Diesel emissions: little chance of a new campaign
EVERYTHING AS IT WAS The European Court of Justice in Luxembourg has spoken and given its opinion on changeover devices in diesel engines. But if you take a closer look, little new has actually come out of it. Professor Thomas Koch from the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT) explains the facts. It becomes clear that the ruling is not suitable for a renewed campaign against the diesel engine. Concerns [...]
Professor Thomas Koch from the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT) explains the facts. It becomes clear that the ruling is not suitable for a renewed campaign against the compression ignition engine.
Does the ruling now affect all diesel vehicles?
Professor Thomas Koch: "The ECJ has specifically evaluated the case of the VW EA 189 engine and here specifically the issue of the switching logic. This case had long been evaluated and concluded by authorities and national courts. This is basically cold coffee."
What then is the core message of this judgment?
"In essence, this is a ruling that focuses on the individual case of so-called switching logic and contains several statements: First, a pure test bench detection, for example via a steering angle function, which digitally differentiates between an emission strategy for road operation only and for test bench operation only and complies with the emission limits only in test bench operation, is not legal.
This has always been the position of science. Other functions that, for example, contain a time trigger and use emission-increasing maps after about 25 minutes, i.e. immediately after the end of the test, are also clearly not legal according to my assessment."
The judgment is also about motor protection
"This is absolutely correct. Thus, on the criterion of engine protection, the judgment stated, similarly to Attorney General Earl Sharpston, that there must be a threat of sudden and exceptional damage, and the mere prevention of engine aging or pollution is not sufficient to justify a defeat device that serves to protect the engine.
The core issue now is to illuminate the possibility or probability of exceptional vehicle damage. This includes sudden engine stoppage, which can become a hazard to the road user."
Are thermal windows permissible after the ruling?
"In the ruling, the ECJ said nothing about a temperature-dependent control of, for example, exhaust gas recirculation, the so-called thermal window, because the case did not involve a thermal window at all.
However, if one looks at the general statements of the ECJ on the criterion of engine protection and applies them to temperature-dependent exhaust gas recirculation, which has been common practice since the beginning of the 2000s, it becomes clear that thermal windows have precisely this purpose of protection against sudden and extraordinary damage and do not merely serve to prevent aging or contamination of the engine. Accordingly, they are also permissible under the new ECJ ruling.
Interview: Jens Meiners
