Voltswagen of America(media.vw.com)
media.vw.com
Voltswagen of America
https://media.vw.com/en-us/releases/1499
629 comments
Hmm did they release their April 1 joke too early by mistake?
The joke is the cars will run on electric current during lab testing, and burn fuel during normal operation
Ouch, that's one of those "ha ha only serious" kind of jokes.
https://www.theverge.com/2021/3/30/22357166/volkswagen-name-...
> The proximity of the name change to April Fool’s Day initially raised suspicions that it was just a joke. But VW insists that it’s a real thing, so here we are.
> The proximity of the name change to April Fool’s Day initially raised suspicions that it was just a joke. But VW insists that it’s a real thing, so here we are.
It was April Fool's https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/30/volkswagens-name-change-of-u...
Until companies insistence that this the real thing becomes itself part of the joke.
Maybe the most brilliant time to rebrand; always have that "it was really just a joke" line to fall back on.
> "The company was apparently planning to make the announcement at the end of April but accidentally published a press release about the name change early Monday afternoon, which was first spotted by CNBC before it was taken down. The proximity of the name change to April Fool’s Day initially raised suspicions that it was just a joke. But VW insists that it’s a real thing, so here we are."
Sounds to me like a publicity stunt -- they "accidentally published" a press release a month early? Sorry, that doesn't happen.
Seems like trying to generate buzz on social media, then they'll quietly "decide" not to change the name after all, but people associating VW with electric cars more so -- mission accomplished.
Sounds to me like a publicity stunt -- they "accidentally published" a press release a month early? Sorry, that doesn't happen.
Seems like trying to generate buzz on social media, then they'll quietly "decide" not to change the name after all, but people associating VW with electric cars more so -- mission accomplished.
Huh, why does the name change have to be announced 2-3 days before in your world? They would need to send new stationery and signage to dealers, so the chatter would start in the coming week or 2 anyway... Why not pre-empt that with a press release.
I didn't say anything like that, where did you get "2-3 days" from or "signage"?
VW themselves said they didn't plan to put out the press release for a month. They didn't say anything about the timing of "stationery or signage".
Did you mean to reply to a different comment...?
VW themselves said they didn't plan to put out the press release for a month. They didn't say anything about the timing of "stationery or signage".
Did you mean to reply to a different comment...?
You find it that hard to believe that someone typed the wrong date into a CMS?
No, but I find it very hard to believe that a gigantic company had a press release finalized and sitting in a CMS a month in advance, just waiting for time to pass.
(Source: have worked in 3 large public companies and seen how these things come down to the wire with approvals from PR, Marketing, IR, Legal, Country Leadership, Corporate, etc...)
(Source: have worked in 3 large public companies and seen how these things come down to the wire with approvals from PR, Marketing, IR, Legal, Country Leadership, Corporate, etc...)
Exactly.
If I had a dollar for every press release at every public company that was written and finalized a month in advance...
...I'm pretty sure I'd have zero dollars.
If I had a dollar for every press release at every public company that was written and finalized a month in advance...
...I'm pretty sure I'd have zero dollars.
they got the twitter account voltswagen verified, https://twitter.com/voltswagen. which makes me believe it is real.
Mistake? Look at all the coverage they are getting when they would otherwise be lost in a crowd.
Maybe they grew tired of Americans pronouncing it wrong (most V are still pronounced as F, Vettel, Volkswagen etc.) ;-)
Edit: This German apologizes for an attempt at a humorous / sarcastic comment and will revert to work-machine state at once. Beep boop.
Edit: This German apologizes for an attempt at a humorous / sarcastic comment and will revert to work-machine state at once. Beep boop.
Americans are pronouncing it perfectly correctly as most of us speak English and not German.
Pronunciation doesn't go like that but that is a big discussion for its own thread
Funny remark though while watching the F1 Netflix show, Schumacher said his name like SchumaKer , hence the Engish Pronunciation which goes to show that he adapted to the audience.
Funny remark though while watching the F1 Netflix show, Schumacher said his name like SchumaKer , hence the Engish Pronunciation which goes to show that he adapted to the audience.
This is an issue I face from time to time when I'm (native German) in international calls and am talking about a German colleague ... I could pronounce properly German (while it's not too easy always for my mind to switch) or adapt to the way most others do (which often is English with an attempt to Germanize)
Luckily due to video conferencing software printing my name on my image, I don't have to do that for my name, as I had to do in phone conference times.
Luckily due to video conferencing software printing my name on my image, I don't have to do that for my name, as I had to do in phone conference times.
If I were trying to say the word 'Volkswagen' to a German person, I would do my best to pronounce it in a way they would understand.
As most of the time I ever say the word 'Volkswagen' out loud it's to my fellow English speakers, pronouncing it in the expected English way seems way less pretentious and effective.
As most of the time I ever say the word 'Volkswagen' out loud it's to my fellow English speakers, pronouncing it in the expected English way seems way less pretentious and effective.
> Pronunciation doesn't go like that but that is a big discussion for its own thread
Honestly it kinda does. I wince every time I hear emoji pronounced like いmoji (where the e rhymes with tea) instead of えmoji (where the e rhymes with meh), or pluralize Japanese nouns (“emojis” “sushis”). That said, this is a me problem. People are going to pronounce words in whatever way makes sense to them, where the emphasis goes, how it is pronounced, which vowels get emphasized or contracted together will change over time. There is a reason we don’t all sound like Elizabethan-era Englishmen when we speak English.
Even proper nouns such as names get adapted. How many different variations and pronunciations are there for the name “John” in Europe?
Honestly it kinda does. I wince every time I hear emoji pronounced like いmoji (where the e rhymes with tea) instead of えmoji (where the e rhymes with meh), or pluralize Japanese nouns (“emojis” “sushis”). That said, this is a me problem. People are going to pronounce words in whatever way makes sense to them, where the emphasis goes, how it is pronounced, which vowels get emphasized or contracted together will change over time. There is a reason we don’t all sound like Elizabethan-era Englishmen when we speak English.
Even proper nouns such as names get adapted. How many different variations and pronunciations are there for the name “John” in Europe?
>emoji pronounced like いmoji (where the e rhymes with tea) instead of えmoji (where the e rhymes with meh)
I understand your pain(and also have very similar pain when English words were put into katakana) but for that example, it does make sense as for native English speakers, my assumption was that the emo- part of the word came from emote. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/emote https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emote
I understand your pain(and also have very similar pain when English words were put into katakana) but for that example, it does make sense as for native English speakers, my assumption was that the emo- part of the word came from emote. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/emote https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emote
Mate, that’s why I stated forthright that this is a me problem and made no bones about it.
The “e” is from 「絵」and “moji” from 「文字」, transliterated as 「えもじ」, “e” + “moji” gets you “picture message”. It was a stroke of luck that it was similar enough to emoticon to neatly fit into our existing lexicon and be understood at a glance by an English speaker, at least the gist of it. A picture message is a little bit different than an emote icon if you think about it because there’s many more pictures which are not emotes per se, but can be used within a message alongside the emoting emoji. :)
The “e” is from 「絵」and “moji” from 「文字」, transliterated as 「えもじ」, “e” + “moji” gets you “picture message”. It was a stroke of luck that it was similar enough to emoticon to neatly fit into our existing lexicon and be understood at a glance by an English speaker, at least the gist of it. A picture message is a little bit different than an emote icon if you think about it because there’s many more pictures which are not emotes per se, but can be used within a message alongside the emoting emoji. :)
Sorry, I was not trying to come off as pushy. Your comment made me think about why I pronounce it the way I do and I thought I would share :)
The odd thing I notice is how English speakers always want to put a stress in the middle of Japanese names (naRUto). Japanese pitch accent is different in different dialects but the standard one is always at the start.
Ei sink ju wud bi surpreist if Ei wud tok to ju leik sis.
(I think you would be surprised, if I would talk to you like this.)
German pronounced English. :)
The text exaggerates your point a little bit.
"ju" would be pronounced the same as "you" when speaking. And "Ei" would be just the same as "I". "wud" = would "leik" = like "tok" = talk "bi" = be All of the above would sound exactly the same when spoken.
"ju" would be pronounced the same as "you" when speaking. And "Ei" would be just the same as "I". "wud" = would "leik" = like "tok" = talk "bi" = be All of the above would sound exactly the same when spoken.
Sanx fo klarrifing. Truu!
That's an excellent representation of a Dutch accent
Volkswagen is not an English word though
It most certainly is an English proper noun.
It has been adopted to a degree. Just like you don't need to say Paris as "Pari" in an imitation of the French pronunciation (which would probably sound rather affected and twee in English if you did)
Anyway, let's hope they make reliable electric vehicles (as their combustion engine cars have traditionally been) otherwise people may render it as Faultswagen
Anyway, let's hope they make reliable electric vehicles (as their combustion engine cars have traditionally been) otherwise people may render it as Faultswagen
faultswagen.com is unregistered; anyone?
https://www.namecheap.com/domains/registration/results/?doma...
https://www.namecheap.com/domains/registration/results/?doma...
[deleted]
Typically the capital city has an English name, which is often not just pronounced differently but also spelt differently from the local name. But for almost every other town English speakers use the same spelling, or a transcription of it, and aim for something like the local pronunciation. So for France, there's "Paris" and "Strasbourg" and that's about it. For Germany, there's "Berlin" and "Munich" and that's about it. But for some reason loads of Italian towns have their own English name: Venice, Milan, Naples, Florence, Turin, ...
Strasbourg?
Note as well that Turin and Milan are the names in the local (regional) language.
Edit: And Munich is almost identical to Munichen which is the old form of München. Cologne could have been a better example (but it also comes directly from French, like Rome, Florence or Naples).
Note as well that Turin and Milan are the names in the local (regional) language.
Edit: And Munich is almost identical to Munichen which is the old form of München. Cologne could have been a better example (but it also comes directly from French, like Rome, Florence or Naples).
Standard French pronunciation of "Strasbourg" has an /r/ but no /g/. Of course it's a German name, really, but the Germans spell it a bit differently, and neither French nor Germans pronounce the second vowel in the way it is normally, I think, pronounced in English.
Good point about regional languages in Italy.
"Cologne" is a good example, though some people, including me, usually say "Köln" in English, though I wouldn't say "München", except in the name of the football team "Bayern München", which for some reason is usually called thus in English.
Good point about regional languages in Italy.
"Cologne" is a good example, though some people, including me, usually say "Köln" in English, though I wouldn't say "München", except in the name of the football team "Bayern München", which for some reason is usually called thus in English.
Do you mean then that English speakers write the name of every French city, including Paris and Strasbourg, as French speakers do and also pronounce them as French speakers would except for Paris and Strasbourg?
Edit: I had never thought about Strasbourg, really. I see now that the adoption of the French spelling in English is relatively recent and also Marseilles and Lyons used to be written differently.
Edit2: Dunkirk seems to be the main (only?) example where the French name is not used.
Edit: I had never thought about Strasbourg, really. I see now that the adoption of the French spelling in English is relatively recent and also Marseilles and Lyons used to be written differently.
Edit2: Dunkirk seems to be the main (only?) example where the French name is not used.
Whilst it's interesting to think about your points, they feel somewhat orthogonal to my point about the word being adopted into English (so it can have a pronunciation the way native speakers feel comfortable with, which can vary to a degree from the original unadopted word). Was it meant as some kind of rebuttal or merely an interesting observation? (eg with the Italian names)
Not a rebuttal: just musing.
It is respectful to at least attempt to pronounce names from different cultures. In many cases, I totally understand it is difficult. In those cases, an attempt is great. In this case, the syllable F exists in Latin and I don't see why it.
I must say, I have seen many many times a lack of interest to even attempt to pronounce of even write a name properly. One example which comes to my mind is Ghandi instead of Gandhi.
I must say, I have seen many many times a lack of interest to even attempt to pronounce of even write a name properly. One example which comes to my mind is Ghandi instead of Gandhi.
To re-iterate my point, it's not about 'respect' (respect for whom, exactly and why?) it's about communication.
If I were trying to say the word 'Volkswagen' to a German speaking person, I would do my best to pronounce it in a way they would understand. As most of the time I ever say the word 'Volkswagen' out loud it's to my fellow English speakers, pronouncing it in the expected English way seems way less pretentious and way more effective.
If I were trying to say the word 'Volkswagen' to a German speaking person, I would do my best to pronounce it in a way they would understand. As most of the time I ever say the word 'Volkswagen' out loud it's to my fellow English speakers, pronouncing it in the expected English way seems way less pretentious and way more effective.
>seems way less pretentious
Or you could help do your part in normalizing pronouncing things correctly instead of perpetuating the perception that it's somehow "pretentious".
Or you could help do your part in normalizing pronouncing things correctly instead of perpetuating the perception that it's somehow "pretentious".
The pronunciation is already normalized in English, and most people already pronounce it correctly in English for other English speakers.
Expecting non-German people to speak with German pronunciation is plain arrogant.
Expecting non-German people to speak with German pronunciation is plain arrogant.
They're speaking English. The correct pronunciation of a "V" is in fact to make the english "V" sound.
Nope. Proper nouns are to be pronounced in whatever way is dictated by the country of origin.
Also, no, English is not very reliable when it comes to spelling vs. pronunciation.
(Former diction teacher, here.)
Also, no, English is not very reliable when it comes to spelling vs. pronunciation.
(Former diction teacher, here.)
I'm going to avoid being snarky and point out this is merely the way you taught it. There is not hard and fast rule that says you have to do it this way.
Also, Vs are actually pretty consistent in English. Can't even think of a word with a V where the V doesn't sound like a V.
Also, Vs are actually pretty consistent in English. Can't even think of a word with a V where the V doesn't sound like a V.
What's interesting here is that the exception proves the rule.
V is actually the only letter in English that is never silent.
Most other letters also have various possible renderings into pronunciation, especially the vowels—"i" for instance can end up being at least 5 different vowel sounds and also some consonant sounds.
So yes. As I pointed out, English is extremely irregular orthographically, in stark contrast to languages like German, French, or Italian, all of which have extremely reliable and simple pronunciation rules.
V is actually the only letter in English that is never silent.
Most other letters also have various possible renderings into pronunciation, especially the vowels—"i" for instance can end up being at least 5 different vowel sounds and also some consonant sounds.
So yes. As I pointed out, English is extremely irregular orthographically, in stark contrast to languages like German, French, or Italian, all of which have extremely reliable and simple pronunciation rules.
This is an unreasonable expectation. People should try but if they don't, there is no malice here.
There are many languages around the world and it is impossible to remember every nuance of how to pronounce things. Ghandi is common pronounciation even in Germany. The Japanese might pronounce it something else.
There are many languages around the world and it is impossible to remember every nuance of how to pronounce things. Ghandi is common pronounciation even in Germany. The Japanese might pronounce it something else.
> Ghandi is common pronounciation even in Germany.
I don't think it is an unreasonable expectation to write the word "Gandhi" as "Gandhi". That's how he wrote the name, that's how he signed it and that's the actual spelling. I can understand the difficulty in pronunciation but getting the name right while typing it out is unforgivable in this century.
I don't think it is an unreasonable expectation to write the word "Gandhi" as "Gandhi". That's how he wrote the name, that's how he signed it and that's the actual spelling. I can understand the difficulty in pronunciation but getting the name right while typing it out is unforgivable in this century.
I meant the pronunciation, not the spelling.
Also, learning to forgive is a rare virtue these days. Entitlement and expection creates conflict. Learn to forgive others and you'll have a better time with everyone else. No one who even spells it as Ghandi means any malice or offense. So, it is a matter of technicality. Let go.
Also, learning to forgive is a rare virtue these days. Entitlement and expection creates conflict. Learn to forgive others and you'll have a better time with everyone else. No one who even spells it as Ghandi means any malice or offense. So, it is a matter of technicality. Let go.
I agree - learning to forgive is rare virtue. For example, I think we should also "learn to forgive" to people who point out that Gandhi is the right spelling. It's not meant as many malice of offence. So, it is a matter of technicality. Let go.
You're forgiven :), cheers!
It is respectful to at least attempt to pronounce names from different cultures
In many cases, it is unnecessary and only makes the speaker look foolish.
"Hyundai" is pronounces its own brand name differently in American and Korean TV commercials. Is Hyundai being disrespectful to Koreans?
The goal is to communicate. Making communication more difficult is the opposite of the goal.
In many cases, it is unnecessary and only makes the speaker look foolish.
"Hyundai" is pronounces its own brand name differently in American and Korean TV commercials. Is Hyundai being disrespectful to Koreans?
The goal is to communicate. Making communication more difficult is the opposite of the goal.
> In many cases, it is unnecessary and only makes the speaker look foolish.
Comedic skits touch on this [1][2] and though a caricature, I think they capture the gist of how it's perceived when attempted.
I think it stems from a desire for "cultural wokeness" which is a good thing and has its place, but as you say when communication is the goal, speak the language of the receiver.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKGoVefhtMQ
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWMp_z7Jnxw
Comedic skits touch on this [1][2] and though a caricature, I think they capture the gist of how it's perceived when attempted.
I think it stems from a desire for "cultural wokeness" which is a good thing and has its place, but as you say when communication is the goal, speak the language of the receiver.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKGoVefhtMQ
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWMp_z7Jnxw
In practice, if a name has a common pronunciation within English, you show respect by using that pronunciation when speaking to native English speakers.
Otherwise you just cause confusion. The adapted names have their own history.
If you insist on saying København and not Copenhagen, you get to have a little pretentious discussion explaining what you meant to every person you talk to. Ditto for Folks-vagen.
Otherwise you just cause confusion. The adapted names have their own history.
If you insist on saying København and not Copenhagen, you get to have a little pretentious discussion explaining what you meant to every person you talk to. Ditto for Folks-vagen.
> In practice, if a name has a common pronunciation within English, you show respect by using that pronunciation when speaking to native English speakers.
Here's how I read this. "We as an English speaking group will continue to not make an attempt to pronounce it right even if we can. Once we don't we will have a common pronunciation that doesn't fit the original one. Once it becomes common, we will get offended if it is not pronounced in the common way that we as a group chose to actively ignore in the first place. If the original speakers insist, we will call them pretentious."
Here's how I read this. "We as an English speaking group will continue to not make an attempt to pronounce it right even if we can. Once we don't we will have a common pronunciation that doesn't fit the original one. Once it becomes common, we will get offended if it is not pronounced in the common way that we as a group chose to actively ignore in the first place. If the original speakers insist, we will call them pretentious."
> If the original speakers insist, we will call them pretentious."
Way to overreach way beyond what I originally said. If I was speaking to someone I knew was Dutch, of course I would (try to) say "København." Then they'd probably laugh at me and we'd agree to call it Copenhagen. :P
Or if I want to read your view in the worst possible way-- similar to how you've read mine-- "People who use the established pronunciation of a loanword or place in their native tongue are wrong. We should always seek to find where we are using words of foreign origin and correct them to be perfectly pronounced in their original tongue, even when this causes confusion and isn't helpful to people from the original place. Japanese gairaigo should be abolished and they should just say those words in the correct original English (or German or French). And those damn Frenchmen should stop calling the place I live Californie dans les Etats Unis, which is nothing like how I say it, and should stop calling me 'Michel' which sounds a whole lot like the female version of my name"
Way to overreach way beyond what I originally said. If I was speaking to someone I knew was Dutch, of course I would (try to) say "København." Then they'd probably laugh at me and we'd agree to call it Copenhagen. :P
Or if I want to read your view in the worst possible way-- similar to how you've read mine-- "People who use the established pronunciation of a loanword or place in their native tongue are wrong. We should always seek to find where we are using words of foreign origin and correct them to be perfectly pronounced in their original tongue, even when this causes confusion and isn't helpful to people from the original place. Japanese gairaigo should be abolished and they should just say those words in the correct original English (or German or French). And those damn Frenchmen should stop calling the place I live Californie dans les Etats Unis, which is nothing like how I say it, and should stop calling me 'Michel' which sounds a whole lot like the female version of my name"
I'd like to take a stock of how this conversation went.
1.0 (me) : "It is respectful to attempt pronunciation if possible".
1.1 (you) : "There is a common English pronunciation. It's pretentious if you don't use the common pronunciation. Show respect to the English speaker!"
1.2 (me) : "The common pronunciation exists because of the lack of attempt in the first place. It's not pretentious. "
1.3 (you) : "It is established, we should use common pronunciation"
You turned the initial conversation about making an attempt to be kind and respectful towards non-English speakers into something else. Almost feels like victim blaming to me. Once again, to be clear - we should make an attempt. Just because there's an established pronunciation (or spelling) doesn't mean it is right. Overtime, established pronunciation can move towards the original pronunciation. The right pronunciation is what the speaker wants to have. You, me or the English society don't have any say in it. It doesn't matter if it is established or not. Going the extra mile in kindness helps; calling others pretentious because they ask you to empathise doesn't.
1.0 (me) : "It is respectful to attempt pronunciation if possible".
1.1 (you) : "There is a common English pronunciation. It's pretentious if you don't use the common pronunciation. Show respect to the English speaker!"
1.2 (me) : "The common pronunciation exists because of the lack of attempt in the first place. It's not pretentious. "
1.3 (you) : "It is established, we should use common pronunciation"
You turned the initial conversation about making an attempt to be kind and respectful towards non-English speakers into something else. Almost feels like victim blaming to me. Once again, to be clear - we should make an attempt. Just because there's an established pronunciation (or spelling) doesn't mean it is right. Overtime, established pronunciation can move towards the original pronunciation. The right pronunciation is what the speaker wants to have. You, me or the English society don't have any say in it. It doesn't matter if it is established or not. Going the extra mile in kindness helps; calling others pretentious because they ask you to empathise doesn't.
Did you miss where I said:
> you show respect by using that pronunciation when speaking TO NATIVE ENGLISH SPEAKERS.
or
> If I was speaking to someone I knew was Dutch, of course I would (try to) say "København."
Because what you're accusing me of-- and the words you're putting in my mouth "There is a common English pronunciation. It's pretentious if you don't use the common pronunciation. Show respect to the English speaker!"-- make no sense in that context.
German is full of exonyms. All languages are full of exonyms and weird pronunciations of foreign words. It is OK.
> you show respect by using that pronunciation when speaking TO NATIVE ENGLISH SPEAKERS.
or
> If I was speaking to someone I knew was Dutch, of course I would (try to) say "København."
Because what you're accusing me of-- and the words you're putting in my mouth "There is a common English pronunciation. It's pretentious if you don't use the common pronunciation. Show respect to the English speaker!"-- make no sense in that context.
German is full of exonyms. All languages are full of exonyms and weird pronunciations of foreign words. It is OK.
I'm not sure if this is a joke I don't get but speaking about weird cultural mix-ups: Copenhagen is not related to the Netherlands. I'm actually glad that people are getting EU states all mixed up but we're not there yet, guys ;)
Hahaha. Woops, Dutch, Danish, what's the difference? ;)
This is really pretty sad on my part. I was just in Copenhagen for 3 weeks a year ago, just before COVID. :P
This is really pretty sad on my part. I was just in Copenhagen for 3 weeks a year ago, just before COVID. :P
I know persons who are doing this in times. A example is a person I am knowing who say "Mexico" with Spanish accent. A first problem is this person is not a speaker of Spanish and so it is bothering on me for bad pronounsing and no interests in improvement and not in learning more Spanish. A second problem is it disruptes conversation when a person is slipping into different accent without reasoning. A third problem is it takes persons I am knowing who are not speaker of Spanish extra time for to process these remarks. I am not seeing any good reason. There exists also a difference between nation name, is fixed, and brand, for which the job is make friendly for a consumer.
Yah. It can also sometimes be difficult to distinguish between an attempt to use the native pronunciation out of respect vs. mockery. I know people that if I heard them saying "Me-hi-co" it would almost certainly be to exaggerate foreignness and to be racist.
Funny enough in my native language (portuguese), the h have no meaning on both cases.
Do you pronounce "Volvo" as "Fuhao" since it is Chinese owned now and that's their name for it there?
The realest of questions there.
Or how Chinese bought Rover and renamed it to Roewe. It's a China-only brand now.
I found a YT video saying it's "wo er wo". Which suggests they have a hard time pronouncing it, which shouldn't come as a surprise given how different their phonemes are.
Approximating it, because you can't pronounce it is one thing. Not giving a shit, even though you do have the same word (i.e. folk) is another one.
Approximating it, because you can't pronounce it is one thing. Not giving a shit, even though you do have the same word (i.e. folk) is another one.
[deleted]
The worst part of English orthography is adopting the writing conventions of literally every other language in the world and then expecting people to pronounce the words "correctly." If you want English speakers to pronounce something a certain way, it should be written use our spelling system. There's no point in shaming people for not knowing literally every language. But that's basically the system we have now.
That "correctly" needs an extra pair of scare quotes. The spelling bee competition is, essentially, the "guess the mispronounced foreign word" competition. Pejerrey? "Pay-ray". Lol.
Which spelling system? English is notorious for not having any spelling consistency.
This is an interesting observation. As a non-native speaker I was surprised by how many German expressions are used in English (with the correct German spelling). Even when there is a perfect (or near perfect) English equivalent.
However, this is pretty different as VW is a brand name so you don't have much liberty in how you write it.
However, this is pretty different as VW is a brand name so you don't have much liberty in how you write it.
Toyota was toyoda in Japanese, but they changed the spelling to look better in English. It can be done. And why not? They change the names of cars all the time. Why not the brands too?
Because brands have a value. And probably VW doesn't really care that much if some people call them wolkswagen instead of folkswagen (even if they could pronounce the latter).
Also, I don't think FW would look better than VW ;). And well, Toyota didn't change their name to look better in English (or rather, written with the Latin alphabet). At least not according to wikipedia. Quite the contrary, it was about how it was written in Japanse:
"Vehicles were originally sold under the name "Toyoda" (トヨダ), from the family name of the company's founder, Kiichirō Toyoda.
[...]
In September 1936, the company ran a public competition to design a new logo. Of 27,000 entries, the winning entry was the three Japanese katakana letters for "Toyoda" in a circle. However, Rizaburo Toyoda, who had married into the family and was not born with that name, preferred "Toyota" (トヨタ) because it took eight brush strokes (a lucky number) to write in Japanese, was visually simpler (leaving off the diacritic at the end), and with a voiceless consonant instead of a voiced one (voiced consonants are considered to have a "murky" or "muddy" sound compared to voiceless consonants, which are "clear").
Since toyoda literally means "fertile rice paddies", changing the name also prevented the company from being associated with old-fashioned farming. The newly formed word was trademarked and the company was registered in August 1937 as the Toyota Motor Company.[31][32][33]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota#1920s%E2%80%931930s
Also, I don't think FW would look better than VW ;). And well, Toyota didn't change their name to look better in English (or rather, written with the Latin alphabet). At least not according to wikipedia. Quite the contrary, it was about how it was written in Japanse:
"Vehicles were originally sold under the name "Toyoda" (トヨダ), from the family name of the company's founder, Kiichirō Toyoda.
[...]
In September 1936, the company ran a public competition to design a new logo. Of 27,000 entries, the winning entry was the three Japanese katakana letters for "Toyoda" in a circle. However, Rizaburo Toyoda, who had married into the family and was not born with that name, preferred "Toyota" (トヨタ) because it took eight brush strokes (a lucky number) to write in Japanese, was visually simpler (leaving off the diacritic at the end), and with a voiceless consonant instead of a voiced one (voiced consonants are considered to have a "murky" or "muddy" sound compared to voiceless consonants, which are "clear").
Since toyoda literally means "fertile rice paddies", changing the name also prevented the company from being associated with old-fashioned farming. The newly formed word was trademarked and the company was registered in August 1937 as the Toyota Motor Company.[31][32][33]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota#1920s%E2%80%931930s
Except that English does not have a "spelling system". At all. Even a passing glance at English would reveal that.
Does it bother you when Germans say "zis"? German has no "th" sound, so "zis" is what they start with before they practice. It's similarly grating to Germans to hear their language mispronounced by others.
And yet, English has an "f" sound. German has an extremely consistent spelling and essentially all "v"s are pronounced as "f". We share (the latin) alphabet, and English has absolutely no authority, given how inconsistent it is.
Given that, I will say the voiced "V" when speaking English and the unvoiced, as necessary, speaking German.
And yet, English has an "f" sound. German has an extremely consistent spelling and essentially all "v"s are pronounced as "f". We share (the latin) alphabet, and English has absolutely no authority, given how inconsistent it is.
Given that, I will say the voiced "V" when speaking English and the unvoiced, as necessary, speaking German.
'bother' me? No, not at all, the sounds are close enough I get the meaning, mostly from context.
I am not sure why there should be an emotional factor here, as expecting everybody to conform to some pronunciation ideal they have no experience with is arrogant, to say the least.
I am not sure why there should be an emotional factor here, as expecting everybody to conform to some pronunciation ideal they have no experience with is arrogant, to say the least.
Well you claimed that Americans are pronouncing it "perfectly correctly," and Germans might disagree. It's a German word which has been Americanized. The company mostly doesn't care, but there is a single correct pronunciation in their native language. Insisting you are correct mispronouncing a foreign word because the letters look a certain way is just hubris.
> there is a single correct pronunciation in their native language
But see, that's the point. We're not speaking German when we use a borrowed word in English. It's no longer a purely German word, despite its origins, just as "xylophone" isn't a mispronounced Greek word, nor "Handy" a misused and miscapitalized English word.
That's not hubris, it's just descriptivism.
But see, that's the point. We're not speaking German when we use a borrowed word in English. It's no longer a purely German word, despite its origins, just as "xylophone" isn't a mispronounced Greek word, nor "Handy" a misused and miscapitalized English word.
That's not hubris, it's just descriptivism.
It's not just a word, it's a name. Names have a single correct pronunciation, they're not supposed to be translated.
Americans are pronouncing the English word Volkswagen perfectly correctly yes. BECAUSE THEY ARE SPEAKING ENGLISH
I would follow your logic if the english pronunciation of the word Volkswagen was actually phonetically consistent. But while "Volks" is pronounced in an english way, isn't the word "wagen" pronounced in a weird German way?
"Wagen" on its own would probably be pronounced like way-gen, if my english intuition is not fooling me. Instead it is pronounced like wuh-gen.
I don't really care about this either way but if you are bothered by something the weird mixture is.. a bit annoying.
"Wagen" on its own would probably be pronounced like way-gen, if my english intuition is not fooling me. Instead it is pronounced like wuh-gen.
I don't really care about this either way but if you are bothered by something the weird mixture is.. a bit annoying.
It's not just a word, it's a name. Names have a single correct pronunciation, they're not supposed to be translated.
> Does it bother you when Germans say "zis"?
Nope.
Nope.
No, I am not bothered by someone having an accent when speaking a second language. It's just a thing, not a good or bad thing.
Accent is an inevitable part of second language speakers. I've lived in US most of my life, but English is not my native language and I started learning it around the age of 5 and at the age of 25 after living here more than 20 years, I still have a distinct accent I can't get rid of. It's just the way things are, human brain seems to learn pronunciation differently when we're a child.
This same goes for English speakers too. I know how Volkswagen is supposed to be pronounced (I know some German) but that's not the way English speakers would say it.
I don't think there is anything to be bothered by any of this. This just adds to our diversity.
This same goes for English speakers too. I know how Volkswagen is supposed to be pronounced (I know some German) but that's not the way English speakers would say it.
I don't think there is anything to be bothered by any of this. This just adds to our diversity.
Vice versa, it's interesting to me why German speakers tend to approximate the pronunciation of e.g. "think" as "sink", rather than "fink" or "vink". There's even some British accents where it sounds more like "fink". English is hard :D
> Does it bother you when Germans say "zis"?
It just bothers the historical linguistics nerd in me that all the other Germanic languages (other than Icelandic) lost the beautiful Thorn and Edh sounds consonants :-)
I've always found it interesting that the German approximation is "z" here when it could be "t" or "d", since that is what "th" sounds turned into in Old Franconian.
It just bothers the historical linguistics nerd in me that all the other Germanic languages (other than Icelandic) lost the beautiful Thorn and Edh sounds consonants :-)
I've always found it interesting that the German approximation is "z" here when it could be "t" or "d", since that is what "th" sounds turned into in Old Franconian.
No one cares what Germans think about people abusing their language. I personally have zero issues with accents or mispronunciations here and there by non-native speakers. That smells of "fear of the other" to me and taking easy potshots at people I consider my full equal isn't cool. If I feel a little "anger" then that's a fallacy in me not in their pronunciation. As long as I can understand we're good otherwise we'll work it out someway or other.
> It's similarly grating to Germans to hear their language mispronounced by others.
Americans are generally very tolerant and patient with non-native speakers butchering proper english. So no, it's not nearly as grating to an American to hear people mispronounce english words than it might be for Germans.
Americans are generally very tolerant and patient with non-native speakers butchering proper english. So no, it's not nearly as grating to an American to hear people mispronounce english words than it might be for Germans.
Sorry, but just noticed you were using an English-only term to describe the homeland of someone who doesn't live in your country. The correct term is Deutschland.
How to pronounce jalapeno?
¿Cómo pronunciar jalapeño? ;-) Halapeinyo ;-)))
The i in your pei shan't be there, the sound is a flat peh. All of the syllables are flat sounds, hah-lah-peh-nyo.
SMH. Claramente no entiendes español.
Pein, not pei.
It's not "peh," it's "pān" unless you're a gringo.
If you want to get technical: hæləˈpeɪnjoʊ, hä″lə-pān′yō, or xa.laˈpɛ.ɲɔ.
FYI: "Shan't" means "shall not," not "should not." Maybe don't use archaic language if you don't know how to use it. ;-)
Pein, not pei.
It's not "peh," it's "pān" unless you're a gringo.
If you want to get technical: hæləˈpeɪnjoʊ, hä″lə-pān′yō, or xa.laˈpɛ.ɲɔ.
FYI: "Shan't" means "shall not," not "should not." Maybe don't use archaic language if you don't know how to use it. ;-)
English used to fragmented enough for v being pronounced as f as attested by the related "fox" and "vixen"
Nope. It's not about using similar phonemes instead of the actual ones a German would use. It's trying to pronounce the wrong word/name. The name doesn't start with a V but with an F. It's just written with a V. It's nothing Americans can't pronounce.
If you argued that you can't pronounce 'Wagen' as the Germans do ("'vaːɡn̩", according to Wikipedia), that would be a different thing. But we're not talking about that.
Indeed, the word, i.e. folk, you are not willing to pronounce happen to exist in English as well and can mean the same (or very similar) thing. "Volk" (i.e. "wolk") OTOH doesn't mean anything in either languages. (It does mean wolf in Russian, though ;) )
People's car or you could say "Folk's Wagon" (or maybe "Folks' Wagon"). Yeah, weird choice of words and won't exactly sound like it was German but close enough, kind of meaningful and nothing you couldn't pronounce. Just remember to write is as VolksWagen.
If you argued that you can't pronounce 'Wagen' as the Germans do ("'vaːɡn̩", according to Wikipedia), that would be a different thing. But we're not talking about that.
Indeed, the word, i.e. folk, you are not willing to pronounce happen to exist in English as well and can mean the same (or very similar) thing. "Volk" (i.e. "wolk") OTOH doesn't mean anything in either languages. (It does mean wolf in Russian, though ;) )
People's car or you could say "Folk's Wagon" (or maybe "Folks' Wagon"). Yeah, weird choice of words and won't exactly sound like it was German but close enough, kind of meaningful and nothing you couldn't pronounce. Just remember to write is as VolksWagen.
I never did quite master what the Germans do with their "n"s. I live near Washington and can never quite master their pronunciation of that, either.
Um, that doesn't make an incorrect pronunciation correct. That's not how anything works.
The point is that it is a correct pronunciation in English, as Volkswagen is also an English word.
Reminds me of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rA-BSuog7o
[deleted]
They most certainly did not want Americans pronouncing it in German when they came to the US after WWII. Hell, they called them Victory Wagon at first.
Maybe they grew tired of Americans pronouncing it wrong
Americans learned how to pronounce "Volkswagen" from 50 years of Volkswagen's own advertising. They didn't just make it up on their own.
Americans learned how to pronounce "Volkswagen" from 50 years of Volkswagen's own advertising. They didn't just make it up on their own.
"Americans" here referring to Volkswagen USA's marketing department, rather than customers?
https://youtu.be/kkdmz0XRrS4?t=26
https://youtu.be/kkdmz0XRrS4?t=26
It was vutile effort from the start.
Obligatory reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MUsVcYhERY
Edit: more complete version.
Edit: more complete version.
Some Americans have pronounced it "Voltswagen", not sure why.
I wonder if it would be less confusing to Germans if we used "Fow Vay" to pronounce the abbreviation. Instead of "Vee Double-You." I'm not being sarcastic, but I don't think a change to the correct pronunciation is likely.
I wonder if it would be less confusing to Germans if we used "Fow Vay" to pronounce the abbreviation. Instead of "Vee Double-You." I'm not being sarcastic, but I don't think a change to the correct pronunciation is likely.
Double-You is just ridiculous in the first place. I cringe a bit every time I have to say "AWS", but that's just because it's much smoother in German.
Do you actually pronounce it like "double-you" (with 3 syllables) in that context?
I'm a native speaker from the US South, and hadn't realized this until I read your comment. For me, the "W" always gets shortened to "dub-you" in AWS (or "dubya" if I'm not being picky about it). Standalone, I might pronounce "W" more like "dub-a-you if I'm emphasizing it, but not usually.
Anyhow, thanks for pointing this out. I will also now forever think that "double-you" is ridiculous.
I'm a native speaker from the US South, and hadn't realized this until I read your comment. For me, the "W" always gets shortened to "dub-you" in AWS (or "dubya" if I'm not being picky about it). Standalone, I might pronounce "W" more like "dub-a-you if I'm emphasizing it, but not usually.
Anyhow, thanks for pointing this out. I will also now forever think that "double-you" is ridiculous.
I’m a native speaker from the north and west US and it’s definitely “double-u”. A double-u S. In my experience only Southerners shorten it the way you describe.
No kidding! Do you even pronounce the "l" sound in "double" (and if so, dub-el or dub-ull or something else)?
It's always fascinating to be reminded that I'm still basically ear-blind to certain linguistic patterns (the "pen/pin" merger being one I still can't even hear as different, let alone say). For a long time, I falsely assumed that because I grew up watching the same TV shows as the rest of the country, and because I didn't speak with the same accent as my family members, that I didn't have an accent at all. Turns out I do - I just can't hear it.
It's always fascinating to be reminded that I'm still basically ear-blind to certain linguistic patterns (the "pen/pin" merger being one I still can't even hear as different, let alone say). For a long time, I falsely assumed that because I grew up watching the same TV shows as the rest of the country, and because I didn't speak with the same accent as my family members, that I didn't have an accent at all. Turns out I do - I just can't hear it.
Everyone I’ve been around says “dub-ull”. I moved from Michigan to Utah as an adult and pen/pin can be very close here, which I find annoying because I don’t want my kids to pick up the Utah accent... but of course they have.
I took Linguistics in college and my professor could tell where people were from in the US within a couple hundred miles by their accent. Anyone who thinks they don’t have an accent absolutely does. Except maybe Nebraskans — I read somewhere that they have the most neutral, “correct” American accent, though I don’t think it was a scientific source.
I took Linguistics in college and my professor could tell where people were from in the US within a couple hundred miles by their accent. Anyone who thinks they don’t have an accent absolutely does. Except maybe Nebraskans — I read somewhere that they have the most neutral, “correct” American accent, though I don’t think it was a scientific source.
"AWS" ends up being more like "ay-dub-yes", doesn't it?
Nearly, but unless I'm speaking with family members / other people with thick southern accent, I try to keep the "u" sound present - though it's more like the French "u" than the "you" sound. So typically it sounds like 'ay-dub-yuez", with a short pause between the "yu" and "ez". It's the sound that would be in between "Suez" (like the canal) and "swez". Replacing the "yu" sound with the "ya", does indeed end up sounding like slightly elongated "yes".
Btw, how do Germans generally pronounce "volt"? Folt? 230 fau? Or is it like wolt and we?
Does the name change still make sense in German?
Does the name change still make sense in German?
No the pronunciation would be similar (english V, not F) between German and English for Voltswagen. That's part of the joke.
Ok, so you'd be switching from "fau we" to "we we", which makes it make even less sense...
I noticed that the German site hasn't changed anything, seems to be a US thing only.
I noticed that the German site hasn't changed anything, seems to be a US thing only.
Ya, this is like releasing superbowl ads weeks out now so they don't get lost in the flurry of activity a few days out
You mean like jokeswagen? http://voltswagen.com/ is a parked domain, no pun intended, so I think it's all hype.
They will pay premium for not snapping the domain name first and then releasing their PR peace...
Agreed. The Post says it's no joke: https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2021/03/30/voltswage...
Reuters says it's a joke https://www.reuters.com/article/us-volkswagen-usa-name/no-vw...
Looks like the domain was already registered in 2003: https://whois.domaintools.com/voltswagen.com
The whole thing was an elaborate joke: https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/30/volkswagens-name-change-of-u...
Kinda sums up their efforts so far on electrical vehicles.
How so? The Taycan (and eTron GT) is an excellent car; the ID4 is receiving okay reviews despite choosing a different space in the compromise space than other makers, and they have a large slate of upcoming cars that seem decent to great. I think that within 5 years, VW AG will be selling more electric cars than Tesla.
This is the Long Island Iced Tea Corp. to Long Blockchain Corp. stunt-rebrand, writ large.
They're still called Long Blockchain; they even changed their ticker symbol to LBCC. I wonder if VW will be as committed.
They're still called Long Blockchain; they even changed their ticker symbol to LBCC. I wonder if VW will be as committed.
I thought the same, it sounds completely ridiculous.
Entirely appropriate for the new direction.
I dig it ... (speaking as someone who still sees their average cars as steam engine, emission test defeaters)
I dig it ... (speaking as someone who still sees their average cars as steam engine, emission test defeaters)
>I dig it
At least there's two of us amongst the sea of ridiculue.
At least there's two of us amongst the sea of ridiculue.
Make that 3. I'm not going to go out and buy their car, but I don't see how this is ridiculous in any way. 50 years from now, people may look back and think "yes, that was the moment that really marked their switch to EVs"
[deleted]
Their ID.4 website[0] has copy that uses Voltswagen liberally.
[0] https://www.vw.com/en/models/id-4.html
[0] https://www.vw.com/en/models/id-4.html
No, it's not a joke. https://electrek.co/2021/03/29/its-not-april-fools-yet-vw-wi...
It turns out that they did.
https://nypost.com/2021/03/30/vw-says-voltswagen-rebrand-was...
https://nypost.com/2021/03/30/vw-says-voltswagen-rebrand-was...
Surely this is it. I know that the wold today can be a bit stupid, but this is too much.
I think it's likely they're feeling that their EV product isn't compelling enough to stand out on its own, so they need to do something ridiculous to capture attention and hopefully gain market share in the EV market.
I've seen mention that this was initially supposed to be released on April 29 and gone out March 29 by accident, so... Yes?
they may not even have the site by the name registered
Looking at the DNS records it's definitely a joke.
How so?
.com for example was only reserved today and is using a domain parking service. Things like this would have been prepared if it was a serious rebranding.
AFAICT it was registered in 2003
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26637476
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26637476
You're correct. Mistake on my side.
mc32(1)
Supposedly they insist on it not being a joke.
But Voltswaken, honstely if that isn't a joke it's sad. It is basically guaranteed to be a typo crisis. I can just say have fun, to all the banks and other companies doing business with it.
But Voltswaken, honstely if that isn't a joke it's sad. It is basically guaranteed to be a typo crisis. I can just say have fun, to all the banks and other companies doing business with it.
They're now saying that it was in fact a joke.
Confirmed fake: https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/30/volkswagens-name-change-of-u...
"Media outlets ... reported it as news after it was confirmed by unnamed sources within the company, who apparently lied to several reporters."
"Media outlets ... reported it as news after it was confirmed by unnamed sources within the company, who apparently lied to several reporters."
But... they literally put it as a press release on their site with a date of today. Then again, VW knows a thing or two about faking reports
I happened to still have it in my browser so I took a screenshot for anyone who missed it.
https://i.imgur.com/kJLMX5L.png
https://i.imgur.com/kJLMX5L.png
For decades, people have been doing DIY EV conversions based on the VW Beetle, and the colloquial term for them has been "Voltswagens".
It's surreal to see it embraced by a company that, just a few years ago, was pushing diesel to the point of a planet-scale fraud.
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then... you win?
It's surreal to see it embraced by a company that, just a few years ago, was pushing diesel to the point of a planet-scale fraud.
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then... you win?
I'm no fan of the fraud but I'm happy to see the agility / change.
Nothing for "Voltswagen" in the United States Patent and Trademark Office Trademark Electronic Search System (TESS) yet.
https://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/gate.exe?f=login&p_lang=engli...
Don't see anything in Germany either:
https://register.dpma.de/DPMAregister/marke/basis.kopf.form
https://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/gate.exe?f=login&p_lang=engli...
Don't see anything in Germany either:
https://register.dpma.de/DPMAregister/marke/basis.kopf.form
This is the best evidence yet that this is indeed an April Fool's prank.
If it was, it's gotta be one of the good ones. Bordering on truth (still people are trying to work out whether it's real or prank), good media coverage, and even if called out – will only end up having a positive association with their electrification efforts.
I'm not certain but if they were serious there would be legal filings of some sort. I'm not an expert in trademarks and I understand that sometimes trademarks can be filed but held in confidence until a company is ready--Apple does this if I recall correctly.
Whois is also less than certain. Domain redirects to a generic parking site.
https://www.whois.com/whois/voltswagen.com
Whois is also less than certain. Domain redirects to a generic parking site.
https://www.whois.com/whois/voltswagen.com
(IAAL but this is not legal advice, and I could be incorrect in certain aspects. Consult a licensed attorney for legal advice.)
With respect to the USPTO, I believe only patent applications can be filed confidentially. FCC applications can also be filed confidentially. But I believe trademark applications are published immediately upon filing, because the essence of a trademark is use in commerce. You don't need to file a trademark application with the USPTO to be protected by trademark law, but it is an important element of notice, which is relevant when determining certain aspects of infringement claims.
With respect to the USPTO, I believe only patent applications can be filed confidentially. FCC applications can also be filed confidentially. But I believe trademark applications are published immediately upon filing, because the essence of a trademark is use in commerce. You don't need to file a trademark application with the USPTO to be protected by trademark law, but it is an important element of notice, which is relevant when determining certain aspects of infringement claims.
Taking a look at the website the ID.4 is branded as "Voltswagen ID.4". Looks pretty serious to me.
https://www.vw.com/en/models/id-4.html
https://www.vw.com/en/models/id-4.html
Not that surprising. If they were planning on doing a surprise name change at the end of April, registering the trademark a month early would have spoiled the surprise. Plus it wouldn't give any advantage. Voltswagen would be protected by their Volkswagen trademark, and trademarks don't even offer protection until you submit proof of you already using them in commerce. And you don't have to register trademarks to have common law protections in the US, and they aren't planning to use it in Germany.
Someone has been playing the long game of domain speculation:
https://who.is/whois/voltswagen.com
Registered On: 2003-04-18
Expires On: 2021-04-18Does this mean they have shifted their focus to cheating on battery capacity?
[deleted]
To do that all they have to do is advertise the Euro WLT ratings.
WLTP?
NEFZ was unrealistic so we better introduce WLTP, which is even more unrealistic. Cool.
According to Wikipedia ratings under WLTP are much lower than under NEDC so your comment doesn't seem to make a ton of sense to me.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worldwide_Harmonised_Light_Veh...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worldwide_Harmonised_Light_Veh...
Remember how i said "unrealistic" and not "lower"? WLTP is a rather unrealistic way to determine fuel consumption or energy usage on cars. If you look at sites which collect fuel usage for cars you often times see fuel usages considerably higher than what WLTP defines. Especially if it's a PHEV since WLTP expects a full battery all the time. Under 2L/100km for a 2 ton SUV is not realistic by any stretch of the imagination. The numbers on https://www.spritmonitor.de/ for example seem to allign more with EPA in my experience.
> Especially if it's a PHEV since WLTP expects a full battery all the time. Under 2L/100km for a 2 ton SUV is not realistic by any stretch of the imagination. The numbers on https://www.spritmonitor.de/ for example seem to allign more with EPA in my experience.
There's a question as to what you're trying to model; if you're looking at daily usage then relatively short distances from fully charged are probably relatively representative of a lot of usage (the mean and median distances driven on a daily basis are relatively short distances!).
https://www.spritmonitor.de/en/overview/0-All_manufactures/0... shows that data is somewhat all over the place v. manufacturer data, with some being close and others very far away from it.
In reality, I suspect what would be useful is to have a further cycle based on a 100km journey largely on a motorway, as a long-distance extra-urban cycle?
There's a question as to what you're trying to model; if you're looking at daily usage then relatively short distances from fully charged are probably relatively representative of a lot of usage (the mean and median distances driven on a daily basis are relatively short distances!).
https://www.spritmonitor.de/en/overview/0-All_manufactures/0... shows that data is somewhat all over the place v. manufacturer data, with some being close and others very far away from it.
In reality, I suspect what would be useful is to have a further cycle based on a 100km journey largely on a motorway, as a long-distance extra-urban cycle?
Very good question: WLTP has just a number for you.
PHEVs may not be a good idea depending on your driving style. There should be more discussion about what type of engine is the correct one for you before buying. Do you drive enough motorway regularly that a diesel would make sense? Do you drive shorter distances but you cannot charge? Can you charge but you sometimes need more range? Maybe even a PHEV diesel would make sense, but that is a type of vehicle that was rare and is now even rarer.
Technology was improved a lot over the last decades. If you'd record the WLTP tests you could maybe build a system which would accurately calculate your fuel usage for your type of driving and define if a PHEV or a diesel would make any sense for you.
PHEVs may not be a good idea depending on your driving style. There should be more discussion about what type of engine is the correct one for you before buying. Do you drive enough motorway regularly that a diesel would make sense? Do you drive shorter distances but you cannot charge? Can you charge but you sometimes need more range? Maybe even a PHEV diesel would make sense, but that is a type of vehicle that was rare and is now even rarer.
Technology was improved a lot over the last decades. If you'd record the WLTP tests you could maybe build a system which would accurately calculate your fuel usage for your type of driving and define if a PHEV or a diesel would make any sense for you.
So your criticism is actually in the context of ICE and PHEVs - I assumed you meant pure EVs since that what this thread seemed to be about, and for those autonomy numbers seem to be strictly lower, hence my confusion why WLTP would be more doctored in this regard than NECD.
I have looked at the Model 3 and Hyundai Ioniq and even there the energy usage seems to be rather off. 15 kWh/100km WLTP vs 19 kWh/100km according to spritmonitor on the Model 3. 11 vs 14 with the Ioniq.
So yeah, it seems like WLTP is not really accurate for EVs either.
So yeah, it seems like WLTP is not really accurate for EVs either.
Right, but then that number would have been even more off with NEDC, since that would give them higher range / lower consumption figures.
That seems to be true with Teslas. But at the end of the day it does not matter, since the number that you get with WLTP is useless.
Only Clean Diesel's will get this joke
Isn't that Teslas turf? Seems to be the only company that includes reserve / zero range remaining in its official EPA numbers.
That doesn't really fit their mo. They'll probably cheat on efficiency.
Do you have any genuine insight into VW company culture, or are you just extrapolating from one scandal?
Just one little old scandal, huh.
From what I have seen VW had a sort of genuine reckoning with the whole diesel issue. They have reinvented themselves, shed cruft, cut all fuel vehicle development and completely devoted themselves to an electric future (vehicles, batteries, chargers). They have turned things around wholesale and are now producing amazing, relatively affordable electric vehicles (their new id.4 SUV will debut in the US for just a little more than a tricked out Honda CR-V, once you factor in the federal tax credit).
I was excited by Tesla but they remained expensive. Now feel like VW will have a chance to bring electric vehicles to a much larger group of people... a group I fit into and I can't wait.
I was excited by Tesla but they remained expensive. Now feel like VW will have a chance to bring electric vehicles to a much larger group of people... a group I fit into and I can't wait.
It's going to take a lot more than going completely EV for me to for me to believe they have changed. Of course they went to EVs, it's the market. Of course they changed course, they were dealing with one of their worst scandals of all time. Of course they say they've changed, but how can we really trust them anymore?
Given where they are today would they need to do to cause you to believe they have changed?
If they ran a campaign of donating to environmental protection charities, carbon capture, or some other means of protecting the planet, with a value equal to that of the money of the revenue of their diesel cheating vehicles sales, I would say they have changed.
Until then, I still think they are doing what they do for the sake of profit.
Until then, I still think they are doing what they do for the sake of profit.
If they did what you suggest, wouldn't you also conclude that they are doing it for the sake of (future) profit?
I would, but also, if they can rectify the damage they have done, then it becomes easier to forgive. I understand all companies seek profit and need to. I'm not against that, but I am against doing it illegally while harming our health and environment.
They are always doing what they do for the sake of profit, it's just that being profitable is harder when the planet is fucking on fire.[1][2]
[1] https://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/triple-bottom-line.asp
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFgBFYkBZ6E
[1] https://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/triple-bottom-line.asp
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFgBFYkBZ6E
A full blown social media crucifixion and cancellation to appease the frothing masses. Then [user] can reap the feel good vibes of knowing that even though they missed out on the Summer of Love, they were there when VW got served.
Good grief, no one believes in contrition anymore. No one even believes in the past or the future. They were always this way, they're this way now, and they always will be! There are no mistakes, only lapses that expose your "true" eternal character.
Good grief, no one believes in contrition anymore. No one even believes in the past or the future. They were always this way, they're this way now, and they always will be! There are no mistakes, only lapses that expose your "true" eternal character.
Despite all the focus on Tesla, companies that makes a minimal, good and inexpensive electric car/truck will win big as far as I'm concerned. Bonus points for an iconic look.
Both of those are hard. A big powerful sedan is the best case for electric. You get the big power for free, and you don't end up that heavier or more expensive than a powerful gasoline drivetrain.
Small low power cars and trucks that need to be able to tow are the worst case. Giving up the big power doesn't really save you any mass or cost, and trucks need a bigger gas "tank". But perhaps if the tabless and structural battery thing works out, it will get us to both of those cases.
Small low power cars and trucks that need to be able to tow are the worst case. Giving up the big power doesn't really save you any mass or cost, and trucks need a bigger gas "tank". But perhaps if the tabless and structural battery thing works out, it will get us to both of those cases.
Base model ID.4 SUV for approximately $33,000 (price taking US government tax break into account. $39,995-$7,500) is getting very close to that. A mid-20's priced EV would be amazing but low 30's is starting to get within range of a lot of people (and it ends up being nearly $10,000 less than nearest competitor Tesla's Model Y... best price I could find was $41,290... which sadly no longer qualifies for the same tax break. If it did I would probably say the Tesla is a better deal).
Here's the EV that is outselling Tesla in China. Priced at US$5k: https://thedriven.io/2021/03/01/wuling-mini-outsells-tesla-m...
Maybe not iconic, however.
Maybe not iconic, however.
So can I now go into a VW / Audi dealer in North America and buy an EV off a lot?
Because every time I look (and I've looked constantly since I traded my Jetta TDI for cash in dieselgate) I still can't. And they are issuing a new press release every few months promising mass production EVs next year.
Back in 2017/2018 when this all went down they actually removed all electrified cars from their lineup. Stopped making new Audi A3 e-Trons, removed the hybrid Jetta from their lineup, and only made about 500 outdated (several year old design) eGolfs with a small battery for all of the Canadian market with a year and a half waiting list to get in one. All the while trumpeting how committed they were to electrification and how this was the future. So, I bought a GM EV instead.
And, yep, I just went to the local VW dealer's website and they have only one car with an electric motor in it, the 2019 eGolf with a 35kWh battery. That's it and I know exactly how it would go down if I were to call the dealer and ask to test drive one.
And last I looked the id.3 isn't coming to North America and the id.4 is a "maybe next year" kind of deal and the electric van they've been promising since about 2015 is now projected for 2023 when I recall in previous press releases talk about it coming out several years ago.
I'm sorry, they're greenwashing, they're desperate, and they're trying to milk as much out of the ICE while they can while playing a PR game. People trash GM's EV efforts as "compliance cars" but at least I can actually buy a Bolt.
Because every time I look (and I've looked constantly since I traded my Jetta TDI for cash in dieselgate) I still can't. And they are issuing a new press release every few months promising mass production EVs next year.
Back in 2017/2018 when this all went down they actually removed all electrified cars from their lineup. Stopped making new Audi A3 e-Trons, removed the hybrid Jetta from their lineup, and only made about 500 outdated (several year old design) eGolfs with a small battery for all of the Canadian market with a year and a half waiting list to get in one. All the while trumpeting how committed they were to electrification and how this was the future. So, I bought a GM EV instead.
And, yep, I just went to the local VW dealer's website and they have only one car with an electric motor in it, the 2019 eGolf with a 35kWh battery. That's it and I know exactly how it would go down if I were to call the dealer and ask to test drive one.
And last I looked the id.3 isn't coming to North America and the id.4 is a "maybe next year" kind of deal and the electric van they've been promising since about 2015 is now projected for 2023 when I recall in previous press releases talk about it coming out several years ago.
I'm sorry, they're greenwashing, they're desperate, and they're trying to milk as much out of the ICE while they can while playing a PR game. People trash GM's EV efforts as "compliance cars" but at least I can actually buy a Bolt.
> And last I looked the id.3 isn't coming to North America and the id.4 is a "maybe next year" kind of deal and the electric van they've been promising since about 2015 is now projected for 2023 when I recall in previous press releases talk about it coming out several years ago.
This is false, the ID4 is already being sold in US. ID3 is in fact not going to US.
This is false, the ID4 is already being sold in US. ID3 is in fact not going to US.
What I've read is: very limited quantities for 2021. At least for us here in Canadia. I've seen this enough with VW to know that that means a few hundred almost all sent to Quebec (which has California-like EV quotas while other provinces don't).
This is basically my take too - dealers suck and will make this an uphill battle even if VW is being honest about their EV intentions.
GM has improved now, but when I looked at Volts it was similar (dealers knowing nothing, actively hostile to me trying to buy a car from them).
I have a Model 3 now and think its features are really not available in the competition at any price point, but especially sub 40k.
GM has improved now, but when I looked at Volts it was similar (dealers knowing nothing, actively hostile to me trying to buy a car from them).
I have a Model 3 now and think its features are really not available in the competition at any price point, but especially sub 40k.
My Audi dealer has the e-tron.
Or just conveniently try to escape their shady origins.
Well to be honest the cheating was pretty much only done so the cars wouldn't be unbearably slow. And every other european car manufacturer basically did the same. Once the targets become impossible to reach for everyone, you start cheating.
Yep, you have bureaucrats at the EPA pulling numbers out of their asses that become impossible to meet and still have a car that people would want or can afford. So they find a way to meet the "letter of the law" and pass the tests. Sort of like what CPAs do when they prepare your tax return.
That isn't true. It was done so they didn't have to install NOx cleaning technologies. Modern US based diesels have SCR, and EGR systems that help remove NOx and particulates from the exhaust (or prevent it from forming). However, they add thousands to the cost and complexity.
SCR systems are very expensive in modern VWs as well. Especially to repair. With the additional pressure on the engine because of restrictive exhausts engines also don't last as long. EGR systems on diesels are known to gunk up. VW used SCR systems since 2009 if you didn't know.
You get cheated every day by big corps and don't complain do you?
I think I'm complaining in my own way right now :)
Pronunciation is no longer “folks wagen” but “faults wagen”. The classic German ironic sense of humor.
"V" can be randomly soft or hard, "Volk" is pronounced like "Folk" but "Volt" like "Wolt". THere's no real equivalent sound in English, I think.
But, yeah, I've owned several VWs and electrical wiring is usually faulty so I'll go with Faultswagen as well.
But, yeah, I've owned several VWs and electrical wiring is usually faulty so I'll go with Faultswagen as well.
Volt uses "W" sound instead of F, because Volt comes from the name of Italian physicist Allessandro Volta. Italian sound for V is W or english V.
Are there proper German words that don't read V as F? I've been lead to believe German is strict with phonem/letter combination.
Are there proper German words that don't read V as F? I've been lead to believe German is strict with phonem/letter combination.
Excellent question, running through a few options in my mind "Version and Variation" come to mind. I'm not sure those qualify as a proper German words, probably not.
Is my understanding correct that loan words are usually pronounced according to the donor language? (e.g. "das Handy") I seem to remember V is special somehow too, for historical reasons.
If I am reading Duden right, Version is directly a French loanword:
https://www.duden.de/rechtschreibung/Version
while Variation is "influenced" by French:
https://www.duden.de/rechtschreibung/Variation
If I am reading Duden right, Version is directly a French loanword:
https://www.duden.de/rechtschreibung/Version
while Variation is "influenced" by French:
https://www.duden.de/rechtschreibung/Variation
Not really. Volt is pronounced like a soft w, not like an F.
But they must have known that people won't know that, so you still have a valid point.
But they must have known that people won't know that, so you still have a valid point.
I always thought the NA pronunciation was "Walks Wegon". xD.
Imagine telling someone in 2003 that this was going to happen. It would have been seen as a joke (as some are seeing it today) or something that absolutely wouldn't happen.
If this is not a joke, this seems like the best indicator that Tesla is meeting it's mission to "accelerate the world's transition to sustainable energy."
Tip of the hat to Elon.
If this is not a joke, this seems like the best indicator that Tesla is meeting it's mission to "accelerate the world's transition to sustainable energy."
Tip of the hat to Elon.
It's more like Volkswagen's attempt to get rid of the bad PR from the emission cheat scandal.
Without that electronic cars wouldn't be on VW's agenda.
I don't believe that at all. These giant companies are not just in the business of fending off bad PR, they're looking to make a lot of money for their investors, for decades to come.
Reminds me of the Netflix / Qwikster fiasco. They can still transform without changing their name. Less effort and resource on PR, more effort on the sustainability part.
Isn't it more likely that it's just electric's time? Like when you see a bunch of people inventing similar things, not because they're copying the first person, but the rest of the context is such that the invention is finally important and achievable? Maybe I'm just being contrarian, but I feel like this "first mover was a visionary compared to the second or third" thing is like the Great Person theory of history and overdone.
And people will twist it either way. A second mover doesn't appear soon, so the first is way ahead, or a second mover does appear, so it must be because of the first's influence.
And people will twist it either way. A second mover doesn't appear soon, so the first is way ahead, or a second mover does appear, so it must be because of the first's influence.
Just checking the calendar. Nope not April 1st yet!
It is a premature April fools joke.
This is what happens in a meeting when someone says "there are no bad ideas". This is the sort of three beer spitballing that normally you come up with as a gag and yet they're committing to it, and whilst it's US only the likelihood is they'll do some aggressive product placement and get some global recognition around it.
I felt this way when Apple removed ‘Computer’ from their name. Years later we see that it wasn’t just a name change but alignment to their company strategy.
I’m cautiously optimistic that Volkswagen is signaling a similar change in their mission and leadership’s intent to change.
I’m cautiously optimistic that Volkswagen is signaling a similar change in their mission and leadership’s intent to change.
> This is what happens in a meeting when someone says "there are no bad ideas".
No, I think this is what happens as the date approaches April 1st.
No, I think this is what happens as the date approaches April 1st.
What's wrong with the name Voltswagen? I like it.
Most likely this is even an April fools and a good one (idea) because it hit all the big media ;)
If this isn't a joke, it actually does make sense. Easier to pronounce in english. Means electric car... the growth category. Why not?
"Volkswagen" is big enough that the name just means the company/product. But, it isn't really good brand name for an anglo market. You either can't pronounce it, or the literal connotation makes you a little uncomfortable.
"Volkswagen" is big enough that the name just means the company/product. But, it isn't really good brand name for an anglo market. You either can't pronounce it, or the literal connotation makes you a little uncomfortable.
I guess Tesla and Faraday were already taken. This is ridiculous. I hope this is a case of an April fools joke delivered according to German punctuality.
What is the literal connotation?
I guess that's because they didn't change the name in Germany as well. "Volkswagen" is really easy to pronounce in German, but "Voltswagen" is just weird.
I mean, the "launched by Hitler" part doesn't seem to bother people, so why would the name?
> or the literal connotation makes you a little uncomfortable.
How so? "The people's car" seems rather innocuous to me. My only guess would be that it could make some American anti-socialists uncomfortable?
How so? "The people's car" seems rather innocuous to me. My only guess would be that it could make some American anti-socialists uncomfortable?
I previously owned a VW, but swore on my life that I'd never buy another one after the emissions cheating scandal. There are plenty of reasons why a VW likely wont be my next choice, but I'm softening my stance a bit.
What they did was absolutely reprehensible, but I later learned that the more accurate story is that they bore the brunt of media attention for something that nearly every auto manufacturer was later found to be doing -
https://www.forbes.com/sites/peterlyon/2018/07/09/nissan-adm...
That doesn't make it any less wrong, but it does put them back on par with just about every other auto manufacturer in my mind. And it does seem (as others have cited) like there was some genuine change that followed.
What they did was absolutely reprehensible, but I later learned that the more accurate story is that they bore the brunt of media attention for something that nearly every auto manufacturer was later found to be doing -
https://www.forbes.com/sites/peterlyon/2018/07/09/nissan-adm...
That doesn't make it any less wrong, but it does put them back on par with just about every other auto manufacturer in my mind. And it does seem (as others have cited) like there was some genuine change that followed.
Same boat here, I had a VW and sold it about a year and half ago. I will not be buying one again, they've lost me.
But also, I don't really appreciate what any of the car manufacturers have been doing (location tracking, internet connectivity, subscription services, etc). Since I sold the VW, I haven't bought a car, and am currently without a car. I don't plan on buying one anytime in the near future.
But also, I don't really appreciate what any of the car manufacturers have been doing (location tracking, internet connectivity, subscription services, etc). Since I sold the VW, I haven't bought a car, and am currently without a car. I don't plan on buying one anytime in the near future.
Me too, only owned a used old Toyota (pre ABS and OBDII) since and right now nothing. The VW I leased was a 2014 so I just managed to miss out on the era of rearview cameras though
D00d, pre ABS and OBD II? My 13-years-old car feels state-of-the-art! :))
Aftermarket rearview cameras are dirt cheap if you really want one. Tons of kits less than $100.
You are aware that the old Toyota has higher emissions of greenhouse gases than VW which cheated on emission tests?
It might generate higher emissions, but whether using it for another year or two generated more emissions overall, I think it's a bit trickier to know if it was worse overall.
Enough VW's not sold mean VW's not built, and producing the car is a large amount of the car's expected lifetime CO2 footprint (I've seen from 1/5th to 1/3rd).
If they were just delaying a less polluting vehicle purchase, a delay is a net negative, but since now they are driving nothing, that means it's actually possible the older vehicle was the better choice, especially since pollution from cars if very front-loaded (if we assume a new car that was purchased would be unused or very lightly used, since they are able to go without a car now).
Enough VW's not sold mean VW's not built, and producing the car is a large amount of the car's expected lifetime CO2 footprint (I've seen from 1/5th to 1/3rd).
If they were just delaying a less polluting vehicle purchase, a delay is a net negative, but since now they are driving nothing, that means it's actually possible the older vehicle was the better choice, especially since pollution from cars if very front-loaded (if we assume a new car that was purchased would be unused or very lightly used, since they are able to go without a car now).
Plus if you trade in one functional old car for a newer model with better emmissions, that perfectly good car is not magically lifted into automobile heaven never to emit again. It will be bought on the used market by someone else can't afford a new car (much less a $70K Tesla) and continue to emit whatever it emits today.
I believe Mazda was the last without phone home functionality but I that's over as of 2020.
Mazda has also said they will be decreasing the importance of an infotainment screen and focusing on having quality switchgear. People who actually _enjoy driving_ like these kinds of touches; in general, in the segments Mazda competes in, they have some of the most fun offerings available.
For people who consider a car to be a status symbol that transports them from place to place, it's not the ideal choice, but I'm glad there's some variety. Otherwise, we'll all just be driving electric jellybeans with an iPad awkwardly bolted to the dashboard.
For people who consider a car to be a status symbol that transports them from place to place, it's not the ideal choice, but I'm glad there's some variety. Otherwise, we'll all just be driving electric jellybeans with an iPad awkwardly bolted to the dashboard.
We sold our VW and bought a Model 3. We had a serious look at VW’s EV lineup for my wife’s next car though. All manufacturers with a genuine EV programme have my support.
the VW ID4 is a great family car, imo its worth the wait.
Europe here.
I have been driving an ID3 nearly every day since a month or so (don't own it) and I absolutely adore the car. It's both simple and full-fledged at the same time. Voice-control is hot garbage but other than that it's fine.
Disclaimer: I never drove a Tesla Model 3 before, but a few other EVs like the BMW i3. The VW ID3 feels like a genuine high quality car - as if the Golf simply reached a new era.
BMW's i3 always felt like a weird toy and the Renault Zoes I drove where just an electric replacement for Smarts which are now electric too. I can see myself sitting in an ID3 for a longer trip with a nice charging pause.
I would never even dare take a Zoe on the Autobahn or an i3 aside from a handful of kilometers. ID3? No issues here.
I have been driving an ID3 nearly every day since a month or so (don't own it) and I absolutely adore the car. It's both simple and full-fledged at the same time. Voice-control is hot garbage but other than that it's fine.
Disclaimer: I never drove a Tesla Model 3 before, but a few other EVs like the BMW i3. The VW ID3 feels like a genuine high quality car - as if the Golf simply reached a new era.
BMW's i3 always felt like a weird toy and the Renault Zoes I drove where just an electric replacement for Smarts which are now electric too. I can see myself sitting in an ID3 for a longer trip with a nice charging pause.
I would never even dare take a Zoe on the Autobahn or an i3 aside from a handful of kilometers. ID3? No issues here.
Same about the ID4. Its a great "normal" EV SUV. the ID3 is to the Golf what the ID4 is to the Tiguan. Plus I have no issues with the >400Kms range with such a vehicle.
> ID3? No issues here.
Can you actually use it on the Autobahn like a "normal" car, i.e. drive over 130 km/h with AC or heating, while still getting reasonable range?
One of my major gripes with EV was always that the range on paper is good, but only if you drive like a truck speed-wise and turn off every comfort - which is honestly not what I want to do when investing in an (usually) pretty expensive car. Would be pretty awesome if VW managed to get that right.
Can you actually use it on the Autobahn like a "normal" car, i.e. drive over 130 km/h with AC or heating, while still getting reasonable range?
One of my major gripes with EV was always that the range on paper is good, but only if you drive like a truck speed-wise and turn off every comfort - which is honestly not what I want to do when investing in an (usually) pretty expensive car. Would be pretty awesome if VW managed to get that right.
I can speak for the ID4, yes you can do this. Sure you will not get the 520km on paper and of course it depends how you driving it but you get around 400km with ok weather conditions, AC and seat/driving wheel heating. In Winter with negative temperatures I got high consumptions but I learned it might also have to do with the fact the batteries where not hot enough.
> the Renault Zoes I drove where just an electric replacement for Smarts which are now electric too
The Zoe has nothing to do with a Smart. It's the same size as a Golf.
Also, I have driven a Zoe on the motorway and it's perfectly fine. I don't understand your problem with that car. It's the most sold EV in many countries, for good reason.
The Zoe has nothing to do with a Smart. It's the same size as a Golf.
Also, I have driven a Zoe on the motorway and it's perfectly fine. I don't understand your problem with that car. It's the most sold EV in many countries, for good reason.
Not particularly striking, however.
I'd say the interior looks like someone stuck the cheapest sale parts at a surplus store but I haven't seen the car live.
Having tested latest VW ICE cars when buying a new car a while ago I would be shocked if it's anything but cheap plastics all over the place inside.
Having tested latest VW ICE cars when buying a new car a while ago I would be shocked if it's anything but cheap plastics all over the place inside.
Are you aware of the fact that most companies cheated with emissions?
Volkswagen was just a scapegoat
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_emissions_scandal#/medi...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_emissions_scandal#/medi...
> I later learned that the more accurate story is that they bore the brunt of media attention for something that nearly every auto manufacturer was later found to be doing
They were the first discovered by ICCT, and the media latched onto that. They should've waited to release their findings because their subsequent test results went widely unnoticed.
> What they did was absolutely reprehensible, but I later learned that the more accurate story is that they bore the brunt of media attention for something that nearly every auto manufacturer was later found to be doing -
> That doesn't make it any less wrong, but it does put them back on par with just about every other auto manufacturer in my mind. And it does seem (as others have cited) like there was some genuine change that followed.
Thanks for bringing that to our attention, but I think there’s a slight chance they might be aware already.
> That doesn't make it any less wrong, but it does put them back on par with just about every other auto manufacturer in my mind. And it does seem (as others have cited) like there was some genuine change that followed.
Thanks for bringing that to our attention, but I think there’s a slight chance they might be aware already.
[deleted]
Even worse is now that every diesel car and truck comes with extremely unreliable and expensive to keep operational DPFs in place of the defeat devices.
Now people who live in areas that do emissions testing are forced to use less efficient vehicles, and people who don't are just removing the DPFs (rather than paying thousands of dollars every few months in repairs) and putting out more emissions than defeat device era vehicles.
A lot of ignorance surrounds this subject, and blind environmentalism has directly lead to a worse outcome than the previous status quo.
Now people who live in areas that do emissions testing are forced to use less efficient vehicles, and people who don't are just removing the DPFs (rather than paying thousands of dollars every few months in repairs) and putting out more emissions than defeat device era vehicles.
A lot of ignorance surrounds this subject, and blind environmentalism has directly lead to a worse outcome than the previous status quo.
Actively cheating on test environment vs not good at real usage is very different. In latter case, possibly test and regulation should be improved to fit real usage.
> they bore the brunt of media attention for something that nearly every auto manufacturer was later found to be doing
I find the same happens with performance enhancing drugs in sports. Everyone in the game knows that everyone is doing it. But someone gets caught, and people go full offense on them as though they're pure evil.
Ben Johnson and later Lance Armstrong come to mind.
I find the same happens with performance enhancing drugs in sports. Everyone in the game knows that everyone is doing it. But someone gets caught, and people go full offense on them as though they're pure evil.
Ben Johnson and later Lance Armstrong come to mind.
Lance Armstrong deserved it though.
But wasn't the cycling top 10 basically decimated by the PED scandal? I think only 1 (or a couple of) cyclist(s) remained unscathed in the top 10 rankings. I'm going on memory, but they really gave the appearance of cleaning house, to an outsider like me. Had regulators gone after 4 or 5 manufacturers, including home-team companies, it would have been much better, and would appear less like Americans piling onto out a German manufacturing bellwether.
My dad used to joke that if you wanted sneakers that were not made by child labor, your best bet was whichever manufacturer last got into trouble for it because of all the extra scrutiny.
That this level of fatalism about immoral acts exists is a failure of society as a whole. I suspect that all of those who got rich either knowingly or being willfully ignorant about emissions cheating walked away completely unpunished. Maybe less rich than if they hadn't gotten caught, but still richer than if they hadn't cheated in the first place.
That this level of fatalism about immoral acts exists is a failure of society as a whole. I suspect that all of those who got rich either knowingly or being willfully ignorant about emissions cheating walked away completely unpunished. Maybe less rich than if they hadn't gotten caught, but still richer than if they hadn't cheated in the first place.
I heard old Nike Jordans are unwearable because the soles crumble with age. Is that the case?
it's almost impossible to effectively regulate externalities in a global economy. Local regulators are not inclined to care about products sold overseas and all products compete with the lowest common regulatory framework.
All it takes for child labor to enter into the supply chain is one bad regulator and a couple levels of outsourcing. The final "complete" product becomes nearly impossible to audit.
All it takes for child labor to enter into the supply chain is one bad regulator and a couple levels of outsourcing. The final "complete" product becomes nearly impossible to audit.
> it's almost impossible to effectively regulate externalities in a global economy.
It really is not. Take the EU, for instance. They have the biggest internal market in the world. They can effectively dictate many things unilaterally that companies have to comply with under pain of being locked out of a multi-trillion dollar market (and indeed they do, with things such as health and safety standards, etc.). There's nothing stopping then from properly pricing externalities of pollution for instance, or of mandating that clothes companies pass a workplace standards audit irrespective of where their factories are located. This isn't done because of lack of will.
It really is not. Take the EU, for instance. They have the biggest internal market in the world. They can effectively dictate many things unilaterally that companies have to comply with under pain of being locked out of a multi-trillion dollar market (and indeed they do, with things such as health and safety standards, etc.). There's nothing stopping then from properly pricing externalities of pollution for instance, or of mandating that clothes companies pass a workplace standards audit irrespective of where their factories are located. This isn't done because of lack of will.
Perfection in this, as in all things, may be impossible, but here's a good faith effort to audit supply chains:
https://www.verite.org/
https://www.verite.org/
Even non-global economies end up diffusing the blame for poor labor practices. So many big-box stores end up in a wage-theft situation just because the upper-management sets benchmarks that are only achievable through wage-theft and then they are shocked[1] to find out that the individual store managers are committing wage theft.
1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjbPi00k_ME
1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjbPi00k_ME
Fair and I mostly agree, but there are exceptions. New Balance for example makes a lot of it's shoes in the US.
Yes. My last 5 sneakers were New Balance Made in USA. I believe New Balance is the last brand of USA made sneakers, so I support them whenever I can.
Not all of what New Balance makes is domestic but they do have the Made in USA line available. Would love to have more options but thankfully these are quite good.
Not all of what New Balance makes is domestic but they do have the Made in USA line available. Would love to have more options but thankfully these are quite good.
Man I wish I could wear NB, but the toe-box tapers too quickly causing my big toe to rub on the side. Before I found shoes that actually fit, I wore various shoes (including NB) 1.5 sizes larger than my actual size.
Instead of posting uninformed speculation, you can just Google it…
> In 2017, the U.S.-based VW executive Oliver Schmidt, who oversaw emissions issues, was sentenced to seven years in prison and fined $400,000, the maximum possible under a plea deal the German national made with prosecutors after admitting to charges of conspiring to mislead U.S regulators and violate clean-air laws.
The US has charged nine people, and Germany at least five, though they aren't moving quickly with the prosecutions.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-volkswagen-emissions/u-s-...
> In 2017, the U.S.-based VW executive Oliver Schmidt, who oversaw emissions issues, was sentenced to seven years in prison and fined $400,000, the maximum possible under a plea deal the German national made with prosecutors after admitting to charges of conspiring to mislead U.S regulators and violate clean-air laws.
The US has charged nine people, and Germany at least five, though they aren't moving quickly with the prosecutions.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-volkswagen-emissions/u-s-...
and what about the ones at literally every other company that produces diesels?
My own admittedly uninformed understanding is that there was cheating all around, but VW was by far the most flagrant. BMW and Mercedes diesels required DEF (diesel exhaust fluid), whereas VW did not. Marketing and/or executive leadership (again, as per my understanding) pushed the notion that the additive would make diesels appear to be less attractive and who wants to add a second liquid beyond fuel every few hundred miles?
But weren't they all cheating? The diesels with DEF were still above the legal limits, albeit to a lesser degree than the VW's who didn't even bother with DEF because, I guess, if you're going to cheat anyway...
How incorrect is my understanding?
But weren't they all cheating? The diesels with DEF were still above the legal limits, albeit to a lesser degree than the VW's who didn't even bother with DEF because, I guess, if you're going to cheat anyway...
How incorrect is my understanding?
Our VW Sharan required DEV.
How about 'rolling coal'?
What about it? No vehicle will do it from the factory, so I don't see how it's relevant here. It's the result of running a diesel massively, massively over-rich (with aftermarket tuning), and it's absolute hell on the engine - that amount of diesel in the cylinder washes down the cylinder walls and wipes off the lubricating film, so the cylinder wear is insane from even fairly short periods of it.
Even in diesel truck circles, "the other 99.9%" of truck owners think it's just as stupid as everyone else does - in addition to being engine abuse, it tends to attract an awful lot of unwelcome attention, and there are people who won't distinguish between "You've modified your truck to belch a column of coal black smoke for attention" and "An older diesel puts out a bit of brown smoke if you get on it hard suddenly," which can lead to some nuisance emissions testing.
My truck (24 years and change) will smoke a bit if I stand on it and the fuel flow outruns boost coming up, but it's also entirely emissions compliant and passes the tests cleanly - it's just something older diesels do under certain conditions. I try my best to avoid it, but if I need to get a trailer up to speed (especially quickly, if someone is coming up hard behind me), it'll put out a bit of brown smoke until the turbo gets spinning.
None of that has anything to do with VW, though. They were burning clean, which any sort of modern high pressure injection system will typically do, they just had really high NOx emissions for their emissions tier.
Even in diesel truck circles, "the other 99.9%" of truck owners think it's just as stupid as everyone else does - in addition to being engine abuse, it tends to attract an awful lot of unwelcome attention, and there are people who won't distinguish between "You've modified your truck to belch a column of coal black smoke for attention" and "An older diesel puts out a bit of brown smoke if you get on it hard suddenly," which can lead to some nuisance emissions testing.
My truck (24 years and change) will smoke a bit if I stand on it and the fuel flow outruns boost coming up, but it's also entirely emissions compliant and passes the tests cleanly - it's just something older diesels do under certain conditions. I try my best to avoid it, but if I need to get a trailer up to speed (especially quickly, if someone is coming up hard behind me), it'll put out a bit of brown smoke until the turbo gets spinning.
None of that has anything to do with VW, though. They were burning clean, which any sort of modern high pressure injection system will typically do, they just had really high NOx emissions for their emissions tier.
I used to live next to a freeway and I know the true cost of dirty diesel engines. Get on any US freeway and you'll notice that while a majority of diesels are fine, there is a minority that is belching soot any time the driver steps on the gas. This is simply unacceptable - this tiny minority of diesels kills people over time - especially the poorer populations who live close to the freeways. I would prefer much more stringent enforcement where any truck belching smoke can be spot checked and impounded.
The emissions testing is not a "nuisance". It saves lives. A noisy motorcycle would be a better example of a nuisance.
The emissions testing is not a "nuisance". It saves lives. A noisy motorcycle would be a better example of a nuisance.
I’m obsessive about using the air recirculation button when driving to isolate the cabin any time I’m in the wake of a diesel vehicle, for this reason.
While health issues from diesel particulate is documented on a wide statistical basis, there’s ample reason to believe single exposure events may lead to individual negative health outcomes i.e. getting a lungful one time might just kill you.
While health issues from diesel particulate is documented on a wide statistical basis, there’s ample reason to believe single exposure events may lead to individual negative health outcomes i.e. getting a lungful one time might just kill you.
The pointless out of band emissions testing of an emissions compliant truck (that easily passes the tests) having to go in for a test because it smokes a bit under hard acceleration and someone called it in for "rolling coal" is very much a nuisance to the truck owner and a waste of time/resources for all parties involved.
An older diesel engine can smoke a decent bit under hard acceleration and still be entirely emissions legal - it's not until you get into the particulate filters in the... oh, 2010s or so (not sure, I don't have anything that new) that you can contain all the particulate matter.
If your stance is that diesels shouldn't be permitted, or that anything older than a certain age shouldn't be allowed to be registered, that's fine, but that's not what I'm referring to here.
An older diesel engine can smoke a decent bit under hard acceleration and still be entirely emissions legal - it's not until you get into the particulate filters in the... oh, 2010s or so (not sure, I don't have anything that new) that you can contain all the particulate matter.
If your stance is that diesels shouldn't be permitted, or that anything older than a certain age shouldn't be allowed to be registered, that's fine, but that's not what I'm referring to here.
My stance is that diesels should only be permitted if they satisfy the EPA 2008 diesel PM standards or better. No older engines should be permitted unless they are retrofitted to comply with the standard and pass regular state tests. We could have a "cash for clunkers" type program to incentivize them to be lawfully scrapped.
I appreciate that you are as annoyed as the rest of us at the coal rollers. I think we need much more aggressive fines and impounds for those, too.
I appreciate that you are as annoyed as the rest of us at the coal rollers. I think we need much more aggressive fines and impounds for those, too.
Destroying nearly-new trucks for emissions reasons is a pretty questionable use of funding (and, yes, a 12 year old truck is still quite new) - and you're not going to be able to get away with a token few thousand dollars to encourage people to scrap them.
A decently maintained heavy road engine (tractor trailer) is a million+ mile motor, easily. A medium truck engine (think your typical toolbox work trucks, tow trucks, International boom trucks, etc) will do 300k-500k miles, and depending on how much the truck is used, that may be 20-30 years of operation. Same for the light diesels - they tend to have a practical service life of decades. My 24 year old truck is starting to be a little bit more rare on the roads out here, but I still see plenty...
If you know what to listen for, you can identify a lot of diesels by sound - and the International T444E (mid-90s design, the Ford 7.3 Powerstroke is that engine with a few tweaks) has a very distinctive snap at idle from the single shot injectors. There are still an awful lot of those on the road, and the youngest of them is almost 20 years old.
"Destroying 30-50% of the diesel fleet on the road" is not something I'd be particularly excited about - especially since new vehicle production isn't particularly environmentally friendly either. If you're specifically focused on the PM emissions, there may be ways to retrofit those older engines (at the cost of likely a substantial increase in fuel burn from the backpressure), but if you're going to hold them to the newer NOx standards, there's just no way to do it. They don't have the injection pressure and EGR systems in place to do it.
As of right now, they'd just be replaced with new diesels, because there are no electrics meaningfully on the market that solve the problems a large diesel engine solves right now. Plenty have been announced, very few are actually shipping, and of those announced, everyone is silent on their towing capabilities (I don't care if you can tow 15k lbs on a receiver mount, that kind of trailer weight should be on a gooseneck or 5th wheel hitch, and everyone is really, really silent on how their announced electric trucks fit either of those).
I also very much dislike "Cash for Clunkers" type programs in that they're one of the most nastily regressive programs one can possibly create. That program ruined the bottom end of the used car market for most of a decade, and permanently destroyed a lot of vehicles of a particularly easy to maintain and cheap to operate era (low pressure single point throttle body injection, not a ton of luxury features). It was a nice little handout to the next couple tiers up, but if you were operating in the "$100 car" realm (which were a thing at the time, I've owned 4 sub-$400 cars in the 2000-2010 era), it was absolutely devastating to your ability to find cheap cars. That sort of effective floor on vehicle prices for a while, followed by the hollowing out of anything below that price in the market... eh. Let's not do that again.
As far as coal rollers, though, the best thing that could happen is that everyone stops getting worked up about them and ignore them. They do it for the attention, and I'll suggest that it works really, really well. If you see one, get the plate, call it into your local emissions enforcement hotline if that's a thing, and move on with life. Everyone getting all wound up about them on the internet is exactly what I expect a lot of them enjoy about it anymore.
A decently maintained heavy road engine (tractor trailer) is a million+ mile motor, easily. A medium truck engine (think your typical toolbox work trucks, tow trucks, International boom trucks, etc) will do 300k-500k miles, and depending on how much the truck is used, that may be 20-30 years of operation. Same for the light diesels - they tend to have a practical service life of decades. My 24 year old truck is starting to be a little bit more rare on the roads out here, but I still see plenty...
If you know what to listen for, you can identify a lot of diesels by sound - and the International T444E (mid-90s design, the Ford 7.3 Powerstroke is that engine with a few tweaks) has a very distinctive snap at idle from the single shot injectors. There are still an awful lot of those on the road, and the youngest of them is almost 20 years old.
"Destroying 30-50% of the diesel fleet on the road" is not something I'd be particularly excited about - especially since new vehicle production isn't particularly environmentally friendly either. If you're specifically focused on the PM emissions, there may be ways to retrofit those older engines (at the cost of likely a substantial increase in fuel burn from the backpressure), but if you're going to hold them to the newer NOx standards, there's just no way to do it. They don't have the injection pressure and EGR systems in place to do it.
As of right now, they'd just be replaced with new diesels, because there are no electrics meaningfully on the market that solve the problems a large diesel engine solves right now. Plenty have been announced, very few are actually shipping, and of those announced, everyone is silent on their towing capabilities (I don't care if you can tow 15k lbs on a receiver mount, that kind of trailer weight should be on a gooseneck or 5th wheel hitch, and everyone is really, really silent on how their announced electric trucks fit either of those).
I also very much dislike "Cash for Clunkers" type programs in that they're one of the most nastily regressive programs one can possibly create. That program ruined the bottom end of the used car market for most of a decade, and permanently destroyed a lot of vehicles of a particularly easy to maintain and cheap to operate era (low pressure single point throttle body injection, not a ton of luxury features). It was a nice little handout to the next couple tiers up, but if you were operating in the "$100 car" realm (which were a thing at the time, I've owned 4 sub-$400 cars in the 2000-2010 era), it was absolutely devastating to your ability to find cheap cars. That sort of effective floor on vehicle prices for a while, followed by the hollowing out of anything below that price in the market... eh. Let's not do that again.
As far as coal rollers, though, the best thing that could happen is that everyone stops getting worked up about them and ignore them. They do it for the attention, and I'll suggest that it works really, really well. If you see one, get the plate, call it into your local emissions enforcement hotline if that's a thing, and move on with life. Everyone getting all wound up about them on the internet is exactly what I expect a lot of them enjoy about it anymore.
I seem to not have communicated my point very clearly.
Diesel particulate pollution kills very significant numbers of people, and it kills poor people (who have to live next to the freeway and on urban thoroughfares) disproportionately. I don't care about how easy it is to find a $100 car; I care about policies that we can enact today that can stop truck owners and manufacturers from externalizing their pollution costs onto everyone else. You make a good point about PM being easier to address than NOx - PM is more of an urgent concern given what we now know about its health effects. Whether by retrofitting or by retiring, the engines that emit more PM than the 2008 standards have to go.
New diesels are fine. I agree with you EV trucks are not here yet. The point is there are trucks out there that are 10,000x more harmful in PM emissions than the same exact capability new truck. They need to be removed.
Diesel particulate pollution kills very significant numbers of people, and it kills poor people (who have to live next to the freeway and on urban thoroughfares) disproportionately. I don't care about how easy it is to find a $100 car; I care about policies that we can enact today that can stop truck owners and manufacturers from externalizing their pollution costs onto everyone else. You make a good point about PM being easier to address than NOx - PM is more of an urgent concern given what we now know about its health effects. Whether by retrofitting or by retiring, the engines that emit more PM than the 2008 standards have to go.
New diesels are fine. I agree with you EV trucks are not here yet. The point is there are trucks out there that are 10,000x more harmful in PM emissions than the same exact capability new truck. They need to be removed.
Of course just scrapping diesels on the road isn't the best/most efficient idea. We have the technology to do EV conversions, we just need to make that more cost effective. Volkswagon has talked about shipping a mass produced "crate" system that could fit into older VW vehicles' engine blocks. Though if we are talking *trucks* the big player that should be building an EV conversion kit yesterday is Ford, who still seem to act like EV is a passing fad they can just dip their toes in and not get serious about.
Right, but the parent's point is that these things do not actually exist. VW "talking" about doing something or Ford "should" have done something does not describe things that are actually available on the market today, regardless of whether or not the technology is within our capabilities.
> We have the technology to do EV conversions...
"We" do? If you know of any, please, share. I know a lot of people out here who own trucks who would absolutely love a reasonably priced ($20k or so?) conversion kit for a truck that would leave you with 100 miles or so of range with a 10k lb construction trailer (fully enclosed) or similar.
I'm aware of the old electric Rangers one can find on rare occasions (swap their lead for lithium and you have a truck, though not one that can either haul much or tow much). I know of a couple more or less DIY conversion kits for vehicles (EVWest has some nice ones, $5k-$10k before you add a battery, for light VWs), but a 200hp class motor alone for a retrofit is close to $10k, and that's before controllers, battery pack, anything.
But in general, I'm really not sure converting existing trucks is the right option, because how you build a truck for an ICE is probably not how you build a truck for electric drivetrains. If you just replace the input to the transmission with an electric motor, you end up with quite poor drivetrain efficiency - there's a lot of stuff spinning that you wouldn't use for a pure electric drivetrain, but if you're going to swap out pieces you don't need (transmission, maybe the transfer case - a motor hung on the front and rear differential, geared properly, makes a compelling argument), costs start going up again. And then there's the mass and weight of the battery pack. You could put a pack in the bed without too much trouble, but... whoops, you've just lost your access to a 5th wheel or gooseneck hitch, or you've got a lot of the bed not used for battery space. There's room under the hood, but it's weirdly shaped space, typically.
I would love an electric pickup that could handle around town work, but even if I start with a free truck body, I'm likely $40k away from a useful conversion, and that's with me doing the work myself. And I still wouldn't get that much use out of it, because I couldn't do any longer hauling with it (the bulk of my trips in trip count are about 40 mile round trips to the home improvement store, but the few longer trips I take, often with 5k-8k lb of trailer back there, make up a good fraction of the miles).
For that cost, I could buy a very nice used diesel truck, and still have a ton of money left over for other projects, carbon offsets, nice charity donations, a bunch of public EV charging stations, or whatever else I wanted to do.
The problem is that competent electric pickups have been "coming soon now" for most of a decade. Via Motors was announcing extended range electric pickups on Chevy gliders back in 2012 or so - and they've since pivoted a few times and not delivered any of those things (at least that I'm aware of, and certainly not in any meaningful numbers). A 50 mile range on battery with a good trailer, then a gas or diesel range extender, with a big split phase inverter built in, would sell like hotcakes to construction companies - you can haul your trailer to the jobsite, power the jobsite before the power company gets around to running lines without the small generators otherwise used for that, recharge at night, and pay a fraction the operating costs of a diesel you'd otherwise use for that. Think $0.05-$0.10/mi (depending on power costs) vs $0.25-$0.30/mi, plus generator costs. That adds up in a hurry.
But nobody sells one. I've no idea why. So diesel it is. Gassers are fine for infrequent towing, but their lifespan is an awful lot shorter if you use them for it regularly for towing.
I'm aware the Cybertruck is "coming soon now," and that it's rated for 14k lbs, but as I've stated elsewhere in this sidetrack, you have to be somewhat insane to hang 14k lbs on a receiver mount (I'm actually not even sure that's permitted everywhere). That much tongue weight (1000+ lbs, perhaps even 2000 lbs for high speed stability) really needs to be on or slightly forward of the rear axle for combo stability. There's a big difference between "It can move it on flat ground" and "It can safely tow it long distances in somewhat adverse conditions." A ~6000 lb truck, with 14k hanging on the receiver, is (IMO) an unsafe combination.
All of the above skips the legal problems with radically changing a vehicle (which an EV conversion is) and ensuring it's legal and certified for road operation. Hobby conversions and low volume conversions tend to fall between the cracks, but anything of a scale to matter would have to solve those problems, and they're far from trivial.
Anyway, if I'm missing something, please, let me know. But what you're arguing "should exist," as far as I know, "Doesn't exist, and won't exist."
"We" do? If you know of any, please, share. I know a lot of people out here who own trucks who would absolutely love a reasonably priced ($20k or so?) conversion kit for a truck that would leave you with 100 miles or so of range with a 10k lb construction trailer (fully enclosed) or similar.
I'm aware of the old electric Rangers one can find on rare occasions (swap their lead for lithium and you have a truck, though not one that can either haul much or tow much). I know of a couple more or less DIY conversion kits for vehicles (EVWest has some nice ones, $5k-$10k before you add a battery, for light VWs), but a 200hp class motor alone for a retrofit is close to $10k, and that's before controllers, battery pack, anything.
But in general, I'm really not sure converting existing trucks is the right option, because how you build a truck for an ICE is probably not how you build a truck for electric drivetrains. If you just replace the input to the transmission with an electric motor, you end up with quite poor drivetrain efficiency - there's a lot of stuff spinning that you wouldn't use for a pure electric drivetrain, but if you're going to swap out pieces you don't need (transmission, maybe the transfer case - a motor hung on the front and rear differential, geared properly, makes a compelling argument), costs start going up again. And then there's the mass and weight of the battery pack. You could put a pack in the bed without too much trouble, but... whoops, you've just lost your access to a 5th wheel or gooseneck hitch, or you've got a lot of the bed not used for battery space. There's room under the hood, but it's weirdly shaped space, typically.
I would love an electric pickup that could handle around town work, but even if I start with a free truck body, I'm likely $40k away from a useful conversion, and that's with me doing the work myself. And I still wouldn't get that much use out of it, because I couldn't do any longer hauling with it (the bulk of my trips in trip count are about 40 mile round trips to the home improvement store, but the few longer trips I take, often with 5k-8k lb of trailer back there, make up a good fraction of the miles).
For that cost, I could buy a very nice used diesel truck, and still have a ton of money left over for other projects, carbon offsets, nice charity donations, a bunch of public EV charging stations, or whatever else I wanted to do.
The problem is that competent electric pickups have been "coming soon now" for most of a decade. Via Motors was announcing extended range electric pickups on Chevy gliders back in 2012 or so - and they've since pivoted a few times and not delivered any of those things (at least that I'm aware of, and certainly not in any meaningful numbers). A 50 mile range on battery with a good trailer, then a gas or diesel range extender, with a big split phase inverter built in, would sell like hotcakes to construction companies - you can haul your trailer to the jobsite, power the jobsite before the power company gets around to running lines without the small generators otherwise used for that, recharge at night, and pay a fraction the operating costs of a diesel you'd otherwise use for that. Think $0.05-$0.10/mi (depending on power costs) vs $0.25-$0.30/mi, plus generator costs. That adds up in a hurry.
But nobody sells one. I've no idea why. So diesel it is. Gassers are fine for infrequent towing, but their lifespan is an awful lot shorter if you use them for it regularly for towing.
I'm aware the Cybertruck is "coming soon now," and that it's rated for 14k lbs, but as I've stated elsewhere in this sidetrack, you have to be somewhat insane to hang 14k lbs on a receiver mount (I'm actually not even sure that's permitted everywhere). That much tongue weight (1000+ lbs, perhaps even 2000 lbs for high speed stability) really needs to be on or slightly forward of the rear axle for combo stability. There's a big difference between "It can move it on flat ground" and "It can safely tow it long distances in somewhat adverse conditions." A ~6000 lb truck, with 14k hanging on the receiver, is (IMO) an unsafe combination.
All of the above skips the legal problems with radically changing a vehicle (which an EV conversion is) and ensuring it's legal and certified for road operation. Hobby conversions and low volume conversions tend to fall between the cracks, but anything of a scale to matter would have to solve those problems, and they're far from trivial.
Anyway, if I'm missing something, please, let me know. But what you're arguing "should exist," as far as I know, "Doesn't exist, and won't exist."
Shit I see that in town. Shiny new cars.
It's not just trucks - I was able to get my (pre-cheating-scandal) 2003 VW TDI to belch a cloud of smoke if I idled for a while (over five minutes) then worked it hard (e.g. a freeway onramp). I remember getting honked at by a Prius once...
IMO, these occasional particulate emissions were outweighed by the excellent fuel economy - rated at 46 MPG but regularly 43 MPG.
Of course, this technology has been largely obsoleted by electric drivetrains. No rolling coal from a Tesla!
IMO, these occasional particulate emissions were outweighed by the excellent fuel economy - rated at 46 MPG but regularly 43 MPG.
Of course, this technology has been largely obsoleted by electric drivetrains. No rolling coal from a Tesla!
I will not be at all surprised if there's an aftermarket kit to spew soot out of an otherwise electric vehicle.
> My truck (24 years and change) will smoke a bit if I stand on it and the fuel flow outruns boost coming up, but it's also entirely emissions compliant and passes the tests cleanly - it's just something older diesels do under certain conditions
I always thought that banning old diesels from centers of European cities was just silly (they passed their emissions after all so they can't be billowing smoke, right?), thanks for changing my opinion
I always thought that banning old diesels from centers of European cities was just silly (they passed their emissions after all so they can't be billowing smoke, right?), thanks for changing my opinion
No problem. If your concern is the particulate matter, then, yes, banning old diesels makes some sense. They don't have the particulate filters - those started showing up in the 2000-2010 era. However, I would rather see that implemented as tighter standards, and if you can meet them with a retrofit kit, you can continue driving the older ones. We saw this with noise kits for older jets (retrofit kits that reduce the noise to the new standards), and if the concern is specifically emissions, then if you can make an older vehicle meet the newer standards, there's no reason to keep them out. I'm not a fan of arbitrarily destroying old but operational equipment.
My truck is a '97, and I believe the smoke opacity limit for emissions testing is 40% (it's allowed to block/scatter 40% of the light going through the exhaust). I believe commercial trucks of the same age are held to roughly the same standards. That's a good bit of smoke in the exhaust. But until you get into the high pressure common rail stuff (up at 30k+ psi, multiple injections per cycle), you'll get some smoke under certain conditions.
My truck is a '97, and I believe the smoke opacity limit for emissions testing is 40% (it's allowed to block/scatter 40% of the light going through the exhaust). I believe commercial trucks of the same age are held to roughly the same standards. That's a good bit of smoke in the exhaust. But until you get into the high pressure common rail stuff (up at 30k+ psi, multiple injections per cycle), you'll get some smoke under certain conditions.
Looking at emissions standards in Europe, a truck from 24 years ago in Europe, assuming its gross vehicle weight is between 1760 kg and 3500 kg, would be allowed to emit 0.25g of PM/km. The same limit for something built since 2013 is 0.0045g of PM/km. We're talking multiple orders of magnitude improvement here.
As a sidenote, HO+NOx has gone from 1.7g/km to 0.350g/km in 2013 (and onto 0.215g/km since then, in 2016), which is often as significant when it comes to desires to reduce air pollution.
As a sidenote, HO+NOx has gone from 1.7g/km to 0.350g/km in 2013 (and onto 0.215g/km since then, in 2016), which is often as significant when it comes to desires to reduce air pollution.
Emissions standards change over time. You could get some really polluting cars in the old days, and you can't anymore. Why should we be breathing in the smoke from these old cars from an era where emissions and pollution weren't taken as seriously as now?
The proportion of old vehicles on the road is small. And the last thing most of the people who drive them need is additional expensive compliance hoops to drive through.
For every hipster yuppie driving "muh classic Hilux just like daddy owned in 1993" there a few dozen people living out of the back of a Caprice Classic wagon because they have no better option.
For every hipster yuppie driving "muh classic Hilux just like daddy owned in 1993" there a few dozen people living out of the back of a Caprice Classic wagon because they have no better option.
Never heard of this before, I looked it up, but I still don't get it -- you're not getting more power, you're not getting better fuel efficiency, you're not getting a smoother ride, what's the point - you're literally burning money for no reason?
> you're literally burning money for no reason?
Correct. And destroying your engine in the process. Beyond washing down the cylinder walls (cylinder/ring wear) and diluting the engine oil in the process (worse lubrication for the bearings), EGTs tend to go absolutely nuts during the process (you're on the oxygen limited side of mixture, not the fuel limited side a diesel is intended to operate in), which means you stand a good chance of doing damage to the hot side of the turbocharger (high EGTs tend to start melting the corner tips of the turbine blades first, which is an easy check for a used diesel - if the blade corners aren't right, the engine has probably been abused), and it's hard on the rest of the engine too.
It's quite literally as stupid as it sounds.
There are cases where you do want to run a diesel like that - some of the custom tractor pulling engines will smoke an awful lot while they're spooling up and pulling, but that's an engine that's making insane horsepower for a short period of time, and they don't have a particularly long service life (like any competition engine). I believe they run on the rich side to use the excess fuel to keep combustion temperatures down (a stoichiometric mixture is usually far, far too hot). But on a road engine, it's just pointless engine abuse for style points (among the few people who actually think it's cool).
Correct. And destroying your engine in the process. Beyond washing down the cylinder walls (cylinder/ring wear) and diluting the engine oil in the process (worse lubrication for the bearings), EGTs tend to go absolutely nuts during the process (you're on the oxygen limited side of mixture, not the fuel limited side a diesel is intended to operate in), which means you stand a good chance of doing damage to the hot side of the turbocharger (high EGTs tend to start melting the corner tips of the turbine blades first, which is an easy check for a used diesel - if the blade corners aren't right, the engine has probably been abused), and it's hard on the rest of the engine too.
It's quite literally as stupid as it sounds.
There are cases where you do want to run a diesel like that - some of the custom tractor pulling engines will smoke an awful lot while they're spooling up and pulling, but that's an engine that's making insane horsepower for a short period of time, and they don't have a particularly long service life (like any competition engine). I believe they run on the rich side to use the excess fuel to keep combustion temperatures down (a stoichiometric mixture is usually far, far too hot). But on a road engine, it's just pointless engine abuse for style points (among the few people who actually think it's cool).
I've only ever seen it once when I was in an EV Uber (it was a Model S) behind a pickup truck in Baltimore and the pickup kept blasting us with massive amounts of black soot (presumably because we were in an EV).
There's a political element of "Truck Driving Republican" vs. "EV Driving Liberal" that powers some of this. I think Elon has been at last partially trying to reduce this polarization with how he behaves online to widen Tesla's appeal (though maybe I'm attributing too much intentionality here).
On the west coast I was tailed super aggressively by a pickup in my model 3 on 280 which was a little scary (blinding me with headlights, switching lanes to stay 1 inch behind me). I watched cameras after to see if I cut him off or something, but I didn't. It has made me more wary of pick up trucks in general though.
There's a political element of "Truck Driving Republican" vs. "EV Driving Liberal" that powers some of this. I think Elon has been at last partially trying to reduce this polarization with how he behaves online to widen Tesla's appeal (though maybe I'm attributing too much intentionality here).
On the west coast I was tailed super aggressively by a pickup in my model 3 on 280 which was a little scary (blinding me with headlights, switching lanes to stay 1 inch behind me). I watched cameras after to see if I cut him off or something, but I didn't. It has made me more wary of pick up trucks in general though.
That sucks. I wish it were an automatic open-and-shut case to prosecute dangerous driving / vehicular assault like this when a court is provided with dashcam evidence.
[deleted]
More recently, he has been released on parole after roughly half his term served.[1] Interestingly, the article says:
In Germany, inmates can be released after serving two thirds of their term. Parole after only half of the time is rare, but can be granted to first time offenders who demonstrated good behavior and are deemed unlikely to commit crimes in the future.
I don't doubt he exhibited good behavior. I'm not sure I believe he's unlikely to commit a crime in the future. I wonder if he thinks he was singled out for something everyone in the industry was doing, and thus it wasn't his fault. He wouldn't be wrong about the first thing, but he would about the second. It's admittedly speculation on my part though.
1: https://www.autonews.com/executives/ex-vw-manager-schmidt-ge...
In Germany, inmates can be released after serving two thirds of their term. Parole after only half of the time is rare, but can be granted to first time offenders who demonstrated good behavior and are deemed unlikely to commit crimes in the future.
I don't doubt he exhibited good behavior. I'm not sure I believe he's unlikely to commit a crime in the future. I wonder if he thinks he was singled out for something everyone in the industry was doing, and thus it wasn't his fault. He wouldn't be wrong about the first thing, but he would about the second. It's admittedly speculation on my part though.
1: https://www.autonews.com/executives/ex-vw-manager-schmidt-ge...
A close associate is an engine designer at a VW group company.
VW is not some bottoms up startup. It has a clear micromanaged road map for virtually everything. Data is gathered, sheds are biked ad nausuem.
this person was jailed because they were the last one holding the hot potatoe. There is no way (according to said associate) that upper management were not aware of what was going on. as any decision like that has to have approval.
It is/was a wide spread practice, well known in the industry. I know that ford used to routinely re-map the ECU after the warranty period, which boosted the miles per gallon at the expense of various pollutants.
VW is not some bottoms up startup. It has a clear micromanaged road map for virtually everything. Data is gathered, sheds are biked ad nausuem.
this person was jailed because they were the last one holding the hot potatoe. There is no way (according to said associate) that upper management were not aware of what was going on. as any decision like that has to have approval.
It is/was a wide spread practice, well known in the industry. I know that ford used to routinely re-map the ECU after the warranty period, which boosted the miles per gallon at the expense of various pollutants.
The higher-up executives are also in hot water - Martin Winterkorn, then the CEO, is under indictment in both Germany and the US, and is likely to face prison time after his (more complicated, because his involvement worked through deniable cutouts) trial.
> re-map the ECU
Sorry, what does this mean in layman's terms?
Sorry, what does this mean in layman's terms?
Change the parameters used to calculate the fine details of how the internal combustion engine operates, e.g. how much fuel to inject into each cylinder, when to send a spark to trigger ignition, how much pressure should the turbocharger provide, etc.
I can only recommend watching this 2015 talk at German Chaos Communication Congress about the technical details of the scandal. It's in English and really worth watching if you're technically interested. They reverse engineered the ECU configurations and showed how the manipulation works.
https://media.ccc.de/v/32c3-7331-the_exhaust_emissions_scand...
https://media.ccc.de/v/32c3-7331-the_exhaust_emissions_scand...
> sheds are biked ad nausuem
What does this mean?
What does this mean?
It's from an old parable, also called Parkinson's Law of Triviality. Basically, simple things get discussed more because everyone can understand them. It goes something like this:
"If a committee designs a bikeshed, they will spend five minutes discussing the structural requirements, half an hour on the size, and the rest of the available time arguing about what color to paint the shed."
"If a committee designs a bikeshed, they will spend five minutes discussing the structural requirements, half an hour on the size, and the rest of the available time arguing about what color to paint the shed."
It is still quite likely he won't be repeating the mistake though. Prison is something else than just money.
I’m sure it’s awful for normal folk like us but in his case (and again this is uninformed speculation), where he’s essentially the fall guy for a scandal that was supporting one of the world’s largest economies (and a large component of several others), it’s not that hard to imagine his experience being just a bit different than what a normal inmate should expect.
He also likely knows a lot about how many of his superiors were in the loop on this, so I assume he was well compensated for his inconvenience.
He also likely knows a lot about how many of his superiors were in the loop on this, so I assume he was well compensated for his inconvenience.
He was in "Offener Vollzug" (~open prison). That means he sleeps in a normal prison cell (that usually looks like [1], so not all that bad) in a regular prison, gets breakfeast, leaves prison to go to work, then goes straight back to prison to participate in the prison's evening activities (sport, recreational, educational, etc). He might get vacation (from staying in prison), and can visit his family on weekends.
It's not that unusual in Germany, at any time about 16% of prisoners are in "offener Vollzug", and it is a great tool to reintegrate prisoners into society. It is limited to first offenders with no flight risk and no risk that they use their time out of prison to do crime.
Of course no matter how useful of a tool it is generally, it does make the prison sentences of some well known people look like a bit of a joke.
1: https://www.zdf.de/dokumentation/zdfinfo-doku/knast-in-deuts...
It's not that unusual in Germany, at any time about 16% of prisoners are in "offener Vollzug", and it is a great tool to reintegrate prisoners into society. It is limited to first offenders with no flight risk and no risk that they use their time out of prison to do crime.
Of course no matter how useful of a tool it is generally, it does make the prison sentences of some well known people look like a bit of a joke.
1: https://www.zdf.de/dokumentation/zdfinfo-doku/knast-in-deuts...
What are the 84% that aren't in open prison? Poor people who don't have a corporate apparatus to hide their crimes behind?
Volkswagen emissions killed people with smog. VW are homicidal.
Volkswagen emissions killed people with smog. VW are homicidal.
Corruption is a real problem in Germany and auto makers have a lot of influence on politicians, so the corporate and the political apparatus are interested in hiding these crimes, because a large part of our economy depends on them.
Pretty disappointing that my comment above was a wild and utterly uninformed guess that was (from what you're saying here) bang on the money.
Turns out that it's almost universally true everywhere that enough wealth and power puts you above the law.
Turns out that it's almost universally true everywhere that enough wealth and power puts you above the law.
Meanwhile we hear how abusive and inhumane American prisons are. If we had these country clubs in America, what would happen? (Serious question)
I think that depends on what he thinks the mistake was. To him, was the mistake cheating, getting caught, or being in position to be made an example of? He may no make the mistake again, but I'm not sure that means he won't cheat again in a similar way, given the chance.
can I prosecute ex parte the rest of the taxpayers and citizens and asthmatics the administrators supposed to have been in charge of ensuring compliance with emissions standards for failing so incredibly to do their jobs?
or is there no responsibility held by whoever we place in office responsible for seeing our futures aren't squandered?
how is it possible to ignore that obligation and duty when we've only just started to admit that we have to act against such universal polluting?
or has the last encumbant of 2000 Pensylvania Av. just pulled off the brilliant trick of assuming all the blame for the failure of government future and past as well?
(brit with American family and too embarrassed to speak of our politicians presently)
or is there no responsibility held by whoever we place in office responsible for seeing our futures aren't squandered?
how is it possible to ignore that obligation and duty when we've only just started to admit that we have to act against such universal polluting?
or has the last encumbant of 2000 Pensylvania Av. just pulled off the brilliant trick of assuming all the blame for the failure of government future and past as well?
(brit with American family and too embarrassed to speak of our politicians presently)
I’m not sure if the downvotes here are because of your Trump allusions or not, but you do raise a pretty important point.
Where was the oversight? How was it that an open secret of this magnitude didn’t incur the wrath of environmental agencies in the countries affected? Is it possible that no-one outside of the industry knew about this and that everyone in the industry, even in competing firms, just kept this secret for years without anything leaking out?
It doesn’t seem plausible that this wasn’t known about and ignored by regulators in at least some regions.
Where was the oversight? How was it that an open secret of this magnitude didn’t incur the wrath of environmental agencies in the countries affected? Is it possible that no-one outside of the industry knew about this and that everyone in the industry, even in competing firms, just kept this secret for years without anything leaking out?
It doesn’t seem plausible that this wasn’t known about and ignored by regulators in at least some regions.
I agree, the people enforcing these laws are just as negligent. Why did the let the manufactures anywhere near the testing process.
I would like to think that now, after the scandal, they are selecting and testing cars that have recently been sold. The cars that are actually being driven around.
I would like to think that now, after the scandal, they are selecting and testing cars that have recently been sold. The cars that are actually being driven around.
Is the rest of the world as harsh as the U.S. in that a prison sentence is basically the end of your career? Would this guy have a shot at being an executive again?
Depends: given that one can easily google his name and find out about this, it's a bit unlikely he'll be appointed to such a prominent position again. But in general, a prison sentence would not be the end of your career here in the EU. Anecdotally, when I was hob-hunting last time, not one company (out of ~ a dozen) asked for a criminal record before making an offer, and only one company informed me that I'd be required to hand one in afterwards. Of course, the others might've asked for it at a later stage, but at least at the company I went with (as well as all my previous employers) hired me without knowing whether I had any priors. As far as I understand, this depends on the industry, though.
Is there evidence that white collar criminal convictions are career ending in the USA?
> I'm not sure I believe he's unlikely to commit a crime in the future.
I don't think many car companies hire ex-convicts in upper management.
I don't think many car companies hire ex-convicts in upper management.
As a non violent criminal, who will never get a job where he can even try to commit a similar crime, that sounds reasonable.
> The US has charged nine people, and Germany at least five, though they aren't moving quickly with the prosecutions.
Including the then CEO, who is under indictment in both countries.
Including the then CEO, who is under indictment in both countries.
Countries need to ties fees/fines to income level and assets.
It kills me when I read about these paltry fines most wealthy men probably laugh at.
A poor man get a $600 traffic ticket, it could affect rent.
A rich man get the same ticket, and it’s dinner conversation.
It kills me when I read about these paltry fines most wealthy men probably laugh at.
A poor man get a $600 traffic ticket, it could affect rent.
A rich man get the same ticket, and it’s dinner conversation.
I always found it odd that Americans have no problem with child labor at home, so long as it’s confined to movies and entertainment. We even have special laws just to make it legal when every other form of child labor is outlawed.
It’s absolutely not the same as a sweatshop, but hollywood has a long track record of ruining children’s lives for profit.
It’s absolutely not the same as a sweatshop, but hollywood has a long track record of ruining children’s lives for profit.
[deleted]
There are over three hundred million people the US. A sizable portion of them dislikes Hollywood.
Yet, as a whole they will spend over $2 billion in a single weekend at cinemas.
Why did textile factories hire children? Because they could pay less.
Why do movie studios hire children? Because the script calls for a child. Union regulations and price floors can be put in place to protect the child actor’s interests without completely defeating the purpose of hiring them in the first place.
Even though child actors tend to be considerably more expensive than adults, they still get cast. I don’t think that would’ve happened in sweatshops.
Why do movie studios hire children? Because the script calls for a child. Union regulations and price floors can be put in place to protect the child actor’s interests without completely defeating the purpose of hiring them in the first place.
Even though child actors tend to be considerably more expensive than adults, they still get cast. I don’t think that would’ve happened in sweatshops.
It might be an unusually American take, but I do think child labor is a bit easier to justify when the child is compensated with a tremendous amount of money. (When compared to the sweatshops you mentioned).
From my understanding, the "special laws" put hard caps on the amount of hours that a child can work in a week, and establishes a bunch of other protections like making sure they get adequate schooling, etc.
In a film with a child in a lead role, the entire movie production schedule often revolves around this hard hours limit.
Perhaps a larger tragedy is children working in family businesses. Poor, legal immigrant families often put their children to work at the family restaurant, and this is legal for any number of hours.
From my understanding, the "special laws" put hard caps on the amount of hours that a child can work in a week, and establishes a bunch of other protections like making sure they get adequate schooling, etc.
In a film with a child in a lead role, the entire movie production schedule often revolves around this hard hours limit.
Perhaps a larger tragedy is children working in family businesses. Poor, legal immigrant families often put their children to work at the family restaurant, and this is legal for any number of hours.
[deleted]
we decouple too much, every company is trying to survive the market and will always cut corners even though in the end no one ever asked for children to make shoes.. it was just global fear, frustration and risk that made everybody put pressure in the wrong direction.
How do you mean "survive the market"? Survive as in answer to shareholders with higher profits or succumb to consumer demand for cheaper shoes?
In reality it's the former and the latter is stoked through other means.
In reality it's the former and the latter is stoked through other means.
> Maybe less rich than if they hadn't gotten caught, but still richer than if they hadn't cheated in the first place.
Which is exactly the calculation that their lawyers and executives made, more or less.
You're right that it's a failure of society as a whole. A failure to make bad actors pay for negative externalities.
Which is exactly the calculation that their lawyers and executives made, more or less.
You're right that it's a failure of society as a whole. A failure to make bad actors pay for negative externalities.
Exactly. Most other manufacturers were/are cheating as well.
I've owned a few recent VWs and have found they're fine vehicles. The current gen Tiguan was underpowered, but my MK7 GTI and MK7.5 Golf R are amazing cars. I have a feeling I'll be driving the R for a long time.
I've owned a few recent VWs and have found they're fine vehicles. The current gen Tiguan was underpowered, but my MK7 GTI and MK7.5 Golf R are amazing cars. I have a feeling I'll be driving the R for a long time.
I had a MK6 GTI and I loved it. Once VW has worked the kinks out of their electric platform I'll definitely take a look at them again.
> they bore the brunt of media attention for something that nearly every auto manufacturer was later found to be doing
Maybe a better answer would be holding ALL of the automakers to task like we felt needed to be done with VW, instead of giving all of the parasitic capitalists a free pass to do it all over again.
Maybe a better answer would be holding ALL of the automakers to task like we felt needed to be done with VW, instead of giving all of the parasitic capitalists a free pass to do it all over again.
How has that not been done?
my second favorite car was my TDI Beetle Convertible (2013) and I would be more than willing to line up to buy a BEV version of the same. The closest it appears I will get is an Audi TT which may be the first mass production convertible to be available; the Tesla Roadster of past doesn't count.
Their current BEV platform is a good first shot, I am disappointed in the lack of front trunk but I expect they will eventually go that way. The real issue this platform suffers from but should be a software fix is that they don't support auto negotiation with charging stations. Even Ford is able to do so with Electrify America yet VW who backed it cannot.
As for the name change, its fitting provided they quickly move to an all electric fleet. There are some nice variations of the ID.* platform coming and the .Buzz is the neatest of them all in my book. By quickly I mean get there five years before everyone else.
Their current BEV platform is a good first shot, I am disappointed in the lack of front trunk but I expect they will eventually go that way. The real issue this platform suffers from but should be a software fix is that they don't support auto negotiation with charging stations. Even Ford is able to do so with Electrify America yet VW who backed it cannot.
As for the name change, its fitting provided they quickly move to an all electric fleet. There are some nice variations of the ID.* platform coming and the .Buzz is the neatest of them all in my book. By quickly I mean get there five years before everyone else.
>What they did was absolutely reprehensible,
Okay, this is a bit much. I know you came to realize all the car companies were doing it, so relatively speaking, it evens out when it comes to image. But this concept of hating a company over false marketing, it's a "and cows moo" moment. All big companies lie about their performances and benefits. Every. Single. One. Who would have guessed people would lie to make money... what a revelation. It's extremely naïve to feel hurt by a company trying to gain the edge over another by lying. That's some weird identity tying consumerism right there.
It was already an old joke when George Carlin did his stand up bit on marketing terms bs and that was some 20 years ago. It's time to grow up. No company is immune from this attitude either. Tech is fraught with it too. WeWork, Theranos are the nice examples. But remember, before it became publicly okay to rag on them, there were folks pointing out the bullshit. Folks who weren't believed because they were so negative about "wanting to change the world". Any time a company tries to play the, "We're making the world a better place" card, whether environmental, social, whatever, it's safe to assume bullshit is afoot. Plays out all the time.
Okay, this is a bit much. I know you came to realize all the car companies were doing it, so relatively speaking, it evens out when it comes to image. But this concept of hating a company over false marketing, it's a "and cows moo" moment. All big companies lie about their performances and benefits. Every. Single. One. Who would have guessed people would lie to make money... what a revelation. It's extremely naïve to feel hurt by a company trying to gain the edge over another by lying. That's some weird identity tying consumerism right there.
It was already an old joke when George Carlin did his stand up bit on marketing terms bs and that was some 20 years ago. It's time to grow up. No company is immune from this attitude either. Tech is fraught with it too. WeWork, Theranos are the nice examples. But remember, before it became publicly okay to rag on them, there were folks pointing out the bullshit. Folks who weren't believed because they were so negative about "wanting to change the world". Any time a company tries to play the, "We're making the world a better place" card, whether environmental, social, whatever, it's safe to assume bullshit is afoot. Plays out all the time.
How about we stop accepting this status quo? People will lie to make money, but we don't have to make it a socially acceptable practice.
In fact, to make money, people just do whatever makes money. If they lie to make money, it means lying is making them money. If we could raise the costs of lying, for example by being much more eager to punish deceptive advertising with high fines, people would lie less.
In fact, to make money, people just do whatever makes money. If they lie to make money, it means lying is making them money. If we could raise the costs of lying, for example by being much more eager to punish deceptive advertising with high fines, people would lie less.
Humans have been lying for personal gain for only a short amount of time. I guess yea, we should all just decide that lying is bad. That's a novel idea.
Humans have been lying for as long as they've been human, but they've also shunned this behavior for just as long. It's destructive to both individuals and communities.
The system of private profit is what gave them the motivation to lie. It is not a natural law. Transportation could be nationalized. What we regard as corruption in the public sphere is literally the stated goal of the private sphere.
We all know it happens all the time and that bullshit is everywhere and unsurprising, but are you adding that it's also okay?
When you are in an environment where all your other competitors are cheating, I used to think you had only two options - join in or quit. Now, it occurs to me that there is a third - blow the whistle. If VW, or any other manufacturer, had made a quick call to the authorities and told them exactly what to look for, they would have dealt a huge blow to their competitors and maybe even done a victory lap along the way.
... and make themselves the enemy of the entire industry.
That's the reason almost nobody ever blows the whistle: the prisoner's dilemma variant here is the iterated one, and there are more than two players. If you defect, you get blacklisted. It doesn't matter if you're an individual abused by an employer, or a big company that, for a brief moment, grew some conscience. The only time when blowing a whistle makes sense, from a self-preservation standpoint, is when you have a backup plan for what to do when the whistle gets ignored, but everyone knows who blew it.
The corollary to that is, to allow for whistleblowing to be an option, the defector needs to be protected, and this must be public knowledge. If people have any perception of personal risk here, most will stay silent.
That's the reason almost nobody ever blows the whistle: the prisoner's dilemma variant here is the iterated one, and there are more than two players. If you defect, you get blacklisted. It doesn't matter if you're an individual abused by an employer, or a big company that, for a brief moment, grew some conscience. The only time when blowing a whistle makes sense, from a self-preservation standpoint, is when you have a backup plan for what to do when the whistle gets ignored, but everyone knows who blew it.
The corollary to that is, to allow for whistleblowing to be an option, the defector needs to be protected, and this must be public knowledge. If people have any perception of personal risk here, most will stay silent.
You are letting them off too easy. It’s probably a game of stag hunting.
I don’t think this blacklisting applies either. You are ignoring the fact that whistleblowers can operate anonymously.
These companies chose to then a blind eye on themselves and each other.
I don’t think this blacklisting applies either. You are ignoring the fact that whistleblowers can operate anonymously.
These companies chose to then a blind eye on themselves and each other.
I'm not saying they're doing the right thing - just that the game theory is what it is. I'm trying to give an explanation, not an excuse.
Anonymous only works in a small spectrum of possible whistle blowing - where the issue and the players are large enough to matter, but small enough that it won't be trivial to guess who the anonymous tip came from.
Anonymous only works in a small spectrum of possible whistle blowing - where the issue and the players are large enough to matter, but small enough that it won't be trivial to guess who the anonymous tip came from.
It's funny how game theory gets fouled up all the time in real life. A rainstorm or a faulty mechanism or a careless installer or 100 other human or non-human factors that aren't part of the game theory intervene to change everything.
If game theory is stacked against ethical behavior in a particular situation, I'll back ethical behavior. It's encouraging how often the game theory gets tripped up by factors outside the "rules".
If game theory is stacked against ethical behavior in a particular situation, I'll back ethical behavior. It's encouraging how often the game theory gets tripped up by factors outside the "rules".
At this point, game theory is mostly useful for predicting what people who try to act rationally will do.
But the trouble is, that as these things become more of the fabric of the culture, people's behaviour takes them into account, and then it doesn't work as well as it used to.
But the trouble is, that as these things become more of the fabric of the culture, people's behaviour takes them into account, and then it doesn't work as well as it used to.
Even if it is game theory it is a game of stag and not prisoners dilemma.
> the prisoner's dilemma variant here is the iterated one, and there are more than two players.
The assumption there is that you're all guilty. I agree, when you're all cheating, it's hard to safely get to a point you're not cheating and can inform on others, but the solution to that is simple, don't cheat in the first place. An actual rational actor would realize that cheating opens you up to this situation where you've exposed yourself to a prisoners dilemma that you can't easily extract yourself from, and all for the chance to just have the same advantage as everyone else. Not cheating in the first place and making sure all the cheaters are punished seems a far better strategy.
That said, it's possible this was an emergent phenomenon, where none of them initially were sure the others were cheating, but felt they had to cheat themselves to compete, and by the time it's obvious they are all cheating, there's no chance for one of them to benefit by being clean and calling out all the others.
The assumption there is that you're all guilty. I agree, when you're all cheating, it's hard to safely get to a point you're not cheating and can inform on others, but the solution to that is simple, don't cheat in the first place. An actual rational actor would realize that cheating opens you up to this situation where you've exposed yourself to a prisoners dilemma that you can't easily extract yourself from, and all for the chance to just have the same advantage as everyone else. Not cheating in the first place and making sure all the cheaters are punished seems a far better strategy.
That said, it's possible this was an emergent phenomenon, where none of them initially were sure the others were cheating, but felt they had to cheat themselves to compete, and by the time it's obvious they are all cheating, there's no chance for one of them to benefit by being clean and calling out all the others.
I do think that these things are all mostly emergent - a competitor sacrifices a principle a little bit to get ahead, everyone else follows suit, thus enshrining it as a new normal. Rinse, repeat
That said, I disagree with "the solution to that is simple, don't cheat in the first place", for the reasons I mentioned: if all your competitors suddenly start to cheat, telling on them only works if you can ensure they all get burned down to the ground as a result. If some survive, you'll now be competing with them as an actor nobody trusts, and nobody wants to deal with. If that's a realistic outcome, you may as well just quit.
That said, I disagree with "the solution to that is simple, don't cheat in the first place", for the reasons I mentioned: if all your competitors suddenly start to cheat, telling on them only works if you can ensure they all get burned down to the ground as a result. If some survive, you'll now be competing with them as an actor nobody trusts, and nobody wants to deal with. If that's a realistic outcome, you may as well just quit.
> telling on them only works if you can ensure they all get burned down to the ground as a result.
Isn't that assuming you have to out yourself to identify others? That seems like something a company could coordinate well such that there was little or no indication of where it came from (a source identifying one or two bad actors and calling for industry wide testing would serve their interests without specifically outing them). And I'm not sure why they need to get burned down to the ground. It's about removing the advantages they've gained through cheating, and possibly applying a social penalty if it was bad enough, not ensuring they are destroyed.
> If some survive, you'll now be competing with them as an actor nobody trusts, and nobody wants to deal with.
Eh, even if it did come out that your company was responsible for outing others, this is business where past behavior has less sway, and knowing the other party will follow the rules is hardly a disqualifying factor as long as you don't do something with them that isn't following the rules. It's not like competitors are commonly giving ammunition to each other with the understanding it won't be used. And if they aren't working with you because they can't without exposing more cheating... well then that's a problem they should be trying to fix already, given the new realities.
I think in any well functioning market this all works out normally. The automotive market doesn't seem to be a well functioning one though.
Isn't that assuming you have to out yourself to identify others? That seems like something a company could coordinate well such that there was little or no indication of where it came from (a source identifying one or two bad actors and calling for industry wide testing would serve their interests without specifically outing them). And I'm not sure why they need to get burned down to the ground. It's about removing the advantages they've gained through cheating, and possibly applying a social penalty if it was bad enough, not ensuring they are destroyed.
> If some survive, you'll now be competing with them as an actor nobody trusts, and nobody wants to deal with.
Eh, even if it did come out that your company was responsible for outing others, this is business where past behavior has less sway, and knowing the other party will follow the rules is hardly a disqualifying factor as long as you don't do something with them that isn't following the rules. It's not like competitors are commonly giving ammunition to each other with the understanding it won't be used. And if they aren't working with you because they can't without exposing more cheating... well then that's a problem they should be trying to fix already, given the new realities.
I think in any well functioning market this all works out normally. The automotive market doesn't seem to be a well functioning one though.
I don't get it. If I'm competing with someone, and I tell on them for cheating while not cheating myself what do I lose if they don't get burned for it?
> but it does put them back on par with just about every other auto manufacturer in my mind
I'm not buying this.
Edit: I stand (mostly) corrected:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_emissions_scandal
I'm not buying this.
Edit: I stand (mostly) corrected:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_emissions_scandal
Other manufacturers were exposing monkeys to diesel emissions? Gassing primates is a pretty bad look for any company, especially VW.
Doesn't every car manufacturer (except maybe Tesla) expose primates (humans) to vehicle emissions?
Even Tesla if you include particulate emissions from tires.
I'm confused. My understanding is that all cars showed discrepancies between in-lab and on-road tests, due to overoptimizing the ECU for lab conditions.
However, AFAIU, only VW had an "if in_lab: reduce_polution()" line in their ECU. It could be that the "final result" was the same, but the intentionality behind it was waaay stronger for VW.
However, AFAIU, only VW had an "if in_lab: reduce_polution()" line in their ECU. It could be that the "final result" was the same, but the intentionality behind it was waaay stronger for VW.
Well, all of the companies using Bosch EDC 16 & 17 control systems were doing effectively the same thing. My understanding is that Bosch includes facilities for detecting dyno use "for testing purposes" and that manufactures were using these flags in production cars. VW was apparently a lot more brazen and aggressive in triggering it. While Mercedes and FCA were a big more judicious about it.
I don't think BMW's case has made it through the court system yet though.
I don't think BMW's case has made it through the court system yet though.
I found it to be a bit of a Snowden moment. Of course they were doing it, why all the surprise? Balancing good performance in emissions tests with the power and brunt that consumers enjoy in the real world had already made turbochargers and variable valve timings widespread instead of simply increasing displacement. In fact there were multiple other scandals in the decades before where loopholes in emissions regulations were treated the same way as in accounting or racing. I believe regulators were complicit by using ineffectual metrics like NEDC - no car buyer really expects to reach the quoted performance.
I always owned Toyotas and Nissans but when I got together with my SO, I sold my last Toyota (for a spectacular price even though it had quite a lot km) and we kept her VW. Afterwards we bought another one.
The sheer amount of issues those cars had was astonishing. From bad electronics to just terrible manufacturing (water running down somewhere along the doors and causing mold inside for example) really cured me from VW and German cars altogether. We sold the VW when that emission thing came up and it looked like we might not be able to drive in our city with it anymore (Germany). Now we own a Hyundai Ioniq and it's great. I can even flash the firmware or update maps myself. The amount of electronic stuff that came inclusive is something you can only dream of with German manufacturers.
I'm never going back from Japanese/Korean cars again.
The sheer amount of issues those cars had was astonishing. From bad electronics to just terrible manufacturing (water running down somewhere along the doors and causing mold inside for example) really cured me from VW and German cars altogether. We sold the VW when that emission thing came up and it looked like we might not be able to drive in our city with it anymore (Germany). Now we own a Hyundai Ioniq and it's great. I can even flash the firmware or update maps myself. The amount of electronic stuff that came inclusive is something you can only dream of with German manufacturers.
I'm never going back from Japanese/Korean cars again.
>...they bore the brunt of media attention for something that nearly every auto manufacturer was later found to be doing...
Car manufacturers any company really tries to get away with whatever they can until until caught.
Here in Canada the latest news is Honda vehicles without any heat. People are driving in -20C or lower with no heater.
It's the terribly outdated laws we have in Canada some laws haven't been updated for 60 years. Car makers know this and here in Canada car buyers are often ignored or strung along for months.
Hyundai implemented a warning light to let you know if your engine lost all its oil and was about to erupt in flames. In other countries Hyundai had to replace the engine free of charge. Here in Canada we get "Hey your engine's gonna blow. Sorry"
https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/honda-crv-civic-heater-1.59...
https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/marketplace-car-recall-inve...
Car manufacturers any company really tries to get away with whatever they can until until caught.
Here in Canada the latest news is Honda vehicles without any heat. People are driving in -20C or lower with no heater.
It's the terribly outdated laws we have in Canada some laws haven't been updated for 60 years. Car makers know this and here in Canada car buyers are often ignored or strung along for months.
Hyundai implemented a warning light to let you know if your engine lost all its oil and was about to erupt in flames. In other countries Hyundai had to replace the engine free of charge. Here in Canada we get "Hey your engine's gonna blow. Sorry"
https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/honda-crv-civic-heater-1.59...
https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/marketplace-car-recall-inve...
> Here in Canada we get "Hey your engine's gonna blow. Sorry"
It seems that there isn't even the 'sorry' part. I wonder what the design is like: generic light? icon? a "do not check engine" light?
It seems that there isn't even the 'sorry' part. I wonder what the design is like: generic light? icon? a "do not check engine" light?
It's a blinking check engine light. Ours came on steady shortly after we got the firmware update applied when the recall went out and I hadn't been told what to watch for, so I pulled over immediately and called the dealer. Then they told me...
The light should be a big dollar sign: $
I also bought a VW Golf GTD and ended up having to sell it right as the scandal was heating up.
Apart from the ~$10k I lost and the betrayal by VW executives, I was also upset that the car I bought to try and be a little bit eco-friendly was decidedly not.
I received a paltry payout from the class-action lawsuit, which helped. However I will never buy a VW-group car again. It has also forever jaded me about the lack of punishments for corporate malfeasance.
Apart from the ~$10k I lost and the betrayal by VW executives, I was also upset that the car I bought to try and be a little bit eco-friendly was decidedly not.
I received a paltry payout from the class-action lawsuit, which helped. However I will never buy a VW-group car again. It has also forever jaded me about the lack of punishments for corporate malfeasance.
Are you also going to move your money from all major banks? Same pieces of thieving shits, same lack of accountability and punishments.
USA only went after VW to put political pressure on Germany for their export surplus. It's literally the only reason why suddenly one of the hundreds of large corporations in the West needs to be held accountable for something while dozens of others - European and American - continue rampaging around.
USA only went after VW to put political pressure on Germany for their export surplus. It's literally the only reason why suddenly one of the hundreds of large corporations in the West needs to be held accountable for something while dozens of others - European and American - continue rampaging around.
Well, this was in Australia. The settlement payouts were orders of magnitude larger in the USA!
I keep no money in major banks, not just because they are largely morally bankrupt though. :)
I keep no money in major banks, not just because they are largely morally bankrupt though. :)
Regardless of what you think they did was right or wrong, it was pretty clever.
What's clever about it? They cheated, got caught, got fined $20 billion dollars, and spend some time in prison. It sounds pretty dumb to me.
Nah, they very just too cheap to install large enough AdBlue tanks and too greedy to allow people fill the small tanks up themselves. Or they were unable to come up with engines meeting emission standards.
We've owned three VW's including a diesel. I am not going to condemn an entire group of people (they employ over 600K people) for the acts of a few. Particularly when authorities have dealt with the situation.
This is no different from forming opinions about a population, social, ethnic or religious group based on the actions of a very small percentage of people belonging to said group. I think it's wrong in all cases.
Even if 100 people were involved (I think it was a LOT less than that), this would represent 0.02% of the "population" of VW. How is it, in any way, fair, to condemn them all for the sins of a group that has already met their deserved legal consequences? Let's say the entire world stops buying VW because of this and over 600K people lose their jobs. How is that a morally and ethically supportable position?
Of course, everyone is free to reach their own conclusions. I would rather buy an electric vehicle from any company other than Tesla and, VW will certainly be a candidate. No, I don't hate Tesla, I want to support electrification of our transportation system. That can only happen if other companies earn our business. As more competition surfaces we'll have better and better options. Tesla might still win my business. I just want to see what the top ten auto manufacturers have to offer first.
This is no different from forming opinions about a population, social, ethnic or religious group based on the actions of a very small percentage of people belonging to said group. I think it's wrong in all cases.
Even if 100 people were involved (I think it was a LOT less than that), this would represent 0.02% of the "population" of VW. How is it, in any way, fair, to condemn them all for the sins of a group that has already met their deserved legal consequences? Let's say the entire world stops buying VW because of this and over 600K people lose their jobs. How is that a morally and ethically supportable position?
Of course, everyone is free to reach their own conclusions. I would rather buy an electric vehicle from any company other than Tesla and, VW will certainly be a candidate. No, I don't hate Tesla, I want to support electrification of our transportation system. That can only happen if other companies earn our business. As more competition surfaces we'll have better and better options. Tesla might still win my business. I just want to see what the top ten auto manufacturers have to offer first.
One of the sub-aspects of it also seemed to be tradeoffs between kinds of emissions (where driving down one drove up the other).
Weren't the cheating VWs extremely fuel efficient (and thus less CO2 emitting), at the cost of emitting something else nasty?
Weren't the cheating VWs extremely fuel efficient (and thus less CO2 emitting), at the cost of emitting something else nasty?
Well, there is a crucial, legal, difference between using illegal devices (VW) and using edge cases and loop holes (everybody else). The first one is illegal cheating, the other smart playing the rules. Both are not ok, so. But only one clearly illegal.
And it was basically founded by Hitler. Wrong
I bought two VWs after the cheating scandal. My impression is that because of the cheating scandal, the carefulness and quality per dollar is very high. I did a bunch of research when purchasing, and quantitatively, features and comfort per dollar have also been higher with VW than other brands. It's been a "buy the dip" situation and I don't care about brand loyalty. In fact, the years of scrutiny VW has faced due to the cheating scandal increases my confidence in the brand relative to others. And, like you said, the other guys were cheating, too. Just not being as scrutinized.
As a clarification: they are only using this for EVs.
https://www.thedrive.com/news/39984/vw-says-its-officially-d...
Which is still…a choice.
https://www.thedrive.com/news/39984/vw-says-its-officially-d...
Which is still…a choice.
Further clarification
https://www.thedrive.com/news/40001/now-the-germans-say-vws-...
April fools!
https://www.thedrive.com/news/40001/now-the-germans-say-vws-...
April fools!
This is funny, yet ridiculous :-))
Their brand is so tainted in the US that they're renaming it.
I imagine it's going to be the only place they'll do it.
Their brand is so tainted in the US that they're renaming it.
I imagine it's going to be the only place they'll do it.
Their brand isn’t tainted in the US at all. You’ll see the Atlas everywhere - 160,000 sold in the last 2 years. That’s about half of Ford Explorer sales and about the same as Chevy Tahoe.
if you want a 3 row suv, the atlas is like 8-10k cheaper for the same amount of car than the others. and it doesn’t look bad. they needed something bigger than the toureg and it works
It's not tainted in Europe either. Sales are healthy and you see cars from the full range (Skoda, Seat, VW, Audi) aplenty. The overlap between car buyers and outrage bubble subscribers might be limited.
Can confirm, I bought a Tiguan 1 year ago, love it.
I had a VW diesel. It was mostly a good car and got great mileage and then they paid me a great price to take it back. Probably my best car experience.
I'd consider a VW again, but I'm also kind of not interested in the models they have anytime soon; I replaced their wagon with a minivan and I'm not going back; the eBus is cute, but doesn't seem as useful. VW hasn't sold a pickup in a long time, and I don't expect to replace the low cost off-lease plugin hybrid with carpool stickers (VW had models with stickers, but nothing off-lease when I was shopping)
I'd consider a VW again, but I'm also kind of not interested in the models they have anytime soon; I replaced their wagon with a minivan and I'm not going back; the eBus is cute, but doesn't seem as useful. VW hasn't sold a pickup in a long time, and I don't expect to replace the low cost off-lease plugin hybrid with carpool stickers (VW had models with stickers, but nothing off-lease when I was shopping)
> Their brand is so tainted in the US that they're renaming it.
If they changed the name because of how people perceive them, they would have pick a name which is different than the current name, not the same name changing only one letter :)
They do it, because they want to get the valuation of a electric car company
If they changed the name because of how people perceive them, they would have pick a name which is different than the current name, not the same name changing only one letter :)
They do it, because they want to get the valuation of a electric car company
So tainted they sold more cars in 2019 than they did pre-scandal.
Hard to believe that most Americans care much about the Dieselgate.
If they did, how do you explain the massive amount of SUVs and pickups carrying a single lonely driver that you can see everyday on America's streets and highways?
Other than a highly educated and modernized young urban minority, I would bet that most Americans are not that worried about emissions.
I feel like most here in the US saw it as an example of lying and cheating, rather than an example of emissions.
It's also going to look really silly in 20 years when every auto manufacturer is doing electric vehicles. It'll be like Ford boasting that they run on unleaded gasoline.
Wouldn't that be the same for Tesla?
Seems to be US only:
https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/new-cars/vw-being-rebrand...
https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/new-cars/vw-being-rebrand...
Is their brand really that tainted in the USA.
Americans swear by Asian brand names for small to medium size cars (Toyota, Honda and to a lesser extent Kia, Hyundai, Subaru).
German cars have a bad rap in the US for being unreliable and expensive to fix.
German cars have a bad rap in the US for being unreliable and expensive to fix.
> German cars have a bad rap in the US for being unreliable and expensive to fix.
Which is totally accurate...
Which is totally accurate...
Their brand is so tainted in the US that they're renaming it.
I don't think most Americans know about or remember the emissions scandal.
That said, there's plenty of precedent for a product being so tainted that it got renamed.
Comcast becoming Xfinity comes to mind.
I don't think most Americans know about or remember the emissions scandal.
That said, there's plenty of precedent for a product being so tainted that it got renamed.
Comcast becoming Xfinity comes to mind.
Very few Americans would even consider a diesel passenger car. They just are not popular here ouside of a tiny niche. That's the irony of the emissions scandal -- there aren't enough passenger diesel cars on the road in the USA that it made any real difference anyway.
Americans don't care about diesel cars, and they for the most part didn't care about the emissions scandal.
Americans don't care about diesel cars, and they for the most part didn't care about the emissions scandal.
[deleted]
How isn't their brand tarnished around the world? Besides the emissions scandal, their vehicles are just expensive and difficult to maintain.
I've got a diesel VW Jetta. It has been nothing but a money pit. I'm in the US for reference.
I've got a diesel VW Jetta. It has been nothing but a money pit. I'm in the US for reference.
Here in the UKs, VWs are considered reliable and among the easiest to find parts for
Same in Sweden and many other places
Going to second and extend TheAdamAndChe's assessment in the US to include the Audi division as well. It seems electrical/electronics are the main quality area.
I had an S5 with dash lighting issues, console control issues, premature clutch failure (to be fair the previous owner could have roasted it), a nearly new SQ5 with a failed cabin blower fan and more console issues. My sister-in-law had a Jetta with aggregate months in the shop for variety of engine management and other electronics issues. My nephew had a CC that broke a seal and the resulting oil leak wasn't detected by the oil pressure sensor and he seized the engine (also had a fuel pump failure). These are the only VWs in the extended family.
Now I have an F150 with way too many electronics in it for a pickup truck...fingers crossed.
I had an S5 with dash lighting issues, console control issues, premature clutch failure (to be fair the previous owner could have roasted it), a nearly new SQ5 with a failed cabin blower fan and more console issues. My sister-in-law had a Jetta with aggregate months in the shop for variety of engine management and other electronics issues. My nephew had a CC that broke a seal and the resulting oil leak wasn't detected by the oil pressure sensor and he seized the engine (also had a fuel pump failure). These are the only VWs in the extended family.
Now I have an F150 with way too many electronics in it for a pickup truck...fingers crossed.
Agreed, also compare the failure statistics with e.g. Ford and you will see VW outperforms for example Ford in reliability. Not sure about other cars.
Here in Germany VW is also considered pretty reliable and obviously has a huge network of service stations. But I'm pretty sure that's a pretty biased perspective.
Here in Singapore VW has as good reputation as it's always had.
I think the reputation problem is limited to the US.
I think the reputation problem is limited to the US.
A friend in Germany said he trusts VW even more after the scandal, because it showed their engineering cleverness. And also because they cared for their customers and gave them even better performance than the government allowed.
In general, VW has a good, somewhat inflated reputation in Germany + parts of EU. In my experience, the cars are quite solid and reliable, albeit considered a bit boring. But you can also buy a Seat or Skoda which is basically the same car with a different exterior but cheaper...
Maybe the issue is that they are different cars in the US. VW didn't have a Jetta in Germany for years. I owned a Golf MK3 convertible in the US, and I felt it was of lesser quality than similar VWs for the European market.
In general, VW has a good, somewhat inflated reputation in Germany + parts of EU. In my experience, the cars are quite solid and reliable, albeit considered a bit boring. But you can also buy a Seat or Skoda which is basically the same car with a different exterior but cheaper...
Maybe the issue is that they are different cars in the US. VW didn't have a Jetta in Germany for years. I owned a Golf MK3 convertible in the US, and I felt it was of lesser quality than similar VWs for the European market.
>> better performance than the government allowed
My understanding was that this performance came at the expense of more pollution, which is what the gov is regulating?
My understanding was that this performance came at the expense of more pollution, which is what the gov is regulating?
Your flaw is the assumption that all, or even most, customers prefer the non-tangible idea of "reducing pollution" to the tangible experience of greater performance.
>> non-tangible idea of "reducing pollution"
That's exactly the problem with the public's understanding of pollution [1]. If they can't see people dying in front of their eyes, they won't believe it...
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/feb/09/fossil-f...
That's exactly the problem with the public's understanding of pollution [1]. If they can't see people dying in front of their eyes, they won't believe it...
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/feb/09/fossil-f...
Different pollution, not necessarily more. Tuning the engine for more fuel efficiency generates more nitrogen oxides (above the legal limit in this case) and less carbon dioxide.
That's a fair nitpick, but my reply to the parent comment still stands - that the regulation was about pollution, and not engine performance.
Right, and many customers would prefer the performance, thank you very much.
Yeah, but most of us -- even enthusiasts -- aren't cutting off their cats to do so.
Name a German brand that isn't expensive and difficult to maintain. German car manufacturers have the strongest marketing departments in the world and people will swear blind that their vehicle is reliable and costs nothing to maintain. It's incredibly difficult to get car owners to be honest about how much it really costs them and how reliable their vehicle really is.
Another problem is people don't know any better. It's not like the average person has owned cars from all the major brands for enough time for things to go wrong with them. Most people own only a few cars over their entire life. I think this is particularly true with brands like VW. People just don't know any better and think it's normal for a car to be a money pit.
Cars are a strange thing. Very quickly after getting a car it becomes an essential part of life. When the bill comes through to repair whatever has gone wrong, there's no choice but to pay it. You can't just choose to not pay because it's too expensive. People take their car to the garage where it's essentially held captive until they pay the ransom.
I own a VW myself but I'll never own one (or any other German car) ever again. I will be going back to Japanese cars next time. Honda or Toyota.
Another problem is people don't know any better. It's not like the average person has owned cars from all the major brands for enough time for things to go wrong with them. Most people own only a few cars over their entire life. I think this is particularly true with brands like VW. People just don't know any better and think it's normal for a car to be a money pit.
Cars are a strange thing. Very quickly after getting a car it becomes an essential part of life. When the bill comes through to repair whatever has gone wrong, there's no choice but to pay it. You can't just choose to not pay because it's too expensive. People take their car to the garage where it's essentially held captive until they pay the ransom.
I own a VW myself but I'll never own one (or any other German car) ever again. I will be going back to Japanese cars next time. Honda or Toyota.
I think a lot of people's opinions on cars continue to be based on anecdotal experiences.
I owned 2 VWs in my life, my first, a 1999 Golf was an amazing car. It felt solid and was super reliable right up until I T-boned someone who made an illegal turn and it got written off. I drove an Acura Integra for years after that and had just tonnes of quality issues where it was needing constant maintenance. As soon as I was able to, I bought another VW, a 2003 GTI which I drove with only 1 major repair (AC Compressor) in the 200,000kms I put to it (sold it to a friend at 330,000kms, it still hasn't needed repairs).
I went to a Mazda most recently, but I can't say anything about its reliability since I just bought it in December and only have 5,000kms on it so far.
But my experience, and those among my friends (I was part of a local VW enthusiast club) is that the cars are fine. But the kicker is you need to stay on top of your maintenance. If you skimp on the regular work, you end up paying for it in the end. I had to do various work on the car merely due to its age, but ultimately I loved the VW GTI. It was solid and reliable for me.
I owned 2 VWs in my life, my first, a 1999 Golf was an amazing car. It felt solid and was super reliable right up until I T-boned someone who made an illegal turn and it got written off. I drove an Acura Integra for years after that and had just tonnes of quality issues where it was needing constant maintenance. As soon as I was able to, I bought another VW, a 2003 GTI which I drove with only 1 major repair (AC Compressor) in the 200,000kms I put to it (sold it to a friend at 330,000kms, it still hasn't needed repairs).
I went to a Mazda most recently, but I can't say anything about its reliability since I just bought it in December and only have 5,000kms on it so far.
But my experience, and those among my friends (I was part of a local VW enthusiast club) is that the cars are fine. But the kicker is you need to stay on top of your maintenance. If you skimp on the regular work, you end up paying for it in the end. I had to do various work on the car merely due to its age, but ultimately I loved the VW GTI. It was solid and reliable for me.
"But my experience, and those among my friends (I was part of a local VW enthusiast club) is that the cars are fine. But the kicker is you need to stay on top of your maintenance. If you skimp on the regular work, you end up paying for it in the end. "
This is the absolute truth about most modern cars. The main thing I look for now in a used car is parts availability and how well the car has been maintained.
This is the absolute truth about most modern cars. The main thing I look for now in a used car is parts availability and how well the car has been maintained.
you also have to ask "reliable compared to what?". my first car was a golf tdi. the only maintenance cost was the annual service. it never got close to 100k miles though because vw had to buy it back from me in the dieselgate settlement. statistically, I'm sure a toyota corolla is a much more reliable car, and I would have replaced it with one if that's all I cared about. but I've driven a few of those, and golfs are much more pleasant to spend time in, both behind the wheel and in the passenger seat.
there's an inherent tradeoff between performance, reliability, comfort, and price. once people find their preferred set of tradeoffs, they inevitably start making comments on the internet about how they don't understand why everyone doesn't buy their favorite brand.
there's an inherent tradeoff between performance, reliability, comfort, and price. once people find their preferred set of tradeoffs, they inevitably start making comments on the internet about how they don't understand why everyone doesn't buy their favorite brand.
Which Corolla did you drive as the new ones are pretty performant? I've got the 2 litre hybrid with 200nm torque from each engine and a combined bhp of 186 (could be ~305bhp and 400nm of torque if remapped as it has a 2 litre 200bhp petrol engine with 200nm of torque and a 105bhp electric engine with 195nm of torque but you'll lose linear acceleration and the fuel efficiency that Toyota equipped it with) with good mpg, MacPherson suspension at the front, and multi linked individual suspension at the back, lower centre of gravity and 52.5:47.5 weight distribution for better cornering (and cornering assist). All in all a nice car that is pretty performant and has good features.
last time I drove a corolla was several years ago, probably a 2017 model. it wasn't an awful car, but to me, it felt like a step down in driving dynamics over the tdi I was forced to get rid of. I believe that model made about the same peak power as my old tdi, but obviously at a much higher rpm. the steering felt vague, etc. I was also cross-shopping a gti (whose price was very depressed at the time), so it wasn't entirely a fair comparison.
2019 was the release of their first performance model. With the hybrid option there's no turbo lag (that gti's are notorious for) and the steering is very sharp in sports mode (can also create custom profiles to adapt steering, suspension and dampners to your own likings). The hybrid model is better compared against the gte which has very similar specs to the gti.
The gte when I tested seemed heavy and the brakes were spongy compared to the gti (regenerative brakes but the corollas aren't spongy like that) and it was evident when the electric motor switched off.
The gte when I tested seemed heavy and the brakes were spongy compared to the gti (regenerative brakes but the corollas aren't spongy like that) and it was evident when the electric motor switched off.
I didn't realize they now had a performance model, thanks for sharing. tbh I'm probably going rwd on my next car (very interested in the new brz/86), but I'll keep it in mind.
> Another problem is people don't know any better. It's not like the average person has owned cars from all the major brands for enough time for things to go wrong with them. Most people own only a few cars over their entire life. I think this is particularly true with brands like VW. People just don't know any better and think it's normal for a car to be a money pit.
This is odd coming from a person who is making a sweeping judgment based on owning one car. My family and I have owned mk4, mk5, and mk6 VWs. Never had to bring any of them in for anything other than standard maintenance. I have a newish BMW now and my folks have a lightly used Mercedes. So far everyone's happy there too.
VWs also have a pretty corporate, standard chassis of parts that's reused across almost all of VW's and much of Audi's cars. There should always be cheap parts available from third parties given the number of models interchanging the same parts under the hood. BMWs (and probably Mercedes too) definitely are more expensive to repair and maintain. IMO they tend to over-engineer, and that comes with both good and bad consequences.
This is odd coming from a person who is making a sweeping judgment based on owning one car. My family and I have owned mk4, mk5, and mk6 VWs. Never had to bring any of them in for anything other than standard maintenance. I have a newish BMW now and my folks have a lightly used Mercedes. So far everyone's happy there too.
VWs also have a pretty corporate, standard chassis of parts that's reused across almost all of VW's and much of Audi's cars. There should always be cheap parts available from third parties given the number of models interchanging the same parts under the hood. BMWs (and probably Mercedes too) definitely are more expensive to repair and maintain. IMO they tend to over-engineer, and that comes with both good and bad consequences.
In south Africa, VW is still held in high regard. Especially the Golf GTI. However, most dudes in a relationship have nightmares about it.
I'm not sure it remains possible to 'tarnish' a brand when the general public have the attention span of a weasel on crack.
Even in Japan, VW is considered as one of the most reliable import car brand. Of course Toyota is different level.
I'm in Canada and my last car was a Volkswagen Eos. I'm unlikely to buy another VW, for reasons which have nothing to do with the emissions scandal.
A few years ago I had to spend ~$10k to replace all the roof seals and repair damage after water leaked into the interior. I bought the vehicle new and diligently lube the seals according to the owners manual.
Last month my girlfriend found a piece of a suspension spring that broke off. I took it into the dealer, who replaced the front springs and shocks. I specifically asked them to check the rear ones, which they said were fine. Also asked about any undercarriage rust, which they said wasn't bad, and in line with what they'd expect for a 10 year old car.
Two weeks later this larger chunk of a rear spring fell off while I was driving:
https://m.imgur.com/a/uHhdD1p
I've had other minor issues. eg. Ever since the new seals were installed, one window sometimes takes multiple tries to close right, despite several attempts to correct.
It's a fun little car and the Service department has been very accommodating, but all in all the money I've spent on repairs could easily have paid the bump to buy the BMW hardtop instead.
After the last incident I bought a Toyota RAV4 with green Consumer Reports reliability ratings across the board. VW has a lot to prove if they want me back as a customer.
A few years ago I had to spend ~$10k to replace all the roof seals and repair damage after water leaked into the interior. I bought the vehicle new and diligently lube the seals according to the owners manual.
Last month my girlfriend found a piece of a suspension spring that broke off. I took it into the dealer, who replaced the front springs and shocks. I specifically asked them to check the rear ones, which they said were fine. Also asked about any undercarriage rust, which they said wasn't bad, and in line with what they'd expect for a 10 year old car.
Two weeks later this larger chunk of a rear spring fell off while I was driving:
https://m.imgur.com/a/uHhdD1p
I've had other minor issues. eg. Ever since the new seals were installed, one window sometimes takes multiple tries to close right, despite several attempts to correct.
It's a fun little car and the Service department has been very accommodating, but all in all the money I've spent on repairs could easily have paid the bump to buy the BMW hardtop instead.
After the last incident I bought a Toyota RAV4 with green Consumer Reports reliability ratings across the board. VW has a lot to prove if they want me back as a customer.
403 ERROR
The request could not be satisfied.
The Amazon CloudFront distribution is configured to block access from your country. We can't connect to the server for this app or website at this time. There might be too much traffic or a configuration error. Try again later, or contact the app or website owner.
If you provide content to customers through CloudFront, you can find steps to troubleshoot and help prevent this error by reviewing the CloudFront documentation.
EDIT: it's back up now. Site was probably just hugged to death.
Seems to work fine from Germany, but here's the archive.org link:
https://web.archive.org/web/20210330121521/https://media.vw....
https://web.archive.org/web/20210330121521/https://media.vw....
Can confirm it is still up and working for me. I am located in the continental US with an IP that nominally appears to be US based. Maybe they have configured CloudFront in an "interesting" way.
> site was probably just hugged to death.
That's highly unlikely, given that it is on CloudFront. Also that error is not a "too much traffic" error, it's a specific config change.
More likely is that someone accidentally pushed a bad config blocking your country for a little bit.
That's highly unlikely, given that it is on CloudFront. Also that error is not a "too much traffic" error, it's a specific config change.
More likely is that someone accidentally pushed a bad config blocking your country for a little bit.
I first thought that it was a pretty poor decision considering the brand value of Volkswagen, but then I remembered that I've used the phrase "Volkswagen engineering" at work to refer to a suggestion that we optimise our application to work better in customer benchmarks.
Echoes of when IHOP "changed" its name to IHOB.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2018/07/09/ihop-changes...
IHOb, right?
Maybe the P had a coronary heart-attack from all the grilled food at Big Brunch?
Maybe the P had a coronary heart-attack from all the grilled food at Big Brunch?
And Pizza Hut rebranding to Pasta Hut in the UK https://www.marketingweek.com/pizza-hut-rebrands-to-pasta-hu...
Please tell me someone in marketing released the Apr 1 press release a bit too soon?
Or on purpose before the news gets inundated with other stunts.
The same thought crossed my mind. Then I thought - could they have done this now to gauge feedback, stick with it if it works, and write it off as an April fools joke if there's too much backlash? That feels like the next level of chess here :)
According to at least one German media site it's an April fool's joke that was released prematurely.
https://www.t-online.de/finanzen/news/unternehmen-verbrauche...
However there are now several other sites claiming it is not a joke.
https://www.t-online.de/finanzen/news/unternehmen-verbrauche...
However there are now several other sites claiming it is not a joke.
> Founded in 1955, Voltswagen of America, formerly Volkswagen of America, Inc., is an operating unit of Volkswagen Group of America and a subsidiary of Volkswagen AG
So Voltswagen is a unit of Volkswagen Group of America? That's not confusing to say at all... I feel like having your subsidiaries name differ by one letter (which both looks and is pronounced similarly) is a bold choice. Too bad, I liked the Volkswagen name.
So Voltswagen is a unit of Volkswagen Group of America? That's not confusing to say at all... I feel like having your subsidiaries name differ by one letter (which both looks and is pronounced similarly) is a bold choice. Too bad, I liked the Volkswagen name.
This feels like an IHOB/IHOP-style publicity stunt.
Reminds me of the "Siemens Healthineers" madness. German companies are really good ruining perfectly fine brands (look e.g. at the new BMW logo), so I wouldn't be suprised if this was real. If they really want to change the name why not just use "Volta", which at least is short.
Volta is already taken.
>really want to change the name why not just use "Volta"
Because that would be undoing the entire VW brand they've been building for decades at the cost of billions.
Voltswagen is a natural increment to Volkswagen while still maintaining that legacy branding.
Because that would be undoing the entire VW brand they've been building for decades at the cost of billions.
Voltswagen is a natural increment to Volkswagen while still maintaining that legacy branding.
I don't know if anyone else took like 3 paragraphs to realize this, but point is Volkswagen is is changing their name to Voltswagen -- as in VOLTS wagon - as in electricity.
I hate to admit this but I somehow couldn't see the change until I got to this quote:
“We might be changing out our K for a T, but what we aren't changing is this brand’s commitment to making best-in-class vehicles for drivers and people everywhere,” said Scott Keogh, president and CEO of Voltswagen of America.
Also, apparently not an early April Fool's joke: they confirmed the name change to Car and Driver: https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a35970854/vw-name-change-v...
I hate to admit this but I somehow couldn't see the change until I got to this quote:
“We might be changing out our K for a T, but what we aren't changing is this brand’s commitment to making best-in-class vehicles for drivers and people everywhere,” said Scott Keogh, president and CEO of Voltswagen of America.
Also, apparently not an early April Fool's joke: they confirmed the name change to Car and Driver: https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a35970854/vw-name-change-v...
Getting VW Jetta was the worst decision I've ever made, new or old doesn't matter because all of them have countless problem. Add to that emission scandal... Yeah, I won't exchange my old honda civic even for new VW because Japanese cars are affordable and reliable.
Ok this is kinda brilliant. Almost everyone already refers to them as “VW”, which will still be accurate after the name change.
So they get the media boost of the brand name change without actually having to suffer any hit from lack of recognition.
So they get the media boost of the brand name change without actually having to suffer any hit from lack of recognition.
BP tried something similar in the early 2000s, but abandoned the new name after their incidents in the following decade:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottcarpenter/2020/08/04/bps-n...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottcarpenter/2020/08/04/bps-n...
Got a Subaru Outback 10 days ago. After I saw this, I told my wife that will probably be the last vehicle we buy that is not at least a plug-in hybrid.
We had also test-driven a Toyota Avalon Hybrid, but the Subaru was a much better value and had more vertical trunk space, AWD, and every safety/convenience feature we could imagine getting (and some we weren't even aware of) without buying a $70k+ Lexus/BMW/Mercedes.
I really wish Subaru made plug-in hybrids, hopefully they will by the time our minivan is 8-9 years old.
We had also test-driven a Toyota Avalon Hybrid, but the Subaru was a much better value and had more vertical trunk space, AWD, and every safety/convenience feature we could imagine getting (and some we weren't even aware of) without buying a $70k+ Lexus/BMW/Mercedes.
I really wish Subaru made plug-in hybrids, hopefully they will by the time our minivan is 8-9 years old.
Subaru already has a Crosstrek plug-in hybrid, but it's not available very widely. I would have been interested if I'd known they existed before buying my current car, but they're only available in certain states with seemingly low stock.
I wish Subaru didn't go all-in on touch for critical controls like climate and radio. It may be the #1 reason I don't look to them for my next vehicle.
I used to say I would never buy a phone without a physical keyboard. My last phone with a physical keyboard was the original Moto Droid, which I lost in 2012.
Understood, but I think the ability to adjust things tactile is more important in a driving scenario. Also, The UI lag on some of these infotainment systems feels like a 2010 iphone running iOS 13.
If only one could update the processor in their infotainment the way one does a phone, instead of having to buy a new car.
If only one could update the processor in their infotainment the way one does a phone, instead of having to buy a new car.
You raise a valid concern. At least in the Outback, a lot of things can be done with voice commands. It's not lightning-fast, but when driving, that's safer than both a touch-screen and physical buttons/switches.
A touch interface in a car is nice for reaching all kinds of weird settings and hopefully make good ux for maps and stuff. But for direct control it sucks. The car I'm driving now I have no way to adjust the AC without multiple screen touches (switch to AC screen, wait, click the small - button multiple times to decrease temperature, click + button multiple times to increase fan speed).
I'm all for nice touch screens, just keep some knobs as well.
I'm all for nice touch screens, just keep some knobs as well.
I really wish Subaru made plug-in hybrids
I assume the lack of hybrids and pure electrics is because Subaru is tiny, as far as auto manufacturers go.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/249375/us-market-share-o...
It’s a lot of R&D to make a hybrid, and the non-Prius sales have been…less than stellar. Now, Subaru has an environmental outdoorsy image, so they could probably market better than most, but it’s probably awfully expensive for them. And in the short term, they are selling everything they can make, and they might not want to mess with the production lines that much.
I assume the lack of hybrids and pure electrics is because Subaru is tiny, as far as auto manufacturers go.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/249375/us-market-share-o...
It’s a lot of R&D to make a hybrid, and the non-Prius sales have been…less than stellar. Now, Subaru has an environmental outdoorsy image, so they could probably market better than most, but it’s probably awfully expensive for them. And in the short term, they are selling everything they can make, and they might not want to mess with the production lines that much.
Wow. There are actually people at the company that believe this is not a silly name.
There is a new big boss™ somewhere laughing that their sarcasm was taken seriously.
Poe's Law: Corporate Intranet Edition
Poe's Law: Corporate Intranet Edition
Is this an April fools joke?
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-volkswagen-name/volkswage...
First fake emissions scandal... now fake name change?
First fake emissions scandal... now fake name change?
Driven away by nausea at "future-forward investment in e-mobility" in the second 'graph.
Aside from the odd naming change, the main purpose of a move like this is to signal to employees the extent that the organization is making a shift. It may especially be necessary for such a long standing organization such as VW.
+1 The cynics here are a bit blind to how deep rooted the intent to change must be, down to changing the name of the company. Win or lose, this is strictly better for humanity than the gas fueled past
They should rename it to Folks-Wagon.
Folks-Vagon
I think Speed-Wagon would catch on among the younger generations.
If memory services, that marque is owned by General Motors and the modern version of the Speedwagon are GMC trucks. Would be catchy to actually release a new vehicle with the Speedwagon model name.
Reo as Ransom Eli Olds' second car company, the first one is what became the Oldsmobile divison of GM. But GM never owned Reo.
Supposedly Volvo owns the name now.
Supposedly Volvo owns the name now.
I'm pretty sure you meant Baby Boomers, not "younger generations":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/REO_Speedwagon
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/REO_Speedwagon
I'm referring to a very different Speedwagon.
Guess who the Baby Boomer is who did not know there was a third option for "Speedwagon"?
(First two options are the rock band, and the proto-truck from the early 20th century which the band was named after.)
(First two options are the rock band, and the proto-truck from the early 20th century which the band was named after.)
To that I raise you option number 4, who is part of a wider cultural phenomenon among the Gen Z:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-aZBwOj94w
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-aZBwOj94w
That's literally what the name has been since the company was founded.
VW is really pushing EVs. In my neighborhood in Germany there are already many, many ID.3 and ID.4. It's a city near Wolfsburg (VW HQ), that might influence that as well.
Wow, they actually did it. I'm kind of impressed.
[deleted]
So we have car companies who can trace their names to Alessandro Volta and Nikola Tesla.
Up for grabs: André-Marie Ampère? Faraday? Edison?
Up for grabs: André-Marie Ampère? Faraday? Edison?
Faraday and Edison is already taken. See: Faraday Futures, Edison Motors
Maxwell
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell_automobile
Interesting:
> Maxwell was one of the first car companies to market specifically to women.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell_automobile
Interesting:
> Maxwell was one of the first car companies to market specifically to women.
Maxwell should produce an electric motorcycle called the Demon.
Watt? Joule?
Henry Ford!
Volkswagen to Voltswagen
By having 'Volts' can they can grow market share ?
Can anybody think of a similar name change that worked before ?
By having 'Volts' can they can grow market share ?
Can anybody think of a similar name change that worked before ?
Long Island Iced Tea, or Long Blockchain, comes to mind: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-12-21/crypto-cr...
Wow for real.
[deleted]
... and it turns out this was actually an April's Fools joke.
And, right on brand, VW screwed up the execution...
And, right on brand, VW screwed up the execution...
Watt the heck
Amp-ing up the marketing efforts.
Shocking, but they have to stay current and have no capacity to resist
Maybe they'll start making trains. Then they can have a conductor between two points.
That seems like it would generate publicity, all right.
General Motors will follow-suit with Electric Motors.
General Electric will follow-suit by doing nothing.
General Electric will follow-suit by doing nothing.
I think names are more important than people think. I am frankly shocked they would make this change (assuming it's not an April Fool's joke)
This has to be the worst branding move I've ever seen, with the exception maybe of Netflix and Qwikster
This has to be the worst branding move I've ever seen, with the exception maybe of Netflix and Qwikster
I don’t know how ppl can think that this is real. VW group is the biggest or second biggest car producer in the world.
People really think they would rename to something so silly. This is the equivalent of Musk twitting about doge
A shocking change in their current direction. One hopes they have the capacity to close the circuit on this. But beyond this press release, they really have to charge forward to transform themselves.
[deleted]
The funny thing is that this is how a lot of people pronounce it anyway.
Fast forward a decade or two to when electric is no longer a novelty, and this brand will not have aged well.
They will first do a soft revert to “Voltswagen, by Volkswagen” and then a full revert.
They will first do a soft revert to “Voltswagen, by Volkswagen” and then a full revert.
Voltswagon actually would have been a cool idea, in my opinion
The price to acquire voltswagen.com just shot through the roof.
Seems odd they didn't acquire voltswagen.de and voltswagen.com though a subsidiary company.
[deleted]
Why didn't they wait until April 1st to make this announcement? Clearly they haven't learned enough about the internet culture from Elon.
Ah right, those 72 hours where I don't give any mental energy to things on the internet.
Did we even do April Fools last year?
Did we even do April Fools last year?
I’m mostly surprised they haven’t just rebranded to VW. Kentucky Fried Chicken did the same thing years ago.
Well, if that doesn't signal the end of combustion consumer vehicles, I don't know what does!!
If it's not a joke, it's a corporate branding error.
If it is a joke, it's great PR.
[deleted]
Sounds like the US brand is so burned, that they decided to try something bold.
I wonder how much internal resistance there was to this shocking name change.
> I wonder how much internal resistance there was to this shocking name change.
"Ohm-y!" And who was charged with leading this change?
"Ohm-y!" And who was charged with leading this change?
Perhaps VW should focus on taking slave labor out of their supply chain. One could argue that their decision to work with Nazis was compelled b/c VW is a German company. What's their excuse for using slaves from a second genocide?
https://www.dw.com/en/volkswagens-uighur-problem/av-55579947 https://newlinesinstitute.org/uyghurs/the-uyghur-genocide-an... https://www.haaretz.com/world-news/.premium-from-jews-to-uig...
https://www.dw.com/en/volkswagens-uighur-problem/av-55579947 https://newlinesinstitute.org/uyghurs/the-uyghur-genocide-an... https://www.haaretz.com/world-news/.premium-from-jews-to-uig...
Chevy Volt marketing guys must be pouncing on ideas to make fun of this.
Le me go full zoomer and just call this cringe.
Also its a PR gimmick.
The first model in the Voltswagen line should be called the Eggcorn.
>the ID.4 is the first product to be sold nationwide that confirms the company’s commitment to sustainable mobility.
Exactly what about the mass extraction of lithium is at all sustainable to provide the energy storage for all motorised personal transport?
Exactly what about the mass extraction of lithium is at all sustainable to provide the energy storage for all motorised personal transport?
Virtuesignaling of America is how I interpret this. How about General Electric Motors next? Voltvo? Big Mega Watts?
Im all for electrification where it makes sense, but this seems like a bad pun more than a good idea.
Im all for electrification where it makes sense, but this seems like a bad pun more than a good idea.
But the German company is still called Volkswagen?
Wait so is this real? I thought it was a joke?
What is it they say on reddit...
"thanks, I hate it"
"thanks, I hate it"
Next they'll appoint a Technoting.
That's an april fool joke, right?
this is the "IHOB" of cars
Is this an early april fools joke?
Voltswagen - Resistance is futile
just a thought, maybe a premature release, actually planned for April fools day?
[deleted]
They should have gotten rid of the “wagen” part too since this is the US. VoltSUV might work better.
This is the dumbest shit I’ve read all week.
I had to read it twice and slap myself to believe it.
PR the week of April 1 isn't adding to the credibility either.
[deleted]
google apparently has trouble when you search for ‘voltswagen’
Mann sagt:
Der Fahrer eines Voltswagen
aber nicht:
Der Führer von Volkswagen
Der Fahrer eines Voltswagen
aber nicht:
Der Führer von Volkswagen
GM will sue, for sure.
April Fool's
_April Fools_
[deleted]
An out of season April 1 joke?
To all the nice people downvoting this, it was an April's fools joke.
Early April Fools' joke?
"expresso"
That's nice. The original name represented the then German government and Nazi Party Leader Adolf Hitler to create a car for the perfect Nazi family as presented in his vision.
April fools!
"Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer"
And in case you're wondering, yes the company was founded by the Nazi party. I think it's good they changed the name.
And in case you're wondering, yes the company was founded by the Nazi party. I think it's good they changed the name.
I see what they did there.
High time, should've done that in 1945.
They should also rebrand their Audi brand to “Odd-e”
I can't wait for my voltswagen to toll my mobile ohm ;)
What is the relative difference in emissions between a gasoline-powered car and an electric car that is recharged by power from a coal-burning plant?
Why do you find it useful to bring up this trope which is only tangentially related to the post?
If WV's point is that they are emphasizing their they make electrical cars, and the assumption is that those are better for the environment than all other cars, then it's fair to question that assumption. If 90%+ of our power came from zero-carbon sources like nuclear then it would be a fair point but we're a LONG way from that.
> If 90%+ of our power came from zero-carbon sources like nuclear then it would be a fair point but we're a LONG way from that.
Energy production in EU-27 in 2020: 38% renewables (growing), 25% nuclear, 37% fossil fuels (decreasing). That's already 63% from zero-carbon sources.
Energy production in EU-27 in 2020: 38% renewables (growing), 25% nuclear, 37% fossil fuels (decreasing). That's already 63% from zero-carbon sources.
Gasoline will always come from dead dinosaurs and plants but electricity doesn't come from 100% coal. And the ratio dropping changing fast as other forms get more inexpensive.
Gasoline also comes from corn or anything else that can be distilled to ethanol. For greater calorific efficiency we should be looking to biodiesel as the environmental side effects are as minimal, you get more miles per gallon (km per liter), and the production of biodiesel via algae can happen efficiently in places not currently used for livestock grazing or growing crops.
Assuming this is a good faith question, the pollution generated by ICE cars driving 1+ metre away from me pollutes the air I breathe in a much more concentrated way than the pollution generated by a power plant 10+ miles away.
Air pollution in cities is a real problem that nobody really talks about because there's no easy solutions.
I don't drive an EV, because it's not practical / affordable for me yet. I hope this changes soon.
Air pollution in cities is a real problem that nobody really talks about because there's no easy solutions.
I don't drive an EV, because it's not practical / affordable for me yet. I hope this changes soon.
Besides the fact that a coal-burning plant is more efficient, one difference is a cleaner city. Another difference is that it can be charged from other sources, e.g. solar at home. Another difference is that the grid is typically a mix, not just coal. And another difference is that the battery is basically an abstraction which abstracts away the power supply so this becomes a different (easier) problem to fix.
If you want to know there’s plenty of reliable sources like the doe (and if you want confirmation bias rather than facts, there’s plenty of unreliable sources)
Last time someone made a comment like yours, I actually tried googling and there’s a doe site that actually tells you the carbon emissions by state for an ev, hybrid or normal gas car given that states specific energy sources.
Even W Virginia, the worst state I could find, having about 90% coal, gives much lower emissions for an ev than a gas car. And that’s with the current mix. It’s only getting better from here. And that’s the worst state!
Here you go https://afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/electric_emissions.html
Last time someone made a comment like yours, I actually tried googling and there’s a doe site that actually tells you the carbon emissions by state for an ev, hybrid or normal gas car given that states specific energy sources.
Even W Virginia, the worst state I could find, having about 90% coal, gives much lower emissions for an ev than a gas car. And that’s with the current mix. It’s only getting better from here. And that’s the worst state!
Here you go https://afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/electric_emissions.html
Thank you: this is EXACTLY the kind of information for which I was looking!
here's an article I usually reference when this kind of question comes up:
https://web.archive.org/web/20170417164448/https://www.vanco...
tldr;
https://web.archive.org/web/20170417164448/https://www.vanco...
tldr;
In dirty electricity regions, driving on electricity creates similar climate pollution to gasoline.
Regions that burn mostly coal and natural gas to generate electricity create high levels of climate pollution for each kWh. In Alberta, for example, a Plug-In Prius will cause a similar amount of climate pollution driving on gasoline as it does driving on Alberta's electricity.
Some electric car owners have worked around this problem by putting up their own solar panels, or by purchasing cleaner electricity directly from their utility.Thank you: this is EXACTLY what I was looking for!