rkisler

You are exactly right. Prior to the new tests being added, manufacturers could use the original tests and apply the correction factor jpd mentions. But that's not true any more; all manufacturers now have to certify with all of the new test cycles. The new high speed test goes up to 80 mph. The point I tried to make in an earlier post was that even the high speed tests have periods where a skillful driver could keep Ford's new hybrid system in electric mode. It would require careful modulation, something I'm guessing a lot of consumers (and journalists) might not be able to understand or manage. Manufacturers do not report their results in each of the tests, just the combined tests that make up city and highway.

Bob, please go back to my earlier post (#43) which attempts to explain why a non-clutched full hybrid might not experience great fuel economy when the operating speed is above that which can be driven on the electric motor. And the fact that assuming "highway mpg" means driving at a standard speed of, say, 65-70 is not at all what the EPA test is for highway. Any responsible journalist should know that. Here is an explanation on how the EPA tests are conducted. The detailed drive cycles can be seen by hitting the left tab http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/how_tested.shtml Everyone should note how much of the higher speed cycles are at or below the electric motor only capability of the C-max which is 62 mph. It's my belief that this allows the tester to skillfully go in and out of electric only mode and (if you're doing your job right) leave each test with nothing in the battery. But that's only a guess on my part.

I would say that there is an almost 100% certainty that EPA will test these vehicles in their Ann Arbor lab given the vast amounts of publicity. I have no doubt that Ford has been 100% honest in testing. But there can be some lab-to-lab variance so who knows what will happen. I think EPA is usually looking for results within 3% or so. I also know that Ford's technicians are very experienced (as are those of other manufacturers) and they are "driving" the vehicles on the dyno in the most fuel efficient manner possible while keeping within the electronic trace. This is, I think, where the problem comes in and why Ford's EPA results are wider than Toyota's when compared with CR. Ford's new eCVT is more capable than Toyota's with a more powerful drive motor and higher electric-only speed. From reading posts here and elsewhere, it looks like Ford drivers can get much better fuel economy through "punch and glide"; i.e. not "babying" acceleration, but getting up to speed briskly and then using the electric motor to sustain speed. I'm sure the technicians are making maximum use of this technique. The natural tendency of drivers wishing to save fuel would be to gently accelerate (the old "egg between your foot and the accelerator pedal"), so this technique is counterintuitive. I think Extreme4X4 made an important point earlier: "As mileage gets higher and higher, the ability of the average person to achieve it gets less and less." Original Prius owners were a tight and committed bunch and communicated on line on how to drive to save fuel. As full hybrids gain market share, the next generation of buyers might never learn how to maximize fuel economy and will just be disappointed as their vehicles fall short of the advertised mileage. Even if Ford's hybrids tested at 47/47, I'm wondering if it was wise to use that figure for advertising. Personally I prefer underpromise/overdeliver. Virtually every reviewer is saying these are nice vehicles with good gas mileage, but that message is being overshadowed by "Ford is cheating!!!!"

akirby, makes you shudder, doesn't it. You should see what goes on behind closed doors!

I did want to mention a few technical bits about hybrids; everything I say should be considered AFAIK and I stand to be corrected. 1. Ford and Toyota use a power split architecture. In this arrangement, the drive is always through the larger motor/generator (MG2). There is a smaller MG1 that also can spin both forward and reverse. What's really happening is the electrical charging resistance is what's responsible for changing the final drive ratio. I've posted this before, but it's always fun to look at: http://eahart.com/prius/psd/ 2. The Toyota and original Ford transmission were designed by Aisan Warner. Ford has now gone to an in-house design. Although some of the operating parameters are different (like size of motor and maximum top speed), the basic operating is the same. 3. While the power split transmission works well around town, it can be a bit of a drag (pun intended) on the highway. That's because if you are above the speed at which the vehicle can operate on electric only, you are still spinning MG1 and MG2. When the battery is full up. you are basically generating electricity and then reusing it at the same time. So there are losses on MG1 and MG2. 4. So, for a person like me who takes a lot of around town trips puncuated by numerous very long (700-1200+ miles) high speed (75-80 mph) interestate trips, the power split is a mixed bag. Where I might like to be on electric only, for instance, after going over the Appalachians, the car still has to stay in ICE mode because I am exceeding the hybrids electric-only capability. So at those speeds, you're better off with either a more capable BEV/EREV (like Volt), or simply an ICE (like 1.6l EB or perhaps a diesel). 5. Some manufacturers (GM Volt, Honda, VW, Hyundai/Kia) are now clutching their drivetrains to allow a higher variety of combinations including ICE-only operation. This type of system works well in high-speed environments, and can still provide EV only operation at some speeds, and hybrid operation at other speeds (some are better than others). 6. I know Ford looked long and hard before deciding to build another power split, but I'm really wondering if they should have gone to a clutched system. The new Accord Hybrid system appears to be very versatile, and I'm waiting to see how the new Accord HEV/PHEV perform with CR. Another point. Many people (most?) equate the EPA highway mileage to what they would expect with steady state cruise at, say 65-70 mph. But that's not what the test cycle is (you can look on EPA's site).; it has speed changes So for ICE's I can consistently outdo EPA's highway numbers at 75-80 mph on the interstate. But with the bits I mentioned above, if you travel at that speed with a hybrid, you aren't getting any of the benefit, and are likely to be way under the EPA highway estimate.

Understand. I have had problems with CR's attitude. At one time I had an on-line subscription and I posted to try to get them to explain exactly how they tested for fuel economy. Which they didn't do, of course. Their response to me had a lot of generalities, and they said that their city driving test was "very rough." I replied that as a reader I wasn't interested in "very rough" but "very representative." Never got another reply.

Because the EPA and CR tests are different, even if Ford's hybrids are "recertified" or "audited" by the EPA test and "cleared", that still doesn't mean that there would be any change in results or opinion on the part of CR. There is no reliable and statistically valid means of reporting real world fuel economy. Sure, there are a couple of sites like the EPA site, Fuelly, and enthusiast sites where drivers can self-report. But do you really trust the reporting? For instance, given the relative fanaticism of VW diesel owners, do you think they are accurately reporting their mileage? Or might some of them be so excited and sure of what they view as their own intelligence for choosing a VW that they "overestimate" their mileage? Same for Prius owners. And they number and type of people who are reporting are likely not representative of the population of the buyers. This is a tough one. I do not believe that CR slants their fuel economy test in any particular direction by manufacturer. Although CR say their tests are better than EPA because they are on the road rather than in the lab, they are subject to corrections due to weather conditions and such and in my view are less repeatable. Since CR won't tell anyone what their test cycles are, there is absolutely no way manufacturers can try to duplicate the test to find out what's going on. In CR's defense (which I don't ordinarily do), if I were CR I also wouldn't want the manufacturers to know my test cycle. Why? Because the EPA cycle is well known and "driven" on the dyno by very experienced technicians who are wringing out the best mileage possible while staying on the path. So if manufacturers knew CR's test cycle, they might recalibrate to the test. In a way, similar to trying to ace both the federal and IIHS crash tests.

A few comments: 1. This article is from a know-it-all who doesn't in fact know it all and is virtually unreadable. 2. Lincoln's road back will be tough, tough, tough. With the launch of the new MKZ, Farley had little choice but to launch the new Lincoln advertising and overall strategy. But unfortunately, there's only one arrow in the quivver right now (MKZ), so the message is quite diluted and can be viewed more as just a marketing message without a lot of substance. 3. All the blab about "we've never done this with Lincoln before" is pure bull^&$%, It was done in the 2002 time frame. There was a full separate Lincoln organization (with Mercury) with dedicated engineers and a fully dedicated design staff under Gerry McGovern. And guess what iconic Lincoln Gerry chose to aim for -- the 61 Continental. You can see it through the show cars that were developed during this time period. But they all bit the dust for a variety of reasons and Lincoln was disbanded. The current attempt is virtually no different to the last attempt, except years have gone sliding by. And in the meantime, some Lincoln products have been shoved into the marketplace with minimum differentiation just to hold a spot in the lineup. 4. I've never seen it reported, but there was an attempt to develop a flagship Lincoln which would have been a modern interpretation of the 61 Continental convertible. But it would have been limited volume and very high price. Current safety standards likely would have required a unique limited volume platform (in aluminum) if you wanted to do suicide doors with a convertible. This project bit the dust before Lincoln was reconsolidated with Ford. 5. Ford has to sort out why it is that Lincoln, despite the level of differentiation, always gets the reputation as a "fancy Ford" but when other manufacturers develop luxury products from pedestrian origins, there is no mention by the press. 6. Lincoln is going to have to work its way up the food chain with uniquely differentiated products and some unique technology. And there simply cannot be any lettup or hiccups in the execution. If Ford wrings hands or pauses along the way ("we can't afford it"), then we'll be having the same discussion 10 years from now. 7. There is no way Lincoln is a BMW or Mercedes competitor. The best Lincoln can do for now is to try to emulate some Lexus models, Acura, and some Infinity models. Maybe Audi at the way, way outside. But Audi has done an excellent job and now has boosted itself much closer to BMW/Mercedes in performance and imagery so that's not really in the cards at this stage. And I know Richard will be mad at me, but I don't think Lincoln can compete with Cadillac at this point.

Deanh, all Ford can do is stand by if the EPA audits these cars and say, "see, our EPA findings have been verified." But because CR uses their own proprietary on-the-road test without outside observers, there is no way Ford can say "see, our cars will perform as specified on your tests." CR mileage is often lower than EPA tests. They have been circumspect on what their test are, but they have implied they have a much rougher city course with a lot more idling. Who knows. In summary, there is no way to audit their testing. Unfortunately, when Ford and other manufacturers do the EPA testing, it's with production level prototypes because the certification has to be done to get the label for production vehicles. So, at that point, it's not possible, for instance, to put the cars in the hands of consumers to see what they might be able to achieve. As I mentioned, unfortunately I don't any upside, but just more bad press as more outlets pick up this story and it's transmitted as "cheating."

After an MKS, then a Taurus, then an Explorer, I'm now in a 2013 Escape. Whew, am I glad to be rid of those barges! Never again for me on a car that large, particularly on the D4. My next up is almost certainly a Fusion or MKZ, but if the new Edge/MKX is ready, I will consider. But given the choices, not the present CD3s Edge/MKX. MKZ would be my choice on your list

OK, let's be honest. There is absolutely no upside to CR's testing result and their reporting of same. 1. CR uses a proprietary (and hence private) road course to determine fuel economy. They can't get the advertised mileage. 2. We can all argue "you don't know how to drive" or "you're not relevant" or "you won't tell us what the course is", but that doesn't matter. This is making big press today. And it's on top of previous reports that have been running around "green" sites where those testers are not getting the advertised mileage. 3. Most of us on this board (including me) believe that Ford is being honest on its EPA testing. But we also know that these tests are "driven" on the dyno by very experienced technicians (just like all other companies use). So they are exploiting any possible advantage in driving techniques that will keep them on the plot while enhancing mileage. These techniques might not be the same as those driving the cars are using. 4. The fact that Ford is falling short with CR and other places has now turned to "Ford is Cheating." That's what the headlines are saying or implying. Note the following where Autoblog is using the word "false" which means cheating: http://www.autoblog.com/2012/12/06/consumer-reports-calls-out-ford-for-false-fusion-c-max-h/#continued 5. Personally, I think this is a Ford screwup, pushed by Marketing. Just because the car tested at 47 mpg doesn't mean that's what has to be advertised. 6. Given the furor, I would think that EPA would audit these cars in their lab in Ann Arbor. If they can't get the mileage, it doesn't mean Ford is cheating, but it could result in Ford lowering the advertised mileage (like happened with BMW recently). But, unfortunately, because of the recency of events, Ford is being put in the same basket as Hyundai/Kia who had a systematic "problem" with their coastdown calculations.

My recency of experience is becoming more dated day by day, but I did have multiple years of doing business with Mazda, Kia, Ford Europe, Jaguar, Land Rover, and Volvo (and a little bit of AM). I have said on numerous occasions that -- despite 22+ hour door-to-door trips, videoconferences at 10:00 at night and language difficulties -- I would rather deal with Mazda any day of the week versus Ford Europe. I have to stereotype because some individuals were great, but when I was with Ford, FoE had an extraordinary amount of hubris which was not backed up by product or quality facts, only their high opinion of themselves. They looked with disdain at the U.S. market and particularly its drivers. And they completely looked down their noses at Asian manufacturers even though those manufacturers have shown the way in terms of quality and are quite dominant in the U.S. market. The Asian manufacturers are the ones to beat in the U.S. market -- not VW which seems to be FoE's sole focus. I had hoped things had changed under Mullaly, and maybe they have. Ford doesn't seem to know what the root cause is for this embarassing, dangerous, and image-killing problem, so it's pretty hard to sort out where to point fingers and take corrective action.

To me, this is the most discouraging and alarming issue with the 1.6l EB problem. From Ford's announcement: "Repair procedures are not currently available" That means they haven't fullly sorted out root cause even after a crash team has been put together to look at those vehicles that have experienced fires. So it appears that Ford engineers are now looking at customer cars to see if they can discern any issues that are "pre-failure." Of course the team would have a few key suspects, but right now they it looks like they are playing Clue ("Miss Scarlet in the drawing room with the knife?"). Then after cause is determined, they will have to develop a repair procedure and bring back owners. But what Ford does in the meantime is really questionable. Of course, this is a serious and potentially life-threatening problem so can customers keep driving their vehicles after inspection when the cause isn't finally determined? Even after 40 years, the public hasn't forgotten the Pinto, so this is an even bigger problem for Ford's image.

Umm, too late I think. Ford is hooked into the logic that they can make everything from a Ka to a big Lincoln with just one platform.

Sorry, JPD, but either you or biker are going to have to deliniate exactly what "FNA fiddling" or FNA redesign is responsible for this f*&^ up. I'm not buying it. What I am buying is that these cars and powertrains are designed by FoE and they are dragging their supply base with them and some of them 1) make crap, and 2) are having a tough time getting up to speed which is causing problems. I preferred the high quality Japanese-centric supply base we had prior to handing the keys to FoE. I agreee with Richard on the launch success of FoE products. If I were Mullaly, I would be having second thoughts about kicking Mazda out of bed. It's also discouraging that it seems from the announcements that Ford doesn't have the root cause isolated yet. Yikes.

IMO, it's primarily the supply base, but also has to do with changing to all-new platforms in the assembly plants. . The design source will use suppliers they are comfortable with in part because they can get design assistance to ease their engineering load. So it makes sense that those suppliers are often in close proximity to the design lead. With new FoE-designed products like Escape and Fusion, Ford is rolling the supply base to a more European (FoE) focus from a more Japanese-centric supply base that is prevalent in the U.S. due to the overwhelmingly large number of U.S. and Japanese products produced here with great quality. Not only do the suppliers change, but so does the physical manufacturing plant where the components are made. It's not unsolveable in the long term, but can be very, very disruptive initially. I have no idea what happened on the die messup reported by akirby. That's not a design issue, but a problem with Dearborn Tool and Die.

I am extermely discouraged. I hate to say this, but are we headed for another typical rough launch of a FoE-based product in North America on what was Ford's highest quality product?

IRS requires a tearup to the rear. New rear floorpan, new fuel tank, new suspension bits (obviously), new seats, revised exhaust routing, revised filler. At this point, the underbody of this mule likely is pretty well fully representative of the new car, but it is jammed under the exterior sheetmetal of the existing car. Fuel filler routing is one reason. There is a second reason I think. Take a look a the rear fenders of the red Evos pictured earlier, and try to imagine the fuel filler placement. Probably a bit outboard versus the rather flat fender area on today's Mustang. So the filler likely is production representative and aligned to the actual exterior location of the new car.

I don't think there e-CVT is any different between the Energi and the Hybrid, but electric power delivery is higher on the Energi due to the larger battery, so it should have more "oomph." In "EV-Now" mode on the C-Max, I would expect the Volt to perform better due to higher output motor. After battery depletion, the C-Max Energi does have better stated fuel economy than the Volt, but IIRC, the Energi's fuel economy drops to 43mpg from the 47 of the hybrid model. Due to weight, I assume.

I guess it's in our nature to compare -- even when vehicles are in a different class. There are a lot of comparisons of the Leaf and Volt on line which also pretty much doesn't make sense. What you can say is that there are a variety of BEV's/PHEV's/EREV's in various configurations and you can choose the one (or none) that is best for you. The issue is, of course, package. Batteries are extraordinarily poor in terms of energy density. Think of that large t-shaped battery pack in the Volt which weighs over 400 pounds and gives equivalent mileage to a gallon of gas weighing 6 pounds. Yikes. So each manufacturer has to make compromises and find the right balance between weight, cost, package, range, and economy. In some cases with a new platform (Tesla and Leaf), a highly modified platform (Volt) or as an add-on (Focus BEV, Energi models). Manufacturers also might have to make compromises if they want to blend production of their plug-ins with ICE's and hybrids (Leaf, Ford BEV/PHEV). And, of course, any PHEV/EREV has to maintain package for the ICE and all the junk that goes with it like fuel tanks. Customers also have to make compromises. True they might be comparing a Volt and a C-Max or Fusion Energi, but whether one is more useful than the other depends in part on one's daily use of the car. For some, the C-Max Energi range is fine; others might find that the Volt range allows them to be fully on electric almost all the time and maybe they don't need the rear seat package. Considering the state of the art, for a lot of customers, the best choice from a financial standpoint (even with the huge government incentives) is "none of the above." From a package standpoint, the Volt has a wide tunnel, gives up the middle seat in the rear, and has some footwell issues for rear seat passengers. The C-Max Energi has a huge battery intrusion in the trunk which means if you want the flat floor, it is raised substantially. The Fusion Energi will lose at least half its trunk, just like the Accord PHEV. Still, it's good to see some good press from CR for a change.

Thanks, bzcat. I didn't forget. I am aware of program profitability and incremental profits from derivative products, and I'm also aware of chicken tax issues. But I am also aware that just throwing a product into a marketplace doesn't mean it will be successful. For a mass market product to have any sort of critical mass, you need at least 30k upa which the TC is now achieving. At that point, the product can have some sort of minimal advertising support and dealers will be more wiling to stock it. But even then, the product won't find itself on the crowded showroom floor which limits customer attention and also limits salesperson concentration. TC cargo is a bit different as it is a very unique commercial product, so I see nothing but upside. The passenger version of the TC is going to have to be sold pretty much like today's passenger TC -- as a version of the overall product. Which means it will make the brochure, but not much else. But...it's more complex with upscale options like the BAMR which means ordering, scheduling, and stocking will be more complex and difficult. Please see Deanh's comments in #62 to get a sense of how tough ordering & scheduling is with an imported product including long lead times. So, given long lead times which means you won't be building to customer order, what passenger versions will the dealers order, if anything, for their inventory recognizing that those units will end up on "the back 40" in their lot? (Deanh, please feel free to correct me if my impressions are wrong.) I think there is a potential small market for this product. Maybe Ford's internal data sees a larger market or believes the "white space" opportunity is too good to pass up. Or maybe Ford figures "why not?" and is willing to test the waters because the TC is already certified for sale in the U.S. and, as you mention, they are coming in as wagons anyway. Dunno. My opinion doesn't matter, because Ford is going to give it a go and I hope I'll be pleasantly surprised.

Hi JPD. Ummmm, maybe. I've explained a couple of times how the CD3s (Edge) was massaged from the mother model, Mazda's Japanese MPV. In particular, attention was paid to moving the shocks and shock towers outboard to provide better cargo package. But that still wasn't enough to make the CD3s the basis for a competive minivan. One of the toughest package challenges for a "US-type" minivan is the absolute requirement to put at least 2-3 full size 4'X8' sheets of plywood or drywall lying flat fully contained within the minivan with the liftgage closed. When you have all of the competitive models lined up, you can see what they have done to achieve this objective. First, the shocks are outboard and shock tower trim panels wide enough to contain the flat sheets. Consoles can inhibit the forward movement of the sheets, so in some models they are notched at the bottom and in others the console is removeable. That allows the sheets to slide forward to allow one to close the liftgatge. I really don't know anything about the CD4 platform, but I would love to be in a room right now with all of the package drawings pinned around the walls and be in that discussion. I'm going to guess that the changes required are more than a stretch. Of course, nothing's impossible, it's just money. What I hope is that if Ford is doing a real minivan that they don't compromise on any of the necessary attributes. Otherwise you can end up in no-man's land with a forgettable, uncompetitive product.

Well now we see one of several reasons why we aren't getting the Grand C-Max. Color me very skeptical over the potential success of this vehicle. Yes, I'm getting older; yes, my data are very dated at this point but I do have some relevant experience with Ford's last planned full-size minivan.. Over time, the formula for the "American Style" minivan has been well established. You can actually pretty well nail down all the attributes that all of the successful minivans have. In general, products that don't fit the mold are deemed to be uncompetitive and eventually have been forced from the market. In Ford's case, the Windstar was uncompetitive in several areas, wasn't updated, and was gone. In the case of the Villager/(Quest), a good product was forced from the market primarily because it was too small. Ford is almost singlehandly trying to establish a smaller "people mover" category in the U.S. I think it works well for the C-Max which is functional, versitile, and efficient. I'm not so sure it works with this vehicle. There will be some families that might be interested in a smaller minivan with compromised function, but how many? And if anyone driving a competitive Honda, Toyota, or Chrysler minivan shops this vehicle, they likely are going to be very disappointed. I have an appreciation for minivans, but looking back at the time when I owned them, I don't think this vehicle would ever have been in my consideration set. And I don't think it will be in consideration for customers who want something "funky" that hampsters might drive. Just my opinion..... My comments don't have anything to do with the commercial side of the Transit Connect which I think was an excellent move on Ford's part.

I'm not sure specifically what's happening with FRAP; i.e., I 'm not sure exactly where the investment is going. I also don't know what's happening with Woodhaven, but a couple of thoughts: 1. Ford seems to be FINALLY moving to an integrated stamping plant pattern, so I'm not sure why Ford would want to get outside stampings for FRAP (which has an integrated shop since the plant was laid out by Mazda). 2. Getting stampted metal into an assembly plant that has been designed with an integrated stamping plant is not easy; you would have to make expensive modifications to FRAP to create an exterior dock and cut into the flow. Whether Ford is planning on doing this or not, I have no idea. But I do have some personal experience looking at this and it isn't pretty. 3. I don't know why the AAI stamping shop couldn't handle 4 models, 3 of which have some common underbody bits. The stamping shop certainly has the volume capacity; the only question in my mind is whether they could handle the die complexity. 4. Woodhaven's business will be declining rapidly; from Ford's perspective, it would be good to get the fixed cost out of the system, particularly if it is no longer aligned with Ford's long-term assembly strategy. It seems to me that just having Woodhaven supply some panels to FRAP would not be cost-effective. I'm sure others here might have a better idea as to whether there is other business Woodhaven might be able to pick up.

I'm not so sure how it's going to work. This is the time where I really miss being in a large room with package drawings covering the walls and Ford and competitive vehicles on lifts right through the door!! Ford is certainly following FoE's lead for platform strategy for everything other than BOF trucks at this point. FoE paid close attention to VW in the ATKearney study that got them to the platforms they (and we) now have. VW's recent platform strategy certainly will be studied in detail to determine if there is anything Ford can learn. Certainly any platform that is geared to larger vehicles could be "CD4-friendly." D4 will certainly have to be pitched overboard at some point. It oinky and expensive, although safe. Ford now produces D4 in the same body shop as the CD3s in Oakville, so I think it will be very interesting to see what happens when the new Edge is introduced. D4's gone from Oakville would be my guess. Too bad OAC Sparky doesn't seem to post here anymore.