Although here at CC we don’t spend much time covering the news in the automobile world, cataclysmic events like the VW diesel scandal don’t exactly happen often. Since we’re focused more on history, the longer term repercussions are what particularly interest us, and those consequences are quickly coming into greater focus. Let’s get the key issue out right up front: the passenger car diesel’s best days are absolutely over, and a genuine paradigm shift has begun. But it’s going to affect car makers in quite different ways.
The key issue is that it’s not just VW’s “cheating” small diesels that are emitting more NOx than what they are supposed to. Many, if not most of Europe’s other small passenger car diesels also emit more NOx in over-the-road tests than what they were certified for in laboratory certifications (although not to the extent of VW’s). But that’s not from cheating (we assume, until someone else is actually caught) by using software “defeat” tricks. It’s simply because the certification schemes used in the EU, by independent for-profit labs, simply don’t reflect what the actual on-road emissions typically end up being. It’s a reality all the European manufacturers have been gaming very aggressively, and the VW diesel scandal just happened to blow that all into the open. They’re not denying it. And there’s no doubt that over-the-road certifications are coming, and that most diesel makers are essentially standing with their pants down, as their current crop of engines will not meet them, never mind just meeting the new Euro 6 standard in the lab.
Essentially, all of Europe made a colossal bet on diesels, fueled by government incentives (lower taxes on diesel fuel) and encouragement, as a way to meet ever-lower EU CO2 targets. And those targets, which are currently 130 grams per km, are scheduled to fall to 95 gpk in 2021. This nightmare couldn’t have happened at a worse time.
The upshot: the diesel will have to give way to the gas-hybrid in Europe, at least to a very considerable extent. Why? Because cleaning up the smaller diesel engines to meet actual emission standards will simply be too expensive, at least for the lower/middle part of the market. Currently, existing small diesels cost some 1,300 euros more than comparable gas engines. The new Euro 6 regs are adding some 600 euros to that. But the additional changes required to make them truly compliant will cost at least 300 euros or more. That simply starts to make the diesel an un-economic proposition for buyers of lower-cost cars.
This is hitting those makers that have been using Lean NOx Trap (LNT) technology, such as Opel, Renault and Fiat particularly hard. VW uses LNT in some of its engines as well as Select Catalytic Reduction (SCR, with urea fluid).
And if tax incentives on diesel fuel or other regulatory changes come about, it will only change the economics of the diesel for the worse. And who’s going to get hurt the most from this? Perhaps surprisingly, not VW. Certainly, Volkswagen faces enormous costs as a consequence of their actions, from owners, dealers, regulatory agencies, and the costs of dealing with the non-compliant cars already sold. But that’s all going to end at some point, and VW will survive it, one way or another. And a disproportionate percentage of its cars are more to the mid-upper and upper end (Audi, etc.), whose prices are high enough that the increased cost of truly clean diesels will not be a burden. VW is big enough that it can afford to bring more hybrids to market, which it has already begun.
“This VW tidal wave will accelerate the shift,” said a senior executive at a French supplier of diesel emissions technology. “Some carmakers aren’t ready for this.” (via autonews.com) Ironically, it’s some of the other European car makers that will get hit the hardest, because they are least ready for this paradigm shift to hybrids, and have invested so much in diesels, especially in the lower spectrum of the market that would be most impacted by these changes. Think PSA (Peugeot/Citroen), Renault, Opel, Ford and Fiat. PSA is particularly vulnerable, as diesels make up 60% of its sales, and its only hybrid is a relatively expensive diesel-hybrid that is not a harbinger of the future. PSA lacks the resources to develop new hybrids on its own.
Renault is in a similar (or worse) pickle, having bet huge on diesels and pure EVs, which have not yet become commercial success. Renault-Nissan have almost no hybrid programs, and may have bet heavily on the wrong technology. Nissan shelved its hybrid plans after Carlos Ghosn arrived from Renault in 1999.
FCA (Fiat-Chrysler) has no current hybrids, and will struggle to develop a credible hybrid program across its lines. No wonder Sergio Marchionne is so eager to find a merger partner; one with hybrid technology, undoubtedly.
Needless to say, the European car makers outside of VW are very unhappy about what VW has brought raining down on them. The EU diesel certification house of cards is collapsing, and the low-mid price diesel car along with it.
So the losers are obvious. What about the winners? As stated earlier, VW will survive; it has the largest R&D budget in Europe, by far. And it already has a toe in the hybrid market, albeit a little one, so far. Long term, VW will do what it has to to adapt to a changed world. And its premium brands will help fuel that transition.
The biggest winner undoubtedly is Toyota, which already offers a hybrid model in just about every size class in Europe. Honda has also improved its hybrid tech recently, and may benefit, but not to the scale that Toyota will. Ironically, the Japanese have been in retreat mode from Europe in the past decade or so, but thanks to VW, that will likely change to one extent or another.
One thing is for certain: this event will signal the biggest fundamental change in Europe’s car market since the first energy crisis and the arrival of the Japanese brands on their shores. The first triggered the whole diesel boom, most especially with the VW diesel Golf/Passat, and the second forced the Europeans to drastically address and improve reliability. Now once again, a massive change will have to take place, and the Europeans are going to have to play catch-up to the Japanese. The question is whether all of them will be able to.
What I don’t like is that there aren’t any car companies here in the USA who are allowed to offer diesel for those who need or want them. That’s unforgivable. I want to breathe clean (pollution free) air as much as the rest of the world, but I fail to see how anyone can build a car engine that doesn’t pollute. If anyone can produce a diesel engine that doesn’t emit any carbon monoxide pollution into the air, I’ll check it out.
The US car companies and any other who wishes to play in the US market are free to bring diesels to market if they desire. Yes it is expensive to make an engine that is compliant, but it can be done and there are examples on sale in the US. If nothing else the BMW X5 which was tested along side the VWs, is compliant and probably other BMW models as well.
GM does offer a diesel Cruze and it doesn’t sell very well in part because the economics just don’t work out. It is expected to be dropped from the line up.
Huh? There are more diesel options available in the U.S. now than at any other time in the past. Putting aside the probably temporary sales ban on VW/Audi’s 2.0TDI’s, there are at least these:
VW/Audi/Porsche offers a common 3.0V6 with urea injection in various models
Jeep has a 3.0V6 that is also used in the RAM 1500 pickup
Mercedes has a 3.0V6, I believe a 5cylinder and even a 4cylinder
BMW has two different diesels, an I6 and an I4
Chevy offers a diesel in the Cruze (for 2015, not sure about 2016).
And then there are all of the heavy pickup trucks, all with diesel options and I believe I left a couple of others out.
Who exactly NEEDS diesel? I’m as big of a fan of diesel and VW but is there really a NEED for a diesel? Examples, please.
BTW, I think you meant NoX, not CO. Diesels produce much less Carbon Monoxide than gasoline engines.
I’ve said this before, but it bears repeating: U.S. emissions standards do not prohibit diesel. Neither the EPA nor even the California Air Resources Board say companies can’t sell diesel cars; you can buy new turbodiesel cars in California and some people do.
The greater prevalence of passenger car diesels in countries with Euro-style emissions is because the Euro standards essentially give diesels special treatment. Diesels are legally allowed produce more of certain emissions than would be permissible for a gasoline engine. The difference keeps getting narrower, but it has continued to exist through subsequent generations of standards.
U.S. (and California-style) emissions rules don’t do that. They say, “If you manufacture and distribute a new passenger car, it has to meet these standards, regardless of what fuel it burns. We’re not going to make special exceptions for diesel.” Turbodiesels can be made to (legitimately) meet the gasoline standards, but it’s harder and it costs more. The market for passenger car diesels is small enough that many manufacturers have decided not to bother or offer a much smaller range of diesels than they do in other markets. That’s it. The regulators haven’t singled out diesels for special restrictions; in fact, they’re doing the exact opposite.
This commenter has posted this essentially identical comment at almost every article where diesels are mentioned for many months now. It appears that facts don’t sway his determination to believe that companies are not allowed to sell diesels in the US.
This is going to be positively tectonic once all is said and done. My (poorly thought out) prediction: VAG will approach insolvency/bankruptcy and will be bought whole by Toyota.
No, actually I think if it gets near that point, they will be bailed out by Germany. Lower Saxony state holds a 20% share. I’m not sure if the EU laws allow such a bailout but something will happen to allow it if not. Volkswagen is the car of the people, no way will it be sold to a foreign entity.
You mean, the German people (AKA Deutsche Leute, Die Volk). Otherwise, Toyota has as much right to be called a maker of Peoples’ Cars as anyone else.
I was being a bit tongue in cheek being as how Volkswagen literally translates to people’s car….
My point was that I do not believe Germany the country/government would allow VW to be sold to a foreign company. I also believe that Japan would not allow Toyota to be sold to a foreign company.
US however was fine with giving Chrysler to the Italians.
And the British government was fine in letting Rover Group be sold off to BMW.
In the past, the ECE has actually imposed fines in cases where they decided a member government was supporting a business entity in such a way as to interfere with free market competition, etc. One of the specific examples of which I’m aware was after the sale of nationalized Alfa Romeo to Fiat in the ’80s. I don’t know how frequently that’s happened since then, and of course a lot of it comes down to the question of what you call unfair market interference and what you allow in the interests of staving off local economic collapse (which I assume is your basic definition of the term “politically fraught”).
My guess is is that if Germany decides to bail out VW, Brussels(aka the EU) might moan about it but they will do nothing. Germany controls the purse strings and the EU most likely will not want to rile up the Germans especially after the Greek issues over the past year. As most of the money was put up by Germany for Bailing Greece out, I doubt that the EU is going to put up much of a fight about the Germans propping up VW. It is in Brussels best interest that VW not go under or declare bankruptcy as that means that they(the EU) would have to scramble to figure out how to manage these cars with VW gone. Plus I think the EU has more important issues with Greece and those refugees then to have to deal with any more discord in the EU.
Now I could be wrong and the EU may try to crack down on Germany if they bail out VW but I am pretty sure Germany will simply flip Brussels the finger and ignore them. Germany is the biggest financial backer in the EU and he who controls the purse controls power.
Don’t forget Ukraine/Russia either.
I think you’re likely right. On the other hand, Germany is in a position of sufficient power that they could probably also convince Brussels to sign off on some kind of bailout. Asking for permission is easier if everyone knows you’re likely to do it anyway.
However, if I were a German taxpayer, I would be pretty irate at the idea of the government funding a bailout to save Volkswagen from the consequences of its own admitted actions. Of course, I live in the little-people world of moral ideas and am continually appalled to see how big business has become not only above the law, but subject to some sort of mirror-world logic where things fall up.
And on top of that, a collapse a VW would also affect the other countries in Europe where it operates, not only Germany.
If it comes to it the German government will have to bail out VW or face political suicide.The chancellor is already reeling from the Syrian immigrant criss.Do not forget that VAG is the 2nd biggest car maker with plants in South America and Eastern Europe as well as Spain and Wolfsburg. Remember what happened to Detroit when production stopped?. So VW were so desperate to get into the US diesel market the had to cheat the EPA but the kept it up for years before one tester got wise, but doesnt it show how ineffective the EPA is. Come on people do not let does jerks loose jobs!
Like GM in the USA, VAG is essentially too big to fail in Europe. The fallout of VAG disappearing would be enormous in Germany, and consequently Europe.
Other manufacturers would probably even support a bailout, like Ford did, just for their own sake. Wouldn’t want to pay much, much more for those parts from the same supplier.
No it won’t. There will be some horsetrading in back rooms in Washington and Berlin and we in Europe will get lots of Monsanto chicken (the ones with 6 wings and 7 legs).
VW might survive but from what I read on other forums, it might restart on a new base by using another name just like how Maxwell became Chrysler. Then some brands and division they own might be sold (Bugatti, Lamborghigni, Bentley) or close (Seat) and there also some overseas operations who don’t float well currently in Argentina and Brazil.
Besides the electric car and hybrid. We might re-explore the use of natural gas or propane where some folks had proved a long time ago, it could be use for muscle car as well as mentionned in old Popular Science articles. As for ethanol, corn ethanol was a big fail, cellulosic ethanol might be more promising.
Back in 2004, Toyota and Shell had experimented in the UK, some cars who was fueled with diesel extracted from natural gas. https://www.dieselnet.com/news/2004/07toyota.php
http://www.autoweb.com.au/cms/A_102230/title_Toyota-Trials-UltraClean-Diesel-Engine-/newsarticle.html
I hadn’t heard a word since then.
Of course this will hit the French the hardest: the most diesel and the least R&D capital. VW is biggest and has the best access to the only EU country that’s not in seemingly permanent economic stagnation. FCA may be able to make enough selling Jeeps here in the USA to develop an acceptable hybrid before it’s too late.
The surprise, to me, with the European market is the relatively low penetration of Toyota and Honda even now. Obviously, EU incumbent automakers were helped in the 70s and 80s by the fact that much of their engineering was small-car engineering (Simca 1100, Mini, etc). So it’s understandable that higher-cost gasoline, etc., was not as disruptive to European manufacturers, as to US ones.
Still, we’re several years past the era of Austin-Rover cooperating with Honda. I changed from a preference for the non-sporty Golf to the non-sporty Civic sometime in the 1990s; European cars aren’t intrinsically nicer as they often were in the 70s and 80s.
So why not hybrids, or Toyotas and Hondas, already? For most people concerned with fuel use, the hybrid is a better option than diesel simply because so many trips are low-speed, with stop-and-go, rather than longer highway drives. (I suppose people with good public transit may limit car use to relatively longer trips, but that can’t be everyone in the entire EU.) If the pervasiveness of diesel is entirely an artefact of government tax/subsidy schemes, the change could be quite brutal.
Sales quotas also helped a lot against the penetration of japanese makers in EU.
To circumvent these, they started to build cars in EU, first in England.
Toyota really won market shares in France when they built a factory in Valenciennes (which is located in our local rustbelt) where Yarises were and still are assembled.
Well, it’s also true that EU makers have always been good at building smaller cars.
Japanese cars really became competitive against euripean cars at the end of the 90’s.
Before that, they only had their built quality to brag about and, except for Hondas, were considered substandard on many other characteristics such as braking, handling, comfort.
I think the problem with many Japanese cars is that they do not seem to be “European” enough in the eyes of the public, be it from the PoV of styling or handling, while at the same time not having the advantage of cheper purchase price like the Koreans. Japanese manufacturers were also weak in so far as diesels were concerned; this will become less important but there’s still the perception I mentioned above. In Austria the most successful Japanese manufacturer is Mazda and it is no small coincidence that current Mazdas are the most “European” Japanese cars built.
Ford is probably in much better shape with hybrids due to having made very good hybrid powertrains for a while now. If they pursue dedicated hybrid vehicles (rather than the retrofits they have produced thus far) with the same competency as their hybrid powertrains they will be a formidable competitor to Toyota. There have been whisperings of this, but with fuel prices so low they may have developed short sightedness.
Through my employer who has thousands of vehicles including Ford Escape hybrids as well as Prii I have driven both extensively, about 40k miles in Escape hybrids and a few thousand miles in the Prius. We fight to get the Esape hybrids as well as fight to avoid the Prius in the motor pool. The Escape is a decent vehicle that happens to get good MPG’s for what it is, the Prius is very efficient and that’s it. It’s on road competency and NVH is a cut below any generation Ford Focus which is the most common car in our motor pool. It’s a brilliant car and I understand their popularity, but it’s best suited to the urban driver.
My wife has a 2015 VW TDI so I am familiar with those as well. All things being equal, the diesel rocks, but apparently they are not equal. From my experience, a hybrid future is not necessarily a bad thing and may be a transition to something even better. I have a very successful friend who owns a Tesla, whoa baby – the future is so bright I have to wear shades as they sang back in the day.
What an exciting time to be buying and driving cars!
And yet, Ford Escapes rate Below Average predicted reliability. When someone else has to pay expenses, one can afford to be choosy.
Good point, the Prius is very reliable and a very sensible automobile for a lot of folks and fleets. I looked at one a few years ago, but the seat comfort and noise was bothersome enough to get a Camy instead. As I recall the Prius at the time was about the least expensive car to drive when you properly account for everything, it probably is now as well. It also has the advantage of being socially acceptable to professionals who are not into pissing a bunch of money away on a fancy car.
I can’t figure out why so many people can endure the living standard in Prius. Its only advantage is economy, while comfort, visibility and roominess are so compromised, and rust resistance is doubtful. It only reflects people who bought Cavalier in the past immigrated to Prius, because those two has similar pleasure of use ( if can say so )
And maybe that’s why people not so desperate for economy are much more likely to shop for other hybrid version of regular models than specialty green cars.
while comfort, visibility and roominess are so compromised, and rust resistance is doubtful.
Clearly that’s not the opinion of the vast majority of the automotive press and the millions of Prius owners and taxi operators. You have the right to your opinions, but the rust resistance part of your comment is not even a valid opinion, and clearly suggests that you have strong anti-Prius feelings.
And obviously your last line is not reflective of reality, as the Prius has outsold all other hybrid passenger cars combined.
Prius before 2003 almost went extinct in Michigan, and early second generation examples are showing signs of rust here and there, also too many owners upgraded the rims ( which is common for cars start to rust really bad here. Rim is the first part really getting ugly beyond repair ) and usually by this time the life is numbered for cars as daily driver if purchased new here. ( similar vehicles are Lincoln LS, late D186 Sable and so )
Rust resistance wise, D186 cars, Prius are both doubtful, it could be acceptable in many other parts of world but definitely not here in Michigan. And vast majority of automotive press could be very wrong about rust resistance because they don’t live in such harsh climate long to know. On the other hand, Chevrolet Corsica is really durable in terms of rust resistance, many of those have peeling off clearcoat, paint, but similar amount of rust damage from the road salt compared to many Prius still on road here. But rust-resistance could be the only advantage from Corsica though.
And I don’t really see that many Prius here neither. Ford Fusion, Toyota Camry are more common here ( probably because of -20 winter, it would be really freezing cold with gasoline engine that small ) , and there are many other hybrid versions of regular models. Lincoln MKZ hybrid is another example. Despite of what I heard of Ford Escape hybrid, I rarely see them maybe for their even worse rust-resistance, suspension is starting to detach even in late models of previous generation.
So far, none of the purpose-made hybrid vehicle is suitable for daily driving without significant compromise, and visibility/comfort compromised way too much for the low co-efficiency shape. ( maybe except Cadillac ELR for front row, it’s roomy for two persons at a Cruze size sacrificing backseats completely, and only GM techs in Warren drive them ) and it’s far better to start with an efficient mainstream model with hybrid system for the best balance.
I may agree with you on the 1st and 2nd generation Prius but not the current one.
While I don’t like Priuses, I reckon they must be quite durable since they passed one of the toughest test : many of them are used as taxicabs in Paris.
And more and more them are bought by taxi drivers themselves instead of taxicab companies. In my opinion, this is a sign that Priuses are good, comfortable and durable cars.
Moreover, Priuses are sold in SW form over here. And now you can get hybrid technology on Toyota’s Auris, which also exists in SW form. So roominess is no longer a major issue.
Inside, the Prius is effectively a hatchback Corolla. Visibility is no worse than most modern sedans (the Three model has a backup camera). Don’t know or care about rust-resistance, where I live.
I agree on some things. I feel comfort, handling, performance of the Prius would all be unacceptable to the media in a non-hybrid in that price class. But it really doesn’t have any true head-to-head competition, so it always gets a pass. It’s not a bad car, it is very economical and reliable, but it’s not for me.
Rust, I don’t know about that. Chryslers still have rust issues, haven’t noticed major issues with pretty much anything else.
In my opinion, the VW scandal might bring a end to a complete non-sense that’s been during since the mid-90’s.
Before that, diesels were mostly used by drivers with very high mileage (taxis, travelling salesmen, delivery companies and such) because they were sure to recoup higher purchase prices and maintenance costs with cheaper fuel and lower fuel consumption.
Moreover, diesels from PSA and Mercedes were regular cockroaches of ther road (c). Some of them are still doing their duty in Africa.
But, starting in the 90’s-00’s, you could suddenly buy powerful turbodiesel engines in any range of cars, from a Peugeot 206 Hdi to a BMW 525 tds.
So many bought these on the false assumption that it would be cheaper than the gasoline equivalent, even if any car magazine proved the opposite.
In France, the shift began at that time. It was worsened with tax incentives based only on CO2 emissions where diesels scored far better than their gasoline counterparts.
As a consequence, 60 to 70 % of sales, both new and used, are diesels nowadays.
On cars bigger than a Fusion, you might have the choice between 2 to 3 gas engines (a bit more if there are hi-po engines) while 4 to 6 different diesel engines are offered.
Although most buyers might not do enough mileage to recoup higher prices and maintenance costs, especially on small cars whose gas engines have always been enough fuel efficient for common use (a 205 with a 1.1 liter gas engine could easily do an average of 40 MPG).
I wish this scandal will put an end to that.
But, in France, diesels won’t go easily because people are attached to it (you can read it in the comments on news websites).
People had been told that diesel were less polluting than gas during the last 40 years so they don’t unterstand being suddenly told the opposite, especially today when distrust in french officials is at its highest point.
Things are even more blurred by politicians themselves who want to defend PSA, Renault and french employment.
When some started questionning the accuracy of emission testing after the VW scandal and asked if french makers really build emissions-compliant vehicles, the very first answers of the Secretary of Ecology was that France should stand guard against demagogic declarations that could damage french interests.
I’ve never had the pleasure of visiting France, but if the urban air quality is as bad as we hear about in the US, there may be a sea change when the average Frenchman changes his mind about the issue and chooses the the health of his family over nationalistic guilt to buy a diesel powered domestic automobile.
The hard work on hybrids is already done – PSA, Renault, VW, FCA, etc can stand on those shoulders and make the transition – or show what they can do when pressed and bring something better to market than diesel or hybrid powertrains.
I wish you were right but diesel love is deeply entranched in minds over here and it goes way back (I guess they are more Oldsmobile diesels still running in France than in the whole United States!).
Moreover, there is some kind of opposition between Paris and the rest of the country that makes a brutal shift difficult. Paris and its inhabitants, who are more and more against diesels (and cars in general), are seen as elitists who are so far away from real life and down-to-earth laborers that noboby in a right state of mind should listen to them (I’m exaggerating here, but not that much…).
It sounds like our countries are more similar than one might think.
Oldsmobile diesel is indeed rare in the US. Even in the most Oldsmobile concentrating Lansing, Michigan, I don’t see too many of them neither. I never see an Oldsmobile diesel moving itself for quite a while, only saw one Oldsmobile 88 with Diesel hood ornament for sale in a remote countryside dealership.
It used to be like this here in Austria but diesel and gasoline prices are now almost equal, so you need to be a high mileage driver to justify the extra purchase price and maintenance costs of a diesel, and I believe the market is slowly shifting.
Thanks Costantini your comments really hit the spot.
I’m 48 and have never owned a diesel car. It never fails to surprise our fellow citizens, never mind that diesel ownership in France is economically dubious – short of a certain (high!) yearly mileage – and environmentally unsound. Many cars are used for daily commuting, and the emissions of a small, cold, revved-up diesel engine are nothing short of disastrous.
When I was a kid, the only diesel cars you saw on French streets were either taxis or large – typically Peugeot – wagons. They were lemons but nobody cared, because they fulfilled their duties, and in any case people may not have been as obsessive about speed as they are now. I think the Peugeot 504 diesel wagon’s maximum speed was around 120 km/h, try selling anything such today 🙂 (NB. I remember my 2010, hardly-100hp Renault Clio’s odometer went up to 230 kph, which was ridiculous).
Then, as you rightly mention, things changed in the 1990s (possibly even in the mid-1980s already, with cars like the – surprise, surprise – VW Golf GTD as a harbinger of things to come): all of a sudden, diesel cars could be sexy.
Add to the recipe lower taxes on diesel fuel, a major shift towards diesel among French carmakers in the 1990s and (as mentioned higher up in the discussion) Euro emission standards giving diesel a special treatment as opposed to what exist in the US, and – voilà, you get today’s situation. It will be hard to reverse. At least something positive may come out of this VW scandal and people will start thinking otherwise.
I’d have to question whether owners will actually care about the whole VW issue. I mean, purchasers of new diesels/VWs will, but in the used car market I reckon a lot of owners will just say “So my car’s dirtier than it’s meant to be but is way faster as a result? I’ll take performance thanks”
I couldn’t be happier with the demise of diesel powered cars. I didn’t need this scandal to make me aware of the numerous drawbacks of such a vehicle. It has been obvious for years the best solution for lowering emissions is propane or LPG powered cars. It burns so cleanly that in Australia LPG cars are not required to have any sort of pollution controls. Also the service intervals are greatly extended which reduces the oil required. Plus LPG makes your engine run smoother and great extends the life of the engine.
Diesel in comparison just sucks. Good riddance to this footnote in auto history
Interestingly, when I lived in the Netherlands in the 90s, diesel was considerably more expensive than petrol due to higher taxes frankly designed to encourage LPG use – the Dutch have extensive gas fields in the North Sea.
I believe that we will see the Europeans really start to take electric propulsion seriously in cars. Several concepts were displayed at Frankfurt recently and I believe the larger luxury car makers see Tesla as a serious threat that needs to be and will be countered asap.
Europe has also had tiny electric cars for some time now, mostly regarded as a joke among petrolheads but realistic transportation in some city centers.
There is no reason why they can’t work it from both ends and create a ton of cars functionally equivalent to Nissan’s Leaf – heck, no reason why Renault for example couldn’t have an E-Megane on the market within a year or two, just re-skin the Leaf itself. Battery range can increase if more R&D $ are thrown at it or different technologies are studied – and it already is, the next Leaf, due soon, will supposedly have much greater range than the existing one. Europe (especially France) produces tons of clean energy (and some very dirty admittedly) and certainly has more and more modern electric infrastructure than we do over here even if much of it is grid based and hard-wired (trains, trams, etc)
So never mind hybrids, we may see more of that as a stop-gap measure for the next decade or so but then full electric for many vehicles.
On another tack, people only think of Toyota and maybe Ford and Honda for Hybrid. VW has had the Hybrid Jetta here for a while as well as the Hybrid Touareg since 2011. The Touareg especially is more of a performance car (the battery is paired to the Audi S4’s Supercharged V6) and Porsche uses the same setup in the Cayenne hybrid and I believe Audi uses it in the Q5 (although it may be the Jetta setup instead, too lazy to look it up). There is no logical reason why the Hybrid Jetta powertrain couldn’t be in the Golf, Golf Wagon, as well as the Passat and next Tiguan and probably even the Beetle. Presto, the whole range has a hybrid option. So far they have done just about zero to publicize it in favor of TDI but that would be a very easy shift.
Fiat/Chrysler could probably license hybrid technology from someone to get started, FCA does have SOME experience with it in the aborted Aspen from a few years ago, although that tech is now fairly out of date. Peugeot could build on its Diesel/Hybrid tech and convert it to gasoline – I rode in that DieselHybrid CUV last year, it was great and the tech should be transferable to other vehicles, they do have SOME experience, obviously. Money may be an issue but there are already so many joint ventures for all kinds of things, I just see this as the next area in which to develop common tech between cars and companies. A common (i.e. the same componentry) silent electric engine, battery, and transmission is MUCH more easy to install in very different cars than an internal combustion engine that makes noise and has “character” that wouldn’t be appropriate for different platforms. I don’t think anybody would argue that a Tesla P85D engine couldn’t functionally be used as the E-quivalent engine in theoretical vehicles as disparate as a Mustang E-GT, a Mercedes S-E-550 and a Dodge E-Durango.
Ironically, Europe is not really all that ideal for EVs, except for very small city cars, like already common in London.
Americans tend to commute a lot in their cars, which can work well with an EV. And many Americans have another car in the household to use for longer trips/vacations. But a lot of Europeans use public transport to get to work, and use their cars mainly for recreation. Those trips are often longer than would work for an EV.
For instance, Germans pour down into the Alps for skiing/hiking/mountain biking on weekends and vacations. EVs would be very poorly suited for that kind of usage pattern.
I think pure EVs will have a slog in Europe, except for true city/second cars, smaller than the Leaf. More like the Smart EV and such.
I’m thinking longer term, I.e. with battery swap infrastructure such as what Better Place tried to do. Tesla tried it as well on Interstate 5 at Harris Ranch but gave up in favor of their SuperCharger network which doesn’t really work once a critical mass of users is reached headed from SF to LA on Thanksgiving for example unless the charge process is sped up even more…swapping a battery pack that is standardized could conceivably fix that hurdle, all in the long term of course. Obviously there are plenty of problems to be worked out but that’s what people smarter and more motivated than myself are for but there isn’t really any reason why today’s gas station couldn’t be a future “power supply” station and be ubiquitous. Hey, at one time people swapped out horses on long treks, I wonder if they thought gasoline would ever catch on for using a machine to cross Donner Pass.
I think carparks will be the new filling stations. But by the time that comes around, recharging time will probably have been shortened considerably. Closest we’ve come to battery interchangeability would be Elon Musk’s decision to make his battery technology ‘open source’.
Horses and BBQ gas cylinders…
Possibly, although the problem with that model is that it’s impossible to count on all users having the same parking options. Not everyone consistently uses car parks, just as not everyone has a home garage in which to install a charger.
In Los Angeles, for instance, a lot of retail stores and small offices (such as private medical or dental practices) are in small strip malls. Unless the mall is ‘anchored’ by a big box store or large chain grocery store, the parking lot will usually be very small. Aside from the fact that it’s hard to see the owners of those malls wanting to invest in charging facilities (at least without regulatory requirements or some kind of tax incentives), most small strip malls forbid tenants or employees to park in the lot, so the people who work in those businesses, if they drive to work, will have to find parking on the street.
Many apartments don’t provide any kind of off-street parking, so it’s very common for a lot of people here to park on the street most of the time. I daresay that the only time a lot of L.A. residents park in a carpark is if they’re going to a big shopping mall or visiting some large business with its own parking structure, like a major hospital.
Also, even if you have a garage and work somewhere that has charging facilities in the carpark, being dependent on either for charging could leave you SOL if you move or change jobs. That’s a major hassle, although it might be good for used EV shoppers. (“Must sell — no charger at new job!”)
The other issue is that faster charging is a relative term. By current standards, a charger able to recharge 80% of a 150 km range in two hours would be pretty fast, but that’s still a much different logistical issue than filling a tank of fuel, which seldom takes more than 15 minutes even if you stop to clean the windshield.
Yep, its certainly an urban-skewed idea. I discussed it once with someone whose family owned a significant portion of Adelaide’s CBD and he didn’t seem much interested. The capital outlay would be enormous.
I can see it as part of a future-built city for every public carspace. Much like how we treat our cellphones – putting them on the charger when we get home regardless of how much charging is needed. You park your car and it gets charged, then you get the monthly bill from the utility.
I can’t see it being retrofitted to present city infrastructure though. Just a thought anyway.
I think it’ll be a very long time before EVs can match the internal combustion engine for sustained highway driving range, if they ever do. My own personal crackpot scheme on how to accomplish that would be to copy slot cars and build dedicated EV lanes on the Interstate Highway system with “charging sections” every 50-100 miles where a collector would drop down into a narrow trench and charge the car while moving. The driver would have to set up an EZPass type account and be billed as a toll automatically. Way easier and safer to accomplish with the advent of autonomous driving.
Does it even matter, though? I don’t think so. The next-gen Leaf and Chevy Bolt that come out next year will have batteries with 200 miles of range; Tesla’s Supercharger can charge to 80% (of 250-miles) in 40 minutes. For a 300 mile road trip starting at full, you’re not spending considerably more time filling up than you would with a regular car. That’s gonna be the norm across the board very soon.
Id agree – EVs are great for short distance urban and semi-urban use but have exactly the same congestion impact as any other car. This is against a big political and expenditure push on public transport infrastructure (I’m speaking for the UK here but suspect other countries are similar).
Any one not living in a major city is unlikely to choose and EV for their primary vehicle
For where I live and how we use our vehicles, an EV would be about as useful as a jumbo jet.
The problem with electric cars IMHO is not the motors but the real-world range and recharge time. I routinely travel 75 miles from my office to the furthest county in which I practice ( I’m a criminal/traffic defense lawyer), am there for half an hour to two hours at most, and then travel 75 miles back. That’s 150 miles, 2 and a half hours drive time, with either AC or heater on, and the last several miles back up the Blue Ridge. Am I going to risk that trip in an electric with a 200 mile range when it takes hours to recharge?
If I find myself low on gas, I can just find the nearest gas station and fill up in 5 minutes. In an electric, I’m looking at a recharge time of hours. That’s not practical in the real world.
Until recharging is as convenient as filling a gas tank electrics will be limited to around town users who don’t need to travel. Will technology make that happen in the future? Sure it will. But when? And at what cost? And will it be driven by market forces, or will government mandates essentially force people like myself into a vehicle which will not serve the purpose I need solely in the name of making electrics financially viable for manufacturers?
I honestly don’t understand why some electric car maker has not figured out a simple solution to this. There’s already an existing business with the perfect model – Blue Rhino. Simply build interchangeable battery packs which could be used on any electric vehicle and then returned to be recharged while you pick up another which could be easily dropped in your car – like cylinders on gas grills.
The problem with battery swapping is manifold.
First, your example with Blue Rhino: different size vehicles are going to need different size battery packs.
With battery swapping, you have to switch to leasing your battery, because that’s the only way it would work. Batteries degrade, and there’s no way to both own and swap too. That’s why the Better Place model went down; in the US, owners seem to prefer to own their batteries.
The biggest reason is that it’s going to be obsolete before long, as battery range and charging speed continue to improve. The investment in a national battery swapping system would be huge, especially with the issues of different batteries for different cars and such. If it really was a better idea, it would have caught on.
EVs will slowly but steadily improve their functionality, which will make them more acceptable over time for a wide variety of users. In the meantime, other options exist to bridge the gap, like plug-in hybrids and just plain hybrids.
Gas stations were a huge infrastructure investment too. Could you imagine having to start from scratch building what we have today?
You make good points that they would need to be standardized, or at least standardized in a relatively few number of sizes. I don’t know if I see that happening, at least not without some major advances in the technology.
Faster charging seems more realistic, like Tesla’s Superharger stations, which already give them 170 miles of range in 30 minutes. But sometimes I wonder about the safety aspects of pumping that much electricity into a car in a short amount of time. Not that pumping gas is without risk I suppose.
The only ‘winner’ I see in this is regulatory agencies. They’ll get a bigger budget and more control, while the mfgs pay FAR out the ass. We the customers will get screwed out of choices.
The whole higher emissions argument is kind of B.S. from where I sit. From what I just read, all of the diesel mfgs have been gaming the system in one way or another and I don’t see any environmental catastrophes. So its a bunch of overblown crap. Whatever small amount of pollution is saved by DEF systems is surely eclipsed by the factories building this add on garbage in the first place. And hybrids/electrics aren’t the answer either. The ‘throwaway’ nature of these cars flies in the face of so called sustainability, as well as the environmental implications of mining the elements used in the batteries. Recycling the toxic goo inside is yet another problem inherent.
Diesels like anything aren’t ‘perfect’, but they have unique qualities that make them a viable option. Sheer longevity is just one of those, as well as their real world performance. The best thing would be if regulators would back off. Set a standard, and stick to it. No one, I mean NO ONE is in favor of pollution. But at some point we all have to make our own choices, and cutting your nose off to spite your face isn’t one of them.
“The whole higher emissions argument is kind of B.S. from where I sit. From what I just read, all of the diesel mfgs have been gaming the system in one way or another and I don’t see any environmental catastrophes. So its a bunch of overblown crap.”
Have you been paying attention to what has been happening in Paris?
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/03/pariss-first-attempt-at-car-free-day-brings-big-drop-in-air-and-noise-pollution
It’s a real problem with the scale in which they use diesel, beyond a doubt.
Yikes! My chest is getting tight in South Carolina looking at that.
Sheer longevity is no longer a quality of diesel engines, at least on cars (not talking about trucks here).
Both Peugeot and Mercedes used to built very durable engine from the 70’s to the 90’s. With good maintenance, some of them could achieve 300.000 miles and more, even on cars which looked flimsy as hell (Citroën BX, I’m looking at you here).
It’s not true anymore. I guess power increase and higher revs took its toll on diesel engines and durability deepened during the 00’s.
At the same time, gas engines became more and more reliable and durable so I don’t think one should expect better durability with diesel cars built by EU makers
Thank you for this statement!
I am quite surprised to have to acroll THAT far down to read a reference to the cr*p “ecology” of Hybrids. Having two drivetrains in one car is fundamentally wrong, from an overall point of view. It is the opposite of sustainable. Add up the energy (and pollution) used up in producing something as environmentally “friendly” as a battery to what you indeed actually consume in petrol in your hybrid – the ecological footprint is appaling and certainly bigger than the worst Diesel coming from VW nowadays.
Plus, I might add: from my German perspective, the fuss made about pollution coming from small engines getting great milege is a tad rdiculous and reeks of gloating – coming from a country where F150s, Escalades and Rams rule the road. Just sayin’.
(and no, I don’t endorse or excuse what VW did. It’s shockingly appalling, too)
“Plus, I might add: from my German perspective, the fuss made about pollution coming from small engines getting great milege is a tad rdiculous and reeks of gloating – coming from a country where F150s, Escalades and Rams rule the road. Just saying”.
That’s a really great point, no one should be judging. The Europeans want a lot of power (and economy) seemingly at the expense of NOx, the Americans want it seemingly at the expense of CO2.
You would think the more Americans learned about diesel the more they would like it. More powerful than gas, cheaper to run and better for global warming. The Escalade is crying out for a state-of-the-art diesel.
In Europe there has been a gradual shift toward brands like Dacia and Skoda, that are made in countries with lower labor rates. With demographic aging, persistent high unemployment and now higher regulatory standards, I think we are going to see far lower sales over time and more and more will be small gas engines. This will end mid price car production in Western Europe. In the USA, a three cylinder Mitsubishi Mirage made in Thailand did much better than expected. The USA will not be far behind this trend.
If I was in charge of Nissan-Renault, I would be working on a 1.0 liter CUV made in Morocco, Mexico and India, and sold as a Dacia or Datsun worldwide. Maybe the developed world model passes a smog test, has more airbags and maybe an optional turbo, but the same car. More homogeneity, that is how this ends.
So ar Diesel Hybrid Electrics a bust then?
From what it seems, diesels aren’t overly conducive to hybrid applications.
Little known fact I’ve never seen mentioned here – International Truck (or Navistar, if you will) had a diesel hybrid in heavy duty trucks a full decade ago. It was an option for chassis intended for applications where extensive idling was traditionally involved, such as aerial bucket trucks used by utility companies and DOT’s. The electrical component would kick on after x amount of time idling.
Diesel-electric hybrids of course are common in trains, and there are some in Europe: Peugeot 3008 Hybrid4, the similarly powered Citroën DS5 Hybrid4, and the Volvo V60 Plug-in Hybrid, maybe a couple of others. I think Teddy is right that their future is probably not bright at this point.
The Cat D7E Track Type Tractor (bulldozer) is also diesel-electric (not hybrid, as there is no energy storage, and it meets EPA Tier IV emissions regulations). It’s big selling point is the substantially better fuel economy over a straight diesel TTT.
http://www.cat.com/en_US/articles/customer-stories/construction/d7e-cuts-fuel-costs.html
The extra cost to build a gas hybrid over a regular gas engine is in the $1300-2000 range. The extra cost of a clean diesel is approaching $2000. Add the two, and you’re looking at $4000. That’s not economically viable in most cars, except maybe large or expensive ones.
I don’t have a perfect grasp here, and I look at FCA from a U.S. centric view.
FCA’s European brands are weak outside Italy and mostly dead outside Europe.
FCA’s American brands, except for Jeep, are weak in the U.S., and mostly dead outside the U.S.. RAM trucks have had strength, but Ford and GM could gobble up those sales in a heartbeat if they stumble, and they won’t be missed much. And, the value of the large consumer truck market in the U.S. is in question anyway with CAFE laws what they are. A thinning of players makes sense.
Marchionne has admitted to as much, and has been rightfully worried. The diesel mess makes it that much harder for him.
One outcome? VAG survives and eventually owns the Jeep brand. The rest of FCA ends up DOA. VAG eventually makes Jeep a much stronger global brand.
+1
Very unlikely. Jeep is more Chrysler than any other brand, if Chrysler is going to shrink again, they would keep the company name, keep truck division ( held by Jeep anyway ) and keep making Jeeps. Jeep alone is jealousy of the industry, and Auburn Hills knew it more than anyone else in the ’90s already. Again, Chrysler still has Town&Country, and rather profitable 300, and 200 selling pretty good so far. And they have hot selling Dodge Journey ( which is the car deserves the least, from design to craftmanship ) I always wonder why Journey sells well though.
Still, given that the Jeep brand has already outlived three previous owners, it’s probably a safe assumption that it would be the last brand standing in any future shakeouts. I don’t see it ending up part of the VAG umbrella any time soon, certainly, but on the other hand I’m not sure I would have believed both Bentley and Lamborghini would end up owned by Volkswagen either.
If FCA falls apart, I was thinking through the assets and where they would go.
I don’t understand their European brands well, but from what I can tell few would miss them.
The American brands are all legends, but then Oldsmobile, Plymouth and Pontiac were as well. RIP.
Ford and GM don’t need anything from Chrysler America – too much duplication.
So, who would or could buy what? Jeep would be salable. Toyota? No, they can build on the Land Cruiser / FJ legacy if they wish and they have no history of acquisitions that I’m aware of. Mercedes once owned Jeep and BMW had Land Rover. I don’t see where they’d return to a similar acquisition. Tata Motors has Land Rover now. Honda doesn’t have the culture to care about it. Subaru? Jeep is its hairy American cousin in the market place.
So, who’s left? Zhejiang Geely? Geely is struggling with Volvo, and a Volvo-Jeep dealership sounds like a bad Chinese cultural understanding that could kill both brands. (Can you imagine trying to read the owner’s manuals?)
VAG has resources, ambition, an appetite for acquisitions and a huge history with multiple brands across international markets. I can see Jeeps in the store next door to an Audi store. And, I can see an Audi sedan in a garage next to a Jeep – probably not an unusual occurrence today.
I’d prefer to see the reemergence of a U.S. based Chrysler Corporation but that’s not a likely outcome of an FCA failure.
Mercedes once owned Jeep? Is that the merge between Daimler and Chrysler? Mercedes almost went for Chrysler only because of the profitability and it was driven by Jeep, minivan and trucks. Well, they learned afterwards about profitability isn’t everything.
+1
I agree……in the current global automotive landscape, VAG is the most logical buyer of Jeep if FCA dies.
Dodge Journeys sell because they’re a seven-seater at a compact car price.
Yes, an aging marginally satisfactory vehicle sold on price.
I can’t see VW buying another brand for many years. Not only do they have more than enough on their plate and a consequent lack of available capital, the German industry has shown us how you don’t need to own an old brand to command the segment. Look at the success of the BMW X5, Mercedes GL and Audi Q5 for example
> FCA’s American brands, except for Jeep, are weak in the U.S., and mostly dead outside the U.S.
They’re very popular in Canada. Granted the Canadian market is roughly 1/10th the size of the US market.
I think Marchionne has made and is making a fair number of mis-steps that will be financially crippling to FCA in the long term. As someone else pointed out in a comment thread recently, Chrysler doesn’t have the money to waste, but they don’t realize it, so they wind-up in crisis. Well, things apparently haven’t changed with Marchionne at the helm. For example, why are they wasting resources reintroducing the Alfa Romeo brand to America?
” FCA’s American brands, except for Jeep, are weak in the U.S., and mostly dead outside the U.S.”
It may have been wiser for me to say outside North America.
I looked up what they are doing with Alfa in the U.S., and apparently it is called the 4C, and while a very different engine, its basically a budget Dodge Viper competitor.
They sold 25 of them in their first month. That ought to prop up those Fiat stores.
FCA’s European brands are weak outside Italy and mostly dead outside Europe.
Alfa Romeo may be largely restricted to Europe and Lancia really is largely gone (sadly). However, Fiat is BIG in South America and China. Ironically, FCA is weakest in its “home” markets.
When is FIAT big in China? Chrysler sold Dodge Journey in China before, and Fiat wanted to sell a Fiat rebadge, but it turned out Dodge Journey can sell much more, around 35000 units a year.
All this VW chat and this ad is on the side of my CC page. The Passat is a nice car, and this is probably a heck of deal, perhaps too good for some to pass up this Passat….
Contrary to US media nattering, I doubt the US fine will be anywhere near the max. More likely along the lines of the fines paid by US heavy diesel makers like Cummins and Cat, who were caught cheating the emissions test with defeat devices a few years ago.
On the positive side, we could see a lot of shakeup on the executive floor in Wolfsburg. I have seen articles complaining about poor corporate governance and conflicts of interest among the honchos, and I never liked the vanity brands that Piech bought up as it smacks of empire building. Management’s determination to be the largest in the world, regardless of cost screams hubris. A decision to cheat, in the face of warnings from both Bosch and VW engineers, goes right to the top. Winterkorn getting the heave ho is just the start.
To your point about poor corporate governance, the heave ho of Winterkorn was just window dressing. He remains the CEO of VW’s largest shareholder, and remains chairman at Audi and Porsche.
I think there will be a huge amount of licensing of hybrid technology pretty quickly and the European manufactures will be getting excellent technology fairly cheaply. Geopolitics and all that will call the tune.
Great food for thought, Paul. The repercussions for VW are going to be long and deep.
VW will survive this. They are neck and neck with Toyota being the largest automobile company in the world. Hopefully the management will get it’s act together.
The tests that found the VW diesel problem also tested a BMW diesel which was found to meet the standards.
Even before I finished reading the main text, I was thinking about the headline and musing, “Y’know, it might end up helping Japanese automakers who’ve been hampered by their general slowness to introduce really competitive turbodiesel models.” When the dust settles, it may eventually seem that it was just as well.
I don’t think for a minute that Volkswagen is in any danger of collapse because of this scandal. It will hurt, I don’t doubt, but I agree with the assessment that ultimately the French industry will be hit harder.
One thing this may end up killing is the emerging variety of diesel hybrids, which have started popping up in Europe in the last couple of years. While they make sense from a fuel-saving standpoint, the main market purpose seems to have been to find new ways to slip largish executive cars and CUVs under certain CO2 emissions tiers for more favorable tax status. An impolitic political gesture isn’t much good, so I wouldn’t be surprised to see those vehicles denied access to whatever tax or licensing bennies they were designed to achieve.
I know a lot of you have nothing good to say about government regulation in general, but I think it’s worth noting that the VW scandal puts regulators and the politicians to whom they’re answerable in a position where they have very little choice but to be harsh. Somebody who’s just watched you pull a fifth ace out of your sleeve is not likely to be sympathetic to your arguments that playing card decks should really have 56 cards, and anyone who is won’t get much respect from anyone involved.
Since everybody knows the emissions stats are (at best) gamed and based on an unrealistic test cycle, there might have been a case to be made that switching to more realistic (and monitored) test regimens should be seen as an alternative to substantially stricter standards rather than necessarily an accompaniment — e.g., “Look, a 10% reduction that’s more real-world representative is as valuable as a 20% reduction that exists only in lab conditions.” However, nobody, whatever their political affiliation, likes looking like a chump, so if a compromise like that were ever possible before, it certainly isn’t now.
Your last point is particularly salient.
It is not obvious to me that the emissions are gamed. The people who found the VW problem were also testing a BMW diesel in the real world and found it to be OK. I think the test cycles are supposed to be more difficult to meet than real world use is. In normal use one would like the emissions to average out at or below the standards.
However, on the road testing should be done too, to make sure others are not pulling the same trick as VW did. And not just diesels.
Please note, when I say “gamed,” I don’t mean that the numbers are illegitmately achieved or that everyone is cheating. However, whenever a testing methodology is too narrowly defined, it becomes easy to tweak things to optimize performance in that regimen in ways that make it unrepresentative.
Consider the early EPA fuel economy estimates: Manufacturers got into using ultra-tall overdrive top gears that garnered really impressive highway numbers that owner would almost never even approach because in the real world, any mild grade or even moderate hill would force you shift down a gear or two just to maintain the legal 55 mph limit.
One of the reasons testing cycles end up being unrepresentative is that by nature they have to be consistent and predictable. Coincidentally, engines tend to be most efficient when run at consistent speeds. However, one of the biggest hassles of passenger car engine design or emissions control/fuel economy optimization is that in the real world, engines DON’T run at consistent speeds most of the time. So, you have an immediate disconnect there, and the best you can do (from a testing methodology design standpoint) is to try to come up with certain patterns that will simulate the unpredictability of real-world driving without leaving too many plateaus that will allow unrealistically optimistic results.
I see what you mean, and yes, the manufacturers do design the emissions system to pass the tests. However, the US EPA testing does not get done at constant engine speeds. I don’t know how the European testing is done.
The EPA fuel economy numbers are useful for comparison but don’t mean much for real world driving. This car LINK HERE for example is averaging nearly the highway number for all driving (this is my car).
I’m not implying that EPA testing is done only at steady speeds, but any standardized test regimen generally ends up being something like, “Idle for this long, accelerate at this rate to this speed, maintain it for this long, then brake to that speed,” etc. It’s sort of the nature of the beast when you’re trying to come up with a repeatable standardized model to approximate the unpredictable.
To their credit, the EPA has been pretty clear over the years that their fuel economy figures aren’t necessarily what you’ll get in the real world and that the point is to allow you to compare different vehicles on an equal footing. They’ve also repeatedly revised the methodology to try to make it more realistic. (From what I can tell, the current ratings are decent on that score, although obviously depending on your driving style and conditions you can still beat the highway numbers or fall below the city figure.)
I do think an independant testing agency, like those who did the VW testing, driving the vehicles in a “normal fashion”, should conduct more tests. The BMW diesel did have higher emission on a hilly cycle, which was not unexpected (I guess).
I’m not sure if what you are proposing is some sort of random emissions test that is different for each test, which would allow the same car to pass one time and perhaps fail a second test.
From what I see, diesels are going to be very difficult, and perhaps need to be limited to trucks. But a diesel electric (motor generator), like the Volt, could make meeting emissions easier, if the motor generator is running at a constant power level for charging a battery.
I wasn’t actually proposing anything, since my original point was that it’s moot — nobody’s going to be in a compromising mood after this.
I don’t think it’s possible to create a completely ungameable standardized test, but there are questions of degree and a greater degree of oversight of the actual testing would cut down on the more egregious examples.
I am sorry but I don’t think you have any idea of what the EPA testing is. You are making general statements. A 10% reduction?
NOx is required to be reduced from 1 g/mile to 0.07 g/mile – 93% reduction. Uncontrolled NOx was probably nearly 3 to 4 for small diesels.
VW did game the system (although this is not exactly what you meant by gaming).
I don’t know what you mean by unrealistic test cycles. The EPA testing seems to be done at moderate power levels, and at high power levels emissions could be different, I don’t know.
Cars stuck in traffic jams and that are not moving do exceed the standards which require them to move. But the EPA is primarily interested in a fleet of vehicles averaging out to the standards, so a vehicle here or there that briefly exceeds the standards is not a problem.
From a European perspective, I would make a couple of points
So far, only VW has been proven culpable of anything. Other manufacturers have issued strong denials and the fallout is seen as definitely limited to the VW group only, and then only to certain models. Yes, the fallout for VW is going to be big and bad, but there is no immediate fallout coming towards the others.
On road testing, as opposed to lab testing, may be a result. If so, it will also almost certainly come for economy testing as well as emissions and whilst it would be rash to predict a detailed conclusion now, it will certainly result in lower economy figures all round, including for hybrids, but may not affect the relative rankings that much.
I’ve mentioned before in CC comments that many European sales of diesel, in preference to petrol, are based not on emissions but on the performance (what you might call the turbo-diesel shove), the economy (our fuel costs cost around $7.5 a gallon, and some European countries such as France diesel is around 70% of the cost of petrol), the reduced (in the UK a t least) vehicle registration tax and for some users the indestructible nature of a lightly loaded diesel engine, and these benefits will remain for many users.
The hybrid is seen as a coming technology and gains some relief from congestion charging schemes. In actual real-life use, it is often cited as being no more economic than a turbo-diesel, although the urban emissions are reduced. But diesel buyers don’t buy for emissions rating, they buy economy and performance.
For info, Peugeot are offering a diesel electric hybrid 3008 and 508 in Europe although the interesting Hybrid Air concept has been parked for now.
Yes. Especialy the fourth paragraph (the real reason why diesels are popular in Europe).
Most European car owners don’t care that much on emissions. They want a responsive engine, while at the same time they do not want to pay too much for yearly insurance and registration (both usually calculated based on engine power, sometimes also displacement, depends on the country) and they want the car to consume as little as possible of the obscenely expensive fuel .
The (turbo)diesel provided that.
Regarding the fate of Volkswagen and if the EU would allow Germany to bail out VW if it ever comes to that: oh yes they would allow it.
The economical and consequently political importance of VW (especially VAG corporation as a whole) goes way beyond Germany.
For starters, VAG incorporates two major brands from other countries (Škoda in Chezch Republic and SEAT in Spain, and let’s not forget Scania trucks, and Lamborghini, Bugatti etc).
VW and other VAG brands have assembly plants all over Europe (Touaregs and Cayennes are assembled in Slovakia, for example, and many different plants supply components such as engines and gear boxes).
Add to that outside suppliers (for smaller components or items such as headlight assemblies, seats and seat covers etc etc) and the list of suppliers/countries affected really gets long.
Nobody in Europe would be very happy if something happened to VW….
The sad thing here for those weaker European companies is that diesel has been artificially encouraged by governmental policies, and now it is going to be severely hampered by different polocies of those same governments. Wouldn’t the better plan be to stop the subsidies and favorable tax treatment for diesel and enforce the current enviro standards? Might be a more organic and less disruptive way of resolving the problem.
+1.
Similar vein to our recent comments on the mess CAFE makes of the American market. Government over reach into economics never works and governments never learn.
Laws and regulations are passed to either gain votes or gain campaign donations.
The US CAFE standard used to be a sales weighted fleet average. Ford could make as many Lincoln Town Cars as it wanted, as long as it sold enough Focuses to pull the average up to the CAFE standard.
CAFE was reformed a few years ago. The standard now sets a fuel consumption target for each vehicle based on it’s footprint (product of wheelbase and track) Companies no longer need to make small vehicles at all. In fact, when the standard was first enacted about 8 years ago, it was specifically written to discourage production of small vehicles and openly said so. Note Chrysler doesn’t offer anything other than the boutique Fiat 500, to compete with the Chevy Spark/Sonic and Ford Fiesta. Due to the new standards, vehicles will be designed to maximize wheelbase and track, and be lightly built, like the aluminum bodied F-150. I suspect the big three and the oil companies are delighted that there is no longer any motive for automakers to make small vehicles.
The same sort of mechanism could have acted in Europe. Seeing the Japanese moving in, and knowing how the Japanese ate the big three’s lunch in the US, the European automakers, seeking a competitive advantage, could have decided they had an advantage in diesel technology so had the necessary laws and regs passed to give their diesel technology a competitive advantage over the advanced and efficient Japanese gas engines.
The best outcome from that could be, GM doesn’t need to make that many Cavaliers alike cars anymore.
The best outcome from that could be, GM doesn’t need to make that many Cavaliers alike cars anymore
Well, that is where we are headed. All big three smaller vehicle production looks to be headed off shore. The new Jeep Renegade is built in Italy. The Fiesta is made in Mexico. The Spark is make in Korea. Ford had announced Focus production is going off shore. Chrysler has announced 200 and Dart production is going to Mexico. Buick Verano production is going to China. The big three blame the union, as usual, but since the “reformed” CAFE no longer motivates them to offer small vehicles, with their small prices and small profits. moving production offshore makes those models easier to drop from their US lineup, meanwhile, the CAFE standard makes it harder for anyone else to offer small vehicles in the US.
The text of the new regulation included the objections raised by some manufacturers. One of the objectors was VW, because VW did not make the very large vehicles that the regulation is designed to favor. Under the old CAFE standard, VW could have downsized the Golf and Jetta to reduce fuel consumption, or offered the Polo or Gol in the US to offset the higher fuel consumption of the Golf and Jetta. CAFE now takes those options off the table. VW has no choice but to go big with every model, as the creators of the standard intended. The next generation Tiguan will be offered as a two seater in Europe, but the US version will be a long wheelbase, three row model, because the bigger car will be easier to make meet the CAFE standard.
I say an era comes (will come) to an end. But i won’t regret it. With the average horsepower rating only slowly advancing through the 1990s, the diesels offered a more consistent power curve low down, and much taller gear ratios for a relaxed cruise on the autobahn. I always preferred the 1.9 TDi humming at 2700rpm as opposed to a 1.6i buzz at 4000rpm, and i am not in a minority. They certainly democratised power and you can’t really put a price on that.
I think there is no chance of VW failing as a company. Germany won’t let it happen, they’re too important to the economy and employ a ridiculously huge amount of people.
To me it is not, however, completely outside the realm of possibility that they might exit the US market. Highly unlikely, but it could happen…
VW came close to exiting the US in 1992-93. But then, VW was smaller, and the world was more ‘fragmented’. The world’s richest market (the US–then and now) was not as vital to VW as it is now, so I can’t see them leaving.
VW came close to exiting the US in 1992-93.
iirc, at that time, VW was close to bankruptcy. Piech’s big claim to fame was he pulled VW back from the brink, as Iacocca did Chrysler. But then Piech started empire building, just as Iacocca did.
If VW had not finally started to get it’s arms around it’s decades long reliability issues in the last 10 years or so, they would probably be gone now.
VW’s market share is still small, for a mainstream make. I suspect Audi is a much larger player in it’s segment in the US than it was 20 years ago, and more profitable than VW. The tail could wag the dog if Audi sales hold up. If it’s worthwhile to keep Audi and Porsche here, then the marginal cost of maintaining VW here would be minimal.
Car today are the best they’ve ever been.
I like cars a lot–I even have a “classic”.
That said, unfortunately for me and my fellow car lovers, the continued growth of auto use will put strains on the environment that probably aren’t sustainable.
On the other hand, rolling back the clock to, say 1990, isn’t going to happen either….
Not good
Pollution from vehicles has been declining in this country for several years now, and will undoubtedly continue to decline. Most pollution comes from a relatively small percentage of old cars. As they are cycled out of the vehicle fleet, air quality will continue to improve.
Pollution in the sense of carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, and hydrocarbons and pollution in the sense of greenhouse gases are not the same things, though.
An interesting debate. VAG will be fine in the long run, I agree with Paul. And Germany will do whatever it has to (including bailouts) to keep it that way. I wonder if this might generate a much needed consolidation/thinning of auto manufacturers, though. Marchionne is not incorrect when he says we have too many car companies chasing the same customers without enough to differentiate them – I wonder if some will merge to survive or simply leave mature markets where the regulations are tougher. Europes’ private-public alliances for its major employers is a difficult balance in times like this.
On Hybrids, I’ve always viewed them as a transitional technology. For anyone who drives distances daily on highways, they don’t give enough return on investment. I could envision a future, though, where new vehicle registrations in urban centers have to be EV, while outside of urban centers we’re permitted a broader range of options. That would make half the population (who live in urban areas) in an EV world, while everyone else still uses some form of fuel. I just don’t know if the battery technologies can keep up with the driving needs of non-urban people, particularly given how much cleaner new gasoline cars are.
Regarding hybrids versus pure EVs–you know what makes sense to me? Something like the Chevy Volt, where the gas engine is only there to power the batteries and has no direct linkage to the wheels, but with a smaller/cleaner engine yet than in the Volt, plug-in capability, and intelligent software. The programming could interact with a “smart” street grid to prohibit starting the gas engine while in the city center, forcing the car to act as a pure EV. Once on open roads, the gas engine could kick in for battery charging as needed, allowing travel of longer distances.
We’re still far off from having such capability built into the grid, but it seems like the best of both worlds to me.
Even though I’m averse in principle to the belt-and-suspenders aspect of a plugin hybrid, a Prius plugin with 40 miles EV range would be attractive to me. (Or a Volt though I’m majorly attached to the church of Prius.) I’m currently driving a tiny 2013 Think EV to work most days, but I often take our 2010 Prius either because I have a side trip or just because it’s more comfortable.
In the long run I expect long-range EVs to become mass market items just because battery prices are steadily coming down. Tesla’s Gigafactory is the first truly large-scale effort to mass produce EV batteries, and they’re said to have some major cost benefits in the pipeline.
What’s the electric-only range of the Prius plug-in version? I know they exist, because I see them around, but I’ve never checked.
The 3rd-gen plug-in Prius has only 11 miles of electric-only range according to the EPA figure. Not nearly as much as the Volt. Rumor says the 4th-gen plug-in Prius will have much longer range when it comes out next year.
I’m in Paris for work this week, which is less fun than it sounds given the hard time I have with jet lag. During a lengthy wait for the bus this morning I noticed two privately owned Priuses and at least two Prius taxis. This is the first time I’ve noticed any Priuses at all in my last couple of roughly annual trips here. As a 15-year Prius driver (one of the first) I can’t help spotting them.
Japanese cars are not common here. These Priuses could be a harbinger of things to come in France.
I also saw several of the little Paris Autolib’ Bluecar EVs. I saw no other EVs though I doubt I could spot the Renault EV counterpart of the Nissan Leaf. 90% of Paris auto traffic is Renault, Peugeot and Citroen. If a large slice of that is diesel the shift will certainly be felt here.
Perhaps it is because the majority of posters here are North American, but I find the prediction that VW will fail ridiculous. North America is just a small part of their global market.
I agree. They have their stakes in China, and it’s pretty safe.
However North America is viewed by VW top brass as a very important market for the future. In Europe they are pretty much topped out in market share but NA represents a big market for growth as evidenced in the push to make cars here in the USA.
Souring the Americans and Canadians(VW is firmly entrenched in Mexico and is very popular there(as in many Latin American markets) is not a good way to gain market share here.
Good point – in Europe VW is massive and has a great depth. Yes, there will be a backlash from this but VW is probably strong enough to survive.
Part of the reason for this may have been VW’s US ambitions
Part of VW’s punishment should be to fund a “clean diesel” campaign to take advantage of the attention being paid to diesel and make amends with competitors who have new engines coming out. It could be done in a very matter of fact way acknowledging their mistake while wanting to clear the air so to speak.
“We have learned some good things about diesels” the voice over would say…
“They emit less CO2 than gas, SCR cleans up the exhaust much better than our LNT, the new diesels with SCR are as clean as gas and cleaner than gas was until just recently.”
Diesels are an excellent bridge to an EV future and, until we get there, should not fall victim to one company’s bad business decision. No one was talking about the NOx versus CO2 tradeoff, now that’s on the table and regs are being reconsidered. Get that debate out there in the campaign.
And not just words either, show the data. It’s very easy to understand how quickly diesels have come along and how clean they are now with two simple graphs. Educate the public on how much NOx those leaf blowers put out. Don’t preach, share the data. You owe the competitors you’ve hurt at least this much.
Well I was coming back to this topic to apologize if my post was insensitive since I mentioned the confederate flag but it seems its been deleted all together?
Why have open comments if you’re going to delete them? Eventually someone will offend someone based on whatever is their irk..ya know?
We moderate comments, and the most expedient solution to those that are controversial/insensitive is to just delete them, as they only get other folks going. Better to just nip it in the bud.
It’s your site and forums so I respect that decision.
Few have mentioned what a silly calculation the VW cheating gambit really was, given how few sales they really have achieved in the US, relative to their total sales. VW has actually seen their numbers decrease by a significant margin in the past few years, despite their ‘tripling’ goals. How foolish it was for them to think diesels would ever be a way to increase sales significantly here. It’s proved very hard to convince people that they are saving money on fuel when they have to pay more for diesel each time they fill up their tank than they would have paid on regular gas. And I’m someone who still misses my 240D!
Another thought, if Europe switches away from diesel cars, or the expense of them becomes more than even their market will bear, gasoline prices on the east coast of the US are likely to rise. Our gas prices are depressed by the excess fuel that shipped here that Europe doesn’t use.
Some very interesting ideas and opinions here. I’d like to share mine, too. Like many others, I think this will put a big dent in VW’s profitability for a while. They will have to make nice to regulators world wide, but I find it hard to imagine this will bring them down. Here in the US, the government will bail out the automakers, in Germany, the automakers will bail out the government.
FWIW, I think that after the dust has settled, there will still be plenty of diesel cars in the “Old Country”, I don’t see folks adopting gasoline cars as quickly as we might imagine here in the US. It’s not just taxation and registration but insurance regulations as well. As noted elsewhere, much of the commuting (but not all, and an increasing amount is in an automobile) in Europe is done on public transportation, so private cars are not a necessity as they are here in North America. Folks go for the cheaper fuel.
Additionally, people over there are fairly nationalistic when it comes to their choice of auto; Germans buy German cars, the French buy French, etc. I think that VW has a leg up on all of it’s competition in Europe by already having a hybrid drivetrain, I also think they have enough financial reserves to manage any changes in regulation or technology.
For smaller players, I have to believe that Bosch, Magna, Magnetti Marelli, LG Chem or any number of Tier 1 auto suppliers could develop a hybrid electric drivetrain for any number of car models. I understand that Bosch did the Fiat 500e compliance car. I’m pretty sure that a company like Bosch (as an example, there are certainly others) has the capability to engineer a bespoke system for a Peugeot or Fiat or Dongfeng, for that matter.
I really don’t see my German & Austrian cousins trading their beloved VWs, Mercedes and Volvos for a Prius or a Leaf.
When the s-it hits the fan-if it didn`t already, VW sales in the US will drop dramatically. You can fool some of the people sometimes, but…….
According to related V.A.G. “diesel case”…because all of their divisions are affected…the actual european medias are harshing that this case could push down the small diesel engined vehicles sales rates for the favor of increasing gas, ethanol, lpg and cng equiped vehicles sales. As for an average citizen it was always a bit unbelievable for me when any car manufacturer has advertised their small cars with attached science-fictionally low emissions and extremly low fuel consumptions…like 3.5 Litre petrol/100kms…when nobody could confirm this while using any of those cars in average city/highway conditions. By the way the trends are showing that each new “small” model is becoming bigger and heavier than its predecessors while the engines are theroretically allways keepin’ the same displacement between ~1000 and 1600 ccms and the standard bhps or kWs are staying the same or are increased a bit somehow.
I’ve always said that extremly low emmissions although very low fuel consumptions are possible to reach (only) inside hermetically closed test labs. But not in the outside world.
What any one individual will get depends on what sort of driving he/she does. If you only drive a short distance (say 3 miles) to work everyday, your fuel consumption will be more per mile than someone who drives more than 10 miles on mostly highways. I find that I can get the EPA highway rating on long trips if I drive about 70 MPH.
Nobody Wants Hybrids, nobody buys hybrids. VW as we know it is finished. The whole German car industry is in trouble. Their credibility is in tatters. Qatar & the other Arab investors that have propped up the German Manufacturers since the first oil embargo, will find it hard to spend their way out of this one. Small Gasoline engines are the future, Fiat, Opel, ford are prepared, VW not so much. And who wants those dirty hybrid batteries filling landfills in the not to distant future.- HYBRID electric the ultimate planned obsolescence
I know the commentary on this is dead but I couldn’t think of anywhere else to ask this question.
I’m comparing the August 2015 and February 2016 issue of Windy City Wheels – A Chicagoland Free to Take Cars-For-Sale publication.
How is it possible that Volkswagens across the board are retailing for several thousand more dollars than before dieselgate including the TDI models? Similar trim levels, similar mileage. The comparison was sparked by a genuine interest in perhaps being able to snag one of these VWs for cheap in the aftermath of the scandal. To my surprise prices were higher and I just happened to have several months of these magazines piled up in my crapper. Upon further inspection, prices slowly crept up month to month, oddly enough. Since a lot of these advertised vehicles are dealer owned is it possible they are charging more money per vehicle to offset lost dollars from slowed sales?