My DD is one of the affected diesels...a 2011 Golf 6-speed manual with 80k miles on it. In mid-July, I had the recall reflash that cures the non-compliance condition performed on my car. Of course, the recall letter that they sent out in April made no mention of the true nature of the reflash. Instead, they lied and said that it was a precautionary step to forestall false CELs regarding oxygen sensors that could occur under borderline conditions. Since my car was running perfectly when I received that April letter, I waited until about mid-July before taking the car in for the recall. They performed the reflash, and I drove it home noticing no difference whatsoever in the way it drove. The following morning when I started it, what do you know...I got a (my very first ever) CEL. I plugged in my scanner and viola, "oxygen sensor"...the very condition that this reflash was, ostensibly, supposed to prevent! Suspicious, no? Amazingly, this oxygen sensor is not covered under the emissions warranty, so my extended warranty was out about $360...$100 of which I got to pay as my deductible. I tried the whole "good before/bad after" logic with VW, but it was like talking to a Klingon.

My point in bringing all this up is that the car still runs the same (actually slightly better, as it no longer stumbles during warm up like it used to) as always and hasn't had any perceivable reduction in fuel economy, either. I'm just one guy, but my experience with this reflash is that no one need fear having it done. I'd just like to know what VW's incentive for doing what they did actually was...



After almost 40 years working for O.E.M.s, I can nearly guaranty that the engineers were told to do this, by management, and didn't like doing it one bit. They would have no incentive for doing it on their own. Most likely scenario: pressure was brought to bare on whoever was in charge of emissions compliance, and that person ordered the concerned engineering group to "create a solution" to whatever the stumbling block was that was holding up compliance. I've seen, firsthand, this kind of thing happen countless times...

 

Yes that. If I had one of these cars and was forced to apply a "fix" which significantly reduced the performance of the car I would be a very unhappy customer.

I also wonder what percentage of owner will immediately reverse the "fix" with a chip or remap.

 

How do you know that the reflash you had earlier this year is a fix for the non-compliance?

It's my understanding from everything I've read, that how they are going to fix it is not clear, or at least not agreed upon with the authorities. Of course, you can't believe everything you read in the press, but supposedly there is another gargantuan recall coming.

 

I don't think it had anything to do with a reflash or upgrades, but as I understand it;
If/when the car sensed that it was under test conditions (perhaps - wheels dead ahead, rear or front wheels not turning, no steering/brake input etc) the ECU would then run a different algorithm that reduced the power from the engine (leaning it up and retarding the ignition) to a point where the nasties coming out of the exhaust pipe were at an acceptable level?

Invariably as we push for more and more power from smaller and smaller ICE's, the emissions will increase.

As others have mentioned, the top brass have done a runner, which leaves one to conclude that they knew all about it...the problem is, as we all know 'muck' rolls down hill as well!

I bet it's a nightmare if you work in the diesel engine design department right now!

 

Yes, of course, but it was software that allowed it to "sense," as you put it. Dr. Manhattan believes his car was reflashed earlier this year in an effort to correct the non-compliance, because VW was obviously aware at that point they were in trouble with the authorities.

 

The resale issue for those poor people:

They bought it because it was a cleaner car with torque and fun to drive without being a Prius....

Or they were greenies that were like "why buy a bad battery if Diesel just kills it".....

and now the resale for those two people will be shot. the retribution is way more than fines from the EPA and gov stuff.... what about the user? I feel so bad for them. This is huge stuff.

NB: Our car is aluminum and quite light. I would rather see details between a Tesla and it's batteries, etc. Our car is "green", at least by some standards.

 

Our cars are aluminum, but I don't think anyone here would call them 'quite light'! I consider mine a bit of a pig, though it doesn't drive like it.

 

I don't know the workings of the automotive industry, but in software, I can see a situation where the engineer did it on his own without knowledge from management and without management's involvement. Imagine this scenario. Management says, "build me an image processing feature." The engineer goes out and uses someone's code without licensing it. The engineer thinks it's legal since the code is readily available. But he doesn't know about the licensing issue and just assumed it was legal. Management assumes the code is good, assuming that no licensing was required. So everybody is blind to the situation. Then a 3rd party discovers that the code needs to be licensed. Everybody could have done a better job (e.g., management could reviewed things better), but a situation like this could happen. Probably not in this VW case, but who knows...it's a pretty crazy story to begin with...

 

I think assumptions about cars are trouble....


Why electric cars aren't always greener
The Economist explains: Why electric cars aren't always greener | The Economist

The dirty secrets of clean cars
Difference Engine: The dirty secrets of clean cars | The Economist

Cleaner than what?
Cleaner than what? | The Economist

Basically, a coal plant charged Tesla is the worst thing for the environment. See pic. But since Iceland's volcano last year pumped out about more toxic gas than all of EU's industry.... I am pretty sure individuals arguing about a few thousand pound auto are *not* going to save the world.

My thing is the self-satisfied "I'm better" glow of the Hybrid or EV people, when it's FAR, FAR more complex than they would like.

I know this was about Vdubs, but it is also about the complexity of emissions, how to control them, and their impact, etc....

MAN... i am having trouble uploading pics. This graphic from the Economist article is FASCINATING:
http://cdn.static-economist.com/site...0_STC542_0.png

 

Thanks for making this post .. interesting and confirms the obvious to most of us that this is a complex issue overly simplified by those on the extreme ends of the climate debate.

And of course you have likely now begun another long and mostly uniformed debate around climate change.
Lawrence

 

Aaaand diesel takes another kicking, this time over "long-chain hydrocarbons".

Concern over hidden diesel pollutant - BBC News

 

Eric Garner wound up dead because he made a poor decision to fight with the police. Though it may have looked like a choke hold to the casual observer, the police claimed (and the grand jury apparently agreed that there wasn't sufficient evidence to indicate otherwise) that it was not a choke hold. That said, your point regarding the overall impact as it relates to criminal charges is spot on. The police were acting as defacto tax revenue agents for the city of New York. It's a job they shouldn't have in my opinion.


In regard to criminal charges for violating EPA regulations, I think that it would be virtually impossible to get a conviction. Most EPA regulations (most regulations for that matter) are based on interpretations of laws. The regulations have changed drastically in recent years with little to no change in the actual law. It's kind of hard to make the case that something wasn't illegal but now it is when the law didn't change. I think the only shot at criminal charges they have would be some sort of conspiracy charge.