Lincoln lowers fuel economy numbers for 2013/2014 MKZ hybrids -

[SteveB_TX]

Ford and Lincoln are lowering the fuel economy ratings for its 2013 and 2014 hybrid and plug-in hybrid vehicles, as well as most 2014 Fiestas.

 

Read the FULL ARTICLE HERE.

[jmactenn]

I knew you would be the first to post this. It was nice to wake up to this info, for a Friday the 13th.

[Ghostrider009]

It is about time they did this, I got mine March, 2013, and the mpg has steadily gone down ever since, the biggest drop coming after the recalibration which was supposed to IMPROVE mpg.  Last tank was an actual 34mpg, with the dash indicating over 41mpg.  My overall dash indicated mpg is over 41 for 16,000 miles, with REAL mpg being about 35. 

[SteveB_TX]

I knew you would be the first to post this. It was nice to wake up to this info, for a Friday the 13th.

 

Am I THAT predictable?   :)   Oh, and thanks for pointing out it was Friday the 13th.  I had not noticed.  I think I will put on my Sponge Bob PJs and go to bed now.  ;)

Edited June 13, 2014 by SteveB_TX

[jmactenn]

Yup. I caught it on the news at 7 am. Went looking thru the forums and there you were.

[Mark95man]

We have always gotten above the EPA MPG in ANY car we ever owned. Our Panther base cars got 27+ MPG! We purchased the 2014 MKZ Hybrid based upon the EPA 45 MPG & boosted Dealership & advertisement claims. Our 2014 Navigator MPG is slightly above the advertised MPG. Our 2014 MKZ Hybrid is 16% below the advertised EPA 45 MPG under the same operating conditions.

Now that Lincoln admits an "error" and dropped the EPA MPG 16%, many owners will not be happy while others are THRILLED being paid off with a $1,050 payment. They fail to understand resale value has taken a hit--just wait until the day arrives that they attempt to resell it. I feel a 16% payment would be more in line with the value hit.

Then there are those that might label me as WHINNER, so I guess THOSE people never raise an issue on anything they purchased. OR they are employees of a Public Relations Firm or FoMoCo planting responses. Their motto---place the blame on the complainer! Just admit that "The Lincoln Motor Company" screwed up and stop making excuses for them!

Would we have considered a non Hybrid MKZ if we had known about this problem? YES!

Edited June 16, 2014 by Mark95man

[Mark95man]

As I get deeper into this issue, when was The Lincoln Motor Company served with the first class action lawsuit on this issue? Answer: last year on the 2013 MKZ Hybrid, so they knew there was an issue. They did their research to attempt to save themselves, but eventually had to issue their 6/13/2014 notice.

[Keith W Seckel]

We have always gotten above the EPA MPG in ANY car we ever owned. Our Panther base cars got 27+ MPG! We purchased the 2014 MKZ Hybrid based upon EPA MPG & boosted Dealership claims. Our 2014 Navigator MPG is slightly above the advertised MPG. Our 2014 MKZ Hybrid is 16% below the advertised EPA MPG under the same operating conditions.

 

Now that Lincoln admits an "error" and dropped the EPA MPG 16%, many owners will not be happy while others are THRILLED being paid off with a $1,050 payment. They fail to understand resale value has taken a hit--just wait until the day arrives that they attempt to resell it. I feel a 16% payment would be more in line with the value hit.

 

Then there are those that might label me as WHINNER, so I guess THOSE people never raise an issue on anything they purchased. OR they are employees of a Public Relations Firm or FoMoCo planting responses. Their motto---place the blame on the complainer! Just admit that "The Lincoln Motor Company" screwed up and stop making excuses for them!

 

Would we have considered a non Hybrid MKZ if we had known about this problem? YES!

I've heard about the drop in MPG ratings. That was one reason we bought the hybrid. So how do we get the money to cover the drop in mileage? My sister has a car that also dropped in what they advertised and whay is reasonably achieved. She has a (can't remember brand, just it's the 'Hamster' car), lol She gets a rebate check every year she owns the car in the tune of $200-300 a year as long as she owns the car. Not transferrable, so she hopes to own it a long time. Please advise who/how we get the $$$. Thanks

[Mark95man]

I've heard about the drop in MPG ratings. That was one reason we bought the hybrid. So how do we get the money to cover the drop in mileage? My sister has a car that also dropped in what they advertised and whay is reasonably achieved. She has a (can't remember brand, just it's the 'Hamster' car), lol She gets a rebate check every year she owns the car in the tune of $200-300 a year as long as she owns the car. Not transferrable, so she hopes to own it a long time. Please advise who/how we get the $$$. Thanks

 

For the baseline offer that Lincoln has made, go to:  http://www.lincoln.com/mpglabel

 

I am very concerned with the main issue that Lincoln has not addressed: the decrease in value of these vehicles. Future owners might want a piece of the action on a resale.

[Keith W Seckel]

For the baseline offer that Lincoln has made, go to:  http://www.lincoln.com/mpglabel

 

I am very concerned with the main issue that Lincoln has not addressed: the decrease in value of these vehicles. Future owners might want a piece of the action on a resale.

Thanks, read the article and found my answer.

[Mark95man]

I have spoken to Lincoln and they called back with their additional offer on the reduced EPA MPG. They will NOT accept the return of the car---already guessed that.  In addition to the $1,050 payment, they offered a longer free basic maintenance including brakes, windshield wipers, oil changes, tire rotation and air filters. Since my dealership installed locking lug nuts that  were not tightened as per the specifications, they will not touch this car. If I get wrapped rotors, they'll blame me!  The dealer ship charges $70 for full synthetic oil, so NO to that--I'll change my own oil! They also offer a one payment refund if the car was financed for 5 years--car is paid for. Just not worth it as I have two other actions going.  This will be my last FoMoCo car purchased by my family. I purchased my first new car in 1969--a 1970 Lincoln MARK III, then ten more new FoMoCo vehicles. Screw me once, shame on you, screw me twice, shame on me!

[radparker]

So the window sticker on the 2014 Hybrid said 45 MPG, knock 16% off of that and you're at 37.8 MPG. That's still better than I'm getting on my 2014 2.0L ECO.

 

I already had concerns over hybrid resale value long before learning about this-- that's why we avoided buying the hybrid. In what way does this wreck the resale value? By how much, do you think? I already thought resale value on hybrid vehicles was an iffy proposition because you just don't know about the batteries after 5-6 years.

 

[Davisjl]

So the window sticker on the 2014 Hybrid said 45 MPG, knock 16% off of that and you're at 37.8 MPG. That's still better than I'm getting on my 2014 2.0L ECO.

 

I already had concerns over hybrid resale value long before learning about this-- that's why we avoided buying the hybrid. In what way does this wreck the resale value? By how much, do you think? I already thought resale value on hybrid vehicles was an iffy proposition because you just don't know about the batteries after 5-6 years.

The idea is that the batteries will be much cheaper in 5 to 6 years so the cost to replace won't be anywhere near what it is today... However, I agree, the batteries are what will kill the resale, not the EPA MPG sticker on the window. The car was already priced well below market value for a similar featured car and the MPG are not out of line with other real world numbers from other hybrids (keep in mind that according to consumer reports more than 55% of the Hybrids on the market get more than 10% below the sticker MPG listing in real world values). I don't think the resale will take any hit on the lowering of the MPG, IMO.

Edited July 3, 2014 by Davisjl

[Mark95man]

RE:"keep in mind that according to consumer reports more than 55% of the Hybrids on the market get more than 10% below the sticker MPG" 

 

WITH the MKZ Hybrid leading the pack at a 18% reduction in MPG. 45 EPA MPG corrected to 37 EPA MPG--that's a lot!

 

The Lincoln MKZ Hybrid's battery & other Hybrid parts are covered for 8 years and/or 100,000 miles.

Edited July 4, 2014 by Mark95man

[Davisjl]

RE:"keep in mind that according to consumer reports more than 55% of the Hybrids on the market get more than 10% below the sticker MPG" 

 

WITH the MKZ Hybrid leading the pack at a 18% reduction in MPG. 45 EPA MPG corrected to 37 EPA MPG--that's a lot!

 

The Lincoln MKZ Hybrid's battery & other Hybrid parts are covered for 8 years and/or 100,000 miles.

Out of the 37 hybrids listed by fuleeconomy.gov, only 11 have a better MPG than the 38 combined listed by the MKZ. Of those 11, only 4 or 5 are really in the same class.

 

For your reference, here are the 11 listed better:

Prius 50mpg

Accord 47mpg

Civic 45mpg

Jetta 45mpg

Fusion 42mpg

Insight 42mpg

Lexus CT 200h 42mpg

Camery 41mpg

Avalon 40mpg

C-Max 40mpg

Lexus ES 300h 40mpg

 

So, 45 mpg to 38 mpg may be a bit difference, in the scale of other hybrids... it's in line with what you'd expect to see. The price of the MKZ is already pretty discounted when you look at the feature set that is included compared to similar cars that offer that same level of features.

 

As for the battery warranty, I think it is a good one... however, what will happen is that at the 5 year mark most cars will be very close to that warranty limit on mileage and IF Battery prices have not dropped, then you run the risk of depreciated resale value... For me, I don't worry so much about it as I drive over 30,000 miles per year... so my car won't be worth crap in 5 years regardless of the battery warranty...

Edited July 7, 2014 by Davisjl

[Mark95man]

Out of the 37 hybrids listed by fuleeconomy.gov, only 11 have a better MPG than the 38 combined listed by the MKZ. Of those 11, only 4 or 5 are really in the same class.

 

For your reference, here are the 11 listed better:

Prius 50mpg

Accord 47mpg

Civic 45mpg

Jetta 45mpg

Fusion 42mpg

Insight 42mpg

Lexus CT 200h 42mpg

Camery 41mpg

Avalon 40mpg

C-Max 40mpg

Lexus ES 300h 40mpg

 

So, 45 mpg to 38 mpg may be a bit difference, in the scale of other hybrids... it's in line with what you'd expect to see. The price of the MKZ is already pretty discounted when you look at the feature set that is included compared to similar cars that offer that same level of features.

 

As for the battery warranty, I think it is a good one... however, what will happen is that at the 5 year mark most cars will be very close to that warranty limit on mileage and IF Battery prices have not dropped, then you run the risk of depreciated resale value... For me, I don't worry so much about it as I drive over 30,000 miles per year... so my car won't be worth crap in 5 years regardless of the battery warranty...

The bottom line with my issue is, I believe The Lincoln Motor Company had full knowledge of the 2013 MKZ Hybrid 18% less than the EPA 45 MPG class action lawsuit and the settlement. They still posted the invalid 45 EPA MPG while they were working on the process of notification to customers. Posted EPA MPG is a main issue for purchasers of Hybrid vehicles.

 

I was a loyal customer but this purchase has poisoned the ink well. I just hope some of the actions I started are successful. If we had the knowledge that Lincoln had, when we purchased this car in late April 2014, the purchase wouldn't have been completed. We now own a "Not As Described" product and will keep this issue going.

[Davisjl]

Again, my suggestion would be to check the real world numbers prior to buying your next car. Over half of the Hybrids are MORE than 10% lower than the posted EPA number. It's not a "Ford/Lincoln" only thing... it's across the board. Maybe your next purchase won't leave as bad a taste in your mouth.

 

Having said that... here is a typical tank of gas for me. It's slightly lower than normal as I was in the mountains this weekend, but for the most part I get between 40 and 42 mpg on a regular basis. 300 miles were on the way up and back from the NC mountains with speed limits between 55 and 70. I normally drive about 8 miles over the speed limit. While in NC, most speed limits were 45 mph with lots of red lights, but lots of hills too.

 

 

One thing to check... in your driver settings of the car, make sure it's in Normal mode and not sport mode. I did a tank of gas in sport mode and only got 30-32 mpg. Makes a pretty big difference.

Edited July 21, 2014 by Davisjl

[Mark95man]

Again, my suggestion would be to check the real world numbers prior to buying your next car. Over half of the Hybrids are MORE than 10% lower than the posted EPA number. It's not a "Ford/Lincoln" only thing... it's across the board. Maybe your next purchase won't leave as bad a taste in your mouth.

 

Having said that... here is a typical tank of gas for me. It's slightly lower than normal as I was in the mountains this weekend, but for the most part I get between 40 and 42 mpg on a regular basis. 300 miles were on the way up and back from the NC mountains with speed limits between 55 and 70. I normally drive about 8 miles over the speed limit. While in NC, most speed limits were 45 mph with lots of red lights, but lots of hills too.

 

 

One thing to check... in your driver settings of the car, make sure it's in Normal mode and not sport mode. I did a tank of gas in sport mode and only got 30-32 mpg. Makes a pretty big difference.

 

Thanks again and again for your advice to check MPG before purchase. I believe most people do not understand that Lincoln misrepresented the EPA 45 MPG on the "Not As Described" 2014 MKZ Hybrid. Lincoln had full knowledge of the class action lawsuit on this issue for the 2013 MKZH. Gee, what do you think was the resolution on that lawsuit? Hint, $1,050 and a relabeling of the EPA MPG.

 

Great photo of the misinformation display. To obtain the real MPG, you track the actual miles you traveled, fill the car up with gasoline and divide the miles traveled by the amount of fuel added. In this real world, your real MPG will be lower than the factory display that doesn't track many factors.

Edited July 22, 2014 by Mark95man

[Davisjl]

Thanks again and again for your advice to check MPG before purchase. I believe most people do not understand that Lincoln misrepresented the EPA 45 MPG on the "Not As Described" 2014 MKZ Hybrid. Lincoln had full knowledge of the class action lawsuit on this issue for the 2013 MKZH. Gee, what do you think was the resolution on that lawsuit? Hint, $1,050 and a relabeling of the EPA MPG.

 

Great photo of the misinformation display. To obtain the real MPG, you track the actual miles you traveled, fill the car up with gasoline and divide the miles traveled by the amount of fuel added. In this real world, your real MPG will be lower than the factory display that doesn't track many factors.

Actually, I used to do the math at fill ups and found most of the time that the display is within a .1 or .2 of the actual gallons used... I think the furthest it was off was .5 (which was a one time outlier), so I stopped worrying about it considering that when you fill up it depends on the pump and when it auto shuts off will be different every time. So even using the "actual" methodology you described has it's own fluctuation of error involved and does not calculate the EXACT mileage. Of course over a large data set, it should even out and the % error come down, but I don't care to track every tank of gas in a book to find the average for the life of the car...

 

Depending on how Ford programed the Onboard Computer, it should be MUCH more accurate than your method of calculation. They should be able to know exactly how much gas is sprayed each Revolution of the engine and then calculate a very accurate amount of gas used. I have no idea if they do that, hence why I do the math for the first few 1,000 miles to see how far off they are from each other. My guess is most of the error is in the "Pump" method and not the computer method. YMMV.

 

BTW, I believe most people understand that the posted MPG on the sticker is a misrepresentation of what the actual MPG will be and disregard it completely. Ford's penalty of having any incorrect EPA calculated number is a $ 1,050 hit on every car they sold with the wrong numbers. For me, I feel that is a fair penalty for them and a fair compensation for me. Obviously you don't feel the same way... which is your choice; however, I think you'll find you are in the very small minority on that issue. Regardless, you have every right to try and get what you think is a fair resolution and to never buy another Ford again. That is what is great about choice, you can move your business elsewhere if you don't like the way Ford treated you. I wish you the best of luck in the future, and if you need any information I'd be happy the help you with any knowledge I may have.

Edited July 22, 2014 by Davisjl

[Mark95man]

Actually, I used to do the math at fill ups and found most of the time that the display is within a .1 or .2 of the actual gallons used... I think the furthest it was off was .5 (which was a one time outlier), so I stopped worrying about it considering that when you fill up it depends on the pump and when it auto shuts off will be different every time. So even using the "actual" methodology you described has it's own fluctuation of error involved and does not calculate the EXACT mileage. Of course over a large data set, it should even out and the % error come down, but I don't care to track every tank of gas in a book to find the average for the life of the car...

 

Depending on how Ford programed the Onboard Computer, it should be MUCH more accurate than your method of calculation. They should be able to know exactly how much gas is sprayed each Revolution of the engine and then calculate a very accurate amount of gas used. I have no idea if they do that, hence why I do the math for the first few 1,000 miles to see how far off they are from each other. My guess is most of the error is in the "Pump" method and not the computer method. YMMV.

 

BTW, I believe most people understand that the posted MPG on the sticker is a misrepresentation of what the actual MPG will be and disregard it completely. Ford's penalty of having any incorrect EPA calculated number is a $ 1,050 hit on every car they sold with the wrong numbers. For me, I feel that is a fair penalty for them and a fair compensation for me. Obviously you don't feel the same way... which is your choice; however, I think you'll find you are in the very small minority on that issue. Regardless, you have every right to try and get what you think is a fair resolution and to never buy another Ford again. That is what is great about choice, you can move your business elsewhere if you don't like the way Ford treated you. I wish you the best of luck in the future, and if you need any information I'd be happy the help you with any knowledge I may have.

 

 

To repeat myself, I fully understand that the posted MPG on the sticker can vary. AGAIN, my issue was on the DATE that we purchased this 2014 MKZ Hybrid, Lincoln had full knowledge of its misrepresentation of the EPA MPG. As most people realize, a Hybrid is a horse of a different color. The number one reason why people purchase a hybrid is their high EPA MPG rating. From our other 10+ new Lincoln, Mercury and Ford vehicles that had the EPA MPG sticker, we NEVER got less. So was I to think FoMoCo was misrepresenting that figure to an 18% extent? All depends on how the car was EPA MPG tested and personal driving habits. I find it's great P.R. for people here on this Website to claim high MPG while driving above 75 MPH. However, this is the real world and customers were sold a misrepresented vehicle. No one can argue that point.

 

If OTHER owners of the 2013/14 MKZH weren't so #@%$^% glad on getting $1,050, they would be thrilled on a better outcome. Lincoln did time consuming research to reach a monetary figure that "most" owners would accept. Just remember you were given no say so on that resolution on a "Not As Described", misrepresented vehicle.

[Mark95man]

I still don't understand why MKZH owners on this forum are delighted about the $1,050 refund by Lincoln on the MKZH 18% reduced EPA MPG.

 

Let's change the example to this---you find an $3000 item on eBay and ask questions about it. The seller responds and answers all of your questions. You purchase the item and three weeks after delivery you discover the item is "Not As Described" and misrepresented. The seller refuses to take the item back or exchange it. The seller, on their own, decides to issue you a $75 refund. Would you be satisfied with that? If not, what course of action would you take?

[Davisjl]

SMH....

 

 

Why? Because a large majority of them KNEW the real world MPG value PRIOR to buying the car. You see, as you say a Hybrid is a horse of a different color and most buyers understand that the EPA MPG is not the real number, so they look at real world numbers to make their decisions.

 

So, they took that knowledge and looked at the feature set of the car and compared it to other cars with their real world MPG numbers. They then looked at the price and found that #1, the car was well UNDERPRICED for the feature set AND #2 there was no premium to buy a Hybrid over the standard fuel engine.

 

Add all this up and you have the chance to by a car that gets VERY good MPG compared to others in it's class, along with a feature set that is well above MOST if not all in it's class and at a price that is well BELOW what other cars cost in it's class...

 

Now, add a $ 1,050.00 pay out and you have a car that is one of the best purchases of their life... YMMV.

 

To use your example:

 

You want to purchase a New Sony PlayStation on Ebay and Sony advertise that games will cost $ 41 to purchase for it. You do some research and find that the games actually cost $ 50. Looking around you see that Xbox games and Nintendo games cost $ 50 also, but their system are much more expensive to purchase than the PlayStation. You send a message to the Ebay seller who assures you the cost if $ 41 for the games. You go ahead and purchase the PlayStation knowing that the games will cost you $ 50 dollars, but because the price of the Playstation is so much cheaper than the Xbox and Nintendo it makes it the best deal even at the $ 50 dollar game price.

 

Weeks or Months after you receive the playstation, Sony changes their advertising to reflect the real world $ 50 price of games and sends you a check for $ 135.00 (3 games per year for 5 years * $ 9 each game) saying we were wrong and mislead you on the cost of the games. Please accept this good will payment and we hope you purchase from us again.

 

You smile as you play grand theft auto on your new playstation that you love and think of all the things you can now buy with that additional $ 135.00.

 

As a point clearification, the change in MPG is 15.5% not 18%.

 

;)

Edited July 24, 2014 by Davisjl

[Mark95man]

SMH....

 

 

Why? Because a large majority of them KNEW the real world MPG value PRIOR to buying the car. You see, as you say a Hybrid is a horse of a different color and most buyers understand that the EPA MPG is not the real number, so they look at real world numbers to make their decisions.

 

So, they took that knowledge and looked at the feature set of the car and compared it to other cars with their real world MPG numbers. They then looked at the price and found that #1, the car was well UNDERPRICED for the feature set AND #2 there was no premium to buy a Hybrid over the standard fuel engine.

 

Add all this up and you have the chance to by a car that gets VERY good MPG compared to others in it's class, along with a feature set that is well above MOST if not all in it's class and at a price that is well BELOW what other cars cost in it's class...

 

Now, add a $ 1,050.00 pay out and you have a car that is one of the best purchases of their life... YMMV.

 

To use your example:

 

You want to purchase a New Sony PlayStation on Ebay and Sony advertise that games will cost $ 41 to purchase for it. You do some research and find that the games actually cost $ 50. Looking around you see that Xbox games and Nintendo games cost $ 50 also, but their system are much more expensive to purchase than the PlayStation. You send a message to the Ebay seller who assures you the cost if $ 41 for the games. You go ahead and purchase the PlayStation knowing that the games will cost you $ 50 dollars, but because the price of the Playstation is so much cheaper than the Xbox and Nintendo it makes it the best deal even at the $ 50 dollar game price.

 

Weeks or Months after you receive the playstation, Sony changes their advertising to reflect the real world $ 50 price of games and sends you a check for $ 135.00 (3 games per year for 5 years * $ 9 each game) saying we were wrong and mislead you on the cost of the games. Please accept this good will payment and we hope you purchase from us again.

 

You smile as you play grand theft auto on your new playstation that you love and think of all the things you can now buy with that additional $ 135.00.

 

;)

 

I love it as you always miss the point that WE ALWAYS obtained more EPA MPG on our cars. You're just too busy defending Lincoln's "mistake" and/or "error" or attempting to place the blame on me.  Wasn't it Lincoln that issued that 18% reduction in EPA MPG announcement?  I gave an example of purchasing a $3,000 item on eBay with the Seller issuing a $75 refund but you failed to address THAT example. WHAT would YOU due in my example? Then you could have asked a question on what I would have done.

Edited July 24, 2014 by Mark95man

[Davisjl]

You can't answer your question as it is asked... as there are too many variables that you leave out as in what was misrepresented.  Did you buy a Toaster and get a Microwave? 

 

Now, to take your example and make it more in line with the issue at hand with the MPG re-rating by Ford...

 

I want to buy a $ 3,000 Sony TV on Ebay that is listed to cost you $ 8.00 per month to run on average (it's even printed right there on the box!!!).  I do some research and see that the actual usage is going to be more like $ 9.25 per month (a 16% increase in cost of usage).  I then look around and see every other TV in the same class is right about at the $ 9.25 per month usage cost in the real world.  The TV I am looking at has more features than any of the other TV's AND it's  cheaper than any of the other cars with similar feature sets.  So I buy the TV... when I get the TV I find out that it truly does cost $ 9.25 per month to use it.  However, it truly is an amazing TV in the way it looks and the features it has.  A few weeks later, Sony repackages the TV and changes the energy rating to the real world $ 9.25 per month.   I'm a bit frustrated, but I am very happy with the TV and it was much cheaper than all the other TV's on the market.  Then, out of the blue Sony sends me a check for $ 75.00 ($ 1.25 per month * 60 months) saying they made a mistake on the energy rating and are refunding me the difference in energy cost for a 5 year period.  ...I then say, let's have steak for dinner tonight...

 

Does that answer your question... ????

 

I'm not defending their mistake... I agree they screwed up.  I am defending what they did to compensate me for their mistake.  I feel it was a very fair compensation.

 

BTW, it's 15.5% difference in MPG not 18%.  I think you original had it correct at 16% earlier in the tread, but have morphed it into 18% somewhere along the way.

 

As for what you would have done, I really don't care because it doesn't have anything to do with me and I've already said you have the right to be upset and feel what ever way you want to feel about it. You asked why everyone else doesn't feel like you... my post was an answer to your question. 

 

I took the time to research the properties of the car that meant the most to my purchasing the car and not trusting what a salesman told me or what was printed on the sticker (BTW, I didn't pay that Sticker Price Either).  It is a great car and regardless of what MPG it gets, it's value is much greater than the price I paid... Heck, there was not even a premium for the Hybrid... so there are people driving my car and paid the same price I did that only get's mid 20's at best...  So, to me the $ 1,050 is just a bonus.

 

As I've stated before to you... if you'd like, I'd be happy to help you research your next car so you don't get burned again.  Just shoot me a message and give me the details of what is important to you.  I promise I won't use any data off the sticker ;)

Edited July 24, 2014 by Davisjl

[Mark95man]

You can't answer your question as it is asked... as there are too many variables that you leave out as in what was misrepresented.  Did you buy a Toaster and get a Microwave? 

 

Now, to take your example and make it more in line with the issue at hand with the MPG re-rating by Ford...

 

I want to buy a $ 3,000 Sony TV on Ebay that is listed to cost you $ 8.00 per month to run on average (it's even printed right there on the box!!!).  I do some research and see that the actual usage is going to be more like $ 9.25 per month (a 16% increase in cost of usage).  I then look around and see every other TV in the same class is right about at the $ 9.25 per month usage cost in the real world.  The TV I am looking at has more features than any of the other TV's AND it's  cheaper than any of the other cars with similar feature sets.  So I buy the TV... when I get the TV I find out that it truly does cost $ 9.25 per month to use it.  However, it truly is an amazing TV in the way it looks and the features it has.  A few weeks later, Sony repackages the TV and changes the energy rating to the real world $ 9.25 per month.   I'm a bit frustrated, but I am very happy with the TV and it was much cheaper than all the other TV's on the market.  Then, out of the blue Sony sends me a check for $ 75.00 ($ 1.25 per month * 60 months) saying they made a mistake on the energy rating and are refunding me the difference in energy cost for a 5 year period.  ...I then say, let's have steak for dinner tonight...

 

Does that answer your question... ????

 

I'm not defending their mistake... I agree they screwed up.  I am defending what they did to compensate me for their mistake.  I feel it was a very fair compensation.

 

BTW, it's 15.5% difference in MPG not 18%.  I think you original had it correct at 16% earlier in the tread, but have morphed it into 18% somewhere along the way.

 

As for what you would have done, I really don't care because it doesn't have anything to do with me and I've already said you have the right to be upset and feel what ever way you want to feel about it. You asked why everyone else doesn't feel like you... my post was an answer to your question. 

 

I took the time to research the properties of the car that meant the most to my purchasing the car and not trusting what a salesman told me or what was printed on the sticker (BTW, I didn't pay that Sticker Price Either).  It is a great car and regardless of what MPG it gets, it's value is much greater than the price I paid... Heck, there was not even a premium for the Hybrid... so there are people driving my car that only get's mid 20's at best...  The $ 1,050 is just a bonus.

 

As I've stated before to you... if you'd like, I'd be happy to help you research your next car so you don't get burned again.  Just shoot me a message and give me the details of what is important to you.  I promise I won't use any data off the sticker ;)

 

Have fun as you just didn't answer my question as posted. I've wasted enough time as you're just screwing around and not giving a direct answer. Enjoy your $1,050 as there's more being paid out. You sold yourself cheaply.