Again, reading between the lines:



That right there tells me that I can't trust the article on any of the technical details.

I don't believe there would have been an extra "device" attached to the cars. It would really surprise me if there was. I think that saying "defeat device" is due to a misunderstanding of the way engine management computers work in modern automobiles. If there was anything going wrong, I expect it would be in the software of the existing engine management computer, not in some kind of extra device attached. I think that somewhere, some expert who was talking about the software, mentioned something to a reporter about a theoretically-possible software routine that could defeat the tests, and what came out in the news articles is the end-result of a Telephone Game played by news reporters who don't understand software, and now it's a "defeat device".

Stating that the software could "sense test scenarios" based on those items such as air pressure and whatnot... That also misunderstands and misrepresents the technology. All engine management computers always monitor all of those things as a normal part of what they do. The news article is putting those sentences together and IMPLYING that those pieces of information were used to defeat the tests, without actually saying that anyone had proof that those pieces of information WERE used to defeat the tests. Again, it's a Telephone Game played by people who don't know how these things work. They're making an inference based on someone saying that those values are monitored by the computer and that they COULD be used to detect and defeat a test scenario.

The smoking gun proof will be: Someone looks at the actual software code and proves that the software deliberately detected a test scenario and then changed the engine output based on that. I haven't yet seen a news article solidly citing, from an expert source, that that occurred. So far, all I see is a lot of inference and innuendo which tries to imply that that's the case, without citing any actual detail there. Any place where someone tries to cite detail, it all looks like that Telephone Game problem. I'd like to see some better, more clear articles, which don't have that problem. I'd read those with great interest.

Of course, as you said, that will be discovered, or not, in the investigation. I'm just saying, I'm not going to damn VW until that happens. Until then, I believe there's a chance that their company president might have resigned over what actually amounts to a software bug. Of course, if that's the real answer, we won't see it in the main news cycle. That won't get reported on.

The other issue is the claim of Bosch telling VW not to use that software. Again, I don't know the details because the news articles are sketchy on it. That sketchiness is what makes me skeptical: If Bosch made the computer and wrote the software, regardless of whether or not they told VW not to use it, then why aren't they in the crosshairs here too? Why would Bosch write software that defeats EPA tests? I think there's some missing detail in the reports regarding that aspect, something that we're not hearing. This will also come out in the investigation, but likely not get reported upon either.