www.boxertrix.com

Damage limitation. That worked well!

The US regs are broadly similar to Europe for individual vehicles, but complicated by the fleet average fuel economy standards adding an extra incentive to achieve good fuel economy on the test.

The vehicles passed the test! They capitulated far too quickly in my opinion.

In fairness to VW - they will have employed teams of consultants, who will have crunched numbers, and put forward a credible case for the course of action - chosen. That's not to say that they got it right, though.

Share price is king - so you can bet that VW took that into significant account.

Remember the Audi debacle in the USA?

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2010/0 ... n-debacle/

In 1989, after three years of studying the blatantly obvious, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issued their report on Audi’s “sudden unintended acceleration problem.” NHTA’s findings fully exonerated Audi and some other implicated foreign makes”.

The report concluded that the Audi’s pedal placement was different enough from American cars’ normal set-up (closer to each other) to cause some drivers to mistakenly press the gas instead of the brake. 60 Minutes did not retract their piece; they called the NHTSA report “an opinion.”

A flood of lawsuits was already washing over Audi, not to mention a tsunami of bad publicity. Audi took a questionable stance: they didn’t blame the drivers for the problem, even after the NHTSA report came out. Hey, the customer’s always right, and we sure wouldn’t want to make our American customers look stupid. Anything but that.

So the German automaker took it on the chin. Audi sales collapsed, from 74k units in 1984 to 12k by 1991. The timing added insult to injury; sales fell exactly during the same years when Lexus arrived to battle for the hearts and wallets of America’s up-scale consumers. Lexus quickly became the latest suburban driveway prestige symbol.

Audi shied away from stating "You Americans simply can't drive a car!"

Al

It's only cars tho so it doesn't really count/matter

Well no surprise there, A lab test that has very little to do with normal usage.

I wonder how this relates to mot emission testing?

It makes as much sense as trying to calculate the price per kilowatt we pay for our energy.

Our politicians are prolific wxnkers that can not and will not protect us from being milked.

Am finished ranting

So, according to the report, if you run the cars under exactly the same conditions, except you start with a hot engine, then the emissions double (or whatever). What I don't understand is that it seems, by that logic, the car is CAPABLE of running under those conditions and still meeting the lower emission figure, because it can pass the test. So what are VW playing at? Why not make the car just always meet those conditions, whether on a test bed or not. That seems to be the moral crux?

There'll be a reason, for sure, but I don't know enough about modern diesels.

Presumably, as someone on here has mentioned, there's a link between emissions and power levels/economy? When they run on the test bed is there a certain load (as in absorbed mechanical power) stipulated?

I suspect maybe there were other inconsistencies in the second test, apart from just the hot engine start. I notice they seemed to be going out of their way to NOT hold a straight line!