Great result IMO. Hope others get all the other car makers relying on dubious methods and using "cycle beating" to make economy and emissions claims for vehicles which can't be expected to perform as suggested in real life.
flagheaven,
Aug 19, 8:20am
"really"
mm12345,
Aug 19, 8:30am
Yeah - really. Now the JP at the hearing obviously didn't major in maths, perhaps the dealer didn't either. "The $6000 award was based on the owner's loss of 0.75c per km over 8000km" Really? It used $6000 more fuel than it should have done over 8,000km? But it's a matter of principle - the maths is trivial. Those darned decimal points.
And an ETA to add that perhaps the reporter has seriously stuffed up that article - and that the $6k was to compensate for depreciation loss when the owner sold the vehicle which failed to meet claimed economy figures.
brapbrap8,
Aug 19, 8:46am
Wow that Ford is quite thirsty, even Fords website claims 8.8L/100km. Thats heaps for a modern 2L, even if it is 1,700kg.
I'm guessing the compensation is the extra fuel useage plus the depreciation suffered when he sold it.
petal_91,
Aug 19, 9:03am
That ruling is ridiculous. I hope FMC contests that in the District Court.
kenw1,
Aug 19, 9:06am
It can only be appealed on a point of law.
rbd,
Aug 19, 9:14am
I'd have thought that it could be appealed on the basis that the award did not reflect the applicants actual costs? It isn't up to the disputes tribunal to award penalties.
I imagine FMC will get their lawyers behind this one. It is farcical.
I've had to deal with JP's before on legal issues and they have no idea. Some need to be leashed in.
petal_91,
Aug 19, 9:15am
That doesn't sound quite right to me: "3. The only grounds for an appeal are that the manner in which the Referee conducted the hearing (for example, because the Referee failed to have regards to a provision of an enactment brought to the Referee??
tamarillo,
Aug 19, 9:23am
What a croc of shit. Feul figures are done on a fixed artificial cycle and everywhere you see them you'll find disclaimers to use them for comparative purposes. The tribunal is not a court of law and is easily overturned by a real court. There is automatic right to take it to court. Nor can its findings ever be made case law. This simply must be overturned and common sense prevail.
phillip.weston,
Aug 19, 9:24am
It is a turbo with 240hp and 345Nm. I think 8.8L/100km is very good considering it has to lug all that weight around. My 240hp/304Nm VR-4 which weighs 1400kgs struggles to break 10L/100km.
franc123,
Aug 19, 9:24am
The thing is, how on earth could the DT have known the manner in which the car was driven in that time? The dealership could tell from engine parameters whether the engine management system had a fault which was skewing the fuel trims and screwing the economy, but this would have generated fault codes and an identifiable problem if they were too far out. Some people have absolutely no idea of how to drive economically, you start thrashing a knocking on 2T petrol all wheel drive its gonna use fuel alright no matter how efficient on paper the engine is.
kenw1,
Aug 19, 9:28am
The DT is regarded as Court of Law, that is why cases can be referred there from the higher Courts.
A claim was made that vehicle x would achieve a fuel consumption specified by the seller. It did not do so. Simple claim for misleading information that lead to the buyer choosing vehicle x over vehicle dd.
The thing that the dealer should be worried about is all the other vehicles that they may have sold and what claims they made in those cases.
It is nothing to do with Ford, read the last para of the news item. The tribunal ruled: "The evidence of the Ford Motor Company of NZ Ltd that the expected fuel economy of the Ford Kuga Titanium was 9.4 litres per 100km persuades me that, even taking into account the factors that could contribute to fuel economy of a vehicle, that the [dealer's] statement that the fuel economy of the Ford Kuga Titanium was 7.7 litres per 100km was incorrect and a misrepresentation, irrespective of factors that could contribute to a lower fuel economy." The $6000 award was based on the owner's loss of 0.75c per km over 8000km. - NZME.
phillip.weston,
Aug 19, 9:29am
The article states that the DEALER claimed it had an economy rating of 7.7L/100km yet Ford's official figures were different. The customer purchased the vehicle relying solely on the information from the dealer. The dealer was incorrect and the customer experienced fuel consumption similar to Ford's official figures.
mm12345,
Aug 19, 9:30am
Really? I think not. The only country in the world which takes action against auto-maker fuel economy lies seems to be the USA, and often that's settled following class action, though IIRC, EPA sued Hyundai's @rse over inflated economy claims a couple of years back (ie "lies" - as opposed to the "whoops we made a mistake" settlement from class action). We need more of it. Too much crap mutton sold as lamb these days.
skull,
Aug 19, 9:43am
It is 2014 so that makes it 134 Kw 240 Nm, 1600cc turbo petrol the 2 litre one was not released until this year.
kenw1,
Aug 19, 9:46am
The banner for this thread is actually totally incorrect, it was not Ford that misrepresented the vehicle, rather the dealership.
zetec,
Aug 19, 9:50am
mm, whatever axe you're grinding, your subject heading is wrong. Ford didn't lie, the dealer mistakenly put the wrong fuel consumption figure on the window card. The "loss" from a 1.7 litre overage per 100km over 8000 km is about $150, not $6,000. It is a ridiculous ruling. Did he give the dealer the opportunity to offer compensation for their mistake before he sold the vehicle, presumably at a loss? You'd think $500 compensation would have kept him going for a few years. He didn't mitigate his loss and I hope the dealer appeals.
mm12345,
Aug 19, 9:51am
Well if the dealer wants to prove a case that it WAS Ford NZ who let them down, and that Ford was at fault, then web.archive.org has snapshots of Ford NZ website archived, which show very clearly that Ford NZ were advertising that model Kuga as having combined fuel economy of 7.7l/100km.
Problem with lies these days is that they can be very hard to get to "disappear"
Oh yes they did - and it looks like they might have also lied at the hearing - and/or the dealer was too scared to challenge what they'd said perhaps. See my post above - or this snapshot from Ford NZ website, archived: http://i.imgur.com/aOMaACr.png
tamarillo,
Aug 19, 10:23am
More to this than meets the eye. Well done that man who spotted it's a 1.6, and to that man who found this snapshot. So ford claimed 7.7, dealer sold new car with that official info as required. But no one lied. That's bullshit. They don't make these figures up they're done on an official test cycle so every vehicle has same conditions so comparisons can be made. They can't drive it around the streets as that introduces untold variance. It's comparative not a bloody promise. No that's not perfect as no test cycle can replicate humans being who live in auckland, ekatahuna, and Hampton downs. There an arguement to be made for finding a way of having the test cycle done in a more realistic way, so it's closer to what an 'average' driver might do. Okay let's discuss. But that's way beyond the jursistiction of any court in this land. They don't make law. As for the end statement about ford saying 9.4, I'd suggest the old crony is confused by something, as is often the case. Maybe that statement will be clarified. But dealer merely put official figures up, and it's official figure was 7.7. I'll bet it's possible to get that. As for dispute tribunal- it is not a court of law. Hence word tribunal. It will be easy for dealer to get a court hearing where some common sense and law will be applied. Nor can tribunal findings ever be used as precedent. Ever.
tamarillo,
Aug 19, 10:38am
Has anyone got a recent car who knows their average feul economy and how it stacks up to official figure? My v8 Calais claimed 11.5. Even living in Nelson, with no commutes, and lots of gentle open road driving I couldn't get that. Average was 13.5 which seemed damned good for 6 litre wagon.
franc123,
Aug 19, 10:46am
Most wouldn't even check it, even less so on those vehicles that are not equipped with trip computers, which are not necessarily that accurate anyway when subject to wildly varying operating conditions.
mm12345,
Aug 19, 10:59am
One more point - showing how disingenuous Ford NZ are on this (IMO). The snapshot of Ford's 2014 website has a disclaimer that the fuel economy of 7.7 l/100km was tested in accordance with regulation 80/1268/EEC. FFS that test originally dates back to 1980! They're testing cars for sale in NZ using a European method which hasn't been legal to use in Europe since July 1989. What a joke - dirty, dirty stuff. And IMO it's all Ford NZ - not the dealership who copped the fine.
westwyn,
Aug 19, 11:03am
Much confusion over this case, not least by the mainstream media who failed to grasp at the finer points.
However- -it appears it was the dealers representative- the salesperson- who validated the fuel economy claims to the customer. -If the salesperson had simply referred to the EECA FuelSaver label on the vehicle as a point of reference, the buyer would have NO case against the dealer (precedent set earlier this year vs. Andrew Simms over an ASX) and the Disputes Tribunal could not rule against them. -The client would then need to take a civil case against Ford NZ OR EECA (which in the case of EECA, can't be done). -The FuelSaver label is specific to each and every vehicle- even new- whereby a unique and individual label is created for every vehicle supplied new with an MR2A, and must be displayed at sale. You can't "enter the wrong details" as the system is VIN-specific. -If the salesperson had simply referred to the label, no case. If they've backed it up, however, and assured the client it is indeed correct, then they themselves can be held liable in a DT case.
An appeal is almost certain, it seems.
westwyn,
Aug 19, 11:05am
There's no testing done in NZ, by the way- it's provided to Ford NZ by the parent (which in this case might be Ford Australia under ADR's).
Since the public registrations are closed, you must have an invite from a current member to be able to register and post in this thread.
Have an account? Login here.