Honda Small Claims Court

[lexus114]

All this fuel millage stuff with todays (supposedly) better/higher tech motors is personally confusing to me. I used to get 38-40 mpg`s on the highway going home to Pennsylvania. And back to Louisiana with my 1986 Mercury Lynx XR3 (Escort GT) And some of todays cars can just barely do that. So why is this? And this was 1986 technology? Even Honda`s back then got terrific mpg`s Dodge/Plymouth Colts, etc. And those were even carb. motors.

 

[dave1251]

Originally Posted By: lexus114
All this fuel millage stuff with todays (supposedly) better/higher tech motors is personally confusing to me. I used to get 38-40 mpg`s on the highway going home to Pennsylvania. And back to Louisiana with my 1986 Mercury Lynx XR3 (Escort GT) And some of todays cars can just barely do that. So why is this? And this was 1986 technology? Even Honda`s back then got terrific mpg`s Dodge/Plymouth Colts, etc. And those were even carb. motors.


Emissions, performance, and car weight.

 

[lexus114]

So maybe we were better off 26 years ago?

And to think, we didnt even realize it.

 

[dave1251]

Originally Posted By: lexus114
So maybe we were better off 26 years ago?

And to think, we didnt even realize it.


26 years ago I would of been 5 and it some ways I was better off.

 

[lexus114]

Originally Posted By: dave1251
Originally Posted By: lexus114
So maybe we were better off 26 years ago?

And to think, we didnt even realize it.


26 years ago I would of been 5 and it some ways I was better off.

Hahahaha!!

 

[GMBoy]

Originally Posted By: dave1251
Originally Posted By: lexus114
All this fuel millage stuff with todays (supposedly) better/higher tech motors is personally confusing to me. I used to get 38-40 mpg`s on the highway going home to Pennsylvania. And back to Louisiana with my 1986 Mercury Lynx XR3 (Escort GT) And some of todays cars can just barely do that. So why is this? And this was 1986 technology? Even Honda`s back then got terrific mpg`s Dodge/Plymouth Colts, etc. And those were even carb. motors.


Emissions, performance, and car weight.


Add safety features to the list, that probably did asd much to the mpg's as emmissions.

 

[Bladecutter]

Originally Posted By: lexus114
All this fuel millage stuff with todays (supposedly) better/higher tech motors is personally confusing to me. I used to get 38-40 mpg`s on the highway going home to Pennsylvania. And back to Louisiana with my 1986 Mercury Lynx XR3 (Escort GT) And some of todays cars can just barely do that. So why is this? And this was 1986 technology? Even Honda`s back then got terrific mpg`s Dodge/Plymouth Colts, etc. And those were even carb. motors.


And you want to compare these tin can near death traps to todays cars, why? Worse emissions. Vacuum hoses that stretch long distances, get brittle and crack with age that leads to performance and drivability issues, and the fact that the bulk of them wouldn't pass today's crash test requirements.

Nice try, though.

And if you don't mind the safety aspect, why not just buy a motorcycle, and get way better gas mileage than a car can get, anyway?

BC.

 

[lexus114]

Everyone is entitled to an opinion right? What I`m saying is some vehicles back then got as good, or better mpg`s as todays vehicles do. So we really didnt get any where with this, accept the engines are definitely better as far as longevity, torque, hp ratings.

 

[refaller]

Let's not forget gas had no ethanol back then too. It appears on Fuelly.com that people who get pure gas get a solid 10% better. Can't find pure gas here anymore. Stinking ethanol.

ref

 

[GMBoy]

Originally Posted By: refaller
Let's not forget gas had no ethanol back then too. It appears on Fuelly.com that people who get pure gas get a solid 10% better. Can't find pure gas here anymore. Stinking ethanol.

Excellent point! E10 costs you an average of 5-10% lost mpg's.

 

[mechanicx]

Also I suspect that some cars uptil about OBDII were tuned to run lean at cruise. This is the way you are supposed to do it if emission weren't a concern. Now they run richer stochiometric for tighter emissions. That could be up to another 10% fuel economy lost.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Originally Posted By: Bladecutter

And you want to compare these tin can near death traps to todays cars, why? Worse emissions. Vacuum hoses that stretch long distances, get brittle and crack with age that leads to performance and drivability issues, and the fact that the bulk of them wouldn't pass today's crash test requirements.

Nice try, though.

And if you don't mind the safety aspect, why not just buy a motorcycle, and get way better gas mileage than a car can get, anyway?

BC.


My wife's commuter cargets MUCH better mileage than her motorcycle ever managed! The car easily tops 50MPG, the bike barely topped 40.

 

[refaller]

Saw the story on the news tonight. Made me think, the guy who made the decision did not appear to have the title "judge" but county something. In addition, anyone who knows how they come to the calculation would know that it is not Honda who defines the parameters of the test. Each sticker I have ever seen also has a huge range (like HGWY from 30- 50 mpg in order to get to 40). Taking all that into consideration, I doubt this will stand up to the appeal. What it may really do is clog our courts with people trying to get money from car companies. I also took note that she was still driving the car. FWIW, my friend has a 2nd generation (same model) Civic Hybrid and he got 49-50 mpgs no matter what he did.

ref

 

[Hokiefyd]

I think this lady's complaint is that Honda was falsely advertising something like "great power AND fuel economy". I don't think she was so much focusing on her actual fuel economy number (though that undoubtedly came up in the proceeding), but a more general sense that Honda was misleading folks about fuel economy from their hybrid vehicles.

Someone earlier was correct: this lady is a lawyer and represented herself here.

Someone else mentioned that this likely won't stand up to an appeal, which I probably agree with also. This was a Small Claims Court. It hasn't reached an Appellate Court level and doesn't set any sort of legal precedent.

I continue to believe that her situation is unique in some way. Either her driving is too aggressive or her particular car has a malfunction. I think she said that even before the car was reprogrammed to enhance the battery life, it got miserable mileage. I know two 2nd gen Civic Hybrid owners and they're satisifed with their fuel economy. They both get mid-40s.

 

[lexus114]

Originally Posted By: GMBoy
Originally Posted By: refaller
Let's not forget gas had no ethanol back then too. It appears on Fuelly.com that people who get pure gas get a solid 10% better. Can't find pure gas here anymore. Stinking ethanol.

Excellent point! E10 costs you an average of 5-10% lost mpg's.



+2 this is a good point.

 

[dave1251]

I think that ethanol's fuel robbing averages is often overstating IMHO. I average around 15.5 MPG in my F150 with up to E10 gas. If I use E85 I will get 14.3 MPG so if I am using 75-85% ethanol and getting not quite having a 10 percent economy lost over E10. How is E10 causing a 10% fuel economy loss? Now if you state that you are losing close to 1-5% fuel economy loss using E10 over regular gas I can buy into that.

 

[Spector]

I think the point I like here is that class action suits are basically a waste of effort for the average consumer but great for the attorneys. Although an attorney herself she beat the law firms by going to small claims and showed the public it can be done. We have too many frivolous law suits now but small claims is a different matter. I like the idea of bypassing the attorney scum who syphon off all the real money in a law suit, I will consider small claims if I even have a similar situation in the future.

 

[GMBoy]

Originally Posted By: dave1251
I think that ethanol's fuel robbing averages is often overstating IMHO. I average around 15.5 MPG in my F150 with up to E10 gas. If I use E85 I will get 14.3 MPG so if I am using 75-85% ethanol and getting not quite having a 10 percent economy lost over E10. How is E10 causing a 10% fuel economy loss? Now if you state that you are losing close to 1-5% fuel economy loss using E10 over regular gas I can buy into that.

If you're F150 is Flex Fuel capable than it adjusts for E85 whereas a non-flex vehicle cannot....a non-flex vehicle will lose more MPG's on E10/85 than a Flex fuel vehicle. In any case, be it 1%, 5% or 10% - you loose MPG's on ethanol gas.

 

[ddrumman2004]

Originally Posted By: Spector
I think the point I like here is that class action suits are basically a waste of effort for the average consumer but great for the attorneys. Although an attorney herself she beat the law firms by going to small claims and showed the public it can be done. We have too many frivolous law suits now but small claims is a different matter. I like the idea of bypassing the attorney scum who syphon off all the real money in a law suit, I will consider small claims if I even have a similar situation in the future.


Being she is a lawyer, she would have a lot better advantage going to small claims court with this than the average person.

Anyway, kudos to her for winning her claim. As for attorney "scum'....there's a law firm that advertises on local tv that are in the ambulance chaser class...etc.....and one that does the actual advertising in the ad was picked up on a DUI and no insurance! Ahh...got to love it!

 

[2Fast4U]

" after a software update that number dropped to fewer than 30 miles per gallon."

Lol. Way to go Honda. I'll say this again. GM should give the lady a free Cruze or even Volt. Would be great press for them.