Driver gets $6,000 compesantion from dealer

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

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79250 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#177906 18-Aug-2015 20:19

A driver received a $6,000 compensation from a dealer after a judge ruled that the car wasn't as fuel efficient as publicised...

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11498819&ref=rss

The tribunal ruled: "The evidence of the Ford Motor Company of NZ Ltd that the expected fuel economy of the Ford Kuga Titanium was 9.4 litres per 100km persuades me that, even taking into account the factors that could contribute to fuel economy of a vehicle, that the [dealer's] statement that the fuel economy of the Ford Kuga Titanium was 7.7 litres per 100km was incorrect and a misrepresentation, irrespective of factors that could contribute to a lower fuel economy." The $6000 award was based on the owner's loss of 0.75c per km over 8000km.

1 | 2 | 3

252 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1368824 18-Aug-2015 20:27

Even more interesting, Ford is still advertising this vehicle as having a fuel economy of 8.8l per 100km, even though Ford told the tribunal it was actually 9.4l per 100km.
http://www.ford.co.nz/suvs/the-all-new-kuga/specifications/spec-data

I feel a sudden spate of dealers about to loose money, and the manufacturer supporting the customer with the evidence and not the dealer.

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

gzt

17104 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1368825 18-Aug-2015 20:30

No wonder the owner was annoyed about that. 9.7 at best seems pretty bad for modern 1.5 litre car, but the article does not specify driving conditions.

specs. http://www.johnandrew.co.nz/car/Ford/KUGA/320004

Full model name: 2014 Ford Kuga Titanium Ecoboost AWD.

Btw which part is titanium? ; )

alasta

6701 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Subscriber

#1368826 18-Aug-2015 20:32

Whilst quoted fuel consumption figures are never realistic it's my understanding that they are always calculated based on a standardised methodology. If Ford used that methodology for the figures that they quoted in this case then the legal outcome sets a worrying precedent.

pdath

252 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1368827 18-Aug-2015 20:34

alasta: Whilst quoted fuel consumption figures are never realistic it's my understanding that they are always calculated based on a standardised methodology. If Ford used that methodology for the figures that they quoted in this case then the legal outcome sets a worrying precedent.

It's not right that they publish one set of figures, and then give a different set to the tribunal. If they can't support the first set of numbers they published then they should be done for misleading advertising.

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

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79250 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#1368830 18-Aug-2015 20:40

Misleading advertising, perhaps. But how can anyone have a figure set in stone? Different drivers, different petrol (91, 95, 98?), different roads, different altitudes.

I am pretty sure my driving style uses more petrol than my wife's.

sbiddle

30853 posts

Uber Geek

Retired Mod

Trusted

Biddle Corp

Lifetime subscriber

#1368838 18-Aug-2015 20:52

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

Mark

1653 posts

Uber Geek

#1368850 18-Aug-2015 21:11

7.7l per 100km ? That's awful stats!!

;-)

Equinox IT

Cloud spending continues to surge globally, but most organisations haven’t made the changes necessary to maximise the value and cost-efficiency benefits of their cloud investments. Download the whitepaper From Overspend to Advantage now.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#1368853 18-Aug-2015 21:14

alasta: Whilst quoted fuel consumption figures are never realistic it's my understanding that they are always calculated based on a standardised methodology. If Ford used that methodology for the figures that they quoted in this case then the legal outcome sets a worrying precedent.

IANAL, but I don't think the Disputes Tribunal sets any legal precedent. It might be rather encouraging however, as if it worked once it's got a good chance of working again, and being able to achieve such an outcome without needing to pay a lawyer is - dare I say it - bloody brilliant if it serves to keep car makers honest.

Yes - they use standardised methodology for emissions, economy, safety etc.
That's a problem - as things can be made to seem what they won't be.
My guess is that's probably getting worse, as engine mapping etc is so sophisticated that a car could be programmed to generate a result under known test conditions, and the harder the testers/legislators try to make testing "dynamic" within the limits of having the same test applied to different vehicles, then the harder the car makers will work to cheat.

nova

250 posts

Master Geek

Trusted

#1368911 18-Aug-2015 22:21

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.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#1368916 18-Aug-2015 22:33

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".

Geektastic

17942 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1368950 18-Aug-2015 22:55

Why would a dealer be quoting figures that were not in accordance with Ford's own?

Surely the buyer would look at the published brochure and see there was a difference? Do some research on line etc? Caveat emptor and all that.

Geektastic

17942 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1368951 18-Aug-2015 22:57

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?

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#1368955 18-Aug-2015 23:05

Geektastic: Caveat emptor and all that.

No - there's no "caveat emptor" when a seller deliberately hides faults or misrepresents relevant facts.

Geektastic

17942 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1368964 18-Aug-2015 23:50

Fred99:
Geektastic: Caveat emptor and all that.

No - there's no "caveat emptor" when a seller deliberately hides faults or misrepresents relevant facts.

If the buyer picked up the Ford brochure, would it have contained different numbers from what the dealer was saying?

Also, I'd want to know if this individual vehicle was defective, whether the driver had lead in his right boot and so on. Much of the fuel economy is down to driving style and competence. Just because a Land Rover can get to the far corners of the earth, for example, does not entitle me to sue Land Rover if my driving skills get the car stuck en route...

Either there is a lot more to this than reported (likely) or the judge was a bit unwise. Fuel test figures are not a promise that the car will do those numbers in any circumstance other than the exact ones in the test.

sbiddle

30853 posts

Uber Geek

Retired Mod

Trusted

Biddle Corp

Lifetime subscriber

#1368988 19-Aug-2015 07:20

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.

1 | 2 | 3