States Object To Honda's Solution For Owners That Sued About Poor Hybrid Mileage - A DVD On How To Drive!

BAHAHAHHAA

Honda’s new business model “over promise under deliver”, and we’ll send you this free DVD!

Motor Trend approved! ;)

001

The DVD most likely applies to ALL vehicles.

Does ANYONE on this list believe a car will deliver the "EPA Estimated Fuel Economy" numbers under your specific driving conditions? If Honda falsified those numbers, then sure, they deserve some jabs. But if they are adhering to agency requirements, and coming up with overly-optimistic numbers, then that signals short-comings in how the EPA specifies those numbers should be derived.

BTW, I seem to recall posted disclaimers in car showrooms telling consumers that EPA estimates are for "comparison purposes only", and that actual mileage attained will vary. RTFM.

I always thought EPA numbers were conservative. The European ones are the ones that need questioning.

Are you Smoking ?

European Mileage Figures are a lot more Realistic than what is Claimed in the USA.

European numbers are typically 30% higher.

I have never seen a car that's off by 18 MPG before. With a the electronic control of the Hybrids it makes one wonder if was programmed for the EPA test and not real world driving.

EPA numbers are realistic/conservative. this is because they revised the procedures, after being criticized for their previous figures being too optimistic.

i EASILY better the figure given for my car.

the 2010 prius had gotten 70 mpg, 20 better than EPA, by a bunch of journos coached by a toyota exec.

yup.

main complainant in the story is a JAZZ PIANIST. sure, they tend to be expert drivers! LOL! i know one myself, and he's one of the WORST drivers i know.

Wait, how on earth are you stereotyping driving skills with job description? Also, some of the worst drivers I know are the most fuel efficient, since they are also the most timid.

"...the most fuel efficient, since they are also the most timid."

and THIS is not stereotyping!??

seems you are HIGHLY PROFICIENT at that! (stereotyping) you criticized my way of driving, knowing NOTHING of how i actually drive, only ASSUMING from a few words that i fit a STEREOTYPE of drivers you don't like.

I criticized your driving knowing what you told me, varying speeds is a douche maneuver, and you still are too stupid to realize why. And here you are criticizing all "Jazz Pianists" of being bad drivers because you know one! At least in my sweeping generalization I had a reason behind it.

joe lemon:

"I criticized your driving knowing what you told me..."


except you did NOT understand what i was saying, you nincompoop. you READ INTO a FEW words i said, and embroidered totally different scenarios out of your warped memories. you also completely missed what i said, that "i am not a slow driver."


"varying speeds is a douche maneuver..."

well that depends, dufus. and i bet YOUR derivatives of velocity are far more variable than mine. and even the second derivative.


"...and you still are too stupid to realize why."

you are too stupid to realize that it is entirely possible for a vehicle to ACCELERATE IN NEUTRAL. THAT is the reason i make that shift on cresting hills.

now get your so-called brain in gear and figure that one out!

LOL ok ok... piece by piece.

"except you did NOT understand what i was saying, you nincompoop. you READ INTO a FEW words i said, and embroidered totally different scenarios out of your warped memories. you also completely missed what i said, that "i am not a slow driver.""

Never once did I call you a slow driver, I called you a varying speed driver which you are.

"well that depends, dufus. and i bet YOUR derivatives of velocity are far more variable than mine. and even the second derivative."

Ahh getting technical eh? No my accelerations are far less variable then yours, I don't accelerate down hills and I don't slow down up hills. I usually keep her in cruise control meaning that my accelerations are close to zero, and my second derivatives... i.e. changes in acceleration are also close to zero. When going down a hill I respect the speed limit so even if my car does speed up down a hill I gently apply the brakes to keep that nice even continuous speed that everyone around me can predict...

"you are too stupid to realize that it is entirely possible for a vehicle to ACCELERATE IN NEUTRAL. THAT is the reason i make that shift on cresting hills."

Stop making stuff up, I never once said that cars don't accelerate in neutral, I know fully well that if you are in neutral on a flat level highway you will slow down, and that if the incline is steep enough you will speed up, in either case pissing off the people behind you for slowing down, or passing people in front of you only to slow down again.

Does it hurt when you think? Or is there a reason why you can't figure out that constantly changing your speed will piss people off.

hmm come to think of it, I would be willing to wager that you probably don't come to full stops at stop signs either, since that would be a waste of forward momentum. So you blaze forward without fully taking in your surroundings and thus potentially putting everyone including yourself at risk. Sure, it's a very very minor risk, but it is still there none the less, and that risk is the reason why laws were passed that makes that maneuver illegal. I am willing to admit to being laughed at for coming to full stops in the middle of nowhere. But hey, it's not like I will miss the extra penny worth of fuel or the extra couple seconds of my time.

LOL! ok, i get it now. you are one of those anal drivers who believe in following the letter of the law instead of the INTENT. ok, fine.

but do NOT FEEL superior to me, who can rise ABOVE that because i use my brain, and not make myself a SLAVE to bureaucrats. i 'spose that's why you hate what i do, because unlike you, i'm SMART ENUFF to tweak the rules and not only get away with it, but travel FASTER, SAFER, and STILL burn less fuel at the same time.

i had a friend who's a traffic engineer, with two master's. i also have a friend whose dad was a state highway commissioner. knowing full well WHY there are 85%-tile rules, and being a 95-plus percentile driver, with a 99%-tile IQ i CAN not merely tweak rules. i SURPASS the average joe in optimizing them for MAXIMUM efficiency. all the while ALSO optimizing the INTENT of laws for safe driving.

"hmm come to think of it, I would be willing to wager that you probably don't come to full stops at stop signs either, since that would be a waste of forward momentum."

yea, give the man a cigar! he's not a TOTAL idiot after all!. but before you celebrate your small power of deduction...


"So you blaze forward without fully taking in your surroundings and thus potentially putting everyone including yourself at risk. Sure, it's a very very minor risk, but it is still there none the less, and that risk is the reason why laws were passed that makes that maneuver illegal."


deduction...KICK YORSELF in the ass a few times first, for yet again making ASSinine ASSUMPTIONS!

i DO NOT "blaze forward" without checking both ways, usually several hundred feet before i even GET to the intersection. i ride a bike in the summer. you think i EVER blaze thru without checking traffic???

and, in low traction situations, this is ACTUALLY SAFER than making full stops, as it is far easier re-accelerating and CLEARING the intersection. so NO ONE is at risk. my time IN the intersection is minimized. (of course, when traffic requires, i DO make full stops. again, you ASSUME i always do what i merely do SOMETIMES.)


"I am willing to admit to being laughed at for coming to full stops in the middle of nowhere."

so YOU probably PISS OFF FAR MORE people than i ever do, choirboy! POKING ALONG AND making FULL STOPS when it's more sensible to treat the sign as a "Yeild" sign. latest thot in traffic engineering is allowing bicyclists to treat Stops as Yeilds. it is so much smarter.

i NEVER am in the way of anyone who wants to go faster than i. if it's safe to pass (legal or not) i LET them pass. often even HELP them pass.

and that's another of your ASSumptions, derived from your FAULTY constructs of how i handle traffic.

and you are WRONG about having slower accelerations and decelerations and rates of change than i do.

i actually do both quite GENTLY. you're an idiot again, if you think my accelerations downhill in N are "blazing!"

part of my fuel efficient technique is always accelerating GENTLY. it's just that i do not STOP accelerating untili reach my planned cruising speed. ;)

hehe... point by point again.

"LOL! ok, i get it now. you are one of those anal drivers who believe in following the letter of the law instead of the INTENT. ok, fine.

but do NOT FEEL superior to me, who can rise ABOVE that because i use my brain, and not make myself a SLAVE to bureaucrats. i 'spose that's why you hate what i do, because unlike you, i'm SMART ENUFF to tweak the rules and not only get away with it, but travel FASTER, SAFER, and STILL burn less fuel at the same time.

i had a friend who's a traffic engineer, with two master's. i also have a friend whose dad was a state highway commissioner. knowing full well WHY there are 85%-tile rules, and being a 95-plus percentile driver, with a 99%-tile IQ i CAN not merely tweak rules. i SURPASS the average joe in optimizing them for MAXIMUM efficiency. all the while ALSO optimizing the INTENT of laws for safe driving."

First of all, 99% IQ, so what? You hit 135? Haha, or wait you never specified if you were in the bottom or top 1%. since you spelled enough "ENUFF", thought it was witty to write "ASSumption" and "ASSinine" all the while realizing that full stops are there so you can make a better judgement call vs slamming on the gas to get out of trouble... I'll assume it's closer to 65. Why am I wasting my time on you? If you want to talk IQ scores I have 141, but you know what? I also am smart enough to realize that IQ scores mean nothing, some of the "smartest" people in the world according to IQ scores are also the most socially retarded. This social retardation ends up meaning that often times people with really high IQ's are alienated and rarely make 6 figures.

Now back to my "ASSumptions" lol.

"i DO make full stops. again, you ASSUME i always do what i merely do SOMETIMES"

First of all, lol at capitalizing DO and missing the capitalization three "i"'s in that sentence. Where on earth did I state that you always do that? That isn't my assumption, that is your assumption of me, which is the one that is horribly off.

"you think i EVER blaze thru without checking traffic???"

No I believe you check traffic, but given the fact you usually don't come to a full stop, I don't believe you are fully aware of your surroundings 100% of the time. Before you go off making rash "ASSumptions" again, that doesn't mean I believe you aren't fully aware of your surroundings 100% of the time... nay the trick is in comprehending my words which you seem to have so much difficulty with. It means that a small fraction of the time, you don't have a full understanding of the intersection before you enter it.

"so YOU probably PISS OFF FAR MORE people than i ever do, choirboy! "

Haha, sure full stops piss people off more than accelerating in front of someone and coasting to a slower speed. I can see how your 1% IQ is really paying off in the comparison department.

"i NEVER am in the way of anyone who wants to go faster than i. if it's safe to pass (legal or not) i LET t

hmm got cut off.

"i NEVER am in the way of anyone who wants to go faster than i. if it's safe to pass (legal or not) i LET them pass. often even HELP them pass."

Ok, lets do a hypothetical situation. Lets say you are behind someone, both of you are doing 70mph. There is a hill ahead where you know you can get up to 85mph by coasting. If you stay behind this guy you know you won't be able to make up any speed. So if you go to pass him. You make a gentle acceleration, since it's gentle, the bottom of the hill you are only 100ft ahead of him. Now comes the uphill part, you let the hill slow down all that excess speed. He quickly catches up to you. Now think for a moment please, what would this driver think? 90% of the time I'm guessing it will be closer to "This fucktard just passed me, wtf is he doing 65mph for?". Now since you say you pull over to allow people to pass, you start riding the curb at 65mph, so the guy passes again. Now the next hill comes, are you going to pull the same maneuver again? The more times you do this, the more you piss people off. You only slow them down and make them waste fuel when they have to step on the gas to pass you (especially if it's while going up that hill that is slowing you down).

"i actually do both quite GENTLY. you're an idiot again, if you think my accelerations downhill in N are "blazing!""

Another one of your faulty "ASSumptions" lol. I am fully aware of the concepts behind hypermiling, and have never stated you make abrupt accelerations. I was merely objecting to when you stated my accelerations and changes in acceleration were greater then yours. Mine are less simply because unlike you I try to keep my acceleration at zero.

Please, for the sake of your ego, never again bring up IQ. It makes you seem childish, and in an argument is almost as bad as saying "oh yeah! well my penis is 8" long!"

"I was merely objecting to when you stated my accelerations and changes in acceleration were greater then yours. Mine are less simply because unlike you I try to keep my acceleration at zero."

this is yet another of your ASSumptions. you only THINK your accelerations are less. it may well be on the open road. but it is most UNLIKELY they are less in city/urban driving. if you make full stops while i make sushi stops whenever i can, then you ARE making more acceleration/deceleration cycles than i am.

in any case, what is so great about minimizing them? if i adopted YOUR questionable debate tactics, i could say your style of driving would result in CRASHES at EVERY INTERSECTION.

there is a NECESSITY of changing changing velocities in continually VARIABLE traffic conditions.

I am a Honda fan and all, but I hope the people sue them! This applies to all vehicles, name one car that gets better than claimed numbers! Don't say the Prius, I have talked to a few cab drivers and they are averaging 6L/100km, that isn't what they advertised.
I would like to see all vehicles actual mileage advertised, and they should be sued if it is wrong.

You have a good point Invisible, maybe they should be the ones being sued, can we all try and imagine if just one company tried to tell the truth? They could be the most efficient company around and be advertising the truth and hypothetically the most in-efficient company would advertise some un attainable numbers and the least efficient company would be deemed as the most efficient. So I take back the sue Honda, SUE the EPA!

agreed. honda shoulda countersued for bringing up a FRIVOLOUS suit based on the complainants being too retarded to understand how to drive with reasonable efficiency.

Frankly, your mileage will vary with how you drive. Mine does considerably, by up to 35%. It always irritated me when I heard friends complaining about the price of gas, then watched them pulling away from lights quickly, followed by slamming on the brakes at the next red light. I think some driver training is in order: the standards required to get a license are pretty low. Like racers always say, the money best spent on performance parts is on the nut behind the wheel.

The fact is that a lot of people can drive efficiently, I can but If I drove around hyper milling I would be late for everything, And I would piss a lot of people off. I drive relatively efficiently, I average 7.4L/100km summer and 7.9ishL/100km winter 60%hwy 40 city, I have never gotten the 5.7L/100km hwy, the best was 6.2L, If you are getting the advertised numbers you are pissing a lot of people off to save a buck a tank, have you hyper millers ever heard of road rage? In Canada if you kill someone you get two years and a day in club fed, drugs, boys... sick, then your killer would be let out until they meet the next hyper miller.

truckman, i employ only SOME hypermiling techniques, not all. esp. if traffic is dense to heavy. and i am NEVER late unless i just start off late and try to do the impossible.

the ONLY people likely to get pissed off behind me, are those who tend to rush up to red lights. on 4 lane roads i generally LET THEM pass while i slowly slow down either in N or in D (which burns even less gas).

THEN 8 times out of 10, i BLOW OFF THEIR DOORS at all of 5 or 10 mph, as i tend to TIME my approach to reach the lights just when they change! (joe lemon-- this is EVEN BETTER than rolling stop signs: it is LEGAL! of course, i also check cross traffic to ensure no one's gonna run their red. and this is another way i actually minimize 2d and 3d speed derivatives, with less stop and go.)

yeah, some (not all) may get pissed off at being SHOWN UP and MADE FOOLS OF when i do this. but SOME may also learn something, and not to so ANXIOUS to rush up to red lites all the time.

...not BE so anxious

lol, who doesn't use the 15 pedestrian warning flashes or looking for perpendicular yellows to time lights. I am still laughing at you for attempting to sound smart by referring to acceleration as the derivative of velocity, and changing acceleration as the second derivative, why don't you try to appear ever smarter and refer to them as the second and third derivatives of position with respect to time? AHAHA. Did you actually take a first year physics course or did you have to read a text book on how to hypermile? XD

"... why don't you try to appear ever smarter and refer to them as the second and third derivatives of position with respect to time?"


because, sub, sub, SUB-genius, "velocity" is so much more concise than "position with respect to time".

xyzz, I drive like that too, all the best

thanks, trucky!

maybe you can help me educate the lemon man that this mode of driving is not only EFFICIENT, but does NOT piss off anyone except jerks who enjoy rushing up to reds and just sitting there.

then again, may he's NO LONGER educable, so full of himself and his relatively piddly 141 IQ. i don't think he even qualifies for MENSA.

maybe he's...

joe lemon:

"Ok, lets do a hypothetical situation. Lets say you are behind someone, both of you are doing 70mph. There is a hill ahead where you know you can get up to 85mph by coasting. If you stay behind this guy you know you won't be able to make up any speed. So if you go to pass him. You make a gentle acceleration, since it's gentle, the bottom of the hill you are only 100ft ahead of him. Now comes the uphill part, you let the hill slow down all that excess speed. He quickly catches up to you."

ok, let's hypothetically assume you are NOT as dumb as your statements indicate. as you prefer, step by step:

"So if you go to pass him. You make a gentle acceleration, since it's gentle, the bottom of the hill you are only 100ft ahead of him. Now comes the uphill part, you let the hill slow down all that excess speed."

by gentle accelerations, i mean i almost never DOWNSHIFT to accelerate. that does not preclude moderate acceleration in overdrive, which is how i ALWAYS build up speed beyond 50 mph. it also does not preclude my continuing to accelerate until i am 1/4 to 1/2 mile ahead of whomever i pass. and i also PLAN far enuff ahead so i often DO have ~1/2 mile bet'n me and whomever i pass.

and, i almost NEVER decelerate going uphill, dufus! i MAY allow some speed to bleed off IF i deem it necessary for having the OPTIMUM speed AT the crest and/or on the downhill side. and, IF the speed doesn't come down to where a downshift is required. THAT is the main point of the initial acceleration-- NOT HAVING to downshift.

the OTHER driver by contrast, WILL lose speed going uphill, as chances are he does not have my hill climbing strategy.

further, i always gage ahead of time, WHAT HIS speed will likely be going uphill. if he's cruising along at 70, chances are i won't even NEED to pass him, as long as he doesn't slow down. and i'd just pass him at 85 on the DOWNHILL side.

as a matter of fact, my preference is ALWAYS to pass mainly on downhills, except when vehicle(s) ahead before the hill, are going TOO SLOW for me not to avoid a downshift, if i don't get around them. in which case THEY will lose EVEN MORE speed going up the hill.


"Now think for a moment please, what would this driver think? 90% of the time I'm guessing..."


and guessing WRONG as usual. because you concocted a scenario that is TOTALLY CONTRARY to how i attack hills.

"Now since you say you pull over to allow people to pass, you start riding the curb at 65mph, so the guy passes again. Now the next hill comes, are you going to pull the same maneuver again? The more times you do this, the more you piss people off."

the more hills i climb, the FURTHER BEHIND most ALL other traffic gets. the last time i even indulged in this "pass" "repass" 'game' on a hilly highway, the other guy backed off and fell away when he could no longer keep up with my 'lowly 4-banger toyota truck' with his v8 jeep suv when i began taking curves at 85 mph. and he neve

he never even tried to pass me anymore, altho' he did PACE me as i VARIED (yes) my speeds between 75-80-85 and up to 95.

so mayhe he LEARNED a little about high speed hypermiling from me!