VW electronics cheating the EPA

According to the Beeb (http://www.bbc.com/news/business-34373637) the software was actually a Bosch module, and in 2007 VW was warned by them *not* to put it in production vehicles. If true (big IF) this explains why there haven't been a large number of VW software types seeking to save their own skins by ratting out the company -- a large number weren't involved, just the final software build team. And they might not have known what that block of software was for. Finding who gave the order and who carried it out just got a lot more difficult. Again, IF true.

Cheers,

Earl

 

US Federal and California passenger car and light truck emission regulations have been based on total emissions on a "gram/mile" basis, not "parts per millions" for forty years or longer. The standards do not depend on the weight of the vehicle, size or power of engine, or other vehicle characteristics. http://www3.epa.gov/otaq/standards/ So heavier vehicles actually have a tougher time meeting emission regulations than lighter vehicles.

My recollection is the initial emission Federal and California emission regulations in the 1960's may have used parts per million but it was changed to grams per mile by the mid-1970's.

 

Air pumps provided fresh air into the exhaust system to complete the oxidation process and turn CO into CO2.

Unfortunately it appears that the VW diesel could be very clean or very efficient, but not both at the same time which they had claimed the engines did. So the software detected when the certification test cycle was being run and fundamentally changed the functioning of the emission controls to "clean" mode for the duration of the certification test. The effect on emissions was much greater than to "slightly alter the settings".

 

Is there any information about how much worse efficiency became in the clean mode? Will VW have to alter all sold cars to run in the clean mode all the time?

 

True in the case of the Mazda RX-7 that had a reactor vessel between heat shields in the first part of the exhaust. Not true for cars without that.

Diesel engines produce nitrous oxides because there is an abundance of oxygen during combustion. Fortunately nitrogen doesn't react with oxygen the way carbon does, otherwise the atmosphere would be quite different in composition.
The VW "solution" increases the amount of hydrocarbons during a test, thus reducing NOx, but still maintaining the CO and CO2 level under the limits.

 

Talking to an Outboard engineer the other day and he was saying same thing the 4 strokes run rich to meet one slow speed criteria in emission testing and he was saying they will have trouble in the future as the 2 stokes have a definite advantage in several areas.

 

There are many ways to reduce NOx even using lean burning. I'm not very familiar with diesel engines, but I have been working many years with power plant furnaces. The standard solution is to introduce air at several stages so that there are local areas with low air ratio although the overall air ratio is well over 1 (= abundace of oxygen). Thus burning produces CO, which then reacts with NOx and later with the oxygen from second and third air stages. It is also very important to keep the temperatures at the correct levels in all different stages. Too high temperature produces a lot of NOx and too low stops the reaction with CO back to N2 and may even lead to excess CO.

Why was your 928 producing 2.5% CO? Wasn't 1.0% more typical for an optimal setup for gasoline engines before catalytic converters were used and that even without any dilution?

 

EU cars were still polluting plenty ( zero emission modifications) years after the US had been cracking down on it.
not to mention lead...

 

Fast fred needs to move into this century too, we CANNOT have diesels belching black smoke like the good old days. I pulled up beside a kenworth with an 892 on Thursday, i watched it take off because i love 2 stroke gm, s. I had forgotten how smoky the old motors were. It was normal and we thought nothing of it.
___________

Sadly not every 30 year old truck engine has been maintained.

No concept weather todays diesels will belch with no maint after 30 years on the road..

2 Years before the Mast explains well the air polution problem in the LA basin. 1840?

 

I don't know Anyone with a 30 year old motor . They get rebuilt or replaced every million km. 30 yrs is 6 rebuilds or replacements. My m11 cummins has done 300,000 km on a new short motor and recon head. I can't get it to blow coal and i drive pretty hard around the metropolitan area every day. Its a celect plus which is a very early electronic system.

 

Yep, it was 1840: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Years_Before_the_Mast

 

Well, a "federal government job" to be sure.

The greatest disservice that not having to resort to the amendment process as has been the default condition since Hoover and FDR is that there have actually been no real great debates about the nature and scope of federal power, as well as the sort of Republic we should continue to be. Government deciding for itself by the ordinary means at its disposal -- statutes, executive orders, and opinions -- is a proven way to efficiently arrive at a government that is both self-establishing and self-expanding, that is not established by We The People (who've not got a lawful vote on so many matters as we would've received with voting up of down different amendments).

... also, I'm soooooo struggling not to post a wall'o'text right now.

This is where I come to talk about boats ... this is where I come to talk about boats ... and make the odd pun or joke ... this is where I come to talk about boats....

 

emission regs and boats is a subject for today unless you have a medium speed engine and they seem to have gotten away with it
PS Silver 92's didnt blow smoke when they were new.

 

Silvers were a bit cleaner but certainly did blow smoke . We used to run 5 of them on gensets .

 

Audi now said to be involved.