The Volkswagen debacle

[Mike Lavigne]

It's interesting to reflect that this goes back about 40 years, President de Gaulle slashed the duty on diesel fuel in France to protect the French car industry from Japanese competition. The Japanese had no diesel cars at that time and the French industry was the world leader in diesel cars.

it is said that Paris, which has little industry around it, has almost as bad air pollution as Bejing....mostly due to the diesel centric tax code of the French and their reliance on diesel fueled transportation.

on a recent weekend Paris declared a 'car-free' weekend to reduce pollution.

there is considerable clamor for a change in that diesel focus but diesel is so intertwined into French lifestyle that they are stuck.

it will be interesting to see how the VW situation will play out in France. likely the French carmakers are concerned with anyone looking underneath their skirts.

 

[NorthStar]

News today that 2.1m Audi cars using the same defeat technology. EU5 engines but newer EU6 engines are not said to be affected.13,000 in the US said to be affected. Vehicles lines involved include A1,A3,A4.A5.A6 and the TT,Q3 and Q5 models

Ah, another one bites the dust.

 

[DaveyF]

Ah, another one bites the dust.

Considering that Audi is owned by VW, I would suspect many of the same players were involved. Question is whether this extends to Mercedes and BMW? Mercedes has a very large impact in the diesel market, perhaps the largest share. Although I believe they have always used their 'BlueTec' system.

 

[NorthStar]

Rolls Royce?

 

[amirm]

Considering that Audi is owned by VW, I would suspect many of the same players were involved. Question is whether this extends to Mercedes and BMW? Mercedes has a very large impact in the diesel market, perhaps the largest share. Although I believe they have always used their 'BlueTec' system.

Mercedes uses Urea so I suspect they are good. I always wondered how VW had eliminated the need for that but Mercedes had not. Now I know .

 

[andromedaaudio]

So as i understand correctly there are hardly any diesels running on the US roads , because they pollute more then lets say a GM V 8 or something which runs maybe 1 liter 8 km, do they ??
As a motorcyclist i decat my new bike right away and put a link pipe or full system , for all those with sportscars on wbf , get some akrapovich full systems , much more horsepower , much better pick up on low revs great sound and saves a lot of weight (better steering )


http://www.akrapovic.com/#!/car

 

[DaveyF]

Mercedes uses Urea so I suspect they are good. I always wondered how VW had eliminated the need for that but Mercedes had not. Now I know .

I also was curious about that...just figured the VW engineers were superior to the Mercedes engineers.

 

[rblnr]

Mercedes uses Urea so I suspect they are good. I always wondered how VW had eliminated the need for that but Mercedes had not. Now I know .

I own a Jeep Grand Cherokee diesel that uses urea and always wondered the same about VW. Love the engine responsiveness and mileage i get from it. Hopefully FCA didn't cut corners on the diesel exhaust system.

 

[rblnr]

Quote Originally Posted by jfrech View Post
Not trying to inflame. But several sources I've read say while the electric car obviously doesn't pollute the air if your electricity is coming from oil or a coal fired plant actual emmissions from your driving may actually be more than a reasonably clean gas car. I don't have the source to post. And again, not trying to start a inflammatory theme in this thread...

I was going to post exactly the same comment/question.

Coming back to this thread after being away a bit, a quick skim and I may have missed that this was already answered, but:

Electric cars are still a win despite where the power comes from. Reason is that the giant fossil fuel driven gas turbines are a minimum 20 -30% more efficient than any small car engine, and further, they are increasingly powered by cleaner natural gas. As renewables grow as a percentage of energy generation, the numbers only get better.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

So as i understand correctly there are hardly any diesels running on the US roads , because they pollute more then lets say a GM V 8 or something which runs maybe 1 liter 8 km, do they ??
As a motorcyclist i decat my new bike right away and put a link pipe or full system , for all those with sportscars on wbf , get some akrapovich full systems , much more horsepower , much better pick up on low revs great sound and saves a lot of weight (better steering )


http://www.akrapovic.com/#!/car

the fundamental difference between the USA and Europe regarding diesels is that the emission requirements for diesels in the USA are (1) much more stringent (although Europe has just recently tightened theirs somewhat) and (2) in the USA the rules are stringently enforced. the USA does not have quite the wink and nod cooperation between corporate and government that happens in Europe. a different culture and more corporate socialism. the state of Michigan would never own 20% of GM as the State of Saxony in Germany owns 20% of VW.

USA regulatory agencies and consumer groups are somewhat at war with auto manufacturers.

so in the USA you only see more expensive vehicles with diesels that can make the numbers work on the cost benefit.......except, of course, cheaters like VW/Audi.

in Europe a high percentage of cheap small cars and commercial vehicles have diesel as it's cheaper when it does not have to be clean. clean and cheap is not reality for diesel.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Coming back to this thread after being away a bit, a quick skim and I may have missed that this was already answered, but:

Electric cars are still a win despite where the power comes from. Reason is that the giant fossil fuel driven gas turbines are a minimum 20 -30% more efficient than any small car engine, and further, they are increasingly powered by cleaner natural gas. As renewables grow as a percentage of energy generation, the numbers only get better.

no; Electric cars are not a win. it's an illusion based on tax credits and a friendly congress. Tesla would not exist without government subsidies.

a real world electric car with real world performance and range is very very expensive to build. so it requires huge government support and is not real world. if you want to see cars for $500k each you can do lots of interesting things.

in the future you will only see very expensive electric cars as congress will cut off the tax support. and you will see 'fuel cell' cars replacing electric cars as the real down the road broad based solution.

unless there is some sort of huge technological breakthrough in battery technology.....and nothing is imminent.

Congress and the US Government have softened (now they say they are only projections--not firm numbers) the future CAFE requirements since they now see that they cannot legislate technology. it can only happen as it happens.

electric cars are a fantasy only possible thru tax dollars or at $75k and higher prices in today's dollars.

reality today is an electric car has very very poor resale value due to the cost of it's batteries. so the true cost of ownership is many multiples of a fossil fuel car. this is even dooming hybrids to some extent. where a battery pack for a 8-9 year old Prius costs more than the value of the car. it becomes a throw away.

this is reality.

 

[andromedaaudio]

From what i understood is that urea merely makes from the small particals in the exhaustgases larger particles which the finedust measurement gear cant measure , so bypassing it ,its probably not hazardous in that form
Making accus for electric cars is supposed to be very bad for the environment as well plus the energy has to come somewhere (coal energy plants whatever )

Mercedes uses Urea so I suspect they are good. I always wondered how VW had eliminated the need for that but Mercedes had not. Now I know .

 

[DaveC]

Coming back to this thread after being away a bit, a quick skim and I may have missed that this was already answered, but:

Electric cars are still a win despite where the power comes from. Reason is that the giant fossil fuel driven gas turbines are a minimum 20 -30% more efficient than any small car engine, and further, they are increasingly powered by cleaner natural gas. As renewables grow as a percentage of energy generation, the numbers only get better.

That's not quite true unfortunately...

While it is true turbines are more efficient the entire system of burning fuel > electricity at your house is about the same, no more than a few percent more efficient vs a modern gas motor.

The big savings in energy only happen if electric cars are charged overnight to level out the demand for electricity, the power companies can't instantly spool up or down power plants in response to demand so there is "extra" energy during non-peak hours. Charging a car during peak electricity use hours is probably no better than driving a gas car but charging overnight is nearly free power.

As for natural gas, it's seemingly not so clean when it's extracted from the ground, fracking, etc...

Finally, the battery itsslef in an electric car is not environmentally friendly and is very expensive.

I think electric cars are the way forward but there are currently some major issues...

 

[jn229]

The number of defective Volkswagen's cars keep increasing. Far more serious then first reported. http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/volkswagen-emissions-1.3248230

 

[rblnr]

Mike, you're talking about the economics of it, which wasn't exactly the question. I think the $$$ issue is an ongoing story, not a fait accompli at all as you present it. The proposed Tesla to come in a few years will be 35 - 40k if they execute as planned. Add in the 7500 govt subsidy and you're still talking a car under 50k with close to 300 mile range. That's a very positive step.

Dave, we get our numbers from different sources then. My brother is a lawyer who deals in energy policy among other things and my sources come largely from him.


And yeah -- battery tech is not totally clean, etc but it's hard to argue these aren't steps in the right direction.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Mike, you're talking about the economics of it, which wasn't exactly the question. I think the $$$ issue is an ongoing story, not a fait accompli at all as you present it. The proposed Tesla to come in a few years will be 35 - 40k if they execute as planned. Add in the 7500 govt subsidy and you're still talking a car under 50k with close to 300 mile range. That's a very positive step.

the economics is the only question. battery costs are too high for the under $50k retail electrics. manufacturers are getting killed on them as it is with the subsidized leases and no resale value...even with the tax support. it cannot and will not continue.

Congress no longer has the stomach to support electrics, the $7500 is going away. a certainty with a Republican majority.

the only future electric products are going to be over $100k. Mercedes and BMW are working on theirs to compete with Tesla.

my local zip codes around my dealership has the highest per capita electric car owner density in the world. so I follow this issue very closely.

fuel cell is where it's going.

 

[DaveyF]

I happen to believe that electric vehicles are the way forward. In my area, we see a large number of them, albeit most are Tesla's. However, all of the people that I know that own them are also using solar to charge them overnight. To think that the electric vehicle is not the way of the future, is IMO not that realistic.
Like Bob says, Tesla is coming out with a new $35-40K vehicle and it will still have a decent range. Others will be sure to follow.
For those who have never driven a Tesla, i do suggest a test drive...it may "rapidly" change your opinion of an electric vehicle!

 

[Andre Marc]

no; Electric cars are not a win. it's an illusion based on tax credits and a friendly congress. Tesla would not exist without government subsidies.

a real world electric car with real world performance and range is very very expensive to build. so it requires huge government support and is not real world. if you want to see cars for $500k each you can do lots of interesting things.

in the future you will only see very expensive electric cars as congress will cut off the tax support. and you will see 'fuel cell' cars replacing electric cars as the real down the road broad based solution.

unless there is some sort of huge technological breakthrough in battery technology.....and nothing is imminent.

Congress and the US Government have softened (now they say they are only projections--not firm numbers) the future CAFE requirements since they now see that they cannot legislate technology. it can only happen as it happens.

electric cars are a fantasy only possible thru tax dollars or at $75k and higher prices in today's dollars.

reality today is an electric car has very very poor resale value due to the cost of it's batteries. so the true cost of ownership is many multiples of a fossil fuel car. this is even dooming hybrids to some extent. where a battery pack for a 8-9 year old Prius costs more than the value of the car. it becomes a throw away.

this is reality.

Mike, I have some questions about your post.

We just leased a Nissan Leaf. The only tax incentive we got was $2500 for the state of CA. You talk about subsidies as if they are evil.
The fact is the US government has been subsidizing industries for over a 100 years. The biggest subsidy by far, by trillions, is the the Hedge
Fund industry where they have a fantasy tax rate.

The defense industry comes in second with planes and ships that are outmoded before they leave
the factory, but they "create" jobs. The mortgage interest deduction is another one. What is wrong with tax incentives that are actually good for society?

My wife has had the car for two weeks and has driven back and forth without adding one iota of carbon footprint to the earth. That is our reality.
We absolutely love the car.

I agree with as a layperson that the biggest issue right now is battery technology and range. That is progressing forward at light speed IMO. But you
seem to have the opposite view, can you explain? This is a topic I have high interest in.

But, I understand you are in the business, and I respect your expertise on the market.

 

[Andre Marc]

I happen to believe that electric vehicles are the way forward. In my area, we see a large number of them, albeit most are Tesla's. However, all of the people that I know that own them are also using solar to charge them overnight. To think that the electric vehicle is not the way of the future, is IMO not that realistic.
Like Bob says, Tesla is coming out with a new $35-40K vehicle and it will still have a decent range. Others will be sure to follow.
For those who have never driven a Tesla, i do suggest a test drive...it may "rapidly" change your opinion of an electric vehicle!

Davey, here we have tens of thousands, if not more hybrids, and full electrics, and not just tesla. The Chevy Volt and Spark are SOLD out across San Diego. We went to two dealers
and they sold ALL their cars. That this technology or some variant is the way forward is the understatement of the century.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Mike, I have some questions about your post.

We just leased a Nissan Leaf. The only tax incentive we got was $2500 for the state of CA. You talk about subsidies as if they are evil.
The fact is the US government has been subsidizing industries for over a 100 years. The biggest subsidy by far, by trillions, is the the Hedge
Fund industry where they have a fantasy tax rate.

The defense industry comes in second with planes and ships that are outmoded before they leave
the factory, but they "create" jobs. The mortgage interest deduction is another one. What is wrong with tax incentives that are actually good for society?

My wife has had the car for two weeks and has driven back and forth without adding one iota of carbon footprint to the earth. That is our reality.
We absolutely love the car.

I agree with as a layperson that the biggest issue right now is battery technology and range. That is progressing forward at light speed IMO. But you
seem to have the opposite view, can you explain? This is a topic I have high interest in.

But, I understand you are in the business, and I respect your expertise on the market.

i'm not a neutral observer.

the Nissan dealership a half mile away was leasing 50 Nissan Leaf's a month last year. Tesla sells 50 new Tesla's a month in my immediate dealership marketplace. the Toyota dealership across the freeway was selling 140 Hybrids a month last year.

it's personal with me. even more than you as an owner of a Leaf.

and I view it as if i'm competing with my own tax dollars. on a dead technology. 'dead'...because the economic foundation that electric cars are built on is (1) direct tax subsidies, and (2) in-direct manufacturer legislated CAFE requirements. and they have to hit certain 'carbon' requirements in certain states to be able to sell their other cars in those states. we all pay for those additional expenses on every other car we buy. manufacturers take huge losses on electric cars to reach their CAFE requirements and simply build more of the less efficient more polluting cars. so your efforts to stay clean owning a Leaf are offset by the additional Nissan Titan trucks with V8's they can sell.

and all this attention to electrics, without the underlying technology to make it self supporting, just keeps the attention from other longer term solutions.

it's all smoke and mirrors with the electrics.

Honda does it differently. they have very clean burning gasoline engines in all their cars. Honda does not sell any V8's and no large trucks.

fuel cell, fuel cell, fuel cell.