VW TDi Emissions software scandal

[farrar]

As far as I am aware - none of the Seat TDi motors currently use the adblue system for emissions.

My parents 2013 Alhambra 2.0 TDI 177 uses adblue.

 

[golfhappy]

Yep, it's spot on and I hope it comes true. Diesel is the fuel of satan. Commence

They're chanting at my car " evil evil" you guys got any suggestions other than get my 02 plate mgtf out...hell it drips oil everywhere

 

[Houghsx]

At least we can rely on the media/reporters/journalists and the internet to whip up a frenzy and declare the end of the world.

I bet Cameron is happy, anything to take attention away from his headlines!

 

[kazand]

I think you have misinterpreted the facts to a certain degree. What VW have done is not a faulty software. Quite on the contrary, it is actually a software that is very well implemented, and is specifically crafted to deceive certification authorities, lowering the engine emissions when it detects it is being under a test. However, the report states that in all other conditions, i.e. when the software is running as prescribed, it emits up to 40 times more than the acceptable limit!

This isn't done without a reason. If the engine was OK running in "low emission mode", they would have kept it. I believe the performance of the engine is severely hampered, probably the max power and torque are sacrificed and who knows what else, all that in order for the engine to pass a test. And they certainly don't want the engine to be like that all the time.

So, as I said, there are few explanations:

- VW can't manufacture a high-tech diesel engine. Doubtful.
- VW would like to generate more profits by saving on DPF, urea, etc. Very improbable, having in mind their global volume of worldwide sales.
- VW know diesel engines are dirty but it's a global trend, marketed by the supposedly better fuel economy and better torque characteristics, and mostly because diesel engines happen to have lower CO2 emissions which, in combination with some near-sighted taxation systems based on the CO2 such as the one in UK for example, make diesel engines more desirable. That's the most plausible theory in my opinion.

I never mentioned software , faulty or otherwise. VAG clearly CAN make an engine that passes emissions tests, just not one that can continue to do so and provide the level of economy & performance at the same time. They broke the rules and have been caught. I'm not defending them either.

Yes, ban all diesels.

Manufacturers should continue to develop petrol engines such as the wonderfully economical 1.4 TSI ACT and the 1.0 EcoBoost which do not release carcinogens into the atmosphere.

I don't know what you're on about or what point you're trying to make with coal and nuclear when petrol is the alternative.

It's quite clear from these revelations that Volkswagen AG cannot develop diesel engines to the EU's or other regulator's emissions requirements, and I'll bet other manufacturers can't either. I say, just scrap diesel altogether and have it used only in agriculture and non-car transport.

That's better, now you are being more specific. Basically ban diesel cars, no problem with that.
Your original post intimated a complete ban on all diesel powered engines. That is why I questioned what alternatives you would use to replace said diesel devices. Take 5 minutes and look around you. Your tv. Probably from Japanor China. Taken from the factory to a rail head. Then loaded onto a ship. Then transported from the docks to your local store. Then you collected it. How many diesel powered vehicles were involved? Possibly all of them. You could say the same for virtually every other item around you.
Your local hospital. Power back up? Diesel generator. Many more examples, far too many to mention. There are reasons why a diesel engine is used over a petrol one in such applications, and economy isn't the only one.

 

[JACUPRA280]

I never mentioned software , faulty or otherwise. VAG clearly CAN make an engine that passes emissions tests, just not one that can continue to do so and provide the level of economy & performance at the same time. They broke the rules and have been caught. I'm not defending them either.


That's better, now you are being more specific. Basically ban diesel cars, no problem with that.
Your original post intimated a complete ban on all diesel powered engines. That is why I questioned what alternatives you would use to replace said diesel devices. Take 5 minutes and look around you. Your tv. Probably from Japanor China. Taken from the factory to a rail head. Then loaded onto a ship. Then transported from the docks to your local store. Then you collected it. How many diesel powered vehicles were involved? Possibly all of them. You could say the same for virtually every other item around you.
Your local hospital. Power back up? Diesel generator. Many more examples, far too many to mention. There are reasons why a diesel engine is used over a petrol one in such applications, and economy isn't the only one.

Good, glad I cleared that up.

The issue with diesel cars is at a local and national level - they release carcinogens that are harmful when breathed in. The only way to stop this is to ban diesel cars. But then you have to ask about lorries. Well, they can remain diesel. The number of lorries on the road pales in comparison to cars and vans and it would not be economical to suggest that this country could survive with petrol engines powering lorries as the logistics industry couldn't fund it. The same goes for shipping - which by the way, isn't totally in our control.

Like I said, ban diesel cars. Let lorries have diesel engines. Let ships have diesel engines. This would solve the carcinogen issues at a local and national level.

 

[Houghsx]

Good, glad I cleared that up.

The issue with diesel cars is at a local and national level - they release carcinogens that are harmful when breathed in. The only way to stop this is to ban diesel cars. But then you have to ask about lorries. Well, they can remain diesel. The number of lorries on the road pales in comparison to cars and vans and it would not be economical to suggest that this country could survive with petrol engines powering lorries as the logistics industry couldn't fund it. The same goes for shipping - which by the way, isn't totally in our control.

Like I said, ban diesel cars. Let lorries have diesel engines. Let ships have diesel engines. This would solve the carcinogen issues at a local and national level.

So what about the cars already in service then?

 

[hilly81]

Good, glad I cleared that up.

The issue with diesel cars is at a local and national level - they release carcinogens that are harmful when breathed in. The only way to stop this is to ban diesel cars. But then you have to ask about lorries. Well, they can remain diesel. The number of lorries on the road pales in comparison to cars and vans and it would not be economical to suggest that this country could survive with petrol engines powering lorries as the logistics industry couldn't fund it. The same goes for shipping - which by the way, isn't totally in our control.

Like I said, ban diesel cars. Let lorries have diesel engines. Let ships have diesel engines. This would solve the carcinogen issues at a local and national level.

It's ok saying ban diesel cars but what about the millions already in service?

 

[hilly81]

So what about the cars already in service then?

Beat me to it!

 

[JACUPRA280]

So what about the cars already in service then?

I would give all diesel cars already in service a 3-4 year grace period (or until the end of their lease period), after which they must be declared off the road. People can keep them but they can't be driven on public roads. 3-4 years in my opinion is a respectable time frame for people to make other arrangements.

In addition, I would not expect the consumer to pay the brunt cost of their change to a non-diesel car, which let's be honest would not be fair as the Government has shoved diesel down our throats over the last 10 years. So, people with an already in service diesel would be able to apply for a grant to help them buy a new, clean petrol car - with eligibility requirements so the system isn't gamed.

 

[Houghsx]

I would give all diesel cars already in service a 3-4 year grace period, after which they must be declared off the road. People can keep them but they can't be driven on public roads. 3-4 years in my opinion is a respectable time frame for people to make other arrangements.

In addition, I would not expect the consumer to pay the brunt cost of their change to a non-diesel car, which let's be honest would not be fair as the Government has shoved diesel down our throats over the last 10 years. So, people with an already in service diesel car can apply for a grant to help them buy a new, clean petrol car - with eligibility requirements so the system isn't gamed.

So what's to stop manufactures to suddenly increase the price of petrol models as demand for them ramps up considerably? People wouldn't have a choice so would be an easy thing to do.

 

[JACUPRA280]

So what's to stop manufactures to suddenly increase the price of petrol models as demand for them ramps up considerably? People wouldn't have a choice so would be an easy thing to do.

I'm speaking here about something that hasn't happened yet, so I can't give you an accurate answer. But what I can do is say what I would do.

And so, the simple answer is - regulation.

If it were me overlooking the diesel ban, this process would be overlooked by the Government and the EU (if we are still even in the EU by then), and they would regulate the industry. Not to a point where they dictate car pricing but to a point that it is fair for the consumer so that they don't get ripped off.

 

[Houghsx]

I'm speaking here about something that hasn't happened yet, so I can't give you an accurate answer. But what I can do is say what I would do.

And so, the simple answer is - regulation.

If it were me overlooking the diesel ban, this process would be overlooked by the Government and the EU (if we are still even in the EU by then), and they would regulate the industry. Not to a point where they dictate car pricing but to a point that it is fair for the consumer so that they don't get ripped off.

But is it fair to the consumer that has to fork out for a new car they didn't want?
I just cant see that working tbh. The alternative solution could be to develop engines that are attractive to the consumer so when they replace their car they will naturally migrate to the better option. Lets not pretend petrol is a clean source either (not comparing to diesel) whilst it has got better its not exactly environmentally friendly either.

 

[JACUPRA280]

But is it fair to the consumer that has to fork out for a new car they didn't want?
I just cant see that working tbh. The alternative solution could be to develop engines that are attractive to the consumer so when they replace their car they will naturally migrate to the better option. Lets not pretend petrol is a clean source either (not comparing to diesel) whilst it has got better its not exactly environmentally friendly either.

I think you're missing the point - diesel is carcinogenic, petrol is not. The issue here is with carcinogens so petrol is environmentally-friendly compared to it. For example, my Seat Leon Cupra 280 with a 2.0-litre turbocharged petrol engine is less harmful to the people I drive past than a 1.2 TDI because it isn't emitting a substance that is scientifically proven to cause cancer. We can all point a finger at petrol not being tree-huggingly friendly but petrol is the only solution right now.

Is it fair to the consumer that they have to fork out for a new car? No. But they don't have to buy a new car, they can buy whatever petrol car they like (it'll still be cleaner than a diesel) - and like I said, there should be help from the Government to do so. And I'm sorry, but an outright ban on the sale of new diesels is the only solution and for diesel cars already in service a target needs to be set for them all to be off the road.

 

[golfhappy]

Petrol contains hydrocarbons which benzene is part of and is clearly a carcinogen, due to its chemical structure. Delocalised electrons! Again thats why mechanics wear rubber gloves nowadays. Even an oil change, everyday hands covered in the waste oil.

 

[sydoggkdy]

Yep, it's spot on and I hope it comes true. Diesel is the fuel of satan. Commence

I don't normally comment on these things, I just like to read others thoughts however, diesel being the fuel of satans is nonsense and you shouldn't say anything whilst you drive a petrol car.

Let me refer you to the BBC GCSE Bitesize for educating children. When the scientists make petrol for you, they inadvertently make diesel as well, so please, enlighten us with your proposal for getting rid of the Satan's fuel.

I recommend dumping in the oceans as I don't like fish, hell... why not put it in the rivers, I don't much care for salmon either.

Si

 

[JACUPRA280]

I don't normally comment on these things, I just like to read others thoughts however, diesel being the fuel of satans is nonsense and you shouldn't say anything whilst you drive a petrol car.

Let me refer you to the BBC GCSE Bitesize for educating children. When the scientists make petrol for you, they inadvertently make diesel as well, so please, enlighten us with your proposal for getting ride of the Satan's fuel.

I recommend dumping in the oceans as I don't like fish, hell... why not put it in the rivers, I don't much care for salmon either.

Si

So, what's your point?

 

[golfhappy]

Petrol contains hydrocarbons which benzene is part of and is clearly a carcinogen, due to its chemical structure. Delocalised electrons! Again thats why mechanics wear rubber gloves nowadays. Even an oil change, everyday hands covered in the waste oil.

quote: The harmful effects of lead compounds in the environment led to the introduction of unleaded petrol. Unleaded petrol requires a greater proportion of branched hydrocarbons to increase the efficiency of burning in the absence of the lead compounds.
Concern was expressed at the presence of BENZENE a known carcinogen(cancer causing substance) in petrol.

Leaded 4* 1.9%
unleaded 2.4%
Super unleaded 2.9%

Which fuel does one put in you car?

 

[sydoggkdy]

So, what's your point?

If you ban diesel cars, there will be a waste product which isn't allowed to be used. It will gather in landfills, be dumped in the sea and will end up causing an erin brockovich style situation, so for as long as one uses petrol, another will use diesel.

Si

 

[JACUPRA280]

If you ban diesel cars, there will be a waste product which isn't allowed to be used. It will gather in landfills, be dumped in the sea and will end up causing an erin brockovich style situation, so for as long as one uses petrol, another will use diesel.

Si

Sorry, but diesel is not really a byproduct of petrol at all. And even your image shows this:

You refine crude oil by boiling it. Petrol boils off around 120 C, diesel at over 200 C.

For every barrel of oil, more gasoline is produced than diesel. You get petrol before you get diesel.

So in no way is petrol to be blamed for the continued development of diesel.

 

[JACUPRA280]

Anyway, I'm bored of this thread now. I've made my points. Enjoy