A pleasure and happy you got it working for you. It makes the site much more effective for you. There are lots of hints to be found online about using Discourse (the program behind the site) that you may find interesting.
2 Likes
Thanks again. I will check it out. 
1 Like
The USA assesses PHEV’s for battery separately to petrol (gas). The performance on battery (electricity) is converted to a notional MPG-e. This demonstrates the overall efficiency of the battery system as an EV compared to petrol. It leaves the owner free to work out the running cost based on what ever daily use mix they follow.
EG,
Ford Escape PHEV
(all data in $US and US gallons)
Vehicle type: Compact SUV
EV Range: 37 miles
MPG-e: 102
MPG-gas: 41
Annual Operating Cost: $750
Tax Credit: $6,843
Base Price: $32,650.
Note the conversion between kWh and MPG-e is based on 33.705kWh = 1 US gal of petrol/gas.
IE in the above the Ford Escape uses 33.7kWh approx to travel every 102 miles on battery.
Note the range limitation on battery of 37 miles (60km approx). Approx 21kWh/100km Aussie.
2 Likes
We should do the same for transparency.
The EU has started a debate as to whether PHEV’s should have a future.
The elephant in the room is that too many owners fail to recharge them often enough to maximise the benefit of running on the battery alone around town. When running on petrol they consume more fuel compared to similar sized ICE vehicles due to the added weight of having two power systems. It’s in black and white in the news item.
As a comparison, pure hybrid vehicles such as the Toyota Prius perform better at all times. The battery and electrical system adds less weight, working primarily as an energy recovery system. Similar thinking to the benefits of KERS in a Formula 1 car.
3 Likes
Glad someone is looking. In the mean time less observant Australian comsumers are presented with a choice that is on the face of it misleading and IMHO purposefully so. Compare 1.9L/100 ( Mitsubishi Outlander) to my 4.5L/100 (Toyota Camry). Its not obvious from the numbers that the Mitsubishi is less economical on Petrol. I’ve had no reply from the Miniter for transport :(.
My prior experience which is decidedly limited is they run on Bubble Time. As parliamentary sitting sessions can be months apart, other things seem to have a similar priority.
1 Like
If you get a reply, it could take some time. The process is that any correspondence which is considered reasonable, is it is forwarded onto the relevant department to compile a response. Once the appropriate officer has been assigned the responsibility for preparing information for the response, it then needs to go through an approval process before heading off back to the minister’s office for a final check and then responded to as through it has come from the minister.
If you are not seen as a reasonable request or unworthy to investigate further, you may only get a standard acknowledgement sayings thanks for your correspondence and the Minister will consider it in the future in relation to policies in the ADR area.
If it sounds like a convoluted process, it can be and can take some time (weeks to months depending on the priority of the response). I suspect your response will fall into the low priority as it isn’t media, legal or other formal requests for information. These other higher priority requests will be actioned first and others shuffled down the list.
I have been lucky (or possibly better to say unlucky) enough to be at the officer end of the chain of Ministerial/Councillor requests in a past career.
2 Likes
It’s not just MMA. I was looking at Hyundai’s EV options and noticed, this review and spec sheets of the Hyundai Ioniq PHEV state an ADR combined drive cycle economy of 1.1l per 100km.
There are other figures in the review suggesting a real world 900km range on a 45l tank. (Approx 5l/100km)
It might be closer to fact given the standard hybrid consumes under 4l/100km in the extra urban test cycle.
3 Likes
It appears it isn’t only Mitsubshi where ADR fuel use for PHEV seem to be unrealistic…
It potentially time that fuel use calculations for hybrids/PHEVs were reviewed to represent real life driving patterns.
2 Likes
Glad to see the news is getting out–Still no response from the transport minister :(.
2 Likes
While not a hybrid or PHEV, a recent court case may have ramifications for how vehicle fuel use, as shown on new vehicle labels, is tested and reported in the future…
It will be interesting to see how the responsible government agency responds to the court decision. I expect the current testing standard will be reviewed to try to bring test results in line with real world vehicle use…such as road going tests rather than in a laboratory.
2 Likes
As noted in the article Europe does test cars on the road. The basis of the court finding was that the disclaimer/qualification on the fuel consumption labels is in fine print. IE not prominent and liable to being overlooked by the purchaser. A redesign of the label might be the simpler lowest cost solution.
A standardised on the road test will based on the European approach give a closer estimate of actual fuel consumption. It will remain an estimate with real life use subject to variations in traffic conditions, driving style and location.
Is the greater concern the reliability of the real world, actual tail pipe emissions (CO2 eq per km)?
Should the test be conducted on the M1, M6, M… in each of our major capitals in the morning and evening peak hours. Any other test sequence can only be taken as a guide to relative performance, and not honestly representative of the real on the road outcome? Hybrid and PHEV vehicles might excel under those conditions.
The link in this and the previous reply both go to the same place. Assume that was not intentional?
correct
Success!! Had a reply from a government flunky that acknowledged the issue and stated that they were designing changes. Don’t hold your breath:)
3 Likes
In defence of the manufacturers/importers, it’s not like they have a choice in reporting fuel economy in this potentially misleading (especially for PHEVs) way… They are required to report on the ADR-based figures. Not that they aren’t dodgy in other ways. There are reports on the Outlander forcing the engine on when supposedly in battery-only mode, for example.
Yes they have to comply but Can’t cut them slack when they refuse—yes refuse to elaborate on the data. MMAL would not tell me what the petrol only range was. They would only say that per the ADR they report 1.9L/100 and the petrol tank held 50 Litres. Just plain misleading. Not going to cut them any slack for that
2 Likes
