Volkswagen Ordered To Recall 500K Vehicles Over Its Own Malicious Programming 411
Etherwalk writes: The Obama Administration today ordered Volkswagen to recall 500,000 4-cylinder Volkswagen and Audi vehicles from model years 2009-15. The vehicles were programmed to turn on more thorough emissions control and generate cleaner readings when tested for emissions than they did when in ordinary operation. In effect, the software made everything operate normally when you looked at it, just like any good malware.
Don't take yours in. (Score:2, Insightful)
Translated: If you have one, don't take it in, unless you want it to run even worse.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Some people care about the emissions from their car...
Re:Don't take yours in. (Score:4, Insightful)
And since they're not going to give you a new engine when you take your car in for recall, it's safe to say that the performance will be reduced when you get it back. For the majority of people, a slight difference in emissions would be preferable to a noticeable drop in performance.
Re: (Score:3)
For the majority of people, a slight difference in emissions would be preferable to a noticeable drop in performance.
Because you just can't have enough horsepower. Faster faster faster!
Re: (Score:3)
You do understand!
Re: (Score:2)
Because you just can't have enough horsepower. Faster faster faster!
Dieselheads are as often worried about mpg as they are about power. 1 mpg difference can mean a lot of money when you're towing a trailer 1k miles. And the emissions were often costing 2-3. Means a lot when you were starting at 8.
Re:Don't take yours in. (Score:5, Funny)
enough horsepower
I don't understand those words in that order. There cannot be "enough horsepower", there can only be "more horsepower".
Re:Don't take yours in. (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Don't take yours in. (Score:5, Funny)
If you had more horsepower, you might be able to catch up with and discover what's making that "whooshing" sound you hear overhead.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, pulling heavy loads is exactly what Jetta's are known for.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, pulling heavy loads is exactly what Jetta's are known for.
A Jetta *is* a heavy load for a Jetta! Never mind additional waste-weight like passengers and/or cargo/luggage!
Ever tried accelerating on an inclining/upgrade on-ramp for merging onto a freeway in a Jetta with 2 or 3 people aboard? Even on a 0-degree grade on-ramp it's dicey.
There is danger both in a vehicle being under-powered and over-powered. However, AFAIK there are no government regulations which detail minimum acceleration/engine power requirements for a given horsepower/vehicle weight class for US pa
Re: (Score:2)
The last person I knew who bought a VW was told by the dealership that it was normal for a modern gasoline engine to burn a quart of oil every month.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. Several manufacturers have this in their owners' manuals. Some claim as much as a quart per 600 miles is 'normal'.
Not that that makes it suck any less.
Re: (Score:3)
This is what my design professor called a high tech solution to a low tech problem. I use a dipstick.
Dipstick tells you oil level, and if you're good, a smidge about oil condition. Unless you're driving an oil-burner, level doesn't say much.
Also, oil turns black pretty quickly, and it's actually guesswork on how well it's holding up depending on numerous values - changing it early saves the engine, but costs you more oil changes. Changing it late costs the engine, but saves you on oil changes. Ideally, you change the oil once the sustainers and such in it are exhausted and it can't carry out the contami
Re: (Score:3)
For the majority of people, a slight difference in emissions would be preferable to a noticeable drop in performance.
Exactly why regulation is necessary. The ironic thing about libertarians is that protection of the commons is not necessary, but they are the first to trash the commons if they can get away with it. I'd like to see the political demographics of people who get emissions control bypass mechanisms are, and especially those idiotic coal rollers.
Re: (Score:3)
Some of them are "ecomodder" types whose idea of "performance" might still be laudable efficiency, albeit prioritizing goals slightly differently than the EPA does.
For example, as delivered from the factory these 2009+ VW TDIs cannot safely use more than 5% biodiesel. However, with [illegal] modifications to the emissions system they could use 100% biodiesel, which can arguably provide "better" emissions than
Yes, Emissions free, tragedy of the commons (Score:5, Insightful)
For the majority of people, a slight difference in emissions would be preferable to a noticeable drop in performance.
For the majority of individuals, yes. Because you're not *paying* for the harm your emissions do.
Re: Yes, Emissions free, tragedy of the commons (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
It's such a common problem-type it even had a name: Externalities (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality).
external. from the latin for, not my problem. see also "compassionate conservatism"
Re:Don't take yours in. (Score:5, Insightful)
Some people care about the emissions from their car...
just like some people like low flow shower heads and low flow toilets.
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
just like some people like low flow shower heads and low flow toilets.
some of us actually have to pay water bills
Re: (Score:3)
+1. Nothing trained me to shut off lights I didn't need and to learn to tolerate CFL bulbs like moving out and paying my own electric bill.
Some of us also actually do make decisions based on a world view, not our own immediate gratification.
So while folks in drought stricken California may despise short showers from a low flow shower head, many who could easily pay their bills will still cut back even if they can afford high rates because *gasp* they want to contribute to the common good where they reasona
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
How much water do you save taking an 30-minute shower with a showehead that uses half the water, compared to a 15-minute shower with a regular showerhead?
Normal human beings can get clean with a 5 minute low flow shower. What is your problem that you need a half an hour?
Re: (Score:2)
Normal human beings can get clean with a 5 minute low flow shower. What is your problem that you need a half an hour?
I will give you my finest hour
The one I spent watching you shower
"Picture This", Blondie.
https://youtu.be/QbdCpi4qTNY [youtu.be]
Re: (Score:2)
Need? Are you kidding? If I was worried about water usage I'd wet down and shut the water off, lather up and wash then turn the water on and rinse. You shouldn't need more than about 60 seconds of water flow. I usually stand under the water for about 10 minutes or so feeling the hot stinging spray loosening sore tired muscles and easing an aching back. A hot shower is all about luxury, not need.
Re: (Score:2)
For many people, a shower is relaxing. Quiet time of solitude, sometimes the only time of the day to clear your head while cleansing your body, and that needs more than 5 minutes. 5 minute showers are to freshen up in the morning before work or after working out.
Re: Don't take yours in. (Score:4, Funny)
I've done it so often that now every time it rains I get a hard-on!
Re: Don't take yours in. (Score:4, Funny)
That's weird. Every time I get a hard-on, it rains. Some people have a trick knee.
Re: (Score:2)
That's weird. Every time I get a hard-on, it rains.
I have a whole new respect for you Ratzo, or at least part of you (the part that writes your /. posts, by all appearances).
Re: (Score:2)
Some people care about the emissions from their car...
just like some people like low flow shower heads and low flow toilets.
If they are done right, both are excellent. I have a low flow shower head that puts out plenty of pressure.
Re: (Score:2)
Returning one that doesn't work properly is substantially more difficult with toilets. I bought one, one of this highest rated for "flushing ability" short of the noisy pressurized type, and after months of flush six times, plunger, flush six more times, give up and fill up a two-gallon bucket to pour in...
I extended the overflow pipe in the tank and raised the water level an inch. Now, it works fine. And uses less water over all, because it's not six times as much water as before.
Re: (Score:2)
Some people care about the emissions from their car...
just like some people like low flow shower heads and low flow toilets.
There's a big problem with this comparison. In some places, water is more expensive than the "essentially free" that many of us enjoy. Low flow fixtures can save measurable amounts of money, just like CFL and LED lighting.
There is no direct cost for driving a car which is polluting more than it should. In very serious cases (black clouds of smoke) there might be a possible fine but I assume Volkswagen's problem is relatively minor and not visually noticeable.
Re:Don't take yours in. (Score:5, Insightful)
Depends which emissions they're concerned about. Diesels (as I recall) are worse for particulates and NOx, but better as far as CO2.
Re: (Score:2)
At least until you're running them in a mode to get rid of the particulates and NOx - at least the first generations of these have such worse gas mileage that hybrid buses are getting fewer miles per gallon than the 30 year old buses they were supposed to replace. The hybrids were getting much better mileage until they had the engine replaced with one that was 1 generation of emission control requirements newer.
Re: (Score:2)
They are more efficient, and thus burn a bit less CO2 - but we're in the 10% range, depending on your driving style.
Re:Don't take yours in. (Score:5, Funny)
CO2 is plant food, therefor it's harmless. Nightshade berries are bird food, therefor they are harmless. Why don't you eat some nightshade berries and let us know how that logic of yours works out.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Nevertheless, particulates will give you cancer, NOx causes smog, both contribute to asthma, and plants grow better with more CO2 while animals don't notice the difference at these concentrations. Only trouble is CO2 keeps accumulating, leading to increased acidity and global warming, which will eventually kill people if not dealt with.
The difference is, you can suck CO2 out of the atmosphere wherever and it will negate the harm of emitting it, but particulates and NOx have to be dealt with at the source.
Re: (Score:3)
Google doesn't know it to be true because it is not true. Volkswagen ECMs are not over-the-air updated. They can't be. They don't have the physical hardware to do so. As a matter of fact, conventional ECU flashing is so risky it is highly recommended the car be connected to a battery charger to maintain voltage stability. Even better, a bench flasher (for aftermarket tuning). Even then, the flash is not always successful. When it is, it causes several codes to be thrown that have to be reset with a factory
Re:Don't take yours in. (Score:5, Interesting)
Driving around with a known polluting car is awful. You are a jerk for suggesting folks just ignore their cars being 40x out of compliance. Diesel particulate emissions are a major contributor to diseases like lung cancer, asthma, etc. Eff you.
I couldn't easily find if VW is just going to update the software, or what?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know, the EPA is using some double-speak:
"Car owners should know that although these vehicles have emissions exceeding standards, these violations do not present a safety hazard and the cars remain legal to drive and resell. Owners of cars of these models and years do not need to take any action at this time."
I assume they mean to say that it's not a hazard that will kill the occupants of the vehicle, but only hazardous considering the number of these vehicles on the road, but the way they phrase it
Re:Don't take yours in. (Score:4, Informative)
Driving around with a known polluting car is awful. You are a jerk for suggesting folks just ignore their cars being 40x out of compliance. Diesel particulate emissions are a major contributor to diseases like lung cancer, asthma, etc. Eff you.
I couldn't easily find if VW is just going to update the software, or what?
No, VW are the jerks. If there ends up being a noticeable negative impact on performance, the only fair thing for VW to do is offer full refunds (including tax, and everything) for those who want it, and take the cars back. Otherwise, how are people jerks for wanting to keep what they paid for? Even compensating people a few hundred dollars isn't enough to make up for being stuck with a multi-thousand-dollar asset you no longer enjoy using.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I believe Hitler was in charge of Germany in those days.
Re: (Score:3)
I have nothing against the modern-day Volkswagen Group, but to deny its corporate history (and that of Mitsubishi, Daimler-Benz, Fujitsu, etc.) is no better than a Nazi tactic.
I always thought that Mitsubishi should start using the tagline "From the company that brought you Pearl Harbor".
It's About Warranty Repairs (Score:2)
Experts are thinking it has a lot more to do with reducing wear and tear on the very expensive Diesel Particulate Filter (DPS). The majority of states have testing requirements and under the CA 7/70 and Federal 8/80 emissions control warranty rules VW would likely be on the hook to fix any issues.
Re: (Score:2)
Fair enough. Grab a copy of the ECUs code before taking it in, then restore the good code after the update is done.
Re: (Score:2)
They will only if they are mandated to do so (if then).
This only applies to diesel models (Score:4, Informative)
Might want to be more specific in the synopsis.
Built-in "performance chip" (Score:5, Interesting)
So VW incorporated stuff you see advertised in the back of hot-rod mags into the car. Now they'll have to go after those after-market guys, assuming the chips actually do what they say. It's not like anybody even tells state inspectors they swapped out the chips. I'm not sure how much this goes on. I've got a relatively new car and have only had it smogged once since I bought it. No, I don't plan on ever messing with it. I just know that such things exist.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
They do the same thing for newer cars in the U.S. as well, at least in some states.
Re: (Score:2)
Up in the great white north the emissions testing has become an even more blatant money grab as they no longer perform an actual test, they just check ODB codes.
Hey its Canada; what matters is that it is regulated!
Need Moar Regulations!!
Re: (Score:2)
Literally decades ago in Virginia, a state not considered progressive at all, they were measuring gasses at the tailpipe. This may have only been NoVa though, which is part of the DC metro. I'm not sure what they did in the rest of the state; but IIRC it was a state program not county. I've been away from there a while but I have a hard time believing it changed. I seem to recall there being some confusion about what they would do when an EV pulled in. I guess they got waivers or something.
I didn't act
Color me naive.... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Color me naive.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
It makes me wonder if plugging in something like a Scangauge or VCDS changes the performance too.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
would also have the upshot of working with older vehicles that don't have such a port.
This port goes back to the mid 1990s.
Vehicles of that age are generally exempt from testing.
Re: (Score:2)
They do, but they also read the engine performance data over the CANBUS, so while they do have a sensor reading emissions from the tailpipe it's always used in conjunction with reading from the ODB port as well.
You're naive. (Score:3, Interesting)
=====
Bought a 1959 Chevrolet Apache 31 pickup truck in 1978. Motor blew up within fifty miles and I replaced it with a freshly rebuilt 235 L-six motor. Brand new.
Guy at the California Emissions Control Testing Center (actually, a major auto-repair shop which shall remain nameless here) say's "There's no smog control cannister on this truck. Can't pass it." I had to argue with him and make him look up the concept of a grandfathered vehicle,
Re: (Score:3)
Good story dude. But pre 75 means no smog check in CA.
You don't want the blower sticking out of the hood though. Cops spot those and give you tickets for race mods. Hence low rise blowers.
Re: (Score:3)
Here in socialist NJ you can go to the state inspection center and they do it for free. It's about 15 minutes from my house and I'm in and out in ~3 minutes - get out of the car, they plug you in, rev the car in neutral, check the headlights and blinkers and wipers, get out, get the new sticker, and put it on the windshield. There's sometimes a line, but they have a webcam so you can see if they're busy before making the trip.
Or you can pay for it to be done at the private shop right down the street - round
Re: (Score:2)
Seems like you've never had an emissions test done. No, they don't interface with your vehicle's ECU; they stick a probe up it's ass^H^H^H tailpipe.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Color me naive.... (Score:5, Informative)
It sounds like they went way beyond that. A comment on Jalopnik says:
According to the report from the EPA, it used figures such as steering wheel input, barometric pressure, engine run-time, wheel speed, etc, to determine it was being tested on a dyno.
I think VW is going to be in a world of hurt over this. Apparently their 2016 models are already being held at the port and cannot be delivered to dealers.
Re: (Score:2)
... but how does the software in the car know that the vehicle's emissions are being tested in the first place?
I am curious too. I also imagine it varies quite a bit from location to location. In Denver, for example, they often setup emission detectors near highway onramps. They test and photograph license plates as people drive by. If you pass, they'll send notice in the mail that you don't have to bother visiting an actual emissions station.
Re: (Score:2)
Hold x+-100 RPM for y time. Then drop to z rpm for testing. It's pretty much a fingerprint.
Way down at the bottom (Score:2)
No authority (Score:2)
Note that the violation is subject to a fine. The administration has no authority to order a recall.
I thought it was the other way around (Score:2)
My damn VW turbo diesel got 10MPG less after it got around 300 miles on it and I brought it back multiple times to be checked and they said everything was fine. I was swearing up and down that they have a program that reports better fuel mileage while it is still likely to be on a lot and be being test driven.
Re: (Score:2)
Bought a Nissan Versa early last year that had 21k on it. Average MPG at the time was at 36.something. Had it reset when I did teh first oil change, with my driving it is steady hanging at 39.1mpg - mostly highway or country roads, but some city.
Also all SUV's and pickup trucks... (Score:2)
Because the whole purpose of the SUV and pickup truck is to evade emissions controls (because they don't apply to 'light commercial vehicles) all SUVs and pickups (not actually used for genuine commercial purposes) are being recalled as well.
Shit. (Score:2)
I bought a 2015 Jetta TDI (right when gas prices spiked). I was loving the ridiculous mileage I was getting. I figured I was saving about $150-$200 per month in fuel costs over my old Camry.
Now I'm probably going to lose a shitload of that mileage.
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder if the increase in particulate pollution is balanced by the decrease in CO2 and fuel extraction pollution due to less fuel being burned. (This isn't time for a knee-jerk reaction. We need actual quantitative analysis here.)
Re:Shit. (Score:4, Interesting)
It's probably how VW got a Euro spec engine to meet US regulations. Euro specs measure pollution per distance - the way to win is to burn fuel really efficiently. US specs measure pollution per unit of fuel consumption - the way to win is to burn fuel really cleanly. That difference is a big reason why they have much more fuel efficient vehicles in Europe. It's much easier to get a larger engine to burn cleaner. Most manufacturers that sell the same engine in both continents use different tunings in each, where the EU one gets better fuel economy and the US one burns cleaner.
Manufacturers have been trying to bring the incredible economy that small diesels in Europe get to the US for years but it turns out making a diesel that is significantly more efficient than a comparable gas engine and also meets EPA regulations is really hard. For example, Mazda has been promising Skyactiv-D (diesel) engines in the US for years now, but they keep getting delayed because they're not satisfied with their performance.
Thanks, Obama? (Score:5, Insightful)
Saying "The Obama Administration [sic]" makes it sound like some sort of political meddling was behind this action. While the EPA is part of the executive bureaucracy, this does not stink of Obama political officials pushing an agenda, but just normal regulatory oversight and it therefore should be attributed to the agency.
jail time (Score:2)
If a human did this, they'd be arrested and jailed for fraud. But when a corporation does it, it's just business as usual.
Might have cheated the test so they could import (Score:2)
No fine? (Score:2)
How was this detected? (Score:2)
I wonder who discovered this software bug and how it was detected. I can understand someone running stats to determine a ratio of cars of a certain make/model failing road side sniffers vs. the same make/model passing the test at testing stations. But do they really do that or is this a case of some aftermarket enthusiasts sifting through the ECU code and "chatting" about the interesting results they found? I can't find any mention of how it was detected, only that it was.
Algorithmic Inputs (Score:2)
From Ars Technica [arstechnica.com]:
Re: (Score:2)
And this is exactly why you test emissions at the tailpipe and not from the OBD port.
that old muffler with the hole in it is still good for something
Re: (Score:3)
If they had been honest about what they were doing, it wouldn't be such a big deal. But they defrauded consumers, emissions technicians, and the government. Remember, markets work best when market failures such as information asymmetry are eliminated.
Re: (Score:2)
What? Have you ever turned a wrench?
Sure if you double the power it will wear out faster. But nobody is talking about better turbos and cams. These are water cooled VWs we're talking about. Not worth suping up.
Re: (Score:2)
if the engine computer is working normally during the emissions test and in "High power" mode otherwise, then every internal engine part is being stressed beyond its design and you will see premature timing chain failures and premature main bearing failures.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't understand. The emission testing mode is retarding the engine. The non emission testing is the normal mode.
The car was certified under the "emission testing mode" and so that is by definition the "normal" mode. The car was not certified or anything else in the bogus mode that people are currently driving it around in.
Re: (Score:2)
how is this wrong? This is the mode that VW was telling us that the car was running in. It is a crime for them to sell cars that do not operate in this mode. They have "tweaked" the cars on the road, they are not certified, they don't pass, they are in a bogus mode, not a "normal" one.
Re: (Score:2)
Except that there is no law (environmental or otherwise) on the speed of smartphones.
Re: (Score:2)
please explain how the CPU speed affects the quality of the telephone calls
Re: (Score:3)
They should be, but since they only defraud the consumer, no action will be taken.
Re: (Score:2)
I would have hoped they would have to compensate any owner unsatisfied with the degraded performance after the update.
Re: (Score:2)
Why is that? In the end they will be getting the exact same automobile that they were told that they were buying.
Re: (Score:2)
And if my mileage drops from the Advertised EPA 45 to 40 because of this? Since I bought my TDi specifically because of the MPG ratings, I would think I should have some recourse.
Re: (Score:3)
No, they were told they were buying a car with a specific mileage and performance. They had the right to presume that those figures could be had while the car complied with federal law.
If either of those is degraded in order to comply with the law, they were defrauded and have a right to compensation.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Update indicates it could be $18 Billion in fines, $37,500 per non-complying car. It is doubtful it will stand at that amount, but a fine is very much in play.
Re: (Score:3)
Unless the law says you can't game the test. I believe you meant to make a normative statement instead of a positive one.
Re:No fine? (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, it is. It is fraud.
Re:No fine? (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, it is. See: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/7522 [cornell.edu].
And there is precedent for this specific case. Ford was fined millions for selling Econoline vans that disabled emissions controls at highway speeds, leading to excessive nitrogen oxide emissions. If anything this seems a more egregious violation. See: http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-06/documents/defeat.pdf [epa.gov]
Re: (Score:3)
Selling something as expensive as a car using published information that's intentionally falsified to fool the tester and reviewer is making a financial gain through deliberate misrepresentation. There's a name for that. It's fraud. Fraud is a felony.