All the way to the highest court in Australia. https://www.drive.co...sumption-claim/
Fuel consumption rating labels became mandatory in Australia in 2001 and were designed to provide consumers like-for-like fuel use comparisons across various vehicles. . . . .Fuel rating label figures are derived from laboratory tests (pictured below) so they can be repeated in identical conditions in different countries, rather than based on real-world driving scenarios. However, over time, car companies have developed techniques to optimise fuel consumption results during the laboratory tests. . . . . The difference between real-world fuel consumption and rating label figures was about 10 per cent in 2002, grew to 35 per cent in 2014, and in 2017 was projected to be 49 per cent higher than published claims by 2020, as manufacturers found ways to optimise laboratory tests.
“If this Supreme Court ruling is allowed to stand, then the Australian government will need to update its fuel economy test procedures,” said an automotive industry insider. “The car makers have done nothing wrong, other than conduct laboratory tests according to the current regulations.”
The two Mitsubishi Triton utes at the centre of Australia’s landmark legal dispute – the customer’s original 2008 model and the new 2016 model he bought as a replacement vehicle – displayed consumption rating label figures derived from laboratory tests, as with all new cars sold over the same period and to the present day.
However, Mr Begovic found, in his experience, his 2016 Mitsubishi Triton delivered a 24 per cent increase in real-world fuel consumption compared to his 2008 Mitsubishi Triton. Mr Begovic’s 2008 Mitsubishi Triton fuel rating label displayed an estimated consumption rate of 7.8 litres per 100km in highway use, while his 2016 Mitsubishi Triton fuel rating label displayed an estimated consumption rate of 6.8 litres per 100km in highway use, a 12.8 per cent decrease. However, Mr Begovic found, in his experience, his 2016 Mitsubishi Triton delivered a 24 per cent increase in real-world fuel consumption compared to his 2008 Mitsubishi Triton. Given the reduction in fuel consumption estimates on the 2008 versus 2016 fuel rating labels, Mr Begovic had expected his 2016 Mitsubishi Triton to use about 8.5 litres per 100km in his driving routine.Mr Begovic produced figures that showed his 2016 Mitsubishi Triton used an average of 12.44 litres per 100km in his driving routine, versus about 10 litres per 100km for the same driving routine in his 2008 Mitsubishi Triton.
The Supreme Court heard Mr Begovic purchased the 2016 Mitsubishi Triton in part due to its reduction in the claimed fuel consumption versus his 2008 Mitsubishi Triton, and he had relied on the data published on the fuel rating labels when deciding to buy the vehicle.
Last week, the Supreme Court of Victoria upheld the earlier finding of the Victorian consumer tribunal that the figures on the 2016 Mitsubishi Triton’s fuel rating label – affixed to the vehicle at the point of sale – were “misleading and deceptive”.Further, the 2016 Mitsubishi Triton’s real-world fuel use of 12.44 litres per 100km compared to the 6.8L/100km claim for open road driving, the 9.0L/100km claim for urban driving, and the 7.6L/100km claim for a combination of urban and highway driving.
Edited by gruntguru, 01 August 2023 - 21:01.
