It is with the words, "Your Mileage May Vary." Is that not still part of the window sticker?

as far as the lottery is concerned it is also made clear via the "odds of winning." that is part of every contest from lottery to winning a free pepsi.

Exactly. They give you the whole shebang. You have a 1 in 60,000,000 chance of winning our lotto.

What are the odds that you can actually get your Civic hybrid to get 50 mpg? How many tested even under optimal conditions, can get that? We don't know. All we have is the vague "your mileage may vary". What it should say is "You're probably not going to get 50 mpg. Shoot, you'll be lucky to get 40. Most people get around 32."

FALSE advertising. The EPA is wrong, and Honda is wrong to go along with it.

I don't think that it is false advertising. False advertising would be that Honda put up those figures, Honda regurgitated them from the EPA.

Results not typical and Your Mileage May Vary. It clearly falls under "puffering" and "salesmanship."

YMMV hasn't changed until recently wherein EPA was pressured to change their methodologies. Their methods were extremely hard to replicate.

Just like people who read the prospectus for any stock offering, there is a chance you may not achieve the same results. Just like there is a chance that you may even meet or exceed them.

Salesmanship includes business ethics, of which this is a blatant violation. Honda doesn't have to go along with the error that happens to be in their favor, as a matter of fact, it's their responsibility not to mislead their customers.

"Results not typical" would be acceptable. "Results may vary" isn't.

Well, the guy gets bonus points for being a complete jackass for believing anything that a profit-seeking mega-corporation releases. Money-money.

Example: My General Motors (made in Canada / Asia) truck supposedly gets 24 miles a gallon. Downhill. With a tailwind. They'll post 24 because they can get away with it legally. Has nothing to do with the actual reality.

Consumer reporting organizations would get a thumbs up here. I'm sure if I got on the Intarweb and looked up customer experiences with Honda Hybrids... I'd find the real MPG ratings of this vehicle in practice as opposed to lab conditions.

(hands out T-shirts for everyone) I DID THE RESEARCH.

Salesmanship includes business ethics???? That's a bunch of horseshit and you know it. Caveat Emptor. Let the buyer beware. If the buyer is an idiot, the buyer is an idiot.

Undercarriage rust protection???? there are numerous other items that could be listed that "salesmanship ethics" are questionable.

I would state that YMMV and Results not typical is pretty equal in my view of the world.

Correct, even just speaking to other owners gives you an idea as to what the operation of the vehicle is like from drive handling to fuel efficiency to cost of repairs and maintenance.

The EPA & its testing standards garbage can take a flying leap, Honda can follow them out the window. It's just another case of finger pointing and the blame game. Honda didn't test it, 20 year-old EPA standards never accounted for hybrid motors, so... nobody to blame but the consumer here.

In this day and age of "Nothing is my fault, and I'll sue someone." Personal responsibility is dead. Period. Maybe this dude is a duchebag and drives like a jackass, so what? Someone needs to get off their ass and test the damn car and put a realistic MPG estimate on the sticker. How hard is it to gas the fucking thing up and drive it, then write down the results?? Duh...? I assume that this method is somehow flawed or non-exact. :rolleyes:

It's not horse-shit, so calm down and please speak to me with a reasonable level of respect. The buyer relies on the EPA and Honda not to deliberately mislead them, and it's in the best interest of any business to be honest with their customers in order to establish or reinforce their business-customer trust. The more this information spreads, the less popular Honda will be. That's foolish business.
Am I to understand that because they're unethical in one area, that excuses being unethical in others?

As a salesman, inserting the YMMV caveat protects me from bullshit claims like this one because I did, in fact, tell them that their mileage may vary.

Honda used the standard of the time. It's not their fault that the EPA required them to use an unreasonable test to calculate the final number. I think that you could even argue that as a Japanese car maker, they would lobby for the change since the new one favors cars that are actually fuel efficient, which most American cars are decidedly not.

Will, salemanship is the antithesis of business ethics. It's about forcing the facts into an argument that someone who wants something actually needs it. No one NEEDS a Prius since there are lots and lots of alternatives. They convince themselves that do need it, and the salesman's job is to help them do it at this dealership instead of the one down the street.

That's not completely true. Yes, it is the responsibility of the salesperson to themselves and their company to do their best to sell a car, but there is also a responsibility to your customers to serve. I'm not a proponent of the free market economy, but I recognize that a company that abuses it's customers can easily be damning itself to failure. Aside from the logical argument, the moral argument, selling the product based on TRUE information, should also be considered. The idea that salesmen aren't responsible for what they say or do makes no sense. Disinformation and false advertising, as we see above, are their responsibility to avoid.

I wouldn't want to live in a world where we excuse immoral and unethical practices simply because someone wants to make a buck. I mean, I don't see a reasonable man like you, The_Jazz, thinking that the Haliburton war profiteering is in any way right. I am, of course, not suggesting that what has happened here is on the same scale as Haliburton, but the doing anything for a buck philosophy has serious problems.

Well if you ever have those extra bucks laying about since you obviously have enough, and don't want to get more for you and your daughter, by all means, please foward them to me after you kick up a donation to Halx.

Thread jacking? Comon.

The_Jazz continued what I'm assuming your argument would be: basically that money > ethics. I would strongly disagree, and would gladly live in poverty as opposed to becoming a bad person. I guess that makes me either crazy, or full of...
I'd like to continue the debate, but if you want to talk about my personal financial situation, I'm sure we can move the conversation to an appropriate thread.

will, at the risk of a further threadjack, I think you missed a major part of my argument. The salesman's job is to make the FACTS fit the PERCEPTION. The guy who taught me more about selling than anyone other than me once explained the great salesman theory. The best saleman in the world can actually sell ice cubes to Eskimos. He does that by convincing them that cubed ice is better, faster and easier than ice they dug up themselves. In reality, it's the same damn thing as what's all around them, but they didn't have to make the ice cubes themselves, and sometimes that hassle is worth the expense. Good salesmen NEVER EVER LIE to a customer; if you get caught in a lie, not only will you lose that sale, but you can rest asured that every cohort of the lost sale is going to know about your truth problem. I never said that they weren't responsible for their statements, but I think that we all know that the truth about anything depends on your perception. Even in math, as we see here, there are very few absolute truths.

Mentioning Haliburton is a big old strawman. They don't have salemen. They don't need them. Why would you pay a sales force when the easy channels for your products and services are automatically opened to you.

I can appreciate that, but this leaves us in a common place: either Honda knew and didn't disclose, or they didn't know and they're all idiots. I call it Bush syndrome. I think it's reasonable to assume that Honda knows what kind of typical mileage their hybrids would get, as the cars go through endless testing before production and considering this is a hybrid, it must have been tweaked to get the best mileage Honda was willing to give.

As you say, a good salesperson never lies. But what about those who inform the salesmen? I've known car salesmen, and they're not all upper management or mechanics. A lot of them simply get their information from the brochures and from more knowledgeable managers. There is a lie or an omission somewhere between those who tested and noted the abilities and features of the car and the salespeople. It was in that mess that the mistake was made. Someone knowingly allowed the incorrect or misleading figures of the EPA to be put on the window of the car, and all the "results may vary" business can't excuse deliberately misleading by not putting a correct and authentic figures for customers.

Maybe I should put it this way: what if the next Kia Rondo advertises "top speed: 155 mpg, results may vary"?
Just because you said the word "salesmen" doesn't mean the whole thing is about salesmen. As I've said above, the typical salesperson probably has no idea what kind of mileage the thing has until they read the sticker in the window. This is about omitting correct information in order to deceive customers.

"Someone"???? WTF is someone. There are many threads out there in many car forums of people questioning why they don't get the advertised EPA mileage, this goes from regular vehicles, flex, to hybrids. You'd even see that it's not endemic to the United States, but also to other countries that propose mileage amounts as part of their sales information.

Typical to you isn't the same as my typical. My typical driving is dense city driving, I'm lucky to get within 5mpg of what the "city" rating is. My highway is a little closer but again, my own driving habits alter it. My wife driving the car gets much better mileage.

Again, salesmen are allowed to "puffer" I believe that is the legal term they are allowed to use. It is a time honored tradition to try to part a person with their money, salespeople have been able to do it easiliy and readily for centuries.

If you want names, I'm afraid I don't have any.
This is hardly that simple. My car supposedly gets about 30 mpg, but I only get about 25 mpg. That's about 83% of what they promised. Not that so bad. It can be blamed on 'fun' driving (it's a turbo, after all). The Honda is a bit different. The Honda supposedly gets 50 mpg, but gets closer to 30. That's only 60%. That's almost a failing grade.
So you're assuming that all of these people have inefficient driving habits. Do you have any proof?
Can you define "puffer"? My dictionary is only telling me about marine animals.

I live in central florida. I understand that you have gigantic, solid steel balls, and that's great, but not everyone has the magnificent fortitude against extremes of heat that you apparently do. "Rolling down the window" is just not sufficient for everyone.

My steel balls tent to overheat if I don't have the AC on. You don't want molten steel balls. You just don't.

OK, take a deep breath, will, because you're not going to like this.

Ready?

You're wrong. Absolutely, completely and utterly wrong.

At least about Honda.

Honda did not come up with the methodology for calculating the MPG for vehicles. That is and always has been the baliwick of the EPA. If you don't like it, complain about them, not Honda. The current testing methodologies also are an EPA creation.

The original testing standards were in place for decades until they changed a few years ago. That's why most cars took a noticable drop in MPG. The test itself was created artificially high milage, but all automakers had to use the same test to calculate the averages.

It's not Honda's fault if the NATIONAL STANDARD is calculated in a faulty way, especially if all other cars are, by law, using the same standard. You're right in that salesmen (or really marketers) have much to do with the problem. The government required that all cars be tested using the same criteria and that those results be posted in every new car for sale. Have a problem with the government beaurocrats who got it wrong, not the carmakers just following the law.

everyone has inefficient driving habits according to the testing methodologies, since not everyong gets that kind of mileage. If you drive your "turbo" within the tolerances of the machine, meaning going those 0-60mph in X time all the time, you probably would get a lot less than that 80%, I'd probably guess closer to that 60% you mentioned.

I'm not suggesting that Honda is the EPA. I'm saying they almost certainly knew that the Hybrid was likely to get closer to 35 miles of average driving per gallon of gas. They used the EPAs blunder to their advantage. That's the unethical part of this. That's what I have a problem with. OBVIOUSLY the EPA screwed up big time. They should be improving whatever methodology failed them in this. The thing is, the EPA doesn't stand to gain from the error (assuming it wasn't the result of bribery or something, of which there is no evidence). Honda does stand to benefit from the mistake.
I don't see any reason to blame Honda for the initial mistake, of course. It was their decision to not correct the mistake and take advantage of it.

Again, the EPA screwed up. Honda used that to their advantage to misinform.

Boom! Achieved by one person, seems to be within the realm of "reality"

I keep getting the impression you're making the suggestion that I'm misrepresenting my lifestyle. I hope that's not the case.

Again, you're assuming that everyone is gunning it in their hybrid. I see no evidence to suggest this. As a matter of fact, I have several friends who drive conservatively in their Priuses and who do not get anywhere near the EPA mileage.

Do you have information, besides the mpg, to suggest these people are burning more gas by driving inefficiently?

will, you don't seem to get it, so let me make this perfectly clear.

You know the MPG numbers in the window? Those are required to be there by law. They are only allowed to be calculated in the way that the EPA dictates. You have to accurately represent what the results are, no matter if the test is inherently flawed or not.

Again, Honda (or any other carmaker) did not do anything wrong here. They obeyed the law to the letter. If they had posted different, lower numbers, they would have been breaking the law. Honda did not misinform anyone. To the contrary, they actually did inform people of the results as required by law.

Blaming Honda in this argument makes no sense to me at all.

Are they legally required to include them in commercials suggesting that the hybrid is better for the environment because of it's superior mileage? Are they legally required to have their sales people suggest those are reasonable numbers?

Of course I 'get it'. They're using the EPA's blunder to their advantage. [I]They're passing on the misinformation, misinformation that they benefit from.[/O] I don't know how you're not getting it.

All automakers are required to show the MPG in every commercial for every vehicle. Sometimes its hidden in the fine print, but it has to be there. Dealers work under different rules, so you need to make sure who's add you're reading.

Why in the world would a salesman EVER tell you that the milage would be lower? He has no way of knowing about that. Besides, the sticker itself says "your milage may vary".

It's not misinformation. That's where you're wrong. The test results are reproducable. The problem is that its difficult to do so and virtually impossible under real-world conditions. That makes this hard data, albeit worthless. They're passing on the information that the government created, and they don't always benefit from it. Ever heard of an SUV? The exact same data is on the window sticker of one of those.

What you want is for Honda to have been misreporting the MPG for their vehicles even though that was 1) against the law and 2) would have put them at a competitive disadvantage.

Again, you're tilting at windmills here. Don't be mad at Honda. Be mad at the EPA.

Reading or seeing, the hybrid car movement, including the Prius, Civic, and Escape, have all advertised how they get better mileage. This was not a forced EPA number, this was them bragging about how their cars use less gas. You must see a difference between simply showing a number and openly suggesting the number is reliable as a selling point.
If the salesperson wanted to be truthful, they could tell the truth. If they wanted to be passive, they just don't talk about it. That's not what they do, of course. They're as blissfully unaware as the buyer. Honestly, I'm not sure why the salespeople are even an issue here. They're hardly experts. Just the other day I was at a Mitsubishi dealership and the man wanted me to look at a third generation Eclipse. We're in the middle of the fourth generation. I *think* he was just repeating a slip from a manager, but the point stands. The salespeople are not mechanics. They don't have access or are trained with better information.
The test should be simple. 100 cars are driven under different conditions and that data should be recorded and then given to the consumer.

You can bet your ass if the government said that the Hummer H3 got 9 mpg when it actually got 12 mpg, they'd be going nuts. Honda has consented to and passed on and promoted the incorrect information because it is beneficial.
What would have been ethical would have been to not suggest the information is correct. They simply don't push the incorrect information.
It's hardly futile when people are being detrimentally effected by this. I'm disappointed in the EPA for not doing their jobs. I'm frustrated with Honda for taking the misinformation and using it to help to fool customers.

No, you questioned how one could get worse gas mileage, people who drive their sport vehicles to the tolerances of design cannot achieve BOTH great performance and great fuel economy.

No I don't, but Gwhiz who used to post here regularly mentioned that the process for getting the most gas mileage was quite different in his hybrid than thought. It was a matter of learning how to coast more often which is counter intuitive to normal driving of pressing the gas and applying the brake.

It is a different methodology than what people normally do in driving a normal fuel vehicle.

Feasibly that is impossible and you know that.

change a few things like an engine chip and that mileage changes, also change the oil type, change the size of the wheels and tires, all those factor in gas mileage, manual versus automatic, the list goes on and on. you get those really nice 18" wheels, you've changed the gas mileage specs. Again, what is typical usage for you is not the same as typical usage for me or someone who lives in the Mojave desert.

I feel like I'm arguing with a wall, so this is my last time through this.

You're wrong again. It was and is a forced EPA number. The number they are giving you is calculated by the EPA test, just like it was before. The only difference is that there's now a better test.

Their cars DO use less gas. It's just not as much as the original test showed. Obviously it is a selling point, but the carmaker can only show you the results based on the EPA test. It's a very good reason why they tell you your milage may vary.

I agree that salesmen aren't the issue. Let's let that drop. Sales is a creature outside of this arguement. We can agree on that.

I will point out that telling a customer that the MPG shown on a car sticker is a federal crime, even if it is techically true. Again, hard to blame any dealer or carmaker for that one.

That's an incredibly expensive test that you're proposing. That's 100 vehicles that have immediately lost their value because of the mileage on them. Cars are tested on a dynamometer, not outside. Sure, that's a problem, but it's how it's done. And it's usually on one sample car, not 100. Asking for a carmaker to sacrifice 100 cars isn't econmically feasible. Perhaps laboratory tests aren't fair either, but results are going to vary season to season, locale to local and driver to driver. There's no way to factor all the variables in a manner that gives the consumer the absolute number prior to the sale.

Again, it's a federal crime to misreport the MPG on a car as reported by the manufacturer. "Ethical" became irrelevant as soon as "legal" became involved.

You might find these interesting reading:

http://www.epinions.com/content_4524974212
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do...ticleId=104936
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/info.shtml#estimates

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.
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.
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.

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.

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.

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.


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.

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.

For the third (fourth?) time: you aren't reading what I'm writing at all.

This isn't about them putting the sticker on the car or the figures in the commercials. Here go to the main page of the 2007 Civic Hybrid:
http://automobiles.honda.com/models/...e=Civic+hybrid
Honda is not legally required to suggest the cars are green, good for the environment, or 'save on gas' (as it is clear that the Hybrid does not get mileage any more than the DX, non hybrid model). To use your slightly condescending words:

All those qualify for puffering.

Save on gas. What does that really mean? And what could it be construed as meaning?

good for the environment? What does that really mean? And what could it be construed as meaning?

Again, these are all salemanship and fall under that without problem, the numbers are attainable and not absurd nor going against the EPA madated listing and requirements.

Again, your points are good, but misdirected. Blame the EPA, blame all the administrations that allowed the EPA to utilize this methodology. It isn't flawed just now, it has been flawed for over 3 decades.

For you to rise up now and target Honda is just stupid. I've been complaining about it for 20 years already, along with the CAFE standards being so lax for light trucks which all SUVs are classified.

I bought a Civic (2007) because of the "good mileage". I owned a Civic (2003) before and loved the mileage (I could drive from LA to SF on one tank with the AC on). I am not an idiot, I did my research. I even know that the EPA is the agency requiring the mpg listing and is the agency that tests for it too. The old one was rate 28/26 or something and the new on eis rated even better at 30/4o.

However, I don't think I am unreasonable to be pissed off that the Civic I bought doesn't even return the lowest end of the rating (30/40). I get around 27-28. That sucks. I feel like I got a lemon.

Unless somehow the car will magically start getting better fuel mileage. I know some people say you're supposed to "break in" a car or "train" a car to get good fuel mileage.

http://automobiles.honda.com/models/...e=Civic+Hybrid

This is a statement that makes clear that you'll save money on gas with this car. False advertising based on EPA estimates they know to be incorrect. That's not salesmanship.
I blame the EPA for the mistake. I blame Honda for taking advantage. Two separate opinions.
I don't think you should use language like 'stupid'. First off, it should be blatantly obvious that we have differing opinions, and second, I'm right.

All that means is that the average 2007 Civic gets better mileage than the average 2007 standard Civic.

Sorry, do you mean the hybrid gets better mileage than the standard?

If that's the case, that's not necessarily true.