back to article Mitsubishi 'fesses up: We lied in fuel tests to make our cars look great

Tetsuro Aikawa, president of Mitsubishi Motors Corp (MMC), gave a deep bow of apology at a press conference on Wednesday after admitting his firm had falsified fuel efficiency tests on at least 635,000 vehicles. "MMC conducted testing improperly to present better fuel consumption rates than the actual rates; and that the …

  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    President hangs head in shame

    minor deviation from the original "President hangs himself in shame"....

    1. Chemical Bob

      Re: President hangs head in shame

      I thought he was trying to impale his head on the microphones

  2. redpawn Silver badge

    Self Testing

    Independent labs cost quite a bit of money and they produce unattractive scores. Besides everyone else is cheating too. No need for regulations. Shame will keep automakers in line every so often.

    1. Eddy Ito Silver badge

      Re: Self Testing

      Well it's certainly cheaper than having to buy off the independent lab and the regulators. Whether it's really different, well I'm not so sure.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Self Testing

        I can assure you both that "independent" labs will produce the results the paymaster requires. I base this on experience many years ago concerning the homologation process for the products of a world famous automotive group by a world famous engineering laboratory.

        If the state wants things tested, then it should commission the tests and pay the bill. Given the billions most states rake in from automotive taxation, a few hundred million on objective testing wouldn't break the bank.

        1. allthecoolshortnamesweretaken

          Re: Self Testing

          But, but, but - deregulation! Free enterprise! Private sector efficiency! The Invisible HandTM that rights all wrongs and heals all ails!

          It's almost like you are insinnuating that corporations could be not entirely truthful to their customers!

        2. Gene Cash Silver badge

          Re: Self Testing

          > If the state wants things tested, then it should commission the tests

          Actually, there's a new furor in the US over "why didn't the state emissions tests - where they test cars on the road - catch the VW problem?"

          OTOH, I can't throw stones, as Florida has no road-worthiness testing at all. They stopped a couple decades or so ago.

        3. Mark 85 Silver badge

          Re: Self Testing

          In corporatespeak, that "few hundred million" is profit. To a State it's funding for something or other usually. What they'd do instead is just raise the tax or the license fees...

  3. wolfetone Silver badge

    Only 10%?

    This is such a non-story it's unreal.

    I have a Peugeot 3008 1.6 Diesel*, and the official figure for the MPG is 55. This is mixed with urban driving and motorway driving. The problem is, after 2 years of owning it, the best I've ever got from it was 53 MPG by driving totally on the motorway (Birmingham to Glasgow). That was me driving at 55mph too. With my daily driving I get 40 MPG, and that's a mix of inner city driving and 70mph carriageways.

    So to say Mitsubishi "cheated" results that no one is EVER going to get near anyway is irrelevant really. Everyone knows the official figures are unobtainable, so it makes no difference at all that the figures were cheated.

    * soon to be replaced by a 1998 Toyota Corolla. Because I want reliability, not French spit and duct tape engineering.

    1. Electron Shepherd

      Re: Only 10%?

      Everyone knows the official figures are unobtainable

      That's true - no one every gets the quoted figure. But the point of the official figure, oddly enough, is not to say what the actual consumption is. The intention is that it's used purely as a relative comparator, not an absolute, so that you know that a car with an official consumption figure of 70 mpg will be more efficient than one with a 60 mpg figure, and not that either will actually deliver the quoted consumption figure

      The problem is that it has a unit associated with it, so it becomes measurable in the real world. If it was simply a grading, say from A to Z, with A being really good and Z being really bad, people wouldn't complain. That grading comes with its own issues, though, such as how do you grade a new car in a few years time that beats the current 'A' grade?

      1. Brewster's Angle Grinder Silver badge
        Coat

        Re: Only 10%?

        The grading above "A" is "@". The grading above "@" is "?". The grading above "?" is ">". And so on.

        Mine's the one with the ASCII chart in the pocket, thanks.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Only 10%?

          'The grading above "A" is "@". The grading above "@" is "?". The grading above "?" is ">". And so on.'

          How about using emoji for the rating system? Maybe one or more poop emoji for high consumption vehicles and a hipster emoji for the very low emission ones?

          1. MJI Silver badge

            Re: Only 10%?

            Am I alone in wondering what an emoji is?

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Only 10%?

            How about using emoji for the rating system?

            Why? Nobody cares what comes out of their cars exhaust.

            Actually, mea culpa, that's not true. I cared when I drove a big Euro 3 diesel. By nursing the engine, keeping revs and turbo boost low most of the time, I could keep the particulate emissions really low. Of course, that meant a soot build up in the exhaust, and a generous well timed acceleration would release it all. Man, I was a hero! I could lay smoke like a destroyer shielding the Grand Fleet! Admiral Beatty would have been proud

            And I could put it down where it was needed. Like overtaking a pack of cyclists.

            1. wolfetone Silver badge

              Re: Only 10%?

              Regarding the Peugeot...

              From some of the forums on the internet it seems to be a common issue with these cars, and these HDi engines. I drive like a nun on a sunday, never go above the speed limit, never gunning it at the lights, it's driven nicely.

              Ultimately the car, to me, is a finance thing too. I'm supposed to have it for 5 years, and I'm just over 2 years in to the deal. It's had £1,200 out of me for a new clutch and flywheel already which went at 60,000 miles (I've done 25,000 of those), and there may also be an issue with the turbo which is another £1,000.

              These new Peugeots that are being produced are just junk. Look lovely, and they are nice to drive, but you can't rely on it to be a member of the family for longer than 3 years - if that.

      2. Oengus

        Re: Only 10%?

        so that you know that a car with an official consumption figure of 70 mpg will be more efficient than one with a 60 mpg figure

        You only know that it is more efficient for the circumstances of the tests conducted. Under different driving conditions the results can be vastly different with the "Less efficient car" actually performing better than the "more efficient car.

      3. wolfetone Silver badge

        Re: Only 10%?

        "The intention is that it's used purely as a relative comparator, not an absolute, so that you know that a car with an official consumption figure of 70 mpg will be more efficient than one with a 60 mpg figure, and not that either will actually deliver the quoted consumption figure"

        But it's still a useless comparison. You have a car that the MPG is lied about compared to a car that has MPG that you'll never get. So you may as well spit up in to the air and see where it lands because you simply can't make any sort of decision on it.

        Official MPG is a useless yardstick at the moment, regardless of lies or truth.

        1. werdsmith Silver badge

          Re: Only 10%?

          I've found that in all cases it is possible to get better than the quoted MPG figures driving any car.

          I'm interested that the guy says that he is getting 40MPG from a diesel Peugeot 3008, as I am getting a regular 45 MPG from a petrol SUV, that is quoted as 50MPG by the maker. I can drive it to get better than 50MPG if I am careful, and choose a warm day, start with the engine warm and my journey encounters no conflicting traffic to mess things up.

          And there is no such thing as "real world" mpg, because everybody has a different "real world". The official figures are just fine if your expectations are realistic. A car that is quoted as 50MPG can do 50MPG or more. But it won't get 50MPG on a minus 5C morning in heavy stop start traffic on hilly roads, it will be more like 35MPG. Well duh, imagine that! All those evil dishonest car makers telling us lies.....

          I really don't understand why people have such a problem with the quoted MPG figures.

          1. <shakes head>

            Re: Only 10%?

            ok I had a 2005 skoda Octavia diesel rated at 50 mpg, over 2 years of driving it got an average of 46

            a 2014 Volvo V50 rated at 77mpg only gets 42 so the comparison is not the same, the difference is that the car has been tuned to a specific test and now no longer tuned to "normal" driving

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Only 10%?

            Very weird from the Peugeot. I get 38 MPG average from a mix of motorway and city driving and I drive a 3Ltr twin turbo diesel Jag!.

            Either that car is extra awful or the driver has a serious lead foot problem!

      4. Anna Logg

        Re: Only 10%?

        "The intention is that it's used purely as a relative comparator, not an absolute, so that you know that a car with an official consumption figure of 70 mpg will be more efficient than one with a 60 mpg figure, and not that either will actually deliver the quoted consumption figure"

        That would work if they all cheated in the same ways, but it seems they don't, judging by the differences between real world figures found on the 'net and the official ones - some cars with some drivers are pretty close to official figures, others way off.

        It would help if cheating was made more difficult - measure a vehicle's emissions whilst it achieves its stated 0-62 time for example.

        1. clanger9
          Devil

          Re: Only 10%?

          "measure a vehicle's emissions whilst it achieves its stated 0-62 time for example"

          Now there's an idea to put the fear of God into the motor manufacturers. Have you ever been behind a modern performance car while it accelerates on full throttle? *cough* *splutter*. The muck that comes out of the back of these things on full tilt is amazing.

          You get the impression that the pollution control gear is there solely for the purpose of getting through the tests and does pretty much f-a the rest of the time...

          1. Alan Edwards

            Re: Only 10%?

            > "measure a vehicle's emissions whilst it achieves its stated 0-62 time for example"

            In terms of the total emissions over the time it takes to get to 62, that could be an interesting test.

            Does going full bore for 4 seconds with a giganto-engine produce more CO2 than full-bore for 15 seconds in an econo-box?

            You could extend that to a set route that replicates a commute, or some other journey. With a bigger engine your acceleration phases will be done quicker, and you need a lighter throttle to maintain cruise speeds.

      5. CrazyOldCatMan Silver badge

        Re: Only 10%?

        > That's true - no one every gets the quoted figure.

        I'd probably go as far as to say "no-one gets the quoted figure" - simply because the 'simulated' nature of the testing.

        Any element of real traffic (even 2am type traffic) throws out the MPG.

        > If it was simply a grading, say from A to Z

        While it sounds good you still have an issue - who defines the bands? Who defines the testing methodologies (and monitors the tests to make sure the manufacturers are not cheating?).

        Sadly, the electrical appliance model doesn't really work for vehicles - fridges don't have to cope with idiot drivers, idiot pedestrians, lemming-like livestock and drivers who are convinced that they are the next incarnation of Michael Schumacher (pre- or post-head trauma - your choice)..

    2. Lee D Silver badge

      Re: Only 10%?

      "that the testing method was also different from the one required by Japanese law"

      Thus, they broke the law.

      Presumably not EVERY OTHER manufacturer, as you suggest, broke that law.

      Whether or not you can replicate lab conditions on an ideal prototype car straight off the factory floor, with whatever you're driving for however many years, and the MPG it reads out on the OBD, is an entirely different matter.

      Same as the Volkswagen stuff. They cheated on the emissions that are legally prescribed to get past the test. The law now changes. And every manufacturer will have to comply. Those that don't can't point fingers at the others that don't as an excuse. Because if EVEN ONE can do it, so can all the rest.

    3. 0laf Silver badge

      Re: Only 10%?

      The more economical (and newer) the car the bigger the lie.

      My last 3 cars, lab mpg Vs real life mpg

      2007 Octy VRS TFSI - 35.7 / 38

      2010 Honda Accord - 2.2d - 45 / 52

      2015 Mazda 3 2.2d - 70 / 53

      Ok the Mazda is still new and tight but it's the first car I can't even get close to the lab figure

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Only 10%?

        My last 3 cars, lab mpg Vs real life mpg

        2007 Octy VRS TFSI - 35.7 / 38

        2010 Honda Accord - 2.2d - 45 / 52

        2015 Mazda 3 2.2d - 70 / 53

        How the mighty are fallen!

        Incidentally, my new 2016 Octy 1.4 TSi claims 53, I can get 52 in everyday driving, so the Skoda consumption figures still appear achievable.

  4. This post has been deleted by a moderator

  5. Graham Marsden

    "It was Nissan that blew the whistle on the scam"

    But was that before someone blew it for them?

    At least this way they get to have some control over the way the story goes.

    1. MJI Silver badge

      Re: "It was Nissan that blew the whistle on the scam"

      Buyers failing the rule of Nissan.

      Does it have a Z in the name? : Buy it

      Does it have GT-R in the name? : Buy it

      Otherwise : Don't

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: "It was Nissan that blew the whistle on the scam"

        So I should go buy that 1990 Stanza I saw online?

        1. MJI Silver badge

          Re: "It was Nissan that blew the whistle on the scam"

          Stanza

          No small z not large Z

          No go and buy a Z370

          I did forget 200SX is fine as well

  6. Ian Emery Silver badge
    Black Helicopters

    Going by the appalling mpg my MMC motor gets, the Euro figures are honest.

    And I do mean appalling, but it is very close to the official mpg.

    On the up side, 8 years old and NOTHING has gone wrong with it; I havent even had to change a bulb.

    Black chopper, because with my mpg, the chopper is cheaper to run.

  7. Adam 1 Silver badge

    punitive response from regulators

    A bowed head isn't going to fix it. A fine isn't going to fix it either as fines are just considered a cost of business and will be passed onto consumers in one way or another. But what will change behaviour is penalising their future scores. Cheat by 10% and be penalised by 20%. Cheat with a million cars, have the 20% penalty against 2 million. 4 models caught, penalise 8. Done it for 2 years, penalise for 4.

    At the end of the day, they are stealing customers off their competition, so this approach would give that competition a leg up and create a strong disincentive to cheat.

  8. Jos V

    Energy in = energy out

    I really can't be bothered to do the calculations right now, but fuel (be it diesel, gasoline, LPG, whatever) caries a set amount of energy. You convert this to heat, and transfer it to motion, causing the car to move. It's starting to look like the MPG (I hate to use M and G, but ok) is getting closer and closer to cars getting more energy out of the fuel than the fuel actually holds.

    When will they reach total equilibrium, where all energy from the fuel is converted into motion, with no heat loss at all?

    1. Gotno iShit Wantno iShit

      Re: Energy in = energy out

      You've a very long wait indeed for that. The most efficient engines mankind has devised are approaching 50% efficient. You're not likely to find one that good in a car any time soon, they weight a couple of hundred tonnes and power megaships. Wikipedia says 25-30% for petrol and I guess a bit better for diesel at the car scale so most of our money is still wasted as heat.

      Correction after fact check; couple of thousand tonnes. Look up Wartsila-Sulzer RTA96-C.

      1. MJI Silver badge

        Re: Energy in = energy out

        Rail traction reached similar figures in the 90s. The last British built Diesels were acheiving this.

        Howver a Mirlees straight 8 will not fit any car

        1. Alan Edwards

          Re: Energy in = energy out

          > Howver a Mirlees straight 8 will not fit any car

          Don't say things like that, some nutter will take it as a challenge and build one :)

          1. Alan Brown Silver badge

            Re: Energy in = energy out

            > Some nutter will take it as a challenge and build one

            The last Mirlees straight 12 I worked on (300kW) was 2.5m high and 4 metres long with a 6 ton flywheel. I guess you could put a wheel on each corner but the compressed air starter might be a tad difficult.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Coat

              Re: Energy in = energy out

              The last Mirlees straight 12 I worked on (300kW) was 2.5m high and 4 metres long with a 6 ton flywheel. I guess you could put a wheel on each corner but the compressed air starter might be a tad difficult

              You're barking up the wrong tree with a slow spinning straight 12. Any right thinking person will immediately know that the answer is to fold the engine up a bit. We could have opposed stroke pistons, and then wrap them in a triangle with three crankshafts......I'll get my coat, its the anorak.

              1. MJI Silver badge

                Re: Energy in = energy out

                I chose the Mirlees due to high efficiency. And they had to work a bit to fit in the loading gauge.

                And I don't think the Napier Delic is that fuel efficient, just very light and compact for the power.

                1. Anonymous Coward
                  Anonymous Coward

                  Re: Energy in = energy out

                  And I don't think the Napier Delic is that fuel efficient, just very light and compact for the power.

                  In which case my Deltic engined car will outperform your Mirlees, as well as being a lot smaller. And it will sound far more impressive.

                  I think VW have also demonstrated that drivers don't give a hoot about emissions or efficiency.

                  1. MJI Silver badge

                    Re: Energy in = energy out

                    Got problem there

                    I do like the 60s,but i used to be a DPS member around the time of preservation

      2. Jos V

        Re: Energy in = energy out

        Gotno et. al., I deserved the downvote there (from whoever it was). What I was trying to say was more in the way of "when will the marketing and sales droids come up with a 100% efficient car engine?"

        I know very will this is unobtainable technically.

    2. clanger9

      Re: Energy in = energy out

      Max efficiency of an i/c engine is only around the 30% mark. Efficiency of a typical i/c car (from fuel to forward motion) is ~15% (when I last checked - maybe a bit better these days). There's still plenty of scope for improvement...

      1. Alan Brown Silver badge

        Re: Energy in = energy out

        Max efficiency of a petrol engine can only ever be 35%. That's at wide open throttle, full load, optimum RPM (aka torque peak). For diesels it's more or less the same.

        The _actual_ efficiency of a petrol engine ranges from 0% (idling) to 30% over what's effectively an infinite variation of power and throttle settings.

        Most of the time you're running at between 3-5% or less (part throttle, constant speed), with pumping losses slightly reduced by the throttle ensuring that the cylinders aren't having to pump a full atmospheric load. Diesels are much the same efficiency - higher pumping losses but more efficient combustion and denser fuel.

        IC engines in a car directly driving the wheels are extremely wasteful _except_ when you're under reasonable load (motorway cruising). In all other situations you're better off with a small constant load engine and series hybrid approach, with batteries large enough (and beefy enough) to handle deceleration load and demand peaks.

        (FWIW a car at constant speed at 30mph uses 1-2kW and at 70mph most cases are 20-25kW - if you can match the motor-generator to this load (or use 2 separate engines) then batteries can handle acceleration demand - this is what makes hybrids efficient in stop-start operations)

        There's approx 33kWh available in each litre(1l is slightly under kg) of fuel. If you can actually get 10kWh then you're doing extremely well. In most cases the usable work you'll get is in the 1-4kWh range.

        I know i'm going to get downvoted but the fact is that automotive engines are inefficient and overengineered (all the gubbins with variable timing, emissions controls and everything else is due to the insanely wide range of loads and speeds they have to operate under) with just about every change sapping peak efficiency to widen the overall optimum rpm load. If you want an efficient design, ditch the IC and use a stirling engine driving a generator. (Stirlings aren't used for direct drive because they're too slow to change speed)

    3. Adam 1 Silver badge

      Re: Energy in = energy out

      > You convert this to heat, and transfer it to motion

      All of the useful work performed by an ICE occurs because of the expansion of the exhaust gases after combustion.

      The fact that an engine feels hot while running [citation needed] proves that the energy in the fuel is being converted into heat. If all the energy was converted into motion, it would feel no warmer than a metal street lamp post. Furthermore, it would be silent because the sound waves from the combustion is wasted energy.

      But the vast majority of the energy in your fuel tank leaves out the exhaust pipe at a few hundred degrees. If you want efficiency, it's going to have an electric motor, not an ICE.

  9. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    There's another one coming

    In todays news, Belgian (Flemish) news operation VRT has conducted tests on certain Opel Zafira diesel models (Vauxhall in the UK).

    They found one that had not been touched by Opel since February 2015 (before the VW affair), and an identical model that was in for service in October 2015 (after VW)

    Although the servicing dealer said the software was NOT updated in October, two independent tests have allegedly shown NOx emissions of the October car were still over the manufacturers stated values to the tune of 200+ mg NOx per km, while the untouched car measured over 800 mg NOx per km.

    I think we haven't seen the last of this.

    On the VW front, it is now claimed the 'emission software tweaks' used by VW were actually developed by Audi, but never used by Audi themselves.

    VW has allegedly offered 4000+ Euro settlement to every US VW diesel owner of an 'afflicted' car. In Europe, however, owners will be lucky to get a free software update. Any monetary settlement will disappear straight into the Eurocrat's coffers never to be heard of or seen again.

    1. werdsmith Silver badge

      Re: There's another one coming

      A single car that hasn't been serviced not performing as well as one that has been serviced? Hardly a surprise.

      I believe there are Audis with EA189 engines recalled:

      • VW passenger cars - 508,276

      • Audi - 393,450

      • SEAT - 76,773

      • Skoda - 131,569

      • VW commercial vehicles - 79,838

      The MMC (and Ford and Kia/Hyundai) cheats are completely different from the VW one, where VW wrote their defect device into the software to attempt to cheat future tests on the cars. The MMC cars would not have been able to cheat any independent tests because there was no test mode.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: There's another one coming

      There's also the Renault one, which hardly got any coverage in the press:

      http://www.roadandtrack.com/new-cars/car-technology/news/a27937/renault-software-upgrade-700000-cars/

      They claim the fact that the NOx filters were "only turned on between 17 degrees Celsius and 35 Celsius" was a "fault" and nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that that is the range of temperature in a typical test lab.

      No siree.

  10. DTaylor

    Official Test Cycle

    My issue with the official test cycle as it currently stands is that it isn't that it fails in two key areas as far as i'm concerned.

    I'm quite happy to understand that it's a rolling road test which covers urban stop start from a cold engine and then a warm engine and we can all assimilate that. However, I don't see why it's so hard to then add a further test of "What's the fuel consumption for a 300 mile drive at 70mph non stop?".

    The significance of this is that as well as indicating what a long distance motorway drive is more likely to return, it weeds out the bullshit figures from hybrids.

    It's laughable that some of the big hybrids are displaying figures such as 155mph as the ticket show off value and even the salespeople selling snake oil seem to either be taken in by this or believe they can fob it off onto unsuspecting buyers.

    As long as that hybrid battery lasts long enough (20 to 30 miles) then yes, nearly all if not all of the Euro test cycle will be done on battery which is pointless when the question of "so what will I get doing a long drive on the motorway?"

    A simple add on test and i'll happily do the averaging and assessment myself based on the numbers provided.

    1. werdsmith Silver badge

      Re: Official Test Cycle

      It's not bullshit figures from hybrids because commutes of 10 miles are not unusual therefore 10 mile journeys are taken many more times than 300 mile journeys.

      Unless a person is an idiot, they will know what the strength of a hybrid is.

  11. 0laf Silver badge
    Meh

    EU?

    Over inflating tyres, taping up edges, lowering weight...

    Are those not all accepted forms of gaming the EU emissions testing?

    I thought in the EU they went as far as special oils and fuels to drop the figures. But that was all within the rules.

    1. DropBear Silver badge
      Trollface

      Re: EU?

      ...for a ridiculous moment there I though we were talking about coating the cars on the outside with some sort of "special oils" to reduce surface drag even more...

      1. werdsmith Silver badge

        Re: EU?

        Yeah those taped up gaps and low skin friction aerodynamic coatings make all the difference on a rolling road inside a lab.

  12. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Fake Japanese contrition

    The Japanese workplace is fucked. They pretend they are honest, trustworthy, self-moderating. Yet their business practices are just as corrupt and riddled with lies as any other western corporation.

    The 'trick' the Japanese have pulled off is 'fake contrition' - the bow - the illusion that they actually care and behave honestly. It's the biggest con-trick, and one which they've used in business time and again to pull the wool over peoples eyes.

    So many in Japan talk about 'honour' - they have no more or less of this than anyone else in the world - they've just got great PR branding to hide behind.

    1. Alan Brown Silver badge

      Re: Fake Japanese contrition

      "The 'trick' the Japanese have pulled off is 'fake contrition' - the bow - the illusion that they actually care and behave honestly. It's the biggest con-trick, and one which they've used in business time and again to pull the wool over peoples eyes."

      It the case of Mitsubishi, this is the second large scandal in 20 years. The last one involved coverups of designs faults which sometimes resulted in wheels falling off. Mitsubishi has been struggling badly since then and this might kill them off entirely.

      As far as mileage figures go: USA ones are accurate. European ones are fanciful. It really is time an independent outfit took cars off the dealership floors and ran their own tests (as happens in the USA)

  13. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    QED..

    I said from the beginning of this affair (when it started with VW) that the absolute silence from the competition was more telling than they intended it to be - I suspected that it was a general issue that other car manufacturers were now scrambling to cover up while VW took the heat.

    Well, what have we seen over time? Exactly that.

    1. werdsmith Silver badge

      Re: QED..

      All the cars are higher in NOx than they are supposed to be, but it was reported today that no other cars have been found to use defeat device software.

      So, Mitsubishi have screwed up over a very small part of their range, and previously (before VW) Ford and Hyundai/Kia were in trouble.

      But nothing like the VW dishonesty has been found, and had VW not happened then this Mitsubishi story in the Far East would barely have been noticed in the West.

      So really, it is still only VW that are the dirty bastards.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: QED..

        But nothing like the VW dishonesty has been found

        Well, no, it would be rather remiss of the executives in the other companies to just wait for lightning to hit them. No, they used their time well while VW was drawing all the attention.

  14. Anna Logg

    This is an interesting technical paper IMHO, covering type approval tests versus more 'real world' tests:-

    http://preview.tinyurl.com/grbhwg6

  15. 2Fat2Bald

    I do feel slightly sorry for the car manufacturers. There are so, so many variables that affect car fuel efficiency that it is hopeless to ask for a prediction that can be both accurate and precise. You'll have to leave it so wide that it's largely meaningless (eg 20-40 mpg), or you'll be wrong more often than you're right. You don't know how the car will be driven, who'll be driving it, how fast, in what weather, carrying what passengers and luggage, etc etc.

    That said - there is no excuse for having a test that allows them to test the car driving in a totally unrealistic way, with equipment removed, vents taped over, engine blueprinted, ludicrous tyre pressures and hybrid batteries precharged. It's just fantasy, and helps noone. Not even the marketing people, as every now knows it's totally rubbish to suggest your 2 tonne 150mph German executive car will average 60mpg.

    Personally. I'd like to see them required to fit every car with an *accurate* economy gauge, with some kind of wireless link attached. Everytime you fill a car up it reports it's economy since last filled, chassis type and engine type (eg 2016 Ford Focus Hatch, 125bhp petrol Ecoboost). Drivers can then go to a government website to see what their proposed car will manage in the real world.

  16. Anonymous South African Coward Silver badge

    Should look at employing Zuma as president, he will just say "heh heh heh", and whitepaint everything so all will be ok....

  17. Florida1920

    Good thing Bushido is a thing of the past

    Else the CEO would be having a tummy ache.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019