Amidst all the vitriol, Karl has a different point of view on Dieselgate.
Plenty has happened over the past few weeks with Dieselgate. In fact, it’s become the most oft-used phrase by both motoring writers and those who report on business. What VW has allowed to happen is unconscionable, shortsighted and irresponsible. There’s no denying that.
But I’d like to proffer a different point of view. One that seems to go against the current trend of heaping vitriol on one of the world’s biggest vehicle manufacturers. And one that you may or may not agree with.
It is this: people don’t buy cars based on their low emissions.
Low fuel use? Definitely. Good crash rating? For sure. Comfort and handling? Absolutely. But as far as how many noxious gases the car puts out, I’d wager that it’d be a handful of people who would use that as the basis for a purchase. Surely it’s just one factor added to the pros and cons list? Perhaps, but I wouldn’t count on it. The reason is that humankind is inherently selfish. Sure, it’s not a nice trait, but that’s just the way it is.
Fuel economy is far more likely to influence the purchase of a diesel than how many (or how few) oxides of carbon or nitrogen it emits. If a person can save money, then great, but when it comes to looking at the grams per kilometre of CO2 (a figure which is lumped into the specs of all cars these days) it’s usually skimmed over.
The two go hand in hand, though, don’t they? Not at all. In fact, just because your car doesn’t use much fuel doesn’t have much bearing on what its emissions are. Let me give you an example.
The Toyota Prado was built from 2003 to 2006 with a 3.0-litre diesel that wasn’t exactly the most powerful engine, despite the fact that it’s bulletproof. Though it will probably outlast civilisation, what it sorely needed was more torque. Enter diesel chip companies. For a few hundred US dollars, it can be fitted with a piggyback ECU which injects fuel earlier, spins up the turbo quicker and provides less lag and more torque (between 50-90Nm extra). Look behind you when you’re accelerating, however, and there’s a big black line of diesel dust enveloping rearward traffic. Not great for the environment, but what’s interesting is that fuel economy improves. Torque up, emissions up, fuel consumption down. Not exactly win-win, but people are willing to forgo the environment to save money and get more grunt. In addition, the leaner you go with an air-fuel mixture, the worse the emissions get, despite putting less fuel in.
Does this mean that we should just give up and not care about emissions? Of course not. But would Dieselgate prevent me from buying a VW, Skoda or an Audi? Not really. In the case of the Golf – the hardest hit in this fiasco – no other compact car comes close to its build, comfort or drive experience. It’s still the benchmark in every other way. Skoda’s value for money is still excellent and Audi does the best interior build of any manufacturer in its price range. Volkswagen may have sinned, but there’s still plenty to recommend it by.
It’s worth remembering that this company resurrected Bugatti. It brought Bentley back from certain extinction and without VW, there would probably be no Lambo. Yes, the ‘people’s car’ makes our poster cars. Hopefully this blip doesn’t end in a flatline...
Write your Comment