Jump to content

Volkswagen diesels


weslangdon
 Share

Recommended Posts

How so?

Because (long post coming here, you know it) the reason people are angry is because the media are telling them to be angry, and the reason for that is because VW blagged emissions testing which is the big 'in-thing' right now. Eco-Terrorism sells. Why were celebrities the first to drive Hybrids? It's so they can sit smug as **** at those events and say "well, I drive a Hybrid because I don't want to be part of the problem" only to then take their private jets to the next event. Eco-Terrorism is a big seller and the media have seized an opportunity to sell this rhetoric and give the German's a good old kicking in the process. It's not like the British media to give the Germans a right old kicking is it? Oh wait, yes it is.... How is it, that this scandal has eclipsed the expenses scandal, where MP's literally stood their and stole money out of mine and your pockets?

Car manufacturers have been getting away with some.... hmmm, fairly, disengenous tactics for years and nobody gave a **** about it. You hear these morons on the radio "we just don't know how bad these VW cars are for the environment", OK, let me ask a different question:

When Ford were knocking out cars that were KNOWN to rust and had major design defects, why the hell did nobody give a ****? Now I'm no eco-scientist, but I'm going to take an educated guess and say that the manufacturing process of a vehicle (with man hours + electricity, raw materials etc), only for then to result in the early disposal of it, due to something as trivial as rust, is far worse for the environment than higher than reported emissions. Take the original Ford KA. You won't find a Ford KA on the road that isn't suffering from some kind of chronic rust. Why? Because it had two major design defects. Water ran through galleys in the sills but had nowhere to go and there is a huge sponge behind the rear pillar surrounding the filler cap which absorbs moisture, mud and water. Both of these major design defects cause rusting, almost as soon as they left the forecourt. Oh, and if you don't believe me about the sponge thing: http://www.fordownersclub.com/forums/topic/16339-fuel-filler-removal/?p=102081

Despite this terrible design, Ford continued to sell these up until 2008. You read that correctly, 2008!! So a car, that was first manufactured in 1996, was sold for years with two major design defects (and more)..... both of which are now biting as KA's are disappearing off the road faster than you can say "Rusty car". The fuel filler cap is a particularly bad problem because rust around that area is close to the seatbelt mount therefore it's structural damage and an immediate MOT fail.

A 2008 Ford Ka:

bcZLubsB.jpg

They're one of the worst cars for being written off with rust, yet Ford made no attempt to fix such poor design. Why was there no huge backlash over this? The automotive industry is largely based on consumer trust. Ford sold cars to their loyal customers for years with planned obsolescence (imo) in my mind and yet nobody cared. Why? Because it wasn't a good news story. Ford **** on their loyal customers and who reported it? Only dedicated car magazines like AutoExpress and still nobody cared.

Dacia, yes, I know they sell **** cars, but they're another company that continue to knock out cars which suffer chronic rust issues. There's even a website (Rusty Duster) that highlights the fact Dacia's have been rusting away after less than 6 months. Dacia have all but refused to do anything. Does anyone care? No.

Look at the automotive industry as a whole. Manufacturers have been blagging their MPG tests for years. VAG are not alone in this practice. All major car manufacturers have been calculating their numbers in completely fictional scenarios. Hence why Ford continue to claim their 2.0 TDI Mondeo does 68MPG when in fact most users report about 44MPG.

Beyond that, look at industry in general. There are few sectors, where planned obsolescence along with straight up deceit, isn't a huge part of their game. Look at the technology world. There are few more disingenous markets than the technology world (trust me, I work in it). The seedy underhand tactics of computer, hardware and phone manufacturers alike has been going on for years. Apple are still the kings of planned obsolescence and disingenous product reporting. 68,000 tracks your iPod should hold (in tiny letters hdden in the instructions: only if you encode them at 64kpbs, 22khz sample rate in mono). 32 hours of listening time (in tiny letters hdden in the instructions: only if you listen at volume 1 and have all sensors and services switched off). 18 hours screen-on time (in tiny letters hdden in the instructions: only if you have the brightness set to the dimmest and all sensors and services are switched off). What about the fact that for years, Apple used batteries with a life expectancy of roughly 18 months, but had 'no battery replacement policy' which meant your lovely new iPod was useless after just 2 years

Now luckily, that policy has changed (thanks mainly to video in the previous sentence) but Apple still have a history of making products since then that are effectively designed to fail.

I don't want to turn this into an Apple bashing thread, but they're a huge company who have been getting away with similar bad practices for years. They continue to get away with it.... because nobody gives a ****. Even their more recent AntennaGate scandal (the poorly designed antenna shorting out on the users hand) only had minor coverage and Apple didn't redesign the product. They simply ignored it and then told everyone "they were holding the phone wrong". A serious design defect which didn't warrant a recall?

Another example from my industry. Y2K. If there's one thing desktop computer manufacturers are (or at least were) good at, it's cashing in on peoples ignorance. Much like the mis-reported MPG figures and the amount of songs you can store on your iPod, for many years, personal computers, usually those running Windows, were sold with a sticker that said "Y2K Safe" or something similar.

47479.original-1028.jpg?rect=66,0,342,34

This was completely a bogus assertion, because Windows as a product was never at risk of the Y2K issue. Windows (even since the earliest versions) has always used the 'Windows time' algorithm. Simply put, the date is nothing more than a number which increments by one every day. Don't believe me? Go into Excel and type a date into a cell, then change the cell formatting from 'Date' to Number or Text. The only pieces of software at risk of Y2K, were old (mainly COBOL) systems where the original developers had been too stupid to implement the first two digits of the year (i.e. a customer record system where the date was stored as Day (##), Month (##), Year (##), because the logic of a computer would see 00 as 0 and this would throw anything where date was involved into chaos. The group effort of thousands of engineers around the world, prevented almost all of those systems potentially affected from failing...... while desktop computer resellers stuck stickers on their product to convince the dumbest of customer that their current computer was at risk and this one was not. Great eh?

Was this covered in the media? Did this have a huge consumer backlash? Was there someone on the radio going "don't buy this product, because your current one is fine, these companies are lying to you". No. Nobody give a flying **** about it, despite it being just as disngenous as what Volkswagen have done.

VW have been completely and utterly thrown under the bus. The only good thing that might come out of this, is perhaps other businesses will start to weed out their own seedy business practices..... but I very much doubt it.

No doubt Apple will continue to sell products designed to fail. Computer manufacturers will still cash in on peoples ignorance, and the car industry? Well, we'll have to wait and see but I can't see this changing much at all.

Finally, do you think a similar kind of backlash would have taken place if this was Dacia or some **** box company like that? No. This is purely because it's Volkswagen. A household name and one of the best car manufacturers in the world. A company who have built a reputation of knocking out fantastic cars, better than we ever did. The Western media is having a field day because they're a massive German company.

Maybe we should re-open BL eh? Start knocking out cars where the doors fall off as you drive it home from the showroom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

VW's reputation has been built over decades and this "scandal" would not deter me from buying another one in the slightest, as I generally prefer petrol engines I am almost a little pleased that diesel engined cars are being shown up as frauds in terms of pollution and miles per gallon. What this does do is give governments the opportunity to tighten testing in general and increases road tax on diesels in particular, this has already been proposed but these findings cut the legs off those opposing such a change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

VW's reputation has been built over decades and this "scandal" would not deter me from buying another one in the slightest, as I generally prefer petrol engines I am almost a little pleased that diesel engined cars are being shown up as frauds in terms of pollution and miles per gallon. What this does do is give governments the opportunity to tighten testing in general and increases road tax on diesels in particular, this has already been proposed but these findings cut the legs off those opposing such a change.

So your solution is to basically shaft the customer? Whack a huge tax on diesels? Don't you own an SDI?

Diesels are not frauds. I mean for ****s sake, the 1.4 TDI and SDI is in a £30 tax bracket for a reason. I think the point is that modern diesels are not as a 'clean' as they claim, that doesn't mean that diesels aren't clean cars in general.

Shafting the consumer and forcing everyone to buy petrols isn't the solution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re-read what I said, the Government announced a couple of months back they intended to tax diesels higher, it's not my solution it's a prediction.

However I don't agree at all about them being cleaner than petrol if that's what you're suggesting particulates are a serious issue for diesels, this hasn't been addressed yet but there is circumstantial evidence linking the rise in asthma to the rise in the use of diesels

As for a solution, better public transport trains and buses along with cycle lanes would be my choice

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you realise what pollutants Diesels emit? And how much VW have been 'blagging it'?

Yes they are 'cleaner' when it comes to C02 (but then some tests have shown even C02 is similar in petrol and diesel) which is the main green house gas the major economies wanted to crack down on but the other gasses VW have covering up are linked to many many deaths in humans every year including having serious harm to unborn children. Some of the tests where shown to be 40 times higher in real world testing that isn't being thrown under the bus thats VW making the bus driving it up and big sanctimonious hill and then running themselves over with aforementioned bus.

Diesels where on the verge of being banned in major, congested European cities before this come about, it will be interesting to see what this does.

If this was a bank scandal then it would be near Goldman Sachs, it may be likely this will involve other manufactures but they where particularly looked at because their claims on emissions were not believed.

Diesel is a dead fuel the big European car manufacturers refuse to admit they got it wrong on and VW have been caught out trying to cover up their mistakes for running with it. Diesel is only really popular in Europe. America and Asia are moving in different directions with clean fuels.

This will hurt them a lot.

Edited by scottee88
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As someone who considers himself a bit of an academic, I'm happy to read any papers you can provide backing up those claims.

Peer reviewed preferably and maybe not the prestigious Henry Ford academy...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As someone who considers himself a bit of an academic, I'm happy to read any papers you can provide backing up those claims.

Peer reviewed preferably and maybe not the prestigious Henry Ford academy...

The guy speaks truth. NOx is the thing that bad for people. Co2 is just a green house gas, NOx causes really really nasty CAN (not will) cause nasty diseases.

Peer review means nothing. Doctors where telling you to smoke back in the day and still prescribe dangerous pharmaceuticals today. All about the money.

So NOx what about it. Well you get NOx from diesels due to the massive heat. Heat comes from the massive compression. Mazda and other Japanese diesels run at much lower compression 16:1 rather than 20 or higher to lower NOx.

All those companies you name DESERVED to be named and shamed, no different with vw. I will never defend a big company even if I own their stuff. They don't care about you just your money. To defend a big company IMO is just sillyness.

NOx isn't tested for here. Just Co2 or particles, because that's the one everyone knows about. I agree with diesels dying though. For a while they where huge but where has it all gone? Most german cars still have diesel as they sell well but all the research is going into petrols and it shows. Petrols are now cleaner, faster and sip fuel less than diesels these days. With no expensive DPF or DMF repairs. I've driven a diesel since I was 18 and think they are good in certain ways but always knew their limitations. Diesel is not the way forward. Look at any modern diesels fuel consumption, not the rated but actual. It will suck.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The key fact is the knock on effects, to rediuce NOX you need to lower the combustiion temperature you can increase EGR or crucially you can burn less fuel. If you burn less fuel you produce less C02, most tax regiems are CO2 based so if VW are found to have skewed their C02 numbers with this trick software then they have even bigger problems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting thing here is the manufacturers are caught between a rock and a hard place. To lower NOx emissions (required in the US, and to some extent for EURO 6) you need to lower combustion temperatures IIRC. Lower temperatures in diesels generally increase consumption (CO2), and certainly the trick software in VAG EA189 diesels had this effect. In Europe manufacturers have to reduce CO2 or get fined, and dumb CO2 based tax regimes also push users into low CO2 vehicles. So some poor engineer in VW has been told to solve an impossible problem, so they got creative with the software (easiest solution). Dumb in hindsight but so were square windows in the original comet airliner.

Don't get me started on Petrol engines. A 1.0 in a Mondeo? Could not pull a skin off a rice pudding unless you thrash it, a common problem in all modern turbo charged small capacity petrols. Also, coming soon - DPF's for modern direct injection petrols as they emit as many PM10's as diesels.

Not condoning VW or any other car company. They all game the system to get as low a value as possible, but gaming is not cheating.

FWIW - my SDI is smokey, but who cares, it does 60mpg even with my heavy right foot :-) My Galaxy on the other hand (a 2.0 163 TDCi) only reaches 40mpg if I drive like a nun (35 normally) compared to 50+ according to Ford, but is cheaper to tax as my Lupo is a 2000 MY.

Rant over.

Joe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

decent article on how they did it

http://www.wired.com/2015/09/vw-fool-epa-couldnt-trick-chemistry/

from this it seems to be a VW only issue, the BMW diesel tested was compliant suggests greed arrogance and complacency on VW's part but reassuringly for diesel drivers it is possible to be economical and fast

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good. Petrol cars should be relegated to weekend or important cars. Eletric is far better.

maybe for tottering to the church coffee mornings.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hydrogen fuel cells are the only sensible solution. Completely clean, no polution (from the car) and you can top it up at a filling station, so long journeys are possible, unlike electric.

The only problem is that you'd have to build about 10 nuclear power stations to efficiently produce the hydrogen and no government has the foresight to do it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hydrogen is being pushed by the oil industry. Your really think they are going to use nuclear to use water?

Look at a tesla with 90kwh batteries. That's more than enough. That's like 350-400miles. Add a rapid charger and it will take you not long to top that up. BEV's are the way forward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And what about the power shortage we keep getting told about? We have to borrow electricity from other countries when everyone plugs their kettle in at half time during the world cup, can you imagine if everyone plugged their electric car in at the same time? You're only removing the problem of emissions from the car and moving it to the power stations, either nuclear or coal fired at the moment, both creating their own pollution issues.

I'm with Skezza, hydrogen fuel cell is the way forward, as soon as someone perfects it!

Edited by lupogtiboy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We both have red cars as our Avatar but I'm not Skezza :yes:

Tesla cars are too expensive for the mainstream. The batteries make up most of the cost of a £50k car and I don't see the prices of lithium batteries falling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And what about the power shortage we keep getting told about? We have to borrow electricity from other countries when everyone plugs their kettle in at half time during the world cup, can you imagine if everyone plugged their electric car in at the same time? You're only removing the problem of emissions from the car and moving it to the power stations, either nuclear or coal fired at the moment, both creating their own pollution issues.

I'm with Skezza, hydrogen fuel cell is the way forward, as soon as someone perfects it!

Lies. Scotland has a massive energy surplus. Also regarding the moving the problem on is hilarious. You should see much electric is needed to refine petrol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lastly that is the English governments fault. They lack any initiative. Scotland will soon be 100% renewable and to you that's just a hippie thing but to us that means we don't need energy from anyone. More stable supply.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those wind farms in Scotland were built with British subsidies, so don't get too smug. Wind power is unreliable anyway. If you disconnected England from Scotland and tried to power yourselves from Wind you would end up with blackouts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.