Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×
Businesses Transportation

VW Officials Knew Since Last Year of Misleading Fuel Economy Claims (reuters.com) 177

It's not just CO2 levels that Volkswagen manipulated; according to a wire story, Volkswagen officials knew at least a year ago that some of the company's officially-reported fuel-efficiency claims were overstated. From the linked article: Volkswagen's top executives knew a year ago that some of the company's cars were markedly less fuel efficient than had been officially stated, Sunday paper Bild am Sonntag reported, without specifying its sources. ... Months after becoming aware of excessive fuel consumption, former Chief Executive Martin Winterkorn decided this spring to pull one model off the market where the discrepancy was particularly pronounced, the Polo TDI BlueMotion, the paper cited sources close to Winterkorn as saying.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

VW Officials Knew Since Last Year of Misleading Fuel Economy Claims

Comments Filter:
  • thats strange (Score:1, Offtopic)

    by ganjadude ( 952775 )
    everyone I know who has a VW, or has had one in the past 10 years (around 8 or so) has all gotten BETTER than advertized MPGs.
    • by cheater512 ( 783349 ) <nick@nickstallman.net> on Monday November 30, 2015 @12:38AM (#51024677) Homepage

      It's good to see VW representatives surfing Slashdot to try and repair VW's shattered reputation. :)

      • Re:thats strange (Score:4, Interesting)

        by whoever57 ( 658626 ) on Monday November 30, 2015 @12:50AM (#51024721) Journal

        everyone I know who has a VW, or has had one in the past 10 years (around 8 or so) has all gotten BETTER than advertized MPGs.

        It's good to see VW representatives surfing Slashdot to try and repair VW's shattered reputation. :)

        Actually, this has been written about before. When the cars are in test mode, with reduced NOX emissions, the fuel economy is also worse. So real world economy (and CO2 emissions) are better than under test.

        [not associated with VW in any way. Heck, I haven't ever owned a VW]

        • My post was mostly a joke. :)

          But those worse figures wouldn't be what VW advertised, they would be advertising the better 'regular' numbers.
          No point having a defeat device if if it makes you advertise worse numbers.

          • Except that they can only advertise the numbers the government gets - which would mean it's from that test.

            Unless they have a different test for MPG. Then it's the numbers from that test. Either way, it's not the numbers from outside the lab.

            • VW Engineers are either Stupid, or Sinister. VW Engineers will never admit to being stupid, that they just can't make it work. So they screem, "We're evil! And it took you this long to find out! Ha-Ha-Ha-Ha-Ha-Ha."

              Ya, right.
          • by AK Marc ( 707885 )

            No point having a defeat device if if it makes you advertise worse numbers.

            The choice was pass the test with good numbers, or fail the test with better numbers. They chose to pass the test, as it doesn't matter what your numbers are if you can't pass the test.

          • But those worse figures wouldn't be what VW advertised, they would be advertising the better 'regular' numbers.

            And then you would demonstrate you don't know the law around those numbers.

            Car makers have ZERO option except to publish the EPA approved numbers. They MUST publish the EPA numbers. The problem is the official EPA numbers are meaningless, derived from a fairly old process, and not indicative at all of actual mileage figures.

            So, using those EPA numbers, hybrid owners have been really annoyed to fi

            • Considering I'm not in the US, yeah I don't know car advertising law in the US.

              The point was whether those numbers are from when the defeat device is active or not.
              Not whether the numbers mean anything in reality.

            • by msauve ( 701917 )
              The story isn't about EPA numbers. The one model mentioned, the Polo TDI BlueMotion, was never even sold in the US. The article cited Bild am Sonntag, a European publication, as the source for the mileage claims.
        • That's not all there is to it. The EPA tests just two aspects of driving - highway cruise (65 mph), and start-and-stop city driving (averaging 21 mph). A lot of people's driving seems to fall somewhere in between those two test cases in terms of speed - i.e. around 30-40 mph.

          That speed corresponds to the peak efficiency for diesel engines [caranddriver.com] (gasoline engines peak around 40-45 mph). In other words, the EPA highway mileage rating for a gasoline engine is closer to the best MPG you can expect from it in an
      • Re: thats strange (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Except it's true, and if you had any understanding of diesel engines, you'd know this intuitively. The vw execs are saving face here. The idea the cars use more fuel than as tested is utter bullshit. What the cars fail at is producing too much NOx from running leaner in real world conditions. Leaner = less fuel = hotter combustion = less particulates and more efficient Otto cycle... at the cost of making a tiny bit more of a transient, almost insignifucant pollutant. Oh buddy.

        However, was it wring to cheat

        • by LiENUS ( 207736 )

          more efficient Otto cycle

          Well no wonder they needed the cheat device! these are Diesel cycle engines!

        • by Anonymous Coward

          Correction: I meant Carnot cycle, not Otto cycle.
          In summary: disregard that bit, I suck cocks.
          The rest stands.

      • While I can completely understand why you might think parent is an astroturf, I do own a VW (a 2014 Jetta 1.8T), and do indeed get better than the advertised millage. It was advertised at 25/36m/(us)g, I typically get 28 in a city, and 37 on a freeway.

        I'm sure there are other VWs that do not meet the advertised specs, but certainly this car has given me the most believable estimate of any I've ever had (every other vehicle I've ever had has not got close to its fuel efficiency stats).

      • It's good to see VW representatives surfing Slashdot to try and repair VW's shattered reputation. :)

        I had a 2011 Jetta TDI that regularly got between 6 and 10 MPG more than the EPA estimates. The only time it didn't was doing 80 into a strong head wind. When the lease was up I should have bought it but diesel was outrageous at the time.

      • im a chevy guy, but i calls it like i sees it
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Tailhook ( 98486 )

      Everyone you know who has a VW TDI has groupthink inflated MPG. They all get 70 MPG uphill both directions in a headwind and they prattle on about it to anyone that will listen.

      Or they use to. Then they found out they are operating a public heath hazard and have become much quieter. Which has been nice.

      • by Anonymous Coward

        Everyone you know who has a VW TDI has groupthink inflated MPG. They all get 70 MPG uphill both directions in a headwind and they prattle on about it to anyone that will listen.

        Or they use to. Then they found out they are operating a public heath hazard and have become much quieter. Which has been nice.

        Of course you have become louder. That's so nice too.

      • I had an 05 VW Golf TDI, and I averaged 42 MPG with it. When I bought it between work and school I was driving 500 miles a week and kept very good records. I saw as high as 44 and as low as 38 MPG. To this day I still say it was the best overall car I've ever owned, though I was thrilled to trade it on a new 2010 Camaro and be one of the first people to drive a 5th gen.
      • by Anonymous Coward

        Well, that was when VWs were powered in part by SMUG (self-righteous materialistic urban green)

        Now that they can't criticize every SUV driver with as much moral authority, the reduction in SMUG has reduced overall fuel efficiency.

        Unfortunately, that still leaves a gaping void for drivers of other German cars to fill (is it me, or are the drivers of BMWs generally asshats?).

        • by Anonymous Coward

          i was an asshole before i owned a BMW. because i was an asshole, i can own a BMW. it's a trade-off but which one of us got laid earlier tonight?

      • My 2015 TDI get's better than advertised mileage as well. We range from 45-50 on long trips and 39 in town (advertised mileage was 34/42) and we're just over 8k miles on it, so it's still not even broken in yet.

        Also, the health hazard argument is BS anyway. The avg Nox output of the TDI's being recalled is about the same as a mid 2000's motorcycle. And there are more registered motorcycles in the state of California than there were TDI's sold in the US for the whole recall period. So yes, they didn
    • by Chrisq ( 894406 ) on Monday November 30, 2015 @04:59AM (#51025307)

      everyone I know who has a VW, or has had one in the past 10 years (around 8 or so) has all gotten BETTER than advertized MPGs.

      Its funny, maybe it is a US vs Europe thing but I've never known anyone get anything near the official MPG. There is an interesting paper [transportenvironment.org] from the European Federation for Transport and Environment which shows that the average difference is now 36%, and that despite real world MPG scarecly improving since 2012 the manufacturers claims continued to reduce. Strangely VW is far from the worst, being bang on average with a difference of 36% from real world figures, whereas Daimler manages a 48% difference.

      • My 4 last cars include 2 Audi, one Ford and one Mazda

        • One 1999 Audi A3 1.8 automatic was just slightly worse than the announced fuel economy.
        • The temporary car that followed was a 2012 Ford Fiesta econetic 1.6, announced as a 3.6 l/100 but I never got it below 7 l/100 (onboard computer, I didn't keep it long enough to bother doing the calcs by hand).
        • After that, I had a 2012 Audi A3 Sportsback 2.0 TDI S Tronic, which was slightly better than its announced average fuel economy.
        • The "current" car is a 2002 Mazda MX5 NBFL 1.6, where I get sightly better than the announced average fuel economy even tho I drive it mostly in the city.
      • by N1AK ( 864906 )
        My last two cars have been diesel Focus models in the UK. The last one was bang on the official MPG, the current one is averaging 60 and the official one is 61.3; and the difference is probably down to the fact the new car has auto-stop ignition which the MPG tests give way too much influence to. That said, I still think the whole set up needs refining as it is clear that lots of cars MPG stats are complete bollocks.
      • To add to the anecdotals, I have a 2010 Ford Fusion (US). My MPG has been consistently inside the range at which it was advertised. It was sold to me at 25/34. On road trips I'd get somewhere between 33-36 if I reset the meter, and on my commute driving over a month averaged it'd be between 25-27. Only time I got worse efficiency than advertised was when running max AC in midsummer during rush hour, and only worse efficiency if I leadfooted a bit.

        • On Fords "Max AC" is actually AC with recirc turned on. With this the air going over the evaporator coil (inside coil) is recirculated inside air, and not hotter outside air. So the system runs more efficient than normal AC (though all you are breathing is recycled farts).

      • With the old system, I was always a couple mpg off of advertised.

        In the mid 00s they recalculated the formula in the US, and consistantly if matches or is beaten in every car I drive.

  • by Bovius ( 1243040 ) on Monday November 30, 2015 @12:26AM (#51024639)

    News flash: companies are trying to sell you things, and most companies will lie as much as they can without losing face or legal reprisal to get you to buy their things.

    I'm still glad the story is posted, but it's not even remotely surprising.

    • by frnic ( 98517 )

      The only limits on their lying is the amount of profit or loss they will experience. So, they balance the extra sales/profit against a bad news cycle or dying off a death benefit and make the decision based on profits. Nothing else matters in this world.

    • i think it is surprising in that you don't expect a top-tier auto manufacturer to outright defraud national governments. these kind of tactics remind me of the mattress stores around the corner that perpetually have the "going out of business" sign posted in their window.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      News flash: companies are trying to sell you things, and most companies will lie as much as they can without losing face or legal reprisal to get you to buy their things. I'm still glad the story is posted, but it's not even remotely surprising.

      Except that this is a German company, partly state owned, with German government representatives and workers participating in its management.

      It's the kind of model that Democrats and Sanders advocate as a better way of running the economy. Reflect on that.

      • it shold be mentioned that the emmisions scandal is only one issue and whilst I understand and agree that it should taint a company, there are many aspects about VW that should be considered to be good (or at least better) given the way they are run. VW is highly successful, not just in turning a profit but in managing a company that benefits its workers and the general area where they manufacture. The same could not be said for GM when they decided to stab the majority of their loyal workforce in the back
        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          VW is highly successful, not just in turning a profit

          Their stock price basically just follows the DOW; not exactly a stellar performer. And that's with strong political support, subsidies, and protectionism.

          but in managing a company that benefits its workers and the general area where they manufacture

          Yes, auto workers in Germany are a special interest group with lots of political clout. Unfortunately, other Germans are paying the price for that. And, of course, all those people who spend day in and day out

          • I can't figure out why people think that we should have more car manufacturing in the US.

            For some reason, lots of people seem to think that having tons of repetitive, boring (at least that's the impression I get from the outside) manufacturing jobs _that should be replaced with robotics when feasible_ is a good thing, as opposed to higher paying jobs that require training. (Even someone who _maintains_ the robots building the cars or whatever.)

            I think it's because the autoworkers got such relatively cushy

      • by N1AK ( 864906 )
        VS the US model free capitalism model?

        On February 7, 2014, General Motors (GM) recalled about 800,000 of its small cars due to faulty ignition switches, which could shut off the engine during driving and thereby prevent the airbags from inflating. The company continued to recall more of its cars over the next several months, resulting in nearly 30 million cars worldwide recalled[2] and paid compensation for 124 deaths. The fault had been known to GM for at least a decade prior to the recall being declared.

        G

        • GM kills over a hundred people with a known fault and nobody in the US seems to give a shit

          The flaw in the GM cars was obviously an accident. Nobody thinks GM was designing their cars to hurt people or violate the law even if they later covered up or ignored the problem. VW clearly and deliberately ordered their engineers to design the car to pollute more than allowed. One is some combination of negligence/incompetence and the other is deliberate fraud.

          We can forgive a company that makes a mistake, even one that in hindsight is really dumb and obvious. Harder to forgive a company that intent

          • We can forgive a company that makes a mistake, even one that in hindsight is really dumb and obvious. Harder to forgive a company that intentionally and with malice aforethought tried to defraud customers and regulators.

            Ah, that's exactly what GM did. They hid a problem they knew was killing people.

            • Ah, that's exactly what GM did. They hid a problem they knew was killing people.

              They hid (and/or didn't recognize) a problem once the data was brought to their attention. The engineers were incompetent but probably not criminal. The management was quite possibly criminal in addition to incompetent but the cover up was of a mistake, not an intentionally engineered fraud. With VW both the engineers and the management were criminial. Both companies have blood on their hands (literally) but most people are more willing to forgive what GM did that what VW did. It speaks to VW being mo

          • by N1AK ( 864906 )

            The flaw in the GM cars was obviously an accident.

            Read into it a little before responding defending them if you want to have a reasoned discussion. The issue was a design mistake, but the process of covering it up and not acting to fix a life threatening issue wasn't; I have no intention of defending VW (which is why I didn't in my post).

            • Read into it a little before responding defending them if you want to have a reasoned discussion.

              I've read into it plenty and I work in the industry. I'm not defending GM, I'm explaining why people are able to forgive their actions slightly more easily than those of VW. GM made a technical error and then management decided it wasn't worth correcting. In hindsight this was clearly wrong but there is at least plausible deniability that it was an error instead of a fraud. My company makes products that go into GM cars and I'm VERY familiar with how GM operates. I'm very willing to believe the problem

          • by Anonymous Coward

            Germans are so evil. They're Nazis, like all Europeans. They hate us and want us to die. That's why they're gassing us. They're gassing us.

  • by Will_Malverson ( 105796 ) on Monday November 30, 2015 @12:45AM (#51024703) Journal

    In the United States, it is illegal for a car manufacturer to advertise any fuel efficiency number other than the one determined by the EPA.

    Even running an ad campaign to the effect of "Hey, the EPA says that this car gets 45 MPG, but our testing says it's more like 42. Just thought you should know." would be a crime.

    • How high is the fine, how likely is it to get caught, how much is the profit due to the lie?

      Whether it's legal or not is meaningless. When fine * chance is lower than revenue, it's a matter for finance, not for legal. Because then it's little more than a part of the calculation with tax reducing reserves "for possible legal fees" in the financial statements.

      • It's trivial to get caught. The EPA estimates a number. If they see or hear you advertising a different one, they collect their money. The proof of how easy it is to get caught is the fact that there aren't any cases of it having been done hitting the news! That's not because it's rampant (I've certainly never seen it and neither have any of the commenters here and the /. crowd is astute to such things), it's because it just doesn't happen. In your equation it's way not worth the money.
        • Then this is actually a law that will be heeded. Not because it's law, but because breaking it is not profitable.

    • by orpheus ( 14534 ) on Monday November 30, 2015 @01:31AM (#51024829)

      The make/model/package MPG figures come straight from the manufacturers, who usually don't even test production models, but pre-production engineering prototypes --engineering prototypes!-- and report that figure for as many production years as they like

      According to the EPA itself: "How vehicles are tested" https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/how_tested.shtml

      Each year EPA tests a random sample of maybe 10% of the base models on the market. Note: this is a much smaller number than the various "apparent models" (variants, options packages, etc.) that a consumer might feelare different cars. Aside from perhaps testing a second engine option in a given model, the EPA ignores those variants and doesn't even require tests to be conducted in successive production years because it feels "MPG probably won't change much from year to year" and "almost no options would affect indoor dynamometer results anyway -- we know it's a poor test". Aerodynamics is just one the options that significantly impact real world MPG, but won't show up on a dynamometer

      Therefore MPG numbers are just a manufacturer's own claims, subject to spot-checking by the EPA. Apparently VW, Kia, and others felt the risk of spot check was small enough to ignore.

    • by Chrisq ( 894406 )

      In the United States, it is illegal for a car manufacturer to advertise any fuel efficiency number other than the one determined by the EPA.

      Even running an ad campaign to the effect of "Hey, the EPA says that this car gets 45 MPG, but our testing says it's more like 42. Just thought you should know." would be a crime.

      TTIP will put that right. You will have to accept figures determined by the appropriate agencies of any TTIP signatory.

    • by tempmpi ( 233132 )

      I'm not sure if they actually cheated on the US MPG numbers. The advertised MPG US are quite a bit lower than the european ones. This could be a result of a different test cycle but also a result of not being able to cheat in the US. In Europe they did stuff like mixing diesel fuel into the oil supply and increasing the tire pressure beyond the allowed range. This increases MPG but will cause the engine to break early and would be dangerous on real roads.

    • But this had nothing to do with fuel consumption. It had to do with CO2 emission.
  • by dbIII ( 701233 ) on Monday November 30, 2015 @12:57AM (#51024743)
    GM got caught out doing something similar:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
    They were fined $11 million but probably saved a vast amount more than that by conducting that fraud.

    If you look at things in terms of unfettered entirely amoral capitalism Volkswagen had a duty to their shareholders to carry out the same sort of fraud since the financial benefits looked as if they would vastly exceed the penalty for getting caught.

    As for reputation - who remembers GM doing this? In a few years time will we still remember this current fraud and jokingly call them FalseVagen?

    These frauds are going to keep on occurring unless there is some sort of incentive to convince the people involved to stop. We've seen in China how far these things can go with poison in milk to pass a regulatory test.
    • by phantomfive ( 622387 ) on Monday November 30, 2015 @01:07AM (#51024763) Journal

      As for reputation - who remembers GM doing this?

      Let's be honest though, GM is remembered for a lot of bad things....

      • by dbIII ( 701233 )
        True. I watched the documentary "Detroitopia" last night, which although it didn't say much about GM it had a car show sequence where the comparison between the Chevy Volt and a Chinese electric car was brushed aside by some GM rep exactly the same way they said Honda etc didn't matter a few decades back. There's also the bit about new hires working for 50% less than the position used to pay but that may not have only been GM.
    • If you look at things in terms of unfettered entirely amoral capitalism Volkswagen had a duty to their shareholders

      VW is a partly state owned German company, with strong state and worker involvement in its management, subject to strong government regulation and supervision. So, this is anything but "unfettered entirely amoral capitalism".

      In fact, making VW workers happy probably has at least as high priority as making their shareholders happy. But it turns out that workers are just as greedy and selfish as

      • by dbIII ( 701233 )
        I tried to move things from specific to general to help explain the problem yet you've moved to overly specific to needlessly complicate the issue. Would you like to try again and discuss things sensibly this time or did you just see the name of a "foe" and decide to be annoying?
        • I tried to move things from specific to general to help explain the problem

          If you persist in calling VW "unfettered entirely amoral capitalism", why don't you tell us what kind of company and management you think would be better.

          It can't be fully state owned facilities, because they had an even worse environmental record when they were tried in Europe.

          • by rsborg ( 111459 )

            I tried to move things from specific to general to help explain the problem

            If you persist in calling VW "unfettered entirely amoral capitalism", why don't you tell us what kind of company and management you think would be better.

            It can't be fully state owned facilities, because they had an even worse environmental record when they were tried in Europe.

            The entire market is amoral-capitalist. If you can't keep up with the cheating, shareholders screw you over. That's not to excuse anything VW did. However, just because a single player is "partially owned by a government" doesn't make it any more likely to be moral; What it would take is for all the companies to be more strongly vetted/regulated.

            • What it would take is for all the companies to be more strongly vetted/regulated.

              Which part of It can't be fully state owned facilities, because they had an even worse environmental record when they were tried in Europe. did you not understand? Half of Europe was run entirely without capitalism, and the environmental record of that half was abysmal.

              However, just because a single player is "partially owned by a government" doesn't make it any more likely to be moral;

              No, but what it does tell you is that the

              • by rsborg ( 111459 )

                Half of Europe was run entirely without capitalism, and the environmental record of that half was abysmal.

                Can you back this up with facts, or are you just talking nonsense?

                • EAST BERLIN — East Germany finally admits it is choking in pollution. But it is too poor to clean up. This is the dilemma facing the (East) German Democratic Republic as it celebrates the gala 35th anniversary of its founding this week. A UN report six months ago identified East Germany as the most polluted country in Europe

                  http://www.csmonitor.com/1984/... [csmonitor.com]

                  In the case of Czechoslovakia, the state was told to concentrate on heavy industry. This concentration on heavy industry depleted the country's na

          • by dbIII ( 701233 )
            It's an example of opposing desires and a failure of regulation.
            Don't try to turn it into left versus right because it is not.
            I'm sure if you think before posting you can work out why I used "unfettered". You can't? OK then, it's because the right doesn't like bad actors fucking over society either so are no more fond of raw uncontrolled capitalism than the left. It's society versus someone extending a middle finger to society when caught kicking it in the guts.
            I dumbed that down to the point of being co
          • by dbIII ( 701233 )
            Read it again:

            If you look at things in terms of unfettered entirely amoral capitalism

            Isn't that about a way to consider things?
            If you were running VW and all you cared about was money (see the quote above about viewpoint if you've drifted off) wouldn't you do the same?

            So my point is that since GM got away with it and came out ahead others are going to try. It's VW this time. What do we do to stop the next bunch?


            I posted something very clear and simple yet it triggers posts with breathtaking levels of m

            • If you were running VW and all you cared about was money (see the quote above about viewpoint if you've drifted off) wouldn't you do the same?

              And VW did do the same. My point is that the VW is run in large part by government representatives and workers, which shows that government representatives and workers are just as greedy and amoral as private investors.

              • by dbIII ( 701233 )
                Your point depends on pretending that I did not suggest the reader consider something from a viewpoint and puts words in my mouth about the company mentioned.
                It's both pretended stupidity and lying about what I wrote.
                Not nice.
              • by dbIII ( 701233 )
                Did you read my post before replying?
    • They were fined $11 million but probably saved a vast amount more than that by conducting that fraud.

      They may have been fined only 11 million, but remember, the class action suits by owners who have cars that are not as advertised and indeed have a much lower resale value now, that 11 million figure it the tip of the ice burg for VW.

    • by AK Marc ( 707885 ) on Monday November 30, 2015 @03:50AM (#51025173)
      GM settled for $11M. They didn't actually get fined in a judgement against them, it was a settlement. Nobody knows what would have happened. Part of the settlement was civil indemnity, so it was more like a bribe than a fine. A $45M bribe to make the whole thing go away. And few today remember it, and have to be reminded of it. Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

      So yeah, the "cost" to GM for the whole scandal was less than $100 per car. Sell a car fraudulently, pay the government $100, and be indemnified from all civil actions due to your fraud. Not a bad deal.
  • by Weirsbaski ( 585954 ) on Monday November 30, 2015 @02:16AM (#51024977)
    We need a better way to really make the execs accountable. I'd suggest locking the CEO in an airtight warehouse with their new, running auto for 1 hour, with the initial oxygen/air-quality conditions set such that if the auto meets the advertised spec then there's just barely enough fresh air to survive.

    I mean, execs keep track of everything that goes on under their umbrella (so they'd never step into a failing test), right?
    • Except half the time those crap MPG numbers have nothing to do with the car manufacturer and everything to do with crap mandated testing methodology.

  • They have known for 10 years that their transmissions are crap but still haven't done anything about it.

  • "Acceleration is produced when a force acts on a mass. The greater the mass (of the object being accelerated) the greater the amount of force needed (to accelerate the object). Or F=MA or FORCE = MASS times ACCELERATION." http://teachertech.rice.edu/Pa... [rice.edu]

    So if an SUV is two times heavier than a light sedan it requires two times more force (energy, fuel) to accelerate (to drive). I mean if two cars are of approximately the same technological level the heavier one burns more fuel, and consequently emits mo
    • Umm, Force is NOT the same as Energy. And while your second paragraph is correct (other than the part that equates mass (universal) with weight (purely local to the planet, in this case)), it's correct in spite of you confusing force and energy....
    • So if an SUV is two times heavier than a light sedan it requires two times more force (energy, fuel) to accelerate (to drive). I mean if two cars are of approximately the same technological level the heavier one burns more fuel, and consequently emits more CO2.

      Actually, most SUVs are only about 1.5x heavier. And there are other complexities. e.g. Engines don't operate at the same efficiency at all RPMs. So a transmission with more gears will be heavier, but may allow the engine to operate in a more effi

  • But ... but ... but! We just threw a couple of perfectly good scientists and engineers under the bus!!!! You mean we did that for NOTHING?!?!?

  • I've been thinking that sometime next year might be a good time to buy a VW. The more dirt that comes up, the worse their reputation.
    This in turn will likely have a negative effect on sales unless they offer some good deals/price-reductions.
    Along with that, the EPA and various others are going to be up their ass BIG TIME if they pull any more crap (and thus they have an incentive to be take extra care to toe the line in the next while).

  • What's with all the weasel words, the VW executives ordered the programmers to write software to cheat on the emission results, and then lied about it in public.
  • This is not a VW issue but rather a industry wide problem. Ever since MPG became an important selling point of auto's the automakers have tried to do everything
    to win a number that is better then their competition. I take them with a grain of salt as merely a guide to what is possible with the vehicle not what is guaranteed.
    Far too many variables in driving a vehicle to give a reasonable estimate of MPG for everyone. Obviously people buying a diesel engine smaller vehicle would be expecting very good MPG an

  • "VW Officials Knew Since Last Year of Misleading Fuel Economy Claims"

    Of course they did- in all likelihood they were the ones that came up with the idea and instituted the program. This wasn't the work of some rogue engineer screwing around in his cube late one night. This was planned and endorsed at the highest levels in the company.

  • They released a commercial with a Nazi era beetle with a fake German accent to make sure everyone remembers Hitler invented the Volkswagon brand and you expect them to operate their business on the up and up? Their company is being run by complete morons! Since it's Germany, they're probably all drunk 24/7.
  • Why single out VW when every single auto manufacturer does it? Do they just change scapegoats every year like the NCAA does?

All extremists should be taken out and shot.

Working...