rkisler

Everything now is speculation, but if customers are really angry about one or two things, then they will score everything else low on the survey whether there is anything wrong or not. In this case, it could be MFT. But what I really think might be going on among early buyers is total disappointment in fuel economy. The label says 47/47/47. Literally everyone is falling short of the EPA cert numbers. If you bought the C-Max thinking that Ford was finally in the game and you were going to be getting this mileage, and instead were in the mid- to high 30's range, you might feel cheated and be seething with anger when it came time to rate the car. Especially since everyone "knows" that the Prius gets 50 mpg.

To be clear, the vehicles I'm talking about are those that are produced in the plant before the official <J1>. These are not prototypes, nor are they vehicles that are built in the Pilot Plant. They are produced in the plant using production tooling and also using production supplier parts. If there are any part changes or updates, those are completed at the plant (or through an outside source) before the vehicles are released. These early units are put into Company service -- employee lease cars, pool cars, engineering test vehicles, etc. At the end of the lease (approx. one year), the vehicles are sent to auction. Ford has encouraged employee leases on new products by offering a somewhat lower price. That helps fill the plant early with buildable orders, and it gives the plant and engineering employees vehicles they can drive for quality evaluations without complaint from the customer (one car I got had over 100 miles on the odometer). If everything goes right, then those vehicles will be in the hands of employees and Ford can get early feedback on any issues. More often than not, however, there is some glitch. In that case, vehicles might be built and then parked for update. If a new part is involved, the priority will go to the assembly plant to support production for retail customers and it can take a while for repairs of the early builds (or months in the case of Escape due to the hailstorm in Louisville). So my Flat Rock Fusion is scheduled for a July build. You might expect that things should go smoothly because Ford is already building the Fusion in Hermosillo. But the production equipment is new to the plant. And I have no idea whether the sourcing of components has changed. So I have no idea when I'll actually see it, but Sep-Oct would be a reasonable guess.

From my perspective, I just have never warmed up to the EcoSport including its prior iteration. If Ford were proposing a small SUV along the lines of the Honda Urban SUV shown at the Detroit Auto Show, I would be interested: http://www.automobilemag.com/auto_shows/detroit/2013/1301_honda_urban_suv_concept/photo_00.html There was a lot of pressure on North America to take the EcoSport over the years (including some from people with the last name Ford) and it never made sense regardless of how many times it was studied. I don't know what the specifics are today, but I suspect the basic decision factors are still the same. I just don't expect to see it here.

@ice-capades, I'm sure you realize that <J1> isn't a point where magically lights are turned on and the factory starts running. There are always "pre-production" units produced. These are saleable units (i.e, you don't just crush them) which generally go into company service, sometimes as engineering vehicles or company lease, and ultimately end up in the used car market. These early units are used to sort out the manufacturing process and also to get the suppliers lined up, including utilizing the Ford ordering and scheduling systems that broadcast orders to suppliers for JIT, in-sequence supply. These are company orders, not dealer orders. These early builds await the "OK to Buy" to ensure any problems are sorted before they are shipped. I mentioned in my post that my Flat Rock Fusion has been serialized (i.e., has a VIN). I also mentioned that it shows a July build, but that could change. Both statements are true. There is a lot of flexibility on the timing of the build. Could be July, could be August or later if there are issues or any postponement to <J1>. I also mentioned that I didn't expect to see it until September or October which corresponds to the point when "normal" post <J1> vehicles would be shipped assuming everything goes OK. I guess if you want to be skeptical, fine.

Thanks, ice-capades. This is a Company lease. Sometimes we are guinea pigs, so this is a saleable "pre-production" unit; I have a build date (which can change) and a VIN. Company wanted early actual orders to get Flat Rock started so they gave us a bit of a break on price. This can often mean delays in receiving the vehicle if everything isn't right. If it's a modified part, and full production has started, the priority for new parts goes to the plant which at that point is manufacturing cars going to retail customers (that's the right thing to do). If repairs are required, then the early units can sometime sit on the back 40 for a while before everything is sorted. So I'm not counting on seeing the Fusion until September/October or so.

My understanding is that it's a dark blue-green. I have a 2014 Darkside Fusion on order with paint color sight unseen. It's scheduled for a July build at Flat Rock. But I'm not sure when I'll see it; sometimes these early builds have issues that require them to be held until fixed.

That statement is correct. Hybrids use the same testing cycle as regular ICE cars.

The EPA test is not driving 60 on the interstate, not is at steady state. Please go to: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/fe_test_schedules.shtml Ford probably wouldn't be too upset if the tests changed, as long as the original two tests (those that are used for CAFE compliance) are kept the same.

When I first read this article in print a few weeks ago, I was amazed that someone like Csaba Csere would make this kind of egregious error. Amazed and disappointed as I had a high regard for him. I tried to find an e-mail address for either C&D or him to write him to tell him how off base he is, but I gave up after a while. (Most of the auto magazines are now headquartered in Ann Arbor, so I guess I could have just stopped in to bitch at them, but it wasn't worth the effort.) You are correct. Ford does not extrapolate data from other ICE applications to the hybrid; it's tested separately. And manufacturers can't use the fuel economy adjustment that was available at one time; they have to run the full five cycle tests. Csaba should be embarrassed.

D3/D4 also presents a big plant issue. I'm assuming Flex and MKT will go out of Oakville when the new Edge/MKX comes in (but this doesn't necessarily have to be the case as the present CD3s and D4 share the same body shop). If this happens, I can't imagine that there would be enough profit available to fund a move to Chicago for either Flex or MKT. Nevertheless with the platform change in Oakville soon, we can expect it will be set up in a very flexible manner with CD4 as the base. Chicago is a real problem, however. Right now it's all D3/4. Chicago was built as a modular plant, the idea being subassemblies brought in from the outside and installed; minimal floorspace for inventory. There were hard limitations on the number of bodystyles also IIRC. My information is very, very dated at this point, but flexing another platform into Chicago might be expensive and time consuming. Not that it won't be done at some point, but it might be a decision that could potentially be put off until the Explorer really has to be replaced, say around 2017 or so. What happens to the vestigial D3's at that point is TBD, but I think Chicago will have to be torn up to put in CD4 products; it's going to be very, very expensive and the plant will have to be down for some time IMO. It seems to me that a flexible Oakville would be instrumental in providing coverage until Chicago is sorted. But there could be some capacity constrain issues in the interim.

I don't know what this meeting might be about, but to me it seems like "deja vu all over again." The last time Ford tried a Lincoln renaissance (around 2000), the dealers were asked to make significant investments to upgrade their dealerships in return for promised new, unique products. So the Lincoln Dealer Council was invited in to see the dog and pony show including marketing presentations and a showroom lineup with as many real vehicles and clay properties as we could get our hands on. This allowed them to see what the lineup would look like when all the products were in place. It was very impressive. Only one small problem. Ford pulled the rug out and none of them were actually produced. I can imagine that Lincoln dealers are frustrated right now. Especially if they went through this a little over 10 years ago, and they are seeing delays in new products and a discombobulated reintroduction of the brand. If I'm guessing correctly, this would allow Ford to run through the showroom lineup with all of the products that are expected to hit in the next 4-5 years (properties might not be available for all of these models, but virtual images would be). Just guessing.

This is the lawyers looking for a blackmail payment. Any time a manufacturer makes a product change (like brake override) there is an opportunity for lawyers to imply that the change was made due to a defect rather than continuing product evolution. So he's getting big press which aids in his trolling for plaintiffs. In most cases, there is no way a stuck accelerator can overcome the brakes. However, if it were to happen at highway speeds, there is a chance that the brakes could fade to such a point that it could not be overcome. Note in this case, the lawyer is saying they are looking for property damage, but there was no personal injury which means the event he is talking about likely happened at low speed. With the exception of floor mats jammed under the accelerator pedal, virtually every case of "unintended acceleration" is the fault of the driver having his/her foot on the wrong pedal, and then when the vehicle isn't doing what they expect, they panic, jamming even harder on the "brake" (which is really the accelerator).

There was nothing whatsoever wrong with the Eddie Bauer editions; they sold well and there was a good brand connection. Jalopnik forgot to mention my favorite. My sister-in-law's high series G20. It was, in fact, an Infinity Limited. Which of course I would remind her of everytime we visited.

OK, I'm not a fan of CR's "Holier than Thou" attitudes, but... I'm getting not-so-great fuel economy on my Escape 2.0l AWD. I have recorded my mileage since new. Overall mileage is 19.8 mpg Worst mileage is 16.6 mpg Best mileage was 23.2 mpg (all interstate at 70-80 mph) Yes, I know it's winter in the upper midwest. Yes, I know the car is relatively new. Yes, I know I am paying a penalty for AWD. Yes, I know around-town short trips are a killer on fuel economy. No, I don't warm up my car nor leave it idling. No, in general, I don't drive like a madman. I now have around 3,500 miles on the odometer, and I'll be taking off for Florida next week, so I'll see how much warmer weather and another interstate trip helps. What's most disappointing is that my 2012 Explorer (FWD) gave me an honest 24.7 mpg on the interstate at 75-80 mph right out of the box. I expected better fuel economy performance from the Escape.

I was hoping that Honda would have a good technical display of their new hybrid at the Detroit Auto Show, but no joy. I'm beginning to think that Ford might have made a mistake by sticking with an eCVT, but not going to a clutched system like Honda and the upcoming VW system. Highway mileage suffers with the eCVT as you are always generating electricity even when the speed is above the point where the battery is full and the car can be driven with electric power only. That's part of the reason for the poor performance of the C-Max and Fusion in CR's highway test which is evidently at a constant 65 mph. At that point, it's better to take the electrical machinery off line and drive with ICE only. My suspicion is that CR (unfortunately) will come up with much better highway results for the Accord.

Right. Think Tonka.

You are correct. Chunky still means "tough." And these buyers generally are resistant to radical change. That makes the challenge for higher fuel economy very difficult as pickups have the aero of a brick, and the open bed adds to the problem. So weight is key, along with both passive and active aero improvements. Of course, if the rumors are true and Ford utilizes extensive weight reductions including an aluminum cab, even these action could be somewhat controversial amongst the present buyers until proven in the field. On the bright side, the buyers surely went for V6 EcoBoost in a big way.

I also assume no earlier than midnight Monday. "Trimmer" might apply to weight but not to overall appearance. I'm most interested to see what Ford says about weight technologies and powertrains, but I don't expect too much detail at this point. Not production ready, unlike MKC which looks pretty much ready to go.

No. But F150 concept?

I agree. I've had a bunch of Fords and every one I can remember has a robust fastening system for the driver side floor mat. Either a hook in the floor that goes through a hole in the mat or (in the case of my new Escape) a snap fitting. If you order the optional Ford all-weather mats, they come with instructions that tell you not to stack them, and they also utilize the built-in hardware to secure them. So for my Escape, it took all of 30 seconds to put them in. Unless proven otherwise, the people that are having this issue have very low mental capability.

Biker, I'm with you on this one -- this is a key point. It's very tough to let go, and if the existing platform/products are profitable, then generally the business analysis will lead one to continue rather than replace. Financial projections have a tough time determining accurately volumes and revenues including the influence of the competition or the value of innovation. Sometimes you just have to take a guts pill. One of the (bad) examples of this with Ford in the past was the Panther platform which at one point was dropping substantially over a billion dollars a year to Ford's bottom line. There certainly were a number of individuals who tried to move away from the Panther because they believed there was a waterfall ahead that you would go over without warning. In the pre-Mullaly world, inertia won out over innovation. Similar story on BOF Explorer. Ford had a pilot project with Transit around 2002-2003, and there were plans to produce in the U.S. at modest volumes. E-series profitability and inertia killed it. I can't tell you how upset the people working on the program were, but they were always treated as outsiders in the Ford Truck world so they didn't have the power to get the decision overturned.

The other thing to note is that CR refers to Hyundai/Kia's fuel economy problems when referring to Ford's hybrids in the first two articles. I think the jury is still out, but H/K had a systemic "problem" with their EPA testing associated with coastdown -- that's the test that determines the dyno setting for aero and rolling resistance. A lot of people think H/K were cheating, so by inference, CR is implying Ford was cheating. And that's the way it was picked up and reported by other news outlets. I am willing to bet that Ford called CR pointing out 1) CR's tone led everyone to believe Ford was cheating and 2) CR was crapping all over cars they should have been endorsing. I'm also willing to bet that Ford has discussed the tests with both EPA and CR, and they are firmly standing behind the fuel economy number. CR's latest post was certainly more conciliatory, but you'll never see a real apology from CR because they are always correct. Raj Nair's description in the video in the first post should be part of the information package given to customers on what they can reasonably expect for mileage.

Also, if anyone has any pictures of the trunk, I would be interested in seeing. Here's what the Accord PHEV trunk looks like: http://www.autoblog.com/photos/2014-honda-accord-plug-in-hybrid-first-drive/#photo-5333701 Enough for grocery bags, but not any sort of long-distance touring for a family. I suspect Fusion Energi will look similar.

I don't think CR is just spinning; I think CR's test is done honestly; I don't think Ford is cheating. The tests are different, and in this case for reasons I mentioned earlier, I think with a skillful driver (technician in the lab) under EPA conditions, you can wring more fuel economy with careful pedal modulation (just guessing). I can't answer all of your questions, but the models tested for EPA certification are pre-production but to production level. If the EPA were to audit the Ford Hybrids (which I view as near certainty), then they would purchase the vehicle without Ford's involvement (that's only the right thing to do; to have Ford even touch the vehicle would not be kosher). But...it would have to have the right equipment; don't forget that the EPA testing is done with models containing options over a 33% installation rate. In addition, Ford would be called into the audit, and they would go over their internal lab results. EPA allows some variance (2-3% I think?) to allow for lab-to-lab differences. If it's outside of this range, then there is a discussion over where the problem might be, and an agreement on what to do. In some cases (like BMW earlier this year), the manufacturer will have to change the label. I'm not sure about CR;s tests. I wouldn't call them better or worse, just different. They are done on roads, and they use a formula to adjust for temperature and humidity. CR claims they are more "real" than the EPA test, but the thing that CR loves the most is CR, so you can expect a lot of hubris. I do not believe that CR's tests would be as repeatable as the EPA test. If you took a C-Max from Ford and put it in any other manufacturer's lab, you are very likely to get exactly the same result. (By the way, that's another reason I don't believe Ford is cheating. Don't you think Toyota has run a C-Max in their lab? You bet.)

Brewfan, you have to test drive both of these cars. Just ignore mileage completely and go for the experience and see how they feel. Given the reviews, I would probably include the Accord also. This is a really great time for mid-size car buyers with all the new entries. Pick the one that feels good; the one that will make you smile when you pick up your keys in the morning, despite the fact you're going to work. I have a 2.0l EB in an Escape (AWD), and it's got plenty of guts with minimal response time, but your driving might be different or more demanding than mine and I haven't driven the Fusion. Idle NVH is not as good as a V6, however, but not objectionable in my book. Please check out the CVT on the Nissan. I know they say it's new, but my brother has a Maxima, and sitting the the back seat, the low-frequency groaning NVH is so loud that it was literally giving me a headache and made communication difficult. I couldn't believe the engineers had released the car with those conditions. Maybe the new one is better, or maybe there is a sport mode that would fix the issue (at a fuel penalty) but CVT's always try to slip into the tallest ratio as quickly as possible for fuel economy. Maybe when all is said and done if you like the Fusion, the dealer might be willing to throw in a nice pair of gloves?