VW "Clean" Diesel not really clean

[mean dad]

But the higher NOx could've been easily been mitigated if they actually made the effort to do so. Some of the people here (and in the reports) are acting like it's not possible to do. Tell that to Cummins, International, Caterpillar, John Deere, et. al.

Then tell us plebes why they did it, if it's so easy to fix without cheating?

 

[aminalmutha]

But the higher NOx could've been easily been mitigated if they actually made the effort to do so. Some of the people here (and in the reports) are acting like it's not possible to do. Tell that to Cummins, International, Caterpillar, John Deere, et. al.

Bruh, I know it's absolutely possible. But for VW, for the profit margin they were seeking, it was apparently worth the risk to reduce vehicle cost with software trickery rather than do it the right way.

 

[aminalmutha]

Right, so they didn't use SCR. Not every diesel engine manufacturer has. Caterpillar didn't do it for years...probably still don't but I've been out of the game for a few years. Even still, they made engines with cleaner numbers than many of the Cummins units of the same size and output that did use SCR.

CAT uses aftertreatment. You know who tried to get away with not using aftertreatment and pass FT4 emissions? ITEC. You know who's engine business went into the toilet? Not CAT.

 

[aminalmutha]

Then tell us plebes why they did it, if it's so easy to fix without cheating?

$$$

Aftertreatment systems are expensive and are yet another maintenence item to deal with compared to a gasoline powered vehicle. It's gotten to the point that they could no longer pass emissions with software trickery alone, so the later model cars have to have it.

Toyota and Ford puke out obscene numbers of hybrids per year. And they don't have expensive fuel filters, DEF, use regular gasoline and require no fancy maintenence as compared to a regular gasoline car. Hard to go head to head with that in the US.

 

[mean dad]

I know (or at least, that was my guess), but Jason is lecturing about how stupid everyone is for not jumping onboard with every bit of clean technology out there, and it's cheaper in the long run, etc.

If it's so easy to clean shit up without cheating, I'm asking Jason why he thinks a multi-billion dollar company would try this...besides it's cheaper to cheat than to meet regs.

 

[TheRobSJ]

As expected, it's getting even worse for VW.

http://money.cnn.com/2015/09/22/news/vw-recall-diesel/index.html

Whoa nelly. Winterkorn isn't gonna survive this one. Takanobu Ito "stepped down" as CEO for Honda because of the whole airbag fiasco. So I see the exact same fate for VW's boss.

 

[Kornholio]

You're forgetting cost, tho. That's the key point. They could have made it work with a DEF system, but they didn't want to add cost.

Funny that all the other players were able to keep costs in check. I doubt many of them have the playing field that VAG does, either.

Then tell us plebes why they did it, if it's so easy to fix without cheating?

Ok, easy is relative. I'm implying it's possible and they certainly have the engineering prowess to do it.

CAT uses aftertreatment. You know who tried to get away with not using aftertreatment and pass FT4 emissions? ITEC. You know who's engine business went into the toilet? Not CAT.

Aftreatment means lots of things, not necessarily anything singularly. Typically it could be a DPF and DOC or either on their own among a few other methods.

 

[Dubbington]

Funny that all the other players were able to keep costs in check. I doubt many of them have the playing field that VAG does, either.

Like who? Dodge and their diesel?

VW has afforded semi luxury diesel geared to the under 40 crowd, not $40k+ vehicles.

They omitted a part(s) and created a hack (that was cheaper than a part) to get around it to cut costs and keep their product in a specific price point.

They could have built it and met all guidelines but that would made my 2013 TDI Wagon even more expensive.

 

[AbsolutEnduser]

Like Lance Armstrong, they probably knew that everyone else was doing it.

Yeah that's my feeling too.
Whether they underestimated any backlash is another question, but they probably just thought they could "get around that" during a testing process. Quite obvious they thought this should be an industry practice. And it is posted even in this thread that "diesels run efficiently at idle", so they probably felt inclined to "optimize" a testing situation.
Let's see if other companies have done similar things. However since not so many sell diesels, there might be a smaller chance of this occurring.

 

[Kornholio]

Like who? Dodge and their diesel?

VW has afforded semi luxury diesel geared to the under 40 crowd, not $40k+ vehicles.

They omitted a part(s) and created a hack (that was cheaper than a part) to get around it to cut costs and keep their product in a specific price point.

They could have built it and met all guidelines but that would made my 2013 TDI Wagon even more expensive.

First of all, Dodge doesn't build diesel engines.

How much did your 2013 Jetta cost you? Consider that the cost of DOCs for a market as small as the 2.0 is are not what you'd think they'd be. At least, that wasn't my experience in the world that actually manufactured and sold them. Not to mention VAG has huge buying power so the end cost to the customer wouldn't necessarily be that drastic either. Truth be told, I don't know why they avoided SCR. I do however know that it is not the only player in the NOx reduction game.

 

[Dubbington]

First of all, Dodge doesn't build diesel engines.

How much did your 2013 Jetta cost you? Consider that the cost of DOCs for a market as small as the 2.0 is are not what you'd think they'd be. At least, that wasn't my experience in the world that actually manufactured and sold them. Not to mention VAG has huge buying power so the end cost to the customer wouldn't necessarily be that drastic either. Truth be told, I don't know why they avoided SCR. I do however know that it is not the only player in the NOx reduction game.

You're playing this stubborn semantics speculative game again. I dont care that Dodge doesnt make diesel, you know what I meant.

Just think why they did what they did. It boils to $$$ and saving it. No other reason. Not like they had a vendetta against EPA.

Anwer us then, why did VW (VAG), whatever you wanna call it, with their immense buying power, create the hack and not add the simple little part/fix during design like you're referring to?

 

[planegray]

"What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun."

The late-80's-era Cadillac “A/C cheat”. The EPA didn't require OEMs to engage the A/C during tests, so GM calibrated the PCM to idle lean during with the climate control off, knowing that almost everyone would normally run with the climate control on.


Corporations kinda get used to being above the law, no surprise to me that they would be willing to "cheat" on such a large scale

 

[aminalmutha]

Funny that all the other players were able to keep costs in check. I doubt many of them have the playing field that VAG does, either.



Ok, easy is relative. I'm implying it's possible and they certainly have the engineering prowess to do it.



Aftreatment means lots of things, not necessarily anything singularly. Typically it could be a DPF and DOC or either on their own among a few other methods.

Who sold a diesel sedan in the US in 2010 for under $30k?


Ok, I'll go further... CAT uses an exhast dosing system. ITEC tried to get away with not using it and it blew up in their faces, spectacularly. Are you aware that ITEC was paying the EPA thousands of dollars per engine in order to sell them because they were not compliant? Are you aware of the current financial state of ITEC vs. CAT?

Plane and simple, this VW fiasco was a money gamble that got figured out. The automotive market is extremely competetive and highly cost sensitive. Far, FAR more competetive and cost sensitive than the heavy truck market. Like, not even on the same level.

 

[Kornholio]

You're playing this stubborn semantics speculative game again. I dont care that Dodge doesnt make diesel, you know what I meant.

Just think why they did what they did. It boils to $$$ and saving it. No other reason. Not like they had a vendetta against EPA.

Anwer us then, why did VW (VAG), whatever you wanna call it, with their immense buying power, create the hack and not add the simple little part/fix during design like you're referring to?

You're throwing out information (again) like you know what you're talking about. It's not semantics, it's facts. Dodge has zero stake in the engines they buy from Cummins. Cummins builds them as they see fit to suit the specifications of their customer base who just happens to also include Dodge. The ISB Dodge uses has been (and is) used in a lot more platforms than medium-duty Rams.

As to your other question, I already answered it. It's likely that it was an easier solution that they must have thought they'd get away with. Overtime, going the regular route wouldn't have nailed them that bad...they sell a lot more diesels globally than they do in the U.S., I'm sure.

Who sold a diesel sedan in the US in 2010 for under $30k?

Volkswagen did. We bought a 2010 Jetta TDI for $24K. :|

This was long before the diesel kool-aid was being drank so the prices weren't inflated.

Ok, I'll go further... CAT uses an exhast dosing system. ITEC tried to get away with not using it and it blew up in their faces, spectacularly. Are you aware that ITEC was paying the EPA thousands of dollars per engine in order to sell them because they were not compliant? Are you aware of the current financial state of ITEC vs. CAT?

When I left the game in 2012, I had yet to see a single EPA-compliant new CAT engine that was using SCR. The CAT folks I collaborated with were pretty fervent about how CAT wasn't going to go that route for all engines, only those that absolutely needed it because nothing else worked. From what I could Google in 30 seconds, it seems they're still sticking with that...

The Cat engine product line is very broad and covers many different markets and application requirements. For each platform, Caterpillar has chosen a technology solution that meets the requirements of all customers including OEMs and Cat Machines. Depending on the platform, the solution may utilize some or all of the following technologies to meet customer and regulatory requirements: More Powerful Engine Electronics, High Pressure Fuel Systems, Innovative Air Management Systems using simple and efficient turbochargers, the Cat NOx Reduction System (NRS), Diesel Oxidation Catalysts (DOC), Diesel Particulate Filters (DPF) and Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR).

Plane and simple, this VW fiasco was a money gamble that got figured out. The automotive market is extremely competetive and highly cost sensitive. Far, FAR more competetive and cost sensitive than the heavy truck market. Like, not even on the same level.

I wouldn't disagree that it was likely a money strategy, but there's no way I'm going to agree that the medium and heavy duty diesel market isn't as competitive or cost sensitive. To suggest so frankly makes me think you've spent zero time working in it at all. Vehicle operation and maintenance costs are a HUGE factor in the costs of doing business. Probably one of the biggest since the industry has the least control over it.

 

[aminalmutha]

Volkswagen did. We bought a 2010 Jetta TDI for $24K.

Yeah, I know, VW was the only player at that price point. Probably, partly because they were not emissions compliant. Mercedes and BMW had to pull out of the US diesel market for a few years because they were not compliant. However, their higher price points enabled them to deal with the additional cost of SCR.

When I left the game in 2012, I had yet to see a single EPA-compliant new CAT engine that was using SCR. The CAT folks I collaborated with were pretty fervent about how CAT wasn't going to go that route for all engines, only those that absolutely needed it because nothing else worked. From what I could Google in 30 seconds, it seems they're still sticking with that...

It took me 5 seconds to google this: http://www.constructionequipment.com/caterpillar-reaches-tier-4-final-scr

Note the date.

Sorry, mang, 2012 is not now. Nobody passes without SCR and most didn't pass without SCR back then. Like I said, ITEC tried and failed even before FT4. Do you even understand what Tier II, TierIII, IT4 and FT4 are without googling? Do you really understand the diesel market, because your lack of understanding of what ITEC/Navistar pulled makes me wonder. This should be common knowledge:

Read up: http://www.ibtimes.com/epa-sues-nav...-air-act-involving-2010-truck-engines-2011422

http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2013-12-20/years-later-navistar-haunted-by-a-big-engine-blunder

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navistar_International

To suggest so frankly makes me think you've spent zero time working in it at all.

Right back at you, bro. Sounds to me like you've never worked in automotive. I've done both and automotive is on a different planet from OTR trucks. I've also worked with aftermarket emissions companies, and well, that's all I got to say about that and not violate any TOS.

 

[Dubbington]

You're throwing out information (again) like you know what you're talking about. It's not semantics, it's facts. Dodge has zero stake in the engines they buy from Cummins. Cummins builds them as they see fit to suit the specifications of their customer base who just happens to also include Dodge. The ISB Dodge uses has been (and is) used in a lot more platforms than medium-duty Rams.

As to your other question, I already answered it. It's likely that it was an easier solution that they must have thought they'd get away with. Overtime, going the regular route wouldn't have nailed them that bad...they sell a lot more diesels globally than they do in the U.S., I'm sure.



Volkswagen did. We bought a 2010 Jetta TDI for $24K. :|

This was long before the diesel kool-aid was being drank so the prices weren't inflated.




When I left the game in 2012, I had yet to see a single EPA-compliant new CAT engine that was using SCR. The CAT folks I collaborated with were pretty fervent about how CAT wasn't going to go that route for all engines, only those that absolutely needed it because nothing else worked. From what I could Google in 30 seconds, it seems they're still sticking with that...





I wouldn't disagree that it was likely a money strategy, but there's no way I'm going to agree that the medium and heavy duty diesel market isn't as competitive or cost sensitive. To suggest so frankly makes me think you've spent zero time working in it at all. Vehicle operation and maintenance costs are a HUGE factor in the costs of doing business. Probably one of the biggest since the industry has the least control over it.

You love giving history lessons and displaying your 'knowledge' when it doesnt apply. I don't know shit about Dodge other than I'd love to have their 4 door diesel full size truck. I don't know the the inventor of the cummings diesel nor do I know the composition of their particle dilator flux capacitor. None of that has anything to do with this thread. Vw vw vw only.

The topic is VW and their cheat device, why they did it and possible ramifications of them being caught. No other companies. No history lesson on the ISB ( Isis ) Not that it's an easy fix and they should have or could have or any other garbage like that.

They wanted to sell as many diesel cars in US as possible. That market is under $40k. My 2013 TDI wagon was $26k (great deal!). I would not have bought it much more than that. The R&D in creating a device to maintain their TDIs were great on MPG and power obviously was too much so they gave less overall $$ to some nerds with computers. Now there's not part to fix, replace, install or initially create.....only a $7 billion disaster now they have to clean up.

I suppose we can talk about makers of CAT devices and all that BS. It just doesnt apply.

 

[Reli]

Road and Track says Urea injection.

I'll give you Urea injection.

 

[Kornholio]

Yeah, I know, VW was the only player at that price point. Probably, partly because they were not emissions compliant. Mercedes and BMW had to pull out of the US diesel market for a few years because they were not compliant. However, their higher price points enabled them to deal with the additional cost of SCR.





It took me 5 seconds to google this: http://www.constructionequipment.com/caterpillar-reaches-tier-4-final-scr

Note the date.

Sorry, mang, 2012 is not now. Nobody passes without SCR and most didn't pass without SCR back then. Like I said, ITEC tried and failed even before FT4. Do you even understand what Tier II, TierIII, IT4 and FT4 are without googling? Do you really understand the diesel market, because your lack of understanding of what ITEC/Navistar pulled makes me wonder. This should be common knowledge:

Read up: http://www.ibtimes.com/epa-sues-nav...-air-act-involving-2010-truck-engines-2011422

http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2013-12-20/years-later-navistar-haunted-by-a-big-engine-blunder

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navistar_International



Right back at you, bro. Sounds to me like you've never worked in automotive. I've done both and automotive is on a different planet from OTR trucks. I've also worked with aftermarket emissions companies, and well, that's all I got to say about that and not violate any TOS.

Call me out all you want, dude. Plenty of people here know what I did and that I'm not making it up. Tell you what, though, feel free to PM me any time you want and we'll setup and meeting to chat about it over any drink of your choice. I absolutely know what all the tier levels. I worked in the diesel exhaust retrofit industry for 10 years with two different manufacturers so yeah, you could say it was my job to know all that and more. 90+% of the time, the shops and mechanics were flat out clueless about how the exhaust treatment systems on the engines worked, how to properly maintain them and certainly how to follow instructions to prevent common failures. You speak about it like the industry was filled with a bunch of sharp people when the reality is that they are by and large knobs with basic mechanic skills at best. The sharp ones don't stay around long before moving on to bigger and better things.

 

[Kornholio]

You love giving history lessons and displaying your 'knowledge' when it doesnt apply. I don't know shit about Dodge other than I'd love to have their 4 door diesel full size truck. I don't know the the inventor of the cummings diesel nor do I know the composition of their particle dilator flux capacitor. None of that has anything to do with this thread. Vw vw vw only.

The topic is VW and their cheat device, why they did it and possible ramifications of them being caught. No other companies. No history lesson on the ISB ( Isis ) Not that it's an easy fix and they should have or could have or any other garbage like that.

They wanted to sell as many diesel cars in US as possible. That market is under $40k. My 2013 TDI wagon was $26k (great deal!). I would not have bought it much more than that. The R&D in creating a device to maintain their TDIs were great on MPG and power obviously was too much so they gave less overall $$ to some nerds with computers. Now there's not part to fix, replace, install or initially create.....only a $7 billion disaster now they have to clean up.

I suppose we can talk about makers of CAT devices and all that BS. It just doesnt apply.

Don't throw out something if you don't want it discussed. You first mentioned Dodge, not me. I mentioned the other manufacturers because it's relevant as they have successfully built engines that passed all the emissions standards without having to cheat. Regardless, until not too long ago, it didn't matter how clean a diesel engine was from the factory since once it was in the hands of the owner, it was never tested again. Even today the test for a < 14,000 GVWR is only a visual. There's no sniff test so no one really cares. Hell, even opacity testing is garbage since it's done with no load on the engine.

If you don't like the direction changing course then don't pretend like there's no other solutions that could be discussed. You and mutha getting all butthurt about this is actually pretty sad. I'm not going to support your narrative and pat your back and tell you got screwed. If you're looking for a pity party, look elsewhere. What VW did is bad, for sure. But it's not the standard for the industry IMO.

 

[Reli]

The late-80's-era Cadillac “A/C cheat”. The EPA didn't require OEMs to engage the A/C during tests, so GM calibrated the PCM to idle lean during with the climate control off, knowing that almost everyone would normally run with the climate control on.

I only use my climate control like once every 1 or 2 weeks. I don't need the AC compressor to activate, hurting fuel economy, just because the outside temp is 5 degrees different than the inside temp. :|