VW expects to pay $7.3B for 11 million cheating cars, so less than $700 per vehicle. GM will probably get about the same deal. Considering the profit margin on these vehicles in particular (big trucks), cheating was probably a good call financially.
VW could meet the emissions standards, and went through the actual testing and passed. It had such an effect on either fuel economy or long term reliability however that they cheat on the road.
However it's notable that the only VW vehicles that fail are the ones that don't use diesel exhaust fluid (DEF). This is something that you refill periodically and it's sprayed into the exhaust to reduce a lot of the harmful exhaust. That system costs a couple of thousand dollars, so they eliminated it and claimed that they found a way around it.
The GM trucks, in contrast, have the DEF systems, just like all of the Mercedes and higher end VW diesel cars do.
Too many commentators are taking the word of a legal firm that got some easy prey and now hopes there's blood in the water.
[1] "Dieselgate — a year later" https://youtu.be/SjlHtLux9vc
https://www.honestjohn.co.uk/company-car-tax-advice/news/whi...
VW has since announced a EA288 engine that deprecates the old one, and the new engine uses DEF.
But sure, there is suspicion that a lot of other makers cheat to degrees. Use less DEF and it's more convenient and less costly for your users. Use the EGR less and improve fuel economy and reduce possible maintenance issues. Etc. That was not the primary problem, though.
Of course this truck probably emits more NOx than an emissions-compliant diesel car would, but it also burns about twice as much fuel. The real problem with DEF in passenger cars is those "luxury" manufacturers that require a special tool to fill the DEF tank, as if DEF were some rare or dangerous substance.
Where are you getting this idea from? My recently-relinquished 2014 Passat was one of the affected vehicles, and it most certainly had a DEF system.
The vast bulk of the controversy was the EA189, which did not use DEF in any form. This is literally a seconds search away.
> However it's notable that the only VW vehicles that fail are the ones that don't use diesel exhaust fluid (DEF).
That's not "the bulk", that's all. It is also demonstrably false. Your statement that I quoted previously also did not express or imply "the bulk".
> The vast bulk of the controversy was the EA189, which did not use DEF in any form. This is literally a seconds search away.
My Passat had an EA189 TDI and used DEF. "A seconds search" for EA189 DEF resulted in this link: http://www.autoguide.com/auto-news/2016/02/vw-reportedly-buy...
> Vehicles equipped with updated versions of the EA189 engine that used DEF and SCR systems are considered fixable (this included my car)
So, I ask again, from where did you get the idea that a) only non-DEF-equipped cars were affected and b) that no EA189 engines had a DEF system?
https://youtu.be/7t4paclIwuU?t=13m15s
And for GM, the linked video already shows Opel installed defeat devices, which is a daughter brand. So it's just natural that the same "technology" shows up in other GM cars.
Isn't it less that they couldn't figure out how to meet the standard, but rather that they did not like the consequences? Evidently the cars in question could operate in a lower-emission mode.
This would actually be unfair, since VW does not have to pay a cent in the EU (the prosecutor being an employee of the state of Niedersachsen, which is also a major stockholder in VW and on the advisory board, apparently does not help).