Emissions issues with some Skoda, VW, Audi and Seat models

[chimaera]

VW can clarify this easily if they haven't got anything to hide.

What was the loading applied during the pistonheads test ?.

Was it a manual or DSG or DSG in manual mode?.

Lugging ability must be maintained in any case.

Unless specifically stated otherwise, you can assume a dyno test like that was done at 100 % accelerator application. They will be carried out in a single gear and transmission losses are accounted for so transmission type and operating mode are not relevant.

[Ryeman]

Unless specifically stated otherwise, you can assume a dyno test like that was done at 100 % accelerator application. They will be carried out in a single gear and transmission losses are accounted for so transmission type and operating mode are not relevant.

So long as it's like for like then the comparison stands surely and I'd be surprised if pistonheads didn't apply that principle also.

[CWARD]

It's not as simple as looking at engine speed. At any engine speed, the engine power can vary from minimal to whatever the maximum value for that engine speed is. The power/torque curves show the maximum possible values that can be expected for that engine speed if the accelerator pedal is at 100 %.

If the pedal is pressed down less than 100 %, then the engine will deliver less power.

By tweaking the pedal mapping, the manufacturer can disguise a loss of peak power by increasing the amount of power requested at a given pedal application e.g. 50 % of the pedal now gives 60 % of the peak power instead of say 50 %.

In other words, if you're not driving around the whole time with the pedal mashed into the carpet, it's very likely you wouldn't feel any difference in performance unless the change was huge.

EA189 is a whole family of engines based around the same block/head architecture: there are specific differences between engine codes that are going to be relevant to this discussion.

In altering the pedal position to engine speed to disguise the drop in power and torque below 2200rpm it is only a fudge. The power and torque are still gone and to get the same performance you are having to use a higher engine speed which equates to higher fuel consumption.

The graphs I'd seen showed a 40-20% decrease in power and torque in the useable range (below 2500rpm), whilst peak readings remained similar (as per the clever wording of the update notice). This us effectively making a diesel engine behave like a petrol but without the anywhere near the best of either.

Just noticed the graph I'd seen was on the Honest John website and is the same as Ryeman linked to on Pistonheads.

Edited 14 January, 2017 by CWARD

[CWARD]

If pistonheads is accurate those signed up need a motoring enthusiast legal representative; one who understands the mentality of the average drivers who bought for the claimed, much improved, diesel economy.

This is exactly the problem. The one that was on Jeremy Vine on Radio 2 trying to tell us why we should join the group action had no idea of what he was talking about never mind how to actually drive a diesel or the effects the update have. They would be ripped apart by VAG legal and just made to look fools. Too many jumping on a bandwagon with no wheels at the moment.

[Ryeman]

^^^^^ agree x 2

[Ryeman]

I would imagine you could find a legal petrol head amongst the Harley pilots.......they are gang members on the right side of the law

[Ryeman]

If you are thinking of having the fix done

Note your current performance climbing a favourite hill in 6th at 50-60 mph......because it will not do it after based on the torque graph/table IMO

[CWARD]

I part-ex'd mine last week without the update being done. I drove my brothers updated VRS back to back with mine and there was a noticeable difference with his feeling gutless at lower revs not dissimilar to the huge turbo lags you'd experience of cars in the 80's.

[Ryeman]

I part-ex'd mine last week without the update being done. I drove my brothers updated VRS back to back with mine and there was a noticeable difference with his feeling gutless at lower revs not dissimilar to the huge turbo lags you'd experience of cars in the 80's.

That figures

The crossover is at 2200 which is around 70 mph from memory which won't worry long distance motorway cruisers but for round town puddlers, and a lot of A roads also, it should be very noticeable down low.

Factory was originally 340nm/1750 from memory

Ask VW for EXACTLY what that will be after the fix

[CWARD]

My brother had only bought his car for towing the caravan, with the most usable power for towing now gone I'm not sure what his plans are as he can't afford to change cars again. I can see that without another remap to get it back to what it was he'll be suffering clutch and gearbox problems sooner or later.

[Ryeman]

My brother had only bought his car for towing the caravan, with the most usable power for towing now gone I'm not sure what his plans are as he can't afford to change cars again. I can see that without another remap to get it back to what it was he'll be suffering clutch and gearbox problems sooner or later.

If he can afford it a trade up to the SCR Euro6 would be the way otherwise don't have it done?.

[TheSea]

I am The Sea,

 

My post was taken down yesterday without good reason. My post was an informative piece of information on the site. I am a Skoda Superb owner and my car is within the emissions scandal group.

There are only two principal English law firms involved in the UK in bringing Skoda and the VW Group to "book." It is important not to hold from your members the identity of these organisations who may be doing your members a good service. When I put that post up yesterday it was immediately after coming off the phone to one of the solicitors in the group action. I thought it was important that your members should know about this so that they themselves can make an informed choice. It is not for the editor to withhold information from participants on the site other than material they consider offensive or libellous. All other material should be left for the individual members to formulate their own opinion on and this includes the class action as well.

I have no commercial interest in the legal firms involved. They are undoubtably involved in it for commercial gain and we cannot deny them that. Law is an expensive business these days especially in the UK. It is thought that Skoda or the VW group will try to escape their responsibilities to British drivers in financial terms, especially as the Government has not asked or recommended them to come to a financial settlement. In fact the lack of Government interest in this situation is screaming in its silence. If your members want to take individual actions against the VW group or the Skoda company then each will have to bear the cost and will probebly lose and in turn being swatted down like flies by VW or Skoda. The Group Action should allow the very best information to be brought to bear in a concentrated way at a fraction of the cost (at this moment one 12,000th) for any individual member. The costs of the action has already been underwritten.

 

Some advice for your members. Dr Johnson said in 1791 "Depend upon it, Sir, when a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight it concentrates his mind wonderfully."

 

Well the same applies to the VW Group and Skoda. When they are faced with a group action of Skoda owners and the High Court date is fixed and they know that all technical information will be demanded before the court as may all board meeting records and they know that they have already admitted to the same offence in the US because they had no adequate defence, then it is my humble opinion that to stop an immense corporate embarrassment and save certain board members careers; their board and legal team will advise them to settle with out going to the High Court.

[CWARD]

I am the sea, it could be that your only posts on this forum have been on this subject and pro group action that they could be perceived as biased and though you state you have no stake in the legal firms these are the typical type of actions we see from such firms.

Colin "the editor" will have had his reasons for removing your posts i.e. you may have signed up from an email address previously linked to a request to advertise on the forum or your IP address is the same. Pure speculation on my part but Colin has always put the forum and its community first. You coming from nowhere to say otherwise only demonstrates you have little knowledge of this forum and the people who use it.

If you want to debate please do but attacking the running of the forum will get you nowhere.

Edited 14 January, 2017 by CWARD

[Ootohere]

http://skoda.co.uk/owners/dieselinfo

I made a complaint yesterday about the 2 posts by 'TheSea',  because one seemed to be full of totally wrong information.

 

Some moderator must have looked and considered the posts and removed them.

 

Maybe 'TheSea', can give some information on the details of these Skoda Owners that have received on average 5,000 Euro in Spain.

Who from and why did they receive 'On Average 5,000 Euro'?

Edited 14 January, 2017 by Offski

[chimaera]

So long as it's like for like then the comparison stands surely and I'd be surprised if pistonheads didn't apply that principle also.

 

There's not enough information available on the test they ran to make any kind of assertion about that graph.

 

When I had my last car remapped, we did before and after dyno runs. We did 7 runs before the remap: maximum power varied from 120 to 127 bhp on those runs. Torque would have seen similar variation. Such variation could be used to present a worst-case scenario in a comparison of before/after: present the best before run against the worst after run and you can generate an unfair picture.

 

The Pistonheads graph is done in Excel rather than being a scan of the original dyno printout. Why? Was the data accurately and honestly transcribed?

 

Leaving aside concerns over that particular experiment, we only have three comparisons from three separate vehicles. There's no data on their usage or service history: it's possible there are faults present that would affect the outcome of a before/after dyno comparison. If the EGR was failing for example, the increased EGR usage could show up as under-performance on a dyno.

 

Really if we want reliable, accurate data we need to see hundreds of cars tested with different service and usage histories, both LNT and SCR. This would average out the impact of uncontrolled variables.

[chimaera]

In altering the pedal position to engine speed to disguise the drop in power and torque below 2200rpm it is only a fudge. The power and torque are still gone and to get the same performance you are having to use a higher engine speed which equates to higher fuel consumption.

The graphs I'd seen showed a 40-20% decrease in power and torque in the useable range (below 2500rpm), whilst peak readings remained similar (as per the clever wording of the update notice). This us effectively making a diesel engine behave like a petrol but without the anywhere near the best of either.

Just noticed the graph I'd seen was on the Honest John website and is the same as Ryeman linked to on Pistonheads.

 

Of course it's a fudge: everything to do with your interaction with the car is some sort of fudge. Manufacturers spend a lot of time and effort tuning the behaviour of the vehicle controls to offer a particular driving experience. This will have been done with this update too.

 

We've seen precisely one graph of unknown origin and providence showing that level of drop in power/torque. ADAC's one is at least trustworthy even if it is still only a single vehicle. They're showing marginal impact.

[chimaera]

If you are thinking of having the fix done

Note your current performance climbing a favourite hill in 6th at 50-60 mph......because it will not do it after based on the torque graph/table IMO

 

Unless you're climbing that hill with the accelerator pedal mashed into the carpet you'll see no difference. Anything less than 100 % accelerator, you're not using the maximum torque available anyway: the engine is only providing what's necessary to overcome the load on it at that point.

 

 

That figures

The crossover is at 2200 which is around 70 mph from memory which won't worry long distance motorway cruisers but for round town puddlers, and a lot of A roads also, it should be very noticeable down low.

Factory was originally 340nm/1750 from memory

Ask VW for EXACTLY what that will be after the fix

 

Once again, puddling around town you are NOT using all of the available power/torque at a given engine speed. At 1750 rpm, 340 Nm is the MAXIMUM amount of torque the engine CAN deliver, but it'll only deliver that if you're applying the accelerator at 100 %. It'd be a huge waste of fuel, and a bit scary, to use full torque all the time.

 

Under these driving conditions, any perceived deficit in power is in your head. Sorry if that sounds harsh, but it's the truth. Our brains are great at fooling us with our expectations. If you sit into the car expecting to be disappointed by its performance, then you will be: it's called confirmation bias.

[Ryeman]

So where is the updated torque claim which was previously (from memory) - 340nm@1750

It's a very simple figure which was part of the promotional material originally

VW claim no reduction in consumption or drivability

But

No documentation to show that - no graphs, no tables, no claimed max bhp and no claimed max torque (more importantly nothing at 1750)

Why?

[Ryeman]

Of course it's a fudge: everything to do with your interaction with the car is some sort of fudge. Manufacturers spend a lot of time and effort tuning the behaviour of the vehicle controls to offer a particular driving experience. This will have been done with this update too.

 

We've seen precisely one graph of unknown origin and providence showing that level of drop in power/torque. ADAC's one is at least trustworthy even if it is still only a single vehicle. They're showing marginal impact.

Are you suggesting that as drivers of diesels over many years we don't know the obvious on-road difference in torque between a non turbo average petrol engine's lugging ability and that of a diesel......full throttle or not?!

Caravan towers WILL use full throttle (mashed or not) to climb THAT hill and, unless the only graphs available are a complete fabrication, they WILL have to rev at 2200 to get their 340nm.

VW stands accused but remains totally silent......and they DON'T have to test 'hundreds' either to come clean with THEIR figures.

Nothing!

[skomaz]

Also if VAG had published in their shiny brochures that THIS MODEL DOES NOT MEET EURO 5 SPEC like other cars do will you have still purchased one,?

 

If you were asking me - YES ABSOLUTELY I would have still purchased the car I have - It's a damn good car, does everything I want of it, is reliable, comfortable, cheap to run and a damn site better value than anything else comparable.   I can (very honestly say) emissions levels were never near, let aloe on, the list of requirements for me.

Edited 14 January, 2017 by skomaz

[Ryeman]

If you were asking me - YES ABSOLUTELY I would have still purchased the car I have - It's a damn good car, does everything I want of it, is reliable, comfortable, cheap to run and a damn site better value than anything else comparable.   I can (very honestly say) emissions levels were never near, let aloe on, the list of requirements for me.

If it's one of 'them' , don't get the fix done then.

Get a SCR one and be happier still.

[skomaz]

If it's one of 'them' , don't get the fix done then.

Get a SCR one and be happier still.

 

Mine isn't - I don't give a hoot (see my earlier post) but do find it strange how many others feel they are due compo...

[Ryeman]

Mine isn't - I don't give a hoot (see my earlier post) but do find it strange how many others feel they are due compo...

You need to be in their post fix shoes perhaps

[Ryeman]

I was wrong re the 'crossover' in torque and power; it's actually >2500 rpm .....say above 130kph/80mph which would make it particularly acceptable to German motorway cruisers .

Pardon the cynicism, but the test regime AFAIK doesn't include such behaviour, but the area of the graph lacking torque is pretty much exactly where the emissions testing would be done.

What a surprise!

[ColinD]

@TheSea ultimately this is a privately owned forum, by me, we don't review every post before it's made, but afterwards if alerted to it. There are things we do not permit.

 

This isn't our first rodeo on advertisement posts. It's not the first time we've seen people posting 'helpful' information/links as there opening post, some are ok, others not. We do encourage open and honest sharing and I'll freely offer help to those who need it. However your post showed all the hallmarks of being a cut and paste advert from some prepared text, nothing about it read as a personal experience.

 

This was on the back of a contact by a legal company, or representatives of asking to have a free advert/post placed on the site for diesel-gate claims; which isn't happening, it was then, a too good to be true kind of post, so we hid it till we found out more. 

 

I have no objection to people signing up and taking action, it's what we should do, I will take offence at companies bypassing my goodwill and making a gain/advantage on you.

 

As others have said, the good of the community comes before all else, we welcome all, to get to know us and find our feet. Hopefully these words shed some light on the vanishing post.

 

Colin.