All the dirt on a cleaner future

Today, a big read assessment of the full ramifications of Government’s push for a low emission light vehicle standard – and promise of penalties for those who cannot make the cut.

Geographic isolation is among factors that have kept New Zealand from poor air quality being a regular experience in our big cities, however motor vehicles are a major contributor, hence why CO2 count enforcement is important.

 WE’VE been tardy about creating an emissions standard, but finally something is being done. 

The clean car import standard laid out on January 28 sets an average emissions target of 105 grams per kilometre and follows a swift timeline; legislation will be progressed this year and a standard will be in place in 2022.

Next year the only onus is on distributors of new vehicles and importers of ex-overseas’ used (and parallel imported new) cars is to report CO2 data. From 2023, penalty will begin to apply to any player who fails to meet targets.

These will start at $50 for every exceeded gram, rising to $75 per gram in 2025. Used car importers will be charged half this amount.  In 2025 there’ll be a review. An even lower emissions target could very well result. The European Union already has a target of 95g/km.

It’s a grand plan, and perhaps you’re still struggling with understanding how it might affect you. Certainly, the industry has views, too, and today’s piece results from discussion with numerous figures within that business, to get a handle on what they are thinking.

And one point before going further. Though it has cautioned this is an especially steep challenge to meet Government’s expectation within the cited timeframe, the Motor Industry Association, which speaks for distributors, is supportive of Green motoring initiatives.

 This, after all, is why all the key makers have already committed to electric and, in some cases, hydrogen fuel cell. It’s their future. The biggest concern is the timeframe: We’re not necessarily taking on too much, but the rollout might be too fast.

Why the standard?

The Government cites the average vehicle in New Zealand as having CO2 emissions of around 171 grams per kilometre (g/km). It says our cars and SUVs alone average 161 g/km, compared to 105 g/km in Europe.

 It suggests that, in 2017, the most efficient vehicle models on our market had, on average, 21 percent higher emissions than their counterpart models in the United Kingdom.

The industry involvers spoken to generally opined that the comparison that created this data was overly simplistic, but they all agreed the sentiment is correct. There’s concession, too, that NZ likely has less fuel-efficient cars than many markets, mainly because fuel is cheap and we don’t tend to like driving under-powered cars.

Emissions testing is serious business in many countries. We’ve not bothered.

In respect to the national output, NZ is slightly ahead of Australia, primarily due to our higher electric vehicle uptake per head of population. There’s reminder that NZ regulations insist on all new passenger product meeting at least the Euro 5 emissions standard, which dates back to 2009 and focuses mainly on reducing CO2 emissions, and some now meet Euro 6 (which dates to 2014), which reduces some pollutants by 96 percent compared to 1990s’ limits but primarily focuses on cutting diesel-associated nitrogen oxide emissions.  

Commented one contributor: “Our emissions are not bad; we have better standards (Euro 5) than the likes of India and we have some Euro 6 cars here because our fuel quality is so good, unlike Australia. Our vehicles aren’t necessarily all that dirty, just thirsty.” 

How strong is the argument for change?

 According to the Government, the light vehicles coming into the country are among the most fuel inefficient, and emission intensive, of any OECD country.

The Government consistently cites New Zealand as being only one of two countries in the OECD without a vehicle CO2 standard. The other nation it cites is Russia. That’s not a good example. Last time we checked, Russia is not, and has never been, in the OECD.

The Government also says the target set for 2025 was already achieved by Japan in 2014 and by Europe in 2020.

The industry reminds that the latter is a bit disingenuous; it says the vehicle industry performers in Europe have not actually hit the mark; the average for 2020 has not been published yet, but in 2018 and 2019 it was 121 and 122 (yes, it went up) grams per kilometre. There is expectation that it won’t be unanimously achieved. Same goes for this year; some brands are steeling for being hit big in the pocket.  

Makers are trying. The production and availability of low-CO2 product, particularly electrics, has rocketed – and they are popular, take-up being fuelled by incentives. Most countries in Europe also have fuel economy standards and high-emitting vehicles are subject to higher tax loading. 

Is this just some Government plot to force us into hybrids, mains-replenished plug-in hybrid and full electric vehicles?

The Government says on average, New Zealanders pay 65 percent more in annual vehicle fuel costs than people in the European Union, even though Europe’s petrol prices are higher.

Reality is that Government hardly needs to force change; it’s coming ready or not.

Most car makers have decided to wean out of wholly fossil fuelled products and some have made quite radical commitments.

General Motors, perhaps not the best example with Holden now defunct, has decided to phase out vehicles using combustion engines by 2035. It’s pinning hope on electric (and will have 30 pure battery models out by 2025) and fuel cells. On February 7, Ford announced intent to commit $US29 billion to electric and self-driving cars. Toyota, already the world’s top gun by far in the hybrid sector, also sees itself heading in the same route; again, it sees big merit with hydrogen, but alongside electric solutions. Stellantis, the new co-op between France’s PSA and Fiat-Chrysler, is the same. Mercedes, BMW, Audi – in fact all of VW Group – Nissan and so on. And so on. All are looking to battery-enabled motoring.

However, the Government is jumping the gun if it imagines all brands have non-fossil fuelled solutions for all situations right now. This decade is very much a period of transition.

Toyota is the world’s biggest producer of hybrid cars, has the world’s biggest selection and the Prius is the world’s most popular petrol electric. However, hybrids still account for just of the make’s production.

EV production is ramping up and will continue to do so annually. Production of PHEVs is also increasing and it’s the same with hybrids. Yet overall, these do not account for a huge percentage of annual global vehicle manufacture. As much as Tesla is leading the way, it still only produced 500,000 vehicles last year. That didn’t even get it into the top 10 of global light car manufacturers.

Toyota and premium affiliate Lexus have hybrid in most of their models now; those brands have together put 15 million cars with this tech on the road since the original Prius emerged in 1997. The technology has reduced CO2 emissions by more than 120 million tonnes worldwide to date compared to sales of equivalent petrol vehicles. Great work, but hybrids still only account for 52 percent of total Toyota annual production. 

The EU gave car makers 10 years’ prior warning of its expectation and, even so, that was barely enough time to develop and produce the right kind of cars. Remember, in 2011, electrics were still a novelty, there was barely any infrastructure to support them and range was poor. All that’s changed.

Europe is a core car market; because of that, and because of the CO2 penalties, it’s become a priority market for EV suppliers.

At present, most Euro EV action is contained to the premium market. The challenges are at the affordable end. Before Government’s intent was clarified, the Euro with potential to best shake up our mainstream EV choices, Volkswagen Group, was also putting us low on the shipping list.

At one time, the new-generation VW, Skoda, SEAT and Audi products on the electric-dedicated MEB platform were set to roll in from this year; now entry in late 2022 seems a best – and even that’s optimistic.

Says one involver whose brand sells fully electric and electric-assisted product. “It’s all about getting the right cars … at the moment, Europe is accounting for most (of his brand’s) production. Supply for us is not as good as we want; we take everything we can get – and can sell it – but we cannot get enough and that’s unlikely to change for years.”

FYI: The Climate Change Commission report proposing future trends reckons just 40 percent of our fleet will have electric assist by 2035.

Okay, so how will this scheme work? 

ANSWER: Each supplier will have a different target to meet, reflecting its fleet of vehicles. Across the vehicles it brings in it has to ensure the average CO2 emissions are equal to, or less than, the target for its vehicles.

As it works by averaging, vehicles exceeding the CO2 target can continue to be brought in so long as they are offset by enough zero and low emission vehicles.

The 2025 target will be phased in through annual targets that get progressively lower. This gives vehicle suppliers time to adjust and source enough clean vehicles to meet the targets and to encourage buyers to opt for low emission vehicles. 

These penalties – won’t they just be passed onto the consumer; meaning cars will get more expensive?

No-one’s offering any comment on this, though several people spoken to reminded that, at present, the average CO2 count is 65g/km above target. Translate that into initial penalty dollars and it represents as an average $3500 impost on stickers. 

Will distributors have any support?

ANSWER: Waka Kotahi will develop an online tracking and forecasting tool to allow importers to see how their CO2 accounts would be affected if they purchase particular vehicles in international auctions. It would also help importers complying on a fleet-basis by easily allowing them to monitor how their actual average fleet CO2 emissions are tracking, against their fleet targets. 

Flexibility will be given for the industry by allowing them to bank, borrow and transfer. Banking will allow suppliers to carry over any overachievement of their CO2 targets to offset the following three years.

Borrowing allows suppliers to miss their targets for one year as long as they make it up the following year.

Transferring allows suppliers to transfer overachievement of their CO2 target to one or more other suppliers operating within the same compliance regime.

That’s all well and good, says one commentator, but he remains convinced that the best incentive is … well, incentives.  

That’s been proven time again overseas. More than 30 countries have EV incentives and these commonly take form of comprehensive electrification strategies, not just handouts.

“Our products are popular, but they aren’t the most popular vehicles we sell. We always ask ‘will customers automatically want to buy them’. You have to pay more for electric, that’s just an unavoidable. Some people are keen, not everyone is. The economies (of widespread acceptance) won’t work without support.”

How easy will it be for all distributors to meet the new standard – might we see some brands or vehicles, even vehicle types, simply disappear?

The Government does not address this but some in the industry would not be surprised if this scenario plays out.

Kiwis love their diesel utilities - but the type are high CO2 emitters. That’s a factor brands that do well with those models will have to consider now.

The easiest way to get the make-wide average CO2 down is to slot in an electric-assisted model into the range. EVs are of course best, because it’s only CO2 out from the vehicle: For those cars, that count is ‘zero.’

All well and good, but some makes simply do not have that luxury. The idea is for them to buy credits from those do, and have some to spare. Tesla has effectively come into profit on Fiat-Chrysler payments.

It’s not fair to name names, but it’s easy enough to find out which brands have EV strategies and which do not. Those without will be hurt.

One comment: “It’s not just the obvious gas guzzlers that are impacted by this. The requirement is for even small cars to improve and that’s a much harder ask for them than it is with big ones.” 

The impact on the current fleet will be interesting, we were told. “More consumers will start to look at fuel economy.”

If this all about improving our environment, why aren’t used importers having to follow the same regime as new vehicle distributors? After all, we’re all breathing the same air. Also, there’s no mention of importers of effectively brand-new cars from overseas – what’s their responsibility?

The average ago of used imports is 10 years. The effective requirement is for these to meet Euro 5; a standard implemented 12 years ago.  

So, theoretically, imports will be within this mandate. All the same, the used importers’ association, which was not approached for comment, has already expressed distaste for the requirement.

The feeling, from the new car industry, seems to be that everyone should do their share. Thought that importers of as-new product might only have to pay half the penalty the same vehicle, if over the limit, would be hit with is not welcomed. On the other hand, there’s also sentiment that those operators shouldn’t achieve any incentives, should these materialise, for favoured models. The reason? Those operators have not invested in the infrastructure required to support those cars.

Are the penalties stiff enough?

The reason why brands selling in the EU are so compelled to meet the target there is that the penalty is much steeper than it will be here; $160 per gram exceeded.

The Government says this will impact on vehicles being delivered from a certain date – it won’t be retrospective, so what we are driving now won’t be affected. Or will it? What impacts could this have on, say, on residual values – will some cars become unsaleable and, if so, what types might raise a red flag?

It’s too soon to tell. However, the potential for this legislation to change vehicle buying seems obvious.

Said one respondent: “Our cars are heavier on average than those sold in Europe. This has a massive impact on fuel economy. The best way to get average economy counts down is to drive more efficient cars.”

At the moment, some said, we have cheap fuel and use too much of it. “We love powerful and large vehicles, and 23 percent of new vehicles sold are utes, which on average are all emitting more than 200 grams of CO2. 

“That factor alone makes us very different to Europe. Utes aren’t at all popular over there. 

What drives that interest? Perceived superior versatility (which is often not realised in reality – many vans are better choices), opportunity to circumvent Fringe Benefit Tax and our love of towing.  

The whole swing to utes has rankled some. One thought expressed: “The high level of ute uptake by businesses is a direct result of the Inland Revenue Department’s failure to police their FBT rules.

“Check out your local boat ramp and I bet you’ll see plenty of sign-written utes and just know their owners aren’t paying FBT, though they should be.”

Electric car uptake is set to rise, but no simply because of political will. Fact is, most carmakers now see this technology being their future.

Beyond that? “The older and thirstier – and that’s not necessarily the same thing – vehicles will become less popular,” one involver suggested.

“If the cost of carbon continues to rise, and we can expect this, fuel will get more expensive and interest in thirsty cars will continue to decline … hopefully this will be supported by a scrappage scheme.” 

And potential red flags? A hard one, but potentially ultimately anything with a six or eight-cylinder petrol engine that isn’t considered a classic. Perhaps some turbocharged four-cylinder mainstream cars.

Are there any circumstances where vehicles might be subject to dispensation; we hear that in the EU, all the really exotic stuff – you, know, your Ferraris, McLarens and Rolls-Royces and so on – are exempt because their production runs are so low. Will that happen here, do we know if there is a registration count cut-off for what excludes and what doesn’t?

The exemptions so far explained are for: vehicles intended primarily for military operational purposes; agricultural vehicles/equipment that are primarily driven on farms, such as tractors, harvesters, mowers, toppers, bailers; vehicles with historic value, or vehicles such as classic cars; motor vehicles constructed before 1 January 1919; motor vehicles constructed on or after 1 January 1919 and are at least 40 years old on the date that they were registered, reregistered, or licensed and scratch-built vehicles and modified vehicles certified by the Low Volume Vehicle Technical Association.

It’s still unclear if that same leniencies that have allowed the high-end exotic brands to keep selling in the EU will impact here. However, it is worth noting that many are intensifying the electric efforts nonetheless. Though, in the case of Rolls-Royce, the potential of a fully electric car before too long has nothing to do with consumer demand. It’s more because big cities around the world are increasingly deciding to shut themselves off the high-emissions traffic.

Anything else we need to know?

Australia.

We historically often collude with our neighbour on common market selections. Car makers love volume. NZ doesn’t buy many new cars but, if we take the same stock as our neighbour, then often it’s enough to win a production priority and a stronger negotiating status. 

Our tastes were already distancing but the new legislation might lead to a complete divorce. Our respective national visions are far from alike.

 Australia has no mandated CO2 regulation now and, more disturbingly, is disinclined to adopt one; a situation that in itself has so alarmed the car industry they’ve rolled out a voluntary code. 

Even then, they face a different core challenge. A catalyst for our neighbour’s relatively lax emissions regs is that the fuel sold there is of lower quality than we receive. This means Australia’s fuel and Euro 5-based noxious emissions standards are lax by global standard; to the point where they act as an impediment to introduction there of internal combustion engines that can be sold here. The standards are being tightened. But not until 2027. 

Like us, they’ve ruled out EV subsidies in favour of encouraging companies to electrify their vehicle fleets. We aim to make EV owners pay Road User Taxes (though when is still unclear). Over there, some states are pushing for EV road taxes to compensate for lost fuel excise earnings; Victoria is considering fiting EVs with GPS trackers for per kilometre charging. Why would anyone keen to kick the oil habit been keen on that?

Beyond that, Prime Minister Scott Morrison’s administration seems largely indifferent to the matters we are aiming to address. 

The Federal Government seems to be happy with indulging in what a senior writer with Wheels magazine has called an “embarrassing fossil fuel addiction while the rest of the world joins the e-volution.”

Daniel Gardner, who said his views about electric cars and the positives of their involvement in any roadscape came from (pre-Covid) visits to Europe, particularly time spent in Germany, says he is embarrassed that the Australian Federal Government's 2020/2021 Federal Budget included money to upgrade a coal-fired power station in New South Wales, and $A52.9 million expanding Australia’s gas industry “while allocating a measly A$5 million for electric vehicles.”

He added: “Get chatting to a German and, regardless of their political inclination, they simply won’t believe why we are so opposed to electric vehicles and gorging ourselves on fossil fuels. And when you see just how feasible Germany makes the transition to electric cars appear, you probably wouldn’t either.”

Australia’s determination to keep mining and burning coal relates so much about our neighbour’s attitude toward clean air concern, critics say. EV producers’ making Australia a low-priority market might not do un any favours.

He wrote of exasperation that “Australia has a government that sees absolutely nothing wrong with digging millions of tons of filthy brown coal out of the ground and burning it to power the nation. A government that not only refuses to invest in renewable energy despite being one of the most suitable countries in the world, and instead favours more coal mines. 

Australia’s indifference has also fired up the country’s peak electric vehicle lobby, which says the latest future fuels strategy, which released in draft form late last year, as “yet another flaccid, do-nothing document that will prevent Australians getting access to the world’s best electric vehicles”.

They’re right. Limited electrified vehicle production is being allocated to places where incentives are greatest and/or restrictions on CO2 are the most painful. Australia? Said Wheels magazine last month: “As the Federal Government’s ideological constraints and contradictions extend its environmental and electric vehicle policy vacuum, Australia is slipping down the shipping list.”

NZ distributors are finding themselves having to negotiate directly with makers to achieve any kind of product and often there’s a cost – which has to ultimately be passed on – and, in many cases, acceptance of compromise (so, a car might arrive in another right-drive country’s spec: Latterly, it’s been Ireland).

Having a neighbour we can’t live with, but cannot live without is hardly helpful.

Dirty dozen (plus one) – high CO2 culprits easy to cite

The clean car legislation announced by Government aims to take high-emission product off the road. If imposed today there’d be plenty to choose from.

KIWIS like to think green and care about the environment, but our car, van and utility buying preferences relate a dirtier truth.

The average vehicle in New Zealand has CO2 emissions of around 171 grams per kilometre; our cars and SUVs alone average 161 g/km.

New cars in general are cleaner now than counterparts that came into circulation 10 years ago, a time when fully electric cars were hardly an influence and even mild hybrids were considered a bit kooky.

Yet there’s evidence to suggest our rate of improvement has actually been retarded in recent years and it’s all our own fault. Emergent interest in one-tonne utes and, to some extent, SUVs, is to blame. While it is true that diesel engines emit less CO2 than petrol equivalents, the technology that delivers true efficiency gains in this area has tended to be delivered to proper cars and crossovers rather than the traydecks we prefer. Most of those are still delivering more than 200g/km. That’s why they’ve become an unhealthy addiction – one we probably must serious consideration to quitting with a 105g/km average looking set to install within four years.

Even if we seriously ease up on buying utes, reaching that new target will require radical change nonetheless as no light vehicles operating purely by virtue of using wholly fossil fuel-fed combustion engines slip under the new mandate, though some do come very close. It’s a matter of record, though, that the best-in-class orthodox CO2 emitters – that it is, models that produce the least exhaust nasties within their segments – that are virtually in the zone are rarely a high priority for new car buyers. Green isn’t always cool; why buy a base 1.2-litre Suzuki Swift (with a 106g/km output) when the more effervescent if less efficient Swift Sport is so much more fun?

Reality is that many of the cars that we’ve revered and adored for years are going to have a hard time surviving. That’s why their makers are in many cases one step ahead, and already working to consign them to history, in favour of replacements that take a partial, or even total, electric path.

That’s in the future. Today’s exercise uses RightCar data freely-available to give an idea of how far outside the clean air target the Government plans to have in place by 2025 some vehicles are.

The models listed today are generally at the extreme edge, but include best choices now and vehicles you might love to buy with a lucky Lotto win.

In ascending order of smuttiness:

Subaru WRX

211g/km

 The version that we have at the moment is on its last lap; the Saito edition pictured was sold (and snapped up) on strength that it is a ‘final’ special edition, though notwithstanding that the regular car is set to remain available at least all this year.

 And then? Well, all sorts of speculation is swirling around but it is certain, now that there will be a replacement for the current model and that, rather than going to an electric drivetrain, the newbie will stick to a petrol addiction, but this time in a 2.4-litre format that might produce more than 298kW. So, the good times are set to roll on … expect more of the spirit that dominated the World Rally Championship.

All the same, sticking to the old formula adds additional imperative for Subaru to produce far more efficient cars that will offset the racer’s CO2 hit. It already has two mild hybrids that will help but far more core will be the fully electric model that has been signed off; this being a co-development with Toyota. It’s a medium SUV, in production from later this year. To meet a 105g average without penalty, though, probably means one EV won’t be enough.

Subaru plans to have 40 percent of its global sales be hybrid or electric vehicles by 2030, but also says it won’t have hybrid or electric versions of every vehicle in its lineup until 2035.

Ford Ranger 3.2

227g/km

No replacement for displacement, right?

These days, displacement is being replaced by technology. Multiple turbochargers, advanced fuel injection and efficient engine designs mean you can get more power, torque and efficiency from a smaller power plant.

Ford has three powertrains for this country’s best-selling ute (for five years) but, really, just two matter: The 3.2-litre five-cylinder that has been in service since the T6 platform introduced in 2011 and the 2.0-litre biturbo that came into action several years ago. Originally earmarked for high-end versions, but gradually no availing across most versions, the latter doesn’t feel as effortlessly muscular as the original, even though the latter in fact has more power and torque. The reason why the new motor is here, and will likely continue into the all-new Ranger landing in 2022 (a Ranger-rok as it is a combined effort with Volkswagen) is its efficiency: It’s thriftier and far, far cleaner than the 3.2, which for all its strengths is undone by having the worst CO2 count in this popular category.

Hyundai Palisade

246 g/km

 It has yet to officially go on sale – that happens in a week or so – but already the biggest, most expensive SUV from South Korea’s largest maker is on a blacklist.

Bad start? To be fair, it’s not as bad it looks. The version that has the spotlight is one most people will not consider, given it runs a normally-aspirated 3.8-litre V6 petrol. The main thrust will be with the diesel, a 2.2-litre turbocharged four-cylinder, which is cleaner, emitting 195g/km.

The point here is to remind that even modern big capacity petrol engines are still not clean enough for legislators. It is also worth bearing in mind, however, that Hyundai could have helped itself by installing, in its biggest rig, the more modern powertrains that have gone into the recently-released, latest form Santa Fe. Actually, make that one specific powertrain.

The next-size down SUV is not the same choice, being physically smaller and with fewer seats, and in V6 form it really has no Green advantage over Palisade’s; Santa Fe’s 3.5 emits 244g/km. However, it’s different in diesel. Palisade has the old cast iron block 2.2; Santa Fe has gone to an alloy engine. It’s cleaner, with 160g/km. Santa Fe will continue to hold a Green card going forward, when mild and plug-in hybrid petrol models land later this year. Both have lower emissions counts still. However, there’s no talk about those powertrains availing in the Palisade.

Jaguar F-Pace SVR

272g/km

Considered in the widest perspective, it’s a grub. Narrow that view down to just the ‘bonkers performance SUV’ genre in which it resides and, actually, it’s not too bad. Or, at least, not the worst. Which is surprising, perhaps, given that this $157,900 rocketship’s 5.0-litre supercharged AJ petrol is an old engine. Soon to retire, in fact, with JLR set to install a BMW 4.4-litre eight in its stead.

 Jaguar, of course, is already sitting pretty in that it has a decent option for SVR buyers who need to quit their petrol addiction: It’s the superb iPace all-electric crossover. Not quite the same thing, but certainly a reasonable alternate, even if doesn’t have the thunderous growling exhaust note that, it has to be said, is really quite a fantastic element of the SVR package.

 RAM 1500

280g/km

 The figure above is for the diesel that’s slightly cleaner than the alternate petrol. But, like, just 3g/km cleaner on the overall average. The price of sticking to a diet of Freedom Fuel also reveals in sobering fuel burn, of course, but it’s the CO2 count that matters here.

A big heart is intrinsic to America's big lugger because it is genuinely in another league to one-tonne utes in so far as load-hauling goes. It’s also worth taking note that the 1500, a more popular choice for Kiwis than the larger 2500 and 3500, is at least a steady drinker – economy on the last one tested was much the same unladen as when it was running with a stacked deck and a big trailer. Still, it reinforces why this model has a 121-litre tank.

The DS model here is expected to stay available for some time, though with a ‘Classic’ designation, when the new-gen RAM arrives, probably in April. This is the DT line, which is more modern in look, technology, styling and equipment. It’ll also evidence in V8 petrol only. We’ve yet to see a local emissions count.

Chevrolet Silverado

282g/km

 Again, a substantial emissions count is the price of being American-big; not just size by engine capacity. There’s a 6.2-litre V8 under the massive bonnet.

Can it survive under the new legislation? According to the rules, each make’s official distributor will have a different target to meet, reflecting its fleet of vehicles. Across the vehicles it brings in it has to ensure the average CO2 emissions are equal to, or less than, the target for its vehicles.

As it works by averaging, vehicles exceeding the CO2 target can continue to be brought in so long as they are offset by enough zero and low emission vehicles. The 2025 target will be phased in through annual targets that get progressively lower. This gives vehicle suppliers time to adjust and source enough clean vehicles to meet the targets and to encourage buyers to opt for low emission vehicles.

So, with Chevrolet then, the situation as it stands goes like this. Silverado is currently the sole flag bearer. It should be joined, by late year, by the Corvette sports car but, of course, that’s also a V8. Not necessarily helpful for achieving the new standard, at least without attracting a penalty. 

However, GM has announced intent to build a whole heap of electric cars. If some of those arrived here, and sold under the same broad branding umbrella, it could conceivably make a heck of a difference.

Audi RSQ8/Lamborghini Urus

278-282 g/km

 One makes 441kW and the other 478kW, both run the same 4.0-litre twin turbo V8; a true stomper for sound and sizzle. But, clearly, also a bit troublesome in respect to what primarily comes out of the exhaust pipes.

For all the eco-guilt it lays on, I really enjoyed the RSQ8 in sense that it made a far more sensible selection than the Urus, being basically the same with a German accent but shaped but kitted way better and costing a lot less.

 At same token, it does seem to be interesting and intriguing play, not least because it arrives just when Ingolstadt has deeply immersed in the electric car scene. If any Audi is set to stand out as the epitome of an ‘anti e-tron’, it surely has to be this machine: A super swanky, two tonne five-seater SUV coupe battering ram capable of 300kmh but also downing a horrendous quantity of fuel in the process of expressing optimal performance.

 It’s definitely the last of an old breed. And the RS e-Tron GT that is coming later this year is definitely the first of the new.

Ford Mustang V8

292g/km

And you still have to ask why the Blue Oval has decided its first fully electric car is also a Mustang?

The V8 engine has been part of the Pony car’s tale since day one, but it clearly comes with a cost.

Ford has already tried hard to wean fans off the eight cylinder route, with the now 2.3-litre EcoBoost engine as an alternate. It hasn’t worked – NZ preference for the V8 is even stronger than the global average. We just don’t care for anything less than the ‘real deal’, represented very well by the 5.0-litre engine.

Buyer swing toward the four-cylinder and the Mach-E electric, when it comes, could well be the saving of Mustang. Continued allegiance to the V8, as brilliant as that powertrain is, makes no sense in a world where passion has to take a back seat to pragmatism.

Lexus LX570

334g/km

 THE combined Toyota and Lexus carbon profile in this country is an example to all other brands save, obviously, the one that doesn’t sell anything fossil-fuelled: Tesla.

 The Japanese giant’s count is already below the national standing and should fall even more this year, with more hybrids coming and two electrics as well. Those battery-assisted hybrids have made massive imprint for global good; a year ago the makes reckoned their cars had cumulatively saved their owners 25 billion litres of fuel: Enough, theoretically, for each of those cars to travel around the world, and then some.

It’s a nicely-Green calculation, a great crow for brand credibility. Just a shame that the wholly Green image cannot be claimed; at least not while the Lexus keeps its top-line version of the Land Cruiser 200-Series. This eight-seater monster holds black sheep standing within a family that works hard to portray a goody two-shoes eco-pitch.

 Why it is still here? Lexus always claimed the LX has enjoyed a core of supporters who find it hard to transfer to anything else quite like it. We note that the Land Cruiser it bases off is about to retire, with a new line coming – maybe this year, maybe next – with a hybrid V6 powertrain said to be far more efficient and Earth-friendly than the current V8s (diesel in Land Cruiser, petrol in LX). It’d be good for LX to follow suit.

Rolls-Royce Cullinan

342g/km

 Talk about the filthy rich, right? This giant all-terrain land yacht is certainly making its presence felt through more than just gravitas, sheer substance and obvious affluence. Even it has a massive engine, hauling around all that luxury is clearly not a clean business.

 Rolls is at least know recognising this sort cannot go on. The ultimate toff brand is planning to bring an electric vehicle to market within the decade, though it will likely be a purely road-bound car. Thought about what future technical direction the Cullinan might adopt has not be expressed.

Meantime, the make admits this isn’t exactly the result of customer pressure. What’s compelling the brand to develop one is because many cities plan to ban petrol-powered cars in the not-too-distant future. If that seems a bit distasteful then there is main competitor Bentley, which has advertised more ambitious plans – it intends to release an EV by 2025 along with a hybrid version of each of its cars.

 Lamborghini Aventador

394g/km

 Start with a 6.5-litre V12 that creates 544kW and there will be consequences, right? The Aventador is also a standout for its thirst: 16.9 l/100km is the factory’s optimal economy estimate, so maybe it’s a typo that had RightCar put it at 19.61.

 Still, they say here are supercars, and then there are Aventadors. There’s no question this machine is a proper Lambo’. It’s the quintessential Italian hypercar. The entire thing, from the carbon-fibre tub to the engine, handmade by a bunch of mad Italians in Sant'agata Bolognese. 

Can it continue? No. What’s next? Electrification, of course. They might be mad, but they’re not bonkers.

 A replacement for this car, the Egoista, will be a plug-in hybrid, though still V12. The new version of its Huracan, meantime, is taking the same track, though is expected to use either a modified version of the Audi R8 architecture or else an evolution of the 992 Porsche 911’s platform. Oh yes, and the Urus is getting a plug, too.

Jeep Grand Cherokee Trackhawk

395g/km

 The world’s most potent SUV drinks a lot of dinosaur juice and clearly has quite a powerful dino-breath, too, thanks to adoption of the supercharged 6.2-litre V8 that configured originally in just the Dodge Challenger and Charger Hellcat cars before Jeep decided, in 2018, that it needed some of the same fury.

The NZ distributor has done okay with a model that vanquishes 0-100kmh in 3.6 seconds – or 1.3s quicker than the SRT that used to be the king hitter  - covers the quarter mile in 11.9 seconds, hits 290kmh overall and drinks … well, the word ‘copious’ is an understatement when discussing the thirst.

But clearly it does all this with a very dark cloud hanging above. Another whose chances of survival seem … erm. minimal. If it was to be kept on once the clean car levies impose and assuming Jeep couldn’t find any way of avoiding those (through buying credits from another source) then it would carry a $15,000 penalty.

Although utes impact due to sheer volume, some are worse grubs than others. The Ford Ranger, which has dominated ute sales for five years, has a bet either way with two engine choices.

The 2.2-litre four-cylinder biturbo emits a category best 177g/km whereas the five-cylinder 3.2-litre single turbo alternate evidences a near class-worst 234.

Rolls-Royce Cullinan

Rolls-Royce has the highest average emissions in New Zealand, but then sells comparatively few cars that are only driven sparingly.

One solace for ute faithful is that makes reserved for rich listers still top the scale of shame. Aston Martin achieves 265.1, Bentley 274.7, Ferrari 279.8, Lamborghini 305.2 and McLaren 257.3. Then there's Rolls-Royce, the worst emitter, with an average of 343.3g/km.

Those elite end makes are among low volume makes still exempted from the EU's latest expectation,

A dirty job meeting clean standard

Yesterday’s announcement of clean car actions raises potential for Kiwis having to reconsider allegiance to vehicles they love the most.

Diesel utes are No.1 with Kiwis …. but they’re not going to make the clean air cut.

 BASICALLY, we don't like our 'greens' and consume too many meaty products. 

That’s the national new vehicle buying pattern in a nutshell.

Sports utilities, crossovers and, in particular, one tonne utilities. These are the vehicles we love the most; to the point where they cumulatively outsell conventional cars and the Ford Ranger has become the country’s best-selling model.

Great stuff. Just one wee catch. It’s always been common knowledge that, were New Zealand ever to get its act together and implement some kind of emissions regulation, then the vehicles Kiwi love most would get us into trouble.

CO2 emissions from new passenger and light vehicles have been declining. However, our national average is well above where the Government has now decided it needs to be; mainly because we’ve been making too many dirty decisions. 

Core to announcement yesterday of a Clean Air Standard is intention to reach a CO2 target of 102g/km by 2025.

Easy-peasy? The current NZ average for cars and SUVs is 161g; overall, the fleet is around 171g – an improvement on a year ago, if only by 3g. And today’s average is still below is still slightly below the target the European Union set for its territory in 2003.

So, yeah, the challenge is to achieve a reduction of almost 40 percent from the current new-vehicle average. Utes, which are particular grubs, and vans must hit 132g in the same timeframe.

There’s no time to waste. The Government intends to pass the law this year and enact the standard in 2022, with the first charges being levied on any who miss their annually reducing targets from 2023. 

It’s not as if we didn’t know this day was coming. Fact is, NZ is just catching up to a world trend, which in a way is going to be helpful.

Vehicle makers are already being compelled the same targets in much larger, more crucial markets; their reaction to that challenge means they are already making products that are in step with the NZ intention. We will get many of those vehicles.

The European Union mandate on makers selling in its territory to meet an even higher standard, a fleet-wide average of 95g/km, and Japan’s mandate for a 104g/km standard, are especially compelling. Vehicles tailored to meet or exceed those expectations will also come here.

The NZ model is not too different from the EU’s. Vehicle suppliers will have different targets to meet, and will only have to ensure that the average efficiency of the cars imported in any given year meets the standard. This means higher-emission vehicles can still be imported but will have to be offset by cleaner vehicles.

Failure to comply will be penalised, as in the EU, but not to anything like the same extreme. In the EU, fines can be large enough to bring a brand to its knees. Here a penalty will be applied from 2023 of $50 per gram of CO2 above the target for new vehicle imports or $25 per gram above the target for used vehicle imports - but it is applied across the fleet.

If you decided, today, to investigate which vehicles on sale at this very moment were already meeting that new cut-off … well, the shortlist would be very short indeed.

even acknowledged thrift-meisters such as the top-selling Suzuki Swift are challenged to meet the 105g/km standard. The hybrid version, above, does with a count of 94g/km but conventionally-powered editions do not.

Forget conventional internal combustion-engined cars; even especially thrifty types struggle to be that clean.

You need to go hybrid, though even then it’s not a given. Toyota's Prius, Yaris, C-HR and Corolla petrol-electric models are all under the 105g/km. The Camry hybrid and the hot-selling RAV4 hybrid are on the wrong side of the fence.

The models that will make more of a difference are will be used by brands that can achieve them to lower their fleet averages are, of course, plug-in hybrid (PHEV) and fully electric vehicles.

This has been shown in the EU, where makers were generally starting from a base of 120g/km.

These are vehicles that, of course, many big players are now making in greater volumes. Ironically, some have been hard to secure for NZ because their makers are prioritising places where they have to represent electric fare or face fines – this is why VW Group product has been restricted, or completely held back, from NZ introduction. Europe’s biggest maker is focussing, out of necessity, on keeping those cars in EU markets. The NZ decision could well be a very useful tool for the brands’ NZ agent to now argue for prioritisation. 

In the here and now, the current hybrid and plug in hybrid fare that meets or improves on the standard comprise seven BMWs, two Hyundais, two Kias, a Range Rover, two Lexus models, four Mercedes, a MINI, a Mitsubishi, a Peugeot, two Porsches, six Toyotas and four Volvos.

In addition, 14 fully electric passenger models avail here, from Audi, BMW, Hyundai, Jaguar, Kia, Mercedes, MG, MINI, Nissan, Renault and Tesla. One or two examples of the Volkswagen e-Golf might also be unspoken for, though car is not out of production and supply has ended.

The probability of seeing more electrics, PHEVs and hybrids is high – being, then, it already was anyway because, well, you might recall the motoring world is going that way regardless of how much you love your V8s.

Of course, not all brands have the luxury of being about to take the electric path. Subaru and Suzuki are barely in the game, with just mild hybrid options. No ute here yet has any kind of battery-assisted drivetrain, though a hybrid Toyota Hilux is promised and Mitsubishi has hinted at a battery-assisted powertrain for Triton. Look at Isuzu: It makes a ute and a spin-off SUV. Both rely purely on a diesel engine whose emissions are well about the new mandate.

plug-in hybrid and fully electric technology is an obvious solution to achieving or surpassing the new standard. Many brands are one step ahead … the PHEV Ford Transit is among models intended for NZ introduction.

What habits might we have to change or even quit? A year ago I wrote a backgrounder for a national publication that aimed to give insight into the vehicles that might well become problematic were our country to ever consider the CO2 issue.

That piece pointed out how our huge move toward ute ownership has been detrimental to bringing emissions down. It pointed out, for instance, that a the start of 2020, the Ford Ranger, which at that point had dominated ute sales for five years (and would do the same last year), was both a relative saint and a sinner, in that one engine it ran - the 2.2-litre four-cylinder biturbo, emitted a category best 177g/km - whereas the other, the five-cylinder 3.2-litre single turbo it launched with, evidenced a near class-worst 234.

America's big lugger RAM was also in the black. It’s XL-sized products delivered a 283.8g/km average outcome.

One solace for ute faithful now, as then, is that makes reserved for rich listers top the scale of shame. In the data used for last year’s story, Aston Martin achieved an average of 265.1 g/km, Bentley 274.7, Ferrari 279.8, Lamborghini 305.2 and McLaren 257.3. Rolls-Royce was the worst emitter, with an average of 343.3g/km.

Notwithstanding that some of those makes are now fast-tracking into an electric age, it’s probable more of those cars are going to come under the spotlight. Some might be withdrawn, others will asuuredly become even more expensive as penalties are passed on to the customer.

Clean car standard aired, 2025 deadline

Government’s push to reduce exhaust emissions is met with mixed feeling.

 RESPONSE from within the motor industry about the ramifications of Government plans to move on its election promises to clean up transport emissions has been swift.

The Motor Industry Association, which represents the interests of new vehicle importers, light vehicle market leader Toyota New Zealand, the Automobile Association – which styles itself as the voice of New Zealand motorists – and Drive Electric, a pressure group pushing for more EVs, have all spoken up since Government today announced the first tranche of measures that it said would help New Zealand's 2050 carbon neutral target.

Already car distributors are arguing that a deadline of 2025 for a clean air emissions standard of just 105 grams per kilometre is too much, too soon. It wants the deadline to be extended to 2030, which is more in line with many other countries.

As is, the ruling could almost certainly make the sale of large capacity, fuel-hungry cars uncompetitive and might also be a hefty challenge to the ongoing availability of one-tonne utilities, a favoured vehicle type, in their current formats as these traditionally operate with diesel engines whose emissions are universally above 200g/km.

Among reported initiatives are something like the "feebate" scheme proposed last year, with Government saying it is considering an incentive to switch to clean cars.

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said with transport making up the country's second-highest amount of emissions after agriculture it was "important we reduce emissions from our vehicle fleet", according to a report from Radio New Zealand news.

The report also cited Transport Minister Michael Wood as saying the government had agreed in principle to mandate a lower-emitting biofuel blend across the transport sector.

It has also outlined its plan to only purchase zero emissions public transport buses from 2025, and a $50 million commitment to help councils fully decarbonise the public transport bus fleet by 2035.

Legislation will also be passed this year to introduce a Clean Car Import Standard. 

"The standard will begin next year, with the 105 grams of CO2/km 2025 target being phased in through annual targets that get progressively lower to give importers time to adjust.”

It is understood the terms of this will mean that vehicles with emissions that exceed this will be subject to penalty, likely a tariff, that would likely make those vehicles more expensive to buy.

Those below the line escape this, but do not appear to earn credits, as has occurred in some countries, where similar systems are enacted. Credits are used to encourage transfer to cleaner vehicles, notable those with mains-replenished (as opposed to hybrid) electric drivetrains acting to assist a fossil fuelled engine or completely drive a vehicle.

Car industry data relating to average exhaust emissions by brand suggest just Tesla, for obvious reason, is below the standard proposed by Government. Even Suzuki, which specialises in vehicles with modest capacity engines delivering strong economy, has a fleet-wide CO2 average of 130g/km. 

"The Import Standard will prevent up to 3 million tonnes of emissions by 2040, mean more climate-friendly cars are available, and will give families average lifetime fuel savings of nearly $7000 per vehicle," Mr Wood said.

He said the government was also considering options for an incentive scheme "to help Kiwis make the switch to clean cars", saying that there would be further announcements in the coming months.

The Government proposed a "feebate" scheme last term, but New Zealand First pulled the handbrake on this, following intense backlash from the National Party.

Climate Change Minister James Shaw said these measures were a "good first step", but there would need to be "many more steps taken after this one".

Ms Ardern said the government would finalise its first three carbon budgets later this year, following advice and recommendations from the independent Climate Change Commission.

The MIA’s chief executive, David Crawford, reminded his organisation has long supported “well thought out and constructive policies that will lead to an increased rate in the reduction of CO2 emissions from the light vehicle fleet..” 

In respect to today’s announcement, he said: “We welcome the Government’s commitment to introduce incentives and await more details on how these will work.

“However, while we believe the fuel economy standard is necessary, the speed at which we must reach the average target of 105g/km is the most aggressive and severe in the world. No other country has ever had to face a 40 percent rate of reduction in five years that we now must meet.”

The industry will urge the Government to extend the target date to 2030, a sentiment also expressed by Toyota NZ chief executive Neeraj Lala, who called the target “a tough ask.”

TNZ and luxury affiliate Lexus had a target to reduce tailpipe emissions to 152g CO2/km and 178g CO2/km respectively by 2030. Toyota’s hybrid car sales increased from 1636 in 2017 to 12,210 in 2020 and more hybrid and plug-in hybrid models will be launched this year. The makes’ first electric car, the Lexus UX 300e, is set to launch this year.

Mr Crawford said the 2025 target date “does not allow time for model development, vehicle sourcing arrangements and does not recognise that for many distributors in New Zealand their model choice is tied to the Australian market.

“With no similar policy required in Australia, our market, which represents just 0.018 percent of new vehicle production in any one year, is too small for manufactures to develop models just for us.”

The MIA also wants the rules to be the same for both new and used imported vehicles. The policy at present allows softer penalties for the latter. Mr Crawford believes this “will lead to an increase in older, less safe vehicles entering New Zealand.” 

The AA has also expressed many of the same concerns.

“The proposed emissions target for 2025 is an aspirational target that may not be achievable,” says spokesman Mark Stockdale.  

“We understand the intentions behind it and our members want to see more low-emissions vehicles available here.

“But the risk is that this target could simply result in higher prices for new cars that still don’t meet the emissions standard. That could even result in people holding onto their older, higher emissions car for longer.”

The biofuels mandate appeals. “The emissions standards focus on the approximately 300,000 vehicles entering the fleet every year, but we also need to reduce the emissions from the existing fleet of some 4.6 million vehicles. Biofuels are one way to do that.”

The AA says it supports a feebate which would complement an emissions standard. “Other countries have both an emissions standard and a feebate scheme, and their experience shows that both work to reduce emissions from new vehicles entering the fleet.”

The AA also wants a broader fleet strategy developed by the government and motor industry to devise an action plan to reduce transport emissions and also improve the safety of the fleet.

DriveElectric chair Mark Gilbert says standards proposed for 2025 have already been met in other comparable markets, like the European Union and Japan “and must be achievable here."

“The standard is a useful tool in that it asks importers to look at the portfolio of vehicles they are importing, which should increase low emissions choice across a range of vehicle types and price points. With more EVs coming into New Zealand, this also increases the second-hand market over time. 

“That said, such a standard is really just a first step towards managing a transition away from fossil fuel vehicles and towards no emissions vehicles.”

The organisation believes that to meet New Zealand’s legislated climate ambition, which is to keep global warming within 1.5 degrees Celsius, “our analysis shows we need to aim for at least 250,000 EVs on the roads by 2025, and for this trend to continue through to 2030.”

It argues Government needs to look to announcing a date by which NZ ends the importation of fossil fuel vehicles entirely.

“To support such ambition, we need a joint plan between the Government and industry to ensure we have the right package of policy settings, the necessary investment in charging infrastructure, and coordination among all the players through the EV ecosystem - from the grids, to electricity retailers, to car importers, councils and property developers.

“Policies that need to be considered include incentives, adjustments to fringe benefit taxes and depreciation, and investment to ensure we are ready for more at-home charging and public charging.”

Covid-19: How to alleviate DPF concerns

The coronavirus lockdown is forcing people to drive their cars less. Will this cause a problem for some diesel vehicles?

TAKING a sensible approach will likely be enough to keep diesel vehicles being troubled by the limitations of the Covid-19 lockdown. 

That’s the opinion of experts whose opinion has been sought in respect to overseas’ reports raising concern about how some models’ exhaust limiting technology might perform when motorists can only drive infrequently, and for short distances.

Their thoughts are in respect to particulate filters, which are installed into the exhaust system and designed to capture diesel particulate matter or soot to keep these from entering the environment, where they can be potentially harmful.

The technology has been common for 20 years and since 2009, and the introduction of the Euro 5 emissions standard, has been fitted to all new cars with diesel engines.

 Though now being superseded by a more efficient system that involves injecting liquid urea – commercially called AdBlue – the setup remains common on many utilities and sports utilities sold in NZ.

One of the inevitable effects of NZ being placed on lockdown due to the coronavirus is that we’re all driving our cars less.

The catch with DPFs – one avoided by AdBlue-involved engines - is that they only have a limited capacity and at some point the excess soot needs to be burned off.

In order to do that, the vehicle might require being for around 15-20 minutes at 2500rpm or higher. This process is known as DPF regeneration and is vital. Cleanly burning off the excess soot reduces harmful emissions and helps to prevent the tell-tale black smoke you used to see from diesels, particularly when accelerating.

 Recently an expert group in the United Kingdom, the Independent Garage Association, warned that if people are only using their diesel cars for short journeys during the lockdown, their DPFs might not be able to regenerate.

The organisation has advised owners of modern diesel cars to avoid using them for trips of less than 30kms in order to avoid clogging up the DPF.

Does that advice also hold firm in New Zealand?

Experts who discussed this with MotoringNZ.com said in theory it might. Certainly, they said, the industry accepts that short journeys at low speeds are the prime cause of blocked filters.

But they also agreed that some commonsense usage might also keep issues at bay.

One valuable tip: Avoid driving a diesel consistently at low speed and never allowing it to get up to temperature.

Also, if an engine enters in a DPF regeneration phase – which should be obvious, as the engine note will change, a cooling fan might activate, idle speed will increase, the automatic stop/start might deactivate and you might smell a hot, acrid exhaust aroma – then allow it to fulfil this.

It’ll do this by one of two ways. Passive regeneration is probably not as easily entertained unless you’re driving on essential services, as this occurs when the car is running at speed on long journeys which allows the exhaust temperature to increase to a higher level and cleanly burn off the excess soot in the filter.

Active regeneration means extra fuel is injected automatically, as part of the vehicle's ECU, when a filter reaches a predetermined limit (to raise the temperature of the exhaust and burn off soot.Again, though, it asks for the car to be driven a distance: If the journey is too short, as the regeneration process may not complete fully. Either way, check your handbook.

If that doesn’t happen? Well, when a DPF has built up too much soot and hasn’t been able to burn it off, a warning light will come on. If this happens, you need to avoid using the vehicle until it can be cleared.

It may be possible for a mechanic to use specialist equipment to carry out a forced DPF regeneration, which is the ideal outcome.

If drivers ignore the warning light and carry on using their car with a full DPF, they risk blocking the DPF altogether, in which case the car will enter limp-home mode and a whole new filter may be required. You don’t want that: DPFs can cost between $5000 and $9000.

As said, this is only as issue for DPFs that use the high-heat process to eradicate soot build up. Those that adopt the ADBlue technology – and that includes almost all vehicles designed to meet the latest European Union emissions standard – still run DPFs.

However, the injection of Adblue - a non-flammable, high purity urea solution - just ahead of the catalytic converter makes a world of difference. This reduces nitrogen oxide emissions by more than 90 percent so makes for much lower residual soot.

AdBlue is held in a separate tank – it should not be pre-mixed into the fuel – and the reservoir access is often right alongside the fuel filler and has a blue cap.