VW Says Fiat Diesels Spew More Pollution too

Status
Not open for further replies.
Fun as it is always is to have a good laugh at the Germans expense, I have a certain amount of sympathy for VW and all of the other car firms caught up in this diesel emissions scandal.

Amid all the noise about test cheating and defeat devices, I haven't heard one single criticism of the government authorities that set what are very likely unrealistic, unachievable, arbitrary and often contradictory emissions limits. If these people were solid, down to earth, pragmatic, technically educated policy makers looking to find a reasonable balance between the future environment (which IS important), public health and cost then I might be less willing to criticise but they aren't. As often as not, these people are noisy, populist, here-today-gone-tomorrow, political hacks with an axe to grind.

It creates a potentially destructive 'power without responsibility' thing. They set a target without any responsibility whatsoever for achieving that target. They also abdicate any responsibility for how much these systems might add to the cost of vehicles because the one thing they can't/won't do is force people to buy more expensive cars. Nor do they care if, as a result of their actions, they put a car firm (usually one of the lesser laggards) out of business (like Mitsubishi). Given this scenario, is it any wonder that OEMs resorted to 'alternative means' to square an impossible circle.
 
If the test is "you have to do better than x, on this machine and drive cycle", then how is doing y when off the machine cheating ?

EPA tells you the limit, sets the machine and parameters, and you pass...

Ban soda on a Sunday, and storekeeps invent the sodaless Sundae....
 
The only proof I get from this is how lazy (cheap) and deceptive many big-name companies are in the name of profits. VW and FCA are not even close to being the only cheaters. Remember when VW marketing were extolling the greatness of their engineers for solving for both power, economy and emissions-- without any SAE technical papers to back up their "engineering magic"? These corporations have no issues deceiving and cheating the development cycle to reach market, and then needlessly 'double dipping' with compound lies about their non-existent engineering prowess. Nothing but greed for profits and PR, and I'm of the opinion that EPA diesel regulations are draconian.
 
I wouldn't be too fast Bosch being the LCD - they did supply the common-rail injection system and SCR. It's still the automaker's engineers who are using IDEs or development platforms to tweak the system to how they want it to work. Mazda and Subaru don't want to bring their diesels to the US - while they do meet Euro IV/V, getting them certified under EPA and CARB is a different story. Their diesel injection systems are either Denso or Bosch(or Hitachi via a Bosch license)

Fiat is a Magneti-Marelli shop - VW is loyal to Continental but Bosch does license their IP to almost all the automotive suppliers in the world.
 
Originally Posted By: SonofJoe
I haven't heard one single criticism of the government authorities that set what are very likely unrealistic, unachievable, arbitrary and often contradictory emissions limits. If these people were solid, down to earth, pragmatic, technically educated policy makers looking to find a reasonable balance between the future environment (which IS important), public health and cost then I might be less willing to criticise but they aren't.


Perfect example here....
http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-ports-clean-air-20170612-story.html

Quote:
the mayors of Los Angeles and Long Beach signed an agreement Monday directing the nation’s largest port complex to reduce air pollution by moving toward zero-emission trucks and yard equipment.


Quote:
Garcetti acknowledged that achieving zero-emissions targets won’t be easy, calling it “brave new territory.”

There will be setbacks, he conceded, because science and technology advances may not keep pace with the agreement’s ambitions. “But if we don’t keep pushing, if we don’t have those goals we’ll never get there.”
 
Originally Posted By: slacktide_bitog
The common denominator is Bosch, their supplier.


So?????????????

Bosch is a supplier and builds/delivers what the lead integrator (VW or FIAT in this case)asks of them. End compliance of a product does not fall on the supplier.
 
Originally Posted By: Shannow
If the test is "you have to do better than x, on this machine and drive cycle", then how is doing y when off the machine cheating ?

EPA tells you the limit, sets the machine and parameters, and you pass...


Because doing so is EXPLICITLY prohibited by the EPA.
 
Great, great post SonofJoe. One of the best I have ever read on here.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Hootbro
Bosch is a supplier and builds/delivers what the lead integrator (VW or FIAT in this case)asks of them. End compliance of a product does not fall on the supplier.


It does, if they know it's illegal. And they did know because they even warned VW that it was illegal. "Just following orders" is not a defense.
 
Good point. Even with an outrageous EPA mandate, it's just not fair to use subversion to continue profiting from a market they are defacto forbidden from.
 
Originally Posted By: nthach
I wouldn't be too fast Bosch being the LCD - they did supply the common-rail injection system and SCR. It's still the automaker's engineers who are using IDEs or development platforms to tweak the system to how they want it to work. Mazda and Subaru don't want to bring their diesels to the US - while they do meet Euro IV/V, getting them certified under EPA and CARB is a different story. Their diesel injection systems are either Denso or Bosch(or Hitachi via a Bosch license)

Fiat is a Magneti-Marelli shop - VW is loyal to Continental but Bosch does license their IP to almost all the automotive suppliers in the world.


Fiat uses a LOT of Bosch stuff aswell, there are very tight links with between Bosch and Fiat. Only in recent years has Fiat developped more new stuff through Magneti-Marelli.
 
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: SonofJoe
I haven't heard one single criticism of the government authorities that set what are very likely unrealistic, unachievable, arbitrary and often contradictory emissions limits. If these people were solid, down to earth, pragmatic, technically educated policy makers looking to find a reasonable balance between the future environment (which IS important), public health and cost then I might be less willing to criticise but they aren't.


Perfect example here....
http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-ports-clean-air-20170612-story.html
wledged that achieving zero-emissions targets won’t be easy, calling it “brave new territory.”


I'm proud to say that that was one of "my" projects. Our group at DRI developed the sampling program, provided the samplers, trained operators, analyzed the samples, and did the source apportionment modeling.
https://www.portoflosangeles.org/environment/air_quality_monitoring.asp

The first trip to set up the samplers was a real eye opener. One of the sampling sites was the roof of an elementary school in Wilmington. The port union folks installed the platforms for the samplers the day before we got there. You could write your name in the soot that had accumulated on the fresh paint in less than 24 hours.

The other thing that struck me was the trucks. Miles and miles of trucks waiting to pick up containers for local delivery. Every one had a sleeper cab. I asked why, as that made no sense for local delivery trucks. They were all the old trucks that were too worn out to be used on the highway anymore. In other words, the most polluting.

Here's a link to the progress that has been made to date:
https://www.portoflosangeles.org/pdf/2015_Air_Quality_Report_Card.pdf

Ed

P.S. As the owner of a 2014 Ecodiesel, I'm watching this closely. I hope they get it sorted, as they'er going to have to pry mine from my cold, dead hands.
 
Last edited:
Hey Shannow, I think we've been busted!

EdHackett, as someone on the other side of the fence, I'd be interested to hear your take on the VW diesel emissions thing. As I see it, it was always obvious that when it comes to diesel emissions, 'you can't have your bun and your penny'. You can have low particulates (which initially was the primary health concern), but only at the expense of raising NOx and worsening CO2. It always looked 'wrong' that the legislators tightened up the limits on everything knowing full well that any tech solution to do exactly that would be very expensive and impractical (which, post the scandal breaking, is now becoming very apparent).
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: SonofJoe
Hey Shannow, I think we've been busted!

EdHackett, as someone on the other side of the fence, I'd be interested to hear your take on the VW diesel emissions thing. As I see it, it was always obvious that when it comes to diesel emissions, 'you can't have your bun and your penny'. You can have low particulates (which initially was the primary health concern), but only at the expense of raising NOx and worsening CO2. It always looked 'wrong' that the legislators tightened up the limits on everything knowing full well that any tech solution to do exactly that would be very expensive and impractical (which, post the scandal breaking, is now becoming very apparent).


I think you've got a good handle on the basics. The agencies want both good fuel mileage and low NOx. Those goals are pretty much mutually exclusive. Most everything you do to increase mileage increases NOx. NOx is a fickle beast. Small changes in operational characteristics can cause large increases in NOx.

Proper emission devices are expensive and complicated, but they do work for both particulate and NOx. They also add to the operational cost of the vehicle. VW made the choice not to increase the cost of their cars and cheated.

FCA's issues are different than VW's. The vehicles pass the EPA test with no jiggery-buggery. Where they got into trouble is by not disclosing AECD's, auxiliary emission control devices, which are software exceptions that allow emissions beyond spec under certain conditions. Those conditions are usually necessary for the proper operation and longevity of the engine and emission system. They are legal as long as they are disclosed. FCA didn't disclose 8 AECDs. I've read the ones concerning my truck and all are legitimate. The two I recall off the top of my head are shutting down urea injection when the catalyst is cold. Makes sense since no conversion would be taking place and the urea would just gum up the converter. Another is reducing EGR at highway speed. They cut back EGR and ramp up the urea to compensate. This prevents excessive sooting of the oil. The rest are in the same vein and would not likely have raised an eyebrow at EPA had they been disclosed up front in the certification documents. All vehicles, gas or diesel have AECDs as no vehicle will emit epa test levels under all conditions that are encountered on the road.

Ed

P.S. The Port of LA/Long Beach air project wasn't started out of the goodness of their hearts. It took a couple of law suits to get the ball rolling. The good news is that now that it is rolling they are truly trying to do it right for everyone involved.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top