Slashdot Mirror


Germany Detects Emissions Cheat Software In Audi Models (reuters.com)

The German government has accused Audi of cheating emissions tests with its top-end models, marking the first time the company has been accused of such wrongdoing in its home country. Reuters reports: The German Transport Ministry said it has asked Volkswagen's (VOWG_p.DE) luxury division to recall around 24,000 A7 and A8 models built between 2009 and 2013, about half of which were sold in Germany. The affected Audi models with so-called Euro-5 emission standards emit about twice the legal limit of nitrogen oxides when the steering wheel is turned more than 15 degrees, the ministry said. It is also the first time that Audi's top-of-the-line A8 saloon has been implicated in emissions cheating. VW has said to date that the emissions-control software found in its rigged EA 189 diesel engine does not violate European law. The 80,000 3.0-liter vehicles affected by VW's emissions cheating scandal in the United States included Audi A6, A7 and Q7 models as well as Porsche and VW brand cars. The ministry said it has issued a June 12 deadline for Audi to come up with a comprehensive plan to refit the cars. Ingolstadt-based Audi issued a recall for the 24,000 affected models late on Thursday, some 14,000 of which are registered in Germany, and said software updates will start in July. It will continue to cooperate with Germany's KBA motor vehicle authority, Audi said.

93 comments

  1. Audi, cars for cocks. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    as they say on Top Gear.
    But to be fair, we know that everybody does it.
    What's the name of the car where they just push fresh air into the exhaust to lower the numbers? Think it's an American one. I forget.

    1. Re:Audi, cars for cocks. by HumanWiki · · Score: 1

      as they say on Top Gear.
      But to be fair, we know that everybody does it.
      What's the name of the car where they just push fresh air into the exhaust to lower the numbers? Think it's an American one. I forget.

      Chrysler had Pulse Air, but the overarching names are Secondary Air Injection, PUMP Air or Smog Pump.

      Several USA Auto Mfg did this, including Chevy and Ford.

    2. Re:Audi, cars for cocks. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [Citation Needed]

      If the US makers actually did it on an egregious basis, Germany, if not the EU would have them in trial after trial. Normally the EU seems to ignore the malfeasance of domestic firms, but loves to drag US companies into many kangaroo court sessions, even re-assessing bigger fines for an offense that already was fined earlier. Especially in this climate where the French want to dig up fallen US soldiers in WWII and send them back.

    3. Re:Audi, cars for cocks. by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Not what a smog pump does.

      It supplies O2 to the cats to burnoff unburnt hydrocarbons. Tiny volume of gas compared to the engine.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    4. Re: Audi, cars for cocks. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Actually pretty much every engine manufactured since the late 90s has a secondary air injection pump for the first minute of operation. It's intended purpose is to increase the o2 level in the exhaust gases in order to get the catalytic converter up to temperature faster, and thus reduce emissions faster. After 45 seconds or so, the SAI turns off.

      See: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secondary_air_injection

    5. Re:Audi, cars for cocks. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But to be fair, we know that everybody does it.

      But to be fair, we know everybody that does it.

      I am a Greek that, while knowing the great extend of the Greeks' governmental/societal corruption, is annoyed by the German's hypocritical and frivolous criticism towards Greece/Greeks (only that one, not the legit that is based on the clearly problematic "northern" reality) - but, while it is fair to suspect "everybody", it is unfair to accuse and condemn "everybody" without evidence. I know a lot of German (and non-German) car makers that do not "doing it".

      b.t.w., Germans make the best cars - we Greeks, and me personally (Mercedes Benz proud owner), loved them!

    6. Re:Audi, cars for cocks. by Thelasko · · Score: 1

      Emissions regulations in the US are set in g/hp-hr. Basically the mass of emissions is regulated with a compensation for the power of the vehicle. Diluting the exhaust wouldn't change the mass, just the concentration.

      --
      One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
    7. Re:Audi, cars for cocks. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But to be fair, we know that everybody does it.

      But to be fair, we know everybody that does it.

      I am a Greek that, while knowing the great extend of the Greeks' governmental/societal corruption, is annoyed by the German's hypocritical and frivolous criticism towards Greece/Greeks (only that one, not the legit that is based on the clearly problematic "northern" reality) - but, while it is fair to suspect "everybody", it is unfair to accuse and condemn "everybody" without evidence. I know a lot of German (and non-German) car makers that do not "doing it".

      b.t.w., Germans make the best cars - we Greeks, and me personally (Mercedes Benz proud owner), loved them!

      Reply to myself to correct myself: 'problematic "southern" reality' instead 'problematic "northern" reality' - and go fuck yourself word Nazis... as we say in Greece: "the faulty tongue says the truth" (also confirmed by Freud).

    8. Re: Audi, cars for cocks. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sorry. English is not my native language but the third. So I might not get it right every time.

    9. Re:Audi, cars for cocks. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah seriously, why can't Germany shut the fuck up while keeping the money flowing. Who do they think they are?

    10. Re:Audi, cars for cocks. by allcoolnameswheretak · · Score: 1

      If Greece is a country that is highly corrupt on practically all levels of society and government, and the statistical department of Greece has been repeatedly accused of faking statistics, which among other things made it possible for Greece to join the EU...
      Whereas Germany is for the most part a highly uncorrupt, transparent country that would generate a shitstorm of epic proportions in society if the government was caught faking statistics...
      How is Germany's criticism towards Greece hypocritical and frivolous?

    11. Re:Audi, cars for cocks. by thomn8r · · Score: 1

      What's the name of the car where they just push fresh air into the exhaust to lower the numbers

      This was the predecessor to the catalytic converter. The principle is that fresh air is pumped into a special superheated exhaust chamber (aka thermal reactor) to burn any fuel that didn't get burned in the combustion chamber.

    12. Re:Audi, cars for cocks. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If Greece is a country that is highly corrupt on practically all levels of society and government, and the statistical department of Greece has been repeatedly accused of faking statistics, which among other things made it possible for Greece to join the EU...
      Whereas Germany is for the most part a highly uncorrupt, transparent country that would generate a shitstorm of epic proportions in society if the government was caught faking statistics...
      How is Germany's criticism towards Greece hypocritical and frivolous?

      As the Greek you reply to, i will answer you that is frivolous when the -admittedly, as i wrote:- "great extend of the Greeks' governmental/societal corruption" leads you to believe that the statistical department of Greece faked our statistics to join the EU, when in reality we used the accepted at the time (only changed 4 years after our entrance), and reviewed by all other members (including Germany), methodology (e.g., not accounting state guaranteed loans as debt if pavements was made regularly), and it is hypocritical when at the time of our entrance, and with Greece having a surplus (yes... a surplus - with the help of some "creative accounting" of course!), it was Germany (yes... Germany!) who had a deficit of more than 3% despite the rules imposed by them (justified by them as an urgent necessity to boost their economy)

      I i don't even mention the -forced- "loan" from the WW2 of Greece to Germany, that they still try to avoid paying back pretending that East and West Germany have not really united (when, as a honest men, Hitler -yes... Hitler!- made some payments back - "Germany" pretends that it is not Germany because after WW2 Greece agreed to wait for the payments after the unification...)

    13. Re:Audi, cars for cocks. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From my talks with German citizens, their country has plenty of corruption, but it is not shown on the news etc.

    14. Re:Audi, cars for cocks. by allcoolnameswheretak · · Score: 1

      The BBC and the New York Times, to name just a few reputable sources, disagree with your assessment that Greece used rules accepted at the time and were only changed 4 years later:
      http://www.bbc.com/news/world-...
      http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09...

      Practically no country in Europe has maintained the 3% deficit rule all the time. But I think it is not hypocritical to demand this of new applicants, it's just common sense. After all, if you can't even follow the rules at the beginning at least, as a special effort in order to join the bloc, what does this spell for the future?
      It's the same logic as a job interview. You will go nicely dressed, shaved with clean shoes and fresh breaths, this doesn't mean you will go like this to work every day, but at least upon joining you should be at your best, no?
      Not to mention that Germany had to go through the extra effort of assimilating former east block GDR. Suddenly one third of Germany was a developing country. Greece didn't have this special circumstances.

      About the forced WW2 loan. First of all, you are mixing topics, I guess in an effort to show how unfairly Greece is being treated, since this has nothing to do with corruption levels or faking of statistics. And second, I don't know where you got that argument about today's Germany not being united. The real reason for Germany refusing to pay that I'm aware of is explained in this BBC article:
      http://www.bbc.com/news/world-...

      Berlin paid 115m Deutschmarks to Athens in 1960 in compensation. It was a fraction of the Greek demand but was made with the agreement there would be no more claims.

    15. Re:Audi, cars for cocks. by allcoolnameswheretak · · Score: 1

      Every country has corruption in some way or form. This doesn't diminish the fact that Germany is one of the least corrupt countries in the world, place 10 with a score of 81/100. Vs Greece, place 69 with a score of 44/100.

    16. Re:Audi, cars for cocks. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Same Greek here (don't forget: the one that originally wrote how well he knows the "great extend of the Greeks' governmental/societal corruption")

      Despite my bad English i tried to choose a good word: "frivolous". As a Greek i know better than BBC, which relies to a Greek, Miranda Xsafa, who is related to the political family heading the party that made the "confession" that you read in the New York Times - i think you understand my point...

      I also used the word "hypocritical". The "mixing of the topics" by mentioning the WW2 -forced- "loan" of Germany from Greece was to prove that the historic continuation of states and their obligations can not be "ala cart" - i did not even mentioned the wartime reparations but the loan. Imagine if we Greeks claim tomorrow that our state is named Hellas and any debt belonging to the old state named Greece does not exist anymore... what Germany did! Remember that Greece was asked to wait for Germany to unite before getting our money, Greece agreed, and Germany discovered this unethical way (claiming that it was a deal between *WEST* Germany and Greece...) to get rid of its obligation (and remember that Italy -yes... Italy!- was honest enough to repay fully its debt to Greece)

      I repeat that i know the bad side of Greece - i am just annoyed by any hypocritical and frivolous criticism

      By the way: i hope you understand how ridiculously low is the amount of (1960 era) 100 million marks as wartime reparations payed by Germany to Greece - and remember that the -right- "pacta sunt servanda" continue with the "rebus sic stantibus"!

  2. Open Source by OrangeTide · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    If only regulators would mandate Open Source firmware for any vehicles traveling on public roads. We could catch emission cheats and self-driving flaws. Puts me out of work, but whatever, it's probably the right thing to do.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    1. Re:Open Source by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Racers, coal rollers and other enthusiasts approve this idea. Anything that makes it easier to make power is good.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    2. Re:Open Source by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      What if the firmware only boots if cryptographically signed, and your country's government assigned automotive authority was the only one able to sign the firmware? To keep end users for loading environmentally unsound settings for their car? We could make this open source and bad for the end user at the same time.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    3. Re:Open Source by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Not undoable, but neither is swapping in a whole aftermarket or alternate year/model ECU.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  3. Emissions mobile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Going forward all emissions testing should be done with the car at maximum weight rating, driving up a steep mountain road. I'm sure they can make these devices small enough to put in a trunk. They could also do a lightweight test with just a driver.

    1. Re:Emissions mobile by Thelasko · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Going forward all emissions testing should be done with the car at maximum weight rating, driving up a steep mountain road. I'm sure they can make these devices small enough to put in a trunk. They could also do a lightweight test with just a driver.

      That can and has been done. The drawback is that the testing won't be done in a controlled environment, so the results may not be repeatable.

      --
      One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
    2. Re:Emissions mobile by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      If they could make the hardware small enough to be fitted to random consumer's vehicles they could gather results from the real world and set a maximum average emission level over the fleet. Tests could be done over a year with automatic fines for exceeding the limits.

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

      But if you could easily est in a real environment, then you should be able to see major discrepency between testing and driving environment. If driving around a circular track doubles the readings compared to the testing environment, you can probably cry foul and investigate.

  4. Steering Wheel? by gurps_npc · · Score: 1

    The trigger for the violation was when the steering wheel was turned more than 15 degrees. That seems an odd trigger. It's not like the position of the steering wheel should affect the combustion in any way, nor would it be something a reasonable person would use to start a secret 'less pollution for the testing mode'.

    It seems more like a major coding flaw rather than an intentional cheat. Like someone assumed that a set of values would be inside a range but when the wheel was turned, it gave an out of range reading that confused a computer, resulting in poor pollution control.

    Very different than a 'test mode', that VW clearly used just to intentionally fool government agencies.

    --
    excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
    1. Re:Steering Wheel? by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 2

      Keep in mind that there may be other more subtle triggers as well. That is, turning the steering wheel could be any one of a number of triggers that signals the system "Screw the pollution, crank up the POWER!". It may be that turning the wheel just happens to be the simplest and most reliably way to disable the "testing mode" while the car is being tested.

      You're very generous in attributing this to a coding flaw (which, by the way, wouldn't make me feel any better), given the history of obviously intentional cheating we've already seen by VW.

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    2. Re:Steering Wheel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      they measure emissions by putting the car up on a dyno rack

      the steering wheel never moves, hence it makes it an easy way for the onboard computer to detect if a human is driving (i.e., there are steering wheel inputs), or if the vehicle is undergoing emissions testing (no steering inputs)

      this was a cheat, and it's not the first time things like this are used

      in the past, one company sensed an open door to run in "low emissions" mode...turns out when it's up on the dyno, the doors are normally open, so they can easily monitor the instrument panel and connect to the ODBC port. Of course, when you're driving around town, the doors are typically closed, though YMMV

    3. Re:Steering Wheel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Testing is generally done on a dynamometer that is driven by the wheels of the car. If the car is front-wheel drive, you can't turn the steering wheel much without going off the dynamometer. Hence, the car can tell it's not being tested if the steering wheel is never turned much. Sounds like a "test mode" to me.

    4. Re:Steering Wheel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's clearly a cheat in my mind. The steering wheel is typically straight during testing (since the car is on a dyno) so it's a pretty reliable cheat to relax emissions controls when the wheel isn't straight.

    5. Re: Steering Wheel? by MachineShedFred · · Score: 4, Informative

      When you are testing emissions, you are doing it on a dynamometer - a big rolling drum. The car isn't moving. Thus, there is no reason to steer, and so the steering wheel won't be past 15 degrees either left or right. It's a perfect way to tell if you are testing, or actually driving. When you are on a real road, you are likely to turn the wheel past 15 degrees within the first 15 seconds of motion - pulling out of a parking space, backing out of a driveway, etc.

      This isn't a bug - there is no reason for the steering to inform the tuning if the engine whatsoever. This is a deliberate cheat device.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    6. Re:Steering Wheel? by tlhIngan · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The trigger for the violation was when the steering wheel was turned more than 15 degrees. That seems an odd trigger. It's not like the position of the steering wheel should affect the combustion in any way, nor would it be something a reasonable person would use to start a secret 'less pollution for the testing mode'.

      It seems more like a major coding flaw rather than an intentional cheat. Like someone assumed that a set of values would be inside a range but when the wheel was turned, it gave an out of range reading that confused a computer, resulting in poor pollution control.

      Very different than a 'test mode', that VW clearly used just to intentionally fool government agencies.

      Here's how the VW cheat worked, and how Audi's does as well (aren't they same company?).

      Basically, when you start the engine, it goes into "test mode" or the low pollution mode. There are a bunch of triggers that would take it out of test mode and into "normal high performance" mode. These are triggers that are believed if they occur, the car is not under testing. One of them is steering wheel - during the emissions test, it's not done on a road, but on a dynomometer, There's no reason to turn the wheel while on the dyno so it's assumed if the wheel hasn't moved it's to stay in test mode.

      For Audi, another reason is acoustic management - when a diesel starts up, it makes a heck of a racket. However, if you inject a bit more fuel at start up, it quiets down at the cost of emissions (it's why the VW code references "acoustic management"). Since Audis are considered higher end vehicles, being able to do a nice quiet start is a plus.

      And that's really the essence of the cheat.

    7. Re:Steering Wheel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The trigger for the violation was when the steering wheel was turned more than 15 degrees. That seems an odd trigger.

      No, it's brilliant, because in real driving (not on a stand for testing) you're going to use the steering wheel, and as soon as you do, the car switches to full power, full pollution mode. In testing, the wheel just sits there.

    8. Re: Steering Wheel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Especially on an Audi with all wheel drive, the front wheels MUST be pointed straight ahead or the car goes for a walk.

    9. Re: Steering Wheel? by Wrath0fb0b · · Score: 1

      On the one hand, yes, it's a deliberate cheat. This is clearly motivated by a desire to excel in synthetic testing with no real world justification at all. It is clearly the duty of people submitting to the test not to do such things.

      On the other, it is (IMHO, YMMV, $0.02) the duty of the people performing the test to think about these things and perform an analysis as close to the "real world" scenario as possible. That doesn't excuse cheaters one bit to say that this is a laughable "test".

      Moreover, there are two positive improvements from making your test even a little bit more realistic. The lesser of the two is that it deters or at least raises the bar for cheaters. The greater is that the test now accurately reflects the actual outcome and so distinguishes from designs/submissions that are incidentally better at the test even if the designer wasn't cheating. In other words, the larger the variance between the synthetic and the actual, the larger percentage of inputs will randomly perform better at one than the other.

      There's no hypocrisy to say that we've learned that both parties need to up their game here -- Audi in the ethics department and the testing agencies in the not-being-a-sucker department.

    10. Re: Steering Wheel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't you sound like you know what you are talking about? Turns out you don't. The steering DOES talk to the ECU because the engine idle has to be set to handle the load of the power steering pump. This used to be done with a high pressure switch in the hose. Now it is done via position servo since they have other features needing to know steering angle.
      This still could be a cheat but it's not for the reason you think it is. You're rambling from your asshole again like you do in every other thread and I'll continue to call you out for it, you despicable bastard.

    11. Re:Steering Wheel? by Idarubicin · · Score: 2

      YMMV

      I see what you did there.

      --
      ~Idarubicin
    12. Re:Steering Wheel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The trigger for the violation was when the steering wheel was turned more than 15 degrees. That seems an odd trigger.

      It seems like quite an obvious signal for detecting that the car is being tested on a dynomometer actually.

    13. Re: Steering Wheel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What shitbox car needs to disable the emissions controls in order to run a power steering pump?

      Answer: none of them. You're fucking stupid.

  5. What cars *DON'T* cheat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm starting to wonder what cars don't have software/firmware designed to cheat on emissions tests.

    1. Re:What cars *DON'T* cheat? by zenbi · · Score: 1

      I'm starting to wonder what cars don't have software/firmware designed to cheat on emissions tests.

      Electric cars. They have no emissions.

    2. Re:What cars *DON'T* cheat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm starting to wonder what cars don't have software/firmware designed to cheat on emissions tests.

      Electric cars. They have no direct emissions.

      FTFY

      Definitely better, but not zero.

    3. Re:What cars *DON'T* cheat? by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 2

      Electric cars, for the most part. If you fill them up at work or home using solar or wind, they have zero emissions. If you fill them up from a commercial source that includes coal, they are still slightly better than fossil fuel cars, due to the actual operation of the vehicles themselves. Which is part of why electric cars, in general, require half the expense for repairs and maintenance.

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    4. Re:What cars *DON'T* cheat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And because point sources of pollution are much easier and cheaper to manage than millions of individual vehicles. You could put a $100 device on one million cars to reduce pollution or spend a few million retrofitting a power plant.

    5. Re:What cars *DON'T* cheat? by ledow · · Score: 1

      Non-diesels.

      They don't need to. It's much easier to make a compliant petrol car than a diesel one.

      It's the shit in burning diesel that's the problem, which is why these engines aren't just "slightly over in one particular model" but the entire diesel engine industry are seeing things like FORTY TIMES over the limits when used in normal driving.

      When I was a kid, my dad used to work as a mechanic. He explained the pluses and minuses of diesel vs petrol. And, pretty much, a "performance diesel" was unheard of that the time. When I started buying cars, suddenly I heard of people with diesels that were out-performing everyone and I couldn't understand why. I didn't really pay much attention, as even petrol cars had come so far in the intervening years too.

      But now it's starting to make sense - the performance diesels came about at least partially because, basically, manufacturing are fucking over the limits. As the petrol engines started to be regulated (and relatively easy to do so with catalytic convertors, engine management, etc., but affected performance somewhat), the car manufacturers moved to diesel and suddenly found all that missing performance just floating somewhere.

      Then the limits on diesel were tightened and, it turns out, they were able to continue that trend by cheating the limits.

      What you'll see now is everyone having their diesels taken back and the diesel engine prices soar, and we'll move back to petrol or even on to electric engines, and there'll be a focus on something else... gadgets and technology in the car is the current distraction from raw performance.

      It's incredibly ironic, because what makes modern cars dangerous is the sheer amount of power they have. Your little run-around could out-perform a Formula 1 car from the 1960's most likely. A Lotus 18 from that era is out-horsepowered by a Ford Focus nowadays, for example. I question why that's necessary at all. Sure, the safety features and tech, I get that, but why are we all running things that beat car that were - in the 60's - the fastest racecars on Earth? So we can run the kids to school and then pop home for lunch? Why do road-legal cars even HAVE a speedometer that goes past 80, or an engine capable of doing so?

      But manufacturers are still appealing to that metric above all others, even in huge diesel-guzzling SUV's that mums are buying to run the little darlings to their nativity play, to the point of breaking the law (in spirit, even if not the letter) to do so.

      And Volvo - just one of the many manufacturers affected by all the diesel emissions scandals - were historically regarded as the "safest" of all cars. Not only are they slowly killing us with fumes, but they're also doing so to enable you go to faster in case you complain that you can't go fast enough.

      The car market is going to be radically different in ten years time. I see an even more heavy focus on "safety" and little runarounds with tiny engines coming, rather than sporty-looking things.

    6. Re:What cars *DON'T* cheat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You want to know how fast you are going whether the engine normally pushes the car or not. Think of driving down a mountain (on, one hopes, a straight road!) where speed might kick up due to good old gravity.

      However, standards for Diesel should be less stringent for nitrogen oxide than gas cars. The engine works by compressing fuel
      and air, and air is mostly nitrogen and oxygen. Surprise surprise, the method produces some NO and NO2. If you're gonna run
      Diesel using air instead of pure O2, you get this. It's not like the NO2 made from gasoline where this indicates something seriously
      dirty is going on. It is byproduct. Standards for Diesel should just allow this.

    7. Re:What cars *DON'T* cheat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do road-legal cars even HAVE a speedometer that goes past 80, or an engine capable of doing so?

      Because if your car wasn't capable of going 120mph it would either get absolutely horrible fuel economy, or be so anemic and underpowered that little old ladies in Buick Regals would be flipping you off at traffic lights.

    8. Re:What cars *DON'T* cheat? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Speak for yourself you god damn law abider.

      My car has a compliant ECU once every two years, for just long enough to get it smogged. Then the ECU gets flashed and the cats get put away for safekeeping.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    9. Re: What cars *DON'T* cheat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We just don't have testing here in Indiana.

    10. Re: What cars *DON'T* cheat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They have no tailpipe emissions, but they still have tyre wear, which is the predominant source of pollution in modern cars.

    11. Re:What cars *DON'T* cheat? by someoneOtherThanMe · · Score: 1

      Thank you for polluting our common planet more than necessary.

    12. Re:What cars *DON'T* cheat? by conquistadorst · · Score: 1

      I question why that's necessary at all. Sure, the safety features and tech, I get that, but why are we all running things that beat car that were - in the 60's - the fastest racecars on Earth? So we can run the kids to school and then pop home for lunch? Why do road-legal cars even HAVE a speedometer that goes past 80, or an engine capable of doing so?

      But manufacturers are still appealing to that metric above all others, even in huge diesel-guzzling SUV's that mums are buying to run the little darlings to their nativity play, to the point of breaking the law (in spirit, even if not the letter) to do so.

      This guy is way too rational, he must be a robot, send him away! It never makes rational sense so not point in trying to see it rationally. Welcome to humanity. Where the only fact that matters is the fact that your stuff is better than the guy next to you! Don't even bother trolling these people either, they'll only look at you like you're the crazy one when you ask them if their corvette gets them to the grocery store faster lol. Those trend does have a habit of reversing itself whenever gasoline prices go up though. I am also optimistic though that this trend may finally be put to an end with the introduction of autonomous cars that abide by speed limits regardless of engine size. Only to be replaced with something else though.

    13. Re:What cars *DON'T* cheat? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Your welcome.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  6. Trade secrets by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    must as I love open source doing this would expose tons of trade secrets wouldn't it? I suppose patents might render that moot. But then again in a lot of countries software isn't patent-able.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Trade secrets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuel/air mixtures are a solved problem. Even auto tuning ignition timing is a solved problem with spark plug ion sensing.
      The transmission controller on those lame-ass cars with automatic transmissions are usually sourced from the transmission manufacturer but tuned but the auto manufacturer and need to talk to the ECU to manage the shifting smoothness via throttle plate modulation or spark timing.

      There's no real reason to keep it proprietary, except the EPA would shit a brick if anyone could go in and adjust their ECU. -- that is until Trump dismantles it.

    2. Re:Trade secrets by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      The locked down ECU ship has, more or less, sailed.

      Security by obscurity doesn't work for long.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    3. Re:Trade secrets by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      must as I love open source doing this would expose tons of trade secrets wouldn't it?

      Perhaps, but it may be the cost of doing business. If it's not acceptable then I guess automakers have to sell off their business and pivot to something else?
      Putting some exceptions to the rules for luxury and high performance(and high tax) would be the obvious compromise. If the luxury tax is high enough and volumes low enough, then you could skip emissions testing entirely and not really have a measurable impact on the environment. If you killed a baby seal for every Bentley that would still only be 15,000 seals a year, that is probably not much of an impact compared to the quarter million or so seals killed a year.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    4. Re:Trade secrets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Many ECUs use an encryption scheme, some are even pretty good.

    5. Re:Trade secrets by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Name one that lasted past the warranty period before being hacked.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    6. Re:Trade secrets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The 350z took a few years.

      If the OP really wants an open source ECU, might I suggest http://rusefi.com/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page

  7. But Why? by AK+Marc · · Score: 0

    So, Audi "cheats" emissions when the wheel is turned more than 15 degrees. So bad emissions when parking. Maybe some turns on the road. Almost all driving is done with the wheel nearly straight. You don't do a drag race with the wheel turned, so it wouldn't have improved the feel or numbers in reviews or test drives.

    1. Re:But Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or any time you're accelerating and turning from a stop - which happens a lot when driving.
      Clearly it made a difference in the fuel efficiency numbers or they wouldn't have bothered doing it.

    2. Re:But Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Its disabled for the whole driving session once the wheel is turned once.

    3. Re:But Why? by pj2541 · · Score: 1

      Almost all driving is done with the wheel nearly straight.

      And all dynamometer testing. Maybe they actually knew what they were doing.

    4. Re:But Why? by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      Perhaps turning the wheel turns off the test mode for 30 minutes or so?

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    5. Re: But Why? by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      Yeah, because it's super hard to implement a routine like "wheel turned past 15 degrees within two minutes of engine start = disable emissions until engine off"

      You know many people with a mile long driveway that points right at their garage, who drive Audi? That simple logic above would work just fine for detecting a test scenario versus real world driving.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    6. Re:But Why? by Anubis+IV · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It doesn't switch back and forth between modes. It starts in their low-emissions mode and then switches to high-emissions mode once they detect that the wheel has turned more than 15 degrees. A car in normal driving conditions would thus trigger the high-emissions mode almost immediately, given that almost every drive begins with having to either get out of a parking space, turn onto a road, or change lanes to rejoin the flow of traffic. But a car that's just spinning its wheels in place so that it can be checked for emissions under controlled conditions? It'll never trigger high-emissions mode.

      As for why they weren't smart enough to make it work like you thought? They couldn't. The low-emissions mode achieves its lower emissions by sacrificing performance. If they sacrificed performance every time they started going in a straight line, people would notice pretty quickly that something was up.

    7. Re:But Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It doesn't switch back and forth. It starts in test mode, if wheel is turned it switches to performance mode. That's it.
      But what they did is pretty lame - it limits the performance in dyno tests and dragrace tests. I guess they didn't care for those...

      Or maybe they have additional trigger to take out of test mode, like fully open throttle.

    8. Re:But Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > The low-emissions mode achieves its lower emissions by sacrificing performance.

      So nobody tested these cars on dyno? Or in drag race? Or maybe they have another trigger to take it out of test mode, like fully open throttle.

    9. Re:But Why? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      A diesel in a drag race?

      It does happen, you put propane and nitrous on a turbo diesel and woot, good times.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    10. Re:But Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > A diesel in a drag race?
      Of course if drag race == monster engine with 2 tractor wheels and some counter balance so it does not flip over, then it might make not much sense. But it makes perfect sense with modified stock cars as Diesel engines generate more torque in low RPM.

      We have had an old B2 series state wagon Passat with 1.9 TDI was nicknamed "Passerati" after it left in the dust Ferrari 458 Italia. :)

    11. Re:But Why? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      If they sacrificed performance every time they started going in a straight line, people would notice pretty quickly that something was up.

      Especially in Germany. My colleague's biggest complain about his A6 is that the cruise control can't be set above 200km/h

    12. Re:But Why? by mjwx · · Score: 1

      A diesel in a drag race?

      It does happen, you put propane and nitrous on a turbo diesel and woot, good times.

      OK, if you need to put NOS and a modified engine in a diesel to go as fast as a stock petrol car... why not just get the petrol car. I mean to go as fasts as a mildly warm hatchback a diesel needs a 4L triple turbo engine with an 18 speed dual clutch transmission. I'll just stick with my petrol for performance as it's lighter, faster and cheaper (and lightness is worth more than power in racing).

      Diesel is even starting to lose at LeMans, endurance racing was pretty much the only form of Motorsports that diesels even existed in.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    13. Re:But Why? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      3/4 ton trucks run 11 second quarters with 'stock motor' plus, nitrous, propane and track tires. The full setup, more or less, quadruples power.

      I don't think I've seen it done with post-smog diesels or cute little euro-diesels.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  8. This is the extremist world we live in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    First, it makes ZERO SENSE that the car would only "cheat" when the wheel is turned that much. Emissions tests are performed with the car on a test rig with the wheels STRAIGHT.

    This is just senseless extremism from the torch-and-pitchfork crowd. I swear, everyone just jumps to wild-ass conclusions anymore, just looking for the worst possible outcomes to be outraged about.

    Occam's Razor says this is a firmware bug and nothing more. There is no perceivable benefit to "cheating" in this way.

    1. Re:This is the extremist world we live in by ledow · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You misread the summary.

      "The affected Audi models with so-called Euro-5 emission standards emit about twice the legal limit of nitrogen oxides when the steering wheel is turned more than 15 degrees, the ministry said."

      When the wheel is turned, the emission controls are turned off, and it pollutes more.
      When the wheel is straight, it pretends to be less polluting.

  9. This will continue to happen by jediborg · · Score: 1

    So long as there are no economic incentives to make cars emissions' cleaner (coming from consumers preferably) and there are only negative economic incentives to meet the emission regulations (lots of design $$ spent up front to make a truly more efficient engine, but then perceived as 'under powered' by the consumers when you go to market) this problem will continue to happen.

    honestly, instead of using the heavy hand of government to force motor companies to meet higher and higher emission standards, why not just offer tax incentives/cuts/deductibles to consumers for buying the most 'clean' cars. That way you incentivize consumers to reward companies for buying greener vehicles, and companies feel the need to compete and build the best product.

    1. Re:This will continue to happen by Strider- · · Score: 1

      honestly, instead of using the heavy hand of government to force motor companies to meet higher and higher emission standards, why not just offer tax incentives/cuts/deductibles to consumers for buying the most 'clean' cars. That way you incentivize consumers to reward companies for buying greener vehicles, and companies feel the need to compete and build the best product.

      The problem with this attitude is that the consumer has no way of knowing whether the vehicle is low emissions, or just cheating, on their own. They have to rely on something that's hopefully objective, which takes us back to testing. If you give consumers an incentive to buy a low emissions vehicle, the manufacturers will figure out a way to meet that demand, and as we've seen with their current willingness to cheat, that doesn't mean that they will necessarily be producing low emissions vehicles.

      The real solution is to start changing the way that we think about transportation, and to reduce the total number of passenger-kms that are driven in private vehicles. I personally drive an '06 Jetta TDI (pre-emissions scandal). It's paid off, low maintenance, and cheap to operate. Assuming that I am going to keep the vehicle, and thus pay to insure it, at this point it is still cheaper for me to commute to work in it rather than take mass transit. If the cost of mass transit were to drop below the cost of driving, either through reduction in pass prices, or because my employer was incentivized to give me a pass, I would do that instead. Until then, I'm going to take the least expensive option.

      --
      ...si hoc legere nimium eruditionis habes...
    2. Re:This will continue to happen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So long as there are no economic incentives to make cars emissions' cleaner (coming from consumers preferably) and there are only negative economic incentives to meet the emission regulations (lots of design $$ spent up front to make a truly more efficient engine, but then perceived as 'under powered' by the consumers when you go to market) this problem will continue to happen.

      Or, the govt could levy big fines and send the fraudsters to PMITA prison.

    3. Re:This will continue to happen by Altrag · · Score: 1

      I don't know where you work, what your commute is like, and what gas prices are on your area, but in many (most?) places, monthly transit passes are on the order of $50. If you have a remotely long commute, its easy to burn through $50 in a lot of places.

      The biggest problem with mass transit is convenience. You're on their schedule (and often they aren't, so you have to plan a bus or two in advance and waste 15-30 minutes on the other end just in case today is the day the bus is 15 minutes late.) You have to deal with other people -- frequently from the lower end of society to boot. It usually takes a lot longer due to the frequent stops, and then you've got to walk to and from a bus stop on either end. All of that adds up to a long, unpleasant commute even when compared to idling in traffic.

      Of course some cities have worked to improve this. HOV lanes (when not allowed to fall too far into abuse by asshats) help minimize the amount of time you're on the bus. LRT and other trains are generally much faster and often better at being on time than buses. And simply having enough buses to meet demand (and some backups available at the drop of a hat for concerts or other events that cause heavier-than-usual traffic.) All of that helps significantly.

      And you see it. In places with shitty transit systems, the only people you generally see on the bus are those that can't afford cars and have no other choice. In a good transit system, you get quite a lot of riders from across the spectrum (well usually not the super wealthy.. if you can afford a private driver then to hell with the bus eh!) Consider the mass of businessfolk that use Tokyo's train system on a daily basis, for example.

  10. Yes it's a cheat but steering can inform an ECU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you're driving "properly", you're breaking before you turn and properly accelerating coming out of it. So steering input can be a good indicator for when a driver is about to do with the throttle. However this is clearly a cheat. As you described, the engine is being set into a different state/mode and then staying there.

    1. Re:Yes it's a cheat but steering can inform an ECU by radarskiy · · Score: 1

      "So steering input can be a good indicator for when a driver is about to do with the throttle. "

      Both throttle changes you just described occur *before* the associated steering changes. So no, the steering input is not a good (leading) indicator.

  11. schools by umghhh · · Score: 1

    German schools are obviously so bad that cheaters did a really bad job here. I work in Germany for 20y now and I can only confirm that Germans cannot count properly and only move stuff from place to place. This seems to be a common practice at least in SW domain.OC some Germans can count. These run away because of taxes and other disastrous policies of their government. These are not the only feats of engineering Germany can be proud of. I was driving over Rhine recently and was surprised to see a set of signs and special traffic arrangements to remove heavy lorries from bridge traffic. I investigated this a bit and found out that the bridge was in a such a bad shape that the heavy vehicles could not be safely allowed on it. Instead of fixing it the highway on the bridge got (sophisticated) weight restrictions. Few years back an archive of old manuscripts was ruined in Cologne because subway works were messed up and caused collapse of many buildings - something that did not happen decades before when other line of subway were built. A street in front of my house has a section farther away that is closed for ore than a year because its surface fell apart - this happened after they tried to fix it 3 times in a row. Now they gave up. I suspect the roads that Romans built 2kya were a little bit more robust. The art of engineering went up and down and up again since. Now we observe significant decline and in many different areas. But we have soft science to hold us right and state run media to tell us the truths here. Why do you think I am not surprised at all about these developments? Because I had an occasion to see the schools and their pupils at work. There are good ones everywhere but as one can see - not that many of them anymore...

    1. Re:schools by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      A little trolly.

      But kernel of truth. Germany used to do a good job teaching it's bottom quintile, where America fucks up. No more. They literally _can't_ do arithmetic anymore.

      My entire extended family is German, including a few teachers at various levels. They and the people trying to find new apprentices, don't know what to make of it or do. Kids can't work as apprentice bakers because they can't double recipes.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    2. Re: schools by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of the dozen or so car manufacturers caught cheating so far, only one was German.

    3. Re: schools by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      Who's been caught beside VW and Audi???

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    4. Re: schools by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are criminal investigations or strong suspicions backed by evidence against Fiat Chrysler, General Motors, Renault-Nissan, Peugeot-Citroën and Mitsubishi. Daimler has sold cars with cheating Renault engines and Suzuki has sold cars with cheating Fiat engines. Ford, Volvo, Hyundai/Kia, Jaguar Land Rover, Toyota and Honda have sold cars that emit several times more NOx on the road than during the type approval test and most have them have been shown to use defeat devices that are likely to be illegal (hot restart switchoff, speed- or RPM-based triggers that lie just outside the bounds of the type approval test, excessive application of a thermal window that cannot be justified by technical properties, etc.).

      A bit longer ago, General Motors, Ford and Honda were fined for emissions violations in the United States, in seperate instances and in 2006 the US EPA issued a collective penalty for emissions cheating by all of the truck engine manufacturers present on the North American market.

      There was probably even more cheating in the past, when it was harder to detect and emission mitigation measures had more disadvantages.

  12. Specs from Project Managers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is not the work of some Rogue Programmer. The specs for this comes from a Project Manager, who talked to upper management and to hardware engineers. Then the specs were given to the programmer. Then QA had to test the system in both "Test Mode" and on the open road. Testing for pollution and acceleration. Executives at the highest level knew about it. That is how big companies work.

    1. Re: Specs from Project Managers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fix here is simple and easy. Require random testing of vehicles using a monitor that can be worn by the car, with a sensor attached to the tailpipe. Let the car be driven around for a month, and see if the results match.

  13. every engineer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Every engineer who should have known about this should lose the right to practice engineering.

  14. Two solutions: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One: tell automakers to come clean and fix it now and pay damages, and have those responsible agree to plead guilty to charges of fraud and conspiracy, or if they refuse and their vehicles are CAUGHT cheating, all the executives and engineers go to jail for life, and the company is shut down by the government, or...

    Two: phase-out gasoline and diesel and mandate all vehicles be zero emissions. Force automakers under penalty of prison (for executives) to design and pay to install electric systems in every car they've ever put on the road that still functions. (Cars in junk yards excluded naturally.)