VW Clean diesels.... how did they get them so clean?

[MikePA]

Save your sanity trying to talk sense to this guy is pointless.

My thought exactly, particularly since you finally admitted, to MossRoad, that I was correct. And like Darkblack, you insult.

Yes, I understand that VW made the pollution controls work only for the dyno test, and turned them off when the cars were on the roadways.

Don't be such a fool. Measured emissions are NOT proportionate to fuel usage in environmental impact.

Instead of explaining this, the purpose of a DISCUSSION forum, you insult. At least you're consistent.

 

[MossRoad]

If changing the run design ends up lowering mpg....that means the vehicle will be using more diesel to do the same work. Is that really done in the best interest of the environment? Hmm... Have the powers to be calculated all the pollution created while making the extra fuel needed vs the box measurements?? Me thinks there's more to consider...

I'd think using more fuel to do a task cleanly VS less fuel to do a task dirty is an interesting topic. It used to be "conserve fuel!!!" was the rally cry. Now its not so much how much you use but what byproducts are dumped into the environment. Let's say they find a way to make emissions 95% cleaner, but it'll take 50% more fuel to do it?

 

[Coyote machine]

My thought exactly, particularly since you finally admitted, to someone else, that I was correct. And like Darkblack, you insult.


Instead of explaining this, the purpose of a DISCUSSION forum, you insult. At least you're consistent.

I just edited my post to Darkblack, to clarify that it is you who are a waste of time trying to get through to...., not him.
People get tired of how you insist you're right all the time, when nothing could be further from the truth.
You chased me around this thread, now you're doing it to Darkblack. Either case, you're still wrong.

 

[Coyote machine]

I'd think using more fuel to do a task cleanly VS less fuel to do a task dirty is an interesting topic. It used to be "conserve fuel!!!" was the rally cry. Now its not so much how much you use but what byproducts are dumped into the environment. Let's say they find a way to make emissions 95% cleaner, but it'll take 50% more fuel to do it?

Now that we have less dependence on foreign oil the quantity used may be less of a problem in the short run; and what we're breathing, and it's consequences to health seem to be a bigger issue/priority.

This may tilt back to how much we burn to accomplish 'clean emissions', once we have depleted the renewed supply to dangerous levels where we may be forced to go get it elsewhere yet again.

 

[truckdiagnostics]

I'd think using more fuel to do a task cleanly VS less fuel to do a task dirty is an interesting topic. It used to be "conserve fuel!!!" was the rally cry. Now its not so much how much you use but what byproducts are dumped into the environment. Let's say they find a way to make emissions 95% cleaner, but it'll take 50% more fuel to do it?

Hmm, I have been saying that for years. Lets date our selves. Back in the 80's they put AIR on our cars the 49 state cars had one pump, pumping air into the exhaust manifold. Cars with it got worse, fuel mileage. They tried to tell us this was burning off the un-burned gas in the exhaust manifold. So, California makes even stricter regulations. So, California adds two and gets even worse mileage. Well the reality of it is the AIR pump pumps air into the exhaust diluting the exhaust so it would pass emissions. Friend Chevy Nova would not pass the emissions test, we just hooked up a 12v air pump in and diluted the air going out the tail pipe. passes every time. So, is the Chevy Nova producing less pollution. California Back in the 80's where the California cars really producing less pollution, no they produced more! Then they had to have even stricter regulations! Now, they have more of the newer trucks where the emissions don't work and in order for the companies to stay in business, its either delete the emissions or go bankrupt, because the repair costs are killing them on the new trucks for the emissions systems that don't work.
The things that make you go aha?

 

[aczlan]

Now that we have less dependence on foreign oil the quantity used may be less of a problem in the short run; and what we're breathing, and it's consequences to health seem to be a bigger issue/priority.

This may tilt back to how much we burn to accomplish 'clean emissions', once we have depleted the renewed supply to dangerous levels where we may be forced to go get it elsewhere yet again.

The question being, if the numbers were misrepresented and we needed a 50% drop in particulate emissions vs a 90% drop to get the desired health benefits.
If a 50% drop in emissions would get 7MPG more than a 90% drop (ie: 20MPG unloaded on the highway vs the current 13MPG for a 2016 F350), would that be worthwhile?

Aaron Z

 

[ultrarunner]

The two people I know with the affected Diesels were saying they get better than EPA mileage... so in test mode I would think it would be closer or less than EPA mileage.

Read two more newspaper stories today and both said the care pollute 40 times over the limit... neither said as much as 40 or up to 40... media bias?

 

[QRTRHRS]

The two people I know with the affected Diesels were saying they were getting better than EPA mileage... so in test mode I would think it would be closer or less than EPA mileage.

Read two more newspaper stories today and both said the care pollute 40 times over the limit... neither said as much as 40 or up to 40... media bias?

Media bias? Oh the humanity, say it "ain't" so. LOL!

No doubt that a good number of VW personnel need to be taken behind the woodshed and given a good thrashing. But, after that, a good number of the so called media needs the same. For sure the media will ride this dog until the next scandal. Meantime, back to the Kardasians.

 

[Gator6x4]

I think the VW emission problem comes down to "Lean Burn" during testing which would increase engine component heat but only for a short time and "Rich" run on the highway which would provide power, engine longevity and improved drivability but a dirtier exhaust emission.

The question in my opinion facing VW is how to insure engine longevity, provide power and improved drivability from a small cubic inch displaced diesel engine yet provide increased miles per gallon to offset the cost difference between diesel and gasoline.

 

[ultrarunner]

Longevity and torque has been a hallmark of the German automotive diesels... plenty of 30 to 40 year old Mercedes still on the California roads...

In most of the world Diesel fuel is significantly less expensive than gasoline...

I enjoy driving small Euro Diesels... plenty of grunt on the mountain passes and good economy at the pump.

In VW's situation... longer warranty could address longevity... a buy back program could address economic loss... but, there is the question of what to do with half a million cars.

Local Dealers are just that local... the one here is three generations of a local family that hooked up with VW in the 80's and kept building and expanding and has a lot of debt out there...

They don't build, engineer or design the cars... yet these americans... in this case hispanic Americans have invested heavily in VW and the tax base from the Dealership and workforce is all local...