back to article Audi, Seat, Skoda admit they've been fiddling car pollution tests as well

The fallout from Volkswagen's use of software to cheat on emissions tests is spreading: Audi and Skoda (both of which are owned by VW) admit that some of their cars carry the dodgy code. In all, Audi says 2.1 million of its vehicles are using the dodgy system – the vast majority of those are in Europe. The car maker told El …

  1. Mark 85

    So if all these vehicles are required to use the "proper" coding in the computer, does this mean that they will run like a Trabant?

    1. This post has been deleted by its author

    2. BillG
      Facepalm

      Multiple people would have had to have been involved at many stages of the design process to make the system work, and sign off on it for production.

      Having worked in Detroit, I can tell you that engine control code and transmission control code is guarded more fiercely than any government secret, with special buildings that have multiple access codes guarding information that is very highly compartmentalized. Each and every functionality of engine code is documented, scrutinized, and signed off at the very highest corporate level, especially since emissions and performance of the fleet directly affect stock price. For coding cheats that impact the company of this over-reaching magnitude, I cannot see the CEO not knowing, especially for a German company where all important decisions are made at the top.

      1. Rod 6

        open source

        May be we should force car manufactures to open source their car management code. Our lives do depend on it after all.

        1. Pascal Monett Silver badge

          Re: "open source their car management code. Our lives do depend on it after all"

          Not really. Our lives depend mostly on the efficiency of the brakes and ABS, and on the precision of the steering. The engine is generally what gets us into trouble, rarely what gets us out of it.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: "Our lives do depend on it after all" @Pascal

            >The engine is generally what gets us into trouble, rarely what gets us out of it.

            Oh dear. Just wait for the petrol heads see that and claim that having 500bhp in a Fiesta will allow them to take evasive action and get them out of danger.

            1. asdf

              Re: "Our lives do depend on it after all" @Pascal

              >Oh dear. Just wait for the petrol heads

              Lot fewer of those today than even a decade ago at least in the US. A lot of millennials now don't even have drivers licenses and with self driving cars on the horizon I am afraid its only going to get worse. That era shown in The Hollywood Knights and American Graffiti is long gone.

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: "open source their car management code. Our lives do depend on it after all"

            Pascal, I believe his point was that our lives are affected by the noxious exhaust fumes. Not other aspects of the engine's performance.

            The theory is that if the test results has not been 'cheated' then sales of these vehicles would have been lower,leading to cleaner air for all, as some people bought cleaner alternatives.

          3. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: "open source their car management code. Our lives do depend on it after all"

            " Our lives depend mostly on the efficiency of the brakes and ABS, and on the precision of the steering."

            As secure as the brakes that got hacked via the phone enabled entertainment system

          4. PNGuinn
            WTF?

            @ Pascal Monett Re: "... Our lives do depend on it after all"

            Try telling that to the poor sod who nearly got wiped out on a level crossing because the drive wheels slipped and the traction control system got confused. I can't remember the details but it was on elReg some months ago.

            Methinks that when I put my hoof on a pedal I want some confidence in what the machinery is going to do. I just don't have that with modern vehicles at the moment.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: open source

          Perhaps from a computer security perspective, but they would have little incentive to bother investing in producing better software, and thus more efficient cars, if they can just copy eachother's homework. On the other hand, the patent lawyers would make even more money.

      2. Jason Bloomberg Silver badge

        For coding cheats that impact the company of this over-reaching magnitude, I cannot see the CEO not knowing

        It is not so much having known, but what they knew. It is one thing to say "we're cheating the system", quite another to say "we have developed software which improves compliance with emission testing, puts us ahead of the market in a number of key areas and will generate a marked increase in sales". Who wouldn't sign off on that?

        Perhaps it was not so entirely innocent, that the CEO did know more than that, but it's in the same ballpark as "the legality of war in Iraq". A CEO acts on advice of advisors and may have been convinced it was entirely legal and acceptable at the time.

    3. asdf

      >does this mean that they will run like a Trabant?

      Or certainly more like their competitors explaining why VW's diesel magic was too good to be true.

      1. bazza Silver badge

        "Or certainly more like their competitors explaining why VW's diesel magic was too good to be true."

        VW's magic was to "pass" certification whilst omitting a urea injection system. I don't think that necessarily turned into VWs being cheaper than the competition, they just made more profit from it.

        If by "magic" you mean high performance whilst being clean, then seemingly others have managed it. The researchers who spilt the beans on VW specifically cited a BMW X5 (I think it was one of those) as being Okay. One should hope so - BMW put on a urea injection system, and use 2 or 3 turbos to extract the maximum performance from a smallest amount of fuel. With all that lot it jolly well ought to be clean.

        However, that's a lot of very expensive kit strapped to the side of the engine block, and doesn't really come in at a price point compatible with low end market pricing. That suits BMW just fine, but it's not affordable for the lower end manufacturers.

        I suspect the result of all this will be an increase in the cost of manufacturing a diesel engine for the low end of the market, which will effectively dump them out of the market altogether. Petrol / petrol hybrid will likely end up being cheaper.

        Even (or as some might say, especially) BMW get things hopelessly wrong sometimes. On at least one of their twin turbo diesels there is a linkage between an actuator and the turbo's vanes, and the metal (or plastic, I forget which) they used for this part has the consistency and resilience of cheese. It wears very quickly, consequently the turbo vanes are not set right, and there's all sorts of running and emissions problems as a result. There's a good trade for independent BMW specialists in replacing these simple linkages with proper ones made out of proper metal.

        1. Phil O'Sophical Silver badge

          I don't think that necessarily turned into VWs being cheaper than the competition, they just made more profit from it.

          It wasn't so much price as image. VW wanted to convince the US market that diesel was cleaner than petrol/gasoline, and no more trouble to use. They didn't want the engines to seem more complex, with extra servicing needs, like urea tanks to refill.

          BMW...consequently the turbo vanes are not set right

          From what I've heard, they ultimately get so not-right that they come loose and the engine ingests them. That must make a very expensive noise.

    4. Voland's right hand Silver badge

      Nope

      They will definitely not stink like one.

      As far as them being involved it is a natural consequence of VW replacing engineering as a differentiator by brand development and having a brand development director at the level of head of engineering (both presently suspended and under investigation).

      VW family tree are all the same. It is the "Failure of Ford" taken to the extreme. There is no engineering difference between the low end (involved in this scandal) Skoda, Audi and Seat mechanically. They use the same chassis, engine, suspension, transmission, electronics, etc and differ only in their outer shell and level of plastic-ness of the interior. VW is also the same. It used to trail Audi/Skoda/Seat technically by a year to allow these to do "advanced development", but even that has been replaced by brand distinction now.

      1. enormous c word

        Re: Nope

        VW Audi are the masters of re-platforming - the flagship VW Phaeton, Audi A8, Bentley Continental all share the same platform. These engine management shenanigans could well cross the whole product line. I wonder which other manufacturers have also cheated the tests - there will be others, have no doubt.

    5. PNGuinn

      @ Mark 85

      And smoke like one?

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    It's not dodgy pollution software

    it's a performance enhancing mod.

    1. Notas Badoff
      Joke

      Re: It's not dodgy pollution software

      They just wanted to see how much the processing units could be over-NOx'ed.

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Never mind the fines, think of the SAVINGS

    €7bn in provisions looks quite modest, when you consider the savings across the VW Group, as all those subsidiaries were able to access the group Centre of Competence in Fraud & Dishonesty. German companies love the idea of centralisation (so long as its in Germany) and deduplication, and here we see the full benefits of the system.

    If each VW group company had been forced to have innovated their own unique designs, the costs of establishing eight different methods of cheating would have been astronomical.

    1. petur
      WTF?

      Re: Never mind the fines, think of the SAVINGS

      Nah, they all just bought the dodgy firmware from Bosch.

      I kinda wonder why nobody points a finger at them for writing/offering that code in the first place.

      1. The Wegie

        Re: Never mind the fines, think of the SAVINGS

        Bosch are supposed to have first warned VW not to use the siftware to cheat in 2007.

        Www.ibtimes.co.uk/vw-scandal-carmaker-was-warned-about-test-rigging-software-2007-1521442

        1. petur

          Re: Never mind the fines, think of the SAVINGS

          OK, so by that logic, I can write a virus and sell it on the market, as long as I warn you to not actually use it in the open.

          Rrrrright.

          Bosch should never have written cheatware in the first place... Give me any good reason why you need such software in testing?

          1. John Robson Silver badge

            Re: Never mind the fines, think of the SAVINGS

            @petur - Give me any good reason why you need such software in testing?

            For testing purposes. Although I'd expect the "IF" to be a hardware switch, not an "if steering isn't used, and we go full throttle"

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Stop

            Re: Never mind the fines, think of the SAVINGS

            " Give me any good reason why you need such software in testing?"

            The same reason you may run a jet engine at 150% of it's required maximum power, the same reason you may want to run a CPU at 80% constantly , same reason you may want to run air conditioning at 5 degrees c.

            Testing.

            You then can set a benchmark to compare your real world results against,

            This may of been set to test the engine, and NOT the emissions.

            1. Martin
              Headmaster

              Re: Never mind the fines, think of the SAVINGS

              This may of been set to test the engine.

              No, no, no!

              This may HAVE been set to test the engine.

              Or, so that it sounds like what you've written...

              This may've been set to test the engine.

              But please, please - not "may of".

              This particularly egregious error is becoming increasingly prevalent - I'm really scared that in ten years time it will become acceptable.

              1. future research

                Re: Never mind the fines, think of the SAVINGS

                But please, please - not "may of".

                This particularly egregious error is becoming increasingly prevalent - I'm really scared that in ten years time it will become acceptable.

                What is the problem with that, Language does change over time?

                1. dotdavid

                  Re: Never mind the fines, think of the SAVINGS

                  "Language does change over time"

                  In the future your going to see more homonym substitutions which could of bin avoided by better spelling education today.

                2. Alister

                  Re: Never mind the fines, think of the SAVINGS

                  Language does change over time?

                  I'm fed up of seeing this trotted out as an excuse for ignorance or poor education.

                  Yes, language does change over time, but not to the extent that the word "of" will ever have the same meaning as the word "have".

                  Language and grammar have rules, in part so that non-native speakers can learn the language.

                  English is already one of the harder languages to learn, but what chance does anybody have of learning to speak and write it correctly if arbitrary nonsense is allowed to become the norm?

                  This doesn't happen to other languages as far as I'm aware, so why is English considered fair game for such abuses?

                  </rant>

                3. Jimmy2Cows Silver badge
                  FAIL

                  Of != Have

                  @future research:

                  What is the problem with that, Language does change over time?

                  Fuck it, why not just allow "of" and "have" to be used interchangeably? Nothing could possibly go wrong with that now, could it...?

                  May I of one have whatever you're smoking please?

                  If this is your idea have a brave new world, I want to of no part have it.

                  1. Anonymous Coward
                    Anonymous Coward

                    Re: Of != Have

                    East shoots and leaves.

                    People will work it out.

                    Maybe.

                    The legacy of "education education education"?

                    1. PNGuinn
                      Headmaster

                      Re: Of != Have - East shoots and leaves

                      Oops!

                  2. Martin
                    Happy

                    Re: Of != Have

                    May I of one have whatever you're smoking please?

                    Have course you may!

                    Thanks to all of you for the support. Perhaps I'll start a campaign.

                  3. PNGuinn
                    Joke

                    Re: Of != Have

                    Now, IF we ever get to see VW's source code I wonder if we might see some comments like that? In best Krautish, of course.

          3. theOtherJT Silver badge

            Re: Never mind the fines, think of the SAVINGS

            "Bosch should never have written cheatware in the first place... Give me any good reason why you need such software in testing?"

            You need it because otherwise the car would have a massive panic and try and turn itself off.

            The engine management / stability control / abs etc. are all linked these days. Imagine a situation where the car is on a road and the front wheels are turning, the back wheels are stationary, and the air intake pressure has dropped through the floor. It's clearly having some kind of MASSIVE accident, and the safety systems built into the thing are going to freak out and try and cut the engine off.

            As I understand it BOSCH wrote this stuff so that in that situation the ECU goes "No, it's ok, you're on a test rig. Don't engage the ABS. Don't kill the engine. You should enact the following changes to the engine management to make up for the change in manifold pressure in order to keep running normally."

            They then supplied VW with a note to the effect that since it was now going to have to handle things like preferred combustion temperature and fuel air mix according to some pre-set rules rather than relying on the sensor data on the rest of the engine, you need to tune those rules very carefully to give an accurate representation of what the car would do if it was actually on a road.

            At that point someone went "Hmmmm... so what you're saying is that when the car detects that it's on a test rig, we can program the engine to run whatever emissions and power profile we want? Interesting..." and the rest is history.

  4. Not That Andrew

    Hmm, I wonder about MAN and Scania.

    1. Charles Manning

      Truck software is tuned in a completely different way than car sw. I doubt the trucks have this sort of issue.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        I doubt the trucks have this sort of issue.

        Some decades ago I worked for a large truck maker. I can assure you that meeting the regulatory standards of the time did involve that "special" sort of creativity, albeit then of a less technical nature than environment aware ECU remapping or similar.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Are you sure?

        Secondly, how are you sure?

  5. rob_leady
    Facepalm

    Hardly news...

    The original VW *GROUP* press release, stated that 11 million Volkswagen *GROUP* vehicles were affected.

    It shouldn't come as any surprise that Audi, Škoda, Seat, etc are affected !

    1. GregC
      Holmes

      Re: Hardly news...

      Yep, that was my first thought - this is entirely expected. Though I've always assumed this kind of thing was rife anyway...

  6. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    While these vehicles may all have the code installed

    That just means that they have a single common firmware. It doesn't mean 11million vehicles were cheating the emissions testing. When all is said and done, it may transpire that the only vehicles actually "at fault" are the ones in the USA, where the emissions levels for diesel vehicles were set incredibly low.

    (And as has been pointed out repeatedly, the ships used to transport said vehicles & parts to the USofA will have spewed far more pollutants in to the atmosphere in that one short journey than the vehicles ever could in their lifetime)

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: While these vehicles may all have the code installed

      And only in locales that require emissions testing...

    2. asdf

      Re: While these vehicles may all have the code installed

      @AC. Yep no big deal huh? Unless you own stock I suppose.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: While these vehicles may all have the code installed

      Yes, because it is EXACTLY the same thing to have one ship spew NOx in the open ocean across thousands of miles as it is to have hundreds of cars running diesel spew NOx into a basin suffering a inversion (think LA in the summer).

      Location, location, location. Approaching port these ocean-going belchers are required to burn something cleaner than the bunker sludge* they normally use. So yeah, they're dirty, but they do it away from people who expect to be able to breathe (ship's crew aside).

      *Container ships use stuff so awful it has to be heated up to get it to flow through the injectors.

      1. John Crisp

        Re: While these vehicles may all have the code installed

        *Container ships use stuff so awful it has to be heated up to get it to flow through the injectors.

        Not just container ships, but pretty well any large ocean going ship.

        If I remember rightly the main reason for running lighter 'cleaner' fuel (on a low speed 2 stroke diesel engine) was better start/stop & low speed response when manouvering.

        Didn't matter on a steamship with oil injected boilers though.

        But yes it did have to be heated either way.

        Can't remember now if we used tank heaters to get it out of the tanks like you have to for crude oil. But yes, heavy 'bunker' oil was pretty messy stuff.

        Ahh... fun times at sea in my yoof..... Lash me to the bar. Mines another large one :-)

    4. John Robson Silver badge

      Re: While these vehicles may all have the code installed

      @AC - Shipping

      Maersk large ships (they have 8) take 15,200 containers

      Engines produce well over 115k bhp (including heat recovery etc)

      burning 16 tons/hour

      travelling at 29.3mph

      For crude: 1 ton is 307.86 gallons

      So: 29.3/(16*307.86) = 0.006mpg

      But that's spread across 15,200 containers: 90mpg/container

      A standard container will take between 3 and 5 cars, so that's going up to 360mpg per car. The fuel isn't particularly clean (understatement of the millenium) but it is a single journey for each car, with a pretty good fuel efficiency.

      Of course if they transitioned to nuclear powered container ship we'd be in a much nicer place - but the panic would be hilarious.

      1. Bronek Kozicki
        Thumb Up

        Re: While these vehicles may all have the code installed

        if they transitioned to nuclear powered container ship Oh, I'd love that, just for the enjoyment of watching the greens.

        1. John Robson Silver badge

          Re: While these vehicles may all have the code installed

          @Bronek Kozicki

          Indeed, although I think the politrikians might be shouting "errorist" more loudly even than the greens could shout, whatever it is they would shout...

          1. Tony Haines

            Re: While these vehicles may all have the code installed

            Remember Thunderbirds?

            Every large vehicle[1] was nuclear powered and either automated, or set to auto-pilot by someone due a heart-attack. And the machine would then go out of control and aim straight for the nearest city.

            The thing is, if I recall correctly, radioactive contamination was not a concern - the mobile nuclear power plant was solely a device to ensure that the machine wouldn't lose power.

            [1] Our favourite was the crab-logger.

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Check me on this...

    Wasn't Volkswagen's boss Martin Winterkorn head of R&D when this was mooted? Yet he "knows nothing!" (in best Sgt. Schultz's voice.) Sounds like the basis for criminal charges. Hell of a good basis for a civil stockholder's lawsuit against him if nothing else.

    1. Gordon 10
      Linux

      Re: Check me on this...

      Why would it be R&D though? It strikes me as something much more likely to have been the idea of a smart arse PHB looking to save money once the real engineers had done their job.

      As Dabbsy mentioned at the weekend - running these tests is a completely abnormal situation anyway it involves a set of conditions never or rarely encountered IRL namely the wheels and engine going like the clappers whilst the air intake is static so by some respects all static testing performance is dodgy. Not that it excuses what VW has done but it does show that the whole testing regime is fairly daft.

  8. Jean-Paul

    Lamborghini et all

    Since when are they running the 2.0TDI engine? Or are now all of a sudden also petrol engines affected?

    1. Gordon 10

      Re: Lamborghini et all

      My thoughts too. There has been no suggestion that the petrol engines are iffy too. That only leaves the 3L Porsche diesel to worry about, and again afaik no one has mentioned anything more than the 1.6 and the 2.0.

      1. MrT

        Re: Lamborghini et all

        The same basic underlying need for the engine management system not to get itself in a knot exists when a petrol engine is on test - driven wheels spinning, non- driven wheels static, engine under a lot less stress for the given speed through lack of aero drag, ABS getting confused, ESP wondering why there are no inputs from pitch, yaw, steering and braking sensors, etc. What's under scrutiny isn't that the cars 'know' they are on an emissions test rig, but what they do with that information.

        As for whether the fiddle exists in other engines, consider the 4.0 twin-turbo petrol V8 in the Audi RS6 Avant puts out 560bhp and only 223g/km CO2, (way less than, for example, the 2.8T 4x4 Vauxhall Insignia VXR estate with 320bhp and 259g/km). The Audi manages supercar-bothering sub-4sec 0-60mph 189mph top speed performance (with ceramic brake option) and because they shaved 6g off the emissions for the latest model, the RS6 is in a tax band that's merely painful rather than eye-wateringly expensive. The EMS probably recognised the test situation and never let the engine get out of the light-load V4 cylinder shutdown mode, hence 29mpg. So it certainly looks like some of the VAG petrol units are having their cake and eating it, just like the diesels.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Lamborghini et all

          The EMS probably recognised the test situation and never let the engine get out of the light-load V4 cylinder shutdown mode,

          That's what makes the test regime so pointless, though.

          If (car is under light load) then

          switch to light-load mode /* will reduce emissions */

          endif

          is all OK, possibly even praiseworthy, but

          If (car is explicitly under test) then

          switch to light-load mode /* just happens to reduce emissions */

          endif

          is forbidden, even though everyone knows that the test mode looks just like light load (0-60 in 30s!)

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Lamborghini et all

      And just how would you tell if a Lamborghini be cheating? Because it passed the emissions test in the first place? I thought they simply included a sum in the cost to cover blanket non-compliance. Am I wrong?

    3. This post has been deleted by its author

  9. Fraggle850

    Still fancy a 'connected' car?

    So a manufacturer is prepared to do dodgy things with the code running the engine and we've recently seen instances of remote car hacking where some car functions were accessed over the can bus. Doesn't take a massive conceptual leap to link the two. Not paid for a dealer service history nor bought genuine parts? Odd that the engine would break.

    1. Gordon 10

      Re: Still fancy a 'connected' car?

      Maybe. But not from VW whilst they are still bruised from this one.

    2. MrT

      Re: Still fancy a 'connected' car?

      Remap fans beware - get one like the BSR boxes or the old MINI Oneclick jobs that can be reverted to factory maps for the MoT emissions test, then reinstated afterwards. Call me cynical, but if this action against VW sticks then one outcome might be that EMS firmware is checked, approved and sealed, and any aftermarket mods forced off the road.

      1. Fraggle850

        Re: Still fancy a 'connected' car?

        That'll be an interesting future tech battleground: vehicle modders vs the man.

      2. Alan Brown Silver badge

        Re: Still fancy a 'connected' car?

        " old MINI Oneclick jobs that can be reverted to factory maps for the MoT emissions test, then reinstated afterwards. "

        Those are illegal anyway. The reality is that your car can be ordered to undergo a MOT emissions test at any time if the police or DVLA suspect the system has been tampered with - as in: Go directly to test centre, under supervision, car impounded if it fails.

        Ditto on "modified exhausts" - which are also illegal if louder than standard, but widespread anyway.

        1. Fraggle850

          Re: Still fancy a 'connected' car?

          And god help you if VOSA decide to pull you over - I gather that they are much more clued-up than the average bobby.

          The only sensible recourse for any self-respecting petrol head is to go for older vehicles with less restrictive legislation and few, if any, electronic gubbins. Go old enough in the UK and you are tax exempt, a little older still and you don't even need a MOT!

          And as for diesel? It's only good for trucks, trains and tractors, silly...

          My benchmark for any personal transport powerplant is a motorcycle - if it doesn't work for a bike then it aint fit for purpose. Admittedly there are both diesel and electric bikes but neither will (currently) gain market over petrol becuase of the respective compromises that each requires. There's space to obscure this harsh reality in cars and manufacturers do a good job of this but essentially they are compromise solutions.

  10. petur
    Holmes

    Porsche

    Since Porsche is also part of the scam, how can its boss now be mister clean and fix things?

    1. Gordon 10

      Re: Porsche

      Time will tell but Porsche only have 1 Diesel engine and it's a 3 litre so seems (currently) out of scope of the scandal.

  11. Aqua Marina

    Call me cynical, but my gut is telling me that the people currently suspended from their jobs as a result of this, are probably the same people who can point fingers directly at the person or people who made the decision to include the cheat code in the firmware.

    Restrict their access, delete anything incriminating.

    1. asdf

      >delete anything incriminating.

      Well at least in the US, the justice department seems to be able to convict you much easier for doing that than anything else (see Martha Stewart). I also believe that is a really quick way to get a default judgement (or whatever the fancy legal term is) in court against yourself as well.

  12. A Non e-mouse Silver badge

    F1

    With the changes at the top of VW a few weeks ago, there was talk of VW (Under the guise of Audi) entering Formula 1. I bet that's been put on the back burner for now...

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: F1

      Sorry, the back burner is currently in for testing.

      We should have the (cough) results shortly.....

  13. amanfromMars 1 Silver badge

    More Tax for More Follies and Greasy Palms?

    Are there any tax (Vehicle Excise Duty) implications/adjustments to be budgeted for with the apparent significant increase in troublesome emissions? ........ Vehicle Excise Duty.

    There has been very little mention of it in any mainstream media, and yet the change in band designation can be quite punitive on the wallet..

    And here be an interesting thread on the present situation ...... A few thoughts about the VW scandal

    1. BenR

      Re: More Tax for More Follies and Greasy Palms?

      There shouldn't be as far as I can see.

      To the best of my understanding, this "cheat" only reduced the NOx emissions by upping the amount of fuel in the cylinders, cooling the burn and preventing the atmospheric nitrogen reacting. The 'lean burn' mode which is the problem in the US causes extra NOx, but reduces the amount of CO2 and power.

      UK VED is based solely on CO2 emissions, which means the 'lean burn' mode that they were trying to avoid in the US for NOx reasons is still OK over here.

      1. Voland's right hand Silver badge

        Re: More Tax for More Follies and Greasy Palms?

        There shouldn't be as far as I can see.

        Not necessarily.

        There are two tests that apply in the UK. One is Euro compliance which has NOx component and the other one is CO2. I do not know for sure if they are administered _SEPARATELY_ or at the same time.

        I suspect they are separate, because the Euro compliance test is admin-ed at VW (and occasionally checked by a couple of labs) and the UK VED test is admin-ed and done in the UK as it is UK specific.

        VW software when running in normal mode based on published US data may actually fail Euro5 in some cases. That means that if the UK test does not also check NOx (and other Euro5 compliance) at the same time as CO2, VW may need VED re-banding.

        1. BenR

          Re: More Tax for More Follies and Greasy Palms?

          True - having checked the Euro6 compliance requirements.

          Although even under Euro6, the EU limit is still TWICE what the US limit is (80mg/km NOx in Europe, and 43mg/km in US). Added to the fact that the US limit is applied to cars after a "full service life" of 120,000 miles, then you'd think that the issue for cars which are OFFICIALLY tested when new (or almost-new) for type approval in the UK would likely be fine. The Euro5 limit - which is for new cars until 1st September 2015 - is higher still at 180mg/km.

          http://www.dft.gov.uk/vca/fcb/exhaust-emissions-testing.asp

      2. Alan Brown Silver badge

        Re: More Tax for More Follies and Greasy Palms?

        " the 'lean burn' mode that they were trying to avoid in the US for NOx reasons is still OK over here."

        Um, no. Not since 2004 or so. NOX emissions are now restricted, although not as heavily restricted as in the USA.

    2. Alan Brown Silver badge

      Re: More Tax for More Follies and Greasy Palms?

      VED rates were going to go up anyway, due to the number of "clean vehicles" being such that it was impacting the government's revenue.

      Never mind that the uk govt gets £45 billion from road fuel taxes/duty (PLUS VAT) and only about £5 billion from VED.

      There's a nice wheeze about to start, with Cameron having made an election pledge to ringfence VED for roading - currently that costs about £15 billion/year. You can expect VED to rise substantially on the basis that it's to cover the roading fees which motorists are being subsidised for, whilst ignoring where the fuel taxes go.

  14. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Emissions?

    Ve ver only following odours!

  15. Winkypop Silver badge
    Devil

    2016: The new VW sedan

    "The Carbon"

    VWs first Coal Powered Hatch!

    Millions of years in the making.

  16. bazza Silver badge

    "Skoda, the low-end Czech car manufacturer"

    Oh boy, are you out of date or what?

    1. Pascal Monett Silver badge

      Given that Skoda's most expensive model starts at under €25000, I don't think so.

      But if you find a Skoda V8 at €80,000 don't hesitate to post the link, I'd love to take a gander.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        >But if you find a Skoda V8 at €80,000

        So if it costs more than 80,0000 euro its a high-end model? This reminds me of the Harry Enfield "They saw me coming" sketches. I'll sell you my Skoda for 80,001 euros and it's not even a V8. Not only will you get a high-end model but a reliable car to boot.

        1. Pascal Monett Silver badge

          "I'll sell you my Skoda for 80,001 euros and it's not even a V8"

          So you agree that V8s are in high-end cars. Given that we agree that you'll never find a V8 in a €25,000 car, Skoda does not make high-end cars.

          That does not mean to say Skoda does not make reliable cars, nor does it mean that Skoda does not have a high-end tier.

          It does, however, mean that high-end at Skoda is below anything at Porsche. Porsche is high-end. Skoda is not.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Facepalm

            Whoosshhh, that's the sound of a low flying high-end car.

      2. Matt Bacon 1

        "But if you find a Skoda V8 at €80,000 don't hesitate to post the link, I'd love to take a gander."

        Well, if you go to town on the configurator, you can get a top end estate up to just under £42,000...

        Still at that point it's better equipped than most high-end Merc saloons and Audis, so it's good value, even if not exactly "low-end"

        ;-P

        M.

    2. Zog The Undeniable

      Skoda

      Agreed - they're not significantly cheaper than VW these days, although they are far, far more reliable (look at the Warranty Direct claims records). VW Group cars are less reliable the more you pay; Audi is woeful, VW is average, Skoda is great.

  17. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    So how would this work in Europe?

    Most European countries have more or less annual MOTs which include an emissions tests not a one-off test on a small sample of cars to approve all the others. So wouldn't this have shown a huge disparity in emission levels between a few engines tested at a central US testing centre and those from literally thousands of independent tests of virtually every European VAG car.

    1. Fraggle850

      Re: So how would this work in Europe?

      Unlikely. I thought of this when the scandal broke but, certainly with the UK MOT, NOx isn't tested. I gather all vehicles are tested for carbon (monoxide? dioxide? can't recall) and unburnt hydrocarbons. Diesels are also tested for particulates but not for NOx.

      Also, the cheat software would likely have kicked in on an MOT anyway as it would fit the unusual operating conditions that likely trigger it.

      1. Chemist

        Re: So how would this work in Europe?

        " (monoxide? dioxide? can't recall)"

        Monoxide, the seriously toxic one

  18. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I expect this scandal will have a film made about it at some point.

  19. Bronek Kozicki

    Given the relation between German government and car industry, this is far from over.

  20. Zog The Undeniable

    The VW 2.0 TDI

    also has a reputation for stripping its oil pump drive, leading to almost certain engine death as metal contacts metal at high revs. It's not the best design of all time; the old 1.9TDI was a lot tougher.

    Anyone who's owned an ageing BMW can tell you that German engineering is not all it's cracked up to be. After decades of making cars, BMW still can't make a decent handbrake mechanism (you often hear a BMW that sounds as if it's towing a raft of tin cans; that's where the handbrake shoes have fallen off the backplates) nor tailgate wiring that doesn't break.

    The Japanese do car engineering a lot better but their ventures into the snobby world of executive cars always seem a bit naff; you can't really invent a new prestige brand, although they had a good crack at it with Lexus.

    1. Fraggle850

      Re: The VW 2.0 TDI

      Had a normally aspirated early v dub skoda 1.9 diesel and the turbo version in a golf with a boot (vento?) Economical and a tad dull for my taste but very solid lumps.

      Now have a 2 litre petrol passat. Would and have forgiven BMWs many little foibles in the past just because they are such a pleasure to drive. I'd have another but it would have to be a late eighties to early nineties 5 or 7 series, before they started cutting corners. Merc went the same way around the same time.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon