Towing w/ VW TDI post emissions scandal

[jcl]

J Morgan: That appears to be an argument from incredulity.

You asked evidence, and wanted to examine it. What did you find when you reviewed the papers in the links?

[Punch]

Many of us in the Frozen North are strongly in favor of Global Warming. My aim is palm trees in my yard by 2025. I am grateful to TDI owners for being especially helpful in furthering this process.

[BearScream]

CO2 is not the pollutant in excess for TDIs. It is particulates and NOx, which contribute mostly to smog, bad enough but not global warming. Like all fossil fuel burners, all diesels emit CO2, but wth better efficiency, so less CO2 per mile, CO2 emission rate is actually in diesel's favor compared to gas.

European diesel fuel has a more stringent partiulate standard than US, while the reverse is true for NOx.

[n2916s]

Let us set aside the argument about whether global warming is anthropogenic or not for a moment.

Instead, what does everyone think about one of, if not the, largest auto manufacturers in the world intentionally violating the law in practically every market it participates in simply to gain a marketing advantage and, therefore, increased profits?

I find it despicable.

Will anyone go to jail for fraud? No.

Who is going to suffer? Innocent owners and stockholders.

What do you think?

Mike

[2012FB]

All those who knew should at a minimum lose all assets, spend a year in jail and then work in the plant for 5 years doing some menial job for minimum wage with no benefits. It is truly amazing but like certain other individuals nothing will happen to them.


Sent from my iPhone using Airstream Forums

[BearScream]

x2. Beside the point.
But there is an outside chance of fraud prosecution in Germany.

[SeeMore]

I love all the discussion about how the world has become hotter in the last 100-150 years. Regardless of how much or what caused it, viewing a chart of the last 10,000 years helps put current temperatures into context. The little red line is where most of the dialog starts when claiming "recorded temperature" by man (using instruments in real time) versus the record as trapped in ice core samples.

[jcl]

Originally Posted by SeeMore

I love all the discussion about how the world has become hotter in the last 100-150 years. Regardless of how much or what caused it, viewing a chart of the last 10,000 years helps put current temperatures into context.

A familiar chart. Look up Jo Nova on Sourcewatch to see how much credibility she has.

If you want to put it all into context, why make (or re-use) a graph that leaves off the last 120 years? That is when a significant amount of warming has taken place.

But it isn't the absolute temperatures that matter, as much as the rate of change. It is not a surprise that the temperature has changed before. But look at the X axis of your graph. The intervals on the left are much greater than the intervals on the right. Presenting a graph with a variable X axis that hides the rate of recent change doesn't help put things in context, it hides the rate of recent change.

And do the temperatures in Greenland represent global temperatures? And is it appropriate to use Greenland as a proxy for the globe when theory tells us that the poles will change differently than the globe as a whole?

[jcl]

Originally Posted by n2916s

Let us set aside the argument about whether global warming is anthropogenic or not for a moment.

Instead, what does everyone think about one of, if not the, largest auto manufacturers in the world intentionally violating the law in practically every market it participates in simply to gain a marketing advantage and, therefore, increased profits?

I find it despicable.

I think that individuals should be charged. It is likely to happen in Germany.

I also think that it is inconceivable that VW is the only manufacturer gaming emissions tests, when many other manufacturers have been previously convicted of that exact practice.

Cadillac used an emissions test defeat device in the 90s. The engine computer recognized when the heater/air conditioner was turned on, and adjusted engine tuning to comply only under that circumstance. Possible because the emission test protocol specified that the HVAC must be turned off for the test. GM paid up. What has changed since then is that the consequences are much higher, so fines will be serious this time.

[kidjedi]

We have two Jeep Liberty CRD's (diesel). Tons of power/torque for towing, and they pass emissions in CO every year with flying colors. There a a lot of ways to fix the lies VW was telling... they were just using the *cheapest* method.

What VW did was despicable. They should definitely have to pay dearly for lying and contributong to pollution, but they are still fantastic cars, and it's a fantastic fuel (that can be manufactured with anything from garbage to plant matter... meaning renewable and NOT reliant on fossil fuel).

[RedSHED]

The US automotive engineering scene is pretty much all in Michigan and people do move between companies - especially contractors.

Rumors of a deliberate sustained cheat would be hard to contain - possible but difficult. Although the powertrain engineers are usually more stable, I once was a contractor and had to read through a bunch of ECM source code line by line and flag any deviation from the specs. That job was tedious and chewed up a couple months. Don't know if that's still a practice, however, but a cheat like this would have stood out.

European, and particularly Asian manufacturers typically keep their engineering force more isolated from the rest of the world and their competitors. As a much more closed HR system, it would be far easier to keep such things quiet, if that was in fact a corporate goal.

What I'm saying is that there may be some more of this, but this also may be the only case. Also, it appears Bosch made most of the fuel system for these engines and warned VW not to do this several years ago.

According to the report, Bosch claims to have supplied diesel engine-management software to Volkswagen under the impression that it would be used only in vehicle testing. That software, which was able to activate emissions-control devices when a testing environment was detected and deactivate them during normal driving, somehow ended up in production vehicles. According to Bild am Sonntag, Bosch wrote to Volkswagen in 2007 warning the automaker that using this software in publicly sold vehicles was illegal.

Was/Is Bosch responsible to ensure that their customer did not use their product illegally? I don't think that would make sense.
But something was either missed or (apparently) covered up at Das Auto. Frankly I'm P'd.
( Bosch Warned VW About Diesel Emissions Cheating in 2007 – News – Car and Driver | Car and Driver Blog )

[timhortons]

Originally Posted by jcl

A familiar chart. Look up Jo Nova on Sourcewatch to see how much credibility she has.

If you want to put it all into context, why make (or re-use) a graph that leaves off the last 120 years? That is when a significant amount of warming has taken place.

But it isn't the absolute temperatures that matter, as much as the rate of change. It is not a surprise that the temperature has changed before. But look at the X axis of your graph. The intervals on the left are much greater than the intervals on the right. Presenting a graph with a variable X axis that hides the rate of recent change doesn't help put things in context, it hides the rate of recent change.

And do the temperatures in Greenland represent global temperatures? And is it appropriate to use Greenland as a proxy for the globe when theory tells us that the poles will change differently than the globe as a whole?

I don't think we're going to resolve all the issues regarding climate science on the Airstream enthusiast board

Since this promises to be as contentious and endless as the tow vehicle debate I'm going to throw my opinionated 2 cents in.

We're not at 500ppm, we're not even at 400 ppm of CO2 yet. Basically all human activity ever has pushed us up about 80-100ppm. That's one molecule in 10,000.

Could one or two or three molecules in 10,000 increase cause measurable sustained warming ? Theoretically, because they're stacked on top of each other 10 miles high(simplification) and could in theory act like a big
thermal blanket. That said we aren't turning into 100C Venus anytime because we lack the Atmospheric Pressure for that to happen.

That said, the earth has any number of mechanisms that have tended to keep this in some degree of equilbrium as evidenced by the fact that we are here. More clouds, dust, etc and there is a long term temperature supercycle which we happen to be in a warm period of anyways, as evidenced by the continued existence of civilization.

The short short term change is called the weather, and the rate of change you mention is not significant either because of the massive heat ballast effect of the oceans and ice on the top and bottom of the planet.

Nobody has demonstrated to my satisfaction that the combustion activities of humans are causing meaningful damaging change to the "climate", and certainly not with the confidence that would necessitate crippling economic activity and say starving off 2 billion or so humans.

Overall, a warmer planet has been better for life on earth and civilization. However global warming/climate change doctrine insists all consequences of warming must be bad, even though human civilization exists because we are in a warm period itself.

During the period we've been able to measure directly for the last 180 years or so, the planet seems to have come off a cold period and gone up in avg. surface temp of 0.5 degree Celsius. If you look at the longer term chart it's not good news but in the other direction. It's not clear to me that once a major cooling starts that man has the ability to do anything meaningful about it. Clearly by then I will be long dead however.

Personally I find the predictions of the climate alarmists rather amusing if they didn't have political implications for people trying to slip a neo-marxist agenda of taxing all my activities through on the coattails of junk science and crass politics. Every year the celebrities insist that we have no time left and that disaster is imminent. Like the preachers on late night TV, all they predict is apocalypse, yet there they are on TV year after year long after the sell-by date of the last end of the world event.

Nobody in the climate change racket ever loses their job no matter how silly or shrill their predictions and recomendations (2 breeding humans remaining by 2005, etc). Like other religions ... fervor counts.

One day they'll be right I guess.

[Ted S.]

Most of them eat beef too, then get mad at us for not driving a Prius.

[rmkrum]

You know, I've NEVER met a cold, wet, hungry environmentalist...Ever!
😄😄😄😄😄


Sent from my pocket Internet using Airstream Forums

[jcl]

Originally Posted by timhortons

I don't think we're going to resolve all the issues regarding climate science on the Airstream enthusiast board...

I would certainly agree with that. There are more appropriate forums to discuss CO2 sensitivity, and other climate change issues.

What would be interesting is to discuss the impacts as they relate to camping and towing.

I am thinking of things like fuel prices rising significantly. The potential for EV tow vehicles in the future. Whether Airstream will evolve to lighter trailers, easier towing, as an option for those of us who want them.

The challenge is to get to that discussion without having to rehash things like whether it is warming, whether we are contributing significantly to it, whether Al Gore has a large carbon footprint, and so on.

I haven't seen any claims that all impacts will be negative. Certainly a warmer planet will be good for some. Those who want palm trees where none grew before, for example. That has to be offset against the very significant societal cost of higher sea levels, crop failures, water shortages, climate refugees, and so on. It is the net impact that is bad, not all impacts. No alarmism here, just a read of the best information we have available to us at the moment. And it is looking like mitigation is a far better investment than waiting until our only choice is adaptation. We will have to invest in adaptation in any case, but why make the pain worse?

[BearScream]

jcl hits the right note. This is about efficient, compliant tow vehicles, not global warming.

[Echelon73]

Originally Posted by streamachine

If happy with the power and performance of the vehicle why take it to the dealer for a reflash. Drive it the way it is! I am sure there are plenty of independent garages that dont care if you have had the update done that would still work on it something tears up. Just drive it and still enjoy your vehicle like you did before tree hugger global warming extremist told you it was bad to drive. you didn't know the difference before so why worry now?

I'm not sure if I will have the option of not having the recall done. From what I hear they are talking about not renewing your registration unless you can prove you have taken it in for the recall. I do plan on waiting as long as I can so I can see how the "fix" is affecting cars that have it done.