Kia-Forums.com is owned and operated by AutoForums.com, Inc. Kia-Forums.com is an enthusiast website dedicated to the discussion of Kia Vehicles, Kia Family Cars and Kia SUVs. Kia-Forums.com is completely unofficial and is not endorsed in any way by KIA Motor Corp, its affiliates, or its subsidiaries. KIA® is a registered trademark of KIA Motors Corp. in Canada, the United States, and in other countries around the world. No challenge to the status of KIA®'s registered trademarks is intended.
“Now that the lower MPG rating is public, current owners will face a definite drop in the value of the car when trying to sell it or trade it in. Leaving this loss out of the equation is just plain wrong,” said Rob Carey, an attorney with the firm.
The law firm also is challenging the process for owners to claim reimbursement for the lower fuel economy, alleging that it creates “obstacles that will make it unnecessarily difficult and time-intensive for consumers to collect the modest sums owed to them for increased fuel costs.”
bullshit.
The law firms are only seeking way to get money.
I own 2007 Rondo and 2009 Elantra. In both I can exceed the EPA numbers, just to make sure we do not get confusion - I can achieve smaller fuel consumption than the tests suggested.
Rondo - city I could get 25 MPG US, highway - 32+ MPG US (rated 19/26).
Elantra - city - 28-30, highway 32-35 (rated 24/33) - this one is hard to get solid numbers as I've had it for less than a month.
Of course I could make them to eat more as well.
I also owned 2004 Elantra which was rated 21/29 MPG US. My "life of car" average was 32 MPG US.
I understand the numbers could have been overestimated, but taking into account being 6spd transmission, GDI engine - you could really get 40+ MPG on for instance 1.8 MPI Elantra.
Honestly - I bet people do not know how to drive their cars. I am more than sure that at least 75% of them drive the car incorrectly - stop and go with WOT and then hard brakes.
There's a *huge* difference in fuel efficiency in driving 60mph on the freeway and driving 80mph. Some stretches of I-20 I'd get 35mpg; others, I'd get 40mpg, at 70mph. Big diff between running light and having the @ss end full of camping gear, too (I averaged 35mpg on the Joshua Tree trip, running 80mph). Just sayin', there's a lot of variable to consider.
There is a Judge Judy gif that sums this all up perfect:
What next? Someone going to sue a tyre company because their tyres went flat? Sue the cereal company because they got to the bottom of the box and found there was no cereal left??
Its not that they overstated the miles, its that they did the Fuel Efficiency tests wrong and came out with higher numbers. I for one at 35-38mpg in a 20 mile commute, my commute has alot of ups and downs in it. Two of my co-workers also have Rio's and they have stated the same.
In the end they did not do the standard test correctly for whatever reason and should pay the difference because MPG is the reason that i bought this car. If I would have seen 37 or 38mpg I would not have bought it.
Those shrugging off the law suit are not thinking clearly. Kia performed the test wrong (knowingly?? who knows) and over-estimated the mileage numbers people use for purchase comparisons.
Fuel economy is a very large factor in most people's decision making process when considering a new car purchase. If two cars are rated the same, but one was calculated wrong, then I can expect the cost of ownership to be different between the two cars. Even if I drive them in exactly the same manner.
So thousands of people purchase the vehicle based upon an under-estimated cost of ownership factor. This factor can also affect the resale value of the car.
I may have made a different decision had accurate numbers been provided at time of purchase.
To use the ridiculous empty cereal box analogy. Two boxes of cereal claim you will get 50 bowls each. For one box you usually get 40 bowls while for the other one you get only 30 bowls. Then you find out it's because the second company had been overrestimating the amount of cereal in the box and should have been claiming you can get 40 bowls. It doesn't matter that for either box you could have used smaller bowls and gotten more than they claim.
__________________
2012 Kia Rio SX Hatch, UVO, Clear White, Tinting, "K" Emblem, Sharkfin
Last edited by marleyfan61; 11-12-2012 at 02:57 PM.
Drives: 2012 Rio EX Sedan UVO Auto/Tanzanite blue/tinted windows/Vent visors
Gallery:
0
Hi, after all that has been said about FE and after this Hyundai/Kia reimbursement, I think that after all, the 1.6L GDI engine is not that much a fuel miser. It's surely a high tech engine and I'm very happy I have one in my Rio. As far as I"m concerned, my Rio get's very good mileage but not extraordinary one as I was told to expect when in the process of purchasing. I appreciate the fact that Kia acknowledges the facts now. For me, the good numbers should be 28mpg City and 35-38 Highway. Numbers that are not very high. I started to think about my MPG when my stepbrother proved me weeks after weeks he did better with his 2011 Fiesta and its non GDI older tech engine. But can you picture yourself driving a Fiesta or a Fit? Maybe an Accent but in no way a Fiesta for 2-3 MPG more.
they did the Fuel Efficiency tests wrong and came out with higher numbers.
In the end they did not do the standard test correctly for whatever reason and should pay the difference because MPG is the reason that i bought this car. If I would have seen 37 or 38mpg I would not have bought it.
If they ran the test incorrectly, they would know right away, right? So what's the case now? Why would it take 3 years to find out?
Sure, everyone looks on fuel economy. However, the numbers are JUST estimates. And let's face it - IF 2009 Elantra with 2.0 MPI 5 spd can get 33 MPG, 2013 Elantra with 1.8 GDI 6 spd should get 40.
just a bunch of greedy people led on by a greedy lawyer, none of it makes any sense. At this point there is no way you can say your there will be a drop in trade-in value just because of an EPA variation. At trade-in time, its more of the miles travelled the condition its in and how well its been maintained, 1-2 mpg is not really going to entering into it. The vehicles are still economical in the grand scheme of things. Also it depends what you are trading it in on too, there is as many variations to determine trade-in value as there is variations in driving that creates all these different mileages that people get.
As they said at the end of the video "if you want better economy change your driving style".
The AutoGuide.com network consists of the largest network of enthusiast-owned enthusiast-operated automotive communities.
AutoGuide.com provides the latest car reviews, auto show coverage, new car prices, and automotive news. The AutoGuide network operates more than 100 automotive forums where our users consult peers for shopping information and advice, and share opinions as a community.
Great...now a lawsuit.
Rondo PLP
R150 project
R210 project
Soul
Linear Mode
