If you needed to buy a vehicle, between the two, which would you choose? Why?
Also, if you're worried about global warming, etc. would that affect your decision?
If you needed to buy a vehicle, between the two, which would you choose? Why?
Also, if you're worried about global warming, etc. would that affect your decision?
Diesels polute more (particulates), but are more efficient. If you care about global warming, then the best bet is electric (if you have a clean energy source, not coal like in Alberta), followed by hybrid. Hybrid averages about the same fuel economy as diesel, subject to your driving (it gets better city, worse highway), but has much lower emissions. There are too many variables though, if you are buying a truck, its different (hybrid is not a real option, diesel becomes a better bet), than if you are buying a sub compact.
I have a hybrid SUV and I love it (Lexus 400h), it has plenty of power, but is comfortable, very quiet (much of the time in city on battery), and gets good (not great) fuel economy (about the same as a mid-size car). Best of all, being a Lexus / Toyota, it is engineered to never break down. It cost me 25k second hand (probably worth about 20k now).
Last edited by moahunter; 26-05-2015 at 08:24 AM.
Even if diesel is more efficient, with the price of diesel relative to gas, it's more expensive. Not to mention more expensive to maintain.
If you're concerned about global warming, an all electric car, with your house powered by Bullfrog or equivalent is probably the best.
Diesel engines are only slightly more efficient than gasoline engines. The biggest part of the difference in fuel consumption is that diesel is denser than gasoline, so burning a liter of diesel releases ~15% more energy than burning a liter of gasoline. Diesel also has a higher carbon content so there is little difference in CO2/km for otherwise identical vehicles. Considering that much of Alberta's electricity still comes from coal, I'm not so sure you are reducing CO2 emissions much with electric either. Hybrids are great if you do a lot of city driving, but if you really want to minimize your ecological footprint, just buy the smallest, lightest car that will meet your needs.
Give me a 8000 rpm red line of a gas any day! Climate be damned!
(Disclaimer I don't currently own a vehicle. Dat Dutch transit system!)
be offended! figure out why later...
Environmentalists may want to go diesel even if they don't plan to keep the car long...
Gas vs. diesel: Which 2015 Volkswagen Golf should I buy?
Based on manual transmission models, driving 24,000 kilometres per year, and averaging $1.20 per litre for regular gas and $1.20 for diesel, a diesel Golf TDI will save you an estimated $276 per year. But that means it will take about 11 years to make up for the premium price over the gas Golf TSI.
Diesel struggles to clear air on dirty reputation
So no matter how clean the new "clean diesels" are, it is going to be difficult to get equal treatment with hybrids and electric vehicles, which have no such stigma. Brands including VW and Audi are pushing hard for diesel perks such as government tax credits and access to HOV lanes, but as long as misperceptions persist, it's going to be a hard sell.
The drive to clean diesel has always relied on rationality. The thinking is, if you deliver better fuel economy, longer driving range and lower emissions without a drop in performance, customers and the government will pay attention. Diesel may not be as clean as a hybrid or an EV, but it's cleaner than gasoline. Of course, people are not perfectly rational. Neither are their laws.
I was trying to avoid a discussion of electric and hybrid. But anyway...
Why Electric Cars May Be Much Dirtier Than Gas-Powered Ones
Diesel versus Hybrid: The battle for eco-friendly supremacy
By Peter Braun — March 23, 2014
This is an area that might be surprising. At face value, with high gas mileage and low emissions, hybrids seem like the easy answer. But as we have previously covered at Digital Trends, vehicles with batteries may not be nearly as “green” as is often claimed.
This is a complicated issue. Essentially, batteries – particularly lithium-ion batteries – are both incredibly energy intensive and also toxic to produce. This means that the carbon footprint for hybrid production is much larger than a gasoline-only or even diesel-powered car.
Last edited by KC; 26-05-2015 at 01:13 PM.
On a lifecycle cost, it might be a wash since diesels generally have better resale value compared to a similar gas-engined model.
Accountants may prefer the gas model since over the accountant's own ownership period, the gas may be cheaper to buy and own. Assuming accountants don't keep their cars until the wheels falloff.
There's a 8 1/2 billion dollar diesel plant being built just north of Edmonton, perhaps the price at the pumps will go down a bit.
If you're really that worried about global warming you should just stay home and try not to breath so much...
More on diesels... And Europe is worried about our "dirty" oilsands oil yet diesels fill their roadways... Maybe we could now go on the offensive somehow.
Diesel cars: Is it time to switch to a cleaner fuel? - BBC News
"In the 1920s, pregnant women were encouraged to drink Guinness to increase their iron intake.
For decades we were all told to avoid fatty butter and eat synthetic margarine. Both pieces of health advice have since been discredited.
We are now learning that millions of motorists who've bought diesel cars believing they were less harmful to the environment have been equally misguided.
Diesel cars emit less carbon dioxide (CO2) than their petrol equivalent, we were told. In fact, not only are CO2 emissions almost identical on average, but they also produce large quantities of other pollutants linked with thousands of premature deaths. ..."
Total Cost of Ownership: A Gas Versus Diesel Comparison
"Overall, the results of our analyses show that diesel vehicles provide owners with a TCO that is less than that of the gas versions of the same vehicles. The estimates of savings for three and five years of ownership vary from a low of $67 in three years to a high of $15,619 in five years, but most of the savings are in the $2,000 to $6,000 range, which also include the extra cost that is usually added to the diesel version of a vehicle. Though there are some exceptions to these positive results ..."
Diesel fuel might be more expensive but I have heard that you get more miles to the gallon on diesel than regular fuel. I suppose it all evens itself out.
"The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read." –Mark Twain
I don't know how old those articles are. Diesel engines run 98% cleaner now than their 1995 counterpart. Thanks to EPA mandates implemented, all Diesel engines within a certain kW range must meet a certain standard or else the manufacturer gets hit by a stiff fine. We're talking everything from generators to large construction equipment. The "perfect" exhaust coming out of pipes now is just a nitrogen, h2o mixture with the rest of those dirty, dirty particulates trapped and captured to be dealt with later. These machines even shut down if the system is bypassed just to show that this is serious business. Diesel fuel itself has cleaned up immensely with the old (circa 1995) fuel being 0.05 of sulphur content (adding to acid rain, etc) now by law the engines run on ULSD (ultra low sulphur diesel) which is 0.0015 which is all you can get at the pumps anyway. Diesel has a long stigma of black smoke, which many in this city are trying to keep going. ( we've all seen the bumper stickers) but ultimately diesel manufacturers have stepped up to the plate when it comes to emissions well beyond gasoline manufactures who mostly focused on fuel mileage over what's actually coming out.
Source: Diesel engine mechanic
What are the bumper stickers saying?
Last edited by moahunter; 21-07-2015 at 07:51 AM.
However, I like cars that are good on the highway. So far, my Saab 9000s were fantastic - incredibly comfortable, fast, economical, etc. (4 cyl with turbos gave me economy and passing power). My Supra of decades ago was fun but very uncomfortable on long trips. (Other rather crappy highway vehicles I've owned were my 4Runner, Pathfinder, Odyssey, Pilot, CrV, Excursion, Suburban, and even my supercharged Mazda MilleniaS which had the worst seating and lighting of them all.)
Ancient history and surely surpassed by far by newer cars but it was a fun car to drive... in a 4 cyl gas engine...
Written in 2012:
Written in 1984:"...but like all Turbo Saabs, this is a highway car par excellence. A pull from third gear at 50mph shoves you back in your seat. ...The 9000 Aero has a broad spread of torque - so much in fact that Saab advertised the 9000 Aero as being faster from 50-75 than a Porsche 911 Carrera 4 or Ferrari Testarossa. The way it pushes the speedometer in gear, it's believable. ...
So yes, it's fast. Even by today's lofty standards, once you have enough road speed to get traction, it hauls ***, and is capable of showing tail lights to plenty of "sports cars." And that's not even touching ..."
"Beyond the impressive powertrain ..., the interior is fantastic. The seats are one of the best reasons to get an Aero. They're designed by Recaro, 8-way adjustable and heated - literally the most comfortable production seat of any car I've ever been in. ...
They're great cars on the highway. Long gearing and tons of mid-range torque means no downshifts out of fifth are needed to overtake traffic, and the cabin is nicely isolated. The great big leather Recaros keep your backside comfortable for longer trips, ... The heater will blast your eyeballs dry, though. ..."
"At very high speeds the Saab 9000 is relaxing and extremely stable. There was no wind blowing, but passing trucks didn't make the car flinch one inch and this was one of the priorities for the engineers. It felt like a car you'd choose instinctively for a very long journey, geared at a fraction short of 25 mph / 1,000 rpm in fifth; though bigger than the 900 the 9000 is no heavier, but has a better drag coefficient of 0.34 which is reflected in a fad consumption that's around 10 per cent better."
Last edited by KC; 21-07-2015 at 11:16 AM.
Volkswagen could face $18 billion penalties from EPA
WASHINGTON/DETROIT | BY TIMOTHY GARDNER AND BERNIE WOODALL
Sep 18, 2015
Volkswagen AG (VOWG_p.DE) faces penalties up to $18 billion after being accused of designing software for diesel cars that deceives regulators measuring toxic emissions, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said on Friday.
"Put simply, these cars contained software that turns off emissions controls when driving normally and turns them on when the car is undergoing an emissions test," Cynthia Giles, an enforcement officer at the EPA, told reporters in a teleconference.
The feature in question, which the EPA called a "defeat device," masks the true emissions only during testing and therefore when the cars are on the road they emit as much as 40 times the level of pollutants allowed under clean air rules meant to ensure public health is protected, Giles said."
The diesel-powered vehicles involved from the 2009 to 2015 model years are the VW Jetta, VW Beetle, VW Golf and the Audi A3, as well as the VW Passat from model years 2014 and 2015.
VW in North America has heavily marketed its vehicles as being "clean diesel."
In a television commercial that has aired frequently this year in the United States, VW says ...," brags its cars are... and asks viewers, "Isn't it ..."
Last edited by KC; 18-09-2015 at 04:38 PM.
^oh wow, if that's true it might explain why VW has been able to sell small diesel vehicles economically, but why companies like Toyota, Nissan, Mazda and similar have not been able to bring in their diesels. Brutal.
Busy erasing the past before the public was notified? Sort of like trading on insider information.
Why Did Volkswagen Delete All Of Its Diesel Ads From YouTube?
But for all the praise and publicity the ads generated, Volkswagen USA seems to be trying to now scrub them from the Internet. A quick check of Volkswagen USA’s YouTube page shows a record of the ads being there, but now all that’s returned is a big “Deleted Video” sign
The give and take...
And the VW results (on the quote below) should now be questioned due to the deactivation software.
Diesel cars: What's all the fuss about? - BBC News
"Tests conducted by the International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT) show that modern diesel cars emit on average seven times the EU limit for NOx.
Another study published by green transport think-tank Transport & Environment and supported by data from Emissions Analytics, suggests that about nine in every ten new diesel cars exceed the limit. It showed that of the 24 cars tested, only three cars - an Audi A5, a VW Golf and a BMW 3-series - complied with EU regulations. At the other end of the scale, an Audi A8 emitted 22 times the limit."
"...when comparing like-for-like models, diesels do emit noticeably less CO2 than their petrol counterparts."
"And the US experience suggests it may have a point. There, a concerted effort by carmakers and government agencies to clean up diesel vehicles has resulted in massive reductions in NOx, particulate matter and sulphur."
Last edited by KC; 21-09-2015 at 09:09 AM.
^the with issue with diesel has always been NOX and particulates, not CO2.
Last edited by KC; 21-09-2015 at 09:23 AM.
So well before the knowledge was made public, VW knew they'd been caught and admitted it at the start of Sept. and began taking steps to reduce the ability of owners to find the original media that helped them make a decision to buy a VW in the first place thus limited the potential lawsuit damage.
Also, anyone that used to argue against planned obsolescence has to now be extremely suspicious that it might be rampant. $18 billion in potential fines in an area being tested and they still did it. Why wouldn't they on parts failures that will never be investigated?
Volkswagen shares plunge on emissions scandal, U.S. widens probe | Business | Reuters
testing of vehicles still showed excessive nitrous emissions, leading VW to admit on Sept. 3 that it had used the "defeat device" to bypass control rules.
What is missing from every article I have read on the VW diesel emissions fraud is why the company would design an emissions control package that works when the vehicle is being tested, but then intentionally disable it when the the vehicle thinks nobody is watching. It doesn't make sense.
^emissions control systems impact performance (I remember people used to rip out Catalytic converters to boost horsepower). It may not be economic to sell small diesel vehicles in North America due to these emissions requirements without sacrificing performance (that long range they advertise, which helps cover the diesel price premium), and accordingly, they may have designed a system that intentionally passes the tests when performance isn't needed for the testing, but switches off when performance is needed (driving). If that's the case, its a fraud pure and simple.
Last edited by moahunter; 21-09-2015 at 02:36 PM.
GM did the same thing with the Pontiac SD 455 in the early days of emissions testing, where the engine was tuned so that it remained in-spec for the duration of the then-primitive testing but wouldn't be compliant in the least once warmed up & in regular use. EPA caught on & they ended up having to change some stuff to get it certified.
You had to order the original parts outta the performance parts catalogue if you wanted the engine as it was intended.
Giving less of a damn than ever… Happily ignoring the ignorant rather than getting in a battle of wits with unarmed opponents. Proudly banned from SSP.
Here is a good article on it:
http://www.vox.com/2015/9/21/9365667...passenger-carsVolkswagen hasn't explained exactly why it cheated, but outside analysts have a pretty good guess. The NOx emission controls likely degraded the cars' performance when they were switched on — the engines ran hotter, wore out more quickly, and got worse mileage. Some experts have suggested that the emission controls may have affected the cars' torque and acceleration, making them less fun to drive. (Indeed, some individual car owners have been known to disable their cars' emission controls to boost performance, though this is against the law.)
In other words, Volkswagen wasn't able to produce diesel cars that had the ideal mix of performance, fuel economy, and low pollution. (Or, at least, they couldn't do this profitably.) So they "solved" this trade-off by sacrificing cleanliness and loosening the emission controls. And they accomplished this via software designed to deceive regulators. This was wildly illegal, and they got caught.
It seems clean diesel may not actually be possible at an economic price, at least on smaller vehicles. In other words, because the VW lacked hybrid technology that could compete with Toyota for fuel economy, they cheated by making false claims about diesel.
Last edited by moahunter; 21-09-2015 at 02:56 PM.
Sounds like they were trying to avoid using a selective catalytic reduction (SCR) system and ended up with a poorly functioning kludge. A little like the early 1980s when carmakers tuned gasoline engines to run rich to cut engine-out NOx emissions then added an air pump and a catalyst to clean up the excessive hydrocarbon and CO emissions - a horrible solution that hurt fuel economy and fouled engine interiors with carbon deposits. Honda got it right back then by designing an engine that actually burned fuel more completely and efficiently - Hondas met the early 80s emission standards without catalytic converters.
Modern gasoline engines use a 3-way catalyst that reacts harmful gases with each other, along with tight control over the air-fuel ratio to ensure the correct balance for the process to work. That won't work for diesels because they always operate with excess air. What is needed for diesels is a "lean NOx" catalyst that speeds the decomposition of NOx into N2 and O2 (a reaction that is thermodynamically favorable, but very slow). Until that is available, clean diesel engines will likely have to rely on SCR, where NOx is reacted with ammonia (derived from urea in diesel exhaust fluid) to produce N2 and H2O.
It's noteworthy that the only VW models that are under scrutiny are those lower in their range lacking a DEF-injection system (except for the Passat model that has the wonky engine AND the system). The DEF system adds weight, complexity & cost to vehicles & it certainly looks like VW thought they could get away with the trickery vs doing it right. I'd have no problem buying any diesel that has a DEF system, but I can certainly understand how other people wouldn't want to own a vehicle that has another fluid they need to monitor the level of but to me it's no big deal.
Last edited by noodle; 21-09-2015 at 04:43 PM. Reason: Added the one Passat model that has both the wonky engine AND a SCR system
Giving less of a damn than ever… Happily ignoring the ignorant rather than getting in a battle of wits with unarmed opponents. Proudly banned from SSP.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars...l-controversy/The revelation of this emissions subterfuge answers at least two questions about VW's mighty little diesel. The first concerns urea injection, which every other modern diesel uses to pass emissions tests. The urea-injection systems help to neutralize NOx emissions, but they also add weight and cost to the car, and saddle car buyers with yet another tank of liquid that must be monitored. If you run out of this diesel exhaust fluid, it's like running out of fuel—on trucks with such systems, running dry on urea triggers a severe limp-home mode with a 5 mph speed limiter. That's how seriously the EPA takes NOx.
Everyone wondered how VW met emissions standards while foregoing urea injection. As it turns out, they didn't. It wasn't magical German engineering. Just plain old fraud.
The second question concerned fuel economy. It's been widely noted that four-cylinder TDIs tend to smash their EPA fuel economy estimates in real-world driving. The last TDI Jetta SportWagen I drove was rated at 42 mpg highway, but on 60-mph two-lane roads I averaged more like 50 mpg. That's a huge difference. Did running non-compliant emissions improve fuel economy? That's possible. And if so, that raises an interesting question: When the cheater VWs emitted too much NOx, were they also emitting a lot less CO2 thanks to improved economy? Maybe the good doesn't offset the bad, but it's something to consider. You can bet that VW's lawyers will.
I've owned diesels before, and I loved them. They get great highway mileage. They can spit out very noxious and harmful pollutants though (at least, the old ones I drove did in the 90's downunder). Farmers will run them there with snorkels, as unlike a gasoline engine, you can submerge and keep operating through rivers.
Last edited by moahunter; 21-09-2015 at 05:15 PM.
^you are assuming the catalytic converter is perfectly clean / operating. Hybrid diesels are possible, but they arent economic. Diesel engines already carry a price premium over gasoline. Presumably this is why VW didn't include a urea system, and instead cheated on emissions testing.
Its difficult for VW now, what will they do?
1. Recall vehciles and reprogram the computer - this would be cheap, but peoples performance / fuel economy will start to suck, opening up class action lawsiuit
2. Recall vehciles and install urea system - this isn't what people purchased (class action lawsuit), and would be very expensive
3. Don't recall but pay a massive fine - no class action, but problem here, is there are lots of very dirty vehicles still on the roads.
It looks like it is going to be 1., so if you aren't worried about the environment, you might be better off ignoring the recall:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/23/bu...=top-news&_r=0It is not clear, though, how fully Volkswagen might be able to correct the problem on the 11 million vehicles. The company could presumably alter the engines, so that the cars on the road begin actually meeting the required emissions standards. But doing so would probably degrade the vehicles’ fuel economy and performance, and might cause the engines to wear out sooner.
Brutal for their reputation:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/22/bu...T.nav=top-newsIn the meantime, car owners must reconcile what they thought they had bought with the revelation that their diesel cars emit from 10 to 40 times more pollutants than advertised.
“I feel totally ripped off,” said John Decker, 55, a photographer from Sacramento, who owns a 2013 Jetta SportWagen with the diesel engine. “It just reeks of fraud and that they intentionally misled the buyers of their vehicles into thinking these were clean diesels, environmentally good cars, that were fun to drive.”
Last edited by moahunter; 22-09-2015 at 09:03 AM.
Ya ya yaaaa.
I guess if you don't care about the environment you can now get a used VW diesel for cheap.
Did my dog just fall into a pothole???
Audi's LMP race cars are all diesel/electric hybrids & they've been extremely, extremely competitive in their racing class for years.
Giving less of a damn than ever… Happily ignoring the ignorant rather than getting in a battle of wits with unarmed opponents. Proudly banned from SSP.
^I wonder what the emissions were? Regardless, a diesel / electric hybrid is simply impossible for a cheap family sedan as both diesel and hybrid carry price premium. It appears a diesel on its own might be as well, on anything but more expensive vehicles where the cost of urea injection systems can be recovered.
Interesting articles here, they suggest the reasons Europe became so obsessed with diesel vehicles was that the oil industry there needed a market for fuel oil which was becoming less popular. By lobbying governments to keep standards low, arguing lower CO2 emissions and ignoring NOX and particulates, keeping taxes lower, it spurned the industry. Govrnments also loved it because it helped compliance with greenhouse gas emissions, even if it was fouling up the air. It resulted in Paris getting a smog problem it didn't have when most vehicles were gasoline:
Europe backed the wrong technology, in contrast, almost a quarter of vehicles in Japan are much cleaner gasoline hybrid electric, or electric. This scandal is going to result in a huge change to the auto industry in Europe, where strict emissions controls have also now been brought in, meaning only urea injection diesel, which is more costly so really only suited to larger vehicle, will survive.
It's funny for years I've been reading all these condescending articles by European auto journalists, saying "why don't Americans get diesel", or "electric hybrid doesn't compare to diesel", but all of that was based on a technology, that for most diesels (ie only a few high end / larger models have urea), was horribly polluting.
Last edited by moahunter; 23-09-2015 at 06:14 AM.
A lot of people are very upset about this scandal. From what I gather, a lot of calls asking for refunds for vehicles bought in recent weeks/months. All being denied currently as they wait for direction from VW Canada.
This is going to seriously hurt VW dealers and VAG.
^I'd be mad as well, I was interested in these small diesels, but wouldn't go near it now I know they cause smog. The really sad thing in Europe, is thousands of people have probably died from health related issues in respect of all that smog. I'll be surprised if VW survives in North America, probably just Audi, Bentley and Porsche which didn't sell as many diesels.
I can't wait for the Hummer drivers to start putting stickers on those dirty VW vehicles!
"German engineering that cheats da systems? Ya ya yaaaa!"
^with a fine of almost 40k per diesel vehcile in the US sold possible, in addition to class action law suits, its not going to be forgotten anytime soon. VW stock has already gone down by a quarter. It will be interesting to see if the larger VW diesels engines pass the tests.
^Agreed, at least with the Hyandi MPG scandal, it seemed a little more innocent. They misreported the MPG, but not the emissions, and it didn't seem to be as blatantly intentional as software installed to beat testing. EPA is going to be mad, and this not being an American company, they have few political obstructions.
...and the Ford suv rollover issue was in the public eye for a while (nothing like Audi) but I think that hit Firestone more than Ford.
I'd forgotten about this and the Audi "debacle".,,
Last edited by KC; 23-09-2015 at 09:58 AM.
'Something weird' in European car emissions tests, say analysts
By Matt McGrath
Environment correspondent, BBC News
Testing in Europe is said to be more open to manipulation than in the US because the evaluations are carried out by companies paid for by the manufacturers, and they are generally done before the cars go into full production.
Many researchers acknowledge there is widespread "gaming" of the system.
"There is a widespread appreciation that there has been gaming going on," Prof Alastair Lewis, from the University of York, told BBC News.
"But what VW shows is the extreme lengths to which manufacturers are going, way beyond what a reasonable person would appreciate was an appropriate level of gaming."
According to Greg Archer at Transport & Environment, there is much more than gaming the system going on in European tests.
"There are car models out there which are 50-60% difference between tests and real world performance," he said.
"We think that gaming will give you about a 25% difference, we can't explain how these vehicles are achieving real world performances 50% higher, unless something weird is going on in the way they are being tested, that would point to something similar (to VW), a different sort of defeat device being used."
Last edited by moahunter; 23-09-2015 at 02:42 PM.
Those suing will try to keep it in the public's eye but don't count on anyone caring.
Last edited by KC; 23-09-2015 at 03:28 PM.
And people wonder why there's so much regulation. It's because companies can't be trusted to look beyond their bottom line. And that's their job, to maximize profit for the shane holders.
^this decision wasn't consistent with maximizing stockholder wealth, more than a quarter of stockholder value has already been wiped out by it.
Only because they were caught.
^I have never in my career seen a corporation I have worked for, or provided services to, do something intentionally illegal. I have seen individuals disobey laws without authority, and I have seen companies penalized for that. Its hard to imagine how it happens in a case like this where it clearly can't have been just a few rogue elements. Especially in today's world of controls and processes, where nobody felt a duty to act honestly or blow the whistle. There is something seriously wrong with VWs ethics controls IMO, if this could occur.
Last edited by moahunter; 23-09-2015 at 08:05 PM.
Volkswagen's Scandal is Libor on Wheels - Bloomberg View
There's never just one cockroach. That's what we learned from the market-rigging scandals in recent years. Be it the London Interbank Offered Rates, currencies, metals, oil or… (you get the picture), it turned out that every bank and broker that touched every market benchmark left grubby fingerprints of fraud, collusion and deceit. So the revelation that Volkswagen cheated for years on tests measuring how much damage its diesel engines do to the environment raises a mammoth question: Who else did the same?
SNC was pleading not guilty, but suing its executives...
SNC-Lavalin sues former executives over alleged bribery, embezzlement - The Globe and Mail
Last edited by KC; 23-09-2015 at 09:23 PM.
A year to reload some software enabling the emission controls that right now can be turned on and off as needed? Seems something is very wrong with the vehicles.
(Bloomberg) -- General Motors Co. executives participated in a cover-up of ignition-switch defects for years before 2014 recalls, according to lawyers for a family whose wrongful-death lawsuit led to the callback of more than 2.5 million cars.
Documents produced under seal for the suit show GM management and engineers knew the switch raised safety issues and ignored the problem, attorney Lance Cooper said Monday at a press conference on the settlement of the case. This contradicts conclusions in the so-called Valukas report, a GM-paid study on the carmaker’s failings released last year, he said. GM Chief Executive Officer Mary Barra has said she didn’t know about the seriousness of the defect until early last year.
Following the recall of the Chevrolet Cobalt, GM, the largest U.S. automaker, stepped up its review of safety issues and called back millions more vehicles in the U.S. GM also commissioned Anton Valukas, an attorney at Jenner & Block LLP, to investigate the company’s delay in ordering switch recalls.
Valukas found the company failed for at least a decade to promptly resolve complaints from consumers and dealers about abnormal crashes of Cobalts and Saturn Ion small cars. Valukas also said GM later replaced the faulty switch without alerting the public or changing the part number as required.
The share value impact is likely "fleeting".
A minor fix and 'around' one year's profits. ....
How a minor emissions experiment put Volkswagen in hot water
OMAR EL AKKAD
The Globe and Mail
Published Wednesday, Sep. 23, 2015
Researchers involved with the study that initially discovered the problem say the fix isn’t overly laborious. It may involve a slight tweak to the cars’ fuel-injection system.
“The BMW vehicle’s performance on the in-use tests shows that the technology needed to meet the U.S. motor vehicle air pollution emission standards for diesels is available,” said Francisco Posada, a senior researcher with the ICCT.
But for VW – now caught in what appears to be a deliberate attempt to cheat regulators – a quick fix no longer appears to be an option. Under the Clean Air Act, the U.S. government can fine the company up to $37,500 for every vehicle affected.
Given the number of cars involved, that could mean an $18-billion fine – more than the company’s profit for all of last year."
Not looking good:
http://business.financialpost.com/in...the-scrap-heapAs of Thursday, this is Volkswagen’s fifth day leading the news agenda, with little sign of the story abating. Come day 11— and it will come — the inner workings of the German car giant’s emission development department will remain front page news. As such, taking the Clinton mantra to its full conclusion, Volkswagen, a company responsible for selling one-in-four cars in western Europe, will not survive.
More fancy German emmisioneering?
BMW shares tumble amid claims X3 model exceeds EU emissions limits
Shares in German carmaker plunge 9% as reports claim BMW xDrive 20d tops nitrogen oxide limits more than elevenfold
Auto Bild said the BMW X3 xDrive 20d exceeded limits on nitrogen oxides emissions more than elevenfold in road tests by the International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT). This is even worse than the VW Passat’s performance.
Peter Mock of ICCT told the magazine: “All data suggests that this issue is not confined to VW.”
Volkswagen chief could receive a €60MILLION payoff after stepping down in the wake of the German manufacturer's emissions testing scandal
VW has set aside €28m for Martin Winterkorn's retirement, accounts show
Also in line for possible payout worth two years remuneration of €31m
Comes as BMW denied claims it rigged its emissions as VW has done
Diesel emissions on a BMW model 'were 11 times higher than EU norms'
Scandal could cost VW billions in class action lawsuits around the world
Last edited by KC; 24-09-2015 at 10:30 AM.
^as my Dutch relatives say, some of whom were forced to work in factories in WWII, "Germans".
Ironically German cars have an image of reliability, but the facts don't really support the image. The highest German car is the SEAT Leon (made by Volkswagen), some of the bottom 10 are BMWs. Caveat emptor.
Rating manufacturer's by reliability is incredibly difficult to do, because there's so many factors at play and there's no obvious way to weight them all. Personally I've driven BMW's for the past 10 years, as have my dad and brother for longer, and they've been extremely reliable with only the occasional minor issue.
This site does a comparison of the frequency and cost of repairs. The more frequent and more expensive the repair is, the lower the overall score is, the scores tend to co-relate to the driver survey.
Volkswagen is pretty far down in this list too, as are Mercedes, BMW, Audi.
An index constructed like that is pretty much always going to be ordered by the price of the vehicles. Of course it's going to cost more to fix a transmission on a Bentley than it will on a Honda. That doesn't mean the Bentley is less reliable (although it probably is).
For example: http://www.reliabilityindex.com/manu...AxleSuspension
Near as I can tell, that lists actual failures of suspension. Suzuki and Subaru, which perform very well on the index, have failure rates double that of Porsche. Honda's brakes have issues at three times the rate that Porsche does. Suzuki has 3-4 times as many transmission issues as Bentley. So like I said, it's not a simple or easy issue to quantify.
J. D. Power is kind of the gold standard for this kind of thing: http://canada.jdpower.com/press-rele...dability-study
BMW is about middle of the pack, Porsche is actually fairly good as is Mercedes, and VW is somewhat worse than industry average. And to no one's surprise, Land Rover and Fiat are horrendous.
^ A bit surprised about Subaru moving up due to repairs being less expensive - In my experience Subaru parts are crazy expensive.
I don't know if that's necessarily the case. The average repair cost for Subaru is actually fairly high as you mention: http://www.reliabilityindex.com/manufacturer/AvgRep
It all depends how the index is constructed and different factors weighted. That index really is more of a "cost of ownership" index than it is reliability in isolation. By comparison, the JD Power one I don't believe takes cost of repairs in to consideration.
VW's are atrocious for reliability, and the one time I owned a German vehcile (Audi - which is basially a "tarted" up VW), it was a nightmare. I've had good success with Ford (although I have heard of people who have got lemons), and my Lexus is bullet proof (one quick lube change each year is all the maintenance I have done for 3 years now, and not a squeak). I like the way German cars drive, but I will never own one again after having been burned. I think some people who have owned them a long time, don't know how nice it is to have a vehcile where you don't need to take it to an expensive dealer or worry about repairs.
Last edited by moahunter; 24-09-2015 at 04:37 PM.
The best day of owning a BMW is the day you can just take it to Eurasia instead of the dealer. You don't have to take it to a dealer past the warranty period. No different than any other car. Exceptions being ultra high end ones like a Ferrari, where you would damage the value of the car by not servicing it at a dealer.
The only repair out of warranty that I can even recall after 10+ years of owning a BMW is replacing a water pump for $500 or so. The Ford Probe I owned before them cost me 2-3000 in the span of a year from a failed master brake cylinder, required serpentine belt replacement, and a couple front end issues. Oh and the exhaust had to be replaced after rusting out, on a 4 year old car, if memory serves.
Last edited by Marcel Petrin; 24-09-2015 at 06:33 PM.
^I believe you don't have to use a dealer even while under warranty, as long as you meet the service requirements. The problem with warranties is those requirements tend to lock you in to a bunch of unnecessary and wasteful services (in fairness at least BMW do annual oil changes). If you want warranty, it's probably better getting an after market one, than one sold by the auto maker. If you buy a reliable brand though, I think it's unnecessary, the money you save not purchasing goes towards a lot of repairs.
Grease the right palms and these problems will die. Diesel was only 88 cents today so maybe this is bringing diesel down
After year of stonewalling, Volkswagen stunned U.S. regulators with confession - Business Insider
At meetings between California officials and Volkswagen that began in the summer of 2014, engineers from the German carmaker tried to "discredit the findings" by challenging the data and methodology of the study, Young said. "They were recalcitrant," he said. "It was a range of issues. Every time it was something different."
Among other things, VW said that "our calibration was off" and that the discrepancies had to do with "the conditions under which the test was done," Young said.
On Dec. 2, Volkswagen shared the results of its own tests, blaming its increased emissions on "various technical issues and unexpected in-use conditions," according to the EPA. Then Volkswagen agreed to recall vehicles to fix their engine-control software.
Engineers at CARB kept testing and found the proposed software fix did not significantly reduce emissions. A break came when they looked at diagnostic data stored in the cars' own computer system.
"We discovered some very strange anomalies," Young said. "For instance, the car was running more cleanly when it was cold than when it was warm, which is the opposite of what every other car does — because once you warm a car up that's when it begins to deliver its best pollution controls. This was not the case. So clearly something else was going on. Over time we assembled enough proof and questions that they could no longer provide any reasonable explanation for what was going on."
Last edited by KC; 26-09-2015 at 12:57 PM.
Diesel BMW, Mercedes, Opel, PSA Cars Suspected Of Manipulating Emissions Tests Too [Updated]
"“All measured data suggests that this is not a VW-specific issue,” ICCT’s Europe Managing director Peter Mock told Auto Bild. The German magazine asked..."
Last edited by KC; 27-09-2015 at 09:45 PM.
It always seems the average Canadian / US citizen has to comply with environmental regulations while businesses etc. get to merrily continue along without similar costs. And the fly under the radar. For example I once read that ships create massive amounts of pollution. Trains do too.
It's somewhat like Canada agreeing to deal with global warming while China builds huge numbers of coal plants.
So how do cars vs. Semi-tractor trucks compare wrt the issue of the VW scam?
See page 4...The not-so-invisible damage from VW diesel cheat: $100 million in health costs
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations for diesel engines limit the amount of NOx that can be emitted per mile traveled. Volkswagen classified its vehicles as meeting so-called Tier II/Bin 5 emission standards, which means that they were allowed to emit 0.07 grams of NOx for every mile traveled over the lifetime of the vehicle. Actual emissions from affected cars were reported to be 10-40 times higher – as discovered by a US nongovernmental organization working with researchers from West Virginia University.
The order of magnitude of this number makes sense: if each car traveled 15,000 miles per year and emitted 2.8 grams of NOx per mile instead of 0.07 grams per mile, the total amount of excess NOx would be over 10,000 metric tons.
An EPA study using BenMAP recently estimated that one ton of on-road NOx can be expected to lead to 0.00085 deaths, based on a commonly used function associating PM2.5 with mortality rates. That means that for the amount of NOx estimated from the Volkswagen scandal (10,000-40,000 tons), we’d expect eight to 34 deaths.
How do regulators assess the economic costs of health impacts?
Average In-Use Emissions from Heavy-Duty Trucks
This fact sheet is one of a series on highway vehicle emission factors. It presents average emis* sion rates for gasoline-fueled and diesel heavy-duty vehicles.
Table 1: Average In-Use Emission Rates for Heavy-Duty Vehicles*
(in grams per mile)
Table 2: Average Heavy-Duty Truck Emission Rates by GVW Class*
(in grams per mile)
Big Trucks -- The Dirty Truth
It doesn't have to be this way. Most big trucks don't even use pollution control devices -- ... could be more than 90 percent cleaner than ...
How much pollution comes from a big truck compared to a car?
Big trucks are legally allowed to emit as much pollution as several dozen of today's cars. But many big trucks actually emit as much pollution as 150 cars!
Is it true most big trucks don't use exhaust pollution control devices?
Yes -- even though equipment is available. Starting in 1994, many ... learned how to manipulate the emissions that come out of the engine -- a tactic that ..."
Last edited by KC; 15-10-2015 at 04:12 PM.
^ Now go look at emissions from bunker fuel used in massive container ships. It is worse than you can possibly believe. The 15 largest ships emit as much SOx as 760 MILLION cars.
http://www.gizmag.com/shipping-pollution/11526/Shipping is by far the biggest transport polluter in the world. There are 760 million cars in the world today emitting approx 78,599 tons of Sulphur Oxides (SOx) annually. The world's 90,000 vessels burn approx 370 million tons of fuel per year emitting 20 million tons of Sulphur Oxides. That equates to 260 times more Sulphur Oxides being emitted by ships than the worlds entire car fleet. One large ship alone can generate approx 5,200 tonnes of sulphur oxide pollution in a year, meaning that 15 of the largest ships now emit as much SOx as the worlds 760 million cars...
The UN's International Maritime Organisation (IMO) released a report in 2007 saying a 10% reduction in fuel burning was possible on existing ships and 30-40% possible for new ships but the technology is largely unused, as the regulations are largely voluntary.
Interestingly, ship engines are among the most efficient heat engines in existence, converting over 50% of the energy generated by burning fuel into mechanical work. The pollution problem is almost entirely due to their being allowed to burn high sulfur, high viscosity fuel. It looks like that will start to change though - from the above-cited article:
Not good enough, but at least it is a start.The IMO, which regulates shipping for 168 member nations, last October enacted new mandatory standards for phasing in cleaner engine fuel. By 2020, sulphur in marine fuel must be reduced by 90% although this new distilled fuel may be double the price of current low grade fuels.
"One large ship alone can generate approx 5,200 tonnes of sulphur oxide pollution in a year, meaning that 15 of the largest ships now emit as much SOx as the worlds 760 million cars..."
Amazing isn't it. It's a bit like counties going after Canada for emissions while ignoring China and the US.bwere a drop in the bucket in many respects. Possibly here with cars tens of millions of car drivers face regulation of some kind or other while huge emitters get a pass.
On the diesel scandal... This has some interesting tables and graphs. I think people's love of the diesel performance will sustain the interest in buying diesel cars but only after they fix the problems with the little diesel engines.
VW Scandal Bad News For Diesel
Sep. 24, 2015
Very interesting... So VW executives didn't know?
Nine times the legal limit...
New Audi, Porsche, VW models found to have cheat device - Business - CBC News
VW fires back at EPA, saying it didn't cheat on second type of engine
Last edited by KC; 02-11-2015 at 08:58 PM.
So it's now both diesels and gas and it's possibly every car maker.
Apparently if; 'CO2 was understated' - that means - 'fuel economy was understated'.
What's astounding is the lost $400-500 in taxes per vehicle! This at a time when fuel prices are down and governments desperately need the tax revenue that everyone's been avoiding - because the car makers have been gaming the system.
Lawyers too will be itching to sue every maker for some sort of emissions testing rigging.
VW's Mea Culpa Implicates All
"Every manufacturer selling cars in Europe has the same CO2 "irregularities" as VW. In fact, most have a bigger problem. Toyota even has one with its hybrids. By raising the issue, VW is dragging others down with it. Most likely, VW's self-flagellation is the result of a management decision to take what accountants call a "big bath," bringing all potentially costly problems into the open in the shortest time possible.
Can't say I'm surprised. It seems obvious to me that all the manufacturers knew that VW was cheating, and cheating big, but didn't say anything because they all were themselves to a lesser degree. Otherwise why wouldn't they have come forward and said "hey, this doesn't make sense. None of us can get the diesel performance that VW can. And we've tried. Something is fishy here." I'm sure every one of them, or at least some of them, would have taken apart and analyzed the various TDI models to see what VW's secret was. Unless for some mysterious reason they simply decided that they were fine with VW dominating an entire category without putting up a fight.
They're all probably inwardly seething that VW's blatant cheating is going to result in many of them getting caught gaming the system as well.
^I think its why the Japanese automakers, who sell diesels in other markets where emission standards are less strict / not NOX (smog) focused, didn't sell in North America. They couldn't meet these standards, nobody could economically for small vehicles (although it seems VW also cheated on the larger ones). The cheating definitley gave VW a competitive advantage over companies who weren't cheating in North America (were perhaps cheating in Europe re CO2 it seems), to make up a little bit, for being so far behind on hybrid technology. It gave them a window to try and catch up on that technology.
Last edited by moahunter; 05-11-2015 at 08:07 AM.
News agencies are reporting that VW will be paying every U.S. owner $5,000 and offering to buy back their car at the value pre-scandal.
Leaves me wondering where Canada is in this. Will Volkswagen expand their decision in the states to cover Canadian owners? Why is our government so far behind the states is coming to a decision?
And why Canada's Ministry of Transport is totally impotent when it comes to vehicle testing, creating higher standards and enforcing them? They just hook their wagon to whatever the US government does.
Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.
Would suck if you sold your VW when this scandal hit, and missed out. I wonder if $5,000 US will become a much less valuable, $5,000 Canadian? I expect so. Bonus if you ran out and purchased one
Yes, would suck if you sold it at a much lower rate.
The $1000 credit package they gave out was USD in the US, and Canadian dollar here so I bet the same is true for this package (if Canadians are even eligible, no news on that). Still would be a fantastic deal. Sell back your car at pre-scandal rates and get a bonus $5,000. I would take it in a second.
The news stories on this are very confusing. The CBC said on the news this morning "US and Canadian cars will be bought back", but I have not been able to confirm that anywhere else.
It is incredibly expensive to set up to do certification testing and then expensive to have the people capable of operating the system.
Example from aviation (IIRC):
Transport Canada does the certification of aircraft parts here in Canada, cost to the manufacturer is a minimum of 10X the cost of what the FAA charges.
As Canada and the US have an agreement to recognize cross border certification manufacturers have the parts tested and certified in the US, then offer them in Canada.
The US paperwork process, while no less intensive, is much cleaner/more streamlined which also speeds the process and reduces cost.
In addition having common emissions standards for new vehicles keeps costs in Canada in check. The US is the big market so TC coat tails...keeping our costs down.
^ Following US standards does make sense, but we should be adopting the California / Northeast emissions standards rather than the US federal standards.
Having driven it for a while now, there's NO WAY we'd want to give it up, however the idea that this wasn't a public news release seems near criminal to me. Had we known, we might have changed our mind that day (and maybe found a used TDI instead).
The German government has ordered Volkswagen, Audi, Porsche, Opel, AND Mercedes to recall 630,000 diesel vehicles.
Meanwhile in Canada it appears as though the deal reached in the US will apply here. Details of how 2.0TDI owners can sell back their car will be released in June. KC, you would not be included anyways - it is only the 2.0TDI not the larger one in your Touareg. Your car should actually have AdBlu, and not even be impacted by the scandal.
Looks like the whole system needs a rework. Maybe a few different, but global, standards besides just city and hwy. (Hot climate, cold climate, harsh driving, stop and go, LA grid-lock, etc.)
Mitsubishi Says It Cheated on Fuel Tests for Decades
In the latest revelations, Mitsubishi says it cheated Japanese regulators and car buyers by using an unapproved method to measure the effect of deceleration during fuel-economy testing. The method, which tends to give a more flattering mileage rating, is approved in the United States but not in Japan.
Different countries require different methodologies when testing the fuel economy of vehicles intended for sale in their markets. They may require tests that mimic their own particular driving conditions, for instance more highway driving in the United States, compared with more stop-and-start city driving in Japan.
One from last fall... my ad blocker stopped my access so I'm just providing link.
The Real Winner in the VW Diesel Scandal? Hybrid Cars | WIRED
Also old but interesting...
Mercedes named top cheater on Europe's fuel economy test
Nov 9th 2014
According to Transport And Environment, Mercedes is simply the worst when it comes to finding every little way to manipulate the tests, which then produce "official fuel economy figures in the labs that cannot be replicated in the real world." Of course, T&E itself calls the test "obsolete," so it seems like there's enough blame to be spread around for the 31-percent gap (on average) between real-world fuel economy and what the automakers claim their cars get on the open road. That costs a typical driver in Europe an extra 500 euros ($620) per year in fuel costs they wouldn't have had to pay if the advertised numbers were accurate.
How do automakers cheat? Well, they start with ...
Last edited by KC; 26-04-2016 at 01:46 PM.