Petrol and Diesel Vehicles that fail fuel consumption and emissions claims

1

The AAA has commenced a 200 vehicle program to test real world fuel consumption and exhaust emissions. The first test results from 9 vehicles are in.

Four small/medium SUV brands/models achieved close to or better than the nameplate lab testing. The figures stated in the product marketing brochures and specifications.

Knowing real world results will assist some consumers to make better informed decisions. Hopefully the ICE motor vehicle industry chooses to go with the flow and do not lobby to stop the program.

7 Likes
2

Based on purchase trends it appears many consumers do not care about much except size these days, all while whinging about running costs or range. :expressionless:

Is a 13% discrepancy important to them when even ‘on claim’ one uses 50-100% more fuel than another and they go for the ‘guzzler’?

7 Likes
3

Seems to me governments need to make vehicle buyers take notice by targeting the hip pocket nerve. :confused:

There are very real and increasing costs to society from ICE vehicles in general, and particularly from the growing fleet of unnecessarily large vehicles.

Shouldn’t registration fees be significantly increased for all ICE vehicles, with proportionally higher fees imposed on larger ones? Large ICE vehicles not only put more strain on roads and carpark infrastructure, but have a bigger impact on health costs as well, being both more polluting and more dangerous to pedestrians than smaller vehicles.

If it cost a lot more just to own a monster SUV than a more reasonably-sized one, maybe some people would put more thought into what type and size of vehicle they actually need.

8 Likes
4

The people’s representative’s would first need to be persuaded a change is to their benefit. Nationally the common view is it is perfect as is. The following link explains just how well it is adjusting for all the states and territories.

How registration is calculated | Transport and motoring | Queensland Government.

Nationally light vehicles are those with a GVM of up to 4.5tonnes. This includes the largest of the imported pickup styled trucks. Good news for Victorians who pay the same to register a V8 super sized 4WD as a 4 cylinder Kia Picanto. :roll_eyes:

7 Likes
5

Step one would be to get our emission standards up to scratch. We are well behind similar countries around the world. The latest and greatest standard we use is ten years old. The matter has been under review for many years but no action yet. While we wait the morbidity and mortality of those who live near main roads due to air pollution remains unsatisfactory.

We do not have fuel efficiency standards at all!

In the meantime all the inefficient ICE vehicles that would be penalised OS are sold here.

9 Likes
6

According to the ABS, there were ~20.1 million vehicles registered in Australia as at 31 January 2021.
According to VFACTS, 1.08 million new vehicles were sold in Australia in 2022, the break down by fuel type:

Petrol: 551,556
Diesel: 361,366
Hybrid: 81,786
Electric: 33,410
PHEV: 5,937
Hydr.FCEV: 15

Australia’s emissions standards have led to manufacturers selling off vehicles they can’t sell elsewhere at “competitive” prices, while bumping up the prices on EVs in their lines so they can divert their limited production capacities elsewhere.

Bear in mind, based on the above numbers - also taking into account the average age of the Australian vehicle inventory is 10.6 years - it will take a long time to change.

14,850,675 PASSENGER VEHICLES
74,324 CAMPERVANS
3,519,457 LIGHT COMMERCIAL VEHICLES
187,329 LIGHT RIGID TRUCKS
364,989 HEAVY RIGID TRUCKS
109,927 ARTICULATED TRUCKS
25,378 NON-FREIGHT CARRYING VEHICLES
97,060 BUSES
913,803 MOTORCYCLES
20,142,942 TOTAL MOTOR VEHICLES

3 Likes
7

No, this isn’t the case to date.

In the future Australia has the risk of importing cars which can’t be imported to other countries, such as those in the EU, which have higher emission standards.

An example being diesel vehicles. These are being phased out in the EU, whilst Australia hasn’t implemented similar plans. There is a risk in the future Australia will be importing diesel vehicles which can’t be imported into other countries such as the EU.

Likewise with petrol ICE vehicles, as some countries implement either fleet based emission limits or vehicle emission limits, there is potential that Australia may accept the import of vehicles which can’t be imported into countries where vehicles don’t assist in achieving these limits.

It is a myth that Australia is currently a dumping ground for vehicles which can’t be sold elsewhere.

There is a potential risk it could occur in the future if car manufacturers chose to produce two categories of vehicles, one for those countries with stringent vehicle/fleet emissions and those without (this is unlikely). The other risk occurs where manufacturers are unable to manufacture vehicles which comply with countries with stringent emission standards (more likely). They may look to other markets to sell their vehicles.

Currently Australia sells the same vehicleS and engines as other countries, the difference being to meet ADR requirements. Australia fleet is also different to many other countries where consumers opt for larger vehicles such as SUVs, 4WDs and light commercial vehicles as their private vehicles. This impacts on Australia’s overall fleet fuel consumptions which have been reported as being higher than other countries. As a result of this, the Australia Institute reported in 2018 that:

  • the average carbon dioxide intensity for new passenger vehicles in Australia was 169.8gCO2/km compared to 129.9gCO2/km in the United States, 120.4gCO2/km in Europe and 114.6gCO2/km in Japan

This has been misconstrued by some as proof that Australia is a dumping ground for vehicles other countries don’t want. This isn’t the case, but reflects Australia’s appetite for larger vehicles with higher vehicle fuel consumption/emissions. The Australia Institute also calculated that Australian’s could have saved about $6B since 2015 if more stringent fuel emission standards were implemented. These likely would have impacted on the vehicle types purchased within the national fleet.

It is worth noting that there is potential that some vehicles with lower emissions, can’t currently be imported as they don’t meet ADR requirements, such as mandatory safety systems or crash test requirements. A good example is micro EV vehicles. To allow the import of such vehicles, the community as a whole would need to accept the risks of such vehicles.

EV manufacturers have focused on ‘selling’ their vehicles in other markets to chase government subsidies or to assist meeting fleet emission standards (government policy forcing consumers to purchase EVs). EV manufacturers obtain premiums for their vehicles in such markets and why the EV industry is pushing Australia’s government to follow suit in relation to policies which encourage (force) EV purchases. EVs can assist in reducing fleet emission standards when recharged using non-fossil fuel sources (solar, wind, nuclear, biomass etc).

1 Like
8

That report is 3 1/2 years old and its focus is on the small proportion of EVs in Oz at the time. The only reference I can see that bears directly on importing higher emission ICE vehicles is;

If manufacturers push the heavy emitting models they are unable, or unwilling, to sell in other markets into the garages of Australian consumers, it will take longer, and more effort, to bring down Australia’s rising transport sector emissions.

The Australia Institute report you quote is 5 years old now. As well as presenting the figures that you say have been misconstrued it also said;

If manufacturers push the heavy emitting models they are unable, or unwilling, to sell in other markets into the garages of Australian consumers, it will take longer, and more effort, to bring down Australia’s rising transport sector emissions.

That may be true or not but I don’t see that the references you quote support it very well. I would like to see some analysis that is current, uses more recent data and addresses the issue directly.

In the meantime, whether Oz is a dumping ground or not, the same TAI report tells us;

Australian motorists are the victims of having one of the world’s least efficient and most polluting car fleets, and it’s costing us every time we fill up at the petrol pump.

To which I would add we are breathing in the excessive pollution too - to our considerable detriment.

If it hasn’t happened yet we ought to make sure we don’t become a dumping ground. One reason that we cannot move to the next level of the ADR standard because our fuel is too dirty. What has been done about that during the years that it has been a known problem?

2 Likes
9

Without engaging in this and that, semantics, pasts, presents, and futures, it is clear the industry has a huge investment in ICE vehicles and economics demands they get top returns from that investment. How does that play in this topic? I was reminded of my old topic that is germane to ‘how it works with technology’.

with that topic including a link to, drum roll

While the semantics can be argued ad nauseum as well as the reason it is so, no well honed industry is going to ‘move on’ when it can continue to profit from ‘how it is’. Every year fewer jurisdictions are amenable to ‘how it is’ and act to make that ‘how it was’. Our governments are historically short on pro-activity so here we are.

Governments have taken what appear to be bipartisan positions that dividends and investment from multi-nationals are important so moving on to follow the EU will only be achieved by dragging them not just pushing them along.

Whether one prefers the spin of a’dumping ground’ or “Manufacturers have already expressed concerns that our vehicle emissions standards are making it increasingly difficult to convince their global parent companies that next generation engine technologies, such as hybrids and plug-in hybrids or vehicles fitted with advanced driver-assistance systems (ADAS) and intelligent transport systems (ITS), should be allocated to the Australian market,” the department wrote.

It is the same reality on our roads and showrooms, albeit for different reasons depending on how one frames their words and their viewpoint.

3 Likes
10

There are numerous sources such as:

And there are many more from reliable sources.

It hasn’t existed to date, but risks do exist in the future especially if most other countries introduce vehicle/fleet emission limits. There are some economists which believe that even countries which don’t introduce such limits, if they import vehicles the availability of higher emission vehicles will decrease. Those countries which manufacture ICE vehicles have a higher potential to be left behind (continue to produce high emissions ICE vehicles for their domestic market). Maybe Australia is fortunate it no longer has a domestic ICE car industry.

The EV industry lobby group have been active in spreading the myth which some media outlets have reported as ‘fact’. Like every other industry, the EV interests lie in maximising sales and profits, and use misconstrued information to push for change which supports their industry.

2 Likes
11

I did some work for the ARRB a bit over a decade ago on advanced vehicle technology aimed at improved road safety and traffic efficiency. I formed the view that it would not acheive the claimed safety improvement if it only warned drivers rather than taking action automatically, among other concerns. At the time, there were no vehicles produced with automatic emergency braking (AEB). The tech was “connected vehicles” and co-operative intelligent transport systems. It could yet be introduced soon. AEB began to surface in vehicles in 2013. In 2015, the US NTSB called for a statutory requirement to force manufacturers to introduce AEB, because real world testing was so compelling. ANCAP began tracking the Australian rollout of AEB in 2015. It has recently become and ADR mandate https://www.ancap.com.au/media-and-gallery/media-releases/aeb-adr.
Today, most new vehicles have AEB. The rest will either need to comply or exit the market. It isn’t perfect technology, and some systems are better than others.

Sometimes, mandates are required, provided enough time is allowed for adaption. Then, it takes another 10 years (at least) for any new technology to filter through the vehicle fleet.

5 Likes
12

Numbers do not make up for lack of relevance and quality data. I could list several sources that take the opposite view, I don’t because they are as weak as the others.

Several of the referenced articles dwell on the lack of take-up of EVs in Oz but that is not the same thing as dumping high emission ICEs. I don’t see any case where the issue is addressed directly. None say: there is a reliable measure of the presence or absence of dumping, we have taken that measure and found it shows it isn’t happening. To me it remains an open question.

While we have such divergent ideas on what constitutes reasonable evidence there is little to say.

13

This premise is based on Australia having near the worst vehicle emission standards in the world. This isn’t the case:

The EU currently has Euro6 standards and plans to move towards Euro7 in coming years (there has been some resistance within the EU and there is a push to weaken these standards). These standards are considered more stringent than China’s and many other countries which use Euro5 or lower standards. This includes Australia which currently is based on Euro5, but is moving towards Euro6 in coming years. This is recognised in the ABC article above, notwithstanding the criticism that some believe timeframes for adopting should be brought forward.

This ABC article also indicates Australia is a small vehicle market and

manufacturers would be unlikely to make specialised cars to uniquely suit Australia, and instead the country would be left out.

This means that if Australia went alone and had say more stringent emission standards in the world, car manufacturers wouldn’t specifically manufacture vehicles to meet these standards. Likewise vehicle manufacturers won’t make higher emission vehicles for Australia.

This also means as a result and because we don’t have our own car manufacturing industry, Australia is a follower of standards introduced in other countries. It follows those countries which have car manufacturers and large domestic markets. In the past this has been to mirror US standards, but in the future will move closer, but somewhat delayed compared to the EU, towards the EU standards.

The ‘dumping’ would only exist if Australia had the lowest or near lowest emission standards, and imported vehicles from countries with similar standards. Australia imports most of its vehicles from Japan, Thailand (mostly Japanese manufacturers), China and Korea. Vehicles are also imported from other counties such as the US and from those in the EU.

The argument that high emission vehicles that can’t be sold in others countries are being dumped in Australia doesn’t stack up. Even if there was some truth behind these allegations, it would mean car manufacturers in other countries would have special production runs for Australia. Even the ABC article indicates the nonsense of such a proposition.

2 Likes
14

Pro and con comments are always opinions and sometimes factual and other times fanciful. The same datasets are often interpreted differently depending on the observer’s bent.

Because of ADRs, RHD, and kit per model there is always tailoring necessary for our market but an underlying feature of manufacturing is plants built for ‘old’ technologies and standards can be kept running until they no longer are economic. Their economic lives are extended when there are markets that will accept their products.

It is not an absolutist situation where ‘only Australia’ but one where the ‘third world of emissions standards’ collectively becomes the ‘dumping ground’ or marketplace where those vehicles can be sold.

3 Likes
15

I don’t see why. Being well behind Europe, the USA and similar markets would suffice.

Of course if any of the pundits had a clear measure of the extent of the problem we don’t need any premises at all. If we can directly observe the phenomenon happening then the explanation is another matter. So far I see no data that points clearly to either dumping is, or is not, happening.

Perhaps we can agree that we do need cleaner fuel, better emission standards and to have fuel economy standards.

2 Likes
16

But Australia isn’t. We are behind the EU, China and possibly Japan, similar to US and other OECD countries and ahead of many developing countries.

That is correct. Collecting dumping information or import of cars no other country wants would be relatively easy. There is no data or evidence indicating that it is happening. If one suggests that it must be happening because there is no data, then this falls into the realms of rumours or conspiracies.

As no data/evidence other than political statements, it means it isn’t occurring.

But, it isn’t to say it could happen in the future. Australia could switch its imported cars to those countries which have lower standards. However, this would mean that the vehicles wouldn’t/may not comply with Australia’s emission standards.

Yes possible, but would mean Australia spec cars/engines would be different to the EU or other markets. Our vehicle specs are the same with exception of those to meet ADR requirements.

Data indicating manufacturers do special Australian production vehicles for dumping in Australia doesn’t exist.

Vehicles for different countries could have different engine management programming, but the underlying vehicles are the same.

Other countries also sell other makes and/or models. Many of these either don’t meet ADR requirements or don’t meet Australians vehicle appetite (micro vehicles are an example).

17

It matters little in context of the OP. The primary concern is the first real world tested group of vehicles demonstrated for Vehicles available in Australia today worse emissions and or fuel economy results than Euro 5. In real world testing 5 out of 9 of the models (all Euro 5 spec) failed to achieve the published performance standards.

Politely there are two ways to look at this.

  1. Firstly is there a deficiency in the laboratory testing?One that causes consumers to be mislead on the absolute fuel economy and emissions of the model purchased. Would a consumer have made a different choice given more reliable information?
  2. A second observation would be to ask if there is another factor to consider. It’s recent enough in consumer memory to refer to “Diesel Gate” and the VW enterprise as an example of what can happen. Hopefully not a real concern today irrespective of manufacturer.

If we were to look further at Australia’s reluctance to adopt Euro 6 standards.

In the European Union (EU), the Euro 5 standard applied to the sale of all new vehicles from January 2011 until September 2015. From September 2015, all new vehicles sold in the EU must be Euro 6-compliant.

Australia is out of step. Some of our newer vehicles may be even worse than we have been led to believe. Real world testing of more new models to follow and complete the picture. 9 out of 200 results so far with only 4 equaling or bettering the test standard suggests there will be many more not so great a choice.

1 Like
18

No, it means we don’t know. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

1 Like
19

Not really. As an example for this topic, different markets have different engine specifications, some markets being de-rated from optimal because of fuel, taxes, or marketing. It is general knowledge for example the engines in personal imports from Japan might need parts imported from Japan because local equivalents won’t fit.

Perhaps this is new information?

20

Agree.

There also appears from an earlier article that some manufacturers laboratory and real life testing results are very similar, while others are up to 13% off. Even the same manufacturer, such as Toyota, has one vehicle which is very similar (RAV4 Hybrid) and another model (standard RAV4) with about a 13% difference.

The second dot point is unlikely, based on this information.

Australia isn’t out of step. The EU is one step ahead of almost every country in the world for vehicle emission standards. The next ones under the EU would possibly be Japan and China, then the rest of the world which includes Australia, US etc. The last ones would be developing countries.

For many other products, the EU and Australia also have differing standards or requirements. It doesn’t mean Australia (or the EU) is out of step with the rest of the world.

The world is a diverse place and differences are easily to see between sovereign nations. These differences doesn’t mean a country is out of step with another, and heaven help us if we had to take on the standard of every other country as our own. Australia would be a very different place.

No and I covered that above. Vehicles imported into Australia need to need ADR requirements. The ‘A’ standard for Australian.

I also mentioned that:

Vehicles for different countries could have different engine management programming, but the underlying vehicles are the same.

This could be due to fuel quality, driver habits, emission standards. climates etc.