US Finds New Secret Software In VW Audi Engines, Says Report (cnet.com)

An anonymous reader writes: It looks like Volkswagen's diesel scandal could keep rolling as reports claim that the automaker has three hidden software programs in its 3.0-liter engines. Concerns about the German car manufacturers' 2.0-liter engines could soon reach a conclusion, but the discovery of the hidden software has thrown the future of 3.0-liter diesels into uncertainty. That secret software in Volkswagen's 3.0-liter diesels can turn off the vehicles' emissions controls, Reuters reports, citing the German newspaper Bild am Sonntag. The emissions control system allegedly shuts off after 22 minutes, when most emissions tests take about 20. If this software does exist, it likely resides in all 3.0-liter diesels that Volkswagen sells in the U.S.. This includes the Audi Q7, Volkswagen Touareg and Porsche Cayenne SUVs. Approximately 85,000 of these cars are roaming around the US, and they're already under scrutiny for some software that VW "forgot" to tell regulators about.

Comments

Summary = article

[Anonymous Coward]

The article had nothing of substance beyond what was copypastad into the Slashdot summary. Way to go, Editors!

Re: Summary = article

[Anonymous Coward]

These here are the lines of code that don't give a fuck about your rules and regulations.

Re: Summary = article

[mandy2tom]

That should only be allowed to make electric vehicles from now on

(G)Unter

[Anonymous Coward]

Gleeben Glauben Globen

Well said!

Secret Software?

[TechyImmigrant]

It's all secret from the get go. I don't remember getting a source code dump with my car.

Re:Secret Software?

[Anonymous Coward]

Even if you did there'd be no certainty that that's actually what's in the binary blobs.

Re:Secret Software?

[Anonymous Coward]

As long as you can build it youself, and the checksums match what's in the ECU, then this issue doesn't exist

Re:Secret Software?

[thaylin]

they mean secret as in not disclosed, as is required, to regulators.

Re:Secret Software?

[lowen]

As long as you can build it youself, and the checksums match what's in the ECU, then this issue doesn't exist

Hmm, you must be new here. Please see Ken Thompson's 'Reflections on Trusting Trust' ( https://dl.acm.org/citation.cf... ) and come back once you're properly enlightened.

Re:Secret Software?

[Anonymous Coward]

You say this as if it were simple. You're aware that most of the time building identical source code on the same machine twice at different times typically causes the check sums of the binaries to come out differently, right? Inevitably a time stamp gets embedded in there somewhere. And lets not get into the nightmare of getting the build chains identical. You mustn't understand much about what you're talking about and have a poor understanding of build tools.

Re: Secret Software?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's actually not too unreasonable to expect deterministic results when working with embedded toolchains. You might have to go out of your way to achieve it, but if you make it a design goal it is perfectly acheivable. Yeah you need to maintain your toolchain version, but that's a good idea to do for many reasons when working on serious embedded projects. Even with higher level software, large organizations' build systems sometimes depend on repeatable compiler behavior for intelligent caching across workstations and even source code branches.

Re:Secret Software?

[Aaden42]

That's not inevitable. This shouldn't be the case for well-designed builds.

When you build GCC from source (at least in a Gentoo stage-1), you build your new GCC with whatever you have lying around, then build GCC again with the GCC you just built, then finally build GCC again with *that* GCC. The last two binaries should be identical, or something's badly wrong. The first & second might differ since building GCC with some other compiler (even a different version of GCC) yields different output than the current GCC would, but the second two builds (both built by the same GCC) must be identical.

Not that any of that helps against an actively malicious compiler or toolchain of course...

Re:Secret Software?

[Vliegendehuiskat]

Checksums won't work, but you can actually compare the instructions in the binary that are run. So if you can dump the memory of your car, you can compare a signed version against a compiled version, given that the manufacturer provides you with the source in the right way. Al lot of if's but it is doable if you really want it. It will take a lot of man-hours though, but that's just the way it is.

Re:Secret Software?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmm, you must be new here. Please see David A. Wheeler's 'Fully Countering Trusting Trust through Diverse Double-Compiling' ( http://www.dwheeler.com/trusti... ) and come back once you're properly enlightened.

Re:Secret Software?

[lowen]

I have read it, back in 2009, around Christmastime. While Wheeler's dissertation is impressive, his own list of challenges (Section 8, page 118) is fairly extensive, and many of those challenges apply to the embedded development reality (most notably, the alternative compiler necessary to create the diversity). As an ECU is an embedded, and likely a rather proprietary, platform, it is likely that an alternative compiler would not be available.

Try again.

Re:Secret Software?

[Anonymous Coward]

they mean secret as in not disclosed, as is required, to regulators.

Some day, everyone will be required to disclose everything to regulators, and there will be nobody left to fine. Then we will reach the singularity, and Big Brother will bring joy and peace.

Re:Secret Software?

[Anonymous Coward]

To you and the AC above, you'd hope they'd be identical, and at the level of the functionality I do believe they are identical, but at the checksum level they rarely will be. This is because often times a build time will be inserted into the software package as a build identifier. It won't affect the functionality but it'll cause checksums to fail. I ran into this when debugging what turned out to be a hardware bug and having two builds that should have been identical but behaved differently paired with some terrible luck in timing of this bug. One would work, the other wouldn't and when diffing them I found them to be mostly identical, but containing some minor differences. Of course in my case they did function identically despite the differences as they were dealing with timestamps and Murphy was just messing with me on when the hardware bug was showing itself.

Re:Secret Software?

[Anonymous Coward]

You all are missing the point... the original article wasn't meant to be a definitive attack, so defeating it was not meant to illustrate that computers are absolutely secure -- nor was it meant to say that all computers are insecure -- just an illustration that there is some doubt.

If you're a living breathing human, I don't need a CT scan and an EKG to confirm the existance of your heart and that it functions generally well, though one could do more extensive tests the more one needs verification or to test for more obscure problems.

Re:Secret Software?

[ChunderDownunder]

Debian have a reproducible builds project for that reason.

Re:Secret Software?

[Anonymous Coward]

As an ECU is an embedded, and likely a rather proprietary, platform, it is likely that an alternative compiler would not be available.

Try again.

I have no idea what embedded compiler they are using. At work we have been using VxWorks and gcc/g++, though it supports 2 others. The interesting bit is there are variants on VxWorks which are very traceable in functionality. Here is a link: VxWorks Cert They also have an MLS version.

Basically, use something like that, plus certified hardware, that meets all environmental and such, plus probably use all highly background checked employees, plus do a lot of code reviews and various forms of static analysis, plus do tons of automated and manual testing, and all the rest, and you should be able to make a fairly solid embedded system, provided you limit its job to a set of reasonable tasks.

Here is a possible solution to this kind of mess.
1) Tell regulators what you need to compile the system, hardware and software. Provide a copy if needed.
2) Let the regulators bring a team in to a closed area and carefully analyze things. Produce a final image with say a 256 bit cryptographic checksum.
3) Verify that delivered cars have that checksum on that embedded system.

Alternatively, you could do something like this:
1) Store all binaries on a secure central node that is US approved. It could be fairly small.
2) To load a binary to the secure central node you must have it first signed by the regulators.
3) To have a binary signed, the source must be reviewed, as well as typical operation, similar to the previous.

Of course nothing would really stop an aftermarket swap of that central node, unless it is also checked during boot.

More practically though, a more implementable solution is to simply have the EPA test drive cars from dealerships. A portable data collection system is very doable. Drive them for a few hundred miles.

Re: Secret Software?

[Anonymous Coward]

Individually, we are all weak, like a single twig!

Re:Secret Software?

[Bert64]

That's just the way gcc bootstraps itself whenever you compile it, not just gentoo... It's mostly for stability purposes to ensure you didn't build a buggy compiler.

Re:Secret Software?

[Anonymous Coward]

So what is the default mode when you don't want to spend money filling the tank with UREA DEF fluid? Or you run out of UREA fluid on a long trip and can't find it in the middle of no where? Of course emissions goes up, but doesn't this have the effect like VW's fix but without any special software mods?

Re:Secret Software?

[AmiMoJo]

Most ECUs use standard cores. 8051, AVR, ARM, Z80, 6502, PIC... And there are multiple compilers for all of them, some even open source.

Actually getting the binary on to the thing might be difficult though. Older ones use standard ROMs, but the newer ones have on-board flash memory, checksums and weird JTAG interfaces that are not publicly documented.

Re:Secret Software?

[Anonymous Coward]

they mean secret as in not disclosed, as is required, to regulators.

Not disclosing a piece of software, although prohibited by law, is not necessary an indication of cheating. How many software features have the Slashdot readers forgotten to disclose in documentation? In general, these types of things are put in to software to protect the hardware during very rare and specific events, like operating at the top of Pikes Peak in an El Nino year, and then forgotten about.

What's important is software that violates emissions regularly, and not documented maliciously.

Punishment Must Exceed Profit

[Anonymous Coward]

Whatever punishment the government inflicts, it must exceed the profit these scams generated for VW.
Otherwise, the sociopaths at the top will just call it the cost of doing business.
Also: Watch out for VW trying to use the government penalty for a tax write-off (an old oil company trick).

Re:Punishment Must Exceed Profit

[Anonymous Coward]

That's how it works for little people. For corporations, invert you rmodel.

Re:Punishment Must Exceed Profit

[Opportunist]

Are you nuts? They're too big to fail, and you know who foots the bills for such companies!

Re:Punishment Must Exceed Profit

[Anonymous Coward]

You assume too much. You assume that modern consumer vehical emissions matter. They do not, at least not to our quality of air. Vehical emissions account for less than 1% of all air pollution sources. Save your indignance for cement factories, glass factories, international shipping, and the air pollution sources that account for 99% of air pollution. To get idea of the scope of the misconception, a single supertanker pumps more air pollution into the atmosphere in a single day than all the cars in the world, VW diesels included.

I'm not defending VW, but pointing out that this VW bullshit is a distraction. When the damn holding back the river starts to fail, you don't start repairing the pinpricks before the gaping holes.

Thiis VW scandle has nothing to do with air pollution, but everything to do with a deception that if it had not been discovered, it would make absolutely no measurable difference to quality of clean air.

Re:Punishment Must Exceed Profit

[zlives]

citation needed, " a single supertanker pumps more air pollution into the atmosphere in a single day than all the cars in the world"
anecdotally i have heard the number was 5

Re:Punishment Must Exceed Profit

[Anonymous Coward]

How are VW too big to fail? Banks I understand - they die and we all suffer - but car makers? Killing a big one and 10 will jump in to fill the void. Would probably be good from a consumer innovation point of view. I hear Detroit has an under-utilised workforce ready and waiting.

Re:Punishment Must Exceed Profit

[Anonymous Coward]

Vehical emissions account for less than 1% of all air pollution sources.

Not true. Passenger cars and light trucks account for about 10% of the global carbon footprint. And unlike you, I have sources to prove it.

https://www.edf.org/sites/default/files/5301_Globalwarmingontheroad_0.pdf

To get idea of the scope of the misconception, a single supertanker pumps more air pollution into the atmosphere in a single day than all the cars in the world, VW diesels included.

You're the one with the misconceptions here. As per the above source, shipping only accounts for 2,2% of global CO2 emissions. Besides, you're the one with the misconceptions here - your idea came out of a Guardian article that focused on sulfur oxide emissions to the exclusion of everything else. This is ridiculously misleading, because cars emit next to no SOx.

I'm not defending VW, but pointing out that this VW bullshit is a distraction

And yet you're making factually inaccurate claims in order to trivialize VW's role in willfully deceiving regulators and their own customers around the world.

Re:Punishment Must Exceed Profit

[bws111]

Do you even know what too big to fail means? I doubt it.

Re:Punishment Must Exceed Profit

[Rob Y.]

your idea came out of a Guardian article that focused on sulfur oxide emissions to the exclusion of everything else

You're giving him a lot of credit. This makes it sound like he actually read the article in question instead of just parroting some talking head on Fox (who probably didn't read it either - relying instead on a direct heads-up from what ever industry-funded think tank actually wrote the article).

Re:Punishment Must Exceed Profit

[AK Marc]

It means the government provides corporate welfare to you. Note the "too big to fail" banks in Iceland were allowed to fail, and they have recovered faster than places that prevented the "too big to fail" failures.

Re:Punishment Must Exceed Profit

[Petronius Arbiter]

Not true, at least in cities.

The VW scam was uncovered in Europe because German cities' air was not getting cleaner, as it should have been as the cars were supposedly getting cleaner. So, the EU version of the US EPA measured tailpipe emissions on the streets, perhaps with a laser. This was years before the US discovered this. The problem was that hi levels inside the EU decided to ignore it.

Re:Punishment Must Exceed Profit

[Anonymous Coward]

Lazy ass. You can literally google the sentence you just typed and get a page full of results. Here: https://www.google.com/search?q=a+single+supertanker+pumps+more+air+pollution+into+the+atmosphere+in+a+single+day+than+all+the+cars+in+the+world&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

Re:Punishment Must Exceed Profit

[OrangeTide]

To Iceland's credit, they aren't a lumbering behemoth of a nation.

Re:Punishment Must Exceed Profit

[LynnwoodRooster]

I give you General Motors, bailed out at a final cost of $10.6 billion to the US taxpayers. Assuming you're one of the 69 million with a tax return above $3000/month, how did you like paying $140 to save General Motors?

Re:Punishment Must Exceed Profit

[bws111]

Wrong. General Motors was not bailed out. It failed. The company no longer exists. The shareholders got nothing. If you find some GM stock in your grandmother's attic you might as well use it as toilet paper, because it is worthless.

Re:Punishment Must Exceed Profit

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you mental? It's difficult to see how the US could be any more pro-business (anti-consumer).

Re:Punishment Must Exceed Profit

[erikkemperman]

Also, they're a functional democracy.

Re:Punishment Must Exceed Profit

[AmiMoJo]

The other thing about vehicle emissions is that they happen right where people live. A ship out on the sea spreads soot and other particles into the ocean, which is bad, but not as bad as tens of thousands of vehicles spreading that stuff around your city.

Re:Punishment Must Exceed Profit

[Anonymous Coward]

You made a claim, now back the fucking think up.

I got a daily express (aka 90% bullshit) article saying 16 tankers. While that is bad, it is not the same as one. The rest don't actually look relevant.

Re:Punishment Must Exceed Profit

[OrangeTide]

And now everyone should understand why what works for Europe doesn't work for the US. I doubt that will stop people from comparing the two.

Witch hunt

[ichthus]

Fuck this witch hunt. As has been demonstrated (and admitted to by the EPA), the environmental impact is next to nothing. If the EPA were truly concerned about public health, they'd go after the hick, shit-kicking motherfuckers rolling coal in their F350 Super Duty trucks.

Re:Witch hunt

[Wdomburg]

Yeah, fuck witch hunts that uncover willful fraud. Oh, wait, that's not a witch hunt at all.

Re:Witch hunt

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't see a problem with going after VW as long as they check other brands later too.
You don't let a robber go free just because you haven't caught all murderers yet.

As long as it isn't done to just protect local companies from foreign competition it doesn't really matter if which of them they start with.

Re:Witch hunt

[ichthus]

Ok, I totally get your point, and I agree with you. I just don't $15 billion fine agree with you.

Re:Witch hunt

[Anonymous Coward]

They are sending a message, that's all. If you are a large company, that does not give you the right to cheat the public. The F-350's emission is correctly documented and it's emissions are factored into the calculations done by the EPA. VW circumvented the tests so that they could look better and meet emission requirements. The message here is, if you're below the emission requirements, just man-up to it, it's better than cheating and trying to get away with it.

Props to the agency for continue to pursue circumvention of a well established law/rule.

Re:Witch hunt

[Anonymous Coward]

If the EPA were truly concerned about public health, they'd go after the hick, shit-kicking motherfuckers rolling coal in their F350 Super Duty trucks.

The EPA doesn't have jurisdiction, unless you can show Ford's involvement.

If you want to tell your own state agency to get on it, let me know which one and I'll give you steps about who to contact.

Re:Witch hunt

[DogDude]

The EPA doesn't enforce emissions on individual vehicles. That's the states and the local police's job. The EPA is doing their job. This is not a "witch hunt". This is a "fraud hunt".

Re:Witch hunt

[DarkOx]

Except those idiots are not really having much impact either. Its the rest of the people driving around much larger vehicles than they need all the time that matter. Lets just shit can CAFE standards entirely and start taxing people individually on their actual impact.

by-annual E-check - done on the dino at the tail pipe
1) measure fuel consumed over the test miles driven (to determine current fuel economy)
2) measure the PPM of interesting emissions in exhaust NOx, CO2, CO, others?
3) calculate the approximated amount of these gases emitted by using the current measured fuel economy, measured PPM of each type of gas and multiplying by the miles driven based on the odometer between this and the previous E-check.
4) apply tax rates for each gas emission type - bill the vehicle owner!

Do NOT fail anyone for a check engine light, high emissions etc, just notify them and let them pay the taxes. They will get it fixed before the next check or they will heavily again! This will incentivize individuals to actually maintain their vehicles, choose the most efficient vehicle that meets their needs because driving everywhere in their Suburban will cost more than driving a Sonic per mile in taxes. Yet by not actually limiting emissions people who actually *need* big stuff can still get it/operate it. The market will demand manufactures sell vehicles that don't result in high tax bills.

Do not make exceptions for classics etc, every vehicle gets tested every vehicle gets taxed.

Could individuals cheat by flashing their EFI control modules etc before they have their test and then putting it back after, well yes but they can do that kinda stuff in places that do checks now anyway. The smallish number of individuals that cheat won't amount to much.

Re:Witch hunt

[whoever57]

Do not make exceptions for classics etc, every vehicle gets tested every vehicle gets taxed.

You think that vehicles that may do only a few hundred miles per year should be treated the same as vehicles typically doing over 10,000 miles?

Re:Witch hunt

[thaylin]

Do you own stock or something?

If you dont fine them greater than the profits generate how do you get them to stop?

Re:Witch hunt

[Anonymous Coward]

I do

Re:Witch hunt

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting, but would ultimately fail because there are plenty of folks with more dollars than sense. In order to make such a plan have enough teeth to improve things the tax rates would have to be so high as to completely fuck the poor and the people who NEED big vehicles.

Current Gas Cost: $2.50
Average Monthly Miles: 1,000
Mid size car: 35MPG (29 gallons per month)
Urban Tank: 15MPG (67 gallons per month)

Cost premium per month for the urban tank: ~$100 ($1200 a year)

Plenty of people pay that type of premium without blinking an eye (and still do even when gas prices were/will be 2x that making that premium 2400/year). So your tax idea, to be effective, would need to be significantly higher than that meaning you're taxing even poor people driving small cars and legit users needing large vehicles thousands per year.

What's needed is a way to de-incentiveize wankers that buy giant vehicles just to haul their (probably fat) ass around town.

Re:Witch hunt

[msauve]

Why should they be treated any differently? Perhaps you missed this, from the GP: "...multiplying by the miles driven based on the odometer between this and the previous E-check..." So, even if that classic is polluting 10x the new car, if it's driven 1/100 the miles, the bill will be 1/10 as much. Seems fair.

Re:Witch hunt

[Anonymous Coward]

OP didn't say a thing about de-incentiveising fuel inefficient vehicles, he stated his goals here "start taxing people individually on their actual impact." and his proposition seems to satisfy those goals.

Re:Witch hunt

[Shadow of Eternity]

Grats, you just fucked poor people who can't afford better cars and gave rich people that make enough to not care a free pass.

Re:Witch hunt

[Anonymous Coward]

How else are they going to feel the pain? Fine them $1 million and they'd shrug and keep doing it since the cost of leaving it along would be cheaper than the cost of fixing it.

Re:Witch hunt

[DRJlaw]

Ok, I totally get your point, and I agree with you. I just don't $15 billion fine agree with you.

It's hard to engage in jury nullification when there's no jury involved. Even more so when you'd be hard pressed to assemble 9-12 random people who'd agree with you.

Did you object to the BP settlements as well, or is your issue merely that NOx pollution isn't as gross as oil-coated animals and shorelines? They get an "orange haze is pretty" discount?

Re: Witch hunt

[Anonymous Coward]

They should start testing cars with their maximun weight load driving up a steep Hill to get a worst case scenario.

Re:Witch hunt

[Opportunist]

How high a fine would be fine?

A fine that doesn't make it impossible to simply tack it onto the car price would simply be part of the manufacturing cost.

Re:Witch hunt

[GrumpySteen]

It seems like you overlooked this part of the poster's comment; "multiplying by the miles driven based on the odometer between this and the previous E-check."

A vehicle that's driven only a few hundred miles per year would already pay an order of magnitude less than a vehicle doing over 10,000 miles per year. Why would they need further benefits?

Re:Witch hunt

[Wdomburg]

In addition to the drastically higher of pollution their cars have been spewing for years, millions of people bought these under false pretenses and will now be saddled with weaker acceleration, reduced fuel efficiency and severely lower resale value (in fact the bulk of the settlement is reserved for to fund buybacks of the vehicles at pre-scandal prices). And that doesn't take into account federal and state tax deductions and credits that were fraudulently secured or the cost of the investigation and lawsuits themselves.

This was egregious and deliberate fraud at a global scale. It deserves a harsh response.

Re:Witch hunt

[Locke2005]

The allowed NOx levels being much lower in the US than most other countries makes an argument for the EPA regulations being unreasonable, and probably devised to protect domestic manufacturers of gasoline-powered engines. That being said, cheating to get around the unreasonable regulations should still be punished by an amount far in excess of what they could possibly have gained by cheating.

Re:Witch hunt

[Locke2005]

I second the "don't fail anyone for check engine light" notion. My Honda Civic Hybrid battery had problems, meaning my hybrid was getting about the same fuel economy and emissions as a non-hybrid... but of course the Oregon DEQ automatically flunked my emissions test because "the computer says you have an engine problem!" No, I have a _battery_ problem, that doesn't affect the engine at all!

Re:Witch hunt

[GameboyRMH]

That depends on the cost-per-emissions, but it would certainly leave poor people with older cars paying more than new car owners. This is why many laws have exemptions for older vehicles.

And on that note, the idea rewards wasteful people who change their car every few years, as a massive fraction of the car's lifetime environmental impact is in the production of the car....again a good reason to give older cars a break - that cost is already sunk and driving the car longer increases the interval to the next car being produced.

You may recognize these environmental incentives as being very bad for a laissez-faire capitalist economy because it discourages people from buying more junk for no good reason. This is true, as long as the environment is an externality, capitalism is an environmental suicide pact.

Re:Witch hunt

[Anonymous Coward]

Gee is thats not ramming people up the a$$ I dont know what is. Your system also leaves it open to exploits. Rig the testing machines, and rip people off - they cant argue with the result very easily can they? Best you go back to which ever dictatorship you're running.

Tax on diesel and gasoline is consumption based. Use more, pay more. Emissions test every year or two. Why make it complicated ?

Re:Witch hunt

[Feral Nerd]

Grats, you just fucked poor people who can't afford better cars and gave rich people that make enough to not care a free pass.

Grats, you just discovered how capitalism works.

Re:Witch hunt

[Anonymous Coward]

Why should the EPA believe that their regulations are unreasonable when all these manufacturers seem to have no trouble at all meeting them without even needing to sacrifice performance?

You can't point your finger at the EPA. The fraudsters have nobody but themselves to blame.

Re:Witch hunt

[NotAPK]

Just ask them to apologise.

Re:Witch hunt

[gfxguy]

But this isn't like internet service, there's actual choice in car buying, and when they raise prices to cover the cost of their penalty, they will sell fewer vehicles.

Re:Witch hunt

[NotAPK]

"the people who NEED big vehicles."

You may be socially conditioned to think otherwise, but *very* few individuals needs big vehicles. If you look into it, you don't actually need a large powerful vehicle to pull a boat (they're light) or a caravan (they're light too) or most trailers when moving house. The only heavy haulage work involves moving concrete, sand, or building supplies, and if that's your gig then you need a light commercial vehicle.

Re:Witch hunt

[DarkOx]

If the odometer readings indicate it was only driven a few hundred miles the taxes will be essentially nothing

Re:Witch hunt

[DarkOx]

the idea rewards wasteful people who change their car every few years

From an environmental perspective though that probably isn't as bad as you thing. It means a lot of vehicles with good remain service life and overall condition become available in the used market. Arguably a huge benefit to less economical well off individuals, who can benefit for access to affordable quality cars. It in turn means the even old cars that probably do negatively impact the environment disproportionately can be taken out of service. Things like bad oil seals etc, causing leaks that don't get fixed.

Re:Witch hunt

[danbert8]

Many of the BP settlements ended up being fraudulent claims. BP paid out well more than the actual damages of the spill in the gulf. The oil actually didn't do a fraction of the catastrophic damage that the media said it would.

Re:Witch hunt

[DarkOx]

The tax tables don't have to be a linear curve. If the rates were set on exponential curve we could easily avoid having poor people driving small cars pay much of anything while hitting bigger vehicles effectively.

As far as costing legit users thousands a year; well they hare are making a disproportionate use of a shared resource, arguably they should pay it. If its a commercial use they can pass the costs on; their competitors after all will be paying the same tax. If its hobby use well again maybe they should pay.

Re:Witch hunt

[DarkOx]

And that doesn't take into account federal and state tax deductions and credits that were fraudulently secured

Arguable there was not fraud there. As the person claiming the deduction would have been buy who to the best of their knowledge qualified.

Re:Witch hunt

[parkinglot777]

Even though the idea (theory) is very interesting and looks promising because it is focused to only one aspect, I still think it is not practical and will be extremely difficult (and costly) to operate. Why? It is much easier to check up/force the cause (selling vehicles) than to patch the end (vehicle consumers). There is much smaller number to deal with. If the responsibility is pushed down to the consumers, what else do you think would happen? Who is keeping the records? How to deal with them especially when there is an issue? How many people would be involved in doing so? How much it cost to implement, install, train, etc., the system? Many things will happen in both advantages and disadvantages.

Could individuals cheat by flashing their EFI control modules etc before they have their test and then putting it back after, well yes but they can do that kinda stuff in places that do checks now anyway. The smallish number of individuals that cheat won't amount to much.

Again, in theory, you are thinking of the whole situation in a controlled environment. However, reality is more dynamic. You forgot that currently there is not much incentive to cheat, so small amount of cheaters won't have any impact. If the responsibility is pushed down to consumers, there will be all kind of cheats popping up and would spread out wider than it is now.

Anyway, the ultimate reason for doing this at manufacturer level may come down to how easy the situation could be controlled (by you know who).

Re:Witch hunt

[Anonymous Coward]

A battery problem that results in higher emissions. Because the battery isnt pushing the vehicle the engine has to push more which increases emissions. So yes it is a good reason to fail your vehicle.

Re:Witch hunt

[StayFrosty]

Just because you can't think of a reason doesn't mean they don't exist.

Here's a list of people you forgot:
Farmers
Landscapers
People who regularly trailer cars or heavy equipment for whatever reason
People with non-European sized campers - see below
People with large boats - see below

When it comes to boats and campers, you are not taking wind resistance in to consideration. Many campers in the US are much taller than the tow vehicle causing massive amounts of wind resistance. This is a consideration along with weight. Same with any large boat. If it's sticking way above the roof of the towing vehicle, it probably shouldn't be towed by your sub-compact or little crossover.

Any trailer with brakes should be pulled by a full-size truck or SUV, especially if it's towed on a regular basis. Your little car may say it has a certain towing capacity, but that is assuming optimal conditions and new parts. If you are towing on a regular basis, you *will* put more strain on the drive train, suspension, and brakes than someone who doesn't. Most cars, minivans, and hatchbacks these days seem to be built as cheaply as possible so the extra wear and tear does make a difference. Vehicles that are purpose-built for this kind of work are generally heavy-duty enough to handle it.

It makes little to no financial sense, and is wasteful, to own a dedicated towing vehicle if towing is something you do even a handful to times a year. Most families can't afford more than 2 vehicles, so if towing is something needed and both adults are working, the tow vehicle needs to double as a commuter.

The only heavy haulage work involves moving concrete, sand, or building supplies, and if that's your gig then you need a light commercial vehicle.

At least in the US, full-size trucks are the light commercial vehicle of choice and are often driven to job sites by their owners. You can't really expect a construction worker--think of an independent contractor who for sure isn't making tons of money--to own a separate work vehicle.

Re:Witch hunt

[Anonymous Coward]

Many of the BP settlements ended up being fraudulent claims. BP paid out well more than the actual damages of the spill in the gulf. The oil actually didn't do a fraction of the catastrophic damage that the media said it would.

Since the media isn't a scientific endeavor, I don't think that is easy to compare what they report to what scientists report. The Media mostly reports on the claimants (and undoubtedly many were fraudulent), but some of the actual damage is basically unquantifiable at present. I think the short answer is nobody knows (either way) how much damage the spill caused in the gulf. Of course BP wanted closure, a final dollar amount ($54.6B including a $20.8B fine) and to put it behind them. Of course the environmentalists want to stretch things out (and keep getting paid for research), meanwhile much of the potential future consequences (if any) hasn't been experienced yet.

Although this is second hand information, one of my cousins is still doing research to estimate the future issues associated with the BP spill. Apparently, PAHs (polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons) are one of the ghost of the spill that won't seem to go away and are compromising insects and wildlife just above them on the food chain, and oil based toxicity that affects mangroves and other stabilizing vegetation apparently continues to accelerate erosion issues, although these are nearly impossible to quantify as they are generally only exasperated by hurricanes and other natural phenomena.

Of course at some point you have to draw the line, but as with many events, this one is irreversible, so unless you live in a different quantum reality, it is now the new normal.

Re:Witch hunt

[Locke2005]

As far as I know, all the engines that legitimately meet the emissions standards post-process the exhaust, e.g. Mercedes and Cummins engines. As far as I know, the Mazda Skyactive-D engine is still not approved for US sale. Volkswagen tried to cheap out by NOT using an exhaust filter system, which adds significant cost to each car. We have proof that the standards CAN be met, but it still isn't easy to do so, or we'd have a lot more diesel options available in the US market. I'd like to see a Mercedes diesel hybrid using electric motors to drive all 4 wheels while charging the system with constant speed turbo diesel generator, but I guess they don't see a big enough market to develop such a system.

Re:Witch hunt

[AK Marc]

I had a classic car, and it was exempt from everything. No seatbelts, no emissions controls. And it was my daily driver for years. Exempting "classic" cars will cause more of them to get higher use. The proposed "base it on distance" plan seems to be the most fair.

Re:Witch hunt

[NotAPK]

"so if towing is something needed and both adults are working, the tow vehicle needs to double as a commuter."

All the reasons you state are good ones, and well taken.

But this is the flaw. To me (for what that's worth) your choice of compromise just seems the wrong way around! If I'm only going to tow for a few weeks a year then I'll gladly accept sub-optimal towing conditions (basically drive slower while towing) in exchange for optimized commuting for the rest of the year. Doing it the other way around just seems really backwards!

Re:Witch hunt

[BlueStrat]

Why should the EPA believe that their regulations are unreasonable when all these manufacturers seem to have no trouble at all meeting them without even needing to sacrifice performance?

"All these manufacturers", if you're referring strictly to passenger-car diesel engines here, are mostly all non-US. I'm not aware of any US makers of diesel passenger cars. This is probably why US diesel passenger car emission standards are more strict than most other countries. Purely to put up roadblocks against competition from foreign diesel passenger car makers in order to favor domestic makers of gasoline engines.

Follow the money/power. Who benefits? That usually answers the who & why for most issues/decisions/actions by those in power.

Strat

Re:Witch hunt

[LynnwoodRooster]

If only there was a way to stop all sales of VW products until they passed regulatory levels. I mean, $15 billion MAY hurt, but something like losing ALL sales until you have 100% compliance would really be a kick in the nuts.

Re:Witch hunt

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe Raising the tax % on fuel would have the desired effect.

Re:Witch hunt

[serviscope_minor]

It makes little to no financial sense, and is wasteful, to own a dedicated towing vehicle if towing is something you do even a handful to times a year.

Why not rent? I seem to end up renting a long wheelbase van a couple of time a year or so, when I have a few large things to move. Much as I aspire ot be white van man, It makes no sense to own a transit the other 363 days though.

Re:Witch hunt

[HornWumpus]

Wasn't the first big spill into the gulf of Mexico. Mexican national oil company did the same thing in the 70s.

There are no additional shoes to drop, much as the environmentalists would like much more damage, they are disappointed.

Re:Witch hunt

[Anonymous Coward]

"Older vehicles" tends to mean classic cars, which tend not to be driven by poor people.

Re:Witch hunt

[Anonymous Coward]

Why not rent? I seem to end up renting a long wheelbase van a couple of time a year or so, when I have a few large things to move. Much as I aspire ot be white van man, It makes no sense to own a transit the other 363 days though.

It seems to be harder to find a place that will rent a tow vehicle than will rent a long wheelbase van. Not impossible, but while pretty much rental car place can rent you a full sized SUV those won't have tow hitches and the rental agreements will forbid towing. You need to be near one of the more limited set of places that will rent work trucks with tow packages. So there may not be one near enough to take advantage of.

Re:Witch hunt

[tsa]

Hm, where I come from that applies to internet service too.

Re:Witch hunt

[Bert64]

Well the fine will be passed on to the consumers one way or another anyway.
They should make the shareholders and senior management liable for the fine, that might actually discourage such behaviour from happening in future.

Re:Witch hunt

[serviscope_minor]

Interesting, I didn't know that. Thanks.

Re:Witch hunt

[mjwx]

In addition to the drastically higher of pollution their cars have been spewing for years, millions of people bought these under false pretenses and will now be saddled with weaker acceleration, reduced fuel efficiency and severely lower resale value (in fact the bulk of the settlement is reserved for to fund buybacks of the vehicles at pre-scandal prices).

Yes, but they're diesel drivers so they're already used to slow, inefficient vehicles whose used prices are lower than the approval rating of cholera.

Re:Witch hunt

[Anonymous Coward]

Just tax GAS at 100% - split 50% of the revenue between all car owners (1 tax refund per license plate). 10% to CO2 removal research.
Your big truck will get a 10% return on your gas pumped.
Your electric car will get a nice payment bonus.

This would be a simpler solution that uses the existing capitalists market rules; Customers will soon be a lot more careful of the gas consumption; if not let them pay for it. Sue the vendors who posts false numbers.

Re:Witch hunt

[Wdomburg]

Not fraud on the part of the buyers. Fraud on the part of VW. In retrospect should have worded it, "credits that were secured on the basis of this fraud" to make that clear.

Re:Witch hunt

[Grishnakh]

As far as I know, all the engines that legitimately meet the emissions standards post-process the exhaust, e.g. Mercedes and Cummins engines.

That's my understanding too: they all use DEF ("AdBlue"), which is a form of urea, in the exhaust stream to convert the harmful emissions to something that's not harmful.

The problem seems to be that to do it properly and meet the emissions requirements, you have to use a lot of DEF, so you either need a giant tank of it, or you need to refill it frequently (like every few thousand miles, rather than every 10k-15k miles so it can be done at regular service intervals). This isn't such a problem with bigger vehicles like full-size pickups because they have a lot more room for a big tank; small cars don't have the extra space.

I honestly don't know why this is a problem. It should be easy to design the engines so they simply won't run without DEF, and make the consumer fill it up every so often themselves, if they can't or won't put a big enough tank in the vehicle. Honestly, how hard is it to get people to buy some cheap fluid at the gas station or Walmart and add it every 1k or 3k miles? Most people don't seem to have too much trouble refilling their washer fluid. And literally everyone is able to refill their own gas tank. No one thinks it's an onerous requirement on consumers for their car to need gas (or diesel) in order to run, and that it's somehow a problem that the vehicle will stop running completely if you run out of fuel. So just make the DEF work the same way. If someone is too stupid to keep their DEF tank full, then they shouldn't buy a diesel car, they can buy a gasoline car instead.

I'd like to see a Mercedes diesel hybrid using electric motors to drive all 4 wheels while charging the system with constant speed turbo diesel generator, but I guess they don't see a big enough market to develop such a system.

And I'd like to have a magic unicorn. You talk about this like it'd be trivial to develop; what you're proposing here is a completely different vehicle, not something that can be slapped together in a month. Wheel motors for EVs are extremely problematic; there's a reason Teslas don't use them. The closest you're going to get to something like this is the Chevy Volt. And even that doesn't have fuel economy that's that great: serial hybrids still suffer from conversion losses (generating electricity from fuel, then using that to power motors) that limit their overall efficiency. The parallel hybrid Prius easily beats the Volt's highway fuel economy; the main advantage the Volt has is its all-electric range before the gas engine comes on. The Volt does this by dedicating a lot of room to batteries, but this (plus the gas engine that doesn't run for 60 miles, plus the drive motor) means you have very little space left over in the vehicle for passengers and cargo, plus a lot of weight. It's not too bad, with its clever packaging design, but in terms of usable space and long-range fuel economy, the Prius is the clear winner, plus it costs a lot less too. The bottom line is: if it were that easy and cost-effective to build and sell a serial-hybrid vehicle that would really be worth it in terms of cost and performance and utility, car companies would have already done it. There's good reasons they haven't, besides the Volt.

Re:Witch hunt

[Anonymous Coward]

Renting twice a year is sensible. But what if you need to rent 12 times a year? That many rentals start to add up in cost, perhaps more so than the fuel difference.

Re:Witch hunt

[Grishnakh]

Ford has nothing to do with it; these trucks were illegally modified. From the factory, they surely met EPA requirements (assuming they didn't pull a VW).

The states need better enforcement for that stuff.

Re:Witch hunt

[Grishnakh]

you don't actually need a large powerful vehicle to pull a boat (they're light)

This isn't true. A canoe or kayak certain is light and can easily be towed with or carried on top of a small car. But something like a cabin cruiser can weigh 4000-7000 pounds (from a quick Google search), plus the weight of the trailer (guessing another 1000-1500 pounds). No car can pull that kind of weight; a Class II hitch maxes out at 2000 pounds. You definitely need a large truck for pulling a boat that size.

Another thing that needs a big truck is pulling a horse trailer. A single horse can be between 800 and 1200 pounds; then add the weight of the trailer, plus you probably want to be able to transport 2-4 of them.

Now, you can certainly argue that no one really *needs* to tow a 20-foot boat or a couple of horses, and if they're rich enough to afford those kinds of toys, then they can also afford a big-ass pollution tax bill for their truck, and I would not argue with that at all. Especially for horses: the women who love horses and become horse owners are, without exception, a bunch of nuts wasting money on a ridiculous hobby to the detriment of everyone around them, and absolutely deserve to be driven into bankruptcy and homelessness with a huge tax bill (because they're so stupid they won't give up their hobby no matter how much it costs them).

Re:Witch hunt

[DRJlaw]

The allowed NOx levels being much lower in the US than most other countries makes an argument for the EPA regulations being unreasonable

The pre-Euro 6 (2014) regulations allowing NOx levels for compression engines (i.e., diesel) three times higher than those for spark-ignition engines (i.e., petrol) makes an argument for the European regulations being drafted to permit diesel engines lacking NOx controls regardless of the smog issue. Their own governments say so.

The Euro 6 regulations that came into effect in the 2015 model year (late 2014) finally push NOx limits down to 0.08 g/km (diesel) vs. 0.06 g/km (petrol), approximating parity for the first time. Meanwhile, the US Tier 2 standard is a fleet average of 0.07 g/mi (~0.043 g/km) for both engine types.

So, if the US regulations were devised to protect manufacturers of gasoline engines, then why are the Euro regulations clamping down from 0.50 g/km to only slightly more than double the US limits now? Why are spark-ignition engines even closer to the US limits now? What is your basis for levels being "unreasonable" besides the apparent fact that you view the European regulations as being infallible, even though they themselves do not.

The smog in European cities more than makes an argument that the Euro regulations are unreasonable, not the other way around.

Re:Witch hunt

[DRJlaw]

Purely to put up roadblocks against competition from foreign diesel passenger car makers in order to favor domestic makers of gasoline engines.

Yep. Nothing to do with smog and proposals for center city bans on diesel vehicles (never mind the alternating day travel schemes already being imposed). European smog problems are clearly rumors. The London ULEZ is simply a scheme by U.S. engine manufacturers to take over the European market.

No technical reason at all. You hear politicians discussing making London and Paris-type proposals for LA, SF, NYC, Boston, and Chicago all the freaking time... right?

Try again.

Re:Witch hunt

[Anonymous Coward]

Ford has nothing to do with it; these trucks were illegally modified. From the factory, they surely met EPA requirements (assuming they didn't pull a VW).

Exactly my point, Ford's only involvement is legit, as far as shown. You'd have to work hard to get me convinced that Ford could even reasonably prevent such misuse.

The states need better enforcement for that stuff.

Hah. They're too busy doing other important stuff.

Re:Witch hunt

[DarkOx]

It makes little to no financial sense, and is wasteful, to own a dedicated towing vehicle

Nonsense I keep my 1995 Silverado around for exactly this. It cost me about $4000 to by and maybe $3000 to replace everything required to make it completely safe an reliable. If you can afford the boat or camper you can afford the sub $10K vehicle to haul it.

I don't have to care how well it does on gas or anything either because I drive it about once a week to haul our trash to the dump to keep it exercised and when I need to bring back something big from the home store, move a bunch dirt/mulch/stone and haul my racer somewhere. Trunk maybe gets driven 3000 miles a year. At this rate with basic (cheap) maintenance it will probably last ten years at least. So total cost of ownership probably ends up being in the $1600/year range after taxes and title.

It makes total sense to have dedicated towing vehicle, if you have an consistent need, even if its a few camping trips or auto races a year.

Re:Witch hunt

[danbert8]

This event is irreversible in the same way time is irreversible. Yes, it happened and you cannot undo the effects. However, despite the cause of the spill being man-made, crude oil is a naturally occurring substance that has been seeping into the ocean for millennia. The spill wasn't great for the environment, but it isn't the disaster everyone was claiming it would be.

Loosay, you have some splainin to do.

[Anonymous Coward]

They had a chance to come clean on "clean diesel" and they didn't. Get a rope.

How it went down.

[ravenshrike]

US investigator - "So this is all the secret software right? There's nothing else?
VW spokesman - "Ja, all ist gut. No more verdammt testing software that we were dummkopfs for not disabling in a vollstandig understandable mistake."
US engineer - "Hey boss, we found three more programs that do similar shit in their 3.0 liter engines."
US investigator - "Johaaaaaaannnnn! You got some 'splanin to do"

Re: How it went down.

[Anonymous Coward]

VW spokesman: Heil Hitler! (bites down on cyanide pill and dies)

Re: How it went down.

[Opportunist]

That's Heil Merkel now, please stay up to date with our Führers.

Re:How it went down.

[Anonymous Coward]

US investigator - "So this is all the secret software right? There's nothing else? VW spokesman - "Ja, all ist gut. No more verdammt testing software that we were dummkopfs for not disabling in a vollstandig understandable mistake." US engineer - "Hey boss, we found three more programs that do similar shit in their 3.0 liter engines." US investigator - "Johaaaaaaannnnn! You got some 'splanin to do"

Schadenfreude is fun but do you honestly think that when the products of US car manufacturers come under the microscope, that no emissions fraud will be uncovered?

Re:How it went down.

[ravenshrike]

As I doubt Ford is doing so as they by and large don't play the super duper efficient emissions game, only doing the bare minimum to meet CAFE the amount I care is a big fat zero.

Luxury SUVs

[Tailhook]

That's right. The chariots of the upper middle class should be exempt from the regulations they impose on their subjects.

Re:Luxury SUVs

[ichthus]

Eh? Is the subject of your sentence the chariots, or the ones imposing regulations? They can't be the same. Is this an auto correct thing?

Re:Luxury SUVs

[Anonymous Coward]

The F350 is not an SUV, though I'm sure some enterprising individuals convert them into SUVs rather than just buying an old Excursion (Which is based on the F250 platform, so still not exactly the same, but it's the closest you can get). The Expedition is a gussied up F150, sorry to disappoint.

Re: Luxury SUVs

[Anonymous Coward]

No, there just the idiot that buy the crew version ( the one with two rows of seats) , never put anything in the truck bed and drive it cross country like a sedan. There are tons of these a*holes. Do you remember Chevy Avalanche and the like - this is what most idiots do with their trucks - drive them like a family sedan with external trunk.

"programs"

[nyet]

Really? They're full "programs"?

Idiots.

ECUs only have one "program".

Maybe they meant routines?

Re:"programs"

[Rakshasa Taisab]

Explain to us all what a modern OS like Windows or Linux is... except a bunch or routines hierarchically executed.

Re:"programs"

[GameboyRMH]

Typically, yes, but there are very high-end ECUs which can actually run multiple *programs* - for example F1 ECUs have separate programs to manage the KERS & TERS systems, sometimes they crash while the car is running and that's when you hear the drivers and crew talking about resets.

Re: "programs"

[brasselv]

"Really? They're full "programs"?
Idiots"

I believe you might be slightly overreacting to your semantic concern.

Re: "programs"

[nyet]

At least they managed to stop using the word "device".

How fucking dumb are these people?

Good Fuck the government!

[Anonymous Coward]

Good. More companies should fuck the government over and refuse to abide by their insan regulations

Re:Good Fuck the government!

[Anonymous Coward]

Absolutely! I can't wait for my kids to get to experience having to stay indoors during lunch and recess because it's another smog alert day like I got to experience growing up. Or the streetlights in LA being on all day because it is so smoggy that the sensors think it's night like my grandparents got to experience. Maybe if we're lucky we can get some of those screens that the Chinese have that show everyone what a sunrise looks like. These EPA regulations are obviously just a bunch of crap designed to hurt the large multinational corporations!

Re:Good Fuck the government!

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's see how it works out for them. The government will hopefully punish them harshly and check out the other companies better. I want my air to be clean, unlike some idiot VW and diesel diehards.

The three hidden programs

[squiggleslash]

To save you a click-through, the three hidden programs are:

- Bing Search Bar powered by Bing
- Norton Anti-Virus one year trial version
- Candy Crush Saga

Re:The three hidden programs

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot one: -German payback for WW2, i.e. Global Dominance and Car Control v.1.0

Re:The three hidden programs

[Anonymous Coward]

A few days earlier and there would have been 4 - the windows 10 upgrade.

I'm mortified

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm just flabbergasted to learn that theres been not only a SUV... but a DIESEL SUV with a Porsche badge on it.

WTF is next... Rolls Royce pickup trucks? Lamborghini motor scooters?

Re:I'm mortified

[Anne Thwacks]

Lamborghini motor scooters?

Nope -

Lambo hover boards: http://www.alibaba.com/product-detail/free-shipping-electric-balance-scooter-lowest_60450460206.html?spm=a2700.7724857.0.0.MFbOVk&s=p

Close, but no cigar!

Re:I'm mortified

[HornWumpus]

It's a low grade IQ test.

Anybody who bought the heaviest Porsche available failed and should have his/her speed electronically limited for life. They will likely never notice.

Re:I'm mortified

[PPH]

Lamborghini motor scooters?

Lamborghini tractors are already a thing.

Re:I'm mortified

[Anonymous Coward]

Why not a Lamborghini Truck?

Re:I'm mortified

[Opportunist]

So are Lamborghini tractors, what's your point?

Re:I'm mortified

[Opportunist]

Wrong target... where's my coffee...

Re:I'm mortified

[halivar]

Maybe they're applying the same engineering principles they used to make King Tiger tank turrets in WWII.

Re:I'm mortified

[Locke2005]

Rolls Royce pickups are actually a thing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Re:I'm mortified

[nukenerd]

WTF is next... Rolls Royce pickup trucks?

We have had Rolls Royce buses - well, buses with Rolls Royce engines.

Re:I'm mortified

[Octorian]

You'd be amazed just how many Porsche SUVs that I regularly see driving around here in Silicon Valley.
(No idea if they're diesel or gas, but I didn't even know such a vehicle even existed prior to moving here.)

Re:I'm mortified

[AK Marc]

Even Airbuses sometimes have Rolls Royce engines.

Re:I'm mortified

[serviscope_minor]

You'd be amazed just how many Porsche SUVs that I regularly see driving around here in Silicon Valley.

Ah the Chelsea Tactors. this is whar a Porche tactor might look like:

http://www.farmcollector.com/~... Back/Porsche Touch Extended to Tractors/Porsche-Junior.jpg?w=550&la=en

Ouch

[ErichTheRed]

I do systems engineering work. The worst I've ever been asked to do is hack together a completely unrealistic demo environment or two, basically to give our developers time to fix something they're showing to a customer. I feel bad when customers get sold something that barely functions in the real world because of it. I can't imagine what the actual engineers who got asked to implement this "workaround" were thinking at the time. Germany has one of the best engineering cultures on the planet, so I can't imagine they felt too good about this. I can only guess their jobs were threatened -- in the US it would be something like "If you can't work 90 hour weeks, I can certainly find an H-1B who can..." Unfortunately, in any culture, having no income and a family to support is a pretty good incentive to just do what the boss says.

It'll be interesting to see what happens -- having to recall/buy back basically all of your modern diesel cars is not a cheap proposition. I work with German companies all the time for my job, and I can't imagine they don't have meticulous records of email cataloged down to the millisecond showing who put this in motion. Again, part of the culture. It will certainly be an interesting case study for MBAs, if they actually studied stuff like this in business school. (I would assume the MBAs would be doing this case study to find ways to not get caught.)

Re:Ouch

[Balthisar]

VW's a global enterprise. Who's to say the engineers that wrote it weren’t American, Indian, or Chinese? They may not even be VW employees – maybe the specific work was outsourced, or part of a Tier 1 supplier contract. And in any of these cases, it could be an agency employee who was given a specific task. I’m not sure we can really know unless an insider tells us.

Re:Ouch

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately, in any culture, having no income and a family to support is a pretty good incentive to just do what the boss says.

The boss might not always be right, but s/he is always the boss.

Re:Ouch

[HornWumpus]

Your boss likes you, a lot.

S/he will not always be your boss. Play things right and they could be your down report next week, or they could be unemployed.

'Boss' is not a permanent status, especially for idiots. However if all your bosses are idiots, you have found a great opportunity.

Re:Ouch

[Solandri]

The software started off innocently enough. Audi developed it in 1999. They were trying to figure out a way to reduce the diesel clatter when you've started the engine cold. The solution they came up with was to make the fuel mixture richer to increase lubrication. But that caused emissions to spike. They figured since this was being doing only during warmup after the engine was cold started, and wasn't how the engine would normally run, it was OK to disable the emissions controls for that period. An exception being if a emissions test was being run - then they'd leave the emissions controls running normally to better reflect how the engine runs outside of this warmup phase.

Gradually over time, they began relying on it more and more. With the 2.0 liter diesel engine, they didn't want to pay Mercedes to license the urea injection system. So they began used the software instead. (On the 3.0 liter engines which have urea injection, it appears to have been used as a crutch so they could get away with putting in a smaller, cheaper catalytic converter and not have to use as much urea.)

Re:Ouch

[yodleboy]

"I would assume the MBAs would be doing this case study to find ways to not get caught."

Nail on the head there... MBA's will tear this apart, never asking why it was wrong, but instead asking how VW could have made it work.

Re:Ouch

[Anonymous Coward]

Today I learned diesel engines inject frosty piss

Re:Ouch

[Trailer Trash]

Gradually over time, they began relying on it more and more. With the 2.0 liter diesel engine, they didn't want to pay Mercedes to license the urea injection system. So they began used the software instead. (On the 3.0 liter engines which have urea injection, it appears to have been used as a crutch so they could get away with putting in a smaller, cheaper catalytic converter and not have to use as much urea.)

Seems like you could build a urinal into the driver's seat and kill two birds with one stone here.

Re:Ouch

[gumbi west]

An exception being if a emissions test was being run

Yeah, not innocent at all.

Re:Ouch

[RockDoctor]

Maybe, if drivers produced urine composed of nothing but urea and water, and put nothing but that (unrealistic) urine down the pipe.

VW is already busted. Lets do it again.

[Bob_Who]

So now that we have discovered that the software manipulates the data in their cars, we are supposed to be surprised that they did this in all of their cars? How stupid are we to pretend that only some software cheats, while other software does not because the superior engine design in other models doesn't need to cheat to meet emission standards. So it turns out they lied about the superior engines too! Oh horrors! You mean there is no superior engineering that enables engines built in Germany to out perform the laws of physics, as well as every other car that already lies about mileage, emissions, and performance? What is world coming to? Its the German's fault we have all of this air pollution because all of this time we were burning gas just to sit in gridlock, we had been told that the fuel exhaust that comes out of a VW's ass doesn't stink. Not only did they lie to us, they are the reason why we burn so much gas. We almost evolved into a fat legless mammal with great driving ability in gridlock, but now we have fallen into the pits of diesel hell, where high performance German engines get the same shitty results from burning gas as the other German cars, Norwegian cars, and even French cars, but not as good as the Japanese or Korean cars, but way way way better than any American car because we're busy being great again. Those fuckers! They've ruined civilization with miles of highways and hundreds of millions of cars that just belch out toxic fumes all day so that we can sit in traffic! We would have all bought Tesla's if it wasn't for that lying cheating software that made numbers come up on a smog report that nobody really understands when they are accurate. How could they deceive an entire planet of people that had no intention of burning fuel that pollutes the air. WE COULD HAVE HAD TESLAS! But noooooooo its all VW's fault for fooling us with software that just makes shit up and lies to every American man woman and child at NASCAR. Damn savages!

Math works out

[Anonymous Coward]

the automaker has three hidden software programs in its 3.0-liter engines.

That's one software per liter!

Re:Math works out

[Opportunist]

So in the US they'd only have 0.79 rogue programs? So whaddaja complainin' bout, sonny?

Re:VW is already busted. Lets do it again.

[Anonymous Coward]

So now that we have discovered that the software manipulates the data in their cars, we are supposed to be surprised that they did this in all of their cars? How stupid are we to pretend that only some software cheats, while other software does not because the superior engine design in other models doesn't need to cheat to meet emission standards. So it turns out they lied about the superior engines too! Oh horrors! You mean there is no superior engineering that enables engines built in Germany to out perform the laws of physics, as well as every other car that already lies about mileage, emissions, and performance? What is world coming to? Its the German's fault we have all of this air pollution because all of this time we were burning gas just to sit in gridlock, we had been told that the fuel exhaust that comes out of a VW's ass doesn't stink. Not only did they lie to us, they are the reason why we burn so much gas. We almost evolved into a fat legless mammal with great driving ability in gridlock, but now we have fallen into the pits of diesel hell, where high performance German engines get the same shitty results from burning gas as the other German cars, Norwegian cars, and even French cars, but not as good as the Japanese or Korean cars, but way way way better than any American car because we're busy being great again. Those fuckers! They've ruined civilization with miles of highways and hundreds of millions of cars that just belch out toxic fumes all day so that we can sit in traffic! We would have all bought Tesla's if it wasn't for that lying cheating software that made numbers come up on a smog report that nobody really understands when they are accurate. How could they deceive an entire planet of people that had no intention of burning fuel that pollutes the air. WE COULD HAVE HAD TESLAS! But noooooooo its all VW's fault for fooling us with software that just makes shit up and lies to every American man woman and child at NASCAR. Damn savages!

I'll have what he's having, thanks.

Who gives a flying shit on fire

[Anonymous Coward]

Is this the same government who doesn't want us to get inside our devices over DRM!? Now they bitch about hidden software! How about all the "hidden" software on my devices that leak my data. Someone should sue the EPA for having SHIT tests!

Much ado about nothing

[Eravnrekaree]

Really, I think its all rather insignificant. It doesnt jeopardize consumer safety. People act like this is some kind of huge fraud, But I dont think it is, because the consumer still gets a car that is safe as advertised. Also, if you are really concerned about safety, the emissions related COLA restrictions are not your friend. Studies of COLA have shown that they actually decrease passenger safety in cars because heavier, more rigid metal body components are eliminated which leads to less protection for passengers.

Re:Much ado about nothing

[JustNiz]

You are obviously one of those Americans that don't give a shit about the environment and probably think global warming is some sort of anti-consumer conspiracy.

Re:Much ado about nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

I like that in my city we don't have air hazard warnings where everyone is asked to stay inside, or if you must go out, you need to wear face masks. There are places in the world where such things happen and the USA used to be on that path, but we've gotten a lot better. Cheating the emissions path put us right back into the path of smog alerts. Such things jeopardize your lung safety, and any local food and water safety.

And anyway, your studies are wrong. The more rigid bodies transfer more force into the passengers which causes more internal injuries to organs. The softer bodies absorb more of the impact. There's a higher risk of getting directly hit by the item you crashed into which will break your bones, but your organs are less likely to liquefy, a far more serious problem than broken bones. The cars don't survive, but who cares about that?

Re:Much ado about nothing

[DogDude]

It doesnt jeopardize consumer safety.

I imagine you wouldn't be posting that same thing if you or somebody you know gets lung cancer or some other environmental-related death sentence. Are you really that selfish?

So where do I go ...

[PPH]

... to buy one of these more efficient, higher performance diesels before the government pulls them off the market?

Re:So where do I go ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Good question. If I was in the market for a VW, where on earth would I go? Gosh. Maybe I'd call up the Ford dealership! No, that can't be right, they don't sell VWs. I know, I know! The Chevy dealership! Hmm, that's not it either. I give up. No clue where you'd go to buy a Volkswagen. Sorry.

Re:So where do I go ...

[HornWumpus]

I bet VW isn't selling the good ones anymore. Likely all bad running clean ones on the lot.

What you really need is a copy of the good (cheating) ECU code, so you can fix it every time the factory mechanic fucks it up.

Re:So where do I go ...

[Opportunist]

They will become available right after the war. Promised! You can already start paying for one and be the first to get one!

Re:So where do I go ...

[Locke2005]

Does the phase "no resale value" mean anything to you? That's what's really upsetting to all the people that bought Volkswagen diesels; nobody will buy them for any amount of money now, and they are worthless as trade-ins. Sure, if you're planning on keeping that 3.0 liter diesel forever, go ahead and buy one while you still can.

Re:So where do I go ...

[DogDude]

If you're asking where to buy a vehicle that pollutes more than it should, may I suggest to take a look up your own asshole?

Re:So where do I go ...

[PPH]

Ah yes. The unregulated bicycle engine.

Re:So where do I go ...

[drinkypoo]

Does the phase "no resale value" mean anything to you?

Some of us run our cars right into the ground, so it doesn't.

Re:So where do I go ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you saying this with knowledge of how much this actually pollutes? Your ass probably pollutes more than this car. "More than it should" is just in relation to some arbitrary number that is multiple times more stringent than European laws. Sure VW screwed up - I am not defending them on that. They should have tried to change the laws then built the car rather than building the car despite stupid laws. But that doesn't mean the these cars are horrible polluters or are a danger.

Re:So where do I go ...

[AK Marc]

The ones with the cheat codes are worse performing. They perform good for the tests, but not in the real world. You get a worse-performing fuel guzzler if you get the gamed models. But, like everything else, if you want something better performing, with poor economy, you can just chip it. Diesels are quite commonly chipped. Duramaximizer makes a mint making chips for Chevys. I've seen lots for the 1.8/1.9/2.0 VW, but I haven't looked for the 3.0.

If true fuck them

[aepervius]

Look I know my local economy would suffer a lot (I live in germany) but there is a limit. This seem to be outright fraud, just after another scandal ? That reek of corporate corruption to the highest level. And no excuse : after a first software cheat was found, an audit should have uncovered any further cheats. This can only have had the tacit or implicit high level complicity.

Re:If true fuck them

[avandesande]

Sounds like VW just saved enthusiasts from having to buy a chip for their car.

Re:If true fuck them

[AmiMoJo]

The only good thing coming from this is that VW is now planning to invest much more heavily in EVs. In the long run that might more than offset the damage they have done. Part of the fine in the US is being used to put in EV charge points too.

Time for mandatory open source ECUs

[Gravis Zero]

When companies begin cheating the system by hiding their dirty secrets in the ECU's (Engine Control Unit's) binary, it seems like the proper response to this is to begin mandating that binary in the ECU be 100% open source and able to be built with open source tools. This way, the binaries can be verified as being representative of the source code and the source code can be inspected by anyone.

Continuing on like we have will only yield the same result because the best predictor of future actions are past actions.

Re:Time for mandatory open source ECUs

[jimbob6]

I love this idea.
This would be a great opportunity for the user to drop the emissions control system in its entirety.

People only thought one model was a problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

I always assumed it was ALL of their diesels. I mean I know nothing about cars, so I couldn't have known they had 2 and 3 liter engines (and whatever other sizes), but if someone had told me that prior to this news, I still would've assumed they were cheating on all of them. This just seems obvious to me. Why would they just one size? Furthermore, I wouldn't have been surprised in the least if this article was about them cheating on regular gas engine emissions too.

No problem

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

I'm sure the secret software was just there to make sure it met the emission testing specifications. No way it could be anything nefarious. *cough*

Re:No problem

[Opportunist]

It's just so supersecret so the evil hackerz cannot find it and make it pollute the air.

That's it! The evil hackerz found it and ... what? Hackers are evil and we're a multinational corporation, who do you believe?

Re:No problem

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

Hackers are evil and we're a multinational corporation, who do you believe?

No multinational corporation would ever do anything wrong. Report the the Corporate Re-Education Camp by 8pm this evening, and bring your family.

AND if you act now ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Windows 10.

shenanigans...

[Anonymous Coward]

As long as managers, MBAs, and Engineers persist in arranging things like this, it will persist.
I don't think we can rely on the watchdogs.... they are not really effective.
I see it as a philosophy of "How much can we get away with?".
This particular brand of philosophy,moral and ethical behavior is common for teens, not adults.
It is also common on anyone who gets sneaky about doing things ( like CEOs... ).
Maybe it is time for a corporate death penalty.
Or the equivalent of a life-sentence: operations monitored and profit limited to 2%, or some reasonable number,
until the copyrights expire on the offending software or whatever song was at #1 on the Top 100 Billboard...

hu?

[stackOVFL]

US Finds New Secret Software In VW Audi Engines

Well that's a good place to hide it. I normally look for software in a computer or the like. I'd never think to look in a engine!

Well duh

[Anonymous Coward]

Require the car has been running for 30 minutes, verify this via the OBD port. If the customer turns the engine off at the testing station, invalid test, they get to go take another 30 minute drive somewhere. Run test.

Reality is diesel sucks for passenger cars which typically do small short trips.
Diesel's hate being cold, but I suppose newer ones perform well from a cold start.
Diesel's are cost more to build, cost more to maintain, and diesel costs the same or more than gasoline. Now we have just run out of reasons to want a diesel engine in a passenger car.

One the best things the US did was require stupidly low emissions from them in cars.

Re:Well duh

[Bert64]

Well you need to choose an appropriate vehicle according to your needs, for someone who usually travels long distances at a steady highway speed diesel works out pretty well.
At my previous job that's exactly what i did, so a diesel was ideal.

Ve hav nein sekrets now, mein leibchinz

[WillAffleckUW]

All of our secret software ist now removed from the vehicles, und wir will nacht make more.

Ignore the one that says "detect plug und emit zilch", das ist only for playing ze games on de dashboard.

Re:Ve hav nein sekrets now, mein leibchinz

[Anonymous Coward]

*kein secrets
*Liebchen
*nicht make

Dumb Ass VW Engineers

[LifesABeach]

And we will get to read more about other hidden subroutines. But America's businesses can govern themselves, just vote with your wallet. I cannot help but wonder on the price of Smack Lights. Why? DOJ can't see anything illegal about lung disease.

Easy solution

[Anonymous Coward]

There's an easy solution to all this:

If they've been found to try to cheat AGAIN after being caught, ban them from selling cars in the US. Outright ban. Write it in a way so they can't weasel out of it by renaming their brand and going back in.

This accomplishes two things:

1. It punishes willful misconduct that literally is poisoning the air.

2. It sends a message to other car companies that if you fuck around and cheat, there are DIRE consequences.

Re:Easy solution

[Golden_Rider]

Of course that would have to be done for ALL car manufacturers which cheated during emissions or fuel economy tests (after all, fuel economy=emissions, too).

GM/Opel/Fiat Chrysler/Mercedes/Mitsubishi/Renault and most likely every other car manufacturer on this planet.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/fac...

It's an election year

[tomhath]

The administration is trying to appear tough on Big Business by standing up for...I don't know...somebody.

I wouldn't be surprised if the cars emit less pollutants per mile driven without the emissions junk.

Can we get copies of the source?

[cayenne8]

It should be nice to know where and what to code to be able to program your OWN DIY exhaust control program for your car.

Maybe make it bluetooth controllable for when they do checks and you turn it on/off as needed.

;)

Re: Can we get copies of the source?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or you know, do your part and buy a responsible vehicle.

Re: Can we get copies of the source?

[Grishnakh]

Nope, this is Slashdot, where almost everyone has the mentality, "I got mine, fuck you".

Hell, go after the Animal Agriculture industry...

[cayenne8]

The animal agriculture industry is responsible for about 18% of all greenhouse gases (depending on source, but all are close). They often are compared to and exceed the pollutants put out by modern cars.

I love a good steak as much as anyone...but I'm often surprised at all the environmentalists out there that never bitch about this one section of the FOOD industry that contributes such a large portion of green house gas.

I guess the Ag/Food industry has better paid lobbyists?

Oh no...

[Anonymous Coward]

The infestation is worse than I thought...

VW files DMCA takedown of US government

[tekrat]

VW has cause to sue. According the the DMCA, you're not allowed to "reverse engineer" their proprietary software and trade secrets. This is a clear violation of VW's copyrights and trademarks.

And as we all know, corporations have way more rights than people, and since the US government is of the people, for the people, by the people, it's people, and therefore VW has more rights than it does.

So, the US government had better watch out or they could face serious fines and jail time.

Re:VW files DMCA takedown of US government

[Anonymous Coward]

Automotive electronics are now exempt from the DMCA requirements.

Carbon footprint

[Latent Heat]

There are emissions and then there are CO2 emissions contributing to carbon footprint.

The cheating VW Diesels do very well, thank you very much, with respect to carbon footprint as they get really good fuel mileage. The problem is in doing that, they emit a whole bunch of stuff, which unlike CO2, is of more immediate and direct harm to people's lungs such as the nitric oxides ("NOx").

If you think the sum total of pollution is carbon footprint, you should be cheering VW's defiance of the pollution tests because it has long been argued that controlling the pollution on the EPA test (CO2 is not on the EPA test but the EU people at least rate cars on this) makes the engine much less efficient and makes the carbon footprint much worse.

Ocean going ships actually do very well on carbon footprint on a ton-mile basis because their engines are optimized for fuel economy without any consideration for their emission of the more directly human-harmful stuff.

Re:Carbon footprint

[Anonymous Coward]

The cheating VW Diesels do very well, thank you very much, with respect to carbon footprint as they get really good fuel mileage.

Not true. Despite their higher MPG rating, the greater per-gallon CO2 emissions cancels out their efficiency gains, and then some. Case in point: A 2015 Jetta TDI has higher per-mile CO2 emissions than a Corolla, despite having a combined MPG rating 4 MPG higher than a Corolla.

Source: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=35355&id=35503&#tab2

f you think the sum total of pollution is carbon footprint, you should be cheering VW's defiance of the pollution tests

As demonstrated above, VW's cars are worse for CO2 emissions, along with everything else (esp. NOx). VW wins no points anywhere.

Ocean going ships actually do very well on carbon footprint on a ton-mile basis because their engines are optimized for fuel economy without any consideration for their emission of the more directly human-harmful stuff.

When looking at the non-global warming emissions of ships (eg SOx, PM), most of it is emitted in areas of ocean where there is no local surface ecosystem to speak of. Closer to land, they switch to blends of fuel that have less of the ancillary emissions, for the precise reason that there is an ecosystem to affect.

Re:Carbon footprint

[Ungrounded Lightning]

The cheating VW Diesels do very well ... with respect to carbon footprint as they get really good fuel mileage.

In fact, for a given fuel, fuel mileage IS a direct measure of carbon emission. Essentially all the carbon from the fuel ends up in the exhaust gasses. So the better the mileage, the less the carbon emission.

Apples and oranges.

[Ungrounded Lightning]

[Vehicle] emissions account for less than 1% of all air pollution sources.

Not true. Passenger cars and light trucks account for about 10% of the global carbon footprint.

Apples and oranges.

The emissions under consideration in automotive emission testing and regulation are CO, NOx, and unburned hydrocarbons ("HC"), not gross carbon output.

The full-blown factory/type-certification testing can MEASURE gross carbon output as a side effect, and uses carbon balance to measure mileage for the mandated sticker labelling. But gross carbon emission has nothing to do with the discussion of the amount of regulated "pollutants" that may be emitted from automotive engine control programs that cheat on the certification testing.

Re:Apples and oranges.

[Anonymous Coward]

The emissions under consideration in automotive emission testing and regulation are CO, NOx, and unburned hydrocarbons ("HC"), not gross carbon output.

The claim being addressed was that "a single supertanker pumps more air pollution into the atmosphere in a single day than all the cars in the world". That statement is quantifiably false.

Re:Apples and oranges.

[Ungrounded Lightning]

The claim being addressed was that "a single supertanker pumps more air pollution into the atmosphere in a single day than all the cars in the world". That statement is quantifiably false.

The "air pollution" under discussion was CO, NOx, and HC. The evidence presented as falsifying it was gross C.

The original claim MAY be false. But the counterclaim does not address it.

If you have evidence that "all the cars in the world" don't produce more CO, NOx, and HC than one supertanker, please present it. Or ask the original claimant for his evidence that they don't. But don't declare victory in an argument on the basis of evidence that does not address the argument you claim is refuted by it.

Re:Hell, go after the Animal Agriculture industry.

[Nemyst]

One of the biggest reasons agriculture isn't focused as much is that a lot of people don't realize how polluting it is. They just see cows and corn fields, they don't think about everything that comes with that. Furthermore, cars pollute in cities, an already crowded and dirty environment, so taking care of them would also significantly improve air quality as well, giving more direct effects to the solution than just reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Simple patch solution...

[Anonymous Coward]

Put a 20 minute egg timer on the fuel pump. The you have to start it every 20 minutes.

And this surprises who?

[Anonymous Coward]

Please tell me that there isn't anyone reading this that would actually be surprised that a corporation would do anything they can to increase profits. If they don't have to spend as much on emissions controls, they make more profit. I would be surprised if they are the only ones doing it to be honest. They just happen to be the ones that got caught.

Proprietary software is unsafe building material

[jbn-o]

As well you should have, and so should have every car owner have the means to get complete corresponding source code with build instructions. Software freedom gives car owners the means to help themselves and prevent more outbreaks of this ridiculousness as Eben Moglen pointed out when we saw the first round of this.

OSC

[dynamo]

This is a good argument for open source cars.

Carbon dioxide in NOT pollution

[TimSSG]

FYI: Carbon dioxide in NOT pollution; no matter what some idiots say. Carbon dioxide in NOT pollution!! Tim S.

Vehical emissions account for less than 1% of all air pollution sources.

Not true. Passenger cars and light trucks account for about 10% of the global carbon footprint. And unlike you, I have sources to prove it.

https://www.edf.org/sites/default/files/5301_Globalwarmingontheroad_0.pdf

To get idea of the scope of the misconception, a single supertanker pumps more air pollution into the atmosphere in a single day than all the cars in the world, VW diesels included.

You're the one with the misconceptions here. As per the above source, shipping only accounts for 2,2% of global CO2 emissions. Besides, you're the one with the misconceptions here - your idea came out of a Guardian article that focused on sulfur oxide emissions to the exclusion of everything else. This is ridiculously misleading, because cars emit next to no SOx.

I'm not defending VW, but pointing out that this VW bullshit is a distraction

And yet you're making factually inaccurate claims in order to trivialize VW's role in willfully deceiving regulators and their own customers around the world.

Re:Carbon dioxide in NOT pollution

[tsa]

That is nonsense of course. Pollution is all the stuff we throw away because we have no use for it. CO2 may not be very toxic but it's still pollution, even the CO2 you breathe out.

Re:Carbon dioxide in NOT pollution

[amRadioHed]

Yes, CO2 isn't pollution because some idiots say it is, neither is it not pollution because of other idiots saying it's not.. It's pollution because the definition of pollution is anything introduced into the environment which has adverse effects.

Some fun suggestions

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Pierce the corporate veil and hold management personally responsible for financial penalties assessed against VW. They should pay before shareholders do.

2. Fine VW so much that it has no opportunity to repay; force it to liquidate assets and garnish all employees' future wages in perpetuity if necessary

3. Figure out who knew or should have known about these cheats and prosecute them for, oh let's be lenient, one thousand counts of criminal fraud, each. Send them to Guantanamo and shock their scrota for the duration of their summary incarcerations.

Re:Hell, go after the Animal Agriculture industry.

[sjames]

That and complaining about cows farting makes it hard to take seriously even if it is a significant source of greenhouse gasses.

Volkswagen

[Anonymous Coward]

Sony Corp. of the automobile world.

And idiots wondered why I laughed ...

[Anonymous Coward]

.... when people claimed that diesel engines were "cleaner".

By design diesel is dirtier than regular gas. It has contains significantly more sulfur per litter, therefore it is ALWAYS going to be dirtier and more polluting than any other petroleum based fuel.

People already do.

[Anonymous Coward]

Any jdm enthusiast who isn't a ricer (IE blinged up outside, stock, or close to stock inside) is running a non-emission controlled JDM swap, usually with straight pipes and no cat (although many JDM engines have almost all provisions for American style emissions systems, minus cat and egr on some of the 90s era models.) Furthermore megasquirt and similiar open source PCMs already have harness conversions or in-place replacement modules for stock ECMs that would only be noticable if the car has a functional OBD-II port, or you did something criminal enough for them to tear down your car on the side of the road (street racing, and probably a cop trying to set an example rather than following the law and just arresting you and impounding it.)

Re:Hell, go after the Animal Agriculture industry.

[Sabriel]

Hmm. Two questions. How much of the animal agricultural industry's emissions are from short-cycle (biological) sources as opposed to long-cycle (geological) sources? How much impact has the animal agricultural industry had on Earth's overall biologically-sourced greenhouse gas emissions as a net change since the beginning of humanity's industrial age?

American car makers hurting, soooo.....

[mrops]

Lets go after the largest car maker making better vehicles.

Yah, conspiracy theory 101.

They tried it with other better car maker, Toyota, a few years ago too.

You can't compete with a better manufacturers fair and square, so lets try some other way.

Re:American car makers hurting, soooo.....

[TechyImmigrant]

Lets go after the largest car maker making better vehicles.

Yah, conspiracy theory 101.

They tried it with other better car maker, Toyota, a few years ago too.

You can't compete with a better manufacturers fair and square, so lets try some other way.

This is Normal. Why do you think the European Commission went after Google and Intel with largely bogus charges? It isn't a court. They act alone as judge, jury and executioner.

When I took a look at the Ford F350 FICM (because mine broke and I sought to understand what was going on rather than paying their extreme replacement cost) it did not do what it says on the label. I wouldn't be surprised if there's something funny going on in there.

WAKE UP, people!

[martinfb]

Large corporations are taking selfish liberties with you! We enacted pollution regulations for very valid reasons - to help save the planet and mankind.

Along comes corporations that defy regulation - for whatever reasoning - so as to allow them to market illegal products; knowing damn well that they will be perceived as being too big to punish!

I say bullshit on that. Pay up, and stop the breaches. If you collapse, then so be it. It is upon us all to keep honest. Jail all the culprits.

To big.. To fail

[Anonymous Coward]

Like when MSFT was completely bustedAnd nothing happened to them because everyone making decisions as well as almost all tech funds held so much of their stock

Well, duh

[Anonymous Coward]

After hearing about what they did with the 2.0-liter engines, why would anyone assume that they didn’t cheat on the 3.0-liter engines, too?

I believe George W. Bush said it best, “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me – you can’t get fooled again.”