No way, because it was just two rogue engineers. Again. In a different bit of the company. Those guys sure get around!
Have they been raked over the coals legally for that obvious lie yet? I guess there’s no smoking (har) gun as with Wells Fargo yet.
Greenhouse gas.
The problem I think is this line:
the program ends and the engine kicks into a high-emission, high-fuel-efficiency mode that made Audis very cheap to drive
High CO2 emissions are the opposite of high fuel efficiency. I can see there being a trade-off between particulates and efficiency (burning more fuel per horsepower in order to ensure that it burns cleaner) but not between efficiency and CO2 emissions. The more fuel you burn, the more CO2 you emit.
Yes, but the point they are referring to, not very clearly I agree, is that the high efficiency mode involves high combustion temperatures (due in part to the Carnot efficiency equation) and hence high levels of NOx (“emissions”), whereas the low - NOx mode involves burning more fuel per joule of mechanical output.
It is the usual problem of engineering - the customer wants X, Y and cheap, and X and Y are mutually exclusive unless cheap is replaced with expensive.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
