Western Mines extends nickel mineralisation at WA Goldfields project
These holes were drilled within the main body of the Mulga Tank ultramafic complex, stepping out 300 metres south of the company's previous drilling to test new areas.
All four holes, totalling 1309m, intersected visible disseminated sulphide mineralisation, with some coarser sulphide occurrences, successfully extending known nickel sulphide mineralisation beyond the current mineral resource estimate of more than 5 million tonnes of contained nickel.
The phase four program, funded by the company's recent capital raise and two WA Government Exploration Incentive Scheme (EIS) grants totalling $440,000, includes both RC and diamond drilling to define shallow high-grade zones – at grades around 0.4 per cent nickel - for potential shallow 'starter pit' areas and to test deeper basal massive sulphide targets.
The RC holes, spaced about 400m apart, were aimed at expanding the resource and identifying higher-value tonnages. The observed sulphide mineralisation in those holes supports the company's initial strategy to develop the shallow disseminated nickel sulphide system within the Minigwal Greenstone Belt.
Since completing the holes, the drill rig has converted and transitioned to diamond drilling at the northwestern Panhandle area of the project, boring a 131.4m diamond tail on a previous phase three RC hole that ended in mineralised olivine cumulate.
The extension tested the footwall contact to verify the geometry of the 1.3-kilometre-long body which was identified through aeromagnetic imagery.
WMG has also commenced its first EIS-funded diamond hole to log a complete section through the komatiite system's stratigraphy, building on its previous phase three results that have already confirmed a fertile nickel sulphide environment.
Meanwhile, the company has also undertaken a multi-hole downhole electromagnetic (DHEM) geophysical survey in July, using four phase three RC holes that intercepted shallow high-grade nickel responses.
The survey picked up EM anomalies linked to sulphide mineralisation in all four holes, highlighting a notable off-hole conductor plate anomaly below one of the RC holes.
This conductor anomaly is being modelled to design a potential diamond tail extension or twinned hole to test for deeper high-grade mineralisation.
The DHEM results reinforce the potential for significant nickel sulphide systems within the extensive Mulga Tank complex.
The outcome appears to be consistent with the results of WMG's exhaustive exploration over the past three years that has established Mulga Tank as a national and possibly globally significant nickel sulphide mineral system.
The combination of RC drilling to define shallow resources, coupled with diamond drilling to probe deeper targets in the project, reflects the company's goal of expanding the resource base by building the relatively shallow disseminated nickel resource for early exploitation - potentially by open pit mining - while also gradually uncovering massive sulphide deposits at depth.
With drilling ongoing and assays pending, WMG continues to unlock the potential of this extensive mineral system.
Its phase four RC drilling at Mulga Tank has extended sulphide mineralisation beyond the current resource, while diamond drilling and DHEM surveys are now targeting deeper high-grade zones. These efforts highlight the project's growing potential in the Eastern Goldfields.
Is your ASX-listed company doing something interesting? Contact:
matt.birney@wanews.com.au
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Advertiser
5 days ago
- The Advertiser
Government-funded fuel economy and EV range tests cause confusion, says automaker body
The peak body for car brands in Australia has criticised a government-funded program that tests the fuel economy, emissions and range claims of automakers, arguing it causes "unnecessary confusion". The Australian Automobile Association (AAA) recently expanded its Commonwealth-funded Real-World Testing Program, which commenced in 2023, to include testing of the range and efficiency of electric vehicles (EVs). However, the Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries (FCAI) has questioned the merit of the AAA's testing. CarExpert can save you thousands on a new car. Click here to get a great deal. "All vehicles, including EVs, sold in Australia are tested under strict laboratory conditions set out in Australian Design Rule 81/02," said FCAI chief executive Tony Weber in a statement. "This consistent methodology ensures vehicles can be reliably compared, regardless of brand or model. "Tests conducted outside the ADR process are influenced by many variables, including traffic, terrain, weather and driving style. No two drivers or journeys are the same. "We support transparent, evidence-based information for consumers, but it must be consistent. When conflicting figures are published, it undermines confidence and causes unnecessary confusion." The FCAI argues ADR 81/02 laboratory testing is already mandated by the federal government, so the funding of a real-world test program results in inconsistencies. The peak auto industry body and the Electric Vehicle Council (EVC) appear to have found some common ground. "All cars, including petrol and diesel cars, often present different results in the lab compared to real-world conditions. Laboratory testing occurs in controlled conditions while real-world driving throws in all sorts of variables such as traffic flows, hills, rough roads, weather, extra passenger or luggage weight, and the unique driving styles of motorists," said the EVC's head of legal, policy and advocacy, Aman Gaur, in a statement. "Given the unpredictable nature of driving needs, it's inherently challenging for manufacturers to provide real-world estimates. That's why electric vehicle manufacturers are following the rules and advertising the test results that are required by law." The EVC also noted hat most EV manufacturers use more realistic WLTP electric range figures, instead of the NEDC standard that was phased out in Europe several years ago but still underpins the local ADR 81/02 figures. In AAA testing, various models were found to return results well adrift of their lab-tested claims. In its inaugural testing of EVs, the results of which were released this week, the BYD Atto 3 electric SUV was found to have 23 per cent less range than claimed and 21 per cent higher energy consumption. In previous testing, a raft of petrol, diesel and hybrid vehicles were also found to exceed their advertised fuel economy and CO2 emissions claims. The previous-generation BMW X3, for example, was found to use 20 per cent more fuel and produce 23 per cent more CO2 than claimed, while the Chery Omoda 5 used 32 per cent more fuel and produced 26.8 per cent more CO2. Other disappointing results included previous generations of the MG 3 (+19 and +13 per cent, respectively) and Suzuki Swift (+31 and +31). The latter was also found to produce more than double the mandated lab limit for carbon monoxide. Some hybrids have also fallen short in the AAA testing program, with the GWM Haval Jolion Hybrid found to use 32 per cent more fuel and produce 31.5 per cent more CO2 than its claims. The AAA has said the need for real-world testing was first demonstrated by the Volkswagen emissions scandal (commonly referred to as Dieselgate), in which Volkswagen vehicles were found to use software to trick lab tests, and it claims real-world data is important during the cost-of-living crisis for households and fleets alike. It subsequently received $14 million in government funding for the Real-World Testing Program, which is conducted from a facility in Geelong and on public roads in and around the city. The aim remains to examine up to 200 cars, utes and vans over a four-year period. "Australian car buyers have for too long been misled regarding their vehicle's fuel consumption and environmental performance," said AAA managing director Michael Bradley in 2023. "This Program will deliver Australians truth-in-advertising and drive down demand for cars that over-promise and under-deliver. Better information will enable families and fleet buyers to buy vehicles that will meet their budget and environmental requirements. While the FCAI represents most auto brands (notable exceptions include EVC members Tesla and Polestar), the AAA is the peak organisation for Australia's motoring clubs and their 9.5 million members, representing the likes of the NRMA, RACV, RACQ and others. MORE: EV range claims from BYD, Tesla, others scrutinised in new real-world testing MORE: Real-world testing shows Ford Ranger among emissions-breaching models MORE: Real-world testing shows not all hybrids are created equal at saving fuel MORE: Popular Australian models found to use up to 35 per cent more fuel than claimed MORE: New data shows even more new cars are thirstier and dirtier than claimed MORE: Real-world tests reveal the cars that are thirstier than they claim MORE: The popular cars, SUVs and utes that can't match their fuel economy claims MORE: Real-world fuel use shows popular Australian new cars drastically exceed claims MORE: Which SUVs don't match their fuel economy stickers in the real world? Content originally sourced from: The peak body for car brands in Australia has criticised a government-funded program that tests the fuel economy, emissions and range claims of automakers, arguing it causes "unnecessary confusion". The Australian Automobile Association (AAA) recently expanded its Commonwealth-funded Real-World Testing Program, which commenced in 2023, to include testing of the range and efficiency of electric vehicles (EVs). However, the Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries (FCAI) has questioned the merit of the AAA's testing. CarExpert can save you thousands on a new car. Click here to get a great deal. "All vehicles, including EVs, sold in Australia are tested under strict laboratory conditions set out in Australian Design Rule 81/02," said FCAI chief executive Tony Weber in a statement. "This consistent methodology ensures vehicles can be reliably compared, regardless of brand or model. "Tests conducted outside the ADR process are influenced by many variables, including traffic, terrain, weather and driving style. No two drivers or journeys are the same. "We support transparent, evidence-based information for consumers, but it must be consistent. When conflicting figures are published, it undermines confidence and causes unnecessary confusion." The FCAI argues ADR 81/02 laboratory testing is already mandated by the federal government, so the funding of a real-world test program results in inconsistencies. The peak auto industry body and the Electric Vehicle Council (EVC) appear to have found some common ground. "All cars, including petrol and diesel cars, often present different results in the lab compared to real-world conditions. Laboratory testing occurs in controlled conditions while real-world driving throws in all sorts of variables such as traffic flows, hills, rough roads, weather, extra passenger or luggage weight, and the unique driving styles of motorists," said the EVC's head of legal, policy and advocacy, Aman Gaur, in a statement. "Given the unpredictable nature of driving needs, it's inherently challenging for manufacturers to provide real-world estimates. That's why electric vehicle manufacturers are following the rules and advertising the test results that are required by law." The EVC also noted hat most EV manufacturers use more realistic WLTP electric range figures, instead of the NEDC standard that was phased out in Europe several years ago but still underpins the local ADR 81/02 figures. In AAA testing, various models were found to return results well adrift of their lab-tested claims. In its inaugural testing of EVs, the results of which were released this week, the BYD Atto 3 electric SUV was found to have 23 per cent less range than claimed and 21 per cent higher energy consumption. In previous testing, a raft of petrol, diesel and hybrid vehicles were also found to exceed their advertised fuel economy and CO2 emissions claims. The previous-generation BMW X3, for example, was found to use 20 per cent more fuel and produce 23 per cent more CO2 than claimed, while the Chery Omoda 5 used 32 per cent more fuel and produced 26.8 per cent more CO2. Other disappointing results included previous generations of the MG 3 (+19 and +13 per cent, respectively) and Suzuki Swift (+31 and +31). The latter was also found to produce more than double the mandated lab limit for carbon monoxide. Some hybrids have also fallen short in the AAA testing program, with the GWM Haval Jolion Hybrid found to use 32 per cent more fuel and produce 31.5 per cent more CO2 than its claims. The AAA has said the need for real-world testing was first demonstrated by the Volkswagen emissions scandal (commonly referred to as Dieselgate), in which Volkswagen vehicles were found to use software to trick lab tests, and it claims real-world data is important during the cost-of-living crisis for households and fleets alike. It subsequently received $14 million in government funding for the Real-World Testing Program, which is conducted from a facility in Geelong and on public roads in and around the city. The aim remains to examine up to 200 cars, utes and vans over a four-year period. "Australian car buyers have for too long been misled regarding their vehicle's fuel consumption and environmental performance," said AAA managing director Michael Bradley in 2023. "This Program will deliver Australians truth-in-advertising and drive down demand for cars that over-promise and under-deliver. Better information will enable families and fleet buyers to buy vehicles that will meet their budget and environmental requirements. While the FCAI represents most auto brands (notable exceptions include EVC members Tesla and Polestar), the AAA is the peak organisation for Australia's motoring clubs and their 9.5 million members, representing the likes of the NRMA, RACV, RACQ and others. MORE: EV range claims from BYD, Tesla, others scrutinised in new real-world testing MORE: Real-world testing shows Ford Ranger among emissions-breaching models MORE: Real-world testing shows not all hybrids are created equal at saving fuel MORE: Popular Australian models found to use up to 35 per cent more fuel than claimed MORE: New data shows even more new cars are thirstier and dirtier than claimed MORE: Real-world tests reveal the cars that are thirstier than they claim MORE: The popular cars, SUVs and utes that can't match their fuel economy claims MORE: Real-world fuel use shows popular Australian new cars drastically exceed claims MORE: Which SUVs don't match their fuel economy stickers in the real world? Content originally sourced from: The peak body for car brands in Australia has criticised a government-funded program that tests the fuel economy, emissions and range claims of automakers, arguing it causes "unnecessary confusion". The Australian Automobile Association (AAA) recently expanded its Commonwealth-funded Real-World Testing Program, which commenced in 2023, to include testing of the range and efficiency of electric vehicles (EVs). However, the Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries (FCAI) has questioned the merit of the AAA's testing. CarExpert can save you thousands on a new car. Click here to get a great deal. "All vehicles, including EVs, sold in Australia are tested under strict laboratory conditions set out in Australian Design Rule 81/02," said FCAI chief executive Tony Weber in a statement. "This consistent methodology ensures vehicles can be reliably compared, regardless of brand or model. "Tests conducted outside the ADR process are influenced by many variables, including traffic, terrain, weather and driving style. No two drivers or journeys are the same. "We support transparent, evidence-based information for consumers, but it must be consistent. When conflicting figures are published, it undermines confidence and causes unnecessary confusion." The FCAI argues ADR 81/02 laboratory testing is already mandated by the federal government, so the funding of a real-world test program results in inconsistencies. The peak auto industry body and the Electric Vehicle Council (EVC) appear to have found some common ground. "All cars, including petrol and diesel cars, often present different results in the lab compared to real-world conditions. Laboratory testing occurs in controlled conditions while real-world driving throws in all sorts of variables such as traffic flows, hills, rough roads, weather, extra passenger or luggage weight, and the unique driving styles of motorists," said the EVC's head of legal, policy and advocacy, Aman Gaur, in a statement. "Given the unpredictable nature of driving needs, it's inherently challenging for manufacturers to provide real-world estimates. That's why electric vehicle manufacturers are following the rules and advertising the test results that are required by law." The EVC also noted hat most EV manufacturers use more realistic WLTP electric range figures, instead of the NEDC standard that was phased out in Europe several years ago but still underpins the local ADR 81/02 figures. In AAA testing, various models were found to return results well adrift of their lab-tested claims. In its inaugural testing of EVs, the results of which were released this week, the BYD Atto 3 electric SUV was found to have 23 per cent less range than claimed and 21 per cent higher energy consumption. In previous testing, a raft of petrol, diesel and hybrid vehicles were also found to exceed their advertised fuel economy and CO2 emissions claims. The previous-generation BMW X3, for example, was found to use 20 per cent more fuel and produce 23 per cent more CO2 than claimed, while the Chery Omoda 5 used 32 per cent more fuel and produced 26.8 per cent more CO2. Other disappointing results included previous generations of the MG 3 (+19 and +13 per cent, respectively) and Suzuki Swift (+31 and +31). The latter was also found to produce more than double the mandated lab limit for carbon monoxide. Some hybrids have also fallen short in the AAA testing program, with the GWM Haval Jolion Hybrid found to use 32 per cent more fuel and produce 31.5 per cent more CO2 than its claims. The AAA has said the need for real-world testing was first demonstrated by the Volkswagen emissions scandal (commonly referred to as Dieselgate), in which Volkswagen vehicles were found to use software to trick lab tests, and it claims real-world data is important during the cost-of-living crisis for households and fleets alike. It subsequently received $14 million in government funding for the Real-World Testing Program, which is conducted from a facility in Geelong and on public roads in and around the city. The aim remains to examine up to 200 cars, utes and vans over a four-year period. "Australian car buyers have for too long been misled regarding their vehicle's fuel consumption and environmental performance," said AAA managing director Michael Bradley in 2023. "This Program will deliver Australians truth-in-advertising and drive down demand for cars that over-promise and under-deliver. Better information will enable families and fleet buyers to buy vehicles that will meet their budget and environmental requirements. While the FCAI represents most auto brands (notable exceptions include EVC members Tesla and Polestar), the AAA is the peak organisation for Australia's motoring clubs and their 9.5 million members, representing the likes of the NRMA, RACV, RACQ and others. MORE: EV range claims from BYD, Tesla, others scrutinised in new real-world testing MORE: Real-world testing shows Ford Ranger among emissions-breaching models MORE: Real-world testing shows not all hybrids are created equal at saving fuel MORE: Popular Australian models found to use up to 35 per cent more fuel than claimed MORE: New data shows even more new cars are thirstier and dirtier than claimed MORE: Real-world tests reveal the cars that are thirstier than they claim MORE: The popular cars, SUVs and utes that can't match their fuel economy claims MORE: Real-world fuel use shows popular Australian new cars drastically exceed claims MORE: Which SUVs don't match their fuel economy stickers in the real world? Content originally sourced from: The peak body for car brands in Australia has criticised a government-funded program that tests the fuel economy, emissions and range claims of automakers, arguing it causes "unnecessary confusion". The Australian Automobile Association (AAA) recently expanded its Commonwealth-funded Real-World Testing Program, which commenced in 2023, to include testing of the range and efficiency of electric vehicles (EVs). However, the Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries (FCAI) has questioned the merit of the AAA's testing. CarExpert can save you thousands on a new car. Click here to get a great deal. "All vehicles, including EVs, sold in Australia are tested under strict laboratory conditions set out in Australian Design Rule 81/02," said FCAI chief executive Tony Weber in a statement. "This consistent methodology ensures vehicles can be reliably compared, regardless of brand or model. "Tests conducted outside the ADR process are influenced by many variables, including traffic, terrain, weather and driving style. No two drivers or journeys are the same. "We support transparent, evidence-based information for consumers, but it must be consistent. When conflicting figures are published, it undermines confidence and causes unnecessary confusion." The FCAI argues ADR 81/02 laboratory testing is already mandated by the federal government, so the funding of a real-world test program results in inconsistencies. The peak auto industry body and the Electric Vehicle Council (EVC) appear to have found some common ground. "All cars, including petrol and diesel cars, often present different results in the lab compared to real-world conditions. Laboratory testing occurs in controlled conditions while real-world driving throws in all sorts of variables such as traffic flows, hills, rough roads, weather, extra passenger or luggage weight, and the unique driving styles of motorists," said the EVC's head of legal, policy and advocacy, Aman Gaur, in a statement. "Given the unpredictable nature of driving needs, it's inherently challenging for manufacturers to provide real-world estimates. That's why electric vehicle manufacturers are following the rules and advertising the test results that are required by law." The EVC also noted hat most EV manufacturers use more realistic WLTP electric range figures, instead of the NEDC standard that was phased out in Europe several years ago but still underpins the local ADR 81/02 figures. In AAA testing, various models were found to return results well adrift of their lab-tested claims. In its inaugural testing of EVs, the results of which were released this week, the BYD Atto 3 electric SUV was found to have 23 per cent less range than claimed and 21 per cent higher energy consumption. In previous testing, a raft of petrol, diesel and hybrid vehicles were also found to exceed their advertised fuel economy and CO2 emissions claims. The previous-generation BMW X3, for example, was found to use 20 per cent more fuel and produce 23 per cent more CO2 than claimed, while the Chery Omoda 5 used 32 per cent more fuel and produced 26.8 per cent more CO2. Other disappointing results included previous generations of the MG 3 (+19 and +13 per cent, respectively) and Suzuki Swift (+31 and +31). The latter was also found to produce more than double the mandated lab limit for carbon monoxide. Some hybrids have also fallen short in the AAA testing program, with the GWM Haval Jolion Hybrid found to use 32 per cent more fuel and produce 31.5 per cent more CO2 than its claims. The AAA has said the need for real-world testing was first demonstrated by the Volkswagen emissions scandal (commonly referred to as Dieselgate), in which Volkswagen vehicles were found to use software to trick lab tests, and it claims real-world data is important during the cost-of-living crisis for households and fleets alike. It subsequently received $14 million in government funding for the Real-World Testing Program, which is conducted from a facility in Geelong and on public roads in and around the city. The aim remains to examine up to 200 cars, utes and vans over a four-year period. "Australian car buyers have for too long been misled regarding their vehicle's fuel consumption and environmental performance," said AAA managing director Michael Bradley in 2023. "This Program will deliver Australians truth-in-advertising and drive down demand for cars that over-promise and under-deliver. Better information will enable families and fleet buyers to buy vehicles that will meet their budget and environmental requirements. While the FCAI represents most auto brands (notable exceptions include EVC members Tesla and Polestar), the AAA is the peak organisation for Australia's motoring clubs and their 9.5 million members, representing the likes of the NRMA, RACV, RACQ and others. MORE: EV range claims from BYD, Tesla, others scrutinised in new real-world testing MORE: Real-world testing shows Ford Ranger among emissions-breaching models MORE: Real-world testing shows not all hybrids are created equal at saving fuel MORE: Popular Australian models found to use up to 35 per cent more fuel than claimed MORE: New data shows even more new cars are thirstier and dirtier than claimed MORE: Real-world tests reveal the cars that are thirstier than they claim MORE: The popular cars, SUVs and utes that can't match their fuel economy claims MORE: Real-world fuel use shows popular Australian new cars drastically exceed claims MORE: Which SUVs don't match their fuel economy stickers in the real world? Content originally sourced from:
7NEWS
5 days ago
- 7NEWS
Government-funded fuel economy and EV range tests cause confusion, says automaker body
The peak body for car brands in Australia has criticised a government-funded program that tests the fuel economy, emissions and range claims of automakers, arguing it causes 'unnecessary confusion'. The Australian Automobile Association (AAA) recently expanded its Commonwealth-funded Real-World Testing Program, which commenced in 2023, to include testing of the range and efficiency of electric vehicles (EVs). However, the Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries (FCAI) has questioned the merit of the AAA's testing. CarExpert can save you thousands on a new car. Click here to get a great deal. 'All vehicles, including EVs, sold in Australia are tested under strict laboratory conditions set out in Australian Design Rule 81/02,' said FCAI chief executive Tony Weber in a statement. 'This consistent methodology ensures vehicles can be reliably compared, regardless of brand or model. 'Tests conducted outside the ADR process are influenced by many variables, including traffic, terrain, weather and driving style. No two drivers or journeys are the same. 'We support transparent, evidence-based information for consumers, but it must be consistent. When conflicting figures are published, it undermines confidence and causes unnecessary confusion.' The FCAI argues ADR 81/02 laboratory testing is already mandated by the federal government, so the funding of a real-world test program results in inconsistencies. The peak auto industry body and the Electric Vehicle Council (EVC) appear to have found some common ground. 'All cars, including petrol and diesel cars, often present different results in the lab compared to real-world conditions. Laboratory testing occurs in controlled conditions while real-world driving throws in all sorts of variables such as traffic flows, hills, rough roads, weather, extra passenger or luggage weight, and the unique driving styles of motorists,' said the EVC's head of legal, policy and advocacy, Aman Gaur, in a statement. 'Given the unpredictable nature of driving needs, it's inherently challenging for manufacturers to provide real-world estimates. That's why electric vehicle manufacturers are following the rules and advertising the test results that are required by law.' The EVC also noted hat most EV manufacturers use more realistic WLTP electric range figures, instead of the NEDC standard that was phased out in Europe several years ago but still underpins the local ADR 81/02 figures. In AAA testing, various models were found to return results well adrift of their lab-tested claims. In its inaugural testing of EVs, the results of which were released this week, the BYD Atto 3 electric SUV was found to have 23 per cent less range than claimed and 21 per cent higher energy consumption. In previous testing, a raft of petrol, diesel and hybrid vehicles were also found to exceed their advertised fuel economy and CO2 emissions claims. The previous-generation BMW X3, for example, was found to use 20 per cent more fuel and produce 23 per cent more CO2 than claimed, while the Chery Omoda 5 used 32 per cent more fuel and produced 26.8 per cent more CO2. Other disappointing results included previous generations of the MG 3 (+19 and +13 per cent, respectively) and Suzuki Swift (+31 and +31). The latter was also found to produce more than double the mandated lab limit for carbon monoxide. Some hybrids have also fallen short in the AAA testing program, with the GWM Haval Jolion Hybrid found to use 32 per cent more fuel and produce 31.5 per cent more CO2 than its claims. The AAA has said the need for real-world testing was first demonstrated by the Volkswagen emissions scandal (commonly referred to as Dieselgate), in which Volkswagen vehicles were found to use software to trick lab tests, and it claims real-world data is important during the cost-of-living crisis for households and fleets alike. It subsequently received $14 million in government funding for the Real-World Testing Program, which is conducted from a facility in Geelong and on public roads in and around the city. The aim remains to examine up to 200 cars, utes and vans over a four-year period. 'Australian car buyers have for too long been misled regarding their vehicle's fuel consumption and environmental performance,' said AAA managing director Michael Bradley in 2023. 'This Program will deliver Australians truth-in-advertising and drive down demand for cars that over-promise and under-deliver. Better information will enable families and fleet buyers to buy vehicles that will meet their budget and environmental requirements. While the FCAI represents most auto brands (notable exceptions include EVC members Tesla and Polestar), the AAA is the peak organisation for Australia's motoring clubs and their 9.5 million members, representing the likes of the NRMA, RACV, RACQ and others.
Perth Now
5 days ago
- Perth Now
Government-funded fuel economy and EV range tests cause confusion, says automaker body
The peak body for car brands in Australia has criticised a government-funded program that tests the fuel economy, emissions and range claims of automakers, arguing it causes 'unnecessary confusion'. The Australian Automobile Association (AAA) recently expanded its Commonwealth-funded Real-World Testing Program, which commenced in 2023, to include testing of the range and efficiency of electric vehicles (EVs). However, the Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries (FCAI) has questioned the merit of the AAA's testing. CarExpert can save you thousands on a new car. Click here to get a great deal. Supplied Credit: CarExpert 'All vehicles, including EVs, sold in Australia are tested under strict laboratory conditions set out in Australian Design Rule 81/02,' said FCAI chief executive Tony Weber in a statement. 'This consistent methodology ensures vehicles can be reliably compared, regardless of brand or model. 'Tests conducted outside the ADR process are influenced by many variables, including traffic, terrain, weather and driving style. No two drivers or journeys are the same. 'We support transparent, evidence-based information for consumers, but it must be consistent. When conflicting figures are published, it undermines confidence and causes unnecessary confusion.' Supplied Credit: CarExpert The FCAI argues ADR 81/02 laboratory testing is already mandated by the federal government, so the funding of a real-world test program results in inconsistencies. The peak auto industry body and the Electric Vehicle Council (EVC) appear to have found some common ground. 'All cars, including petrol and diesel cars, often present different results in the lab compared to real-world conditions. Laboratory testing occurs in controlled conditions while real-world driving throws in all sorts of variables such as traffic flows, hills, rough roads, weather, extra passenger or luggage weight, and the unique driving styles of motorists,' said the EVC's head of legal, policy and advocacy, Aman Gaur, in a statement. 'Given the unpredictable nature of driving needs, it's inherently challenging for manufacturers to provide real-world estimates. That's why electric vehicle manufacturers are following the rules and advertising the test results that are required by law.' Supplied Credit: CarExpert The EVC also noted hat most EV manufacturers use more realistic WLTP electric range figures, instead of the NEDC standard that was phased out in Europe several years ago but still underpins the local ADR 81/02 figures. In AAA testing, various models were found to return results well adrift of their lab-tested claims. In its inaugural testing of EVs, the results of which were released this week, the BYD Atto 3 electric SUV was found to have 23 per cent less range than claimed and 21 per cent higher energy consumption. In previous testing, a raft of petrol, diesel and hybrid vehicles were also found to exceed their advertised fuel economy and CO2 emissions claims. Supplied Credit: CarExpert The previous-generation BMW X3, for example, was found to use 20 per cent more fuel and produce 23 per cent more CO2 than claimed, while the Chery Omoda 5 used 32 per cent more fuel and produced 26.8 per cent more CO2. Other disappointing results included previous generations of the MG 3 (+19 and +13 per cent, respectively) and Suzuki Swift (+31 and +31). The latter was also found to produce more than double the mandated lab limit for carbon monoxide. Some hybrids have also fallen short in the AAA testing program, with the GWM Haval Jolion Hybrid found to use 32 per cent more fuel and produce 31.5 per cent more CO2 than its claims. The AAA has said the need for real-world testing was first demonstrated by the Volkswagen emissions scandal (commonly referred to as Dieselgate), in which Volkswagen vehicles were found to use software to trick lab tests, and it claims real-world data is important during the cost-of-living crisis for households and fleets alike. Supplied Credit: CarExpert It subsequently received $14 million in government funding for the Real-World Testing Program, which is conducted from a facility in Geelong and on public roads in and around the city. The aim remains to examine up to 200 cars, utes and vans over a four-year period. 'Australian car buyers have for too long been misled regarding their vehicle's fuel consumption and environmental performance,' said AAA managing director Michael Bradley in 2023. 'This Program will deliver Australians truth-in-advertising and drive down demand for cars that over-promise and under-deliver. Better information will enable families and fleet buyers to buy vehicles that will meet their budget and environmental requirements. While the FCAI represents most auto brands (notable exceptions include EVC members Tesla and Polestar), the AAA is the peak organisation for Australia's motoring clubs and their 9.5 million members, representing the likes of the NRMA, RACV, RACQ and others. Supplied Credit: CarExpert MORE: EV range claims from BYD, Tesla, others scrutinised in new real-world testing MORE: Real-world testing shows Ford Ranger among emissions-breaching models MORE: Real-world testing shows not all hybrids are created equal at saving fuel MORE: Popular Australian models found to use up to 35 per cent more fuel than claimed MORE: New data shows even more new cars are thirstier and dirtier than claimed MORE: Real-world tests reveal the cars that are thirstier than they claim MORE: The popular cars, SUVs and utes that can't match their fuel economy claims MORE: Real-world fuel use shows popular Australian new cars drastically exceed claims MORE: Which SUVs don't match their fuel economy stickers in the real world?
