Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
Nowhere did I say that it wasn't forced, so please stop saying I'm wrong. What I've been saying and what has been ignored is that Honda used the mistake as an opportunity to advertise. They didn't just say, "EPA mileage of 40/50" they gave us great statements about how the fact that their car gets 50 mpg means that the car is better for the environment. That's what I take issue with. They didn't just show the MPG, they based an advertising strategy on it. That was the unethical action. It wasn't that they showed the numbers, as that's their legal obligation, but nowhere does it say they are obligated to say their car is better for the environment because of the erroneous numbers.
|
will, what you're not getting is that if this is forced then your entire argument falls apart. Every carmaker has to put this information on the sticker of every new car they sell. Every salesman has to tell the customer that it's true. Under the conditions allowed by the EPA, the car did get the mileage advertised. It's reproduceable in the lab but not on the road. It is not unethical in any way, shape or form if the law says that the company can't tell you that the mileage will be lower under different conditions than those tested. Again, ethics are completely irrelevant once the law is involved. The question becomes legal vs. illegal. Honda et al stayed within the bounds of the law. You are wrong. Deal with it.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
A 1994 Geo Metro could wipe the floor with this 'clean' hybrid. If I drive slow enough in my 1995 Eclipse Turbo, I can get pretty close to the numbers people are reporting. They DON'T use less gas. That's the problem. The 2007 DX boasts 30/40 numbers which are looking more and more like the numbers to expect from the hybrid.
|
Wow, that's great. Really really great. And completely and utterly irrelevant to what we're discussing. But really, it's great.
New cars only. Used cars aren't beholden to the EPA rules. The 2007 DX is beholden, but do you want to bet that those numbers are just as inaccurate in real world conditions? If you are, I'll be very happy to take your money. Just let me know how much you want to "wager", and we'll find someone nice and trustworthy to hold your money until it turns into my money.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
Do you mean to say that pointing out the numbers are wrong is a federal crime? Again, it boils down to the conclusions they start spouting from the mpg. They don't just say "40/50", they say, "this car will save you money" or "this car is better for the environment", thus USING the incorrect information to draw incorrect conclusions; conclusions that the EPA does not require that dealers provide.
|
Yes, pointing out the numbers are wrong is a federal crime. That's what I said before. Let me say it again:
if a car salesman tells you that the MPG listed on a sticker of a new car that he's trying to sell you is inaccurate, he's committed a federal offense.
Clear enough?
And I thought that we were leaving salesmen and salemanship out of this. I guess not. Based on the numbers, and realizing that in comparing a hybrid you have to have something to compare it to, yes, it will save you money, especially if I compare it to a new non-hybrid in the same class. It will not only use less gas but will be better for the environment than another new car in the same class.
By making that statement, not only have I done nothing illegal but I've also done nothing unethical. What I haven't done is told you that you can save more money by taking the bus, walking, driving a 1994 Geo Metro at no more than 25 mph or living as a hermit in Saskatchewan. It's all relative, and as a saleman, I feel just fine standing behind that kind of statement.
To sum it up, you're wrong. There's no room for error. Admit it and move on.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by QuasiMondo
I keep hearing "Mileage may vary" but what is the acceptable margin for variance? I drive a Ford explorer, and as leadfooted as I am, and as loaded up with work equipment that this truck is, I still manage 13 mpg from a vehicle that's rated at 13/17.
When the best you can muster is only 60% of what the vehicle is rated at (and maybe this guy should list the EPA as a co-defendant for having numbers so off the mark), I would think this is beyond what is acceptable for how much your mileage would vary. To me, this is as unacceptable as buying a car that was advertised as having 0-60 times of under six seconds (as tested by some leading magazine) and the best I could ever muster under optimal conditions was eight and a half seconds.
|
This is the funny part. There's no variance calculated, acceptable or otherwise. The sticker MPG is what it is. With an Explorer, especially one with as low an MPG as 13/17, there's lots of room for error. There's also the distinct possibility that Ford didn't bother trying to maximize the number and tested it in a manner that was fairly forgivable.
There's no way that a carmaker can accurately predict what everyone's driving habits are going to be and come up with some sort of national average, and there are so many variables that would affect the number that the equation becomes complex. We're talking about weather, season, tire pressure, frequency of oil changes, traffic patterns, type of tires, type of gas, etc., etc. There's a lot of room for error for a very good reason.