Study Indicates That Pretty Much Everyone In Europe Was Cheating On Diesel Emissions

UK-based authorities started testing other brands' diesels shortly after Dieselgate broke, and they discovered it's not *just* European brands. GM and Chrysler (North American brands) and Mazda (Asian brand) were also shown to perform differently in in-lab tests, and produce many multiples of in-lab-legal emissions when operating outside the lab.

They found the same to be true for most gasoline (petrol) models they tested, across various models, across various brands.

But from a legal perspective, the issue is not the pollution they produce under real world conditions, it's whether they've broken any law! Current laws, as I understand them, require a vehicle to pass an emission test in a lab (only), performed under very specific conditions, and without using a "cheat device", which has a very specific legal definition. If a vehicle passes the in-lab-only test using a method other than the legally-defined "cheat device", then no law has been broken, even if they generate excess pollutants in the real world. That's the law, weird as it might seem.

So my understanding is that (1) yes, many other diesel and non-diesel models and brands pollute a LOT more outside of the lab than lab-legal levels, and (2) that's perfectly legal.

Judge for yourself as to how effective the law is at reducing pollutants and "cleaning up" emissions and the air, in the real world. I find it odd how stories like this this one quickly disappear from the news in North America, while the *entire* focus is on The Evil VW, and how punishing them is necessary to "clean up the air" (a 100% false premise). It's just bizarre!

Steve. The article clearly points out that European law makers left a loophole in their law that manufacturers legally used to install software that does things like "prevent engine damage", etc. as the loophole allowed. They did not cheat if they broke no laws. If lawmakers don't want that, change the law. It is that simple. Likewise the data on the European tests you referenced doesn't necessarily apply to the US manufacturer's vehicles that are in the USA.

It also pointed out that the USA law has a different process for regulator/manufacture dealings regarding control software. VW LIED in working with US regulators in regard to that process. As yet VW seems to be the only manufacturer that did that in the USA.

As far as lab test versus real world performance the reason for doing it this way is that if real world control systems were required for products it would dramatically raise the cost to consumers reducing their buying power. Think of your Q5 costing 25% more for the same vehicle.

Coming attraction. Watch the 54mpg CAFE requirement. The law is loaded with loopholes and since consumers are already rejecting vehicles needed to meet the CAFE regs, global manufacturers will push the loophole envelope to meet what consumers want.

Vette71: To ME, it doesn't make sense to pretend we're passing laws to make the air "clean" when in fact, the laws pertain only to the in-lab-only tests. Meanwhile, independent researchers confirm that vehicles typically emit *MANY* times lab-legal emissions when in real world use.

I guess I'm in the tiny minority. As you said, if we actually did something to address actual, real-world air pollution, our vehicles would be more expensive, and that's a problem for consumers. And that's how we vote: Cheap vehicles, dirty air, business as usual. But hey, the lab results are good, so we can feel good about that!

The problem with real world compared to lab testing is the uncontrollable variables in the real world. Temperature, humidity, wind, traffic, pedestrians, none of these can be accounted for in real world testing. When you test in a lab, under strictly controlled conditions, you can depend on the results being reliable and repeatable. Naturally, that assumes you don't use a cheat device as VW did.

MPG calculations are the same. You need to measure them under controlled conditions to be able to have ratings that can be compared between different vehicles. If MPG testing were done in the real world, the numbers would be useless to compare different cars because the testing would all be done under different conditions.

atc98092: Is it accurate to summarize your assertion about "The problem with real world [emissions measurements] compared to lab testing..." as follows: We don't do it, and shouldn't do it, because it's hard?

Would your summary also include the assertion "because real-world emission testing is hard to distill into a single, uniform standard, we should ignore the fact that European authorities, who conducted their own real-world emission tests, have found some vehicles emit up to 40 TIMES(!!!) lab-legal levels when operating in the real world, and virtually all emit several times lab-legal levels"?

Personally, I'm super glad the Wright Brothers didn't embrace the philosophy of "it's hard, so let's not do it."

I know I'm in the tiny minority, but I believe it's better for people to be aware of what's *really* happening (e.g., in order to bring you less expensive cars, we've chosen to pollute the air at a rate that's 40x higher than your imagined worst case scenario) than to have consumers happily believing they're being "green" when in fact, they're not. In other words, I'm saying "I don't care if VW cheated on the emissions test, but I DO care that their diesels pollute 40x higher than the lab allows". Meanwhile, a lot of other people are saying "I don't care about the 40x beyond lab-legal pollution in the real world -- what matters is VW cheated on the test." It's just a matter of perspective, and both sides have their beliefs about what's important to them.

Steve, all I'm saying is that for the testing to be repeatable and reliable, they need to be done under controlled conditions. Europe may do real world test, but that doesn't mean it's valid. You could test the same car on the same route on different days and end up with completely different results.

atc98092: The way *I* see thing, is as follows…

(1) If you reproduce a bad experiment, you get a bad experiment and bad results, multiple times. That describes what we have today.

(2) The authors of current emission testing legislation (wrongly) assumed that an in-lab-only emission test would be fairly representative of emissions under real-world use. That has proven to be a completely wrong assumption. Actually, I’m giving them the benefit of the doubt, as some folks believe the auto industry, who authored the laws and testing methodology, knew they could easily and cost-effectively get around it (i.e., comply with the letter of the law, but not the spirit).

(3) If we really care about reducing air pollution cause by cars while operating in the real world, then it’s abundantly clear the current system is completely ineffective in doing that. If we don’t give a shit about air quality, or if we like the idea of reduced pollution but we believe it’s not achievable for whatever reason (e.g., cars would be too expensive, it’s too hard, etc.) then let’s stop pretending that we care, and let’s stop making car manufacturers jump through hoops to pass meaningless and ineffective tests. If we did that, then surely it would bring the price of a new car down.

They weren't cheating, they were meeting the requirements. Since they met the lab requirements, and weren't using a cheat device like VW, then they are legal.

009, you have a beef with diesel? That headline is misleading at best.

And I'll bet most gas engines exceed the limits in real world as well...

Was it that these other European diesels with their defeat modes were not offered or operation changed for the US, other than VW? It would have helped if the VW defeat system was detailed.

A good example of the difference is the Jeep VM V6 diesel. It was offered in European Jeep GCs for a couple of years prior to being introduced in the USA in 2014. While it met Euro laws at the time it took Jeep two years to get it to meet USA requirements. A very complex urea catalyst system with purification cycles and other controls was required. Even then the early 2014 USA diesels went through several recalls and catalyst adjustments or replacements as it was in service. Things have been ironed out for 2015/16. USA is definitely different than Europe.

Diesel is passe with hybrids anyway. I'd much rather drive a Prius than a Passat TDI. The ONLY reason Europe has so many diesels is that the price of diesel has been subsidized to make it fiscally advantageous.

Oh no. Can't let that comment go by! There's no comparison between my diesel and a Toyota hybrid. And you accuse VW of blandness? I greatly enjoy my Passat TDI, both for the driving experience and the economy. I got 52 MPG driving to work this morning. Yes, I get a slight boost from the downhill portion from my house to the bottom of the hill, be even averaging the round trip (with far more traffic on the return) the total trip is about 42 MPG. And that's in a very enjoyable to drive car.