Diesel emission tests Should we believe that an engine could deliver more power and less fuel consumption due o ECU and software? (See VW)
Of course. Haven't you heard of tuning "chips"? most of them work to some extent. The engine "map" is a trade off between power, fuel efficiency, emissions and reliability. Engine makers choose the balance that they're after with the ECU programming. VW chose low emissions when it "counted" and other factors the rest of the time.
It's been known for years that vehicle manufacturers designed their fuelling & timing maps in order to pass the emissions regulations tests. So there is absolutely no point as far I'm concerned in getting holier than thou about it. All the manufacturers have been/are doing it, the only difference is that VW got caught. So why are we even a little bit surprised..? IMHO there are probably a lot of other manufacturers sh1tting bricks right now wondering if they're going to get caught as well ...... I thought it was interesting that the first organization in the US that set out to test the cars for "real world" emissions had no suspicion whatsoever and were actually trying to prove that the cars DID in fact meet US emissions regs in the real world rather than just in the Test Centre. All most "tuners" do is to bypass all the emissions crap in order to let the engine do what the man who designed it really intended in the first place.
OK I have taken your comments on board But why is it that the engine makers try to kid us that the new motors use less fuel and produce less pollution. I guess the industry is missing the point use less - produce less
They're not trying to kid you. Of course the new generation of engines use less fuel. Average MPG has probably doubled in the last 30 years. I can remember 20mpg being the norm now my nowhere-near-new 2.0L motor will do 35+MPG even round town and it's not even diesel. In reality it appears to me that all the manufacturers are trying to do is "comply" with an ever changing set of regulations put in place by ever more incompetent governments worldwide who believe that they must demonstrate a Green Agenda which IMHO is a total load of bolleaux. "Climate Change" (it's non-U to call it Global Warming any more because the numbers no longer back it up) is potentially a cash cow for so many organizations that it's going to turn the Windows Millenium Bug into nothing more than an insignificant blip on the radar.
Nige I admire your grasp of the situation however why is it that the industry excepts such a silly state of affairs ? KR Uffex
I would opine that it has something to do with the country that sets itself up as the "World's Policeman" .........
Yes I would endorse that view, who will benefit from massive fines?, thanks for the posts. KR Uffex
Better fuel efficiency is the natural result of being forced to reduce unburned hydrocarbons to meet particulate emission regs, etc. The easiest way to meet the new regs is to burn the fuel more completely and more efficiently, which produces more heat from a gram of fuel. More heat means more expansion, more turbo boost, more power, from the same amount of fuel. Might as well shout about it since you got it as a side benefit (or the only benefit) of the emissions reduction. I think we can save the polar bears without Tier 4. We can always feed them environmentalists if they're hungry, as we have a surplus.
Does anyone know if these cars have a DPF, cooled EGR or DEF? As I understand it higher firing temperatures are more efficient but produce NOX. Drop the firing temperatures and you produce carbon requiring a DPF. Using DEF is supposed to allow the high firing temperatures and make everything more efficient again. If VW is the only manufacturer not using this stuff I would have to wonder how they made the standards with just software.
As I understand it, the problem is NOX. When tuning for power and fuel efficiency, PM emissions go down, but NOX goes up. To get NOX down either requires the use DEF as a catalyst in the exhaust, or reducing power, which leads also to poor fuel economy. VW tried to get away from the DEF solution as they probably thought that may turn off some buyers. They found that the "economy" tune would pass the emissions test, while the performance tune would produce happy customers. If you recall a few years ago, Cat, Cummins, and Detroit Diesel all got caught doing pretty much what VW did, by "allowing" their engines to make power, and too much NOX, during certain situations not found in the EPA test cycle. This led to multi million $$ fines, and mandatory reprogramming of all engines when they were brought in to a dealer for service. I recall being a very unhappy customer when my 3406E was neutered with no warning during routine service. This was one of the reasons Cat gave up on on road engines. I read on another site that an enterprising person would be able to scour the wrecking yards for VW computers from wrecks in order to replace the soon to be neutered ones. The poor running cars will be able to be bought cheap, and restored to power with a switch of the module. This issue makes me wonder about the few manufacturers who claim to meet tier 4 without using DEF. I would not be surprised if they have some VW engineers helping with the programming. As stated above, I suspect there are many nervous companies right about now.
I agree with Nige about cars . But they are now geared much better and are shedding weight . As for everything else ,the last dozen years have brought more increases in fuel consumption from what I see . Manufacturers are 2 ashamed to publish specific fuel consumption in sales brouchers anymore . New models have A,B.C to reduce consumption by 10% but they forget about X.Y Z that increase it by 15% . That is my 2pence worth . Long live inline pumps
Everyone knows that vehicles with emission control use more fuel than the same engine with a full delete. Kind of backwards, cleaner engines use more fuel... doesn't really bode that well. Anyway; volkswagon, very cleverly, designed the engine to run when tested, very clean, the same engine under normal conditions runs normally, and uses less fuel and runs how it should. Incredibly clever. The sales line can boast excellent fuel efficiency and performance and exceedingly clean emissions. Genius. But then they were caught. Question is, who else of the manufacturers has been playing the same game?
It would be interesting to know the real truth about the BIG picture about this whole emissions BS. as to how much it actually saves in air quality. I am around trucks and equipment every day and next to all the major truck dealers ships in my area. you might be able to make me believe that these new engines run cleaner and more efficient ----WHEN THEY ARE RUNNING RIGHT.....with no codes or derated! which is not very often. just like last week when one of mine set an erg air flow code and derated grossing #98,500 coming thru the gorge in the foot hills and dropped to 25MPH in a no trucks in the left lane no passing for about 20 miles lets just say I wasn't very popular on the cb radio finally got to a place to pull off the let the mile of trucks get buy me. so how much more emissions did that cause with all those trucks being held up behind one in derate mode.plus the time and wasted energy in fixing it and manufacturing& shipping all those parts to get one truck fixed plus there is still another truck having to do the job of the one broke down. I don't keep track of how wreckers pass my place a day towing late model trucks to the dealers ships because of emissions problems every i go to a dealer ship to get parts some one is in there getting parts to fix some thing emissions related. I just hope that some one will wake up and realize all of this before it's to late and breaks the whole industry. but it's just like any just follow the money and you can find the root of the problem. it's getting to the point that if you need 2 trucks you had better buy 3 so one can stay in the shop so will have 2 trying to work
Thank you all for your response. Kind regards Uffex