Ford hybrids fall short of fuel economy claims - CR.

[iamamultitasker]

This is not what I wanted to see:

 

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/ford-hybrids-fall-short-fuel-194341586.html

 

This is trouble. I hope the EPA doesn't jump on this bandwagon.

[akirby]

http://www.blueovalforums.com/forums/index.php?/topic/51891-owners-report-fords-latest-hybrids-dont-live-up-to-47-mpg-claims/

[iamamultitasker]

http://www.blueovalf...-47-mpg-claims/

 

Whoops! Missed that thread. Sorry.

[FordBuyer]

Not at all Kirby...this should be a new thread. You really are slipping. The thread you posted link to was about driver experiences relayed to CR. This story came out today AFTER CR DID EXTENSIVE TESTING OF ITS OWN, and concluded that Fusion hybrid gets 39mpg city and highway, and C Max only 37 in same cycle. This is not good news, and Ford has had bad PR week with 1.6 EB nightmare that does not go away and now this. I'm not happy as I own Ford stock and drive their product. It pains me and refuse to be an apologist for this stuff. If fact, this is very bad news.

[Deanh]

Not at all Kirby...this should be a new thread. You really are slipping. The thread you posted link to was about driver experiences relayed to CR. This story came out today AFTER CR DID EXTENSIVE TESTING OF ITS OWN, and concluded that Fusion hybrid gets 39mpg city and highway, and C Max only 37 in same cycle. This is not good news, and Ford has had bad PR week with 1.6 EB nightmare that does not go away and now this. I'm not happy as I own Ford stock and drive their product. It pains me and refuse to be an apologist for this stuff. If fact, this is very bad news.

and like some of us have said, it ALL depends on driving habits, I can ASSURE you 47 mpgs IS attainable on both cars.....but its ALSO easy to get less...funny,last i looked the E is EST , stood for ESTIMATED......and then the wording to the right of an asterix reads..Actual mileage can vary.....

[FordBuyer]

and like some of us have said, it ALL depends on driving habits, I can ASSURE you 47 mpgs IS attainable on both cars.....but its ALSO easy to get less...funny,last i looked the E is EST , stood for ESTIMATED......and then the wording to the right of an asterix reads..Actual mileage can vary.....

 

Uh, this is a major story as CR report came out this afternoon. Getting lots of national press. CR claims 47mpg is 20% off the mark. I'm sure hypermilers can and will get 47mpg and maybe even more, but average real world drivers will be lucky to get 40mpg with Fusion and less with C Max. Looks to me like Feds will be looking into this and possive penalties like with Hyundai/Kia.

[fordmantpw]

Uh, this is a major story as CR report came out this afternoon. Getting lots of national press. CR claims 47mpg is 20% off the mark. I'm sure hypermilers can and will get 47mpg and maybe even more, but average real world drivers will be lucky to get 40mpg with Fusion and less with C Max. Looks to me like Feds will be looking into this and possive penalties like with Hyundai/Kia.

 

$5 says the feds have already tested the Fusion hybrid and certified the 47 MPG rating. Ford isn't stupid, and with the huge increase over the '12 Fusion, my money is on Ford going to the EPA and saying "Hey guys, we want to make sure our bases are covered, so could you test this for us?"

[Deanh]

Uh, this is a major story as CR report came out this afternoon. Getting lots of national press. CR claims 47mpg is 20% off the mark. I'm sure hypermilers can and will get 47mpg and maybe even more, but average real world drivers will be lucky to get 40mpg with Fusion and less with C Max. Looks to me like Feds will be looking into this and possive penalties like with Hyundai/Kia.

I say Ford just gos out and proves them wrong.....hmmm, egg on CRs face WOULD BE PRICELESS..................

[FordBuyer]

I say Ford just gos out and proves them wrong.....hmmm, egg on CRs face WOULD BE PRICELESS..................

 

I would like to see that also. However, only about 15% of all new vehicles are tested by EPA. Ford has been pretty honest company for the most part, so I hope Ford wasn't fudging with the numbers here. I know CR had Ford's latest hybrids for at least last couple weeks breaking them in for optimum fuel mileage numbers, and gave out final report today. I would assume they copied EPA driving cycle, but yes, I hope Ford can prove then wrong. Ford so far has not commented on latest CR charge.

[Deanh]

I would like to see that also. However, only about 15% of all new vehicles are tested by EPA. Ford has been pretty honest company for the most part, so I hope Ford wasn't fudging with the numbers here. I know CR had Ford's latest hybrids for at least last couple weeks breaking them in for optimum fuel mileage numbers, and gave out final report today. I would assume they copied EPA driving cycle, but yes, I hope Ford can prove then wrong. Ford so far has not commented on latest CR charge.

Ive said it before and I'll say it again, i REALLY think Ford should send someone with their cars, especially in CR's case since they have a grudge against all domestics it seems, to EXPLAIN, and SIMPLIFY the operation of A) MFT and here, how to drive a hybrid to acheive the rated mileage......

[akirby]

I would assume they copied EPA driving cycle

 

You would be wrong.

[akirby]

You can't prove anything here unless you run the EPA test under the EPA rules with some sample vehicles.

 

And I'm tired of hearing Ford or any other mfr be gigged for "advertising" the results of the EPA mileage test. Ford is required by law to post those numbers on the window sticker. Given that it would be stupid for Ford to advertise some other number.

 

If you don't like the EPA tests then complain to the EPA.

 

If you don't believe the EPA test results then have the EPA run their own controlled tests.

[akirby]

It should also be noted that EPA testing is not performed on optional tires if they're less than 50% of sales. The optional 18 inch wheels may cost you 3-4 mpg if the tires are stickier.

[FordBuyer]

Latest report from CR:

 

"Consumer Reports does its own fuel economy tests separately from those conducted by the EPA. But the magazine says that its results usually track more closely to the EPA's.

 

 

The EPA estimates that both the Fusion Hybrid and C-Max Hybrid get 47 miles per gallon in both city and highway driving. In Consumer Reports testing, the Fusion Hybrid got 35 mpg in city driving and 41 on the highway.That works out to 8 mpg less than EPA estimates in combined city and highway driving.The C-Max hybrid, meanwhile, got 35 mpg in city driving and 38 on the highway in the Consumer Reports test. That's 10 mpg less than EPA estimates in combined driving.

"This is the biggest descrepancy of any current model," said Jake Fisher, head of auto testing at Consumer Reports.

Still, he added, both vehicles get outstanding fuel economy, by either measure. In fact, the Fusion Hybrid still gets the best fuel economy of any mid-sized sedan that Consumer Reports has ever tested.

 

Nevertheless, Fisher felt it was important to call attention to the big differences in their fuel economy readings. Consumer Reports' mileage tests usually come with in a mile or two per gallon of the EPA ratings, he said.

"Even though the fuel economy is excellent," Fisher said, "if a consumer expects 47 mpg when they purchase that vehicle, they're going to be very disappointed."

Vehicle owners can report their own fuel economy figures on the EPA's fueleconomy.gov Web site, and the average owner-reported mileage is 39.5 mpg for both vehicles."

 

Ford responded finally by saying many of its customers are either coming close to EPA numbers or in some cases over pointing to many variables in what you get. Don't know if this will be end of beginning of this controversy. I would say beginnng because of precedence set by Hyundai/Kia penalty, especially if average stays around 39.5 mpg after many months.

[Deanh]

You can't prove anything here unless you run the EPA test under the EPA rules with some sample vehicles.

 

And I'm tired of hearing Ford or any other mfr be gigged for "advertising" the results of the EPA mileage test. Ford is required by law to post those numbers on the window sticker. Given that it would be stupid for Ford to advertise some other number.

 

If you don't like the EPA tests then complain to the EPA.

 

If you don't believe the EPA test results then have the EPA run their own controlled tests.

I posted that on Autoblog...excellent post Kirby.

[BrewfanGRB]

Not at all Kirby...this should be a new thread. You really are slipping. The thread you posted link to was about driver experiences relayed to CR. This story came out today AFTER CR DID EXTENSIVE TESTING OF ITS OWN, and concluded that Fusion hybrid gets 39mpg city and highway, and C Max only 37 in same cycle. This is not good news, and Ford has had bad PR week with 1.6 EB nightmare that does not go away and now this. I'm not happy as I own Ford stock and drive their product. It pains me and refuse to be an apologist for this stuff. If fact, this is very bad news.

 

So sell the stock, sell your Taurus and SHUT UP about it already. Christ on a crutch.

[Donaldo]

Interestingly, Ford didn't seem to have this problem years ago with their 1st gen hybrids.

[Edstock]

CR feels that this is the most effective way they can generate some relevance. Meanwhile, everybody who has been living through the 3rd-to-4th-to-5th generation phone parade gets into MFT, but CR flashes twelve on the issue. So it goes.

[RichardJensen]

Interestingly, Ford didn't seem to have this problem years ago with their 1st gen hybrids.

 

What? That problem where CR had a blog and used it to generate publicity?

 

The first Escapes were rated under the old methodology that dramatically overstated hybrid fuel economy--but then the complaints were largely directed at Toyota.

[rkisler]

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.

[RichardJensen]

I disagree.

 

As with Motor Trend, etc., this is a battle Ford couldn't possibly win.

 

 

As Red Green once said, "The answer to the question has nothing to do with the question, because the question has nothing to do with the question."

 

This isn't about Ford's mileage, this is about CR's subscriber base looking like Lincoln's customer base.

 

Therefore, any discrepancy between normalized public domain repeatable independently verifiable EPA testing and CR's secret-squirrel methods would've resulted in these accusations.

 

That's because this isn't about holding Ford accountable, this is about reminding the world that CR exists and is busy looking after customer interests.

[Deanh]

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....ax-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.

personally I think its a GREAT oppurtunity to call out CR and PROVE it can be done with them as witness......in the meantime I cannot remember the business being this HOSTILE in YEARS!....recalls, call outs, finger pointing, secrets being stolen, inflating numbers....this is CRAZY!....

[RichardJensen]

Ford can't win a PR fight with CR, because that's exactly what CR wants.

 

 

See, CR has cleverly set the terms of the debate by using their proprietary oh-so-secret "real world" test. Ford can't prove that CR is lying about the results of their proprietary hush-hush-would-we-lie-to-you testing, so all they would be doing is giving CR more spotlight, which is what they want in the first place.

[rkisler]

personally I think its a GREAT oppurtunity to call out CR and PROVE it can be done with them as witness......in the meantime I cannot remember the business being this HOSTILE in YEARS!....recalls, call outs, finger pointing, secrets being stolen, inflating numbers....this is CRAZY!....

 

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."

Edited December 7, 2012 by Austin

[mackinaw]

Uh, this is a major story as CR report came out this afternoon. Getting lots of national press......

 

Major story? What national press? The only thing we're talking about in my neck of the woods (northern Michigan) is #1) The NHL lockout, #2) whether Michigan will become a right-to-work State or not.

 

Believe it or not, most people don't pay attention to this stuff. Don't believe me? While you're at work tomorrow, see how many people bring up the CR story. Probably none is my guess.