Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
Transportation

Carmakers Chose To Cheat To Sell Cars Rather Than Comply With Emissions Law, 'Dieselgate' Trial Told (yahoo.com) 105

Posted by msmash from the how-about-that dept.
Car manufacturers decided they would rather cheat to prioritise "customer convenience" and sell cars than comply with the law on deadly pollutants, the first day of the largest group action trial in English legal history has been told. From a report: More than a decade after the original "dieselgate" scandal broke, lawyers representing 1.6 million diesel car owners in the UK argue that manufacturers deliberately installed software to rig emissions tests. They allege the "prohibited defeat devices" could detect when the cars were under test conditions and ensure that harmful NOx emissions were kept within legal limits, duping regulators and drivers.

Should the claim be upheld, estimated damages could exceed $8 billion. The three-month hearing that opened at London's high court on Monday will focus on vehicles sold by five manufacturers -- Mercedes, Ford, Renault, Nissan and Peugeot/Citroen -- from 2009. In "real world" conditions, when driven on the road, lawyers argue, the cars produced much higher levels of emissions. The judgment on the five lead defendants will also bind other manufacturers including Jaguar Land Rover, Vauxhall/Opel, Volkswagen/Porsche, BMW, FCA/Suzuki, Volvo, Hyundai-Kia, Toyota and Mazda, whose cases are not being heard to reduce the case time and costs.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Carmakers Chose To Cheat To Sell Cars Rather Than Comply With Emissions Law, 'Dieselgate' Trial Told More

Carmakers Chose To Cheat To Sell Cars Rather Than Comply With Emissions Law, 'Dieselgate' Trial Told

Comments Filter:

  • Unless we get these cretins under control, they will be the end of us.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Tailhook ( 98486 )

      Sure. And if the government cretins would forego a lawyer or two and instead hire an actual technician tasked to actually verify the performance of regulated products once or twice a decade, you'd actually have some means of keeping the business cretins under control. But time and time again, whether it's Madoff or dieselgate or Boeing, we find no functioning technicians anywhere in the whole, bloated clown show: just a bunch of lawyers covering asses and gleefully dancing through revolving doors.

      Busine

    • Unless we get these cretins under control, they will be the end of us.

      Yeah...companies "prioritizing customer convenience and trying to sell cars"....

      I mean, WTF were they thinking??!?!

  • The car manufacturers are correct, the so called 'laws' are garbage. Europe and the USA are going to lose all of their manufacturing, China will win in this manufacturing war and that's all there will be.

    • Arbitrary laws will be arbitrarily violated.

    • What does complying with environmental laws have to do with manufacturing? They intentionally rigged software in the cars to detect when an emissions test was happening.

    • Re:Car manufacturers are correct (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Archangel Michael ( 180766 ) on Monday October 13, 2025 @02:52PM (#65722248) Journal

      You're not wrong, but you are.

      The laws ARE garbage. If a test can be rigged, it will be. This is the nature of how things are. China WILL win, if we continue to regulate ourselves out of competition.

      The US has a similar problem, we have CAFE standards that were SUPPOSED to require car manufacturers to increase efficiencies to IMPOSSIBLE levels. The problem is, those rules only applied to "cars". Almost all US car manufacturers have stopped making cars, and the ones they are building are largely big muscle cars, and not fuel efficient ones. Instead, they are building SUVs that aren't "cars" but are classed as "trucks" and exempt, and a few Hybrids that really nobody actually wants.

      The law of unintended consequences is undefeated

      • Oh piss off.

        Several of the manufacturers involved here either are, have been or will shortly be, involved in motor sports - where they will collectively spend hundreds of millions of dollars a year eeking out another 1% performance gain or efficiency gain out of an engine which is already vastly more performant or efficient than the engines we use as consumers.

        These manufacturers can meet the regulations, they choose not to.

        • Re:Car manufacturers are correct (Score:4)

          by Pentium100 ( 1240090 ) on Monday October 13, 2025 @03:41PM (#65722386)

          The sports engines do not last very long. The rules for various sports specify how long the engine should last and they do not last longer than that.
          I do not want an engine like that in my car. I want one that lasts very long even if it is bigger, less powerful and less efficient than the alternatives. Filling up the gas tank does not take a lot of time. Rebuilding an engine does. Even if the less reliable engine used enough less fuel to save up for the rebuild (and repairs of the additional components that are there to increase efficiency), it would still be a massive inconvenience.

          The manufacturers choose to not meet the regulations probably because they think that most of their customers do not care about that. I am sure there are people who care about fuel efficiency and emissions, but most people care only up to a point. A cheaper car that uses more fuel may be a better deal. Someone may want a more powerful car and so on. If people cared only about fuel efficiency and emissions, everyone would be driving tiny cars (gas powered or electric).

          • Filling up the gas tank does not take a lot of time.

            Cleaning up the mess from all the people filling and then subsequently emptying the large tanks for their large cars is something we literally do not know how to do, so it can be considered to take an infinite amount of time and cost an infinite amount of money.

            If people cared only about fuel efficiency and emissions, everyone would be driving tiny cars (gas powered or electric).

            People don't care, so we should burn the world! What a fucking stupid, senseless, self-centered argument.

        • So, you're equating Sporting engines (aka RACING) with CAFE standards compliant transportation for a mom and her two kids?

          And you tell me to piss off?

          LOL.

          No.

      • The levels aren't really impossible. California mandated better emissions and the car makers complained. But here we are with heavier cars that get better economy.

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by caseih ( 160668 )

          Actually they are impossible except under consistent, controlled circumstances (which is kind of the cause of the whole scandal anyway). Put your foot down and it's definitely pushing nox and particulate out the tail pipe. But even still it's pretty clean. There's just not a lot to be gained by going to tier 5 or beyond. But at the same time emissions controls are getting very costly and unreliable. Volkswagen recalled a bunch of the scandal engines to fix them and no one is happy with the power and econ

          • The amount of diesel passenger cars in the USA amounts to a rounding error.

          • Well yeah i'd be pissed if i bought a powerful car and it had to suck to comply with the law.
            Instead I bought a car that sucks right away, it won't have to be crippled to meet emission standards, it is exactly what i paid for.

            I wish you could go back in time and read this post to whatever of your great grandchildren manage to become educated enough to understand it.

            I'm sorry for your hellworld sweetie but you have to understand how good it feels when your crossover SUV goes from 0 to 60 in under 5.

      • I don't understand why we all have the race to the bottom just because that's how we were told life has to be when we were 12 and we didn't know any better.

        Certainly it's true that we can't just let China blow up the world with pollutants and poison. The same goes for our own countries and our own backyards too. Pollution and climate change don't give a rat's ass about borders. And drought is drought and it's global because we are fucking up the water supply.

        But besides stuff that carries over acros

      • The law of unintended consequences is undefeated

        Oh they knew what they were doing, or do bigger vehicles not bring bigger profits?

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Zak3056 ( 69287 )

        The problem is, those rules only applied to "cars". Almost all US car manufacturers have stopped making cars, and the ones they are building are largely big muscle cars, and not fuel efficient ones. Instead, they are building SUVs that aren't "cars" but are classed as "trucks" and exempt

        The 1990s called, they want their talking point back. CAFE applies to light trucks (up to 8500lbs GVWR) and was expanded under both the Dubya and Obama administrations, and light trucks are included in the fleetwide averages.

      • The laws ARE garbage.

        On what basis?

        If a test can be rigged, it will be.

        The laws are garbage because people will cheat on the laws? That sounds more like the cheaters are garbage, and you're an enabler.

        The US has a similar problem, we have CAFE standards that were SUPPOSED to require car manufacturers to increase efficiencies to IMPOSSIBLE levels

        Every. Single. Car. Company. In. The. US. Can. Meet. Those. Standards.

        They choose not to.

        The law of unintended consequences is undefeated

        Guess who bought these laws? These are intended consequences.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        The idea was that the manufacturers wouldn't be stupid enough to cheat on the emissions tests, because the ramifications of needing to do remedial work on hundreds of thousands of cars, pay compensation, break the law... But they were, so clearly things need to change now and they have.

        Thing is, Europe is moving away from fossil fuel vehicles anyway. There will always be some, but most countries are looking at 5-10 years for the end of most sales, and some have already reached the tipping point where most p

    • Re:Car manufacturers are correct (Score:5, Interesting)

      by AleRunner ( 4556245 ) on Monday October 13, 2025 @03:08PM (#65722296)

      China's not winning because of some kind of hands off approach. They are winning because their governments forced an early switchover to electric and then also built the massive renewable energy supply needed to do that cheaply. That's the kind of active pro-business but also pro-national interest policy that got the US into the leading position it was in after WWII.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by kick6 ( 1081615 )

        China's not winning because of some kind of hands off approach. They are winning because their governments forced an early switchover to electric and then also built the massive renewable energy supply needed to do that cheaply. That's the kind of active pro-business but also pro-national interest policy that got the US into the leading position it was in after WWII.

        We aren't allowed to have pro national interest anything in the US. That's grounds for getting called a fascist, and shot in the neck.

        • We aren't allowed to have pro national interest anything in the US

          I would say Obamacare is very pro national interest, in that it promotes the health and welfare of the nation and slowed the explosion of health care costs. But that program is unpopular with conservative politicians.

          That's grounds for getting called a fascist, and shot in the neck.

          You do know that JD Vance once called Trump "America's Hitler," right?

          • I would say Obamacare is very pro national interest, in that it promotes the health and welfare of the nation and slowed the explosion of health care costs.

            Except, it didn't.....it raised medical prices across the board, and they are still rising due to Obamacare.

            Why do you think the Dems keep having to try to pile more and more money into it....the program is not sustainable, never was.

            • I didn't say health care costs haven't gone up. I said:

              [Obamacare]...slowed the explosion of health care costs

              Which it did. See, for example: https://www.healthaffairs.org/... [healthaffairs.org]

              It also increased access to care (https://www.academia.edu/download/84418127/glied_effect_of_aca_on_hlt_care_access_ib.pdf) and reduced disparities in access to care (https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/abs/10.1377/hlthaff.2017.0083).
              Care was more affordable for low-income people who were also more likely to get care, be able to pay for their prescriptions, and see overall reduced costs f

              • But I do agree we still pay too much for health care and the outcomes we receive are sub optimal. Obamacare was insurance reform, but I would like to see the U.S. pursue a universal single-payer system like pretty much every other high-income country in the world. Oh no, wait, "socialism!!!"

                Oh God no...please never let the US govt be in charge of my health care.

                It's not even the socialism thing.....it's just the massive clusterfuck that government is running things.

                Some are a necessary evil....military...

                • The VA system performs as well or better than the private health care system (https://www.hsrd.research.va.gov/publications/esp/quality-of-care-review.cfm) and is more efficient than the private system. There are similar results for the IHS - as good or better outcomes, at a lower cost, provided often in hard-to-reach areas for poor and often very sick patients.

                  And the US....we could not afford it for everyone, hell we can't afford the US health care we DO have

                  You want cost savings? Start by taking the 20% profit and overhead that goes directly into the pockets of the health insurance industry. We could ea

                  • The VA system performs as well or better than the private health care system

                    I can speak from first hand knowledge, that simply is NOT the case.

                    There are good people working there, but the care is NOT the best in the world....and the red tape prevents progress in any meaningful time scale....

                    Again....we cannot afford the govt health we have NOW with Medicare and Medicaid.....those two alone make up a large part of the annnual US budget as it is....and it's growing.

                    Just try adding the rest of the nation

                    • I can speak from first hand knowledge

                      An anecdote is not data. I provided a link to data. An actual rigorous, scientific analysis of data from VA hospitals and many privately run hospitals comparing patient satisfaction and patient outcomes. And you provided an anecdote. Great. I have an anecdote about how bad the major local private hospital is. We can swap anecdotes all day. But I want to see data. So if you're right, and the private system is better and cheaper than the government-run VA, and you have data, then show it.

                      we cannot afford the govt health we have NOW with Medicare and Medicaid.....those two alone make up a large part of the annnual US budget as it is....and it's growing

                      Yes, and we pay taxes

        • Really, it's being a fascist that gets you called a fascist. Besides, I hope you aren't suggesting you're anti-fascist? You know what they call *those* people.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by caseih ( 160668 )

          Or called socialist. Probably more than being called fascist.

        • Hahaha looks like your neck sprung a leak there!
          (laughtrack.wav)

          Hey true and not fake good faith internet poster your "homepage" is fake.

      • Let's not forget the cancer villages. Besides one very specific black City here in America (we all know the one) we have not for the most part allowed our citizens to have the groundwater poisoned. Okay there's a few more asterises on that in the form of rural communities getting their groundwater fucked up by fracking... But it's not a widespread practice over here.

        We also don't have a lot of slave labor outside of the use of h2b visas. Admittedly we have started using h2b visas to do the kind of slave

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by leonbev ( 111395 )

      I'd imagine that the one of the big reasons that the auto manufacturers cheated on their diesel emissions results is that they didn't want to require drivers to have to put DEF into their vehicles every few thousand miles like they do with diesel trucks. I can't blame them for that, it seems like a pain and probably would have hurt their sales.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by sconeu ( 64226 )

        I call bullshit. I own one of the affected vehicles (Jetta TDI), and even BEFORE Dieselgate broke, I had to put DEF into my car. And my rate is rougly every 5K miles or so (YMMV).

      • I think you are exaggerating the awesome inconvenience of having to put DEF into the tank every 10000 km, and the enormous expense (10-20 bucks) . Do you FUD for money or just because your a fool?

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by leonbev ( 111395 )

          Well... compared to the non-inconvenience and non expense of having to not do it at all on a gasoline powered vehicle, it's something to think about.

  • If you look at the long term big manufacturers present in the UK... Where's Fiat? Honda? Can't see many more missing.

  • Stock fine. (Score:2, Troll)

    by gurps_npc ( 621217 )

    The companies that did this should be fined the value of all cars they sold, in the form of stock of their companies.

    If they sold 15 billion worth of cars this way, they owe $15 billion of stock to the governments. Note, I am talking the amount they sold the cars for, not the amount of profit. cars unsold must use the real results, not the fake emmissions. If that means they cannot be sold, they cannot be sold.

    The governments should keep the stock for 20 years then sell it off slowly.

  • If execs want to treat the law as optional, their customers should as well. If they don't see a need to comply with emissions law, I don't see why I should comply with the one that says they should be compensated for their goods.

    Seriously. People who flout the law and then claim its protection piss me off.

    • Hang on. The cars passed the tests. No laws were broken. This entire case will be about whether defeat devices were used. That will need software engineers (it'l be in the EEC) and reverse engineered code.

      Since EEC strategies are adaptive by nature there is no fixed 'state' of emissions for a given rpm and load and ECT (and so on), the thing is retuning itself continually.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by abulafia ( 7826 )
        The cars passed the tests. No laws were broken.

        You're claiming fraudulently gaining something of value from the federal government is not illegal?

        I absolutely agree that it is frequently not punished, but that's not the same thing.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Bert64 ( 520050 )

          No they complied with the letter, but not the spirit of the tests.
          When lawyers or tax accountants do something similar they are celebrated.

  • Who would have that they'd do something like that? I mean besides everyone.

  • Wasn't Dieselgate ... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by PPH ( 736903 ) on Monday October 13, 2025 @03:04PM (#65722286)

    More than a decade after the original "dieselgate" scandal broke, lawyers representing 1.6 million diesel car owners in the UK argue that

    ... settled already? With fines and penalties, mandated fixes or vehicle buybacks, etc? Isn't this sort of like beating a dead horse? Or beating the glue that the dead horses were rendered into?

    • The Exxon Valdez lawsuit wasn't settled until 2008. The spill happened in 1988.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by sconeu ( 64226 )

      That was with the US.gov, not the UK

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by PPH ( 736903 )

        According to this [wikipedia.org], the class action has been settled. And no more claims can be filed beyond 2022. On the other hand, there was a UK group that tried to sue the Vatican for reparations for the occupation of the British Isles by the Romans. So I guess lawsuits die hard over there.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by evanh ( 627108 )

      Wasn't that the VW group exclusively? This one appears to say all manufacturers are engaging in the practise. If true then that's a pretty big failure of the first settlement.

      • Wasn't that the VW group exclusively?

        No.

        This one appears to say all manufacturers are engaging in the practise.

        Yes, Dieselgate involved Mercedes, BMW, and Bosch as well.

        You could just look this up.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      I think that was just for VW. This applies to other manufacturers who may have tried to do the same thing - changed their firmware so that when the emissions test is running the engine runs in a low emissions mode, but in the normal higher emissions mode the rest of the time.

      It's a shame it only extends to the owners of these vehicles. The rest of us have been injured by these emissions too.

  • The judgment will also bind other manufacturers (Score:3, Interesting)

    by innocent_white_lamb ( 151825 ) on Monday October 13, 2025 @03:11PM (#65722304)

    "The judgment on the five lead defendants will also bind other manufacturers including Jaguar Land Rover, Vauxhall/Opel, Volkswagen/Porsche, BMW, FCA/Suzuki, Volvo, Hyundai-Kia, Toyota and Mazda, whose cases are not being heard to reduce the case time and costs."

    Excuse me? Since when is that a legal procedure?

    We're having a trial to find out if these guys are guilty. And then we'll consider these other guys guilty and penalize them too.

    Aren't they entitled to a trial?

    Your neighbour has been found guilty of assaulting the mailman. Since you live on the same street we're sending you to jail too.

    • Re:The judgment will also bind other manufacturers (Score:5, Informative)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) on Tuesday October 14, 2025 @04:05AM (#65723312) Homepage Journal

      The other manufacturers agreed to it. It doesn't make sense for them all to waste time and money on their own cases, when if this one doesn't go their way the same arguments will be used against them, and they used the same technologies and often the same parts (e.g. Bosch ECUs).

      Those other manufacturers will doubtless be talking to the legal reps of the ones in court, offering any support they can.

      If they go to court with the same arguments that were already considered by a different court, without any significantly different evidence, the judge isn't going to look favourably on them.

  • Not just emission tests (Score:3)

    by devslash0 ( 4203435 ) on Monday October 13, 2025 @03:13PM (#65722312)

    Have you ever wondered why have cars got so big? Why do we have more SUVs? It's because emission norms take into account the class (size) of the vehicle. All the powerful engines couldn't get away with getting into the right brackets so many manufectures instead decided to keep the same engine/power/emissions but make the car bigger so that it can squeeze under the right limit.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by MpVpRb ( 1423381 )

      Lawmakers need to learn the terms "unintended consequences" and "malicious compliance"

    • Re:Not just emission tests (Score:5, Insightful)

      by tlhIngan ( 30335 ) <slashdot&worf,net> on Monday October 13, 2025 @04:41PM (#65722494)

      Have you ever wondered why have cars got so big? Why do we have more SUVs? It's because emission norms take into account the class (size) of the vehicle. All the powerful engines couldn't get away with getting into the right brackets so many manufectures instead decided to keep the same engine/power/emissions but make the car bigger so that it can squeeze under the right limit.

      That's in the US due to EPA regulations or CAFE.

      But the real reason is profits - because the big car trend started with the American automakers in the 90s where CAFE was much less of a deal. It's just that big trucks and SUVs made a lot more money than sedans and small cars. After all, you can tell people complain about EVs costing $50,000 when a new econobox costs $20K. Ford/GM/Chrysler of course would rather you buy that luxury SUV for $50K where they make far more money than that $20K econobox. It only costs just a tiny bit more to build it, but the margins are way better.

      It's why the Big 3 don't really do small cars or sedans, and the ones they do generally suck outside of a few specialized ones like muscle cars.

      If you're American, then Buy Ford/GM/Chrysler is basically in your DNA (despite the last two being foreign owned), so you've been forced to go along with buying the more expensive vehicles because the cheap ones are crap and the dealer would also want you to buy the bigger vehicle.

      Meanwhile the rest of the world are making smaller vehicles that run great and are fuel efficient and making a profit.

      The Japanese don't want to buy an F-150 that is larger than their famous Klei trucks and is far less nimble or practical on Tokyo streets. Meanwhile, Toyota makes nice sedans that get good mileage with great quality that satisfy the portion of the American population who either cannot afford a big vehicle, don't want to drive a big vehicle, or need a car to go down congested city streets easier than a literal tank.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by caseih ( 160668 )

        It's also just demand. Most car buyers simply don't care that much about fuel economy. It's good enough. And most north American buyers prefer larger vehicles because they think they are safer in them. There are still cars available here but they just aren't in much demand.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        In the UK it's more of an arms race. There are cheap, big cars on the market. It's got to the point where small cars can feel unsafe, and drivers often get blinded by higher up vehicles' headlights. Part of it is just wanting to dominate the road with a big stupid box too.

        Personally, when I see another car, the level of stupidity in its design and suitability for the task at hand determine how generous I am towards the driver.

        • It was that way here until the oil crisis, which shrank cars for a while. Now they are inflated again, but as things are getting crappier here, smaller vehicles are returning. If you have lots of space and fuel is cheap, larger vehicles are lovely. If neither thing is true, they are just more trouble and expense than they are worth.

          Vehicles being higher up has little influence on how far their headlights cast, especially given safe following distances they are the least relevant thing. They are just commonl

    • Also, and unimportantly...Americans like roomy cars.

      There are plenty of small cars available in America. They just aren't that popular.

    • I have seen with my own eyes a tiny 4 cylinder engine push 937 horsepower and more than 700 foot pounds of torque.

      Getting only 120 horsepower out of a 4 cylinder engine is a failure in engineering and efficiency.

      • Isn't it all about the stress it puts on components? Ask any old timer driver and they will tell you that tweaked engines don't last long. You can either have low power and long longevity, or high power, short life. One, but not the other. An engine XOR.

  • Why does it take over a decade to bring this to court? This isn’t nuclear fusion research.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Tailhook ( 98486 )

      Why does it take over a decade to bring this to court?

      The correct oxen must be gored, and the correct pockets must be filled with the correct amounts. It takes a long time for The Great and The Good to plan the feast.

    • 'Cos it's the UK. We like to procrastinate first.

  • ...how many of the car companies will be killed?

    • None of the big ones. They have budgeted for this a long time ago. Everyone who has bought a car since the original scandal has been paying into a fund to cover any payments they have to make.

    • Come on somone gave you a reasonable response. Since you want discussion, go ahead and discuss?
      Unless of course you weren't trying to have a discussion but were instead using retarded questions as propaganda?

  • This could be a government shake down for cash. It is all about the money. Ever notice when governments win these kinds of cases. There is rarely any jail time for anyone and the cash goes poof!

    • I agree, there should be lots of jail time for execs. Suddenly behaviors that were previously fiduciary duty will be off limits and avoided at a safe distance.

  • > Car manufacturers decided they would rather cheat to prioritise "customer convenience" and sell cars than comply with the law on deadly pollutants.

    Car manufacturers decided they would rather cheat to prioritize not spending money on fixing the diesel particulate filters (DPFs).

    Manufacturers faked emissions by using software that detected when vehicles were undergoing emissions testing and adjusted engine performance to pass these tests despite the above defects, which emitted much higher pollutan

  • There are no British car factories anymore they were ALL sold off.

    There are French, German, Japanese, Indian and Chinese car factories in the UK.

  • Did they ever catch that rogue engineer who wrote the Dieselgate code, surreptitiously planted it into the repository, cancelled the orders of the urea injectors, changed the assembly line to omit installation of the urea injectors, and modified the owner manual and full service manual to remove all references to the urea injectors? I bet it was the same guy that actually killed Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman.

Slashdot Top Deals

The first myth of management is that it exists. The second myth of management is that success equals skill. -- Robert Heller

Close