New Type Of Emissions Cheating Software May Lurk In Audis

Megalith

Megalith

24-bit/48kHz
Staff member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
13,000
When is the embarrassment going to end for VW? I guess that $16.5 billion the company has agreed to pay for its initial scandal is going to go up.

…the company acknowledged that United States and German regulators were examining why some Audi luxury cars and sport utility vehicles behaved differently during tests than they did on the road. The disclosure raises suspicions that Volkswagen used a new type of emissions cheating software in some Audis. Volkswagen is already in deep trouble for programming 11 million diesel cars worldwide to provide artificially low emissions levels during official tests, and then lying to regulators in the United States for more than a year after officials noticed discrepancies.
 
Damn VW, why don't you do like American companies, bring out a gas guzzling SUV, lobby the shit out of being classified as a "small truck" to get different CAFE standards. (although I think that has been change).
 
sfsuphysics said:
Damn VW, why don't you do like American companies, bring out a gas guzzling SUV, lobby the shit out of being classified as a "small truck" to get different CAFE standards. (although I think that has been change).
Click to expand...

That's all going to become irrelevant after the EPA is disbanded and all vehicles sold in America are required to blow as much coal smoke as the Russian aircraft carrier.
 
westrock2000 said:
^ shouldn't you be getting ready for a protest tonight?
Click to expand...

Myron "Love Global Warming" Ebell is being put in charge of the EPA. The US regulators who caught Audi this time are going to be fired and other automakers given the green light to do as they wish with respect to emissions. Tthis what America voted for, isn't it?
 
Well it was between the divisive vitriol and talking about taking away women's rights, but yes I do remember the platform of no more catalytic converters. I don't know what they be, but they sure sounded scary.

Take a deep breath, everything is going to be ok.
 
Hopefully EVs will take off quickly and make this less of a problem in the future.
 
Wierdo said:
Hopefully EVs will take off quickly and make this less of a problem in the future.
Click to expand...

EV's aren't ready for the prime time yet. 1. Too expensive. 2. tech isn't up to par quite yet. 3. they suck
 
Riccochet said:
EV's aren't ready for the prime time yet. 1. Too expensive. 2. tech isn't up to par quite yet. 3. they suck
Click to expand...
The good EVs are too pricey. If I had to buy a car now it would be a regular gas or plugin hybrid. I do look forward to pure EVs though. I want TORQUE.
 
Riccochet said:
EV's aren't ready for the prime time yet. 1. Too expensive. 2. tech isn't up to par quite yet. 3. they suck
Click to expand...

Why do you think something like the chevy bolt sucks? It has reasonable range, it is surprisingly quick for that vehicle size category, looks roughly the same as any newer vehicle on the road, has a lot of nice techie features, and isnt excessively expensive.

I for one dislike the idea that our main source of transportation in this country is subject to price manipulation by foreign actors. Bring on the electrics and the upgrades to the power grid that they will require.
 
Riccochet said:
EV's aren't ready for the prime time yet. 1. Too expensive. 2. tech isn't up to par quite yet. 3. they suck
Click to expand...

I think in a couple years:
1. EVs will make more sense economically: Acceptable prices, more reliable, less annual maintenance costs, pleasantly quiet, and good performance. I think 35k for a model 3 is approaching mainstream levels.
2. I'm not sure what the metric for "not up to par" is here, so I'm gonna go with range and reliability: A solved problem, 200+ miles is good enough and the much simpler design means less moving parts to worry about breaking. Already performs as well or better than most gasoline engine vehicles.
3. That's a subjective measurement, I'm sure in the past cars "sucked" cause they were not horses, change is scary. But I'm sure grandpa can get over the smell and noise of gasoline vehicles the same way he got over horse manure.
 
Last edited:
Briguyatx said:
Why do you think something like the chevy bolt sucks? It has reasonable range, it is surprisingly quick for that vehicle size category, looks roughly the same as any newer vehicle on the road, has a lot of nice techie features, and isnt excessively expensive.

I for one dislike the idea that our main source of transportation in this country is subject to price manipulation by foreign actors. Bring on the electrics and the upgrades to the power grid that they will require.
Click to expand...

Right....Because America is just covered in Lithium mines.

EV's are still pollution else where, not actually zero emission unless only counting from the tail pipe.

Prices are still not cheap, not in relation to ICE cars at least, and most prices people see are from the subsidy the auto makers get to make the EVs along with tax rebates for buying one. Take that all away and they get even more expensive.

With that said, I really can't wait for the day we either have super long range, or very fast charging EVs, I think they will make great performance cars, but they still have a long ways to go.
 
Wierdo said:
I think in a couple years:
1. EVs will make more sense economically: Acceptable prices, more reliable, less annual maintenance costs, pleasantly quiet, and good performance. I think 35k for a model 3 is approaching mainstream levels.
2. I'm not sure what the metric for "not up to par" is here, so I'm gonna go with range and reliability: A solved problem, 200+ miles is good enough and the much simpler design means less moving parts to worry about breaking. Already performs as well or better than most gasoline engine vehicles.
3. That's a subjective measurement, I'm sure in the past cars "sucked" cause they were not horses, change is scary. But I'm sure grandpa can get over the smell and noise of gasoline vehicles the same way he got over horse manure.
Click to expand...

200 miles may be "good enough" for people that live in suburbs and urban areas. I live in the sticks. I also tow a boat and camper. Give me an EV super duty truck with 600+ miles range and a 10 minute re-charge and then it's "good enough".
 
westrock2000 said:
Well it was between the divisive vitriol and talking about taking away women's rights, but yes I do remember the platform of no more catalytic converters. I don't know what they be, but they sure sounded scary.

Take a deep breath, everything is going to be ok.
Click to expand...

Funny thing is, if an old car with a good engine is tuned properly, you can get less emissions out of it then a brand spanking new car that has multiple catalytic converters in it.

I know this for a fact because my first car was like this.

1980 Pontiac Sunbird with a hollowed out cat because it was no good anyway.

When I got it, I had to rebuild the engine.

Slightly bigger pistons, shaved head, some carburetor and intake modification for better airflow, and that thing passed emissions tests better than a brand new fuel injected car.

When I saw the test results after taking it in.. I was like "Suck it new cars!"

Most of the emissions related crap on vehicles only serves to lower fuel mileage and power.
 
Riccochet said:
200 miles may be "good enough" for people that live in suburbs and urban areas. I live in the sticks. I also tow a boat and camper. Give me an EV super duty truck with 600+ miles range and a 10 minute re-charge and then it's "good enough".
Click to expand...

Hmm, for that niche you're describing probably a tough call.

The EVs would tow ridiculously better, they're all about torque basically:


600 Miles may also be doable in the "near" future with the rapid progress batteries are making these days.

Now I don't know about the 10 minute charge thing, maybe half an hour at best, though I wouldn't hold my breath. On the other hand using an EV is not like using a gasoline engine, you don't take a detour to a gas station, instead you just treat it more like an appliance: plug it home and go to bed. On average more convenient imho, electric outlets are allover the place.

But... not today in your niche scenario nope, so I'll give you that one. Tesla did say they were planning to produce EV trucks eventually so who knows.
 
Last edited:
cyclone3d said:
Funny thing is, if an old car with a good engine is tuned properly, you can get less emissions out of it then a brand spanking new car that has multiple catalytic converters in it.
Click to expand...
No.

1980 Pontiac Sunbird with a hollowed out cat because it was no good anyway.

When I got it, I had to rebuild the engine.

Slightly bigger pistons, shaved head, some carburetor and intake modification for better airflow, and that thing passed emissions tests better than a brand new fuel injected car.

When I saw the test results after taking it in.. I was like "Suck it new cars!"

Most of the emissions related crap on vehicles only serves to lower fuel mileage and power.
Click to expand...
Your 1980 Sunbird was subject to 1980 emissions standards whereas the new car is subject to stricter limits.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Draax
like this
mope54 said:
No.


Your 1980 Sunbird was subject to 1980 emissions standards whereas the new car is subject to stricter limits.
Click to expand...

I know there are different standards for different year ranges.

I wasn't comparing the standards. I was comparing the total emissions output.

And it was the first time I took it through emissions. I didn't even tune it specifically to pass the emissions test.

As for a bit more background.. by the time I got my first car, I had been helping my dad work on vehicles for about 8 years, and he was a mechanic by trade (retired now).

We know a little bit about what we are doing and how to tune cars.
 
Haha, wtf is that shit? I have a Lotus Exige that is much lighter then a 4C and has considerably more power and it's no where near a "super car". Calling a 4C a super car brings into question the slant of the video.

Do that same test against a corvette.

BTW, the 4C is so super, they have sold like 300 in America so far.
(And I say that being someone that would drive one)

Wierdo said:
Hmm, for that niche you're describing probably a tough call.

The EVs would tow ridiculously better, they're all about torque basically:


600 Miles may also be doable in the "near" future with the rapid progress batteries are making these days.

Now I don't know about the 10 minute charge thing, maybe half an hour at best, though I wouldn't hold my breath. On the other hand using an EV is not like using a gasoline engine, you don't take a detour to a gas station, instead you just treat it more like an appliance: plug it home and go to bed. On average more convenient imho, electric outlets are allover the place.

But... not today in your niche scenario nope, so I'll give you that one. Tesla did say they were planning to produce EV trucks eventually so who knows.
Click to expand...
 
westrock2000 said:
Haha, wtf is that shit? I have a Lotus Exige that is much lighter then a 4C and has considerably more power and it's no where near a "super car". Calling a 4C a super car brings into question the slant of the video.

Do that same test against a corvette.

BTW, the 4C is so super, they have sold like 300 in America so far.
(And I say that being someone that would drive one)
Click to expand...

I'm not sure why this is relevant to the torque discussion we were having, theoretical towing ability for future EV trucks was the debate earlier.

But performance-wise there's videos for those as well on Youtube, this guy's got some fun ones:
https://www.youtube.com/user/DragTimes/videos

And though I consider it all masturbatory stuff, the direction of progress in the "supercars" niche is something to look forward to as well:


And really... trash talking a family SUV model for beating a "not good enough" sports car while towing another car behind it to boot? lol.
 
Last edited:
I agree with the article that well meaning regulations are pushing the price beyond what the average family can afford. Unless the government is going to subsides the cost significantly, raising prices unilaterally is essentially a regressive tax on lower and middle class americans.
 
Compwiz said:
I agree with the article that well meaning regulations are pushing the price beyond what the average family can afford. Unless the government is going to subsides the cost significantly, raising prices unilaterally is essentially a regressive tax on lower and middle class americans.
Click to expand...

Subsidies. How do they work?
 
evilsofa said:
Subsidies. How do they work?
Click to expand...

I should have said subsidies based on income level. Obviously If you raise the prices equally people lower on the income scale are going to feel the pinch more. Don't get it wrong though I'm not advocating this either... I just bought a used 2015 Roush Mustang :D
 
evilsofa said:
Myron "Love Global Warming" Ebell is being put in charge of the EPA. The US regulators who caught Audi this time are going to be fired and other automakers given the green light to do as they wish with respect to emissions. Tthis what America voted for, isn't it?
Click to expand...

I'll be blunt. Anyone who believes CAFE standards and the EPA in general isn't out of their cotton pickin minds these days, ignoring basic science (you can't get more blood from a stone) has not read anything other than the latest propaganda from the Greenpeace types or had to deal with these bureaucrats (tire ruts in dirt filled with water are protected wetlands). EPA's idiocy at an old mine gets a river contaminated in Colorado and its ho-hum, no big deal. VW (and I'm sure all companies are doing it in one way or another) gets caught gaming the system to their benefit and it is the end of the world. The tech is not their to get just one more percent less "pollution" without killing mpg efficiency or raw power. Go see what they're doing to big rig trucks all in the name of lower emissions and so called efficiency. Look up EPAutos's site, a libertarian if you don't want an evil earth hating Myron type for more info on that front.
 
cyclone3d said:
Funny thing is, if an old car with a good engine is tuned properly, you can get less emissions out of it then a brand spanking new car that has multiple catalytic converters in it.

I know this for a fact because my first car was like this.

1980 Pontiac Sunbird with a hollowed out cat because it was no good anyway.

When I got it, I had to rebuild the engine.

Slightly bigger pistons, shaved head, some carburetor and intake modification for better airflow, and that thing passed emissions tests better than a brand new fuel injected car.

When I saw the test results after taking it in.. I was like "Suck it new cars!"

Most of the emissions related crap on vehicles only serves to lower fuel mileage and power.
Click to expand...


Bullshit.

Bullshit

Bullshit.

Bullshit: just in case you missed it the first three times

i have dealt with tuning older carb'd cars trying to get the to pass their certification emissions standards as well as the latest shit the industry has to offer, including the plug-in hybrids. you are not getting that old shit to pass cleaner than the current stuff. period. you aren't changing the laws of physics, thermodynamics or chemistry by improving the volumetric efficiency to get the sort of results you are claiming. doesn't work that way, didn't then, doesn't now.

we have a 486 based bear emissions analyzer we use at work for checking carb settings and CIS mixtures prior to sending cars out for emissions testing, it isn't accurate enough to read a modern car, just displays 0.0 when an actual reading would be 0.03.
 
Nimisys said:
Bullshit.

Bullshit

Bullshit.

Bullshit: just in case you missed it the first three times

i have dealt with tuning older carb'd cars trying to get the to pass their certification emissions standards as well as the latest shit the industry has to offer, including the plug-in hybrids. you are not getting that old shit to pass cleaner than the current stuff. period. you aren't changing the laws of physics, thermodynamics or chemistry by improving the volumetric efficiency to get the sort of results you are claiming. doesn't work that way, didn't then, doesn't now.

we have a 486 based bear emissions analyzer we use at work for checking carb settings and CIS mixtures prior to sending cars out for emissions testing, it isn't accurate enough to read a modern car, just displays 0.0 when an actual reading would be 0.03.
Click to expand...

This was back in 1999. And yes, it did pass just as clean as a brand new car. Got 0.0 on the one reading and super low on the other reading.

I was really surprised when they gave me the readout.

This was a mildly supped up engine that I completely rebuilt.

It was the 151ci straight 4.

You can say BS, but I know how well it passed.
 
Riccochet said:
200 miles may be "good enough" for people that live in suburbs and urban areas. I live in the sticks. I also tow a boat and camper. Give me an EV super duty truck with 600+ miles range and a 10 minute re-charge and then it's "good enough".
Click to expand...
The future of trucks like that would be hybrids or something like the diesel-electric trains that have been running for decades.
 
DocSavage said:
The future of trucks like that would be hybrids or something like the diesel-electric trains that have been running for decades.
Click to expand...

The only reason trains use a diesel/electric combo is for the torque to pull a train. Why in the world would they put a diesel generator in a truck to power electric motors? That's adding a shit ton of extra weight to a vehicle that relies on it's ability to carry weight.

And it still has to be able to do 600+ miles on a single tank/charge, refill/charge quickly, tow/haul the same weight, in order for it to be at all worth it
 
Riccochet said:
The only reason trains use a diesel/electric combo is for the torque to pull a train. Why in the world would they put a diesel generator in a truck to power electric motors? That's adding a shit ton of extra weight to a vehicle that relies on it's ability to carry weight.

And it still has to be able to do 600+ miles on a single tank/charge, refill/charge quickly, tow/haul the same weight, in order for it to be at all worth it
Click to expand...
Isn't that pretty much how the Chevy Volt is designed? I'm sure a large truck could be even better designed.
 
DocSavage said:
Isn't that pretty much how the Chevy Volt is designed? I'm sure a large truck could be even better designed.
Click to expand...

That's a passenger car. Not the same, anything, in regards to weight and purpose.

Take a 3/4 ton pickup. Weighs about 6500-7000 lbs. Can haul 4000 lbs of payload. Slap some considerably larger electric motors at all 4 wheels, save a couple hundred pounds in diesel weight by switching that to a 2-4 cylinder generator, weigh the entire frame down with massive, heavy batteries, plus fuel storage for the generator. You wind up with a truck that weighs 8000-9000 lbs, not much headroom for payload, unless you're willing to pay for 1 ton axles on a 3/4 ton truck. That takes a truck that originally cost $45k and made it $80-90k.

Once all that shit shrinks and becomes lighter it'll have no place in a vehicle designed to haul/tow. As for the train, it doesn't need a payload capacity, just towing power. That why a locomotives weight is not a matter.
 
Riccochet said:
That's a passenger car. Not the same, anything, in regards to weight and purpose.

Take a 3/4 ton pickup. Weighs about 6500-7000 lbs. Can haul 4000 lbs of payload. Slap some considerably larger electric motors at all 4 wheels, save a couple hundred pounds in diesel weight by switching that to a 2-4 cylinder generator, weigh the entire frame down with massive, heavy batteries, plus fuel storage for the generator. You wind up with a truck that weighs 8000-9000 lbs, not much headroom for payload, unless you're willing to pay for 1 ton axles on a 3/4 ton truck. That takes a truck that originally cost $45k and made it $80-90k.

Once all that shit shrinks and becomes lighter it'll have no place in a vehicle designed to haul/tow. As for the train, it doesn't need a payload capacity, just towing power. That why a locomotives weight is not a matter.
Click to expand...
So the system works in both light passenger cars, and in trains, but you think it can't work in a truck. You may be right - as nobody has made one yet - but it's certainly a conceivable system.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top