A California Superior Court judge has reversed a verdict rendered against Honda over claims of fuel economy numbers that didn’t match real world results.
Heather Peters, a former lawyer who brought the suit against Honda, was suing over the fact that her Civic Hybrid was unable to match advertised EPA fuel economy figures of as much as 50 mpg. California Superior Court judge Dudley W. Gray II noted in his ruling that Honda’s usage of EPA figures was acceptable, stating.
“Federal regulations control the fuel economy ratings posted on vehicles and advertising claims related to those fuel economy ratings.”
A small-claims court judge originally rejected Honda’s claims, and awarded just under $10,000 in damages to Peters. Peters sought damages not only for the supposedly inaccurate mileage claims, but to compensate her for the diminished trade-in value of her car. But the latest ruling by Judge Gray appears to do away with the idea that Honda misled Peters and other customers. The Detroit Bureau also notes that an unnamed EPA official told them that
“… a maker can advertise any mileage number it believes is accurate up to the figures achieved in government mileage tests. But makers traditionally use the maximum figure even when they are aware such tests might be overly optimistic. In fact, the EPA subsequently revised its test procedures to acknowledge the fact that most hybrids delivered lower fuel economy in real-world use.”
Peters, who opted out of an earlier class action suit and took Honda to small claims court (where the various parties cannot hire legal representation and must make their own cases), saw her case fall apart as the legal proceedings dragged on. An excellent chronicle of the case was posted at Automotive.com for a full explanation of the back story.
GOOD!
She never allowed any independence testing of her car. This suit was BS to begin with. I am glad Honda squashed her. She is the very worst type of vulture lawyer.
The class action lawsuit is the right way to proceed with this sort of complaints.
@ Ice, hardly. Lawyers get thier big chunk ( the real winners) and the rest is of course divided up amongnst the plantiffs with the biggest axe to grind then on down. By going the small claims route this lady would have potentially gotten a bigger reward had she been successful the class action suit on the otherhand could atleastmake honda
ore truthful in thier advertising.
I’m glad 1700 people are not considering a couple hundred bucks compensation for Civic hybrid that gets regular Civic economy. That’s at least 1700 that will not be buying Honda again.
They’re barely one drop in an incredibly large pool of satisfied Honda owners.
That’s how it starts. My mother-in-law is a bit dissatisfied with her ’09 Accord due to various little issues that didn’t occur on her 3 previous Honda’s. She’s still considering a Honda for her next car (one bad car does not make a bad automaker) but she’s also looking hard at other brands for the first time, such as Ford. Honda would do well to not put the bottom line of a handful of sales over the well being of their customers in the future seeing as how much of their business is repeat customers.
Understand that I say this as I am hanging a for sale sign in the window of my Impala (which has been, until this year, reliable and I love the car) and looking at buying an Accord myself.
Down goes David ! Way to go, Goliath !
David is a well regarded figure because he was an underdog fighting a philosophically valid fight (defending his homeland) and because he won. Peters, in comparison, was fighting a philosophically unsound fight (claiming that Honda was wrong to follow existing, legally sound federal laws and regulations) and she lost. Peters is no David, that’s for sure.
Considering how she used the press to taunt, harass and bully Honda for much more than 40 days, I’d say that Peters is the loudmouth Goliath figure in this battle.
This does not make me happy. I bought my wife a new Civic Hybrid in January 2006. Broke the engine in right myself. Ever since break in it has had synthetic oil (Honda dealer oil is dino) and it has NEVER gotten 50mpg, and my wife is SMALL and LIGHT. The sad fact is, these were only sold loaded (only option was nav, which I did not get), and are so heavy it gets around the same mileage my wife’s old ’91 Civic DX manual (yes, she learned how to drive in a manual) got. If the EPA got 50mpg it was all down hill.
This points out the reason why you should always promise LESS than you can deliver.
1. She was probably too fat.
2. Her driving style was probably like that of a racer.
3. Her tires were probably not properly inflated.
4. She probably did not keep up with the maintenance.
5. Axle ratios come into play (maybe)
Basically, there are a lot of variables that could have led her to achieve a lower mileage than reported.
My guess #1 and #2 are true.
“Your mileage may vary.” Why did she not read and believe this? This smacks of a frivolous lawsuit. She should be countersued by Honda. They’ve got plenty of transmission lawyers just sitting around.
Heck, this should have never made it off the ground. Because she had no grounds.
““Your mileage may vary.” Why did she not read and believe this? This smacks of a frivolous lawsuit. She should be countersued by Honda. They’ve got plenty of transmission lawyers just sitting around.”
I don’t have all the particulars from this case and I am not a lawyer. From what I read, Honda learned that a significant number of Civic hybrid batteries would not make it past the warranty period.
Faced with replacing those batteries under warranty, Honda instructed its dealers to reprogram the computer when customers bought the car in for routine maintenance (customers we’re not notified of the change).
The new software used less of the battery (to make sure it lasted the entire warranty period). A greater reliance on the ICE decreased gas mileage.
Like I said, I’m not a lawyer but IMO she has a good case. Honda deliberately, without informing customers, introduced a condition which significantly reduced mileage.
I don’t think customers would’ve agreed to the re-flash especially if told their cars mileage wouldn’t be much better than a conventional Civic. Thing is Honda didn’t even give them the option.
Considering that I, not being a Honda owner, knew about this ‘fix’ when it was happening, I don’t think the ‘uninformed’ consumer argument would fly.
When the battery went out on my Insight and I was receiving no assist whatsoever as the computer disabled the IMA system my mileage actually went up.
I will grant that driving a 3 cylinder 2 liter car in the mountains with no assist was somewhat maddening but there’s always a tradeoff.
I find the background charging really puts a drain on the engine.
From the DETNEWS article :
“The court finds it was designed to prolong the life of the battery, not to increase mileage or performance of the vehicle,” Gray said of the software update.
This is just plain nuts.
The battery is an intrinsic part of the integrated motor assist; if you severely curtail its use with a software update then you have effectively disabled the IMA as well.
The court should be dealing with this car alone not comparing to those cars of other drivers. Surely the court should have ordered an independent test of the vehicle before casting judgement ?
Whatever, she lost, good……now we can all re-learn the ancient advice of buyer beware.