Mercedes Emissions ???

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
I think we can take it as given that ALL manufactures have been cheating.

Just as nobody ever achieves the fuel economy figures quoted, so too with the emissions.
 
I think we can take it as given that ALL manufactures have been cheating.

Just as nobody ever achieves the fuel economy figures quoted, so too with the emissions.

Article in today's Telegraph - you might expect Euro 6 cars to be close to the maximum emission level but not 12x it as the A class is in real driving conditions. Even the saintly XE is 8x

image.jpg
 
I think that it is clear this is across the board and not just a small handful of manufacturers.

This is what happens when those in power keep moving the goalposts, and the manufacturers are trying to compete with each other. Someone will decide to cheat, then the others have to cheat to remain competitive.
 
I think that it is clear this is across the board and not just a small handful of manufacturers.

This is what happens when those in power keep moving the goalposts, and the manufacturers are trying to compete with each other. Someone will decide to cheat, then the others have to cheat to remain competitive.

When the legislation is a Mickey Mouse test that bears no relation to real world driving (eg CO2/fuel economy) then yes the criticism can be levelled there.
Exonerating cheating by blaming the legislators though is to excuse a thief because someone had something desirable. Cheating is cheating - end of.
 
I always thought the silence of the other manufacturers during the VW scandal was deafening.
 
I might be in a minority of one here, but I always thought the reason the formal emission test, carried out in a tightly controlled environment, was only for certification purposes and was in no way supposed to suggest any resemblance to real-world driving. To now say that the vehicles that successfully passed the tests with no cheating are expected to meet those emission levels in real-world driving is not only changing the goal posts with the ball in mid-flight, but is also highly unrealistic.

If manufacturers have been conducting the tests honestly to the letter of the law and the cars have passed, then they haven’t cheated. If we, the car-buying public, are unhappy about the real-world level of emissions, then the lawmakers need to change the tests. The problem is deciding what is “real-world” for a global car market. I’m glad I’m not the one who has to decide!
 
I might be in a minority of one here, but I always thought the reason the formal emission test, carried out in a tightly controlled environment, was only for certification purposes and was in no way supposed to suggest any resemblance to real-world driving. To now say that the vehicles that successfully passed the tests with no cheating are expected to meet those emission levels in real-world driving is not only changing the goal posts with the ball in mid-flight, but is also highly unrealistic.

I agree and don't blame the manufacturers who played by the rules.

The real mistake was a lack of insight by the legislators who judged diesels as environmentally friendly and taxed them accordingly. It must have been known throughout the automotive industry long before now that the magnitude of real world emissions was of a different order to the tests. The legislators were either not up to speed or they chose to ignore it.
 
The underlying problem is that the environmental lobby, though sometimes well intentioned, are often scientifically illiterate. As a result, politicians are pressured into "being seen to do something" even if that something is irrelevant, or worse, downright bad.

McNamara hit the nail on the head when he extolled people to measure what's important, not make important what you can measure. It's no surprise you get the wrong result when you measure the wrong thing and make decisions based on those measurements.

Do some research on the rationale for catalytic converters and how (in)effective they are in low ambient temperatures and weep.
 
Last edited:
McNamara hit the nail on the head when he extolled people to measure what's important, not make important what you can measure. It's no surprise you get the wrong result when you measure the wrong thing and make decisions based on those measurements.

As in everything in life, the variables are unlimited, and to take a section then base your opinion on them is somewhat crude.

As an example, emissions and taxation make me laugh. Cars are charged VED based on emissions, yet just because a car has a higher emission during testing does not mean it will emit more than a car rated lower on the emission test. It is all down to everyday usage, and a low emission car used daily will emit more than a higher emission car used infrequently.

A whole culture of purchasing low emission cars has evolved from this data, yet it is flawed. Unfortunately, those in power often wear blinkers and only see what they want to see, then force their opinions on to the populace.

Global Warming is another issue. I'm not going to dispel Global Warming because I am not versed in the science, but what I will say is that for every scientist that declares that using fossil fuels is encouraging Global Warming, you can find another scientist that will state that Global Warming is a naturally occurring phenomenon and that Man has very little impact on Global Warming. Who do you believe?

We each have opinions and most of our opinions are harmless, yet as soon as someone gains power, in local politics, national politics or even continental politics, your opinions suddenly become dictatorial in nature, forcing millions to abide by your opinions. If you have it wrong, who pays? Usually the entire nation, or continent.
 
I instinctively distrust anything driven by the Green lobby because as soon as extreme views are taken heed of rationality goes out the window.

The politicians and legislators must be feeling just as embarrassed with this whole affair as the manufacturers. They have produced a complex taxation model based on a flawed concept. We know it's going to change yet again when a more realistic testing regime is agreed and established but they wouldn't dare make it retrospective so the taxation model will get even more complex.

I always wanted them to scrap VED and add it to the taxation on fuel. That would produce a simple and equitable system that taxed according to use.
It will never happen of course because although it's rational it would be a vote loser for the political party that did it.
 
I always wanted them to scrap VED and add it to the taxation on fuel. That would produce a simple and equitable system that taxed according to use.
It will never happen of course because although it's rational it would be a vote loser for the political party that did it.

Well, they already tax us with a fuel duty and VAT on top, so we are actually paying for each litre of diesel or petrol we burn, but VED defies belief because you could pay VED on a vehicle that never gets used.

VED is unfair because you are being charged on emissions of a specific vehicle, even though those emission are subject to usage. Four people could all buy E350 estates, yet each person will emit different levels of contaminants based on their personal usage while their VED remains the same. If one person does 50,000 miles a year, we could argue that they are polluting 5 times the person doing just 10,000 a year.

If we applied the same VED rules to football, people choosing to support a Premier League team would pay more VED than those choosing a Division Four team, in that Man U would produce more flatulence per game than Scunthorpe simply because more fans would attend.

Freedom of choice should not be taxed. If someone does 50,000 miles a year, their tax should be no different regardless of whether they drive a Merc or a Ford. Tax on fuel use is the fairest way to go. VED just doesn't make sense any more.

(My mother's SportKA was £225 a year, while my C220 was £180 a year. The SportKA did around 2,000 miles a year while the C220 did 15,000 miles a year).

We have to remember that politicians don't live in the real world. They live in a world where they can watch porn and put it on expenses. Who remembers Two Jags (who later became Three Jags)? What about the MP who had his mortgage on his second property paid for with expenses, even though he already owned a first property in London?

(The list could go on, and on, but we don't have the time and patience to analyse every single abuse of our money, do we?)
 
I have to pay £81 for my motorbike and Mrs pays nothing for her car, that's what I call strange taxation
 
...Cars are charged VED based on emissions, yet just because a car has a higher emission during testing does not mean it will emit more than a car rated lower on the emission test....

Valid point, but on a technical note VED is charged based on CO2 rating, but not on any harmful emissions as such.

The purpose of linking VED to CO2 rating is simply to help the UK government meet its global CO2 targets.

Noble cause no doubt, but just to clarify that VED is not directly linked to emissions affecting the quality of the air we breathe or level of harmful particles etc.

(I say 'not directly linked' because overall there is probably a rough correlation between CO2 rating and other emissions, e.g. large engines will generally produce more of both etc).
 
Part of the issue is that government officials often lack the knowledge or resources to properly control large manufacturers of complicated technology.

They tend to rely on the integrity of the industry itself, in part perhaps due to having no other option, in part probably also due to being naive.

I am currently involved in an insurance case, where a small fire destroyed a piece of expensive equipment. The local fire service attended, quickly put out the fire (no one was hurt), and carried out an investigation. Their conclusion as to cause of the fire simply relied on the explanation they received from the equipment manufacturer as to why the fire started. Of course the manufacturer (large American multinational) provided an explanation that blamed the fire on operator and maintenance issues rather than design or manufacturing defects, thus exonerating the manufacturer from any legal liability... the insurers are taking a different view though.

The point is that it is all too easy to turn to the manufacturers and simply expect them to be helpful and honest even when they might get hurt financially.
 
Last edited:
I wonder if in fact its possible to meet the recommendations with current technology, for diesels, without drastic changes to size and performance of vehicle and keeping costs near current levels.
 
Well what has happened is motor companies take some years to design and manufacture engines,in recent times companies have joined in engine manufacture to cut costs,but the sheer speed of legislation about green issues has meant that engines that were designed 5 years ago and built two yeas ago cannot meet the new limits that are set,although the greens will cheer, it is small beans compered to India,China and the USA not signing up to the new levels,the pollution coming from them is crazy so cars are the main target,I am knocking down the garage and building a stable .
 
The whole emission saga and taxation makes zero sense to a logical person and is something I have been talking for years that is completely flawed
a. The whole CO2 emission is based on a lab test that has very little relationship into reality. Is ambient temp on a rolling road with controlled acceleration/deceleration for a simulated driving pattern
b. As the above is a test it doesn't take into consideration the actual consumption and of course emissions of an invitational car/driver
c. It takes no consideration of the actual driving distances that each car/driver does when is calculating the tax/green levy

When we see actual examples then for example a Prius driver doing 10K mostly motorway driving is not much difference to any other similar size car of same generation. Both of them are expecting to have similar consumption thus similar CO2 emissions but from tax point of view the Prius driver is green
And now what I hate most.... I drive a "highly polluting" according to the government 911 so I have to pay 515 pounds a year for that privilege as I have 255g/Km. A person who has once again a Prius or similar pays zero because his emissions are under 100g/Km. Lets assume the lab figures are accurate.. But I only do 3K miles per year (5K KM) and he does 15K miles (24K KM) which means I emit 1.3 tons of CO2 in a year and he does 2.4 tons... But to the tax man my car that spends most of the time in the garage is a polluting vehicle and the other one is not...

The for VED should have been on fuel and not as a separate item. Not only it was going to be fairer and was going to be directly proportional to your driving style and distances travel but nobody was going to be able to get way with out paying. Since the tax disc is gone and if you believe the reports the number of untaxed vehicles has increased...

That is my two pence

TG
 
The discrepancy in annual mileage is 'charged' through Fuel Duty.

The combination of charge per vehicle type (VED) and charge per quantity of fuel (Fuel Duty) is supposed to create an overall balance based on actual pollution and road useage.

But the issue with taxes in general - CT, NIC, IR, CGT, IHT, etc etc - is that there is always some sort of pseudo-logic for their existence, while in reality most of them are there simply because they have always been there, or because this is the current political status quo, and not necessarily because they are right or make sense.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom