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?"
> Oh the stomping on the accelerator indicates an emergency so we go with maximum performance rather than emission compliance
FWIW, that's common on gas engines so there is some precedent. It's called power enrichment and can be adjusted in GM computers. When it kicks in depends on the car/truck it's installed in. But it uses a combination of manifold pressure and throttle position and rpm to decide whether or not to command extra fuel. You can see the params HP Tuners uses to configure the PE circuit here: https://www.hptuners.com/help/vcm_editor_parameters_gm_eng_f...
This replicates the functioning of a carburettor equipped with a mechanical accelerator pump. It squirts some extra fuel into the manifold when the throttle pedal is depressed, the quantity determined by the force applied to the pedal.
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.
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.
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.
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.
they are all cheating and the punishments won't be equivalent (I assume you mean to the amount of damages and money they made during the cheating period on the cheating vehicles)
But you're right, we don't have proof right now. I think the logical proof, that other companies are selling similar vehicles at similar price points that are "passing" the emissions testing is proof but obviously not of the legal variety.
What I find ironic is the Diesel emission cheating has allowed NOx pollution to skyrocket in Europe which causes terrible localized air pollution but lowers their CO2 emissions (vs using Gasoline engines) and lowers their crude oil import needs. So companies that promote Diesel Engines can claim to be lowering CO2 emissions at the cost of very polluting NOx emissions.
This is the key for understanding how those involved in implementation could do it without feeling terribly guilty: instead of "shit, my boss is ordering me to poison the air" they could look at it in the much more cheerful way of "yay, together we can get our planet-saving CO2 reduction features past those annoying regulations that make it so hard for us". If there are two ways to tell a story, people invariably choose the one that puts them in a better light. Inner discourse is no exception.
... and I learned you could readily control the trade-off between performance and emissions using software in the engine controller...
That is THE tradeoff everyone contends with. The regulations on emissions and fuel economy are directly at odds with each other. The things you do to get more efficient often result in incomplete combustion - strange as that sounds.
That definitely sounds wrong - if you're leaving unburnt fuel in your exhaust, that is wasted fuel, you could burn it further and get more energy out of it - they seem exactly in line with eachother as goals. Do you have any source for that statement?
It's not that there is unburnt fuel in your exhaust - unburnt fuel, while a pollutant, is not the problem.
The issue is that higher temperature combustion, while more efficient, produces much more NOx. So you get more energy per unit fuel at higher temperatures, but you also get more pollutants. Lower temperatures (less oxygen) result in "cleaner" combustion (essentially, more CO2 and N2, less NO and NO2), but produce much less energy per unit fuel.
This is only true in some regions. The creation of Ozone in the troposphere is dependent on availability of NOx, and availablity of hydrocarbons. In the southeast US, forests produce large amounts of volatile hydrocarbons, so the system is NOx-limited. In California's Central Valley, excess NOx from nitrogen fertilizers makes ozone production hydrocarbon-limited (and also basic rain from the NH3). So from a pollution management standpoint, either could be important, but usually only one.
Unless you build lighter, more aerodynamic, smaller cars with batteries, then you get both less emissions and greater fuel economy. Cheating is easier though.
And when you make the car lighter and smaller, you worsen passenger safety, and possibly increase costs (depending on what you're using to make the car lighter).
An independent review of the impact of California's CARB emissions regulations found that if you totally ignored the health and climate change benefits, the regulations were still a net benefit just because they encouraged lighter cars, which lead to less death and injury on the roads.
Possibly you're thinking, but if my car was bigger than everyone elses, then I'd kill them, instead of them killing me. But unfortunately, everyone else is thinking the same thing. A classic case for regulation leading to improved outcomes for everyone.
As someone else pointed out, it's not "incomplete combustion" it's production of NOx which is a pollutant. Running really lean also results in a bit of incomplete combustion though.
I think that's the point though, to give power when you need power, and fuel efficiency when you don't. So everyone does do it, because its a good thing. I think you're making a mistake about what crime they're accused of.
The tradeoff between efficiency and power is ok, but what they did is have software that detected when an emission test was being run and created a fake engine profile that only made fuel efficient tradeoffs, and when the emission test stopped the engine went back to the regular tradeoffs.
That was their crime. They hid what settings they were really picking and specifically wrote software to defeat an emissions test.
> That was their crime. They hid what settings they
> were really picking and specifically wrote software
> to defeat an emissions test.
I actually agree with you on this. That said, I've heard people defend VW and presumably would GM as well with "The law says you must have this level of emissions when your car is tested. And that is exactly what they did, they made sure the car followed the law and emitted what was required of it to emit during the test." It completely side steps the intention of course, and I would certainly not sanction it as an excuse, but it nicely illustrates how sophistry and regulation are an odd match.
> but it nicely illustrates how sophistry and regulation are an odd match
Except for the tiny detail that the law explicitly forbids using special emission control modes during stationary test bench usage. At least in the VW case, it was not a relaxed interpretation of the rules.
Well, on the one hand you have emission restrictions and on the other hand you have MPG restrictions. Then you have consumers that want to buy SUVs, so there is no way you are going to meet your quota of zero-emission-vehicles.
I'm not taking the blame out of carmakers, but it is very easy to end up with regulations that when taken together are not feasible.
Imaginary example: you need a capital/asset ratio of at least 20% (which means capital/liab. of at least that, by definition). But you also require at least 30% of the liabilities to be long-term debt. Another regulation says that 50% of loans must be financed with deposits, and so on. The end effect is that there is little margin for these banks to decide on their liabilities. At the extreme, if we impose unfeasible restrictions, they might just end up skirting some of the rules.
> ... it is very easy to end up with regulations that
> when taken together are not feasible.
I had a discussion with a member of the "Bay Area Air Quality Management Board" (not a fan) about this very issue. I asked, "How do you know whether or not what you're trying to achieve is possible?" Their answer was "Well if it isn't possible someone will tell us."
It is a classic prisoner's dilemma problem. If everyone is honest, you make cars that are good for the environment but lack the performance, if one can "defect" while looking like they haven't (aka they cheat) they take all the money.
> if one can "defect" while looking like they haven't (aka they cheat) they take all the money.
And yet they get caught (and always will) and lose the long game.
Sayonara, VW.....
Big corporations used to have bean-counters that calculated the cost of getting caught and they cheated only when the risk vs. damages had a cost upside.
Corporations now just don't appear to give a flying fuck about what lands in the lap of the next CEO. They'll get their golden parachute, right?
If you can't produce a SUV that meets all regulations, then you can't produce a SUV. Nobody forces car makers to offer SUVs. Maybe the intention of those regulations is that not everybody needs to ride in 3+ ton vehicles to get to work.
This is already happening. Right now the most popular SUVs are in the "crossover" category, which have much better fuel economy. It appears most American drivers want:
1. Elevated driving platform.
2. Room for extra passengers and cargo.
I agree that the vast majority of pickups (utes) sold in the U.S. are much larger than necessary for their usage and in comparison with pickups sold outside of North America.
That may have been true in the 1970s, but light truck and passenger vehicle emission regulations have been identical for a long time. Looser fuel economy standards for light trucks certainly causes manufacturers to push them harder though.
I'm not saying that's not true but in my case, it was the need for an 8 passenger vehicle that was not a minivan. It was either a SUV or a commercial commuter van.
All the minivans I looked at had the auto slide doors. I have 4 friends and myself who have experienced catastrophic failures of the auto sliding door mechanism on their minivans. I've always bought used cars and have experienced my share of problems and quirks. Not being able to get in or out (well, my kids not being able to get in or out) without a series of arcane jiggles has been one of the most frustrating.
After that it was only vehicles with hinged doors and 8 passengers so...SUV or commuter van.
edit: also I live in a northern state in the middle of nowhere. 4 wheel drive and high clearance were not insignificant factors for us.
Yup. It doesn't even require excessive malfeasance. Once you are in the zone of just slightly gaming the system at the edges and then you make the jump to deciding to build that gaming the system into the software you're screwed. Because the problem is that once you start down that path it is actually shockingly easy to create wildly divergent performance and emissions characteristics. Such is the power of software control of an engine. And then you are faced with the problem of what to do next, do you pull it back or do you go for broke to maximize quarterly profits while assuming regulatory agencies won't find out? You can guess which option our current business environment has preferentially selected for.
Have variable performance and emissions is not the problem. The EPA testing should (does?) test multiple types of usage and use an amalgamation of the results for an overall score.
The problem isn't that they are changing how they perform depending on circumstance, it's that they've defined a circumstance specifically for "we're being tested" and change how it functions based on that, which means the test no longer has any bearing on reality. That's the difference between a good feature and a defeat device.
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?"