GM owners pay 50 per cent more for gas than expected
 

FACTs or MEDIA SENSATIONALISM? CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT ! ! !


GM owners pay 50 per cent more for gas than expected - Calgary - CBC News

A Calgary couple are accusing General Motors of misleading them, after they bought a Chevy Cruze that they said guzzles 50 per cent more gas than the automaker advertised.

“I strongly feel cheated,” said vehicle owner Farah Mocquais.

“We didn’t save any money - quite the opposite,” said her husband Pierre-Yves.


He estimates they will spend $3,500 more on gas than they banked on by the time the odometer reaches 100,000 kilometres, solely because of lower fuel efficiency than promised.

Farah is the primary driver of the Chevy Cruze LT 1.4L, which the couple bought new in 2011. (CBC)

“We know that in most cases the [fuel efficiency] tests are done under specific conditions,” he said. “But this was really grossly different.”

The couple bought their Cruze LT 1.4L automatic new in 2011, based on GM’s figures that the car would burn 5.5 litres of gas every 100 kilometres of highway driving.

They said they bought the second car so Farah could commute by highway to her job in Lethbridge, two and a half hours each way.

“We wanted something that would allow her to go between the two cities in a manner that would be really responsible in terms of fuel consumption,” said Pierre-Yves.

Highway driving only

Over the next several months, the couple said the car was driven 99 per cent on the highway, but the fuel consumption display screen consistently showed it used 8.5 litres per 100 kilometres.

The number improved slightly over time, they said. When a CBC News camera went along for a recent highway drive, the screen in the 2011 Cruze displayed a fuel consumption rating of 7.9 litres.

That's still 2.4 litres more gas consumption than GM’s rating, for every 100 kilometres Farah drives.

“[The dealership] hooked the car onto all sorts of measuring devices and so on and so forth and at the end they told us there was nothing they could do,” said Pierre-Yves, who said Jack Carter Chevrolet then suggested he complain to the automaker.

Mocquais emailed GM Canada and sent a complaint by registered letter, but said he heard nothing back.

“General Motors completely ignored it, ignored emails and ignored registered letter with the documentation,” he said.

A GM Canada spokesperson said the company called Mocquais, but didn’t reach him.

“We continue to reach out to him to discuss his inquiry. We take our customer concerns very seriously and will work directly with Mr. Mocquais to determine how we can assist him further,” said Adria MacKenzie.

Tests show discrepancy

When a CBC News camera went along on a highway drive, the fuel consumption display showed 7.9 litres of gas used for every 100 kilometres. The couple said, until recently, the gauge was consistently showing 8.5 litres. (CBC)

Consumer Reports in the U.S. recently cited the 2014 Chevy Cruze and other North American cars for relatively poor gas mileage.

Its independent tests showed the 2014 Cruze with a 1.4 litre engine used the equivalent of 9.05 litres of gas per 100 kilometres in combined city/highway tests, which is one third more than the combined city/highway results that GM Canada claims.

GM Canada’s spokesperson said many factors can change fuel consumption results.

“Several factors can affect fuel use: driving style and behaviour, vehicle acceleration and driving speed, overall age and operating condition of your vehicle, temperature, weather, traffic, road conditions, and drive systems and powered accessories (i.e. air conditioning) installed in your vehicle,” said MacKenzie in an email.

“There is also a break-in period for new vehicles to determine accurate fuel consumption.”

GM is not the first carmaker to come under fire for misleading figures. The maker of Hyundai and Kia vehicles is reimbursing customers millions of dollars, after the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency determined its fuel consumption test results had been inaccurate.

Canadian tests panned

Canadian government-approved tests have been panned by critics for several years, for not being as realistic as U.S. tests done by the same automakers there.

GM's sales material said the couple's car would average 5.5 litres of gas for every 100 kilometres of highway driving. (CBC)

“The lack of government oversight results in a flawed test procedure and the government is allowing the carmaker to hide behind it,” said George Iny of the Automobile Protection Association.

“It would be better to let the carmakers carry the can on their own for this, because at least you could sue them.”

NDP consumer affairs critic Glenn Thibeault suggests the competition bureau should be looking into possible misleading advertising, because that is its mandate.

“Right now we have a toothless tiger when it comes to the competition bureau,” said Thibeault.

“If we had organizations like the competition bureau with the necessary resources to do these investigations, companies would then know that they can’t just put up a number that they think they can put up there to sell more cars, if that is what they are doing.”

Government to bring in better tests

The Competition Bureau said it does not disclose what, if anything, it is investigating, about fuel consumption advertising or anything else.

However, Natural Resources Canada, which governs the tests and results car makers use for their advertising said it will soon announce changes that will bring Canadian tests in line with U.S.

NDP Consumer Affairs critic Glenn Thibeault believes the federal competition bureau should investigate fuel efficiency advertising by automakers. (CBC)

“The resulting new approach will provide Canadians with fuel consumption ratings that better reflect ‘typical’ driving conditions and driving behaviour,” said spokesperson Jacinthe Perras.


GM said it expects the new tests to be in place for 2015 models.


Critics say that is good news for consumers contemplating future purchases, But they point out it also essentially confirms that, up until now, thousands of Canadian consumers have been misinformed.


“All of us are basically impotent in front of the actions of, on the one hand, big corporations and on the other, government,” said Pierre-Yves.

“Somehow this type of misleading advertising has to stop.”

It would be great if this results in realistic fuel economy numbers being advertised in Canada.

That being said, the owners themselves said they expected a discrepancy in economy - so why not do a little research before purchasing, rather than turn around and sue later?

I bought my car for commuting because it had several years of proving it provided 5.6l per 100km.

Dunno how GM can get away with this... they sell the same damn vehicles on either side of the border, but the ones up here are somehow 30% more fuel efficient?

BULL SHIT!!

People should know by now that the fuel economy numbers are going to be best case scenario. Did they figure they would get 5.5L/100KM all the time? Is their house right on the highway to ensure they'd be driving highway miles every time they go out? There's a lot of information missing from the article. It states that during a ride-along, the fuel consumption rating was 7.9L/100KM, but they don't tell you how much distance that is, nor the speed. You're not going to get the numbers by going 120KM/H+ all the way. Also, it's colder now, which will adversely affect the fuel economy.

Also, who the hell commutes 2.5 hours, each way???! Moving or getting a closer job, even one that pays less, would probably save them more money and time.

Hyundai/kia was in hot water over fuel efficiency ratings late last year, early this year.

They were only off by a little bit. I wonder what will happen here....

Well it is Calgary, considering that there car would have -10 to -20C cold starts every morning and after work, I'm not surprised.

If they did not maintain the car properly, I would be even less surprised.

As far as I know, the Cruze is stilll a pretty new vehicle. If you truly want a reliable vehicle, you should really wait a couple years and read Consumer Reports long term reviews and other information, which is not hard to find.

If they truly wanted a vehicle solely for good gas mileage, they could have bought a 2-3 year old vehicle with a proven track record.

These people are just regretting buying a piece of shit domestic and want someone to pin the blame on.

Has this couple not owned another car before? Did they really expect to get the same fuel economy, especially in Calgary?

As if it was just GM.

Lucky for them they highway commute in Calgary, and not here. I was averaging 14.9L/100km on highway driving there vs 16.5-17.5 here. That's in a very lifted pickup running very heavy wheels and tires.

Lol so bull shit. It's not even just GM. It's probably because the method we use in Canada is different than the US. And our numbers are always so much lower and unrealistic. My Accord is rated 7.8 city in Canada and 24 mpg city in the States which is equivalent to 9.8l/100km. I consistently get around 10 on each tank and I'm not bitching to the media. They should have done more research.
Posted via RS Mobile

http://www.autogaleria.pl/tapety/img..._1988_01_b.jpg
Should've bought this. Its a 1986 CRX High Fuel model. Been achieving 40mpg still since 86 and there are reports of 100+mpg with this...

So whos fault does the inaccurate numbers really boil down to? The automaker for fudging the number? or the government for imposing the new average fuel efficiency regulations?

except that picture is a 1988 not a 1986. and is not even in the same ballpark as a cruise


the best bang for your buck fuel efficient usefull car is probably going to be an EG sedan imo

^ and the CRX HF was never sold in Canada...

Two and a half hour commute... EACH WAY?


Fuck off!!!

who in their right mind commutes 2 1/2hrs each way everyday? wow....



guy above posted that while i was reading through the article and posts. :rukidding:

I think the way that people use them is the problem. I see it as a tool to let people compare how the fuel consumption differs between vehicles. There are just too many factors that affect fuel economy: weather, terrain, driving style, etc...

Don't hate the player, hate the game.

Transport Canada is the one who sets the rules on how the cars should be tested for fuel economy and the automakers are running the tests that they are supposed to run. The tests are a joke as they don't reflect realistic driving conditions (eg. 80kph highway speeds etc). The EPA has more realistic numbers because they revised their tests a few years back.

In Hyundai/Kia's case (and Ford's as well), they fudged the numbers a little bit - 1-2mpg against the "real" EPA numbers which isn't really the case with this story. It appears the Cruze tested correctly under Transport Canada's guidelines but, like all cars, is unable to meet those numbers in real world conditions because the tests are nothing like real world conditions.

it's a fucking GM, what do they expect?

buy a Honda, problem solved.

gtr solves all

My dad was considering a Dodge Dart as a commuter up until I showed him the EPA numbers (41 mpg highway) relative to Transport Canada (59 mpg highway).

It's fucking ridiculous how they can advertise these blatantly unrealistic numbers.

:haha: 2.5 hour commute. Is that true? Who the hell would put themselves through that for a salary that can only afford mediocre Chevy Cruise and force them to squeeze their pennies so tight that they are worried about fuel economy. Calgary and Lethbridge are approx. 200 km apart. At that rate, that Chevy will hit 100,000km in less than a year. I'd be more worried about that car becoming a beater before the new car smell is gone than fuel economy.

I think a BC equivalent would be if you lived the summit of the Coquihalla Hwy and drove into downtown Vancouver everyday. :confused: :lol

Them bitching to the media actually benefits us you suppose?
We know those factory ratings are BS and obtained in super optimal conditions.

With fuel prices rising and the environment taking a beating...you would think the government would have better testing and proper labeling.

Should have gotten a Corvette instead. According to GM's brochure, the manual car gets 7.7L/100km.

Just sayin. :troll:

Cold weather gives you better fuel economy. The recent change in temperature would explain them getting better fuel economy than they had over the summer.