Did VW know all along about diesel emissions problems?

David
WHY should test results differ from the road tests?
Fuel consumption is a similar ‘fix’. In 60 years of driving I have never managed to achieve the MPG that car manufacturers claim. It is our fault of course: we just carry on enjoying our motoring thinking someone else will fight our cause.

They knew all along the results were misleading… i drove a vw minibus 8pxs for a couple of years….taxi.the bus day and night would do a minimum of 300 miles a day much of it around town.Subsequently the d.p.f filter was coming on every couple of days so vw sticker in cab says 2000 revs until light goes out….so 50mph it’s a main road job…this burns off the carbon in other words the exhaust soot up to maintain the published figures by storing the excess until it starts to block so you go on the main road in my case the a19 and put all the carbon deposits along withall the nasties in the countryside….. VW the real eco friendly Company NOT

malcolm r
you missed one “loss” from your list.

When this story first broke I wrote to my m.p. and asked him to pass on to the Treasury dept. He did. In my letter I explained that if nitrous oxide is being cheated then carbon dioxide must be equally cheated. As Britain levies it’s vehicle excise duty on CO2 levels VW cars would be paying less than they should. This would amount to a deprivation of money for the Treasury and once they’d calculated that figure they should charge it directly to VW.
Mr Gauke at the Treasury responded in the first instance with a dismaissal of my logic. Once the US had announced their intention to fine VW and at about the same time, VW announced they had in fact cheated CO2 values as well I wrote again to my m.p.
Mr Gauke was more pleasant in his second response and assures me he is keeping his options open.
I really wouold like to see our government show some backbone and fine VW for this revenue loss. Their other option would be to levy a charge on VW car owners and let them (in a class action) recover their “costs” back from VW. The latter option is however inefficient as legal fees will cost a fortune.

Mike, thanks. Until tests have been completed we will not know whether, under NEDC testing, fuel consumption has been adversely affected, so compensation for owners extra costs would only be appropriate if it has increased. Then, if fuel consumption increases so will CO2 emissions. However I am told that the UK Govt has assured owners that if this changes the CO2 band they will not be required to pay extra for VED or benefit in kind, so there will be no need to compensate car owners on this score. It is, as you rightly point out, the Govt. that will lose this extra revenue and they whom VW Group should compensate. VW Group will also be subject to EC fines because their “fleet” CO2 will be higher than declared, for which there are existing penalties.

You must wonder why a huge business like VW Group resorts to amateur deception in this way, with the certainty that at some point it would be found out, either by tests or by prompting from a disaffected employee blowing the whistle.

But still, banks, local authorities, government departments and staff, NHS, education and all sorts of organisations seem to think they can deceive us. They are all run by people just like many of the rest of us with our weaknesses, arrogance, limited brain power, power complexes…………..so we just need to be aware that we will never have honest, transparent, trustworthy organisations where people are involved.

I’d like a whistleblowers’ charter with an organisation that willingly listens to people who know of problems, protects them, investigates and takes proper action where justified. That might stop some of the potential miscreants from thinking they can escape discovery and retribution. The trouble is, who will run the organisation? I’m squeaky clean so put my name down. 🙂

Vynor, , There was no Urea system. . Just a cheap Exhaust gas recirculation system with a diesel particulate filter to change the then excessive soot from the black stuff we once seen to a much lighter coloured stuff we didnt as easily see
Recirculating exhaust gases reduces NOX but makes loads more soot
They needed the DPF to then reduce the soot
Both systems use power/reduce power and use fuel
The cars started every morning in clean mode but as soon as they recognised normal road conditions they went for economy
To do this they simply stopped or almost stopped the operation of the EGR
Stopping or seriously reducing the use of the EGR reduced the production of soot
Stopping the use of the EGR also gave the little diesels back their true lean burn genetics that always gave diesel the economy
Along with that came the power that everyone likes
It was a really simple cheat but unlike many others this was not a simple mod to enable a little better test results these cars could fly through any test with flying colours any day any where but once on the open road the cheat allowed the car to get better economy and more power

The people assembling the engines or indeed the cars would not know there was a cheat
The cheat is not a visible device. . It is purely software related
All the emissions equipment was present and correct and as above could pass any test so it’s unfair to say those assembling the engines knew anything
Many of the test engineers would not have known either because the testing would have been done in similar fashion to test expected of it
It could only have been those much further up the ladder who knew. . This cannot happen without the very highest knowledge

As to Urea injection
Without going into all kinds of boring details it is not so simple as it first appears. . What is??
So those with thoughts that Urea is the saviour are perhaps a little wishful. . It has drawbacks also

There are no clean engines. . There are no clean vehicles. . Even the production of a vehicle is very pollution causing
Yes your right no one can wear a Halo but I dont see any others attempting to do so nor do I see any here saying that all others as squeaky clean but??
To date VW have been the big guys to outright cheat. .It might not have tasted taste so bad had they not been caught at this software test cheat thing in the past which they in fact were caught for
There are many who knew VW had to be at something but I dont believe anyone outside of VW really believed what they were doing until they held their hands up
Many like myself who had learned to dislike VW for being swell headed and all conquering have been vindicated if only to a small degree but many were working their guts out to compete with a cheat. .
This cheating was pushing the industry into ever more “quirky” or less than perfect practices
No different to being an athlete competing against others who you know have an unfair advantage but you cannot put your finger on the problem

Reports into the effect of modifying vehicles prior to NEDC testing – modifications that the NEDC test doers not prohibit – indicate that the effect on the results are relatively small. It must also be remembered that the NEDC test does not, and was not designed to, represent “real life” performance, simply to make relative comparisons between vehicles. So don’t rely on the figures it produces as representing what you will get in practice. Which? has an “on the road” driving style test cycle that is quite different from the EC’s NEDC. They are not comparable.

The EC is introducing a very different laboratory test – the WLTP – which is said to be much more representative of the ways cars are driven. It will replace the NEDC test. It is also introducing a “real driving emission” test to measure emissions during on-the-road driving; this will give a much better basis for assessing and regulating emissions, like NOx.

We should concentrate on getting these tests up and running and producing results. At the same time the EC is looking at other measures, such as ensuring all the independent laboratories used for vehicle certification work work on a comparable basis and are regularly audited, with independent oversight.

We have discussed the forthcoming tests at great length, but I would be interested to explore cheating within the motor industry. Six months ago we learned about blatant cheating by the VW Group but I would like to know about other examples even though they are likely to be less serious.

VW group are the only manufacturer found to have cheated – so far. If there is evidence that any other has “cheated” then I will be the (first) second to condemn them. But I would like to see something to substantiate any such allegation. 🙁

We did not know that VW had cheated until six months ago. Maybe it’s time to look for evidence of other cheating.

The EC and others, like the UK, are looking at car testing to see whether there are any issues of this kind.

The cheating refers to nitrogen oxide emissions and not directly to fuel economy and carbon dioxide emissions. Modifying the problem cars is likely to decrease fuel economy and increase carbon dioxide emissions to some extent, but it will reduce the amount of nitrogen oxide emissions, which are harmful to our health. All cars, diesel and petrol, produce nitrogen oxides and in some cities the levels are above the permitted threshold.

NOx emissions are only measured, currently, during the EC’s NEDC laboratory test. The limits regulated by the EC (currently 60 mg/km for petrol and 80 mg/km for diesel under the Euro 6 requirements) are only compared with the NEDC results. These are the results used by the EC to grant a car’s approval.

There are no “permitted thresholds” for emissions produced “on-the-road”, as yet. The EC’s “real driving emissions” test is designed to sort out what happens under these conditions and should lead to a more practical outcome. It has recently been introduced for trial purposes.

Most vehicles on the road are likely to produce higher emissions than Euro 6 anyway because of their age. The only way to seriously reduce NOx levels in towns and cities is to substantially reduce the number of fossil-fueled vehicles using them, particularly at peak times. We should concentrate on producing a real and workable solution, not tinkering at the edges. That is, if we are serious about reducing pollution.

Modifying the affected cars to comply with emission limits will also reduce the emissions on the road.

It will have minimal effect – it is the number of vehicles on the road that cause such high levels of pollution. If London sees the whole of its annual emissions levels being exceeded in some areas in only a few days, with other cities facing similar problems, then simply tinkering with individual emissions will be useless. The fact is that we do not measure vehicle emissions under the conditions in which they are used. Until we know what happens in practice – and this is what the EC’s real driving emissions test is designed to find – we do not know what further measures to take that will be genuinely effective. And what about the vast majority of road vehicles – cars, buses, lorries, taxis – that are nowhere near the performance of Euro 6 and their commercial equivalents? I doubt you can modify those.

Town and city air pollution is a serious problem that can only be solved by a radical solution. But who takes it seriously enough to take a brave step? We’ve seen the pollution levels in China and India; do we want it to get like that here just because of our personal right to use a polluting car whenever and wherever we like? Perhaps we do.

Malcolm – You have often mentioned the need for a radical solution to tackle pollution but having done my best to avoid driving in cities since I learned to drive at age 17 it grates a bit. Do you practise what you preach?

This is not about you or me but all of us, wavechange. It won’t happen unless there is some kind of legislation.
I am not “preaching” as you put it, simply pointing out what I believe to be one way that pollution can be controlled. I’m sure your contribution helps and no, I very rarely drive in towns and cities and not in the rush hour.

Thanks Malcolm. I wish more people would behave more responsibly and there would be less need to control people’s lives. I have no idea if I would have cared about environmental issues if I had not been badly affected by poor air quality since my childhood.

If you take seat belts, using hand held mobile phones in cars as examples, would we have the situation where the vast majority wear belts and don’t use phones unless they had been persuaded by legislation. Personal responsibility is a bit relative and most people need encouragement.

As far as driving in town is concerned, it may persuade people not to if there were more, better, cheaper public transport and free out of town parking. But many calculate that it is cheaper to drive (fuel cost) particularly if more than one person is travelling,. This needs to change.

Unfortunately these measures would attract little support and would make politicians unpopular. I’m surprised that the smoking ban succeeded.

Unfortunately we are off-topic. 🙁

Malcolm, as 80% of the UK population reside in urban towns and cities, Its a bit unrealistic to expect people to give up their love affair with the car in favour of public transport, the cost for which would prove restrictive and prohibitive for many families.

Beryl, I’m afraid it is, but these same people will live amongst the fumes. The alternative needs to be attractive public transport that is affordable.

Curbing the emissions is surely the most cost effective approach Malcolm with the introduction of more hybrids and electric vehicles. There would be mass unemployment and the economy would suffer as manufacturers pulled out of the U.k if people abandoned their cars altogether.

There is of course always room for cleaner and cheaper public transport and people would be a lot healthier through more exercise so a combination of both is the ideal solution.

I think an easy way to curb emissions is to ban private cars from city centres. London has, more or less, already done this by means of its congestion charge.

But, as Beryl says, most folk would rather sit in traffic jams breathing foul air than walk or cycle in clean air.

Derek, a small step, and now they are introducing an ultra low emissions zone. But……….to enter these areas with a polluting vehicle above their limits all you have to do is to………pay. So there seems to be nothing wrong with adding to pollution, providing you have the money to give TfL. That is hardly tackling a life-threatening problem in a responsible way.

Non -essential traffic needs to be controlled in volume to begin to make an impact. Vehicles deliberately breaking a ban should be seized.

On the A11 approach to Norwich there are signs saying that freight consolidation scheme vehicles are permitted to use the all-day every-day bus lane. One of the major regional haulage contractors operates the scheme with a depot [freight consolidation centre] 20 miles out from the city. It is very difficult to judge whether this is an effective scheme. In hundreds of journeys along the road I have never seen one of the company’s trucks in the bus lane but that is not conclusive – they probably operate in the early hours of the day for city-centre deliveries where there are access restrictions. But as a way of reducing both pollution and congestion this is worth extending to all major towns and cities [the multiplicity of contracted carrier companies now operating militates against it unfortunately as they are unlikely to stop and break a portion of their loads and transfer control of the delivery].

Norwich also has a very well-developed park-&-ride scheme with six sites on the perimeter which is becoming more successful with over 5,000 parking spaces, leading to over three million journeys a year. Although the operating day is over 12 hours, the frequency varies from 10 minutes during business hours to 30 minutes at either end of the day. The 10 minute frequency is essential to encourage use but it requires the provision of a large number of buses so overall utilisation is quite low. Single fares are quite high [although much cheaper than car park charges] but there are concessionary, group, period and season fares that make make the cost reasonable. It has been estimated that the P&R scheme keeps around a million cars out of the city centre every year but I suspect that the real drivers of the benefit are the traffic management measures, pedestrianisation schemes, bus- and taxi-only streets, waiting restrictions, and the cost and shortage of off-street parking provision with the P&R scheme being the lubricant that makes it all work and without which the city’s economy would collapse. Despite these measures, the city centre still records very poor air quality conditions and high levels of vehicular pollution – possibly because of the preponderance of buses and taxis in the central area.

Norwich is also developing government-funded cycling priority schemes called ‘Pushing the Pedalways” with major reconstruction of some highways and junctions but these have become controversial and there seem to be a number of safety concerns for cyclists, pedestrians and vehicles [it appears to be encouraging a less amenable form of cyclist behaviour].

Beryl, many cities will not benefit even if new car emissions were halved, or even reduced by 90%. If a London area reaches its annual limit in just 10 days, that would not help – it might then reach the limit in 20 days. 345 days to go……And traffic is increasing, not decreasing.

Why should I worry if manufacturers produce fewer cars when what is currently happening is peoples lives are at risk from ever-increasing total emissions? How long might it take for all the pre-2015 cars to be replaced by Euro6 vehicles? Look at the age of the majority of cars – surely we don’t expect all those owners to scrap them and buy new?

Where is all the electricity coming from to feed electric vehicles, when we are in danger of not having enough even for our existing needs?
And why should not people change their habits when the very health of much of the population is at increasing risk?

Do we worry about the effect on tobacco companies of banning smoking in public place? So we need something similar for cars. People will still need cars, but will not use them as much in towns. So they’ll do fewer miles, use less valuable oil, cause less pollution, last longer, help people’s breathing….What is not to like?

I hope we could have a Convo about tackling air pollution, particularly in cities.

I would not have thought that the scrape that VW has got itself into was a good way of pleasing its shareholders, many of which must be despairing of the huge costs and reputational damage that will ultimately impact on dividends and capital values.

The “rich shareholders” are, of course, the pension funds, insurance providers and savings institutions that we rely on to cover us on a rainy day; large corporations have little concern for their tiny percentage of individual shareholders.

It’s a good time to snap up a cheap used VW environment polluting vehicle Malcolm as hope fades of any compensation payouts and the waiting time to fix those whose owners haven’t yet sold gets longer and longer…………………..

The information on secondhand VW’s is open to interpretation :
1. some buyers believe that the prices have been extra discounted when they bought
2. some buyers believe that they will receive compensation in due course

A more devious person like myself, if I were VW, would be buying judiciously to keep the secondhand price level to prove compensation was not required as there had been , demonstrably, no loss of value via the secondhand market.

But then I have been told I am too business like ……….

Beryl, so far we know that a cheat device was used to deceive the Americans. What we do not yet know is whether fixing that cheat device will have a significant impact upon the official performance data used in the EU., pollution or performance.

One of the downsides of a competitive environment is that it encourages cheating. Drug use in sports, students cheating in exams etc. Bring money into the equation and the chances of cheating are greater. It’s hardly surprising that cheating is common in the commercial world, and of course some customers try to cheat the companies.

Many years ago, Kwik Fit had unwelcome attention for encouraging customers to have unnecessary work done. Even after the event, I was nearly one of the victims but took my car elsewhere and was told that there was nothing wrong with the exhaust. Kwik Fit is still on my boycott list.

How about “cheating” (fiddling) waiting times in the NHS? It seems to be down to human nature. MPs expenses? Dumbing down exams to support educational “progress”. I’d suggest trying to cover for incompetence also drives this culture amongst some sections of the community.

I agree, Malcolm. Like some of my colleagues, I put in a great deal of effort into resisting dumbing down in higher education. Increasingly HE is being run like a competitive business and our NHS is being ruined by increasing use of commercial practices.