For those interested in new cars

[raymw]

Not knowing the detail of the particular engines which have been fiddled, do they have the Adblu tanks, and were they only to be topped up at service intervals - e,g. not normally used, except for testing? I guess the details will emerge, but the size of the tank and it's capability of being refilled would give an indication of the manufacturer's intent.

 

My main concern with diesel, is the gradual inclusion of so called bio fuels being added, but that can be a different argument.

[MJI]

Selective catalytic reduction reduces NOx to nitrogen and water by promoting a reaction between ammonia and NOx on the surface of a catalyst. The reductant is generally aqueous urea which unlocks ammonia after injection into the exhaust stream. SCR can reduce NOx to almost nothing and how low you go is sometimes determined by the risk of ammonia slip. The technology has been around for decades, is very simple and extremely effective and gives the lie to the idea that the answer to high NOx levels is to outlaw diesels (it amazes me that railway manufacturers claim it is behind known human scientific invention to make a compliant diesel for the UK market when emissions abatement technology to meet the latest emissions standards is not new). There is also selective non-catalytic reduction which reacts NOx with ammonia without a catalyst but this is only effective where you have good control over dwell times and flue temperature, it works well in large boilers (in conjunction with EGR)but not really suitable for internal combustion engines. SCR is already widely used in UK commercial vehicles and you see the Adblu pumps in more and more service stations.

 

lack of room is part of the concern, needs a lot of space by all accounts which precluded decent sized power units.

[jjb1970]

For the sort of medium and high speed engines used in rail there are some very compact SCR and DPF solutions which integrate within the existing exhaust arrangement, particularly some of the high pressure SCR technologies. SCR needs a urea (or ammonia) tank but that would be compact. The energy density of modern engines is pretty high (way higher than engines built not that long ago) and some of the MTU types in particular are very powerful and compact. I suspect that the issue is less technical/space than that manufacturers consider that there is probably an insufficient market for such engines to recover the initial up-front costs whilst keeping the product price low enough to remain affordable. I know when I’ve asked certain engine builders about this the response has been that if they’re paid to design a compliant engine package for a UK train then they’ll do it with no real issues about whether or not they would be able to.

[edcayton]

On 'the one show', a motoring journalist of some sort? said that VW were putting Urea into the system to fool the testing. So, would there be a small tank of this (assuming it is in liquid form, sealed for life of the car, or how would it be done? I would think it would be pretty obvious to any one that there was something odd in the fuel/air system. I've not seen any fuel station where they sell urea. 

 

I found this, which answers my first para question,  http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1042727_adding-urea-to-clean-diesel-cars-can-i-just-pee-in-the-tank  but in the UK, there seems to be more concern re CO2 emissions, so do Merc et al still have the Urea tank over here? Does it make any difference to our possibly more lax NOx testing?

 

Dunno about Merx, but Autocar are running a long-term Audi A4. In last week's issue (before VWGate) the author talked of the need to put Adblue in the tank, and that the car screamed at him to do it at fairly regular intervals. It wasn't clear to me whether the Adblue went into the fuel tank or a separate container.

 

Ed

[PhilJ W]

Dunno about Merx, but Autocar are running a long-term Audi A4. In last week's issue (before VWGate) the author talked of the need to put Adblue in the tank, and that the car screamed at him to do it at fairly regular intervals. It wasn't clear to me whether the Adblue went into the fuel tank or a separate container.

 

Ed

Adblue has to be in a separate container as it is added after combustion.

[jjb1970]

I really like these two quotes on the BBC website in the same story. First from the new boss (my emphasis):

He said he would tighten up procedures at the company: "At no point was the safety of our customers in danger. We will now have even stricter compliance. Our objective is that the people continue to use and drive our vehicles with confidence and pleasure. That's 80 million people driving our cars worldwide."

Then from the interim boss:

Earlier, acting VW chairman Berthold Huber apologised to customers, adding: "I want to be very clear, the manipulation of tests for diesel engines is a moral and political disaster".

Maybe it is just me, but to claim you will have even stricter standards of compliance, inferring that you already have tip top compliance standards, immediately after the interim boss has admitted to mass manipulating engine certification (or as you might put it, cheating and/or lying in the testing process) and being in a moral and political disaster is either very disingenuous or very stupid, or possibly both.

[jjb1970]

Something good which may come out of this is that maybe testing will be made more representative of real world conditions. Unfortunately I suspect politicians are about to pontificate about the evils of the old test regime being based on very tightly controlled test cycles rather than in-service emissions and ignore that everybody connected with emissions (including transport departments of government) fully understood this to be the case and what it meant. I also suspect we'll see a lot of tests of engine emissions at the exhaust pipe of cars out there held up to prove the engine emissions tests were fraudulent in total ignorance of the fact that you can only make that assertion if the engine is tested at standard conditions at the same test cycle against which it was approved.

[raymw]

I imagine there will be a bit of fun ahead for the lawyers, in particular if consideration is given to carbon offset tax. I am presuming that CO2 emissions would also have been fiddled, somehow.

 

It's a bit silly, if what you are trying to measure is the emissions when moving that you only measure when stationary. I expect a loophole will be found in the wording of the test regime, and that VW have applied that in their favour. The lawyers will make a fortune, once the hub-bub has died down, and a few more heads have rolled.

[jjb1970]

The engines do not have to be moving for a valid test, the emissions performance is based on power and torque, which are easily replicated in test cells or on rollers. Emissions of NOx are very sensitive to inlet air temperature and humidity, exhaust back pressure and a lot of other variables. A major reason for using standard test cycles and conditions is that NOx is affected by so many variables that attempting to take measurements on the road driving around would give very different results for the same engine at the same power/torque at different times of the day and would be meaningless. However whenever I discussed this with some of the green lobby it was apparent that they did not understand that and whilst I agreed with them (and still agree) that testing should be more representative of actual in-service performance it is nothing like as simple as they believe.

[Ozexpatriate]

I imagine there will be a bit of fun ahead for the lawyers, in particular if consideration is given to carbon offset tax. I am presuming that CO2 emissions would also have been fiddled, somehow.

Ray, as I tried to suggest earlier, "pollution" (in this case toxic NO_x emissions) has nothing to do with CO₂ production. CO₂ is a naturally occurring gas and you and I are creating it as we exhale. Too much of it on a planetary scale creates problems but that's not the issue with VW.

 

Burning fossil fuels ( C + O₂ => CO₂ ) is a highly exothermic reaction that generates electricity and makes cars, boats, airplanes or even humans go (though we do it differently). With X amount of Carbon, you get X amount of CO₂.  It is not CO₂ emissions that are the concern here - though arguably Carbon in the tailpipe is more of a concern because there would be unburnt fuel.

Edited September 25, 2015 by Ozexpatriate

[APOLLO]

How are these issues actually related?

 

VW pertains to fraud and coal-fired power is a global warming issue - unless you're trying to make a parallel with the farcial "clean coal" campaign mounted by the coal lobby in the US.

 

"Clean coal" in so far as low-sulphur coal mandated by the EPA as a result of 1970s acid rain has existed for years. The coal lobby's attempt to conflate this with the climate change issue is the worst form of deliberate misinformation and spin doctoring but it's not fraud.

 

Can anyone tell me precisely what emissions were undercounted? I would be surprised that emissions focused on CO₂ rather than other combustion byproducts.

 

EDIT: As I understand it, this is all about statutory EPA limits on NO_x emissions for automobiles and has nothing to do with CO₂.

 

Germany is building brand new Lignite fuelled power stations. google lignite, it is total shyte, really bad for the environment.

 

Remember Didcot power station that was dismantled last year ?. The main generators were taken to Avonmouth docks, causing huge delays on the M4. Final destination - Germany and the new lignite plants.

 

Germany has come under "Green" pressure to eradicate it's nuclear plants in the next few years, so they build Lignite powered plants, (and dirty diesels also) !!!

 

Vorsprung durch technic, think not. 

 

Brit15

[Ozexpatriate]

Germany has come under "Green" pressure to eradicate it's nuclear plants in the next few years, so they build Lignite powered plants, (and dirty diesels also) !!!

Yes, lignite coal is terrible. I'm no fan of the global warming consequences of coal-fired electrical power. More than any other source, electrical power generation is the highest contributor to global warming - much more than cars.

 

Relative to this thread though, CO₂ emissions are a totally separate issue from poisonous pollutants like NO_x which are the numbers VW fiddled.

[raymw]

I realise the difference 'twixt CO2 and NOx, I was saying if they fiddle the NOx, then are they not capable of doing similar to CO2. If, in the NOx test, the testers have not specifically said something along the lines of 'thou shalt not fit a device to skew the difference 'twixt stationary and moving results', then all that VW have done is to make the engine comply with the testing. e.g. the specification is to be x litres NOx at a certain speed/torque. Maybe it is not in the spirit of the testing, but it is a commercial war out there, and obviously easier/cheaper to beat the test parameters and not the real running parameters, if you know what I mean. It is normal business ethics. I'm not saying it is right, but it is what it is.

 

Some years back, Firestone sold a load of dodgy tyres, people got killed, they pulled out of UK before any action was taken, iirc, Mondeo cars pulled to right when braking, how long before they fixed that - was there not a UK car (Montego?) that wheels fell off killing a few folk abroad, and many more examples, etc. In all cases the manufacturer knew what was happening, the results were pretty obvious, but greed stopped them from doing the right thing, until they had to. It is one of the benefits of the way business/society has developed.

 

If, what VW have done is in fact fraud, in a criminal sense, then a whole load of them should end up in prison for quite a long time. Somehow, I can't see that happening. Is it the company ethos, but that won't be admitted, a few scapegoats will go, and next year they'll be thinking about the next trick.

 

Edit to add from the VW usa web site - as I linked to b4 - but not about how green their cars are.

 

 

Environmental Sustainability

At home in America and around the world, Volkswagen Group places environmental sustainability at the core of our operating philosophy. We don’t just talk about it, we take action, finding inventive ways to be responsible in everything we do – and everyone, including our employees, suppliers and sales partners, is equally committed to ongoing improvements and innovations. As a result, we are on our way toward our goal of becoming the world’s most environmentally sustainable automaker by 2018.

As part of our commitment to the environment, we ensure that all new facilities are built to the highest environmental standards. To date, several of our buildings around the country have been recognized by the U.S. Green Building Council and certified as Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design (LEED) facilities.

Edited September 25, 2015 by raymw

[raymw]

Talking about VW - this is a bit OT, but when I was at college, there were arguments among the hippies about VW's being better/worse than Morris Minors. When it came to the final point scoring, the VW fans said that if it went in a river, it would float. I can remember that, but not much about positive/negative phase sequence components - and I'm not even going to web search for that now. Still, if you something the 60's you weren't something...

 

I had a ford Zephyr at the time - that floated with five of us in, crossing a ford up on Dartimoor. We got wet feet, and a passing tractor to get us out.

[Horsetan]

.... if you something the 60's you weren't something......

If you can remember the Sixties, you weren't actually there.

[jjb1970]

What will throw the cat amongst the pigeons is regulatory authorities withdrawing emissions approval for VW diesels, which looks probable. This will force re-testing however the use of a defeat device indicates that the engine cannot achieve the emission limits without suffering a significant performance penalty that would affect customer choices. Whilst they could develop a new engine map that is expensive, will take time and success is uncertain and would indicate that the best solution would be to fit a downstream de-nitrification system such as SCR and push that through emissions testing. And that is going to be very expensive in terms of delayed production, re-tooling, modifying cars, fast tracking a full suite of tests and approvals etc quite aside from the legal and customer trust cost of this whole mess. However, on the upside it would demonstrate to naysayers just how possible it is to meet emission limits if you actually want to do so.

[Horsetan]

Meanwhile the Swiss authorities have now banned sales of the affected VW models.

[RANGERS]

I'm a little puzzled as to why owners are so concerned about this, the cars aren't dangerous, they still meet the minimum standards required of the tests and can still be driven just the same as previously.

 

The biggest issue with this will be in establishing how much of what VW have done was actually illegal and how much of it was merely against the spirit of the regs. The basis for all the hullabaloo is that VW wrote a programme which recognised the test sequence conditions and mapped the engines optimally meet the required standard. Basically, they were teaching the cars to pass a test, something that teachers, music tutors and yes, driving instructors have been doing for years. Once the test is passed, do their students adhere strictly to everything they learned? Of course not.

 

The regulators set the parameters, test the vehicles and then scream that the test they set didn't reflect real life so the cars should perform much better than they do.

 

If regulators insist on a stiffer test, in most countries it will be virtually impossible to apply new standards to cars already on the road, they already meet the standards, so how can they force change?

 

Those who bought the cars have enjoyed the standards of performance promised, and as far as the UK is concerned, CO2 levels and therefore tax bills as a result of this. Only if a way is found of retrospectively applying stiffer standards will owners have any direct cause for concern and one lawyer at least is doubtful this can ever be applied without having to re-test every single model of car sold in the EU marketplace since 2009 at least with potentially massive implications for the motor industry. What could happen in the US is anybody's guess but if VW are singled out for re-testing then it seems reasonable to expect them to counter claim against the US Govt for anti-competitive practice.

 

Given that most manufacturers use the same base technology in their engine management and emissions control systems, I would be amazed if this only affects VW.

[jjb1970]

What VW are accused of is not setting up their engines to pass the test, it is fitting a defeat device. That is fundamentally different and whereas setting up the engine for the test may not be great for real world performance it is not illegal, fitting a defeat device is illegal and VW know that it is illegal. All the manufacturers optimise emissions performance for test conditions and are doing nothing wrong, applying a defeat device is a flagrant violation of the regulations. The fact that manufacturers use the same equipment is not really relevant to saying that this is a common problem. Other manufacturers may be doing the same thing but the emissions management is engine specific and the fact that different engines share common third party equipment does not mean anything in terms of emissions certification.

[jjb1970]

The biggest blunder the VW Group have made in this whole debacle is probably being dumb enough to commit a crime in the USA. The USA takes a very robust approach to white collar crime and the penalties for those found guilty are very severe with a legal system that seems able to secure prosecutions and guilty verdicts. This is not just a civil matter, it is also a criminal matter. Millions of people have bought cars on the assumption that the cars were legally compliant, if the engines were not compliant then presumably customers can seek redress for being sold a product which is not as advertised and which does not meet statutory certification requirements. In a sense whether or not drivers have suffered any ill effect is irrelevant, they were sold a product on the basis of falsified certification and which does not meet statutory requirements. And this is not about retrospective standards, the engines were not compliant with applicable standards at the time of manufacture. The civil fines could end up being biblical in scale, plus potential custodial sentences for VW employees. Usually the EPA offer terms to those lower down the pecking order if they hand over the dirt on those higher up the chain so I'm guessing there'll be a few senior people in VW soiling their pants right now worrying what dirt their underlings have on them (and I'd be amazed if those involved did not keep evidence to throw the dirt upwards if things turned nasty as the certification and emissions specialists will have understood the implications of what they were doing, its what usually happens). The EPA takes a very touch stance on this stuff, as should society. Unfortunately NOx and pollutants like PM are not really understood by society and most people will shrug their shoulders and say "what's the big deal", to the EPA it is a very big deal. What still amazes me is why VW would be so dumb as unlike Environmental regulators in Europe who rely on outside agencies (people like me in my previous role) for emissions certification in Europe the US EPA retains much more control and involvement and does do randomised checks and has far ranging powers with infringements being serious offences, it is very silly.

[jjb1970]

Further news courtesy of the BBC:

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34397426

 

Be interesting to see where the buck stops with this as it is hard to believe that this was the work of a rogue acting without any implied approval from somebody in a pretty senior position.

[Horsetan]

Further news courtesy of the BBC:

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34397426

 

Be interesting to see where the buck stops ....

 

Kind of ironic that a senior VW board member is named Olaf Lies.

[raymw]

It's now well over two weeks since the media mentioned the VW fiddle. I have seen no statement of how VW did this. Initially it appeared they had fitted a small tank of urea, only used in testing, but although mention is still being made of 'a device' being fitted, it seems to me that the reduced NOx emission was achieved purely in software/engine management. If it was a separate bit of hardware, then there would be a VW part number for it.

 

There are plenty of after-market hacks out there for 'improving performance' by remapping various engines, some being easily removed prior to MOT, whatever.  Somehow, I do not view it as serious if merely remapping cf 'fitting a device', I guess because most manufacturers do it (but not necessarily to fiddle the engine though emission testing). (Sort of the difference between the way the crime of shoplifting is viewed compared to armed robbery).

[jjb1970]

A defeat device includes software and variable mapping.

[raymw]

 

A defeat device includes software and variable mapping.

Are you saying that there was hardware involved, which obviously would need software or similar to operate it, or that the word 'device' is being used in the sense of 'a plan, trick, method' and not any hardware involved?

 

The whole media frenzy reminds me of the 'reporting?' when JFK was shot - every paper said it was a different make of rifle, when in fact at the time they didn't know, but felt they had to pretend that they did.