Of Penalties And Priorities

by Derek Kreindler

Published: November 5th, 2014

Yesterday’s announcement of record fines for Hyundai and Kia regarding their incorrect fuel economy claims is the strongest message yet that the Department of Justice ” firm commitment to safeguarding American consumers, ensuring fairness in every marketplace, protecting the environment, and relentlessly pursuing companies that make misrepresentations and violate the law.” But if your cars kill scores of people due to neglience, you’re getting off easy.

As Ryan Beene of Automotive News reports

“…Hyundai and Kia will pay a $100 million civil penalty, spend $50 million to establish an independent fuel economy certification group and forfeit some 4.75 million greenhouse gas emission credits the companies have banked under the EPA’s tailpipe emissions regulations — estimated to be worth more than $200 million, according to a joint statement by the Justice Department and EPA.”

All totaled, up, that’s about $350 million worth of penalties. GM paid about one-tenth of that in relation to federal safety law violations stemming from the now-infamous Chevrolet Cobalt ignition switch deaths.

The penalties in the Hyundai/Kia case come despite Hyundai’s voluntary reimbursement program for owners of the affected vehicles. Hyundai/Kia aren’t the only ones to have enacted such a program either. Ford set up a similar program for owners of the C-Max and Fusion, but hasn’t been fined by the EPA for similar misstatement of fuel economy numbers.

Maybe we ought to revisit the way we test for fuel economy figures altogether?

#Ford #FuelEconomy #Government #Hyundai #Kia

Derek Kreindler

More by Derek Kreindler

Comments

Join the conversation

12 of 52 comments

Stuki on Nov 05, 2014

"... firm commitment to ....." get our mediocre faces on TV and in other media, so that stupid little us can be famous too!!!! And generations of semi literate indoctrinates can cheer for us as we rob people to fund our pensions. Like any good government agency.

Like Reply
- Jjster6 on Nov 05, 2014
  
  At least you can spell stupid right.
  
  Like
Conslaw on Nov 05, 2014

What were the problems in Hyundai's methodology for determining MPG that justified the fine? I heard all about Ford using the Fusion's test data to rate the C-Max, but I don't know what Hyundai did wrong. Ford probably wasn't fined because the rules (arguably) allowed using the figures from vehicles with the same weight and powertrain. (Ethically, Ford isn't off the hook because it knew that the C-Max had a significantly higher drag coefficient than the Fusion.) I'm a happy C-Max owner. Ford's checks made 2 of my first 16 car payments. I still get 42-44 MPG.

Like Reply
- See 5 previous
- Highdesertcat on Nov 05, 2014
  
  The methodology didn't matter because the 2011 Elantra I helped buy for my grand daughter NEVER even came close to the mpg on the new-car window sticker. I just filled it up whenever it needed filling up. OTOH, she cruised at over 85mph on Hwy 70 to/from college. What kind of gas mileage should we expect at those speeds? I am certain that the Hyundai/KIA mpg figures were rooted in more sedate driving, at lower speeds, and under controlled conditions.
  
  Like
- Pragmatic on Nov 05, 2014
  
  From the EPA web site: The EPA subsequently investigated the coastdown test protocol Hyundai and Kia used to measure the road load force of their vehicles. That protocol appears to have included numerous elements that, once aggregated, generated inaccurately low road load forces. For example, Hyundai and Kia restricted their testing to a temperature range where its vehicles coasted farther and faster and prepared vehicle tires for optimized results. In processing test data, Hyundai and Kia chose favorable results rather than average results from a large number of tests. In certain cases, Hyundai and Kia relied predominantly on data gathered when test vehicles were aided by a tailwind.
  
  Like
- Pragmatic on Nov 05, 2014
  
  My understanding of Ford is they used some data from the Hybrid Fusion for the CMax hybrid which is allowed. This loop hole is being closed (I think an ANPR has been issued). I have used this loop hole as part of my thoughts that the EPA's rules do not discouraged MT vehicles (as many insist) when the real problem is OEM's and dealers not knowing or wanting to manage car and part inventories.
  
  Like
- Exfordtech on Nov 06, 2014
  
  @pragmatic Emission regulation is part of the reason for the reduction in manual transmission vehicles. Certifying a vehicle for emissions is expensive, and a manual equipped car must be certified separately from it's automatic sibling. It is also more difficult to certify a manual because the driving behavior and shift points are less predictable as they are in human hands. It is also one of the reasons for electronic throttle control. Removing (or mitigating the actions of) the loose nut behind the wheel makes the vehicle behavior more predictable. You would be amazed by the driving habits of some people. Years ago dealt with a customer with an intermittent driveability complaint (a pre OBDII Crown Vic). Harsh shifting if I recall. It was always no problem found no matter who looked at it, even test driving with the customer. Ford has a tool we called a flight recorder, essentially a black box with a button that when pressed (you send the customer off with this installed) takes a recording of whatever PCM parameters you programmed it to look for. Set it up to look at brake on/off, throttle position, mass air flow, rpm, vehicle speed, commanded gear. Every recording showed application of the brakes while simultaneously mashing on and off the accelerator at speeds between 10 and 20 mph. You could upload and playback the data in graphical form on the old SBDS. Turned into a Henny Youngman: doc it hurts when I do this and the doctor replies "well don't do that!". Guy still killed us on the QC survey. The main reason for the lack of manuals however remains to be profit.
  
  Like
- Pragmatic on Nov 06, 2014
  
  @Exfordtech I don't deny the added cost of testing manuals, nor the difficulty in getting them through the tests. But if an Accord Coupe is the the same inertia class as the sedan then very limited testing would be required to use the same drivetrains - or have I been too long away from these regulations? Of course profit drives all, but I contend most of the profit limits inherent in low production vehicles is related to poor inventory control and not the cost of certification or design. This is why Honda limits color and option choices on the Sport Accord with MT (only three or four vehicle combinations to stock). If the OEMs could figure out how to quickly and efficiently handle custom orders and consumers could accept waiting several (better yet few) weeks for a car and possibly buying sight unseen (all tall orders), there would be more joy for both the OEM and the consumer. The last time I tried to order a car the Infinity dealer would not provide and estimate of the delivery date (other than more than 8 weeks) nor stand by a price (if the price changes between now and unknown delivery date you will pay the increase or forfeit your large deposit). Needless to say I purchased from stock elsewhere.
  
  Like
- Exfordtech on Nov 07, 2014
  
  @pragmatic I just don't think the demand for manuals is strong enough for most automakers to dedicate the necessary investment. As to the emissions regs, it's not just the cost of the test itself but the cost (and probably of more importance the time) of designing the PCM calibration that passes that test. As for why the automakers that do offer manuals restrict them by color or option package I would imagine there isn't enough money in it for them to do otherwise. I have nothing against manuals myself, have owned several, but unfortunately I think they are approaching extinction in the U.S.
  
  Like
Dr_outback on Nov 05, 2014

I use the fuelly.com site for owner fuel mileage experience. It has believable fuel economy ratings.

Like Reply
- Brian P on Nov 05, 2014
  
  It stinks when there are multiple engine choices, though. It seems like a lot of the users have no idea what is under the hood of their own cars. There's no way to distinguish between, say, 1.6 and 2.0 litre engines. They don't apply any plausibility checks, e.g. "enter trim level - now here is the list of available engines on that trim level, select which one you have".
  
  Like
SOneThreeCoupe on Nov 06, 2014

This is a civil matter, not a government matter. If people were lied to, and had monetary loss due to that lie, they should have sued in civil court. Part of the purpose of the DoJ is to provide a framework in which wrongs can be righted, without lining the pockets of government itself. Here's the way to test emissions and fuel efficiency: let the manufacturers make the numbers. They're not going to fudge numbers that aren't possible because no one will trust them, or they'll get sued. My next vehicle will be purchased on a combination of Fuelly numbers, private reviews and industry reviews.

Like Reply