VW recalls 482,000 diesel cars due to a system to trick emissions faces 18bil fine

[Phoenix86]

No, i think they can do better. i think the US restrictions for Diesel are excessive too quickly, but the tested results this range of TDIs got were/are too high. They can and should do better.

Electric cars are not the answer until we have a power storage medium 300-400% better than current batteries.

On a side note, Ethanol is also not the answer. I hate having to use 10% ethanol in my truck when i drive it. The price of non ethanol gas around me is 40-50 cents more per gallon. This is likely due to government subsidizing ethanol use in gasoline. Engines aren't designed to take advantage of ethanol. You need higher compression with higher ethanol content. Even then i'm not sure it would make up for the mileage hit you see in older gas cars running 10% ethanol gas.

So what technology that actually exists is the answer?

 

[JoeBleed]

So what technology that actually exists is the answer?

That's the thing, we don't have an answer. you have to combine things and spread out usage. When something proves to be crap such as ethanol, stop pushing it!.

You can make laws/standards to say what you want and make them as strict as you want, but that doesn't mean is possible to accomplish. As i said above. diesel standards in the US are too strict and they were pushed much too fast. If we had the same Carb standard as the EU, most trucks and suvs would be off the road. For the most part, good progress has been made in terms of fuel mileage in gas cars. Not so with trucks and suvs. Yet they get to be sold with no penalty.

I'd rather we had mid/small size trucks with those "dirty" TDI engines in them vs the gas equivalents. full size trucks with the 3.0L offerings.

 

[GagHalfrunt]

Ethanol is stupid. Fucking corn lobby. VW cheated and should pay a very price on this. Cali not agreeing to a vague plan is the correct response.

Agreed on all counts.

At this point Volkswagen can't be trusted on anything they say or anything they promise. Until they have a concrete plan that details step by step exactly how they're going to either make these cars conform or replace them then their plans should be rejected. And really, at this point, their "plan" isn't a plan at all, it's just a promise to maybe hopefully fix it someday. No details on method or deadline.

Want VW to come up with a real plan to make this happen? Suspend all sales of new VWs until they come up with an idea that is approved by all concerned parties. They shouldn't be allowed to keep making money in the US auto industry after having intentionally pissed all over it.

 

[dainthomas]

That's the thing, we don't have an answer. you have to combine things and spread out usage. When something proves to be crap such as ethanol, stop pushing it!.

You can make laws/standards to say what you want and make them as strict as you want, but that doesn't mean is possible to accomplish. As i said above. diesel standards in the US are too strict and they were pushed much too fast. If we had the same Carb standard as the EU, most trucks and suvs would be off the road. For the most part, good progress has been made in terms of fuel mileage in gas cars. Not so with trucks and suvs. Yet they get to be sold with no penalty.

I'd rather we had mid/small size trucks with those "dirty" TDI engines in them vs the gas equivalents. full size trucks with the 3.0L offerings.

I don't know. Those Ford ecoboost motors are great. I'd take one.

 

[tortillasoup]

As much as I care about the environment, whining about the emissions of a 2009-2014 Model year car that had the emissions profile of a 2006 MY car isn't what I'd consider a major fiasco. Yes they broke the law but emissions like that of a 2006 MY car isn't that huge of a deal. It's not like they sold the cars w/o catalytic converters or they had emissions like that of a 70s diesel.

 

[sdifox]

As much as I care about the environment, whining about the emissions of a 2009-2014 Model year car that had the emissions profile of a 2006 MY car isn't what I'd consider a major fiasco. Yes they broke the law but emissions like that of a 2006 MY car isn't that huge of a deal. It's not like they sold the cars w/o catalytic converters or they had emissions like that of a 70s diesel.

It's more about the deception. Lots of people bought it specifically because it was supposed to be environmentally friendly.

 

[JoeBleed]

I don't know. Those Ford ecoboost motors are great. I'd take one.

I'll have to ask my dad, but i think his new ford truck has one. v6. but i don't remember for sure. the mileage it gets, while better than his hold dodge that i have, isn't that impressive. from what i remember on the eco boost is it only gets good results under very few conditions. which don't happen too often with a lot of drivers. But i may be remembering some other tech. even from another company. I want to say my dad said he gets around 21 or 22 mpg according to the read out. i can't get him to do the math at the pump.

Oh, for the comparison, his old 94 dodge ram is currently getting between 14.5 to 15.5 mpg

 

[Scarpozzi]

It's more about the deception. Lots of people bought it specifically because it was supposed to be environmentally friendly.

They are...they get 45+ MPG. If they were sold as getting 40+MPG and actually got 5MPG, I'd be upset. I like VW and hope they make it out of this. The 2006 Jetta TDI was pretty awesome and got like 50MPG due to less curb weight (smaller car).

 

[Scarpozzi]

I'll have to ask my dad, but i think his new ford truck has one. v6. but i don't remember for sure. the mileage it gets, while better than his hold dodge that i have, isn't that impressive. from what i remember on the eco boost is it only gets good results under very few conditions. which don't happen too often with a lot of drivers. But i may be remembering some other tech. even from another company. I want to say my dad said he gets around 21 or 22 mpg according to the read out. i can't get him to do the math at the pump.

Oh, for the comparison, his old 94 dodge ram is currently getting between 14.5 to 15.5 mpg

I looked at the 2013 ecoboost when I was in the market for a truck. Direct-injection + Turbo. V6 with 383HP and 18-22MPG for a full-size truck (Supercrew 4x4). The only negatives I read were from the 2009-2010 years when they first started selling them. Some would start getting poor gas mileage (under 15mpg) and no one could figure out why at the dealerships. I think most of those problems have been addressed and the ecoboost may be a decent engine. Ford is doing a lot to maximize technology.

I ended up buying a 2009 Reg Cab 2x4 with the 248hp 2-valve V8. I just drove 1000 miles and got an average of 19mpg with it.

 

[dainthomas]

I'll have to ask my dad, but i think his new ford truck has one. v6. but i don't remember for sure. the mileage it gets, while better than his hold dodge that i have, isn't that impressive. from what i remember on the eco boost is it only gets good results under very few conditions. which don't happen too often with a lot of drivers. But i may be remembering some other tech. even from another company. I want to say my dad said he gets around 21 or 22 mpg according to the read out. i can't get him to do the math at the pump.

Oh, for the comparison, his old 94 dodge ram is currently getting between 14.5 to 15.5 mpg

That's about what I get in my Tundra (city driving), and maybe 18 highway. 21 or 22 is fantastic for a full size truck.

 

[Scarpozzi]

That's about what I get in my Tundra (city driving), and maybe 18 highway. 21 or 22 is fantastic for a full size truck.

What year is the Tundra?

My 4Runner gets 18mpg on the highway and it's basically a Tacoma. I hadn't looked at the new Tundras, but the Tundras I looked at from the last generation were all 12-15mpg. Much more gas guzzling than the Ford or Chevy options and not a lot more HP than the ecoboost. I just like the looks of the Tundras.

 

[sdifox]

They are...they get 45+ MPG. If they were sold as getting 40+MPG and actually got 5MPG, I'd be upset. I like VW and hope they make it out of this. The 2006 Jetta TDI was pretty awesome and got like 50MPG due to less curb weight (smaller car).

not with the stuff they spew out...

 

[dainthomas]

What year is the Tundra?

My 4Runner gets 18mpg on the highway and it's basically a Tacoma. I hadn't looked at the new Tundras, but the Tundras I looked at from the last generation were all 12-15mpg. Much more gas guzzling than the Ford or Chevy options and not a lot more HP than the ecoboost. I just like the looks of the Tundras.

It's an 08. I basically got it for the large comfortable seats and the huge back seat (I got the crew max) that's great for kids on camping trips.

 

[JoeBleed]

That's about what I get in my Tundra (city driving), and maybe 18 highway. 21 or 22 is fantastic for a full size truck.

yea, i think it's good for what it is and where they used to be, but i think it would be higher with a 3.0l TDI or comparable diesel engine. They sell them in other countries, just not here. Not everyone needs that big 6.x L or so V8 diesel engines they offer in the larger trucks here. I'm basing this off of people i know with the Jeep Liberty CRD and what they say. I see fuelly and another site don't seem to average as well as the one's i've talked to. They offered that with a 2.8L and a 3.7L. I've read one person say they've towed a 3500 pound full height camper for a 1000 miles including through hilly areas with overdrive off and averaged 13mpg. That seems very good to me vs gas trucks towing or even driving through the hilly areas. We really need better options.

Only reason i have a full size 94 dodge ram is because my dad just gave it to me when he bought his new Ford about 3 years ago. I was looking for a small truck. I only need it for hauling trash and on the rare occasions i need to pick up something that will not fit in my car. I really wish i could get something like a Ford ranger, S10 (or what ever they are now), or hell, even a VW small pick up with a modern, small diesel engine in it. The old 80s vw pickups would get in the 45 mpg range no problem with the old IDI diesel engines. they're just a bit too small for me. My head has a tendency to hit the celling on bumpy roads unless the seat is worn out.

 

[Scarpozzi]

yea, i think it's good for what it is and where they used to be, but i think it would be higher with a 3.0l TDI or comparable diesel engine. They sell them in other countries, just not here. Not everyone needs that big 6.x L or so V8 diesel engines they offer in the larger trucks here. I'm basing this off of people i know with the Jeep Liberty CRD and what they say. I see fuelly and another site don't seem to average as well as the one's i've talked to. They offered that with a 2.8L and a 3.7L. I've read one person say they've towed a 3500 pound full height camper for a 1000 miles including through hilly areas with overdrive off and averaged 13mpg. That seems very good to me vs gas trucks towing or even driving through the hilly areas. We really need better options.

Only reason i have a full size 94 dodge ram is because my dad just gave it to me when he bought his new Ford about 3 years ago. I was looking for a small truck. I only need it for hauling trash and on the rare occasions i need to pick up something that will not fit in my car. I really wish i could get something like a Ford ranger, S10 (or what ever they are now), or hell, even a VW small pick up with a modern, small diesel engine in it. The old 80s vw pickups would get in the 45 mpg range no problem with the old IDI diesel engines. they're just a bit too small for me. My head has a tendency to hit the celling on bumpy roads unless the seat is worn out.

It's nice having an old truck because you don't have to worry about it rotting in your driveway if you have another daily driver. I really like my truck as a highway driver now that gas prices are down and drive it around town on occasion, but don't have enough seats for my kids. I just don't want it to fall apart without me driving it enough. I really bought it for my construction projects and not for a family hauler. Still trying to get up enough nerve to buy something to replace my 12+ year old Buick.

 

[JoeBleed]

not with the stuff they spew out...

They only reported their Nox output to be too high. While not good, it isn't as bad as other emissions coming from crappy gas engines that burn though lots of gas. Again, Nox standards in the US got too strict too fast.

On top of the number of cars this effects, think about Ships (cruse/freight/fishing) and how much they put out and burn through. They don't have these same restrictions. How much of an impact do you think the cars have vs Ships? Not saying we shouldn't have standards, just trying to point out, it isn't as big of a deal, environment wise, as some people make it out to be. The lying VW did is the part i think should be focused on. They should still fix it; which i think they can. Harping on the "damage to the environment" i feel isn't warranted for this.

 

[sdifox]

They only reported their Nox output to be too high. While not good, it isn't as bad as other emissions coming from crappy gas engines that burn though lots of gas. Again, Nox standards in the US got too strict too fast.

On top of the number of cars this effects, think about Ships (cruse/freight/fishing) and how much they put out and burn through. They don't have these same restrictions. How much of an impact do you think the cars have vs Ships? Not saying we shouldn't have standards, just trying to point out, it isn't as big of a deal, environment wise, as some people make it out to be. The lying VW did is the part i think should be focused on. They should still fix it; which i think they can. Harping on the "damage to the environment" i feel isn't warranted for this.

I said it was about the lying, not about actual damage. They sold it under the green pretense, that was the problem.