It’s actually worse than that - they set goals and then manufacturers started lying to meet those goals, which told the regulators that those goals were attainable and so they set new goals. The entire notion of clean diesel is a farce and has been built on lies from the outset.

It's a typical corporate effect. Management, with no expertise or even competency, creates absurd schedules and goals and thinks that somehow, just by fiat and edict, they can bend physics and make it so.

Are we talking about the auto manufacturers or the government here?

Both parties set unattainable targets.

No, some market participants did so.

However, customers and regulators had different requirements so meeting both was difficult without cheating.

> And no manufacturer has been able to achieve the technology to meet that level.

Urea-injection seems to work (that's what Mercedes does). But it requires another tank and special equipment.

And VW could meet the emissions requirements. That was the cheat. When they detected that they were being tested, they tuned the engine to meet emissions requirements. During normal use, the engine would make better power or efficiency but higher emissions.

It is wild to me that OEM's can straight up include tech to defeat emissions testing and be allowed to continue building engines after that is found. Like, all regulators should operate from the assumption that the entities they're regulating are working in good faith: but once it's been demonstrated they are not, how can you ever trust a product they produce again? They and every other company found to be doing this should be barred from producing engines for good. Or at the very fucking least, be subject to an INCREDIBLE level of scrutiny regarding their software for a solid many years to follow. Like, every single line audited for compliance.

Well, German politicians for one sure love their automotive industry, and it's traditionally more important to them than mostly everything else.

Yet another reason the software running on these automotive systems should be free and open source. It would be great to see the control logic and know that it's doing the right thing.

This right here. The hardware and software should be open to public scrutiny, so that experienced practitioners can explore and weigh in.

I hope that you like ARXML mess with hundreds of MATLAB Simulink files sitting on top.

I do. See my other post...

I believe it needed the efficiency gains to meet MPG (L/100km) requirements.

So it really couldn't meet both. At least not at the same time.

It can meet the fuel consumption requirements, but then it would lose at marketing due to the derating required.

I owned a Dodge ram diesel model that had one of these engines. It had urea injection, and I had to maintain the 2nd tank.

> I had to maintain the 2nd tank

"Hold up, I need to get a large soda--the urea tank is getting low."

Random idea. Change emissions requirements based on GPS coordinates. That's sort of what they do in shipping. Ships burn cleaner fuel in port. If a semi is driving around Los Angeles low emissions are important. In middle of Kansas not as much.

That said phasing out diesels is better idea over the medium run.

That kinda happens as vehicles that can’t pass emissions get exported to states/areas that don’t have the testing.

Used to be known as emissions cheating before VW, now it's emission fraud.

Imo every manufacturer does/did it for gas and diesel engines. I've heard of gas cars in the 90s assuming that they're on a test stand if you rolled down the window shortly after starting and kept it down and reduced power output. And stories like that.

I've never heard the bit about windows and I don't see how that wouldn't be very obvious in a pre-canbus car; "why does the ECU have a sense line to the driver's side window?"

What is easy is looking for the car to be started and then held at a raised idle. Once cars had traction/stability control, the ECU could look for mismatched front/rear wheel speed, or the steering wheel not being turned more than a few degrees.

I know this is a popular take, but the blindspot is commercial engines.

> bypass emissions sensors on 630,000 RAM pickup truck engines

In this case, and in nearly _every report of a scandal_, the issue is with passenger vehicle engines, not commercial vehicle engines.

Diesel engines can be engineered to meet emissions requirements without cheating, they just aren't except for commercial use.

Why is that? Are the parts necessary to meet emissions requirements extra expensive and so are only worth installing on commercial vehicles which are more expensive, vs passenger vehicles have a different profit margin, or is it something else, like commerical vehicles have lower standards for noise or higher standards for maintenance?

Commercial diesel engines run for millions of miles / tens of thousands of hours versus passenger or non commercial is measured in hundreds of thousands of miles typically and thousands of hours. Commercials idle for far longer especially in dense areas like cities, rest stops, distribution centers and ports. Maintaining a fleet of diesels can be written off as a business expense (OPEX) while most non commercial use can’t or isn’t. Would be my guess.

There's also no real competitive force. Gasoline isn't a viable alternative in most cases.

A combination of factors; cost, customer expectations, and convenience.

It's easy to produce a lot of power, it's not easy to do so reliably and within emissions specs. That's where the cost comes in, and where customer expectations come in. If VW is going to be offering a 110 kW 2.0 liter engine, well, Mercedes-Benz can't come in and offer a 90 kW 2.0 liter engine just to meet specs. At the end of the day, margins are fairly thin and regulators are compliant. It's cheaper to just cheat the emissions than make the engine meet emissions specs.

The convenience factor is diesel exhaust fluid (AdBlue); the stuff really does work very well. However, dispensing it at the most effective rate in regards to emissions would mean it has to be topped up between service intervals; very inconvenient. Increasing the tank size is a non-starter because packaging space in modern vehicles is at a premium. So the dirty secret (at least for Mercedes-Benz, confirmed by one of their engineers) is that they calibrate it to last service intervals; not to meet emissions. It's only in rare cases where the owner has to refill the tank themselves.

In regards to the AdBlue situation, if you're in Europe where there are a lot of diesel passenger vehicles and also a lot of diesel trucks and buses, next time you're in the city or on the highway, pay attention to the characteristic diesel stink, either as a pedestrian or a driver. You're never going to smell it from a truck; it'll always be a passenger vehicle. :)

I’m in the UK. We have AdBlu pumps in the gas station. Just fill up fuel and AdBlu at the same time, it’s really easy.

I think I've seen those pumps here in Germany as well, and I'm pretty sure you can get AdBlue in canisters (I have one in the basement that I forgot putting back into a rental).

Yes, this (plus that the whole thing is more convenient than filling up the washer fluid) makes the whole "we don't want the customer to fill it up" even more absurd.

Here in the western US we have em too. Diesel bowsers have a second blue hose attached. You put one in the fuel port, one in the def port, and then let them both fill up

Not surprising, the commercial version of the ISB in question only goes up to 360hp rating, usually they run 300 or 340 hp. The commercial versions all have SCR (Urea Injection) along with DPF an EGR.

In the pickup it's rated 400 hp. I wouldn't be surprised if in the pursuit of HP / Torque to keep up with Ford and Chevy's diesels they cut corners on the emissions. The hotter you run diesel the more powerful it gets, the leaner the more efficient it gets, hot and lean makes NOx in the combustion chamber from oxygen and nitrogen, the more NOX the more SCR you need to reduce it back in the exhaust.

One more reason it's time to transition away from burning stuff to produce energy.

Transition to what, exactly? Pixie dust? Unicorn farts? There's nothing to transition to.

Not to mention that they're often burning stuff behind the curtain to power the non-burning stuff.

As long as it's out of sight it's okay.

It's still an improvement if the large place that burns stuff extracts more energy than tons of small places burning stuff. Not to mention, it's easier to then replace the few large places that burn stuff with something cleaner than having to replace every single car on the road again.

There are lot of parts in the network. No one claimed they would all make a step transition overnight. Part of that is to replace parts of the network which continue to work, while being capable moving the other parts forward.

It's probably ok if the burning is happening off-planet, like on the sun.

Sarcasm doesn't improve anything, plus it's rude.

Elon Musk used an image of a farting unicorn to promote Tesla.

From my experience, any car at all or even a bicycle could replace the majority of trips I see these trucks doing.

Is this a side effect of impossible regulations put in place by bureaucrats with no technical background whatsoever?

The same ones that declared everyone will be driving EVs by 2030.

The regulations are very possible, proven by the "meet the emisions regulations" mode that then gets turned off during normal operation.

That doesn’t follow. Meeting the emissions standards is possible on its own, but not necessarily along with other requirements like efficiency.

I think everyone was doing it. After VW got caught, literally every other foreign car maker pulled all diesel models out of the US market. The only manufacturers still selling diesel here are domestic (and maybe MB’s Sprinter?), and that’s only because 10,000 lb GVWR diesel vehicles are allowed to bypass emissions.