Renault and Nissan have come out worst in a new study done by the team behind one aspect of the VW scandal. They also revealed that the average new diesel car emits more than six times the legal limit of nitrous oxide (NOx) when tested in multiple real-world conditions.
The FIA Foundation and the International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT), who helped to reveal the VW scandal, released new information this week showing that in real world tests most manufacturers come out way above the maximum limit.
Worst performing manafacturers
Renault and Nissan came out worst performing, after signing a strategic partnership deal in 1999, meaning that their diesel engines are the same. The legal limit for NOx is 0.08mg/km, and Renault Nissan averaged over 12 times that, way above 0.8 mg km.
The worst offenders from these brands included the Renault Kaptur, and the Nissan Juke and Qashqai, as identified through previous research.
Following Renault Nissan came Fiat Chrysler with a figure just under 0.8mg/km. Hyuandi entered in third place, with Toyota and Ford taking fourth and fifth respectively. The VW group actually fell near the bottom of the list, showing their commitment to change since the dieselgate scandal of 2015, with Jaguar Land Rover taking the bottom spot and having the cleanest engines.
Euro 6 compliance
It was found that none of the Euro 6 models available on the market actually reached the mark in the rigorous tests done by The Real Urban Emissions (TRUE) initiative and less than 30% of diesel cars tested on the roads were actually Euro 6 compliant meaning that if the ULEZ zones were measured on TRUE results, no cars could enter the centre of London.
Euro 6 compliance is legal on all new models bought on cars, and from September 2019 any car registrations must be Euro 6 compliant. It was introduced in 2015, and since then any mass produced cars have had to be compliant.
The Euro 6 compliance level aims to reduce the amount of NOx, particulate matter and a few other harmful chemicals. Every year 40,000 people die for reasons related to pollution, and so each new iteration of EU compliance aims to lower these numbers further and further.
The new ULEZ zones coming in to force early next year in London means that any car that doesn’t meet the Euro 6 standards will have to pay an extra £10 on top of any other congestion charges. Those living in Islington with a diesel car will also face an annual surcharge of £99.65 which other London councils may adopt later in 2019.
Euro compliance testing is done in a controlled environment overlooked by Government agencies, meaning that real-world tests are more likely to capture data that is more representative of drivers.
TRUE testing methods
The TRUE test used remote sensing technology, which shot infrared and ultraviolet beams through the pollution emitted by each car as well as the type of car, whether it was a fleet or commercial vehicle and what Euro compliance rating it was.
The TRUE rating is a three-colour scheme, in which green = meets pollutant limits, red = far exceeds limits and yellow = in between and no diesel car tested during this period, including Euro 6 compliant vehicles, had a green rating. The TRUE rating takes the Euro 6 data but tests cars in a real-world test.
The testing was completed over a five-month sampling campaign, November 2017 to March 2018, and was active in nine spots across London. More than 100,000 vehicles were tested, and due to the real world nature of the data, it was more authentic and tangible than the laboratory testing done for Euro compliance.
It must be said that the new Worldwide Harmonised Light Vehicle Test Procedure (WLTP) procedures are more reflective of real-world driving habits. However, due to the controlled environment, they can never be entirely accurate in comparison to a test done on vehicles that have been driven for a while on actual roads, gone over potholes and generally had a bumpy ride.
Taxis pollute the most
The study also found that the most common black cab models pollute up to 30 times more NOx than a personal car of the same age. Euro 5 black taxi cabs, some of the newer models and technically more compliant with stricter emissions test, are producing at least 50% more NOX than of the Euro 3 or Euro 4 models. The average NOX emissions from cabs per KG of fuel used have actually seen a measurable increase in the past five years.
When compared to buses, this is shocking as there has been a 65% decrease in emissions by buses over the last five years, and due to the number of people, a bus can hold it means they are naturally less polluting anyway when compared to the pollutant per person.
The Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, said: “London’s air is so toxic it damages children’s lung growth, causes thousands of premature deaths and increases the risk of asthma and dementia. We know that dirty vehicles are responsible for half of our NOX air pollution – and this new data from TRUE and ICCT reveals the stark health impact of polluting diesel taxis on our streets. It also underlines why we at City Hall have been delivering hard-hitting, urgently needed policies to tackle vehicle emissions, such as cleaning up the bus fleet and introducing the world’s first Ultra Low Emission Zone, 24 hours, seven days a week in central London from next April. We all need to play a part in cleaning up our toxic air and while I am encouraged that almost 1,000 taxi drivers have switched to cleaner electric taxis, this damning report really highlights why we need to accelerate their uptake.”
What do you think should be done to help reduce emissions? Do you know how much your car actually pollutes? Let us know below
We all take our cars each year to be serviced and tested for MOT. How can we be sure the garages won’t start ‘ripping us off’
Are there ways we can measure this ourselves?
In the bigger picture you need to find a local garage that you know will not rip you off. I found one about 30 years ago and always go back there for any car issues. Maybe you have to be a bit lucky to find one , but they are out there somewhere.
I do the same as I trust the garage that I go to .
I use Alderholt Motors in Dorset. They are absolutely trustworthy & will not rip you off. I’ve been using them for many years & wouldn’t take my cars anywhere else.
In an ideal world, the first sentence happens. With servicing intervals getting longer and longer, it is now possible to have a newer car every 35 months and pass all requirements to the next person. Who might not be as caring as you.
Upgrade to an EV then there is very little to fail an MOT on. If it’s a commercial EV there is no need for an MOT at all.
However my biggest worry is how many people don’t understand how their cars work and so are getting ripped off. It wasn’t that long ago when people use to service/maintain/repair their own cars (t least the basics) but now everyone seems to have got lazy.
Interesting article, though I am not sure about the standard of the English used.
Would that be compared to commonly used butchered English or proper English? The only thing I would criticise would be, “Euro 6 compliance is legal on all new models…”
It should say, “Euro 6 compliance is a legal requirement on all new models…” Apart from that, it all looks pretty good to me. Even the spelling is good, which is quite unusual 😀
Only a man or woman can require. What can a printed piece of paper require?
A “legal requirement” is a fiction which 99.99% believe in.
I’m pretty pedantic, and I have no problem with this. I believe that a law can require you to do something or not do something. Ultimately it is our legislators who require you to do something or not do something, I guess, if you’re going to be ridiculously pedantic. As far as I know our legislators are human.
I think you just hit on the point I was making. That is; we must all be lawful but complying with legislation under statute is a choice.
Yes, I am ridiculously pedantic.
Grammar police are a pain.
Find a novel written in “correct” English and I guarantee what you will have is a bloody boring book.
They spelt the Renault Captur with a ‘K’ as well. It’s the Kadjar that is spelt with a K 😉
Does no one spell check/proof read these articles before print ?
“Worst performing manafacturers” ! manafacturers….? ManUfacturers…get it right.
Ensure taxis meet the standard – if they don’t they should be scrapped and replaced with cleaner alternatives. Amsterdam, as an example, have changed taxis to Tesla electric vehicles. What a statement that makes on commitment!
And…. you know how much a Tesla will cost…? and… will your Tesla actually be able to cover the same mileage in its lifetime as the black cab?
and how long does it take to charge a Tesla? if a cab isnt working then its losing money.
Some London Taxis are now fully electric.
Ban Diesel Black Cabs. Give them a scrappage allowance and ONLY allow electric Cabs they would only need one charge a day.
and it would probably take all day…. cabs have multiple drivers so as to be on the road as long as possible…. sitting around “plugged in” is not an option.
get rid of taxis. Apart from being the worst performers according to this study, they are the least efficient of all vehicles because they are driving around London (for example) all day long whether they have passengers or not. They usually have their engines on even whilst standing. very very inefficient and with diesel engines are totally un-environmental. Of course the wealthy people are the ones who most use them and the people that make the rules are typically also within that bracket, so this will not likely happen. …..but if they really are serious re pollution???
Taxis, buses and heavy goods vehicles are classic examples of fleet depot-refuelled vehicles which can thus use hydrogen cell technology and discharge merely water vapour in the process ! Whyever is it taking so long to be taken up ?
Can you hear yourself? How big of a hydrogen cell would my 44 ton articles need? Were do you mount it and how much power, as in what size motor can it run? As most wagons are now between 500 to 750 hp I doubt it would be a workable solution.
There are now cars running on the road powered by Hydrogen How big a battery or batteries would you 44 ton thing need ???
Bishbut, it has been done in the states buy of all people toyota, but it falls down like the lpg trucks Waitrose are running, only does about 300 miles before fill up. I’ve done 430 today on half a tank. Plus there is no hydrogen filling stations every were like normal fuel. As usual I’ve had a thumbs down from the thick t#$ts that can’t reply with a useful answer, all these green people are just that, so clever at telling you that fracking or oil extraction will end the world, but never coming back with proper alternative sources of future power. Hydrogen uses more power to split from water than you get back by the way.
It’s coming – https://edition.cnn.com/videos/world/2017/11/14/riversimple-hydrogen-car-great-by-design-jlm-orig-lon.cnn/video/playlists/intl-great-by-design/
Do you know how much electricity is used to produce hydrogen, and how heavy tanks need to be to safely store it at the pressure required, and how difficult it is to prevent leakage since it’s molecule is so small it leaks through microscopic flaws in valves and pipework…
There is a requirement for taxi’s until a public transport solution can be introduced, as there people who can’t drive due to medical conditions, age, not drinking & driving, etc..
Christmas day for example is supposed to be a day for getting together, however nearly all so called public transport stops running. Certainly outside of London. Our local company state that this is so the drivers can spend time with their families, however, other service providers for the public still operate – emergency services, broadcasters, utility providers. It would be a dark, dismal and apocalyptic day if they all took the same attitude. So for many, the vehicle of choice/necessity becomes the Taxi.
However I do believe that taxis and private hire vehicles should cease to have priority and special dispensation, such as use of bus and multiple occupancy lanes. A large proportion of taxi/private hire journeys involve the vehicle covering the A-B distance at least twice as the driver has to reach the pickup point, drive to the required destination, then return back to their preferred rank or waiting destination, making them the most polluting way of reaching your destination.
Having driven a cab for some years but not in London we did not have to return to the rank we left, we ranked up wherever a rank was free in the borough we were registered in.
Why not make it so that taxis “turn on and off” when in traffic jams or when standing in a Rank? As previously stated, newer electric taxis are soon to be introduced. Although we also need to get “clean” electricity to recharge the vehicles, and also the “grid” may need strengthening, this will come in the future. Hydrogen cells,etc. will also be introduced…
What about the real emmisions from petrol cars, we never get told about them the government are just focused on driving out diesel cars, when they are finally gone will they then say petrol cars are an even bigger killer, as we know the government are useless at getting all the information and looking at it correctly,, can someone please find out.
Dear Steve. Remember that cars produce CO2 which trees and plants eat and give us Oxygen in return so healthier than diesels. Car catalysts also cream off everything else that could be harmful. . Apart from Electricity generating power, coal power does pollute, gas power produces CO2 which plants eat. Planes are the nearly worst and nobody mentions them. Finally there are about 20+ active volcanoes around the world, doing NOx and sulphur 27/7/365, which are the worst of all polluters. Nobody mentions about the millions of trees cut down EVERY day which are the natural CO2 cleaners. Finally no one bothers about tidal power, can produce clean electricity 24/7/365 twice a day
Diesel produces CO2 too, all burning does, and this is the major “Greenhouse Gas” catalysts dont catch everything and gas power polutes too. Electric vehicles may be an answer to traffic polution, but not to the motor vehicle effect on the environment. the production of electric vehicles (especially the batteries) is considerably worse for the environment than the a traditional ICE car, and diesels are the cleanest to make.
jet fuel is more efficient than petrol, but international travel is costly anyway, and i’d rather fly in less than a day, and spend 10 at my destination, than spend two weeks just getting there.
The problem with most renewable energy is that it is not available on demand, tide waits for no man, the wind is variable. Without effective storage, the demand can not be met effectivley, and as with cars, batteries are not the answer.
Deforrestation is and always has been an issue, why do you think the save the rainforrest campaigns were started? however managed forrests are starting to increase the tree coverage but the continuous buring as bio-mass might send the net the other way.
Climate science is a far too complex issue, and all stephen was saying is its not just the diesels causing the problem, in fact in the short to medium term, they might actually help, but that the current trend of demonising diesel is not acuratley representing the problem, nameley that all engines under testing produce significantly different results from real world situations.
This is something that Worldwide Harmonised Light Vehicle Test Procedure (WLTP) was supposed to fix, but it looks like it hasnt… the natural world left to its own devices will ballance things out, but the human influence (especially since the industrial revolution) has knocked it so far out of whack that the natural processes struggle to right themselves.
Alan forgot to mention shipping, when mentioning planes.
No tide…no tidal power? Cycling/walking holidays from now on? Missed out shipping, the shit they pump out.
For decades the Uk ship components to China, Far East, then bring them back to the UK to be assembled / sold, the manufacturers say it is cheaper that way!
You are right, Stephen but the Modis Operandi is to break people into ever smaller minority groups because they cannot take on a large group fairly. They start arguments among the opposition to reduce its effectiveness.
Agree totally, my 2016 year Discovery with adblue system is cleaner than majority of petrol cars, nobody mentions that! Box is only 2%, 98%. water. Years ago, Autocar reported the black London cab was the filthiest vehicle on the road…..nothing has changed. Domestic heating boilers are more polluting than all vehicles on the road…..let’s all switch our heating off!!!
My 2016Discovery 4 is far cleaner than petrol engines, AND the cleanest of ALL Euro 6 Diesel engines as stated in the beginning of this article. More polluting than cars is the central heating boilers of everybody, followed by log burners. Get rid of all cars in London, & you will still have more pollution. Plus, wind turbines, as reported by their manufacturers are only 29% efficient over their life of 25 yrs!
Electric cars may not damage the environment in their vicinity as much as diesel or petrol however, until we phase out coal, oil and gas powered generating stations then we are just moving the issues to the area surrounding the generating stations and the wider environment. In fact there may be arguments that the energy lost in generating, transmitting and using the electricity may be less efficient than burning the fossil fuels directly in the vehicles engine. What about the impact of producing all the cement that is required in the foundations of our wind turbines……… Life can be so complicated.
The government has made it’s mind up electric cars are the thing and will NOT even consider other fuel options of which there are now and possibly more before everyone must have an electric powered car .As to self driving cars ???
The government also made up its mind that Diesel was OK until many of us were sucked in by their stats and they then did their U turn I AM VERY PLEASED THAT i DO NOT HAVE TO TRAVEL INTO THEIR KINGDOM OR THEIR CAPITAL CITY OF LONDINIUM.
Exactly. Every action has an effect with nothing being for nothing
Not to mention upgrading the national grid & local distribution network for when we all plug-in to recharge our electric vehicles overnight (be it transformers, cables, pylons, generators) – there are always consequences.
Especially if all the cookers and chip pans in the land are switched on at the same time. Who has priority for the charger, wage earner or Mum’s school taxi?
In the UK only 1.6% of electricity is produced from coal and only about 11% from oil (mainly a back-up generators). Admittedly Gas is takes up a high proportion but it’s probably the lesser of the evils as it’s the cleanest and most efficient of the fossil fuels.
More than half of all electricity is produced from clean energy (Nuclear and Renewables) and renewables is increasing each quarter as more and more power plants come online.
So powering you EV from mains electricity might not be perfect right now it’s getting a lot better quite quickly. In the meantime you can do what most EV drivers do and purchase your electricity from 100% renewables suppliers or from your own micro-generation.
Yes nuclear is so clean, ah but what about the spent fuel cells that have to be put into steel containers and then into concrete blocks and still are toxic for a half life of around a century. Yes clean fuel indeed.
You cannot choose where your electricity comes from – that is complete fantasy. When you plug in and switch on, you are getting the same electricity from the same grid as everyone else. That means that your eco-wonderful greenymobile electric car recharges on electricity generated mostly from polluting sources. The precise mix of sources is a moving feast – depends upon what time of day, what the weather is like, etc – but you can be totally certain of these things: wind and solar power are not available on demand (the heaviest demand periods coincide with the darker times of day, the wind cannot be summoned to blow heroically for a few hours every morning and evening), the grid cannot handle the surge of unwanted power from wind turbines on windy days (and it cannot be stored) so in response grid power is needed to brake the turbines to avoid damaging the network. Wind turbines are a blight upon the lives of those who have to live in their vicinity (not just despoiling the landscape but also the debilitating effects of low frequency vibration and light flicker) and are a significant threat to wildlife (turbine operators don’t want people finding out how many endangered birds of prey are killed in Scotland, for instance). In terms of RELATIVE cleanliness and usefulness, nuclear is the way forward, but cowardly governments (bullied by the Green lobby) halted even the slightest consideration of renewal of the nuclear estate between 1990-2010 and now the UK – we used to be the world leader in civil nuclear technology until the Green lobby interfered and the scientists went abroad – depends upon the French and Chinese to belatedly replace our nuclear power stations. That is the ultimate disgrace of the obsession with wind and solar power.
Record breaking and rapidly growing proportion of electricity generation is renewable
John Boy 7, You raised the issue of:
“energy lost in generating, transmitting and using the electricity may be less efficient than burning the fossil fuels directly in the vehicles engine”
I hate to break it to you, but petrol and diesel dont magically get themselves out of the ground and into our fuel tanks without any energy being spent. The “well to wheel” process is massively inefficient, so don’t kid yourself on that.
There are many factors that come into play when comparing the efficiency of ICE vs EV, I’m not going to get into a debate on that, but some headline figures to consider:
A coal fired power station is between 33% and 40% efficient at converting the fossil fuel into energy, transmission through the national grid losses are between 8 and 15%.
I don’t know how efficient coal mining is, but it can’t be less efficient than crude oil extraction!
Oil refinery processes represent a 12% efficiency loss. I don’t know what the efficiency of the drilling, transportation and storage are, but I would assume it’s a significant effort!
A typical modern internal combustion engine is around 20% efficient at converting energy into motion.
Electric vehicles are above 80% efficient at converting energy into motion.
Main point, an EV has the capability to be powered from renewable energy sources, whereas ICE vehicles can only ever be powered from fossil fuels.
My only issue with EVs right now is there aren’t enough of them available on the second hand market. So despite the potential fuel cost savings, the large initial outlay means most people are still financially better off sticking with their cheap old ICE vehicles.
Is the government or anyone dictating transport policies aware that electricity is NOT a primary source of energy – it has to be derived from a primary source – fossil, nuclear, wind (unreliable), wave (unreliable) hydro (depends on rain). The level of ignorance shown by politicians and their advisers is astounding and ultimately will result on electricity failures – that is, disaster
The quicker new diesels are banned the better! Some say they have a place but these tests prove they don’t
You “invented” these tests then Pete….?
and you’d replace them with….? Petrol? Will be next on the hit list. Electric? You just move the pollution to power generation, ignore the manufacturing footprint, and restrict range. Hydrogen? I don’t live near one of the dozen or so refuelling points in the entire country. And what about cows? Don’t they emit 15-20% of greenhouse gas (methane) worldwide? Until there’s a practical clean alternative civilisation (and Mancheste, Trickcyclist) will be dependent on internal combustion, and people will buy the most economical for their purposes. Don’t overlook the fact that Sadiq Khan is a knobhead….
Do away with road tax, put it on the price of fuel then them that use most pay most, why am I paying £555 per year for road tax on my petrol car when I only do 2000 miles per year, my friend has a diesel that does 20000 miles per year and pays £ 30 per year who is polluting the atmosphere most ??
So I’m not driving steady to save pollution, as long as I’m paying the top road tax you won’t find me driving steady.
You’d hate me then Graham, my tax is FREE and I do over 60K a year 😉
Peter, relax, all these tests, making it sound like the sky is failing in is more rubbish from crack pots. If they are so bad ban um right now this minute! Oh hang on we can just tax/add con charge an make it better. Bol#$#ks just more money making scams, oh look car sales have slowed up let’s tell um petrol is the new coming an once they have spent up let’s tax them to death an push electric cars for more vat/tax revenue.
I wonder if more could be done by drivers? Hard acceleration between traffic lights ,roundabout s etc. produces more pollution than gentle acceleration between hold ups. Driving gently is no slower than hard driving if you are repeatedly catching up slow or stationary traffic.
Good smooth driving is best all round. Too many drivers are impatient. I have frequently been passed whist riding my motorcycle at 50mph on the morning commute. I ignore them as I know that I will pass them in a couple of miles and they will get to the city long after me.
More can be done but I think part of the attraction of diesel is the wall of torque from the turbocharger. Drivers’ habits have changed and creeping nervously round corners, junctions and roundabouts on cheap tyres fitted to huge bling wheels is the norm. The minority are now lunatics with low torque petrol engined cars who try to preserve momentum to make economic progress.
The bigger issue are the delays at traffic lights that stay red for far too long
Can anyone think who might be responsible for the extra delays at Traffic lights, the road humps and the poor surfaces? All of these cause stop /start motoring thus creating more pollution, thus generating more fines and income for the Mayor. Here’s a clue – it’s Sadsack Khan. Follow the money people.
We need the policy makers to understand that we don’t all live in cities.
Us village dwellers have NO alternative but to use cars. Diesel is by far the most mpg economic.
What we need is investment into after market kits to retrofit urea injection to help clean the current cars in an affordable manner.
And aftermarket kits to replace combustion engines with electric motors.
The current policy of replace and scrap can not possibly be the most ecological
Reading all these comments shows just how much many people do care about environmental pollution. However, although heavily polluting public transport such as ‘Black Cabs’, and older diesel buses are only part of the global issue. What about ships? If you have ever watched any sort of film which includes ships, especially cross channel ferries, they are pumping out an awful lot of visible pollution, as are the hundreds of cruise ships around the world. It is frequently stated that London has a very heavily polluted atmosphere caused by road traffic. What about the diesel trains standing at stations around the capital? They frequently stand at platforms for significant periods pumping out fumes. Then there are the freight trains travelling up and down the country. When they set off, and often when they are cruising, they pump out significant quantities of thick black smoke. No mention of them. When you next travel abroad, in Europe, you will find that there are very few diesel powered locomotives used anywhere – they are mostly electric meaning no pollution as a result. The electrification of Britain’s railways has been deferred by Governments time and time again. That would stop a lot of pollution.
Maybe the Gatwick drone operators are eco-warriors.
More seriously though, I just don’t see personal transportation as viable in the future and the diesel purge on the people is just the beginning.
Aftermarket kits for buse’s and hgv’s are already being made and fitted by a company in linc’s, it’s this government that discourages the same thing for cars as they want diesel cars gone altogether, and the government minister responsible for this dictate is none other than Michael gove, the same person who made a mess of the schools policy and couldn’t even do the chief whips job effectively.
The company in linc’s is called “eminox” look them up.
What a giggle! Never mind the comments about the English language, get the chemistry right! Nitrous oxide is laughing gas, while NOX refers to a mixture of the other oxides of nitrogen, which are nasty and are formed at the higher temperatures Diesel engines operate at. Hence their greater efficiency. Post combustion clean-up with urea is in use by some manufacturers. Storm in an egg cup?
Mike, thank you for the good laugh.
An integrated affordable ( for the commuter) public transport system would help but I doubt this government would consider such an idea.
In Manchester they have the “WORST” transport system, so bad that most people just dont bother. We have inefficient irregular expensive and unreliable buses. A train system so old and so over crowded only someone with no alternative would ever consider using it… 3 of the top 10 worst performing railway stations… and the council employing a trick cyclist called boardman to spend a fortune on cycles lanes that we are all apparently, after some form of epiphany, going to rush to use.
Integrated transport…. not round here mate.
This completely missed the point. The standards don’t just define the emission levels, they also specify the test conditions
The standards could (and in my opinion, should) specify at least am approximation to real world test conditions.
MOT tests could and should test nox levels but the test machines are deemed too expensive
The car makers are following a stupid set of rules.
The headlines are all very interesting – but how do I find my car and how it compares? And can I also check out any car I might be thinking about buying?
Black Taxi cabs should be banned.
Buy a Jag diesel. Pdf plus ad-blu good mpg too boot. Band B VED plus excempt ULEZ charges, yeah support British, buy a Jag.
Jaguar cars owned by Tata an Indian company
But at least someone in the UK makes a living building them!
Except the owners are indian
Just the same as ‘buy a tesla’…If you can afford to buy one that is…and most cannot due to other financial commitments (mortgages etc), or they’re on too low a salary, or retired.
I noticed they didn’t do any Vauxhalls and those 1000 taxi owners not drivers have just moved there pollution else where to the power stations instead of the streets
Nobody seems to mention shipping, they burn crude oil which pollutes more than you can imagine, and have you any idea how many there are?, I gave up counting. Once again it’s the public at fault, not industry or big companies.
Mike , You hit the nail on the head with your comment, aircraft and what is in the chem trails is another pollution source that is not mentioned . wonder why ?.
The word is Con-trails or Condensation Trails. The visible part of those is water vapour. Of course there will be some unburnt hydrocarbons plus other pollution included.
No mention of the Hydrogen powered cars which were being tested in California..
No mention of why there are no battery powered small cars like the Smart or Aygo especially for the City taxi. Some countries have small taxis (Petite) allowed to function within city limits then larger (Grand) which are allowed anywhere.
No mention of aircraft pollution and London is surrounded by airports.
No mention of Lorries
No mention of Trains
If there was a limit on engine size for each method of transport Road, Rail, Agricultural or Air) this would force manufacturers concentration more on efficiency. It would rid the streets of large busses especially where country roads are not suitable.
Is it time to reinvent the horse-cycle?
Well, funny you should mention this but no, a smaller engine that has force induction, be that turbocharged or supercharged make more pollution than larger capacity n/a ones. This happens because of cylinder pressure just like in a diesel engine. That’s the problem an why companies like bmw have used a 2liter engine in different states of tune for power output for 1.6 1.8 2.0 baged cars.
Is there a legal limit for emissions in ‘Real World Tests’ or is this just another attempt to bash the diesel engine?
The limit that these cars do meet are as measured under the specified conditions.
If real world tests had been introduced, then no doubt the ‘legal limit’ would have been set higher and nearer the figures produced above and the vehicles above would then have complied, but the ICCT would still find a range of conditions where they didn’t and claim that the engines were ‘illegal’.
“Every year 40,000 people die for reasons related to pollution”
This is the claim, but they usually say it is an estimated number. There is no evidence whatsoever for its validity when death statistics are examined and it is a number thrown out for effect. A number plucked out of the air (no pun intended, has become a false “fact”. If NoX was really this toxic, people would be dropping in the streets.
Correct Den…. this over use of an “estimate” amuses me…. as you said its a “guess”.. not a best guess but normally a guess to suit the writers opinion.
I have recently had to replace my old secondhand Merc (2148cc tdi)best car I have ever owned or driven. Due to doing less than 5000 per year at about 40 mpg.bought at 127000 done 19000 in 5+ years not that much pollution but as I had to retire I could not justify the £265 road tax for now going nowhere and therefore not polluting either.Why cant road tax on older vehicles be paid on the basis of previous years mileage ? After all most owners can’t or would not know how to fiddle the mileage between mot’s so each MOT would tell Swansea how to calculate the coming years tax! I have now got a 2009 VX combo 1248 cc diesel (about 65per gall )I’m interested to know how it will compare long term.
The road tax system should be based on weight of vehicle with full tank of fuel, type of fuel used, size of engine, and area of vehicle [length x width]. These multiplied together, possibly with a separate multiply as well, would give a total. Higher the total, the more the road tax.
From this, it is obvious that small electric cars would pay the least, and large 4-wheel drive, etc. would pay a very large amount.
So, let me get this right… these jokers “invent” their own tests then jump up and down when, surprise surprise, vehicles dont pass them… yawn!!!
But arent all motoring standard tests relative??? In the same way that the official mpg stadard tests for my car reveal an average of 56mpg, the ‘real’ value is 41mpg. As a consequence Im calling these ‘test’ resilts out as irrelevant …….
Andy bracey, I don’t know why people worrie so much about the mpg test. Every car from an 850cc matiz to a 6.75litrer Bentley does the same test so you can compare the results, doesn’t require every car to show it’s true mpg. As with most things, if you look at it a 6liter car will always use more than a 850cc.
Nobody mentions the gas fuelled central heating systems that are installed in almost every house in the country, these systems pump out more polution than all the cars and transport systems combined, Sadiq Kahn is going after the easy cash when he targets the motorist, just imagine the reaction if he were to employ the same tactics against heating systems that he is doing to the motorists.
I’m sure someone will comment if I’m wrong, but my understanding is that the Euro tests are static tests with simulated driving conditions, whereas these tests test something completely different. So it’s not really surprising that it produces a different result. What happens if petrol engines are tested under these different conditions?
I may be wrong but I thought the new test applied to all cars petrol & diesel.
Years ago diesel was the preserve of joyless misers until common rail came along. That allowed diesel into luxury cars owned by people who were too rich to concern themselves with the environment. The government then made them cheaper despite 40 year old knowledge telling us of issues.
No wonder we have reached the point of concerned and bewildered owners finding the future and ownership costs are worse than petrol. Diesel engines are now blighted by the need for cool combustion chambers, EGR valves but hot catalytic converters and PDFs.
We have reached the point where we ask the government to tax us more for environmental reasons. Yet some of claim to support the likes of the Paris Climate Agreement yet have a diesel engined car. There is no room for duality in this and we cannot expect our government to sort this for us. I just don’t see this is fixable.
Due to the need for cool combustion temperatures yet hot DPFs and catalytic converters, most diesel engine powered cars are now fundamentally unsuited to urban use which is ironically where they can typically be found.
This has all come from environmental pressure and lies rather than listening to engineers. Had people in government been of sufficient calibre and not lied for an easy life, all this would not have come about.
I wonder if these car companies have also utilised ‘cheat devices’ to get through the approval tests? If not, how have they been allowed onto our roads?
I hope they will be subjected to the same investigations and penalties as VW and that responsible individuals are also brought to task.
Get rid of the bike lanes that are clogging up the traffic, especially as most cyclist still weave in and out of stationary traffic and totally ignore the bike lanes. Secondly how much NOX is coming from building sites in the city and crossrail/HS2
Why is diesel 10 cents cheaper than petrol in BERLIN I made a note of prices when visiting a few weeks ago Who has got something wrong ?
I think the ulez is still a con. If we allowed vehicle to travel, not excessive speed, rather than speed bumps etc , they would be more efficient. Traffic calming is causing pollution. Reopen roads and teach people when, and why to reduce speed all would be better
Interestingly diesels aren’t particularly harmful to the environment, more the human beings that made them in the first place.
Whereas petrols are more harmful the environment than they are to people. However with trees and other C02 reducing plant life the damage done by petrol vehicles could be neutralised whereas removing a diesels nasties from the air isn’t so easy.
However because population keeps expanding, we keep clearing the land that sucks CO2 from the atmosphere to build on.
So it’s really rather simple, every human being has a carbon footprint. Therefore if you reduce the number of human beings you will need less buildings, less cars, less planes, less trains, less boats, less power, less meat (cattle are far worse polluters than cars), etc and the planet will be a better place.
So who’s up for a limit on the number of children a person can have or more radically reducing unecessary care in later life to help lower the number of people?
Nope, didn’t think so.
Well, call it pie in the sky, conspiracy or whatever else but the one credible account of an individual developing a vehicle to run on water also resulted in said individuals demise in suspicious circumstances. Fossil fuels make big money for people. Simple as that. I do not doubt for one moment we could be running our cars cleanly on rainwater but then how does a government tax you for having a water butt behind your house? Until you can eliminate greed you will never eliminate pollution and climate change. Alas this is all just a small snippet of an even larger issue as in reality mankind is utterly incapable of governing itself as several thousand years of bloodshed, corruption and destroying our planet give stark testimony to. Is there an answer. Yes. Will the majority of this worlds population go looking for and acknowledge that solution. No!
THis is just MORE misrepresentation of the facts, as is widespread across this debate – emissions are wildly dependent upon the specific usage profile of each car/journey which is why any legal limit has to be tested and checked against a set and controlled test. The EURO6 NOx limits are NOT absolute – they do not apply to any car, any driver, any journey, any circumstances – but apply legally ONLY under the specific test procedures set by the regulations. None of these engines or manufacturers are breaking the legal limit if they passed the limit under the test procedure specified. Anyone can generate circumstances and run a test where the usage generates higher numbers, as indeed tests could be set up that would result in much lower numbers!
It can of course be debated whether the TRUE tests are more/less representative of typical usage, but that is another debate – fact is a different test (even if TRUE procedure adopted) would require discussion & agreement on different limits.
Please be more accurate in your reporting of this issue……
Hydrogen would be a better way forward as I doubt we will be able to generate enough electricity to cope if we all start trying to charge our brand new electric cars. More to the point, filling up with hydrogen would be just as quick as filling up with peterol or diesel & it would not require any infrastructure, as garages would sell hydrogen as they do peterol & diesel today. The technology for using hydrogen exists but governments are pushing manufacturers towards electric & hence it is not being developed. Remember it was governments that suggested diesel was claner than petrol.. could this be another example of interfering government shooting itself in the foot?
See a previous letter about the true cost to produce & store hydrogen it is not the answer as it is no if any better than what we have now.
High acceleration and “non smooth” driving pollute much more and also use more fuel.
I can get 67+ mpv from my ford mondeo estate 2.0l diesel!!!
Its all nonsense this we are destroying the earth with our cars if thats the case why does the PM get driven around in a jag and all the other namby pamby politicians and of course sadiq khan drive big cars plus all the royals have big emmision polluting cars as well joe public is taxed to death on vehicle duty so come on lets all get electric cars but the electric stations need power for them to work so hey ho where will that come from powerstations which will emit so called greenhouse gases but on the other hand in 20/30 years there will be an electric shortage so back to the diesel cars
all the checks are based on Diesel mostly which are way over the emissions and electric seem to be super good, what dose it take to create the electricity? and what has happened to Petrol?
far as I can see, all you need is an extra tank on the side of the car which you then pee into, and allow this to drip into the diesel exhaust…….
Easy fix. Promote LPG. My 2001 Grand Cherokee 4.0 litre puts out next to zero NOX
So why isn’t LPG used more……
Promote LPG? Correct me if I am wrong but wasn’t it the Government who promoted diesel all those years ago, now look where we are!
is there any point,with the VW debarc’le in which 300,000 U.S.A. citizens got a new car and British owners got there cars
re- timed to make them go slower.Was this done not to upset the Germans in some vain hope of help with Brexit .No
change there then!
Taxi Drivers representative says that they are changing to electrical cars ASAP, but that there is a waiting list and a shortage of these. It is the manufacturer’s who need pursuing!
when Mount St.Helens went up in America it spewed out tons of gas smoke and lava.the light from the Sun was blocked out for at least three days.these must have effect.i saw a program on television at least three years ago that the ice 80′ below the surface was melting.i can only think of one reason for this,volcanic.the T.V. program said there would be another the next night,but there wasn’t.pollution is a problem but is it the main one?
The real answer is for us to use hydrogen cell technology which produces no poluntents as point of use.
Electric cars are a gimmick and can not, except in cities, give us a practical alternative to the IC engine.
I believe that in the US of A they have been working on hydrogen powered HGV’s with very good results.
I cannot see battery power been able to power a 44 tonne lorry can you ?
These kind of cars should be taken off the road ~ simple. Ruinous to our health.
When are governments going to stop the pollution created by airplanes which deliver vast amounts straight into the atmosphere.
What a joke, this is just government trying to get yet more money of its citizens for going into London and lets face it, who wants to go into London anyway? London is a cackhole.
If you enjoy being ripped off then go to London where you’ll probably end up
getting shot or stabbed for your trainers or mobile phone anyway. Save yourself the misery and stay away.
Why is this news?
I think the more shocking thing here is that the Renault ran long enough to be tested 😉