6 ms·

As a European, 13.1 l/100 km seems... insane. What's happening here?

by davidivadavid 6y ago

alkonaut 6y ago
Has to be including heavy vehicles? Australians still by V8’s but not that many of them can be...
- dmurray 6y ago
  It is including heavy vehicles, but also motorcycles. The average for "passenger vehicles" is still about 10.5 l/km. Just bigger cars I think. https://www.budgetdirect.com.au/car-insurance/research/average-fuel-consumption-australia.html https://www.budgetdirect.com.au/car-insurance/research/avera...
  - Baeocystin 6y ago
    Motorcycles, perhaps surprisingly, aren't all that much more efficient than regular gas cars. The tl;dr is that their aerodynamics are terrible, and their engines not tuned for fuel efficiency.
    - jholman 6y ago
      Hmn. Brief research seems to show that you're more correct than I would have expected, but also that it's less true than I think you imply. For example, https://afdc.energy.gov/data/10310 https://afdc.energy.gov/data/10310 gives motorcycles as almost 2x as efficient as cars, almost 3x as efficient as "light truck / van". Given that enormous amount of metal that's not being hauled around, I would have expected a bigger difference. Nonetheless, for single-occupant travel, halving transportation carbon footprint would be quite a great thing.
      - Baeocystin 6y ago
        >Before any new car hits the showroom, the EPA runs an emissions evaluation and calculates a “CO2 equivalent” – a single number that represents GHGs CO2, NO X , HC, and CO. The CO2 equivalent units are in grams/mile, so a higher number means more GHGs and more climate damage. For a 2WD 2020 Ram 1500 HFE on the highway, that number is 340 g/mile. Unfortunately, motorcycle emissions data isn’t documented by the EPA. This is a real issue, because if the problem isn’t measured you don’t know what to fix. >There are a few independent studies that shed light on the issue, however. One published in 2008 by Swiss researchers took real data from several motorbikes including a BMW R1150GS. The GS highway CO2 equivalent is a stunning 380 g/mile (17% worse than the Dodge)! They found that a 1993 Honda Shadow VX600 with only 583 ccs spews a whopping 408 g/mile. That is twice as much as a new Honda Civic! >Other studies would suggest the problem is even worse. Global MRV tested out their portable emissions equipment in 2011 comparing 12-motorcycles to 12-cars of varying years (this was featured on an episode of Mythbusters). Motorcycles were almost universally terrible, with motorbikes from the 2000’s producing 3,220% more NOx and 8,065% more CO2 than cars of the same era. California has the largest motorcycle ridership in the country, and in 2008 the LA Times reported that while motorcycles accounted for 1% of all miles traveled, they were responsible for 10% of the state’s smog-producing emissions. Taken from https://autowise.com/motorcycle-vs-car-emissions/ https://autowise.com/motorcycle-vs-car-emissions/ . I've had my M1 since 1994, so I enjoy riding, so please don't take this as all negative. But it's important to look at the real data, which is much worse than people think with regards to emissions and pollution.
        jholman 6y ago
        Ah, hmn, that is a very good point. Per my previous comment, motorcycles are more efficient that cars, in terms of consumption of fuel. (though not as much as I'd have thought) But they're also worse on emissions, which is the public harm that is of greater interest here. And yikes, those numbers.
        Baeocystin 6y ago
        It's pretty shocking, isn't it. // The good news is that as batteries improve, bike like the all-electric Zero line are going to get both more popular and more affordable. I'm looking forward to when I can get one!
ElKrist 6y ago
I've lived both in France and Australia. Australians love 4 wheels drive and bigger cars. In some cases it's justified for obvious reasons: rough environments with less infrastructure (bush, outback..). In other cases it is for softer reasons: a big camping culture, having a big car being a social status, towing your boat/jet ski etc. Also a few other points to consider: _ Australia enjoyed economic growth for a long time and Australians are rich. _ Fuel is cheap. According to www.globalpetrolprices.com right now a liter of gasoline is 0.74 euros compared to 1.33 for France _ The road infrastructure is more favourable for big cars than in Europe (big/plenty parking spots in most towns in Australia).
- chrismorgan 6y ago
  It’s funny: as an Australian that has visited the USA a couple of times (and never been to Europe), I’d repeat half of your points but for America rather than Australia. Some Australians certainly have large vehicles without good cause, but that number is nowhere near as big as in America. (Notwithstanding this, my Dad and I have discussed the concept of a ban or extreme tax on owning big vehicles unless you can justify why you need them (e.g. tradie or large family), with country dwellers immediately exempt for convenience.) And fuel is way cheaper in the USA than in Australia.
  - anthonygd 6y ago
    I don't see why a large family would be an excuse. You need a large vehicle because you chose to need a large vehicle?
    - skrebbel 6y ago
      Most things I need, I need because I chose to need them.
    - javagram 6y ago
      A large family creates many future taxpayers. The state has an interest in subsidizing or at least not discouraging the creation of large families
BlueTemplar 6y ago
I suppose just larger cars coming from larger roads and smaller fuel tax ?
chrismorgan 6y ago
It seems insane to me as well. My 2010 Mazda 3, used almost entirely on country driving with an average speed of 81km/h since I got it, sits at an average of 5.2L/100km. I recall figures from a couple of family members with similar or slightly larger cars on mostly Melbourne suburban driving, and they’re something like 8–9L/100km. My parents’ Nissan Elgrand (2007 I think?) hit something like 13–15L/100km before it got switched to LPG, if I recall correctly, and it was acknowledged to be a huge fuel guzzler (so they got rid of it once enough of their children had left home that they didn’t need it), far more than the smaller-and-lighter-but-same-seat-count ’86 Tarago had been.
- CountHackulus 6y ago
  Just to add another data point, I had a 2005 Mazda 6 V6 Wagon and I tracked the fuel usage for an entire year. Ended up a 10.2L/100km. Something I found was horrendous compared to my friends' Corollas and Civics.
  - dzhiurgis 6y ago
    Mazda Cx7 here. 10l/100km highway, 12l city. Pretty in efficient older Mazdas. That said much larger cx9 with 3.7l engine uses same.
- chrismorgan 6y ago
  (It occurs to me now, hours later, that I completely forgot to mention that my Mazda 3 is a diesel.)
- rbg246 6y ago
  Can confirm I do 8-9l per 100km in Melbourne with my Toyota Corolla. But when Im in traffic in the morning the number of 'consumer' (non work purpose) SUV / 4WDs is fairly significant and they would all be doing at least the average.
- sjwright 6y ago
  Back in 2010 both me and my parents owned Mazda 3 (model year 2009) cars. They live in the suburbs with no traffic lights for a kilometre in every direction. I lived in an inner city (CBD fringe) apartment. Their car consistently reported 7.1 L/100km average whereas mine consistently reported 12.5 L/100km average. Both would get the same ~6.5 on highway driving. Point is, road conditions and driving style affect fuel economy far more than the marginal difference between vehicles of a similar size class.
pmontra 6y ago
The last time I was in Australia I rented a Toyota Landcruiser and went from Cairns to Cape York and back. Probably all the cars on that road did 13 l / 100 km or worse. Then I rented a small Kia from Sydney to Bathurst. Maybe I refueled only before returning the car in Sydney.
Someone 6y ago
13.1 includes buses and trucks. Actual for passenger vehicles is 10.6. https://www.bitre.gov.au/sites/default/files/is_091.pdf https://www.bitre.gov.au/sites/default/files/is_091.pdf: “The average rate of fuel consumption across all Australian vehicles in 2016 was 13.1 l/100km. However, this includes buses and trucks which are overwhelmingly used for business purposes. Given that this study is focused on the vehicle costs of Australian households (and not businesses), Figure 1 presents the average rate of fuel consumption for the three types of vehicles which have significant private use, namely passenger vehicles, motorcycles and light commercial vehicles. Motorcycles are relatively fuel efficient using 5.6 litres of fuel per 100 km travelled in 2016, compared to 10.6 l/100km for passenger vehicles and 12.0 l/100 km for light commercial vehicles.”
- benhurmarcel 6y ago
  That's still surprisingly high.
  - jackvalentine 6y ago
    I think it's likely that the average Australian vehicle is heavier, since the average European/Australian passenger vehicle is the same age (10.x years). Maybe our sulferous crap fuel has something to do with it too. I don't know.
  - _-___________-_ 6y ago
    Many of the cars you see on European streets would seem a bit... small... to many Australians.
    - sampsonitify 6y ago
      And the roads in reverse. Australian roads are massive (and fast) compared to Europe.
      - jashmatthews 6y ago
        This is true of urban areas but not expressways. Motorway limits vary from 120 (Spain) to 140 (Poland) with Germany having sections of unlimited autobahn.
zizee 6y ago
This is because it is not correct. Australians on average do drive bigger cars than in europe, but the average petrol consumption of passenger vehicles is 10.8 l/100km. https://www.budgetdirect.com.au/car-insurance/research/average-fuel-consumption-australia.html https://www.budgetdirect.com.au/car-insurance/research/avera...
tiew9Vii 6y ago
Holden/Fords used to manufacture locally. There’s a bunch of not very economical V8’s driving around as similar performant more economical European cars got a 30% luxury car tax to give AU manufacturing incentives. Now Holden/Ford have shut down here everyone seems to drive a Toyota Hilux / Landcruiser. Tradies get tax benefits buying an expensive Hilux, can use it as a family car as they have dual cab and can take it in the bush doing 4x4. Landcruiser are popular with those who drive in the outback due to being suited to that terrain. As a lot of cars on the road are Hilux utes the average driver wants a similar sized SUV “as they are safer” You also have Australia’s lack of commitment to emission policies, manufacturers use Australia to offload cars that don’t meet emission standards elsewhere in the world.

As a European, 13.1 l/100 km seems... insane. What's happening here?

alkonaut 6y ago

Has to be including heavy vehicles? Australians still by V8’s but not that many of them can be...

dmurray 6y ago
It is including heavy vehicles, but also motorcycles. The average for "passenger vehicles" is still about 10.5 l/km. Just bigger cars I think. https://www.budgetdirect.com.au/car-insurance/research/average-fuel-consumption-australia.html https://www.budgetdirect.com.au/car-insurance/research/avera...
- Baeocystin 6y ago
  Motorcycles, perhaps surprisingly, aren't all that much more efficient than regular gas cars. The tl;dr is that their aerodynamics are terrible, and their engines not tuned for fuel efficiency.
  - jholman 6y ago
    Hmn. Brief research seems to show that you're more correct than I would have expected, but also that it's less true than I think you imply. For example, https://afdc.energy.gov/data/10310 https://afdc.energy.gov/data/10310 gives motorcycles as almost 2x as efficient as cars, almost 3x as efficient as "light truck / van". Given that enormous amount of metal that's not being hauled around, I would have expected a bigger difference. Nonetheless, for single-occupant travel, halving transportation carbon footprint would be quite a great thing.
    - Baeocystin 6y ago
      >Before any new car hits the showroom, the EPA runs an emissions evaluation and calculates a “CO2 equivalent” – a single number that represents GHGs CO2, NO X , HC, and CO. The CO2 equivalent units are in grams/mile, so a higher number means more GHGs and more climate damage. For a 2WD 2020 Ram 1500 HFE on the highway, that number is 340 g/mile. Unfortunately, motorcycle emissions data isn’t documented by the EPA. This is a real issue, because if the problem isn’t measured you don’t know what to fix. >There are a few independent studies that shed light on the issue, however. One published in 2008 by Swiss researchers took real data from several motorbikes including a BMW R1150GS. The GS highway CO2 equivalent is a stunning 380 g/mile (17% worse than the Dodge)! They found that a 1993 Honda Shadow VX600 with only 583 ccs spews a whopping 408 g/mile. That is twice as much as a new Honda Civic! >Other studies would suggest the problem is even worse. Global MRV tested out their portable emissions equipment in 2011 comparing 12-motorcycles to 12-cars of varying years (this was featured on an episode of Mythbusters). Motorcycles were almost universally terrible, with motorbikes from the 2000’s producing 3,220% more NOx and 8,065% more CO2 than cars of the same era. California has the largest motorcycle ridership in the country, and in 2008 the LA Times reported that while motorcycles accounted for 1% of all miles traveled, they were responsible for 10% of the state’s smog-producing emissions. Taken from https://autowise.com/motorcycle-vs-car-emissions/ https://autowise.com/motorcycle-vs-car-emissions/ . I've had my M1 since 1994, so I enjoy riding, so please don't take this as all negative. But it's important to look at the real data, which is much worse than people think with regards to emissions and pollution.
      - jholman 6y ago
        Ah, hmn, that is a very good point. Per my previous comment, motorcycles are more efficient that cars, in terms of consumption of fuel. (though not as much as I'd have thought) But they're also worse on emissions, which is the public harm that is of greater interest here. And yikes, those numbers.
        Baeocystin 6y ago
        It's pretty shocking, isn't it. // The good news is that as batteries improve, bike like the all-electric Zero line are going to get both more popular and more affordable. I'm looking forward to when I can get one!

ElKrist 6y ago

I've lived both in France and Australia. Australians love 4 wheels drive and bigger cars. In some cases it's justified for obvious reasons: rough environments with less infrastructure (bush, outback..). In other cases it is for softer reasons: a big camping culture, having a big car being a social status, towing your boat/jet ski etc. Also a few other points to consider: _ Australia enjoyed economic growth for a long time and Australians are rich. _ Fuel is cheap. According to www.globalpetrolprices.com right now a liter of gasoline is 0.74 euros compared to 1.33 for France _ The road infrastructure is more favourable for big cars than in Europe (big/plenty parking spots in most towns in Australia).

chrismorgan 6y ago
It’s funny: as an Australian that has visited the USA a couple of times (and never been to Europe), I’d repeat half of your points but for America rather than Australia. Some Australians certainly have large vehicles without good cause, but that number is nowhere near as big as in America. (Notwithstanding this, my Dad and I have discussed the concept of a ban or extreme tax on owning big vehicles unless you can justify why you need them (e.g. tradie or large family), with country dwellers immediately exempt for convenience.) And fuel is way cheaper in the USA than in Australia.
- anthonygd 6y ago
  I don't see why a large family would be an excuse. You need a large vehicle because you chose to need a large vehicle?
  - skrebbel 6y ago
    Most things I need, I need because I chose to need them.
  - javagram 6y ago
    A large family creates many future taxpayers. The state has an interest in subsidizing or at least not discouraging the creation of large families

BlueTemplar 6y ago

I suppose just larger cars coming from larger roads and smaller fuel tax ?

chrismorgan 6y ago

It seems insane to me as well. My 2010 Mazda 3, used almost entirely on country driving with an average speed of 81km/h since I got it, sits at an average of 5.2L/100km. I recall figures from a couple of family members with similar or slightly larger cars on mostly Melbourne suburban driving, and they’re something like 8–9L/100km. My parents’ Nissan Elgrand (2007 I think?) hit something like 13–15L/100km before it got switched to LPG, if I recall correctly, and it was acknowledged to be a huge fuel guzzler (so they got rid of it once enough of their children had left home that they didn’t need it), far more than the smaller-and-lighter-but-same-seat-count ’86 Tarago had been.

CountHackulus 6y ago
Just to add another data point, I had a 2005 Mazda 6 V6 Wagon and I tracked the fuel usage for an entire year. Ended up a 10.2L/100km. Something I found was horrendous compared to my friends' Corollas and Civics.
- dzhiurgis 6y ago
  Mazda Cx7 here. 10l/100km highway, 12l city. Pretty in efficient older Mazdas. That said much larger cx9 with 3.7l engine uses same.
chrismorgan 6y ago
(It occurs to me now, hours later, that I completely forgot to mention that my Mazda 3 is a diesel.)
rbg246 6y ago
Can confirm I do 8-9l per 100km in Melbourne with my Toyota Corolla. But when Im in traffic in the morning the number of 'consumer' (non work purpose) SUV / 4WDs is fairly significant and they would all be doing at least the average.
sjwright 6y ago
Back in 2010 both me and my parents owned Mazda 3 (model year 2009) cars. They live in the suburbs with no traffic lights for a kilometre in every direction. I lived in an inner city (CBD fringe) apartment. Their car consistently reported 7.1 L/100km average whereas mine consistently reported 12.5 L/100km average. Both would get the same ~6.5 on highway driving. Point is, road conditions and driving style affect fuel economy far more than the marginal difference between vehicles of a similar size class.

pmontra 6y ago

The last time I was in Australia I rented a Toyota Landcruiser and went from Cairns to Cape York and back. Probably all the cars on that road did 13 l / 100 km or worse. Then I rented a small Kia from Sydney to Bathurst. Maybe I refueled only before returning the car in Sydney.

Someone 6y ago

13.1 includes buses and trucks. Actual for passenger vehicles is 10.6. https://www.bitre.gov.au/sites/default/files/is_091.pdf https://www.bitre.gov.au/sites/default/files/is_091.pdf: “The average rate of fuel consumption across all Australian vehicles in 2016 was 13.1 l/100km. However, this includes buses and trucks which are overwhelmingly used for business purposes. Given that this study is focused on the vehicle costs of Australian households (and not businesses), Figure 1 presents the average rate of fuel consumption for the three types of vehicles which have significant private use, namely passenger vehicles, motorcycles and light commercial vehicles. Motorcycles are relatively fuel efficient using 5.6 litres of fuel per 100 km travelled in 2016, compared to 10.6 l/100km for passenger vehicles and 12.0 l/100 km for light commercial vehicles.”

benhurmarcel 6y ago
That's still surprisingly high.
- jackvalentine 6y ago
  I think it's likely that the average Australian vehicle is heavier, since the average European/Australian passenger vehicle is the same age (10.x years). Maybe our sulferous crap fuel has something to do with it too. I don't know.
- _-___________-_ 6y ago
  Many of the cars you see on European streets would seem a bit... small... to many Australians.
  - sampsonitify 6y ago
    And the roads in reverse. Australian roads are massive (and fast) compared to Europe.
    - jashmatthews 6y ago
      This is true of urban areas but not expressways. Motorway limits vary from 120 (Spain) to 140 (Poland) with Germany having sections of unlimited autobahn.

zizee 6y ago

This is because it is not correct. Australians on average do drive bigger cars than in europe, but the average petrol consumption of passenger vehicles is 10.8 l/100km. https://www.budgetdirect.com.au/car-insurance/research/average-fuel-consumption-australia.html https://www.budgetdirect.com.au/car-insurance/research/avera...

tiew9Vii 6y ago

Holden/Fords used to manufacture locally. There’s a bunch of not very economical V8’s driving around as similar performant more economical European cars got a 30% luxury car tax to give AU manufacturing incentives. Now Holden/Ford have shut down here everyone seems to drive a Toyota Hilux / Landcruiser. Tradies get tax benefits buying an expensive Hilux, can use it as a family car as they have dual cab and can take it in the bush doing 4x4. Landcruiser are popular with those who drive in the outback due to being suited to that terrain. As a lot of cars on the road are Hilux utes the average driver wants a similar sized SUV “as they are safer” You also have Australia’s lack of commitment to emission policies, manufacturers use Australia to offload cars that don’t meet emission standards elsewhere in the world.