On 28 September 2015 11:41:37 IST, Georgi Guninski <guninski@guninski.com> wrote:

On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 05:44:00PM +0000, jim bell wrote:
 I noticed that (at least!) one media report portrayed this as making VW's less "green".  But from another report, I saw that they had 10% greater gas mileage if they were allowed to cheat.  (In other words, less CO2 emissions per mile.)  Now, the above quote refers to "huge amounts" of NOx.  (nitrogen oxides, probably NO and NO2).  The question is, for those people who complain about CO2 being a greenhouse gas, what is the relative undesireability of extra CO2 versus extra NOx.  Relative harm, and all that.  Which is a concept that people who call themselves "environmentalists" seem to have a great deal of difficulty with.
 This also raises an idea:  I've never heard of this, but what would be wrong with allowing differences in emissions based on location?  Putting a GPS
in a car is trivial today.  Producing less NOx inside a city would make sense; producing less NOx while on a cross-country road-trip less so.                    Jim Bell

I don't understand chemistry.

Something in this scandal stinks to me.

How did this was unnoticed for about 6? years?

Especially when the diesel consumption on the road
is visibly less than in a test environment?

As suggested in news, likely competitors reversed 
engineered the cars to see how VW managed to do this.