Real World MPG & emissions data

[Draigflag]

May I suggest making this a sticky topic at the top? I feel it's pretty important as reference material. EQUA conduct and compile real world data of hundreds of new cars currently on the market. According to them:

"The EQUA Index provides an easy and honest picture of vehicle performance in real-world driving. It puts accurate fuel consumption and air quality data in the hands of the car buyer so they can make an informed decision.

EQUA sets the standard for independent, real-world emissions data."

EQUA Index - Real-world driving data

There is everything there from MPG (including US MPG and litres/100 KM) carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, and general air quality. It makes for an interesting read.

Note, the top 20 worst rated MPG vehicles are all petrol, all automatic and all SUV's or estates. Almost all the bottom 1000 worst rated MPG cars are automatic transmissions, so if you prioritise economy, DON'T buy an auto!

The top 144 best MPG rated cars are diesel (no surprise) with manual gearboxes. In fact, taking the Toyota Auris hybrid, which is rated higher than the Prius, out of the equation, the top 650 ish highest MPG cars are all diesel. The worse MPG hybrid car is the BMW X5 hybrid, getting just 26 MPG. The best is actually the Auris hybrid, which along with the Peugeot 508, Mercedes C class, E class, the Yaris and a few other hybrids, are rated higher than the famous Prius.

The lowest carbon dioxide emitting car is the Honda Civic diesel, then Lexus CT and the Toyota Auris hybrid (same platform)

The lowest emitting ICE only Petrol car is the Honda Jazz (Fit in the US) The majority of the low C02 cars are German or Korean diesels.

The diesel car with the best air quality rating is the Audi A5, rated cleaner than many petrol cars, even hybrids. On the flip side, the Audi A8 diesel is one of the worse for air quality. The worse petrol car for air quality is the mighty Audi RS4, ironically followed by the tiny 1.0 litre Ford focus, with the same rating!

Audi also make an appearance in the carbon monoxide ratings, with the Audi A3 diesel being the lowest carbon monoxide emitting diesel car. The highest emitting car in this sector is the Mazda 3 petrol, which got a dismal "H" rating (A is good, H is very bad...) the highest emitting 34 cars here are all petrol.

So, perhaps your opinions of certain cars will change? Perhaps your perceptions of certain fuels will change too? Diesels are obviously great for economy, low C02 and low carbon monoxide, but many are bad for air quality. Of course some are cleaner, just as clean as hybrids. Petrol cars, high carbon monoxide and climate destroying C02, and poorer economy too, but better air quality perhaps in some instances. Food for thought.

EQUA Index - Real-world driving data

[SteveMak]

Draigflag: How dare you introduce facts in this emotionally charged topic?

People in North America (USA specifically) are busy hating VAG (Volkswagen Audi Group) because of Dieselgate -- which proved that VAG's diesels are the worst polluting cars, and VW is a law-breaker and cheater, and everyone else isn't -- and you go messing about with facts. Sheesh! Double-sheesh!!

-Steve

[Draigflag]

Well the facts are here in black and white, people can now form opinions based on them, and not fairytayle media nonsense. The truth is, it's not actually that clear cut, some diesels are bad, some are clean, the same for petrols, and hybrids. The only way to avoid emissions now is to ride a bike or go electric lol.

[BlueRover]

Originally Posted by Draigflag

Well the facts are here in black and white, people can now form opinions based on them, and not fairytayle media nonsense. .

Or could the report with glowing endorsement from VW be fairy-tale media nonsense as well

[SteveMak]

Originally Posted by BlueRover

Or could the report with glowing endorsement from VW be fairy-tale media nonsense as well

Possible, but who knows. A WhoIs search reveals the domain was created by someone in the UK on 2015-11-30T11:08:13Z, just a couple of months after Dieselgate exploded onto the scene.

Rather than speculating, I suggest if it's important enough to readers, then do your own research and come to your own conclusions. Otherwise, we're just talking confirmation bias.

[Draigflag]

Originally Posted by BlueRover

Or could the report with glowing endorsement from VW be fairy-tale media nonsense as well

It's not a report as such, it's an independent company and thier collection of data is ongoing, so far they've tested over a thousand cars from multiple auto makers. Some of thier experts are from the uk and USA.

[OliverGT]

Paul,

You beat me to it, I was going to post about the EQUA site as well.

I know you are a Diesel fan through and through, but one thing that I noticed is that the gap between real world and official figures for Diesel cars is much greater than the gap for petrol cars for example:

2016 figures:
Petrol Real World 39.5 official 50.1
Diesel Real World 45.0 official 60.0

This gap has been widening over the last number years and the Real world figures have been going DOWN.

With the additional emission controls being added to Diesels, the complexity that they add and the closing of the gap between petrol and diesel, I can see people returning slowly to petrol over the coming years.

The governments need to move to a better testing system because at the moment people are being duped into buying cars that are not as economical as claimed. Mercedes were singled out in a recent document for having official figures that were some 50% higher than real world figures. I'll try and find the document and post a link.

Oliver.

[OliverGT]

Here you go:

Describes the Gap between Real and Official figures. It makes interesting reading.

https://www.transportenvironment.org...ars-four-years

The full PDF is worth a scan through if you have a spare 15 minutes.

Oliver.

[Draigflag]

Yes Oli, it's gone from a 9% gap in 2001 between official figures and real world figures, to a staggering 42% in some cases, quite scary, but with car makers allowed to manipulate the cars and test cycle, it's no wonder the gaps been increasing year on year.

I don't think diesel sales will drop significantly until the government starts banning them from cities, that's if. Most people who buy diesels live rural where everything is far away, or are people who drive for a living, sales reps etc, so probably won't be affected by new measures. The stricter regs will see petrol cars requiring similar equipment to diesels now, such as GPF's, gasoline particulate filters, as diesels filter out 99.9%, probably 100 if the sulphur free city diesel is used.

[SteveMak]

re: Gap between official figures and real world numbers

Manufacturers are not required to meet real world fuel economy or emission metrics. They only have to attain specific numbers when operating under very specific "in lab only" conditions -- which do not resemble the real world -- and accomplish this without using the legal definition of a "cheat device."

Every vehicle sold either meets these legal "in lab only" requirements, or is falsifying certification documents.

VW met these "in lab only" requirements, but they used a cheat device. That's why they're in hot water. Virtually all vehicles sold do not meet these "in lab only" limits when they operate under real world conditions. That's not against the law, and that's why nobody is complaining. This is, however, the reason why you are seeing the widening gap between "official" numbers (those in the lab) and real world numbers (those the vehicles actually produce when operated in the real world).

When the vehicle test cycle closely resembles real world driving conditions, then we'll see the gap narrow dramatically or disappear altogether. The more closely the certification conditions resemble the real world, the narrower the gap becomes.

Meanwhile, on American forums, many members argue it's impossible to certify emissions to real world condition, so that's why it makes sense to keep the existing in-lab-only system, which has been proven to be nearly useless. The argument is that it's better than nothing.

I'm in favor of emissions and fuel economy tests that are as close to real world conditions as possible. Perhaps the law will have to define "the average driver" and "the average driving conditions". Perhaps they'll have to define a range (speed, altitude, acceleration vigorousness). I believe these humans are smart enough to figure it out.

By the way, you readers are aware that the current, in-lab-only emissions testing procedure was defined by the auto industry itself, don't you? It wasn't knowledgeable, unbiased, environmentally conscious legislators who thought it up.