
Study: Some car models consuming around 50% more fuel than official results - antr
http://www.transportenvironment.org/press/some-mercedes-bmw-and-peugeot-models-consuming-around-50-more-fuel-official-results-new-study
======
Bud
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/publicati...](http://www.transportenvironment.org/sites/te/files/publications/TE_Mind_the_Gap_2015_FINAL.pdf)

~~~
mattlutze
The source of the data is actually www.spritmonitor.de, which is a self-
reporting mileage tracking site (like www.fuelly.com). With ~501k vehicles
tracked and 8.885B kilometers tracked, the site represents ~17k kilometers per
car of user-reported mileage information.

Is this the best, or a reliable source, of information to start the
reckoning/witch hunt to come? I'm not sure.

~~~
vkjv
I thought the same. In my anecdotal experience, drivers tend to get much lower
than the manufacturer mileage because they optimize for things other than fuel
economy (e.g., speed).

My dad taught me lots of tips on conserving fuel and thankfully I've exceeded
the sticker numbers on every car I've owned.

~~~
bonzini
No matter how careful I am, it's hard for me to get lower than 130% of the
fuel consumption reported by the manufacturer. Perhaps I can do 120% of the
reported consumption at 90 km/h, but I can hardly get lower than 140% on the
highway (130 km/h) and in city traffic.

~~~
userbinator
Are you in an area with much hilly terrain? That'll definitely increase fuel
consumption significantly.

~~~
TylerE
Actually, it depends. Modern cars do better in rolling hills than on perfectly
flat land, since they can cut fuel entirely on the downhill, and the climbs
don't require that much extra fuel over just maintaining speed.

Now, mountains are another story, of course.

Some good stuff in this SE question:
[http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6220/can-a-car-
ge...](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6220/can-a-car-get-better-
mileage-driving-over-hills)

~~~
aianus
> Modern cars do better in rolling hills than on perfectly flat land, since
> they can cut fuel entirely on the downhill

This is physically impossible. Even if the car was perfectly efficient at
overcoming the force of gravity on the uphill portions (which it is not), you
cannot do better than flat terrain (unless by hilly you mean 'net downhill').

~~~
mturmon
I think you should reconsider "physically impossible". Sure, in some idealized
situations, the statement you're responding to would be wrong, grievously
wrong.

But the actual situation has two novel features: (1) the engine uses up power
just by being on; (2) you must maintain a minimum speed in order not to block
traffic.

If you put these constraints in, you can see that it's possible for a pulsed-
acceleration strategy to win. You put in a pulse of acceleration to get up the
hill, turn the engine off, and coast down, maintaining enough speed to keep up
with traffic.

Now sure, without the minimum-speed constraint, you'd probably be better off
flat, and possibly using a pulsed-acceleration strategy.

I haven't done the math, but I think it would be reckless to say it's
"physically impossible" for all values of static energy use and slopes.

Take a look at the stack exchange answer the commenter above linked to.

~~~
WalterBright
I read years ago that pulsing was the most efficient strategy. Engines have
very different efficiencies at different rpms and power settings. The idea
with pulsing is to try to operate it at its most efficient rpm and throttle
setting, which of course rarely corresponds to the speed over flat ground
you'd like to be travelling at. Hence pulsing.

~~~
aianus
I'm getting motion-sick just reading that :)

~~~
WalterBright
I've been known to do it when gas goes over $4 a gallon, but not when there
are cars behind me.

~~~
TylerE
Yep, and this is why moderate hills are better. It's essentially constant
speed pulse-and-glide. Just building and releasing potential energy rather
than kinetic.

------
yc1010
"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.

~~~
emp_zealoth
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
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.

~~~
trymas
Yup. Diesel cars can pull of 5l/100km quite easily (even VW Passat from 1998
can do that). My diesel Skoda Fabia consumes 4.6l/100km at 90kmh in highway.
If conditions are not terrible, I hover around 5l/100km on average in mixed
conditions (city and highway). Though few major traffic jams can ruin
statistics pretty badly. Also in winter average is about 5.6l/100km.

Maybe /user/emp_zealoth had petrol cars in mind? I've not personally seen a
petrol (non hybrid) car consuming less than 7l/100km and when I had one it was
10l/100km (8 if I was lucky) and it was small Peugeot 306.

To rant even more.. IMHO, those fuel consumption tests are a total fraud. Look
at new diesel sedans, local dealer declares that huge VW Passat TDI uses
4l/100km, or Skoda Octavia TDI (GreenLine or something) uses 3.1l/100km. Maybe
it's true when you're driving at 90km/h with wind blowing in your tail and
slight downhill.

~~~
emp_zealoth
Yes, i was talking about gasoline ones, diesels can and do get lower fuel
consumption

------
alkonaut
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
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
Yeah I wouldn't trust some forum user either, but certainly some of the larger
magazines that do long real life tests of cars.

------
solaris999
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
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
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-
diese...](http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/23/nyregion/volkswagens-diesel-fraud-
makes-critic-of-secret-code-a-prophet.html)

~~~
slasaus
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_an...](https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2015/09/volkswagen_and_.html)

[2]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10304428](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10304428)

------
equa
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-d...](http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2017-audi-a4-prototype-
drive-review#eztoc8555383_0_2)

~~~
rconti
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.

------
andor
_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...](http://www.theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/ICCT_LaboratoryToRoad_2015_Report_English.pdf)

~~~
mzs
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.

------
ifcologne
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_m...](http://www.spritmonitor.de/en/overview/50-Volkswagen/0-All_models.html)

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
"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
It's not very difficult to assume he means 5.7l / 100km

------
awjr
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.

~~~
zardo
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.

~~~
mzs
Just one clarification, CO2 recapture is a thing, for example in coal power
plants built after 2014 in US. But yeah for car, really impractical.

------
axx
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.

~~~
cLeEOGPw
> except electric

Why? You have just been shown corporate cheat on tests. Why you would ever
assume this has something to do with fuel type? I expect Tesla cheat as much
as MB or BMW in their "range" test. And if you believe otherwise you are just
someone who doesn't learn from his experience.

~~~
mikeash
Tesla's range numbers for the Model S assume about 300Wh/mile average
consumption. My average consumption so far over not quite 8,000 miles is
315Wh/mile.

It's hard to cheat in an electric car. Few people care about efficiency
directly, but most electric car drivers care deeply about _range_ , and range
is just battery capacity multiplied by efficiency. If Tesla were cheating so
they could lie about efficiency, Tesla owners would notice pretty much right
away that they're not achieving the range they should.

The only practical way for Tesla to cheat would be to ship a larger battery
than they say they do, and then fudge the numbers from there. Given the
current cost of batteries, this would be an incredibly expensive cheat, and it
would be tough to hide from the tinkerers who tear down battery packs to see
how they're built.

~~~
briantrice
I have definitely found that electric vehicle companies advertise very sound
and realistic figures for their mileage.

My personal case is a Zero motorcycle, but I've heard confirmation from owners
of other kinds; the range it gets is more or less exactly what they state for
the test conditions (straight level ground, no winds, etc etc). Mine did in
fact improve when I adjusted the aerodynamics, but that's another topic.

------
etimberg
I went through to the actual report
([http://www.transportenvironment.org/sites/te/files/publicati...](http://www.transportenvironment.org/sites/te/files/publications/TE_Mind_the_Gap_2015_FINAL.pdf))
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.

~~~
_ambigu0us_
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.

~~~
tonylemesmer
The travel from a single pedal press is small, but its probably a solvable
problem. It just needs a different design.

~~~
simias
If you make the pedal more sensitive (increase the resulting travel per pedal
press) you'll make it harder to apply a precise amount of braking power which
doesn't sound like a nice feature. I suppose you could have a more clever
system that would move the brake faster until it touches the disc and then
behave normally but I suppose that for such a critical system constructors and
regulators are very conservative.

There could also be beneficial side effects to having the pad in contact with
the disc at all times, such as preventing water/fluids/dirt to coat it. I'm
just guessing here.

~~~
_ambigu0us_
> If you make the pedal more sensitive (increase the resulting travel per
> pedal press) you'll make it harder to apply a precise amount of braking
> power which doesn't sound like a nice feature.

If you've tried hopping in a car from the past few years after driving a much
older car you (and you passengers) will have probably noticed this! It's very
common in modern cars to have much shorter brake pedal travel, so what would
bring you to a gentle stop in an older car will be somewhat more abrupt in a
modern car.

This is achieved by having a shorter travel pedal, which is then heavily
assisted by the brake servos so it is not horribly heavy to apply. This is
nominally for safety's sake, as it reduces the time between seeing a obstacle
and the brakes being fully applied. And since all recent cars have anti-lock
braking and stability systems it doesn't matter so much if the driver can't
control the braking pressure quite as precisely.

> I suppose you could have a more clever system that would move the brake
> faster until it touches the disc and then behave normally but I suppose that
> for such a critical system constructors and regulators are very
> conservative.

Exactly, as I mentioned to the other commenter, it's preferable to have a
simple, non powered mechanical system in place to stop the car in the event of
bad things happening. Adding extra bits to this system, with the vast R+D cost
involved, for marginal increases in fuel economy would be hard to justify for
most car manufacturers (especially since the fuel economy saving would benefit
the users pockets, not theirs).

------
acomjean
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
50% more fuel than official results would be like claims 30 mpg and actually
getting 22.5 mpg.

~~~
mikeash
Consuming 50% more fuel than 30MPG is 20MPG, not 22.5MPG: 30 miles divided by
1.5 gallons equals 20 miles/gallon.

~~~
arasmussen
True. I was thinking 100% more would be 15 MPG so 50% more would be 22.5.
Thanks for the correction.

~~~
mikeash
Makes sense, I was wondering where that number came from. Of course it all
goes nonlinear when you take the reciprocal.

------
cannedbass
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-...](http://autoweek.com/article/car-news/mpg-or-performance-its-trade-
turbos)

~~~
brc
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.

------
justinator
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?

------
henningo
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
"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.

~~~
henningo
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.

------
pjc50
Dyson claim that German vacuum cleaner manufacturers are 'cheating' the energy
efficiency rules similarly: [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/car-
manufacturers/volksw...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/car-
manufacturers/volkswagen/11901325/My-advice-to-Germany-scrap-rules-for-real-
Vorsprung-durch-Technik.html)

------
outworlder
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
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?

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

------
brianbreslin
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
"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.

------
PythonicAlpha
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.

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

~~~
wil421
For now the answer is inconclusive, but let's wait and see what tricks the
gasoline models are playing.

The Chevy Cruze Diesel was as clean as promised in the US version but the
European version may not be as clean[1].

[http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2015/09/tech-dive-chevy-
cru...](http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2015/09/tech-dive-chevy-cruze-stays-
clean/)

~~~
Zigurd
The US Cruze diesel uses urea injection. That works. The cheats seems to be
trying to do without that.

------
larrys
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
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
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
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.

------
SeanLuke
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/)

------
petercooper
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
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?

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

------
wellboy
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
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
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.

------
dmritard96
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.

------
joosters
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
That's a problem with a test, not a problem with the report.

~~~
joosters
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.

------
arcticbull
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.

------
pyb
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
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.

------
eveningcoffee
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.

------
randyrand
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.

------
ck2
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
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.

------
rebootthesystem
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.

~~~
mikeash
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
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
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
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.

~~~
mikeash
That's fair. I think we can say there are two kinds of "do you achieve these
numbers in the real world?" One being whether you can do so without completely
artificial conditions, and one being whether you _always_ get the given
numbers. It seems we're just talking about different ones there.

------
jokoon
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.

------
travis2000
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.

------
mavroprovato
Why "some" was removed from the title?

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

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

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

------
eonw
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.

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

------
milkers
that was expected.

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

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

------
DrNuke
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.

