
Four more carmakers join diesel emissions row - gt565k
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/oct/09/mercedes-honda-mazda-mitsubishi-diesel-emissions-row?CMP=twt_gu
======
JoeAltmaier
The issue appears to be, that lab testing does not emulate real-world driving
conditions. So in the field, emissions are higher than in the lab.

These four car makers involved in the report differ from VW: they _do not_
have a defeat device in their design. Their results are solely because of the
lab-vs-road issue.

Its not clear this is any kind of problem. Reducing emissions in lab tests may
very well result in car designs that have reduced road emissions. That was the
hope when lab standards were introduced. Auto pollution in our cities has
indeed gone down as (lab) emissions standards have been tightened over the
years.

~~~
ChuckMcM
Sort of and sort of not right? So VW came right out and said "The difference
is caused by defeat device code programmed into the computer." Great simple
answer. None of these people have offered up a theory of why things are
different. It _could_ be defeat devices, or it could be something else, they
just don't know.

So step two of this process is figure out all the ways in which actual driving
differs from lab testing. And when you've eliminated all other explanations,
start looking for defeat devices or their equivalents.

I'm guessing one or more of these companies will end up admitting, after
looking into it, that their car control software runs differently if it
detects the car is being tested.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Maybe we have a different idea about what a 'defeat device' is. Its a physical
piece of hardware. Not some code. So to find out if these other cars have it,
you stick your head under that car and look.

~~~
vesrah
What physical defeat device is VW using? (There isn't one)

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Two temperature-sensing devices, according to the report.

~~~
vesrah
Link to said report? Temperature sensors (EGT) are a normal part of cars.

------
pmontra
I remember the December 2014 France plan of limiting or outright banning
diesel cars.

[http://www.autoblog.com/2014/12/01/france-moves-to-ban-
diese...](http://www.autoblog.com/2014/12/01/france-moves-to-ban-diesel/)

[https://www.carthrottle.com/post/no-diesel-cars-in-paris-
by-...](https://www.carthrottle.com/post/no-diesel-cars-in-paris-by-2020-and-
london-might-ban-them-too-why-the-world-now-seems-to-hate-diesels/)

This car makers reaction in June looks funny now

[https://europe.autonews.com/article/20150626/ANE/150629983/a...](https://europe.autonews.com/article/20150626/ANE/150629983/automakers-
slam-french-decision-on-clean-diesels)

------
ck2
I wonder what roads will be like in 20 years when batteries and motors reach
peak efficiency and lowest cost of production.

I jog on the side of the road every day and I have to wonder what all these
cars that cheat emissions are doing to my health and how I can't make the
manufacturers pay for my future lung cancer.

~~~
guscost
Which country do you live in?

------
jokoon
I am on a passenger seat something like 3 times a week, in france, for the
same 15 min rides (about 5 different rides in a southern city), and each time
there is at least one car who emits a very foul smoke, so foul we immediately
roll windows. Most of the time those cars aren't even so old.

I highly suspect french automakers to cheat too.

There needs to be many more random exhaust controls, or at least much tighter
annual or biannual checks. I can't even comprehend why it's not the case
already.

It's not even a climate change problem, it's a health problem. I caught a cold
already 2 times this year, which was followed by a chronic cough that lasted 3
week after the cold went away.

~~~
jeromeflipo
"It's not even a climate change problem, it's a health problem": NOx being
extremely dangerous for humans doesn't make it less of a problem for global
warming.

Nitrous Oxide (N2O) has a Global Warming Potential 265-298 times that of CO2
for a 100-year timescale. N2O emitted today remains in the atmosphere for more
than 100 years, on average. [0]

[0]
[http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/n2o.htm...](http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/n2o.html)

------
marincounty
I have a feeling most carmakers have been fiddling with the emission software
in order in pass smog. I feel it's just a matter of time and testing, and I
don't think it will just be diesels. I looked into Ford's GT-350 and it's, I
believe, the fasted stock vechicle Ford has ever produced. It passes smog with
flying colors. Engineers claim is just good engineering. I hope that's the
case.

I am for reasonable smog requirements. I know how hard I have to tune, and
repair my 4 banger in order for it to pass every two years.

My biggest fear is the federal will tighten smog requirements to the point
where most older vechicles won't pass. I am poor. I drive a 4 cylinder
vechicle. My vechicles are always in tune. I consider myself a
enviormentalist. I still hope I can afford to drive in the future? I know I
will probally never be able to buy a new vechicle.

------
chovietonline
The issue appears to be, that lab testing does not emulate real-world driving
conditions. So in the field, emissions are higher than in the lab. These four
car makers involved in the report differ from VW: they do not have a defeat
device in their design. Their results are solely because of the lab-vs-road
issue. I think too !

------
Sami_Lehtinen
Interesting to notice that nobody cares about particles, even it's widely
known how dangerous those are.
[http://oehha.ca.gov/public_info/facts/dieselfacts.html](http://oehha.ca.gov/public_info/facts/dieselfacts.html)

------
frik
Two different things:

Volkswagen (VW) cheated with its motor software and have a very high NOx
emission and use a cheaper less useful catalyst in real world scenario.

Others have a higher NOx emission in real world scenario: Renault, Nissan,
Hyundai, Citroen, Fiat, Volvo and Jeep, Mercedes-Benz, Honda, Mazda and
Mitsubishi

------
goodcjw2
Actually, I am surprised that agencies like EPA don't test diesel emissions in
real road condition from the very beginning. Now the question is: whether VW's
diesel engine is the only case, or it applies to all types engines from all
manufactures in general...

~~~
jpollock
Part of the purpose of the test is for a consumer to be able to compare
models. If the test isn't repeatable, it can't perform that job.

Same goes for regulatory testing. It's kind of hard to judge people against a
measuring stick if the stick keeps changing size.

------
yborg
So what were the five models that matched the lab test?? I notice that BMW was
not mentioned as one of the offenders.

------
blazespin
How do you emit 20x Nox and get away with it without some kind of cheat
device?

~~~
scurvy
You teach to test. Or in this case, you code exactly to the spec.

------
davidgrenier
Wow, the Money-Market system does bring out the worst in people.

~~~
6502nerdface
> Wow, the Money-Market system does bring out the worst in people.

Yeah man, I don't know what's worse, commercial paper or t-bills.

------
andyl
I hope all this attention on emissions and cheating helps to accelerate the
transition to electric vehicles.

~~~
venomsnake
The transition would be easier if there were any available at a decent price.

~~~
jeromeflipo
The transition would be very quick if fossil fuels were taxed according to
their damage on health and climate change.

EVs would become comparatively cheap in a just few years, and their price
would also come down very fast as the production of battery packs increased
massively. The technology is already here, we just have to manufacture these
cars and set up the charging network (already much cheaper than the fuel
station infrastructure).

~~~
superuser2
67% of US electricity is generated by fossil fuels, so for most people the
price of electricity would skyrocket too.

Nuclear power accounts for 19%; those in a nuclear power plant's coverage zone
would see EVs being cheaper than gasoline-powered cars, unless you factored in
the nuclear waste storage problem. Those near powerful rivers can benefit from
the 7% of electricity from hydropower dams.

Wind and solar together are less than 5% of US electricity generation and
basically irrelevant as a source of power for our transportation needs.

EVs are not a panacea; cities are. Demolish the suburbs, build vertically,
live within walking distance of things, and you won't need so much energy.

~~~
jeromeflipo
You could invest all the revenue from fossil fuel taxes in renewable energy so
that everybody benefits from it.

------
Spooky23
When does someone bring up the fact that the government's creation of too
aggressive emissions targets is a problem? Massive, risk averse corporations
are taking massive risks to achieve "compliance"... Maybe the bar has been set
too high?

~~~
Karunamon
There's some truth to this - the race in the auto industry, as I understand
it, has been to increase power and efficiency while decreasing emissions.

Unfortunately, you start running headfirst into the laws of physics.

Power, fuel economy, low emissions. Pick any two.

~~~
2sk21
Currently, there is way too much emphasis on power. Who really needs 200 hp
for a family car?

~~~
VLM
Apparently the consumers do. Its a popular signalling thing to say, but not
relevant to car purchasers decision making process. That's one problem to be
worked on.

Perhaps the overall net environmental situation would be in total better if X%
of the testing budget were reassigned to propaganda to convince people that
100 hp cars are superior to 200 hp cars.

Another option is in my grandpa's day MASSIVE cheating happened with
horsepower specs; it was like how air compressors and vacuum cleaners are
marketed today. Cutting back on regulation in that area would likely result in
cheaper 100 HP engines being sold as 200 HP engines (at the price of 200 HP
engines of course) yet the environmental impact would obviously be only 100
HP.

A final option is nobody wants to acknowledge the management failure that
naturally results from evaluating to a simple numerical metric for too long.
All you eventually get is awesome numbers and everything else produced turns
to garbage. One solution would be to dramatically change the metric faster
than corruption can spread. In a distributed world, how about we wire up 1 in
1000 vehicles and track the unholy heck out of them and multiple the results
by 1000 and grade on that criteria? Obviously in the long run we'll just
corrupt the selection and manufacture process for those 1 in 1000 cars. But
for awhile it'll work better. Once that system is powned, maybe switch the
metrics back?

