Honda and Acura vehicles said to overstate mileage by up to 4%

[balthazar]

'enzl'= >>"I'm not sure how old you are, but I'll assume you're not old enough..."<<

If only.

-Lead (in gasoline) is a not a highly toxic poison (they fought for years against Unleaded Gasoline)

No imports used leaded gas? And recall yourself what happened: low-lead & no-lead (hand-in-hand with the insurance industry) killed the musclecar era dead. As for 'fighting", see Catalytic Converters below...

-Seatbelts won't save lives (they were concerned about the appearance of a safety device)

How far back are we going to go here? Only time I know for a fact that a manufacturer was concerned about the 'inference' of seatbelts was the board of directors for Tucker ('48), tho Tucker himself wanted them (they were not offered).

Ford launched a safety-centered advertising campaign ('56) to which the consumer reacted... hardly at all. It was not repeated for '57.

GM began equipping cars with factory anchored mounts for seat belts in '62 (definately, but may started in '61MY), which is 4 years before they were federally mandated ('66), but both dealers and the aftermarket offered belts years and years earlier for whomever wanted them.

-Airbags

So where were the other major manufacturers airbags in the early '70s? Oh yes, 20 years in the future.

-Catalytic Converters-Been to LA lately? Imagine the LA Basin w/o emission controls

General Motors developed the first practical catalytic converter under Stempel, and with knowledge of the impending cat mandate, worked with refiners to engineer unleaded gas beginning as early as '71. Lead in gas was banned in '96.

-Repeated issues with design flaws (i.e. Pinto...

Not going to argue there, tho I have not researched the specifics of the fault,

Sidesaddle gas tanks in Pick-ups

Ahh yes, the ones that require incindiary devices to ignite,

Corvair handling

Can't have this one- charge thoroughly disproven by the feds. Ironically, the Corvair's handling was on par with what Americans were not familar with at that point but would soon be told they wanted: European handling (ie: Porsche). Ohhh, so sad.

That's off the top of my head....the cold, hard truth is that when it comes to preserving profit margins, many business leaders WORLDWIDE have done awful things (and still are!)

Agreed- but I still stand by my initial statement: I've seen much more deceptive (as opposed to defective) proceedures from foreign (ie: asian) auto manufacturers. They will not pop readily into your head due to the minimalistic coverage & short-term memory (and long-term forgiveness) of the media, but they're there. Here's a monster to chew on: mitshubishi.

[Mr.Krinkle]

When I was growing up the paint tasted so much better than it does now. I dont understand why they decided to unuse lead. Especially in cars. At least I can still enjoy NASCAR. Thats some there good entertainsment. I wonder what they get per mile. At least four, id guess. Lets see what Toyota gets. I bet if Honda were in theyd be getting five or six... at least.

[Mr.Krinkle]

-Lead (in gasoline) is a not a highly toxic poison (they fought for years against Unleaded Gasoline)

No imports used leaded gas? And recall yourself what happened: low-lead & no-lead (hand-in-hand with the insurance industry) killed the musclecar era dead. As for 'fighting", see Catalytic Converters below...

-Repeated issues with design flaws (i.e. Pinto...

Not going to argue there, tho I have not researched the specifics of the fault,

Sidesaddle gas tanks in Pick-ups

Ahh yes, the ones that require incindiary devices to ignite,

Corvair handling

Can't have this one- charge thoroughly disproven by the feds. Ironically, the Corvair's handling was on par with what Americans were not familar with at that point but would soon be told they wanted: European handling (ie: Porsche). Ohhh, so sad.

Regarding the Pinto, It was slated to be the safest or one of the safest cars of its time. It was originally planned to include a rubber bladder inside the gas tank and have dual front air bags. They nixed the idea because of cost and again later decided to not issue the recall for the tanks because of cost again. The whole "cheaper not to and would rather deal with the cost of settlements debacle instead of paying for a recall deally". Really sad commentary.

The corvairs demise was mostly part of Naders crusade. The tremendous oversteer because of the setup wasnt necessarily bad just not what the general public was familiar with at the time. I guess under those terms it could be considered unsafe.

Edited January 21, 2007 by Mr.Krinkle

[balthazar]

>>"The [Corvair's} tremendous oversteer because of the setup wasnt necessarily bad just not what the general public was familiar with at the time. I guess under those terms it could be considered unsafe."<<

Along with all other rear-engined cars of the period, namely Porsche, right? Porsche = unsafe at any speed. Good.

My buddy has had numerous 2nd gen 'Vairs, and I've ridden in them on hellacious back-road rips (modded, 4-carb, 4-spd)- never a problem. See, it's not the car at fault, just the inexperienced driver.

Just like audi claimed it was solely the driver that was responsible for the 'sudden acceleration' debacle that nearly cost the brand the U.S. market permanently. Except that -oops!- it's GM we're talking about in this case, correct me if I'm wrong: at the time the richest, most prolific industrial company of the middle of the century. Nice target- set phasers on kill.....

[Mr.Krinkle]

>>"The [Corvair's} tremendous oversteer because of the setup wasnt necessarily bad just not what the general public was familiar with at the time. I guess under those terms it could be considered unsafe."<<

Along with all other rear-engined cars of the period, namely Porsche, right? Porsche = unsafe at any speed. Good.

My buddy has had numerous 2nd gen 'Vairs, and I've ridden in them on hellacious back-road rips (modded, 4-carb, 4-spd)- never a problem. See, it's not the car at fault, just the inexperienced driver.

Just like audi claimed it was solely the driver that was responsible for the 'sudden acceleration' debacle that nearly cost the brand the U.S. market permanently. Except that -oops!- it's GM we're talking about in this case, correct me if I'm wrong: at the time the richest, most prolific industrial company of the middle of the century. Nice target- set phasers on kill.....

Yup thats pretty much right. The car wasnt without some other problems though. Namely exhaust fumes entering the cabin, engine seals and other challenges from the rear engine set up. I think from what I recall those were mostly early on issues...They also used sway axles and if i am remembering correctly the tire pressures were very specific. This was before my time and I wasnt around for Naders campaign but from what I gather it was like I first said, something the general American public was not familiar with. Not necessarily bad or ill designed (for the most part)

He also had a problem with the steering wheel as a dangerous design due to risk of the driver getting impaled...I think NAder had/has a problem with pretty much everything anyway though. Basically all his claims about the corvair were later debunked but the damage was essentially done already. Comes with the territory of being numero uno.

Just like the battles toyota will encounter with the greenies because of their new Tundra...No free passes and what a great way to get some publicity. Audi?? who the hell are they. What good does it do to bring down a chump?

Now though they are hard to ignore, especially if you watch racing. They are really quite impressive if thats your thing. My dad for instance still cites what you state above at the mere mention of the name Audi. Funny what you remember sometimes.

[GXT]

Honda and Toyota seem to come up on a regular basis as to "irregular" numbers. Toyota adding Scion sales to their own? NO problem. The '06 Camry dropped 20 hp, Sienna by 15, the Acura TL by 12: many, many of their models dropped by more than 10 hp. We are not talking the piddly numbers that Hyundai got SUED for. Toyota and Honda got away with it, plain and simple.

The hag, Ellen Roseman, who writes for the Toronto Star, went crazy when Hyundai got caught - she demanded customers be rebating $1,000 or more for the "fib." Where was she and others when the $70k SC430 dropped 12 horsepower??????

What is wrong with counting Scion with Toyota sales? Would you feel better about it if Toyota Corp renamed themselves GM, their Toyota brand Chevy, and their Scion brand Pontiac and then reported GM sales? Last time I checked, GM gives GM totals as well:

http://www.gm.com/company/investor_informa...veries_0612.xls

Toyota, Honda, et al were reporting based on the rules at that time. It sounds like Toyota got a little loose by reporting the Sienna numbers with premium gas even though premium fuel wasn't required. But even that was allowed under the rules, and it was something an owner could do. Still, it seems a little questionable. But other than that, I cannot find fault with what they were doing.

There is no question that Toyota and Honda made a mistake by retesting their existing vehicles. They should have done what Ford, GM, etc. had done and just tweaked the cars for the following year. The TSX and the Accord both had higher HP the model year following the new standards (even though the engines remained the same on the spec sheet). If Honda hadn't restated their existing models they too would have been understating their HP like the virtuous Ford, GM, etc.

I will give Ford, GM, etc. credit for harping on a 4% drop in the TL's and SC430's HP to distract from the fact that they are selling V6s that are getting bested by Honda's "over rated" 4cyls (Escape 200HP V6 vs CRV 166HP 4Cyl) or cars with 4AT/pushrods that don't offer comparable performance to even lower HP "over rated" Toyota/Honda models. Brilliant.

Edited January 24, 2007 by GXT

[balthazar]

Reporting corporate sales numbers by themselves is fine. But reporting compiled numbers in lists of brand sales is intentionally misleading. I suspect they've done the same thing with their brand average buyer age figure; a recent list of brand ABAs posted on this board showed lexus, a suspiciously low toyota and a conspicuously absent scion.

toyota also plays this game with model sales numbers (camry + solara is one). It's just not consistant.

[GXT]

Looks like Honda settled quickly.

http://www.odosettlementinfo.com/Vaughn%20Final%20FAQs.pdf

1) Warranties extended by 5%.

2) Reimbursement for work that should have been covered by warranty.

3) Increase by 5% in the mileage allowance.

4) Refund of excess mileage payment.

[GXT]

Reporting corporate sales numbers by themselves is fine. But reporting compiled numbers in lists of brand sales is intentionally misleading. I suspect they've done the same thing with their brand average buyer age figure; a recent list of brand ABAs posted on this board showed lexus, a suspiciously low toyota and a conspicuously absent scion.

toyota also plays this game with model sales numbers (camry + solara is one). It's just not consistant.

The Solara is the "Camry Solara". By that standard it makes sense that they be included in the Camry counts. But it brings up an interesting question as to how alike two vehicles "have to be" in order to bear the same name. Does GM count the Malibu Maxx sales with the Malibu sales?

I can't speak to the other numbers because I haven't seen them, but who compiled the ABA list?