I Suspect This Surprises Pretty Much No One

"for Michigan" (formichigan) 10/05/2015 at 15:22 • Filed to: emissions standards, gorvernment, dieselgate

0

37

“What’s that? You want to use real-world testing on our vehicles? Well then, we’re going to need you to be a little bit more lenient on emissions standards.

“Okay, maybe a lot more lenient.

“What, are you the only ones that didn’t notice we were gaming your unrealistic system?”

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

If this turns up significant shortfallings across the entire industry, it’ll be interesting to see how it effects VAG. What can our governments do to one company if it comes to light that an entire industry has been doing the exact same thing? At that point, I think it becomes obvious that the issue is with the regulations, not the products they regulate.

crowmolly > for Michigan 10/05/2015 at 15:31

1

I understand the backlash at VW and other manufacturers over this stuff and I don’t think it’s misguided.

But I don’t understand how there can be this much outrage with entire states still being allowed to forego emissions testing.

Technically it’s a federal crime to jack with your emissions system, but for all intents and purposes you can run open headers in a place like Iowa (as long as you don’t break a noise ordinance).

K-Roll-PorscheTamer > for Michigan 10/05/2015 at 15:31

0

I for one would welcome less restrictive e-standards. Maybe make CAFE more lenient to while you’re at it? That would be awesome, k thx.

Everything is going according to plan.

functionoverfashion > for Michigan 10/05/2015 at 15:35

1

The article concluded by saying

it could mean that the scandal that began with Volkswagen TDIs could extend far beyond the VW Group.

Which, as you pointed, has it backwards:

At that point, I think it becomes obvious that the issue is with the regulations, not the products they regulate.

I mean, the specific mechanism employed by VW still will bring some major consequences. But maybe it’s brining to light a much bigger issue that’s not really the fault of the manufacturers.

themanwithsauce - has as many vehicles as job titles > for Michigan 10/05/2015 at 15:38

0

Okay. Here’s the thing. The limit increase that they want is a 70% increase for nitrous oxides. That is the pollutant that VW TDIs blew out of the water by 40x the limit. For a VW TDI to pass it would need a 4000% increase. I said before that due to variances in the atmosphere like temperature, humidity, road temperature, tire grip, and more, a real world engine emits probably near double what it does in the lab. That is what us being asked for here. An allowance for the real world variables.

Santiago of Escuderia Boricua > for Michigan 10/05/2015 at 15:40

1

I would kind of be OK with not raising any limits. Giving them a problem is how they make progress. If they’re not forced to reduce emissions, they won’t. Phase in the real world testing over five years or so, which gives the OEMs time to figure it out.

for Michigan > functionoverfashion 10/05/2015 at 15:42

0

I think that’s true. Ford and Hyundai have already been reprimanded for gaming CAFE standards, there is a rash of small-displacement turbo engines that get great mileage on tests but mediocre mileage in the real world, and now we’re seeing signs that the entire industry has been gaming emissions tests.

Fuel economy and emissions standards are important, but to be effective they have to be realistic. At this point, I’d say it’s pretty obvious that they aren’t realistic.

deekster_caddy > for Michigan 10/05/2015 at 15:43

0

And I was all happy that MA switched to non-tailpipe OBD-II only testing - no CEL, you pass emissions! Silly MA for trusting the computers.

Inspections are going to go back to those freakin on-road tailpipe tests aren’t they. Frowny face.

duurtlang > functionoverfashion 10/05/2015 at 15:44

3

But maybe it’s brining to light a much bigger issue that’s not really the fault of the manufacturers.

Those regulations weren’t created in a vacuum. Regulators saw manufacturers were, on paper, getting better at complying with their older regulations. As a result they made their newer regulations stricter. That’s normal. Had the manufacturers not cheated the regulators would’ve observed that compliance was lagging behind and as a result wouldn’t have made their newer regulations as strict. These regulations tend to be ambitious by design, but not impossible.

for Michigan > themanwithsauce - has as many vehicles as job titles 10/05/2015 at 15:46

0

This is a valid point. I’m not saying that VW isn’t at fault, just that they’re not alone. They may very well be the worst offenders in this whole debacle.

for Michigan > Santiago of Escuderia Boricua 10/05/2015 at 15:47

1

But we gave them a problem and we didn’t make the progress that the various environmental boards required.

for Michigan > K-Roll-PorscheTamer 10/05/2015 at 15:51

0

While I think having standards is a good thing, I agree. I’m thinking maybe they should reset the standards to what automakers are actually hitting right now and then set a reasonable goal for future improvements.

Santiago of Escuderia Boricua > for Michigan 10/05/2015 at 15:51

0

They should just be able to modify the engine maps to account for the new testing.

Anyway, that’s still no reason to give up. Maybe Audi is 70% over but GM is 15% over or something. You can’t just cater to the worst performer

for Michigan > crowmolly 10/05/2015 at 15:54

0

It’s ridiculous that people can run catless with impunity. Or that coal-rolling brodozers aren’t impounded.

Then again, smog isn’t really a problem in the states where those things are acceptable.

whiskeybusiness NOW A DANGER TO CROWDS NEAR YOU > for Michigan 10/05/2015 at 15:55

0

I think that this speaks volumes about the legislation regarding emissions and fuel economy. Politicians with little/no understanding of what goes into vehicle engineering are throwing out unreachable numbers and automakers have to either cheat or go under.

functionoverfashion > for Michigan 10/05/2015 at 15:56

0

It’s a little like advertising on the average consumer-grade two-way radio. We used to buy a million of those at my prior work, and they were great for communicating around our property. But the claimed communication range of 36 MILES was completely, utterly, unrealistic by a factor of at least 10, probably closet to 20; akin to Honda claiming the new Civic Hybrid gets 400 MPG. We were on a lake, and you couldn’t use these things line-of-sight on the best day 2 miles away. I cannot fathom the conditions, this side of outer space, where you might get even a hint of a signal 36 miles away. And out there it would probably be an issue of too much radiation or something.

I don’t know why, but that always bothered me... can you tell?

themanwithsauce - has as many vehicles as job titles > for Michigan 10/05/2015 at 15:57

1

I still think they are alone, people just lack an understanding of scientific testing methods. My point is that everyone else isn’t offenders. They might have cars that are optimized for the test environments, but even gas cars will spew a little bit ore outside of the test environment. If you’re right on the limit, then the real world will push you out of it.

Don’t take this next bit as a slight against you. I believe you that you understand there’s more at play here than simply “everyone is cheating”. It is aimed more at the inevitable mouthbreather who leaves a comment on these articles who proudly rolls coal. I guess a comparison that works is a casual runner who, in an indoor, climate controlled track, with adequate clothing and stretching can do 5 miles at.....6 minutes a mile. But he is JUST at 6 minutes a mile. Then you stick him outdoors. And part of his 5 miles is a dirt road. Uphill. And it’s now 85 degrees out. And now he rings up 7 minutes a mile or more. Yes, he can do 6 minutes a mile for 5 miles as asked under your specific circumstances, but the ever changing environment slowed him down. That’s what is being asked for here. And I don’t define that part as breaking the law. What VW did is like an overweight, out of shape, chronically ill man being called in for a fitness test and calling up the casual runner to take the test for him.

At the end of the day, the same programming and hardware on the other cars is probably at play. But VW has, in essence, a different engine show up to take the test.

for Michigan > Santiago of Escuderia Boricua 10/05/2015 at 15:58

2

Honestly, as long as the current weight-loss trend continues, I’d be fine with a slight reduction of power across the board in favor of cleaner emissions and better economy. A Camry doesn’t need to get from 0-60 in under 6 seconds.

functionoverfashion > duurtlang 10/05/2015 at 16:00

0

That may be true, I just find the real-world conditions where these figures are to be met are pretty near impossible anywhere with hills, or wind, or if you ever carry a passenger or any cargo, or have a roof rack of any kind, or snow tires... which all together is a pretty large portion of vehicle usage.

I don’t know enough about these regulations to make much of an educated statement.... so maybe I shouldn’t be speaking on it at all, honestly.

crowmolly > for Michigan 10/05/2015 at 16:00

0

True, but the pollutants still go into the same atmosphere.

BloodlessWeevil > for Michigan 10/05/2015 at 16:03

0

First, VW is not in trouble for exceeding emissions standards. They are in trouble for violating the law regarding testing conditions and lying to the EPA. A small technicality, I know, but it makes a difference. Especially with everyone clucking over how standards are two strict and testing is not representative of real world conditions. I think that is a worthwhile conversation to have, but none of it applies to the current situation.

Second, there are no regulations regarding real world emissions, in the US at least. CARB and the EPA use a test cycle to simulate a small part of a vehicles capability, knowing full well that real world conditions can cause radically different results.

Third, real world testing is not going to happen. Regulations must be applied fairly and repeatably, and any real world tests would be even more susceptible to cheating.

coelacanthist > themanwithsauce - has as many vehicles as job titles 10/05/2015 at 16:04

0

What is driving me crazy is media saying things like “polluting at levels up to 40 times bla bla bla”. Up to 40 times the levels of one pollutant does not equate to 40 times overall. I agree that what they did was criminal, but the sloppy, or should I say typical reporting on this is just silly.

for Michigan > themanwithsauce - has as many vehicles as job titles 10/05/2015 at 16:08

0

I understand what you’re saying and I don’t think you’re wrong, but I do think that more extensive testing will show that VW isn’t the only one cheating on that level.

for Michigan > crowmolly 10/05/2015 at 16:10

0

But they are localized to an extent. That’s why CA has such extensive and restrictive standards, but Midwestern states really don’t care.

themanwithsauce - has as many vehicles as job titles > for Michigan 10/05/2015 at 16:12

0

We shall see. And that is entirely possible. I think testing of consumer vehicles is in the future too, to eliminate the chance of ringers.

themanwithsauce - has as many vehicles as job titles > coelacanthist 10/05/2015 at 16:13

0

The original reports were the most accurate when they said the measured pollutants were anywhere from 10 to 40 times the limit. But yes, only the nitrous oxides were that absurdly high.

crowmolly > for Michigan 10/05/2015 at 16:19

0

Well, isn’t that just based on the concentrated number of vehicles? Smog in places like CA is big because the number of cars is huge. If you have far fewer cars in a less dense area that doesn’t mean the cars aren’t polluting, just that there aren’t enough of them to do visible damage.

Decay buys too many beaters > crowmolly 10/05/2015 at 16:26

0

Another real issue here is just how easy it is to beat emissions testing. I’ve managed to keep my catless track car road registered in a state with emissions testing by reprogramming the car computer to disregard the input from the narrow band O2 sensor. Basically anybody with a Subaru, Mitsubishi, Honda, Ford, or Nissan can do the same pretty easily.

coelacanthist > themanwithsauce - has as many vehicles as job titles 10/05/2015 at 16:31

0

I think as far as most outlets are concerned, only “exhaust” or “pollution” comes out of a tailpipe. And of course, got to fill headlines with worst case scenario numbers. I was really looking forward to Adam Corolla’s take on this issue, but sadly the most recent carcast was just as under-researched and off the cuff as usual.

crowmolly > Decay buys too many beaters 10/05/2015 at 16:34

0

O2 sims were all the rage a few years back, now I think they are tougher to get.

Decay buys too many beaters > crowmolly 10/05/2015 at 16:45

0

Cobb Accessport and Ecutek can turn off codes and set the diagnostic tests to “met” at all times for any platform they support. Anyone with a bit of spare time and a rewritable ECU can accomplish the same with Romraider. Also standalone ECUs have become smart enough to pass an OBD2 based emissions test.

crowmolly > Decay buys too many beaters 10/05/2015 at 16:50

1

Sounds like it’s even way easier than it was before! I haven’t been in a tuning program for a few years (4-5?) now. Unreal that you can just hard-set it to “PASS”

RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht > crowmolly 10/05/2015 at 16:56

1

I dunno, in a certain real sense with fragile pollutants like ground level ozone (the result of these things) they might as well not be. Route running through the forest produces trace amounts of photochemical smog, barely lasting long enough to do free radical damage to the trees about equivalent to an extra hour of sunlight... Something like that is essentially meaningless. I’m totally okay with emissions rules being dependent on vehicle density, because every car ecosystem-if-you-will has a capacity. It’s also true that in such an area local contributions can be dwarfed by what’s coming in off the sea, or as in the case of some mountain ranges, the trees themselves.

Decay buys too many beaters > crowmolly 10/05/2015 at 17:05

0

Yeah it’s surprisingly simple to do on modern cars. Ever wonder why between half and 75% of all modified WRXs sound catless?

crowmolly > Decay buys too many beaters 10/05/2015 at 17:06

0

That and the flame pumpkins every now and then

crowmolly > RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht 10/05/2015 at 17:12

0

I get ya.

Admittedly I’m not well versed in the particular pollutants and how they are dispersed into the atmosphere.

If it all stays local and doesn’t travel then I guess it’s NBD. But if there’s anything that goes far up and travels around, that’s a different situation.

RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht > crowmolly 10/05/2015 at 17:35

1

...and the long and short of it is, most of modern auto pollution is not really stable stuff with a lot of lifespan. Not much VOC stuff gets generated, but you have to watch out for it when it does - though the modern engine can eat more than it produces. Particulates are more stable, but mostly fall out/bind near point of generation. The biggest smog-makers outside the VOCs are the SO2 and the NOx, but with modern cars and fuels the SO2 is not so much, and the NOx is, as I said above, really a critical mass thing.

The biggest lesson here is that regulatory agencies are wholly unaccountable and have no grasp of diminishing returns whatsoever, let alone purification. “Oh, you reduced 60% from your previous level? I’ll just pencil you in for another 30% of that in three years, since that’ll be no biggie - it’s only half what you just did!” Um, no. If even the popular 99.99% hand cleaners had to reduce bacteria like they expect automakers to reduce NOx, there’d be none left on the market.

for Michigan > crowmolly 10/05/2015 at 22:36

0

And?