US, Canada, Germany to Expand Testing for All Diesel Vehicles, Not Just Volkswagen

Mark Stevenson
by Mark Stevenson
us canada germany to expand testing for all diesel vehicles not just volkswagen

Government agencies from the United States, Canada and Germany will be testing diesel vehicles from automakers other than Volkswagen to check their compliance with emission laws.

According to The New York Times, regulators in North America “are significantly expanding their on-the-road emissions tests to cover all makes and models of diesel cars.” The same on-road tests found 3-liter V-6 diesel engines to emit more NOx than they did in EPA testing.

The EPA had already notified General Motors that its new Colorado and Canyon diesel pickups would undergo increased scrutiny.

The new on-road testing initiative is expected to take “several weeks,” reported The New York Times.

Regulators in Germany are expanding “strict checks” to diesel vehicles from automakers other than Volkswagen, reported Reuters.

“We are currently carrying out strict checks on diesel vehicles from other manufacturers including foreign ones,” Transport Minister Alexander Dobrindt told Bild on Saturday. The details of those strict checks were not disclosed.

Join the conversation
48 of 70 comments
  • Big Al from Oz Big Al from Oz on Nov 08, 2015

    This should go beyond just diesel fueled vehicles. I'd like to see the "real" figures for gasoline engines as well. This should be for FE, CO2, etc. Regulations should only be necessary to protect the consumer, not industry. All of the vehicle manufacturers really need to be audited. The auto industry whines and cries when regulatory measures are not in place to protect and promote uncompetitive business. But, when they flout regulations they should be held more to account. Another way to resolve the problem is to reduce the uncompetitive technical trade barriers every time a manufacturer screws up. Sooner or later the manufacturers will have to sink or swim. That is real business. Not penalise the chicken take out with a 25% tax, then give the hamburger takeout added protection by having unfair regulations biased towards the hamburger joint.

    • See 25 previous
    • Big Al from Oz Big Al from Oz on Nov 09, 2015

      @VolandoBajo Here's a fantastic interactive map. Also, the discussion regarding the pollution between EU cities and US cities overall is quite interesting. First up, France and the EU have NOT decided that diesel was a poor choice as a fuel. It has been found diesel engines EuroV and above are emitting less particlates. Paris is no more polluted than many cities in the US. I presented an interesting piece regarding how why some cities appear to be more polluted than others regarding air pollution. It found that in Paris the many narrow roads and lack of green spaces does hold the pollutants. But, Paris is no more polluted than most and modern Western city. Just look at the interactive map. I'm waiting for DenverMike to state that V8 pickup pollutants are good for your health and 4 cylinder pollutants are bad, especially Japanese or EU gas engines.

  • Jmhm2003 Jmhm2003 on Nov 08, 2015

    This kind of makes me happy here in Alberta. We are surrounded by Albertards driving modified diesel pickups, you know them, the one's that leave giant clouds of black smoke every time the dude wearing the bill tears away from the stoplight. Any form of testing to get these things either legal or off the road is going to be a major win.

    • See 3 previous
    • Lou_BC Lou_BC on Nov 09, 2015

      @Drzhivago138 CARB has been fining fining aftermarket tuner companies but I do not know if it has happened federally. In BC where I live Vancouver has mandatory vehicle testing but not the rest of the province.

  • Pch101 Pch101 on Nov 09, 2015

    The World Health Organization considers fine particulate matter pollution levels higher than 10 micrograms per cubic meter to be unsafe. The majority of American cities are in the safe zone, with the average pollution level at 9.6. Thirty-three percent of cities are above the W.H.O. standard. Those cities tend to be geographically dispersed throughout the United States, but are predictably cities with heavy industry and driving, like Cleveland, Chicago, Los Angeles and Philadelphia. Outside of the W.H.O., the United States has its own particulate matter standard of 12 micrograms per cubic meter. The pollution in 13 percent of American cities is higher than that. Europe is a different story. The average European city has pollution levels that are double what the W.H.O. considers safe, at 21.7 micrograms per cubic meter. In total, 93 percent of Europe’s cities have unsafe levels of pollution when measured against the W.H.O.'s standards. The E.U.'s standard, against which member countries base their regulations, is much more lax than both the W.H.O. and the American standards, at 25 micrograms per cubic meter. Only a quarter of the E.U.'s cities fail to meet that standard. In the United States, only Fresno, Calif., would. ___________________ Well, that was easy. Now please be quiet.

    • See 10 previous
    • VolandoBajo VolandoBajo on Nov 11, 2015

      @pch101 Well if your scrolling finger stays busy, at least it might prevent you from raising another finger in a one-finger salute. :-) This list of good things to do could go on and on: Exercise more. Take daily walks. Reduce carbohydrates. Cut down on caffeine. Eat more fiber in your diet. Don't worry, be happy. (Anyone remember Meher Baba?). Not really very auto related, but not a real harmful thing either. Though if people among the B&B want to recommend what they think is good for people, I personally don't think that it is too much for James Walker to post a one-liner about his favorite non-profit automotive charity. Just a side note. @RobertRyan I enjoy debating, but am not so much interested in winning debates as I am in discovering what the truth is, on the topic at hand, when in this case seems to be, narrowly defined, air pollution levels at the present time in the cities of LA, Paris and London. (Not necessarily just today, but in a current time interval). Defined more broadly, the same subject matter, but for air pollution in the US vs the EU, taken as wholes. I really don't have a lot of data, though I could try to find and comb through things like EPA, NOAA, NCAR, etc. data. But you mention that you have lots of data. In the spirit of trying to discover the truth, would you mind posting some links to the sources of some of that data, so others, and myself in particular, might comb through it to see if we arrive at the same conclusions that you have? I really don't want to spend a ton of time on this, due to other commitments IRL, but I am willing to do a bit of digging, discussing and debating, if I can find some decent data. I am not too impressed with your numbeo data, as I don't see any info about where it comes from or how it was collected, but if you can point me to something about where its numbers come from, I might develop more faith in them. And whoever mention that the Daily Telegraph guy thinks asbestos is harmless, I will withhold judgment until I have had a chance to research that further. But whether he is a kook or not, the one thing that troubles me about the current climate data debates is that raw data seems to point to declining temps, while data adjusted points to an increase. Two things bother me about this. It is claimed that they are adjusted for changes in equipment calibration over time, but they all seem to be upward adjustments, with NO explanation of why this would always be declining readings that require upward adjustments. And even though NOAA was requested by Congress in 2010 to explain the adjustment process, it took five years to respond, and when it did, it made no mention of how readings were calibrated to actual readings, in order to know how to adjust the data. So it is quite possible that rather than adjusting for any objectively obtained reading biases, they (NOAA and other climate data gatherers) may be adjusting solely by and for making a better fit of the data to the model. And that doesn't make data accurate, nor does it validate the model. But the climate data issuers argue that this same data, quite possible adjusted precisely to match their models, somehow VALIDATES those models. If you look closely at what I just wrote, you can see that if that is the case, it would be circular reasoning, which would validate nothing. Or if that is not the basis for the adjustments, I would think the climate data agencies would be trotting out field calibration studies showing how the adjustment factors were carefully validated to reflect actual temps, as opposed to not only device readings, but also as opposed to model-only driven adjustments. This is where you get down in the weeds to see what is really going on. But when the booby traps are all buried down low, in the weeds, you have no choice but to get down in the weeds to look carefully and to see if there is hanky-panky going on there, or if the data is being validated to actual readings in an accurate and unbiased way. While I have a streak of the thing shown in the cartoon #386 "I can't come to bed. I just found something WRONG on the Internet!" I try not to get too carried away with that. Nevertheless, sometimes things just start smelling so fishy, and the stench has the potential to affect so much, that I naturally want to get to the bottom of what is really being done, true hard science, or carefully constructed research and data collection design that is designed in such a way as to produce data that inevitably supports the model. The former demands that we address the matter, to see if we confirm the next stage of the argument, that such rises will have catastrophic results. In the past, climate scientists have argued that carbon dioxide saturation would occur in such a way as to limit the amount of temperature rise, rather than contribute to the dreaded "runaway temperature increases" that are being predicted. But even before we can, or need to, address the extent of future global warming, we need to, and have a right to, know how the data that shows a warming trend is actually being produced, or if the data "scrubbing" process is actually forcing the data to conclude temperature rises not shown by raw data. While this might seem like scientific trivia to some, megadollar decisions are being made for us by our leaders, based on these models, and the temperature data that may or may not show an upward trend, depending on the way the calibrations are computed. This is something I wish more people would look at more closely. But the absence of interest does not prove that it is irrelevant, just that there are a lot of people who stand to profit from that data being accepted as true. And before I am ready to do that, I want to know (a) if the raw data does show a downward temp trend, and (b) if it does, how are the adjustments developed that convert the raw data into a dataset that shows instead an upward trend. I am willing to look at any data that either validates the conclusions of global warming AND its supposed effects, or that calls it into question. I just want to see evidence of either accuracy, OR of guided research designed to prove a certain point, unencumbered by real world information.

  • RobertRyan RobertRyan on Nov 11, 2015

    @Volandobajo Here is a website that gives the basics. A lot more to pollution than just No2

    • See 2 previous
    • RobertRyan RobertRyan on Nov 11, 2015

      @DenverMike You are inconsequential in no links,total BS