Petrol vehicles now added to VW scandal

[Sioso]

http://www.news.com.au/technology/vo...-1227596865132

THINGS are going from bad to worse at beleaguered car manufacturer Volkswagen, which has been forced to admit the emissions scandal has widened to include petrol vehicles for the first time.

The once beloved German brand is currently facing the biggest scandal in its 78-year history after environmental tests forced the company to admit diesel cars had software installed that would help them run cleaner during government testing.

Now, the company has revealed an internal investigation found that 800,000 more vehicles showed “irregularities” on carbon emissions including petrol engines for the first time.

“ ... During the course of internal investigations irregularities were found when determining type approval CO2 levels,” the company said in a statement.

“Based on present knowledge around 800,000 vehicles from the Volkswagen Group could be affected. An initial estimate puts the economic risks at approximately $3.04 billion (€2 billion).”

That number could rise much higher once the full scale of the problem is known. CEO Matthias Muller said the company is committed to the “painful process” of finding out the truth.

“We will stop at nothing and nobody. This is a painful process, but it is our only alternative. For us, the only thing that counts is the truth. That is the basis for the fundamental realignment that Volkswagen needs,” he said.
The US Environmental Protection Agency said this week it found various six-cylinder 3.0 litre diesel VW Touareg, Porsche Cayenne and Audis were also rigged with a software which skews the results of pollution tests. Picture: AFP/Jan Woitas

The US Environmental Protection Agency said this week it found various six-cylinder 3.0 litre diesel VW Touareg, Porsche Cayenne and Audis were also rigged with a software which skews the results of pollution tests. Picture: AFP/Jan WoitasSource:AFP

The news caused shares to plummet on Wednesday to around 10 per cent lower than the day before.

In a separate move, Porsche SE, the investment company which owns 32.4 per cent of VW’s capital, said the fresh revelations could have a “negative impact” on its own results, although it maintained its projections for 2015.

Porsche’s North American subsidiary announced it was suspending sales of its Cayenne diesel vehicles until further notice, but stressed that customers could continue to operate their crossover cars.

Among the engines affected are 1.4, 1.6 and 2.0 litre motors of VW, Skoda, Audi and Seat vehicles, said a VW spokesman, adding that these cars had been found to be releasing more of greenhouse gas CO2 than previous tests had shown.

At least one petrol engine is concerned, the company said in a revelation that expands the scandal beyond the initial diesel engines.

In September the company admitted 11 million of its diesel vehicles contained the devices designed to cheat official pollution tests, which sparked global outrage and investigations.

The so-called defeat devices turn on pollution controls when cars are undergoing tests and off when they are back on the road, allowing them to spew out harmful levels of nitrogen oxide.

The latest issue opens up another front in the scandal engulfing the company as it relates to a different type of engine and emissions.
New Volkswagen CEO Matthias Mueller has been drafted in from the luxury sports division and said he will stop at nothing to get to the bottom of the scandal. Picture: AFP/ODD ANDERSEN.

New Volkswagen CEO Matthias Mueller has been drafted in from the luxury sports division and said he will stop at nothing to get to the bottom of the scandal. Picture: AFP/ODD ANDERSEN.Source:AFP

It also comes a day after US authorities accused the carmaker of also fitting the nitrogen oxide defeat devices on its larger 3.0 litre diesel vehicles including various six-cylinder 3.0 litre diesel VW Touareg, Porsche Cayenne and Audis, charges VW adamantly denied.

The inclusion of Porsche vehicles among those alleged to contain defeat devices could trip up Mr Mueller, who was drafted in from the luxury sports car unit to replace Martin Winterkorn, who resigned at the height of the scandal.

“We have clear evidence of these additional violations,” said Cynthia Giles, an official with the US EPA’s Enforcement and Compliance Assurance office.

“VW has once again failed its obligation to comply with the law that protects clean air for all Americans.”

Mr Mueller did not address the latest US allegations in his latest statement. However the

world’s number two carmaker by sales, had swiftly denied the new US charges.

“Volkswagen AG wishes to emphasise that no software has been installed in the 3-litre V6 diesel power units to alter emissions characteristics in a forbidden manner,” it said in a statement.

“Volkswagen will co-operate fully with the EPA (to) clarify this matter in its entirety.”

Porsche similarly denied the allegations, insisting that “all of our information was that the Porsche Cayenne Diesel is fully compliant.” Audi, another of VW’s high-end brands, insisted that the software installed in its engines were “in line with the law.” It argued that the so-called Auxiliary Emission Control Devices (AECD) fitted into its engines were not designed to cheat pollution tests, but maximise the engine’s performance under different driving conditions.

Carmakers were allowed to fit AECDs in cars in the United States as long as they kept the authorities informed once a year, a spokesman explained.

[99AUXR]

This is getting so bad its comical.

[castellan]

Originally Posted by Sioso

http://www.news.com.au/technology/vo...-1227596865132

THINGS are going from bad to worse at beleaguered car manufacturer Volkswagen, which has been forced to admit the emissions scandal has widened to include petrol vehicles for the first time.

The once beloved German brand is currently facing the biggest scandal in its 78-year history after environmental tests forced the company to admit diesel cars had software installed that would help them run cleaner during government testing.

Now, the company has revealed an internal investigation found that 800,000 more vehicles showed “irregularities” on carbon emissions including petrol engines for the first time.

“ ... During the course of internal investigations irregularities were found when determining type approval CO2 levels,” the company said in a statement.

“Based on present knowledge around 800,000 vehicles from the Volkswagen Group could be affected. An initial estimate puts the economic risks at approximately $3.04 billion (€2 billion).”

That number could rise much higher once the full scale of the problem is known. CEO Matthias Muller said the company is committed to the “painful process” of finding out the truth.

“We will stop at nothing and nobody. This is a painful process, but it is our only alternative. For us, the only thing that counts is the truth. That is the basis for the fundamental realignment that Volkswagen needs,” he said.
The US Environmental Protection Agency said this week it found various six-cylinder 3.0 litre diesel VW Touareg, Porsche Cayenne and Audis were also rigged with a software which skews the results of pollution tests. Picture: AFP/Jan Woitas

The US Environmental Protection Agency said this week it found various six-cylinder 3.0 litre diesel VW Touareg, Porsche Cayenne and Audis were also rigged with a software which skews the results of pollution tests. Picture: AFP/Jan WoitasSource:AFP

The news caused shares to plummet on Wednesday to around 10 per cent lower than the day before.

In a separate move, Porsche SE, the investment company which owns 32.4 per cent of VW’s capital, said the fresh revelations could have a “negative impact” on its own results, although it maintained its projections for 2015.

Porsche’s North American subsidiary announced it was suspending sales of its Cayenne diesel vehicles until further notice, but stressed that customers could continue to operate their crossover cars.

Among the engines affected are 1.4, 1.6 and 2.0 litre motors of VW, Skoda, Audi and Seat vehicles, said a VW spokesman, adding that these cars had been found to be releasing more of greenhouse gas CO2 than previous tests had shown.

At least one petrol engine is concerned, the company said in a revelation that expands the scandal beyond the initial diesel engines.

In September the company admitted 11 million of its diesel vehicles contained the devices designed to cheat official pollution tests, which sparked global outrage and investigations.

The so-called defeat devices turn on pollution controls when cars are undergoing tests and off when they are back on the road, allowing them to spew out harmful levels of nitrogen oxide.

The latest issue opens up another front in the scandal engulfing the company as it relates to a different type of engine and emissions.
New Volkswagen CEO Matthias Mueller has been drafted in from the luxury sports division and said he will stop at nothing to get to the bottom of the scandal. Picture: AFP/ODD ANDERSEN.

New Volkswagen CEO Matthias Mueller has been drafted in from the luxury sports division and said he will stop at nothing to get to the bottom of the scandal. Picture: AFP/ODD ANDERSEN.Source:AFP

It also comes a day after US authorities accused the carmaker of also fitting the nitrogen oxide defeat devices on its larger 3.0 litre diesel vehicles including various six-cylinder 3.0 litre diesel VW Touareg, Porsche Cayenne and Audis, charges VW adamantly denied.

The inclusion of Porsche vehicles among those alleged to contain defeat devices could trip up Mr Mueller, who was drafted in from the luxury sports car unit to replace Martin Winterkorn, who resigned at the height of the scandal.

“We have clear evidence of these additional violations,” said Cynthia Giles, an official with the US EPA’s Enforcement and Compliance Assurance office.

“VW has once again failed its obligation to comply with the law that protects clean air for all Americans.”

Mr Mueller did not address the latest US allegations in his latest statement. However the

world’s number two carmaker by sales, had swiftly denied the new US charges.

“Volkswagen AG wishes to emphasise that no software has been installed in the 3-litre V6 diesel power units to alter emissions characteristics in a forbidden manner,” it said in a statement.

“Volkswagen will co-operate fully with the EPA (to) clarify this matter in its entirety.”

Porsche similarly denied the allegations, insisting that “all of our information was that the Porsche Cayenne Diesel is fully compliant.” Audi, another of VW’s high-end brands, insisted that the software installed in its engines were “in line with the law.” It argued that the so-called Auxiliary Emission Control Devices (AECD) fitted into its engines were not designed to cheat pollution tests, but maximise the engine’s performance under different driving conditions.

Carmakers were allowed to fit AECDs in cars in the United States as long as they kept the authorities informed once a year, a spokesman explained.

There you go VW has won ! ADCD good stuff.

[351@GT]

so when do they start testing every other car(brand) on sale..... whats a bet that a majority dont comply with the targets... and is the testing consistant with how the car makers were testing them?

only going to get worse from here... who wants a cheap vdub

[simon varley]

depends what you mean by "worse" I'll take performance over emissions any day.

[Express]

I may as well tag this along here.

This recall is USA based.

Volkswagen Recalling 92,000 Cars For Shearing Camshafts, Loss Of Power Brakes (Update)

David Tracy
4th November 2015





Volkswagen’s troubles continue, but this time it’s not emissions-related cheating, it’s failing camshaft lobes which can wreak havoc on braking performance.

Volkswagen is recalling 91,867 cars including the 2015-2016 Jetta, the 2015-2016 Beetle, 2015-2016 Golf SportWagen, 2015-2016 Volkswagen Passat and 2015-2016 Golf and Golf GTI. It’s all over troubles with the new EA888 engine.

That engine is a good one. I just reviewed the 2016 Passat and found that little 1.8-liter Turbo version of the EA888 to be a darned good mill.

But, it turns out, I got lucky, because the EA888’s exhaust camshaft lobes have a tendency to shear off. The exhaust camshaft drives the fuel pump and brake vacuum pump, so once that camshaft is toast, there go your power brakes. And without power brakes, that corner up ahead is gonna get really hairy.





Normally camshafts are machined from bar stock or cast from molten iron, but Volkswagen opted for modular sintered camshafts, whose lobes are pressed on. The friction from interference fit between the lobe’s and the shaft causes the lobe to “become one” with the shaft.

NHTSA says the camshafts are shearing due to “high load” on the cam. Whether that’s the only cause is not yet clear. I’d guess that the failures have something to do with the assembly process and too high of an interference between the shaft and lobe. This could impart high radial stresses on the lobe and weaken it.

Volkswagen, will your woes ever end?

Update: We called VW for more info, and they told us the GTI is actually not part of this recall (they’ve submitted a new form 573 to NHTSA that does not include the GTI). Additionally, VW’s rep says it’s more likely that the lobe is actually spinning around the shaft, rather than shearing, but that hasn’t been confirmed.

Update 2: After another call to VW, it looks like they will issue a stop-sale on 3,500 affected vehicles.

http://jalopnik.com/volkswagen-recal...fts-1740571907

[EB#]

“....This is a painful process, but it is our only alternative. For us, the only thing that counts is the money."

[Stefan]

Originally Posted by EB#

“....This is a painful process, but it is our only alternative. For us, the only thing that counts is the money."

Well lets face reality...noone is in business or goes to work for the love of it. Its all about making money. Our beloved Ford are only in it for money too. They're not making any so they're getting out.

[Bossxr8]

Originally Posted by Stefan

Well lets face reality...noone is in business or goes to work for the love of it. Its all about making money. Our beloved Ford are only in it for money too. They're not making any so they're getting out.

Yet Ford global made $7 billion in the first 9 months of this year.

[99AUXR]

Yeap ford has been posting some nice global figures for a while now.

[blue sleeper]

VW are really adding fuel to this fire aren't they......

[99AUXR]

I see what you did there. . .

[blue sleeper]

Originally Posted by 99AUXR

I see what you did there. . .

Only if you turn the steering wheel!

[Sioso]

Golf GTI's and R's sold in Australia now affected also.
Lying cheating bastards..........
http://www.drive.com.au/motor-news/v...17-gl0t6o.html

[wagnman]

Lol i wish everyone would stop being so supprised about this. I mean in very simple terms have you ever been able to match manufacturers claimed combined fuel economy figures? I haven't, not in one car I've ever owned even if i tried REALLY hard to drive economically. Surely they all cheat on their emissions and economy test results

[MAGPIE]

Originally Posted by wagnman

Lol i wish everyone would stop being so supprised about this. I mean in very simple terms have you ever been able to match manufacturers claimed combined fuel economy figures? I haven't, not in one car I've ever owned even if i tried REALLY hard to drive economically. Surely they all cheat on their emissions and economy test results

Your doing it wrong then

[Silver Ghia]

Originally Posted by wagnman

Lol i wish everyone would stop being so supprised about this. I mean in very simple terms have you ever been able to match manufacturers claimed combined fuel economy figures? I haven't, not in one car I've ever owned even if i tried REALLY hard to drive economically. Surely they all cheat on their emissions and economy test results

I can show you there is a car that betters the manufacturers specified fuel consumption figures:

For the FG X (I think the FG was slightly worse) Ford quotes per ADR81/02 for 6 speed manual 11.1 lt/100kms

Photo below shows my current average fuel consumption. Yesterday I was down in the city and came home along Mt Alexander Rd and Keilor Rd rather than the freeway, it was stop-start traffic therefore shows a little higher than the usual 10.1 lt/100km.

[SumoDog68]

Originally Posted by Silver Ghia

I can show you there is a car that betters the manufacturers specified fuel consumption figures:

For the FG X (I think the FG was slightly worse) Ford quotes per ADR81/02 for 6 speed manual 11.1 lt/100kms

Photo below shows my current average fuel consumption. Yesterday I was down in the city and came home along Mt Alexander Rd and Keilor Rd rather than the freeway, it was stop-start traffic therefore shows a little higher than the usual 10.1 lt/100km.

image

Car economy displays are optimistic - try calculating distance covered with fuel used .

[Silver Ghia]

Originally Posted by SumoDog68

Car economy displays are optimistic - try calculating distance covered with fuel used .

Done that.

Below is the Excel spreadsheet chart taken from the first one or two years of ownership, driving into the city peak hour every weekday when I was working there. Bowser readings at each tankfill was recorded in the spreadsheet along with the kms travelled at that time.

The computer average consumption was accurate to within 0.1 lt/100kms, so I believe the photo above is indicative of the true fuel consumption.



Since then the average has gone up to around 10.1 lt/100kms as these days I drive short distances more frequently down the street etc., rather than the 40kms or so to work each day.

[99AUXR]

Originally Posted by Silver Ghia

Done that.

Below is the Excel spreadsheet chart taken from the first one or two years of ownership, driving into the city peak hour every weekday when I was working there. Bowser readings at each tankfill was recorded in the spreadsheet along with the kms travelled at that time.

The computer average consumption was accurate to within 0.1 lt/100kms, so I believe the photo above is indicative of the true fuel consumption.

image

Since then the average has gone up to around 10.1 lt/100kms as these days I drive short distances more frequently down the street etc., rather than the 40kms or so to work each day.

Man I love when people display facts. Poor Haters .

Wicked job and great to see how accurate the fuel consumption figures displayed are to actual fuel consumption.

[zilo]

Originally Posted by Silver Ghia

I can show you there is a car that betters the manufacturers specified fuel consumption figures:

For the FG X (I think the FG was slightly worse) Ford quotes per ADR81/02 for 6 speed manual 11.1 lt/100kms

Photo below shows my current average fuel consumption. Yesterday I was down in the city and came home along Mt Alexander Rd and Keilor Rd rather than the freeway, it was stop-start traffic therefore shows a little higher than the usual 10.1 lt/100km.

Sorry...can't let this one eyed post go unchallenged.

Your average speed is 54km/h?

You are comparing your fuel economy as being better than the test yet you aren't complying with the same test as they did?

So what do you think you have proven?

Nothing....take yours up to 120km/h like they do and report back on what your consumption is?

Bet you will get even worse than they did.

[pottery beige]

Originally Posted by zilo

Sorry...can't let this one eyed post go unchallenged.

Your average speed is 54km/h?

You are comparing your fuel economy as being better than the test yet you aren't complying with the same test as they did?

So what do you think you have proven?

Nothing....take yours up to 120km/h like they do and report back on what your consumption is?

Bet you will get even worse than they did.

whats the magna pull @ $1.20

[99AUXR]

.....

[Silver Ghia]

Originally Posted by zilo

Sorry...can't let this one eyed post go unchallenged.

Your average speed is 54km/h?

You are comparing your fuel economy as being better than the test yet you aren't complying with the same test as they did?

So what do you think you have proven?

Nothing....take yours up to 120km/h like they do and report back on what your consumption is?

Bet you will get even worse than they did.

I have shown that my car in everyday driving can easily better the published manufacturers fuel economy figure which people generally refer to. Regardless of how the published figure is derived.

[russellw]

Originally Posted by zilo

Sorry...can't let this one eyed post go unchallenged.

Your average speed is 54km/h?

You are comparing your fuel economy as being better than the test yet you aren't complying with the same test as they did?

So what do you think you have proven?

Nothing....take yours up to 120km/h like they do and report back on what your consumption is?

Bet you will get even worse than they did.

I'm not sorry and I'm not letting your crap go unchallenged.

The ADR37 test that we use to establish fuel consumption figures covers only 17.77 km at an average speed of 34.1 km/h and uses 95RON fuel for all petrol cars.

On that basis the figures supplied above are as representative of real world conditions as the ADR test - indeed they are probably harsher conditions.

Even if we actually start to use the NEDC standard it hardly gets much more onerous -

The NEDC entails putting the vehicle through four urban ECE-15 cycles and an extra-urban EUDC cycle. Each urban cycle lasts 200 seconds and covers 1.013 km at speeds of up to 50 km/h, averaging 18.7 km/h.

The single-phase EUDC extra-urban cycle is 400 seconds long, covers 6.955 km at speeds of up to 120 km/h. It averages out at 62.6 km/h however we are currently arguing for a modified EUDC in Australia (given the 120 km/h exceeds our open road speed limit) to lower maximum speed.

For fuel economy, the first four ECE-15 phases are combined to give the urban fuel consumption figures and the highway cycle comes from the last 400 seconds of the test. The combined-cycle figure comes from the entire 1200 second cycle, as do CO2 emissions figures.

Even using the unmodified Euro standard, the combined figure equates to an average speed of 33.58 km/h.

My EcoLPi betters it's quoted figures (12.4 Combined, 18.3 Urban, 9.0 Extra Urban) and has done pretty much since new and yes, I have an average speed that is much higher than the EUDC figure.

Russ

[zilo]

Originally Posted by Silver Ghia

I have shown that my car in everyday driving can easily better the published manufacturers fuel economy figure which people generally refer to. Regardless of how the published figure is derived.

Sorry mate, that proves your car can be economical, but doesn't prove you do better than they did in the same test conditions and your results are not those that an ADR is based on.

How could we use your test as a comparison to how well a Commodore does in the same test?

I could roll pottery beige's clap box off a cliff and say it gets better than the published figures but the test conditions would hardly be the same would they?

[wagnman]

Thats awesome results. Whats it showing your average speed as for that trip?

[Silver Ghia]

Originally Posted by wagnman

Thats awesome results. Whats it showing your average speed as for that trip?

54 km/hr

[99AUXR]

The old man can get his GTP 5.0L bellow quoted consumption. He hasnt reset his trip since picking it up 6000km ago.

[Bossxr8]

I remember Ford claiming that their fuel economy numbers were entirely realistic and could easily be matched in the real world.