from the will-run-and-run-unlike-their-cars dept.
An Anonymous Coward provides this brief summary, following up on the previously reported Volkswagen emissions scandal:
In the US, VW is already facing multiple lawsuits, as well as $18 billion in potential government fines. That's in addition to all their legal troubles in the rest of the world.
The Guardian has an interview with John German, the engineer who discovered that VW diesel cars turn off their pollution-reducing mechanisms when they're not being tested for pollution emissions.
Switzerland has instituted a sales ban on all affected diesels made by Volkswagen and subsidiaries. The ban does not affect cars which are already on the road, and newer cars in the 'Euro 6' emissions category.
The British government is facing allegations that they ignored evidence of the emissions test rigging which they received a year ago, and also that they tried to block EU regulations that would strengthen the testing regimens by requiring surprise checks in real-world conditions.
The US Environmental Protection Agency has announced that they will revamp their test procedures to prevent this kind of cheating in the future. The new additional tests will be "using driving cycles and conditions that may reasonably be expected to be encountered in normal operation and use".
Related Stories
Volkswagen has issued a statement regarding the emissions cheating incident:
Discrepancies relate to vehicles with Type EA 189 engines, involving some eleven million vehicles worldwide. A noticeable deviation between bench test results and actual road use was established solely for this type of engine. Volkswagen is working intensely to eliminate these deviations through technical measures. The company is therefore in contact with the relevant authorities and the German Federal Motor Transport Authority (KBA – Kraftfahrtbundesamt).
To cover the necessary service measures and other efforts to win back the trust of our customers, Volkswagen plans to set aside a provision of some 6.5 billion EUR recognized in the profit and loss statement in the third quarter of the current fiscal year. Due to the ongoing investigations the amounts estimated may be subject to revaluation. Earnings targets for the Group for 2015 will be adjusted accordingly.
Volkswagen does not tolerate any kind of violation of laws whatsoever. It is and remains the top priority of the Board of Management to win back lost trust and to avert damage to our customers. The Group will inform the public on the further progress of the investigations constantly and transparently.
From The Register:
To put that in perspective, Volkswagen's profits for the last financial year were €10.85bn (US$12.1bn), so the firm is banking on having to pay out at least half of its profits, and possibly a lot more. The EPA (US Environmental Protection Agency) has already said that the company could be liable for up to $18bn in fine and fix costs, and that was when only half a million cars were thought to be dodgy. As a result, the wheels have fallen off the company's stock price. Shares have nearly halved in value since the firm admitted using the emission-control software, and they are likely to fall further as the scandal unfolds.
Volkswagen's CEO Martin Winterkorn has already issued a public apology for his firm's conduct, and his position is looking increasingly untenable. Rumors of his forced retirement are already circulating, although these are being denied at present.
The case could also have an interesting knock-on effect in the software field. Technically, Volkswagen's software was covered under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act, meaning tinkerers couldn't have examined and altered the code. The EPA has been lobbying with car companies to make sure the DMCA continues to make engine management software off limits to tinkerers. But based on its experience with Volkswagen, the agency may be changing that stance.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation has been quick to pounce on the DMCA connection.
The BBC reports that this affects 11 million vehicles worldwide, although many of those have passed local emission controls satisfactorily. Neverthless, the same or similar software is believed to be fitted in all those vehicles. The EPA found the "defeat device", the device that allowed VW cars to emit less during tests than they would while driving normally, in diesel cars including the Audi A3 and the VW Jetta, Beetle, Golf and Passat models.
Update: Volkswagen chief executive Martin Winterkorn resigns.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 27 2015, @09:56PM
Has anyone gone shopping for a VW/Audi diesel since this story broke?
I'm wondering if, even after the reduced performance after the recall, there are some killer steals to be had?
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 27 2015, @10:03PM
Will this scandal affect the resale price of the car?
That is very much a matter of debate at the moment, given there is relatively little detail about the extent of the issue.
Jim Holder, editorial director at Haymarket Automotive which publishes WhatCar and AutoCar, told the BBC: "In the short-term there will be an impact on the value of these cars and their desirability. That is because we do not know where the other 10.5 million cars with these cheat devices are, which has led to an obvious concern there will be some in Europe."
The longer term picture might be better news for owners.
Dylan Setterfield, senior editor at CAP Black Book - a manual referred to by professional used-car dealers, says: "We do not expect there to be any significant impact on used values in the UK as a direct result of the US emissions scandal.
"The last global recall was the Toyota/Lexus issue, and despite the fact that this had serious safety implications, there was no discernible impact on used values."
He says there are reasons - other than emissions - that make diesel cars popular such as the pulling power of these engines.
"The overriding view is that diesel vehicles are more economical than their petrol equivalents - even if this is not always the case - and the torque characteristics of diesel engines are generally popular with drivers," he says.
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-34348694 [bbc.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 27 2015, @10:05PM
And... Wouldn't it be a shame if VW was forced to buy back every one they sold?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by frojack on Sunday September 27 2015, @10:32PM
Retaining the same components but adjusting the software is already known to negatively affect performance.
Even If it were possible to convert this engine to urea system without huge costs it would probably still pay a performance penalty.
So yeah, regardless of the hopeful talk, the cars are going to take a resale hit, especially in the US, where the fix (whatever it turns out to be) must be applied to pass emission inspections. Maybe in EU where city driving is more the norm nobody will notice.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by M. Baranczak on Sunday September 27 2015, @11:21PM
That car salesman is talking bullshit (sorry for the redundancy). Of course the resale value will be affected. Regulators will force VW to upgrade the software on all cars so that NOx emissions are within limits, which will reduce power and/or efficiency (this will play out differently in each country, but that's about what I expect). It's also funny that he refers to it as the "US emissions scandal"; yeah, it was originally revealed in the US, but VW sells these cars all over the world. It'll probably have much less effect on the US than Europe, since there are so few VW diesels in the US.
Interesting bit from the John German article:
German published the research in May 2014 and handed it over to the Environment Protection Agency (EPA). “There was an expectation that they would find out what was causing the higher-than-expected emissions,” he said. “We did send a courtesy copy to VW to say ‘vehicles B and C are your vehicles and you might like to know’, we had no response.”
There was no response from the EPA either, but keen-eyed German noticed an EPA press release in which VW agreed to recall almost 500,000 vehicles in December 2014 to reinstall software, which it said would solve the higher-than-expected emissions.
However, a couple of months later the California Air Resources Board (Carb) carried out spot checks and discovered that the “defeat device” software – used to dramatically reduces nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions only when the cars are undergoing strict emission tests – was still present.
So they knew they were busted, but they kept doing it. I can only speculate what happened there - maybe they bribed the EPA to forget the whole thing, but forgot to bribe the CARB?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 28 2015, @07:10AM
And now you know how Spaniards must have felt at the time about all that "Spanish flu" thing.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 28 2015, @12:45PM
Not mention how all the pigs felt about swine flu.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Whoever on Sunday September 27 2015, @11:34PM
Assuming VW updates the firmware to remove the emissions testing, this will make the cars less desirable, which may mean that unmodified cars will command a premium price. There seems to be an assumption that may people bought these cars as "clean". I think that people bought these cars as economical cars instead of clean cars.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by choose another one on Monday September 28 2015, @07:38AM
it is not yet clear that any modification is required in Europe - the EU standards for diesel/NOx are different to the US standards, it is very likely that the cars meet Euro V and always did. Upcoming Euro VI is a different matter, and they might have been tempted to cheat there too, but that standard is not in force yet.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 28 2015, @12:43PM
Euro 6 was announced in Sept 2014 and implemented in Sept 2015 - all new cars from this month forward must meat Euro 6 requirements which are about 2.2x higher than US requirements.
(Score: 2) by Adamsjas on Sunday September 27 2015, @10:44PM
Aren't the diesel models pulled from the US market?
I wonder if they can sell used diesels that they took in trade?
VW is advertising about the same as usual from what I notice, but most of what they sell in the US have gas engines.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 27 2015, @11:39PM
Ya, a great deal on a car that might, just might, not be allowed to be driven. I personally would not want to risk it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 28 2015, @12:01AM
> Ya, a great deal on a car that might, just might, not be allowed to be driven. I personally would not want to risk it.
It is pretty clear that the cheater device lets it pass EPA testing. Thus the solution is to make the cheater device operate all of the time. So there is no chance of the vehicle being banned from the road, only performance reduced.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 28 2015, @04:55AM
But maybe the emissions system doesn't have the required longevity to run all the time. After all, it was designed for only a few hours of test operation.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 28 2015, @05:04AM
Its just software settings, not under-engineering.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 28 2015, @06:19AM
And you know this how? Longevity of the emissions system is a key part of both US (120k miles, 10 years) and Euro (62.5k miles, 5 years) standards. It is written into the standards because it isn't something you can take for granted.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 28 2015, @06:47AM
> And you know this how?
Jorn Herner, chief of the Research Planning, Administration, and Emission Mitigation Branch of the California Air Resources Board's research division says so -- "These vehicles can operate within our regulations. Our priority now is to get them fixed so that they do so."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 28 2015, @02:49PM
Here's a quote from Christopher Grundler, director of the EPA’s Office of Transportation and Air Quality:
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 28 2015, @03:53PM
And an EPA director saying that all models will be fixed proves that they won't be fixed how exactly?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 28 2015, @04:54PM
The EPA guy says they still have to design the fix. It's not going to be a simple software update as was claimed above, by you or a different AC. And you are misreading the EPA statement, which does not claim that all cars will ever be fixed. Some of these may well go to the crusher.
(Score: 2) by davester666 on Monday September 28 2015, @04:57AM
I don't think you can buy a new one from a dealer anymore, at least here in Canada, and I'm not sure about used ones. I'm pretty sure the US is the same.
(Score: 1) by nitehawk214 on Monday September 28 2015, @02:44PM
But when your car fails to pass emissions, it will no longer be such a good deal.
I somehow doubt that VW will actually be on the hook to fix every vehicle affected. Corporations are great at weaseling out of obligations.
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 2) by VLM on Monday September 28 2015, @03:12PM
But when your car fails to pass emissions, it will no longer be such a good deal.
I wonder about trends in emissions testing.
Locally the public's collection of pre-ODB-II cars dropped low enough that they scrapped pre-ODB-II car emissions testing entirely (no test at all for pre... 96?) and the emissions test for ODB-II cars amounts to a mechanic plugging in a scan tool, verify no readiness checks or significant failure codes, and you're all done. Plus or minus corruption. Anyway the point being you pass if the ODB-II port says you pass... no exhaust gas analysis tests have been done in quite a few years, maybe half a decade.
Anyway if the EPA lets our state get away with no testing, I assume other states also get away with no testing? And a country that forgets Reagan's "Trust, but verify" will get what it rightly deserves?
In the long run waiting in line at a state service center for 45 minutes so they can shove a probe up your exhaust pipe for 5 minutes is really the only way to make sure this problem doesn't happen again. This is probably the most interesting long term result.
(Score: 1) by plover on Monday September 28 2015, @07:02PM
Assuming you have testing in your state. Minnesota tested cars between 1991 and 1999 but not since.
So unmodified TDI's with better performance might demand a higher value.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by frojack on Sunday September 27 2015, @10:06PM
Turns out VW was warned by their software suppliers not to cheat on emissions testing.
http://www.newsweek.com/volkswagen-knew-emission-cheating-years-ago-reports-377200 [newsweek.com]
So software company warns them, telling them how to do it, and gives themselves plausible deniability all at the same time.
Brilliant.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 27 2015, @10:33PM
Oh frojack, always jumping to conclusions.
More than likely the setting in the Bosch software was a limiter mode for testing purposes. Until you see the actual docs for the software and the letter telling VW not to use it in production vehicles it would be silly to decide that somehow Bosch wanted VW to use it in production and was just giving themselves plausible deniabilty with a wink-wink, nudge-nudge. But when have you ever chosen sense over silliness?
(Score: 4, Interesting) by frojack on Monday September 28 2015, @12:14AM
it would be silly to decide that somehow Bosch wanted VW to use it
No one said that Bosch WANTED VW to use it. Bosch explicitly warned the BOARD not to use it.
The wrote a letter to the BOARD in 2007.
The BOARD, not some low level engineer.
Why did they do that? Did they already know that VW was sneaking that so called test software into production?
Or do you somehow suggest that "cover your ass" a concept that Germans are unaware of?
Beginning with the 2009 production year (designed in 2007, manufactured in late 2008) those cars with software defeats are in the market place. The board must have rushed down to the design floor with this news, because its pretty rare to get anything into production in that short of time.
That being said, even VW doesn't deny that they DID use the defeats.
So one has to ask, why do YOU deny this? Do you have some information on this issue the press does not?
Recommend Google Translate if German is not your language.
http://www.bild.de/geld/wirtschaft/wirtschaft/warnte-schon-2011-vor-abgas-manipulationen-42736218.bild.html [www.bild.de]
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 28 2015, @12:55AM
> No one said that Bosch WANTED VW to use it.
Don't play that literalist game. You are the one who said "plausible deniability" - that phrase is commonly understood to mean approving but wanting to avoid responsibility for approving.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 28 2015, @03:47AM
The wrote a letter to the BOARD in 2007.
The BOARD, not some low level engineer.
Are you sure you read that right?
I don't see any mention of Bosch writing a letter to the board, only that the board's investigation over the past week turned up an internal warning from a VW engineer in 2011. There is basically no details given about the letter that Bosch sent in 2007, really none at all.
Without that giant leap of faith on your part, the entire conspiracy theory falls apart.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Monday September 28 2015, @04:20AM
Are you sure you read that right?
http://europe.autonews.com/article/20150927/ANE/150929837/bosch-warned-vw-about-illegal-software-use-in-diesel-cars-report-says [autonews.com]
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 28 2015, @04:51AM
What is your point? That is just another retelling of the same Bild story, which itself does not say anything about VW's board.
I am getting the impression that you are unwilling to admit your error because of pride. That's unfortunate because you are now actively spreading false information, that makes you an unreliable commenter.
(Score: 2) by Username on Sunday September 27 2015, @10:13PM
I wish they would just refer to him as John. It’s like reading a riddle.
(Score: 2) by M. Baranczak on Sunday September 27 2015, @10:48PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 27 2015, @10:20PM
Quite impressive, these "green" euro-trash choke in their smog-infested cities, and yet keep preaching to the rest of the world of their "green" virtue.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 27 2015, @10:43PM
Because all europeans are a single collective entity. Just like Zugdub. The Mighty Butthurt and I speak for all soybeans.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 27 2015, @10:49PM
hey, that's why I wrote green euro-trash. you know the sort. personally, for me, worse are the wet-behind-the-ear american idiots who buy the bullshit.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 27 2015, @10:38PM
VW must spend the money to fit the illegally polluting vehicles with urea-injection system. Give the owners choice of software update only plus money (for reduced mileage and performance) vs. installation urea injection device.
That's super expensive, likely worth multiple-year profit, and then there would be fines, but it will also go a long way to recover their reputation.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 27 2015, @10:39PM
A. Tailpipegate
B. Emissionsgate
C. Jettagate
D. NOxGate
E. ??
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 27 2015, @10:59PM
Gascam [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 27 2015, @11:09PM
lol
Context doesn't quite fit tho
(Score: 2, Informative) by WalksOnDirt on Sunday September 27 2015, @11:39PM
Fine ideas, but dieselgate seems to have been already chosen.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 28 2015, @01:10AM
Perhaps prematurely: what if similar firmware were installed on a petrol engine? Would it not provide better-looking results on emissions tests, along with better-looking results on fuel-economy tests, or greater power output on the road?
Some of these auto-makers may have thought "in for a penny, in for a pound".
(Score: 2) by dyingtolive on Monday September 28 2015, @02:38AM
Gasghazi
Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
(Score: 2) by shortscreen on Monday September 28 2015, @08:30AM
Fahrvergnugen?
(Score: 2) by arulatas on Monday September 28 2015, @02:42PM
Defeat gate?
----- 10 turns around
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Monday September 28 2015, @09:11PM
how about something without fucking "-gate" on the end
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2, Interesting) by jasnw on Monday September 28 2015, @12:10AM
So what's the end game for this? If VW gets hammered by huge fines and lawsuits that could mean the whole company comes down, taking a lot of good people with it who did nothing wrong other than work for a company that had its share of bottom-feeding-greedhead types. What's fair here on the possible penalties ranging from nothing to death-to-VW? It's back to the too-big-to-fail issue, but with fewer sleazebags involved. I'd like to see a coordinated (internationally) response wherein those who were behind all this from within VW are beaten like gongs and flogged through the streets of Wolfsburg, the entire board is fired, and VW is fined enough to hurt its major stockholders but not so much as to damage the company to the point of failure. In our less-than-perfect world I expect an end game where the only winners are lawyers and one-percenters and everyone else loses.
Oh yeah, and automotive software will still hide behind proprietary IP nonsense and more games will be played like this one, maybe next time killing people in real-time rather than over several decades.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by frojack on Monday September 28 2015, @12:30AM
I suspect the diesel line is dead for the short term.
But they make gas cars as well.
If the software fix prevents this defeat, that can be as little a $50 per car, plus some payment to the owner, maybe two or three thousand bucks.
If urea can be mixed with diesel just prior to injection that might be done and fitted for as little as a thousand bucks per car. (And if there are performance penalties, again a thousand or two to the owners).
So lets double every estimate and say $6000 per car, times 11 million, or about sixty-six billion.
VW made $28.6 billion profit on $254 billion in revenues in 2012, and its assets were worth $408 billion.
They could maybe withstand the 66 billion, 3 years profit, especially if they sold off some assets.
But if every country tries to slap them with 18 billion-ish fines, it becomes questionable.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by choose another one on Monday September 28 2015, @08:04AM
Trouble is they _have_ to make (and sell) the diesels to meet the EU CO2 targets, which are a lot tighter than US CAFE. A diesel is typically 15-20% better on CO2 (and mpg) than similar petrol, and they sell about 50% diesel, so if the diesel line is dead, the petrol line has to improve economy by 7-10% overnight. Aint gonna happen. Unless they cheat on the mpg/CO2 tests... except they already do that, all of them not just VW.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Monday September 28 2015, @09:13PM
US CAFE standards have nothing to do directly with CO2.
Its strictly a Corporate Average Fuel Economy standard.
It only indirectly affects CO2 emissions.
In the US, CO2 targets are being met mostly with electric and hybrid vehicles, and diesel plays a much smaller role.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Monday September 28 2015, @11:05PM
Oh, and by the way, US standards for CO emissions are about the same as EU standards, once you convert grams per KM to Grams per Mile, US standards are tighter.
US standards required of ALL passenger cars (Table 6): https://www.dieselnet.com/standards/us/ld_ca.php [dieselnet.com]
EU standards required of Diesel and Petrol passenger cars: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_emission_standards#Emission_standards_for_passenger_cars [wikipedia.org]
So again, it appears
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 28 2015, @12:46AM
FUCK YOU. You didn't say the same when GM was going under, were you? Fucking Euro Trash.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by isostatic on Monday September 28 2015, @01:58AM
Issue new stock to the value of the fines.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Gravis on Monday September 28 2015, @02:00AM
If VW gets hammered by huge fines and lawsuits that could mean the whole company comes down
LOL! you dont think they can pay an $18B fine? you clearly dont grasp how much money they have.
I'd like to see a coordinated (internationally) response wherein those who were behind all this from within VW are...
and i want a pony and yet neither of us is getting either of those.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 28 2015, @11:13AM
Indeed. The total proposed US fine is, I believe, only half of their profits last year. Even if they were fined down so that they made zero profits, one must remember that we're talking profit, which means all their obligations for the year have been paid (employee salaries, benefits, etc.), even including things like advertising. Even in this case it would not hurt the employee bottom line unless the board decides to make it so. Unless they're talking about fining a company in an amount much greater than their annual profits, there isn't any chance of "bringing the company down".
(Score: 1) by einar on Monday September 28 2015, @05:46PM
Yet, it would be very elegant if we would find a way to hold decision makers fully responsible while keeping enterprises and the jobs tied to them intact. This would also stop attempts to use the opportunity to get rid of competition. Any "punishments" against companies from other countries always have this stale taste of taking revenge on competition...
(Score: 3, Insightful) by bradley13 on Monday September 28 2015, @09:30AM
I'd like to see a coordinated (internationally) response wherein those who were behind all this from within VW are beaten like gongs and flogged through the streets of Wolfsburg, the entire board is fired, and VW is fined enough to hurt its major stockholders but not so much as to damage the company to the point of failure.
I agree, but let's be more precise about the "beaten like gongs" bit. Top level managers in too many (all?) large companies apparently value profit over ethics. This needs to be a real, serious lesson, and it needs to be repeated in every large company, every time something like this happens:
Specifically: No more hiding behind the corporate veil. If a manager knowingly makes a criminal decision, that person should be personally liable. Confiscate the manager's personal assets and hand them over to partially compensate the company (i.e., the shareholders) for the enormous expenses that those criminal actions incur. Add jail time as appropriate, but hitting them in their yachts sends the clearest message of all.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 28 2015, @01:34AM
The lawyers hired by VW to carry out an investigation have announced that in 2011, a technician at the company warned them about the misconduct, Frankfurter Allgemeine reported.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 28 2015, @02:16PM
EU folks suspected this problem since 2013 at least:
from a draft version of their Clean Air Impact Assessment [europa.eu].
(Score: 2) by Techwolf on Monday September 28 2015, @04:21PM
The EPA test is outdated. The EPA needs to update emmision standerds to pounds of polluction per hoursepower per 1000 miles driven. Then there would be no need to cheat the test.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 28 2015, @07:31PM
That is the standard used in the USA for heavy hauling vehicles like semi trucks.
It would make no sense to use it for light vehicles such as passenger cars or light trucks because it would result in increased pollution--pollution that is not necessary, unlike the somewhat unavoidable case when the engine is being used inside a big semi truck to haul tons of freight.
I guess you wouldn't mind spewing out more smog-causing pollution to have a peppier engine in your personal vehicle, but it is not worth the societal cost. Get a gasoline engine if you really want the extra power -- or an electric or hybrid vehicle.