Australian fuel efficiency standards aimed at cutting petrol bills, 'catching up' with US

[fatgas]

Originally Posted by bfets

https://www.drive.com.au/news/tesla-...petrol-diesel/

I can add fuel to this fire, anecdotal though it is.

I have a handful of independent panel shops as clients and they all either handball the EV's when they come through the system or write them off. They don't want the liability of a possible smoke show after repair and the margins are even thinner when the repair doesn't involve the zappy zappy stuff (as others mentioned due to the significant use of aluminium, welded or bonded).

[kypez]

Originally Posted by fatgas

I can add fuel to this fire, anecdotal though it is.

I have a handful of independent panel shops as clients and they all either handball the EV's when they come through the system or write them off. They don't want the liability of a possible smoke show after repair and the margins are even thinner when the repair doesn't involve the zappy zappy stuff (as others mentioned due to the significant use of aluminium, welded or bonded).

But most EVs don't use much aluminium. Model S and X did but Model 3/Y are all steel. As are most of the other products on the market.

The certified repairer where I've taken my cars to have plenty of EVs coming through for repair and they just repair them without fuss. They also are the certified repairers for Lamborghini and Porsche. Great workmanship and their rates are very reasonable when asking them to do a cashie for minor repairs outside of insurance.

[fatgas]

Originally Posted by kypez

But most EVs don't use much aluminium. Model S and X did but Model 3/Y are all steel. As are most of the other products on the market.

The certified repairer where I've taken my cars to have plenty of EVs coming through for repair and they just repair them without fuss. They also are the certified repairers for Lamborghini and Porsche. Great workmanship and their rates are very reasonable when asking them to do a cashie for minor repairs outside of insurance.

That's another part of the problem, the smaller operators are being quoted insane amounts to become certified repairers for Tesla and the other EV's.

[kypez]

Originally Posted by fatgas

That's another part of the problem, the smaller operators are being quoted insane amounts to become certified repairers for Tesla and the other EV's.

Yes, very true that could be happening.

[kypez]

Originally Posted by kypez

But most EVs don't use much aluminium. Model S and X did but Model 3/Y are all steel. As are most of the other products on the market.

The certified repairer where I've taken my cars to have plenty of EVs coming through for repair and they just repair them without fuss. They also are the certified repairers for Lamborghini and Porsche. Great workmanship and their rates are very reasonable when asking them to do a cashie for minor repairs outside of insurance.

Can't edit it: should read that model 3/Y are almost all steel. Still a little aluminium used which I learnt today!

Thanks @ljf12 !

[Franco Cozzo]

Also how is an EV more complex than a traditional ICE car?

If anything its mechanically and electrically simpler, it just includes some nasty high voltage stuff and inverters.

[kypez]

Originally Posted by Franco Cozzo

Also how is an EV more complex than a traditional ICE car?

If anything its mechanically and electrically simpler, it just includes some nasty high voltage stuff and inverters.

The problem with some, like model S/X, is the aluminium. It's expensive to repair. For the 3/Y, the giga pressing of large sections of the frame makes it harder to just swap out parts (good old Panel beating might be making a comeback!). For most accidents, it's a non issue but it can cost more due to the large sections to repair.

But no more than say a BMW or Merc model using extra sensors, cameras (those front bumper camera are eye watering again that the Tesla doesn't have), etc.

Light clusters and bumpers, etc are very similar.

[mick taylor]

In regards to using less fuel ?

When you fire up a EFI cold car, what happens is that the fuel mixture is as rich as hell ?

So i pull out of my place drive down the road and sit at the read lights and watch the fuel that it is using come up on the dash readings and think f ! does this use fuel at cold idle.

If i get a green light boy can i get some distance on the fuel, that is used if i do not get the lights.
Not to mention It could be revving at 1600 to 1800 RPM cold ?

I say to a mate with a New Mazda 626 up the road, too drive that car out of the shed directly and drive normal ! but he always sits for 10 min then creeps down the road past my place like a 99yo dude and sits at the lights.

I drive up past his place and turn where their are no lights, unless i can see the green will come soon.

But the reason for the massive amount of rich fuel being pumped in, is too heat up the cat converter !

So this deal must be dealt with i would think, regarding the ADR new standards ? as The next standards are looking at the fuel being used coming into the deal more so ?

One does not need such rich fuel at idle ! I could sit at the red lights with a warm engine and use nothing much at all like it does cold !

Not to mention that if the engine needs rich fuel when driving cold so be it as the computer will deal with it easy, but at idle, running rich just to get the cat con fired up is nonsense !

Old mate is still in the 1970's with a HQ Holden 202 mentality of warming it up before driving in below 10c, something he picked up living down South ?
You just do not go flogging a cold engine !

Not to mention i seen a lot of 202's being flogged when cold too warm them up back in the days, no wonder some cracked pistons !

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by mick taylor

In regards to using less fuel ?

When you fire up a EFI cold car, what happens is that the fuel mixture is as rich as hell ?

So i pull out of my place drive down the road and sit at the read lights and watch the fuel that it is using come up on the dash readings and think f ! does this use fuel at cold idle.

If i get a green light boy can i get some distance on the fuel, that is used if i do not get the lights.
Not to mention It could be revving at 1600 to 1800 RPM cold ?

I say to a mate with a New Mazda 626 up the road, too drive that car out of the shed directly and drive normal ! but he always sits for 10 min then creeps down the road past my place like a 99yo dude and sits at the lights.

I drive up past his place and turn where their are no lights, unless i can see the green will come soon.

But the reason for the massive amount of rich fuel being pumped in, is too heat up the cat converter !

So this deal must be dealt with i would think, regarding the ADR new standards ? as The next standards are looking at the fuel being used coming into the deal more so ?

One does not need such rich fuel at idle ! I could sit at the red lights with a warm engine and use nothing much at all like it does cold !

Not to mention that if the engine needs rich fuel when driving cold so be it as the computer will deal with it easy, but at idle, running rich just to get the cat con fired up is nonsense !

Old mate is still in the 1970's with a HQ Holden 202 mentality of warming it up before driving in below 10c, something he picked up living down South ?
You just do not go flogging a cold engine !

Not to mention i seen a lot of 202's being flogged when cold too warm them up back in the days, no wonder some cracked pistons !

As far as the ADRs are concerned, the later vehicles Cats are required to light off in about 30 seconds
And a lot of later cars warm up much quicker now (less coolant?) to get up to operating temperature faster.

I don’t know what vintage you drive but if it’s PFI like mine, they need to run rich like a carb
When cold or the fuel just won’t combust properly thanks to cold metal, may be different for DI.

Old guy nonsense to sit there and warm everything up before driving off, the whole point is
to be able to start and get going immediately and warm up everything on the move but you know that.

Sorry, struggling with autocorrect turning my words into other ones…..that’s the modern world for you.

[whynot]

Article in The Australian says that

The Biden administration is poised to dump controversial rule that would require Americans to buy more electric cars sooner, in a nod to their declining popularity and increasing cost that will embarrass the Albanese government, which has sought to copy the US approach.

In a move that will infuriate environmentalists the US Environmental Protection Agency is reportedly going to dump proposed rules would have ensured around two thirds of sales of new cars and light trucks in the US were fully electric by 2032, up from almost 8 per cent last year.

“Instead of essentially requiring automakers to rapidly ramp up sales of electric vehicles over the next few years, the administration would give car manufacturers more time, with a sharp increase in sales not required until after 2030,” the New York Times said based on two anonymous administration sources, on Saturday (Sunday AEDT).

CNN has similar wording

The Biden administration is considering relaxing stringent vehicle emissions rules it proposed last year, giving automakers more time to meet requirements that would make them sell more electric vehicles, according to two sources familiar with the plan.

The Environmental Protection Agency’s vehicle emissions rule is a key plank of President Joe Biden’s climate agenda. Biden has made the transition to EVs a signature issue of his presidency, stressing the economic impacts in addition to the boost for the climate.

Instead of a previously proposed rule that would rapidly increase the number of EVs sold to meet strict emissions requirements, the EPA is considering delaying these requirements until after 2030, the two people said. The EPA rule is still not finalized and is expected to be released in the spring.

...

I am sure there are heaps of other articles around by now.

[Sprintey]

I wonder how much of it is actually geopolitical. So much of the market in EVs is dominated by his strategic competitor, having a 10 year head start. US is self sufficient in liquid hydrocarbons, can refine and value-add them.

[Sprintey]

from the linked article:

“When you look at the average number of parts being replaced, it's increasing every year. You look at the frequency of calibration work — that's increasing by the day.

“You look at the number of parts that are other than mild steel, that increases continually. All of these trends are leading us toward more expensive collision repair.”

- this is true of many cars, the Suby windscreen with Eyesight mentioned downthread, a Jeep side mirror, etc.

There is a place for simple and cheap to repair - the product built this way will last longer in the market (thus using less resources as it is recycled later) as more people can afford to keep it for longer, as individual bills that will be beyond their ability to pay for will occur at a lower dollar level, delaying the scrapping of the car.

Kudos to the man stockpiling AUs - those were designed to be cheap to repair and reliable, for the taxi industry.

[Hemihunter]

https://electrek.co/2024/02/26/ford-...kEfEAmKq_7Bveo

[kypez]

Originally Posted by Hemihunter

https://electrek.co/2024/02/26/ford-...kEfEAmKq_7Bveo

Problems for both EV and petrol powered models. Stop sale on both that has been since lifted.

[kypez]

Originally Posted by Hemihunter

https://electrek.co/2024/02/26/ford-...kEfEAmKq_7Bveo

Here you go. As I mentioned, they had a stop sale that has now been lifted and they had a record Feb pushed by an 81% increase in EV sales and big increase in hybrid sales

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/03/04/ford...brids-evs.html

[Hemihunter]

Was more about the fact they have them sitting around, that cannot be good.

[kypez]

Originally Posted by Hemihunter

Was more about the fact they have them sitting around, that cannot be good.

They're sitting around due to a stop sale from Ford. Not because they're unsold.

[whynot]

Lots of media reporting this morning that Apple is to shut down its division that is working on its electric vehicle. Apparently moving some of the team over to working on AI. And this is after it gave up on its full self driving project a few years back.

While sinking a few billion into a black hole EV project and then walking away with nothing might seem wasteful, but this is the way capitalism works. The successful survive and the weak perish.


It also says a lot about managerial confidence in being able to make a buck out of EV. Ditto, investor's confidence in EV when Apple's stock rose 0.7% immediately after the announcement.

[kypez]

Originally Posted by whynot

Lots of media reporting this morning that Apple is to shut down its division that is working on its electric vehicle. Apparently moving some of the team over to working on AI. And this is after it gave up on its full self driving project a few years back.



While sinking a few billion into a black hole EV project and then walking away with nothing might seem wasteful, but this is the way capitalism works. The successful survive and the weak perish.





It also says a lot about managerial confidence in being able to make a buck out of EV. Ditto, investor's confidence in EV when Apple's stock rose 0.7% immediately after the announcement.

Also shows how much of a Headstart Tesla has and how far ahead they continue to be. They build EVs with bigger margins than ICE manufacturers. They are priced very competitively against the rest of the market as well.

I always laughed when people rubbished them (on this forum) saying, "just wait till the other more established brands turn up and Tesla will be cactus". Yeah, it's not as easy as many thought to build an EV profitably.

[whynot]

Originally Posted by kypez

Also shows how much of a head start Tesla has and how far ahead they continue to be.

Yup, I agree. Tesla went through a world of hurt to get their EV process working at its present efficiency. Others thought it would be relatively easy to copy (aka the second mover's advantage). Not so.

Getting back to the ALP's changes to Australian fuel efficiency standards ... I think that there is a fine line between gently nudging the market / supply chain in certain directions and exceeding the capability of either to absorb the change. A bit like driving on snow and ice, gentle little nudges can achieve far more progress than excessive inputs. To me, this change reeks of an unnecessary regulation, too much too soon.

Sure, it is a political exercise and since the ALP - with support of the Greens - have the numbers in parliament, they can make whatever changes they like. That is the way it works in our democracy. But the ALP shouldn't complain or whinge if the electorate turns and bites back, hard.

[kypez]

Originally Posted by whynot

Sure, it is a political exercise and since the ALP - with support of the Greens - have the numbers in parliament, they can make whatever changes they like. That is the way it works in our democracy. But the ALP shouldn't complain or whinge if the electorate turns and bites back, hard.

I hope parties do the right thing without worrying about the next election only. These standards are long overdue and whatever date that was set was going to be a shock to the system for those not wanting to change.

[fatgas]

Originally Posted by kypez

I hope parties do the right thing without worrying about the next election only. These standards are long overdue and whatever date that was set was going to be a shock to the system for those not wanting to change.

Shirley Ewe Geste?

[ivorya]

Originally Posted by whynot

Sure, it is a political exercise and since the ALP - with support of the Greens - have the numbers in parliament, they can make whatever changes they like. That is the way it works in our democracy. But the ALP shouldn't complain or whinge if the electorate turns and bites back, hard.

We also need to remember that certain brands have been lobbying the Aus Gov for a number of years now wanting these fuel changes.
It'll bite ALP due to certain media outlets only supporting one side, of doing nothing.

[whynot]

Originally Posted by whynot

I think that there is a fine line between gently nudging the market / supply chain in certain directions and exceeding the capability of either to absorb the change. A bit like driving on snow and ice, gentle little nudges can achieve far more progress than excessive inputs. To me, this change reeks of an unnecessary regulation, too much too soon.

I dug out a paper from 1985 about the introduction of unleaded petrol into Australia. One could argue that this was the most significant change in emission standards.

The initial consultation with industry started in July 1979. The final report was delivered in February 1981. ADR37 (for the move to unleaded fuel for new vehicles) was enforced from January 1986. So, there was effectively five years lead time from regulation (about seven years including consultation). Remember, this was under the time that the Federal Government was Liberal National Coalition. But the two states that it impacted the most (due to lead pollution and smog) had ALP in NSW and Liberal in Victoria.

The introduction of unleaded petrol is an example of good consultation across the political spectrum, federal and state, and industry-government.

There was noting stopping the current Federal Government from starting the consultation process just after they were elected in May 2022, and giving time for industry (and consumers) to adjust their forward purchases.

But, no, the ALP have decided to crash through with this.

Undoubtedly, the ALP policy wonks have had a look at this proposal from the plus/minus ledger of voting, and concluded that it best helps their cause. Probably loose votes on the right and pick up more from the left. That there is an anti-SUV wink is included in the mix helps their cause on the left.

[simon varley]

Originally Posted by whynot

There was noting stopping the current Federal Government from starting the consultation process just after they were elected in May 2022, and giving time for industry (and consumers) to adjust their forward purchases.

it just seems a really, really strange way of 'improving' the fleet. I just can't understand why we don't move to Euro6 which would immediately bring the latest UK models here

[whynot]

Originally Posted by whynot

Sure, it is a political exercise and since the ALP - with support of the Greens - have the numbers in parliament, they can make whatever changes they like. That is the way it works in our democracy. But the ALP shouldn't complain or whinge if the electorate turns and bites back, hard.

And it looks like the political exercise has failed (for now).

The Australian, 24 March 2024
Chris Bowen bows to pressure to lower fuel efficiency standards

Chris Bowen is preparing to lower Australia’s proposed high fuel efficiency standards for petrol vehicles following US President Joe Biden’s big backdown on American standards and pressure from Thailand, Japan and the domestic automotive industry.

Australia’s backdown is likely this week as parliament prepares to break before the May budget sittings and after a secret meeting last Thursday between the Albanese government and local automotive industry representatives.

Senior Labor ministers were concerned during the Dunkley by-election campaign that the proposed standards were “killing” the ALP, which was saved by the tax cuts announced in January.

[fatgas]

https://www.smh.com.au/business/comp...28-p5f8c5.html


https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...-generative-ai

[fatgas]

No word of a lie, there was a Kia of some variety in one of the shops and the car was declared stat write off because there was a deep scratch on the drivers A-pillar.

Yep, a scratch. The insurance assessor couldn't even determine if it was caused by the accident or was pre-existing.

[Franco Cozzo]

The war on American utes and SUVs is beginning:

City of Yarra councilors are trying to prevent them in their LGA:

Does this look okay to you? It doesn’t to me.

Folks in Paris have just voted to triple parking fees for large SUVs to try to reduce their impact on city streets and people.

Here in Aus, we’re seeing RAMs and “Defenders” on the rise.

These are luxury vehicles, costing upwards of $100k, and they’re significantly more dangerous than smaller vehicles.

When they hit a kid (which they are more likely to do with huge blind spots), they are eight times more likely to kill them. ��

In the US, there has been a spate of parents killing kids in their own driveways.

They also have significantly higher greenhouse gas emissions than other vehicles, and do more damage to our streets.

All round, they’re something we need to see less of on our streets, not more.

That’s why I’m following Paris’s lead, and have put up a notice of motion asking staff to look into doing the same at the @cityofyarra.

This isn’t a silver bullet, but the state and federal governments are not doing enough. And when they fail, local governments step into the breach. And with increasing numbers of pedestrian deaths in Victoria, something needs to be done.

https://www.instagram.com/p/C4JOsjiPaI0/?img_index=7

My TAFE is in their council region and they're the biggest street parking Nazis going around, absolutely ruthless, so I'm curious about what they do to people with Thailand Specials, SUVs and American utes.

Every 2/4 hours we leave class to go swap car parks with each other then go back in, absolutely ridiculous

[Citroënbender]

Originally Posted by The cited article preceding

In the US, there has been a spate of parents killing kids in their own driveways.

Quite irrelevant to the core “goal” originally implied. Is this another example of clueless reactionaries attempting policy-on-the-fly?