Entry Level Luxury Performance Sedans

roadburner

My son is a car nut, but I doubt he could have avoided it; he was brought home from the hospital in my E24 M6 and spent his toddler years cruising in either my Club Sport or the T-Bird Turbo Coupe(a manual, of course). He always had a ball riding in my press loaners- especially the X5 4.6is, 645Ci, and Alpina B7. He even had the privilege of riding shotgun with Mike Valentine for 30 minutes at Mid Ohio- in Mike's GT3 RS 4.0. That said, he's not a Euro-snob, as he likes the Boss 302 as well as the C7 Corvette. I'm proud to say that he shares my "No Boring Cars!" philosophy.

dino001

In light of the recent scandal at VAG and their diesel "special emission testing software", seems like my words about a diesel scam were much more prophetic than even I imagined them myself. I thought they were just playing games with the emission testing to make them look better, sort of like the EPA gas mileage tests are gamed by many manufacturers. Now it looks like it was an actual scam.

I have always been a vocal skeptic when it came to diesels in small passenger cars and I never fully believed in their "superiority" at the first place. Knowing how old diesels behaved, I knew that new "superclean", "superquiet" generation that we have now, had to come as at a significant expense. Common sense says that gasoline is much cleaner than diesel, yet the claims were the opposite, the numbers did not add up. I thought it was durability and maintenance and there were confirmations from the native markets of those cars, where there are systematic premature failures of double mass wheels, particulate filters and other parts. Essentially, it's been established by now that diesels are not expected to last any longer than gasoline engines as they used to and they actually may last shorter.

Now it looks like it was a big scam altogether. I did not imagine that one. I wonder if European officials will follow and dig deeper into their testing procedures to see similar issues and more than just Volkswagen. It may be a start of something really significant.

kyfdx

VW stock down 20% today.

dino001

20 percent may just be a start. If European officials start digging and actually find something, who know how much that may cost them. However, they are partly owned by one of their land (state) government, so they will find a "workaoround".

tlong

I wonder what the regulations are in Europe and whether VAG and even others are also gaming the system?

dino001

tlong said:

I wonder what the regulations are in Europe and whether VAG and even others are also gaming the system?

The regulators in Europe are two-fold - European Commissions for Union-wide regulations and then the governments who adopt those regulations on their schedule, add something, sometimes negotiate removing or modifications. Then local officials enforce those rules (diagnostic stations, etc.).

From what I read, it's very likely, all manufacturers may have gamed that system over there - VAG may be just the beginning of really ugly truth. I may even pose a small conspiracy theory that many people at high levels knew what was going on, but kept quiet because of carbon emission policies running amok. Everybody wanted to show progress, so they kept blind eye on some things that contradicted official line. There were articles published before this scandal on emission levels in big cities over there and numbers simply didn't add up (the supposed reductions due to better standards, vs. actual levels). The defeat software may be the reason behind it.

flightnurse

kyfdx said:

VW stock down 20% today.

Time to buy some stock..

robr2

flightnurse said:

kyfdx said:

VW stock down 20% today.

Time to buy some stock..

I'd wait a bit longer. EU officials are now allowing the EPA to investigate VW for doing the same in Europe.

dino001

flightnurse said:

kyfdx said:

VW stock down 20% today.

Time to buy some stock..

Was it time to buy Lumber Liquidators when 60 minutes broke out? Not every drop is an automatic buy. Sometimes stocks go down for a reason. It's only a buy if you think the fines are going to be much less than that and no further news will come up. I'd be very cautious with such optimism.

flightnurse

dino001 said:

Was it time to buy Lumber Liquidators when 60 minutes broke out? Not every drop is an automatic buy. Sometimes stocks go down for a reason. It's only a buy if you think the fines are going to be much less than that and no further news will come up. I'd be very cautious with such optimism.

Isn't this what the stock market is all about?

dino001

flightnurse said:

dino001 said:

Was it time to buy Lumber Liquidators when 60 minutes broke out? Not every drop is an automatic buy. Sometimes stocks go down for a reason. It's only a buy if you think the fines are going to be much less than that and no further news will come up. I'd be very cautious with such optimism.

Isn't this what the stock market is all about?

Well, yes and no.

1. It was not time to buy banks after first news of big loan losses broke out in 2007. It was just a beginning. You needed to wait 18 months for that to fully play out (March' 09).
2. It was not time to buy when BP platform went down. It took over six months.
3. I already mentioned Lumber Liquidators. The resolution is nowhere near.
4. Same with Target breach. This one was shorter, as more and more breaches came to light and market got sensitized to such news.

It's almost never good time to buy right away after some truly company-specific adverse news with possible long-term consequences breaks out. It takes the market some time to price all the risks, scope the damage, also there will be initially enough people who will try to play it as "opportunity" without fully understanding the scope. The experience is, when one big bad news comes, there will be a lot of follow up stories that will create more and more concern. It's only when the pessimism reaches certain levels, way out of proportion to the actual damage, then it's time to buy. Usually months, sometimes longer. There is one important thing - the news must be really significant (potential 20 billion bucks levied by US government is important), legitimate (there are rumours, hoaxes, or embelishments happening all the time) and long-term ("more to follow").

The market is about pricing today future earning streams of companies and possible risks to them. Most of the time, traders try to exaggerate every day news so they can make a bit of more money. However, there are days, when it may be the opposite. Sometimes, the right thing is simply stay away until the damage can be assessed and pessimism gets too high. Not just yet for VW, IMHO.

dino001

A host of another forum posted this link. Good article.

http://jalopnik.com/your-guide-to-dieselgate-volkswagens-diesel-cheating-c-1731857018

My favorite part:

"When the device is not working, and the cars are operating in regular driving, they emit 10 to 40 times more than the allowable legal levels of certain pollutants.

Make no mistake that this scandal is a huge deal. If the EPA’s allegations are true, VW knowingly broke the law with some of their most important products and could face severe financial and criminal penalties. And even in an era of recall after recall, Automotive News puts this well: “Compared with other run-ins between the EPA and automakers, VW’s alleged violation stands out in its brazenness.”

BTW, it seems that the scandal scope so far were the "miracle" engines that didn't require AdBlue urea injection systems, an expensive system present also on some of their models, as well as BMW, MB, etc. I remember them boasting how great it was that those engines didn't require those systems. Now we know why.

I can only see it getting worse. Once Europeans officials get the scent, this has a real potential of destroying the company altogether. Considering how many more diesels they sell over there, even much smaller penalty per car is still enormous.

No, it does not look like a good time to buy their stock.

andres3

So does this mean since my families new Golf Wagon TDI uses the "blue" fluid tank it isn't subject to this "recall?"

dino001

This may be the case. I think VW is now in a "hard stop" mode. They'll have to sort out which ones they need to recall.

markcincinnati

How is it that with all of the supposed (by me) checks from governmental agencies on both sides of the Atlantic, that this went undetected? Do the respective governments simply take the test data on face value? No random or planned tests? Company says car pollutes this much and it is not validated by any of the hands that the data goes through? Is like a deal where we trust and don't verify -- or essentially trust and allow the company to state its own claims "as if"?

benjaminh

andres3 said:

So does this mean since my families new Golf Wagon TDI uses the "blue" fluid tank it isn't subject to this "recall?"

Your car, apparently, also has a "defeat device." Even with the adblue, it looks like it pollutes much more than the law allows.

benjaminh

markcincinnati said:

How is it that with all of the supposed (by me) checks from governmental agencies on both sides of the Atlantic, that this went undetected? Do the respective governments simply take the test data on face value? No random or planned tests? Company says car pollutes this much and it is not validated by any of the hands that the data goes through? Is like a deal where we trust and don't verify -- or essentially trust and allow the company to state its own claims "as if"?

Just like with MPG, the EPA has companies "self-certify."


http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1100125_vw-diesel-emissions-recall-what-you-need-to-know-in-10-questions/page-3

(6) Why didn't the EPA discover it before now?

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency doesn't test every new car for emissions complianceevery year. Most buyers don't know that, though, since the EPA's name is on the official ratings.

Instead, manufacturers "self-certify" and submit their data to the EPA. The agency tests about 15 percent of the new cars that go on sale each year, but it simply doesn't have the resources--in staff or in funds--to test every new car.

It's worth noting that in the wake of fuel-efficiency rating reductions by Hyundai and Kia, and then by Ford (twice), the EPA has said it will step up its verification and may require manufacturers to confirm their lab results with on-road testing.

But that's in the future. The VW trickery was discovered by a third party, which then passed it along a chain of contacts until it reached CARB and the EPA.

(We've heard through the grapevine that ICCT shared its results with a Detroit Three automaker, which was actually the tipster to the EPA, but we've not been able to verify that--so treat it as rumor until proven otherwise.)

cdnpinhead

markcincinnati said:

How is it that with all of the supposed (by me) checks from governmental agencies on both sides of the Atlantic, that this went undetected? Do the respective governments simply take the test data on face value? No random or planned tests? Company says car pollutes this much and it is not validated by any of the hands that the data goes through? Is like a deal where we trust and don't verify -- or essentially trust and allow the company to state its own claims "as if"?

My put is that the car's computer can tell when it's being interrogated, at which time it switches various algorithms to generate the required results on the reader. While the test is being performed, all is well, and when the test is finished, the ECO goes back to "normal."

I suppose it would be possible (and may soon be required) that a tailpipe sniffer be used with no electronic connection whatever, but requiring that would involve government beaurocrats with the ability to figure such things out.

henryn

cdnpinhead said:

My put is that the car's computer can tell when it's being interrogated, at which time it switches various algorithms to generate the required results on the reader. While the test is being performed, all is well, and when the test is finished, the ECO goes back to "normal."

I suppose it would be possible (and may soon be required) that a tailpipe sniffer be used with no electronic connection whatever, but requiring that would involve government beaurocrats with the ability to figure such things out.

This has already been discussed, in a different forum here at Edmunds. The cheating algorithm (also known as a "defeat") looks for two things

1) steering wheel not moving
2) hood lock is open

andres3

I think more blame should be placed on the test givers than the test takers. If you design a test, you should do so in a way that makes it harder to "cheat."

Would a lawyer that has been practicing law be required to retake a test he admits cheating on in college 30 years ago (or bar exam?). Statue of limitations?

robr2

andres3 said:

I think more blame should be placed on the test givers than the test takers. If you design a test, you should do so in a way that makes it harder to "cheat."

Would a lawyer that has been practicing law be required to retake a test he admits cheating on in college 30 years ago (or bar exam?). Statue of limitations?

Really? In the case of auto companies self testing and reporting to the EPA requires a level of trust on both sides. Perhaps I'm some sort of Polly Anna but IMHO, some level of honesty should be there.

As for the lawyer, she would be disbarred.

benjaminh

andres3 said:

I think more blame should be placed on the test givers than the test takers. If you design a test, you should do so in a way that makes it harder to "cheat."

Would a lawyer that has been practicing law be required to retake a test he admits cheating on in college 30 years ago (or bar exam?). Statue of limitations?

It seems strange to blame the EPA when VW itself has admitted it made a huge mistake?

markcincinnati

70% of autos sold in Europe are oil burners. I would expect that 50% of these are the small block engines. The small block engines are the ones claiming they need not be ad-blue to achieve improved emissions.

Does this means that any and all European cars (regardless of their export to the US) could have used some kind of bypass software -- not just VW/Audi's little ones?

$18B wow -- now that'll teach 'em a lesson.

Only if the CEO has to co-sign and pay and pay and pay out of his personal assets. If Winterkorn is canned, and he probably will be, without any personal financial pain, well, who cares if the world's largest car company dies (due to its own brazen disregard for ethics, laws and most especially its shareholders.)

Will the same issues be discovered about BMW and Mercedes and Volvo and Peugot and, and, and?

Not that anything really forgives this kind of disregard and reckless behavior -- but if NO one person or small group of managers are held accountable why just kill a car company and all of its employees futures? But, why is it such a big deal to feel the need to fudge these numbers? If the bright people at VW can't cut emissions without ad-blue, so what? I'm sure the answer will be "the price of each car will increase a little to a lot, and that would be unacceptable to the shareholders since sales will obviously be hurt," Hmm, at a potential fine of $37,500 for each car involved -- there is no way it would've cost this much in additional MSRP with an associated decrease in units sold.

Three people can only keep a secret if two of them are dead.

Don't Germans ever watch TV?

benjaminh

http://www.autonews.com/article/20150921/RETAIL03/309219887/audis-truth-in-engineering-ads-come-back-to-bite-amid-probe

"Audi's 'Truth in Engineering' ads come back to bite amid probe
Alex Webb
Bloomberg
September 21, 2015 - 8:49 am ET
"It's not that easy being green." That was Kermit the Frog's lament to comedian Joel McHale in an advertisement during Sunday night's Primetime Emmy Awards which touted Audi's latest innovations in low emissions technology.

The punchline couldn't have come at a less opportune moment for the German luxury carmaker and its parent Volkswagen AG.

Just hours earlier, VW Chief Executive Officer Martin Winterkorn apologized for breaking the trust of customers following revelations his company cheated on emissions data for nearly half a million of its diesel cars.

The Audi campaign's discordance was compounded by the marque's U.S. slogan, "Truth in Engineering," which also featured prominently in advertisements shown Sunday during U.S. football games...."

kyfdx

The engineers should have got word to the marketers, huh?

"Uh, drop that truth thing, please"

dino001

markcincinnati said:

Does this means that any and all European cars (regardless of their export to the US) could have used some kind of bypass software -- not just VW/Audi's little ones?

The answer is YES. 18 billion is just a potential. I expect that settle at 2-5 billion plus a few scapegoats of middle to high level. The real one is if there is any issue with European market, half of their staff is going to prison. BTW, 10-40 times would probably not pass 20 year standards, so the deceipt is beyond staggering. This is not Hyundai adding couple of mpg, or Toyota overstating the engine power by 5 hp. This is a systematic and brazen sabotage of the system.

What I'm concerned about us IF such a systematic deception happened in other places, then it may simply too big to fail and the whole thing will end in some half-a..d apology and promise to do better. BTW, it will also prove that the whole emission boondoggle cooked by the politicians was a fantasy in the first place.

robr2

markcincinnati said:

70% of autos sold in Europe are oil burners. I would expect that 50% of these are the small block engines. The small block engines are the ones claiming they need not be ad-blue to achieve improved emissions.

Does this means that any and all European cars (regardless of their export to the US) could have used some kind of bypass software -- not just VW/Audi's little ones?

Maybe, maybe not. Keep in mind that the emissions requirements in Europe are not as strict as the CARB/EPA requirements so under the current tuning, the 2.0 may meet their standards. My understanding is that a new emissions requirement just went into affect in Europe on 9/1 that brings diesel requirements much closer to the CARB levels. It's possible that the VW won't pass this new standard.

dino001

What also bothers me here is that those VW's are small in numbers, but we all know how "clean" are trucks, buses and pickups. VW cheating is a big deal on the priniple, but I would not go as far as calling them some kind of superpollutants. They may be ecxeeding limits 40 times, but one can ask what kind of limits are on those stinky and noisy schoolbuses and semis, if their spewing big black clouds is within those limits.

We can only be thankful that we don't have diesel engines in same percentage of passenger fleet, as Europeans. I hope this will wake them up. I doubt it will happen overnight, but perhaps it's a start. Diesel has its place, just not in a cheap small car. Want to pay up, like BMW, Benz, fine. But can't have the cake and eat it, just as VW promised.

tlong

Knowing how the financial institutions' thievery involving the financial crisis in 07/08 was addressed in the US (moderate fines at best, not even one exec imprisoned for the downfall of the entire economy), I suspect that the US government will slap their wrists and have a moderate punishment. Hopefully the EU regulators have a lot more teeth than the US does.

benjaminh

In case you missed it on the other thread, here's a 4-minute comic parody taken from a German film of "Hitler Reacting to Dieselgate". Audi is mentioned about 3 minutes in....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKef1JFpiCA

dino001

Non-sensical, but a little funny.

andres3

benjaminh said:

andres3 said:

I think more blame should be placed on the test givers than the test takers. If you design a test, you should do so in a way that makes it harder to "cheat."

Would a lawyer that has been practicing law be required to retake a test he admits cheating on in college 30 years ago (or bar exam?). Statue of limitations?

It seems strange to blame the EPA when VW itself has admitted it made a huge mistake?

Not that strange. My taxes pay the EPA's bureaucracy, ineffectiveness, and waste.

Without the EPA, seems to me car prices would be lower, emissions would be about the same, and my taxes would be lower. Also, the Colorado rivers wouldn't be as polluted, but that's another story.

This goes to the heart of the gov't doing more harm than good with each department and policy it enacts, be it the IRS, the EPA, the Military policing of the world, the CHP and its traffic enforcement methods, and on an on.

ctl

As this VW fiasco evolves, I stop feeling strange seeing the amount of people who would view things solely from their personal interest, while disregard the goodness of others, the general public, and the necessity of things that keep the society in order. I guess a strong faith to Adam Smith is needed. That said, the integrity of most people in this forum is quite commendable.

markcincinnati

I've been reading and watching the TV biz channels as they pontificate on the meaning of all of this stuff. The current news is that this is a re-run; Cadillac did it (got fined) Ford did it, etc. Apparently 11M (VW's numbers) vehicles had this software installed. Well, Honda got caught a few years back -- same thing.

The list of "who's done it" seems to be much bigger than the current scandal.

This doesn't forgive any company -- and it is more serious than Hyundai fudging the MGPs of their cars or Acura claiming their cars had more HP than could be tested, and so on -- but the thing is, I have read (in car magazines) interviews, over the years, from top car company executives who have claimed the MPG and emissions requirements go "to the practical limit" of technology then go beyond what is known to be capable for any realistic sum of money.

Nothing said here is meant to forgive the lie.

However, isn't it possible -- in the current climate -- to find some "objective" engineers and/or scientists who could say "here is what we are able to do TODAY at this price; here is what we're able to do TODAY at that price," and so forth. I understand if a Martin Winterkorn goes before "the government" and says "this is what is possible at a cost of $xxx per car; and what you want us to do would cost ($xxxx) per car" the government doubts the veracity of the remarks.

So, the government wants a car to emit this much pollution and go this far on a gallon of fuel (or whatever is used to power the vehicle); apparently it can't be done at a market acceptable price today. Then you factor in that CAFE often gives a pass to trucks, so the mfgr goes ahead and creates a 2-cylinder car with a cardboard back seat, no sound insulation and made with the lightest weight materials -- that are inexpensive -- known to the designers.

I guess it is possible to increase the EPA ratings in all of the good ways by making cars out of carbon fiber and unobtanium, and powering them with a fuel cell and a solar sail -- but, said cars will cost 300% of the traditionally built autos. So, you're $25,000 car will satisfy the EPA, etc, but, it will cost $75,000.

This, if at least in spirit is correct, is unworkable and for most folks unaffordable.

Again, this does not forgive lying, but I can only assume that the corporate thought process, since it keeps happening over and over, arrives at the conclusion that the cost of getting caught is less than the cost of [attempting] compliance. Since the cost of compliance is apparently, like unobtainium, simply too high to adopt.

Too big to fail? Who knows if VW is too big to fail -- but if the death of the VW enterprise is the eventual cost of this transgression and disregard for law, well, "who's next?"

I would hope the regulated, rather than lie, make a convincing, compelling case in response to unreasonable and/or unaffordable legislative requirements.

Here is what I want: a car that accelerates to 60 in 3 seconds, gets over 75MPG, tops out at 155MPH, stops from 70MPH in 100 feet, holds 5 people and their luggage and costs $25,000. I have to assume this is like the old saw: you can have this product or service: fast, of high-quality or inexpensive -- pick two.

Seems to me the regulatory agencies, the world over, expect it to be "pick three."

We're not there, apparently, yet.

benjaminh

According to an article I read somewhere, but can't find right now, someone with familiarity with emissions systems said it would have probably cost VW only $200-300 more per car to make them actually pass the test. Almost certainly they would have also gotten a couple of notches lower on the mpg and hp scales, but it could have been done.

The gov't is not asking for the impossible at this point. About 8 years from now, however, things get challenging with CAFE mpg standards. But with 8 more years of R & D on that front, who knows what improvements we'll see.

Many midsize cars sold for 2016 already meet the CAFE mpg requirements for c. 2021.

robr2

@markcincinnati

Keep in mind that the emission, fuel economy, and safety standards are not decided in a vacuum. Manufacturers and their lobbyists work closely with the EPA and NHTSA to come up with achievable targets. The government knows they can't pick arbitrary standards that would make products so expensive that the average consumer couldn't buy them. It's all negotiated.

As for VW and the inability to meet the target, remember they are able to meet the target when the vehicle is in test mode. I'm guessing that performance, fuel economy, or cost targets could not be met without the test mode, hence the deception.

stickguy

well, obviously they could make the cars pass the test. For no extra money, because they did pass the tests.

the problem isn't that they didn't pass, it is they essentially did a "cheater" tune job themselves (as opposed to owners that chip a car to get the same end result).

I assume the "fix" is just a flash update to make the test cheater tune the standard and only option.

I admit not having had time to read the articles about this. I have seen the "up to 40x" stuff (which i assume is worst case, not close to average). But is there decent reports on what the HP and MPG hit to running the "test" tune all the time would be?

henryn

andres3 said:

Not that strange. My taxes pay the EPA's bureaucracy, ineffectiveness, and waste.

Without the EPA, seems to me car prices would be lower, emissions would be about the same, and my taxes would be lower. Also, the Colorado rivers wouldn't be as polluted, but that's another story.

Say what? Did he really just say that? "Without the EPA, ... emissions would be about the same..."

Really? Seriously? He said that?

Okay, now I understand why others are asking for an ignore button.

circlew

Relax. If GM killed 124 people from criminal coverups and only 13 people were fired, VW has no worries, imho. We did the same thing in the '70's defeating the archaic smog devices to get the HP's up!

VW isn't going anywhere. GM is still here. And now Chrysler wants to buy them. I assume Marchionne now has a second candidate for merger potential!

http://www.allgov.com/news/top-stories/gm-executives-avoid-prosecution-for-124-deaths-caused-by-cover-up-of-faulty-ignition-switches-150921?news=857466

stickguy

what might save VW (at least in the US) is that the issue is specific to the Diesel. Most sales are gas, so maybe those people don't bail?

markcincinnati

I am sitting here watching a TV show on the subject of the cost to make the cars in question compliant with their claims. The "expert" (I have no idea who he is, but he does not appear to be, currently at least, from a car mfgr), claims something like the cost per car to make them compliant is over $35,000 PER CAR. I don't even know of any Jettas that, new, retailed for that much.

Anyone who reads and/or watches conventional media knows that so many of these companies that try to get away with things, don't. Therefore, someone who measures risk must have come to the conclusion that the risk (cost) of the lie is lower than the risk (cost) of compliance. Why else would someone make such a decision, especially if the cost per car would be $200 or $300 as suggested here elsewhere?

Another news story claims, that "as a practical matter," (which I assume is code for "the cost of meeting the standards would make the cars in question unsellable") there is no CURRENT way to meet these requirements.

Sure, discoveries are made every day, and I think it is reasonable to conclude that it is possible to get to zero emissions -- but diesel engines must make things more difficult and/or prohibitively expensive.

If I thought I could comply and simply pass the cost along to a willing market, why would I risk even the possibility of being caught fudging the numbers?

Something doesn't add up -- I mean why would Cadillac have done the same thing a few years ago, why would the other companies fudge HP or MPG ratings or not fix ignition switches (and in the case of ignition switches there was an inexpensive fix)?

I understand there are EPA haters, and of course there are car company haters, but time and again, when it is possible for a secret or cover up to be discovered, it is -- is, for example, Martin Winterkorn, a boob someone who doesn't read or watch TV where it is possible to see a peanut company exec go to jail for 28 years for trying to cover up tainted peanut butter, or GM being called out for faulty ignition switches or Cadillac being fined for cooking EPA compliance records?

Said it before, the only way to keep a secret between 3 people is if 2 of them are dead. How many people at VW knew? Did it not ever occur to anyone that a curious guy from the university of West Virginia (or where ever) would test one of these cars and uncover the deceit?

As somewhat of a student of Adam Smith, I'm not really sure if this is the invisible hand at work -- it seems more like the work of a statistician who advised (ill-advised, I'd say) management that the cost of compliance is far more dear than the cost of getting caught cheating.

I just missed what the President of Nissan was just saying in an interview, but it seems to be something like "we all do it, because the costs of compliance are too dear."

Wonder how this will all play out? At this point, I'm going with "too big to fail."

This too shall pass.

benjaminh

The BMW diesel X5 tested by the same company passed with flying colors. Much more expensive car, obviously.

andres3

henryn said:

andres3 said:

Not that strange. My taxes pay the EPA's bureaucracy, ineffectiveness, and waste.

Without the EPA, seems to me car prices would be lower, emissions would be about the same, and my taxes would be lower. Also, the Colorado rivers wouldn't be as polluted, but that's another story.

Say what? Did he really just say that? "Without the EPA, ... emissions would be about the same..."

Really? Seriously? He said that?

Okay, now I understand why others are asking for an ignore button.

Most States have adopted CARB standards, so yes, emissions would be about the same without the EPA. Also, while the EPA might have stringent emission criteria, their tests are obviously incompetent to detect actual emissions, so actual emissions would be about the same, while perhaps the regulations might have lower standards. I'm talking real-world here.

benjaminh

andres3 said:

....Most States have adopted CARB standards, so yes, emissions would be about the same without the EPA. Also, while the EPA might have stringent emission criteria, their tests are obviously incompetent to detect actual emissions, so actual emissions would be about the same, while perhaps the regulations might have lower standards. I'm talking real-world here.

"Most states" would mean more than half, which would mean more than 25 states. In fact, it's fewer than 20 states according to wikipedia:

"States adopting the California standards include Arizona (2012 model year), Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico (2011 model year), New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington, as well as the District of Columbia."

markcincinnati

benjaminh said:

The BMW diesel X5 tested by the same company passed with flying colors. Much more expensive car, obviously.

The X5 is an ad-blue version -- I believe the ones that were fudged were the little bitty engines that were claimed to NOT NEED ad-blue.

This is what is so confusing, I would imagine adding ad-blue technology to the Jetta, for instance, would be on the order of a few hundred bucks per car, not $35,000. It would seem to me that raising the cost of the car 1% (MSRP) would be acceptable to the market, whereas $35K would not.

There's so much manure around here on this subject, there has to be a pony around here. Where are the facts?

Of course, even $200 x 11,000,000 is serious money.

===

This just in Winterkorn just resigned -- claiming he had no personal awareness of the lie.

I guess that is POSSIBLE -- but for some reason it just doesn't seem PLAUSABLE.

dino001

I think the issue with AdBlue is that you need to keep putting this stuff in, so the there is more maintenance, which defeats "economy" car proposition.

markcincinnati

What kind of additional costs are we talking about for ad-blue annually? (at the 2.0L engine size).

This, too, makes no sense to me -- diesel cars cost more than gas engined cars, so is it possible that buying a diesel Jetta for a not easy to ignore price premium vs a less expensive gas engined version hinged on the lack of the need to use ad-blue?

I guess it is possible that someone on a budget would spring for a diesel, but again, it doesn't seem as probable to me that someone would do that.

My issues with diesel, until quite recently, have been the scarcity of gas stations that also offer diesel. Now, I would see only positives to getting one of Audis new high performance diesels (which all require ad-blue).

My wife's boss has an ad-blue equipped diesel vehicle -- loves it, especially the tank range.

Me, I have an S4 with a sippy-cup gas tank that only allows, practically speaking, something over 350 miles between fill-ups. My wife's SQ5, on the other hand approaches 500 miles between fill ups.

benjaminh

markcincinnati said:

benjaminh said:

The BMW diesel X5 tested by the same company passed with flying colors. Much more expensive car, obviously.

The X5 is an ad-blue version -- I believe the ones that were fudged were the little bitty engines that were claimed to NOT NEED ad-blue.

This is what is so confusing, I would imagine adding ad-blue technology to the Jetta, for instance, would be on the order of a few hundred bucks per car, not $35,000. It would seem to me that raising the cost of the car 1% (MSRP) would be acceptable to the market, whereas $35K would not.

There's so much manure around here on this subject, there has to be a pony around here. Where are the facts?

Of course, even $200 x 11,000,000 is serious money.

===

This just in Winterkorn just resigned -- claiming he had no personal awareness of the lie.

I guess that is POSSIBLE -- but for some reason it just doesn't seem PLAUSABLE.

My guess is that it wasn't ultimately the cost but the performance that was the real issue. It seems like it was probably c. $300 or less per car to meet the rules, but at the same time power would have been down by a bit, mpg would have been down a bit, and heavy adblue use would have raised the cost for the customer, weakening the case for trading in a gas car for a diesel given the premium of thousands of dollars over gas in msrp.

It seems like some people within VW thought the US rules were BS and didn't want to follow them. They wanted their cars to have better performance and better mpg by running their diesels "naturally." But the result was that the vehicles put out 5-40 times the pollution that they were allowed to by law. Diesel pollution has been scientifically proven to be harmful to human health, which is why CARB and then EPA established these rules to begin with.

So far it seems that BMW followed the rules, although perhaps that will prove to be optimistic. As a result, if that turns out to be the case, BMW's diesel vehicles cost more and get slightly lower mpg. There were probably people at BMW who cursed CARB as well, just like a few people here are, saying, "those #&* bureaucrats!" etc. But then BMW got down to work and got the job done.

Audi, apparently, followed VW down the bad rabbit hole when it came to the diesel A3.

stickguy

I'm still confused at to why the fix costs anything. Just flash the code to stay in test taking trim, and there you go. Mpg and performance, well that will be whatever it is.

benjaminh

stickguy said:

I'm still confused at to why the fix costs anything. Just flash the code to stay in test taking trim, and there you go. Mpg and performance, well that will be whatever it is.

VW tried a software fix. Didn't work. Check the diesel thread.