http://bbc.co.uk/news/business-34712435

Is there a scandal, or just 'a problem', which the Volkswagen Group knew nothing about until forced to look,

& if so, what small petrol engines / cars can we speculate are involved.

 

1.0,

1.0 TSI /TFSI,

1.2 TSI /TFSI,

1.4 TSI / TFSI,

1.4 TSI /TFSI Twinchargers,

1.4 TSI ACT / TFSI COD ?

 

CitigoUp!Mii, Fabia Mk2-3, Roomster, Yeti, Octavia, Polo, Golf, Ibiza, Leon, A1, A3, A4 ?

BBC news were saying it's the 1.4 engine but didn't specify which one.

BBC news were saying it's the 1.4 engine but didn't specify which one.

So yet more speculation

I still reckon flash frying Zafiras are bigger hazard than vw emissions issues...

A .........which cars have killed more people ? and B I'm lumbered with a VAG with an unknown future in the px resale world for the next couple of years.

Volkswagen are their own worst enemy in never just clearly saying which vehicles they know are involved.

 

They must know or they can not keep projecting how much it will cost to fix or modify them.

 

Then the Board now are reported as saying 'they regret',  that sounds like The regret being caught, they regret loosing money,

is 'Sorry' the hardest word?, 

 

the likes of 'We are apologize to customers, employees, and anyone suffering losses or greater risk to health because we acted in a corrupt and fraudulent manner'.

http://bbc.co.uk/news/business-34712435

Can of worms with this. How many manufacturers now get accused of building cars to the test with good paper figures and terrible real world consumption?

 

I heard it on the radio this morning and was surpised. I hadn't read too many accusations on here about figures being miles out. I could usually beat the paper figures stated for the TFSI when I had one (35.7 combined, when I sold the car I was averaging over 37).

 

It'll be interesting to see the detail of how they have allegedly fudged these figures. It must be more than the usual test trickery or the whole of the motor industry would be getting looked at.

 

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/11/03/volkswagen_800000_of_our_cars_may_have_cheated_in_co2_tests/

 

[clicky click]

 

 

"A VW spokesman has confirmed that the latest scandal affects Audi, Seat, Skoda and VW cars with what are described as "small" engines. Reports suggest that cars powered by the 1.4-litre four-cylinder petrol engine with Cylinder On Demand technology are affected. Further reports suggest that VW BlueMotion diesel models with three and four-cylinder diesel engines are also affected."

 

http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/industry/vw-emissions-scandal-vw-admits-800000-cars-have-false-co2-and-mpg-certification

Edited 4 November, 201510 yr by Aspman

Next up

 

"Manufacturers lied about MPG figures to sell cars..."

CO₂ emissions and mpg are fundamentally the same thing. How many atoms of carbon are burnt to get you from A to B.

You do not go from A to B on a Rolling Road, you go from the Temperature Controlled Room into the 

next part of the building at the same temperature controlled temp.

and then go from A to A, in a very non 'real world way'.

Nobody Commutes to work from A to B while on a Rolling Road within a Temperature Controlled Building.

(well almost nobody, maybe James Bond (Daniel Craig) does while filming.)

That is Fiction though, make believe, just like the EU Testing. 

 

The Tests are what the EU allowed to be done.  For Comparison reasons,.

If further cheating than that the EU turned a blind eye to was occurring, then many people knew, and were all part of '3 Monnkeys'.

The suspension of belief, and Hear, See & Say no evil.

 

http://skoda.co.uk/pages/fuel-consumption-statement.aspx

 

Did nobody at VW care that the same Engines they built, with the same Gearboxes and Components in a Skoda or Seat were getting higher Emission Figures under EU Tests than the VW or Audi model would achieve and get Certificated with?

4 Brands,  2 Budget Brands owned by VW but vehicles in the Same Class / Size and the Heavier VW / Audi 

can have Lower Emissions, MPG and VED Band.

 

Vorsprung Durch Technik.

Advances in Engineering not required, just cheat the tests even more than others do.

You do not go from A to B on a Rolling Road, you go from the Temperature Controlled Room into the 

next part of the building at the same temperature controlled temp.

and then go from A to A, in a very non 'real world way'.

Nobody Commutes to work from A to B while on a Rolling Road within a Temperature Controlled Building.

(well almost nobody, maybe Daniel Craig does.)

 

The Tests are what the EU allowed to be done.  For Comparison reasons,.

 

 

 

I agree with you on this one...................

 

The main reason it is the ACT versions is they "think" that the engine goes into ACT "cylinder shut down" mode more, not forced by ECU, just the nature of the EU test.................

Not so sure that the non ACT 1.4 TSI 140ps Engine in your Golf Estate really can do 121 g/km other than on a EU Test,

or while undergoing a MOT Test sitting static.

 

It would be interesting to put it on a Dynamic Dyno and take it through the gears and to the red line in gear.

Checking the CO2 while doing so.

You do not go from A to B on a Rolling Road, you go from the Temperature Controlled Room into the 

next part of the building at the same temperature controlled temp.

and then go from A to A, in a very non 'real world way'.

Nobody Commutes to work from A to B while on a Rolling Road within a Temperature Controlled Building.

(well almost nobody, maybe James Bond (Daniel Craig) does while filming.)

That is Fiction though, make believe, just like the EU Testing. 

 

The Tests are what the EU allowed to be done.  For Comparison reasons,.

If further cheating than that the EU turned a blind eye to was occurring, then many people knew, and were all part of '3 Monnkeys'.

The suspension of belief, and Hear, See & Say no evil.

 

http://skoda.co.uk/pages/fuel-consumption-statement.aspx

 

Did nobody at VW care that the same Engines they built, with the same Gearboxes and Components in a Skoda or Seat were getting higher Emission Figures under EU Tests than the VW or Audi model would achieve and get Certificated with?

4 Brands,  2 Budget Brands owned by VW but vehicles in the Same Class / Size and the Heavier VW / Audi 

can have Lower Emissions, MPG and VED Band.

 

Vorsprung Durch Technik.

Advances in Engineering not required, just cheat the tests even more than others do.

All I'm saying is that fiddling CO₂ figures is the same as fiddling mpg figures, the latter are derived from the former.

Not so sure that the non ACT 1.4 TSI 140ps Engine in your Golf Estate really can do 121 g/km other than on a EU Test,

or while undergoing a MOT Test sitting static.

 

It would be interesting to put it on a Dynamic Dyno and take it through the gears and to the red line in gear.

Checking the CO2 while doing so.

 

 

I bet it would..........................

 

 

My 1.4lt 16v 100bhp AUB engine Fabia which was built in 2000 ....& has 170g/km

 

MOT 10th Nov 2014

 

Fast Idle:-

CO:- 0.00% (0.20% allowed)

HC:- 6ppm (200ppm allowed)

 

Natural idle:-

CO:- 0.00% (0.30% allowed)

 

& most of the previous 10yrs are the same....................I did post them up in the main emissions thread near the beginning...............

 

Petrol engines are much harder the falsify the pollutants compared to diesel...........always has been the case...................

 

edited for my bad co & co2 mix up

Edited 4 November, 201510 yr by fabdavrav

Are they checking year 2000 engines,

or is this about 2009 on Euro 5 Emissions and now possibly Euro 6 ones & the EU Testing ?

Are they checking year 2000 engines,

or is this about 2009 on Euro 5 Emissions and now possibly Euro 6 ones & the EU Testing ?

 

No but considering it is a 14yr old engine with an older design with 170g/km & gets such low MOT figures I have every confidence that my way newer designed Euro5 140PS engine will pass on test & in real life the 121g/km.........................

I bet it would..........................

My 1.4lt 16v 100bhp AUB engine Fabia which was built in 2000 ....& has 170g/km

MOT 10th Nov 2014

Fast Idle:-

CO2:- 0.00% (0.20% allowed)

HC:- 6ppm (200ppm allowed)

Natural idle:-

CO2:- 0.00% (0.30% allowed)

& most of the previous 10yrs are the same....................I did post them up in the main emissions thread near the beginning...............

Petrol engines are much harder the falsify the pollutants compared to diesel...........always has been the case...................

It's CO that you're thinking of in that context. Different.

It's CO that you're thinking of in that context. Different.

 

eh???

 

in which context? & in reference to what?....those figures are from my MOT sheets which state CO2...............

Have another look (at your MOT emissions page). CO is tested, and has upper limits, not CO₂.

I have a superb 1.4tsi. I get 40-45 mpg on each tank. Real world and measured at pump. Best ever on a 1 hour run 62!!

40-45mpg equates to 169 - 150 gco2/km

Car logbook says 157g/km

Looks spot on to me.

Have another look (at your MOT emissions page). CO is tested, and has upper limits, not CO₂.

 

doh..............

 

the MOT tests CO (carbon monoxide) which are the by produces on burning any fuel (wood/oil/petrol)

 

the manufactures state CO2 (carbon dioxide) which naturally occurs in the atmosphere & is produced by the scrubbing action of the CAT on the exhaust by products..........

 

 

What gets me is that the MOT test is for both CO & HC for CAT & non-CAT cars.................yet CAT cars produce CO2 & not CO...............purpose of testing for CO must be to check that the CAT is working as it should be & doing it's job!

 

 

Mind you the HC combines with atmospheric oxygen to form water/vapour & CO2..................so very low HC level indicate also low CO2 levels............see.............

Edited 4 November, 201510 yr by fabdavrav

CO₂ emissions and mpg are fundamentally the same thing. How many atoms of carbon are burnt to get you from A to B.

 

A document I found interesting about carbon in diesel and fuel and weights, etc.

 

http://www.ecoscore.be/en/how-calculate-co2-emission-level-fuel-consumption

 

How to calculate the CO2 emission level from the fuel consumption?

 

Diesel:

1 liter of diesel weighs 835 grammes. Diesel consist for 86,2% of carbon, or 720 grammes of carbon per liter diesel. In order to combust this carbon to CO₂, 1920 grammes of oxygen is needed. The sum is then 720 + 1920 = 2640 grammes of CO₂/liter diesel.

An average consumption of 5 liters/100 km then corresponds to 5 l x 2640 g/l / 100 (per km) = 132 g CO₂/km.

Petrol:

1 liter of petrol weighs 750 grammes. Petrol consists for 87% of carbon, or 652 grammes of carbon per liter of petrol. In order to combust this carbon to CO₂, 1740 grammes of oxygen is needed. The sum is then 652 + 1740 = 2392 grammes of CO₂/liter of petrol.

An average consumption of 5 liters/100 km then corresponds to 5 l x 2392 g/l / 100 (per km) = 120 g CO₂/km.

Good find. I haven't been to the link yet, but does it mention how much water gets 'made' in the combustion process too?

 

I did some back-of-the -fag-packet sums once and came up with something in the ballpark of 1Kg of water (steam) created for each 1Kg fuel burnt..

 

The composition of the fuel(s) being such a variable feast, nothing can be really precisely calculated.

Petrol is basically hydrocarbons, quote:-

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/338257/hpa_petrol_toxicological_overview_v2.pdf

 

Petrol is a complex mixture of aliphatic and aromatic hydrocarbons derived from blending

fractions of crude oil with brand-specific additives. The actual composition of petrol will vary

according to the source of crude oil, the manufacturing process and between batches. A

representative composition of European petrol is given at Annex I.

Unless otherwise stated, this document pertains to unleaded petrol and not products of

combustion or individual chemical components (e.g. benzene, toluene, xylene, butadiene,

etc). Vapour concentrations are expressed as ppm and refer to total hydrocarbon present.

However, it should be noted that this conventional measure of concentration introduces a

source of error and should be considered at best an approximation, as the average

molecular weight (on which the calculation of ppm is based) may vary according to

temperature, brand or batch of technical product.

 

http://www.petercoopercarrepairs.co.uk/new_page_2.htm

 

Hydrocarbons

Hydrocarbons in the exhaust system are once again a result of incomplete combustion. It is a measure of unburnt or partially unburnt fuel. It could be translated as a measure of the efficiency of combustion. Under ideal conditions, which are not currently technically possible, this hydrogen combines with the atmospheric oxygen and is emitted as water or water vapour and the carbon combines with the oxygen to form harmless carbon dioxide.

Increased HC levels are not purely dependent on air: fuel ratios, as the CO level, but many other factors, which have an influence, should be taken into consideration. The ignition system plays a big part in HC levels; a modern trend in ignition timing is to advance the ignition to increase engine output. Advancing ignition timing results in lower exhaust gas temperatures, which reduce the after-burning effect of HC’s. Retarding the ignition timing reduces the amount of time available to completely burn the fuel and also results in increased HC levels.

Other factors, which increase HC levels, include; ignition inefficiencies i.e. Misfires, low spark voltage or duration, mechanical condition i.e. Excessive blow-by or low compressions, sticking valve, engine breather faults. Any change from standard spec. I.e. High lift/duration cams, big carburettors, a blocked or restricted exhaust, will all cause an increase in HC levels.

 

 

End quotes.

 

So because it can vary from batch to batch & even brand, so Shell Nitro wil be different because of higher Octane than say chepo supermarket fuel.......so the above calcs posted by lol-lol might not give accurate info for some cases...................................

 

My old MK1 Fabia AUB was designed to run on super unleaded 98ron, which I did so my MOT figure for it etc are what it should be, however most people who bought the car ran it on ordinary 95ron. Therefore it will pollute more along with getting less mpg etc............

 

My current MK7 Golf is designed to run on 95ron but I run it on Shell Nitro 98/99ron, the ECU will adapt & therefore will pollute differently.

The age, maintenance, fuel used, oil in engine, etc, etc, play a part on how the engine pollutes.

 

As I stated above:-

 

The MOT tests CO (carbon monoxide) which are the by-produces on burning any fuel (wood/oil/petrol)

The manufactures state CO2 (carbon dioxide) which naturally occurs in the atmosphere & is produced by the scrubbing action of the CAT on the exhaust by-products..........MOT test is for both CO & HC (hydro carbons) for CAT & non-CAT cars, yet CAT cars produce CO2 & not CO. The purpose of testing for CO is to check that the CAT is working as it should be & doing it's job!

As CO2 is very difficult to test for, so we test HC, which combines with atmospheric oxygen to form water/vapour & CO2...so very low HC level indicate low CO2 levels.......

 

So my 14yr old, so called 170g/km, MK1 Fabia which I got a minimum brim to brim of 38-46mpg (depending on time of year & driving style) over 14yrs on the MOT dated 10th Nov 2014 produced:-

Fast idle

CO:- 0.00% (0.20% Max)

HC:- 6ppm (200ppm Max)

 

Natural idle:-

CO:- 0.00% (0.30% Max)

 

Basically the Fast idle HC (hydrocarbon) content stated on the MOT test is a very good indicator of the true pollutants for CO2, also as the CO content is 0.00% on my car the actual total pollutants is very good......all because I ran & maintained the car, very well, Mobil 1 oils, Shell Nitro, NGK Iridium plugs, Magnacor 8.5mm pro leads..............So a nice well maintained high revving engine with everything to encourage complete burning (combustion process) by using the best spark plugs, best leads etc etc is the best for low pollutants....... 

 

I have been doing this for 20yrs, as I was a bit "eco" minded when younger................thing is I wish some of the stupid people I have had arguments on this forum about the benefits of top end spark plugs, leads etc ...I have been accused of being a "snake oil salesman".............oh well I wonder if they will apologise now???

Edited 6 November, 201510 yr by fabdavrav

"As CO2 is very difficult to test for, so we test HC, which combines with atmospheric oxygen to form water/vapour & CO2...so very low HC level indicate low CO2 levels......."

 

That bit's not right at all.

 

The problem with HC emissions is they combine with other stuff in the atmosphere to form smog, which is rather unhealthy. That's why they're measured.

CO is a potent poison which'll kill you in fairly small concentrations (e.g. in an unventilated garage, with a pre-catalytic-converter-era car running). Luckily it reacts with atmospheric oxygen with a fairly short half-life, so doesn't accumulate in open spaces.

 

CO₂ emission levels are directly proportional to engine energy output, so MOT can't be interested because so many different vehicles with different outputs exist. There is no simple correlation between CO₂ emitted quantities and the other two.