
Inside VW’s Campaign of Trickery - iamjeff
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/06/business/inside-vws-campaign-of-trickery.html
======
PythonicAlpha
I am ashamed, that my government (the German one) has effectively helped to
cover things up for decades now in the EU and they are still doing it.

They are still blocking realistic pollution regulations for cars in the EU and
they help car manufacturers to come away with their manipulations in the EU
without real sanctions.

In the US, buyers of such cars get a compensation. In Germany, they will never
get a penny.

But what is worse, people get sick and die (+) because of air pollution in the
EU and everybody knows it and they just ignore it or downplay the problem.

(+) the numbers of pollution related illnesses is on the rise and medical
studies verify the fact that it is a problem.

In many cities now, we have regularly pollution values high above thresholds,
but also here, the government and local authorities block effective
countermeasures.

It is so bad, that (a newer study found out) cars which should be better in
pollution because of EU regulations (so called EU5) are sometimes even worse
than their predecessors (EU4), because the EU willingly puts a blind eye on
real pollution values.

And it is all, because the German government wants to protect German car
producers.

I hope, E-Mobility will kill German car manufacturers. And I know, that it
will be bad for my Home-country, but they (the manufacturers) deserve it,
since they did not care about real clean cars for so long.

~~~
philfrasty
„I hope, E-Mobility will kill German car manufacturers... they (the
manufacturers) deserve it“

So the 500.000 people working for VW and their related families (probably
clocking in at > 2 million) „deserve“ to loose their job and livelihood
because 5 clowns at the top are pulling the strings the way they want?

Don't get me wrong...but the problem seems not to be with the manufacturers
per se. More about regulating the very top of the ladder inside huge companies
like in other sectors of the economy (banking, etc.)

~~~
toast0
Ignoring the argument for why or if VW should shutdown; if they shutdown
tomorrow, wouldn't you expect other automakers to increase production to fill
the gap left, and those automakers are going to need more people, and likely
more facilities to increase their production. Someone with industry knowledge
would probably be able to do good analysis, but the number of people
ultimately out of work would be much less than the total number of current
workers.

~~~
bigbugbag
Other automakers have been investigated and almost all have been found to
cheat on emission tests in one way or another and selling cars that are
emitting pollutants way over the legal limits.

Besides, the car market has been oversaturated for decades and the car
industry has been slowly agonizing for a while. We have way more cars around
than we actually need while almost all cars spend over 90% of the time parked
and waiting, at the same time most cars in big cities are running around in
circles trying to find a place to park.

------
wimagguc
Does any of this matter when, people just don't care? In 2016 VW sold more
cars than any of the years before, and surpassed Toyota as the world's largest
automaker [1]. I understand that regulators could issue sale bans or fines or
what not -- but these will be set in a small subset of countries only, and
even there: "(VW) ...had continued to sell cars with illegal software,
including 2015 models."

[1]
[https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2017/01/30/volkswa...](https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2017/01/30/volkswagen-
toyota-world-largest-automaker/97234320/)

~~~
jest3r1
I care.

My first car was a 1989 VW Golf GTI. Loved it. Second car was a Golf GL. Third
car was a Jetta TDI. Ran all these cars close to 400K KM. Always loved the
fact that VWs are built to last. Relatively cheap to maintain, and just the
usual minor VW issues like leaky doors, seized door handles, rust spotting,
but never any major drivetrain problems.

It was time for a new car this year, and I ended up purchasing a brand new
Honda. I love it.

It will take some time for VW to earn back my trust, and I hope I'm not the
only loyal customer that has expressed dissatisfaction by purchasing a
competing brand.

There's no reason why I shouldn't have been a VW customer for life.

~~~
forinti
I deduce that you don't live in Brazil, where they definitely do not offer the
same quality they do in Europe. In fact, they continued offering the T1 here,
while they were selling the T5 in Europe.

They big 4 (Fiat, VW, Ford, and GM) spent decades selling trash in Brazil,
because they had no competition.

~~~
toast0
If all of the big 4 are selling trash in Brazil, lack of competition isn't the
problem. If the old models are still legal to sell, they're likely cheaper to
make, and have better parts availability than a new model (because of so many
of the old model already in the country)

------
Reason077
The US is lucky to have strong and effective regulators like CARB and the EPA.

Europe's lack of effective emissions regulation (and enforcement) allowed VW
and others to get away with selling polluting toxic vehicles for years.

In fact, despite all that's happened in the US, in Europe they're _still_
getting away with it today.

~~~
function_seven
> _In fact, despite all that 's happened in the US, in Europe they're still
> getting away with it today._

Is that a result of weak regulat _ors_ , or weak regula _tion_? Or both?
(Genuine question, I know diesel is much more popular in Europe than in the
US)

~~~
ojosilva
Here in Europe all or most of the major carmakers had been infringing the
"Euro N" emission protocols set by the EU. The now current Euro 6 is however
quite restrictive and is in effect since 2014/2015\. Despite Euro 6 being
twice as permissive as EPA-standards, diesel cars emissions are actually an
order of magnitude higher than most current standards, so if they remain
within Euro 6 boundaries that would be great news. Apparently that is the case
now for new cars in the market since Sep/2015.

NOx wasn't taken too seriously in the EU by member states until recently and
many countries were not fining or prosecuting carmakers [1]. This is probably
a result of hard-fought car plant concessions each member state has to make to
get these valuable blue-collar jobs from going somewhere else. The mindset is
changing now due to raised awareness by VW-gate but also the continuous
struggle some large cities such as Paris, Madrid, London, Athens and Rome are
having to keep smog levels under control [2]. So, in general, we can say the
EU, public and cities are putting pressure, but states are still very lenient
and reluctant and are seeking long-term exemptions [3].

I believe the EU is too dependent on heavy NOx-emitting diesel cars to take
drastic regulatory measures, so diesel is being pushed out by the cities with
upcoming taxation and city-limits restrictions. If the trend follows,
taxation, and not regulation, will be the NOx deterrent in the coming years
[4].

[1] [http://europa.eu/rapid/press-
release_IP-17-238_en.htm](http://europa.eu/rapid/press-
release_IP-17-238_en.htm)

[2] [http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/paris-cuts-
harmful-...](http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/paris-cuts-harmful-
no2-exhaust-emissions-by-up-to-40-per-cent-after-banning-cars-for-a-
day-a6679686.html)

[3] [http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21714991-europe-
should...](http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21714991-europe-should-
follow-america-taking-hard-line-regulating-car-emissions-stop-carmakers)

[4] [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/news/11018725/This-
diese...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/news/11018725/This-diesel-
backlash-is-completely-overblown.html)

~~~
ch4ck
To decrease NOx emissions the engine temperature has to be decreased which is
equal to lower engine efficiency. It means more fuel consumption and more COx
emissions.

When will CO2 obsessed bureaucrats begin to care about fine particles emitted
by gasoline direct injection engines?

~~~
rciorba
In the EU, with Euro 5+6 particulate limits for gasoline engines have been
imposed as well. The previous rationale was "no limits are required because
particulates are a diesel issue", which is bonkers because if it were so, one
could simply apply the same limits to both and the gasoline engines would have
passed with flying colours. My guess is heavy lobbying from automakers managed
to keep these unregulated for so long, since indeed direct injection (which
seems to be the new norm) makes fuel economy better but particulates worse.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_emission_standards#Em...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_emission_standards#Emission_standards_for_passenger_cars)

------
awjr
Let's be clear, CARB and the EPA would have completely missed this. It was
specifically the work by the students. I do wonder if it was pot luck they got
hold of a VW Jetta.

In the EU you have a similar cover up going on around diesel in general. For
over 20 years people have known how bad diesel is, but the EU pushed it's low
carbon emissions agenda promoting diesel cars and has not stepped back from
it. Even now governments have successfully lobbied to relax the EU emissions
limits.

The realistic option is to ban the sale of diesel cars and require all other
vehicles to be retrofitted with NOx filters.

~~~
MrRadar
> I do wonder if it was pot luck they got hold of a VW Jetta.

IIRC the grant they received came from a European air pollution advocacy group
which wanted to prove to European regulators that the EPA's stricter diesel
emissions standards could be easily and affordably met with existing
technology. The VW diesel cars were the only ones in the US after the newer
standards came into effect which didn't use an SCR device so they would
definitely have been included in the study specifically for that reason. The
group also tested a BMW X3 diesel which did meet the standards in the same
test that the VW models failed.

~~~
bigbugbag
> a European air pollution advocacy group

The international council on clean transportation[1]

> The group also tested a BMW X3 diesel which did meet the standards in the
> same test that the VW models failed. There was also a VW passat and the BMW
> was actually a BMW X5 that though had passed the CARB test and was at the
> legal limit in 4 out of 5 real conditions test cases went 10 times the legal
> limit on the test case that included downhill[2]

[1]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Council_on_Clean...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Council_on_Clean_Transportation)

[2]: PDF report, BMW X5 is vehicle C
[http://www.eenews.net/assets/2015/09/21/document_cw_02.pdf](http://www.eenews.net/assets/2015/09/21/document_cw_02.pdf)

~~~
MrRadar
Thanks. I was on mobile at the time and didn't feel like looking all that up.

------
sundvor
Yet in Australia, we've been told that the "fix" is in most cases a mere
software update:

"The update for the majority of affected vehicles is an update to the vehicle
software. This adjustment will be relatively quick and has been made possible
with advances in diesel engine technology. Some vehicles will additionally be
fitted with a minor hardware update." (1)

It just doesn't add up. If it was so minor, why do it in the first place? Or
was it a case of Australia's emission regulations being so hopelessly behind
the times that they were close to being in line at any rate? I can't wait for
the diesel engine to die altogether - and that includes heavy trucks.

1)
[https://au.volkswagen.com.au/emission](https://au.volkswagen.com.au/emission)

~~~
legolas2412
That comes at the price of bad mileage, lower torque and acceleration.

[https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/business/internatio...](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/business/international/vw-
diesel-emissions-scandal-explained.html)

------
pdog
Without getting into banal arguments about corporate personhood, there should
be a "death sentence" for companies. Fines and regulations aren't always
enough to punish the most egregious corporate abuses.

~~~
PhantomGremlin
A corporate death sentence is a bit too abstract. It also punishes the
shareholders much more than the actual transgressors.

The CEO and the Board of Directors have often been paying themselves
exorbitant salaries and benefits. After they resign or get fired they still
have generous pensions. So what if the company doesn't exist, they're still
personally quite well off.

No, what's really needed is to take the CEO and the Board and send them to
prison. Put them in a chain gang. Have them go out to the prison yard every
morning, pick axes in hand. Have them start with big boulders. Have them make
tiny little pebbles out of them. Have them do this six days a week (Sundays
off of course) for about 10 years.

Put the whole thing on "reality TV".

Such public humiliation would have a salutary effect on all the other CEOs and
boards out there.

Yeah, some might say "cruel and unusual punishment", but chain gangs were
quite popular not too long ago. They passed constitutional muster then.

~~~
bigbugbag
> A corporate death sentence is a bit too abstract.

Let's say the company has to be forfeited to the state effectively making it a
public company. CEO and board of directors are fired, every dollar over the
minimum pension of their pensions are seized and going to a fund to fix the
wrong they did and prevention from such a thing to happen again.

Shareholders are part of the problem and to be punished, they've been
profiting from the transgressions (looking the other way or not caring enough
to look into is not an excuse). They could be made to pay back any profit they
got from the shares while, their shares are either willingly sold to state at
a low price or seized/invalidated.

The message would be clear: don't invest in companies that are not clean or
you risk losing it all.

These may seem drastic propositions but they are effective. They do not
require sending people to prison which is something I do not wish upon anyone,
not even my worst enemy.

------
coldcode
I still wonder if/how much the programmers knew about what they were writing.
I've know a lot of programmers who never look beyond the story they are given
to write, and those who are suspicious of everything.

~~~
bigbugbag
They knew.

In Western Europe most of the people knew that diesel cars are major cause of
pollution, that the whole shenanigans are a sham and that politics, car makers
are in on it. It would be very surprising that the people actually making it
happen did not know.

The dead giveaway was that the favoring of diesel cars over gasoline was
supposed to lower air pollution, but the before and after measurements showed
a significant increase in air pollution. A EU investigation exposed a few
countries governments for being aware of this and trying to delay the EU
efforts to reinforce tests and controls.

------
cjCamel
It's a shame it's not clear from the article why university students were
testing emissions from a Jetta in the first place. Can anyone shed any light
on this?

~~~
greyhat
West Virginia University has the Center for Alternative Fuels Engines and
Emissions as part of the engineering school, and they test lots of different
vehicles and engine technologies.
[http://www.cafee.wvu.edu](http://www.cafee.wvu.edu)

~~~
greyhat
There is also a NYT article focused on the researchers:
[https://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/07/25/business/vw-wvu-
diesel...](https://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/07/25/business/vw-wvu-diesel-
volkswagen-west-virginia.html)

------
mxstbr
They could not have shot less flattering photos of the students, holy moly.[0]

[0]: [https://static01.nyt.com/images/2017/05/07/business/07VW-
EWI...](https://static01.nyt.com/images/2017/05/07/business/07VW-EWING-
diptych/07VW-EWING-diptych-master675-v3.jpg)

~~~
thesumofall
It's their standard style of photography recently. I don't even think it looks
bad - just pretty opinionated

