"functionoverfashion" (functionoverfashion)
10/02/2015 at 11:12 • Filed to: dieselgate
4
22|
"functionoverfashion" (functionoverfashion)
10/02/2015 at 11:12 • Filed to: dieselgate | 4
| 22 |
I saw this on a friend’s facebook feed... so take it for what you will.
Thoughts?
Steve in Manhattan
> functionoverfashion
10/02/2015 at 11:16 |
|
Can’t watch it at work - what’s the takeaway?
|
functionoverfashion
> Steve in Manhattan
10/02/2015 at 11:22 |
|
Ironically, I can’t either. I’m dying to watch it. But I thought I’d share it in case others would be interested...
crowmolly
> functionoverfashion
10/02/2015 at 11:25 |
|
Hey, uh, dyno guys...
Are you comparing VW’s flywheel rating with your testing at the wheels?
BloodlessWeevil
> functionoverfashion
10/02/2015 at 11:27 |
|
This is not how the emissions cheat works. There is a special development mode that disables systems that cannot be otherwise disabled. You must interface with the engine controller over the CAN bus using development tools.
HammerheadFistpunch
> Steve in Manhattan
10/02/2015 at 11:27 |
|
big drops in midrange torque (up to 30 lbs-ft)
JawzX2, Boost Addict. 1.6t, 2.7tt, 4.2t
> Steve in Manhattan
10/02/2015 at 11:28 |
|
4-wheel dyno “on road simulation”: 138 whp @ 3541 rpm, 260 ft/lb @ 2561
2-wheel dyno “emissions cheat enabled”: 136.5 whp @ 3530 rpm, 228.4 lb/ft @ 2588
takeaway: Minor hit to peak HP, but a big bite gets taken out of the torque curve. my guess is you’d notice a 32 lb/ft difference... but is it a deal breaker?
|
functionoverfashion
> BloodlessWeevil
10/02/2015 at 11:31 |
|
So that begs the question, why didn’t they just
do that?
I think a lot of people are wondering this right now, what might the difference actually be, especially in the context of a possible recall/fix from VW. I’m sure there’s a reason?
Jake Huitt - Two Alfas And A Nissan, Not A Single Running Car
> crowmolly
10/02/2015 at 11:41 |
|
No. The video compares the result of a “road” test on a 4 wheel dyno (Defeat device not running) and on the “test” 2 wheel dyno (Defeat device running) the difference was 30 some lb/ft and 3 hp.
|
crowmolly
> Jake Huitt - Two Alfas And A Nissan, Not A Single Running Car
10/02/2015 at 11:47 |
|
I wasn’t talking about the emissions comparison.
@4:10
140hp and 236 lb-ft are the published flywheel numbers. They are posting 138.5 hp and 260 lb-ft measured at the wheels.
If their measured wheel numbers equal fly numbers then that’s either a super efficient driveline or the engine puts out above advertised.
Boxer_4
> crowmolly
10/02/2015 at 11:56 |
|
It's quite possible the engine is actually more powerful than advertised. VW has been known to underrate their engines.
|
crowmolly
> Boxer_4
10/02/2015 at 12:00 |
|
The reason why I care is because if the MPG numbers are higher than rated, and the power is higher than rated, a new tune can knock the emissions down a bit while still meeting their claimed numbers. That would be great to fix the problem but not so great for owners.
|
Steve in Manhattan
> functionoverfashion
10/02/2015 at 12:10 |
|
Eh - home in 3 hours - I’ll watch it then.
|
Steve in Manhattan
> HammerheadFistpunch
10/02/2015 at 12:11 |
|
Oooo - and midrange is where a lot of the work gets done. Had an ‘84 Jetta turbodiesel and an ‘87 300D - I recall that being the case.
|
Steve in Manhattan
> JawzX2, Boost Addict. 1.6t, 2.7tt, 4.2t
10/02/2015 at 12:13 |
|
Most people don’t buy them because they’re fun to drive but because they want the fuel economy, so maybe not.
|
Boxer_4
> crowmolly
10/02/2015 at 12:17 |
|
I’m thinking that may have been their plan all along: rate the power with emissions controls in place and advertise that. Then, if they get caught, they can bring it into compliance without having “falsely advertised” the capabilities of the cars.
I wonder how this will affect class action lawsuits? Can VW still be held liable if they over delivered in the first place?
Where’s Steve Lehto?
|
crowmolly
> Boxer_4
10/02/2015 at 12:20 |
|
Can VW still be held liable if they over delivered in the first place?
Exactly! That’s my concern. Some TDI owners could just get a “Sorry, here’s less car” for their trouble.
|
JawzX2, Boost Addict. 1.6t, 2.7tt, 4.2t
> Steve in Manhattan
10/02/2015 at 12:21 |
|
what this test DOESN’T address is the effects that running in “full emissions control mode” might have on fuel economy. We can see from the dyno runs that it impacts power, but what were’re not seeing is if/how badly it effects economy.
|
Boxer_4
> crowmolly
10/02/2015 at 12:26 |
|
I’m curious to hear what Steve Lehto has to say, but I think I know the answer.
I have a feeling that VW is going to be giving a lot of customers the shaft.
|
crowmolly
> Boxer_4
10/02/2015 at 12:27 |
|
Yeah. “Spread ‘em”
|
Steve in Manhattan
> JawzX2, Boost Addict. 1.6t, 2.7tt, 4.2t
10/02/2015 at 12:30 |
|
Yeah, I agree - and some writer somewhere mentioned the “B” word. Buyback. Imagine that clusterfuck.
Ash78, voting early and often
> Boxer_4
10/02/2015 at 13:04 |
|
That’s been my thought all along — the “fix” might bring the car back to the official numbers, but people will bitch because it feels different, even though they’re still getting what they paid for.
That would be quite a weird coup for VW. Almost sociopathic.
|
BloodlessWeevil
> functionoverfashion
10/02/2015 at 13:58 |
|
You would need a background in vehicle development and testing to know how, and manufacturer’s development tools to activate it. I’m guessing these guys just don’t know about it. They did what they usually do to dyno vehicles, and messed with every setting they could think of.
It was a good idea and I applaud them for trying it, but their conclusions are misleading.