Can someone explain to me why VW would have software that turns off the emission control and not run it all the time?
Does it affect the fuel consumption or soemthing else?
Non of the news I have seen or read has tried to explain thi.
Thanks
Jonathan
I would imagine it buggers the output power somewhat.
Yes, and power.
Can someone explain to me why VW would have software that turns off the emission control and not run it all the time?
They go faster with it turned off.
Mike
As I understand it. Manufacturers turn it on to achieve better fuel economy and emissions figures and then turn it off again once those measurements have been done, to achieve better acceleration, both for official performance figures and for real-world driving by buyers of the car.
A despicably deceitful process, and one that all car manufacturers should be thoroughly ashamed of - because I'm sure it's more widespread and that this company are no worse than others, just that they are the ones who have been caught.
Please explain how.
AFAIK this all relates to whether the AdBlue system is running or not.
s/running/fitted/
With diesels, you can get a lot more power by over fuelling. And doing so increases emissions dramatically.
If you find a hill where many floor it - like at the start of the M4 out of London, after the flyover, where the speed limit stops, most diesels will smoke markedly. Even newish ones.
Because the cars concerned either didn't have AdBlue systems fitted, or VW were trying to minimise consumption of DEF;
All of the news I have seen so far is technical content free claptrap.
Bit difficult to run it when it isn't fitted. :o)
But I take your point.
If only they'd waited until I'd actually sold my diesel Discovery. :o(
On the 3.0TDIs sold in America, I think they do fit AdBlue, seems like they thought they could get away without this expense on the 2.0s, then found it needed a little "help" to pass ...
The cars have a small tank of urea which is squirted into the exhaust to reduce the NOx emissions, - but only during the emission test.
If the system was used all the time the cars would need a larger urea tank, which would have to be refilled at a cost of £50 p.a. - I read in the paper.
I think the US government bodies responsible for vehicle testing should have ensured that the way the VW emission control system worked was spotted earlier.
First explanation I've seen that makes sense.
Damages the engine if run on "green" mode for long.
Except that al the press reports I have been reading say that tuning it on makes the fuel consumption worse.
Worse performance I understand and would expect, but worse fuel consumption not
most strange
tim
It's due to the highly unqualified and ignorant-about-everything-technical reporters and media presenters we are lumbered with these days.
I'd say it's the usual reporters not having a clue about their subject.
Interesting bit on NewsNight yesterday - they reported months ago on finding a vehicle which altered its software when being tested.
But it came as no surprise that testing bears no relation to real world driving. It never has. Makers have always tweaked their cars to get the best results for any test.
Ages ago, Autocar ran a Prius over a suburban route with a 3 series BMW following it. The Prius consumed more fuel than the BMW - despite having a test figure which suggested it was 50% better.
According to one report, it was the oddities in the fuel consumption during the emissions test that caused the lab to look more closely.
HomeOwnersHub website 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.