Merkel’s ministers ‘ignored warning over emissions rigging’
Soft-touch EU regulations allow makers to produce unrealistic fuel economy and emission results
ANGELA MERKEL’S government turned a blind eye to Volkswagen emissions rigging, it was claimed yesterday as the car company’s chief executive resigned amid the escalating crisis.
A written parliamentary answer shows that German ministers were warned months ago of the so-called “defeat device” cheat software on diesel engines. The transport ministry answered a question about the motoring industry on July 28, in which it said: “The federal government is aware of [defeat devices], which have the goal of [test] cycle detection.”
While the answer does not mention Volkswagen, the suggestion by the country’s Green party, which posed the question, is that it was in reference to the car maker.
Volkswagen’s chief executive, Martin Winterkorn, was forced to stand down yesterday at an emergency meeting. His resignation followed an eight-hour summit at the Allister Heath: Page 18 Business: Pages 1, 2 & 5
EXPERTS warned last night that motoring giants have been fiddling both emission and fuel economy tests for years thanks to soft-touch EU standards.
The VW scandal in America has led to calls for a review on this side of the Atlantic to expose the chasm between test track results and those experienced by car buyers on real roads.
Which?, the consumer watchdog, said: “The official test that manufacturers have to use under EU law is unrealistic and there are numerous loopholes that can be exploited.”
In an investigation into European testing, Which? said laboratories “are commercial enterprises that rely on the carmakers for business”.
Companies compete for business by promising to “optimise” conditions.
One popular test track in Spain used by such companies is at high altitude and has a surface so smooth that it improves efficiency by three percentage points.
Other techniques used by European car manufacturers include:
Sending prototypes for testing, with weighty extras such as the sound system and even wing mirrors being reportedly left off, and special lubricants used to make the engines run more smoothly.
“Roof rails, extra lights and even the door mirror on the passenger side can be removed which makes the car lighter and therefore more fuel efficient,” Which? said.
Removing wind drag by taping over cracks around panels and doors. Also, low-resistance tyres filled with special gas add to the miles covered.
There is a tolerance for the testing to be carried out at 1.2mph below the required speed, meaning less fuel is used, even though the speeds required on the road are already quite pedestrian.
Warming up cars in advance by driving them to a preset routine of gentle accelerations and low speeds, run at the highest permitted temperature of 29ºC (engines are more efficient in the heat). Modern electronics can detect the pattern of the start of the test and switch into a special “economy mode” that results in lower emissions.
Driving at 75mph on a motorway for just 10 seconds. The biggest bugbear for most drivers is that their cars are failing to match the manufacturers’ motorway economy figures.
Which? said: “The test cycle only includes urban (in town) and extra urban (out of town) driving, but while it reaches a top speed of 75mph for 10 seconds, it doesn’t include any sustained motorway driving. This is the type of driving where cars usually consume the most fuel.”
Having economy mode on at all times, which is unlikely to be replicated by owners as it generally makes cars feel unresponsive.
The test is conducted with additional energy-consuming features turned off, including air conditioning, lights and heated windows, thereby making the car more efficient. There is no restriction on air pressure in the tyres, meaning manufacturers can use higher than recommended pressures to reduce rolling resistance, reducing engine load and fuel use.
Commenting on its investigation, Which? pointed out that there is no official body in place to police the testing procedure and monitor results from laboratory to laboratory.
Its report said: “All manufacturers follow the same test procedure, but can select any accredited lab to use for the test. It’s very hard to get truly repeatable and comparable results when using multiple labs.
“If all that wasn’t enough, the rules allow carmakers to arbitrarily knock 4 per cent off the results at the end of the cycle.”
Almost all carmakers have met European targets for reducing carbon emissions several years before the deadlines.
However, the campaign group Transport & Environment says those figures are misleading, estimating that between 2008 and 2013 average emissions in Europe fell by 31 grams per kilometre – and more than half the improvements came from sleight of hand rather than technological progress.
The European Commission wants to introduce a new test by 2017 that more accurately mirrors real driving.
Monique Goyens, director general of BEUC, which represents European Consumer Organisations, said: “The whole testing system in Europe is flawed because there is no room for independent testing and there is no obligation to make real life testing, on-theroad testing.”
Peter de Nayer, an independent car tester, said: “The authorities have tried to do emissions testing on the cheap.
“Cars should be lifted at random from showrooms, when in reality they are supplied by the manufacturers, which leaves open the possibility for the cars to be specially prepared like this.”