Plus 3 Golfer

I am very pleased with my C-Max and knew prior to purchase that I would not get 47/47/47. Why, because I did the research and it was obvious from reviews including CR that averaging 47 would be virtually impossible for me. Why, because I value time more than FE (taking freeways instead of ancillary streets), will not inconvenience others on the road (ie, coasting to stops, timing lights and driving 35 when the speed limit is 55 mph on 2 lane road with traffic behind me), and will not drive in what I believe is an "unsafe" manner (driving 55-60 mph on freeways when the flow is 70-75 mph). Getting near 47 mpg is not a problem with a C-Max. It's what one has to do to achieve 47 or near it on a consistent basis. If one drives as I stated I won't in the parenthetical above, one can approach and even surpass 47 mpg. Now, let's get back to the issue of the suit filed in PA. The issue as I see it is not really the EPA rating but Ford's use of the 47 mpg in its ads. The ones that I feel are especially misleading to uninformed buyers are the "C-Max beats Prius V in mpg" commercials The commercials are cleverly constructed and the uninformed buyer can be misled by Ford using the EPA numbers and making FE claims that the average buyer won't achieve (get near 47 mpg and beat the Prius V mpg). The evidence is the fuelly data for the C-Max and the Prius V. But, I do think it will be hard for the Plaintiffs to show Ford violated the unfair-trade practices and consumer protection laws (I'm not a lawyer but I worked with a bunch throughout my career). Also, Ford likely knew that their ads could be misleading to the average consumer. If Plaintiffs can uncover internal documents which support this and if Ford's basis for the ads was to hurt it's competition, Ford could lose.