Ford hybrids fall short of fuel economy claims - CR.

[Noah Harbinger]

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.

 

 

The three additional tests are factored into the window sticker ratings. So it would be just as true that "no manufacturer in the US has seen fit to divulge the results of the City or Highway test cycles". And just as meaningless to say it.

 

Edit: The full details of the 2006 fuel economy testing procedures are very interesting, especially if you're trying to fall asleep.

Edited December 10, 2012 by Noah Harbinger

[jpd80]

The three additional tests are factored into the window sticker ratings. So it would be just as true that "no manufacturer in the US has seen fit to divulge the results of the City or Highway test cycles". And just as meaningless to say it.

OK, point taken, but when a discrepancy exists between advertised and achieved mileage, maybe it is meaningful to ask the question.

It's interesting just how much factoring is going on behind the scenes, three additional tests added, two rounds of downward corrections..

Maybe the EPA knew this situation would eventually occur with hybrids, the more electrification comes in, the less valid testing becomes..

Edited December 10, 2012 by jpd80

[BrewfanGRB]

This nonsense is exactly why I'm beating myself up over my next car being the Fusion or an Altima. I mean this in all seriousness: I WANT to be a lifetime Ford guy. I have NO problems with Ford. I LOVE my Fusion. But I'm sorry, I don't give a shit about fuel economy. I'm not going to buy an Expedition or a Prius. But frankly, a Fusion and an Altima are more or less the same fuel economy. The Altima has a heated steering wheel (have I mentioned I live in northern Wisconsin?), something the Fusion doesn't offer at any cost.

 

The Altima offers a V6 with 270hp and basically EVERY OPTION for more or less the same price as a fully loaded Fusion Titanium with a 240hp turbo 4 cylinder. So aside from commitment to Ford, why do I buy the Fusion? I mean this seriously--I'm having a bit of an existential crisis over this. But the broader point is this: the EPA has a promulgated guidance on its testing...a test that represents driving that NO ONE does...and CR does testing it tells NO ONE how it's done. So both are fucking useless. I drive 78 miles a day and frankly, given the time I spend in the car, I want to love it...I simply don't care about 28 vs 32 mpg....I just don't.

[lfeg]

OK, we have all heard from CR and reviewers who beat cars to see what all out performance is. And we have heard from those who get nowhere near the official numbers. What about those who get near the numbers? Surely they are out there, but their story is not news. No blood in the water there.

 

Hybrids are a "different animal" type of car. To get the full advantage they require a different style of driving, and give the best numbers in certain driving situations. Similar to all out performance cars - to get the full benefit you drive them differently in situations that take advantage of their attributes.

 

If most of your driving is long stretches at high speeds (72 plus) on interstates, a hybrid might not be the best choice, although it might give a little better highway fuel economy than other similar size cars driven the same way. I think that that is part of the problem here, people see these good numbers and assume that they will get them no matter how or where they drive. I welcome the EPA looking into this, and believe that if they took a car that CR is complaining about and retested it they would get the sticker numbers.

I put most of these mileage complaints in the same bin as the complaints about the driveability, economy, and service issues that someone who buys an F450 King Ranch crew cab 4x4 diesel pickup where all they drive is a 5 mile commute in a city center with just themself and a briefcase. Some people just buy the wrong car for their needs, then blame the car for their issues.

[silvrsvt]

The Altima has a heated steering wheel (have I mentioned I live in northern Wisconsin?), something the Fusion doesn't offer at any cost.

 

Wouldn't a remote start take care of that issue?

 

I understand the power issue, but it may or may not be a big deal to you once you drive them

[lfeg]

In an addendum to the above mentioned operation cycle of a typical hybrid, you have to balance capability with longevity. The problem with the two electrical motors generating drag on the high speed case can be alleviated by building in clutch packs where the motors interface with the planetary gear set. The problem then comes in, how durable are those clutch packs likely to be? If you make them out of unobtanium to be 100K mile durable, they will add a whole lot of cost to the system. If you make them out of recycled beer cans, they can be cheap, but need regular replacing. Plus, they also add weight (and not just a little given the expected torque loads) which works against the economy equation. The current generation of hybrids are very optimized for city and light highway usage cycles. This is typical of the majority of vehicles used for commuting (per the DOT's numbers). I believe that range extended EVs are going to be the long term future, and not the half step that the Volt is, but the fully mechanically decoupled setups like you see in diesel locomotives where the ICE generates only electricity and the only thing driving the wheels is a collection of electric motors.

 

Designing clutch applications, I have been involved in the applications of clutches used in hybrid drive systems in applications other than consumer vehicles. The thing is that if you incorporate a clutch as an afterthought it is very expensive and often sub optimal. It has to be designed in from the initial concept to be cost effective. And for sub 200 hp systems a fairly simple and inexpensive clutch (or clutches) can be used if the rest of the system (including software) is designed around it. And if done right, life is not an issue, as a "no wear" clutch can be used if there is only synchronous engagement. Do not discount clutched systems by comparing them to vehicles such as locomotives that are regularly operated in multiple unit configurations to maximize both economy and tractive effort.

[rkisler]

The three additional tests are factored into the window sticker ratings. So it would be just as true that "no manufacturer in the US has seen fit to divulge the results of the City or Highway test cycles". And just as meaningless to say it.

 

Edit: The full details of the 2006 fuel economy testing procedures are very interesting, especially if you're trying to fall asleep.

 

You are exactly right. Prior to the new tests being added, manufacturers could use the original tests and apply the correction factor jpd mentions. But that's not true any more; all manufacturers now have to certify with all of the new test cycles. The new high speed test goes up to 80 mph.

 

The point I tried to make in an earlier post was that even the high speed tests have periods where a skillful driver could keep Ford's new hybrid system in electric mode. It would require careful modulation, something I'm guessing a lot of consumers (and journalists) might not be able to understand or manage.

 

Manufacturers do not report their results in each of the tests, just the combined tests that make up city and highway.

Edited December 10, 2012 by Austin

[rkisler]

This nonsense is exactly why I'm beating myself up over my next car being the Fusion or an Altima. I mean this in all seriousness: I WANT to be a lifetime Ford guy. I have NO problems with Ford. I LOVE my Fusion. But I'm sorry, I don't give a shit about fuel economy. I'm not going to buy an Expedition or a Prius. But frankly, a Fusion and an Altima are more or less the same fuel economy. The Altima has a heated steering wheel (have I mentioned I live in northern Wisconsin?), something the Fusion doesn't offer at any cost.

 

The Altima offers a V6 with 270hp and basically EVERY OPTION for more or less the same price as a fully loaded Fusion Titanium with a 240hp turbo 4 cylinder. So aside from commitment to Ford, why do I buy the Fusion? I mean this seriously--I'm having a bit of an existential crisis over this. But the broader point is this: the EPA has a promulgated guidance on its testing...a test that represents driving that NO ONE does...and CR does testing it tells NO ONE how it's done. So both are fucking useless. I drive 78 miles a day and frankly, given the time I spend in the car, I want to love it...I simply don't care about 28 vs 32 mpg....I just don't.

 

Brewfan, you have to test drive both of these cars. Just ignore mileage completely and go for the experience and see how they feel. Given the reviews, I would probably include the Accord also. This is a really great time for mid-size car buyers with all the new entries. Pick the one that feels good; the one that will make you smile when you pick up your keys in the morning, despite the fact you're going to work.

 

I have a 2.0l EB in an Escape (AWD), and it's got plenty of guts with minimal response time, but your driving might be different or more demanding than mine and I haven't driven the Fusion. Idle NVH is not as good as a V6, however, but not objectionable in my book.

 

Please check out the CVT on the Nissan. I know they say it's new, but my brother has a Maxima, and sitting the the back seat, the low-frequency groaning NVH is so loud that it was literally giving me a headache and made communication difficult. I couldn't believe the engineers had released the car with those conditions. Maybe the new one is better, or maybe there is a sport mode that would fix the issue (at a fuel penalty) but CVT's always try to slip into the tallest ratio as quickly as possible for fuel economy.

 

Maybe when all is said and done if you like the Fusion, the dealer might be willing to throw in a nice pair of gloves?

[jpd80]

The Altima offers a V6 with 270hp and basically EVERY OPTION for more or less the same price as a fully loaded Fusion Titanium with a 240hp turbo 4 cylinder. So aside from commitment to Ford, why do I buy the Fusion? I mean this seriously--I'm having a bit of an existential crisis over this. But the broader point is this: the EPA has a promulgated guidance on its testing...a test that represents driving that NO ONE does...and CR does testing it tells NO ONE how it's done. So both are fucking useless. I drive 78 miles a day and frankly, given the time I spend in the car, I want to love it...I simply don't care about 28 vs 32 mpg....I just don't.

The Altima 3.5 SL is a nice package for sure....one thing, be sure that you like driving a CVT transmission,

I found it very off putting and lost all sense of engine speed versus forward travel......

The new Fusion is a very quiet car in comparison, something you might want to test back to back....

Edited December 10, 2012 by jpd80

[akirby]

What about torque between the Altima V6 and 2.0L EB?

[papilgee4evaeva]

Add me into the "try the CVT first" crowd. I drove three versions of it (last Maxima, current Maxima, last Altima) and just didn't like it.

 

Nissan says they've revamped the new one, but to many (including me) a CVT is a CVT. And a huge minus.

[valkraider]

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.

 

 

Uhm, no - I'm not.

 

There is the "highway" test and the "high speed" test. The High Speed test was added in the 2008 standards update.

 

On your very link (which by the way is the exact place I got my original info from):

 

EPA Highway Fuel Economy Test Driving Schedule

Length 765 seconds - Distance = 10.26 miles - Average Speed = 48.3 miles

 

US06 or Supplemental FTP driving Schedule

Sample Period = 596 seconds - Distance = 8.01 miles - Average Speed =48.37 miles

 

And here is what I said:

 

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

 

The post 2008 tests include the "Highway" test and the "High Speed" test.

 

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

 

The "high speed" test has much more slowing and rapid acceleration but still averages 48mph and does not exceed 80mph.

Edited December 10, 2012 by valkraider

[Noah Harbinger]

My apologies Valkraider, I definitely missed a lot from your posts, and was taking some of your quotes for things you said or believed. Please feel free to correct me, but I do still get the impression that you think that instead of including the high-speed test into the highway rating, they apply a flat correction?

[traxiii]

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?

I am sure that Ford and the EPA do not test at sustained speeds over the mostly 65mph speed limit, and since drag increases exponentially to speed, you should never see that EPA mpg number 11 mph faster. Also, what was the outside temperature? I have found the difference between 65 deg. and 40 deg. to make a huge (up to 5mpg) difference in my mpg. the air gets more dense and is harder to drive through as it gets colder. Her in CA we have winter gas and summer gas, with winter gas giving worse mileage due to the ethanol added for "better" emissions. Edited December 10, 2012 by traxiii

[valkraider]

My apologies Valkraider, I definitely missed a lot from your posts, and was taking some of your quotes for things you said or believed. Please feel free to correct me, but I do still get the impression that you think that instead of including the high-speed test into the highway rating, they apply a flat correction?

 

Not at all. They include the high speed (and the other tests as well) in their calculations to come up with the overall numbers.

 

My point is that even the "high speed" does not test a sustained trip at real world highway speeds. Nothing in the EPA test ever comes close to testing conditions which exist on the highway at 75mph.

 

The "high speed" test still averages 48mph, and only *peaks* once or twice above 70mph.

 

There is no part of the EPA testing cycle which tests a sustained highway speed which we would see in the real world.

 

People drive 200 miles at 70+mph and complain that their numbers don't match a test which is run for less than 10 miles and averages 20mph less.

 

Now here is the kicker. Some cars will do better than others at those speeds. It comes down to gearing, rolling resistance, and aerodynamics.

 

Air resistance is the biggest factor impacting efficiency at speeds over 60mph.

 

A hybrid is not the best to sustain highway speeds. A diesel is. However diesel's are terrible in the city, where a hybrid shines.

 

Since the EPA test cycle does not test sustained true interstate speeds, their "highway" number is misleading.

 

We really should have three numbers plus an average.

 

"Stop & Go city", "moderate speed", and "sustained interstate".

 

I feel that the C-Max is ideally suited for the first two, and not outstanding but not too bad at the third one.

[RichardJensen]

Drag is factored into EPA testing.

 

Also, as a general rule acceleration 15 seconds of acceleration to a steady-state speed will consume more fuel than 15 seconds at that steady-state. And I can vouch for my parents exceeding EPA highway numbers (the average of the highway & high speed test) over 200 miles of steady-state cruising on low-traffic rural interstates.

[Douwe]

Ford should be able to spin straw into gold out of this.

 

Cynics are saying Ford is cheating. Other cynics are saying CR is spinning. I will give both the benefit of the doubt and say that Ford performed the dyno testing per procedure and CR does their testing per their procedure. The thing that I don't understand is what are the limits of variation that we can expect from the CR testing process. Does CR use a prescribed gas formulation or do they fill up at a corner gas station? Does CR use the same test driver for each run or do they have different drivers? The point is that the CR testing has so many variables that it is impossible to determine what their results mean unless they do many runs on the same vehicle and use either: controls that we all understand or randomize all the variables, with enough runs, to establish a meaningful data set with a distrubution, average, and normal deviation.

 

I am assuming Ford will be providing the EPA a vehicle for the validation test. Several have said that with the tight tolerances on these vehicles that there is little to no variation from one sample to another; this may be true but if there were ever a time to hand pick a steller sample to give to the EPA now is the time. I would hope and assume that the Ford engineers are working overtime to "prep" the sample(s) offered for validation. BTW setting up samples for optimum performance in testing, for marketing purposes, is SOP in most every manufacturing enviroment. Manufacturing and Marketing establish acceptable tolerances for QA but units that are tested, for numbers that are used in advertising, are always optimized.

Edited December 10, 2012 by Douwe

[rkisler]

Ford should be able to spin straw into gold out of this.

 

Cynics are saying Ford is cheating. Other cynics are saying CR is spinning. I will give both the benefit of the doubt and say that Ford performed the dyno testing per procedure and CR does their testing per their procedure. The thing that I don't understand is what are the limits of variation that we can expect from the CR testing process. Does CR use a prescribed gas formulation or do they fill up at a corner gas station? Does CR use the same test driver for each run or do they have different drivers? The point is that the CR testing has so many variables that it is impossible to determine what their results mean unless they do many runs on the same vehicle and use either: controls that we all understand or randomize all the variables, with enough runs, to establish a meaningful data set with a distrubution, average, and normal deviation.

 

I am assuming Ford will be providing the EPA a vehicle for the validation test. Several have said that with the tight tolerances on these vehicles that there is little to no variation from one sample to another; this may be true but if there were ever a time to hand pick a steller sample to give to the EPA now is the time. I would hope and assume that the Ford engineers are working overtime to "prep" the sample(s) offered for validation. BTW setting up samples for optimum performance in testing, for marketing purposes, is SOP in most every manufacturing enviroment. Manufacturing and Marketing establish acceptable tolerances for QA but units that are tested, for numbers that are used in advertising, are always optimized.

 

I don't think CR is just spinning; I think CR's test is done honestly; I don't think Ford is cheating. The tests are different, and in this case for reasons I mentioned earlier, I think with a skillful driver (technician in the lab) under EPA conditions, you can wring more fuel economy with careful pedal modulation (just guessing).

 

I can't answer all of your questions, but the models tested for EPA certification are pre-production but to production level. If the EPA were to audit the Ford Hybrids (which I view as near certainty), then they would purchase the vehicle without Ford's involvement (that's only the right thing to do; to have Ford even touch the vehicle would not be kosher). But...it would have to have the right equipment; don't forget that the EPA testing is done with models containing options over a 33% installation rate. In addition, Ford would be called into the audit, and they would go over their internal lab results. EPA allows some variance (2-3% I think?) to allow for lab-to-lab differences. If it's outside of this range, then there is a discussion over where the problem might be, and an agreement on what to do. In some cases (like BMW earlier this year), the manufacturer will have to change the label.

 

I'm not sure about CR;s tests. I wouldn't call them better or worse, just different. They are done on roads, and they use a formula to adjust for temperature and humidity. CR claims they are more "real" than the EPA test, but the thing that CR loves the most is CR, so you can expect a lot of hubris. I do not believe that CR's tests would be as repeatable as the EPA test. If you took a C-Max from Ford and put it in any other manufacturer's lab, you are very likely to get exactly the same result. (By the way, that's another reason I don't believe Ford is cheating. Don't you think Toyota has run a C-Max in their lab? You bet.)

[RichardJensen]

It's also possible that CR doesn't release their FE test method because it's unscientific.

 

http://www.washingto...020900-idx.html

 

Interesting tidbits here. Not the least of which is this:

 

The existing test procedures for assessing the rollover propensity of vehicles are unsatisfactory because they do not provide for repeatable, reproducible results, and there are no accepted performance criteria. The testing appears to rely on the skill and influence of the driver and the presumption that the vehicle suspension, tire, and road surface characteristics will remain constant throughout the testing....the test procedures do not have a scientific basis and cannot be linked to real-world crash avoidance needs, or actual crash data. Using the same procedures, probably any light utility vehicle could be made to roll over under the right conditions and driver input.

 

and this:

 

In particular, CU has done nothing to respond to the criticism of its testing procedures as overly influenced by driver input. This evidence formed the basis for the district court's decision in Isuzu Motors, in which the court relied heavily on the NHTSA report to deny CU's summary judgment motion, stating that "CU was aware that its tests were significantly reliant upon driver input and skill." Isuzu Motors, 66 F.Supp.2d at 1125. Suzuki has pointed to further evidence that some CU personnel shared this assessment.

Edited December 10, 2012 by RichardJensen

[Dave1]

I really can't see Ford posting fuel economy numbers that would be off by 20%, not with the severe fines that they could face if they did.

[jkirkman]

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.

 

Didn't this car get something over 80 MPG in a hypermiling test already? 1400+ miles on one tank of gas.. Was that car specially tuned to get that mileage number?

[BrewfanGRB]

Wouldn't a remote start take care of that issue?

 

I understand the power issue, but it may or may not be a big deal to you once you drive them

 

I may not really care about fuel economy but starting a car and letting it sit to get it warm is stupid. My car is comfortable, except in truly brutal cold, in 5 mins or so. Heated seats go a long way to helping that wait. The heated steering wheel is pretty much a nice extra, not a breaking point. My bigger point is why can't I get this on a fully loaded Fusion? Why can't I get HID's on a fully loaded Fusion? (I know why...but it makes me give a sideways glance at competitors when I might otherwise not do so).

[BrewfanGRB]

I appreciate the feedback from Austin, jpd and papilgee. I've never driven a vehicle with a CVT. My sister has a Murano and I've driven it only once, in town. When I've ridden with her driven, I've not noticed anything untoward...but the feedback you get as a driver is different.

 

I know the EB does have tremendous torque for its size and realistically, I can only resolve this with a test drive of each. My guess is the Fusion will win out, because I admit to giving some bias to it anyway. I think the thing that sort of gets my attention is the basically most expensive Altima is nearly exactly the same as the most expensive Fusion and the Altima gives you a few more features and more power.

[papilgee4evaeva]

I may not really care about fuel economy but starting a car and letting it sit to get it warm is stupid. My car is comfortable, except in truly brutal cold, in 5 mins or so. Heated seats go a long way to helping that wait. The heated steering wheel is pretty much a nice extra, not a breaking point. My bigger point is why can't I get this on a fully loaded Fusion? Why can't I get HID's on a fully loaded Fusion? (I know why...but it makes me give a sideways glance at competitors when I might otherwise not do so).

 

For me, the main reason to warm my car up is to defrost things because I care about visibility.

 

RE: your other post -- yeah, test-drive them all.

Edited December 15, 2012 by papilgee4evaeva

[RichardJensen]

For me, the main reason to warm my car up is to defrost things because I care about visibility.