gnat

I agree it is possible, though there are limits as something has to give (emissions, economy, performance).

The contention here though is if the regulations are really justified and make any sense to begin with. Controlling emissions is laudable and needed, but to keep lowering the requirements on cars while not controlling the worse sources has no net effect.

My problem is that they make all this sound horrible, but the reality is that if every TDI currently on the road was putting out the 40x 24/7 since the first offending car rolled off the line, its still an insignificant amount of pollution. It also doesn't remotely compare to the other sources of NOx.

Needsdecaf

Article I read from the Reuters feed makes it sound pretty dire.


Rory Carroll
Reuters
July 14, 2016 06:01 CET
SAN FRANCISCO -- California's chief air regulator on Wednesday rejected a proposed recall plan from Volkswagen to fix 3.0-liter diesel VW, Audi and Porsche models in the state equipped with devices designed to cheat emissions tests.

The California Air Resources Board (CARB) said the plan to fix the vehicles, which range from model years 2009-2016, was insufficient.

"VW's and Audi's submissions are incomplete, substantially deficient, and fall far short of meeting the legal requirements to return these vehicles to the claimed certified configuration," CARB said in its letter.

The regulator said it will not have enough data at least until December to make a determination on whether a 3.0-liter fix would work for all of the diesel vehicles. If no fix is possible, the company may have to buy back the vehicles, which could add billions to the cost of its buy-backs.

The vehicles include the Volkswagen Touareg, Porsche Cayenne and Audi A8.

CARB's announcement came as a surprise because VW lawyer Robert Giuffra last month said the German automaker believed it could fix 85,000 polluting 3.0-liter vehicles nationwide, and said the fix would not be "complicated."

A U.S. Environmental Protection Agency spokesperson said the agency agreed that VW has not presented an approvable proposed recall plan for the 3.0-liter diesel vehicles.

A Volkswagen spokesperson said the company continues to work with EPA and CARB to secure approval of a technical resolution.

Volkswagen last month reached a settlement worth up to $15.3 billion with regulators and owners over its 2.0-liter diesel vehicles that were also equipped with the devices that covered up the vehicles' true output of air pollution. That included up to $10.033 billion to buy back as many as 475,000 polluting 2.0-liter vehicles.

Nugget

Can we please stick to the subject and move the CARB politics to the "Politics And Controversy" sub-forum? I value the information in this thread and I'd hate to see it devolve.

visitador

There are a lot of politics involved, no? Lets face it. Pollution control policies are tied with fuel emissions and all the other requirements. Our policy makers here in the US have decided that diesel is not the way to go and have made its use quite difficult for manufacturers to comply with them. But as the non-cheater manufacturers have shown, it is possible. Europe went the other way.

In the end, it is us the voters who voted the politicians who appointed the regulators. They decide how much pollution we want from what sources. CARB's existence is the result of run amok smog in LA. Given the results of how some European cities are trying to cope with smog nowadays, I would rather have the draconian CARB system. Are the requirements arbitrary? Most likely, but that is how we decided to deal with diesel. Of course, this requirements are of little benefit in the virgin air of some parts of the US.

[Edit: I agree Nugget. I was typing this while you posted your request ^^]

Needsdecaf

I wholeheartedly agree with this. However it's akin to making the argument to the cop asking why he piled you over for 70 in a 55 while there were people going 90 and weaving. In the end, you're still wrong. Perhaps not equally wrong, but on the wrong side of the law nonetheless. So while I agree CARB is being ridiculous about this, and these regulations are nothing but a straw man to satisfy pundits and voters and don't help the problem of environmental conservation in the least, they still broke the rules and got caught.

alexaqui

If they do a buy-back, how badly screwed are we going to be?

visitador

Use the 2.0 solution as a template

gnat

I understand your desire, but the politics are actually a big piece of the puzzle here, will greatly impact what the result is, and been part of the discussion since the thread started.

Unfortunately the politics surrounding this issue are as important (and possibly more so) as the technical aspects.

I need to go back and dig up the information you supplied to confirm, but as I recall the X5d (and wasn't it actually X3d data from Europe and not the whistle blowers here in the States?) wasn't meeting the spec either. It was just not off as badly and there was no indication of active cheating going on (e.g. it was just the natural differences of the lab vs the real world).

I have also yet to see concrete information about how bad the 3.0 actually is. It seems clear that it's not as bad as the 2.0, but nothing specific. I've seen numbers from 7-20% from various places, but no "official" claims. If I've missed it, please correct me.

They have also talked about the "cheat" devices, but while the function is there in the ECU I have not heard a claim that it was actually enabled.

Additionally there is talk about unapproved devices, but the details on that seem to indicate that it was more of a paperwork issue and had they been included they would have been approved. These omissions actually happen regularly and addendums are filed after the fact. I have heard nothing to indicate these "extra" devices would have been rejected during the original approval process.

This leads me to believe that the 3.0 is probably in line with other non-cheating vehicles and is caught up in this mess more our of politics than any real violation.

This is definitely P&C ground here

This is the crux of the problem. In the 70s and 80s it was critical to get control over vehicle emissions and we have all benefited from that. Since the 90s, however, continuing to tighten car emissions while not reducing other sources has diminishing returns.

What is the point of further reducing car emissions when it can be easily shown that doing so has no effect on overall emissions/pollution.

I would have no complaints with any of this if they applied the standards universally (e.g. industrial sources), but they don't and that's wrong. Even more than not actually accomplishing the job they exist for, it also causes direct harm to us both in limiting our options as well as more stuff to break that we'll have to fix.

I agree to a point.

Years ago I was pulled over for doing 20+ over so I had to actually appear in court for it. While waiting my turn a case was called for a guy that ran a stop sign and he didn't bother to show up to court (or pay the fine). They reviewed his history and found he had been ticketed 31 times (this was 32) for failing to stop at signals and signs (including a few where he caused accidents by doing so). There are also apparently multiple times he didn't show up to court (or pay early). The judge declines to issue a bench warrant for the guy and he got a $30 fine + court costs.

When my case came up the cop had no problem telling the judge that I wasn't driving recklessly, that the road was empty, and visibility was good. He even went as far as to recommend dropping the charge to regular speeding. The judge, however, felt the need to make an example of me by giving me a 10 minute speech about how "speed kills", gave me the max fine, and suspended my license.

I have no issue that the cop pulled me over. I was wrong and I knew it. Ididn't have a problem with that. I do have a problem, however, with the judge putting his personal politics into his judgements and lecturing me on safety when he chose to not exercise his judicial power to deal with someone that was a proven risk to others.

Wrong is wrong and I believe in paying your dues when you're caught. So I have no problem with VAG being held accountable for their actions, but the punishment (so far) doesn't fit the crime (in my opinion) and that the violated laws aren't based on sound information I have a problem that it was a crime at all.

Now we are stuck in a drawn out back and forth between VAG/CARB/EPA that leaves us all in limbo and I contend that the majority of the back and forth is political rather than technical.

alexaqui

When I tried to trade my car in immediately before this whole thing happened in September, the dealer trade values were rubbish. The market was very lumpy with cars with no options and cars with incredibly high mileage going through the wholesale process. As a result, I believed there was a larger than normal discrepancy between the dealer trade value offered and what I could get in the market. I opted to clean and wax the car and try to sell privately. That's when this whole thing happened; even though the 3.0s were not on the list at the time, I noticed an immediate drop in value and opted to not sell. It doesn't exactly bode that well for us.

PJ Cayenne

On the flip side, my dealer keeps calling me to sell me a 911 (which in fact I would love to buy). I've told him in no uncertain terms will I buy another Porsche until I know the what the deal is on my diesel. I'm just one guy, but he got the message.

mdrobc1213

Not so fast on that one. If this is true and the EU regulators keep on VW they may have to buy back the 2.0L cars. I think they said there are 8.5 million of those so I am not sure VW can survive that one very well and come out the same on the other end.

http://autoweek.com/article/vw-diese...n=awdailydrive

Also others now are being looked at too!

http://www.greencarreports.com/news/...r-epa-scrutiny

They probably keep calling cause they want to sell you a new Porsche...not because they plan on giving you face value (or what you deem you likely should get) on your CD. Quite a few have reported drop in trade value/offers with of course some offers near or above KBB and other valuations. However with this new info on the rejected fix and delay till Dec and buy back I am not sure HOW you can say/argue that the values are just fine/stable and/or not decreased/dropping.

http://www.motorauthority.com/news/1...ter-diesel-fix

Spyerx

VW buy backs are pretty attractive financially

PJ Cayenne

Exactly, he has a bunch of 991.2s on his lot and would love to sell me one. Agreed, values will be in the tank. I would be surprised if you can even get financing on a CD.

ddeliber

Edit: Added the quote from the previous page as the context is off with the more recent posts.

My guess is that CARB wants them to admit that the undocumented/declared AECD is in fact a defeat device which I believe Audi and by extension Porsche have never done. From the CARB response, it was never claimed that the proposed fix did not address the issue, I'll bet they never tested it. It is mostly stuff like:
-"Adequately describe the nonconformities and undisclosed AECDs/defeat devices on teh affected vehicles" which is their first bullet in its entirity - smells like an own up to it kind of thing.
-insufficient documentation on what changed, how it fixed the problem, how it was tested, how Porsche planned to update the cars, or their plan to provide sufficient parts etc.
-missing data demonstrating whatever.

To be honest, if I were an engineer at CARB, I wouldn't test it either if the lack of details on what changed and how it fixes the issue etc is true. However, if I worked at Audi/Porsche I wouldn't provide the level of detail that they seem to be asking for.

To me it would seem adequate to describe the AECD, why it is there and why it is not a defeat device (which I am sure they already did). Then describe what changed, how it affects the emissions and provide data on what it did in testing. The issue is, if the first sentence is true then all that really should be changed is documentation on the AECD. CARB won't accept that and saying it is a defeat device or making significant changes (which arguably is an admission in itself) opens up more liability. I'll bet the stalemate is rooted here.

Did I miss some admission of culpability by Audi/VW/Porsche beyond the missing documentation on the AECD? I did see a bunch on replacing cats and other stuff but nothing from the manufacturer about requiring more than a SW change.

MJG911

one good thing I gleaned from that letter is they have to bring them into compliance without affecting performance, drivability or economy. I don't think that is going to be possible though.