Ah but they are all actually REDUCING. And without enforcement either. THis is voluntary remember, not some federally mandated CAFE legislation that all the manufacturers are lobbying to removed....

Notice how well Ford and GM (Opel/Vauxhall) are doing when they're not spending all their money on lobbying to get the laws changed? Makes you wonder what they could do in the US doens't it?

They should just tax gas more. Then people will naturally gravitate towards more fuel-efficient vehicles and will use them more efficiently by carpooling and combining trips.

If I buy an SUV and fill it with people, it gets pretty good passenger-miles-per-gallon, better than any non-hybrid with just the driver occupying the vehicle.

Fuel is already expensive in Europe (due to tax). Hybrids are expensive due to manufacturing and lack of subsidies. They are not bought due to competition from diesels. If people want an economical car in Europe, they buy a diesel or a smaller car.
The pressure for more economial cars has only been on for about 3-4 years and it takes a while for companies to change their strategies.
As long as fuel remains expensive, most companies should hit the 140 target ( I woud hope ).

t,

Could you explain about the difference in grams of co2 per km when comparing gas & diesel? Does this difference still exist with biodiesel -- I'm curious.

The fine print of the ACEA commitment technically gives carmakers a few reasons (e.g. tougher safety standards) to argue for leniency, but voters and regulators will probably only look at the headline number and conclude those dastardly carmakers are trying to pull a fast one on them.

This is a pity, because the main reason the trendline is above target is consumer demand for larger, comfier, heavier vehicles with better acceleration. Really frugal cars like the VW Lupo flopped in the market, while ambitious concepts like the all-aluminium Audi A2 subcompact proved too expensive.

If regulators decide they really need to regulate CO2 emissions, they should consider the following: instead of a fleet average of 120 g CO/km by 2012, set the target at 140 (the trends sugest this is entirely feasible). However, also set a per-vehicle cap of 1.5 x fleet average = 210 g CO2/km. For reference, that would translate to a *minimum* of 26MPG on gasoline and 30MPG on diesel in the NEDC test cycle. However, all brands should be subject to the same regulations, including the Japanese and Korean ones.

The above would apply to the M1 class, i.e. 4-wheeled vehicles for a driver and up to 8 passengers, with a GVW <3500kg. Corresponding limits would be required for other classes of motor vehicles.

Mandating a per-vehicle cap would force each carmaker to quickly and radically redefine its concept of what constitutes a luxury vehicle. The top-of-the-line models tend to define the brand identity that shapes long-term customer aspirations. Thus, a per-vehicle cap would in effect force carmakers to spend their marketing budgets on somehow making fuel economy more desireable than raw performance and other traditional value attributes. Necessity being the mother of invention, the engineered solutions would quickly trickle down to cheaper models to amortize R&D and production tooling costs.

t -

the g CO2/km benchmark was actually introduced to establish a single metric for both gasoline and diesel. Diesel's H-to-C ratio is slightly worse due to the longer carbon chains, which explains the difference when expressed in the traditional l/100km. Note, however, that diesel also contains 12% more energy per volume due to its higher density, plus diesel engines are more efficient. Indeed, without diesels the fleet average fuel economy would not have gone down much at all. CNG is beginning to help to some extent, and carmakers argue that biofuels should be included in the assessment.

Btw, only ~1% of new registrations in the US are hybrids, compared to ~50% diesels in Europe. Having superior technology is one thing, actually selling & shipping it quite another. The aggregate effect on CO2 mitigation is definitely greater in Europe. Wrt the other emissions (esp. NOx now that DPFs are available), you have a point.

Hybrid and PHEV technology can give superior acceleration (and engine-off A/C operation, and a bunch of other niceties) while improving economy.  If CO2 reductions become mandatory, watch for everything to go PHEV.

In practical terms, hype of EU policymakers to curb GHG emissions have near zero results. Car manufacturers are too just dragging thief feet, as anyone else. Decrease of vehicular CO2 emissions are attributed solely to progress in improved fuel efficiency, not the desire to reduce CO2 emissions. Yes, in US this improvement is leveled to bigger, safer, and more powerful cars, along with drive to totally unnecessary SUV commuters.

It is clearly bogus to expect that high-performance luxury Beemer will have same fuel consumption as Fiat econobox. And any ICE have it theoretical limit, so from point of view of nullifying GHG emission, reliance on diesel engine improvements is clearly dead end. Sadly, European carmakers are actively fighting (yet silently developing) hybrid technology, which is the only one to hold a promise ( via PHEV to BEV, FCEV, or whatever) to achieve the goal of near-zero vehicular CO2 emissions.

Andrey,

"Bigger" - yes

"Safer" - not always. Chassis dynamics of European spec cars generally provide a hign level of active saftey. NCAP safety rating has pushed up passive saftey markedly in the last years.

One thing you might be forgeting. The CO2 limit is based on a drive cycle to 110km/h (NEDC) with most between 30 and 70km/h. The actual difference in energy required for a heavier car in not so great in outringt terms, so perhaps the BMW's and Mercedes could also show some technical prowess by "demonstating" that 120 or 140g CO2 is "not so difficult" even with big high horsepower engines.

Mike

Perhaps instead of a gas fuel tax you have a car purchase surcharge tax like we do with luxury gas guzzler vehicles that would be based on how well the CO2 g/km target is achieved. This provides the manufacturers a very big incentive to improve their engines. This would be a very big driver of their car sale and much more powerful to affect real engine manufacturing improvements than a gas fuel tax.

To set CAFE Limits does not work as manufactures cannot achieve them? You've been listening to lobby groups too much. The data above PROVE that reductions are possible. Even, in this case, without compulsion

>The oil/auto cartel/investors and lobby groups have no >real incentive

That's what Governments are for!! Oh sorry I forgot, you have a Government run by Industry lackeys... ;-)

CO2: What counts? The C02 average of all cars sold of a brand p.a. or the fleet average?

Why does Merc or Bmw sell smal cars like the Smart or Mini? To bring the CO2 fleet average down? Merc even accepts hughes losses in selling Smats. Why?

That was the reason for that dirty Diesel Lupo or Audi A2? Reduce the fleet average of the whole fleet?

In some European countries the fleet average of Diesel cars is now almost the same as of the patrol guzzlers (1-2% diff.).It´s a Diesel-progress, isn´t it?

At least the car makers increased the profit per car selling Diesels.

Btw, in the old stories Jesus was walking! Should we follow our hero?