"I thought I read somewhere this morning that at least one 2.0l has DEF. Maybe the Passat?"
You're right, maybe the Passat, but the big issue is all the 100,000s of Golfs and Jettas without DEF. VW may not be able to 'fix' them to meet regs. Then what???
I don't think CARB believes the testing. I think they are concerned that there's another software cheat that pumps up the DEF when the other VW diesels are tested.
I want to feel some schadenfreude after all the comments by the clean diesel crowd but this corporate nonsense directly affects my one nephew in Chattanooga who works for a supplier making interior bits for VW and other car manufacturers.
Compared to a $16.9 billion slide, my Bentley $$$'s are peanuts ! ?
It looks like the top figure is already blown, without spending any money . i'm sure this puts the VW board i.e., government owners (Lower Saxony) and the VW union, et al., owners on notice that they are going to have to do $$ things a whole lot differently, including renegotiate some union contracts.
I was almost tempted to buy a TDI Passat last month due to the great deals offered but somehow hesitated by thinking about the VW's long term reputation and cost to maintenance. And bingo , within 3 weeks we have a big full blown scandal. By the way I bought a 2015 Hyundai Sonata with 5000 off the MSRP , making it a great deal. As regards what the VW will do to all the recalled 2015 and 2016 TDIs still on the dealer's lot ? I think they will collect them and ship them of to Latin American markets where the EPA standards are non-existent , cutting their losses very well.
I was almost tempted to buy a TDI Passat last month due to the great deals offered but somehow hesitated by thinking about the VW's long term reputation and cost to maintenance. And bingo , within 3 weeks we have a big full blown scandal. By the way I bought a 2015 Hyundai Sonata with 5000 off the MSRP , making it a great deal. As regards what the VW will do to all the recalled 2015 and 2016 TDIs still on the dealer's lot ? I think they will collect them and ship them of to Latin American markets where the EPA standards are non-existent , cutting their losses very well.
It is good to get the feedback, it seems from your post, that you did not get a hybrid after all. I hope it fulfills your expectations for many years to come
Almost all of Latin American, China and European auto markets are in distress.
"Volkswagen is relatively immune to stock market pressure because only 12 percent of its voting shares are traded." And it only counts when you buy or sell, unless you are using your shares on margin or as collateral. Peanuts in other words.
"Adding to pressure on Volkswagen, the German government said on Monday that it would also begin an inquiry to make sure that Volkswagen and other carmakers are complying with laws on auto emissions."
About Winterkorn, “Either he knew, or he didn’t know, which is even worse,” said Ferdinand Dudenhöffer, a professor at the University of Duisburg-Essen who is a longtime Volkswagen critic. “Any politician in his situation would have to resign.”
"South Korea also planned to test Volkswagen cars. Technology exists to reduce the amount of nitrogen oxides emitted by diesels. But the technology also tends to reduce fuel economy as well as performance.
The silver lining for Volkswagen, though, may be that its most profitable vehicles in the United States are Porsche and Audi cars not affected by the E.P.A. action.
Another silver lining for Volkswagen may be that diesel powered cars account for only a tiny fraction of sales in China, which is the company’s largest market"
The questions do raise the questions that IF Winterkorn knew, so goes the board !!, In other words, the government of lower Saxony and labor unions also knew, amongst many others. When you bundle that with US EPA and CAFE and the fact that ALL automakers are doing exactly the same thing. There are a whole lot of people being caught with the pants down. Indeed the whole industry.
Hey @ruking1, wanna stop by CarMax and see if they'll give you a quote for one of your TDIs? Selling a TDI may be okay, but there's talk that you may not be able to register one in California in the near future as the recall details get worked out. Curious to see if the dealers will stop taking them as trade-ins until the NOxious smoke clears.
The certifying entity that would potentially be directed to not certify a previous registered CA TDI would have to resolve the question of taking, before they cannot register those cars in California. They would essentially be exercising a form of eminent domain. So for example, I would not except $3000 an acre when they're claiming that it's doing the damage of a $1.5 million an acre.
Like Gagrice and I have said before, they were previously certified by that same agency as passing smog ( their) emissions tests. The IRS granted the 2009 VW Jetta TDI a tax credit.
If left to the hands of the dealer, they will have to make it extremely attractive.
I would join any class-action lawsuit, against any government entity or private concerns who would want to take the car from me. They can save themselves a fight by putting me in a new VW Touareg TDI, Porsche Cayenne TDI, or MB GLE 300d, which are all unaffected. I would insist on the governmental or private entity pay for ALL taxes incurred, as a result of this taking. So for example, 9% tax on the $50,000 automobile will be $4500. as result of this change, and not count as taxable income, fed/state/local. I would also want the IRS tax credit applied to the new TDI . I'm not unreasonable.
I can smell that new leather VW Touareg TDI already! ( right in my dreams) I think it'll just be grandfathered in . The actual effects are really a tempest in teacup anyway. We are truly in the chicken little phase.
One thing for sure, they're mounting a full-court press to CRUSH diesel.
"German automakers have had some success bringing diesel-powered vehicles in America in recent years, but that may not last much longer. A product planner from Mercedes-Benz we spoke to in Austria apparently believes hybrid setups may be more favorable in the long run, and electrified hybrids will eventually replace oil burners."
"Nine out of 10 new diesel cars break new EU pollution limits when tested on roads rather than test tracks, according to a new report.
On average, the cars emit seven times the permitted level of NOx gasses, with the worst car producing 22 times the legal limit. Models from every major motor manufacturer breached the limit when they were evaluated in real-world conditions."
Love this quote: “Every new diesel car should now be clean but just one in 10 actually is,” said Greg Archer, T&E’s clean vehicles manager. “This is the main cause of the air pollution crisis affecting cities. Carmakers sell clean diesels in the US, and testing should require manufacturers to sell them in Europe too.”
The same is actually true of gassers. The real issue is they are not trying to crush gassers. OOPS !
By the time mine are ready to drive past the bone yard, in say 22- 30 years I'll be 86 to 94 years old. By that time, current emissions standards will have been exempt. Just like they are now. Not much is forever. Indeed by that time, hybrids, EV 's , etc. might be so ineffective, inefficient, still environmentally dirty, etc., etc., i.e.,so passé.
....I would join any class-action lawsuit, against any government entity or private concerns who would want to take the car from me. They can save themselves a fight by putting me in a new VW Touareg TDI, Porsche Cayenne TDI, or MB GLE 300d, which are all unaffected. I would insist on the governmental or private entity pay for ALL taxes incurred, as a result of this taking. So for example, 9% tax on the $50,000 automobile will be $4500. as result of this change, and not count as taxable income, fed/state/local. I would also want the IRS tax credit applied to the new TDI . I'm not unreasonable.
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.)"
Mark my words, they're going to find this diesel scandal true about EVERY level and everything GASSER, even EV's, gas hybrids, also. The diesel scandal is just the tip of the huge, huge, huge iceberg.
Remember, as big as the (automotive fuels) oil companies are, the primary providers of US electrical energy are nuclear and coal. Natural gas is a minority.
The official version can be read off the IRS.gov website.
Quite an example of what Ronald Reagan used to call "government waste, fraud, and abuse." Hope they end this boondoggle.
I agree, but not likely.
So for example, you've heard about the 47% of the population (320 M with more refugees on the way?= a current 150.4 M ) paying little to no taxes? You know, the Romney fiasco ? What do you think is going to happen in that segment, when they are asked/made to pay their "fair " share ? Please, get real!
So really all those 1% protesters (funded by the billionaire Soros) and Ferguson protesters are probably from that 47% segment . They are already paying little to no taxes. So what do you think they're going to do, when they have to pay their fair share.
Mark my words, they're going to find this diesel scandal true about EVERY level and everything GASSER, even EV's, gas hybrids, also. The diesel scandal is just the tip of the huge, huge, huge iceberg.
Remember, as big as the (automotive fuels) oil companies are, the primary providers of US electrical energy are nuclear and coal. Natural gas is a minority.
Maybe. But I doubt it. The BMW X5 diesel passed in real world conditions just fine. My guess is that this is going to turn out to be a problem very specific to Volkswagen. But real world tests of many cars should be done to make sure.
Here's what BMW said today:
A BMW spokesman said: "There are clear laws and guidelines governing this and we adhere to them. Everything else is manipulation and deception and we don't commit such fraud."
Two of my three VW diesels are not on the "suspect list". Neither is the MB. So in my anecdotal case, 75% are spotless according to your logic..
Well, you are ignoring that nine out of 10 diesels in Europe not passing (which I did not post) . If that is true, with diesels, when they start testing gassers, gas hybrids, EV, etc, the ratios will probably be similar. That is probably why they're not going to test gassers, etc., because they already know or can guess the answers. Worse yet , t shows what I said to be to true: the EPA, CARB, etc., has been totally asleep at the wheel. In the worst case, they've been deceiving everybody and for decades. So fairness is called for. So either test them all or stop this kangaroo sham. But like I said before, this is not about fairness, it is about crushing diesel .
Two of my three VW diesels are not on the "suspect list". Neither is the MB. So in my anecdotal case, 75% are spotless according to your logic..
Well, you are ignoring that nine out of 10 diesels in Europe not passing (which I did not post) . If that is true, with diesels, when they start testing gassers, gas hybrids, EV, etc, the ratios will probably be similar. That is probably why they're not going to test gassers, etc., because they already know or can guess the answers. Worse yet , t shows what I said to be to true: the EPA, CARB, etc., has been totally asleep at the wheel. In the worst case, they've been deceiving everybody and for decades. So fairness is called for. So either test them all or stop this kangaroo sham. But like I said before, this is not about fairness, it is about crushing diesel .
Looks like they are going to start testing more diesel vehicles, but I agree they should test gas vehicles too:
"Meanwhile, Grundler said, the EPA and California regulators are now probing all light-duty diesel vehicles in the U.S. market from all manufacturers to check for illegal software designed to fool U.S. emissions tests."
SOS/DD. This alleged outlaw software can work on the alledged GASSERs also ! HELLO! ! ?? They are proving and confirming what I'm saying to be true !
Again, I can't even make this stuff up !
Again, Mark my words, this is really about getting the per mile driven taxes way higher.
To make this easier to see, the minimum combined taxation for California RUG is 60.75 cents per gal. . Divided by the 20 MPG average = .0304 cents per mile driven, min fed/state taxation.
The minimum combining taxation for California ULSD is 63.78 cents. So using the 2009 Jetta TDI's 40 mpg as an example,= .01595 cents per mile driven, min fed/state taxation.
That is 91% more folks!
The truth is they want taxation to be far higher than .0304 cents per mile driven !
Further VW (& other diesel car OEM's) do not recommend beyond 5% biodiesel. So either they do not know, or they are not telling us.
While VW might not design, test and certify all their vehicles to run more than B5 in many markets, Ford, GM, and FCA offer B20 capability in most of their trucks and in the North American market the Cruze Turbo Diesel supports B20.
Perhaps my emissions systems will get double the mileage warranty to say 250,000 miles. Or, they will cover it whenever it needs repair. There is no DEF system , aka catalytic converter.
In addition to methods to reduce emission levels coming out of the combustion chamber such as multiple injection events in one combustion cycle and exhaust gas recirculation (EGR), there are three main parts to modern diesel after treatment systems: a standard diesel oxidation catalyst (converter), a diesel particulate filter and the selective catalytic reduction (SCR) system which consists of a catalytic converter(s) to store and process NOx and mostly recently the addition of diesel exhaust fluid (DEF, i.e. urea) to further reduce NOx. While the older VWs don't have the SCR components for AdBlue/DEF injection they do have different, diesel-specific catalytic converters. It's important to understand that DEF just assists with further cleaning up and reducing NOx from what's already stored and processed in the standard catalyst.
To add a few comments on how VW likely programmed this and the potential impact, while a hood sensor or steering input could be used, an analysis of the code or a change in testing would make those easy to detect. Therefore it's probably something much more complex.
For second generation on-board diagnostics (OBD-II) the protocol requires vehicles be able to perform self-tests (i.e. readiness monitors) of the emission control systems. To pass the monitor self-tests the vehicle's powertrain controller (i.e. computer) looks at sensor and other input to run the various tests such as O2 sensor efficiency, evaporative emissions, etc. For example, the computer might require a certain number of drive cycles (complete engine warm-up from a cold start) or time since ignition-on before it will run a test. For others the vehicle must be operating between a certain rpm range for a certain amount of time for the self-test to activate and run.
The EPA test regimen is very structured with certain times at certain speeds and load. I'd highly suspect they have the powertrain controller programmed to recognize when the engine is started, brought up to the testing temperature, and is run for a combination of vehicle speed and load for certain periods of time so it alters the fueling and fuel timing as long as the operating conditions match the EPA test cycle.
A couple other items, while the EPA does verification testing in-house most of the compliance and certification testing an automaker does is through independent, certified laboratories. They all follow the strict EPA test procedures but this is essentially the automaker self-certifying their vehicles. While the EPA potentially and probably will do spot checks outside their normal test procedures now that this has been identified, an independent testing lab is only going to go by the books (i.e. testing regulations and procedures).
When the media states that the VW turbo diesel vehicles in question are putting out forty-times the legal limit, while that sounds like a lot, you're talking forty times a very small number. If they altered the programming to game the system for oxides of nitrogen (NOx) compliance, when driven normally it is potentially creating more soot and other combustion byproducts but they could still be in very small amounts. That's why you don't see the cars spewing black smoke.
I'd suspect that if the VW Group was were having trouble meeting NOx requirements even when using DEF on the newer vehicles, they likely programmed the powertrain controller to run richer during the EPA emission testing. The extra fuel helps cool the combustion chamber and lowers oxides of nitrogen while increasing other emissions, but the oxidation catalyst is probably able to counteract that for this short test without suffering degradation.
They could also be altering the fuel injection timing (and on a car with variable cam timing, the valve timing) to reduce cylinder pressures and decrease the amount of NOx produced even if it impacts power (which isn't being testing on the emission dyno). During EPA compliant testing the car is on a chassis dynamometer where the engine isn't loaded as much as the real-world (e.g. no wind resistance and the dyno drum/roller doesn't put as much load on the engine) so there's less chance the altered fueling or other parameters would cause detonation/knock or other engine damage.
As I recall, the fuel economy testing is done separately from emission testing so there shouldn't be a direct issue with the altered engine programming for the emission test impacting EPA fuel economy numbers, but if they did it for the emissions there could be a chance they gamed the system for the economy test. Given the benefit of the doubt where the powertrain controller was only programmed to recognize and deviate for the emission testing, it won't have a direct impact on economy numbers.
The problem for VW comes with how they will correct the emission testing failure. There's almost no chance they are going to retrofit DEF systems to the TDI engines that don't already have them or make tons of physical, hardware changes to vehicles. Instead it is likely going to be software driven. I'd wager the power and torque numbers were not taken when the EPA-specific mode was active, so again this EPA-mode engine tuning shouldn't directly impact those number, but if VW has to dramatically alter the engine calibration to make the vehicles comply with emission requirements there's a very real chance the new engine calibration could reduce power, alter drivability and change the amount of fuel used (as well as the amount of DEF injected and future DEF use for vehicles so equipped).
You then end up with VW facing similar problems to when Ford and Hyundai were found to overestimate fuel economy. Other automakers have been found to have overestimated power output as well, so this ends up in a potential scenario where VW has to release a new powertrain calibration (i.e. software tune) that impacts economy and power. That would likely mean a class action lawsuit and VW paying owners for loss in economy and/or not providing advertised power in addition to their stock drop, loss of sales from the stop-order and any costs to correct the problem.
Remember a few years back when it was disclosed that most auto mfgs. were reinforcing the impact areas on their cars where the safety crash tests are done? As I recall, this info was just passed along, but no one got up in arms about it. As far as I know they are still doing it. Wouldn't this be a similar cheat?
Actually the truth Is more complicated than what SoCal eric has posted, even as he acknowledges higher complexity. That is really why I want to see what or how deep subsequent articles can/dare to really go. Right now, it's been at the baby talk level. The real issues are both in the courts of public opinion, and real courts that may try this, rulings will be issued on soundbites and NOT the complexity.
I don't think it's the same, those added structural pieces are always there, while VW's programming disables the emissions reductions in normal driving.
- It only affects VW diesels after 2009, when they put in technology to meet cleaner standards. - One of the test vehicles was a Jetta wagon, the second was a 2013 Passat. The last was a BMW diesel (which passed) - Only the Passat was driven from CA to Washington (smart choice, the Passat is a great Interstate car) - Smog tests are done by attaching a dongle to the OBD-II port, not checking tailpipe emissions. Note that this is not where the problem was detected - the problem was in the EPA certification testing. Annual CARB smog emissions don't test tailpipes (they used to, but don't now, according to the smog person I spoke with), unless the car is old enough to be pre-OBD-II
This is going to be interesting to shake out. We bought a 2014 Passat last year, so if I hear anything I'll report back.
Remember a few years back when it was disclosed that most auto mfgs. were reinforcing the impact areas on their cars where the safety crash tests are done? As I recall, this info was just passed along, but no one got up in arms about it. As far as I know they are still doing it. Wouldn't this be a similar cheat?
I would say it is different. Every real world collision is going to be different and a suite of standardized crash tests can't possibly cover every scenario a vehicle might encounter. There have been quite a few instances where a testing agency, often the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) implements a more rigorous test such as front offset before the government. Right after implementing it's pretty common for many vehicles to do poorly and also common for the automaker to go back and redesign components to improve results.
This isn't so much strengthening to "cheat" but to correct a deficiency that the new testing procedure uncovers. Think of it as continuous process and safety improvement. The hope is that the manufacturer will improve the chassis or other safety components so that it will pass the test and that those changes might also help in certain real world collisions. Not guaranteed, but it should make the vehicle safer.
The closest related analogy to the VW emission incident would probably be the recent Ford F-150 crash testing disparity. The NHTSA only required one body style to be tested before assigning the 5-star frontal rating but only the extended cab models were tested because of the significantly higher sales numbers compared to the standard cab models. The extended cab trucks had an additional chassis brace/impact bar on the frame rail that helped those models pass the offset frontal test but when IIHS tested the standard cab they found it didn't have those components and tested worse.
Technically Ford didn't do anything wrong as they're following government NHTSA regulations, unlike VW which gamed the system for their EPA emissions test. It is somewhat deceptive that Ford has been specifically marketing the NHTSA results and ignoring the IIHS offset testing and trying to get out in front of the media criticism while quietly stating they'd be adding the impact bars on all models in the future, but by the law and regulations they haven't done anything wrong (technically), instead working the system to their advantage. In the case of VW they specifically tried to fool explicit testing requirement and broke the law.
Yes, according to the AQMD, (anyone can google, this so I will not post) diesel cars aren't even mentioned as a significant source of fine particulate matter!!!!
In addition, to GASSER emissions, heavy duty diesel trucks (14,000 # and over) , construction , farming, ships, stationary generators, air travel are some of the main generators. Of course frequent fires are not listed either.
- Smog tests are done by attaching a dongle to the OBD-II port, not checking tailpipe emissions. Note that this is not where the problem was detected - the problem was in the EPA certification testing. Annual CARB smog emissions don't test tailpipes (they used to, but don't now, according to the smog person I spoke with), unless the car is old enough to be pre-OBD-II
One quick item to add, consumer smog testing is now done primarily by OBD-II self-tests, but for vehicle certification they still subject the vehicle to a rigorous test regimen using a gas analyzer of tail pipe emissions (along with checking for compliance with evaporative emissions).
This is essentially to verify that the automaker has programmed the powertrain controller (i.e. software calibration/"tune") correctly and that the modeled/calculated emissions and the vehicle's built-in OBD-II tests should capture and flag anything that will cause an increase in evaporative and tail pipe emissions. Essentially the EPA testing and certification is what proves the vehicle complies with actual tail pipe emissions and is what allows authorities like the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to allow for emission testing using the vehicle's electronics and self-diagnostics.
While a university testing program might have caught VW, the CARB also does periodic checks of vehicles to ensure compliance. The roadside smog tests (which are completely optional and don't record personal identifying information) is an example where CARB goes out and randomly samples vehicles to note trends. While VW might have gotten away with this for a long time, there's a chance they would have been found out anyway.
Remember a few years back when it was disclosed that most auto mfgs. were reinforcing the impact areas on their cars where the safety crash tests are done? As I recall, this info was just passed along, but no one got up in arms about it. As far as I know they are still doing it. Wouldn't this be a similar cheat?
I would say it is different. Every real world collision is going to be different and a suite of standardized crash tests can't possibly cover every scenario a vehicle might encounter. There have been quite a few instances where a testing agency, often the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) implements a more rigorous test such as front offset before the government. Right after implementing it's pretty common for many vehicles to do poorly and also common for the automaker to go back and redesign components to improve results.
This isn't so much strengthening to "cheat" but to correct a deficiency that the new testing procedure uncovers. Think of it as continuous process and safety improvement. The hope is that the manufacturer will improve the chassis or other safety components so that it will pass the test and that those changes might also help in certain real world collisions. Not guaranteed, but it should make the vehicle safer.
The closest related analogy to the VW emission incident would probably be the recent Ford F-150 crash testing disparity. The NHTSA only required one body style to be tested before assigning the 5-star frontal rating but only the extended cab models were tested because of the significantly higher sales numbers compared to the standard cab models. The extended cab trucks had an additional chassis brace/impact bar on the frame rail that helped those models pass the offset frontal test but when IIHS tested the standard cab they found it didn't have those components and tested worse.
Technically Ford didn't do anything wrong as they're following government NHTSA regulations, unlike VW which gamed the system for their EPA emissions test. It is somewhat deceptive that Ford has been specifically marketing the NHTSA results and ignoring the IIHS offset testing and trying to get out in front of the media criticism while quietly stating they'd be adding the impact bars on all models in the future, but by the law and regulations they haven't done anything wrong (technically), instead working the system to their advantage. In the case of VW they specifically tried to fool explicit testing requirement and broke the law.
I think that's all interpretation and the way you are presenting it. I think VW was working the system to their advantage similar to Ford or other examples. The car is capable of passing the test. Just because it doesn't pass the test 99% of the time matters not, as the testing parameters have obviously been communicated, and the goal is to pass the test when the test is taken.
Are driver's that use full throttle acceleration gaming the system too as they produce more emissions than would a slow-poke driver?
This just all proves that our overly burdensome rules and regulations just costs us all more and serves very little purpose; or at least is very ineffective and inefficient.
'21 BMW X3 M40i, '15 Audi S4, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
I think that's all interpretation and the way you are presenting it. I think VW was working the system to their advantage similar to Ford or other examples. The car is capable of passing the test. Just because it doesn't pass the test 99% of the time matters not, as the testing parameters have obviously been communicated, and the goal is to pass the test when the test is taken.
Are driver's that use full throttle acceleration gaming the system too as they produce more emissions than would a slow-poke driver?
This just all proves that our overly burdensome rules and regulations just costs us all more and serves very little purpose; or at least is very ineffective and inefficient.
It's not at all clear to me that the VW cars can meet the NOx requirements in the real world. Being able to meet them for a specified test does not mean that the limits can be met once the software bypass is disabled. Without the presence of Adblue DEF these diesels may be unable to meet the specs in any meaningful way. That's why the recent VW recall with software update was a failure, is my understanding. We'll see...
VW already tried a software fix. It failed. These cars spew NOx beyond the rules even with their systems "engaged."
As the EPA has said, "Nitrogen oxides are a family of highly reactive gases that play a major role in the atmospheric reactions with volatile organic compounds that produce ozone (smog) on hot summer days. Breathing ozone can worsen bronchitis, emphysema, and asthma. Children are at greatest risk of experiencing negative health impacts from exposure to ozone."
Those who say the rules are too tough might consider reviewing some video of smog in the US from the 1950s-1980s, which is why these rules are in place. Or look at pix from China today. This two minute video from CNN of air pollution in China looks a lot like LA in the 1970s.
VW already tried a software fix. It failed. These cars spew NOx beyond the rules even with their systems "engaged."
As the EPA has said, "Nitrogen oxides are a family of highly reactive gases that play a major role in the atmospheric reactions with volatile organic compounds that produce ozone (smog) on hot summer days. Breathing ozone can worsen bronchitis, emphysema, and asthma. Children are at greatest risk of experiencing negative health impacts from exposure to ozone."
Those who say the rules are too tough might consider reviewing some video of smog from the 1950s-1980s, which is why these rules are in place. Or look at pix from China today.
Keep in mind that China has very very little passenger diesels.China's main sources of electrical generation are power plants of coal 70%, hydroelectric, nuclear . Most are of American technology transferred over to China during the Clinton administration.
Ah, absolutely not!, according to AQMD. Unmitigated on/ off-road diesels are some of the real problems. They will do NADA about the 800 # gorillas, such as shipping, airplanes, stationaries, farming & constrction. Even the N0x experts say ULSD, biodiesel,GTL, and manufactured diesel are WAY cleaner.
Keep in mind that China has very very little passenger diesels.
Ah, absolutely not!, according to AQMD. Unmitigated on/ off-road diesels are some of the real problems. They will do NADA about the 800 # gorillas, such as shipping, airplanes, stationaries, farming & constrction. Even the N0x experts say ULSD, biodiesel,GTL, and manufactured diesel are WAY cleaner.
Those other sources are problems too, no doubt, and need to be cleaner and have more oversight. I agree with you there.
But in addition, do you think VW's diesels should follow the rules, or do you think your car and vehicles like it should be exempt?
If you watched that 15-minute video I posted a while ago, you would see that the California Air Resources Board doesn't just try to make cars cleaner, but also trucks, shipping, consumer products, factories, etc. Are there gaps? Sure. Even though CARB has some power, you can see that VW slipped through the cracks.
The logic of your statement, however, of cleaning up things beyond diesel cars, seems to suggest more funding and more power for CARB to regulate more sources of pollution. But some things, like airplanes, I think, fall under national rules.
And your earlier example of huge diesel ships also falls out of CARB's reach unless they enter a California port. And maybe even then there are national or international rules that override what CARB can do? Not sure.
"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...."
I think that's all interpretation and the way you are presenting it. I think VW was working the system to their advantage similar to Ford or other examples. The car is capable of passing the test. Just because it doesn't pass the test 99% of the time matters not, as the testing parameters have obviously been communicated, and the goal is to pass the test when the test is taken.
Are driver's that use full throttle acceleration gaming the system too as they produce more emissions than would a slow-poke driver?
This just all proves that our overly burdensome rules and regulations just costs us all more and serves very little purpose; or at least is very ineffective and inefficient.
VW wasn't working the system to their advantage, they knowingly broke federal laws and regulations as stated in the EPA statement and what VW admitted in the recent press statement by their leadership.
The regulations state an automaker can't have a special engine calibration routine to pass the test. If you look not just at the letter of the law but the intent of the law it is to ensure that what the automaker tests and certifies to the EPA standard and what comes out of the tailpipe is the same as what will come out when the consumer is driving the car.
If it was as simple as changing the calibration code (tuning) so that their cars ran like that all the time, I'm sure it would have already been done in the previous attempt to fix the problem. But it appears they are unable to and I'd bet the illegal mode they used for testing would not meet real-world emission component life, drivability, power, economy or other requirements. If it did then they would have already fixed the problem and this never would have come out since up to a point they were blaming it on other factors.
The vehicle needs to meet emission requirements at all operating conditions. That means that part-throttle or full-throttle a vehicle should have been tested and certified to meet all applicable federal and state standards. You'll burn more fuel and produce more carbon dioxide but that's a matter for another discussion thread. These VW vehicles do not and apparently cannot easily comply with oxides of nitrogen emissions which is pretty serious.
I see your location is California and having also lived in this state for a long time I understand how the rules that CARB publishes can be burdensome and some testing and certification of aftermarket parts, for example, where they aren't explicitly tested but instead a manufacturer pays a fee to have their parts reviewed isn't fair and reasonable. While they have significantly cleaned California's air, I'd be much happier if the EPA took the reins and individual states couldn't use an appointed board of unaccountable employees to make regulations.
After all, it's not just one state but the entire country breathing the same air. That's my biggest issue with CARB. I'm sure there are some EPA regulation that are stifling to business as well, but I'd much rather have one government entity ensuring manufacturers and industry aren't polluting than trying to have many different states trying to dictate policy for the rest of the country.
Please pardon me for saying this, but I think you're missing the essential point. National rules don't segregate the much dirtier shipping, air traffic and send it to the rest of the nation to breathe. Personally, if we could do that, I 'd send it all to DC.
Comments
Compared to a $16.9 billion slide, my Bentley $$$'s are peanuts ! ?
It looks like the top figure is already blown, without spending any money . i'm sure this puts the VW board i.e., government owners (Lower Saxony) and the VW union, et al., owners on notice that they are going to have to do $$ things a whole lot differently, including renegotiate some union contracts.
As regards what the VW will do to all the recalled 2015 and 2016 TDIs still on the dealer's lot ? I think they will collect them and ship them of to Latin American markets where the EPA standards are non-existent , cutting their losses very well.
http://www.thestreet.com/video/13295411/jim-cramer-says-buy-vw-tuesday-kinder-morgan-dividend-is-safe.html?puc=yahoov&cm_ven=YAHOOV
But then, I have to wonder what Winterkorn's golden parachute $$'s are.
Almost all of Latin American, China and European auto markets are in distress.
More quotes from the NY Times (Volkswagen Denied Deception to E.P.A. for Nearly a Year).
"Adding to pressure on Volkswagen, the German government said on Monday that it would also begin an inquiry to make sure that Volkswagen and other carmakers are complying with laws on auto emissions."
About Winterkorn, “Either he knew, or he didn’t know, which is even worse,” said Ferdinand Dudenhöffer, a professor at the University of Duisburg-Essen who is a longtime Volkswagen critic. “Any politician in his situation would have to resign.”
"South Korea also planned to test Volkswagen cars. Technology exists to reduce the amount of nitrogen oxides emitted by diesels. But the technology also tends to reduce fuel economy as well as performance.
The silver lining for Volkswagen, though, may be that its most profitable vehicles in the United States are Porsche and Audi cars not affected by the E.P.A. action.
Another silver lining for Volkswagen may be that diesel powered cars account for only a tiny fraction of sales in China, which is the company’s largest market"
The questions do raise the questions that IF Winterkorn knew, so goes the board !!, In other words, the government of lower Saxony and labor unions also knew, amongst many others. When you bundle that with US EPA and CAFE and the fact that ALL automakers are doing exactly the same thing. There are a whole lot of people being caught with the pants down. Indeed the whole industry.
Nope, it's your granddaddy's.
Like Gagrice and I have said before, they were previously certified by that same agency as passing smog ( their) emissions tests. The IRS granted the 2009 VW Jetta TDI a tax credit.
If left to the hands of the dealer, they will have to make it extremely attractive.
I would join any class-action lawsuit, against any government entity or private concerns who would want to take the car from me. They can save themselves a fight by putting me in a new VW Touareg TDI, Porsche Cayenne TDI, or MB GLE 300d, which are all unaffected. I would insist on the governmental or private entity pay for ALL taxes incurred, as a result of this taking. So for example, 9% tax on the $50,000 automobile will be $4500. as result of this change, and not count as taxable income, fed/state/local. I would also want the IRS tax credit applied to the new TDI . I'm not unreasonable.
One thing for sure, they're mounting a full-court press to CRUSH diesel.
"German automakers have had some success bringing diesel-powered vehicles in America in recent years, but that may not last much longer. A product planner from Mercedes-Benz we spoke to in Austria apparently believes hybrid setups may be more favorable in the long run, and electrified hybrids will eventually replace oil burners."
Hybrids to slowly replace diesels at Mercedes (autoblog.com)
"Nine out of 10 new diesel cars break new EU pollution limits when tested on roads rather than test tracks, according to a new report.
On average, the cars emit seven times the permitted level of NOx gasses, with the worst car producing 22 times the legal limit. Models from every major motor manufacturer breached the limit when they were evaluated in real-world conditions."
Nine out of 10 new diesel cars exceed EU pollution limits, report finds (theguardian.com)
“Every new diesel car should now be clean but just one in 10 actually is,” said Greg Archer, T&E’s clean vehicles manager. “This is the main cause of the air pollution crisis affecting cities. Carmakers sell clean diesels in the US, and testing should require manufacturers to sell them in Europe too.”
OOPS!
By the time mine are ready to drive past the bone yard, in say 22- 30 years I'll be 86 to 94 years old. By that time, current emissions standards will have been exempt. Just like they are now. Not much is forever. Indeed by that time, hybrids, EV 's , etc. might be so ineffective, inefficient, still environmentally dirty, etc., etc., i.e.,so passé.
No thanks.
http://www.myturbodiesel.com/1000q/TDI-tax-credit.htm
The official version can be read off the IRS.gov website.
"Do other automakers do this?
No one knows. That’s part of what the EPA is investigating. The lab that tested the VWs also tested a diesel BMW X5, which passed."
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.)"
Remember, as big as the (automotive fuels) oil companies are, the primary providers of US electrical energy are nuclear and coal. Natural gas is a minority.
So for example, you've heard about the 47% of the population (320 M with more refugees on the way?= a current 150.4 M ) paying little to no taxes? You know, the Romney fiasco ? What do you think is going to happen in that segment, when they are asked/made to pay their "fair " share ? Please, get real!
So really all those 1% protesters (funded by the billionaire Soros) and Ferguson protesters are probably from that 47% segment . They are already paying little to no taxes. So what do you think they're going to do, when they have to pay their fair share.
Here's what BMW said today:
A BMW spokesman said: "There are clear laws and guidelines governing this and we adhere to them. Everything else is manipulation and deception and we don't commit such fraud."
http://www.autonews.com/article/20150921/COPY01/309219876/bmw-daimler-say-their-diesels-comply-with-u.s.-clean-air-rules
Two of my three VW diesels are not on the "suspect list". Neither is the MB. So in my anecdotal case, 75% are spotless according to your logic..
Well, you are ignoring that nine out of 10 diesels in Europe not passing (which I did not post) . If that is true, with diesels, when they start testing gassers, gas hybrids, EV, etc, the ratios will probably be similar. That is probably why they're not going to test gassers, etc., because they already know or can guess the answers. Worse yet , t shows what I said to be to true: the EPA, CARB, etc., has been totally asleep at the wheel. In the worst case, they've been deceiving everybody and for decades. So fairness is called for. So either test them all or stop this kangaroo sham. But like I said before, this is not about fairness, it is about crushing diesel .
"Meanwhile, Grundler said, the EPA and California regulators are now probing all light-duty diesel vehicles in the U.S. market from all manufacturers to check for illegal software designed to fool U.S. emissions tests."
http://www.autonews.com/article/20150921/OEM11/150929980/vws-diesel-sales-frozen-until-compliance-is-proven-epa-official-says
Again, I can't even make this stuff up !
Again, Mark my words, this is really about getting the per mile driven taxes way higher.
To make this easier to see, the minimum combined taxation for California RUG is 60.75 cents per gal. . Divided by the 20 MPG average = .0304 cents per mile driven, min fed/state taxation.
The minimum combining taxation for California ULSD is 63.78 cents. So using the 2009 Jetta TDI's 40 mpg as an example,= .01595 cents per mile driven, min fed/state taxation.
That is 91% more folks!
The truth is they want taxation to be far higher than .0304 cents per mile driven !
To add a few comments on how VW likely programmed this and the potential impact, while a hood sensor or steering input could be used, an analysis of the code or a change in testing would make those easy to detect. Therefore it's probably something much more complex.
For second generation on-board diagnostics (OBD-II) the protocol requires vehicles be able to perform self-tests (i.e. readiness monitors) of the emission control systems. To pass the monitor self-tests the vehicle's powertrain controller (i.e. computer) looks at sensor and other input to run the various tests such as O2 sensor efficiency, evaporative emissions, etc. For example, the computer might require a certain number of drive cycles (complete engine warm-up from a cold start) or time since ignition-on before it will run a test. For others the vehicle must be operating between a certain rpm range for a certain amount of time for the self-test to activate and run.
The EPA test regimen is very structured with certain times at certain speeds and load. I'd highly suspect they have the powertrain controller programmed to recognize when the engine is started, brought up to the testing temperature, and is run for a combination of vehicle speed and load for certain periods of time so it alters the fueling and fuel timing as long as the operating conditions match the EPA test cycle.
A couple other items, while the EPA does verification testing in-house most of the compliance and certification testing an automaker does is through independent, certified laboratories. They all follow the strict EPA test procedures but this is essentially the automaker self-certifying their vehicles. While the EPA potentially and probably will do spot checks outside their normal test procedures now that this has been identified, an independent testing lab is only going to go by the books (i.e. testing regulations and procedures).
When the media states that the VW turbo diesel vehicles in question are putting out forty-times the legal limit, while that sounds like a lot, you're talking forty times a very small number. If they altered the programming to game the system for oxides of nitrogen (NOx) compliance, when driven normally it is potentially creating more soot and other combustion byproducts but they could still be in very small amounts. That's why you don't see the cars spewing black smoke.
I'd suspect that if the VW Group was were having trouble meeting NOx requirements even when using DEF on the newer vehicles, they likely programmed the powertrain controller to run richer during the EPA emission testing. The extra fuel helps cool the combustion chamber and lowers oxides of nitrogen while increasing other emissions, but the oxidation catalyst is probably able to counteract that for this short test without suffering degradation.
They could also be altering the fuel injection timing (and on a car with variable cam timing, the valve timing) to reduce cylinder pressures and decrease the amount of NOx produced even if it impacts power (which isn't being testing on the emission dyno). During EPA compliant testing the car is on a chassis dynamometer where the engine isn't loaded as much as the real-world (e.g. no wind resistance and the dyno drum/roller doesn't put as much load on the engine) so there's less chance the altered fueling or other parameters would cause detonation/knock or other engine damage.
As I recall, the fuel economy testing is done separately from emission testing so there shouldn't be a direct issue with the altered engine programming for the emission test impacting EPA fuel economy numbers, but if they did it for the emissions there could be a chance they gamed the system for the economy test. Given the benefit of the doubt where the powertrain controller was only programmed to recognize and deviate for the emission testing, it won't have a direct impact on economy numbers.
The problem for VW comes with how they will correct the emission testing failure. There's almost no chance they are going to retrofit DEF systems to the TDI engines that don't already have them or make tons of physical, hardware changes to vehicles. Instead it is likely going to be software driven. I'd wager the power and torque numbers were not taken when the EPA-specific mode was active, so again this EPA-mode engine tuning shouldn't directly impact those number, but if VW has to dramatically alter the engine calibration to make the vehicles comply with emission requirements there's a very real chance the new engine calibration could reduce power, alter drivability and change the amount of fuel used (as well as the amount of DEF injected and future DEF use for vehicles so equipped).
You then end up with VW facing similar problems to when Ford and Hyundai were found to overestimate fuel economy. Other automakers have been found to have overestimated power output as well, so this ends up in a potential scenario where VW has to release a new powertrain calibration (i.e. software tune) that impacts economy and power. That would likely mean a class action lawsuit and VW paying owners for loss in economy and/or not providing advertised power in addition to their stock drop, loss of sales from the stop-order and any costs to correct the problem.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
I don't think it's the same, those added structural pieces are always there, while VW's programming disables the emissions reductions in normal driving.
http://www.theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/WVU_LDDV_in-use_ICCT_Report_Final_may2014.pdf
I believe it has already been posted, but here is the letter:
http://www3.epa.gov/otaq/cert/documents/vw-nov-caa-09-18-15.pdf
A few notes:
- It only affects VW diesels after 2009, when they put in technology to meet cleaner standards.
- One of the test vehicles was a Jetta wagon, the second was a 2013 Passat. The last was a BMW diesel (which passed)
- Only the Passat was driven from CA to Washington (smart choice, the Passat is a great Interstate car)
- Smog tests are done by attaching a dongle to the OBD-II port, not checking tailpipe emissions. Note that this is not where the problem was detected - the problem was in the EPA certification testing. Annual CARB smog emissions don't test tailpipes (they used to, but don't now, according to the smog person I spoke with), unless the car is old enough to be pre-OBD-II
This is going to be interesting to shake out. We bought a 2014 Passat last year, so if I hear anything I'll report back.
This isn't so much strengthening to "cheat" but to correct a deficiency that the new testing procedure uncovers. Think of it as continuous process and safety improvement. The hope is that the manufacturer will improve the chassis or other safety components so that it will pass the test and that those changes might also help in certain real world collisions. Not guaranteed, but it should make the vehicle safer.
The closest related analogy to the VW emission incident would probably be the recent Ford F-150 crash testing disparity. The NHTSA only required one body style to be tested before assigning the 5-star frontal rating but only the extended cab models were tested because of the significantly higher sales numbers compared to the standard cab models. The extended cab trucks had an additional chassis brace/impact bar on the frame rail that helped those models pass the offset frontal test but when IIHS tested the standard cab they found it didn't have those components and tested worse.
Technically Ford didn't do anything wrong as they're following government NHTSA regulations, unlike VW which gamed the system for their EPA emissions test. It is somewhat deceptive that Ford has been specifically marketing the NHTSA results and ignoring the IIHS offset testing and trying to get out in front of the media criticism while quietly stating they'd be adding the impact bars on all models in the future, but by the law and regulations they haven't done anything wrong (technically), instead working the system to their advantage. In the case of VW they specifically tried to fool explicit testing requirement and broke the law.
In addition, to GASSER emissions, heavy duty diesel trucks (14,000 # and over) , construction , farming, ships, stationary generators, air travel are some of the main generators. Of course frequent fires are not listed either.
This is essentially to verify that the automaker has programmed the powertrain controller (i.e. software calibration/"tune") correctly and that the modeled/calculated emissions and the vehicle's built-in OBD-II tests should capture and flag anything that will cause an increase in evaporative and tail pipe emissions. Essentially the EPA testing and certification is what proves the vehicle complies with actual tail pipe emissions and is what allows authorities like the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to allow for emission testing using the vehicle's electronics and self-diagnostics.
While a university testing program might have caught VW, the CARB also does periodic checks of vehicles to ensure compliance. The roadside smog tests (which are completely optional and don't record personal identifying information) is an example where CARB goes out and randomly samples vehicles to note trends. While VW might have gotten away with this for a long time, there's a chance they would have been found out anyway.
Are driver's that use full throttle acceleration gaming the system too as they produce more emissions than would a slow-poke driver?
This just all proves that our overly burdensome rules and regulations just costs us all more and serves very little purpose; or at least is very ineffective and inefficient.
As the EPA has said, "Nitrogen oxides are a family of highly reactive gases that play a major role in the atmospheric reactions with volatile organic compounds that produce ozone (smog) on hot summer days. Breathing ozone can worsen bronchitis, emphysema, and asthma. Children are at greatest risk of experiencing negative health impacts from exposure to ozone."
Those who say the rules are too tough might consider reviewing some video of smog in the US from the 1950s-1980s, which is why these rules are in place. Or look at pix from China today. This two minute video from CNN of air pollution in China looks a lot like LA in the 1970s.
Ah, absolutely not!, according to AQMD. Unmitigated on/ off-road diesels are some of the real problems. They will do NADA about the 800 # gorillas, such as shipping, airplanes, stationaries, farming & constrction. Even the N0x experts say ULSD, biodiesel,GTL, and manufactured diesel are WAY cleaner.
Keep in mind that China has very very little passenger diesels.
Ah, absolutely not!, according to AQMD. Unmitigated on/ off-road diesels are some of the real problems. They will do NADA about the 800 # gorillas, such as shipping, airplanes, stationaries, farming & constrction. Even the N0x experts say ULSD, biodiesel,GTL, and manufactured diesel are WAY cleaner.
Those other sources are problems too, no doubt, and need to be cleaner and have more oversight. I agree with you there.
But in addition, do you think VW's diesels should follow the rules, or do you think your car and vehicles like it should be exempt?
If you watched that 15-minute video I posted a while ago, you would see that the California Air Resources Board doesn't just try to make cars cleaner, but also trucks, shipping, consumer products, factories, etc. Are there gaps? Sure. Even though CARB has some power, you can see that VW slipped through the cracks.
The logic of your statement, however, of cleaning up things beyond diesel cars, seems to suggest more funding and more power for CARB to regulate more sources of pollution. But some things, like airplanes, I think, fall under national rules.
And your earlier example of huge diesel ships also falls out of CARB's reach unless they enter a California port. And maybe even then there are national or international rules that override what CARB can do? Not sure.
"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...."
The regulations state an automaker can't have a special engine calibration routine to pass the test. If you look not just at the letter of the law but the intent of the law it is to ensure that what the automaker tests and certifies to the EPA standard and what comes out of the tailpipe is the same as what will come out when the consumer is driving the car.
If it was as simple as changing the calibration code (tuning) so that their cars ran like that all the time, I'm sure it would have already been done in the previous attempt to fix the problem. But it appears they are unable to and I'd bet the illegal mode they used for testing would not meet real-world emission component life, drivability, power, economy or other requirements. If it did then they would have already fixed the problem and this never would have come out since up to a point they were blaming it on other factors.
The vehicle needs to meet emission requirements at all operating conditions. That means that part-throttle or full-throttle a vehicle should have been tested and certified to meet all applicable federal and state standards. You'll burn more fuel and produce more carbon dioxide but that's a matter for another discussion thread. These VW vehicles do not and apparently cannot easily comply with oxides of nitrogen emissions which is pretty serious.
I see your location is California and having also lived in this state for a long time I understand how the rules that CARB publishes can be burdensome and some testing and certification of aftermarket parts, for example, where they aren't explicitly tested but instead a manufacturer pays a fee to have their parts reviewed isn't fair and reasonable. While they have significantly cleaned California's air, I'd be much happier if the EPA took the reins and individual states couldn't use an appointed board of unaccountable employees to make regulations.
After all, it's not just one state but the entire country breathing the same air. That's my biggest issue with CARB. I'm sure there are some EPA regulation that are stifling to business as well, but I'd much rather have one government entity ensuring manufacturers and industry aren't polluting than trying to have many different states trying to dictate policy for the rest of the country.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/volkswagen-cant-bail-us-auto-195721965.html