IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New The test was going to change in 2017
They knew it was flawed and it was to be replaced with a test run under driving conditions. But that decision was already reached in May, before VW's cheating and the distance between test and reality for M-B, BMW, et al. became apparent. So now that is is clear no (European) manufacturer produces anything that is even remotely able to reach the current limit, they've opted to let the manufacturers off the hook.
New Ah. Thanks.
     VW post 2008 diesels had "defeat device" software to avoid emissions scrutiny. - (Another Scott) - (56)
         how would the software know - (lincoln) - (4)
             It's plugged in - (drook) - (2)
                 Found another article. - (static)
                 Re: It's plugged in - (lincoln)
             Re: how would the software know - (hnick)
         Wonder who ratted that one out... - (scoenye) - (2)
             Ouch. Seems the CARB had it figured out. - (Another Scott)
             I heard a similar story even further back. - (static)
         Reuters: VW could face $18B in fines. - (Another Scott) - (3)
             Are diesels even a good idea? - (drook) - (2)
                 Rolling back - (scoenye)
                 TANSTAAFL. - (Another Scott)
         years ago in alaska diesels were exempt from emissions testing - (boxley)
         It's all OK now. The CEO said he's sorry! - (a6l6e6x) - (20)
             As I read it, the $37,500 is per day of non-compliance, not per car. - (Another Scott) - (2)
                 Of course, the stories explicitly say per car, so ... :-/ - (Another Scott) - (1)
                     Yah, what he said! :) -NT - (a6l6e6x)
             I think it's absurd to imagine that such a plan could possibly be implemented - (Ashton) - (15)
                 is it? - (boxley) - (14)
                     And is your "retired petro chemist" a Tea Party member? - (lincoln) - (5)
                         no, catholic liberal -NT - (boxley) - (4)
                             I've never met a liberal - (lincoln) - (3)
                                 your loss -NT - (boxley)
                                 You claim to be a "liberal" and yet support a Nixon created entity? -NT - (mmoffitt) - (1)
                                     Hey, even crooks can do something good - (lincoln)
                     Doesn't smell right. - (Another Scott) - (7)
                         dunno about smell but sulpher burns hot, take it out harder to burn -NT - (boxley) - (6)
                             Not the way it works. - (Another Scott) - (5)
                                 kinda makes my point, regulators make the cars run like crap, what the retired guy said -NT - (boxley) - (4)
                                     Um, modern diesels are great compared to, say, a 1980 Rabbit diesel. - (Another Scott)
                                     Burning point is no criterion for use in a Diesel engine - (scoenye) - (2)
                                         Neat stuff. Thanks. -NT - (Another Scott)
                                         very nice -NT - (boxley)
             The CEO is really sorry now! - (a6l6e6x)
         The problem is world wide -- 11 M vehicles. - (a6l6e6x)
         I'm convinced there's a joke in there ... - (mmoffitt)
         Here's how they caught them - (malraux) - (4)
             Good find! -NT - (a6l6e6x)
             What I cannot parse at all, though.. - (Ashton)
             Interesting reason - (scoenye)
             Maybe the EPA will update their tests, too. - (static)
         What I was thinking, in more detail - (drook) - (1)
             one piece has been around a few years - (boxley)
         We're gonna need a bigger probe - (scoenye) - (1)
             Interesting. Thanks. -NT - (Another Scott)
         Four more carmakers join emissions rigging list - (lincoln) - (5)
             Not the same thing - (malraux) - (4)
                 Should it? - (drook) - (3)
                     Point being: - (malraux) - (2)
                         Your first two paragraphs, 100% agree, it's the third I question - (drook) - (1)
                             From what I remember, the test is that bad. - (malraux)
         There, fixed. - (scoenye) - (4)
             Interesting. - (Another Scott) - (2)
                 The test was going to change in 2017 - (scoenye) - (1)
                     Ah. Thanks. -NT - (Another Scott)
             BBC has you covered. - (a6l6e6x)

If you're going to be paranoid, don't stop at half measures.
145 ms