/editorial/articleLeadwide-the-aaa-conducted-real-world-emissions-testing-usigt8qfn.jpg)
An independent Australian study of real-world vehicle emissions has found that cars use significantly more fuel than figures promoted by carmakers and the government.
The Australian Automotive Association, a body formed by state motoring clubs such as the NRMA and RACV, says fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions produced by new cars are on average 20 per cent higher than advertised figures, costing drivers hundreds of dollars per year in extra fuel.
Some cars recorded figures 35 per cent higher than manufacturer-claimed statistics during an independent real-world evaluation intended to poke holes in the current vehicle emissions testing scheme.
/editorial/articleLeadwide-emissions-testing-is-currently-conducted-in-controglgkyp.jpg)
The AAA commissioned a $500,000 study into real-world vehicle emissions following the Volkswagen diesel emissions scandal in 2015. Volkswagen has admitted to skirting US emissions laws by programming two sets of engine behaviour into its cars - one for real-world driving and another for laboratory-based fuel economy and emissions figures.
Volkswagen and Audi announced last week that 67,000 vehicles in Australia will soon be reprogrammed with new engine controls in turbo-diesel models, in addition to the 9000 VW Amarok utes already recalled as part of the emissions scandal.
Michael Bradley, chief executive of the AAA, said the disparity between advertised fuel figures and real-world results related closely to lab-based vehicle testing.
"These results suggest that as emissions regulations around the world become more stringent, auto manufacturers are producing vehicles that limit emissions in the laboratory, but not necessarily in the real world," Mr Bradley said.
"With the government actively considering stricter standards for Australia's vehicle and fuel sectors, it's critical that real-world testing is introduced to ensure motorists aren't asked to pay more for regulation that fails to deliver environmental benefit."
The AAA, with the help of engineering consultancy group ABMARC, tested 10 popular vehicles in Melbourne between May and October. The group plans to test another 20 cars, including recalled Volkswagen models, before releasing a full report in 2017.
Engineers strapped sophisticated sensors to the rear of each car before testing them on urban, rural and highway roads. Each car was tested twice, running through cold and hot start procedures to produce extensive data. While the AAA will not say which vehicles it tested, it found more than one car exceeded legislative limits for potentially harmful emissions. The preliminary study found that it "may not be possible to rely on tests conducted in overseas jurisdictions" to inform Australian motorists.
New vehicles sold in Australia must display fuel consumption information, data which is obtained through rolling road tests designed to replicate real-world vehicle use. Authorities in Europe have recognised the limitations of static testing, introducing real-world emissions tests in the EU from September 2017. The Australian government is understood to be considering a similar arrangement
/vehicles/redbook/CITR11MN.jpg)
10 Comments
real-world emissions testing using sophisticated exhaust sensors? Yeh every car I see on the road has that stuff hanging off the back end. NOT. Why can't they measure fuel put in, distance travelled, fuel left? Surely exhaust emmissions can be measured with smaller equipment?
...you were thinking, like a hosepipe into the cabin, or a canary in a cage? ...doh.
So the AAA couldn't reproduce figures with different temperature, atmospheric pressure, altitude and road conditions? One of the basic precepts of scientific rigour is the repeatability of the test environment so as to exclude variability; simply saying you couldn't reproduce the figures of unknown test conditions is hardly conclusive. Does adding tens of kilograms worth of equipment that also affects the aerodynamics of the vehicle not also vary the test results? Anyone who has bothered comparing their fuel consumption between winter and summer, or even in differing traffic and road conditions knows that you can easily see variability of 10-20%. This would compare quite neatly with the AAA's recorded figures. Furthermore, statutory tests dictate a strict set of testing guidelines, many of which do not involve the vehicle moving; these include both noise and pollutant measurements. Oh for the halcyon days when engineers actually undertook rigorous testing and accounted for variability.
I have a brand new Merc A250. Combined fuel use is quoted as 6.7L/100kms. So far, after my fourth tank of fuel, I am achieving 14L/100kms. I'll grant you that the car needs to be run in but my first tank got me 20L/100kms. Not only are the fuel use figures unachievable they may be construed to be fraudulent.
How is this news? From the Green Vehicle Guide(http://www.greenvehicleguide.gov.au/pages/Information/FuelConsumptionLabel) The results are based on a standard test procedure so consumers can reliably compare the performance of different models under the same test conditions. Data from the UK indicates that that urban fuel consumption values can be 20?50% higher than the combined value.
SKay - I own a 2015 CLA45 which has now covered 20,000km and I regularly achieve 7.5l/100km. On the open road I get 6.8l/100km. You can't expect reasonable fuel figures till your car is run in. The best figures are after 10,000km usually.
That's funny, my Australian made 7 year old petrol BF MKIII wagon averages 10.6L/100km and its quoted consumption is 10.7L/100km. I constantly have the payload area filled to the roof and do mainly city driving, with a handfull of 1000km + country trips each year. So it looks like Ford Australia at least were pretty much on the money with this one.
Call me old fashioned, but I've kept a log book of distance and fuel consumption for all vehicles I've owned. Every vehicle has had published urban, extra-urban and combined fuel consumption. I can comfortably come under those consumption figures. The current vehicle I have claims urban consumption of 10.5 litres/100km - it is currently averaging 8.1. Extra-urban it claims 5.6litres/100km - it is currently averaging 5.1. Before anyone claims sunday driver - that is not the case. Some of us grew up during fuel shortages and times of expensive fuel. It was common if you had a company car to be given a vacuum gauge that measures inches of mercury in the manifold - in simple terms the higher the number then less fuel you burnt. My father gave me his and the first thing I learnt was that at 100km an hour you can left your foot off the go pedal and hey - the car still does 100km an hour but the vacuum increased and fuel consumption dropped. Plugging a computer into the current car shows the same thing - this time measuring fuel injector flow rates and pressure and throttle position - you can achieve savings in fuel burn, lift you foot a little and the car will keep doing the same speed. Add a turbocharger into the mix and at low boost (since they were invented for fuel economy) you can accelerate quickly but efficiently. Then again, most drivers these days seem to think that planting their boot on the go pedal in their auto, hitting 5,000rpm and getting to the next set of traffic lights 2 seconds quicker is more important - tyre companies love them too. Me? I'll take the money I save and enjoy spending it on a bit fun and fuel for a track day.
Who cares? My car's official economy number is 6.5 but my long term average is 10.8. Big deal, I drive it like it's meant to be driven and that's what happens.
Ye Gods and little fishes... Of course emissions will be through the roof as per photo. Something to do with 1 exhaust piper restriction sending ECU berserk trying to figure out why the O2 sensors, for starters, are reading a bit off scale and, of course 2 how much does all this gear weigh? Next bit - dis they use 95 RON fuel - this is mandated in the standard but not broached here? Methinks that the AAA probably used e10 so there's 3% extra immediately, maybe more FYI I feed all our vehicles; MY14 Subie XV, VE Series II SV6 and for real fun (E36 BMW 318is) 95, 98 and 98 respectively and I'm more than happy with our economy. But I do cheat with K&N; panel filters as well Now I know who I steer clear of the big road associations, again