[Closed] VAG Diesel Owners - what now?

certainly annoying I pay £500

You could have bought a different car of course.

The problem with taxing fuel further is that it becomes a tax bourne by those living in rural areas.

Don't see a problem. You choose to live miles from anywhere you accept higher travel costs. Can't say I've noticed any tendency for rural drivers to choose small economical cars. Fuel costs can't be that much of a problem.

Anyway you only start losing after 12k miles or so. An extra 8k miles above that with 10p per L extra would only cost an extra £20 or so.

If the idea is to influence behaviour and get people to use cars less then not everyone is going to be happy.

I'd be opposed to it based on the fact that there's already 60p (?) per litre on fuel already which I think is farcical.

Which is exactly my point for why this will never happen. Overall, on average, we could pay less tax (excluding current tax evaders from "we") thanks to less administration and no longer subsidising tax evaders, yet you're not prepared to entertain the idea because you think that the tax on one particular aspect is already "too high".

Can you really not separate the issue of whether the total amount of tax collected is too high, from whether that amount is collected efficiently and fairly?

bigfoot - Member
...just doing one of my hobby's would easily cost more than it would to tax both vehicles.

Ever thought of taking up cycling instead? 🙂

Sorry, irresistible. 60 litres in a day? we need a pic.

even cycling needs fuel to miss out the boring road miles on the way to the trails, the closest i ride to home is about 6 miles away. when your that close to decent lakes trails no point riding the crap stuff at home.

here's your pic
[img] [/img]
yamaha R1 engine that does about 12mpg when being hammered around the track.

Can you really not separate the issue of whether the total amount of tax collected is too high, from whether that amount is collected efficiently and fairly?

but it wouldn't be "fairly" for the people like me who have to buy fuel for use not on roads.

then there is also the fuel used that isn't used on the roads, my trackday car is purely for track use so not taxed. the 60+ litres i used at oulton park on tuesday would of been even more expensive and for the 9/10 trackdays i do a year the yearly cost would be a big extra. then there would also be the increased diesel cost to tow the car there behind my van.

So you've got a track day car, and do 9/10 weekends a year. 60 litres per weekend.

Let's say, the additional tax on fuel was way over what's been estimated and increased the price by 20p a litre.

You reckon that would be a "big extra" cost on what you already spend ?

About an extra £100 a year. Hardly a big addition to what it must already cost is it ?

Especially when you consider that the price of fuel has dropped 20p/litre in the last 12 months anyway.

but it wouldn't be "fairly" for the people like me who have to buy fuel for use not on roads.

But part of the argument for tax on fuel and abolishing VED is to reduce CO2 production by reducing the use of cars. Your fuel produces CO2 whether you are on road or not.

Think of it as taking one for the team. An extra £6 fuel cost on your track day to save the planet.

Some of those rural types might just have been born there and work in poorly paid jobs there. The countryside isn't really just a playground for people who've got bored of making money in the city and have seen a lifestyle they like the look of in a magazine.

People in the countryside drive 4x4 s because they generally need them to get somewhere or pull something, not just because some footballer has one that they've seen in the chat mag or to compete with their neighbour.

Also - track day fuel use. Why shouldn't you pay if it's still chucking out pollutants?

We should just get everyone to move to the cities and let the land go wild then. It would work until folk got hungry.

Also - track day fuel use. Why shouldn't you pay if it's still chucking out pollutants?

i already do with the tax i already pay on the fuel, my issue is with having to pay more if VED was added to fuel as well.

fair enough, the extra cost may not be that high but it still would be more than i'm having to pay now for a hobby that's expensive enough as it is.

WHERE YOU MIS-SOLD TDI ??
IF SO YOU COULD BE ENTITLED TO COMPENSATION.
VOLKSWAGEN HAS SET ASIDE MILLIONS TO COMPENSATE PEOPLE JUST LIKE YOU.
TO FIND OUT IF YOU COULD CLAIM CALL US TODAY ON:
0800CO22HIGH.

(and yes we will leave at least three messages a day on your home phone to remind you that you haven't made a claim yet)

Just checked my VIN number on the VW website and it seems VW will be getting in touch with me when they know how to correct the software in my car. They are very sorry for causing this break down in trust and all the necessary work will be carried out at their expense.

We should just get everyone to move to the cities and let the land go wild then. It would work until folk got hungry.

Agricultural vehicles use red diesel, which is tax free....

fair enough, the extra cost may not be that high but it still would be more than i'm having to pay now for a hobby that's expensive enough as it is.

I have less than zero sympathy for someone whose hobby is based around burning fossil fuel! You're basically getting your kicks out of polluting the air we all have to breath.

bigfoot - Member
...yamaha R1 engine that does about 12mpg when being hammered around the track.

That looks like you'd need a good toothbrush to get the bugs out of your teeth (from all the grinning at full tilt 🙂 ).

I think all the pollution controls are a load of crap. If we were serious about it, it should be the total produced by a vehicle regardless of engine size, ie no consideration for engine size or percentages, just say x is the maximum allowed, and then watch engine sizes drop.

Considering you can get 6 people into something the size of a a Honda Actyvan, cars are simply too big for what is needed. (That's hypocritical btw, I like big cars).

I think all the pollution controls are a load of crap. If we were serious about it, it should be the total produced by a vehicle regardless of engine size, ie no consideration for engine size or percentages, just say x is the maximum allowed, and then watch engine sizes drop.

That is how it's currently done. Hence the spate of downsized engines in recent car models.

So will this fix be compulsory, my vin shows my 09 Passat as having this software. Would sooner not loose fuel mpg as I commute about 75 miles a day.

I don't think the government is forcing people to have the mod done but it may affect your warranty or insurance if you don't. If the power or economy drops due to this mod I may see what my chances are to hand my 14 plate yeti back and get something else with any relevant compensation ie my deposit and any equity in the vehicle etc. Sales of goods act etc.

it may affect your warranty or insurance if you don't.

How will that work then? Why does it make your insurance invalid and why would the way the car was setup by the manufacturer invalidate your warranty?

It may invalidate the warranty if you don't have the mod done because it is no longer to the manufacturers specification. Same for the insurance so I believe. Don't know how it will affect residuals later on though.

But if they're not making it compulsory you're breaking nothing as it's exactly to the manufacturers specification.

From April 2017 it is a flat rate £140 VED

It is, but that only applies to new cars registered on or after that date.

But if they're not making it compulsory you're breaking nothing as it's exactly to the manufacturers specification.

Agreed. If the insurance has an issue with the outcome of the modification it should be reflected in the renewal. not void your current policy unless insurers decide to void the policies immediately.

irc - Member
The problem with taxing fuel further is that it becomes a tax bourne by those living in rural areas.
Don't see a problem. You choose to live miles from anywhere you accept higher travel costs. Can't say I've noticed any tendency for rural drivers to choose small economical cars. Fuel costs can't be that much of a problem.

speed12 - Member
That is how it's currently done. Hence the spate of downsized engines in recent car models.

Thanks. Wasn't aware of that.

CountZero - Member

She used to work in Bath, ten miles away

10 miles??? I commute nearly double that each way. For a 5 day week 50 weeks a year that's 5k miles a year. Assuming a 50mpg car. 100 gals. Or 454L. So at 10p per litre an extra £45.40 per year for her commute. Largely offset by not paying VED anymore. Excuse me if I don't shed any tears.

^ Given you seemingly don't have any outside contact with the world outside of your daily commute I can see why you appear to be a bit on the anti-social side. Maybe try getting out more, that's what most people do.

(Were you seriously suggesting that the person in question solely used their car for commuting and nothing else?)

(Were you seriously suggesting that the person in question solely used their car for commuting and nothing else?)

No, I was pointing out that a 10 mile commute does not mean a vast annual mileage. As a switch to no VED and extra fuel tax would be revenue neutral the average driver doing 10-12k a year would not gain or lose. Therefore the 5k per year commute still leaves another 7k for discretionary miles before being any worse off.

And what's anti social about advocating a different tax structure which might encourage people to use their cars fractionally less?

Scrappage seems to be raising its headed. I'd be interested in that if it came about! Thoughts on that?

Not exactly environmentally friendly to just chuck a car into the bin, but better for kittens today etc.

Well I came here hoping for some useful info for my parents worried about their diesel Passat but instead find the usual stw hotbed of bickering and first world middle class problems 😆

the extra cost may not be that high but it still would be more than i'm having to pay now for a hobby that's expensive enough as it is.

I think it's terrible that you are forced into your expensive hobby with no option to do something less expensive and stressful to you.

Today in the news, it's announced that the VW will start 'fixing' cars in Jan 2016. But just what exactly are they going to fix?

I get the impression that this fix is just going to remove the cheat.....Unless they are going to remap the cars to reduce the emissions, this seems like a pointless exercise to me. Once out on the road and in the consumer's hands the cheat has no purpose and could remain there with no consequences?

Agreed. No VED and fuel only tax is the way to go. But then, the government wouldn't have a means of knowing where every car was registered which renews every year...

dmorts
Today in the news, it's announced that the VW will start 'fixing' cars in Jan 2016. But just what exactly are they going to fix?

I get the impression that this fix is just going to remove the cheat.....Unless they are going to remap the cars to reduce the emissions, this seems like a pointless exercise to me. Once out on the road and in the consumer's hands the cheat has no purpose and could remain there with no consequences?

Well, they'll either remove the cheat mode (which would be a pointless pr move) or they'll map the cars to be as emission compliant as they are during the cheat mode which will probably see owners losing a bit of power, a bit of torque and some drive ability.

I have a VAG car, which may be equipped with a DF.

Afaik, if the DF (software - engine map) is removed, then I do not expect real world emissions and performance to be effected.

However it further seems those emissions are not inline with the vehicle's current VED banding.
Therefore I believe a few points arise.

a) VAG remove DF software, UK Gov doesn't re-band those cars effected, UK Gov fine VAG. UK customers have some form of recourse, where VAG buy back their cars or compensate.

b) VAG not only remove DF software, but re-map ecu after which real world consumption and driving characteristics are significantly altered.

If that happens, VAG can buy my car from me, as it would not then be the car I thought I was buying.

In the end, Joe public purchased, trusting both UK Gov and VAG to test and to comply. Therefore owners should not lose out because of this particular issue.
imo.

Well, they'll either remove the cheat mode [b](which would be a pointless pr move)[/b]

[speculation]I suspect this what they'll do and, as you say, PR being the motivation.... but to call that a 'fix' they're digging themselves even deeper! However, they will likely get away with it due to most affected VAG owners not really understanding the technical aspects.

I very much doubt they will remap cars to meet emissions, nor will any government/authority push them to do so. The whole thing stinks[/speculation] 😀

Solo- the cars aren't being rebanded.

I can't imagine they've had time to develop a new map to make it any more emissions compliant.

Solo - Member

However it further seems those emissions are not inline with the vehicle's current VED banding.

Depends how you look at it - does your (or my) VAG diesel actually produce the same amount of pollutants they claim is does - no, none of them do, the lab test the government use to determine such things isn't well linked to the real world, but more of a 'yard stick'. However every manufacturer has 'optimised' the way their vehicles work for ideal results during the test. Where VAG fell down is that their cars actually act differently on the road as they did under test conditions.

There are two facts that mean that it won't effect VED rate - firstly the Government has already stated it won't reclassify any existing vehicles because it unfairly discriminates against consumers who couldn't have seen this coming.

Secondly this scandal is about VAG cheating the test for Nitrogen, specifically for the US market when they put a lot more onus on Nitrogen emissions then we do in the UK. VED is based on CO2 and there been no suggestion that the cheat effects CO2 emissions.

I personally am in no rush to have my car recalled, well I won't be first in the queue anyway - I suspect they'll just remove the cheat code, but if they decide to go honest and mess about with the 'map' I won't be keen, I've driven a load of other types of cars recently and they all seem to have this flat spot in the rev range (where I assume the tests are taken) which mine doesn't have/

dmorts -

[speculation]I suspect this what they'll do and, as you say, PR being the motivation.... but to call that a 'fix' they're digging themselves even deeper! However, they will likely get away with it due to most affected VAG owners not really understanding the technical aspects.

Agree, most people won't know or care about the technical aspects, they'll just be happy that their "bad" car is made good. The motoring press and media in general might be a different ball game.

molgrips

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 😀

I don't own a VW, still got an opinion though 😆

I think VW will recall all cars "they" think are affected. Clearly dealers around the country will be up in arms about trying to recontact Owners and 2nd/3rd gen owners so they'll have to be all brought into the loop. It'll be a massive undertaking, costing more than VW and the UK Govt expect.

As for the Fix? Is there such a thing? a remap? for what, take the flat spot out? Seems both pointless and uneconomic.
If the flat spot only occurs when in test mode then suck it up/accept it in the test scenario and simply make note that the car is one that is affected, big red splat on the logbook should do it.

Other than that I see all this as a PR plaster at best.

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...?

[i] munrobiker - Member
Solo- the cars aren't being rebanded. [/i]

Which is what I suggested in scenario a) in my post above.
[i] Solo - Member
a) VAG remove DF software, UK Gov [b]doesn't[/b] re-band those cars effected[/i]
🙂

[i] 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[/i]
Yeap, which was what I was alluding to with this comment:
[i]Solo - Member
b) VAG not only remove DF software, [b]but re-map ecu[/b] after which real world consumption and driving characteristics are significantly altered.[/i]

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.

[i]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.
[/i]

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 [s]without cheating[/s].

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.

[i] perthmtb - Member 
I think that's the crux of it. The technology to reduce NOx is well understood and widely available, [b]but it has cost and performance ramifications[/b]. 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[/i]

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.