akirby

The problem is we don't have driver TRAINING - we just have driver's education and poor education at that. We need a better training program that focuses on how to be a better safer driver and not just how to follow road signs. And we need periodic retesting with a much more comprehensive test. Germany has the right idea - make it hard and make it expensive.

Really? Which vehicle have they killed that shared a platform and most parts with a 500K+ per year volume vehicle like the F150? Ranger? Nope - stand alone platform. Windstar/Freestar? Nope - stand alone platform. Crown Vic/Grand Marquis? Nope - stand alone platform.

Car and Driver tested a EB F150. It was rated at 15/21. C/D got 14 mpg. That's a 18% drop from the combined 17 mpg rating. USA Today tested an Elantra. It was rated at 29/40. They got 22. Motor Trend only got 20. That's a 33% and 39% drop from the combined 33 mpg rating. Do you see a difference?

I think they're being reworked along with the new F150 where there will be a lot more sharing than the current vehicles. It's the only way to make a business case for such low volume vehicles now.

Elantra owners are reporting 25% less mpg than EPA ratings - not just a few mpg and not just a few isolated owners. Show me the same number of complaints about the EB F150 getting 25% less than EPA estimates and I'll say it should be retested too. Everything isn't a conspiracy or kool-aid. Try looking at the facts for a change.

Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong. The MARKET for cars was alive and well when Ford decided to concentrate on trucks and SUVs. The MARKET for cars wasn't shrinking - if anything it was still growing. Ford was still selling over 500K cars between the Taurus, Focus and Crown Vic - they just didn't invest in them. I'm sure the total car market was several million back then and is still around that number of higher today. Meanwhile the Ranger was selling 70K units in a 250K unit market. And that market is continuing to shrink. 70K vs. 500K. 250K vs. 3-4M. See the difference?

Try this - it will be more productive than what you're attempting to do here.

I saw plenty of complaints that Hyundais were 6-10 mpg below the city ratings which seems to be much lower than other makes and models. If it was only an isolated case it wouldn't be an issue. And please understand we're not saying there IS a problem we're saying there is a lot of anecdotal evidence piling up that indicates there MIGHT be a problem and it MIGHT be worth an EPA retest to be sure.

It makes perfect sense. The market isn't DEAD, it's just really small and continues to shrink therefore the ROI on any investment is limited. There are plenty of options on the table - bring the T6 stateside or modify the Fseries or bring in a Transit or TC based unibody vehicle. We don't know what Ford is planning to do but those are all possibilities. It's a certain bet that they're working on SOMETHING right now but we won't see it for a couple more years. And we don't know the pros and cons of all the options to even guess at which option makes the most sense for Ford to pursue, but I guarantee you they have a business case for the option they are pursuing. Whatever they do now would not preclude doing something different down the road, either, especially concerning T6 which will be in production in the ROW.

Well THIS pest control company is using TCs so there must not be an issue.

No amount of upgrades would have gotten Rangers to get the kind of fuel economy and comfort level of the newer crossovers or small cars. And while sales of one model might be attributed to poor marketing or bad design you can't apply that to every truck from every mfr. Tacoma and Frontier are decent trucks available in 4 door configurations - there's nothing about them that would force somebody who wanted one to buy a crossover. Markets change. Blame the consumers not the mfrs.

That gets my vote for POTW!

Even I don't think the current employees should have taken a pay cut.

To be fair there were some early complaints but most of that was due to a grounding strap problem that was corrected.

Brady - you're not getting it. I'm not talking about normal driving. I'm talking about going out and specifically attempting to replicate the EPA test by driving at similar speeds under similar circumstances with regards to A/C, max speed, idle time, etc. There will always be weather, temperature or other factors but if you can't come CLOSE to the EPA mileage under controlled test conditions then it should raise an eyebrow. You could even use another control vehicle on the same test and see how it did compared to its EPA ratings. If that control vehicle was within 2 mpg of EPA ratings then you'd expect the other one to be in the same range (or percentage). It doesn't necessarily mean there is a problem - it just means that it's really suspicious and should be investigated.

http://ehspest.com/Our-fleet.htm

Yep - instead of taking it to another dealer or pursuing a lemon law buy-back he just traded it at a big loss for a boring corolla.

That's why I said close. We know some drivers can exceed the EPA rating in normal driving, so if one tried really hard they should be able to get within a few mpg even in the worst conditions. If the best you can do is 6-8 mpg less than EPA then that should raise some red flags and would lead me to believe that the production vehicles may not be the same as the one that was tested. It's at least worth an investigation.

They had one - it was cancelled due to slow sales when the small pickup market was a lot bigger than it is right now. What changed?

You ignore every piece of "information" that people give you if it doesn't agree with your opinions or desires. And I don't "attack" opinions. The problem is you don't know the difference between an 'opinion" and an incorrectly stated fact. "I like Rangers" is an opinion. "There is a big market for small pickups" is not an opinion - it's an incorrect fact based on historical sales volume.

Ok

But you should be able to drive it reasonably close to the EPA test and get close. With such big discrepancies it seems prudent for the EPA to at least run a test to validate. It wouldn't be the first time that a production change caused a change to test results (exhaust on mustang cobras?).

That's not even an opinion - it's more of an educated guess at this point.

See, that's where you're not getting it. Ford has jumped through hoops to kill things that weren't making money or didn't fit into their long term plans. THEREFORE if Ford chose to do a MCE on the MKT instead of killing it that means it's either making money NOW or it's part of a long term strategy that has a positive ROI. That ROI could change at any time due to poor sales or other conditions and they may well kill it later, but right now it's not a failure or it wouldn't be here.

They only test about 10% or less. They rely on the manufacturers to test and report and they do random verifications of those mfr tests.