Volkswagen emissions scandal

[Andy Monty]

The elephant in the room is NOx, not CO2.
.

Yep and many coal stations are now burning petcoke
http://pecconsultinggroup.com/newsflash/comparative-properties-of-coal-and-petcoke


Many had to retrofit FGD systems in the 90's and early 00's however they were not designed to handle petcoke.... Like wise most boilers have not been modified That and it been prohibitaly expensive to run the system


And its shipped from america and much is road transported to site and been a "refinery by-product" it's not assessed like fossil fuels

As for bio mass been " green" don't get me going on that one

 

[Most Easterly Pandas]

For example: I currently drive a 1.4 litre supermini.

Hold it tiger, you drive a GP, which is a small family car and NOT a super mini. As such you should be taxed to hell in comparison to Fiat 500 and Panda drivers!

I have previously explained all these that you mention.

I missed the comment about the BMW i8 yesterday, but it does prove my point rather beautifully: if memory serves correctly, the official mpg for the i8 is something along the lines of 134mpg. However, I remember hearing that the mpg people are actually getting out of them is in the 30s!!

This doesn't prove anything - firstly can you provide a link to think and the conditions it was used in, secondly a PHEV (which is what the I8, and in fact my Prius is) are the exception, as they'll vary massively in acclaimed MPG vs real world depending upon use.

My car has a 134.5MPGe acclaimed, I get 85 average due to my usage patterns, however in a few months my usage will change, and this will be around 140-160MPG average, which will exceed claimed! So don't try and compare apples with pears.

The issue I have is that as things currently stand, people who buy the latest models which perform unrealistically well in emissions tests are paying less tax than they should whilst people who can only afford to drive cars 10 years old plus are being penalised for it.

Again define unrealistically performing - they're performing better than cars a decade ago, so why shouldn't they be rewarded?

Likewise they all have a bench test, this is designed so all cars are tested like for like to give a fair comparison. As such some cars in the real world will do better on a motorway vs others which will do better in a city based up on usage and engine sizes etc. Perhaps due to this Supermini's should only be allowed in town and bigger cars on the motorway only as each will be in its element then with no compromise on emissions.

Then you'd notice the difference in the fuel bills.

Why not scrap tax then and just leave it on fuel? Because whats the worst it'll do? Only cripple the economy!

Which is why people objecting to a capacity based tax system on environmental grounds is a load of nonsense.

Not at all, you're contradicting yourself again!

Well, they clearly are getting away with it, hence the difference between claimed mpg and co2 emissions, and actual mpg and co2 emissions.

Again no, a bench test will never be the same as real world, as 'real world' is different for EVERYONE!

 

[g8rpi]

Well, I've just seen a private offer for an all electric car on a 2 year lease at about 1/2 retail price (can't give any more info). It would do my commute nicely. However, even if I charged it for free at work, it would still be cheaper for me to keep my 1.9 16V mJTD Croma for two years. This assumes current price for diesel, tax, servicing (included with the electric), taking minimum scrap value for the Croma after the two years AND the purchase price of the Croma. So I won't be going for the coal powered option

Robert G8RPI.

 

[ChrisUK]

Oh no, MEP you'll set him off again. I only just got him to be quiet lol.

 

[AndyRKett]

Again define unrealistically performing - they're performing better than cars a decade ago, so why shouldn't they be rewarded?



Likewise they all have a bench test, this is designed so all cars are tested like for like to give a fair comparison. As such some cars in the real world will do better on a motorway vs others which will do better in a city based up on usage and engine sizes etc. Perhaps due to this Supermini's should only be allowed in town and bigger cars on the motorway only as each will be in its element then with no compromise on emissions.

Puntofan love to quote how safe his 10 year old punto is but fails to recognise that there have been several changes to the N-Cap tests since 2006 when it was built meaning that his punto gets an artificially high star rating compared to new cars.

Times change and technologies change and with them so do the tests, so in the future, future cars will under go real world testing (after 2017) they are not going to retrospectively test every make and model on the road. To demand such a thing would be no different than if ncap started crash testing old grandes again but by current standard and deciding that it was now a 2 or 3 star car.

 

[portland_bill]

Best way to reduce emissions is to reduce distances travelled. We are still building houses in country towns and villages where there is no work, so creating more commuters and more traffic jams. Need more joined-up thinking.

(And here I am, helping create more drivers.)

 

[ChrisUK]

Where else are you supposed to build them? Built up areas which contain the businesses are exactly that "built-up". Unless you build upwards. Then there's the price problem. Housing in these built up areas is often massively overpriced. Trouble is our Public transport is basically third world. If you're anywhere else other than London, Birmingham or Just outside them it's worse than useless.

Would take me 3 buses from 2 separate operators and 2 hours to cover 16 miles a journey that takes me 20minutes in the car.

 

[Most Easterly Pandas]

Would take me 3 buses from 2 separate operators and 2 hours to cover 16 miles a journey that takes me 20minutes in the car.

Like wise, my 25 mile 30 min drive to work would take 90min on the bus and cost me about £5 return, more than the car uses in fuel.

 

[Southsea]

Sorry but (UK) emissions for diesel cars are NOT "very stringent" they are plain inadequate. Diesel is full of sulphur it turns to carbon particulates on the nano scale. If NOX doesn't kill you (sloooowly) then C in your alveoli will very slowly European and UK Governments should be prosecuted for abusive disregard of human health. They sought to make a villain out of CO2 and in so doing created a whole new (profit making) industry while Climate Change has always been around humans haven't and with NOX and C particulates a lot of them will get very sick and die expensively. Ditch your dirty diesel!

 

[jrkitching]

So - no surprises here - folks make their transportation choices based on cost & convenience.

At least in the UK, both are probably more dependent on government fiscal and public transport policies than on technology.

The academic research I posted earlier is saying - quite clearly - that if we want to reduce real world NOx levels to meet EU targets, then we will have to cut back on the use of diesel passenger cars (even most Euro6 ones) in environmentally sensitive environments; ie most cities.

I'd say the implication of all this is that the government will use fiscal policy to remove any cost advantage to owning and operating diesel cars; the only real questions are how, when, and the degree to which this is made retrospective.

 

[StevenRB45]

Where else are you supposed to build them? Built up areas which contain the businesses are exactly that "built-up". Unless you build upwards. Then there's the price problem. Housing in these built up areas is often massively overpriced. Trouble is our Public transport is basically third world. If you're anywhere else other than London, Birmingham or Just outside them it's worse than useless.

Would take me 3 buses from 2 separate operators and 2 hours to cover 16 miles a journey that takes me 20minutes in the car.

Like wise, my 25 mile 30 min drive to work would take 90min on the bus and cost me about £5 return, more than the car uses in fuel.

I was thinking on this as part of this thread, I'm in a similar boat but the reason for that is car ownership. My sister doesn't drive, so she lives closer to the city, bought a house near the Metro, I do drive so didn't even think about public transport when I bought my house.

Public transport has declined massively in the last 20 years where I live, there used to be a bus that stopped outside where I work now when I was a kid and went past my current house, took 25 mins on a good day, car takes 20. Now the same trip takes 2 indirect buses and a significant walk, so around 90 minutes. The bus probably went because it wasn't profitable, now it will never be profitable because the crap bus service forces you to have a car and if you have a car why would you pay a fiver to travel 9 miles in discomfort?

Reversing the trend is near impossible without cars being prohibitively expensive or running buses at a loss to get the standard of service required to coax people out of their cars.

 

[jrkitching]

Sorry but (UK) emissions for diesel cars are NOT "very stringent" they are plain inadequate. Ditch your dirty diesel!

Probably the most succinct summary of current research I've seen thus far.

 

[AGH1965]

Indeed real world may be worse than testing but, leaving defeat devices out, you can't blme the manufacturers for setting the cars up to pass the test, they could hardly set up for best real world if it then failed the test.

If we want to improve real world air quality, we need real world emissions limits, and manufacturers must set up vehicles to meet them. If necessary, suitable limiters must be installed to prevent the driver from driving in such a way that these limits can be exceeded.

I think you both are right, but the people we have to blame for this mess are the politicians in Brussels. They should come up with decent legislation, but yesterday it was again in the newspapers that the European countries with large car industries don't want that.

Real world emissions testing isn't new at all. Truck manufacturers have to deal with in-service conformity testing already.

In-Service Conformity Testing. Euro VI regulation also introduced in-use testing requirements that involve field measurements using PEMS. The testing is conducted over a mix of urban (0-50 km/h), rural (50-75 km/h) and motorway (> 75 km/h) conditions, with exact percentages of these conditions depending on vehicle category. First in-use test should be conducted at the time of type approval testing.

(Source = https://www.dieselnet.com/standards/eu/hd.php , PEMS = portable emissions measurement system)

 

[jrkitching]

Real world emissions testing isn't new at all. Truck manufacturers have to deal with in-service conformity testing already.

And random on-road testing studies have shown that trucks & other larger commercial diesel vehicles by and large meet or better EU NOx limits in normal driving. (As do petrol cars; it's specifically diesel cars & light vans that have issues with real world NOx levels).

Technically it's much easier to meet NOx targets with Selective Catalyst Reduction systems (that's adblue to you & me); such systems are commonplace on most larger diesel vehicles. Interestingly the only diesel passenger car that met NOx limits during on-road testing in the research I posted earlier also used an SCR system.

I think you both are right, but the people we have to blame for this mess are the politicians in Brussels. They should come up with decent legislation, but yesterday it was again in the newspapers that the European countries with large car industries don't want that.

Absolutely; the manufacturers are currently lobbying tooth & nail to delay the introduction of real-world emissions testing, as they know they haven't a hope of meeting the limits without substantial new investment.

I suspect it will prove uneconomic to modify existing diesel cars (including most Euro6 ones) to meet on-road NOx targets; my guess is that it'll need a complete redesign of the exhaust and emissions control components. I believe it will take much more than just a software update to make these cars clean enough to meet real-world limits - though that probably will be sufficient to enable them to pass the current off-road test.

I think that cleaning up the air in our cities is going to be as much a political issues as it is a technical one.

 

[AGH1965]

the manufacturers are currently lobbying tooth & nail ...

I think that cleaning up the air in our cities is going to be as much a political issues as it is a technical one.

Recently a Member of the European Parliament stated on Dutch television that he wouldn't be able to do his job without the lobbyists of the car industry. What the f***???

 

[jrkitching]

Recently a Member of the European Parliament stated on Dutch television that he wouldn't be able to do his job without the lobbyists of the car industry. What the f***???

Seems to me it's the equivalent of putting Dracula in charge of a blood bank .

 

[AGH1965]

At least Dracula knows all about blood. So he's probably the best qualified man for that job! Politicians on the other hand...

 

[StevenRB45]

As a bit of an aside to all this, a work colleague bought a brand new diesel Tiguan 3 months ago. Already a bit miffed that VWs actions had wiped a grand off her cars value over night you can imagine how overjoyed she was when the service light came on. After 3 months the adblue is depleted and if not topped up soon the car will forcibly shut down when the tank runs dry.

Of course as befitting the dealer network that consistently comes bottom of satisfaction surveys they asked her to bring it in in 18 days time when they would have a courtesy car available. Oddly enough she wasn't too happy about this as she says she wasn't made aware of the requirements for adblue at point of sale and she may do more miles than she has adblue left over that time frame, also they want to charge for the loan car. Complained and all of a sudden loan car in 2 days time free of charge, gotta say we'll done VW it's amazing the level of service 27k buys you.

 

[gadge]

Just herd on the news that the chap in charge doesn't know if there was more than two "rogue engineers" involved in the programming of software........ Are they really having a laugh?? Do they really think the public will buy that load of b####cks that know one knew what was going on??

 

[306maxi]

Working in the engineering department for a medium sized company I can safely say that just two people aren't capable of carrying this off......