Slashdot Mirror


Volkswagen Emissions Issues Spread To Gasoline Cars (bloomberg.com)

schwit1 writes: Just a day after news broke that Volkswagen's emissions scandal had expanded to its Porsche unit and Audi SUVs, the company has disclosed yet another problem, this time affecting carbon dioxide levels emitted by their cars. "Volkswagen said an internal probe showed 800,000 cars had "unexplained inconsistencies" concerning their carbon-dioxide output. Previously, the automaker estimated it would need to recall 11 million vehicles worldwide — more than Volkswagen sold last year." This batch of cars includes a small number of gasoline engines. Until now, only diesel engines were part of the problem.

208 comments

  1. No car hits its official CO2 output level by Viol8 · · Score: 3

    Or its mpg for that matter, simply because the lab tests whether EU, US or elsewhere don't match real world conditions. Whether VW is refering to its lab results - in which case well duh - or real world driving - TFA doesn't say - it really shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone. Personally I'd be looking VERY closely at the figures for hybrids because the real world driving test mpg & CO2 is frequently so far removed from the lab results that it might as well be for an entirely different vehicle.

    1. Re:No car hits its official CO2 output level by Kartu · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, it hasn't been even lab results, they've just made up some numbers.

      PS
      CO2 can be calculated from known mpg or l/100km.

    2. Re:No car hits its official CO2 output level by Tx · · Score: 2

      Or its mpg for that matter

      My VW diesel has a claimed 55mpg, and I get 50mpg on a short (15 minute, half town, half highway) commute, as long as I obey the speed limit. It can drop to 40 if I'm in a hurry. I don't really know exactly what driving conditions the "combined cycle" mpg figure is meant to represent, but to me 50mpg seemed pretty close to the claimed figure, to be honest. If their other infringements were that marginal, I don't think they'd be in so much trouble.

      --
      Oh no... it's the future.
    3. Re:No car hits its official CO2 output level by peragrin · · Score: 3, Informative

      Under idealized driving conditions. Slow,gentle acceleration no sharp corners, level terrain keeping the engine at less than 2,000 rpm at all the time I can get up to 70 mph and beat the manufacturer mpg estimates by quite a bit. Of course that means a zero to 60 time of about 45 Seconds

      The big difference is real world people don't drive like granny's who can't see.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    4. Re:No car hits its official CO2 output level by Viol8 · · Score: 1

      "CO2 can be calculated from known mpg or l/100km."

      Not with diesels it can't since a lot of the carbon from the fuel ends up as soot depending on how hard the engine is working.

    5. Re:No car hits its official CO2 output level by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stop with your fucking GAS! BRAKE! GAS! BRAKE! GAS! BRAKE! tailgating and maybe your fucking numbers will improve. You see that car that keeps getting farther away from you then closer again and farther again? That's me, just driving along at a constant speed while I watch you GAS! BRAKE! GAS! BRAKE!

      We don't use cars nearly as much in 2043, but I can consistently get 40 mpg on the highway/36 mpg city driving out of my old ass 2013 Fiesta. The manual transmission probably helps.

      Jeebus, I guess I just had to see this time period for myself, and I fucking majored in history! No wonder you cows blow it all up. You're completely unaware of your own actions and convinced your unawareness constitutes the "real world."

      The walk to the gas station will be for your own good.

      UNLESS

    6. Re: No car hits its official CO2 output level by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hello time traveler, would you kindly give me next week's powerball numbers? Kthxbye

    7. Re:No car hits its official CO2 output level by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      CO2 can be calculated from known mpg or l/100km.

      Not with diesels it can't since a lot of the carbon from the fuel ends up as soot depending on how hard the engine is working.

      The automobile diesel production of soot is trivial, compared to their production of NOx and suchlike. As such, it makes almost no difference to the calculation for CO2 from mpg (CO would have a slightly larger effect). However, diesel engines produce much less CO than gasoline engines.

      Then again, exhaust from traffic (both diesel and gasoline) is the largest avoidable cause of heart attacks. Diesels contribute through larger amounts of NOx and soot, and smaller amounts of CO and CO2 per mile. Gasoline engines contribute through smaller amounts of NOx and soot, and larger amounts of CO and CO2 per mile.

    8. Re:No car hits its official CO2 output level by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With a Prius, I can get above the maker's MPG numbers. Drafting a semi gives me a 20% fuel savings, and pulse and glide (accelerate to 70, coast to 45, repeat) can get me some impressive figures.

      Not rocket science, folks.

    9. Re:No car hits its official CO2 output level by Viol8 · · Score: 1

      "The automobile diesel production of soot is trivial"

      No, it really isn't. Take off the particulate trap and floor the throttle and you'll see black smoke spew out of the exhaust.

    10. Re:No car hits its official CO2 output level by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      You make a very excellent case for diesel hybrid. An engine that is tuned to produce slightly more power (overall) than is needed for average driving, would be the most efficient one made.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    11. Re:No car hits its official CO2 output level by TWX · · Score: 2

      Or its mpg for that matter, simply because the lab tests whether EU, US or elsewhere don't match real world conditions. Whether VW is refering to its lab results - in which case well duh - or real world driving - TFA doesn't say - it really shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone. Personally I'd be looking VERY closely at the figures for hybrids because the real world driving test mpg & CO2 is frequently so far removed from the lab results that it might as well be for an entirely different vehicle.

      Funny you say that... My wife gets 30 mpg with her '01 Integra, which is better than the 21 city, 23 combined, 28 highway EPA rating, on a mostly-highway commute. I average between 17 and 18 mpg with my '95 Impala on a commute that's half city, half highway, and I drive it like I stole it. EPA says it should get 15 city, 18 mixed, 23 highway.

      We are both getting expected or better than expected results. I don't think that the EPA numbers are out of line.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    12. Re:No car hits its official CO2 output level by kilfarsnar · · Score: 1

      Stop with your fucking GAS! BRAKE! GAS! BRAKE! GAS! BRAKE! tailgating and maybe your fucking numbers will improve. You see that car that keeps getting farther away from you then closer again and farther again? That's me, just driving along at a constant speed while I watch you GAS! BRAKE! GAS! BRAKE!

      We don't use cars nearly as much in 2043, but I can consistently get 40 mpg on the highway/36 mpg city driving out of my old ass 2013 Fiesta. The manual transmission probably helps.

      Jeebus, I guess I just had to see this time period for myself, and I fucking majored in history! No wonder you cows blow it all up. You're completely unaware of your own actions and convinced your unawareness constitutes the "real world."

      The walk to the gas station will be for your own good.

      UNLESS

      John Titor lives!

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    13. Re:No car hits its official CO2 output level by TheCastro1689 · · Score: 1

      Some car companies (most probably) remove the seats, spare tires, carpeting, parts of the dash, etc so that the car becomes much much lighter for the testing.

    14. Re:No car hits its official CO2 output level by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds to me like you haven't driven a hybrid. Most of the ones I've driven meet the state mileage as long as you drive appropriately. Many hybrid owners get better mileage much to my dismay as that generally means they start at a light very slowly.

      Even my G37 gets the stated mileage and I drive that without thinking about it. Sure, if I'm driving 120mph up a hill my mileage is going to be pretty bad, but 75 on a freeway, yeah, it'll be right.

      Mileage estimates were changed about 10 years ago to reflect typical driving scenarios. Since then they are much more accurate.

    15. Re:No car hits its official CO2 output level by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Then why do diesels that never had a particulate trap to begin with (i.e., the majority ten years ago) not produce that black smoke?

    16. Re:No car hits its official CO2 output level by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With a Prius, I can get above the maker's MPG numbers. Drafting a semi gives me a 20% fuel savings, and pulse and glide (accelerate to 70, coast to 45, repeat) can get me some impressive figures.

      Not rocket science, folks.

      You drive a Prius... enough said.

    17. Re:No car hits its official CO2 output level by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No car hits its official CO2 output level or its mpg for that matter

      Every car I've ever owned has understated its mpg by about 10% compared to my real-world driving.

    18. Re:No car hits its official CO2 output level by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean the trap that regenerates by burning off or catalytically converting the soot to CO2? Even without that, the soot is a small fraction of the carbon in the system. Unless you're regularly dumping piles of soot out every time you fill the fuel tank, it doesn't significantly affect the CO2 calculations.

    19. Re: No car hits its official CO2 output level by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AETpNL_LaIc&itct=CBAQpDAYCCITCJKj-caj98gCFesYfgodxCMOkjIHcmVsYXRlZEjA3arzxIGjywo%3DD

    20. Re:No car hits its official CO2 output level by sexconker · · Score: 1

      GAS BRAKE HONK
      GAS BRAKE HONK
      HONK HONK PUNCH
      GAS GAS GAS

      Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.
      Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.

    21. Re:No car hits its official CO2 output level by Yunzil · · Score: 2

      My car gets exactly what it said on the window sticker.

    22. Re:No car hits its official CO2 output level by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I don't have to drive like that at all, and every car I've ever owned has about 10% better MPG than rated by the manufacturer. The trick is not to be the idiot flooring the gas just to be the first to stomp on the brakes at the next stop light. On the highway learn how to accurately gauge the flow of traffic and adjust your speed so that you don't need to constantly brake and accelerate. A trick the learning the technique is to drive as if your brakes don't work. That's all you have to do.

    23. Re:No car hits its official CO2 output level by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny you say that... My wife gets 30 mpg with her '01 Integra, which is better than the 21 city, 23 combined, 28 highway EPA rating, on a mostly-highway commute. I average between 17 and 18 mpg with my '95 Impala on a commute that's half city, half highway, and I drive it like I stole it. EPA says it should get 15 city, 18 mixed, 23 highway. We are both getting expected or better than expected results. I don't think that the EPA numbers are out of line.

      That's just terrible. I manage around 60mpg on the highway without even trying. Serves me right for buying a diesel I suppose.

    24. Re:No car hits its official CO2 output level by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but VW and pretty much every German car company advertises 'perfection' (in that they exceed it).

    25. Re:No car hits its official CO2 output level by Smask · · Score: 1

      Don't forget taping all gaps around the doors/bonnet/boot shut. Change to tires with lower rolling resistance and then over-pressurize them. Disconnect AC and generator and run everything from the battery.

    26. Re:No car hits its official CO2 output level by Rising+Ape · · Score: 1

      They do - at least the ones I see around here.

      And occasionally I see black smoke from diesel cars that should be new enough to have a DPF. Not sure what's going on there.

    27. Re:No car hits its official CO2 output level by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe you are just referring to "clean diesels", but I drive a 2000 TDI, don't have a particulate trap, and have hardly ever seen black smoke from my car. I do see white smoke puffs at first startup (after several hours of being off), and rarely it gets into a mode that creates white smoke while driving in the city (low speed, can last for several minutes - I suspect this could be fixed, but I'm leery of spending $$$s on a 15 year old car worth maybe $2000).

      At any rate, I can floor it, when the engine is warm, and definitely don't get black smoke, possibly just a puff of white, or none at all. This is a VW ALH type engine.

    28. Re:No car hits its official CO2 output level by ai4px · · Score: 1

      Agreed. The EPA rating of my Honda says I should get 38 and a consistently get 40MPG, often 42MPG on my 25 mile commute to work. My commute is mostly mid speed highway with no stop and go. I think the EPA numbers are spot on.

    29. Re:No car hits its official CO2 output level by 19thNervousBreakdown · · Score: 1

      Slow, gentle acceleration at low RPMs is about the least fuel-efficient way you could possibly do it. You're wasting gas, and annoying.

      --
      <xml><I><am><so><damn>Web 2.0</damn></so></am></I></xml>
    30. Re:No car hits its official CO2 output level by KGIII · · Score: 1

      My plow truck is an F-350 and I see a surprisingly little amount of smoke. I dunno what the difference is but it's generally only going to smoke if it's just started on a cold day or if I decide to stomp on the throttle for some reason and then I don't notice any at highway speed even if I do give it some extra fuel. I just figure they're burning at a higher temp? It's a big ol' 6.7 liter so it's not like it shouldn't be smoking - I was actually expecting more.

      I do have an old 85 Quantum. That's gasoline, however. I don't expect that it is a part of this scandal. It is, however, kind of fun. I like it because of the syncro. It was rather forward thinking, in its day. I'm not sure what happened to the company. To my mind, the name has always meant 'above average quality' but I've not bothered owning one (or even testing one) in a long time. I've driven a buddy's Jetta and been fairly impressed, it handled well and had acceptable power. The trim wasn't bad, not great. The road-feel was more than acceptable. The controls were intuitive and the sound system was nice. He'd great reliability with it, while he owned it, at least. I'd guess that would have been a 2010 or so? It was a couple of years ago that I drove it.

      'Tis a shame, really. I suspect they're not alone. I'm kind of watching the stock (VOW3) to see where it goes. I've faith in a recovery so I'll take advantage of that. I haven't checked since Friday.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    31. Re:No car hits its official CO2 output level by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Umm... I don't think they're actually allowed to do any of that. That doesn't mean they're not - it just means that I think that would be a clear violation of the regulations. I'm kind of hoping that we'd have noticed them doing that.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    32. Re:No car hits its official CO2 output level by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those numbers aren't the issue. If they didn't hit their CO2 output numbers, they wouldn't be allowed on the road in Germany since there are mandatory technical inspections.

    33. Re:No car hits its official CO2 output level by Mashiki · · Score: 2

      A properly running diesel doesn't produce smoke unless it's under very heavy load or it's very cold. Which leads to incomplete burning, used to be you could tell the problem with a diesel by the smell and looking at the exhaust. Many of the incomplete burning problems especially in trucks were replaced by more gear ratios to allow better efficiency under load. In diesel cars it was pre-heating the air, because they lack the super charger setup that diesel trucks and trains use. Blue-black smoke was another common one, that was usually because the fuel governor was either tampered with, failing or improper misting of the diesel due to a clogged injection port inside the piston chamber or at the very end of the intake manifold. Used to be common as well, to adjust the governor to get more power, by dumping in more diesel at low power ratios, meaning a incomplete burn. That was also doable on cars, where it got screwy is where they changed the SOX emissions standard and how the diesel was refined, and suddenly there were a lot of trucks and cars dumping black smoke, especially on acceleration and load. Just like back in the 1980's.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    34. Re:No car hits its official CO2 output level by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I live somewhere where the majority of cars are diesels and as far as I can remember, smoke from the exhaust has always been rare, something that you would only see on very old and poorly maintained cars.

    35. Re:No car hits its official CO2 output level by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately, they are allowed to - the rules say very little about whether and how the car may be prepared and the official driving cycle hasn't changed since the 1970s. All manufacturers pull such tricks. They didn't use to, but since governments started to base taxes on CO2 emissions and since the EU set CO2 targets for the car industry, they have been looking for ways to artificially lower the reported values.

    36. Re:No car hits its official CO2 output level by KGIII · · Score: 1

      That's nuts! Thanks for the link. That's... That's just straight up abuse! The strange part is, I get better efficiency on pretty much everything I own. Why bother? Just drive like a human - and I'm not the least bit gentle, I just maintain my speed and am efficient. Easy on, easy off. Well, okay, I'm not always gentle. But I usually average better than the official numbers - even with the 'new' EPA numbers. Perhaps they're also optimizing for burn temperature and that's lowering their numbers....

      That's just crazy talk. I am... I am surprised - I'd have figured that shit would be outlawed. When I'm Supreme Rule of the Galaxy, somebody's either going to jail or is going to stop that shit. That's the EU market but, well, now I'd not be surprised to see them doing it in other markets as well.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    37. Re:No car hits its official CO2 output level by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      The claim that poor efficiency results from gradual acceleration is based on assumptions violated in the real world. High torque and high RPM conditions cause nonlinear losses that worsen economy: torque converter slip, windage losses in the intake and exhaust systems, and richening of the fuel/air mixture to get maximum power.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    38. Re:No car hits its official CO2 output level by Smask · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the links. I replied with points picked out of memory. My misses were using extra high grade lubrication and the returning break callipers.

      Those rules needs to be upgraded with at least driving the car for a period of time/driven a minimum distance in normal traffic where you have to break hard at least once and then put it directly in the lab. My Mercedes Vito van would get seriously lower mpg if they had done that. Crappy breaking system, I'll have to put new discs and pads on all four wheels.

    39. Re:No car hits its official CO2 output level by Shirley+Marquez · · Score: 1

      I don't know about the CO2; I don't have the equipment to test that. But on the times I have had the opportunity to drive a hybrid I have done BETTER than the EPA scores.

  2. What? CO2 inconsistent? by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 3, Informative

    Carbon dioxide is simply the product of combustion. It is not the result of incomplete combustion or anything. Nitrous/Nitric oxides are due to unintended combustion of nitrogen, carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons are due to incomplete combustion, but carbon dioxide ??? What is going on there?

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:What? CO2 inconsistent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Adjusting the fuel mix to fiddle tests is the problem. Burn less fuel when you're not in a real world conditions, you'll have less pollutant spewing from the exhaust. This isn't about clean burning, it's about how much is being burnt and under what conditions.

      Just compare it to the fraudulent efforts nvidia and ati used to go to trying to detect whether they were operating under real world loads (games) or benchmarks (where they could reduce IQ for higher throughput). Clearly VW have been doing this for a long time, and you can bet your bottom dollarpoundeuro they're not alone.

    2. Re:What? CO2 inconsistent? by rickb928 · · Score: 0

      Carbon dioxide is simply a product of combustion.

      FTFY.

      If it were as easy as calculating it from MPG or even fuel consumption, they wouldn't bother to measure it. They would calculate it.

      Not that simple, it is.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    3. Re:What? CO2 inconsistent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it is that simple and it is calculated from the mpg, the problem is that mpg is highly variable depending on how you drive

    4. Re:What? CO2 inconsistent? by jareth-0205 · · Score: 1

      "What is going on there?"

      Politicians cashing in on the carefully nurtured panic about global warming and its association with CO2. They could have just said "the car more fuel than expected" ... but that is too tame to stir up the public with.

      Or it's the emissions that we're concerned about, not the fuel usage. Sure, they go hand-in-hand, but from a regulation point of view we're worried about the pollutants more than the raw usage of fuel.

    5. Re:What? CO2 inconsistent? by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      The increased attention has drawn increased scrutiny and attention to a normal deviation. VW says they've noticed a small subset of cars with inconsistencies--if you're 3 standards away from mean, you're going to find 99.7% fall within your bounds and the other 0.3% stand out, of which 0.15% are on the top end. For all appearances, it looks like VW has noticed that quality control isn't 100% perfect--surprise--and some of their gasoline cars are deviating.

      Different problem, and not a problem.

    6. Re:What? CO2 inconsistent? by DigiShaman · · Score: 2

      Yeah, about to say the same. C02 is proportional to the amount of fuel you burn. Got a lead foot and like to drive fast, your MPG will go down proportionally with increase in C02. That is a huge "duh" factor. Anyone that doesn't understand that with a hydrocarbon, released carbon will bind with oxygen when burned, needs to be shamed into performing seppuku for their ignorance.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    7. Re:What? CO2 inconsistent? by ceriphim · · Score: 1

      needs to be shamed into performing seppuku for their ignorance

      Hyperbolic much? Think outside your bubble, friend. I would wager that if asked, an overwhelming majority of the population wouldn't know what you're talking about when you say, "released carbon emitted from hydrocarbon combustion", except in the most general sense.

    8. Re:What? CO2 inconsistent? by trout007 · · Score: 1

      Oxides of nitrogen are created anytime oxygen and nitrogen are at high temperatures. It is not incomplete combustion but high compression (hence high temperature) that creates NOx. Lighting creates a significant amount just by hearing the air.

      --
      I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
    9. Re:What? CO2 inconsistent? by budgenator · · Score: 0

      It is that easy to figure, hydrocarbons emitted is subtracted form the fuel used gives you the fuel combusted; the fuel has a fairly accurately know number of carbon atoms which is converted to CO2. If the amount of CO2 varies from the expected at the tailpipe, then either your HC sensor is out of tolerance or your CO2 sensor is.
      I'm sure the only reason they actually measure CO2 is because some EU Bureaucrat with his/her head buried up his/her ass decided to require it to fight the global warming that hasn't happened for 18 years.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    10. Re:What? CO2 inconsistent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hear, hearing the air
      Don't be afraid to care

    11. Re:What? CO2 inconsistent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've cracked the case. Politicians went and made CO2 absorb infrared wavelengths more efficiently than nitrogen and oxygen. Damn those politicians and their evil conspiracies.

    12. Re:What? CO2 inconsistent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      the global warming that hasn't happened for 18 years.

      Yeah, right. 2014 was the globally hottest year on record. The first three quarters of 2015 were the hottest on record, even for land mass and water separately. The graph shows an undisputable upward trend for (at least) the last 20 years.

    13. Re:What? CO2 inconsistent? by KGIII · · Score: 1

      That data has been massaged! You can't trust it!!!

      (I modeled traffic. Any unmassaged data is probably not going to effect the real world when you're working with large data sets. In other words, the above is my bad attempt at humor.)

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    14. Re:What? CO2 inconsistent? by dara · · Score: 1

      I am surprised CO2 is measured directly and not computed based on fuel consumption and other carbon based pollution components. I had hoped that 99.9% of the carbon would move to CO2 in which case it seems pointless do do anything but measure the fuel flow and compute the CO2. However, depending on the car it can be a bit worse. Try googling "Average Annual Emissions and Fuel Consumption for Gasoline-Fueled Passenger Cars and Light Trucks" and read that PDF. On page 4, they give an example with 368.4 g CO2 (12/44 of that is carbon so 100.5 g C), but there is 9.4 g of CO (12/28 of that is carbon so 4 g C). Jeez, around 4% of carbon is going into Carbon Monoxide (Note: there is also Total Hydro Carbon = 1.1 g and there is some very small amount of PM10 and PM 2.5 bit most non CO2 carbon seems to be CO). Kind of disappointing. Maybe this is for a crappy car - hopefully my 2005 Prius is doing better than this.

    15. Re:What? CO2 inconsistent? by dara · · Score: 1

      Since all Prius models are PZEV (SULEV w.r.t compustion emissions + some specs on evaporitve emission). SULEV definition is:

      SULEV mandates that a vehicle emit no more than .01 grams/mile of hydrocarbon, 1 gram/mile of carbon monoxide, .02 grams/mile of nitrous oxide, and .01 grams/mile of particulate matter.

      Since a Prius burns 1/2 the gas of the 24 mpg case I posted earlier, and 1/10 the CO, the percentage of C that comes out as CO2 is getting closer to 99.9% (50/50.4 = 99.2%).

    16. Re:What? CO2 inconsistent? by budgenator · · Score: 1

      Oh sure a noaa.gov graph,

      It was inconvenient for this administration that climate data has clearly showed no warming for the past two decades. The American people have every right to be suspicious when NOAA alters data to get the politically correct results they want and then refuses to reveal how those decisions were made. NOAA needs to come clean about why they altered the data to get the results they needed to advance this administration’s extreme climate change agenda. The agency has yet to identify any legal basis for withholding these documents. The Committee intends to use all tools at its disposal to undertake its Constitutionally-mandated oversight responsibilities. Congressman doubles down, accuses NOAA scientists of doctoring results

      why should anyone trust an agency that refuses to comply with a Congressional subpoena?

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
  3. bah by blogagog · · Score: 0

    Who cares about how much CO2 a car is emitting? I'm more worried about pollutants, like CO and NOx. And SOx too, but I think the catalytic converter has that puppy whipped.

    1. Re:bah by gsslay · · Score: 1

      The CO2 emissions can affect the way the car is taxed/licensed.

    2. Re:bah by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Catalytic converter burns off unburnt hydrocarbons. SOx is handled by not putting sulfur in the fuel. Burning the fuel colder reduces NOx, but increases CO; burning it hotter reduces CO and unburnt hydrocarbons, but increases NOx. NOx has a really short half-life and a high toxic dose (it's like 12ppb in the air right now and the NIH gets iffy if it hits 1200ppb; health problems start around 1500ppb), but we're panicing more over NOx right now.

      People call NOx "pollution", which is a hot button word. NOx is an emission, but not polluting at the elevated levels VW's cars put out. On the other hand, your standard school bus emits lung-irritating particulate and *high* amounts of extremely-toxic CO because it would emit unacceptable (but not harmful) levels of NOx if it burned the fuel hotter, like a VW. I've seen poorly-tuned diesel cars spit out black smoke clouds, and I've been behind a gasoline car that was tuned properly and had a fouled cat--inhaling vaporized hydrocarbons in that concentration made me nauseated; it was like huffing off a jar of high-octane fuel.

      That's pollution. That stuff clogs the air and, if every car burned that way, would start wrecking the environment and destroying people's health; NOx emissions like VW as a standard would not fit the government's numbers, but also would not damage the environment. We've been higher before, in the 70s, after catalytic converters became EPA requirements. NOx has a shorter half-life at higher atmospheric concentrations, so doubling the NOx output doesn't really double the amount of NOx in the atmosphere. We'd have less unburnt gasoline and less carbon monoxide in the atmosphere as a trade-off.

    3. Re:bah by codeButcher · · Score: 1

      The CO2 emissions can affect the way the car is taxed/licensed.

      True, but since CO2 basically is the product of complete combustion, CO2 emissions then would correlate directly with mileage. The more fuel economic, the lower the CO2 emissions. Or am I mistaken?

      --
      Free, as in your money being freed from the confines of your account.
    4. Re:bah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the three-way catalyst used on gasoline cars also reduce NOx to N2, you cannot use a normal three-way cat on a diesel car because it has excess oxygen in the exhaust, i.e. it can only do oxidation of CO/HC not reduction of NOx

    5. Re:bah by blogagog · · Score: 1

      Good to know! I was under the impression that a catalytic converter removed SOx, but the high temp in it created NOx. I see now that sulfur does get removed, but it destroys the converter in very short order. Thanks for learnin' me a thing or two!

      I think you are underestimating the damage NOx does when it reacts away in the air or ocean though. Or your lungs. It becomes extremely acidic in contact with H2O. Anyway, thanks again for the catalytic converter info.

    6. Re:bah by gsslay · · Score: 1

      Governments don't really care how fuel economic your car is. That's your problem. You do not get taxed more because your car in inefficient (other than through fuel taxes).

      But they do care how much CO2 it's producing. So many offer incentives for cars that emit less.

    7. Re:bah by jpapon · · Score: 1

      They care how much CO2 it's producing "per X number of km". Which is directly related to how much fuel it is burning per km. So, yes, governments are definitely taxing based on how fuel efficient cars are. That's what they're measuring through CO2 emissions.

      --
      -- Let us endeavor so to live that when we pass even the undertaker shall be sorry. -- M. Twain
    8. Re:bah by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 0

      NOx is pretty nasty; but so is table salt. Eat a pound of table salt and you'll die. For that matter, you inhale chlorine in the shower.

      It's a matter of dosage. Even botulism is harmless in low doses; though a high dose of botulinum exotoxin 1 is something like 0.010mg. The concentration of NOx produced by hot-burning engines simply isn't harmful.

    9. Re: bah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This. Somebody has to pay for European socialism and fuel tax is how it's done. Without diesel and its mpg benefits, the populace would be carrying pitchforks given the level of taxation on fuel. The politicians don't give a toss about emissions as long as the revenue keeps coming in. What will they do when zero emission cars come in and the gravy train runs out of steam ? ?

    10. Re:bah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NOx last plenty long in local atmosphere, enough to impact health on levels that allow cost-benefit analysis of damage to health and industry in a region. This isn't like CO2 where people argue over effects decades away, but much more immediate, measurable effects from large scale NOx problems. The levels of CO don't have anywhere near as direct impact on health once you get outside the immediate vicinity of a running vehicle. CO contributes to smog, but in a process that mostly requires the NOx too anyway.

      All of your arguments about "Well table salt is bad too, it comes down to concentration..." apply much better to current CO levels than NOx levels.

    11. Re:bah by budgenator · · Score: 1

      SOx are not added to the fossil fuels, they are the remains of the sulphates use by the plants that became your fuel. Heavy fuels, like diesel fuel tend to have more sulphur in them and diesel engine injectors and fuel pumps were designed to take advantage of the sulphur’s lubricity, now that ultra-low sulphur diesel is the norm, people with older diesels either have to use biodiesel or add an injector lubricant.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    12. Re:bah by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Yeah. Removing it from the fuel is not exactly the same thing as not adding; sulfur in diesel is not the same thing as lead in gasoline.

    13. Re:bah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't harmful until you get a couple million cars running in the same location with low wind. As someone who saw in LA in the 80s and remembers orange/brown skies in Riverside I understand why these limits exist. Residents of WY may not understand and feel a bit resentful.

    14. Re: bah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Resentful of the regulations. Gleeful of how much California sux.

    15. Re:bah by WalksOnDirt · · Score: 1

      It appears that 1500 ppb is an insane level.

      From here

      Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) is absorbed in both large and small airways. Very high concentrations (>200 ppm) are very dangerous, causing lung injury, fatal pulmonary edema, and bronchopneumonia.

      (high levels of NO will convert to nitrogen dioxide in a short period)

      The legal limit for air quality over a long period is 53 ppb, and 100 pbb over shorter periods. Children show an increase in asthma even at these levels.

      NOx is a serious pollutant. It is a cause of acid rain, asthma, bronchitis and cancer.

      --
      a,e,i,o,u and sometimes w and y (at be if of up cwm by)
    16. Re:bah by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      1500 ppb is 1.5 ppm.

    17. Re:bah by slew · · Score: 1

      Isn't harmful until you get a couple million cars running in the same location with low wind. As someone who saw in LA in the 80s and remembers orange/brown skies in Riverside I understand why these limits exist. Residents of WY may not understand and feel a bit resentful.

      Perhaps a bigger problem than brown skies, was ground level ozone. Although the smog was brown in color due to NOx, the major reduction of smog problems in the LA basin had more to do with the reduction in volatile hydrocarbons (and improved gas efficiency).

      It's a bit complicated, but by itself, NOx like O2 is mostly neutral to ozone production. Ozone is mostly produced by sunlight O2+uv->2O, O2+O->O3, but it is generally in an equilibrium with the O3->O2+O reaction. Like the O3->O2+O reaction, there is similarly a NO2+uv->NO+O reaction, and there is of course a corresponding ozone destruction reaction O3+NO->NO2+O2 reaction. However, the presence of volatile hydrocarbons can capture some of the NO which will reduce the NO available for the ozone destruction reaction. This can greatly increase the lifetime of ozone in the air.

      At high volatile hydrocarbons to NOx ratios, ozone lifetime is limited by the amount of NOx, so reducing NOx helps to reduce ozone. Strangely, if you reduce volatile hydrocarbons to a level that it limits ozone formation, further reductions in NOx can actually increase ozone concentrations by slowing the rate of ozone destruction reaction via O3+NO->NO2+O2 path and simultaneously speeding up the reaction that volatile hydrocarbons use to capture NO which increases the lifetime of ozone in the air.

      So in the current regime, it is generally more important to limit volatile hydrocarbon emissions than to squeeze out the last drop of NOx emissions. That might make the air a little more brownish that we would like, but it's better for the ozone concentration which is probably the worse health risk.

    18. Re:bah by gsslay · · Score: 1

      My motorbike consumes 1 liter of gas per 1 km. My 18 wheeler 40 tonne truck also consumes 1 liter of gas per 1 km.

      They therefore produce the same amount of CO2 per km.

      Are they equally fuel efficient? Or, bearing in mind that it is a tiny fraction of the weight, is my motorbike not ridiculously inefficient?

    19. Re:bah by jpapon · · Score: 1
      Fuel efficiency is typically measured in liters/100km or miles per gallon. It generally doesn't consider weight, engine size, engine power, passenger capacity, or any number of other things.

      Yes, we *could* measure fuel efficiency in liters per 100km per kg, but we don't.

      --
      -- Let us endeavor so to live that when we pass even the undertaker shall be sorry. -- M. Twain
    20. Re: bah by jpapon · · Score: 1

      That's easy. They'll tax electric charging, miles driven, or just a flat x% tax per annum on the value of the car. The gravy train will never end, it's just way too easy to come up with new ways to make gravy.

      --
      -- Let us endeavor so to live that when we pass even the undertaker shall be sorry. -- M. Twain
  4. CO2 == MPG by Xenna · · Score: 4, Insightful

    AFAIK the amount of CO2 produced is directly related to the amount of gasoline used. Car manufacturers - all car manufacturers - lie about mileage the same way all laptop and phone manufacturers lie about battery usage.

    We all know this, we've all known this for a long time. How is this suddenly news?

    1. Re:CO2 == MPG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kick em while they are down to try and eliminate a competitor in the low margin transportation industry?

    2. Re:CO2 == MPG by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The difference here is the way car manufacturers in North America lie about mileage is the fault of the EPA.

      See, they don't drive the car, and measure the mileage you get. As I understand it, they hook it up to a test rig, do some tests, and then calculate the mileage.

      Car companies can only use the output of that formula, using anything else would be illegal -- and, unfortunately, people have known that the method calculating mileage is pretty flawed. Which is why all those people who had hybrids found out they weren't getting anywhere near the mileage they were promised.

      So, no the car makers don't lie about mileage, they can only report it one way. Any other way would be illegal, even if the test is known to be wrong.

      Apparently they do lie about emissions, however.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    3. Re:CO2 == MPG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How would living in a cave eating grass pollute the earth more than our current lifestyles? Please explain this to me, if you can do that, I'll subscribe to your newsletter.

    4. Re:CO2 == MPG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some do lie enough about MPG to get caught, ask Hyundai.

      This is entirely an efficiency thing, how much fuel is being used. Framing it as a CO2 emissions issue is the big lie.

    5. Re:CO2 == MPG by khallow · · Score: 2

      How would living in a cave eating grass pollute the earth more than our current lifestyles? Please explain this to me, if you can do that, I'll subscribe to your newsletter.

      Here goes:
      1) Several billion caves need to be dug out.
      2) Seven billion people are now dumping untreated human waste somewhere.
      3) Seven billion people are cheating on their grass diet and using more land for food than current (because single family plots is grossly inefficient for food production).

      On the plus side, when most of humanity dies-off, it'll be a much lower environmental footprint for whatever survives (which probably won't be most large animals).

    6. Re:CO2 == MPG by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 0

      > The difference here is the way car manufacturers in North America lie about mileage is the fault of the EPA.

      And shoplifting is obviously the fault of merchants that have their candy bars on display.

    7. Re:CO2 == MPG by cdrudge · · Score: 4, Insightful

      See, they don't drive the car, and measure the mileage you get. As I understand it, they hook it up to a test rig, do some tests, and then calculate the mileage.

      The problem is that just jumping in the car and driving it has too many variables. Was the real terrain uphill? downhill? Was their a headwind or a tailwind? If it was a city test were the lights timed exactly the same? What was the temperature? humidity? road conditions?

      Testing in a lab on a machine is suppose to control all those variables as much as possible so that different vehicles at different times all have the same base test conditions for comparison. It's no different than anything else that is performance/energy tested or benchmarked like appliances, HVAC, computers...

      No the tests may not exactly match what you'll get with your usage, but hopefully it's a accurate baseline for comparison. And THAT's where Volkswagon screwed up.

    8. Re:CO2 == MPG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And shoplifting is obviously the fault of merchants that have their candy bars on display.

      This is true, and why everybody is switching to Automats and Vending machines.

    9. Re:CO2 == MPG by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      It is if the merchants make you take the candy bar out of the store and refuse to let you pay for it.

    10. Re:CO2 == MPG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, no the car makers don't lie about mileage, they can only report it one way. Any other way would be illegal, even if the test is known to be wrong.

      Which is actually quite smart for the car companies, kudos to their lobbyists for arranging that btw, because that puts all of the liability for inaccuracy or problems right back on the EPA and the government. Car companies cannot easily be sued successfully for doing what the law requires, as mandated by Congress. It's a very strong position for the car companies, legally speaking.

    11. Re:CO2 == MPG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      VW is now looking for anything that has happened anywhere in the company that might violate some law, rule or ethics code in order to make sure that there are no skeletons in the cupboard anymore after the diesel emissions issue has been dealt with. Hence, they will also find some things that most other manufacturers are doing too.

      From what I gather, there is nothing wrong with the engine as such, but the certification application shows a number that does not correspond exactly to anything they can replicate in the lab, so there may have been some tampering. They are going to request the Federal Motor Vehicle Administration to have the affected models re-certified with the proper figures and they've reserved money for additional taxes and fines.

    12. Re:CO2 == MPG by Solandri · · Score: 2

      See, they don't drive the car, and measure the mileage you get. As I understand it, they hook it up to a test rig, do some tests, and then calculate the mileage.

      The EPA MPG ratings are not intended to predict how many MPG you will get driving the car. There's just too much variability in driving styles, road conditions, and regional climate for any single number to be an accurate prediction.

      The MPG rantings are intended to allow you to compare different cars to each other when shopping. If one car is rated at 25 MPG and another at 30 MPG, you may not get exactly 30 MPG with the second car. But you will most likely get about 20% better MPG with it than the first car.

      To make it conceptually easier to grasp, the EPA tries to scale the figure so it's approximately equal to the MPG you'll get while driving. But this is so widely misunderstood by the public at this point that I think the EPA would be better off just changing to an abstracted scale where 100 represents the amount of fuel burned by the average sedan, higher numbers represent more fuel burned, lower numbers less.

      MPG is already screwed up since it's the inverse of fuel consumption. Going from 25 MPG to 50 MPG saves only half as much fuel as going from 12.5 MPG to 25 MPG, not twice as much as the size of the numbers would suggest. This has led to all sorts of other harmful misconceptions among people, like ridiculing hybrid engines in SUVs when that's precisely the best place to put them if you want to maximize fuel savings. Putting hybrids in economy cars actually represents the smallest possible fuel savings, and quite frankly is a waste of money (if a hybrid gives 40% better MPG and the cost is an extra $4000, payback time is about 14 years on a Prius, but only 6 years on a SUV). It also means the average MPG for two vehicles is not (MPG1 + MPG2)/2. It's 1/MPGavg = 1/MPG1 + 1/MPG2. So if you're trying to save fuel by splitting your driving between a SUV and a hybrid, the SUV disproportionately affects your average MPG, and the hybrid makes little difference from a non-hybrid economy car. Changing the scale would be a good opportunity to correct this numerical distortion. The rest of the world uses liters per 100 km specifically to avoid this problem.

    13. Re:CO2 == MPG by kilfarsnar · · Score: 1

      Kick em while they are down to try and eliminate a competitor in the low margin transportation industry?

      Wait, I haven't bought my Golf R yet!

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    14. Re:CO2 == MPG by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      And shoplifting is obviously the fault of merchants that have their candy bars on display.

      No, that's a terrible analogy, and it misses the entire point.

      If the EPA requires that, by law, carmakers are ONLY allowed to report mpg figures based on an EPA provided formula which is known to be wrong ... then when carmakers tell you a mileage figure which is wrong, they are not lying, they are telling you the only number they are legally allowed to tell you.

      So, in your terrible analogy, if I go into a store, and the store security tells me I am REQUIRED to take a candy bar and not pay for it ... it's not fucking shoplifting. It's complying with the policy.

      The carmakers are not lying about MPG figures, they are honestly reporting it based on an incorrect estimation which everybody knows is faulty. Well, everyone except the consumer that is.

      So, by law, they are reporting what has been declared as the truth by the EPA. But it is the ONLY version of "the truth" the EPA will allow you to cite.

      The problem isn't the car companies, it's that the EPA forces them to provide information based on a formula which everybody involved knows is inaccurate. If any car company tried to report actual numbers which differed from those estimates, they would be fined.

      EPA has legally defined what the truth is, and made it illegal to tell someone the actual truth, instead of their faulty version of it. The lie has been defined by law as the truth, which means the companies aren't lying, they're "telling the truth" as defined by the EPA.

      Your candy bar analogy doesn't come anywhere NEAR close to the reality here.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    15. Re:CO2 == MPG by edtice1559 · · Score: 1

      I don't think it's fair to say they are lying. The darn stickers say "EPA estimated MPG." Not sure how much more honest about the number you can be. And the fine print even goes into more detail. Also most cars now have instantaneous MPG readouts and they calculate an average. My experience is that their calculated number is *very* close to what I get if I fill the tank, reset the trip meter, drive a while, fill the tank again and use the advanced math called division. Others have pointed out the limits of the EPA method but there's certainly not lying. Lying would be if the EPA came up with one number and they put a different one on the sticker. Phone and laptop manufacturers don't lie about battery either. They say exactly how many mAH the battery holds. They then estimate how many hours of life you will get from the device. They also provide very exact charging times. Of course device use varies so they can't really say how many hours a particular user will get. And we can debate the methodology. But I've never heard of a phone having a battery with less capacity than advertised.

    16. Re:CO2 == MPG by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      Car manufacturers - all car manufacturers - lie about mileage

      I call bullshit.

      I've owned three '91 200 Quattros (20v turbo 5cyl's, the last of the Type44's) and two of them were running factory-stock Bosch Motronic M. The EPA rated these cars at 16/22 city/hwy, however, I'd consistently get 30+ mpg going ~70mph (and those those supposed EPA figures were "calculated" for a mere 55mph).

      My 2015 Suburban is rated at 16/23 yet I average ~27mpg @60mph and ~25mpg @70mpg; I only see ~23mpg @80mph.

    17. Re:CO2 == MPG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, and no. Every "American" car I have had gave poor real-world MPG compared to estimates. The Hondas I owned and the ford-built mazda, well, the combined MPG was dead on, and I'm kind of heavy on the foot.

      So, no, not everyone lies and it's not the EPAs fault. Mazda couldn't get their diesel to be as feisty so they chose to not bring it here until they could.

      It wouldn't even BE the EPA's fault if congress could (would) do anything except suckle at the teat of "job creators".

    18. Re:CO2 == MPG by budgenator · · Score: 1

      Here goes:
      1) Several billion caves need to be dug out.
      2) Seven billion people are now dumping untreated human waste somewhere.
      3) Seven billion people are cheating on their grass diet and using more land for food than current (because single family plots is grossly inefficient for food production).

      On the plus side, when most of humanity dies-off, it'll be a much lower environmental footprint for whatever survives (which probably won't be most large animals).

      Except people don't live like that, we've always clustered into multi-family groups, divided labor among the able-bodied, always did some communal farming and some familial farming, same with hunting and gathering. In a lot of ways the real advancement in human culture was cooking and money. Money allowed us to barter for future production.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    19. Re:CO2 == MPG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My older (88) quattro with CIS does 30+ too, great on the highway for it's size / age.

      Miserable mileage in the city, especially in winter. I think my all-time low during a stint of -40 weather (so lots of idling) was 13mpg. (queen's gallons, so something like 10mpg US).

      That boost & awd tho... If only it was a 91 with motronic so that it started reliably in the winter... :p

  5. damn engineers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Clearly it is the engineers who are running VW. Those assholes are driving a great company into the ground. Time for the suits to wrestle control back from the kids and set things right.

    1. Re:damn engineers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To be fair, many of the engineers who were running VW in the past few years have been replaced by new engineers in the last six weeks.

  6. Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Volkswagen was created by Hitler!

    HITLER!

    There! Enough said!

    1. Re:Good! by stooo · · Score: 1

      And the 'Godwin point goes to .... AC.

      --
      aaaaaaa
  7. Environmentalism has to happen naturally! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The most important lesson we can learn from all of this is that environmentalism can't just be forced because some ivory tower academics or pandering politicians want it to just happen.

    Environmentalism must happen, no pun intended, naturally. There must be real desire for it to happen among the participants directly involved. There must be economic feasibility. There must be technological feasibility.

    A bunch of leftist ideologues can't just get together and set arbitrary limits on carbon dioxide emissions, write some laws, and expect it all to work fine in the real world.

    Environmentalists need to get with the real world. They need to get with it when it comes to economics. They need to get with it when it comes to technology. They need to unchain themselves from trees, and do something useful for a change.

    If they put even half of the effort they put into crafting bullshit carbon dioxide emission legislation into instead providing more funding for advanced technological research, then we'd likely see actual improvements, rather than these workarounds to bypass unrealistic legislation!

    It's just another example of leftists causing more harm than good through their misguided, economically-detached and reality-detached academic snobbery.

    1. Re:Environmentalism has to happen naturally! by Racemaniac · · Score: 1

      Are you serious? How on earth can environmentalism occur naturally if just raping the earth is economically advantageous rather than doing things a bit more sanely?
      How will doing the environmental thing ever be better if we don't impose such regulations, restrictions, laws, ...?
      How will properly handling your waste ever be more economical than just dumping it somewhere and not care about it anymore? How will having your cars be economical ever be better than just making wasteful car that is far less complex?

      I do agree that not every environmental attempt that is made is the biggest success, and that there often is too much wishful thinking, but waiting until it occurs naturally doesn't seem the way to go either...

      You do have one point i guess, killing elephants for their tusks will occur naturally once there aren't any left... as will air polution once it's so terribly polluted that it becomes such a big health risk that noone can ignore it. But i do prefer people trying to stop things before that point, by trying to manipulate the economics of such acts via laws, regulations, ...

    2. Re:Environmentalism has to happen naturally! by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 1

      I am not sure how anyone currently on the right can accuse environmentalists of being "ideologues" with a straight face at the moment.

    3. Re: Environmentalism has to happen naturally! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Forget about NOX and CO2, emission testing and all the BS. Just tax fuel, because that taxes real world mileage. Make the gallon about $7.50-9 and everyone will be driving cars that convert all the energy in the fuel into movement and spew almost no pollutants

    4. Re: Environmentalism has to happen naturally! by O('_')O_Bush · · Score: 1

      That was one of the most convincing parodies I have seen on Slashdot in a while. Where it fell apart for me was when you suggested the EPA engineer or fund the technologies rather than fund a standard that engineers in the capitalist economy had to achieve. Nobody could be *that* stupid. If you had left it out, you would have made a pretty convincing crank.

      --
      while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
    5. Re:Environmentalism has to happen naturally! by kilfarsnar · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The most important lesson we can learn from all of this is that environmentalism can't just be forced because some ivory tower academics or pandering politicians want it to just happen.

      Environmentalism must happen, no pun intended, naturally. There must be real desire for it to happen among the participants directly involved. There must be economic feasibility. There must be technological feasibility.

      A bunch of leftist ideologues can't just get together and set arbitrary limits on carbon dioxide emissions, write some laws, and expect it all to work fine in the real world.

      Environmentalists need to get with the real world. They need to get with it when it comes to economics. They need to get with it when it comes to technology. They need to unchain themselves from trees, and do something useful for a change.

      You say that like economics and technology are "natural" phenomena. They are not. I know people think Capitalism is some natural law, but it's not either. It is a man-made system. Environmentalism is concerned with our economic system working in a sustainable way. What you seem to actually be saying is that people want to do what people want to do (e.g. making money in the cheapest way possible) and the Environmentalists are getting in their way by pointing out that they are polluting the atmosphere by what they are doing.

      The Earth doesn't care about your economic feasibility. If we destabilize it, it will find a new equilibrium whether we like it or not.

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    6. Re: Environmentalism has to happen naturally! by kilfarsnar · · Score: 1

      Forget about NOX and CO2, emission testing and all the BS. Just tax fuel, because that taxes real world mileage. Make the gallon about $7.50-9 and everyone will be driving cars that convert all the energy in the fuel into movement and spew almost no pollutants

      I'm just going to assume that you posted AC because you can't bear to put your name to this sophistry.

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    7. Re: Environmentalism has to happen naturally! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's kinda rich to see somebody who still uses a "Chimp Bush" username accusing somebody else of being a crank.

      It sucks, but you could get used to a higher uid now and not have to look like a moron.

    8. Re:Environmentalism has to happen naturally! by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 1
      . I know people think Capitalism is some natural law,

      Not sure what you think capitalism actually is, but I would bet a lot of anything that if I spent a few hours making a shovel, I could shovel a heap more shite in the next week than you could with your bare hands.

      You might find it worth paying me to shovel your shite, or buy a shovel from me.

      You and your mates might, over a period of years, be happy to support me while a build a power shovel, and shovel a load of other stuff too - maybe dig a ditch or two to save the village from flooding when it rains?

      Perhaps you are a capitalist after all?

      Or do you have another definition of capitalism in mind? - like it is when anyone can buy anything if they can pay for it, regardless of race, sex, or criminal record? Yep, Apartheid and Naziism are not capitalism.

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
    9. Re: Environmentalism has to happen naturally! by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Make gasoline $7.50/gal through taxation and the primary result will be increased corruption among government officials who siphon off the money.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    10. Re:Environmentalism has to happen naturally! by kilfarsnar · · Score: 1

      Hey look, a case in point.

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
  8. Gee-zus! by rmdingler · · Score: 1

    In other news, if your retirement portfolio still contains Volkswagen stock, you might be a slow learner.

    --
    Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

    Ernest Hemingway

    1. Re:Gee-zus! by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 1

      Owning stock gives you MORE of a right to criticize a company, not less.

    2. Re:Gee-zus! by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      "Buy low sell high" is still sound advice. Selling a downward-trending stock is not necessarily the most rational move. For example, Toyota had a rough patch with their breaks and are back on top again. You calculate your odds based on what you can control now, not how much you already lost.

    3. Re:Gee-zus! by rmdingler · · Score: 1

      "Buy low sell high" is still sound advice. Selling a downward-trending stock is not necessarily the most rational move. For example, Toyota had a rough patch with their breaks and are back on top again. You calculate your odds based on what you can control now, not how much you already lost.

      The investment model you describe is likely good advice in any instance where the stock doesn't tank and never recover.

      The final bailout price of this mess is not being helped by the slow, almost daily release of new negative information.

      There is a limit, however astronomical it may be, to how much VW can spend to make this go away... unless too big to fail extends to large Deutschland employers. Volkswagon is listed as the largest corporation in Germany as of 2012, and 12th largest in the World, so we'll see.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    4. Re:Gee-zus! by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      That gets back to predicting the future of VW rather than general stock techniques.

      It looks like other auto makers have similar problems. We've only seen the start. The other co's study their competitors' smog systems. Why wouldn't they rat on VW? Why let your competitor cheat.

      They probably considered ratting, but thought if they did that, they'd invite scrutiny to their own cars. So instead, they probably added and/or increased their cheating to match VW's.

      If all car makers will be in the same boat, then it doesn't hurt VW's sales as much because people still need cars. They'll all get slapped by penalties eventually and their stocks will take turns diving.

      Perhaps the smarter stock advice is to keep your VW stock but bail on other car stocks. VW will recover sooner and perhaps have a sales boom as the other car markers go thru the same investigative cycle.

    5. Re:Gee-zus! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now is an excellent time to buy Volkswagen stock. It was already severely undervalued before the trouble started and it's now down over 40%. There is a lot of money to be made.

  9. Why do we still use MPG? by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 4, Funny

    I was under the impression that MP4 took over a decade ago.

    Fight for your bitcoins!

    1. Re:Why do we still use MPG? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While 14496-2 has been used for some time, the use of MP4 is relatively new

    2. Re:Why do we still use MPG? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MKV (Miles per KiloVolt) is the future.

      Fight for your brain cells! [link.com]

    3. Re:Why do we still use MPG? by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 1

      Surely you meant KKV.

      Fight for your bitcoins!

    4. Re:Why do we still use MPG? by danbob999 · · Score: 1

      We don't. The world has moved on, we now use the international system of units, except of course for those living in Myanmar, Liberia or the USA.

    5. Re:Why do we still use MPG? by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 1

      We should use a different system of units for things being exported to the USA, just to show them how annoying it is to have to convert to another system when we're dealing with their products. For example, instead of measuring in centimetres and inches, sell them products measured in centimetres and fingerbreadths.

      Fight for your bitcoins!

    6. Re:Why do we still use MPG? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If by moved on you mean made laws that everyone ignores, yup.

      I'm in Canada. My doctor tells me my weight in pounds, and my height in feet/inches. I buy deli by the pound, and beer by the pint. I buy wire in AWG sizes, boards by the foot, wood by the cord. I measure my furniture by square inches, and my insurance agent knows how many square feet my home is. They sold me air conditioning by the ton, and my furnace by BTU. Auto parts stores sell you jackstands by the ton, and washer fluid by the gallon.

      When I was in the UK, they told me how many stone I weighed.

      Sure, in most cases they'll work with other units for me. Though they'll have to look up a conversion chart. Except for the doc, she's tired of doing the conversion. :P

    7. Re:Why do we still use MPG? by whoever57 · · Score: 1

      We should use a different system of units for things being exported to the USA, just to show them how annoying it is to have to convert to another system when we're dealing with their products. For example, instead of measuring in centimetres and inches, sell them products measured in centimetres and fingerbreadths.

      Surely the TPP will allow companies to export products to the USA that are marked using metric units? Allowing that would remove a real barrier to trade and the TPP is a trade deal, right? right? .....?

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    8. Re:Why do we still use MPG? by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 1

      Indeed. Even though it's supposed to be a metric country, Canada looks more like the USA.

      Fight for your bitcoins!

  10. Sticky by wkwilley2 · · Score: 1

    Better put your boots on......It's getting deep and sticky in here.

    --
    Have you ever fallen asleep at the keybhanusdiog?
  11. Not about CO2... about xenophobia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There was a point raised on another board that the main reason VW is singled out in the US... is because it is a German company, and either #1 or #2 in sales.

    It was mentioned that the whole VW/Audi thing seemed to the people writing about it, a xenophobic pogrom to appease the proles, similar to "bash the Jap cars" which was done in the 1990s after the US populace switched to those.

    If there was not an election coming up, this issue wouldn't have ever happened. This is just jingoism rearing its ugly head.

    1. Re:Not about CO2... about xenophobia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who cares where it was raised. They lied and cheated.
      In my opinion.....
      Based on US sales numbers, VW does not see the US as one of its top buyers. The were not going to invest in hybrids or new designs just for the US like everyone else so they tried to get their existing diesels to work in the US. They could not without additional costs or performance reductions and remain competitive in the US so they cheated. It was not worth it top VW to redo their diesel cars with a more traditional NOx capture system. Maybe they thought no one would notice or really care. The US is a tertiary market to them.

    2. Re:Not about CO2... about xenophobia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did or did not VW knowingly violate the law?

      If others knowingly violated the law, why don't you go to the press with the proof? I'm sure CNN would be happy to stir up literally any controversy.

    3. Re:Not about CO2... about xenophobia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did or did not VW knowingly violate the law?

      Not.

      If others knowingly violated the law, why don't you go to the press with the proof?

      Why would GP have the proof when even the regulation agencies are still investigating? This will take lots of time.

    4. Re:Not about CO2... about xenophobia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They lied and cheated.

      They may have cheated, but they did not lie. They admitted it as soon as they found out.

  12. Looks Like VW Leadership by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    is choking on their own Fahrvergnügen... pity, to be sure.

  13. automotive herpes. by nimbius · · Score: 4, Informative

    As an engineer working for a company that rhymes with bored, this is a disaster of biblical proportions for VW. Ive already heard people calling them smokeswagons and having a hard time reselling, but its important to remeber that this could have happened to any automotive manufacturer with a lapse in conscience.

    JIT, Kanban, and other modern manufacturing processes for cars start with a platform, and from that platform grows a number of different vehicles. Jaguar is mostly Cadillac and ford parts, Range Rover is also borne from many shared components of chevrolet and to a lesser extent GM. What the consumer is buying isnt quality anymore but the marketing auspices of a proud brand.

    the same ECM can control hundreds of cars, and is programmed at the factory by line and tooling departments to meet the predetermined build demand. core components like emissions, if you wanted to skirt them, would be too hard to retool every time and would arouse suspicion. So making nefarious code a core of the software is a no-brainer. its also a killing stroke for a number of brands.

    taking a step back, porsche owners dont care. BMW owners barely care. the majority of these owners dont maintain regular service, dont care about automotive emissions, and either sell the car or end their lease once the vehicle no longer suits them. the car is a status symbol and until emissions become a scarlet letter outside of the state of california its tricky to see how either brand is legitimately affected. what is affected is the continued ability of VW to sell their brands in the US and other, much stricter countries. You can expect delays in delivery, testing, and increased cost as the brand now has to prove to regulators and governments that its on the straight and narrow. This chicanery will haunt VW for no less than 25 years, or at worst it will follow the company like the quality issues of american manufacturers in the 80s until the restructuring of the company..

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
    1. Re:automotive herpes. by swb · · Score: 1

      Jaguar is mostly Cadillac and ford parts, Range Rover is also borne from many shared components of chevrolet and to a lesser extent GM.

      How did Jaguar end up with Cadillac parts when it was part of Ford's Premier Auto Group for nearly a decade? At the 2010 auto show, the Jaguar XJ I sat it felt a hell of lot like my 2007 Volvo S80 in the cockpit and things like the outside mirrors were identical to my Volvo. I had always assumed at the time that the model shown in 2010 was still based off of shared parts from the Premier Group parts bin, although scanning Wikipedia just now shows they used differing platforms.

      I'd ask the same questions about Range Rover -- how would that brand have been owned by PAG yet built with a bunch of GM-sourced parts?

      I'm not saying any of this isn't true (hey, you work for "bored"..) but it seems kind of funny that a Ford owned group of brands would have kept sourcing parts from a competing automaker. Given that Ford unloaded all those brands after years of not creating synergies, maybe it's not surprising.

    2. Re:automotive herpes. by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Unions make spinning up and slowing down production a hell. You have to keep paying for benched workers; it makes sense to consolidate factory needs across the industry to smooth out the ups and downs and avoid those costs, rather than spin up independent factories.

    3. Re:automotive herpes. by dunkelfalke · · Score: 2

      I used to work for an automotive component supplier. A component of the ECU was used for both Mercedes and BMW cars, but with a different firmware. Many parts are sourced from third parties in first place.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    4. Re:automotive herpes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If you're an automotive engineer, you don't appear to know much about the marketplace you work in.

      Jaguar is in no way Caddy parts, as Ford owned Jaguar for like 10 years and wouldn't source anything from a primary competitor in their own designs unless they absolutely had to.

      Range Rovers may have had a shared lineage with Chevy / GM (which are exactly the same, but you act like there's some difference there besides a nicer interior in the GM model), but that's well in the past. One of the longest-production V8 engines the world ever saw was the Rover 3.5L which was originally based on the Buick 215, but was retooled and redesigned in 1967 and continued production with some minor redesigns until just about 10 years ago.

      And where does BMW come into any of this? They are a completely separate company that *competes* with VW's Audi brand. BMW owns Rolls Royce, which competes with VW's Bentley brand. In fact, the only place where BMW doesn't compete head-to-head with VW is in motorcycles. In the original study that showed that VW was using a defeat device on their "clean" diesel motors, the control in the experiment was a BMW 330d, which performed exactly as stated for fuel consumption, power output, and emissions output. Why? Because it's a 100% completely different car.

      You are right about one thing though - VW has made a generational mistake here, and cars are sold based on trust above anything else. They've been caught cheating, and lying about the cheating. Far beyond the billions spent in fines and recalls, will be tens of billions lost in brand equity.

    5. Re:automotive herpes. by sokoban · · Score: 1

      As an engineer working for a company that rhymes with bored, this is a disaster of biblical proportions for VW. Ive already heard people calling them smokeswagons and having a hard time reselling, but its important to remeber that this could have happened to any automotive manufacturer with a lapse in conscience.

      And nobody seems to be saying anything about the Bored Bocus that does the exact same thing.

      http://www.bbc.com/news/busine...

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 is the magic number.
    6. Re:automotive herpes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They've been caught cheating, and lying about the cheating

      They have been caught cheating, but not lying about it.

    7. Re:automotive herpes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thought you were gonna say rhymes with "fjord" ;)

    8. Re:automotive herpes. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      I bet Porsche and BMW owners do care now. If they bought then their cars are now worth a lot less, and if they leased then their next car will probably cost them more unless they switch to another brand.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    9. Re:automotive herpes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      " this could have happened to any automotive manufacturer with a lapse in conscience."

      That probably says, to some degree, it could have happened to any automotive manufacturer.

      It will be interesting to see what happens as more scrutiny is applied to other brands.

    10. Re:automotive herpes. by phil.swansborough · · Score: 1

      "BMW owners barely care." That may be the case in the US, I don't know. But in the UK at least they are going to start caring. Road tax here is based on emissions of your vehicle as is the tax you pay on the benefit you receive from having a company car. When they start retesting these vehicles and the tax/"benefit in kind" start going through the roof people are going to want to switch to a different brand. That happening to a lot of cars simultaneously means they will plummet in resale value. I would assume similar tax systems are in place throughout the EU.

    11. Re:automotive herpes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "This chicanery will haunt VW for no less than 25 years, or at worst it will follow the company like the quality issues of american manufacturers in the 80s until the restructuring of the company.."

      easy out: expose other manufacturers to take the heat off yourself. divide and... have people forget?

    12. Re:automotive herpes. by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1

      I bet Porsche and BMW owners do care now. If they bought then their cars are now worth a lot less, and if they leased then their next car will probably cost them more unless they switch to another brand.

      Porsche, maybe... if the owner bought one of the sportscars and not the SUV/sedan. BMW? Doubt it. Cars depreciate so much from new; luxury car buyers know well in advance that their car is worth comparatively nothing when they trade up. When you are prepared to lose $100k in depreciation just to be able to drive a luxury car, I seriously doubt that you will even care about another few hundred dollars.

      We'll soon find out if this has affected VW sales or not.

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    13. Re:automotive herpes. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      I know someone who wants to buy a Tesla, but can't sell his Audi because it's waiting to be fixed.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    14. Re:automotive herpes. by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1

      I know someone who wants to buy a Tesla, but can't sell his Audi because it's waiting to be fixed.

      Why is it waiting?

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    15. Re:automotive herpes. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      They are not even going to start fixing the emissions issues until next year in the UK. Since there are so many vehicles to fix it is likely to take some time to do them all. As they fix them people who have been waiting to sell will put them on the market, flooding it and pushing prices down.

      Let's see in a year how much of an impact this will have on people. The UK government is already talking about compensation from VW for owners.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    16. Re:automotive herpes. by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1

      They are not even going to start fixing the emissions issues until next year in the UK. Since there are so many vehicles to fix it is likely to take some time to do them all. As they fix them people who have been waiting to sell will put them on the market, flooding it and pushing prices down.

      Let's see in a year how much of an impact this will have on people. The UK government is already talking about compensation from VW for owners.

      I do not understand - why can the car not be sold? Obviously the fix, when it comes, will be free to all the cars irrespective of owner?

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    17. Re:automotive herpes. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      He could sell it now but would get much less for it. There is still too much uncertainty. Will the fix decrease performance or MPG? If he sells it now will he miss out on any compensation due because he is not the current owner whose vehicle was devalued?

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    18. Re:automotive herpes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then at least some good has come from this.

  14. what a surprise! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What a surprise--not.

  15. Liquidate all company assets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Redistribute to individuals and localities affected by the fraud. Joe the formerly proud owner of one of these smokeswagons gets $X to buy a new car and have the old clunker towed to a scrap yard, and Small Town, USA gets $Y/affected owner in jurisdiction to invest towards cleaning up the environment and properly disposing of the old smokeswagons.

    Enough's enough. Enough whining about how everybody cheats, enough whining about how the standards are unfair, enough whining about only liberals caring about the environment. The simple fact is that we have a huge multinational corporation that feels like it's above the law and got caught fucking the doughnuts in the break room. VW is not too big to fail. Let's prove it.

    1. Re:Liquidate all company assets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, because filling the waste stream with millions of cars that work fine is so much better than having millions of cars that get better fuel mileage because sometimes science does know better than government.

    2. Re:Liquidate all company assets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh fuck you you fucking shill. If Volkswagen thought it knew better than the government because "science", it should have fucking said so and obeyed the law. Fuck these third-grade excuses - they're not that stupid, which leaves malice. Alright, they want to fuck us, then we should fuck them.

    3. Re:Liquidate all company assets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who are "we"? And which governmend is "the government"?

  16. So What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...And still... No one cares, and people keep buying those cars. In fact I'd wager people will buy even more of them just for shits and giggles.

  17. Re:How many really care? by MachineShedFred · · Score: 2

    1. Minimizing your opponent in an argument is an old, ineffective tactic that does not display any of the alleged merit in your argument.
    2. This disclosure was in Europe, where the EPA has absolutely no jurisdiction.

    Thanks for the post.

    --
    Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
  18. The end of VW? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wonder. The scandal is only getting worse, and I wonder if this old brand will be able to recover? Its reputation is no doubt tarnished for years to come, and I am sure that's already taking a big toll on sales.

    1. Re:The end of VW? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A car company commissioned by Hitler, that made the love Bugs so many hippies drove in the 60's, and you think a little mistake like faking EPA pollution control standards is going to sink the company?

    2. Re:The end of VW? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think the reputation damage is nearly as big as the media are suggesting. Firstly, VW had a pretty spotless reputation prior to all this. Secondly, many people believe that most other manufacturers are doing very similar things and VW were the "unlucky" ones who got caught. Sales numbers for september and october were not great, but there were no significant drops anywhere.

      In the end, many people like VW group cars, they offer something competetive for almost every market and target audience and they score pretty well on reliability and durability. Nothing has changed about that. They will post a few big quarterly losses and they will lose the #1 spot for a few years, but they will get over it. They also seem to be using the occasion to address fundamental shortcomings of the organisation.

    3. Re:The end of VW? by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1

      I wonder. The scandal is only getting worse, and I wonder if this old brand will be able to recover? Its reputation is no doubt tarnished for years to come, and I am sure that's already taking a big toll on sales.

      Please! I'd be surprised if it made more than a 0.01% dent in sales.

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    4. Re:The end of VW? by TheRealLifeboy · · Score: 1

      You're assuming that most people believe that CO2 is a poison and is going to fry us alive! On the contrary, by far the most of us know that this is a politically motived and threat-and-rewards-enabled charade, so we don't care one bit about this whole circus. EPA circus. IPCC circus. AGW circus.

      Yawn.

    5. Re:The end of VW? by cwsumner · · Score: 1

      Around here, where people used to replace the catalitic converter with a piece of pipe*, VW is probably a Hero.

      *By the way, don't do that, these days it messes up the engine operation.

  19. Fahrvergnügen by KatchooNJ · · Score: 4, Funny

    Does Fahrvergnügen mean "Fuck the Earth!" or something?

    --
    "Never give up, for that is just the time and place when the tide will change." -Harriet Beecher Stowe ^_^
    1. Re:Fahrvergnügen by theskipper · · Score: 1

      Don't know, but their new motto should be "We Fahrvergnügened Up!"

    2. Re:Fahrvergnügen by TheRealLifeboy · · Score: 1

      No, it means driving happily while the dumb schmucks at the EPA are snoozing in their recliners....

  20. I said this weeks ago... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Soon you'll see almost every car on the road is emitting more pollutants than the standard (flawed) smog test indicates.

    1. Re:I said this weeks ago... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I used to do emissions tests and repairs in California. The entire smog test program is a joke, it does not in any way simulate real world driving. Every time you accelerate or decelerate there are huge spikes in pollutants coming out the tailpipe. The current test only measures idle, and mid load at steady RPM emissions. The test needs to be redesigned to a "parts per mile" on an actual road instead of a static test. Plus, the current test is too easily cheated, I had failing cuntstomers take their car elsewhere, slipping the guy $100 to get a "pass" test. Like I said many times, it's only a matter of time until all manufactures of gas and diesel cars are caught emitting more than what's reported.

  21. Figured this would happen by kheldan · · Score: 1

    I'm sorry to say, I figured things would go this way with Volkswagen and it's other brands.

    Now what I'm waiting for, is for someone else to start thinking, '..hey, what about all the other auto manufacturers out there?', and start testing all of them for signs of emissions-test-evasion.

    --
    Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
  22. Bankruptcy? by JimSadler · · Score: 1

    With this level of recalls and penalties can VW survive? Will they have any funds left for research and product improvement? How many investors and former employees will take an economic blood bath over this?

    1. Re:Bankruptcy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The company might take a hit, but no individual will be fined or jailed because of LLC protection. Worst case scenario... The execs take a huge bonus and retire before the company is liquidated.

  23. Re:Oldie but Goodie by kilfarsnar · · Score: 1

    I really hope you are trying to prove Poe's Law here. Because otherwise this is pretty stupid.

    --
    "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
  24. Re:Oldie but Goodie by RoccamOccam · · Score: 1

    Probably the same guy that's been injecting absurd Republican bashing into every story. Just trollin'.

  25. "Rogue engineers?" by idontgno · · Score: 1

    Those guys get around.

    --
    Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
  26. so.. i dont understand.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pls help me to understand..

    with so may issues..so much bullshit, why are these on the road?
    Why are they allowed to still sell cars in the US or anywhere else?
    Has there been regression testing to see which models are affected by year. ex: does a 2001 golf suffer the same issues as it bretheren today?
    Does a 2004 porche 911 have the same issues as todays porches?
    once uncovered, what sort of penalties should be levied?
    personally i think they should be banned from being sold untill they are all tested, and propperly assessed.

    1. Re:so.. i dont understand.. by TheRealLifeboy · · Score: 1

      You don't understand, yes, you're quite right. The premise of the whole emissions thing is wrong. CO2 is not a problem and neither are Nx gasses. Now unburnt fuel is a real problem, but that can be dealt with, it is being dealt with, in most modern cars.

      The fact that VW cheated the system is cause for concern, but the ridiculous unscientific assumptions that the regulations are based on, they are real cause for concern! . Say No to COP21!

  27. CO2 and fuel consumption by hankwang · · Score: 2

    The soot ends up in the soot filter, which is automatically cleaned every now and then by burning it into CO2. Hence, carbon emission = fuel consumption x conversion factor.

    The reason they are talking about CO2 emissions is because in Europe, cars are typically taxed based on CO2 emissions, not on mpg or l/100 km. Fuel consumption values are too much apples and oranges between diesel, LPG, gasoline/petrol, and electric.

    Note that CO2 values are a bit higher than you'd expect from chemistry; some of the energy use during production are accounted for as well.

  28. Re:Oldie but Goodie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Honestly, I read that meaning more that VW was once a proud part of the Third Reich and the joke is mostly a reminder of that fact.

    Yes, it's insulting to jews, but I the way I understand it it's even more insulting to modern day VW.

  29. Is it ironic.... by mark-t · · Score: 1

    ... that the company that first popularized the use of the word "lemon" to specifically describe a problematic car (popularized in the 60's) is now having its very own name being used to describe an undesirable level of vehicular emissions?

  30. Real-world DOS by holophrastic · · Score: 1

    So what's it gonna take? VW has big expensive dealerships, fully staffed with commission-based personnel. It'd be easy to walk in, waste their time, and walk out.

  31. Sniff Test Anyone - VW Are Not The Only Ones... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    There is one simple solution to all of this... Forget what the lying, cheating, scandalous, programmed-by-people OBD2 results are saying and stick the damn probe up the tail (at least someone should be having their tail probed over all of this).

    Here's how it goes down...
    1. Governments institute new regulations
    2. Manufacturer's say, sh!t we cant meet those new regulations with our current platform, what do we do.
    3. Exec's say, what would the shareholders want?
    4. Over-priced Analyst says, they need profits to be up and costs down.
    5. Product Manager says, we have to develop a new platform to meet these new regulations.
    6. Execs say, new platform is not what our shareholders want, they want profits, new platform development is too costly.
    7. Project Manager says to team, we need to "think outside the box" to get this year's line out the door on time and under budget.
    8. Engineer says, I think I have an idea, let me make some tweaks to the ECM to see if we can get better results.
    9. Project Manager, screams to the top, we have done it, look how I rallied the team to get this done, oh and we have a pretty good team too.
    10. Execs, don't question a thing, promote the Project Manager, fire the dumb Product Manager (because clearly he was wrong) and tell the shareholders they have a viable platform for the next decade from which they can grow profits like never before.
    11. Profit!
     

  32. That's not the point. by hey! · · Score: 2

    According to the linked article there was something funky going on with the CO2/mileage certification process.

    Granted the certification figures for all vehicles are optimistic, but that doesn't make them useless. I've spent many years working with environmental and scientific data, and it's often the case that you can't know certain things precisely. Nonetheless it is still important to measure these things in a consistent manner so you can compare figures to each other.

    So suppose car A's test say it emits 282 g / km of CO2 traveled -- about 20 miles/gallon -- car B's test say it emits 188 g/mile (i.e. gets 30 mpg). While both cars in fact emit *more* CO2 than the tests say, I can at least rank them, and even get a rough sense that car B isn't just slightly more efficient than A; it's a lot more efficient. What's more if I have a maximum standard for CO2/km some cars may in practice emit a bit more than that standard, but since I can at least rank cars I can keep the most polluting cars off the road.

    If the tests are somehow cooked, all that goes out the window and VW gets a fraudulent advantage over its competitors. So it does matter, even if test results are consistently more optimistic than real-world performance.

    Now your point about hybrids is well taken; comparing a hybrid to a pure ICE car is an apples-to-oranges comparison because if they test approximately the same which is ranked better will depend on the specific kind of driving you do. However even then the comparison is not totally useless; presumably they use a model which they think accurately represents how an average driver might use a hybrid. It's very likely that you as an individual consumer won't be very close to that "average" driver, but the figures may be reasonable when aggregated by all the cars of that model on the road.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    1. Re:That's not the point. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the tests are somehow cooked, all that goes out the window and VW gets a fraudulent advantage over its competitors.

      Only if those competitors are not cheating. It may be that some of the manufacturers are not cheating, but I very much doubt it. There is too much that depends on the official CO2 figure. A few grammes more or less can make or break a car in sales due to tax brackets, etc. Politicians have made honsty a very unattractive option for the car industry.

      I hope this admission will lead to an industry-wide investigation and that the new test that will be used from 2017 on will allow for consistent and reliable comparisons between cars, even if the figures themselves may still not be fully representative of real-world use.

  33. Re:Oldie but Goodie by KGIII · · Score: 1

    I prefer the one from the time of the Challenger explosion.

    Q: How many astronauts can you fit in a VW Bug?
    A: 12. Two in the front, three in the back, and seven in the ashtray.

    What's the last thing Christa McAuliffe (spelling?) said?
    What's this big red button do?

    I have more... I'll spare you. Those are my favorites, however. Well, favorites from that time.

    --
    "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  34. Just a couple of rogue engineers :) by nickweller · · Score: 1

    Since when does the potentially guilty party get to investigate itself?

  35. So what, CO2 doesn't effect our world negatively! by TheRealLifeboy · · Score: 1

    CO2 emissions of cars are pretty much irrelevant! CO, NO and NO2 are worse, but since they are heavier that air, they don't hang around for long either. It's their corrosive nature which may cause the only real problem in the long term, but that is hardly a big problem!

    For 18 years the world has not warmed , yet CO2 has increased substantially. On the other hand, the amount of CO2 in the air is miniscule. Just understanding how little CO2 actually is in our atmosphere shows how totally ridiculous the claims of the catastrophic warmists are, but don't let logic and reason get in the way of a good witch hunt!

    Just to stir the pot a little more: Say No to COP21! Think of the children! :-P How will they pay all the carbon tax their parents foisted on them??

  36. Re:Oldie but Goodie by uninformedLuddite · · Score: 1

    What colour where Christa McAuliffe's eyes?

    Blue: One blew that way the other blew that way.

    --
    The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
  37. Re:So what, CO2 doesn't effect our world negativel by Viewsonic · · Score: 1

    Temperature has gone up 0.20C in the past 18 years.

  38. Re:Oldie but Goodie by KGIII · · Score: 1

    How do we know she had dandruff? We found her Head and Shoulders!

    I'll have good company in hell.

    --
    "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  39. Re:Just a couple of rogue engineers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That has always been allowed, as long as it does not interfere with any simultaneous investigations by the authorities.

  40. Re: Oldie but Goodie by billdale · · Score: 0

    Sorry, but if it's Republican bashing, it is likely not absurd.

  41. Re:So what, CO2 doesn't effect our world negativel by TheRealLifeboy · · Score: 1

    Please provide proof.

  42. Re:So what, CO2 doesn't effect our world negativel by TheRealLifeboy · · Score: 1

    Temperature has gone up 0.20C in the past 18 years.

    So what, even if it did, it's conclusively proven that CO2 is not the cause of temperature fluctuations. The earth's temperature is essentially a function of pressure of the atmosphere due to gravity, plus a little influence of the sun, it seems.