Great...now a lawsuit.

[Sdgc]

didnt like the stang!? well, i guess they are 2 different cars... but so far i am loving this new rio, im not going to lie about that! great value for what you get

[rogan]

It's an interesting case, but marketing departments all over the world have been fudging the figures for ever and a day. Maybe Kia is going to be an example. I can't get my Carnival to match piublished fuel efficiency, whereas my last car (a Renault) performed better than published. I can understand people who've bought a car based alot around fuel efficiency being bitter, but fuel economy wasn't in my purchase equation.

You can't tell me that Kia didn't know it's figures were optimistic; it's not exactly difficult to do a fuel test

[Racineur]

Originally Posted by rogan

I can understand people who've bought a car based alot around fuel efficiency being bitter, but fuel economy wasn't in my purchase equation.

You can't tell me that Kia didn't know it's figures were optimistic; it's not exactly difficult to do a fuel test

rogan you're right. People like me who bought their car with FE in mind are more bitter than others. My previous car was a gazoholic. In the last year I had it, I said to myself my next car would be very fuel efficient and so the FE counted for much in my purchase. In the real world, the 0.3L difference has no effect at all on my decision. I don't regret my purchase. I'll do it again. It has more to do with the fact that it looks more to me like a small lie. That's all. People who had FE in mind call this a small lie, people who didn't call this a believable mistake. Yin and Yang again...

[Mystonique]

They get sued. Next time they run their figures a bit more carefully so they don't get sued again. Other companies see that they got sued and are equally more careful with their figures lest someone with the time and inclination tests their figures and sues too.

I'm not a fan of law suits but nor am I a fan of false and misleading advertising and PR.

I can't see how it is unreasonable to expect Kia (or any car company) to have an accurate fuel consumption figure. It's never going to be exact, that's not what I'm suggesting - but appropriate testing and reporting is not only reasonable to expect it is also required by Australian Standards (and their equivalents in most other countries).

A company that thinks it's ok to lie and mislead by providing inaccurate figures or test methods deserves to be sued and should be sued ... lest next week they think it's ok to lie about the effectiveness of the breaks.

[PLP]

sure folks. You got lied... they did it wrong, sue everyone.
Because tire company promised 60k miles and you got 55...

[marleyfan61]

Originally Posted by PLP

sure folks. You got lied... they did it wrong, sue everyone.
Because tire company promised 60k miles and you got 55...

You seem to be missing the point. Look at my previous posts. I thought I explained it pretty well.

[PLP]

Originally Posted by marleyfan61

You seem to be missing the point. Look at my previous posts. I thought I explained it pretty well.

I am sure there are people that can achieve those numbers. As I reported, in both of my cars I can exceed EPA estimates. And of course I can go well under...
It all depends on the style.

KIA/Hyundai said they made a mistake? Sure, they offered reimbursement which is valid for the car and miles it has been driven.

I do not see any point why anyone would need to sue KIA motors now. They could have updated the numbers and that's it. Not even offer reimbursement. This is what other makers do.

[lap49]

I'm not concerned since I plan on driving mine until it is worthless and the dealer warranty runs out...200k miles over 6 years.

[KCOPE316]

Originally Posted by lap49

I'm not concerned since I plan on driving mine until it is worthless and the dealer warranty runs out...200k miles over 6 years.

Yeah im with you. I plan to have mine until I can sell it at a Barrett Jackson auction!