Volkswagen's Clean Air Act violations on 2009+ TDIs spark huge recall, investigations

[meerschm]

I have a 2010 Golf TDI and I got my 60000 mile sevice and the 23o6 update just before we went on vacation. I haven't done hand calculations of my MPG since the 23o6 update, but what I have seen is a check engine light on our vacation (800 miles each way from Indianapolis to NC) which was diagnosed as a ERG failure which caused a DPF failure. Both the EGR filter and DPF were replaced at no cost to me (federal 8/80000 warranty).

Since the repair, in mostly city driving the car has done 5 regeneration cycles in 450 miles. That is about 5 times more often than it did before the repair I'm sure that that is affecting my MPG, but even more concerning is the increase in particulate production, and how quickly this will ruin the DPF again.

I was already considering giving up on TDI's even though every vehicle I've ever owned is a VW diesel from a 1988 Jetta diesel to my current 2010 Golf. With the diminished return on MPG vs the gas Golf, higher fuel prices, and possible reliability issues with the TDI, now it is almost a certainty.

the egr does not kill the DPF, it is the other way around.

a cracked DPF lets soot out that clogs the low pressure EGR filter.


likely that one aspect of the software fix you have is to run active regeneration on the DPF more often. this means regenerate before soot builds up too much. this should make the DPF last longer.

You could be better off than you think.

 

[Mark SF]

"By your logic, anyone who doesn't get fuel economy that matches the window sticker has been damaged... "

That is not my argument. My argument is this : if the car used to be rated for a certain MPG on the EPA test, and no longer gets those figures on the EPA test, AND those figures were part of the marketing claims, I do not have the car I thought I had purchased.

At this point, I certainly don't, as I understood that the car I was buying met statutory emissions requirements, and it does not.

In other words, YMMV, but the mileage on the standardised test shoudn't.

 

[turbovan+tdi]

By your logic, anyone who doesn't get fuel economy that matches the window sticker has been damaged...

Yep, pretty well all cars never get the mileage they are told they should.

 

[linux_author]

reading this thread is a real hoot... the way i look at this is that it's a win-win for us:

1. We now own a rare, unobtainable model of a vehicle type not available for sale commercially anywhere in the United States. We'll gladly sell you our '15 GSW TDI 'S' if you meet our price.

2. As long as nothing mechanically serious goes wrong, we can avoid going to the dealer. Our state does not have emissions testing, and seriously, when have car registrations ever been denied, even for vehicles with exploding gas tanks, spontaneously deploying airbags, and runaway acceleration? Not in our state I can tell you.

3. If we have to go to the dealer and the system is reflashed with a performance/mileage hit, we can always wait until out-of-warranty and go with a tuned 'upgrade.'

4. We still like the way the car drives, its mileage and performance is awesome in its current state. We don't feel like it's killing kittens on the highway. What about the multitude of vintage and antique carburetor vehicles on the road? Should they be banned too?

and in retrospect, VW's actions are really quite funny considering all the paperwork we signed at the closing with promises not to alter the vehicle's software - now that's funny!

willie
on the diesel-sippin' Gulf of Mexico

 

[tsingtao]

You're just spreading FUD. Even if it is true and every CR TDI is emitting 40 times the NOX specification, there is no way in hell that it will make LA have the same smog as 60 years ago.

Read what I posted in the context of the post I was replying to, please.

I didn't in anyway say that TDI's would make the smog like it used to be.

 

[Tfuce]

"By your logic, anyone who doesn't get fuel economy that matches the window sticker has been damaged... "

That is not my argument. My argument is this : if the car used to be rated for a certain MPG on the EPA test, and no longer gets those figures on the EPA test, AND those figures were part of the marketing claims, I do not have the car I thought I had purchased.

At this point, I certainly don't, as I understood that the car I was buying met statutory emissions requirements, and it does not.

In other words, YMMV, but the mileage on the standardised test shoudn't.

Either the mileage or the torque will have to change (or both), making the car much different than advertised, based upon an intentional, hidden, illegal work-around. I'd say he has a really good argument.

 

[Mark SF]

Yep, pretty well all cars never get the mileage they are told they should.

Really? I've always achieved something very close to the EPA estimates.

Audi A6 2000 : rated 17/24. Got exactly that.
BMW 525i 2003 : Rated 19/27. Got exactly that (maybe 28 on highway).
Jetta 2.5 2011 : 22/29. Got exactly that.
Land Rover Discovery 2004 : Don't ask.
Jaguar XJR 2002 : 15/22 - getting a bit less, think the 02 sensors are past their best.
Passat TDi : 31/43. 31 about town is about right, a bit more on the highway for sure.

People who complain that EPA estimates are inaccurate, misunderstand their purpose. The purpose is to have a standardised test, allowing the public to compare vehicle models. The purpose is not to tell you exactly what MPG you will get, as that would require a level of prescience from the EPA, of which I don't think they are capable.

 

[jhinsc]

I stopped by the large VW dealer near me on the way home from work this morning. I didn't see any stickers on the cars, but all the TDIs had been taken off the main lot and placed in the far back corner behind their building. Kind of in the area where they take trade ins that they are going to wholesale out.
All the cars on the main sales lot were TSIs. So someone had definitely segregated the diesels in a "non-sale" area.

May have been stated before but with this thread getting a lot of input I didn't catch up. I just read an article stating VW issued 'stop-sale' order for remaining 2015 TDI's and new 2016 TDI's.

 

[bubbagumpshrimp]

Yep, pretty well all cars never get the mileage they are told they should.

Mine have pretty much always been right on (other than my TDI)...even once they're fairly broken in. My '01 F-150 had ~120,000 miles on it when I got rid of it and it still got 16 MPG on the highway (exactly what was on the sticker).

 

[Gary Barnhill]

Well pardon my shorthand.

Window Sticker (to be a Window Sticker stickler) reads:

EPA/DOT Fuel Economy and Environment (Diesel Vehicle)

Fuel Economy 34 MPG combined city/hwy

30 city 40 highway

2.9 gallons per 100 miles

Fuel Economy & Greenhouse Gas Rating (tailpipe only)
A 1 to 10 bar with 10 being best indicates a rating of 9 for MPG and a rating of 8 for CO2.

Smog Rating (tailpipe only) shows a 1 to 10 bar and indicates a rating of 5.

The fine print: This vehicle emits 290 grams of CO2 per mile. The best emits 0 grams per mile (tailpipe only) Producing and distributing fuel also create emissions; learn more of fueleconomy.gov.

Actual results will vary for many reasons, including driving conditions and how you drive and maintain your vehicle. ......Vehicle emissions are a significant cause of climate change and smog.

---------------------

Do you suppose somewhere in all that fine prose is VW's "out"?

 

[croppz]

I had a 2013 Mustang GT 5.0 before I had this car. It was rated at 19/26 or something like that. I got 26 exactly when I drove to St Louis from NC. That's 786 miles. So it was dead on

 

[dmanb2b]

I have a feeling if Malone made a tune with all the emissions stuff and normal power EGTs will reek havoc on the turbo and DPF

There are plenty running stage 1.5 and stage 2 tunes with all emissions equipment in tact.

 

[bubbagumpshrimp]

Well pardon my shorthand.

Window Sticker (to be a Window Sticker stickler) reads:

EPA/DOT Fuel Economy and Environment (Diesel Vehicle)

Fuel Economy 34 MPG combined city/hwy

30 city 40 highway

2.9 gallons per 100 miles

Fuel Economy & Greenhouse Gas Rating (tailpipe only)
A 1 to 10 bar with 10 being best indicates a rating of 9 for MPG and a rating of 8 for CO2.

Smog Rating (tailpipe only) shows a 1 to 10 bar and indicates a rating of 5.

The fine print: This vehicle emits 290 grams of CO2 per mile. The best emits 0 grams per mile (tailpipe only) Producing and distributing fuel also create emissions; learn more of fueleconomy.gov.

Actual results will vary for many reasons, including driving conditions and how you drive and maintain your vehicle. ......Vehicle emissions are a significant cause of climate change and smog.

---------------------

Do you suppose somewhere in all that fine prose is VW's "out"?

Sure...assuming you just ignore the fact that they intentionally programmed the ECU so that the emissions system would be neutered and cause the vehicle to produce a higher amount of harmful emissions.

 

[K_ersk]

There are plenty running stage 1.5 and stage 2 tunes with all emissions equipment in tact.

For how long seems to be everyone's main concern, if during the test they had all emissions on then during driving on the street they came off, what's to happen when you hit a regen cycle more 2 times as often? (Extremely high temperatures) idk if you ever put your hand near the tail pipe after a cycle but you could roast a mallow.
Or does the tune take the software all the way back to how our cars came from factory?

 

[K_ersk]

I'm speculating that they find a true fix

 

[peteswensson]

I bought my 2015 Golf Sportwagen TDI model S on Thursday. I bought the car because I feel a moral obligation to minimize my environmental impact while still meeting the family's needs for a comfortable, functional, reliable car. Friday the EPA and CARB announced Volkswagen's cheating on the emissions testing. Now it appears I did not get the car that VW told me I was getting. I feel betrayed.

On another note, many on this site are complaining about the shortcomings of EPA fuel economy ratings. Be realistic. There is no way cars driven in mile-high Denver will get the same performance as those driven in sea-level Olympia, where I live. Likewise, hilly locations will give you lower mileage than locations on the pancake-flat prairies. Hot climates needing heavy use of the AC get a mileage hit. Aggressive driving reduces mileage. And so on and on. EPA mileage figures are based on laboratory testing in order to get consistent results, and are intended as a simple and reasonably reliable way for consumers to compare one vehicle to another. As they say, "Your mileage may vary."

 

[Jayg]

Yep, pretty well all cars never get the mileage they are told they should.

It's true. My wife's Prius C gets 58 mpg combined since new. Toyota lied to us.

 

[75r90rider]

Yep, pretty well all cars never get the mileage they are told they should.

Many, but not all. My Jetta TSI actually does better than the window sticker says it should, and without trying very hard at all. It's pretty easy to average the highway EPA number over an entire tank, including some city driving. If you don't run over 70mph, 40+ is attainable on a highway trip. I've never even come close to the city number.

 

[Jimmy Coconuts]

I wonder what the new (revised) EPA numbers will be for our TDIs if VW fixes the problem by an ECM update? It seems like the numbers will turn out to be lower than the advertised fuel economy at the time of purchase due to engine detuning by the update. I hope this generates a buyback or cash compensation for the FE difference.

Even if fuel efficiency in the LNT cars matches original EPA estimates after the inevitable detune, the excess soot produced from higher levels of EGR will greatly shorten the regen interval and shorten the service life of some very expensive components (dpf, egr filter, cat). Didn't we already see an uptick in dpf's cracking after the 23o6 update, which didn't even solve the NOx problem? How long do you think the dpf will last if the car is driven full-time in EPA test mode?

Hopefully the urea cars will only require a mild detune with double or triple dosing of adblue to comply, but I'm not holding my breath.

 

[dst5]

The most frightening phrase in all history!

Obviously you are just one of the anti government people who would rather be screwed by unregulated companies run amuck

 

[Aquaticmind]

NOx can't be that big of a pollutant.

You clearly haven't been reading the thread where the NOx has been discussed. It's a very potent green house, a strong oxidizer, contributes to acid rain and smog. So ya, it is a big pollutant.

The EPA is not interested in cleaning the environment - who benefits from this ? - if they really were - there would be far fewer full size trucks / SUVs on the roads (or the entry cost would be much higher).

The public benefits from enforcement of the Clean Air Act, but perhaps you like chronic asthma, acid rain, reduced property value because you neighborhood has poor air quality and no body wants to live there, and you like to hear your children wheeze.

The EPA has no way to keep people from buying big trucks / SUV's and I don't think you want the EPA to have that power. So they set standards on what can come out the tail pipe and let customer make the choice on what they buy. Raising gas taxes seems like a better way to reduce the number of big fuel inefficient trucks on the road, but some states like low gas tax and instead have terrible potholed roads... South Carolina I'm looking at you.

 

[Runnerguy45]

I own two TDI's. One 2011 with 230,000 miles and a 2015 that's a month and a half old. The thing that bothers me the most is if VW would do this to the US government and VW dealers what would they do to a customer ?

 

[tadawson]

You clearly haven't been reading the thread where the NOx has been discussed. It's a very potent green house, a strong oxidizer, contributes to acid rain and smog. So ya, it is a big pollutant.



The public benefits from enforcement of the Clean Air Act, but perhaps you like chronic asthma, acid rain, reduced property value because you neighborhood has poor air quality and no body wants to live there, and you like to hear your children wheeze.

The EPA has no way to keep people from buying big trucks / SUV's and I don't think you want the EPA to have that power. So they set standards on what can come out the tail pipe and let customer make the choice on what they buy. Raising gas taxes seems like a better way to reduce the number of big fuel inefficient trucks on the road, but some states like low gas tax and instead have terrible potholed roads... South C¡arolina I'm looking at you.

The issue I have is that it's not a binary decision. If 99% of the benefit can be had with say 75% of the regulation, and not drive jobs overseas and otherwise damage the economy, to me that is a better place to be. Yes, the EPA has done a lot of good, but has been allowed to overreach in many area so as to become more destructive than beneficial.

- Tim

 

[bubbagumpshrimp]

The issue I have is that it's not a binary decision. If 99% of the benefit can be had with say 75% of the regulation, and not drive jobs overseas and otherwise damage the economy, to me that is a better place to be. Yes, the EPA has done a lot of good, but has been allowed to overreach in many area so as to become more destructive than beneficial.

- Tim

VW hoodwinked you and you're mad at the EPA?

 

[bhtooefr]

To be fair, people were mad at the EPA before this, and wish VW could have just kept making ALHes forever.

 

[Mark SF]

Let's face it, if VW does compensate their customers, it will be because the EPA and/or CARB forced them to. Right now the EPA is our best friend, against a company that screwed us all.

 

[bubbagumpshrimp]

To be fair, people were mad at the EPA before this, and wish VW could have just kept making ALHes forever.

Oh I get ill feelings (in general) directed at the EPA. I'm just at a complete loss as to how this particular issue has to do with anything other than VW's decision to skirt emissions laws.

 

[livewires250]

I wouldn't be surprised if a possible loophole behind all this is to lower our mpg's so we have to use more fuel. We are not allowed to be be green- support petroleum production!!

 

[Aquaticmind]

The issue I have is that it's not a binary decision. If 99% of the benefit can be had with say 75% of the regulation, and not drive jobs overseas and otherwise damage the economy, to me that is a better place to be. Yes, the EPA has done a lot of good, but has been allowed to overreach in many area so as to become more destructive than beneficial.

- Tim

Sure hypothetically if you can 99% of what you want and 75% less regulation, that sounds great, but is completely ungrounded in reality. What if that last 1% is very very important?

I don't want and I suspect that you don't want the EPA to say you can't buy a SUV if you want one. With higher mpg standards and better emission control on big-rig diesels online now, there will be a slow decline in the old very very dirty big diesels engines and replacement with cleaner ones.

What EPA overreach do you speak of specifically? And you're correct it isn't binary.

 

[NYC-TDI]

This is what I've learned so far from this thread:

1. Lying is morally acceptable behavior.

2. High discharge levels of NOx reduces smog.

3. The EPA intentionally pollutes rivers.

We often shake our heads and wonder " what is wrong with these people?" when we read about religious cults and their bizarre and sometimes dangerous behavoir. But cult behavior often starts with irrational beliefs. I'm loathe to say it but this place is looking more and more like a proto cult. Truth is sacrificed, morality is rationalized, and blame is misdirected towards others, all in service of the cult of VW.

I would remind you that this is a company, not a religion.