WTF Emissions DELETES! The smelly Garbage can dumped on Motorsports! WTF

Yawn...a 300 baud modem.

Yeah, I know that they are still using 8-inch floppy disks in the silos.....

Click to expand...

Jack@European_Parts said:

Just remember Art, just because something is old, doesn't mean you just toss it out.

Click to expand...

Jack@European_Parts said:

There I liked that one instead .......Happy Art?

Okay so who here thinks that the ABS system is not emissions related, being it's connected on the network, shares or limits data of the ECU, and has the ability to set an MIL if communications fail?

Anyone?

Click to expand...

If it was emissions related, wouldn't it be required by law to respond to generic OBD-II requests?

-Uwe-

Click to expand...

Selecting the Right Octane Fuel

What is octane rating?

Octane rating is the measure of a fuel's ability to resist "knocking" or "pinging" during combustion, caused by the air/fuel mixture detonating prematurely in the engine.
In the U.S., unleaded gasoline typically has octane ratings of 87 (regular), 88–90 (midgrade), and 91–94 (premium). Gasoline with an octane rating of 85 is available in some high-elevation areas of the U.S. (more about that below).
The octane rating is prominently displayed in large black numbers on a yellow background on gasoline pumps.
What octane fuel should I use in my vehicle?

You should use the octane rating required for your vehicle by the manufacturer. So, check your owner's manual. Most gasoline vehicles are designed to run on 87 octane, but others are designed to use higher octane fuel.
Why do some manufacturers require or recommend the use of higher octane gasoline?

Higher octane fuels are often required or recommended for engines that use a higher compression ratio and/or use supercharging or turbocharging to force more air into the engine. Increasing pressure in the cylinder allows an engine to extract more mechanical energy from a given air/fuel mixture but requires higher octane fuel to keep the mixture from pre-detonating. In these engines, high octane fuel will improve performance and fuel economy.
What if I use a lower octane fuel than required for my vehicle?

Using a lower octane fuel than required can cause the engine to run poorly and can damage the engine and emissions control system over time. It may also void your warranty. In older vehicles, the engine can make an audible "knocking" or "pinging" sound. Many newer vehicles can adjust the spark timing to reduce knock, but engine power and fuel economy will still suffer.
Will using a higher octane fuel than required improve fuel economy or performance?

It depends. For most vehicles, higher octane fuel may improve performance and gas mileage and reduce carbon dioxide (CO[SUB]2[/SUB]) emissions by a few percent during severe duty operation, such as towing a trailer or carrying heavy loads, especially in hot weather. However, under normal driving conditions, you may get little to no benefit.
Why does higher octane fuel cost more?

The fuel components that boost octane are generally more expensive to produce.
Is higher octane fuel worth the extra cost?

If your vehicle requires midgrade or premium fuel, absolutely. If your owner's manual says your vehicle doesn't require premium but says that your vehicle will run better on higher octane fuel, it's really up to you. The cost increase is typically higher than the fuel savings. However, lowering CO[SUB]2[/SUB] emissions and decreasing petroleum usage by even a small amount may be more important than cost to some consumers.

What is 85 octane, and is it safe to use in my vehicle?

The sale of 85 octane fuel was originally allowed in high-elevation regions—where the barometric pressure is lower—because it was cheaper and because most carbureted engines tolerated it fairly well. This is not true for modern gasoline engines. So, unless you have an older vehicle with a carbureted engine, you should use the manufacturer-recommended fuel for your vehicle, even where 85 octane fuel is available.
Can ethanol boost gasoline's octane rating?

Yes. Ethanol has a much higher octane rating (about 109) than gasoline. Refiners usually blend ethanol with gasoline to help boost its octane rating—most gasoline in the U.S. contains up to 10% ethanol. Blends of up to 15% ethanol are available in some areas, and several manufacturers approve using this blend in recent-model vehicles.
View Data Sources…

Click to expand...

Paper #:

• [h=2]2013-01-0883[/h]

Published:

• 2013-04-08

DOI:

• 10.4271/2013-01-0883

Citation:

Prakash, A., Jones, A., Nelson, E., Macias, J. et al., "Octane Response of Premium-Recommended Vehicles," SAE Technical Paper 2013-01-0883, 2013, doi:10.4271/2013-01-0883.



Author(s):

• Arjun Prakash
• Aaron Jones
• Edward Nelson
• James Macias
• Eugene Jimenez
• Matthew Hinojosa

Affiliated:

• Shell Global Solutions (US) Inc
• Southwest Research Institute

Pages:

6



Abstract:

A higher octane quality fuel used in premium-recommended vehicles has the potential for delivering better acceleration and power. Octane number is a standard measure for the anti-knock quality of a gasoline fuel. A higher octane number fuel can withstand more compression before detonation (or knock). Higher compression ratios directly correlate with engine power and thermodynamic efficiency. Hence engines that are designed for higher octane or premium grade fuels should typically develop higher power by extracting more from the calorific value of the fuel. However, in the case of premium-recommended vehicle models that are designed to run even on lower octane fuels, the extent of performance benefits of using premium grade higher octane fuels can be deciphered via vehicle testing. In this regard, two gasoline fuels with anti-knock index values (AKI) of 87 and 91 respectively were compared in five premium-recommended vehicles for acceleration and power benefits. The engines in these modern vehicles were equipped with knock sensors that signal the engine management system to retard the spark timing on knock detection and hence prevent knock. In principle, a lower octane quality fuel used in such engines may reduce the relative torque output and hence the performance of the engine. On the other hand, a higher octane fuel can be run at a higher ignition advance and result in higher torque values. The acceleration time and steady state power at wide open throttle conditions were recorded from chassis dynamometer tests. Data were analyzed and statistically assessed at 95% confidence level. The results indicated that some vehicles were more sensitive to octane quality in terms of changes in acceleration and power than others. On an average, 91 AKI fuel performed 1-2% better than the 87 AKI fuel.

Click to expand...

FTC alleges defeat device rendered VW ad claims deceptive: A closer look at the lawsuit

By: Lesley Fair | Mar 29, 2016 11:13AM
Lesley Fair
Mar 29, 2016
Tags:

• Automobiles
• Bureau of Consumer Protection
• Consumer Protection
• Advertising and Marketing
• Environmental Marketing

Volkswagen Group of America spent multi-millions positioning its “clean diesel” technology as an environmentally conscious choice for car buyers – and sales of more than 550,000 so-called clean diesel vehicles suggest it was a persuasive pitch. But as a just-filed FTC lawsuit alleges, VW scored impressive green numbers by installing each car with a “defeat device” that cheated on emissions testing. According to the FTC’s complaint, the vehicles emitted excess nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions measuring as much as 40 times the maximum allowed by EPA regulations under normal driving conditions. That, says the FTC, renders VW’s campaign of eco-hype deceptive.
Green was the theme for VW’s extensive marketing campaign. As ads claimed:

• “Diesel. It’s no longer a dirty word.”
• “With the new Jetta TDI Clean Diesel, you get a great car that’s low on emissions . . . .”
• “[C]lean-diesel technology such as ours can achieve 40-percent better fuel economy and reduce nitrogen-oxide emissions by 90%.”
• “Touareg V6 TDI meet the most stringent emission requirements of the world [with] its advanced DeNOx system.”
  

Other ads delved into the purported technology that led to such impressive numbers, but according to the FTC’s complaint, the relevant technology was “illegal software designed to defeat EPA’s testing procedures” – in other words, VW’s defeat device.
The complaint charges VW with multiple violations of the FTC Act. Count I alleges that because of the defeat device, a host of the company’s claims about low emissions, NOx reductions, emissions compliance, eco-consciousness, and comparative resale value were false or deceptive.
Count II charges that VW deceptively failed to disclose the existence of defeat devices that would adversely affect the cars’ resale value – information that would have been material to prospective buyers.
Count III focuses on ads, brochures, and other promotional items VW distributed to dealers and distributors – materials the FTC alleges provided those companies with the means and instrumentalities to engage in deceptive acts or practices.
Court IV alleges that VW’s use of defeat devices constitutes an unfair practice under the FTC Act.
The case is pending in federal court in California. In addition, the FTC continues to work closely with other agencies investigating VW’s defeat devices. We’ll follow up as developments arise.

• Add new comment

Comments

Dan777 replied on Mar 29, 2016 11:52AM Permalink
I don't think it's 40x the Emission limit here in NJ and NY so as an American consumer this is confusing.

• reply

ital lambert! replied on May 26, 2016 9:20PM Permalink
despite the fact that electric cars are coming in to play the issue pertaining to "clean diesel"is an important issue to pursue.

• reply

Audi Q7 owner replied on Jul 1, 2016 10:08AM Permalink
Reviewing the documents for the 2.0 liter settlement, the adjustment for mileage is unfair.
The reason I purchased a diesel vehicle was to have a vehicle that could obtain high-mileage and still retain value. The mileage adjustment should be capped to that amount made during the period of the loan or financing.
Based upon the VW settlement, it looks like I will be penalized and made to suffer for the Audi/VW dishonesty and flagrant violation of U.S. law.
The feedback loop to FTC seems inconsistent; I feel as though this settlement will be a take-it-or-leave-it with no real consumer input on the front end.

• reply

Dr. Goodwrench replied on Jul 5, 2016 3:58PM Permalink
Part of the mitigation plan is to provide funds to businesses and government agencies to replace older medium and heavy duty diesel trucks with newer diesel trucks. Problem is these newer trucks DO NOT reduce pollution as claimed. CARB's own studies show thee newer trucks emit pollution at the same or higher rate that old diesels when driven in the city. These "new" diesels emit PM and NOx and much higher levels than the VW cars yet CARB and EPA won't fine or shut down these trucks like they are doing to VW. In CARB's own studies, ONLY natural gas trucks consistently maintained legal emission levels at all times, and electric heavy duty trucks could not complete most drive cycles for testing, let alone an actual work day.
Non of these mitigation funds should be spent on new diesel trucks...we need to get diesel off the road!

Click to expand...

Racketeering is when organized groups run illegal businesses, known as “rackets,” or when an organized crime ring uses legitimate organizations to embezzle funds. Such activities can have devastating consequences for both public and private institutions. Consequently, the federal government and numerous state governments have created systems of laws designed to prosecute these criminals.
Typical Rackets and Their Consequences
Most older forms of rackets dealt in industries that were clearly illegal, such as prostitution or sex trafficking, drug trafficking, illegal weapons trafficking, and counterfeiting. These “businesses” organized large groups of people to help keep the racket profitable and covert, allowing them to make illegal products available to the public quickly and in such large amounts that authorities couldn’t make all the necessary arrests and prosecutions.
Over time, organized crime gradually entered other kinds of businesses. Mob bosses used labor unions to steal funds from workers' pension plans and other benefits accounts. When organized crime operatives rise up the corporate ranks, they can rob corporations through various white collar criminal methods, potentially ruining the companies along with the shareholders and employees who depend on them.
Using RICO to Prosecute Racketeers
Before Congress enacted laws that specifically combat organized crime, prosecutors found it very difficult to end these rackets. Prosecutors could often convict the lower ranked members of the organizations, because they were the ones who actually performed the illegal activities. However, the masterminds behind the organized crime rings were often much harder to prosecute because they couldn’t be directly connected to any of the crimes.
In 1978, Congress enacted the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, or RICO, providing prosecutors with the tool they needed to fight organized crime. Many states have enacted similar laws. In order to convict someone under RICO or a state equivalent, it’s no longer necessary to prove the suspect personally committed an illegal activity. Instead, prosecutors must prove:
· The defendant owns and/or manages an organization;
· The organization regularly performs one or more specific illegal activity.
Although RICO was initially enacted to prosecute famous crime rings it has also been used in many other scenarios. For example, RICO charges were brought against pro-life activists for illegally blocking the entrance to abortion clinics. In another instance, members of the Catholic Church sued several clergy men under RICO for reportedly allowing priests to molest children. Since it has such far-reaching implications, RICO remains a controversial law even as it continues to aid in prosecutions across the US.

Click to expand...

1374. Effective Date - Motor Vehicle Identification Numbers

The provisions of 18 U.S.C §§ 511, 512, and 2321 were enacted into law on October 25, 1984, and became effective as of that date. The mandatory passenger car component identification (parts marking) standard became effective on April 25, 1986 and covered 81 passenger car lines starting with model year 1987. The number of lines subject to the parts marking standard has varied in each subsequent model year. In the future, parts marking may be extended to all passenger motor vehicle lines, depending on whether an evaluation of the Department of Transportation's parts marking program by the Attorney General determines whether or not parts marking substantially inhibits chop shop operations and vehicle thefts. See 49 U.S.C. § 33103.
While component parts have had somewhat limited protection under 18 U.S.C. §§ 511, 512, and 2321, that is not the case with the actual public vehicle identification number (VIN). While all "road" motor vehicles are required by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 115 (49 C.F.R. §§ 511.115 and 565.1 - 561.5) to have a VIN, this requirement was phased in over several years. Starting on January 1, 1969, all passenger cars manufactured in the United States or manufactured overseas on or after January 1, 1969, and subsequently imported into the United States were required to have a VIN. See 33 Fed. Reg. 10207, July 17, 1968. As a practical rule of thumb, this means that every passenger car from model year 1970 to date has been required by the Department of Transportation (DOT) to have a VIN. Until January 1, 1980, the VIN's characteristics (i.e., its length, the types and kinds of information encoded within particular positions or sections of the VIN, etc.) for passenger cars could be determined by each manufacturer.
Effective September 1, 1980, the VIN requirement was expanded to multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, trailers, and motorcycles manufactured in the United States on or after September 1, 1980, and such vehicles manufactured overseas after September 1, 1980, and subsequently imported into the United States. Hence, for non-passenger motor vehicles a VIN has been federally required only for model years 1981 to date. See 43 Fed. Reg. 36448, August 17, 1978. The September 1, 1980 date was extended, however, to January 1, 1981, for two manufacturers (Fruehauf Corporation and Rolls-Royce Motors International), see 45 Fed. Reg. 12255, February 25, 1980. January 1, 1981, reflects the date used by those two manufacturers to start their 1981 model years. The September 1, 1980 date was the changeover date in the 1981 model year for most other manufacturers. VINs are also now required to follow a 17 character format. See 49 C.F.R. §§ 511.115 and 565.1-561.5. The 17 character VIN format was applicable to passenger cars as of January 1, 1980 and as to other vehicles as of September 1, 1980 (except for those vehicles manufactured by Fruehauf Corporation and Rolls-Royce Motors International in which case the effective date was January 1, 1981). See 43 Fed. Reg. 36448, August 17, 1978; 45 Fed. Reg. 12255, February 25, 1980.
Accordingly, after October 25, 1984, the falsification or removal of any VIN required by the DOT on a motor vehicle is a federal crime under 18 U.S.C. § 511. Motor vehicles which have had their DOT required VINs falsified or removed after October 24, 1984, are subject to seizure and forfeiture under 18 U.S.C. § 512. Persons trafficking in motor vehicles with DOT required VINs that have been falsified or removed after October 24, 1984, are subject to prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 2321. See 130 Cong.Rec. S13584 (daily ed. October 4, 1984). See also H.R.Rep. No. 1456 on H.R. 4178, 96th Congress, 2d Sess. 25-26 (1980); 125 Cong.Rec. 12244 (1979).

Click to expand...

1364. Altering Or Removing Motor Vehicle Identification Numbers

Section 511(a) of Title 18 makes it a felony knowingly to remove, obliterate, tamper with, or alter an identification number for a road motor vehicle or a road motor vehicle part. Section 511(b) of Title 18 creates exceptions for certain persons who engage in lawful conduct that may result in removal or alteration of an identification number. The legislative history is abundantly clear that subsection (b) is not intended to create a loophole for the operators of "chop shops." See H.R.Rep. No. 1087 on H.R. 6257, 98th Congress, 2d Sess. 23-25 (1984).
Section 511(c) of Title 18 contains the definitions for "identification number," "motor vehicle," "motor vehicle demolisher," and "motor vehicle scrap processor." The term "identification number" means a number or symbol that is inscribed or affixed for purposes of identification under chapter 301 and Part C of subtitle VI of Title 49.
Title 49, Chapter 301 authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to promulgate motor vehicle safety standards. Pursuant to this authority, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115-Vehicle Identification Number (49 C.F.R. §§ 571.115 and 565.1 to 565.5) requires public VIN numbers on road vehicles (passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, trailers, and motorcycles). Part C of subtitle VI of Title 49 (49 U.S.C. § 33101 et seq.) authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to promulgate theft prevention (parts marking) standards. The parts marking regulations are set forth in 49 C.F.R. Part 541. The mandatory component identification requirement applies to certain high theft passenger car lines starting with model year 1987. In 1995, the theft prevention (parts marking) standard was expanded to include certain multipurpose passenger vehicles and certain non high theft lines beginning with model year 1997.
For a discussion of proving violations of 18 U.S.C. § 511, see this Manual at 1376.

Click to expand...

1376. Proving Violations Of 18 U.S.C. 2321

Section 2321 of Title 18 is a trafficking offense. The previous discussion relating to proving violations of 18 U.S.C. § 511 should be consulted. See this Manual at 1375. In the indictment for 18 U.S.C. § 2321 you may wish to use the false or altered VIN actually on the motor vehicle in order to help specify the motor vehicle which is the subject matter of the charge.
To establish a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2321 the government must establish that: (1) the defendant acquired or possessed a road motor vehicle or component on which the vehicle identification number (VIN) or component identification number (after the component standard becomes effective) had been removed, obliterated, tampered with, or altered; (2) the identification number was one required by the United States Department of Transportation; (3) such removal, obliteration, tampering with, or alteration was done unlawfully; (4) the defendant was aware of the unlawful removal, obliteration, tampering with, or alteration; and (5) defendant had an intent to sell or otherwise dispose of the motor vehicle (or component part).
In most cases proof of the defendant's awareness of the stolen nature of the motor vehicle (or component) will satisfy the knowledge requirements. Also, the presence on the defendant's premises of several vehicles or numerous components lacking the proper numbers should help satisfy the knowledge and intent requirements.
[updated May 1999] [cited in Criminal Resource Manual 1364; Criminal Resource Manual 1366; Criminal Resource Manual 1377; USAM 9-61.700]

Click to expand...

Eric said:

We should tally the number of cheating cars we have/have had at Ross-Tech. The white A6 is apparently now on that list

Click to expand...

Without citing any sources, the weekly newspaper claimed the California Air Resources Board (CARB) discovered the software in Audi cars that featured automatic transmission systems. CARB, as well as Audi, have refrained from issuing any statements about the report, reported Fortune.

Click to expand...

The software made the decision by monitoring the steering wheel. Under testing conditions, the steering wheel is in its stationary position. If the software detected movement of the steering wheel, it would remain deactivated. In terms of numbers, the software was designed to notice if the wheel had turned by 15 degrees. However, if the steering wheel wasn’t being turned, the software determined the vehicle was being tested and turned on a gear-shifting program which produced less carbon dioxide than in normal road driving. This allowed the car to meet the emissions criteria.

Click to expand...

To make matters worse for Volkswagen, the new scandal won’t be easily explained away as the work of a few rogue engineers who lacked adult supervision. BamS found a document where Audi’s chief of powertrains, Axel Eiser, asks:

“When will we have the cycle-optimized shift program?” The program, says the document “needs to be designed to be 100% active on the dyno, but only 0.01% in the hands of the customer.”

Click to expand...

Eric said:

Yeah but does the early shifting come back when the steering wheel gets straight again?

Click to expand...

Eric said:

Also unless "BAmS" is making documents up,

Click to expand...