Filed under: MPG, HUMMER, AutoblogGreen Exclusive
Caught! Hummer using old MPG rating in TV ads
I saw this ad last night on the cable station TBS. I was watching a remake of the Time Machine (BTW, it's not a great movie). Anyway, I see this ad for the 2007 Hummer H3. The first thing in the ad? Text that says "Get 20 MPG highway." Que the spit take! Wow, I knew the H3 was smaller than the regular Hummer but 20 MPG? That's not bad at all. I had to check it out anyway because, I mean, it's Hummer!
So, I went to fueleconomy.gov. The small text in the ad said EPA estimate so where else would I go? I did not find a 20 MPG rating. Maybe the automatic... nope. Maybe there was another Hummer this year... no. Oh, I know. They are using THE OLD MPG RATING. Here is a side by side comparison. And I was about to call the FTC. They are just using the higher highway MPG rating (not the combined or disclosing the city rating) and an out of date rating system. That's not misleading at all.
Related:
[Source: TBS, EPA]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
why not the LS2LS7? 1:29PM (8/25/2007)
It's an ad for the 2007 Hummer H3. Using the 2007 ratings system is appropriate.
If this were for a 2008, it'd be different.
Reply
Lascelles 1:42PM (8/25/2007)
Why not the LS2/LS7?, 2008 cars are already on sale. I think it's a stretch calling it the 2007 rating system. You could argue either way but I personally don't like the fact websites and stickers won't match up with the ads.
"Until June 1, 2007, EPA ratings earned under the old system can be displayed, too, but only in fine print that is not bold."
http://www.edmunds.com/advice/specialreports/articles/118986/article.html
Reply
Alex Nunez 3:44PM (8/25/2007)
Lacelles, I think you're making a big deal where there's nothing extraordinary happening. LS2/LS7 is right, using the '07 EPA numbers for spots that are intended to clear out '07 HUMMER inventory is totally on the level.
When you see ads advertising the '08 models, you'll get the new numbers. You speak of websites, but neglect to mention that HUMMER.com doesn't even have the '08 models available on the "build a HUMMER" utility yet.
If anything, the '08's are JUST now starting to trickle out. GM isn't trying to deceive anybody here.
Reply
Lascelles 3:47PM (8/25/2007)
I think everyone is missing the tone of this article. I don't think they crossed the line. I do think they stretched it as far as it could go. Joseph, not "all" cars use the rating. Just 2007 models. 2008 don't and they are on sale now.
Yes, this was an ad for a 2007 model but it's not an "old" or 2007 rating, the rating is just wrong. AND they used ONE number. Not the combined. I think the EPA is more at fault but what is really comes down to is you won't get 20 MPG in a Hummer.
Is it legal to pick the highest of 6 numbers, three of which you KNOW to be wrong and put it FRONT AND CENTER in an ad? Probably, as I said in the article. Is the consumer given incorrect information? CLEARLY. That's all I care about here, I am not Hummer PR. The ad is wrong.
Reply
Lascelles 3:58PM (8/25/2007)
Alex, By website, I meant the EPA website. Look at the steps I go through to find the number. They don't use the old ratings anymore. You REALLY have to look to find them. Even when you find them, the new numbers ARE RIGHT BESIDE THEM. So the EPA decided to put the NEW ratings front and center at the site BUT allow it in ads and stickers? I think THEY are really at fault. BTW it was my wonderful, wonderful editor that added caught... which I think was a great choice. My editor is great :D My title was a little tamer though. Again, sure they probably did not cross the line but as a consumer, I feel a little cheated. I guess what I am really saying is the spirit of saying 20 MPG is just wrong. Sure, if I ran a company and knew I could only get away with saying a Hummer gets 20 MPG for a few months, sure, I would milk it for all it's worth too :D It's still wrong.
Reply
Alex Nunez 4:03PM (8/25/2007)
Nobody in the US market advertises the combined number right now, though. And depending on how you drive, achieving the advertised highway number is feasible in any number of vehicles using the old ratings system.
Now, as for advertising the combined fuel economy, that could/should change for '08 models since the combo number will be prominently displayed on the new EPA economy labels on window stickers.
Reply
Lascelles 4:11PM (8/25/2007)
Alex, sure it's POSSIBLE but it does not say 20 MPG if you drive a certain way. It just says 20 MPG. And how much highway driving will the average person do anyway? I could be wrong but I don't recall a car ad that just gave ONE rating either. I'm probably more consumer rights than the average person here though. Rent the Corporation. Good movie :D
Reply
Joseph 7:11PM (8/25/2007)
All car ads are using the old EPA ratings, as of now.
Reply
detroit9000 2:14PM (8/26/2007)
Dude,
It's governed by federal law. As in the crap you don't break unless you want the FBI to put the smack down on you. The commercial is right. And I guarantee even the 2007 Prius won't step up to the 2008 bat
In other news, I've heard of manufacturers calibrating their computer to recognize that they're being put through a fuel economy test, and to then lean themselves out. Hilarious!
Reply
Alex 9:22AM (8/27/2007)
Honestly, if you are not going to do your own research on a vehicle and just blindly trust the manufacturing company, shame on you.
Also, i question how many people buying a Hummer (Alpha through H3) are all that concerned with mpg. They are the aerodynamic equivalent of an enormous brick.
Reply
EnviroBob 12:43PM (8/27/2007)
Just out of curiosity, did you do a spit take when you saw the current Toyota ad claiming 41 MPG in a 2007 Corolla? Or an even bigger one when when you saw one of the "60" decals Toyota dealers were slapping on Prius'? Both figures are highway ratings, but I don't remember reading a sarcastic post about those heathenous bastards at Toyota lying to the public.
A quick look at page 17 of the 2007 EPA Fuel Economy Guide (that was a 2007 H3 being advertised, wasn't it?), shows a 20 MPH highway rating for the H3 5M, just as the ad claimed.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/FEG2007.pdf
Don't let your Hummer hatred blind you from reality.
Reply
Lascelles 12:57PM (8/27/2007)
EnviroBob, You are right. Hummer is not the only company taking advantage of the older rating system. I was not writing here when the news of MPG ratings first broke. I am sure we did write about its impact on hybrids. I think they showed the greatest impact because they were so high. Anyway, I don't hate the Hummer. My real criticism is with the EPA, FTC, etc. I think they should have mandated all stickers and ads show the new rating for 2007 models. Everyone has talked about laws and policy but from a purely consumer POV, it just misleading. The website does not match the sticker and the ads.
Reply
EnviroBob 1:38PM (8/27/2007)
So in other words, you believe that manufacturers should be advertising mileage figures that apply only to 2008 and newer model year vehicles to their 2007 inventory. Does that mean all 2007 diesels should be retro-fitted to meet 2010 emissions standards, even though those standards don't apply yet?
No one is "taking advantage" in their ads. They are advertising facts, facts that are shown in the EPA Fuel Economy Guide and EPA Mileage Statements posted in the vehicles' windows. When you look at the EPA guide, the 2007 Hummer H3 is rated at 20 MPG on the highway and the 2007 Corolla is rated at 41 MPG highway, just as their respective ads attest. If you go to a Hummer dealership and look at the EPA sticker for a H3 5M, it will show 20 MPG highway, just as the commercial advertised and the 2007 EPA Fuel Economy Guide has it listed.
Reply
Lascelles 1:55PM (8/27/2007)
EnviroBob, It's not the 2007 standard. It's just wrong. They should have updated it years ago. No one gets that mileage. Your analogy does not fit. The 2008 standard is being used now. The data for 2007 is available right now. Incorrect information is being given to people and why are they not being told the better standard in more places? It would be too much of a hassle to print out stickers or create an ad with the new better standard? Yes, if you go from ad to sticker, you are not given lower numbers. BUT if you go from ad to web site or sticker to website you are told, that number is crap! Here is the truth. So people that know how to use computers and the web have the right to better more correct, exclusive information? Everyone talks about the 2007 rating system like it's a correct for 2007. It's just a way to test cars everyone knows is wrong and it's being used in ads. Forget the laws and everything, if a consumer did exactly what I did in the article and I think many do, what should they feel? Anyone, tell me, why keep a more correct rating of something off labels and out of ads? I bet everyone would not feel the same about this if it were food labeling for lead. We have a new way of measuring lead in food. We are not going to change new ads or labels but you can find it on a website. All foods in 2008 will have the labes. Enjoy your meal.
Reply
EnviroBob 6:24PM (8/27/2007)
What is so hard to get about the fact that the 2008 standard does not apply to 2007 vehicles. I understand, and agree, that that the 2008 testing standards and resultant ratings, are more accurate for most drivers. However, as with all rules / regulations / standards, a start date must selected that provides lead time, in this case by model year, for the news rules to take effect. The EPA chose to enact the new standards for the 2008 model year, which means those rules do not apply to 2007 model year vehicles. That said, the advertised mileage ratings used in commercials for 2007 model year vehicles are those derived from the testing standards 2007 models were required to adhere to. Which means, no one is lying about the advertised mileage. The mileage figures advertised match the mileage figures on the EPA printed window sticker, which in turn match those posted on the EPA web site, which in turn match those in the EPA printed Fuel Economy Guide for 2007 model year vehicles.
Whenever new rules are passed, there has to be lead time for them to be implemented. For example, in Illinois, it will become illegal to smoke in a bar as of January 1. If the state were to apply the logic you are presenting here, since everyone knows the law is going to change four months from now, no one should be allowed to smoke in a bar today- even though the law doesn't take effect until Jan 1. Especially since we all know that smoking is bad for you. Eventhough it's bad for you, doesn't make it illegal.
Secondly, you can't say no one gets that mileage, as that is a genralization. I personally exceed the current EPA numbers on all my vehicles- and that's using the '07 standard, not the '08. So to say that no one gets those mileage numbers is great hyperbole, but it is not a true statetment.
I'm tired of reading BS generalizations from people who base their opinions on perception rather than reality. Just because something doesn't happen to fit your view of how things should be, doesn't make it wrong. It also doesn't necessarily make your opinion right, either.
Reply
Lascelles 6:42PM (8/27/2007)
EnviroBob,
"Which means, no one is lying about the advertised mileage. The mileage figures advertised match the mileage figures on the EPA printed window sticker, which in turn match those posted on the EPA
web site."
They don't match. The website uses the 2008 rating for 2007 models. Read my article again. You have to search to find the 2007 ratings for 2007 cars. Even when you find it, the 2008 rating is right beside it with an explanation the 2007 rating is an old rating. Here is the more correct rating.
"no one should be allowed to smoke in a
bar today- even though the law doesn't take effect until Jan 1. "
There is no action. It's a rating. It's already implemented. There is no lead time. A better example is they find smoking causes cancer. They say label every cigarette package with the cancer warning... with the new 2008 formula of cigarettes sold today BUT NOT THE 2007 FORMULA. You can find out the cigarettes made in 2007 cause cancer too but ads and labels for a 2007 formula cigarette can say nothing about cancer.
Reply
A D 7:19PM (8/27/2007)
You want to know what cars "get the ratings" from the EPA tests?
Try none.
Don't try to tell me I'm wrong, I help set up the cras and trucks for the test.
The EPA ratings are as ludicrous as the insanity of CAFE standards.
The truth is, it's America. I can't and you can't tell anybody where they can go in a car or what Hummer they can or can't drive.
Heck if you want to whine about something complain about the liars from Asia that are screwing the crap out of the US economy by messing with currency. By the time they are done every single one of us will be broke. But maybe that's what you want, they will be burning all the oil and we will be begging for heat and electricity.
Reply
Harry Ariola 9:09AM (8/28/2007)
Lascelles,
You’re basing your entire argument on the way you think things should be, not on the way they actually are. You write this whole exaggerated diatribe about doing spit takes because you see a commercial for an H3 5M promoting the highway mileage the EPA has tested it as achieving.
You then go on to say that no one gets that mileage. Have you ever driven an H3 with a stick or are you basing your opinion on what you perceive an H3’s mileage to be? Or have you actually surveyed every H3 owner as to the mileage they are getting, so as to be quantifiably prove that no one gets 20 MPG on the highway in their 5M H3?
Now, seeing as you didn’t ask me what kind of mileage I get with my H3 5M, I’m going to assume you’ve spent a fair amount of time behind the wheel of one of these vehicles. Because had you asked me what kind of mileage I get in my H3, I would have told you that, courtesy of short shifting, conservative acceleration and obeying the speed limit, I have averaged 18.76 MPG since I purchased the H3 new. About 70% of my driving is done in typical suburban areas. The few trips I’ve made where 95% of the miles accrued were on the highway, I have averaged 21.34 MPG on those tanks.
That said, before you write your next over-the-top blow hard piece, you might want to research your information a little more. In fact, in one of your responses to Enviro Bob you claim the EPA web site doesn’t show the mileage he claims it does. Had you simply clicked on the link he supplied to the EPA’s 2007 Fuel Economy Guide, you would have seen that the EPA ratings for the ’07 H3 5M are, in fact, 15 / 20, just like he said. When you go to the comparison of the ’08 and ’07 figures, it shows that the ’07 highway rating is 20 MPG- just like the commercial said.
Although you say you’re not a Hummer hater, I somehow don’t believe you would have written with the same tone about a Prius commercial claiming 60 MPG- even though it falls far shorter of its EPA estimate than the H3 does for those you don’t know how to drive.
Next time, leave out your biases and preferences for living in a hypothetical world where everything’s perfect and changes to the automotive industry can be done by snapping your fingers.
Reply
Lascelles 9:16AM (8/28/2007)
If it makes anyone feel better, I was called a Prius hater when I said it was probably the un-safest of the top hybrids. Also a hybrid hater in comments when I said a certain type by design was less efficient and could be more expensive. I think this is my first SUV article. I honestly think I was shocked more by the H3 mileage numbers, either year's rating than the fact they used a number that is wrong. Yes, not legally wrong but out dated. Show me a video of any other car company showing the only one MPG rating, from the 2007 rating, in bold text, seconds into the ad and I would be happy to write about it.
Reply
Ted Kennedy Is My Chauffer 12:41PM (8/28/2007)
NEWSFLASH: The new 2008 EPA mileage testing standards do not apply to 2007 model year vehicles. REPEAT: The new 2008 EPA mileage testing standards do not apply to 2007 model year vehicles.
This is what people are trying to tell you and yet you keep harping about how the '07 standards are outdated and no longer apply.
You said your real qualm was with the EPA, but your article- and responses- are solely directed at Hummer. Your article did not specify that you were upset at the EPA, you continually made snide remarks about the vehicle. Your last response even stated that you want someone to show you "a video of any other car company showing the only one MPG rating, from the 2007 rating, in bold text, seconds into the ad", which clearly shows that your target is not the EPA, but is in fact, Hummer. The fact that you were "shocked" that an '07 H3 is rated at 20 MPG illustrates how little substantive information you have based your opinion on.
True or False:
The EPA certified the 2007 Hummer H3 5M at 20 MPG Highway? TRUE
Hummer has a right to advertise their certified EPA mileage ratings? TRUE
You have a grasp of reality? FALSE
When you start an argument with a flawed hypothesis, and then try to double-talk your way out of the argument, you only make yourself appear more foolish than you already have- which is plenty. Remember, not everyone is going to buy into your BS, no matter how hard you may try.
Reply