Jump to content

Hyunda/Kia in big trouble


fxcomet

Recommended Posts

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?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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."

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by jpd80
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by aneekr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by RichardJensen
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by jpd80
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...