Which automaker still doesn't like the new CAFE rules? Volkswagen, that's who. After claiming the proposed 2025 Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards were biased back in August, VW is again saying, hey, wait a minute, let's not be so dismissive of diesel engines.
When the original 54.5 mpg CAFE proposal was announced (which will actually be around 40 mpg in the real world), Volkswagen did not sign on to the agreement. The reason is that VW says the current plan helps U.S. automakers by being lenient on big pickups but doesn't have much love for modern diesel vehicles.

Make that "enough love," since the EPA says the rule does give "credits for technologies with potential to achieve real-world CO2 reductions and fuel economy improvements that are not captured by the standards test procedures." According to Reuters, since August, Volkswagen America's general counsel and VW representatives have met with the White House and "transportation and environmental regulators" to express the company's concerns. We haven't heard that VW's efforts are bearing any fruit, but that doesn't mean we won't hear more about them in the future.


I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.


    • 1 Second Ago
  • 28 Comments
      • 3 Years Ago
      [blocked]
        clquake
        • 3 Years Ago
        Agreed! If it has to be bland, at least make it reliable.
        • 3 Years Ago
        [blocked]
          Krishan Mistry
          • 3 Years Ago
          Its competitors arent exactly buckets of fun either. At least the VW has the most solid chassis, nicest interior, and great engines (some of them, at least). Sure, compared to the unique styled built in Germany previous gen, it is a blandmobile, but not terrible.
          carfan
          • 3 Years Ago
          I didn't downgrade you, I agree with you, as a matter of fact, if they don't like American regulations they can leave America and sell their krap in Krautland. VW is one of the worst cars out there (except for toyota and honda)
      IBx27
      • 3 Years Ago
      This is the one time I will support volkswagen. Scrap cafe in its entirety.
      martynas
      • 3 Years Ago
      CAFE is not very friendly to diesel engines which is very very popular elswhere in the world and which VW group is very good at...no surprise there... me thinks CAFE should allow more diesels in the states
        DrEvil
        • 3 Years Ago
        @martynas
        Contrary to popular belief, there are more diesel vehicles in the US than any country in europe. Our diesels just happen to be commercial not personal. Estimates of 15.5 million trucks operate in the U.S.. Of this figure 2 million are tractor trailers. 100% of the tractor railers are diesel. Not sure what percentage of the remaining trucks are diesel. http://www.truckinfo.net/trucking/stats.htm As of 2009, there were 841,993 buses in the US almost all diesel. http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_01_11.html This is why we really don't need more diesel vehicles in the US.
          DrEvil
          • 3 Years Ago
          @DrEvil
          Aussie Aspie: You completely missed my point. When you look at the equation from the prospective of the people who govern, you have to make decisions based on what you're governing. The US government is fully aware of the number of diesels in this country, and in order to allow for future growth, you simply should not throw the barn doors open, then have to try and reign it back in when it becomes a dire problem. Here is whats wrong with your per capita argument, air pollution is absolute. It didn't matter how many people lived near Chernobyl or the Fukashima (sp?), once the atmosphere became contaminated, it was pretty damn final. You act as if simply by having more people makes it better or worse. It not much different than the proverbial "Canary In the Coal Mine". If the air quality kills the canary, it will also kill 100 or 1000 miners. it is absolute, there is no sliding scale or graduated levels of acceptability. Also. in terms of Europe, it is just a matter of time before the EU puts their foot down on such matters. While each sovereign may only be concerned about what happens within its borders, the EU, like the US Federal government now has to worry about what's good for the collective. Their current fiscal situation is a classic example of that.
          Aussie Aspie
          • 3 Years Ago
          @DrEvil
          More diesels yes, but per capita, you're not even on the same planet. The U.S. has as many people as Russia, Germany, France, Netherlands and Austria 'combined'. Do you really think you have more diesels than them??? If you want to single out an individual country, let's take a look at Europe's second biggest - Germany. The U.S. has 313 million people, Germany has 82. Do you really expect us to believe you have greater than 3.82 times the number of diesel vehicles that they do? Oh come on, be realistic! It doesn't take a genius to diddle the figures to serve their own purpose. ...and how many tractor trailers "in the world" do you think are not diesel? Very, very few I would think.
        Kumar
        • 3 Years Ago
        @martynas
        I got that martynas was talking about passenger cars/suvs/etc. We all know that most semis and buses use diesel, and that we have a ton of them. But to say that we already have more than Europe has and therefore we don't need more....well I guess that means we don't need anymore gasoline powered vehicles either?
      Tweaker
      • 3 Years Ago
      It's only because they don't import good gas engines here. They put all their eggs in the diesel basket and have been shipping us gas engines 2 generations old. Just yesterday they decided to drop the pos 2.5l and give us updated gas engines. Screw 'em, they need to compete. BTW, how exactly are the EPA tests biased against diesel?
      emperor koku
      • 3 Years Ago
      Gallon for gallon, a 40mpg diesel vehicle emits more CO2 than a 40mpg gasoline vehicle. To say nothing of other pollutants. No wonder they're not getting much love.
        emperor koku
        • 3 Years Ago
        @emperor koku
        CO2 emissions from a gallon of gasoline = 2,421 grams x 0.99 x (44/12) = 8,788 grams = 8.8 kg/gallon = 19.4 pounds/gallon CO2 emissions from a gallon of diesel = 2,778 grams x 0.99 x (44/12) = 10,084 grams = 10.1 kg/gallon = 22.2 pounds/gallon http://www.epa.gov/otaq/climate/420f05001.htm
          Vracknal
          • 3 Years Ago
          @emperor koku
          Be that as it may, the diesel has a higher calorific content as well so it'll do the same mpg as the petrol car, but do it with more torque. How exactly do you compare a 40mpg diesel car with a 40mpg petrol car - a better test would be the same model of car equipped with a 2.0l petrol engine and a 2.0l turbodiesel, that way things such as weight differences and aerodynamics would be standardised, and you'd find that the diesel would go further per gallon than the petrol, thereby negating the emissions gap between petrol and diesel. i.e. the diesel car would emit more co2 per gallon, but would also go further on that same gallon than the petrol car. Actually that raises an interesting point - the driving style would play a major factor here as well... if you drive a diesel in the same way you drive a petrol you'll pollute more, but if you drive it in the way it was intended to be driven - low revs, shortshifting etc you can save a lot of energy.
          sjmoo
          • 3 Years Ago
          @emperor koku
          This is a classic case of drawing a conclusion from information that isn't sufficient to yield a conclusion. All those calculations prove is that, assuming complete combustion (which doesn't occur in real engines, mind you), diesel fuel produces more CO2 per weight than gasoline. What this doesn't account for is the efficiencies of the cycles. Diesel cycles are typically much more efficient than Otto cycles because they occur at higher pressure. Thus, a diesel cycle is more likely to produce LESS CO2 on average than a gasoline engine because it requires fewer combustion cycles. Furthermore, CO2 is not a primary concern. CO and NOx contaminants are the bigger contributor to air pollution and ozone depletion. Diesel engines are notoriously bad for their NOx emissions, but sophisticated exhaust treatments have actually reduced those such that they are on average less than a gasoline engine today. Additionally, gasoline engines, due to their less efficient cycles that result in less complete combustion, produce much more CO which is the worst of all pollutants from IC engines. Therefore, a diesel engine is usually better for the environment than a gasoline engine when you actually analyze the cycles in their entirety. Only then can you draw an actual conclusion.
          emperor koku
          • 3 Years Ago
          @emperor koku
          I don't think the EPA is concerned about torque.
          emperor koku
          • 3 Years Ago
          @emperor koku
          My point is just that a 40mpg diesel car is less friendly to the environment than a 40mpg gasoline car. And I think that is why the EPA should be handicapping diesel cars, not supporting them.
          oRenj9
          • 3 Years Ago
          @emperor koku
          +1: Good job citing facts.
          Aussie Aspie
          • 3 Years Ago
          @emperor koku
          Well done Emperor. So what you are saying is any diesel consuming less than 87.4% of the fuel used by a petrol/gasoline engine (e.g. 8.74 gallons or less of Diesel vs 10 gallons of Gas, per given distance) will have lower emissions. Luckily...this isn't difficult.
      Noz
      • 3 Years Ago
      Screw VW...they can take their cars and shove it.
      Brigitte
      • 3 Years Ago
      Passats are lemons
      sweetie
      • 3 Years Ago
      I would love it if VW would create a hybrid bug. How cool would that be. Don't know why they can't get off their KEISTERs on that one.
      ROBERT
      • 3 Years Ago
      these truck and cars are great looking Ford has come a long way
      Klinkster
      • 3 Years Ago
      The majority of American's support CAFE - so scrapping it is not in anyone's interest except the auto manufacturers (like VW). And anyone who has ever been to places where diesel is the dominate fuel will recognize how dirty those cities are directly because of it. The air is foul, the concrete buildings look like blackened burned out shells, and the black soot in your lungs causes respiratory problems. Besides - this is simply V-Dub whining about their strategic failure by hitching themselves to the wrong horse (diesel) rather than executing R&D in alternative fuel technologies. If they we're really interested in being the largest global automaker, then they'd learn to research & compete. As it stands, the only way VW can compete in the US is to reuse their poorly designed gas engines, build their junk in Mexico, and liquidate it for a loss in the US. Sounds like a real leader...doesn't it?
      Bassracerx
      • 3 Years Ago
      CAFE standards are so dumb. I hope the next president gets rid of them
      avatar-ds
      • 3 Years Ago
      Giving special privileges to the least efficient vehicles completely destroys the principle of mileage regulations by encouraging the production of those vehicles which go against the purpose of such regulations. It's kind of absurd, indeed.
    • Load More Comments