I wonder how many TDI engines it takes to equal the emissions output of my Cat C12 in the Frankenliner. 
CK5
Register an account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members.
VW TDI Owners seen this?
- Thread starter 70jimmy
- Start date
The story I saw earlier today said the software was designed to detect when the vehicle was undergoing emissions testing. Steering position, combined with certain 'driving' parameters, in all probably a half dozen or more cues that the car wasn't just being driven normally. When those conditions were met, the emissions devices worked as they were supposed to and the car passed. Then the emissions crap went back to 'sleep' mode. That's what VW has already admitted to. This wasn't some hidden magazine tune...
Anyone running a newer diesel that is compliant can attest to the power and fuel economy losses. This is a big reason, if it's even slower than expected, and gets 'meh' fuel mileage who is gonna buy one? It's not like they're cheaper to buy than the gasoline equivalent model.
Anyone running a newer diesel that is compliant can attest to the power and fuel economy losses. This is a big reason, if it's even slower than expected, and gets 'meh' fuel mileage who is gonna buy one? It's not like they're cheaper to buy than the gasoline equivalent model.
I think they took advantage of "dyno mode".
My old Mercedes had a dyno mode too. It basically allows the car to spin the rollers for testing without having things like airbags, yaw sensors and other wheel speed sensors (non driven wheels) from throwing all sorts of error codes.
Getting into dyno mode is kind of like a hidden "Easter Egg"... Ignition switch to the 2nd position, hit the odometer reset button 3 times, then scroll through a newly revealed display menu to select "dyno mode".
The cool thing on the Mercedes was that it disabled all of the aggressive computer controls that prevented wheel spin, so the car became much more "analog" and ferocious. Fun, but extremely dangerous.
-G
My old Mercedes had a dyno mode too. It basically allows the car to spin the rollers for testing without having things like airbags, yaw sensors and other wheel speed sensors (non driven wheels) from throwing all sorts of error codes.
Getting into dyno mode is kind of like a hidden "Easter Egg"... Ignition switch to the 2nd position, hit the odometer reset button 3 times, then scroll through a newly revealed display menu to select "dyno mode".
The cool thing on the Mercedes was that it disabled all of the aggressive computer controls that prevented wheel spin, so the car became much more "analog" and ferocious. Fun, but extremely dangerous.
-G
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2000
- Posts
- 9,123
- Reaction score
- 7,077
Yep could be a good stock investment!!!
I guess VW can go two ways here. The engines CAN pass emissions as-is, so either they enable emissions all the time, or pay billions to retrofit something like DEF to every car.
I wonder if they'd be able to enable emissions all the time, and not get sued by the consumer. The MPG numbers are EPA, so does that mean those are "worst case" numbers? How about the HP/TQ figures? Who generates those? I just spoke with an owner, he says if his gets "fixed" and MPG goes down, he's not going to be happy, that's why he bought the car.
A much bigger scale, but my experience is with garbage trucks. The truck I trained on and drove for three years is an old girl. 2000 Volvo, with an L10 Cummins and a 5 speed Allison. My Peterbilt is a 2013, with a newer version of the same engine and a 6 speed Allison (lower rpms on the highway).
The Volvo would average 90-100 litres per day...12 hour day, 200-250 km.
My Pete averages 130 litres per day...12 hour day, less than 200 km per day.
Power wise, they both make approx 300-320 hp. I think the Volvo is still a bit faster.
Every truck with Re-Gen has been significantly worse on fuel. With the DEF it's a little better.
On the positive side the exhaust pipe outlet on my Pete I could wipe the inside of with my fingers and have completely clean hands. Do the same on any of the older trucks and your hand would be black. It definitely runs super clean...
The Volvo would average 90-100 litres per day...12 hour day, 200-250 km.
My Pete averages 130 litres per day...12 hour day, less than 200 km per day.
Power wise, they both make approx 300-320 hp. I think the Volvo is still a bit faster.
Every truck with Re-Gen has been significantly worse on fuel. With the DEF it's a little better.
On the positive side the exhaust pipe outlet on my Pete I could wipe the inside of with my fingers and have completely clean hands. Do the same on any of the older trucks and your hand would be black. It definitely runs super clean...
I don't see an actual statement that proves what I was told today, but what I heard sounds like a pretty simple cheat...only front wheels turning, dyno mode. All four turning, road mode. http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/vw-emissio...s-how-volkswagen-alleged-have-cheated-1520698 As I understand it the emissions testing is done with a car on a dyno, thus front wheels only turning during testing. Might need to be a bit more complex, but pretty simple solution if that was part of it.
If it was indeed a "dyno cheat", that means the MPG numbers are inflated (and the EPA figures are already supposedly the worst you can achieve) so that 50MPG EPA number should do down. That's really going to suck for owners. Even 10 percent gets it into the gas MPG range.
If it was indeed a "dyno cheat", that means the MPG numbers are inflated (and the EPA figures are already supposedly the worst you can achieve) so that 50MPG EPA number should do down. That's really going to suck for owners. Even 10 percent gets it into the gas MPG range.
Guess we should all stick to old Chevy trucks then.
Link to the actual violation letter from the EPA
http://www3.epa.gov/otaq/cert/documents/vw-nov-caa-09-18-15.pdf
As you can see in the chart, the EPA has gotten pretty crazy with how much they want to reduce diesel emissions in a short span of years. For reference 2010 is .01 g/bhp*hr particulate matter. The next set of standards in 2018ish is supposed to move to .001
I have been part of a few projects dealing with diesels and emissions and have been at a few different emissions labs (including the one that discovered the VW problem) Even a lot of the engineers think some of the limits are just not economical. Take a look at the semi industry glider trucks have become a large market because of the maintenance costs of the newer trucks.
I was working on a 2012 DD15 and it blew an injector tip. Well that in turn sent raw fuel to the DPF, SCR DOC and totaled the after treatment to the tune of $15K + $5K for the injectors.
New Diesels are so clean that in many areas of the country they actually clean the air, but of course the EPA wants it cleaner.
http://www3.epa.gov/otaq/cert/documents/vw-nov-caa-09-18-15.pdf
As you can see in the chart, the EPA has gotten pretty crazy with how much they want to reduce diesel emissions in a short span of years. For reference 2010 is .01 g/bhp*hr particulate matter. The next set of standards in 2018ish is supposed to move to .001
I have been part of a few projects dealing with diesels and emissions and have been at a few different emissions labs (including the one that discovered the VW problem) Even a lot of the engineers think some of the limits are just not economical. Take a look at the semi industry glider trucks have become a large market because of the maintenance costs of the newer trucks.
I was working on a 2012 DD15 and it blew an injector tip. Well that in turn sent raw fuel to the DPF, SCR DOC and totaled the after treatment to the tune of $15K + $5K for the injectors.
New Diesels are so clean that in many areas of the country they actually clean the air, but of course the EPA wants it cleaner.
F*** the e.p.a. 
Kudos to VW...
Kudos to VW...
My plan has backfired. I totally was giving Richard lots of $hit last night.
Fock you guys
Fock you guys
I'm still a little confused about the "emissions tests" the articles are talking about.
Is this the initial test given to the vehicle? To see if all the other vehicles will pass the standard?
In CA, if your vehicle is 2000+, it doesn't actually get emission tested and thus doesn't see the rollers. It is plugged into the smogger's computer via OBD2 port and the system is checked. That's it.
If it's a diesel, they plug into the truck and romp the gas a couple times. Then the guy jumps out and looks for smoke. No rollers and no sniffer. Only a system and smoke check. That's it.
So, according to all the smog check guys (who pay $$$$$$$$ to be certified) all these cars are passing a test CARB/EPA came up with.
I don't get it
Is this the initial test given to the vehicle? To see if all the other vehicles will pass the standard?
In CA, if your vehicle is 2000+, it doesn't actually get emission tested and thus doesn't see the rollers. It is plugged into the smogger's computer via OBD2 port and the system is checked. That's it.
If it's a diesel, they plug into the truck and romp the gas a couple times. Then the guy jumps out and looks for smoke. No rollers and no sniffer. Only a system and smoke check. That's it.
So, according to all the smog check guys (who pay $$$$$$$$ to be certified) all these cars are passing a test CARB/EPA came up with.
I don't get it
It is the initial test to certify the drivetrain for sale to the public.
This is why manufacturers stopped allowing all the different combinations/options of gear ratios, transmissions, engines, etc. It is an expensive process to get a drivetrain certified through the EPA, thus, less options, less cost to the manufacturer and the consumer.
Make no mistake, the consumer is the one eating the costs of the EPA/safety rules.
This is why manufacturers stopped allowing all the different combinations/options of gear ratios, transmissions, engines, etc. It is an expensive process to get a drivetrain certified through the EPA, thus, less options, less cost to the manufacturer and the consumer.
Make no mistake, the consumer is the one eating the costs of the EPA/safety rules.
CA is nice here in NC it's 96 up for OBD2 plug in test. Coal rollers get a safety only.
^^^ and anything 35 years or older is 100% exempt from safety and emissions inspections. Scary thought I know... . It's nice though, nobody trying to tell me my junk isn't safe to drive.
yeah but bring a classic from another like my Chevelle and try to title it can be FUN in NC.
And it's so stupid, I feel dumber after watching the smog guy do it.
I didn't finish the thread but I find this quote really interesting. I get the similar highway fuel economy going fast as I do slow. I get about 37-39 on a mixed city highway tank. That means serious city driving mixed in. For example I sat on a freeway ramp for 20 minutes Friday after work.
When I drive 55mph I get high 40s easy.
When I drive 85mph for extended times and drive like I completely don't care about anything at all I get can still get 45mpg.
I couldn't make a comparison to pre-85mph because my car probably went faster than that the day I bought it, but I will say the epa far underestimates the mileage on these. If I could get rid of the stupid after burn thing it does and get a new tune when I'm out of warranty I bet my car could perform significantly better in terms of power and fuel economy. Some folks are reporting reliable 600mile tanks (I can only get that on pure responsible highway driving.) and major increases in power with minimal work.
I'm trying not to be super concerned about what is next for my car. I've read rumors of buy backs. The biggest worry would be living in Mass. If I can't pass inspection because of this issue it'll be a big problem. I really don't want to put in blue stuff.
They said 40 times the allowable limit. Not agreeing or disagreeing with the EPA rules, just what they've said the magnitude is.
I'm sure at some point, most if not all of the trucks on here were well over 40 times the allowed limit when something went wrong.
I don't know as they were looking out for consumers, so much as they were looking for consumers. Going to be tough to sell a diesel that gets bad economy and has no power. Even as advertised (are those emissions defeat MPG, or not?) the economy isn't that great on them IMO, the price and economy of the same car in gas is close enough that it's hard to justify the TDI.
The economy is far better than advertised. I get more than double the mileage from my last car that was advertised to get 24-29mpg. I save easily $100 a month on fuel during ski season. There was only about a 3k difference in the gas car. I've had mine for two years and have already saved a rough estimate of about 2k in fuel.
This is after 211 miles of driving.
I should add that that was top down.
