Jump to content





JasonM

Raj responds to CR. CR backpedals on EPA claims

Recommended Posts

During the 2013 NAIAS preview, Raj took the opportunity to respond to CR's claims on EPA hybrid mileage, 8:00 minutes in at livestream.com/ford. Meanwhile, CR has backpedaled and suddenly discovered how the C-Max and FFH earned the EPA mileage that they did. CR realized that the CR test isn't the same as the EPA test. Raj has a great powerpoint graphic that shows CR's city testing revealed that the Prius and Prius C diverged from the EPA city rating more than any other hybrid models, a "whopping" 19mpg in the case of the Prius. The Ford hybrids diverged 12 mpg, the Prius divergence was more than 50% worse.

 

http://livestre.am/4g1wl

 

 

Consumer Reports today: "Ford should be congratulated for producing some of the most fuel-efficient vehicles on the market. However, customers who look for 47 mpg may need to readjust their expectations. When the EPA revamped its testing cycles in 2007, it made significant strides in bringing its estimates more in line with what drivers can expect to get themselves. The EPA is looking into this latest discrepancy and may again need to address new challenges in predicting fuel-economy for emerging technologies.

Edited by JasonM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BAM...i was on the money...shooting back at CR was an excellent oppurtunity for free PR......AND hopefully people will rightfully start to doubt their "grandstanding" credibility...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Consumer Reports today: "Ford should be congratulated for producing some of the most fuel-efficient vehicles on the market. However, customers who look for 47 mpg may need to readjust their expectations. When the EPA revamped its testing cycles in 2007, it made significant strides in bringing its estimates more in line with what drivers can expect to get themselves. The EPA is looking into this latest discrepancy and may again need to address new challenges in predicting fuel-economy for emerging technologies.

Translation: We weren't necesarily completely correct, BUT THE EPA IS WRONGER!11!11!!

Edited by SoonerLS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most embarrassing for CR:

 

“These two vehicles have the largest discrepancy between our overall mpg results and the estimates published by the EPA that we've seen among any current models,” the magazine said.

 

Oh snap, CR. The divergence isn't as great as the one observed in the Toyota Prius.

 

That info, probably sent over to CR in a strongly worded communique regarding the publication of knowingly false statements, probably led to CR's change of heart.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most embarrassing for CR:

 

 

 

Oh snap, CR. The divergence isn't as great as the one observed in the Toyota Prius.

 

That info, probably sent over to CR in a strongly worded communique regarding the publication of knowingly false statements, probably led to CR's change of heart.

 

Careful. Ford's chart only addressed the city test, not the overall test. Not sure if that makes a difference but it might.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Careful. Ford's chart only addressed the city test, not the overall test. Not sure if that makes a difference but it might.

I would expect that to be the area of greatest variance, as CR's test loop probably exceeds the battery's range by a greater margin than the EPA regime.

 

And I'm certain that Ford's attorneys were in touch with CR, given CR's backpedaling today. They wouldn't've done that out of the goodness of their hearts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would expect that to be the area of greatest variance, as CR's test loop probably exceeds the battery's range by a greater margin than the EPA regime.

 

And I'm certain that Ford's attorneys were in touch with CR, given CR's backpedaling today. They wouldn't've done that out of the goodness of their hearts.

A nice fat nationally publisized RETRACTION would be nice....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt Ford's attorneys would press their luck on that item.

 

I would expect that Ford's request was that CR 'cease and desist' making a claim that they knew to be false, or else be subject to action for libel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt Ford's attorneys would press their luck on that item.

 

I would expect that Ford's request was that CR 'cease and desist' making a claim that they knew to be false, or else be subject to action for libel.

still think theres some irreperable damage been done.....I would have gone for the jugular, then again my dis-dain for CR is the stuff Urban Legends are made of.....nincompoops! Edited by Deanh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's enough that CR concedes that the perceived discrepancy in fuel economy is a result of how hybrids work and not any deception on Ford's part.

it's better to take the small victory rather than drawing attention to more details in someone elses' criticism of your product,

Edited by jpd80

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only damage is to CR's, already, diminishing reputation. Ford is getting a bunch of free press out of this. Even though alot of the press is negative there has been alot of positive comments on these new hybrids. The bottom line is that negative and positive press both contribute to motivating people to find out more about something they may not have been interested in before reading anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Either way, I don't think it will change the loud extreme fanboys of bothe sides (Ford and CR) who will make up anything to justify their beliefs. The customers who do research will take ratings with a grain of salt. Good on Ford for the push back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Either way, I don't think it will change the loud extreme fanboys of bothe sides (Ford and CR) who will make up anything to justify their beliefs. The customers who do research will take ratings with a grain of salt. Good on Ford for the push back.

And probably why FNA should stick to its kniting and keep pushing C-Max and Fusion hybrid for all their worth,

let buyers decide for themselves, people are adult enough to work out what they need to do to get good fuel economy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ford needs to respond when false claims are made. Look at this AutoBlog headline: "Consumer Reports calls out Ford for false Fusion, C-Max hybrid fuel economy claims." http://www.autoblog....fusion-c-max-h/ Raj's response was very measured, professional and informative. Much more than I can say for CR's approach.

Edited by JasonM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ford needs to respond when false claims are made. Look at this AutoBlog headline: "Consumer Reports calls out Ford for false Fusion, C-Max hybrid fuel economy claims." http://www.autoblog....fusion-c-max-h/ Raj's response was very measured, professional and informative. Much more than I can say for CR's approach.

Hmm, it will be interesting to see the next Autoblog follow up headline......not much wiggle room there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I knew my wife was a better driver than the one's @ CR. :dance:

well at least when shes in eyesight....lol....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about we all read the entire Consumer Reports post before demanding an apology:

 

http://news.consumer...?EXTKEY=I72RSC0

That article is today's backpeddling article.

 

Today's CR "perspective" is describing how Ford "aced" the EPA tests, and congratulating Ford for building such fuel efficient vehicles.

 

The "perspective" in CR's first article was how the vehicle's didn't meet what was claimed. What was "claimed" was the EPA test figures.

 

Today, CR chose to include "How the Consumer Reports and EPA highway tests differ". This should have been done in their first article.

Edited by JasonM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And surprise surprise, CR finally reveals that its highway test is actually a 65 mph steady state test, completely different to the US EPA test cycle.

 

The very things that make hybrids so good at low speed then act against them at higher steady state speeds.

Edited by jpd80

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about you read the first 2 articles that started this mess:

 

Dec. 3 http://news.consumer...mpg-claims.html

Dec. 6 http://news.consumer...mpg-claims.html

 

The other thing to note is that CR refers to Hyundai/Kia's fuel economy problems when referring to Ford's hybrids in the first two articles. I think the jury is still out, but H/K had a systemic "problem" with their EPA testing associated with coastdown -- that's the test that determines the dyno setting for aero and rolling resistance. A lot of people think H/K were cheating, so by inference, CR is implying Ford was cheating. And that's the way it was picked up and reported by other news outlets.

 

I am willing to bet that Ford called CR pointing out 1) CR's tone led everyone to believe Ford was cheating and 2) CR was crapping all over cars they should have been endorsing. I'm also willing to bet that Ford has discussed the tests with both EPA and CR, and they are firmly standing behind the fuel economy number. CR's latest post was certainly more conciliatory, but you'll never see a real apology from CR because they are always correct.

 

Raj Nair's description in the video in the first post should be part of the information package given to customers on what they can reasonably expect for mileage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I liked how CR's last sentence or so has that little bit of "maybe the EPA needs to reevaluate" nonsense....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I liked how CR's last sentence or so has that little bit of "maybe the EPA needs to reevaluate" nonsense....

CR trying to justify itself as a self appointed watchdog, chasing things of fleeting interest.... Edited by jpd80

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The EPA has no self-interest to influence its results. The number is the number. Their testing is done under rules promulgated through rule-making authority granted by law. CR is a private organization that likes to pontificate about how wonderful it is because they don't accept ads in their magazine, but they provide ZERO transparency in their testing methods and expect readers to accept those results on faith. Anyone foolish enough to make a purchase decision based on CR's evaluations (to any extent) does so at their peril.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×