I am sure that VW and the Authorities know the science.  Know how to do the sums.

But this 'irregularities' as VW call it is about 'False CO2 Certification', and illegal activities.

So that is Taxation and Business & Private user benefits from low emissions etc.

Under Taxation and loss of revenue to Governments Treasuries and the public purse.

http://news.newsdirectory2.com/incorrect-co2-data-at-vw-deal-prosecutors-2

I am sure that VW and the Authorities know the science.  Know how to do the sums.

But this 'irregularities' as VW call it is about 'False CO2 Certification', and illegal activities.

So that is Taxation and Business & Private user benefits from low emissions etc.

http://news.newsdirectory2.com/incorrect-co2-data-at-vw-deal-prosecutors-2

I agree, but it seems to be a little hazy (smoggy?) in the comprehension of the general public.

I think it's great that VW are digging around and fessing up to everything they find that's not as it should be; don't you?

All coming out very soon.  Much must be happening behind the scene now.

 

VW very quiet in the last 48 hours.

Yesterday the Media bothering about the Sales Figures and the Share Prices.   

 

Lets see what the real story is, what VW found out that supposedly was a surprise to them, including Porsche.

 

*** Swearing Alert'.***

"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 ozone and smog, which at street level is rather unhealthy. That's why they're measured.

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. What you are talking about is NOx which is mainly diesel

 

http://www.theicct.org/real-world-exhaust-emissions-modern-diesel-cars

 

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. CAT cars produce CO2 at tailpipe & not CO. The purpose of testing for CO is to check that the CAT is working as it should be & doing it's job, !

 

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. Yes it is, HC 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. So the more HC level in the test the more CO2 will be produced..........

 

You didn't fully read my post  did you!?.

Are the Dealerships still selling & taking orders this weekend on new VW / Audi / Seat 1.4 TSI ACT & 1.4 TFSI COD cars ?

Are the Dealerships still selling & taking orders this weekend on new VW / Audi / Seat 1.4 TSI ACT & 1.4 TFSI COD cars ?

 

I'm sure they are.

Sell now, deal with the problems later.

 

CO2 manipulation would be a much bigger issue in the EU than US since lots of taxation is based upon it.

Not just VED think about the business users that have been paying company car tax based upon CO2.

 

Wonder if VAG will just bankrupt itself, then sell itself for €1 back to Germany and keep going like nothing happened.

@ fabdavrav: You'll see I corrected 'ozone and smog' in my post to 'smog', so I accept that (the ozone bit) was an error of me thinking about NOx; and yes testing for CO does tell you something about the performance of the CAT, but the main reason to test for it is because it's poisonous and we don't want it killing people, the OBD2 system will pick up cat performance issues and put a fault light on, MOT looks for those lights.

 

HCs may give a little CO₂ when they react post-tailpipe, but that's not the point, and by a huge margin not the source of most of the CO_2, which comes from the combustion reactions in the combustion chamber.

 

I'll leave this there.

Here there is a bit on the Recall in the US of vehicles for Brake Faults,

ones with the 1.8TFSI & 2.0TFSI engines. @3 mins 30 Seconds.

 

http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/vw-engineers-admitted-manipulating-co2-111023327.html

http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/vw-engineers-admitted-manipulating-co2-111023327.html

I think the CO2 cheating is where some other non VAG makes will come out the woodwork. I think many manufacturers will be making sure their cars are "optimal" before testing

The Ford Chairman Bill Ford, Great Grandson of Henry Ford has said how Ford expect to benefit in sales because of VW Cheating.

Ford having actually Invested in the development of the Petrol EcoBoost Engines, Hybrids and Electric Vehicles.

Ford having actually Invested in the development of the Petrol EcoBoost Engines,

The Co2 figures must be correct on these engines, because one of my customers has a 1.0 ecoboost focus. Ford figures are just under 60mpg his average is 35mpg. The wife averages 41 mpg from her 1.2 HTP Fabia. 

If each drove the others car for a period of time then that might mean something or show some result.

VW / Audi have much to address about their MPG / CO2,  but maybe now it is time that the Oil Consumption that VW says is acceptable 

in engines that are not even faulty.

The figure of possibly using 0.5 litres for 1000 km (621 miles) of Full Synthetic Oil has always been a joke from 

a company that was supposedly building increasing Green Vehicles.

Any owners doing a average annual mileage having to maybe top up 10 litres between services should never be acceptable.

Even on a Economical car if you were paying Main Dealer Price on the Oil, that would be

an Extra £13 for 2 1/2 Tanks of Fuel used.

@ 2 mins 20.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=VqJXDFstgaQ

<SNIP>

The figure of possibly using 0.5 litres for 1000 km (621 miles) of Full Synthetic Oil has always been a joke

<SNIP>

Most informative linked video - makes absolutely no criticism of VAG's figure of up to ½ litre of oil consumed within 1,000 Km being within limits, only that four times that figure is unacceptable.

It is very Informative.

It is so strange that anyone does seem to accept 0.5 litres of Oil used per 1000 km (621 miles) as acceptable when a vehicle is just being used in rather normal conditions on European roads, not extreme conditions, altitude, temperatures, towing across  mountain passes in high summer etc as mentioned in owners manauals..

?

Do you think an Engine that is Euro 5 or 6 Emissions using 8, 9 or more litres of oil between Services is acceptable?

(Then the majority of the identical engines that are built to the correct tolerances using virtually or no oil 

between services because Quality Control of the parts on them was as the Manufacturer intended,

but the Manufacturer can use the 0.5 l / 1000 km figure as an excuse to not repair faulty engines.).

 

VW / Audi have used that figure ' May use as much as 0.5l / 1000km' as the possible Oil Usage in their (your!) engines petrol and diesel, 3,4,5.6,8,10 & 12 Cylinder engines from 59hp to 400+hp for years now as a cover all.

 

(They do not tell you that in the Brochures, or on the chart on a Dealership Wall telling you 

the EU test MPG & CO2 figures, and no sales person makes you aware you might need to buy a litre of Full Synthetic oil 

every 1,242 miles or so.)

 

At main Dealership prices for Oil that would be an additional £1 plus for every 100 miles covered.

Surely that should be taken into account in Annual Running costs published by the Manufacturer and 

also Motor Journals.

It is very Informative. It is so strange that anyone does seem to accept 0.5 litres of Oil used per 1000 km (621 miles) as acceptable when a vehicle is just being used in rather normal conditions on European roads, not extreme conditions, altitude, temperatures, towing across  mountain passes in high summer etc as mentioned in owners manauals.?  Do you think an Engine that is Euro 5 or 6 Emissions using 8, 9 or more litres of oil between Services is acceptable?

(Then the majority of the identical engines that are built to the correct tolerances using virtually or no oil between services because Quality Control of the parts on them was as the Manufacturer intended,  but the Manufacturer can use the 0.5 l / 1000 km figure as an excuse to not repair faulty engines.).

 

VW / Audi have used that figure ' May use as much as 0.5l / 1000km' as the possible Oil Usage in their (your!) engines petrol and diesel, 3,4,5.6,8,10 & 12 Cylinder engines from 59hp to 400+hp for years now as a cover all.   (They do not tell you that in the Brochures, or on the chart on a Dealership Wall telling you 

the EU test MPG & CO2 figures, and no sales person makes you aware you might need to buy a litre of Full Synthetic oil every 1,242 miles or so.)  At main Dealership prices for Oil that would be an additional £1 plus for every 100 miles covered. Surely that should be taken into account in Annual Running costs published by the Manufacturer and also Motor Journals.

 

An engine producing 180hp in only 1400cc and having only 3.6 litres of oil is going to be highly stressed and burn a bit of oil when thrashed.

 

I did 100K mile in mine, mostly motorway cruising admittedly.  Yes it used more than my several VRSs and even more excellent 1.8 TSI.  My was one of the first one to have variable servicing and achieved about 18K between services.  Oil was expensive and was good to fine a cheaper source ie at around £9 a litre rather £15 or so.

 

In these troubled times I would praise VW for creating the twin-charge and the ACT, clever enhancements to petrol engine technology and great to see rather than the pursuit of diesel which has finally been shown up to be unfit to use in urban areas without extensive additional engineering systems ie SCR/AD Blue etc, which tends to make them more uneconomic viable anyways.

 

Credit where credit due, twin-charge a great engine if you were lucky not to get one of the one in four which were lemons.  The new 1.8 TSI which the combo direct an indirect injectors is again a master piece.  Ticks pretty much all the boxes ie power, torque, emissions.

 

Eventuate the positives (petrol), minimise the negatives (diesels with SCR) move on and throw some hyrid and pure electric in there too.      

Edited 10 November, 201510 yr by lol-lol

<SNIP>

It is so strange that anyone does seem to accept 0.5 litres of Oil used per 1000 km (621 miles) as acceptable when a vehicle is just being used in rather normal conditions on European roads, not extreme conditions, altitude, temperatures, towing across mountain passes in high summer etc as mentioned in owners manuals..

<SNIP>

 

I hadn't realised that the Owner's Manual specifically mentioned the conditions under which oil usage of up to 0.5 litres of per 1000 km was or was not acceptable or that you would use significantly less if you drove the car like Miss Daisy on European roads, not in extreme conditions, at altitude, with high temperatures, towing across mountain passes, etc. Does it really say all that?

 

Aside from anything else, Skoda has no way of knowing how an owner has actually driven their car.

 

However, that is really neither here or there, Skoda say that oil consumption could be as high as 0.5 litres per 1,000 miles - take it or leave it, don't start whining that what they say is unfair. If you aren't happy with their specification, you are perfectly entitled to take your business and money elsewhere

vxh26,  Read a Owners Manual,

read when they advise to Check Oil Levels and then about filling.

 

 you left it did you not,

you have not bought a petrol VW Engine car, or have an owners manual do you?

People are not whining, they were sold faulty vehicles with Fundamental Design, Manufacturing parts 

or poor Quality Control. They want that sorted, in the US Audi / VW had to, and now they are having to in the EU

& this is a discussion, so maybe share some experience you have of the vehicles if you have any,

other than road testing one or two.

http://revotechnik.com/support/technical/14tsi-twincharger-engine-issues

That is Twincharger Engine issues, but the 1.8 & 2.0 TSI /TFSI are similar.

 

lol-lol,

 you have driven 132-136kw 1390cc engines and know that they do not need to drink oil 

and still get 40 mpg plus and be given a 139 g Co2/km (£130 VED) for the VW/Audi and 148 g Co2/km (£145 VED) same Engines and Gearbox.

(You know that when thrashed is when they do not use oil, it is the opposite of that.)

Then Seat have a 1.4 TSI 150ps Twincharger that is also 139g Co2/km (£130 VED)

 

So they put a 1.4 TSI / TFSI ACT /COD 140 ps & 150 ps in Bigger and Heavier cars that are Euro 6 Emission,

and these are supposed to do 60 mpg, and are 107 grams, 109 grams, 112grams, 115grams and the VED is £20 or £30.

 

The do mpgs in the 40-50 mpg range. EU Testing figures gave good MPG & CO2 results, and low VED Classes.

so say you do 1,200 miles and you get 50 MPG, so use 24 litres of Unleaded Fuel, (24 gallons)

would then needing to put in 1 litre of Oil be acceptable @ Dealers prices of £13.  

that would be the same as 2 Gallons on Unleaded petrol.

So 

Equivalent to 26 Gallons.   Money wise like getting 46mpg.

 

That is what VW do where they say 0.5 litres / 1000 km is acceptable, 

they have some supposedly green engines that are running more like 2 Stroke Engines requiring Petroleum and Oil.

*Actually those are just the faulty ones, built badly to poor tolerances, but they never admit that.*

 

1,2, 1.4, 1.8, 2.0 lites TSI / TFSI Euro 5 & Euro Engines or any consuming oil at the rate that some do, and VW Engineers and Management think is an acceptable consumption, or any Petrol Engine or Diesel is just ridiculous,

but it seems that is Only in my opinion.

VW Fanboys that have no VW's seem to find it acceptable.

Edited 10 November, 201510 yr by goneoffSKion1

"  0.5 litres of Oil used per 1000 km "

Wasn't that meant to be the maximum, not the norm?

Rather like tuition fees were supposed to be a maximum of £9000pa.

Hey ho: every tinpot little university immediately charged that.

Whilst on the subject of oil, what extra 'nasties' are produced at that usage compared with a more abstemious consumption?

 

 

1,2, 1.4, 1.8, 2.0 lites TSI / TFSI Euro 5 & Euro Engines or any consuming oil at the rate that some do, and VW Engineers and Management think is an acceptable consumption, or any Petrol Engine or Diesel is just ridiculous,

but it seems that is Only in my opinion.

VW Fanboys that have no VW's seem to find it acceptable.

 

Luckily our two family 1.2TSI's (Octy and Fabia) have only needed the odd top up between services. Typically use a litre between them and they do about 8k miles each. But I know others who have far higher oil consumption.

 

We also have a 1.6T petrol BMW (170PS). 20k miles between services on that and it doesn't use a drop of oil and still averages 40-50mpg on an Auto box. It's only a few mpg behind the 1.2TSI's.

 

Lee

Edited 10 November, 201510 yr by logiclee

<SNIP> Read an Owner's Manual <SNIP>

I have, downloaded from this very site.

 

"0.5 litres of Oil used per 1000 km"

Wasn't that meant to be the maximum, not the norm?

<SNIP>

The exact wording is:

It is normal for the engine to consume oil. The oil consumption may be as much as 0.5L/1,000 km depending on your style of driving and the conditions under which you operate your vehicle. Consumption may be slightly higher than this during the first 5,000 kilometres.

My emphasis.

 

I don't think that there is any suggestion that 0.5L/1,000 km is the "normal" consumption.

 

By all accounts, lots of short journeys tend to lead to high oil consumption. I suspect that thrashing the engine at any time and certainly from cold will also lead to higher oil consumption. It seems that Skoda / VW will treat consumption above 0.5L/1,000 km as unacceptable and requiring remedial action, regardless of how the engine has been used (or abused ).

Watch the video again. It is Audi saying that it is normal. Just read the manual on when to fill to Area A on the dipstick. And read printed manuals from 2010. There is no suggestion that oil consumption like that us normal, but many owners that drive perfectly normally are told that is a normal consumption because VW says it is. Where as VW now have to accept and admit it is excessive. And then having accepted that. Excess of that is beyond what they tried to make out was acceptable. It's how it is, they get caught misleading owners, and those that can get court actions and Class Acts get dealt with quickly

Edited 10 November, 201510 yr by goneoffSKion1

<SNIP> There is no suggestion that oil consumption like that is normal <SNIP>

At least we can agree on that.

 

<SNIP> Many owners that drive perfectly normally are told that is a normal consumption because VW says it is. <SNIP>

There is a slight difference between "normal" and "within stated limits".

 

<SNIP> Whereas VW now have to accept and admit it is excessive. <SNIP> they get caught misleading owners <SNIP>

VW have accepted that oil consumption of as much as 0.5L/1,000 Kilometres is excessive?

When did they accept that?

In what way have they misled owners over oil consumption of as much as 0.5L/1,000 Kilometres?

When they replace engines that official tests showed that 0.3 litres was the amount used in 1000km according to how their Official dealers did tests. You wrote the thread so you will know all about it. Now Troll on and keep researching.

Edited 10 November, 201510 yr by goneoffSKion1