rockville

As a benefactor of a recent lawsuit against ebay I can't wait to spend my $0.18 cents. I think I will use it to pay for most of the postage on a post card.

Nunco is right thought, even though class actions are clearly abused from time to time, they also do serve in cases like the ebay case. In that example ebay was accused of incorrectly calculating final values of sales such that ebay could charge sellers a bit more. I'm not sure when I sold something through ebay automotive but I guess I did. $.18 might actually be close to what I was over charged. I have no idea. However, what ebay did was about the same thing as always rounding down and pocketing the difference. It's still wrong and I don't have much sympathy for ebay.

Now as for this case, well I'm not sure what the real claims are. Not meeting advertised mileage? Well Honda was one of the companies concerned that the earlier EPA tests gave hybrids unrealistically good results. Honda saw this as a PR problem but the laws that govern mileage advertisements basically only allow you to talk about the EPA numbers. Even if Honda had a better, independent number, they could not legally advertise it. So this part of the case should not be allowed IMO. All calculations regarding a drop in mileage should be compared to not the EPA numbers but what the car was delivering when the battery was new. After all, it's not like independent tests were unavailable at the time of purchase.

Next is the battery. Honda should be held to the terms of the car warranty (all warranties both Honda and government imposed). I really have no sympathy for cases like the Honda transmission failures at say 60k. Yes, 60k is very early for a transmission to die but it's out of warranty. If you aren't happy about replacing a Honda transmission at 60k, don't buy another Honda. People switched to Honda's in part because they weren't happy about replacing Ford and GM transmissions at 60k. Honda didn't legally promise the transmission would last 60k, the buyer assumed it. Sometimes we buyers are wrong. Any transmissions Honda replaced out of warranty are for good will and Honda should be commended for extending that good will.

So what about the battery? Well what defines a battery failure? This is a big deal when we talk about hybrids and it's something I've been wondering for several years. We are now seeing what I predicted would happen when a hybrid battery loses capacity. It's not like the car doesn't operate, it just doesn't operate as well. It runs the gas engine more and mileage drops. In a sense it's like my laptop battery. If the battery doesn't power the computer at all it's a bad battery. But what if it goes for say 70 minutes instead of 100 when it was new? At 90 minutes it clearly isn't as good as new but perhaps not bad. At 10 minutes it is still arguably functional but clearly not good. California said the battery had to last 8 years. Well did it? This seems to me to be the only place where the buyers have some legal leg to stand on. If the car is out of warranty they are responsible just as if they were driving a Vega with rust (and which ones didn't have rust). Is a reduction in capacity a violation of the battery warranty? How much capacity reduction is allowed?

At the end of the day I don't think Honda should have to pay. Instead I think those buyers got a painful lesson in "past results don't guarantee future success" and they should punish Honda by not buying another Honda. People were happy to punish other makes for the same sins, why not Honda.

Here's an article where Toyota supports the current EPA test vs the old one which make hybrids look better than real world driving would suggest
http://www.dailytech.com/EPA+Changes...rticle5327.htm

rockville

True but the EPA rules say Honda can only advertise EPA numbers. If the car was able to reliably deliver the EPA numbers on the EPA test and Honda added mileage may vary to the EPA numbers I don't see what they did wrong.

The old test had the Civic doing 51-49 hw-city. The revised test was 45-40. It seems to me at best she can only complain that she doesn't get the new numbers, not the 51mph that the EPA forced Honda to use in claims.
http://www.hybridcenter.org/hybrid-w...-epa-test.html

TheDonEffect

Looks like she going to have a fit!

That said, only in CA. I see both sides of the coin on this one. First, the given assumptions I'm basing my opinion on: her 2006 vehicle was under the powertrain warranty during the time of her complaint and that what Mr. EG said is indeed correct that Honda made a change that would result in lower mpg. So based on that, I have no issues with her suing. Rockville, I get what you're saying, and correct me if I'm wrong here, but the EPA can only assume the performance won't dramatically deteriorate over time and also could not have known that Honda would later change a setting to reduce MPG laterl; they only have a certain alotted time to do their testing. So I would equate it with an engine's power output, let's say Honda said it had 300hp, but within the warranty time they had to make a tune which reduced it to 280, I mean most reasonable people would understand that power will go down as the car wears, but while under warranty? Sorta reminds me of the RX8 and pre terminator cobras. And while I'm not saying Honda did this, but this could also allow manufacturers to cheat upfront by maximizing the performance upfront, and then tuning it down later to ensure it wears properly, sorta reminds me of the 350z and the tire feathering issue, they maximized performance so that it would look great on paper, and then changed the setting later (I am stretching here).

I think she has a legit claim based on the info I have, but I find most class action suits ridiculous, remember the McDonald's coffee? And most reasonable people will just simply trade in their car as I'm sure it still has decent value and chalk it up as a learning experience.

I am curious though to hear from Jonboy.

TheDonEffect

Oh and the warranty from Honda on the battery specifically is 8 years.

Ludedude

McDonald's hot coffee actually hot, clueless consumer sues. Film at 11.

rockville

Don,

Thanks for the posts. I have a few follow up comments.

1. Do we know what her complaint was during the time the car was covered? Was the complaint that the car wasn't hitting 51 mpg (it never really did) or was the complaint that mileage had fallen off from new levels. The first is too bad for the owner. My Ford never was able to get the EPA highway numbers (I didn't drive the EPA highway cycle either) but the mileage stayed consistent during my ownership. If the mileage went from almost 30 on the highway to almost 20 I would expect Ford to fix it but it would be unreasonable of me to expect Ford to make it hit the EPA numbers outside of the EPA test.

2. The reduction in mileage change does have a number of potential negative impacts for Honda. It would be right for Carb to say they want to be assured that the car still meets it's emissions requirements with the reflash. Let's assume that the reflash doesn't prevent the car from meeting tail pipe emissions. Honda might still have some issues. The car was granted things like car pool exemptions based on being a hybrid AND returning a certain mileage. If the car wasn't meeting those targets then perhaps Honda's were falsely getting carpool privileges. Then again, this would be harm to the state or other drivers not the Honda owners. Owners would have a claim against a manufacture initiated change that reduced performance. Also the CAFE contribution of the car would be incorrect after the change and it's possible regulators could force Honda to recalculate their numbers from those years. Not that I expect Honda to have trouble meeting CAFE numbers even with the change.

3. What constitutes a failed battery is still a question. Basically I can see a case against Honda because their fix reduced the car's mileage. I'm not so sure there is a case against them if they had decided to change nothing. The question again comes down to how much loss in battery life is OK? Perhaps the question is how much loss in battery life is imperceptible to the owner. This is all very gray. Clearly the car doesn't work correctly or perhaps even at all if the battery is stone cold dead. With reduced capacity the gas motor has to run more but how much? I mean if you live in the hills you might notice the loss in battery capacity almost immediately (I used to make it up this hill without losing power but now that my battery is at 90% of new the motor assist runs out and car slows 1/2 mile from the top). If you do mostly highway driving a 50% loss in capacity may be unnoticeable. So we still have the hard reality that the batteries will age and will lose capacity over time. The question is how much is OK. That part isn't clear and I don't think it can be settled in small claims court.

blizz81

Along with this, what are the terms of their "8-year warranty" on the battery pack? As alluded to, I imagine it's not as easy as saying something like "Your 1->2 synchros grind, that shouldn't happen, we'll replace your transmission under warranty". Complete failure? Driving habits/style? Climate/environmental differences?

rockville

Does anyone have a copy of the actual Honda warranty for the battery. On Honda's website they just say see dealer.

Manga_Spawn

I think there is just way to many variables on her side for her to have a case. She would have to show that she drove a very similiar route every single day and that the traffic conditions were such that she could hit the advertised MPG and also that her driving habit were such that the advertised MPG would be achievable. There are dozens of other variables that could ultimately effect these numbers as well like maintence issues (oil, tires, air filter) weather etc. Now if the car was getting something like 10 mpg clearly there is something wrong with that car. Also she says the following

“The sales force said 50 miles per gallon, but they didn’t say if you run your air conditioning and you remain in stop-and-go traffic, you’re going to get 29 to 30 miles per gallon,” she said. “If they did, I would have gotten the regular Civic.”

Who is "the sales force"? The jerk sales guy at the dealer? I also don't really see if it says she bought it new or used. I think she will have to provide some kind of evidence beyond saying that she is not getting the advertised MPG. Being that the car is 5+ years old now I am not really sure how she is just now complaining about this issue (first time she complained to honda was in 2011). I am willing to bet that the drop in milage has more to do with her maintence of the car and her driving habits than anything. Crappy oil, cheap tires, poor maintence schedule could all have this effect and are more likely than anything.

blizz81

Yeah, I just actually read the article and saw that quote. Because sales people are so eager to tell you anything non-optimal or non-positive about a car. "They told me the corvette had an awesome gear skip feature in the interest of fuel economy! Nobody told me I'd get 6mpg if I drag-raced it all day long!"