Which is exactly what he said...
Volkswagen cheats emissions tests!
- Thread starter coolsurfer
- Start date
Which is exactly what he said...
Considering this is from the company that managed to get the "Official" CO2 figure for the 4.6 litre V8 Porsche 918 Spyder to be just 70g/km, is this really surprising? 
If thats your basis I suggests you don't trust a single car maker globally!
If thats your basis I suggests you don't trust a single car maker globally!
Considering this is from the company that managed to get the "Official" CO2 figure for the 4.6 litre V8 Porsche 918 Spyder to be just 70g/km, is this really surprising?
If thats your basis I suggests you don't trust a single car maker globally!
Well, the difference is that my VAG motors (a 2.0 TDI 143 and a 2.0 177) couldn't get within 30%, whereas both my BMW 335d and current 530d are within 15% says a lot to me.
I realise that modern official consumption figures are pure fantasy, but real world figures are absolutely relevant. So the ~15% difference between VAG and BMW absolutely matter, to me at least, running around 15-30k per annum, depending on needs.
This is pretty much 100% why I'm driving a 530d instead of an A6 with the 3.0 TDI (bi turbo or not).
Do you not think the issue is more with the tests themselves? Look at my 918 example above for proof as to how utterly irrelivent they are. That cars official figure for efficiency is 94mpg!
Your mistake is reading, beleiving, and then forming any sort of opinion based on the EU test results.
Your mistake is reading, beleiving, and then forming any sort of opinion based on the EU test results.
Soldato
- Joined
- 31 May 2009
- Posts
- 21,456
I was somewhat disappointed with my A4 figures when I first got it, but then the type of driving it is currently doing is vastly different to the testing cycles, we can get 42mpg where it is short runs, about town, ridiculous amount of roundabouts. If I mix a couple of long runs of 60 miles motorway into a tank it goes up to 48, and has been higher.
They are built to chew up motorway miles and no doubt would be well into the 50's if used for such.
The main issues are urban cycles where you simply won't achieve the performance, but a smaller lighter city car doesn't have as much of a hit in those conditions due to its weight.
They are built to chew up motorway miles and no doubt would be well into the 50's if used for such.
The main issues are urban cycles where you simply won't achieve the performance, but a smaller lighter city car doesn't have as much of a hit in those conditions due to its weight.
Considering this is from the company that managed to get the "Official" CO2 figure for the 4.6 litre V8 Porsche 918 Spyder to be just 70g/km, is this really surprising?
Well the 918 can do at least part of the test using it's batteries and electric motors, so I can't say i'm surprised, no.
Soldato
When will they realise they are all doing it ?
Give this man a prize.
That said it's California that had the very strict NOx standards that a diesel has difficulty passing. The standards are set by each state, so the majority of the USA is unaffected. The NOx targets for the 2009 model year cars affected are 0.25 for Euro 4 vs 0.07 for the California standard. A contemporary Euro 4 petrol engine was 0.08 so would likely pass with ease.
Not really. Every car manufacturer is required to perform the same test under the same conditions. So the figures from each manufacturer should have roughly the same inaccuracies built in.
So my 530d is about 15-20% off official figures. As was my 335d (in fact, this one was a little closer). My mates C class Merc is also somewhere in this range, which leads me to believe that probably most car manufacturers are somewhere around the 15-20% mark, over the combined cycle, with roughly my driving style. Compared to both my new-ish Audis that were closer the the 35%+ mark. And now I can understand why.
Whereas if I go back to my older cars, such as my 2.0 TDI A3 from 2003, or my 2003 Passat, the official combined cycle for these cars is probably within around 5-10% of what I actually achieved as a combined figure. This is the result of the way they are tested.
Give this man a prize.
That said it's California that had the very strict NOx standards that a diesel has difficulty passing. The standards are set by each state, so the majority of the USA is unaffected. The NOx targets for the 2009 model year cars affected are 0.25 for Euro 4 vs 0.07 for the California standard. A contemporary Euro 4 petrol engine was 0.08 so would likely pass with ease.
It's only 0.07 after after 11 years.
A 5 year old care should achieve 0.05 for 2004 to 2010.
The 2015 to 2025 standards being phased in at the moment are lower still. Also I believe the California standards will be adopted nationally as Federal standards.
I wonder if the EU standards only apply at new.
As I understand it, what VW are accused of doing here is only affecting NOX readings, not overall emissions or indeed economy, so I don't think this would account for any difference in their economic performance you perceived.
Soldato
- Joined
- 31 May 2009
- Posts
- 21,456
As for the cycle figures, i think targets to make figures and thus results better have changed over the years.
So with a new engine it is targetted in a way to do well on the test, and get further and further away from the real world performance.
It is the test cycle that needs to be changed, to more closely reflect real world performance.
So with a new engine it is targetted in a way to do well on the test, and get further and further away from the real world performance.
It is the test cycle that needs to be changed, to more closely reflect real world performance.
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
Soldato
- Joined
- 31 May 2009
- Posts
- 21,456
Is one years newer than the other?
As I think as with GFX cards they get wise to tests, and make them to hit the tests, and the real life they simply are what they are. As time passes they get better at hitting test performance.
As I think as with GFX cards they get wise to tests, and make them to hit the tests, and the real life they simply are what they are. As time passes they get better at hitting test performance.
Soldato
Not really, still will have created a lot more nitrous oxides than most petrol cars, ie the stuff that creates acid rain.
Well the 918 can do at least part of the test using it's batteries and electric motors, so I can't say i'm surprised, no.
It does the entire test using the batteries! The CO2 and MPG figures are extrapolated using the formulas designed to grade EVs. The V8 never fires up during the whole EU test!
Yes - the F10 is 10 years newer. I agree with you entirely.
Caporegime
Doesn't the current EU emissions test include idle for about a third of it? So cars with stop start have a massive advantage.
Soldato
I'm convinced all manufacturers are up to this at some level.
There is testing at type approval, then there are engine maps updated at service, do these maps need to be tested?
Every big engine I've owned has done a great job of making the surrounding area honk of unburned fuel if you rev them cold. Are there areas of real world use outside type approval testing where manufacturers aren't so concerned about emissions, say sustained wide open throttle?
There is testing at type approval, then there are engine maps updated at service, do these maps need to be tested?
Every big engine I've owned has done a great job of making the surrounding area honk of unburned fuel if you rev them cold. Are there areas of real world use outside type approval testing where manufacturers aren't so concerned about emissions, say sustained wide open throttle?
Soldato