BMW, Daimler, and VW Colluded To Prevent Better Emissions Control Tech, EU Says (arstechnica.com) 76
The European Union Commission today accused BMW, Daimler, and Volkswagen Group (which makes VW, Audi, and Porsche vehicles) of colluding to limit emissions reduction technology in their diesel and gas vehicles. From a report: The commission accused the three manufacturers of coordinating to limit the size and refill ranges of AdBlue tanks on their diesel vehicles made between 2006 and 2014. AdBlue is a urea-based liquid that is injected into exhaust gas to reduce the amount of nitrogen oxides (NOx) that are released during diesel combustion. The commission also accused the three manufacturers of agreeing to avoid or delay the introduction of "Otto" particulate filters on gas-powered vehicles between 2009 and 2014.
After opening an investigation last September, the EU Commission today sent the three German automakers Statements of Objections, that is, a formal letter outlining the preliminary view that the manufacturers' behavior was illegal. "Such market behavior, if confirmed... would violate EU competition rules prohibiting cartel agreements to limit or control production, markets or technical development," an EU Commission press release read.
After opening an investigation last September, the EU Commission today sent the three German automakers Statements of Objections, that is, a formal letter outlining the preliminary view that the manufacturers' behavior was illegal. "Such market behavior, if confirmed... would violate EU competition rules prohibiting cartel agreements to limit or control production, markets or technical development," an EU Commission press release read.
Re:Hmmm, all European companies? (Score:5, Insightful)
Not really, the EU is taking care of it's jurisdiction and leaving the U.S. to deal with (or not) it's own.
Re: (Score:2)
So are you complaining that the EU IS beginning proceedings or that it is NOT?
Re: (Score:2)
It's primarily "trucks" marketed to be used in the same role as a car. Most trucks are not driven as trucks since that might scratch the paint or dent the bed.
Re: (Score:1)
It's primarily "trucks" marketed to be used in the same role as a car. Most trucks are not driven as trucks since that might scratch the paint or dent the bed.
Mod this guy up....
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Hypocrites because they're prosecuting manufacturers whose products were designed to deceive pollution testing? I'm not sure how that's hypocritical. If, as you state, the EU's goal here is to be "great for the environment", then this seems to be exactly what they're doing.
Re:Hmmm, all European companies? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, they've already been nailed for the emissions testing scam, and now they're being nailed for the collusion.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I hate brodozers too, but at least they meet the emission standards.
Even assuming that's true, the light truck standards are a lot more polluting than the standards which apply to smaller vehicles.
Re: (Score:2)
Which is why many SUVs are technically listed as light trucks and have fewer emissions requirements, even though the vast majority of them are used as basic daily commuter vehicles and never once for "truck" uses.
Re: (Score:1)
Still cleaner than shitty VAG diesels.
I hate brodozers too, but at least they meet the emission standards.
Not when they are "rolling coal''...
Re: Hmmm, all European companies? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
And no American ones?
It may blow your mind to realise that colluding on a local level is orders of magnitude easier than on an international level.
Yet the Euros are the first to scream about how great they are for the environment and how bad the US is. Looks like they just proved to be hypocrites
Actually they just proved to put their money where their mouth is. The fact that they are prosecuting their own companies for having a negative impact on the environment without even formally breaching environmental rules (something which would be laughable if suggested in the USA) shows they are very much serious about their environmental standards.
As for screaming about the USA. No
monsters walk the land (Score:3, Insightful)
Conspiracy Theory (Score:2)
Conspiracy noun
1 : the act of conspiring together
2a : an agreement among conspirators
2b : a group of conspirators
Gosh, everyone's always gotta have a conspiracy theory.
Why limit this (Score:2)
What is the advantage to these companies of limiting the size (and therefore the car's range) of these urea tanks?
I get what their "advantage" is from not adding an extra filter would be, but not in limiting the range of their cars.
Sam
Re: (Score:3)
VW, at least, would fill the urea tank with scheduled maintenance, and the tank was intended to last for the entire service interval. Getting the tank filled "for free" withh scheduled maintenance was part of the package. Reducing the size of the tank forces owners to come in for that maintenance sooner than they might want to, because the tank sensor tells them it's time.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure the owner can fill the tank, sure, but VW was pushing the line that diesel is just as easy to operate and maintain as gasoline, to try to win over the North American market which has never fallen in love with diesel for personal vehicles. Part of that was that the urea system needed to be invisible to the owner. Down the line this decision may have further contributed to the emissions software scandal, as minimizing urea use through software was definitely one of the methods they used to kee
Re: (Score:1)
That's silly. It's urea for crying out loud! Unzip, relieve yourself, and you're good to go for another thousand miles....
Re: (Score:2)
That's silly. It's urea for crying out loud! Unzip, relieve yourself, and you're good to go for another thousand miles....
Well you need to filter it too, add antifreeze and color it blue :)
Or you can buy it at tank-station for cents.
Re: (Score:2)
What is the advantage to these companies of limiting the size (and therefore the car's range) of these urea tanks?
I don't understand that part of TFS and the linked article isn't any more clear. I am a (very happy) owner of a TDI motor. Prior to having it "fixed" I was getting ~2.5k miles per 1 gallon (imperial) of AdBlue. I don't know what it's getting since the "fix" as I haven't gone through a full tank, but with it's 5 gallon tank I've already had to refill it's fuel tank 5 times (~2.5k miles) with no sign of the low fluid warning. Maybe it's me, but that doesn't feel very limited...
Re: (Score:2)
Well considering it's supposed to last until the service interval, having to refill it every 20000km is quite limiting given the service interval on most modern cars is 30000km.
Re: (Score:2)
Well considering it's supposed to last until the service interval, having to refill it every 20000km is quite limiting given the service interval on most modern cars is 30000km.
The service interval on Audis and VWs is 10k miles in the US and Porsche is 5k. Both under the vehicle's DEF usage.
Re: (Score:2)
Really? In Europe, VW typically specifies 30 000 km service intervals, with 50 000 km for some diesels. It is interesting that they seem to think a car would require service more often in the USA. I wonder why.
I think it's two parts.
The first is that it's hard to find anything better than 40 cetane here. Additionally getting fuel from a station that doesn't have good industrial/transportation traffic means that the fuel has usually been sitting in the tank for a good period of time (this has improved since diesels took off, but I fear that will be an issue again as diesels are effectively dead here thanks to VAG). So overall our fuel quality sucks compared to what you have in the EU. Worse fuel requires more main
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you, it is interesting to read an American perspective. I knew US diesel often had more sulphur, but I did not know about the lower cetane numbers. I have also been told that it is common in the US to have a third party service even relatively new cars and that they often use cheaper non-certified engine oils and oil filters. This may also reduce oil service life.
Many actually use the dealer and get ripped off because they don't know better (and the dealers don't want them too). In the US we have a law named the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act which states that we can have work performed anywhere (including DIY) without voiding warranties as long as the work and parts meet MFG specifications. This means that I can tell my local Porsche dealers where to stick their $675 oil changes for my diesel Cayenne and either do it myself (about $100 + 60 minutes) or have my indy sho
Re: (Score:2)
What is the advantage to these companies of limiting the size (and therefore the car's range) of these urea tanks?
Ultimately it comes down to consumer choice. Any collusion that sets products standards between companies at a level that isn't market regulated and is lower than the generally available technology is deemed to be potentially negative for consumers by competition law. It doesn't need to always be about cheap products or meeting regulations. In this case it's about better technology in the general market not being passed to consumers.
The commission's words:
"The Commission's preliminary view is that the car m
Ironic (Score:1)
This is rather ironic, since these three manufacturers are the only once to actually use particulate filters in petrol cars.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. At least Citroën as well.
Shocked! (Score:1)
Shocked, I say!
No worries (Score:2)
No worries really: corporations will self-regulate and not only obey all published laws but go above and beyond the letter of the law to improvements based on the spirit thereof - it is in their best interest to do so after all.