Slashdot Mirror


VW Has Emissions-Cheating Fix Ready, Says Report (pressherald.com)

An anonymous reader writes from a report via Portland Press Herald: Volkswagen plans to fix the engines that were rigged to cheat on emissions tests by updating computer software and installing a larger catalytic converter to trap harmful nitrogen oxide, according to two dealers who were briefed by executives on the matter. The dealers said that limited details of the plan were made public last week at a regional dealer meeting in Newark, New Jersey, by Volkswagen of America Chief Operating Officer Mark McNabb. Portland Press Herald reports: "One dealer said the group was told that early testing of a small sample of repaired cars showed that the fix made 'no discernible difference' in the cars' mileage, horsepower or torque. Both dealers said they were told that more testing was needed and that the plans still had to be approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the California Air Resources Board. One of the dealers said the so-called 'Generation 1' diesels -- about 325,000 VW Jettas, Golfs, Passats and Beetles from the 2009 to 2014 model years – would get new software and bigger catalytic converters in January or February of next year. About 90,000 'Generation 2' Passats already have sufficient emissions systems and would get only a software update early next year. Another 67,000 'Generation 3' 2015 models would get software in October and would get additional hardware a year later, the dealer said. Dealers also were told that they'd be reimbursed by VW for sales losses due to the scandal, and that new vehicles are coming." Last month, Volkswagen agreed to a record $14.7 billion settlement over the emissions cheating.

64 comments

  1. Emissions fix? Call me skeptical... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'd love to see an independent, third-party certification that there isn't discernible loss in MPG or power.

    1. Re: Emissions fix? Call me skeptical... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Consumer reports has promised a thorough test

  2. Gas Mileage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    How much will it hurt gas mileage. For all of the bs about harming the environment, the reduction in CO2 emissions from the cheating is probably the best thing that's happened for the environment this century.

    1. Re:Gas Mileage by sconeu · · Score: 2

      I can understand not reading TFA. But it's in TFS, for f***s sake.

      One dealer said the group was told that early testing of a small sample of repaired cars showed that the fix made 'no discernible difference' in the cars' mileage, horsepower or torque.

      (emphasis mine)

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    2. Re: Gas Mileage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      As if nobody has ever lied at a meeting.

    3. Re:Gas Mileage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This century? Really?

      Surely the removal of lead from petrol would be a better point than the reduction of CO2 in terms of saving the environment? Or even the increase in recycling? Or probably 100 other points others can list if they would bother?

    4. Re:Gas Mileage by uvajed_ekil · · Score: 1

      One dealer said the group was told that early testing of a small sample of repaired cars showed that the fix made 'no discernible difference' in the cars' mileage, horsepower or torque.

      Surely some folks will throw their stock VWs on a dyno before and after, right? I'm skeptical that tweaking the computers and adding bigger cats can significantly lower emissions while not impacting HP, torque, and mpg. Or does "discernible" only refer to butt dyno results? $14 billion (or whatever it is up to) sounds like an impressively large sum, but the unknown impact on resale values is something that can only be revealed in time. I must say, VW prices have begun to look attractive to me, and the cheating cars are still good, solid cars, but I can't buy a vehicle I intend to drive for 2-5 years without having some idea of what I'll be able to get back at the end of that term.

      --
      This is a hacked account, for which the owner can not be held responsible.
    5. Re:Gas Mileage by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      There must be some trade off or they would have made it that way to start with. Either it's costing VW a lot, or it's going to put up maintenance costs (consumables etc) or reduce component lifespan/reliability (running hotter etc) or all three.

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

      The engineers at VW have clearly demonstrated they're to stupid at building engines. So someone said, "sure, I'll let VW demonstrate their engine fix." It's like watching Bullwinkle stating, "watch me pull a rabbit out of my hat!" This was a criminal act, so where are the VW Cars Matter folks?

    7. Re:Gas Mileage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or the technology actually moved on from the time the scam was designed and allows to achieve the promised parameters.
      VW is under the close scrutiny now, they can't afford to make half assed fix that would turn people off.

    8. Re:Gas Mileage by grumling · · Score: 1

      "Discernible"

      Are you able to discern a 1 MPG difference in your milage from day to day? What about over the life of a vehicle. Will that loss be enough to keep people in their VW diesels when you can get a Skyactiv gasser that performs just as well?

      --
      "Well, good luck finding a judge that doesn't run a bestiality site."
    9. Re:Gas Mileage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The not insignificant cost of the catalytic converter, weight, and someplace to put it all (I have one of the affected VW's and damn things are packed in tight under there!), but the whole reason the problem exists in the first place is that the diesel engines were running hotter.

      This promotes greater efficiency, torque and horsepower in a diesel engine; however the temperatures in the combustion and exhaust phase lead to unwanted nitrogen oxide creation.

      Lower engine temps reduce N0x creation, but decrease efficiency, horsepower and leads to greater amounts of soot. (although not much, my state only texts diesels for exhaust soot, and every time mine has been tested it's registered 0.00. ) I can corroborate that, I can walk outside today, wipe my finger inside around the exhaust pipe and it comes back...a little dusty. I've NEVER seen the classic diesel black exhaust coming from this car.

  3. VW needs a bankruptcy "fix" ready by turkeydance · · Score: 1

    Saab story

    1. Re:VW needs a bankruptcy "fix" ready by ArylAkamov · · Score: 1

      I miss Saab. Pre-GM Saab anyways.

    2. Re:VW needs a bankruptcy "fix" ready by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Don't cry for VW. They're the world's largest automaker and they're sneezing, spitting, sweating, shitting, and farting money. That's why there's such a thing as the Bugatti Veyron, on which millions are lost on every sale; or for that matter, the Volkswagen Phaeton. The background on that car is incredibly stupid. So Audi makes a chassis called D1, puts their first ever V8 engine in it (they're still using the same basic design today, although the heads are very different) and sells it as the "Audi V8", which is a truly shit name for all eternity. Then they follow this up with the D2, which is the car we know as the original Audi A8. It's got an all-alumin[i]um unibody/spaceframe (it has some tubular members in it) and a couple hotties from the ad department can hold it up, at least until they spray asphalt all over it. Then Ferdinand PiÃch, who is considered by many to be largely responsible for Dieselgate (I didn't name it, so sue me) decided that Volkswagen needed its very own personal private luxury saloon platform. And while it is not directly based on the D1, it is more or less the same thing only re-engineered more nicely, and it's called the D1 platform — only it's the VW D1, and not the Audi D1. They could have just fiddled the Audi D1 a little bit, but then it would have looked like an older Audi. They could have just fiddled the Audi D2 a little bit, but then it would have just looked like a contemporary Audi, and they'd have had to make it out of Aluminum. That in fact would have been a good thing (it's what makes the A8 a great car when the A6 is just a car) but instead they spent an absolutely massive pile of money to produce the dies so that they could stamp another platform that they didn't actually need, and which as it turned out basically nobody actually bought for full price. In 15 years, only 84,253 Phaetons were sold. It's unlikely that this even paid the bills on the program. Anyone who could afford one went over to their Audi dealer and got an A8, which was available with the same engines, options and so on — and which can be serviced (and supplied) by a VW dealer anyway.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:VW needs a bankruptcy "fix" ready by uvajed_ekil · · Score: 1

      Don't cry for VW. They're the world's largest automaker ...

      Clearly you are confusing VW with Toyota, who are still the world's biggest automaker.

      I can't comment on the rest of your manifesto, other than to say I have no idea why you are so interested in how the Phaeton was destined to be a phailure from the beginning. Every automaker makes mistakes, some dumber and more costly than others, so it is the successes that drive them. VW will survive this with a black eye (or two), and I will continue to test drive Audis every time I'm in the market for a new car. (More VW-branded AWD options might finally convince me to go German, as I like Audis but find them a tad over priced and overly expensive to maintain, and winter brings too much snow to my area for me to spend big bucks on a 2WD car.)

      --
      This is a hacked account, for which the owner can not be held responsible.
    4. Re:VW needs a bankruptcy "fix" ready by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Clearly you are confusing VW with Toyota, who are still the world's biggest automaker.

      They are neck and neck, and VW employs more people due to all the marques they own.

      I can't comment on the rest of your manifesto, other than to say I have no idea why you are so interested in how the Phaeton was destined to be a phailure from the beginning.

      It's interesting because it's Ferdinand's fault, like everything else wrong with VW today. Germans love a hardass, though, and that's how they got him in the big chair. And what else is interesting about it is just how spectacularly stupid it was when they already had a car in that space. But what's relevant about it is that they have money to burn.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  4. Stuffing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    stuffing each tail pipe with as many 100 dollar bills that can fit might be a good solution at this point.

  5. Pretty simple fix... by samiran8577 · · Score: 1

    Inject more DEF, or add a DEF system. Probably includes free diesel exhaust fluid; except for dealer pricing, the stuff is dirt cheap.

    1. Re:Pretty simple fix... by sconeu · · Score: 1

      2015 models already have a DEF system.

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    2. Re:Pretty simple fix... by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The problem isn't technically how to do it. It's how to do it within the confines of what space is available on the car.

      Poke around a modern car, truck or heavy equipment and it's 'full'. Had VW done it properly the first time the floor pan of the car would have likely had a completely different shape than what was shipped.

      They had to find a solution that worked and worked on the car's dimensions as it shipped.

    3. Re:Pretty simple fix... by toonces33 · · Score: 2

      If you look at the newer Gen-3 diesels and compare to similar gasser models, the one notable difference is that the diesels lack the independent rear suspension. Why? Most likely to make room for the DEF tank.

      As you say, retrofitting DEF would be a challenge. Not just the tank, but plumbing, wiring, a new ECU, more sensors.

      And where/how do you fill the tank? Where is the fill tube, in other words? If they end up having to cut the body panels to make room for it, how do they ensure that the metal around the edge is properly treated/painted so that it doesn't rust.

    4. Re:Pretty simple fix... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      VW would have to give costumers pretty big check if they start having to DEF in cars not original equipped. Not for the cost but for the inconvenience factor of DEF. Considering that DEF is around 1/3 Urea and 2/3 De-ionized Water it should be super super CHEAP!

    5. Re: Pretty simple fix... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They will. VW will either give me a check for around $7,000 if I let them fix it or a check for $29,000 if I give my 2014 diesel Jetta wagon back to them.

    6. Re:Pretty simple fix... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some of the VWs can be fixed, but some of the older once cannot due to physical limitations in installing the new equipment.

    7. Re: Pretty simple fix... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, the lack of independent rear suspension in diesels is more likely cost cutting. VW don't sell any cars in Europe without independent rear suspension even with the same engine/DEF tank.

    8. Re:Pretty simple fix... by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

      The summary indicates it is a pure software update and a larger catalytic converter. There is definitely performance loss, acceleration most likely. Bur normal users are unlikely to feel it.

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    9. Re:Pretty simple fix... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A larger (higher flow) catalytic converter is a performance increase, not a loss.
      It is possible to do the fix without affecting performance, since the original was done to decrease cost not because they couldn't meet the standards.

  6. Ve are confident by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That we have found the officials willing to listen to reports of cheating and have paid them off so that our "improved" cheat codes will not be detected before we collect our bonuses.

  7. Fix La Fix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fix the cheat with a new Cheat!

    Hahahahhahhahahahhhahahha
    http://giphy.com/gifs/batman-laugh-the-dark-knight-A363LZlQaX0ZO

  8. If VW's claims are really true, by jenningsthecat · · Score: 1

    then the bastards must be kicking themselves in the ass. It hasn't taken them very long to come up with a fix; if they'd spent the time to do that back in the development cycle, they could have saved themselves a shitload of money - not to mention all the damage to their reputation since they got caught trying to pull a fast one.

    As the old engineering saying goes, 'never time to do it right, but always time to do it over'.

    --
    'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
    1. Re: If VW's claims are really true, by bestweasel · · Score: 3, Interesting

      This wasn't a mistake in engineering, it was deliberate. I wonder if the "larger catalytic converter" now being retrofitted was part of the reason for the fraud - those things are filled with expensive precious metals.

    2. Re: If VW's claims are really true, by uvajed_ekil · · Score: 1

      You hit the nail on the head. Whether it was about the cats or not I don't know. But this whole scandal was definitely deliberate and probably needless, meaning it could only have been about cutting costs.

      --
      This is a hacked account, for which the owner can not be held responsible.
  9. reports are it's no fix by YesIAmAScript · · Score: 1

    That the cars will still emit 200% of legally mandated NOx levels.

    http://www.thetruthaboutcars.c...

    Only the newest vehicles with the urea injection (2015 and newer) will make it to the legal levels.

    So if you bought a "clean Diesel" based upon VW's bogus claims, remember what they did to you next time you're out buying.

    --
    http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
    1. Re:reports are it's no fix by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      200% of the legally mandated levels is still pretty fantastic. We're still pretending that CO2 isn't serious, so we're focusing on the NOx. But the CO2 reduction that comes with the efficiency improvements of using a small turbo diesel is frankly worth a little NOx.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:reports are it's no fix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That the cars will still emit 200% of legally mandated NOx levels.

      http://www.thetruthaboutcars.c...

      Only the newest vehicles with the urea injection (2015 and newer) will make it to the legal levels.

      So if you bought a "clean Diesel" based upon VW's bogus claims, remember what they did to you next time you're out buying.

      You are a fucking idiot. From a previous article. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/apr/23/diesel-cars-pollution-limits-nox-emissions

      All of them fucked up but your dipshittery only focuses on one brand. They all need to burn less fumes. You are a fucking moron.

    3. Re:reports are it's no fix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Increase this guys score pls!

    4. Re:reports are it's no fix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "They all need to burn less fumes" Who's the moron again?

    5. Re:reports are it's no fix by uvajed_ekil · · Score: 1

      Maybe he means the EGR system was overactive??? Clearly not the case, as it would be great if internal combustion engines would burn ALL the fumes. (And clearly not what the previous anonymous coward meant, of course)

      --
      This is a hacked account, for which the owner can not be held responsible.
    6. Re: reports are it's no fix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are pretty much no co2 benefits. Comparable VW petrol engines, in terms of power and very close torque, produce less co2, mostly because a petrol engine can be lower displacement.

      Most of the benefits of diesel has been due to forced induction, not the fuel/cycle. Once you no longer ignore the carbon in the diesel soot, diesel stops looking good, and the higher power/displacement of petrol shows advantages at part load.

    7. Re: reports are it's no fix by drinkypoo · · Score: 0

      Comparable VW petrol engines, in terms of power and very close torque, produce less co2, mostly because a petrol engine can be lower displacement.

      What? Who told you that? That is literally the opposite of the truth. For about the same level of driving experience (less power, more torque, make it less immediate but more relentless) you have a much smaller engine. OR, and this is a bit hilarious, you build a gasoline engine with all the drawbacks of a diesel (AKA direct injected gasoline) but without the benefit of being able to run on diesel fuel.

      Once you no longer ignore the carbon in the diesel soot, diesel stops looking good,

      False, ignoramus. In fact, once you no longer ignore the almost-entirely-PM2.5-and-thus-most-carcinogenic gasoline soot, gasoline stops looking good. When you consider the additional unburned HC released during a typical gasoline drive cycle (not just at startup, but also at WOT) which is the most harmful automotive emission, gasoline starts to look positively pathetic.

      and the higher power/displacement of petrol shows advantages at part load.

      It does no such thing. Look at any vehicle offered as both a gasser and a turbo diesel. They always have a smaller engine as a diesel, literally always. You have this completely backwards. And Subaru's diesel engine isn't even heavy, so they don't even have to be that!

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  10. Re:A bigger catalytic converter... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My god, you are a fucking moron.

  11. the CO2 improvements are minor at best by YesIAmAScript · · Score: 1

    Diesel engines emit 15-20% more CO2 per unit volume (liter/gallon) of fuel burned because the fuel contains more energy/carbon.

    And once the companies stop cheating, the fuel economy of the Diesel just isn't all that much better than a turbo gas engine.

    Why put up with extra NOx and particulates (depending on the car you compare to) to save such a small amount of CO2? Just get a gas hybrid and do better all around. Or a plug-in hybrid like the Volt where you can do most of your driving burning no liquid fuel at all?

    --
    http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
    1. Re:the CO2 improvements are minor at best by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because Europeans don't want to give up their diesels. The government subsidized diesels and now Europeans will keep up making rationalizations about why highly polluting cars are actually better.

    2. Re:the CO2 improvements are minor at best by ttucker · · Score: 1

      Diesel also costs slightly less than premium gas...

    3. Re:the CO2 improvements are minor at best by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Informative

      Diesel engines emit 15-20% more CO2 per unit volume (liter/gallon) of fuel burned because the fuel contains more energy/carbon.

      Irrelevant; they emit less CO2 per mile traveled because of the efficiency improvements.

      And once the companies stop cheating, the fuel economy of the Diesel just isn't all that much better than a turbo gas engine.

      False. This fix does not substantially affect mileage.

      Why put up with extra NOx

      Worth it

      and particulates (depending on the car you compare to)

      Bullshit. Gassers make just as much particulate, but it's of the most hazardous type, which means their particulate emissions are actually worse than diesel. They also emit more HC than diesels, and unburned hydrocarbons are bar none the most harmful automotive emission. Gasoline also has to be refined more than diesel, which means more energy input and more polluting output. Gasoline engines are shit for the environment.

      to save such a small amount of CO2?

      Diesels emit less of everything but soot (theirs is less harmful) and NOx (worth the trade).

      Just get a gas hybrid and do better all around.

      You know that battery electrolyte isn't recycled, right? It's just disposed of and then replaced. A small diesel engine won't give the same performance, but that's fine; it will give adequate or even quite good performance these days. It will give superior mileage, and without involving a battery.

      Or a plug-in hybrid like the Volt where you can do most of your driving burning no liquid fuel at all?

      Plug-in hybrids at least have a reason to exist, unlike non-plug-in hybrids. But I live in the boonies, so I would still have to do most of my driving on liquid fuel. And they are also quite expensive, to boot.

      Since I do very little driving I don't give a shit anyway; I bought an old and cheap Audi A8 Quattro and am restoring it to good-enough condition. (Next: AC compressor.) It doesn't get particularly good mileage or have particularly great emissions, but it did cost thousands and thousands of dollars less than a new car, and it is dramatically better to drive than any econo shitbox. With the money I save not buying a Volt, I could buy an S8 (let alone the A8) and drive it everywhere with a lead foot for years. Sorry, environment! I seriously don't go out much, though. My prior car was a 300SD, which was a bit better on mileage and which ran on a more environmentally-friendly fuel. But frankly, it's cheaper to buy a whole new car than to upgrade the turbo and more expensively upgrade the injection pump on that diesel, so that's what I did. German luxobarge forever. I'm two meters tall, I'm over clown cars.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:the CO2 improvements are minor at best by PPH · · Score: 1

      Why put up with extra NOx

      Why indeed. NOx limits were crafted to kill off high performance engines (high efficiency, high power output per liter of fuel, less HC, CO2) by the car haters. Why worry at all about NOx when the automobile sources are down in the noise level compared to background NOx levels?

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    5. Re:the CO2 improvements are minor at best by Christian+Smith · · Score: 1

      Diesel engines emit 15-20% more CO2 per unit volume (liter/gallon) of fuel burned because the fuel contains more energy/carbon.

      And they use less fuel, because they're more efficient.

      And once the companies stop cheating, the fuel economy of the Diesel just isn't all that much better than a turbo gas engine.

      Why put up with extra NOx and particulates (depending on the car you compare to) to save such a small amount of CO2? Just get a gas hybrid and do better all around. Or a plug-in hybrid like the Volt where you can do most of your driving burning no liquid fuel at all?

      Or even better, have a plug in diesel hybrid, where you can trundle round town on the battery and so not emit NOx in built up areas (where NOx emissions matter) then fire up the diesel for extended journeys on open roads where NOx matters less.

      Diesel engines are just more efficient than even turbo gasoline engines, largely due to not being throttled and being lean burn. At low loads (which is probably where engines spend most of their time) diesels have less pumping losses (due to unrestricted throttle-less induction) and direct fuel injection.

    6. Re:the CO2 improvements are minor at best by YesIAmAScript · · Score: 1

      > False. This fix does not substantially affect mileage.

      What fix? This is not a fix. It doesn't actually bring the car into compliance. If gas cars were allowed to exceed emissions then they also would be more efficient.

      > Gassers make just as much particulate, but it's of the most hazardous type, which means their particulate emissions are actually worse than diesel.

      That's only true of direct injected gas engines. This is why I said "depending on the car you compare to". Either way, gas cars, even DI ones, are within the legal limits. These Diesels are not, even after the fix.

      > Gasoline also has to be refined more than diesel

      This isn't true anymore. Diesel is a highly refined product now also. Clean emissions requires clean and homogeneous input fuel and that means more processing.

      > Gasoline engines are shit for the environment.

      As are Diesels.

      > You know that battery electrolyte isn't recycled, right? It's just disposed of and then replaced.

      When? Look at the study on 15 year old Priuses, they virtually all have their original batteries. The battery isn't highly recyclable (yet), but the savings on fuel more than makes up for it. You're barking up the wrong tree here. Hybrids are a net win, even with the material of the battery accounted for.

      > But I live in the boonies, so I would still have to do most of my driving on liquid fuel. And they are also quite expensive, to boot.

      Not everyone is you. And in the US (which this article is about) Diesels aren't cheap either. Oh yeah, and they've been cheating too. They're not going to get cheaper when they add the equipment needed to conform to emissions regulations.

      > My prior car was a 300SD, which was a bit better on mileage and which ran on a more environmentally-friendly fuel.

      That car is a rolling smog bank and you are trying to talk about how your input fuel was renewable? Seriously, have you looked at the emissions standards it was required to conform? They were a joke in the US and a double joke in Europe. It's far filthier than its contemporary gas cars and really bad compares to any modern car of any sort.

      --
      http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
    7. Re:the CO2 improvements are minor at best by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      > Gassers make just as much particulate, but it's of the most hazardous type, which means their particulate emissions are actually worse than diesel.

      That's only true of direct injected gas engines.

      Who told you that? That's bullshit. The only way in which DI gassers are worse than other gassers is that they foul their intake valves which have to be expensively cleaned, sometimes including head removal.

      Gasoline also has to be refined more than diesel

      This isn't true anymore. Diesel is a highly refined product now also. Clean emissions requires clean and homogeneous input fuel and that means more processing.

      Not only is it still true (it still takes less energy to make diesel, it just takes more than it used to) but guess what? Automakers are now asking fuel companies to make higher-octane fuels, over 100 on the scale we use in the USA. That's what they need to make cleaner-burning gasoline engines. So gasoline is actually about to get more expensive, both in real dollars and in energy cost.

      That car is a rolling smog bank and you are trying to talk about how your input fuel was renewable? Seriously, have you looked at the emissions standards it was required to conform?

      That's irrelevant; mine is running nice and clean. It only smokes when you pin it, which even brand new diesels do. And since it doesn't have a catalyst, it puts out nice big fat soot particles that can be trivially swept out of your lungs by your cilia.

      They were a joke in the US and a double joke in Europe. It's far filthier than its contemporary gas cars and really bad compares to any modern car of any sort.

      And yet, far superior to anything else in the class sold in 1982.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    8. Re:the CO2 improvements are minor at best by Toad-san · · Score: 1

      Good comment. I DO like that last paragraph!

  12. The fix is in? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    OK so if the fix does little to affect the performance or MPG of the vehicle. How come the fix wasn't used in the first place? I am pretty sure a company doesn't try and circumvent emission rules simply to make a vehicle perform slightly better. You cannot tell me they risks so much for so little in customer satisfaction.
    After treatment like a bigger converter won't be such a performance factor, but obviously your going to have to lean out the engine management software to fix emissions. Otherwise it still will overload the converter eventually.

  13. Re:Emissions fix? Call me skeptical... by TheCarp · · Score: 1

    I just opened the comments thinking, do I even want this "fix" on my car? If I lose MPG or power then; it aint no fix in my book. MPG and power were factors I considered when buying my car. I paid a lot of money based on the MPG and power the car had when I bought it. I have no interest in seeing either reduced.

    If I can, I will probably avoid this "fix"

    --
    "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
  14. Gift by easyTree · · Score: 1

    Without reading even yhe summary.... This whole emissions-cheating circus couldn't have worked out better if Elon Musk had organised the whole thing himself.

  15. Is the testing equipment open-source? by RogueWarrior65 · · Score: 1

    Why is it that nobody is demanding to see the schematics and source-code to the testing equipment for verification of its accuracy? If VW can cheat, then it follows that the testing agency, which does have motive and more than one, could fake the test results too.

  16. Re:Emissions fix? Call me skeptical... by MoarSauce123 · · Score: 1

    I want to see the exact same emissions standards applied to trucks, vans, semis, big rigs, and construction equipment. Those vehicles still spew out a lot of dust, dirt, and poison that makes the VW cheat negligible. But oh no, regulating big trucking will create a big uproar.

  17. Re:Emissions fix? Call me skeptical... by Sorny · · Score: 1

    The standards are in place for everything you listed.

    --
    OSX pwns.
  18. Re:Emissions fix? Call me skeptical... by lgw · · Score: 1

    I'd love to see an independent, third-party certification that there isn't discernible loss in MPG or power.

    Heck, I fully expected that. See, I thought VW would release a firmware patch for emission testing equipment. All VWs would start passing, no need to bother the owners with coming in for the recall.

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  19. People showing real colours by MrL0G1C · · Score: 1

    It's saddening to see people not giving a **** about anyone's health including their own, they'd rather save a few cents per week and poison people to death.

    --
    Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
  20. Here in the UK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here in the UK we are just being offered a software fix. Good old UK/Europe failing to help owners.

  21. idiots at the wheel by fred133 · · Score: 1

    And, if there was no DMCA, we wouldn't be having this conversation...
    the "Fix" would have been spotted long ago.
    The EPA should have seen this right away...
    But as my father used to say, "If you can't get a Real Job, then you go to work for the government."

  22. Oh noes, I called him an ignoramus by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    But if you want Slashdot to be full of more ignorant bullshit, you're an asshole

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  23. Once A Cheater Always A Cheater by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Once A Cheater Always A Cheater, isn't that what we tell women. I will never by a VW there is no way to trust them and if they will not fix the cars right then that is a cheat as well.