Which is where there is a disconnect with reality and what Skoda UK are telling us.

 

They are assuring their customers that there will be no performance or fuel economy changes after the recall.

 

I simply can't understand how this is possible through a software only change.

 

I can see how a software change could remove the cheat set-up under testing, but if emissions are significantly reduced during normal driving without losses elsewhere then there wouldn't have been any need for the cheat in the first place...

 

Whilst I fully understand cynicism towards VAG regarding the apparent simplicity with which they are claiming to have solved the problem with a software amendment, I don't understand why the technical provision of this change is regarded with such disbelief.

 

After all, in just about every single one of the model forums on this site are posts / recommendation / reports etc. about how a Stage 1 remap will produce increased power with improved mpg.

 

I (and I suspect almost no-one else ) don't actually understand precisely how the ECU software works and how a remap alters the engine parameters but am prepared to accept that it can and does, and therefore theoretically it should be possible to remap the offending engines without either reducing the power or increasing the mpg.

Renault have improved emission at more representative ambient temperatures.

What effect has this had on driveability , performance and fuel consumption?

It was not great to start with as the 0.9 litre petrol already felt more spritely even though both 90hp. Same true for the vw 1.6d and 1.2 TSI. About a second quicker 60 even thou both 105hp.

Edited 1 July, 20169 yr by lol-lol

Whilst I fully understand cynicism towards VAG regarding the apparent simplicity with which they are claiming to have solved the problem with a software amendment, I don't understand why the technical provision of this change is regarded with such disbelief.

 

After all, in just about every single one of the model forums on this site are posts / recommendation / reports etc. about how a Stage 1 remap will produce increased power with improved mpg.

 

I (and I suspect almost no-one else ) don't actually understand precisely how the ECU software works and how a remap alters the engine parameters but am prepared to accept that it can and does, and therefore theoretically it should be possible to remap the offending engines without either reducing the power or increasing the mpg.

I think the answer to that is that such remaps are done without regard to emissions (beyond MOT-ability, which currently tests almost nothing about diesel emissions). On diesels this makes it pretty easy to make such improvements, without the constraints that the manufacturer had of trying not to produce poisons like NOx gases. Technically, it's illegal* to make your car worse than when built in respect to emissions, but this seems to be unpoliced in the UK. It would be hard to enforce; requiring a much more complex MOT, or lab testing of any cars suspected of having been modified.

 

* ref:

http://www.briskoda.net/forums/topic/379190-breaking-vw-emissions-scandal-mk-i/page-99

post #2942

Edited 2 July, 20169 yr by Wino

I guess it will come down to exactly how serious the relevant department is toward policing emissions.

A driveby spectrum analysis perhaps isn't far away.

Renault have improved emission at more representative ambient temperatures.

What effect has this had on driveability , performance and fuel consumption?

The whole issue has so many variables that 'driveability' depends on how people drive and how much they will notice. Thorough laboratory tests reveal what's going on, then you can translate that to what happens in real driving. The problem is defining laboratory tests that actually do represent real world driving and what is that anyway? Roads are a big variable and individuals have different styles of driving. You will never get consensus from manufacturers and it is down to regulators to fund their own independent tests without pressure or bias and set the standards. Unfortunately,  they don't all have the expertise or resources to do it themselves and such approach is regarded as too harsh and dictatorial.

 

It is the Regulators and Standards bodies that have a lot to answer for in this mess.

Amen to Stage 1 remap!

 

I agree with the fuel consumption (and performance) improvements claims, but only lab testing can confirm what is happening to emissions. I was always curious that the same 2l engines were available in different horsepowers (at higher prices!) with the second higher output corresponding to a Stage 1 Remap.

I guess it will come down to exactly how serious the relevant department is toward policing emissions.

A driveby spectrum analysis perhaps isn't far away.

That will be far too sophistocated and expensive. You will drive your Skoda into a booth, get out of the car with the engine running, they seal the booth with a canary inside and time how long it takes to die. :rofl:

I think the answer to that is that such remaps are done without regard to emissions (beyond MOT-ability, which currently tests almost nothing about diesel emissions). On diesels this makes it pretty easy to make such improvements, without the constraints that the manufacturer had of trying not to produce poisons like NOx gases. Technically, it's illegal* to make your car worse than when built in respect to emissions, but this seems to be unpoliced in the UK. It would be hard to enforce; requiring a much more complex MOT, or lab testing of any cars suspected of having been modified.

 

* ref:

http://www.briskoda.net/forums/topic/379190-breaking-vw-emissions-scandal-mk-i/page-99

post #2942

 

Exactly this.

 

A map or software change can be adjusted to favour one or more of many different variables, including...

 

Fuel economy

Power output

Emissions

Durability

Etc.

 

You can't have it all, there has to be a compromise in one or more of these elements.

Exactly this.

 

A map or software change can be adjusted to favour one or more of many different variables, including...

 

Fuel economy

Power output

Emissions

Durability

Etc.

 

You can't have it all, there has to be a compromise in one or more of these elements.

You missed something out: Vehicle manufacturers map their car ECU's to get the best 'compromised' performance for the worst fuels and climate conditions in their market.  A remap done where fuel standards are consistently high and there is no extreme of altitude or temperature can better optimize the vehicle in that environment.  Unfortunately, to satisfy regulations they have to consider worst case emissions scenarios in every environment. In U.K we have consistently high fuel standards and not a lot of high altitude or extremes of ambient temperature, even though it is wet and feels damn cold in Winter.

During commute hours in major UK cities, how many days of the year would temps be 10*C or above, particularly morning?.

During commute hours in major UK cities, how many days of the year would temps be 10*C or above, particularly morning?.

 

 

Well in UK Midlands now it is 11C so just about OK if the emission systems were set to be operational at 10C and above but it is is our sort of summer and it will be in the 5 to 10 C for much of the year at the morning commute time.

 

As mentioned above there are now so many economic issues with the BREXIT, which will have an affect on economic activity, that this will have the greater effect on improving air quality by less people actual commuting. 

 

As mentioned above there are now so many economic issues with the BREXIT, which will have an affect on economic activity, that this will have the greater effect on improving air quality by less people actual commuting.

I see there are 'friends of a third runway' group looking for the employment opportunities.

I would have thought at least 6 months of the year the systems wouldn't be operating during commuting time for most.

I see there are 'friends of a third runway' group looking for the employment opportunities.

I would have thought at least 6 months of the year the systems wouldn't be operating during commuting time for most.

 

The third runway at Heathrow is reckoned to be worth 100,000 jobs in the UK logistics industry and also the economies of scale of helping UK firms export, and import, at the lowest price per kilo.

 

The third runway would allow more use of planes such as the A380 which is less pollution per passenger or kilio of freight.  The flying hours would be less and not wider with the third runway.

 

The majority of pollution around Heathrow is from road transport going to and from the airport and transiting through the area ie M4 and M25 and that is being solved by the Low Emission Zone and soon ULEZ and companies adopting greener solution, as my companies is, by picking up the freight from the airline transit sheds to the remote transit shed, by full electric vehicles.

 

The project has already been delayed a decade as the conservative government made it a election point not to have the third runway and hence the jobs went to Frankfurt, Paris CDG and schiphol instead.   

The third runway at Heathrow is reckoned to be worth 100,000 jobs .....

 

The project has already been delayed a decade as the conservative government made it a election point not to have the third runway and hence the jobs went to Frankfurt, Paris CDG and schiphol instead.

Looks like London's position as the centre energy and finance is under threat.

A son who is in the finance sector thinks he will have to leave due to jobs moving to the continent.

Bring back 'the Raj' it seems now............more than a bit sad.

A tale of overbearing management it seems

http://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/the-volkswagen-settlement-how-bad-management-leads-to-big-punishment?mbid=social_twitter

Looks like London's position as the centre energy and finance is under threat.

A son who is in the finance sector thinks he will have to leave due to jobs moving to the continent.

Bring back 'the Raj' it seems now............more than a bit sad.

 

We may see some much needed readjustment. The UK Government has relied on income from the city for decades but the high pound and lack of investment in the North is the reason the vote went the way it did. 

Most Northern working class "Forgotten" towns voted around 70% leave.

 

These are not my views but I found it intersting to get a view of why the vote was so high in such areas.

 

 

For these places the lower pound helps small scale exporters and manufacturing, there's no financial sector.

 

We'll have to wait and see how it all plays out.

 

Lee

Edited 5 July, 20169 yr by logiclee

Turbulent times

We've had an election resulting in a shambles with the balance of power with representatives of those living in the past, irrational and simply angry enough to kick the established parties no matter the consequences.

A vacuume ready to be filled..........

I don't think it'll really go away from London to the extent some say. People might set up a small EU subsidary for clearing, but it won't move wholesale.

Why you say?

Well in 2008 when it all went south they had to get rid of their staff. Can you imagine trying to do that under french law?

Paris is out for a wholesale move as the employment rights are way too high.

Germany you have statutory rights that are a lot stronger than ours. Plus people working all hours usually comes with a required salary uplift.

Plus you can't claim daily expenses when out on business of more than 24 euro a day, so few staff will want to go there unless there's a massive pay rise to cover taking clients for lunches etc.

That's going to put costs up.

Belgium, take the worst of the above two.

One of the reasons the city works well, is exactly that the country's employment laws allow the company to be fairly dynamic when it needs to be.

That isn't going to just appear overnight.

Yes there are some disadvantages being based here, but with the corporate tax cuts mentioned, plus the fairly liberal employment rights, I can't imagine they'll really be queuing up to move all staff or even most staff from the UK.

Anyway, on topic, why are we not taking class action law suits against the German auto maker?

Look at the compensation in the US and the nothing given in the UK.

Rather than just laying down and taking it, we need to actually stand up.

Plus frankly, it would be perfectly justifiable to prevent sale of new VW products until the cheat cars have been fixed or purchased back by VWAG (Possibly against a new car that meets specs)

I mean has anyone seen any real progress in the EU/UK?

Edited 5 July, 20169 yr by cheezemonkhai

Transnational shareholders only care about their dividends and share price from ruthless efficiency wrought by self interested management.

Transnational shareholders only care about their dividends and share price from ruthless efficiency wrought by self interested management.

Finance - it'll massively increase costs for any company that moves, so they won't.

VWAG - Which is why legal action is needed.

If they have offices all over the continent frinstance they just rename them..........it's all about the bottom line and management need to be seen to be doing stuff to justify their bonus and every chance to be a bad decision followed by a parachute.......such is the life of the modern CEO.

But at the same time Skoda reported their best ever quarter in their history.

 

So it looks like VAG trying to keep this in the Media as the "VW" scandal is paying off.

 

Lee

 

Skoda's year on Year sales have been better for some months now and growth everywhere, more or less except the UK, is better.

http://volkswagenag.com/content/vwcorp/info_center/en/news/2016/06/Skoda_Q1.html

Skoda Grown and percentage rises is such a small thing considering how small they are as a Manufacturer World wide.

Last year was such a big deal that they had 'Delivered' over 1 Million cars,

& Is that really Sales where money comes in from places other than the Volkswagen Group,

or is it First Registered & Sold to VW Finance Companies then Leased, Fleet, Management cars.

Sales are to buyers other than cars still owned by VW Finance and which latter are sold as Used Cars

 

................

Operating profits up, so they can get on with the Fix.  Get the Defeat Device removed, have the cars as they should be, 

and if anyone has issues with values affected Skoda can compensate.

 

Maybe sort out the UK Customer Services Communications Managers that seem to be knocking back Warranty Claims saying that Dealerships have the say now, and a Warranty Manager says no, 'If we do not hear from you in 3 days your case is closed'.

Edited 5 July, 20169 yr by GoneOffSKi

http://volkswagenag.com/content/vwcorp/info_center/en/news/2016/03/Skoda-2015.htm

Skoda Grown and percentage rises is such a small thing considering how small they are as a Manufacturer World wide.

Last year was such a big deal that they had 'Delivered' over 1 Million cars,

& Is that really Sales where money comes in from places other than the Volkswagen Group,

or is it First Registered & Sold to VW Finance Companies then Leased, Fleet, Management cars.

Sales are to buyers other than cars still owned by VW Finance and which latter are sold as Used Cars

Surely thats a measure that could be laid at all the manufactures doors, real sales or through leasing company.  It's a bit like prostitution "you've got something, you sell it but still own it."  In the end they rotate these cars through the 'sales' as previously owned so real money is added to the bottom line and cash flow is maintained month by month via leasing, PCP and PCH etc.  I'd certainly rather be in a company, Skoda, that was growing rather than not growing.

It was not great to start with as the 0.9 litre petrol already felt more spritely even though both 90hp. Same true for the vw 1.6d and 1.2 TSI. About a second quicker 60 even thou both 105hp.

 

 

It's because the diesel is a heavier car (~100kg)