Pilita Clark and Andy Sharman write in the Financial Times about the test measurements for fuel consumption of new cars and how they are reflecting real conditions less and less. The way the tests are held are being held is being blamed.
Carmakers stuck in slow lane over fuel data and air pollution, say researchers
Only eight car models in the UK met their official fuel consumption figures when checked by a company that says a lax testing regime means a huge gap between advertised and real-world miles per gallon
“We have tested about 550 different models sold in the UK over the past three years and only eight met their official figures,” said Nick Molden, chief executive of Emissions Analytics, a London-based company that tests cars’ fuel economy.
The reason, he said, was the way the EU conducts the tests.
“The EU test cycle is very gentle,” said Mr Molden, explaining that when new European cars were tested in laboratories for certification, they did not have to accelerate as fast or undergo the cold starts and other tests required in the US.
Nor do they face the same level of scrutiny as in the US, where Hyundai and Kia agreed this month to pay a record $300m in fines for overstating fuel economy performance.
The result is a gap between stated and actual fuel economy of European cars that has soared from 8 per cent in 2001 to 31 per cent in 2013, according to research published in November by Transport & Environment (T&E), a Brussels think-tank.
“Consumers should be worried,” said Garel Rhys, emeritus professor of motor industry economics at Cardiff Business School. “[The test is] such a long way from normal operating conditions that people really do have to wonder what on earth these figures are telling them.”
T&E allege that carmakers “game” the EU testing system by overinflating tyres, disconnecting the alternator, which uses engine power to top up the battery, and taping over gaps in the bodywork to improve aerodynamics.
“[The carmakers] have to be shamed into changing – shamed in such a way that if they don’t, it could start affecting their marketplace,” said Prof Rhys.
The Financial Times contacted the 10 biggest carmakers in Europe by sales, most of whom deferred to automotive trade bodies or did not respond to requests for comment. Acea, the European manufacturers’ organisation, said it was looking into the findings of the T&E study and could not provide detailed comments yet.
The UK trade body did acknowledge that the regime for measuring fuel economy was outmoded. “It was never intended to represent the infinite variations of real-world driving,” said Mike Hawes, chief executive of the UK Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders. “It still offers a method of comparison between vehicles, however, and the industry accepts that a more suitable process is needed.”
Of the carmakers who did respond, Hyundai said real-world fuel economy was influenced by “multiple factors, including weather and temperature conditions, traffic conditions, driving style, vehicle age and condition”. It added: “The current test system in Europe is the law and Hyundai Motor adheres to its processes.”
Toyota said it did not cheat. The gap between laboratory results and real-world emissions had widened over the past decade because, while carmakers had made advances in engine technology that were reflected in the tests, there had been an increase in the use of auxiliary energy-consuming features, such as air conditioning, heated seats, daytime running lights and entertainment systems.
The EU aims to introduce a new testing regime in 2017, although carmakers are lobbying for a delay.
Fuel consumption is not the only area where European laboratory results do not reflect real-world driving. Campaigners say car pollution figures are equally wide of the mark.
This matters because of a surge in sales of diesel vehicles, which have outnumbered new petrol cars in the UK for the past three years, largely because they use less fuel and emit less carbon dioxide.
In an echo of the fuel economy test gap, new diesel cars’ emissions of nitrogen oxides, which can cause serious respiratory problems, are an average of seven times higher than the EU’s legal limits, according to separate research by the International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT), a non-profit research group.
This is because the tests used to determine air pollution in cars are also not strict enough, said Mr Molden of Emission Analytics, whose data were used in the ICCT report. Cars meet legal limits when tested in laboratories but not in normal city traffic conditions, he said.
The EU is also looking at improving its air pollution testing. Poor air quality is forcing cities to come up with measures such as the ultra-low emission zone that London plans to introduce from 2020.
“That’s a sledgehammer way of reducing emissions,” said Mr Molden. “But cities are having to take matters into their own hands or they will face fines from the EU.”
The industry claims to have made great strides in cutting emissions. But analysts from Exane BNP Paribas have said up to 40 per cent of all claimed CO2 improvements since 2006 have been due to test “optimisation” rather than technological advances.
George Gillespie, chief executive of Mira, one of the two main companies that test cars for manufacturers, said that while all carmakers obeyed the law, they had become “more familiar with the vagaries of the testing cycle.
“If it is a comparative process, they would want to have the best performance,” he said. “They probably get better at measuring and optimising around that test cycle.”
The UK’s Department for Transport said it was aware that the current test procedure was “outdated and tends to underestimate fuel consumption from modern vehicles, but it is still a way for drivers to get a valuable comparison of vehicles of a similar type”. The department added that the new test procedure “should reflect better modern driving conditions and styles”.
Energy in Demand - Sustainable Energy - Rod Janssen 