Volksgaten: If You Can't Compete, Cheat.

[Virgil Showlion]

As reported by Bloomberg, and somewhat buried in the news is VW's Emissions Cheating. To wit (bold by me):

It didn’t add up.

The Volkswagens were spewing harmful exhaust when testers drove them on the road. In the lab, they were fine.

Discrepancies in the European tests on the diesel models of the VW Passat, the VW Jetta and the BMW X5 last year gave Peter Mock an idea.

Mock, European managing director of a little-known clean-air group, suggested replicating the tests in the U.S. The U.S. has higher emissions standards than the rest of the world and a history of enforcing them, so Mock and his American counterpart, John German, were sure the U.S. versions of the vehicles would pass the emissions tests, German said. That way, they reasoned, they could show Europeans it was possible for diesel cars to run clean.

“We had no cause for suspicion,” German, U.S. co-lead of the International Council on Clean Transportation, said in an interview. “We thought the vehicles would be clean.”

So began a series of events that resulted in Volkswagen AG admitting that it built “defeat device” software into a half-million of its diesel cars from 2009 to 2015 that automatically cheated on U.S. air-pollution tests. The world’s second-biggest carmaker now faces billions in fines, possible jail time for its executives and the undoing of its U.S. expansion plans.

...

Then German received the results of the real-world tests.

“We were astounded when we saw the numbers,” he said.

On the open road, the Jetta exceeded the U.S. nitrogen oxide emissions standard by 15 to 35 times. The Passat was 5 to 20 times the standard.

The darker side of German ingenuity.

[❤ mollymouser ❤]

I hope they get hit with the full penalties allowed by law.

"Friday’s notice of violation was the Obama administration’s “opening salvo” in the Volkswagen case, said Thomas Reynolds, an E.P.A. spokesman. The Justice Department’s investigation could ultimately result in fines or penalties for the company. Under the terms of the Clean Air Act, the Justice Department could impose fines of as much as $37,500 for each recalled vehicle, for a possible total penalty of as much as $18 billion."

www.nytimes.com/2015/09/19/business/volkswagen-is-ordered-to-recall-nearly-500000-vehicles-over-emissions-software.html

“This is several steps beyond the violations that we’ve seen from other auto companies,” said Tyson Slocum, director of the energy program at Public Citizen, a consumer advocacy group. “They appear to have designed a system with the intention to mislead consumers and the government. If that’s proven true, it’s remarkable and outrageous. It would merit a heck of a lot more than just a recall and a fine. We would see criminal prosecution.”

[mroped]

VW is as German as Stanley tools are American anymore. Global economy at its best!

[Spellbound454]

It won't effect their market share.(least not in Europe)

VW simply make the best cars by a long chalk.

[Virgil Showlion]

Sept 21, 2015 9:35:15 GMT -5 Spellbound454 said:

It won't effect their market share.(least not in Europe)

VW simply make the best cars by a long chalk.

Their stock has dropped 22% since Thursday's close. They're not going to laugh this one off.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

We're getting to the point where almost everything- from dish washer soap, to shower heads, to appliances, and light bulbs have to be hacked to defeat some regulation or other in order for them to work properly and for the user to enjoy them or get on with their life.  The problem isn't the design, but the regulation that inspired it.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Sept 21, 2015 9:35:15 GMT -5 Spellbound454 said:

It won't effect their market share.(least not in Europe)

VW simply make the best cars by a long chalk.

There is actually zero data to substantiate that ridiculous claim.  VW vehicles are among the worst vehicles in the world.  My criteria is long term reliability- because in my mind, there's no other kind.
www.consumerreports.org/cro/money/shopping/ways-to-save-on/save-on-wheels-new-or-used/reliability-snapshot/save-on-wheels-new-or-used-reliability-snapshot.htm

[Tennesseer]

Sept 21, 2015 19:03:12 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Sept 21, 2015 9:35:15 GMT -5 Spellbound454 said:

It won't effect their market share.(least not in Europe)

VW simply make the best cars by a long chalk.

There is actually zero data to substantiate that ridiculous claim.  VW vehicles are among the worst vehicles in the world.  My criteria is long term reliability- because in my mind, there's no other kind.
www.consumerreports.org/cro/money/shopping/ways-to-save-on/save-on-wheels-new-or-used/reliability-snapshot/save-on-wheels-new-or-used-reliability-snapshot.htm

Do you ever read your links? You posted a 6 year old article about a seven year old survey.

[Spellbound454]

There is actually zero data to substantiate that ridiculous claim. VW vehicles are among the worst vehicles in the world.

I have been driving VWs for years..... and the feeling here is that they are superior to other makes of car.

Bit more expensive... but they are generally more reliable and last longer.

Sure that share prices have dropped but people will still want these cars because they feel like quality.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Sept 22, 2015 13:53:39 GMT -5 Spellbound454 said:

There is actually zero data to substantiate that ridiculous claim. VW vehicles are among the worst vehicles in the world.

I have been driving VWs for years..... and the feeling here is that they are superior to other makes of car.

Bit more expensive... but they are generally more reliable and last longer.

Sure that share prices have dropped but people will still want these cars because they feel like quality.

As long as you know it's just a feeling... 

[wyouser]

I've been driving VW diesels for over 10 years.I like the performance and the fuel mileage. One thing has always hung around in the back of my mind. Europe runs like somewhere under 50% of its personal vehicle fleet as diesels. The reason is that diesels have had better fuel economy than the best gas or gas hybrid cars on the market. Ford sells a station wagon diesel that gets 65 mpg. The diesel version of the Smart car gets over 100 mpg. A VW Polo in Europe gets over 80 mpg. If diesels reduce overall europeanl oil consumption in the range of 30-37 % What is the difference in overall pollution emissions if you scrap the diesel and increase overall burning of oil by such a percent? I've never seen figures on this. How do pollution emissions in total compare?

[Deleted]

Sept 21, 2015 18:36:07 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Sept 21, 2015 9:35:15 GMT -5 Spellbound454 said:

It won't effect their market share.(least not in Europe)

VW simply make the best cars by a long chalk.

Their stock has dropped 22% since Thursday's close. They're not going to laugh this one off.

When the dip bottoms out and the fines have been paid and no longer in the news I sense a good buying opportunity here.  Won't be the first time I made big bucks on a public sentiment stock drop. 

[Deleted]

Sept 30, 2015 12:01:03 GMT -5 wyouser said:

I've been driving VW diesels for over 10 years.I like the performance and the fuel mileage. One thing has always hung around in the back of my mind. Europe runs like somewhere under 50% of its personal vehicle fleet as diesels. The reason is that diesels have had better fuel economy than the best gas or gas hybrid cars on the market. Ford sells a station wagon diesel that gets 65 mpg. The diesel version of the Smart car gets over 100 mpg. A VW Polo in Europe gets over 80 mpg. If diesels reduce overall europeanl oil consumption in the range of 30-37 % What is the difference in overall pollution emissions if you scrap the diesel and increase overall burning of oil by such a percent? I've never seen figures on this. How do pollution emissions in total compare?

Diesels have a way higher thermal efficiency than gasoline engines.  So they emit less carbon per mile than an equally loaded gas engine.  Do you consider carbon emission pollution ?

[wyouser]

Sept 30, 2015 13:10:22 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

Sept 30, 2015 12:01:03 GMT -5 wyouser said:

I've been driving VW diesels for over 10 years.I like the performance and the fuel mileage. One thing has always hung around in the back of my mind. Europe runs like somewhere under 50% of its personal vehicle fleet as diesels. The reason is that diesels have had better fuel economy than the best gas or gas hybrid cars on the market. Ford sells a station wagon diesel that gets 65 mpg. The diesel version of the Smart car gets over 100 mpg. A VW Polo in Europe gets over 80 mpg. If diesels reduce overall europeanl oil consumption in the range of 30-37 % What is the difference in overall pollution emissions if you scrap the diesel and increase overall burning of oil by such a percent? I've never seen figures on this. How do pollution emissions in total compare?

Diesels have a way higher thermal efficiency than gasoline engines.  So they emit less carbon per mile than an equally loaded gas engine.  Do you consider carbon emission pollution ?

I'm guessing from the rhetoric of the administration over the last 7 years, yes. Carbon is considered as pollutant

[Virgil Showlion]

Sept 30, 2015 13:10:22 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

Sept 30, 2015 12:01:03 GMT -5 wyouser said:

I've been driving VW diesels for over 10 years.I like the performance and the fuel mileage. One thing has always hung around in the back of my mind. Europe runs like somewhere under 50% of its personal vehicle fleet as diesels. The reason is that diesels have had better fuel economy than the best gas or gas hybrid cars on the market. Ford sells a station wagon diesel that gets 65 mpg. The diesel version of the Smart car gets over 100 mpg. A VW Polo in Europe gets over 80 mpg. If diesels reduce overall europeanl oil consumption in the range of 30-37 % What is the difference in overall pollution emissions if you scrap the diesel and increase overall burning of oil by such a percent? I've never seen figures on this. How do pollution emissions in total compare?

Diesels have a way higher thermal efficiency than gasoline engines.  So they emit less carbon per mile than an equally loaded gas engine.  Do you consider carbon emission pollution ?

This is the grand irony of the affair.

Apparently the way the vehicles cheated emissions tests was by disabling engine enhancements for performance and fuel economy when they were plugged in for testing. Hence during the tests the cars had less horsepower and sucked more fuel but were able to meet the emissions standards.

If the engine optimizations were disabled permanently, VWs would actually run as clean as mandated by US standards. They just wouldn't benefit from enhanced power/performance (which is pretty much the only reason anyone drives a diesel), and wouldn't offset the high cost of diesel with better fuel economy.

Like you, I'm curious about how the total emissions per mile stacks up against gasoline-burning engines. If VW diesels turn out to be comparable to or better than other engines, although I still don't condone VW's cheating, US regulators may truly have screwed the pooch with faulty emissions standards.

[Deleted]

Oct 1, 2015 6:44:11 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Sept 30, 2015 13:10:22 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

Diesels have a way higher thermal efficiency than gasoline engines.  So they emit less carbon per mile than an equally loaded gas engine.  Do you consider carbon emission pollution ?

This is the grand irony of the affair.

Apparently the way the vehicles cheated emissions tests was by disabling engine enhancements for performance and fuel economy when they were plugged in for testing. Hence during the tests the cars had less horsepower and sucked more fuel but were able to meet the emissions standards.

If the engine optimizations were disabled permanently, VWs would actually run as clean as mandated by US standards. They just wouldn't benefit from enhanced power/performance (which is pretty much the only reason anyone drives a diesel), and wouldn't offset the high cost of diesel with better fuel economy.

Like you, I'm curious about how the total emissions per mile stacks up against gasoline-burning engines. If VW diesels turn out to be comparable to or better than other engines, although I still don't condone VW's cheating, US regulators may truly have screwed the pooch with faulty emissions standards.

Diesel engine, like other internal combustion engines, converts chemical energy contained in the fuel into mechanical power. Diesel fuel is a mixture of hydrocarbons which—during an ideal combustion process—would produce only carbon dioxide (CO2) and water vapor (H2O). Indeed, diesel exhaust gases are primarily composed of CO2, H2O and the unused portion of engine charge air. The volumetric concentrations of these gases in diesel exhaust are typically in the following ranges:
•CO2 - 2 ... 12%
•H2O - 2 ... 12%
•O2 - 3 ... 17%
•N2 - balance.

The concentrations depend on the engine load, with the content of CO2 and H2O increasing and that of O2 decreasing with increasing engine load. None of these principal diesel emissions (with the exception of CO2 for its greenhouse gas properties) have adverse health or environmental effects.

Diesel emissions include also pollutants that can have adverse health and/or environmental effects. Most of these pollutants originate from various non-ideal processes during combustion, such as incomplete combustion of fuel, reactions between mixture components under high temperature and pressure, combustion of engine lubricating oil and oil additives as well as combustion of non-hydrocarbon components of diesel fuel, such as sulfur compounds and fuel additives. Common pollutants include unburned hydrocarbons (HC), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NOx) or particulate matter (PM). Total concentration of pollutants in diesel exhaust gases typically amounts to some tenths of one percent—this is schematically illustrated in Figure 1. Much lower, “near-zero” levels of pollutants are emitted from modern diesel engines equipped with emission aftertreatment devices such as NOx reduction catalysts and particulate filters. www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCsQFjAAahUKEwiYwqz68KHIAhWInIAKHe8rB6s&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dieselnet.com%2Ftech%2Femi_intro.php&usg=AFQjCNEMHr-yLIZdzjP3vkL64_8LdFqDXQ
 
There are other sources that can contribute to pollutant emissions from internal combustion engines—usually in small concentrations, but in some cases containing material of high toxicity. These additional emissions can include metals and other compounds from engine wear or compounds emitted from emission control catalysts (via catalyst attrition or volatilization of solid compounds at high exhaust temperatures). Formation of new species—normally not present in engine exhaust—can also be facilitated by catalysts. This seems to be especially the case when catalysts are introduced into the combustion chamber. For example, some fuel additives—so-called “fuel-borne catalysts”—used to support the regeneration of diesel particulate filters have been linked to emissions of highly toxic dioxins and furans [Heeb 2011]. A possibility of new emissions must be considered whenever additives (catalytic or not) are introduced into the fuel or lube oil and when fluids are introduced into the exhaust gas. A well known example is urea used as a NOx reductant in SCR catalyst systems—emissions from SCR engines can include ammonia, as well as a number of products from incomplete decomposition of urea. Low quality fuels can be still another source of emissions—for instance, residual fuels used in large marine engines contain heavy metals and other compounds known for their adverse health and environmental effects.                                 
By me; Diesels run without throttle plates and control engine speed by fuel injection volume so therefore have a lot of pass through air when not operating at full load/RPM. This tends to carry through the additives intended clean the SCR system and the urea does not completely get used, producing other unintended pollutants.  On the plus side, if you believe in carbon as a AGW problem, firing the combustion chamber by compression is way more thermally efficient than the the sparkplug/gasoline method.  Producing more motion per BTU used,  which also results in higher fuel economy which more than offsets the higher price.  The higher price of diesel should also come with a note that it contains more BTU's per gallon than any grade of gasoline. Bottom row shows BTU/gallon content. www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB0QFjAAahUKEwjN0v_H96HIAhUGkQ0KHYTXBSQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.afdc.energy.gov%2Ffuels%2Ffuel_comparison_chart.pdf&usg=AFQjCNH_tOZVc8ODqTEus1RwXaluA5MHBA   I view diesel emissions as a new work in progress with improvements as yet to come. I view Volkswagens transgression as a minor one because the current standards are really not that good and limited by current technology. The EPA's "our way is the only way" through regulation, has always rubbed me the wrong way, unintended consequences aside. 

[Virgil Showlion]

Oct 1, 2015 13:49:31 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

Oct 1, 2015 6:44:11 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

This is the grand irony of the affair.

Apparently the way the vehicles cheated emissions tests was by disabling engine enhancements for performance and fuel economy when they were plugged in for testing. Hence during the tests the cars had less horsepower and sucked more fuel but were able to meet the emissions standards.

If the engine optimizations were disabled permanently, VWs would actually run as clean as mandated by US standards. They just wouldn't benefit from enhanced power/performance (which is pretty much the only reason anyone drives a diesel), and wouldn't offset the high cost of diesel with better fuel economy.

Like you, I'm curious about how the total emissions per mile stacks up against gasoline-burning engines. If VW diesels turn out to be comparable to or better than other engines, although I still don't condone VW's cheating, US regulators may truly have screwed the pooch with faulty emissions standards.

Diesel engine, like other internal combustion engines, converts chemical energy contained in the fuel into mechanical power. Diesel fuel is a mixture of hydrocarbons which—during an ideal combustion process—would produce only carbon dioxide (CO2) and water vapor (H2O). Indeed, diesel exhaust gases are primarily composed of CO2, H2O and the unused portion of engine charge air. The volumetric concentrations of these gases in diesel exhaust are typically in the following ranges:
•CO2 - 2 ... 12%
•H2O - 2 ... 12%
•O2 - 3 ... 17%
•N2 - balance.

The concentrations depend on the engine load, with the content of CO2 and H2O increasing and that of O2 decreasing with increasing engine load. None of these principal diesel emissions (with the exception of CO2 for its greenhouse gas properties) have adverse health or environmental effects.

Diesel emissions include also pollutants that can have adverse health and/or environmental effects. Most of these pollutants originate from various non-ideal processes during combustion, such as incomplete combustion of fuel, reactions between mixture components under high temperature and pressure, combustion of engine lubricating oil and oil additives as well as combustion of non-hydrocarbon components of diesel fuel, such as sulfur compounds and fuel additives. Common pollutants include unburned hydrocarbons (HC), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NOx) or particulate matter (PM). Total concentration of pollutants in diesel exhaust gases typically amounts to some tenths of one percent—this is schematically illustrated in Figure 1. Much lower, “near-zero” levels of pollutants are emitted from modern diesel engines equipped with emission aftertreatment devices such as NOx reduction catalysts and particulate filters. www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCsQFjAAahUKEwiYwqz68KHIAhWInIAKHe8rB6s&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dieselnet.com%2Ftech%2Femi_intro.php&usg=AFQjCNEMHr-yLIZdzjP3vkL64_8LdFqDXQ
 
There are other sources that can contribute to pollutant emissions from internal combustion engines—usually in small concentrations, but in some cases containing material of high toxicity. These additional emissions can include metals and other compounds from engine wear or compounds emitted from emission control catalysts (via catalyst attrition or volatilization of solid compounds at high exhaust temperatures). Formation of new species—normally not present in engine exhaust—can also be facilitated by catalysts. This seems to be especially the case when catalysts are introduced into the combustion chamber. For example, some fuel additives—so-called “fuel-borne catalysts”—used to support the regeneration of diesel particulate filters have been linked to emissions of highly toxic dioxins and furans [Heeb 2011]. A possibility of new emissions must be considered whenever additives (catalytic or not) are introduced into the fuel or lube oil and when fluids are introduced into the exhaust gas. A well known example is urea used as a NOx reductant in SCR catalyst systems—emissions from SCR engines can include ammonia, as well as a number of products from incomplete decomposition of urea. Low quality fuels can be still another source of emissions—for instance, residual fuels used in large marine engines contain heavy metals and other compounds known for their adverse health and environmental effects.                                 
By me; Diesels run without throttle plates and control engine speed by fuel injection volume so therefore have a lot of pass through air when not operating at full load/RPM. This tends to carry through the additives intended clean the SCR system and the urea does not completely get used, producing other unintended pollutants.  On the plus side, if you believe in carbon as a AGW problem, firing the combustion chamber by compression is way more thermally efficient than the the sparkplug/gasoline method.  Producing more motion per BTU used,  which also results in higher fuel economy which more than offsets the higher price.  The higher price of diesel should also come with a note that it contains more BTU's per gallon than any grade of gasoline. Bottom row shows BTU/gallon content. www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB0QFjAAahUKEwjN0v_H96HIAhUGkQ0KHYTXBSQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.afdc.energy.gov%2Ffuels%2Ffuel_comparison_chart.pdf&usg=AFQjCNH_tOZVc8ODqTEus1RwXaluA5MHBA   I view diesel emissions as a work in progress with improvements as yet to come. I view Volkswagens transgression as a minor one because the current standards are really not that good and limited by current technology. The EPA's "our way is the only way" through regulation, has always rubbed me the wrong way, unintended consequences aside. 

It's an interesting overview, but it unfortunately doesn't provide the numbers needed to answer the question.

[Deleted]

Oct 1, 2015 14:06:00 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Oct 1, 2015 13:49:31 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

Diesel engine, like other internal combustion engines, converts chemical energy contained in the fuel into mechanical power. Diesel fuel is a mixture of hydrocarbons which—during an ideal combustion process—would produce only carbon dioxide (CO2) and water vapor (H2O). Indeed, diesel exhaust gases are primarily composed of CO2, H2O and the unused portion of engine charge air. The volumetric concentrations of these gases in diesel exhaust are typically in the following ranges:
•CO2 - 2 ... 12%
•H2O - 2 ... 12%
•O2 - 3 ... 17%
•N2 - balance.

The concentrations depend on the engine load, with the content of CO2 and H2O increasing and that of O2 decreasing with increasing engine load. None of these principal diesel emissions (with the exception of CO2 for its greenhouse gas properties) have adverse health or environmental effects.

Diesel emissions include also pollutants that can have adverse health and/or environmental effects. Most of these pollutants originate from various non-ideal processes during combustion, such as incomplete combustion of fuel, reactions between mixture components under high temperature and pressure, combustion of engine lubricating oil and oil additives as well as combustion of non-hydrocarbon components of diesel fuel, such as sulfur compounds and fuel additives. Common pollutants include unburned hydrocarbons (HC), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NOx) or particulate matter (PM). Total concentration of pollutants in diesel exhaust gases typically amounts to some tenths of one percent—this is schematically illustrated in Figure 1. Much lower, “near-zero” levels of pollutants are emitted from modern diesel engines equipped with emission aftertreatment devices such as NOx reduction catalysts and particulate filters. www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCsQFjAAahUKEwiYwqz68KHIAhWInIAKHe8rB6s&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dieselnet.com%2Ftech%2Femi_intro.php&usg=AFQjCNEMHr-yLIZdzjP3vkL64_8LdFqDXQ
 
There are other sources that can contribute to pollutant emissions from internal combustion engines—usually in small concentrations, but in some cases containing material of high toxicity. These additional emissions can include metals and other compounds from engine wear or compounds emitted from emission control catalysts (via catalyst attrition or volatilization of solid compounds at high exhaust temperatures). Formation of new species—normally not present in engine exhaust—can also be facilitated by catalysts. This seems to be especially the case when catalysts are introduced into the combustion chamber. For example, some fuel additives—so-called “fuel-borne catalysts”—used to support the regeneration of diesel particulate filters have been linked to emissions of highly toxic dioxins and furans [Heeb 2011]. A possibility of new emissions must be considered whenever additives (catalytic or not) are introduced into the fuel or lube oil and when fluids are introduced into the exhaust gas. A well known example is urea used as a NOx reductant in SCR catalyst systems—emissions from SCR engines can include ammonia, as well as a number of products from incomplete decomposition of urea. Low quality fuels can be still another source of emissions—for instance, residual fuels used in large marine engines contain heavy metals and other compounds known for their adverse health and environmental effects.                                 
By me; Diesels run without throttle plates and control engine speed by fuel injection volume so therefore have a lot of pass through air when not operating at full load/RPM. This tends to carry through the additives intended clean the SCR system and the urea does not completely get used, producing other unintended pollutants.  On the plus side, if you believe in carbon as a AGW problem, firing the combustion chamber by compression is way more thermally efficient than the the sparkplug/gasoline method.  Producing more motion per BTU used,  which also results in higher fuel economy which more than offsets the higher price.  The higher price of diesel should also come with a note that it contains more BTU's per gallon than any grade of gasoline. Bottom row shows BTU/gallon content. www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB0QFjAAahUKEwjN0v_H96HIAhUGkQ0KHYTXBSQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.afdc.energy.gov%2Ffuels%2Ffuel_comparison_chart.pdf&usg=AFQjCNH_tOZVc8ODqTEus1RwXaluA5MHBA   I view diesel emissions as a work in progress with improvements as yet to come. I view Volkswagens transgression as a minor one because the current standards are really not that good and limited by current technology. The EPA's "our way is the only way" through regulation, has always rubbed me the wrong way, unintended consequences aside. 

It's an interesting overview, but it unfortunately doesn't provide the numbers needed to answer the question.

Sorry. As far as I've ever seen, they go by sample periods for testing not miles.  I suppose it can be converted, but they also test with various loads during the sample period. At similar dilutions, Gasoline
had more “stuff”than Diesel www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCMQFjABahUKEwjH5Mf9_KHIAhVJjQ0KHeZGBMs&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww1.eere.energy.gov%2Fvehiclesandfuels%2Fpdfs%2Fdeer_2005%2Fsession2%2F2005_deer_mcdonald.pdf&usg=AFQjCNFXpMzFzIwErBuVhlaoZfwqPSDPAA

[Deleted]

Oct 1, 2015 6:44:11 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Sept 30, 2015 13:10:22 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

Diesels have a way higher thermal efficiency than gasoline engines.  So they emit less carbon per mile than an equally loaded gas engine.  Do you consider carbon emission pollution ?

This is the grand irony of the affair.

Apparently the way the vehicles cheated emissions tests was by disabling engine enhancements for performance and fuel economy when they were plugged in for testing. Hence during the tests the cars had less horsepower and sucked more fuel but were able to meet the emissions standards.

If the engine optimizations were disabled permanently, VWs would actually run as clean as mandated by US standards. They just wouldn't benefit from enhanced power/performance (which is pretty much the only reason anyone drives a diesel), and wouldn't offset the high cost of diesel with better fuel economy.

Like you, I'm curious about how the total emissions per mile stacks up against gasoline-burning engines. If VW diesels turn out to be comparable to or better than other engines, although I still don't condone VW's cheating, US regulators may truly have screwed the pooch with faulty emissions standards.

Still trying to give you an answer.   Just not to timely about it.  How's this grams per mile chart ?  www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=10&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CFcQFjAJahUKEwjQpIjO7rDIAhUBooAKHXb_Boo&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rita.dot.gov%2Fbts%2Fsites%2Frita.dot.gov.bts%2Ffiles%2Fpublications%2Fnational_transportation_statistics%2Fhtml%2Ftable_04_43.html&usg=AFQjCNHfxVAbcs6DdMvCNCJmDiPpUydN2A Interesting that a 1990 light diesel (basically no emission control)emits less HC than a 2003 light gasoline vehicle with OBD 2 emission control. Unburned HC is the bad stuff.

[Virgil Showlion]

Oct 7, 2015 12:19:35 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

Oct 1, 2015 6:44:11 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

This is the grand irony of the affair.

Apparently the way the vehicles cheated emissions tests was by disabling engine enhancements for performance and fuel economy when they were plugged in for testing. Hence during the tests the cars had less horsepower and sucked more fuel but were able to meet the emissions standards.

If the engine optimizations were disabled permanently, VWs would actually run as clean as mandated by US standards. They just wouldn't benefit from enhanced power/performance (which is pretty much the only reason anyone drives a diesel), and wouldn't offset the high cost of diesel with better fuel economy.

Like you, I'm curious about how the total emissions per mile stacks up against gasoline-burning engines. If VW diesels turn out to be comparable to or better than other engines, although I still don't condone VW's cheating, US regulators may truly have screwed the pooch with faulty emissions standards.

Still trying to give you an answer.   Just not to timely about it.  How's this grams per mile chart ?  www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=10&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CFcQFjAJahUKEwjQpIjO7rDIAhUBooAKHXb_Boo&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rita.dot.gov%2Fbts%2Fsites%2Frita.dot.gov.bts%2Ffiles%2Fpublications%2Fnational_transportation_statistics%2Fhtml%2Ftable_04_43.html&usg=AFQjCNHfxVAbcs6DdMvCNCJmDiPpUydN2A Interesting that a 1990 light diesel (basically no emission control)emits less HC than a 2003 light gasoline vehicle with OBD 2 emission control. Unburned HC is the bad stuff.

This is exactly what we want.

And lo:

GASOLINE Light-duty vehicles (2010)     Total HC: 0.79 g/mi CO: 8.73 g/mi NOx: 0.56 g/mi

DIESEL Light-duty vehicles (2010) Total HC: 0.18 g/mi CO: 0.90 g/mi NOx: 0.42 g/mi

(Also: grams per mile? What poor bastard child of the metric system is that?)

Some caveats about known unknowns:

• these are averages over broad classes of vehicles; Volkswagen vehicles may be well above average
  
  
• the averages are going to be affected by the ratio of smaller light-duty vehicles to bigger light-duty vehicles. If 75% of diesels are little smart cars but only 25% of gas burners are, this would shift the averages dramatically in favour of the diesels. We can't ignore such bias since bigger vehicles are generally able to haul more people and cargo, making it an apples-and-oranges comparison.
  
  
• the four major harmful emissions are CO, NO_x, SO_x, and VOCs. Many but not all VOCs would be subsumed by total HC. SO_x is usually emitted in tiny fractions compared to NO_x, so we can more or less ignore it.
  

Having said this, wow. You have gas burners emitting 340% more hydrocarbons, 870% more CO, and 33% more NO_x, on average. So either VWs are spewing out emissions at ridiculous multiples of industry standard diesels, or the EPA has indeed royally pooched their emissions tests.

I don't know, though. It seems to me that not even the EPA could pooch standards this badly. We're probably missing something, but I don't know what.

[Virgil Showlion]

After much searching, some clarity. Firstly,

auto.howstuffworks.com/fuel-efficiency/fuel-consumption/diesel-fuel-better-environment.htm

One of a dozen articles pointing out that diesels are, and have always been, cleaner-burning than gas in terms of total emissions per mile.

So how much did VW mess things up?

www.newscientist.com/article/dn28240-how-did-volkswagen-cheat-in-tests-and-can-it-fix-affected-cars/

We know that Volkswagen’s on-board software used information from the steering, brakes and accelerator to detect when one of its diesel cars was on a “treadmill” undergoing an emissions test and tweak the engine settings to minimise nitrogen oxide (NOx) levels. On the open road, NOx emissions were up to 35 times higher.

So there you go. To conserve fuel and better performance, NO_x emissions went up by a factor of 35.

A thorough analysis would look into how much fuel is saved in "performance mode" and subtract the total emissions required to extract/refine that amount of fuel, but I doubt it would matter much.

[fishy999]

There is also particulate matter when it comes to diesels.

VW messed up on NOx- and without an engineering degree have no idea how they can fix it short of hardware such as urea injection- which is what everyone else is using.

NOx comes from high combustion temperatures- which is at the heart of a diesel via high compression ratios. Gas burners use EGR to cool it down- and so do modern diesels- but it isn't enough hence the hardware.

Have no idea how this ends- but the buyers of the cars should not have any consequences.

[Deleted]

Oct 7, 2015 17:55:35 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

After much searching, some clarity. Firstly,

auto.howstuffworks.com/fuel-efficiency/fuel-consumption/diesel-fuel-better-environment.htm

One of a dozen articles pointing out that diesels are, and have always been, cleaner-burning than gas in terms of total emissions per mile.

So how much did VW mess things up?

www.newscientist.com/article/dn28240-how-did-volkswagen-cheat-in-tests-and-can-it-fix-affected-cars/

We know that Volkswagen’s on-board software used information from the steering, brakes and accelerator to detect when one of its diesel cars was on a “treadmill” undergoing an emissions test and tweak the engine settings to minimise nitrogen oxide (NOx) levels. On the open road, NOx emissions were up to 35 times higher.

So there you go. To conserve fuel and better performance, NO_x emissions went up by a factor of 35.

A thorough analysis would look into how much fuel is saved in "performance mode" and subtract the total emissions required to extract/refine that amount of fuel, but I doubt it would matter much.

For those who might be following this and would want the NOx exhaust reduction mandate/reasoning from the US EPA. Quote; NOx represent a family of seven compounds. Actually, EPA regulates only nitrogen dioxide
(NO2) as a surrogate for this family of compounds because it is the most prevalent form of NOx
in the atmosphere that is generated by anthropogenic (human) activities. NO2 is not only an
important air pollutant by itself, but also reacts in the atmosphere to form ozone (O3) and acid
rain. It is important to note that the ozone that we want to minimize is tropospheric ozone; that
is, ozone in the ambient air that we breathe. We are not talking about stratospheric ozone in the
upper atmosphere that we cannot breathe. Stratospheric ozone protects us and the troposphere
from ionizing radiation coming from the sun.  www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB0QFjAAahUKEwjUwamdvcLIAhUElQ0KHXr-Bx4&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww3.epa.gov%2Fttncatc1%2Fdir1%2Ffnoxdoc.pdf&usg=AFQjCNEN9QfsMv2YLkpPN1GrgnAmK3Tczw