Because VW cheated, does that mean the test is moot for all the other vehicles out there, that are not cheating
Maybe we shouldn’t do any kinds of testing, be it two-speed idle, plug in or dyno . . . ?
I believe what you’re proposing is for DMV or EPA to remotely monitor your emissions at any time they feel like it . . . ?
Theoretically, it should be possible to do that. The various technologies exist. They would just have to be integrated into the vehicle(s) and be ready to transmit data to DMV at any time. But then somebody would come up with a way to cheat, using software or something else
"Vehicles from Renault, Nissan, Hyundai, Citroen, Fiat, Volvo, and Jeep were all tested in real-world conditions — and all of them found severely wanting. The average Mercedes Benz produced at least 2.2x more NOx than the official Euro-5 level and 5x more than the ecological Euro-6 emission standard allows. Honda’s diesels emitted between 2.6x and 6x more NOx than allowed.
Mazda and Mitsubishi both failed the test as well. Out of 50 vehicles that supposedly met Euro-6 levels and 150 Euro-5 diesels, just five vehicles out of more than 200 emitted real-world particulate levels that matched their in-house lab tests. The difference between these manufacturers and VW, thus far, is that none of these other companies stand accused of using a so-called “defeat device” to hide their failures."
“I’d say all annual dynamometer/tailpipe testing is moot. That’s why so many states have given up on it.”
I’ve encountered vehicles which pass the plug-in part of the test. No codes of any kind, not even pending. Every single monitor ready
But they fail the tailpipe test, because the cat is not up to par. yet no P0420 code. Not even pending
And after replacing the cat, the car passes the tailpipe with flying colors
Interesting, isn’t it?
The fact that the car failed, means something wasn’t okay, after all
The fact that states are moving away from tailpipe tests does NOT mean OBD2 plug in tests are perfect and the answer for everything
OBD2 does not “catch” everything. It is pretty good, but nor perfect. If you don’t have a code, you can infer that there’s no problem. But it’s not necessarily true
Those new plug-in tests save money for the state and the customer. But they’re “merely” a very good compromise, not a perfect solution
I though the test itself was well done, although a sample of one really doesn’t prove anything. I’d like to see it done with ten cars at least.
I’m not sure exactly why I so many places the dyno/tailpipe test has been replaced with an OBDII download for stored codes, but I’m glad it was. The OBDII download is a joke, but the truth IMHO is that the amount that annual emissions testing contributes to actual clean air is so small on modern cars as to be immeasurable. The real gains are made via the regulations that the manufacturers have to comply with. Once the car is built and delivered, annual emission testing is IMHO only a revenue source for the garages and the state. Granted, it’s a tiny revenue source, but one nonetheless.
For the record, I’m not sure I could say “dynamometer” in front of a camera without screwing it up too. And I’ve done a great deal of public speaking and am perfectly comfortable on a staged (or in a staged setting). But that one in the middle of a sentence could be a tung-twister.
When the automotive service industry learned how easy it was to pull the wool over the eyes of the automobile owner, it started a trend, a way of doing business that continues to this day…If you don’t know what’s wrong with the car or how to fix it, give 'em the Mumbo-Jumbo…
@“the same mountainbike”, are you saying that the dynamometer test is superior to the OBD-II download? I suspect that is what you mean, but it didn’t come across that way.
A dyno with a sniffer checks for emissions components directly, an OBDII download only checks to see if the ECU has stored a failure indication from a sensor… a very indirect method. IMHO the direct method is the best way to test. A car can have a CEL and not be emitting environmental hazards, and a vehicle can be emitting hazards and not have a CEL.
However that isn’t what I meant to convey. IMHO annual emissions checks by either method don’t really contribute to clean air on modern cars. Granted, a very very tiny percentage of owners will neglect needed repairs if they don’t have to face annual checks, and an even tinier percentage will find ways to bypass emissions systems. A few will even put black tape over the CEL light and drive on. But the real impact on emissions comes from the requirements mandated for the manufacturers.
By far the overwhelming majority of owners will respond to the CEL light by either having the car repaired or repairing it themselves (in deference to those on this forum). A very miniscule percentage of CEL lights will go unaddressed. Most cars that have conditions that cause excess emissions will run poorly anyway.
Recognize that I’m talking about 2015, not 1972. I believe that annual emissions testing is obsolete, but since it contributes to the revenue streams of the states that do it, you’ll never see a regulator or politician try to get EPA approval to discontinue it.
I believe that annual emissions testing is obsolete and no longer accomplishing the goal. The tax revenue would be much better spent focusing on emissions from trucks above CL4, or perhaps on researching non-automotive sources of pollution. Or perhaps on supporting the development of EV infrastructures. Or in encouraging home insulation for homes below the 40th parallel.
I know this belief will be controversial. But it’s honest.
I think most emission testing is done on an annual basis, California is the only 2 year testing that I am aware of. In most cases it is performed in a geographical area that has failed the EPA air quality tests for a certain number of days and not state wide.
Each method of testing has its disadvantages. Tail pipe testing that measures the percentage of CO, HC and NOX is not an exact science and allows for 10 to 20 times the federal limit. Vehicles with an empty catalytic converter can pass a tail pipe test.
With OBDII testing fault codes are part of the inspection, “monitors” are a greater part of the test and stop those who have failing vehicles that try to clear the faults from the PCM memory. In theory a OBDII vehicle should set a fault if the emissions exceed one and a half times federal standards. However there are software flaws that may not catch these failures. Vehicles can also be staged to pass and OBDII test as some testing allows for one or two monitors to be incomplete.
Modern vehicles normally have clean emissions, the problem in the southwest is half of the vehicles are not modern.
There are a surprising number of people that will bring a vehicle in for testing with the check engine light on or with a dead cylinder and the outcome is obvious. After being presented with a failing report they may cry out “my car doesn’t smoke!”. I guess people in the southwest aren’t as honorable as those in the east, vehicle testing is necessary here.
Those new plug in tests save money for the state and the customer
Not here in Va they don't. IIRC, when VA first started with the emissions test it was the tailpipe probe at $13.50. When they went to Dyno and probe it went to like $18.50. Now the OBD II plug in, is $28.00 plus an additional $2 per each year registered at the DVM.
And to top it off if the CEL is illuminated for any reason you automatically fail. Right now I have a P0525 code, something with the cruise control, how does that affect emissions? Good thing I have almost a year before I need to inspect again.
@Nevada_545 VA is bi-annual too.
Because VW cheated, does that mean the test is moot for all the other vehicles out there, that are not cheating
You’re not understanding what I’m saying. The test is valid for other vehicles that DON’T cheat. If you cheat…then the test isn’t valid. Can you say for sure what companies are NOT cheating? In order for the test to be ALWAYS valid is for companies don’t try to cheat.
“Vehicles can also be staged to pass and OBDII test as some testing allows for one or two monitors to be incomplete.”
here in California, older OBD2 vehicles are allowed 2 incomplete monitor. Depends on the model year
Newer OBD2 vehicles are allowed only 1 incomplete monitor. But the cat monitor must be complete, or the car’s not ready for testing. We had talked about it a few months back, and I discovered it’s true. I didn’t believe it at the time, but I found out otherwise.
Just for kicks and giggles, I hooked up 2 vehicle to the old BAR97 machine
vehicle #1
All monitors complete except evap
machine says “okay” to test
vehicle #2
All monitors complete except cat
machine says “not okay” to test
Because VW cheated, does that mean the test is moot for all the other vehicles out there, that are not cheating
You’re a good mechanic…but you don’t understand engineering principles and methodologies.
Yes…the test is moot if it can easily be defeated…how do you possible know if the software of any of the vehicles that passed hadn’t been altered in any way? If you can’t determine that…then the test is MOOT. The test is only valid IF it can detect problems on ALL vehicles.
I believe what you're proposing is for DMV or EPA to remotely monitor your emissions at any time they feel like it . . . ?
Not saying that…not even implying that. I seriously doubt that an individual is going to be able to the same kind of software change that VW did. As long that the software is working the way it should and VERIFIED then there’s not need for random testing.
This can be verified by doing the same type of tests the team did that discovered the problem.
