Live data from Hacker News

Cummins pickup truck engines tricked air quality controls, feds say

usatoday.com

81–90 of 110 posts

Re: Cummins pickup truck engines tricked air quality controls, feds say

#81
post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm guessing they're doing it during state emissions certification. When they do those tests they hook up to your OBD2 port [1] and generally a tube goes onto your exhaust. It'd be pretty trivial to detect, "Cable is hooked up, exhaust has more back pressure. Tune engine to X mode." 1: https://www.progressive.com/answers/what-is-car-emissions-te...

I thought they went away with the tube testing once the OBD data got good enough. Trick to passing the tube tests was to take your vehicle on a nice long ride to get hot (especially the cat). What I disliked about state emissions testing is that they didn’t do analysis/sampling of data to take an evidence-based approach to target testing against vehicles that tended to fail.

It depends on the vehicle and state. In general, "tube testing" went away on gas cars when OBD-II was standardized - they just ask the car, "Are you happy with your emissions system condition?" and accept the answer, though it's not utterly trivial to forge the answer.

The fundamental problem with all the emissions testing is the gap between "as it's supposed to be done" and "as it's actually done." The people actually doing the work tend to be, more or less by definition, "car people." And they reasonably enough tend to avoid the more "engine abuse" ends of the test spectrum when they can do so - which does reduce the effectiveness of the tests in some cases.

For older diesels (my '97 7.3 Powerstroke, for instance), the "snap test" is supposed to involve flooring the throttle and letting the engine bounce off the rev limiter, while the sniffer sees how much smoke you emit (with a comically high pass limit - something like 40% opacity, which is really "a very dark exhaust plume"). The one and only time my engine has seen the rev limiter in my car was when I emissions tested it shortly after buying it, and did the procedure as written. Every other time I've tested it, someone else has run the test, and they'll bring the engine up quickly (but not floored) into the test RPM range, which doesn't involve going to redline - think 1800-2000 RPM instead of 3500 RPM. They way they do it, you pretty much can't fail if you drove the truck there, unless you've got a check engine light glowing or obviously missing emissions control equipment (no bulge in the exhaust pipe where the cat should be).

Because the people doing the test, very reasonably, don't want to be responsible for older engines throwing rods out the side of the block, and there is zero reason to have a lot of the older diesels at redline, no matter what you're doing (I'll let the engine spin to 3k when I'm pulling a heavy trailer up a long grade, otherwise I never even see 2500 RPM).

And there's also the various "ways around the test." A friend who used to have a rather fun to drive car noted that his sniff tests always resulted in the emissions profile of his mechanic's very clean, stock, Honda Civic.

There's only so much you can do, unfortunately, when people are motivated to go around the edges of the system. And I'm not sure "clamping down massively" accomplishes much at this point.

Re: Cummins pickup truck engines tricked air quality controls, feds say

#82
post #57

There's no way to make a diesel or gasoline car that's not actively bad for the environment. Electric is the only way. (And maybe hydrogen, but that's quite a ways off)

An electric car is bad for the environment (described generally, not in the laser-focused "CO2 emissions are the only thing that matters!" modern sense) in almost all the same ways an ICE vehicle is, just with a reduction in runtime carbon emissions, and with quite a bit more mining going into the raw materials. Hydrogen, meanwhile, is nonsensical in every way you care to look at the problem, unless you look at it th…

> An electric car is bad for the environment (described generally, not in the laser-focused "CO2 emissions are the only thing that matters!" modern sense) in almost all the same ways an ICE vehicle is, just with a reduction in runtime carbon emissions

No it isn't. You can charge them entirely with renewable sources (or nuclear), reducing traditional air pollutants in addition to CO2. This is even true when still using fossil fuel power plants, which emit fewer pollutants per unit energy than small engines.

Electric cars use regenerative braking, reducing the use of friction braking that releases brake dust into the environment.

> and with quite a bit more mining going into the raw materials.

Electric cars are only marginally heavier than gasoline cars because electric motors are light and the batteries take the place of not only the fuel tank but the entire powertrain and emissions equipment. It's not obvious how mining two tons of raw materials is dramatically different than mining 1.9 tons of raw materials, and in any event the raw materials can be recycled from older electric cars once there are older electric cars to recycle.

Re: Cummins pickup truck engines tricked air quality controls, feds say

#83

> The company does not admit wrongdoing and says no one in the company acted in bad faith Fuck me, though, right? I know the government can't do it, but this kind of statement itself should merit some kind of additional punishment.

That's par for a settlement

Re: Cummins pickup truck engines tricked air quality controls, feds say

#84
post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, I know what other manufacturers did. I want to know the technical details of what Cummins allegedly did "enough that they're not arguing a massive fine, while claiming they didn't do it on purpose." Claiming they "installed defeat devices" isn't nearly enough detail. How did it alter either the engine combustion cycle or the emissions control system behavior?

Who knows? I believe VW chief engineers got in jail not knowing what their subordinates did. I really tried to understand the VW scandal but I could not.

When operating an engine (gasoline or diesel), you can make a range of decisions about how you run it. Fuel/air ratio, ignition timing, exhaust gas recirculation amounts, boost pressure, etc. There are a lot of ways to accomplish a given power output, and generally some will be more or less efficient in terms of fuel quantity used, and some will be better or worse for emissions. You'll usually find that "optimum for one" is not "optimum for all," and so the ECU (engine computer) has to decide where to run the engine for any given situation.

The (increasingly invalid) assumption made by the EPA test cycles for emissions is that "What it does on the test treadmill will generally reflect what it does on the road." So they've got some (well known) set of drive cycles that reflect a range of driving conditions, they put a car through its paces on the treadmill, and this (a) validates that the car meets the relevant emissions standards, and (b) gets you the EPA-rated miles per gallon. Probably other stuff too, but these are the important ones.

VW violated, quite intentionally, the "behaves the same in the test chamber as on the road" assumption. Every time the car was started, it would assume it was being tested for emissions, until something "impossible in a test chamber" happened (like the steering wheel was turned - you don't do that on rolling road treadmills). At that point, once it was confident it wasn't being tested, it would alter the engine maps to be rather a good bit more fuel efficient - but at the cost of NOx (oxides of nitrogen) emissions being also far higher. So, on the road, the result was that the cars beat their EPA rated fuel economy (which is odd - nobody ever does that, as the real world has things like wind), but also violated the emissions regulations they were certified under (while also putting out less CO2 - because it used less fuel than rated for those conditions).

And they got away with it for quite some while.

Re: Cummins pickup truck engines tricked air quality controls, feds say

#86
post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An electric car is bad for the environment (described generally, not in the laser-focused "CO2 emissions are the only thing that matters!" modern sense) in almost all the same ways an ICE vehicle is, just with a reduction in runtime carbon emissions, and with quite a bit more mining going into the raw materials. Hydrogen, meanwhile, is nonsensical in every way you care to look at the problem, unless you look at it th…

> An electric car is bad for the environment (described generally, not in the laser-focused "CO2 emissions are the only thing that matters!" modern sense) in almost all the same ways an ICE vehicle is, just with a reduction in runtime carbon emissions No it isn't. You can charge them entirely with renewable sources (or nuclear), reducing traditional air pollutants in addition to CO2. This is even true when still usin…

You're looking at the problem from a purely "atmospheric emissions" perspective. Think about things like "wildlife disruption from a car-centric culture with lots of roads," "microplastics from tires," etc. All of those can very reasonably be considered "environmental effects of cars," if you want to take a broader view of the problems.

Renewable energy sources also have their own impacts on the environment - the mining for raw materials, the cement production used for wind turbines (look up the amount of concrete per MW nameplate - it's quite staggering), etc. One may reasonably argue that these are less important impacts than CO2 emissions, and make one's arguments (I think quite reasonably so), but to round all these to zero for renewables is dishonest, at best. The same goes for the amount of mining required for the raw uranium to be refined into nuclear fuel - quite a bit of earth has to be extracted and processed to get the fuel quantity. Again, I think it's lower impact than fossil fuels, but it's certainly not zero - by quite a large amount. Is "Filling a mountain valley with acidic mine tailings" an "environmental impact"? I'd argue yes, though plenty of people seem to not care, as long as it puts less CO2 on the air. Hence my observation that a lot of people are laser-focused on "CO2 emissions only."

As far as mining goes, EVs require a rather substantially different mix of raw materials than ICEs - so "pounds of earth removed per pound of car" are going to be substantially different. Again, you can argue (and people have, fairly reasonably) that this is a tradeoff worth making, but you can't pretend that "Because the cars weigh about the same, they have the same production impact," when one has a thousand pounds of lithium ion battery pack.

My opinion is that LiFePO4 based PHEVs are the current optimum, but I'm aware I'm in a minority there.

Re: Cummins pickup truck engines tricked air quality controls, feds say

#87
post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is this a side effect of impossible regulations put in place by bureaucrats with no technical background whatsoever? The same ones that declared everyone will be driving EVs by 2030.

The regulations are very possible, proven by the "meet the emisions regulations" mode that then gets turned off during normal operation.

That doesn’t follow. Meeting the emissions standards is possible on its own, but not necessarily along with other requirements like efficiency.

Re: Cummins pickup truck engines tricked air quality controls, feds say

#88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Engine computers can easily be reprogrammed to make the engine run at all sorts of different operating bands. You could easily detect state emissions equipment, since it must pull information from the ECU. To me- these devices are either pre-programmed operating modes that produce clean emissions but the vehicle would not operate under this tune (emissions testing is often not under load) and so once back on the road…

VW's detected emissions testing when the steering wheel was never turned.

Makes sense. As I said, emission testing is often not performed when the vehicle is being driven/under load. States could incorporate dyno testing, but its technical, complicated, and unsafe.

Re: Cummins pickup truck engines tricked air quality controls, feds say

#89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This right here. The hardware and software should be open to public scrutiny, so that experienced practitioners can explore and weigh in.

I hope that you like ARXML mess with hundreds of MATLAB Simulink files sitting on top.

I do. See my other post...

Re: Cummins pickup truck engines tricked air quality controls, feds say

#90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Engine computers can easily be reprogrammed to make the engine run at all sorts of different operating bands. You could easily detect state emissions equipment, since it must pull information from the ECU. To me- these devices are either pre-programmed operating modes that produce clean emissions but the vehicle would not operate under this tune (emissions testing is often not under load) and so once back on the road…

Manufacturers were doing this well before OBD2. They'd look for a condition where the car was started and then idle raised and held raised, for example. Once things like CANBUS became popular, as well as ECUs getting integrated with ABS/traction control, they'd look for drive wheels spinning and but not undriven wheels. When stability control systems became a thing, they could monitor steering angle and look for the…

Yup, and I would argue most are not even doing the tuning, Bosch ECUs come pre-mapped to the FI system selected for the application. Maybe some performance models or chassis builders modify in house, but think of all the shared platforms used by all the big and now consolidated automakers...
Post reply on HN