Driver gets $6,000 compesantion from dealer

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

1 | 2 | 3

pdath

252 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1370247 19-Aug-2015 13:35

KrazyKid: I believe the issue was that the dealer didn't specify that the fuel figures where not real world ones, ...

I think that is the greater issue - that achievable real world numbers are not given. Achievable real world numbers should be given by the manufacturer.

Try my latest project, a Cisco type 5 enable secret password cracker written in javascript!

mattwnz

20164 posts

Uber Geek

#1370252 19-Aug-2015 13:41

Handsomedan:

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

You could say the same thing about people buying leaky homes, and not getting their own building expert in to check that it was fine. That didn't stop tax payers having to bail out thousands of leakyhome owners.

But it is very difficult for a car buyer to test the actual figures in real world situations. The only thing I think the figures are useful for, are comparing cars to one another. But then you don't know if the tests are standard, and all cars are tested to the same standards. So I do question the value of the figures at all. SUrely they should be required to do real world tests, and to exactly the same conditions. But even then it is difficult, as one day it may be windy, and the other day it maybe fine. Then different drivers drive cars in different ways. It would probably need to be done by a computer driver.

richms

28191 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1370255 19-Aug-2015 13:50

In the US those figures are all that they can state at all. No others are allowed to be published.

They are hopelessly wrong. I get about 13-14l/100k in the car. They say 8.5 or some BS.

Richard rich.ms

Geektastic

17943 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1370260 19-Aug-2015 13:58

Watch the small print in car sales paperwork change rapidly to include a clause concerning fuel economy figures being test figures not real figures and so on..!

gzt

17149 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1370317 19-Aug-2015 15:03

This kind of reminds of the thing with fridges a few years back where one model at least was (fraudulently) programming to detect ='test conditions' then activate a special program to reduce consumption. Never heard of a car manufacturer doing the same, but they are obviously competing hard on fuel economy these days. Maybe someone can look.

jonathan18

7413 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1370378 19-Aug-2015 16:38

gzt: This kind of reminds of the thing with fridges a few years back where one model at least was (fraudulently) programming to detect ='test conditions' then activate a special program to reduce consumption. Never heard of a car manufacturer doing the same, but they are obviously competing hard on fuel economy these days. Maybe someone can look.

I read recently an article discussing the difference between 'official' and real-world fuel economy figures; one thing I recall is in the European test at least companies are able to get away with things like over-inflating tyres and removing external mirrors (if not technically required by law).

Here's one report of the conditions they use (no wonder they can never be replicated):

The fuel-efficient coefficient When you’re studying a car’s fuel economy, you’ll be given three figures under the headings Urban, Extra-Urban and Combined. To get the mpg figures for each category, cars are not put through their paces on the UK’s highways and byways, as you might reasonably expect, but simply placed on a rolling road. To work out Urban mpg, a car is made to accelerate and decelerate several times, ‘drive’ at a steady speed and idle over the course of a 2.5 mile (yes, a two-and-a-half mile) drive.

The maximum speed in this test is 31mph, the average speed is 9mph and the acceleration is so slow that it takes 26 seconds to hit that magic 31mph. Extra-Urban is carried out under the same conditions, with 50% driving at a steady speed, a top speed of 75mph (it’s anyone’s guess how long it takes to hit that speed) and an average speed of 39mph. The figure for Combined is worked out by taking an average figure from the previous two results, based upon the distance covered. As you can see, the results are not going to be a reflection of real driving conditions, with no headwinds or hills to add to consumption figures.

And that’s before you even consider that the testers might pump up the tyres extra hard to reduce rolling resistance, tape up grilles and remove wing mirrors to reduce resistance and disconnect brakes to ease friction. While it seems some car manufacturers are employing tactics that will increase fuel efficiency figures, questions also need to be asked of the New European Driving Cycle (NEDC), which sets the criteria for these tests and dictates these are the only figures manufacturers are allowed to quote.

http://www.moneysupermarket.com/car-insurance/blog/can-you-match-your-cars-publicised-mpg/

A quick google threw up this interesting report on an independent attempt to test the fuel economy of two different cars, which showed vastly different results:

Even under test conditions when the fuel consumption2 of the vehicles was expected to be at its lowest, the differences between the manufacturer’s results and Altroconsumo’s findings were significantly different:

 The declared fuel consumption and CO2 emissions of the VW Golf were more than 50% lower than the test results obtained by Altroconsumo.
 The declared fuel consumption and CO2 emissions of the Fiat Panda were more than 18% lower than the test results obtained by Altroconsumo.

Being that the declared fuel consumption advertised for the VW Golf was 3.8 litres/km and the test results are more than 50% higher, this would equate to approximately an additional 2 litres worth of fuel being used per 100 kilometres. On the basis of a motorist driving 15,000 km per year, those owners of the VW Golf model might have paid up to €509 more per year than what could have been expected from the company’s advertisements.

Being that the declared fuel consumption advertised for the Fiat Panda was 5.2 litres/km and the test results are more than 18% higher, this would equate to around 1 additional litre worth of fuel being used per 100 kilometres. On the basis again of a motorist driving 15,000 km per year, those owners of the Fiat Panda model might have paid up to €247 more on their bill per year than what could have been expected from the company’s advertisements.

http://www.beuc.eu/publications/beuc-x-2014-067_qa_on_misleading_fuel_consumption_claims_and_testing_procedures.pdf

Batman

Mad Scientist
29769 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1370401 19-Aug-2015 17:26

This is interesting. I sold my X-Trail for this very reason. (other than it keeps getting stuck and passed by 4WDs on the icy slope of my street)

Should be easy money! If only I were a lawyer ... I wonder how much was the lawyer's fee. Hopefully under $6,001.

Sharesies

Trade NZ and US shares and funds with Sharesies (affiliate link).

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#1370402 19-Aug-2015 17:27

sbiddle:
Geektastic:
Fred99:
sbiddle: Interestingly the 7.7 figure was obviously quoted by Ford when the 2013 version (which is the same as the 2014) launched

http://www.stuff.co.nz/motoring/lifestyle-vehicles/8590156/Fords-Kuga-is-cleaner-safer-smarter

And that's not an "editorial mistake" by NZ Herald either.
Web archive snapshots of Ford NZ website shows very clearly that Ford were advertising fuel economy of 7.7l/100km for that model some months before and some months after the car was bought.

Unless there's a mistake in the way that the article about the determination from the hearing was written by the NZ Herald, then it seems as if Ford NZ deliberately misled the hearing in evidence that they presented - the result of which was that it was determined that the 7.7l/100m economy claim was made by "mistake" by the dealer, thus letting Ford NZ "off the hook".

It's possible that the measurement methodology changed between the two models?

The model is the same.

There is also no difference in testing methodology. It's standardised and has been for quite some time, and you clearly couldn't change it or it would throw all stats out the door with no way of comparing vehicles. I recall reading a few years ago exactly what that was, and I'm sure Google can tell you.

The testing is standardised in many countries, and they frequently revise test methods to try and reduce "cycle-beating" by manufacturers.
But there's a particular problem in NZ, as we get cars from US, Japan, Australia, and the EU, and each have their own test methodology. I understand that Japanese and Euro standards are supposed to be harmonised (soon - I'd need to google, but think from about 2016, you'll be able to compare Japanese vs Euro on the same basis).
As well as test methodology, various countries have specific legislation about how that information may be used. In the US, the fuel economy data from tests to FDA standard are the only figures that car makers are allowed to use. And in the US, the auto industry needs to beware, as EPA will prosecute and hand down severe penalties.

So let's take a closer look at Ford NZ claims for the Kuga Titanium AWD 2104 model, from their website archived by "the wayback machine" :

Yes - they stated the test standard used - 80/1268/EEC.

That seems superficially OK - but oops - there's a serious problem. The first two digits "80" indicate an EC directive enacted in 1980 - amended countless times, and now repealed.

Now why in heaven's name would they use anything but the latest standards - let alone "pick and choose" something to present the most favourable outcome for them.

I could be wrong, but to me this smacks of complete contempt by Ford NZ - cynical abuse of our poor regulation of fuel economy standards. It's also an indictment on the motoring journalists who re-print auto company "press release" data verbatim - and can't be bothered to dig a little deeper - or look at such claims with at least a bit of a critical eye. It only took me 10 minutes on Google.

In the US - where EPA do take an active role, the (US equivalent) AWD 1.6 Escape is rated at 22/25/29 miles per US Gallon. The 25 mpg (combined) calculates back to 9.4 l/100km. I understand that at the hearing, that's the figure Ford stated should have been used by the dealer on the window card - yet everything I can find suggests that Ford were using the wildly optimistic figure of 7.7 at the time.

Bung

6489 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#1370406 19-Aug-2015 17:37

If Ford didn want car dealers using 7.7 they should have got the EECA to update the Kuga data on the Fuel saver web site. 7.7 is what Ford supplied and it is still the recorded figure for 1.6l Ecoboost models.

maxeon

1279 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Lifetime subscriber

#1370598 19-Aug-2015 21:44

joker97: This is interesting. I sold my X-Trail for this very reason. (other than it keeps getting stuck and passed by 4WDs on the icy slope of my street)

Should be easy money! If only I were a lawyer ... I wonder how much was the lawyer's fee. Hopefully under $6,001.

Disputes tribunal does not cost more than 100 as far as I know and Lawyers are not allowed.

Geektastic

17943 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1370677 20-Aug-2015 08:48

pdath:
KrazyKid: I believe the issue was that the dealer didn't specify that the fuel figures where not real world ones, ...

I think that is the greater issue - that achievable real world numbers are not given. Achievable real world numbers should be given by the manufacturer.

Achievable by whom, though?

Driving styles are very varied things. I am very smooth, do not accelerate hard just for fun, brake judiciously and so on. One of my brothers drives like Schumacher at all times (interspersed with a lot of profanity - he is a very stressful person to be around!). My front brake pads have just been changed after 80,000 kms in an automatic. His are usually done more than twice as often.

How would you arrive at real world numbers? I suppose you would need at least 1000 non-professional drivers in varied climates and terrains and then an average or something.

Geektastic

17943 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1370678 20-Aug-2015 08:51

Fred99:
sbiddle:
Geektastic:
Fred99:
sbiddle: Interestingly the 7.7 figure was obviously quoted by Ford when the 2013 version (which is the same as the 2014) launched

http://www.stuff.co.nz/motoring/lifestyle-vehicles/8590156/Fords-Kuga-is-cleaner-safer-smarter

And that's not an "editorial mistake" by NZ Herald either.
Web archive snapshots of Ford NZ website shows very clearly that Ford were advertising fuel economy of 7.7l/100km for that model some months before and some months after the car was bought.

Unless there's a mistake in the way that the article about the determination from the hearing was written by the NZ Herald, then it seems as if Ford NZ deliberately misled the hearing in evidence that they presented - the result of which was that it was determined that the 7.7l/100m economy claim was made by "mistake" by the dealer, thus letting Ford NZ "off the hook".

It's possible that the measurement methodology changed between the two models?

The model is the same.

There is also no difference in testing methodology. It's standardised and has been for quite some time, and you clearly couldn't change it or it would throw all stats out the door with no way of comparing vehicles. I recall reading a few years ago exactly what that was, and I'm sure Google can tell you.

The testing is standardised in many countries, and they frequently revise test methods to try and reduce "cycle-beating" by manufacturers.
But there's a particular problem in NZ, as we get cars from US, Japan, Australia, and the EU, and each have their own test methodology. I understand that Japanese and Euro standards are supposed to be harmonised (soon - I'd need to google, but think from about 2016, you'll be able to compare Japanese vs Euro on the same basis).
As well as test methodology, various countries have specific legislation about how that information may be used. In the US, the fuel economy data from tests to FDA standard are the only figures that car makers are allowed to use. And in the US, the auto industry needs to beware, as EPA will prosecute and hand down severe penalties.

So let's take a closer look at Ford NZ claims for the Kuga Titanium AWD 2104 model, from their website archived by "the wayback machine" :

Yes - they stated the test standard used - 80/1268/EEC.

That seems superficially OK - but oops - there's a serious problem. The first two digits "80" indicate an EC directive enacted in 1980 - amended countless times, and now repealed.

Now why in heaven's name would they use anything but the latest standards - let alone "pick and choose" something to present the most favourable outcome for them.

I could be wrong, but to me this smacks of complete contempt by Ford NZ - cynical abuse of our poor regulation of fuel economy standards. It's also an indictment on the motoring journalists who re-print auto company "press release" data verbatim - and can't be bothered to dig a little deeper - or look at such claims with at least a bit of a critical eye. It only took me 10 minutes on Google.

In the US - where EPA do take an active role, the (US equivalent) AWD 1.6 Escape is rated at 22/25/29 miles per US Gallon. The 25 mpg (combined) calculates back to 9.4 l/100km. I understand that at the hearing, that's the figure Ford stated should have been used by the dealer on the window card - yet everything I can find suggests that Ford were using the wildly optimistic figure of 7.7 at the time.

Good work.

If Ford were using that number it seems only fair that their dealer would use the same number, I think. He could not reasonably be expected to have done his own tests!

sbiddle

30853 posts

Uber Geek

Retired Mod

Trusted

Biddle Corp

Lifetime subscriber

#1370681 20-Aug-2015 08:57

What about Trademe advertising (using Energywise as their source) clearly incorrect figures?

http://www.trademe.co.nz/motors/used-cars/ford/auction-904389154.htm

Could damages be claimed in a subsequent case against Trademe and/or Energywise?

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#1370745 20-Aug-2015 10:24

sbiddle: What about Trademe advertising (using Energywise as their source) clearly incorrect figures?

http://www.trademe.co.nz/motors/used-cars/ford/auction-904389154.htm

Could damages be claimed in a subsequent case against Trademe and/or Energywise?

Yeah - jeesh...
Trademe probably deflect liability by referencing the source of the data as Energywise. You probably can't sue Energywise as you could an individual or business in the district court or disputes tribunal, as they're a Crown entity with a corresponding Act - which means if you wanted a ruling (which is probably going to cost you a fortune and could be ignored by government anyway), you'd need to go the High Court. (IANAL - but think that's roughly how it works)

However TM could do much better IMO, as despite disclaimer they do actually state:

Annual fuel cost of $2,160
Fuel economy is 7.7L per 100km

TM's popup link with further link to the Energysaver site then states:

How many litres of fuel the vehicle will use per 100km - the more stars, the more fuel efficient.
How much a car will cost you in fuel for a year. This information is underneath the label.

(italics - mine)

Clicking the link takes you to the Energywise site, but not directly to any disclaimer or directly to the make/model of car in the ad. It looks "official".

Pretty easy to understand how a person could believe what's stated first, what's stated twice in this case, what's stated in plain language, and what's apparently endorsed by Government - without digging a little deeper into the "fine print".

Bung

6489 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#1370831 20-Aug-2015 12:07

Reading some of the reviews of the Ford Kuga it was obvious that most of the reviewers were content to just repeat Ford's press kit figures and they didn't have to fill the tank. I did find (and have now lost) one newspaper or magazine review that did point out that the Kuga was surprisingly thirsty compared to Ford's 7.7l/100km claim and compared it with real v's claimed for a RAV4. At the time Ford were claiming the 1.6l Ecoboost engine to be 25% more economical than the previous Kuga petrol engine.

1 | 2 | 3