20 ms·

Study: Some car models consuming around 50% more fuel than official results

462 points by antr 11y ago

yc1010 11y ago
"On average, two-thirds of the claimed gains in CO2 emissions and fuel consumption since 2008 have been delivered through manipulating tests" How deep does this rabbit hole go :( Here in Ireland the motortax for cars newer than 2008 is based on CO2 emissions, if motorists find their tax rising due to cheating by car manufacturers thats an unexpected and direct cost to their wallets.
- happyscrappy 11y ago
  Europe was really led astray when they were told that diesels were better for the environment, hybrids would have been the way to go.
  - pjc50 11y ago
    Europe has 'bet on diesel' for many years while hybrids have only recently become available.
    - _pmf_ 11y ago
      All European manufacturers except Renault and BMW are hellbent on not offering attractive E mobility solutions, despite really expensive and extensive internal research programs. We in Germany have a large numbers of Smart cars in car sharing companies that are sponsored by Daimler, but it's not yet economically viable to actually buy an E-Smart (if you've driven one, it's not bad at all).
      - pjc50 11y ago
        It's strange. Europe should be a better market for electric and hybrid cars, given the higher petrol costs, but I guess the high purchase costs are putting people off. I'd buy one if I did enough miles. It's not worth it for a few thousand a year. Even having a petrol car sitting on my drive is an expense of marginal justifiability.
        kuschku 11y ago
        The other issue is that in europe the group of people who are most likely to buy an electric car usually just bike or use public transit instead.
    - nradov 11y ago
      Hybrid cars have been available in Europe for 15 years. So not that recent.
  - padelt 11y ago
    > Europe was really led astray when they were told that diesels were better for the environment Were we led astray? Or are we discussing the last few percentages beyond an actual advantage over gasoline engines?
    - happyscrappy 11y ago
      The reason air pollution is so much worse in European cities than American ones is largely due to diesel passenger vehicles.
      - padelt 11y ago
        That both suprises me, do you have any sources? Honest question, both seem counterintuitive. Maybe I am actually fed enough "feelgood" information in the past.
        happyscrappy 11y ago
        http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/mar/05/industry-lobbyists-weakened-europes-air-pollution-rules-say-greenpeace http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/mar/05/industry-...
        andy_boot 11y ago
        That is an article from greenpeace about poor EU environmental standards in power stations. Sure it is bad but, it does not compare air pollution in EU vs US cities or attribute anything to cars.
      - scrumper 11y ago
        See for example Paris's recent (yesterday?) "no car day" in the center. The city's usual blanket of smog is gone. France of course having the highest %age of diesel cars in its passenger fleet of any country.
        morsch 11y ago
  - brc 11y ago
    Yes. Optimising for c02 reductions over Nox and particulates is a monumentally stupid policy. Co2 may have a deleterious effect in 100 years time, but is not an issue for air quality today. In any case, passenger vehicle c02 emssions are a rounding error in the scheme of things. Meanwhile, particulate pollution and Nox are very real issues affecting millions of people today. It's stupid to push diesel over gasoline for c02 reasons. Part of the reason VW cheated was because the USA didn't fall into this trap and allow more lax emissions standards for Diesels - all fuels are held to the same standard. So they took the Euro engines and added the defeat code. The USA is correct on this one. The focus on passenger vehicles is idiotic though - the amount of Nox and particulates pumped out by a single container ship is immense compared to a fleet of passenger vehicles. Then add trucking, rail, stationery equipment etc... Cities should be optimising for electric propulsion and punishing diesels. That makes sense for air quality right now, and if co2 proves to be an issue, it is easily fixed by switching the generation source to Nuclear or Hydro.
- emp_zealoth 11y ago
  Or maybe we abolish nonsensical, contrary requirements? Whoever actaully believed the fuel consumption figures is a fool. You cant have a 1,5t of a car and expect it to use only 5l/100km. That's a good rate for a goddamn motorbike (450ccm,one piston, dont exceed 90 km/h and you might reach 4,5l/100km) Its one fifth of the mass...
  - mpweiher 11y ago
    I actually drove my Golf TDI at around the level of 5l/100km in Berlin for many years. Carefully. My girlfriend's Polo is significantly below that. Of course, these cars aren't ton and a half, but more around a ton.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
      - mpweiher 11y ago
        Yeah, I checked for the Polo, empty weight appears to be 1050 kg. The Golf TDI was a '96, so given the trends I expect it to be roughly similar. The original Golf I was under a ton.
      - trymas 11y ago
        I agree that cars are very heavy now, though, usually there are few 'types' of car weight. I do not know which where is used. Usually there are 2 weights: unladen weight and maximum weight. I've heard about some third weight which is between the unladen and maximum weights, something like a car's weight with full tank and a driver, but don't quote me on this. Probably you have the maximum weight listed. My Skoda Fabia (Audi Q3 equivalent) has maximum weight of 1680kg and unladen weight of 1200kg. I refuse to believe that VW Up is heavier than the Skoda Fabia. AFAIK, minivans have quite big weight on their papers, but empty minivan can't weigh 3000kg, which is only possible if it's loaded.
        codfrantic 11y ago
- fithisux 11y ago
  Not their wallets. why should they pay for the fraud of corporates? Let the corporates replace cars .
  - verinus 11y ago
    Perhaps this is a kind of occasion where people know that things are too good to be true but want them believe them to be... edit: typo
  - JonFish85 11y ago
    One way or another, regular folks will pay for it. If it's directly by paying this tax, that's straight forward. Otherwise, the company will take the hit, and the cost will flow towards stock-holders, which in general tend to be unions, 401k plans and such. How much of your 401k are you willing to lose due to that cost? How much of your parents' 401k/union pensions is OK to forfeit?
    - TheCoelacanth 11y ago
      That sounds like an argument for never punishing corporations for anything, which is clearly unworkable. Pension and 401k plans are typically diversified across a broad range of stocks, so they won't be heavily impacted by a single company's stock price dropping. On the other hand, executives and board members, who are actually responsible for the company's actions, will typically have a large amount of that company's stock so they will be much more heavily impacted by the stock price dropping.
      - JonFish85 11y ago
        That's not how I meant it, but I can see how that's a fair reading of what I said. I don't like that people jump onto ideas very quickly without thinking through the ramifications. I don't think a lot of people realize how wide-reaching effects from quick knee-jerk reactions can be, and how much they can actually have effects beyond the first-order ones.
- will_critchlow 11y ago
  "if motorists find their tax rising due to cheating by car manufacturers" This doesn't require new enforcement or new taxes - a large part of the purchase price of petrol is tax.
  - throwaway049 11y ago
    In the UK we pay an annual tax [0] based on the engine size or CO2 emissions of the vehicle, in addition to tax on fuel. I doubt the government will move affected cars up the price bands post-purchase as it would be politically unpopular. [0] https://www.gov.uk/calculate-vehicle-tax-rates https://www.gov.uk/calculate-vehicle-tax-rates
- IkmoIkmo 11y ago
  None of this is really new, the mostly German car lobby has resisted European emissions testing on testing strict real-world usage, as opposed to testing on a roller. Anyone who spent 10 minutes looking into this in the past years could've told you that, and it wasn't some big secret. A lot of it was stuff everyone was doing, like fitting certain tires and inflating them such that the rolling resistance is reduced. At the end of the day, there are limits to those gains and everyone does it, so in can't set you apart from the competition and once the basic manipulations are exhausted and the emissions goalposts are moved you can't make gains anymore without actually improving the car. Further most of these are for CO2 emissions / fuel efficiency, which is different from the VW fraud which was about NOx emissions. The difference with the VW case is that VW essentially defrauded the test by building a device that measured various factors to establish whether it was being driven normally or whether it was being tested. In the former case it'd shut down (allowing 35x the legal limit of NOx emissions into the air while driving), while in the latter case it'd dampen the emissions (at the cost of engine performance, which is why they shut it off during regular driving). That's a different level of fraud, one that has very few bounds and can change results by much more than an order of magnitude, and is hugely controversial because it makes every test meaningless in the short, medium and long term and isn't practiced by everyone, and so different from manipulating tests by e.g. inflating tires which can still produce meaningful test, benchmarks and comparisons, when you start building 'defeat devices' all of that goes out the window completely.
  - maxerickson 11y ago
    Not a device though, just software to vary the engine regulation when the test is detected. (Or more likely a mode that kicks in when non test driving is detected)
mgiannopoulos 11y ago
So, any Japanese or American companies doing this as well? Who's next?
- larrydag 11y ago
  I'm guessing its across the industry. I'm wondering if this is the tip of the iceberg.
  - emp_zealoth 11y ago
    Im pretty sure its just a case of completely out of control rules - they became impossible to follow, so everyone just decided to "play along"
    - mpweiher 11y ago
      Also rules that are in conflict. To get good mileage and corresponding low CO2 emissions, you need ultra lean mixtures. Alas, ultra lean mixtures produce more NOx. You want low NOx emissions, you need richer mixtures, and thus higher fuel consumption and higher CO2 emissions.
      - pbhjpbhj 11y ago
        >ultra lean mixtures produce more NOx // Isn't that where catalytic converters come in though? Rules in conflict surely are required by the chemistry of the situation, the companies have to search for the local minima in order to comply.
        vonmoltke 11y ago
        > Isn't that where catalytic converters come in though? Diesel exhaust is too oxygen-rich for the cat to effectively catalyze the NOx. That's why recent passenger car diesel systems have a Diesel Exhaust Fluid system.
- wil421 11y ago
etimberg 11y ago
I went through to the actual report (http://www.transportenvironment.org/sites/te/files/publications/TE_Mind_the_Gap_2015_FINAL.pdf http://www.transportenvironment.org/sites/te/files/publicati...) and found an infographic (figure 8) that shows some of the methods manufacturers can use to defeat tests. "Pushing the brake pads fully into the callipers reduces rolling resistance" is apparently one way. That makes me ask the question, why don't we do this already? If it reduces rolling resistance it probably also increases brake-pad life. That'd be a win-win for drivers.
- other_herbert 11y ago
  As long as the system can quickly return them gently to the rotor surface... If you change your own brake pads you know that after you finish it can take two whole presses of the brake pedal to get the pads to contact the rotors
- emp_zealoth 11y ago
  The brake pads and jaws get contaminated with dust and the like,making them stick a little. My guess is they get disassembled before test and cleaned perfectly.
  - pbhjpbhj 11y ago
    How much benefit is it, wonder if having a small compressed air squirter - like a headlight washer - would pay off (in terms of fuel savings) or not. Would be interesting to know what designs of pads/jaws dissipate the contaminants better?
- rplst8 11y ago
  The primary reason is that keeping the pads just in contact with the rotor prevents water from collecting on the rotor surface. Wet rotors can affect braking performance and safety.
- _ambigu0us_ 11y ago
  In car braking systems the pedal movement from depressed to pressed corresponds to a very small (<1mm) pad movement. The pad is just touching when the brake when the pedal is not pressed, and pressing the pedal forces the pad and caliper together, increasing friction. Depressing the pedal does not withdraw the pad. With the brake cylinder fully compressed (as they did for the test), it requires several full pumps of the pedal to bring the pad into contact with the disk. This increases braking distance, which is generally considered a bad thing.
KnightOfWords 11y ago
Sounds like there are plenty of worms in this particular can waiting to come out.
solaris999 11y ago
This is the big next step that a lot of people were expecting - where in-depth studies into all of the competitors occurs and it's gradually revealed that this defeat device game has been played by almost everyone in the industry. It'll be interesting to see the repercussions for the automakers, but inevitably this'll end with sweeping legislation changes and reform of the testing protocol and standards.
- Zigurd 11y ago
  This is a very good bet. The "defeat device" turns out to be using a feature of the ECU platform provided by the ECU supplier. It would be surprising to find that VW was the only maker to cheat, when the cheating mechanism was available to everyone. There are some markets, like voting machines, where requiring open, buildable, verifiable code is good practice. Cars might be another.
  - slasaus 11y ago
    I was thinking of voting machines as well and think publicly verifiable code and hardware would be a good thing for cars (I don't think it's good enough for large scale elections, but that's another topic). See this story about the need for open source for large publicly used systems: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/23/nyregion/volkswagens-diesel-fraud-makes-critic-of-secret-code-a-prophet.html http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/23/nyregion/volkswagens-diese...
    - slasaus 11y ago
      ps. just reading this in a post from Bruce Schneier[1] that is currently on the frontpage as well[2] which is about cheating software as used by car manufacturers and the IoT that is coming up: Voting machines could appear to work perfectly -- except during the first Tuesday of November, when it undetectably switches a few percent of votes from one party's candidates to another's. [1] https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2015/09/volkswagen_and_.html https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2015/09/volkswagen_an... [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10304428 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10304428
lubujackson 11y ago
I guess "teaching for the test" applies to car manufacturing as well...
axx 11y ago
I think we all should agree that this is the same for every car manufacturer (except electric). Sure, european manufacturers are the target now, but i expect same results from all other manufacturers (including asian and american). Lab results never represent real street results. How could they? People drive differently and the outcome is based on many aspects that you can't reproduce in lab conditions.
- eterm 11y ago
  You are obfuscating the issue here. The issue isn't that we can't "represent real street results", the issue is that manufacturers took deliberate steps to alter car behaviour with the intention of obtaining better test results than would be present outside the tests.
  - knowaveragejoe 11y ago
    But the results they're aiming for are ostensibly based on some measure that represents "real street" results. Otherwise, why the hell do we have these measures in the first place?
  - axx 11y ago
    And that's a surprise to whom? It's the same with smartphone and notebook batteries. Tell me, when was the last time, you actually got 9 hours of battery live (in case of a MBP)? Don't get me wrong, i see it the same way as you are, but this is an issue that you can find everywhere not just in car manufacturing. For example, a lot of power supply companies try all kinds of tricks to game the efficiency test systems.
    - quesera 11y ago
      In fairness, Apple typically understates battery life in marketing materials. Most new-model reviews show that clearly. And, if you got a bad battery that doesn't live up, they'll replace it at no charge. Battery life declines with age, however.
    - simias 11y ago
mavroprovato 11y ago
Why "some" was removed from the title?
Bud 11y ago
If you read the full report, the automaker with by far the largest gap between its claimed improvements in fuel economy and its actual on-the-road performance is General Motors. Much worse than VW and Mercedes (who also did very poorly), by this measure. A reckoning is coming. source: see page 13, here http://www.transportenvironment.org/sites/te/files/publications/TE_Mind_the_Gap_2015_FINAL.pdf http://www.transportenvironment.org/sites/te/files/publicati...
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- crazypyro 11y ago
  "3. Deducting 4% from measured results Bizarrely the NEDC procedure allows carmakers to actually declare (use) a value 4% lower than the one measured. The provision is designed to minimize the testing burden but is being abused by carmakers to declare lower test results systematically." I wonder if there is a person that didn't expect this to happen.
  - Someone1234 11y ago
    Does it matter however when it is systematic? This is going to sound backwards, but consider this: People buy cars based in part on MpG, however MpG is within itself an abstract thing (i.e. you don't actually get X miles per gallon, never did, never will too many other factors to include). So if everyone removes 4% from an abstract number, the entire market has shifted down, but the relative difference between two models remains identical (e.g. if one car has 21 MpG and another has 25 MpG, even with 4% removed from both they retain their relative position). If some were removing 4% while others weren't, that would legitimately be a problem. If they're all removing 4% then we're essentially where we would be at the start just with lower abstract numbers.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
    - TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
alkonaut 11y ago
The thing is that the cheats (throwing out unnecessary weight, taping door gaps etc, using super hard notrogen inflated tyres, etc.) would add a constant amount to the fuel consumption, say .2 liter per 10km. If you keep pushing your engine consumption downwards to the ridiculous levels we see now (<.5 liters 10km), what happens is the "drag cheat" actually becomes a large percentage of the consumption. Just goes to show that the cars should be designed without large door gaps or outside mirrors (cameras instead) and so on, since they seem to add significantly to the consumptions that that is where the effort should be put. As a consumer, I really don't care much, I just get consumption data from some independent source such as a magazine or website. Having manufacturers self-test and self-regulate reminds me of the financial industry in 2008. It just won't work.
- bengoodger 11y ago
  The lack of good data is really frustrating. The EPA adjusted the formula for mileage a few years ago which made things slightly better but I never come close to hitting the results in my car. Observed economy is related to personal circumstances, and in my case living at 700 elevation and traveling down close to 0 on a daily basis hurts my scores (along with tire lifetimes, etc). Another thing that bothers me is that performance cars are rated by the same standards, when the people who buy them undoubtedly drive differently than the people buying Toyota Yarises. Anecdotal reporting online is a joke. You will find endless car forums with people boasting about how they consistently get 25mpg in their V8 sedan. Gimme a break. What I'd love to see is some service/app that was able to gather real world data from owners of the same type of car in the same area as me along with general stats about their driving style. This would have to be automated to be accurate.
  - alkonaut 11y ago
    Yeah I wouldn't trust some forum user either, but certainly some of the larger magazines that do long real life tests of cars.
ifcologne 11y ago
More fuel consumption, more CO2. Clear. But it's not the cheating story of VW, continued - that was about nitrogen oxide pollutants which was up to 40 times above what is allowed in the US. From the report: > All carmakers have been exploiting ever more flexibilities in the current official tests during 2013 and 2014, but detailed results from Spritmonitor in Germany (Figure 4) show that cars produced by Daimler, PSA and GM exhibit the largest realworld gaps, around 40%. However, in the past two to three years all major carmakers (with the possible exception of Fiat) have become more adept at using flexibilities in the tests such that all carmakers now have an average gap of 25% or more (as against a maximum gap of only 10% in 2001). As I understand "Spritmonitor", as a private person, you can record your fuel data (from your receipt) and your odometer to calculate the mileage you can go with your car. No details about the driving behavior that has an impact on how much CO2 is emitted. http://www.spritmonitor.de/en/overview/50-Volkswagen/0-All_models.html http://www.spritmonitor.de/en/overview/50-Volkswagen/0-All_m... I guess that's not the perfect, reliable source - everyone can use the portal and add his favourite car. But for sure, I'll never reach the official 5.7 l/km with my car ...
- dingdingdang 11y ago
  "But for sure, I'll never reach the official 5.7 l/km with my car ..." --> are you driving a Russian tank? I drive a 10 year old not particularly efficient Vauxhall (UK) and it is doing ~17 km/l!
  - Narretz 11y ago
    It's not very difficult to assume he means 5.7l / 100km
wellboy 11y ago
Reminds of the cycling world. Boundaries are pushed with doping and in order to stay competitive, after a while everyone is doping until the whole thing collapses. The same thing goes for bodybuilding, anyone has another example?
- saint_fiasco 11y ago
  Capitalism. One of the Marxist critiques of capitalism is that if an employer wants to do certain good things (like treat his workers well, pay more salaries than the bare minimum, take care of the environment and so on) he can't do that because that will raise the price of whatever he is selling and he would be outcompeted by his less altruistic rivals and go bankrupt. So every business owner has to be a bit of a psychopath to survive.
  - kevin_thibedeau 11y ago
    Cliffbar lavishes perks on their employees and they seem to get by selling commodity food products. The problem is when the people at the top take everything for themselves and leave nothing behind. Issuing public stock induces the worst of this sort of behavior due to the need to market the company to investors on the single line item of profitability.
ck2 11y ago
Didn't I read somewhere or maybe it was John Oliver on Last Week Tonight that corporations in the USA report their own MPG to the government on an "honor system" because congress won't fund proper testing by the government. So much for government protecting the people from corporations and their sole quest for profit.
- rconti 11y ago
  They do, but the EPA also spot tests cars, and the system works pretty well. They recently fined Hyundai for not matching their quoted numbers. The EPA test cycle is not particularly representative of real-world driving, but it's far better than the European tests are, which easily allow you to game the system. Seems like the system works quite well here in the US, even if you might quibble with their idea of a city and highway drive cycle.
agumonkey 11y ago
That's a lot of bad news in a row for fuel based vehicles.
milkers 11y ago
that was expected.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
equa 11y ago
This is not good, but it is much different from the NOx cheat because consumers can easily measure MPG themselves, and do. For that matter it's commonly noted in car magazines that U.S. EPA MPG ratings are lower the E.U. ratings for the same car & drivetrain; I'm not sure the 50% number in the OP would be so high relative to U.S. tests. It also speaks to the responsibility of the auto press for the NOx issue. They routinely report real-world MPG ratings for cars ("in our driving, we got __ MPG"), but haven't bothered to test real-world emissions despite all the other expensive gear they use to test car performance. Manufacturers and governments should be accurate and honest, but it's also the press that should be routinely verifying their accuracy. Example of skepticism at the "extremely optimistic European cycle": http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2017-audi-a4-prototype-drive-review#eztoc8555383_0_2 http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2017-audi-a4-prototype-d...
- rconti 11y ago
  Yeah, the European cycle has been known to be a joke for quite some time. The US results are actually quite achievable. Their highway cycle max speed is very low (I think it assumes you don't exceed 55mph), but there's so much slowing and accelerating, even on the highway cycle, that you can easily obtain US highway numbers on an open road if you keep it to say 65 or even 70.
DrNuke 11y ago
This is Chernobyl for automotive, Elon Musk wet dream and the chance to make electric cars appealing to the general public at last. Great uncle Charles Darwin having a good laugh too, evolutionism at its best.
equa 11y ago
This is not good, but it is much different from the NOx cheat because consumers can easily measure MPG themselves, and do. For that matter it's commonly noted in car magazines that U.S. EPA MPG ratings are lower the E.U. ratings for the same car & drivetrain; I'm not sure the 50% number in the OP would be so high relative to U.S. tests. It also speaks to the responsibility of the auto press for the NOx issue. They routinely report real-world MPG ratings for cars ("in our driving, we got __ MPG"), but haven't bothered to test real-world emissions despite all the other expensive gear they use to test car performance. Manufacturers and governments should be accurate and honest, but it's also the press that should be routinely verifying their accuracy. Example of skepticism at the "extremely optimistic European cycle": http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2017-audi-a4-prototype-drive-review#eztoc8555383_0_2 http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2017-audi-a4-prototype-d...
rebootthesystem 11y ago
It's called "real world driving". Look, this is no different from Tesla claiming a 280 miles range that nobody can achieve. Not saying it is right. What I am saying is: We need better tests.
- ticktocktick 11y ago
  Hard to resist all that power under foot in Tesla's!
- mikeash 11y ago
  It's not actually very hard to achieve rated range in a Tesla. You might need to refrain from flooring it at every opportunity and you might want to cut down from going 10MPH over the speed limit, but it's not a challenge.
  - rebootthesystem 11y ago
    I think you missed my point: real world driving. No vehicle meets manufacturer specifications in this regard, electric or IC. To be clear, I am not saying this as a negative. I am simply stating it as a fact.
    - mikeash 11y ago
      You missed my point, which is that it's easy to achieve rated range in a Tesla with real-world driving. I have not taken care at all to drive my Model S in an efficient manner, and I still have an average of 315Wh/mile over about 8,000 miles of driving so far, where 300Wh/mile is rated efficiency.
      - rebootthesystem 11y ago
        The bit if data you are leaving out is the nature of the terrain and traffic you experience. I am not disputing your numbers at all, I am simply saying more data is needed in order to fully evaluate it. Beyond that, the truth is you cannot get the rated range because that would mean draining the batteries to zero. Real range anxiety, depending on where you drive, starts to come in somewhere below 50 miles from fully drained. You also have a difference in performance between summer and winter driving. If you have a short daily commute, the combination of the "off" state drain on the battery overnight and the car warming or cooling the battery pack while parked in cold or hot weather can have an impact on available range and performance. BTW, I am NOT saying any of this is bad. I am simply saying these are realities of the contrast between advertised specifications and performance under real life conditions.
cbsmith 11y ago
Facebook is reporting a link on that site as somehow malicious....
izzydata 11y ago
Which auto makers if any has the closest emissions to their lab results? Honda? Subaru?
awjr 11y ago
Ok let's be real here, if we put the "pollution" taxes onto fuel and not on the design of the car, this problem, in effect, goes away. There is still the issue that high efficiency, usually means running the engine at high temperatures which generates far more NOx gases. We should be taxing the amount of fuel used.
- fluxquanta 11y ago
  Additional fuel taxes are typically not a welcome change among the pubic. I agree that logically this is what should be done, but everyone fills up their gas tank every few hours/days/weeks and sees that price. People only buy new cars every once in a while, and they expect a large purchase price. I think psychologically taxing the vehicle and not the fuel is more of a people pleaser.
  - enriquec 11y ago
    And yet, todays weighted average tax for the US is $.4888 per gallon (54.50 for Diesel). Today's national average price of $2.28 puts that at ~21.4%. That probably puts gas up there with one of the most taxed things I buy.
- doczoidberg 11y ago
  Whole environment damage including the manufacturing should be taxed. Of course this can only be estimated. Every engine and car produces different environment waste. For example a Tesla S produces much more carbon in it's production than a gasoline car. There are also other toxins which are produced concerning different type of cars. A diesel produces NOx but can reduce it with filters. Just taxing the fuel used is just stupid.
- zardo 11y ago
  That works for CO2, because there is no technology to mitigate CO2 release from combustion. But that isn't the case for particulate matter, carbon monoxide, or nitrogen oxides. You can't put a NOx tax on diesel because the amount of NOx you produce from burning a given quantity of diesel will vary by two orders of magnitude depending on the pollution controls.
chrispie 11y ago
this is bullshit. a planed smear campaign against german car manufactures. can we see some charts for american cars please!
curiousjorge 11y ago
could we expect a major recall? 10+ million cars would be disastrous.
cannedbass 11y ago
So how many of these cars have turbos? I know the BMWs at least are mostly turbo 4-cylinders. The whole reason manufacturers are moving to small displacement turbocharged engines over large displacement naturally aspirated engines is because the EPA MPG tests never run the engine in a range where the turbo is doing much. Put the car in the real world and the driver's lead foot makes the turbo kick in, killing fuel economy. Ref: http://autoweek.com/article/car-news/mpg-or-performance-its-trade-turbos http://autoweek.com/article/car-news/mpg-or-performance-its-...
- MattBearman 11y ago
  My thoughts exactly. And I don't think it's just lead footed drivers, the lag on some of these small turbo charged engines is so great that most drivers will feel they have to stamp their foot to the floor just to make the car move.
- brc 11y ago
  Yes. Turbos are being added to everything, killing the NA engine. The reason is to create a smaller displacement motor which still has the power that drivers expect. Turbo engines can consume vast amounts of fuel when opened up to full throttle. Modern turbo engines are also very easily remapped for extra power (and consumption) just by changing the boost control. All the added complexity and cost just to match emissions requirements, which are all negated when the driver 'puts the boot in'. Turbos are the ultimate cheat device.
outworlder 11y ago
So, does that mean that all those armchair discussions about the merits of ICE and electric cars with "official" mileage numbers thrown about are completely invalid? A 50% increase in fuel completely changes the cost proposition.
- JoeAltmaier 11y ago
  I'm not so sure. Especially for high-end cars, lifetime fuel costs are dwarfed by the car cost. Even in low-end high-mileage cars, both numbers are smaller but the car cost is still probably double the lifetime fuel cost. So maybe across the board we can expect fuel not to be a driving variable in the cost proposition?
petercooper 11y ago
I never pay attention to fuel consumption figures as they have never represented reality in my case. My current Mercedes has an official rating of 40mpg, but I never get that out of it unless I literally sit at 55mph on a flat motorway and never change speed (impossible in the UK). Some journeys I go as low as 19mpg when it's driven as it's meant to be. All the Vauxhalls I had before were the same.
- jsprogrammer 11y ago
  As it's meant to be? How is that? 40 to 19 is a huge gap. Do you engage the throttle and brakes more than necessary?
- eveningcoffee 11y ago
  This report does not include fuel consumption data - only emissions data (CO2 g/km). While they speak about fuel consumption and even speculate with numbers, this is not backed up by the data.
joosters 11y ago
One problem with the report is that real-world driving styles might be linked to the type of car. So, small cars might perhaps be more likely used for short commutes, whereas larger cars could tend to have longer motorway journeys. One driving style is likely to be closer to the standard tests than the other. So, even if one car seems to perform worse, it could just be because of the average driving of that car.
- debacle 11y ago
  That's a problem with a test, not a problem with the report.
  - joosters 11y ago
    No. The emissions test has to pick a certain kind of driving style. It can't emulate them all. The report, on the other hand, could try to compare like-for-like. For example, they could give separate results for high-mileage drivers and low-mileage drivers. Or split the results by average speed, to try and isolate long-distance motorway drivers from short commutes.
SeanLuke 11y ago
I wonder to what degree this is due to Europe's use, as I understand it, of an absurdly optimistic testing procedure (NEDC) which does not reflect real-world driving patterns. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_European_Driving_Cycle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_European_Driving_Cycle http://www.car-engineer.com/the-different-driving-cycles/ http://www.car-engineer.com/the-different-driving-cycles/
pyb 11y ago
It's not really news though, is it ? All car magazines measure real consumption and show how it is much higher than the official figure.
- Shivetya 11y ago
  well it really depends on how you drive as well. I have had only one car in the last twenty or so years where I could not consistently beat the EPA ratings. Plus throw in that most ares have ethanol formulations and that will lower your mileage. Far too many race from light to light, keep on the gas even when going downhill and over the limit, brake late and even run with tires under inflated. anecdotal, my current car a s28 Z4 uses a four cylinder turbo. 23/34 I think are the official ratings, I have yet to average a tank under 30 and did 40 on pure highway at speeds over 70. Granted its a manual which lets me abuse the rev range a bit more than the 8 speed auto offered but its simply down to learning to drive your car within its best performance parameters. I still have fun, run it up fast, but mostly just drive relaxed. Does it mean that some cars are not performing to what companies claim. I am quite sure they aren't. I could not get a 2013 Mustang V6 above its EPA AVG to save my life.
andor 11y ago
Carmakers, not drivers, are the cause of the problem as obsolete official test results are being manipulated. Then why does this report compare NEDC numbers with user-submitted real-world consumption? Since car manufacturers have increased power output while keeping NEDC consumption relatively constant, rather than the other way around, you need to drive very carefully to get close to the official numbers. It should be obvious that the more powerful an engine is, the more fuel it can burn in a period of time, if you go full throttle. Which is why they find that BMW and Mercedes deviate more than the average. Dear "Transport & Environment", why do you think do people buy fast cars? This is the ICCT report TFA is based on: http://www.theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/ICCT_LaboratoryToRoad_2015_Report_English.pdf http://www.theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/ICCT...
- mzs 11y ago
  Thank you for the link. I was hoping it would include more detail about the cars. For example which engines and do they have start-stop. About the only thing I saw mentioned but not well accounted for was the automatic gearbox difference. I have a car with 2.5L turbo engine and I can get from 13.5-28MPG from a tank of gas depending on a number of factors, mainly on how I drive, but also what fuel, how loaded-up the car is, and tires. I suspect that automatics with turbo or supercharged engines with start-stop have the greatest difference in real world v test performance. And yes that is because of how people drive compared to the test.
PythonicAlpha 11y ago
The problem with the environmental problems (currently with VW) and the fuel consumption is, that particularly in the EU, the governments for years (if not decades) turned a totally blind eye on the car manufacturers. The problems with the emission measuring and also fuel measuring was known for long now and in the EU, many wanted to change the measuring methods -- but for example the German government did always block such advances. In my opinion, not only the car manufactures are guilty, but even more the politicians that made it very easy for them to cheat on us all. The additional expenses (at the gas station and with the bad air) carry the consumers. VW is only the tip of the iceberg.
eveningcoffee 11y ago
Please change the title to "Mercedes, BMW and Peugeot models emit 50% more CO2, new study reveals" The report does not provide the data about fuel consumption.
pjc50 11y ago
Dyson claim that German vacuum cleaner manufacturers are 'cheating' the energy efficiency rules similarly: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/car-manufacturers/volkswagen/11901325/My-advice-to-Germany-scrap-rules-for-real-Vorsprung-durch-Technik.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/car-manufacturers/volksw...
travis2000 11y ago
I have one of those cars and it actually gets more mpg than what the sticker says, not sure how it would be possible to be 50% off from that, people would figure that out pretty quickly.
brianbreslin 11y ago
This is totally anecdotal, but relevant. I installed the automatic.com car monitoring app/dongle to see how my last car (2013 ford escape ecoboost 2.0L) was performing vs the advertised rates. I drove consistently at a 95-97 score rating for efficiency, and never averaged over 16mpg despite the car being advertised as 23mpg city. Highway driving was different (i got 29.5mpg vs 31mpg advertised). I questioned ford about this and they blamed my city driving on "short trips where the car didn't heat up enough to be efficient". Either way, I was not pleased. My current car (Lexus NX200T 2015) gets 21mpg city 29 hwy within 1-2mpg of what was advertised. My driving patterns haven't changed.
edw519 11y ago
"Miles Per Gallon" is poor metric for reducing consumption. "Gallons Per Year" would be much better. Move closer to work, carpool, take public transport, ride a bike, work remotely. Benefits from these things would dwarf any incremental improvements from EPA ratings.
justinator 11y ago
Strange, I tried posting this link onto Facebook, and received the following message: http://imgur.com/c49k2py http://imgur.com/c49k2py What's up with that?
larrys 11y ago
Here is one. My Porsche has a display which tells you the MPG. However the car display is consistently between 1 and 2 mpg better than what I calculate after filling the tank and doing the math. And I repeat it's consistently worse than the display which calculates the mgp per tankful which is probably what most people rely on. I've been meaning to bring this up with the dealer but haven't so far. This is in addition to not coming anywhere near to the stated MPG and with conservative driving (non sport mode ..)
- rconti 11y ago
  Yeah, mileage computers in cars are known for being a bit optimistic. It's not hard to beat the EPA highway number for your car. Put it on the highway, cruise at 65mph, done. The EPA test cycle doesn't even exceed 55mph, but it has quite a bit of slowing and speeding up, so you can beat it with a consistent cruise a good bit over their 55mph number.
  - ptaipale 11y ago
    A partial reason for this is that the speedometers have to be optimistic by law (depending on jurisdiction, but I think this is the case most everywhere. When your speedometer shows 100 km/h, it is permitted that true speed is 90 km/h, but it is not permitted that the true speed is 101 km/h. And the same variance applies to odometer, of course. Things like tyre wear and pressure have a noticeable impact on what both meters show, and manufactures have to stay on the safe side, by law.
    - rconti 11y ago
      This is true -- my understanding is that Germany actually requires they never read low EVEN IF FITTED WITH THE WRONG SIZE TIRES which is sort of insane. That said, I believe the odometers are typically bang on, which would mean the mileage calculation should be accurate. Or could be, if they wanted it to be.
henningo 11y ago
I think it is a bit unfair to just blame the manufacturers. The legislation could likely be changed to make for a more robust test approach. After all, it is engineers we are talking about here, if they are given a task to optimize an engine's emissions and fuel consumption to a specific drive cycle they will do it. But then of course you have the ethical aspects which I won't go into. A computer science analogy to this would be if I gave you an uncompressed image and you had to develop a compression algorithm that made the image as small as possible, you could likely come up with a really good solution. But your algorithm most likely wouldn't do as well on any other image. I think that a feasible solution to this will be to test under a wider range of conditions and add (statistically defined) noise to the testing procedures. The added cost of additional testing would be very small in comparison to the cost of a vehicle development program. A good overview of the different drive cycles can be found here: http://www.car-engineer.com/the-different-driving-cycles/ http://www.car-engineer.com/the-different-driving-cycles/
- ucsdrake 11y ago
  "A computer science analogy to this would be if I gave you an uncompressed image and you had to develop a compression algorithm that made the image as small as possible, you could likely come up with a really good solution. But your algorithm most likely wouldn't do as well on any other image." That analogy doesn't hold. It's more akin to developing two compression algorithms, one for the general case, and a specific algorithm which is used only when your image is detected for better than the general compression performance use case. It is entirely fair to blame the manufacturers for this. Gaming emissions results required effort to accomplish, and is completely unethical from an engineering standpoint.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - henningo 11y ago
    I agree that the analogy doesn't hold for the recent VW debacle (where the calibration was changed during certification testing), but it holds for the industry in large and what has been going on for the past 10-20 years, which is what the paper is about. The vehicle manufacturers optimize the engine calibration to the drive cycle they are trying to beat. That is why a US-spec BMW has a different engine tune than a Euro-spec BMW for example, the drive cycles are different.
acomjean 11y ago
Wait a second.. When I bought my car (10 years ago) and read reviews, a lot of them say here's what the epa said you'd get for mileage, and heres what we actually got. There is always a difference (maybe 10%). But if it claims 30 mpg and you are getting 17 , I like to think more than few people might notice. Part of the reason VW was accused of cheating on emissions was it helped mileage. edit: as pointed out, its 50% more fuel... But still a noticeable difference..
- arasmussen 11y ago
  50% more fuel than official results would be like claims 30 mpg and actually getting 22.5 mpg.
  - acomjean 11y ago
    Fair enough.. But still a significant real world difference. EPA (USA) tests aren't really real world and they don't just drive the cars. Well they drive them on a dyno on a preset pattern (see the picture in the link). https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/how_tested.shtml https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/how_tested.shtml they measure emissions to estimate fuel consumption.
  - mikeash 11y ago
    Consuming 50% more fuel than 30MPG is 20MPG, not 22.5MPG: 30 miles divided by 1.5 gallons equals 20 miles/gallon.
    - arasmussen 11y ago
      True. I was thinking 100% more would be 15 MPG so 50% more would be 22.5. Thanks for the correction.
      - mikeash 11y ago
        Makes sense, I was wondering where that number came from. Of course it all goes nonlinear when you take the reciprocal.
skylan_q 11y ago
Remember when Toyotas (made by a Japanese company) in the US were killing people on their own and no one could replicate it?
eonw 11y ago
i have a 2010 4runner and it was sold as 22mph, i get 16.5. i mean i knew those numbers were bad, but thats quite a bit off, if you ask me.
randyrand 11y ago
The conclusions in the article are bullshit. There are a number of possible explanations. 1. offical does not reflect real world. 2. defeat devices. If every car manufacturer is using defeat devices it really shows how poorly EPA requirements have worked. Blame car manufacturers, sure, but they're supposed to be selfish. That's how economics works.
jokoon 11y ago
How is that possible with the current gas prices ? I can't even comprehend that. I would have thought gas mileage would have been a very important issue so that entire countries can save money.
arcticbull 11y ago
It's worth mentioning on the other hand that -- based on my experience -- the VW Diesels currently being recalled for cheating their NOx tests consume significantly less fuel than they are rated to. My 2009 Jetta was rated at 29 city, 33 combined and 40 highway . Based on my fuel records, I got 33 city, 36-38 combined and 50 highway. That means it out-performed the EPA estimates by 25% highway, 12% combined and 14% city.
dmritard96 11y ago
I monitor my mileage by simply resetting my trip meter on a fillup and looking at how much went into the car and dividing. The largest source of error naturally is that not all pumps are gaurenteed to fill to the same hieght and some places may be on a hill etc. Obviously this is only as good as the way I drive (or my wife) and is heavily dependent upon if I hit traffic, mostly drive in the city or go on a road trip. It really is an interesting thing to keep track of.

462 points by antr 11y ago

"On average, two-thirds of the claimed gains in CO2 emissions and fuel consumption since 2008 have been delivered through manipulating tests" How deep does this rabbit hole go :( Here in Ireland the motortax for cars newer than 2008 is based on CO2 emissions, if motorists find their tax rising due to cheating by car manufacturers thats an unexpected and direct cost to their wallets.

happyscrappy 11y ago
Europe was really led astray when they were told that diesels were better for the environment, hybrids would have been the way to go.
- pjc50 11y ago
  Europe has 'bet on diesel' for many years while hybrids have only recently become available.
  - _pmf_ 11y ago
    All European manufacturers except Renault and BMW are hellbent on not offering attractive E mobility solutions, despite really expensive and extensive internal research programs. We in Germany have a large numbers of Smart cars in car sharing companies that are sponsored by Daimler, but it's not yet economically viable to actually buy an E-Smart (if you've driven one, it's not bad at all).
    - pjc50 11y ago
      It's strange. Europe should be a better market for electric and hybrid cars, given the higher petrol costs, but I guess the high purchase costs are putting people off. I'd buy one if I did enough miles. It's not worth it for a few thousand a year. Even having a petrol car sitting on my drive is an expense of marginal justifiability.
      - kuschku 11y ago
        The other issue is that in europe the group of people who are most likely to buy an electric car usually just bike or use public transit instead.
  - nradov 11y ago
    Hybrid cars have been available in Europe for 15 years. So not that recent.
- padelt 11y ago
  > Europe was really led astray when they were told that diesels were better for the environment Were we led astray? Or are we discussing the last few percentages beyond an actual advantage over gasoline engines?
  - happyscrappy 11y ago
    The reason air pollution is so much worse in European cities than American ones is largely due to diesel passenger vehicles.
    - padelt 11y ago
      That both suprises me, do you have any sources? Honest question, both seem counterintuitive. Maybe I am actually fed enough "feelgood" information in the past.
      - happyscrappy 11y ago
        http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/mar/05/industry-lobbyists-weakened-europes-air-pollution-rules-say-greenpeace http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/mar/05/industry-...
        andy_boot 11y ago
        That is an article from greenpeace about poor EU environmental standards in power stations. Sure it is bad but, it does not compare air pollution in EU vs US cities or attribute anything to cars.
    - scrumper 11y ago
      See for example Paris's recent (yesterday?) "no car day" in the center. The city's usual blanket of smog is gone. France of course having the highest %age of diesel cars in its passenger fleet of any country.
      - morsch 11y ago
- brc 11y ago
  Yes. Optimising for c02 reductions over Nox and particulates is a monumentally stupid policy. Co2 may have a deleterious effect in 100 years time, but is not an issue for air quality today. In any case, passenger vehicle c02 emssions are a rounding error in the scheme of things. Meanwhile, particulate pollution and Nox are very real issues affecting millions of people today. It's stupid to push diesel over gasoline for c02 reasons. Part of the reason VW cheated was because the USA didn't fall into this trap and allow more lax emissions standards for Diesels - all fuels are held to the same standard. So they took the Euro engines and added the defeat code. The USA is correct on this one. The focus on passenger vehicles is idiotic though - the amount of Nox and particulates pumped out by a single container ship is immense compared to a fleet of passenger vehicles. Then add trucking, rail, stationery equipment etc... Cities should be optimising for electric propulsion and punishing diesels. That makes sense for air quality right now, and if co2 proves to be an issue, it is easily fixed by switching the generation source to Nuclear or Hydro.
emp_zealoth 11y ago
Or maybe we abolish nonsensical, contrary requirements? Whoever actaully believed the fuel consumption figures is a fool. You cant have a 1,5t of a car and expect it to use only 5l/100km. That's a good rate for a goddamn motorbike (450ccm,one piston, dont exceed 90 km/h and you might reach 4,5l/100km) Its one fifth of the mass...
- mpweiher 11y ago
  I actually drove my Golf TDI at around the level of 5l/100km in Berlin for many years. Carefully. My girlfriend's Polo is significantly below that. Of course, these cars aren't ton and a half, but more around a ton.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
    - mpweiher 11y ago
      Yeah, I checked for the Polo, empty weight appears to be 1050 kg. The Golf TDI was a '96, so given the trends I expect it to be roughly similar. The original Golf I was under a ton.
    - trymas 11y ago
      I agree that cars are very heavy now, though, usually there are few 'types' of car weight. I do not know which where is used. Usually there are 2 weights: unladen weight and maximum weight. I've heard about some third weight which is between the unladen and maximum weights, something like a car's weight with full tank and a driver, but don't quote me on this. Probably you have the maximum weight listed. My Skoda Fabia (Audi Q3 equivalent) has maximum weight of 1680kg and unladen weight of 1200kg. I refuse to believe that VW Up is heavier than the Skoda Fabia. AFAIK, minivans have quite big weight on their papers, but empty minivan can't weigh 3000kg, which is only possible if it's loaded.
      - codfrantic 11y ago
fithisux 11y ago
Not their wallets. why should they pay for the fraud of corporates? Let the corporates replace cars .
- verinus 11y ago
  Perhaps this is a kind of occasion where people know that things are too good to be true but want them believe them to be... edit: typo
- JonFish85 11y ago
  One way or another, regular folks will pay for it. If it's directly by paying this tax, that's straight forward. Otherwise, the company will take the hit, and the cost will flow towards stock-holders, which in general tend to be unions, 401k plans and such. How much of your 401k are you willing to lose due to that cost? How much of your parents' 401k/union pensions is OK to forfeit?
  - TheCoelacanth 11y ago
    That sounds like an argument for never punishing corporations for anything, which is clearly unworkable. Pension and 401k plans are typically diversified across a broad range of stocks, so they won't be heavily impacted by a single company's stock price dropping. On the other hand, executives and board members, who are actually responsible for the company's actions, will typically have a large amount of that company's stock so they will be much more heavily impacted by the stock price dropping.
    - JonFish85 11y ago
      That's not how I meant it, but I can see how that's a fair reading of what I said. I don't like that people jump onto ideas very quickly without thinking through the ramifications. I don't think a lot of people realize how wide-reaching effects from quick knee-jerk reactions can be, and how much they can actually have effects beyond the first-order ones.
will_critchlow 11y ago
"if motorists find their tax rising due to cheating by car manufacturers" This doesn't require new enforcement or new taxes - a large part of the purchase price of petrol is tax.
- throwaway049 11y ago
  In the UK we pay an annual tax [0] based on the engine size or CO2 emissions of the vehicle, in addition to tax on fuel. I doubt the government will move affected cars up the price bands post-purchase as it would be politically unpopular. [0] https://www.gov.uk/calculate-vehicle-tax-rates https://www.gov.uk/calculate-vehicle-tax-rates
IkmoIkmo 11y ago
None of this is really new, the mostly German car lobby has resisted European emissions testing on testing strict real-world usage, as opposed to testing on a roller. Anyone who spent 10 minutes looking into this in the past years could've told you that, and it wasn't some big secret. A lot of it was stuff everyone was doing, like fitting certain tires and inflating them such that the rolling resistance is reduced. At the end of the day, there are limits to those gains and everyone does it, so in can't set you apart from the competition and once the basic manipulations are exhausted and the emissions goalposts are moved you can't make gains anymore without actually improving the car. Further most of these are for CO2 emissions / fuel efficiency, which is different from the VW fraud which was about NOx emissions. The difference with the VW case is that VW essentially defrauded the test by building a device that measured various factors to establish whether it was being driven normally or whether it was being tested. In the former case it'd shut down (allowing 35x the legal limit of NOx emissions into the air while driving), while in the latter case it'd dampen the emissions (at the cost of engine performance, which is why they shut it off during regular driving). That's a different level of fraud, one that has very few bounds and can change results by much more than an order of magnitude, and is hugely controversial because it makes every test meaningless in the short, medium and long term and isn't practiced by everyone, and so different from manipulating tests by e.g. inflating tires which can still produce meaningful test, benchmarks and comparisons, when you start building 'defeat devices' all of that goes out the window completely.
- maxerickson 11y ago
  Not a device though, just software to vary the engine regulation when the test is detected. (Or more likely a mode that kicks in when non test driving is detected)

mgiannopoulos 11y ago

So, any Japanese or American companies doing this as well? Who's next?

larrydag 11y ago
I'm guessing its across the industry. I'm wondering if this is the tip of the iceberg.
- emp_zealoth 11y ago
  Im pretty sure its just a case of completely out of control rules - they became impossible to follow, so everyone just decided to "play along"
  - mpweiher 11y ago
    Also rules that are in conflict. To get good mileage and corresponding low CO2 emissions, you need ultra lean mixtures. Alas, ultra lean mixtures produce more NOx. You want low NOx emissions, you need richer mixtures, and thus higher fuel consumption and higher CO2 emissions.
    - pbhjpbhj 11y ago
      >ultra lean mixtures produce more NOx // Isn't that where catalytic converters come in though? Rules in conflict surely are required by the chemistry of the situation, the companies have to search for the local minima in order to comply.
      - vonmoltke 11y ago
        > Isn't that where catalytic converters come in though? Diesel exhaust is too oxygen-rich for the cat to effectively catalyze the NOx. That's why recent passenger car diesel systems have a Diesel Exhaust Fluid system.
wil421 11y ago

etimberg 11y ago

I went through to the actual report (http://www.transportenvironment.org/sites/te/files/publications/TE_Mind_the_Gap_2015_FINAL.pdf http://www.transportenvironment.org/sites/te/files/publicati...) and found an infographic (figure 8) that shows some of the methods manufacturers can use to defeat tests. "Pushing the brake pads fully into the callipers reduces rolling resistance" is apparently one way. That makes me ask the question, why don't we do this already? If it reduces rolling resistance it probably also increases brake-pad life. That'd be a win-win for drivers.

other_herbert 11y ago
As long as the system can quickly return them gently to the rotor surface... If you change your own brake pads you know that after you finish it can take two whole presses of the brake pedal to get the pads to contact the rotors
emp_zealoth 11y ago
The brake pads and jaws get contaminated with dust and the like,making them stick a little. My guess is they get disassembled before test and cleaned perfectly.
- pbhjpbhj 11y ago
  How much benefit is it, wonder if having a small compressed air squirter - like a headlight washer - would pay off (in terms of fuel savings) or not. Would be interesting to know what designs of pads/jaws dissipate the contaminants better?
rplst8 11y ago
The primary reason is that keeping the pads just in contact with the rotor prevents water from collecting on the rotor surface. Wet rotors can affect braking performance and safety.
_ambigu0us_ 11y ago
In car braking systems the pedal movement from depressed to pressed corresponds to a very small (<1mm) pad movement. The pad is just touching when the brake when the pedal is not pressed, and pressing the pedal forces the pad and caliper together, increasing friction. Depressing the pedal does not withdraw the pad. With the brake cylinder fully compressed (as they did for the test), it requires several full pumps of the pedal to bring the pad into contact with the disk. This increases braking distance, which is generally considered a bad thing.

KnightOfWords 11y ago

Sounds like there are plenty of worms in this particular can waiting to come out.

solaris999 11y ago

This is the big next step that a lot of people were expecting - where in-depth studies into all of the competitors occurs and it's gradually revealed that this defeat device game has been played by almost everyone in the industry. It'll be interesting to see the repercussions for the automakers, but inevitably this'll end with sweeping legislation changes and reform of the testing protocol and standards.

Zigurd 11y ago
This is a very good bet. The "defeat device" turns out to be using a feature of the ECU platform provided by the ECU supplier. It would be surprising to find that VW was the only maker to cheat, when the cheating mechanism was available to everyone. There are some markets, like voting machines, where requiring open, buildable, verifiable code is good practice. Cars might be another.
- slasaus 11y ago
  I was thinking of voting machines as well and think publicly verifiable code and hardware would be a good thing for cars (I don't think it's good enough for large scale elections, but that's another topic). See this story about the need for open source for large publicly used systems: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/23/nyregion/volkswagens-diesel-fraud-makes-critic-of-secret-code-a-prophet.html http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/23/nyregion/volkswagens-diese...
  - slasaus 11y ago
    ps. just reading this in a post from Bruce Schneier[1] that is currently on the frontpage as well[2] which is about cheating software as used by car manufacturers and the IoT that is coming up: Voting machines could appear to work perfectly -- except during the first Tuesday of November, when it undetectably switches a few percent of votes from one party's candidates to another's. [1] https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2015/09/volkswagen_and_.html https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2015/09/volkswagen_an... [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10304428 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10304428

lubujackson 11y ago

I guess "teaching for the test" applies to car manufacturing as well...

axx 11y ago

I think we all should agree that this is the same for every car manufacturer (except electric). Sure, european manufacturers are the target now, but i expect same results from all other manufacturers (including asian and american). Lab results never represent real street results. How could they? People drive differently and the outcome is based on many aspects that you can't reproduce in lab conditions.

eterm 11y ago
You are obfuscating the issue here. The issue isn't that we can't "represent real street results", the issue is that manufacturers took deliberate steps to alter car behaviour with the intention of obtaining better test results than would be present outside the tests.
- knowaveragejoe 11y ago
  But the results they're aiming for are ostensibly based on some measure that represents "real street" results. Otherwise, why the hell do we have these measures in the first place?
- axx 11y ago
  And that's a surprise to whom? It's the same with smartphone and notebook batteries. Tell me, when was the last time, you actually got 9 hours of battery live (in case of a MBP)? Don't get me wrong, i see it the same way as you are, but this is an issue that you can find everywhere not just in car manufacturing. For example, a lot of power supply companies try all kinds of tricks to game the efficiency test systems.
  - quesera 11y ago
    In fairness, Apple typically understates battery life in marketing materials. Most new-model reviews show that clearly. And, if you got a bad battery that doesn't live up, they'll replace it at no charge. Battery life declines with age, however.
  - simias 11y ago

mavroprovato 11y ago

Why "some" was removed from the title?

Bud 11y ago

If you read the full report, the automaker with by far the largest gap between its claimed improvements in fuel economy and its actual on-the-road performance is General Motors. Much worse than VW and Mercedes (who also did very poorly), by this measure. A reckoning is coming. source: see page 13, here http://www.transportenvironment.org/sites/te/files/publications/TE_Mind_the_Gap_2015_FINAL.pdf http://www.transportenvironment.org/sites/te/files/publicati...

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
crazypyro 11y ago
"3. Deducting 4% from measured results Bizarrely the NEDC procedure allows carmakers to actually declare (use) a value 4% lower than the one measured. The provision is designed to minimize the testing burden but is being abused by carmakers to declare lower test results systematically." I wonder if there is a person that didn't expect this to happen.
- Someone1234 11y ago
  Does it matter however when it is systematic? This is going to sound backwards, but consider this: People buy cars based in part on MpG, however MpG is within itself an abstract thing (i.e. you don't actually get X miles per gallon, never did, never will too many other factors to include). So if everyone removes 4% from an abstract number, the entire market has shifted down, but the relative difference between two models remains identical (e.g. if one car has 21 MpG and another has 25 MpG, even with 4% removed from both they retain their relative position). If some were removing 4% while others weren't, that would legitimately be a problem. If they're all removing 4% then we're essentially where we would be at the start just with lower abstract numbers.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - TheOtherHobbes 11y ago

alkonaut 11y ago

The thing is that the cheats (throwing out unnecessary weight, taping door gaps etc, using super hard notrogen inflated tyres, etc.) would add a constant amount to the fuel consumption, say .2 liter per 10km. If you keep pushing your engine consumption downwards to the ridiculous levels we see now (<.5 liters 10km), what happens is the "drag cheat" actually becomes a large percentage of the consumption. Just goes to show that the cars should be designed without large door gaps or outside mirrors (cameras instead) and so on, since they seem to add significantly to the consumptions that that is where the effort should be put. As a consumer, I really don't care much, I just get consumption data from some independent source such as a magazine or website. Having manufacturers self-test and self-regulate reminds me of the financial industry in 2008. It just won't work.

bengoodger 11y ago
The lack of good data is really frustrating. The EPA adjusted the formula for mileage a few years ago which made things slightly better but I never come close to hitting the results in my car. Observed economy is related to personal circumstances, and in my case living at 700 elevation and traveling down close to 0 on a daily basis hurts my scores (along with tire lifetimes, etc). Another thing that bothers me is that performance cars are rated by the same standards, when the people who buy them undoubtedly drive differently than the people buying Toyota Yarises. Anecdotal reporting online is a joke. You will find endless car forums with people boasting about how they consistently get 25mpg in their V8 sedan. Gimme a break. What I'd love to see is some service/app that was able to gather real world data from owners of the same type of car in the same area as me along with general stats about their driving style. This would have to be automated to be accurate.
- alkonaut 11y ago
  Yeah I wouldn't trust some forum user either, but certainly some of the larger magazines that do long real life tests of cars.

ifcologne 11y ago

More fuel consumption, more CO2. Clear. But it's not the cheating story of VW, continued - that was about nitrogen oxide pollutants which was up to 40 times above what is allowed in the US. From the report: > All carmakers have been exploiting ever more flexibilities in the current official tests during 2013 and 2014, but detailed results from Spritmonitor in Germany (Figure 4) show that cars produced by Daimler, PSA and GM exhibit the largest realworld gaps, around 40%. However, in the past two to three years all major carmakers (with the possible exception of Fiat) have become more adept at using flexibilities in the tests such that all carmakers now have an average gap of 25% or more (as against a maximum gap of only 10% in 2001). As I understand "Spritmonitor", as a private person, you can record your fuel data (from your receipt) and your odometer to calculate the mileage you can go with your car. No details about the driving behavior that has an impact on how much CO2 is emitted. http://www.spritmonitor.de/en/overview/50-Volkswagen/0-All_models.html http://www.spritmonitor.de/en/overview/50-Volkswagen/0-All_m... I guess that's not the perfect, reliable source - everyone can use the portal and add his favourite car. But for sure, I'll never reach the official 5.7 l/km with my car ...

dingdingdang 11y ago
"But for sure, I'll never reach the official 5.7 l/km with my car ..." --> are you driving a Russian tank? I drive a 10 year old not particularly efficient Vauxhall (UK) and it is doing ~17 km/l!
- Narretz 11y ago
  It's not very difficult to assume he means 5.7l / 100km

wellboy 11y ago

Reminds of the cycling world. Boundaries are pushed with doping and in order to stay competitive, after a while everyone is doping until the whole thing collapses. The same thing goes for bodybuilding, anyone has another example?

saint_fiasco 11y ago
Capitalism. One of the Marxist critiques of capitalism is that if an employer wants to do certain good things (like treat his workers well, pay more salaries than the bare minimum, take care of the environment and so on) he can't do that because that will raise the price of whatever he is selling and he would be outcompeted by his less altruistic rivals and go bankrupt. So every business owner has to be a bit of a psychopath to survive.
- kevin_thibedeau 11y ago
  Cliffbar lavishes perks on their employees and they seem to get by selling commodity food products. The problem is when the people at the top take everything for themselves and leave nothing behind. Issuing public stock induces the worst of this sort of behavior due to the need to market the company to investors on the single line item of profitability.

ck2 11y ago

Didn't I read somewhere or maybe it was John Oliver on Last Week Tonight that corporations in the USA report their own MPG to the government on an "honor system" because congress won't fund proper testing by the government. So much for government protecting the people from corporations and their sole quest for profit.

rconti 11y ago
They do, but the EPA also spot tests cars, and the system works pretty well. They recently fined Hyundai for not matching their quoted numbers. The EPA test cycle is not particularly representative of real-world driving, but it's far better than the European tests are, which easily allow you to game the system. Seems like the system works quite well here in the US, even if you might quibble with their idea of a city and highway drive cycle.

agumonkey 11y ago

That's a lot of bad news in a row for fuel based vehicles.

milkers 11y ago

that was expected.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

equa 11y ago

This is not good, but it is much different from the NOx cheat because consumers can easily measure MPG themselves, and do. For that matter it's commonly noted in car magazines that U.S. EPA MPG ratings are lower the E.U. ratings for the same car & drivetrain; I'm not sure the 50% number in the OP would be so high relative to U.S. tests. It also speaks to the responsibility of the auto press for the NOx issue. They routinely report real-world MPG ratings for cars ("in our driving, we got __ MPG"), but haven't bothered to test real-world emissions despite all the other expensive gear they use to test car performance. Manufacturers and governments should be accurate and honest, but it's also the press that should be routinely verifying their accuracy. Example of skepticism at the "extremely optimistic European cycle": http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2017-audi-a4-prototype-drive-review#eztoc8555383_0_2 http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2017-audi-a4-prototype-d...

rconti 11y ago
Yeah, the European cycle has been known to be a joke for quite some time. The US results are actually quite achievable. Their highway cycle max speed is very low (I think it assumes you don't exceed 55mph), but there's so much slowing and accelerating, even on the highway cycle, that you can easily obtain US highway numbers on an open road if you keep it to say 65 or even 70.

DrNuke 11y ago

This is Chernobyl for automotive, Elon Musk wet dream and the chance to make electric cars appealing to the general public at last. Great uncle Charles Darwin having a good laugh too, evolutionism at its best.

equa 11y ago

rebootthesystem 11y ago

It's called "real world driving". Look, this is no different from Tesla claiming a 280 miles range that nobody can achieve. Not saying it is right. What I am saying is: We need better tests.

ticktocktick 11y ago
Hard to resist all that power under foot in Tesla's!
mikeash 11y ago
It's not actually very hard to achieve rated range in a Tesla. You might need to refrain from flooring it at every opportunity and you might want to cut down from going 10MPH over the speed limit, but it's not a challenge.
- rebootthesystem 11y ago
  I think you missed my point: real world driving. No vehicle meets manufacturer specifications in this regard, electric or IC. To be clear, I am not saying this as a negative. I am simply stating it as a fact.
  - mikeash 11y ago
    You missed my point, which is that it's easy to achieve rated range in a Tesla with real-world driving. I have not taken care at all to drive my Model S in an efficient manner, and I still have an average of 315Wh/mile over about 8,000 miles of driving so far, where 300Wh/mile is rated efficiency.
    - rebootthesystem 11y ago
      The bit if data you are leaving out is the nature of the terrain and traffic you experience. I am not disputing your numbers at all, I am simply saying more data is needed in order to fully evaluate it. Beyond that, the truth is you cannot get the rated range because that would mean draining the batteries to zero. Real range anxiety, depending on where you drive, starts to come in somewhere below 50 miles from fully drained. You also have a difference in performance between summer and winter driving. If you have a short daily commute, the combination of the "off" state drain on the battery overnight and the car warming or cooling the battery pack while parked in cold or hot weather can have an impact on available range and performance. BTW, I am NOT saying any of this is bad. I am simply saying these are realities of the contrast between advertised specifications and performance under real life conditions.

cbsmith 11y ago

Facebook is reporting a link on that site as somehow malicious....

izzydata 11y ago

Which auto makers if any has the closest emissions to their lab results? Honda? Subaru?

awjr 11y ago

Ok let's be real here, if we put the "pollution" taxes onto fuel and not on the design of the car, this problem, in effect, goes away. There is still the issue that high efficiency, usually means running the engine at high temperatures which generates far more NOx gases. We should be taxing the amount of fuel used.

fluxquanta 11y ago
Additional fuel taxes are typically not a welcome change among the pubic. I agree that logically this is what should be done, but everyone fills up their gas tank every few hours/days/weeks and sees that price. People only buy new cars every once in a while, and they expect a large purchase price. I think psychologically taxing the vehicle and not the fuel is more of a people pleaser.
- enriquec 11y ago
  And yet, todays weighted average tax for the US is $.4888 per gallon (54.50 for Diesel). Today's national average price of $2.28 puts that at ~21.4%. That probably puts gas up there with one of the most taxed things I buy.
doczoidberg 11y ago
Whole environment damage including the manufacturing should be taxed. Of course this can only be estimated. Every engine and car produces different environment waste. For example a Tesla S produces much more carbon in it's production than a gasoline car. There are also other toxins which are produced concerning different type of cars. A diesel produces NOx but can reduce it with filters. Just taxing the fuel used is just stupid.
zardo 11y ago
That works for CO2, because there is no technology to mitigate CO2 release from combustion. But that isn't the case for particulate matter, carbon monoxide, or nitrogen oxides. You can't put a NOx tax on diesel because the amount of NOx you produce from burning a given quantity of diesel will vary by two orders of magnitude depending on the pollution controls.

chrispie 11y ago

this is bullshit. a planed smear campaign against german car manufactures. can we see some charts for american cars please!

curiousjorge 11y ago

could we expect a major recall? 10+ million cars would be disastrous.

cannedbass 11y ago

So how many of these cars have turbos? I know the BMWs at least are mostly turbo 4-cylinders. The whole reason manufacturers are moving to small displacement turbocharged engines over large displacement naturally aspirated engines is because the EPA MPG tests never run the engine in a range where the turbo is doing much. Put the car in the real world and the driver's lead foot makes the turbo kick in, killing fuel economy. Ref: http://autoweek.com/article/car-news/mpg-or-performance-its-trade-turbos http://autoweek.com/article/car-news/mpg-or-performance-its-...

MattBearman 11y ago
My thoughts exactly. And I don't think it's just lead footed drivers, the lag on some of these small turbo charged engines is so great that most drivers will feel they have to stamp their foot to the floor just to make the car move.
brc 11y ago
Yes. Turbos are being added to everything, killing the NA engine. The reason is to create a smaller displacement motor which still has the power that drivers expect. Turbo engines can consume vast amounts of fuel when opened up to full throttle. Modern turbo engines are also very easily remapped for extra power (and consumption) just by changing the boost control. All the added complexity and cost just to match emissions requirements, which are all negated when the driver 'puts the boot in'. Turbos are the ultimate cheat device.

outworlder 11y ago

So, does that mean that all those armchair discussions about the merits of ICE and electric cars with "official" mileage numbers thrown about are completely invalid? A 50% increase in fuel completely changes the cost proposition.

JoeAltmaier 11y ago
I'm not so sure. Especially for high-end cars, lifetime fuel costs are dwarfed by the car cost. Even in low-end high-mileage cars, both numbers are smaller but the car cost is still probably double the lifetime fuel cost. So maybe across the board we can expect fuel not to be a driving variable in the cost proposition?

petercooper 11y ago

I never pay attention to fuel consumption figures as they have never represented reality in my case. My current Mercedes has an official rating of 40mpg, but I never get that out of it unless I literally sit at 55mph on a flat motorway and never change speed (impossible in the UK). Some journeys I go as low as 19mpg when it's driven as it's meant to be. All the Vauxhalls I had before were the same.

jsprogrammer 11y ago
As it's meant to be? How is that? 40 to 19 is a huge gap. Do you engage the throttle and brakes more than necessary?
eveningcoffee 11y ago
This report does not include fuel consumption data - only emissions data (CO2 g/km). While they speak about fuel consumption and even speculate with numbers, this is not backed up by the data.

joosters 11y ago

One problem with the report is that real-world driving styles might be linked to the type of car. So, small cars might perhaps be more likely used for short commutes, whereas larger cars could tend to have longer motorway journeys. One driving style is likely to be closer to the standard tests than the other. So, even if one car seems to perform worse, it could just be because of the average driving of that car.

debacle 11y ago
That's a problem with a test, not a problem with the report.
- joosters 11y ago
  No. The emissions test has to pick a certain kind of driving style. It can't emulate them all. The report, on the other hand, could try to compare like-for-like. For example, they could give separate results for high-mileage drivers and low-mileage drivers. Or split the results by average speed, to try and isolate long-distance motorway drivers from short commutes.

SeanLuke 11y ago

I wonder to what degree this is due to Europe's use, as I understand it, of an absurdly optimistic testing procedure (NEDC) which does not reflect real-world driving patterns. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_European_Driving_Cycle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_European_Driving_Cycle http://www.car-engineer.com/the-different-driving-cycles/ http://www.car-engineer.com/the-different-driving-cycles/

pyb 11y ago

It's not really news though, is it ? All car magazines measure real consumption and show how it is much higher than the official figure.

Shivetya 11y ago
well it really depends on how you drive as well. I have had only one car in the last twenty or so years where I could not consistently beat the EPA ratings. Plus throw in that most ares have ethanol formulations and that will lower your mileage. Far too many race from light to light, keep on the gas even when going downhill and over the limit, brake late and even run with tires under inflated. anecdotal, my current car a s28 Z4 uses a four cylinder turbo. 23/34 I think are the official ratings, I have yet to average a tank under 30 and did 40 on pure highway at speeds over 70. Granted its a manual which lets me abuse the rev range a bit more than the 8 speed auto offered but its simply down to learning to drive your car within its best performance parameters. I still have fun, run it up fast, but mostly just drive relaxed. Does it mean that some cars are not performing to what companies claim. I am quite sure they aren't. I could not get a 2013 Mustang V6 above its EPA AVG to save my life.

andor 11y ago

Carmakers, not drivers, are the cause of the problem as obsolete official test results are being manipulated. Then why does this report compare NEDC numbers with user-submitted real-world consumption? Since car manufacturers have increased power output while keeping NEDC consumption relatively constant, rather than the other way around, you need to drive very carefully to get close to the official numbers. It should be obvious that the more powerful an engine is, the more fuel it can burn in a period of time, if you go full throttle. Which is why they find that BMW and Mercedes deviate more than the average. Dear "Transport & Environment", why do you think do people buy fast cars? This is the ICCT report TFA is based on: http://www.theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/ICCT_LaboratoryToRoad_2015_Report_English.pdf http://www.theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/ICCT...

mzs 11y ago
Thank you for the link. I was hoping it would include more detail about the cars. For example which engines and do they have start-stop. About the only thing I saw mentioned but not well accounted for was the automatic gearbox difference. I have a car with 2.5L turbo engine and I can get from 13.5-28MPG from a tank of gas depending on a number of factors, mainly on how I drive, but also what fuel, how loaded-up the car is, and tires. I suspect that automatics with turbo or supercharged engines with start-stop have the greatest difference in real world v test performance. And yes that is because of how people drive compared to the test.

PythonicAlpha 11y ago

The problem with the environmental problems (currently with VW) and the fuel consumption is, that particularly in the EU, the governments for years (if not decades) turned a totally blind eye on the car manufacturers. The problems with the emission measuring and also fuel measuring was known for long now and in the EU, many wanted to change the measuring methods -- but for example the German government did always block such advances. In my opinion, not only the car manufactures are guilty, but even more the politicians that made it very easy for them to cheat on us all. The additional expenses (at the gas station and with the bad air) carry the consumers. VW is only the tip of the iceberg.

eveningcoffee 11y ago

Please change the title to "Mercedes, BMW and Peugeot models emit 50% more CO2, new study reveals" The report does not provide the data about fuel consumption.

pjc50 11y ago

Dyson claim that German vacuum cleaner manufacturers are 'cheating' the energy efficiency rules similarly: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/car-manufacturers/volkswagen/11901325/My-advice-to-Germany-scrap-rules-for-real-Vorsprung-durch-Technik.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/car-manufacturers/volksw...

travis2000 11y ago

I have one of those cars and it actually gets more mpg than what the sticker says, not sure how it would be possible to be 50% off from that, people would figure that out pretty quickly.

brianbreslin 11y ago

This is totally anecdotal, but relevant. I installed the automatic.com car monitoring app/dongle to see how my last car (2013 ford escape ecoboost 2.0L) was performing vs the advertised rates. I drove consistently at a 95-97 score rating for efficiency, and never averaged over 16mpg despite the car being advertised as 23mpg city. Highway driving was different (i got 29.5mpg vs 31mpg advertised). I questioned ford about this and they blamed my city driving on "short trips where the car didn't heat up enough to be efficient". Either way, I was not pleased. My current car (Lexus NX200T 2015) gets 21mpg city 29 hwy within 1-2mpg of what was advertised. My driving patterns haven't changed.

edw519 11y ago

"Miles Per Gallon" is poor metric for reducing consumption. "Gallons Per Year" would be much better. Move closer to work, carpool, take public transport, ride a bike, work remotely. Benefits from these things would dwarf any incremental improvements from EPA ratings.

justinator 11y ago

Strange, I tried posting this link onto Facebook, and received the following message: http://imgur.com/c49k2py http://imgur.com/c49k2py What's up with that?

larrys 11y ago

Here is one. My Porsche has a display which tells you the MPG. However the car display is consistently between 1 and 2 mpg better than what I calculate after filling the tank and doing the math. And I repeat it's consistently worse than the display which calculates the mgp per tankful which is probably what most people rely on. I've been meaning to bring this up with the dealer but haven't so far. This is in addition to not coming anywhere near to the stated MPG and with conservative driving (non sport mode ..)

rconti 11y ago
Yeah, mileage computers in cars are known for being a bit optimistic. It's not hard to beat the EPA highway number for your car. Put it on the highway, cruise at 65mph, done. The EPA test cycle doesn't even exceed 55mph, but it has quite a bit of slowing and speeding up, so you can beat it with a consistent cruise a good bit over their 55mph number.
- ptaipale 11y ago
  A partial reason for this is that the speedometers have to be optimistic by law (depending on jurisdiction, but I think this is the case most everywhere. When your speedometer shows 100 km/h, it is permitted that true speed is 90 km/h, but it is not permitted that the true speed is 101 km/h. And the same variance applies to odometer, of course. Things like tyre wear and pressure have a noticeable impact on what both meters show, and manufactures have to stay on the safe side, by law.
  - rconti 11y ago
    This is true -- my understanding is that Germany actually requires they never read low EVEN IF FITTED WITH THE WRONG SIZE TIRES which is sort of insane. That said, I believe the odometers are typically bang on, which would mean the mileage calculation should be accurate. Or could be, if they wanted it to be.

henningo 11y ago

I think it is a bit unfair to just blame the manufacturers. The legislation could likely be changed to make for a more robust test approach. After all, it is engineers we are talking about here, if they are given a task to optimize an engine's emissions and fuel consumption to a specific drive cycle they will do it. But then of course you have the ethical aspects which I won't go into. A computer science analogy to this would be if I gave you an uncompressed image and you had to develop a compression algorithm that made the image as small as possible, you could likely come up with a really good solution. But your algorithm most likely wouldn't do as well on any other image. I think that a feasible solution to this will be to test under a wider range of conditions and add (statistically defined) noise to the testing procedures. The added cost of additional testing would be very small in comparison to the cost of a vehicle development program. A good overview of the different drive cycles can be found here: http://www.car-engineer.com/the-different-driving-cycles/ http://www.car-engineer.com/the-different-driving-cycles/

ucsdrake 11y ago
"A computer science analogy to this would be if I gave you an uncompressed image and you had to develop a compression algorithm that made the image as small as possible, you could likely come up with a really good solution. But your algorithm most likely wouldn't do as well on any other image." That analogy doesn't hold. It's more akin to developing two compression algorithms, one for the general case, and a specific algorithm which is used only when your image is detected for better than the general compression performance use case. It is entirely fair to blame the manufacturers for this. Gaming emissions results required effort to accomplish, and is completely unethical from an engineering standpoint.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- henningo 11y ago
  I agree that the analogy doesn't hold for the recent VW debacle (where the calibration was changed during certification testing), but it holds for the industry in large and what has been going on for the past 10-20 years, which is what the paper is about. The vehicle manufacturers optimize the engine calibration to the drive cycle they are trying to beat. That is why a US-spec BMW has a different engine tune than a Euro-spec BMW for example, the drive cycles are different.

acomjean 11y ago

Wait a second.. When I bought my car (10 years ago) and read reviews, a lot of them say here's what the epa said you'd get for mileage, and heres what we actually got. There is always a difference (maybe 10%). But if it claims 30 mpg and you are getting 17 , I like to think more than few people might notice. Part of the reason VW was accused of cheating on emissions was it helped mileage. edit: as pointed out, its 50% more fuel... But still a noticeable difference..

arasmussen 11y ago
50% more fuel than official results would be like claims 30 mpg and actually getting 22.5 mpg.
- acomjean 11y ago
  Fair enough.. But still a significant real world difference. EPA (USA) tests aren't really real world and they don't just drive the cars. Well they drive them on a dyno on a preset pattern (see the picture in the link). https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/how_tested.shtml https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/how_tested.shtml they measure emissions to estimate fuel consumption.
- mikeash 11y ago
  Consuming 50% more fuel than 30MPG is 20MPG, not 22.5MPG: 30 miles divided by 1.5 gallons equals 20 miles/gallon.
  - arasmussen 11y ago
    True. I was thinking 100% more would be 15 MPG so 50% more would be 22.5. Thanks for the correction.
    - mikeash 11y ago
      Makes sense, I was wondering where that number came from. Of course it all goes nonlinear when you take the reciprocal.

skylan_q 11y ago

Remember when Toyotas (made by a Japanese company) in the US were killing people on their own and no one could replicate it?

eonw 11y ago

i have a 2010 4runner and it was sold as 22mph, i get 16.5. i mean i knew those numbers were bad, but thats quite a bit off, if you ask me.

randyrand 11y ago

The conclusions in the article are bullshit. There are a number of possible explanations. 1. offical does not reflect real world. 2. defeat devices. If every car manufacturer is using defeat devices it really shows how poorly EPA requirements have worked. Blame car manufacturers, sure, but they're supposed to be selfish. That's how economics works.

jokoon 11y ago

How is that possible with the current gas prices ? I can't even comprehend that. I would have thought gas mileage would have been a very important issue so that entire countries can save money.

arcticbull 11y ago

It's worth mentioning on the other hand that -- based on my experience -- the VW Diesels currently being recalled for cheating their NOx tests consume significantly less fuel than they are rated to. My 2009 Jetta was rated at 29 city, 33 combined and 40 highway . Based on my fuel records, I got 33 city, 36-38 combined and 50 highway. That means it out-performed the EPA estimates by 25% highway, 12% combined and 14% city.

dmritard96 11y ago

I monitor my mileage by simply resetting my trip meter on a fillup and looking at how much went into the car and dividing. The largest source of error naturally is that not all pumps are gaurenteed to fill to the same hieght and some places may be on a hill etc. Obviously this is only as good as the way I drive (or my wife) and is heavily dependent upon if I hit traffic, mostly drive in the city or go on a road trip. It really is an interesting thing to keep track of.