By on June 17, 2014

Renault Zoe EV With Charging Station

Already facing financial challenges under a weak home economy, European automakers may soon have a new challenge to add to the list when the European Union adopts a more accurate method of testing CO2 emissions and fuel economy among their lineups, with EVs becoming the biggest beneficiaries as a result.

Automotive News Europe reports the EU will do away with the New European Drive Cycle test in 2017, adopting the United Nations’ World Light Vehicle Test Procedure for its higher accuracy than the outgoing testing method. Automakers want the WLTP delayed until 2020, citing cost increases for the reason; French bank Exane BNP Paribas estimates automakers would add €1000 ($1,356 USD) per vehicle to help recoup investment costs into adapting to the new testing standards.

The new test, which is designed to better accurately account for modern driving conditions, would push past the NEDC’s 2021 mandate of 95 grams of CO2 per kilometer by as much as 20 percent, NOx emissions also boosted among diesel offerings under the WLTP. Exane analyst Stuart Pearson noted the increased reduction goal would reflect in the industry’s bottom line:

Should the new test cycle lead to emissions say 20 percent above that on NEDC, then assuming a 30 euro per gram cost of CO2 technology, the incremental cost for the EU industry would be around 11 billion euros.

Automakers with margins below that needed to meet compliance — including Fiat, Renault and Peugeot — will struggle more than the well-off German manufacturers, while suppliers who provide parts needed to boost fuel efficiency will be the biggest winners. The standards could also boost sales of hybrids and EVs, while diesels slide in kind.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

33 Comments on “European Automakers Face Challenge From New Emissions, Fuel Economy Tests...”

  • avatar


    #2 CO2 occurs naturally.

    #3 There are OTHER gases that cause health problems (SO2, CO, NO3 etc)

    Though CO2 is a waste product from animals, it is a REQUIREMENT for plants which just happen to need it to make more fresh O2.

    #4 LITHIUM is more dangerous to the human body than CO2.

    #5 Global Warming has been proven to be a farce.

    #6 You can’t base all your future expectations on less than 100 years worth of satellite data – when the Earth is over 4.5 BILLION YEARS OLD and has been through recurring heating and cooling periods. That’s just STUPID.

    #7 The mistake people make is assuming that Earth has “regular” climate patterns. IT DOESN’T and NEVER will.

    #8 This is nothing more than a conspiracy to TAX people and control the energy usage of the entire world. The UN wants the power to tax and “Global Warming” would allow them to tax everyone on Earth.

    #9 Plant more trees and they’ll take care of our CO2 problems.

    You wanna be “green” right?

    #10 Many contrary views on Global Warming ARE NOT PUBLISHED and these “agencies” claim “they refuse to publish contrary views”.


    • 0 avatar
      Nicholas Weaver

      This gets a aggregate 3.5 on the troll-o-meter: 3.0 (JP), 3.5(UK), 2.5(DE), 3.5(FR), 4.0(CN), 8.5(US), with the low score and high score dropped.

      The US judge however, gave a very high score because he admires your persistence in the face of reality.

      • 0 avatar

        I have no idea what you’re talking about.

        • 0 avatar

          True enough, BT. You will be proven correct as the years go by, regardless of the global warming debate, since carbon dioxide production increases every year. If civilization comes to an end due to climate catastrophe, you will be wrong, but it won’t. The controversy will die instead, and people with a certain world view and agenda will invent another crisis, and deny they ever believed in catastrophic man-made global warming. Nothing effective is being done about carbon emissions, and, realistically, nothing can be done.

          People do not want to be poor, so hydrocarbons are burned as fast as they can be pulled out of the ground. The more you burn, the wealthier you are. Al Gore burns a sh*t-ton. This will continue until hydrocarbons become scarce, which is not happening any time soon. Fracking is spreading across the world, and after fracking may come something else to get at even more hydrocarbons.

          The apocalypse illusion is costly, because of the economic cost of farcical pinprick “carbon reduction” schemes, but ultimately moot. People will always burn as much hydrocarbon as they can get their hands on because they do not want to be cold and hungry. For the vast majority of applications, nothing else makes economic sense. The proof is in the numbers. Even the US partial conversion from coal to natural gas is meaningless. We just export the coal somewhere else, and they burn it. Debate all you want, climate religionists, you are p*ssing into the wind.

        • 0 avatar

          Not surprising.

      • 0 avatar

        If you truly believe CO2 is a pollutant, do the rest of us a favor and place both of your hands firmly around your neck and squeeze until you no longer emit CO2.

    • 0 avatar

      As the end of the last ice age continues to evolve, climate change is a fact. What people like BTSR and myself are wary of is climate change being used as an excuse for confiscatory tax regimes and government-directed wealth transfer. Man made climate change is a scam – a volcano belches more carbon dioxide than humanity can achieve. Being suspicious of man made climate change is not anti-environmentalism; the extinction of species & reduced biodiversity is a real problem. Man made global warming is merely the attempt to hijack science for a taxing scheme.

      • 0 avatar


      • 0 avatar

        In your world, does the man in the moon get sick of eating cheese every day?

        • 0 avatar

          Cough-cough-sorry, does sucking down douche bags hurt your tender uvula?

          • 0 avatar

            You can accuse me of fulfilling your fantasies all you want, but the time has come to face the facts. On May 6, the United States issued its third National Climate Assessment, which it does every 4 years. They consulted with 300 experts (none of whom was umadscientist), and shepherded the report through dozens of review with the public, federal agencies and the National Academy of Sciences.

            You can read the report yourself here, as it is very well communicated:

            Alternately, you can read the summary, below.

            “What is new over the last decade is that we know with increasing certainty that climate change is happening now. While scientists continue to refine projections of the future, observations unequivocally show that climate is changing and that the warming of the past 50 years is primarily due to human-induced emissions of heat-trapping gases. These emissions come mainly from burning coal, oil, and gas, with additional contributions from forest clearing and some agricultural practices.”

            This isn’t some socialist plot to control our lives and take away your V8s. It’s a nonpolitical assessment, which actually started during W’s presidency.

            You can choose to accept science, or not. But persisting in your juvenile insults only reaffirms your character.

        • 0 avatar

          Funny, your messiah just made a moon/cheese reference in a speech. He will be pleased that you mindlessly parrot him. He will look upon you with favor. You have done well, minion.

          • 0 avatar

            I did reference our president. That’s different from parroting, and no one claims he is a messiah.

            You can counter with fact, or insults. Your choice. Either way, you reveal more about yourself with each reply.

        • 0 avatar

          It was a response to your insult, hypocrite.

      • 0 avatar


        It’s absolutely amazing how ignorant the world is to “nature” and “science”.

        They parrot the information they hear but never do their own research.

        I’ve visited other countries.
        I’ve visited mines.
        I’ve done geologic surveys.
        I’ve actually seen negative environmental impacts of human existence.

        Waste is a consequence of life.
        Pollution is a consequence of human existence.

        There are over 1 Billion people in Africa.
        Over 1 Billion in China.
        Over 1 Billion in India.

        More than half the world’s population in just 2 continents.

        Even if we didn’t drive cars at all – we’d still be polluting.

        But, we couldn’t even HOPE to come close to releasing the CO2 that EARTH ITSELF releases through geologic processes.

        As for oil spills: do any of these people realize that oil spills happen NATURALLY when plate tectonics causes fissures that sea water forces itself into – pushing oil out?

        Do they realize that oil spills are NATURALLY cleaned by microorganisms?

        Do they realize oil spills would happen less with pipelines than barges and trains?

        Nature is an amazing thing if you know how to observe it.

        • 0 avatar

          Sorry, you raise points that are true but the truthers keep trying to make you a bigot. The goal is to make people out to be bigots and sociopaths because they believe in the Constitution. It’s like the haters trying to revoke the second amendment when you trip them up trying to revoke the 13th & 14th amendments. Just because discriminated against blacks get stuck in prison is not a reason to revoke the Civil Rights movement just because my brothers are stuck in jail due to profiling.

      • 0 avatar

        You sure on the volcanic vs human co2 emissions? I think you need to check your source.

        • 0 avatar

          BRSR, the USGS site I found had 2003 human emissions at well over 100x total global volcanic emissions. Use your degreed learning. Don’t parrot some email you got at work.

    • 0 avatar

      How did you enjoy your trip to the creationist museum?

    • 0 avatar
      StanThe Man In the text they say that the ice is melting due to climate change… like which hole do they have their head stuck into?

  • avatar
    Big Al from Oz

    It appears the EU will have extremely similar emission regulations for their diesels as the US.

    I will be interested to see the difference in the way the emission management systems on the EU cars in comparison to the US diesel vehicles since the EU uses a better quality diesel than the US.

    Another factor that will rear it’s ugly head for GDI engines is an issue that was raised here on TTAC a while ago regarding particulates from GDI engines. From research it seems a GDI engine emits on average 10 times the particulates as a comparable diesel.

    I can’t forsee GDI becoming passé since they have provided reasonable improvement in FE and CO2 emissions.

    Are gasoline engines going the way of the diesel and will require a DPF?

  • avatar

    Anyone who thinks electric cars are zero emission vehicles (even in the unlikely event their electricty came from solar panels) needs a lesson in electricity production emissions. Simplifying, not because I believe carbon emissions are particularly worrisome, but because the data is easily found, allowing for quick comparisons.On average, 22 ounces of CO2 is produced generating 1 kWhr of electricity, net, at the consumer’s wall outlet. Gasoline consumption in a modern car produces roughly 310 ounces of CO2 per gallon.
    The Tesla Model S gets roughly 2.4 miles per kWhr, town, 2 miles
    per kWhr Interstate highway travel, due to the fact that its 85 kWhr
    battery requires 100 kWhrs of electricity to fully charge, and
    highway range is roughly 200 miles and around-town 240 miles.
    Highway, the Tesla produces 11 ounces CO2 per mile, 9.2 ounces CO
    per mile , town.
    Conclusion : any gasoline powered vehicle that gets either 28 MPG or above, highway, or 33.6 MPG or greater, combined is every bit as much
    a zero emission vehicle as a Tesla Model S. The Tesla owner pays no road taxes, and at 4700 pounds, produces greater than average road wear and tear.
    Tesla owners receive $7500 Fed tax writeoffs and often the same amount from the state, and California requires other automakers (actually their customers) to pay Tesla Motors thousands of dollars for each vehicle Tesla makes. Average sales price of the Model S exceeds $85,000.

    • 0 avatar

      That would be nice and all if it were constant or consistent across the country. In some areas, EVs are worse than an efficient compact, but in others, there’s no ICE that even comes close. And as the grid is updated/modernized, that EV gets cleaner.

      Also, how many cars of a Model S’ size get better than 28 mpg? And how many get better than 33 mpg combined?

      And why limit the discussion to the Model S? Why not use the Leaf since so many more of those are sold?

  • avatar
    heavy handle

    Back on topic: CO2, in this context, is used to measure the energy content of the fuel. In other words, CO2=MPG. It’s a different way of measuring mileage, one which takes into account a fuel’s energy density (mostly gas or diesel, but also E85, NG, etc).

    Europe is transitioning from the NEDC test cycle to the WLTP test cycle. Given that NEDC is notoriously optimistic, this will be an improvement.

    The US EPA has a different (and arguably better) test cycle, one that is measured in grams of CO2 per mile, and then converted to MPG before results are published.

    Why are Europeans obsessed with CO2? Because they import almost all of their oil.

    As far as pollution is concerned, stay tuned. Word is that very strict particulate Euro emissions standards are in the works, much stricter than the current Euro6. European voters are fed-up with being told that they have strict standards on one hand, and having poor air quality on the other.

    • 0 avatar

      US emissions are bad. California being the shining example of an extremely polluted environment Maybe more public transport in places where Automobiles are everywhere? The level of pollution from fuel injected gas engines completely dwarfs any from diesel.

      • 0 avatar
        Big Al from Oz

        Heavy handle’s comment regarding how the EU will manage diesel emissions is true.

        The big difference is the EU has tended to use taxation of fuel ‘at the pump’ also to influence culture, ie, smaller, less polluting and more economical vehicles.

        The EU is looking towards more EVs and hybrids. But I do think diesel will reign overall.

        The EU produce many diesel vehicles that produce less CO2 than hybrids.

        As I pointed out the next area the will probably be targeted are GDI particulates.

  • avatar

    Can’t the Euros cut themselves a little slack for shrinking their own population?

    Sure, the muslim enclaves they’ve encouraged breed like misogynist savages but how much individual vehicle use do those represent?

Read all comments

Recent Comments

  • Bill Wade: I submit there will be rather large resistance to buying used EVs, especially ones with higher mileage.
  • Arthur Dailey: Having seen them both ‘in the flesh’ I prefer the exterior styling of the Maverick. It is...
  • swissAventador: Definitely cool. Just this past weekend, got a mini tour with a Santa Cruz owner and a couple other...
  • Matt Posky: Regulations and the law change on a regular basis. Neither are not stagnant. I don’t want to come...
  • Matt Posky: I’ve no personal attachment to diesel powertrains. But the fact that Europe prioritized and...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Corey Lewis
  • Jo Borras
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber