Petrol and Diesel Vehicles that fail fuel consumption and emissions claims

22

Unless I missed something else, what you posted was

Engine performance and chassis specs, eg performance and driving features, are not ADR requirements. Emissions, seat belts, turn signal lights, structural issues, and safety features, etc are. As for emissions ours is a low bar internationally speaking if we consider ourselves first world.

While your post was future tensed, that is precisely how the market has and continues to work. Some 3rd world countries do not mandate many if any safety features as another example, but that is OT here.

As for claiming the US and Australia are the same, yes and no. Yes in 2014 and maybe still today, but tomorrow? Although a few years dated (2014!) I believe this remains relevant as changes are glacial as @CaptJack opined previously.

Over the period to 2020, the EU and Japan have the most ambitious standards in absolute terms. Standards in China and the US capitalise on the faster rates of reduction possible when starting with a less efficient fleet; their 2020 standards are expected to take these nations from efficiency levels similar to Australia’s to levels much closer to the global leaders.

https://www.climatechangeauthority.gov.au/reviews/light-vehicle-emissions-standards-australia/international-implementation-vehicle-emissions

Semantics? Manufacturers sell their products where they can. Where they can depends on local requirements in each market as well as the profitability of doing so. ‘Let them in and they will come’.

It depends on how one defines ‘underlying vehicle’. If the parts are interchangeable yes. But they are not always.

23

I might not have been clear. What I have been attempting to communicate is:

  • Australia imports the same make and models, with the same engines as other countries. This includes the EU which has higher emission standards. Vehicles imported into Australia need to meet ADR requirements, likewise those imported or manufactured in other countries need to meet local standards.
  • Other countries have vehicles which Australia doesn’t import. Examples being the low emission micro vehicles which exist in the EU. There are reports these aren’t imported to Australia because of ADR requirements, and possibly there isn’t a market due to consumer tastes (being a wealthier country, in general Australian consumers seem to prefer larger vehicles)
  • European vehicles available in Australia have the same engines as available in the EU. They have different setups to meet local conditions as outlined in an earlier post, but aren’t specially manufactured for or vehicles other countries don’t want. If they were, they wouldn’t be available in other markets including the EU.

The point being made was Australia is the dumping ground for vehicles other countries don’t want. This is a furphy at this point in time.

How can Australia be a dumping ground when other countries also import makes and models of vehicles with the same engines.

Yes, Australia may import vehicles which aren’t imported to other countries. While I haven’t checked, such vehicles might include US made light trucks into the EU. If the example is correct, these vehicles being imported into Australia has nothing to do with them not being imported into the EU or another country which currently doesn’t import them - and they aren’t being ‘dumped’ here.

There seems consensus that this could change in the future if Australia doesn’t move forward, as planned, towards higher vehicle emission standards. Australia could start sourcing its vehicles from say developing countries, which would include new makes and models. This is unlikely to occur fir a range of reasons. If Australia did, even if it is highly unlikely follow this path, this wouldn’t be ‘dumping’ but Australia would be importing vehicles which meets ADR requirements.

24

Only if somebody produces some evidence that falsifies the claim, otherwise it is uncertain.

25

It is otherwise a rumour.

26

That’s only true if the product on some kinds of dumping. There are multiple ways that dumping can occur.

e.g.

  1. Differential pricing - the manufacturer sets a different pricing model in market (a) compared to market (b). This apparently happens for some EVs in Australia, to protect other markets that require manufacturers to achieve a specified average emission standard across the range of vehicles sold weighted by vehicle sales. They manage it with pricing and pricing equivalent offers.

  2. Engineering operates within tolerances. In any production run, compliance to tolerances will naturally vary from the optimal. Production efficiencies can produce “A” spec, “B” spec and “C” spec parts in the same run. Holding to al “A” spec can equally be done, but comes at a higher average cost. It is absolutely reasonable to separate “A” spec product into bins for one assembly line run and so on. The “A” spec then supplies one market, and the “B” spec supplies another. They produce “the same” models.

Are these examples of dumping or merely clever economics of marketing? They might be both. The term “dumping” is typically used in trade to describe an unfair competitive market mechanism - selling below cost. However cross subsidies are not particularly different.

That’s not really an opinion, it’s based on the Australian car inventory and annual sales numbers. Registered Vehicles ABS and Aust Federal Chamber of Auto Industries sales data
~20.1 million registered vehicles; average age 10.6 years; ~1.1 million new vehicle sales per annum (which has risen from ~1 million

27

‘Dumping’ was a term used to describe an overseas maker of goods selling onto a market such as Australia’s at a price local makers could not profitably match. The idea to get market share at a loss at first.

Well Australia no longer makes cars, so we get what overseas makers can produce.

Diesel engines for cars pretty much dead in Europe, but still liked in Australia. The EV market years ahead overseas compared to us.

3 Likes
28

A Fact Check that might be worth reading, it acknowledges inaccuracies, though evidence is towards Australia being a high emitter of emissions from our vehicles and low efficiency.

Definitely some and possibly many vehicles sold here from higher efficiency markets are de-tuned to cope with our poorer fuel quality. This de-tuning leads to higher emissions. If they are not de-tuned they cannot run or run so poorly that they would not be attractive to potential buyers.

From the Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries is this statement that plainly outlines that our vehicles will be running largely (if not already doing so) 3rd World Engine tech

"Until this is achieved, Australian new car buyers – many currently welded to historic 91 RON fuel - will not be able to purchase vehicles with the latest engine and exhaust technology. In essence, engines in new cars sold in Australia will be those powering similar vehicles sold in 3rd world countries with similar fuel standards and, due to the declining numbers of cars produced for these markets, engines will increasingly become more expensive.

Why? Because global automotive companies are now focusing on the development of engine/exhaust technologies applicable to large markets (India and China) and advanced markets (Europe, USA and North Asia)
markets with fuel standards much higher than Australia."

In 2021 another article (Conflicting claims about Australian fuel quality | GoAuto) had this commentary

"Popular small cars including the Mazda 3 and Toyota Corolla Hybrid are already detuned to operate with Australian fuel standards, the FCAI says.

Volkswagen says it is also restricted to offering its latest Golf small car with engine technology from the previous generation model in a bid to guarantee its high-tech newer engines would not fall foul of issues including clogged petrol particulate filters and catalytic converters, damaged exhaust gas oxygen sensors, and destructive preignition.

Volkswagen Group Australia managing director Michael Bartsch told GoAuto that the majority of European-sourced vehicles required low-sulphur, high-octane petrol to operate reliably and that Australian consumers could soon face diminished options when it comes to buying a new car.

“VGA maintains that for some mass market brands, Australia has long been a dumping ground. Australia lags more than a decade behind global best practice, including New Zealand, in terms of CO2 and sulphur emissions,” Mr Bartsch said.

“While all but one Volkswagen vehicle conforms to Euro 6 standards, the outgoing Amarok ute, a number of VW’s top 10 selling rivals continue to import to Australia Euro 5 compliant engines that cannot be sold in Europe, where instead they sell many of the same models with Euro 6 engines.

“Euro 5 development costs have long since been amortised, yet frequently these vehicles are priced in proximity to Volkswagens and Skodas,” he stressed.

Mr Bartsch said that although the Australian government was slowly taking steps towards improving fuel quality for Australian motorists and vehicle importers, the topic of vehicle emissions remained largely ignored.

“Long overdue action is being undertaken on petrol quality, but unless a hard and fast CO2 reduction target is set, manufacturers will continue to prioritise markets both for zero emission vehicles and the most efficient conventional engines,” he noted.

“Australia has had a limit of 10ppm of sulphur in diesel since 2009, the previous limit being 50ppm. Until at least 2024, however, 50ppm will remain the ‘best’ sulphur level that can be guaranteed in petrol – and that is only costly premium unleaded. Most petrol sold in Australia is rated 150ppm of sulphur."

5 Likes
29

I have owned four second-hand vehicles imported from Japan, the most recent being personally imported via an agent on my behalf. With one exception (*noted below), these have been reliable, cost-effective in meeting my needs, and genuine parts have been easy to obtain. Yes, in the case of some parts, they need to be imported from Japan, but I have seen evidence of consumers that have purchased new vehicles through local dealerships who subsequently need to wait for a part to be imported as there is no stock held locally.
Used vehicles which are permitted for import under the Australian SEVS laws, frequently feature engines that were never available in locally delivered models, and the Australians buying them are buying them for that very reason. When these are then onsold to another motorist, it is clearly evident that they have been imported under SEVS as they carry the distinctive purple compliance label ( and almost always have other indications that they were manufactured for a primary market other than Australia, e.g. my current car has some controls labelled in Japanese ).

Now, noting that Australian automotive dealers would rather that they not have competition from the ( very small number of ) private imports, I’ll simply mention that the only *issue of automotive vehicle sales fraud that I have had to pursue through the court system involved a licensed dealer in NSW. :pensive:

5 Likes
30

I have written previously about CO2 emissions from ICE vehicles, 1L of petrol producing about 2.3kg CO2, and 1L of diesel producing about 2.68kg CO2. However, it had never occurred to me to factor in the emissions of the actual fuel. An article in the recent issue number 165 of ‘Renew’ states:-

“The CO2 emissions associated with the burning of liquid fuels represents about 2.5kg per litre of combusted petrol as you travel. However, on top of that, energy used in refining that fuel adds another kilogram of CO2 in what is known as the ‘well to wheel’ total of CO2 emissions. By avoiding burning each litre of fuel, we avoid emitting 3.5kg of CO2
” (This can be found by googling ‘John Hermans petroleum is fast becoming a dirty word’ and finding the second paragraph prior to the graphic design for “How big is the oil market?”.)

An extra 1kg of CO2 emissions seems excessive to me, but if true it is a major concern. Green Vehicle Guide is much less pessimistic, only adding about 6% to the CO2 emissions of my Golf from including the emissions from the production of fuel as well as its combustion.

Does anyone know if Renew’s guesstimate is reasonably accurate?

2 Likes
31

There are fugitive emissions (de-gassing of crude among these), transport of the crude to refining, refining of crude to it’s various products (uses a fair bit of energy), storage of the products, transport of the fuel to the wholesaler, transport of the fuel to the retailer, volatile aromatics lost during storage including at retailers. I think it wouldn’t be hard to get to that 1 kg extra.

Just for a fun fact for land vehicles it is called “well to the wheel” as you noted and for shipping it is called “well to the wake”.

4 Likes
32

Perhaps Renew are using a rounding simplification to keep the numbers easier to grasp?

Well to Tank (WTT), Tank to Wheel (TTW), and Well to Wheel (WTW) are commonly recognised terms. Searching the internet one needs to search using the added term of “emissions factors” or “conversion factors” to return more relevant/meaningful links.

The following is one of several useful links. It makes an interesting read (for some). I’m being a little lazy here in not attempting to seek out more from the referenced source data. Note for the Aussie example table BP has referred back to the 2020 Australian National Greenhouse Accounts.

IMG_1354
IMG_13541536×796 140 KB

The WTT emission factors will vary slightly year to year as the mix of sources can change. There are also significant differences between nations.

Don’t anyone ask me why motorcycles have a different WTT factor to petrol cars. Feel free to research and share what turns up.

1 Like
33

Then they confuse the comparison by adopting kgCO2e/km for vans rather than sticking to the CO2e per litre as per the cars and motorcycles.

34

Thanks for that link. I was confused by the Renew article which seemed to imply that 1kg was the well-to-wheel emissions when it seems to be just (an approximation for) the well-to-tank emissions.

3.1kg of CO2 per litre (2.3 + 0.8) is a somewhat depressing figure for the well-to-wheel emissions for a petrol ICE car. I think Green Vehicle Guide is an excellent source of information on fuel efficiency of new and used cars, but it seems to give erroneous results for lifecycle CO2 by only adding the emissions from the production of the fuel and not the other well-to-tank emissions as listed by ‘grahroll’. I also think that if Green Vehicle Guide gave figures for CO2 emissions in kg/100km instead of g/km it would be more informative to the average person. If I travel 600km on a trip at 5L/100km during highway travel, about 93kg of CO2 will be emitted {(3.1 x 5) x 6} for overall emissions, or 69kg {(2.3 x 5) x 6} for just the car emissions.

1 Like
35

The Green Vehicle Guide (GVG) refers to the Australian National Greenhouse Accounts Factors published by the Australian Govt. The scope 3 emissions factor used by the GVG. A wild guess the conversion factor provided only accounts for the wholesale-retail distribution chain emissions.

Two other view points.
The UK looking at transport - bus operations.

IMG_1353
IMG_13531502×1777 341 KB

A different take by the IEA notes of the emissions from the energy sector 15% are from the production, transport and refining of petroleum and gas products. 40% are due to the direct combustion of petroleum and gas products. IE as a crude approximation the GHG cost of each 1 litre of fuel consumed by a vehicle will add 37.5% more to the vehicles tailpipe emissions. A similar result to that indicated in the UK assessment and my previous post referencing BP.

36

And to add fuel to the fire (pun intended):

It doesn’t help that Australians seem to have developed a real taste for BIG vehicles. With my emphasis,


 annual car sales data showed 2023 set a record for new car sales, as demand for fuel-thirsty SUVs and utes reached new heights. Not a single sedan or hatchback ranked in the top 10 most-bought cars in Australia in 2023.

2 Likes
37

Some prefer their personal freedom to do whatever, and others focus on the welfare of the wider community using levers of tax laws.

3 Likes
38

I think the tax laws have a lot to do with it, along with the common but miguided belief that big SUVs keep their occupants safer. :confused:

1 Like