Volkswagen CEO Resigns Over Diesel Cheating Scandal

Shouldn't it get some points for combating global warming though?


Volkswagen CEO Martin Winterkorn just resigned after it came to light that his company pulled off what is almost

VW Passat
Foter / Public domain

certainly the biggest scam in the history of cars. Apparently, VW had installed a "defeat device" or software that was programmed to curb the smog-producing nitrous oxide emissions of its small diesel cars such as Audis and Passats etc when they were being tested in a lab – only to belch these ozone-generating gases with abandon on roads. All of this allowed VW to keep its car costs low and performance high compared to its competitors.

Much to everyone's amazement, given that everything Winterkorn says can and will be used against him to impose $18 billion in fines (four times the net pretax income of the company) and criminal indictments, he issued a mea culpa. He didn't even try to hide behind a fig leaf – which suggests that there isn't one. In his resignation statement, he said: "I was shocked by the events of the past few days… I am stunned that misconduct on such a scale was possible in the Volkswagen Group."

So are we, Winterkorn.

But here's the thing: Diesel has nitrous emissions but it also posts 30 percent better fuel economy than gas engines. So, to the extent that VW sold more diesel engines through its scam, it helped curb the greenhouse gas emissions of its gas rivals.

As Vox explains:

One basic fact to understand here is that there are two main types of combustion engines widely available today: diesel and gasoline. And there are real trade-offs to each.

Diesel engines have long been popular in Europe, and one of their major advantages is fuel economy. Diesel fuel contains more energy per gallon than gasoline, and the diesel engines work more efficiently. Put it together, and the typical diesel car can travel up to 30 percent farther on a gallon of fuel than its gasoline counterpart.

But there's a catch. While diesel cars get better mileage and emit fewer carbon-dioxide emissions, they also emit more nitrogen oxides (NOx), which help form smog, and particulate matter…

Winterkorn could try and appease the EPA gods by arguing that VW's  scam should buy it some offsetting carbon indulgences. But that of course would require these gods to understand the concept of tradeoffs.

So all said and done, he is screwed. It might have been a different story if he represented an American automaker like GM instead of a German one like VW. Then he could have put killer Cobalts on the road and gotten away with a $900 million fine.

P.S: A longer treatment of this issue coming soon. Stay tuned.

NEXT: Donald Trump Shows His Fighting Ways by Whining About Every Goddamn Thing

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Kill a bunch of proles? Pay a $900mm fine and go on your way. Oh, and that recent DOJ memo swearing to go after corporate officers and directors – don’t you worry about that.

    Cheat on a regulatory test? We’ll bankrupt your ass, even though there’s really no reason to believe a single person was harmed.

    1. See Toyota…did nothing wrong…$1.5 billion fine.

  2. My smug liberal FB friends that drive VW TDIs have been extraordinarily quiet about their wonderful cars since the announcement.

    1. I was thinking of buying a diesel Passat next year. Still am unless this fucks up the car.

      1. Seeing how the “scam” turned off emission controls during normal driving, I can’t see how turning the emission controls all the time will not have a notable impact on vehicle performance.

        1. I’m not clear if this is a past sin or if it’s still going on.

          Wouldn’t they figure it out when the vehicles are inspected a few years later?

      2. VeeDub diesels are totally fucked. Get the VR6or better yet, don’t buy a Passat.

        1. I need:

          a mid-sized sedan under $30k.

          Leather or leathette seats

          6-speed manual trans

          Leaves the VW and the Mazda 6. You can shove your auto trans right up your ass.

          1. Subaru WRX might fit the bill. Too small?

            1. It’s a compact, not a midsize.

            2. WRX is a compact, not a midsized.

            3. Don’t think Subaru is doing manual trans any more.

              My needs (wants actually) were pretty much the same as drakes but except I wanted a wagon. So I got a Jetta wagon with the tdi and manual trans in 2012.

              Been driving around Colorado mountains the last few days on vacation with it loaded with gear, and with a cargo box on the roof. Love the power that diesel engine has while above 11,000 ft. Even going uphill I get over 25 mpg in it according to the computer. My old 4cy gas coupe felt like it was dragging an anchor once I got above 7,000 ft.

              1. Subaru offers a stick in the WRX for sure. Also in the base engine Forester. No sure about the Imorezza of Crosstrek, but probably.

          2. A stick in that size and price range is limiting.

      3. Pulled off the US market by VW of NA.

    2. Start posting links to news items from the past exalting the mileage and environmentally friendly image. Just for fun.

  3. From my understanding all of the car companies cheat. We are very close to the top possible efficiency, and if you don’t want the vehicle to be a complete piece of shit or so expensive no one can afford it you have to fudge somewhere. I know in Europe they use test tracks for automobiles that are at specific altitudes, temperatures, and smoothness to create optimum efficiency.

    1. This is exactly it. Further reductions in pollution are mostly coming at the expense of efficiency/

    2. Higher temps = more efficient. Of course higher temps means more NOx…

      1. You misspelled NOS, dude. My Supra does 10s, even if I don’t hit the NOS. NOSSSSSSS!

    3. Yepper – exactly to all of these comments. We’re WAY past “diminishing returns” into “fuckin’ stupid and doin’ it cause DO SOMETHING AND WE WANT TO CONTROL YOU!!1111!”

      1. The irony is that if the goal is decreased gross emissions, then efforts should be spent on reducing the cost of new cars. As new cars produce far less emissions and generally get superior FE relative to older vehicles. Especially poorly maintained vehicles that may produce hundreds of times the emissions levels of their new properly tuned counterparts.

        Instead EPA progressive faggot scum are waging a war on on cars, private property and the industrial revolution in general. They should be purged, given drumhead trials, and summarily executed.

        1. Instead EPA progressive faggot scum are waging a war on on cars, private property and the industrial revolution in general. They should be purged, given drumhead trials, and summarily executed.

          Your views repel me, and I wish to unsubscribe from your newsletter.

          1. Very well, I unsunscribe thee!

              1. So mote it be!

        2. +1 Cash for Clunkers?

          What is the environmental impact of destroying a functioning older car and replacing it with a new car?

  4. By the way, isn’t smog what the environmentalist are always complaining about anyways. When people talk about clean air they mention being able to see things far away and breathe easy. Carbon Dioxide doesn’t really effect either of these things in the concentration we are concerned about.

  5. Here’s my question:

    Will these cars pass the emissions test without the cheat? If not, how badly are they going to have to be detuned in order to pass? What will their performance be when the engines have been choked down to acceptable levels?

    1. The number I saw was 40 times acceptable emission levels with the controls turned off. So there must be a serious impact if they are turned on all the time.

      1. The emissions standards are incredibly tight. So 40x is a relative measurement.

        1. Still. That 40x has to go away somehow.

          Presumably, VW foisted this scam on the world because the increased performance of their vehicles versus the competition was noticeable in real life. So that will go away, whatever it was.

          1. 40X nearly zero is still nearly zero.

            As I think I said yesterday, the difference between a well tuned and poorly tuned older vehicle is the pollution equivalent of removing 700 new vehicles from the road. (that data point is a few years old, so it might even be more disparate now).

            1. This chart neatly sums up what the government demanded


              You’ll note that between Tier 3 and Tier 4 allowed emissions went to pretty much zero.

              Same thing is happening with gasoline engines, the reductions demanded are so drastic that the manufacturers are doing anything to save weight like making the spare tire an option… you can be sure that a lot of that weight reduction is going to start coming at the expense of safety unless they switch to carbon fiber.

              1. I noticed the new Ford pickup commercials are touting their “military grade” aluminum bodies. I assumed weight reduction, and not safety, was the primary concern in that choice.

                1. About 700 lbs.

                2. Aluminum has a higher specific strength (ie: how strong something is compared to it’s weight) in most situations so yes it’s weight reduction, it’s more expensive though and I believe it tends to flex more so things might feel cheaper.

              2. You won’t be able to afford a car that has extensive use of carbon fibre.

                1. BMW is currently making affordable carbon fiber cars. The price is coming down all the time as companies begin figuring out how to work with the stuff. I suspect however that the price isn’t going to come down fast enough for us not to have several years of cars existing that someone somewhere has decided to take a step back from safety so they can meet standards (and thus be able to sell compliant cars).

          2. It doesn’t need to ‘go away’. The real amount is still negligible. This is all overhyped.

            1. Obviously there is a substantial enough effect for VW to move forward with this knowing that the consequences of being found out will be extremely high.

        2. The EPA hates diesel engines.

      2. So, if you’re going from 0.01 gram per mile to 0.40 grams per mile, can you tell the difference?

        1. Only a progtard can, or count the number of tranny angels that can dance on the head of a pin.

  6. VW will probably be forced to do something via recall on these vehicles as well to fix the problem.

    If it is a software fix, that makes the car work like it did in testing, then there will be ether a performance or mileage hit (most likely a combination) on the vehicles. Then the lawyers will fire up the class action machine.

    The other option is to retrofit urea injection, (which most other diesels use) which would likely avoid the above issues but would be expensive on a car-by-car case. It would also mean VW owners would have to start buying blue pee-pee for their cars (smaller class action).

    1. Yes, all existing vehicles will be recalled.

      1. Including urea-kit models?

        1. beyond my feeble car skills.

        2. Those things piss me off

      2. Do you have evidence of that? Or is that conjecture.

    2. My guess is they will add DEF to them if at all possible. Taking away the performance will poison their customer base more than adding equipment to the car.

      1. Retrofitting injection and storage onto an existing car? Hmm, that seems fraught with issues. And very expensive.

    3. I have a 2012 Passat TDI and at least some articles mention it and newer Jettas as being in scope. If that’s true, it would mean that even SCR equipped cars will need changes.

      I don’t mind a higher urea consumption rate if it means my (whopping 140hp) power and mileage don’t change, since DEF is so cheap. I will be happy to join a class action lawsuit if mileage and/or power go down.

      1. What’s a DEF?

        1. Diesel Exhaust Fluid

          Adding Urea to the hot exhaust fluid in a diesel can reduce the amount of NOx that is produced from lean burning the fuel.

          1. *hot exhaust GAS*

            1. Gases are fluids. :p

              1. So is glass.

                Never fucking understood that.

      2. You can easily get around 200hp and around 350 ft. lbs. of torque with a good stage 1 tune from any of a variety of aftermarket tuners. And also improve your mileage further. modern diesel engines are ridiculously strangled in stock form.

        1. To provide context, stock output is 140hp and 236 lbs. torque.


          they have a stage 3.5 tune that will get you there, but my clutch probably wouldn’t appreciate that much torque. I’m not interested in a turbo upgrade and most likely DPF delete.

          I’ve been interested in their stage 0.5-2 tunes though.

          I’m still in warranty and VW is known for flagging ECUs that have been tuned/chipped. I know that they can’t deny warranty claims solely because of mods, but I can picture the fight if I have any issue with any item in the powertrain.

    4. “Then the lawyers will fire up the class action machine.”


      Clifford in Chicago has already filed…

      1. No projected images yet, and these pricks are already filing. Lawyers need to be stripped of all rights and deported.

        1. ‘Projected damages’.

    5. I’m almost wishing I had pulled the trigger on buying a Passat a couple years ago instead of the car I eventually chose. I would be smugly not worried about any possible effects of de-tuned performance after the recall…I would just choose not to participate in the recall. This would end up going one of two ways: one, next time I go to the Friendly People’s Government Emissions Test Center to do my civic duty of Keeping Our Air Clean, my un-updated software kicks in and beats the emissions test and I speed away in a blue cloud of noxious smoke; or two, I get no-knock-raided and my dog gets shot because I turned up on a list when Homeland Security cross-checked the list of cars sold with the cars that came in for the software update (nevermind that I might have sold the car to someone else since then. And why would Homeland Security be involved? Why the f*ck not…if I don’t go in for the software update, then the terrorists win!)

  7. I hope the software patch gets “leaked”, so people can go back to having functional cars that say “fuck California and fuck EPA”

    1. There are companies that do tunes right now that most likely cover this. Of course, they’re for off-road and racing only…

      1. Just like my straight-pipe catalytic converter. But I don’t feel the slightest bit bad about trying to wring every ounce of power from a 1.6l 4 cylinder engine. And neither should TDI owners.

        1. You shouldn’t feel bad. I wish VW could double down and say “sucks we got caught, but we value our customers more than we value bureaucrats.”

          1. Indeed. We own an older TDI and other than the spartan interior, I’d buy another. Pretty good mileage and performance and it passes emissions tests. What’s the problem?

            1. Define ‘older’. The ‘scandal’ effects 2.0L TDI engines from 2009-2015 model years. Anything from before the 2009 model year is not in consideration.

          2. “sucks we got caught, but we value our customers more than we value bureaucrats.”

            They value their customers so much, they decided to lie to and defraud them en masse!

            Granted, it’s the over-restrictive regulatory environment that ultimately incentivized them to do so, but let’s call a spade a spade.

            1. How did they defraud their customers? They lied to bureaucrats in order to give their customers a better car. Because the intent of the regulation was to punish people who drive diesel cars with shitty performance, and VW allowed their customers a better performance.
              Call it corporate civil disobedience. More companies need to start engaging in it.

              1. How did they defraud their customers? They lied to bureaucrats in order to give their customers a better car.

                But a “better car” is subjective. Some people, whether you agree with them or not, will weigh factors like environmental impact more heavily in their purchasing decisions than others. Some people would gladly trade performance for less emissions and consider that getting “a better car”. You can call them morons for doing so, but that’s no matter. Insofar as VW represented that their cars had comparatively smaller environmental impact compared to other driving alternatives based on those cars passing these emission standards when that was not so, they defrauded their customers.

                1. Question: as progtards have no souls and are not truly ‘people’, do they count as customers? And if they do, do their feelings count? As soulless creatures have no true feelings and are sociopathic monsters anyway.

                  Any philosophers care to chime in?

            2. Let’s also keep in mind that there is no way in hell that the VW/Audi group is the only manufacturer using on board sensors to determine how efficiently the car should run. I guarantee in the next few months several others will be “discovered” doing the same thing.

              1. BBC reports greens are suspecting something based on the way cars keep passing the tests.

                1. BBC reports greens are suspecting something based on the way cars keep passing the tests.

                  Then the obvious solution is to program a 0.217% emissions failure rate that overrides the already-faked numbers. This could be done for several small ranges of odometer readings. If you happen to bring your car in for testing between readings of 16072-16085, 27994-28003, etc. then your emissions reading is the actual one instead of the faked one.

      2. ” Of course, they’re for off-road and racing only…”
        Absolutely, wouldn’t dream of taking them on the road.

      3. ” Of course, they’re for off-road and racing only…”
        Absolutely, wouldn’t dream of taking them on the road.

  8. If the VWs put out enough pollution that it actually causes harm to people, then they have committed evil, but if not, they have skirted a bullshit regulation in the virtuous pursuit of profit.

  9. Now would be a good time to scoop up a tdi. I, however, hate hate hate diesels.
    Also, the “fix” which will inevitably come will almost certainly reduce both performance and mileage (and likely increase some other effluent(s)).
    I still think the”crime” is largely definitional. As I understand it, the tests are conducted within strict parameters not closely related to actual driving conditions. Perhaps that has changed over time.

    1. Just get an aftermarket tune. Then you can do whatever you want. On a related note, did you know a well equipped, low mileage 2012-2013 Volt or Leaf can be purchased for around $10-12k? They both depreciated horribly. Didn’t consider them a good value proposition at new prices, but for something 3 years old with around 25k miles either one of those is compelling. Only thing stopping me is I like my ’14 335i too much.

  10. smog-producing nitrous oxide emissions
    belch these ozone-generating gases
    But here’s the thing: Diesel has nitrous emissions


  11. If liberals drive Volkswagens and conservatives drive BMWs…what cars do libertarians drive?


    1. I ride in a stagecoach pulled by orphans

      1. Carbon neutral conveyance! Whatever they breathe out in CO2 they first consume in form of plant and animal carbon!

      2. That was awesome!

    2. They don’t drive. One of their slaves does. The other slaves maintains the monocle and tophat.

    3. Hondas

    4. I knew I was a right-wing libertarian.

      1. So a Rolls Royce?


    5. One of those little Datsuns with the seat that folds down.

      1. l want it to have the shoulder thing that goes up.

    6. None of your fucking business.

      That’s what kind.

    7. hovercars, duh, since there are no roads

      1. +1 internetz

      2. +1 So needed to be said.

      3. +1 So needed to be said.

        1. Also needed a duplicated +1 post.

    8. Chevy is part of government motors. That can’t be right.

    9. Don’t you mean “in what kind of car are we driven?” You don’t think I’d drive MYSELF anywhere, do you….

      *chuckles at Cato’s precious question*

    10. BMW had the most Democrat-skewed customer base of any marque a few years ago. I assume nothing has changed. Most trial lawyers drive BMW. They’re popular with the top income segment of civil servants as well.

    11. Pedal cars.

    12. Uber

    13. Rally Fighters
      No roads, no problem.

      1. That’s my dream car. For now, I’m stuck with my tdi!

  12. If I recall correctly, NOx is an effect of high [EFFICIENT] combustion temperature, so the fix will likely involve richening the mixture, which will increase fuel consumption and presumably particulates.
    This comports with what somebody on my teevee said a day or two ago.

    1. NOx is an effect of lean burn, which happens to be hotter. One way to lower NOx is fuel-enrichment,(which does add particulate) but you can also be affected through Exhaust Gas Recirculation (EGR) or through Urea Injection.

    2. Richer burn is higher would also dirty up the EGR faster, which is a current weak point.

  13. what cars do libertarians drive?

    I’m not gonna piss a bunch of money away trying to impress a bunch of strangers.

    1. True story – I have a couple company vehicles. But my own, personal 4 vehicles are all over 200K miles (except my Wrangler, which is merely close at 198K).

      So…..I’m proving your rule, for the time being….*

      * Excepting my bikes, which are all mint and not too many miles

    2. I lease everything. Unless I’m buying something to curb it (Legal disclaimer: I am in no way making an admission to any regulatory wrongdoing regarding unlicensed at sales, so eat shit you statists reading this). I needed a 1/2 ton truck for one of my businesses. I wen with GMC and got a ’13 Sierra 1500 Denali. Being loaded to the gills only cost me about $400 per month with no money down. At 2 1/2 years into a 39 month lease, the payoff is about $9k below realistic private party NADA value. So I’m unloading it early and getting a ’15. The cost of operating the ’13 is probably going to work out less than if I got an SLE or SLT trim level instead.

  14. If the globe is not warming then why are we still talking about the scam?

    1. The earth is warming, but it’s caused by cow farts and not vehicle emissions.

      1. This is why i eat cows.

        1. God bless you for your sacrifice for humanity, CitizenX.

          And the cows, too, I guess.

    2. LA is still smoggy. SLC and Denver too. I’m sure European cities are even smoggier. That’s the NOx devil. Smog is real and visible, unlike carbon emissions.

      1. You kids don’t even know what SMOG is like.

      2. It isn’t diesel cars doing that in LA. The US has jack shit for diesel cars.

        1. It’s because we have ALL THE CARS and a natural bowl that allows pollutants to sit and fester.

          1. We have a natural dustbowl effect where I live too. And an air inversion problem sometimes in winter too.

  15. There have been no “offsetting carbon indulgences,” at least none that you have proved. For that you would have to understand competition in the marketplace.

    Diesels are generally more expensive than gas models, initially. Sticker price. The scam didn’t necessarily lower emissions. The scam lined the pockets of VW, because it made their diesels more attractive to people in the diesel marketplace. It didn’t necessarily make their dispels more attractive to those in the gas model marketplace.

    Do you have any data that suggests the scam lowered the sticker price of a diesel compared to a gasoline car? It created more diesel drivers than gas drivers? Let us know when you do. Until then, hold onto to those assumptions.

    1. WTF are you trying to say?

      Never mind, forget I asked. To have any kind of discussion with you, YOU would have to understand competition in the marketplace.

      1. “Never mind, forget I asked. To have any kind of discussion with you, YOU would have to understand competition in the marketplace.”

        Jack’s IQ would also have to be a number higher than his shoe size, so there’s no reason to bother.
        BTW, Jack? Fuck off, imbecile.

    2. Your last paragraph is gibbering stupidity. Read historical articles about any TDI model and the combination of fuel efficiency, low emissions, and power was heralded as a diesel renaissance. If you think that isn’t now dead you are blind.

      1. Let me know when you have anything on the topic at hand, which is the scams ability to switch gas drivers to diesel, which is the only way there is a carbon offset. The author is guessing. You probably are too.

        1. Lets us know where you found this ‘diesel marketplace’ consisting of people who only buy diesels.

    3. Diesel marketplace? Other than VAG, who would that be? A single Chevy model, a couple of Mercedes, and ??

      1. huh huh….you said “vag”….huh huh….huh huh….huh huh….


          1. VW doesn’t compete with BMW. Audi does.

            1. ^^this right here

        1. I love entering a VAG!

      2. There is one overriding marketplace- car drivers. And then the more direct one, which is diesels among diesels, and gas models among gas models.

        VW diesel cars were primary in competition with other diesel manufacturers for the already existing diesel marketplace. That is where the scam was directed. To sell more VW diesels than other diesels.

        Like I said, no carbon offsets unless the scam created more diesel drivers over gas. And she has no idea if that happened.

        1. Please read the above comments and educate yourself. As diesel fuel efficiency increase (and thereby decrease CO2 emissions), NOx emissions increase.

          1. Please, he can’t be required to deal with facts, he had the “feelz” on his side.

      3. BMW offers a US diesel versions of their 3, 5, and 7 series. Also in their X5.

        1. How does BMW pass emissions tests?

          1. BMW is a luxury brand, with noticeably higher prices for their cars. So I expect the engines probably cost more to make. For example, a 328D with a 2.0L 4 cylinder turbo Diesel engine, similar to the VW 2.0L question, has a starting MSRP of nearly $40k. And that is the least expensive diesel model BMW offers in North America. That is nearly double the starting MSRP of the Jetta or Golf TDI. Granted, the 328D is on a superior chassis with a better transmission, and is a higher output engine (180 hp, 280 ft. lbs. tq. Vs. 140 hp, 236 ft lbs. tq.). So I sure the engine budget is higher.

  16. How does the software know when to adjust the engine controller? How does it know when it is under test and when it is normal driving? It seems to me like an important detail that’s missing.

    1. Testing is done in lab settings at constant RPMs, apparently.

      I also stumbled upon the following bit of of fun when looking for it:

      There’s one last facet of this issue worth discussing. Two months ago, the EPA came out strongly against proposed exceptions that would allow the owners of vehicles (including the John Deere tractors we discussed back then) to diagnose problems and perform repairs on the vehicles they legally purchase. Ironically, that same freedom would’ve made it much easier for the EPA to actually detect that VW had programmed its systems to detect when a vehicle was undergoing pollution testing and fully engage its own anti-pollution systems, but to ignore these same systems on the open road.

      The EPA opposed allowing end users the freedom to tinker with their own hardware, claiming that giving them the right to do so “would allow users to modify that software for purposes other than those the proponents envision” in a way that “could slow or reverse gains made under the Clean Air Act.” Those same restrictions allowed VW to manufacture vehicles designed to bypass EPA restrictions and ship them for more than half a decade.

    2. I heard a report that it was steering wheel position, load and a couple other metrics. It’s actually pretty simple to do – I had the test organization, and we had a gazillion dynos (engine and chassis) and we could make a car think it was running the Daytona 500 or Baja on one of those so….this would be a relatively simple program fer one o’ them smart German powertrain control engineers….

    3. It’s easy to do. If the engine is running under load (not just idling) and the wheel speed sensors for the undriven wheels say they’re not turning, you’re on a dyno. If the accelerometers also don’t read any bumping or braking or turning or acceleration, then you’re definitely on a dyno. If the hood switch also reads that the hood is open, you’re on a dyno so hard it hurts.

      1. So in other words the government made it amazingly easy to detect when the test was being done, and assumed no software engineer would be able to dodge around. Seriously how the fuck did they even get caught with these Keystone Kops on the trail?

      2. So in other words the government made it amazingly easy to detect when the test was being done, and assumed no software engineer would be able to dodge around. Seriously how the fuck did they even get caught with these Keystone Kops on the trail?

    4. One such “detection” was that the engine was running in gear with the hood up.

  17. From Wikipedia – “… the EPA said Volkswagen had been denying for almost a year that they deliberately gamed emissions testing, saying the discrepancies were due to “technical” reasons, until they finally admitted cheating in early September 2015, after the EPA threatened to withhold approval for their 2016 cars.”

    I understand that after the EPA threatened Volkswagen with total destruction, Volkswagen also admitted to inventing sharks, controlling the global production of “crush” pornography, and providing pharmaceuticals to every East German woman ever to win an Olympic medal.

    1. ausgeseichnet! (sp?)

    2. Wow, so they couldn’t even prove it when they have the cars, they have the tests, they can do more tests, they can copy the software? Jesus I apologize to the noble constabulary of Keystone for comparing the EPA to them.

  18. It used to be that testing for emissions was done mechanically with an emissions sniffer stuck up the tailpipe.

    For newer cars, this is done electronically and there is obvious room for corruption.

    Surprise, surprise…

    1. That does not apply here. This is about laboratory tests of manufacturer samples conducted by the EPA, not field tests of consumer-owned vehicles conducted by state governments. The testers are directly sampling the emission levels of the vehicle; they are not relying on the computer’s self-reported values. However, the computer is able to detect the testing conditions and using different emissions control parameters under those conditions.

  19. I guess it was a bit fraudulent. But mostly this makes me happy and sorry for VW. To my mind this was a very clever way to skirt an overly stringent regulation.

    I wonder how many people realize that the cheat actually made the cars put out less CO2 and use less fuel?

    As far as I can figure, more NOX is produced by lightning and soil bacteria than from vehicles and diesels are way cleaner than they used to be in any case. So this seems like a big nothing.

    1. Taken at face value, sure, but no matter, because what this is really about is disobedience.

      1. And the feelz and intentionz of the progressives and their faggoty ‘green movement’.

    2. I guess it was a bit fraudulent. But mostly this makes me happy and sorry for VW. To my mind this was a very clever way to skirt an overly stringent regulation.

      On the other hand, some people (right or wrong) factor what they perceive to be their personal environmental impact into their purchasing decisions, especially with cars. If people bought these cars based in part on a good-faith belief that they met a certain standard of emissions compared to the alternatives, when in fact the cars did no such thing, I’d call that *a lot* fraudulent.

      Even if ultimately it was the regulatory environment that created the incentive for this to happen, that doesn’t excuse outright fraud, even if the fraud concerned a metric some of us would find relatively unimportant.

      1. Oh sure. And I acknowledged that it is fraudulent. It was still pretty clever.

        I’d also guess that most people thinking of “emissions” when buying a car are mostly thinking about CO2. Who even knows what NOX is? And I bet many of them don’t realize that VW cheated to make the cars more efficient and emit less CO2. Doesn’t excuse fraud, but it’s kind of interesting to watch.

      2. If people bought these cars based in part on a good-faith belief

        I don’t understand how optimizing an engine’s performance for its at-the-moment use is fraud.

        The actual fraud is government regulation of emissions. You know, the stupid and corrupt concept that can only be accepted by idiots who value good-faith belief over actual economics.

        1. after this new anti-statist marketing gimmick I’m willing to ditch the Audi I drive for a diesel VW !

        2. ^^^This, we all know there are Never any unintended consequences when the bureaucrats write stupid rules. Bureaucracy uber alles.

  20. I daresay that the absolute difference between the testing standard, and the running setting of these engines will generate not one whit of “smog”.
    This is a case of the regulators attempting to attain perfection, not what is practical.
    But then, libertarians have never been known for Making the Perfect the Enemy of the Good, have they?

  21. Like I said, no carbon offsets unless the scam created more diesel drivers over gas. And she has no idea if that happened.

    Jeezis, you’re stupid. Let’s think back, shall we, to the days when General Motors pretty much singlehandedly destroyed the market for diesel passenger cars in America.
    VW has slowly been rebuilding that market over two decades or so. A very large portion of those sales were to replace gasoline engined cars.
    As for the “scam” you’re so concerned about, it was the result of the CUSTOMERS’ demand for power and driveability. VW’s crime was giving the peole what they want.

  22. steering wheel position, load and a couple other metrics.

    One of the things I saw was front/rear wheel speed differential. If rear wheel speed =0, you’re on the dyno. No steering inputs confirm this.

    1. This would not apply to awd cars.

  23. Is my VW a poison belching earth killer, or will we discover that the narrow emissions testing spectrum, for which the company is being crucified, is a red herring tossed to the EPA seal pod by the ascendant green movement?

    If my Jetta TDI Sportwagon were the apocalyptic smokestack the EPA suggests, I should smell like a diesel mechanic, or at least like a public bus rider. Until I see an actual comparison of VW diesel emissions to EPA personal car diesel standards using instruments outside of the internal sensors and measured across the entire operational range of the vehicle, I will reserve judgement. It stands head and shoulders above my first diesel, a two and a half ton multi-fuel courtesy of Uncle Sam.

    By the way, the soot generally associated with diesel vehicles is either thermally oxidized or stored on board the VW within the diesel particulate filter apparatus. Don’t be scammed by government – it is a clean car.

    For a more entertaining critique of subject click here. It is mildly suggestive, but gear heads will appreciate it.

    Das Auto!…..n-tyranny/

  24. This would not apply to awd cars.

    No kidding?

  25. Diesel engines have long been popular in Europe

    Well hell. Greedy KKKorporation despoiling Mother Gaia – but they’re those oh-so-dreamy Europeans! I feel certain I should be mad at Boooosh! for something here.

  26. I’m now in the market for a VW.

  27. I have a 06 Passat, but not diesel. Put on 25k miles a year and it’s always worked perfectly


  28. The CEO accepted responsibility and resigned. Maybe he should face harsher punishment. I don’t know enough details to know. But unlike politicians, celebrities and a host of other jackwagons in the public eye, he actually faced the consequence of resigning in disgrace with things went south and he was at the helm. Most of those losers “accept responsibility” and keep on keeping on.

  29. Up next EPA to extradite VW and Audi brass.

    They will end up doing life in prison, for giving Americans what they want. Blow and fast efficient cars.

    1. That would be in jail next to the Colombian Narcos, doing life for giving Americans what they want.

  30. It might have been a different story if he represented an American automaker like GM instead of a German one like VW. Then he could have put killer Cobalts on the road and gotten away with a $900 million fine.”

    Yep, Volkswagen is doubly screwed because a) it isn’t an American firm and b) the relationship between the perpetually moribund Big Three and the always helpful federal government is…complicated.

  31. Start making cash right now… Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8596 a month. I’ve started this job and I’ve never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here…

  32. Interesting, but missing one key fact. An efficient Diesel engine emits less CO2, but necessarily more NOX. This trade off is a well known issue for diesel engineers and regulators. Apparently the EPA wants to have its cake and eat it too.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.