E
Ed Pawlowski
Guest
On 9/19/2015 12:12 PM, Steve W. wrote:
Ahhh, that will do it. The spotted owl breaths easier.
Ahhh, that will do it. The spotted owl breaths easier.
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Guest
On Sat, 19 Sep 2015 04:42:00 +0000 (UTC), Ewald Böhm
<ewvesb@gilltaylor.ca> wrote:
May not be able to pass emmissions next year if the recall is not
done.
code.
<ewvesb@gilltaylor.ca> wrote:
On Fri, 18 Sep 2015 22:45:53 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
I also find it interesting that a large allegedly reputable company
would do something intentional to cheat like that. Too easy to get
caught or ratted out.
According to the news reports, VW admitted culpability.
If I were the owner of the affected cars, I would NOT bring them in for
the recall, since it's not a safety issue.
May not be able to pass emmissions next year if the recall is not
done.
The "fix" may be a lot more involved than removing the "over-ride"They will definitely lose performance after the "fix" (while they will
also do worse on emissions testing results).
code.
It's a lose:lose situation for the car owner to get the car "fixed", I
think, because of those two results.
Do you agree?
Is there anything "good" that will happen if the owners "fix" their cars?
S
Steve W.
Guest
.. wrote:
Happens a lot more than you might think. States get into the act under
the umbrella of the EPA laws.
VW intentionally wrote software for their vehicles with the express
intent of violating the EPA laws. They admitted to that already so it
will be interesting to see what happens. The EPA could recall the cars,
judge them as "unrepairable gross polluters" and have them crushed. I
doubt they will go that far but they have done it before under the "cars
for cash" BS.
--
Steve W.
On 9/19/2015 11:12 AM, Steve W. wrote:
Sure will. You have to enter the VIN into the system to start the
inspection. IF the EPA requires a recall to reflash the ECM to remove
that software and "correct" the problem, that would have to be done at a
dealer. They will track completed vehicles by VIN. The state can just
flag ALL those vehicles. You pull in, they plug in the tester, and your
VIN doesn't show on the "recall complete" list. You don't get inspected.
That has happened before for other recalls. I'm betting the fix will be
to re-flash the ECM software to remove the "switch". Then run each one
through the full EPA test regardless of registration state. That because
this if a federal law that was broken.
What will be fun will be watching all the johnny racer types who
modified the cars by removing emissions gear and "tuning" the ECM. VW
could actually show them to the EPA and say "THEY removed the systems so
they should pay a fine as well".
When has the EPA ever gone after individual passenger car vehicle owners?
Happens a lot more than you might think. States get into the act under
the umbrella of the EPA laws.
VW intentionally wrote software for their vehicles with the express
intent of violating the EPA laws. They admitted to that already so it
will be interesting to see what happens. The EPA could recall the cars,
judge them as "unrepairable gross polluters" and have them crushed. I
doubt they will go that far but they have done it before under the "cars
for cash" BS.
--
Steve W.
Guest
On Sat, 19 Sep 2015 04:45:38 +0000 (UTC), Ewald Böhm
<ewvesb@gilltaylor.ca> wrote:
"drive clean" test was a "rolling road" sniffer test at two speeds,
with the car connected to the computer via the diagnostic port, but
not accessing discrete codes.
The new system does away with both the "rolling road" and the sniffer,
meaning it can only "guess" or "deduce" if the NOX is within range -
it cannot tell if the reduction catalyst is working because only the
oxidizing catalyst is monitored by the secondary O2 sensor.
It is POSSIBLE that VW implements the "over-ride" whenever a certain
sequence of events is performed that are substantially the same as the
initialization procedure for running the test (There is a perscribed
sequence of events that MUST be performed to get a valid test result)
(like 20 many seconds at a particular RPM, followed by another given
period of time at another RPM) which, if performed during the normal
process of driving would also put the system in "bypass" for the
anticipated duration of the test.
<ewvesb@gilltaylor.ca> wrote:
Don't know how other jurisdictions do it, but in Ontario the oldOn Fri, 18 Sep 2015 22:45:53 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
I assume the car's computer
knows an instrument is plugged in so it changes the program.
Very few states use OBD emissions testing, and certainly California
doesn't yet, where California is fining VW along with the EPA.
http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/smogcheck/march09/transitioning_to_obd_only_im.pdf
Most use tailpipe testing.
Some, like California, run the car through the Federal Test Procedure
on a dynomometer.
Given thats at least three different procedures (where each state can
easily be different), I don't see *how* the engine computer *knows* it's
being tested for emissions.
Since almost no states use the OBD method, that's why I asked how the car
knows it is being tested.
"drive clean" test was a "rolling road" sniffer test at two speeds,
with the car connected to the computer via the diagnostic port, but
not accessing discrete codes.
The new system does away with both the "rolling road" and the sniffer,
meaning it can only "guess" or "deduce" if the NOX is within range -
it cannot tell if the reduction catalyst is working because only the
oxidizing catalyst is monitored by the secondary O2 sensor.
It is POSSIBLE that VW implements the "over-ride" whenever a certain
sequence of events is performed that are substantially the same as the
initialization procedure for running the test (There is a perscribed
sequence of events that MUST be performed to get a valid test result)
(like 20 many seconds at a particular RPM, followed by another given
period of time at another RPM) which, if performed during the normal
process of driving would also put the system in "bypass" for the
anticipated duration of the test.
Guest
On Sat, 19 Sep 2015 08:25:23 -0400, Stormin Mormon
<cayoung61@hotmail.com> wrote:
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.
<cayoung61@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 9/19/2015 12:42 AM, Ewald Böhm wrote:
On Fri, 18 Sep 2015 22:45:53 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
I also find it interesting that a large allegedly reputable company
would do something intentional to cheat like that. Too easy to get
caught or ratted out.
According to the news reports, VW admitted culpability.
If I were the owner of the affected cars, I would NOT bring them in for
the recall, since it's not a safety issue.
They will definitely lose performance after the "fix" (while they will
also do worse on emissions testing results).
It's a lose:lose situation for the car owner to get the car "fixed", I
think, because of those two results.
Do you agree?
Is there anything "good" that will happen if the owners "fix" their cars?
I'm likely mistaken, but my gut sense is that lower emissions
means lower performance, and lower mileage. My guess is that
the "fix" will be a downgrade of some kind.
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.
-
.
Christopher A. Young
learn more about Jesus
. www.lds.org
.
.
?
.
Guest
On 9/19/2015 12:20 PM, Steve W. wrote:
I've still yet to hear or read of a single case myself.
Yes, I know. But the EPA will be the only route by which this
could be addressed given that many states don't even do testing.
. wrote:
On 9/19/2015 11:12 AM, Steve W. wrote:
Sure will. You have to enter the VIN into the system to start the
inspection. IF the EPA requires a recall to reflash the ECM to remove
that software and "correct" the problem, that would have to be done at a
dealer. They will track completed vehicles by VIN. The state can just
flag ALL those vehicles. You pull in, they plug in the tester, and your
VIN doesn't show on the "recall complete" list. You don't get inspected.
That has happened before for other recalls. I'm betting the fix will be
to re-flash the ECM software to remove the "switch". Then run each one
through the full EPA test regardless of registration state. That because
this if a federal law that was broken.
What will be fun will be watching all the johnny racer types who
modified the cars by removing emissions gear and "tuning" the ECM. VW
could actually show them to the EPA and say "THEY removed the systems so
they should pay a fine as well".
When has the EPA ever gone after individual passenger car vehicle owners?
Happens a lot more than you might think. States get into the act under
the umbrella of the EPA laws.
I've still yet to hear or read of a single case myself.
VW intentionally wrote software for their vehicles with the express
intent of violating the EPA laws.
Yes, I know. But the EPA will be the only route by which this
could be addressed given that many states don't even do testing.
Guest
On Sat, 19 Sep 2015 09:36:27 -0500, "." <.@dot.com> wrote:
In the early years of safety checking, at least in Ontario, the
initial passs rate was quite low - and the requirement that a cat pass
a safety check when changing ownership took a LOT of dangerous crap
off the road. Annual safety checks in Ontario only affect commercial
vehicles - and again there is a pretty high failure rate - and since
selective enforcement has been in place the number of wheels coming
off commercial vehicles and killing drivers of other vehicles has
dropped SIGNIFICANTLY. Enforcement is the key.
As for emission testing - in the early years it had merit. There were
a LOT of "gross poluters" on our roads - and it was very simple to
defeat emission controls and change the calibration of an rngine (by
adjusting timing, rejetting carbs etc) so that what left the
manufacturer and what was on the road were not necessarilly the same.
With today's computer controlled vehicles, unleaded gas, etc, the VAST
majority of vehicles pass, even when 20 years old - if reasonably
maintained, and the OBD2 only testing is a total farce and nothing but
a money-grab -
Safety shecks for vehicle transfer and annually for commercial
vehicles is both a consumer protection AND safety issue - and worth
continuing. (along with "selective enforcement" on the roads - see a
"questionable" vehicle - pull it over and inspect it for basic safety
standards, and possible send for "secondary inspecion" by a registered
safety inspection station. Bring it up to standard or take it off the
road.
On 9/19/2015 8:40 AM, Dean Hoffman wrote:
On Sat, 19 Sep 2015 00:12:53 -0500, mike <ham789@netzero.net> wrote:
If I were the owner of the affected cars, I would NOT bring them in for
the recall, since it's not a safety issue.
They will definitely lose performance after the "fix" (while they will
also do worse on emissions testing results).
It's a lose:lose situation for the car owner to get the car "fixed", I
think, because of those two results.
Do you agree?
Is there anything "good" that will happen if the owners "fix" their
cars?
Will you have any choice?
If the test procedure for those cars is changed to test the "real"
emissions, they will FAIL.
If you care about air quality, you have to do that.
Here in Oregon, you don't get your license plates renewed if you fail.
Some cut.
Some states, like Nebraska, do no testing. We had some testing
for horns, lights, etc. back in the 70s, but dropped it. I think
the testers hollered too loud about the low testing fee allowed.
I wonder how many of the non-compliant vehicles will end up in
states with no testing.
Passenger car testing of any type has ALWAYS been a scam
and is enacted for generating revenue. Nothing more, nothing
less. "Unsafe" cars have NEVER been a significant proximate
cause of accidents nor does smog testing of these vehicles
lead to measurably cleaner air. These two concerns are best
addressed at time of manufacture.
I will respectfully dissagree - with qualifications.
In the early years of safety checking, at least in Ontario, the
initial passs rate was quite low - and the requirement that a cat pass
a safety check when changing ownership took a LOT of dangerous crap
off the road. Annual safety checks in Ontario only affect commercial
vehicles - and again there is a pretty high failure rate - and since
selective enforcement has been in place the number of wheels coming
off commercial vehicles and killing drivers of other vehicles has
dropped SIGNIFICANTLY. Enforcement is the key.
As for emission testing - in the early years it had merit. There were
a LOT of "gross poluters" on our roads - and it was very simple to
defeat emission controls and change the calibration of an rngine (by
adjusting timing, rejetting carbs etc) so that what left the
manufacturer and what was on the road were not necessarilly the same.
With today's computer controlled vehicles, unleaded gas, etc, the VAST
majority of vehicles pass, even when 20 years old - if reasonably
maintained, and the OBD2 only testing is a total farce and nothing but
a money-grab -
Safety shecks for vehicle transfer and annually for commercial
vehicles is both a consumer protection AND safety issue - and worth
continuing. (along with "selective enforcement" on the roads - see a
"questionable" vehicle - pull it over and inspect it for basic safety
standards, and possible send for "secondary inspecion" by a registered
safety inspection station. Bring it up to standard or take it off the
road.
Guest
On Sat, 19 Sep 2015 10:45:01 -0400, Ed Pawlowski <esp@snet.net> wrote:
insurance company HAS to pay up - but they can make it EXTREMELY
difficult to afford insurance in the future - - - - - - - - - - -
Not even for driving in the winter with bald summer tires. TheOn 9/19/2015 9:17 AM, Cursitor Doom wrote:
Is there anything "good" that will happen if the owners "fix" their
cars?
Possibly the insurance companies might deny liability for any claims if
the car has not been maintained in accordance with the manufacturer's
recommendations? They're well known for trying any get-outs they can and
the courts generally find in favour of them due to the doctrine of
'utmost good faith' which applies to insurance contracts.
Do you know of any claims denied because the owner did not get an oil
change? Dirty air filter?
insurance company HAS to pay up - but they can make it EXTREMELY
difficult to afford insurance in the future - - - - - - - - - - -
Guest
On Sat, 19 Sep 2015 12:12:41 -0400, "Steve W." <csr684@NOTyahoo.com>
wrote:
the VIN directly from the ECU
wrote:
Not any more. The ECU is linked to the VIN, and the OBD2 tester readsEd Pawlowski wrote:
On 9/19/2015 12:42 AM, Ewald Böhm wrote:
If I were the owner of the affected cars, I would NOT bring them in for
the recall, since it's not a safety issue.
They will definitely lose performance after the "fix" (while they will
also do worse on emissions testing results).
It's a lose:lose situation for the car owner to get the car "fixed", I
think, because of those two results.
Do you agree?
Is there anything "good" that will happen if the owners "fix" their cars?
You can feel good that the spotted owl is not choking on your fumes.
The only way to force you to get the fix is if the car will no longer
pass unless it was done. I don't know if the eqipment doing th testing
will be able to tell.
Sure will. You have to enter the VIN into the system to start the
inspection.
the VIN directly from the ECU
IF the EPA requires a recall to reflash the ECM to remove
that software and "correct" the problem, that would have to be done at a
dealer. They will track completed vehicles by VIN. The state can just
flag ALL those vehicles. You pull in, they plug in the tester, and your
VIN doesn't show on the "recall complete" list. You don't get inspected.
That has happened before for other recalls. I'm betting the fix will be
to re-flash the ECM software to remove the "switch". Then run each one
through the full EPA test regardless of registration state. That because
this if a federal law that was broken.
What will be fun will be watching all the johnny racer types who
modified the cars by removing emissions gear and "tuning" the ECM. VW
could actually show them to the EPA and say "THEY removed the systems so
they should pay a fine as well".
S
Steve Stone
Guest
If I were the owner of the affected cars, I would NOT bring them in for
the recall, since it's not a safety issue.
I hope they don't follow the Microsoft Windows 10 model, where upgrades
and patches will be installed automatically no matter what you do.
?
.
Guest
On 9/19/2015 12:46 PM, clare@snyder.on.ca wrote:
If only there were any documentation to support that claim.
Annual safety checks in Ontario only affect commercial
My comment referred only to individual owned passenger cars.
It still is.
so that what left the
> manufacturer and what was on the road were not necessarilly the same.
And those that in any manner overrode emission controls were
an insignificant percentage of the motoring public.
Again, my comment referred only to individual owned passenger cars.
On Sat, 19 Sep 2015 09:36:27 -0500, "." <.@dot.com> wrote:
Passenger car testing of any type has ALWAYS been a scam
and is enacted for generating revenue. Nothing more, nothing
less. "Unsafe" cars have NEVER been a significant proximate
cause of accidents nor does smog testing of these vehicles
lead to measurably cleaner air. These two concerns are best
addressed at time of manufacture.
I will respectfully dissagree - with qualifications.
In the early years of safety checking, at least in Ontario, the
initial passs rate was quite low - and the requirement that a cat pass
a safety check when changing ownership took a LOT of dangerous crap
off the road.
If only there were any documentation to support that claim.
Annual safety checks in Ontario only affect commercial
vehicles - and again there is a pretty high failure rate - and since
selective enforcement has been in place the number of wheels coming
off commercial vehicles and killing drivers of other vehicles has
dropped SIGNIFICANTLY. Enforcement is the key.
My comment referred only to individual owned passenger cars.
As for emission testing - in the early years it had merit. There were
a LOT of "gross poluters" on our roads - and it was very simple to
defeat emission controls and change the calibration of an rngine (by
adjusting timing, rejetting carbs etc)
It still is.
so that what left the
> manufacturer and what was on the road were not necessarilly the same.
And those that in any manner overrode emission controls were
an insignificant percentage of the motoring public.
With today's computer controlled vehicles, unleaded gas, etc, the VAST
majority of vehicles pass, even when 20 years old - if reasonably
maintained, and the OBD2 only testing is a total farce and nothing but
a money-grab -
Safety shecks for vehicle transfer and annually for commercial
vehicles is both a consumer protection AND safety issue - and worth
continuing. (along with "selective enforcement" on the roads - see a
"questionable" vehicle - pull it over and inspect it for basic safety
standards, and possible send for "secondary inspecion" by a registered
safety inspection station. Bring it up to standard or take it off the
road.
Again, my comment referred only to individual owned passenger cars.
Guest
On Sat, 19 Sep 2015 12:34:45 -0500, "." <.@dot.com> wrote:
Spot checking of modified vehicles at large "car shows" has been
promised, and reported. Just because your car is registered as a 1927
model "T" ford does not mean it is exempt from emissions testing if it
has a 2009 Chevy LT between the frame rails.
>
Officially it needs to meet the requirements for the 2009 vehicle the
LT was originally supplied for (determined by the engine number).
On 9/19/2015 12:20 PM, Steve W. wrote:
. wrote:
On 9/19/2015 11:12 AM, Steve W. wrote:
Sure will. You have to enter the VIN into the system to start the
inspection. IF the EPA requires a recall to reflash the ECM to remove
that software and "correct" the problem, that would have to be done at a
dealer. They will track completed vehicles by VIN. The state can just
flag ALL those vehicles. You pull in, they plug in the tester, and your
VIN doesn't show on the "recall complete" list. You don't get inspected.
That has happened before for other recalls. I'm betting the fix will be
to re-flash the ECM software to remove the "switch". Then run each one
through the full EPA test regardless of registration state. That because
this if a federal law that was broken.
What will be fun will be watching all the johnny racer types who
modified the cars by removing emissions gear and "tuning" the ECM. VW
could actually show them to the EPA and say "THEY removed the systems so
they should pay a fine as well".
When has the EPA ever gone after individual passenger car vehicle owners?
Happens a lot more than you might think. States get into the act under
the umbrella of the EPA laws.
I've still yet to hear or read of a single case myself.
Spot checking of modified vehicles at large "car shows" has been
promised, and reported. Just because your car is registered as a 1927
model "T" ford does not mean it is exempt from emissions testing if it
has a 2009 Chevy LT between the frame rails.
>
Officially it needs to meet the requirements for the 2009 vehicle the
LT was originally supplied for (determined by the engine number).
VW intentionally wrote software for their vehicles with the express
intent of violating the EPA laws.
Yes, I know. But the EPA will be the only route by which this
could be addressed given that many states don't even do testing.
S
Scott Dorsey
Guest
<clare@snyder.on.ca> wrote:
This is almost entirely the result of fuel injection combined with
accurate feedback control. Feedback control makes a huge improvement
in the efficiency of the engine and that means both lower emissions
and more power.
And, it's true that it took the emission control regulations to force
the car manufacturers to start thinking out of the box at new ideas to
try and improve efficiency back in the seventies. Had it not been for
the emission control regulations, we might never have got the engine
improvements that make engines so much more efficiency today.
BUT, it's true that many of the other tricks used to get emissions
numbers down have been at the expense of performance, and many of them
have been just plain attempts to game the system.
There is a very longstanding tradition of gaming the system, dating back
to air pumps back in the seventies which did in fact improve the efficiency
of early catalytic converters, but mostly just diluted the exhaust so that
the concentration of emissions was reduced. The actual amount of emission
was the same, but the numbers recorded at the smog station were lower.
This current attempt on VW's part is not something new in isolation, this
is part of a tradition going back forty years now. It shouldn't surprise
anyone, and it's certainly not anything specific to VW.
Odds are that instead they will take the route of just leaving the
controller in "low emissions" mode all the time, which probably will
affect performance. Part of how that will work out will depend on what
they were actually doing to bring the numbers down, and we don't know that
without actually measuring it or looking at the controller source.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
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?
This is almost entirely the result of fuel injection combined with
accurate feedback control. Feedback control makes a huge improvement
in the efficiency of the engine and that means both lower emissions
and more power.
And, it's true that it took the emission control regulations to force
the car manufacturers to start thinking out of the box at new ideas to
try and improve efficiency back in the seventies. Had it not been for
the emission control regulations, we might never have got the engine
improvements that make engines so much more efficiency today.
BUT, it's true that many of the other tricks used to get emissions
numbers down have been at the expense of performance, and many of them
have been just plain attempts to game the system.
There is a very longstanding tradition of gaming the system, dating back
to air pumps back in the seventies which did in fact improve the efficiency
of early catalytic converters, but mostly just diluted the exhaust so that
the concentration of emissions was reduced. The actual amount of emission
was the same, but the numbers recorded at the smog station were lower.
This current attempt on VW's part is not something new in isolation, this
is part of a tradition going back forty years now. It shouldn't surprise
anyone, and it's certainly not anything specific to VW.
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.
Odds are that instead they will take the route of just leaving the
controller in "low emissions" mode all the time, which probably will
affect performance. Part of how that will work out will depend on what
they were actually doing to bring the numbers down, and we don't know that
without actually measuring it or looking at the controller source.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Guest
On Sat, 19 Sep 2015 12:57:04 -0500, "." <.@dot.com> wrote:
Well, as a mechanic back then, I can assure you I failed a LOT of
dangerous cars, repaired many of them, and scrapped almost as many.
Which here in Ontario only require safety checks for transfer, or if
older than a certain age, depending on the insurance company, to get
or maintain insurance coverage.
Tell me how the average hack can adjust the timing on his 2002 Ford
Taurus 3.0 32 valve V6??? Or even adjust the mixture?
You would be surprised how many Olds 350 rockets back in the mid
seventies had the timing significantly altered to eliminate
overheating when pulling a trailer, or how many "super six" mopars had
the carburetion and timing adjusted off-spec to get rid of
"driveability problems" - and how many "lean burn" mopars were
"converted" to non-lean-burn without changing the camshaft (which was
required if you were going to be anywhere CLOSE to passing emissions)
and how many AIR systems were removed from GM engines - and how many
EGR systems were disconnected ---- just for starters. (under the
mistaken idea that they could get better mileage by simply removing
them)
The numbers WERE significant.
And "selective enforcement" can be, and is, applied to private
passenger vehicles as well - at least here in Ontario.
On 9/19/2015 12:46 PM, clare@snyder.on.ca wrote:
On Sat, 19 Sep 2015 09:36:27 -0500, "." <.@dot.com> wrote:
Passenger car testing of any type has ALWAYS been a scam
and is enacted for generating revenue. Nothing more, nothing
less. "Unsafe" cars have NEVER been a significant proximate
cause of accidents nor does smog testing of these vehicles
lead to measurably cleaner air. These two concerns are best
addressed at time of manufacture.
I will respectfully dissagree - with qualifications.
In the early years of safety checking, at least in Ontario, the
initial passs rate was quite low - and the requirement that a cat pass
a safety check when changing ownership took a LOT of dangerous crap
off the road.
If only there were any documentation to support that claim.
Well, as a mechanic back then, I can assure you I failed a LOT of
dangerous cars, repaired many of them, and scrapped almost as many.
Annual safety checks in Ontario only affect commercial
vehicles - and again there is a pretty high failure rate - and since
selective enforcement has been in place the number of wheels coming
off commercial vehicles and killing drivers of other vehicles has
dropped SIGNIFICANTLY. Enforcement is the key.
My comment referred only to individual owned passenger cars.
Which here in Ontario only require safety checks for transfer, or if
older than a certain age, depending on the insurance company, to get
or maintain insurance coverage.
As for emission testing - in the early years it had merit. There were
a LOT of "gross poluters" on our roads - and it was very simple to
defeat emission controls and change the calibration of an rngine (by
adjusting timing, rejetting carbs etc)
It still is.
Tell me how the average hack can adjust the timing on his 2002 Ford
Taurus 3.0 32 valve V6??? Or even adjust the mixture?
so that what left the
manufacturer and what was on the road were not necessarilly the same.
And those that in any manner overrode emission controls were
an insignificant percentage of the motoring public.
You would be surprised how many Olds 350 rockets back in the mid
seventies had the timing significantly altered to eliminate
overheating when pulling a trailer, or how many "super six" mopars had
the carburetion and timing adjusted off-spec to get rid of
"driveability problems" - and how many "lean burn" mopars were
"converted" to non-lean-burn without changing the camshaft (which was
required if you were going to be anywhere CLOSE to passing emissions)
and how many AIR systems were removed from GM engines - and how many
EGR systems were disconnected ---- just for starters. (under the
mistaken idea that they could get better mileage by simply removing
them)
The numbers WERE significant.
With today's computer controlled vehicles, unleaded gas, etc, the VAST
majority of vehicles pass, even when 20 years old - if reasonably
maintained, and the OBD2 only testing is a total farce and nothing but
a money-grab -
Safety shecks for vehicle transfer and annually for commercial
vehicles is both a consumer protection AND safety issue - and worth
continuing. (along with "selective enforcement" on the roads - see a
"questionable" vehicle - pull it over and inspect it for basic safety
standards, and possible send for "secondary inspecion" by a registered
safety inspection station. Bring it up to standard or take it off the
road.
Again, my comment referred only to individual owned passenger cars.
And "selective enforcement" can be, and is, applied to private
passenger vehicles as well - at least here in Ontario.
B
Bob F
Guest
clare@snyder.on.ca wrote:
And the resulting diesels may be a lot less desired.
The diesel differences between testing and reality are not a new thing.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/news/10862975/Emission-tests-substantially-underestimate-pollution-pumped-out-by-diesels.html
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.
And the resulting diesels may be a lot less desired.
The diesel differences between testing and reality are not a new thing.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/news/10862975/Emission-tests-substantially-underestimate-pollution-pumped-out-by-diesels.html
B
Bob F
Guest
Steve W. wrote:
Or, the EPA could require that all the cheating cars be re-programmed to meet
requirements all the time, and owners could sue VW's ass off for cheating them,
since the resulting performance will be terrible.
. wrote:
On 9/19/2015 11:12 AM, Steve W. wrote:
Sure will. You have to enter the VIN into the system to start the
inspection. IF the EPA requires a recall to reflash the ECM to
remove that software and "correct" the problem, that would have to
be done at a dealer. They will track completed vehicles by VIN. The
state can just flag ALL those vehicles. You pull in, they plug in
the tester, and your VIN doesn't show on the "recall complete"
list. You don't get inspected. That has happened before for other recalls.
I'm betting the fix
will be to re-flash the ECM software to remove the "switch". Then
run each one through the full EPA test regardless of registration
state. That because this if a federal law that was broken.
What will be fun will be watching all the johnny racer types who
modified the cars by removing emissions gear and "tuning" the ECM.
VW could actually show them to the EPA and say "THEY removed the
systems so they should pay a fine as well".
When has the EPA ever gone after individual passenger car vehicle
owners?
Happens a lot more than you might think. States get into the act under
the umbrella of the EPA laws.
VW intentionally wrote software for their vehicles with the express
intent of violating the EPA laws. They admitted to that already so it
will be interesting to see what happens. The EPA could recall the
cars, judge them as "unrepairable gross polluters" and have them
crushed. I doubt they will go that far but they have done it before
under the "cars for cash" BS.
Or, the EPA could require that all the cheating cars be re-programmed to meet
requirements all the time, and owners could sue VW's ass off for cheating them,
since the resulting performance will be terrible.
Guest
mike posted for all of us...
Just like all the fines imposed on Co's and people. Found money for the
gov't. Like the tobacco Co's the states get all this money and what exactly
do they do with it. If education is it having an impact? Should be for the
medical costs. Instead that is spread amongst the ratepayers or taxpayers
through third party payers. How to fix IDK...
--
Tekkie
OR we could just
Fine them billions and fritter it away wherever such fines
are frittered?
Just like all the fines imposed on Co's and people. Found money for the
gov't. Like the tobacco Co's the states get all this money and what exactly
do they do with it. If education is it having an impact? Should be for the
medical costs. Instead that is spread amongst the ratepayers or taxpayers
through third party payers. How to fix IDK...
--
Tekkie
M
Malcom Mal Reynolds
Guest
In article <mti9lu$jb$1@news.mixmin.net>,
Ewald BĂśhm <ewvesb@gilltaylor.ca> wrote:
I'd like to know how the EPA found out about this hack
Ewald BĂśhm <ewvesb@gilltaylor.ca> wrote:
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.
REFERENCES:
http://blog.ucsusa.org/volkswagen-caught-cheating-vehicle-recall-887
http://www.engineering.com/AdvancedManufacturing/ArticleID/10688/VW-Caught-Che
ating-on-EPA-Tests.aspx
http://hothardware.com/news/vw-intentionally-programmed-engine-software-to-che
at-emissions-tests-forced-by-epa-to-recall-482k-vehicles
etc.
My question is HOW did the car *know* it was being *tested* for emissions?
I'd like to know how the EPA found out about this hack
Guest
clare@snyder.on.ca posted for all of us...
+1 My experience exactly.
PA had twice yearly inspections but now has yearly . I remember all the
uproar over what the garages had to buy, the 3 gas analyzers, dynamometers,
leased or privately owned... It was a circus. I think it was a politicians
dream. (It was in NJ).
I remember customers that had notorious vehicles with bad emissions; blowing
blue smoke, heavy fuel smell, missing engines. A lot of "beaters".
Then the lead issue. I don't know if lead in gas was harmful or not but that
train has left the station. My observation is the air is "better" but is
that because of cars or the fact PA is ground zero of the "rust belt" and
manufacturing has left?
My gripe is that counties around major city's have testing while the rest of
the state doesn't. What, the wind doesn't blow through the whole state?
There are also exemptions if the cost of repairs exceed a threshold.
Claire would remember PCV valves and tune ups...
--
Tekkie
On Sat, 19 Sep 2015 12:57:04 -0500, "." <.@dot.com> wrote:
On 9/19/2015 12:46 PM, clare@snyder.on.ca wrote:
On Sat, 19 Sep 2015 09:36:27 -0500, "." <.@dot.com> wrote:
Passenger car testing of any type has ALWAYS been a scam
and is enacted for generating revenue. Nothing more, nothing
less. "Unsafe" cars have NEVER been a significant proximate
cause of accidents nor does smog testing of these vehicles
lead to measurably cleaner air. These two concerns are best
addressed at time of manufacture.
I will respectfully dissagree - with qualifications.
In the early years of safety checking, at least in Ontario, the
initial passs rate was quite low - and the requirement that a cat pass
a safety check when changing ownership took a LOT of dangerous crap
off the road.
If only there were any documentation to support that claim.
Well, as a mechanic back then, I can assure you I failed a LOT of
dangerous cars, repaired many of them, and scrapped almost as many.
Annual safety checks in Ontario only affect commercial
vehicles - and again there is a pretty high failure rate - and since
selective enforcement has been in place the number of wheels coming
off commercial vehicles and killing drivers of other vehicles has
dropped SIGNIFICANTLY. Enforcement is the key.
My comment referred only to individual owned passenger cars.
Which here in Ontario only require safety checks for transfer, or if
older than a certain age, depending on the insurance company, to get
or maintain insurance coverage.
As for emission testing - in the early years it had merit. There were
a LOT of "gross poluters" on our roads - and it was very simple to
defeat emission controls and change the calibration of an rngine (by
adjusting timing, rejetting carbs etc)
It still is.
Tell me how the average hack can adjust the timing on his 2002 Ford
Taurus 3.0 32 valve V6??? Or even adjust the mixture?
so that what left the
manufacturer and what was on the road were not necessarilly the same.
And those that in any manner overrode emission controls were
an insignificant percentage of the motoring public.
You would be surprised how many Olds 350 rockets back in the mid
seventies had the timing significantly altered to eliminate
overheating when pulling a trailer, or how many "super six" mopars had
the carburetion and timing adjusted off-spec to get rid of
"driveability problems" - and how many "lean burn" mopars were
"converted" to non-lean-burn without changing the camshaft (which was
required if you were going to be anywhere CLOSE to passing emissions)
and how many AIR systems were removed from GM engines - and how many
EGR systems were disconnected ---- just for starters. (under the
mistaken idea that they could get better mileage by simply removing
them)
The numbers WERE significant.
With today's computer controlled vehicles, unleaded gas, etc, the VAST
majority of vehicles pass, even when 20 years old - if reasonably
maintained, and the OBD2 only testing is a total farce and nothing but
a money-grab -
Safety shecks for vehicle transfer and annually for commercial
vehicles is both a consumer protection AND safety issue - and worth
continuing. (along with "selective enforcement" on the roads - see a
"questionable" vehicle - pull it over and inspect it for basic safety
+1 My experience exactly.
PA had twice yearly inspections but now has yearly . I remember all the
uproar over what the garages had to buy, the 3 gas analyzers, dynamometers,
leased or privately owned... It was a circus. I think it was a politicians
dream. (It was in NJ).
I remember customers that had notorious vehicles with bad emissions; blowing
blue smoke, heavy fuel smell, missing engines. A lot of "beaters".
Then the lead issue. I don't know if lead in gas was harmful or not but that
train has left the station. My observation is the air is "better" but is
that because of cars or the fact PA is ground zero of the "rust belt" and
manufacturing has left?
My gripe is that counties around major city's have testing while the rest of
the state doesn't. What, the wind doesn't blow through the whole state?
There are also exemptions if the cost of repairs exceed a threshold.
Claire would remember PCV valves and tune ups...
--
Tekkie
Guest
clare@snyder.on.ca posted for all of us...
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?
--
Tekkie
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?
--
Tekkie