Audi Says 2.1M Cars Have 'Cheat' Emissions Software

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
This thing just keeps getting bigger and bigger. It's amazing how much trouble can be caused by a couple lines of code.

Audi has said 2.1 million of its cars worldwide were fitted with the software that allowed parent Volkswagen to cheat US emission tests. Some 1.42 million Audi vehicles with so-called EU5 engines are affected in western Europe, with 577,000 in Germany, and almost 13,000 in the US.
Click to expand...
 
I knew about the Audi's because many of their cars (mostly in Europe, I believe the only TDI Audi here is the A3) use the TDI motor. I did not know about Skoda and the article is not clear on whether they are using VW's engines or VW's programming "techniques".
 
The way things are going maybe we'll get enough in fines to pay off the national debt!? :D
 
Oh it'll grow alright. VW is going to likely end up going through everything they've done for the past decade or more to make sure the many people putting their cars under a microscope don't find something first. There's also likely some soiled drawers occurring in the offices of other auto manufacturers as well with people trying to verify they haven't done anything similar.
 
While I'll be behind the whole "FUCK YOU VW" parade, but what VW did was to pass emissions in testing mode but in normal operation the car would get better fuel mileage. What's better, to reduce emissions or burn less fuel? Unless their competitors were able to do both equally as well, it does bring up the question that maybe we've gone too far with this whole car emissions crap.
 
Ashbringer said:
maybe we've gone too far with this whole car emissions crap.
Click to expand...

Probably yes, but my issue with this situation is that VW promised their customers both better mileage and less emissions. Corporations need to put their customers before profit and share price.
 
Gweenz said:
Probably yes, but my issue with this situation is that VW promised their customers both better mileage and less emissions. Corporations need to put their customers before profit and share price.
Click to expand...

I think that is against capitalism. They are not sorry they did it, they are only sorry they got caught.
 
Gweenz said:
I knew about the Audi's because many of their cars (mostly in Europe, I believe the only TDI Audi here is the A3) use the TDI motor. I did not know about Skoda and the article is not clear on whether they are using VW's engines or VW's programming "techniques".
Click to expand...

We can get the Audi A8 in a tdi as well


Also this will effect skoda and Seat brands.


Furthermore, I've said it again and again, once this hits bottom, I'm buying VW stock and a new used tdi for cheap.
 
Ashbringer said:
While I'll be behind the whole "FUCK YOU VW" parade, but what VW did was to pass emissions in testing mode but in normal operation the car would get better fuel mileage. What's better, to reduce emissions or burn less fuel? Unless their competitors were able to do both equally as well, it does bring up the question that maybe we've gone too far with this whole car emissions crap.
Click to expand...

I think the problem is that many people do not understand why Nitrogen Oxides NOx "emissions" were being heavily regulated. They don't simply create smog clouds, which are debilitating to breathe, NOx reacts with O2 and H2O vapor in the air to create HNO3, nitric acid aka Acid Rain.

There's a whole list of problems with having acid falling from the sky.
Kills plants
Kills wildlife
Acidifies lakes, rivers, and streams.
Dissolves limestone, marble, bronze and other historic building materials.
Modern structures like steel bridges suffer greatly increased maintenance costs and reduced lifespan.
Destroys paint and other protective coatings, reducing the lifespan of cars, houses, boats, basically any outdoor equipment.
What it doesn't outright destroy, it leaves a dry acid residue on that stains and discolors a yellow-brown.

So, to answer your question: Yes, reducing emissions that cause acid to fall from the sky is better than a moderate improvement in MPG.
 
Been known a long time that ALL German cars have malfunctioning or missing turn signals but this hasn't bothered the media.....
 
Gweenz said:
I knew about the Audi's because many of their cars (mostly in Europe, I believe the only TDI Audi here is the A3) use the TDI motor. I did not know about Skoda and the article is not clear on whether they are using VW's engines or VW's programming "techniques".
Click to expand...

The Europeans are going to have a field day with this mess. Does anyone remember Paris implementing driving restrictions (even and odd numbered license plates weren't allowed to drive on the same days) earlier this year because of smog problems?
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26599010
 
I hope they do the max fine possible and must offer buyer full refund if they choose to return the car...
 
Ashbringer said:
While I'll be behind the whole "FUCK YOU VW" parade, but what VW did was to pass emissions in testing mode but in normal operation the car would get better fuel mileage. What's better, to reduce emissions or burn less fuel? Unless their competitors were able to do both equally as well, it does bring up the question that maybe we've gone too far with this whole car emissions crap.
Click to expand...

I'll take 40x less nitric oxide in the air I breathe. Thanks for asking.
 
zaniix said:
I think that is against capitalism. They are not sorry they did it, they are only sorry they got caught.
Click to expand...

If they get a slap on the wrist then yes they'll profit from it. But the hit they're taking in just consumer sentiment is going to take years for them to recover.

It takes 17x more money to get a lost customer back than it was to sell them in the first place. Free markets will win this game. I just hope the governments of the world don't give these guys a free pass.
 
How is any of this different from auto makers knowingly miss stating mpg and where is the outrage. Come to think of it there have been numerous cases of automakers skirting around things that one would expect a larger public outcry. Remember the Exploder and Firestone deal or even further back, remember unsafe at any speed? This VW thing is a drop in the bucket, and some how I'm thinking in a couple of weeks, no one will remember or care.
 
Gweenz said:
Probably yes, but my issue with this situation is that VW promised their customers both better mileage and less emissions. Corporations need to put their customers before profit and share price.
Click to expand...

But that's not Capitalism, it's Socialism, and that's bad, because reasons, kay?
 
bmango said:
How is any of this different from auto makers knowingly miss stating mpg and where is the outrage. Come to think of it there have been numerous cases of automakers skirting around things that one would expect a larger public outcry. Remember the Exploder and Firestone deal or even further back, remember unsafe at any speed? This VW thing is a drop in the bucket, and some how I'm thinking in a couple of weeks, no one will remember or care.
Click to expand...

I seem to recall Ford throwing Firestone under the bus. VW really lacks a fall guy on this one.
 
I don't understand this storm. Everyone knew this was going on, I remember about it a few years ago, that they purposely program ECUs to detect fake testing cycles.

I bet every other car manufacturer is holding their breath now, and quietly disable any offending code in their ECUs.

It's ironic to see the US up in arms against pollution as one of the worlds biggest polluter who refuses to even sign the agreement to reduce pollution. They don't cheat, they outright refuse the rules. So now this all seems so hypocritical.

The US testing methods for car pollution were biased anyway, greatly disadvantageous towards diesel cars, while favouring big gas guzzler petrol engines. When in the end, the problem is as big as much fossil fuel you burn. It's still better to burn 1 gallon of diesel with a(n) "oh so deadly" VW engine, than to burn 5 gallons of petrol in a V8, while travelling the same distance.
 
zaniix said:
I think that is against capitalism. They are not sorry they did it, they are only sorry they got caught.
Click to expand...

As opposed to socialism where the government will cheat and the government will look the other way when it audits itself and if some activist group checks and reports their findings, they'll be told to go fuck themselves if they know what is good for them. And if it hits the press anyway the government will promptly slap itself on the wrist and say 'what does it matter now anyway!'
 
"People are over-reacting to this"

Bullshit.

If you were promised a 350HP car that did 27MPG, bought it, and then found out that either of those was false just to sell you a product?

Let them burn.
 
Kueller said:
I think the problem is that many people do not understand why Nitrogen Oxides NOx "emissions" were being heavily regulated. They don't simply create smog clouds, which are debilitating to breathe, NOx reacts with O2 and H2O vapor in the air to create HNO3, nitric acid aka Acid Rain.

There's a whole list of problems with having acid falling from the sky.
Kills plants
Kills wildlife
Acidifies lakes, rivers, and streams.
Dissolves limestone, marble, bronze and other historic building materials.
Modern structures like steel bridges suffer greatly increased maintenance costs and reduced lifespan.
Destroys paint and other protective coatings, reducing the lifespan of cars, houses, boats, basically any outdoor equipment.
What it doesn't outright destroy, it leaves a dry acid residue on that stains and discolors a yellow-brown.

So, to answer your question: Yes, reducing emissions that cause acid to fall from the sky is better than a moderate improvement in MPG.
Click to expand...

Also diesel emission particulates are dangerous because of the size which allows them to penetrate very deep into the lungs where they cause both an inflammatory and cell metaplasia over time. This puts people with asthma at high risk of exacerbations and is linked to causing copd disorders over time. It also increases risks of lung cancer.
 
amdgamer said:
Also diesel emission particulates are dangerous because of the size which allows them to penetrate very deep into the lungs where they cause both an inflammatory and cell metaplasia over time. This puts people with asthma at high risk of exacerbations and is linked to causing copd disorders over time. It also increases risks of lung cancer.
Click to expand...

Were particulate emissions higher because of the defeat device? I only read about NOx but I didn't read that deeply into it. (NB: Not saying that you're saying particulates were higher, I'm just now curious if they were.)
 
Ashbringer said:
What's better, to reduce emissions or burn less fuel?
Click to expand...
Better for what? Oil companies want reduced emissions absolutely, since more of their product is being sold, governments want reduced emissions too, more fuel tax dollars, the environment probably wants reduced emissions as well, you'd have to go really really far down the chain of production to try and argue that burning less fuel overall makes less pollution... and probably couldn't even get to that point depending upon how much of a fuel savings it really is. At the end of the day though it really is a local problem vs. a global one, locally we don't want to fuck our shit up, if it means some other country is fucking their shit up so we can get away with that then so be it.
 
They need to be penalized in one of two ways:
1. Figure out a correct software programming that will let it operate with the reduced emissions 100% of the time, and if this results in reduced MPG, then set up a claims system to pay every customer the difference.
2. If #1 is not possible (or they don't want to do it, if it is), then buy back the vehicles for the price each customer paid, if the customer chooses so.


gamerk2 said:
But that's not Capitalism, it's Socialism, and that's bad, because reasons, kay?
Click to expand...

And these vehicles come from a country that belongs to a socialist multi-nation (read: multi-large corporate) union (EU)...so yeah, more proof that it is bad. mkay?
 
Kueller said:
I think the problem is that many people do not understand why Nitrogen Oxides NOx "emissions" were being heavily regulated. They don't simply create smog clouds, which are debilitating to breathe, NOx reacts with O2 and H2O vapor in the air to create HNO3, nitric acid aka Acid Rain.

There's a whole list of problems with having acid falling from the sky.
Kills plants
Kills wildlife
Acidifies lakes, rivers, and streams.
Dissolves limestone, marble, bronze and other historic building materials.
Modern structures like steel bridges suffer greatly increased maintenance costs and reduced lifespan.
Destroys paint and other protective coatings, reducing the lifespan of cars, houses, boats, basically any outdoor equipment.
What it doesn't outright destroy, it leaves a dry acid residue on that stains and discolors a yellow-brown.

So, to answer your question: Yes, reducing emissions that cause acid to fall from the sky is better than a moderate improvement in MPG.
Click to expand...

Yeah but if it creates CO2 in any way then it is good for the environment because plants need CO2. Right? Isnt that how it works? Cmon cant I get a climategate pusher to back me up here!
 
DejaWiz said:
If #1 is not possible (or they don't want to do it, if it is), then buy back the vehicles for the price each customer paid, if the customer chooses so.
Click to expand...

Buy back the vehicle at the price I paid, then I'll turn around and buy it for it's market value.
 
McFry said:
Yeah but if it creates CO2 in any way then it is good for the environment because plants need CO2. Right? Isnt that how it works? Cmon cant I get a climategate pusher to back me up here!
Click to expand...

Diesel fuel - it's got what plants crave!
 
gamerk2 said:
But that's not Capitalism, it's Socialism, and that's bad, because reasons, kay?
Click to expand...

No its not. Nowhere in the definition of capitalization does it say "put profits above all else". Both can coexist in a capitalistic society, mkay!
 
McFry said:
Yeah but if it creates CO2 in any way then it is good for the environment because plants need CO2. Right? Isnt that how it works? Cmon cant I get a climategate pusher to back me up here!
Click to expand...

It's actually even better(?) than that: NOx breaks down methane in the atmosphere, and as few climategaters are scientifically literate enough to know, methane is a much stronger greenhouse gas than CO2...So increased NOx emissions could conceivably contribute to global cooling.

Can't believe they haven't tried pushing this angle yet...
 
Evil_SPanKY said:
No its not. Nowhere in the definition of capitalization does it say "put profits above all else". Both can coexist in a capitalistic society, mkay!
Click to expand...

You clearly haven't been paying attention to capitalism as practiced in the USA for the last...well...for as long as there's been a USA. Think about it for a minute. Why do we have a the word "snake oil" in our language? Because $$ signs have mattered more than human lives for a very long time.
 
ShamisOMally said:
"People are over-reacting to this"

Bullshit.

If you were promised a 350HP car that did 27MPG, bought it, and then found out that either of those was false just to sell you a product?

Let them burn.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but this short sited. Anything (not involving criminal charges) will trickle down to owners. But government is rarely pragmatic.
 
Spewn said:
Were particulate emissions higher because of the defeat device? I only read about NOx but I didn't read that deeply into it. (NB: Not saying that you're saying particulates were higher, I'm just now curious if they were.)
Click to expand...

No. The DPF catches those. In any fashion, the higher the MPG of a diesel, the less particulates. Soot comes from incomplete combustion. Incomplete combustion, efficiency, and fuel economy don't hold hands together.
 
As someone who lives in London and drives a civi diesel am patiently waiting Hondas statement but the silence of the other manufacturers says a lot.
 
ShamisOMally said:
"People are over-reacting to this"

Bullshit.

If you were promised a 350HP car that did 27MPG, bought it, and then found out that either of those was false just to sell you a product?

Let them burn.
Click to expand...

I still say they are over-reacting.

The car actually does get the mileage advertised and actually does get the performance advertised -- it just spits out a bit more NOx than advertised.

Personally, I'd rather have the mileage.

I know people who have some of the effected vehicles, and they have no intention of EVER getting them fixed, if it reduces their mileage. Of course, I live in a state with no emissions testing and no vehicle inspections of any kind -- which is just how I like it.
$60/yr license fee for the vehicle, no questions asked, sight unseen, no tests performed.

I personally know people who have drilled their own converters, sold the catalyst, and modified the software to increase their engine performance and ignore any messages from the converter. I also know someone who is still driving an aging RX7 on which the seals basically disintegrated YEARS ago -- and he pretty much adds oil every time he adds gas (it might as well be a 2-cycle at this point). While I'm not advocating doing this, the amount of emissions from the VW's pales in comparison to many other vehicles still on the road (e.g. a large 1970's Kenworth diesel I know of that still gets driven quite a bit -- and has never had any changes or improvements made to it's exhaust system).

Sure, fine VW. But ignore the ones on the road and just exempt them so that their resale value isn't destroyed.
 
Evil_SPanKY said:
No its not. Nowhere in the definition of capitalization does it say "put profits above all else". Both can coexist in a capitalistic society, mkay!
Click to expand...

That's new capitalism. These days, conseratives wanna party like it's 1899. Bring on the robber barons.:D
 
mdburkey said:
I still say they are over-reacting.
Click to expand...

This might be a rather difficult idea to wrap your head around, but some of us actually place a higher value on environmental regulations than our personal convenience, at least with respect to our personally owned vehicles.
 
potency said:
This might be a rather difficult idea to wrap your head around, but some of us actually place a higher value on environmental regulations than our personal convenience, at least with respect to our personally owned vehicles.
Click to expand...

This might be hard for you to wrap your head around, but it's a speck of sand in a gazillion specks.

Drive around your city. But first, roll down your windows... and breathe deep. Smell that?? Nasty, isn't it? Many cars on the road pour out far more than a "cheating" Turbodiesel.

It's overblown. And harming consumers that had nothing to do with it will change absolutely nothing. Well, other than make climate alarmists feel good about themselves. Get over yourself.

Any cars bought back will be sold to third world countries anyway. Net effect to the environment: zero. And never mind that most of the world doesn't play by our rules when it comes to polution.
 
5icko said:
This might be hard for you to wrap your head around, but it's a speck of sand in a gazillion specks.
Click to expand...


I'll be a bit more obvious, in the hopes that you can wrap your head around it. It's all about having a conscience. It's nothing about "Well, what I'm doing is not as bad as what x, y, and z are doing, so why should I have to be better."

If you want to split hairs, China is really dumping crap into the planet. But that doesn't mean we as individuals outside of China don't have a responsibility for what we do as individuals. Don't use science to rationalize your decision to not do your part.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top