Renault TCE 100hp Engine to Power Modus
Pending Fuel Economy Bills Set Slower, Less Aggressive Goals

European Automobile Industry Reiterates That 130g/km Target “Not Feasible”

The Board of Directors of ACEA, the European Automobile Manufacturers Association, consisting of all thirteen members’ CEOs, reiterated that the European Commission’s proposed vehicle target of 130 grams CO2 per kilometer by 2012 is not feasible through vehicle technology only.

The ACEA agreed on the general framework and basic principles that should apply to the new EU policy to further reduce carbon emissions from cars, including the incorporation of “appropriate lead time” ahead of a legislative framework because of long development and manufacturing cycles.

The first feasible date for implementation of new legal requirements is 2015,” said Sergio Marchionne, President of ACEA and CEO of Fiat.

The ACEA position is that effective reduction of CO2 will require substantial effort from all relevant actors involved: the fuel industry, policy makers and drivers in addition to the automotive industry.

Such an approach would combine the ongoing improvements in vehicle technology with a larger use of biofuels, infrastructure adjustments and implementation of traffic management, CO2-related taxation of both cars and alternative fuels, and the adoption of a more economic driving style by consumers.



Look what BMW are doing with micro-hybrids - this has to be caused by this 130 gms threat. So it is a good thing.

As for the "economic driving style", this means an "economic testing style" - that should be easy enough.

The extra 3 years is 1/2 a generation.

How could you ensure that they actually do it, and are not just buying time ?...

Mikael Johansson

The target for sure is feasible. There are already many cars emitting CO2 less than 130g per kilometer. ACEA should use their intelligence to create environmental fleets of cars in Europe. If a car manufacturer can´t reach the target by their own they should cooperate with those who can. The best way to reach the target is to build (diesel) hybrids, plug-in hybrids and electric vehicles. They can build flexifuel cars, biogas cars and biodiesel cars. If the EU Commission legislates the proposal, breaking the target will be a crime. Then I’m sure ACEA members will reach the target. Politicians must be tough to reduce global warming

If people were told, in 1964, that in five years they will be watching the first man walking on the moon, they would have laughed.

tom deplume

In 1964 I totally believed that we would reach the moon before 1970. As a teenager I found the space program very exciting and a powerful stimulus for studying technology.

Robert Schwartz

130g CO2/km = 35.45g C/km = 3545.45g C/100km.
Assuming the C comes from C8H18, that is
4210 g Gasoline/100km. assuming 737.27g/l, we get 5.7l/100km = 41mpg.


Of course 41mpg is possible. Europe's CAFE at large is nearly 40mpg as it is.

What is not feasible is BMW, Daimler, Porsche, + Audi's horsepower race. 130g/km is not possible with +300bhp luxury sedans which happen to be the only vehicles that Europeans can build in the EU and export to other countries at a profit.

The social entitlements disaster that Western Europe has become prohibits the profitable manufacture of small fuel efficient vehicles for export. (MINI being an exception)


"What is not feasible is BMW, Daimler, Porsche, + Audi's horsepower race. 130g/km is not possible with +300bhp luxury sedans"

Unless they go with an electric drivetrain. Massive power with high efficiency means even 300 hp vehicles could come under 130 g/km.



Well, the fleet average of ACEA, the european car manufactures association (to which Toyota has just joined this week), is somewhere between 160-165 g/km.

Your mpg value might be correct, but you go wrong with your estimate of petrol density (US and EU formulations are different), as well as you are not honoring the ~50% percentage of diesel cars - with a much higher Carbon content.

DieselHybrid: What you describe as "social entitlements disaster" - is much less costly than the US healthcare mismanagement by a factor of 2-3. I'd rather describe that odd system you got in the US as "disaster", as a significant part of your population has no healthcare whatsoever (compared to less than 0,2% - typically the rich - in europe).


"Not feasible" is incidentially what the same group of manufacturers said when unleaded fuel was made mandatory (even though it had already been used in CA for years). "Not feasible" was also what they said when catalysts became mandatory (after which they all competed in being able to offer cars with catalysts one or two years before it was a legal requirement).

Conclusion: the 130 g/km is spot on. Bulls eye. ACEA saying "not feasible" proves it. I say, stop whining and get to work.

//Owner of a 109 g/km car.



Completely off topic...
I'm not saying the US system isn't broke- healthcare definitely needs fixing (not to mention much needed tort reform). However, I question how EU countries (notably Germany, Italy, France) can remain competitive in an ever-flattening world.

Read "The World is Flat" where Thomas Friedman notes several examples- including a study where a few EU nations scored as poorly as numerous 3rd world countries in terms of economic development/productivity. In stark contrast, Ireland is a model for embracing and moving ahead in the global economy.

It appears inevitable that the US will fall behind China+India, but I am completely in wonder as to how the EU plans to survive? Excessive social entitlements & obtrusive protectionism combined with low (negative) birthrate appears to be the makings of economic suicide.

Back on topic- 130g/km (and below) vehicles are clearly feasible and necessary in the global market (especially in light of India/China's explosive growth).

The comments to this entry are closed.