Thanks to you, we’re calling on car makers to come clean on fuel claims

Heartily agree. That actual numbers given as mpg are not real life results, but because all manufacturers use the same test it is a valid comparison between different cars. Bathroom scales do not give an accurate weight but if two people weighing themselves on the same scales it can still be determined who is the heavier.

Except, Pete, that not all car tests are carried out exactly to the standard and it is open to manufacturers to decide where to have their vehicles tested. Moreover, manufacturers do not necessarily present the vehicles for testing according to identical standards and can make modifications to the tyre pressures, loads, aerodynamics etc that affect the results.

From what I have found previously the laxity in the EU NEDC test standard that does not prevent certain modifications being made is not the prime source of the disparity between the test figures and “real life”. The significant reason is the inadequacy of the standard when applied to modern cars and driving. So unless you rewrite the standard to tighten up test requirements I do not see how you can “ban” the modifications it allows.
We need the EU to ensure their replacement standard is fit for purpose and, if so, implemented as soon as possible. However, by fit for purpose should also include not imposing unrealistic requirements on the car producers which is, i believe, one of the reasons it is being delayed.

Even if the NEDC test is responsible for the majority of the discrepancy between the published fuel consumption figures and what motorists achieve, I see no reason for not taking action to stop modification of vehicles prior to testing. When the NEDC tests were compiled, did anyone think about the ways that manufacturers might cheat to produce better results? Tape up the doors, overinflated the tyres, remove rear seats etc to cut weight, disconnect the alternator, change the tyres and oil, fiddle with the brakes, and goodness knows what else. How difficult is it to insist that cars are tested as you or I would buy and use them? The purpose of the tests is to produce figures that can be compared, and if the vehicles are being modified in different ways, the value of testing is debased. Even without legislation, manufacturers can declare that their tests relate to unmodified vehicles – and that could happen immediately. I would respect any manufacturer that did this.

I fully agree with your comments about the replacement test.

wavechange, I have no disagreement with this. But a standard that is written is exactly what it says – standard test conditions that everyone should follow. To ensure there is no doubt in testers’ procedures the conditions need to be unambiguous. The EU could easily issue an amendment (or should have already) that covers the “lax” areas. It is their responsibility and they’ve had years to deal with it. Why don’t they?

However, in mitigation, there is a pretty comprehensive report that looks at the deficiencies of NEDC and the WRTP replacement that includes comments on the extent to which manufacturers have used the loopholes and their effect. They concluded, from memory, that if all the loopholes were used to maximum benefit they could give a maximum gain of around 1/3 of the NEDC “inaccuracy” (the difference between test and real life”). They found however no evidence that this “maximum” was being achieved.

Having said this, there is absolutely no point in having a test standard that is not regularly amended to keep up to date with technology and to remove vagueness. It is like having a light bulb standard written around filament lamps that is applied to CFLs and LEDs.

Would it not be possible for some repeat tests to be carried out on cars selected at random from showrooms, in showroom condition?
If results are worse than in ‘type tests’ then they would be published instead?

Honda Jazz engines have been doing this since there introduction haven’t they?
The twin spark timings change in order to achieve the low tick over.

The problem relates to emission of nitrogen oxides, which is not measured in the MOT test.

The MoT test monitors Carbon Monoxide (CO) and Hydrocarbons (HC) for petrol cars with an exhaust analyser. For diesels just a smoke density meter I believe – no numbers for CO, NOx etc.
The EU type test for vehicle approval has limits on CO, HC, CO2 and NOx. The current Nitrogen Oxide (combined NO and NO2) limit seems to be 80mg/km.
The US emissions limits seems very much more complicated but as far as I can see the limit for cars across a fleet is 0.05 g/mi or around 32 mg/km, under half the EU requirement. Does anyone know better?
Vehicle testing is the responsibility of the “Member State” in the EU – they should ensure testing is done correctly before type approval is given, and they impose penalties and can withdraw type approval if vehicles are subsequently found not to comply. I wonder which State was responsible here, and whether their officials overseeing testing have any part to play in the false results?

My understanding is that the manufacturers are delaying the introduction of the WLTP tests. I certainly don’t know any manufacturer that is pushing for their introduction.

I accept that manufacturers are only allowed to quote NEDC figures at present but if they were honest they could admit that drivers of their vehicles are likely to achieve substantially lower fuel economy than the quoted figures. I like honesty and I suspect that others do too.

wavechange, perhaps you would provide a link to where manufacturers are delaying WLTP tests, if they are, and if so it might give more information.
The manufacturers cannot, I believe, quote figures other than the EU ones. No dishonesty in that. What Which? and others should be doing is making people aware of real life published figures. As these will be an average from a range of reported mpgs they will only indicate where your achieved mpg might be. I would imagine if manufacturers were to publish such a figure as soon as an individual driver did not reach it the car manufacturer would be in even more trouble. Best the way it is with the WLTC test and the NDE introduced as soon as possible.

Here is the first one turned up by a search: http://www.raccars.co.uk/news/article/3305/european-car-makers-delaying-real-world-mgp-tests

Can you provide any evidence that manufacturers are keen to bring in the new testing?

wavechange, this was what some of the press reported that I read back in May. The claim made that manufacturers were responsible for the difference between real life and stated mpg is not the main cause – NEDC is the culprit.
I commented at the time that one reason being put forward for the delay was not the implementation of the WLTP test, but that the CO2 emissions being set by the EC were regarded as not realistically achievable by 2017. But as I am no expert in these matters i’d like to see Which? properly investigate this – no doubt best if done with BEUC – to get at the facts from both the EU, and ACEA who represent European car makers.

ACEA fully support apparently the introduction of the RDE – a more real life road test that will supplement laboratory tests.

So manufacturers are delaying the introduction of the new tests, as I said.

But there is nothing to stop manufacturers from pointing out that the fuel economy achieved by drivers is likely to be significantly less than what the NEDC tests indicate. The commercial world needs to learn to be honest.

wavechange, I don’t know if manufacturers are delaying the tests, or, if they are, why, as I said. That is why I want the facts teased out so we supplant speculation with information.

I don’t know what regulations if any surround the wording manufacturers use, but adverts I see point out these are sourced from official EU test results, are provided for comparability purposes and may not reflect your actual driving experience.
Anyway, this is going over old ground.
Your comment on honesty and the commercial world perhaps could also be directed at politicians, NHS, education, financial services, retailers, in fact all of us would seem to be implicated. Even Which? can be economical with the facts! However I’m sure dishonesty is not that totally widespread. I suspect you and I, at least, behave with propriety and integrity. 🙂 .
Oh, and the proprietor of my local small art shop. I went in today to buy a mechanical pencil and some leads. I’ve this one at £2.80, but this is good value at £1.99 he said. And these leads are £2.40 for 12, but I have these at £2.99 for 40 – I’d go for those. Honesty in the commercial world. Any other nominations?

Malcolm – You keep bringing up the obsolete NEDC tests but tend to stay silent on the modification of cars prior to testing. I would like to see some information about what modifications the various manufacturers make prior to testing vehicles. The purpose of the tests is to provide comparative figures and any modification will make comparison invalid. On that basis, I regard it as cheating.

Throughout my adult life I have rarely been disappointed by smaller companies, and often been treated as a loyal customer. I’m less happy with the larger companies, my experience often reflecting what others have posted on these pages.

wavechange, I have not “stayed silent” on so called modifications. I have pointed out that from what I have found online if all the loopholes were used in the tests they could account for 1/3 of the reduction in emissions – but there was not evidence to say that the whole of this was used. I also pointed out that the loopholes were in the NEDC test document – seemingly a badly constructed standard that had not been amended. That is why we should be blaming, principally, those imposing the test regime, not those who implement it.
“Cheating” is evading the standard, which is what VW did with their “cheat” software. As yet we have not had other manufacturers accused of cheating. But let us wait and see what the EU uncovers.

Malcolm – The tests are to enable comparison of models, so it’s OBVIOUS that tests must be carried out on cars as they will be used by drivers, and not modified in some way. Surely the manufacturers must be capable of working that out for themselves.

In Which? testing, the tests are carried out independently on products that have been purchased rather than submitted for testing by the manufacturer. This is obvious good practice. Which? tests are also carried out by independent laboratories. I recall that you once said that independent labs are not always up to scratch. I can believe that, having made frequent use of testing labs in connection with my work. Good labs should operate their own quality control, but external assessment is also vital.

Maybe you should say this to the EU. I think we have exhausted this line of attack, perhaps?

I’m waiting to hear more from BEUC about cheating in the tests. From the link I posted earlier they obviously have some insight into the problem.

From the top of this page it appears that Which? would like manufacturers to let them know if they have been manipulating fuel tests, within the next day or so. From the top of this page:
“On that point, we gave car makers seven days to announce whether their fuel tests have been manipulated. And the clock is ticking:” It seems unlikely that manufacturers will admit what they get up to, but I would have some respect if they did.

Patrick, thanks for the response. No need to apologise for any delay, I was just sorry to hear of your loss.
My main point was to ask Which? to present a balanced and informative background to campaigns so we are not inadvertently swayed in a particular direction.
My other concern was that the EU and HMG should already be investigating whether any other car manufacturers had deliberately falsified results; I’d hope all concerned would work in concert to get to a prompt outcome. If you ask a company whether they have lied or cheated I’d expect the answer to be “no”. We need to do some testing work first to see whether we have good grounds to ask those questions with the benefit of knowledge – like they did in the USA. We must also keep “on the road” testing separate from laboratory testing; they are not the same and the results, as things stand, will not be comparable. 🙂
PS – like the improvements in the format. 🙂 🙂

Patrick, thanks for that. I have no brief for car makers but believe the NEDC test is the root of the problem. This, therefore, in my view, should be prominent in the campaign, not at the bottom of the page.
In the mission statement “Car makers are claiming figures that are miles from the truth” still points the finger of blame at them. Popular perhaps, but inaccurate.
A more accurate statement would be “Official EU testing that car makers must use give figures that can be some way from real life driving”.
The campaign should be aimed at getting better tests in place quickly rather than demonising the manufacturers – unless there is real evidence that they substantially fiddle the figure.
Just my opinion based upon the facts as I see them. 🙂

The big question is who paid who to falsify the code. Someone wrote that code labelled ‘acoustic condition’.

From the article: “The Volkswagen defeat device is arguably the most complex in automotive history,” Levchenko said. Researchers found a less sophisticated circumventing ploy for the Fiat 500X. That car’s onboard computer simply allows its emissions-curbing system to run for the first 26 minutes and 40 seconds after the engine starts—roughly the duration of many emissions tests. Researchers note that for both Volkswagen and Fiat, the vehicles’ Engine Control Unit is manufactured by automotive component giant Robert Bosch. Car manufacturers then enable the code by entering specific parameters.”

It will be interesting to find out what more is uncovered.