Pajero 4WD Club of Victoria Public Forum Pajero 4WD Club of Victoria Public Forum

Go Back   Pajero 4WD Club of Victoria Public Forum > Vehicles > Triton

Triton Covering all models.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 2 Weeks Ago
2bad4u's Avatar
2bad4u 2bad4u is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 234
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nj swb View Post
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.
__________________
2012 NW Activ DiD Auto, Iron Bark | Rear Diff Lock | TJM Bar | Safari Snorkel | Dual Batteries | OME 2" Lift Suspension | ARB Frontier Long Range Tank | DIY Rear Shelf & Storage | Old & Cranky Driver
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 2 Weeks Ago
nj swb's Avatar
nj swb nj swb is offline
Resident
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 5,470
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2bad4u View Post
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?
__________________
NT Platinum. DiD Auto with 265/70R17 Toyo MT, Lift, Lockers, Lockup Mate, 3.15 gears, LRA Aux tank, bullbar, winch, lights, lots of touring stuff. Flappy paddles. MMCS is gone!

Project: NJ SWB. 285/75R16 ST Maxx, 2" OME suspension, 2" body lift, ARB 110, 120l tank, bullbar, scratches, no major dents. Fully engineered in SA. NW DiD & auto in place - a long way to go....
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 2 Weeks Ago
DID Dash DID Dash is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Australia
Posts: 176
Default

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.
__________________
17MY Pajero Sport, Factory Towbar, King Springs KCRS-23/Pedders 5899 Cones, 265/70R17 A/T's for the rough trips.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 2 Weeks Ago
GHendo's Avatar
GHendo GHendo is offline
Valued Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Northern NSW
Posts: 4,239
Default

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
__________________
03 NP Manual Di-D Exceed, 2" lift, Dobinsons Springs, Lovells Shocks, ORU Winch, ARB Bullbar, Scott's Rods 3" Exhaust, ARB Compressor, Rear Air Locker, Cooper S/T Maxx, Hella Rallye 4000 S/Lights, Pioneer AVH-X5850BT DVD/Tuner w/- Reversing Camera, Sensa Tyre monitor, Uniden UH8080NB UHF, Rhino Platform Roof Rack, Hema HN-7 GPS, Engine Watchdog, CouplerTec, CTEK D250S DC-DC Charger, Snorkel, Towbar.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 2 Weeks Ago
nj swb's Avatar
nj swb nj swb is offline
Resident
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 5,470
Default

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.
__________________
NT Platinum. DiD Auto with 265/70R17 Toyo MT, Lift, Lockers, Lockup Mate, 3.15 gears, LRA Aux tank, bullbar, winch, lights, lots of touring stuff. Flappy paddles. MMCS is gone!

Project: NJ SWB. 285/75R16 ST Maxx, 2" OME suspension, 2" body lift, ARB 110, 120l tank, bullbar, scratches, no major dents. Fully engineered in SA. NW DiD & auto in place - a long way to go....
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
That's gotta hurt... MSF Photography and Videos 11 27-01-13 02:16 PM
Mitsubishi: Too old and too expensive. Ouch Bing Mitsubishi News 13 04-10-12 11:38 PM
Thats gotta hurt! Pickle Techniques 9 11-05-09 11:24 AM
OUCH... but a moral in the lesson. Rugrat General Info 5 10-11-08 10:03 PM
ouch harmonic balancer pully came loose again. islandmarty Generation 2 Pajero 11 15-05-08 03:56 PM


All times are GMT +10. The time now is 12:33 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.