I think it's interesting that this has such a pro-BMW spin.

Even if BMW gets the award for most improved, they're still second to last in average CO2, and their 170 g/km is well above the average of 158, leader PSA Peugeot-Citroen and Fiat's 141 g/km, and the average target for 2012 of 130 g/km.

They need a 19% reduction to make their target, putting them in the half of automakers who are farthest from hitting their specific targets.

So, I'm glad they're making progress at a fast rate. They've got a long way to go, and I hope they have continued success.

They showed the biggest improvement because they were so bad last year.

On board Syngas/H2 generators, installing NOx and PM eliminating equipment, and running engine hotter (higher compression ratios) will help reduce PM and NOx emissions while improving fuel mileage 10% to 30% (reducing fuel usage by 11-23%) and torque. The first and last are already on the market, and the emission reduction equipment to cut NOx will arrive in volume within 2 years for Tier2Bin5 diesels.

A 11-23% improvement will bring PSA Peugeot-Citroen all the way down to, and perhaps including Nissan, in line with CO2 emission guidelines.

Now that the Earth has been in a Global Cooling trend for the past ten years it's about time that we start emitting more CO2 in order to save lives. Cutting back on CO2 will only speed up the cooling process, according to scientists.

Algore - why do you even post? Why do you even visit this site?

Your email address says a few things about you.

A possible reason why BMW did so well is that they make expensive cars and have the margins to add energy saving devices.
In addition, their cars were ridiculously overpowered, so holding off on further power increases could be done.

On the other hand, they definitely have "got with the program" with their "efficient dynamics" notion.

The trick is to sell low CO2 as a positive benefit, in the way they used to sell high acceleration, but what people want / need is a balance of the two, which is harder to sell.

With BMW having shown the way, and shown what can be done, lets hope that the mass market companies can follow, without increasing the cost (and complexity) of their cars.

I wonder how much of this will filter down to the TATA Nano ?

BMW seems to do a good job in cutting CO2 emissions in the NEDC-Cycle which was used to compare vehicle emissions in the report. However in real life fuel consumption / emission reduction of BMWs cars is far away from the NEDC-values.

Example:
NEDC-consumption of a Audi A3 2.0 TDI: 5.12 ltr/100km
NEDC-consumption of a BMW 118d: 4.52 ltr/100km
Consumption on Road: Audi 6.8 ltr/100km, BMW 6.9 ltr/100km

data taken from http://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/tests/vergleichstest/hxcms_article_514580_13987,testdaten,fahrwerte.hbs#ank

In my opinion BMWs Efficient Dynamics is focused on consumption / emissions in the test cycles used for the car rating, while real life consumption isn't that important to the engineers. This is very good marketing, but bad engineering.

@Hans - interesting report.

So there is no such thing as a free lunch.
It would be interesting to see how well a Mini diesel and Prius would do in similar tests.
It is perhaps too much to expect such huge gains to be made in real world driving - you can prepare very directly for a specific test.
I would imagine that all EC carmakers will get very good at the NEDC tests as mandated. This suggests that it won't have very much effect on real fuel consumption, but it might lower taxes for companies and people.

The problem with real world testing, especially for economy is that it is so subjective - do they swap testers at half time to average driving styles ?

I think BMW is looking with great interest at using an advanced form of exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) to reduce diesel emissions to meet even the 2009 CARB rules without having to inject urea gas into the exhaust stream.

Back in the early days of emission controls, EGR didn't work well, and it caused all kinds of driveability issues. But with today's fuel-injected and computer-controlled engines, using EGR won't cause driveability issues, and if it helps reduce exhaust emissions, all the more better.

Driving style means a lot! I have a Golf 2.0 TDI, essentially the same car as the Audi 2.0 TDi. The Audi is perhaps slightly heavier, but has better aerodynamics, so I assume they perform the same.

I have no problem getting below 6.0 l/100km. Spending 6.8 requires agressive driving. Admittedly, I drive most kilometers commuting on the motor way, but even in city traffic I routinely get under 6.0, sometimes close to 5.0.

- When on the motor way; accelerate slowly to catch up with those in front of you. Don't worry, you'll catch them anyway.
- Drive in high gear. The 2.0 TDI has no problems pulling at 1000-1200 rpm on an even road.
- Let go of the accelerator long in advance before having to stop/slow down. In traffic you only loose time if someone cuts in front of you and even then it's negligible.
- Avoid excessive speeding. It's fun, but it doesn't get you there much sooner - in heavy traffic not at all - while causing stress, poor safety and waste of fuel. Reserve speeding for when there is a clear road ahead and you can actually get there faster. Obviously, you should follow traffic and not drive too slow!
- Use the autopilot whenever possible. It does a much better job at keeping the speed than you can.

I believe I have found a way to save fuel that works for me. I don't drive like granddad, but I also don't waste fuel getting first to the red light.

Btw, the Golf 2.0 TDI is rated at 5.4 l/100km

Interesting that car weight is to be taken into account. This will reduce the incentive to reduce weight and is I assume the result of lobbying by the German Government on behalf of German car firms.

Surely this would work best with a fixed avergae leve, with tradable permits. Then BMW could choose to increase the cost of BMW 5s, to either subsidise BMW 1s and diesel BMWs, or buy permits and effectively subsidise Peugots and Fiats.

The result would be lower priced efficient cars and higher priced inefficient cars. Surely one of the two aims of the schemes? (The other aim being to encourage technical developmnents).

If only cars were not considered reflections of one's personal style or manhood, and were instead considered what they really are - transportation appliances - then luxury car makers like BMW wouldn't exist in their present "ultimate driving machine" form.

The luxury car makers only exist to prey upon starry-eyed consumers who are sucked-in by a life-long exposure to a relentless advertising campaign that they've probably seen 10,000 times.

A BMW is a consumer product, much like a fancy watch, except that it pollutes the environment like crazy. A watch tells time no matter what you spend on it. A car gets you from point A to point B no matter what you spend on it. The difference with BMW is that their "racing heritage" cache often encourages its drivers into behavioral displacement which results in an overly aggressive driving style.

I so wish it soon becomes the "in" thing to live near one's workplace and shopping, to reasonably share well insulated housing (house mates can be enriching), to use public transportation, and to share super high efficiency cars with others in the household and even with the neighbors. This isn't a communist vision. This is simply a requirement for sustainability.

Should the luxury segment get any concessions at all? The people with the money to spend on luxury also have the money to spend on cutting-edge efficiency measures. Those improvements would both appear on the used market and trickle down to cheaper models.

"T&E is calling for a CO2 target of 120 g/km by 2012, in line with an official EU target first proposed in 1994 by the former German environment minister Angela Merkel (now Chancellor)."

These targets will continue to be dismissed until acceptance that CO2 measures are nearly meaningless today. CARB is far more important.

@HansDampf
"BMW seems to do a good job in cutting CO2 emissions in the NEDC-Cycle...
NEDC-consumption of a BMW 118d: 4.52 ltr/100km
Consumption on Road: Audi 6.8 ltr/100km, BMW 6.9 ltr/100km"

I own a BMW 118d, and the AMS testers must have an enormous lead foot. It's completely possible to reach 4.5 l/100 km in sedate extra-urban driving and 5.5 l/100km in city driving. The worst I ever got was on a pedal-to-the-metal 600km autobahn trip, going top speed wherever it was possible: 7.2 l/100km.

(Actual calculated economy numbers from my fuel bills)

I don't know how the guys at AMS drive, maybe they have a bad driving style. But I expect them to have the same driving style in all cars.

What I wanted to point out is that in almost every AMS-comparison of a BMW with other manufacturers cars (Mercedes, Audi ...) the BMW has a significantly lower fuel consumption in NEDC than the other car. But on the road consumption of both cars is almost the same.

So they are doing a good job on the NEDC. Eventually this is what counts when CO2-dependent tax is invented.

@Mirko,

Any idea what speed you were doing on the Autobahn to get 7.2 L/100km?

i think this is a very misleading title, which should be telling us instead who is closest to the targets....

when you're the worst-in-class (not to mention with the kind of margins bmw makes) of course your improvements, as a percentage, are going to be higher (assuming you make an improvement)

Not being a car expert myself, I have a question about car emissions that perhaps someone can answer for me.

I checked out this official UK emissions page and I can'r understand why there are hardly any German cars in the list (besides the Smart which only has 2 seats), despite cars like the Polo, Golf, A3 Class A and so on costing considerably MORE than their rivals..

@clett
That was on a trip from Rostock to Lübeck, with hardly anybody else on the road. 200 kph on the unlimited parts (about 2/3 of the trip), the speed limit on the limited parts.

...about AMS. I guess, there were driving and not staying in front of red lights. Thus, the start-stop system did not deliver any benefits.

And that is exactly the problem. BMW did not improve engine efficency at all. They just swith the engine off in order to save fuel. The next improvment according to this BMW´s approach would be: NEVER START A BMW ENGINE. Hm, not very dynamic but at least efficient. Somehow.