EPA and VW diesels - 'dyno' and 'road' modes - Page 8 - Defender Source
Defender Source  

Go Back   Defender Source > Non-Technical Discussions > Misc. Chit-Chat


Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #141  
Old September 26th, 2015, 04:16 AM
Rocky's Avatar
Rocky
Status: Offline
Chris
72 + D1 drivetrain
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Colonies Aka Boston
Posts: 8,762
2016 VW diesels being held by US Govt and denied entry to US.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
  #142  
Old September 26th, 2015, 07:44 AM
transientmechanic's Avatar
transientmechanic
Status: Offline
Adam
1972 SIII
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 786
Another job for Will Hedrick
Reply With Quote
  #143  
Old September 27th, 2015, 10:10 AM
1of40's Avatar
1of40
Status: Offline
1of40
NAS 97SW & 83 One Ten Tdi
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Potomac Falls & Wintergreen, Virginia
Posts: 6,075
Registry
Please ignore if this has already been discussed. I didn't have an appreciation for how bad this issue is until I realized these VW's may be declared unregisterable. I heard California has already said as much. Apparently VW has hired the same law firm BP selected for their fuck up.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
  #144  
Old September 27th, 2015, 10:18 AM
jafir's Avatar
jafir
Status: Offline
Jafir Elkurd
Flaky Green 198something ex-mod 90
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Centerton, AR
Posts: 1,580
Registry
I cannot imagine they'd try to take thousands of car away from people. I mean they cannot even manage 40 without screwing everything up. Also they didn't make any of the other past emissions cheaters take the cars off the road.
Reply With Quote
  #145  
Old September 27th, 2015, 10:26 AM
1of40's Avatar
1of40
Status: Offline
1of40
NAS 97SW & 83 One Ten Tdi
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Potomac Falls & Wintergreen, Virginia
Posts: 6,075
Registry
Quote:
Originally Posted by jafir View Post
I cannot imagine they'd do try to take thousands of car away from people. I mean they cannot even manage 40 without screwing everything up. Also they didn't make any of the other past emissions cheaters take the cars off the road.
Yeah, can you imagine the nightmare? How does a state let a known VW emitting 40x the limit register and deny another? Equally concerning and very telling is I understand EPA requires the manufacturers to do their own testing on new vehicles entering the domestic market and report their own results because there isn't the wherewithal within the EPA to do its own testing. Wow!
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Reply With Quote
  #146  
Old September 27th, 2015, 02:50 PM
NPT90's Avatar
NPT90
Status: Offline
JT
D90 óriginalé
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: DC/MD
Posts: 2,772
Registry
Hoping for a buyback!
Reply With Quote
  #147  
Old September 27th, 2015, 03:22 PM
Rocky's Avatar
Rocky
Status: Offline
Chris
72 + D1 drivetrain
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Colonies Aka Boston
Posts: 8,762
I'm sure someone in CARB is trying to see if they have the statutory authority to instruct the Kalifornia DMV not to renew any registration for an affected vehicle.
Reply With Quote
  #148  
Old September 27th, 2015, 03:54 PM
1of40's Avatar
1of40
Status: Offline
1of40
NAS 97SW & 83 One Ten Tdi
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Potomac Falls & Wintergreen, Virginia
Posts: 6,075
Registry
Quote:
Originally Posted by NPT90 View Post
Hoping for a buyback!
that's probable. 15+ years ago I challenged VWNA under the Washington DC Lemon laws and won. The whole process took almost three years and they were required to pay full price, including sales tax, and reasonable expenses in excess of normal maintenance that I could substantiate. That's was a great day because they ignored all the early signs and tried to play dumb/innocent.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Reply With Quote
  #149  
Old September 29th, 2015, 12:38 PM
LuisC's Avatar
LuisC
Status: Offline
Luis Constantin
98 Disvovery 1 LE
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Austin,Texas USA
Posts: 1,898
Registry
You think your VW TDI pollutes! Would you give THIS up to save the planet?
http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/29/opinio...ees/index.html

Chick-fil-a has it wrong. Eat more Beef.
__________________
Black Rhino Lives Matter
Reply With Quote
  #150  
Old September 29th, 2015, 01:49 PM
Viton's Avatar
Viton
Status: Offline
Deaf Ember
Smart 4x4
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: La
Posts: 1,229
The VW “scandal”

Posted: 28 Sep 2015 By Eric Peters, Automotive Columnist
This could kill VW — until recently (until last week) the world’s largest car company.

But unlike say the exploding Pinto fiasco this is not a story about defective cars. It is a story about defective public policy.

None of the VW cars now in the crosshairs are unreliable, dangerous or shoddily built. They were simply programmed to give their owners best-case fuel economy and performance. Software embedded within each vehicle’s computer — which monitors and controls the operation of the engine — would furtively adjust those parameters slightly to sneak by emissions tests when the vehicle was plugged in for testing. But once out on the road, the calibrations would revert to optimal — for mileage and performance.

Now, the hysterical media accounts of the above make it seem that the alteration via code of the vehicles’ exhaust emissions was anything but slight. Shrill cries of up to “40 times” the “allowable maximum” echo across the land.

Well, true.
But, misleading.
Because not defined — put in context.
What is the “allowable maximum”?
It is a very small number.

Less than 1 percent of the total volume of the car’s exhaust. We are talking fractions of percentages here. Which is why talk of “40 percent” is so misleading and, frankly, deliberately dishonest.

Left out of context, the figure sounds alarming. As in 40 percent of 100 percent.

As opposed to 40 percent of the remaining unscrubed 1-3 percent or .05 percent or whatever it is (depending on the specific “harmful” byproduct being belabored).

The truth — explained rarely, for reasons that will become obvious — is that the emissions of new cars (and recent-vintage cars) have been so thoroughly cleaned up they hardly exist at all. Catalytic converters (and especially “three way” catalytic converters with oxygen sensors) and fuel injection alone eliminated about two-thirds of the objectionable effluvia from the exhaust stream — and they’ve been around since the 1980s.

Most of the remaining third was dealt with during the ’90s, via more precise forms of fuel delivery (port fuel injection replaced throttle body fuel injection) and more sophisticated engine computers capable of real-time monitoring and adjustment of parameters, and of alerting the vehicle’s owner to the need for a check (OBD II).

Since the late ’90s/early 2000s, the industry has been chasing diminishing returns. The remaining 3 percent or so of the exhaust stream that’s not been “controlled.”

You may begin to see the problem here.
Internal combustion is always going to produce some emissions. The engineers have picked the low hanging (and mid-hanging) fruit. But the EPA insists on what amounts to a zero emissions internal combustion engine.

Which, of course, is impossible.
Which may be just the point.
Set unattainable standards — then denounce the victim for “noncompliance.”

VW’s sin was trying to get diesels that people would want to buy into the showrooms. These would be diesels that went farther than an otherwise-equivalent gas-engined car on a gallon of fuel to offset the higher up-front cost of buying the diesel-powered vehicle. Or at least, far enough — relative to the gas-engined equivalent — to justify the price premium.

People also expected — demanded — that the vehicles perform. That they accelerate when the accelerator is pushed.
VW set the calibrations to deliver those things. The operating characteristics its customers want.
VW is in hot water because of that. Because it put customers — rather than government — first.

No one has alleged that any of the “affected” vehicles runs poorly. The fact is they run better than they would have if VW had set the calibrations to appease the implacable EPA.

Which will never be appeased until we’re all driving $60,000 “zero emissions” electric cars we can’t afford. Which will put most of us into public (that is, government) transport. If we’re transported at all. Probably, we’ll be herded into urban cores, stacked like proles — for the sake of “the environment.”

It is a tragedy of stupidity and maliciousness and engineering ignorance.
Consider, for instance, the fact that if it were not for federal “safety” mandates, VW (and other car companies) would be able to sell vehicles hundreds of pounds lighter than the current average. Which, in turn, would allow for smaller engines — which burn less fuel. Which, in turn produce a lesser volume of exhaust. Even if a hypothetical 1,600 pound ultra-light vehicle’s exhaust stream were, let’s say, 2 percent “dirtier” than a current 2,300 pound EPA (and DOT) approved “safety” car’s, if the ultra-light burns 40 percent less fuel, its total output is still much lower than the government-approved car’s.

But such cars (the ultra-lights) have — effectively — been legislated out of existence.
At the same time, the cars that may still be manufactured are required to meet increasingly unattainable standards, putting the manufacturers (like VW) in the position of manufacturing government-compliant cars that cost too much and perform poorly that few will want to buy… or “cheating” the government, in order to build cars people will actually want to buy.

What’s happening to VW could have come right out of Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand’s cumbersome but nonetheless predictive novel of 50 years ago. VW cast as the real-life version of Rearden Steel.

Some inside baseball: Mazda has been trying to get its Sky-D diesel engine EPA-compliant (while also customer-viable) for the past two years, without success so far. You are denied this 50-plus MPG (and extremely clean) diesel because of the particulate jihadists in Washington.

Remember: In neither case (VW or Mazda) are we talking about a return to the LA of the early ’70s, a feasting on lead chip paints and bathing in DDT? It’s all a bogey at this point. A straw man. A phantom, meant to scare you. But it has no reality.

The “emissions problem” has been solved — decades ago. But the EPA, et al, cannot admit this.
Reply With Quote
  #151  
Old September 29th, 2015, 02:18 PM
transientmechanic's Avatar
transientmechanic
Status: Offline
Adam
1972 SIII
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 786
Bravo
Reply With Quote
  #152  
Old September 29th, 2015, 02:34 PM
don's Avatar
don
Status: Offline
Don Bunnell
'86 110 3dr ST
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Rumson, NJ
Posts: 4,271
Registry
I remember reading years ago that Saab's 900 would put out cleaner air than it took in if you drove in NYC.

I was in Paris recently and with all the diesel cars, trucks and buses the air seemed very clean. And we were outside almost the whole day walking around.
Reply With Quote
  #153  
Old September 29th, 2015, 02:35 PM
evilfij's Avatar
evilfij
Status: Offline
evilfij
I have never seen a rover in person
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: on the internet
Posts: 14,688
My father's normally aspirated 1981 VW rabbit diesel was rated at 42 mpg city; 56 mpg highway.

A 2011 VW TDI Golf is rated at 30 mpg city; 42 highway.

There is absolutely no reason other than the .gov that we can't have a modern 80mpg small diesel car.
__________________
*not legal advice*
Reply With Quote
  #154  
Old September 29th, 2015, 02:42 PM
Broncoduecer's Avatar
Broncoduecer
Status: Offline
peter
D90
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: NV
Posts: 1,431
Awesome post!
Reply With Quote
  #155  
Old September 29th, 2015, 02:53 PM
TRG
Status: Offline
David Gage
67 Series 2a
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Boca Raton
Posts: 39
Registry
Great post indeed. Last December I compared the fuel efficiency of the VW diesel with another "domestically" produced car and after weighing the advantages of price, power and efficiency I opted to buy a Chevy Cruze...diesel (2 ltr TDi). Yes there is such a beast. On my recent trip to TN, all highway miles, I got 46.7 MPG, my normal average of mixed driving is 42 MPG. and there is plenty of get up and go too!



DG
Reply With Quote
  #156  
Old September 29th, 2015, 03:07 PM
sonoronos's Avatar
sonoronos
Status: Offline
Ed
None
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 5,523
Registry
Reading that Eric Peters article was like eating a bowl of dirt because someone told you it was chocolate ice cream.

'The “emissions problem” has been solved — decades ago.' Sure thing, dude.

Again, the auto journalists are making stuff up out of nowhere. The dumbs are still flowing non-stop.
Reply With Quote
  #157  
Old September 29th, 2015, 03:11 PM
rijosho's Avatar
rijosho
Status: Offline
Joshua
1995 Black ST - Rhinolined edition
Research Assistant/Eagle Eyes
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 16,557
Registry
Quote:
Originally Posted by Viton View Post
What is the “allowable maximum”?
It is a very small number.

Less than 1 percent of the total volume of the car’s exhaust. We are talking fractions of percentages here. Which is why talk of “40 percent” is so misleading and, frankly, deliberately dishonest.

Which, of course, is impossible.
Which may be just the point.
Set unattainable standards — then denounce the victim for “noncompliance.”
Sounds like something Josh said a while back! Honestly there are so few people who actually understand that the EPA is motivated more by the lobbyists (agriculture, energy, auto, etc.) and other special interests at any given time rather than the environment itself.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rijosho View Post
I actually agree with you for once. I had this whole inclination that the EPA was likely setting unrealistic emissions expectations on diesel imports to help protect the domestic automakers who hadn't yet developed much in the way of diesels (they've been focusing on hybrids) for smaller cars.
__________________
Quote:
I am talking purely from an aesthetics standpoint.
Reply With Quote
  #158  
Old September 29th, 2015, 03:14 PM
LRNAD90's Avatar
LRNAD90
Status: Offline
Scott T
1995 Defender 90 ST
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Maryland
Posts: 1,264
Registry
Quote:
Originally Posted by rijosho View Post
Honestly there are so few people who actually understand that the EPA is motivated more by the lobbyists (agriculture, energy, auto, etc.) and other special interests at any given time rather than the environment itself.
Sad but true, and its not just the EPA that operates this way.. LOL!
__________________
~Scott T.
'95 D-90 ST - AA Yellow
"If you're not living on the edge, you're taking up too much space!"


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Reply With Quote
  #159  
Old September 29th, 2015, 03:21 PM
sonoronos's Avatar
sonoronos
Status: Offline
Ed
None
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 5,523
Registry
Do people really think that Americans aren't driving 1600lb economy cars because of the EPA?

Total BS. People on this forum are quite vocal about hating Priuses and automatic transmissions. Clearly, without a doubt, they would definitely buy 1600lb economy cars if they had the choice, it's just the man holding them down. Everyone knows that Defender owners would be teetotalling vegans clutching their man-purses if it weren't for the EPA.

For reals?
Reply With Quote
  #160  
Old September 29th, 2015, 03:39 PM
jafir's Avatar
jafir
Status: Offline
Jafir Elkurd
Flaky Green 198something ex-mod 90
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Centerton, AR
Posts: 1,580
Registry
Quote:
Originally Posted by sonoronos View Post
Do people really think that Americans aren't driving 1600lb economy cars because of the EPA?
That's actually not what was said. He said safety, not emissions. So I'm guessing DOT or NHTSA. And I honestly think that SOME of the hyper-miler crowd would give up some safety for better MPG by way of smaller, lighter vehicles. I'm not one of them, but I would like to be able to make an informed choice about safety, and decline a more expensively built "safer" vehicle. For example a Defender. A newer Defender would have been nice, and I'd be happy even understanding it doesn't have airbags.

The point was that a lighter vehicle with a smaller engine would make less total emissions than a "cleaner" engine that is bigger and therefore burns more fuel. The things are all measured in parts per million, so if you have more exhaust, even if the ppm is lower, you still release more total "bad" stuff.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Lower Navigation
Go Back   Defender Source > Non-Technical Discussions > Misc. Chit-Chat

Tags
diesel, mod

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Dyno tuning ECU... Doug Defender Technical Discussions 16 September 11th, 2009 03:26 PM
Taking the D-90 to the Dyno sflash868 Defender Technical Discussions 4 May 22nd, 2008 02:38 PM
New EPA laws shawnpalmer Misc. Chit-Chat 2 May 14th, 2008 10:45 AM
97 NAS D90 dyno daze ECR Defender Technical Discussions 22 May 12th, 2007 07:55 PM
EPA/DOT Compliance? gtg067i Misc. Chit-Chat 4 April 18th, 2006 04:07 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:31 PM.


Copyright