Ouch...thats gotta hurt.

[Pickle]

Mitsubishi's fuel woes.

https://www.motoring.com.au/mitsubishi-ordered-to-refund-triton-over-exceeded-fuel-consumption-119187/?fbclid=IwAR0rh49QsZz_mOgZw2k0bWWyzWLAFeKM4_JMP5nnUmhfVa9ZEkJ3lkktAFE

[BruceandBobbi]

That's great news for owners of all brands of vehicles.

Manufactures have been getting away with it far to long.

If MM lose, the flood gates will be wide open.

[nj swb]

Don't blame the manufacturer - they are only quoting garbage figures calculated from the results of the emissions test. The emissions test was never intended to be a fuel economy test, but some mental midget decided to make it one anyway, then legislate that manufacturers must display it.

Yes, the numbers are garbage. Anybody who understands how they are generated knows they are garbage, and it is an absolute travesty that manufacturers are legally required to display them. And now Mitsubishi has been sued by a victim, and more mental midgets operating outside their field of competence have decided to punish them for following the law.

A totally farcical situation.

[crash486]

Wow, pretty stunned by that result.

Sent from my SM-G970F using Tapatalk

[BruceandBobbi]

Don't blame the manufacturer - they are only quoting garbage figures calculated from the results of the emissions test. The emissions test was never intended to be a fuel economy test, but some mental midget decided to make it one anyway, then legislate that manufacturers must display it.

Yes, the numbers are garbage. Anybody who understands how they are generated knows they are garbage, and it is an absolute travesty that manufacturers are legally required to display them. And now Mitsubishi has been sued by a victim, and more mental midgets operating outside their field of competence have decided to punish them for following the law.A totally farcical situation.

The majority of owners wouldn't have a clue how the manufactures arrive at their figures whereas the majority here would be well aware.

The manufactures use the figures in their advertising knowing full well they are unatainable in real life.

The manufactures are well aware their figures are BS.

In Australia if you claim something to be true by law it has to be.

Nurofen fined $6,000,000,000

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-12-16/nurofen-fined-6m-for-misleading-consumer/8126450

If manufactures claim X will do Y and it doesn't they are liable.

It is a minefield out there.

[nj swb]

The majority of owners wouldn't have a clue how the manufactures arrive at their figures whereas the majority here would be well aware.

The manufactures use the figures in their advertising knowing full well they are unatainable in real life.

The manufactures are well aware their figures are BS.

In Australia if you claim something to be true by law it has to be.

Nurofen fined $6,000,000,000

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-12-16/nurofen-fined-6m-for-misleading-consumer/8126450

If manufactures claim X will do Y and it doesn't they are liable.

It is a minefield out there.

Don't change the subject. Nurofen?

In your rabid frenzy to criticise "the man" you completely overlook that it is not the manufacturer's decision to display the figures, much less how the figures are calculated. The law tells the manufacturer that they must display the figures, calculated as prescribed by law.

It's the law that is wrong, not the manufacturer.

[Wazza999]

Standardised testing can provide a valid and useful comparison rather than something that can be replicated in the real world. Seems like all involved need education in the intent of the testing and it's limitations. I would think if I were MM's lawyers I would be consulting an automotive engineer and experts in standards.

[craka]

Did anyone else notice that the complainant had modified the vehicle?

Surely this is going to be knocked back in an appeal. Every other manufacturer would be guilty if this case was used as a foundation of argument.

[nj swb]

Did anyone else notice that the complainant had modified the vehicle?

Surely this is going to be knocked back in an appeal. Every other manufacturer would be guilty if this case was used as a foundation of argument.

Yes, but the modifications are irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.

The reported highway economy was never realistic, because the test is garbage. The ATs wouldn't have helped his economy, but the difference between reported and actual is simply ridiculous.

It is not the manufacturer's fault. Australian law requires them to report figures created by a ridiculous test.

I sympathise with the plaintiff, but the manufacturer can not be held responsible. Bad results from bad laws. But the government won't buy back his two year old Triton at the original purchase price, so the tribunal decided the manufacturer was an easier target.

Change the law.

[richardl]

Misleading Fuel Consumption Sticker Ratings

https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/the-40-000-sticker-man-successfully-sues-mitsubishi-for-misleading-fuel-label-20190626-p521jy.html

About time there were more realistic fuel consumption ratings for all vehicles

This was originally posted in Bitches & Gripes, moved here by admin.

[2bad4u]

Yes, but the modifications are irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.

The reported highway economy was never realistic, because the test is garbage. The ATs wouldn't have helped his economy, but the difference between reported and actual is simply ridiculous.

It is not the manufacturer's fault. Australian law requires them to report figures created by a ridiculous test.

I sympathise with the plaintiff, but the manufacturer can not be held responsible. Bad results from bad laws. But the government won't buy back his two year old Triton at the original purchase price, so the tribunal decided the manufacturer was an easier target.

Change the law.

The manufacturer should be held to account. I would agree with you if they ONLY displayed the figures as required, but they go beyond that. They actively and knowingly use those figures in their advertising and marketing and therefore are engaged in deception because they know the figures are BS.

[nj swb]

The manufacturer should be held to account. I would agree with you if they ONLY displayed the figures as required, but they go beyond that. They actively and knowingly use those figures in their advertising and marketing and therefore are engaged in deception because they know the figures are BS.

OK. So what would you do in their position? The law tells you to publish a figure calculated according to a defined test. So, you would publish that figure, and then come up with another one? How would you come up with that other one? How will it compare with the figure published by your competitors?

[DID Dash]

I am with NJ SWB on this. Crap regulation, crap ruling, hope the manufacturer wins an appeal. The fuel consumption test is only supposed to allow us to compare similar vehicles, not define actual fuel use for individuals. Gonna open a can of worms for all the manufactures if allowed to proceed.

[GHendo]

If it is the law that allows erroneous and misleading figured to be published, then the law should be changed. It is not fair to the consumer to be fed ambiguous figures that are not realistic. Sales people are going to tell you their figures are accurate and if the oppositions figures are better, they will tell you the opposition’s figures are exaggerated. Most buyers have no idea if the figures are ‘legal’ or accurate and just believe what the sales people tell them.

Consumer rights in Australia have come a long way in the past few years – goods have to be ‘fit for purpose’ and manufacturers can’t deny your rights under the legislation even if they make you sign something saying you are wavering them.

Quoted fuel consumption figures need a good shake up and this might be just the catalyst to do it – particularly if any appeal is quashed.

Geoff

[nj swb]

Two other aspects of this story come to mind. First, how accurately is the media reporting the issue? Are we getting the full story, or just the bits that create nice click-bait? Are they reporting the story accurately?

The second comes down to the testing performed (and whether the media accurately reported all the testing). I would've thought a possible defence for Mitsubishi would be to take a showroom stock Triton, and do some real world economy testing on that, and compare with published figures, and the plaintiff's figures.

Of course, if they did that, and their new Triton was able to achieve much better results than the plaintiff's, then they'd be facing accusations that the plaintiff's Triton is a lemon, and Mitsubishi might be required to buy it back anyway i.e. same outcome. Perhaps that's what really happened? Mitsubishi were forced to buy back a lemon, and it's being reported incorrectly?

Regardless, it would be good to see more accurate published fuel consumption figures than the sham figures published today.