Honda sued over gas mileage clames

[chevelle454]

Civic Hybrid gets nowhere near its claimed gas mileage!

[eldiablobanshee]

Is Toyota next.

[AxelTheRed]

32 mpg combined? In a hybrid?

Get the f@#k out of my country, Honda.

[Paolino]

Oh my God... I can't WAIT for it to happen to Toyota! Albeit the Prius does get much higher than 32mpg, it still comes nowhere as close as it claims... or the EPA does.

Speaking of, shouldn't the guy be suing the EPA? It's not Honda who certified the fuel economy, it's the outdated EPA tests. I wonder what the numbers will be for next year.

[regfootball]

i love this. this is really bad PR for hybrids and honda and toyo.

my buddy just got a plain civic after balking at the extra cost of the hybrid. i bet he'd be happy to see this article.

[CARBIZ]

Sadly, all the EPA numbers are pretty bogus, especially with smaller engines that are low in torque (read: most Japanese engines). These engines suffer dramatically when driven in the real world. Both Toyota and Honda have been accused of designing and building vehicles that do well on the tests, but perform less than spectacularly in the real world. Honda's apparent "lying" would be proof, I would submit. Although the manufacturer will blame the driver (doesn't that sound familiar - Toyota's coking problem?), any city driver is going to see a significant drop, unless they drive like my Great Aunt. (and she is dead.)

Bad publicity is great, but all this world needs is another LAWSUIT.

[chevelle454]

. Both Toyota and Honda have been accused of designing and building vehicles that do well on the tests, but perform less than spectacularly in the real world.

I have also heard something like this pertaining to crash test ratings. Basically some manufacturers are/were diesigning vehicles that would do good in Goverment/Insurance tests, but in reality didn't fare so well in real crashes.

[siegen]

The owner used to drive a Mercedes, he probably has a lead foot. :AH-HA_wink:

Environmental Protection Agency and automobile window stickers say "mileage will vary,"...That implies that it's possible to get the mileage advertised, said William H. Anderson, a Washington, D.C., attorney for True.

Well, gee, maybe that's because it is indeed possible. Mr. Attorney here doesn't know the different between a necessity and a possibility, and needs to go back to school and take Philosophy 101 again.

"It's just dishonest to twist the numbers that they know people can't get," Anderson said. Just because the EPA conducts tests, it doesn't give Honda license to advertise fuel economy numbers that aren't achievable, he said.

Just because Joe Blow can't get the EPA rated mileage, doesn't mean nobody else can. The grounds of this lawsuit are retarded.

[CARBIZ]

I have also heard something like this pertaining to crash test ratings. Basically some manufacturers are/were diesigning vehicles that would do good in Goverment/Insurance tests, but in reality didn't fare so well in real crashes.

Well, let's face it, the Aveo has a 5 Star rating, but that is if it drives into a brick wall! If you slam it into a Ford Excursion - well, I don't suppose there would be any stars at all, unless they were the cartoon kind.

All those tests are done in a vacuum, supposedly to keep them uniform, but anyone who drives into a brick wall, head on at 45 mph, deserves what's comingn to 'em!

[loki]

Speaking of, shouldn't the guy be suing the EPA? It's not Honda who certified the fuel economy, it's the outdated EPA tests. I wonder what the numbers will be for next year.

totally. but surely they can do things to help with the now "outdated" tests.

in the local paper friday edition, a write-in to click and clack, was saying he got ..low 40's traveling from memphis to texarcana and back, iirc driving 60 instead of 75, in a 3.5L malibu.

[turbo200]

The owner used to drive a Mercedes, he probably has a lead foot. :AH-HA_wink:

Well, gee, maybe that's because it is indeed possible. Mr. Attorney here doesn't know the different between a necessity and a possibility, and needs to go back to school and take Philosophy 101 again.

Just because Joe Blow can't get the EPA rated mileage, doesn't mean nobody else can. The grounds of this lawsuit are retarded.

i get 43. i think the mileage figures are unattainable. that said, the city driving one is far off, or the EPA lives in a city with all downhill roads and rare traffic jams. the highway mileage is closer to being attainable, i'd say a long distance trip with solid steady traffic, i could get 47mpg...possibly. city driving is a different story. depends on what city, and what kind of conditions. stop and go can be good for hybrids, but not if you're having to floor it, followed by hard brake, followed by floor it....all in the name of getting ahead.

[Sixty8panther]

Is Toyota next.

God I hope so!

I'll keep my fingers crossed.

[Cory Wolfe]

Another ridiculous lawsuit.

[Flybrian]

I want the Prius to get bit by this simply because I'm sick of hearing and seeing that stupid wedge of crap that dares call itself an automobile.

[Oracle of Delphi]

It couldn't have happened to a nicer car company!

Edited July 7, 2007 by Pontiac Custom-S

[Hudson]

totally. but surely they can do things to help with the now "outdated" tests.

These "outdated tests" have been updated TWICE in the past 20 years, most recently for the 2008 model year. A while back, they ran the tests and then lowered the numbers by 10% and 22% (if I remember correctly) the city and highway figures. So the figures for 2007 tests are significantly lower than what they would have been in the late 1980s. And for 2008, they'll be even lower.

Just because a person or a magazine doesn't get close to the EPA ESTIMATES doesn't mean there's something wrong with the figures. EPA figures are based on all cars running on the same route so that the average consumer can compare two vehicles. If you drive a Civic Hybrid harsh (the way most magazine writers do), you're not going to come close to the EPA estimates. If you drive the Civic Hybrid like it's supposed to be driven, you'll get OUTSTANDING gas mileage. But you do have to modify your driving slightly.

You wouldn't drive a Ferrari the way you'd drive a Lincoln Town Car (and vice versa), why should it be any different if you're trying to drive for gas mileage? You can drive a Prius or Civic Hybrid (or ANY hybrid) and get amazing gas mileage, but you can't beat on it like most Americans drive.

I don't see any of this as bad publicity for Honda. It's bad publicity for the American legal system if anything.

[regfootball]

truth is, as hybrids have gotten initial acceptance, it was the ecoweenie types who bought them and there are types who either didn't drive aggressively to begin with, or

they are the types that will stare at their mpg gauge in heavy traffic, coasting and stuff, while pissed off drivers attempt to weave around them.

the hybrid PR buzz went into overdrive and now you got everyday folks looking for them.

These folks will want to drive them just like they drove every other car they've owned. Full tilt.

Frankly, a lawusit is needed to draw attention to these cars not delivering real world mpg for average drivers.

That said, GM needed to offer a few models with real hybrid tech (not just BAS). The Malibu and Aura, Vue, Equinox, Tahoe (etc.). Lambdas might benefit from a hybrid also.

Let's put it this way, Nissan was even basically saying that hybrid is not worth it when it introduced the new Altima hybrid. They had already jumped in with both feet though.

Hybrid would be ready for big time if it didn't cost so much and add so much complexity. It will be YEARS before repair shops are capable of handling routine fixes on hybrid powertrains.

[eldiablobanshee]

Just give me a quiet clean running diesel.

[Satty]

Just give me a quiet clean running diesel.

Honda will have one for you in a couple of years, replacing the Accord hybrid.

[loki]

These "outdated tests" have been updated TWICE in the past 20 years, most recently for the 2008 model year. A while back, they ran the tests and then lowered the numbers by 10% and 22% (if I remember correctly) the city and highway figures. So the figures for 2007 tests are significantly lower than what they would have been in the late 1980s. And for 2008, they'll be even lower.

Just because a person or a magazine doesn't get close to the EPA ESTIMATES doesn't mean there's something wrong with the figures. EPA figures are based on all cars running on the same route so that the average consumer can compare two vehicles. If you drive a Civic Hybrid harsh (the way most magazine writers do), you're not going to come close to the EPA estimates. If you drive the Civic Hybrid like it's supposed to be driven, you'll get OUTSTANDING gas mileage. But you do have to modify your driving slightly.

You wouldn't drive a Ferrari the way you'd drive a Lincoln Town Car (and vice versa), why should it be any different if you're trying to drive for gas mileage? You can drive a Prius or Civic Hybrid (or ANY hybrid) and get amazing gas mileage, but you can't beat on it like most Americans drive.

I don't see any of this as bad publicity for Honda. It's bad publicity for the American legal system if anything.

sorry, should've put the [sarcasm] [/sarcasm] in my post about the "outdated" part of it. i regularly get about -1 mpg than what my car was rated at, not driving all out or like the stereotyped grandmother.

[Ravenfreak13]

I find it funny that my saturn gets 40 mpg while a car the same size needs to be a hybrid to get that...if it even gets that.

[The O.C.]

totally. but surely they can do things to help with the now "outdated" tests.

in the local paper friday edition, a write-in to click and clack, was saying he got ..low 40's traveling from memphis to texarcana and back, iirc driving 60 instead of 75, in a 3.5L malibu.

LOL, LOL.....I don't believe that in a heartbeat.

I have a tough enough time believing low-30's.....but low 40's? No way man.....

[loki]

LOL, LOL.....I don't believe that in a heartbeat.

I have a tough enough time believing low-30's.....but low 40's? No way man.....

just telling what i read.

google maps says it's 277miles on I40 to I30...anyway...

from what it said

wife and I drove from Memphis to Texarkana, which is 300 miles. I set the cruise at 60mph.... when i pulled into the gas stationand put 6.73 gallons in the tank

goes on to say he drove his 2004 malibu with the 3.5L V-6 with 76K miles on it. figured mileage based on google is more like 41. not his claimed 44.5 in the paper. not sure how hilly that area is.

[siegen]

I find it funny that my saturn gets 40 mpg while a car the same size needs to be a hybrid to get that...if it even gets that.

My car gets over 100mpg....... rolling downhill with a tail wind.

Hybrids are completely useless! :AH-HA_wink:

[the_yellow_dart]

My car gets over 100mpg....... rolling downhill with a tail wind.

Hybrids are completely useless! :AH-HA_wink:

Down the Hamilton Escarpment (read: giant cliff) in a low gear, I once read 1.1 L/100km on the computer.

1.1 l/100km = 213.83144 miles per gallon

Obviously hybrids are unnecessary.

[CARBIZ]

Gee, I wonder what kind of gas mileage I was getting going up Hamilton Mountain (on hwy 5, actually) with my '91 Caprice and 20' Bayliner behind me? I wonder if the hybrid would have helped?

[The O.C.]

My car gets over 100mpg....... rolling downhill with a tail wind.

Hybrids are completely useless! :AH-HA_wink:

My real name is Steve Austin.

I just open up the driver's door while I'm driving and use my left leg to enhance the performance of my car......with no gas mileage penalty!

[Flybrian]

My real name is Chuck Norris.

I just open up the driver's door while I'm driving and use my left leg to enhance the performance of my car......with no gas mileage penalty!

Fixed.

Chuck Norris averages 1000mpg city and highway.

[regfootball]

my father in law said he got 34mpg on his trip last week. in his v6 Olds 88.

that civic getting 32 is no big deal then.

[pow]

my father in law said he got 34mpg on his trip last week. in his v6 Olds 88.

that civic getting 32 is no big deal then.

He'd probably get 55 mpg in the Civic Hybrid then.

[balthazar]

My father also calculated he got 32 out of his 3.8 '89 LeSabre a few highway trip times.

[regfootball]

He'd probably get 55 mpg in the Civic Hybrid then.

i don't think he'd drive a p-o-# like that.

[siegen]

Down the Hamilton Escarpment (read: giant cliff) in a low gear, I once read 1.1 L/100km on the computer.

1.1 l/100km = 213.83144 miles per gallon

Obviously hybrids are unnecessary.

If you engine break with a manual trans, you could theoretically get ∞ mpg.

The best hybrid was the manual transmission Insight. Then they replaced it with a junky CVT and both performance and mileage dropped.

[Intrepidation]

Fixed.

Chuck Norris averages 1000mpg city and highway.

Quoted for Truth.

[GXT]

my father in law said he got 34mpg on his trip last week. in his v6 Olds 88.

that civic getting 32 is no big deal then.

You do understand the difference between "highway" and "city", don't you? Sure you do.

CR got 47 MPG highway with the Civic Hybrid (38% more than the v6 olds 88 figure that we are taking your word on), and that is the best case comparison!

[GXT]

For the record, CR got 18/43 for the non-hybrid Civic AT and 26/47 for the Civic Hybrid. The Civic hybrid did 44% better than the non-hybrid in the city.

Not only that, the non-hybrid Civic AT is rated at 23 MPG, so it missed the EPA target by 28%.

In case you are concerned about this being a Honda issue, consider the Aveo AT rated at 27 MPG city. CR got 19 MPG (a miss of 42%).

Or the Cobalt LS AT, rated at 23 city, CR got 15 (a miss of 53%).

Or the much vaunted Malibu V6, rated at 24 city CR got 15 (a miss of 60%).

And finally, the amazing 3.8 V6 in the 2007 LaCrosse. Which, and you'll have to forgive me if I have the wrong engine here, is apparently the engine that has been putting all the current Japanese V6's to shame in terms of fuel economy. Rated at 20 city, CR got 12 (a miss of 67%). And I should mention that CR got 30 highway. I mention this because I am baffled by the number of people talking about the highway fuel economy exclusively and then throwing up a number such as 30 MPG highway as if it shows the engine is efficient. Relatively inefficient engines post such highway numbers frequently. If you spend most of your time driving in the city (which most people do), be sure to look at the city numbers.

So yes, the Civic Hybrid missed the EPA estimates according to CR, but so do all these other non-hybrids (and quite significantly as well). But it still did 44% better than the non-hybrid Civic and 73% better than the Cobalt. It looks to me like the hybrid is providing significantly better fuel economy than the non-hybrids. Talk about a groundless lawsuit and poor reporting!

Edited July 23, 2007 by GXT

[CARBIZ]

The 3.8 litre was never noted for its fuel economy but, rather, its longevity and grunt. The 3.4, on the other hand, gave exemplary gas mileage in the previous generation Impala and the "lowly" Ventures. Currently, the 3.5 is showing up the Japanese engines, but it isn't that the 3.5 is BETTER, just that a lowly push rod engine does pretty damned good for a lot less complexity and future problems.

I think that the over all point with hybrids and other "exotic" technologies is that you have to pay a lot of money to get that extra few mpg, and for most people the difference is not worth it. Not yet, anyway. Technology is just like that. Costs do eventualy come down. A lot of sheeple who are jumping on the hybrid bandwagon at this time are bound to be disappointed because they actually BELIEVE the BS spewed by the kool-aid drinkers.

[Snate]

For the record, CR got 18/43 for the non-hybrid Civic AT and 26/47 for the Civic Hybrid. The Civic hybrid did 44% better than the non-hybrid in the city.

Not only that, the non-hybrid Civic AT is rated at 23 MPG, so it missed the EPA target by 28%.

In case you are concerned about this being a Honda issue, consider the Aveo AT rated at 27 MPG city. CR got 19 MPG (a miss of 42%).

Or the Cobalt LS AT, rated at 23 city, CR got 15 (a miss of 53%).

Or the much vaunted Malibu V6, rated at 24 city CR got 15 (a miss of 60%).

And finally, the amazing 3.8 V6 in the 2007 LaCrosse. Which, and you'll have to forgive me if I have the wrong engine here, is apparently the engine that has been putting all the current Japanese V6's to shame in terms of fuel economy. Rated at 20 city, CR got 12 (a miss of 67%). And I should mention that CR got 30 highway. I mention this because I am baffled by the number of people talking about the highway fuel economy exclusively and then throwing up a number such as 30 MPG highway as if it shows the engine is efficient. Relatively inefficient engines post such highway numbers frequently. If you spend most of your time driving in the city (which most people do), be sure to look at the city numbers.

So yes, the Civic Hybrid missed the EPA estimates according to CR, but so do all these other non-hybrids (and quite significantly as well). But it still did 44% better than the non-hybrid Civic and 73% better than the Cobalt. It looks to me like the hybrid is providing significantly better fuel economy than the non-hybrids. Talk about a groundless lawsuit and poor reporting!

Thank you for reminding me why I'm smart enough to not read CR.

[mustang84]

My father also calculated he got 32 out of his 3.8 '89 LeSabre a few highway trip times.

I read a post a long time ago of somebody who used to do regular runs across AZ and NM doing 80 mph and got 38 mpg a couple times in an '86 V6 Camaro.

[vonVeezelsnider]

Sadly, all the EPA numbers are pretty bogus,

True... our experience with the EPA Estimates has been mixed... the new stats for our 2006 Malibu Maxx was 20MPG City- We're averaging 24MPG City. The Cavalier was supposed to get 24 city, we're lucky if we get 22 or 21. The Ventures were supposed to get ~19MPG City, we're getting ~16MPG City. Our Trans Sport 3.8 was supposed to get 16 City... we got 26 City and 42 Highway.

[siegen]

Our Trans Sport 3.8 was supposed to get 16 City... we got 26 City and 42 Highway.

Typo?

[vonVeezelsnider]

Typo?

Not on your life. :AH-HA_wink:

[frogger]

That would be Canadian/Imperial Gallons

[GXT]

The 3.8 litre was never noted for its fuel economy but, rather, its longevity and grunt. The 3.4, on the other hand, gave exemplary gas mileage in the previous generation Impala and the "lowly" Ventures. Currently, the 3.5 is showing up the Japanese engines, but it isn't that the 3.5 is BETTER, just that a lowly push rod engine does pretty damned good for a lot less complexity and future problems.

The 3.5 in the Malibu?

Rated 24/34, CR got 15/36. 0-60 8.1s. Those are some pretty good numbers for fuel economy. The performance is a bit off. I drove that car, it feels like it pulls pretty hard but it sucks wind at the top end.

For comparison, the 3.2 TL AT is rated at 20/28 and CR got 16/35 with a 0-60 of 6.7s.

I don't agree that the TL's engine is more likely to have future problems than the GM 3.5. It is more complex, but the J series is old and has had no major problems.

I think that the over all point with hybrids and other "exotic" technologies is that you have to pay a lot of money to get that extra few mpg, and for most people the difference is not worth it. Not yet, anyway. Technology is just like that. Costs do eventualy come down. A lot of sheeple who are jumping on the hybrid bandwagon at this time are bound to be disappointed because they actually BELIEVE the BS spewed by the kool-aid drinkers.

But it isn't an "extra few mpg". People twist and manipulate it to appear that way (i.e. comparing highway mpg of a non-hybrid to the city mpg of a hybrid), but it isn't.

Lets compare the Malibu V6, which does have fairly good fuel economy, to the Camry Hybrid.

Malibu V6: CR got 15/36. 0-60 8.1s

Camry Hybrid: CR got 28/41 with a 0-60 8.5s

So the performance is similar, but the hybrid gives 86% better city fuel economy. Those kinds of gains are huge. To put that 86% gain into perspective, a Corvette Z06 with the V8 gets 13 MPG city. i.e. The efficient Malibu V6 gets only 15% better city fuel economy than the V8 in the corvette. Or, to put it another way, the hybrid yeilds an increase in fuel economy over the Malibu V6 5.7 times the size of the difference of the V6 over the V8.

[Flybrian]

The cost of entry for the Camry Hybrid eats into that potential fuel savings in the future in additional to the other compromises the Camry makes you deal with. That's why there's been some cash on the hood for the '07s and some decontenting for '08.

[regfootball]

i think its about a 6 grand spread on the camry. the mileage is good but there is no trunk and its just too expensive to justify.

[vonVeezelsnider]

That would be Canadian/Imperial Gallons

No... US Gallons.

I'm not yanking your chain. The vehicle was alot lighter because of the carbon fiber body panels and had a low drag co-efficient. It was also driven closer moderately conservatively.

Also... On our Malibu Maxx 3.5L we just averaged 23.6 US MPG city, just shy of the EPA estimate. CR must drive the soul out of those cars because we've never even dipped below 21.9 City since we bought it.

Edited July 25, 2007 by vonVeezelsnider

[frogger]

Carbon fiber body panel 42mpg minivan ??? OKAY THEN!

[vonVeezelsnider]

Carbon fiber body panel 42mpg minivan ??? OKAY THEN!

No Kidding... We were having tranny troubles and got rid of it in 1999, regretted it for the whole 6 years we had our first two Ventures. It was a really sharp looking Jade Gray gas sipper, and would look sharp forever and ever because the body wouldn't rust- courtesy of GM's ingenuity to make the body panels out carbon fibre and composite materials (something they learned from Saturn). It looked just like this picture from CarDomain of someone else's ride:

Edited July 25, 2007 by vonVeezelsnider

[GXT]

i think its about a 6 grand spread on the camry. the mileage is good but there is no trunk and its just too expensive to justify.

Compared to the base Camry, yes. But the hybrid has most of the features in the more loaded trims. I don't recall where I read it, but the incremental cost was supposedly only $1,500 for the hybrid functionality of the Camry.

If Toyota offered it, you would probably be able to buy a base Camry with a hybrid option for only $2,000 more. That is compelling to me.

And just imagine in a couple years, as the volume rises and the batteries become less expensive going from 16 -> 28 MPG may be a thousand dollar option.