...Wasn't it Bosch behind VW as well?.
In this world if you create a set of tests for companies to be measured by they will try to game the system. This isn't anything new and certainly isn't restricted to the automotive industry.
These car manufacturers are being caught out by a change to the way that the cars are tested, so testing outside the conditions for which the cars have been designed. Whilst it is misleading in terms of real world figures I see this as equally being a fault of the testing regime as the manufacturers. The other figures produced by manufacturers to sell cars are all under specific, known conditions as well. Top speed, acceleration, MPG, the list goes on. The problem here is that the EPA has been caught with its pants down. It set up a series of tests and didn't expect the manufacturers to optimise their cars to do well in the tests. This is as much a fault of the tests themselves as the car manufacturers. If the tests more accurately reflected real world usage, then it wouldn't be possible to have these irregularities.
What always amazes me is that people shell out £30k (or equivalent finance/leasing etc spend) and sit there in a car with a 4 cylinder diesel engine that makes the pedals and gearbox vibrate, smells, makes an unappealing noise and costs more to service. All to save a relatively small amount of total motoring costs.
If you do do the miles though then the diesel makes the car an option. I reckon I will do 100k miles over 4 years, and my *** packet calculation makes the petrol £14k more in fuel over that time..