Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What I see are two sides of the same coin. We all agree the "estimates" are off. You seem to blame Honda and absolve the woman. I blame the woman for trusting the USG.
Why do you hate corporations? Why do you not find fault in the USG (and the woman for that matter)?
The better question is not why I hate them, which assumes a false assumption is true, but why do you love them so, proven by your unjustifiable defense of them? And the even greater question I have is how can your brain run backwards, with everything else seemingly operating in the proper direction?
The manufacturer is responsible for the performance of their vehicle ... not the EPA. And the woman bought the vehicle from Honda, not the US government ... that would be a chevy Now, given that WE THE PEOPLE are the government, and any money the government might have to pay a law suit settlement is OUR money, the next question would be, why on God's green Earth would you want to sue yourself, and make yourself pay damages to yourself for something that a corporation should be held accountable for? That's lunacy. No other description fits.
Now this may come as a total shock to you, but it's not uncommon for prototype products to be designed to achieve certain test performance levels, of which those enhancements may or may not be incorporated in production models for cost savings, but don't significantly alter the actual product delivered. And, being somewhat familiar with cars myself, (having grown up in the days of hot rods and owning and working on my own starting at age 16 ... a couple of killer Camaros, and later a couple of Cobra Mustangs ), I know there are techniques that can boost performance with the same mechanical base. Attention to engine and transmission tolerances are just examples of how you can enhance performance with the same mechanical components. Fuel and ignition system tuning can increase mileage while compromising certain areas of emissions too. So you could alter those, depending on which performance rating you wish to enhance. All of these things being possible, it's absurd to suggest that the onus is on the EPA for each production model rolling off the assembly line that doesn't achieve the performance of the one/s provided for testing. You could have a situation where 70% of the production models do indeed meet the stated performance, with 30% not running properly due to less than optimal engine or transmission or fuel system manufacturing and assembly. How could that 30% be the fault of the EPA? That makes no sense at all.
Now, if you have evidence that the EPA cooked the numbers (and I'd certainly not put it past them to do such a thing) then there would be a case of collusion between Honda and EPA in committing fraud. As is stands, without such evidence, the manufacturer is responsible for the performance of their delivered product ... not the EPA, and CERTAINLY NOT the customer. The customer's liability would require proof that the automobile itself was capable of performing to the stated specifications, with the poor performance being operator induced .... but that would be beyond the realm of reasonable hypothesis since there is a "Class Action Suit" involving numerous other customers citing the same complaints. It would seem to me that Honda could easily prove this point by having independent tests done demonstrating that the vehicle was perfectly capable of meeting the advertised performance, up to and including buying back one of the offending vehicles and performing those independent tests verifying proper performance. So, obviously, there is a basis in fact established that the vehicles did not meet the performance levels as advertised.
And who is responsible for that? The manufacturer, as any two properly firing brain neurons should readily agree without undue argument.
The real question is, how can such simple, practical, logical deduction so thoroughly escape your grasp?
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,330 posts, read 54,411,082 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by AeroGuyDC
I'm not blaming the government. I'm blaming her for trusting the government, and not doing her due diligence in researching car-buying options that fit her desires. She clearly did not do her homework, but certainly didn't mind accepting everything at face value!
She's the idiot.
You're implying the government cannot be trusted by blaming her for trusting the government. HOW is that any different than alleging the government supplied false numbers when there is absolutely NO evidence it did?
You're implying the government cannot be trusted by blaming her for trusting the government. HOW is that any different than alleging the government supplied false numbers when there is absolutely NO evidence it did?
It's the "dog chasing it's tail" argument ....and makes no sense at all.
Your argument at least makes sense, even if I disagree with you.
The better question is not why I hate them, which assumes a false assumption is true, but why do you love them so, proven by your unjustifiable defense of them? And the even greater question I have is how can your brain run backwards, with everything else seemingly operating in the proper direction?
The manufacturer is responsible for the performance of their vehicle ... not the EPA. And the woman bought the vehicle from Honda, not the US government ... that would be a chevy Now, given that WE THE PEOPLE are the government, and any money the government might have to pay a law suit settlement is OUR money, the next question would be, why on God's green Earth would you want to sue yourself, and make yourself pay damages to yourself for something that a corporation should be held accountable for? That's lunacy. No other description fits.
Now this may come as a total shock to you, but it's not uncommon for prototype products to be designed to achieve certain test performance levels, of which those enhancements may or may not be incorporated in production models for cost savings, but don't significantly alter the actual product delivered. And, being somewhat familiar with cars myself, (having grown up in the days of hot rods and owning and working on my own starting at age 16 ... a couple of killer Camaros, and later a couple of Cobra Mustangs ), I know there are techniques that can boost performance with the same mechanical base. Attention to engine and transmission tolerances are just examples of how you can enhance performance with the same mechanical components. Fuel and ignition system tuning can increase mileage while compromising certain areas of emissions too. So you could alter those, depending on which performance rating you wish to enhance. All of these things being possible, it's absurd to suggest that the onus is on the EPA for each production model rolling off the assembly line that doesn't achieve the performance of the one/s provided for testing. You could have a situation where 70% of the production models do indeed meet the stated performance, with 30% not running properly due to less than optimal engine or transmission or fuel system manufacturing and assembly. How could that 30% be the fault of the EPA? That makes no sense at all.
Now, if you have evidence that the EPA cooked the numbers (and I'd certainly not put it past them to do such a thing) then there would be a case of collusion between Honda and EPA in committing fraud. As is stands, without such evidence, the manufacturer is responsible for the performance of their delivered product ... not the EPA, and CERTAINLY NOT the customer. The customer's liability would require proof that the automobile itself was capable of performing to the stated specifications, with the poor performance being operator induced .... but that would be beyond the realm of reasonable hypothesis since there is a "Class Action Suit" involving numerous other customers citing the same complaints. It would seem to me that Honda could easily prove this point by having independent tests done demonstrating that the vehicle was perfectly capable of meeting the advertised performance, up to and including buying back one of the offending vehicles and performing those independent tests verifying proper performance. So, obviously, there is a basis in fact established that the vehicles did not meet the performance levels as advertised.
And who is responsible for that? The manufacturer, as any two properly firing brain neurons should readily agree without undue argument.
The real question is, how can such simple, practical, logical deduction so thoroughly escape your grasp?
In one fell swoop, I can debunk everything you've said here:
Quote:
EPA is responsible for providing the fuel economy data that is used on the fuel economy label (or window sticker) on all new cars and light trucks. In addition, the data is used by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to publish the annual Fuel Economy Guide, the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) to administer the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) program, and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to collect Gas Guzzler taxes. The test data is derived from vehicle testing done at EPA’s National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory in Ann Arbor, Michigan, and by vehicle manufacturers who submit their own test data to EPA.
Honda didn't lie. The numbers came from and was verified/validated by the EPA. The discrepancy between this woman's actual MPG and the "estimate" provided by the EPA should be remedied through a petition of grievance with the EPA....not a lawsuit against Honda.
As for this woman claiming she was "promised 50 mpg".....she's the idiot for taking everything she's been told and shown at face value. That includes the EPA "estimate"....a definition she obviously does not understand.
The manufacturer is responsible for the performance of their vehicle ... not the EPA.
One more time...
1- EPA ratings are not a guarantee. They are estimates, arrived from standardized testing and do not guarantee real world results.
2- Consequently, neither the manufacturer nor EPA is responsible for the outcome of a person's driving style/conditions. The only logical argument to blame Honda would be if it claimed that the woman will get 50 mpg regardless, or if there are problems with the car that Honda refused to fix. The only logical argument to blame EPA would be, if it were presented as a guarantee. Neither applies.
Interestin that she bought the car in 2006 yet never contacted HONDA until 2011.
Well, apparently you were reading the left hand side of the page, and not the response side of the woman.
She did not contact Honda "Corporate", though she had made several complaints to the dealer from whom she purchased the vehicle, who told her that Honda was well aware of the issues but were taking a hard line stance on failures that didn't meet their criteria, and that the dealer claimed to be stuck in the middle of the disputes.
So, it's not quite accurate to say she didn't complain ... she just didn't take the complaints to Honda corporate until finding out about a Class Action suit against them. And no one can blame her for that ... it's typical that the manufacturer will refuse to directly address customer complaints and direct them back to the dealer where they purchased the vehicle ... I think the common phraseology here that many are familiar with is termed "The runaround". Are you familiar with that scenario? Never happened to you before? Lucky you.
This is common in the car industry, for which I spent a few years. Regularly, manufacturers will send out TSB's (Technical Service Bulletins) that can be available to both dealers and customers too. Some are available only to the dealers ... and some contain proprietary data which directs the dealer for procedures for reimbursement of certain repairs that the manufacturer knows to be problem, but doesn't want to openly admit, and certainly not advertise. So, it's a little secret fix for the most demanding customer who pitches a big enough fit .. if the dealer can convince them it's just a normal repair, and get the customer to pay .. the dealer can still get some reimbursement and double dip on the repair. charming aye?
I had a manufacturer's defect in my Ford Explorer that I know had been fixed for free on other vehicles suffering that failure, and even as an employee, I couldn't get Ford to pony up for the repair of my vehicle. That's right, I was selling the damned things for Ford, driving one, and they still would not fix mine ... and I saw the secret bulletin with my own eyes!
So, forgive me if I have a little more insight as to how this kind of thing works. And trust me, Ford is better with stuff like this than most manufacturers ... particularly Honda.
The Chevy Volt is such an unmitigated disaster, the dealers are refusing them for God's sake ....
In case you haven't been paying attention ... corporate America now possesses about the same level of integrity as a Chicago Politician who's campaign for office was financed by the Mob.
Not too many people are buying Volts so there might not be enough people to start a class action lawsuit. Maybe a government sponsored buy back program is in order.
Well, apparently you were reading the left hand side of the page, and not the response side of the woman.
She did not contact Honda "Corporate", though she had made several complaints to the dealer from whom she purchased the vehicle, who told her that Honda was well aware of the issues but were taking a hard line stance on failures that didn't meet their criteria, and that the dealer claimed to be stuck in the middle of the disputes.
So, it's not quite accurate to say she didn't complain ... she just didn't take the complaints to Honda corporate until finding out about a Class Action suit against them. And no one can blame her for that ... it's typical that the manufacturer will refuse to directly address customer complaints and direct them back to the dealer where they purchased the vehicle ... I think the common phraseology here that many are familiar with is termed "The runaround". Are you familiar with that scenario? Never happened to you before? Lucky you.
This is common in the car industry, for which I spent a few years. Regularly, manufacturers will send out TSB's (Technical Service Bulletins) that can be available to both dealers and customers too. Some are available only to the dealers ... and some contain proprietary data which directs the dealer for procedures for reimbursement of certain repairs that the manufacturer knows to be problem, but doesn't want to openly admit, and certainly not advertise. So, it's a little secret fix for the most demanding customer who pitches a big enough fit .. if the dealer can convince them it's just a normal repair, and get the customer to pay .. the dealer can still get some reimbursement and double dip on the repair. charming aye?
I had a manufacturer's defect in my Ford Explorer that I know had been fixed for free on other vehicles suffering that failure, and even as an employee, I couldn't get Ford to pony up for the repair of my vehicle. That's right, I was selling the damned things for Ford, driving one, and they still would not fix mine ... and I saw the secret bulletin with my own eyes!
So, forgive me if I have a little more insight as to how this kind of thing works. And trust me, Ford is better with stuff like this than most manufacturers ... particularly Honda.
The Chevy Volt is such an unmitigated disaster, the dealers are refusing them for God's sake ....
In case you haven't been paying attention ... corporate America now possesses about the same level of integrity as a Chicago Politician who's campaign for office was financed by the Mob.
I would wager to take her car and be able to get close to its EPA rating, if not 50 mpg. Do you think I will fail?
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,330 posts, read 54,411,082 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas
Well, apparently you were reading the left hand side of the page, and not the response side of the woman.
She did not contact Honda "Corporate", though she had made several complaints to the dealer from whom she purchased the vehicle, who told her that Honda was well aware of the issues but were taking a hard line stance on failures that didn't meet their criteria, and that the dealer claimed to be stuck in the middle of the disputes.
So, it's not quite accurate to say she didn't complain ... she just didn't take the complaints to Honda corporate until finding out about a Class Action suit against them. And no one can blame her for that ... it's typical that the manufacturer will refuse to directly address customer complaints and direct them back to the dealer where they purchased the vehicle ... I think the common phraseology here that many are familiar with is termed "The runaround". Are you familiar with that scenario? Never happened to you before? Lucky you.
This is common in the car industry, for which I spent a few years. Regularly, manufacturers will send out TSB's (Technical Service Bulletins) that can be available to both dealers and customers too. Some are available only to the dealers ... and some contain proprietary data which directs the dealer for procedures for reimbursement of certain repairs that the manufacturer knows to be problem, but doesn't want to openly admit, and certainly not advertise. So, it's a little secret fix for the most demanding customer who pitches a big enough fit .. if the dealer can convince them it's just a normal repair, and get the customer to pay .. the dealer can still get some reimbursement and double dip on the repair. charming aye?
I had a manufacturer's defect in my Ford Explorer that I know had been fixed for free on other vehicles suffering that failure, and even as an employee, I couldn't get Ford to pony up for the repair of my vehicle. That's right, I was selling the damned things for Ford, driving one, and they still would not fix mine ... and I saw the secret bulletin with my own eyes!
So, forgive me if I have a little more insight as to how this kind of thing works. And trust me, Ford is better with stuff like this than most manufacturers ... particularly Honda.
The Chevy Volt is such an unmitigated disaster, the dealers are refusing them for God's sake ....
In case you haven't been paying attention ... corporate America now possesses about the same level of integrity as a Chicago Politician who's campaign for office was financed by the Mob.
Well, I've spent more than a few years working for car manufacturers myself, have a little insight, and know how the system works. And yes, I know well that "corporate America now possesses about the same level of integrity as a Chicago Politician who's campaign for office was financed by the Mob"
So forgive me but I also know that many frivolous law suits are filed against manufacturers that have little/no basis and that many manufacturers find it more expedient to throw a few $$$ at those suits than to bear the cost of litigation where even a win winds up costing them far more than buying off the litigants. The fact HONDA plans an appeal here leads me to believe this case may not have too much merit, especially given the California system's well know bias towards the consumer, good, bad, or indifferent.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Now, given that WE THE PEOPLE are the government, and any money the government might have to pay a law suit settlement is OUR money, the next question would be, why on God's green Earth would you want to sue yourself, and make yourself pay damages to yourself for something that a corporation should be held accountable for? That's lunacy. No other description fits.
