Quote:
Originally Posted by DGthe3
That is pure BS.
Even if you assume that it was a technical impossibility (wasn't) in 2009, what was forcing them to sell diesels in the first place? If they couldn't meet the emissions requirements, they could have simply gone with a gas-only car lineup & been in compliance.
But the cars could meet emissions requirements, at least occasionally. Thats actually the entire problem. The cars were programmed to run rich while being tested for emissions, to get the NOx trap in the catylytic converter hotter so that it would break down the NOx. It would burn a little more fuel to pass the test, but when the car drove away it would go back to 'normal' & emissions would shoot up. As I understand it, they could have just ran the cars on the 'testing' fuel table 100% of the time and been fine, though with a slight hit to fuel economy. Alternatively, they could have used urea injection like everyone else that sells diesels (or like VW has just recently started doing anyway).
So yes, they had a couple alternatives to cheating on a standard that everybody else seems to be able to comply with.
|
Bingo! GM (and others) took a little longer to develop the technology because they knew the emission standards were coming in addition to FE requirements. Scientists started asking questions last year. They couldn't figure out how VW could possible get the power and FE out of the common-rail TDI with such low emissions. It seemed to defy physics and chemistry. Now we know...they defied the law instead.