Nearly all new diesel cars exceed official pollution limits • Hacker News Board

Re: Nearly all new diesel cars exceed official pollution limits

#91

Post by intrasight » Mon, Apr 25, 2016, 2:40 PM UTC

deelowe wrote: post #83

mikekchar wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Although keep in mind that requiring 3rd party, independent auditors creates a market for crappy/soft auditors. I learned that from ISO 9000 work. Companies don't want to hire someone who will fail their product/process, so they hire someone who will conveniently look the other way. Probably the only way is to have government testing... which brings us full circle to the potential of crony capitalism and politics.

Industrial certifications like ISO 9000, six sigma, etc... are kind of a joke. What happens to those companies if they fail to maintain an acceptable standard? Quality goes down? Who cares? There's no liability. A better comparison would be something like UL or FCC. Make the standards and testing body liable for their claims. Require PEs to be part of the organization and personally responsible for signing off. This…

The difference is that those two examples have insurance/liability implications and therefore there is an incentive by some party (insurance industry) to do the certification. There is no equivalent insurance or tort market for emissions.

Re: Nearly all new diesel cars exceed official pollution limits

#92

Post by JoeAltmaier » Mon, Apr 25, 2016, 2:51 PM UTC

kinofcain wrote: post #86

Every gasoline car is going to put out more pollution in "real world" driving scenarios as well. This isn't a problem with diesels, per se, it's a problem with all emissions standards.

Its supposed to be 'built-in' to the emissions standard. The lab levels are so low, because that makes the road emissions in an acceptable range. Everybody involved knows this; its not a secret; there's no news here.

Re: Nearly all new diesel cars exceed official pollution limits

#93

Post by kuschku » Mon, Apr 25, 2016, 2:53 PM UTC

Symbiote wrote: post #49

kuschku wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> (This is probably similar to much of the rest of Europe) In Germany, we actually limited almost all cities to cars passing Euro 4, and many even to cars passing Euro 6. Cars get a sticker with a color based on which standard they pass, and the zones are limited to cars with a sticker of the proper color. So most busses in Germany are Euro VI now.

London's bus fleet is also pretty new. All meet Euro 4, and over 20% at least Euro 5. [1] The taxis are the problem -- London's low emission zone (similar to those in Germany) only applies to large vehicles, taxis are not included. There are thousands of taxis over 10 years old still running in London [2]. > So most buses in Germany are Euro VI now. Really? That would mean most buses in Germany are less than 3 years…

In my city all busses are Euro VI, in several others they already switched to hybrids or are testing fully electric busses.

Re: Nearly all new diesel cars exceed official pollution limits

#94

Post by jacquesm » Mon, Apr 25, 2016, 2:55 PM UTC

cptskippy wrote: post #90

jacquesm wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apparently means 'as far as can be seen'.

It also means 'obviously' or 'obvious in hindsight'.

https://www.google.nl/search?client=ubuntu&channel=fs&q=defi...

You can find alternate uses for many words and then you can go and spend many hours debating your reading of what someone wrote but given that I've (1) already answered your question with my response and (2) those do not seem to be the dominant meaning of the term I think that further debate of this particular matter is pointless.

Pointless -> 'not useful', not 'without a sharp pointy end'.

Re: Nearly all new diesel cars exceed official pollution limits

#95

Post by guscost » Mon, Apr 25, 2016, 2:56 PM UTC

criddell wrote: post #77

guscost wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow, I hadn't heard this. What a counterproductive, idiotic piece of regulation.

The legislation is in place because consumers are lazy.

"Limp mode" is a much better solution, switching that on will basically guarantee the fluid gets refilled in short order.

And actually I'm not so quick to assume this is only a stupid decision either. Hanlon's razor still applies but there is also a distinct possibility that this regulation was "encouraged" as a play to make small diesel cars less competitive.

Re: Nearly all new diesel cars exceed official pollution limits

#96

Post by guscost » Mon, Apr 25, 2016, 2:58 PM UTC

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #72

guscost wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow, I hadn't heard this. What a counterproductive, idiotic piece of regulation.

It's not an idiotic regulation. If you fit a tiny reservoir that needs to be topped up every week then most customers wouldn't bother, and the car would be spewing extra toxins. So you have to make it large enough that normal servicing will ensure it is filled.

Using "limp mode" with warnings to ensure the tank stays filled (and the car does not run at full throttle unless it is filled) is a much better solution.

When the sales guy told me the tank only had to be filled at service intervals, it sounded strange. People on the TDI forums thought it was just because VW didn't want to scare away customers with an extra thing to do, but you can buy the stuff at any gas station and pouring it into the tank is not difficult.

When the scandal broke the assumption was that they mistuned the DEF cars out of arrogance, and again to avoid spooking customers with extra maintenance.

Now it sounds much more like they tuned it that way because this regulation would have crippled the car with an enormous DEF tank otherwise. It is possible that such a regulation combined with a 10,000 mile service interval only makes engineering sense on mid-size trucks or larger.

This doesn't have anything to do with them failing to build a working LNT solution and cheating with those previously, of course.

Re: Nearly all new diesel cars exceed official pollution limits

#97

Post by criddell » Mon, Apr 25, 2016, 3:15 PM UTC

guscost wrote: post #95

criddell wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The legislation is in place because consumers are lazy.

"Limp mode" is a much better solution, switching that on will basically guarantee the fluid gets refilled in short order. And actually I'm not so quick to assume this is only a stupid decision either. Hanlon's razor still applies but there is also a distinct possibility that this regulation was "encouraged" as a play to make small diesel cars less competitive.

It's a different solution, but I don't know if it would be better. How do you think it's better?

VW doesn't want their cars going into limp mode. They don't want customers calling up asking why their car is acting funny. They don't want to increase the maintenance load on their customers. They don't want customers coming in for unnecessary service appointments (especially for stuff they wouldn't be able to charge for). Making a tank big enough to last as long as the motor oil seems like an easy, low tech solution. Sometimes simple is better.

Re: Nearly all new diesel cars exceed official pollution limits

#98

Post by TwoWheelWonder » Mon, Apr 25, 2016, 3:19 PM UTC

My 1998 Ram with 12 valve 5.9L Cummins then... Is killing us all, loudly. Gets 25mpg on the highway though.

Re: Nearly all new diesel cars exceed official pollution limits

#99

Post by drcongo » Mon, Apr 25, 2016, 3:24 PM UTC

elbrownos wrote: post #88

hcrisp wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A truck mechanic told me that drivers have been rumored to urinate in the DEF tank to bring the level of urea up to the point that it can be driven.

Sounds like an urban legend. DEF is 325 g/L urea. Urine is roughly 9.3 g/L urea. Not a great substitute.

I think they're taking the piss.

Re: Nearly all new diesel cars exceed official pollution limits

#100

Post by guscost » Mon, Apr 25, 2016, 3:27 PM UTC

criddell wrote: post #97

guscost wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Limp mode" is a much better solution, switching that on will basically guarantee the fluid gets refilled in short order. And actually I'm not so quick to assume this is only a stupid decision either. Hanlon's razor still applies but there is also a distinct possibility that this regulation was "encouraged" as a play to make small diesel cars less competitive.

It's a different solution, but I don't know if it would be better. How do you think it's better? VW doesn't want their cars going into limp mode. They don't want customers calling up asking why their car is acting funny. They don't want to increase the maintenance load on their customers. They don't want customers coming in for unnecessary service appointments (especially for stuff they wouldn't be able to charge for…

See my reply above, I'm inclined to believe that storing enough DEF for correct dosing through a 10,000 mile service interval may not be feasible for a small car.

After hearing about this regulation it seems an obvious reason why they would keep the cheat enabled even after adding a DEF system.