My feed
Premium

Please
or
to access all these features

News

Volkswagen faked diesel emission tests, will be fined billions

31 replies

RickRoll · 22/09/2015 16:20

Essentially:

  • diesel cars produce soot and nitrous oxides, which kill people around them
  • in Europe we focus on reducing CO2, which favours diesel, but doesn't factor in the deaths due to emissions
  • The Americans OTOH, focus on dangerous emissions, and don't care so much about CO2

    Volkswagen have spent a lot of money developing their diesel technology, whereas Japanese and American manufacturers tend to stick with petrol and hybrid cars.

    It turns out that that Volkswagen cars in America far exceed the legal limits for dangerous emissions, but the car was programmed to detect when it was running on a rolling road (for emissions testing), and basically drastically reduce power and fuel efficiency, in order to cut emissions.

    Now around half-a-million US Volkswagen diesel car owners are going to have their cars reprogrammed, so that power and fuel efficiency are reduced, and VW is going to have to pay billions in compensation, both to owners and the US government.

    A further 10.5 million cars might be affected around the globe.

    www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34325005
OP posts:
BlackAmericanoNoSugar · 22/09/2015 16:27

I caught the tail end of a report on this and was hoping that it wasn't Volkswagen, but it is. We have two diesel VWs, we bought the second one because we were very happy with the performance and low tax bracket of the first one. I wonder if my road tax will go up now, I hope not. I pay under €200 at the moment based on emissions, which I was really surprised and happy with, but it's a steep-ish curve so double the emissions would be way more than double the tax. Hmm

Isitmebut · 22/09/2015 16:31

I believe that nitrus 'stuff' produced was only around 40 times the permitted level.

They say VW Diesels around 6-years old to date, but who is to say yet that even the older ones were not dodgy - of which I have an interest?

How does a recall 'fix' such a fundamentally dodgy problem; i hope they have to buy them all back at best prices and offer a far newer TSI petrol one at a deep, d-e-e-p, discount. Just saying.

Isitmebut · 22/09/2015 16:33

Road Tax, I didn't even think of that.

RickRoll · 22/09/2015 16:38

Normally vehicle tax changes are not retrospective.

Resale values might be hit, but otherwise VW will be bearing the brunt of this.

OP posts:
lljkk · 22/09/2015 16:41

"dangerous" emissions is a bit emotive, no worse than 1960s cars were.

I suspect The recall will be to get rid of the dodgy software so the cars can go thru Smog tests without it, then they can be tuned & adjusted so that they then pass the Smog test (to be allowed on the road at all in states like California). We don't have an MOT, but we do have Smog tests.

I am wondering about road tax, too, but so far our VW doesn't seem to be one of the affected models. Given all the other costs of owning a car, I don't find road tax very high, anyway.

RickRoll · 22/09/2015 16:41

Analysis of cars on the road in the UK has shown that whereas petrol vehicles tend to be ok, diesel cars have emissions often 10 times the specification.

For some reason our regulators have not conducted an investigation or put two and two together.

OP posts:
RickRoll · 22/09/2015 16:43
OP posts:
RickRoll · 22/09/2015 16:52

So it seems that it's Volkswagens, Audis, Skodas and Seats, worldwide, except for the largest engines.

Basically most diesels now use a tank of urea in the boot to clean the emissions, but to save money VW, er, didn't bother, claiming to have come up with 'clean diesel technology', aka fraud.

OP posts:
Bolograph · 22/09/2015 16:58

Er, you get that the smog of the 1950s was nothing to do with the internal combustion engine, right? And that they were stopped by the Clean Air Acts which were also nothing to do with internal combustion engines?

LurkingHusband · 22/09/2015 16:59

Basically most diesels now use a tank of urea in the boot to clean the emissions, but to save money VW, er, didn't bother, claiming to have come up with 'clean diesel technology', aka fraud.

No. They literally took the piss.

RickRoll · 22/09/2015 17:01

Yes I understand that Bolograph, my point was that comparing current vehicles to those from the past, as if the past was a utopia of clean air, is bizarre. Large numbers of people die in the UK due to air pollution every year and they have been for a very long time. Diesel pollution is a big part of that, in 2015.

OP posts:
lljkk · 22/09/2015 17:09

We didn't have pea-soup in the 1960s-70s California.
We did have smog bad enough not to see the mountains 3 miles away.
And amazing sunsets, too.
This dodge has to do with requirements for the American market; they'll have thought up a different dodge for European models. Grin

Still thinking OP is scare-mongering, but will take my Biscuit with me on the way out.

specialsubject · 23/09/2015 22:17

obviously wrong to fake results; but this is all barking up the wrong tree.

diesels have better fuel economy on long runs and produce less CO2. But they produce more of other pollutants. They are a bad idea in cities, less so on longer journeys.

you can't have it both ways.

The American car market is the reason why we have the technological wrong turns of catalytic converters, airbags and aircon in cars.

to reduce vehicle pollution, drive better and (the big one) drive less.

MadrigalElectromotive · 24/09/2015 17:55

special Just interested really - what is wrong with aircon and airbags in cars? I am very grateful for both of them in mine! Smile

specialsubject · 24/09/2015 19:24

aircon guzzles fuel and is unnecessary 95% of the time in the UK. Obviously many yanks need it as they live in a rough climate. For us, mostly travelling below 50mph on crowded roads, opening the windows uses less fuel than aircon. Sunroofs were good too but they went out for some reason. Lugging round the heavy aircon equipment uses more fuel too. (driving properly, not brake-accelerate-brake is obviously the biggest factor)

airbags were introduced because yanks wouldn't wear seatbelts. If you are wearing a seatbelt you don't need the ear damage and possible further injury from the airbag. And of course they have to be disabled if there is a baby in the seat as they kill babies.

lean burn would use a lot less fuel, but we took a wrong turn and went to cats.

RickRoll · 25/09/2015 18:11

aircon doesn't 'guzzle' fuel, it may increase fuel consumption by 5%.

OP posts:
specialsubject · 25/09/2015 19:18

still 5% wasted. That's guzzling in my book. Would you throw away 5% of your income on something useless?

if anyone knows of any cars without aircon, please let me know. I don't buy new but even the 16 year old cars have it now.

RickRoll · 27/09/2015 21:06

you could always turn off the air con......

OP posts:
specialsubject · 27/09/2015 21:36

oh, I do. Never use it. That's one reason why I get such good mpg - but I could get better if the car had less useless weight on board.

HermioneWeasley · 27/09/2015 21:39

Watching Kate Garraway on GMTV trying to get her head around what they had done was painful. She had that not very bright lad (Ben Sheppard?) patiently going over it. It was painful to watch.

Millymollymama · 27/09/2015 23:56

We have a mini without aircon.

We have diesel for our main cars due to much greater mpg than their petrol equivalents. This is why diesel sales in the UK are high, especially in the larger car market. Land Rover sell hardly any petrol Discovery cars here for example. Our Porsche Macan S is doing 45 mpg. The petrol one will do 35 mpg. They cost the same to buy. At the moment diesel is the same price as petrol. We rarely drive in cities. I have a strong feeling that most diesel buyers in this country feel the same way do - we want the extra fuel economy and deisels are now fast and efficient. Very fast in the Macan! Do people here really buy cars based on emissions? A few in the Green Party maybe, but very few other people. Most people look at how a car benefits their lifestyle, how much it costs to buy and run, its size and capabilities, what it is like to drive, and how well it is made and whether it is a "good buy" or not. Safety standards, depreciation, cost of extras and some other factors will be taken into consideration.

The USA emission controls are very draconian to protect their own car makers, who, as rightly identified above, make few diesels. VW made the huge mistake of thinking it could get into the USA market with diesel cars because, like us, they might buy into greater fuel efficiency. VW then cheated on the tests and marketed their cars as "clean". I still think VW make some excellent cars, the Golf in particular. We, however, cannot have it all. Fuel economy, acceleration and low emissions.

specialsubject · 28/09/2015 10:04

'cannot have it all' - exactly.

diesels do indeed make senses for country drivers with high mileage, although my 2 litre petrol car gets 40mpg, often on relatively short runs. A diesel would make no sense for me, especially as I buy car about 10 years old when diesels were really disastrous.

correct - no-one buys cars on emissions. If you believe the ads, all we care about is colour and where to put our handbags, but hopefully there are those who think about fuel economy, durability and practicality.

Don’t want to miss threads like this?

Weekly

Sign up to our weekly round up and get all the best threads sent straight to your inbox!

Log in to update your newsletter preferences.

You've subscribed!

QuintShhhhhh · 29/09/2015 06:57

"We didn't have pea-soup in the 1960s-70s California."

Dont you think there were less cars on the roads some, err 50 odd years ago??

Have you checked car ownership and population in the 1960s versus population and car ownership now?

fearandloathinginambridge · 29/09/2015 12:18

When you say that 'we' aren't that focused on deaths caused by emissions what do you mean? Where are you getting that from?

I work in the environmental sector and on projects that are strongly concerned with limiting emissions to air from combustion (NOx, SOx, Particulate Matter etc) and involve keeping up to date with the regulatory frameworks that cover air quality in the UK. I am mystified by your statement, it's very misleading. Unless you can clarify?

4merlyknownasSHD · 29/09/2015 13:37

specialsubject, those of us who are lucky enough to have company cars (in the UK) certainly do look at emissions as it impacts on the "Benefit-in-Kind" rate for income tax. Roughly speaking, double the CO2 emissions doubles the percentage of the car's value you have to pay tax on. I wouldn't look at a new car without that information to hand.

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.