
GM accused of installing devices in diesel trucks to beat emissions tests - breitling
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/gm-defeat-device-emissions-1.4131104
======
ChuckMcM
Wait, you mean _everyone_ cheats? I'm shocked I tell you, shocked!

When the VW story first broke and I learned you could readily control the
trade-off between performance and emissions using software in the engine
controller of a diesel engine, I knew that everyone would do that. They would
rationalize it in what ever way they could "Oh the stomping on the accelerator
indicates an emergency so we go with maximum performance rather than emission
compliance, it's to save lives don't cha know?"

~~~
r00fus
The problem with "everyone cheats" is that we don't have proof of that. We're
seeing proof that multiple companies have cheated so far... hopefully the
punishments are equivalent.

~~~
thinkling
Once you have the necessary portable emissions testing equipment, how much
work is it to test a vehicle?

I've been wondering why the researchers at WVU who found the VW cheating have
not gone on to test a larger set of vehicles to see who else is cheating.

~~~
jessaustin
Do we know the researchers haven't tested other vehicles? If VW were cheating
to a greater degree than other manufacturers, that might explain why they were
the first to be caught.

~~~
thinkling
Yes, they weren't doing this on their own initiative, they had a contract to
test 4 specific vehicles of which 3 were VW TDIs, I think. They didn't
initially think they'd found cheating, and it took a year or two for CARB to
get interested and things to develop.

You'd think _someone_ would fund broader testing...

------
csours
Disclaimer: I work for GM. I do not work on anything related to diesel
engines. I will not be commenting further on this story; what follows is just
for context and is not intended to explain or justify anything about these
accusations.

The EPA (and other regulators) allow engines to emit more NOx and Particulate
under certain circumstances to protect the engine.

Each set of parameters where an engine will do this is called an auxiliary
emissions control device [AECD], even where it is just programming, not a
separate physical device.

For instance, FCA recently got in trouble for not disclosing all of their
AECDs [0] - the AECDs may not have been illegal, but FCA neglected to inform
the EPA of all of them.

As noted elsewhere in comments, very very few (if any) vehicle achieve the
same emissions or efficiency in the real world as in a test lab.

The disparity between test and real world is not necessarily illegal.

AECDs are not necessarily defeat devices.

0\.
[http://www.detroitnews.com/story/business/autos/chrysler/201...](http://www.detroitnews.com/story/business/autos/chrysler/2017/01/12/fiat-
chrysler-diesel-emissions/96485778/)

~~~
atourgates
In April, Mercedes Benz told[1] its investors it might get in EPA trouble for
an "undisclosed auxiliary emissions-control device" as well.

2017 Shipments of Mercedes Benz Sprinters were actually prevented from being
delivered to dealers for a while. The last I'd heard, 6-cylinder models were
released, but 4-cylinder models were still being held by the EPA.

While I'm sure at some level the EPA enjoys punishing German auto makers,
hopefully the same accusations being leveled towards US car makers will
encourage them to adopt a more fair and reasonable stance, assuming these are
not actually "defeat devices".

[1] [http://autoweek.com/article/diesel/mercedes-parent-
company-d...](http://autoweek.com/article/diesel/mercedes-parent-company-
daimler-braces-its-own-potential-diesel-crisis-us)

------
bischofs
_Hagens Berman’s automotive legal team has dedicated substantial resources to
uncovering cheating devices used by automakers. The firm has become a
trailblazer in this highly specialized realm, outpacing federal and state
agencies in unmasking fraud in emissions reporting._

This is hilarious - this is the firm that made tons of money off the VW case,
now they are going after the money and cutting out the middleman (EPA)

------
gok
If Volkswagen couldn't figure out how to meet US emission standards for diesel
without cheating, I find it likely other manufacturers (who have less diesel
expertise) would have an even harder time.

VW expects to pay $7.3B for 11 million cheating cars, so less than $700 per
vehicle. GM will probably get about the same deal. Considering the profit
margin on these vehicles in particular (big trucks), cheating was probably a
good call financially.

~~~
endorphone
_If Volkswagen couldn 't figure out how to meet US emission standards for
diesel without cheating_

VW could meet the emissions standards, and went through the actual testing and
passed. It had such an effect on either fuel economy or long term reliability
however that they cheat on the road.

However it's notable that the only VW vehicles that fail are the ones that
don't use diesel exhaust fluid (DEF). This is something that you refill
periodically and it's sprayed into the exhaust to reduce a lot of the harmful
exhaust. That system costs a couple of thousand dollars, so they eliminated it
and claimed that they found a way around it.

The GM trucks, in contrast, _have_ the DEF systems, just like all of the
Mercedes and higher end VW diesel cars do.

Too many commentators are taking the word of a legal firm that got some easy
prey and now hopes there's blood in the water.

~~~
ATsch
According to what I have learned from a talk the analysing of the VW code [1]
the VW cheating consisted of dispensing less AdBlue (VW proprietary DEF) than
necessary when no test was detected. That's very much at odds with what you
say. I'm not claiming what you say is wrong, I'm just curious how those
findings fit in with what you said.

[1] "Dieselgate — a year later"
[https://youtu.be/SjlHtLux9vc](https://youtu.be/SjlHtLux9vc)

~~~
endorphone
The controversy in the US and Canada revolved around vehicles that did not
have DEF systems, in particular those with the EA189 engine.

[https://www.honestjohn.co.uk/company-car-tax-
advice/news/whi...](https://www.honestjohn.co.uk/company-car-tax-
advice/news/which-volkswagen-audi-skoda-and-seat-models-are-fitted-with-an-
ea189-engine/)

VW has since announced a EA288 engine that deprecates the old one, and the new
engine uses DEF.

But sure, there is suspicion that a lot of other makers cheat to degrees. Use
less DEF and it's more convenient and less costly for your users. Use the EGR
less and improve fuel economy and reduce possible maintenance issues. Etc.
That was not the primary problem, though.

~~~
vonmoltke
> The controversy in the US and Canada revolved around vehicles that did not
> have DEF systems, in particular those with the EA189 engine.

Where are you getting this idea from? My recently-relinquished 2014 Passat was
one of the affected vehicles, and it most certainly had a DEF system.

~~~
vondur
I thought most of the engines that were cheating were the non Urea engines.
Most other companies thought it would be impossible to build a diesel engine
that meets the pollution restrictions without including the DEF based anti
pollution system.

~~~
vonmoltke
Most, but not all as the other poster is claiming. The proportion of DEF-
affected vehicles is much higher in North America as well.

------
wand3r
If anyone​ thought VW was the only one they aren't a student of history. Lance
Armstrong wasn't the only biker to live stronger. This stuff is systematic.

~~~
function_seven
When I played Marco Polo as a kid, I would cheat. When I was “it”, I’d yell
out “Marco!” like you’re supposed to, but I also opened my eyes underwater a
little bit to see where the other kids were.

One day a friend brought over special goggles. They were covered in black
vinyl to block your vision completely. That day we all found out that every
one of us cheated the same way. When playing with the new goggles, suddenly it
was: “this game sucks” and: “let’s do something else”.

It was eye-opening (sorry).

Cheating on emissions tests strikes me the same way. “All the other car
companies seem to be meeting their targets, how can we keep up?”

Well, it turns out that to be as good as the other players, you have to cheat
just like they do.

~~~
transpostmeta
I always wondered why companies don't try to catch each other cheating. If
would seem that if Ford wanted to, they could easily figure out VW was
cheating, and go to the press and government with that info.

~~~
vertex-four
Because all companies cheat in _some_ way, and intentionally going to war when
you know you're not clean yourself isn't a good idea.

------
widowlark
This is truly despicable. Shame on any company who attempts to skirt the laws
that were instilled by the people who allow the company to operate within
their borders in the first place. Truly shameful and sad.

~~~
metalliqaz
I'd be more eager to cast scorn if I could find a company that _hasn 't_
skirted the law.

~~~
simonsarris
Well, there's always Tesla.

All the more reason to consider EVs a moral good.

~~~
CalRobert
Reducing the marginal cost of driving in terms of cash (fuel) and time (self-
driving) may have second and third order effects which are deeply problematic.
I like EV's, but we're foolish to think that making driving effectively free
won't have downsides.

~~~
ghaff
EVs also don't make driving "effectively free." We don't really have a good
handle on the long-term maintenance costs associated with EVs but even the
electricity itself (at residential power rates) is about 1/3 to 1/2 of
gasoline costs in the US. A substantial savings but not free.

------
tyingq
The law firm that's filed suit has an article with more detail on how the
cheating works. [https://www.hbsslaw.com/cases/chevy-silverado-
emissions/pres...](https://www.hbsslaw.com/cases/chevy-silverado-
emissions/pressrelease/chevy-silverado-duramax-diesel-2500-and-3500-emissions-
consumers-sue-general-motors-for-allegedly-installing-multiple-emissions-
cheating-defeat-devices-in-over-705000-duramax-diesel-trucks)

~~~
upofadown
>"deadly NOx pollutants"

That's over the top in this context. It makes it sound like the trucks are
poisoning the owners of those trucks.

~~~
TheCoelacanth
Pollution is responsible for thousands of deaths every year. "Deadly" is
perfectly accurate.

------
tareqak
The real test will be whether or not General Motors is treated with the same
level of scrutiny (regulatory, legal, public etc.) and penalized as heavily as
Volkswagen was. I am alluding to the fact that General Motors being regarded
as an American company, and Volkswagen being a foreign one. I am pessimistic:
I will be somewhat saddened, but not at all surprised if General Motors gets
less harsh treatment. People will no doubt argue that these are trucks and not
cars, so there are less of them, so the damage done was less, so the penalty
should also be less. However, no one will likely admit the fact that the same
sort of cost/benefit analysis and moral repercussions were involved in both
events beyond the accusers.

I apologize if the above comes across as a rant or a whine. I can at most ask
the legislator in my constituency to investigate, but that is yet another game
of numbers.

------
Zigurd
I predicted it would not be only VW. This kind of cheat would either take a
lot of custom code in the ECU, or the ECU supplier has parameters that can be
readily tweaked for strategies that would circumvent tests. There's probably
an "app note" that says "You should never do this, but..."

The fact the tests are so reliably circumvented is a failure of regulation.
It's evident that until recently regulators were not testing the tests to see
if they are predictive of real world performance.

------
hx87
I seriously have to wonder why "drivers don't want to fill DEF tanks too
often" is given as a reason by automakers to skimp on DEF injection. DEF
costs, what, $15 for 2.5 gallons, which lasts a couple of thousand miles, and
can be filled either at a fuel station or at home, no dealership required. If
dealership visit is required, well, since when are automakers concerned about
dealerships making too much money from servicing their cars?

~~~
problems
Probably just more mental overhead people don't want to deal with. No one
wants to remember to do more stuff.

If you're comparing 2 trucks, one with a DEF system and one without, chances
are as an average consumer, you're going to take the one without because it's
cheaper to run and less effort for you.

Heck, the other day I was looking at some electronics on a very large Chinese
shopping site and ran across a device that can emulate DEF systems in 8
different manufacturers vehicles with no actual DEF consumption occurring for
~$15. People are lazy, cheap and just don't give a shit.

------
rmason
GM is denying the claims that it cheated, calling them baseless.

[http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory/lawsuit-alleges-
gm-...](http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory/lawsuit-alleges-gm-cheated-
diesel-pickup-truck-emissions-47639588)

------
iamthepieman
it's nearly 100% analogous to the performance enhancing drug problem in
cycling and other sports.

performance vs following rules check

performance directly translates to better perception by public and therefore
more money check

small monetary repercussions if discovered in comparison to amount to be
gained by cheating check

arms race of detection/regulation no check yet (on the automotive side) but it
will be interesting to see how this develops

------
devoply
Now let's see them stick GM with similar fines as VW. In fact I would
encourage the EU to do the same. Oh sweet sweet quid pro quo.

------
braderhart
I was on the verge of buying at VW when this happened to them. I will never
buy a VW now. Pretty soon I'll have to stick to bikes if companies are allowed
to get away with anything. Surprised that they haven't arrested everyone
involved, considering that the people from VW fled the country.

~~~
jplayer01
You do realize every other auto manufacturer is doing the exact same thing? VW
has one of the biggest R&D divisions in the industry. If they couldn't do it,
nobody else could either.

~~~
linkregister
_> You do realize every other auto manufacturer is doing the exact same
thing?_

What makes you think that?

 _> VW has one of the biggest R&D divisions in the industry. If they couldn't
do it, nobody else could either._

Do what? Make performant cars? Their gasoline (petrol) cars weren't implicated
in this scandal. After the patch, the cars were still performing relatively
well, losing about a second in the 0-60 time, and losing about 4mpg.

~~~
Arizhel
What I want to know is: why did they need to lose any performance or fuel
economy at all?

Am I missing something? My understanding is that this was all because they
couldn't meet emissions targets without using a certain amount of DEF. They
calculated that to do that, the customer would have to refill the DEF tank
"too soon" (meaning sooner than every regular service interval at the
dealership, which is at least 10,000 miles).

So the simple fix is, in my mind: make the car use a lot more DEF so that it
can generate the power and economy advertised, but the DEF tank will have to
be refilled far more frequently (perhaps every 1000 miles, guessing). The
driver will have to do it themselves obviously. And add some software code so
that the car refuses to operate if the tank goes empty. If drivers can figure
out that they need to put fuel (gas or diesel) in their car to make it go, and
that it's going to die on the side of the road if they run that tank out, then
they can do the same with a 2nd tank of fluid too.

~~~
linkregister
This isn't apparent unless you read the article I linked, which is long. I
don't expect you to.

The main violation appears to be emitting excess amounts of NO2, a pollutant,
and some particulates.

~~~
Arizhel
My understanding (again, someone please correct me if I'm wrong or missing
something) is that NOx emissions are mostly eliminated by injecting DEF (urea)
into the exhaust stream, and also that NOx emissions are the big issue with
dieselgate. And again, from what I read, the whole reason they didn't want to
do it right was that consumers would have to refill the DEF tank too
frequently, and that automakers thought people are too stupid for that and
would run it dry, so they wanted it so that the dealership would refill it for
them at their regular service interval, which is 10-20k miles. So as I said
before, the fix should be easy, inject a lot more DEF, enough to actually
eliminate the NOx per the standards, and just force consumers to refill the
DEF far more frequently.

~~~
linkregister
Looks like I was way less informed, thanks for the context!

It appears your analysis is right.

What would happen if the DEF was allowed to run empty?

~~~
Arizhel
The way they are now, I'm not sure. High NOx emissions I'm guessing, plus a
warning light on the dashboard. But my proposal is to make the car stop
operating if the tank is empty, just like it stops operating if your fuel tank
is empty, and just make sure the dashboard light (or better yet some
alphanumeric display or infotainment system display) gives ample warning to
the driver that they need to refill it. I see Blue DEF sold in gas stations
all the time, so it's not like it's hard to acquire.

And again, I'm not even sure I'm that well informed, I could very well be
mistaken and over-simplifying things. If that's the case, I hope someone will
correct me, but so far no one's said anything, but that's why I put that
disclaimer in there several times.

~~~
thaeli
This is how heavy truck diesels with DEF work, at least. Warning light at 10%
full, flashing warning light at nearly empty, and if the tank runs completely
empty, the vehicle is limited to 5mph until it's refilled.

------
awqrre
Hopefully they get the proportion of fines as you know who...

------
holri
Another proof that Stallman was correct.

------
linkregister
"I'm shocked, I tell you, shocked!"

"First they came for the trade unionists,"

"Dunning-Krueger Effect!"

"Wouldn't have happened if they used a secure coding language, like Rust"

"That's a _____ fallacy." [Link to Wikipedia list of logical fallacies]

Sorry for the OT post, I'm getting sick of the oft-repeated HN expressions
that don't add to the discussion. We can do better.

And I forgot one, "I know I'll be downvoted for this, but..." ;)

~~~
snerbles
It'll be amusing if this thread pops up on n-gate's weekly HN summaries:
[http://n-gate.com/hackernews/](http://n-gate.com/hackernews/)

~~~
Karunamon
Wow. The person who writes that site sounds remarkably angry and upset at the
world.

~~~
contras1970
_Kill Google AMP before it kills the web

May 20, 2017 (comments)

An internet accurately describes Google's AMP program for what it is -- a
barely-disguised attempt to shove more of the internet into itself, the better
to track the living shit out of every human being on earth. Hackernews has
attempted to avoid this program by using it heavily. Half the comments are
Hackernews insisting that it is not only impossible to compete with Google in
any way but also insane to try. Some Googles show up to assure everyone that
this is for the greater good, and if you'd all just stop talking and get in
line the whole process will be nearly painless. A few Hackernews suggest that
AMP's feature set can be replicated with a "stop shoving every fucking
possible line of javascript into every single pageload" approach, but they are
quickly chloroformed and edited out of past Christmas photos._

How is this anything but genius? Next thing you tell me you do not approve of
yosefk's excellent C++ FQA?

------
swamp40
_Hagens Berman’s automotive legal team has dedicated substantial resources to
uncovering cheating devices used by automakers._

Seems like a conflict of interest to me.

