Now VW air-pollution cheatware 'found in Audis and Porsches' More Volkswagen cars have been found fitted with devices that cheat on air-pollution standards tests: the US Environmental Protection Agency says similar gadgets are installed in some Audi and Porsche models. Diesel engine hardware programmed to conform to emission limits only within lab tests have been spotted in the 3-litre …
"While it hasn't sold as many Porsches and Audis as its more mass-market VW diesels, purchasers at the luxury end are going to be more likely to sue the firm for lying about specifications and harming the resale value of the vehicles."
People who worry about resale value shouldn't be buying luxury items in the first place.
People who worry about resale value shouldn't be buying luxury items in the first place.
I guess you have not spent much time around afluent people? Money is pretty much ALL they care about, most of their decisions are made on a "return on investment"-type of thought. From what they do, to what they buy, to even whom they have around them as friends and associates, most decisions are based upon what they expect to receive out of this 'transaction'.
That's why they are wealthy.
So yes, yes, they certainly weigh resale values in major purchase decisions; trust me, I'm IN the luxury goods business.
I guess you have not spent much time around afluent people? Money is pretty much ALL they care about, most of their decisions are made on a "return on investment"-type of thought.
That's for moderately rich people. The really wealthy find money a rather boring topic - they have people managing that for them. It is similar to the difference between B-list and A-list celebrities: the former crave publicity, the latter avoid it because enough comes their way already, frequently via very unwanted ways.
I would really love to see an ROI calculation for a Cayenne, come to think of it almost any luxury car.
It's at best a TCO calculation because cars depreciate as soon as the ink is dry on the contract. The "I" in ROI stands for investment, and the only car that is an investment is an antique or some very specific luxury cars, and that usually entails not putting them on the road much.
I hate to correct you, because you were very close: it is not the "moderately rich", it is "new money" versus "old money". The truly wealthy, those who inherit vast sums from the estates of their forefathers, don't care about money. Newly wealthy...watch their money constantly until they are of a certain age where they do a mathematical computatiion in their minds and realize that they have more money than time left on this planet. THEN they stop counting every penny.
Like ordinary cars, most luxury cars are not a financial investment. They're a money pit.
The 'return' that luxury owners seek is not financial, but the enjoyment of luxury and the hope and expectation that the world will see them as successful, will envy them and so on.
I don't think these sorts of ROI are going to be affected by an emissions test scam.
I guess you have not spent much time around afluent people? Money is pretty much ALL they care about
Actually, that's not necessarily the case.
In my youth, I spent quite a bit of time with *properly* rich people. People who had been landed gentry for generations uncountable. And they can be quite wonderful; having always had access to all the cash they've ever needed, they don't even tend to think about money - as you or I rarely think about air. The supply is invariably sufficient.
This was quite bizarre to me at that age - I grew up on a council estate in Southampton, yet they took me for what I was, not how much money I had.
Those that have come into money comparatively recently, though - yes, you're absolutely right there.
Vic.
But will you be able to park on a yuropean supermarket car park?
*cough* wide bays for the disabled *cough* ..
Joking aside, this is actually an issue if we take into account a growing obesity problem. Although, come to think of it, it sort of self-regulates - if you can't get out of the car to buy food you eventually end up with dimensions where you can, resulting in a slow oscillating model.
Yup, if it was just about BOFH solutions we'd have it cracked :)
Anyway, where was I? Oh, yes. Parking. See above.
I think it is more nuanced than that.
In the UK at least, recent research has shown that many private car buyers have availed themselves of lease hire or PCP balloon (as opposed to Hire Purchase) deals when financing a car, due to the lower monthly payments available. This has favoured premium marques such as Audi/BMW/Mercedes in recent times.
The exit to PCP deals at the end of their term is either to hand back the keys, trade in the car for a new one on a similar deal or to pay the residual value agreed when the deal was signed (less any mileage or condition related excesses).
Therefore for PCPs in place before this story broke, the economics of the deal are already locked in - the contractual residual was agreed at inception and so any diminution in value is the problem of the Finance company rather than the driver.
The Finance company is more likely to have exposure to more than just VAG brands, and so their exposure is diversified away to a degree anyway, particularly if the Financing cash flows (carrying a fixed interest rate) have been securitised and sold on to a wider market who will be diversified themselves. So they may not care that much.
Steve
Steve K,
Not quite matey, about 3 yrs ago the pcp conked on our Ford S-Max, the agreed value (which we could have in theory rolled into a new contract) was quite a bit more than the previously agreed [minimum] value.
Unfortunately we couldn't afford to 'buy' the car from Ford at the time...
Hence anyone due to potentially 'roll-over' from one PCP contract to another for one of these affected VW/Audi/Porsche vehicles in the near future may be due a bit of a hair cut, for which they will undoubtedly seek recompense (I certaintly would!)...
Cheers,
Jay
If it's worth less than the agreed value at the end of a PCP contract, just hand it back.
Isn't there something in the contract about an agreed 'trade in' value if you get another car from the same place though? If you can combine that with a good discount on one of the unwanted models caught up in this you may end up quids-in.
In the case of Volkswagen Group cars, the "finance company" that ends up taking the hit from depreciation will be... Volkswagen Group Financial Services AG, the group's leasing organisation.
Comparison of VW's sales revenues and the leasing company's outstanding loan growth suggests that about 80~90% of buyers of the Group's products take their car on a lease from VW Group itself.
This post has been deleted by its author
"Douglas Adams skewered this one in one of the HHGG books, in which someone claims his accountant told him to buy a Porsche, but Arthur Dent knows that this is the opposite of the truth."
<pedant>
More likely to be the package "Reason" created by the character Richard MacDuff in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency...
</pedant>
Just FYI - Audi was found to be involved very early. What *is* new is the 2016 models being included in this...
And most of those driving luxury cars are not the ones bitching about the fuel efficiency... they *might* (just might) grumble when it comes to exchanging it for a new leather armchair on wheels.
But overall, it's not going to affect the value too much; those who don't like the fuel efficiency drama will buy something else, those who are happy to drive the 'cheater cars' will continue to do so...
It's already hit the values. It seems there are some rather good discounts on the VW brand so there may be more coming to a Porsche/Audi dealer near you.
This is news, previously the test work-around software was only acknowledged to be on the VAG group's 2.0 diesel engine that was common across all brands (not used for Porsche as far as I know). It was, I think, on all versions of the 2.0 engine from the low end 103 Kw unit to the newest 176 Kw biturbo option that replaced the 3.6 V6 as the top of the line engine in the Passat.
This info brings in the other widely used VAG diesel, the 3.0 V6 model used extensively in the Audi/VW/Porsche line. but not (I don't think) in Skoda and SEAT. The 3.0 V6 also has multiple models, from 150 Kw to 230 Kw in the bi-turbo version. Previously VAG had said that this "scandal" did NOT apply to the V6 diesels.
VAG are in a very expensive hole over this; there are only two real options as far as I can see to bring these vehicles into compliance over NOx emissions - a software update to reduce temperatures and pressures in the engine that will utterly nerf output and economy (especially for the higher performance versions like the bi-turbo); or an after-market catalyst injector package (probably a Urea injection system as used by BMW and Mercedes). The software option is relatively inexpensive but will cripple the vehicles performance, whereas the Catalyst option will preserve performance and economy but will cost possibly more than VW can afford.
Maybe they'll have to go back to more petrol based engines, I actually have two VAG models, a VW and an Audi, but both petrol versions unaffected by this. Nothing wrong with the petrol options, but not particularly economical, I think the latest petrol options are significantly better though.
Honestly speaking, that's what pretty much anyone was expecting -- once you cheat, you go all the way.
I won't be surprised if their turbocharged petrol engines, especially stratified injection (TSI and TFSI) were similarly affected, since they rely on the same lean burn as Diesel engines to claim the same fuel efficiency benefits with much the same problems as with Diesels.
What's wrong with them? I don't drive German, but I appreciate that CARB and CAFEE tested the Volkswagens alongside a BMW X5 with a 3-litre Diesel engine, which met the emissions figures in and out of the lab, so that's clearly achievable.
It's not a question of if it's doable, it's a question of how much does it cost and will folks pay for it. For the prices they get for Porsche and Audi cars one wouldn't think it would be much of a problem but once a cheap "solution" is found it generally gets implemented universally.
Hopefully this is not the case as I do enjoy great mpgs of tsi (all this with real MT - albeit only 5 speed - instead of some awful AT or worse yet, CVT). I'm not sure but normal gasoline vehicle catalyst converter is good enough at scrubbing both carbohydrates and NOx. And in the worst case, I can always say that the car is optimized for CO2 emissions and minimizing of fossil fuel use. While I'd like it comply with all rules I just don't agree with EPA's definition of clean emission vehicle that somehow glances over amount of fuel burned (as long as gas exiting the tailpipe is "clean" percentage wise), allows for disparities due to size and supposed purpose of the vehicle (that ends up hauling all of one occupant 99% of time) etc. All in all, it looks like the most efficient vehicles carry the most burden of rules (that can't be fulfilled withing target cost and/or performance).
Is it legal to simply pump excess air into the exhaust to dilute the exhaust gasses? It seems the simple answer since they only look at ppm. Let's say you have a case where a turbo "leaks" from the high pressure compressor side to the low pressure post turbine side on the exhaust. If nothing else it might buy a few years more life by CARB-o-loading the EPA-filter.
Short answer, not doable.
Long answer, all of the air goes into the engine already. In theory, you could bleed air from the turbocharger. Now, VW exceeded emissions some 40 times. You'd need the turbocharger to supply 40 times the amount of air, use just a little of it for burn and then exhaust all of it. Basically, I've just described a turbofan engine.
--
As for catalytic converters -- that's for naturally aspirated engines that use stoichiometric petrol ratio. If the ratio was too lean, you'd wreck the converter quite quickly.
TSI, TFSI, and to a lesser degree, FSI engines use a lean petrol ratio. That markedly improves fuel economy, but at the same time precludes the use of classic three-way converters, and requires the use of catalytic converters for diesel engines. And yes, the implication of there being too many nitrogen oxides also holds true. Don't be surprised to see AdBlue SCR in next generation of petrol engines, too.
BTW, this is what held back the development of lean burn petrol engines up to somewhat recently -- Volkswagen led the charge. We'll just have to see at what cost, and quite soon.
You'd need the turbocharger to supply 40 times the amount of air, use just a little of it for burn and then exhaust all of it. Basically, I've just described a turbofan engine.
There is no way in hell you can comply with the noise portion of the regs at that point. 40:1 is an abominable bypass ratio too. The highest bypass turbofans do ~ 12:1. In either case, you can move the car on airflow alone - at that rate using any form of conventional transmission to spin the wheels becomes an auxiliary drive.
Yes. Some cars have a secondary air injection system that does pretty much exactly that.
The emissions targets set by the politicians cannot be realistically achieved by the engineers. Finding ways to cheat the tests is standard practice throughout the car industry. The only unknown, until recently, is just how much the manufacturers can take the piss before the governments stop turning a blind eye and give them a slap. VW seem to have found the limit of tolerance.
I call BULSHIT on the next person to claim that this is just "a few rogue software engineers, management did not know, ya?"
A few rogue software engineers? In completely different engines in different parts of the company? Both budget and luxury sector? Yeah, bollocks...
These engineers have their hands in EVERYTHING!
It may be true but it would not be the "lowly engineers" but the guys sitting in on board decision, as The War Street Journal writes.
The two men, Ulrich Hackenberg, Audi ’s chief engineer, and Wolfgang Hatz, developer of Porsche’s Formula One and Le Mans racing engines, were among the engineers suspended in the investigation of the emissions cheating scandal that sank the company’s market value by 43% since Sept. 18 and triggered a world-wide recall to refit the engines to meet clear-air standards, these people said.
Mr. Winterkorn became chief executive and put Messrs. Hackenberg and Hatz in charge of the Volkswagen R&D group and engine development. The two engineers had worked together devising new Volkswagen cars during the critical years when the vehicle maker struggled to develop diesel engines to conform to tough U.S. nitrogen oxide emissions standards.
Months later, in August 2007, Volkswagen canceled the licensing deal for BlueTec with Daimler because it didn’t want to use its competitor’s brand. It rebranded the company’s diesel engine TDI—for turbocharged direct injection.
AFAIK, the engines are made at one plant for all models / brands that use that type of engine and they are then shipped to the relevant plants.
It doesn't make sense to have half a dozen small plants turning out the same engine, just because it is for a different brand.
"A few rogue software engineers? In completely different engines in different parts of the company? Both budget and luxury sector? Yeah, bollocks..."
Bollocks - of course it wasn't endemic - t'was the Royal Correspondent that did it all alone. I have it on the word of the PM's own man and the magnate who put him there. Ooops, wrong thread ;-)
[Sgt Schultz]
But ve knew NUSSING!
Ve saw NUSSING!
[/Sgt Schultz]
This is a front line German corporation building premium automobiles. Germans have a well-deserved reputation for thoroughness, obsessive documentation and rigid hierarchical organization. I'm sure there are specifications, inspection forms and sign-offs for everything, including employee bathroom breaks and positions of all the labels on the vehicles, specified to fractions of a millimeter.
Now, they expect us to believe that code enabling emissions cheating was added to production software by a few lower level employees, with nothing to gain personally, and managed to remain undetected by management in spite of requirements specifications, source control systems, software code reviews, multiple cycles of testing to those requirements specifications, and multiple years of production? (And the additional "bypass" hardware on the engine? No one thought to ask why it was there?)
Pull the other one.
Not only "Is anybody surprised by now?", but "why is this news?"
The very first press release by VAG specified cars from the Volkswagen group had this issue, it was immediately clear that all the rest of their brands were involved.
The only bit of news for me is... Porsche make diesel-engined cars???
Lean burn petrol engines were effectively outlawed in the EU and USA a long time ago with legislation mandating stoichiometric fuel ratios at all times (because that's what 3-way cats need to work).
To reinforce that point about milage: in the 1970s, an Australian Chysler Valiant (think 4-door "general lee" style Dodge charger for the USA crowd) with a 4 litre Hemi engine could easily achieve high 20s/low 30mpg. Moving to "Electronic Lean Burn" (ratios as extreme as 40:1) allowed them to push that up to low 40s but NOX emissions skyrocketed.
The thing to bear in mind about NOX emissions is that they _only_ matter in dense or thermal inversion environments. Current emission regulations are often sledgehammers to crack walnuts when dynamic operation based on atmospheric concentrations of the offending compounds are actually practical now.
"Lean burn petrol engines were effectively outlawed in the EU and USA a long time ago"
I believe that there was extensive lobbying by the platinum extraction industry, who managed to persuade organisations like FoE that catalytic converters were better for "the environment". FoE were entirely and utterly technically illiterate (well, the ones I argued with were) and didn't understand that (a) cats don't work when cold which is usually in urban areas and (b) more carbon dioxide. So they supported the lobby, and the lean burn engine was killed. Whether there will be unexpected long term effects from the gradual spray of platinum (and other catalysts) dust over the roads is anybody's guess; it took long enough to realise that putting lead in petrol was less than bright (as were the kids affected by it.)
Right? 'We don't need regulations, the Free Market will take care of everything!', indeed.
We won't mention, of course, the children drinking melamine, and all that...
"Right? 'We don't need regulations, the Free Market will take care of everything!', indeed."
We shouldn't enforce the laws against murder because the free market will take care of that.
You seem to confuse obeying the law with market forces or?
Or maybe you're just confused.
And you seen to confuse having a law and being obliged to obey the law - the very thing that the naive, historically-ignorant neo-conservatives always miss. Somehow, once you remove laws AND oversight, all the world will be a paradise where everyone plays by the rules. Those who don't will "get punished by the free market"...just don't count the bodies that led up to that point, please, they stain the carpets.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
