VW Faces $17B Fine for Emissions Scam

"The automaker claims that from its investigation so far, the "relevant engine management software is also installed in other Volkswagen Group vehicles with diesel engines." 11M VW diesels affected, Porsche and Audi under investigation

"Who killed the Diesel Car?"

 

VW

 

It's early, but VW may have killed it for everyone, at least in the US!

 

The solar roof is a great option. One PC member wrote about his trouble with that system just after the warranty ran out. There was a leaking seal and corrosion. The solar panel failed and the repair cost was so high, he didn't fix it.

Not that this happens to many solar panels, but it may be worth keeping an eye on the roof seals prior to the 36 month warranty end date.

VW Diesel city-mileage wasn't good enough for me. That was a big reason I didn't go with that car.

 

Still unconfirmed but it appears the VW CEO is ousted, to be replaced by Porsche CEO Friday
Newsblog zum Abgas-Skandal bei Volkswagen: Aufsichtsratskreise: VW-Chef Martin Winterkorn wird abgelöst - Wirtschaft - Tagesspiegel

or not
VW SPOKESMAN: REPORT THAT CEO WINTERKORN TO BE REPLACE BY MUELLER OF PORSCHE IS "RIDICULOUS" (via @CNBC) #Volkswagen

— Carl Quintanilla (@carlquintanilla) September 22, 2015

 

The West Virginia University study also had a BMW diesel for a test vehicle. It met or exceeded, as in it was cleaner, the emission specs on the same test route.

VW is the bad guy here, not diesels.

SCR with DEF is already being added on to diesel engines. No diesel passenger vehicle sold in the US does not have it, including the new VWs. Many commercial trucks also use it. Some diesels may use a LNT(lean NOx trap) in addition to the SCR for even cleaner emissions. The BMWs may already do so, but they might qualify as SULEV with BMW opting to certify for lower to reduce warranty costs down the road.

Diesels coming out now are already certifying for Tier 3. So the complication on these emission systems already are out on the road. To meet Tier 3, the gasoline needs to switched to ultra low sulfur in order to allow the better catalytic converters to be used. Then DI gas engines may require an exhaust filter. The emission equipment on all ICEs will get more complicated in time.

Volvo has a diesel fuel cell that emits just CO2.

As to the US and gasoline vs. Europe and diesel, it really isn't which one is cleaner. Without controls gasoline emits more carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons, and diesel more particulates. NOx isn't dictated by fuel type. Diesel emits more NOx because they have a lean burn stage, which gives they a better efficiency. Gasoline ICEs can, and did, have a lean burn stage that improves the car's fuel efficiency for higher NOx emissions.

The difference between Europe and US isn't the fuel type, but the level of importance put on cleaning up car emissions. Before the US started regulating them, the gas cars emitted a greater amount of harmful stuff than these cheater VWs ever will. The US started forcing the car makers to clean up the exhaust, and has been steadily made the limits more strict. Europe hasn't ignored them, but hasn't been as proactive. Euro 6 is only now mandatory, and is more lax in some areas than the current EPA. Of course, the EPA uses a one size, gasoline, approach to car emission limits. Diesels do struggle with the NOx limits on it, but they breeze through the CO and HC ones.

And lets be clear on the history. The US wasn't correct as if they had a choice of gasoline or diesel. We were lucky. Texas crude is light. So it has a higher percentage of straight gasoline to begin with, and is cheaper to make the rest into gasoline. It is also a sweet crude, with less sulfur to remove. Europe gets most of their oil from the Middle East which is heavy and sour. It is cheaper to get diesel from it than gasoline.

If the petroleum types had been reversed, so would the fuel types we would be using today.

Volvo has that fuel cell, but the autoreformer could be made to convert gasoline, natural gas, or alcohols into CO2 and hydrogen. I don't see hydrogen working outside small geographic locations, like Japan, because of infrastructure costs. Natural gas lines are nearly everywhere already, so it is already in place for renewable methane, but the tanks for it, and hydrogen, are too bulky for a small passenger car. There is already the distribution infrastructure in place for diesel and gasoline. So drop renewables for them have an advantage over alcohols and biodiesel

Which is the real worry of diesel proponents. Renewable options for diesel may have a better shot of coming to market than ones for gasoline. The ICEs can be as clean as gasoline ones. But we might miss out because of greed and laziness.

Friend had a problem with the sunroof in his Camry. Sealed fine, but it somehow got a little out of alignment, and that lead to the plastic guide rails breaking. He couldn't buy them separate from an expensive parts package, so he didn't fix it.

 

Well, Gasoline ICE exhaust will always be easier. NOx are much lower, and low Oxygen presence helps a lot the NOx reaction.

I don't quite follow the refining context. Diesel and Gasoline prices before taxes are very similar EU/US, and some processes give diesel out of thick fuels and other products. Also cheap diesel that Russian fellas export is used here to make up the gap between the offer and the demand of these products.
Taxing them odd makes (all) the difference, and that is the historical mistake many EU countries have fell in.

 

It is lucky that gasoline turned out to be so clean, with the invention of the 3-way catalytic converter. Lucked out on that. Those inventors deserve all credit they get.

Hate to quote Bob Lutz, but he says diesel is $10k more in USA to meet the emissions.

 

The TDI Forum thread on this just passed 2400 posts in just under 4 days!
I can't imagine reading that many posts and I'm sure glad we haven't had an issue like that.

 

By that epic oversimplification of the circumstances around these cases, esp. the convenient elimination of the role of intent, and of course the subsequent judicial assessment of culpability... you could liken a traffic accident that causes a death as being totally comparable to a terrorist act like detonating a bomb in a crowded public place, or a sadistic serial killer that tortures and maims a victim before killing him.

Because according to you, it's all merely a matter of 1) somebody does something, 2) somebody dies, 3) authorities bring charges, 4) people go to court, and 5) a punishment is levied.

And now nobody can possibly tell the difference now that you've brilliantly framed it this way, right?

I'm pretty sure you're the only one that has missed the academic paper, the detailed coverage from both general media and automotive media sources, not to mention the constant public admissions of culpability by top VW brass (specifically Winterkorn and Horn).

Just last night: "Our company was dishonest, with the EPA and the California Air Resources board, and with all of you and in my German words, we have totally screwed up."

 

we've had several Mazdas and last one lasted 19 years/434k. They last, and fun to drive.

I test drove 2015 Mazda3 hatch earlier this year and was very tempted to buy one, but end up getting Prius C. Needed small car for commuting. If Mazda2 was available, would have gotten it instead. Handling-wise out of the box it was as good or better than my C is now with swaybar and camber kit, ok looking and reasonably good in all areas: ergonomics, economy, price and fun to drive.

 

Yes, because NOx emissions doesn't depend on fuel type, but combustion conditions in the cylinder. Mainly excess oxygen and high heat.

Gasoline is easier in regards to NOx because the engine designer has a choice. They can choose NOx emissions or fuel economy by choosing whether to use lean burn, like a diesel, or not. Honda had lean burning engines in the 1990's. At least the federal models did. Lean burn emitted too much NOx for California. So it was disabled for cars sold there, and they used more gasoline.

Because of their design, diesels really don't have the choice to run not lean. Mazda has gone with reducing the compression ratio in their SkyActiv diesel, which reduces the combustion temperatures. The cars can pass Euro 5 and maybe 6 without SCR, but not EPA. At least not without losing more performance than Mazda wants to offer.

I was looking at it from a historical perspective. The US was blessed with 'clean' petroleum that favored gasoline production. So during the growth of our car culture, gasoline was cheap. Which lead to developing performance over fuel economy. The desire for that performance made the non-turbo diesel a no go for cars. Plus, gasoline has a more pleasant smell than diesel to most people.

The pre-emission control gasoline cars were in no way clean, but they were popular and entrenched in the driving landscape. So the focus was on cleaning them up in the US. Diesel mostly got a pass then because very few cars used it, and it was important for commerce. If the situation was flipped, and diesel cars were the majority then, I don't think it could simply be said the market would switch to gasoline because they would be easier to clean up.

For example, the 3 way catalytic converter works with diesel. It just couldn't be used in them until recently because of the sulfur convent. In the diesel car America of the late '70s, the government might have been able to push lower sulfur in diesel to allow those devices. Then diesel emission controls would have the years that gasoline ones did to gradually improve. If pre-emission gas cars had to meet tier 2 levels, how successful would the results be? The drop diesels had to meet wasn't that drastic, but it wasn't a stepped decrease over time that gasoline had to improve the controls over.

 

-they are not a person, they are a corporate entity, they were appeasing VW investors, under the guidance of counsel

 

Just admitted it affects 11 million cars.

Think of the effect in China, suddenly conscious of air quality and a source of lots of VW's revenue.

My guess at a US settlement. $1000 credit towards a new model. $1000 customer class action settlement on average not including warranty to 200k miles. $250 dealer expenses to conduct recall. $25 in publicity/management expenses.

The $8.7B they have set aside is peanuts compared to what this will cost them in the next 10 years.

 

A nice technical article about this specific diesel engine:
Green Car Congress: Background on the 2.0L diesel engines at the core of the Volkswagen emissions testing debacle

Bob Wilson

 

Are we about to see the death of diesel? | Autocar

Had cash for clunkers, Europe may need a "Cash for Diesels" soon or they will be on the road for a long time

 

Volkswagen Admits 'Defeat Device' On 11 Million Engines Worldwide, Sets Aside $7.2B

That is really really bad for vw. KBA would have likely helped them turn it around if it was US only, but 11 million, with most polluting in the EU may get a swift kick from the german government, especially if BMW and Mercedes didn't cheat.
Volkswagen Says Emissions Deception Actually Affects 11 Million Cars | WIRED

I believe this will kill diesel cars in the US. The diesel ram along with other trucks and SUVs should be alright. Mazda is probably lucky they never could get their diesels to pass US emissions requirments with decent power. Now we know how vw did it as inexensively as they did. They cheated on 11 million engines.

 

The trend for the Ram diesel is not good over the past four months.

Bob Wilson

 

haven't seen the audi commercial lately, where the lady is putting diesel in her car and everyones panicking. how many of those did they sell here?

 

They were slowly dying anyway.

More expensive to purchase... more expensive to fill the tank... not as efficient as some hybrids... and not earning a green emission rating (SULEV or PZEV)... made them a challenge to sell.

This basically just eliminated any hope that supporters had.