VW Officials Knew Since Last Year of Misleading Fuel Economy Claims (reuters.com)

It's not just CO2 levels that Volkswagen manipulated; according to a wire story, Volkswagen officials knew at least a year ago that some of the company's officially-reported fuel-efficiency claims were overstated. From the linked article: Volkswagen's top executives knew a year ago that some of the company's cars were markedly less fuel efficient than had been officially stated, Sunday paper Bild am Sonntag reported, without specifying its sources. ... Months after becoming aware of excessive fuel consumption, former Chief Executive Martin Winterkorn decided this spring to pull one model off the market where the discrepancy was particularly pronounced, the Polo TDI BlueMotion, the paper cited sources close to Winterkorn as saying.

Comments

Re:"Incorrect" MPG numbers

[orpheus]

The make/model/package MPG figures come straight from the manufacturers, who usually don't even test production models, but pre-production engineering prototypes --engineering prototypes!-- and report that figure for as many production years as they like

According to the EPA itself: "How vehicles are tested" https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/how_tested.shtml

Each year EPA tests a random sample of maybe 10% of the base models on the market. Note: this is a much smaller number than the various "apparent models" (variants, options packages, etc.) that a consumer might feelare different cars. Aside from perhaps testing a second engine option in a given model, the EPA ignores those variants and doesn't even require tests to be conducted in successive production years because it feels "MPG probably won't change much from year to year" and "almost no options would affect indoor dynamometer results anyway -- we know it's a poor test". Aerodynamics is just one the options that significantly impact real world MPG, but won't show up on a dynamometer

Therefore MPG numbers are just a manufacturer's own claims, subject to spot-checking by the EPA. Apparently VW, Kia, and others felt the risk of spot check was small enough to ignore.

Re:that's strange - everygets one worse than offic

[EvilAlphonso]

My 4 last cars include 2 Audi, one Ford and one Mazda

• One 1999 Audi A3 1.8 automatic was just slightly worse than the announced fuel economy.
• The temporary car that followed was a 2012 Ford Fiesta econetic 1.6, announced as a 3.6 l/100 but I never got it below 7 l/100 (onboard computer, I didn't keep it long enough to bother doing the calcs by hand).
• After that, I had a 2012 Audi A3 Sportsback 2.0 TDI S Tronic, which was slightly better than its announced average fuel economy.
• The "current" car is a 2002 Mazda MX5 NBFL 1.6, where I get sightly better than the announced average fuel economy even tho I drive it mostly in the city.