Honda ruling opens door to mileage claims
A California court awards the owner of a 2006 Honda Civic hybrid nearly $10,000 because her car didn’t get the fuel economy it’s supposed to. “Only in Lala Land?” you wonder. Carmakers must hope so, because if courts elsewhere buy into the ruling of a Los Angeles small claims judge, they’ll all be open to damages by millions of drivers. In a nutshell, Heather Peters, a former lawyer, sued American Honda Co., claiming she got about 10 miles per gallon less than the 50 (4.7 litres per 100 kilometres) promised on the car’s mileage sticker. Honda argued it couldn’t be convicted of fraud or misrepresentation because it was “stuck” with using the figure mandated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. It also noted fine print that advised the mileage was “up to” 50 miles per gallon and actual results would vary, depending on driving styles and conditions.
The judge ordered Honda to compensate Peters for gas the Civic had consumed, and would in future, in excess of the mileage claim. His key reason: “Honda responds that it is stuck with EPA mileage figures provided to it. This does not seem to be the case. Honda’s own testing should be the guideline for how it advertises its vehicles’ mileages, not the generalized work, valuable though it is, done by the EPA.”
Honda plans to appeal. And little wonder.
Problems with the fuel-consumption testing, in the U.S., Europe and here, are common knowledge. As I’ve written before, the mileage figures come from short “test cycles,” conducted on a dynamometer, which vaguely represent a small range of driving conditions. The person at the wheel speeds, slows, stops and starts according to a strict schedule, driving with a feather foot.
The result: Invariably, the sticker number overstates actual mileage.
The EPA adjusted its test in 2008 to more closely approximate the real world. Our government promises similar adjustments, some day.
Even if carmakers contributed to the system’s flaws, for the judge to rule that Honda should provide its own numbers suggests he’s indulged in too much California dreaming.
The sticker scheme is set up to be consistent, and that’s its only virtue. The manufacturers test their own cars, then, send the results to the EPA and Natural Resources Canada. The EPA does spot checks.
Approved numbers go on the stickers, and the EPA and NRC websites. Carmakers would be in deep trouble if they made other claims. Which makes sense. Using the judge’s reasoning, Honda or any company could claim its own tests produced better results than those on the stickers — always, of course, subject to varying driving styles and conditions.
As badly flawed as they are, the current numbers at least allow comparisons, since the tests produce similar discrepancies — about 20 per cent — no matter the brand.
Honda has faced at least two similar lawsuits. One is a class action, still in progress. The other led it to settle with the owner of a 2004 Civic hybrid to the tune of $100,000.
In that case, though — says San Diego lawyer Eric Lane — the case hinged on comments by a Honda “representative” who told the owner, Gaetano Padauno, “You cannot drive in a normal manner in order to get the (sticker) mileage.”
That statement was contrasted with a Honda brochure that assured drivers they needn’t do “anything special” to get “terrific gas mileage. . . Just drive the Hybrid like you would a conventional car and save on fuel bills.”
Obviously, we need better tests, along with stickers and brochures that more clearly explain the mileage numbers. And buyers should pay closer attention.
But the last thing we need — sorry judge — is a mileage-claim free-forall. peter.gorrie@sympatico.ca