Honda Sued Over Gas Mileage.

EdenPrime wrote: She said she also offered to trade her hybrid for a comparable car with a manual transmission, the only thing she trusted at that point.

I submit this as evidence of the woman's sanity.

In reply to Salanis:

this makes the most sense. i've always gotten a bit better than rated mileage in my cars on pure city or highway tanks, but usually only .5-2mpg over.

that was until i bought this xterra, my first auto equipped vehicle, it consistently barely gets its city rating (15) and has yet to get the advertised highway mileage (20), only coming within .5 mpg on a couple tanks, even when driving right at 70 for the whole tank. mileage drops quickly to around 17.5 if i drive over 75.

IMHO ... as it were.... this is just another case of someone trying to get something for nothing... I don't know anyone who's dumb enough to believe the stated EPA figures on the window sticker ... as a guesstament ... something to aim for/to beat ,.... ok but gospel ... naw

She's talking about a 40% drop in economy over time due to drained batteries and Honda tells here there's nothing wrong. I would be pissed too.

I'm starting to think each page needs a fresh copy of this passage from the article:

article said: Heather Peters says her car never came close to getting the promised 50 miles per gallon, and as its battery deteriorated, it was getting only 30 mpg.

I think we've all learned a lesson here and it's very simple. Don't purchase a hybrid.

Alfa - They are advertised as estimates and Honda advertised a 21/29 for my 2010 Civic Si 4-door. I get like 35 on the highway because I don't drive it like an ass. When I've taken it to HPDE I get like 11-12mpg. Should I sue Honda because it churned out less than advertised MPGs? I mean I could simply tell the court that I was driving the car like a gentleman and have no idea why I went from a full tank to a depleted tank in the matter of an hour and a half of driving like a Sir (Sir Sterling Moss).

So how many miles does this car have on it? Have the batteries cycled out (i.e. ready for replacement)? Is her driving mostly city (a hybrid's strong area) highway (umm, not so much) or a combination? Does she carry passengers constantly? Headwinds? Hills or flat ground? Has anyone other than her driven the car for a week or so to verify the fuel mileage complaint? Is she using E85? (There's a big mileage drop right there.)

There's just too many things we do not know so we can't make an informed judgement (of course that never stops anyone from arguing on t3h int3rw3b). More to the point, neither can a judge and she knows that. She's looking for a payout, is all.

Then there's plain old perceptions: I once had a couple who, every time they brought their Buick in, would complain that you could not 'top off' the fuel to reach an even dollar amount without spilling. Their Acura did not do that. I tried to point out 'apples and oranges' (different cars) and the rebuttal: 'Are you saying the Acura is a better car?'. They actually wanted to file a lemon law suit over that. I pointed them to the service manager (not being at the top of the totem pole has its good points).

Or the lady with the Rodeo whose basis was the doors did not close like her friend's Range Rover's did. The rep told her 'that car cost $30,000.00 more. Give me another $30,000.00 and I'll make the doors sound just alike.'

In reply to DirtyBird222:

Again what you are saying is that Honda does not need to meet a performance measurement that they advertise. One that was met new and the dropped by almost half without indicating an issue.

So Honda has NO responsibility in meeting what they claim is probable?

Spend all that money and have the car decline that much and tough luck to the driver?

Man, we sure have been brainwashed.

Its a six year old battery. How long are they suposed to last? Probably its puny motor is struggling to charge a battery thats past it, plus haul the car around without much electrical help.

Who knows.

The gas mileage estimates come from EPA, that is true. They are derived from information provided to EPA from the manufacturer, as well as test data obtained by driving the car. EPA does not dream up the figures all on their own.

Small claims court does not prohibit lawyers. Not in any state in the nation are lawyers prohibited from entering into a small claims courtroom, nor are they prohibited from actively participating. They simply aren't required. You can certainly do it yourself. Honda most certainly will represent themselves with a lawyer.

Personally, bully for her for taking Honda on herself instead of playing with a class action lawsuit. It's a lot more personal and real when you fight your own battle.

alfadriver wrote: In reply to DirtyBird222: Again what you are saying is that Honda does not need to meet a performance estimate that they advertise that is highly dependant on a multitude of factors. One that was met new and the dropped by almost half without indicating an issue, which again would be fully dependant on many factors, most notably the driver. So Honda has NO responsibility in meeting what they claim is possible? Spend all that money and have the car decline that much and tough luck to the driver?

FTFY

And no, Honda wouldn't have liability here. Would Duracell have liability for a rechargable battery that only performed at 50% of what it did when new, after it had been through 500 charge/depletion cycles?

You're making an assumption that the owner drove it in the best possible manner to achieve the maximum possible mileage. That's a huge assumption to make. As has been said in this thread, if you took a Prius to an HPDE day, it wouldn't get the 50mpg they advertise.

You guys aren't really comparing apples to apple here, one day at an autocross, 6 runs maybe 3 miles of competition driving, I did this in my Elantra and my average for that tank dropped 2mpg to an average of 38mpg. Nothing like this woman's experience of 30 mpg every tank when 50 mpg is indicated.

There is a successful class action suit that has proven in court that the "Advertised" mileage has been grossly wrong in a large number of cases, not just this one case.

The manufacturer is responsible to ensure that what they advertise about their product is reasonably accurate, 40% inaccuracy in advertised mpg is simply called "False Advertising".

http://lacountydca.com/tsFalseAdvertising.htm

If they say it will do it, it should do it. If the advertisement says a product can do something, it must be able to do it. For example, if a manufacturer advertises that their product can cure cancer, then it must be able to cure cancer. The next time you’re at the grocery store, look in their vitamins section. Most dietary supplements won’t tell you what the product does unless they can find evidence to support it.

aussiesmg wrote: You guys aren't really comparing apples to apple here, one day at an autocross, 6 runs maybe 3 miles of competition driving, I did this in my Elantra and my average for that tank dropped 2mpg to an average of 38mpg. Nothing like this woman's experience of 30 mpg every tank when 50 mpg is indicated. If they say it will do it, it should do it. If the advertisement says a product can do something, it must be able to do it. For example, if a manufacturer advertises that their product can cure cancer, then it must be able to cure cancer. The next time you’re at the grocery store, look in their vitamins section. Most dietary supplements won’t tell you what the product does unless they can find evidence to support it.

Let's say your Elantra can go 300 miles between fill ups. Sticking your foot in it for just 3 of those 300 miles during an autox isn't going to effect mileage that much. But if you're driving all over town and planting the gas pedal at every stop light, then your mileage will drop way below manufacturers' estimates. They're advertising is based on the mileage that is possible, not gauranteed. Another good example...my boys have model rockets. On the box is says "Flies up to 1100 feet". Does it go that high on each launch? Heck no. It depends on the weather conditions, etc... I don't consider it false advertising. I realize that I would need perfect conditions to hit that. Same is true for gas mileage estimates. You'd need to drive it just right, have fully inflated tires, perfect alignment, right air temperature, etc...

There is a very good chance that Honda chose to settle the original class action suit without admitting wrongdoing rather than keep dragging the thing out. It makes sense; give the Esqs. their pound of flesh (which when all is said and done is really what it's all about) and they have a fixed cost they can write off at the end of the year.

So she calls the newspaper and gets free publicity, starts a website that costs her probably $15.00 a month, takes Honda to small claims court and gets $10k without paying an attorney since it won't be worth fighting; Honda pays $10k and they are done with her. There is no mention of how she intends to prove her case. IIRC that $10k is non taxable as well.

Sounds like a pretty good payday to me and not real different from the basic premise of the McDonald's hot coffee lawsuit of a few years ago.

Fallout: Honda will have a reason to quit building the hybrids all the greenies demand.

Bully for her.

alfadriver wrote: In reply to DirtyBird222: Again what you are saying is that Honda does not need to meet a performance measurement that they advertise. One that was met new and the dropped by almost half without indicating an issue. So Honda has NO responsibility in meeting what they claim is probable? Spend all that money and have the car decline that much and tough luck to the driver? Man, we sure have been brainwashed.

You're assuming she's an angel and drives the thing perfectly around a flat surfaced, 0 degree banking, circle track, at 50mph in the final gear. I understand where you are coming from, but they give you estimates, and call them estimates for a reason, that you are able to attain them with the proper driving style.

aussiemg: I can compare a granny smith apple to a wine sap apple can't I? One driving style to another, we have no indication on how she was driving this vehicle, where she was driving it, and in what type of conditions. There are way to many variables here to just bend over and say she's the victim.

If you buy All-Season tires that have a uber treadwear rating of 800 and are supposed to last you 35,000 miles yet you do donuts in them, burn out at every stop sign, never rotate or balance them, don't keep them properly inflated, etc and you only get 20,000 miles out of them, is it your fault or the tire manufacturers fault?

In reply to DirtyBird222:

But you are ASSuming again, that a vehicle "wears out", you are doing an apples to oranges comparision. And using the assumption, it does "wear out", but the question is when does it wear out and need some mechanical lovin'? Clearly, Honda doesn't even know or there would be a "Hey Fix me, Dummy" light/function somewhere in the car.

As for the tires, around here if you can get what the rating is doing EVERYTHING to get there with inflations, rotations, everything and anything else, you are VERY lucky. Most tires here do NOT make to even 3/4 of the expected lifespan.

In reply to foxtrapper:

"Attorneys aren't usually there; in California, litigants aren't allowed to have lawyers argue their case."

So alright, lawyers are allowed, but they can't argue. I'd really like to see the statute, but since I don't live in California, it really doesn't matter all that much.

From here: http://www.ajc.com/business/woman-sues-honda-in-1289030.html

DirtyBird222 wrote: You're assuming she's an angel and drives the thing perfectly around a flat surfaced, 0 degree banking, circle track, at 50mph in the final gear. I understand where you are coming from, but they give you estimates, and call them estimates for a reason, that you are able to attain them with the proper driving style.

If you imply about the drive cycle and how this person is driving, I'm quite aware of the cycle, and would note that the numbers that are being quoted are from the sticker number, which are not what is actually run on the test. The test is a cycle, sure, but not steady state, and not flat. And includes a cold start.

Knowing the cycle, I know that it's pretty easy to out do what the sticker posts.

but none of that is what I'm saying at all.

What I am saying is that if Honda is using it for advertising, as a major performance feature of the vehicle, then there is an expectation on performance. So if the S2000 was advertised at 200hp, but drivers were only getting 150, then they would be liable. Same thing here.

Based on the fact that there's a class action hanging around Honda's neck for this car, I would harbor a bet that she's not the only one who is not getting close to the performance that Honda claims that it should.

It's one thing for a $1.99 app to not perform, but it's another for a $20,000 car to not perform as advertised.

In reply to Brett_Murphy:

IIRC, the shiny happy people in suits can only sit there and be quiet or consult you on your case out of the courtroom. They can't give you a nudge to tell you something or raise a point for an objection. It's all on you to defend your side of the suit.

Update:

She won.

http://consumerist.com/2012/02/woman-whips-honda-in-small-claims-court.html

I find the results saddening but expected. I wish they would have had someone go for a ride with her to prove whether or not she drove like a hypermiler or like it was a racecar.

http://courts.ca.gov/1256.htm "You are not allowed to have a lawyer represent you at the hearing in small claims court. But you can talk to a lawyer before or after court."

I stand corrected. There is at least one state that does not allow lawyers in small claims courtrooms.

Which has me wondering who was representing Honda in that case.

The window sticker on my 2011 Fiesta says: "Fuel Economy Estimates , 38 MPG. Expected range for most drivers 31 to 45 mpg Your actual mileage will vary depending on how you drive and maintain your vehicle."

That leaves a lot of wiggle room.

Now it will be appealed and go to a real court where Honda will have lawyers and she will end up (deservedly so) with nothing.

I can get 30 mpg out of our Prius if I drive like a jackass. Driving with any thought whatsoever nets 50 mpg. The greatest variable with mileage is the loose nut behind the wheel. You can't sue just because you're an idiot, or it would open up a huge door for more litigation protecting idiots from themselves.

I've recently been looking at hybrids as a possible DD. Honda seems to have gone smaller with the assist motor and smaller with the pack and works them harder than Toyota. Needing the re-flash to decrease assist so batteries will live longer is just a byproduct of designing a system that requires battery abuse coming back to bite them. The upside is that Civic Hybrids are now cheaper than normal Civics of the same year and I may just buy one and upgrade the battery