GM Inside News Forum banner

Auto industry frets about more fuel mileage fiascos like Hyundai's

3K views 28 replies 21 participants last post by  44 mpg by 2010 
#1 ·
By Bernie Woodall

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Hyundai Motor Co's <005380.KS> admission that it overstated fuel economy claims on several of its top-selling cars has the industry worried, with speculation rife among executives and analysts at the Los Angeles auto show that more automakers may have to do the same.

Four weeks ago, Hyundai and its affiliate Kia Motors Corp <000270.KS> conceded that they overstated the fuel economy by at least a mile per gallon on more than 1 million recently sold vehicles.

"I think we might see more of this," said Jake Fisher, the head of automotive testing at Consumer Reports. "There are other vehicles that don't really stack up to the EPA estimates."

Hyundai, which had centered marketing campaigns on superior fuel economy, says that so far its U.S. sales have not been affected by the admission. But it has had to implement a compensation campaign that Moody's Investors Service estimates could cost them $100 million a year until the cars are scrapped. It also faces lawsuits over the matter.

It only makes sense for the industry to come under scrutiny, said Gary Silberg, KPMG national auto industry leader.

More at link: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/auto-industry-frets-more-fuel-041942617.html
 
See less See more
#2 ·
Likely the tip of the iceberg.

My wife used to do program as well as financial audits. They'd make the sign of the cross when she walked in.

What she found would stand your hair on end.

AUDIT! AUDIT! AUDIT THEM ALL!!
 
#7 ·
That's what I was thinking. You don't have anything to worry about if you don't lie about it.

I do respect Hyundai for their compensation program though. Most anyone else would be like "um, oops, sorry bout that"
 
#6 ·
Why is it a surprise that a company that LIED about their power claims with it's engines also LIED about fuel economy claims? Hyundai has shown a level of corporate deceit that seems to permeate the company to it's core, and in many ways shows in how very presumptuous they are.
 
#15 ·
OK we finally got since you have repeated this in almost every thread........

"I think every manufacturer did what we did and went back and said: 'Are these real numbers?'" said Al Castignetti, vice president of Nissan Motor Co's <7201.T> namesake brand in the United States.

Castignetti, and auto executives at General Motors Co (GM), Toyota Motor Corp <7203.T>, Honda Motor Co <7267.T>, Mazda Motor Corp <7261.T>, Chrysler Group LLC and Fiat SpA's (MIL:F) North American arm, all said they are confident that their mileage claims are true.
Wasn't this what H/K said also?

Test and let the chip fall where they may. As Ronald Reagan once said "Trust But Verify"
H/K has been verified and came up short. What about the others?
Oh that right; their whole line hasn't been tested by the EPA.
 
#8 ·
...and, sometimes the "right" thing is not the "cheapest" thing GM!
 
#9 · (Edited)
DAMN YOU GM! DAMN YOU!

I purchased a 2011 Cruze expecting to get 40 miles per gallon.
Now a year later, it is just barely getting 40 mpg, combined.

GM, How can you live with yourself?
Don't you understand the negative impact you're having on OPEC?
Why can't you lie, cheat and steal just like Hyundai?
 
#10 ·
I'd like to see CAFE ended and EPA ratings be "advisory" rather than taken as gospel, with the Government's principal interest being clean air.
I'm tired of the Government coercing the car companies into ever more expensive CAFE queens we won't want, while giving whole industries a pass on the pollution they produce. Coal? Nuclear? Nat Gas fracking? Gold mining? And on and on.
I am for clean air and a clean environment, but to use a popular phrase, it should be balanced, with all the sources of pollution being publicly identified and "encouraged" to clean up their own pollution.
 
#11 ·
I'd like to "see" mandated MPG vs. MPH graphs in the window stickers for every vehicle showing 'verified tested' MPG numbers at 45, 55, 65 and 75 MPH.

Oh, they can still post the 'caveat emptor' words: YOUR MILAGE MAY/CAN/WILL VARY.
 
#12 ·
That works for me. I'm not pleased that this 1.6 is getting only slightly better MPG than my 3.6 Mopar got.
 
#13 ·
There's nothing wrong with the City & Highway test cycles currently done, the problem lies with Motor companies doing their own tests and how much checking of data the EPA does.

I don't believe many companies deliberately try to "game" the test cycles like they do in Europe but still the data can probably be interpreted diferently and perhaps the data
should be witnessed by third party and signed off after independent review, the EPA to accredit Recognised third party monitors that verify OEM data?
 
#14 ·
Arguably wouldn't the Corvette and Camaro be "gaming" the test cycle with the forced first-fourth shift?
 
#21 · (Edited)
USER MPG Estimates (fueleconomy.gov)

2012 Toyota Prius 51.1 mpg(US)

2011 Toyota Prius 49.0 mpg(US)

2010 Toyota Prius 49.3 mpg(US)

Presenting a relatively consistent cluster progression for the Prius from 2010 through 2012.

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/mpg/MPG.do?action=browseList1&make=Chevrolet

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/mpg/MPG.do?action=browseList1&make=Chrysler

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/mpg/MPG.do?action=browseList1&make=Ford

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/mpg/MPG.do?action=browseList1&make=Hyundai

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/mpg/MPG.do?action=browseList1&make=Kia

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/mpg/MPG.do?action=browseList1&make=Toyota

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/mpg/MPG.do?action=browseList1&make=Volkswagen

Originally Posted by 70AARCUDA
I'd like to "see" mandated MPG vs. MPH graphs in the window stickers for every vehicle showing 'verified tested' MPG numbers at 45, 55, 65 and 75 MPH.

Oh, they can still post the 'caveat emptor' words: YOUR MILAGE MAY/CAN/WILL VARY.
That is still far too complex for most folks. Besides, how would this method account for topology (flat coastal plains versus very hilly/mountainous terrain) and variations in ambient temp (heating versus A/C use). That doesn't include "driver's style of operation" (either city or highway).

As supplimental information when measured on a "level course" under cruise control might be valuale to some as an indicator for Interstate long haul fuel economy. Although, some observers might better understand/appreciate how quickly mpg decreases with increased speed, some technologies far more quickly than others.

Of course none of this gives any clue about vehicle to vehicle variations within a specific model within the manufacturing process. Is that variability +/-2%, +/-7%, or maybe >+/-14%?
 
#24 ·
The only need for fretting would be for those that have LIED to the consumers as to what the vehicles are capable of. It is certainly not a mystery to automakers as to which vehicles can achieve fuel economy nout utterly divergent from their ratings.
 
#26 ·
Am I the only one who thinks fuel economy ratings, both by the mfg. and the govt., should not be some whimsical, pie in the sky test procedure, but rather real world driving?

Would it not make sense for every car to be driven for 6 months by regular people, in traffic, hot and cold temps, driven fast on the freeway, some hard gunning on the gas at times, and operating with all the accessories and A/C running at full speed? Test the car for it's WORST possible fuel economy, then people who drive easy will be elated when they find they get 5 mpgs MORE than what it says on the window!
 
#29 · (Edited)
It would be nice ... if there was a perfect answer that fit everyone (aggressive or otherwise) in every environment, summer/winter, hilly/flat, etc.

However, if simple things like the odometer is +/- 4% and most people can not consistently fill their gas tank EXACTLY the same every time (probably +/-1/2 gallon or +/-3% at best), then you already have a possible +/-7% worst case variation before you start. How do you propose to fix that? You can not even be certian about tire pressure +/-2 psia, possibly another +/-2% (I raised my tire pressure just 6 psi[SUP]+/-[/SUP] and apparently improved my mpg by almost 10%).

Now you want to consider the accuracy of fuel economy/trip meter displays. How much would you be willing to pay to have them certified to +/-1%? Probably $500 to $1,000 maybe more? That might work until you put on a new set of tires.

You would still have to use THE correction factor to calculate "true mpg" within 1%[SUP]+/-[/SUP].

Oh, I just realized the correction factor might NOT be linear over all speed ranges. I don't know what you could do about that unless you verified the calibrations at different speeds, say 75, 50, and 25 mph.

There are a few folks I know that go to these extremes to measure their fuel economy within +/-1% ... but not many.

Of course you could DEMAND that level of accuracy from the OEMs. But, I think it would add at least $2k to the cost of every vehicle.

I think the EPA ratings do a reasonable job of providing a "standardized fuel economy comparison" between various vehicle designs from multiple OEMs using different powertrain technologies.

IF ... you don't like that ... then use http://www.fueleconomy.gov/mpg/MPG.do?action=browseList or fuelly.

A caution about fuelly, they do not require accuracy in vehicle description or input data according to the answer to a question I sent to them regarding data integrity, ie, only as good as the input. At least EPA's Shared MPG has a pre-screen for validity.
 
#28 · (Edited)
Actually the Priuses easily meet and exceeds their EPA ratings.. one company that consistently under-rates their mileage is Honda.. yet reviewers forced an early refresh because of too many hard plastics in the interior. The Volt also seems to easily meet the ratings.

An actual simple hwy cycle, in the summer, standardized gasoline, on flat land and compensating for winds would be a headache compared to a test done indoors on a lab but if such a test was mandated you would see greater emphasis on very tall gearing suited for steady state cruises and improved aerodynamics.. you definitely would have to downshift to pass anyone. I think it would be good for hwy drivers, probably detrimental to those that prefer sportier cars. There really is no way to do a fair city test outside of a lab, and that is what most people drive in a day.

Present EPA testing does not do fair justice to start-stop systems.

I dont think Ford or GM would be stupid enough to cheat on the EPA testing.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top