DaveinOlyWA
Posts: 12788
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2010 7:43 pm
Delivery Date: 10 Nov 2016
Leaf Number: 314199
Location: Olympia, WA
Contact: Website

Re: Volkswagen Group Massive Emissions Fraud Scheme

Sun Dec 10, 2017 4:40 pm

SageBrush wrote:
DaveinOlyWA wrote:My take? VW is done, who's next?

Are you talking about the VW that is up is ~ 75% in stock price since dieselgate knocked down the stock price ?


no. only legalese
2011 SL; 44,598 miles. 2013 S; 44,840 miles.2016 S30 deceased. 29,413 miles. 2018 S40; 2483 miles, 490 GIDs, 38.2 Ahr available, SOH 99.30, Hx 114.37
My Blog; http://daveinolywa.blogspot.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
IssacZachary
Forum Supporter
Posts: 728
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2017 9:57 am
Delivery Date: 15 Nov 2016
Leaf Number: 420789
Location: Gunnison, CO, USA

Re: Volkswagen Group Massive Emissions Fraud Scheme

Sun Dec 10, 2017 11:17 pm

I read somewhere recently that the main VW defeat was to not send unburned fuel to the NOx trap for reducing the NOx. Is this true?? It sounds plausible. I wonder why they can't just use DEF instead.
2013 SL 50,000 miles.
12 bars until 44,300 miles on June 2, 2017. :D
11 bars current. :)
The Nissan Leaf is the fourth best long distance car for highway driving. >>Best Long Distance Cars<<

DaveinOlyWA
Posts: 12788
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2010 7:43 pm
Delivery Date: 10 Nov 2016
Leaf Number: 314199
Location: Olympia, WA
Contact: Website

Re: Volkswagen Group Massive Emissions Fraud Scheme

Mon Dec 11, 2017 9:37 am

IssacZachary wrote:I read somewhere recently that the main VW defeat was to not send unburned fuel to the NOx trap for reducing the NOx. Is this true?? It sounds plausible. I wonder why they can't just use DEF instead.


hmmm? not sure I have heard "that" excuse and there were many. I think the biggest issue was providing more power to the engines and that was the cause of the excess pollution.

I do remember a few buying them thinking they were so advanced because they had XX acceleration times AND got 45 mpg on the freeway which at the time was well over the norm. BOTH were simply outright lies. One lady I know took hers into the shop a few times because she did not drive fast and was struggling to hit the mid 30's...
2011 SL; 44,598 miles. 2013 S; 44,840 miles.2016 S30 deceased. 29,413 miles. 2018 S40; 2483 miles, 490 GIDs, 38.2 Ahr available, SOH 99.30, Hx 114.37
My Blog; http://daveinolywa.blogspot.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
IssacZachary
Forum Supporter
Posts: 728
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2017 9:57 am
Delivery Date: 15 Nov 2016
Leaf Number: 420789
Location: Gunnison, CO, USA

Re: Volkswagen Group Massive Emissions Fraud Scheme

Mon Dec 11, 2017 11:55 am

DaveinOlyWA wrote:I think the biggest issue was providing more power to the engines and that was the cause of the excess pollution.

Yes. I've heard that and also for getting better fuel mileage at the same time. But I still wonder what it is exactly that does that. How did they provide more power to the engine? Bigger engine? More boost? Less EGR? I know that the main emissions problems with diesels is NOx and PM. CO and HC are naturally lower in a diesel engine than a gasoline engine. But more power??

Actually that doesn't even make all that much sense to me. Most of the time you don't use full power, except during acceleration or on a very steep hill. In fact, all modern cars, with the exception of BEV's, really don't get rated emissions at full power. Ever smell that rotten egg like smell out of the exhaust of any car, old or new, that passes you, especially on an uphill incline? That's because at full throttle and high RPM's gasoline engines run richer than stoichiometric, not providing enough oxygen for the catalytic converter to burn up the unburned hydrocarbons and generally overwhelming the catalytic converter anyway. Actually you can't get gasoline engines to run at stoichiometric at full throttle without damaging the engine, unless you use something like water injection. So saying that power is what causes the engine to not meet emissions requirements doesn't quite make sense since it's expected not to get great emissions under full power anyway.

Still, even if the emissions at full power is the problem in a diesel VW, then what if a guy drove one around without ever gunning it? Would he get rated emissions that way? I mean, if I got a newer VW diesel and cruised across the country at part throttle, would my emissions be good? Maybe the emissions laws allows you to get more HC and CO emissions at high throttle (which is what gasoline engines do) but not NOx emissions (which is what diesel engines do)?? I really don't know and would like to be enlightened on what exactly is the defeat in the VW diesel scandal.

Spraying or not unburned fuel into the exhaust does make sense to me. A common way to reduce NOx emissions in many other diesel engines is through SCR (I've driven buses with this system) in which unburned diesel fuel is sprayed into the exhaust (for an example, it can be sprayed in the cylinder during the exhaust cycle), which reduces the NOx to N2 and CO2 and the rest of the fuel burns up in the catalytic converter into CO2 and H2O. The problem is a 10% to 20% loss in fuel mileage.

I love the fact that I can get good fuel mileage in my 1985 VW diesel. I can fill up here, drive over 600 miles and top off the tank with less than 11 gallons of fuel. I'm serious! I am not making up my numbers! In fact I'll be driving to my parent's in law in Texas in a couple weeks and know that I only have to fill up here. I'll make it there, over 600 miles away, still drive around for another week and only put in around 12 gallons before filling up and coming back home. I don't like the poor emissions, but I don't want to change it for something that either costs an arm and a leg to buy or that only gets less than stellar fuel mileage or that will become a maintenance nightmare or that also gets poor emissions. The Leaf is the only car that seems to fit all those criteria, except it doesn't like to go on long trips.
2013 SL 50,000 miles.
12 bars until 44,300 miles on June 2, 2017. :D
11 bars current. :)
The Nissan Leaf is the fourth best long distance car for highway driving. >>Best Long Distance Cars<<

lorenfb
Posts: 1667
Joined: Tue Dec 17, 2013 10:53 pm
Delivery Date: 22 Nov 2013
Leaf Number: 416635
Location: SoCal

Re: Volkswagen Group Massive Emissions Fraud Scheme

Mon Dec 11, 2017 2:58 pm

IssacZachary wrote:
DaveinOlyWA wrote:I think the biggest issue was providing more power to the engines and that was the cause of the excess pollution.

Yes. I've heard that and also for getting better fuel mileage at the same time. But I still wonder what it is exactly that does that. How did they provide more power to the engine? Bigger engine? More boost? Less EGR? I know that the main emissions problems with diesels is NOx and PM. CO and HC are naturally lower in a diesel engine than a gasoline engine. But more power??

Actually that doesn't even make all that much sense to me. Most of the time you don't use full power, except during acceleration or on a very steep hill. In fact, all modern cars, with the exception of BEV's, really don't get rated emissions at full power. Ever smell that rotten egg like smell out of the exhaust of any car, old or new, that passes you, especially on an uphill incline? That's because at full throttle and high RPM's gasoline engines run richer than stoichiometric, not providing enough oxygen for the catalytic converter to burn up the unburned hydrocarbons and generally overwhelming the catalytic converter anyway. Actually you can't get gasoline engines to run at stoichiometric at full throttle without damaging the engine, unless you use something like water injection. So saying that power is what causes the engine to not meet emissions requirements doesn't quite make sense since it's expected not to get great emissions under full power anyway.

Still, even if the emissions at full power is the problem in a diesel VW, then what if a guy drove one around without ever gunning it? Would he get rated emissions that way? I mean, if I got a newer VW diesel and cruised across the country at part throttle, would my emissions be good? Maybe the emissions laws allows you to get more HC and CO emissions at high throttle (which is what gasoline engines do) but not NOx emissions (which is what diesel engines do)?? I really don't know and would like to be enlightened on what exactly is the defeat in the VW diesel scandal.

Spraying or not unburned fuel into the exhaust does make sense to me. A common way to reduce NOx emissions in many other diesel engines is through SCR (I've driven buses with this system) in which unburned diesel fuel is sprayed into the exhaust (for an example, it can be sprayed in the cylinder during the exhaust cycle), which reduces the NOx to N2 and CO2 and the rest of the fuel burns up in the catalytic converter into CO2 and H2O. The problem is a 10% to 20% loss in fuel mileage.

I love the fact that I can get good fuel mileage in my 1985 VW diesel. I can fill up here, drive over 600 miles and top off the tank with less than 11 gallons of fuel. I'm serious! I am not making up my numbers! In fact I'll be driving to my parent's in law in Texas in a couple weeks and know that I only have to fill up here. I'll make it there, over 600 miles away, still drive around for another week and only put in around 12 gallons before filling up and coming back home. I don't like the poor emissions, but I don't want to change it for something that either costs an arm and a leg to buy or that only gets less than stellar fuel mileage or that will become a maintenance nightmare or that also gets poor emissions. The Leaf is the only car that seems to fit all those criteria, except it doesn't like to go on long trips.


Read the many posts up-thread which discuss your questions.

arnis
Posts: 822
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2016 3:21 pm
Delivery Date: 23 Jul 2014
Leaf Number: 015896
Location: Estonia, Europe

Re: Volkswagen Group Massive Emissions Fraud Scheme

Mon Dec 11, 2017 4:59 pm

DaveinOlyWA wrote:
Are you trying to make this defensible? WOW!! just WOW!

My take? VW is done, who's next?



hmmm? not sure I have heard "that" excuse and there were many. I think the biggest issue was providing more power to the engines and that was the cause of the excess pollution.


Well, you made a decision on somebody else's prosecution without even knowing what did they do wrong. Shame.


For those who are interested, long story no-so-short:
NOx can be either stopped by A - Lean NOx Trap or B - Selective Catalyst Reduction; LNT, SCR
VW chose A as it is cheaper and it can give good results when driven very carefully (aka emission testing procedure).
This doesn't work in real life well enough to get to latest NOx limit. It just doesn't. Plus making it work (when tested on rollers)
actually requires extra fuel to be burned in exhaust pipe - total waste of fuel and additional pollution (all pollutants except NOx).
So official fuel economy ratings (EPA city, highway, combined) are actually way worse than in real life driving, as no extra fuel is burned.
To reach latest NOx limits, MORE fuel must be burned if NOx treated by A. As ALL MANUFACTURERS are around 700% above
NOx limit in real life anyway, VW though that they won't bother burning any extra fuel and let rather less CO2, PM, CO out than
reduce NOx by adding lots of other pollutants. Which, actually, is reasonable. "Fix" to those vehicles can be done this way:
a) reduce maximum power and b) burn lots of extra fuel (NOx appears when very little fuel is used by engine, more you use, less NOx).

Why I like whan VW did is because NOx limit is just made up. It's just a number on the paper. And in this case, a mistake was made.
Whoever made/calculated that number didn't know unreasonable limit was introduced years ago. Unreasonable as in "how much
hidden pollution will happen if it will be applied".
Just stating difference in EU and in US.
EU - 0.5 in 2000, 0.25 in 2005, 0.18 in 2009, 0,08 in 2014 - as we see, gradual reduction over the years
US - 0.25 in 1994, 0.03 in 2004, 0.04 in 2017 - we see massive step and then 25% retreat in 2017.

In addition to that mistake introduced in 2004, testing procedure itself is nonsense. Actual pollution in real life is, on average,
7x more than these numbers state. And all others get away with it. Not VW due to "cheat software", which main mission in real
life was to stop burning extra fuel to get NOx level down to 7x above legal limit (like all others) as it is useless. It's better to burn
less fuel (therefore less fuel made, less fuel transported by truck to station) rather than try to reduce NOx. If I knew (and every
car manufacturer actually knows that) that EVERY diesel on the road is exceeding NOx limit by 700%, I would also write a code
that would stop burning fuel for fun. It's like shooting a horse with broken legs - it's better this way even though it seems cruel.

What actually happened is just pure absurd. In terms of Hippocratic oath "First, do no harm". Actually more harm was made.
Totally fine vehicles were scrapped. This is very very bad in terms of the whole "environmental game". Which is the second proof
that whole story was not about environment. First one was incorrect NOx limit (as in "do no harm", which it does).
Third proof is the fact that real emissions (compared to limits) are still way more than the limit allows. Therefore limit is more
like a "reference" rather than actual limit. Funny part is that somebody actually went to jail for breaking the limit "too much".

Fun fact: did you know emission limits are being rolled back to more relaxed numbers soon due to new real driving measuring
procedures and that current limits are mostly not achievable by manufacturers.
https://www.autovistagroup.com/news-and ... ions-tests
Short range EVs <30kWh -- Medium range: 30-60kWh -- Long range: >60kWh
Charging: Trickle <3kW -- Normal 3-22kW -- Fast 50-100kW -- Supercharging >100kW

User avatar
IssacZachary
Forum Supporter
Posts: 728
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2017 9:57 am
Delivery Date: 15 Nov 2016
Leaf Number: 420789
Location: Gunnison, CO, USA

Re: Volkswagen Group Massive Emissions Fraud Scheme

Mon Dec 11, 2017 6:20 pm

Ah! So I was right about how the device works! NOx trap without the extra fuel spray.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQ4irwe3ZDk

I'm not saying cheating on emissions is ok, but I wonder if a lot of this has to do with the gasoline standard. If diesels have to produce the NOx level that's possible with a gasoline engine then why not make gasoline engines produce the HC, VOC and CO emissions that are possible with a diesel engine?

Engine efficiency is limited by the compression ratio. My diesel has a 23:1 compression ratio. It's no wonder the VW XL1 gets twice the fuel mileage the Aptera did.
2013 SL 50,000 miles.
12 bars until 44,300 miles on June 2, 2017. :D
11 bars current. :)
The Nissan Leaf is the fourth best long distance car for highway driving. >>Best Long Distance Cars<<

GRA
Posts: 8176
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: Volkswagen Group Massive Emissions Fraud Scheme

Mon Mar 12, 2018 5:27 pm

Via GCC:
Australian study finds VW diesel using up to 14% more fuel in real world driving after emissions upgrade
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2018/03/australian-study-finds-vw-diesel-using-up-to-14-more-fuel-in-real-world-driving-after-emissions-upgr.html

. . . Conducted in partnership with the Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile (FIA), the real world testing was commissioned to quantify performance changes associated with the software upgrades being implemented on affected vehicles. . . .

In late 2016, AAA commissioned research firm ABMARC to run two tests on an affected VW vehicle—one before recall and one immediately after.

The test result indicates that a 2010 model Euro 5 VW Golf used an average of 7% more fuel (0.5 liters/100 km) after it had the recall completed. This ranged from using 2% more fuel while driving in urban areas, 7% more fuel on rural roads and 14% while driving on highways.

The tests showed a reduction in emissions of NOx carbon monoxide and particulate matter occurred after the recall fix. However, the NOx emissions were still 4.11 times the laboratory limit after the recall when tested under real driving conditions. . . .

The results show that VW may have found a fix for reducing the level of noxious NOx emissions but as a result, the amount of fuel used has increased. The testing also indicated that both power and torque had increased slightly after the recall fix. The testing further supports the AAA’s call for a real-world emission testing program in Australia. . . .


Related, also GCC:
European Commission publishes draft proposal to tighten up car emissions testing
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2018/03/20180310-ec.html

. . . New and improved car emissions tests have been mandatory since 1 September 2017: tests in real driving conditions (“Real Driving Emissions” – RDE) and an improved laboratory test (“World Harmonised Light Vehicle Test Procedure” – WLTP).

The Commission is tightening the screws further by improving these tests and introducing more controls to guarantee that vehicles already in circulation are in conformity with the emission limits.

The proposal which is open for consultation aims at reducing margins of technical uncertainty in RDE testing; increasing emissions checks of cars in circulation; and testing by independent and accredited third parties.

The Commission also proposes to improve the WLTP procedure by eliminating test flexibilities and introducing for the first time on-board fuel and/or electric energy consumption monitoring, thereby making it possible to compare laboratory results for CO2 emissions with the average real driving situation. . . .
Guy [I have lots of experience designing/selling off-grid AE systems, some using EVs but don't own one. Local trips are by foot, bike and/or rapid transit].

The 'best' is the enemy of 'good enough'. Copper shot, not Silver bullets.

Return to “Business / Economy and Politics”