For those interested in new cars

[Adrian Wintle]

How does this work for the employees in a large corporation? I've never been such a thing, thank goodness. How many of them would have known they were breaking the law? What does an engineer say when told to make a device which he knows is illegal?

 

Martin.

 

Very few would know. A possible scenario would be that software with that 'feature' could be created for an innocent/valid reason (disable emissions controls for performance testing/tweaking but leave the emissions test mode so that we can check that the tweaks don't take us out of spec). It would then only take one or two unscrupulous individuals to ensure that software build, rather than the 'production' software build got installed in the car (change the build identifier on the work order).

 

This sort of thing can happen by accident*. At one point the company I used to work for shipped controllers with commercial-spec EEPROMs rather than the required MIL-Spec ones due to a supply chain issue. Until that point we did development testing on the much cheaper (50x) commercial-spec devices. After that the supply chain was simplified to only contain MIL-Spec devices and we ate the cost of occasionally destroying the more expensive parts during development testing. The people programming the EEPROMs and assembling the controllers just used the parts that were provided in their bins - they didn't know the difference. The problem occured upstream and probably only took a mistake by one person.

 

*not saying that it happened in the VW case

 

Adrian

Edited September 23, 2015 by Adrian Wintle

[raymw]

But it is not illegal, until you are caught.     It is no different than the fiddles that large corps and some wealthy individuals get up to, classed as tax avoidance. I expect what will happen, there will be a bit of a sort out inside VW, apologies made, some relatively small amount of compensation paid to some, and it'll carry on in the same old way. The basic idea is to get money from one place to another, so business consists of 'what you can get away with', these days, as it always has been. ( UK being neutral in the USA civil war, for example). Most likely, it was all originally set up with all the interested parties, USA testers and all, then something happened to upset the cosy arrangement - e.g fall in sales of USA car manufacturers, whatever. Easy enough to program the engine management system whatever way you want. - e.g. car not moving (from gps) wheels turning (at whatever designated speed so it will be on rolling road) - most likely in emission testing mode, so adjust injection timing, air/fuel flow to reduce NOx.   So, if the manufacturer can't be trusted, then bring in more stringent tests, which increases costs all round, which suits everybody, except the 'consumer' - but who cares about them?

 

As to what 'the engineer' says. What does his boss say? Who needs the job?. Do you want to spend 4 years in a S American embassy if you blow the whistle? And, it isn't illegal, since it is simply exploiting foreigners.

[jjb1970]

How does this work for the employees in a large corporation? I've never been such a thing, thank goodness. How many of them would have known they were breaking the law? What does an engineer say when told to make a device which he knows is illegal?

 

Martin.

The engine emissions performance is not a separate bolt on. There are many ways to control emissions but if we split into two very general spheres we can talk of in-engine techniques (including fuel treatment) and downstream techniques (eg. SCR, DPF). Car engines tend to be reliant on in-engine techniques. That means that emissions performance is part of the combustion process and determined by engine timing, fuel injection design, exhaust gas recirc ratios and cylinder design amongst other things. That means it is part of the basic platform development. The engineers developing a new platform are very aware of the applicable emissions limits as they are mandatory requirements and the engine combustion arrangement and management are to a large degree built around the required emissions performance. Companies like VW have large departments of combustion thermodynamicists, engine certification experts whose whole job is to ensure compliance and legal departments who support the certification specialists. The emissions performance will be determined by the engine management system which is an inherent part of the combustion management. This is not some sort of bolt on component that is liable to a supply chain error, it is part of the platform design. Modern platforms are built around emissions performance as much (probably more) than efficiency and power. Hence to me it is just not credible that this happened as a result of ignorance, misadventure or supply chain management issues. The VW combustion engineers and certification engineers know exactly what a defeat device is and what the regulations have to say on the subject.

[jjb1970]

Most likely, it was all originally set up with all the interested parties, USA testers and all, then something happened to upset the cosy arrangement - e.g fall in sales of USA car manufacturers, whatever.

I take it from this you are not familiar with the US EPA emissions specialists in Ann Arbor.

[Derekl]

But if such a situation seems possible to you (and me) how come the testers didn't think to check for it? I think this episode reflects just as badly on the testers for being incompetent as on the manufacturer.

 

Martin.

 

I wondered about that as well, but I guess the testers assume they are being given a standard issue car for test. I note that there was concern some years back that actual emissions were way beyond test results, which may be what prompted all this.

 

On legality, one report I have seen suggests the system went a bit further and introduced urea into the exhaust, which apparently affects NOX readings significantly. I am a little sceptical as I suppose this means each car must have a small supply of urea. If correct, it is pretty deliberate and not the side effect of some other desirable feature, and it would also explain the massive reported differences between test result emissions and actual. It would also explain the VW "mea culpa" line: there is not any excuse.

[Adrian Wintle]

The engine emissions performance is not a separate bolt on. There are many ways to control emissions but if we split into two very general spheres we can talk of in-engine techniques (including fuel treatment) and downstream techniques (eg. SCR, DPF). Car engines tend to be reliant on in-engine techniques. That means that emissions performance is part of the combustion process and determined by engine timing, fuel injection design, exhaust gas recirc ratios and cylinder design amongst other things. That means it is part of the basic platform development. The engineers developing a new platform are very aware of the applicable emissions limits as they are mandatory requirements and the engine combustion arrangement and management are to a large degree built around the required emissions performance. Companies like VW have large departments of combustion thermodynamicists, engine certification experts whose whole job is to ensure compliance and legal departments who support the certification specialists. The emissions performance will be determined by the engine management system which is an inherent part of the combustion management. This is not some sort of bolt on component that is liable to a supply chain error, it is part of the platform design. Modern platforms are built around emissions performance as much (probably more) than efficiency and power. Hence to me it is just not credible that this happened as a result of ignorance, misadventure or supply chain management issues. The VW combustion engineers and certification engineers know exactly what a defeat device is and what the regulations have to say on the subject.

 

True, but the actual knowledge could be limited to a small group of people. A couple of software engineers to create an alternate 'special' build (which may incorporate normal operational parameters for some jurisdictions and which may be well tested tested, just not valid for a particular jurisdiction), someone in configuration management to ensure that the 'special' build is chosen rather than the fully tested and certified 'production' build when the ECU is flashed, probably someone in QA to sign off on it, and somebody to authorize the action. I'm assuming the programming of ECUs is a highly automated process.

 

Adrian

[jjb1970]

You'd need more than just software engineers. The engine would need two combustion maps, this isn't just about the "test" map, for the defeat device to work it would need a map optimised for efficiency and/or power which means combustion thermodynamicists and mechanical engineers. And optimising the combustion process is hugely expensive.

[jjb1970]

On legality, one report I have seen suggests the system went a bit further and introduced urea into the exhaust, which apparently affects NOX readings significantly. I am a little sceptical as I suppose this means each car must have a small supply of urea. If correct, it is pretty deliberate and not the side effect of some other desirable feature, and it would also explain the massive reported differences between test result emissions and actual. It would also explain the VW "mea culpa" line: there is not any excuse.

Many commercial vehicles are fitted with SCR with uses aqueous urea (marketed as "adblu") as the reductant and the technology is available for private cars in some parts of the world.

[edcayton]

How does this work for the employees in a large corporation? I've never been such a thing, thank goodness. How many of them would have known they were breaking the law? What does an engineer say when told to make a device which he knows is illegal?

 

Martin.

 

just obeying orders?

 

Ed

[Horsetan]

just obeying orders?

Kind of ironic, given VW's origins...

[raymw]

 

I take it from this you are not familiar with the US EPA emissions specialists in Ann Arbor.

Of course I'm not. It's a question of woods and trees. The epa web page spouts the same sort of guff as does the VW one I referred to initially - both sides trying to outwit each other. Who is it pulling the strings?  Easier, and more rewarding to pick on a foreign car manufacturer compared to closing down your coal fired power stations.

[Ozexpatriate]

just obeying orders?

Kind of ironic, given VW's origins...

I did think of that quip yesterday, but decided better of it. It's a bit of a cheap shot. Undoubtedly at least some of the people knew that what they were doing was wrong, but needing their paycheques chose to overlook it.

[Russ (mines a pint)]

 

just obeying orders?

Kind of ironic, given VW's origins... 

 

 

 

- but what about further down the VW foodchain, ie SEAT & Skoda, they have done very well so far out of VW but what happens next for them? 
- it wont be easy to find which engines are affected either for customers as they are typically a bit behind getting the most recent engines into their cars. 
- also the lower VED tax brackets are a concern if they are subsequently raised - though seemingly this comes to an end for new cars in 2016 anyway. 

Personally I bought a 2011 Octavia estate for £800 more than a 2009 one cos it had the cheap tax being a 1.6CR rather than a 1.9PD £30 VED instead of £180 - its probably paid the difference already as the fuel consumption is BETTER than the quoted figures, though we do live in a rural area. 

I think this is a US thing anyway - I've not heard anything re UK yet?

[Ozexpatriate]

Easier, and more rewarding to pick on a foreign car manufacturer compared to closing down your coal fired power stations.

How are these issues actually related?

 

VW pertains to fraud and coal-fired power is a global warming issue - unless you're trying to make a parallel with the farcial "clean coal" campaign mounted by the coal lobby in the US.

 

"Clean coal" in so far as low-sulphur coal mandated by the EPA as a result of 1970s acid rain has existed for years. The coal lobby's attempt to conflate this with the climate change issue is the worst form of deliberate misinformation and spin doctoring but it's not fraud.

 

Can anyone tell me precisely what emissions were undercounted? I would be surprised that emissions focused on CO₂ rather than other combustion byproducts.

 

EDIT: As I understand it, this is all about statutory EPA limits on NO_x emissions for automobiles and has nothing to do with CO₂.

Edited September 24, 2015 by Ozexpatriate

[martin_wynne]

Undoubtedly at least some of the people knew that what they were doing was wrong, but needing their paycheques chose to overlook it.

 

Maybe it is easier to overlook such things if you know other companies are doing the same?

[Guest]

Maybe it is easier to overlook such things if you know other companies are doing the same?

Are they? The same tests that found the VW's in violation of emissions regulations on the road found a BMW X5 to be just fine.

[raymw]

Hi Michael - you have to sort of look at the wood, not the trees. The USA has been slated due to it's contribution to air pollution (not so much as China/Asia) and the attitude to clean up. Last year EPA was given the OK to prosecute coal fired stations, or something like that. Easy to join the dots in my mind. We can do this (go after nasty smelly diesels), make a big todo, and hide the fact we are not doing much with our own generated pollution. ( and as for ships and aircraft, we leave them outside the regulations everywhere.)

 

In most of this sort of 'large?' fiddles, you just have to follow the money.  Also, you need to search out what is happening behind the smoke screen, what will be traded. Made me laugh, the Pope arriving in his Fiat to see Obama - I guess he walked over from Italy. Then he criticises the USA pollution generation when his little country produces nothing. 

 

I guess, if USA still had its army in Germany to the extent of cold war days, the fraud would have not have been mentioned.  Perhaps you don't realise it is all a game. VW been caught off-side, captain left the pitch, maybe joins another team, but the fans on both sides pay, whatever happens.

 

Best wishes,

 

Ray

[jjb1970]

Of course I'm not. It's a question of woods and trees. The epa web page spouts the same sort of guff as does the VW one I referred to initially - both sides trying to outwit each other. Who is it pulling the strings?  Easier, and more rewarding to pick on a foreign car manufacturer compared to closing down your coal fired power stations.

This has nothing to do with coal or power stations and conflating carbon and other atmospheric pollutants. Engines are subject to clearly defined emission limits for certain pollutants (inc. NOx, CO & PM) along with prescriptive test requirements. The test regimes are written into regulatory requirements. The engine is tested and either passes or fails, it has nothing to do with political grandstanding on global warming. The EPA take a very tough stance with US companies and the idea that this is a political ploy to pick on foreigners to avoid upsetting US polluters is not tenable. Some in the European industry and press have been trying to spin this as a Europe vs. America issue which I find to be shameful. Inferences floating around the media that the US has lax emissions standards, inferior test regimes etc display a profound ignorance of the subject or deliberate misinformation. This may be a surprise to some but the US has been far more active in controlling emissions of NOx than Europe and unlike Europe the US EPA has in-house technical expertise. European regulators are reliant on technical guidance from industrial people.

[jjb1970]

We can do this (go after nasty smelly diesels), make a big todo, and hide the fact we are not doing much with our own generated pollution. ( and as for ships and aircraft, we leave them outside the regulations everywhere.)

Marine diesels are subject to NOx emissions controls, I recommend that if you are interested then read MARPOL Annex VI and the NOx Technical Code. For those who think that the US is a soft touch on pollution the North American emmissions control area will be the first ECA-NOx and it has been the US delegation at IMO which has advocated NOx controls loudest and taken a rigorous approach to test requirements.

[PhilJ W]

The Europe vs. USA thing is a none starter with regard to the VW emissions row. Most if not all Volkswagens sold in the USA are manufactured there at their plant in IIRC Virginia. This factory was built in an area of high unemployment with subsidies from both state and federal sources and its a possibility that if VW if their sales in the US are hit badly by this scandal might find that manufacture in the US is no longer viable.

[raymw]

Porsche/VW have been littered with devious goings on in the past 20years or so. I was trying to recall something to do with repairs to Porsche cars only being undertaken by their dealers else warranty being voided. it involved OBD2 connector/codes - I think there was a EU court case in 2004ish. The results effected LandRover and many other makers  too (Maybe the ethos of bmw ownership of LR at around that time was something to do with it). Found a raft of other info, though, concerning VW law, private letters to eu commission wrt emissions, Porsche directors going to jail and such like. Some folk never learn

[jjb1970]

Linking servicing and repair to franchised dealers in order to maintain the manufacturer warranty used to be standard for all the car companies until not that long ago.

[raymw]

I was trying to get to the actual ref/eu court case. As it is, LR and most likely others have made maintenance difficult with none standard obd2 operation, necessitating, at least 7 or 8 years ago, buying from them, (even if they would sell it to unauthorised dealers) specific over priced software for diagnosis. As a result of said case, they introduced service packs,containing oil, filters etc. and provided you had an invoice saying you'd bought and applied the appropriate pack, then a warranty would be more readily honoured. (but the gave no low cost info wrt fault diagnosis/ resetting afaik.

[raymw]

On 'the one show', a motoring journalist of some sort? said that VW were putting Urea into the system to fool the testing. So, would there be a small tank of this (assuming it is in liquid form, sealed for life of the car, or how would it be done? I would think it would be pretty obvious to any one that there was something odd in the fuel/air system. I've not seen any fuel station where they sell urea. 
 
I found this, which answers my first para question,  http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1042727_adding-urea-to-clean-diesel-cars-can-i-just-pee-in-the-tank  but in the UK, there seems to be more concern re CO2 emissions, so do Merc et al still have the Urea tank over here? Does it make any difference to our possibly more lax NOx testing?

[jjb1970]

Selective catalytic reduction reduces NOx to nitrogen and water by promoting a reaction between ammonia and NOx on the surface of a catalyst. The reductant is generally aqueous urea which unlocks ammonia after injection into the exhaust stream. SCR can reduce NOx to almost nothing and how low you go is sometimes determined by the risk of ammonia slip. The technology has been around for decades, is very simple and extremely effective and gives the lie to the idea that the answer to high NOx levels is to outlaw diesels (it amazes me that railway manufacturers claim it is behind known human scientific invention to make a compliant diesel for the UK market when emissions abatement technology to meet the latest emissions standards is not new). There is also selective non-catalytic reduction which reacts NOx with ammonia without a catalyst but this is only effective where you have good control over dwell times and flue temperature, it works well in large boilers (in conjunction with EGR)but not really suitable for internal combustion engines. SCR is already widely used in UK commercial vehicles and you see the Adblu pumps in more and more service stations.