False Fuel Economy Advertising

[jake75]

There is an ad for a Mercury SUV where this very attractive tall model, referring to the hybrid version, says "Did you ever think you could drive an SUV that gets 33 miles per gallon in the city". It's one thing for the EPA to have a sticker that says that. It's quite another thing for an ad to make that kind of claim if it is not true. Stay tuned - I think this may be a future FTC Deceptive Advertising case. [Of course I could be wrong - maybe the damn thing does get 33 mpg in the city.]

[ColonelPanic]

Quote, originally posted by jake75 »[Of course I could be wrong - maybe the damn thing does get 33 mpg in the city.]No, you're probably right. Just ask a Prius owner, they aren't getting anywhere near the mileage those cars are rated for. I'd say that will go for any hybrid... Just last night at AutoZone, a couple guys were talking to this fella who showed up in a Honda Insight. The Insight owner says "yeah, they say I'm supposed to get close to 700 miles on a tank of gas, but I've never seen that." Sneaky, sneaky - tricking people into spending thousands of dollars above what they should have on something that really doesn't get that much above what a similar conventional gas vehicle would get. I was intrigued by the hybrid thing until I really dug deeper into it - no thanks.

[kostby]

Ah, Y.M.M.V., of course! The age-old disclaimer, 'Your Mileage May Vary'

[jake75]

The whole alternate energy concept seems to me to be an empty promise. Energy = energy = energy. It takes a given amount of energy to move a given weight a given number of miles. Aerodynamics (reducing drag) lessens that amount, and decreasing the rolling resistance of tires reduces that amount. When you brake the energy you have used to propel the car turns into heat energy (yet another contributor to global warming?). Most uses of energy are inefficient - so if you have a more efficient conversion of energy to motion that would help. It is my understanding that gasoline engines are very inefficent. They use part of the energy in gasoline to propel the car, but a lot of the energy is just converted to heat that heats up the engine block and goes out the exhaust. I have read that with gas at $3 more expensive engine technology with higher efficiency becomes economically feasible. You used to read a lot about using hydrogen to propel cars, and the fact that there is a lot of hydrogen in water. Well the amount of energy it takes to turn water into hydrogen and oxygen is the same as the amount of energy released when hydrogen and oxygen react to form water again. Given the fact that these processes are not 100% efficient you will spend more energy to get the hydrogen that you get when you use that hydrogen for fuel. The US failed to heed the wakeup call we got in the early 70's, We should have been mandating more fuel efficient vehicles and bulding more nuclear power plants instead of ones that use oil and natural gas. A lot of people have an irrational fear of nnuclear power. Remember the famous bumper sticker - "Nuclear Power - Safer than Ted Kennedy's Car". Taxes are a good way to affect behavior. One of the few things I agreed with Clinton on was a 50 cents gas tax. Cars with low mpg could be taxed, cars with high mpg could be subsidized (that's what we are now doing for the hybrids). Instead of pumping dry our Alaskan oil we should have just bought the Arab oil while it was relatively cheap and saved our reserves for later. And that's the gospel according to St. Jake!

[merckx56]

You must remeber too, that EPA tests are done at constants speed, inside a building, on a dyno!! They do not take into consideration the real world driving habits that are either by choice (wot all the time...) or forced upon drivers (stop and go traffic).Consumer Reports just did a story and found that EPA estimates are normally off by up to 50%. The Lexus SUV hybrid is advertised at 22 in the city and got 11!!My Vibe GT has NEVER gotten more than 22 in the city and it's rated at 27! I even *****footed a whole tank once and my mileage went up 2 mpg over my normal driving...! I get right at 20 in the city and 30 on the highway in the Vibe.

[Vibe_dude]

i know that toyota has been wayyyyyyyyyyyy off on there milage.......they even reported it on Motoring 2005 tv show......i would like to see someone take these guys to the cleaners on false ads like this...........its crap.and i know u will never get me to own a hybrid......its not the way to go....hydrogen is the future.and GM is leading the way on that area too.

[ragingfish]

Quote, originally posted by jake75 »A lot of people have an irrational fear of nnuclear power. Remember the famous bumper sticker - "Nuclear Power - Safer than Ted Kennedy's Car".People don't only have a fear of nuclear power. There is still no environmentally safe way to dispose of spent fuel rods. Sealing them in a salt cavern somewhere under Utah is not the answer. There needs to be a way to dispose of it SAFELY!You won't sell me on nuclear power until the reactors we have are proven to be safe (too many "close calls" these days) and until there is a proper method of disposal -- or a way to use the entire fuel rod.Quote, originally posted by merckx56 »You must remeber too, that EPA tests are done at constants speed, inside a building, on a dyno!!They are not done at constant speeds. Per the EPA fuel economy site: Quote »Each schedule specifies the speed the vehicle must travel during each second in the test

[Atomic]

I think SOME of the folks that are buying into this alternative energy and hybrid vehicles aren't doing it solely for the mileage factors.They are also considering the pollutant aspect of these alternative systems.It's not terribly clear just how much cleaner some of the hybrid vehicles are, surely they produce less emissions when running, but what about the initial costs to produce the alternate fuels, and the cost to generate the electricity in the first place?I have been led to believe that there are MANY coal-fired electricity plants all over the world, that are quite competitive cost-wise with the nuclear plants.Theoretically, the hydro-electric plants SHOULD produce cheaper and less pollutant energy.As for the mileage claims, most auto manufacturers will continue to lie about the mileage, assuming that very few people actually check things like this.

[ColonelPanic]

Quote, originally posted by ragingfish »People don't only have a fear of nuclear power. There is still no environmentally safe way to dispose of spent fuel rods. Sealing them in a salt cavern somewhere under Utah is not the answer. There needs to be a way to dispose of it SAFELY!You won't sell me on nuclear power until the reactors we have are proven to be safe (too many "close calls" these days) and until there is a proper method of disposal -- or a way to use the entire fuel rod.Yes sir, I definitely agree. Sorry folks, but I can't be all warm and comfy with dangerously flawed technology that leaves on hell of a nasty legacy.

[joatmon]

Quote, originally posted by jake75 »It's one thing for the EPA to have a sticker that says that. It's quite another thing for an ad to make that kind of claim if it is not true. I don't see how anyone can claim false advertising when the government forces the manufacturer to use their number. Would be stupid for a car maker to say "The govenment says our car gets 33 mpg but you'll be lucky to get 25 out of it" The last time I totalled all my gas reciepts was about a month and a half ago. At the time I had 86K miles on my Vibe. but I had a long term average of 36.042 mpg.

[soldierguy]

Quote, originally posted by joatmon »I don't see how anyone can claim false advertising when the government forces the manufacturer to use their number. Would be stupid for a car maker to say "The govenment says our car gets 33 mpg but you'll be lucky to get 25 out of it" You're right...it's not false advertising. The EPA (not the manufacturer) does the fuel economy testing. Problem is that the manufacturer then must display the EPA ratings on the window of every new car (except those that are exempt, like the heavy duty pickup trucks). If the numbers are good, then the manufacturer can choose to use them in ads...makes sense to me...the EPA did the testing, and the manufacturer is just highlighting the test results in an effort to sell the vehicle. No harm in that. People just need to understand their own situation and driving habits better.Car & Driver had an editorial a while back on the EPA ratings, and the writer said something that seems to be obvious but people forget it all the time: if your drive under the EPA test conditions, you'll get the EPA mileage. Deviate from their test conditions, and your mileage will vary.Case in point: My Grand Cherokee hemi is rated at 13 city, 19 highway. I get 7-9 mpg city and 19-21 highway (my mileage varies with AC use...seems like the AC puts just enough of a load on the engine that makes it run in 8 cylinder mode a lot more than it does with the AC off). My city driving includes hills, long stop lights, and very heavy traffic that often forces me to run through 2-3 cycles of one particular stoplight on my daily drive before I can get through it. I understand that the driving conditions here in Seoul are lousy, so it's no surprise to me that I get the mileage I do. Heck...a guy I met with a Taurus gets 10 mpg in Seoul, my old Hyundai Elantra only got me 17 in Seoul, and my fuel-mizer Kia only got me 25 mpg in Seoul...that Kia came with a fuel economy rating that works out to about 38 city.Do I complain? Nope...I know traffic in Seoul is lousy and has a big impact on my mileage. Am I going to file a lawsuit for false advertising? Nope...I'd be lauged out of the courtroom. I knew that I'd be getting lousy mileage with the Jeep, and I factored that in before I purchased it to make sure I could afford the gas.Bottom line: as C&D said, if you drive the EPA conditions, you'll get the EPA mileage.

[jake75]

I think you all are missing my point. It is one thing to say "Rated at 33mpg by EPA in city driving". I think it is something else to say "You will get 33 mpg in city driving."

[joatmon]

Quote, originally posted by jake75 »There is an ad for a Mercury SUV where this very attractive tall model, referring to the hybrid version, says "Did you ever think you could drive an SUV that gets 33 miles per gallon in the city". well, if that's what their ad says, they aren't actually saying "you will get 33 mpg inthe city in this particular vehicle"I saw a subaru ad that said "Does your AWD get 30 mpg?" implying theirs will. What I can't understand is why GM isn't advertising "Did you know that this incredibly useful Pontiac Vibe has EPA mileage ratings up to 36 mpg?" I would think that would be a good thing to advertise about.

[kostby]

Quote, originally posted by mercuryvehicles.com » *EPA estimated 33 city/29 hwy mpg, four-wheel-drive. Actual mileage will vary based on several factors including driving style, amount of stop-and-go driving and use of climate control system. Link --> http://www.mercuryvehicles.com/marinerhybrid/How many vehicles have you seen that get worse mpg on the highway than in the city???

[jake75]

Quote, originally posted by joatmon »well, if that's what their ad says, they aren't actually saying "you will get 33 mpg inthe city in this particular vehicle"I saw a subaru ad that said "Does your AWD get 30 mpg?" implying theirs will. What I can't understand is why GM isn't advertising "Did you know that this incredibly useful Pontiac Vibe has EPA mileage ratings up to 36 mpg?" I would think that would be a good thing to advertise about. Since I am always rewriting ad agency copy I would change this description to "incredibly versite and affordable" Pontiac Vibe . . . "

[binary]

If you want real world MPG - read consumer reports. They standardized a city and highway driving course for all their vehicles. You'll get real world comparisons - accurate across all their cars and trucks. Good stuff!

[joatmon]

here's a quote from a Pontiac dealer, when being asked about people's buying habits as a result of the rise in gas prices, from http://www.muskogeephoenix.com.../1002Quote »Terry Miller Pontiac-Buick-GMC is still selling "a good mix of everything, both SUVs and smaller cars," Terry Miller said. "I think a lot of people don't realize until they look at the sticker what the gas mileage is - we have Buick LaSabres that will get 30 mpg. A Pontiac Vibe gets 34 mpg. Some full-size pickups get 21 mpg."Miller thinks the gas price scare is making some people penny smart and pound foolish."People need to look at the whole picture," he said.Sometimes changing to a smaller car might bring no more than a 4 mpg savings while paying $10,000 more to do it, Miller said."And sometimes you sacrifice comfort for not a whole lot of money," he said. "Some people may be looking at the wrong way to go."So, apparently, an uncomfortable Vibe will cost you $10K more than a Buick LaSabre, and only gets four mpg more, so it is obviously not worth buying a Vibe, and only a fool would do so. I'm telling you, the profit margin on a Vibe must be really small, or else the dealers wouldn't be trying so hard to not sell them.

[jeffgtx]

Quote, originally posted by Vibe_dude »hydrogen is the future.and GM is leading the way on that area too. there was an interesting article in, car and driver i think, that mathmatically tried to make teh point that the energy required to produce combustable hyrogen, added with the fact that hydrogen doesn;t get as good of mileage, is equal to more than the energy consumer with gas.i don't know enough to dispute or believe, but it got me thinking.i do know that i believe that man usually proves to be able to make progress faster than we have on replacing the combustion engine.

[binary]

Quote, originally posted by jeffgtx »there was an interesting article in, car and driver i think, that mathmatically tried to make teh point that the energy required to produce combustable hyrogen, added with the fact that hydrogen doesn;t get as good of mileage, is equal to more than the energy consumer with gas.i don't know enough to dispute or believe, but it got me thinking.i do know that i believe that man usually proves to be able to make progress faster than we have on replacing the combustion engine.That's a true statement. Unfortunately it also is true for ethanol. But really how much are we wasting drilling, transporting, and refining oil?Even if hydrogen or ethanol isn't as efficient - I'd much rather give our farmers a reason to grow fields of corn every year or build a nuclear powerplan to create hydrogen to fill my gas tank... than send our troops to some asshat's sandbox.

[kostby]

I'd go with H. Hydrogen will still be there when fossil fuels are completely depleted in a century or so.

[jake75]

Quote, originally posted by kostby »I'd go with H. Hydrogen will still be there when fossil fuels are completely depleted in a century or so.We are going to be in a world of hurt long before fossil fuels are "completely" depleted. We may live long enough to see that day. The idiots we elect ignored the warnings of the early 70's.