VW Officials Knew Since Last Year of Misleading Fuel Economy Claims (reuters.com)

It's not just CO2 levels that Volkswagen manipulated; according to a wire story, Volkswagen officials knew at least a year ago that some of the company's officially-reported fuel-efficiency claims were overstated. From the linked article: Volkswagen's top executives knew a year ago that some of the company's cars were markedly less fuel efficient than had been officially stated, Sunday paper Bild am Sonntag reported, without specifying its sources. ... Months after becoming aware of excessive fuel consumption, former Chief Executive Martin Winterkorn decided this spring to pull one model off the market where the discrepancy was particularly pronounced, the Polo TDI BlueMotion, the paper cited sources close to Winterkorn as saying.

Comments

Of course they did.

[Bovius]

News flash: companies are trying to sell you things, and most companies will lie as much as they can without losing face or legal reprisal to get you to buy their things.

I'm still glad the story is posted, but it's not even remotely surprising.

Re:thats strange

[cheater512]

It's good to see VW representatives surfing Slashdot to try and repair VW's shattered reputation. :)

"Incorrect" MPG numbers

[Will_Malverson]

In the United States, it is illegal for a car manufacturer to advertise any fuel efficiency number other than the one determined by the EPA.

Even running an ad campaign to the effect of "Hey, the EPA says that this car gets 45 MPG, but our testing says it's more like 42. Just thought you should know." would be a crime.

Re:"Incorrect" MPG numbers

[orpheus]

The make/model/package MPG figures come straight from the manufacturers, who usually don't even test production models, but pre-production engineering prototypes --engineering prototypes!-- and report that figure for as many production years as they like

According to the EPA itself: "How vehicles are tested" https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/how_tested.shtml

Each year EPA tests a random sample of maybe 10% of the base models on the market. Note: this is a much smaller number than the various "apparent models" (variants, options packages, etc.) that a consumer might feelare different cars. Aside from perhaps testing a second engine option in a given model, the EPA ignores those variants and doesn't even require tests to be conducted in successive production years because it feels "MPG probably won't change much from year to year" and "almost no options would affect indoor dynamometer results anyway -- we know it's a poor test". Aerodynamics is just one the options that significantly impact real world MPG, but won't show up on a dynamometer

Therefore MPG numbers are just a manufacturer's own claims, subject to spot-checking by the EPA. Apparently VW, Kia, and others felt the risk of spot check was small enough to ignore.

Re:thats strange

[whoever57]

everyone I know who has a VW, or has had one in the past 10 years (around 8 or so) has all gotten BETTER than advertized MPGs.

It's good to see VW representatives surfing Slashdot to try and repair VW's shattered reputation. :)

Actually, this has been written about before. When the cars are in test mode, with reduced NOX emissions, the fuel economy is also worse. So real world economy (and CO2 emissions) are better than under test.

[not associated with VW in any way. Heck, I haven't ever owned a VW]

It only cost GM $11 million so VW did it too

[dbIII]

GM got caught out doing something similar:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
They were fined $11 million but probably saved a vast amount more than that by conducting that fraud.

If you look at things in terms of unfettered entirely amoral capitalism Volkswagen had a duty to their shareholders to carry out the same sort of fraud since the financial benefits looked as if they would vastly exceed the penalty for getting caught.

As for reputation - who remembers GM doing this? In a few years time will we still remember this current fraud and jokingly call them FalseVagen?

These frauds are going to keep on occurring unless there is some sort of incentive to convince the people involved to stop. We've seen in China how far these things can go with poison in milk to pass a regulatory test.

Re:It only cost GM $11 million so VW did it too

[phantomfive]

As for reputation - who remembers GM doing this?

Let's be honest though, GM is remembered for a lot of bad things....

Re:It only cost GM $11 million so VW did it too

[AK Marc]

GM settled for $11M. They didn't actually get fined in a judgement against them, it was a settlement. Nobody knows what would have happened. Part of the settlement was civil indemnity, so it was more like a bribe than a fine. A $45M bribe to make the whole thing go away. And few today remember it, and have to be reminded of it. Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

So yeah, the "cost" to GM for the whole scandal was less than $100 per car. Sell a car fraudulently, pay the government $100, and be indemnified from all civil actions due to your fraud. Not a bad deal.

Re:Where was the bug?

[Opportunist]

There is a witty "Uranus" reply due now, but I'm not feeling too well today. Any takers?

that's strange - everygets one worse than official

[Chrisq]

everyone I know who has a VW, or has had one in the past 10 years (around 8 or so) has all gotten BETTER than advertized MPGs.

Its funny, maybe it is a US vs Europe thing but I've never known anyone get anything near the official MPG. There is an interesting paper from the European Federation for Transport and Environment which shows that the average difference is now 36%, and that despite real world MPG scarecly improving since 2012 the manufacturers claims continued to reduce. Strangely VW is far from the worst, being bang on average with a difference of 36% from real world figures, whereas Daimler manages a 48% difference.

Re:that's strange - everygets one worse than offic

[EvilAlphonso]

My 4 last cars include 2 Audi, one Ford and one Mazda

• One 1999 Audi A3 1.8 automatic was just slightly worse than the announced fuel economy.
• The temporary car that followed was a 2012 Ford Fiesta econetic 1.6, announced as a 3.6 l/100 but I never got it below 7 l/100 (onboard computer, I didn't keep it long enough to bother doing the calcs by hand).
• After that, I had a 2012 Audi A3 Sportsback 2.0 TDI S Tronic, which was slightly better than its announced average fuel economy.
• The "current" car is a 2002 Mazda MX5 NBFL 1.6, where I get sightly better than the announced average fuel economy even tho I drive it mostly in the city.