Volkswagen

Addickted

Surprised that there's not a thread on this.

The boss of Volkswagen's US business has admitted the firm was dishonest in using software to rig tough Californian emissions tests, saying "We have totally screwed up." Last Friday, the regulators said VW diesel cars had much higher emissions than tests had suggested. VW have had to recall over 482,000 cars and could face fines of up to £18bn or £26k per vehicle

Apparently, as we work a different system in the UK, it couldn't happen here........ or at least there is 'no evidence' of cheating. However, this could be just the tip of the iceberg.

I'm amazed that such a reputable German manufacturing company can play fast and loose like this. And if VW can do, I'm sure a few other manufacturers have at least thought of it.

Perhaps Captain Mainwaring had it right.....'Typical underhand Nazi trick'.

Algarveaddick

Someone suggested that other manufacturers could sue as well. Their point being that some people may have bought a VW rather than, for example, a Ford, on the basis that it had lower emissions?

charltonkeston

If VW are at it I'm inclined to think others are.

bobmunro

There will be others - and not just German manufacturers.

So many new cars sold are company cars and the benefit in kind tax is based on emissions (one of the reasons I've got a plug-in hybrid on order!!). HMRC might be interested in this!

Road Fund Licence is also based on emissions and again that could get incredibly messy with DVLA perhaps also having a claim against manufacturers for loss of revenue.

So choosing a low emissions car isn't just tree-huggers showing concern for the environment - there's also something financial in it for them.

This latest controversy is in the USA but as I said there will be other manufacturers up to the same trick and selling into the UK market.

Chizz

Algarveaddick said:

Someone suggested that other manufacturers could sue as well. Their point being that some people may have bought a VW rather than, for example, a Ford, on the basis that it had lower emissions?

That opens up a really interesting conundrum. You're absolutely right: if another manufacturer has lost sales because VW has been cheating the system, then surely they're going to sue. Unless... they have been cheating the system too.

So, in other words, they have to decide whether they should sue on the basis that they won't be caught cheating as well; or they choose not to sue, and, by not suing, they attracts suspicion!

soapy_jones

"Expert" on R4 this morning reckons it is common industry practice.

The fact everyone is on the fiddle normally dictates the level of fallout.

The States as usual are ahead of the game when it comes to punative action. I am rounding up figures because i have a goldfish brain but the fine is $350k per car sold, so a potential fine for VW of potentially $7b, their turnover was only €6b.

Sorry forgotten what i typed already!

cafcfan

Addickted said:

I'm amazed that such a reputable German manufacturing company can play fast and loose like this.

They are not reputable though - far from it. For example, despite well documented instances of vast numbers of DRC (dynamic ride control) systems failing on an earlier RS6 model, Audi (part of VW) put the self-same system on its next RS model the RS4. The system was (and maybe still is for all I know) a complete crock of shit and caused frequent suspension replacements to be needed because the suspension leaked the hydraulic fluid. Some cars had these parts replaced four times or more. Out of warranty, the replacement cost was horrendous. Most owners of these cars have deactivated the system, fitted KW or Ohlin coilovers instead, and now have a much better handling car.

So, Audi couldn't give a shit about looking after customers for their top of the range models. Except in the USA of course where they were threatened with a class action.

I'd never buy another car from the VW Group.

sam3110

VW own Audi, Lamborghini, Bugatti, Skoda, Seat, Bentley, Suzuki, Scania, Ducati and Porsche. That's a hell of a lot of cars that they've been fiddling

killerandflash

It's gonna be expensive, we know how expensive legal actions can be in the US, and the Americans like cracking down on foreign corporations....

nichorob

Some analyst on Sky this morning predicted there is more to be revealed and that they could go under.

bobmunro

nichorob said:

Some analyst on Sky this morning predicted there is more to be revealed and that they could go under.

They are the world's biggest car manufacturer and employ over half a million people. They won't be allowed to go under.

Fumbluff

So they are labelled as bad for cheating the emission system yet my new car just rocked up and has another filler cap inside the boot for something called "Adblue", this is a chemical that is added to the diesel in order to gain lower CO2 emissions (which is good so I pay less BIK on it). Each "tank" of Adblue is supposed to last 10,000 miles and once run out, in accordance with EU law the engine is not allowed to start (as it would be expelling much more CO2) so you need to get the car into a garage to have this refilled. This is the "legal" way to get falsely lower CO2 emissions for your car.....

ShootersHillGuru

sam3110 said:

VW own Audi, Lamborghini, Bugatti, Skoda, Seat, Bentley, Suzuki, Scania, Ducati and Porsche. That's a hell of a lot of cars that they've been fiddling

Shit. I wonder if my Bugatti is ok ?

nichorob

ShootersHillGuru said:

sam3110 said:

VW own Audi, Lamborghini, Bugatti, Skoda, Seat, Bentley, Suzuki, Scania, Ducati and Porsche. That's a hell of a lot of cars that they've been fiddling

Shit. I wonder if my Bugatti is ok ?

i'm sweating too, only bought it for the tax band.

guinnessaddick

Addickted said:

. VW have had to recall over 482,000 cars and could face fines of up to £18bn or £26k per vehicle.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34325005

VW emissions scandal hits 11m vehicles.

WSS

Dunno why people are bothered, global warming is a complete myth.

cafcfan

To cope with the recalls in Germany, they have already set up special roadside stations:

Lincsaddick

What I don't get is that if the anti test software can control the emissions on demand, then why is the software not in use all the time ? ... could it be because emissions are only checked when the vehicle is stationary as in our UK MOT test ?

cafcfan

Lincsaddick said:

What I don't get is that if the anti test software can control the emissions on demand, then why is the software not in use all the time ? ... could it be because emissions are only checked when the vehicle is stationary as in our UK MOT test ?

A good question. I suppose there could be any number of answers: it might break the engine over time, acceleration characteristics would be unacceptable to the driver, easier to stall on hill starts, that sort of thing maybe?

bobmunro

Lincsaddick said:

What I don't get is that if the anti test software can control the emissions on demand, then why is the software not in use all the time ? ... could it be because emissions are only checked when the vehicle is stationary as in our UK MOT test ?

The official emissions tests are usually carried out on pre-production models in the manufacturer's laboratory. The software is excluded from production models - presumably because it saves money and/or improves the car's performance.

ShootersHillGuru

Lincsaddick said:

What I don't get is that if the anti test software can control the emissions on demand, then why is the software not in use all the time ? ... could it be because emissions are only checked when the vehicle is stationary as in our UK MOT test ?

Prolonged use of the "cleaner emissions" would result in a huge build up in the particulates not being discharged to atmosphere. Engine would fail very quickly.

Lincsaddick

cafcfan said:

Lincsaddick said:

What I don't get is that if the anti test software can control the emissions on demand, then why is the software not in use all the time ? ... could it be because emissions are only checked when the vehicle is stationary as in our UK MOT test ?

A good question. I suppose there could be any number of answers: it might break the engine over time, acceleration characteristics would be unacceptable to the driver, easier to stall on hill starts, that sort of thing maybe?

ShootersHillGuru said:

Lincsaddick said:

What I don't get is that if the anti test software can control the emissions on demand, then why is the software not in use all the time ? ... could it be because emissions are only checked when the vehicle is stationary as in our UK MOT test ?

Prolonged use of the "cleaner emissions" would result in a huge build up in the particulates not being discharged to atmosphere. Engine would fail very quickly.

bobmunro said:

Lincsaddick said:

What I don't get is that if the anti test software can control the emissions on demand, then why is the software not in use all the time ? ... could it be because emissions are only checked when the vehicle is stationary as in our UK MOT test ?

The official emissions tests are usually carried out on pre-production models in the manufacturer's laboratory. The software is excluded from production models - presumably because it saves money and/or improves the car's performance.

Thanks gents.. I suspect that S H G has the right(est) answer (>)

limeygent

Fumbluff said:

So they are labelled as bad for cheating the emission system yet my new car just rocked up and has another filler cap inside the boot for something called "Adblue", this is a chemical that is added to the diesel in order to gain lower CO2 emissions (which is good so I pay less BIK on it). Each "tank" of Adblue is supposed to last 10,000 miles and once run out, in accordance with EU law the engine is not allowed to start (as it would be expelling much more CO2) so you need to get the car into a garage to have this refilled. This is the "legal" way to get falsely lower CO2 emissions for your car.....

"Adblue" converts nitrogen oxide into water vapor and nitrogen, it has little or no effect on CO2 emissions. I believe it was invented by Mercedes, and is used in their "Bluetec" diesels. Many new medium-sized and large trucks here in the U.S. are using the same technology.
I own one of the effected VWs, and await with interest a "fix", as I couldn't be more pleased with the performance and fuel mileage.

Fumbluff

What does it "effect" then? What is the point of it?

PL54

It doesn't effect anything.

I am surprised about it all but the CEO has hands up accepted that the company is a fault. It must be standard across the industry VW are not alone in this.

20% off share price today - someone's getting the bullet.

limeygent

Fumbluff said:

What does it "effect" then? What is the point of it?

The point of it is to get rid of the nitrogen oxide.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/terms/nitrogen_oxide.htm

Fumbluff

That doesn't help my tax bill, I'm sending it back....

MuttleyCAFC

It puzzles me how they thought this was worth the risk given the damage the fallout would cause. The only thing I can think of is that more car companies are at it. Maybe this story is just the beginning.

Red_in_SE8

I am sure The Sunday Times have been reporting on the software that detects when a car is being tested being used by all the European car manufacturers for at least 18 months.

limeygent

Red_in_SE8 said:

I am sure The Sunday Times have been reporting on the software that detects when a car is being tested being used by all the European car manufacturers for at least 18 months.

That's being reported in The U.S. also, and that VW have been questioned about the practice several times, and have failed to respond.

Lincsaddick

MuttleyCAFC said:

It puzzles me how they thought this was worth the risk given the damage the fallout would cause. The only thing I can think of is that more car companies are at it. Maybe this story is just the beginning.

the car magazines and web sites almost always state after road tests that the vehicle in question does nothing like the mileage per litre/gallon that the manufacturers claim. In the past this has been put down to advertising fluffery .. we now know better.