Clean diesel

[Highbeam]

Question - how easy are they to reprogram?

Very easy. Some require only plugging a box into the OBD port under the dash. Some require plugging your box into an underhood port. No diesel that I've seen requires sending away the PCM for jailbreaking. I have sent away a gas engine PCM to be reprogrammed and in that case they send you a new reprogrammed one and you send back your old one for a core. All of these are a couple hundred bucks and change all sorts of things like power, speed limiters, transmission shifting strategies, and of course increase mpg. On diesels, the best programs are specifically not to increase black smoke. Black smoke is wasted fuel and wasted power.

VW admitted they cheated, how again is this in any way the EPA's fault ?

If the VW programming is just optimized for test passing but still pollutes too much (in somebody's opinion) then it is the EPA that needs to change their test protocol.

I thought I was clear. "Cheating" is a fluffy word and means different things to different people. Statements from VW at this point are for damage control.

It is very easy, with computer controlled diesel to do simple things like really crank up the fuel rate after a certain % of throttle application, in a non-linear fashion that may create excess pollution. So if the EPA test is flawed enough to be specified as 50% throttle only then I would program my diesel to be super clean at 50% throttle and then at 55% throttle return to a normal progression. It's not cheating but optimization to pass a specific test. Some groups might call it cheating, I say the EPA should have a better test.

 

[hoverwheel]

.

 

[woodgeek]

Death. I get it.

Here's the problem. How do you decide what to regulate? The stereotype is some nameless bureaucrat coming up with a number 'just because' with no reference to what is physically possible, financially possible, or beneficial. Just read back a ways on this thread, or any one of a number of similar VW threads at other fora...there is a big group of folks who just think the entire enterprise of regulation is pointless and stupid. There are plenty of people who are gleeful to roll coal in their conviction **that they will hurt no one**, confident that anyone that says otherwise is simply a tool with an overpaid govt job, and who used to be a treehugger hippie.

Some people after being told that cigarette smoke was dangerous 50 years ago used to blow smoke in their kids faces, supremely confident that the kid would not keel over and die. See? What a bunch of nonsense.

So, how do you respond to that **willful ignorance**?

1. You point out that some regs are about saving energy while saving money at the same time, like regs to foster LED bulbs, heat pump water heaters and more efficient wood stoves. Those govt nerds are actually trying to figure chit out and find opportunities for a better outcome that the marketplace does not seem to be getting around to. And they play a long game. They work hard to figure out a timeline working with the manufacturers and outside experts to come up with targets and timelines that are technically and financially feasible. A lot of folks can understand that, at least after you take away the old tech and they have grudgingly put in the new, only to discover that it isn't bullchit and it DOES save them money. Will wonders never cease?

2. And then there are other cases where the reg DOES cost money. Why do it? Its about harm. Do the govt nerds decide that all "pollution is bad" and simply ban all of it overnight in some wave of job killing regulation? Nope. They get out their pencils and talk to the companies about tech, and to the doctors about who gets sick and where, and they try to figure out which pollution is killing the most people, and how much it would cost society to fix that problem. And then they assign a value to human life and they start making regs again, in a long game, only regulating the pollution that can most cheaply (to business and consumers) improve human health. That is their mandate from Dick Nixon.

The 2009 NOx rules that VW apparently choked on, while enforced by Obama's EPA, where decided many years before, as part of revisions to the Clean Air act put in by Bush Sr. VW had close to 20 years to figure out how to meet that target, and apparently they blurfed, while several other manufacturers managed to hit it.

So, let's review.....

Those govt nerds will tell you that air pollution in China causes a million+ premature deaths a year. Is that enough to get your attention or concern? They will also tell you that pre 1970, the figure in the US was comparable (in that it was hundreds of thousands a year). The 2009 rule is the grandchild of the Act created to address that problem in the 1970s. An Act that clearly worked, whether we care to remember it or not.

The EPA thinks NOx pollution kills 15000 americans/yr nowadays, and they think there is some low hanging fruit there. I still get plenty of ozone alert days per year that I can **feel** and **see**, not in a way that makes me afraid, because I am young and healthy, but in a way that makes me sure the ozone thing is not bull. And NOx is the major source of ozone.

So, death comes for all of us. I don't have to be happy about that. What are some big killers? How about Cancer, Heart disease, Accidents, Violence, and Dementia. Accidents have been reduced hugely by safety regs. The other four have all been linked to **air pollution**. It now appears that tailpipe emissions of VOCs, mostly benzene, decades ago upped all our cancer rates significantly in a way that will continue kill folks for a couple more decades. The benzene is now removed at the refinery, which costs **almost nothing**. Cardiovascular disease is made worse by a variety of air pollutants including ozone, SO2, NOx, CO and C nanoparticles, that are all combustion products, now all much reduced by the Clean Air Act. The surge in violent crime in the 70s, 80s and 90s is now accepted to be the result of lead poisoning of children 10 years earlier, mostly urban kids getting the lead from tailpipe emissions. Now violent crime rates are way down. Alzheimer's is a complex disease that is increasing in incidence as people get older. Emerging science suggests that some people are genetically more susceptible that others, and the disease is triggered by brain injury, like a concussion. Others have shown that Alzheimers patients often have the base of their brains loaded with combustion nanoparticles, just like those from diesel engines and rolling coal. They have recently shown that the particles lodge in nasal membranes (the nose is a filter) and then are trafficked by olfactory nerve cells directly to the base of the brain. Fascinating.

Don't like helicopter parents? Think kids today are all wimps? Don't like it? Me neither. But don't confuse that with a properly functioning public safety system.

 

[Highbeam]

VW had close to 20 years to figure out how to meet that target, and apparently they blurfed, while several other manufacturers managed to hit it.

Here is where you make some assumptions that might be false. VW hit the target just fine. Their engines passed EPA tests with flying colors. Like any computer controlled diesel out there the tuning can be altered after the test to give back some power that was removed for testing. We don't know if the tuning was altered after testing or if the tuning was skillfully written to pass the test criteria but then also pollute excessively at higher output levels that were not part of the test. To compare, we can take that BMW diesel that also passed the test and adjust the tuning for more power and better mpg but it will not pass the test anymore.

VW can revise the tuning to be compliant and retest. The technology is fine. This derating will result in less power output which will make their cars less desirable. VW just added the performance tune that so many of their customers were adding anyways.

The VW failure here in my opinion is that VW should have /could have designed a bigger and higher reving engine that could be run at reduced output to pass the tests and still provide enough power to be competitive.

 

[jharkin]

Im sorry, but I just dont buy that "tuning to the test parameters" result in the real world road driving results emitting 40 times as much as the test. Especially considering they admitted to incorporating a defeat device. I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

And for what its worth, I dont agree it makes it right because 'lots' of drivers are installing aftermarket tunes anyway. Those are mostly road illegal. Just because its not enforced is no escuse.

 

[woodgeek]

The VW failure here in my opinion is that VW should have /could have designed a bigger and higher reving engine that could be run at reduced output to pass the tests and still provide enough power to be competitive.

I agree with you that this is the road not taken. They did indeed make an engine that could meet EPA specs in road use, they just felt that the resulting lower power would be undesireable to customers. They could either cheat the emissions to get the power back, or they could sell a larger engine that passes the emissions. It is noteworthy that VW's 3.0L and larger engines did not cheat, only the smaller ones. It is also noteworthy that VW took the more profitable route.

Your earlier comment makes no sense to me given the actual EPA test protocol is to run at all the power levels and speeds expected to be seen in actual road use. Sure, if the EPA only cared about emissions at 20 mph on a dyno, and in corresponding real life situations with similar speed and power it does the same thing, then the EPA designed a dumb (non-real world) test and VW didn't cheat.

In fact, I think the EPA is much more rigorous about the 'real world' nature of its test versus its overseas counterparts. For example, the mpg of many cars are rated significantly higher overseas, because the EPA assumes a higher average speed and more stop and go than those other agencies. For EVs, the EPA rates mileage ~20% lower than the overseas agencies, no small effect.

 

[jharkin]

In fact, I think the EPA is much more rigorous about the 'real world' nature of its test versus its overseas counterparts. For example, the mpg of many cars are rated significantly higher overseas, because the EPA assumes a higher average speed and more stop and go than those other agencies. For EVs, the EPA rates mileage ~20% lower than the overseas agencies, no small effect.

I have heard the same... The other night NPR was running a story on this and stated that the emissions testing in much of Europe is a lot more lax and the automakers are allowed to do it all in their own facility using staff that are on their payroll, with little or no govt. oversight.



Back to the first point, the other thing I read is that all these VW small diesels dont use Urea injection. That was the claimed big innovation of "VW clean diesel" that they managed to deliver clean emissions with power and economy without using urea. BMW and Mercedes chose to go the Urea route as the market segments they sell in can bear the extra cost. There seems to be some thinking that if the VW engine was redesigned with Urea injection they could meet the standards without having to detune power but they chose to cheat instead because the cost of urea injection ($5k more per car I read) wouldn't sell well in a Jetta or Golf.

 

[Highbeam]

Your earlier comment makes no sense to me given the actual EPA test protocol is to run at all the power levels and speeds expected to be seen in actual road use. Sure, if the EPA only cared about emissions at 20 mph on a dyno, and in corresponding real life situations with similar speed and power it does the same thing, then the EPA designed a dumb (non-real world) test and VW didn't cheat.

I'm glad you know about the EPA protocol, I don't know the specifics of the test. Historically, these tests did not include full throttle runs. If this new EPA test included all power levels, likely also "snap" tests, then it would be nearly impossible to write a program that both passed the tests but still polluted excessively. Instead, a separate program would have to be created for emissions and then after the test, the regular program would be utilized. That's cheating.

These programs could both be loaded on the computer simultaneously and selected as needed. My computerized diesel has 6 programs and I can switch between them while driving down the road. These cheats are not hardware cheats, it's not because somebody swamped in a dummy cat converter, electronic diesels are pretty amazing in what you can control from the computer.

 

[Jags]

Instead, a separate program would have to be created for emissions and then after the test, the regular program would be utilized. That's cheating.

From my understanding, that is precisely what was done. The engine recognized when it was plugged in for testing and ran completely different code during the test.

 

[begreen]

Correct. The EPA charges against VW are very serious. They were not made lightly. This is not a simple programming mode. Rather it is a sophisticated set of tests noting whether the steering wheel is moving, brakes applied, how long the car had been running, speed, and atmospheric pressure. In other words a program that conducts a multipoint query to determine if the car is under test conditions and not moving on the road.

In other news, more tests on diesels are starting to happen. In Europe the BMW X3 failed today though it has not been determined if this was due to intentional programming or not.

 

[Grateful11]

First off. unless you need a heavy duty high torque engine for specialized use (like pulling your tandem axle travel trailer or a gooseneck or you are in business and need a truck for hauling, there is no reason to own a diesel, especially a small displacemennt diesel in a passanger car. There is no logical reason, at all. especially considering the up front cost and the lowered mileage (diesel fuel costs more as well) of a diesxel engine compared to a gasoline engine.

So why do people buy them? Because it's 'cool' to have a diesel car...... thats why.....

Any production diesel below 5 liters, the gasoline counterpart is more efficient, produces more power, costs initially less and the fuel is cheaper, but people aren't rational anyway/.

I chuckled reading the article about France doing away with diesel entirely in their country..... I've never considered Frenchmen to be very intellegent and they are pigs, France is a dirty, littered country (I've been there btw). I wonder how they expect to get their hard goods delivered.... no diesel trucks.... thats laughable. Bicycle basket maybe...lol

In reality, we (meaning the whole globe minus China of course) wouldn't be going through this crap if it wasn't for tree huggers and 'climate change....oh, and global warming, none of which I personally ascribe to.

I guess you reap what you sow....

I agree. That's why we bought a Toyota Tundra 5.7L. The most it'll probably ever tow is a 14' cattle trailer with maybe 7-8 six month old calves, numerous times per year. We crunched the numbers and with a 3/4 ton diesel pushing $60K or more it just didn't make sense. The Tundra has 5500 miles on it so far and empty it's getting 16.8-17.2 mpg by a calculator not the onboard computer. We paid a little over $37K for a Double Cab SR5 with the TRD package, 381hp and 401 ft lbs. of torque. Never thought we'd buy a Toyota truck until we drove about everything including the Dodge Ram Eco-Diesel, which is about as gutless as it can get. Ford, Ram and GM all came in over $45K.

We're no stranger to diesels as there's 5 diesel tractors here, ranging from a 70's IH 686 with an M&W aftermarket turbo to a 2014 Kubota MX5100 that's interim Tier 4.

 

[begreen]

These programs could both be loaded on the computer simultaneously and selected as needed. My computerized diesel has 6 programs and I can switch between them while driving down the road. These cheats are not hardware cheats, it's not because somebody swamped in a dummy cat converter, electronic diesels are pretty amazing in what you can control from the computer.

I hear about re-programming for diesels. Just to clarify. Are these chips or re-progammers legal? If no, what is the penalty? Does the computer store a record of each reprogramming event for a later service check? If yes, does this void the vehicle warranty?

 

[Highbeam]

Don't know. I don't think I've ever owned a vehicle with a warranty.

 

[begreen]

I've read that maybe 40% of diesels are tampered with. Is this legal?

 

[blades]

Course not cause the EPA says so.

 

[Highbeam]

I've read that maybe 40% of diesels are tampered with. Is this legal?

Sometimes it is legal. One of the pioneers of the diesel performance market is banks. Their 5 position programmer has CARB approval for four out of five.

Really though, it's probably not legal to change your tire size from what your door jamb sticker specifies. Or replace your muffler with non oem parts.

 

[jharkin]

When I was younger and driving my Acura and hanging around with guys heavily into modding cars, autocross and such... I remember all those aftermarket tunes for gasoline road cars had "legal for off road use only" warnings on them. Did not stop anyone.

The deal is they theoretically "can" be legal so long as the modified program still is under the smog limits for CO, NOx, particulates, etc. Many current cars, gasoline cars at least measure well under the legal limits in OEM form that you still have room to modify and pass the test. I think the major stumbling block is the hassle of going through the testing procedure for the aftermarket supplier to get it certified..... So probably not many do.

The guys where where running tunes that would fail the smog test would just flash back the factory program on the day they needed to get tested for an emissions sticker, and then flash back the performance tune after.

 

[jharkin]

I have a question for all of you that hate the EPA.


You do realize that without the work of the EPA, we would all be living like this. Is that really what you want?



Ive been there (both India and China) and breathed it first hand. I know BeGreen has seen it as well. Its not fun... you cough the moment you walk out the door, basically feel like you have a sinus cold all the time, and you can never get the smell out of your clothes... takes a few weeks and a couple washes after returning back home before you are really rid of it.

 

[RSNovi]

I have a question for all of you that hate the EPA.


You do realize that without the work of the EPA, we would all be living like this. Is that really what you want?

View attachment 162403

Ive been there (both India and China) and breathed it first hand. I know BeGreen has seen it as well. Its not fun... you cough the moment you walk out the door, basically feel like you have a sinus cold all the time, and you can never get the smell out of your clothes... takes a few weeks and a couple washes after returning back home before you are really rid of it.

I couldn't agree more!

 

[jebatty]

Areas of the US were visibly like the picture, and much of the US was heavily polluted with invisible pollutants before the EPA. In the early 1960's I remember the drives through east Chicago and Gary Indiana that looked exactly like the picture. Eyes and lungs burned throughout the drive through the area and beyond, even when visible air cleared up. With whatever EPA faults a person might want to highlight, I am thankful for the work the EPA has accomplished and agree that more work needs to be to assure clean air, water and soil for our children and for us.

 

[Highbeam]

It's not either or. The epa can do a better job. For instance they allow fireplaces with no emissions requirements but hold woodstoves to very low limits.

Our epa does important work. All too often they throw the baby out with the bathwater.

 

[hoverwheel]

The epa is much like the unions.

They DID do important work.

Cured or at least alleviated a lot of evil in the world.

Both have gone past that and are now as corrupt and useless as the problems they were conceived to fix.

 

[woodgeek]

It's not either or. The epa can do a better job. For instance they allow fireplaces with no emissions requirements but hold woodstoves to very low limits.

Our epa does important work. All too often they throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Show me the people with 6 cords of wood in their yard, who are going to burn it all in a fireplace. And show me how they are going to build a huge smoldering fire in the fireplace that is going to send a lot of that mass up the stack as CO and VOCs, the way the old, banked pre-EPA stove easily could (if used improperly).

A lot of new construction doesn't have a fireplace.

The EPA is never going to be able to ban fireplaces in existing dwellings, politically.

They do what they can do, crossed with what they think can be done affordably and technically, and plan on change taking decades (as the stove and car fleets turn over).

 

[woodgeek]

The epa is much like the unions.

They DID do important work.

Cured or at least alleviated a lot of evil in the world.

Both have gone past that and are now as corrupt and useless as the problems they were conceived to fix.

I am going to leave unions aside as OT.

The clean air act, its revisions, and the 'lightbulb ban' were new law 40, 25 and 10 years ago. Now that the benefits of these policies are seen, all are very popular.

Most people's current view of the EPA is correlated to their view of global warming, and new policies such as the clean power plan, CPP. IF you think AGW is bunk, and the CPP will destroy the economy, you think about the EPA differently than if you think the opposite about AGW and the CPP.

Hoverwheel, if you have complaints about air pollution regs other than the CPP, please elaborate. IF you have problems with the CPP, please start a new thread.

 

[hoverwheel]

...
Hoverwheel, if you have complaints about air pollution regs other than the CPP, please elaborate. IF you have problems with the CPP, please start a new thread.

I didn't bring up air pollution and cpp. What are you smoking? I said the EPA has outlived it's usefulness, which is topical in this discussion. Disagree all you want. I'm secure enough not to need people to agree with me. [emoji3]