ADR81/02 - advertised fuel consumption figures

[Syndrome]

Partly as a result of the VW diesel issue and just general comments made (some surprisingly by people who should know better), I believe we need to clarify this issue.



https://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2012L01037

There are many things which affect the fuel consumption of a vehicle:

- drive conditions
- weather
- load
- speed
- tyres
- road conditions
- condition of the vehicle
- driving style
etc

Due to all these variables it is impossible to determine the real world fuel consumption of a vehicle in all given conditions. Therefore the ADR81/02 has been designed to test vehicles in a determined set of conditions which is the same for all tested vehicles.

The numbers advertised on new vehicles as per the example shown above are only to be used as a guide. They are purely to demonstrate that the cars tested under the same conditions produce a certain figure.

Whether drivers can match those figures is another story. Country drivers will match or beat the advertised figures whereas city drivers in stop-start conditions will rarely achieve the advertised figures.

From my experiences:
- my 2003 BA Falcon XT V8 used to get 10 litres per 100km on open country roads (beat sticker on window)
- my parents 2007 LT Focus LX gets about 10 litres per 100km in city driving (worse than number on the sticker)

Whether the ADR81/02 test is representative of real world conditions is open to debate. People should be aware when comparing fuel consumption of different vehicle that the numbers are produced under the same test conditions. They will only achieve the advertised figure if they drive the vehicle in the same manner as listed in the ADR.

All of the above also applies to the amount of CO2 produced by vehicles. The only difference is the driver cannot measure CO2 emissions. This is where the vehicle manufacturers have sole responsibility of designing the vehicle to meet the relevant emissions requirements.

[cheap]

Thanks for the link.

Here is a clue as to how utterly useless and non representative of real world events the ADR rules are:

Statement of Compatibility with Human Rights

Prepared in accordance with Part 3 of the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011

Vehicle Standard (Australian Design Rule 81/02 —
Fuel Consumption Labelling for Light Vehicles) 2008 Amendment 6

This Legislative Instrument is compatible with the human rights and freedoms recognised or declared in the international instruments listed in section 3 of the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011.

Overview of the Legislative Instrument

Australian Design Rule (ADR) 81/02 prescribes the fuel consumption labelling requirements for light vehicles and the test procedures for determining the fuel consumption and carbon dioxide emission results reported on the label.
Schedule 1 of Amendment 6 amends ADR 81/02 to allow manufacturers to submit fuel consumption and carbon dioxide emissions data based on the technical requirements of the latest versions of UN Regulation 101 and UN Regulation 83 based on Euro 5 test procedures.

Hope your human rights are not offended

[Express]

I’ve never for one moment believed I could emulate the figures provided by the manufacturers because like most enthusiasts I know they are derived from very control testing that has little relevance to the real world.

At best all you can do is compare.

As a V8 lover through and though it doesn’t matter anyway as fuel consumption is the furthest thing from my mind.

For those who do care, maybe the Government who approves this form of testing should educate consumers through advertisements as to irrelevance of the results.

[Silver Ghia]

I'm sure the ADR testing method derives sometimes conservative, sometimes pessimistic figures for fuel consumption, depending on the vehicle/engine.

Fords advertised fuel consumption for the XR6 with manual transmission is 11.1 lt/100kms. I've found that is a very easy figure to achieve with normal driving.

I would have to do lots of short trips down the street when cold to get that sort of consumption. Over the last 5 years with my FG manual, I have averaged a maximum 10.5 lt/100kms which was mainly local trips, and a consistent 9.1 lt/100kms for trips down the freeway to work into the city in peak hour traffic. These days local driving around my town and trips down into the urban areas shopping or ~30km trips into the country using a few revs sometimes to enjoy the car, it does 10.2 lt/100kms. Currently its on 10.1 lt/100kms.

And comparing the computer fuel consumption figures with actual bowser/odometer figures, I've found the computer figures can be relied on for reasonable accuracy.

[castellan]

I would say that the ADR test is as good as they could represent to a given testing.

When fuel test are put forward in this forum it becomes just total nonsense.
I could give a fuel consumption reading heading west south north and east on the highways and all will be different because of types if hills etc and as for the city well that's like saying how long is piece of string, what time of the day traffic etc.

I was looking at the Mitsubishi Lancer 2.0L VS 2,4L and I was wondering about the ADR figures and how would it work out in reality too how one driving style, say one who is heavy footed type driver or not, thinking that if one drove harder maybe the 2.4L would not be all that much more on fuel wise over all.

Gutless powered engines ( or say smaller engines ) can ( could ) chew more fuel if you are a faster driver, so you loose in some way the benefit of having the smaller engine, given this or that conditions to weigh the balance act out.

An old dude who plods about would truly benefit with the 2.0L but a young dude may not or maybe the difference is not worth jack in any savings.

A gutless car will benefit by being driven slower like 80 KM/H on the highway but a powerful car may not be so much so, take a 6 cyl 202 HQ Holden VS a308 V8 HQ driving at 140 km/h, now the 202 is not as efficient as the big 308 at that speed and at 160 km/h the 308 is much better on fuel then the gutless little 202 powered engine, and if you tow just forget the little 202 it's rubbish on fuel and gutless as.

[Syndrome]

http://www.news.com.au/technology/in...6e5eef324ae0a0

[msman]

they are good to compare different cars.
if you want to do some calcs yourself for future costs/usage just add an extra ~10%.

well thats how i use them, alot easier then trying to dig thru forum posts for these sort of figures when buying.
a bit suprising this needs to be clarified on a forum which normally attracts enthusiasts? but meh

i onder what the adr figure on this puppy is?

[Syndrome]

Originally Posted by msman

they are good to compare different cars.
if you want to do some calcs yourself for future costs/usage just add an extra ~10%.

well thats how i use them, alot easier then trying to dig thru forum posts for these sort of figures when buying.
a bit suprising this needs to be clarified on a forum which normally attracts enthusiasts? but meh

i onder what the adr figure on this puppy is?

Article title:Fuel economy figures: How accurate are they?

I mentioned this on AFF is to show idiotic journalism at it's finest. The figures, if tested to ADR81/02, are very accurate. However, as I mentioned earlier in this thread, how representative the ADR81/02 test cycle is of the typical Australian driver is another question.

[msman]

ah i missed that point so went off in my own little world.

journalists doing thorough research and understanding the topic vs skimming the topic & click baiting the masses.
i guess they only get paid for number of views and on this they succeeded with this article?