Mitsubishi: We've Been Cheating On Fuel Tests For 25 years (cnn.com)

An anonymous reader cites an article on CNN:The situation at Mitsubishi Motors just went from bad to much, much worse. The Japanese automaker admitted Tuesday that it had falsified fuel efficiency tests for the past quarter century (warning: annoying autoplay videos, alternate source), the latest revelation in a scandal that has rocked the company. The automaker said last week that it had used improper fuel economy tests on hundreds of thousands of vehicles, including some sold to Nissan. Cars with inflated fuel efficiency ratings were sold only in Japan. Mitsubishi said it would ask lawyers from outside the company to investigate the tests.

Comments

What's happening?

[Anonymous Coward]

Are all car companies trying to look worst than their competitors? "Oh, you think they're bad? Check out what we did!"

I'm just waiting for a car company to come up with a ~$10K electric car now.

Re: What's happening?

[Anonymous Coward]

At that price the battery would be an option, not standard equipment.

Re:What's happening?

[Anonymous Coward]

Are all car companies trying to look worst than their competitors? "Oh, you think they're bad? Check out what we did!"

I think the point of this statement was to not look as bad as the competition. By coming clean before someone else outs them they try to give the impression that they are honest about it rather than just ending up in a situation where they look as if they just are sorry that they got caught.

Re: What's happening?

[alexhs]

At [~$10k] the battery would be an option, not standard equipment.

More likely, a lease.

Re:What's happening?

[jellomizer]

Fuel economy in the past was never a big seller (Especially in the US) . Sure we may have talked about it. But if gave an option more Pep vs. Better fuel economy. Pep normally won. So there wasn't that much interest in really checking the claims of companies on their cleanness and fuel economy, as it wasn't the reason why we chose that car. However with $4.00 a gallon gas common only a few years ago. Increased media attention on Carbon pollution, and the success of newer energy efficient cars, Hybrid and Electric. Fuel economy has became a selling point. So we are interested in it, thus claims need to be verified. Because we are now buying a car because it is better for the environment. Not buying a car for normally other features, and if it happen to have good milage just be benefit.

So we are now checking it because it is an important factor to consider.

There are tons of products out there that don't meet their specifications or fully say what they suppose to do. However if those extra features don't matter to us, then we really don't care and don't press the issue.

Lets say use Treadmills. They have a calorie calculator on it. Are they accurate? Or do they under estimate so you will work harder, or do the over estimate so you feel better about the results of your exercise. But we don't get or use a Treadmill because we care much about the calorie calculator we use it for exercise.

Re:What's happening?

[ooloorie]

Are all car companies trying to look worst than their competitors? "Oh, you think they're bad? Check out what we did!"

What's happening is that you are getting an object lesson in the failure of government regulations. And the causes are not hard to understand: regulations and procedures are written based on lobbying by the corporations being regulated, and the people who implement the regulations have no economic interest in doing a good job and are easily corruptible. And there is no solution to this; what it means is that regulations will always be an inefficient and wasteful approach to solving problems. Sometimes they are necessary, often not.

For automobiles, limits on NOx have been useful in improving air quality and are probably worth it; limits on CO2 emissions from personal automobiles are not worth the trouble because they have a negligible impact on overall US greenhouse gas emissions. For CO2 emissions, a substantial tax increase would be a better mechanism if we wanted to reduce CO2 emissions from driving, but politicians know full well that they couldn't pass that. So, instead, they use CAFE, which amounts to the same thing, but whose economic effects are so obscure that people don't notice.

Re: What's happening?

[Anonymous Coward]

No. I'll just start a rickshaw company that will use as labour all the people in these car firms who are found to have colluded with the false results. Choice: 10 years in prison or 2 years rickshaw duty.

Re:What's happening?

[orev]

It's not a failure of government regulations. It's a failure of government to *fund* the agencies who are in charge of enforcing the regulations. People who like to claim that the government is incompetent are also the ones that cause it to be that way by not giving agencies enough resources to do their jobs.

Re: What's happening?

[OakDragon]

At that price the battery would be an option, not standard equipment.

The "Yugo Double-A"

Re: What's happening?

[Anonymous Coward]

"The government just needs more of our money! That will fix everything!"

Re: What's happening?

[Voyager529]

No. I'll just start a rickshaw company that will use as labour all the people in these car firms who are found to have colluded with the false results. Choice: 10 years in prison or 2 years rickshaw duty.

Your ideas are intriguing and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

Re: What's happening?

[GrumpySteen]

Aww.. it's so cute that you actually think that any of these people will serve time. The end result of all this will almost certainly be a fine which is far, far less than the profits that the corporations made.

Re:What's happening?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a nice rant, but most people look at fuel efficiency for only two reasons:
1. How much will they pay for gas.
2. How far can they drive without refilling the tank.

Because we are now buying a car because it is better for the environment.

No, that's just stupid. If that's what you care about, then don't buy a car... they're ALL bad for the environment in some fashion.

Re:What's happening?

[NotDrWho]

Admitting you have a problem is the first step to recovery.

Re:What's happening?

[lgw]

Are you kidding? Federal government spending is 25% of GDP, total government spending is nearly 40% of GDP; these numbers have been going up for many decades. At what point do you consider government spending to be "enough"?

To be fair, current federal spending is:
* 68% mailing checks to the old and the poor
* 15% military
* 6% interest
* 11% everything else

We can reduce spending greatly while doubling spending on infrastructure, education, NASA, even enforcing regulations. We'd just have to be willing to mail less money to people. Sadly, those people are now a majority of voters, so it won't happen. (State and local spending is even more dominated by pension plans and related check-mailing.)

Re:What's happening?

[sjames]

The problem is that the spending is on pork projects rather than proper government functions. Starving regulatory agencies and safety net programs to death has been a stated goal of the GOP for a good while. They've been quite open about it from time to time.

Re: What's happening?

[wyattstorch516]

Pulling a rickshaw is probably a great workout. You could probably get some yuppies to sign up to do it for free. A new fitness craze.

Re:What's happening?

[turning in circles]

The problem is far different than VWs because it is so easy to verify. Fill car with gas. Drive. Refill. Divide miles driven by gallons used. My Nissan never gets the mileage it says it should, nor what it claims to be getting with inboard electronics. BFD. It's like almost not cheating when it's that easy to check. Consumer Reports will even check for me. But they don't check emissions.

Re: What's happening?

[Anonymous Coward]

Really! How can I help raise your taxes?

Re:What's happening?

[Anonymous Coward]

More like:

35% on defense (unless you think the veterans benefits, military pensions, management of the nuclear arsenal, aeronautics R&D, etc. aren't part of defense spending -- you seem to include all those defense related spending under spending under 'mailing checks to old people' and 'other', which is silly)

50% on social spending

6% on interest

9% on everything else

Re:What's happening?

[DamnOregonian]

* 68% mailing checks to the old and the poor

Not sure if intellectually dishonest, or you just don't know...
Expenditures from FICA-filled trusts aren't really fair to include in the list with the others. Even if we didn't send those checks, the government would not have more general money to spend on anything not funded by FICA taxes.

Unless you're proposing spending FICA withheld taxes on infrastructure?

Re: What's happening?

[Z00L00K]

With no stars in crash testing.

Re: What's happening?

[Anonymous Coward]

"yuppies"? How old are you? "Yuppies" haven't been a thing for like 30 years! Bahahahaa!!!

Re:What's happening?

[geoskd]

* 68% mailing checks to the old and the poor

That is very disingenuous, when you consider That of that 68%, more than half is money that people either earned by way of a pension, or already paid in in the form of social security. You have no right to "stop the handouts" when those moneys are in fact owed every bit as much as (if not more) than our vast public debt.

If you want an obvious way to deal with the budget in a rational way, cut the military spending back to a sane level, and tell any politician that wants to get us involved in *any* military conflict to be the first man in and the last man out... We have already demonstrated repeatedly and publicly that the entirety of the military budget is being spent on bullshit that provides virtually zero protection from the real dangers of our world. Its time to tell the military, to forget about Jets, bombs, missiles, guns and troops and start talking about weapons that will allow us to stop a dirty bomb or backpack nuke. We've all seen how effective the military presence in Afghanistan and Iraq have been. Time to cut their budgets since they seem unable to spend it wisely.

Re: What's happening?

[trabby]

"Yuppies" have been replaced with "Douchebags".

Re:What's happening?

[lgw]

The FICA trusts were all emptied by Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush. They no longer contain marketable securities, and instead contain IOUs with no economic value. Much as if you loaned yourself all the money in your 401k - the 401k still has an asset, worth the same as before, but it's useless to your retirement plans.

All spending by Social Security must come from taxation. Pre-Reagan, the SSA could actually sell the securities it held on the market, as they were normal federal bonds. That's no longer the case. The sad thing is, almost no one noticed. There was some complaining when the looting started, but we moved on the the next political scandal and ignored it for 20 years.

Unless you're proposing spending FICA withheld taxes on infrastructure?

Money is always fungible. Doesn't matter what the tax is called, the government will spent it where it wants.

BTW, FICA won't even cover the outlays it's intended for, going forward (the combined unfunded liabilities of SS and Medi* are $860k per taxpayer - never gonna happen). Breaking our promise there is only a matter of time (or we'll inflate our way out, but the promise isn't a dollar amount, it the ability to subsist on the money). And of course we lack the political courage to do this gracefully, 20 years ahead of a crisis.

Re:What's happening?

[lgw]

That is very disingenuous, when you consider That of that 68%, more than half is money that people either earned by way of a pension, or already paid in in the form of social security. You have no right to "stop the handouts" when those moneys are in fact owed every bit as much as (if not more) than our vast public debt.

What can't be paid won't be paid. The public debt must be paid unless we amend or ignore the constitution, those "promises", not so much (per the SCOTUS). Local governments are already dealing with this, here and there, pre-saging the larger issue. They declare bankruptcy, and the smaller pension payouts come out of the settlement. We can't do that at the federal level - we'll either change the programs once there's a crisis (goodness knows we lack the courage to enable a soft landing by acting before a crisis), or inflate our way out, but either way the purchasing power won't be there. That's inevitable. The question is one of priorities - do we value mailing checks over roads? Education? A military? Enforcing important safety regulations? Something will have to give.

cut the military spending back to a sane level

15% of the budget isn't crazy. The military is already collapsing, and their current primary concern (and for the past decade or so) is how to manage the reduction in staff an equipment. Our post-WWII desire to be able to fight "2 and a half wars" is long one. It's already questionable whether we could fight one against a real opponent. You're focused on asymmetric threats, but the only reason we've had those and not world wars for 70 years is the deterrent effect of such a large military, an effect that is gone now.

Re:What's happening?

[ooloorie]

The problem is that the spending is on pork projects rather than proper government functions.

Yes, that is always the problem. And the only way to reduce pork spending substantially is to reduce spending.

Starving regulatory agencies and safety net programs to death has been a stated goal of the GOP for a good while. They've been quite open about it from time to time.

Good!

Re:What's happening?

[ooloorie]

We can reduce spending greatly while doubling spending on infrastructure, education, NASA, even enforcing regulations

We can. But we don't. That's because every additional dollar we send to government is primarily used by politicians to buy votes.

In particular, the statement that People who like to claim that the government is incompetent are also the ones that cause it to be that way by not giving agencies enough resources to do their jobs. is wrong. In fact, the people who are shifting tax dollars away from infrastructure and into government handouts for voters are mostly identical to the people who are trying to use failing infrastructure to get yet more money from tax payers, money that still won't be spent on infrastructure.

Re:What's happening?

[sjames]

Yes, that is always the problem. And the only way to reduce pork spending substantially is to reduce spending.

Or the legislators could actually demonstrate some of that fiscal responsibility they keep blathering about.

Good!

Truth comes out, you WANT them to be dysfunctional even if they have to be monkeywrencged to do it, so there's an excuse to get rid of them.

Re:What's happening?

[Anonymous Coward]

For automobiles, limits on NOx have been useful in improving air quality and are probably worth it

NOx is not that important to air quality in typical atmospheric levels. Particulates and unburnt fuel are the problem. They cause cancer, heart and vascular diseases, respiratory diseases, they produce smog and dust and they take a long time to break down. Fortunately, their emissions have been reduced vastly over the past few decades, but there is still room for improvement.

Re:What's happening?

[ooloorie]

Or the legislators could actually demonstrate some of that fiscal responsibility they keep blathering about.

They can't. Seriously, it doesn't matter whether you're left or right, a crook or a saint, use private or public campaign funds, most of the money a legislator is going to spend is going to go to pork and most of the regulations he is going to pass is in the interest of crony capitalism. Trying to wish that away is like trying to wish gravity away when you're falling off a cliff.

Truth comes out, you WANT them to be dysfunctional even if they have to be monkeywrencged to do it, so there's an excuse to get rid of them.

You're confusing cause and effect. Regulatory agencies are by necessity going to be dysfunctional, and they are far too intrusive and powerful right now. If anything interferes with their operations right now, that's a net plus for society. There is a minimal role for regulatory agencies in government, but at a far lower level than today.

Re:What's happening?

[DamnOregonian]

The FICA trusts were all emptied by Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush. They no longer contain marketable securities, and instead contain IOUs with no economic value. Much as if you loaned yourself all the money in your 401k - the 401k still has an asset, worth the same as before, but it's useless to your retirement plans.

I've heard this claim pulled around quite a bit... It's patently false, though. They don't contain marketable securities, in the fact that they're special treasury bills- but they are valuable securities, regardless. As long as we continue to grow and pay taxes, those securities are as valuable as any other treasury security.

All spending by Social Security must come from taxation. Pre-Reagan, the SSA could actually sell the securities it held on the market, as they were normal federal bonds. That's no longer the case. The sad thing is, almost no one noticed. There was some complaining when the looting started, but we moved on the the next political scandal and ignored it for 20 years.

All spending by Social Security must come from taxation. I don't think we agree. FICA taxation.
Sure, the interest on the FICA trusts come from general taxation, but they're not the anywhere close to the majority of that income, and for now, at least, the trusts are solvent.

Money is always fungible. Doesn't matter what the tax is called, the government will spent it where it wants.

You're losing me. This isn't what happens. Not until the trusts are allowed to become insolvent.

BTW, FICA won't even cover the outlays it's intended for, going forward (the combined unfunded liabilities of SS and Medi* are $860k per taxpayer - never gonna happen). Breaking our promise there is only a matter of time (or we'll inflate our way out, but the promise isn't a dollar amount, it the ability to subsist on the money). And of course we lack the political courage to do this gracefully, 20 years ahead of a crisis.

Agreed- entirely. The trusts will not remain solvent perpetually. It is a problem that *must* be addressed... But conflating the future problem and what may be done about it as today's problem isn't really fair. The majority of your income taxes go to the military, flatly, period. FICA entitlements are their own set of problems right on the horizon, but today, we (well, this is subjective, I admit) get a lot more money out of those relatively small taxes per percentage of marginal rate than we do from income taxes, and a lot more value per dollar.

Re:What's happening?

[DamnOregonian]

Crap. * I don't think we disagree

Re:What's happening?

[sjames]

I'll grant that the FDA needs a cold reboot. The FTC needs a swift kick to get it moving. The FCC is a mixed bag, but it's recently been doing a bit better. The SEC needs actual funding and to actually do something to show they have teeth.

Of course, the FBI, CIA, and NSA also need a cold reboot. The DEA just needs the boot.

We do not need to remove regulation unless we want to go back to medicines with deadly poisons in them and our cities to go back to choking smog like Beijing and Shenzhen have.

Re:What's happening?

[lgw]

They don't contain marketable securities, in the fact that they're special treasury bills- but they are valuable securities, regardless.

My point was just that SS claims can now only be paid from new taxation, whereas they used to be able to be paid by the fund selling securities. The government funded other operations by selling off those securities, just because they could get away with it.

All spending by Social Security must come from taxation. I don't think we agree. FICA taxation.

I'm not distinguishing by the label on the tax. Just the all outflows now require new inflows. If you check the usdebtclock.org page, you can see the totals, and the division between income tax, payroll tax, and corporate tax, but ultimately, congress can just change the law and spend the payroll tax on gold-plating the capitol if they want to.

he majority of your income taxes go to the military, flatly, period

Now that's just not true. Military spending is about 1/3 of income tax, and the government spends more than it makes.

today, we (well, this is subjective, I admit) get a lot more money out of those relatively small taxes per percentage of marginal rate than we do from income taxes, and a lot more value per dollar.

I'm not sure what your saying here, unless it's just to comment on your favorite flavor of government spending. Everyone has one, which is why cuts are so hard.

Personally I'm appalled at Social Security: so many people have no easy means of survival except at the pleasure of the government. I don't like that power balance at all. Some sort of government-regulated 401k-style thing, where the money is yours the whole time, would change the balance of power favorably for us all, while still providing a safety net. It would also mean the workers would, to some extent, directly own the means of production, which I'm a great fan of if it's not proxied through some government.

Re:What's happening?

[ooloorie]

Something like the FDA might have made sense a century ago, when information was hard to get and insurance was largely unknown. These days, FDA functions are far better taken care of by private and voluntary mechanisms; the FDA has become a vehicle for massive crony capitalism and both holds back advances in medicine and contributes to out of control medical costs.

As for air pollution, if you have public cities, you end up having to have public regulation of air quality. But that's not the only mechanism either, and it's not a very good one. It would be far better if people actually got compensated for damage caused by air pollution and the polluters were made to pay.

Re:What's happening?

[sjames]

As for air pollution, if you have public cities, you end up having to have public regulation of air quality. But that's not the only mechanism either, and it's not a very good one. It would be far better if people actually got compensated for damage caused by air pollution and the polluters were made to pay.

Yes, if the truth and justice fairy would wave her wand and cause the fair compensation to happen, that would be grand. But apparently corporate interests had her whacked over a century ago, so we need to do it ourselves. Given what court and lawyers cost these days and that the worst of the pollution tends to fall on the poorest citizens, that leaves a regulatory agency as the lest bad way to accomplish it.

Re:What's happening?

[ooloorie]

But apparently corporate interests had her whacked over a century ago,

Yes, which is why they created the EPA and similar regulatory agencies, which basically give them a license to pollute.

Given what court and lawyers cost these days and that the worst of the pollution tends to fall on the poorest citizens, that leaves a regulatory agency as the lest bad way to accomplish it.

Many of these lawsuits would be class action lawsuits, so what "courts and lawyers cost" matters less and less. In fact, the US has been moving in that direction.

Re:What's happening?

[sjames]

So if I get lung cancer I'll get a coupon for $0.50 off of a box of cough drops?

Re:What's happening?

[ooloorie]

Right now, you get nothing if the EPA days the pollution was OK. Zip. Nada.

Re:What's happening?

[sjames]

But that OK level is well below what we see in countries without environmental regulations. People in China also get Zip, Nada.

Re:What's happening?

[ooloorie]

But that OK level is well below what we see in countries without environmental regulations. People in China also get Zip, Nada.

They get zip, nada, because their government says they should get zip, nada:

Environmental policy in China is set by the National People's Congress and managed by the Ministry of Environmental Protection. The Center for American Progress has described China's environmental policy as similar to that of the United States before 1970. That is, the central government issues fairly strict regulations, but the actual monitoring and enforcement is largely undertaken by local governments that have greater interest in economic growth. The environmental work of non-governmental forces, such as lawyers, journalists, and non-governmental organizations, is limited by government regulations.

It's primarily the work of non-governmental forces that has led to the environmental improvements in the US over the last half century. Now, in part, the EPA and other government agencies have responded to those pressures, but they have now ended up abusing their powers in different ways.

Let me repeat that again: China is what happens when you give government nearly absolute power to impose environmental policy.

Altogether, as I was saying the EPA is better than nothing, given our current system, but in absolute terms, it's an inefficient and poor way of protecting Americans from environmental problems.

Re:haha

[Anonymous Coward]

you sound like you want putin's penis in your ass

Somebody...

[Anonymous Coward]

...will be committing sudoku over this.

Re:Somebody...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, they've already proven that they don't even care if the numbers are right.

Re:Somebody...

[Anonymous Coward]

Seppuku?

Re:Somebody...

[Salgak1]

. . .only if someone is sufficiently cross. . .

Re:Somebody...

[istartedi]

Yeah, it's pretty sad. Everything has aligned, and the numbers add up. They're boxed in.

Re:Somebody...

[Nunya666]

Yeah, it's pretty sad. Everything has aligned, and the numbers add up. They're boxed in.

-- For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?

For all intents and purposes, your sig is an example of why we have a problem. Lazy fucktards who think "you knew what I meant" is the same thing as "communication."

Re:Somebody...

[Anonymous Coward]

thatsthejoke.jpg

Re:Somebody...

[Nunya666]

Seppuku or harakiri.

Re:Somebody...

[Krishnoid]

I suppose their only option is to falsify the numbers again.

Re:Somebody...

[tsstahl]

DOH! out of mod points.

Post is way more insightful, than funny.

Re:Somebody...

[Anonymous Coward]

Cheating in committing sudoku is the lowliest form of cheating. It shows the fundamental lack of commitment of an individual to the things that matter most in life.

Re:Somebody...

[Zak3056]

FWIW, I think you've been (successfully) trolled.

Re:Somebody...

[cant_get_a_good_nick]

RE: your sig.

Now that the Ghostbusters remake is out, i keep on thinking "it's whom you gonna call"

Re:Somebody...

[Michaelejahn]

ITS A TRAP

Not for lack of trying

[dadelbunts]

Mitsubishi execs later clarified that they tried to sell said cars in the U.S, but no one bought any.

Re:Not for lack of trying

[Phics]

Except for Chrysler for a bit....

Re:Not for lack of trying

[TWX]

You may jest, but back when Chrysler was very seriously contemplating buying Mitsubishi they shifted badge-engineered production from Asia to North America. All of those Galants and Eclipses were made in the USA in the Diamond-Star Motors plant, along with the two-door versions of the Avenger, Sebring, and Stratus.

Chrysler eventually did not choose to buy Mitsubishi, and at some later date Mitsubishi bought-out Chrysler's stake in DSM.

Re:Not for lack of trying

[thrich81]

True, but they sent at least two good ones over here, the first generation (1990-94) Eclipse GSX, all-wheel drive turbo, and the Lancer Evolution also an all-wheel drive turbo tuner edition. The boy racer in me would love to have either. The Eclipse GSX was also imported by Chrysler and rebadged as the Eagle Talon TSI, one of the baddest-ass car names ever, and the car could back it up.

Re:Not for lack of trying

[dadelbunts]

GTO VR4 was pretty dank as well. My favorite tho has to be the Starion. One of the best set of OEM wheels ever made on that thing. Shame they ruined the eclipse so soon and we never got the FTO.

Re:Not for lack of trying

[Anonymous Coward]

I had a car that didn't officially exist: A 2002 Dodge Stratus SE Coupe.

Officially, the "SE" ended production in 2001, but they rolled a few more off the line after the cut-off date for the 2002 model year.

It was an Eclipse with a Dodge-styled body and a Chrysler engine (3.0L V6 that the real Eclipse didn't have). It also didn't have the dashboard clock in that cubbyhole on the top of the dashboard (nor was there a subwoofer behind it).

It drove well, but the engine was overpowered for the bog-standard Eclipse transmission, causing it to require transmission flushes every 15,000 miles (instead of a more standard 30k). And you could feel the transmission getting mushier as it got older. I traded it in at 90k miles for a Honda Ridgeline.

Re:Not for lack of trying

[tazan]

I have fond memories of my 78 dodge challenger, and 82 plymouth sapporo.

Re:Not for lack of trying

[cdrudge]

The Eclipse GSX was also imported by Chrysler and rebadged as the Eagle Talon TSI

The Plymouth Laser was the 3rd model in the original Diamond Star Motor (DSM) lineup. None of the Eclipses, Talons, or Lasers were imported. They were all assembled in Normal, IL at what was originally a 50-50 joint venture between Mitsubishi and Chrysler. Mitsubishi later bought out Chrysler's share but still continued to manufacture vehicles at the plant under a contractual basis for Chrysler.

The DSM's bigger brother, the Mitsubishi 3000GT, WAS imported by Chrysler and sold under the Dodge Stealth name.

Re:Not for lack of trying

[thrich81]

Thanks for the interesting correction on the assembly location. I knew that the Laser was the less popular third sibling in the Eclipse/Talon/Laser trio, but I've never seen one of the high performance Lasers on the street, or at least didn't know it when I did.

Re:Not for lack of trying

[cdrudge]

Lasers didn't come with the AWD package until 1992 while the other models had it a year before. Production was also discontinued in 1994 while the other two models continued on with the 2nd gen models.

The difference between the models aside from if they were turbo charged and/or AWD were mainly cosmetic in nature. Elcipses and Talons had a rear spoiler and Lasers did not with it's "Aero" styling, so it always looked like the Lasers were missing something on the rear end in my opinion. Perhaps that's why they didn't sell as well or weren't as noticeable/memorable.

Re:Not for lack of trying

[Not-a-Neg]

I was told by a colleague who owned an Eclipse that he regretted buying the car. He said that although it had a powerful engine, the body/frame was too heavy and negated the power making it slow off the line.

Re:Not for lack of trying

[toddestan]

What year was it? The first Eclipse was a great car. The second generation was pretty good too. After that, not so much.

Thank You For Alternate Links (Non-Paywalled)

[zenlessyank]

Mitchy Bitchy had to make up for all those warplanes they never got to build and sell. Glad to see lying companies aren't just in the USA. Do we get to watch homie fall on his sword??!! ***Disclaimer*** I drive a KIA.

Mitsubishi to Volkswagon

[1080bogus]

Cheating was so two decades ago

Re:Mitsubishi to Volkswagon

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it cheating or is the test/exam too lax security-wise? This is like administering an exam and allowing the student to grade his own paper... A's for everyone.

Re: Mitsubishi to Volkswagon

[Z00L00K]

All car manufacturers cheat and stretch the rules to the limit.

Why admit?

[w.hamra1987]

What caused them to admit this now? I didn't find any mention of an enquiry or people noticing the difference. Consciousness?

Re:Why admit?

[Anonymous Coward]

What caused them to admit this now? I didn't find any mention of an enquiry or people noticing the difference. Consciousness?

Are you implying that as a company they've been unconscious up until now or that they've grown a conscience?

Re:Why admit?

[cloud.pt]

in Japan they got this bad habit of spewing it all out when the shit first hits the fan. It's some sort of "first-fail atonement", deeply instilled in their culture, which in my humble opinion, is better practice than elsewhere. When you do the "bad thing", odds to get caught are around the sub-10% as you take measures to hide it, but by the time you get caught, odds are you're gonna get caught so they sky-rocket to 99%+ for all other instances of the event that can be analyzed. So why really trust in that meager, uncontrollable 1% that will keep sinking you when you can just apologize for all past, present and future instances of the event? Better just to spit it all out since the milk has already been spilled than have that corrosive loss of confidence haunt you forever. It's actually the best damage control you can do. Nothing like what Volkswagen is doing to be honest - VW won't admit the problem likely exists in other models before 2009. They are also just "patching" really awfully the problem, with a patch that suits emission policy, but that surreptitiously harms the consumer by reducing original power/economy spec, which made the consumer buy the product. It's like they are swiping all the dirt under the rug with the worst possible mop they had lying around, and that rug is already bulgy with previous dirt they hope will stay covered.

Re:Why admit?

[orev]

With the VW revelations you can bet that they are looking more closely at every other car manufacturer as well. Best for them to get out in front of it before someone else reveals it.

Re:Why admit?

[tsstahl]

Agreed. However, I have a feeling we are going to eventually find out that MPG exaggeration is germane to all automakers.

Re:Why admit?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is Japan we're talking about, not China / Taiwan / Korea

Re:Why admit?

[angel'o'sphere]

There was a report in german newspapers a few weeks ago.

I thought I also saw it mentioned on some american sites, but not sure.

Re:Why admit?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nothing like what Volkswagen is doing to be honest - VW won't admit the problem likely exists in other models before 2009.

VW have done exactly what you described about Japanese customs. They acknowledged everything when they found out and they started interviewing employees to find out whether there was more. They also had an outside company dig through all their records from the past decades and perform yet another round of interviews. They have even had to retract some admissions that later turned out to be wrong (the suspicions on the Euro 6 diesel engines and most of the CO2 story).

They are also just "patching" really awfully the problem, with a patch that suits emission policy, but that surreptitiously harms the consumer by reducing original power/economy spec, which made the consumer buy the product.

They aren't. They're not even allowed to: the KBA will not approve any updates that has downsides for the owner. This is why the recall takes so long: VW have to prove for each and every model that there is no overall reduction in fuel efficiency or power under normal driving conditions.

Re:Why admit?

[bertvanleussen]

They were outed by a competitor (Nissan).

Nissan subcontracted the manufacturing of some Kei cars to Mitsubishi, and they decided to do some independent emissions testing. So, they only had to "admit" because they'd got caught red-handed.

Re:Why admit?

[Narcocide]

My 96' Integra still gets exactly the 31MPG freeway its rated for, so long as my tires are inflated to the rated PSI.

Re:Why admit?

[Zak3056]

They're not even allowed to: the KBA will not approve any updates that has downsides for the owner. This is why the recall takes so long: VW have to prove for each and every model that there is no overall reduction in fuel efficiency or power under normal driving conditions.

So what you're saying is that this problem is never actually going to get fixed? I'm reasonably certain that if they had the ability to deliver a solution that could have provided the same power, and fuel efficiency, while lowering emissions to the point that the vehicle would pass the test honestly, they would have in the first place, so demanding a solution that achieves just that seems like little more than regulatory masturbation.

Re:Why admit?

[Anonymous Coward]

So what you're saying is that this problem is never actually going to get fixed?

They are rolling out the updates as we speak. All cars are supposed to be fixed by the end of this year

I'm reasonably certain that if they had the ability to deliver a solution that could have provided the same power, and fuel efficiency, while lowering emissions to the point that the vehicle would pass the test honestly, they would have in the first place, so demanding a solution that achieves just that seems like little more than regulatory masturbation.

There has been ten years of research and development in the mean time. There is a wealth of knownledge about how parameters in the combustion process affect NOx formation. The EA288 engine uses very similar emissions control hardware, yet it has the lowest on-road NOx emissions of any diesel car engine tested by the UK MOT emissions survey, so it is clearly possible to reduce emissions further without hardware changes. Moreover, many cars from different manufacturers pass the test even though they produce many times more NOx than the defeat-device equipped EA189, so it is not impossible to pass the test withouth a defeat device even without reducing on-road emissions.

Punishment ceiling known. No one behind bars...

[rsborg]

Are all car companies trying to look worst than their competitors? "Oh, you think they're bad? Check out what we did!"

I'm just waiting for a car company to come up with a ~$10K electric car now.

Good question, and I think this is because VW management has essentially escaped without criminal charges, now it's a manner of the the CxOs in the car companies getting approval from the board to take the financial hit and put this behind them.

I asked at this earlier, but I think (ie, agree with other /.ers who replied to me) - it's a case where pretty much everyone is complicit - now is a showcase of how and when all the car manufacturers come forward.

Just wish governments would simply mandate remediation as the sale of more electrics or other zero-emissions vehicles (as Elon Musk requested).

Japanese Flag on this port seems racist to me

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is the Japanese flag on this post? Was the German Flag on the VW cheating scandal?

Re:Japanese Flag on this port seems racist to me

[avandesande]

Is Japanese a race?

Re:Japanese Flag on this port seems racist to me

[dadelbunts]

Using the term Japan instead of the proper Nippon/Nihon is a racist microagression.

Re:Japanese Flag on this port seems racist to me

[Anonymous Coward]

lawl

Because enough news comes out of Japan that it has its own topic.

Personally I'd prefer this post bear the icon of the not-yet-extant "Corporate Malfeasance" topic.

Re:Japanese Flag on this port seems racist to me

[TWX]

Even when the Japanese do it?

Re:Japanese Flag on this port seems racist to me

[dadelbunts]

Yes. Just like a black republican is a race traiting uncle tom that is too stupid to make decisions for him/herself

Re:Japanese Flag on this port seems racist to me

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, and they happen to be in the lead.

Re:Japanese Flag on this port seems racist to me

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think so, Nippon is the Japanese language name, the official English Language name for the nation is Japan.

Is using the term Etats Uni, a microagression against the US? also is Spain (España)? Germany(Deutschland)? It's called language, language isn't racist.

Heck Czechia just set their english language name recently.

Re:Japanese Flag on this port seems racist to me

[Anonymous Coward]

Using the term Japan instead of the proper Nippon/Nihon is a racist microagression.

Fun Fact: The term "Nip" is one of the older racial slurs for a Japanese person.

Re:Japanese Flag on this port seems racist to me

[dadelbunts]

yes

A rational response

[Anonymous Coward]

to irrational government overreach.

Thanks, Dicks

[pablo_max]

Dear assholes,
thanks a lot for waiting until we had to pay a crap ton of money to confess that everyone has been doing the same type of things more or less forever.
yours truly,
Volkswagen.

Re:Thanks, Dicks

[hierofalcon]

No different than claims of mileage, battery duration, acceleration abilities at start vs. 5 years out, or any of a host of other claims made by the electric industry... All figures may vary depending on where you live, how you drive, how you maintain, blah, blah, blah. Don't trust any of them. About the best you can do is compare values put out by the same manufacturer (and even there they may be fudging a particular model's info to try to get its sales up a bit).

Re:Thanks, Dicks

[CAIMLAS]

Dear Irrational Greenist,

Shut up. Seriously. Please stop whining about companies doing things you simply don't have the knowledge or experience to comment on. The science of the topic of electric cars is quite well understood, and while electric cars have a place in the future, they are:

* a net ecological loss over conventional ICE vehicles
* severely niche in terms of distance capability, payload, and overall utility.
* too technologically immature for mass production by any objective criteria
* likely impossible to replace all ICE vehicles due to available battery technology, and/or the availability of lithium
* a foolish long term move unless you like the idea of disposable vehicles
* through regulation, further increasing in (all) vehicle costs well over inflationary rates as a direct result of additional regulation
* completely dependent upon more destructive fossil fuels than cars (namely, coal - unless you're willing to cede the use of nuclear, first).

-Some guy who probably doesn't give a fuck, right?

Re:Thanks, Dicks

[Anonymous Coward]

Some guy ending with Musk.

If I were to buy an electric car, which still isn't as convenient and affordable as conventional cars, I should as hell wouldn't buy one from a pasty-face South African who used to be part of Paypal. You want to be gay? Go suck Elon's dick. The rest of us have higher standards.

Re:Thanks, Dicks

[Anonymous Coward]

Oil Shill is an oil shill

* a net ecological loss over conventional ICE vehicles

>> Citation?

* severely niche in terms of distance capability, payload, and overall utility.

>> Certainly current EVs don't cover all use cases for personal vehicles. They do, however, cover 95%+ of all usage. There's no damn reason to have a vehicle designed to carry huge loads for thousands of miles just to drive to work and the store.

* too technologically immature for mass production by any objective criteria

>> Tell that to all the companies already mass producing them. They will be glad to know they can do the impossible.

* likely impossible to replace all ICE vehicles due to available battery technology, and/or the availability of lithium

>> Citation?

* a foolish long term move unless you like the idea of disposable vehicles

>> EVs are far, far more durable than ICE vehicles. They are vastly more simple. An ICe has thousands of moving parts, an EV has a handful. All the major, expensive components except the batteries can easily be made to last for a _real_ lifetime and many hundreds of thousands of miles. And, unlike ICEs batteries are pretty trivial to replace when they do wear out (Tesla can do it in > Citation?

* completely dependent upon more destructive fossil fuels than cars (namely, coal - unless you're willing to cede the use of nuclear, first).

>> More Bullshit. The majority of electricity is provided with a combination of natural gas, hydroelectric, wind, solar and nuclear. Not to mention home solar (and other renewable) installations. But ultimately, even the EVs using coal electricity are an improvement over ICEs buring oil, because delivering electricity via coal is about 2x as efficient/clean as an ICE. My Leaf has never (during my ownership) used even a single watt of power generated with fossil fuels (though fossil fuels were certainly used in it's creation). It's always been charged with my home solar array.

Re:Thanks, Dicks

[pablo_max]

Strictly speaking, If you are so concerned about the environment you would not buy a fancy new electric car, but rather buy and older used car.
Even better, drive your current car until it has reached its end of life.
The amount of carbon used to make a new car far exceeds that of what you would use to drive your already produced car. Not to mention that lithium mining is messy business.
Plus the battery pack is only good for 10 years, after which you need to replace the car or buy a new battery pack. There is currently no way to get rid of those battery packs.
What do you propose to do with a mountain of old batteries, Mr. "I love the planet more than everyone else"?
If you really really love the environment, you could get a hipster fixed gear bike and ride that everywhere. You could even keep your hemp products inside your messenger bag!

Re:Thanks, Dicks

[mark-t]

* likely impossible to replace all ICE vehicles due to available battery technology, and/or the availability of lithium

As lithium is nearly 50% more common in the earth's crust than lead, I don't think it's availability is really a limiting factor.

Re:Thanks, Dicks

[Anonymous Coward]

Strictly speaking, you're talking out your ass.

* You are right that it's better to use what already exists, but that doesn't mean we shoudl NOt starting converting to EV

* Lithium mining is certainly not 0 impact, but implying that it's particuarly messy is just silly. Litium mining, quite literally, is pumping abiotic underground water near lithium deposits into holding tanks and letting it evaporate, then collecting the lithium salts that are left behind. It's about as ecologically friendly a process as there possibly could be for extracting materials from the ground.

* When the batteries wear out, we definitely know what to do with them: Recycle them into new batteries

Re:Thanks, Dicks

[Anonymous Coward]

Dear Volkswagen,

that's business, bitch. Under what circumstances would I be motivated to lower my competitor's expenses? Further, when the mob is out for blood, you don't stand up and paint a target on yourself. The smart move is to keep your head down while they get on with their lynching. You can resume business as usual once the mob goes home.

-Assholes

Re:Thanks, Dicks

[CAIMLAS]

Isn't google great? It allows so many things, like expanding ones understanding of the existence we live in! (For your future reference, this took like, 5 minutes to google - more time to type than actually look up.)

I can hardly fault you for not thinking about the big picture of what you propose, because that's really the issue most people face in life. They don't brush their teeth. They sleep with ugly or unintelligent women. All of these things have significant negative costs, though the initial appeal is understandable.

* a net ecological loss over conventional ICE vehicles
- Pre-production: http://www.digitaltrends.com/cars/hold-smugness-tesla-might-just-worse-environment-know/
- Post-production: http://www.citylab.com/weather/2015/06/where-electric-vehicles-actually-cause-more-pollution-than-gas-cars/397136/

http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2010/ph240/eason2/

"Using all 9.9 × 109 kg of the world's lithium reserves, we can make 4.1 billion Leafs; using all the identified lithium resources (2.55 × 1010 kg), we can make 10.6 billion Leafs."

For point of reference, there are over 1 billion vehicles in use worldwide today. If we were to switch over to solely electric vehicles today at a rate of about 100 million cars a year (not unreasonable, since we're currently making 60 million), we would have an inability to produce vehicles in roughly 10 years (or less), maximum.

>> Certainly current EVs don't cover all use cases for personal vehicles. They do, however, cover 95%+ of all usage. There's no damn reason to have a vehicle designed to carry huge loads for thousands of miles just to drive to work and the store.

By your rationale, I'll need more than one vehicle to go more than about 150 miles in one direction? Or rely upon non-existent mythical public transit before it exists? No thanks.

* too technologically immature for mass production by any objective criteria
>> Tell that to all the companies already mass producing them. They will be glad to know they can do the impossible.

They may be able to do it at a small scale, for a niche market, but that is not the same thing as supplanting the entire industrial automotive industry, is it now? See: the above cited Stanford data indicating availability of lithium.

* likely impossible to replace all ICE vehicles due to available battery technology, and/or the availability of lithium

Again, see the lithium article/math.

* completely dependent upon more destructive fossil fuels than cars (namely, coal - unless you're willing to cede the use of nuclear, first).
>> More Bullshit. The majority of electricity is provided with a combination of...

If any of this were true, why would anyone care about more 'green' power sources? You do realize that Natural Gas is a (largely, waste) byproduct of petroleum production, right? I'm not even going to bother to refute this; just learn how to use the internet.

By the way, enjoy your energy costs going up - in the interest of 'green' energy, the US government has bankrupt the largest coal producer in the country - coal, from which 33% of the US power is derived.

Re:Thanks, Dicks

[CAIMLAS]

Interesting enough, you'd have to strip mine the entire earth to get at all of that lithium, which is not (as much) of the case with lead: unlike lead, lithium is not terribly concentrated, so you end up with huge pit mines where it's available in any significant concentrations.

Re:Thanks, Dicks

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it 50% more common than oil? Because I don't hear of a lot of lead burning ICE vehicles.

Re:Thanks, Dicks

[Anonymous Coward]

Pathetic:

* Ahh yes, internet rags. Always great sources!

* Lithium is not consumed by a battery. It is not burned or fundamentally changed. Only it's physical arrangement deteriorates making the battery "wear out". It can be recycled along with all other components of a battery.

* There are this wonderful things called re-charging stations. Very similar to gas stations, but instead of putting more gas in your car, you recharge the battery. Isn't that neato?

* You seem to be intentionally missing the point. Even if an EV uses fossil fuel derived electricity, it does so with less overall pollution due to a much, much higher conversion efficiency. ICEs are about 20% efficient at extracting energy from oil (trying to convert chemical energy directly into mechanical energy is really dumb). Coal plants are about 40% efficient. Natural Gas plants are about 60% efficient. Hell, burning oil on an industrial capacity to produce electricity is vastly more efficient than doing so in billions of horribly inefficient ICEs

Re:Thanks, Dicks

[Anonymous Coward]

Not a single one of those points is correct. Go astroturf somewhere else.

Re:Thanks, Dicks

[Anonymous Coward]

* completely dependent upon more destructive fossil fuels than cars (namely, coal - unless you're willing to cede the use of nuclear, first).

That's a non issue as solar energy has recently become cheaper and more economical than coal energy.

Re:Thanks, Dicks

[Anonymous Coward]

The beauty of electric vehicles is they consolidate the emissions of pollution to the power plants where they are easier to regulate and be reduced or captured instead of ICE which just pollute your local neighborhood. Even better with all of the recent moves to solar and wind power. I don't a few birds being killed if it means lower pollution in the city I live in.

Only electric cars can't cheat on emissions

[WillAffleckUW]

It's fairly easy to test an electric car, just drive it with a fixed amount of energy charge and see how efficient it is.

Zero emissions.

Just saying.

Re:Only electric cars can't cheat on emissions

[WillAffleckUW]

Zero emissions horse shit! If in North America, you're powering that electric car with coal.

Wrong. 12 US states produce electricity with hydroelectric, solar, and wind.

Just Seattle alone has 100 percent green electricity.

Wake up and smell the 2016 calendar, grandpa, it's not 1976 anymore.

Re:Only electric cars can't cheat on emissions

[CastrTroy]

Ontario has also gone completely coal free. They still have a few gas plants, but we're on the path to getting rid of those as well.

The breakdown is as follows

57.4% Nuclear
27.4% Hydro Electric
8.1% Gas
5.1% Wind
1.3% Biofuel
0.7% Solar

Values on that page are apparently updated in real time based on current load on the system.

Re:Only electric cars can't cheat on emissions

[Anonymous Coward]

57.4% Nuclear

Careful, otherwise that bonehead mdsolar will start spending time spamming anti-nuke BS to Ontario.

Re:Only electric cars can't cheat on emissions

[Anonymous Coward]

Nuclear energy is nice from a carbon and air quality standpoint but economically it's a bit of a scam.

There are massive external costs that taxpayers end up paying.

Plant decommissioning costs an arm and a leg. (Everything has to be checked. Everythign radioactive stored for decades until it's safe. That's not free. ) Supposedly it's built in to the initial cost of building the plant (Via a fund) but that usually ends up being a crock of shit. It's either individuate, get gets drained via accounting shenanigans when the shell company owning the plant goes under so the owners can avoid paying the cost of tearing down the old plant.

Fuel? Leftovers from decommissioned nukes. That isn't free, and won't last forever. Refining fuel from ore isn't economical either. (Tax payers already paid for it, plants get a free ride)

Waste? So politically expensive that we can't even find a place to store it long term. So it just sits on site, waiting to leak out years down the road to cause a hugely expensive fuck-up.

Thorium? Huge circlejerk. Will likely never happen. Nobody has demonstrated a commercially viable system and fuel reprocessing will have the same problems waste will. We will get fusion reactors before we get thorium.

Renewables are the way forward. They are just front-loaded with visible costs (We will need MASSIVE infrastructure improvements because generation will be dispersed instead of concentrated) instead of invisible externals so it's harder to sell.

Re:Only electric cars can't cheat on emissions

[Anonymous Coward]

Just Seattle alone has 100 percent green electricity.

Wrong, though ANY government numbers need to be taken with a boulder of salt, so you can be sure their coal percentage is actually much higher.

Re: Only electric cars can't cheat on emissions

[Anonymous Coward]

None of which have zero lifetime emissions. Hydroelectric actually has quite high construction emissions due to the amount of steel and concrete required.

Re:Only electric cars can't cheat on emissions

[WillAffleckUW]

It's 2016 not 2015. We ended our coal contract with Idaho.

Not that it matters. I get 100 percent green energy at all college and university campus locations in Seattle, and at home via both Green Up 100 percent and the fact I OWN SIX solar panels. Heck, just out the window you can see solar panels on all our new Platinum LEEDS buildings. We don't "buy" that power. We sell it.

Try again, grandpa. The world is changing, and coal and other fossil fuels are fast becoming stranded assets.

Re:Only electric cars can't cheat on emissions

[Anonymous Coward]

>They are just front-loaded with visible costs

Like forcing Ontario Hydro to pay 80+ cents per kWh of solar power produced. If you're grandfathered in (like many are), you can make money by paying your neighbour for their power at night, connecting spotlights, and creating solar power 24/7.

And you think Nuclear is a scam because it costs money to decommission...

Re: Only electric cars can't cheat on emissions

[Anonymous Coward]

And it is still much better than the drill rigs, coal mines, refineries, pipelines, chemicals, military fuel use, and all the other parts that go into getting gasoline to the pump at $2/gallon.

Solar and wind are even better (and recyclable along with batteries production that the trolls like to claim)

Re:Only electric cars can't cheat on emissions

[Anonymous Coward]

Horse Shit

My power comes from natural gas, wind and solar.

Most of it (including that used to charge my leaf) comes from solar panels on my roof. Even if I have to plug in to top off, my power "come" from wind (I pay the extra 10% to provision my average capacity from wind farms). Even if the wind farms aren't fully supporting my capacity, power from natural gas is just about as clean as you can get from fossil fuels (many times cleaner than an ICE).\

More to the point, coal (which is still more efficient and cleaner than oil based ICE energy production) only accounts for 22% of power production in the U.S.

Re: Only electric cars can't cheat on emissions

[Anonymous Coward]

Jeezus seattleites are such self righteous cunts. Glad I left. How's that piece of shit tunnel, 5th worst traffic in the nation , and top 5 whitest city ? Very fucking progressive and green. Keep being a dick.

Re: Only electric cars can't cheat on emissions

[fbobraga]

+ 1 informative ^^

Re:Only electric cars can't cheat on emissions

[Anonymous Coward]

Cool, where can I get these electric cars that don't need tyres and are always powered only by nuclear or renewable energy?

Re:Only electric cars can't cheat on emissions

[amberdalan]

And the other 40 states?

Re:haha

[Anonymous Coward]

Putin's NOT gay. Nosiree.

This rocks

[Anonymous Coward]

a scandal that has rocked the company

Indeed, their luck couldn't have been better. The executives are dancing in the boardroom. Middle-management has turned up the radio. Production employees are playing air guitar. This rocks!

Just a wild guess...

[Locke2005]

But couldn't a big part of the problem be that car companies were allowed to do their own fuel economy tests in the first place? Wouldn't it have been smarted to require use of a third-party testing organization, you know, the same way EVERYTHING ELSE is regulated? For example, RF interference, we don't just do the test ourselves, we have to take the equipment out to a certified testing lab. (They do take our word for it that the equipment we give them is essentially the same thing we will ship to customers.)

Re:Just a wild guess...

[TWX]

Might work better if there were an equivalent to the IIHS and their crash-testing. IIHS is not a government agency, but their testing regimen, far more advanced than NHTSA's, shames automakers into doing the right thing.

Unfortunately there's no, "Wow!" factor with fuel economy testing, compared to fairly spectacular results from IIHS's efforts.

Re:Just a wild guess...

[tlhIngan]

But couldn't a big part of the problem be that car companies were allowed to do their own fuel economy tests in the first place? Wouldn't it have been smarted to require use of a third-party testing organization, you know, the same way EVERYTHING ELSE is regulated? For example, RF interference, we don't just do the test ourselves, we have to take the equipment out to a certified testing lab. (They do take our word for it that the equipment we give them is essentially the same thing we will ship to customers.)

Actually, they did. The EPA did test those vehicles. It's just that for the sake of scientific repeatability, the test is conducted in a VERY specific way with VERY specific parameters observed. This way test runs can be repeated, variables controlled for and comparisons with other vehicles can be made. It is proper that we do this so that every vehicle is tested in the exact same way.

People complain about the tests - about how structured they are, and how unrealistic they are. They are right about that too, but you can't change the test without invalidating all the other results .

So because of this, what the manufacturers did was detect when they were being tested for emissions, again by detecting the test conditions were being met. If so, they ran in a special economy mode. Because the tests are carefully controlled, and somewhat unrealistic (they were adjusted to have as few variables as possible) accidentally triggering this mode during regular driving is extremely unlikely.

VW was only outed because someone took an emissions analyzer and analyzed the exhaust during real world testing and noticed that there was no way they could correlate with the requirements - they were much too high to simply be accounted for by emissions testing versus real world driving. Then they re-tested with the EPA tests and discovered the other mode. (The EPA re-runs tests on vehicles to ensure later runs haven't lapsed).

It's not unlike those phones that detected benchmark apps and locked the CPUs at 100% speed during the run to ensure they would score high on benchmarks.

Re:Just a wild guess...

[Anonymous Coward]

There's no reason the tests can't be changed. They already did in 2008 when they changed the speeds used during the test.

It's one thing people don't realize and why the real gains made in efficiency over the last 30 years have been significantly hidden by this. A car today that gets ~35MPG on the highway doesn't sound to great, but if it were tested under the old conditions (50MPH speeds instead of 80MPH) it would get somewhere in the mid 40s MPG.

It's also why people with a pre-2008 vehicle think they are getting _way_ below the MPG advertised. They aren't -- it's just the test conditions did not reflect the much higher speeds of vehicles/roadways today.

It also goes to show that the #1 correctable problem in MPG is to SLOW DOWN.

Re:Just a wild guess...

[stephanruby]

May be, they did. In the case of VW, my understanding is that they didn't cheat on the measurement itself. They cheated by making modified cars specifically for the test. And of course, none of those modified cars were the same as the ones meant for production. Also, I think this kind of cheating is indeed quite widespread in other industries.

If you buy an energy-rated television, the television has the energy star setting turned off when it is being displayed on the sales floor, and it's definitely brighter and more vibrant when that setting is turned off. Or if you do an internet speed test on your own ISP, your URL just needs to include is the word test in it, and you will get better latency and better speed than if you didn't have that word test in there.

And in the case of Microsoft and Samsung, but I'm sure this is being done by other tech companies as well (so don't think that I am singling them out). It's very common for journalists and tech reviewers to get review devices that are overpowered, and then for the exact same model of device to get silently downgraded in hardware once all the reviews have been written and the press is writing about something else.

Re:Just a wild guess...

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

There was a time when the team brought its own footballs. Then someone had the bright idea to underinflate the ball to give their quarterback a better grip. We should give all to do the right thing and be honest and be self-policed. Only when they cheat or get caught cheating we dock the privilege. Otherwise enforcement cost will be prohibitive.

Fundamentally, the world works because most people are mostly honest, most of the time. Shocking! but true.

Re:Just a wild guess...

[Lab Rat Jason]

I can't drive 55.

Re:Just a wild guess...

[Anonymous Coward]

May be, they did. In the case of VW, my understanding is that they didn't cheat on the measurement itself. They cheated by making modified cars specifically for the test. And of course, none of those modified cars were the same as the ones meant for production.

They modified the behaviour of the engine control software based on whether it was detected that it was under test conditions. If it was, exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) rate would be increased, yielding lower nitrogen oxide missions, at the cost of more pollution (but within regulations) and increased fuel use and engine component wear. When not in test, EGR rate would be reduced. Other car makers accomplish the same by using a thermal window: EGR is increased if ambient temperature is within the range required by law for emissions testing. Otherwise, it is greatly reduced or switched off completely. Fiat Chrysler has an even simpler trick: they turn EGR down after 22 minutes, as the test takes 20 minutes and is required to be performed directly after a cold start.

The result is all more or less the same, but some tricks could be considered legal and others clearly aren't.

Re:haha

[Anonymous Coward]

he might not be, but i am after looking at those pics. check out the PACKAGE!

There is no downside

[Anonymous Coward]

The benefited from the falsified data. Now they are benefiting from coming clean. They may get a wrist slap, but it will be nothing compared to all the money they made from the lie, and they will continue to make money anyway.

Getting caught is not a deterrent, which is why big companies do this sort of thing.

Re:There is no downside

[ub3r n3u7r4l1st]

Until someone is going to jail.

Re:There is no downside

[Anonymous Coward]

This is all Gov's fault anyways. Someone should sue Gov. That's gonna happen with the new trade agreements made for the poor megacorps. But only the megacorps are allowed to sue, and the courts are secret.

Because it rocks

[Anonymous Coward]

a scandal that has rocked the company

Indeed, their luck couldn't have been better. The executives are dancing in the boardroom. Middle-management has turned the radio up to 11. Production employees are playing air guitar. This rocks!

US Mitsubishi owner here...

[Anonymous Coward]

I've got a 2015 Mirage that I bought for fuel economy. It's rated at 37mpg city, but my ACTUAL average over the last year is 43mpg. My wife's 2010 Hyundai Accent, driving the same route as me, doesn't get it's rated city MPG of 28 (usually runs around 26-27mpg). Hers wasn't one of the years that were in Hyundai's MPG scandal, but it's still disappointing that my small, Asian hatchback gets almost double the MPG as hers.

So far, it appears the MPG scandal is limited to Japan. It's super disappointing to see what's happening. I've got 4 years/9 years left on the warranty (bumper to bumper, and powertrain, respectively). I sure hope the company, and in particular its' US dealership network, lasts that long.

Don't cheat. Just don't. It'll come back to haunt you.

As opposed to...

[whitroth]

...the cheap crap engines they make for everybody else? Had an '89 Plymouth Grand Voyager, that we got in '93, that ran really, really well for years. In '03, I traded it in for a '97 Plymouth? Chrysler? Grand Voyage, and I have *never* spent so much money on engine repairs. An engineer I knew told me they'd gone from their own engines to Mitsubishi engines, and *then* he started ranting about the crap they were.

Based on my personal experience, with head gaskets (never needed one before), oil pan, which became pump and pan (and yes, I believe in the One and Only Provably True Religion: change your oil ever 4k miles or so), plug wires, I think it was generator or starter....

I don't own one anymore.

                      mark

Re:As opposed to...

[TWX]

The '93 would have either had a K-engine (2.2/2.5) or a Mitsubishi 3.0L V6.

The '97 would have had either a Powertech (2.4) or a a 3.3 or 3.8 V6.

the 2.4 had a real problem with head gaskets, the bean-counters wouldn't allow them to use the multi-layer steel gasket, and the cheaper gaskets failed, many were replaced under-recall. Unfortunately if the shop did a crap-job under recall (like in my Stratus) then the cooling system could act as a vent for exhaust gases under pressure.

Re:As opposed to...

[Not-a-Neg]

Sounds like the kind of problems the Chevy Grand Caravan for their early/mid-2000 model years. My parents bought one, the dealer tried 3 engine swaps and still couldn't get an engine that worked right. They finally wrote it off as a lemon and bought a Kia instead that has been running flawlessly.

It's those rogue engineers again!

[kimgkimg]

The two rogue engineers should definitely get a sternly worded reprimand letter put in the permanent files now...

Re:It's those rogue engineers again!

[baxtercat]

"I hope you know that this will go down on your permanent record."

Taxing CO2

[sjbe]

For automobiles, limits on NOx have been useful in improving air quality and are probably worth it; limits on CO2 emissions from personal automobiles are not worth the trouble because they have a negligible impact on overall US greenhouse gas emissions.

Citation please... There may be greater sources of CO2 than personal automobiles but I very much doubt that their contribution is negligible.

For CO2 emissions, a substantial tax increase would be a better mechanism if we wanted to reduce CO2 emissions from driving, but politicians know full well that they couldn't pass that.

Agreed. Probably the best thing we could do with economic policy to help the environment would be to tax fossil fuels at a higher rate. It would drive economic behavior in reasonable time frames to more sensible alternatives for transportation and industrial fuel use. Sadly you are correct that it wouldn't have a prayer of passing the current Congress in the US.

Re:Taxing CO2

[ooloorie]

Citation please... There may be greater sources of CO2 than personal automobiles but I very much doubt that their contribution is negligible.

I didn't say that the contributions of personal automobiles were negligible (they are about 15%), I said that CAFE limits have a negligible impact on overall CO2 emissions; that is, you are not going to affect climate change in any meaningful way through CAFE standards. On the other hand, CAFE standards make driving a lot more expensive and probably cause significant loss of life.

Agreed. Probably the best thing we could do with economic policy to help the environment would be to tax fossil fuels at a higher rate. [...] Sadly you are correct that it wouldn't have a prayer of passing the current Congress in the US.

I disagree that that would be the "best thing" or that it would "help the environment". I'm simply saying that CAFE standards are a way of getting around the will of the voter, because the powers that be recognize that if they put the actual cost of these standards on the table, in the form of taxes, voters would revolt.

Re:Taxing CO2

[Anonymous Coward]

In the US, transportation makes up 27% of all CO2 emissions. Of this, passenger cars and light trucks make up 60%, and medium and heavy duty trucks another 23%.

Source: US Transportation Sector Greenhouse Gas Emissions 2000-2013, EPA.

Re:Taxing CO2

[sjbe]

I didn't say that the contributions of personal automobiles were negligible (they are about 15%), I said that CAFE limits have a negligible impact on overall CO2 emissions

That might be what you meant but it isn't what you said. You said "limits on CO2 emissions from personal automobiles are not worth the trouble because they have a negligible impact on overall US greenhouse gas emissions" which is very hard to interpret into your clarification. But fair enough, I understand your intent now.

that is, you are not going to affect climate change in any meaningful way through CAFE standards.

Again, citation please. I very much doubt that CAFE standards will have no meaningful effect. I would agree that it's certainly no cure all or even necessarily the optimal approach but to claim they will have no effect whatsoever requires more than just a hand waive assertion. I would agree that MUCH more needs to be done beyond those regulations however.

I disagree that that would be the "best thing" or that it would "help the environment"

Disagree all you want but I'm pretty comfortable with my statement. Fossil fuels are very cheap in large part because they are allowed to take advantage of economic externalities. Specifically, the full cost of the pollution they create is not included in either the cost to produce or the cost to use fossil fuel products. In effect we are indirectly subsidizing their use. Making fossil fuels more expensive through taxation would have the effect of reducing demand. Economics 101 - price goes up and demand will fall. Furthermore it is trivial to demonstrate that reduced use of fossil fuels would benefit the environment. If you have a more economically efficient way to drive down fossil fuel usage and encourage alternative energy sources I'm all ears but I'm not aware of one.

Re:Taxing CO2

[Rob Y.]

So, obviously, the solution is Do Nothing. Except that's not a solution. When climate change deniers finally give up on denying, they go to phase 2: "Well, yes, it's a problem, but China's worse than we are, and besides it'd cost more to fix than to build enormous dykes around cities, etc".

And there may be some truth to some of that - but where's the logic behind doing absolutely nothing at all? Nobody needs a huge SUV to take the kids to school and pick up groceries. And yet there are a ton of them on the road - most added since 2000, when Dick Cheney famously told us that "conserving gasoline is a personal virtue - not something for public policy". Bull. Public policy can't do everything, but it can do something. And even with all this cheating, car efficiency has still gone up. Try punishing a few of the cheaters instead of making excuses for them, and it'd go up even more.

Re:Taxing CO2

[Anonymous Coward]

There aren't really any Climate Change Deniers. Really, it all part of the vast Middle American conspiracy against the coastal elites. As soon as the waters start to rise the rest of American states will build walls to keep the coastal population from escaping, forcing them to drown. This will finally rid the US of its largest concentrations of progressive elitists.

Re:Taxing CO2

[Agripa]

So, obviously, the solution is Do Nothing. Except that's not a solution.

They are already doing nothing and instead creating a job program for politicians, lawyers, and their lackeys.

Re:Taxing CO2

[ooloorie]

So, obviously, the solution is Do Nothing. Except that's not a solution.

Doing nothing is a perfectly good solution: solar cells and other alternative energies have been coming down in price for decades, on a predictable curve. Ditto for increases in energy efficiency. That's going to continue, no matter what government does.

And there may be some truth to some of that - but where's the logic behind doing absolutely nothing at all?

Lots of people are doing plenty about reducing carbon emissions, for the simple reason that burning fossil fuels is expensive. Saying that something shouldn't be done by government isn't the same as saying that it shouldn't be done at all.

Public policy can't do everything, but it can do something.

Government has done nothing significant on climate change so far, except funnel money to politically well connected corporations and donors. That sort of bullshit slows down action on climate change, it doesn't speed it up.

Re:Taxing CO2

[ooloorie]

That might be what you meant but it isn't what you said. You said "limits on CO2 emissions from personal automobiles are not worth the trouble because they have a negligible impact on overall US greenhouse gas emissions" which is very hard to interpret into your clarification. But fair enough, I understand your intent now.

"Limits are not worth the trouble because the limits have a negligible impact on ..."

Again, citation please. I very much doubt that CAFE standards will have no meaningful effect.

In order to achieve the intended climate stabilization at 2C above current, we need to make drastic cuts across all emissions; CAFE standards don't even achieve those cuts for automobiles.

Fossil fuels are very cheap in large part because they are allowed to take advantage of economic externalities. Specifically, the full cost of the pollution they create is not included in either the cost to produce or the cost to use fossil fuel products. In effect we are indirectly subsidizing their use.

Fossil fuels are already significantly taxed in the US, and very highly taxed in Europe. Arguably, these taxes more than account for any externalities, so people already are consuming at the level that they would as if all externalities had been accounted for.

Making fossil fuels more expensive through taxation would have the effect of reducing demand.

Demand for fossil fuels is highly inelastic; we know that from consumer behavior under price swings in the US, and by comparing different countries. In order to reduce fossil fuel usage significantly, you'd have to tax them at a level that is much, much higher than any reasonable argument about externalities would support.

ALL Vehicles

[Anonymous Coward]

Every. Damn. Manufacturer. Does. This.

I don't think I have had a car/truck/whatever in 30 years that EVER came close tot he fuel econ they claimed it could do. lying has been a known fact for decades. NOW it suddenly an issue?? better late than never I guess.

Makes sense for Domestic Japanese Production...

[TWX]

...that they could get away with it for longer. Japan is a lot more urban so there's a lot more city driving. It's much harder to determine if you're getting worse fuel economy than you were supposed to get when driving conditions already put that fuel economy measurement all over the place.

just like test scores

[slashmydots]

Oh look, all the foreign companies are lying about fuel efficiency to look better and sell product and bring honor to their families. Ever wonder why a lot of foreign company have "better" test scores on standardized tests and it makes the US appear to be ranked 40th or whatever? I'll give you a hint. It starts with "cheat" and ends with "ing."

Re:just like test scores

[ewhenn]

To be fair, my Honda AWD CR-V is rated for 31 MPG highway. I get an actual 33 MPG on the highway.

Re:just like test scores

[Anonymous Coward]

It's actually 2 words starting with Teachers and ending in Union. We spend way more money per student than anyone else and get crap per dollar spent due to this particular fundraising arm of the DNC.

Re:just like test scores

[slashmydots]

My v6 2000 Mercury Cougar got 42MPG behind a semi at 58 MPH :P They haven't improved fuel efficient in 16 years over a V6 sports car, lol.

Just as if we didn't know

[dujardin]

All this is completely nonsense. Everybody always knew that fuel efficiency numbers were undervalued, and that nobody could achieve them in practice. After all, what counts is the progress in efficiency and pollution rates, and this progress has been here for real.

In Japan only

[Anonymous Coward]

So far it only applies to the unique Japanese tests. Japan changed the tests in 1991 but Mitsubishi never adopted the new standard. So far the cheating isn't due to deceptive tricks like playing with tyre pressures, but because they were still running the pre-1991 test procedures.

Re:Is it really any surprise?

[Anonymous Coward]

What they should do is require that each car have a balloon attached to its tailpipe. As you drive, it fills up with the exhaust, at the end of the day you have to let it out in your house. Then let car companies do whatever they want. If that sounds like a bad idea to you, then I'm not sure why you think I should have to breathe the exhaust of the other 12 million cars in my city.

Cancer would be cured with a 5 cent pill if, instead of pharma companies needing to extract the maximum possible profit from cancer patients, we told everyone who is spreading benzene and other carcinogens that they're getting the bill for their fair share of cancer.

That's not economically efficient

[Solandri]

Rather than the EPA pay to test every model vehicle released every year, it has the car companies test it themselves. Then the EPA tests a random sample to make sure the car companies were being honest. If a car company decides to cheat, they might get away with it for a few years, but probability says the longer they continue to cheat, the less likely they are to continue to get away with it. If Mitsubishi has been doing this for 25 years and never gotten caught, the Japanese government has apparently never bothered checking automakers' claims.

This practice of sampling is used widely in industry as well. Instead of testing every bottle of Coke to make sure it has the right mix of ingredients, you only test about one in 10,000. If a sample turns up out of spec, it costs less to stop production to fix the problem and discard the bad product between the bad sample and the previous good (in-spec) sample, than it would cost to test every single bottle.

The same misconception - that the best solution is to test everything thoroughly - is driving up auto costs in California. Requiring every car to get a smog inspection every year made sense when a lot of cars were failing. But if the inspection cost is $30 and the cost of letting a polluting car operate for an extra year is (say) $900 of environmental damage, then once the pass rate exceeds 97%, the inspections actually become more expensive than the pollution cost. The solution is more expensive than the problem. The government has reduced inspections to once every 2 years in response, but smog inspection has become a multi-billion dollar business so the gas stations and mechanics lobby to keep requiring them more frequently than they're actually needed.

Just like fishing quotas

[Anonymous Coward]

Tuna populations require 80% fishing reduction for the population to recover. Yet the agreed fishing limits are multiple times the sustainable level. Perhaps the peak fuel economy is upon us, and we must pollute over the reasonable limits to sustain our way of life!!

And another press release from Mitsubishi

[Krishnoid]

"We are terribly sorry about this systemic abuse regarding our fuel efficiency numbers. Now, in entirely unrelated news, check out our new line of all-electric vehicles!"

25 years... hmmm...

[DriveDog]

Interestingly, that's about how long it's been since Mitsubishi sent any slightly interesting vehicles to the US. It might not be quite as bad if they hadn't just been making forgettable, disposable appliances for decades.

Wait

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought letting industry self-police was supposed to work.

Ah!

[stackOVFL]

So, that's whet he meant. I asked the salesman "is this MPG rating for real?" and his replay was " Yes. Want some pancakes bitches?"

ou have no idea what you are talking about

[pablo_max]

Dude, if you feel so passionate about it, why do you post AC? Are you not willing to stand behind what you say?

BTW, Hydroelectric power, ecologically speaking is a nightmare.
Also, you have no fucking idea what you are talking about... at all.
From the EIA site.

  In 2015, the United States generated about 4 trillion kilowatthours of electricity.1 About 67% of the electricity generated was from fossil fuels (coal, natural gas, and petroleum).

Major energy sources and percent share of total U.S. electricity generation in 2015:1

        Coal = 33%
        Natural gas = 33%
        Nuclear = 20%
        Hydropower = 6%
        Other renewables = 7%
                Biomass = 1.6%
                Geothermal = 0.4%
                Solar = 0.6%
                Wind = 4.7%
        Petroleum = 1%
        Other gases = 1%

Re:ou have no idea what you are talking about

[sribe]

Also, you have no fucking idea what you are talking about... at all.

And then you post numbers which prove his point to be correct. Hint: 33% + 6% + 4.7% + 0.6% + 20% is most certainly the majority, and is most certainly > 33%.

Taxing CO2 is terrible

[Anonymous Coward]

You have advocated a completely regressive tax; I can't think of any viable Republican plot that would be worse for poor people. Who pays the largest fraction of their paycheck for gasoline, electricity and gas? Who's the most vulnerable to these taxes? Why are rich people supporting it? Those three questions should tell you exactly everything you need to know about this "tax gasoline back into the ground" approach.

One word

[fbobraga]

marketing :P

Re:Punishment ceiling known. No one behind bars...

[Anonymous Coward]

If you force these companies to sell electric cars against their will, you can expect to see a half-dozen lead acid golf cart batteries attached to a forklift motor installed into a just-barely crashworthy Tata Nano. It should move at least 5 miles before needing a charge. They'll be leased, then they will be crushed.

Don't think so? Ask GM.

Re:Is it really any surprise?

[CAIMLAS]

Applying the same "logical" thought process, we could do more good by keeping all of our biological waste inside the house instead of dumping it into the sewers...

Re:Punishment ceiling known. No one behind bars...

[Anonymous Coward]

Good question, and I think this is because VW management has essentially escaped without criminal charges

That is only because the criminal investigation has not found any indications that they were aware. The people who were responsible will probably face charges.

25 years and no one noticed.

[Anonymous Coward]

Good looking out. No regulations needed everyone will do right they said.

Mitsu is a squirrelly company

[Anonymous Coward]

They occasionally make good stuff but most of what they make is crap, especially their automotive electrical stuff. You would think their cars are British or something for how bad the electrical systems are.

I can only think of one recent good car they made and that is the 1st generation Eclipse from the late 80's and early 90's and really it was only the motor and drivetrain. Good God you could turbo the ever loving shit out of those things and they just kept going. It's kind of weird you don't see more of those on the street nowadays, they were badass! Probably too many electrical problems to keep them on the road.

Re:Punishment ceiling known. No one behind bars...

[Anonymous Coward]

News out today about a 2006 Powerpoint presentation made to high-level VW execs about how to cheat emissions testing with modified on-board software.

Unless that presentation was made to an empty boardroom, SOMEbody is going to jail...

Re:Punishment ceiling known. No one behind bars...

[Anonymous Coward]

The difference is that GM's EV1 was just a bit better than a complete half-ass attempt at an electric vehicle given the state of art in the mid 90's.

Re:Punishment ceiling known. No one behind bars...

[ausekilis]

Or maybe... just maybe... governments will realize that these ICE manufacturers/dealerships have been peddling lies for years in search of the almighty dollar. Maybe the gov will start to break down this nonsensical business model and lower the barrier for entry to other competitors. This would allow Tesla to actually compete, and force other car manufacturers to play ball.

Dealerships had their place when the world was a much larger place and we couldn't converse with the other side of the world in seconds. Now there's almost no reason for a dealership, as we know it, to exist.

Or we could just keep the status quo, since nobody really like change anyway...

My experienc with Suzuki

[Not-a-Neg]

I have a 2001 Suzuki Vitara (2L/4cyl. Auto.) It is rated for 20/23 (city/highway) and I routinely get 22/25. I really wish they wouldn't have left the US market.

Anyone who has driven an EVO

[jbgeek]

Anyone who has driven an EVO already knows this. Especially the way I drive it. I prob get 10MPG. :p