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.

Comments

CO2 == MPG

[Xenna]

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?

Re:CO2 == MPG

[gstoddart]

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.

Re:CO2 == MPG

[cdrudge]

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.

Why do we still use MPG?

[U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M]

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

Fight for your bitcoins!

automotive herpes.

[nimbius]

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..

Re:bah

[bluefoxlucid]

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.

Fahrvergnügen

[KatchooNJ]

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