EPA caught VW cheating - how does the car know it's being te

[Ashton Crusher]

On Tue, 22 Sep 2015 22:47:55 +0000 (UTC), Winston_Smith
<invalid@butterfly.net> wrote:

On Tue, 22 Sep 2015 14:22:22 -0700, Ashton Crusher wrote:

You would still need to measure actual
emissions to see if the car met the emissions requirements.

I think this makes sense.

The VW cheat code does NOT appear to do anything clever.

In the official EPA pdf letter to VW, they called it a "switch".

Basically, the cheat code determined that the car was not moving but
that it was running as if it was moving, so, under that circumstance
(i.e., under what the EPA called the "dynamometer" settings) VW
engineers simply reduced the fuel to the engine, which lowered the
NOx emissions.

Under all other circumstances, which the EPA called the "road" settings,
VW engineers let the car have as much fuel as it wanted, NOx emissions
be damned.

There was nothing sophisticated at all about it. It's like me stealing
money from my own relatives. It's easy to do because they leave their
wallet out on the kitchen table without checking.

The audacious part isn't how clever it was (it wasn't at all clever).

The audacious part is that we trusted them, just as you trust a house
guest, and they violated that trust, just as it would be as if a house
guest stole money out of your wallet.

Yes. The real mystery here is who implemented this and who all knew
about it. I think they have to run the cars on test tracks for 50 or
60K miles to verify they system holds up but even if not, surely
during development of any engine system they must run them fully
instrumented for quite a while to see what the "real world" results
look like as well as how well the "lab strategy" works in the field.
Surely *someone* at VW must have noticed that when they tested
instrumented vehicles on the road they were not meeting emissions
standards. It's inconceivable they never tested these "in the wild"
but only tested them back at the shop on the dynamometer and the
"switch" kept those engineers from seeing that things weren't as they
should be.

 

[Steve W.]

Vincent Cheng Hoi Chuen wrote:

Ashton Crusher <demi@moore.net> wrote in
2dn60bto3pt5s9s7gslp219dhrgvqslo37@4ax.com:

That's my point for this thread branch, yes. Not only isn't it worth
it, the code is none of teh EPA's damn business.

What I don't understand is that the code, apparently, allowed *more*
fuel to the engine (to cool the combustion chamber) which lowered NOx
emissions.

So, fixing the problem should result in *less* fuel to the engine, if
that's the case.

When they reflash the ecu, wouldn't that lowering of fuel *increase* gas
mileage *and* bring NOx emissions back down to where they said they were?

Backwards.

Less fuel = hotter burn in the combustion chamber = higher NOx numbers
It shows up as vehicles that get better EPA mileage numbers than the
sticker says because they are burning less fuel.

To correct the issue they need to increase the fuel to the engine to
cool the combustion temperatures.

The end result will be that the EPA MPG numbers will be closer to
reality because the engine is now using the fuel to keep the NOx numbers
down. The only "bad" side effect will be that the particulate trap and
the NOx catalyst will need to burn more often to regenerate.

OR VW could come up with a DEF retrofit to drop the NOx numbers.

--
Steve W.

 

On Thu, 24 Sep 2015 13:56:26 -0400, "Steve W." <csr684@NOTyahoo.com>
wrote:

Vincent Cheng Hoi Chuen wrote:
Ashton Crusher <demi@moore.net> wrote in
2dn60bto3pt5s9s7gslp219dhrgvqslo37@4ax.com:

That's my point for this thread branch, yes. Not only isn't it worth
it, the code is none of teh EPA's damn business.

What I don't understand is that the code, apparently, allowed *more*
fuel to the engine (to cool the combustion chamber) which lowered NOx
emissions.

So, fixing the problem should result in *less* fuel to the engine, if
that's the case.

When they reflash the ecu, wouldn't that lowering of fuel *increase* gas
mileage *and* bring NOx emissions back down to where they said they were?


Backwards.

Less fuel = hotter burn in the combustion chamber = higher NOx numbers
It shows up as vehicles that get better EPA mileage numbers than the
sticker says because they are burning less fuel.

To correct the issue they need to increase the fuel to the engine to
cool the combustion temperatures.

Remember we are talking DIESEL here. The more fuel, the hotter the
burn. Same is true of Gasoline, but only to a point. The point doesn't
come in to play with a compression ignition engine

The end result will be that the EPA MPG numbers will be closer to
reality because the engine is now using the fuel to keep the NOx numbers
down. The only "bad" side effect will be that the particulate trap and
the NOx catalyst will need to burn more often to regenerate.

OR VW could come up with a DEF retrofit to drop the NOx numbers.

Are their DEF vehicles included in the "scam" -(Tourag, T7 and
Passat) TDI

 

[Vincent Cheng Hoi Chuen]

"Bob F" <bobnospam@gmail.com> wrote in mu202h$knp$1@dont-email.me:

This video says that the VW TDI meets all California and US & Europe
requirements! https://youtu.be/GzuFXeO48Rw?t=635

So it must be true?

It was ironic.

 

[Winston_Smith]

On Sat, 19 Sep 2015 00:19:10 +0000, Ewald BĂśhm wrote:

> My question is HOW did the car *know* it was being *tested* for emissions?

What I don't understand is that VW had to submit test results from a
(supposedly) independent company in Europe to get certified in Europe
for the 11 million cars that might be affected.

They apparently contracted that job out to Applus Idiada of Spain.

Has anyone any idea how Applus Idiada verified the wrong numbers?

 

[JJ]

Ewald BĂśhm <ewvesb@gilltaylor.ca> wrote in message
mti9lu$jb$1@news.mixmin.net

Apparently Volkswagen/Audi cheated on the USA emissions tests since
2009 to 2015 by turning off the EGR to lower nitrogen oxide emissions
ONLY when the car was being tested for emissions.

Was the software really all that "sophisticated"?

The NY Times said it was "sophisticated".
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/25/business/international/problems-at-volkswagen-start-in-the-boardroom.html

I think it was just brazen.

 

[Bob F]

Vincent Cheng Hoi Chuen wrote:

Ewald Böhm <ewvesb@gilltaylor.ca> wrote in
mti9lu$jb$1@news.mixmin.net:

My question is HOW did the car *know* it was being *tested* for
emissions?

This video says that the VW TDI meets all California and US & Europe
requirements! https://youtu.be/GzuFXeO48Rw?t=635

So it must be true?

 

Wait, let's get this fukun straight. The EGR valve LOWERs N2O emissions by lowering peak combustion temperature.

It takes a high temperature to burn nitrogen and that is the deal, it combines with the O2 and becomes NO2. This does not happen as much at lower temperatures.

The EGR system allows the intake system to brerathe really well, usually with VEs (volumetric efficiency) over 100 even in normally aspirated engines because of good camshaft design.

you can get all this, and use EGR to make regular gas burn like premium. That is one of the things it does. Lowering the peak combustion temperature, by the laws of physics, will slow down the combustion rate.

Ignition ping is caused by too fast combustion.

Modern cars have a knock sensor and continually advance the base ignition timing incrementally until the knock sensor "reports". Then it backs off. This allows it to give you better performance with better gas. I know this is a diesel, but when it comes to EGR it still does the same thing.

Bottom line, they turned off the EGR until such time the car was under test, ;detected either by the connection of the tester, or the fact that the non-drive wheels were not turning. That information is readily available from the ABS system, and traction control if so equipped.

I am surprised the admitted it. I would have said there is no explanation and we would just pay a fine, like $5 million or so to your favorite charity as well.

"Golf on Wednesday ?"
"Definitely, we are going to kick your ass"
"Really"

 

[Mitch Kaufmann]

On Fri, 25 Sep 2015 01:56:01 +0000, JJ wrote:

> I think it was just brazen.

Apparently cheating is rather common.

Volkswagen Test Rigging Follows a Long Auto Industry Pattern
By DANNY HAKIM and HIROKO TABUCHISEPT. 23, 2015
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/24/business/international/volkswagen-test-rigging-follows-a-long-auto-industry-pattern.html

 

[Jon Elson]

jurb6006@gmail.com wrote:

Ignition ping is caused by too fast combustion.

Modern cars have a knock sensor and continually advance the base ignition
timing incrementally until the knock sensor "reports". Then it backs off.
This allows it to give you better performance with better gas. I know this
is a diesel, but when it comes to EGR it still does the same thing.
The VW cars in queston are DIESEL, not gas.

Jon

 

clare@snyder.on.ca posted for all of us...

On Sat, 19 Sep 2015 16:36:33 -0400, TekkieŽ <Tekkie@comcast.net
wrote:

clare@snyder.on.ca posted for all of us...


Then how do you explain the FACT that todays engines -
1)produce higher spedific output than engines in the past
2) Consume fewer gallons of gas per unit distance travelled
AND
3) produce lower exhaut emissions

-than the engines of only a few years back - muchless the
"uncontrolled" engines of the 50s and 60s, and the early emission
engines of the 70s and 80s?

VW will just have to step up to the plate and spend in retrofits what
they should have spent in initial design and production - plus.


Wise business decision... Why do they do this? It would be a great subject
of an independent analysis. Weren't they owned by Chrysler at the start of
this?
VW has NEVER been owned by Chrysler, nor has Chrysler been owned by
VW

I am glad you challenged me! I was thinking of the VW/Chrysler plant in PA.
I was mistaken in ownership. Thank you.

--
Tekkie

 

On Fri, 25 Sep 2015 17:08:15 -0400, TekkieŽ <Tekkie@comcast.net>
wrote:

clare@snyder.on.ca posted for all of us...



On Sat, 19 Sep 2015 16:36:33 -0400, TekkieŽ <Tekkie@comcast.net
wrote:

clare@snyder.on.ca posted for all of us...


Then how do you explain the FACT that todays engines -
1)produce higher spedific output than engines in the past
2) Consume fewer gallons of gas per unit distance travelled
AND
3) produce lower exhaut emissions

-than the engines of only a few years back - muchless the
"uncontrolled" engines of the 50s and 60s, and the early emission
engines of the 70s and 80s?

VW will just have to step up to the plate and spend in retrofits what
they should have spent in initial design and production - plus.


Wise business decision... Why do they do this? It would be a great subject
of an independent analysis. Weren't they owned by Chrysler at the start of
this?
VW has NEVER been owned by Chrysler, nor has Chrysler been owned by
VW

I am glad you challenged me! I was thinking of the VW/Chrysler plant in PA.
I was mistaken in ownership. Thank you.

Like AMC, Chrysler DID buy some engines from VW back around then -
the Omni-Horizon originally used a VAG supplied engine (Audi fox?) a
bit bigger than the rabbit engine at the time - and I believe AMC used
basically the same engine in the early 4 cyl Spirit.

 

>"The VW cars in queston are DIESEL, not gas. "

I have to admit that at first I didn't catch that. But then I did. However, doesn't the same apply ? The theory of EGR is to starve it for O2 a bit so the burning slows down. That should apply here as well.

But then I am not completely versed in all the pumps etc. these things may use. There was a time when they could not use a catalytic convertor on a diesel. Apparently things have changed. but what was presented really did seem to indicate that turning off the EGR except during a test was the issue. That is the impression I got in the beginning.

However, now other things are coming out, for one the allowing more fuel. But aren't those diesels just like the biguns ? There is no throttle, the injection pump determines the power output. Am I wrong here ? Where the hell would I get such information ? I can't just walk into a car lot and start taking apart their cars to find out.

As far as I know, diesels takes in all the air they can get so there is no controlling the mixture. It needs all that air to ignite the fuel. Putting in more fuel should not cool the burn, just make it burn more. Without a throttle plate the mixture is what it is and there is nothing that can be done.

Therefore the only way to control N2O is by EGR, and the article did state that the N2O may have been 40 times the limit.

Another poster somewhere in thread mentioned they should think about all this gas mileage and consider the pollution produced in the refining (cracking) process. Governments can be pennywise and poundfoolish really when it comes to things that require gray matter. Like what they did to flourescent lights. When I was in business I used them because they were more efficient and lasted longer. It was not a big business so I generally had the 4 foot 40 watt jobs. They lasted many years.

Then they came out with those frikken energy saving jobs and they not only flickered worse when cold, they also did not last as long. they totally disregarded the pollution caused not only by manufacturing more bulbs, but all the shit in the landfills.

One of these days I am going to contact the bleeding heart liberals about this. Lead free solder is used because of planned obsolescence, or actual planned failure to the point of unrepairability. This must stop.

Catalytic convertors are still mandated even though they are almost useless.. At least in gas cars, with the computer they can run so clean they do not need it. In fact they could be tuned for better mileage and performance without it because there HAS to be some pollution and oxygen in the exhaust to keep the cat lit. The mixture cannot be stoichometric, which would be the ideal and pretty much the exhaust, except for mostly nitrogen, CO2 and H2O.. But there would be nothing to catalyse.

Yup, they actually pollute on purpose to test the convertor. How does that grabya ? They are putting gout more heat, and less power and efficiency by mandate.

Beam me up Scotty, there is no intelligent life here. At least it seems. The fact is that these politicians are such motherfuckers that they may well know EXACTLY what they're doing.

Maybe. Generally, I have found intelligent people to be more trustworthy than idiots. They know the consequences of their actions. They become socially and morally responsible. So that means an intelligent politician might just be an oxymoron.

 

[Ashton Crusher]

On Thu, 24 Sep 2015 02:55:49 +0000 (UTC), Vincent Cheng Hoi Chuen
<vchenghcv102@hotmail.com.hk> wrote:

Ashton Crusher <demi@moore.net> wrote in
2dn60bto3pt5s9s7gslp219dhrgvqslo37@4ax.com:

That's my point for this thread branch, yes. Not only isn't it worth
it, the code is none of teh EPA's damn business.

What I don't understand is that the code, apparently, allowed *more*
fuel to the engine (to cool the combustion chamber) which lowered NOx
emissions.

So, fixing the problem should result in *less* fuel to the engine, if
that's the case.

When they reflash the ecu, wouldn't that lowering of fuel *increase* gas
mileage *and* bring NOx emissions back down to where they said they were?

Have you actually seen any factual data that they were providing more
fuel? From the little bit of decent info I've seen it looked more
like they were trying to extend the life of some "filter" by turning
the filter "off" and just letting the stuff fly out the tailpipe.

some info here..
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/09/22/business/international/vw-volkswagen-emissions-explainer.html

 

[Ashton Crusher]

On Fri, 25 Sep 2015 01:56:01 +0000 (UTC), JJ <jj4public@vfemail.net>
wrote:

Ewald Böhm <ewvesb@gilltaylor.ca> wrote in message
mti9lu$jb$1@news.mixmin.net

Apparently Volkswagen/Audi cheated on the USA emissions tests since
2009 to 2015 by turning off the EGR to lower nitrogen oxide emissions
ONLY when the car was being tested for emissions.

Was the software really all that "sophisticated"?

The NY Times said it was "sophisticated".
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/25/business/international/problems-at-volkswagen-start-in-the-boardroom.html

I think it was just brazen.

No reason it can't be both.

 

[Ashton Crusher]

On Wed, 23 Sep 2015 18:42:47 +0000 (UTC), Winston_Smith
<invalid@butterfly.net> wrote:

On Wed, 23 Sep 2015 10:00:58 -0400, Steve W. wrote:

I would bet there will be a software "patch" that will
erase the different testing maps, the cars will then meet the original
EPA standards

I think the point is that the cars can only either meet the emissions
standards with reduced drivability, or, with the addition of a urea
system.

Either will be expensive.

What I'd like to find out someday is what the actual difference "on
the road" is in drivablity between the cars in "cheat" mode versus
when they run with all the emissions turned on like they are supposed
to. It would be funny if there really wasn't very much difference and
they did this just to get 31.9 mpg instead of 31.2 mpg and 0-60 of
12.0 seconds rather then 12.3.

 

"What I'd like to find out someday is what the actual difference "on
the road" is in drivablity between the cars in "cheat" mode versus
when they run with all the emissions turned on like they are supposed
to. It would be funny if there really wasn't very much difference >and
they did this just to get 31.9 mpg instead of 31.2 mpg and 0-60 of
12.0 seconds rather then 12.3. "

Ahh, the "FQ".

The Fahrvergnügen Quotient.

 

[Ashton Crusher]

On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 16:48:22 -1000, dsi1 <dsi1@fishing.net> wrote:

On 9/26/2015 2:58 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Wed, 23 Sep 2015 18:42:47 +0000 (UTC), Winston_Smith
invalid@butterfly.net> wrote:

On Wed, 23 Sep 2015 10:00:58 -0400, Steve W. wrote:

I would bet there will be a software "patch" that will
erase the different testing maps, the cars will then meet the original
EPA standards

I think the point is that the cars can only either meet the emissions
standards with reduced drivability, or, with the addition of a urea
system.

Either will be expensive.

What I'd like to find out someday is what the actual difference "on
the road" is in drivablity between the cars in "cheat" mode versus
when they run with all the emissions turned on like they are supposed
to. It would be funny if there really wasn't very much difference and
they did this just to get 31.9 mpg instead of 31.2 mpg and 0-60 of
12.0 seconds rather then 12.3.


My guess is that VW will use a software update rather than spend
thousands on a hardware fix. I think the update should come with a
hundred dollar check and a 2L bottle of Coke - diet or regular as a
jester of goodwill.

OTOH, my guess is that a lot of folks will just ignore any fix, if they
can avoid it. The big question is will they be compelled by the state or
feds to do this or will this be be treated as just another recall.

A software fix would be OK if it doesn't wind up overloading the
filter/particle trap every 30 days requiring it to be serviced.

 

[dsi1]

On 9/26/2015 2:58 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:

On Wed, 23 Sep 2015 18:42:47 +0000 (UTC), Winston_Smith
invalid@butterfly.net> wrote:

On Wed, 23 Sep 2015 10:00:58 -0400, Steve W. wrote:

I would bet there will be a software "patch" that will
erase the different testing maps, the cars will then meet the original
EPA standards

I think the point is that the cars can only either meet the emissions
standards with reduced drivability, or, with the addition of a urea
system.

Either will be expensive.

What I'd like to find out someday is what the actual difference "on
the road" is in drivablity between the cars in "cheat" mode versus
when they run with all the emissions turned on like they are supposed
to. It would be funny if there really wasn't very much difference and
they did this just to get 31.9 mpg instead of 31.2 mpg and 0-60 of
12.0 seconds rather then 12.3.

My guess is that VW will use a software update rather than spend
thousands on a hardware fix. I think the update should come with a
hundred dollar check and a 2L bottle of Coke - diet or regular as a
jester of goodwill.

OTOH, my guess is that a lot of folks will just ignore any fix, if they
can avoid it. The big question is will they be compelled by the state or
feds to do this or will this be be treated as just another recall.

 

[Steve W.]

dsi1 wrote:

On 9/26/2015 2:58 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Wed, 23 Sep 2015 18:42:47 +0000 (UTC), Winston_Smith
invalid@butterfly.net> wrote:

On Wed, 23 Sep 2015 10:00:58 -0400, Steve W. wrote:

I would bet there will be a software "patch" that will
erase the different testing maps, the cars will then meet the original
EPA standards
I think the point is that the cars can only either meet the emissions
standards with reduced drivability, or, with the addition of a urea
system.

Either will be expensive.
What I'd like to find out someday is what the actual difference "on
the road" is in drivablity between the cars in "cheat" mode versus
when they run with all the emissions turned on like they are supposed
to. It would be funny if there really wasn't very much difference and
they did this just to get 31.9 mpg instead of 31.2 mpg and 0-60 of
12.0 seconds rather then 12.3.


My guess is that VW will use a software update rather than spend
thousands on a hardware fix. I think the update should come with a
hundred dollar check and a 2L bottle of Coke - diet or regular as a
jester of goodwill.

OTOH, my guess is that a lot of folks will just ignore any fix, if they
can avoid it. The big question is will they be compelled by the state or
feds to do this or will this be be treated as just another recall.

You won't be able to ignore it. The EPA has a LOT more power than the
NHYSA does. They will simply blacklist the VIN numbers of all the
vehicles that are not in compliance with the regulations.

Owners will probably get a letter telling them that they have XXX days
to get to a dealer and have the fix done. If they don't they will get a
letter from the Feds telling them that they are driving a non-compliant
vehicle and that the registration has been suspended.


--
Steve W.