trollbait |
04-25-2016 06:08 AM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveMak
(Post 188279)
My thought is that the manufacturer would pay the independent agency to do all the tests required for certification. Their certification would include an agreement that the testing facility will at some future date pick a car at random (e.g., demo car from dealership) and retest it. This would help ensure that the manufacturer is not gaming the system by providing some specially prepared car (that does not accurately reflect the average production vehicle) for testing.
There would be all sorts of methodology details to work out, but it could result in a dramatically improved system. I'm sure the manufacturers' lobbyists will oppose anything other than self-testing honor-system, which is what we have now, and why we have the scandals we have now.
|
VW actually did use an outside test company in Europe.:angel:
What you propose is close to how meat inspections are handled in the US. The inspecting is handled by the USDA, but the cost doesn't come out of the general tax revenue of the government, but by fees paid for by the meat plant. There is enough layers between what they pay, and the meat inspector, that there shouldn't be any conflict of interest.
The issue applying that to the EPA for car testing is in the needed facilities. It was years before the EPA got a 4 wheel test dynamometer. Before that, they had to physically disconnect one set of wheels on AWD cars for testing.
The EPA has some pretty strict rules, that were recently clarified, for the condition of the test car, including the amount of wear on the tires. Much of what NEDC allows isn't under those rules. Then the EPA does spot testing of a sample of models available, and reviews the data submitted by the manufacturer.
The only shady bit is that the EPA allows a hand built car to be tested. The reasoning is to allow testing to be done before production gets under way. The cars can't be sold without the window sticker.
|