VW Emissions fix - to have or to have not?

[vrdiver]

According to Paul Willis, head of VW UK, there is nothing wrong with their diesel engines.

From the oral evidence session to the Transport Select Committee on 20th Feb:

Q127
Clive Efford: They are all going to be recalled but there is nothing wrong with any of them.

Paul Willis: Our position is that there is nothing wrong with any of them at all. That is our position: the cars were not fitted with defeat devices. Some people do not necessarily agree with us. Therefore, to remove any doubt whatsoever, we are applying the technical measures.

https://www.parliament.uk/business/comm ... lications/

So, should I bother taking my car to the garage for a "box ticking exercise"? I've heard a few horror stories of worse performance and sudden loss of power after the ECU remapping, so I'm not sure I want to waste my time or risk introducing problems.

Anybody else in the same boat, and if so, what did / would you do?

VRD

[bungeejumper]

As discussed on the old TMF forum (and possibly this one, I haven't looked):

We are definitely not taking Volkswagen up on their kind offer to mess up the tuning of our diesel Golf. It's one thing for VW to claim that they've fixed their engines (albeit at significantly increased fuel consumption), and quite another to find out in two years' time that they've knocked the valve timing out of synch with everything else, while setting up conflicts in the exhaust system that you won't find out about until stuff starts giving out prematurely.

Or, to put it simply, an engine is designed as an integrated whole. Pistons, valves, fuel injection, turbo, MAF sensor, exhaust recirculation system, the lot. Start tinkering with just one of those things in isolation from all the rest, and just watch how fast the rest of it starts to misbehave or wear out.

Already we know that diesel particulate filters on the 'fixed' cars are going into burn mode more often than they used to. Reports of gummed up EGR valves are reaching the forums. They can experiment with somebody else's car, but they're not messing with ours until their 'fix' has proved its worth with no damaging side effects.

BJ

[Mike88]

I had the fix done on my Audi. There is no noticeable difference other than the engine note appears deeper. I haven't monitored fuel consumption. Over on the Audi forum somebody put his car on a dyno test before and after the fix and there was no significant difference in BHP.. However whose to say there won't be long term consequences. If VW/Audi claim only a minor software fix is required why didn't they do this in the first place rather than resort to their now infamous cheat device? I have joined the Slater Gordon/Harcus Sinclair legal action against VW/Audi.

[BT63]

I thought the 'cheat' was mostly to improve fuel efficiency, since emissions reduction requires the engine to be less efficient.

I would also have thought that VW cars which aren't 'fixed' should be declared un-roadworthy because they don't comply with the legal requirement that a car must meet the emissions regulations in force at the time it was built.

[bungeejumper]

I would also have thought that VW cars which aren't 'fixed' should be declared un-roadworthy because they don't comply with the legal requirement that a car must meet the emissions regulations in force at the time it was built.

Ahem, they do meet the European emission standards of that time. (Unlike in America, where they don't match the stricter criteria for NOX.) The issue is that they don't meet the standards that VW itself was claiming for those engines.

So the main claim is that 11 million Europeans who thought they were buying a squeaky-clean car have found it was less squeaky than they thought. The issue is one of consumer trust.

BJ

[BT63]

.....So the main claim is that 11 million Europeans who thought they were buying a squeaky-clean car have found it was less squeaky than they thought. The issue is one of consumer trust......

But surely nobody actually believes modern mpg claims for mainstream cars.
For modern cars, true mpg is often only about three-quarters the quoted figure. Fifteen years ago manufacturer figures were realistic. Large-engine modern car figures are fairly realistic, too, because they're not trying to pretend they can be economical.

If anything, most people will have bought VW for the badge and the economy, and not worry as much about 'pollution' since there are plenty of other 'pollutants' used in car manufacture, maintenance and disposal. If you're a true eco-warrior, ride a bike. Nobody who drives a car can call themselves an eco warrior.

[vrdiver]

I have joined the Slater Gordon/Harcus Sinclair legal action against VW/Audi.

I was in two minds about joining. On the one hand I despise the "compensation culture" that this represents, whilst on the other, I specifically bought a BlueMotion model because of its "green" credentials. My per-journey mileage made electric and / or hybrid unsuitable at the time and I thought I was getting a car that was the best compromise.

In the end I did join. If the action wins and there is anything left after the risk-taking backers have been compensated, I don't know what I'll do with my share, Greenpeace or FoE perhaps, or more likely a local charity with nothing to do with the environment but who could do with the money.

It may sound sanctimonious, but VW really pee'd me off over this and I'd like to see appropriate sanctions. The problem is that those sanctions will hurt the shareholders far more than the executive team (who still won't admit to knowing anything about the defeat device being implemented). Personally, I'd welcome a criminal case rather than a civil lawsuit, with the EU holding the board to account. It used to be that "Director" meant you were on the hook for your company's behaviour; now it means nothing.

VRD

[bungeejumper]

If anything, most people will have bought VW for the badge and the economy, and not worry as much about 'pollution' since there are plenty of other 'pollutants' used in car manufacture, maintenance and disposal. If you're a true eco-warrior, ride a bike. Nobody who drives a car can call themselves an eco warrior.

You're painting yourself into a very small corner there, if you don't mind me saying so. If 11 million people decide that they want to do their "reasonable best" for the environment, and if that "best" involves putting their faith in a product which claims to be 75% eco-friendly (so to speak), but which actually only turns out to be 25% eco-friendly, then don't you think they have a right to feel aggrieved?

Lambasting them because they haven't gone the full 100% with a pushbike is rather missing the point. You don't have to be Swampy to want to save at least a few trees.

BJ

[Mike88]

I have joined the Slater Gordon/Harcus Sinclair legal action against VW/Audi.

I was in two minds about joining. On the one hand I despise the "compensation culture" that this represents, whilst on the other, I specifically bought a BlueMotion model because of its "green" credentials. My per-journey mileage made electric and / or hybrid unsuitable at the time and I thought I was getting a car that was the best compromise.

VRD

I agree. Furthermore customers have been misled as a result of corporate fraud. Had the sales person said to me at the time of purchase that the car had an illegal device fitted to mask pollution output I would not have bought the car. Would anyone?

[BT63]

If anything, most people will have bought VW for the badge and the economy, and not worry as much about 'pollution' since there are plenty of other 'pollutants' used in car manufacture, maintenance and disposal. If you're a true eco-warrior, ride a bike. Nobody who drives a car can call themselves an eco warrior.

You're painting yourself into a very small corner there, if you don't mind me saying so. If 11 million people decide that they want to do their "reasonable best" for the environment, and if that "best" involves putting their faith in a product which claims to be 75% eco-friendly (so to speak), but which actually only turns out to be 25% eco-friendly, then don't you think they have a right to feel aggrieved?

Lambasting them because they haven't gone the full 100% with a pushbike is rather missing the point. You don't have to be Swampy to want to save at least a few trees.

BJ

What VW did was very wrong, but I think you'll find that most diesel cars achieve nowhere near their claimed NOx emissions. VW cars detected a test in progress and switched engine maps, but there is strong evidence that other cars simply switch off or reduce emissions controls after about 20 minutes, or a set time after the engine has reached operating temperature.
It's not illegal because the car isn't detecting a test in progress or modifying its behaviour; the car is simply changing its performance after a set time, which, coincidentally, may be for a specific duration of the official test that just happens to help the emissions look better than they actually are.

In any case, think the UK's impact on global pollution is so tiny that even if we were zero-emissions it would make negligible difference.

After the Western world has gone all-electric as the latest so-called eco-friendly car power source, it'll start to become obvious that there are a lot of nasty chemicals used in batteries and their manufacture - and dilemmas regarding how to dispose of them - but that's OK as long as it's China with the pollution problem and not us.
And when we find that there is neither enough grid capacity nor available power stations, we'll have to build more and burn more gas, coal, oil or go nuclear. Renewables won't be predictable enough and in winter solar has very low output.
The only thing that makes electric viable is that it has far less tax than petrol or diesel. Once government revenues start dropping through less use of petrol or diesel they'll have to raise taxes elsewhere. When the lights go out, maybe there will be an electricity tax imposed during what are currently Economy7 hours as everyone's electric car sucks the grid dry.

[vrdiver]

In any case, think the UK's impact on global pollution is so tiny that even if we were zero-emissions it would make negligible difference.

Apologies in advance if I'm getting the wrong end of the stick, but this is like saying "we can't save a million drowning men, so don't bother to save one".

The UK has a massive impact on the world's economy and its environment. We may only be 70 million amongst 7 billion (ish) so 1% of the world population, but firstly, 1% is a significant start and secondly, we are amongst the wealthiest in the world so from a consumer point of view punch way above our weight in terms of excessive consumption.

Beyond that, if we don't lead by example, any attempt to curtail the polluting aspects of other nations is destined to ridicule. It's important to set the standards for those following, else there really is no hope for any of us as we choke on the fumes of the world's middle-class wannabees.

Back to our VW friends: nailing them for telling porkies to their customers can't be a bad thing; it's also a wake-up call to the testing authorities to align with the reality, rather than this complacent acceptance of "of course the quoted mpg figures are not achievable in the real world".

VRD

[NomoneyNohoney]

All I know is, I'd not be likely now to consider buying your second hand VW diesel cars.
Based on my unrepresentative sample of one, that's VW potentially costing current owners money or difficulty.

[bungeejumper]

All I know is, I'd not be likely now to consider buying your second hand VW diesel cars.
Based on my unrepresentative sample of one, that's VW potentially costing current owners money or difficulty.

Absolutely agree. That's the reason why I didn't buy another Passat last March when my faithful old wagon reached a pensionable age. I'd have gone out and bought another VW/Audi/Skoda without any hesitation if the company had shown (a) that it was on top of the emissions problem and had got it properly sorted, and (b) that it was standing behind its deceived customers instead of telling them that 'they weren't going to get anything, so there, take it or leave it.'

VW/Audi failed by both of those criteria, and by arrogantly kicking up against its customers now, it is showing that it still hasn't learned much about how to treat its customers. I'm extremely happy with the Toyota I bought instead, even though it doesn't have as much spark in its handling as the Passat. And we won't be replacing the wife's Golf with another Golf unless it's abundantly clear that the current engines are indeed squeaky clean. (In the interests of fairness, I understand that they are.)

As for my own car, maybe I'll go back to VW when the company's got its priorities right again. Oh, and when it's said sorry. Would be a good start.

BJ

[TopOnePercent]

There is, of course, the reasonable possibility that VOSA will be instructed to fail cars presented for MOT where the defeat device has not been disabled. Either the emissions are within permitted ranges during normal use or they are not.

Electronically adjusting the tuning is very unlikely to cause additional wear and tear on the car, though it is possible that fuel consumption could rise, or power could be reduced at varying points on the curve. My main toy car has been tuned for years now, and enjoys a significant power hike across the curve, and hasn't as yet shown any engine or transmission maladies.

So, to have the fix or not.... Only you can choose, but if you bought the car for green credentials then it is your only option.

[bungeejumper]

There is, of course, the reasonable possibility that VOSA will be instructed to fail cars presented for MOT where the defeat device has not been disabled. Either the emissions are within permitted ranges during normal use or they are not.

Sorry to repeat, but they are within those ranges! Both CO and NOX for the affected VW models are within the EU limits for those years. The issue is only that the true figures don't match VW's own inflated claims. Which is why the current rumpus revolves around a breach of trust. (In Europe at least - it's only in America that the cars actually failed the tighter emission controls.)

There is an outstanding retrospective issue WRT VED liability, which is quite rightly being dumped at VW's door. Because Wolfsburg lied about the emissions on my wife's Golf, she has been charged only £30 a year road tax instead of the £130-odd that would have been due (for a dirtier but still legal-compliant car) if VW had told the truth. So the govt is planning to go back to VW with a demand for the £100 per annum to be repaid. I think the same principle might also apply to backdated congestion charges, which may have been levied at too low a rate in the past. (I'm not an expert on that topic.) Either way, it seems entirely appropriate to me.

BJ

[bungeejumper]

Electronically adjusting the tuning is very unlikely to cause additional wear and tear on the car, though it is possible that fuel consumption could rise, or power could be reduced at varying points on the curve. My main toy car has been tuned for years now, and enjoys a significant power hike across the curve, and hasn't as yet shown any engine or transmission maladies.

With big respect, I don't think that stands up to very close examination. I can't speak for performance cars, but it's dead easy to over-tune a standard car so that the cams, the piston crowns, the valves, the con rods and even the spark plugs overheat and eventually start to melt. Which of us has not seen an exhaust valve broken into a hundred pieces because somebody overdid the ignition advance? I am guilty as charged.

At a lower level, a hotter/cooler engine will play merry hell with whatever systems are in place to capture and recirculate exhaust gases. I gather that DPF filters are gumming up at a much higher rate on the fixed cars. And, at £1,200 to £1,500 a time, that's an issue.

BJ

[TopOnePercent]

Electronically adjusting the tuning is very unlikely to cause additional wear and tear on the car, though it is possible that fuel consumption could rise, or power could be reduced at varying points on the curve. My main toy car has been tuned for years now, and enjoys a significant power hike across the curve, and hasn't as yet shown any engine or transmission maladies.

With big respect, I don't think that stands up to very close examination. I can't speak for performance cars, but it's dead easy to over-tune a standard car so that the cams, the piston crowns, the valves, the con rods and even the spark plugs overheat and eventually start to melt. Which of us has not seen an exhaust valve broken into a hundred pieces because somebody overdid the ignition advance? I am guilty as charged.

At a lower level, a hotter/cooler engine will play merry hell with whatever systems are in place to capture and recirculate exhaust gases. I gather that DPF filters are gumming up at a much higher rate on the fixed cars. And, at £1,200 to £1,500 a time, that's an issue.

BJ

Quite. Burned up half the exhaust and some of the valves on my first car by whacking the dizzie round a little too far. Lots of sparks, much fun.

However, it does not follow that they must over tune the engine to rectify the issue, only retune it to use more fuel and less ignition advance in some sites and less in others. I'd expect the end result, at worst, will be a slightly more thirsty and slightly less powerful car, with neither actually being noticeable during every day driving. And higher tax bands etc as has been pointed out already.

[Mike88]

Why did VW/Audi need to insert a defeat device when only a simple software adjustment could achieve the same effect? To say I am suspicious about the fix is an understatement.

[swill453]

Why did VW/Audi need to insert a defeat device when only a simple software adjustment could achieve the same effect? To say I am suspicious about the fix is an understatement.

Aren't they one and the same thing? i.e. the defeat device was a software adjustment.

Scott.