The Vw Diesel Business...

[Lakelad]

.

VW cheated before
It's not the first time Volkswagen has been accused of cheating on emissions testing by the EPA. In July 1973, the agency found that VW had installed temperature-sensitive devices that turned off emissions controls on about 25,000 Fastback, Squareback and bus models. The company agreed to remove the devices and eventually settled with the Justice Department, paying a $120,000 penalty.

Associated Press-Sep27/15

.

[Don Hudson]

IFG...

[av8tor]

I believe air care tests are conducted on a car "treadmill". It's a simple matter (1 line of code) to have the emission control system run clean when the drive wheels are turning at speed and the other set of wheels are not.

Simple explanation and an ah-ha moment for me. Thanks Wolfhunter!

[DEFCON]

When 'our' governments changed the law to confer the status of a 'man' to corporations, they were effectively gifting the executive class with protection from personal criminal liability, a new form of impunity from the law if you will. By extension, the suits have now become new-age gangs of sorts, albeit the prissy kind, but criminal gangs nonetheless. The shareholders are the public / legal diversion; the suits know that if they’re kept happy, even when the crap hits the fan, the government, the people and shareholders will band together to keep the executives engaged in keeping the golden goose laying; i.e., the GM start switch recall for example.

[Don Hudson]

NPR has a readable article on the subject - I thought the notion of corporations-as-persons was an old one, coming from English Common Law.

[thinair]

I like the quote at the end of that NPR article.

"I'll believe a corporation is a person when Texas executes one." ~Bill Moyers

acsidestick,

Someone earlier in the thread asked what the deciding factor was in purchasing a vw so I offered an antidote and recounted some of my experience with these vehicles, so thanks for dissing my honesty, not sure why I bother replying on this forum, but not much else to do sometimes on long layovers I guess, or maybe I enjoy being berated or ignored by people who think their opinion is more valid than mine.

I find it hard to believe that a 1.8 litre (modern day) vw diesel engine that burns fuel at a rate of 4-6 ltrs/100 kms is a worse polluter than a 5 litre suv or 1/2 ton truck that burns 13-15 ltrs/100 kms of regular fuel, not to mention the myriad of other non vw diesel engines out there. For example Cummins diesel engine, great powerplant but you can actually see the soot from the exhaust when one steps on it.

If you believe that a 1.8ltr tdi is a worse polluter than these then you probally also believe that transporting oil and gas via trucks and trains is safer and more eco freindly than using pipelines. Personal and corporate agendas at work.

Its all just political lobbying.

So don't feel sorry for the situation me or vw tdi owners are in because there IS no situation other than corporate greed and the legal impunity that the suits hide behind these days.

In my opinion, vw is no less or more guilty than any other auto manufacturer or groups or other corporations that lobby government or use questionable means or hide flaws in their product to gain a so called competitive advantage.

As for the vw I own, it was bought and paid for the day I drove it off the lot and I keep my cars for a minimum of 10 years so that is about as eco friendly as it gets. I could care a less about vw the corporation, I've just had mostly good experiences with the product so I bit again, but will not buy another one, not because of this latest revelation, but because the quality has dropped off compared to the older ones I have owned.

Someone said earlier, if we really cared about the environment none of us would be driving personal automobiles.

It makes me sick when I think about the number of vehicles that roll off the assembly line on a daily basis in our world like an endless stream of candybars.

On a positive note:

I love my new ebike its an OHM mountainbike, now thats innovation, its a Canadian company based in Vancouver, the drive system is a company called Bionics out of Quebec. The only fuel required is a 5 hr charge and plenty of protein.

Its not for the purest of mountain bikers, but I go further faster and its a blast !

[DEFCON]

Thanks Don. Yes the 'notion' is old and not that you would have known, but I am referring to newer Rights, say post 1960, that confer protections to the decision makers responsible.

I like to reference the ValuJet Everglade crash. As I recall, when the dust settled, all the humans responsible in some way for that crash went on to recover their lives. Regardless of outcome, charging the Corporations involved with offences requiring intent, something a corporation can’t really have, allows the humans that really did make decisions and benefit from them to escape liability. The approximate 110 people that paid with their lives for boarding that aircraft and their surviving families have never been the recipients of true justice, just the games corporate lawyers fashion to protect the corporate perps.

[boestar]

Thinair. Soot is one thing, Heavy particulates are another and NOx is a totally different thing again. The issue is NOx and it can easily be controlled even on a 6 litre diesel

[thinair]

Thinair. Soot is one thing, Heavy particulates are another and NOx is a totally different thing again. The issue is NOx and it can easily be controlled even on a 6 litre diesel

Ok fair enough, I'm not an engineer so I don't understand why NOx emissions would be controlled on a 6 ltr diesel and not 1.8 ltr vw, Why would vw not control this?

If its for fuel enconomy and hpower, how does the Ram 3ltr eco diesel get such good mileage? It weighs twice a much as a Jetta and gets 10ltrs/100 kms , with plenty of hp.

[nozel]

Discarding other things like performance, branding, colour, etc., what was the main deciding factor when Volkswagen owners purchased their diesel vehicle? To save the planet or save their wallet?

I have not saved the wallet or the planet!

The car cost me more to buy up front, the fuel cost is higher but uses less,and now the pollution is 40 x higher than allowed limit.

The fix will cost me more going forward.

My purchase was a result of sound reasoning clouded by memories of the simple smoke belching 50 MPG 'slow performance' 1980 Diesel Rabbit I drove for 10 years.

The new TDI was a big improvement in comfort performance and clean or so I thought exhaust.

The diesel option came with a premium price to purchase and fuel ~ 0.20/L higher.

I bought My 2013 Golf Sportwagen (spelling is correct...)knowing the fuel consumption would be 50% better than that of the 2009 Jetta Sportwagen with the 2.5L gas fueled engine I traded away.

I am however able to carry out 9 round trips to work with the tdi vs 6 with the gasser..

I have logged an average 6.4 L/100Km consumption for the last 9 months which works out to well not bad for a 3300 lb car.

Only upsides: wonderful grunt when I could not stop the tourrettic twitch pinning my right foot to the floor...

Interior comfort level is fantastic and very quiet windows closed and climate controls set as required.

Would I buy another?

Its not a practical engine for very short duration trips specially in winter as it takes forever to warm up. The break even date is too far down the road to consider another as I drive 20000Km/year.

I like the brand, though I don't like that, I as well as others, have been broadsided by the dieselgate revelations.

Clean Diesel was not a selling factor in my case though I have learned the technology to make them clean is very complex and very pricey to replace if failures occur. This factor will influence a move back to gasoline or some form of hybrid power in the future.

For the moment, I remain "along for the ride to a solution".

RZ

[DEFCON]

"I have logged an average 6.4 L/100Km consumption for the last 9 months which works out to well not bad for a 3300 lb car."

Those numbers make my F150 FX4 Off Road that burns approximately 10ltr / 100km seem pretty darn good considering it's a 6000lb vehicle.

[nozel]

Those numbers make my F150 FX4 Off Road that burns approximately 10ltr / 100km seem pretty darn good considering it's a 6000lb vehicle.

Great number for sure! But I'm not believing the number.

My older Jetta with 2.5 L engine used between 10.0 and 10.5 L/100 Km combined city hiway

My calculations are base on distance driven between fills and qty added at said fills.. My car does not have an instant or cumulative consumption display,

[Guest]

My 5 year old Corolla (automatic tranny) is using 6.5L per 100K city driving. On trips to the West Coast, it drops down to 6.2 despite the climb through the mountains.

[Lakelad]

.

Suspect this might be an attention getter for execs in at least one industry.

Ex-Peanut Executive Sentenced to 28 Years in Prison for Salmonella Coverup

Punishment for outbreak that led to nine deaths is believed to be harshest to date in a food-safety case

Sep 21, 2015 - WSJ
By Jesse Newman

A former Georgia peanut executive was sentenced to 28 years in prison on Monday for presiding over a cover-up that led to a deadly salmonella outbreak, marking what legal experts believe to be the most severe punishment yet in a U.S. food-safety case.

A U.S. district judge in Albany, Ga., sentenced Stewart Parnell, the 61-year-old former owner of Peanut Corp. of America, after a jury found him guilty last year on dozens of felony counts, including conspiracy to conceal that many of the company’s products were contaminated with salmonella. Between 2008 and 2009, nine people died and more than 700 others fell ill after eating peanut butter or other products made at the company’s plant in rural Georgia, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The prison sentence—believed to be by far the harshest ever levied in a food-safety case—highlights the government’s stricter enforcement of food-safety laws following several major outbreaks of foodborne illnesses over the past decade. The lengthy term in part reflects the overwhelming evidence presented by federal prosecutors that Mr. Parnell knowingly led a scheme to ship tainted products, as well as the large number of people affected by the outbreak and the financial losses incurred, according to lawyers involved in food-safety cases.

Until now, legal experts said, the toughest punishment handed down in at least a half century for crimes connected to such an outbreak was by a federal judge in Iowa, who last April sentenced the owner of a large egg producer and his son to three months in prison for their involvement in a 2010 salmonella outbreak that sickened thousands of people and led to a nationwide recall. A Colorado judge sentenced two brothers to five years’ probation after the pair pleaded guilty to misdemeanor charges following a 2011 listeria outbreak linked to their farm’s cantaloupes that resulted in 33 deaths.

In the Peanut Corp. case, prosecutors introduced internal emails they said showed Mr. Parnell and his company had for years hidden the fact that many of the firm’s products were contaminated with salmonella.

In some cases, company officials falsified lab results, stating peanut products were safe to eat when tests showed otherwise, or when products had never been tested at all, according to court papers.

One email highlighted Mr. Parnell’s anxiety after he learned that an order of peanut products would be held up because test results weren’t yet available. “S—, just ship it,” he wrote, according to the court documents. “I cannot afford to loose [sic] another customer.”

Acting Associate Attorney General Stuart Delery said Monday’s sentence is an example of the Justice Department’s “forceful actions” against any individual or company who “compromises the safety of America’s food supply for financial gain.”

'The government’s case against Mr. Parnell is a victory for the Justice Department, which in recent years has ramped up criminal prosecutions of food executives or companies responsible for outbreaks of foodborne illnesses that have collectively sickened thousands.'

.

[Specs]

What does one make of Martin Shkreli and his 5000% price increase?

Criminal or not, sociopathy seems to be a essential trait for any exec these days.

[DEFCON]

"A Colorado judge sentenced two brothers to five years’ probation after the pair pleaded guilty to misdemeanor charges following a 2011 listeria outbreak linked to their farm’s cantaloupes that resulted in 33 deaths."

Can anyone argue that sentences like this wouldn't encourage executive malfeasance?

[thinair]

.

Suspect this might be an attention getter for execs in at least one industry.

Ex-Peanut Executive Sentenced to 28 Years in Prison for Salmonella Coverup

Punishment for outbreak that led to nine deaths is believed to be harshest to date in a food-safety case

Sep 21, 2015 - WSJ

By Jesse Newman

A former Georgia peanut executive was sentenced to 28 years in prison on Monday for presiding over a cover-up that led to a deadly salmonella outbreak, marking what legal experts believe to be the most severe punishment yet in a U.S. food-safety case.

A U.S. district judge in Albany, Ga., sentenced Stewart Parnell, the 61-year-old former owner of Peanut Corp. of America, after a jury found him guilty last year on dozens of felony counts, including conspiracy to conceal that many of the company’s products were contaminated with salmonella. Between 2008 and 2009, nine people died and more than 700 others fell ill after eating peanut butter or other products made at the company’s plant in rural Georgia, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The prison sentence—believed to be by far the harshest ever levied in a food-safety case—highlights the government’s stricter enforcement of food-safety laws following several major outbreaks of foodborne illnesses over the past decade. The lengthy term in part reflects the overwhelming evidence presented by federal prosecutors that Mr. Parnell knowingly led a scheme to ship tainted products, as well as the large number of people affected by the outbreak and the financial losses incurred, according to lawyers involved in food-safety cases.

Until now, legal experts said, the toughest punishment handed down in at least a half century for crimes connected to such an outbreak was by a federal judge in Iowa, who last April sentenced the owner of a large egg producer and his son to three months in prison for their involvement in a 2010 salmonella outbreak that sickened thousands of people and led to a nationwide recall. A Colorado judge sentenced two brothers to five years’ probation after the pair pleaded guilty to misdemeanor charges following a 2011 listeria outbreak linked to their farm’s cantaloupes that resulted in 33 deaths.

In the Peanut Corp. case, prosecutors introduced internal emails they said showed Mr. Parnell and his company had for years hidden the fact that many of the firm’s products were contaminated with salmonella.

In some cases, company officials falsified lab results, stating peanut products were safe to eat when tests showed otherwise, or when products had never been tested at all, according to court papers.

One email highlighted Mr. Parnell’s anxiety after he learned that an order of peanut products would be held up because test results weren’t yet available. “S—, just ship it,” he wrote, according to the court documents. “I cannot afford to loose [sic] another customer.”

Acting Associate Attorney General Stuart Delery said Monday’s sentence is an example of the Justice Department’s “forceful actions” against any individual or company who “compromises the safety of America’s food supply for financial gain.”

'The government’s case against Mr. Parnell is a victory for the Justice Department, which in recent years has ramped up criminal prosecutions of food executives or companies responsible for outbreaks of foodborne illnesses that have collectively sickened thousands.'

.

Maybe there is justice coming for some of these people.

It would be nice to see some financial people get their due as well.

Robert De niro is doing Bernie Madoff in an upcoming film.