EPA caught VW cheating - how does the car know it's being tested?

Page 6 of 11  
On Sun, 20 Sep 2015 15:08:01 -0400, snipped-for-privacy@snyder.on.ca wrote:

This article says the whole TDI Clean Diesel campaign is a fraud. I don't drive a diesel.
What was the "TDI Clean Diesel" campaign anyway?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 21 Sep 2015 17:30:19 -0700, Danny D. wrote:

Oopops. Forgot to include the url: http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/a17430/ezra-dyer-volkswagen-diesel-controversy/
What was this "TDI Clean Diesel" campaign anyway? And, what does that have to do with "urea" injection?
How does this UREA injection work?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Apparently a way to avoid the urea injection everyone else used to get emissions down to the legal limit.

Both are supposedly ways to meet emissions standards. One works. The other is Wizard of Oz engineering apparently.

A youtube explanation: http://preview.tinyurl.com/pumvto8 I didn't watch it and ain't qualified to say if it's correct.
Have you noticed signs at truck stops saying "DEF Sold In All Lanes"? That's diesel exhaust fluid or urea.
--
Using Opera's mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Monday, September 21, 2015 at 9:13:32 PM UTC-4, Dean Hoffman wrote:

The big remaining question that hasn't been answered is if they can meet the EPA requirements on the dyno test by turning the emissions controls on and/or re-tuning the car, why didn't they just leave it on? I'm guessing it must have affected MPG or performance? The other interesting thing is that when I first heard this, I thought the difference must be some small margin, 10% maybe. According to the news last night, the difference is 10x to 40x?
Sure looks like they are in deep doo doo.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

It's in the article:
All the other carmakers control diesel emissions by spraying a urea solution into the exhaust stream, where a catalyst converts it to ammonia. The ammonia breaks down NOx into nitrogen and water.
--
Dan Espen

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
In alt.home.repair, on Fri, 18 Sep 2015 22:45:53 -0400, Ed Pawlowski

Many corporations have no morals these days, and like most criminals, they think they won't get caught. Do you remember Bank of America, how when it got several checks whose total exceeded the money in someone's checking account, regardelss of the order they came in, they would process the biggest ones first, so as to empty the checking account so that all the little checks bounced, giving them as much insufficient funds fees as possible. That was outright stealing by the Bank of America. They only changed because the government caught them and made them.
I had occasion to be in a Wells Fargo branch, and I was telling the bank officer why I despised Bank of America and he was telling me I should change to Wells Fargo, and 6 months later, 2 or 3 years afer the incident with Bank of Am. and I reed in the paper that Wells Fargo is doing the same thing, and they didn't even stop after Bank of Am got caught. They are also thieves and if they don't steal more often, it's because they think they'll get caught, not because those in charge have any morals.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 9/18/2015 5:19 PM, Ewald Böhm wrote:

Can't speak for all states, but in California one of the first steps in an emissions test is for the codes to be read via the OBD-II port. They won't even proceed to the tailpipe test if there are incomplete self-tests on the vehicle (I ran into this once when I brought a vehicle in just after I changed the car battery).
It would be rather simple for the vehicle's computer to note that the OBD-II port was active and to change the emissions system settings for the next 30 minutes to an hour.
I suspect that most states with smog tests read the codes via the OBD-II port prior to proceeding with tailpipe testing.
My brother-in-law had a Smog Pros franchise for many years and just sold it last month. In some cases he would do pre-tests prior to hooking to the state's computer so a vehicle could be repaired before being labeled a gross polluter. A VW TDI would never pass a pre-test via the EGA (exhaust gas analyzer unless the codes had been read first. But I doubt he ever had done a pre-test on a VW TDI.
He told me that once he had a vehicle that was only slightly out of compliance and he offered to repair it for $40. The owner declined, saying he would fix it himself. Without an EGA that really isn't a good idea, but the owner left then came back for his free retest under the "Pass or Retest Free." So he did the retest and now the vehicle was so far out of compliance that it was a gross polluter. The owner then wanted to pay $40 for the repair and have it tested again but it was too late. He could get the repairs done but the vehicle's status had been sent to the state and now the owner had to take the car to a different "Test-Only" smog check station and pay again. He also would have to now get a smog check every year instead of every two years (that requirement is no longer in effect).
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 19 Sep 2015 05:44:13 -0700, sms wrote:

I know this intimately not to be true, in the truest sense of what you say.
While many stations will certainly do a courtesy OBD scan, since you can't pass CA emissions with a given number of pending or set codes or unset monitors (the numbers of each are depending on the year of the vehicle), it is absolutely NOT a requirement to run the OBD scan.
Look it up. I did.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 9/19/2015 10:54 PM, Ewald Böhm wrote:

You said it yourself. You can't pass emissions with pending codes. They have to run a scan to check this. That's why before they even stick the exhaust gas analyzer into the tail pipe they read the codes. No point proceeding with the test if there are unset codes, though if you're paying for the test they will complete it to check for other failure modes as well.
At least that's the procedure for the four vehicles I have had smogged every two years for the past 20 or so years. Also the procedure at the repair shop my relative operated until he sold it last month, and he probably did 3000 or so smog checks per year.
I guess you could claim that it is not a requirement to run a scan, it's just a requirement that you can't pass with pending codes and the only way to check for pending codes is to do a scan. If there is another way to check for pending codes other than doing a scan you would be correct, but I don't think that there is.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 20 Sep 2015 07:54:12 -0700, sms wrote:

You have a good point. I need to recheck my facts.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I'd like to know how the EPA found out about this hack
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

but otherwise it's okay?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 19 Sep 2015 00:19:10 +0000, Ewald Böhm wrote:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2015/09/19/consumer-reports-volkswagen/72436098/ The software code allows all of the car's emissions systems to work when the cars are taken in for clean-air testing. But as soon as the emissions tests are complete, the system reverts to spewing pollutants. The cars emitted nitrogen oxide at a level of up to 40 times the standard level, the EPA alleges.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 9/20/2015 1:29 PM, Mitch Kaufmann wrote:

According to the LA Times:
"Rather than meet the standards, the EPA says VW sneaked in the defeat device software to detect when the car is hooked up to a dynamometer, a machine that measures emissions. When emissions are being measured, the defeat device tells the car to operate at "dyno calibration," or full emission control levels, to meet the standards."
"At all other times, however, the software sets the engine to run on "road calibration," allowing the excessive emissions. How can the program tell the difference? By noting the position of the steering wheel, variations in speed and other data that suggest no one is driving the car, and thus it is likely being tested."
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 20 Sep 2015 14:03:08 -0700, Sofa Slug wrote:

Finally!
Someone who both understood the question, and who posited an answer!
Of all the posters, you're the ONLY one who understood the question!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

What I'm surprised at is that each state can have a *different* procedure.
In California, they use the dyno, but in many less technical states, they still use the dumb procedures.
This explains how they noticed there was testing going on. http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-vw-20150919-story.html http://www.rocketnews.com/2015/09/did-volkswagen-cheat/
But that only works for the intelligent states. How did they also fool the low-tech states like NJ, Kentucky & Kansas?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Monday, September 21, 2015 at 8:51:57 AM UTC-4, Vincent Cheng Hoi Chuen wrote:

Show us your references and data that show using the OBD method is "dumb". I guess the federal EPA must be dumb, because using the OBD is acceptable to them. The car is constantly and closely monitoring itself as the car is actually drive, so why exactly do we need a dyno? We had the dynos here in NJ for a few years, the system cost hundreds of millions, was a complete fiasco, there were huge lines waiting for inspection because of the time it took, etc. In just a few years they went to the scrap heap.

I'd say the real fools are guys like you, who think you need a dyno. And before you try to smear some states, realize that using OBD is acceptable to the Feds now, while they required the dyno in years gone by. And provide us a list of the states that still do a dyno test. I think you'll find that it's not many.
Just the facts.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:

OK. Just the facts Danno: http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/smogcheck/march09/transitioning_to_obd_only_im.pdf
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Monday, September 21, 2015 at 10:10:42 AM UTC-4, Vincent Cheng Hoi Chuen wrote:

im.pdf
Thanks for providing the proof that you're wrong. You posted:
"In California, they use the dyno, but in many less technical states, they still use the dumb procedures. "
And from the executive summary in the CA document you just provided:
"Available data and information indicate that Smog Check tailpipe testing o f OBD II equipped vehicles significantly increases testing costs and inconv enience to California motorists, but provides only minimal emission benefit s that are above and beyond those that can be realized through OBD II-based inspections. The procedure for co nducting an OBD-based inspection can be completed in 5 minutes or less, com pared to 20 minutes for a tailpipe test, and the equipment required for the inspection can be purchased for as little as 10% of the cost for the analy zer and dynamometer needed for tailpipe testing."
Even CA agrees that there is little benefit to dyno testing, that it takes 4 times as long and that the eqpt costs 10x. If CA is still doing it, then it's CA that's dumb, not the other states that used OBD.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

this proves the EPA is not dumb.
They got their buddies selling dynos to be rich.
and now they are doing the same thing by "defining" CO2 as "pollution"
Dumb like a fox. Follow the money.
Mark
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.