When it comes to buying a new four-wheel drive, regardless of what we tell ourselves, we always take into account the fuel consumption sticker on the windscreen.
More often than not, we’ll look at that little sticker and think ‘Fair suck of the sauce bottle mate, there’s no chance I’m going to get those numbers…’ but one bloke has thought about it a little differently. It seems his thought process went more along the lines of ‘Fair suck of the sauce bottle, why don’t I get those numbers?!’
NEWS Industry
WORDS BY WES WHITWORTH
In what appears to be a first for Aussie consumers, the bloke in question, Zelko Begovic bought an MQ Triton back in 2017 from Berwick Mitsubishi. Despite his best efforts, he was unable to get near the stated figures from Mitsubishi. So, he did what any red-blooded Aussie would do, fronted up to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT), with a fist full of fuel receipts, and discussed the ‘whole vibe of it’, and how ‘a mans car is his mobile castle’.
After more than a little to-ing and fro-ing, the Senior Member of the VCAT, agreed with Mr Begovic, and ordered that Berwick Mitsubishi take ownership of the Triton back, and refund the bloke the full $39,500 price he paid for it. The long and short of it, was that the “vehicle's actual fuel consumption is significantly higher than the fuel consumption represented on the label and that the label is misleading”.
But how much higher? To the tune of 12.44L/100km, above the advertised 8.5L/100km in combined conditions.
The argument didn’t stop there, however, as Mitsubishi and Mr Begovic jointly undertook further testing, by way of a dynamometer to remove many of the variables of driving on the open road, however still found the fuel consumption of the Triton in question to use 8.85L/100km, which is again above the advertised 6.8L/100km for extra-urban conditions (which a constant load on a dyno would mimic).
As you would assume, Mitsubishi Motors Australia appeared on behalf of the dealer, no doubt with a full legal team to run the case and have released a statement disagreeing with the findings.
“Mitsubishi Motors Australia strongly disagree with the findings in a VCAT case with Mr Zelko Begovic that the stated fuel consumption on the label on his 2016 Triton GLS was misleading,” the statement said.
“The Tribunal took into account test results provided by the customer of their used vehicle, which was tested to a different methodology to the ADR81/02 standard outlined on the fuel consumption label.
“The testing used different standards to achieve a result, including vehicle load, fuel quality standard and the tests were outside laboratory conditions as they utilised portable testing equipment.”
Essentially the claim is that real world figures are a very different kettle of fish, when compared with the in-lab testing and figures that are stated on the labels found on new vehicles.
Mitsubishi plans to appeal the decision in the Supreme Court, so we all have to wait to see what happens with this case. Either way, we can only assume that there will be some rather concerned dealers today, making no fuss about the fuel economy stickers in their sales pitch.
NEWS Industry
WORDS BY WES WHITWORTH
When it comes to buying a new four-wheel drive, regardless of what we tell ourselves, we always take into account the fuel consumption sticker on the windscreen.
More often than not, we’ll look at that little sticker and think ‘Fair suck of the sauce bottle mate, there’s no chance I’m going to get those numbers…’ but one bloke has thought about it a little differently. It seems his thought process went more along the lines of ‘Fair suck of the sauce bottle, why don’t I get those numbers?!’
In what appears to be a first for Aussie consumers, the bloke in question, Zelko Begovic bought an MQ Triton back in 2017 from Berwick Mitsubishi. Despite his best efforts, he was unable to get near the stated figures from Mitsubishi. So, he did what any red-blooded Aussie would do, fronted up to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT), with a fist full of fuel receipts, and discussed the ‘whole vibe of it’, and how ‘a mans car is his mobile castle’.
After more than a little to-ing and fro-ing, the Senior Member of the VCAT, agreed with Mr Begovic, and ordered that Berwick Mitsubishi take ownership of the Triton back, and refund the bloke the full $39,500 price he paid for it. The long and short of it, was that the “vehicle's actual fuel consumption is significantly higher than the fuel consumption represented on the label and that the label is misleading”.
But how much higher? To the tune of 12.44L/100km, above the advertised 8.5L/100km in combined conditions.
The argument didn’t stop there, however, as Mitsubishi and Mr Begovic jointly undertook further testing, by way of a dynamometer to remove many of the variables of driving on the open road, however still found the fuel consumption of the Triton in question to use 8.85L/100km, which is again above the advertised 6.8L/100km for extra-urban conditions (which a constant load on a dyno would mimic).
As you would assume, Mitsubishi Motors Australia appeared on behalf of the dealer, no doubt with a full legal team to run the case and have released a statement disagreeing with the findings.
“Mitsubishi Motors Australia strongly disagree with the findings in a VCAT case with Mr Zelko Begovic that the stated fuel consumption on the label on his 2016 Triton GLS was misleading,” the statement said.
“The Tribunal took into account test results provided by the customer of their used vehicle, which was tested to a different methodology to the ADR81/02 standard outlined on the fuel consumption label.
“The testing used different standards to achieve a result, including vehicle load, fuel quality standard and the tests were outside laboratory conditions as they utilised portable testing equipment.”
Essentially the claim is that real world figures are a very different kettle of fish, when compared with the in-lab testing and figures that are stated on the labels found on new vehicles.
Mitsubishi plans to appeal the decision in the Supreme Court, so we all have to wait to see what happens with this case. Either way, we can only assume that there will be some rather concerned dealers today, making no fuss about the fuel economy stickers in their sales pitch.