I am on thin ice arguing this hypothetical, (I don't know for a fact) it seems if they could deliver the performance and mileage, and clean emissions from just software tweaks, they would have in the years since they started cheating. I can't imagine anybody considering the cheat a long term solution.PRR said:> without adding additional components a simple software fix can only force to run like it does in test mode all the time
No, they can re-program any limit between Test and Pep. (Assuming time to re-think the situation; also government OK for the new calibration, which in this case may want to be rushed-out before a formal test cycle.)
My brother, the smart one, worked in turbine nozzle design, and he tells me that the aircraft turbines very specifically engineer the particle size in the jet exhaust so the smoke "looks" clear. Larger particle size makes the same exhaust visible and appear dirtier.On my 1967, to increase power (and smoke), I would take the pump apart and remove some shims that set the maximum stroke of the metering piston. To increase total power I would put lighter springs on the governor weights to raise the limit speed from 2,150RPM to a blazing 2,500RPM. (It's the same bore/stroke as a 400CID V-8, it ought to live that fast, if not for 5,700 hours.)
Some other effects. The "best" (clear exhaust) fuel quantity is set hot. When cold, this much fuel smokes like a tire-fire. (Also because with this many hours, compression is down, it really hates to light-off when cold.) This engine has no idea if it is warm or not; a computer surely would, and would give less fuel when the chambers are cold. This is more of an issue on Diesel than on spark: the Diesel needs chamber heat to ignite without stressfully high compression, and an idling Diesel will go much colder than an idle spark engine because of fuel-control and large expansion ratio. (I can idle 20 minutes and lay my hand on the block.)
I don't know if automobile engines have similar control over the combustion process, but they surely manage visible smoke for perception reasons.
One technique is urea (yes piss) injection. If they already had this hardware in place, why turn it off?While my 1967 Diesel is only stops and cams (no electricity needed to run), a modern Diesel is *totally* under control of its computer. Fuel quantity and timing have the most effect. The rate-of-change of these parameters with change of "throttle" pedal position affects perceived "pep".
Many of these Diesel sedans probably feature a turbo with a blow-off, again under computer control. While sane use of a blower will improve efficiency and probably reduce smog, any tractor-pull contest shows that over-blowing and over-injecting can smog-out a stadium.
There are secondary smog treatments, similar to spark-engine catalytic converters. But I bet these bits were installed so they would function in Test mode. I have not looked at (could not keep up with) recent "advances" in Diesel smog control, but I doubt they cause large loss of power. They may have heaters and squirters and such, which would be under computer control.
http://www.wired.com/2015/10/vw-plans-to-recover-from-its-scandal-by-going-electric/from link said:As soon as possible, VW says, it will start equipping all its diesel cars in Europe and North America with AdBlue technology and selective catalytic reduction, a chemical process that breaks smoggy NOx down into nitrogen and water. It adds complication and expense—$5,000 to $8,000 per car—but it’s effective, eliminating 70 to 90 percent of NOx emissions.
======
I am repeating myself, but best fix IMO is to not fix these models at all but negotiate a trade with the regulators to reduce an equivalent amount of emissions elsewhere... Of course their future new cars must pass all standards.
JR
[edit] just saw a newspaper story talking about Audi motors involved too. This article say the Euro zone fix is a software changes and minor intake modification to improve intake mixing. The article says this is not adequate for the US market. [/edit]