VW emissions test

-
someone has got to make up for all them tree hugging hippies driving prius'
 
VW Diesel's get over 50mpg. Exceeding the Prius all with a smaller overall carbon footprint. This is ridiculous. They ought to be giving them a medal.
 
roccodart440 said:
VW Diesel's get over 50mpg. Exceeding the Prius all with a smaller overall carbon footprint. This is ridiculous. They ought to be giving them a medal.
Click to expand...

This ^^^^^ is the truth. WAY too much gubmint regulation involved. The auto makers know how to build cars. The gubmint needs to back off and let them.
 
RustyRatRod said:
This ^^^^^ is the truth. WAY too much gubmint regulation involved. The auto makers know how to build cars. The gubmint needs to back off and let them.
Click to expand...

Now this "scandal" will be used to shove more regulations down our throats.
 
RustyRatRod said:
This ^^^^^ is the truth. WAY too much gubmint regulation involved. The auto makers know how to build cars. The gubmint needs to back off and let them.
Click to expand...

Here's where it makes no sense.

My 06'cummins. 23mpg average. NO emmissions, no tune. Just straight exhaust and an intake.

My 08' cummins. 12-13mpg factory. 20mpg average after emissions delete and tune.

SMFH
 
Who said emissions had a damn thing to do with MPG?
 
Without fail, with the exception of EGR valves, every emissions disable I have ever done has resulted in both better mileage and performance. Every. Single. Time.

It seems to me, the fuel that's saved alone would out weight the emissions end of it. But what the hell do I know?
 
VW put codes in the computers to pass emission at first then go bat crazy after that. I understand the system, but they were cheating big time. They cheated in the 70's also and got busted then also. The fine in the 70's was only 120K. This time it will be a LOT more. Maybe not as much as cheby 900 million for bad ignition switches, but it will be a lot. I think they were cheating more than the summit Camaros.
 
RustyRatRod said:
It seems to me, the fuel that's saved alone would out weight the emissions end of it. But what the hell do I know?
Click to expand...

It depends on what emissions you're talking about. GHGs and smog-forming criteria pollutants (NOx, VOCs, CO, SOx, PM, etc) are two entirely different animals. Unfortunately, controlling one sometimes inversely affects the other.

What sucks is that GHG regulations are usually worded in a way that prevents any backsliding in criteria pollutant controls, which came first.
 
mopowers said:
It depends on what emissions you're talking about. GHGs and smog-forming criteria pollutants (NOx, VOCs, CO, SOx, PM, etc) are two entirely different animals. Unfortunately, controlling one sometimes inversely affects the other.
Click to expand...

Hmmmm, please do elaborate... thx

mopowers said:
What sucks is that GHG regulations are usually worded in a way that prevents any backsliding in criteria pollutant controls, which came first.
Click to expand...

??? So, VW 'certified 2015 EPA test vehicles' (read sample test units pass emissions criteria = rubber stamp total build units) of course could not have the slightest inference to the Honda Motor Company
bait & switch game of the late '90's???

Just asking Sir.
 
mech1nxh said:
Hmmmm, please do elaborate... thx
Click to expand...

Let’s see, where to start… This may start to get off topic, but people have a tendency to lump ALL emissions together, when in fact they have completely different impacts and are regulated differently. The pollutants that form photochemical smog (the dirty brown haze on a hot summer day in Bakersfield) lead to adverse health impacts as well as other issues. These pollutants (eg. NOx, volatile hydrocarbons, CO, etc) are commonly referred to as criteria pollutants. They’re typically controlled by pre and post combustion control equipment dating back to 60’s(?) (EGR, catalysts, DPFs, low sulfur fuels, urea injection, etc). Requiring cars to burn ‘cleaner,’ reduced this smog formation, and has had a huge positive impact in areas such as the southern central valley California and the Los Angeles region.

GHG’s on the other hand are ‘believed’ by some to cause climate change (longer-term pie in the sky type ****). The way government primarily started regulating control of these was to require manufacturers to make cars more fuel efficient (while maintaining current criteria pollutant controls.) I think the last part is where some people get confused. The government just isn’t going to allow manufacturers to disable control devices that provide 95-99% control efficiency of pollutants that are known to produce smog and associated negative health impacts, even if it reduces GHG emissions by doubling fuel mileage. That’s the reason why fuel efficiency standards are so challenging to automakers. It sucks, but I guess it is what it is.

mech1nxh said:
??? So, VW 'certified 2015 EPA test vehicles' (read sample test units pass emissions criteria = rubber stamp total build units) of course could not have the slightest inference to the Honda Motor Company
bait & switch game of the late '90's???

Just asking Sir.
Click to expand...


I’m not quite sure what you're asking.

Either way, have a good weekend. Time to mow the lawn and grab a cold one. :glasses7:
 
So you will be able to take your VW back to the dealer, and under recall and have it converted from good mileage to good emissions ? Terrific deal. Don't think I'd bother.
 
mopowers said:
Let’s see, where to start… This may start to get off topic, but people have a tendency to lump ALL emissions together, when in fact they have completely different impacts and are regulated differently. The pollutants that form photochemical smog (the dirty brown haze on a hot summer day in Bakersfield) lead to adverse health impacts as well as other issues. These pollutants (eg. NOx, volatile hydrocarbons, CO, etc) are commonly referred to as criteria pollutants. They’re typically controlled by pre and post combustion control equipment dating back to 60’s(?) (EGR, catalysts, DPFs, low sulfur fuels, urea injection, etc). Requiring cars to burn ‘cleaner,’ reduced this smog formation, and has had a huge positive impact in areas such as the southern central valley California and the Los Angeles region.
Click to expand...

mopowers said:
I’m not quite sure what you're asking.
Click to expand...

Again, with respects, Sir, could You give some data on 'Particulate Ton Per Mile'
reduction--- just NOx & CO2 In Ca? since the mandate of PZEV emissions vehicles
Thx!!

mopowers said:
GHG’s on the other hand are ‘believed’ by some to cause climate change (longer-term pie in the sky type ****). The way government primarily started regulating control of these was to require manufacturers to make cars more fuel efficient (while maintaining current criteria pollutant controls.) I think the last part is where some people get confused. The government just isn’t going to allow manufacturers to disable control devices that provide 95-99% control efficiency of pollutants that are known to produce smog and associated negative health impacts, even if it reduces GHG emissions by doubling fuel mileage. That’s the reason why fuel efficiency standards are so challenging to automakers. It sucks, but I guess it is what it is.
:glasses7:
Click to expand...

I must disagree with the above Sir...
I will just reference ONE of the vehicles I am most familiar with --- the SRT'4 ---
FULL OBD2 EMISSIONS COMPLIANT & 247 HP at the wheel (short axle) & 31 mpg...

"current criteria pollution controls" ----mmehhh-- smoke & mirrors, a bait & switch game purported by Ca & Ny to Cripple Our American Car Culture.

Oh... Honored Posters, 'GHG' = green house gasses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
-

Back
Top