New worldwide fuel consumption standards planned

By David Zalstein | April 20th, 2012

FIND DEALS

The European Commission and the United Nations are reportedly in discussions about the way fuel economy tests are performed and calculated.

With current tests renowned for producing “combined” fuel consumption figures that are near impossible to achieve under normal driving circumstances, the new testing regime would aim to closer represent real-world driving.

Auto Express reports the new Worldwide Light-duty vehicle Test Cycle (WLTC) would be aimed at creating a testing standard for both fuel economy and exhaust emissions for markets around the globe including the UK, US, Europe, China, India, Japan and South Korea. The WLTC would also cover measurements for diesel particulates and energy consumption of electric vehicles and hybrids.

One idea being discussed suggests having two fuel consumption figures per vehicle: a best- and worst-case result. The best result would be a test with no passengers and all ancillary systems – air-conditioning, stereo and headlights – turned off, while the worst-case would see a full car load of passengers with all ancillaries left on.

In Australia our fuel consumption and CO2 emissions are calculated according to Australia Design Rule (ADR) 81/02 and consist of a 20-minute test cycle split into two parts, an ‘urban’ cycle which represents stop-start traffic and an ‘extra-urban’ cycle which involves the vehicle accelerating to a high peak speed. The ‘combined’ figure is determined by weighting the urban and extra urban figures based on distance travelled in each part of the test cycle.

Any new rules or tests are still years away with talks continuing and the final WLTC review not due until 2014.

Sponsored Ads

xxSmall_Boi99xx

Traffic gridlock in Shanghai and Bangcock vs uncongested Canberra. How’s that going to work.
- Amlohac
  
  Its an average.
  
  I guess if people like yourself had your way the whole window would be covered in a sticker visually showing you every single case study conducted in every condition imaginable both here on earth and another planet close by, using 98 ron fuel and uranium….
  
  Seriously, they cant possibly give you a 100% accurate figure EVER. Having a world standard test is a huge step in the right direction.
  - chrimpita
    
    I think Small_Boi makes a good point. For the reason he mentioned a international standard will be less indicative of real life consumption than a well thought out national standard.
    
    As long as all vehicles in a given market place are tested to the same standard than the fuel consumption on the stickers is directly comparable, regardless of how far removed the sticker values are from real life results.
  - HSRboy
    
    no, i think people like you would like to create 1 global government.
    
    There should be a Singapore cycle, a Dhaka cycle and a Highway cycle.
    
    So we get 3 figures: congested city, empty city and highway.
- K20A
  
  Haha.. love your response amlohac!
  
  That’s right, the figures are there as an indicative.. to help you compare vehicles. Same like nutritional information on a packet of chips.
  
  Plus, gridlock in Shanghai and Bangkok (not sure why you misspell it that way, Small_Boi), does not matter anyway. The cars are tested inside a controlled environment on rollers.
  
  Another good idea is to standardise the unit (or at least have both units shown). I have lived in different continents and have had to adapt from km/l to L/100kms and also mpg. It messes with your brain!
  - Abc
    
    Have you ever seen Hangover Part 2? “we call it Bangcock for a reason…”
The Salesman

The obsession over fuel economy is a bit much. I have seen customers decide against a car because they found one that is .3 liters per hundred kilometers better. How much are you really saving between a car that will use 8 liters and one that will use 9 liters.
- Andrew
  
  well at the moment, you’ve be saving $1.50+ every 100km.
  which, is better than NOT saving $1.50+ every 100km.
  - Jutsins
    
    Wow big whoop.. If that’s the case, then might as well ride bicycle?
    
    Besides there’s other factors in determining superior cars such as performance, reliability, quality, comfort etc etc..
  - The Salesman
    
    $1.50 per 100km for more comfort and performance. I think i can spare that.
- F1MotoGP
  
  If people really want to save fuel just do not “race”"from traffic light, check tyre pressure at least 34psi (I am running on 38-40) and put a good oil in your car. 1997 I bought a second hand Camry. After changing oil to full synthetic my fuel economy was 0.5 liter better, auto did not change back one gear on the hill and cold winter morning my oil pressure light was on for only half a second not like before nearly 5 sec.
- Matthew Werner
  
  Agree with you there, Salesman. I had to laugh at someone at work talking about how a small difference like that was the reason for their choice of car (saving them 50c/week) while sucking down their third $3 coffee for the day. Some people apply some weird logic in their world
http://www.facebook.com/people/Karl-Sass/100000921334936 Karl Sass

There should also be a comparative section that has the economy when running on different octane fuels. For example, if you’re cross shopping two cars, one that takes 91 octane, 95 in the other, the vehicle that can take 91 should also be tested on 95 for comparisons sake.
- Legnab
  
  Yes karl important point , many get much better economy and a better drive on higher octane , but as salesman said many turn their noses up if its going to cost slightly more .
  
  Fuel is cheap ,in the overall cost of motoring , how much is a litre of beer or bottled water .
  - Matthew Werner
    
    or multiple coffees through the day
- Springvale Boi
  
  But the cars designed to run on 95+ mostly have higher compression and the engines are usually more efficient than the cars designed to run on 91+.
  - http://www.facebook.com/people/Karl-Sass/100000921334936 Karl Sass
    
    Yeah I’m aware of that, however I still think some people just look for the lowest number on the windscreen. This should go some way to making a more level playing field for comparison.
marc

why not to do a simple test – 2 same cars travelling – Parramatta road all the way to strathfield = representing stop/start – and then M4 back – high way consumption… 1st car with driver only; 2nd car fully loaded…
marc

or even simpler – my car at average speed of 30km/h is 14l/100km; a/s 35km/h = 12.9l/100km… if i had similar info from Camry, Liberty, Corolla, aurion, Falcon – it would help me to decide what car is saving me and what it is saving me
- Matthew Werner
  
  thats making it more complicated… how is that averaged reached – accelerated to 30 and then cruising at a steady speed, or speeding up / slowing down / speeding up / slowing down? which method is better for particular car? a defined, standard test as we currently have is better
Rocket

Another save the world socialist green idea. Bloody Governments are trying to take the fun out of everything. Who gives a rats if a V8 uses more fuel, go ride a bloody bicycle.
Alan G

The Aussie standard has some odd components. Four short bursts(?) to 15 km/h then stopped and an extra-urban sprint to an illegal 120!
Jerrycan

Funnily enough the people in UN and EC re probably saying similar things… well probably a little better informed comments, so I am not confident about any changes coming soon.

I think the current test is as good a basis for comparison as any except:
1) These are guidelines for the manufacturers to supply the test results and no independent body anywhere checks for cheats. They have independent checks for car safety and that produces some surprises (or maybe not regarding chinese vehicles), so obviously authorities trusting manufacturers claims only goes so far.
2) The same engine/gearbox drive-trains are often used in different models from the same manufacturer but the results can often be at variance to common sense. Eg Two Mercedes models with the same engine and gearbox and the heavier model of the two gets the better fuel consumption.. I mean how?
3) Variation of results between individual cars of the same model. They should test ten (picked at random) and publish the average and variance. That would be interesting especially if a lemon or two creeps in. The test only takes 20 minutes so it should be possible to do.

While they (the independent body)are about it they could test and publish the power produced at the wheels which is more relevant than the claimed flywheel figures. There are as many under-claiming as over-claiming and this is probably important for the insurance company ratings

In the early days of formula 1 the Cooper car company were asked why their cars were faster than their Ferrari rivals who were claiming far more horsepower?
After a pause the answer was “I guess they have smaller horses”.

Many companies are capable of lying, cheating and swindling whether breast implant or car manufacturers.
AH

Does anyone know how the CO2 figures are calculated? I know that some European countries base their road tax on CO2; are the calculations done by some static number against L/100 KM, or is it more scientific than that (ie. individually rated by model)?

For instance, do different fuels attract different CO2 output (91 E10 vs. 95 vs 98 RON), does the production cost of CO2 in producing the fuel get factored in? Do some cars do a better job (through Tibetan yack urine filtered exhausts or whatever black magic car manufacturers employ) of producing lower CO2; is this tested through an exhaust test?
- Jerrycan
  
  It is directly related to the about of carbon in the fuel, so burn more fuel and produce more co2.
  Petrol whether 91, 95 or 98 octane will contain the same. CO2 emissions only go down if the car achieves better fuel consumption with the higher octane.
  E10 has a little less carbon but more fuel is usually consumed during actual driving so about the same CO2 is produced. The difference is that 10% of the CO2 produced was reclaimed from the atmosphere before (a contentious point, but you get the drift).
  LPG has far less carbon content, but also less energy content but overall produces less C02 and Diesel has more carbon (but higher energy content) so produces more CO2 but diesels are more efficient so less is burnt.
  So there is a difference but overall less than you may think.
  
  Catalysts in the exhaust system reduce carbon monoxides (which kills red blood cells when inhaled), particulate filters on diesels grab the unburnt solids that are emitted (the black soot, which cause cancers) and burn them off in a separate action, Urea injected into the diesel exhaust reduces nitrous oxide (not sure why these are bad for though) emissions from diesels.
  None of the above improve engine efficiency, or reduce CO2 outputs, in fact the particulate filter burn off uses more fuel doing it.
  Hope this helps
- Shak
  
  The back of any new issue of Wheels will help a bit here. According to them, LPG will emit 16.1g/km, Petrol (regardless of octane rating) will emit 23.8g/km and diesel will emit 26.5g/km. As Jerrycan has stated below, although diesel fuel contains more carbon overall, most diesel cars use considerably less actual fuel than their petrol powered counterparts, therefore they attract lower road tax in Europe. One of the many reasons diesels are much more popular than petrol powered cars over there.
  
  On a side note, E10 is technically 95 RON as Ethanol (because it is an alcohol) raises the Octane level of the fuel, which should in theory deliver better performance but due to the ethanol itself being much less energy dense than petrol overall fuel economy suffers as you have to burn more fuel to achieve similar results to regular 95 RON fuel.
  
  The simple way is to multiply the cars stated fuel economy against the standard Co2 outputs of certain fuels. I dont know exactly how the EU test for emissions of CO2 but this would seem the likeliest option.
OldBuick

As far as I am aware the current standards reflect the American standards which were designed by lobbiests for the auto industry as the most likely to allow their cars to pass the 20miles per US gallon fuel economy requirements for passenger cars. There was never any thought of reflecting the real world

Car Advice

New worldwide fuel consumption standards planned

Sponsored Ads

Advanced Options