A few things. To restate one person above, the Government won’t adjust tax brackets for any affected vehicle.

Second. The recall is not mandatory. I doubt they will be actively writing millions of letters.

To echo a point above. It sounds like it’s actually just PR and the defeat software will be removed. Real world effect. Zero. Pointless. PR wise that may be good. Frankly, it would be better if they’d come out and said that 11 million vehicles have a piece of software that would produce a better result on a Dyno. But since none of those 11 million vehicles would fail type approval, and since none of them will see a Dyno, we’ve decided to leave it there.

Bloke on costing the earth yesterday reckoned Corporate Manslaughter charges were appropriate against VW.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06flmf1

bikebouy – Member
…As for the Fix? Is there such a thing? a remap? for what, take the flat spot out?

bendertherobot – Member
…the defeat software will be removed. Real world effect. Zero.

both probably correct, more or less…

but, isn’t the ‘flat-spot’ the only part of the engine’s behaviour that’s compliant with air-quality regs…?

munrobiker – Member
Solo- the cars aren’t being rebanded.

Which is what I suggested in scenario a) in my post above.
Solo – Member
a) VAG remove DF software, UK Gov doesn’t re-band those cars effected
🙂

jimjam – Member

molgrips – Member
I can’t imagine they’ve had time to develop a new map to make it any more emissions compliant.
.
They already have that, it’s the cheat map
Yeap, which was what I was alluding to with this comment:
Solo – Member
b) VAG not only remove DF software, but re-map ecu after which real world consumption and driving characteristics are significantly altered.

I agree, it appears to me also, that removing the defeat software (WTF did I get the abbreviation “DF”? I’m such a muppet) now is a PR process for VAG’s “come back”.

I’m still very unhappy with VAG, selling me a car which would seem to be dirtier than it’s competitors and not as “clean” as I was lead to believe.

It’s a bit of a leap though, imo, to charge VAG with Corp Manslaughter.

Firstly, a small VAG TDi with defeat device still isn’t going to emit the same quantities of particulates as a 4 ltr diesel BMW, (add any OEM you choose to) assuming shear quantities of particulates are a significant contributory factor.
Then also consider taxis, buses, lorries, etc from other OEMs.

Secondly, you’d have to address the juxtaposition of diesel cars/vehicles from all OEMs being homologated and type approved for sale and use in any given market where such action may be launched.

And that’s just the issues with charging the defendant. Then what about the actions and behaviours of the plantiff, etc, etc.

It wouldn’t get off the ground in my view, but I would be interested to learn why I’d be wrong in that assumption.

Solo

I’m still very unhappy with VAG, selling me a car which would seem to be dirtier than it’s competitors and not as “clean” as I was lead to believe.

I really doubt that it’s dirtier than it’s competitors. It’s unbelievable that a company as large as VAG can’t produce cars of similar or comparable levels of pollution to their direct competitors. It’s not as if they are selling cars with vast amounts more BHP/Torque per litre than their competitors and advertising that they are hugely greener. For the most part they are all comparable.

As for it not being as clean as you were led to believe, how long ago did you buy it and how clean did you perceive it to be? (broadly speaking).

JJ.

Theres a very real chance that one reason the defeat device was deployed was so that VAG didn’t have to invest in the R and D required to remain competitive.
Instead enabling them to use older tech/design/materials, etc in their engines.

In this scenario, the software enables compliance for an engine which intrinsically shouldn’t comply with regs, any way.

This would amount to deliberate deception, when their defeat device generated figures, disguised what could be an older gen unit, entirely.

Perhaps it is splitting hares, however that leaves us with an entire industry “circumventing” tests to gain compliance, but just using less objectionable means.

Theres a very real chance that one reason the defeat device was deployed was so that VAG didn’t have to invest in the R and D required to remain competitive.

But their new engines are more compliant, no? So they surely did invest in R&D..?

I think they did it because they wanted to sell in the US, hence the device being aimed at the US tests.

It’s not as if they are selling cars with vast amounts more BHP/Torque per litre than their competitors and advertising that they are hugely greener

BMW are though.

molgrips – Member

It’s not as if they are selling cars with vast amounts more BHP/Torque per litre than their competitors and advertising that they are hugely greener

BMW are though.

BMW are probably lying about their power/torque and performance figures, they’ve got form for it

It’s also the easiest thing to fib about as it’s not officially measured and it’s not easy to replicate.

molgrips

BMW are though.

Yeah well that’s kind of what I was getting at. In comparison VW don’t seem to be pushing the performance/economy envelope too far.

I wonder can you get an A6 3.0 Biturbo or a 640d in the U.S?

I just wonder how far it’s going to go. Obviously they’re will be the other car manufacturers who are protesting their innocence who are now frantically trying to get the quoted figures without cheating. I wonder how the hybrid and electric cars are going to be hit too with real MPG for the hybrids and range for electric cars nowhere near the official figures

Electric car range is heavily dependent on ambient temperature, which isn’t the driver’s fault.

craigxxl
I wonder how the hybrid and electric cars are going to be hit too with real MPG for the hybrids and range for electric cars nowhere near the official figures

They probably won’t get hit during this particular scandal though since it’s regarding diesel particulates not mpg. Although the upshot might well be more relevant real world testing which might effect them in the future .

craigxxl – Member

I just wonder how far it’s going to go. Obviously they’re will be the other car manufacturers who are protesting their innocence who are now frantically trying to get the quoted figures without cheating. I wonder how the hybrid and electric cars are going to be hit too with real MPG for the hybrids and range for electric cars nowhere near the official figures

It might be interesting, I don’t think any of the other European Car Companies tried to push Diesel in the US as much as VAG did, but it seems both Mercedes and BMW have sold diesels in the US – BMW sell a 2.0 4 pot which supposedly produces more power and torque than the VAG engine and they sell a 3.0 6 pot – I can’t see whether they sell to California though.

Some car customers in Germany felt their cars were under performing, had them dyno tested, found they were 15-20% down on manufacturers claims and took the manufacturers to court. The manufacturers had to fix, replace or compensate depending on how far short of claims the cars were. I can’t remember the brands concerned apart from a Passat.

If I were a legislator I’d impose retro-fitting of a urea based system that other manufacturers such as Peugeot has been using to pass the tests without cheating.

BMW sell a 2.0 4 pot which supposedly produces more power and torque than the VAG engine…

Genuine question – does the VAG engine have 2 turbos bolted to it in a twin scroll arrangement? Might account for the difference.

They probably won’t get hit during this particular scandal though since it’s regarding diesel particulates not mpg.

This particular scandal was actually about NOx – not PM, fuel economy, or even CO2. Although it now seems to have mushroomed to include all of the above, and sparked a debate about real world emissions versus test scenarios. A good debate to have IMHO, but we can’t blame all the problems with the system on VW alone, its been broken for a long time, and Governments have been implicated in it as well as they haven’t wanted to upset the applecart.

Kryton57 – .

Genuine question – does the VAG engine have 2 turbos bolted to it in a twin scroll arrangement? Might account for the difference.

A twin scroll is a single turbo. The only twin turbo VAG diesel I am aware of is the 3.0 Biturbo.

perthmtb

This particular scandal was actually about NOx – not PM

My mistake, I knew it was about NOx but I was lumping them in using particulates as a catch all term, incorrectly I guess.

it might be and that might be my misinterpretation, but that 2.0d has two turbos.

In contrast, the Variable Twin Turbo technology used in BMW diesel engines uses a large and a small turbocharger connected in series. At low speeds air enters the inactive large turbocharger and is compressed in the small one. At mid-range speeds the air in the large turbocharger is pre-compressed before being highly compressed in the small turbocharger. At high speeds only the large turbocharger is in use. This two-tiered charging enables extremely low consumption values, in relation to performance, and easy to control response from the powerful BMW diesel engines.

If I were a legislator I’d impose retro-fitting of a urea based system that other manufacturers such as Peugeot has been using to pass the tests without cheating.

They already have it on some new engines, and I think it’s been in the US for a while.

I’m amazed at how ill-informed people are about this when it’s a simple thing that’s happened.

a urea based system that other manufacturers such as Peugeot has been using to pass the tests without cheating.

It’s been fitted on some VAGs since 2009

There was an “insider” on German TV who claimed the decision not to go with a urea based system and cheat on VW’s smaller engines was down to cost. They could do it properly but it would have made the cars more expensive which would have reduced both margins and market share.

molgrips – Member
It’s not as if they are selling cars with vast amounts more BHP/Torque per litre than their competitors and advertising that they are hugely greener
BMW are though.
BMW are probably lying about their power/torque and performance figures, they’ve got form for it
It’s also the easiest thing to fib about as it’s not officially measured and it’s not easy to replicate.

Which BMW’s don’t have accurate figures? Which do you suspect are probably being lied about?

I’ve no idea if they are lying or not.

I just recalled the 3 series with something like 170bhp and 109g/kg CO2 that was emblazoned across the side of a bmw dealer I saw a few years ago. Which seems much more than other manufacturers, or at least it did at the time

However, that doesn’t mean that it’ll produce a lot of NOx in normal driving of course.

There was an “insider” on German TV who claimed the decision not to go with a urea based system and cheat on VW’s smaller engines was down to cost. They could do it properly but it would have made the cars more expensive which would have reduced both margins and market share.

I think that’s the crux of it. The technology to reduce NOx is well understood and widely available, but it has cost and performance ramifications. VW couldn’t meet the stringent US NOx standards and still sell a small diesel engine that had good performance and fuel economy, while keeping the cost down for a US market which won’t pay a premium for a diesel. So they cheated. And they got caught.

Others either took the hit to their margins and installed expensive NOx reduction technology, or stayed away from the US diesel car market. VW’s arrogance was it’s downfall.

Just curious as my friend runs a remapping business (specialising in bmw) and of all the manufacturers he finds BMW & Toyota to be the closest to manufacture BHP figures. I don’t know about any other data than bhp, other figures could of course not be accurate. The one you describe sounds like an E9x 320d.

I don’t imagine the bhp is the figure that’s being lied about.

Incidentally – does your mate test for NOx emissions, out of interest?

molgrips that is the current N47 Unit tuned to 163bhp. fill your boots here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_N47

It can be difficult to prove or disprove manufacturers performance figures. Stated performance figures in the brochure will be at the crank but a dyno measures it at the wheels. There will be a loss through the drive train and this can vary greatly. It can be guessed at (relatively accurately) but it’s still a guess.

perthmtb – Member 
I think that’s the crux of it. The technology to reduce NOx is well understood and widely available, but it has cost and performance ramifications. VW couldn’t meet the stringent US NOx standards and still sell a small diesel engine that had good performance and fuel economy, while keeping the cost down

This was the point I was making (poorly) on the previous page, with comments about R and D.
Even though the urea system may be well documented, even deployed in vehicles produced by other OEMs.
Each OEM will still need to develop their system for those engines which require such a solution/emissions controls.

Or you just develop some code, a map for test compliance and away you go.
It almost certainly has to be cost driven, any way you cut it. To save costs to increase margins, to save on projected costs improving current engines or to avoid the costs to develop new engines.

New IC engine development has massive costs and long lead times.

I’ve just read Mercedes, Mitsubishi, Honda and Mazda are likely to make announcements in the next few days about emissions tests.

Linky ref pjays post http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/oct/09/mercedes-honda-mazda-mitsubishi-diesel-emissions-row

This could all get a bit ridiculous – of course the cars aren’t going to produce the same emissions levels in an on-road test. This doesn’t mean the manufacturers are cheating though – it just means the test is massively massively flawed. Hopefully the pressure will come down on those who make the legislation rather than the manufacturers.

Although obviously if they are cheating than fair enough, but I seriously doubt they are.

This could all get a bit ridiculous – of course the cars aren’t going to produce the same emissions levels in an on-road test.

Sounds a little bit like cheating to me. It’s on the road they’ll be used.

In all honesty, manufacturers should have no right to publish their own findings on mpg and emissions. Those figures should all be reached by a truly independent body and enforced by legislation so the results are what the manufacturers have to publish. I’m not sure about the emissions, I’d hope they are independently sourced, but mpg has been bollocks since forever.

Well my new Golf isn’t effected as I didn’t buy into the Blumotion ploy.

GTD Drac?

Haven’t heard anything about Volvos yet.

Any word?

Yup it is V8

Sounds a little bit like cheating to me. It’s on the road they’ll be used.

There is a difference between complying fully with emissions legislation that is not representative, and cheating to pass an emissions test. It’s the test that is at fault (except VW).

Although mpg values may not be the same as real world – they are all based on EXACTLY the same drive cycle so it’s a good way of showing differences between vehicles. Not ideal, but that is what it should be used for. Of course, the manufacturers marketing departments may have other ideas…

Emissions tests are independently witnessed for EU tests so the numbers are correct and can’t be manipulated by the manufacturer.