Below Nav Bar
Collapse
Ouch...thats gotta hurt.
Collapse
X
-
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.NT Platinum. DiD Auto with 265/70R17 ST Maxx, Lift, Lockers, Lockup Mate, Low range reduction, LRA Aux tank, bull bar, winch, 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....
Scorpro Explorer Box
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by nj swb View PostDon'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
Nurofen's fine for misleading consumers is raised from $1.7 million to $6 million after a successful appeal by the ACCC.
If manufactures claim X will do Y and it doesn't they are liable.
It is a minefield out there.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by BruceandBobbi View PostThe 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
Nurofen's fine for misleading consumers is raised from $1.7 million to $6 million after a successful appeal by the ACCC.
If manufactures claim X will do Y and it doesn't they are liable.
It is a minefield out there.
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.NT Platinum. DiD Auto with 265/70R17 ST Maxx, Lift, Lockers, Lockup Mate, Low range reduction, LRA Aux tank, bull bar, winch, 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....
Scorpro Explorer Box
Comment
-
-
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.
Comment
-
-
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.NS SWB X 3.2DiD - Factory locker, Hella spotties, GME UHF, 2" lift
Retired: 1991 NH SWB 3.0L V6 5sp Manual, Mickey Thompson ATZs, GME UHF TX3200.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by craka View PostDid 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.
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.NT Platinum. DiD Auto with 265/70R17 ST Maxx, Lift, Lockers, Lockup Mate, Low range reduction, LRA Aux tank, bull bar, winch, 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....
Scorpro Explorer Box
Comment
-
-
Misleading Fuel Consumption Sticker Ratings
Mitsubishi has been ordered to refund a Melbourne motorist after he bought a 4WD that guzzled more fuel than was advertised on a "misleading" sticker.
About time there were more realistic fuel consumption ratings for all vehicles
This was originally posted in Bitches & Gripes, moved here by admin.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by nj swb View PostYes, 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.Warren
2012 NW DiD Activ - Retired
2023 Nissan Y62 Patrol Ti
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by 2bad4u View PostThe 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.NT Platinum. DiD Auto with 265/70R17 ST Maxx, Lift, Lockers, Lockup Mate, Low range reduction, LRA Aux tank, bull bar, winch, 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....
Scorpro Explorer Box
Comment
-
-
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.
Comment
-
-
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.
Geoff03 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.
Comment
-
-
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 ST Maxx, Lift, Lockers, Lockup Mate, Low range reduction, LRA Aux tank, bull bar, winch, 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....
Scorpro Explorer Box
Comment
-
Matched content
Collapse
Comment