> The real blame lies with government. why did the US govt fail to properly test a car made by a foreign company ?
What does VW being foreign have to do with it? Are US companies inherently more trustworthy? You should ask "Why did the US government fail to properly test a car made by any company?"
I'd be interested to know what the US public opinion was on diesel engines before the scandal.
British opinion on diesel was really positive and I know lots of people that purchased diesel engined vehicles when (to my knowledge) they were unsuitable for the type of driving those people were undertaking.
In Germany, people will not buy a diesel if they are mostly driving short trips. It is common knowledge (here) that the air filters on diesel engines need time (~15 minutes) to properly warm up to be able to burn off the soot in the filter. Therefore, only the traditional fleet cars who are driven by salesmen driving long stretches on the Autobahn tend to buy diesels.
Was this also the same in the US, because many of my friends that own diesels in the UK had never heard of this?
Our experience is with unfiltered, sooty heavy vehicles emitting large visible clouds, due largely to trucking industry lobbying. For decades, this has been normal here. Just recently, CA passed actual emissions standards that apply to heavy diesels but exempt emergency vehicles.
http://www.transportation.anl.gov/pdfs/B/855.PDF This is a surprisingly approachable analysis (albeit already almost 5 years old, it seems fairly accurate (n.b. not in industrial battery production)). 20 pages on what it takes in energy to produce the precursors (primarily lithium carbonate), then what it takes to manufacture the actual cells, followed by an analysis of what we can recycle from cells which no longer hold a charge. I'm not saying fossil fuels are the way to go, but if you're driving around a Tesla in Nashville, odds are you're burning a boatload of coal in the process to get your charge from the regional power plant (blowing off the tops of mountains in the process to get that goal).
The paper you link seems very bullish on batteries. (“... we estimate that the energy use and greenhouse gas emissions associated with battery manufacturing make up only a few percent of a plug-in hybrid vehicle’s total life-cycle energy use. Further, the recycling of battery materials can potentially significantly reduce the material production energy.”)
Battery cost is still dropping at an exponential rate while energy density continues to rise. Likewise solar panel costs, and installation (especially at utility scale) is also coming down in price as the industry learns.
I’m no expert, but I predict that within 10 years it will be entirely practical (and much more environmentally friendly than diesel/gasoline, especially w/r/t urban smog) to have bus fleets, delivery trucks, etc. running on batteries.
A software person would say that moving to EV's has the important benefit of separation of concerns.
If power generation is not in the vehicle, our national fraction of combustion generators can be reduced systematically. This is already under way; some US cities are already at 0.
That leaves storage on vehicle. The more EV's we have, the more incentive to find clean, high energy density batteries. This is not a static field either. Graphene is just one vaporware which might appear on the street shortly.
True, but this overlooks transmission inefficiencies. Inherent in moving power over distances is power loss (without superconductors). In that sense, local power generation is superior.
However, my understanding of the overall picture is that car engines (both diesel and gas) are so much less efficient than a power plant, that even with transmission, it's cleaner to switch to centralized power generation.
Gasoline also has large transportation inefficiencies. Unlike solar, every garden a refinery and oil well is impossible while every roof a solar pv is possible, even if 100% unlikely.
Are those inefficiencies actually so large? As they say, liquid hydrocarbons are a remarkably efficient method for keeping large amounts of disposable energy in a vehicle, currently difficult to match with e.g. batteries. And conversion of other energy forms to electricity involves some significant losses as well.
For gasoline the number is supper tricky to determine. So here comes a back of napkin number
A fuel truck transports about 30,000 gallons (20,000-40,000). On average they achieve about 4-7.5 miles per gallon). So they use about 1% of their tankage for every 60 miles traveled.
This suggest to me that transportation loses for gasoline are in the same ball park number. Distribution and marketing is often claimed to be about 5% of the total, but I don't know where that number comes from.
All in all the difference is probably not that large, and I suspect the electricity one will drop faster than the gasoline one due to interconnect upgrades.
Our experience is with unfiltered, sooty heavy vehicles emitting large visible clouds, due largely to trucking industry lobbying.
Every week while going to work, I'll see at least one truck belching black smoke while accelerating, due to poor maintenance. I look forward to the day when all the trucks have to have periodic emissions testing like the cars do now.
Sigh. I didn't know that was a thing. How obnoxious.
Anyway, mostly it is construction and semi trucks I see blowing black smoke. Usually they are really rusted out anyway, hence the lack of maintenance comment.
This bears repeating, and I think may be quite unbelievable to Europeans:
Think of the biggest, most powerful truck (lorry ?) you've ever seen ... big enough to tow, for instance, 4-6 horses in a trailer, or a 30 foot boat.
Lots (and I mean lots) of normal, private citizens drive these vehicles as their normal commuter cars or to run errands, etc., unrelated in any way to business/work. It is not uncommon at all. A lot of these are indeed diesel.
Also the vehicles (for private, non-business use) are preferentially taxed.
> Lots (and I mean lots) of normal, private citizens drive these vehicles as their normal commuter cars or to run errands
Most of those people use the truck part of the time for tasks that only a medium-duty truck can do, such as towing a boat or trailer, horses etc. They just aren't wealthy enough to dedicate the truck to that single purpose so it is also used as a "daily driver".
> Also the vehicles (for private, non-business use) are preferentially taxed
I'm not aware of any such tax advantage, at least where I live (TX). Diesel fuel is taxed at a significantly higher rate than gasoline. There were (still are?) some IRS deductions for business use of expensive trucks/suvs but that doesn't fit the case you've described.
disclaimer: I own a 3/4 ton diesel pickup used exclusively for private trailers hauling
You probably also know plenty of people who have mustangs, or chargers, or italian sports cars. There's always going to be some folks who just want to play with power. None of them make any sense from a marginal utility point of view.
> They just aren't wealthy enough to dedicate the truck to that single purpose so it is also used as a "daily driver".
They might be better served by doing the math, and realizing that they are far better off buying an economical vehicle at a much lower price point and for much lower maintenance and fuel costs, and then renting a heavy duty vehicle to tow their boat the few times a year they actually need to.
The trouble with that idea is that it is very difficult to rent a heavy duty vehicle for towing. Most rentals explicitly disallow towing or other types of heavy usage.
"Most of those people use the truck part of the time for tasks that only a medium-duty truck can do, such as towing a boat or trailer, horses etc. They just aren't wealthy enough to dedicate the truck to that single purpose so it is also used as a "daily driver"."
And I see plenty of trucks with nice big tires, dual rear wheels that don't even have a tow-hitch _installed_, let alone a turntable.
Google "Section 179 deduction". You can write off the entire purchase price of a truck in the year it was bought if it's heavy enough (>6000 lbs) and the bed is long enough (5.5 ft minimum, 6ft preferred).
It has to be for business purposes, but as always, the IRS is lax in verifying that.
The US conventional wisdom is that diesels are big, very dirty truck engines. The small turbodiesel is not a thing that made much headway here outside of a small segment of VW's itself smallish customer base. 18-wheel big rigs, trash trucks, school buses, and passenger busses, on the other hand, are ubiquitous - and emissions on them only minimally regulated until recently. Most people wouldn't know anything about air filters on diesel engines, much less adjust consumer behavior to compensate.
I wanted a diesel vechicle, but heard a long time ago, probally a myth, that small diesel engines don't last very long. It never made sence though because we all know large diesel engines last a long time.
They are not marketed here.
It's hit or miss on finding a gas station that has diesel, but that has definetly changed over the years.
Actually, if I could put 300,000 to 500,000 miles on a small diesel engine, I would buy one. Twenty years ago I would be happy if a vechicle lasted 100,000 miles. I had a Toyota with a 22r engine that spoiled me; I now expect all vechicles to easily last over 250,000 with nothing but oil changes, and new brakes.
Modern small diesel engines will last a long time, provided you adjust your driving style and habits.
There's awfuly many things, that can go wrong, if you don't consider how the engine works - i.e. your turbocharger, DFP, double-mass flywheel - they are subject to physics and you must know, what you can do with the car and what you can't do, to maximize their lifetime.
Turbocharger - don't turn the engine off immediately after stopping, leave it running for a few seconds so the turbo has time to cool off. After starting, don't rev past 2k RPM until the engine oil had time to get into the turbine so it's not running dry(so not for a few minutes).
DPF - don't drive in the city :P if you do, take the car out on the motorway every few weeks at least and maintain speed above 50mph so the car can burn out the soot in the filter.
Double mass flywheel - well, it's designed to absorb the "shock" of attaching the clutch too early. So if you're driving a manual, be gentle with the clutch and your flywheel will serve you well. If you rev your engine and just release the clutch the flywheel will have to absorb a huge amount of force - it's designed to do that so it shouldn't be too harmful, but do it enough times and it will split and have to be replaced.
Drive it like you just stole it. Change the oil every now and then, and keep a clean air filter in it. If it is a TDI or Mercedes, expect to have to pull the intake plenum every 100k miles or so and clean the gunk out of it.
Edit: PS Also, do the timing belt maintenance if/when applicable
PPS: R&R the glow plugs every 50k or so. You may even be able to re-install the old ones (test them first). This is mainly to prevent them from becoming seized to the head, necessitating an expensive repair.
- the few seconds to cool down the turbo is about 30 to 60. Depending on the ride you just had. Just listen half a song more on your stereo ;)
- DPF needs cleaning every cca 700 km (but really depends on multiple factors). You either have a control light, that will let you know, or you notice a sudden fall in distance-to-empty, because that fuel is being used to burn out the filter ;)
Basically, even if something breaks there, it is still possible to repair it. However, it can be expensive (1000+ EUR for DPF or turbo, again, depends on the car).
You might be interested in this great New York Times aricle (PR piece) for the VW/Audi "TDI" engine that they were marketing heavily a few years ago, long before the current mileage/emissions scandal: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/21/automobiles/efficiency-imp...
I can't speak to the public as a whole. But in my circles, there was a lot of interest in the TDI's and similar. With the lower sulfur diesel widely available, there wasn't a perception of VW style diesels being worse than an ordinary car. And the gas mileage made them very attractive. Almost hybrid levels of MPG without the drawbacks of hybrids. And also considered an decent substitution until Tesla, or other electrics, finally become affordable.
I personally almost made a very bad decision. The Jetta TDI was on my shortlist when I was shopping for cars in late summer. Had my GF not disliked it, I probably would have ended up with one.
From what I have heard in my country (Poland) most people prefer diesel because it's just cheaper. Naturally it's about the fuel, as the car itself is usually a bit more expensive.
Usually only people who care about performance choose petrol engines.
Only speaking for myself. I owned both a 2010 Golf TDI and 2013 Beetle TDI. I had the Golf because at the time I needed something with four doors and carry capacity but didn't want a CUV/SUV and the diesel was a good deal. I had the Beetle as a TDI based on the Golf experience and wanted a convertible with good mileage.
To be frank, I went with the diesels because the mileage was very good just looking at the EPA numbers which are when the emissions system is supposedly working. At first I was worried about smell but the only smell I encountered was the fuel itself.
I have no problem buying another diesel should it fit my needs at the time. Yet the advances in gasoline engines more than make up for the advantage diesels have. I know with my 4cyl turbo Z4 I am getting sufficient mileage (32 lifetime, 40 on pure highway) that I have no reason too go back.
Now for larger vehicles the mileage improvement is about the only way to go; that being pickups and SUVs. There really aren't any hybrid trucks about and the few SUVs that are do work but diesels seem to offer better highway.
Old diesels were filthy. Modern diesels are not filthy and were momentarily the "king of high tech" until the hybrids came along and dethroned them.
Much as the anti-electric car (paid?) brigade goes nuts about how every red blooded american needs to drive more than 500 miles without taking a break or else the car is totally useless for everyone and will never sell, the anti-diesel people living in Florida will rant and rave about how hard it is to start a diesel engine in -30F weather with a nearly dead battery. There's an american tradition that you never replace your starting battery until it literally 0 volts and won't start the car at all, no matter how annoying it is or expensive tow trucks are or how expensive it is to burn out starter motors or how inconvenient; given that, the user experience of the last 1/3 or so of battery life for diesels is much worse than gas cars.
Another common stereotype is euro car replacement parts are just like detroit replacement parts coming from the same factory in China yet mysteriously the euro car parts cost 3 to 10 times as much. Note that its not true, BMW brake rotors cost the same as Lexus brake rotors, but it is a common perception.
"Old diesels were filthy. Modern diesels are not filthy and were momentarily the "king of high tech" until the hybrids came along and dethroned them."
Maybe, but even the nicest, newest diesels are still aesthetic abominations.
I just walked past a gleaming brand new porsche cayenne diesel and it sounds like a chitty-chitty-bang-bang set piece.
If you're a sound designer and you need to evoke low-tech, rattle-trap primitives, you could do a lot worse than just record a new diesel porsche/bmw/audi.
Also, vibration, as compared to similar gasoline engines (and this is also true for the diesel-like gasoline engines that utilize things like TFSI ... much more vibration than the corresponding non-TFSI engine).
Depends on context - over here (north Europe), diesels may be more a symbol of wealth than a gasoline engine. Gas guzzlers are prole, for people who have furry dice in the rear view mirror and silly "vocational school mustache".
Compare that to your statement about "smaller petrol engines" for which your example is Macan Turbo 3.6L engine. Over here, such an engine is ridiculously large and almost stupid.
A small, efficient petrol engine over here is something like a 1.0 litre turbocharged gas engine in a Ford Mondeo.
If diesel hybrids were superior to gasoline hybrids, they would already be a thing.
As it stands, diesel engines are fairly incompatible with hybrid technology. The primary driver for fuel economy improvement with a hybrid is the ability to turn the engine off for periods of time. Diesel engines do not handle start-stop very well, as they are much more temperature sensitive. Other optimizations, such as Akinson cycle engines, also cannot be applied to diesel engines with any benefit.
Diesel fuel economy shines the most on the the highway. But highway fuel economy for a Prius is already quite good. It's unlikely that you would find a diesel hatchback of its size that returns better highway economy from the same amount of HP.
There's really nothing to be gained from a diesel hybrid.
I'm in Canada, which is slightly different but similar. Other posters have pointed out the large amount of dirty diesel trucks (and trains). VW's TDI engines have had some recent success. I own a 2012 Jetta TDI because I commute 56km each way for work, so the 5.8l/100km I get from it (80% highway 20% city driving) is handy, and it's fun to drive.
I understand in the US diesel is always more expensive than gas. Here that is only the case in the winter. In the summer it is 5-10cents a litre cheaper than gasoline. In the winter it's about 5-10cents a litre more expensive, the reason I have been told is the demand for diesel oil increases due to furnace oil consumption, which is basically diesel oil.
There are quite a few TDIs on the road where I am, but I live rural so there are a lot of highway drivers. They don't make much sense as an urban car, for stop and go traffic the fuel economy isn't good at all.
In the 1970s, General Motors (possibly irreparably) ruined the market for diesel automobiles in the USA. Their offerings were so bad that outside from a few buyers who educated themselves, nobody would touch diesel cars for decades and even now that "common wisdom" has been passed down from older generations.
Personal impression based on my friends commons on car buying recently. I think electric cars are going to eat whatever small market share diesels have in the US. Also of late diesel fuel is more expensive than gasoline at least in the bay area.
I can't speak for everybody, but where I am in the US diesel means torque at the low end more than high RPM speed. It's used more for largerish farm trucks and real-work vehicles. It's for when a gasoline engine can't easily get big enough.
Dodge sort of* broke open light truck use when they offered a Cummins turbo diesel with ordinary sized pickups in the early-mid 1990s.
Prior to that, you needed to pull something to justify a diesel engine. Ford sort of numbers their trucks F150/F250/F350/F450 and diesel started being more of a thing about the 350 range. Some of these had dual wheels and what we call a "fifth wheel" setup - there's a largish plate oriented haul hitch in the middle of the bed for pulling cattle and horse trailers, heavier equipment.
*sort of - you'd find all the makers offering diesel in fits and starts through the years. So individual counterexamples abound.
Some people arbitraged the lower price of diesel for a while, but a few years back, diesel became more expensive than gasoline per mile.
Meh. I've already decided my next car won't be a diesel. I bought a 1.6dCi Nissan Qashqai in 2013 and that engine has only one advantage - ridiculously low fuel consumption. Seriously, my usage is usually around 5L/100km or less(56 UK MPG/47 US MPG). But - the engine is very noisy and rumbly, plus it takes forever to warm up in winter. Seriously, I drive on the motorway on my way to work and it's still a solid 10 minutes before any warm air starts to enter the cabin. For the temperature indicator to get to the middle, operational position, it's 20 minutes of driving. It's unacceptable. My partner has a small petrol powered car, and she is warm within a minute of starting it. The emissions scandal has only cemented my decision to not buy a diesel in the future.
In UK diesel was always more expensive. Not long ago I was paying £1.30/litre when Petrol was £1.10/litre(£1.30/litre is $7.5/US gallon for US readers). It's only very recently that the two fuels are nearly at the same price everywhere.
Ye of short memory! In the 1980's and the early 90's diesel was definitely cheaper. Also in the late 1970's although back then you had to fill up standing in the rain at some special pump used by lorries.
We also had lead in petrol back then - nice!
I can only recall this anecdotally, a friend's mum ran a diesel car and my mum explained why they had such a noisy thing. You could suffer from tinnitus for hours after getting out of what I believe was an early square shaped Golf (with diesel engine). Diesels back then had no clever electronics or fancy injection so it was a dirty fuel.
>> Diesels back then had no clever electronics or fancy injection so it was a dirty fuel
You will find plenty of people who will say they were the best diesels, because they would burn literally anything, you could put used oil from your frying pan in it and it would happily burn it without any problem. They were uncomplicated chunks of metal, so it's quite common for them to do a million miles without any significant problems. Of course they were dirty as hell, so it's a good thing we don't use cars like that anymore. The only legitimate use I can think of is people who go in off roaders to Africa or deep parts of siberia, where the fuel quality is absolutely horrible, so you can't have a modern diesel with a high pressure direct injection system - one spec of dirt in your fuel and your injectors get clogged.
Precisely that. Over here (Finland), modern diesels have heaters to compensate for that (so, because the engine does not produce excess heat, the heater burns some fuel to generate heat).
The UK models may be stripping off the heaters for cost. I hear people don't even use winter tyres in Britain...
The car is two years old, I don't think I need to change anything to be warm in winter :P And in any case, what do you mean by heaters? The only source of heat is the engine coolant, which circulates through a radiator in front of a fan in the cabin - until the engine heated up the coolant, there's no warm air coming out.
Ok, is a different problem then that I thought. Never say this in any of my cars, but it seems that other qashqai owners have the same problem. Not easy solution for a feature that your car just do not implement. If the air is in closed circuit (inner) will warm a couple of minutes before, but do not expect miracles with your model. In this case, is just a problem of poor design.
> what do you mean by heaters?
I don't know the name of the piece in english, they are needed for warming up the engine before starting the car. When some of them eventually break and is cold outside you can't start the car after several minutes. (Just need to replace the broken pieces, but is a new car and this is not the problem here).
So, with heaters you mean glow plugs [0]. However, they are not the problem if the engine starts.
If your problem is that the engine starts, but it takes a very long time to get warm air from the heating system, in modern cars it's most likely just that the engine is extremely efficient in converting energy of fuel to kinetic energy, so there is no excess heat that could be used for heating the cabin and keeping windows clear from mist.
(Heating is also slow or off if your engine is out of coolant, but if you keep running it without coolant, you'll soon break it so that you really do notice.)
Just think what this heating problem will be in electric cars...
Note that (a) European NOx emissions standards for diesel cars were made more than twice as strict in 2014, and (b) VW and perhaps other manufacturers were cheating American diesel emissions standards.
It’s not an outrageous leap to suspect they may also have been cheating the new European emissions standards. If those are properly enforced, diesel cars could be in trouble.
It's frustrating to see another technology possibly go the way of nuclear for the sake of politics and optics, when the tools to remediate emissions exist. Granted emissions expenses for diesel are at first blush several times that of petrol engines, but a full comparison would include a) at least 25% greater carbon tax on petrol and b) gasoline particulate filter cost for complying with forthcoming PM2.5 regs for petrol engines, esp. the GDI engines so beloved on Audis.
Is the irony lost on you? The technology exists but the leading proponents of diesel chose not to use it.
Same with nuclear, sure there are pebble bed reactors and other safe designs, nobody proposes them on the industrial scale. Why is that? Efficient and cost impact profit.
Gee, I got sucked in big time and bought a diesel. I also lectured anyone and everyone how I was being environmentally more responsible than they were etc.
Wasn't your fault. Vent your anger against VW and other copmanies and people who deceive others. But please, above all, don't stop caring. We can have our better world, but only if there's enough people who still care.
Don’t feel bad. Each and every technology has its failures which will bite at some point. I expect that in a few years, e.g. the recyclability or toxicity of batteries in electric vehicles will hit headlines.
This NOx emission thing is more a PR disaster than an actual environmental problem. The VW diesel engines are still remarkably efficient and nice pieces of technology, at least if you compare them to the huge gasoline engines that they often replace.
(FWIW, I drive a diesel but not made by VAG (this is Renault). It’s probably worse than any current VW engines, but because it’s a few years older, no one complains. It passes the local MOT tests with flying colours, and I get around 5.6 l/100 km or 42 mpg for a minivan which I think is nice enough).
It is so obvious what is happening at the moment. One vendor gets "busted" for "optimizing" for a benchmark and everyone goes hysteric. Nothing really new happened here. Especially for those of us working in IT. Yes it is not honorable what they did and it is cheating but I bet that every vendor optimizes for benchmarks no matter which industry is affected. VW is probably only the first company in automotive that got busted. Others will follow soon..
They didn't "optimize" for the benchmark. They detected that the benchmark was running, and then deliberately ran the car in a different, unrealistic mode.
It's just my opinion, but every major car manufacturer produces cars which have very similar test results compared to cheating VW results (fuel efficiency and such).
I mean if VW got busted, with breaking NOx values by up to 20 times, for the purpose of better acceleration, fuel efficiency and other parameters. So does it mean that others somehow cheat, but do not get caught? Or VW, the biggest car company group in the world, were producing much worse engines, than any other car manufacturer (which sells cars in US) in the world. Somehow I think it's the first one...
I don't know, but when we think about computer hardware manufacturers "cheating" benchmarks, those vendors virtually always have plausible deniability. They game the benchmarks, optimizing part of their featureset to improve scores in ways that don't carry over to real-world use.
That's not what happened here. VW has no plausible deniability in this case.
"Kyle Bennett at the HardOCP found that replacing every instance of "quake" with "quack" in the Quake III executable changed the Radeon 8500's performance in the game substantially."
While entirely possible/probable that other manufactures are cheating the law, another reasonable alternative is that other cars employ more expensive exhaust management systems. VW's is the only major non-luxury small Diesel engine sold in the US.
Diesel is a factor here, too. The EU strategically switched to diesel in the 90's (I think) in order to meet carbon emissions standards. Diesels are more efficient. Drivers in Germany like diesels because diesel is also cheaper than gasoline, which is not true in the US.
Diesel has a problematic history in the US, though, and US emissions standards are tough on diesel by-products like NOx. I would like to know how much of that is anti-competitive and how much is genuine concern for the environment.
VW (and the EU in general) bet heavily on diesel. VW in particular had to cheat to meet the US emissions standards because they were under pressure to compete with other automakers to gain entry into the US market. Whether others did the same remains to be seen. US makers don't really product diesel cars, that is why they did not have this problem.
Diesel has a problematic history in the US, though, and US emissions standards are tough on diesel by-products like NOx. I would like to know how much of that is anti-competitive and how much is genuine concern for the environment.
Genuine concern. US cars were virtually crippled in the 70s due to NOx standards (power-robbing EGR valves being the main culprit, IIRC). For example, the high-end version of the Chevrolet Camaro in 1976 was getting 165bhp out of a 350ci V8 small block (for comparison, I think the plain Jane 2015 Corvette my parents just bought puts out 450bhp from the modern version of that engine). The straight six cylinder version put out less power than my 1.4L four cylinder Scion.
All that smog in the LA valley back in the 70s? That was NOx, so at least in the case of California, those standards were there for a reason. Besides, small diesels were just a gleam in VW's eye when those standards were put in place, so there was nothing to anti-competitive about.
That's the very reason we should get really, really angry and hysteric. In fact, it wouldn't hurt to seriously damage the entire company. Yes, maybe others do that shit too. But there needs to be a message that this is what you get for cheating.
What happened is car companies weaseled around the law and lied to the public, causing death and damage. This is more than idle "cheating", as if it were a game. This is poisoning the air.
Indeed. Also, there are environmental issues (like climate changes) and policies that depend on estimates of how much emissions is being generated where. If indeed millions of vehicles are exceeding the official value by 20x, we're in much deeper shit than we thought.
Emissions are not a joke. By cheating on it on such a scale, VW (and others like it) are literally fucking with the fate of mankind.
But the hysteria might have an effect. Hopefully other companies are now probably scrambling to get rid of their benchmark detection code as quickly as possible.
I remember that a few years back, there was a big scandal in Germany over a supermarket chain that had installed hidden security cameras to watch their employees. The press went around and asked other supermarkets if they had hidden surveillance cameras, and they all denied. Meanwhile, store managers where driving to the supermarkets in the night and removing the illegal cameras...
If Volkswagen takes a big hit it will have an effect. Even if we can't catch every cheater, we might be able to scare them into playing by the rules.
In America we have cameras watching every move we make, especially in stores. Personally, I don't like that much surveillance. I have even thought about a building website where employees can voluntarily post exactly where all the video cameras are in their store.
Most people, would say, "Oh, you are just providing a map for professional shop lifters?" Yea, it could be used that way, but some stores go a bit overboard on the video surveillance.
I will walk out of a store with too many video cameras, or security guards.
I worked security once, and was shocked on just who went to jail for shoplifting. Rich looking people got off with paying for the merchandise. Poor looking people went to jail. I had one store owner let the big spenders steal a little. The worst offenders were store employees, especially management, but that has probally changed with cameras literally everywhere?
I put in cameras professionally and service onsite IT infrastructure at many chains.
In most retail chains, they blanket the store so few non coverage areas. Generally its not watched like a hawk except in big department stores. Panda express is a rare exception...borderline stasi.
Major chains got smart about theft...some make it profitable or turn employee thieves into permanent snitches.
Truth be told, nobody is watching you usually shop although people traffic cams are all the rage....
We all know the future is in hydrid and electric, but new cars sold today under requirements of 120g/km CO2 emissions will probably be mostly diesel. I'm getting a new car and there is just no way I can get anything other than a diesel with current regulations and taxes.
Just curious, does anyone know if VW vehicles running biodiesel pollute just as badly as conventional diesel? If biodiesel is chemically identical to regular diesel, than I'd guess it would have identical NOx emissions, but I'm not sure if this is the case
I drove a 2001 TDI Golf for 12 years and used mostly Biodiesel. Not a chemist.
The fuels pollute differently, as they aren't chemically identical. Bio creates more soot when it burns as it's not as efficient of a burn. But the main charm is that no/minimal greenhouse gasses are produced by the burning (it's corn oil, not dinosaur oil).
But.
The new Clean Diesel's aren't very Biodiesel friendly due to the cleaning process requiring a fuel that burns a little better than Biodiesel does. So it is a hassle if you wanted to try Biodiesel in your Clean Diesel. Not many people were trying it according to the folks at Dogpatch BioFuels, enough so that they looking to find new buyers for their fuel.
I don't know what matters most to the EPA, and what VW was cheating at, to know if the defeat device in a Bio car does worse things to the environment.
Pretty sure biodiesel emits carbon when it burns, the charm is that it's renewable, so long as we can farm vegetables. It's not carbon that was sequestered in the earth but it's still carbon
> The new Clean Diesel's aren't very Biodiesel friendly due to ..
The only biodiesel restriction I'm aware of in larger (e.g., 3/4 to 1 ton pickups) is related to the amount of water bound to glycerin in the fuel. Common-rail injection systems are very finicky and any above-design-limit water can cause corrosion which damages the injectors or fuel pump.
My truck is certified for only 5% (B5), newer ones are B20 certified. The only difference is the fuel system. I've not heard of any emissions impacts.
I expect biodiesel fuels pollute more when they are burned (and they have some downsides in the production side as well).
(Someone around here was driving his old Mercedes using leftover fries cooking oil from a local McDonald's. He had to stop it, but not due to pollution, but for tax reasons. The government really hates losing that revenue.)
This article has also some misinformation. This article, as I read it, seems to imply that the engineers where technically unable to comply with the regulations, that why they cheating.
But it seems to be getting more clear over the last days it is the business people - the one that read Bloomberg - that are also the cause. Because the engineers where unable to do it within the given cost requirements. They told, that they need a greater budget per car to comply with the regulations.
>This article, as I read it, seems to imply that the engineers where technically unable to comply with the regulations, that why they cheating.
They can comply, but fuel economy will plummet. Other negatives can happen as well, the engines can get crudded up quickly, which has already been a problem in VW diesels, and in some Mercedes models as well.
The EPA has also been criticized here as being a tool to prevent foreign competition from high efficiency diesels available in Europe and Asia.
>They told, that they need a greater budget per car to comply with the regulations.
The second problem I mentioned is caused by the EGR Exhaust Gas Recirculation systems, which are primitive; so, yeah, throwing money at that would help.
Overall, I'm fairly confident that the VW mess is the tip of a huge iceberg. Other mfrs have been caught doing this exact same thing before.
Modern Diesel technology requires maintenance, fine tuning and specific temperature ranges to live up to its hype. Outside of this envelope, the engines run noisy and produce high amounts of particules.
Most people buy a diesel car because the fuel is cheaper, they will basically not care about those 3 aspects.
As for the result, the article points to Paris: the city didn't have a smog problem 20 years ago, and now spends half the year with smog warnings (60% diesel cars in Paris area). Just walking by, you'll notice most cars are noisier and smell much more than in a comparable situation in London or NYC. By now, diesel cars in Paris area are the main particule emitters, ahead of heating.
Diesel is a high price technology disguised as cost efficient by an inconsiderate european strategy. Can't wait to see diesel go away - a large scale environmental disaster.
Diesel engines are more vulnerable when driven cold and on short distances (i.e.: typical european city usage). They do need periodic fine tuning, which is mandatory here in most european countries. If the engines has DEF, it has to be refilled and carefully maintained. If it hasn't, the filters also need care (again, most people overlook this).
> fuel price
diesel fuel is about 30% cheaper in Europe, where diesel accounts >50% sales in key countries (germany, spain; france 80% in 2008). Obviously not relevant in the US where diesel is basically non existent. Europe is the main diesel market in the world - worth spending some time there in a major diesel city to forge a definite opinion.
> Paris
Actually less cars in city center, and more in the overall urban area. NOx are contributor, so are Particle Matter PM-6 and PM-10, both byproducts of diesel engines in actual use (obviously far above euro6 norms). Up to 80% of PM in London come from diesel, according to UK government: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/green-motoring/10190942/...
I get that your personal experience with diesel in the US is not bad. Like asbestos sounded great when it saved your family from fire. But really, don't use it.
CO2 tax scam strikes again. I like how the Diesel craze in EU can be traced to stupid CO2 tax and incentives, with total disregard of real actual pollutants coming out of a tail pipe.
It's possible that the [tax] incentives were the result of oil industry lobbying -- as the sales of fuel oil fell, refiners needed to sell more diesel fuel, which is a similar type of product.
Unlikely. This may have been true a long time ago, but refining technology has come a long way.
Diesel (or home heating oil, or kerosene, pretty much all the same thing) used to be something of a waste product in the refining process. Thus it was cheaper than gasoline, even though its energy content per volume unit is higher.
Today, with improved cracking technology, refiners can make pretty much any amount of gasoline or diesel they need from a barrel of crude oil -- what waste is left is very heavy oil used for ship engines or industrial use.
I would be interested in driving a big naturally aspirated diesel engine for its longevity and torque, but they don't make those anymore at least in Europe. (Pollution restrictions.)
Diesels have gone from simple and nearly infinitely durable to complex and easy to break constructs. There's EGR, DPF, direct injection, turbos, you name it, and those are expensive to replace/repair.
On the other hand, modern diesels are quiet, they don't vibrate much, and they deliver a crazy amount of power. But that's just something totally different from what diesels used to be, and modern petrol engines are catching up, in a good way. I could imagine driving a 3-cyl turbo petrol, PSA makes a few surprisingly good ones.
I am completely clueless about cars and their technology, so let me ask a stupid question:
From what I understand, VW didn't technically cheat the benchmark in the meaning that all the readings were truthful. What they did was enable a benchmark mode in their engine software, so the engine ran differently under those conditions. Or, framing the problem differently, they didn't let the user run the engine with the same parameters as the benchmarks ran under.
So, what's stopping them? Why not give the users what they thought they paid for?
I take it the engine would deliver less power with the economy parameters, but isn't those values easier to get away with? You could even have an economy mode button inside the vehicle (or perhaps they already do?) in which case all they wouldn't have been liable for anything as all the benchmarks would have been truthful.
The emissions mode delivers lower power and worse mileage than they are currently getting.
That's the big issue, they sold them as emissions compliant vehicles that delivered some given performance/efficiency, and the software can't make both claims true at the same time.
It's not really a technology issue, its a regulatory one. They certified to the EPA that they had disclosed all parameters that affect emissions in their system. Which, not being true, was a criminal violation of the clean air act.
They can't let users switch between modes, where one more violates pollution standards, the would still be considered a defeat device.
They can update the cars to meet emission standards, but it might actually be the case that their cars can only pass the certification cycles in their cheatmode, but won't actually pass an in use monitoring test.
Even if they can pass emissions, lowering the power and fuel economy is going to mean class action lawsuits from their customers.
129 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 108 ms ] threadAnd during this one its again being blamed on a individual company.
The real blame lies with government. why did the US govt fail to properly test a car made by a foreign company ?
I propose that we focus on what's right to do rather than who gets the pie, so:
Why did the US govt fail to properly test a car that was destined for consumer use (regardless of company origin)?
What does VW being foreign have to do with it? Are US companies inherently more trustworthy? You should ask "Why did the US government fail to properly test a car made by any company?"
In Europe, the standards are a joke (no one drives like we test the cars).
British opinion on diesel was really positive and I know lots of people that purchased diesel engined vehicles when (to my knowledge) they were unsuitable for the type of driving those people were undertaking.
In Germany, people will not buy a diesel if they are mostly driving short trips. It is common knowledge (here) that the air filters on diesel engines need time (~15 minutes) to properly warm up to be able to burn off the soot in the filter. Therefore, only the traditional fleet cars who are driven by salesmen driving long stretches on the Autobahn tend to buy diesels.
Was this also the same in the US, because many of my friends that own diesels in the UK had never heard of this?
http://forcechange.com/1141/california-passes-toughest-diese...
Battery cost is still dropping at an exponential rate while energy density continues to rise. Likewise solar panel costs, and installation (especially at utility scale) is also coming down in price as the industry learns.
I’m no expert, but I predict that within 10 years it will be entirely practical (and much more environmentally friendly than diesel/gasoline, especially w/r/t urban smog) to have bus fleets, delivery trucks, etc. running on batteries.
If power generation is not in the vehicle, our national fraction of combustion generators can be reduced systematically. This is already under way; some US cities are already at 0.
That leaves storage on vehicle. The more EV's we have, the more incentive to find clean, high energy density batteries. This is not a static field either. Graphene is just one vaporware which might appear on the street shortly.
However, my understanding of the overall picture is that car engines (both diesel and gas) are so much less efficient than a power plant, that even with transmission, it's cleaner to switch to centralized power generation.
For gasoline the number is supper tricky to determine. So here comes a back of napkin number
A fuel truck transports about 30,000 gallons (20,000-40,000). On average they achieve about 4-7.5 miles per gallon). So they use about 1% of their tankage for every 60 miles traveled.
This suggest to me that transportation loses for gasoline are in the same ball park number. Distribution and marketing is often claimed to be about 5% of the total, but I don't know where that number comes from.
All in all the difference is probably not that large, and I suspect the electricity one will drop faster than the gasoline one due to interconnect upgrades.
Every week while going to work, I'll see at least one truck belching black smoke while accelerating, due to poor maintenance. I look forward to the day when all the trucks have to have periodic emissions testing like the cars do now.
Google 'Rolling coal'.
Anyway, mostly it is construction and semi trucks I see blowing black smoke. Usually they are really rusted out anyway, hence the lack of maintenance comment.
Think of the biggest, most powerful truck (lorry ?) you've ever seen ... big enough to tow, for instance, 4-6 horses in a trailer, or a 30 foot boat.
Lots (and I mean lots) of normal, private citizens drive these vehicles as their normal commuter cars or to run errands, etc., unrelated in any way to business/work. It is not uncommon at all. A lot of these are indeed diesel.
Also the vehicles (for private, non-business use) are preferentially taxed.
Most of those people use the truck part of the time for tasks that only a medium-duty truck can do, such as towing a boat or trailer, horses etc. They just aren't wealthy enough to dedicate the truck to that single purpose so it is also used as a "daily driver".
> Also the vehicles (for private, non-business use) are preferentially taxed
I'm not aware of any such tax advantage, at least where I live (TX). Diesel fuel is taxed at a significantly higher rate than gasoline. There were (still are?) some IRS deductions for business use of expensive trucks/suvs but that doesn't fit the case you've described.
disclaimer: I own a 3/4 ton diesel pickup used exclusively for private trailers hauling
They might be better served by doing the math, and realizing that they are far better off buying an economical vehicle at a much lower price point and for much lower maintenance and fuel costs, and then renting a heavy duty vehicle to tow their boat the few times a year they actually need to.
One should optimize for the most common use case.
And I see plenty of trucks with nice big tires, dual rear wheels that don't even have a tow-hitch _installed_, let alone a turntable.
It has to be for business purposes, but as always, the IRS is lax in verifying that.
Additionally the tax system was adjusted to make diesel engined cars more appealing.
There's also this:
http://www.businessinsider.com/why-diesel-costs-more-than-ga...
They are not marketed here.
It's hit or miss on finding a gas station that has diesel, but that has definetly changed over the years.
Actually, if I could put 300,000 to 500,000 miles on a small diesel engine, I would buy one. Twenty years ago I would be happy if a vechicle lasted 100,000 miles. I had a Toyota with a 22r engine that spoiled me; I now expect all vechicles to easily last over 250,000 with nothing but oil changes, and new brakes.
There's awfuly many things, that can go wrong, if you don't consider how the engine works - i.e. your turbocharger, DFP, double-mass flywheel - they are subject to physics and you must know, what you can do with the car and what you can't do, to maximize their lifetime.
DPF - don't drive in the city :P if you do, take the car out on the motorway every few weeks at least and maintain speed above 50mph so the car can burn out the soot in the filter.
Double mass flywheel - well, it's designed to absorb the "shock" of attaching the clutch too early. So if you're driving a manual, be gentle with the clutch and your flywheel will serve you well. If you rev your engine and just release the clutch the flywheel will have to absorb a huge amount of force - it's designed to do that so it shouldn't be too harmful, but do it enough times and it will split and have to be replaced.
Edit: PS Also, do the timing belt maintenance if/when applicable
PPS: R&R the glow plugs every 50k or so. You may even be able to re-install the old ones (test them first). This is mainly to prevent them from becoming seized to the head, necessitating an expensive repair.
I would just add, that:
- the few seconds to cool down the turbo is about 30 to 60. Depending on the ride you just had. Just listen half a song more on your stereo ;)
- DPF needs cleaning every cca 700 km (but really depends on multiple factors). You either have a control light, that will let you know, or you notice a sudden fall in distance-to-empty, because that fuel is being used to burn out the filter ;)
Basically, even if something breaks there, it is still possible to repair it. However, it can be expensive (1000+ EUR for DPF or turbo, again, depends on the car).
Sadly, the POS VW diesel that I bought didn't last nearly that long. What a steaming pile that thing was. So YMMV.
It goes into the public's views on diesel over time. The article actually was discussed on HN too: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6079973
I personally almost made a very bad decision. The Jetta TDI was on my shortlist when I was shopping for cars in late summer. Had my GF not disliked it, I probably would have ended up with one.
Usually only people who care about performance choose petrol engines.
To be frank, I went with the diesels because the mileage was very good just looking at the EPA numbers which are when the emissions system is supposedly working. At first I was worried about smell but the only smell I encountered was the fuel itself.
I have no problem buying another diesel should it fit my needs at the time. Yet the advances in gasoline engines more than make up for the advantage diesels have. I know with my 4cyl turbo Z4 I am getting sufficient mileage (32 lifetime, 40 on pure highway) that I have no reason too go back.
Now for larger vehicles the mileage improvement is about the only way to go; that being pickups and SUVs. There really aren't any hybrid trucks about and the few SUVs that are do work but diesels seem to offer better highway.
Much as the anti-electric car (paid?) brigade goes nuts about how every red blooded american needs to drive more than 500 miles without taking a break or else the car is totally useless for everyone and will never sell, the anti-diesel people living in Florida will rant and rave about how hard it is to start a diesel engine in -30F weather with a nearly dead battery. There's an american tradition that you never replace your starting battery until it literally 0 volts and won't start the car at all, no matter how annoying it is or expensive tow trucks are or how expensive it is to burn out starter motors or how inconvenient; given that, the user experience of the last 1/3 or so of battery life for diesels is much worse than gas cars.
Another common stereotype is euro car replacement parts are just like detroit replacement parts coming from the same factory in China yet mysteriously the euro car parts cost 3 to 10 times as much. Note that its not true, BMW brake rotors cost the same as Lexus brake rotors, but it is a common perception.
Maybe, but even the nicest, newest diesels are still aesthetic abominations.
I just walked past a gleaming brand new porsche cayenne diesel and it sounds like a chitty-chitty-bang-bang set piece.
If you're a sound designer and you need to evoke low-tech, rattle-trap primitives, you could do a lot worse than just record a new diesel porsche/bmw/audi.
Also, vibration, as compared to similar gasoline engines (and this is also true for the diesel-like gasoline engines that utilize things like TFSI ... much more vibration than the corresponding non-TFSI engine).
Compare that to your statement about "smaller petrol engines" for which your example is Macan Turbo 3.6L engine. Over here, such an engine is ridiculously large and almost stupid.
A small, efficient petrol engine over here is something like a 1.0 litre turbocharged gas engine in a Ford Mondeo.
As it stands, diesel engines are fairly incompatible with hybrid technology. The primary driver for fuel economy improvement with a hybrid is the ability to turn the engine off for periods of time. Diesel engines do not handle start-stop very well, as they are much more temperature sensitive. Other optimizations, such as Akinson cycle engines, also cannot be applied to diesel engines with any benefit.
Diesel fuel economy shines the most on the the highway. But highway fuel economy for a Prius is already quite good. It's unlikely that you would find a diesel hatchback of its size that returns better highway economy from the same amount of HP.
There's really nothing to be gained from a diesel hybrid.
I understand in the US diesel is always more expensive than gas. Here that is only the case in the winter. In the summer it is 5-10cents a litre cheaper than gasoline. In the winter it's about 5-10cents a litre more expensive, the reason I have been told is the demand for diesel oil increases due to furnace oil consumption, which is basically diesel oil.
There are quite a few TDIs on the road where I am, but I live rural so there are a lot of highway drivers. They don't make much sense as an urban car, for stop and go traffic the fuel economy isn't good at all.
Personal impression based on my friends commons on car buying recently. I think electric cars are going to eat whatever small market share diesels have in the US. Also of late diesel fuel is more expensive than gasoline at least in the bay area.
Dodge sort of* broke open light truck use when they offered a Cummins turbo diesel with ordinary sized pickups in the early-mid 1990s.
Prior to that, you needed to pull something to justify a diesel engine. Ford sort of numbers their trucks F150/F250/F350/F450 and diesel started being more of a thing about the 350 range. Some of these had dual wheels and what we call a "fifth wheel" setup - there's a largish plate oriented haul hitch in the middle of the bed for pulling cattle and horse trailers, heavier equipment.
*sort of - you'd find all the makers offering diesel in fits and starts through the years. So individual counterexamples abound.
Some people arbitraged the lower price of diesel for a while, but a few years back, diesel became more expensive than gasoline per mile.
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/oil-and-...
Diesel has always been more expensive, but there have been a few times (2007) where the prices got close.
And that's just the cost of the fuel from the pump - it doesn't take into account MPG of the car or duty benefits for diesel car ownership.
Also not that diesel is more energy dense per unit volume. (And a US gallon is different to an imperial/British one)
We also had lead in petrol back then - nice!
I can only recall this anecdotally, a friend's mum ran a diesel car and my mum explained why they had such a noisy thing. You could suffer from tinnitus for hours after getting out of what I believe was an early square shaped Golf (with diesel engine). Diesels back then had no clever electronics or fancy injection so it was a dirty fuel.
You will find plenty of people who will say they were the best diesels, because they would burn literally anything, you could put used oil from your frying pan in it and it would happily burn it without any problem. They were uncomplicated chunks of metal, so it's quite common for them to do a million miles without any significant problems. Of course they were dirty as hell, so it's a good thing we don't use cars like that anymore. The only legitimate use I can think of is people who go in off roaders to Africa or deep parts of siberia, where the fuel quality is absolutely horrible, so you can't have a modern diesel with a high pressure direct injection system - one spec of dirt in your fuel and your injectors get clogged.
The UK models may be stripping off the heaters for cost. I hear people don't even use winter tyres in Britain...
> there's no warm air coming out
Ok, is a different problem then that I thought. Never say this in any of my cars, but it seems that other qashqai owners have the same problem. Not easy solution for a feature that your car just do not implement. If the air is in closed circuit (inner) will warm a couple of minutes before, but do not expect miracles with your model. In this case, is just a problem of poor design.
> what do you mean by heaters?
I don't know the name of the piece in english, they are needed for warming up the engine before starting the car. When some of them eventually break and is cold outside you can't start the car after several minutes. (Just need to replace the broken pieces, but is a new car and this is not the problem here).
If your problem is that the engine starts, but it takes a very long time to get warm air from the heating system, in modern cars it's most likely just that the engine is extremely efficient in converting energy of fuel to kinetic energy, so there is no excess heat that could be used for heating the cabin and keeping windows clear from mist.
(Heating is also slow or off if your engine is out of coolant, but if you keep running it without coolant, you'll soon break it so that you really do notice.)
Just think what this heating problem will be in electric cars...
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glowplug
It’s not an outrageous leap to suspect they may also have been cheating the new European emissions standards. If those are properly enforced, diesel cars could be in trouble.
cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_emission_standards#Em...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/road-and-rail-transpo...
Same with nuclear, sure there are pebble bed reactors and other safe designs, nobody proposes them on the industrial scale. Why is that? Efficient and cost impact profit.
[1] http://southpark.cc.com/clips/155193/thanks
This NOx emission thing is more a PR disaster than an actual environmental problem. The VW diesel engines are still remarkably efficient and nice pieces of technology, at least if you compare them to the huge gasoline engines that they often replace.
(FWIW, I drive a diesel but not made by VAG (this is Renault). It’s probably worse than any current VW engines, but because it’s a few years older, no one complains. It passes the local MOT tests with flying colours, and I get around 5.6 l/100 km or 42 mpg for a minivan which I think is nice enough).
I mean if VW got busted, with breaking NOx values by up to 20 times, for the purpose of better acceleration, fuel efficiency and other parameters. So does it mean that others somehow cheat, but do not get caught? Or VW, the biggest car company group in the world, were producing much worse engines, than any other car manufacturer (which sells cars in US) in the world. Somehow I think it's the first one...
That's not what happened here. VW has no plausible deniability in this case.
://www.extremetech.com/computing/177841-samsungs-latest-android-update-no-longer-cheats-on-benchmarks
http://www.geek.com/games/is-nvidia-cheating-on-benchmarks-5...
https://techreport.com/review/3089/how-ati-drivers-optimize-...
Diesel has a problematic history in the US, though, and US emissions standards are tough on diesel by-products like NOx. I would like to know how much of that is anti-competitive and how much is genuine concern for the environment.
VW (and the EU in general) bet heavily on diesel. VW in particular had to cheat to meet the US emissions standards because they were under pressure to compete with other automakers to gain entry into the US market. Whether others did the same remains to be seen. US makers don't really product diesel cars, that is why they did not have this problem.
Genuine concern. US cars were virtually crippled in the 70s due to NOx standards (power-robbing EGR valves being the main culprit, IIRC). For example, the high-end version of the Chevrolet Camaro in 1976 was getting 165bhp out of a 350ci V8 small block (for comparison, I think the plain Jane 2015 Corvette my parents just bought puts out 450bhp from the modern version of that engine). The straight six cylinder version put out less power than my 1.4L four cylinder Scion.
All that smog in the LA valley back in the 70s? That was NOx, so at least in the case of California, those standards were there for a reason. Besides, small diesels were just a gleam in VW's eye when those standards were put in place, so there was nothing to anti-competitive about.
Emissions are not a joke. By cheating on it on such a scale, VW (and others like it) are literally fucking with the fate of mankind.
I remember that a few years back, there was a big scandal in Germany over a supermarket chain that had installed hidden security cameras to watch their employees. The press went around and asked other supermarkets if they had hidden surveillance cameras, and they all denied. Meanwhile, store managers where driving to the supermarkets in the night and removing the illegal cameras...
If Volkswagen takes a big hit it will have an effect. Even if we can't catch every cheater, we might be able to scare them into playing by the rules.
Most people, would say, "Oh, you are just providing a map for professional shop lifters?" Yea, it could be used that way, but some stores go a bit overboard on the video surveillance. I will walk out of a store with too many video cameras, or security guards.
I worked security once, and was shocked on just who went to jail for shoplifting. Rich looking people got off with paying for the merchandise. Poor looking people went to jail. I had one store owner let the big spenders steal a little. The worst offenders were store employees, especially management, but that has probally changed with cameras literally everywhere?
In most retail chains, they blanket the store so few non coverage areas. Generally its not watched like a hawk except in big department stores. Panda express is a rare exception...borderline stasi.
Major chains got smart about theft...some make it profitable or turn employee thieves into permanent snitches.
Truth be told, nobody is watching you usually shop although people traffic cams are all the rage....
The fuels pollute differently, as they aren't chemically identical. Bio creates more soot when it burns as it's not as efficient of a burn. But the main charm is that no/minimal greenhouse gasses are produced by the burning (it's corn oil, not dinosaur oil).
But.
The new Clean Diesel's aren't very Biodiesel friendly due to the cleaning process requiring a fuel that burns a little better than Biodiesel does. So it is a hassle if you wanted to try Biodiesel in your Clean Diesel. Not many people were trying it according to the folks at Dogpatch BioFuels, enough so that they looking to find new buyers for their fuel.
I don't know what matters most to the EPA, and what VW was cheating at, to know if the defeat device in a Bio car does worse things to the environment.
The only biodiesel restriction I'm aware of in larger (e.g., 3/4 to 1 ton pickups) is related to the amount of water bound to glycerin in the fuel. Common-rail injection systems are very finicky and any above-design-limit water can cause corrosion which damages the injectors or fuel pump.
My truck is certified for only 5% (B5), newer ones are B20 certified. The only difference is the fuel system. I've not heard of any emissions impacts.
(Someone around here was driving his old Mercedes using leftover fries cooking oil from a local McDonald's. He had to stop it, but not due to pollution, but for tax reasons. The government really hates losing that revenue.)
But it seems to be getting more clear over the last days it is the business people - the one that read Bloomberg - that are also the cause. Because the engineers where unable to do it within the given cost requirements. They told, that they need a greater budget per car to comply with the regulations.
They can comply, but fuel economy will plummet. Other negatives can happen as well, the engines can get crudded up quickly, which has already been a problem in VW diesels, and in some Mercedes models as well.
The EPA has also been criticized here as being a tool to prevent foreign competition from high efficiency diesels available in Europe and Asia.
>They told, that they need a greater budget per car to comply with the regulations.
The second problem I mentioned is caused by the EGR Exhaust Gas Recirculation systems, which are primitive; so, yeah, throwing money at that would help.
Overall, I'm fairly confident that the VW mess is the tip of a huge iceberg. Other mfrs have been caught doing this exact same thing before.
Most people buy a diesel car because the fuel is cheaper, they will basically not care about those 3 aspects.
As for the result, the article points to Paris: the city didn't have a smog problem 20 years ago, and now spends half the year with smog warnings (60% diesel cars in Paris area). Just walking by, you'll notice most cars are noisier and smell much more than in a comparable situation in London or NYC. By now, diesel cars in Paris area are the main particule emitters, ahead of heating.
Diesel is a high price technology disguised as cost efficient by an inconsiderate european strategy. Can't wait to see diesel go away - a large scale environmental disaster.
The same is true for petrol engines. Diesel requires little or no additional maintenance.
>Most people buy a diesel car because the fuel is cheaper
Except the fuel isn't cheaper (in the US), even accounting for the higher specific energy. http://www.fuelgaugereport.com/
I like them because the engines last longer and get better fuel economy; and in my pickup truck, higher power.
>As for the result, the article points to Paris: the city didn't have a smog problem 20 years ago
The city didn't have as many of any kind of car 20 years ago. If you want less smog (particulates) from diesels, then relax NOx standards.
Diesel engines are more vulnerable when driven cold and on short distances (i.e.: typical european city usage). They do need periodic fine tuning, which is mandatory here in most european countries. If the engines has DEF, it has to be refilled and carefully maintained. If it hasn't, the filters also need care (again, most people overlook this).
> fuel price
diesel fuel is about 30% cheaper in Europe, where diesel accounts >50% sales in key countries (germany, spain; france 80% in 2008). Obviously not relevant in the US where diesel is basically non existent. Europe is the main diesel market in the world - worth spending some time there in a major diesel city to forge a definite opinion.
> Paris
Actually less cars in city center, and more in the overall urban area. NOx are contributor, so are Particle Matter PM-6 and PM-10, both byproducts of diesel engines in actual use (obviously far above euro6 norms). Up to 80% of PM in London come from diesel, according to UK government: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/green-motoring/10190942/...
I get that your personal experience with diesel in the US is not bad. Like asbestos sounded great when it saved your family from fire. But really, don't use it.
Unlikely. This may have been true a long time ago, but refining technology has come a long way.
Diesel (or home heating oil, or kerosene, pretty much all the same thing) used to be something of a waste product in the refining process. Thus it was cheaper than gasoline, even though its energy content per volume unit is higher.
Today, with improved cracking technology, refiners can make pretty much any amount of gasoline or diesel they need from a barrel of crude oil -- what waste is left is very heavy oil used for ship engines or industrial use.
Diesels have gone from simple and nearly infinitely durable to complex and easy to break constructs. There's EGR, DPF, direct injection, turbos, you name it, and those are expensive to replace/repair.
On the other hand, modern diesels are quiet, they don't vibrate much, and they deliver a crazy amount of power. But that's just something totally different from what diesels used to be, and modern petrol engines are catching up, in a good way. I could imagine driving a 3-cyl turbo petrol, PSA makes a few surprisingly good ones.
From what I understand, VW didn't technically cheat the benchmark in the meaning that all the readings were truthful. What they did was enable a benchmark mode in their engine software, so the engine ran differently under those conditions. Or, framing the problem differently, they didn't let the user run the engine with the same parameters as the benchmarks ran under.
So, what's stopping them? Why not give the users what they thought they paid for?
I take it the engine would deliver less power with the economy parameters, but isn't those values easier to get away with? You could even have an economy mode button inside the vehicle (or perhaps they already do?) in which case all they wouldn't have been liable for anything as all the benchmarks would have been truthful.
That's the big issue, they sold them as emissions compliant vehicles that delivered some given performance/efficiency, and the software can't make both claims true at the same time.
They can't let users switch between modes, where one more violates pollution standards, the would still be considered a defeat device.
They can update the cars to meet emission standards, but it might actually be the case that their cars can only pass the certification cycles in their cheatmode, but won't actually pass an in use monitoring test.
Even if they can pass emissions, lowering the power and fuel economy is going to mean class action lawsuits from their customers.