VW cheat emissions test with "defeat device"

[Tommy Cookers]

......betraying in a test for environmental laws like VW did is of course not ok, because this is completely against the common sense as there is just no competition to build the least environmental friendly car, which is getting through the test.

the competition taking all manufacturers towards building what you call the least environmentally friendly car is called the market
driveability and so-called responsiveness, the first we're entitled to, the second we choose
the emissions test ignores driveability and response issues, so ensuring test mode will always give a falsely optimistic result

this amounts to an effect equivalent to collusion between the EPA etc and the manufacturers
perhaps the do-gooder groups should sue the EPA for having a system that encourages what is now seen as malpractice ?

btw ....
my experience with petrol automatics is that their intelligence learns different shift patterns from the way they are driven
so they teach themselves a shift pattern for the EPA test that is good for the test
(but they will unlearn this pattern as soon as the driver stops driving unusually carefully)
this is essentially the same effect as VW achieve, but arguably legal if this software functionality is rules as not test-specific

and ....
my TV has just said that a (UK) tester Emission Analytics found an in-use average of 4.3x the legal emission test values

[R_GoWin]

But fuel is different between Europe and US. At least gasoline. While we have a minimum of RON95 here, with option of RON98 and RON100, I believe in the US RON87 is pretty much standard while RON93 is "high-tech". Might be the same for diesel engines but I don't know this.

MadMatt - you are correct. Diesel used in US and Europe is different. So if I remember correct - US diesel has a higher density range and lower cetane number than that over here. Additioanlly the standard UK fuel has a 2-5% bio-diesel content - that makes it harder to have a tight control over its distillation curve.

[R_GoWin]

the engines in question do not have Adblue systems installed.

Us market didn't get Ad blue in the Cars until 1015. I own a 2010 TDI

But VW and Audi said the 2.0-liter four-cylinder engine on the smaller cars was able to meet the requirements without a urea injection system — although many people have wondered exactly how. (Update: Just to clarify, newer TDI models like the MK7 Golf, made from 2015 on, do include urea injection.)

While that may be true - but the cars used for the research were 2012/2013 models of Jetta, Passat and BMW X5. All of them tested by West Virginia had some form of Nox treatment technology - SCR on the Passat and BMW and low Nox trap on the Jetta. Comments about no-SCR 2009 car meeting legislations (while they may have cheated!) is unfounded and may just be sour grapes.

[basti313]

Sure? Then this would nicely explain the problem. But without SCR I do not see a possible solution they can use all the time without really badly compromising the fuel economy.

Us market didn't get Ad blue in the Cars until 1015. I own a 2010 TDI

http://jalopnik.com/your-guide-to-diese ... 1731857018

Well, other sources clearly say, that the SCR is also affected.
To me it is very interesting, that the Passat 150HP in Europe has no SCR and no cheating, whereas in the USA they need the SCR ans cheat for this engine. On the other hand they do not sell the crappy 190HP SCR at all in the USA...

the competition taking all manufacturers towards building what you call the least environmentally friendly car is called the market
driveability and so-called responsiveness, the first we're entitled to, the second we choose
the emissions test ignores driveability and response issues, so ensuring test mode will always give a falsely optimistic result

You are right with that. I already mentioned the Toyota Prius fuel economy "switch" that I also clearly count as a cheat. They only could get away with this as the hybrids were supported by gov and media.
Everything else the manufacturers do, like the gear shift indicator on manual BMW, the "ECO" button from VW (which switches off everything down to the high beam...) or the gearbox settings on nearly every auto gearbox, is more like small adjustments to the test.
Of course, you can always discuss where to draw the line...but for me with the VW and the Toyota cheats with the cars driving in a completely different, unrealistic mode every possible line is crossed.

[djos]

I disagree. Red Bull built a wing that passed the test but flexed excessively on track. VW apparently built an engine that passed the test and polluted excessively on the road. It is exactly the same. Either both cheated or neither did.

I like this argument. It does not say who is right or wrong, it simply says that you have to be consistent. Anyone want to make a case that one is cheating and the other is not?

The difference is that the FiA admits wings made of CF will flex, what they effectively said in the rules was "as long as your wing passes our defined deflection test we will consider it legal". The wing only flexed under higher loads than the FiA test and was therefore still legal.

Compare that to VW who have created a "software cheat device" to explicitly hide their real pollution emissions from the regulators who have defined maximum emissions allowed.

The better F1 analogy is Benetton hiding illegal traction control software in their ECU's in '94 when Traction control was explicitly banned.

[djos]

Kindly explain in detail how VW broke that law?

And that relevant question was worth a downvote, is that the purpose of the voting system moderator?

I didnt down vote you but it was a stupid question, dont come in posting dumb stuff like that without bothering to read at least one or two of the myriad of articles published clearly explaining VW's illegal behaviour.

[langwadt]

I disagree. Red Bull built a wing that passed the test but flexed excessively on track. VW apparently built an engine that passed the test and polluted excessively on the road. It is exactly the same. Either both cheated or neither did.

I like this argument. It does not say who is right or wrong, it simply says that you have to be consistent. Anyone want to make a case that one is cheating and the other is not?

The difference is that the FiA admits wings made of CF will flex, what they effectively said in the rules was "as long as your wing passes our defined deflection test we will consider it legal". The wing only flexed under higher loads than the FiA test and was therefore still legal.

to play the devils advocate, how is that different from;

we know cars with pollute, as long as it passes the pollution test it is legal
The cars only pollute more under different conditions that the test, there fore still legal?

[djos]

to play the devils advocate, how is that different from;

we know cars with pollute, as long as it passes the pollution test it is legal
The cars only pollute more under different conditions that the test, there fore still legal?

Because the emissions regulations define the test as the standard that must be met at all times regardless of whether or not the car is being driven on a road or on a dyno.

It's also as others have pointed out "active cheating", front wings are a passive device and RedBull's front wings only bent at loads greater than the FiA tests regardless of the car being on or off track.

ECU's are active devices and need to be programmed with specific instructions to cheat. See my 1994 Benetton traction control as another example of "active cheating".

[DaveW]

[ ... it was a stupid question, dont come in posting dumb stuff like that without bothering to read at least one or two of the myriad of articles published clearly explaining VW's illegal behaviour.

I have searched in vain for one of the "myriad of articles". I would be helpful, to me at least, if you could post a reference to such an article, one that explains VW's illegal behaviour.

[Sixbarboost]

Kindly explain in detail how VW broke that law?

And that relevant question was worth a downvote, is that the purpose of the voting system moderator?

I didnt down vote you but it was a stupid question, dont come in posting dumb stuff like that without bothering to read at least one or two of the myriad of articles published clearly explaining VW's illegal behaviour.

And just who might you be, the forum's new moderator, or perhaps the opinion-police?

[Cold Fussion]

It's also as others have pointed out "active cheating", front wings are a passive device and RedBull's front wings only bent at loads greater than the FiA tests regardless of the car being on or off track.

I don't understand this logic. The Red Bull wings were actively designed to pass the deflection test and in real world conditions flex much beyond what the test was intended to allow for.

[Tommy Cookers]

to play the devils advocate, how is that different from;
we know cars with pollute, as long as it passes the pollution test it is legal
The cars only pollute more under different conditions that the test, there fore still legal?

Because the emissions regulations define the test as the standard that must be met at all times regardless of whether or not the car is being driven on a road or on a dyno.

djos statement above has surely never been true in about 50 years (for California) of legalisation via emissions testing
the test is indicative only of the best the car can do, not the worst
(eg the EPA via Calif allows (or did a very few years ago) the test car to pre-soak to 27 degC so the catalyst is quickly into action)

though our politicians are giving the impression that they have always had the impression that the statement is true
ie they are as surprised as Joe Public is presumed to be
but have not resigned despite this evidence of incompetence
politicians justifying their role in the European move to diesel (convenient as indigenous gas was replacing oil for power generation)

another of our 'expert' medical researchers pronounced yesterday that diesel NOx kills 6000 annually in the UK
kill meaning death earlier by 1 year

let's remember petrol/gasoline engine efficiency is degraded to make it NOx free
(catalysis for NOx prevents lean mixtures and so increases throttling)


yes, presumably the case against VW is founded on 'active cheating'
(semi-active and passive methods having always been allowed)

[Phil]

It's also as others have pointed out "active cheating", front wings are a passive device and RedBull's front wings only bent at loads greater than the FiA tests regardless of the car being on or off track.

I don't understand this logic. The Red Bull wings were actively designed to pass the deflection test and in real world conditions flex much beyond what the test was intended to allow for.

The difference herein lies; A passive device is as it is - it doesn't change. Its behavior is consistent. So it will behave exactly identical in a testing condition as in the real world. If the testing condition doesn't test accordingly for certain real-world scenarios, it's a problem of inadequate testing (case example: RedBull's flexi wing where the FIA test didn't apply enough force to adequately simulate a realworld scenario where the RedBull car made much of its advantage).

An active part changes its behavior. It doesn't behave the same in a testing-lab as it does in the real world. If for example the device works and detects something being plugged into the ODB2 port and thus realizes its being tested and then manipulates how the engine produces emissions, it has nothing in common with the same engine running normal conditions out on the road. There are clear laws in regards to emissions - they are not for the benefit of car manufacturers to find creative ways to 'cheat the test'. It's like having a catalytic converter that is only 'turned on' when it's being tested, not when driven.

Example:

- valve exhausts ("klappenauspuff") that is always closed during testing but always open on the road -> not allowed
- valve exhausts that is always closed below 2/3 rpm consistently during a test and on open road -> allowed
- valve exhausts that can be switched to be always open at any rpm (hacked sportmode) -> not allowed, but the consumer breaks the law not the manufacturer

[turbof1]

Cold fussion, the flex tests describe that the wing can not flex beyond a certain treshold under a certain load. It does not mention anything about loads beyond what is described. If we put the same aerodynamic load in real life, the wing will still not deflect more then that what is allowed. However, in real life at the speed the cars drive, the aerodynamic load is actually much higher.

In other words, Red Bull never cheated the test. They make handy use of the fact that there's nothing regulatory described about flexing on the actual loads these cars and parts experience. VW on the other hand cheated by running that defeat device during the test, which means the anomaly goes on inbetween the parameters of the test.

[Richard]

If we're going to use an F1 analogy, what VW have done is put on one wing for the test then put on a completely different wing for the track. Presumably the ECU detected a dyno when one set of wheels was spinning while the other set were stationary?

ps: I've updated the thread title to describe the topic and a little less hyperbole than "Massive betray by VW, facing fines up to $18 billion!""