

[Tesla]

...Notably, Volvo have some Euro 6 NOx trap engines.

[chadlington]

After more research. There are other Euro 6 diesels which do not use Adblue and instead utilise "NOx traps". So perhaps this is how the 2.0tdi 150bhp passes Euro6. Unsure why the 4x4 version has adblue though, perhaps as it'll be more popular in a specific market where adblue is essential/tighter emissions rules?

One article did suggest NOx traps are only workable for low capacity engines, unsure if a 2.0 150ps would be considered that or not.

 

My thinking was: I assume more emissions occur when the engine produces more power. The 4x4 150bhp must user more energy in driving 2 extra wheels and is heavier due to the driveshaft and differential rear axle. if the "work" is the same (i.e. to maintain the same forward force as the non-4x4 version, it must use more energy to do this same work due to these factors. And more energy = more emissions. So my theory is that the 4x4 150bhp Superb is that much more "dirty" for the same effort as the non-4x4 version and therefore the diesel particulate filter and exhaust gas recirculation alone are not enough to reduce the emissions to euro6 levels any more - therefore needing the SCR (AdBlue) system on top. I think a NOx trap and a DPF are the same?

[FelisBengalensis]

Just announced:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34377443

[Nick_H]

More media frenzy on the horizon then ...

[muddyboots]

My thinking was: I assume more emissions occur when the engine produces more power. The 4x4 150bhp must user more energy in driving 2 extra wheels and is heavier due to the driveshaft and differential rear axle. if the "work" is the same (i.e. to maintain the same forward force as the non-4x4 version, it must use more energy to do this same work due to these factors. And more energy = more emissions. So my theory is that the 4x4 150bhp Superb is that much more "dirty" for the same effort as the non-4x4 version and therefore the diesel particulate filter and exhaust gas recirculation alone are not enough to reduce the emissions to euro6 levels any more - therefore needing the SCR (AdBlue) system on top. I think a NOx trap and a DPF are the same?

That was my thinking too.

[Kilowatt]

But if you use let's say twice the energy of the NDEC cycle , and the emissions get 80 times higher than what Euro6 allows  then there's a problem somewhere. Most likely there was some kind of cheating when the car was certified based on the NDEC cycle. 

 

NOx trap (or LNT) is a "trap" using zeolith. It has nothing to do with the DFP. The technology using ad-blue is called selective catalytic reduction (SCR). 

Edited 28 September, 2015 by Kilowatt

[l4wrence]

Smug 280 buyers stick your hands up in the air Seriously though, there's too little info yet to be knicker twisting. We'll all be laughing about this 6 months down the line, seriously!

[chadlington]

But if you use let's say twice the energy of the NDEC cycle , and the emissions get 80 times higher than what Euro6 allows  then there's a problem somewhere. Most likely there was some kind of cheating when the car was certified based on the NDEC cycle. 

 

NOx trap (or LNT) is a "trap" using zeolith. It has nothing to do with the DFP. The technology using ad-blue is called selective catalytic reduction (SCR). 

 

Thanks Kw!

[Gromle]

My thinking was: I assume more emissions occur when the engine produces more power. The 4x4 150bhp must user more energy in driving 2 extra wheels and is heavier due to the driveshaft and differential rear axle. if the "work" is the same (i.e. to maintain the same forward force as the non-4x4 version, it must use more energy to do this same work due to these factors. And more energy = more emissions. So my theory is that the 4x4 150bhp Superb is that much more "dirty" for the same effort as the non-4x4 version and therefore the diesel particulate filter and exhaust gas recirculation alone are not enough to reduce the emissions to euro6 levels any more - therefore needing the SCR (AdBlue) system on top. I think a NOx trap and a DPF are the same?

I dont think this is how it works.

On the Norwegian pricelist nox emission is stated.

The 1.6 diesel with dsg is actually the one with highest nox emission (168.4mg).

And the one with lowest is the 184bhp 4x4 Dsg with 64.8mg. And to compare, the vRS TDI DSG has a nox emission of 148mg.

These numbers are from the MY15 pricelist for the Octy.

[Didorx]

http://uk.mobile.reuters.com/article/idUKKCN0RU0WR20150930?irpc=932

"Czech Skoda Auto expects to find fix for diesel engines by end-Oct"

Edited 30 September, 2015 by Didorx

[Tony R]

This V A G scandal has  brought about  the general discussion  re the acceptability of diesels in general, which will give various authorities the excuse to clobber diesels however they can. We have seen already one London Borough whacking on a great surcharge on Parking Permits ( Islington ) and no doubt other London Boroughs will follow suit. And there is general discussion not only on a national UK basis but  also several countries in Europe, France/Paris and Italy in particular, banning diesels. Germany started to speak out against but  may well keep quiet now when their major motor  manufacturer is a risk, which it is. V A G certainly won't continue as it is or has been, it may become a " has been " ? I had more or less made upmy mind to switch to petrol, the TSI 150 ACT, but having read/learned more re V A G's various balls ups  in so many ways, I am now extremely sceptical re their ability with an engine that shuts down/ brings back in, half it's cylinders. On another thread yesterday was a link re the dsg gearbox, with a video of an engineer taking one apart. The complication of that box put me off that as well. That one was the 7 speed version, so whether that one alone is suspect/ extra complicated I do not know, but there  certainly is much scope for things to go wrong and the cost of putting it  right would not be in the hundreds of pounds. Whoever designed it was a genius but  geniuses can be a tad off-beam sometimes.

[Nick_H]

I think vag will continue exactly as it has.... What do you think is going to happen ?

[chadlington]

I think this will be the kind of reboot that Microsoft had as a result of anti-trust, or the windows engineering team got when sustained engineering split from development after some major security flaws were exposed. Give it a few years and VW will be recognised for great cars with great engines and whilst there'll always be a faction of critics to keep them on their toes, folks will begrudgingly accept they turned it around. That's what I think is going to happen.

[thewinelake]

This all makes me feel relieved that I'm on a lease and only 2 years...

[Superb170]

I think ultimately it will be a level playing field with other manufacturers probably in the same position with their emissions technology. It don't believe it was just VAG so in terms of resale values etc I don't think there will be any major damage done to VAG.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[DanJayUK]

It's definitely not a level playing field.  This is VAG cheating a USA test and facing the consequences for having been caught doing so.  Few other manufacturers bother with light diesel vehicles in America and the US regs on NOx are significantly high to make getting them through hard work.  Someone should probably have asked the difficult question sooner as to how VAG managed to make their cars pass the more recent tests without urea injection when it was considered impossible by everyone else at the time.  As you know what they did was to add in software recognition that knew when the car was being tested and switched ECU maps.  In this state the car would've used significantly more fuel and likely been very unresponsive to drive.  No matter though, it was just for passing that test.  The software had to be on each and every car as well as the US pull cars randomly.

As an aside, any rubbish about this being 'rogue engineers' or one or two individuals that VW may have alluded to so far is utter rubbish.  Whilst some of you won't have worked in these kind of large corporate and highly regulated environments (I'm talking more management than anything else) to have had a team of engineers completely re-engineer a car's ECU mapping with all the time, effort and testing (having to recreate the US test beds amongst other things to ensure the car will pass the test when subject to it etc) that would take would've taken a significant investment of time and money - millions in whatever currency you pick.  It would've taken probably months worth of effort across numerous departments in VW.  That requires internal funding signed off up to pretty high levels.  Whilst the board probably weren't aware (but were only too happy to pat someone a grade or two down and give them a massive bonus for miraculously getting the cars to pass the US emissions tests) plenty of others will have been.  Someone made the decision it was worth the risk and cost over actually having to make the cars pass the tests via urea emission (which the original platforms and engines weren't designed for at the time).  A decision that is going to become rather costly one would think.  I imagine people will be paid off quietly and made scapegoats though to save some of the senior staff there - though be interesting to see given Wolfsburg offices have been raided now and communications data subpoenaed.

 

So... If you are in the US and bought your car (as opposed to leasing) it's going to be as good as worthless.  Also when VW recall the car (as they are being forced to) it is going to arrive back with you running like a dog and using more fuel.  Hence there are going to be lawsuits fired at VW left right and centre out there.  There's a possibility other marques such as BMW may sue also given VAG have effectively shut down the diesel car market in the US now.  Germany has now also said there must be a mandatory recall of vehicles by VAG.  That is not going to be well received and opens up potential lawsuits out in Germany for people who are not happy with how their cars drive when they get them back.  The best thing you could do in the UK is just ignore it.  If you take your car in for rectification work and it comes back worse that it went in you can't have this undone again.  People will soon realise this once VAG starts doing the correction work and will likely refuse to do it I would imagine as it will make their own cars unsalable.

 

In Europe, out governments have been obsessed with CO2 emissions and this is been what has encouraged the significant percentage of diesel cars on the road that we have today.  The tests used in Europe (which are laughably conducted by the manufacturers) focus on CO2 output over a very specific cycle.  NOx is much more easily passed.  All cars made by all manufacturers are tuned for this cycle and that is how their ECU is set up.  This is why cars often have dead spots at certain points in the rev range or odd gearing.  Or do other strange things like have auto 'boxes that seem to change at the wrong times etc.  This IS a level playing field - the manufacturers are always trying to get figures lower by manipulating that system but they're all doing it.  If nothing else it provides you with a consistent way of measuring vehicles against each other - even if it is flawed on virtually every level.  VW's cars very specifically CHANGED their program when under test - and that is what the huge backlash is about.  The fact this software is on cars all over the globe is irrelevant - it runs on its original program normally and was designed to recognise US testing cycles, so was never in play for the EU ones.

 

VW now have very deep pockets and significant funds to fall back on.  What this will do is hopefully give them a massive wake up call and cause them to behave better in the future.  They are going to have massive bills to pay - both legal, rectification and compensation - but it's very unlikely to have any real effect on anything they will do or build in the future.  If you see SEAT sold off or shut down in the next year or so this will be a convenient source of blame for it but it will have happened anyway.

 

So.  In summary I'd say read what Chadlington has said as that is probably right.  I should add it's certainly not putting me off seriously contemplating a new Superb!

 

A petrol one I might add

[Sagalout]

I have one question. If what you are suggesting is true why on earth would VW spend money on 'fixes' that don't provide a comparable/acceptable data set? That would seem to me to be plain and straighforward stupidity. OK they have proven that they can be stupid but no reason to say they are doing so again.

 

If, as again you suggest, it is clear to anyone with an ounce of intelligence that performance will suffer and that claims will result in full compensation then why dont VW see it that way? I just cannot see the corporate giant not having considered that fact in its recovery plan. So no walkover in my book.

 

Does anyone on here know, based on technical data from VAG, exactly what the fixes are, why they are being done that way and what the predicted deviations will be pre and post mods or are we just second guessing?

[DanJayUK]

I have one question. If what you are suggesting is true why on earth would VW spend money on 'fixes' that don't provide a comparable/acceptable data set? That would seem to me to be plain and straighforward stupidity. OK they have proven that they can be stupid but no reason to say they are doing so again.

 

Because they don't have a choice.  Both US and German regulatory bodies have demanded they resolve the matter else face even higher punitive penalties and government bodies from other countries may follow suit.

 

 

If, as again you suggest, it is clear to anyone with an ounce of intelligence that performance will suffer and that claims will result in full compensation then why dont VW see it that way? I just cannot see the corporate giant not having considered that fact in its recovery plan. So no walkover in my book.

 

Because again... VW don't have a choice in some markets.

 

The misunderstanding that seems to be commonplace and is being repeatedly reported in the media is that VW are being asked to remove the so called 'cheat software'.  They're not, they're being asked to effectively remove the 'normal' map.  The one the car uses on a day to day basis.  The one you drive with and gives you the performance, driving characteristics and fuel consumption you are used to.  To put it more bluntly the US is saying "make it like it was when it passed the tests".

 

The point is is if it was so easy to pass the emissions rules VW would not have had to resort to the measures they did in the absence of urea exhaust treatment - whilst technology has moved on a little now there still isn't some magic wand that enables an older style diesel engine to drive brilliantly and miraculously have low NOx emissions.  So, VW now needs to produce yet another complete engine remap (which tend not to be standard between different cars - e.g. the ECU map for a 1.6TDI Skoda Octavia may be quite different from that in a 1.6TDI Golf) which whilst it will improve emissions won't completely ruin the car.  My point was if you'd paid say £25k for a new car which you liked to drive that did 45mpg and 0-60 in 8.5 seconds and drove smoothly I think you'd be pretty peeved if it was forcibly recalled then returned doing 35mpg and drove like a dog?  Not in the least as news travels fast and so no one else now wants your car either when you want to sell/part-ex.

 

Currently this is not a recovery plan, whatever VW are telling anyone who will listen - it is a damage limitation exercise being carefully managed by legal advisors who will be working out how best to appease the likes of the US and German regulators without opening itself up to even more litigation.

[cnc]

  Someone should probably have asked the difficult question sooner as to how VAG managed to make their cars pass the more recent tests without urea injection when it was considered impossible by everyone else at the time

 

 

 

 

 

The point is is if it was so easy to pass the emissions rules VW would not have had to resort to the measures they did in the absence of urea exhaust treatment

The VW Passat has been using Adblue in the US since 2012.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1h9hWlvg6sM

[Breezy_Pete]

...The misunderstanding that seems to be commonplace and is being repeatedly reported in the media is that VW are being asked to remove the so called 'cheat software'.  They're not, they're being asked to effectively remove the 'normal' map.  The one the car uses on a day to day basis.  The one you drive with and gives you the performance, driving characteristics and fuel consumption you are used to.  To put it more bluntly the US is saying "make it like it was when it passed the tests"...

Spot on.

[DanJayUK]

The VW Passat has been using Adblue in the US since 2012.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1h9hWlvg6sM

Yes sorry my fault for not going in to even more detail.  The point I was making was that ammonia reduction catalyst should've been fitted to these cars to pass the tests and they weren't capable (for everyday driving conditions) without.  VW had no choice but to fit to some of the larger vehicles (so the Passat as you state and I also believe the Touareg).  The cheat sensing software affected these cars too.

 

Cars without (1.6 and 2.0) the detection remap used significantly more diesel and also heavy EGR reuse to reduce burn temperatures and reduce NOx to a point that would pass the tests.  The car doesn't work like that normally and its fuel consumption wouldn't be acceptable.  It would also block any DPF very quickly.

 

In those with the Adblue treatment fitted when it sensed a test cycle it did similar to the above I believe but also injected huge amounts more urea into the exhaust (we're talking a significant factor over normal use).  So again, while tests were passed if this was normal day to day use the car would be getting through its entire Adblue tank every month or so.  Once again, not acceptable for use.

 

To reiterate, the engines worked completely differently under test conditions and not even closely representative of how they would during normal driving.

 

It shouldn't be forgotten there is a significant political angle to this.  Big US business lobbies the government over absolutely everything that conflicts with its own interests or how it is set up to operate.  The US auto industry has been anti everything that isn't what it was already doing or it saw as a threat - taxes on Japanese cars back in the 60s/70s, import duties for anything not built there, purposeful modifications to what could easily be global safety/engineering standards to ensure everything not made in the US needed some kind of re-engineering for it (for those old enough to remember, witness the rubber bumper years ruining the looks of all manner of Brit and European sports cars).  More recently they've been looking for means that aren't too obvious to exclude all these European diesels that VAG, BMW and Mercedes have been so keen to sell on a USP.  Their own industry is geared up for petrol engines in passenger cars and it doesn't suddenly want its car buying public wanting cars that do 50 instead of 20mpg.  Unfortunately VAG has handed that to them on a plate now - they don't have any large scale manufacturing there and so the US authorities and those lobbying will be one to keen to fine the hell out of them and see this "whole sorry diesel episode" behind them.  Their own industry and also lied and cheated in other areas and gotten away with what you could argue has been much worse (lives lost through dangerous design etc) but punitive punishment there would hurt political donations and US industry.

 

I'm ex-industry and the wife is still in it (though not VAG) so I'm taking a great interest in this.

[Sagalout]

Thank you for the detail. As you appreciate the US is a whole different game and I agree it will be a proper can of worms to sort it out. For one I guess the mods in the US will need to acheive far more than they would over here? However...

 

I think I understand that you are saying that there is no way that VWAG can 'fix' cars, whether by remapping or retro engineering changes, without significant detrimental effects on day to day running? My point is that if that is the case then VWAG must already know that. Assuming they do then what does the board choose to do?

 

If I had one of these vehicles and it was proven to be compromised to the levels you expect then I would be in the queue for redress? It is that obvious isnt it?

 

So why would they spend money producing something that will only result in improving our chances of getting redress? That seems most unlikely to me and was the process point I tried to make rather than challenging any technicalities.

 

Thanks again for your input to this dicussion

 

Pete

[DanJayUK]

If I had one of these vehicles and it was proven to be compromised to the levels you expect then I would be in the queue for redress? It is that obvious isnt it?

 

And you're spot on there!  The US (and Germany too in fact) have so far mandated VAG recall and fix the cars, there is no legal requirement for owners to actually do so.  There are numerous discussions on social media and various forums where many owners are saying exactly that VW can, for want of a better expression, get stuffed if they think they're touching their cars.  That'll actually help VW cost-wise as I'd imagine the take up for fixes will be way, WAY lower than the number of cars out there but they'll be made to pay in other ways...  There will be a minority of individuals who have their cars performance tested before and after any updates and use it as a means to bring class action against VW when they're not the same.  VW also specifically advertised its diesel cars as more environmentally friendly in the US so you've got the contingent there who will sue saying they bought the car on that basis.  The EPA can fine up to about £25k equivalent PER CAR too so it'll be very interesting to see how much they want to hurt VW for this.  Given in the financial services industry non-US banks get massively higher fines than US ones for the same misdemeanours it doesn't bode well.

 

But though it'll hurt, VW can afford it.  The US has fond memories of Beetles and Type II vans and the country does like VW's smaller cars like the Golf and current Beetle so hopefully for them it won't kill them in the US completely.

 

I think it's sadder for the likes of Skoda and SEAT who will have been simply given the engines to deploy in their cars and whose management would've quite possibly had no idea about any of this until it happened.