Woman gets poor mpg, sues Honda
01-04-2012, 01:48 PM
#21
Some of you might remember when Honda advertised sub-six-second 0-60 times for the first S2000. No? That's because it came and went so quickly, lol. At the time, Honda was resisting transmission warranty repairs with "oh, but you abused this car with clutch-drop launches, redline power shifts, and such."
If you advertise something you have to back it up. We have consumer protections. Good for Ms. Peters. Companies only learn when their wallet gets stung.
If you advertise something you have to back it up. We have consumer protections. Good for Ms. Peters. Companies only learn when their wallet gets stung.
01-04-2012, 02:01 PM
#22
Registered User
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.
THIS. If she had a history of complaints about the same thing, I'd say she might be onto something. I'd bet money on the fact that she's probably not replaced tires, or stuck to any kind of strict oil change regiment.
Side note: I've driven my mom's '08 Prius quite often and it's definitely all about driving technique. I've gotten the avg mpg up in the 90's before (going down a big hill on the way to California) and conversely I've gotten it as low as 28mpg (passing traffic going back up that same climb on the way back to Vegas.)
01-04-2012, 02:10 PM
#23
Site Moderator
Originally Posted by Manga_Spawn' timestamp='1325714460' post='21286129
“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.”
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!"
Last thing is I love that nothing is said at all if she still owes money on this car. This seems like a great way for someone thats upsidedown on a car to make a last ditch effort and have it paid off or swapped out. Sorry but she just seems like she is trying to make a quick buck and doesn't have much proof at all of her claim.
01-04-2012, 02:29 PM
#24
Registered User
Hatrickstu, we're talking about regular printed ads. One of the reasons I bought my S2000 was because of the advertised capabilities (backed up by magazine tests when they figured out how to launch it). They was no disclaimer "only on the racetrack" or "may void warranty." The car has to be capable of the advertising claims and repaired under warranty if used as suggested. The ONLY way the first generation S2000 runs < 6 second 0-60 is with a clutch drop (or if driven off a cliff).
Same exact deal with OEM suspension lowering bolts built into my C5 Z06. It was bragged about in Chevy's sales literature. I pointed this out to a dealer service department that gave me grief over my OEM-only-method lowered ride and it shut them right up.
Now this woman's claims do have a lot of variables to parse, like how lead-footed she was. And I agree with using the revised EPA guidelines as the benchmark (if the car is driven per the EPA cycle rules, seems like a dirt simple test).
Same exact deal with OEM suspension lowering bolts built into my C5 Z06. It was bragged about in Chevy's sales literature. I pointed this out to a dealer service department that gave me grief over my OEM-only-method lowered ride and it shut them right up.
Now this woman's claims do have a lot of variables to parse, like how lead-footed she was. And I agree with using the revised EPA guidelines as the benchmark (if the car is driven per the EPA cycle rules, seems like a dirt simple test).
01-04-2012, 02:55 PM
#25
If she's having to represent herself, she's going to lose. Honda will send someone completely able to blow her away with data, rules, regulations and anything else they need.
01-04-2012, 03:03 PM
#26
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.
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.
Yeah, I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, as I am a big of skeptic of hybrids as they come, so I'm not very sympathetic towards her cause. However, going bacak to what Mr EG said (assuming still that it is true), if there was a recall performed which lowered mpg or whatever, well that's a design flaw. But I think it would be reasonable to assume, that while under the warranty, the car should be able to achieve the mileage listed. I mean, the Prius does, and the fit apparently does too. The warranty is there to reassure skeptics who know how batteries behave that if there is a noticeable difference, it'd be covered. Honda sorta got caught.
But I really don't like defending her position because it really doesn't align with my own personal perspectives, I'm just sorta understanding of it. I'm with you in mindset, but I guess after seeing how Honda likes to treat trans issues, remember the overrev for bent valves issue? I'm not sympathetic towards them either.
01-04-2012, 04:37 PM
#28
Registered User
01-04-2012, 04:51 PM
#29
Registered User
What if a car company had a turbo that over time just got shittier at compressing air. If the warranty on it was for 4 years, but by 3 years the performance was 50% of what it used to be and they knew that would happen and didn't tell you would probably be pissed. If the battery is warrantied for 8 years and during lets say 4 of them it works like shit....you could argue the warranty should be 4 years. Battery's are weird that way.
A lot of people making assumptions here. The comment about the hot coffee is ridiculous. I've read a lot about that case it wasn't a frivolous case if you read all the extenuating circumstances. If batteries in these cars are really getting this shitty over time and lowering performance and mpgs by a large amount well before the warranty runs out people should at least know that will happen.
A lot of people making assumptions here. The comment about the hot coffee is ridiculous. I've read a lot about that case it wasn't a frivolous case if you read all the extenuating circumstances. If batteries in these cars are really getting this shitty over time and lowering performance and mpgs by a large amount well before the warranty runs out people should at least know that will happen.
01-04-2012, 06:23 PM
#30
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 124
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I will add that this woman initially only wanted her $20K medical bills covered by McD's. They refused, then she sued. I agree that frivolous lawsuits are bad. Let's just stop using this one as an example.
Some Sources:
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck...7s_Restaurants
http://www.stellaawards.com/stella.html
There was also a recent movie made about this very topic called "Hot Coffee."