VW caught cheating on emissions

[calypsocoral]

I'll give you a hint, Richard-- we started seeing 350+ci v8's struggling to produce 150 horsepower right around 1974...

[Ron W.]

 

I do think we are seeing another classic case of the emissions standards getting ahead of the technology

 

We already have the technology and is IS being used.

 

So, because I suggested that the EPA standards were too strict for most automakers

 

"Most" automakers selling diesels in the U.S. are complying with the law.

[akirby]

 

What was the first?

 

1979 Pontiac Trans Am 400 ci V8 w/200 hp?

[akirby]

 

We already have the technology and is IS being used.

 

"Most" automakers selling diesels in the U.S. are complying with the law.

 

Yes but they have to jump through hoops and use expensive technology to do it.

[RichardJensen]

I'll give you a hint, Richard-- we started seeing 350+ci v8's struggling to produce 150 horsepower right around 1974...

 

But did those engines meet the emissions standards?

 

If they did, then the standards had *not* exceeded the capacity of the technology to meet them.

Edited December 16, 2015 by RichardJensen

[MY93SHO]

 

Yes but they have to jump through hoops and use expensive technology to do it.

I remember when everyone thought it was cool to cut the catalytic converters off. Doesn't mean it was smart.

 

Certain people will always find something to rail and complain about.

Edited December 16, 2015 by MY93SHO

[akirby]

 

But did those engines meet the emissions standards?

 

If they did, then the standards had *not* exceeded the capacity of the technology to meet them.

 

But it did exceed the capacity of the technology to meet existing performance standards.

[RichardJensen]

 

But it did exceed the capacity of the technology to meet existing performance standards.

 

That's a fair point--if your primary focus is on performance.

 

The fact that the most beloved cars from that period *today* are performance cars is more or less irrelevant to what the situation was then. The vast majority of the vehicles on the road then were used for quotidian purposes, and they did so in an incredibly dirty and inefficient fashion. Emissions regulations did not interfere with these ordinary vehicles' ability to perform ordinary tasks within the law. So I consider the overall argument to be a bit flawed.

 

A nostalgia-tinged view of the emissions era, driven by the endless contemporary complaints of the enthusiast press is an essentially revisionist pose.

[630land]

"Mad ...? Thank your government!"

 

ohh booo hoooo! Fan bois think it's "cool" to pollute, just for a .1 second faster drag race time. So tired of the whining about emission controls, dating back 50 years. But look at the old pic of LA with dirty air. Ever try to breathe following a 'classic' car? It's like chugging gas. VW simply wanted to 'get away' with it to get to be #1 in sales, then shifts blame.

 

"Oh no, my car will be slower!" [if corrected]

Really? You were planning a drag race for pink slips?

[calypsocoral]

It's called "competition"-- consumers naturally gravitate toward higher numbers, be they performance figures (horsepower, torque), or gas mileage. Having to lower those numbers (in this case, both performance AND efficiency) in order to meet the emissions controls puts one at a competitive disadvantage.

 

True, VW should have complied with those regulations--I've never said they were right to market a product they knew did not meet enacted regulatory standards-- but they saw an incentive not to, even though they had the ability to do so. I wonder why...?

 

And, by the way, the original regulations may have been enacted decades ago-- but they are revised to an ever more-stringent set of standards pretty frequently.

 

So knock it off with the feigned outrage and your cartoonish caricaturizations of anyone who has a different opinion than you (or, in this case, an actual grasp of the facts).

[BrewfanGRB]

 

So, because I suggested that the EPA standards were too strict for most automakers to comply with, and are far more strict than is necessary to maintain or improve our air quality, I somehow want everyone to breathe smog?

 

 

What's striking is your inability to see the inherent contradiction in this statement.

 

And, by the way, the original regulations may have been enacted decades ago-- but they are revised to an ever more-stringent set of standards pretty frequently.

 

So knock it off with the feigned outrage and your cartoonish caricaturizations of anyone who has a different opinion than you (or, in this case, an actual grasp of the facts).

 

Is your argument that regulations shouldn't be revised to obtain better results and lower emissions? Has technology advanced from the time the regulations were formulated or not? If engine technology has advanced, why shouldn't the standards be stricter? You contend--based on opinion, not fact--that the standards have gone beyond our ability to meet them. And that's fundamentally not true. They might not be able to be met at a price you want to pay, but they can be met. Pretty easily, in fact.

 

And whining "act your age, not your shoe size" while telling people only you have an actual grasp of the facts is hilariously hypocritical.

 

I'd also suggest that if you're going to be Mr. Facts, you should improve your spelling and/or grammar. If you meant "cartoonish caricature", it's needlessly redundant. If you meant "cartoonish characterizations" you should use a dictionary.

 

 

Yes but they have to jump through hoops and use expensive technology to do it.

 

So?

Edited December 17, 2015 by BrewfanGRB

[matthewq4b]

 

That's a fair point--if your primary focus is on performance.

 

The fact that the most beloved cars from that period *today* are performance cars is more or less irrelevant to what the situation was then. The vast majority of the vehicles on the road then were used for quotidian purposes, and they did so in an incredibly dirty and inefficient fashion. Emissions regulations did not interfere with these ordinary vehicles' ability to perform ordinary tasks within the law. So I consider the overall argument to be a bit flawed.

 

A nostalgia-tinged view of the emissions era, driven by the endless contemporary complaints of the enthusiast press is an essentially revisionist pose.

 

 

I would have to say emissions in the mid 70's did out strip the tech. And Emissions regulations certainly did interfere with these ordinary vehicles' ability to perform ordinary tasks within the law.

 

Besides the huge power loss. think the 400 Pontiac was bad how about 198HP out the 7.6L 460 in 77 and 78 with corresponding single digit FE numbers even on the hyway in some applications. Reliability took a complete dump, with engine life in being cut in half or even more, driveability issues ,stalling,rough running,over heating,no start, no stop (run on), increased maintenance, shorter component life, for things like carbs,many cars needed yearly carb rebuilds to be able to handle the transition from summer to winter due to the lack of available tech in early the emission carbs and ignition systems.. Then there was the fuel economy loss with it being cut in half and crap load more in certain applications that now needed larger engines to do the same job as prior some vehicles were seeing a loss of up to 10MPG or more doing the same job, emission recalls out the wazoo. 74-79 seen some of the absolute worse vehicles ever in terms of power, reliability ,fuel economy to ever come out of Detroit. Yes they complied with the regulations but even then they did not really.

 

Absolutely everyone cheated on the emission testing of the era with specially prepped vehicles, engines and drive-lines for emission testing cause there was not any hope they could offer a vehicle that had any sort of reliability or driveability and meet the emission regs. They certainly tried and we ended up with things like the boat anchor Motorcraft 4350 carbs that had to be retrofitted with Carter Thermoquad's in some calibrations and the emmsion thermoquad was no gem of a carb either. Failed Ford electronic ignition modules, this was a pandemic issue in the early years until tech caught up to make them reliable, the horrific Cadillac EFI system of 1976, it was so bad GM offered a factory kit to swap in a Carb, the Chrysler lean burn system that was almost as bad as the Caddy EFI in the early models again Chrysler offered a retrofit kit for the early systems. All of these failures were a direct result of trying to meet emissions regulations before reliable proper tech was available to do so.

 

The emission regs of the time far out stripped not only the automotive tech needed but also lubrication tech required for engines to last as long as they had previously.

 

There was not one manufacturer with out exception that did not struggle to meet the emission regs, Many did not, and just cheated their way past them. Every manufacturer in NA with out exception was cited for not meeting emissions in each segment with at least one model in each year from 1975 to 1979.

 

Not only that many vehicles that were not subject to yearly inspections (and many of those that were) were, modified, removed,changed or disabled the emissions components, this was even done by the dealers themselves or the local mechanic to resolve driveability issues. Things like gutted Cats, disabled or removed Smog pumps, disabled or removed egr valves, Re-timed distributors, advancing ignition or cam timing, carb swaps, etc etc, the list goes on and on of items that were removed, modified,changed, swapped out to resolve driveability and poor fuel economy issues from emission regulations that out stripped the available tech.

 

Akirby's view on this is not just ."A nostalgia-tinged view of the emissions era, driven by the endless contemporary complaints of the enthusiast press is an essentially revisionist pose" the performance loss (0-60 times) was just one aspect of it also meant that it took big blocks to do the job that, large displacement small blocks could do before and large displacement small blocks to do what small displacement small blocks could prior, this in turn nuked fuel economy twice over as you had the loss in fuel economy due to emissions but also a loss in fuel economy due to requiring a larger displacement engine to do the same job. Performance is not just about enthusiast driven parameters such as 0-60 and 1/4 mile times. In today's world most vehicles have twice the horse power they actually need, 40 years such was not the case and most vehicles had marginally enough horsepower and by today's standards would be considered dangerously under powered.

 

So ya the regulations far out stripped the available tech of the era and we ended up with a crap load of crappy unreliable vehicles with poor driveability that did not meet the emission regs from factory and were modified afterwards and ended up spewing even more emissions and were not able to perform their assigned tasks in a satisfactory manner or even as well as vehicles built 10 years prior.

So ya the regulations did out strip the avalible tech at the time.

Edited December 17, 2015 by matthewq4b

[silvrsvt]

In today's world most vehicles have twice the horse power they actually need, 40 years such was not the case and most vehicles had marginally enough horsepower and by today's standards would be considered dangerously under powered.

 

 

 

I beg to differ on that...

 

For example, the 1980's Fairmont weighed about 2600lbs and its rough equivalent today is the Fusion, which weighs nearly 3600lbs in some configurations

 

The Fusion puts out better performance and MPGs, even though it weighs quite a bit more.

[matthewq4b]

 

I beg to differ on that...

 

For example, the 1980's Fairmont weighed about 2600lbs and its rough equivalent today is the Fusion, which weighs nearly 3600lbs in some configurations

 

The Fusion puts out better performance and MPGs, even though it weighs quite a bit more.

 

Ok lets look at this the curb weight of the 1980 Fairmont ranged from 2750lbs for the 2dr 2800lbs for the 4dr 2900lbs for the wagon.

The current fusion weighs 3427 Lbs with the base 2.5L engine..

 

The Fairmont's base engine in 1980 output was 88hp or 63hp per ton (4dr)

The current Fusion base engine output is 175hp or 102hp per ton.

 

Lets step this up a bit the top engine in the Fairmont in 1980 was putting out 119hp or 85 hp per ton. (4dr)

In the Fusion it is putting out 231HP or 137hp per ton. .

 

And the spread is actually larger as current Fusion is using the new lower calculation HP figures and not the old SAE Net like the Fairmont.

 

 

But we were not discussing cars of the 80's we were talking about cars of the 70's

So lets look at the 77 Granada again the equivalent of today's Fusion curb weight was 3231Lbs on the 4 door and HP in the base engine was 81hp or 50hp per ton, half of the base Fusion.

 

Lets really push it and go to the average Ford Family sedan in 76 the LTD 4dr curb weight was 4706 LBS the base engine was a 125HP 302 V8 or 53Hp per ton again about half of the Fusion but in a near 2.5 ton vehicle. Even the top engine was putting out a dismal 195 hp and that was from a 7.6L 460 getting 9 and 12MPG with 83hp per ton 20% less power per ton less than today's base engine'd 2.5L Fusion.

 

Lets roll this back ten years.

The base 1967 Galaxie had a weight of 3660lbs with a 130hp engine (sae net) 250 Cid 6 cylinder engine for 71Hp per ton a 30% increase over the base 77 LTD.

The base Fusion is no rocket by any means and is adequate on today's roads, but would you consider it a safe car to drive with less than half as much hp, 3 fewer gears and much higher final drive ratio?, most of the Ford cars in the era sported a 2.73 ratio rear end and even as high as 2.55 unless option'd with the tow package and you may have got 3.00 , 3.08's or 3.25's (9" rear end) at best.

 

 

You may beg to differ on it but the facts and numbers don't lie (providing I did the math right lol )

Edited December 17, 2015 by matthewq4b

[RichardJensen]

(or, in this case, an actual grasp of the facts).

 

What facts? There's nothing in your post but rhetoric.

[RichardJensen]

 

The emission regs of the time far out stripped not only the automotive tech needed but also lubrication tech required for engines to last as long as they had previously.

 

 

The inertia of the Detroit automakers and their inability to adapt was their fault, not the fault of the regs.

 

Saying, "I can't meet these new regulations because I would have to change too many things I'm already doing" is just a cop-out.

Edited December 17, 2015 by RichardJensen

[akirby]

Every dollar a mfr spends on expensive and/or new technology comes out of the buyers' pockets.

 

Urea injection? cha-ching!

 

If it's $200/vehicle it's no big deal. If it's $2K/vehicle it's a big deal to some folks. If it's $10K/vehicle it's a huge deal to everybody!

 

Or what if you make the regulations so strict that nobody can pass it? Then we don't get anything.

 

You have to draw the line where the benefits outweigh the costs and the market can support it. Going too far does no good.

[RichardJensen]

 

You may beg to differ on it but the facts and numbers don't lie

 

Your apparent conclusions are problematic. You seem to be asserting that the vehicles manufactured in the 70s were too underpowered to be driven in a normal fashion for that period. You also seem to be asserting that the incompetence of the Big Three was, somehow, the fault of the government.

[RichardJensen]

I feel the same way about Title IX. I went to a university that, on a $15M budget, is Title IX compliant. Last year, of their 21 sanctioned sports, 18 finished in the top 3 of their respective conferences.

 

For that reason, I will never credit a school that claims that it can't be Title IX compliant and competitive.

 

If it can be done, it is not impossible, and if it is not impossible, then it is the choices that you have made that have made compliance impractical for your business. Chevy sold an entry-level emissions compliant diesel, therefore VW could have. Honda and Nissan made reliable, emissions compliant vehicles in the 70s, therefore the Big Three could have.

 

Another automotive example: Compare the 6.0L Powerstroke with the first ULSD Cummins: The Cummins engine easily met the newer, stricter emissions standards without compromising reliability; the Powerstroke was a disaster. Whose fault was that? The EPA's for tightening diesel regs & requiring ULSD? Or Ford and International's for engineering a crappy product?

Edited December 18, 2015 by RichardJensen

[matthewq4b]

 

 

 

The inertia of the Detroit automakers and their inability to adapt was their fault, not the fault of the regs.

 

Saying, "I can't meet these new regulations because I would have to change too many things I'm already doing" is just a cop-out.

 

Sorry Richard it was not cop out and the imports had an even harder time meeting the emission regs of the era with cancelled models, delayed launches, sales suspensions, Datsun (Nissan) Honda Toyota and VW all had one time or another sale suspensions from 1974 to 79 until their emission calibrations could be revised or emission equipment modified to meet the regs. Furthermore it was found that after 25k miles almost none were compliant and emitted 2 to 3 times more emissions than equivalent NA vehicles of the same mileage, that issue continued well in to the 1980's.

 

The imports got around it by designing systems that were compliant for a short period time that either failed or wore out quickly then exceeded the allowable emissions, allowing the vehicles to operate in a more reliable driveable manner. This is in part the reason that NY and Cali started yearly emission testing in the early 80's, that testing confirmed that near new vehicles were failing these tests and the imports were far and away the biggest culprits. . It was shortly after wards that the Fed's mandated the 50,000 Mile emissions warranty in an effort to stop this cheating. In was in that era the Japanese took a back seat to the NA manufacturers and were lagging in terms of HP Fuel economy and reliability. As the Japanese had been cheating their way past the regs for a decade and it caught up with them as they had not been advancing the tech lock step with the domestics. It took them about half a decade to close the gap with the domestics and it was not until the early 90's when they were once again on equal footing.

 

Your apparent conclusions are problematic. You seem to be asserting that the vehicles manufactured in the 70s were too underpowered to be driven in a normal fashion for that period. You also seem to be asserting that the incompetence of the Big Three was, somehow, the fault of the government.

 

Really you are starting to grasp at straws here. The big 3 were not incompetent by any stretch, the regulations were cranked down way to fast far out stripping the tech to do so in a reliable efficient manner. It would sort be like the Govt saying to you today you personally have to be carbon neutral by Jan 1 2017. Can it be done sure it could, would it be able to be done in a reliable and efficient manner ? Of course not as the tech is not yet available for you to do it in an efficient reliable manner.

You seem to think that any regulation is ok and if the manufacturers can not do it, it is their fault for not being immediately able to pull the effective reliable tech out of their out their ass and put it in to production.

And yes the vehicles were under powered to do the jobs they had already been doing. The only thing that saved them was the 55MPH fed mandated speed limit. When you are having to increase displacements by 25% 50% to do the same work as previously or just not even able to the same job with out modifying them by removing emission equipment they are under powered for the task at hand.

You are looking at this through 21st century glasses. Any tech that was developed was done by men in white shirts with slide rules and computers that had less power than a modern calculator. What one man can do on a Computer in a day today would have taken a room full engineers designers and draftsmen weeks to do 40 years ago. You can not apply today's standards, opinions or knowledge to events that occurred 40 years ago and this it what you are doing and then trying to justify it. This not was an era of where every one had a pick up truck to tow or haul or go on vacation with. These things were done with family sedan and believe me a 4800lbs car with 142-195hp towing a 5000lbs holiday trailer could not be driven in a normal fashion let alone a safe one even with a 55MPH speed limit. When ten years previous the same could be done with a vehicle sporting nearly 300 Net HP But that is was was expected and happened due to the emission regulations and not having the available tech to do it in a efficient manner.

Bottom line the regs out stripped the available tech to allow to be implemented in a reliable efficient and effective manner. We ended up with vehicles that never actually complied or did not remain complaint, with shortened life spans were unreliable, inefficient, under-powered and just generally marginal for the task at hand and in some cases not at all.

Edited December 18, 2015 by matthewq4b

[matthewq4b]

I feel the same way about Title IX. I went to a university that, on a $15M budget, is Title IX compliant. Last year, of their 21 sanctioned sports, 18 finished in the top 3 of their respective conferences.

 

For that reason, I will never credit a school that claims that it can't be Title IX compliant and competitive.

 

If it can be done, it is not impossible, and if it is not impossible, then it is the choices that you have made that have made compliance impractical for your business. Chevy sold an entry-level emissions compliant diesel, therefore VW could have. Honda and Nissan made reliable, emissions compliant vehicles in the 70s, therefore the Big Three could have.

 

Another automotive example: Compare the 6.0L Powerstroke with the first ULSD Cummins: The Cummins engine easily met the newer, stricter emissions standards without compromising reliability; the Powerstroke was a disaster. Whose fault was that? The EPA's for tightening diesel regs & requiring ULSD? Or Ford and International's for engineering a crappy product?

 

 

 

 

Ok first off Honda Datsun (nissian) did not make compliant vehicles they made vehicles that cheated the emission regs by being compliant for a short period of time. NO one in the 70's met the emission regs properly with out either cheating losing efficacy, reliability and or power. So get of this kick the Japanese did what the Americans did not the Japanese just cheated much like Volkswagen has done.

 

 

The 6.0L was perfect storm of screw ups. The engine for the application as designed has had no major issues. The 6.0L was designed as a school bus engine not as an engine to power pick up trucks.

 

International did not design the 6.0L it was farmed out to a European firm and IH told them they needed a new emission complaint Diesel engine to power school buses it was not disclosed to the designing firm that it was also going to be powering NA pick up trucks.

When the designers found out it was going in to NA pick up trucks (after the engine was completed) they were like, Whoa this engine was not designed for that application, and we can not be held responsible for any issues arsing from it's use in that application. In fact they had IH sign off on it that IH would accept full responsibly and they could not held liable for any design issues related to it use in Pick up trucks, that is why IH never sued them for designing a substandard engine, cause it was not.

IH ate it all as they had accepted full responsibility knowing full well they were supplying an engine to Ford not designed for or intended for use in Pick up trucks. The fault of the unreliable 6.0L in the F Series lies solely with IH executives and mangers, not the designers, not Ford, not Internationals engineering teams, not the emission regs, but 100% with Internationals executives and managers.

 

In School bus applications the 6.0L has proven to be a reliable and efficient emission compliant engine, it has not suffered failed head gaskets, blown EGR coolers, oil cooler failures, HPOP failures, Sticking injectors, ICP and IPR failures these issues that plagued the 6.0L in the F Series were and are rare problems in School buses with 6.0L engines. The ULSD Cummings from the get go was designed for use in Pick up trucks and was able to meet the demands placed on it in that application with out issue.

The 6.0L was not a crappy designed emissions engine, but an engine put in an application it was not designed for. It the perfect example of the results of not fully disclosing the intended use of piece of machinery to the design engineering team.

Edited December 18, 2015 by matthewq4b

[RichardJensen]

 

 

 

 

International did not design the 6.0L it was farmed out to a European firm and IH told them they needed a new emission complaint Diesel engine to power school buses.

 

Do you have a cite for *any* of that?

[RichardJensen]

 

 

The big 3 were not incompetent by any stretch

 

Yes, Matt. Yes they were.

 

Imports had 15% of the US market in 1970 and 26.5% of the market in 1980. During the 1970s Honda and Toyota had earned reputations for quality, while the domestics' reputation had taken a pounding.

 

You cannot argue that the emissions regime imposed by the EPA affected all manufacturers equally. It did not.

Edited December 18, 2015 by RichardJensen

[RichardJensen]

 

 

a 4800lbs car with 142-195hp towing a 5000lbs holiday trailer could not be driven in a normal fashion let alone a safe one even with a 55MPH speed limit

 

 

And that, you say, was an example of the horrors of the 70s, correct?

 

What about a '92 F150 with a 145hp I-6 towing a 5,000lb holiday trailer? And that was after the speed limit was raised to 65MPH!!!!!!

[matthewq4b]

 

Do you have a cite for *any* of that?

It is common knowledge. Do a search. And search to see if IH sued any one over the fiasco. Actual scanned corporate documents no and really it would illegal and irresponsible to post them.

But here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJL9EVbVwck