I gather it was discovered when a trade association was setting out to
   show off how awesome and clean modern diesels were, and did their own
   tests on actual road driving unlike the EPA. They discovered how shit
   the pollution really was and decided to report it.
   Which, if that's accurate, really reaffirms my faith in some of
   humanity, because it was actively against their interests to do so?

   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.

   --
   Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.