That's the kind of thing they probably all do, as well as making sure that the battery is fully charged etc. Also, even without a "defeat device", set engine mapping to produce good results under test conditions, but essentially forget emissions outside test cycle conditions. Make it go as well as possible - people want to have their cake and eat it, a car that supposedly does 5l/100km, but 0-100 in 5 seconds. I wonder if technical changes to cars to improve performance on emission/economy tests come "free". For example, they switched to electric power steering, which on a test uses no energy because it's doing nothing - but hydraulic power steering the pump is always turning even if there's no load. Is it "better" - VW seem okay, but Ford seem to have lots of "issues" with electric PS. With oil, are the low viscosity oils as good as higher viscosity for lubrication - or is a compromise made so that efficiency is good on cold-start cycle tests, so if the car is actually used on short runs then the engine won't last as long as it could have done if designed to use thicker oils. Of course people say "don't believe fuel economy ratings" but I'm sure that the stated fuel economy figures are used by new car buyers as a "comparative" guide in their decision making. When the auto makers are Incentivised to cheat, then we deserve the mess we've got. VW took it a step too far with the specifically banned emissions test "defeat device" (or system if that's what you want to call it). If there's some good to come out of it, then perhaps it could be showing up the current test methods as the farce they are, and to force a change to how these tests are carried out.
Since the public registrations are closed, you must have an invite from a current member to be able to register and post in this thread.
Have an account? Login here.