By on February 2, 2016

1.6 TDI Motor ( EA 189 ):  Flow straightener Volkswagen

Volkswagen Group has until the end of the day Tuesday to submit its final plan to the Environmental Protection Agency regarding its illegally polluting 3-liter TDI engines, primarily used in Audi vehicles, reported Automotive News on Monday.

The deadline comes after an earlier proposal to fix 2-liter TDI vehicles was rejected by the regulatory agency and before Audi takes to the airwaves during Super Bowl 50 where we hope it’ll use the opportunity to tell us something more than just “buy this new, fancy, non-diesel car.”

We reported last month that a new catalytic converter was proposed by Volkswagen to fix its 2-liter diesel vehicles. Audi stated earlier that a fix for 3-liter vehicles would be much simpler.

Of the three auxiliary emissions control devices declared by Audi after the scandal broke, only one was determined to be a “defeat device” by regulators.

“One of (the AECDs) is regarded as a defeat device according to applicable US law. Specifically, this is the software for the temperature conditioning of the exhaust-gas cleaning system,” Audi said in a statement.

A fix could be as simple as a software reflash to change engine management. However, increased consumption of AdBlue — the liquid used to curb NOx emissions in Volkswagen’s diesel vehicles — in those vehicles is likely as a result.

Audi launched a Goodwill Package program, a carbon copy of Volkswagen’s program, for its 2-liter TDI-equipped Audi A3. It has yet to do the same for 3-liter TDI vehicles.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

34 Comments on “Time’s Up: Volkswagen Must Submit 3-liter TDI Fix for Approval by Today...”


  • avatar
    GermanReliabilityMyth

    That’s right, Volkswagen, hurry up and submit the 3 liter TDI fix so CARB can camp on it for several weeks to teach you…a…lesson?

    • 0 avatar
      Ol Shel

      Yes!!!

      It’s CARB’s fault that VAG cheated.

      You’re a good schaf.

      • 0 avatar
        28-Cars-Later

        I’m not sure what CARB’s regs are on the subject, but if they are anything like Euro4 (2005) to Euro6 (2014) than yes it partially is their fault. In the period between, Euro NOx standards for diesels were reduced 68% while NOx standards for gasoline motors were only reduced 25%. Diesel passenger cars in the US make up 1% of all sales, applying such a strict standard to USDM models has the effect of driving up the costs which was done on purpose to legislate them out of existence. Why should unelected bureaucrats have this kind of power?

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_emission_standards

        • 0 avatar
          Brian E

          As far as I can tell neither EPA nor CARB regulates diesel engines in light passenger vehicles differently than petrol engines. The European regulators were being unfair by allowing more pollution from diesels in the name of CO2 reduction, to the detriment of the health of city-dwellers.

          I’d like to reduce CO2 emissions, but cars are a small part of the overall problem and human health must come first. If diesels are contributing to air quality problems today then they should be cracked down on IMO.

          • 0 avatar
            John

            @ 26 cars & Brian E – Google is your friend. CARB has a website where you can find their motor vehicle diesel regulations, read them, and then comment based on knowledge, instead of guesswork.

        • 0 avatar
          wmba

          Forget CARB, they’re a side show and their diesel standards are the same as EPA.

          Proposed EPA changes to regulations are proposed, promulgated and then at least 90 days are given to comment, whether positive or negative. The objections over the years to tightening diesel NOx standards raised by various automaker/highway tractor rig makers are evaluated, and they obviously did not create a huge fuss, or we’d have heard about it (Navistar bet wrongly on their technology for example) Therefore, it has to be assumed that, however begrudgingly, the vehicle-makers agree to conform. Whether you like it or not is immaterial. But there is procedure in place; you’re just not familiar with it.

          Also, the EPA standards for pollution are just as easy to find in Wikipedia as the EU ones, and I’ve commented on both before and their differences. Nobody reads the hard stuff, and a lot want to sit back and bleat about unelected officials so far as I can see, when all they’re doing is their job. It’s easy to complain and pick the strawman to blame, when it is plain as day to see that VW cheated.

          There is also, gasp, the EPA website itself to have a gander at.

        • 0 avatar
          dantes_inferno

          The Communist Air Resource Board is the automotive regulatory equivalent of an overzealous homeowners association. Some of their tactics would make the Gestapo seem somewhat tame by comparison.

          If they had any sense of legitimacy, they would also go after the trucking industry, rail industry, power companies, etc. This is nothing more than a money grab – the textbook strategy of going after the easiest, lowest-hanging fruit.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            CARB has viciously attacked the truck/bus industries, terrorizing owners of pre emissions commercial vehicles into complying with the standard. It got real nasty but vastly improved CA air quality speaks for itself.

            The rail industry and dirty California power generation are relatively small contributors to the CA emissions problem, but they no doubt have their day coming.

            But non HOA neighborhoods are easy to spot, disasters in some cases, 6-7 cars in front in each house, at least one non-running, and littered with huge RVs and boats on the street. You don’t want to live there.

          • 0 avatar
            JimZ

            CARB is the way they are because SoCal has truly had terrible air quality in its history. Anyone saying they’re overzealous or unreasonable is someone who has never had to breathe air that bad.

            it’s like being anti-vaccination because you think measles is “just a rash” or pertussis is “just a cough.” This stuff harms and kills people; just because you haven’t personally experienced it doesn’t mean it’s unimportant.

      • 0 avatar
        GermanReliabilityMyth

        How, exactly, does withholding a potential solution from the buying public benefit anyone? Even if it’s inadequate, it should be reviewed, brought to the light, corrected and, or scrapped, for a satisfactory alternative.

  • avatar
    brettc

    I hope they slow down a bit, they’ve been too eager to fix these problems and the customer communication has been exemplary (end sarcasm)

    • 0 avatar
      brettc

      Me too. I was at the local dealer over the weekend looking at the backlot with the stop sale TDIs. I realized how old those cars now appear since they’re all 2015 models and the ones at that dealer all had 2015-2016 inspection stickers.

      Even if they got the go-ahead tomorrow to sell them, dealers would have a pile of tainted 2015 cars they’d likely have to sell at reduced prices.

  • avatar
    SCE to AUX

    I’m amazed that 4-1/2 months after this scandal broke, they still don’t have an approved fix for any TDI. The accountants must be monitoring the engineers.

    • 0 avatar
      VCplayer

      I mean, fixing the problem isn’t the hard part. Doing it in a way that doesn’t make VW bankrupt is actually pretty challenging.

    • 0 avatar
      Dr. Doctor

      Or the proposed fix isn’t enough to satisfy CARB, they’ve got a foreign company by the balls and are going to try and squeeze every cent they can get out of them. Were this GM or any other US automaker you can bet that there would be the “polite suggestion” that they show some level of leniency.

      • 0 avatar
        Ol Shel

        You have zero proof of that.

      • 0 avatar
        Varezhka

        Dunno, doesn’t seem like Navistar got by easy when their own diesel issue was found.
        Not a passenger car maker, sure, but still a domestic company found to cheat emissions under similar conditions.

        • 0 avatar
          DenverMike

          “…similar conditions.”?

          Navistar was caught gaming the rules and that’s far from installing a blatant and illegal “cheat device”.

          What VW is guilty of doing is no different than the “off road” (aftermarket) programmer/chip the brodozer pickups install for drag racing and sled pulls, minus the coal rolling, but of course *illegal* on the street.

          Navistar didn’t make the “issue” worse by denying they did anything wrong and remember, when VW was initially caught, before any of this went public, VW tried to fool the Feds with a program “fix” that simply delayed the OFF mode of the cheat device, even longer after “testing”.

          Import or not, the Feds are showing an incredible amount of restraint.

          • 0 avatar
            Varezhka

            @DenverMike Oh, I totally agree that what VW did was much much worse. What I wanted to say was that Navistar was also found to be breaking the rules with their emissions rule by the EPA, and they were *not* treated with kid gloves as suggested by Dr. Doctor in above post.

            There is absolutely no reason to believe VW is being targeted as a foreign company, and as you have said, EPA is dealing with the issue with quite a bit of restraint.

    • 0 avatar
      LeadHead

      I’m going to play Devil’s Advocate here: It’s really not a simple issue. The original emissions system likely took 1-2 years to develop, and it was designed along with the chassis engineers so it all packaged, along with extensive durability testing.

      To design a whole new exhaust after-treatment system that still packages in the same place, develop the software, test it for effectiveness, and then do durability testing is a tall order for just 4 months.

      • 0 avatar
        JimZ

        I think it’s safe to say that any of the cars w/o SCR which have the ineffective “lean NOx trap” are uneconomical to fix and will probably end up with buy-backs being offered. I can see the SCR-equipped cars getting by with a firmware reflash and maybe a larger urea tank (if possible, don’t know how the tank is packaged.)

      • 0 avatar
        NickS

        eadhead

        Add another 12 months or so for the time VW played the feds, and perhaps even longer if you consider that the ICCT sent them a report of their findings too.

        If they claim they didn’t know until they admitted to it, then its been 4 months.

        Also for the sake of accuracy. This is for the 3.0 engine. It should be a much simpler fix.

  • avatar
    b534202

    So what happens if they don’t?

  • avatar
    NickS

    Muller will not expose the board obviously but what are his credentials in crisis management? Baptism by fire works some of the time. More often it results in a colossal mess.

    I have to wonder what the calculation is for opting to go down to the wire with regulators. For VAG’s sake I hope they have thought about the pros and cons of their choices. This is Audi/Porche owners we are talking about.

    How is any of this reducing the uncertainty for the company?

    • 0 avatar
      Brian E

      You mean the Porsche owners who put up with self-fragging engines from a company that wouldn’t stand behind its products?

      • 0 avatar
        NickS

        Sadly, not standing behind the product is a VAG-wide issue.

        But I agree. I’ve often wondered why some owners of their premium brands (A and P being most profitable) keep going back for more after getting shafted by those odd but familiar design and production defects.

        (I am an outlier though. I haven’t to deal with potentially catastrophic defects. I’ve perhaps been lucky.)

  • avatar
    tedward

    where we hope it’ll use the opportunity to tell us something more than just “buy this new, fancy, non-diesel car.”

    Who’s we? I want superbowl commercials that are entertaining and preferably feature sexy products that can kill you. The last thing I want to see is some foreign company attempting an awkward mea culpa.

    Seriously, why would they do this? Your last article about them explicitly laid out how they haven’t really been caught up by this the way vw has (correct). The moral of the story so far might very well be, don’t abmit anything, don’t talk about it afterwards. Just like every lawyer tells nearly every client, and just like every other company does, for literally every other scandal.

  • avatar
    jthorner

    According the Reuters via Yahoo, the plan has been submitted. No details about what is in the plan though ….

    https://news.yahoo.com/vw-submits-california-recall-fix-plan-3-0-002531034–finance.html

    • 0 avatar
      87 Morgan

      Great news! Their last plan was to….wait for it…install a Catalytic Converter. Who woulda thunk that was all that was needed. I bet this time to really appease the regulatory authorities they are going to introduce, along with the C.C a smog pump and an intricate array of vacuum lines that will surely reduce emissions.

      Their is only one solve to this mess…..Buy them back and crush them.

      • 0 avatar
        Storz

        I agree, they don’t have a fix. The big leap in diesel technology since when these motors were developed and today is SCR, these cars (most at least) don’t have SCR, the fix is to retrofit an SCR system but that is too expensive to perform on 5+ year old cars.

        BUY THEM BACK

  • avatar
    Storz

    VW is delusional, apparently they are going around telling their employees not to worry and that “we didn’t cheat, it was a misunderstanding of the rules”

    Revisionist history in the making!


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Contributors

  • Matthew Guy, Canada
  • Seth Parks, United States
  • Ronnie Schreiber, United States
  • Bozi Tatarevic, United States
  • Chris Tonn, United States
  • Moderators

  • Adam Tonge, United States
  • Kyree Williams, United States