Volkswagen cheatd on diesel emissions, faces $ 18 billion fine

[Malthus]

Flashing the software of a car is done easily and cheaply. If that's all it takes for the recall, Volkswagen won't care much about this particular bit of their obligations. However what's in it for the owners? A free software downgrade of your engine? Why should you want that? To make your car worse and less valuable? 

Well, they actually did the software recall. Not sure how they sold it to the owners (or if it was coerced somehow by legislation), but obviously it happened. In Ontario at least, a car has to pass emissions testing every couple of years after it is seven years old or you can't get it licenced, so my guess is that the owners were coerced by the threat of having their car's licence suspended if they didn't comply. 

http://www.ontario.ca/page/drive-clean-test#!/

My question was more about what would happen if software couldn't fix the problem, because the cars are just inherently unable, without the "cheat", to pass emissions standards. My guess is that the regulator would force the company to buy the cars back from their owners, no doubt at ruinous expense for the company.

[Warspite]

The article may have that fact wrong. I can find that VW did do a recall in December 2014, but it was only 38,000 cars - not 500,000 - and it was because of a fire risk.

http://www.autoblog.com/2014/12/31/vw-jetta-passat-golf-beetles-fuel-rail-leak-recall/

EDIT: There was another recall in October 2014, of 500,000 cars in the US, but it was because of suspension issues.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/volkswagen-recalling-nearly-500-000-beetles-jettas-in-u-s-1413556517

[Zanza]

My question was more about what would happen if software couldn't fix the problem, because the cars are just inherently unable, without the "cheat", to pass emissions standards. My guess is that the regulator would force the company to buy the cars back from their owners, no doubt at ruinous expense for the company.

The whole point is that the software can fix the problem, but only at the expense of performance and fuel consumption. So the cars are able to fulfill the emissions standards, they just disabled the appropriate software during normal operations. So the regulator can force VW to flash the software so it does what it should do. And I am not even sure if the owners have much in the way of recourse against VW. For what? False advertisement? I am sure all official technical descriptions were according to the regulations.

Not sure about the emissions tests when you get your car checked. I mean that's the exact scenario the software was built to cheat, right? So I guess you would pass even with unflashed software. 

[DGuller]

Not sure about the emissions tests when you get your car checked. I mean that's the exact scenario the software was built to cheat, right? So I guess you would pass even with unflashed software. 

Where I was going was that there could be a special checklist for the VW cars in question, to make sure that they complied with the recall.

[Barrister]

My question was more about what would happen if software couldn't fix the problem, because the cars are just inherently unable, without the "cheat", to pass emissions standards. My guess is that the regulator would force the company to buy the cars back from their owners, no doubt at ruinous expense for the company.

The whole point is that the software can fix the problem, but only at the expense of performance and fuel consumption. So the cars are able to fulfill the emissions standards, they just disabled the appropriate software during normal operations. So the regulator can force VW to flash the software so it does what it should do. And I am not even sure if the owners have much in the way of recourse against VW. For what? False advertisement? I am sure all official technical descriptions were according to the regulations.

Not sure about the emissions tests when you get your car checked. I mean that's the exact scenario the software was built to cheat, right? So I guess you would pass even with unflashed software. 

I understand why tighter emissions controls would come at the expense of performance, but why of fuel consumption?  As I understand it more emissions come from an incomplete combustion, which means you're consuming more fuel.

[Zanza]

Where I was going was that there could be a special checklist for the VW cars in question, to make sure that they complied with the recall.

The people doing the check won't have VW hardware to check the software version, so unless it's some kind of certificate you get, how are they going to check this?

[Zanza]

I understand why tighter emissions controls would come at the expense of performance, but why of fuel consumption?  As I understand it more emissions come from an incomplete combustion, which means you're consuming more fuel.

As far as I know, NOx is created when you burn the fuel at a higher temperature. You get more power out of the fuel then. To get a similar amount of power with less NOx, you need to burn more of it at a lower temperature. But that's just my amateur explanation. I am not an engineer. There are systems to reduce NOx produced by diesel engines, i.e. adding urea to catalyze the NOx into something less pollutive.

[Zanza]

It will be interesting to see if any of the other car manufacturers cheated like this as well. It's pretty blatant, but let's see if any of the other companies did the same. I wouldn't be surprised.

[Malthus]

My question was more about what would happen if software couldn't fix the problem, because the cars are just inherently unable, without the "cheat", to pass emissions standards. My guess is that the regulator would force the company to buy the cars back from their owners, no doubt at ruinous expense for the company.

The whole point is that the software can fix the problem, but only at the expense of performance and fuel consumption. So the cars are able to fulfill the emissions standards, they just disabled the appropriate software during normal operations. So the regulator can force VW to flash the software so it does what it should do. And I am not even sure if the owners have much in the way of recourse against VW. For what? False advertisement? I am sure all official technical descriptions were according to the regulations.

Not sure about the emissions tests when you get your car checked. I mean that's the exact scenario the software was built to cheat, right? So I guess you would pass even with unflashed software. 

Again, I'm just going by the article, which isn't the most clear. The article implies that there was a recall to fix the software, but the fix didn't actually fix the problem.

My guess is that this would be a matter for a regulatory solution, not individual actions, but if it were, the class-action lawyers would have a field day if the "wrong" committed by the company led to regulatory problems for the owners of the cars - moreso in the US than here (civil jury trials plus punitive damages awards = companies tend to get screwed  ). At least in Canada, there wouldn't be a lack of legal theories to connect the "wrong" (cheating the regulator) to the "damages" (whatever regulatory problems the owners face as a result): unjust enrichment, waiver of tort, etc.

I assume that the testers would be informed that certain makes and models require "special testing" because of the software cheat.

[Zanza]

Again, I'm just going by the article, which isn't the most clear. The article implies that there was a recall to fix the software, but the fix didn't actually fix the problem.

Well, the I suggest you ignore the part about the recall and just think about what the actual accusation is: Volkswagen has software that can cheat the emissions test. That means the car is mechanically capable of fulfilling the emissions test as long as the software uses the right amount of fuel, opens the right valves, uses the correct pressure, temperature etc. - all the parameters you can change when controlling the engine. So there is no question that the car is able to fulfill the emissions standard. It did fulfill the standard so perfectly that it took years to find out about the cheat.

My guess is that this would be a matter for a regulatory solution, not individual actions, but if it were, the class-action lawyers would have a field day if the "wrong" committed by the company led to regulatory problems for the owners of the cars - moreso in the US than here (civil jury trials plus punitive damages awards = companies tend to get screwed  ). At least in Canada, there wouldn't be a lack of legal theories to connect the "wrong" (cheating the regulator) to the "damages" (whatever regulatory problems the owners face as a result): unjust enrichment, waiver of tort, etc.

The question is whether Volkswagen ever promised the owners anything other than the car specs that do fulfill the emissions standard. If not, what's the damage? Your car performed better than it should have and now it is "fixed" by flashing the software free of charge. If Volkswagen did promise the specs with cheating emissions standards, then I can see damage for the customers. But obviously you are much more qualified than me to tell whether this might have civil consequences for them in addition to the government proceedings, so I'll believe you if you say they fight face problems there as well.

[alfred russel]

General Motors negligently killed 200 people and got a 900 million dollar fine. I doubt they'll have to pay anywhere near the maximum amount. A few billion in fines will hurt them, but will not destroy the company. Their net liquidity at the end of the second quarter was more than 21 billion Euro.

On the other hand, Toyota paid $1.2b over a sudden acceleration issue that didn't exist.

[The Brain]

To me the most damaging thing is the fact that they cannot be trusted. If they blatantly cheat like this you have to assume that they cheat regarding anything and everything. That's just basic safety precautions.

[alfred russel]

To me the most damaging thing is the fact that they cannot be trusted. If they blatantly cheat like this you have to assume that they cheat regarding anything and everything. That's just basic safety precautions.

If I was married to a Volkswagen executive, I'd want paternity tests on my kids.

[Malthus]

Well, the I suggest you ignore the part about the recall and just think about what the actual accusation is: Volkswagen has software that can cheat the emissions test. That means the car is mechanically capable of fulfilling the emissions test as long as the software uses the right amount of fuel, opens the right valves, uses the correct pressure, temperature etc. - all the parameters you can change when controlling the engine. So there is no question that the car is able to fulfill the emissions standard. It did fulfill the standard so perfectly that it took years to find out about the cheat.

Fair enough.

The question is whether Volkswagen ever promised the owners anything other than the car specs that do fulfill the emissions standard. If not, what's the damage? Your car performed better than it should have and now it is "fixed" by flashing the software free of charge. If Volkswagen did promise the specs with cheating emissions standards, then I can see damage for the customers. But obviously you are much more qualified than me to tell whether this might have civil consequences for them in addition to the government proceedings, so I'll believe you if you say they fight face problems there as well.

If the issue can be asily "fixed" the damages would be pretty nominal.  However, my guess is that the "fix" will degrade the ability of the car to perform at the specifications advertsied to customers (if it didn't, why would the manufacturer bother with the "cheat" in the first place?).

That is, I'm guessing that the manufacturer advertsied this car as having such and such fuel efficiency and performance - with either an express or implied representation that the damned thing would pass regulatory scrutiny. My guess os that the customers actually got a product that could only perform with the advertised specifications if the software "cheated" on the emissions test. If that's the case, the damages would then be the difference in value (however calculated) between a car that has fuel efficiency and performace as advertised originally, and one with the performance of a car with software that allows it to pass the emissions test - which (I assume) is substantially worse.

Over a "class action", that would amount to a big chunk of change - then, on top, throw in the "wild card" of punitive damages (this is *definitely* corporate behaviour that would attract punitives - deliberate corporate cheating of the regulator is classic 'bad behaviour' of the sort punishable by punitive damages). Lawyers must be fighting right now over who will represent the class and earn one-third contingency fees. 

[Syt]

Are there any estimates how much extra nitrogen oxide were produced by the cars in circulation? Also, what the impact of that extra emissions was?