Hybrid owner sues Honda over mileage claims
 

Article

It is time someone call them on listing facts that we all knew were based on ideal driving in ideal situations and not realistic based at all. And especially with hybrid where one of the biggest draws now is mph, they should have to be accurate.

Hmmmm I don't see how they can be held to this.

At the bottom I believe they still put, "Your Mileage May Vary."

Just like the excercise and diets, "Results not typical."

I further don't see why even the claimed mileage is considered good. Honda was pulling 45-50 actual MPG out of cars in 1988. Surely they can do better now.

Those numbers were based on the old system of calculating the MPG rate. Weather, road conditions and driving habits could make a huge difference in the actual rate.

I'll bet this guy drives his Prius like he drove his Mercedes, which means inefficient. I also can't really imagine that S.CA is a particularly good venue for the Prius given the amount of traffic. Having lived in Riverside and done a lot of business in Ontario, I can confirm that everything backs up pretty well at rush hour there.

Small correction! Prius is a Toyota vehicle. :thumbsup:

Hey, put this guy's car on the dynamometer and if it doesn't get the mileage advertised this guy has a case. Actually, put a large sample on the machine and see how they do and how the cars really score.

Duely noted with a red face. I guess there's a reason that Honda's discontinuing their hybrids - Toyota dominates the market so much that people like me read "hybrid" and automatically think "Prius" even with evidence to the contrary staring us in the face.

Thanks for the correction, LS.

Why does the class action lawsuit just involve honda? As far as i can tell, the epa's method of determining fuel efficiency means most advertised mpg's are off. It also seems totally reasonable that your fuel efficiency would depend heavily on how you drive.

It probably should not just involve Honda, but they do not mention it depends on how you drive. They do not mention that it is based on perfect conditions, instead they just list the optimum (unrealistic) value.

If such behavior were sufficient grounds for a lawsuit the diet industry wouldn't exist.

No one is being physically harmed, new consumer technology, caveat emptor. There aren't dates to go along with the events in the article, but if he bought the hybrid at any point in the last year without knowing about the fuel efficiency discrepancy then he obviously hasn't done any research at all. I think that awareness of the epa's method's shortcomings has been pretty common knowledge for a couple years.

He should really be suing the epa for their simplistic and generally inaccurate method of determining fuel efficiency.

Agreed.

You really can't fault a big business for using a number given to them by the EPA, especially when it sounded so good! They're in it to sell cars. While consumers need to be protected, this sounds like it's pushing it, in my book.

Most of my friends are unhappy with their Prius's gas consumption. 32 mpg in a hybrid is far less effective as a mid 90s geo metro which could get as good as 60 mpg. I wonder if the whole thing is a joke.

The gas mileage of the Prius varies widely depending on the conditions you drive it under--as suggested above, hybrids respond more to your individual driving style. Additionally, the Prius performs better under stop-and-go driving conditions than a traditional engine does. It is not meant for the open road, and performs comparably to traditional engines under those conditions.

I know a number of people who have a Prius, and generally they are quite satisfied with the mileage they get. Of course, my town is 1) a college town, and 2) not overly large, but 3) full of liberals who drive Priuses, and 4) really the perfect condition to drive the Prius under--tons of stop-and-go driving.

Personally, I'm in the market to buy a car this fall. I'm eyeing the Honda Fit, because 1) it's a traditional engine so I can maximize fuel efficiency on the open road, and 2) I can get it with a manual transmission (good for stop-and-go driving, which is what I usually do). The Fit gets in the upper 30s for mpg in real-life driving conditions--much better than the 20mpg I'm getting now in a Volvo station wagon.

Even with variable mileage, one would expect a vehicle to do better than what the Civic Hybrid does. It's more than a stretch to claim it on being a leadfoot when this car can only get a little more than half of the fuel economy that it advertises. Honestly, would you buy a Fit if in reality it only gave you 20 mpg instead of 30?

No matter if the fine print says "Mileage will vary" or "Mileage may vary" or if it doesn't say it at all, was it unreasonable for him to have the expectation that this hybrid vehicle would at the very least be more effeicient than a conventional Honda Civic (which it doesn't appear to be)?

Here's a link to an interview with the waste of skin who filed the lawsuit: HIT ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!. he comes off as a crybbaby spoiled brat who needs to get slapped in the face for about 30 minutes. The best bit is this bullshit piece of attempted justification: Have to use the air conditioning?

What, it's against the fucking law to roll your fucking windows down?

What a fucking douchebag.

If you lived in 100+ degree weather, you'd be a 'douchebag', too. Rolling down the windows allows hot air from the outside of the car into the already hot car, not improving the temperature of the air. AC can be necessary when it's hot. The bottom line is that running the AC shouldn't bring you from 51 mpg to 30.

After reading the article, it definitely seems like the plaintiff is kind of an idiot. On the other hand, there is definitely something off here. I get better mileage than him in non-hybrid Accord, using A/C and radio! Maybe it really is his driving habits or the area he lives (lots of hills).

Anyway, Honda shouldn't put numbers on the car that are unachievable by ANYONE, whether or not the EPA generated them. If the guy can show that no one can get close to that performance out of the car he may have a point. If even a couple of people get close (and I bet some can surpass the EPA estimates), than it's not a question of fraudulent claims.

Why always so pissy about everything? Calm down.

They also did a show on A/C vs. windows down in relation to fuel efficiency on Mythbusters and with windows down actually performed WORSE than A/C on full blast.

I gotta disagree about it being necesary. For hundreds of years people have lived in deserts before the advent of cars or air conditioning. People are used to having it available is all. But agreed, AC shouldnt drop you that low. But the overall combination of being a lead foot, the AC and some possible engine issue certainly could. And it sounds like he's loading it to nearly its weight capacity as well. Big friggin surprise.

Personally, I think hybrids are a joke. They don't really improve mileage. They don't really take us through the necesary steps toward getting rid of fossil fuels. They just use the same ole technology augmented by an electric motor.... Which gets powered by fossil fuels. They are, in essence, pointless.

And many, many people died from the heat for hundreds of years--heck, people have died from the heat out here every year of my life. As a resident of the Mojave Desert, I will agree that air conditioning can be a vital necessity.

So chill out, Mr. Shadow.

I lived in the Florida panhandle for three years which has scorching heat and extreemly high humidity and I used my car's air conditioning exactly 4 times.

And as for Mythbusters, just 'cause it's on a TV show doesn't mean it's true, in fact, most of the stuff on MythBusters has been disproven.

Could be true. Do you have "proof" to the opposite? Show me that windows down is so much better than A/C for fuel efficiency in order to justify A/C being a bad option.

LA is dry heat. Having lived in St. Louis and CA, I can say that dry heat is a lot worse.

As to the tough talk: I've been shot in the leg, so why do other people complain about getting shot?

Having spent a few years living out in the Mojave Desert, all I can say is driving around with no a/c out there is downright masochistic. Set your oven to 450, then put a fan in front of it, then put your head in front of that fan. That's what driving around with the windows down feels like out there. There is no cool breeze, all you'll just be greeted with a blast of hot desert air.

As for windows down vs windows up w/ a/c, open windows increase a vehicle's coefficient of drag, moreso than the parasitic loss on an engine caused by the compressor in an air conditioning system. In stop-and-go traffic, yeah the a/c might be seen as inefficient, but at highway speeds, you're better off using the a/c.

Either way, it shouldn't be enough to result in a 40% difference between advertised and actual mileage

As an endurance athlete that's competed in the Deep South, the Southwest and Midwest, dry heat's got nothing on humidity. If it's going to be 90 degrees outside, I'd much rather have 25% humidity than 75% humidity. The ONLY time I've ever been in real danger of being hospitalized was after the Florida Relays 5k. That's one of only two track races where I have absolutely no recollection of the last mile, and I was a DNF (did not finish) because grabbed me when I started waivering between lanes in a straight.

If you live in Florida and don't use your air conditioner regularly, I'm man enough to admit that I couldn't do it.

/threadjack

QuasiMondo is right about the coefficient of friction and windows. Running your air conditioner in stopped traffic raises the RPM's than you'd otherwise have, but on the highway, it shouldn't really affect the MPG more than a few percentage points, which isn't going to be the big factor in this case.

Like I said before, driving a hybrid like an E320 isn't going to result in the best possible performance.

Driving like it was a Mercedes-Benz E320 wouldn't give you the worst possible performance, either. A mid-sized luxury car doesn't exactly invite you to drive like you're a member of the Andretti family.

Here's a link to the interview conducted with John True:
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/07...es-the-guy-su/

That's how I would read it. We as a society have gotten too used to shady advertising. A simple disclaimer shouldn't allow you to say whatever the hell you want about your product. "Results not typical", "actual mileage may vary" etc. it's all bs.

First of all, you don't understand how hybrids work, so don't act like you do. You don't plug hybrids in, they are not full electric cars.

Second. If it was a an actual electric car that you have to plug in, yes the electricity is likely coming from fossil fuels. However, electricity generation is more efficient at the plant AND they have much better pollution controls.

Hmmm I've driven the 2007 Honda Civic Hybrid for well over 1500 miles.

I did this out in Arizona, covered literally the whole state in most directions.

On the LONNNNG drives that were mostly either flat or downhill (Out there you can easily spend 2 hours driving downhill.) I easily attained 48-52 mpg.

BUT.

Driving anywhere that even remotely uphill (I mean as low as 3% grade) or city driving I never broke 37 mpg.

I use cruise control as often as possible, and with the Hybrid Civics you cant drive like a Ferrari if you wanted to. They have HORRIBLE low end power for quick starts compared to non-Hybrid variations.

Was it a great car to travel 1500~ miles in? Hell yeah.
Would I buy the Hybrid over the normal Civic? Nope. That extra 5-6 grand will take YEARS to pay off. Not worth the extra dough.

Does this guy have a good complaint, I'd say so. Long as he only tries to get the EPA/Honda to admit AND fix the problem does he deserve it. He does not deserve any sort of money in return though.

**
Notes:
**

Every single fuel up I do in fact calculate my mpg. These numbers are very important to me, they tell me how good of a driver I've been.

Going from 50 mpg to 37 mpg is a massive difference, and it is very sad that Honda only relies on the higher one when it comes to advertising.

The Civic has one kickass panel.

Blame it on global warming. Obviously it is much hotter now than it was in the old days before cars and AC and apparently it is only going to get worse. So yes, it is and will be even more necessary. Because of global warming.

LOL!!! Awesome analogy.

However, I also disagree with you on the humidity. Humidity is much much worse than dry heat. Israel and Egypt was quite bearable in the summer but Southeast Asia was brutal with all the mugginess. It's like being smothered with a wet blanket AND it's hot....ugh...

But seriously, I am a bit mad at Honda too. I bought a Civic (non-hybrid0 recently. It is advertised at 30/40 mpg. Sadly, I am getting nowhere near that. I am not even getting 30 mpg. That really sucks especially since I bought the car specifically for it's mileage. If i had known it would be that far off, I would have bought a different car. Yes, I realize results will vary but this is waaay off. It constitutes fraud and false advertising to me.

Actually, I do understand how they work, thank you. Hybrids use a battery pack and a motor, along with an engine. This allows the fuel driven engine to be aided by the motor. But guess whats providing the juice to those batteries. That same fossil fuel engine that giving you the bulk of your power. So which part of my post doesn't make sense given the nature of hybrids?

God I love engineering school for this stuff...

And I spent a summer in KC, the heat was pretty brutal, I still don't use my AC. I just don't like them.

krwlz, it is my impression that the battery is charged by energy produced when the driver brakes. This energy would be purely lost as heat. If the battery was charged by the combustion engine you'd NEVER see an increase in mileage because there will be inherent loss of energy to inefficiencies in conversion/storage.

Regenerative braking does not provide enough energy to recover the charge on a hybrid vehicle's battery on it's own. While coasting will increase the time spent charging the battery, any increase in mileage will be from being a lightfoot, and not from regenerative braking. If the battery runs low, the engine will start up to recharge the battery.

I can squeeze 20mpg out of a 1991 Lincoln with a 5.0L High Output engine that got a 17/24 on the old test. This guy is driving like a jackass if he's not getting decent mileage. That said, hybrid cars are a sham, it's all about image. Take out the extra thousand pounds of electric drivetrain and batteries and you'll get better mileage with just the gas engine most of the time.

The average hybrid driver is some yuppie jackass who watched "An Inconvenient Truth" and thinks they're doing something good by switching to mercury-filled CFL bulbs (I guarantee 90% of people don't recycle them) and driving a car with a quarter ton of toxic heavy metal under the back seat and thinking they're making a difference and looking good to all their yuppie buddies.
Seeing as we have cars with more than 50HP now, it's going to take a while.

I just bought a used (1997) VW Golf 1.6, manual transmission, here in Iceland... and the thing runs like a champ. Has about 80,000 miles on it, gets between 30-40 mpg regularly (unleaded), even after 10 years. No way I would buy a hybrid if its mileage wasn't any better than a 10 year old VW. The last owner told us that it was getting close to 40 mpg highway driving, and I've seen it with my own eyes. I'll take this car over any new fancy thing any day. :thumbsup:

Also, why don't more people drive diesel? My mom also has a VW Golf, bit newer than mine (2001?) and she gets insane mileage in that thing. One fill up on her diesel tank will get her at least 450+ miles, which beats any hybrid I've seen. I know diesel exhaust isn't the best for the environment :rolleyes: but if people are looking purely for higher MPG, then diesel seems the way to go.

Weight, weight weight. Those 45-50 mpg cars built back then were light, with a curb weight of less than 2000 lbs. The civic hybrid and prius both tip the scales at nearly 3000 lbs, some 300 lbs lighter than the Ford Bronco II of that era. 3000 is the new 2000 and as heavy as these cars weigh nowadays, you'll never get those kinds of numbers without a bit of help from other technologies.

Now that is a very good point, and batteries don't come light the way technology is now. I'm not sure how much room there is left in that industry, but I have hopes.

what happens to the batteries once they are no longer able to hold a recharge? is the environmental impact on that "good"?

Actually, no. The chemicals in the batteries are highly toxic and not necessarily recyclable. The carmakers (and consumers for that matter) are kind of taking a nuclear waste approach in that they're assuming that technology is coming to solve the problem.

As of now, it isn't.

But obviously people can get the mileage posted by the EPA and by Honda. The fact that said mileage may occur under so called optimal conditions is immaterial, because you can in fact achieve such mileage.

I can win the lottery, too, but the outcome is not typical and that fact should be made clear.

The 50/40 mileages are clearly not typical. That information should be made available to buyers.

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.