This refers to two different manufacturers, with two different approaches.
replyTo meet the overall tougher targets (95g/km average) Suzuki is discontinuing certain models which release higher levels of CO2 to reduce their average. This is presumably the intention of the regulation - to drive manufacturer behaviour.
Mercedes is, OOTH, pooling with other manufacturers who presumably have emissions to spare, and likely paying them royally for it[0]. They're not alone in this approach, but some would argue it's against the spirit of the regulation, even if it ultimately complies with the letter.
[0] https://www.motor1.com/news/747225/tesla-earns-1billion-sell... - note that Tesla doesn't pool with Mercedes; this is just an example of the value
If we Zoom out and look at the net-net efficiency, is there a Steelman argument? I’m wondering if this is a locally based optimization that provides manufacturers with more flexibility to optimize across their fleet.
replyI don't quite understand. Even if the intent was to to provide manufacturers more flexibility, the fact that a much more efficient line was discontinued as a result of the regulations implies that the result was less efficiency.
replyMaybe I misunderstood. Could you explain your idea in more detail?