back to article Volkswagen: 800,000 of our cars may have cheated in CO2 tests

Volkswagen says it has found "unexplained inconsistencies" in carbon dioxide emission tests affecting 800,000 of its vehicles. The automaker fears the CO2 test oddness could cost it about 2bn euros ($2.19bn) to put right. VW is already in deep trouble after its diesel engines were programmed to lower their nitrogen oxide (NO …

  1. koswix
    Mushroom

    Tax bands

    Could this lead to tax band regrading, and potential increased VED for owners? If so, odont put that chequebook away just yet, VW.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      A German lawyer acquaintance with a BlueMotion Passat diesel...

      has already cheerfully said that the moment that it costs an eurocent (in increased tax, being barred from inner-city eco zones, increased fuel consumption, decreased resale value) for which VW doesn't compensate him in full then he'll sue to have the original purchase contract revoked on the grounds that the vehicle sold was knowingly misrepresented on its fundamental aspect (the BlueMotion bit), meaning that the full purchase price is refunded upon the return of the vehicle.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: A German lawyer acquaintance with a BlueMotion Passat diesel...

        The German government would probably step in to prevent that, because if VW goes bankrupt it would put a massive dent in the German economy.

      2. Turtle

        Re: A German lawyer acquaintance with a BlueMotion Passat diesel...

        "A German lawyer acquaintance he'll sue to have the full purchase price is refunded upon the return of the vehicle."

        He's probably not the only VW owner thinking this.

        What happens if so many people sue for refunds that VW can not afford to pay them all back? The whole VW matter could end up in the bankruptcy courts of many different countries, provinces, states. Years and years could be required to determine how much should be paid to what class of claimants and over how many years those repayments and refunds should be spread, how much class-action and bankruptcy lawyers should receive out of the likely-insufficient funds available from VW's corporate corpse, and so forth - and this could need to take place in many different jurisdictions! Will those judgements need to be harmonized in some way, or will the judgements be satisfied on a "first come, first serve" basis?

        And the available funds will certainly be greatly reduced by various government fines and penalties, from at least some of which bankruptcy courts can not shield a petitioner.

        In the likely case that there are not enough funds to satisfy all claims, it would be surprising if the courts decided that the use gotten from the cars by the buyers had no value at all and gave the buyers all available funds to the detriment of other claimants.

        If your friend wants a full refund, he needs to get his lawsuit started today.

        1. Ogi

          Re: A German lawyer acquaintance with a BlueMotion Passat diesel...

          I strongly suspect the German government would bail out VW. They bailed out the banks already , despite it being a bad idea economically, and not really benefiting the average person (in fact it harmed them, but that is a story for another time).

          I would imagine that given the choice between printing some more Euro's and bailing out VW, or watching as Germany's biggest employer collapses (along with a lot of now disgruntled voters looking to blame someone for their woes, and more people on benefits), politicians will happily spend other peoples money just so the collapse doesn't happen on their watch.

          1. toughluck

            Re: A German lawyer acquaintance with a BlueMotion Passat diesel...

            France was barred (mostly by Germany) from bailing out PSA Peugeot Citroën two years ago when they posted a 5 billion € loss. PSA had to sell some assets (notably GEFCO) and also sell off an 18% stake of the company to Dongfeng.

            France would be the first in line to prevent Germany from trying to bail out Volkswagen. Expect a fire sale of VAG assets, including patents, factories, and personnel.

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Let me guess

    I am too lazy to go to the closest bookie, but my hunch is that we are not talking about diseasel this time.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Let me guess

      From the horses mouth "The majority of the vehicles concerned have diesel engines." : http://www.volkswagenag.com/content/vwcorp/info_center/en/news/2015/11/internen_untersuchungen.html

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Let me guess

        "The majority", but not all.

        My guess judging by the numbers is the high end and sports models. As many people have pointed there is just no way in hell you can have those CO2 numbers in a V8.

        1. Steven Raith

          Re: Let me guess

          Suprisingly for a layman, but not to those of us who follow these things (not a slight, FWIW) it's actually the smaller engines that are problematic; there are extremely tight returns on engineering in terms of making smaller engines cleaner without reducing usable power. So not a shock they are also supposed to have fudged the numbers.

          A v8 with cylinder deactivation is pretty easy to lower emissions on as you have substantially less fuel being burned full stop, while still having usable power in the real world - not ripsnorting amounts, but enough to pootle along at A-road/motorway speeds. A small fourpot? You're losing a substantial amount of an already small amount of power, and the cylinder on demand tech has less margin to play with - it takes a lot more of a small engines power capacity to accelerate gently from 50 to 70 in fourth (as a likely relevant example) than it does a V6/V8, which can handle it easily even with a half it's capacity curtailed.

          http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/industry/vw-emissions-scandal-vw-admits-800000-cars-have-false-co2-and-mpg-certification

          "A VW spokesman has confirmed that the latest scandal affects Audi, Seat, Skoda and VW cars with what are described as "small" engines. Reports suggest that cars powered by the 1.4-litre four-cylinder petrol engine with Cylinder On Demand technology are affected. Further reports suggest that VW BlueMotion diesel models with three and four-cylinder diesel engines are also affected."

  3. John Tserkezis

    "The board deeply regrets this situation"

    "The board deeply regrets we got caught"

    There, fixed it for them.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Actually the quote was correct to begin with. In this case, "this situation" is code for "getting caught".

    2. Peter Simpson 1
      Happy

      No, actually senior management knew nothing, about any of this.

      They're shocked, shocked, that a few rogue programmers would do something terrible like this.

    3. This post has been deleted by its author

    4. James Micallef Silver badge

      "deeply regrets "

      I am sick of seeing these weasel words. 'Regret' implies sadness that something happened, it is not an apology, and it skirts around responsibility.

      When is the board and upper management going to say out load what is clear to everyone else:

      - "we are sorry" - an apology not a 'regret'. It doesn't fix anything but it's the decent civilised thing to do

      - "this happened on our watch so whether we were in on it or not, we are responsible and accountable" - responsibility and accountability including identifying those responsible and firing them, and following that an en masse resignation or firing of anyone who should have known, with not a cent paid to anyone

      1. Just Enough
        FAIL

        @James Micallef

        Haven't you been keeping up?

        " I personally am deeply sorry that we have broken the trust of our customers and the public."

        "As CEO I accept responsibility for the irregularities that have been found in diesel engines and have therefore requested the Supervisory Board to agree on terminating my function as CEO of the Volkswagen Group"

        Both statements by Prof. Dr. Winterkorn, CEO of VW

        1. James Micallef Silver badge

          Re: @James Micallef

          @Just Enough - Oh yes I have been keeping up.

          Nice of Prof. Dr. Winterkorn to issue an apology, but that needs to come from every board manager and top manager. Also 'personally' , so, not on behalf of VAG group?

          Also "I accept responsibility" in this case is a meaningless platitude since responsibility entails accountability. His accountability was to make sure he had his golden parachute before jumping.

          As I mentioned in the original point, saying sorry is basically meaningless, just the decent thing to do. The meaningful thing is accountability, and that means resign without payoff. Everyone involved should leave in a civilian equivalent of the army's dishonourable discharge.

    5. paulf
      Pirate

      So that's another ~1 million vehicles with questionable software routines

      Are VW still going with blaming their code review and sign off processes for not spotting the defeat routines added in by a couple of renegade software engineers acting completely alone with no oversight, nor knowledge of the board?

    6. 0laf

      I personally feel deeply sorry for the board.

      After all their company has been infiltrated not once but twice in both the petrol and diesel divisions. Rogue engineers, without regard to the company or customers, designed and implemented technologies in both their small petrol and diesel engines across all VAG marques which resulted in falsely generous pollution figures for those cars. The rogue engineers managed to do this without the knowledge of any of the managers or executives who of course pay attention to every minutiae of VAG car development, just not those bits at that time.

      The board unwittingly used these figures to then promote and sell lots and lots of cars through no fault of their own.

      They're really really sorry that millions of people were effectively conned into buying their cars but obviously it was the work of lone malicious individuals not the board, no sireee. So no compo sorry. And of course their bonuses should be preserved for when they offer to commit corporate seppuku but only as far as getting another board placement at another company. Well you can't expect them to starve now can you?

      1. Myself-NZ
        Happy

        Rogue Engineers

        Maybe the software engineers got new jobs at VW after the cock up at Google........

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Facepalm

    CNN says that these findings mean VW fibbed about their gas mileage figures too.

    http://money.cnn.com/2015/11/03/news/volkswagen-scandal-carbon-dioxide-fuel-consumption/index.html

    1. Phil O'Sophical Silver badge

      Re: CNN says that these findings mean VW fibbed about their gas mileage figures too.

      VW fibbed about their gas mileage figures too.

      Doesn't every manufacturer? The EU tests are so unrealistic, surely nobody believes the actual manufacturers' figures? I didn't even look at them last time I changed my car, I just guessed what I should get based on size, weight & engine power. I was right.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: CNN says that these findings mean VW fibbed about their gas mileage figures too.

        Doesn't every manufacturer?

        Sure, but their engineering was so bad compared to the others that they sought to fib even this in order to stay competitive. Not surprising in a company where there is an EVP of Brand Development with the same rank as the head of engineering. You can achieve everything by branding and marketing, ya?

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: CNN says that these findings mean VW fibbed about their gas mileage figures too.

          their engineering was so bad compared to the others that they sought to fib even this in order to stay competitive

          I have a new Audi A5, 2.0l diesel, 190BHP. It replaced a Mondeo, 2.2l diesel with 175BHP. The cars are almost exactly the same size, weight, and power output. I'm getting exactly the same fuel consumption from the Audi as I did the Mondeo, so I don't see "bad compared to the others" as a valid comment.

      2. Kevin McMurtrie Silver badge

        Re: CNN says that these findings mean VW fibbed about their gas mileage figures too.

        MPG ratings are pretty much a scam.

        My lemoned 2005 Honda Accord Hybrid was rated 29/37 MPG but the actual was 9/32. Yes, that's 9 MPG city. The hybrid system would overheat after a few stop signs and become massive deadweight. To make matters worse, it didn't re-enable 1st gear to compensate for the electric motor being off. This car must have been tested somewhere REALLY cold to keep the electronics running.

        Current 2016 Golf R might be capable of meeting EPA estimates, but I need to double check whether or not the computer is lying about gas consumption. There have been a couple of times where odometer/pump came out to 22 MPG when the computer said 28 MPG.

    2. nijam Silver badge

      Re: CNN says that these findings mean VW fibbed about their gas mileage figures too.

      > CNN says that these findings mean VW fibbed about their gas mileage figures too.

      Well, two things wrong with that: (1) CNN (2) it's easy to verify that the fuel consumption is in fact as advertised (on a new-ish Golf, I actually get better fuel consumption than advertised).

      Does anybody in the world genuinely believe that VW is the only manufacturer to have exploited the defects of the test regime?

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: CNN says that these findings mean VW fibbed about their gas mileage figures too.

        new-ish Golf

        That does not make up for 800k vehicles. That number you are looking at the erectile disfunction compensator category - Audi S series and the like. These have surprisingly low CO2 figures for their power level. Example - the S1 claims 166 CO2 which I find difficult to believe for a 231 BHp vehicle.

        My 12 year old city runabout has ~150ish at 107 BHp. I just do not see how even with all advances in tech you can get 231 BHp (220% increase) while increasing fuel consumption only by 10%.

        On top of that, for the same S1, the emission figures do not match the fuel economy figures. With 160 g/km you would be expecting mpg in the 45-50 range, while it actually states 40 on the spec. So all in all it may be that the consumption was not fibbed while the the emissions (which determine tax banding, tolls, etc) were.

        1. DavCrav

          Re: CNN says that these findings mean VW fibbed about their gas mileage figures too.

          "My 12 year old city runabout has ~150ish at 107 BHp. I just do not see how even with all advances in tech you can get 231 BHp (220% increase) while increasing fuel consumption only by 10%."

          But the tests are not at full power, that would be silly. If the tests are driving down a level, straight road at a constant speed, the main thing of import here is the mass of the car, since that influences the amount of power needed. The amount of power available, e.g., 231 bhp, is not relevant unless you put your foot down.

  5. De Facto
    Pint

    Hint - time to blame cheap offshore programmers?

    It started as a corporate evil materialized and uncovered by heroic scientists.

    Now it starts looking as a corporate product ignorance and plain stupidity at nearly all VW management levels.

    I would not be surprised that in the end VW will start blaming, for instance, a couple of Russian or Bulgarian programmers, doing some cheap software development outsourcing work for them, that nobody in VW cared much about. It might be even true, with ongoing confusion among VW top brass and continuing new revealations of the dieselgate.

    I hope that German beer production is not yet outsourced.

    1. Mark 85

      Re: Hint - time to blame cheap offshore programmers?

      I think you're right about who will get the blame. However, I feel the rest of this is smoke and mirrors. No ignorance, no stupidity. But a carefully cultivated corporate culture of "deniability" by the upper manglement types. The lower types are told "do what it takes but never, ever bring up the 'fix' or 'workaround' to any manglement". I worked at one place that had that in place and when I found (2nd day on the job), I was there only long enough to find another place to work.

    2. Inventor of the Marmite Laser Silver badge

      Re: Hint - time to blame cheap offshore programmers?

      "German Beer" - Do you perchance mean Lager or Near Frozen Gnats Urine as it should rightly be called - certainly not beer

    3. Your alien overlord - fear me

      Re: Hint - time to blame cheap offshore programmers?

      OMG, the CO2 in beer might be fixed. This will have far reaching implications.

      1. Phil O'Sophical Silver badge
        Pint

        Re: Hint - time to blame cheap offshore programmers?

        OMG, the CO2 in beer might be fixed.

        Careful, if governments get the idea that beer contributes to global warming, we're all in the shit.

        1. Alister

          Re: Hint - time to blame cheap offshore programmers?

          Careful, if governments get the idea that beer contributes to global warming, we're all in the shit.

          No, no, no! Shit is a proven contributor to global warming, you must not end up with more of that.

        2. Loyal Commenter Silver badge

          Re: Hint - time to blame cheap offshore programmers?

          That's alright, real beer (as opposed to fizzy piss) is pumped from the cask through negative pressure. Keg beer, if you can't get cask ale, is better pressurised with nitrogen, not CO2.

    4. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Hint - time to blame cheap offshore programmers?

      British more like it.

      ECU software for most German Vehicles is still not written in those off-shore parts. A lot of it is funnily enough written around Cambridge in the UK.

  6. Tom Chiverton 1

    Great news. A VW (Golf R, for instance, the best hot hatch In The World if TG magazine is right) next year will be *very* cheap.

    1. Richard Taylor 2
      FAIL

      But could be very expensive to pu put on the road pos mot/local equivalent

      1. Steven Raith

        Nah, MOTs typically don't measure for specific, type approved figures on CO2/NO2 etc - just 'safe margins' IIRC.

        Someone feel free to correct me, but MOT tests aren't as stringent as the type approval tests, as they aren't the same conditions that type approvals are done under.

        I reckon that prices will drop though....

        Steven R

        1. Voland's right hand Silver badge

          Nah, MOTs typically don't measure for specific, type approved figures on CO2/NO2 etc - just 'safe margins' IIRC.

          Mots check for implementation of mandatory recalls and fixes. This would be the first time it applies to emissions though. This has been used so far only for things like seat belt failures on the mid-1990es Nissans, etc.

        2. DavCrav

          "Someone feel free to correct me, but MOT tests aren't as stringent as the type approval tests, as they aren't the same conditions that type approvals are done under."

          The MOT tests are still rolling road, so similar. But if it's CO2 emissions that are of concern, this just affects the tax band, which VW will have to pay the compensation for, not roadworthiness.

          1. SImon Hobson Bronze badge

            > The MOT tests are still rolling road

            Err, no they aren't. It's "car static, sample probe up tailpipe, test at idle, and with modern cat equipped vehicles, at fast idle I believe" - machine measures only CO and HC (unburned hydrocarbons).

            Diesels get only a smoke test - sample pipe up tailpipe, press throttle pedal to floor until engine reaches rev limit and relax. The machine measures the optical density of the smoke. If it passes first time then that's a quick pass, otherwise the process is repeated up to another 4 times (5 times total) until it manages to pass 3 consecutive tests. Of course, pressing the pedal is supposed to be "snap" from idle to fully down, no tester would ever press it ever so slightly slower which can vastly reduce the smoke produced ;-)

  7. Ilmarinen
    Pint

    Good for them !

    Stupid regulations deserve circumvention.

    Who wants a car loaded up with "environmental" s**t that goes like a neutered* slug?

    And (deep horror) CO2 is actually Good** for us.

    Tumbrels for the lawyers, thats wot I sez !

    * Yes, I know slugs are heamaphrodite - that just makes it worse ;-)

    ** Feeds crops, maybe forestalls ice ages :-)

    1. Steven Raith

      Re: Good for them !

      Well, yes and no - tighter emissions regs are a pain as we can't have flamespitting monsters on the roads. Boo.

      However, from a more real world standpoint, the tighter emissions regs have forced manufacturers to come up with serious engineering to meet or surpass them (you know, except VW) - look at the resurgance in small turbo'd petrol engines; they're gonna be a tuners delight on the second hand market.

      Hell, the Fiesta ST is somewhere around 1100kg and you can get 200bhp out of that with chip, intake and exhaust package - and that makes for a seriously quick car point to point as a result, that will undoubtedly cost peanuts ten years down the line (See Puma values for a pointer).

      So it's not all bad.

      Steven R

    2. fruitoftheloon
      Thumb Down

      @llmarinen: Re: Good for them !

      Llmarinen,

      Do you have any kids, if so are perfectly happy for them to breathe air that is more polluted that it otherwise would be?

      Also wifey lost a large part of lung capacity due to a lung disease, so funnily enough I have a somewhat different viewpoint to most folk when someone spouts 'it's only a little bit of pollution, what difference will it make.'.

      Cheers,

      Jay

      1. Ilmarinen
        FAIL

        Re: @llmarinen: Good for them !

        @ Jay

        CO2 is not pollution.

        You breath in 0.04% v/v in the atmosphere and breath out about 4% because of metabolism.

        CO2 does not cause lung disease.

        I have no worries about kids/adults/animals breathing CO2 at typical atmospheric levels or at any level we are likely to see because "Carbon".

        1. fruitoftheloon
          Happy

          @llmarinen Re: @llmarinen: Good for them !

          Llmarinen,

          Indeed co2 isn't pollution (I didn't say it was btw).

          But clearly there is more undesirable stuff coming out of vehicle tailpipes than there should be.

          Which is my definition of pollution.

          Does that seem reasonable to you?

          Cheers,

          Jay

    3. Loyal Commenter Silver badge

      Re: Good for them !

      And (deep horror) CO2 is actually Good** for us.

      There's actually some pretty solid experimental evidence, from respectable institutions that higher CO2 levels are harmful to plants (google it if you don't believe me). However, you are clearly wiser and more knowledgeable than those who have spent the time to acquire a degree appropriate to studying atmospheric chemistry and plant biology, so I bow to your superior mental powers.

      Oh, and higher NO2 levels are definitely NOT good for us (and in case you had forgotten that is the other emissions test they cheated in), unless you think dying from respiratory failure is good.

      1. Ilmarinen
        FAIL

        Re: Good for them !

        @ Loyal Commenter

        That elevated CO2 is harmful to plants would explain why my commercial grower friends sometimes run heaters just to increase CO2 ?

        IIRC, Drax supplied CO2 to Snaith growers for glasshouse CO2 enrichment. Apparently, 1000 ppm is a good figure. Maybe you weren't paying attention in your Climate "Science" degree?

        Probably several % is not so good, but I don't know, and we are not talking about extreme levels.

        I made no comment about NOx.

  8. Donald Becker

    I eagerly await the detailed story.

    CO2 is produced proportionally with hydrocarbon fuel consumed. It's the desired product of complete combustion. Un-burnt HC and monoxide (CO) are the primary other ways that the carbon goes out the exhaust, and those are tightly regulated with the goal being near zero emissions.

    So if there is excess CO2, that implies that there is excess fuel consumption. Which should be obvious to any owner that is watching the numbers on the pump or credit card bill.

    1. David Kelly 2

      I too am curious about the CO2 complaint. Put hydrocarbons in the fuel tank and lacking an atomic transformation those same carbon atoms will come out the exhaust.

      A DPF primarily takes big C2 soot and turns it into smaller C2 soot. Am told the SCR with DEF urea will also convert some CO2 and CO to C2.

      CO is the primary hazard to humans. C2 is bad like any other dust.

    2. This post has been deleted by its author

    3. Jos V

      Numbers...

      Alright, doing some quick and dirty calculations here. I'm going to take a Golf Mk5 here. Weight around 1300kg, aerodynamic surface area of 0.7m2. I'll take this car from standstill to 100km/h first.

      This will take E=1/2 m x v^2, or 473850J of energy. Diesel has 35.8MJ/l, so I just burned 0.013l of fuel.

      Now at 100km/h, the car will need to plow through air drag (I'm taking everything else out for now). For this we use F=1/2 x Rho x A x v^2. Rho (air density) on ground level is 1.225kg/m^3, so we get to 312N of force the car needs to constantly push over 100km. Ignore the 300m I used to accelerate.

      W=F x s, so the car consumes 312 x 100000, or 31200000J of energy. Which translates to 0.87l of diesel. In total, that was 0.88 liters of fuel then. Or about 115km/l (270MPG for those in the US).

      That is, if your car turns all the diesel-stored energy into forward movement, which is obviously never going to happen, but the EPA might be wishing for. So the engine won't be emitting heat to any engine component, or through the exhaust, or by creating nasty stuff in inefficient chemical processes, or have tire friction, or.. or... well you can figure yourself.

      Now, consider that diesel is about 86% carbon, and the C needs O2 to combust properly, for every liter of diesel, you need almost 2kg of O, to burn 0.7kg of C, so rounding it down a bit, 2.5kg of CO2 is produced. The EU limits are currently set at 130g/km. So take the 0.88l, I just burned 2.2kg of CO2 out of my exhaust. That's 2200g/100km, or 22g/km.

      Still in my perfect car.

      So how realistic are the regulations? And how will manufacturers meet them without cheating? I don't know...

      1. Alan Brown Silver badge

        Re: Numbers...

        "Still in my perfect car."

        Extremely perfect, with an engine that doesn't suffer even modest pumping losses.

        The absolute maximum efficiency of an automotive engine (otto or diesel) is around 35%(*), so divide the available energy from your fuel by 3 to get extractable energy (the rest is expended driving the pistons and valvegear)

        (*) This only occurs at Wide open throttle/full load conditions.

        Under most circumstances a car engine is in the 2-15% range and mostly at the bottom end of that. This is why decoupling the engine from the drivetrain can give such an improvement in efficiency despite the extra losses and rolling mass inherent in any hybrid system.

        It's also why "certain petrolhead media programs" *ahem*5thgear*ahem*topgear*ahem* can produce reports "proving" that XYZ small engine car is more efficient than a hybrid - it is under the kind of testing that a driving program uses (mostly openroad operation) because they don't replicate real world conditions (ie, stop/start driving, short trips, urban runabouts) where hybrids and decoupled drivetrains excel and where the vast majority of vehicles spend the vast majority of their operating lives.

        (If Toyota's 10kW free-piston generators are practical then we could see a step-change in automotive efficiency, as you'd only need to activate as many pistons as required instead of having them all tied to a crankshaft, and only operate them for as long as necessary to keep the battery topped off)

        1. The First Dave

          Re: Numbers...

          Actually, that 35% max cycle efficiency does NOT include moving the pistons and valves, rather it is based on the simple fact that 100% efficiency would require an infinitely large cylinder, to allow the exhaust gas to expand 'fully', and similar issues with temperature. To achieve 35% efficiency still requires zero friction and pistons with zero mass, etc.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Numbers...

          "The absolute maximum efficiency of an automotive engine (otto or diesel) is around 35%(*)"

          Used to be, companies like MAN would beg to differ. Modern engines have reduced friction which would have been considered impressive in a racing engine twenty years ago (slipper pistons alone have made quite a difference). Variable valve timing and lift reduces power consumption and fuel wastage. The absolute maximum efficiency of a big marine Diesel is around 50% nowadays.

          But you are totally right about hybrids. The economy that could be achieved with a plug in hybrid using a constant RPM Diesel generator would be extremely impressive. The limiting factor is still batteries, and the desire of some people to travel very fast and accelerate hard on today's roads.

          1. Vic

            Re: Numbers...

            "The absolute maximum efficiency of an automotive engine (otto or diesel) is around 35%(*)"

            Used to be, companies like MAN would beg to differ.

            Still is.

            The maximum theoretical efficiency for any heat engine is given by 1-(TC/TH).

            TC is going to be fixed at somewhere around 300K (atmospheric temperature).

            This gives TH of some 460K to achieve 35% efficiency. That's hot...

            You can argue with my TC=300K figure if you like, but even reducing that to 230K gives TH of 350K to achieve that 35%; *possibly* achievable in the Arctic, but unusual on most roads.

            And note that this is peak theoretical efficiency; I've made no allowance whatsoever for actual losses due to moving parts, Real engines will not achieve these figures.

            Vic.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Numbers...This gives TH of some 460K to achieve 35% efficiency. That's hot

              Let's look at the Carnot formula. Unfortunately I deleted my earlier account and don't have html any more, so I apologise now for the formatting.

              Theoretical peak efficiency = 1 - (temperature at which working fluid is rejected/temperature at which working fluid enters the cycle).

              Now, a steam engine can work like this (steam temp out/steam temp in) but an Otto engine can't.

              Air is admitted at around 300K. It is then compressed, and so it reaches a higher temperature. We can see that this is a reverse Carnot cycle, with the working fluid gaining heat. In a typical Diesel, that high temperature might be over 800K nowadays; in earlier engines it might have been around 600K. We're already well above your 460K and we haven't done anything yet.

              Now, in a Diesel, we admit fuel which burns in the hot gas. The temperature rises - a lot. In some Diesel engines it can be as much as 2300K, in petrol engines around 1200K. This is where the NOx comes from - at these high temperatures nitrogen in the air reacts with oxygen. In the Manhattan project research was done to ensure that the temperatures reached would not start off a chain reaction that would convert all the atmosphere to nitrogen oxides, for this very reason.

              The rejection temperature to the exhaust can be around 1000K. But the turbocharger then acts as a further heat engine and feeds energy back by compressing the incoming charge, so the effective rejection temperature could be around 800K.

              In the Carnot formula, Th (sorry can't subscript) is the temperature of the gas at the point at which expansion starts (and temperature lost before expansion is wasted heat). So in a "perfect" Diesel engine we get two parts of the cycle:

              Compression: efficiency = 1 - 300/800 or about 60% in round terms

              Expansion: efficiency = 1 - 800/2300 or around 60% in round terms.

              During compression the missing 40% is absorbed energy (i.e. wasted). If you look at a Diesel indicator diagram, it is the loop in the bottom part of the curve. However, because it is happening prior to supplying energy in the form of heat, the loss is much smaller than it looks.

              The losses in a Diesel are very complex - pumping, heat lost through walls and piston crown, auxiliary drives. But it can be seen that your figure of 460K bears no relationship to anything and is quite unrealistic. 50% BMEP efficiency for a Diesel is a perfectly realistic target figure.

      2. James Micallef Silver badge

        Re: Numbers...

        Given a max 1/3 engine efficiency would get the theoretical consumption to 38 km/l or 2.85l/100km. Add an extra say 20% for friction, rolling resistance etc gives reasonable targets of around 3.4l/100km and CO2 emissions of 80g/km.

        In the end hybrid and electrical will be much more efficient even for performance cars

  9. Anonymous Coward
    FAIL

    Shouldn't we be going a bit further and crucifying all car manufacturers for consistently lying about their real MPG figures ?

    1. David Kelly 2

      Not only that, but the pretty girls in commercials selling automobiles never appear for real owners.

    2. fruitoftheloon
      Happy

      @readinthereg

      Readinthereg,

      Fwiw I have regularly achieved better than supposed MPGs from a number of vehicles over the last ten years or so, significant gains can be had by improving ones' driving technique.

      Which can then be spent on beer...

      Cheers,

      Jay

    3. Loyal Commenter Silver badge

      Maybe we should just lock them all up for producing consistently annoying and aggravating advertisements, second only to perfume adverts in their pretentiousness.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        "consistently annoying and aggravating advertisements"

        Except for the Honda Heath Robinson mechanism adverts.

        I still didn't buy a Honda, though. Too far to main dealer, for one thing.

    4. nijam Silver badge

      While we're about it:

      > Shouldn't we be going a bit further and crucifying ...

      ... all the manufacturers of electric cars for lying about their range, battery life, ...

      Not to mention the smugness of the people who drive them.

    5. Phil W

      "Shouldn't we be going a bit further and crucifying all car manufacturers for consistently lying about their real MPG figures ?"

      Although they may be taking advantage of the MPG figures their existence is not actually the manufacturers fault, the tests for the figures they use are actually defined by the EU and are based on lab environment results

      http://www.dft.gov.uk/vca/fcb/the-fuel-consumption-testing-scheme.asp

  10. Chris G

    Bullet. Teeth. Pressure

    Maybe Veedub should just take a deep breath and just let it all out and admit everything they have kept people in the dark about.

    What they are doing at the moment is standard interrogatee(?) letting out the truth in dribs and drabs, they'll feel better if they just admit all the crap they have done in one big admission.

    So; NOx, CO2, particulate, what else? I can't wait for one of the dismissed ( unless I have already missed it)to come out with the Nuremberg defence!

    1. Captain DaFt

      Re: Bullet. Teeth. Pressure

      "I can't wait for one of the dismissed ( unless I have already missed it)to come out with the Nuremberg defence!"

      IE: "I was just following orders."

      Nah, this is the reverse Nuremberg defence: "I was just giving orders. I had no idea how they were being carried out!"

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Bullet. Teeth. Pressure

        "Nah, this is the reverse Nuremberg defence: "I was just giving orders. I had no idea how they were being carried out!""

        Actually, this was the Nuremberg defence of the top brass. "When I said we needed a final solution, I meant conquer the Middle East and give it to the Jews. I had no idea how this would be interpreted."

        It was Eichmann, who wasn't tried at Nuremberg but in Israel, who tried the "I was following orders" defence. It didn't go down well, especially in a country which has a monument to the righteous gentiles who didn't obey those orders.

    2. ToddR

      Re: Bullet. Teeth. Pressure

      OMG

      Veedub and Georgedub

      There must be a stupidity link

    3. Vic

      Re: Bullet. Teeth. Pressure

      Maybe Veedub should just take a deep breath and just let it all out and admit everything they have kept people in the dark about.

      The problem is - they probably don't know.

      Look at it this way: how many times have you written a piece of code, and your boss has completely failed to understand what it does[1]? How many times has he completely misrepresented its operation to his management[2]?

      I suspect a lot of this went on at VW. Someone (hopefully) knew, but the guys at the top were undoubtedly just fed lots of reports about how well the engineering team were getting on well. We could argue - probably should argue - that the top brass whould have queried why they were getting numbers that their competition couldn't match - but it's a very long time since I've seen Senior Management think like that. They're concentrating on numbers on spreadsheets, with no real thought as to what those numbers truly represent.

      My earnest hope is that this shambles will force Top Manglement to take responsibility for the actions of their companies - it is, after all, what they are paying themselves to do. And while we're at it, let's have World Peace, free trips to the ISS, and time travel :-(

      Vic.

      [1] Despite your spending many hours with him, explaining it in excruciating detail...

      [2] It's amazing how bonuses and other kudos get handed out for "good" results, rather than honesty.

  11. smartypants

    I'd like to see a proper survey of all vehicles

    VW have been caught cheating, but we all know that Co2 ratings don't stand up in the real world already - and not just for VW, so at this point can we trust any of the ratings for anything?

    The authorities should be getting more of a kicking than they seem to be. I don't understand why.

    1. hp

      Re: I'd like to see a proper survey of all vehicles

      Actually if you look at http://www.honestjohn.co.uk/realmpg you can see what mpg real people have posted for their cars. Obviously the disadvantage from a government point of view is that you can only get the figures after the car is on the road!

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: I'd like to see a proper survey of all vehicles

        Can it really be that hard to design a 'real-world' mpg test regime? Such as:

        Load car with enough weight to simulate 2 people.

        Inflate tyres to 3 psi under recommendation.

        Start rolling, accelerate to 20 mph and hold.

        Urban mpg test:

        Accelerate from 20-30 mph at 40% throttle. Hold at 30 mph for 3 minutes. Brake to 20 mph. Hold for 1 minute. Repeat as necessary to get enough data and calculate 'urban' mpg figure.

        Extra-urban mpg test:

        Start at 50 mph.

        Accelerate at 60% throttle to 80mph, slow to 70mph and hold for 10 minutes. Slow to 50 mph and hold for 5 minutes. Repeat as necessary to get enough data then calculate 'extra-urban' figure.

        I'm fairly sure two tests like this would give a reasonable approximation to real-world driving. Simply standardise the weight to carry and you can compare across vehicles.

  12. Fred Flintstone Gold badge

    What if this is actually strategy?

    "The board deeply regrets this situation"

    I read this differently, but that is based on my assumption that VW is not the only manufacturer playing dirty, if you pardon the pun. I don't know if any of you remember the Jo Moore scandal suggesting to use 9/11 as "a good day to bury bad news", this could be something similar in principle, but in less bad taste.

    What if VW management has decided to clean house completely and use the scandal they're in anyway to clear out all the fudged data? Sure, they're taking a hit now but after this storm they will have data that has then been validated by everyone and their dog. Other manufactures now face the choice of either coming clean themselves as well, trying to change things on the sly which carries a major risk that journalists on the warpath will catch them out too (possibly "helped" by VW).

    I am not buying the idea that US car manufacturers can do better for a minute. I don't think they're better or worse, just more protected in the US as an industry - just look at what sort of fight Elon Musk had to put up just to get some ability to set up a Tesla dealership, and he's a local.

    So, to recap, what if VW is using this storm to reset the game of figures everyone in the industry has to play? It's an expensive ploy, but it may be their only way to use this crisis to some strategic benefit.

    Opinions?

    1. Otto is a bear.

      Re: What if this is actually strategy?

      We already know that the emissions and fuel data published for every vehicle on the road is misleading because the tests are carried out in "Laboratory" conditions, so really every car manufacturer is economical with reality, when talking about their vehicles performance.

      The fact they use specially tuned vehicles means they cheat in one way or another. I'm also not sure how using real world data will pan out, my real world consists of driving around lots of hills with very little driving on divided highways, thus my fuel consumption will never really match the manufacturer's. When you start taking into account tyres, temperature and body work variation, it becomes much more difficult.

      Perhaps we need standard figures based on towing a caravan up the side of a mountain, with a fully speced vehicle, including roof rack and cycle carrier which mean that the vehicle will always meet it's emissions and fuel figures.

      I suspect that VW will have to fess up to more, but an awful lot of it will be common to all vehicle manufacturers.

  13. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge
    Facepalm

    WHEN WILL IT STOP!

    > carbon dioxide scandal

    I can only imagine these cars magically load burnable and BURN IT stuff WHILE-U-DRIVE!

    Next: Dihydrogen monoxide holocaust!!! Mufti of Jerusalem consulted VW engineers etc.

  14. Yugguy

    Not the only ones

    I can't help thinking there must be a lot of other manufacturers quietly thinking "SHIT, what if they spot ours too?"

  15. theOtherJT Silver badge

    Show of hand then people...

    Who didn't see _that_ coming? Anyone? Anyone at all?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Show of hand then people...

      Anyone who is aware of the fact that it is the essence of cars to EMIT CO2?

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Show of hand then people...

        "Anyone who is aware of the fact that it is the essence of cars to EMIT CO2?"

        Of course it isn't. The essence of cars is to provide personal transport from A to B that doesn't involve pedalling or falling over while stationary. If we ever get practical electric or hydrogen powered cars, no carbon dioxide.

        Why would you want to emit more of something you're paying for that adds nothing to your life?

  16. wowfood

    I can't help but think this is another mass scandel caused in part by the EU.

    They start mandating laws that by the year 20xx, all vehicles must have NO emissions below X and CO2 emissions below Y. If you don't get below these values by then, you can't sell your product.

    What do you do? There's two choices. The honest thing, which is shut down manufacturing for a few years while R&D catches up. Which means a lot of lost profits and probable bankruptcy, or you fudge the numbers and hope nobody finds out.

    Guaranteed bankruptcy vs potential, I know what I'd do.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      "The honest thing, which is shut down manufacturing for a few years while R&D catches up."

      The emission limits are set on the advice of engineers and scientists on what is readily achievable with known technology. The R&D is already there. The issue is that the manufacturers don't want to have to spend money on re-tooling, in case another manufacturer manages to get the same result more cheaply, and they don't want to have to make engines with more realistic maximum power outputs, because of advertising.

      It's actually a problem of capitalism, not engineering.

  17. paulf
    Pirate

    Dealers

    I'm pretty sure car dealers aren't really in the market for a lot of love from most people, but I bet it bites to be a dealer for any of the VAG brands right now. As this latest slow train wreck of a scandal plays out they'll be seeing fewer sales of new cars and the profit margin on their second hand stock quietly vanishing as the value of those cars falls.

    I wonder if they'll be queuing up to sue for their costs along with muggins motorist or whether they'll just suck it up to avoid pissing off their supplier. Perhaps VAG will pay them handsomely to apply the required fixes to make it up to them?

    As always, interesting times!

  18. Phil W

    Am I the only one that noticed this...

    "most of them have diesel engines, according to VW. The rest have petrol engines" (My emphasis)

    I know there are cars powered by LPG and such, but do VW actually manufacture any of these? I thought this was all aftermarket conversion. If so saying the "The rest have petrol engines" is a bit wierd.

    If the available options are diesel, petrol and electric, I'd be quite worried if the other models affected were electric. It would be a hell of manufacturing glitch if you managed to make a car with no exhaust emit CO2 beyond permitted levels but only outside of the lab.

  19. P0l0nium

    Everybody does it .....

    I suspect that VW will get "off the hook" here by demonstrating :

    a) That all manufacturers do the same thing.

    b) Producing a letter from the regulator in response to the question

    "Is it OK if we pass your stupid tests like THIS ??".

    Ask yourself the question ... Why did NO COMPETITOR test VW's cars that were stealing their market share ??

  20. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    What I find really surprising is that now one at VW seems to have thought to check the real work emissions of a car driving around on real road. I mean seriously, they are making how many thousands of cars a year and not one person stopped to wonder what happened after if left the lab? Surely they must have some test cars out in the wild that they monitor the progress of so that they can feed the information back into the design of new cars. I suspect that it's more a case of just don't ask because we know it's bad.

  21. Stevie

    Bah!

    Vottever zoes evil technicians who ver solely responsible for zis outrage say, zey ver NOT followink orders.

  22. nuked

    Wonder how well the true results stack up against the rest of the industry, given what we know for VW's design and build quality generally. I doubt there's a manufacturer out there who are not doing exactly the same, and if so, it's fairly inconceivable to think that the testers/regulators were not complicit. Either that or they are a complete bunch of drooling retards. I'll do them the favour of assuming that instead they're simply corrupt.

  23. This post has been deleted by its author

  24. Craigie

    Exaggerated fuel consumption? VW CANNOT be the only manufacturer doing that. That's the real scandal waiting to explode.

  25. agatum
    Flame

    Last week I got a letter telling me that my Audi A5 2.0TDI indeed has EA 189 engine with the cheatware. I am pissed. This is my third (been driving them for almost 20 years) and my last Audi. In the letter they tell me they are sorry. They fucking should be but the real problem for them is even though they are sorry (boo hoo) and they will fix my car for free I will never buy another one from them. As a consumer I allow any company to lie to me once, after that it's goodbye forever. I am pretty sure I am not alone with this kind of thought pattern.

    Solution for me (as a man needs to drive a vehicle)? Wait a bit to see if other manufacturers cheated as well and move on. But Audi (VAG)? Never again.

    Maybe I wait for Apple car. They don't cheat and if they do it's only because 'you tested it wrong'.

  26. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Once again bad info. from the media

    VW did not cheat on CO2 emissions, period. There is no limit in the EU on CO2 emissions. The issues results from some test procedures that inadvertently reported lower fuel consumption than the engines actually consumed. Thus more fuel consumption = more CO2. Depending on the cause of the statistical error will determine if there is any need or merit to a fine. With the statistical difference being extremely small any compensation claims would be considered frivolous by an ethical judicial system as the cars essentially perform as advertised. No one's life was compromised by a small statistical error. Without a serious statistical error that should have been obvious, it's pointless and a disservice to society to attack VW for such a trivial error.

    It's also worth noting that the U.S. EPA's claims that VW installed a software defeat device on the 3.0L V-6 Diesels similar to the four cylinder VW Diesel engines, is incorrect. Now the EPA engineers look like fools for not being able to recognize a standard CAT cleaning cycle used by many auto makers, which is fully compliant and allowed.

    This illustrates what happens when people have an agenda to discredit an entity that is doing all that it can to be transparent (announcing 800,000 cars with potential irregularities, explaining how the V-6 Diesel emissions system functions, etc. ), and resolve the trivial emissions issue on the four cyl. VW Diesel engines so everything is compliant. Contrary to misinformed conjecture, the minor excess exhaust emissions from the VW four cylinder engines is not some evil act against society. It was a bad decision by a small group of people within VW to increase fuel economy for consumers. So those terrible rogue engineers and programmers at VW provided cars with better fuel economy and performance while allowing a minute quantity of excess NOx emissions to occur.

    The U.S. has the lowest Diesel exhaust emissions requirements in the world due to political agendas. The spec is .3g/mile which is almost zero in practice. Thus the occasional engine calibration point where the VW four cyl. engine exhaust exceeded the .3g/m requirement is essentially a statistical rounding error more than a genuine pollution issue. The excess exhaust emissions in trivial and not a serious hazard to society. Instead of working with VW to resolve a minor technical issue we have incompetent EPA talking heads and gold diggers lined up with over 300 law suits in the U.S. so everyone can cash in at the expense to both Europe's and the U.S.'s economy. In the U.S. paid liars become billionaires while the plaintiff group gets a good will coupon. In this particular case tens of thousands of VW employees and vendor supplier employees could lose their jobs from a knee-jerk reaction that results in excessive government fines and civil lawsuits by unscrupulous gold diggers. While a few people might have some legitimate basis for compensation, the reality is in the U.S. consumers got more than what they paid for, not less. They got better fuel economy and performance and many VW owners are quite thankful for it.

    Those who can't see the forest for the trees had better take everything you read in mainstream media with a very large grain of salt. More often than not there are personal bias, agendas and misinformation spewed as factual when it is anything but. Naturally this financially benefits the sources of the bogus information and they are able to dupe the gullible easily.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon