| Ed Pawlowski <esp@snet.net>: Sep 19 12:42PM -0400 On 9/19/2015 12:12 PM, Steve W. wrote: > inspection. IF the EPA requires a recall to reflash the ECM to remove > that software and "correct" the problem, that would have to be done at a > dealer. They will track completed vehicles by VIN. Ahhh, that will do it. The spotted owl breaths easier. |
| clare@snyder.on.ca: Sep 19 01:17PM -0400 On Sat, 19 Sep 2015 04:42:00 +0000 (UTC), Ewald Böhm >According to the news reports, VW admitted culpability. >If I were the owner of the affected cars, I would NOT bring them in for >the recall, since it's not a safety issue. May not be able to pass emmissions next year if the recall is not done. >They will definitely lose performance after the "fix" (while they will >also do worse on emissions testing results). The "fix" may be a lot more involved than removing the "over-ride" code. |
| "Steve W." <csr684@NOTyahoo.com>: Sep 19 01:20PM -0400 . wrote: >> could actually show them to the EPA and say "THEY removed the systems so >> they should pay a fine as well". > When has the EPA ever gone after individual passenger car vehicle owners? Happens a lot more than you might think. States get into the act under the umbrella of the EPA laws. VW intentionally wrote software for their vehicles with the express intent of violating the EPA laws. They admitted to that already so it will be interesting to see what happens. The EPA could recall the cars, judge them as "unrepairable gross polluters" and have them crushed. I doubt they will go that far but they have done it before under the "cars for cash" BS. -- Steve W. |
| clare@snyder.on.ca: Sep 19 01:25PM -0400 On Sat, 19 Sep 2015 04:45:38 +0000 (UTC), Ewald Böhm >being tested for emissions. >Since almost no states use the OBD method, that's why I asked how the car >knows it is being tested. Don't know how other jurisdictions do it, but in Ontario the old "drive clean" test was a "rolling road" sniffer test at two speeds, with the car connected to the computer via the diagnostic port, but not accessing discrete codes. The new system does away with both the "rolling road" and the sniffer, meaning it can only "guess" or "deduce" if the NOX is within range - it cannot tell if the reduction catalyst is working because only the oxidizing catalyst is monitored by the secondary O2 sensor. It is POSSIBLE that VW implements the "over-ride" whenever a certain sequence of events is performed that are substantially the same as the initialization procedure for running the test (There is a perscribed sequence of events that MUST be performed to get a valid test result) (like 20 many seconds at a particular RPM, followed by another given period of time at another RPM) which, if performed during the normal process of driving would also put the system in "bypass" for the anticipated duration of the test. |
| clare@snyder.on.ca: Sep 19 01:32PM -0400 On Sat, 19 Sep 2015 08:25:23 -0400, Stormin Mormon >I'm likely mistaken, but my gut sense is that lower emissions >means lower performance, and lower mileage. My guess is that >the "fix" will be a downgrade of some kind. Then how do you explain the FACT that todays engines - 1)produce higher spedific output than engines in the past 2) Consume fewer gallons of gas per unit distance travelled AND 3) produce lower exhaut emissions -than the engines of only a few years back - muchless the "uncontrolled" engines of the 50s and 60s, and the early emission engines of the 70s and 80s? VW will just have to step up to the plate and spend in retrofits what they should have spent in initial design and production - plus. |
| "." <.@dot.com>: Sep 19 12:34PM -0500 On 9/19/2015 12:20 PM, Steve W. wrote: >> When has the EPA ever gone after individual passenger car vehicle owners? > Happens a lot more than you might think. States get into the act under > the umbrella of the EPA laws. I've still yet to hear or read of a single case myself. > VW intentionally wrote software for their vehicles with the express > intent of violating the EPA laws. Yes, I know. But the EPA will be the only route by which this could be addressed given that many states don't even do testing. |
| clare@snyder.on.ca: Sep 19 01:46PM -0400 >cause of accidents nor does smog testing of these vehicles >lead to measurably cleaner air. These two concerns are best >addressed at time of manufacture. I will respectfully dissagree - with qualifications. In the early years of safety checking, at least in Ontario, the initial passs rate was quite low - and the requirement that a cat pass a safety check when changing ownership took a LOT of dangerous crap off the road. Annual safety checks in Ontario only affect commercial vehicles - and again there is a pretty high failure rate - and since selective enforcement has been in place the number of wheels coming off commercial vehicles and killing drivers of other vehicles has dropped SIGNIFICANTLY. Enforcement is the key. As for emission testing - in the early years it had merit. There were a LOT of "gross poluters" on our roads - and it was very simple to defeat emission controls and change the calibration of an rngine (by adjusting timing, rejetting carbs etc) so that what left the manufacturer and what was on the road were not necessarilly the same. With today's computer controlled vehicles, unleaded gas, etc, the VAST majority of vehicles pass, even when 20 years old - if reasonably maintained, and the OBD2 only testing is a total farce and nothing but a money-grab - Safety shecks for vehicle transfer and annually for commercial vehicles is both a consumer protection AND safety issue - and worth continuing. (along with "selective enforcement" on the roads - see a "questionable" vehicle - pull it over and inspect it for basic safety standards, and possible send for "secondary inspecion" by a registered safety inspection station. Bring it up to standard or take it off the road. |
| clare@snyder.on.ca: Sep 19 01:47PM -0400 >> 'utmost good faith' which applies to insurance contracts. >Do you know of any claims denied because the owner did not get an oil >change? Dirty air filter? Not even for driving in the winter with bald summer tires. The insurance company HAS to pay up - but they can make it EXTREMELY difficult to afford insurance in the future - - - - - - - - - - - |
| clare@snyder.on.ca: Sep 19 01:50PM -0400 On Sat, 19 Sep 2015 12:12:41 -0400, "Steve W." <csr684@NOTyahoo.com> wrote: >> will be able to tell. >Sure will. You have to enter the VIN into the system to start the >inspection. Not any more. The ECU is linked to the VIN, and the OBD2 tester reads the VIN directly from the ECU |
| Steve Stone <n2ubp@yahoo.com>: Sep 19 01:53PM -0400 > If I were the owner of the affected cars, I would NOT bring them in for > the recall, since it's not a safety issue. I hope they don't follow the Microsoft Windows 10 model, where upgrades and patches will be installed automatically no matter what you do. |
| "." <.@dot.com>: Sep 19 12:57PM -0500 > initial passs rate was quite low - and the requirement that a cat pass > a safety check when changing ownership took a LOT of dangerous crap > off the road. If only there were any documentation to support that claim. Annual safety checks in Ontario only affect commercial > selective enforcement has been in place the number of wheels coming > off commercial vehicles and killing drivers of other vehicles has > dropped SIGNIFICANTLY. Enforcement is the key. My comment referred only to individual owned passenger cars. > a LOT of "gross poluters" on our roads - and it was very simple to > defeat emission controls and change the calibration of an rngine (by > adjusting timing, rejetting carbs etc) It still is. so that what left the > manufacturer and what was on the road were not necessarilly the same. And those that in any manner overrode emission controls were an insignificant percentage of the motoring public. > standards, and possible send for "secondary inspecion" by a registered > safety inspection station. Bring it up to standard or take it off the > road. Again, my comment referred only to individual owned passenger cars. |
| clare@snyder.on.ca: Sep 19 02:23PM -0400 >> Happens a lot more than you might think. States get into the act under >> the umbrella of the EPA laws. >I've still yet to hear or read of a single case myself. Spot checking of modified vehicles at large "car shows" has been promised, and reported. Just because your car is registered as a 1927 model "T" ford does not mean it is exempt from emissions testing if it has a 2009 Chevy LT between the frame rails. Officially it needs to meet the requirements for the 2009 vehicle the LT was originally supplied for (determined by the engine number). |
| kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey): Sep 19 02:29PM -0400 >-than the engines of only a few years back - muchless the >"uncontrolled" engines of the 50s and 60s, and the early emission >engines of the 70s and 80s? This is almost entirely the result of fuel injection combined with accurate feedback control. Feedback control makes a huge improvement in the efficiency of the engine and that means both lower emissions and more power. And, it's true that it took the emission control regulations to force the car manufacturers to start thinking out of the box at new ideas to try and improve efficiency back in the seventies. Had it not been for the emission control regulations, we might never have got the engine improvements that make engines so much more efficiency today. BUT, it's true that many of the other tricks used to get emissions numbers down have been at the expense of performance, and many of them have been just plain attempts to game the system. There is a very longstanding tradition of gaming the system, dating back to air pumps back in the seventies which did in fact improve the efficiency of early catalytic converters, but mostly just diluted the exhaust so that the concentration of emissions was reduced. The actual amount of emission was the same, but the numbers recorded at the smog station were lower. This current attempt on VW's part is not something new in isolation, this is part of a tradition going back forty years now. It shouldn't surprise anyone, and it's certainly not anything specific to VW. >VW will just have to step up to the plate and spend in retrofits what >they should have spent in initial design and production - plus. Odds are that instead they will take the route of just leaving the controller in "low emissions" mode all the time, which probably will affect performance. Part of how that will work out will depend on what they were actually doing to bring the numbers down, and we don't know that without actually measuring it or looking at the controller source. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
| clare@snyder.on.ca: Sep 19 02:35PM -0400 >> a safety check when changing ownership took a LOT of dangerous crap >> off the road. >If only there were any documentation to support that claim. Well, as a mechanic back then, I can assure you I failed a LOT of dangerous cars, repaired many of them, and scrapped almost as many. >> off commercial vehicles and killing drivers of other vehicles has >> dropped SIGNIFICANTLY. Enforcement is the key. >My comment referred only to individual owned passenger cars. Which here in Ontario only require safety checks for transfer, or if older than a certain age, depending on the insurance company, to get or maintain insurance coverage. >> defeat emission controls and change the calibration of an rngine (by >> adjusting timing, rejetting carbs etc) >It still is. Tell me how the average hack can adjust the timing on his 2002 Ford Taurus 3.0 32 valve V6??? Or even adjust the mixture? >> manufacturer and what was on the road were not necessarilly the same. >And those that in any manner overrode emission controls were >an insignificant percentage of the motoring public. You would be surprised how many Olds 350 rockets back in the mid seventies had the timing significantly altered to eliminate overheating when pulling a trailer, or how many "super six" mopars had the carburetion and timing adjusted off-spec to get rid of "driveability problems" - and how many "lean burn" mopars were "converted" to non-lean-burn without changing the camshaft (which was required if you were going to be anywhere CLOSE to passing emissions) and how many AIR systems were removed from GM engines - and how many EGR systems were disconnected ---- just for starters. (under the mistaken idea that they could get better mileage by simply removing them) The numbers WERE significant. >> safety inspection station. Bring it up to standard or take it off the >> road. >Again, my comment referred only to individual owned passenger cars. And "selective enforcement" can be, and is, applied to private passenger vehicles as well - at least here in Ontario. |
| "Bob F" <bobnospam@gmail.com>: Sep 19 11:52AM -0700 > VW will just have to step up to the plate and spend in retrofits what > they should have spent in initial design and production - plus. And the resulting diesels may be a lot less desired. The diesel differences between testing and reality are not a new thing. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/news/10862975/Emission-tests-substantially-underestimate-pollution-pumped-out-by-diesels.html |
| "Bob F" <bobnospam@gmail.com>: Sep 19 12:08PM -0700 Steve W. wrote: > cars, judge them as "unrepairable gross polluters" and have them > crushed. I doubt they will go that far but they have done it before > under the "cars for cash" BS. Or, the EPA could require that all the cheating cars be re-programmed to meet requirements all the time, and owners could sue VW's ass off for cheating them, since the resulting performance will be terrible. |
| Tekkie® <Tekkie@comcast.net>: Sep 19 03:32PM -0400 mike posted for all of us... > OR we could just > Fine them billions and fritter it away wherever such fines > are frittered? Just like all the fines imposed on Co's and people. Found money for the gov't. Like the tobacco Co's the states get all this money and what exactly do they do with it. If education is it having an impact? Should be for the medical costs. Instead that is spread amongst the ratepayers or taxpayers through third party payers. How to fix IDK... -- Tekkie |
| Malcom Mal Reynolds <atlas-bugged@invalid.invalid>: Sep 19 12:33PM -0700 In article <mti9lu$jb$1@news.mixmin.net>, > at-emissions-tests-forced-by-epa-to-recall-482k-vehicles > etc. > My question is HOW did the car *know* it was being *tested* for emissions? I'd like to know how the EPA found out about this hack |
| Tekkie® <Tekkie@comcast.net>: Sep 19 04:15PM -0400 clare@snyder.on.ca posted for all of us... > >> vehicles is both a consumer protection AND safety issue - and worth > >> continuing. (along with "selective enforcement" on the roads - see a > >> "questionable" vehicle - pull it over and inspect it for basic safety +1 My experience exactly. PA had twice yearly inspections but now has yearly . I remember all the uproar over what the garages had to buy, the 3 gas analyzers, dynamometers, leased or privately owned... It was a circus. I think it was a politicians dream. (It was in NJ). I remember customers that had notorious vehicles with bad emissions; blowing blue smoke, heavy fuel smell, missing engines. A lot of "beaters". Then the lead issue. I don't know if lead in gas was harmful or not but that train has left the station. My observation is the air is "better" but is that because of cars or the fact PA is ground zero of the "rust belt" and manufacturing has left? My gripe is that counties around major city's have testing while the rest of the state doesn't. What, the wind doesn't blow through the whole state? There are also exemptions if the cost of repairs exceed a threshold. Claire would remember PCV valves and tune ups... -- Tekkie |
| Tekkie® <Tekkie@comcast.net>: Sep 19 04:36PM -0400 clare@snyder.on.ca posted for all of us... > engines of the 70s and 80s? > VW will just have to step up to the plate and spend in retrofits what > they should have spent in initial design and production - plus. Wise business decision... Why do they do this? It would be a great subject of an independent analysis. Weren't they owned by Chrysler at the start of this? -- Tekkie |
| Ed Pawlowski <esp@snet.net>: Sep 19 05:09PM -0400 On 9/19/2015 4:15 PM, Tekkie® wrote: > dream. (It was in NJ). > I remember customers that had notorious vehicles with bad emissions; blowing > blue smoke, heavy fuel smell, missing engines. A lot of "beaters". The original twice yearly was a safety inspection. That was a joke. You could get inspected so easily or you could get scammed by shops selling un-needed repairs. The shop I went to was owned by an old guy that could not lift a wheel if he had to. checking the brakes was pushing on the pedal while scraping off the old sticker. Before that, I took three cars to a shop in one day and every one needed headlight adjustment for $2. Never mind that the ball joints they never checked were loose. Quick easy money. |
| "." <.@dot.com>: Sep 19 04:15PM -0500 >> I've still yet to hear or read of a single case myself. > Spot checking of modified vehicles at large "car shows" has been > promised, and reported. I must have missed that line. Where and when was that again? Just because your car is registered as a 1927 > model "T" ford does not mean it is exempt from emissions testing if it > has a 2009 Chevy LT between the frame rails. No kidding. > Officially it needs to meet the requirements for the 2009 vehicle the > LT was originally supplied for (determined by the engine number). You don't say. |
| "." <.@dot.com>: Sep 19 04:28PM -0500 >> If only there were any documentation to support that claim. > Well, as a mechanic back then, I can assure you I failed a LOT of > dangerous cars, repaired many of them, and scrapped almost as many. As is and would continue to be done innumerable times everyday by mechanics despite any lack of vehicle safety testing as has historically been required by the states. Personally, I cut back turning wrenches considerably in '76 and by '80 had discontinued the practice entirely (I still tinker) having landed an engineering position with a distributor of major heavy equipment and industrial engines. >> It still is. > Tell me how the average hack can adjust the timing on his 2002 Ford > Taurus 3.0 32 valve V6??? Or even adjust the mixture? Fuel additives and larger injectors can defeat the effectiveness of emission controls, not that they'll necessarily increase power. Pull off any number (EGR, PCV, Sensor ...) of wires, hoses, or lines; one could also easily have multiple devices either fail or disabled (that don't prevent the engines from running) and significantly decrease the efficiency, and increase the pollution output, of the engine. > EGR systems were disconnected ---- just for starters. (under the > mistaken idea that they could get better mileage by simply removing > them) I'm only surprised at the length of your run-on sentence. I worked tune-up and electrical in '74-'76 at a Mopar dealer. Remember the red, sometimes off white, idle mixture limiting, plastic stops that covered the screw heads on Carter's (which also had an issue with warping, requiring a retro-fit brace)? Periodic rough idle complaints on new cars were sometimes addressed by first subjecting such engines to a full Sun Scope (on a rail) diagnostic. Were no issues found, I would remove them, as emissions testing was neither available nor required. Never once had a comeback or complaint. > The numbers WERE significant.\ No they were not. "Cleaner air" evolved from unleaded fuel, catalytic converters, fuel injection, and overall drive train computer management of hundreds of millions, not the hobbyists' thousands, of vehicles on US roads. |
| "." <.@dot.com>: Sep 19 04:30PM -0500 On 9/19/2015 3:15 PM, Tekkie® wrote: > Then the lead issue. I don't know if lead in gas was harmful or not but that > train has left the station. Wow, you are remarkably uninformed, if not downright stupid. Educate yourself, if possible, by reading about Clair Patterson, a scientist who was attempting to establish the true age of the Earth and serendipitously, by the failure of his early attempts to create a clean room, discovered the grave neurotoxin danger poisoning us all. |
| Tekkie® <Tekkie@comcast.net>: Sep 19 05:37PM -0400 Ed Pawlowski posted for all of us... > Before that, I took three cars to a shop in one day and every one needed > headlight adjustment for $2. Never mind that the ball joints they never > checked were loose. Quick easy money. True, but then again we had a reputable shop. -- Tekkie |
| You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to sci.electronics.repair+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. |
No Response to "Digest for sci.electronics.repair@googlegroups.com - 25 updates in 1 topic"
Post a Comment