Volkswagen AG stock 23% down

This is hilarious. People fighting over emissions from cars which IMO are some of the cleanest diesels while there's much worse pollution being generated unchecked. I own ships that burn 8 to 10 tons of bunker C per day with zero emissions testing or controls. I wonder how many of these evil tdi's it would take to equal the pollution one of my ships generate in one hour?

Give it time, that will come.

I'm not a rocket scientist, but if they had ~11mm cars on the road spitting out 40x the 'legal' emissions, wouldn't this be equivalent to the pollution from 440mm cars on the road operating at the regulated levels? That feels material to me.

 

I don't think 11mm cars have been spitting out 40x the legal limit. The multiplier may be 5x or 10x in the U.S.; no one really knows at this point. And I think only around 500k of those cars are in the U.S., and the limits are higher in other parts of the world. The 11mm number has been used as the estimated total number of cars equipped with the defeat devices worldwide.

Anybody know how to retrofit this technology onto existing cars for all the poor fuckers still in california?

 

Reflashing diesel engne computers has been around for a long time.

 

Unlike gasoline engines, diesels will make more power simply by injecting more fuel in to the combustion chamber with little regard for the air/fuel ratio.

 

Most diesel truck guys just remove these "tunes" before going through emmisions, and return them after they pass.

The idea that the engine computer reverts back to an enviromentally friendly "tune" when the emmisions diagnostic scanner is plugged in is not a far jump.

 

I am not an expert on this (disclaimer), but many experts feel that the soot coming out of a diesel is not nearly as bad for the enviroment than a gasoline engine. Visual impressions may suggest otherwise though LOL

 

 

 

 

 

Think it will take more than just a tune. Possibly the addition of DPF(Diesel Particulate Filter) and/or DEF(Diesel Exhaust Fluid). No one has ever added a DPF, everyone I know took them off. DEF is going to be much harder.

I'm not a rocket scientist, but if they had ~11mm cars on the road spitting out 40x the 'legal' emissions, wouldn't this be equivalent to the pollution from 440mm cars on the road operating at the regulated levels? That feels material to me.

 

 

6 freighter ships pollute more than ALL the vehicles in the US on a year over year basis. There are some 1900 freighter ships world wide.

Think it will take more than just a tune. Possibly the addition of DPF(Diesel Particulate Filter) and/or DEF(Diesel Exhaust Fluid). No one has ever added a DPF, everyone I know took them off. DEF is going to be much harder.

 

Although I have never stuck my nose under one on these V-dubs, I can't imagine they don't already have some sort of DPF/cat already.

 

I think the whole scam was to have the car make more HP and TQ from a smaller engine. That is VERY easy to do with turbo diesels. Dump more fuel and make more boost. When the car was tuned (or detuned in this case ) to meet EPA regulations it was probably gutless.

 

These big diesel truck guys can add 100 hp and 250 tq simply from a computer tune and no other modifications.

Activists will be working on banning performance cars very soon.

Although this is probably the dumbest thing you will see all day, it makes a point that diesel emissions are much less harmful than gasoline.

Even a clean running gasoline car can kill you from CO poisining.

 

This is hilarious. People fighting over emissions from cars which IMO are some of the cleanest diesels while there's much worse pollution being generated unchecked. I own ships that burn 8 to 10 tons of bunker C per day with zero emissions testing or controls. I wonder how many of these evil tdi's it would take to equal the pollution one of my ships generate in one hour?

 

I agree - suggest a group buy on all US tdi's settle the case make sure they toss in a few new Bugatti's ship units outside the US flip profits to purchase VW stock while it's on sale.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Although I have never stuck my nose under one on these V-dubs, I can't imagine they don't already have some sort of DPF/cat already.

 

I think the whole scam was to have the car make more HP and TQ from a smaller engine. That is VERY easy to do with turbo diesels. Dump more fuel and make more boost. When the car was tuned (or detuned in this case ) to meet EPA regulations it was probably gutless.

 

These big diesel truck guys can add 100 hp and 250 tq simply from a computer tune and no other modifications.

 

My duramax will do more with a tune alone than the stock tranny can deal with.

 

the issue with fixing this via tune, is you have a bunch of cars not making advertised hp or mpg. Now you're in a bind with the owners.

My duramax will do more with a tune alone than the stock tranny can deal with.

 

the issue with fixing this via tune, is you have a bunch of cars not making advertised hp or mpg. Now you're in a bind with the owners.

 

Yep. It's gonna be one hell of a class action lawsuit.

Good news.

VW is already working on remapping ECU to meet most stringent EPA standards.

 

 

The weirdest thing is that most folks don't give a flying shit about it. Hmmm.

My duramax will do more with a tune alone than the stock tranny can deal with.

 

the issue with fixing this via tune, is you have a bunch of cars not making advertised hp or mpg. Now you're in a bind with the owners.

 

Ok - so take the past / future mileage and VW cuts them a check.

 

EPA should have caught this but did not and now has more egg on their face than VW.

 

Still fail to see the bug deal

The issue with automotive emissions though isn't just about overall environmental pollution of the Earth, but rather local environmental pollution, such as in the cities. The big cities still suffer big problems with smog due to all of the automotive pollution. Even if automotive pollution plays a minimal role in global warming and overall global pollution, it plays a large role in people's health in the cities and getting it minimized as much as possible I think is important. When I used to live in Philadelphia, I remember I'd get sick feeling at the end of each school day due to the pollution in the air. Container ships may put out far more pollution while at sea, but the thing is, they are at sea, so the pollution does not condense like it does in a city.

 

Reflashing diesel engne computers has been around for a long time.

 

Unlike gasoline engines, diesels will make more power simply by injecting more fuel in to the combustion chamber with little regard for the air/fuel ratio.

 

Most diesel truck guys just remove these "tunes" before going through emmisions, and return them after they pass.

The idea that the engine computer reverts back to an enviromentally friendly "tune" when the emmisions diagnostic scanner is plugged in is not a far jump.

 

I am not an expert on this (disclaimer), but many experts feel that the soot coming out of a diesel is not nearly as bad for the enviroment than a gasoline engine. Visual impressions may suggest otherwise though LOL

 

I may be mistaken, but didn't the government outlaw those diesel tuning computers you can buy? Regarding the soot coming out of a diesel, at least from what I've read (also not an expert), the thing is that while it looks very dirty, it doesn't stay in the air but rather settles back down to the ground. Whereas the gasoline engine may look a lot cleaner, but the emissions it emits stay in the air.

I may be mistaken, but didn't the government outlaw those diesel tuning computers you can buy? Regarding the soot coming out of a diesel, at least from what I've read (also not an expert), the thing is that while it looks very dirty, it doesn't stay in the air but rather settles back down to the ground. Whereas the gasoline engine may look a lot cleaner, but the emissions it emits stay in the air.

No.

No.

 

So the particulate stays in the air?

Yeah!

So the particulate stays in the air?

Didnt read that part. Just about "computer" tuning.

6 freighter ships pollute more than ALL the vehicles in the US on a year over year basis. There are some 1900 freighter ships world wide.

 

Bingo, if the turn them nuclear we won't ever have to worry about cars and we will see NA Lambos for many years to come, win, win

6 freighter ships pollute more than ALL the vehicles in the US on a year over year basis. There are some 1900 freighter ships world wide.

 

 

I own four so how many tdi's does that equal?

As stated before - I do not think this is a big deal in the automotive scandal world when you look at the industry.

 

Also believe engineers were told to "get results" and they did. Question is did the board have knowledge and even if they did good luck proving it. The engineers did what they had to do and the EPA believed / approved them.

 

Bloomberg describes the process for these deceitful American tests, relayed by one of their sources.

 

First, instructions on how exactly the cars were to be tested were sent from Germany to California, where the cars were evaluated. These instructions were in German, then were translated to English.

The tests were carried out in California.

The results were sent back to Germany.

Finally, the results were sent from Germany back to America to the EPA.

If a car failed to pass its EPA inspection, VW would fly over an engineer from Germany to adjust the car, The troubled vehicle would then pass. Interestingly, these engineers were flown not only from VW but also from Ingolstadt, where Audi is located. It should be noted that Audi’s head of R&D may be forced out by VW over this dieselgate scandal.

 

Also on the chopping block is Wolfgang Hatz, who used to be head of engine development at VW Group.

 

Based on this, it appears that VW’s centralized structure was very much at play through the dieselgate development. VW USA might not even have been fully cognizant of what was going on back in Deutschland with their mysterious test cars.

I own four so how many tdi's does that equal?

 

Rough equation is 50M cars per freighter ship.

 

If i were you, I wouldn't hang out in close proximity to the running ships, they spew out some nasty cancer causing shit.

Bingo, if the turn them nuclear we won't ever have to worry about cars and we will see NA Lambos for many years to come, win, win

 

I can only wish this would happen. It won't because it is expensive and you need highly technical people to run it but if the US Navy can take an 18 year old and train him as an RO in 18 months we should be able to do this.

 

The problem comes in refueling. Commerical reactors are cracked open every 18 months for refueling. The Navy goes 30 years. The difference? Commercial reactors run at 3% enrichment and the Navy runs at closer to 98%. No way 98% pure uranium is making it on to the "open" market.

 

Now if accident tolerant fuel ever makes it out there (and we are damn close)...baby that is a GAME changer.

 

http://www.westinghousenuclear.com/About/N...t-tolerant-Fuel

Rough equation is 50M cars per freighter ship.

 

If i were you, I wouldn't hang out in close proximity to the running ships, they spew out some nasty cancer causing shit.

 

 

So I'm responsible for the pollution of 20m cars? LOL! You should see the fuel these things burn, if it cools down it has the consistency of tar, if it gets too cold it turns into a solid.

I can only wish this would happen. It won't because it is expensive and you need highly technical people to run it but if the US Navy can take an 18 year old and train him as an RO in 18 months we should be able to do this.

 

The problem comes in refueling. Commerical reactors are cracked open every 18 months for refueling. The Navy goes 30 years. The difference? Commercial reactors run at 3% enrichment and the Navy runs at closer to 98%. No way 98% pure uranium is making it on to the "open" market.

 

Now if accident tolerant fuel ever makes it out there (and we are damn close)...baby that is a GAME changer.

 

http://www.westinghousenuclear.com/About/N...t-tolerant-Fuel

 

Just to be clear as I am a dumbo on all this, but is enriched uranium not allowed on the market because it can be used to make nuclear weapons?