(I was going to write something about the VW Dieselgate, and then realized that I had rather presciently written about it, or what helped cause it to happen, as well as the inevitable after-effects yet to come, back in 2007, at ttac.com. I’ll add a bit more commentary at the end).
No wonder the Germans are so gung-ho on sending their diesels across the pond. Europe’s two-decade long diesel-keg party has been crashed by a new generation of super-efficient, clean and cheaper gasoline engines. A royal diesel-overproduction hang-over is inevitable. The Germans’ morning-after solution: send the stinky leftovers to enthusiastic Yanks waiting with open arms, who’ve conveniently forgotten their killer hangover from the last US diesel orgy.
In 1892, an experimental ammonia engine literally blew up in engineer Rudolph Diesel’s face. Laid-up in a hospital bed, he pored over Nicolaus Otto’s pioneering work on the internal combustion engine. Diesel identified its weakness.
Diesel tumbled to the fact that the Otto engine’s efficiency was intrinsically compromised by the fact that it mixed fuel with air prior to compression. Too much compression resulted in uncontrolled pre-detonation. Diesel’s solution: inject fuel separately from the air to allow super-high compression and eliminating the need for a throttle (reducing pumping losses). Diesel’s engine was roughly 30% more efficient than Otto’s.
In 1989, VW/Audi ushered in the modern direct-injection (TDI) diesel. The group’s oil burning powerplant set a high-water mark in the diesel’s long development. With Europe’s high fuel costs, the more expensive (yet efficient) diesel engine could now pay for itself quite easily. The calculation triggered Europe’s diesel-boom, resulting in a 50 percent market share vs. gasoline-engined propulsion.
But Europeans have been paying a price (other than at the pumps): particulate emissions (Particulate Matter, or “PM”) and NOx pollution. Many European cities have serious particulate and diesel odor problems. Several European cities impose restrictions on diesels during PM alerts.
The new generation of “clean(er)” diesels that meet the US Tier2 bin5 standards cut PM emissions substantially, but not completely. Already, there are warnings that PM from “clean” diesels still poses a significant health risk.
The diesels coming our way carry several other penalties, especially versus the gas hybrid. The complicated and expensive NOx catalysts and urea injection schemes (“BlueTec”) cut efficiency by five percent. Meanwhile, the next Prius is projected to be 15 to 20 percent more efficient. And Toyota is bringing down hybrid production costs.
The diesel vs. hybrid mileage/cost gap widens… further. And the “clean” diesel’s just-barely compliant emissions still can’t touch the gas-hybrid’s practically breathable exhaust.
Then there’s the elephant in the room: global warming. Clearly, the political winds are blowing against CO2. Diesel fuel has higher carbon content, resulting in 17 percent more CO2 per gallon of fuel burned than gasoline. With the diesel’s efficiency superiority down to 25 percent, a “clean” diesel emits only 13 percent less CO2 than yesterday’s gas engine. And that small gap is… wait… gone.
While the diesel’s efficiency peaked in 1989, and lost 5 percent to PM cleansing, gas engine development is on a roll. Engineers are systematically tackling all the inherent deficiencies that Diesel identified in his hospital bed. (No wonder Rudolf was considered paranoid; maybe he suspected that eventually the Otto engine would catch up.)
A number of new gas-engine technologies has converged, which Europeans have been quick to embrace. VW’s 1.4-liter 170hp TSI gas engine is a perfect example of the trend. The TSI starts off with the help of a supercharger (no turbo-lag), and then switches to turbocharging (no parasitic losses). With diesel-like torque and direct injection, it’s the best of both worlds.
A CO2 output comparison with two other similar-output VW engines is telling. Their 170 horse 1.4-liter TSI produces 174g/kms of CO2. Their 150hp 2.5-liter five cylinder engine (US Rabbit only) emits 240g/km. And their 170hp 2.0-liter TDI diesel (not US compliant) produces 160g/km.
American Rabbit drivers are paying a whopping 38 percent efficiency penalty compared to the Euro-Golf TSI, as well as giving up gobs of torque and twenty horsepower. If VW’s 170hp TDI were “cleansed” to T2b5 standards, its CO2 output would be no better then the gasoline TSI.
And that’s just the jumping-off point. Start-stop technology, full valve control, and stratified direct-injection offer anywhere from 10 to 25 percent further improvement potential. Combine these goodies with mild-hybrid assist/regeneration, and the diesel party’s kaput. No wonder the Germans are all hard at work on mild-hybrid technology. It’s their best shot to keep up with Toyota’s CO2 meister, the Prius (102g/km).
A study by the consulting firm AT Kearny confirms the diesel’s demise. It predicts that only 25 percent of Europeans will find diesels an attractive economic proposition by 2020.
Have Rudolf Diesel’s paranoid nightmares come true? Not totally. Diesels are a welcome mix to the party for larger vehicles that spend a lot of time on the open road. Count on GM’s new 4.5-liter “baby” Duramax diesel to be more popular with the light-truck crowd than the gas hybrid option. But when it comes to smaller vehicles, the numbers just don’t add up.
Although Rudolf Diesel’s engine WAS intrinsically more efficient, it turns out that Otto’s engine is a lot more clever at learning new tricks.
(Update 9/22/2015) That article unleashed quite a reaction at the time, as the second American diesel love-affair was just really getting under way in the US. I was branded a “diesel hater” and “hybrid lover”, a rep that I’ve had a hard time shaking, since I have been a diesel skeptic for a long time. Ironically, I’ve somewhat softened my stance in the past few years, in part because the “Clean Diesels” from VW really did seem to be a surprisingly workable solution to the very stringent new US and EU emission standards. Well, that delusional party’s over.
My skepticism has primarily hinged on the following long-term view: that hybridization (with super-efficient gas Atkinson-cycle engines) offers better overall efficiency, is much cleaner, has lower CO output (because diesel has a higher CO content per gallon), and is the right technology to segue into the inevitable electrification of the automobile. I’m not saying all cars will be hybrid or electric by any given particular time frame, but the intrinsic efficiency and potential CO benefits of EVs does mean that as battery technology inevitable improves over time, their market share will also inevitable increase. It may take a while. Meanwhile, VW is drastically stepping up its future hybrid/EV product plans.
In the meantime, hybridization and ever-more efficient gas engines, which are much easier and cheaper to “clean”, have already put a crimp in the diesel’s advantage. Europe, which subsidized diesels by lowering the tax on it, created a huge diesel boom that many countries were already starting to regret. There has been a growing anti-diesel movement afoot in Europe, especially in big cities, because of emissions concerns. Some cities are proposing bans on diesels.
This huge VW crisis will only speed that inevitable process up. VW’s cheating was even more rampant in Europe than in the US, and this will fuel a more rapid move away from diesels, most likely by removing the tax advantages of diesel fuel, and possibly more draconian measures.
Will diesels disappear soon? Of course not. They can make a lot of sense, especially in larger vehicles: SUVs, light trucks and large trucks, although in the US, even that is in question. UPS is switching its massive fleet of delivery vehicles to gas engines, as they are simply more cost effective in the long term (lower initial cost, lower maintenance).
And refineries in the US and Europe are designed to produce a certain ratio of gasoline to diesel, which optimizes the refinery process. Any significant change in those ratios would require massive investments.
But there’s no question that this current crisis created by VW will have a very significant impact on the diesel’s market share, image and reputation. Americans in particular, who are typically more nimble in their buying habits/fads, have shown themselves to be willing to abandon diesels before, after the Olds V8 diesel fiasco, and will almost certainly now do so again.
But Europe will not be spared this shift either. It will take time, but the diesel’s best days are done and over. This is just the coffin nail on what I predicted to happen eight years ago. Ironically, the very company that popularized the modern direct injection diesel engine is the one wielding the hammer.
Sounds like a good day to go shopping at VW for a Golf in a month or so after they throw some cash on the hood.
The main reason people are buying small diesel cars overhere in the Netherlands is the price for the fuel. Diesel is much, much cheaper.
I filled my diesel Citroen today $1.09 per litre, regular gas 91 $1.78, 96 $1.89 per litre and I can go a long way on a litre of diesel.
The evening news last night showed how the system detects that the car is undergoing an emissions test. Dead simple really. It compares the speed of the front wheels to the rear. If the front wheels are spinning and the rears are not, it concludes the car is on a dyno and turns on the emissions controls.
If the emissions test is done on a stationary car, or a dyno that has all four wheels turning, it would not be able to detect the test cycle.
My last emissions test (with a ’98 gas-engined car, not a diesel) consisted of having the OBD hooked up for a couple minutes as the engine idled. So, could VW specify the conditions for conducting the test such that a dyno would always be used, “to duplicate real-world conditions” or some similar reasoning?
So, could VW specify the conditions for conducting the test such that a dyno would always be used,
I think the EPA uses a dyno when it certifies cars. A test like yours would probably only pick up codes from the engine management system, probably to catch people who have disconnected the check engine light, rather than have an engine or emissions fault repaired. If the triggers for the CEL are set to tolerate high levels of NOx, or if NOx levels are not monitored by the system, the car would pass an OBD test.
I have never lived in an area that had annual emissions testing. A city near me almost started testing, and they appeared to be using a tailpipe sniffer. That was in the early 90s, before OBD was common.
Bottom line is testing is expensive. Testing on a dyno with a tailpipe sniffer is the most expensive. A tailpipe sniffer, without a dyno is cheaper, and using a K-Mart OBD scanner is cheapest of all. Knowing that people don’t want to pay anything, VW probably, correctly, figured that once they got past the EPA dyno, their scheme would not be picked up by local emissions testing, because the local testing would be done the cheapest way possible.
Yes the FTP (Federal Test Procedure) and IM240 (as CA requires in some locations/vehicles) are both dyno drive cycles. Both are very specific on the speeds, rate of acceleration/deceleration ect. They also do not include high rates of acceleration which is when emissions are hardest to control. So it is easy to game them by looking at the rear wheel speed sensors and steering angle which is exactly what VW did.
At this point most states don’t test actual emissions they just check for codes that indicate an emissions component is no longer functioning as designed. As you mentioned that is definitely the lowest cost option and is not all bad since a system that isn’t designed to cheat will set a notification when conditions are such that increased emissions are likely. However that relies on the assumption that the mfg did not design the system to cheat on the test as VW did.
Thanks for the explanation–so this is really gaming the initial EPA certification and any other full-dyno test, which would be the hard part–the local OBD piece would be a snap after that.
Yeah the OBD II test has absolutely nothing to do with actual tail pipe emissions it just verifies that the computer thinks all of the components related to emission control are functioning properly.
Legitimate question, if one were to yank the ebrake and do a burnout, would it kick it into testing mode like when it detects it is on a dyno?
Legitimate question, if one were to yank the ebrake and do a burnout, would it kick it into testing mode like when it detects it is on a dyno?
Rear wheels stationary, fronts turning and front wheels turned straight ahead would meet the dyno criteria. On the other hand, test data that showed the cars compliant under light load, ie steady speed, flat road, but not compliant under acceleration/hill climbing conditions indicates there is a throttle input to the logic too, so doing a burnout would trip the defeat routine so maximum power was available.
It’s kind of funny really, the whole reason cars have steering angle and multiple wheelspeed monitoring is for safety regulation (ABS and ESC). Manipulating mandated components to do defeat a mandate.
Wouldn’t be able to do this on old cars! 😀
The main reason of diesel engine popularity in Europe, its their ability to go fast on the highway with small consumption increase. I´m talking about 100-140MPH speed, which is fairly common not only in Germany. Or push the car hard on the open road, same story. Plus, provide solid torque power. Thats something majority of European drivers were missing until 10 years ago, when the diesels become common even in cheap cars. V6 or V8 were/are premium. You need to realize, that average engine power in EU were around 100hp, due the high insurance etc.
The new TSI small engines with 1 or 2 turbo, or whatever goodies, might look well on the paper and provide the promised MPG if you drive it within speed limits. It even feel powerful, if you don’t push it too hard. If you do, then its only screaming small engine.
Try to push the TSI engine bit hard, and the MPG numbers goes up like B747. You can check the German site http://www.spritmonitor.de/en/ whats the real number VS the claimed numbers by manufacturers.
Re the emissions, agree the Europe smells like diesel, unfortunately. Hope this VW issue helps to clean the Europe air a bit.
Lukas, in general you are quite right, I would however like to make a few comments, if you don’t mind:
– 100-140 mph are definitely not common speeds, perhaps they are not very common even in Germany. 100-140 mph would be 160-225 KILOMETERS per hour! Even today when newer cars are more powerful than 20 or even 10 years ago, most cars can’t even go beyond 200 kph.
Except if that was a typo, because 100-140 kilometers per hour is indeed quite common on European motorways.
– the main reason why Europeans buy diesels is because of fuel prices. I agree that performance on the motorway plays a part, but I think the main reason is financial. Because of outrageous taxation on fuel (but also on cars with big engines and many hp) a powerful car and fuel for it is very expensive for a European consumer (who on average probably also has a lower dispensable income than an average American). Add to that the fact that diesel is taxed less than gasoline and therefore cheaper at the pump and the calculation is obvious.
– yes, TSI’s (like all turbocharged gasoline engines) are very thirsty when you step on the gas; their promised fuel efficiency is only attainable when driven within the speed limits. But like I said, rarely do Europeans drive much faster than 130-140 kilometrs per hour. This is the usual motorway speed limit in most European countries (some have even lower speed limits) – and even if you didn’t care about speeding tickets, heavy traffic will in reality often make it impossible to drive faster than 100-120 kph…
And not everyone drives on the autobahn all the time – probably the majority of driving is done either in cities or on the non-motorway open roads. Especially in the latter (with usual actual speed 70-90 kph), TSI and similar engines really give good mpg.
I speak from experience with driving a VW Touran with 140 hp 1.4 TSI – on the open road it’s to problem to get 5-6 lit/100 km (that’s 40-47 mpg). However, driving on the motorway at 130 kph will demand at least 7-8 liters /100 km (29-32 mpg)
I hope you do not mind these comments, as generally your main point was quite valid, and I didn’t want to criticize you, just to give my additional opinion on the matter.
And I wholeheartedly agree with your last sentence.
AWEboss, your comments are welcomed. Re the speed,I might agree that 90 percent of drivers goes within the speed limits, even in Germany. But the rest, which is still big number, drives +90-100MPH on the highway. This allows me to say, its common. I travel a bit, around 60.000km per year all over the Europe and 90-100MPH is my normal crusing speed, going up to +120MPH if traffic allows, when in Germany. And sometimes, I´m still overtaken by somebody faster. This is not happening in USA, where most of the traffic goes 70-80MPH.
But my main point is, that on the highway, or under heavy load, the diesel engines benefits the mosts, returning still resonable MPG not so different to number if driven within speed limits. Especially if you compare to the same car, but with the gas engine, its day and night difference. And I think, this is something US drivers can not realize due the low speed limits.
Additional benefit of diesel engine is high torque available as soon as turbos starts to breath (+1500RPM), which in my opinion, help to automatic transmission become popular option in last 10 years. They work well with big gas engines, or diesel.
But for average European driver, the TSI engine makes a lot of sense, have enough of power, while keeping MPG down, if driven resonably. Also the maintanence costs is lower, then diesel. For diesel, you pay premium, and if you count the total costs of ownership, usually it turns out the diesel is better choice only if you drive hell a lot more then usual 20? thousand km per year.
This is why the diesel engines are becoming less popular then they were in past and small turbo engines starts to rule.
Just turned my ’11 Jetta Sportwagen for a ’15 Golf Sportwagen. Old one had the 2.5 gas engine, and I was really thinking about the TDi for the new one. But doing most of my driving in and around NYC, just didn’t make any sense, both from a mileage and fuel availabity standpoint. Whew, that was close.
Have to say the 2015 is really sweet, with pretty much every aspect a noticable improvement on its predecesor.
About that $18B fine the media is hyperventilating about…
In 1998, Caterpillar and Cummins were busted for doing the same thing.
…a 1998 settlement between the U.S. Justice Department and several heavy duty diesel engine makers including Caterpillar and Cummins Engine Co.
The manufacturers agreed to pay $83.4 million in civil penalties after federal officials found evidence that they were selling heavy duty diesel engines equipped with “defeat devices” that allowed the engines to meet EPA emission standards during testing but disabled the emission control system during normal highway driving.
http://www.cnbc.com/2015/09/23/meet-the-man-who-uncovered-volkswagens-lie.html
$83M is chicken feed to VAG. The big cost will be settling with customers whose cars do not perform as advertised after the defeat system is removed.
Steve: that settlement with a number of big truck diesel manufacturers was for $1 billion, not 83.4 million. Maybe that was the fine”, but the manufacturers did pay $1 billion to settle this issue. That was not pocket change for these guys, much smaller than VAG
Steve: that settlement with a number of big truck diesel manufacturers was for $1 billion, not 83.4 million.
Here is how the $1B broke down.
In the 1998 case, the companies paid a combined $83.4 million in civil penalties, which was then the largest such fine for an environmental violation. They also agreed to spend $850 million to produce significantly cleaner engines and $109.5 million for additional environmental projects, including the development of new emission-control technologies.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/volkswagen-not-first-to-be-accused-of-using-software-to-fool-regulators-2015-09-22
In my book that $850M to develop cleaner engines and $109.5M in better emission control technology is the money they should have spent on their own to meet the standards, rather than trying to cheat. I am always amazed when a company cries about being “forced” to invest in R&D that they should be investing in as a routine part of their business.
My prediction is: this is going to result in some behind-the-scenes horse trading, whereby Germany gets to keep its motor industry and Europe ends up getting gene modified chickens from the US. After her recent stupidity inviting mass exodus of social security tourists and jihadists from the ME, Ms. Merkel will not be able to afford sitting on her back if she and the CDU / CSU want to retain their majority in the next elections.
Paul, I held off posting this rant because I tend to go off half cocked. But no, I’m sure I want to say this:
There is a whiff, nay, stench of hypocrisy from a man who drives a 1960’s Ford pick up truck that comments on the bad emissions of a 2010s Volkswagen TDI. Not only drive one- your employment, such that it is, beyond being a land lord, seems to be running a website dedicated to preserving cars that pollute insanely more than those Volkswagens you are kvetching about.
Prior to the initial emissions controls, the average car (to pick a metric) produced something like 1500 g/km of CO2. Now they produce between 100 and 300. The diesel powered cars like the VW TDI are, of course, much lower on CO2 than the average. A UK spec a Golf TDI similar to ours is 110g/km. You could drive 13-14 miles in a Golf TDI and produce less CO2 than your Ford does in one. Heck, I’m sure you could drive a Golf TDi with the faulty emissions programming several miles and not produce what your Ford does in NOx, either.
I’m not going to quote more statistics. I agree with Samuel Clemens- there are three kinds of lies- Lies, damned lies, and statistics. And I’m not objecting to you driving your pick up truck. I am a fan of older cars, like older cars, and if I had the money, I would drive older cars. I personally feel emissions controls for personal passenger cars reached their sensible limit with the basic advent of ODBII. I think all efforts past this produce far too small a return for far too much money, in many ways moving affordable new basic transportation out of reach of the masses, who are forced to drive older cars and pay more money for them over time.
All of this emissions controls and fuel economy standards are about clinging to a hopeless dream. They are, really, proof that we can’t fix the environment, and it will be destroyed, if not within my lifetime, at least within the lifetime of my grand children. I often suspect we went past the point of no return so long ago, I don’t have enough historical documentation to pinpoint what it was.
I gave up caring some years ago- I tried to save the world in my youth, but I have found that they had me outnumbered. Partially because people don’t understand the problem.
Life on Earth is a very fragile thing. Their are at least a hundred planets that have no life for every planet that does. And that is because the development of organic life requires a very delicate and specific set of conditions that are not easily achieved. It requires a specific mix of chemicals in the atmosphere, a specific temperature, a specific set of developmental conditions that result in the CO2O2 reciprocity that is the very basis of sustained life.
ANY severe interference with that mixture, and you are jamming a sabot into a very delicate gear work. It doesn’t matter if we produce too much CO2, too much NOx, too many carbon particulates, or too much H2O. Fuel cells are not pollution free power- they produce far too much water, which in time will screw up the climate of the world. CO2 is pollution… even though plants need to breathe it. Theres nothing wrong with CO2 as a compound- but too much of it and humans can’t breathe, not to mention messing up atmospheric conditions.
The ultimate solution to transportation is efficiency. If you are talking something with internal combustion, you are probably talking a twin-charged HCCI hooked up to a light hybrid. If you want to be sane enough to remove internal combustion from smaller vehicles (it probably will never make sense to remove it from large vehicles that must leave an electrical pick up grid, though e.g. trackless trolleys) than the solution is probably electric.
But the real solution is the elimination of personal transportation devices from all densely populated areas. Don’t remove diesels from cities- remove ALL ICE cars from city centers. Hell, remove all the cars and redesign the entire city around pedestrians and public transit. THAT is the real solution. THAT is the only way we can sustain personal mobility.
But its not going to happen. People are too bloody stupid. Witness poor people who support the Republican party- or rich people who support socialist agendas. Not getting political, but how many Americans, or people in general really, do you watch tirelessly fight against both their own best interests, and that of the greater good?
Volkswagen was trying to sell an affordable diesel, with the fuel economy that goes with it. The legislative situation was laid out in such a way that it clearly indicated nobody actually gave a turkey except for special interest groups who (like all special interest groups) are too stupid to figure out anything. Special interest groups, movements, and mobs have a lot in common. So without worrying about the environment (and why should we? Nobody else actually does!) they created a product that pleased their users and saved them money. And sold them.
Obviously for a profit… but do you have ANY idea how many companies, in how many industries, all over the country, nay, world, should be going to jail for lying about pollution controls, or product safety, or a whole load of other stuff? I’m talking about the loss of human lives here. Try, just try, to live in American without eating corn pesticides. (HFCS!) Business interests perpetuated that for decades- we are only starting to understand the implications.
Volkswagen’s actions involved trying to survive in a business that is stupidly regulated, with regulations that do not improve peoples lives. I don’t blame them. I’m not entirely sure they even broke the law- although I’m sure that won’t make a difference. The regulations stipulate that they must pass tests under specific conditions, and those cars clearly do that. Breaking the spirit is not breaking the law.
But don’t stand up and damn their special evilness. All companies dance around regulations, and don’t care about the spirit. And a lot of them even come within a hairsbreadth of breaking it- or even do. This transgression is essentially victimless- certainly just as victimless as you driving your Ford pickup around.
They deserve the same slap on the wrist other companies get when they commit the Cardinal Sin, and the only crime that matters- getting caught.
OMG, You’re trying to eco-shame me! I’m in the same camp as Al Gore now.
I don’t really need to defend my environmental footprint to anyone. I have the right to express my opinions about issues in the automotive regulatory world, which this VW thing is about. I never shamed VW about the additional NOx their diesels are emitting, because probably in the very big picture of things, it’s probably not all that material.
The issue is really all about blatant cheating. VW could have met the EPA standards, if they had used the more expensive DEF technology. But they didn’t. And chose to cheat.
Environmental regulations exist for a reason. I’m sorry you’re so pessimistic, but our air, water and food are a whole lot cleaner because of them. it’s a social obligations for corporations to meet standards that other companies must and can meet.
VW wanted to push diesels in the US for one reason only: as a marketing edge to sell more cars. To do so while cheating is not ok.
My old truck? Do you realize that I drive it less than a thousand miles per year? And only ever when I need to haul things, from the lumber yard, to the dump, etc. No, I don’t go joy-riding in it, like all of the other folks who take their classic cars out on the weekends. I’m not judging them; just saying.
In terms of HC and NOx, it’s undoubtedly “dirty”, but I live in an area that doesn’t have smog, so it’s really not an issue. No worse than folks driving their riding mowers every week.
In terms of CO output, it gets reasonable gas mileage (13-19 mpg).My overall CO footprint is very low. I work from home, so my automobile use is very low. My xB has 70k miles and is over ten years old. We keep the house very cool in the winter; my gas bill never exceeds $80/month. I use just one freestanding gas stove; I tore out the ducted furnace ages ago. And I’m in the middle of getting a large 3.5 kw solar array on our house.
The overarching issue is that issues like CO are only going to be solved by large-scale changes, not whether I drive my truck 1000 miles per year. That’s what we have regulations for. if you think change will come from shaming me and others for driving our old cars and trucks every once in a while, you’re barking up the wrong tree.
I’m rather disappointed in your comment. This is the first time anyone has tried to eco-shame me. Without knowing how I live my life, you’re in no position to judge.
Meanwhile, we all have a responsibility to ensure the large corporations toe the line when it comes to environmental regulations. Unfortunately, that’s all we have for ammunition right now. Hopefully, it will be enough.
This isn’t A first for someone Eco-shaming you, because I wasn’t. I was merely pointing out the inherent hypocrisy in blasting VW’s attempts to cirrcumvent pointless and ineffectual emissions regulations while promoting and supporting the daily driving (this ain’t GarageQueenClassics.com) of cars with lesser or non existent emissions controls.
I’ve been a small business owner too long to ever blame someone for trying to make a vaguely dishonest but victimless buck. In a world of rats I am not going to tar and feather one for stealing garbage. Which is my only objection to this whole circus surrounding VW.
Car pollution is such a small part of the worlds pollution problem- my charcoal grill usage probably pollutes more than your Ford. I’m not an eco guy, actually. Public transit to promote universal mobility was my thing until I burned out trying to push for it. My Eco knowledge was merely a tool to get certain people on board with my issue.
I find the inherent conflict I’m pointing out amusing. That’s all.
P.S. Don’t mention DEF. Its a nasty solution that gets around releasing pollutants by changing regulated pollutants into unregulated ones. Non solution.
If you think emission standards are pointless and ineffectual, than there’s no point in discussing the issue any further. I’m sorry you think the world is beyond hope. I don’t.
I pray to the almighty God you are right.
The earth is hard to kill, consider the dinosaur extinction event.
Anyone who has lived in an area such as SoCal over the last few decades knows very well that emissions standards work. The improvement in quality of life here in the 4+ decades since I arrived has been monumental. And with a great deal accomplished in terms of mass transit (the light rail trains to Santa Monica are being tested as I write and will be full operation in spring) and more on the way, this area will be a good mix of mass and individual transit within a few more years. I, too, am an optimist☺.
DEF is just a solution of ammonia and water. The SCR system injects DEF into the exhaust, where the ammonia (NH3) chemically reacts with nitrogen oxides (NOx) to form nitrogen (N2) and water (H2O). If you’re saying nitrogen and water are unregulated pollutants, I have bad news for you….
For what it’s worth, I recall the Magliozzi brothers commenting once that replacing an old car with a new one is likely harder on the environment than keeping the old one on the road, no matter how clean or efficient the new car is. A lot of raw materials and resources go into producing the new car.
If the old vehicle is used only a few thousand miles a year as Paul does, this amplifies the point that was made.
The fact that it’s a work truck helping provide housing to others, and not a classic car garage queen further amplifies this.
This is an editorial on the state of the industry, and I thought it was fairly written. While it’s a bit more snarky than what one would find in the mainstream media, there’s nothing in this article that should call Paul’s personal opinions or behaviour into question. The fact that Paul drives an old non-emissions controlled pickup truck has no bearing on the content of the editorial, which is as it should be.
VW did break the law. By adding a “cheat mode” to the ECU that reprograms the engine operating parameters only during the EPA test, they effectively made it so that the car that ran on the EPA test is not the same car that you can buy at the dealership. VW’s were even given special treatment (government subsidies to buyers) in some markets as a result of this! In return, VW benefited handsomely from this deception. That is fraud.
fraud: a person or thing intended to deceive others, typically by unjustifiably claiming or being credited with accomplishments or qualities.
Don’t be surprised if the EPA makes an example out of VW to scare other companies who would do the same. Also don’t be surprised if others are also found to be guilty, now that the entire industry is bound to come under the microscope.
An interesting article Paul. Here in New Zealand diesel is very popular as it’s almost half the price of petrol per litre. Here are the prices per litre (all in NZ$) of diesel and petrol at the local BP today:
Diesel – $1.205
Petrol –
91 octane – $1.923
95 octane – $2.123
98 octane – $2.209
On the surface that makes diesel a no-brainer, but diesel users also have to pay a RUC (Road User Charge) of $62 per 1000km. Even so, a diesel car that used fuel at the same rate as a petrol car here would be cheaper to fuel:
* For a diesel car that does 10L/100km, 1000km would cost $120.5 (fuel) + $62 (RUC) = $182.50.
* For a petrol car that does 10L/100km, 1000km would cost $192.30 (91 octane), $212.30 (95) or $220.90 (98).
Of course I’m biased, as I drove a diesel Toyota Hiace through the late 90s, and then diesel Nissan Laurels until 2 weeks ago (when I sold my last one).
Too many comments already to check if this has been addressed: this is a feast for the lawyers. The first ones will hit VW-AG with stock market related class action lawsuits. The lawyers will make millions on that alone. I wonder if any one of them will by a VW product with the money they make?
Then of course there will be an army of lawyers hired to defend VW AG.
More lawyers will run class action law suites on behalf of VW customers. Some individual owners will opt out of the the classes of plaintiffs that will be created and they will sue VW on there own.
Then I can imagine the the VW dealers will have an ax to grind against VW AG as their sales will be affected. They invested massive amounts in their dealerships trusting to have a great product line to offer.
Am I forgetting someone?
I find it a compelling thought that VW will declare bankruptcy and restructure, then emerge from bankruptcy maybe 5 years later. No doubt, they will look at the old GM to new GM history very closely.
see my comment above – no bunkruptcy will take place. Whoever shuts down VW (even if the proceedings were temporary Sanierungsverfahren (like Chapter 11 in the US)) shuts down Germany. This is something Angela Merkel cannot allow to happen, again, in particular after idiotically inviting all of the Middle East and Africa at the expense of the German tax payer, something which is already affecting her standing with German (and other European) citizens. As you may or may not know, there is a trade agreement being negotiated at the moment between the US and the EU, one which would allow US companies to export genetically modified food to Europe. This has been held up so far due to resistance from the European public as GM food is looked at with great suspicion here. Before VW’s shit hit the fan, I’d have said the chances of the agreement being effectively concluded were only 50/50. However, in its stupidity VW provided US food producers exactly what they needed to pressurize the EU to agree, particularly if one of the major EU state members will be in favor in order to save its main industry (I am certain other German car producers will feel the heat too). Other behind-the-scenes arm-twisting may also take place to force Europe to accept all manner of things, none of which are in its inetersts.This – to me – is no lesser reason to detest VW.
Wow! Very interesting.
It makes one really wonder about the TIMING of the release of this information since it appears that it has been known for some time now. Maybe for leverage? Monsanto is one very powerful corporation, after all . . .
Naaaaaah!
I used to like Volkswagen diesels. They may have been painfully slow by today’s standards but they’re generally simpler and more reliable than they are today.
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen,
All I can say is this is unequvicibly the biggest load of codswhollop ever written about diesel vehicles. The author obviously has no idea what he’s raving on about and probably doesn’t care.
I have just bought a 2002 Ford Mondeo tdci and traveled 1000kms with 52 litres of fuel costing $1.39 a litre AUD. What is wrong with that?
Why should other people decide for you what you can and can’t drive eh?
I totally agree. I see absolutely nothing wrong. I’d buy a diesel powered vehicle if I could find one.
My feelings *exactly!*