Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

BMW, Daimler, and VW Colluded To Prevent Better Emissions Control Tech, EU Says (arstechnica.com)

Posted by msmash on from the how-about-that dept.

The European Union Commission today accused BMW, Daimler, and Volkswagen Group (which makes VW, Audi, and Porsche vehicles) of colluding to limit emissions reduction technology in their diesel and gas vehicles. From a report: The commission accused the three manufacturers of coordinating to limit the size and refill ranges of AdBlue tanks on their diesel vehicles made between 2006 and 2014. AdBlue is a urea-based liquid that is injected into exhaust gas to reduce the amount of nitrogen oxides (NOx) that are released during diesel combustion. The commission also accused the three manufacturers of agreeing to avoid or delay the introduction of "Otto" particulate filters on gas-powered vehicles between 2009 and 2014.

After opening an investigation last September, the EU Commission today sent the three German automakers Statements of Objections, that is, a formal letter outlining the preliminary view that the manufacturers' behavior was illegal. "Such market behavior, if confirmed... would violate EU competition rules prohibiting cartel agreements to limit or control production, markets or technical development," an EU Commission press release read.

32 of 76 comments (clear)

  1. monsters walk the land by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    corporations will kill us all just to make another cent

  2. Re:Hmmm, all European companies? by sjames · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Not really, the EU is taking care of it's jurisdiction and leaving the U.S. to deal with (or not) it's own.

  3. Re:Hmmm, all European companies? by MightyMartian · · Score: 2

    Hypocrites because they're prosecuting manufacturers whose products were designed to deceive pollution testing? I'm not sure how that's hypocritical. If, as you state, the EU's goal here is to be "great for the environment", then this seems to be exactly what they're doing.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  4. Conspiracy Theory by BringsApples · · Score: 1

    Conspiracy noun

    1 : the act of conspiring together

    2a : an agreement among conspirators
    2b : a group of conspirators

    Gosh, everyone's always gotta have a conspiracy theory.

    --
    Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
  5. Why limit this by samwichse · · Score: 1

    What is the advantage to these companies of limiting the size (and therefore the car's range) of these urea tanks?

    I get what their "advantage" is from not adding an extra filter would be, but not in limiting the range of their cars.

    Sam

    1. Re:Why limit this by Mal-2 · · Score: 2

      VW, at least, would fill the urea tank with scheduled maintenance, and the tank was intended to last for the entire service interval. Getting the tank filled "for free" withh scheduled maintenance was part of the package. Reducing the size of the tank forces owners to come in for that maintenance sooner than they might want to, because the tank sensor tells them it's time.

      --
      How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
    2. Re:Why limit this by iamgnat · · Score: 1

      What is the advantage to these companies of limiting the size (and therefore the car's range) of these urea tanks?

      I don't understand that part of TFS and the linked article isn't any more clear. I am a (very happy) owner of a TDI motor. Prior to having it "fixed" I was getting ~2.5k miles per 1 gallon (imperial) of AdBlue. I don't know what it's getting since the "fix" as I haven't gone through a full tank, but with it's 5 gallon tank I've already had to refill it's fuel tank 5 times (~2.5k miles) with no sign of the low fluid warning. Maybe it's me, but that doesn't feel very limited...

    3. Re:Why limit this by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 1

      Not sure about VW, but on many vehicles you can fill the tank yourself. Many petrol stations sell AdBlue right at the pump. Still, not having to worry about filling it would be a selling point I suppose.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    4. Re:Why limit this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That's silly. It's urea for crying out loud! Unzip, relieve yourself, and you're good to go for another thousand miles....

    5. Re:Why limit this by Mal-2 · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure the owner can fill the tank, sure, but VW was pushing the line that diesel is just as easy to operate and maintain as gasoline, to try to win over the North American market which has never fallen in love with diesel for personal vehicles. Part of that was that the urea system needed to be invisible to the owner. Down the line this decision may have further contributed to the emissions software scandal, as minimizing urea use through software was definitely one of the methods they used to keep the owners from feeling imposed-upon. I'm not saying there's a direct connection, there probably isn't. But it does seem indicative of problematic design attitudes as a whole.

      --
      How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
    6. Re:Why limit this by Carewolf · · Score: 1

      That's silly. It's urea for crying out loud! Unzip, relieve yourself, and you're good to go for another thousand miles....

      Well you need to filter it too, add antifreeze and color it blue :)

      Or you can buy it at tank-station for cents.

    7. Re:Why limit this by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Well considering it's supposed to last until the service interval, having to refill it every 20000km is quite limiting given the service interval on most modern cars is 30000km.

    8. Re:Why limit this by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      What is the advantage to these companies of limiting the size (and therefore the car's range) of these urea tanks?

      Ultimately it comes down to consumer choice. Any collusion that sets products standards between companies at a level that isn't market regulated and is lower than the generally available technology is deemed to be potentially negative for consumers by competition law. It doesn't need to always be about cheap products or meeting regulations. In this case it's about better technology in the general market not being passed to consumers.

      The commission's words:
      "The Commission's preliminary view is that the car manufacturers' behaviour aimed at restricting competition on innovation for these two emission cleaning systems and in doing so, denied consumers the opportunity to buy less polluting cars, despite the technology being available to the manufacturers."

      A classic Slashdot and tech debate we always have here is how Intel doesn't provide desktop processors with ECC capabilities. That's fine, go shop at AMD. But if Intel and AMD worked together to ensure these were specifically denied to desktop consumers then the effect would be the same, manufacturers working together for a worse outcome to consumers.

    9. Re:Why limit this by iamgnat · · Score: 1

      Well considering it's supposed to last until the service interval, having to refill it every 20000km is quite limiting given the service interval on most modern cars is 30000km.

      The service interval on Audis and VWs is 10k miles in the US and Porsche is 5k. Both under the vehicle's DEF usage.

    10. Re: Why limit this by iamgnat · · Score: 1

      Really? In Europe, VW typically specifies 30 000 km service intervals, with 50 000 km for some diesels. It is interesting that they seem to think a car would require service more often in the USA. I wonder why.

      I think it's two parts.

      The first is that it's hard to find anything better than 40 cetane here. Additionally getting fuel from a station that doesn't have good industrial/transportation traffic means that the fuel has usually been sitting in the tank for a good period of time (this has improved since diesels took off, but I fear that will be an issue again as diesels are effectively dead here thanks to VAG). So overall our fuel quality sucks compared to what you have in the EU. Worse fuel requires more maintenance to keep the systems clean and functioning. I've done the filter drain (10k)/replacement(20k) myself a few times and while there wasn't significant water, it was horribly dirty.

      Another item is overcoming the misconception that diesels are bad. With shorter intervals they simply refilled the DEF at those intervals and the owner barely had to know it even existed. Thus it's one less "extra" item the owner has to worry about over gas car maintenance. There are few owners like myself that skip the constantly topping off of the tank and instead prefer to run it down to as close to dry as possible and then refill it ourselves so we know what our consumption actually looks like.

      Now I'd also be happy to argue the wisdom of those ridiculously high service intervals too. They are a good part of why older (since about 2000 when these exaggerated intervals started) used cars are less reliable. There is no oil that can really stand up to that work cycle regardless of claims. Get oil that has seen a 30k or 50k cycle analysed and you will not be pleased with the result. By that time it has long since stopped protecting your engine and damage is being done. It's minor and takes time which the MFGs are just betting on taking longer than their warranty coverage. Out of warranty it is in their best interests for the engine to develop issues as you'll either buy a new car or be buying replacement parts.

    11. Re: Why limit this by iamgnat · · Score: 1

      Thank you, it is interesting to read an American perspective. I knew US diesel often had more sulphur, but I did not know about the lower cetane numbers. I have also been told that it is common in the US to have a third party service even relatively new cars and that they often use cheaper non-certified engine oils and oil filters. This may also reduce oil service life.

      Many actually use the dealer and get ripped off because they don't know better (and the dealers don't want them too). In the US we have a law named the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act which states that we can have work performed anywhere (including DIY) without voiding warranties as long as the work and parts meet MFG specifications. This means that I can tell my local Porsche dealers where to stick their $675 oil changes for my diesel Cayenne and either do it myself (about $100 + 60 minutes) or have my indy shop do it for about $200. It also means that instead of paying Porsche $5.75 for the drain plug crush washer I can buy the Touareg's for $0.75 (same motor and same part, just with a VW part number). Similarly rather than $100 for the fuel filter (which is different than the VW and Audi versions), I can get it with the Mann brand name on it for something like $30.

      Unless you are just cutting corners by going to a shady shop, then you are still using the real parts and processes.

      As far as an American's perspective, I'm not the typical American in that I've jealously followed diesels in Europe for a long time. The last time I bought a new car (2012) I decided it was time to finally get a diesel as we had a couple of options (BMW x5 and VW Touareg were the two SUVs) that fit what I wanted/needed. The Cayenne diesel popped up in the middle of my search and I went with that as I've liked the Cayenne's since they debuted. It's 6.5 years old now, is still going strong (though I've barely put miles on it compared to what diesels can do), looks good, puts a smile on my face in every drive, and between the fuel savings over the gas version and the TDI settlement it now has cost me less than the VR6 version of the same Cayenne would have cost (just on fuel savings it was going to take about 9 years to "break even").

      I mean how can you not love a 5500lb monster that will do 80mph through the mountains of PA and NY and pull 732 miles out of a single tank? Or about the same doing around 90mph from north VA to south GA?

      I dread the day I have to replace it (sans it being totaled that's hopefully another 6+ years off) as there simply isn't anything else out there that is as fun to drive and as practical (both in fuel consumption and utility). I had hoped that diesel was finally going to catch on this time, but oh well...

  6. Ironic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    This is rather ironic, since these three manufacturers are the only once to actually use particulate filters in petrol cars.

    1. Re:Ironic by someoneOtherThanMe · · Score: 1

      Nope. At least Citroën as well.

  7. Re:Hmmm, all European companies? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 2

    American companies, hahahaha... Did they finally stop building those monster trucks for normal commuters or what?

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
  8. Re:Hmmm, all European companies? by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This time it's not about the environment or deceiving pollution tests, but about collusion between 3 major market players, which goes against antitrust regulation.

    --
    If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
  9. Shocked! by CyberKender · · Score: 1

    Shocked, I say!

    --
    CyberKender
    Apparently Appointed Lord Mayor of There
  10. Re:Hmmm, all European companies? by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

    Yes, they've already been nailed for the emissions testing scam, and now they're being nailed for the collusion.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  11. Re:Hmmm, all European companies? by sjames · · Score: 1

    So are you complaining that the EU IS beginning proceedings or that it is NOT?

  12. Re:Hmmm, all European companies? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    I hate brodozers too, but at least they meet the emission standards.

    Even assuming that's true, the light truck standards are a lot more polluting than the standards which apply to smaller vehicles.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  13. Re: Hmmm, all European companies? by sjames · · Score: 1

    It's primarily "trucks" marketed to be used in the same role as a car. Most trucks are not driven as trucks since that might scratch the paint or dent the bed.

  14. Re:Hmmm, all European companies? by Darinbob · · Score: 1

    Which is why many SUVs are technically listed as light trucks and have fewer emissions requirements, even though the vast majority of them are used as basic daily commuter vehicles and never once for "truck" uses.

  15. No worries by sphealey · · Score: 1

    No worries really: corporations will self-regulate and not only obey all published laws but go above and beyond the letter of the law to improvements based on the spirit thereof - it is in their best interest to do so after all.

  16. Re: Hmmm, all European companies? by Luthair · · Score: 1

    Ford, Dodge and Chrysler all sell diesel cars overseas. Also note that the USA is allowing pickup trucks to meet lower emissions standards than cars.

  17. Re: Hmmm, all European companies? by Sir+Lurkalot · · Score: 1

    It's primarily "trucks" marketed to be used in the same role as a car. Most trucks are not driven as trucks since that might scratch the paint or dent the bed.

    Mod this guy up....

  18. Re:Hmmm, all European companies? by Sir+Lurkalot · · Score: 1

    Still cleaner than shitty VAG diesels.
    I hate brodozers too, but at least they meet the emission standards.

    Not when they are "rolling coal''...

  19. Re:Hmmm, all European companies? by thegarbz · · Score: 2

    And no American ones?

    It may blow your mind to realise that colluding on a local level is orders of magnitude easier than on an international level.

    Yet the Euros are the first to scream about how great they are for the environment and how bad the US is. Looks like they just proved to be hypocrites

    Actually they just proved to put their money where their mouth is. The fact that they are prosecuting their own companies for having a negative impact on the environment without even formally breaching environmental rules (something which would be laughable if suggested in the USA) shows they are very much serious about their environmental standards.

    As for screaming about the USA. No one screams. They just show measurable and verifiable facts.
    Drill baby drill! ... errr sorry, wrong election. ... "Beautiful American Coal"

  20. Re: Hmmm, all European companies? by jrumney · · Score: 1

    American manufacturers do not even bother trying to meet the emissions standards for diesel passenger cars. Their trucks can pass because the standards are relaxed for trucks, not because they are cleaner than the European manufacturers.