jpd80 Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 Every other car maker manages to follow the test rules and give correct data, why can't Hyundai and Kia? They deliberately stretched the truth to seek advantage over competitors and now say, whoops sorry? Not good enough. how many sales were lost by other manufacturers on the back of false claims? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomServo92 Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 Not surprised and like some others, I don't think it was an honest mistake. H/K tried to pull a fast one by fudging the test and they got caught. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aneekr Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 Every other car maker manages to follow the test rules and give correct data How can you be sure that's the case? As akirby mentioned in post #6, the majority of vehicles are not examined by the EPA. The Car and Driver article I mentioned earlier states that about 15% of new cars and light trucks are evaluated annually by the EPA at its lab in Ann Arbor, Michigan. As for the remainder, "the EPA takes automakers at their word—without any testing—accepting submitted results as accurate." Assuming the EPA is not dissolved outright in the years to come, I have a feeling this incident portends the exposure of discrepancies from other automakers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 the majority of vehicles are not examined by the EPA. Come on! Since 2000, over 13 years, the EPA has had two vehicles fail audits. Two. In 13 years. TWO. Do you think the numbers would be just a titch higher than that, if one manufacturer was systematically cheating? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 And, again, this is a company that is expected, as a matter of course, to assemble millions of vehicles annually, made out of billions of constituent pieces, with a high degree of accuracy. This notion that the test was 'too hard' and 'too full of variables' just doesn't hold water. What next? "We couldn't build that engine properly because it was too complicated, and there were too many variables in how we could assemble it." 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 (edited) How can you be sure that's the case? As akirby mentioned in post #6, the majority of vehicles are not examined by the EPA. No but the results have to be repeatable in the real world by consumers.In this instance, the audit was brought about by owner complaints that economy didn't reflect test results. And as said above, not many buyer complaints have surfaced regarding fuel economy other vehicle makes..... H/K played fast and loose to seek advantage against other makes and now pretends it was due to tests being too hard? Pfft, where do you draw the line.... Edited November 2, 2012 by jpd80 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aneekr Posted November 3, 2012 Share Posted November 3, 2012 No but the results have to be repeatable in the real world by consumers. In this instance, the audit was brought about by owner complaints that economy didn't reflect test results. And as said above, not many buyer complaints have surfaced regarding fuel economy other vehicle makes..... Consumer Reports tests "real world" fuel consumption of automobiles independent of EPA ratings. Their summary of best and worst fuel economy measurements by vehicle class does not suggest that Hyundai and Kia products exhibit discrepancies that are out of line in comparison to other automakers. Also, models from Ford, Chrysler, GM, Toyota, Nissan, BMW, and Mercedes-Benz (among others) appeared on the 'Worst in class' list; that was not the case with Hyundai or Kia. As I suggested earlier, this incident may serve as an impetus to elicit more fuel economy related complaints from owners of vehicles other than Hyundai and Kia. I think this is just the beginning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted November 3, 2012 Share Posted November 3, 2012 Consumer Reports tests "real world" fuel consumption of automobiles independent of EPA ratings. Real world ratings are not scientifically repeatable unlike the EPA testing methodology. Too many variables....quit making excuses 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted November 3, 2012 Share Posted November 3, 2012 as an impetus to elicit more fuel economy related complaints from owners of vehicles other than Hyundai and Kia. I think this is just the beginning. What? People have been complaining about mileage estimates FOR YEARS: Know why there wasn't a scandal wherein Toyota was forced to restate mileage for multiple years on every vehicle? BECAUSE TOYOTA WASN'T CHEATING! Good grief. I have no idea why you're defending Hyundai/KIA on this. They are clearly, clearly, *clearly* an outlier on this one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aneekr Posted November 3, 2012 Share Posted November 3, 2012 (edited) Real world ratings are not scientifically repeatable unlike the EPA testing methodology. jpd80 stated "the [EPA] results have to be repeatable in the real world by consumers." Consumers aren't going to re-execute the EPA test protocols on their automobiles. What consumers are going to do is use the EPA estimates as a basis for comparison of various "real world" fuel economy ratings posted by professional reviewers and by other consumers (e.g., on Fuelly). Among these "real world" metrics, Consumer Reports' are arguably the most robust. Their fuel economy measurements are done via a flow meter connected to a vehicle's fuel system. It's not "scientifically repeatable" in the manner the EPA tests are, but the CR numbers are still useful for purposes of comparison. What? People have been complaining about mileage estimates FOR YEARS: Know why there wasn't a scandal wherein Toyota was forced to restate mileage for multiple years on every vehicle? BECAUSE TOYOTA WASN'T CHEATING! Good grief. I have no idea why you're defending Hyundai/KIA on this. They are clearly, clearly, *clearly* an outlier on this one. Yes indeed- consumers have levied such complaints for years against automakers. The incorporation of US06, SC03, and Cold FTP tests in the MY2008 regimen did align EPA estimates closer to real world values. Nonetheless, the publicity surrounding the most recent incident involving Hyundai and Kia may encourage still more complaints- including against other automakers. Refer to this editorial from 2010 for examples involving GM and Ford products. Who has adduced sufficient evidence that Hyundai and Kia cheated? Their original dyno tests for coast down were screwed up - that's what we know at this point. EPA has not instituted fines, revoked Certificates of Conformity, or issued an injunction against the companies for violations. For an instance of where the EPA purportedly uncovered "cheating" by motor vehicle/engine manufacturers, the 1998 civil case against Caterpillar, Cummins, Detroit Diesel, Mack Trucks, Navistar, Renault Vehicules Industriels, and Volvo Trucks (for highway cruise engine control strategies that allegedly amounted to "defeat devices") is among the most prominent. And in that case, a solid argument can be advanced- as the Independent Institute did - that the EPA engaged in 'regulation by litigation.' Also, how can we know for sure that Hyundai/Kia clearly represents an outlier when fuel economy testing for >80% of new cars is not performed by the EPA? Is the current sample size of EPA tested vehicles, including recently re-tested Hyundai and Kia models, truly representative of the light vehicle market as a whole? I don't have the answers. Edited November 3, 2012 by aneekr Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted November 3, 2012 Share Posted November 3, 2012 (edited) Refer to this editorial from 2010 for examples involving GM and Ford products. And you think *no one* complained about Equinox mileage? When people before that point complained about Toyota mileage, and since that point complained about Hyundai and Kia? If there was enough of a discrepancy to force TTAC to actually research something and almost (but not quite) test it for themselves, do you think that *nobody* complained to the EPA? Who has adduced sufficient evidence that Hyundai and Kia cheated? Simple: Hyundai had no difficulties performing the two old tests properly, and the two new tests are not that much more complicated than the two old ones. Furthermore, Hyundai's explanations ring false. Take this statement from the guy who just got busted: "There are hundreds of different parameters that can affect this road load," Cho said. "Ambient temperature, wind speeds, atmospheric pressure." That's garbage. The temp at which the test is performed is set by US administrative law. Wind resistance is factored into the test 'road load' using a formula based on the Cd of the vehicle and its frontal surface area. Again, this formula is set by US administrative law. Atmospheric pressure in the testing environment is *also* set by US Administrative law. Every parameter that is used to determine 'road load' is codified. This also smacks of unctuous disingenuousness: Hyundai-Kia used a test track instead of simulated public roads to break in its tires before testing, Cho said. That reflected inaccurate road resistance, the Detroit News reports. The KIA Soul's highway mileage is being dropped by roughly 18%. This is because they broke in their tires using a TEST TRACK? On the other hand: We added a few more stops and processes, which is different from what the EPA recommended Maybe we're dealing with incompetence as opposed to outright fraud. how can we know for sure that Hyundai/Kia clearly represents an outlier when fuel economy testing for >80% of new cars is not performed by the EPA You are an engineer. You took a class in statistics. You know better than this. If Ford, GM, Honda, Chrysler or Toyota were cheating the EPA test on EVERY VEHICLE they sold, it would've turned up at least ONCE in a decade's worth of tests. Edited November 3, 2012 by RichardJensen 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted November 3, 2012 Share Posted November 3, 2012 (edited) Maybe we're dealing with incompetence as opposed to outright fraud. IMO, this is the most plausible explanation and the failure was improperly validated results, the smoking gun was in the figures discovered in an audit.. You are an engineer. You took a class in statistics. You know better than this. If Ford, GM, Honda, Chrysler or Toyota were cheating the EPA test on EVERY VEHICLE they sold, it would've turned up at least ONCE in a decade's worth of tests. The stakes are a lot higher for mnufacturers like GM, Ford and Toyota who for the last decade have had much higher annual sales than Hyundai over the past decade. Previous run ins with the PA over different issues may have also made those three more wary than others... Edited November 3, 2012 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twintornados Posted November 3, 2012 Share Posted November 3, 2012 Bottom line is simple....this issue is going haunt them for quite some time, but their loyal customer base will just take the debit card and continue to buy their crap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoser768 Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 Here is a thought...did they use straight gasoline in their testing and out here in the real world where we are forced to use E-10 which results in a 1-3 (or more) resultant drop in MPGs? In my area, you can get straight gasoline with no ethanol from the local Fastrac in the premium blend only. Regular (87 octane) still has E-10 in it.... Even out here in corn loving Iowa, it has to be labeled if there's more than 1% ethanol. I use the 87 octane (not labeled for ethanol) over the 89 octane cheaper E10 because I can see the 1-3 mpg drop and the the extra dime at the pump is worth it. I thought NY would be more leinient on the corn content than Iowa? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerM Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 I'm pretty sure NY requires a reformulated gasoline that is oxygenated. Whether that means ethanol or not, I'm not sure, but it is the most common since I think MTBE is no longer used (may have been banned?). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 MTBE hasn't been banned outright. But the government refused to renew a provision that would prevent gas stations from being held liable if MTBE ended up in groundwater. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerM Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 OT - How was Disney? Enjoyed the time spent; although it wouldn't surprise me if I'm still paying ($) for it a couple of months from now. It was good to take my daughters, since we won't go again for several years after my son is born. And by then, my oldest will be well into her teens. It might have been better to focus on Magic Kingdom, Animal Kingdom, and Hollywood Studios. Epcot wasn't as big an attraction for my daughters. If I had to do it over again (knowing what I know now), I might have allowed for one day without going to the amusement parks, and spent a day at one of the water parks. Staying onsite was worth it to get the meal plan thrown in, although I think this is the first vacation I've ever taken where I gained weight. The food is just too much, and we ended up claiming almost half our snacks the day we left (for the ride home). I'm glad we went, but I hope I can remember what I learned when/if we go back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twintornados Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 ...Good grief. I have no idea why you're defending Hyundai/KIA on this. They are clearly, clearly, *clearly* an outlier on this one. Watching CNN Headline News today made me want to barf!! The "reporters" were bantering back and forth clucking on and on about how you are going to be getting money from Hyundai/Kia over this....I fired off an email complaining that they are missing the point...Hyundai/Kia mislead and misrepresented the MPG of not one or two of their cars, but almost ALL of them....in short, they lied to the consumers...if Hyundai/Kia really want to "make it right", they should offer to buy the cars back due to the reduced value of the vehicle since it doesn't get the stated MPG's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aneekr Posted November 6, 2012 Share Posted November 6, 2012 ...if Hyundai/Kia really want to "make it right", they should offer to buy the cars back due to the reduced value of the vehicle since it doesn't get the stated MPG's. Goldenberg Schneider, LPA (the Cincinnati based firm that is prosecuting the class action against Ford for spark plug issues with 4.6L 3V V8 engines) filed a complaint against Hyundai and Kia in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio yesterday. Among other remedies, it seeks provisions for owners/lessees of affected vehicles in Ohio to back out of their purchase or lease agreements. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasonj80 Posted November 6, 2012 Share Posted November 6, 2012 In the end this will cost Billions and Billions of Dollars and the PR will be very bad for years. I think after the election this will be the story that gains traction very fast. I just hope Ford really tested the C-Max and Fusion so that 47 number is attainable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noah Harbinger Posted November 10, 2012 Share Posted November 10, 2012 Also, also, this is certainly not surprising. Someone was going to try this sooner or later; and likely it would be a company headed by people that are apparently unfamiliar with the bureaucratic wrath of Washington and the eager legions of trial lawyers, ready to approproate chunks of Hundai/KIA cash for their own sustenance and luxury. I felt a wicked Righteous Justice grin coming on as I read that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.