BMW Offices in Munich Raided by Authorities in search of Diesel Emissions Cheating

[Fred Castellum]

To bad BMW's stock is not traded on the US exchanges, would like to see if there were shorting or buying opportunities. Oh well

[Guest The Viking]

24 minutes ago, Cookybiscuit said:

Is gassing people a common usage scenario for a diesel engine? Or would you say engines are more commonly used to power cars which drive in the open air? Really, I don't think you'd be too happy being locked in a room with any diesel or petrol engine, doesn't matter if it was a brand new Euro 6 one or not.

 

1 hour ago, NvidiaIntelAMDLoveTriangle said:

Because the restrictions that they have to follow are idiotic.

 

[Cookybiscuit]

16 minutes ago, The Viking said:

 

 

Que?

[NvidiaIntelAMDLoveTriangle]

@The VikingDo you have a problem, mate? Or are you just a hippy?

[Selah]

12 hours ago, sazrocks said:

I was with you until here. Why the heck should this be done? Aren't modern diesel vehicles cleaner than equivalent gas vehicles, and get better fuel economy? Or am I misinformed? 

And what fuel would you suggest high-load vehicles such as tractor trailers use?

diesel engines used for transporting goods transcontinental is responsible for the entire agriculture and car industry in the world. 

 

Semi's and tankers/freight shippers generate A TON more carbon offset than the entire worlds car industry times over again.

[SpaceGhostC2C]

4 hours ago, Blademaster91 said:

Diesel cars are a bit rare in North America,either few dealers have them or you have to actually look for one.

The widespread use of Diesel in Europe and the appearance of much cheaper fuel back in the day has a lot to do with heavy subsidizing of diesel vs gasoline.

Now Governments are backpedaling as they realize that, while using less fuel per Km., Diesel engines are more harmful per Km. due to the type of particles they produce, which have worse long-term cumulative effect on health (the more exposed you are throughout your life, the worse your lungs are going to be at the end of your life -alternatively, they'll be as bad earlier).

So it is a bit like the Tobacco industry, where Tobacco plantations are subsidized even today, while cigarettes are taxed like there's no tomorrow, its advertisement banned, etc  

 

[ATFink]

13 hours ago, sazrocks said:

I was with you until here. Why the heck should this be done? Aren't modern diesel vehicles cleaner than equivalent gas vehicles, and get better fuel economy? Or am I misinformed? 

And what fuel would you suggest high-load vehicles such as tractor trailers use?

Diesel engines do burn more efficiently than gasoline engines because diesel engines typically ignite they're fuel in much higher pressure systems than gasoline engines. That being said the chemical composition of the diesel fuel is not a homogeneous as gas. This means that diesel fuel does not always burn off completely when the fuel is ignited and the chemical composition of the diesel exhaust is much harder to control (form an environmental standpoint) than gasoline exhaust.

 

In short, no, diesels *typically are not cleaner for the environment than equivalent output gas engines even though the diesel engine is more efficient and will burn less fuel (which means less exhausted gas) for the same power.

 

*In some specific applications (like ultra high torque scenarios where specific power outputs are required but hard to maintain... like an 80,000 semi tuck attempting to accelerate to interstate speeds which needs to get up to speed in a reasonable amount of time so it can't have an unlimited number of gears) the amount of fuel saved by a diesel engine can be significant enough that its more potent exhaust isn't as bad for the environment as the shear quantity of exhausted gas from a gasoline powered equivalent. I don't believe this is the case for lower torque applications - like moving compact passenger vehicles that will not burn as hot since torque demand is not as high across the higher range of the engine (high rev range = less gears, lower torque means the engines don't have to max out there mechanical potential through the smaller number of gears and the combustion process isn't as hot).

 

EDIT:

@straight_stewie Can you verify the accuracy of my claims? I'm a mechanical engineering student that took thermo two years ago. I may have recalled some info I learned incorrectly. I didn't put numbers down because I don't remember exact figures.

[Cole5]

3 hours ago, The Viking said:

 

oh boy, where do i even start to correct this statement without losing brain cells....

 

look. I'll lock you into a room, turn on a diesel  engine and see how you are after a few hours. Because, from your point of view, these rules are idiotic. Ok? you'll be fine anyway, as everybody cheats, right?

If you cant follow the rules, then shape up or ship out, its that simple, if the EU had any balls they ban anyone caught cheating from selling within their borders

[ATFink]

6 minutes ago, Cole5 said:

If you cant follow the rules, then shape up or ship out, its that simple, if the EU had any balls they ban anyone caught cheating from selling within their borders

Having balls and no money isn't necessarily a good thing. If the EU was too strict and ran out their businesses it'd fail as an entity since it depends on the money from the businesses indirectly.

 

This is how corporations can gain leverage over governments and begin commanding them.

[ravenshrike]

13 hours ago, Rattenmann said:

We went shopping for a BMW a month ago. The BMW 5 has about 100 units (forgot the units honestly) of pollution for the diesel variant, while the gas variant has 125ish.

 

Yes the gas variant pollutes less PER LITRE, but the diesel variant runs on 3,4 litres per 100km. Which is almost 2 litres less than the gas one.

 

So basically, i don't understand the hate for diesel. Yes it does pollute more, if you ignore how much less it uses. After all, why would we care about pollution per litre, if all that matters is the total pollution in reality? :-/

The hate for diesel is that the official numbers the European companies for pollution do not remotely reflect the pollution put out during normal driving usage. Whereas with gas engines the amount of pollution per litre doesn't actually change that much no matter how you drive. Well, unless you only drive like half a mile at a time.

 

TL;DR the performance tuning and temperature of diesel engines has a much greater impact on amount and type of pollution released then on gas engines.

[dalekphalm]

15 hours ago, sazrocks said:

I was with you until here. Why the heck should this be done? Aren't modern diesel vehicles cleaner than equivalent gas vehicles, and get better fuel economy? Or am I misinformed? 

And what fuel would you suggest high-load vehicles such as tractor trailers use?

So, there are two main ways to make a diesel engine in a modern car:

1. Filtered - this is a diesel that uses a urea or ammonia type treatment system with a filter. These engines are fairly clean, but they require regular maintenance, and are expensive to manufacture and install into a vehicle. Typically only more expensive diesel vehicles have these.

2. "Clean" diesel - this is the type of engine VW used for their smaller cars (Jetta, Golf, etc), and was the source for VW's DieselGate. Manufacturers claimed they had invented a new way to produce clean exhaust with low emissions. VW claimed this. They lied.

 

So with smaller (and cheaper) diesel engines without urea filters, the NOX and particulate matter exhaust is significantly higher than a gasoline engine, even while CO2 emissions are lower.

[DildorTheDecent]

>Diesel

 

lol. Diesel is for tractors.

 

inb4 "muh MPG tho"

[dalekphalm]

Just now, DildorTheDecent said:

>Diesel

 

lol. Diesel is for tractors.

 

inb4 "muh MPG tho"

Modern gasoline engines are getting pretty damn good at MPG - a 1.4L or 1.8L w/ a turbo can get excellent mileage without feeling slow.

 

Add in a Gasoline Hybrid engine, and they start to smoke Diesel cars in MPG, especially in-city driving (Admittedly, Diesel can still match or - sometimes - edge out hybrids in Highway driving MPG under some scenarios).

[Drak3]

11 minutes ago, DildorTheDecent said:

>Diesel

 

lol. Diesel is for tractors.

 

inb4 "muh MPG tho"

It takes a 8.9L V10 Magnum to match what a 6.7L i6 Cummins or a 7.3L V8 Powerstroke can do, with MPG numbers of 9MPG (on a good day, tuned up, not loaded down) as compared to 12-14 and 10-12 loaded and not tuned, respectively.

 

Huge boon for construction workers to go diesel, especially when towing trailers.

 

Plus, that Cummins will go 350K before needing rebuilt, the Powerstroke will go 250K, the V10 will need to be partially rebuilt roughly every 100K. Assuming all three are being abused.

 

Also, flooring a diesel is so much more fun than flooring a gasser.

[Terryv]

22 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

So, there are two main ways to make a diesel engine in a modern car:

1. Filtered - this is a diesel that uses a urea or ammonia type treatment system with a filter. These engines are fairly clean, but they require regular maintenance, and are expensive to manufacture and install into a vehicle. Typically only more expensive diesel vehicles have these.

2. "Clean" diesel - this is the type of engine VW used for their smaller cars (Jetta, Golf, etc), and was the source for VW's DieselGate. Manufacturers claimed they had invented a new way to produce clean exhaust with low emissions. VW claimed this. They lied.

 

So with smaller (and cheaper) diesel engines without urea filters, the NOX and particulate matter exhaust is significantly higher than a gasoline engine, even while CO2 emissions are lower.

VW introduced a urea DPF system for their 2015 cars (in North America, maybe earlier in EU) before that (2009-2014) they still had a DPF but they used diesel for the filter treatment instead of urea.

[dalekphalm]

1 minute ago, Drak3 said:

It takes a 8.9L V10 Magnum to match what a 6.7L i6 Cummins or a 7.3L V8 Powerstroke can do, with MPG numbers of 9MPG (on a good day, tuned up, not loaded down) as compared to 12-14 and 10-12 loaded and not tuned, respectively.

 

Huge boon for construction workers to go diesel, especially when towing trailers.

 

Plus, that Cummins will go 350K before needing rebuilt, the Powerstroke will go 250K, the V10 will need to be partially rebuilt roughly every 100K. Assuming all three are being abused.

 

Also, flooring a diesel is so much more fun than flooring a gasser.

You're talking about fairly large vehicles - pickup trucks, etc.

 

Certainly there are advantages for diesel's in some specific niche markets, such as large pickup trucks, transport trucks, etc.

 

However, there's really no need for a modern car to run off diesel.

[DildorTheDecent]

1 minute ago, Drak3 said:

It takes a 8.9L V10 Magnum to match what a 6.7L i6 Cummins or a 7.3L V8 Powerstroke can do, with MPG numbers of 9MPG (on a good day, tuned up, not loaded down) as compared to 12-14 and 10-12 loaded and not tuned, respectively.

 

Huge boon for construction workers to go diesel, especially when towing trailers.

 

Plus, that Cummins will go 350K before needing rebuilt, the Powerstroke will go 250K, the V10 will need to be partially rebuilt roughly every 100K. Assuming all three are being abused.

 

Also, flooring a diesel is so much more fun than flooring a gasser.

Construction workers eh? Well no wonder they'd swoon to the diesels. They actually require the immense torque (I'm assuming) these engines throw out. Don't really get powershaft or cumjob engines here (UK) so haven't clue what to compare too. Maybe actual trucks idk.

 

"Soccer mom" sending her kids to Saturday football doesn't need all that power. She would be fine 1.4L making a modest amount of power. Petrol is cheaper that diesel so savings would work out nicely.

[Drak3]

1 minute ago, dalekphalm said:

However, there's really no need for a modern car to run off diesel.

Converting a car to biodiesel, and a decently tuned diesel car can get just under the same gas milage as some of the best hybrids. There's a good bit of efficiency left on the table for a car like the Audi A5, and it only takes a $200 device to get that diesel sipping that fuel, to the point that the ROI on that hybrid is a longer wait than that car will last.

 

3 minutes ago, DildorTheDecent said:

"Soccer mom" sending her kids to Saturday football doesn't need all that power. She would be fine 1.4L making a modest amount of power. Petrol is cheaper that diesel so savings would work out nicely.

https://www.kbb.com/car-news/all-the-latest/vw-golf-tdi-sets-fuel-economy-record/2000012221/

 

The best Prius tops out at 55 or so MPG. Unless you live in a state like Ohio, and I feel sorry for anyone that does, the 25MPG delta is not going to make up for the cost difference.

 

There are small diesel engines out there that aren't torque monsters, and I'd take that over a small engine gasser any time.

[straight_stewie]

2 hours ago, ATFink said:

In short, no, diesels *typically are not cleaner for the environment than equivalent output gas engines even though the diesel engine is more efficient and will burn less fuel (which means less exhausted gas) for the same power.

So, this is correct only with some givens: The engines are equivalent in power output and the diesel engine is not a modern engine which meets EPA tier 3b+ interim standards or better. 

For engines of equivalent power output, an EPA tier 3b+ interim or better diesel engine will always produce less CO₂ and less NO_x than the gasoline engine.

In other words, your statement is correct pre 2011, and incorrect aftewards.

[dalekphalm]

23 minutes ago, straight_stewie said:

So, this is correct only with some givens: The engines are equivalent in power output and the diesel engine is not a modern engine which meets EPA tier 3b+ interim standards or better. 

For engines of equivalent power output, an EPA tier 3b+ interim or better diesel engine will always produce less CO₂ and less NO_x than the gasoline engine.

In other words, your statement is correct pre 2011, and incorrect aftewards.

I think the point that many are trying to make, is that many of those engines that meet the EPA standards, are cheating to get there. The VW smaller diesel engines did.

[straight_stewie]

1 minute ago, dalekphalm said:

I think the point that many are trying to make, is that many of those engines that meet the EPA standards, are cheating to get there. The VW smaller diesel engines did.

Of course my arguments about the efficiency of diesel engines assume that the diesel engines are following the law. I'm simply combatting the idea that diesel engines are never as efficient as gas engines (which is laughable because they are always more efficient in terms of power/fuel volume), and the idea that no diesel engine can be cleaner than a gas engine.

Obviously when people go around breaking the law, then things get all screwed up, but the statement "A poorly designed diesel engine pollutes more than a gasoline engine" is a much different statement than "diesel engines are never as efficient or less polluting than a gasoline engine". I am replying to those who have shown a belief in the latter statement.

[dalekphalm]

1 minute ago, straight_stewie said:

Of course my arguments about the efficiency of diesel engines assume that the diesel engines are following the law. I'm simply combatting the idea that diesel engines are never as efficient as gas engines (which is laughable because they are always more efficient in terms of power/fuel volume), and the idea that no diesel engine can be cleaner than a gas engine.

Obviously when people go around breaking the law, then things get all screwed up, but the statement "A poorly designed diesel engine pollutes more than a gasoline engine" is a much different statement than "diesel engines are never as efficient or less polluting than a gasoline engine". I am replying to those who have shown a belief in the latter statement.

Fair enough - but we also can't pretend that diesel engines are some magical be-all-end-all engines either.

 

Proper diesel engines with urea systems, etc, are expensive. And thus, are not very profitable for smaller/cheaper cars, since it raises the price compared to a comparable gasoline powered car. Adding this system into a car also has two side effects:

1. Increased maintenance of the engine (more buildup inside)

2. Lowered engine performance and fuel efficiency

 

Ever since dieselgate there were rumours that many of the other manufacturers were doing the same thing as VW.

 

I will wait and see with BMW - perhaps they are guilty. If they are, how many others?

 

If they are exonerated (and as a result, "clean" diesel, as well), I will be happy.

[straight_stewie]

25 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

I will wait and see with BMW - perhaps they are guilty. If they are, how many others?

I would think that this is a problem endemic to the car market only. They have to be price comparable with the tiny gas engines to make it in that market, so various shortcuts are inevitably  going to be taken.

In the medium/big engine market, like for heavy duty pickup trucks, semi trucks, and offroad equipment, the buyers understand the tradeoff between diesel and gas, but actually need (or want really badly) the diesel so it makes sense to them and they are willing to pay the extra cost (roughly $10,000 USD in the case of larger RAM trucks): therefore, the businesses are less likely to risk it in those markets.

[ARikozuM]

14 hours ago, AluminiumTech said:

Why not Biofuel?

Most of the US was pushing for corn biofuel. Problem is that farmers started to use their land and even with rotation they started losing the land big time. So much leeching has occurred to Illinois farms that were taken out of "protected lands" (voluntarily) that they can longer produce anything but corn. 

[ARikozuM]

$20 says that Ford would be bailed out if this occurred to them.