Alfa Romeo Forum banner

1 - 20 of 72 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,769 Posts
Looks like the Twin Spark may have been an innocent victim in all of this mess. Polluting, but honest about it. :lol:

In wonder if anyone has actually cheated petrol car tests too.

It's sad really. Because at the end of this, the only things that will suffer I bet are the petrol very high performance variants of these cars as well as the motor sports arms as sponsoring and funding is pulled to hold up the DERV castle, assuming this is isolated to coal.

On further thought. Not only does this part of the car industry suffer, but the people who work hard day in and day out do as well.

It makes you wonder if the EU should be brought to question over this. While I never condone cheating, if you are arbitrarily going to impose limits on these manufacturers and wonder why they suddenly become miraculously efficient, then you only have yourself to look at.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,685 Posts
Well said David. I've been saying all along the restriction time limits are unreal.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
534 Posts
It makes you wonder if the EU should be brought to question over this
The Americans don't set standards or anywhere else? Or is this just the obligatory EU bashing?

if you are arbitrarily going to impose limits on these manufacturers
They have years between a standard being proposed and having to produce cars that meet it. Maybe they should take less profit and spend more on R & D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,769 Posts
The Americans don't set standards or anywhere else? Or is this just the obligatory EU bashing?



They have years between a standard being proposed and having to produce cars that meet it. Maybe they should take less profit and spend more on R & D
Euro 4 (2005) for any vehicle—98/69/EC (& 2002/80/EC)
Euro 5 (2008/9) for light passenger and commercial vehicles—715/2007/EC
Euro 6 (2014) for light passenger and commercial vehicles—715/2007/EC
Unfortunately, this reminds me of a comment Call Me made a couple of years ago.

"We should do more science..."

I am not EU bashing. I think the EU is a wonderful thing, and I benefit from being in it personally as a scientist.

What I am saying is, sometimes science reaches a point where overcoming a barrier is not so easy, just as the development of computer processors has encountered. What I am saying is that perhaps these manufacturers had finally hit a wall that they could not get past so easily. These same manufacturers have shareholders to answer to, and I can imagine a few of the upper managers getting a little fidgety when they realise they cannot meet these standards under many conditions.

The differential time required between these Euro emissions requirements is fine in principle, but in practice, like most research can become quickly untenable.

Even if a manufacturer is aware of all EU regulations 10 years in advance, they still have their shareholders to answer to. While it is all fine and dandy for some flash suited men to sit in a room and decree we must save the polar bears; it is the scientists and engineers who must deliver this. You get half way through your Euro 5 thinking the going is aright.

Then one day, partly through the recession, when some team members have been chucked away and you're trying to prepare for E6, one of your members rushed through the door panicking holding papers in thier hands, exclaiming that they cannot get to E6 in two years without more time. A company's responsibility and accountability is primarily to its shareholders and secondly the EU and its citizens. We have already seen what effects short sightedness does to companies. Shareholders want instant profit, 24/7, 365 days a year; and when they don't get it, people get fired and loose their jobs because some spoilt people who already have millions are impatient and want more.

If I was sat at my desk in an intensively stressful environment, worrying that half my team and myself could loose their jobs when we tell the board of directors that it cannot be done, then it may drive me to consider my options, even if that involves some underhand tactic.

It's the ultimate problem that shareholders and companies do not want to invest more of, or use; time. Profits, now; sort the emissions magically. We want sales sales sales, or we find someone else who can (probably cheat anyway). Especially in the digital age, where everything happens at light speed and all of the time.

What should have happened is that the companies should have got together and offered a collective case to the EU while the recession was happening to bargain for more time on these emissions. Instead, the CEOs sat cowering behind their desks because they feared which CEO would flinch first from which company. Unfortunately, it was VW that flinched and had to throw in the towel, and I suspect many more will soon follow. Someone couldn't admit defeat, because of fears for the shares of the company, their jobs and drops in revenues; and now it's come back to bite them. Plain and simple to me I think.

Come to think of it, we could see it happening already. Look at hat happened in the UK. All of a sudden, the Busso V6 went from £265, to a whopping £490. It says it all that the manufacturers probably were not ready in many aspects. Some of them made it, others didn't. It happened to them all; VW, BMW, Subaru, Lexus, Renault, MG, blah blah blah. Overnight their sales were suddenly impacted by these enormous tax bills that put their sales at risk; with big wasteful engines they couldn't change in time.

Because sometimes "doing more science" isn't enough. Sometimes, someone has got to put their hands up and ask for more time. No one did.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,623 Posts
i agree with most of that david. If your at lancaster uni, im pretty sure i will know your colleagues in the physics and RF departments.

the thing with VW is that very senior technical people where telling the state of california there was no way of meeting their emissions targets in 2006 (the eu targets were far more relaxed and achievable)

i used to pay a lot of attention to the egr valve on my 1.9mjet 156, cleaning every 6 months. the guy i share an office with had a 54 plate passat, which never needed its egr valve cleaning... when i asked him why that was he replied that it was always spotlessly clean. How could it be clean i asked ? its in the exhaust system to pass exhaust fumes back into the engine

when the head of my 156 mjet needed rebuilding at 130k they removed about a pound in weight of black soot from the manifold. Im willing to bet that my mates 54 plate passat had a clean manifold because VW were already leaving egr valves closed to improve performance, economy and reliability

As for renault, im surprised as ive heard of plenty of gummed up egr valves
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,178 Posts
the thing with VW is that very senior technical people where telling the state of california there was no way of meeting their emissions targets in 2006 (the eu targets were far more relaxed and achievable)

i used to pay a lot of attention to the egr valve on my 1.9mjet 156, cleaning every 6 months. the guy i share an office with had a 54 plate passat, which never needed its egr valve cleaning... when i asked him why that was he replied that it was always spotlessly clean. How could it be clean i asked ? its in the exhaust system to pass exhaust fumes back into the engine

when the head of my 156 mjet needed rebuilding at 130k they removed about a pound in weight of black soot from the manifold. Im willing to bet that my mates 54 plate passat had a clean manifold because VW were already leaving egr valves closed to improve performance, economy and reliability

As for renault, im surprised as ive heard of plenty of gummed up egr valves
We have an old 1.9 Tdi A6 and I often wondered the same thing. On looking at it, I think a lot of it is due to the design of the crankcase breather. In the Alfa the crankcase gases enter upstream of the egr and this is not the case with our A6 engine. Might explain some of the gunk you get in the manifold -just my observations from quite some time ago so equally it may nt explain it:smile:
 

·
Read Only
Joined
·
4,556 Posts
It makes you wonder if the EU should be brought to question over this. While I never condone cheating, if you are arbitrarily going to impose limits on these manufacturers and wonder why they suddenly become miraculously efficient, then you only have yourself to look at.
I still barely see this as cheating. Governments have said "we will do this test and determine if you are efficient". Why are we surprised when manufacturers optimise for the test? OK VW optimised more than most, but I don't see this as any different to the Mitsubishi PHEV which gets 150 MPG on test (and a 5 grand subsidy + zero tax) but in reality is a car that does 25 MPG on a good day. Ditto the i8.

When you do an exam, do you revise a whole load of interesting stuff that will never come up? No, you revise for the test that you are going to take and leave the rest for later. This is no different, the politicians will get precisely what they measure.

The problem they are trying to solve is intractable. On one side, you have the politicians saying "use less fuel and make the air cleaner" which is already conflicted. The safety brigade are saying "more features", which leads to more weight. The marketers are also saying "more features" - which leads us to an object that used to weigh a tonne, now weighing 1.6 tonnes and rising. The general public are wincing at the depreciation, which will become catastrophic when manufacturers are forced to use unrepairable aluminium and carbon chassis.

There is an interesting point on the economic side as well. Cars are fundamentally unaffordable. Does anyone really go out an plonk down £35K on a distinctly average 3 series? No, these days we have to rent them by the month like a mobile phone if we want a new one.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,685 Posts
^ Well put.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,631 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
I still barely see this as cheating. Governments have said "we will do this test and determine if you are efficient". Why are we surprised when manufacturers optimise for the test? OK VW optimised more than most, but I don't see this as any different to the Mitsubishi PHEV which gets 150 MPG on test (and a 5 grand subsidy + zero tax) but in reality is a car that does 25 MPG on a good day. Ditto the i8.

When you do an exam, do you revise a whole load of interesting stuff that will never come up? No, you revise for the test that you are going to take and leave the rest for later. This is no different, the politicians will get precisely what they measure.

The problem they are trying to solve is intractable. On one side, you have the politicians saying "use less fuel and make the air cleaner" which is already conflicted. The safety brigade are saying "more features", which leads to more weight. The marketers are also saying "more features" - which leads us to an object that used to weigh a tonne, now weighing 1.6 tonnes and rising. The general public are wincing at the depreciation, which will become catastrophic when manufacturers are forced to use unrepairable aluminium and carbon chassis.

There is an interesting point on the economic side as well. Cars are fundamentally unaffordable. Does anyone really go out an plonk down £35K on a distinctly average 3 series? No, these days we have to rent them by the month like a mobile phone if we want a new one.
Not really the point re VW. To keep your analogy going its like VW had all the answers written up their arm. The test is the test. The i8 fulfills all the aspects of the test. A cheat device does not.
 

·
Read Only
Joined
·
4,556 Posts
Not really the point re VW. To keep your analogy going its like VW had all the answers written up their arm. The test is the test. The i8 fulfills all the aspects of the test. A cheat device does not.
I disagree.

If you are going to test something, and the parameters of the test are well known and agreed, you would optimise for the test. They say "we are going to accelerate slowly from 0 mph to 40 mph at a certain rate" - and I would make damn sure my car passed that test. If they want to test what the cars does on the open road, then the do the test on a rolling road, and give it some beans to simulate real driving. The simple truth is that they don't test power and emissions. How is Honda VTEC any different? It is a device designed not to engage during a conventional emissions testing - OK, it's mechanical not software, but the principle is identical. The engine operates in one mode during testing, and then operates in a completely different mode (more powerful and polluting) in the real world.

Or - they drive it round a track with a pipe up its backside. No arguments about outside temperature, because that is the real world. Pick a random day and drive the car. If a car cannot pass on a random day, then it shouldn't be on the road. You could even just drive it on the road. If it fails emissions with a random member of the general public at the helm, in random driving conditions, then it fails.

If you want a test that works, then they need to test emissions and power at the the same time. If the manufacturer claims 400 HP, the car should demonstrate that and prove that it can pass emissions at the same time. The don't do that because they are either slack brained or corrupt, not sure which.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,623 Posts
the VW cars cheat.

If you take a bmw X6 and passat out on to the road with a pipe shove up there exhaust's (as they did in the usa test that identified this whole cheating scandel in the first place) the bmw matches its emissions specifications exactly while the VW hopelessly misses them.

the VW engines can only pass the emissions test if now no one is moving the steering wheel

so how could these VW cars ever pass a road test ?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,827 Posts
You are missing the point that the US regulations (i.e. how you test) explicitly state that it is not permitted to detect that the car is under test and alter the behaviour. VW broke the regulations of the test and cheated.

It has little to do with real world vs. test emissions.

FACT. (just to close the argument in the official way).
 

·
Read Only
Joined
·
4,556 Posts
Yes, VW broke a US regulation in their implementation. They would have probably got away with it if they had optimised in a different way - rather than detecting the test, if they had detected specific conditions, or optimised for those specific conditions. So rather than the software saying "I'm in a test, strangle performance" it said "performance for a 0 - 40 acceleration at 20% throttle is strangled" - and that just happened to be a test condition.

From a practical point of view (i.e. considering the outcome), I see absolutely no difference in doing what they did, and putting a mechanical device on the engine that alters performance and pollution, but setting up that mechanical device so that it does not trigger under test conditions. Or putting a battery in the car that is designed to precisely allow the car to do the urban cycle test under battery power.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,827 Posts
From a practical point of view (i.e. considering the outcome), I see absolutely no difference in doing what they did, and putting a mechanical device on the engine that alters performance and pollution, but setting up that mechanical device so that it does not trigger under test conditions. Or putting a battery in the car that is designed to precisely allow the car to do the urban cycle test under battery power.
These would also fall foul of the regulations as not triggering under test conditions is the same as triggering something under test conditions. i.e. the test condition is detected and behaviour is altered.
 

·
Read Only
Joined
·
4,556 Posts
So how does VTEC pass anything? Only kicks in at high rpm that are not used in tests. I'm willing to bet that a busso wouldn't pass tests when it goes open loop above 4K rpm. Or anything with a variator for that matter....
 
1 - 20 of 72 Posts
Top