VW: small group of engineers did it

[supton]

Originally Posted By: Olas
My road-draft tube now sees artificial road draft from a vacuum pump. It is > a PCV system because of greater volumetric efficiency, increased intake cleanliness, increased knock resistance and a more constant intake temperature.
Any faults in that particular logic?


Where does the air go that you are pulling out of the crankcase?

 

[HTSS_TR]

Originally Posted By: Olas
Whatever the actual, measured emissions are when not running in 'cheat mode', they still emit less than the V8 that the American market is so fond of, and in turn they emit FAR less than the 'coal rollers' that are becoming more prevalent.

Contrast tailpipe emissions with the environmental impact of white phosphorous and it starts to become clear that this whole fiasco is a money maker and column-inch filler.

More specifically, of course the engineers did it! Theyre the ones who draw the blueprints. Wether or not the final 'decision-makers' allow it to market or not is an entirely more pertinent issue.

VW knew the NOx limit in US before they designed/cheated the system. Other diesel engines in BMW, MB ... didn't have cheating software/hardware.

If VW engineers couldn't design a diesel engine to comply with US emission regulation then don't try to export it to US. Intentionally cheating/violating the laws is why VW is in trouble.

 

[jimbrewer]

....And Mazda didn't bring their diesel over for their Skyactive cars. They were being honest. How quaint.

 

[CT8]

Originally Posted By: SatinSilver
I hear their Christmas present is going to be a one way train ticket to Siberia.
Siberia is for Russians.

 

[lubricatosaurus]

Originally Posted By: philipp10
Business Week ran a pretty thorough article on the VW fiasco. When the TDI was originally conceived, a urea tank was in the system (urea was considered necessary to hit the Nox regulations). The midway thru the development there was a management shake up and the new top brass didn't want the urea tank, period. Engineers scrambled and apparently could NOT solve the riddle...hence the cheating.

What I cannot understand is, with all the university professors in the US (and world) no one challenged VW with its no urea system until it was accidentally found by UWV under contract with CARB. Talk about sleeping on the job.


Excellent post! Some did figure it out, cried wolf, and top people at the EPA and CARB didn't think it was possibly VW would have the audacity to cheat, so they authorized no funds to be spent to investigate. Like, 'no way VW would have the hodens to do this', they thought.

Also, the Univ of West Virginia is now seen as "anti-business-corporate" because of what they uncovered, so they can kiss some grant research money good-bye in the future. Others don't like to give a black eye to big business. They don't want to be a Rat.

 

[Olas]

Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR

VW knew the NOx limit in US before they designed/cheated the system. Other diesel engines in BMW, MB ... didn't have cheating software/hardware.

If VW engineers couldn't design a diesel engine to comply with US emission regulation then don't try to export it to US. Intentionally cheating/violating the laws is why VW is in trouble.


Agreed 100%

The hypocrisy of the EPA and their intentional use of that hypocrisy is why I take issue with this..

 

[Olas]

Originally Posted By: supton
Originally Posted By: Olas
My road-draft tube now sees artificial road draft from a vacuum pump. It is > a PCV system because of greater volumetric efficiency, increased intake cleanliness, increased knock resistance and a more constant intake temperature.
Any faults in that particular logic?


Where does the air go that you are pulling out of the crankcase?


Valve cover > tube > vac pump > atmosphere

 

[Olas]

Originally Posted By: kschachn
Originally Posted By: Olas
Can anyone explain to me how NOX is a more valid concern than white phosphorous?


Are you claiming that white phosphorus is a component of tailpipe emissions?


Not for a second. I want to know why the EPA are more concerned about tailpipe emissions when much more harmful substances are being thrown about willy nilly..

 

[kschachn]

Originally Posted By: Olas
Originally Posted By: kschachn
Originally Posted By: Olas
Can anyone explain to me how NOX is a more valid concern than white phosphorous?

Are you claiming that white phosphorus is a component of tailpipe emissions?


Not for a second. I want to know why the EPA are more concerned about tailpipe emissions when much more harmful substances are being thrown about willy nilly..


Well this is a discussion about motor vehicle emissions. Kinda random to bring up phosphorus don't you think?

I hear an anti-war rant about to emerge.

 

[Olas]

Originally Posted By: kschachn
Originally Posted By: Olas
Originally Posted By: kschachn
Originally Posted By: Olas
Can anyone explain to me how NOX is a more valid concern than white phosphorous?

Are you claiming that white phosphorus is a component of tailpipe emissions?


Not for a second. I want to know why the EPA are more concerned about tailpipe emissions when much more harmful substances are being thrown about willy nilly..


Well this is a discussion about motor vehicle emissions. Kinda random to bring up phosphorus don't you think?

I hear an anti-war rant about to emerge.


I'm not going to get onto a war rant, I just want to know how the Environmental Protection Agency have their priorities so bass ackwards. I know which of the two chemicals I'd rather be exposed to!
You're right that its not really relate to tailpipe emission discussions, I'm more interested in how the rule was created and wether or not it is being selectively enforced.

 

[Silverado12]

Originally Posted By: lubricatosaurus
Originally Posted By: philipp10
Business Week ran a pretty thorough article on the VW fiasco. When the TDI was originally conceived, a urea tank was in the system (urea was considered necessary to hit the Nox regulations). The midway thru the development there was a management shake up and the new top brass didn't want the urea tank, period. Engineers scrambled and apparently could NOT solve the riddle...hence the cheating.

What I cannot understand is, with all the university professors in the US (and world) no one challenged VW with its no urea system until it was accidentally found by UWV under contract with CARB. Talk about sleeping on the job.


Excellent post! Some did figure it out, cried wolf, and top people at the EPA and CARB didn't think it was possibly VW would have the audacity to cheat, so they authorized no funds to be spent to investigate. Like, 'no way VW would have the hodens to do this', they thought.

Also, the Univ of West Virginia is now seen as "anti-business-corporate" because of what they uncovered, so they can kiss some grant research money good-bye in the future. Others don't like to give a black eye to big business. They don't want to be a Rat.


Kind of funny and dyslexic at the same time that WV busted VW.

 

[Kiwi_ME]

Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR
If VW engineers couldn't design a diesel engine to comply with US emission regulation then don't try to export it to US.

You might recall that VWoA temporarily withdrew TDIs from the CA market for a few years in the late 1990s and again in 2004 for that exact reason. There was much discussion on TDIClub on how to buy a TDI in another state and bring it back home. When I heard about the latter event, I rushed out and bought one in Escondido before they were gone, while other dealers jacked up the prices with $2000 pinstripes.


I would imagine it plausible that a small group of engineers, being forced into a corner by marketing (no use of urea) and focussed on a goal (hence loosing sight of the bigger picture,) would come up with a way of obtaining a high average EGR rate (achieving acceptable average emissions) while minimising the apparent performance degradation to the driver - perhaps by increasing EGR rate on straight-ahead, constant speed driving and reducing it while cornering or accelerating.

I can also imagine the EPA, looking purely at a subset of that algorithm for their own interests, would interpret that as a direct method of cheating on the formal dyno emissions test.

 

[Garak]

That's a very good point. It's far too easy to paint this into a black and white scenario.

 

[supton]

Originally Posted By: Olas
Originally Posted By: supton
Originally Posted By: Olas
My road-draft tube now sees artificial road draft from a vacuum pump. It is > a PCV system because of greater volumetric efficiency, increased intake cleanliness, increased knock resistance and a more constant intake temperature.
Any faults in that particular logic?


Where does the air go that you are pulling out of the crankcase?


Valve cover > tube > vac pump > atmosphere


So you have a road draft tube (albeit a fancy one) and have thus increased the emissions output of your car, dumping out whatever partially unburnt hydrocarbons into the air.

Am I missing something here?

 

[Olas]

Originally Posted By: supton
Originally Posted By: Olas
Originally Posted By: supton
Originally Posted By: Olas
My road-draft tube now sees artificial road draft from a vacuum pump. It is > a PCV system because of greater volumetric efficiency, increased intake cleanliness, increased knock resistance and a more constant intake temperature.
Any faults in that particular logic?


Where does the air go that you are pulling out of the crankcase?


Valve cover > tube > vac pump > atmosphere


So you have a road draft tube (albeit a fancy one) and have thus increased the emissions output of your car, dumping out whatever partially unburnt hydrocarbons into the air.

Am I missing something here?


You're missing the importance of swept volume, volumetric efficiency, intake cleanliness, knock prevention, IAT, a carburettors preference for a clean environment and the incombustibility of blowby.
You also fail to understand that HC are a component of the exhaust emission stream anyways.

Compare my 1.5 litre averaging around 4000 miles per year with the average American V6 or V8 whose average mileage might be in the 20-30,000 miles per annum, and tell me who has higher emissions.

 

[DoubleWasp]

I had the same vaccum pump arrangement. Got tired of smelling my crankcase gases after about 5 seconds, and piped it into my exhaust. It's where those gases eventually go anyway.

 

[moving2]

Originally Posted By: Astro14
Bring forth the scapegoats....

Someone had to approve this...and it wasn't those engineers.


My guess is that a technical (or possibly non-technical) manager decided not to pass this little tidbit up the chain for approval. The engineers may have implemented it, but they are just pawns. Someone okayed this solution without passing it up the chain. This person should get the axe.

 

[Olas]

Originally Posted By: DoubleWasp
I had the same vaccum pump arrangement. Got tired of smelling my crankcase gases after about 5 seconds, and piped it into my exhaust. It's where those gases eventually go anyway.


I've been meaning to get round to an exhaust evac. system, just hasn't quite happened yet. Do you have some knd of relief valve to prevent too much depression? I'm worried about sucking seals in with just a sealed line to the collector..

 

[SteveSRT8]

Originally Posted By: supton

So you have a road draft tube (albeit a fancy one) and have thus increased the emissions output of your car, dumping out whatever partially unburnt hydrocarbons into the air.

Am I missing something here?


Nope, you missed nothing. He gets to do whatever he likes with everyone's air quality...

 

[supton]

Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Originally Posted By: supton

So you have a road draft tube (albeit a fancy one) and have thus increased the emissions output of your car, dumping out whatever partially unburnt hydrocarbons into the air.

Am I missing something here?


Nope, you missed nothing. He gets to do whatever he likes with everyone's air quality...


Gotcha, thanks.