Mercedes guilty of exaggerating emissions of new cars
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Reddit
Google
Stumble Upon
Fark
Newsvine
YahooBuzz
Bebo
Twitter
Independent Minds
enlarge
The German car manufacturer Mercedes-Benz misled the public by claiming low emissions for a range of executive cars that are among the most polluting on the road, according to the Advertising Standards Authority today.
"Its a pleasure, but not a guilty one,” the automaker said in a magazine advert for the E-Class Saloon range priced between £26,000 and £47,000, adding that its emissions were “down to” 139grams of Co2 per kilometre
Following a complaint the ASA investigated and found that only two out of a possible 24 E-Class cars corresponded with the emissions figures, warranting an E band in the Government’s banding system which ranges from A to M.
Some were in the M band, the highest set by the Department for Transport to warn drivers about high levels of fuel consumption, taxation and pollution.
The case is the latest example of ‘greenwashing’, where companies have been found to have made spurious environmental claims. During the past two years, the ASA has banned ads from Shell for promoting its heavily-polluting extraction of oil from tar sands in Canada, British Gas for misleading businesses about its emissions performance, and easyJet for suggesting its aircraft were 22 per cent less polluting than rival planes with the use of figures skewed by its high passenger loads.
Last month, the Malaysian palm Oil Council was criticised by the ASA for suggesting that oil palm plantations were good for the environment and local people.
This year several car-makers including Lexus and Volkswagen have had environmental ads banned for four-wheel drives and saloons.
In the latest case, Mercedes-Benz suggested that drivers would switch to its new range safe in the knowledge that they would be helping the planet. "CO2 emissions for the range are down to 139g/km*, which means its better for the environment. It also means you pay less tax,” the company said
The model shown was a Mercedes-Benz E250 CDI Sport, which has emissions of 139g a kilometre. A footnote stated that the range’s emissions varied from 139g to 261g a kilometre,.
Mercedes-Benz told the ASA it believed it had taken reasonable steps to substantiate its claims and had not misrepresented emissions levels.
However the ASA said that the claim that the E-Class was “better for the environment" was likely to be understood as meaning the range as a whole was low in emissions compared with previous models and rival models.
Depending on model, fuel, gearbox and tyre sizes, only two vehicles out of the 24 in the range compared favourably with competitors’ vehicles of a similar class, while “a number of vehicles in the range had emissions levels that were at the higher end of the DfT emissions bandings.”
The ASA acknowledged the footnote. “However, we considered that the headline claim would give the impression to readers that a significant proportion of the range had achieved the lowest emissions figure, or a figure that was relatively low for the class, when that was not the case.”
The ad was banned under rules on truthfulness, motoring and environmental claims.
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited
Compare the cheap quotes from over 65 insurers and get £25 cashback when you swithc through Independent Compare
Comments
Labels, don't you just love'em, & I bet you believe every one!
Why would I buy a 4WD car which would put an additional £1,500 on the price of the car new, would give me five miles per gallon worse fuel consumption, and reduce acceleration by about 5% because of the extra weight of the 4WD transmission system which I do not need and do not want.
People who buy 4WD cars are nuts, and to make it even worse, they drive around in a car which invariably has a badge on the back which says that they are nuts.
I have also driven a car for 50 years, often doing more than 30,000 miles. But I can't see what either statistic has to do with the usefulness of 4WD. Obviously 50 years of driving has not taught bo11ocks either sense or tolerance.
It isn't what you drive, it's how you drive it.
I've driven in snow, ice and rough ground all over the most rural parts of Devon, Cornwall and Wiltshire and never required a 4WD car, even when driving on fields in anything but the worst weather (when a 4wd wouldn't fair much, and you would instead need a tractor).
In fact, last time we had really bad snow, only a tiny minority of 4wd vehicles could cope - and they were the ones with experienced offroad drivers who knew how to use them - most of the big heavy 4wd cars had to sit there until the snow thawed or a tractor passed by. I managed to get up and down steep hills that several 4wd "offroad" cars couldn't in an old 1.6 litre fiesta, and all I needed were relatively new tires and knowing how to drive safely.