|
"The VW Group has halted sales of Porsche, Audi and VW cars in the US fitted with the 3.0 litre diesel engine after the EPA claimed they contained a defeat device."
Read more: http://www.carsuk.net/car-news/#ixzz3qbsZAUGo
Another undeclared device...
They really want to be fined..
|
|
BBC News website reports that VW sales dropped by 9.8% last month in UK amidst the scandal.....
...then went on to say that Ford sales dropped by 9% and Vauxhall sales by 16% !!
So, a non-news story really.
Edited by Sofa Spud on 05/11/2015 at 10:58
|
|
b***** typical, an me mid-cycle in my 10-12 year car buying regime, when there are diesel bargains to be had.
Gerrr!
|
|
|
|
I suspect some people are temporarily putting off buying any car until it had been definitively determined which makes and cars are affected, given that some non-VAG brands have been talked of as well, including Vauxhall. Too much speculation at present and not enough hard facts.
|
|
|
|
|
The 'present path' (unclear and opaque) is just what we don't want. We're still in the dark about what exactly is to be done with the engines concerned; and having stated categorically that petrol engines are not affected, they are now saying that some of them are.
So would you rather they give information as they get it (and it may then change as further investiagions continue) or would you rather they kept quiet until they knew the full facts?
|
|
No, I want them to tell the truth. If they say 'petrol engines are not affected' - as they have done - I excpect that to be true and not subject to change later.
This isn't some form of science in the process of being discovered (when of course things change). This is something that VW Group employees did, presumably deliberately, and it should be known about.
|
No, I want them to tell the truth. If they say 'petrol engines are not affected' - as they have done - I excpect that to be true and not subject to change later.
This isn't some form of science in the process of being discovered (when of course things change). This is something that VW Group employees did, presumably deliberately, and it should be known about.
If you want someone to tell you the truth then you have to allow for that to sometimes change when something else is found out at a later date.
Yes, we know it was deliberate but until everything is investigated then we won't know the full scale of the problem.
|
Investigate what exactly. This isn't a recall because they discovered a design flaw.
This is deliberate, certain people st VW must have known what they were doing.
The cheat software was engineered to do just that, cheat.
VW seem to be drip feeding what they know a week at a time, because they don't
want it all coming out at once. Can't imagine why, maybe something to do with their
excellent share price at the moment.
|
|
Not necessarily - it could be due to the VAG employees involved desperately scrambling to find other employment knowing full well that if they fully admit their guilt now, they'll soon be sacked, so they keep schtum as long as possible (quite a feature in car making, especially in the Far East when you occasion see former [resigned] bosses bowing profusely in 'shame' because they covered up some bad technical flaw for a number of years [e.g. the recent airbags debacle or Toyota's woes a few years ago]).
|
|
|
|
|
<< Yes, we know it was deliberate but until everything is investigated then we won't know the full scale of the problem. >>
And probably not even then. When such prestigious backsides are under intense public scrutiny we must assume that only the minimum acceptable amount of truth will be published ?
|
|
|
Several Volkswagen engineers have admitted manipulating carbon dioxide emissions data because goals set by former Chief Executive Martin Winterkorn were difficult to achieve, Bild am Sonntag reported.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2015/11/08/uk-volkswagen-emissions-idUKKCN0SX0CP20151108
|
|
So there it finally is admitted. They cheated by using all manner of tricks as alleged by the press over the last few months. This has to effect ALL models petrol/diesel.
No doubt other manufacturers do the same.
So, retest/reclassify all vehicles going back to introduction of co2 based ved. Pay hmrc the difference in tax.
WHAT I DEMAND IS THEY ALSO WORK OUT HOW MUCH I'VE OVERSPENT ON FUEL DUE TO THESE LIES AND PAY ME TWICE THE DIFFERENCE PLUS FURTHER LUMP SUM COMPENSATION.
SOLICTORS, GET READY TO RUMBLE......
|
|
The difference is that all those 'cheats', like taping up panel gaps, taking out seats, not turning the A/C on etc ARE legally allowable in the EU tests (or at least they didn't make them illegal). The new EU tests will supposedly (given their track record, I'm not holding my breath) put a stop to all this.
Unfortunately for you, it wasn't exactly a secret that the mpg and CO2 figures have been achieved in this way, thus if you (or anyone else) has bought a car in the last 10-15 years and are now angrily wanting compensation, then sorry, it ain't gonna happen. This is completely different from the VAG story, which was active rule-breaking.
The only people to win out of any of this will be the legal 'profession' if your course of action were to occur. All the manufacturers would do is claw any 'compensation' back by upping prices of new cars and servicing/parts.
|
The difference is that all those 'cheats', like taping up panel gaps, taking out seats, not turning the A/C on etc ARE legally allowable in the EU tests (or at least they didn't make them illegal). The new EU tests will supposedly (given their track record, I'm not holding my breath) put a stop to all this.
How is taping up panel gaps going to help on a rolling road?
|
|
"How is taping up panel gaps going to help on a rolling road?"
Apparently the tests involve a big fan to simulate air drag. It is not forbidden to remove windscreen wipers, door mirrors and use tape to reduce drag. Taking out any spare wheel etc. will reduce weight.
The tests must take place in a temperature of between 20° and 30°C. Acceleration and deceleration cycles are so gentle as to be meaningless in the real world.
Possibly the only positive thing to be said about them is that in theory they are the same for every new car, hence it is possible to make comparisons. But in the case of VAG at least, some cars had software to skew the results.
Remember, emissions include NOx in the case of diesels, which directly relates to air quality, and CO2, which directly relates to fuel economy as well as environmental issues like greenhouse gases. So skewing the results raises a number of issues.
Edited by FP on 09/11/2015 at 13:27
|
|
|
|
Either not all the tests are on rolling roads, or that those that are have to include air being blown over the car to simulate the air resistance when it is driven outside. Either way, taping up panel gaps (they may even remove one of the wing mirrors) etc helps reduce air resistance and thus increase fuel efficientcy/reduce CO2 emissions.
|
|
I remember reading that the rolling road has to be calibrated to simulate the effects of vehicle inertia and aerodynamic drag. This is done by placing each model of car in a particular "inertia class".
I think part of the determination of which class it belongs to is made by actually driving it for a short distance outdoors. It is at this point that the taping of panel gaps and removing mirrors, etc comes into play.
|
|
The whole thing is like a Brian Rix farce, is there anyone normal who belives anything a manufacturer or politician says any more, you'd have to be a recent arrival from another planet to not know the offical fuel and therefore all allied figures (and a politicains pre-written utterances) are complete balderdash and to be treated with the derision they richly deserve.
|
|
Finally found where I read about it - it was in this very forum 2 years ago!
http://www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?t=102149
See postings by brum, re: coastdown test.
Also:
https://hyundaimpginfo.com/resources/details/coastdown-facts/
Edited by RichT54 on 09/11/2015 at 14:33
|
|
"... actually driving it for a short distance outdoors. It is at this point that the taping of panel gaps and removing mirrors, etc comes into play."
I can find absolutely no evidence that the test is conducted anywhere but in a lab.
See the following, which includes reference to a fan to simulate wind resistance:
www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34340301
The rolling road dynamometer provides inertia simulation, apparently.
|
|
The Type Approval test procedure consists of two main elements, being the actual emission test (also known as Type I test or NEDC test) carried out in a laboratory using a chassis dynamometer,and a “coast down” test to determine road load parameters that need to be simulated by the chassis dynamometer. Instead of using road load parameters determined from a coast down test manufacturer can choose to use so-called “cookbook” values. In that case chassis dynamometer settings are determined by applying a prescribed set of load terms, which are dependent on vehicle mass. The mass is looked up in the ‘cookbook’ or table in UNECE Regulation No. 83 (version 4),
Annex 4A, Chapter 5, page 103 and the appropriate set of load terms read off and entered into the dynamometer control system. With this method there is no coast down matching as there is no target speed vs. time curve.
|
The difference is that all those 'cheats', like taping up panel gaps, taking out seats, not turning the A/C on etc ARE legally allowable in the EU tests (or at least they didn't make them illegal). The new EU tests will supposedly (given their track record, I'm not holding my breath) put a stop to all this.
Either not all the tests are on rolling roads, or that those that are have to include air being blown over the car to simulate the air resistance when it is driven outside. Either way, taping up panel gaps (they may even remove one of the wing mirrors) etc helps reduce air resistance and thus increase fuel efficientcy/reduce CO2 emissions.
I have never read such a load of b0II0cks in my life especially when you consisder the poster claims to be an “engineer”.
You should read the rules then post rather than listening in a pub.
|
|
"I have never read such a load of b0II0cks in my life..."
Not sure what is being objected to here.
Wind drag is created in the lab tests. Manufacturers are allowed to minimise this by using tape, removing mirrors etc.
Now, I've no personal experience of this, but if it's incorrect an awful lot of stuff that's searchable on the web is wrong too.
|
|
There is no wind drag test in the lab, that would require a wind tunnel with wind speeds upto 75 mph. The largish fan you see in these tests is purely to ventilate the engine bay to stop it overheating.
The parameters are calculated from a "coastdown test" carried out by the manufacturer on their outdoor test track.
Edited by brum on 09/11/2015 at 18:07
|
|
So why do they tape the doors/panel gaps up if not to reduce drag?
|
So why do they tape the doors/panel gaps up if not to reduce drag?
Show me photographic proof that it actually takes place.
No photo, no proof.
End of discussion.
|
|
Let's leave that to Avant and the other moderators shall we? If you don't like what's being said, you have the opportunity to go elsewhere or just avoid the conversation.
PS. What you're looking for (the wind in the test rigs) is on the Beeb's article from 24/09/15 called "Volkswagen scandal: Are car emissions tests fit for purpose?" (we're not allowed to post links) and has a lovely European Commision photo-diagram to illustrate that wind is indeed similated, hence why I said about them taping the cars up if its not illegal (which it current isn't, but apparently will be when the new test comes out soon).
Edited by Engineer Andy on 09/11/2015 at 19:07
|
|
Probably no-one bothered to check the link I submitted higher up. To quote from it:
'For Jane Thomas, from Emissions Analytics, one of the leading independent emissions analysts, the NEDC tests are "very sedate and short. There is no resemblance to real-world driving".
The gentle acceleration, cruising speed, and braking used in the tests would be unrecognisable to most drivers, she says.
There is no simulation of prolonged motorway driving, and carmakers use the most optimal settings to improve performance, such as the bare minimum of fuel and switching off air conditioning.
She says carmakers might remove windscreen wipers, wing mirrors, and spare wheels, and even tape up doors to reduce drag.'
The end of the article says that the VCA (=Vehicle Certification Agency) "declined to comment".
Either Ms Thomas doesn't know what she's talking about, or the BBC mis-reported it, or some people on here ... just know better.
P.S. A Google search of "car emissions test taping up doors" yields page after page of references from all kinds of sources - I gave up checking after seven pages. If this is a myth it's pretty well embedded.
Edited by FP on 09/11/2015 at 19:41
|
|
I doubt the BBC misrepresented her or she lied, as Sky also ran the same article with a difference source, and, more importantly, no SMMT spokesperson came on TV strongly refuting these 'claims'. I'm not trying to 'turn the knife' into VAG (especially when those involved constitute a very small minority of employees) - I seriously doubt if they are any 'worse' at doing this (perfectly legal) set of changes for their testing than any other manufacturer. As i said before, I blame those legislators and government officials making the rules/laws, not the car manufacturers keeping to their letter (if not their spirit).
Its only that given a) VAG's current woes regarding the 'defeat' software on their ECUs and b) that fact plus their heavy investment in small-engined turbo cars (which via looking at HJ's 'Real MPG' tables seem to fare worse than normally-aspirated ones) means that they will inevitably be affected far worse than other manufacturers, which I still think is sad given VAG produce some fine cars (the Golf and Leon I particularly like).
|
"I have never read such a load of b0II0cks in my life..."
Not sure what is being objected to here.
Wind drag is created in the lab tests. Manufacturers are allowed to minimise this by using tape, removing mirrors etc.
Now, I've no personal experience of this, but if it's incorrect an awful lot of stuff that's searchable on the web is wrong.
Having some experience of rolling road tests, we had a fan to keep things cool when using full power.
Wind drag on a rolling road can only be simulated by feeding a braking torque into the rollers, the amount of this needs to be calculated from the vehicle's drag coefficient (which will have been measured using a wind tunnel during development/prototyping) and other parameters.
That is the point where panel gap taping etc may occur; you can't directly measure drag effects on a rolling road - blowing air over the vehicle doesn't move it or affect the power to turn the wheels.
|
|
There's no need for such rudeness, and BTW, I AM an engineer. I never claim to be right on everything - that's why I postulated the reason that car manufacturers tape up panel gaps and doors (otherwise why bother) as part of the tests to calculate mpg. Anyway - who made you the expert-in-residence?
HJ himself and other industry experts have (if I recall correctly) said that manufacturers can legally do all those things as part of the tests that calculate mpg etc (blame those officials making up the rules that have huge loopholes in them) - I wouldn't have said it otherwise.
|
Ignore him Andy, he can't help it.
Rudeness Tourette's I believe is the syndrome.
I'm surprised the mods on here allow his language, even
if he uses 1s and 0s to make up his words.
|
|
FFS why dont some of you lot use google and find out what a coastdown test is.
Heres one example
hyundaimpginfo.com/resources/details/coastdown-fac...s
Taping up, removing mirrors, overinflating tyres would be done on the coastdown test, which is carried out OUTDOORS DRIVING ON A REAL TRACK.
Doctoring the engine oil with diesel is done in the lab NEDC test on rollers.
|
|
Well given the BBC/Sky reports refer to other tests (this one one you refer to is a US one, as ir refers to the EPA) which are EU accredited, and those DO use wind generators to simulate air effects. Both may be acceptable in the EU - I don't know.
Anyway, that's all irrelevant, given we know the car manufacturers appear to use the full latitude of the rules/laws to ensure they achieve the best result they can, which, even if its not exactly Cricket, is legal at present, and is different to the 'software cheat' that VAG used. I'd rather they all don't use these 'legal cheats', and hopefully the new EU testing procedures will reflect that. If any manufacturers ARE breaking the laws (anywhere), then they deserve to be brought to book.
|
|
So what do people actually want.
The present system where ALL manufacturers play with the testing system to come up with unrealistic figures but we all pay low VED.
A new system where the figures are more realistic (but still nonsense in the real world since we all drive on different roads in different conditions at different speeds) and we all pay higher VED.
Mwe and the wife currently pay a total of £30 a year on our 2 cars. If the system reflected our actual MPG figures under the current rates we would probably be paying 2 x £145 = £290.
I for one do not want to pay an extra £260 a year tax to the government and judging by the normal reaction on here I do not expect many would.
So why do posters now appear to want to pay more tax instead of using their brains when buying a car and accepting that the figures do not represent the real world (which is exactly what it says in the brochure small print).
Suppose the arguement will partly go away in 2017 when the new VED rates are introduced on new cars even though owners of current low VED cars will still benefit from the low rates.
|
|
What I want is happening - flat rate VED.
|
What I want is happening - flat rate VED.
But its not what buyers of efficient smaller cars want.
But flat rate is fine if you are planning to buy a gas guzzler just under £40000.
Remember that the current system was introduced to get buyers into more energy efficient cars (even if they don't meet the official figures they are still better than gas guzzlers). But the idiots that currently occupy Downing Street are clearly trying to appease their voters who traditionally buy less efficient bigger cars who will not be affected by the change or will possibly even benefit.
I do not want flat rate. I want to be able to buy efficient cars with low VED.
Edited by skidpan on 10/11/2015 at 10:34
|
I do not want flat rate. I want to be able to buy efficient cars with low VED.
The whole VED system is a fiasco, I currently pay £85 a year more than I should due to the fact my little van was registered between december 2006 and jan 2009. The governments VED system does not recognise Euro 4 or 5 vehicles in this time frame. So I have a Euro5 engine with DPF and gain nothing from it. I'd have been better off buying an old euro 2 or 3 van.
|
I currently pay £85 a year more than I should due to the fact my little van was registered between december 2006 and jan 2009
Vans are on a totally different system. Its cars being discussed here.
|
|
The VED bands don't make sense. Tipping 1gram over a band can take you £100 up so its not even balanced.
I know something with a 2002 1.6 Zafira - £290 he has to pay for that 'gas guzzler' which stings a bit when a colleague has a 4.4 V8 BMW X5 and pays the same, purely down to the age of the cars!
Ironically if he'd bought a Zafira slightly older, or slightly newer his tax would have been a lot less - same engine though
Simplest VED is none - duty on fuel is the most balanced way.
Edited by Snakey on 10/11/2015 at 12:16
|
I currently pay £85 a year more than I should due to the fact my little van was registered between december 2006 and jan 2009
Vans are on a totally different system. Its cars being discussed here.
Incorrect, it was VED being discussed! VED applies to almost ALL vehicles that roll on the tarmac of the UK. So it is perfectly within the discussion.
|
What I want is happening - flat rate VED.
I don't want that - more efficient cars should be cheaper.
It should always be cheaper to insure a little efficient city car to some V8 super car.
Edited by alan1302 on 10/11/2015 at 12:42
|
|
Replacing VED with higher duty on petrol has always seemed like a no brainer to me. However, the fact that it never seems to be considered by the government must mean there are problems with doing this.
|
|
I think that's because some see it adversly affecting poorer drivers who sometime, through no fault of their own, use their (small or older) car a lot, which would then lead to a decent increase in their fuel bill over a year, whereas a rich bloke with a Ferrari who used it on weekends or track days would end up paying less, hence why VED is fixed in bands related to CO2. The rich bloke pays more, even if he doesn't do that much mileage and ironically polluting less overall. Politicians presumably felt, until recently, that it was political suicide to tax smaller, fuel-efficient car owners in the same way as the rich ones. Sort of a poll tax argument.
I personally don't see the problem in just adding a couple of pence to fuel duty and doing away with VED (it must be so much cheaper to collect that tax) - better for them to crack down on uninsured/MOTed/cloned vehicles and unlicenced drivers instead.
|
|
I used to be in favour of replacing VED with an extra tax on fuel but there is one basic issue as I see it today.
A few years down the road after a change of government or even a simple change of leadership they decide that a quick way to raise taxes is via the motorist. In a meeting someone points out that several years ago there was a system of taxing cars based on emissions and then it was a flat rate (they forget it was flat rate back in the 60's etc) and they decide to reintroduce it. First its a lowish rate but it creeps up every year and in a few years we are paying VED on fuel and a new annual tax to be allowed to use our cars on the road.
I am now in favour of keeping the current system. After years of driving a car with high VED for its cc (it was actually way more economical in the real world than many cars costing way less in VED) we have now got a car in a low band. I would like to keep it that way and not pay the same as someone driving a huge tonka toy using 3 times the amount of fuel.
|
I am now in favour of keeping the current system. After years of driving a car with high VED for its cc (it was actually way more economical in the real world than many cars costing way less in VED) we have now got a car in a low band. I would like to keep it that way and not pay the same as someone driving a huge tonka toy using 3 times the amount of fuel.
Good luck. They can, will and are changing the bands.
|
|
Yes the secret to buying into the right VED band is to borrow Mystic Megs crystal ball.
The motorist will always be the handy supplier of tax revenue, thats why they will never ban cars altogether even if they pontificate loudly about doing so whilst in green mode, if we stopped buying them taxing them fuelling them plus all the running and standing charges (al taxable again and again), whats left of the ruined economy would collapse.
|
|
http://www.carsuk.net/vw-emissions-fix-voluntary-in-the-uk-so-why-bother/
I gather the DOT has said they are not going to alter any cars tax band and VW fix is voluntary here?
|
Good luck. They can, will and are changing the bands.
I know they are but the changes only apply to new vehicles registered after a date in 2017, existing ones will keep the same VED bands with adjustments annually for inflation as I understand it.
So providing we keep our low VED vehicle for many years we should benefit for many years.
Unless they change the rules again.
Next time we will have to get a stupid hybrid to benefit. Time the authorities looked at the way they dodge the CO2 figures. Great in town no doubt when the duracell has a bit of charge but once on the M1 they pollute like any petrol car. They are of course allowed to start the EU test with a fully charged battery, how can a typical owner do that everyday with a car that does not charge off the mains. Its a joke.
|
|
Just had a thought.
All the suppliers of Tuning Boxes claim that their products produce more power and better economy with no downsides.
So why don't VW simply buy a lorry load of tunng boxes and fit them or simply employ all these chaps who make these boxes in a shed to sort out all their problems.
|
Just had a thought.
All the suppliers of Tuning Boxes claim that their products produce more power and better economy with no downsides.
So why don't VW simply buy a lorry load of tunng boxes and fit them or simply employ all these chaps who make these boxes in a shed to sort out all their problems.
Why would they if they have no need to, they are not being forced to do anything here, though owners can have the fix if they want bearing in mind no one knows the effects at the moment....
I think VW are the least of our worries considering the emissions levels from India, their coal burning is undoing all the work we put in over all these years, not that we started all that early
Edited by bolt on 11/11/2015 at 15:40
|
Just had a thought.
All the suppliers of Tuning Boxes claim that their products produce more power and better economy with no downsides.
So why don't VW simply buy a lorry load of tunng boxes and fit them or simply employ all these chaps who make these boxes in a shed to sort out all their problems.
Why would they if they have no need to, they are not being forced to do anything here, though owners can have the fix if they want bearing in mind no one knows the effects at the moment....
I think VW are the least of our worries considering the emissions levels from India, their coal burning is undoing all the work we put in over all these years, not that we started all that early
The joke went over your head by a few miles there! LOL
|
|
(The joke went over your head by a few miles there! LOL)
Funny that, the possibility of tuning boxes being used has been mentioned by some garages,to a nephew of mine and he seemed keen on the idea ? along with a couple of his VW golf mates...
They must have read your joke lol
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
