CARB/EPA reject proposed fix 12-14 2.0L Passat Manual Vehicles
- Thread starter drsven
- Start date
MBQ
Veteran Member
"Specifically, Vehicle #0002 tested at EPA had one FTP test result of 0.191 grams NOx+NMHC per mile which exceeds the 0.190 Maximum Emission Limit. Similarly, vehicle #28 tested at CARB had FTP emissions results of 0.219 and 0.247 grams NOx+NMHC per mile. Settling Defendants provided a third vehicle to CARB (#33) for testing. Vehicle #33 had an initial passing result but in its second FTP 75 test
had a result of 0.195 grams NOx+NMHC per mile. "
It looks like each fixed vehicle needs to pass each every single testing, not even being allowed a mere 0.5% miss. Pretty strict. EPA/CARB is doing its job.
had a result of 0.195 grams NOx+NMHC per mile. "
It looks like each fixed vehicle needs to pass each every single testing, not even being allowed a mere 0.5% miss. Pretty strict. EPA/CARB is doing its job.
Last edited:
Trade Wind
Veteran Member
Very interesting. I wonder if Volkswagen will try again, or if these cars will be crushed. At this point I wonder if the cheaper thing for Volkswagen is to just forget about these cars, there can't be that many manual cars in this year range. Another round of testing would be costly, maybe not even possible by the deadline.
I was always going to either get the fix or take the buyback. Clutch problems forced the buyback on me early. It looks more likely now that the buyback would have been my only option to get some VW $$ anyway.
I was always going to either get the fix or take the buyback. Clutch problems forced the buyback on me early. It looks more likely now that the buyback would have been my only option to get some VW $$ anyway.
Last edited:
john.jackson9213
Top Post Dawg
VW is going to have to do what ever it takes, PERIOD. Cost of repair is NOT an excuse or issue. VW intentionally broke the law. Their liability is unlimited.
CARB/EPA are not out to punish VW owners who purchased the new cars, so nobody is going to "make" owners sell or scrap their cars.
If VW can not fix the issue, CARB will insist VW pay for fixes to remove other emissions in California so VW owners can keep their cars and the California air quality is not adversely affected.
CARB/EPA are not out to punish VW owners who purchased the new cars, so nobody is going to "make" owners sell or scrap their cars.
If VW can not fix the issue, CARB will insist VW pay for fixes to remove other emissions in California so VW owners can keep their cars and the California air quality is not adversely affected.
turbocharged798
Veteran Member
john.jackson9213
Top Post Dawg
CARB does nothing more than enforce California Laws as enacted by the legislature. CARB acts within the full authority of California law.
The vast majority of California voters support clean air requirements.
Fourplay
, TDI Parts Ninja Vendor , w/Business number
Remind me again how it is CARB/EPA's fault that VW broke the law?
Oh wait...
Totally out of control - enforcing laws they were created to enforce. OMG!
turbocharged798
Veteran Member
Set ridiculous laws, expect them to get broken. New 10MPG ford raptor, legal 50 mpg TDI not legal.
If they would just pull back on the NOx requirement, we could get much more clean burning efficient diesels. They did it because they knew it would cause diesels to be pushed off the road.
What about gassers and their ultra-fine PM, EPA, CARB just sticks their head in the sand and pretends it does not exist.
I am all for clean air but it needs to be done scientifically, not with agendas and paid off scientists to come up with bunk conclusions.
If they would just pull back on the NOx requirement, we could get much more clean burning efficient diesels. They did it because they knew it would cause diesels to be pushed off the road.
What about gassers and their ultra-fine PM, EPA, CARB just sticks their head in the sand and pretends it does not exist.
I am all for clean air but it needs to be done scientifically, not with agendas and paid off scientists to come up with bunk conclusions.
forrest resto`s
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2007
- Location
- athens ga.
- TDI
- 2000 jetta tdi auto rc2 2013 passat tdi 2015 passat tdi auto 2011 jetta tdi nav. s'roof..man. dpf delete 1970 GTO JUDGE 520 HP
I couldn't have said it better
Let me guess- your favorite Stones song is Sympathy for the Devil.
john.jackson9213
Top Post Dawg
Most California voters are pleased with our state's clean air requirements and are willing to pay the costs. Plain and simple.
Your comment about paid off scientists is really childish.
Fourplay
, TDI Parts Ninja Vendor , w/Business number
"Clean burning" but producing huge amounts of NOx?
The fact of the matter is that we have SCR techniques that can easily reduce NOx levels below current emissions standards. But, VW made a purposeful choice to break the law in order to save $300-400 in production costs per car.
PM0.5 standards will come eventually (probably not under the current idiot in chief, but still) - they have been part of Euro V and VI for DI cars since 2009.
If you want to get up in arms about anything, it should be large truck diesel emissions, which are virtually unchecked.
scooperhsd
Top Post Dawg
Not any more.
GoFaster
Moderator at Large
WRONG
Heavy trucks and buses all have DPF and SCR nowadays.
By the way, the Passat in question also has SCR, but it's an added-on system as opposed to the 2015+ models in which it was integrated into the design of the engine's intake and exhaust systems.
MBQ
Veteran Member
Since you appeared to be technical, let me ask you a question. In terms of emmission compliance/being brought into compliance, What's the difference between 3.0L gen 2 and 3.0L gen1 TDIs or the Ram 1500 3.0L diesels?
As far as we know, VW' fix plan for gen 2 vehicles were not approved for their April/June submission. It's very likely that after they submitted supplemental materials for SUV2.2 & SUV2.1. They are not approved either, because EPA/CARB has 45 days to inform VW of the results. So VW is certainly scrambling up additional materials trying to satisfy EPA/CARB. As of now, the longer VW prolongs the process, the less likely they'll come up with a compliant fix plan in time.
tadawson
Veteran Member
And a large part of the other 49 states think that California's cheese has slipped off it's cracker . . .
So what's your point again? That somehow popularity should matter here, or ? ? ?
And from what I have seen, there is some truth to 'paid off scientists' . . .
turbobrick240
Top Post Dawg
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2014
- Location
- maine
- TDI
- 2011 vw golf tdi(gone to greener pastures), 2001 ford f250 powerstroke
Who are these paid off scientists and for what purpose have they been paid? The VW cheat was unveiled by college students/instructors, not some nefarious corrupted scientists. In my experience scientists are in science for the advancement of knowledge. It's the politicians who are easily corrupted by industry lobbyists.
scooperhsd
Top Post Dawg
Matt-98AHU
Loose Nut Behind the Wheel Vendor
So, this is the official rejection letter that most of us were aware these cars did not pass with their proposed fix back in May? Or is this a rejection of a subsequent fix proposal made after the initial rejection?
Just trying to judge how swift the government moves here
FWIW, California and other Western states have unique conditions that amplify pollution problems. It also doesn't rain for months on end in most of the state, which also helps a lot to clean the air (seriously, clearest days you get out here is immediately after a rain).
Pollution controls do make sense. Though I will say the current regs are insanely close to zero, I'm amazed at the engineers who are able to make cars meet such regs.
I won't argue against the efficacy of CARB's rules, but I do sometimes question how far the more recent regs go, especially in light of the fact this whole ordeal is negatively affecting otherwise very clean and supremely efficient vehicles. Some could justify leaving the cars be since they are very clean in other ways and efficient.
That and of course many diesel heads like to cite "the weekend effect" where lower NOx output actually made air quality worse in a study done in L.A..
NOx does contribute to smog, but it's a complex reaction that involves heat, sunlight and VOCs/NMOGs (which gas cars emit more of). And getting to a specific ratio can maximize smog production, apparently when the study was done, reduced NOx got the ratio to the point of increasing smog rather than reducing it.
Other studies seem to feel a much more drastic reduction will have a more positive effect on air quality--eventually--than leaving NOx where it was.
Valid arguments on both sides, but as a mechanic I'm just seeing cars more and more become throwaways because they're becoming more problematic and expensive to repair, which is also not exactly helping environmental concerns. But CARB's job is only to be concerned with air quality, the big picture is not their concern.
Just trying to judge how swift the government moves here
FWIW, California and other Western states have unique conditions that amplify pollution problems. It also doesn't rain for months on end in most of the state, which also helps a lot to clean the air (seriously, clearest days you get out here is immediately after a rain).
Pollution controls do make sense. Though I will say the current regs are insanely close to zero, I'm amazed at the engineers who are able to make cars meet such regs.
I won't argue against the efficacy of CARB's rules, but I do sometimes question how far the more recent regs go, especially in light of the fact this whole ordeal is negatively affecting otherwise very clean and supremely efficient vehicles. Some could justify leaving the cars be since they are very clean in other ways and efficient.
That and of course many diesel heads like to cite "the weekend effect" where lower NOx output actually made air quality worse in a study done in L.A..
NOx does contribute to smog, but it's a complex reaction that involves heat, sunlight and VOCs/NMOGs (which gas cars emit more of). And getting to a specific ratio can maximize smog production, apparently when the study was done, reduced NOx got the ratio to the point of increasing smog rather than reducing it.
Other studies seem to feel a much more drastic reduction will have a more positive effect on air quality--eventually--than leaving NOx where it was.
Valid arguments on both sides, but as a mechanic I'm just seeing cars more and more become throwaways because they're becoming more problematic and expensive to repair, which is also not exactly helping environmental concerns. But CARB's job is only to be concerned with air quality, the big picture is not their concern.
Good question, the test dates listed are from April, but this document is dated 9/7?So, this is the official rejection letter that most of us were aware these cars did not pass with their proposed fix back in May? Or is this a rejection of a subsequent fix proposal made after the initial rejection?
Just trying to judge how swift the government moves here
.
Fourplay
, TDI Parts Ninja Vendor , w/Business number
Just because they have SCR and DPFs doesn't mean their emissions aren't insanely high.
For 1 hour of operation, a typical 420bhp 18-wheeler is allowed up to 82g of NOx production. Doesn't matter how fast or slow the vehicle travels. Let's say 40 mph.
For 1 hour of operation at that same 40 mph, a Tier II, Bin 5 vehicle with 50k miles (like the VW TDIs) is allowed 2g of NOx production.
A truck is producing 40x the amount a car is. And that's only on 2007+ vehicles. Older vehicles pollute at a much higher level.
Yes, and it wasn't operating at the level required to meet emissions standards. The point is that the technology existed to allow diesel vehicles to meet mandated emissions standards, but VW blatantly disregarded the law. That's why they lost a $20B lawsuit and some engineers are facing criminal charges.
john.jackson9213
Top Post Dawg
My point here is that CARB is not "out of control". CARB simple does the job assigned to it by the laws of California. Nothing more, nothing less.
As for popularity, If the people of California are unhappy with CARB, then the law would be changed by the people of California thru the initiative process. That has not happened.
tadawson
Veteran Member
The scientists in question were far more likely to be onthe EPA payroll to support the current standards . . . . amazing how the results of paid research often automagically support the point of view of the payer, isn't it? Ask Gore how that works . . . or the folks that have been caught manipulating climate data . . . It happens, sadly . . .
Last edited:
GoFaster
Moderator at Large
The heavy-duty emission limits are indeed based on grams per horsepower-hour, but it's not allowed to emit at the rate indicated by maximum power output regardless of how little power it's actually making at any given instant as you suggest. It is based on grams per horsepower hour of actual power output during a standardized testing cycle.
https://www.dieselnet.com/standards/us/hd.php
https://www.dieselnet.com/standards/cycles/ftp_trans.php
The current federal limit is 0.2 g/hp.hr.
For light duty Tier 2 bin 5 (what the VW TDI was originally claimed to meet) it's 0.07 grams per mile.
The thing that we don't know to make a remotely valid order-of-magnitude comparison between the two is how much power on average it takes to propel the car over the light duty federal test procedure. Let's make a guess just to put an order-of-magnitude number on the table: 10 horsepower. It certainly is not 100 horsepower, and it's surely more than 1 horsepower. Good enough for now.
We know that the average speed over the Federal Test Procedure is 21.2 miles per hour. So if it were to drive the Federal Test Procedure repeatedly, the car would be allowed to emit 0.07 x 21.2 = 1.5 grams per hour.
If we were to hypothetically apply the heavy-duty standard using our guesstimate of 10 horsepower average demand to operate the car over the test procedure, that's 10 hp/hr per hour, it would emit ... 2.0 grams per hour.
Given that we don't really know what that average horsepower demand is to operate the car over the Federal Test Procedure and that the 10 horsepower number arises simply because we know it's not 100 and we know it's not 1, this is remarkably close agreement, and indicates that the "level of technology" to achieve those sorts of emission levels ought to be more or less the same. And it is ... Oxidizing catalyst, DPF, and SCR. Yes, the car engines have EGR as well ... so do some truck engines, although the function of EGR can be achieved through valve timing trickery without actually having an EGR system.
It stands to reason that even if the "level of technology" were the same, a heavy truck that takes 10 times as much power to push down the road is going to be expected to emit more.
GoFaster
Moderator at Large
Unfortunately, with these emission control systems, the devil is in the details, and I certainly don't know what details are tripping VW up. The FiatChrysler situation seems to have been mostly failure to have AECDs approved - they had undeclared AECDs in their calibration. I know FiatChrysler had to tweak their calibration but it doesn't seem to have been much of a real-world issue, and those engines are back on sale. The engines had the hardware that was needed.
It's not enough to just have SCR. The catalyst has to be kept in the proper temperature range and it has to be big enough but not so big that it can't be kept hot enough. The gen 2 (the one VW seems to be having trouble with) has the catalysts spread out underfloor. The gen 3 - and other modern diesel engines from other manufacturers - has the catalysts tightly connected to the engine to minimize the opportunity for heat loss. Easier to keep them hot in that case.
740GLE
Top Post Dawg
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2009
- Location
- NH
- TDI
- 2015 Passat SEL, 2017 Alltrack SE; BB 2010 Sedan Man; 2012 Passat,
I pass 3-4 3/4 ton farm boy trucks that lack anything EPA related each day. I've seen the same truck around town with a 4" stack for the past 4 years, that's 4 years it's passed state emissions/safety inspection that must verify all federally regulated emissions equipment are in place.
Also how do "glider trucks" pass the litmus test of the heavy duty trucking inspections?
GoFaster
Moderator at Large
Whooaaa, hold it. In-service emission control checks or the lack thereof (what you are describing) is a whole different ball game from what the vehicle's original manufacturer has to build the vehicle to (what I am talking about).
Lack of enforcement at the regional/local level is a whole separate issue. Some areas have no testing. In areas with testing, the hot-rodders probably have a go-to guy who will pass anything. Look around on these very forums for discussions on how to get through emissions inspection programs ...
"Glider trucks" - are because with heavy-duty vehicles, the emission control certification is to the powertrain, not to the vehicle that it's installed in.
Lack of enforcement at the regional/local level is a whole separate issue. Some areas have no testing. In areas with testing, the hot-rodders probably have a go-to guy who will pass anything. Look around on these very forums for discussions on how to get through emissions inspection programs ...
"Glider trucks" - are because with heavy-duty vehicles, the emission control certification is to the powertrain, not to the vehicle that it's installed in.
turbocharged798
Veteran Member
Hard to take that graph seriously when it says NOx causes particulate matter...