Traffic & Transport
Anna van Buerenplein 1
2595 DA Den Haag
P.O. Box 96800
2509 JE The Hague
The Netherlands

TNO report
TNO 2019 R10952

www.tno.nl

Aspects of the transition from NEDC to WLTP
for CO2 values of passenger cars Phase 3: After the transition

T +31 88 866 00 00

Date

2 July 2019

Author(s)

Norbert E. Ligterink, Rob F.A. Cuelenaere, Uilke Stelwagen

Copy no
Number of pages
Number of
appendices
Sponsor
Project name
Project number

2019-STL-REP-100322272
78 (incl. appendices)
1
Ministerie van Financiën
NEDC-WLTP
060.33473

All rights reserved.
No part of this publication may be reproduced and/or published by print, photoprint,
microfilm or any other means without the previous written consent of TNO.
In case this report was drafted on instructions, the rights and obligations of contracting
parties are subject to either the General Terms and Conditions for commissions to TNO, or
the relevant agreement concluded between the contracting parties. Submitting the report for
inspection to parties who have a direct interest is permitted.
© 2019 TNO

TNO report | TNO 2019 R10952 | 1 July 2019

2 / 66

Samenvatting
De CO2-emissie van voertuigen wordt bepaald via testen volgens de officiële
Europese wetgeving. Geleidelijk wordt de oude bepalingsmethode, de NEDC,
vervangen door een nieuwe methode, de WLTP. De overgang bestreek de periode
september 2017-september 2018, met een uitloop tot september 2019.
Veranderingen in CO2-waarden hebben gevolgen voor onder andere de
toekomstige Europese CO2-normen en de Nederlandse registratiebelasting op
personenauto’s, de BPM. In opdracht van het Ministerie van Financiën heeft TNO
veranderingen van de CO2-uitstoot ten gevolge van de introductie van de WLTP in
beeld gebracht middels analyses en trends. Het project is uitgevoerd in drie fasen.
Het onderhavige rapport is het laatste rapport als resultaat van fase 3. In fase 1 van
het project is uitleg gegeven over (de complexiteit van) de conversie van NEDC
naar WLTP1. In fase 2 zijn eerste kwantitatieve analyses uitgevoerd op de
voorlopige gegevens die beschikbaar waren op 1 september 20182.
Dit fase 3 rapport vergelijkt de CO2-waarden van personenauto’s, die veranderen
met de verandering van de eisen aan voertuigen van oude NEDC typekeuringstest
naar de nieuwe WLTP typekeuringstest. In het rapport zijn de voertuigregistraties
van voor, tijdens en na, de overgang naar de WLTP meegenomen voor analyse.
Aan bod komen de vergelijkbare analyses zoals in het fase 2 rapport, maar ook
worden trends en de afhankelijkheden beschreven. De overgang van de NEDC
naar WLTP heeft veel impact. In het bijzonder, het Europese doel waarbij elke
autofabrikant de gemiddelde CO2-uitstoot van 95 g/km moet halen vanaf 2021, is
gebaseerd op de NEDC. Aangezien per 1 september 2018 alle nieuwe voertuigen
WLTP getest moeten worden heeft de Europese Commissie een methode
ontwikkeld om de CO2-uitstoot van de WLTP test procedure om te zetten in NEDC
waarden. Op deze manier kan alsnog bepaald worden of het doel, de 95 g/km
gebaseerd op de NEDC, gehaald wordt.
Tijdens de overgang van de NEDC naar de WLTP zijn er verschillende CO 2waarden per voertuig in omloop. Zo zijn er drie soorten CO 2-waarden: NEDC[oud]
CO2; die in 2019 gaat verdwijnen, de NEDC[WLTP] CO2; als tijdelijke regeling tot
2021 voor het Europese doel, en de WLTP CO2 voor na 2021 voor Europese
doelen. De WLTP CO2 wordt vanaf 2020 ook toegepast als consumenteninformatie
in het Europees energielabel. Op elk van deze waarden kan de BPM gebaseerd
worden. Tot dusverre zijn de NEDC[oud] en de NEDC[WLTP] door elkaar gebruikt
in de BPM. De RDW is van plan om vanaf september 2019 ook de WLTP CO2waarden algemeen beschikbaar te hebben bij de voertuigregistraties.
In de analyses worden de effecten op de CO2-waarden van de overgang eerst
bepaald aan de hand van de vergelijking van deze NEDC[oud] en de NEDC[WLTP]
waarden, vergelijkbaar met de eerdere twee studies in deze reeks. Daarnaast,

1

https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/documenten/kamerstukken/2018/07/05/onderzoek-tno-naaraspecten-van-de-nedc-wltp-overgang-in-relatie-tot-co2-waarden-van-personenauto’s (TNO rapport
R10732 (2018)).
2

https://www.tweedekamer.nl/kamerstukken/brieven_regering/detail?id=2018Z18923&did=2018D50
439. Aspects of the transition from NEDC to WLTP for CO2 values of passenger cars - phase 2:
preliminary findings, TNO 2018 R11145, 11 October 2018

TNO report | TNO 2019 R10952 | 1 July 2019

3 / 66

omdat de uiteindelijke CO2-waarden, zeker na 2021, de WLTP gebaseerde
waarden zijn, worden ook de NEDC[oud] met de WLTP waarden vergeleken.
Vanaf eind 2017 tot en met april 2019 zijn er 152.000 WLTP benzineauto’s verkocht
en 21.000 WLTP dieselauto’s. Daarmee is de overgang nagenoeg volledig. Er zijn
wel erg weinig dieselauto’s verkocht in de hele periode, zodat de gegevens voor
dieselauto’s voor de analyse beperkt zijn. Dat hangt niet zozeer samen met de
WLTP, maar met een jarenlange dalende trend in deze verkoop.
Om een goede vergelijking te maken tussen de CO2-waarden moet men met veel
aspecten rekening houden. Bij de willekeurige vergelijking van een NEDC
uitvoering en een WLTP uitvoering van hetzelfde voertuigmodel kan er eenvoudig
een verschil van 10 g/km in de uitkomsten optreden. Het centrale uitgangspunt in
dit rapport is de weergave van de gemiddelde trend voor Nederlandse situatie per
maand en per voertuigmodel. Er zijn ook andere langjarige en seizoentrends in de
verkopen van voertuigen. Een trend die reeds ver voor de eerste registratie van een
WLTP voertuig begonnen is, is moeilijk aan de WLTP te wijden. Bijvoorbeeld, sinds
begin 2016 is de gemiddelde CO2-waarde aan het stijgen, terwijl het eerste WLTP
voertuig in december 2017 geregistreerd is. De WLTP transitie verstoort deze
jarenlange trend in gemiddelde CO2-waarden van nieuwe registraties nauwelijks.
Daarnaast is de verkoop van voertuigen aan het dalen. Deze trend is al meerdere
jaren gaande en staat los van de WLTP introductie. Deze daling, zeker voor
dieselauto’s, doet wel wat afbreuk aan de betrouwbaarheid van de conclusies voor
dieselauto’s voor de langere termijn. De verkoopaantallen van nieuwe dieselauto’s
zijn op het laagste niveau in jaren, met ongeveer 3000 per maand. Het totaal aantal
dieselauto’s in het wagenpark is daarbij niet sterk afgenomen. Er lijkt dus geen
grote verschuiving gaande, behalve dat oudere voertuigen langer op de weg
blijven. Deze lage aantallen dieselauto’s geven mogelijk een vertekend beeld van
de overgang naar de WLTP. De invloed van het einde van de 14%
bijtellingsregeling, eind dit jaar voor de laatste auto’s die in 2015 onder de regeling
vielen, zorgt er mogelijk voor dat deze groep auto’s vertraagd vervangen wordt. De
huidige verkoop van voertuigen betreft vooral vervanging van meer onzuinige auto’s
(met gemiddeld hogere CO2-waarde).
De overgang naar de nieuwe eisen aan voertuigen met de WLTP, in combinatie
met nieuwe RDE (Real Driving Emission) testen op de weg, is een grote stap
geweest voor de fabrikanten. Aan de buitenkant, voor de consument, kan er dan
niet veel veranderd zijn, maar onder de motorkap des te meer. Zeker voor
dieselvoertuigen is de verandering groot. De eerste resultaten laten zien dat de
schadelijke NOx emissies in de praktijk nu een factor tien lager zijn. De beschikbare
fysische eigenschappen zoals gewicht en motorvermogen zijn slechts een indicatie
van deze veranderingen. Een ander aspect aan de overgang is het gebruik van de
WLTP CO2-waarden na 2021 voor nieuwe Europese CO2-doelen. Tot die tijd is de
WLTP CO2 beperkt relevant. Verder lijkt er weinig druk op fabrikanten om lage
WLTP CO2-waarden te meten of op te geven. Het is mogelijk zelfs gunstig voor de
fabrikant om hoge WLTP waarden op te geven, omdat een hoge referentiewaarde
in 2020 de eisen per fabrikant voor 2025 en 2030 impliciet kan afzwakken.
Uit analyse blijkt dat er een grote spreiding is in de CO 2-waarden tussen fabrikanten
en modellen. Dat geldt zowel voor de NEDC[WLTP] als de WLTP waarden. Dat
geeft ruimte voor toekomstige verschuivingen in de verkoop richting voertuigen die
gunstiger uitvallen in een aangepast belastingregime. De huidige gemiddelde

TNO report | TNO 2019 R10952 | 1 July 2019

4 / 66

WLTP CO2-waarden geven dus nog niet het definitieve beeld voor de toekomst.
Een deel van de ruimte kan mogelijk benut worden bij veranderingen aan het
belastingregime. Dit aspect is niet verder onderzocht. De verwachting is dat na de
overgang een daling van 5 tot 10 g/km in WLTP waarde mogelijk is op basis van de
bewegingsruimte. Deze bewegingsruimte is zichtbaar in de variaties in gegevens
tussen modellen en tussen fabrikanten.
De resultaten laten zien dat er een 6 g/km toename is in NEDC[oud] naar
NEDC[WLTP] op basis van alle registraties. Voor benzineauto’s, die deze getallen
domineren, geldt dus ook de 6 g/km toename. Het uiteindelijke effect is kleiner dan
vooraf ingeschat in het fase 2 rapport op basis van de eerste WLTP voertuigen tot
september 2018. In de vergelijking tussen modellen, gebaseerd op de gemiddelde
verkoop per model, komt deze 6 g/km ook terug. De resultaten zijn consistent nu
meer gegevens beschikbaar zijn. Voor benzinevoertuigen wordt het effect, op 1
g/km na, verklaard door de veranderde eigenschappen: gewicht en
motorvermogen.
Voor dieselvoertuigen wordt het verschil van 7 g/km op deze manier niet verklaard,
en lijken mogelijk andere eigenschappen van de motor en voertuig de oorzaak.
Ondanks dat voertuigen in het laboratorium altijd op dezelfde test aan de CO2 en de
NOx limieten moesten voldoen en er geen verschuiving tussen eisen kan zijn,
veroorzaken mogelijk de nieuwe RDE emissie-eisen de hogere CO2-waarden door
technische veranderingen. Gezien de lage verkoop van dieselvoertuigen is dit
slechts een voorlopige conclusie.
De huidige CO2-waarden voor de WLTP zijn hoger dan te verwachten viel. De extra
ruimte die de fabrikanten lijken te nemen bij de opgave van de WLTP CO2-waarde
ligt mogelijk in de orde van 5 tot 10 g/km. Daarnaast is er een grote, schijnbaar
willekeurige spreiding in resultaten tussen modellen en fabrikanten. Deze situatie is
nader toegelicht in het eerste rapport. Op basis van de geanalyseerde gegevens
van de huidige registraties resulteert de overgang van NEDC[oud] naar WLTP in
een gemiddelde opslag van 10% en 15 g/km. Dit effect wordt gedomineerd door het
verschil in de NEDC[WLTP] en de WLTP waarden van de WLTP registreerde
voertuigen. De overgang van NEDC naar WLTP registraties, voor de verschillen
tussen NEDC[oud] en NEDC[WLTP], speelt slechts een kleine rol in het geheel.

TNO report | TNO 2019 R10952 | 1 July 2019

5 / 66

Summary
This report compares the CO2 values of passenger cars over the transition from
the old NEDC type-approval test, to the new WLTP type-approval test. Since the
Dutch tax system is based on the CO2 values of vehicles, the Ministry of Finance
has asked TNO to investigate the effect of the transition to the WLTP.
This transition took place between the third and fourth quarters of 2018.
For the evaluation of the 2021 European 95 g/km CO2 targets for passenger cars
(based on the NEDC), the European Commission has developed an intermediary
method to determine comparable NEDC CO2 value for WLTP approved vehicles.
These intermediary values are known as the NEDC[WLTP]. This method results
in three different values for comparison: NEDC[old] CO 2 values for
NEDC type-approved vehicles, and NEDC[WLTP] and WLTP CO2 values for
WLTP type-approved vehicles. Here the two steps in the transition are compared:
from NEDC[old] to NEDC[WLTP], and from NEDC[WLTP] to WLTP CO2 values.
As of May 2019, 152,000 WLTP petrol vehicles and 21,000 WLTP diesel vehicles
have been registered. The transition from NEDC to WLTP type-approved vehicles
is almost complete. An overview of the transition can be given by comparing
vehicles from just before and just after the transition, i.e., in the months around
September 2018. The low number of diesel cars is not directly associated with
the WLTP transition, but is part of a broader trend observed in recent years.
Making a fair comparison of the CO2 values of vehicles before and after transition
to a new type-approval test procedure is beset with difficulties. Depending on the
type of analysis for comparison, outcomes may differ up to 10 g/km, even based
on the same underlying data. The analysis here aims to give the best comparison
of the last NEDC vehicles and first WLTP vehicles, on the basis of the Dutch fleet
average results. The aspects considered and compensated for are numerous.
First, when considering the downward trend of CO2 values, the transition to the
WLTP may seem like a slight hiccup. But the downward trend of CO 2 values
stopped well before the first WLTP vehicles were available. Likewise, from 2016,
there has been a decreasing trend in new vehicle registrations, only partially
compensated by higher import of relatively new vehicles. The effects of the WLTP
transition on these existing trends are limited. Moreover, every year there is a
seasonal trend in vehicle sales. These seasonal effects interfere with the transition
to the WLTP during and around September 2018. Some effects should therefore
not be assigned to the WLTP transition. Second, many versions of each vehicle
model can be selected for a model-by-model comparison of NEDC and WLTP
vehicles, where versions can have different options, transmissions, and engines.
The appropriate choice is to use the average CO2 values of the NEDC and the
WLTP vehicle models, based on the average registrations of both. Third, at the
time of this study, the WLTP CO2 values were not yet registered by the RDW during
vehicle registration. The CoC (Certificate of Conformity), to be provided and linked
to vehicles by the manufacturer, were also absent for a number of registered
vehicles. In September 2019 RDW expects to have remedied this problem, and
RDW will make WLTP CO2 values generally available. This date is well ahead of
the WLTP-based energy label which is to be implemented from 2020. For the
moment, part of the analysis of this report estimates of WLTP CO 2 values for a
small fraction of the vehicles.

TNO report | TNO 2019 R10952 | 1 July 2019

6 / 66

Fourth, a transition to a new type-approval, with new test procedures, may require
new vehicle technologies. This may include significant technology changes while
the appearance of the vehicle remains unchanged.
Vehicle characteristics, such as weight and engine power, may indicate technology
changes, but not necessarily. Compensating for changing vehicle characteristics
reduces the effects of the transition. Fifth, the WLTP CO 2 values are not used in
current European CO2 targets so there are no significant consequences if a
manufacturer measures or declares high WLTP CO2 values. Manufacturers will
benefit from high WLTP values with low NEDC[WLTP] values in 2020 when
meeting post-2021 CO2 targets. Therefore, some strategic declaration of CO2
values can be expected. Sixth, the number of registrations, especially for diesel
vehicles, is quite low. This is not associated with a shift in the market, but with a
period of high retention of older vehicles, and the resulting low replacement with
newer models. The, perhaps strategic but certainly hesitant, behaviour of vehicle
buyers affects the overall statistics for diesel cars across the transition.
The effects of the transition can therefore be affected by the specific groups of
vehicles, such as the “14% bijtelling” diesel cars, delayed in replacement during
the transition. Seventh, there are large variations in the results across vehicles,
manufacturers and models. Any tax benefit can lead to a shift towards the bottom
of the visible bandwidth and possibly even lower. The results reported here are
based on averages given the current tax system and vehicle market, based on the
NEDC[old]. It is to be expected that a shift between vehicle models will occur once
a new tax system, e.g., based on the WLTP CO2 values, is introduced. This aspect
is not included in this analysis.
The results show an average 6 g/km increase in CO2 values from NEDC[old] to
NEDC[WLTP], if other effects across the transition are not corrected for. In earlier
studies, based on limited data, the effect was larger and it was not consistent
across different approaches of comparing NEDC and WLTP vehicles. In the current
analysis both the fleet average, as well as the model-by-model comparisons, yield
this new and same result of 6 g/km. For petrol cars this 6 g/km is almost fully
explained by the change in physical characteristics. The difference between
NEDC[old] and NEDC[WLTP] decreases to only 1 g/km if the petrol vehicles are
comparable in weight and engine power. For diesel vehicles the number of
registered cars was quite low, but for these cars a difference of 7 g/km is observed
in CO2 values across the transition. This difference is unexplained by a change in
physical characteristics. The difference may be the result of a particular bias in the
low number of registrations of WLTP diesel vehicles. The RDE may affect the
result, however, vehicles have always needed to comply with pollutant emission
limits during the test used to determine CO2 values. So this trade-off is not
necessarily completely new, but the RDE stringency may have changed the vehicle
technology fundamentally.
Eventually, a transition to WLTP CO2 values is needed, as the NEDC[WLTP]
registration will be phased out in 2021. Moreover, the WLTP CO2 value is intended
to be more appropriate for informing consumers on the fuel consumption of
vehicles. The transition from NEDC[old] to WLTP would yield, based on the current
fleet, a change of 10% + 15 g/km, where the majority of the effect is due to the
difference between the NEDC[WLTP] and WLTP CO2 values of the same WLTP
vehicles.

TNO report | TNO 2019 R10952 | 1 July 2019

7 / 66

The change from NEDC[old] to NEDC[WLTP] values plays only a minor part in the
total transition. The effect from NEDC[WLTP] to WLTP is dominant in the total
transition to WLTP. The large variation in the results for different vehicle models
and manufacturers shows room for new incentives for clean and fuel efficient cars.

TNO report | TNO 2019 R10952 | 2 July 2019

8 / 66

Contents
Samenvatting ........................................................................................................... 2
Summary .................................................................................................................. 5
1

Introduction .............................................................................................................. 9

2
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4

Registrations of passenger cars from January 2005 until April 2019 .............. 11
Dataset and method ................................................................................................ 11
All fuels .................................................................................................................... 12
Petrol vehicles ......................................................................................................... 16
Diesel vehicles ......................................................................................................... 21

3
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4

Registrations of passenger cars from September 2017 until April 2019 ......... 26
All fuels .................................................................................................................... 27
Petrol vehicles ......................................................................................................... 35
Diesel vehicles ......................................................................................................... 43
Comparable vehicles ............................................................................................... 48

4
4.1

Changes in vehicle model from NEDC to WLTP ................................................ 49
NEDC[WLTP] and WLTP CO2 values of WLTP vehicle models ............................. 49

5
5.1

Comparison of NEDC and WLTP CO2 values ..................................................... 56
The NEDC and WLTP values of the same WLTP vehicle models .......................... 59

6

Discussion and conclusions ................................................................................ 63

7

Signature ................................................................................................................ 66
Appendices
A Tables

TNO report | TNO 2019 R10952 | 2 July 2019

1

9 / 66

Introduction
The CO2 emissions of passenger cars and light duty commercial vehicles in Europe
has to be determined according to official European legislation. In a transition
period that started as of 1st of September 2017, the old NEDC method is being
replaced by the WLTP. The WLTP is the new method to determine the CO2
emissions. The transition is completed by 2019 with some run out in 2020 at the
latest. Changes in the CO2 values will have an impact on – among others - the
European CO2 standards and the purchase tax on passenger cars in The
Netherlands.
TNO has been asked to evaluate the changes of the CO2 values of new passenger
cars caused by the WLTP introduction. In phase 1 of the project the complexity of
the transition from NEDC to WLTP was explained, in TNO report 2018 R10732.
In the report of phase 2 the first quantitative analyses on datasets of registered new
WLTP vehicles in the Netherlands with reference date 1st of September 2018 were
presented. On the reference date insufficient amount of registrations prevented to
perform the evaluation to its full extend and to establish results representative for
the development of CO2 values related to WLTP introduction. Since phase 2 was
executed, significantly more registrations have become available. Therefore, in
current report of phase 3 a more comprehensive analyses can be presented. All
three elements: CO2 values of the previous vehicles: NEDC[old], the comparable
values of the new vehicles: NEDC[WLTP], and the new standard WLTP for CO 2
values, are evaluated and compared.
With the publication of the phase 2 report TNO 2018 R11145, in October 2018,
the different preliminary findings showed a bandwidth of differences of CO2
values of NEDC[old] and NEDC[WLTP] across the transition. Moreover, some
misunderstanding remained on the effect of the transition to a new test protocol
for the determination official CO2 values with the WLTP. The CO2 values of new
registrations has been varying in the last ten years. Visible trends are not
necessarily related to the introduction of the WLTP.
On the other hand, the WLTP is the new reality, intended to provide better official
CO2 values for consumers and policymakers. The focus on the NEDC values,
based on NEDC tests and WLTP tests, as was central to the phase 2 report, is
limited in this report. A transition to the WLTP CO2 values, e.g., in the tax systems,
must take place ahead of the phasing out of NEDC[WLTP] registrations in 2021.
However, since all newly registered vehicles from 2020 onward will have a WLTP
CO2 value available via de CoC (Certificate of Conformity), a transition to the more
appropriate WLTP CO2 values can already take place. For the registration by the
RDW it is important to include all CO2 relevant information like e.g. the Utility Factor
for the weighing of electric and combustion engine operation for plug-in vehicles.
Furthermore, this phase 3 report was intended to be a final report, after the
transition to the WLTP vehicles on the market. Due to a very low number of
newly registered WLTP diesel vehicles, it cannot be said that the results on WLTP
vehicles is complete in May 2019. With the limited number of 20,000 diesel vehicles
new registered, where normally more than 100,000 diesel vehicles are newly

TNO report | TNO 2019 R10952 | 2 July 2019

10 / 66

registered every year, in the past years, the current small number may give a
distorted picture on diesel vehicles. For petrol vehicles this problem does not exist.
Some preliminary aspects as discussed in the phase 2 and even the phase 1 report
are no longer relevant in this phase 3 report due to the higher number of WLTP
registrations. The end-of-series stock is almost completely gone. The majority of
new registrations exist of the passenger cars type-approved under WLTP.
As WLTP vehicle models are sold abundantly, sufficient information of the typical
characteristics of the WLTP version and NEDC version of the same vehicle model
was available for the analysis.
Putting all elements together in the analyses led to the current report. It has been
the intention to provide a complete picture of the transition from NEDC to WLTP
in the broader context of new vehicle registrations in recent years. The report will
also provide the necessary background information, on the transition to WLTP in
the broader perspective and trends in new vehicles in the last years. The arguments
that the total vehicle sales are limited by the introduction of the WLTP, is not
supported by the data in which the reduced sales, and changing CO 2 values, is
visible well before the introduction of the WLTP.
Notably, this report relies only on registration information of the RDW. Most of this
information is publicly available via the RDW, but for the purpose of this report,
RDW provided additional WLTP specific information available. The RDW
registrations is considered the most reliable and most appropriate information to
analyse the effects of NEDC-WLTP transition on the CO2 values in the Netherlands.
The current report has the following structure:
•

•
•
•
•

In Chapter 2 the trends from 2005 till 2019 of new registrations of vehicles are
analysed. This shows that certain trends and effects are already present, well
ahead of the introduction of the first WLTP vehicles.
In Chapter 3, the trends of all registrations of NEDC and WLTP vehicles are
compared, showing the fleet average effects across the transition.
In Chapter 4, specific vehicle models, for which NEDC and WLTP versions
are available are compared model-by-model.
In Chapter 5, for the WLTP vehicles the NEDC[WLTP] and the WLTP CO2
values are compared and correlated.
Chapter 6 contains a discussion and some conclusions.

This report should be seen as the third part of a three part study. Some analyses
and conclusions can be found in the phase 1 and phase 2 reports. They are not
repeated in this report.

TNO report | TNO 2019 R10952 | 2 July 2019

2

11 / 66

Registrations of passenger cars from January 2005
until April 2019
The transition from NEDC to WLTP, e.g., the changes of average CO2, must be
seen in the general context of apparent changes in the Dutch fleet. Before the
introduction of the WLTP legislation certain trends were already present, and not
necessarily the consequence of the transition to WLTP. The lower sales,
the higher CO2 values and the increase in import combined with a substantial
export are trends observed over the last ten years and not just the twenty months
when the actual transition from NEDC to WLTP took place. To place the transition
into a broader perspective, the monthly average data for Dutch newly registered
passenger cars from January 2005 until April 2019 is presented in this chapter.
Petrol vehicles are less affected by taxation schemes, than diesel vehicles are.
The low sales volume of WLTP diesel vehicles may well be related to the peak
in sales at the end of 2015. Likewise, the import of a relatively new diesel vehicles
with high CO2 values is a trend visible since the introduction of the CO2 related
sales tax (BPM), and this can therefore not be attributed to the transition to
the WLTP.

2.1

Dataset and method
The data presented in this chapter was generated from all at TNO available monthly
data snapshots (currently 36 months), i.e., from May 2016 until April 2019, of petrol
and diesel fuelled vehicles.
This so-called backwards cumulative RDW registration dataset was generated by
starting with the latest available monthly snapshot, and then step by step adding
vehicle information from previous snapshots for vehicles not already present in
the dataset. The resulting dataset holds information for over 16 million registered
Dutch vehicles, now and in the past, of which about 9.35 million are passenger
cars.
Holding three years of registration data, is considered highly representative for
the Dutch fleet for the period of May 2016 until April 2019, during which the
snapshots were gathered. And for newly registered vehicles it may be considered
fairly representative even before this period, though of course with diminishing
accuracy for increasing years into the past. Some vehicles may have accidents or
could be exported at an early age prior to 2016.
In view of average passenger car lifetimes of 15 to 20 years, the period from
January 2005 until April 2019 was therefore selected to generate the graphs
presented in this chapter. In these graphs several characteristics are presented, i.e.
• total monthly vehicle number,
• monthly average CO2 value per vehicle,
• monthly average gross BPM tax value per vehicle,
The graphs are based on first registration date in Europe. In the course of time, CO2
values of vehicles decreased in the Netherlands and in Europe. In order to make a

TNO report | TNO 2019 R10952 | 2 July 2019

12 / 66

fair comparison between the newly registered and imported vehicles, vehicles of the
same age are compared with each other.
In the graphs the following three types of newly registered vehicles are plotted as
function of time (per month):
•

•
•

imported vehicles with the same first registration dates as the new vehicles
considered here, recognised by the date of first admission (on the European
road) being before the date of first admission in the Netherlands;
Dutch new vehicles, recognised by equality of the date of first admission and
the date of first admission in the Netherlands;
all new vehicles, the previous two types together;

The paragraphs in this chapter are split for three fuel types: all fuels, petrol and
diesel.
2.2

All fuels

Figure 2-1: Newly registered passenger cars in the Netherlands, any fuel, per European
registration month from January 2005 until April 2019.

Commonly, in January of every year the new registrations are higher, while in
December the new registrations are low. This annual trend with large variation,
does not hide the fact that from 2013 the sales has decreased from high sales in
2010 till 2012, and a part of the fleet of a certain age consists of imported vehicles.
For a few occasions in the past years the situation is different. For example there
was a high registrations volume at the end of 2015, and a dip in January 2016.
This is probably related to the change in the tax system. The vehicles from
December 2015 are applicable for lower income tax (i.e., “bijtelling”) till December
2019. Likewise, this tax rule started July 2012. It may very well possible that the

TNO report | TNO 2019 R10952 | 2 July 2019

13 / 66

retention, i.e., relatively low outflow (<5%), of vehicles between 1 July 2012 and
31 December 2015 is related to this tax law. See Figure 2-2.
New vehicles sold before 2010 have been leaving the fleet in a regular manner
independent of whether they were initially imported or not. However, for vehicles
newly sold in the Netherlands, the export starts already at two years. This means
that a share of new vehicles sold in 2017 have already been exported by 2019.
Large export occurs for the vehicles that were 7 to 9 years old in 2019, which were
sold as new vehicles between 2011 to 2013. This is associated with the large influx
at that time. Therefore it seems likely that a low sales volume may lead to a lower
export and higher retention rate. Moreover, the tax benefits of the vehicles from
2014 and 2015 combined with limited numbers of vehicles available may explain
the higher retention of this group of vehicles.

Figure 2-2: Relative number of newly registered vehicles still present in April 2019, any fuel,
per European registration month from January 2005 until April 2019.

The import and export are related to the CO2 emission of the vehicles.
The imported vehicles, albeit a small group, have higher average CO 2 emission
values. This might be related to the reduced BPM at import, compared to a new
vehicle. But the availability and price of such vehicles depend on many factors.
Although the CO2 values of imported vehicles are substantially higher than those
registered newly in the Netherlands, in the order of 20 g/km, the net effect on the
total fleet, across the years, is in the order of a few grams per kilometre.
From 2005 till 2013 the average CO2 emissions have decreased significantly, with
about 6 g/km per year. But from 2014 this general trend has stopped, and only for
diesel vehicles a weaker downward trend continued till 2016. This coincides with
the introduction of Euro-6 legislation in 2016, but it was well before the introduction
of WLTP vehicles.

TNO report | TNO 2019 R10952 | 2 July 2019

14 / 66

Figure 2-3: Monthly average CO2 values for newly registered passenger cars, any fuel. Based on
the first date of (European) registration.

The average is constantly, monotonically decreasing till 2015, spiked with
start-of-year sales with different CO2 values, but the variation in CO2 emissions
of individual vehicles (the vehicle sold with the lowest and highest CO 2 emission
value) is much larger. As shown in Figure 2-4 there is a bandwidth 70 g/km in
the CO2 values, roughly independent of the year.

TNO report | TNO 2019 R10952 | 2 July 2019

15 / 66

Figure 2-4: Monthly average CO2 values plus and minus the monthly standard deviation for newly
registered passenger cars, all new, any fuel.

Although, a small group of about 10% of the relatively new vehicles imported avoid
part of the CO2-based sales tax, the BPM tax of these vehicles is the same as for
newly registered vehicles, indicating an import at an age of close to two years.

TNO report | TNO 2019 R10952 | 2 July 2019

16 / 66

Figure 2-5: Monthly average BPM purchase tax for newly registered passenger cars, any fuel.
Average BPM per vehicle for different groups of vehicles.

2.3

Petrol vehicles
From separating the sales to fuel types, it becomes clear that the trends are
mainly caused by variations for diesel vehicles. The sales and trends for petrol
cars are more continuously and stable. The export of vehicles that are
6 to 10 years old in 2019 (sold between 2009 and 2013) is a fraction of the export
of diesel vehicles of this age. Where 30% of the diesel vehicles are exported at
an early age, the petrol vehicles are seldom exported. Of all vehicles registered in
the Netherlands, up to 14 years of age well over 95% are still present in the current
fleet (see Figure 2-7).

TNO report | TNO 2019 R10952 | 2 July 2019

17 / 66

Figure 2-6: Newly registered passenger cars in the Netherlands, on petrol, per registration month
from January 2005 until April 2019.

The new registrations of petrol vehicles are around 25,000 per month. Since 2013
new registrations have been lower, and since the second half of 2018 there is a
further dip, but not as low as the new registrations in 2014-2015. See Figure 2-6.
Petrol vehicles are not exported in large numbers. Export after the first few years,
as common with diesel vehicles, are only a minor effect for petrol cars.
Consequently, the new registration of petrol vehicles does not have the same
dynamics and reactions as diesel cars.

TNO report | TNO 2019 R10952 | 2 July 2019

18 / 66

Figure 2-7: Relative number of newly registered vehicles still present in April 2019, on petrol,
per registration month from January 2005 until April 2019.

From 2014, the CO2 values of petrol vehicles seem to have stabilized around
115 g/km, see Figure 2-8. The import vehicles have higher CO2 values, but fraction
is small, such that the average CO2 emission is hardly affected. On the other hand
the BPM per vehicle has increased somewhat from 2015 onward, well before the
WLTP introduction. Moreover, the transition from NEDC to WLTP, which occurred
in a few months around September 2018, is not visible in the trends, except maybe
for changes in the import.

TNO report | TNO 2019 R10952 | 2 July 2019

19 / 66

Figure 2-8: Monthly average CO2 values for newly registered passenger cars, on petrol.
On the basis of the date of first registration in Europe on the horizontal axis.

The steep decrease of CO2 values from 2005 till 2014 has stopped. See Figure 2-8.
The reduction from 180 g/km in 2005 to 115 g/km in 2014 is effectively 7 g/km
per year fleet average reduction. From 2014 there seems a small increase in
CO2 values. The registration of electric vehicles are only a small part of the total
registration, with limited effect. However, since electric vehicles have no associated
CO2 values they are left out of the analyses. For the car manufacturers the CO2
targets included the electric zero-emission vehicles.

TNO report | TNO 2019 R10952 | 2 July 2019

20 / 66

Figure 2-9: Monthly average CO2 values plus and minus the monthly standard deviation for newly
registered passenger cars, all new, on petrol.

The 15 g/km difference between the new registrations and imported petrol vehicles
of the same age as seen in Figure 2-8 is not reflected in the BPM in Figure 2-10.
The BPM is reduced when the car is older. The import numbers of petrol cars,
typically a few years old, affect the total influx of new cars only slightly.

TNO report | TNO 2019 R10952 | 2 July 2019

21 / 66

Figure 2-10: Monthly average BPM purchase tax for newly registered passenger cars, on petrol.

2.4

Diesel vehicles
Diesel vehicles are more affected by trends and measures than petrol vehicles.
Diesel vehicles are mainly business cars and economic motives play a bigger
role in the sales, import, and export of diesel vehicles. The very low sales of diesel
cars in the last year affects the certainty with which the effects of the transition to
the WLTP can be quantified. Even the low sales of WLTP vehicles may have little
to do with the WLTP transition, but it seems to be the culmination of a trend that
started well before the introduction of WLTP type-approved vehicles.
Diesel vehicles show much clearer discontinuous trends between 2005 and 2019.
For instance, from 2013 the sales of diesel vehicles has decreased continuously.
Likewise, the import of new vehicles has decreased as well, in the same period.
In the same period both the CO2 and the catalogue price of diesel vehicles have
increased substantially. Therefore, it appears that for the lower market segments,
with the large sales volumes, the diesel vehicle is less popular. This may place
the trends for petrol vehicles in a different perspective. It seems therefore that
CO2 have been increasing for all fuels, but less apparent for petrol, as it was
compensated by a shift in the segments.

TNO report | TNO 2019 R10952 | 2 July 2019

22 / 66

Figure 2-11: Newly registered passenger cars in the Netherlands, on diesel, per registration
month from January 2005 until April 2019.

The tapering off from the highest diesel sales in 2011, with a sharp peak in
December 2015 related to the end of the fiscal regime of low CO 2 diesel vehicles,
seems to continue. Diesel sales are at their lowest value now, since two decades.
However, likewise the export of diesel vehicles are at a low rate. A few years ago
more than half the vehicles were exported before the age of six years. Currently,
the export has halved. In particular vehicles from 2014 and younger are hardly
exported.

TNO report | TNO 2019 R10952 | 2 July 2019

23 / 66

Figure 2-12: Relative number of newly registered diesel vehicles still present in April 2019,
per European registration month from January 2005 until April 2019.

For the import of diesel vehicles, some shifts can be observed. In the past diesel
vehicles, with higher CO2 values were at an older age, with reduced BPM below
the average BPM of new vehicles. But for vehicles from 2013 the average BPM
is higher, signalling the import at an earlier age, accepting a high BPM at import
for a newer car. It can also be possible that relatively new diesel cars have become
available for lower prices abroad. In particular the German court decision to allow
general diesel bans in German cities, made second hand diesel cars a hard sell in
Germany, boosting the export, to, for example the Netherlands. In the last year the
same number of diesel cars were imported as sold new in the Netherlands.
These vehicles were mostly quite new, and they have affected the new registrations
slightly. Although such effects may be present, the overall number of new
registrations are at a level that little conclusion can be drawn. Overarching to any
evaluation of new diesel vehicles is the low registration numbers.

TNO report | TNO 2019 R10952 | 2 July 2019

24 / 66

Figure 2-13: Monthly average CO2 values for newly registered passenger cars, on diesel.

The large variation in CO2 values are also reflected in the large variation in BPM.
The total fleet is a combination of many different segments. The average values
from the analyses in this chapter cannot be translated to the same effect for each
vehicle segment and vehicle model. In the case of vehicle models, the WLTP
transition may affect the effects on changes in CO2 emission. These elements
are discussed in Chapter 4.

TNO report | TNO 2019 R10952 | 2 July 2019

25 / 66

Figure 2-14: Monthly average BPM purchase tax for newly registered passenger cars, on diesel.

The transition for diesel vehicles from 2013 to a higher BPM is linked to the
decrease of new registrations from 2016. The import of vehicles with a first
European registration from July 2012 till December 2015. Since new vehicles
with low taxation (“14% bijtelling”) were not new available. Such vehicles were
probably sought after abroad. However, in the total fleet, in Figure 2-11, this
period correspond to a maximum in import, but not a clear period. So the taxation
may have played role in the import of higher BPM vehicles, but it is expected not
to be the sole reason.

TNO report | TNO 2019 R10952 | 2 July 2019

3

26 / 66

Registrations of passenger cars from September
2017 until April 2019
All normal vehicle registrations are publicly available from the RDW. This makes it
possible to follow the trends in vehicle fleet by examining the new registrations.
This data does not contain the WLTP CO2 information, but with the support of the
RDW this additional information was obtained for most of the the new registrations.
Using this information, the month by month changes in registrations can be
analyzed for the type-approval CO2 values, vehicle mass, and BPM. This chapter
visualizes and describes the changes across the transition from NEDC to WLTP.
This transition occurred mainly in the second and third quarter of 2018. Vehicles
between September 2017 and September 2018 were mainly type-approved under
NEDC, while the vehicles from September 2018 till May 2019 were mainly typeapproved under WLTP.
Combining all NEDC and WLTP registrations from September 2017 onwards, the
transition can be examined. As shown in Figure 3-1, the differences between the
NEDC and WLTP vehicles are minor, yet clearly visible. The NEDC[WLTP] CO 2
is 6.6 g/km higher than the NEDC[old] CO2 but also the vehicle mass and engine
power are higher. Since these parameters affect the CO2 emissions, it cannot be
concluded that the higher CO2 value is the result of the different testing methods
(NEDC and WLTP). This is analyzed further in section 0.

Figure 3-1: The average and bandwidth of all registered vehicles.

Figure 3-2: The average and bandwidth of all registered petrol vehicles.

TNO report | TNO 2019 R10952 | 2 July 2019

27 / 66

Figure 3-3: The average and bandwidth of all registered diesel vehicles. The vehicle mass hardly
increased, but all other aspect show a distinct difference between NEDC and WLTP
vehicles.

In the remainder of this Chapter the details for all fuels together, and petrol and
diesel separately are examined. The figures show the month by month averages
of the different groups. The start of registrations of WLTP vehicles and the end of
registrations of NEDC vehicles exhibit some start-up and shut-down effects,
associated with low numbers of vehicles. These effects play minor roles in
averages, as presented in the figures above. A special group of passenger cars,
still registered under NEDC type-approval, such as ambulances and campers, are
excluded from the end sales of NEDC vehicles.
3.1

All fuels
From September 2018, the end-date of NEDC type-approval, the Dutch registration
was in the middle of the transition to WLTP. About half the vehicles sold in
September were based on the new WLTP type-approval. Due to the end-of-series
many vehicles with NEDC type-approval were still available. In January 2019, the
transition was largely completed for passenger cars with the end-of-series stock
much decreased. The NEDC vehicles, in the light-duty passenger category, M1,
sold in 2019 are mainly special registrations, such as campers. They are excluded
from the analyses.

TNO report | TNO 2019 R10952 | 2 July 2019

28 / 66

Figure 3-4: Newly registered passenger cars in the Netherlands, any fuel, per registration month
from September 2017 until April 2019.

The decrease in new registrations as noted in the previous chapter continued
across the WLTP transition. There seems to be no discernible change in the trend
due to the transition. The December-January ripple can be averaged out almost
completely by the peak in December; not registered in December is compensated
in January. In other words January is not a peak but a catching up of a delay in
registrations.

TNO report | TNO 2019 R10952 | 2 July 2019

29 / 66

Figure 3-5: Monthly shares of newly registered not WLTP tested and WLTP tested passenger
cars, any fuel, from September 2017 until April 2019. The crossover is in September October 2018.

The transition from NEDC type-approval to WLTP type-approval, as seen in
Figure 3-5, is centred around September 2018, with about 3 months before and
after. It should be noted therefore that the average characteristics of NEDC vehicles
in2019 have little consequences of the total average because of the low numbers,
Likewise, the monthly characteristics of WLTP in the first and second quarters of
2018 are associated with low numbers.

TNO report | TNO 2019 R10952 | 2 July 2019

30 / 66

Figure 3-6: Monthly average NEDC[old], NEDC[WLTP] and WLTP CO2 values for newly
registered passenger cars, any fuel. Most (9x %) individual WLTP CO 2 values were
directly copied from license plate specific CoC information delivered by RDW.

The monthly averages show a quick convergence to stable results. The gap of
6.6 g/km between NEDC[old] and NEDC[WLTP] values is constant over the
months, indicating a limited uncertainty in the magnitude of the difference.

TNO report | TNO 2019 R10952 | 2 July 2019

31 / 66

Figure 3-7: Monthly average BPM purchase tax of newly registered not WLTP tested and
WLTP tested vehicles, any fuel. The upward trend for NEDC CO 2 comprises of
small number of vehicles.

The dip in BPM in the last quarters of 2018 fit in the common trend over the years
that BPM decreases over the year as seen in the previous Chapter. The effects
across the transition cannot be assigned to the transition, as similar seasonal
trends have occurred in the years before.

TNO report | TNO 2019 R10952 | 2 July 2019

32 / 66

Figure 3-8: Monthly average catalogue price of newly registered not WLTP tested and WLTP
tested vehicles, any fuel.

Similar as for BPM the average catalogue price, without BPM, of new registered
vehicles follow the same seasonal trend, of higher averages at the start of the year,
to lower values at the end. Hence no special significance can be given to the trend
of lower catalogue prices across the transition to the WLTP in the second and third
quarter of 2018.

TNO report | TNO 2019 R10952 | 2 July 2019

33 / 66

Figure 3-9: Monthly average BPM purchase tax as fraction of monthly average catalogue price
of newly registered not WLTP tested and WLTP tested vehicles, any fuel.

The increasing BPM for both NEDC and WLTP vehicles in the third and four quarter
of 2018 are contrary to the normal trends over the year. Clearly higher BPM and
CO2 vehicles are sold, during the transition to the WLTP. This does fit in the longer
trend of increasing CO2 values from 2016 onward.

TNO report | TNO 2019 R10952 | 2 July 2019

34 / 66

Figure 3-10: Monthly average weight of newly registered not WLTP tested and WLTP tested
vehicles, any fuel.

The end-of-year ripple, with low registrations in December and high registrations
in January, show clearly an effect in vehicle characteristics, such as vehicle weight
and engine power. In particular, the vehicles sold in December have lower power
and mass than on average over the year.

TNO report | TNO 2019 R10952 | 2 July 2019

35 / 66

Figure 3-11: Monthly average engine power of newly registered not WLTP tested and
WLTP tested vehicles, any fuel.

3.2

Petrol vehicles
The majority of the newly registered vehicles are petrol vehicles. They dominate
the total fleet. The general characteristics seem to stabilize from September 2018
onwards. The typical year transition, from December 2018, to January 2019, is
visible as a wrinkle in the smooth trends for the last quarter of 2018 and the first
quarter of 2019.

TNO report | TNO 2019 R10952 | 2 July 2019

36 / 66

Figure 3-12: Newly registered passenger cars in the Netherlands, on petrol, per registration
month from September 2017 until April 2019.

The sale of new petrol cars has a decreasing trend over the years. A monthly
average around 30,000 petrol vehicles newly registered has been the trend for
a few years now. The transition to the WLTP has not led to a deviation from this
trend. From September 2018 onwards the WLTP type-approvals are the majority
in the new registrations.

TNO report | TNO 2019 R10952 | 2 July 2019

37 / 66

Figure 3-13: Monthly shares of newly registered not WLTP tested and WLTP tested passenger
cars, on petrol, from September 2017 until April 2019.

It takes slightly longer, beyond the third quarter of 2018 for the NEDC
type-approvals to dissipate from the new registrations. But on the other hand,
the close to 100,000 end-of-series stock reported in the phase 2 report, did not
fully materialize in vehicles registrations in the Netherlands.

TNO report | TNO 2019 R10952 | 2 July 2019

38 / 66

Figure 3-14: Monthly average NEDC[old], NEDC[WLTP] and WLTP CO2 values for newly
registered passenger cars, on petrol. Most individual WLTP CO 2 values were
directly copied from license plate specific CoC information delivered by RDW.

The constancy between the NEDC[WLTP] and the WLTP CO2 value is striking.
The 28 g/km difference from the introduction of the first WLTP vehicles has
remained at the same level as the market has stabilized across the transition.
See Figure 3-14.

TNO report | TNO 2019 R10952 | 2 July 2019

39 / 66

Figure 3-15: Monthly average BPM purchase tax of newly registered not WLTP tested and
WLTP tested vehicles, on petrol.

The increase in BPM of NEDC type-approved vehicles in 2019 has no real
significance. Only a few thousand vehicles are underlying these monthly averages.
Up to that point the variations are well within the typical changes over the year,
as occurred in the years before.

TNO report | TNO 2019 R10952 | 2 July 2019

40 / 66

Figure 3-16: Monthly average catalogue price, without BPM, of newly registered not WLTP
tested and WLTP tested vehicles, on petrol.

The catalogue price, without BPM, of NEDC vehicles in 2019 follows the trend
of the BPM, the CO2 values, the vehicle weight, and the vehicle power. The last
few thousands of vehicles sold as end-of-stock have a higher catalogue price.
These more expensive, higher market segment, vehicles may benefit more from
BPM based on a NEDC type-approval than a WLTP type-approved version.

TNO report | TNO 2019 R10952 | 2 July 2019

41 / 66

Figure 3-17: Monthly average BPM purchase tax as fraction of monthly average catalogue
price of newly registered not WLTP tested and WLTP tested vehicles, on petrol.

The increase in average CO2 and the associated BPM is part of a trend of the
last years. The transition to the WLTP did to change the existing trend.
The physical properties, on the other hand, show more variation. However, this
variation is not more than the typical variation over the year, as occurred in the
last years.
It should be noted that the trend of weight and engine power of NEDC
type-approved vehicles after December 2018 and WLTP type-approved before
July 2018 are associated with small number of vehicles. These values should not
be interpreted as significant. On the other hand, the overlapping period July 2018
till December 2018 show the higher weight and power of WLTP vehicles compared
to the NEDC vehicles.

TNO report | TNO 2019 R10952 | 2 July 2019

Figure 3-18: Monthly average weight of newly registered not WLTP tested and WLTP tested
vehicles, on petrol.

Figure 3-19: Monthly average engine power of newly registered not WLTP tested and
WLTP tested vehicles, on petrol.

42 / 66

TNO report | TNO 2019 R10952 | 2 July 2019

3.3

43 / 66

Diesel vehicles
The new registrations of diesel vehicles have collapsed to the lowest sales in
decades. This trend started well before the introduction of the WLTP, as can be
seen in the previous chapter. A few years ago 20,000 new diesel vehicles would
be sold about every two months. Since the introduction of the WLTP it took six
months to reach 20,000 sold diesels. In December 2015 alone more than 30,000
diesel vehicles were sold in a single month, 50% more than the cumulative sales
from September 2018 till April 2019. Consequently, the current number of WLTP
vehicles is small, and it may be biased by the replacement vehicles for typical
outflow in the last couple of months. Between January 2018 and May 2019 the
total number of diesel vehicles present in the fleet has decreased less than
0.2 percent. So it cannot be argued that there is a real shift away from diesel
vehicles. It is more likely that the turnover of new diesel vehicles has lowered.
Because of the small number of underlying vehicles, the trends in WLTP diesel
vehicles is less stable which makes it difficult to draw robust conclusions.
However, it is clear that, the same as for petrol cars, the downward trends in
CO2 and vehicle characteristics associated with limited numbers of WLTP vehicles
has stopped years ahead of the transition to the WLTP. This long term trend should
not be confused with the effects of the transition to the WLTP.

Figure 3-20: Newly registered passenger cars in the Netherlands, on diesel, per registration
month from September 2017 until April 2019.

The cumulative registration of WLTP diesel vehicles has reached 20,000 vehicles
at the end of April 2019. This is historically low, but part of a strong downward
trend since 2016. Despite the low numbers, the transition from NEDC type-approval
to WLTP type-approvals happened quickly in the second and third quarter of 2019.

TNO report | TNO 2019 R10952 | 2 July 2019

44 / 66

Only December 2019 is an outlier, where the end-of-series registration of
NEDC diesel vehicles was about the same as the registration of WLTP vehicles.
From February onward the import of diesel vehicles exceeds the new registrations
of diesel vehicles, albeit low numbers for both, totalling to about 6000 a month.

Figure 3-21: Monthly shares of newly registered not WLTP tested and WLTP tested passenger
cars, on diesel, from September 2017 until April 2019.

The low number of diesel registrations with the high number of import vehicles
makes it difficult to draw conclusions from the trends. However, clear trends can
be seen from the monthly averages. The difference between the NEDC[WLTP]
and the WLTP CO2 remains constant over time. Moreover, the fleet averages for
the WLTP type-approved vehicles converges after September 2018. On the other
hand, from the Summer of 2018 the NEDC type-approved diesel vehicles show a
strong trend upward for CO 2, power, and price. This upward trend indicates a
particular use of the end-of-series arrangement to registered vehicles in the higher
market segments.

TNO report | TNO 2019 R10952 | 2 July 2019

45 / 66

Figure 3-22: Monthly average NEDC[old], NEDC[WLTP] and WLTP CO2 values for newly
registered passenger cars, on diesel. Most (more than 90%) individual WLTP
CO2 values were directly copied from license plate specific CoC information
delivered by RDW.

The physical characteristics of the WLTP diesel vehicles, despite the low numbers,
seem to converge after the transition to the WLTP around September 2018.
It is therefore surprising that the CO2 values increase steadily in the same period.
The BPM increases as well, as expected. An interesting aspect is the increasing
average catalogue price, from 40,000 Euro up towards 50,000 Euros, without BPM.
It might be that WLTP type-approved diesel vehicles are shifting to the higher
market segments. In the same period the average catalogue net price of petrol cars
is 30,000 Euro, which is substantially lower than the diesel car prices.

TNO report | TNO 2019 R10952 | 2 July 2019

Figure 3-23: Monthly average BPM purchase tax of newly registered not WLTP tested and
WLTP tested vehicles, on diesel.

Figure 3-24: Monthly average catalogue price of newly registered not WLTP tested and
WLTP tested vehicles, on diesel.

46 / 66

TNO report | TNO 2019 R10952 | 2 July 2019

47 / 66

Figure 3-25: Monthly average BPM purchase tax as fraction of monthly average catalogue
price of newly registered not WLTP tested and WLTP tested vehicles, on diesel.
Note the y-axis is limited, and increase in BPM from July to April with respect
to the catalogue price is in the order of 20%.

Figure 3-26: Monthly average weight of newly registered not WLTP tested and WLTP tested
vehicles, on diesel.

The weight of diesel cars is hardly affected by the transition from NEDC to WLTP.
It is likely a combination of different effects. The increase in engine power across
the transition is also limited.

TNO report | TNO 2019 R10952 | 2 July 2019

48 / 66

Figure 3-27: Monthly average engine power of newly registered not WLTP tested and
WLTP tested vehicles, on diesel.

3.4

Comparable vehicles
Based on vehicles from 1 January 2017 till May 2019, a regression is made on the
basis of the physical parameters: mass and engine power, to compare the CO2
emissions based on NEDC[old] and NEDC[WLTP] for equivalent vehicles. This
regression is identical to the regression made in the phase 2 report. For equivalent
diesel vehicles with the same characteristics, the difference in terms of CO2
emissions has increased compared to the preliminary analyses in October 2018,
based on a limited amount of data. For petrol the difference remains about 1 g/km.
However, for diesel cars the difference in CO2 emissions are now in the order of
7-8 g/km. This is slightly higher, as compare to the 5 g/km in the phase 2 report.
Table 3-1: The multi-regression fit of the data from 1-1-2017 till 1-5-2019, excluding plug-ins,
using the form CO2 = A * mass + B * power.

Fit results
characteristics
Petrol NEDC
Petrol WLTP
Diesel NEDC
Diesel WLTP

Compact petrol car
1000 kg, 50 kW
94.0
95.2 (+1.2%)
-

Midsize car
1300 kg, 80 kW
124.7
125.7 (+0.8%)
97.8
106.2 (+8.5%)

Large car
1700 kg, 130 kW
167.3
167.7 (+0.2%)
132.0
139.1 (+5.3%)

Given the small number of diesel cars registered, around 20,000 vehicles, the fit
may be biased by the limited variation of vehicle models. However, the weight trend
(Figure 3-26) and engine power trend (Figure 3-27) of these diesel vehicles, is in
line with the changing difference for diesel vehicles observed in these fits.

TNO report | TNO 2019 R10952 | 2 July 2019

4

49 / 66

Changes in vehicle model from NEDC to WLTP
Comparing the same make and model for the NEDC and the WLTP would be the
closest in showing the effect of the transition for the “same vehicle” in the eyes of
the buyer or owner. On the other hand, the same make and model will come in
many variants with different options. For that comparison, the actual sales numbers
of the same make and model for NEDC type-approval and WLTP type-approval, are
used to give an indication of the average version of the same make and model. Last
year a limited number of vehicle models existed for NEDC and WLTP. This year the
number of makes and models for which a comparison can be made of the average
NEDC version and the average WLTP version is much larger. From this comparison
trends and bandwidths can be distilled.
The buyer now has to face an additional cost of vehicle model options, if the option
affects the weight, air-drag, or rolling resistance. Since the WLTP, and also for
the NEDC[WLTP] CO2, these effects of options are factored in the vehicle CO2
registration. Therefore the options are affecting the BPM. It may be that this effect
has influenced the typical choice of options and the CO 2 values of each specific
vehicle model. This effect is assumed to be a natural part of the incentive the
BPM provides to buy more fuel efficient vehicles.

4.1

NEDC[WLTP] and WLTP CO2 values of WLTP vehicle models
It is argued that “the same model” is a fair comparison of NEDC[old] and
NEDC[WLTP] CO2 values. In this analysis, all vehicle models for which an NEDC
and WLTP vehicle exists are compared. There are large variations between the
different pairs, but the average over all comparisons show only a minor deviation
from the comparison of all registrations in the previous chapter. In this case the
difference is 0.8 g/km less than the 6.6 g/km over the whole fleet. Taking all the
models for which an NEDC and WLTP version exists, the average deviation of the
two CO2 values is 5.8 g/km. On the other hand, the mass and engine power of the
WLTP model is higher.

Figure 4-1: The average difference between WLTP and NEDC cars from the 1-on-1 comparison
of RDW registrations. Average NEDC CO2 value (∆CO2 = +5.8 g/km), vehicle mass,
engine power, BPM and catalogue price all have gone up by a significant amount in
the transition from NEDC to WLTP. The bars indicate the spread (std. dev.) in the
values for the individual registrations; the spread is larger than the differences in
averages observed.

TNO report | TNO 2019 R10952 | 2 July 2019

50 / 66

Petrol vehicles dominate the total registrations, 142 models are available for
comparison against for diesel vehicles only 43 models. Therefore, the results for
petrol vehicle models only show limited deviation from the overall trend.

Figure 4-2: For petrol vehicles the differences in CO2 values and vehicle characteristics linked to
the NEDC to WLTP transition are smaller than for diesel vehicles (Figure 4-3).

It seems that more petrol vehicle models are similar than diesel vehicle models
across the transition. Some petrol technologies may have remained unchanged
across the transition. It might be possible that a number of petrol vehicle models
had minor technical adaptions from NEDC to WLTP type-approval. These
unchanged models might be the best examples to determine the CO 2 difference
between the NEDC and WLTP. However, this result is not supported by fleet
average results, where a change in characteristics is clearly visible and can be
factored in into the transition.
Historically, it could be expected that vehicles would have lower CO 2 emission
values across the transition because of the downward trend. However, since the
downward trend stopped in the Netherlands in 2015, as can be seen from the
2005-2019 figures in Chapter 2, this effect should not be compensated for. It is
likely that the transition trend therefore is not influenced by factors like, e.g., effects
of changes in engine efficiency.
In the average overall fuels, the diesel vehicles play only a minor role, because of
the limited diesel sales and models. Moreover, the CO2 change of diesel models
vary only minor from the petrol. In particular the weight increase of diesel vehicles
across the transition is smaller.

Figure 4-3: For diesel vehicles the differences in CO2 values and vehicle characteristics, except
mass, linked to the NEDC to WLTP transition are higher than for petrol vehicles
(Figure 4-2).

TNO report | TNO 2019 R10952 | 2 July 2019

51 / 66

Figure 4-4: For individual petrol vehicle models 3 (142) the NEDC[WLTP] and NEDC[old] average
CO2 values (left), as well as the change in vehicle characteristics average mass and
engine power (right) are shown. In the graph on the right, open circles indicate the
NEDC characteristics, whereas the circles with asterisk indicate the WLTP
characteristics of the same model. A line connecting the two circles shows the
direction of the change. Only a few models have a large average change in the
transition from the NEDC model to the WLTP model.

For most vehicle models there are minor changes in the physical characteristics in
the transition from NEDC to WLTP. When changes occur, this is often an increase
in mass, or power, or both. Such trends are also present over the decades.
Vehicles have become heavier for safety and comfort. Weight reduction options
temper this trend slightly. The power had to increase to keep pace with the weight,
but further power increases occurred as well. The NEDC[WLTP] weight seems
directly related to the WLTP weight, options are incorporated, and are not the cause
of the observed changes. The shift of the fleet to higher mass and power, as
observed in the previous chapter, is only visible partly in the model comparisons.

Figure 4-5: For individual diesel vehicle models3 (43) the NEDC[WLTP] and NEDC[old] average
CO2 values (left), as well as the change in vehicle characteristics average mass and
engine power (right) are shown. For diesel vehicles fewer models have enough
registrations to compare the average. Compared to petrol relatively more diesel
models have a large average change in the transition from the NEDC model to the
WLTP model.

3

For these graphs only vehicle models were chosen for which more than 100 individual vehicles
were present. For petrol vehicles this was the case for in total 142 models and for diesel vehicles
for in total 43 models.

TNO report | TNO 2019 R10952 | 2 July 2019

52 / 66

From a trendline, fitted to the data, it can be concluded that difference between the
NEDC[old] and NEDC[WLTP] is slightly larger for petrol cars that are heavier or
have higher power. However, the effect is minor, certainly with respect to the
observed variation in the difference.

Figure 4-6: For individual petrol vehicle models (142), the delta between NEDC[WLTP] and
NEDC[old] model average CO2 values have been plotted against model average
vehicle mass (left) and engine power (right). Per graph, also the vehicle number
weighted overall averages and standard deviations (black cross) as well as the
similarly calculated linear regression line4 (black line) have been plotted.

For diesel vehicles, the correlation between the difference in CO 2 and the physical
characteristics of the petrol vehicle models is weak. Over the whole range only a
few g/km is observed, with a large spread in the results.

Figure 4-7: Similarly for individual diesel vehicle models (43), the delta between NEDC[WLTP]
and NEDC[old] model average CO2 values have been plotted against model average
vehicle mass (left) and engine power (right).

4

These averages and standard deviations, as well as the linear regression lines have been
calculated in a vehicle number weighted fashion as the plotted data points. Each datapoint for
a single model, represent widely varying numbers of individual vehicles ranging roughly from
100 to 6000 vehicles per model. Hence, a simple calculation over only the plotted points would
be incorrect.

TNO report | TNO 2019 R10952 | 2 July 2019

53 / 66

Another representation, with the focus on the difference between CO 2 emissions
of the NEDC[old] or NEDC[WLTP], makes the limited change in characteristics
on the horizontal axis more apparent. The large variation in CO 2 differences is
not correlated with the differences in physical parameters. See Figure 4-7 and
Figure 4-8.

Figure 4-8: Similarly for individual petrol vehicle models (142), the delta between NEDC[WLTP]
and NEDC[old] model average CO2 values have been plotted against the delta in
model average vehicle mass (left) and engine power (right).

Figure 4-9: Similarly for individual diesel vehicle models (43), the delta between NEDC[WLTP]
and NEDC[old] model average CO2 values have been plotted against the delta in
model average vehicle mass (left) and engine power (right).

Putting all the model comparisons together, a number of effects can be observed.
First, many models come in different versions with a wide range in CO 2 values,
shown in the bandwidths. Therefore, picking one version of a NEDC model and
another of the WLTP model can show a large, incidental difference, which are
not supported by actual sales. Second, at higher CO 2 and BPM, the differences
between NEDC and WLTP models are higher than at lower CO 2 and BPM.
For diesel vehicles this is not observed.

TNO report | TNO 2019 R10952 | 2 July 2019

54 / 66

Figure 4-10: For individual petrol vehicle models (142), the NEDC[WLTP] model average
BPM tax values plotted against the NEDC[old] model average BPM tax values
(left graph) shows an increase as most indicators are above de 45 0 diagonal,
due to the NEDC to WLTP transition, of roughly +1 to +2 kEuro. Similarly,
the NEDC[WLTP] catalogue price plotted against the NEDC[old] catalogue price
(right graph) shows a price change between roughly -5 and +5 kEuro.

Figure 4-11: Similarly for individual diesel vehicle models (43), the NEDC[WLTP] model average
BPM tax values plotted against the NEDC[old] model average BPM tax values (left
graph) shows an increase, due to the NEDC to WLTP transition, of roughly
+1 to +3 kEuro. Similarly, the NEDC[WLTP] catalogue price plotted against the
NEDC[old] catalogue price (right graph) shows a price change between roughly
0 and +10 kEuro.

TNO report | TNO 2019 R10952 | 2 July 2019

55 / 66

Figure 4-12: The correlation between the mass (left) and engine power (right) of the NEDC and
the WLTP versions of the same petrol vehicle models.

Figure 4-13: The correlation between the mass (left) and engine power (right) of the NEDC and
the WLTP versions of the same diesel vehicle models.

TNO report | TNO 2019 R10952 | 2 July 2019

5

56 / 66

Comparison of NEDC and WLTP CO2 values
A large part of this report focusses on the transition from NEDC to WLTP, and the
trends observed during this transition. The NEDC[WLTP] value is the key element
in this transition, albeit, temporary as the NEDC will phase out. The intention of the
WLTP, established already many years ago, is to provide a more representative
CO2 value for the vehicles sold. From 2020 onward, the energy label of vehicles
must be based on the WLTP value. Hence the transition to WLTP CO 2 values must
be foreseen and planned. Therefore, in this chapter the differences between
NEDC[WLTP] and WLTP values are analysed, for a separate transition from
NEDC to WLTP based CO2 values. Some care must be taken with the preliminary
results of the current analyses. The results are considered preliminary due to the
fact that the phase out of NEDC values is still ongoing with a deadline end of 2021.
During and after this phase out period, new trends may be observed.
The current WLTP CO2 values are generally much higher than the NEDC[WLTP]
value. The typical difference is in the order of 25 g/km. About 15 g/km is a constant
offset, and another 10% of the NEDC value is an increasing difference with higher
NEDC values. For example, a vehicle of 120 g/km NEDC[WLTP], is expected to
have a declared WLTP value of 110% * 120 g/km + 15 g/km = 147 g/km. Minor
differences exist for petrol and diesel. The diesel CO2 value is slightly higher, which
might be a result of technologic changes to accommodate RDE; the new pollutant
emission legislation.
In the figures below the analyses show petrol vehicles with 8% + 15 g/km difference
(Figure 5-1). The diesel vehicles have a difference of 12% + 16 g/km (Figure 5-3).
Petrol vehicles are the majority of the total sales. This is based on WLTP vehicles
only, so the CO2 values NEDC[WLTP] and WLTP are directly comparable.
Combining this effect with the results of Table 3-1, of comparable NEDC[old] and
NEDC[WLTP] vehicles, add another 2%, mainly from diesel vehicles.
The 10% + 15 g/km is the combination of the effect of NEDC[old] to NEDC[WLTP],
discussed before, on the basis of the same physical characteristics of the vehicle,
and the NEDC to WLTP CO2 of WLTP vehicles. It is dominated by the latter.
A few gram per kilometre less would be the estimated effect of the NEDC[old] to
NEDC[WLTP] transition alone.

TNO report | TNO 2019 R10952 | 2 July 2019

57 / 66

Figure 5-1: The correlation between the NEDC[WLTP] and the WLTP CO2 values of all
registered WLTP petrol vehicles.

Given the spread in the distribution (vehicles with a few g/km extra CO 2 for the
WLTP as for the NEDC[WLTP], to vehicles with a 50 g/km or more difference),
it is clear that the WLTP value for a given NEDC[WLTP] value is not optimized and
these differences exhibit rather large random variations. This may be the results of
the interpretation of the WLTP test and reporting procedures among manufacturers,
and even among type-approval authorities.

TNO report | TNO 2019 R10952 | 2 July 2019

Figure 5-2: The distribution of NEDC[WLTP] and WLTP CO2 values of petrol vehicles
registered.

Figure 5-3: The correlation between the NEDC[WLTP] and the WLTP CO2 values of all
registered WLTP diesel vehicles.

58 / 66

TNO report | TNO 2019 R10952 | 2 July 2019

59 / 66

Figure 5-4: The distribution of NEDC[WLTP] and WLTP CO2 values of diesel vehicles registered.

In Appendix A two tables (petrol and diesel) with numbers are provided that form
the basis for Figure 5-2 and Figure 5-4. These tables are intended to provide the
necessary information for further analyses for petrol and diesel vehicles. Some care
must be taken using the tables. The tables were derived at a time when there was
no public registration by the RDW of WLTP values yet.
5.1

The NEDC and WLTP values of the same WLTP vehicle models
The WLTP models, selected for the comparison with NEDC models, can also be
analysed on their own by comparing the NEDC[WLTP] with the WLTP CO2 values.
This more structured analyses, grouping data together of common vehicle models,
provides the similar result as the analyses of all the WLTP vehicles as a whole.
The transition from NEDC to WLTP based on different vehicle models can be
biased by the choice of different versions of the same vehicle model. In the
analyses, the average characteristics of the NEDC and of the WLTP models
weighted by the registrations are used. The bandwidths in versions of a given
model are shown by the error bars in the figures (Figure 5-5 and
Figure 5-6). The bandwidths of the WLTP values are larger than those of the NEDC
values. Despite options for a vehicle model have a larger effect on the WLTP, the
variation in NEDC values remain substantial.
For petrol vehicles the average difference is around 25 g/km, for diesel vehicles
the difference is around 30 g/km. A large bandwidth is observed, together with an
upward trend in the absolute deviation in (g/km) for higher absolute values (g/km).
The results are consistent for the regressions on all vehicle registrations, yielding
the generic +10% and +15 g/km difference, with a large bandwidth.

TNO report | TNO 2019 R10952 | 2 July 2019

60 / 66

Examining individual vehicle models, many show large variations, as presented by
the bars in Figure 5-5 and Figure 5-6. The bars extend in both directions. It is not
only the WLTP value that varies for a given, but the NEDC[WLTP] values too.
With the change of the system to WLTP, the individual options on a given vehicle
are reflected in the NEDC[WLTP] and the WLTP CO2 value.

Figure 5-5: The NEDC[WLTP] and the WLTP CO2 values of specific petrol vehicle models
show the same trend as all vehicles. Some of the variations are caused by
the model options, which lead to a larger spread in WLTP than in NEDC[WLTP]
values.

TNO report | TNO 2019 R10952 | 2 July 2019

61 / 66

Figure 5-6: The NEDC[WLTP] and the WLTP CO2 values of specific diesel vehicle models show
the same trend as all vehicles. Some of the variations are caused by the model
options, which lead to a larger spread in WLTP than in NEDC[WLTP] values.
Almost all diesel vehicle have a difference between 20 and 40 g/km, although
different models are sold with larger variations within the model options available.

The difference between NEDC[WLTP] and WLTP values vary greatly.
See Figure 5-7. This variation is beyond what can be expected on the basis of the
CO2 increasing aspects covered in the legislation.

Figure 5-7: The distribution of differences over all WLTP registrations, show al large spread.
The difference is 25 g/km, but the normal spread is also 25 g/km with a full range
between 5 and 50 g/km.

TNO report | TNO 2019 R10952 | 2 July 2019

62 / 66

This large variation in the differences between the CO2 WLTP and the CO2
NEDC[WLTP] is remarkable. High values may be construed as “inflated values” for
the WLTP CO2 on top of a legitimate effect. This legitimate effect comes mainly
from the procedural changes for determining the NEDC[WLTP] and WLTP value.
Only half of the variation can be expected on the basis of the changing vehicle
technologies (like changes in test mass, road load settings in the laboratory, and
battery state of charge) to improve fuel efficiency.

TNO report | TNO 2019 R10952 | 2 July 2019

6

63 / 66

Discussion and conclusions
The current report is the third and final report in a series of three. This report is
dedicated to the impact of the transition from NEDC based to WLTP based CO2
values of new cars on the Dutch car purchase tax (BPM). The second report,
issued in October 2018, described the developments up till 1 September 2018.
This date is the formal date, all new cars should be registered being type-approved
under the new WLTP test procedure instead of the old NEDC test procedure.
The only exceptions are vehicles that had been registered by RDW for application
of the end-of-series stock (“restvoorraad regeling”). The car sales in the period
before 1 September 2018 were dominated by NEDC cars. The numbers of WLTP
cars slightly increased in the months before September 2018, but stayed well below
20%. Detailed analyses indicated that WLTP cars sold in this period are not
representative for trend analysis.
This third report includes the period September 2018 – April 2019. In this period
almost all cars from end-of-series stock have been sold and the WLTP cars now
represent, close to 90%, of total car sales. The period can be considered to mark
the full transition of NEDC to WLTP. At the same time, for different reasons, the
sales of diesel (WLTP) vehicles is historically low.
With the current differences between the NEDC[WLTP] and the WLTP values
ranging from 5 to 45 g/km it is clear that declared WLTP CO2 values can be
substantially higher than the average WLTP value measured during type approval.
The main cause of this discrepancy is the, currently, single purpose of the WLTP
value, in the Conformity of Production. If vehicles from the factory have higher CO 2
values than the declared CO2 value in random sampling, the type-approval have to
be adjusted. On the other hand, there are no negative consequences to the
inclusion of a substantial, extra margin, up to 10 g/km. This situation may change
over time, certainly after 2021, depending on new measures by the European
Commission to ensure a proper transition from NEDC to WLTP targets in 2021.
From September 2017 till now, about 500 plug-in hybrid vehicles (PHEV) are sold.
Among them about 80 WLTP type approved plug-in hybrids. These limited number
of vehicles are mainly in the higher market segments. The CoCs of the WLTP
PHEVs were missing, so the necessary vehicle information for analyses was
incomplete. Given this number of PHEV vehicles, they were given no special
attention. They do not have a significant effect on the Dutch averages presented
here.
The manufacturers claim that extra margin in the WLTP CO2 is needed to meet the
Conformity of Production rules. In more detail, the CoP (Conformity of Production)
procedure was intended as a check on production vehicles from test results of the
prototype vehicle for type-approval. With the WLTP a check on the CO2 value is
now part of the CoP.
Therefore, the causes of the differences and the applied margins by the industry is
a complex process involving:
• differences between type-approval prototype versus production model,

TNO report | TNO 2019 R10952 | 2 July 2019

•
•
•
•
•
•

64 / 66

test flexibilities in WLTP testing,
inherent, uncontrollable test uncertainty,
effects of the CO2 interpolation method for individual models,
effects of the run-in of production vehicle with zero mileage from the factory,
inter-factory differences and other manufacturer’s quality control issues,
additional safe margins, in relation with the CO2 targets.

The current WLTP CO2 values can be used as a basis for a transition of the tax
system to WLTP values. A neutral transition, for petrol and diesel combined, would
be +10% + 15 g/km, from NEDC[old] to WLTP CO2. However, as the tax system
serves as an incentive for low CO2 vehicles, a fixed 25 g/km would be considered
appropriate to benefit low CO2 vehicles more. The impression exists that a large
fraction of vehicles with high CO2 values are sold despite the tax incentives for
lower CO2 values, i.e., the current incentive is less effective for the 150 g/km CO 2
and higher values. Compensating for the effect would reward, rather than stem,
the upward trend in CO2 values for new vehicles.
The model-by-model comparison of the NEDC[old] and NEDC[WLTP] values
gives a difference in the order of 5.8 g/km. Where the NEDC[WLTP] is higher than
the NEDC[old] results. This difference is now close to the fleet average difference
of 6.6 g/km. For petrol vehicles, the change in vehicle characteristics, like mass and
power explains the majority of this difference. For the same mass and power, the
remaining difference is in the order of 1 g/km. For diesel vehicles, the difference of
7 g/km remains, also when compensated for the changed characteristics from
NEDC to WLTP.
For petrol vehicles the number of registered vehicles is sufficient to conclude that
the results above are the complete effect of the transition to the WLTP. For diesel
vehicles the low renewal rate of vehicles, with the low registrations of new vehicles,
the results may be biased. For example, the number of imported diesel vehicles in
September 2018 till May 2019 is, with 26,000, larger than the new registrations,
20,000 of all WLTP diesel vehicles.
Consequently, in the correlation between NEDC[old] and WLTP CO2 values, the
majority of the average 25 g/km difference is the result from the difference in
between NEDC[WLTP] and WLTP. At fleet level 6 g/km of this total difference is
visible in the correlation between NEDC[old] and NEDC[WLTP]. The 25 g/km
difference will not remain. It is expected that year-by-year changes are dependent
on many factors.
These factors include:
• The European sales of Battery Electric Vehicles (BEV) and PHEV
compensating the European target of 95 g/km per manufacturer for 2021. In
very optimistic scenarios for the introduction of electric vehicles on the
European roads, it is assumed that the 15% CO2 reduction in 2025 and the
37.5% reduction in 2030, are the result of the same fractions of BEV sales, with
no further improvement of the conventional vehicles. However, over many
decades, it can be observed that real-world fuel efficiency of vehicles improves
at a steady pace, also without incentives.
• The discussions on the technical details of the CoP procedure for CO 2 in the
UNECE Task Force under WLTP Informal Working Group. Currently, in

TNO report | TNO 2019 R10952 | 2 July 2019

•

•

•

65 / 66

practice, the average of every three cars tested, out of the factory, must be
below the manufacturer-declared value for these cars. Manufacturers consider
this a high risk situation.
The European Commission, i.e., DG-CLIMA, ability to stem high declared and
measured WLTP values. For example, The Commission can decide to base the
manufacturer’s average CO2 on the results of the Conformity of Production
testing, as a manufacturer is obliged to perform CO2 testing for every batch of
5000 vehicles produced. This is by far the largest and most representative
sample of WLTP CO2 testing data available on new registrations, based on
actual production.
The differences between NEDC[WLTP] and WLTP CO2 values of new WLTP
vehicles, e.g., by double testing. The situation is as yet unclear. In the case of
double testing, there are certainly flexibilities to achieve higher CO 2 values, as
legislation, for manufacturers, was mainly intended to avoid inappropriate
practice to produce low values. Test flexibilities which increase emissions were
not considered relevant.
The specific vehicle models and sales in the Netherlands. In the past specific
models, which met certain tax brackets, were only on sale in the Netherlands.
Such situations can occur again, given the taxation scheme.

The current analysis results are considered preliminary due to the fact that the
phase out of NEDC values is still ongoing with a deadline end of 2021. During, and
after, this phase out period, new trends may be observed. Updating the analysis
regularly, e.g. yearly, will make sure new trends are identified in time.

TNO report | TNO 2019 R10952 | 2 July 2019

7

66 / 66

Signature
The Hague, 2 July 2019

TNO

Sam van Goethem
Projectleader

Norbert Ligterink
Author

TNO report | TNO 2019 R10952 | 2 July 2019

A

Appendix A | 1/12

Tables

Table 7-1: The WLTP petrol cars registrations sorted by NEDC CO2 values (left), and WLTP CO2 values (right).

CO2
NEDC[WLTP]

Nr. of
vehicles

CO2
WLTP,
mean

78

1

101.0

79

CO2
WLTP

Nr. of
vehicles

78

0

0

79

0

80

0

80

0

81

0

81

0

82

0

82

0

83

0

83

0

84

26

84

0

85

0

85

0

86

13947

111.6

0.6

86

0

87

3

111.7

2.3

87

0

88

0

88

0

89

268

108.1

0.5

89

0

90

765

112.7

0.6

90

0

91

2

108.0

0.0

91

0

92

0

92

0

93

2

109.0

1.4

93

0

94

4

116.0

0.0

94

0

95

5211

117.9

1.2

95

0

96

1219

117.6

1.0

96

0

97

120

121.1

0.9

97

0

98

1

116.0

0.0

98

0

99

4

117.0

0.0

99

0

100

0

100

0

101

22

118.1

0.4

101

1

102

133

127.2

0.4

102

0

103

1440

119.8

3.7

103

0

104

5217

122.8

3.2

104

0

105

2330

126.5

5.8

105

0

106

2961

129.6

7.1

106

0

107

5584

128.4

5.4

107

0

108

4874

129.5

3.4

108

109

3384

132.6

5.6

109

110

5178

131.9

3.4

111

3839

130.4

112

3158

137.9

108.0

CO2
WLTP,
std.
dev.
0.0

CO2
NEDC[WLTP],
mean

CO2
NEDC[WLTP],
std. dev.

78.0

0.0

293

88.6

1.5

1

87.0

0.0

110

200

86.0

0.5

5.0

111

5369

86.0

0.1

4.9

112

7837

86.1

0.7

0.0

TNO report | TNO 2019 R10952 | 2 July 2019

Appendix A | 2/12

113

2325

134.1

3.5

113

1273

87.5

2.0

114

6517

133.9

4.7

114

44

89.5

1.3

115

2411

134.4

4.3

115

473

106.1

0.6

116

3335

139.4

7.3

116

170

95.1

0.4

117

2744

146.4

6.3

117

4125

97.0

3.3

118

2889

145.6

6.2

118

1616

95.2

0.7

119

4558

144.0

6.7

119

629

95.1

0.5

120

3150

143.4

7.0

120

1357

100.1

4.8

121

2594

150.5

8.0

121

3563

103.6

2.3

122

3005

140.4

6.9

122

2125

105.8

1.8

123

2324

143.0

5.5

123

594

104.1

0.7

124

1481

146.7

7.4

124

1316

108.4

3.5

125

2868

146.4

6.7

125

510

105.4

3.6

126

662

151.3

5.9

126

1546

108.0

1.3

127

2306

153.4

8.1

127

2130

110.4

5.6

128

2955

158.5

11.2

128

3900

108.2

1.8

129

2326

155.5

6.5

129

4238

109.0

2.9

130

1309

157.3

4.9

130

3814

111.7

3.4

131

2734

162.8

9.3

131

4102

109.4

3.6

132

2506

158.4

4.1

132

3817

111.1

3.1

133

1059

160.6

6.0

133

4324

112.0

3.9

134

2735

164.5

5.7

134

1901

113.4

4.3

135

939

159.7

10.0

135

4126

114.7

4.5

136

2161

167.3

8.6

136

2783

114.4

5.1

137

716

165.6

6.0

137

3144

113.5

5.4

138

1633

170.7

5.8

138

2130

114.8

6.3

139

1649

166.6

11.1

139

2711

117.8

5.0

140

1980

172.4

10.6

140

2492

119.1

4.6

141

2231

159.7

8.9

141

1424

120.6

5.1

142

918

173.8

10.6

142

2376

119.1

5.6

143

731

172.7

11.0

143

2496

119.3

5.5

144

1564

166.7

4.7

144

2235

121.2

5.0

145

455

168.5

8.5

145

1529

120.7

7.8

146

672

168.7

6.9

146

1868

122.2

6.3

147

733

167.3

5.9

147

1311

119.8

4.3

148

632

169.2

5.4

148

1664

120.0

4.5

149

140

174.6

7.9

149

2644

125.6

10.1

150

1536

172.5

2.9

150

1990

123.3

6.3

151

157

171.6

9.0

151

973

123.2

7.1

152

206

175.6

4.0

152

1528

125.3

7.4

153

114

171.8

6.0

153

1658

124.6

6.8

154

1966

176.2

2.4

154

1630

125.4

6.5

155

314

185.2

6.2

155

1535

127.0

7.6

TNO report | TNO 2019 R10952 | 2 July 2019

Appendix A | 3/12

156

1005

177.8

4.6

156

2113

130.4

6.2

157

1526

174.9

4.8

157

1091

131.2

7.5

158

531

177.5

3.3

158

1491

131.6

5.0

159

106

185.5

6.1

159

2363

131.2

3.5

160

500

179.0

3.6

160

1411

130.9

3.7

161

383

183.1

7.3

161

1752

135.1

6.3

162

527

187.1

7.1

162

1318

133.6

8.5

163

301

195.2

9.1

163

1939

135.8

7.2

164

680

191.0

3.8

164

1511

136.9

7.2

165

374

191.0

4.9

165

1393

139.6

6.7

166

1936

206.5

9.6

166

929

136.5

6.5

167

732

203.0

9.8

167

1501

135.5

8.2

168

431

198.8

5.1

168

1485

137.4

8.8

169

78

191.4

7.8

169

929

135.9

7.3

170

99

195.7

7.3

170

1045

138.8

7.5

171

162

195.7

5.8

171

1238

138.9

5.6

172

195

208.5

6.4

172

1243

139.5

6.6

173

285

199.2

10.5

173

3090

147.1

8.4

174

302

206.3

8.8

174

1188

146.3

11.1

175

293

213.7

2.2

175

1528

146.6

9.9

176

178

207.9

6.9

176

1570

148.8

8.7

177

3

206.3

5.9

177

1258

150.0

8.4

178

17

204.2

10.7

178

997

151.7

8.0

179

75

219.4

7.2

179

864

151.6

8.8

180

64

223.1

5.8

180

427

148.1

9.2

181

31

212.4

8.8

181

274

145.0

9.0

182

31

220.1

7.9

182

458

147.8

9.1

183

88

227.0

6.3

183

688

152.5

10.9

184

167

215.5

9.8

184

540

149.8

12.3

185

54

228.7

7.2

185

457

151.5

10.7

186

9

226.1

5.3

186

533

150.6

9.0

187

5

215.2

18.2

187

176

152.5

10.8

188

6

220.7

3.9

188

193

154.8

8.7

189

12

228.8

5.6

189

449

162.5

5.6

190

0

190

118

162.5

6.6

191

1

219.0

0.0

191

184

163.9

5.3

192

1

208.0

0.0

192

255

165.4

5.3

193

22

230.0

7.5

193

237

167.1

5.9

194

2

228.5

27.6

194

308

165.7

3.2

195

0

195

719

165.8

4.4

196

5

222.8

13.0

196

119

165.8

5.3

197

168

249.9

1.0

197

228

166.6

4.0

198

1

260.0

0.0

198

169

167.6

5.1

TNO report | TNO 2019 R10952 | 2 July 2019

Appendix A | 4/12

199

11

209.2

3.4

199

254

168.6

4.4

200

22

251.1

8.8

200

204

169.3

6.8

201

5

255.0

0.0

201

142

168.3

8.4

202

3

218.0

2.6

202

61

170.6

11.6

203

24

217.7

13.7

203

34

167.5

7.0

204

12

234.7

21.0

204

100

168.8

6.0

205

34

231.6

11.2

205

133

168.7

5.1

206

62

242.3

2.1

206

139

170.7

8.0

207

23

251.3

22.2

207

84

168.8

6.8

208

0

208

103

170.1

8.6

209

37

222.2

1.5

209

59

168.8

5.1

210

5

271.6

1.5

210

37

170.6

6.9

211

0

211

66

174.6

7.6

212

0

212

139

174.1

10.7

213

8

213

452

169.9

5.4

214

0

214

679

168.9

4.6

215

7

215

277

168.0

6.2

216

0

216

198

169.2

4.9

217

7

217

157

169.8

4.5

218

0

218

68

170.1

7.0

219

2

233.0

2.8

219

58

173.9

10.7

220

8

245.0

6.8

220

29

178.4

15.4

221

19

239.6

0.5

221

41

178.7

5.5

222

2

256.5

7.8

222

102

188.0

10.7

223

5

242.2

10.1

223

71

185.7

10.1

224

27

245.4

4.2

224

27

180.9

2.7

225

20

242.3

0.5

225

51

183.2

5.6

226

0

226

9

189.6

12.7

227

1

227

33

192.6

13.2

228

0

228

42

188.6

10.6

229

9

243.1

4.8

229

26

188.6

9.3

230

11

258.9

9.2

230

45

185.8

6.3

231

1

242.0

0.0

231

23

188.7

11.3

232

1

244.0

0.0

232

22

200.0

16.4

233

0

233

6

200.3

18.0

234

7

244.9

0.7

234

4

187.3

2.1

235

6

270.2

14.3

235

4

194.5

16.4

236

5

262.6

0.5

236

0

237

0

237

4

201.3

19.3

238

0

238

1

206.0

0.0

239

1

239

15

213.7

10.0

240

0

240

18

216.0

7.3

241

3

241

20

212.0

10.9

227.3
232.1
230.7

251.0

276.0
271.0

0.7
0.7
1.9

0.0

0.0
0.0

TNO report | TNO 2019 R10952 | 2 July 2019

Appendix A | 5/12

242

9

280.9

1.2

242

26

218.9

9.8

243

1

282.0

0.0

243

32

214.9

9.1

244

1

263.0

0.0

244

31

218.2

10.9

245

5

276.0

0.0

245

19

211.9

12.6

246

36

268.0

1.3

246

8

214.8

14.9

247

0

247

3

200.0

5.2

248

2

280.0

1.4

248

13

196.8

0.8

249

6

263.5

13.7

249

42

197.1

0.9

250

2

271.0

0.0

250

56

197.5

3.5

251

1

295.0

0.0

251

61

200.6

12.2

252

0

252

10

198.8

1.5

253

7

294.3

2.1

253

8

200.9

1.6

254

9

274.2

13.3

254

10

204.7

9.9

255

5

274.2

1.3

255

9

207.2

11.1

256

2

264.0

1.4

256

4

214.0

11.5

257

19

294.1

6.4

257

1

204.0

0.0

258

1

307.0

0.0

258

1

220.0

0.0

259

0

259

2

270.0

0.0

260

0

260

1

198.0

0.0

261

1

261

0

262

0

262

3

231.3

8.1

263

50

339.9

0.3

263

16

230.8

11.6

264

1

276.0

0.0

264

3

222.7

27.1

265

9

328.6

23.8

265

10

225.2

23.6

266

2

277.0

0.0

266

9

235.7

21.8

267

1

281.0

0.0

267

9

241.7

13.0

268

3

285.7

9.0

268

15

251.1

11.7

269

3

341.0

0.0

269

10

242.1

12.3

270

4

273.3

16.5

270

5

237.8

28.4

271

0

271

6

244.8

4.4

272

4

285.8

9.5

272

1

210.0

0.0

273

1

298.0

0.0

273

4

232.5

26.0

274

0

274

2

260.0

7.1

275

5

282.8

2.9

275

3

241.7

11.5

276

1

342.0

0.0

276

13

246.2

7.8

277

4

290.3

13.5

277

2

266.0

0.0

278

28

308.0

0.0

278

1

235.0

0.0

279

2

268.0

0.0

279

2

245.0

4.2

280

0

280

4

256.8

17.3

281

0

281

12

259.8

14.9

282

0

282

2

242.5

0.7

283

0

283

1

242.0

0.0

284

4

284

0

312.0

303.5

0.0

15.6

TNO report | TNO 2019 R10952 | 2 July 2019

285

8

286

306.0

285

0

0

286

2

275.0

0.0

287

0

287

1

270.0

0.0

288

0

288

1

270.0

0.0

289

2

330.5

0.7

289

0

290

3

339.0

0.0

290

2

284.0

0.0

291

2

328.0

1.4

291

0

292

0

292

6

253.5

0.5

293

0

293

0

294

0

294

3

257.0

0.0

295

2

295

5

255.8

2.7

296

0

296

15

258.0

6.4

297

0

297

3

263.7

11.5

298

5

338.0

0.0

298

2

275.0

2.8

299

26

343.4

0.5

299

0

300

0

300

1

272.0

0.0

301

0

301

1

311.0

0.0

302

0

302

0

303

0

303

1

265.0

0.0

304

0

304

0

305

0

305

0

306

0

306

8

285.0

0.0

307

0

307

1

258.0

0.0

308

0

308

28

278.0

0.0

309

0

309

0

310

0

310

0

311

1

311

0

312

0

312

1

261.0

0.0

313

0

313

0

314

0

314

0

315

0

315

0

316

0

316

0

317

0

317

2

284.0

0.0

318

0

318

0

319

0

319

0

320

0

320

0

321

0

321

0

322

0

322

0

323

0

323

0

324

0

324

0

325

4

325

0

326

0

326

0

327

0

327

1

291.0

0.0

332.5

301.0

345.0

0.0

Appendix A | 6/12

2.1

0.0

0.0

TNO report | TNO 2019 R10952 | 2 July 2019

328

0

329

1

330

Appendix A | 7/12

328

0

329

1

291.0

0.0

0

330

1

289.0

0.0

331

0

331

2

292.0

4.2

332

0

332

0

333

0

333

0

334

0

334

1

295.0

0.0

335

0

335

0

336

0

336

0

337

0

337

0

338

0

338

5

298.0

0.0

339

0

339

7

274.6

14.4

340

0

340

53

263.3

0.7

341

3

341

3

269.0

0.0

342

0

342

1

276.0

0.0

343

0

343

15

299.0

0.0

344

0

344

11

299.0

0.0

345

0

345

4

325.0

0.0

346

0

346

0

347

0

347

0

348

0

348

0

349

0

349

0

350

0

350

0

351

0

351

0

352

0

352

0

353

0

353

1

329.0

0.0

354

0

354

0

355

0

355

0

356

0

356

0

357

0

357

0

358

0

358

0

359

0

359

0

360

0

360

0

361

0

361

0

362

0

362

0

363

0

363

0

364

0

364

0

365

0

365

1

341.0

0.0

366

0

366

1

341.0

0.0

367

0

367

0

368

0

368

0

369

0

369

1

341.0

0.0

353.0

366.7

0.0

2.1

TNO report | TNO 2019 R10952 | 2 July 2019

Appendix A | 8/12

Table 7-2: Registrations of WLTP diesel vehicles, sorted on the basis of NEDC CO 2 values (left), and
WLTP CO2 values (right)

CO2
NEDC[WLTP]

Nr. of
vehicles

CO2
WLTP,
mean

CO2
WLTP

Nr. of
vehicles

117.7

CO2
WLTP,
std.
dev.
1.0

CO2
NEDC[WLTP],
mean

CO2
NEDC[WLTP],
std. dev.

87

74

87

0

88

9

120.0

0.0

88

0

89

0

89

0

90

0

90

0

91

21

122.5

5.9

91

0

92

81

121.9

1.2

92

0

93

289

120.4

2.4

93

0

94

95

123.2

2.4

94

0

95

597

122.2

6.7

95

0

96

553

126.4

3.2

96

0

97

836

123.3

3.2

97

0

98

238

128.9

2.4

98

0

99

248

127.9

3.7

99

0

100

271

134.2

5.6

100

0

101

121

124.4

6.9

101

0

102

152

135.0

4.5

102

0

103

188

131.9

5.8

103

0

104

658

132.2

8.0

104

0

105

1264

138.5

2.4

105

0

106

153

135.4

4.7

106

0

107

922

137.6

7.4

107

0

108

1025

126.4

5.9

108

0

109

532

134.2

6.2

109

0

110

671

142.3

3.9

110

0

111

725

132.4

6.3

111

125

95.0

0.0

112

199

132.4

5.9

112

31

95.5

1.6

113

243

141.2

4.9

113

5

100.2

1.1

114

590

141.8

5.5

114

13

97.5

3.5

115
116

247

144.1

2.8

115

18

97.8

5.0

235

140.8

6.7

116

9

98.3

4.7

117

388

139.4

4.8

117

90

91.4

4.9

118

740

146.9

4.8

118

136

97.4

5.1

119

607

146.0

3.3

119

127

95.6

6.5

120

379

148.4

3.9

120

118

94.3

3.7

121

330

147.3

6.3

121

920

101.9

5.8

122

441

148.4

4.2

122

325

100.5

5.4

123

195

153.2

5.5

123

171

98.0

6.3

TNO report | TNO 2019 R10952 | 2 July 2019

Appendix A | 9/12

124

228

159.5

5.1

124

108

99.2

4.7

125

512

155.9

5.8

125

220

101.7

6.5

126

135

155.0

5.0

126

599

99.2

6.0

127

275

158.0

8.6

127

749

103.0

6.7

128

406

161.9

8.5

128

734

101.8

6.0

129

214

160.0

7.5

129

468

104.2

5.9

130

32

158.4

3.7

130

322

102.9

5.9

131

633

161.8

4.1

131

381

108.1

4.4

132

302

163.4

6.1

132

148

107.6

6.6

133

165

169.7

5.2

133

138

109.6

7.2

134

96

163.7

4.0

134

141

106.3

6.0

135

203

166.5

5.4

135

275

109.3

6.7

136

4

162.8

7.5

136

337

109.5

5.6

137

26

160.0

7.2

137

623

107.9

4.3

138

23

162.5

9.4

138

643

108.2

5.1

139

33

161.8

7.3

139

718

107.0

4.1

140

22

175.1

4.2

140

570

107.3

5.3

141

50

172.6

7.4

141

335

110.8

5.7

142

46

169.3

10.0

142

378

111.1

6.5

143

182

182.7

7.3

143

555

110.7

5.2

144

459

168.2

9.8

144

1037

113.6

5.2

145

16

177.1

10.8

145

697

116.7

5.0

146

92

181.1

10.9

146

403

117.9

4.4

147

127

183.7

10.4

147

296

118.8

4.4

148

287

182.8

7.4

148

366

118.3

4.6

149

18

183.9

2.0

149

254

120.5

3.9

150

16

176.2

8.7

150

200

120.4

4.0

151

52

188.5

4.8

151

213

120.7

2.9

152

69

191.2

4.3

152

202

121.5

3.9

153

26

186.4

8.0

153

191

121.7

3.8

154

20

189.6

5.3

154

169

122.9

5.1

155

22

187.8

5.4

155

165

125.4

4.3

156

177

190.4

3.0

156

209

125.9

5.0

157

29

192.0

3.0

157

341

127.4

3.6

158

80

201.0

7.8

158

295

128.2

4.0

159

26

191.9

4.7

159

210

128.8

4.0

160

34

195.6

15.1

160

151

132.0

5.5

161

49

187.8

6.1

161

466

138.4

7.7

162

183

209.3

3.8

162

207

130.7

4.9

163

47

201.5

10.0

163

274

130.4

5.3

164

72

185.5

1.8

164

141

129.9

5.8

165

36

200.1

11.4

165

152

129.6

5.7

166

9

196.8

1.7

166

186

133.9

6.5

TNO report | TNO 2019 R10952 | 2 July 2019

Appendix A | 10/12

167

60

214.5

13.2

167

112

133.8

6.1

168

33

209.8

5.8

168

89

132.7

5.8

169

73

206.9

2.5

169

75

131.6

4.9

170

8

211.5

10.4

170

39

135.6

5.6

171

9

220.3

24.8

171

31

135.5

6.2

172

12

241.6

23.8

172

122

134.1

4.3

173

106

217.1

5.4

173

190

132.3

4.6

174

314

203.1

4.3

174

75

133.3

6.2

175

13

200.8

17.6

175

33

137.5

8.8

176

26

202.8

7.2

176

10

139.7

5.6

177

2

212.5

0.7

177

10

143.4

4.7

178

12

220.8

8.5

178

9

144.7

5.6

179

148

215.8

7.4

179

37

144.2

3.9

180

1

214.0

0.0

180

106

143.7

2.1

181

0

181

18

147.4

6.9

182

1

186.0

0.0

182

19

150.9

7.8

183

32

216.5

11.1

183

28

154.5

6.4

184

6

197.0

0.0

184

129

152.9

8.7

185

4

204.5

4.0

185

139

148.2

5.1

186

0

186

215

147.7

5.2

187

1

211.0

0.0

187

144

151.2

8.5

188

1

212.0

0.0

188

59

150.7

6.5

189

0

189

46

153.7

7.2

190

9

261.0

16.1

190

83

153.2

9.4

191

2

212.0

1.4

191

206

154.2

4.6

192

0

192

66

157.7

6.5

193

0

193

46

154.5

4.0

194

0

194

42

157.2

5.5

195

0

195

15

158.1

3.9

196

0

196

21

162.7

8.8

197

0

197

55

170.7

8.6

198

11

243.5

10.5

198

21

163.6

6.9

199

26

238.6

6.2

199

12

169.8

5.1

200

0

200

31

173.2

2.7

201

11

250.1

1.9

201

27

169.7

8.0

202

9

246.4

2.2

202

20

172.5

3.6

203

2

252.0

7.1

203

140

173.2

3.1

204

0

204

43

174.7

6.6

205

4

246.5

5.2

205

17

172.5

6.5

206

1

250.0

0.0

206

56

171.4

4.4

207

11

255.2

0.8

207

64

167.9

6.2

208

0

208

70

167.7

8.0

209

0

209

44

165.0

5.7

TNO report | TNO 2019 R10952 | 2 July 2019

Appendix A | 11/12

210

0

210

85

164.9

4.9

211

0

211

115

165.3

6.2

212

2

256.0

0.0

212

44

170.7

7.5

213

2

251.0

0.0

213

32

169.3

5.4

214

0

214

8

170.8

5.9

215

0

215

17

174.4

9.4

216

1

216

16

176.5

3.0

217

0

217

34

177.2

4.1

218

0

218

12

176.6

2.9

219

0

219

13

180.0

11.2

220

1

220

61

173.1

1.0

221

0

221

14

173.6

1.6

222

0

222

4

180.3

7.1

223

0

223

15

179.9

2.7

224

0

224

17

177.4

4.3

225

0

225

19

179.6

1.5

226

0

226

4

179.5

2.4

227

0

227

6

181.3

2.6

228

0

228

1

175.0

0.0

229

0

229

2

180.5

3.5

230

0

230

1

178.0

0.0

231

0

231

0

232

0

232

5

164.6

10.3

233

0

233

0

234

0

234

16

198.0

4.0

235

0

235

0

236

0

236

0

237

0

237

3

198.7

0.6

238

0

238

1

175.0

0.0

239

0

239

2

186.0

26.9

240

0

240

0

241

0

241

2

198.5

0.7

242

0

242

2

182.5

21.9

243

12

285.3

0.5

243

2

185.5

19.1

244

1

288.0

0.0

244

3

202.0

0.0

245

0

245

9

171.3

11.6

246

0

246

4

198.5

0.6

247

0

247

5

201.2

1.5

248

0

248

7

201.9

2.7

249

0

249

2

199.0

0.0

250

0

250

9

201.1

2.2

251

0

251

9

203.1

6.0

252

0

252

0

219.0

255.0

0.0

0.0

TNO report | TNO 2019 R10952 | 2 July 2019

Appendix A | 12/12

253

0

253

0

254

0

254

2

204.0

4.2

255

0

255

12

200.7

15.3

256

0

256

12

183.1

17.3

257

0

257

2

205.0

2.8

258

0

258

0

259

0

259

0

260

0

260

0

261

0

261

0

262

0

262

0

263

0

263

0

264

0

264

1

190.0

0.0

265

0

265

0

266

0

266

0

267

0

267

0

268

0

268

3

190.0

0.0

269

0

269

0

270

0

270

0

271

0

271

0

272

0

272

0

273

0

273

0

274

0

274

2

190.0

0.0

275

0

275

0

276

0

276

0

277

0

277

0

278

0

278

0

279

0

279

0

280

0

280

0

281

0

281

0

282

0

282

0

283

0

283

0

284

0

284

0

285

0

285

8

243.0

0.0

286

0

286

4

243.0

0.0

287

0

287

0

288

0

288

1

244.0

0.0