Ford hybrids fall short of fuel economy claims - CR.

[jpd80]

Biker and Jpd, you have both hit the nail on the head. I've driven the Pious though not the new littlest $h!tbox version. Anemic at best. My parents C-Max on the other hand is VERY easy to push a lot harder than you intend to. Often, without watching the speedo, you are going a LOT faster than you intend. It runs hard and handles well. Like all other Ford Hybrids, it is a CAR first and hybrid second, unlike Pious. My mother's biggest complaint is just that-- "I can't hear it." Meaning she drives it a lot harder than she intends. That's why she cant get out of the very high 30's.

LOL, I call it a guilt free way of having your cake and eating it too, plenty of fun factor and affordable driving....

Maybe Ford is out to change the way the wider community sees and feels about vehicle electrification...

[Biker16]

LOL, I call it a guilt free way of having your cake and eating it too, plenty of fun factor and affordable driving....

Maybe Ford is out to change the way the wider community sees and feels about vehicle electrification...

 

maybe place the resonator from the ST and place it on the hybrids, to provide greater incentive not to drive the cars so hard.

 

anything to provide a disincentive for driver to drive so hard.

[jpd80]

Over 7,000 sold, I think the concerns in CR are being overstated....

[jpd80]

That may be true, but EPA announced today that it's going to review Ford's hybrid mileage figures since CR showed them being off more than any vehicle they have tested up to now. So we shall see.

And I'm equally sure that Ford's testing has been done properly and in strict accordance with all regulations.

Once exonerated, Ford needs to go gangbusters on advertising the C-Max result and press home the advantage of EPA verification..

[SoonerLS]

That may be true, but EPA announced today that it's going to review Ford's hybrid mileage figures since CR showed them being off more than any vehicle they have tested up to now. So we shall see.

I would bet even money that Ford has been pushing for a review. The chances that this was due to cheating are exceptionally low (given Mulally's attitudes towards finding and fixing problems, that would almost certainly be a PCLM--Probable Career-Limiting Move--for all involved), but that does still leave two probable explanations:

1) mistakes in following the testing procedures; or

2) Ford's results are accurate.

 

From an engineering standpoint, it's a win-win--it'll either validate Ford's testing or show them where they need to correct a problem. Obviously, they'd rather it be #2, but I think Mulally's the kind of leader who would be satisfied with either answer (as long as any necessary corrections occur), because #1 is a "teachable moment," which fits in well with his engineering management style.

[jpd80]

I would bet even money that Ford has been pushing for a review. The chances that this was due to cheating are exceptionally low (given Mulally's attitudes towards finding and fixing problems, that would almost certainly be a PCLM--Probable Career-Limiting Move--for all involved), but that does still leave two probable explanations:

1) mistakes in following the testing procedures; or

2) Ford's results are accurate.

 

From an engineering standpoint, it's a win-win--it'll either validate Ford's testing or show them where they need to correct a problem. Obviously, they'd rather it be #2, but I think Mulally's the kind of leader who would be satisfied with either answer (as long as any necessary corrections occur), because #1 is a "teachable moment," which fits in well with his engineering management style.

EPA spokesman has already mentioned anomalies that can occur when testing Hybrids

The complaints didn't surprise the EPA.

"There's absolutely no doubt: A hybrid is going to be far more variable than a conventional vehicle," said Linc Wehrly, director of light-duty vehicle center compliance division at the EPA's Ann Arbor laboratory. "If you said that I could operate in EV-mode until 60 miles an hour for a period of time, you go a long portion on (the EPA) test cycle without the engine going on. That's going to improve your fuel economy."

From The Detroit News: http://www.detroitne...8#ixzz2EXxrOujt

 

Edited December 9, 2012 by jpd80

[IMSA-XJR9]

http://m.usatoday.com/article/money/1752359?preferredArticleViewMode=single

 

Test Drive thought the C-Max real-world mileage of about 38 mpg was a solid showing, given the Test Drive motoring style and conditions. But we see that "Consumer Reports"ripped the vehicle for falling short in "CR" tests of the 47 mpg rating.

 

In our experience, hybrids' real-world results have notoriously underperformed their ratings. C-Max was less-disappointing than usual, so it seemed not disappointing at all.

 

 

[rkisler]

EPA spokesman has already mentioned anomalies that can occur when testing Hybrids

 

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]

1) mistakes in following the testing procedures; or

2) Ford's results are accurate.

 

or 3) something changed between testing and production (remember the cobra horsepower issue)

[Bob Rosadini]

Question. Doesn't everyone have to follow the exact same test routine to generate the EPA numbers? Does the EPA provide oversight of this routine???

 

On another note, the Saturday WSJ had a report on the C-Max by a Dan Neil. Headline..."Ford's Fine C-Max Falls Way Short on MPG". He did say some good things about the vehicle but the headline says it all. Plus this guy admittedly pounds the hell out of the car and then says..."I drove the C-Max Hybrid pretty hard and that lowered my mileage. Still with the cruise control set on 76 MPH on dead flat four lane highwsay in mild conditions, the C-Max's instantaneous mileage reading was fixed at 35.8 mpg, well short of nominal".

 

What IS the speed (average I assume) that is used to generate the highway number?

 

In any case, it would be nice to if Ford issued a statement that said words to the effect of.."Hey- we followed the test routine to the letter-Don't shoot the messenger" Or is that truly not a legitimate statement?

[silvrsvt]

On another note, the Saturday WSJ had a report on the C-Max by a Dan Neil. Headline..."Ford's Fine C-Max Falls Way Short on MPG". He did say some good things about the vehicle but the headline says it all. Plus this guy admittedly pounds the hell out of the car and then says..."I drove the C-Max Hybrid pretty hard and that lowered my mileage. Still with the cruise control set on 76 MPH on dead flat four lane highwsay in mild conditions, the C-Max's instantaneous mileage reading was fixed at 35.8 mpg,

 

Did he hit reset button at all? I find that the "instantaneous" mpg ratings take awhile to readjust to actual conditions. Hell I can get crazy high MPG miles on my Mustang right after I hit it and then it adjusts its way to what it should be. Same thing if I hit the clear button at a stop when I fuel up and start at 0-12 MPG for the first 10-20 miles, and then it hits avg of 19-21 mpg I normally get.

 

Seems like these people are basing their MPG claims on drives of 50 miles or less, which is BS.

[akirby]

Question. Doesn't everyone have to follow the exact same test routine to generate the EPA numbers? Does the EPA provide oversight of this routine???

 

On another note, the Saturday WSJ had a report on the C-Max by a Dan Neil. Headline..."Ford's Fine C-Max Falls Way Short on MPG". He did say some good things about the vehicle but the headline says it all. Plus this guy admittedly pounds the hell out of the car and then says..."I drove the C-Max Hybrid pretty hard and that lowered my mileage. Still with the cruise control set on 76 MPH on dead flat four lane highwsay in mild conditions, the C-Max's instantaneous mileage reading was fixed at 35.8 mpg, well short of nominal".

 

What IS the speed (average I assume) that is used to generate the highway number?

 

In any case, it would be nice to if Ford issued a statement that said words to the effect of.."Hey- we followed the test routine to the letter-Don't shoot the messenger" Or is that truly not a legitimate statement?

 

The mfrs do most of the testing with auditing and oversight by the EPA. The EPA tests 10-15% of the vehicles themselves. The test procedure is very regimented.

 

I believe the average speed on the highway test is 48 mph but there are some higher speed runs and one acceleration up to 80.

 

That statement would probably be true (assuming nothing changed with the production vehicles) but it wouldn't help. There are 2 allegations here - one that the EPA rating might not be accurate and the second that even if the EPA rating is accurate it's not easily achievable by the average driver. Which is almost always true for all vehicles but what CR is saying is that the Fusion is even farther below the EPA ratings than other vehicles.

[RichardJensen]

Dan Neil's a jackass, Bob. That's all you need to know about him.

[Biker16]

Dan Neil's a jackass, Bob. That's all you need to know about him.

 

how is it possible for you to hate every automotive journalist.

 

You never have anything nice to say about any automotive journalist, I can understand some of them do suck, but not like any of them especially if they disagree with your opinion but that does not make them automatically wrong. It just infers that you think you are always right.

 

The consensus is that these cars are not putting up the numbers they are expected to, this is an opportunity for discussion not for insults and name calling, Mr. Moderator.

[jpd80]

The consensus is that these cars are not putting up the numbers they are expected to, this is an opportunity for discussion not for insults and name calling, Mr. Moderator.

The EPA test cycle does not include tests where the vehicles are driven "hard" or at a continuous 76 mph

and FWIW, I think near 36 mpg with hybrid motors sapping efficiency at 76 mph is pretty good.....

 

A journalist checking out claims that C-Max doesn't live up to economy claims, deliberately goes out with intent

not to get the best possible economy,- I call that jumping on the band wagon. Everyone is just assuming that

the 47/47/47 results means that they can expect 47 mpg no matter how they drive.or at what speed.

 

IMO, we're at a credibility crossroads.

Some manufacturers in the quest to deliver amazing economy numbers with hybrids are now switching off

the ICE in significant parts of the EPA test and while it may work for the "test" repeating these cycles with

exactly the same amount of "electric only" time by customers in the real world is becoming more difficult.

 

The credibility of manufacturers is at stake, while some C-Max owners are achieving near the stated figures,

clearly a significant number of buyers don't for a number of reasons. This is where manufacturers need to

begin by proving mileage claims and addressing buyer concerns when the cars don't perform as expected.

Edited December 9, 2012 by jpd80

[silvrsvt]

The consensus is that these cars are not putting up the numbers they are expected to, this is an opportunity for discussion not for insults and name calling, Mr. Moderator.

 

Who's consensus?

 

Did some digging:

 

C&D on the Prius C

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2012-toyota-prius-c-instrumented-test-review

 

Our test car returned 39 mpg over 464 miles while in our care. That’s well below the EPA numbers, but such is usually the case for hybrids motivated by our lead feet. As the aforementioned lunch trip illustrates, you can probably achieve close to (or better than) the window-sticker numbers if you want, but please send us a carrier pigeon ahead of time so we know to steer clear of your route.

Prius C is EPA rated at 53/50/46

 

Autoweek got 34 MPG in their testing for the Prius V

http://www.autoweek.com/article/20120710/carreviews/120719993

 

The Prius V is EPA Rated at 44/42/40

 

If anything the C-Max is showing the same variables as the new Prius family is...

[rkisler]

Question. Doesn't everyone have to follow the exact same test routine to generate the EPA numbers? Does the EPA provide oversight of this routine???

 

On another note, the Saturday WSJ had a report on the C-Max by a Dan Neil. Headline..."Ford's Fine C-Max Falls Way Short on MPG". He did say some good things about the vehicle but the headline says it all. Plus this guy admittedly pounds the hell out of the car and then says..."I drove the C-Max Hybrid pretty hard and that lowered my mileage. Still with the cruise control set on 76 MPH on dead flat four lane highwsay in mild conditions, the C-Max's instantaneous mileage reading was fixed at 35.8 mpg, well short of nominal".

 

What IS the speed (average I assume) that is used to generate the highway number?

 

In any case, it would be nice to if Ford issued a statement that said words to the effect of.."Hey- we followed the test routine to the letter-Don't shoot the messenger" Or is that truly not a legitimate statement?

 

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.

[RichardJensen]

how is it possible for you to hate every automotive journalist.

 

Read this article:

 

http://www.autonews...._SPECIAL/113735

 

Amy Wilson's coverage of Ford Motor was exceptional. I, for one, miss it. She's now covering the retail industry generally for AN.

 

http://www.crain.com...eal_awards.html

 

I would put Richard Truett & Bryce Hoffman on a list of good business reporters as well.

 

On the enthusiast side, Autoblog generally does a good job, but is very very unevenly edited. Peter Egan, Dennis Simanaitis at R&T are fantastic: http://blog.roadandt...nis-simanaitis/ and the list gets really short after that. Why? Because these organs are entertainment, but their writers insist on having their opinions taken seriously.

 

If Angus MacKenzie were to approach his job with the reckless abandon of, say, Jeremy Clarkson, I would have no problem with him. Similarly, I wouldn't call Dan Neil a jackass if he acknowledged that his role as a reviewer was to provide entertainment, as opposed to serious, actionable advice.

 

What you have is this scenario where writers expect to be taken seriously while doing little if anything that deserves to be taken seriously.

Edited December 9, 2012 by RichardJensen

[Biker16]

Read this article:

 

http://www.autonews...._SPECIAL/113735

 

Amy Wilson's coverage of Ford Motor was exceptional. I, for one, miss it. She's now covering the retail industry generally for AN.

 

http://www.crain.com...eal_awards.html

 

I would put Richard Truett & Bryce Hoffman on a list of good business reporters as well.

 

On the enthusiast side, Autoblog generally does a good job, but is very very unevenly edited. Peter Egan, Dennis Simanaitis at R&T are fantastic: http://blog.roadandt...nis-simanaitis/ and the list gets really short after that. Why? Because these organs are entertainment, but their writers insist on having their opinions taken seriously.

 

If Angus MacKenzie were to approach his job with the reckless abandon of, say, Jeremy Clarkson, I would have no problem with him. Similarly, I wouldn't call Dan Neil a jackass if he acknowledged that his role as a reviewer was to provide entertainment, as opposed to serious, actionable advice.

 

What you have is this scenario where writers expect to be taken seriously while doing little if anything that deserves to be taken seriously.

 

For the record have you driven the C-max hybrid? Have you driven the focus with the powershift AMT? If no why should your opinion of either hold more weight than a person who has driven both?

[RichardJensen]

My opinion that Dan Neil is an irresponsible reviewer is well supported by pretty much his entire body of work.

[Bob Rosadini]

Dan Neil's a jackass, Bob. That's all you need to know about him.

 

10-4- I did take the time to give him an "opinion" . We will see if he responds.

 

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.fuelecono...ow_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.

Austin-that is the point that got me fired up-he does his comparison at a speed that can't possibly be in the standard-why bother??

[valkraider]

I believe the average speed on the highway test is 48 mph but there are some higher speed runs and one acceleration up to 80.

 

The "highway" test averages 48mph and does not exceed 60mph.

 

The "high speed" test also averages about 48mph, but has some rapid acceleration spikes up to 80mph.

 

Also, the EPA tests use 100% gasoline (no ethanol).

 

EPA tests are done at moderate temperatures, and do not account for head/cross winds or elevation changes and differences.

 

There is no part of the EPA "highway" numbers which will accurately reflect how a car will do at >70mph on the highway.

[valkraider]

Here is a good article from Edmunds:

Here's Why Real-World MPG Doesn't Match EPA Ratings

 

I also looked in to the EPA tests.

 

EPA tests are not supposed to be exactly what people should expect to get. They are better used to compare vehicles side by side. The real world will almost never match the EPA tests. There are a number of factors you mentioned which impact economy:

 

The EPA highway test does not account for *real* highway speeds. Here is what the EPA does for highway ratings:

 

The "highway" program or Highway Fuel Economy Driving Schedule (HWFET) is defined in 40 C.F.R. 600 App I and uses a warmed-up engine and makes no stops, averaging 48 mph (77 km/h) with a top speed of 60 mph (97 km/h) over a 10-mile (16 km) distance. The measurements are then adjusted downward by 10% (city) and 22% (highway) to more accurately reflect real-world results.

 

(emphasis mine)

 

Considering the 22% adjustment, that means the C-Max Energi scored about 48.8mpg on that highway test. They adjusted down 22%. But remember, that test averages 48mph for only 10 miles, in normal weather and temperatures with no wind.

 

Drag increases as a square of the speed.

 

Assuming a more-or-less constant drag coefficient, drag will vary as the square of velocity. Thus, the resultant power needed to overcome this drag will vary as the cube of velocity.

 

According to the DoE

In most cars, driving more than 60 mph will reduce your gas mileage. Expect a gas mileage that is 17 percent lower when driving 70 mph, and 23 percent lower when driving 75 mph.

 

Consider that the EPA highway test averages 48mph (and even the new high speed acceleration test averages 48mph).

 

But lets just pretend that the EPA highway tests actually were 60mph tests, that means that at 75mph we should reasonably expect as much as 23% lower economy than the EPA highway numbers. (Before considering the temperature, humidity, or wind speed).

 

The EPA numbers are not to be used as "what you *will* get". They are to be used as a "when you compare this car to this other car, here is what you can expect". Now that said, some cars tend to do better than EPA numbers in some situations - because again, the EPA numbers test a very specific set of driving conditions and behaviors.

 

Now add in some of the information from the Edmunds article I linked to above and it is very common for a car to not reach the EPA numbers.

Edited December 10, 2012 by valkraider

[Noah Harbinger]

Valkraider, your information is a bit out of date. The current test standard includes but supplements that:

 

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/fe_test_schedules.shtml

 

Most notably, click the 'High Speed' test to see what goes into the Highway test.

[jpd80]

Valkraider, your information is a bit out of date. The current test standard includes but supplements that:

 

http://www.fuelecono...schedules.shtml

 

Most notably, click the 'High Speed' test to see what goes into the Highway test.

And no manufacturer in the US has seen fit to to divulge the results of that test cycle or the Air conditioner or Cold weather cycles...

 

ever wondered why that is?

 

None of those cycles do anything to improve the commercial advantage of products.