Volkswagen installed software in certain diesel vehicles that detected emissions testing and activated full controls during the test. During ordinary driving, those controls operated less effectively. EPA reported nitrogen oxide emissions as high as forty times the applicable standard for affected 2.0-litre vehicles.
The deception became public in 2015. Volkswagen later pleaded guilty to three federal felony counts covering conspiracy, obstruction, and importation through false statements. The 2017 sentence included a $2.8 billion criminal penalty. Software deliberately made the test result differ from normal operation, and the company concealed the scheme from regulators and customers.
The deception lived inside the difference between a test and normal use. A vehicle could behave one way when software recognised laboratory conditions and another on the road. Customers and regulators were therefore looking at a carefully managed representation of performance.
This makes Dieselgate a useful companion to older covert-operation files: the mechanism is contemporary software, but the paper trail still matters. Independent measurements, enforcement documents and the guilty plea establish what was done. The file concerns the affected systems and vehicles, rather than every diesel engine.
The established record.
- 01
Certain vehicles used software to detect emissions tests.
- 02
EPA reported up to forty times the NOx standard for affected 2.0-litre models.
- 03
Volkswagen pleaded guilty in March 2017 and was sentenced in April.
How the story unfolded.
- 2015
The defeat-device scheme is disclosed
EPA explains how affected vehicles detect testing.
- March 2017
Volkswagen pleads guilty
The company pleads to three federal felony counts.
- April 2017
Criminal sentence
The sentence includes a $2.8 billion penalty.
Where the evidence stops.
The forty-times figure applies to specified vehicles and nitrogen oxides, not every pollutant or every Volkswagen model.
Read the original sources.
The source may establish a narrower point than the headline. Follow the specific finding, its date and its limitations.
If a system knows it is being tested, what does its test result really establish?