2009 Kia Spectra Ex Sedan 4-door 2.0l on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Did a US automaker blow the whistle on Hyundai, Kia fuel economy issue?

In all of the most hotly contested mainstream segments of the motoring universe, the difference of one mile per gallon averaged on a widow sticker can mean the difference between a sale and a walk-off - to say nothing of two or three mpg. So, when Hyundai and Kia were forced to reveal that many of their 40-mpg ratings were actually 38s and 37s, well, it made for big news.
It also, conceivably, made for a competitive disadvantage immediately, when the Korean automakers' products were being shopped versus the guys down the block. And it's that disadvantage that makes a recent story from Automotive News so juicy.
AN is reporting that Margo Oge, former head of the Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Transportation and Air Quality, got a tip in 2010 that Hyundai/Kia were "cheating" to get its impressive fuel economy numbers. The tip, said Oge (who retired from the EPA this past September), came from a senior vice president from a domestic automaker. The source was credible enough for Oge to launch an audit of the Hyundai figures, which ultimately lead to the debacle that we reported on a few months ago, and that the Korean company has been trying to bounce back from ever since.

Senator calling for answers from Hyundai and Kia over MPG debacle

Hyundai and Kia have already gone public with plans to make good on the inflated fuel economy claims scandal that has rocked both companies in recent weeks. But one US senator, Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), is skeptical that the general public will see much good from the proposal, and he's looking for answers.
To recap: Hyundai/Kia have agreed to compensate owners of 900,000 affected vehicles for real versus previously claimed fuel mileage (as well as adding in a one- fifteen-percent premium), by way of pre-loaded debit cards. It has been speculated that this payout could crest $100 million by the time the Korean automakers are done writing checks.
Said Rockefeller to The Detroit News, "While I believe this is a positive step, I am concerned that many affected customers may not learn about the program or may find it burdensome to participate in the program." Rockefeller would reportedly like to see a monitoring system for the paybacks more clearly defined, with the goal being as many wronged car buyers as possible getting the recompense that they're due.

EPA says it will more closely monitor fuel economy claims from automakers

The unintended acceleration brouhaha at Toyota led to the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration tightening the vise on recall procedures. Likewise, the fuel economy kerfuffle that blew up with Hyundai and Kia's admission of overstated fuel mileage claims could lead to the Environmental Protection Agency policing automaker assertions by performing more audits.
At least, that's what a senior engineer with the government agency said while in Michigan giving a talk, according to a report in Automotive News. What that actually means, however, is still in question. Just ten to 15 percent of new vehicles - something like 150 to 200 cars per year - are rested by the EPA to verify automaker numbers. The EPA's own tests include a "fudge factor" to adjust lab mileage for real-world mileage, and the agency still relies on automakers to submit data for tests that it doesn't have the facilities to perform. How much more auditing can the EPA really expect to do, or perhaps a more relevant question would be how much more accurate could the EPA's audits become?
The price of gasoline, the psychological importance of 40 miles per gallon to a frugal car buyer, an automaker wanting to further justify the price premium of a hybrid, all of these things contribute to fuel economy numbers that insist on creeping upward. Perhaps the senior engineer encapsulated the whole situation best when he said, "Everybody wants a label that tells you exactly what you're going to get, but obviously that's not possible. A good general rule of thumb is that real-world fuel economy is about 20 percent lower than the lab numbers." If the lesson isn't exactly 'buyer beware,' it's at least 'buyer be wary.'