Real worl fuel tests: popular ute breaches clean-air limits; two cars burn 20% more fuel
At a glance
- Ford Ranger: On-road testing shows PM2.5 emissions exceed the upcoming lab limit
- Toyota Camry Hybrid: Real-world fuel use now ~20% higher than lab test, up from ~8% in 2023
- Chery Tiggo 4 Pro: Small SUV shows the largest fuel gap in this batch, using 21% more than lab tests say
Australians buy cars for many reasons, and how much manufacturers claim the consume – and thus cost to fuel – is a major factor.
The latest Real-World Testing Program (RWTP) results, released by the Australian Automotive Association (AAA) on Wednesday, suggest those promises don’t always hold up on our roads. In its latest October 2025 tranche of data, one of the country’s best-selling utes recorded excessive ultrafine particles, and a family favourite and popular newcomer now using markedly more fuel outside the lab.
The RWTP data helps buyers avoid models that sip more than the sticker says. Modelling shared by the AAA says an average 8.0 per cent overshot in fuel usage could cost Aussies $4.16 billion in extra fuel costs. The RWTP, which came into being after the Volkswagen “Dieselgate” scandal of 2015, also flags models that exceed key fuel pollution benchmarks. Modelling also estimates using just 8.0 per cent more fuel than the stickers say results in $1.1 billion in missed pollution cuts that the new NVES rules are meant to deliver.
Chery Tiggo 4 Pro: biggest fuel variance in the pack
Testing of the Pro variant of the Tiggo 4, one of the most affordable cars in Australia and the most popular small SUV sold in September, has shown it will cost considerably more at the bowser. It has the widest real-world fuel gap in this batch: using 8.8L/100 km in the AAA’s real-world test versus 7.3L/100 km in the lab (up 21 per cent). For those that are budgeting on price and fuel costs, it’s a stinger.
Ford Ranger Raptor: exceeds fine particle limits
The Ford Ranger Raptor's on-road measurements show it far exceeds incoming particle-number (PN) lab limits (9.82x1011/km vs 6x1011/km.) PN tracks the count of ultrafine particles that can penetrate deeply into lungs, presenting risks of elevated cardiovascular and respiratory harm, especially for children, the elderly and people with existing conditions.
Australia’s tighter standards will phase in over the next few years, but RWTP is already revealing which models are likely to clear the bar outside the lab — and which may not. For a ubiquitous model like the Ranger Raptor, the “does it pass the pub test?” question gets louder: if neighbours can’t reconcile brochure claims with what independent road data shows, trust erodes.
Toyota Camry Hybrid: the fuel usage drifts upwards
The Toyota Camry Hybrid has long been a go-to for frugal motoring, but new tests show it is going in the wrong direction. A new RWTP test for the Camry Ascent shows an on-road figure about 21 per cent higher than its official lab number — up from 8.0 per cent in 2023.
A few percentage points might sound minor; across Australian driving patterns it stacks up. For a typical household doing 14,000 km a year, a 20 per cent real-world gap on a 4.0L/100 km lab claim means paying for roughly an extra 0.8L/100 km — hundreds of dollars more over a three-year ownership cycle, plus additional CO₂.
RWTP doesn’t say “don’t buy hybrids” – plenty still save fuel in traffic – it says: compare like-for-like using independent road data, not just the sticker. That’s how you pick the models and variants that genuinely return savings in your commute.
Avoiding fuel cost blowouts
RWTP exists to arm car buyers with real-world fuel usage numbers. When real-world figures diverge from the brochure, households pay the gap at the bowser.
Scaled nationally, continued gaps between on-road results and official lab/NVES expectations risk around $4.2 billion in avoidable fuel spend — money that could otherwise stay in family budgets or flow to local businesses. On the climate ledger, that same shortfall represents roughly $1.1 billion in unrealised carbon abatement value because on-road CO₂ is higher than lab assumptions.
“At a time when the regulators around the world are placing increasingly stringent emissions standards on car makers to reduce emissions, Real-World Testing is also producing important data to indicate how car makers are responding to these requirements,” says AAA Managing Director Michael Bradley.
These headline figures sharpen the consumer case for transparency: clear, independent road data helps us choose cars that actually save fuel, and rewards carmakers that deliver genuine on-road efficiency.
New figures also show variances in previous test of the same model to new tests, with four out of six vehicles now showing the gap between lab test figures and real-world tests have widened:
What RWTP shows - and what it doesn’t
RWTP bolts portable measuring equipment to production cars and runs a set urban/extra-urban route. Figures recorded are compared to official lab numbers. It’s not a replacement for lab tests; it complements them by answering the question buyers really ask: “How much fuel does this car really use?”
Results vary with conditions, but the program’s consistent protocol aims to help shoppers compare models on a level playing field.
To date, the RWTP has conducted tests on 131 pure-combustion and hybrid-powered vehicles, finding that a whopping 76 per cent use more fuel than official claims say.
Bottom line for buyers
- Use RWTP results alongside official figures to shortlist variants that genuinely save fuel on your routes.
- For city-heavy driving, hybrids still make sense, but let independent road data guide which one.
- For tradies and families looking at utes/SUVs, scrutinise on-road particle and fuel data, especially for models that dominate the sales charts.
Clear, independent numbers help Australians choose cars that are cleaner to breathe around and cheaper to run - not just on paper, but out on the Hume, Parramatta Road and everywhere in between.
