Well, the 2.0 litre update may have problems on the Audi - not power or consumption but an increase in NOx.... whoops!.

 

"...the European Consumer Organization claims that the technical fix, which removes the “defeat device,” brings nitrogen oxide emissions up by 25% after the procedure is performed. The findings come from Italian consumer group Altroconsumo, which has tested an Audi Q5 fitted with the 2.0-liter TDI engine of the EA189 series"

 

Original article here: http://www.autoevolution.com/news/european-consumer-group-says-dieselgate-fix-brings-more-nox-emissions-109288.html#

 

My guess is they've run it on the official test cycle and now that it no longer has the cheat mode enabled, they're seeing the actual NOx production as opposed to the sanitised NOx production of the cheat mode.

As far as I know all it does on the 2.0 is remove the "cheat" so when tested it will no give the correct reading, which as nothing is actually measured on NOx, i.e RFL or company car tax, and the owners have not been penalised for the issue, it just shows a correct reading...

 

Mind you 25% increase in the "cheated" reading is not as bad as they said.... 

 

I know two people who have had Audi done and they cant tell the difference.. 

Well, the 2.0 litre update may have problems on the Audi - not power or consumption but an increase in NOx.... whoops!.

 

"...the European Consumer Organization claims that the technical fix, which removes the “defeat device,” brings nitrogen oxide emissions up by 25% after the procedure is performed. The findings come from Italian consumer group Altroconsumo, which has tested an Audi Q5 fitted with the 2.0-liter TDI engine of the EA189 series"

 

Original article here: http://www.autoevolution.com/news/european-consumer-group-says-dieselgate-fix-brings-more-nox-emissions-109288.html#

 

The article is very misleading compared to the video it links:

 

Assuming my Italian is correct, the on road NOx remained essentially unchanged whilst the NOx during the test cycle increased by 25%. This would suggest that the 'cheat' has been removed but there have been no improvement to reduce the real world emissions :/

Edited 11 July, 20169 yr by langers2k

I don't think the plan was to ever reduce emissions on the 2.0, simply remove the cheat software which is what they've done.

 

The emissions on the 2.0 are actually pretty good when compared to similar engine from other maufacturers.

 

There was a similar conversation going on in the main emissions thread in General Car Chat, it appears some believe the recall was to reduce emissions to the level achieved when cheating, others believe the recall is to simply remove the cheat software.

 

I agree that removing the cheat software means no changes to fuel economy, perfromance, durability etc.

 

However if VAG are claiming to have lowered emissions simply via software then I standby what I've always said - there will have to have been a trade-off somewhere.

 

As long as there is even a hint of confusion or uncertainty my car won't be having the recall done. There is already another thread in this forum suggestion problems after the recall. Thanks but no thanks, once bitten and all that...

Edited 11 July, 20169 yr by silver1011

Reading this and many other VAG forums including my own, I have come to one conclusion... A vast amount of VAG owners could not give a toss about emissions or the cheat, it has always been one thing from day one...  "£££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££" IF they turned around and said "we will give all owners £5000" they would be outside the dealers in a flash!  

 

You tell me one person that purchased any VAG car based on the NOX reading, or come to that apart from Company car owners I suspect very few even looked at emissions at all, me included... believe it or not I actually just like the car... 

 

I know a few people at the dealers, and I know they will tell me if it has any adverse effects, but lets face it, a lot of cars have now been done, so apart from forums, I am sure a few would have been to the press by now if they had any issues.... 

The thing is though - if all VAG had to do was simply remove the cheat software,  there would be no need for the flow rectifier hardware on the 1.6 engines and they wouldn't need to be talking about injector/spray pattern enhancement on the 2.0 engines. For some engine/car model/transmission combinations, just removing "cheat mode code" must not be enough.

 

I know most of us aren't freaking out about NOx - we are going to freak out if the power or consumption or engine smoothness/reliability is reduced.  That said, if the fix to a model/engine/tranny combo has NOx at illegal / above EU5 allowed levels - then VAG  has an ongoing problem on affected models.

 

As for me, I'm not having any fix applied until/unless I see figures and happy drivers for the Superb II with 1.6 CRD with 6 speed manual combination. It has to be the same combo as my car for the results to be directly relevant.

They have to do more than just remove the cheat mode. The main issue was that the NOx emissions were above the level allowed in Euro 5 without the cheat mode. So the fix must do two things: 1) remove the cheat mode; 2) reduce NOx emissions to meet Euro 5 standards.

 

Any car fitted with SCR (using DEF) has a relatively easy fix ahead of it - it's mostly just tweaking the addition of DEF. However most Superb 2 models don't have SCR and thus face a more difficult challenge. Fixing the problem is relatively easy. Fixing it without harming NVH, power or economy is another matter.

Reduced emissions with no changes to engine performance or fuel economy. I smell a rat.

It's OK though, an organisation as big as VAG can be trusted... oh, wait a second...

Hmmmmm

Edited 11 July, 20169 yr by numskull

[...] However if VAG are claiming to have lowered emissions simply via software then I standby what I've always said - there will have to have been a trade-off somewhere.[...]

Why there should be any trade-off ?

Take a look at the mapped/chipped cars - they are more fuel efficient + more powerful - without any mechanical changes.

Why there should be any trade-off ?

Take a look at the mapped/chipped cars - they are more fuel efficient + more powerful - without any mechanical changes.

Because remappers operate in an unregulated environment where they don't have to worry about passing EU5 etc.

Why there should be any trade-off ?

Take a look at the mapped/chipped cars - they are more fuel efficient + more powerful - without any mechanical changes.

 

A mapped / chipped car has increased performance and fuel consumption as their headline claims.

 

The trade-off is often increased emissions and shorter component life.

A mapped / chipped car has increased performance and fuel consumption as their headline claims.

The trade-off is often increased emissions and shorter component life.

Do you have chipped/re-mapped car ??

If car is more fuel efficient - uses less fuel - how can emission be higher or more harmful ??

No, my car isn't mapped.

 

Some performance maps also boast improved fuel efficiency, although not all.

 

Some efficiency maps are purely focused around additional MPG.

 

There are loads of different options.

 

Ultimately though if you are improving one element via software only then there is almost guaranteed to be a trade-off.

Do you have chipped/re-mapped car ??

If car is more fuel efficient - uses less fuel - how can emission be higher or more harmful ??

 

CO2 is not the only emission from an engine. There are also HC, NOx, CO, H2O and particulates (basically soot). Diesel engines used to put out significant levels of SOx too but since the introduction of ultra-low-sulphur diesel that's not an issue any more.

 

NOx, CO, HC and particulates are considered harmful to human health and are specifically limited in emissions regulations.

 

CO2 is harmful from a greenhouse effect point of view, so measures have been brought in to encourage people to run more efficient vehicles. Measures like using CO2 emissions as the basis for motor taxation, increasing fuel taxation to penalise less fuel efficient vehicles, imposing corporate average fuel economy limits. In other words, using market forces to limit emissions.

 

In general, increasing engine efficiency reduces HC, CO & particulates, while increasing CO2 per kg of fuel burnt - basically, more efficient combustion means more of the fuel is completely converted to CO2 and H2O. But since better efficiency extracts more power per kg of fuel burnt, CO2 emissions are usually improved too. This is usually how remapped cars can be more fuel efficient.

 

The downside to higher combustion efficiency is higher combustion temperatures and pressures. These conditions favour the formation of NOx through the reaction of nitrogen with oxygen. Nitrogen is generally stable and inert, so it takes a lot of energy to make it react. The conditions in an engine provide that energy.

 

So you have to trade off increased efficiency against increased NOx formation. Then add on the need to meet emissions standards and make a reliable product with desirable performance characteristics. On top of that you have to allow for potentially sub-standard fuel, owner negligence when it comes to maintenance, variation in atmospheric conditions, etc.

 

The challenge then that faces the engine developers is how to balance out these competing requirements. This leaves a bunch of overhead for an aftermarket tuner who is not concerned by particular variables in the tuning envelope.

 

One of the things which never gets mentioned in this discussion is that in Europe, fuel standards (EN 590) have marched forward in lockstep with emissions regulations. The main changes have been the reduction of sulphur content and increase in cetane number.

 

If we were willing to spend more on high-cetane fuel, we could have a much easier time meeting emissions standards. There could be a case for governments to ease back on fuel taxation in exchange for fuel manufacturers producing higher specification fuels.

Will they have their road tax increased?

Will they have their road tax increased?

That's a good question. Here in Ireland motor tax is based on official CO2 emission figures. If those figures don't change as a result of the fix, we're good. The Irish government said at the time this broke that they would leave cars on their original classification even if things changed (this was in the run-up to a general election), but who knows what they'll actually do if it becomes an issue. It also depends on any directives that come from the EU on the matter.

That's a good question. Here in Ireland motor tax is based on official CO2 emission figures. If those figures don't change as a result of the fix, we're good. The Irish government said at the time this broke that they would leave cars on their original classification even if things changed (this was in the run-up to a general election), but who knows what they'll actually do if it becomes an issue. It also depends on any directives that come from the EU on the matter.

Don't mention the EU!!!!!!!!!!!!

The regulation is highly known in the automobile industry due to the effect caused by the Block Exemption Regulation (BER) from the European Commission.[1][2] BER has changed the automobile industry in the last decade.[3] Prior to 2003 automobile owners in the EU region risk nullifying their vehicle warranty when the vehicles were serviced or repaired in workshops not belonging to the vehicle manufacturer or its dealers. This barrier was broken in October 2003, when the European Commission (EC) passed a law allowing vehicle owners the freedom of having their servicing and repairs done at their chosen workshop.[4]

Mine was done yesterday, along with a service, cannot say I have noticed anything different, only that I thought I had a 140 bhp and found out that its a 150 bhp ????????, last of the 2015 FL

Mine was done yesterday, along with a service, cannot say I have noticed anything different, only that I thought I had a 140 bhp and found out that its a 150 bhp ????????, last of the 2015 FL

 

Shoda did a Mk2 with an EA189 rated at 150hp? I thought that would only be the EA288 which doesn't need the fix?

 

Very curious - how did you find this out..? What engine code does the car have - "CRBC" is the EA189 2.0 with 150bhp I think?

Shoda did a Mk2 with an EA189 rated at 150hp? I thought that would only be the EA288 which doesn't need the fix?

 

Very curious - how did you find this out..? What engine code does the car have - "CRBC" is the EA189 2.0 with 150bhp I think?

Another member ran it through skoda cheat fix , and it came back with 150 bhp EA 189 , would I be right the same engine is used in the mark 3

Another member ran it through skoda cheat fix , and it came back with 150 bhp EA 189 , would I be right the same engine is used in the mark 3

What with 5-speed DSG - is it the same in 170ps and 190ps ??

skippy41, on 15 Jul 2016 - 02:25, said:

Another member ran it through skoda cheat fix , and it came back with 150 bhp EA 189 , would I be right the same engine is used in the mark 3

 

No, the engine used in the Mark 3 is the EA288. Unlike the EA189, the EA288 is not subject to the recall - if you had one then you would not have been contacted for the fix. 

[...]

 

OK, I see that you are well informed (nothing negative in this statement) - so the engine that burns less fuel and is more efficent - is worse ??

OK, I see that you are well informed (nothing negative in this statement) - so the engine that burns less fuel and is more efficent - is worse ??

Depends on your definition of 'worse'. If you consider CO2 to be a major problem, then it's better, but on human health, then yes it's worse. The caveat with that is that NOx is mainly only a risk factor in urban areas where it's a contributor to smog.