Driver gets $6,000 compesantion from dealer

Forums › Transport (cars, bikes and boats) › Driver gets $6,000 compesantion from dealer

1 | 2 | 3

13513 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5942

ID Verified

Lifetime subscriber

#1368990 19-Aug-2015 07:33

the thing is the way they test is no where near how people use the cars.

All tested in 20-30 degree temps, and cover a meager 4km for urban, and 7km for the highway (European standard), and its also done in a lab on a dyno so friction may/may not play a part in the reading.

gzt

17344 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6349

Lifetime subscriber

#1368996 19-Aug-2015 07:43

Is it the same figure published on the nz fuel efficiency website or is that different again?

Jase2985

13513 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5942

ID Verified

Lifetime subscriber

#1369012 19-Aug-2015 08:01

Fuel Economy

The on-road fuel cost of this vehicle is estimated at $2,160 / year based on driving 14,000 km per year (7.7 litres/100km).

from Right Car

energy star says 7.7l/100km as well

Handsomedan

7407 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6777

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1369024 19-Aug-2015 08:34

It's interesting as I have an onboard computer that tells me my car does around 13.3L/100Km with the way I drive currently - that is to say, short hops in rush hour, car cold most of the time, so choke engaged and I tend to have a bit of a lead foot more often than not.

Obviously it's better on the highway and a long trip, but that's beside the point...

The official figures released by the manufacturer are that I should be getting around 9.9L/100km, so should I sue? Ridiculous. I know that the way I drive is the reason that I have awful fuel economy - that and it's a 2.5l turbo, but either way, there's no way you can use a quoted fuel economy figure as an absolute.

Very slippery slope.

Next we'll have dealers stating that fuel economy will be anywhere between 7L/100km and 50L/100km, just to cover themselves...and that isn't going to help anyone.

Handsome Dan Has Spoken.
Handsome Dan needs to stop adding three dots to every sentence...

Handsome Dan does not currently have a side hustle as the mascot for Yale

*Gladly accepting donations...

MikeB4

18464 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12124

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1369028 19-Aug-2015 08:54

I can't see how a 1.5 liter square box hauling around an AWD system was going to achieve 7.*L/100KM

Handsomedan

7407 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6777

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1369029 19-Aug-2015 08:56

MikeB4: I can't see how a 1.5 liter square box hauling around an AWD system was going to achieve 7.*L/100KM

They're insanely lightweight and have a low-pressure 1.5L TURBO engine.

Handsome Dan Has Spoken.
Handsome Dan needs to stop adding three dots to every sentence...

Handsome Dan does not currently have a side hustle as the mascot for Yale

*Gladly accepting donations...

sbiddle

30853 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9992

Retired Mod

Trusted

Biddle Corp

Lifetime subscriber

#1369036 19-Aug-2015 09:01

Ecoboost is very fuel efficient

Samsung

Shop now on Samsung phones, tablets, TVs and more (affiliate link).

nzkiwiman

2585 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 390

Subscriber

#1369096 19-Aug-2015 10:00

Excellent, I am going to sue Mazda as my 2014 Mazda 3 claims to have a 5.6l per 100km petrol rating and my daily drive is seeing me average around 8.5-8.7l per 100km

That is a huge difference

Maybe I'll get even more if I take a snapshot of the cars fuel monitor as soon as I start it up and rev the motor - it shows 99.9l per 100km as reading for 1 minute.

/face into desk

maxeon

1279 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 106

ID Verified

Lifetime subscriber

#1369141 19-Aug-2015 10:22

nova:

The $6000 award was based on the owner's loss of 0.75c per km over 8000km.

Shouldn't that be $60???? I guess they mean 75c per km, but I don't understand the basis for such a high figure (other than that is what the IRD uses). The difference in fuel economy would have only accounted for a few cents per km, the guy traded in after 11,000km, and you would expect his loss to be based on the depreciation of the vehicle when he traded it, rather than how far he had travelled.

Assuming Cost of Petrol $2.00

7.7 L = $15.40
9.4 L = $18.80

7.7L ($15.40) claim of 100km = $0.15 per km
9.4L ($18.80) claim of 100km = $0.18 per km

8000km at $0.15 = $1200
8000km at $0.18 = $1504

The difference is about $304

Am I missing something here? Why is the difference calculated at 75 cents per km?

Geektastic

17960 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8377

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1369152 19-Aug-2015 10:37

nzkiwiman: Excellent, I am going to sue Mazda as my 2014 Mazda 3 claims to have a 5.6l per 100km petrol rating and my daily drive is seeing me average around 8.5-8.7l per 100km

That is a huge difference

Maybe I'll get even more if I take a snapshot of the cars fuel monitor as soon as I start it up and rev the motor - it shows 99.9l per 100km as reading for 1 minute.

/face into desk

My late father had a Mercedes CL 600 with a 6 litre V12 under the bonnet. When he put his foot down hard, not only did it take off like a scalded cat but the economy meter thing showed "0 mpg"!

vexxxboy

4254 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1981

#1369195 19-Aug-2015 11:27

Handsomedan: It's interesting as I have an onboard computer that tells me my car does around 13.3L/100Km with the way I drive currently - that is to say, short hops in rush hour, car cold most of the time, so choke engaged and I tend to have a bit of a lead foot more often than not.

Obviously it's better on the highway and a long trip, but that's beside the point...

The official figures released by the manufacturer are that I should be getting around 9.9L/100km, so should I sue? Ridiculous. I know that the way I drive is the reason that I have awful fuel economy - that and it's a 2.5l turbo, but either way, there's no way you can use a quoted fuel economy figure as an absolute.

Very slippery slope.

Next we'll have dealers stating that fuel economy will be anywhere between 7L/100km and 50L/100km, just to cover themselves...and that isn't going to help anyone.

thats not the point , the dealer said he could get 7.7 km but the judge has ruled that no matter how he drove that car he was never going to get that figure. If you bought your Subaru and the dealer said you could get 8 km , you bought the car because of that and then you found no matter how you drove you couldnt get under 9 km and then you found out the car is unable to get that 8 km figure , would you still be happy or would you think you have been lied to to get you to buy the car.

Common sense is not as common as you think.

Jase2985

13513 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5942

ID Verified

Lifetime subscriber

#1370181 19-Aug-2015 11:33

nzkiwiman: Excellent, I am going to sue Mazda as my 2014 Mazda 3 claims to have a 5.6l per 100km petrol rating and my daily drive is seeing me average around 8.5-8.7l per 100km

That is a huge difference

Maybe I'll get even more if I take a snapshot of the cars fuel monitor as soon as I start it up and rev the motor - it shows 99.9l per 100km as reading for 1 minute.

/face into desk

Thing is though you could probably get close to that if you tried hard

Handsomedan

7407 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6777

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1370198 19-Aug-2015 12:06

vexxxboy:
Handsomedan: It's interesting as I have an onboard computer that tells me my car does around 13.3L/100Km with the way I drive currently - that is to say, short hops in rush hour, car cold most of the time, so choke engaged and I tend to have a bit of a lead foot more often than not.

Obviously it's better on the highway and a long trip, but that's beside the point...

The official figures released by the manufacturer are that I should be getting around 9.9L/100km, so should I sue? Ridiculous. I know that the way I drive is the reason that I have awful fuel economy - that and it's a 2.5l turbo, but either way, there's no way you can use a quoted fuel economy figure as an absolute.

Very slippery slope.

Next we'll have dealers stating that fuel economy will be anywhere between 7L/100km and 50L/100km, just to cover themselves...and that isn't going to help anyone.

thats not the point , the dealer said he could get 7.7 km but the judge has ruled that no matter how he drove that car he was never going to get that figure. If you bought your Subaru and the dealer said you could get 8 km , you bought the car because of that and then you found no matter how you drove you couldnt get under 9 km and then you found out the car is unable to get that 8 km figure , would you still be happy or would you think you have been lied to to get you to buy the car.

Two things:

1. I wouldn't be stupid enough to think that a fuel economy figure quoted by a car dealer is going to be absolute or a good reason to buy a car - there has to be a whole lot of reasons to buy a car otherwise you'd go for the cheapest possible alternative, regardless of what the car dealer says...they're not noted as being the most trusted of professionals in the world...just check any survey on the matter

2. I don't drive a Subaru

Handsome Dan Has Spoken.
Handsome Dan needs to stop adding three dots to every sentence...

Handsome Dan does not currently have a side hustle as the mascot for Yale

*Gladly accepting donations...

maxeon

1279 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 106

ID Verified

Lifetime subscriber

#1370204 19-Aug-2015 12:15

Handsomedan:
vexxxboy:
Handsomedan: It's interesting as I have an onboard computer that tells me my car does around 13.3L/100Km with the way I drive currently - that is to say, short hops in rush hour, car cold most of the time, so choke engaged and I tend to have a bit of a lead foot more often than not.

Obviously it's better on the highway and a long trip, but that's beside the point...

The official figures released by the manufacturer are that I should be getting around 9.9L/100km, so should I sue? Ridiculous. I know that the way I drive is the reason that I have awful fuel economy - that and it's a 2.5l turbo, but either way, there's no way you can use a quoted fuel economy figure as an absolute.

Very slippery slope.

Next we'll have dealers stating that fuel economy will be anywhere between 7L/100km and 50L/100km, just to cover themselves...and that isn't going to help anyone.

thats not the point , the dealer said he could get 7.7 km but the judge has ruled that no matter how he drove that car he was never going to get that figure. If you bought your Subaru and the dealer said you could get 8 km , you bought the car because of that and then you found no matter how you drove you couldnt get under 9 km and then you found out the car is unable to get that 8 km figure , would you still be happy or would you think you have been lied to to get you to buy the car.

Two things:

1. I wouldn't be stupid enough to think that a fuel economy figure quoted by a car dealer is going to be absolute or a good reason to buy a car - there has to be a whole lot of reasons to buy a car otherwise you'd go for the cheapest possible alternative, regardless of what the car dealer says...they're not noted as being the most trusted of professionals in the world...just check any survey on the matter

2. I don't drive a Subaru

I don't think the customer was stupid, he was able to drive the car and return it and get $6000 back eventually. I am sure he bought the case to the court because he investigated the claims made by Ford were not true. This is clearly false-advertising by Ford. If I was Wanganui motors I would claim this from Ford.

And I still don't understand how the claim got settled at $6000 .. surely it is not 75 cents per km loss

KrazyKid

1240 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 608

#1370246 19-Aug-2015 13:31

I believe the issue was that the dealer didn't specify that the fuel figures where not real world ones, and assured him he would get that economy when driving. And when he queried them after a few months driving was told, don't worry the your fuel economy will get better.

I believe he did a lot of open road driving - I think he did 11,000km in 3 months (could be wrong with that figure)

As for the $6000 I think that covers past and an estimate of future costs differences.

1 | 2 | 3