Honda Loses Lawsuit Over Hybrid Mileage Claims

[rbohm]

Originally Posted by GuyNTexas

I don't really care what methods they employ ... they can use tarot cards and crystal balls for all I care, so long as the numbers they come up with have a connection with reality.

Setting up a fuel economy test under conditions that do not reflect real world conditions, which produce mileage figures that cannot be realized by consumers, is at least useless, if not a complete fraud.

Some apparently don't consider it a big deal to see a rating of 44 mpg but only get an actual 30 MPG.

I wonder if those people would be so casual about agreeing to pay a $25,000 sale price for that car, only to have the price jacked up to $33,000 after they took the car home? That's the difference between 30 and 44 ... 32%.

Originally Posted by Marv101

I agree with you; the EPA's testing methods are so sterile and so unlike what real-workld driving conditions are so as to be essentially worthless.

But I also have to ask why did this lady stay silent for five years before she filed her preposterous lawsuit?

i also agree that the EPA testing procedure is sterile, and not applicable to the real world, and never have been ever since they were instituted in the 70s. in fact even the EPA says they are not real world numbers, and are just out out there for the sake of comparison rather than to reflect any real world numbers.

if anyone remembers, that issues came up with the mazda RX3. the EPA said it got 11mpg, but in the real world owners were reporting more like 25mpg.

no system for reporting fuel economy is ever going to be accurate. even if you put the cars in a real world test, many things are going to affect what fuel economy numbers are turned by test vehicles, and the manufacturers and the EPA is not going to institute any long term testing to get anything like a real number.

[GuyNTexas]

Originally Posted by rbohm

i also agree that the EPA testing procedure is sterile, and not applicable to the real world, and never have been ever since they were instituted in the 70s. in fact even the EPA says they are not real world numbers, and are just out out there for the sake of comparison rather than to reflect any real world numbers.

if anyone remembers, that issues came up with the mazda RX3. the EPA said it got 11mpg, but in the real world owners were reporting more like 25mpg.

no system for reporting fuel economy is ever going to be accurate. even if you put the cars in a real world test, many things are going to affect what fuel economy numbers are turned by test vehicles, and the manufacturers and the EPA is not going to institute any long term testing to get anything like a real number.

Again ... that's not the point. Of course there are variables in conditions, and driving habits, etc., precluding an "accurate" MPG rating estimate. The point is, under typical conditions and typical driving, an estimate should be far better than + or - 30-50 %. That's not an estimate ... that's not even a good guess!! Read my lips ... it's a fraud, OK?

This utter nonsense about the EPA Est MPG being for "comparison purposes" is also an inane answer to questions about it's purpose, because if it's a useless figure that doesn't reflect real world realities, what good is it to compare dummy numbers with such wide variables? One model might get 15% better mileage, with another getting 25% worse, so what possible assistance could comparing those estimates be? No use whatsoever.

Now, consider that the new cars on the lot have these EPA ratings posted in text larger than any other specification or list or description .... readable from 20 yards away ... it's clearly being "emphasized" .. and you can bet that the majority of people will look at those figures and assume they're valid, and mileage that they should expect to get with that car. And that is one very solid description of a lie ..... doing something to cause someone else to believe something that isn't true. And that is what is happening here.

Now, take your car into the shop ... the mechanic says, ahhh, it's gonna run you around $600 to fix that problem, so you say, OK, go ahead and fix it. Then, when you go to pick up your car, he says, that will be $967.36. You going to say Oh, OKAY ? OR, are you going to say hey bubba, you said it would be "around" $600 .... $967 is not even close to $600. $667.36 might be around $600 ... not $967.36 ... and I'm not paying that much!!

That's the point.