Since the 1970's the car industry regularly launches prototypes which have an outstanding fuel efficiency. These prototypes appear and then rapidly disappear; they have never been assembled in serial production. Repeatedly the car industry has announced that in principle and technologically such vehicles could be constructed, but that the consumers are not interested in buying them. Another argument says that fuel efficient cars are not safe enough because of lighter construction materials.
Both arguments easily can be refuted: In 1991, the Coalition for Vehicle Choice was at the centre of controversy when it was alleged that it had "rigged" safety tests showing a head-on crash between two cars, one weighing 1,450 kilos, the other only 870 kilos. The entire front of the small car collapsed under the impact while the large car remained relatively intact. The filmed crash was a test carried out by the US Department of Transportation. The television advertisement showed worried parents waiting for their daughter to return home at night through a rainstorm. "Why didn't she take the big car?" one parent asks.
The point of the advertisement was to make the standard industry argument that increased fuel efficiency means smaller cars which are more vulnerable in crashes. It was later alleged that the Department of Transportation had specifically designed the test to show that small cars were not as safe as big cars. According to documents obtained by the environmental group Public Citizen, other tests produced much less dramatic results but were not presented [35]. The Horlacher for example, a light electric vehicle, considerably damaged an Audi 100 of nearly twice its weight in a crash test and stayed itself almost intact. [36]
The second argument that consumers do not wish to buy fuel efficient cars, also appeared not to be true: A representative opinion poll carried out in Germany, Switzerland and the Netherlands in June 1996 has given evidence that more than 50% of the respondents (Germany; 66%, Switzerland: 57%, the Netherlands: 82%) would buy a fuel efficient car. [37]
In spite of such consumer opinions, car manufacturers are persistently producing cars with little emphasis on efficiency but more on power, image and engine size. This trend, according to a study of the Dutch Ministry for Environment, has led to an increase of the average weight of cars since the beginning of the 1990's from 850 kilograms to 1.045 kilograms. The average car weight thus increased about 20%. [38]
"Ford has adopted a policy which dictates that environmental consequences are to be an integral factor in all of our business decisions ... Because C02 emission rates are directly proportional to fuel efficiency, we believe that our existing product improvement plans and technological actions are responsive to the issue." [39]
- Ford Motor Company, USA
According to the Cars & Environment List 19965 of the German Traffic Club (VCD) the Ford Fiesta Classic 1.1i reaches the third place with a fuel consumption of 6.1 l/km (urban consumption 6.9 l/100km) measured under the unrealistic 1/3 Mix6 . But this model, according to the Ford Main Office in Cologne, only will be sold until the end of 1996 as a special offer. The new Ford Fiesta 1.3i though is 100kgs heavier and consumes about 10% more fuel than his predecessor. Is this to be regarded as "responsive technological actions to the issue"? [40]
"We will improve fuel efficiency further by using advanced powertrain, aerodynamic, and weight saving technologies (...) no technologies are being ignored in our quest for these improvements." [43]
- Chrysler Corporation, USA
None of the fuel-driven, presently in Europe available Chrysler-Models goes beyond the 10 l/100km limit, neither in the 1/3 Mix nor in the urban cycle. The Chrysler Viper V10 Manual has the highest consumption rate, namely 25.2 l/100km in the urban cycle. [41] This model has been labelled an irresponsible throw-back to the 1960s, the heyday of the "muscle car", and reveals Chrysler's actual corporate identity.
"... Like all other manufacturers, Mercedes-Benz is particularly concerned about global warming and the effects of the motor vehicle on the environment." [44]
- Mercedes-Benz (UK)
Mercedes is a clear example of the car industry's disregard for the impact its product has on the environment. For decades Mercedes has pioneered the corporate philosophy of building cars that are bigger and heavier with each generation. Its latest E-Class series, shows some improvements compared to the previous S-Class. Instead of consuming up to 15.6 l/100km (S 280), the E-Class consumes 10.9, respectively 12.8 l/100km in urban traffic. It is questionable whether this 'environmental consciousness' is due to the poor sales of the S-Class or to the losses of 1.1 billion marks in 1992, which occurred for the first time in the company's history. [45] Though from an environmental point of view these models must be rejected. [46]
"At Volkswagen they are not waiting for environmental legislation. Most of all environment protection measures were already being practiced before they went on the statue book." [47]
- Volkswagen
Germany's family car number one, the VW Golf, so far has been considered one of the more fuel efficient cars on the market and VW is portrayed as a 'responsible' manufacturer. The 1996-Models of the Golf vary in their fuel consumption between 7.8 (VW Golf 1,4 and Golf Variant 1,4) and 8.4 litres/100km (VW Golf 1,6 and Golf Vento 1,6) in the urban cycle. [see ref. 40]
According to Volkswagen reports, the company anticipates "a 15% drop in fuel consumption by the turn of the century" and "in the longer term, the potential exists to double this reduction", [48] thus amounting to a 30 % reduction. For the above-mentioned Golf-series, this would mean a fuel reduction up to 6.6 l/100km, respectively 7.1 l/100km until 2000. Not a very ambitious intention for the biggest German car manufacturer, who, in its own words considers itself as a responsible leader in environmental progress.
This attitude is even more baffling since Volkswagen polls have shown that VW drivers want a car that is safe, environmentally friendly and has a low fuel consumption. More fun with driving ranges far behind in VW drivers' priorities. [49] These results have been confirmed by representative polls in Germany in 1994. The criteria "lower fuel consumption" (60%) and "environmentally friendliness" (40%) get the highest ranking as to buyers motivations, "sportiness" though ranked lowest. [50]
In 1981, it was reported that the French government spent 1 billion francs (US $180 million) on the Peugeot ECO2000 and the Renault Vesta - an economy car programme with fuel consumptions not exceeding 3 litres/100 kms (94 mpg) due for launch in 1990 [46]. Where is it?
In 1987 Renault presented a research programme spanning 1981-1986 for a fuel efficient car named the Vesta 2. Its fuel efficiency was 2.8 litres/100 kms (100 mpg) [47]. However, Renault never intended this prototype to run as an everyday car on the road. It is not just Renault who should be blamed for the demise of the Vesta. According to research, VW attended a workshop in Wolfsburg on 25 November 1987 where they were presented with all technical details concerning this prototype [48]. What did VW do with this information?
The car industry, it seems, has no foresight. Particularly during the 1980s, the US auto manufacturers were protected by the US Government were staunch oil and auto industry allies, and were assured of a sympathetic hearing. In Europe car manufacturers put heavy pressure on national governments to oppose new pollution and fuel efficiency standards on an EC level. However, the political climate has changed, and it will be a wise manufacturer that lowers the average fuel consumption of its car fleet. Car manufacturers could profit from developing and producing super energy efficient cars throughout their fleet and making them widely available to the public. Further production of inefficient models would be irresponsible as the planet faces serious threats from global warming and oil spills. Models with a high fuel consumption should therefore be withdrawn from the market.
The other way for the car industry to go, is to invest into cleaner, more efficient transport modes, like trains, light rails, buses and bicycles. This is not an illusion, but the car manufacturers themselves are considering this alternative:
"I can imagine that Volkswagen could change from being a car manufacturer to an enterprise offering solutions for regional and supraregional transport problems [49]".
- Daniel Goeudevert, VW Board Chair
In view of the car industry's traditional opposition to efficiency improvements, car manufacturers will only change their attitude with strong pressure from outside. As the same manufacturer puts it:
"One needs tight legal standards on how much fuel a car may consume [50]."
- Ulrich Steger, VW Environmental Board Director
Obviously, the new VW leadership has no interest for going on with even timid steps toward-an ecological orientation in their policy:
The car companies have failed to address fuel consumption and climate change. To reduce the car fleet's consumption of oil, strong governmental action, such as introduction and implementation of mandatory fuel efficiency standards, of additional fuel taxes and of fiscal incentives for efficiency improvements are required. Governments also have to adopt transport policies that promote a modal split shift away from the car and toward cleaner transport modes, freeing city centres from cars. The ultimate vision for these efforts should be an age free of fossil fuels: .
"... it ought to be possible to establish a coordinated global program to accomplish the strategic goal of completely eliminating the internal combustion engine over, say, a twenty-five-year period [51]."
- US Vice-President Al Gore
