Slashdot Mirror


Opel Dealers Accused of Modyfing the Software of Polluting Cars (deredactie.be)

An anonymous reader writes: Belgian public broadcasting station VRT has discovered that GM Opel dealerships in Belgium seem to be updating engine management code when Zafira cars equipped with the 1.6 litre CDTI diesel engine are brought in for service. After the software change, the nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions drop sharply, at the cost of reduced power output. Bern University of Applied Sciences and environmental lobby club DUH previously found this model to pass European emissions standards only when the rear wheels are not rotating. When the rear wheels are made to spin along, NOx emissions increase to several times the limit set by European regulations. General Motors denied using defeat devices as well as the update program that seems to be taking place. However, an anonymous mechanic at an Opel dealership states that GM started pushing updates shortly after the Dieselgate scandal broke.

147 comments

  1. I'm somehow not surprised. by Z00L00K · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I suspect that the majority of brands do the same thing more or less, so I'm not surprised.

    It's back to the drawing board for those that sets up the conditions for tests and the emissions limits to get figures that better reflects reality. And this is not only diesels that are circumventing the regulations, I expect everyone of doing similar regardless of fuel type.

    There's no surprise to customers that the fuel consumption figures provided by car manufacturers are almost impossible to achieve in reality, no matter what the gauges in the cars says.

    --
    If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    1. Re:I'm somehow not surprised. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The problem wasn't the laws or the tests, the EU regulators knew the tests were being cheat on, the regulations already forbid defeat devices in plain language. They could have thrown the book at them at any point they want, but all the diesel manufacturers have factories in Europe, so it didn't and won't happen. VW got cocky and thought they could do the same thing in the US, where political considerations offered them no protection. Fucking them over has no impact on the US economy, so they got proper fucked.

      Now public pressure is forcing the EU manufacturers to fix their shit, but the economic impact of trying to fix it fast and the clear evidence of regulatory capture and corruption ensures it's all kept outside of public view as much as possible.

      Business as usual.

    2. Re: I'm somehow not surprised. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah you are right, other carmakers do this too.

      My theory for why the VW scandal happened is that the US gvt wants to prove to the germans that it can behave like a banana republic in terms of looking at vendors from one country, and closing both eyes for all others. Its all just a campaign to promote ISDS imo, one of the strongest opposition against ISDS comes from Germany.

    3. Re:I'm somehow not surprised. by whoever57 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I suspect that the majority of brands do the same thing more or less, so I'm not surprised.

      I suspected as much myself. Other manufacturers must have tested the VWs and found out about the cheating -- so why did the cheating stay secret for so long? Probably because everyone was doing the same.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    4. Re:I'm somehow not surprised. by freeze128 · · Score: 1

      There is also no surprise that there is an environmental lobby group called DUH.

    5. Re: I'm somehow not surprised. by Dog-Cow · · Score: 1

      That, and US auto manufacturers aren't interested in selling diesel cars to US residents, so they have no incentive to cheat.

    6. Re:I'm somehow not surprised. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I suspect that the majority of brands do the same thing more or less, so I'm not surprised."

      After the VW issue, the US EPA and CARB re-tested all light diesel vehicles sold in the US. Nor further notices of violation have been issued.

    7. Re: I'm somehow not surprised. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, Dinner for Uninitiated Hagiophobes; feeding the knowledge-averse since 1997.

    8. Re: I'm somehow not surprised. by loufoque · · Score: 0

      Because meeting specifications in test conditions wasn't considered cheating until some sensationalist journalists said it was.

    9. Re:I'm somehow not surprised. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Fortunately if Nissan cheated on my emissions, an 20 x 0 is still 0 from my EV :-)

      I really hope owners sue over this. Reduced performance now, and excessive health-damaging pollution in the past. Health providers should sue too.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    10. Re: I'm somehow not surprised. by jabuzz · · Score: 0

      Except "cheating" other wise known as optimizing for the test is almost certainly taking place for all fuels.

    11. Re:I'm somehow not surprised. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      not really, PSA (Peugeot / Citroën) is well know for their APF (anti particle filters) systems. Of course many people reject to buy their cars because of the additional cost that these systems imply, but the reality with diesel is that to make It clean is both complex and expensive.

    12. Re: I'm somehow not surprised. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do realize that GM is a US manufacturer, right? US manufacturers have an incentive to sell cars worldwide, including cars with Diesel engines.

    13. Re:I'm somehow not surprised. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I suspect that the majority of brands do the same thing more or less, so I'm not surprised."

      After the VW issue, the US EPA and CARB re-tested all light diesel vehicles sold in the US. Nor further notices of violation have been issued.

      Oh, sure.

      I so truuuuust the Obama administration to not keep that secret and pass on a shakedown of a few hundred million dollars...

    14. Re: I'm somehow not surprised. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because meeting specifications in test conditions wasn't considered cheating until some sensationalist journalists said it was.

      This was cheating. There's a very simple test. If you can openly and clearly explain what you did to achieve a test pass to the regulator and get them to sign off on it then you aren't cheating. In that case the problem is with the regulator (clear analogue tax "optimization" as opposed to tax "avoidance" - companies often have their plans signed off by the tax authorities). If the problem is with the regulator then a political fix is needed. VW and the other manufacturers have hid this so well that they mostly aren't aware of what they have done themselves. The only question is whether the cheating was done by the company (with knowledge and / or negligence from the board) or done by individual engineers or engineering groups due to lax oversight.

    15. Re: I'm somehow not surprised. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What? Capitalists chest to increase profits? I'm totally shocked by that!

    16. Re:I'm somehow not surprised. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      nothing new:

      http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-09-23/carmaker-cheating-on-emissions-almost-as-old-as-pollution-tests

    17. Re:I'm somehow not surprised. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those manufacturers also have HQs and legal bribery of politicians in the USA and when the USA demands you look the other way, you'd better look the other way, lest you have freedom and democracy brought to you at gunpoint.

      And remember that all the rhetoric about taxing businesses or making regulation against them (like with the rich), it's not acceptable because they'll just leave and take all the jobs with them, leaving the country in the lurch.

      So YOU are responsible for the political class caving in as much as any executive greasing palms: you'd vote them out if they cost you your job or even looked like they were risking doing so.

    18. Re:I'm somehow not surprised. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suspect that the majority of brands do the same thing more or less, so I'm not surprised.

      They all use the same software from the same supplier which has a feature so that you can estimate what fuel consumption would be when the engine was running at optimal heat. We all know Apple* never cheated on any test.

      * Just given as an example.

    19. Re:I'm somehow not surprised. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's just clarify something. The USA is currently investigating and will most likely fine VW motors billions of dollars. Nothing necessarily wrong with that, as long as it's directly correlated to the amount of cars sold in America only. What I find annoying and a common occurrence is, American companies ripping off the rest of the world and then quietly getting away with it.

      This looks like a conspiracy from General Motors to subtly hide wrong doing on the same scale of VW and it is an absolute disgrace. I hope Europe takes every penny it is due from General Motors and some more just for trying to hide it.

    20. Re:I'm somehow not surprised. by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      I suspect that the majority of brands do the same thing more or less, so I'm not surprised.

      Yep. When Dieselgate broke I was modded down for pointing out that what we're likely to see is basically everyone get busted, because basically everyone has always been doing this. I don't want a medal, I just want Slashdotters to wake the fuck up to corporate malfeasance. It is the normal state of affairs, not the exception.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    21. Re: I'm somehow not surprised. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only a tiny number of diesel cars are sold in the US, so that doesn't say much.

    22. Re:I'm somehow not surprised. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's no surprise to customers that the fuel consumption figures provided by car manufacturers are almost impossible to achieve in reality

      Every car I've ever owned over the last 30 years (two VWs, three Toyotas, and a Honda) have all given me better mileage than stated on the window sticker. I'm no hypermiler - I'm just talking about 5-10% better than sticker mileage. You can even check user-reported mileage for most vehicles at http://www.fueleconomy.gov/mpg/MPG.do?action=browseList. A cursory look shows that the average reported mileage for many vehicles is more than the combined sticker mileage.

      If you find that your mileage is significantly under the reported mileage for the vehicle, it's time to examine your driving habits. Since everyone thinks they are great drivers most people will not consider their own shortcomings as a factor.

    23. Re:I'm somehow not surprised. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's no surprise to customers that the fuel consumption figures provided by car manufacturers are almost impossible to achieve in reality, no matter what the gauges in the cars says.

      Funny thing. My Honda motorcycle reads 55 MPG on the dash but in reality it gets 70+ MPG actual measured usage. Hmmm, who fucked that one up?!

    24. Re: I'm somehow not surprised. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Vote for Trump. He wants to tax corps 35% for going overseas. Good idea or just more hand waving?

      These are not the corps you're looking for! ðY-

    25. Re:I'm somehow not surprised. by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      It can't have *no* impact on the US economy. VW sells higher-quality cars at lower prices, meaning every American can buy a car and SOME OTHER STUFF, which puts more purchasing power into the hands of Americans. This spreads employment (creates jobs).

      That's a global consideration, of course. It may create more jobs in other nations at the expense of other domestic jobs. The consideration at hand locally is the fluctuation of domestic job proportions: are we 90% local and 10% export, or 80% local 20% export, or what?

      We find ways to export jobs, reducing the cost of products (by cost of labor reduction), thus reducing the spending of each consumer, thus leaving money in every consumer pocket, thus allowing us to sell them new goods, thus creating new jobs. Often, this doesn't change the balance: we wind up with 10% more jobs, and the same proportion are created locally as in China, and so we end up offshoring 30,000 American jobs to China and then creating 40,000 *new* American jobs and 5,000 new Chinese jobs, and thus end up with *more* local employment. It often *does* change the balance, as well, and we can offshore enough of the new jobs to create a local rise in unemployment (this is limited by the reduction of the consumer market, but it's even more limited by the simple fact that we're *constantly* in a state of having offshored as much as we could figure out how at a profit, and only do more when we find a new way to save costs with that mechanism).

      The practical result of losing an import product, if the import product is cheaper than domestic, is a reduction in local employment and in standard-of-living at all income classes. Ricardo's theory of comparative advantage suggests this in fairly loose terms; I conclude the same using new methods.

      Understand that the above is *not* well-formed theory. I have very well-formed economic theories at this point; however, labor export and exchange rates are two particular topics I've been putting a lot of theoretical research into. I have a loose sense of how these work, and can put it into words; I *can't* produce a concrete model (yet), so the overall idea is *probably* (but not guaranteed) correct, while many of the details of any lengthy explanation likely have flaws. I'll buff them out eventually.

    26. Re:I'm somehow not surprised. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only direct competitor to VW in the light diesel market in the US is from GM. The powers that be in Washington have invested heavily, both monetarily and politically, into saving that company. This gives them a personal motivation to not only hide potential evidence of cheating on the part of GM, but also a motivation to act aggressively and excessively against their main competitor. All that no more notices have been issued means is that nothing of benefit would come of it.

    27. Re:I'm somehow not surprised. by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 2

      The funny thing is it's still a non-issue. People aren't toxicologists, and they look at a 0.0012ppm increase in an atmosphere with 0.023ppm NOx and go, "OMG TEH CARZ WILL R KILL UZ ALL!" and talk about how poisonous these emissions are. This doesn't even account for either that *everyone* is doing this (you're not going to suddenly see tons of shit pumped into the atmosphere), that we have long-term atmospheric measurements (so it *hasn't* caused a problem), or that the concentration of NOx around the cars themselves is extremely high compared to anywhere else (highways and city air both carry *way* more of these emissions than anywhere with less-dense traffic, and even carry significantly less at night).

      We've stumbled over a problem of non-compliance, not a problem of pollution. Pride, face, and the long-term goal of improved air quality tell us to squash this; however, logic and reasoning tell us to examine the performance benefits of these platforms--notably, extending our fuel supply--and weigh them against the cost. Have we reduced emissions enough to shift focus to fuel supply extension? Can we level off a little and aim for not guzzling so much gasoline? Those questions require us to admit we may have been wrong for a while--right initially, but then continuing along the same path when conditions changed.

    28. Re: I'm somehow not surprised. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I love your attitude that "capitalists" are these big cheaters. Did you every hang around in working class communities? what a bunch of angels they are! never break a rule, never scam, no insurance fraud, etc., only capitalists do that stuff!

    29. Re: I'm somehow not surprised. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The top polluting 15 ships pollute about as much as all the cars in the world

    30. Re:I'm somehow not surprised. by mjwx · · Score: 1

      I suspect that the majority of brands do the same thing more or less, so I'm not surprised.

      I suspected as much myself. Other manufacturers must have tested the VWs and found out about the cheating -- so why did the cheating stay secret for so long? Probably because everyone was doing the same.

      Anyone with the slightest knowledge of how diesel engines worked was almost completely certain of it.

      Diesel engines are dirty, they aren't efficient either. You only use them in applications where a petrol engine is unsuitable (I.E. things like heavy haulage, where pulling power is more important than any other consideration). You simply cant make a clean diesel, you can only try to make it less polluting.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    31. Re:I'm somehow not surprised. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The reason it stayed hidden so long? DMCA makes it illegal to investigate how anything works. If some one works out how GM does the engine management they are breaking the law and will go to jail for exposing the criminals at GM. Nice situation there.

  2. Reader Accused of Modyfing Title of Slashdot Post by Sean0michael · · Score: 1

    In other news...

    --
    Funtime Candy Wow! - my plan for eventually conquering Japan.
  3. Great cars, wish we could still buy them here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In the 1970s I had an Opel 1500 coupe. It looked a lot like a BMW 2001. That car was so sweet. It handled like a dream. It had an electronic fuel injection system--an analog electronic FI system. Fuel injection in those days was so rare. 99% of the vehicles on the road had carbs.

    That car would start it any kind of weather and go like the wind. Loved that car. Wish I still had it.

    Funky software on new Opels? Not my problem. Much ado over nothing.

    1. Re:Great cars, wish we could still buy them here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yet I am sure you are the same sort of chucklehead that freaked out when VW did this. Even though they all cheat. My grandmother had an Opel in the 70's, the entire floor fell out over the Golden Gate bridge. Shit cars just like GM is known for.

    2. Re:Great cars, wish we could still buy them here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hi. Ha ha. My Opel wasn't like that but I believe you. The Opel Kadett was known to have those issues. By the way, your grandmother is my age, do you think she would like to date me?

    3. Re:Great cars, wish we could still buy them here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My grandmother had an Opel in the 70's, the entire floor fell out over the Golden Gate bridge.

      That's because she's a fat cunt,

  4. Re:How to tell a regulation has failed utterly by BradleyUffner · · Score: 2

    So if pretty much every manufacturer is doing this, how is this not equal to a kind of mass civic protest?

    If in reality car emissions are higher than overly ambitious standards, but still low enough that air quality is OK - should the cars be "fixed" (as in the pet related term, neutered) or instead should the regulations be brought to realistic levels based on what cars are actually emitting today?

    You think our air quality is ok?

  5. Re:How to tell a regulation has failed utterly by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So if pretty much every manufacturer is doing this, how is this not equal to a kind of mass civic protest?

    Money.

    --

    "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

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

    "as well as well"

  7. Re:How to tell a regulation has failed utterly by soccerisgod · · Score: 5, Informative

    If in reality car emissions are higher than overly ambitious standards, but still low enough that air quality is OK - should the cars be "fixed" (as in the pet related term, neutered) or instead should the regulations be brought to realistic levels based on what cars are actually emitting today?

    Air quality is anything but okay. I can't speak for the US, but here in Europe, we have serious problems with it. In China it's so bad in some areas you can actually only register a new car if it's electric - that's actually an important reason why electric cars are getting more attention now.

    --
    If a train station is a place where a train stops, what's a workstation?
  8. the stories don't exactly match by YesIAmAScript · · Score: 1

    One says the cars were modified outside the factory before to increase power. The other implies they have always been this way and now are being modified to be lower emissions.

    So which is it?

    I hope there is further investigation but this seems like more than coincidence.

    --
    http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
    1. Re:the stories don't exactly match by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I remember being able to buy "chips" in the 1980's/1990's to boost the acceleration of your high performance car. I remember this because my college roommate sold them. He's retired now.

    2. Re:the stories don't exactly match by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      if the cars were "chipped" then most certainly the opel dealerships would not be altering the software. they probably would not touch it even.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    3. Re:the stories don't exactly match by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not so sure. Saab (now defunct) was part of the GM group. Back about 10 years ago or so, their dealerships were caught chipping all the cars. So you would have a car that was officially economical (and thus pay a low rate of tax) but actually be driving one more powerful but less economical. The dealerships themselves were the ones doing the chipping.

      Chipping is not generally a good idea. You can really fuck the engine up if you don't know what you are doing.

      I know of some people who chipped their car for less power and better fuel economy (think that might involve disabling the NOX treatment though, I'm not sure).

  9. In the states it is fine to fudge diesel facts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The chip mod industry is booming so that big rig wannabe monster truck diesels can pollute with impunity. Step across the border into Arizona or Nevada and bingo it is fine to pollute the air. What really pisses me off is that the industry is a farce, here we are complaining about "euroweany' diesels that get stellar fuel economy and the same time brag about monster hunks of shit that rip up the environment and send a shit load of carbon in the form of soot and CO2 into the atmosphere. Americans are becoming so stupid that they are blind to the truth here! It is blatantly obvious that we are being duped by the auto/oil industry. What fucking joke!

    1. Re: In the states it is fine to fudge diesel facts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Diesels actually produce carbon monoxide, and about 28% less than their gasoline equivalents. They also get better fuel economy than gas/petrol engines. They are more efficient engines. The particulate issue is of more concern. Most modern diesels have a synthetic urea that is used to burn off the soot. Diesels are less common on the roads, too. Gas cars pollute far more.

    2. Re:In the states it is fine to fudge diesel facts by x0ra · · Score: 1

      Technically, you are polluting everyday when you are taking a shit.

    3. Re: In the states it is fine to fudge diesel facts by silentcoder · · Score: 3, Interesting

      CO1 is inherently unstable and will bond with oxygen to form CO2 fairly rapidly. That's why we don't have a major CO1 air polution problem - CO1 is basically the past tense of CO2. It's also why carbon monoxide is more toxic than CO2. CO2 will choke you but at least it doesn't accelerate the process by absorbing the oxygen you breathed in with it before you can.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    4. Re: In the states it is fine to fudge diesel facts by Viol8 · · Score: 5, Informative

      CO is even worse than that - it binds to haemoglobin and doesn't let go which means the O2 in your lungs can't. Thats why it only takes a relatively small amount of CO to poison you.

  10. Re: How to tell a regulation has failed utterly by Namarrgon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Overly ambitious" standards? In whose opinion, the car manufacturers or those who suffer the consequences?

    This isn't some civic protest akin to Prohibition, these are regulations designed to avoid Tragedy of the Commons scenarios with real costs to society. In the UK alone, nitrogen dioxide emissions cause 23,500 extra deaths, costing around £13bn per year.

    --
    Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
  11. Re: How to tell a regulation has failed utterly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Except people are dying because of bad air quality, you may be correct.

  12. _____gate by johncandale · · Score: 1

    "Dieselgate scandal " Can we please stop calling every controversy *gate. emailgate. Celebgate, Donutgate Climategate, Intelgate, Bridgegate. etc

    1. Re: _____gate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My friend, I feel you. But you are fighting a meme. Nobody can fight a meme. Nobody. Best to just shudder in disgust and move on or you'll go fucking insane.

    2. Re:_____gate by paulhar · · Score: 1

      scandalgate or controversygate... so hard to choose...

    3. Re: _____gate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just make everything Babyfuckergate. Babyfuckergate 1, Babyfuckergate 2, etc...

      Scandals will go down, because your career might recover if a CEO is tarnished in autogate, but try that when it's called Babyfuckergate 17!

    4. Re: _____gate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait until there's a scandal over water - imagine the confusion it will cause.

    5. Re:_____gate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      gategate is the obvious choice!

    6. Re:_____gate by lgw · · Score: 1

      OK, but what if the center of the scandalgate is Bill Gates?

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    7. Re:_____gate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've just exposed Gategate.

  13. Re:How to tell a regulation has failed utterly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Diesel is the problem in Europe. Air filled with particulates from small diesel engines.

  14. Volvo messed too by scsirob · · Score: 4, Interesting

    My Volvo V40 D4 used 4.7l/100km for 30.000km strait. At the very first service interval, the ECU software was updated. Immediately the car started to use 5.3l/100km and no longers seems to deliver the same power. My driving habbits and usual routes have not changed. My shoes didn't get any heavier. How do you explain 15% more fuel usage other than trying to cover up software 'flaws'?

    --
    To Terminate, or not to Terminate, that's the question - SCSIROB
    1. Re:Volvo messed too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When was the update?

    2. Re:Volvo messed too by scsirob · · Score: 1

      November of last year. Didn't get a tyre change at that time, so that can't be the cause.

      --
      To Terminate, or not to Terminate, that's the question - SCSIROB
    3. Re:Volvo messed too by m.alessandrini · · Score: 2

      Their fault was forgetting to hack the trip computer too.

    4. Re:Volvo messed too by thegarbz · · Score: 5, Insightful

      How do you explain 15% more fuel usage other than trying to cover up software 'flaws'?

      A fucked up service by an apprentice who didn't know what they were doing?

      15% is a low number in the scheme of assembling something incorrectly. I'm not saying they didn't do what you claim, but do watch your cause and effect conclusions.

    5. Re:Volvo messed too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm just wondering if they just enabled the turning signals. Maybe that's why they are disabled in Volvos by default, because they use so much energy.

    6. Re:Volvo messed too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cold winter starts and short runs could account for that (especially if you'r running a "heavy" oil), or shitty valve clearances, or a clogged air filter.

      IIRC I once had an engineering problem where I had to calculate the heat dissipation in the journal bearings for a given oil at a given RPM at a cold-but-not-unreasonably-so temperature, it came out to several horsepower. They wouldn't stay cold for long at that rate but it was very illustrative of the pit-falls of cold starting. When you add in all the other frictional losses, and the lower burn efficiency, and heating the coolant up to running temperature it all adds up.

      At this point you say that this was in the middle of summer and the cars only 18 months old and you changed the air filter every 3000 miles.

    7. Re:Volvo messed too by bgarcia · · Score: 1

      I can understand how a software update to lower emissions would result in less power. But I can't imagine how making an engine less efficient would do so. If that fuel isn't being burned completely to produce power, then it's going to be emitted.

      --
      I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar.
    8. Re:Volvo messed too by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      If your country is anything like Canada(in the winter season right now), around the time the diesel scandal broke it was also the same time that winter blends for fuel were being changed over to. Seeing 15% as a drop is within the blend change, to know for sure you'll have to wait until spring.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    9. Re:Volvo messed too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's very easy: just increase the degree of exhaust gas recirculation. Combustion temperature and the amount of available oxygen will be reduced, hence less NOx, but a less efficient combustion, so less power and more fuel needed. Additionally, particulate emissions will be increased, but modern diesels have far less trouble meeting particulate emission norms than NOx norms (mostly because regulators tend to overestimate the importance of NOx and underestimate the importance of particulates).

    10. Re:Volvo messed too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A change at the pump from summer blend to winter blend fuel can easily cause a 15% reduction in economy. This could also explain why it happened in November.

  15. WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Opel has been gone for 40 years. Cute little GT. Maxed out at 105.

  16. fyi that is general motors, not opel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    80 yers ago it was the opel motor company, but for decades now it
    is general motors!

    1. Re:fyi that is general motors, not opel by frootcakeuk · · Score: 1

      By your logic then all Mercedes & Maybach's being owned by Daimler AG are Renault-Nissan!

      --
      Remember kids: What's right isn't as important as what's profitable.
  17. Open it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When the VW scandal broke, it was pointed out that if this software were opened up (open source), it could be independently audited, and this kind of fuckery would not be possible.

    Now we've got Volvo, Renault, and Opel (GM) doing it. This simply underscores that transparency is needed to prevent fraud. You can't take the auto manufacturers' word for it. And you can't trust the EPA to test for it.

  18. Re: How to tell a regulation has failed utterly by WarJolt · · Score: 1

    My air quality is great, but I live on the west coast. I love the smell of ocean air.

    Even LA is a lot better than it used to be. I think we are making progress.

  19. Re:How to tell a regulation has failed utterly by rioki · · Score: 0

    When was the last time you saw smog?

  20. Latest breaking news by m.alessandrini · · Score: 1

    Cars do pollute, despite governments pretending they don't!

  21. Re: How to tell a regulation has failed utterly by WarJolt · · Score: 2

    If you are idling at stop lights diesel sucks. If you are on a highway it's better.

    Cities compound the problem by having lots of stop and go traffic.

  22. Re:How to tell a regulation has failed utterly by LordWabbit2 · · Score: 2

    Sure the air is fine, couldn't be better, who the fuck want's to live till they are 70 and still be able to blow out birthday candles.

    --
    There are three kinds of falsehood: the first is a 'fib,' the second is a downright lie, and the third is statistics.
  23. Re:How to tell a regulation has failed utterly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You know those remote places where a car passes by once a day at most?
    The windows doesn't get dirty there. The rain that falls down doesn't collect pollution on the way down.

    When was the last time you see a window not get dirty?

  24. Re:Reader Accused of Modyfing Title of Slashdot Po by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is impressive and depressing how badly spell-checked slashdot articles are.

  25. Re:How to tell a regulation has failed utterly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When was the last time you saw smog?

    If you need to see something, then feast your eyes on this: http://aqicn.org/city/amsterdam/

    Use the map or the search box to find your area of residence and take a look there. Make sure you check it out when there is no rain to clear up the air.

  26. Re:How to tell a regulation has failed utterly by silentcoder · · Score: 1

    > but still low enough that air quality is OK

    Define OK... because it most certainly isn't with what the scientists whose recommendations the regulations were based on defined it as.

    --
    Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
  27. Re:How to tell a regulation has failed utterly by silentcoder · · Score: 2

    >So if pretty much every manufacturer is doing this, how is this not equal to a kind of mass civic protest?

    Well, if Bernie Madoff were to resist arrest - and then every other convicted fraudster in the US resisted incarceration or tried to escape all at once... would you also consider *that* an example of legitimate civic protest ?

    Sure you *can* protest for the right to harm others - but that doesn't mean your protest deserves anything but scorn from those others or lawmakers. At best this is "protest" in the same way that the South's seccession to preserve slavery and actively oppose states-rights (the claim that it was defending states rights is flagrantly ahistorical bullshit - it was in fact opposing the rights of states like Maine to *not* respect their slave-laws and not feel compelled to return runaways) was a civic protest - it still deservedly got suppressed.

    Your rights end where mine begins. All pollution intrudes on my rights, we may grant a license for some on the basis of wanting the outcomes of the polluting process but you never get a *right* to do it because you are harming others, you get a limited license granted under specific conditions to minimize the harm suffered by the allowance. If you overstep those limits by any degree whatsoever you are the enemy of freedom - no matter what republican politicians say.

    --
    Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
  28. Re:How to tell a regulation has failed utterly by tomknight · · Score: 2

    If every manufacturer decided to make seatbelts unsafe (and lied about it), would you consider that a civil protest or a criminal action?

    Many corporations breaking the rules in an effort to save money doesn't make it right in any way shape or form.

    --
    Oh arse
  29. Re:How to tell a regulation has failed utterly by maestroX · · Score: 2

    If in reality car emissions are higher than overly ambitious standards, but still low enough that air quality is OK - should the cars be "fixed" (as in the pet related term, neutered) or instead should the regulations be brought to realistic levels based on what cars are actually emitting today?

    Did the car makers complain about the standards? No
    Were they upfront about the issue to the customer and public? No
    Did they install the best for low emission software by default? No

    This is not bending the rules but breaking them.
    And the standards are not overly ambitious: http://www.theguardian.com/env... Stop buying fraud stuff.

  30. Volvo have screwed themselves by Viol8 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    They're new engine line up consists of ONE engine - a 2.0L 4 cyl in various stages of tune and turbocharging (presumably to save development costs). Good luck to them getting decent NOx figures out of that in the high power versions, not to mention longevity. There does seem to be an obsession with shriking engines below what is reasonable (3 cyl 1.0L in a Mondeo?? Hello Ford!) simply to meet CO2 emissions targets. Thats all well and good but you don't get something for nothing and high pressure small engines just don't last so you will probably find the car scrapped years earlier than otherwise and so completely negating any CO2 benefit accrued by the engine. Short term thinking at its finest.

    1. Re:Volvo have screwed themselves by prefect42 · · Score: 1

      I'm not convinced this is that big a deal for most people. UK average mileage was 7900 miles in 2014. Even if you say the engine goes pop at 120k miles, that's still 15 average years of driving. Let's be honest, somebody buying the 1.0L Mondeo is probably going to drive fewer miles than average, so I don't see that being a bother for anyone, even if it does suffer reduced engine longevity. Any slight bump in an old car turns it into an insurance write off anyway. Average age of a car in the UK is 8 years.

      If I had a choice between a modern 1.0L Focus, and a 1.6L Focus of roughly a decade ago, you see what difference you're talking about. Better performance (25% more power, 33% more peak torque), far better MPG, lighter. General torque curve means much more lower down power, so you have to work the gearbox less.
      Hell, look at the current 1.6 Duratec engine, and convince someone to get that over the 1.0L.

      If these engines were going pop at 50k I'd think you had a point, but they're not.

      --

      jh

    2. Re:Volvo have screwed themselves by Viol8 · · Score: 1

      "Let's be honest, somebody buying the 1.0L Mondeo is probably going to drive fewer miles than average,"

      I disagree. Not many private buyers are going to buy a big car like a Mondeo with that miserable little engine. Its almost certainly aimed at the bottom end of the fleet market and they will do a lot of miles.

      "General torque curve means much more lower down power, so you have to work the gearbox less."

      At traffic queue speeds the turbo isnt working and the engine will be gutless so it'll actually be more effort to drive than the 1.6 in that situation, plus constantly having to give it extra revs to move wont do the clutch any favours.

    3. Re:Volvo have screwed themselves by swb · · Score: 1

      I saw a video review of the XC90 with the dual-boost 2.0L engine (it's turbocharged *and* supercharged -- apparently supercharged at low RPM and then turbocharged at higher RPM).

      The power output seemed kind of crazy for such a small engine and I do wonder how long they will hold up before either losing a ton of power and/or needing major rework.

      What I thought was kind of crazy was that fuel consumption wasn't amazing, maybe mid-high 20s average MPG. I own a 2007 S80 with the 4.4L V8 that also used to ship in the XC90 and I get something like 26-28 in long-haul highway driving. The 2.0L will beat the V8 hands down in average MPG, but the improvement seems lesser at highway speeds for the wear and tear it will sustain.

      My 4.4L V8 is mechanically superb, I get nearly the same engine wear stats at 110K miles that I had at 20K. Unless the tranny shits, I don't see a problem getting another 100k out of this car. I'm not sure how they will squeeze 200k out of a 2.0L like that.

    4. Re:Volvo have screwed themselves by Viol8 · · Score: 1

      " fuel consumption wasn't amazing, maybe mid-high 20s average MPG."

      You need a given amount of fuel to produce a given amount of power regardless of how big the engine is. Yes the more cylinders you have the greater your frictional and induction losses but they don't really add up to all that much at the end of the day.

      "I'm not sure how they will squeeze 200k out of a 2.0L like that."

      They won't. But by they'll make sure the engine will last up to the warranty period in normal use. Beyond that they don't care.

    5. Re:Volvo have screwed themselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I had a 1.0 eco-boost focus as a hire car for 8 weeks.

      It was a nightmare and dangerous pulling out on junctions/roundabouts.

      If you didn't remember to over-rev to make sure turbo was spooled, it didn't go at all and tried to stall. if you revved to keep the turbo spooled, it then went the other way and span the wheels, totally shit! cannot recommend at all.

    6. Re:Volvo have screwed themselves by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      it's turbocharged *and* supercharged -- apparently supercharged at low RPM and then turbocharged at higher RPM)

      I would think the opposite with regards to fuel efficiency - mainly turbo, and the supercharger gate closes when extreme power is needed. But otherwise yes, for most power to be available and on-demand, it would be supercharger first, then pile on the turbo later (due to its turbo lag at lower RPM).

      Supercharging is inherently a parasitic process that feeds off the engine to make more. Modern superchargers have a gate that boosts the engine under load when needed. The advantage is that you can effectively turn a 4 cylinder into 6 cylinder making power-plant. But the savings in weight trades off increase fuels consumption, increase internal stresses (wear and tear), and yet another mechanical part that will eventually need servicing (the blower).

      With tuber chargers, you have turbo lag (negative intake manifold pressure) when just puttering around at a constant speeds. Its only under load does the turbo capture the energy from exhaust back pressure and spool the intake turbine for boost. While more efficient that a supercharger, it too suffers the same drawbacks of stress and vastly more complex in plumbing and subjected heat the components are exposed too compared to a supercharger.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    7. Re:Volvo have screwed themselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      driven the 1.0 focus, which is smaller and lighter than mondeo, but same engine.

      "General torque curve means much more lower down power, so you have to work the gearbox less."

      nope, before turbo spooled, no torque at all, you end up flicking around the gearbox to find sweet spots, your sentence is bollox.

    8. Re:Volvo have screwed themselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I own a 1.0 eco-boost, and it doesn't do any of that stuff. It sounds like your hire car might have been dodgy. Mine has plenty of torque (yes, you do need to go higher than 1.5krpm) and works nicely, in fact it reminds me of my old trusty 90HP Ford Fiesta 1.6 diesel. The one thing that I found "different" is that you need to use first gear quite a lot, don't go to second too quickly. It's one of the nicest cars I've driven recently, and I've gone through a lot while my old car had gremlins and I constantly had to get hire cars for weekends.

      If giving it a bit of power spun the wheels that probably means the hire car company put cheap eco tires on it that didn't have enough grip. I detest those cheap tires, makes you feel like you're driving on ice half the time.

    9. Re:Volvo have screwed themselves by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      I would think the opposite with regards to fuel efficiency - mainly turbo, and the supercharger gate closes when extreme power is needed.

      Volvo is using a butterfly valve and a clutched supercharger, and they ARE doing what the GP said. The supercharger provides low-end boost, and then it's disconnected at high RPMs and the turbo takes over.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    10. Re:Volvo have screwed themselves by Viol8 · · Score: 1

      I bet the life of that clutch will be short and expensive.

    11. Re:Volvo have screwed themselves by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      It sounds like it's basically the same story as an A/C compressor clutch, so it might not be that bad. Say, moderate and moderate.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    12. Re:Volvo have screwed themselves by kimvette · · Score: 1

      Clutched superchargers are not anything new. The 1988 supercharged MR2 came with such a configuration and "twin-charging" them (adding a turbo kit) was a relatively common performance modification, and that car was amazingly reliable.

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    13. Re:Volvo have screwed themselves by Rising+Ape · · Score: 1

      Those small turbo engines are a bit weird if you're used to standard petrol ones. I had a car with a Fiat 1.4 engine as a courtesy car and it was ridiculously stall-happy. It conked out if you tried to pull away from idle rpm in 2nd - something even my old ultra-weedy 1.3 Toyota could manage. It did go well once the turbo spun up though, and was quite economical for a silly crossover thing.

    14. Re: Volvo have screwed themselves by prefect42 · · Score: 1

      I drive a 1.4 TSI, so not quite as small, but not worlds apart from the 1.0 Ecoboost. As long as you've got 1400rpm it's fine, more than 2000 and the rest of the power arrives. But that's not wildy different to my last naturally aspirated Toyota, and all in there's lots more low down torque, so you can accelerate uphill at 40 in sixth.

      --

      jh

    15. Re: Volvo have screwed themselves by prefect42 · · Score: 1

      Either Ford have screwed up, or you got a bad example. Small engined VWs (1.2/1.4 TSI) I've driven have exhibited none of this, with plenty of torque available from ~1400rpm, with no effort required to spool the turbo. Compared to a 2.0TDI, you get far less noticeable boost.

      Comment from someone here who owns one suggests they're not all bad.

      --

      jh

    16. Re:Volvo have screwed themselves by mjwx · · Score: 1

      There does seem to be an obsession with shriking engines below what is reasonable (3 cyl 1.0L in a Mondeo?? Hello Ford!) simply to meet CO2 emissions targets.

      Actually its due to tax reasons in most places. Cars with big engines cost more to register.

      In addition to this, engine efficiency has increased to the point where smaller engines are producing more power. The 1L Ecoboost produces in the Mondeo produces 92 KW. That's more than the 1.8L 4cyl Zetec in the first generation Mondeo which produced 88KW.

      However the Mondeo is also available in the 150 and 180KW 2L Ecoboost if the 1L is not to your liking...

      Besides this, the Mondeo is an economy family wagon, not a bleeding sports car. Low fuel usage is considered a huge plus by perspective buyers because people buy Mondeo's to move their kids around frugally, not to set lap records at Silverstone. If you want a hot Ford, they're making a new Focus RS with the 180KW engine and a much lighter body.

      Finally, there is a replacement for displacement... they're called Turbochargers.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    17. Re:Volvo have screwed themselves by EETech1 · · Score: 1

      We played with some superchargers that were driven by brushless electric motors. Ran them just long enough to get the turbo spooled up. They made a huge difference.

    18. Re:Volvo have screwed themselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      is your usual car a diesel? my wife switched cars from a bigish seat altea with the 1.9 diesel to a big ix35 with the 1.6 petrol engine. took her a few weeks to get used to the drop in torque and having to rev it more. Hell the altea can pull away from lights in third gear if you're canny with the throttle.

      BTW: we bought the ix35 second hand, two years old with 11,000 miles on the clock. We had the choice of two practically identical cars, one petrol with the 1.6 and a 1.8 diesel. we went for the petrol cos it was 1000 quid less and noticeably quieter as well. Given the mileage she does she'd never have saved the 1000 off the fuel bills.

  31. Fuel economy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You know what's strange? I've a 2003 BMW 320D. I regularly get consumption under 6 litres of diesel per 100KM . The car is officially rated at 175g of C02 per km. Now I sometimes drive a friends new 320D ED (Efficient Dynamics) which is meant to officially emit 101 - 113 grams of C02 per km. It gets more or less the same fuel economy. Maybe it is a little better though nowhere as near as what the official figures would suggest. Then there was a colleague who had a new 318D and was consuming more than my old car. Basically he always had the foot to the floor when driving if he wanted to accelerate quickly.

    Anyway these days I use an electric bike or a normal bike as much as possible and only use the car when I have to. That's the best way to reduce emissions.

  32. The larger story that nobody is addressing.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The entire green movement to clean up motor vehicles by politicians was a farce and capitalist corps will do whatever they please no matter what.

  33. Re:How to tell a regulation has failed utterly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because the Honda Civic 1.6 diesel is one of the few that actually lives up to its official consumption figures...

  34. Customer more important by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The customers satisfaction is always going to be important. I am not surprised by any of this. People have been hacking their vehicle engines to make them perform better for a long time. I'm sure a lot of people forgot about the catalytic converter test tube. A pipe that could be installed in place of a converter so it could be tested (wink,wink). Or people using plates to bypass EGR valves, or using golf tee's to plug up vacuum lines to emission devices. Only today all that stuff is not necessary with the advent of software tweaks. All you have to do is tweak the engine management software and you now have a better running engine. VW simply knew that this could be done so covertly that even certification could be tricked. If you ask any engine maker they will tell you that a engine will average out better with less crap bolted on then with more. Especially with diesel, the EPA's of the world have basically managed to strangle engines to a point they do not work well.

  35. Re:How to tell a regulation has failed utterly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The car makers have always been complaining about the standards in Europe. Their default position is always "it's not possible" yet they eventually manage to achieve the goal. The goal in the EU by 2030 is to have fuel consumption of 2litres per 100km (diesel if I am not mistaken).
    Furthermore dieselgate doesn't relate to the latest generation of diesel engines that VW are selling (the EU 6 standard). The issues were with the EU 5 standard engines. So (but I am not an expert) if my understanding is correct, the cars currently on sale by VW are actually meeting the standards. The main issue is with the EU 5 standard engines which are no longer on sale.

  36. Re:Summary written for 3-year olds with basic engl by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, it's just a front wheel drive car. But for some strange reason its fuel consumption is lower if the unpowered rear wheels are spinning along (which is normally not the case during an emissions test, but will always be the case during actual driving). It's kind of hard to find a logical reason for this other than plain cheating.

  37. Re:How to tell a regulation has failed utterly by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

    The real problem with China is their population density and lack of emission controls. The need to spread out, install scrubbers for their coal fired plants, and transition to nuclear. Besides, most of the automobile pollution isn't gasoline cars, it's from diesel and 2-stroke mopeds.

    --
    Life is not for the lazy.
  38. Re:How to tell a regulation has failed utterly by soccerisgod · · Score: 1

    Besides, most of the automobile pollution isn't gasoline cars, it's from diesel and 2-stroke mopeds.

    This article is about cars with diesel engines....

    --
    If a train station is a place where a train stops, what's a workstation?
  39. "DUH" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When you want the kingpins, go after the dealers.

  40. Re: How to tell a regulation has failed utterly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    And that's exactly the kind of traffic where EVs shine. No idling and regen braking makes for quiet, clean city driving.

  41. Wake Up by wkwilley2 · · Score: 1

    Anyone pretending that all car companies have done this and are on the shirttails of getting busted are in denial.

    Hell even Chevy had the Diesel Cruze last year, surprisingly, just after Dieselgate broke, it was announced that the Diesel version of the cruze would not return for 2016, and that was chevy's only diesel passenger car (in the US).

    --
    Have you ever fallen asleep at the keybhanusdiog?
  42. Re:How to tell a regulation has failed utterly by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    Diesel is the problem in Europe. Air filled with particulates from small diesel engines.

    If you are worried about particulates from engines, you should be at least as worried about gasoline as diesel, as gasoline cars produce just as much particulate output as diesels. You aren't, though. You're just an anti-diesel shill.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  43. Re:How to tell a regulation has failed utterly by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

    Right, with the primary emphasis on pollution they cause. My comment was in regards to the folly of China only registering electric cars instead of modern diesel cars; their electric power generation is a joke and thus you're only moving the pollution to another area.

    You know, in most parts (if not all), you're lucky if you can even get up to 2/3rds the top speed there compared to the US and parts of Europe. That, and you'll be stuck in slow rolling traffic in the major cities anyways. So correct me if I'm wrong here, but I doubt the Chinese would notice a difference in driving with a mandated software update to existing VWs and Skodas on the road. And to my knowledge, China doesn't mandate annual inspections of vehicles. As long as it doesn't throw black and blue smoke, it's deemed "clean". Just get those diesel cars mandated to have a firmware update and the nearest dealer - free of cost - (paid for by the automotive company) within the proceeding 12 months.

    --
    Life is not for the lazy.
  44. Not like VW - only for 4WD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Looking through the documents the problem is when in 4WD mode,
    it is OK in 2WD mode.

    So the problem is much smaller than in VW.

    1. Re:Not like VW - only for 4WD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed, as long as you only drive on a 2WD dynamometer there is no problem whatsoever. Let's hope most Zafira owners do just that. Maybe GM should issue a disclaimer, that the cars are not meant to be driven on actual roads, just to prevent people getting crazy ideas.

  45. Re: How to tell a regulation has failed utterly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The particulates problem in European cities is not due to diesel cars, but mopeds. They are essentially unregulated and a single moped can produces as many particulates as hundreds of diesel cars.

  46. Re: How to tell a regulation has failed utterly by nojayuk · · Score: 1

    The newest buses in my home city have kinetic-energy recovery systems (KERS) so they switch their diesel engines off at stops, traffic lights etc. and use the KERS energy to drive off and only restart the engine a few seconds later.

  47. Re:How to tell a regulation has failed utterly by jacekm · · Score: 0

    In China the problem is with coal power stations. Registering only electric vehicles in fact make things worse for the air.

  48. Front wheel drive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Zafira is front wheel drive I doubt that turning the rear wheels has much to do with increasing pollution levels...

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opel_Zafira

    1. Re:Front wheel drive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not letting the rear wheels roll along informs the car's electronics that it is probably on a dynamometer.

  49. This story is from october 2015 by goombah99 · · Score: 1

    It was in the financial times and reuters and many others last october. not news.

    http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0...

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
  50. Re:How to tell a regulation has failed utterly by RoloDMonkey · · Score: 1

    If in reality car emissions are higher than overly ambitious standards, but still low enough that air quality is OK

    The second part of your premise is the problem. In some cases, VW cars were emitting as much pollution as a semi truck.

    --
    Long live the Speaker Bracelet
    Rolo D. Monkey
  51. Re:Reader Accused of Modyfing Title of Slashdot Po by q4Fry · · Score: 1

    If it's not one fing, it's another.

  52. Re:How to tell a regulation has failed utterly by Tom · · Score: 1

    So if pretty much every manufacturer is doing this, how is this not equal to a kind of mass civic protest?

    Because corporations are not citizens, no matter how much the legal system screws up the definitions.

    --
    Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  53. Re:How to tell a regulation has failed utterly by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

    You've only qualified the claims of air quality by pointing out that we're doing something about air quality. I live near 13 coal plants--one is a multi-gigawatt plant--and our air quality is decent; it could be better. I don't live in Beijing, I know that much.

  54. How dense are you? by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    "Overly ambitious" standards? In whose opinion,

    It's not opinion, it's fact.

    If the standards were even close to reasonable, then most manufacturers would meet them without cheating.

    Since it appears perhaps ALL companies are cheating the tests, then obviously the standards are unreasonable in terms of allowing the manufacture of cars that people will actually buy.

    If the standards are so unrealistic that both consumers and car companies ignore them, they simply need to be re-thought to be realistic rather than some imagined figure by people who know nothing about cars.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:How dense are you? by thoromyr · · Score: 1

      wow. So if all manufacturers cheat then it is okay. That's amazing. So what do you think is the correct response? To dial back the regulations and pollute ourselves to death?

      Coal companies just as uniformly lied about waste and did illegal dumping of chemical toxins into the water supply. Should the government not have attempted to regulate that? Were they wrong to go after companies until finally standards improved a little (to dumping chemical toxins in Mexico, often with water bringing them back into the US)?

      Don't try waving the hand and pretending that its okay, just admit your a corporate shill and be honest with yourself and everyone else.

    2. Re:How dense are you? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it's not a "fact".

      Why should car people decide how shitty air I get to breathe? Why should car people decide what amount of seal level rise is acceptable? That's not how specifications get written where I work, that's the tail wagging the dog. You start with the end result - how crappy can the air be and not harm people? How much sea level rise can the world tolerate? Then you work backwards and you tell the car companies how much carbon they can produce per passenger mile. That's how specifications should be set. Start with the end result and work it out. For most of the world, cars are, at best, a means to an end. They are not the end all and be all. Sure some people live for the smell of unburned fuel and burning rubber. But I remember the early 1970's when the air was thick and people had to routinely stay indoors to spare their lungs. If you like it that way, go check out Beijing or Calcutta.

      The standards are totally obtainable, but the advertisements aren't. People want something for nothing and they've been told they can get it. The manufacturers sell them a bill of goods. Great power, great fuel economy and a "clean diesel"!! Awesome. Except it's a fiction, and the manufacturer knew it when they were making the marketing campaign. If one manufacturer is doing it, most of the others will cheat as well, so they can remain competitive. But they knew they were telling lies and the people who "know about cars" bought it hook, line, and sinker.

      The standards are only unrealistic to the "people who know about cars"'s perspective because they don't know what is actually realistic.

      The fact was, and is, people will buy cars. When the big bad government wanted to require higher safety standards, the industry complained it would cost too much and no one would buy cars. When they started with the CAFE standards, industry complained it would cost too much and no one would buy cars. When they were phasing out leaded gas, industry complained it would ruin the engines, make it too expensive and no one would buy cars. The fact is, they did all that, and Shazam! people still bought cars. Was there a learning curve? Yes. Were the first smog systems ridiculously power robbing? Yes. Was the air cleaned up? Yes. Do cars last longer because the engine management systems monitor and adjust constantly so the engine pollutes less, but doesn't starve when you drive into the mountains? Yes.

    3. Re:How dense are you? by Namarrgon · · Score: 1

      Ah I see, it's your opinion - hence the redefinition of "fact".

      So you feel the only reasonable standard is one a business can meet without difficulty, regardless of the external costs to everyone else. Which of course would mean there'd be no pressure to develop new technologies that meet these higher standards (such as catalytic converters or electric vehicles), and LA would look more like Beijing.

      It's obvious that not ALL companies are cheating (Tesla certainly isn't), and there's certainly no evidence that consumers are ignoring these standards either - if they were, VW wouldn't have been faced with such a huge public scandal.

      --
      Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
  55. Re:How to tell a regulation has failed utterly by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Emissions have nothing to do with safety, seatbelts do.

    DUH DUH DUH.

    I personally would be fine without seatbelt regulations, they don't matter as few people would be stupid enough to buy a car without them. They actually provide value unlike unrealistic emissions standards that make a car impractical to drive.

    In fact if you think about it, if most cars actually followed the way too high standards they would (as the article notes) be much slower - and therefore a hazard when trying to merge with traffic. I wouldn't want one of those crippled deathtraps, it would be almost as bad as buying a car without seatbelts. Why do you support making cars more dangerous to drive in?

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  56. Re:How to tell a regulation has failed utterly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, but far more of the diesel-produced particulates are carcinogenic.

    Go look it up.

  57. Let's find out instead of speculating! by ArylAkamov · · Score: 1

    We need to get an unmolested ECU (Junkyard from totaled car?) and an ECU from a car that went in for this supposed update, then find a way to dump the firmware.

    I bet the folks over at ECUproject.com could help out with this.

    It would be pretty interesting to compare the two.

    Even just getting a 'scope and see how the injector pulses compare at idle and different engine loads, assuming it doesn't use mechanical "jerkbox" injection.

  58. Re:How to tell a regulation has failed utterly by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    Yes, but far more of the diesel-produced particulates are carcinogenic.
    Go look it up.

    Uh what? That is 100% ass-backwards. Follow the link I provided to learn that you are 100% full of shit.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  59. Re:How to tell a regulation has failed utterly by soccerisgod · · Score: 1

    Lol, yeah that's why I drive one :D Nice try, utter fail. Besides, the current "diesel crisis" is not about particulate output, it's about NOx. Try doing your homework before calling people names :)

    --
    If a train station is a place where a train stops, what's a workstation?
  60. Re:How to tell a regulation has failed utterly by soccerisgod · · Score: 1

    Wow I really want some of what you're smoking! :D

    --
    If a train station is a place where a train stops, what's a workstation?
  61. Re: How to tell a regulation has failed utterly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's an awfully fancy way to say regenerative braking.

  62. Re:How to tell a regulation has failed utterly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The health impact of particulates is far greater than that of NOx.