Ok guys, we’ll just save everyone some time and come clean on this one: all our engines actually contain a burning baby seal; a small carcinogen smelter, and a transfinite array of defeat devices; plus a ballgag to keep the seal quiet while it burns.
You caught us. No point in denying it now.
Except, you know, to anyone who has to breathe.
Next week’s revelation: That ballgag is not BPA-free.
Bye, bye, VW! Somehow, I don’t think you’re going to recover from this one.
It did not identify which vehicles were affected, but said the flaw in no way
compromised the safety of any of the vehicles.
Except, you know, to anyone who has to breathe.
Anyone who has to breathe will be emitting CO2 every time they exhale.
CO2 is a greenhouse gas, not a toxic smog-forming gas. It doesn’t impair your breathing, it warms the planet and acidifies the oceans.
(It is an asphyxiant - that is, it can suffocate you (see hypercapnia), but only at much higher concentrations. But that’s irrelevant here.)
I thought the problem is NOx, not CO2.
Well, we were focused on violating phthalate concentration standards, so we didn’t check for BPA; but there may be some in there. And the strap is chromium-tanned by unprotected sweatshop workers.
I noticed that during the World Series VW had ads running just like nothing happened. Have they bought national TV airtime to, I don’t know, acknowledge their wrongdoing and offer an apology???
Note that this news is from VW’s internal investigation and they aren’t copping to a lesser plea this time.
As bad as it seems, American auto makers are doubtless worse – but they haven’t been caught yet. GM in particular has a lock on automotive datacom hardware and, since they can hide behind DMCA copyright, any unauthorized engine data stream inspection is effectively illegal.
How would this physically happen? My understanding is that CO2 emissions are a chemically fixed and linear relationship to the amount of fuel burned; the only way to lower CO2 emissions is to not burn the fuel, or to burn some of it incompletely (eg emitting carbon monoxide instead and getting less bang for your buck, literally).
If the car isn’t burning the fuel that is purchased for it - how can that have been out of sight? Are CO2 emissions measured with a sensor without reference to a car’s (known) real-world MPG? If so, why?!? Surely the amount of fuel purchased is an easier and far more reliable indicator of max CO2 emissions than some ridiculous impossible-to-calibrate sensor in a tailpipe.
This is going to cause the price of my lust object 911 Carrera to drop to something I can afford now, right?
VW owns Lamborghini, right? 
If a lump of metal gleams as gold to you, but it gleams as lead to everyone else, how much value do you gain from possessing the lump?
If your answer is “a lump of gold’s worth!”, then go get that thang!
(But if it also still gleams as gold to other people, then… the price isn’t going to drop 
)
I’m very confused by this kind of reporting because they keep using the term “CO2”. Standards for emissions for diesel exhaust are also for carbon monoxide, not carbon dioxide (at least in the US).
I think you underestimate the power of transnational megacorps and the overestimate the concern of the person-in-the-street for what VW has done.
Understand that I’m not defending VW. I haven’t owned a VW since my '66 Bug (I only buy cars I can fiddle with, which doesn’t include any modern VWs). But while VW takes a hit in sales, most people don’t much care that they flaunted environmental laws and lied to the world. It sucks, but it’s still true.
The problem is, of course, that were I to do so, RatWoman would very likely see it as a large lump of lead rather than the gold that it is, and chastise me hard and often, which is not to my benefit.
This is true, and the article is very confusing. It seems to be simply saying that the vehicles have lower real-world MPG than their EPA rating. CO2 is really a red herring here. It may be because vehicles in (parts of) europe are rated in g CO2/100 km, which allows comparison of gasoline vs. diesel vs. natural gas vs. plug-in hybrid/electric cars, but for a given fuel, CO2 is just proportional to fuel consumption.
Of course, most vehicles get worse than the EPA mileage ratings if for no other reason than most people don’t drive like the EPA test cycle. I guess the question would be what (if anything) beyond this VW was doing to inflate their mileage numbers. Regardless, it isn’t like you can actually hide the real world numbers, and the room for variation isn’t that big. It is going to be more like 10% rather than the 10x emissions from the NO2 fraud.
And Bugatti. I might be able to afford a Veyron after all of this!
Do you need emissions certs in that price bracket? I thought Bugatti engines used virgins for speed and kittens for the environmental stuff.
