GM Inside News Forum banner

Hyundai to Pay $30 mil. over Horsepower Deception

3K views 24 replies 18 participants last post by  areami810 
#1 ·
Hyundai will pay $30 million to settle overstated horsepower lawsuit
MARK RECHTIN
Automotive News

LOS ANGELES -- Hyundai Motor America will pay owners about $30 million in compensation because it overstated horsepower figures on its vehicles for more than a decade.

The compensation comes in the form of debit cards and dealership service vouchers, according to a court settlement reached last week.

About 858,000 Hyundai owners were eligible to take part in the class-action lawsuit, which was settled last week in Orange County (Calif.) Superior Court. A customer can choose either a same-as-cash debit card worth from $50 to $225, or a debit card worth as much as $325 in parts and service at Hyundai dealerships.

Hyundai overstated the ratings on about 1.3 million vehicles from the 1992 to 2003 model years. Ratings on some six-cylinder models were off by as much as 20 hp. Only owners of cars with horsepower overstated by more than 2.5 percent are included in the settlement. More than 400,000 units had horsepower numbers overstated by more than 4 percent.

Plaintiffs' attorney Dan Girard says 120,000 claimants have stepped forward. That would trigger about $20 million in claims. Since damages can be claimed until July 29. The total count will likely be closer to 200,000 claimants and $30 million in damages, Girard says. Also, plaintiffs' attorney fees will be levied, which could cost as much as $10 million.

"It's a very competitive market," Girard says. "People shop for cars online with vehicle comparators on Web sites to see how cars stack up. Every little edge can help in a situation like that. Hyundai was in the wrong, and they should pay dearly for that."




Full Story Here
 
See less See more
1
#2 ·
In a 1984 car-guide-type review of the then-new Hyundai Pony, the horsepower figure of the anicent 1.5l four (with a little carb) was 92 horses, and then the article said that that figure was probably pretty inflated. (for comparison, the much more modern Mazda GLC 1.5l made 68hp)

Nothing new...



 
#4 ·
I think many Chrysler products should be checked out too for over rated hp figures. I'll never forget an article in a 1998 issue of Motor Trend comparing a Bonneville and Concorde with a 3800 and 3.2 liter V6 respectively. The Concorde was rated at 20 more hp and similar torque compared to the 3800 and had much better gearing to boot. The Bonny had a 3.05 ratio and the Concore a 3.66. Both cars were close in weight too. Yet as Motor Trend put it "the Bonny overtook the Concorde in all acceleration tests" and creamed it in the quarter mile. I compared all the figures on paper and the Concorde should have bested the Bonny in these tests but didn't. Kinda makes you wonder. Somehow GM's engines seem to put down more power to the pavement.
 
#5 ·
Originally posted by ponchoman49@Jun 22 2004, 05:20 PM
I think many Chrysler products should be checked out too for over rated hp figures. Somehow GM's engines seem to put down more power to the pavement.
Like the 345 hp Hemi in a regular cab 2WD Ram turning in the same acceleration figures as the 345 hp Silverado SS extended cab 4WD, which is 500 lbs heavier.

Or the Hemi Ram falling considerably behind the 305 hp Nissan Titan. The Titan is lighter by several hundred pounds, but 40 hp should be able to come close.
 
#6 ·
**** and I thought the Asians could do know wrong. You know, sh*tt'n daisies and spring breezes...hmmm....

<_<
 
#8 ·
IMPALAon20s Posted on Jun 22 2004, 12:07 PM
when's honda going to be busted? oh, and why has this not been all over the news? hmmmm..


Totally agree. If this was GM, or Ford, it would probably make nations news broadcasts. Everyone made a HUGE deal when the 99 SVT Cobra's weren't making their advertised horsepower. That's one model, of one model year. And Hyundai has been doing this for multiple models for almost a decade!?! Is anyone going to check Kia? (Them and Hyundai same company right?) People wonder when I say I won't buy a Japanese car.
 
#10 ·
not trying to justify it at all... they should be punished for false HP ratings... but the interesting part is that if they hadn't reported it i doubt it woulda been discovered. perhaps a direct comparo of one old hyundai model (with, say, 100 hp) with an updated one (with, say, a reported 120 hp but actual 100hp) might have made it noticeable, but i wonder otherwise how this woulda been caught.

again, it's wrong and should not be allowed, but people that buy these cars are obviously okay with the power... so it's just a math problem in the end. makes you wonder if anything any of the companies tell you is true. aren't the ion redlines underrated? geez people... get it right!
 
#12 ·
True, if this was GM or Ford it would be "Tonights Top Story at 5..." With all kinds of fancy graphics and all...

<_<
 
#13 ·
Chevrolet should have been busted in the late 1970's and 1980's when they actually noted that the Chevette had horsepower. After timing a 0-60 run from a toll-booth with my best friend on a 1982 Chevette Automatic at 21.5 seconds (floored, pushed, prayed to get that fast a run), I can say Chevy was deceptive. The Chevette, I'm convinced, had no horsepower at all. Those where friggin' chipmunks. "Oh, no, I insist you go first.....no, no, I must say you go first". Meanwhile, the Chevette still hadn't gotten out of first.
 
#14 ·
Originally posted by laserwizard@Jun 22 2004, 08:55 PM
Chevrolet should have been busted in the late 1970's and 1980's when they actually noted that the Chevette had horsepower.  After timing a 0-60 run from a toll-booth with my best friend on a 1982 Chevette Automatic at 21.5 seconds (floored, pushed, prayed to get that fast a run), I can say Chevy was deceptive.  The Chevette, I'm convinced, had no horsepower at all.  Those where friggin' chipmunks.  "Oh, no, I insist you go first.....no, no, I must say you go first".  Meanwhile, the Chevette still hadn't gotten out of first.
oh, the poor, unlamented chevette! you're a harsh man, laserwizard! did you wedgie the chess club kids in school? :lol:

as much as i think the aveo is acceptable as an entry-level GM, i love the idea of the chevette (simple, basic, bare-bones transportation). it's too bad that in this day of airbags and crash standards and electronics there's no room left for very basic vehicles. and no, i don't think safety concerns aren't important... but as a car guy there's some sort of appeal for a stripped-down, honest to goodness basic car. guess that's what old used cars are for, right? hmmm... complaint ended. i'll go buy a chevette and shut up!

and just to keep laserwizard happy, i'll measure the actual hp and post it for all to see :) hahaha! wish i had a hyundai now... i'd take the $250 they owe me and go buy my 'vette!
 
#16 ·
Hmm but where would Chevrolet be if Nader hadn't destroyed the Corvair? The Corvair was a good, small car which was setting a new direction for Chevrolet. If the Corvair and it's derivatives had survived, Chevrolet would have had a product(s) to compete against the Japanese with in the 1970's.

I see Corvair Clubs and Corvairs on the road, so obviously they are not banned.

Hmm... <_< maybe Nader has ties to the NWO.
 
#18 ·
Oh I remember the Chevette . . .

It was my mom's first new car and boy was she excited . . . until she actually drove it.

When loaded with my mom, me and my 2 sisters going up a hill, you'd be crawling up at 5 mph or so, everyone behind us would be honking to go faster, the engine would be screaming and then it would backfire before putting out some real power . . . so we could hit 10 mph going uphill.

What a POS that car was.
 
#19 ·
Not meaning to shift this from Hyundai to GM, but I never would have know about the CTS-V unless I saw it in that post. Cars are so much trouble, I think I'll just buy something that looks nice. (Maybe I'm turning into one of those punk kids who's just interested on 'show, no go' stuff now :( )
 
#20 ·
Or the Hemi Ram falling considerably behind the 305 hp Nissan Titan. The Titan is lighter by several hundred pounds, but 40 hp should be able to come close.
there is another thing that detemines acceleration... it's called GEARING...


when's honda going to be busted?

when are you GM people going to stop whining about Honda? :( boo hoo! Honda is held in high regard because they make good cars! :( boo hoo! why does GM have to use Honda engines?
besides, Mazda got in trouble over the Miata not making its claimed power, too, and people could turn in the cars or get $500 vouchers for accessories. there isn't the huge bias you people think there is.


**** and I thought the Asians could do know wrong. You know, sh*tt'n daisies and spring breezes...hmmm....
comparing Hyundai to Honda or Toyota is not apples to apples. get it through your head. the Japanese have the technology to make really great cars, the Koreans are relatively new to the game. THINK ABOUT IT.

but down to brass tacks, here. this whole thing is stupid. you drive a car, and decide if you like it or not. if it feels good, who cares if it has 40 horses, or 400? i understand there is a problem with false advertising, but with the Miata, for example, it was a difference of a last minute exhaust system change, after the numbers had been finalized. similarly, with the Cobra Mustang, it was an undetected discrepancy with the heads that caused it to not produce as much power as it should have. fact is, if you like the way a car feels when you buy it, who gives a crap what the numbers state. just drive it, and be happy. people will sue over anything they can these days, just to get something for nothing. it's complete stupidity. Hyundai is actually building pretty good cars these days, and backing them with a hellafied warranty, and people are going to try and tear it all down. ridiculous.....
 
#21 ·
Originally posted by New_Mexico_Sunset_on_Rt66@Jun 22 2004, 10:30 PM
Hmm but where would Chevrolet be if Nader hadn't destroyed the Corvair? The Corvair was a good, small car which was setting a new direction for Chevrolet. If the Corvair and it's derivatives had survived, Chevrolet would have had a product(s) to compete against the Japanese with in the 1970's.

I see Corvair Clubs and Corvairs on the road, so obviously they are not banned.

Actaully the corvair was cleared from any design defects by the government. Not only that, the one area where the suspension was tricky was when you were inflating the tires, since the front was so light weight the tires required less air preasure. If you would fill it up all the way it would bounce on you... I currently own a 62' And with good radial tires I've taken her up over 90, I even got to do a couple of laps before a GT race down in Homestead a few years ago. She was screaching all over the place but managed to keep up with some of the camaros and stangs in the group...
 
#22 ·
Originally posted by ponchoman49@Jun 22 2004, 10:20 AM
I think many Chrysler products should be checked out too for over rated hp figures. I'll never forget an article in a 1998 issue of Motor Trend comparing a Bonneville and Concorde with a 3800 and 3.2 liter V6 respectively. The Concorde was rated at 20 more hp and similar torque compared to the 3800 and had much better gearing to boot. The Bonny had a 3.05 ratio and the Concore a 3.66. Both cars were close in weight too. Yet as Motor Trend put it "the Bonny overtook the Concorde in all acceleration tests" and creamed it in the quarter mile. I compared all the figures on paper and the Concorde should have bested the Bonny in these tests but didn't. Kinda  makes you wonder. Somehow GM's engines seem to put down more power to the pavement.
Daimler Chrysler can build a good enough engine but has fallen short in the transmission department at times. I read a Motor Trend article from a 2000 issue that compared all major aspects of the Chevrolet Impala, Dodge Intrepid, and Ford Taurus and when it came to performance, the Intrepid, with that same 3.2L V6 from the Concorde, had the Impala and Taurus beat in horsepower and torque, on paper at least (the Impala had the 3.8 OHV V6 while the Taurus had its 3.0L DOHC V6). But, when they tested the three cars in 0-60MPH and 1/4mi. times, the Intrepid was beaten by the Impala and the Taurus every time even though both cars were technically "outgunned" (the Impala was the fastest with the Taurus close behind). Motor Trend hinted the less-than-spectacular performance was on account of a sluggish transmission.

Anyway, when it comes to the whole horsepower inaccuracy thing, numbers are somewhat meaningless, a la the argument above, because the most important thing is not how much power an engine produces but how efficiently the vehicle transmits that power to the pavement. But, overstating performance numbers for a given car can give people misplaced confidence in what their vehicle can do. I think car companies should focus less on the horsepower and torque a given vehicle makes and shift attention to meaningful numbers, such as 0-60 and 1/4mi. times and hauling abilities. Many companies already do this but it seems that all too often they try to sell vehicles for the engine's ability independent of the rest of the vehicle, like with Dodge and their idiotic Hemi commercials.

Now there's a great example of misconception. You always here from Dodge how high and mighty their 5.7L Hemi OHV V8 is but you never hear what it takes for it to be as powerful as it is. I took note how viciously Dodge attacked Ford when the new F-150 came out, acting like the truck was completely inferior. In particular, Dodge touted how much better the 5.7L Hemi was over Ford's V8, the new 5.4L SOHC V8. The 5.7L is more powerful on paper, but at what cost?

Dodge 5.7L OHV V8:
Horsepower 345HP@5400RPM, Torque 375lb-ft@4200RPM, Fuel Req. 89 Octane, Fuel Economy 14city/18highway

Ford 5.4L SOHC V8:
Horsepower 300HP@5000RPM, Torque 365lb-ft@3750RPM, Fuel Req. 87 Octane, Fuel Economy 15city/19highway

Here you can see that the Dodge engine is more powerful but requires both higher grade fuel and more RPM to put out while getting worse fuel economy at the same time. The Dodge even has the "advantage" of a 5-speed automatic over Ford's 4-speed and still Consumer Guide, where these stats came from, gives the Ford higher marks in acceleration, in spite of the performance deficit.
 
#23 ·
Originally posted by MelvinJ+Jun 22 2004, 05:32 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (MelvinJ @ Jun 22 2004, 05:32 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-ponchoman49@Jun 22 2004, 05:20 PM
I think many Chrysler products should be checked out too for over rated hp figures.  Somehow GM's engines seem to put down more power to the pavement.
Like the 345 hp Hemi in a regular cab 2WD Ram turning in the same acceleration figures as the 345 hp Silverado SS extended cab 4WD, which is 500 lbs heavier.

Or the Hemi Ram falling considerably behind the 305 hp Nissan Titan. The Titan is lighter by several hundred pounds, but 40 hp should be able to come close. [/b][/quote]
Its Chrysler's lousy transmissions -- not the engines themselves. Chrysler's transmissions are known for huge levels of parasytic loss -- sometimes losing up to 30% of the engines output through its drivetrain (when most powertrains only lose 15-20% from crankshaft to the wheels) -- mostly automatic transmissions.

I've seen V6 Dodge Dakotas with manuals crush Dakotas with V8s/automatics -- sad, but very truck. Even the Dakota 5.9 V8 powered R/T has trouble keeping up with 3.7 V6 Dakotas with Manual Transmissions.
 
#24 ·
Originally posted by ColoradoZQ8+Jun 23 2004, 02:55 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (ColoradoZQ8 @ Jun 23 2004, 02:55 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by MelvinJ@Jun 22 2004, 05:32 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-ponchoman49
@Jun 22 2004, 05:20 PM
I think many Chrysler products should be checked out too for over rated hp figures.  Somehow GM's engines seem to put down more power to the pavement.

Like the 345 hp Hemi in a regular cab 2WD Ram turning in the same acceleration figures as the 345 hp Silverado SS extended cab 4WD, which is 500 lbs heavier.

Or the Hemi Ram falling considerably behind the 305 hp Nissan Titan. The Titan is lighter by several hundred pounds, but 40 hp should be able to come close.
Its Chrysler's lousy transmissions -- not the engines themselves. Chrysler's transmissions are known for huge levels of parasytic loss -- sometimes losing up to 30% of the engines output through its drivetrain (when most powertrains only lose 15-20% from crankshaft to the wheels) -- mostly automatic transmissions.

I've seen V6 Dodge Dakotas with manuals crush Dakotas with V8s/automatics -- sad, but very truck. Even the Dakota 5.9 V8 powered R/T has trouble keeping up with 3.7 V6 Dakotas with Manual Transmissions. [/b][/quote]
It would be interesting to see acceleration times of a Hemi with a manual, but I've only seen automatics. I think they offer a manual with the heavy duty Rams, but it's probably a slow shifting heavy unit with a granny gear like all HD trucks have standard, and those never post good times for anyone.
 
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