Forum menu
Not sure how removing EGR lowers engine temperatures..? I thought it was there in the first place to lower engine temperatures.
Perhaps they mean lowering input charge temperatures?
You could argue that the EGR cooler raises coolant temperature, but you are correct in that the whole point of EGR is to reduce combustion temperatures.
2.1 million vw/audi vehicles affected by the emissions thing (so far).
[url= http://bigstory.ap.org/article/aaa5e1c4689447dfadbf29f17151dc44/latest-environmental-group-warns-gasoline-cars ]http://bigstory.ap.org/article/aaa5e1c4689447dfadbf29f17151dc44/latest-environmental-group-warns-gasoline-cars[/url]
That's going to be expensive to sort out whatever they do.
[edit] re-read - that's 2.1 million Audi's, not VW's too...
I always thought the current CO2 based VED system was wrong.. My dads GTD is summit like 20 quid a year to tax whilst my old 2.0i Passat was well past the 200 quid mark (and not to mention slower than his car). I don't know why this has taken so long to come out.. You can actually SEE the shite coming oot the back of diesels for christs sake! To quote someone from another thread, diesels belong in agricultural machinery and trucks and have no place under the bonnet of a car. I really hope this is start of the end for diesels in cars.
So from what I can tell it's just the 2 litre engines that are affected, so hopefully my mk6 1.6 tdi golf is alright?
1.6 and 2.0 affected.
We need somebody to set up a "Enter your registration number to see if you're affected" website.
(60 plate A6 with the "eco" 😆 2.0tdi engine owner here.)
1.6 and 2.0 affected.
Not all of them though.
According to the Guardian all of the Euro 5 diesel Golf 6:
Around 5m VW passenger cars are affected worldwide. Certain models such as the sixth-generation Volkswagen Golf, the seventh-generation Volkswagen Passat and the first-generation Volkswagen Tiguan are equipped exclusively with type EA 189 diesel engines that were found to be cheating emissions tests. All new cars that fulfill the EU6 norm are not affected, including the current Golf, Passat and Touran models.
According to the Guardian all of the Euro 5 diesel Golfs:
Hence not all are effected.
Erm, where would I find out which engine I have in mine? 😳
Erm, where would I find out which engine I have in mine?
Not sure but I think 60 plate will mean Euro 5. 😕
Ok, I'll just go out and torch it now then.
Are they really going to detune everyone's car? Or just re-certify them?
The Golf 6 went on sale in the UK in 2009 and VW fitted Golfs with the EA189 engine from 2008. I fail to see how Tom's Golf could be fitted with anything other than an EA189. If it were another engine it wouldn't be a 1.6.
Yes that may be the case but I have 2.0 which isn't effected (yet), again hence the not all.
Tom was asking about a Golf and specifically his Golf 6 1.6TDi.
Yes, he did but you replied saying it was 2.0 too. Hence the not all.
You've added the word "too", Drac. Everyone can see what I replied and that as an answer to Tom it is accurate.
A list of cars involved in the US was posted here the other day:
A lot of people seem to report better economy following a remap (due to more power at lower revs?) so perhaps they emit less NOx as a consequence?
I suspect most remaps will involve advancing ignition/injection timing. Injection timing is increasingly delayed in modern diesels to reduce combustion temperatures to attempt to achieve NOx targets but this is to the detriment of fuel consumption. So by advancing injection the engine will become more economical to some extent but greatly to the detriment of NOx so I imagine most remapped engines are massively emissions non-compliant (especially if EGR is blanked off).
Edit: glancing through thread again I note this has already been answered. Sorry.
Molly I want the car to exceed the emission standards by a long way because that is what I have paid for. The EU test for diesel emissions is quite poor in my view. Just meeting the minimum requirements is not good enough. It appears that if it is too good to be true it most probably is.
There was a diesel debate on Tagesschau 24 earlier, it finished with this vid:
Molly I want the car to exceed the emission standards by a long way because that is what I have paid for
Do you know what the published NOx figures are for your car? Without looking it up? Did you compare them when buying?
Inbred456
Molly I want the car to exceed the emission standards by a long way because that is what I have paid for.
And have you been taught to drive the car to minimise emissions? If the answer is "No" then the limiting factor in your tailpipe emissions is, in fact, YOU, not your car or engine calibration......
What 99.99% of comentators in this whole silly #dieselgate stuff have forgotten is that NO car meets it's official tailpipe emissions in the real world (where you start at below 25degC, accelerate and brake harshly, carry a full load of passengers etc.
In fact, all that this new focus on real world emissions will do is hasten the end to yet more of our driving freedoms, as it is realised that all our cars are pumping out "vast" quantities of pollution (compared to the official values)
And how do we know that the official values are good or bad? How do we know if Euro VI is good enough, or too stringent?
When I let it be known on here that I have a Prius, I was roundly mocked for apparently believing I'd saved the planet and could drive wherever I wanted with impunity. The message was not to drive at all.
Now though emissions are really important, no-one's come out with the obvious line yet. I was also mocked for going for a hybrid when a diesel got just as good MPG.
Would it be rude now to point out that the Prius emits virtually no CO2, no particulates, and gets pretty close to its official fuel economy figures too 🙂
It wouldn't be rude at all Molgrips. It would however still be better for your children if you didn't use a car at all. Virtually no CO2 isn't quite true. We are back to the how-big-is-your-carbon-footprint debate.
A Prius manufacturing process though is one of the most un-green, isn't it? So you bought a car with an upfront ecological impact as opposed to one of spread out monthy payments.
Damn, I typoed - I meant to say virtually no NOx, and it's too late to edit. Of course there's still plenty of CO2, my post looks ridiculous now.
And yes I was being tongue in cheek - it is absolutely much better to not drive at all, and not even own the thing. I was just highlighting the difference in responses - suddenly now we are really concerned about the NOx.
A Prius manufacturing process though is one of the most un-green, isn't it?
Says who?
Did you read about the factory in which it was made?
I suspected you meant NOx, Molgrips.
If you have to drive a car then a hybrid or small car with an efficient petrol engine is the lesser evil IMO. An opinion based on followin gthe various environment and health debates and empirical evidence such as regularly driving (or more often sitting in a bus) up to a ski resort. Even the very latest diesels stink and produce visible crap when thrashed up a mountain pass.
Picking up our new mazda 6 today. I'm one of the fools who bought a new car rather than a banger, although it is our first and only new car. It is petrol and has over 15% better economy than our old diesel mazda 6 (07 model). New petrol engines are not far behind diesels in fuel economy now. Over 1000km it would use less than an extra 10 l of fuel than the comparable diesel.
Anyway, when does the VW diesel sale kick off?
[i] piemonster - Member
Anyway, when does the VW diesel sale kick off?[/i]
Some are beginning wonder when the VW sale will kick off.......
It is petrol and has over 15% better economy than our old diesel mazda 6 (07 model). New petrol engines are not far behind diesels in fuel economy now. Over 1000km it would use less than an extra 10 l of fuel than the comparable diesel.
Are those yours or published numbers? Several publications - the Telegraph being one where I read it - are bringing petrol into the equation of this current ousting, on the basis that published numbers via a test that is not equivalent to real world us is basically fraud. However in this scenario we all [i]knew [/i]it was going on so would not be elegable for compensation as we openly accepted the flaw in the MPG testing, but it may demand an industry wide change of the testing machanism.
Kryton57 - Member
A Prius manufacturing process though is one of the most un-green, isn't it? So you bought a car with an upfront ecological impact as opposed to one of spread out monthy payments.
I bought mine to save on congestion charging, no other reason than that.
I did feel guilty when I heard/read about the background manufacturing process and where they source their raw materials and how though... It's gone now, less than 2 years ownership from me.
N'y whoo's looks like Audi are included in the whole sheeebang which will of course now bring twitching curtains and denial.
[i] bikebouy Member
looks like Audi are included in the whole sheeebang which will of course now bring twitching curtains and denial.[/i]
Not a surprise. It's VAG, encompassing Audi, Seat, Skoda and Volkswagen.
One of the key advantages VAG have historically "enjoyed" is cross product deployments of items such as engines. Therefore, an engine installed in a VW will likely be found in vehicles under the other three brands.
I did feel guilty when I heard/read about the background manufacturing process and where they source their raw materials and how though
If you've got any sources that weren't complete bollocks, I'd been keen to read them. All the stuff I read was from the same source ultimately, which was a bent report about Hummers vs Priuses.
on the basis that published numbers via a test that is not equivalent to real world us is basically fraud
Except that it says on every advert that they are not real world figures, so you can't expect to get them.
One of the sources for those Prius stories was the daily mail...
http://www.****/news/article-417227/Toyota-factory.html
"It has come to our attention that a story originally published in the Mail on Sunday has apparently been misinterpreted by some of our readers.
In order to prevent further misinterpretation, we have removed the article from our website. The following letter was published in the Mail on Sunday on May 13, 2007:
Your article about the Inco nickel factory at Sudbury, Canada, wrongly implied that poisonous fumes from the factory had left the area looking like a lunar landscape because so many plants and trees had died. You also sought to blame Toyota because the nickel is used, among countless other purposes, for making the Prius hybrid car batteries.
In fact any damage occurred more than thirty years ago, long before the Prius was made. Since then, Inco has reduced sulphur dioxide emissions by more than 90 per cent and has helped to plant more than 11 million trees.
The company has won praise from the Ontario Ministry of Environment and environmental groups. Sudbury has won several conservation awards and is a centre for eco-tourism.
"
Please don't let this get to the T5 Transporters, as they just blow daisies out of the tailpipe to let us all go biking, surfing and other cool things.
We would have to get rid of them as they aren't the hippy nirvana transport we thought they were
ooo
top trivia re Sudbury - it has a really big chimney - one of the biggest in the world. 2nd bit of top trivia - the mahoosive nickel deposit at Sudbury is probably there because of a meteroite impact circa 1.5-2 billion years ago. Without that one meteorite we'd have an awful lot less mineable nickel on the planet.
Some of the latest Audi A4 2.0 TDIs (last models before B9/new gen) have Euro6 rated engine. We have one and while it is too soon to tell after only 3500km it is consuming more than a 2.0T from 2008 - at least outside city. Strangely enough, 1.8T has been thirstiest of them all...
[A Prius manufacturing process though is one of the most un-green, isn't it?
Says who?
Did you read about the factory in which it was made? ]
and who wrote the article about the factory, who writes about the benefits of the product..... the folks selling it.
The truth is likely to be very different I don't believe Toyotas marketing guff and major Japanese companies are just as susceptible to corrupt practices and have a problem with the truth ... eg Sony, Olympus
The truth is likely to be very different I don't believe Toyotas marketing guff and major Japanese companies are just as susceptible to corrupt practices and have a problem with the truth ... eg Sony, Olympus
I'm not sure if it's a quirk of the language and translation or a cultural thing but Japanese reporting of environmental issues is appealing.
For example I did a study on mercury levels in food and it's reporting in the media and without exception all outlets reported it as 'people get ill because the fish have mercury in them, naughty fish', never once was the blame leveled at the industries emitting the mercury. They seemingly have a very ingrained culture of not blaming introspectively.
[i]Are those yours or published numbers? Several publications - the Telegraph being one where I read it - are bringing petrol into the equation of this current ousting, on the basis that published numbers via a test that is not equivalent to real world us is basically fraud. However in this scenario we all knew it was going on so would not be elegable for compensation as we openly accepted the flaw in the MPG testing, but it may demand an industry wide change of the testing machanism. [/i]
FWIW I've never trusted the published mpg numbers except for the worse one, Urban, and just assumed that is what I'd average. And historically (+30 years of owning/driving) I've usually been near enough, whether it was petrol or diesel.
Current car is listed at 40mpg urban and I've averaged 43mpg over +25k miles.
Previous cars were near enough +/- too.