/ Motoring

What’s the truth behind car emissions claims?

Come clean on fuel claims

Our testing has found that almost all modern diesel cars exceed official emissions limits when tested in real-world conditions. We even found some hybrids breaking the limits too. So how can we trust car emissions claims?

Consumer news in 2015 didn’t get much bigger than the Volkswagen (VW) emissions scandal. The ramifications were (and still are) huge – not just for VW and the owners of affected cars, but for the whole motor industry.

Our testing is different to the official testing procedure used. It still takes place in a lab, but we use more challenging and realistic driving cycles to provide more accurate figures.

So using our lab results on over 300 cars that we’ve tested since 2012, we did a deep dive on the data. And the results were interesting.

It’s not just VW – and not just diesels either

What we found is that it’s not just VW that have been pumping out some peculiar claims. We looked back over three years’ worth of data, across all manufacturers whose cars officially comply with modern emissions regulations, known as Euro 5 or Euro 6 depending on the age of the car.

What we found was an astonishing 95% of diesel cars exceeded oxides of nitrogen (NOx) limits in our testing. The worst offender emitted 15 times more NOx as its Euro 5 engine is permitted to.

And it’s not just diesel engined cars either. We found that one in ten petrol cars produced so much NOx that they too are breaking emission limits. Now, petrol cars do also produce NOx, but this is supposed to be in such small quantities that it’s of little significance and well under the limits set. The worst offender we found emitted 15 times more NOx as its Euro 5 engine is permitted to.

Carbon monoxide

We also found two thirds of petrol cars are creating far more carbon monoxide (CO) in our tests than EU limits.

CO is different to carbon dioxide (CO2) – CO2 is harmful to the environment and your car tax is based on how much CO2 your car creates. CO on the other hand is much more harmful to human health and has no effect on car tax.

Worryingly, in our tests, two thirds of petrol cars put out more CO into the air than they’re allowed to. The worst created more than five times the amount of CO than the official limit. And it’s not just sporty or big cars that are to blame – several superminis with small capacity engines are among the top offenders. And some were so bad that they couldn’t even meet the early ‘Euro 1’ limits from 1993 – which are pretty lenient compared to modern standards.

To our surprise we also found some hybrid cars are also breaking emission laws. Testing revealed that some petrol-hybrid cars emit more CO than they’re allowed – in fact one petrol-hybrid was the 11th highest CO emitter we’ve found so far.

We’ve also identified a diesel-hybrid that produces more NOx than limits allow. And what makes this even worse is that there is no special lower limits that hybrids are held account to.

So what now?

We want you to be able to trust car makers’ fuel emission and efficiency claims. We need a stringent, independently audited test regime in the EU. It’s no coincidence that the VW scandal broke in the US, where such a test regime operates. The flawed European system allows carmakers to declare lab figures that rarely bear any relation to real-life emissions.

As a VW owner I’m currently awaiting the ‘fix’ to my car, as I’m sure thousands of you are. Last week we heard that VW has no plans to compensate VW owners in the UK, as they have in the US. But I’m curious to know whether this fix it will have any bearing on how my car performs, or on the pollution it produces in daily driving. VW has insisted that there will be no change to performance, but I’ll wait and see.

Since September, more than 78,000 people have backed our ‘Come Clean on Fuel Claims’ campaign. If you agree that more needs to be done to make car manufacturers come clean on emissions claims then back our campaign today. Also, tell us what you think about your car in our Car Survey.

So what do you think about these car emissions claims? Have you been affected at all?

*All Euro dates refer to new car registrations


This is the Convo that I have been waiting for. There were plenty of indications that excessive emissions are not confined to VW Group vehicles, even if other manufacturers have no cheat devices.

I learned that my VW has ‘discrepancies’ with its emissions last September and was informed of VW’s proposed solution in December. Why are we still waiting for dealers to get on with sorting the problem? Adrian would like to know what effect the fix will have on the performance and emissions of his car, and no doubt every owner of an affected vehicle will want to know about the effect on fuel economy and performance. If VW have fixes then it would be good to see some example vehicles independently tested, so that we have some answers.

Best of luck with your new role, Adrian. I enjoyed your Convos on washing machines etc.

Yes Wave,,,,,,lets go
Hello Adrian,,,,,All the best too

As posted before I seen this topic was up
m glad to see this
Most of it does not surprise me
Fault of silly test regime yes,,,,,,,,in the main yes………
Can we trust manufacturers,,,,,,,,,never and never could
Can it be fixed yes and I’d imagine with not too much mechanicals either.,,,,,,,,,,,This should never have happened,,,,,,,,Yet another blunder by Brussels,,,,,,,,a blunder on a gargantuan scale………..a blunder that many said,,,looky there see whats happening

The excess NOX across the board is driven by this endless search for more mpg. Leaner and in the case of diesels meaner has only one result
Diesel has no lean side finite window of air fuel ratio…….Diesel is king in that realm but with many downsides
Leaner gets diesels more power and more mpg because the NOX reduction mechanism reduces the lean burn and increases fuel consumption so leaner for a diesel is big business

Leaner gets petrols more mpg but only slightly simply because petrol combustion has a finite window of air fuel ratio to stay within
This is more of a balancing act than diesel lean burn and much trickier because in a petrol engine all sorts of things like burning valves and so on can be exacerbated by lean burn
Petrols are trading off mpg against bhp in the opposite way to diesels as in the leaner you make a petrol you less power you get but the benefits are only marginal
Some petrols have EGRs that operate similarly to diesel EGRs but they cannot recycle anything like the same amount of exhaust gases as diesels do plus petrol EGRs are pretty reliable with near all petrol EGR never requiring attention or replacement.
Reason being that petrol is not as dirty as diesel in its nature as in soot,,,,unburnt oils ,,,,and so on.

Alarming,,, very alarming is the CO from petrols…….This was sorted years ago and was not a problem 6,,,,,,7 years ago
The cat does a good job on that stuff albeit it produces more co2 which is our greenhouse gas enemy that gave the dirty diesel its boost to stardom

There is no other answer than mpg again……..Cats as do all emissions equipments use fuel in one way or another,,,,,,,,,,cats are restrictive,,,,,,,,by how much relates to how good the engine design is in the first place but near all engines are pretty much of a muchness now. ,,,,,,,,,,,Still an engine with a quirk can be helped up the ladder and if one lot are climbing the ladder by any means it’ll not take long until all the school boys are on the same ladder escaping the confines of rules
One does not simply fit a CAT. A CAT has to be sized appropriately to suit the job in hand
A CAT has to have enough surface area to treat the gases as they pass through
It can be too small and restrictive which is bad news for power and CO as the gasses will require forcing using power and the gases will go through too quickly to be treated
It can be too large and simply waste energy by causing unnecessary restriction for no real additional benefit
However the combination of lean burn does not easily fit with excessive CO
Lean burn fits easily with excess NOX
I have not had this problem but my only theory just now is that in order to be less restrictive the CATs are not simply converting the CO to Co2 and this could be down to designing the CAT to freeflow which helps mpg
I remember Manicats as they are referred to arriving on the scene
Like EGRs on diesels these right in the face of convention
Convention always had it that as good a flow as possible was best
Stainless free flow manifolds aided the heat required for a CAT to work but stainless was a few more squids so the geniuses came up with the manicat.
A cast manifold and CAT in one unit mounted right to the cylinder head and as it was close to the business end the CAT got warmed very quickly and more important to sales cheaply
They are rubbish if the truth be told with much better options available but these things arrive along,,,,,,,,,,become the norm and everyone else has to work around them
Certainly if one looks at current engine design you see a nice long complicated inlet system that cries out torque because of its length and nice design………Nice in my eye’s,,,,,,,,,,men mostly like curvey!!!!!!
The cost savings there were done by using plastic mouldings and they work real well
Just go back to pre minicat and you’ll have witnessed a progression to near race style exhaust manifold except they had long headers that aided torque and economy in turn whereas race usually has short headers that suit silly rpm’s
But the manicat was petrols answer to diesels EGR,,,,,,,,,,,Not the best option but the cheapest

That long explanation is maybe uncalled for but maybe some will understand

The helping up the ladder of fame bhp and fortune mpg has been done at the expense of emissions
There are but two to blame for this
A criminal element within the car industry who either blatantly ignored the rules or those with the mindset that if we can away with it we are not breaking the rules because we have passed the test
A just not so extreme view as the VW tech junkies took
Pass the test as the test is,,,,,what is does up the road does not matter,,,,,Sure everyones at it,,,,,,And we can see that now too

Secondly an EU body unable to stand up to the car industry and more or less dictated to by industry. That has been the case for some time.,,,,,,This is nothing new and I have written several time the statement
If you want a different result change the test,,,,,,,if you want different number change the number……….That was not yesterday but years ago
All the while the industry was always and never let go of its endless pestering that we cannot do this,,,,,,we be forced to close,,,,,,,,,,there will be jobs cuts
Yes it was still going on in the 2000s
Modifying cars for the purpose of the test has been going on for some time and backs up what I am saying that the test regime was literally being milked

This also came during a time of poor car sales and will there is no doubt be driven by hardened sales management
There is no crueler than sales
These dudes only know one answer to all problems and that is to sell more……..Selling more always gets results………How you achieve the sales is of no odd’s,,,just sell

Brussels and this damned test regime
We know that there has been campaign after campaign and argument after argument about these tests and Brussels as in every other walk of life has no ability to rule as they should
How can they,,,,,,,,,,many of their seats are filled with those who’s families are in business and hold shares of Eu companies many of which are vehicles manufacturers,,,,,,,,,,,It is unavoidable getting wires crossed
Like MPs these people should have no connections outside of their mandate

I have no experience of “hybrids” but there are loads of reports about them not coming close to their advertised mpg figures,,,,,That being the case there’s not much way around the fact that more fuel usually mean more s**t

Yesterday it became public that the French Gov had been having a word in Renaults ear as such
I thought that was a good idea and this,,,this morning gives impetus to my thinking
There’s no point in messing around debating about test regimens and what do we do now.
There is only one thing to do now
Draw a line in the sand and say that everything from this point forth needs to have on the road emissions in line with Euro 6 it seems to be where the line has been drawn
I’d bet that long before the Renault factories were paid visitations the Gov was talking to Renault
I’d also imagine that the visitations were the French way of doing what the US did with VW
Take them by the ear and tell them how it is and how it is going to be
Somehow someone has come up with the Euro 6 as a guide
Euro 6 has not been given publicly as the start/stop point but it has been mentioned several times and we have to start somewhere
Many Euro 5 cars by now cannot be made to fit any standards,,,,,it may be that simple………The sheer amount of vehicles is and even better bet
A few million vehicles is a task and a half
Vehicles going back several years and not just one manufacturer,,,,,,,,,,,,,,How do you retest and random test models of perhaps 50% of the car population………..
This is now a task hitherto unequalled
It is possible France wants to be seen to be doing its bit……..France has Paris and Paris is not good
France by their actions are not waiting on Brussels……..That being the case France will be verifying these vehicles themselves for themselves
And I say,,,,,,Good on you,,,,,,,Three cheers old boy,,,,,,,,,,,,,Hats in the ring if you will
Ms Germany was first out of the blocks on this one and to date all I see is what they are good at……….Telling everyone how great they are which I have always questioned ever since owning a couple of their offerings
Britain,,,,,,,,,,,,Somehow we seem ever since the last war to be willing to sit around and be told what to do or be willing if asked nicely to comply
The French dont do comply
The French strike
The French even have teh UK help patrol the French border????????Thats a little of a novelty is it not
The French for all their faults can an do make choices

I like this choice
It may not be perfect………we may not be getting every dirty diesel in France sorted out but in 6 or 7 years most will have fallen off the radar

Just my thoughts as usual

to long a post, gave up after a few lines

Kathleen says:
24 January 2016

Agree far too long

Too long a post and Mechanically Inaccurate I’m afraid! Please learn how Diesel engines differ in respect of how they function Especially research NOx Production in both Diesel and Petrol engines before preaching rubbish!!

phantom41 says:
25 January 2016

Too long winded by far. Diesels smell and disappear in clouds of smoke this cannot be good. I cannot believe that VW are the only manufacturers to employ some sort of ruse to beat the pollution stakes.

If as claimed by VW their fix has no impact on performance or mpg, why did they ever bother to cheat. There must be a negative impact from removing the cheat device or they would never have been used.

While I’m convinced that nitrogen oxide emissions are a significant health issue, I would like to learn more about carbon monoxide. It is well known that carbon monoxide produced by faulty solid fuel and gas appliances is a killer, but how dangerous is it in lower amounts, such as found in cities?

Anyone using a gas hob will be exposed to a small amount of carbon monoxide as a result of ‘flame chilling’, yet this is not considered a hazard. I wonder how the concentration of carbon monoxide in kitchen compares with that on city streets.

Wave numbers on that would be nice,,,,,,,,,,as matter of fact number off of the streets would be great

What I do know as being in the trade is that during the 70s and 80s there were countless cases of CO poisoning in garages especially in winter
The symptoms are easily looked up but the giveaway is the most awful sore head……..it come on fast and is often tear time for some but it does not go away fast…….It’ll take hours to begin to recover
It is not good for you but I dont think the problem on the street will be as bad for us as NOX
NOX bites those with chest problems…Those without chest problems don’t get the same symptoms but are being equally harmed and will eventually fall to the problem
many 10000s of children have already fallen to the problem as can be seen by them as I put it hanging onto the big plastic bottle as my youngest once did
Yes lead was bad,,,,,,,CO was bad………But personally I think neither or both held a candle to this NOX/ASH/SOOT today
Yes CO was bad in a garage with no ventilation as many were back in the day but the advent of diesels??????
My business up to 20 odds years back was mainly diesel. They are sooty, dirty and still are only for modern equipment and lighter fuel but they are not clean
The “get a diesel its eco friendly” was purely on the strength of less CO2 but at the cost of NOX and soot/now ash
There were diesels all my life but the cars brought a very increased amount onto our roads
According to what I was reading over 20 years ago from a UK UNI it was already causing more deaths than smoking yet our GOVs all proceded blindly
After that its real simple
Once the people g0t a taste of the 50 mpg smokers there was no going back
Everything that has been done since then has been a cover up
Once we seen the diesel smoke,,,,,,that had to change to maintain sales and whilst some may have got a supposed offer I dont think there were any real offers to buy a diesel,,,,,,diesels are dearer
There were kick backs on diesel sales to get the customers on the wagon,,,,,,,once there you paid more and were willing to pay more
There was no real footing for diesel being more reliable especially in small engines
The common “surely everyone knows a diesel lasts longer or with less maintenance” is pub chat
If anything a petrol engine could suffer a little less oil changing than recommended whilst a diesel was not as tolerant
More or less since we got electronic ignition and proper petrol injection there is barely a problem and that arrived around the same time but not soon enough for many and today many still think petrol does 20 mpg in a family car which is false and that petrol is not reliable which is is
But be careful.
The big diesel sellers are mostly the worst petrol engines for obvious reasons so if I were jumping to petrol I’d be tempted through my knowledge to jump ship altogether

Prior to introduction of catalytic converters, petrol engines did produce a lot of carbon monoxide, but we have moved on. What I want to know is whether the air in cities contains sufficient carbon monoxide to pose a danger. The well documented danger of carbon monoxide is that it decreases the ability of haemoglobin to transport oxygen throughout the body, but it has various biochemical activities in the body. I have not seen evidence that low concentrations pose any threat to health. An analogy would be that drinking a lot of alcohol can kill you but small amounts are not hazardous.

If this legislation is still up to date, the maximum eight hour daily mean is 10 mg per cubic metre: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2010/1001/pdfs/uksi_20101001_en.pdf

Hi Adrian,,,,,,,,,,,,Thanks for your input

I doubt a light head is the result of CO
I have suffered being ODd as such on CO several times and I have seen several times that also

Sounds a bit ott but not really………..Garages didnt pay good wages and in comparison to the hourly rate still dont
Sales is everything then and now
Back then getting the heating to stay on was a battle and this was the main cause of the problem…..We were cold and we kept the doors closed
Note this was after I served my time………..My apprenticeship employer could not have been better

HS put and end to that I hope and is one of the good things they have done
You’ll have trouble finding workshops without exhaust extraction today

Gas/LPG/NATGAS vehicles/engines can give the light headed symptoms as they are low on CO but cause oxygen depletion and that has those very symptoms…….The chances of that in a city are next to zero
I have done that to myself and crawled out the door
I felt absolutely fine,,,,,,,was watching a 15kw propane generator on load…………GAS if correct has near to no smells,,,,,,,,,,,,,,As I got up to switch the loads off my knee’s went from below me and the world went into a spin
I got out the door and within a few minutes was more or less fine except for the scare
Never done it again

I have 2 x 16″ fans in the doors after that and I use them……………

Anyone and everyone who I know in my era who suffered excess CO have all had the banging sore head…………I have seen 4 or 5 men all looking for Paracetamol at the same time

Might I add that diesel is even worse even though the CO is lower………..The soot and NOX is a deadly combination also………..A diesel can fill a large workshop so fast its unreal
Diesel is also as carcinogen and I can name many mechanics who are not around………I’ve seen too many diesel mechanics/fitters funerals from throat and lung cancer…………To date the cause has been blamed on smoking or passive smoking……………..Rubbish…….A few of them were Diesel fitters and spent their whole lives on construction machinery and were never near passive smoking for any time

Again Adrian Thanks
Keep it coming

I note that Which have now demoted some previous ‘best buys’ on the basis of the report including one I was thinking of purchasing.
What exactly are the implications of these findings: should all diesel engines be oulawed as 95% were found to have high NOX emissions? Do you think manufacturers will have to find fixes? Are all these cars going to be banned?
In any case you report that petrol cars are also producing excessive amounts of carbon monoxide. Perhaps Which will need to start looking at Best Buy horses (although they produce excessive methane)

Gordon Wood

” So using our lab results on over 300 cars that we’ve tested since 2012 we did a deep dive on the data, and the results were interesting.

What we found is that it’s not just VW that have been pumping out some peculiar claims. We looked back over three years’ worth of data, across all manufacturers whose cars officially comply with modern emissions regulations, known as Euro 5 or Euro 6 depending on the age of the car.”

Oh dear so Which? could have been publishing this data before the US discovery …. and why so coy about naming names?

Exactly, ‘dleseltaylor’.

I understand University of Leeds developed the road-side, drive-by emissions scanners that gave some of the earliest indications of the problem. Sometimes technology lags and that I can understand. Just I’m trying to understand how ‘Which?’ could have three years of emissions data to draw on now that others have let the cat out of the bag.

While trying to follow up what Bob has posted I found this document: http://www.its.leeds.ac.uk/about/news/implications-of-the-vw-scandal/

It mentions: “Volkswagen is not alone in disregarding passenger car Real Driving Emissions (RDE) and the quality of air in our towns and cities.” How are the companies disregarding RDE if this is still to be introduced?

You know what Wave,,,,,I think we here are more careful about what we write while the press just wade in headlong with whatever they get a glimmer of
Your right RDE is not yet a reality and references such as this to it are not useful but are very misleading
Yes VW are not alone but that report has simply jumped on the back of what was known and made a mess out of an already difficult to understand situation
Everyone is after written reports,,,,written evidence,,,,,,,,,Gov or independant tests which have not taken place yet although we call on them to so
This is such big news that near every doorstep paper and its cousins have a go at writing theit own version
Maybe to best place for them to come find out would be Which and even here announcements are taken literally to the letter

How you doin today
I was on some kind of mission last night and wondered if I’d went a bit far
We’ll see how it goes tonight

It’s interesting to be discussing a topic and then hearing it on the news. I heard Richard Headland of Which? on You & Yours this afternoon. I suspect that the reason that the reference to the RDE testing was because this has been in use for monitoring prior to its introduction.

You can hear the author of the article James Tate from the Institute for Transport Studies, on a Radio 4 programme on diesel pollution: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01lhgyn (skip to 0:15:40) This dates from 2102, so the high emission of nitrogen oxides produced by modern diesel-engined vehicles has been known for some time. Maybe we should sacrifice a little fuel economy and benefit from lower nitrogen oxide emissions.

Mikebj says:
20 January 2016

The UK has no real car industry of its own ( foreign made or foreign owned manufacturing)
We should invest in making electric cars viable and affordable.
This will be the manufacturing opportunity of the future

Typical ill informed comment….. Lets all drive elect cars. How stupid

Elect cars are no good–That just shifts the pollution from the tailpipe–to the Power Station!!
All those kW used to drive that elect car–HAVE to come from Somewhere…..

Also, the efficiency of charge/discharge cycles makes such vehicles Less efficient than a Std Petrol car, due to the current Battery Technology.

Still–Maybe Graphene supercaps will replace all 350V 4Ah Lithium Ion rubbish under back seats of Toyota Pious out there in a few years, who knows…

The advantage electric cars have is in towns and cities to minimise pollution. So shifting the pollution out of town to the power station helps.

And there is no waste during idling. Moreover some of the power consumed during battery charging will come from nuclear and renewable energy sources. My only reservation is the capacity of the UK’s power generation facilities to meet the demand if electric vehicles become really popular.

Producing electricity is a rather inefficient process and if you own one car an electric vehicle may not have sufficient range to be practical, even it is fine most of the time.

I think we are getting it wrong trying to produce electric cars that match the speed and performance of petrol and diesel cars. For anyone who has two cars, a small electric city car with a top speed of 40 mph could be ideal.

I would support keeping private cars out of city centres unless they are electric. We are moving in the direction of hybrid and electric buses, but I don’t know about taxis. When I spent some time in Tokyo I was told that all the taxis were powered by LPG, and that was nearly 20 years ago, at a time when many UK taxis and buses were belching out black diesel smoke.

Good man Wave,,,,,,,,,,,Charging batteries is about as wasteful as it gets
I have a mate who has a Leaf…………..He would not have it if he didnt have 110kw of PV and could charge it for free when at the coast……..He even goes to Lidl instead of his favorite to get a free charge
Generating electricity to operate lights or some lights is pretty efficient
Induction motors are not terribly efficient but 3ph motors are head an shoulders above single phase but even with inverter drives induction motors are not efficient as alternatives but its back to cost………….An induction motor runs direct off the grid or via an inverter drive whilst DC motors involve more expense
DC is the business……..full torque at standstill

Transporting the electricity has transmission losses
At present the Gov has accepted diesel generated backup for the grid as it is pretty near stretched……..we need more generation or less load………..its that simple

Propelling a vehicle is better done with using the fuel direct on the vehicle as using fuel 50/100 mile away and loosing a fair percentage on the way
You have a very good point about power and speed………..both are very sore on fuel

Nuclear would be better ignored as it stirs up too much emocion….
A nuclear plant is very expensive to construct as is getting the fuel to run it on…….The UK has a lot of reprocessed fuel but that is an even more complex jiggery pokery………
The fossil input to get a plant up and running is colossal………..It’s mass is mainly concrete and that word on its own does not spell green

So I’m back with cleaner slower cars………..this is not a very big ask but whether the people will buy the slower bit it I dont know……….any pub,,,,,,,,,any car showroom every second sentence contains the abbreviation BHP………
I dont hold out good hope on that one

I have driven several electric cars regular at one time and I was/am not impressed
If one wishes to go any distance one has to go light with the right foot
I have a story II have written several times
My mate/former boss said to me one day going up the road……”left your big heavy foot or we will be walking home”,,,,,,,,,,,,My answer was that this journey would take about 2L of LPG in the Fiat……….We’ll take it the next time

If the Chinese build nuclear power stations they have been guaranteed, according to reports I have seen, £92.5 per mWh – that’s 9.25p per unit. That’s the raw energy, which currently only makes up around 42% of our bill. Onshore wind farms get around £100, and offshore I believe around £150 – 2 to three times the market price. So it depends upon what happens to other energy prices for generation in the meantime but renewable or nuclear energy will not be “cheap”.

Legislation can help drive improvement. Some have mocked the EC for placing a 1600 watt limit on the power of domestic vacuum cleaners, but I support this. I have no doubt that using better and more efficient motors is the way forward with these and other household products.

I agree, Malcolm, that renewable and nuclear energy will not be cheap, but oil-derived fuel has come at an enormous cost to the world in various different ways over the last 150 years. On my list, No 1 is cutting back on journeys.

John, totally agree. Rather than finding ways of producing more energy we need to start using less. Better home insulation, fewer journeys, better public transport, less air travel……….. . Why do I feel a bout of pessimism coming on?
I still think for renewable energy tidal (flow and storage) needs closer scrutiny. We could also look at more commercial solar panel installations, on large areas of roofing such as industrial estates for example, not on our shrinking countryside and agricultural land.

Malcolm – I don’t see anything pessimistic about using less energy, though I am not optimistic about it happening without legislation.

I am disappointed that new build homes and garages are not being routinely built with solar panels, and orientated to make best use of the sun. Installed from new, I’m sure that solar panels could look more attractive than those installed on existing housing. I agree about avoiding solar installations on precious land and would like some informed input on the best strategy for renewable energy.

The houses are mostly all fur coat without a care about energy

My 4 year old new build didn’t come with solar panels but is very well insulated. Could always have been better though.

Possibly more by “luck” than by intention, the design of my house conforms reasonably well to the passive solar heating principles advocated by the CAT (Centre for Alternative Technology) and that really helps to keep heating costs down.

Not quite sure how car emissions and vacuum cleaners appear together but, since they do, I looked up what the EU said:
“On 1 September 2014, vacuum cleaners in the EU will have to abide by a new set of minimum requirements. They cover:
Performance (ability to pick up dust)
Energy efficiency
Dust re-emission in the exhaust air (particularly important for people with asthma)
Noise level
Durability (no early failure of the hose or the motor)”

Do Which observe these “minimum requirements” (whatever they might be in numbers) when testing?
here we have “Durability” as a requirement again.
Which? never tell us what it is doing on this front, but Europe keeps raising durability, repairability, availability of spares as a requirement. Is Which?
on board with this? Hopefully they are not banking on a Brexit 🙂

It is important to conserve oil because it is used to make plastics and many other products. Obviously other measures like phasing out free supermarket bags are helpful but transport of people and goods are a major drain on our dwindling natural resources.

Since I retired four years ago I have been trying to avoid driving more, even though I have time to do it. When attending meetings I try to car share with one or more friends and I try to combine journeys, which saves time as well as fuel.

This topic raises a huge question for me. IF so many cars have emissions worse than advertised, how are they getting through MOT tests, which of course have emission levels as part of this test? I appreciate that emissions data may not be truthful, however, the vehicles must be within legal limits, otherwise there would be a lot of people with expensive ornaments in their garages or on their driveways. IF figures can make the cut for a legal test, how bad can they be?????

The MOT test does not measure nitrogen oxides – but perhaps it should. It does measure carbon monoxide emissions by petrol engined cars, as one of the checks that the catalytic converter is working properly. Diesel engines produce little carbon monoxide and it is not measured in the MOT test.

Technically speaking–This would be a very difficult test to perform with repeatable accuracy outside of a Lab conditions.
Nox is produced ONLY at certain running phases of the engine. ie–Not at Full power, and Not at slow idle or Low speed. Must be remembered–Nox is NOT Smoke, it Cannot be seen by the eye, it is a Gas.
Only produced in significant quantities at medium to high speed Part Throttle Cruise Conditions–Like Motorway driving.
–How you gonna duplicate THAT at a usual MOT Test Centre without a specialised Rolling Road test-kit?
Speaking as an ex-MOT Tester, this would be impractical to perform with Any form of accuracy and more importantly Repeatability.

Diesel cars have a simple smoke test, similar to that applied to pre- 1980’s petrol cars. Many diesel cars have all the emissions equipment such as EGR and CATs removed, along with performance re-maps soon after manufacture, and still have no problem sailing through the MOT.
It has always seemed ridicules that you could drive out of the dealership with the base 50 bhp model, but with the dealer installed 200bhp upgrade, and still enjoying the lower tax rate.

The whole point of the cheating is that the car ‘understands’ that it is in test mode and changes its burn cycle to reduce emissions and pass the tests. That’s what the fuss was about with the VW.

The business I work with, as a consultant, build devices which use less electricity than your side lamps consume.
This allows ANY car or road vehicle to create both Hydrogen and Oxygen … from water and a cheap domestic additive … this is known to schoolchildren as ‘electrolysis’.
The outputs … Hydrogen and Oxygen … are directly combined with the conventional fuel (petrol or diesel) intake; and burned as part of the vehicle’s fuel supply.
The results are … ALWAYS … better mileage performance … a smoother ride … ZERO ‘CO’ emissions … a cleaner engine interior … reduced to near zero CO2 … significantly reduced NO2 … and near zero particulate emissions.
We can do this IN THE UK ,,, FOR THE UK … and do it much better than the Motor Industry can /=… in the meantime the MOT has been … for several years … telling me I am a liar !!!!


Barry – please tell us more. When conventional fuel is used in your system, what happens to the carbon from the conventional fuel?

Oh dear oh dear Barrie. I really don’t think it is appropriate for you to try to use this forum to spread such misinformation, so here Barry is the challenge. You provide a vehicle fitted with your electrolysis kit and we will take it to an ISO 17025 accredited laboratory in the UK. We can run any drive cycle that you choose, three times with the device and three times without it, observing sensible preconditioning practice. I will pay for the testing and, if any of your claims are substantiated, I will also pay you £1000 cash. If, however, your claims are shown to be false …. you pay for the testing and pay me £5000. (You have to pay more because my funds are less than yours, I have not been making money from this nonsense). The testing will be announced in the press beforehand and the results published afterwards. Over to you Barrie!

Thanks David
We need you here if you can do all that so stick around
Yes there are no miracle clean ups.
Hydrogen in this form has been flogged to death and I question touching water at all. There is not a more precious commodity on the planet why mess with that one
Leave something alone

Oh Gawd–HHO rears its Ugly and deceptive head….

The CO2 emissions appear to be very low on these LPG systems, but i wonder if there is any problem with any other gas emissions, since all this has blown up. Would like to have some feedback from other LPG users.
I run a Freelander 1 with a V6 engine. This was converted to LPG by Land Rover as an exercise. I enjoy driving it. Its great, but there is a dearth of LPG garages locally.
The A13 by Orsett has two, one either side of the A13, but if one is empty so, usually the one on the opposite side is too. The only other BP one is in Basildon equi-distant between the A13 and A127. Having broken my left wrist last year and its still quite painful sometimes, therefore I’m unable to use the Shell system as it is far too heavy for me to handle. Why the heck they cannot standardise these LPG pumps is quite beyond me.

Gas/LPG is a clined fuel and a fairly clean one at that
Propane as used by your car is exactly the same as is used in a domestic.commercial cooker and although there is still a little CO the concentrations are not deemed hazardous
LPG as in autogas is a pretty clean fuel from the outset
Years ago before all this emissions stuff gas was much cleaner than Petrol
I was the first LPGA approved here although I walked away from the industry on ground caused by a well known gas company nit because I had bad results but because other installers conversions were filling up my yard……..Wifey lost the plot one morning and chased the lot……..end of that chapter
My main business was Landrovers and had been for some time but I later sold up and done other things that I was invited to do.
I still drive on gas to this day and have done for over 30 years
Gas does not produce much CO in the first place even before CAT so the cat has precious little to do.
Simply,,,,it is clean first………….Diesel is dirty first and needs cleaned up
Gas does not like to burn lean as the window of air gas ratio is the smallest of all three common road fuels
The fact that it simply refuses to burn lean has the result of having minimal NOX
Gas does not dirty the oil as there is nearly no residues to get past the pistons into the crankcase oil totally unlike diesel which is always black with soot and requires frequent changing,,,,,,in my opinion much more often than modern sales pitch based service intervals
Back in the late 90s our Gov appeared to back lpg/autogas but that faded
If there was something I would say against it is that it is sold by the litre which is a little misleading
Propane has around 0.5kg oer litre
Petrol is around 0.7kg per litre
Diesel is around is all over the place but 0.75 would be about right
You can see that lpg/propane is much lighter than petrol and petrol is lighter than diesel
The weight or mass is a fair indication of the energy per litre so propane mostly/often gives a little worse mpg than petrol.
Overall if I was given the choice I’d go with LPG and day
I never had to change oil, just filters. Some may say I was bonkers but it worked for me. i can give you mileage’s of the various car we have had on it and some were as high as 260,000 with nothing more than timing belts and filters
One Granada finished up just over 500,000 miles but had well over 200 before we got it. A new set of exhaust valves to suit unleaded and gas and that was that.
A set of iridium plugs between 50 and 100,000miles
An occasional gas regulator/reducer
And not much else really
Some modern engines require an upper cyl/valve lube system to protect the valves as they are now often too hard and hammer the valve seats without “wet fuel”
Yes gas/lpg can be a little dirty of not done right but that is not as easy as it sounds. Dirty gas in nothing like a dirty petrol or diesel.
More or less if its goes well its clean the window of burn is so small
Today’s vapour sequential injection, self learn systems that you most likely have are really brilliant compared to single point vapour systems
Blame Calor for the lack of standardisation on fillers.
The industry had pretty much made up its mind on the Italian gun system which has a simple plastic dust cover as usual and you simply push the gun at the hole,,,,pull the trigger and it pretty much self aligns and away you go as such
The gas industry has several well known and accepted suppliers with world wide standard products
Calor could not even use the left hand pol connector common on propane bottles without altering it so no other regulator except their own would fit their bottles
The thread pitch and angle are the same but the dia is just a few thou smaller. Just enough to mess it up
Their bulk tank valves are like no others,,,,,,,anywhere.
Why,,,,,,because they are simply awkward in everything they do
Sorry Calor but you behave like no one knows anything about except you
So overall if you have a gas car take good care of it and find someone who cares and knows about gas
All too often garages simply replace the spark plugs with whatever the book said for petrol with no thought that gas might like something else or indeed looking to see what was in the thing………..They also tend to use the “book plug gap” whereas gas likes a close gap.
Myra,,,,,,,If I were you I’d drive my Freelander to it fell off its feet………Good V6 engine to boot
Gas will never be as mainstream as petrol/diesel but is a good clean fuel

I thought (obviously misguidedly) that since about 1992 when CATs became compulsory, that all the CO was converted to CO2 in the CAT. As has been said already, all cars are passing the MOT, so how do they do it? Is it simply that the ‘pass mark’ for cars is set too low?
I have two diesels 307 2.0l and Passat 2.0l (to be recalled) both with particulate filters (FAP) that work well, with perfectly clean tailpipes and a smoke test that always reads zero at the MOT station. But a relative’s Mazda 3 with 2.0 diesel has soot in the tailpipe even though it has a FAP. I am surprised it passes the MOT – perhaps they pour in one of the additives garages can buy to “help” pass the MOT.
I will wait to see the result of the VW upgrade before committing. They say it will not affect economy or drivability, but VW have not said anything about Performance!…..

A catalytic converter on a petrol engine does not convert all the CO to CO2. Don’t forget that vehicles don’t have to have a test until three years after registration.

Wave is correct………A cat does not convert all CO to co2…………I think we are not getting the whole story as usual………
At present it is a bit difficult to work out if things were anything like right why there is excess CO and excess NOX.
Excess CO goes with rich mixture while Excess NOX goes with lean mixture
If this really is the case that the same car has a CO and NOX problem they have for want of better words F***** up big time.
This was my industry and I cannot understand how this has been allowed to happen although I was aware for some years that diesels especially were a disaster waiting to happen

I’m not sure that CATs ever became compulsory but they became the norm to reach reduced CO targets
Fitting a CAT is not a matter of fitting any CAT to any car……….The engineering is a little more dificult than that and can be got wrong or it could be and advantage to be running close to the wire as such which has led to this CO problem
Excess CO should not have happened
Neither should NOX

CO whilst a poison is not a killer in the same way as NOX or this new soot stuff appears to be turning out as time passes………….Some medical treatments are actually experimenting with CO for benefit even though it is a poison in large amounts………….Alcohol is a poison and many of us us it either socially,,,,as an anesthetic,,,,,,,,,or medicinally
I have only seen adverse effects of CO in 1970/80s workshops with no extraction and doors closed with engines being revved for extended periods so on the road amounts are likely to be maybe but I cannot confirm likelihood not to be very adverse
CO is in the air we breath anyhow in limited amounts as it is a by products of nearly all combustion processes
You’ll see many tribal peoples sitting in a house or Teepee with a fire inside and no chimney……….Whilst I wouldnt advise it they seem to survive and thrive……..They are in a heavy laden CO situation
Even cars with no CAT would not have been in that class of CO environment

Your quote about your your DPF having a clean exhaust (peugeot badge their DPF as FAP but it is a DPF)
The output today should be soot converted to ash which is not likely to blacken a tail pipe and on some models a very clean tailpipe
The manufacturers were the instigators of the DPF for their own reasons which I have written about at length
The ash is getting bad press from the health experts………so clean tail pipe is no indication of being good for ones health
On a city street we are likely to breath billions of these minute particles ever time we breath. They can lodge in the furthest parts of the lungs and are so small they can pass through tissue and gather in parts of the body
They are already reported as having health effects and we are only starting to understand these
There is no other substance on the planet similar so again all things new are turning out to be not as good as we were led to believe
I preach that the word filter is very misleading………….If the whole car was a filter it could not hold the soot of a diesel exhaust over any reasonable time frame
Soot is diesels main byproduct and there is loads of it…….The DPF allowed extended use of the EGR to cut down on NOX but that extended use would not be possible without the DPF

The black in your neighbours mazda is most likely oil residue from the lube in the fuel………or his car coudl be using oil……….may not be a fault………..Just that vehicle……..Not all systems and engine combinations behave the same……..could even be as result of being driven slowly

MOTs for diesels are simply a visual smoke test

NOX does not appear visually but at present NOX is a serious problem………….Wave has all the tech stuff on how NOX effects the body,,,,, that seems to be his field
Both he and I have problems with it
I have been on my knee’s on town/city streets and then panic sets in which does nothing to help
NOX and particulate matters are the offenders for the increase in chest problems

PM10s are carcinogenic…………..the jury is out on the new ash byproduct but its not looking good……..Many if not most diesels get their EGR system and DPF system bluffed off because they simply are too expensive to repair…………. Without this service the residuals on older diesels would fall like a stone………….unless manufacturers see fit to supply parts at a reasonable price………..even on aftermarket parts its expensive stuff

Hope that helps

Mmmm, well…. low diesel combustion temperature = low NOx and high soot. High combustion temp = low soot and High NOx. We can lower the NOx with EGR but then have more soot. Then we have the aftertreatment systems… We can trap the soot with a DPF and later burn it off in regeneration, either passive or active. Then there are NOx traps which also sort of work. Essentially if we burn hydrocarbon fuels we have problems to deal with the result and we do not have the ideal answers. (Apologies but I am into my third bottle of wine!!)

Your fine David,,,,,,,I was well into a glass or several of Brandy last night
I like your “also sort of work” NOX traps I kinda forgot about them for the purpose of my story
There,s an awful lot of the parts of these systems that sort of work

Hey Ho….. governments put in place emissions legislation and the manufacturers have to pass the prescribed tests …. which they generally do. Early in the 1990s the legislators discovered that manufacturers were building “defeat devices” into their engine management systems. The vehicles knew when they were being subjected to a legislative emissions test and selected a special map that would pass that test. Once the test was completed, the vehicle would revert to the original map that gave the best driveability and fuel consumption ….. at the expense of the emissions. These “Defeat Devices” were specifically outlawed by the legislators several years ago. It appears that VW may have continued to employ such sophisticated defeat devices after these rulings and , if this is the case, VW has been breaking the law. “Which” has been testing vehicles to a drive cycle that differs significantly from the EU legislated drive cycle. The “Which” drive cycle is far more representative of real world driving conditions and it is no surprise that many vehicles display high emissions in the “Which” cycle, but not in the EU EUDC legislated drive cycle. Cheating by utilising defeat devices is one thing; complying with the legislation but not meeting some new proposed legislation is surely something else….. and certainly not criminal. The whole issue of engine and vehicle emissions legislation needs a re-think, and this is happening at the moment. In the meantime we should condemn manufacturers who fail to comply with the existing legislation, but maybe not condemn manufacturers who do not comply with some proposed future legislation? (I do not and never have worked for an engine or vehicle manufacturer, but I have been working on engine and vehicle emissions for most of my life). :o)

Glad to see you back David,,,,,,,,,,,Lets hope you have time for this,,,,,,,,,,
I agree with much/most if not everything of our post although from where I was the cheat was designed to cheat the road in order to gain mpg and bph but that is more or less and exercise in words and comes down to the same thing
They cheated,,,,,,It’s just the way the cheat is perceived

Many are not criminal,,,,,,,,,,,many will have passed the tests but the test regime was flawed……..There is a very big difference between pass the test and drive up the road with no changes versus pass the test and once on the road totally disable or vastly reduce the function of emissions equipment

I see some who are very willing to blame others outside of VW for now having poor emissions figure’s published but those vehicles did not have a cheat and most likely really did pass the test
It does not make them perfect or completely innocent but they did not as i have put it head out to cheat the system

Any opinions on the French Gov Renault goings on’s

Car manufacturers are not the only ones who will try to tell you what they want you to believe they’ll all tell you what they want you to know about their products even if is not the true facts, they all need to sell as many things as they can and do not care how they do it. Take all claims with a pinch of the salt

Why is it that we VW owners in UK can’t have a class action against VW?
Can any lawyers explain?
Which could coordinate it.

I have checked the VIN of my 3 litre diesel Audi on the VW website, it says my car is not affected. Based on VW’s record, should I believe that?

If the VW say your car is not effected it most likely is fine although as far as believing anything VW say is at this point difficult for some……….personally I have found that difficult for some years but I’m told that I’m a cynic.
I wonder why anyone would be cynical ???????

Some will be along about your “class action” Its called something else here

To the best of my knowledge no car can be sold in the EU unless it meets EC regulations for emissions. (dft.gov.uk/vca/fcb/exhaust-emissions-testing.asp). To meet these regulations a vehicle can only be type tested to a laboratory test standard that is imposed by the EC. If the vehicle passes these tests it is then approved for sale. The figures that the manufacturer declares should then only be those derived from these official tests.

Which? says in the introduction to this Convo that many cars, both diesel and petrol, produce emissions above the EC (EU as they say) limits. They refer to them as “breaking emission limits” saying that the manufacturers are “ pumping out some peculiar claims”. But Which? do not test according to the EC requirements. They test to another driving cycle – but for which currently there are no regulatory limits on emissions. So no limits are broken. Unless Which? have more information.

It is well known that on the road emissions can be very different to the EC NEDC laboratory test. Which? should know this – and do. They say they have data back to 2012 that shows this so have they pursued this with the EC before?

The only way manufacturers are allowed to get type approval is through the (badly flawed but only applicable) EC’s NEDC test. However two changes are being introduced: the WLTP lab test that is much more relevant to modern cars and driving, and the RDE (real driving emissions) test which initially will look at emissions under a specified road test and hopefully establish real life emissions limits.

I support controlling emissions properly, and producing more realistic data. But the continual attempt to place all the blame on manufacturers is disingenuous. The major culprit is the EC for neglecting to produce a relevant test regime. Perhaps Which? could focus on them and produce information that is more objective and balanced.

Let’s work to get vehicle information and acceptable performance properly sorted rather than wasting effort in flawed attempts to demonise the industry.

So why have VW never stopped selling vehicles as the whole world knows the testing was fraud????

@malcolm-r – Can you recommend any reading about how RDE testing and the programme for implementation?

I’ve posted a link to an EC press release on this in another conversation. Suggest search their website. It was a couple of months ago. Alternatively Google RDE test. If you can’t find it I’ll see if I still have my printed copy and post the relevant text.

I have done a fair amount of searching, albeit when we were contributing to an earlier Convo. What I’m looking for is both practical detail about how the test will be conducted and where we are in the implementation programme. I may have seen the latter but it’s not in my reading list or bookmarks.

“The RDE test will complement the current laboratory based procedure to check that the emission levels of nitrogen oxides (NOx), and at a later stage also particle numbers (PN), measured during laboratory testing are confirmed in real driving conditions. This means the car will be driven outside on a real road according to random acceleration and deceleration patterns. The pollutant emissions will be measured by portable emission measuring systems (PEMS)that will be attached to the car. RDE testing will reduce the currently observed differences between emissions measured in the laboratory and those measured on the road under real-world conditions and, to a great extent, limit the risk of cheating with a defeat device………

…it will come into effect in January 2016. In this initial stage the portable emissions system will be used for monitoring purposes and will have no implications on the conformity certificate issued by the national type-approval authority (TAA). Work is now underway to establish the regulatory not-to-exceed emission limits applicable to RDE testing…………The commission services aim to have the not-to-exceed emission limits applicable for all type approvals in the autumn 2017 and for new vehicles in the autumn 2018. The not-to-exceed limits should reflect environmental objectives as well as economic and technical feasibility.”

Thanks Malcolm. I guess I am looking for detail that has not been published and may never be published. It would be a good topic for Horizon or another documentary. I would not be surprised if the VW saga is used as the basis of a film.

“Herbie goes to …… prison” ?

The Sinking of SMS Golf

I have the script written already………………………

I like your Herbie Malcolm but this was in my head a time or two

According to Wikipedia, Herbie was a 1960s Beetle and would not have a diesel engine, never mind an E189 version. Maybe Grandson of Herbie. But film makers don’t always get their details right.

The audi ence wouldn’t worry about historical accuracy.

This could be a high budget film and we might have to increase the emission charge.

Nice one, Sir!

I am pleased to see that at long last Which? are beginning to address this issue with more objectivity. On their website they say:

“What’s to blame?
Once again, it’s the tests that are to blame. The reason the figures don’t match up with the legal limits is the outdated New European Driving Cycle (NEDC) test……

Our assessments also take place in a lab but, in contrast, we use more challenging and realistic driving cycles than the NEDC, based on the new test we are pushing for the industry to adopt. We will also be adding on-the-road emissions tests in the future.”

If Which ? use the WLTP test themselves I hope this is the one they refer to. The EC is committed to introducing it. I also hope their “on-the-road emissions test” will be the RDE test specified by the EC. Then we should get truly comparable results, not apples vs pears. We don’t want different tests done by different people.

@aporter, adrian, thanks for the reply. I totally understand your point about tests being realistic and agree completely.
My post above criticised the intro for suggesting that manufacturers were breaking limits when only the NEDC test requires compliance with regulatory limits; on the road tests may well yield different results and do not yet have limits that must be complied with. I presume we are on agreement with this?

The argument is that manufacturers optimise engine performance with the NEDC test. I can understand why given this is the only method that leads to acceptance or rejection of a car type for sale. This all needs changing to a more realistic official test, as the WLTP that you use, with the “independent” test laboratories properly supervised and audited to ensure they give comparable and accurate results. I’d like to see Which? and other BEUC members ensuring the EC put these measures in place – in the end the EC is responsible for ensuring a fit-for-purpose system is established and properly operated.

So Which has seen these problems since 2012. Why on earth did they wait to release them? And can we please see the full list of results for the 153 cars they have tested? They seem to have been too busy going on about fuel consumption tests, which is a good thing to do but the discrepancies there are far smaller than the NOx and CO results.

To add to what I’ve said, Which has listed the worst models. How about telling us which ones actually comply?

jeremy leathart says:
21 January 2016

This article makes great play of bashing the offenders, but actually it’d be much more useful to consumers if you could tell us which cars have the LEAST CO/CO2/NOX/PM emissions, so that we can make sensible decisions about which car to buy..

As a newcomer to the debate, I don’t want to rehash a lot of what has been said, but I was always concerned about petrol engines with low emissions and low fuel consumption -which was never achieved by normal useage. Looking at the figures there still seemed to be a mismatch between fuel burnt, CO2 emissions and power output. I would have expected a linear realationship between mpg and CO2 -assuming all CO was converted to CO2 (or at least a systematic error) but it doesn’t. Why not? Apparently the figues were fiddled.

There will never be a linear relationship between mpg and co2 or linear between anything
There are too many variables

Both petrol and diesel have moved on quite a way
Todays Peugeots are near twice as heavy as a 305 have near three times the power,, have the bells etc but still get reasonable mpg and are much much cleaner exhausts even if they are often powered by Ford

Todays petrols are similar
When I was young an RS2000 had 94hp weighted 900kg and could barely manage 30mpg if ever
I have a SX4 saloon that is more comfortable, has a bigger boot,,,,,more room inside,,,seriously more safety and weights in at 1200kgs as result………106hp is seriously cleaner exhaust and will do 45mpg everywhere and over 50 on a sunday run

However I can find other diesels and petrols that have similar performance to the peugeots and SX4 but the emissions can go either way.
The Suzuki if you look it up is not good on emissions but wait a second maybe it wasn’t telling lies……….I’ve had the gas analyser up the pipe and up the road and its pretty good in real time whereas others seem to have manipulated results somehow which is another story

There to date is non worse than VW who at present is the only manufacturer who went out of their way to disable emissions equipment on the road

There is nothing wrong with a petrol having low emissions and low fuel consumption,,,,,,,,,,,

Maurice says:
21 January 2016

Your test reports are incomplete. You say the BMW X3 exceeds Euro 3. Is this the 2 litre or 3 litre or both? Msport or standard model? More facts please!

In my opinion, VW is FULL OF THE BEANS!! I own a 2011 (61) Skoda Octavia Elegance with a TD-1600, DSG Automatic (Sealed Unit).. VW has sent me a letter stating my engine needs a MESH TRANSFORMER that will equalize the air to the Air Sensor and the Software will be updated. The other Diesel Engines, 1200 and 2000 only need software upgrades. I find this all “VERY HARD TO FOLLOW”, the air sensor is not being changed, only the air flow is supposed to be equalized? Why aren’t the other engines getting a hardware update? How does VW justify all this data? Does WHICH have anything to help customers on this, feedback?
Let’s face it, VW tried to deceive all both UK, US, and everywhere in the world that has these models, how can I trust them on this? Why isn’t the air sensor changed as well as this MESH TRANSFORMER INSTALLATION??? This ALL APPEARS AS A BUNCH OF ‘POPPY-C**K’ to me! My car also is before the UK 2013 upgrades on all diesels to bring their CO2 readings down and whatever happens, the UK Road Tax is not going to alter. I will still have to pay out the money I am paying to drive this vehicle with or without this modification; the road tax will stay the same no matter what happens! I feel VW is looking for the quick way out for it provides no data that I can find to justify all this and since my car puts out 123grams/Kilometre Square and I can’t see how a Mesh Filter is going to help this car or the environment at all, especially the Nitrous Oxides and Dioxides that apparently kill folk with cancer over the long run? My MOT Inspection readout shows very low emissions, for I use the proper diesel, not cut rate fuel and I put engine additives in the fuel, change my engine oil frequently and use top oil for top performance. I have the car in the shop mostly to keep the updates updated and also do all I can to drive the car at a safe speed and use the accelerator and brakes to reduce emissions as well as optimise performance! When I wash the car regularly, I have them blow the brakes out to make sure all the crud is not holding back the performance to insure maximum peak efficiently!

In my opinion, VW goes from one scam to another! Too bad, for the vehicle is the best I ever had, I just do not like VW’s integrity on this outrage!

If motorists would just follow the UK highway code, don’t speed, don’t tailgate (follow to closely) and constantly brake, and keep their “Lead Feet” off the accelerator, we would all enjoy the environment and happy motoring as well, with fewer accidents as well!

Mr John Kenney

I would like to know what drive cycle was used to carry out the Which tests that produced the published figures and at which UK test facility they were carried out. I am well aware of the shortcomings of the NEDC but am no aware of the real life validity of the which test. Considering the complexity of running these tests in a manner that can homologate vehicles I assume the which tests had been created and run by an certified laboratory?