Fuelling myths

The news that Mitsubishi Motors in Japan has admitted to falsifying fuel economy data for several of its car models is the latest blow to the global auto industry, coming on the heels of the Volkswagen “Diesel gate” affair from last year. In that expose, VW admitted to installing a “defeat” device — essentially some lines of code in the vehicle software — that could detect when it was being subject to a controlled emissions test versus being on the road. In some scenarios, the difference in emissions was over 40 times the legally allowable limit. This was all thanks to some clever detective work done by a non-profit think tank and some university students.

The details are still emerging for Mitsubishi, but prima facie this appears to be a case of simple “fudging”, something that many a school student has done in a physics practical experiment — recording a number that is more in line with expectations, rather than the actual number that is shown by the test. For example, if you know that the speed of sound is 330 metre per second, you will “tweak” the reading for water level in the resonance tube to ensure that your calculations deliver a perfect round number. The teacher will be happy, as that is what the text book says you should get, and no one will be any the wiser (high school students may be able to confirm this is still happening!).

The problem is that in the real world, these differences do matter. In this day and age, with the growing threat of air pollution and climate change, the need to ensure full compliance with regulations designed to preserve the environment for future generations is paramount. It is simply unacceptable to lie your way into a false sense of security, as the consequences can be severe. It also results in an erosion of consumer confidence, as the sticker provided in the car window is virtually meaningless.

Fuel economy tests are, in the base case, highly subjective, as there are numerous protocols used by testing agencies across the world, each varying in the duration, number of starts/stops, vehicle loading, etc. The same car will provide different results depending on the test to which it is subjected — and it is recognised that the actual mileage on the road will almost certainly differ from that in the lab. You know this from the little asterisk shown against the mileage rating in an advertisement — the fine print will place all kinds of disclaimers so that the manufacturer cannot be held liable for underperformance of the vehicle.

Correlations to adjust mileage for different driving conditions either do not exist or are not shared openly with the driving public — in any case, many factors may work in conjunction, so the actual effect will be multiplied. For a country like India, where the phrase “kitna deti hai” was used to indicate the laser focus of our drivers on saving precious fuel, the reality is that most cars will get only a fraction of their true mileage as they are perpetually idling in traffic jams. And as compared with a few decades ago, when people used to switch off their engine when stopped at a red light, you now see cars with ac blasting parked by the side of the road as the driver checks their text messages or updates Facebook (“stuck in traffic jam, man it’s hot!”).

The auto industry — or any industry, for that matter — has rarely been on the right side of regulations, whether directed at safety, emissions or efficiency. The reason cited is almost always cost or customer preference — too much money chasing too little a reward, or arbitrary statements that the purchasing public does not want these features and, instead, desires CD changers, “bluetooth” connectivity, GPS-based navigation, etc. Fuel economy matters only when oil prices are high and the otherwise dormant driver wakes up to realise how much money is leaving his or her pocket every month.

This unfortunate situation in 2007 led to the bankruptcy of General Motors, which had focused on making Hummers and other boat-sized vehicles and was confronted by angry public and politicians who simply could not understand why there was no focus on better fuel economy. A decade later, the oil price has oscillated twice and is back at a low point and the public has switched back to buying SUVs. Maybe they deserve to be fooled by fictitious data.

The author is an energy specialist