Statistics
Let’s look at the numbers first. Depending on whose data you use, modern automobiles may have as many as 15,000 components. Some experts say less, some more. It depends a lot on who does the counting. There are those who don’t count the components inside of sealed units. We favor the idea that any component that can fail, whether it is inside a sealed module or not, should be counted.

For example: Some of the components inside one of the many control computers have components so small they aren’t visible except with a good microscope. Nonetheless, the failure of one such component may render the whole computer defective. Therefore, regardless of the size of a component we think it must be counted. Remember, when it comes to the lemon law, it’s all about the defects. It isn’t unusual for a modern automobile to have 40 or 50 computers all connected together by a network – more components.

Suppose you reduced the number of components by one half or more. Statistically that would be 50% fewer chances for a failure. That’s one possibility.

Technology
Like it or not, we are rapidly approaching a time when our cars will be either partly or wholly electric. If you remove the reciprocating engine (what most cars have now) from a car, you will have reduced some of the causes for lemon law cases that occur now. Without a gas or diesel engine the transmission also will be much less complex. For a number of reasons the push toward battery operated automobiles and trucks is underway, and no amount of corporate foot-dragging by those who have an interest in engines driven by fossil fuels, is going to prevent it from happening. Practically everyday companies are forming whose products are the result of discoveries made at the many university laboratories working on battery technologies alone. The real question is how many more components would be needed for this technology?

Will it take twenty five years for these companies to make batteries that will drive a car 300 miles or more on one charge? Doubtful: It would be very surprising if it took ten years, however the change over will probably take longer. It will happen here in the United States first, and in Europe probably at the same time. Here we have the most restrictions on energy. It really doesn’t matter if we have ample reserves of oil and gas, restrictions on acquisition and use will prevail. Countries like China and India have no such restrictions.

Conclusions
It is as we said a numbers (statistics) game. Fewer components equal fewer failures; direct correlation. It shouldn’t be surprising if warranties also are longer. As far as the Lemon Law is concerned, statistics still come into play. The larger the number of any product manufactured the greater the chance that some of them will be defective. Some of these defects, just like the problems that occur today, will be unrepairable and people will need our help seeking the remedies allowed under the California lemon law. Norman Taylor & Associates will be here ready to help as long as we are needed.

Here’s what we saw. The vehicle is a 2010 Honda Civic. The owner took the vehicle to the dealership for extensive repairs. The following is the first repair order entry as written; we presume it was written by the service writer:

C/S the alignment is off. Also the brake pedal pulsates. The left rear shock is leaking. Vehicle will not start at times. Window rattles when half open. Test drove vehicle. Unable to duplicate problem at this time.

Do you see it? My first thought was, are these people serious? Don’t they know the difference between singular and plural? They are supposed to have read the B.A.R.’s (Bureau of Automotive Repair) Write it Right: A Guide for Automotive Repair Dealers which contains instructions on how to properly fill out a repair order. If you count the defects described in this travesty, you should get five; that’s five separate defects! It ain’t rocket science folks. Here’s what we get:

1. The alignment is off
2. The brake pedal pulsates
3. The left rear shock is leaking
4. Vehicle will not start at times
5. The window rattles when half open

Do you count this as five separate defects? Anyone with good basic reading skills will see these as five separate defects. Note the last line in this particular defect report? Unable to duplicate the defect at this time. Which one? Are we crazy over here or did the folks at Honda simply assert, suggest or state outright that these five defects are really just once monster defect, and that they couldn’t duplicate them all at once? By the way, if you can find some connection between all five of these defects, you have skills we’ve never encountered.

Oh! You think this is over…sorry, it is not. Following the great catchall defect, which they said they could not duplicate, they then attempt to repair three of the five in the list, and ignore the other two.

Here are the next three entries in the repair order:

1. C/S the driver’s side window rattling half way when cruising. Binding and Sticking: Front door power window regulator, left replace. Confirm rattle coming from the inside driver door. RR driver door panel found broken part at window regulator. Apply lube, silicone grease where appropriate. [We have italicized words which demonstrate that they duplicated the defect and took steps to repair it.]
2. C/S the brake pedal pulsates when braking. Unable to duplicate the problem.
3. C/S rear shocks leaking. Cause: premature wear and tear. Damper/shock absorber assembly, left rear replaced. Shock absorber alone on 06, includes alignment. [We have italicized words which demonstrate that they duplicated the defect and took steps to repair it.]

It would appear, for reasons one can barely guess, that the repair facility saw no reason to make repair attempts on problems they don’t want to bother with such as defect number one and defect number four above. What about the alignment problem? What about the no start condition? These are hardly insignificant, unless of course someone wanted them to seem insignificant.

Norman Taylor’s book, Lemon Law, The Standard Reference Guide describes this cunning technique in detail. We call it, “Slicing and Dicing the Defect”, although when the book was written such an astonishing example was not considered. Check out Chapter Seven, The Gauntlet.

Food for thought: Are the folks over there incompetent or was the repair order written this way with the intent to deceive? Hopefully it is neither one, but it wouldn’t surprise us if it was either one of the above or both.

At Norman Taylor & Associates we take numerous motor cycle lemon law cases, including the CBR 1000 RR model. Class action lawsuits are hardly a new thing, but remember, it usually takes a large number of angry people to move forward with a Class Action. Also these people must provide evidence to the class action law firm that is totally convincing before they will proceed with such a suit.

When Honda responds to complaints of excessive oil consumption by asserting that “all motorcycles use more oil during the break-in period, or when an owner reports that their vehicle is using 1, 2 even three quarts of oil per 1,000 miles, and they say dismissively, this is not a problem, it’s time for somebody to take action.

When surveying the numerous blogs on the CBR 1000 RR oil consumption problem, many of the respondents noted how close they came to running out of oil entirely. For the record there are only three quarts of oil in the sump. It isn’t difficult to imagine the vehicle running out of oil, the engine seizing and depositing chunks of the bike and rider all over the freeway. For Honda through its agents the dealerships to casually assert that three quarts of oil consumption in a 1,000 miles is okay is worse than negligent.

For the reader’s information, if you are part of a class action law suit involving your motorcycle, this does not necessarily prevent you from taking advantage of the lemon law. You can always give us a call here at Norman Taylor & Associates if you have questions about motorcycle lemon law.

Honda’s most pervasive slogan is “The Power of Dreams.” As is often the case, there is a peculiar disconnect between what is stated in the various advertising media and the ability of the product to deliver what was promised.

We have written elsewhere on this site extensively about oil consumption. But as a reminder, here’s a viewpoint that is not mentioned on Honda’s self congratulatory media. All of this oil consumption about which they have no problem, and which is being blown into our atmosphere as pollution is hardly consistent with their written assertions. The title of one of their principal corporate web sites is, “Environmental Leadership.” Praising their vehicles for consuming and spattering the country side with 1, 2 even 3 quarts of oil every 1,000 miles hardly seems like environmental leadership, an even worse, when an owner objects, grinding that user into legal submission shows no level of responsibility at all.

This thought applies to all manufacturers of car and motorcycles who make similar oil consumption assertions: a little less arrogance and a little more responsibility, please.

Honda will be informing buyers and the campaign to repair the defect will be in place by month’s end. Upon inspection, Honda will replace the fuel feed line if it is necessary to do so.

No crashes, or fires were reported and the recall was actually discovered by a factory employee who noticed a fuel smell on April 29, 2011. Honda subsequently informed regulators.

It is reported that 17% of the vehicles that have been affected by the defect were to be sold in the U.S. A majority of which have not yet been sold.

While recalls are common in the automotive industry, it is important to understand how a recall may affect a lemon law case. If consumers have given the manufacturer a reasonable opportunity to repair the defect, including a repair attempt as a result of a recall, and the defect still exists, the consumer may seek recourse under the California Lemon Law.

Enter another statistic. Over 40% of Norman Taylor & Associates California lemon law cases for 2010 were for German cars. Take a breath…extrapolate this fact nation wide. You can’t include any other part of the world because the U.S. is the only country on the planet that has serious lemon law consumer protection laws.

The German problem is a problem of quality. Some would call it a social problem, or a national problem, or getting parts from plants all over Europe and trying to control quality. It’s still a quality problem, it always has been.

The 20th century has seen two great manufacturing successes. Both were based almost entirely on the application of rigorous quality principals throughout the manufacturing processes. The push for quality excellence in both cases was driven from the top; this is to say the corporate directors, CEO and senior management, engineering, and production were fully behind changes they knew would take decades to accomplish. This takes extraordinary focus and intention.

The first example is post war Japan. In the fifties Japan had a reputation for shoddy products. By the sixties they were jumping to the fore front of quality in whole industries. Japanese quality was getting so good it became their watchword, it became the brand. Despite recent difficulties they are still the manufacturing powerhouse of Asia.

The second example is Korea. Like Japan in the fifties, they also had a reputation for producing low quality manufactured goods. Their real commitment to quality didn’t begin until 2001. Like Japan, Korea’s commitment had to come from the top and spread throughout their manufacturing structure.

For those of you who like statistics, the following numbers are illustrative of Hyundai’s success. J. D. Power is the premier automobile quality rating organization in the country, if not the world. In its annual “Initial Quality Study” it measures the number of reported problems per 100 vehicles in the 1st 90 days of ownership. In 2001 Hyundai was 32nd out of 37 manufacturers surveyed. This was not very good. In baseball speak they were practically in the cellar. In 2011 they are 10th out of 37 manufacturers surveyed. To continue the baseball metaphor, they are a contender for the playoffs.

Our interest at Norman Taylor & Associates is automobiles, light trucks, RV’s and motorcycles. Looking over our statistics, for numbers of lemon law cases per year, our charts dovetail nicely with J. D. Power’s quality surveys. The thing to remember is what sort of concentration of effort is required to achieve this kind of change. Think of the planning and persistence needed to continue past all difficulties, national and supranational: And it’s not ancient history, it’s happening right now.

With these examples in mind, is there anyone who doesn’t see a parallel in these examples when looking forward at Chinese manufacturing? At the moment they don’t have a very good reputation in many areas, but they learn fast. When Chinese automobiles and trucks hit the American market—thinking historically—it is a safe bet that we will see a steep rise in lemon law cases, but once they understand the quality equals success equation, who would doubt that they will succeed? Like Japan, they understand that planning based on the quarterly report—the western management method— simply will not work. It is a reactive technique. The stock goes up, who knows why? Everyone has a party, buys a new boat and forgets about quality. The stock goes down and management looks around for whom to fire.

Lest you think we at Norman Taylor & Associates have some connection with Hyundai except the Lemon Law, we do not! When they make a lemon car, and it is brought to us, we will do our job. It doesn’t happen as often though. A good question: Can Hyundai keep to the plan? We shall see.

Since 1987, Norman Taylor & Associates has dealt with thousands of defective vehicles. In the California Lemon Law it is all about the defects. As consumers we want the best. We want to believe the slogans. But when our engine blows and we experience the terror of trying to reach the side of the freeway without becoming a hood ornament on a semi, our last thought isn’t, “I’m not worried; It’s built Ford tough“, or “I’ll be fine, my truck is like a rock.” Tell that to the guy who has made ten trips to the dealership to get his truck repaired. Meaningless slogans! It may be built tough, but it sure isn’t tougher than 20,000 pounds of semi-trailer.

It’s a matter of honesty and maybe a little reality. At Norman Taylor & Associates we have a slogan; it says, “We wrote the book on Lemon Law!” We did! Two of them! Advertising is the business of changing minds, of planting a phrase or image in our heads.

One of Honda’s slogans is, “The power of dreams.” What does that mean? Who’s dreams? One of Toyota’s slogans is, “I love what you do for me- Toyota!” At Toyota, it’s all about ME. We are pretty sure that the family in the fatal vehicle crash in San Diego did not love what Toyota did for them. Unfortunately in most cases, as a consumer you must be prepared to be ground into the dirt if you have a persistently defective lemon car. Manufacturing arrogance is not pretty.

We are not against advertising, but what about the concept of truth in advertising? Forget perception! You can’t drive perception to work every day! People with lemon cars don’t really want to spend their valuable time at the dealership. Nor do they want to be forced to retain a California Lemon Law attorney for help. Remember, when you don’t measure up to your image, when your symbols and slogans are Madison Avenue nonsense, and you cars and trucks turn out to be lemons, they will definitely be remembered. Lemon cars are like first kisses, you never forget them, even though you wish you could. So a word of advice to you folks in the automobile manufacturing business, please, just a little less smoke and mirrors.

Here’s one way the dealership tries to minimize their costs. You have a minor rear-ender. It barely scrapes the paint. Six months later you start having problems with the front suspension. The dealership refuses to repair the vehicle under warranty and recommends that you talk to your insurance agent. This or similar scenarios are surprisingly common. It is such an obvious scam.

Dealerships have warranty repair budgets, which because of the surprisingly poor quality of modern automobiles, keeps dealership repair facilities very busy. When the warranty repair budget is consumed the dealership has to eat the cost of repairs instead of billing the manufacturer. If the dealership can deflect the cost of a repair from their budget to the consumer’s insurance carrier, they may increase their profit margin. How motivated is the dealership to do this?

When a California lemon law lawyer analyzes a client’s repair documents, they watch for these situations carefully. We make every effort to determine how accidents might affect a lemon law case. We also know how dealerships play fast and loose with the truth. It is our business to know. If you have a lemon and the dealership is trying to blame the defects on an accident, contact a California Lemon Law attorney right away.

This breaking news from an article in Automotive News is just one more example of corporate bad behavior. “Toyota spars in U.S. court over internal documents.” They do the same thing when we try to apply the California Lemon Law. They really bring new meaning to the expression “stonewall”.

It’s interesting and saddening to see a once great organization lose its way, to lose those characteristics that define is true strength. Toyota for many years was an icon of quality manufacturing. Some people say it is a natural phenomenon, the rise and fall of any organization, of civilizations, even of a country. It begins and ends with ethics. They began with the desire to hold the highest quality standard and ended in court. If I were a less positive person I could get depressed.

The California Lemon Law was enacted to bring ethical standards to an industry steeped in arrogance. They operated as though their size along gave them license to be contemptuous of the individual owner. This behavior will never win in the long run. Better to do the right thing than become another footnote in the history or manufacturing.

I would be really interested in how you who read this feel about this deplorable situation.

Here is an example of how the mileage offset is calculated under the California lemon law. It also shows the difference to the consumer if he or she doesn’t get the correct first instance of the defects that make the case.

• Vehicle has repeating transmission defects (4+) that despite all efforts, the dealer cannot repair.
• The gross capitalized cost of the vehicle is $56,500.
• The mileage for the first transmission repair is 2,105 miles; the second repair is 8,475 miles; the third repair occurs at 14,760 miles, and the fourth repair occurs at 26,300 miles.

This is the formula for calculating mileage offset using the numbers above:

[Mileage at repair attempt/120,000 (life of the average car)] x agreed upon value of the vehicle.

• (1st repair attempt: 2,105 /120,000)   X $56,500 =$991 Offset
• (2nd repair attempt: 8,475 /120,000)  X $56,500 =$3,990 Offset
• (3rd repair attempt: 14,760/120,000)  X $56,500 =$6,949 Offset
• (4th repair attempt: 26,300/120,000)  X $56,500 =$12,382 Offset

Imagine for an instant that the dealership personnel and the folks at the manufacturers are very aware of what determines the first repair attempt. Is it possible that they might be motivated to use the last repair attempt instead of the first? Or perhaps they might take steps to have your transmission defect appear as some other problem.

It always comes down to the repair orders, how accurate they are, always. Bad paperwork makes difficult lemon law cases. Be a neat freak. Instead of giving back $3990 through carelessness, get the mileage of the first repair attempt right and give back $991.

Remember, if you don’t properly document that first repair attempt, your repair orders may only show three repair attempts and you may need more. This delays the case and may mean more money given back to the manufacturer for usage. The California lemon law is the best in the country, but even the best law cannot be effective if the documentation is wrong.

When she finally decided to call about the California lemon law, she described these events and asked how much she could get for her pain and suffering. Regrettably for Mrs. Jones there isn’t any payment for pain and suffering. In addition to a replacement or refund, there are damages provisions, but none that allow for pain and suffering. A jury might be asked the question of whether the manufacturer has willfully failed to comply with the lemon law, in which case, it is possible to award a consumer with “treble damages.”

If you are in Mrs. Jones’s situation you may agree that there was a lot of pain and suffering, including fear for her life and loss of money as she goes back and forth to the dealer trying to get something done about her defective vehicle. The bottom line is that there simply isn’t any provision for pain and suffering in the California lemon law.

The lemon law is however your legal protection against being stuck with a car whose defects cannot be repaired.