Cheat device EDC17

[NoDiscoSport]

Not disputing its possible but the bosch device is not a cheat device in itself. Someone needs to programme it so.

Correct. The Bosch ECU contains some software that can be re-programmed by anyone - one way to do it is with a product like Swiftec from https://vcpowerteam.com/products/

This software can apparently disable the whole DEF system on JLR vehicles fitted with the EDC17CP55 ECU:

[Barnsh]

Not disputing its possible but the bosch device is not a cheat device in itself. Someone needs to programme it so.

Correct. The Bosch ECU contains some software that can be re-programmed by anyone - one way to do it is with a product like Swiftec from https://vcpowerteam.com/products/

This software can apparently disable the whole DEF system on JLR vehicles fitted with the EDC17CP55 ECU:

VCPower DEF Removal.PNG

If you look through the court case (law suit) posted earlier, it clearly states that the cheat area of the ECU had to be changed by Robert Bosch That’s why Robert Bosch was in the class action along with VW , and others.
Not all of it is configurable , thus Robert Bosch was charged with collusion. VW couldn’t have done it on its own was the finding

[NoDiscoSport]

Not disputing its possible but the bosch device is not a cheat device in itself. Someone needs to programme it so.

Correct. The Bosch ECU contains some software that can be re-programmed by anyone - one way to do it is with a product like Swiftec from https://vcpowerteam.com/products/

This software can apparently disable the whole DEF system on JLR vehicles fitted with the EDC17CP55 ECU:

VCPower DEF Removal.PNG

If you look through the court case (law suit) posted earlier, it clearly states that the cheat area of the ECU had to be changed by Robert Bosch That’s why Robert Bosch was in the class action along with VW , and others.
Not all of it is configurable , thus Robert Bosch was charged with collusion. VW couldn’t have done it on its own was the finding

Standing corrected.

PS: If I turned off the DEF injection would I slow down diesel dilution?

[Barnsh]

Correct. The Bosch ECU contains some software that can be re-programmed by anyone - one way to do it is with a product like Swiftec from https://vcpowerteam.com/products/

This software can apparently disable the whole DEF system on JLR vehicles fitted with the EDC17CP55 ECU:

VCPower DEF Removal.PNG

If you look through the court case (law suit) posted earlier, it clearly states that the cheat area of the ECU had to be changed by Robert Bosch That’s why Robert Bosch was in the class action along with VW , and others.
Not all of it is configurable , thus Robert Bosch was charged with collusion. VW couldn’t have done it on its own was the finding

Standing corrected.

PS: If I turned off the DEF injection would I slow down diesel dilution?

The DEF turn off also needs further adjustment on the ECU from reading about turning it off on other sites. You’d still get soot collected , needed to be burned off , thus fuel for that burning . Unless you took the DPF out and turned off regeneration too.

No DEF just means you kick out NOx , but there are sensors to be adjusted too that detect NOx etc.

[PhilMabbots17]

It's interesting to see the way they're going after Martin Winterkorn. The German prosecutors appear to be saying that VW cars fitted with the illegal EDC17 software devices enabled were "more saleable" than would otherwise have been the case, had VW released them with the NOx control systems working properly out on the road. Therefore, the prosecution alleges, massive numbers of sales were made fraudulently, with the knock-on effect that investors were also misled and suffered consequential losses because the financial performance of the company was over-stated.

I wonder what would have happened if, instead of defauding its customers through the use of cheat software, VW had simply turned the devices off and defrauded customers and shareholders with over-stated service intervals, unachievable fuel economy, poor performance and clogged up DPFs for drivers that weren't using the right "driving style" - in other words, the way that the VW cars performed following the manufacturer's recall to turn off the illegal software. Would the prosecutors have considered that this also constituted fraudulent activity against customers and investors, on the basis that VW would have still been inflating sales, albeit with a different deception, but still one that misrepresented the overall performance limitations of its diesel engine cars?

If so, then presumably this would also apply to any other company that misled large numbers of people into buying diesel cars that they would not otherwise have purchased, had they known the full facts about emissions and the performance constraints that sequential after treatment systems impose on certain types of diesel vehicles. That sounds familiar.

Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-volk ... SKCN1RR11O

[Barnsh]

It's interesting to see the way they're going after Martin Winterkorn. The German prosecutors appear to be saying that VW cars fitted with the illegal EDC17 software devices enabled were "more saleable" than would otherwise have been the case, had VW released them with the NOx control systems working properly out on the road. Therefore, the prosecution alleges, massive numbers of sales were made fraudulently, with the knock-on effect that investors were also misled and suffered consequential losses because the financial performance of the company was over-stated.

I wonder what would have happened if, instead of defauding its customers through the use of cheat software, VW had simply turned the devices off and defrauded customers and shareholders with over-stated service intervals, unachievable fuel economy, poor performance and clogged up DPFs for drivers that weren't using the right "driving style" - in other words, the way that the VW cars performed following the manufacturer's recall to turn off the illegal software. Would the prosecutors have considered that this also constituted fraudulent activity against customers and investors, on the basis that VW would have still been inflating sales, albeit with a different deception, but still one that misrepresented the overall performance limitations of its diesel engine cars?

If so, then presumably this would also apply to any other company that misled large numbers of people into buying diesel cars that they would not otherwise have purchased, had they known the full facts about emissions and the performance constraints that sequential after treatment systems impose on certain types of diesel vehicles. That sounds familiar.

Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-volk ... SKCN1RR11O

100%

End of the day they were lucky VW were caught just before the DS released with the ingenium.
Then changes were made and adblue usage increased enormously.

My conclusion is maybe they didn’t cheat in the end but the intention was certainly there, whether it was knowingly or oblivious to what Robert Bosch had fitted.
They certainly didn't request the cheat device items in the EDC17 to be removed off there own back.

It was more a case of VW news hits the media .... “sh#t we use that box too, get it sorted “ before release ....or as soon as. And while your at it “ release a statement saying we don’t use cheat devices”...

[PhilMabbots17]

100%

End of the day they were lucky VW were caught just before the DS released with the ingenium.
Then changes were made and adblue usage increased enormously.

My conclusion is maybe they didn’t cheat in the end but the intention was certainly there, whether it was knowingly or oblivious to what Robert Bosch had fitted.
They certainly didn't request the cheat device items in the EDC17 to be removed off there own back.

It was more a case of VW news hits the media .... “sh#t we use that box too, get it sorted “ before release ....or as soon as. And while your at it “ release a statement saying we don’t use cheat devices”...

So all this time this probably wasn't a bad exhaust design at all. On the contrary maybe it was a rather clever and elegant exhaust design that could have worked brilliantly had it been strapped to a hot, efficient, diesel engine producing less HC/PM, with an oxidation catalyst that actually worked - and SCR and LP EGR systems that were turned down for the most part so that they didn't interfere overly with the otherwise immaculate operation of the system. Without the vital contribution of the acoustic function on the ECU, though, out in the real world such a system would instantly start exhibiting several tell-tale malfunctions.

The blatant discrepancies in the marketing materials, the triple-speed accumulation of diesel in the oil, the "goodwill" oil services, the blocked DPFs, the missing service indicator, the lack of suitable servicing software (on the car or in the workshop), the absence of any training for mechanics, the high AdBlue usage, the poor fuel economy, the eventual elevation of the "safe" diesel dilution percentage and the immediate and sustained response from JLR and its dealers that everything was the fault of owners' driving style.... you put all of that together and a different interpretation to the one you have described is extremely hard to conceive.

Companies with multi-billion pound R&D budgets simply do NOT make design errors on this scale. This surely had to be the result of something that was forced on the company without warning - and presumably when it was too late to redesign an alternative solution. You said that the intention to cheat [the emissions tests] was "certainly there": I would not demur. If this is true, then there had to have been a different plan for these cars, i.e. at some point a (presumably, relatively small) group of people got their heads together to create a different scenario to the one that continues to be played out. Behind closed doors they hatched, as Baldrick would say, "a cunning plan".

In English Law a conspiracy to commit an offence carries the same penalty upon conviction as if the material offence had been commissioned. If we had got our heads together and devised a plan to steal a car from the local JLR dealership (whether or not we actually did anything about it), we could each go to jail for 10 years - just for the planning!. Not many people know that.

See Inchoate Offences published by the UK's Crown Prosecution Service.

[TeddyBear]

In English Law a conspiracy to commit an offence carries the same penalty upon conviction as if the material offence had been commissioned.

Regarding Winterkorn and his cronies I don't believe that plea bargains are recognised in German courts whereas in the USA and UK, once the house looks like it might come tumbling down around your ears, it's generally best to be the first cooperating witness. Worth remembering if the EU investigators broaden their current round of enquiries to the financial consequences of "planned but then hastily aborted", as opposed to "actual", use of the illegal features of the EDC17.

[Chippy]

I’d be interested to know where you got this information TeddyBear since, whilst I’m certainly no lawyer, I’ve followed many such cases going through our court system and would certainly say that plea bargains most definitely are recognised in Germany. As far as I recall this was confirmed by our highest court around ten years ago.

[TeddyBear]

My son told me this when he was a student at Columbia Law in the nineties. Germany never recognised guilty pleading so therefore you couldn't bargain with something that the courts didnt recognise. I think you are right though, according to the following it changed about six years ago.
https://www.dw.com/en/german-court-upho ... a-16683893