Massive emission trouble for VW.

[Simplysmn]

I have not heard Great thing's as to MPG ise on the Cruze .Much less the the VW's get and our 14 Jetta TDI get's upward's of mid to high 40's . Have Heard alot of People complaining they they stink mpg wise but will never find out I'm Happy with my Hijacked jetta

 

[seafish]

This exactly!!!!

if the overall goal is to reduce fuel consumption in vehicles, how is this goal being obtained when more fuel is required to meet piddly and unrealistic emission outputs?

If vehicle a can achieves 30mpg, but vehicle b with strict emissions in place only receives 14 mpg, forgive me if i see the benefit. 30mpg means to me that the engine is operating and consuming fuel at the best possible burn rate, while vehicle b is consuming additional fuel per mile to achieve the same as vehicle a.

 

[JR]

Just came across this, it appears that VW has been working on a fix with CARB since last year. This is worse than i thought. Reflashes didn't work then, VW may be in a world of $#it with no other option than to either retrofit their vehicles with different equipment or buy back the affected vehicles and send em to the crusher.

http://www.arb.ca.gov/newsrel/in_use_compliance_letter.htm

 

[Wayne M.]

If the overall goal is to reduce fuel consumption in vehicles, how is this goal being obtained when more fuel is required to meet piddly and unrealistic emission outputs?

If vehicle A can achieves 30MPG, but vehicle B with strict emissions in place only receives 14 MPG, forgive me if I see the benefit. 30MPG means to me that the engine is operating and consuming fuel at the best possible burn rate, while vehicle B is consuming additional fuel per mile to achieve the same as vehicle A.

It's no newsflash that beginning in '08 that big trucks suffered a huge defeat in mileage and driveability. I cant tell you how many times I had to send all that soot and ash right back into the air AND use fuel to do a forced regeneration on city trucks. Things got a bit better when the '10 SCR trucks came, but the regens now take more time and at a higher idle and IMHO, uses even more fuel to do.

 

[BIGNASTY]

Anyone want to buy an Audi A3 Quickly ?

 

[TFucili]

Remember the government bureaucrat's creed, "Pay More & Get Less".

 

[Wayne M.]

Remember the government bureaucrat's creed, "Pay More & Get Less".

HA!
Wanna do business in NYC? Study up- and BUCK UP! http://www.nyc.gov/html/dep/html/air/emissions_from_transportation.shtml

 

[MichaelOverfield]

I thought the Cruze Diesel was basically an Opel design. Engine and all.

The engine is from Germany (on window sticker), and Opel is correct from what I hear, though I have been told VMMontori (same source for the Ram ECO Diesel) in Italy did the design work:

It is pretty similar to this (though closer to a mirror image from inspection on the car):

http://www.vmmotori.com/a-420-sohc/automotive-en/4-cilindri/a-420-sohcen.html

Here is a picture of the Cruze engine:

http://www.bing.com/images/search?q...f9bdf45d3ea8a4ea07ef59f06797530dH0&ajaxhist=0

The transmission is an Aisin, same company that makes the good trans for the Cummins Dodge. The origin of transmission on the window sticker is Japan, seems to confirm this.

http://www.aisin.com/product/automotive/

(there are 2 FWD units shown here, I think it is the Medium Torque unit, the engine puts out 236ft/lb).

I can say this, I was very impressed, and will be buying one today.. we got one amazing deal on the last 2015 on the lot, and while I'm a base model kind of buyer, they worked the numbers down to the point I figured the extra features.. Ok, I live with them (or more accurately, my wife will!).. Basically a lower than base model MSRP for final price.. about 24K, and an MSRP of 29K.

They provide a tire inflator/patch kit, because the spare tire space is used for the DEF tank. Given the rarity of flats, these days.. seems reasonable.

EDIT: Add Wikipedia, if accurate shows the engine and transmission as reported above:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_Cruze

 

[MichaelOverfield]

It's no newsflash that beginning in '08 that big trucks suffered a huge defeat in mileage and driveability. I cant tell you how many times I had to send all that soot and ash right back into the air AND use fuel to do a forced regeneration on city trucks. Things got a bit better when the '10 SCR trucks came, but the regens now take more time and at a higher idle and IMHO, uses even more fuel to do.

Thanks, concur on the post 2008 issue on MPG.. though have to say from all I've read the SCR is not taking the big MPG hit, the DPF still has to do a Regen, but the LNT has both the LNT and DPF to deal with. Having said that, I'm quite sure you take all that stuff off and see a rather dramatic increase in MPG as many have reported.

Seems that city driving is particularly hard on all these emissions systems, but then again, it is hard on pretty much all cars, just more with the new emissions.

 

[MichaelOverfield]

I have not heard Great thing's as to MPG ise on the Cruze .Much less the the VW's get and our 14 Jetta TDI get's upward's of mid to high 40's . Have Heard alot of People complaining they they stink mpg wise but will never find out I'm Happy with my Hijacked jetta

I've been over on the MyTurboDiesel forum, where the have a Cruze Diesel forum... most are reporting highway MPG over 50 on the Cruze.. the 2012 Jetta gets close to that, sometimes.. Is your Jetta DEF/SCR? If so you'll likely not see too much change with the reprogram. If it is LNT (non-DEF) like mine, I already know the numbers are going to tank, and they emissions parts will have longevity issues.. sure VW may be covering then under extended warranty like the HPFPs. but I don't want a 5-6K repair bill at 130K with that pump dies and kills the entire fuel system.

The same pattern VW has been putting forward on the HPFP was in play over the last 2 years where they have been denying the "cheating" ECM programming. They only came clean when the EPA said no to certification on the 2016 cars until they could explains why the could pass lab, but consistently fail road tests, when other OEMs with TDIs were showing consistent results on both testing procedures. There is already a class action lawsuit.. but the scale of this is so massive, I don't expect the customer is going to be adequately compensated not matter what. The 7.3 Billion that VW has already allocated when divided by the 11 million cars affected worldwide amounts to a mere $636 per car, and that assumes it just goes to the cars.. when you and I both know EPA/Gov'ts everywhere will get their cut first.

 

[RustyJC]

Well, the fallout has started. Winterkorn (Volkswagen's CEO) is resigning. Wonder if Ferdinand Piech will be back???

Rusty

 

[Wayne M.]

Just found THIS
http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/4503...l-and-vw-in-the-us/?playlist_id=3166411554001

I think were gonna have to form a coalition. This guys an asshat.

 

[MichaelOverfield]

Here is a good summary, and history on the issue:

http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2015...-problems-not-new-for-university/?intcmp=hpff

 

[Brett Maverick]

I think VW has the right idea. Emissions controls should NOT be allowed to cut fuel mileage and reduce reliability. Maybe a class action lawsuit that forces the EPA to cover the cost of ALL emissions related trips to the dealership. Not to mention the "EPA mandated Limp mode"? If anyone is pulling a 15K 5th wheel up a tight 7% mountain grade in July, and the damn truck loses all it's power over a silly sensor reading that could be taken care of at a normally scheduled maintenance, really bad things could happen. I'm ok with reasonable noise and pollution controls, but they shouldn't be allowed to make the truck undependable or inoperable. These trucks would probably get 20% better fuel mileage if they were tuned for max efficiency, choking them down to cut emissions, then making them burn all that extra fuel doesn't make sense as the total emissions will go up with the extra fuel burned.
Will any of the tuners/downloaders defeat an emissions related limp mode and keep the truck on the road? I'd hate to have my truck and trailer stranded somewhere.........

 

[MichaelOverfield]

I think VW has the right idea. .........

Agree with what they wanted to do, being produce an efficient car that performed.. but while I concur the EPA stuff is out of control, VWs action sadly means the customer is most likely going to get hammered. Worse all Diesels are likely to get looked at closer for compliance.. The good news, though, the initial test did show the BMW diesel passed on both lab and road with minimal issues.. so a compliant Diesel is possible.

Maybe, just maybe this will cause more to come to realize how out of whack and unrealistic, and even unneeded the standards are.

Concur, one would think, less fuel used by more efficient engine.. that ought to be lower over all emissions right there. In terms of CO2 that is undoubtedly true.

Another sad reality.. while we can sue VW or any non-government entity for any reason at all.. the EPA and federal agencies only can be sued if they choose to allow being sued.. yes, I know how absurd that is, but that is the problem. The Gov't is out of control.. but doing what VW did is still wrong, in particular because it tends to validate the need for big Gov't to go after cheating big business.. I don't like anything that supports that narrative.

 

[Wayne M.]

It's well known how far off gov expectations are! Just ask Caterpillar- who told the USEPA et al where to go- when they vacated the on hiway engine business. If one could collect all the sentiment and put it together, there could be results!

FWIW, my '14 Durango has a life expectancy on the emission cert decal. I haven't gotten to the bottom of that yet.

 

[MichaelOverfield]

FWIW, my '14 Durango has a life expectancy on the emission cert decal. I haven't gotten to the bottom of that yet.

Wayne,

Looking at the EPA specifications on the VW debacle.. the certification has a "New" (less than 50K) specification, and what EPA considers end of life specification. The latter let's the allowable emissions go up, slightly. The end of life is at 120K.. as usual, EPA/Big Gov't too far behind the times. I don't consider 120K end of life.. that said, it is hard for the OEM to meet this, because to get the low numbers is technically difficult, and more so when they have to make components last 120K and still work nearly as if new.. this is making cars much, much more expensive.

No doubt part of the VW scheme had to do with the 120K part of this.. if the use the compliant programing, will the DPF and LNT trap last the full 120K and meet specifications? I think the odds on that are very slim. This is why the VW is being traded for a Chevy Cruze.. today.

Oh, and important to note, US EPA has same emissions for both Gasoline and Diesel cars.. and in Diesel, NOx is the real difficult specification to meet, hence the VW debacle.

 

[Brett Maverick]

Our Passat runs great, I'll be taping a big red label DO NOT FLASH ECM! over the OBD port.
It just eased out of the mfg warranty, so it won't be in the dealership for any normal maintenance. Maybe Nov 2016 will bring some common sense changes to the epa??

 

[Wayne M.]

I was just watching the AM Fox local news here. There was a spot from Fox business and they were going on and on about the VW exec stepping down etc. then they went on to speak their thoughts on the matter- it was obvious that (I'm starting to think its commonly understood) that vehicle emissions are compliant 100% of ign on time. There's so much misinformation out there and it seems that the MSM is looking to railroad the whole industry.

 

[Regcabguy]

Our Passat runs great, I'll be taping a big red label DO NOT FLASH ECM! over the OBD port.
It just eased out of the mfg warranty, so it won't be in the dealership for any normal maintenance. Maybe Nov 2016 will bring some common sense changes to the epa??

In California we don't have a choice. Get the reflash/repair done or don't register your vehicle.