Owners report Ford's latest hybrids don't live up to 47-mpg claims

[SoonerLS]

Dad averaged right at 43 mpg over two tanks. Mom gets 38. It is driving habits and style.

My parents have a similar mileage divide on their Freestyle; I don't recall the exact numbers, but my dad gets closer to 28MPG and my mother gets closer to 24MPG.

[jpd80]

Would love to see Ford develop next-size-up hybrid with V6 power, something for the larger Utility and performance Fusion buyer?

[Extreme4x4]

CR is on a witch hunt for Ford, thats for sure.

 

Their war cry about carnage on the streets and owners heads exploding, due to the complexity of MFT has fallen on deaf ears, so they will try something new.

 

NEWS FLASH: Your mileage may vary. :rolleyes:

[twintornados]

My 2012 Fusion SEL had an EPA rating of 33 highway...I get that every time I drive it on the highway and sometimes higher. When I use gas without ethanol, my mileage gets even better...

[aneekr]

Looking at that article, I am convinced that CU deserves this slide into irrelevance

 

More so than the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency?

[RichardJensen]

Well, let's see.

 

Which of these two outfits uses a secret and proprietary test method, and then releases *preliminary* results from that method to news organizations in a transparent bid to get headlines?

[aneekr]

If they really want to see if it's accurate, take a broken in vehicle and let the EPA test it under the EPA testing procedure and see if it gets 47 mpg. That's the ONLY valid test.

 

Consumer Reports' fuel economy tests are arguably the most robust real-world evaluations available in the U.S., consisting of a mixed urban, rural, and expressway driving regimen. I find those figures to more valid than the EPA numbers in terms of what a typical driver can realistically expect. Nonetheless, it's inevitable that comparisons between EPA fuel economy figures and real world figures, like CR's, will arise. This, combined with the complexity of the current EPA protocols for fuel economy and emissions testing, will continue to present challenges to automakers for years to come.

 

All in all, there are some good reasons to choose a Fusion Hybrid over a Camry Hybrid, or a C-Max over a Prius V, but real world fuel economy isn't one of them.

Edited December 7, 2012 by aneekr

[RichardJensen]

Consumer Reports' fuel economy tests are arguably the most robust real-world evaluations available in the U.S., consisting of a mixed urban, rural, and expressway driving regimen

How could you possibly know that?

 

Are you basing that on their hardly disinterested say-so?

 

(p.s. credit goes to Douglas Adams for the phrase: 'hardly disinterested say-so')

[SoonerLS]

Consumer Reports' fuel economy tests are arguably the most robust real-world evaluations available in the U.S.

Sorry, but I can't accept a test as being "better than EPA testing" when the only evidence is the word of someone who claims that their secret, err, "proprietary" testing methodology is both "repeatable and real world." You might as well throw the Drake Equation into the mix, because it's just as big a load of horsepuckey.

Edited December 7, 2012 by SoonerLS

[FordBuyer]

Consumer Reports' fuel economy tests are arguably the most robust real-world evaluations available in the U.S., consisting of a mixed urban, rural, and expressway driving regimen. I find those figures to more valid than the EPA numbers in terms of what a typical driver can realistically expect. Nonetheless, it's inevitable that comparisons between EPA fuel economy figures and real world figures, like CR's, will arise. This, combined with the complexity of the current EPA protocols for fuel economy and emissions testing, will continue to present challenges to automakers for years to come.

 

All in all, there are some good reasons to choose a Fusion Hybrid over a Camry Hybrid, or a C-Max over a Prius V, but real world fuel economy isn't one of them.

 

Yeah, I notice CR fuel mileage numbers are always lower than EPA rating on sticker. Anyway, EPA official in Detroit News article last night commented that it's very difficult to accurately evaluate hybrid fuel mileage ratings because there are more variables with hybrids than ICE. He said they were trying to come up with evaluation system with hybrids that would be more a real world average, and not figures 6-7mpg off with Toyota hybrids and 10+mpg off with Ford hybrids. He also said coastal, high congestion areas like CA report mileage closer to EPA ratings because freeways are so packed it's hard to get past 60mph, where in Midwest driver's routinely drive over 70mph for long stretches. For example, the average speed on I-275 by me is about 77mph unless there is construction or accident. Hard to get optimum fuel mileage at those speeds, even in hybrid. And I-275 has some long grades. So it doesn't sound like Ford is any big trouble with EPA as they understand how difficult it is to come up with accurate fuel mileage ratings for hybrids that the public and CR will come up with in more real world driving.

[akirby]

Does CRs test take into account the ethanol level of the fuel, ambient temperatures and tire choice? Of course not and those things will affect mileage.

[valkraider]

Consumer Reports' fuel economy tests are arguably the most robust real-world evaluations available in the U.S.

 

I am arguably the sexiest man alive.

 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/arguably

[BrewfanGRB]

Consumer Reports' fuel economy tests are arguably the most robust real-world evaluations available in the U.S., consisting of a mixed urban, rural, and expressway driving regimen. I find those figures to more valid than the EPA numbers in terms of what a typical driver can realistically expect.

 

Are you actively trying to make yourself appear obtuse? Even with the "arguably" qualifier, unless you are a CR employee (and thus, are violating what I am sure is a confidentiality agreement all CR employees must sign), THERE IS NO WAY TO KNOW ANYTHING about their evaluations. They CLAIM it's a "real-world evaluation" and they CLAIM it uses a mixed-driving regimen. Because they don't disclose anything about the evaluation, you're simply blindly believing pie-in-the-sky marketing nonsense from the source with the self-interest to make it seem as postive as possible.

 

And you constantly talk here in way to seems to indicate you're an apparently sophisticated and experienced investor. Do you blindly believe nonsensical press releases or do you dig for the true data? If you do the latter, then why in the world you ever believe anything CR has to say about its testing protocols?

Edited December 13, 2012 by BrewfanGRB

[Hoser768]

My HR (Hoser Reports) numbers are arguably the most robust, real world numbers, available. I can't tell you exactly how I get them, but it's a mix of urban, (25 mph and roll every stop sign or else you get carjacked) rural, ( I've been following this combine at 35 mph for the last 17 miles) and expressway. ( I hate rush hour, I've moved 100 yards in the last 10 minutes, but at least the A/C works good) It's a lot more accurate than that EPA BS. Just ask me, I'll tell you.

Edited December 13, 2012 by Hoser768

[All-Or-Nothing]

I'm surprised people still post links to ANYTHING from Consumer Reports.

[4d4evr-1]

Consumer Reports' fuel economy tests are arguably the most robust real-world evaluations available in the U.S., consisting of a mixed urban, rural, and expressway driving regimen. I find those figures to more valid than the EPA numbers in terms of what a typical driver can realistically expect. Nonetheless, it's inevitable that comparisons between EPA fuel economy figures and real world figures, like CR's, will arise. This, combined with the complexity of the current EPA protocols for fuel economy and emissions testing, will continue to present challenges to automakers for years to come.

 

All in all, there are some good reasons to choose a Fusion Hybrid over a Camry Hybrid, or a C-Max over a Prius V, but real world fuel economy isn't one of them.

 

The MPG my wife and I get are the reason we bought a C-Max over the Escape and we are VERY pleased,

[mtberman]

CR is on a witch hunt for Ford, thats for sure.

 

Their war cry about carnage on the streets and owners heads exploding, due to the complexity of MFT has fallen on deaf ears, so they will try something new.

 

NEWS FLASH: Your mileage may vary. :rolleyes:

 

Anyone who who has owned newer tech (turbo, hybrid, diesel) cars will agree with you. Your mileage will definitely vary, and sometimes by a lot more than you'd expect. My first lesson in this concept was owning a 2004 Prius for two years of driving misery. It got around 33 MPG in winter but would get almost 50 if driven at moderate speeds in moderate spring and fall wather. My 2010 Jetta turbodiesel was a much better car, but highway mileage in that unit went from 40+ MPG at 65 MPH down to 25 MPG at 85 MPH. My current Audi Q5 2.0 4 cyl turbo is one of the faster cars I've owned. It gets 32 MPG with the cruise set at 79, but will go down to the mid teens if driven it hard.

 

I never complained to the EPA about any car. If I want to know why my MPG is off, I look in the mirror.

Edited December 13, 2012 by mtberman

[Biker16]

I would like to see ford develop a less power ful hybrid drive system.

 

maybe using the Atkinson cycle 1.5L I3 or I4 and a 25% less power ECVT system. Call it the HF25 or HF20.

[silvrsvt]

I would like to see ford develop a less power ful hybrid drive system.

 

Why? all that will happen is the car will be branded as underpowered, and people will try to mash the accelrator even more resulting in crappy MPG.

 

See here:

 

Driven like a normal car, the C is, quite frankly, frustrating

 

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2012-toyota-prius-c-first-drive-reviews

[Biker16]

Why? all that will happen is the car will be branded as underpowered, and people will try to mash the accelrator even more resulting in crappy MPG.

 

See here:

 

 

 

http://www.caranddri...t-drive-reviews

 

 

The point is people would be willing to sacrifice performance if it yielded better economy and lower price.

the prius sells really well as a city car, and from the review yielded better economy than the EPA numbers, at 55 mpg.

 

the psychological impact of having a slow underpowered car is that your drive slower. Having a powerful car encourages you to drive faster. Driving faster is in conflict with fuel efficiency.

this no longer simply about mechanical efficiency but about driver behavior. Slower cars are driven slower than faster cars.

 

Also finding a way to reduce cost of the existing hybrid system opens up new market where it could be used, like in a B or an A Car. who needs a 188hp hybrid system for a KA, a Fiesta or even a Focus?

Edited December 13, 2012 by Biker16

[silvrsvt]

The point is people would be willing to sacrifice performance if it yielded better economy and lower price.

the prius sells really well as a city car, and from the review yielded better economy than the EPA numbers, at 55 mpg.

 

Yet again why chase down a limited market that doesn't sell that well (in the USA at least)

[jpd80]

The point is people would be willing to sacrifice performance if it yielded better economy and lower price.

the prius sells really well as a city car, and from the review yielded better economy than the EPA numbers, at 55 mpg.

 

the psychological impact of having a slow underpowered car is that your drive slower. Having a powerful car encourages you to drive faster. Driving faster is in conflict with fuel efficiency.

this no longer simply about mechanical efficiency but about driver behavior. Slower cars are driven slower than faster cars.

 

Also finding a way to reduce cost of the existing hybrid system opens up new market where it could be used, like in a B or an A Car. who needs a 188hp hybrid system for a KA, a Fiesta or even a Focus?

you're playing in the low $20K retail market, Fiesta with 1.0 EB and near on 50 mpg fuel economy can soon be had for below that,

Ford stands to make a profit as well as asking probing questions of Toyota's baby hybrids which don't sell all that well to begin with..

Edited December 13, 2012 by jpd80

[sullynd]

Ford should loan a bunch of FFH and FCHs to random people with free gas for a month and track their mileage. "On average the drivers in this study achieved "X" MPG with a low of "Y" and a high of "Z", they went "A" number of days between fill-ups, and were able to travel an average of "BCD" miles on a tank of gas" would be a good way to reinforce the fuel economy of the vehicles*

 

 

 

 

*Provided the numbers don't suck.

[Biker16]

Yet again why chase down a limited market that doesn't sell that well (in the USA at least)

 

I see what your are saying, but the idea of a hybrid system that is more powerful than necessary B-car would hurt hybrid application of the B-max or any other small for in the 180 other countries other than the US.

 

you're playing in the low $20K retail market, Fiesta with 1.0 EB and near on 50 mpg fuel economy can soon be had for below that,

Ford stands to make a profit as well as asking probing questions of Toyota's baby hybrids which don't sell all that well to begin with..

 

Globally the Prius has sold over 420,000 units thought October, how much of that market does Ford want? if they want more volume they will need a smaller hybrid drive system.

 

For crying out loud the Prius only has 123hp and Prius C has only 99hp

 

Personally I'd like to See a hybrid system with total power of 120-140hp, to be placed in the B-max and Focus. Both should yield in excess of 50 mpg.

[grbeck]

the psychological impact of having a slow underpowered car is that your drive slower. Having a powerful car encourages you to drive faster. Driving faster is in conflict with fuel efficiency.

this no longer simply about mechanical efficiency but about driver behavior. Slower cars are driven slower than faster cars.

 

Not necessarily. I usually drive at 75 mph on the interstate highways, and I've been passed many times by Priuses traveling at 80+ mph.