Report: WLTP over estimates fuel economy

[FROSTYBALLS]

https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/consumer/report-finds-wltp-hugely-over-estimates-car-fuel-economy

[Haliotis]

Having read the above report, I am left with the feeling that countries/organisations are tumbling over themselves with acronyms and buzz-words which may, or may not, mean anything in practical terms.

For me, one small paragraph drew my attention.

”…….This demand will put all non electric cars in the spotlight. Reading between the lines, it could easily mean that the sale of larger-engined vehicles, and heavier vehicles such as SUVs and luxury cars, could be throttled back…….”    This makes me ask the questions:

(1) “what is a non electric vehicle?”  My Toyota C-HR hybrid is not rated as being electric by the DVLA - it is called an alternative fuel vehicle.

(2) “What is a larger-engined vehicle?”   At one time, it would be anything above 2.5 litres, but it could now mean anything above 1.0 litres.

(3) “…heavier vehicles such as SUVs….”   My C-HR is called a SUV.  It is not a heavy vehicle - it has roughly the same footprint and kerb weight of my previous VW Touran, which was called a medium-sized MPV.  It seems to me that manufacturers style even small cars and call them SUVs, simply because of some selling value.

So is this yet another smokescreen that will confuse the government, and only result in interpretations that further increase the taxation burdened on the motorist?

[Cyker]

Good grief who's writing this stuff, I thought this was an article from 2014, not 2024  

Anyway, we've already established that the ratings mpg isn't to be taken as real world, and the WLTP is already much better than the NEDC - My Mk4 actually exceeds its WLTP rated mpg significantly.

I do find the findings a bit suspect - From what I've seen, the main weakness of WLTP is that it badly over-estimates the range EVs are capable of, but for ICE vehicles the ratings are within what I would consider a reasonable margin of error, especially compared to NEDC which was so far off it was pretty much meaningless.

Maybe it's worse for SUVs, don't know, never owned one and never will, but that's their own fault for encouraging the takeup of SUVs in the first place.

[Roy124]

There was also the previous argument that PHEV were bought for tax advantages but that company drivers then didn't bother to plug them in.

True or false?

[Cyker]

That is a known truth - Most people who bought early PHEVs was purely for the BIK - They didn't even have chargers at home or at the work place. Understandable given how pathetic the electrical range was on most of them, vs the amount of time required to charge them.

But IMHO they test PHEVs all wrong anyway - That's why they all had stupid ratings of e.g. 134mpg or something like that, which anyone with an ounce of sense would know is a complete fiction. Again, it's their own fault for having stupid nonsensical testing procedures.

 

[FROSTYBALLS]

At the end of the day, it is a 30 minute test over a theoretical 14 miles so never going to be particularly relevant to real world fuel consumption.

[koji]

"Wir don't vant to sell morr PHEV's, wir vant to sell 100% EV", the Germans said.

"We want more standards and paperwork", the EU-burocrats said.

 

 

[Haliotis]

Cyker said, “Maybe it’s worse for SUVs, don’t know, never owned one and never will, but that’s their own fault for encouraging the take up of SUVs in the first place.

The acronym SUV represents “Sports Utility Vehicle”.  I have always been puzzled by how these styles of vehicle can be either Sport or Utility - for me, sport means a sports car (open top) and utility means (possibly) partly light use commercial, such as estate car or station wagon.  In the case of my C-HR, this is recognised as a SUV, but I wouldn’t rate it as either sporty of suitable for light commercial use.  My reasons for buying it were entirely practical, as a car mainly limited to two persons (driver and front passenger), the ability to drop the rear seats (for carrying a walker and holiday luggage for two, or taking DIY detritus to the tip), and for the economy that a hybrid vehicle offers.  It was chosen for low mileage, well cared for and at the right price, and being higher off the ground easier for my disabled wife to get in and out of - it could just as easily been a small estate or an MPV, although an estate might have been too low for entry/exit comfort.

I think that for cars like the C-HR and similar, SUV is an unsuitable term - these are simply cars with a different body style and would be better described as “high line”. For these particular cars to be called SUVs, and organisations like the government or activists to pillory them is just uninformed blind ignorance.

[FROSTYBALLS]

29 minutes ago, Haliotis said:

The acronym SUV represents “Sports Utility Vehicle”.

Blame the Americans. The term originates from the US Army.

[Haliotis]

53 minutes ago, FROSTYBALLS said:

Blame the Americans. The term originates from the US Army.

More accurately, its name developed from the Willys Jeep, which was a tough, off-road vehicle.  It also had an effective anti-theft device - you simply removed the steering wheel. In my time as a kid during WW2, I often saw a US Army jeep (the airfield for the 82nd Airbourne was just a few miles from us) parked overnight at a house not far from where we lived, and the occupant(s) had removed the steering wheel for nighttime “naughties”.

That acronym has now become misused - for example my Toyota C-HR SUV is certainly not an “off-road” vehicle.  It isn’t 4-wheel drive for starters.

[FROSTYBALLS]

The design of the Jeep was credited to the American Bantam Co, after Willys tried to trademark the name Jeep, and Ford and Bantam - who were also manufacturers of the Jeep - objected.