BYD used the ad to offer buyers up to €10,000 ($11,800) to those who bought a car and traded in a vehicle with a wet timing belt. That just happens to describe the timing system used in Stellantis’ PureTech engines, which run belts through a constant oil bath. These engines have been at the center of several recalls and warranty extensions linked to long-term reliability issues.

  • SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    18 hours ago

    Stellantis’ PureTech engines, which run belts through a constant oil bath.

    Ford did the same thing in European 1.0L EcoBoost and 2.0L EcoBlue engines and they all fail. This has been a known problem since 2007.

  • Buffalox@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    The IAP ruled that these messages violated Italian advertising rules against defamation, misleading commercial communication, and unfair comparative advertising.

    Good call by the Italian authorities, I admit the way BYD did it as a trade-in offer is pretty clever, but comparative advertising is near impossible to do legally in EU exactly for the reasons stated. It will almost always be unfair and misleading, as it focus on features that disfavor the competition. This can quickly become an issue of actual defamation.

    On another note, Chinese car makers can apparently make deals with EU for lower tariffs if they promise to not sell their cars too cheap. But how does that work when they make attractive trade-in offers?

      • Buffalox@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        15 hours ago

        Obviously if it’s true it is not defamation what I wrote was:

        This can quickly become an issue of actual defamation.

        This can be by context, for instance only mentioning bad aspects or anecdotal evidence.

        • Dupelet@piefed.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          13 hours ago

          Yes, but the ruling stated that they violated defamation rules, which implies defamation did happen.

      • ⠀Q⠀@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        18 hours ago

        It will almost always be unfair and misleading, as it focus on features that disfavor the competition.

        • Dupelet@piefed.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          17 hours ago

          So if an ad were to make fun of how horrible Tesla’s Full Self Driving feature is, that would be unfair and misleading? As opposed to the pain simple truth?

          • ⠀Q⠀@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            16 hours ago

            You can do as you please as a private person. If you are BYD, VW or Ford one has to play by the rules of the market.

            • Dupelet@piefed.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              16 hours ago

              The question was how is it defamation, you’re giving a non-answer that’s nothing more than a blatant appeal to authority.

              • ⠀Q⠀@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                16 hours ago

                Well, I am not the IAP nor the original comment author. But as far as I understand the rules, every comparative advertisement, that is saying competitor X is bad instead of our product Y is good, has the same problem: X can easily say that the selected feature is just one random pick of a range of features. They may retaliate with some other fact. That may also be factual true, let’s say, BYD cars are build without union oversight.

                And that starts a negative cycle. You can be in favour of that. It might be entertaining. But by the book that is not allowed to keep advertisement a little more civilized.

                Whilst I’m not defending any advertisement at all, one can easily see what happens when it is allowed to talk about your enemies instead of what you provide. Just look at the logical end of this in form of the attack ads of the US political campaigns.

                • Dupelet@piefed.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  15 hours ago

                  The question I was asking is, how is it defamation if it’s true. You seem to have wandered off onto a tangent of what constitutes ethical / civilised advertising.

                  one can easily see what happens when it is allowed to talk about your enemies instead of what you provide. Just look at the logical end of this in form of the attack ads of the US political campaigns.

                  More countries than not allow comparative advertising, and the world is not ending. Why use politics as an inaccurate example when the majority of countries actually practice it to some extent?

          • ⠀Q⠀@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            16 hours ago

            I think the rules are there to prevent a slippery slope. Ads, which I personally oppose as a whole, can always state positive thinks about the own brand.

  • Obi@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    1 day ago

    These puretech engines are pure trash, like most of these modern combustion engines that use all kinds of tricks to lower emissions, totally unreliable. I have a Peugeot but it’s the electric version.