Jump to content
  • Greetings Guest!

    CheersandGears.com was founded in 2001 and is one of the oldest continuously operating automotive forums out there.  Come see why we have users who visit nearly every day for the past 16+ years. Signup is fast and free, or you can opt for a premium subscription to view the site ad-free.

Sign in to follow this  
William Maley

Mitsubishi News: Mitsubishi Admits To Cheating Fuel Economy Tests, 625,000 Vehicles Involved

Recommended Posts


Mitsubishi Motors has admitted today to manipulating fuel economy tests for 625,000 vehicles sold in Japan.

 

The manipulation involves four kei (small-capacity engines and compact dimensions) cars; Mitsubishi eK Wagon, Mitsubishi eK Space, Nissan Dayz, and Nissan Dayz Roox. Out of the total 625,000 vehicles, the majority of the vehicles are the Nissan models.

 

"The wrongdoing was intentional. It is clear the falsification was done to make the mileage look better. But why they would resort to fraud to do this is still unclear," said Mitsubishi Motors President Tetsuro Aikawa at a press conference.

 

According to BBC News, the manipulation was done by adjusting the tire pressures when testing fuel economy on a rolling road. Nissan uncovered the manipulation as they were unable to replicate the fuel economy figures that Mitsubishi got.

 

"This discovery was made during Nissan’s assessment of data from the current model as part of our development of the next-generation vehicle. We immediately brought the discrepancy to the attention of Mitsubishi, as they are responsible for the development and homologation of the current vehicles. In response to Nissan’s request, Mitsubishi admitted that data had been intentionally manipulated in its fuel economy testing process for certification," Nissan said in a statement.

 

Both Mitsubishi and Nissan have stopped selling the models and are currently figuring out a compensation for affected owners. Mitsubishi has also announced they will be conducting an investigation into overseas models as their internal investigation showed the manipulation was used on other Mitsubishi products.

 

"We will investigate why this happened and prevent a recurrence. We will inform our customers. I feel horrible they were given the wrong numbers," Aikawa said.

 

After the announcement was made, shares in Mitsubishi dropped 15 percent, knocking off about $1.2 billion of the company's market value.

 

This is another black mark for the Japanese company. For more than a decade, Mitsubishi has been trying to regain confidence from the market after it was revealed the company covered up a number of defects involving axles that could cause the wheels to detach.

 

“It’s again bad for the company’s image. It’s not the first time for Mitsubishi to have this kind of issue, and this definitely won’t help them rebuild their reputation,” said Seiji Sugiura, an analyst at Tokai Tokyo Research Center to Automotive News.

 

Source: Automotive News (Subscription Required), Autocar, Associated Press, BBC News, Mitsubishi

 

Statement from Mitsubishi is on Page 2


 


Improper conduct in fuel consumption testing on products manufactured by Mitsubishi Motors Corporation (MMC)

 

In connection with the certification process for the mini-cars manufactured by MMC, we found that with respect to the fuel consumption testing data submitted to the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism (MLIT), MMC conducted testing improperly to present better fuel consumption rates than the actual rates; and that the testing method was also different from the one required by Japanese law. We express deep apologies to all of our customers and stakeholders for this issue.

 

The applicable cars are four mini-car models, two of which are the "eK Wagon" and "eK Space" which have been manufactured by MMC; and the other two are the "Dayz" and "Dayz Roox" which have been manufactured by MMC and supplied to Nissan Motors Corporation (NM) since June 2013. Up until the end of March 2016, MMC has sold 157 thousand units of the eK Wagon and eK Space and supplied 468 thousand units of the Dayz and Dayz Roox to NM.

 

Since MMC developed the applicable cars and was responsible for obtaining the relevant certifications, MMC conducted fuel consumption testing. In the process of the development for the next generation of mini-car products, NM examined the fuel consumption rates of the applicable cars for NM's reference and found deviations in the figures. NM requested MMC to review the running resistance(*) value set by MMC during tests by MMC. In the course of our internal investigation upon this request, MMC learned of the improper conduct that MMC used the running resistance value for testing which provided more advantageous fuel consumption rates than the actual rates. MMC will sincerely respond to our customers who own and use the applicable cars.
(*) running resistance: rolling resistance (mainly generated by tires) and air resistance while vehicles are moving

 

We have decided to stop production and sales of the applicable cars. NM also has stopped sales of the applicable cars, and MMC and NM will discuss compensation regarding this issue.

 

During our internal investigation, we have found that the testing method which was different from the one required by Japanese law has been applied to other models manufactured by MMC for the Japanese domestic market.

 

Taking into account the seriousness of these issues, we will also conduct an investigation into products manufactured for overseas markets.

 

In order to conduct an investigation into these issues objectively and thoroughly, we plan to set up a committee consisting of only external experts. We will publish the results of our investigation as soon as it is complete.


View full article

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was just reading this on Bloomberg.

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-20/mitsubishi-motors-plunges-after-improper-handling-of-fuel-tests

 

Pretty interesting but nothing like what VW did. Here via over inflation of tires and tweaking things on the car to reduce air resistance they got higher ratings. Not unlike what FORD also did to get higher MPG ratings.

 

This is recoverable fast and easy and minimal penalty.

 

VW did was far worse and will hurt them long term. Best thing is to just buy the auto's back, crush them, pay the penalty and move forward.

 

Best solutino for VW would be to give a current emissions legal equal auto to the auto owners and call it good. 

 

Talk about good will and how that would give them fans and social media good will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  



  • Similar Content

    • By William Maley
      It seems like ages since Mazda announced plans to bring over a diesel engine. Many things have transpired since then with various delays and the Volkswagen diesel emission scandal. While the company said the diesel engine was still in the cards, we started to think it was as real as bigfoot or the loch ness monster. But the engine is one step closer to reality as the EPA has posted the fuel economy figures for the CX-5 diesel.
      For the front-wheel variant, the CX-5 diesel will return 28 City/31 Highway/29 Combined. All-wheel drive see a slight drop to 27/30/28. Major improvement over gas model, right? Not really. The FWD gas model does trail the diesel in the city by three, but there is only a one mpg difference in the highway and the combined figure is the same. The AWD gas model is pretty much the same story; three mpg difference in the city, two mpg difference on the highway, and the same figure for combined.
      It gets even worse if we compare it to the Chevrolet Equinox and GMC Terrain Diesel. In FWD guise, EPA figures stand at 28 City/39 Highway/32 Combined. AWD models return 28/38/32.
      We're guessing that new emissions equipment and harder testing likely affected CX-5 diesel's fuel economy figure. Mazda might sell the diesel engine as a performance upgrade - the 2.2L turbodiesel produces 170 horsepower and 310 pound-feet of torque. 
      No timeframe has been given on when the CX-5 diesel will finally go on sale.
      Source: EPA

      View full article
    • By William Maley
      It seems like ages since Mazda announced plans to bring over a diesel engine. Many things have transpired since then with various delays and the Volkswagen diesel emission scandal. While the company said the diesel engine was still in the cards, we started to think it was as real as bigfoot or the loch ness monster. But the engine is one step closer to reality as the EPA has posted the fuel economy figures for the CX-5 diesel.
      For the front-wheel variant, the CX-5 diesel will return 28 City/31 Highway/29 Combined. All-wheel drive see a slight drop to 27/30/28. Major improvement over gas model, right? Not really. The FWD gas model does trail the diesel in the city by three, but there is only a one mpg difference in the highway and the combined figure is the same. The AWD gas model is pretty much the same story; three mpg difference in the city, two mpg difference on the highway, and the same figure for combined.
      It gets even worse if we compare it to the Chevrolet Equinox and GMC Terrain Diesel. In FWD guise, EPA figures stand at 28 City/39 Highway/32 Combined. AWD models return 28/38/32.
      We're guessing that new emissions equipment and harder testing likely affected CX-5 diesel's fuel economy figure. Mazda might sell the diesel engine as a performance upgrade - the 2.2L turbodiesel produces 170 horsepower and 310 pound-feet of torque. 
      No timeframe has been given on when the CX-5 diesel will finally go on sale.
      Source: EPA
    • By William Maley
      Whenever an automaker introduces a redesigned model or makes some significant mechanical changes, usually the fuel economy go slightly up. But there are cases where those numbers remain the same or worse, go down.
      The New York Daily News reports that certain versions of the 2019 Chevrolet Camaro see a slight drop in fuel economy.
      2019 Camaro V6: 1 mpg drop on highway with the manual (27 vs. 28 on the 2018 model), 1 mpg drop in combined with the 8-speed automatic (22 vs. 23) 2019 Camaro V8: 1 mpg drop on highway with the manual (24 vs. 25), 1 mpg drop in city with the 10-speed automatic (16 vs. 17) 2019 Camaro ZL1: 1 mpg drop in combined with the 10-speed automatic (15 vs. 16) Other Camaros, such as those equipped with the 2.0L turbo-four remain unchanged in their fuel economy figures.
      This is bit bizarre, especially on models equipped with the new 10-speed transmission. Some think it could be the Camaro's new face, which has received mixed reactions could be less aerodynamic than before. But if this was case, wouldn't all of the Camaro variants see some sort of drop?
      Source: New York Daily News

      View full article
    • By William Maley
      Whenever an automaker introduces a redesigned model or makes some significant mechanical changes, usually the fuel economy go slightly up. But there are cases where those numbers remain the same or worse, go down.
      The New York Daily News reports that certain versions of the 2019 Chevrolet Camaro see a slight drop in fuel economy.
      2019 Camaro V6: 1 mpg drop on highway with the manual (27 vs. 28 on the 2018 model), 1 mpg drop in combined with the 8-speed automatic (22 vs. 23) 2019 Camaro V8: 1 mpg drop on highway with the manual (24 vs. 25), 1 mpg drop in city with the 10-speed automatic (16 vs. 17) 2019 Camaro ZL1: 1 mpg drop in combined with the 10-speed automatic (15 vs. 16) Other Camaros, such as those equipped with the 2.0L turbo-four remain unchanged in their fuel economy figures.
      This is bit bizarre, especially on models equipped with the new 10-speed transmission. Some think it could be the Camaro's new face, which has received mixed reactions could be less aerodynamic than before. But if this was case, wouldn't all of the Camaro variants see some sort of drop?
      Source: New York Daily News
    • By William Maley
      As expected, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) have unveiled a proposal that will suspend increases in fuel economy put forth by the Obama administration, and take away California's ability regulate vehicle emissions.
      The new proposal is called the "Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule." Under the new proposal, the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) would be capped at the 2020 level of 37 mpg through 2025. Under the rules that were created during the Obama administration, automakers would need to have a fleet average of 54 mpg in 2026. The proposal would also remove Calfornia's ability to set their own emissions state based on a 1975 federal law that prohibits states from setting their own greenhouse gas limits. It needs to be noted that two federal judges have rejected this argument when it was brought to court. 
      "EPA is proposing to withdraw the waiver granted to California in 2013 for the GHG [Greenhouse Gas] and ZEV [Zero Emissions Vehicles] requirements of its Advanced Clean Cars program," the proposal states.
      "In short, the agencies propose to maintain one national standard -- a standard that is set exclusively by the Federal government."
      What are the benefits to this new proposal? The one that has been getting the most headlines is reduced fatalities and crashes. If you're scratching your head as to how this makes sense, here is what the proposal argues. 
      People who buy fuel-efficient vehicle will drive more, increasing the odds that they will get into a crash. Fuel-efficient vehicles will be more expensive, thus slowing down the rate people buy new cars with advanced safety features. Fuel-efficient vehicles tend to be lighter, thus are less capable of withstanding a crash. The proposal claims that this will prevent 12,700 fatalities and many more injuries on American roads.
      There has been a lot of disagreement on this part, especially on the weight part. While it is true that a heavier vehicle won't sustain as much damage as lighter vehicle, experts have realized that the size of vehicle is more important to overall safety. Plus, the New York Times points out this point only accounts for one percent of the estimated fatalities in the proposal.
      Other benefits include reduced costs for new vehicles - the proposal says the stricter emission rules add about an average of $2,430 to the price of new vehicles.
      “We think we can have a win-win, if we lock in at 2020 levels. We’re not imposing undue costs on manufacturers. We’re not imposing undue costs on consumers who want affordable vehicles. And therefore we think as a result of these standards we will be able to have our cake and eat it too,” said Bill Wehrum, the assistant administrator for EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation on a call today.
      Reactions to this are very mixed.
      “I applaud the Trump administration for proposing new standards for cars and trucks. Unless the Obama administration’s punishing standards are changed, consumer choice will be limited and the cost of vehicles will skyrocket,” said Senator John Barrasso (R-WY), chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.
      "Automakers support continued improvements in fuel economy and flexibilities that incentivize advanced technologies while balancing priorities like affordability, safety, jobs, and the environment," said the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers and and the Association of Global Automakers in a statement.
      "The administration's effort to roll back these standards is a denial of basic science and a denial of American automakers' engineering capabilities and ingenuity," said John M. DeCicco, research professor at the University of Michigan Energy Institute.
      "This was a predictable move, as the current administration has been working hard to dismantle Obama-era regulations across the board. And while there's little demand today for smaller, more-efficient or electrified vehicles in the U.S., as gas prices remain low, these lower fuel economy targets proposed by the administration will likely spark an unwanted war between Washington and the California Air Resources Board. While few stakeholders were happy with the tough targets in the current regulations, unraveling those standards will likely be even more painful," said Michelle Krebs, executive analyst at Autotrader.
      Unsurprisingly, California is not pleased by this new proposal. The state along with 18 others and the District of Columbia have announced they would challenge the proposal in court.
      “The Trump Administration has launched a brazen attack, no matter how it is cloaked, on our nation’s Clean Car Standards,” said Xavier Becerra, California’s attorney general.
      California “will use every legal tool at its disposal to defend today’s national standards and reaffirm the facts and science behind them.”
      California Governor Jerry Brown was more blunt in his reaction to this,
      "California will fight this stupidity in every conceivable way possible.”
      A legal fight could mean a lot of headaches for automakers as it might result in two different emission standards they would have to meet. 
      "With today's release of the Administration's proposals, it's time for substantive negotiations to begin. We urge California and the federal government to find a common sense solution that sets continued increases in vehicle efficiency standards while also meeting the needs of America's drivers," said the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers and and the Association of Global Automakers.
      The next step is giving the public 60 days to comment on this proposal.
      Source: Bloomberg, New York Times, (2), Reuters, EPA
      U.S. EPA and DOT Propose Fuel Economy Standards for MY 2021-2026 Vehicles
      WASHINGTON  — Today, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and U.S. Department of Transportation’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) released a notice of proposed rulemaking, the Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule for Model Years 2021-2026 Passenger Cars and Light Trucks (SAFE Vehicles Rule), to correct the national automobile fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions standards to give the American people greater access to safer, more affordable vehicles that are cleaner for the environment.
      The SAFE Vehicles Rule is the next generation of the Congressionally mandated Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) and Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards. This Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) is the first formal step in setting the 2021-2026 Model Year (MY) standards that must be achieved by each automaker for its car and light-duty truck fleet.
      In today’s proposal, EPA and NHTSA are seeking public comment on a wide range of regulatory options, including a preferred alternative that locks in MY 2020 standards through 2026, providing a much-needed time-out from further, costly increases. The agencies’ preferred alternative reflects a balance of safety, economics, technology, fuel conservation, and pollution reduction. It is anticipated to prevent thousands of on-road fatalities and injuries as compared to the standards set forth in the 2012 final rule. The joint proposal initiates a process to establish a new 50-state fuel economy and tailpipe carbon dioxide emissions standard for passenger cars and light trucks covering MY 2021 through 2026.
      “We are delivering on President Trump’s promise to the American public that his administration would address and fix the current fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions standards,” said EPA Acting Administrator Andrew Wheeler. “Our proposal aims to strike the right regulatory balance based on the most recent information and create a 50-state solution that will enable more Americans to afford newer, safer vehicles that pollute less. More realistic standards can save lives while continuing to improve the environment. We value the public’s input as we engage in this process in an open, transparent manner.”
      “There are compelling reasons for a new rulemaking on fuel economy standards for 2021-2026,” said Secretary Elaine L. Chao. “More realistic standards will promote a healthy economy by bringing newer, safer, cleaner and more fuel-efficient vehicles to U.S. roads and we look forward to receiving input from the public.”
      The current standards have been a factor in the rising cost of new automobiles to an average of $35,000 or more—out of reach for many American families. Indeed, compared to the preferred alternative in the proposal, keeping in place the standards finalized in 2012 would add $2,340 to the cost of owning a new car, and impose more than $500 billion in societal costs on the U.S. economy over the next 50 years.
      Additionally, a 2018 government study by NHTSA shows new model year vehicles are safer, resulting in fewer deaths and injuries when involved in accidents, as compared to older models. Therefore, the Administration is focused on correcting the current standards that restrict the American people from being able to afford newer vehicles with more advanced safety features, better fuel economy, and associated environmental benefits.
      On April 2, 2018, EPA issued the Mid-Term Evaluation Final Determination which found that the MY 2022-2025 GHG standards are not appropriate and should be revised. For more than a year, the agencies worked together to extensively analyze current automotive and fuel technologies, reviewed economic conditions and projections, and consulted with other federal agency partners to ensure the most reliable and accurate analysis possible.
      EPA and NHTSA are seeking public feedback to ensure that all potential impacts concerning today’s proposal are fully considered and hope to issue a final rule this winter.
      The public will have 60 days to provide feedback once published at the Federal Register

      View full article
  • My Clubs

  • Recently Browsing

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Reader Rides

About us

CheersandGears.com - Founded 2001

We ♥ Cars

Get in touch

Follow us

Recent tweets

facebook

×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.