Breaking VW Emissions Scandal -Mk I

[vrskeith]

Interesting on the 1.4 TSI 140Ps in the Golf Estate having the given by VW figures of CO2 122g/km

 

Considering the lighter Euro 5 Seat Ibiza 1.4TSI FR 150ps (Twincharger) DSG on 215/40R 17 tyres was and is 139g/km

 

It is the VW way.  'Pick a figure any figure',  then run with it, nobody checks, not even Journalist road testers,

They read the 'Press Pack',  never bother to Weigh the cars, check the spec in many cases.

*Volkswagen would never lie or cheat.*

 

Same engine, gearbox, drivetrain, but the VW / Audi will have better figures than the Skoda / Seat even if the VW/ Audi is heavier.

So might weigh more, but will have better MPG, lower CO2, lower VED class,

faster 0-62, and a higher top speed.

Only tenths of seconds or 1 or 2 MPH, and MPG, but the premium brand must be better, it costs more!

Pick a figure any figure.

 

Launch a car, give it a Kerb Weight, do the EU Testing, get the Emissions and MPG, 

publish them, have the VED class, then the cars sold get optional extras,

Spare Wheels, Leather Interiors, then a 5 Door Model where as a 3 door was tested as only available at launch.

So the models on the road are no place near the same Kerb Weight as the cars that were tested,

the one model with 3,000 km on the engine.

(Then later, correct the Kerb Weight, be made to add or change the driver weight allowance but keep the CO2 Emission Figures. & the VED Class)

 

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

 

3 cars here in the video as an example.

VW Polo GTI & Seat Ibiza Cupra weighs more than the Skoda,

but the Skoda has 25kg ballast on the rear crash bar because that was the Skoda idea of being 'Green'  add weight,

& a Spare wheel as Standard and 205 tyres rather than 215 on the VW & Seat,

Yet the VW here is a VED Class lower, and 2 years later when new engines went in the Seat and Skoda 

the Seat dropped to the same VED as the VW and Audi A1 185ps that had been launched,

the Skoda VED stayed the same a higher VED class.

 

Not something that a Professional Road Tester / Journalist would ask Volkswagen to explain though.

George ,

I'm sure all other manufactures are squeaky clean.!!???lol

But are were absolutely sure and how will we be in the future! Without agreed common test, processes and procedures Worldwide.

[Ryeman]

I remember the U.S.Road & Track mag that used to give such detail as piston ft/mile as a wear index plus cornering G and other details......now it's about cup holders/flimflam and purely what's given in the brochure when it comes to detail.

I used to buy them but wouldn't waste my money now.....it's free in any case

[Ootohere]

They might all be a bit Dodgy, edgy, sneaky, corrupt, commercial, competitive but Volkswagen are caught bang to rights.

 

So anyway, 

the EU has delayed changes in Testing come Euro 6, and then to Euro 7, so we will see.

It is hardly that important, 

 

FIFA Officials (Footerball / a Sport) get taken from Germany or Switzerland to the US for prosecution for alleged corrupt practices, 

surely that can not happen to just simple Car Manufacturers Employees.

[vrskeith]

They might all be a bit Dodgy, edgy, sneaky, corrupt, commercial, competitive but Volkswagen are caught bang to rights.

Yep ,but early days yet for all others

[fabdavrav]

Interesting on the 1.4 TSI 140Ps in the Golf Estate having the given by VW figures of CO2 122g/km

 

Considering the lighter Euro 5 Seat Ibiza 1.4TSI FR 150ps (Twincharger) DSG on 215/40R 17 tyres was and is 139g/km

 

 

Same engine, gearbox, drivetrain, but the VW / Audi will have better figures than the Skoda / Seat even if the VW/ Audi is heavier.

 

 

 

The 1.4lt 140PS VW engine is a whole new design & way more efficient that the older twincharger design....................

 

therefore please compare like with like & not apples with oranges......................

 

 

We all should know that as part of the calcs for MPG/CO2 that weight, & aero is a factor..............

 

Fit mudflaps & wider tyres, this increases frontal x-sectional area & therefore drag............also more tyre in contact with road, more drag......that can be either a wider tyre or an under-inflated tyre............

 

Lower the car & you decrease the frontal x-sectional area, better for MPG.......................why do you think the very "eco versions" have lowered suspension, narrow tyres, high tyre pressures....................

 

As for kerb weight this can be countered by increasing the tyre pressure & fitting lower rolling resistance tyres.....................but for some "eco versions" certain options are N/A from the factory as they add too much weight & will throw the car out of the tax banding.........

 

 

My car is 121g/km & I have retro fitted using VAG parts a further 0.8 to 1m2 sq of underbody aero/skid trays...................way less turbulence, way smoother air flow, way better overall aero.................can I have my car regraded please & a lower tax band?

[Ootohere]

?

What are these Engines component Changes in your 1.4 TSI (Turbo only) other than Engine Management, (mapping)

& is it a Euro 5, 5.5 or Euro 6 Emission 140ps Engine? is the 150ps version different again component wise?

 

The UK Government said about the VW defeat device NoX Scandal that there would be no change in VED, 

so if the Petrol engines and CO2 Testing proved to have had kidology involved you look like being OK if their is any changes up or down.

 

PS

VW / Audi managed to get lower CO2 & Higher MPG figures on vehicles with more Frontal Area and Wider Tyres 

and heavier vehicles that had the same Engines and gearboxes than the Skoda or Seat Models launched at the same time,

tested in different Test Centres possibly, in Different Countries.

[fabdavrav]

?

What are these Engines component Changes in your 1.4 TSI other than Engine Management, (mapping)

& is it a Euro 5, 5.5 or Euro 6 Emission 140ps Engine?

 

The UK Government said about the VW defeat device NoX Scandal that there would be no change in VED, 

so if the Petrol engines and CO2 Testing proved to have had kidology involved you look like being OK if their is any changes up or down.

 

 

My engine compared to the twincharger is a totally whole clean sheet design..................called the EA211......................integrated exhaust manifold within the cylinder head, way different crankcases, different cooling systems etc.......................total new design I have a big PDF with the info on the new design, but too big to post up........

 

As for the ACT & non ACT, is it just the head that is different & the ECU map......to give 10PS more, however it is known that the 140PS is "under-rated"...............as for dropping a huge amount on the CO2 the ACT is more active in the test due to the nature of the test & not "forced"

[Ootohere]

Forget the Twincharger, with 148g co2/km in the Skoda

or 139g/km in the VW / Audi / Seat.  I know what Components and MAPS they have.

Actually i know about your Engines and the ACT / COD ones as well.

 

But that was what i was asking about, (But really i know the answer. as do VW, and that is what will come out.)

1.4 TSI Turbo from Euro 5 to Euro 6 & internal / Hardwear Component changes.

Upped HP/PS to cope with requiring to get lower emissions, at least while being tested.

[vxh26]

<SNIP>

Lower the car & you decrease the frontal x-sectional area

<SNIP>

 

How does that work?

 

I can understand that lowering the car might change the aerodynamics (e.g. ground effect) but it is a somewhat unlikely technique on a road car.  Surely any reduction in the frontal cross-sectional area would be minimal (the distance by which the tyres are hidden by the bodywork) and would have next to no effect on MPG.

[Ootohere]

Normally lowering would improve the Ground Effect and so would smoothing under the vehicle, and wider tyres on the ground would improve road holding.  Use more fuel.

 

So Skoda lower Greenlines, smooth under the car, then fit narrower ECO Tyres with less grip /traction /friction, 

all to achieve better economy.

Lightning a vehicle also helps usually.

 

VW Decided it seems to Design and Build Petrol Engines with Cylinder On Demand / Cylinder Deactivation technology,

and use the aerodynamic and weight saving techniques and all the knowledge achieved over the years of 

Vehicle building and fitting these engines to Volkswagens and Audis like the Polo, Golf, A1 & A3 and then Seat 

Ibiza and Leon.

Then just get the Emission and Fuel consumption figures all underestimated.

Just 'Irregularities'.  Just un-noticed as well until they bothered to look.

Easily done.........

 

[vxh26]

I'm not convinced that there is any repeatable evidence that Lightning helps anything or anybody although Benjamin Franklin might well have disagreed

[Ootohere]

EDIT, 'Lightening'.   Sorry, my bad education.   Sorry missed you Spelling correction and funny bit., 

 

Well it does going uphill, and it does when you have to get something moving.

 

Then it helps when you need to stop something, and causes less strain on parts, 

which means they can be lighter, its not Rocket Science, just car manufacturing & a bit like 

Rocket Science, because if you have less weight you need less fuel to power / move the weight,

you can then maybe go faster longer, or just longer for less fuel used.

 

eg.

Fuel efficient low profile vehicles with skinny tyres.

 

?

Why does Success Ballast in BTCC cause the drivers such concern, 

it is only 9-75kg of difference added where a passenger would be, but it seems to have the brakes and the suspension 

working so much more, and that is in cars that are around the same weight as a VW Golf.

[05surveyor]

Normally lowering would improve the Ground Effect and so would smoothing under the vehicle, and wider tyres on the ground would improve road holding.  Use more fuel.

 

So Skoda lower Greenlines, smooth under the car, then fit narrower ECO Tyres with less grip /traction /friction, 

all to achieve better economy.

Lightning a vehicle also helps usually.

 

VW Decided it seems to Design and Build Petrol Engines with Cylinder On Demand / Cylinder Deactivation technology,

and use the aerodynamic and weight saving techniques and all the knowledge achieved over the years of 

Vehicle building and fitting these engines to Volkswagens and Audis like the Polo, Golf, A1 & A3 and then Seat 

Ibiza and Leon.

Then just get the Emission and Fuel consumption figures all underestimated.

Just 'Irregularities'.  Just un-noticed as well until they bothered to look.

Easily done.........

 

http://youtube.com/watch?v=_4AZbbjqhM

 

 

I'm not convinced that there is any repeatable evidence that Lightning helps anything or anybody although Benjamin Franklin might well have disagreed

 

 

Well it does going uphill, and it does when you have to get something moving.

 

Then it helps when you need to stop something, and causes less strain on parts, 

which means they can be lighter, its not Rocket Science, just car manufacturing & a bit like 

Rocket Science, because if you have less weight you need less fuel to power / move the weight,

you can then maybe go faster longer, or just longer for less fuel used.

 

eg.

Fuel efficient low profile vehicles with skinny tyres.

 

Interesting debate about Lightning versus Lightening!

 

Not sure I agree about less grip/traction/friction from "ECO" tyres.  The Michelin Energys on my Greenline seem to grip just as well as the Avons and Dunlops on my previous Octavias.

 

:yes:

Edited 4 November, 2015 by 05surveyor

[Ootohere]

'seem'  being the important thing there.  

How do ECO tyres work then while giving the same Grip & Friction but reducing fuel consumption?

[05surveyor]

'seem'  being the important thing there.   How do ECO tyres work then while giving the same Grip & Friction?

 

Dunno.  As I have said before, I am a simple soul and don't pretend to understand everything about how my car works.  I said "seem" because I haven't noticed any difference in grip.  But then I didn't buy a Superb to thrash it around bends.  At my time of life I take pleasure in driving safely, up to and not above speed limits, and with due regard for the comfort of my passengers.  That way I can actually enjoy my driving, and if I hold up some boy racers in doing so that's their problem I'm afraid

[Ootohere]

60 mph NSL or roads with bends, ECO tyres usually do get cars around them and out the other side if not too wet or Cold,

after all its just a Road Car.  They would hardly fit them with Ditch Finders....

 

VWG are catering for Customers that want Comfort, Economy and Safety obviously,

while caring about the environment...

[05surveyor]

60 mph NSL or roads with bends, ECO tyres usually do get cars around them and out the other side if not too wet or Cold,

after all its just a Road Car.  They would hardly fit them with Ditch Finders....

 

VWG are catering for Customers that want Comfort, Economy and Safety obviously.

 

Interesting how many road cars travelling on Leicestershire's rural roads must have been fitted with "Ditch Finders" judging by the gaps in the roadside hedges around here.

[vxh26]

Dunno.  As I have said before, I am a simple soul and don't pretend to understand everything about how my car works.  I said "seem" because I haven't noticed any difference in grip.  But then I didn't buy a Superb to thrash it around bends.  At my time of life I take pleasure in driving safely, up to and not above speed limits, and with due regard for the comfort of my passengers.  That way I can actually enjoy my driving, and if I hold up some boy racers in doing so that's their problem I'm afraid

 

I have real doubts about the people who claim that they can discern minute variations between the grip of different tyres.

 

What exactly do these people do to make this assessment? How do they drive? How often do they find their cars sliding about the road? How do they compensate for varying road conditions?

 

Most significantly, are these "boy racers" safe to drive on public roads where they may encounter mere mortals who lack their remarkable skill and sensitivity?

[Ootohere]

^^^^^^^

Exactly.  you wonder why there are lots of different tyre types and compounds and sizes,  one type in different sizes should cater for all passenger cars.

After all they only need to do 70 MPH in the UK as a Maximum, and then this Speed and Load rating stuff is nonsense.

 

Then different Fuels and Engines and power outputs, and front and rear wheel and all wheel drive, and Sports cars,

what is that all about?

Just have Lada, or  Dacia in different sizes and that should have everyones needs covered.

[fabdavrav]

How does that work?

 

I can understand that lowering the car might change the aerodynamics (e.g. ground effect) but it is a somewhat unlikely technique on a road car.  Surely any reduction in the frontal cross-sectional area would be minimal (the distance by which the tyres are hidden by the bodywork) and would have next to no effect on MPG.

 

To "generalise", the higher the body of the road the more the tyres are exposed to the more x-sectional area..............also the more air which passes under the car which is disturbed, causing turbulence. This air is "uncontrolled". If you get really close to the road & really duct the air & add proper spoilers then "ground effect" is what you achieve, i.e. sucking the car to the car. What we want is somewhere in the middle. Also by what I have done I have smoothed off the whole of the underside, which stops air from rushing into the body cavities around the engine bay & rear axle. The air no longer gets sucked into these areas causing turbulence & drag. The air now is kept smooth & under the car in a straight line from front to back causing as little drag & turbulence as possible. I have also fitted the rear window fins from the Bluemotion version which also help the air flow as it exits the rear bodywork, this also keeps the rear window clearer

 

60 mph NSL or roads with bends, ECO tyres usually do get cars around them and out the other side if not too wet or Cold,

after all its just a Road Car.  They would hardly fit them with Ditch Finders....

 

 

They do work, but in wet/damp they are carp, I have driven cars with them one & one of my reps had a new car with ECO tyres on, he covered the whole of Scotland & after doing one trip in the new car which he had done numerous times in his old car over 7yrs he ditched the new car into his boss & said get me a different set of tyres or I resign..................a nice new set of tyres was ordered!..........

[Tony R]

Haha all the people who were defending VW and saying its all speculation at the beginning, Calling people scaremonger's, liars, conspiracist's who were out to suck VW dry of compensation for something that was probably just a misunderstanding and being blown out of all proportion' have gone quiet! Well if you were one of the ones who thought this was a storm in a teacup or people were making a mountain out of a mole hill then I think you should go back to read what you wrote and eat humble pie. I think that its still the tip of the iceberg and the truth will never be known in its entirety but customers are rightly aggrieved at this level of deception. The more that comes out just indicates that this business is rotten to the core. The German Government has had a hand in this they will either distance themselves from it and let VW take the wrap or deals will be done behind closed doors and this scandal will miraculously disappear swept under the carpet.

 

   An excellent posting but as for the last bit, I don't think the affected countries other than Germany will allow the matter to be swept under the carpet, America certainly won't and have not some others  banned V A G diesels, and now maybe petrols as well in view of the latest disclosures.

[g0bgb]

Bye bye everyone traded in my diesel Octy for a Renault, got very good part ex deal, time to forget about VW scandal, enjoyed the site time to move on lifes to short :sun:

[Tony R]

     and now petrols, ( apologies bored one )        http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/industry/11973635/VW-emissions-scandal-spreads-to-petrol-engines.html?WT.mc_id=e_DM59831&WT.tsrc=email&etype=Edi_Cit_New_Tue_9Sections&utm_source=email&utm_medium=Edi_Cit_New_Tue_9Sections_2015_11_04&utm_campaign=DM59831

[vxh26]

To "generalise", the higher the body of the road the more the tyres are exposed to the more x-sectional area..............also the more air which passes under the car which is disturbed, causing turbulence.

<SNIP>

 

So . . . not really a whole lot to do with reducing the frontal cross-sectional area then.

[fabdavrav]

Bye bye everyone traded in my diesel Octy for a Renault, got very good part ex deal, time to forget about VW scandal, enjoyed the site time to move on lifes to short :sun:

 

I have mentioned various times in this thread about a test which was done recently where 200 current Euro6 cars were tested in a more real life test & like the new ones which are being written up..........195 cars failed & the worst offenders were Volvo, Hyundai............& ...........Renault!........

 

So . . . not really a whole lot to do with reducing the frontal cross-sectional area then.

 

err..yes  it still is counted as frontal x-sectional area also..............look at the car from the front...........lower the car you don't see much of the tyre from the front.........raise the suspension, you see more of the tyre from the front....therefore it is frontal x-sectional area..................

 

However if you had say done all the aero that I have to my car & was riding on standard suspension, then reducing the frontal x-section area by lowering the car would give you better mpg due to a reduced frontal x-sectional area.............

 

Lots of different ways to improve aero................why do you think that on the new doors there are double seals??...................this is to stop air getting into the joins between the doors & bodywork, the same reason why in eco marathons people would tape over the shut lines on the bodywork.................less disturbance, less drag................