Fraud: Most EU Carmakers Report False CO2 Emissions

Tesla Throws Cold Water On Its Own Hype

Volkswagen’s diesel scandal could just be the tip of a very large iceberg when it comes to carmakers faking emissions figures. Carmakers are exploiting weak and outdated EU laws to claim misleading statistics about fuel efficiency, a new report says. Real-world CO2 emissions are up to 40 percent higher than in the lab.

ADAC emissions test for CO2

According to a study released this week by the International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT), vehicle manufacturers are “systematically exploiting technical tolerances and imprecise definitions” to wrongly record their fuel efficiency and therefore their carbon dioxide emissions.

The ICCT tested 29 passenger cars built between 2009 and 2012 (including ten available in the US), comparing their real-world emissions with the official figures of the French and German approval agencies, and – for the US cars – official parameters used in US emissions certification tests. Full story –Ben Knight, Deutsche Welle, 12 May 2016

Here’s a dose of reality about Tesla’s heavily hyped mass-market Model 3 electric car: The company hasn’t yet finalized the design for the Model 3, hasn’t selected its parts suppliers, isn’t sure it can produce and deliver the car in volume and on time, and still needs to do “extensive testing” to make sure the car can meet quality standards and government regulations. –Michael Hiltzik, Los Angeles Times, 11 May 2016

h/t to Dr. Benny Peiser, GWPF

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
May 12, 2016 8:52 am


Phillip Bratby
May 12, 2016 8:53 am

Ah, clean, green carbon dioxide – the stuff of life. I must drive more.

Reply to  Phillip Bratby
May 12, 2016 9:11 am

And where does the carbon come from?

Reply to  simple-touriste
May 12, 2016 9:45 am

exploding stars

Reply to  simple-touriste
May 12, 2016 10:48 am

“exploding stars” goes one explanation. unless there is cold fusion on the solar surface, plasma has protons and electrons, the sun has neutrons, from this if a process can form atomic nuclei, carbon and oxygen ions can be produced, as in all the ingredients are there to make them, the question is where the process to create them is valid, it is certainly worthy of consideration. The solar wind seems to contain almost every known element.
Possibly the 1 million degrees out beyond the surface of the star and the solar wind are byproducts of this continuous fusion.
I prefer this version purely because it states the building blocks are smaller, the magic is getting your protons neutrons and electrons in the right number and place.
Such discovery would allow us to create elements, not too shabby 😀
Of course I rambling on :p

Reply to  simple-touriste
May 12, 2016 3:03 pm

No, no, no. Not exploding stars. Carbon is light enough that it is generated during normal stellar fuel utilization. Exploding stars provide the heavy stuff, heavier than iron.

Reply to  simple-touriste
May 12, 2016 6:40 pm

But the exploding stars do help make the carbon available to interstellar regions (for new stars and planets/asteroids/comets)

Reply to  Phillip Bratby
May 12, 2016 3:56 pm

Indeed! A “problem” which is NO problem is NO PROBLEM. Let’s get busy solving things that NEED solving–like creating jobs. TRUMP 2016!!

Tom Halla
May 12, 2016 8:58 am

Teslas are for display, for those greens who have the money to one-up their neighbors with a Prius. Of course, they usually have a real car when they have to exceed the range limitations of the Tesla.

Mark from the Midwest
Reply to  Tom Halla
May 12, 2016 10:31 am

I wouldn’t mind having a Prius, as a 3rd car, for running errands and other short trips, but I don’t want to be mistaken for someone who would drive a Prius, so I take my F350 instead.

george e. smith
Reply to  Mark from the Midwest
May 12, 2016 10:50 am

My BIL has a Prius. He and my SIL too both say it is the most uncomfortable piece of bovine scat they have ever driven. They seldom drive it further than the closest grocery store. They also have a Mercedes, which they say is also a piece of **** but they can drive it if they have to go a few miles.

Reply to  Mark from the Midwest
May 12, 2016 2:01 pm

We have a Prius V and love it. We bought it, not because it’s a hybrid, but because it has a hatch back. It is as big as our Camry and I can load longer stuff in it. A few months ago I had to pick up a door which fit with no problem in Prius, not a chance in the Camry. My brother in-law who is a car collector kinda mocked it last year during our vacation in Maine. After driving around for a week he grew to like it although it isn’t as much fun as his Mini Cooper.

Doug Huffman
Reply to  Tom Halla
May 12, 2016 2:46 pm

I drive a three ton GVW BMW X5 XDrive 280 Hp 3L diesel that is large enough to support the Draftmaster rack with two HPV trike’s and a bike at 125 mph – and in elegant comfort.

Tom Judd
Reply to  Tom Halla
May 12, 2016 7:48 pm

I drive a dinky, but unfortunately fire engine red (so I can’t try to be inobvious), 2001 or 2002, first generation, 2 seater, Honda Insight hybrid. I park a block away from my house and wear a Groucho Marx nose and eye glasses disguise so nobody knows who I am when I’m driving and getting out of it.
Every few weeks the IMA and Check Engine warning lights come on. That means the computer measures the hybrid battery as being too weak to assist the dinky 3 cylinder gas engine. When that happens I won’t take a left in front of a truck (or even a minivan) unless it’s at least a half mile down the road. Even then I pray my car will get out of the way in time. If it can’t, I pray that they cannot get the Groucho Marx disguise off my cadaver and be able to identify my dead body in that car.
In another couple weeks the Brake and Battery Warning lights come on and introduce themselves to the IMA and Check Engine lights.
And they all laugh at me.
At that stage I pull out my 10mm box end wrench (which I have a concealed carry permit to keep with me at all times), and disconnect the negative terminal on the 12 volt lead acid backup battery. That executes the computer. I’d prefer to hang it but it doesn’t have a neck.
I keep the Groucho Marx costume on during this.
Then I reconnect the 12 volt battery. The computer boots back up, measures the nearly dead hybrid battery and thinks that’s the way it’s supposed to be. All the warning lights go off.
Sometimes they need to laugh at me for another minute or two, and then go off.
I drive away. But the computer will not be fooled for long. In a week or two the IMA and Check Engine lights will come back on with their horned, pointy tailed, cloven hoofed, scaley red glow.
And then I will go through the whole thing again. And again. And again.
My life sucks.

Reply to  Tom Judd
May 13, 2016 7:47 pm

Tom, get a boat battery switch and install it. Much easier to turn a knob to turn off the battery and reboot the computer

May 12, 2016 9:01 am

Not to let them off the hook, but I have to ask: How do they actually measure CO2 emissions? Do they put a sample car on a dynamometer, hook something up to the tail pipe, and that’s the number for the whole fleet?

Reply to  PaulH
May 12, 2016 9:07 am

Basically, yes.

Will Nelson
Reply to  ristvan
May 12, 2016 1:07 pm

To determine CO2 production manufacturers should be allowed to use models of their own instead. These models would be far more accurate than observed data in lab tests.

Reply to  PaulH
May 12, 2016 9:14 am

As if cars are travelling in a vacuum?

Reply to  PaulH
May 12, 2016 9:46 am

Probably calculated from the fuel economy numbers.

Reply to  MarkW
May 12, 2016 1:19 pm

They are lying about the fuel mileage too

Reply to  PaulH
May 12, 2016 10:17 am

That is how it is done. While on the dyno the car completes a number of maneuvers designed to mimic (not precisely reproduce) a realistic driving cycle under some set of standard conditions.
The purpose is not to precisely predict the real emissions and fuel economy that a real car will produce under real driving conditions (whatever those are) but to create a reproducible standard test which can be used in making regulations and giving customers information about how one car brand/model will compare with another.
As they say, “Your mileage may vary.”
And in face, “Your mileage will vary.”

Reply to  rovingbroker
May 12, 2016 10:18 am

face = fact

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  rovingbroker
May 12, 2016 1:45 pm

I want to agree with rovingbroker mostly and extend the description.
The dynamometer test is designed to reproduce actual driving conditions. The EPA has more than 100 standard drive cycles for different driving regimes and different vehicle types. In theory, the performance of any vehicle can be checked and analysed. This is not like a climate model where everything is ‘predicted’ it is a measurement of actual performance on a simulated series of accelerations and cruising, idling and other behaviours.
The issue is whether the ‘official’ drive cycle represents average use by an average owner. Who is ‘average’? Believe it or not such things, sets of behaviours, are known with some precision.
As for determining the actual consumption of fuel over any particular test cycle they usually use a carbon balance method. This means tracking the CO and CO2 content of the gas stream. The fuel is a hydrocarbon so the mass of fuel is known based on the sum of the carbon only. It is quite easy.
Cheating on the CO2 mass emitted and therefore the total carbon burned and therefore the mass and therefore the volume of the fuel burned, mostly requires cheating on the drive cycle. In other words, the emissions determination itself is not ‘cheatable’ in that the carbon balance method works and is only arguable from ‘measurement tolerances’ which are not large. VW’s ‘cheat’ was to limit the engine’s maximum power output to reduce the NO produced, which is a problem for diesels due to the high pressure in the chamber.
The claim above that the CO2 produced was wrong by 40% is implausible for the whole cycle. It must be for a certain portion of it. The same applies to the NO emissions. In other words the true deviation is being misrepresented either by talking about a portion as if it was the whole, or by talking about one cycle and comparing it with performance using another.
I see the reference above to the tolerances and it would take time to detail here, but there is a bit of a history of what is arguably a difference in how the US and EU ‘calls it’ when it comes to tolerances. Suppose a drive cycle in the real world has a variability of 10%. If a test result comes to within 9% of a benchmark, it is claimed to be ‘on target’ because it is known that there is a 10% variability in real results. What this does is uses a single measurement to rate the achievement of target “within the allowable tolerance”. You can see the opportunity made possible by this if the result is always on the side of less efficiency.
If the manufacturers can push ‘in committee’ for a ‘variable’ test and then achieve a performance rating on the allowable edge of acceptability, they have effectively cheated the public.
Another method is to be given a test method (conducting the tests themselves) and deliberately getting a set of variable results and declaring that the sigma 1 standard deviation includes “36 MPG”. This gets published as a plausible claim. Owners can get performance that is within one standard deviation of 36, mostly.
By summing the measurement uncertainties, the typical performance range and the inherent variability of a customer’s actual result, a defensible claim of 36 MPG can be sustained for a car that actually gets 34 or 33 MPG. See? Isn’t statistics a wonderful tool?

Evan Jones
Reply to  rovingbroker
May 12, 2016 3:28 pm

I like face better.

Reply to  rovingbroker
May 12, 2016 7:07 pm

One observation I’ll add is that the tests seem to be biased towards gasoline (we call it petrol) fuelled cars. I have always found it very difficult to meet the mileage figures in a gasoline fuelled car but I often meet or exceed them when driving a diesel.
But IME, driving style is the biggest factor in YMMV, even more than terrain.

Reply to  rovingbroker
May 13, 2016 9:56 am

>>While on the dyno the car completes a number of maneuvers.
So a test with no air friction. Well that’ll be realistic !!

May 12, 2016 9:03 am

“Promise her anything, but give her Arpege.”
The perfect metaphor for The Climate Scam:

May 12, 2016 9:03 am

Should have become a journalist … :^}
[as] ‘Standards’ become progressively tighter at the behest of the bureaucrats and VW have no choice but to comply if they wish to continue making vehicles.
I really don’t think that VW will be found to have been alone in ‘fudging’ results. As the demands become increasingly impossible to meet, more manufacturers will ‘fudge’ results. They have no choice. If you are already pushing the limits of what is possible, and no doubt VW are, then two choices face you … Fudge the results or get out of the business.

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  3x2
May 12, 2016 1:54 pm

I feel there is a misunderstanding in the ‘too hard to comply’ idea. That is not the problem. That particular engine from VW passes the test as long as the accelerator is not pushed down fully, meaning, the performance on full power is not as good. They released the engine with more power to attract customers. Any diesel can be made to operate in this manner – out of range. If the NO permitted was reduced they would simply reduce the maximum power allowed. More specifically, they would limit the torque produced.

Dave Ward
Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo
May 13, 2016 8:08 am

“More specifically, they would limit the torque produced”
Which is one of the main selling points of modern diesels…

Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo
May 13, 2016 10:03 am

My intended point is that, over time, the ‘standards’ become something that nobody could comply with without ‘cheating’. 60mpg becomes 80mpg, CO2 output levels become less than is chemically possible and efficiency exceeds 100%.
Don’t get me wrong, I fully support making more efficient equipment but there are limits in any field.
(Just for the record, before I die, I want to own a Dodge Charger.)

May 12, 2016 9:15 am

Fake problem, fake results . . . this is a surprise?

Reply to  vounaki
May 12, 2016 11:01 am

Fake problem, fake results …
Very real unemployment though as those making real goods are forced out of business by by the eco-loons and their brain dead allies.
It’s like some community where every now and again a few hunters came back with a Mammoth. The community celebrated and grew.
Eventually though, our intrepid hunters found that, for the full Mammoth they brought home, they ended up with a thigh between all ten of them. The rest went to the ‘Mammoth redistribution committee’.
Eventually our intrepid hunters stopped hunting and ‘the committee’ started borrowing Mammoth meat from more successful neighboring communities on the basis that ‘we’ would pay it back when we started hunting again.

May 12, 2016 9:18 am

[…] to claim misleading statistics about fuel efficiency, […]

My car has zero emissions if you ignore the data outliers like the stuff that comes out of the exhaust pipe when it is running.
My car also gets infinite miles to the gallon if you are sampling during those long downhill coasts I make with the motor off. Bottom of the hill and the test is over!
Misleading statistics? Nahhh… seems like all the automakers are on the same page as me.

Tom in Texas
May 12, 2016 9:21 am

Things most do not know! Fuel type also affects mileage. Most gasoline in the U.S. today is 8-10 percent ethanol, but the EPA does its tests with 100 percent gasoline in the tank. The use of ethanol to increase the amount of oxygen in gasoline for better combustion can reduce fuel efficiency by around 2 percent all by itself.
E15 is going to be a problem.
Advertisement already started.

george e. smith
Reply to  Tom in Texas
May 12, 2016 10:59 am

Well the only “better combustion” that you get from ethanol, is that part of the ethane, has already been combusted, before it gets in your tank, so it already has one water molecule already made for you, so naturally you are missing the heat of combustion of one hydrogen molecule.
You can actually put that water molecule to better use if you put it into your engine from a “water injector” which cools the intake air fuel, so gets more air mass into your cylinder, so more power.
The fuel mileage loss from ethanized fuel, is almost exactly the heat of combustion of one hydrogen molecule .
My car contains a device for oxygenating the ordinary gasoline fuel. Subaru, calls it a flat four engine; but its a gasoline oxygenizer .

george e. smith
Reply to  george e. smith
May 12, 2016 11:02 am

Your car actually runs on AIR. That is the working fluid that powers your vehicle. All that the fuel does, is rapidly raise the Temperature of the working fluid (the air) at the most effective time (around top dead center). You could use a laser instead of gasoline to heat your working fluid (air). That would be really clean green.
Well unfortunately, it would still burn the air and put out lots of NOx.

Dave Ward
Reply to  george e. smith
May 13, 2016 8:11 am

“You can actually put that water molecule to better use if you put it into your engine from a “water injector” which cools the intake air fuel, so gets more air mass into your cylinder, so more power”
A technique which was used on many large piston aero engines before jets drove them out of fashion.

Paul of Alexandria
Reply to  george e. smith
May 14, 2016 4:09 pm

Re below: you would still have to have another energy source to power the laser.

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  Tom in Texas
May 12, 2016 1:59 pm

Adding ethanol doesn’t improve combustion. It increases the octane rating allowing it to be blended with crappier, cheaper gasoline to get a particular value. Ethanol has a rating of 106 which is why it was used neat in early racing cars.

Reply to  Tom in Texas
May 12, 2016 2:25 pm

I find the 2% calculated reduction in fuel economy from E10 curious as I have found a 10 to 15% (or more) difference between ethanol free gasoline and E10 after five years of checking on relatively long trips of 800 to 1000 km and mostly on cruise control. These trips include both freeway and mountain driving. There also seems to be a difference in “quality” from different stations as I notice I get better fuel economy from Shell and Esso (Exxon) fuels than from the discount dealers (not as clean perhaps?). Instead of 10 to 10.5 litres per hundred on E10, I get about 8.5 to 9 litres per hundred on ethanol free, as good as 7.7 on the freeway set at 120 km/hr (74 mph) – 3.6 litre 4WD SUV with 200,000 km on it and economy has actually improved over the last 100,000 km.
I don’t dispute the 2% calculation and I can’t explain the difference but that is what the trip computer tells me. Maybe the computer is fibbing though I did check it 5 years ago with actual fills and km driven. There is some difference twixt GPS difference and the odometer but they are close and no way to be sure which is incorrect. However the speed in the odometer is a little lower than what my GPS says so when I set my speed at 120 by GPS, the digital speedometer readout is about 125. Maybe that affects the computer calculation but since both E10 and no ethanol are based on the same instrumentation I can’t see why it should ??? Any ideas why?

Reply to  Wayne Delbeke
May 12, 2016 6:47 pm

A 10% reduction in mileage is commonly quoted for gasoline vs 10% EtOH mix. That means a car that would get 20mpg on gasoline would only get 18mpg on mix–so you would use 1.1 gal of 90% gasoline mix to go the 20 miles that you would go on !00% gasoline. A little algebra will show us that, if petroleum supplies would supply our automotive needs for 100 yrs burning pure petrol fuel, it would last us 100 yrs + 5 weeks if we all used 10% EtOH (BFD)– and that’s not counting all the extra fuel burned by the tractors, combines, & trucks (you can’t transport corn in a pipeline) needed to produce the corn.

Tom in Texas
May 12, 2016 9:23 am

So is there any CO2 in the bottle /sarc.

Tom in Texas
May 12, 2016 9:31 am

Efficiency and gas mileage is always the issue. I thought if used premium versus regular I would improve my mileage. Between 1 and 1.2 per gallon. Went back to regular with an additive. Went from 18.1 to 19.5. 2012 Ford F150 v8.

george e. smith
Reply to  Tom in Texas
May 12, 2016 10:46 am

Why would you think that. Octane rating doesn’t have anything to do with fuel efficiency.
And fuels with a higher octane rating tend to have a lower heat of combustion.
In the USA all street legal autos must run properly on regular unleaded gas. The manufacturer can recommend using premium, but the cannot require it.
The reason they sometimes do recommend it, is because if you use premium gas, your engine can get further out of tune, carbonned up and all that, and you won’t be able to tell, because it isn’t knocking.
So that’s how they can convince you the car will go 100,000 or 50,000 miles without a tuneup.
In some high altitude states, parts of Utah, Colorado, Arizona, the regular gas may be only 85 or 86 octane instead of 87 .
High octane gas could give you more power, if you could use a higher compression ratio, but that is what causes your engine to burn the air, and make NOx. The Nitrogen does not come from the fuel, it is the air itself that you are burning. So by limiting the fuel octane rating they limit the peak compression ratios, and cut down on NOx emissions.
So premium gas is a high price scam too.
Now in Europe, they can probably sell those hot cars that you can’t get into the USA.

Tom in Texas
Reply to  george e. smith
May 12, 2016 11:15 am

George, thanks. The additive was to help against the Ethanol, Much like I use on my home equipment.
When I use pre-mix non-ethanol fuel for my 2 and 4 cycle engines I have found that the repair for the carburetors became an every 2 year project.
Most new equipment come with factory warning of the use of E15 that will void my warranty.

Reply to  george e. smith
May 12, 2016 11:43 am

A friend dyno tested a Fort Mustang 5.0 on regular gas and 93 octane gas. He got 12 more horsepower on 93 octane.

Reply to  george e. smith
May 12, 2016 2:35 pm

Tom in Texas – maybe doesn’t apply in Texas but my local repair shop gave me two recommendations to avoid small engine problems. Buy ethanol free gasoline – premium grade not required to have it where I live – and buy from stations with a high turn over with clean tanks. So little ethanol free premium is sold these days that the fuel can sit in the storage tanks. I haven’t had problems with my small engines since I started taking more care with buying fuel for them. One of my quads is 27 years old and running fine.

Reply to  george e. smith
May 12, 2016 3:41 pm

Computer controlled engines check for knock. If they detect knock they advance(or is it retard, I’m not sure) the spark to prevent it. This lowers engine power. My Lexus is significantly more powerful on 93 octane than on 87 octane.

Reply to  george e. smith
May 17, 2016 9:03 am

Fuel with a higher octane rating allows an engine with a higher compression ratio which in turn gives a higher thermodynamic efficiency and therefore better fuel consumption. In a modern digitally controlled vehicle the effective compression ratio is controlled by using the knock sensor to vary the valve timing. As George says though higher compression ratio leads to higher NOx, which is why it’s more of an emission problem with diesels (hence the VW issue).

May 12, 2016 9:34 am

I am a skeptic about CAGW, but I am interested in Tesla vehicles not because they are “green” but because of the very useful technology and the low cost to operate. I’ve test-driven Teslas, and it is very interesting, with lots of acceleration and the lane maintenance is a cool feature (with limited usability). I can’t afford a S, but the 3, at half the price I look forward to buying (probably not for years).
I do find all of the lying about mileage by manufacturers unsurprising, but disappointing. I’m not sure why Tesla was included in this particular basket.

george e. smith
Reply to  Grant
May 12, 2016 11:20 am

So what the hell is Tesla “Lane maintenance” ??
Any current model Subaru can be obtained with “lane maintenance”. Well they call it “Eye Sight”.
Two cameras look a head and see the white lane markers on the road. If you are on cruise control, and you drift over the line, it will beep you, or slow down, or even brake, and if somebody cats you off, it will slow to avoid a collision. Notice how the guy who cuts you off is ALWAYS going slower than you are. That’s why he wants out of the lane he is in, and into your lane, and in front of you, so he does NOT get ahead of you and signal to you for 100 feet of his forward motion that he intends to move into your lane.
He just moves from a position where you could not possibly see his lane change signal if he even tried to give you one.
In California you are required by law to signal continuously for at least 100 feet of YOUR forward travel, BEFORE making any lane change, and by SIGNAL they mean TO THE DRIVER, who will be affected by that lane change (which is you.)
So he is required to be clear ahead of you so your can actually see his signal.
I cannot see the turn signals that are on the front of a car that is alongside of me, or nosed ahead, so unless his tail is clear ahead of me he CANNOT be signaling me diddley squat.
And since the safe following distance is recommended to be three seconds minimum, and four seconds, under adverse conditions, that translates into three (or four) full car lengths PER TEN MPH of the traffic speed. Years ago the safe following distance used to be one car length per ten mph, which means six and a half car lengths at 65 mph highway speed. Today, California suggest three times that distance.
If you allow 6 1/2 car lengths gap in front of you, at 65 mph, four cars will pull into that gap.

Reply to  george e. smith
May 12, 2016 3:08 pm

I’m a motorcycle safety instructor, and for motorcycles, we teach minimum safe following distance is 2 seconds under optimal conditions. Most cars can outbrake most motorcycles, so if 2 seconds works for me, I don’t see why it won’t work for you in a car. If conditions are sub-optimal, I’m fine if you want to open the gap up a little – that’s up to you. Really though, on a busy highway you should be staying up with the vehicle in front of you – otherwise you’re causing a problem behind you.
I use the two second following distance whenever it’s appropriate. Once I got in the habit, it became second nature, and I find myself automatically “locking in” on the following distance (whenever I check myself, I find myself around 2 seconds). The beauty of a time-based following distance is that as you speed up, you need further to react and stop – and distance increases automatically as you speed up (although I would say if you’re doing triple digits that you might need to open 2 second up a little bit).
I drove a prius with adaptive speed control, and I was amazed at how quickly it adapted to the speed of the vehicle in front of me. I would estimate that it was about a half second quicker than I was at detecting a change of speed of the vehicle in front of me – so sometimes, I would notice my vehicle slowing, and wonder why, and then immediately notice the vehicle in front slowing. The prius I drove seemed to prefer 2 seconds also – nobody ever said anything about 6 seconds. With ~ 200 feet in front @ 60 mph, if a vehicle needs to move into my lane, I can slightly speed to accomidate – that’s how you share a highway.
If you don’t understand or don’t agree with a minimum safe following distance, please avail yourself of public transport and safe the rest of us the grief of being slammed into by your clueless self.

Javert Chip
Reply to  george e. smith
May 12, 2016 7:57 pm

Surprised to hear “”…Most cars can outbrake most motorcycles…”; would have guessed the other way around.
I’ll be staying even further behind motorcycles.

wayne Job
Reply to  george e. smith
May 13, 2016 1:22 am

Javert I have been riding motorcycles for fifty years and can definitely out brake cars, in Australia we bikies refer to traffic as moving chicanes and negotiate them on multi lane roads as a fun exercise.

Reply to  george e. smith
May 13, 2016 10:08 am

>>motorcycles can definitely out brake cars.
I doubt it. look at the rubber contact area vs weight for a car and a motorcycle. I bet the car has greater contact area per kg. And tyre contact is usually the limiting factor on braking distance.

Reply to  Grant
May 12, 2016 11:37 am

Yes, and it gets $2 in tax credit rip off of other taxpayers per mile.

Reply to  Grant
May 12, 2016 3:14 pm

Grant – wife has a Jeep Cherokee with all those features with auto braking, distance control on cruise and lane control that will automatically keep the car between the lines (doesn’t work with winter snow though), collision warning, lane change warning, automatic parking, electronics suitable for a fighter jet plus a ton of other features and half the price of a Telsa and no need to go searching for a Telsa charging station. However, I have been surprised to find Telsa charging stations in the strangest of places. While skiing at Golden, BC this winter, I noticed a whole bank of Telsa charging stations adjacent to the highway access road by a City Park. (Revelstoke and Canmore also.) I even took a picture as I was so surprised to see a whole bank of them so far from a major centre. However, British Columbia is promoting electric vehicle use so there are lots of Telsa charging stations along the major highways. (not free.) Something to think about I reckon though most folks will be charging at home and nothing is free. It’s either in your taxes or your cost of goods or your electricity bill. You can find charging stations here and see pictures of them. I learn something everyday.
Even in my mother’s little community of Grand Forks, BC, there are free charging stations by City Hall and at one business – which seem to be used by people driving around on electric motorcycles. I would never have figured that either but they seem fairly popular.

Reply to  Wayne Delbeke
May 13, 2016 7:41 am

Wayne, George, (others),
I am aware of other vehicles having lane maintenance, and car following features, and yes, the Tesla also uses cameras to do it – not unique technology. I currently own a Mazda 3, with great mileage, but still have a gas bill of over US$100 per month. I bought my kids Subarus and they are nice cars. I don’t fit easily into a Cherokee, my shoulders are too big.
I cannot reasonably afford a $80kTesla S, it is obviously a niche car. However, if I could get the same features in a $35k car that I can charge for a few tens of dollars a month (the 3 probably won’t get free charging at the Tesla Superstations), I’m interested. It will be an economic decision, not a “green” decision.
My point with my post is that I’m not sure why the Tesla is being thrown in an article mostly about European car manufacturers lying about mileage. There are a lot of fine cars out there, with features that appeal to different desires. The main competitor for the Tesla 3 in my slow search is a used Porsche Panamera, definitely not a ‘green’ car, but satisfying in different ways than economical.

May 12, 2016 9:34 am

There is then the problem of measuring the CO2 output from a Tesla.
Sending the CO2 output somewhere back up the chain doesn’t make it disappear. The vehicle needs to be regularly charged from the grid.
About the only advantages I see in ‘electric’ vehicles is they will help air quality (and noise) in some of our more densely populated Cities and can be charged overnight using ‘waste’ power.

Reply to  3x2
May 12, 2016 10:26 am

I believe there is a ‘study’ that shows that an electric car most go at least 50,000 km before it ‘saves’ the extra CO2 needed to build it – exotic alloys, batteries etc. Your average wealthy Tesla buyer likely won’t get it that far in their ownership cycle.

Reply to  Greg
May 12, 2016 10:29 am
May 12, 2016 9:49 am

The only thing that surprises me is that people are surprised.

May 12, 2016 9:49 am

I never have believed any of their data anyway. The only thing I care about is that I can make comparisons between one car and another.

Reply to  Paul Homewood
May 12, 2016 4:06 pm

Based on the article, you cannot even do that. You can’t know that the cars you are comparing fudged the numbers the same amount, or even in the same direction.

May 12, 2016 9:50 am

They “systematically exploiting technical tolerances and imprecise definitions” to wrongly …
Now who are they talking about here?

Bruce Cobb
May 12, 2016 10:03 am

The standard excuse would be; “everyone else was, so we had to.” However, they were put in an untenable position by Big Green, who will of course throw them under the bus, even though they almost certainly knew this was going on.

May 12, 2016 10:26 am

I knew it! Well done, I say, a bit of f+raud back atcha and now the greenies don’t like being lied to? What did they think would happen? When things get ridiculous, people fight back fire with fire. No surprise there.

Bruce Cobb
May 12, 2016 11:01 am

These probably get good mileage:

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
May 12, 2016 11:45 am

Now THAT is scary. Could use one as a doorstop though. Or maybe bring it into the house to trip up burglars. Or to stand on to reach the peanut butter. Something.

Billy Liar
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
May 12, 2016 11:49 am

Until some Hummer squashes it.

May 12, 2016 11:31 am

What do you expect when technical specifications are written not by engineers but by bureaucrats? You get “fiat” science (pun intended).

May 12, 2016 11:32 am

Details, details. Don’t you know it’s political correctness and appearances that make the world go round.

May 12, 2016 11:35 am

Henceforth, all car models must be tested in a small engineering shop in West Virginia because the multibillion dollar government agencies are not up to the task.

May 12, 2016 11:50 am

The problem here is the EPA. CO₂ is actually good for the planet! Vegetation (trees, crops, flowers, etc) loves it and actually can’t live without it. I want my VW Diesel back!!!

Sandy In Limousin
May 12, 2016 11:59 am

I thought that anyone buying a new car was aware that the EU fuel consumption test results were only to be used as advertising material for manufacturers and as a basis for taxation by member states, and bear no resemblance to real life fuel consumption.

May 12, 2016 12:26 pm

the main issue here is mistakenly classifying CO2 as a pollutant. is it considered polluting the air when people exhale?

May 12, 2016 12:28 pm

It’s astounding that anyone would think that any of these discrepancies in gas mileage would have any relevance whatsoever. Does anyone think that Meredes changing their sticker to reflect emissions more accurately would have any effect, on anything? Pointless article that can’t explain why cheating means anything. It doesn’t.

Reply to  arthur4563
May 12, 2016 12:46 pm

Your spot on tadchem and arthur.
It’s the impossible to meet fuel + bio-fuel mixture mandates by government around the world that are the problem, the car manufactures have stated this all along to deaf eared watermelons like Obama and company.

Javert Chip
Reply to  arthur4563
May 12, 2016 8:02 pm

Small quibble: NOX actually does damage health. Cheating increases this. That definitely counts as something.

Johann Wundersamer
Reply to  Javert Chip
May 13, 2016 3:48 am

And I Do see McCarthyism here and don’t know how
real needed
TTIP ever get’s through against a deep confounded Mistrust over the Pacific.

Johann Wundersamer
Reply to  arthur4563
May 13, 2016 3:29 am

TG on May 12, 2016 at 12:46 pm
Your spot on tadchem and arthur.
It’s the impossible to meet fuel + bio-fuel mixture mandates by government around the world that are the problem, the car manufactures have stated this all along to deaf eared watermelons like Obama and company.
+1 TG.
Problem is : Volkswagen, BMW, Mercedes should have told EPA
no automaker can comply with your demands.
You’re strangling car producers globally. What You’re up to.
And go into self defending as EXXON already does.

May 12, 2016 1:26 pm

It doesn’t really matter does it? The quoted figures are only useful as a comparison so if all manufacturers cheat and present a best possible result the consumer still gets the guidance they think they need.

May 12, 2016 1:29 pm

It seems to me that VW should receive some sort of reward for meeting some numbers extablished bya bureaucracy. I salute VW.

Kevin M
May 12, 2016 2:30 pm

Off topic but…. The WUWT Wikipedia entry is hysterical.

Javert Chip
Reply to  Kevin M
May 12, 2016 8:17 pm

Wow! The 1,775 words in the footnotes far outnumber the 957 words in the actual article.
I have no idea what this means, but just saying.

Evan Jones
May 12, 2016 3:33 pm

I expect the usual 10% off the top stuff to be pretty ubiquitous. But a cool third is a little steep.

May 12, 2016 9:58 pm

It’s not fraud. Fraud is a deliberate act of deception by a freely acting fraudster. On the other hand, this behavior is a behavior forced upon the carmakers by the nasty environmentalist bureaucrats. It’s analogous to a hostage’s saying something when someone is pointing a gun to your head. Everyone who sides with the government bureaucrats is inhuman.
When someone is being bullied by an anti-CO2 bureaucrat in this way, he surely has the right to say anything inaccurate, use any trick, or do everything to physically neutralize the bully. In that case, it wouldn’t be a murder but a self-defense, too.

May 12, 2016 11:51 pm
Donald Kasper
May 13, 2016 12:30 am

There are two solutions to producing more fuel efficient and lower emitting cars. A. Figure out how to do so technologically, up to the natural limits of the system being studied. B. When politicians demand improvements not possible with the technology and no foreseeable technology solutions are available, then just make shit up. The most cost-effective solution in the short term is B and the only one ultimately feasible after simple improvements have been implemented, is B. What I see more than anything, is that the feasible limits of mileage and emissions has been reached, so like the Chinese, fraud is going to consume the manufacturing process. It is going to get much worse over time as the demands increase and the technology flatlines for improvements. In the end, the technical reports with be so full of garbage, they will be suitable for use in American or EU budgets by politicians. They may even give up on technology studies altogether and just have the marketing department come up with data.

May 13, 2016 1:26 am

There is nothing wrong with the figures produced by the manufacturers for the original purpose they were created for (excluding VW’s shenanigans – though I have a theory on that one that is less nefarious than the current zeitgeist would have it). These are controlled tests for the purpose of comparing representative models (rolling road at 20-30 C) with a specific acceleration, deceleration, idling and cruising profiles – details here: . They were not designed as test of real world conditions and not a test for measuring “climate change” impacts.
Much like the temperature data collected for the use by the agriculturally minded (min and max temperatures are very important for crops and livestock – average temperatures not so much) – when it is put forward as a measure for something it was not to designed to measure you can find many faults with it.
So whilst a few marketing departments made much of the enforced declaration of the above test results – there is not some huge conspiracy by the industry to confuse their customers (most of which these days are more clued up than the dealers) .
Disclaimer – yes I work in the motor trade but the above is my own opinion.

wayne Job
May 13, 2016 1:31 am

The Tesla like wind turbines and solar panels are a green wet dream of saving the planet, but in the real world disruptive and cost the tax payer many more times over than what they are worth.

May 13, 2016 3:54 am

TSLA is off from its high of $270 five weeks ago to $207 today.

May 13, 2016 4:38 pm

Model S Tesla’s do around 3.5 miles per KWH. Drive beautifully and can pull performance ratings far beyond their use/cost base. Also you can buy one of these for 50K and fill her up for free, for life.
A moot point made by a previous poster about “unsold teslas”. They don’t make them off spec like all the other mfr’s. You order the car and you have to wait.
Lets pity the 450,000 “Model 3” depositors.
They are not perfect. No US built gear is, ever. Must admit they are improving.
Lets go back to the consumption of these and compare a standard size/performance motor. say 10(US)mpg and YOU have to pay for every drop. The electric bill to crack crude into fuel is not small nor cheap either and that adds to the CO2 bill imposed by the greenies..

Reply to  Andyj
May 13, 2016 10:51 pm

Dream on fan boi. Do some analysis of the “free” charge up and you will see it is yet another way Tesla is burning cash, along with the money they lose on the sale of each car. And try costing the purchase without the fat subsidy provided by the governments.
Tesla continually states that they are supply constrained – that they would sell more cars if they could make them. So why are there unsold, unregistered Model S’s and X’s gathering dust in a public car park? If demand was so great, surely some of these would be taken by people who found the spec “close enough”.
I do pity the Model 3 depositers as they have tied up $1000 for a car that won’t be delivered – not that the design is finalised so they are taking a bet on a prototype.Tesla simply does not have the resources nor capital to ramp up production to cover those orders before the Model 3 is made obsolete by other manufacturers and changing circumstances. The smart ones will be getting their deposit refunded ASAP.

Reality Observer
May 14, 2016 8:29 pm

How about measuring “emissions” by environmental “degradation” per mile driven? Of course, that would take every Tesla and Prius off the road…
Conversely – when testing a “conventional” vehicle, let the manufacturer run their tailpipe one or two hundred miles away, just like the Tesla and Prius get to do.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights